Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Hoon Cho et al. presents a novel investigation into the role of PexRAP, an intermediary in ether lipid biosynthesis, in B cell function, particularly during the Germinal Center (GC) reaction. The authors profile lipid composition in activated B cells both in vitro and in vivo, revealing the significance of PexRAP. Using a combination of animal models and imaging mass spectrometry, they demonstrate that PexRAP is specifically required in B cells. They further establish that its activity is critical upon antigen encounter, shaping B cell survival during the GC reaction.

Mechanistically, they show that ether lipid synthesis is necessary to modulate reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels and prevent membrane peroxidation.

Highlights of the Manuscript:

The authors perform exhaustive imaging mass spectrometry (IMS) analyses of B cells, including GC B cells, to explore ether lipid metabolism during the humoral response. This approach is particularly noteworthy given the challenge of limited cell availability in GC reactions, which often hampers metabolomic studies. IMS proves to be a valuable tool in overcoming this limitation, allowing detailed exploration of GC metabolism.

The data presented is highly relevant, especially in light of recent studies suggesting a pivotal role for lipid metabolism in GC B cells. While these studies primarily focus on mitochondrial function, this manuscript uniquely investigates peroxisomes, which are linked to mitochondria and contribute to fatty acid oxidation (FAO). By extending the study of lipid metabolism beyond mitochondria to include peroxisomes, the authors add a critical dimension to our understanding of B cell biology.

Additionally, the metabolic plasticity of B cells poses challenges for studying metabolism, as genetic deletions from the beginning of B cell development often result in compensatory adaptations. To address this, the authors employ an acute loss-of-function approach using two conditional, cell-type-specific gene inactivation mouse models: one targeting B cells after the establishment of a pre-immune B cell population (Dhrs7b^f/f, huCD20-CreERT2) and the other during the GC reaction (Dhrs7b^f/f; S1pr2-CreERT2). This strategy is elegant and well-suited to studying the role of metabolism in B cell activation.

Overall, this manuscript is a significant contribution to the field, providing robust evidence for the fundamental role of lipid metabolism during the GC reaction and unveiling a novel function for peroxisomes in B cells. However, several major points need to be addressed:

Major Comments:

Figures 1 and 2

The authors conclude, based on the results from these two figures, that PexRAP promotes the homeostatic maintenance and proliferation of B cells. In this section, the authors first use a tamoxifen-inducible full Dhrs7b knockout (KO) and afterwards Dhrs7bΔ/Δ-B model to specifically characterize the role of this molecule in B cells. They characterize the B and T cell compartments using flow cytometry (FACS) and examine the establishment of the GC reaction using FACS and immunofluorescence. They conclude that B cell numbers are reduced, and the GC reaction is defective upon stimulation, showing a reduction in the total percentage of GC cells, particularly in the light zone (LZ).

The analysis of the steady-state B cell compartment should also be improved. This includes a more detailed characterization of MZ and B1 populations, given the role of lipid metabolism and lipid peroxidation in these subtypes.

Suggestions for Improvement:

- B Cell compartment characterization: A deeper characterization of the B cell compartment in non-immunized mice is needed, including analysis of Marginal Zone (MZ) maturation and a more detailed examination of the B1 compartment. This is especially important given the role of specific lipid metabolism in these cell types. The phenotyping of the B cell compartment should also include an analysis of immunoglobulin levels on the membrane, considering the impact of lipids on membrane composition.

- GC Response Analysis Upon Immunization: The GC response characterization should include additional data on the T cell compartment, specifically the presence and function of Tfh cells. In Fig. 1H, the distribution of the LZ appears strikingly different. However, the authors have not addressed this in the text. A more thorough characterization of centroblasts and centrocytes using CXCR4 and CD86 markers is needed.<br /> The gating strategy used to characterize GC cells (GL7+CD95+ in IgD− cells) is suboptimal. A more robust analysis of GC cells should be performed in total B220+CD138− cells.

- The authors claim that Dhrs7b supports the homeostatic maintenance of quiescent B cells in vivo and promotes effective proliferation. This conclusion is primarily based on experiments where CTV-labeled PexRAP-deficient B cells were adoptively transferred into μMT mice (Fig. 2D-F). However, we recommend reviewing the flow plots of CTV in Fig. 2E, as they appear out of scale. More importantly, the low recovery of PexRAP-deficient B cells post-adoptive transfer weakens the robustness of the results and is insufficient to conclusively support the role of PexRAP in B cell proliferation in vivo.

- In vitro stimulation experiments: These experiments need improvement. The authors have used anti-CD40 and BAFF for B cell stimulation; however, it would be beneficial to also include anti-IgM in the stimulation cocktail. In Fig. 2G, CTV plots do not show clear defects in proliferation, yet the authors quantify the percentage of cells with more than three divisions. These plots should clearly display the gating strategy. Additionally, details about histogram normalization and potential defects in cell numbers are missing. A more in-depth analysis of apoptosis is also required to determine whether the observed defects are due to impaired proliferation or reduced survival.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Cho et al. investigate the role of ether lipid biosynthesis in B cell biology, particularly focusing on GC B cell, by inducible deletion of PexRAP, an enzyme responsible for the synthesis of ether lipids.

Strengths:

Overall, the data are well-presented, the paper is well-written and provides valuable mechanistic insights into the importance of PexRAP enzyme in GC B cell proliferation.

Weaknesses:

More detailed mechanisms of the impaired GC B cell proliferation by PexRAP deficiency remain to be further investigated. In the minor part, there are issues with the interpretation of the data which might cause confusion for the readers.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper aims to characterize the relationship between affinity and fitness in the process of affinity maturation. To this end, the authors develop a model of germinal center reaction and a tailored statistical approach, building on recent advances in simulation-based inference. The potential impact of this work is hindered by the poor organization of the manuscript. In crucial sections, the writing style and notations are unclear and difficult to follow.

Strengths:

The model provides a framework for linking affinity measurements and sequence evolution and does so while accounting for the stochasticity inherent to the germinal center reaction. The model's sophistication comes at the cost of numerous parameters and leads to intractable likelihood, which are the primary challenges addressed by the authors. The approach to inference is innovative and relies on training a neural network on extensive simulations of trajectories from the model.

Weaknesses:

The text is challenging to follow. The descriptions of the model and the inference procedure are fragmented and repetitive. In the introduction and the methods section, the same information is often provided multiple times, at different levels of detail. This organization sometimes requires the reader to move back and forth between subsections (there are multiple non-specific references to "above" and "below" in the text).

The choice of some parameter values in simulations appears arbitrary and would benefit from more extensive justification. It remains unclear how the "significant uncertainty" associated with these parameters affects the results of inference. In addition, the performance of the inference scheme on simulated data is difficult to evaluate, as the reported distributions of loss function values are not very informative.

Finally, the discussion of the similarities and differences with an alternative approach to this inference problem, presented in Dewitt et al. (2025), is incomplete.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper presents a new approach for explicitly transforming B-cell receptor affinity into evolutionary fitness in the germinal center. It demonstrates the feasibility of using likelihood-free inference to study this problem and demonstrates how effective birth rates appear to vary with affinity in real-world data.

Strengths:

(1) The authors leverage the unique data they have generated for a separate project to provide novel insights into a fundamental question.

(2) The paper is clearly written, with accessible methods and a straightforward discussion of the limits of this model.

(3) Code and data are publicly available and well-documented.

Weaknesses (minor):

(1) Lines 444-446: I think that "affinity ceiling" and "fitness ceiling" should be considered independent concepts. The former, as the authors ably explain, is a physical limitation. This wouldn't necessarily correspond to a fitness ceiling, though, as Figure 7 shows. Conversely, the model developed here would allow for a fitness ceiling even if the physical limit doesn't exist.

(2) Lines 566-569: I would like to see this caveat fleshed out more and perhaps mentioned earlier in the paper. While relative affinity is far more important, it is not at all clear to me that absolute affinity can be totally ignored in modeling GC behavior.

(3) One other limitation that is worth mentioning, though beyond the scope of the current work to fully address: the evolution of the repertoire is also strongly shaped by competition from circulating antibodies. (Eg: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3600904/, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1931312820303978). This is irrelevant for the replay experiment modeled here, but still an important factor in general repertoires.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors develop a set of biophysical models to investigate whether a constant area hypothesis or a constant curvature hypothesis explains the mechanics of membrane vesiculation during clathrin-mediated endocytosis.

Strengths:

The models that the authors choose are fairly well-described in the field and the manuscript is well-written.

Weaknesses:

One thing that is unclear is what is new with this work. If the main finding is that the differences are in the early stages of endocytosis, then one wonders if that should be tested experimentally. Also, the role of clathrin assembly and adhesion are treated as mechanical equilibrium but perhaps the process should not be described as equilibria but rather a time-dependent process. Ultimately, there are so many models that address this question that without direct experimental comparison, it's hard to place value on the model prediction.

While an attempt is made to do so with prior published EM images, there is excessive uncertainty in both the data itself as is usually the case but also in the methods that are used to symmetrize the data. This reviewer wonders about any goodness of fit when such uncertainty is taken into account.

Comments on revisions:

I appreciate the authors edits, but I found that the major concerns I had still hold. Therefore, I did not alter my review.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors employ theoretical analysis of an elastic membrane model to explore membrane vesiculation pathways in clathrin-mediated endocytosis. A complete understanding of clathrin-mediated endocytosis requires detailed insight into the process of membrane remodeling, as the underlying mechanisms of membrane shape transformation remain controversial, particularly regarding membrane curvature generation. The authors compare constant area and constant membrane curvature as key scenarios by which clathrins induce membrane wrapping around the cargo to accomplish endocytosis. First, they characterize the geometrical aspects of the two scenarios and highlight their differences by imposing coating area and membrane spontaneous curvature. They then examine the energetics of the process to understand the driving mechanisms behind membrane shape transformations in each model. In the latter part, they introduce two energy terms: clathrin assembly or binding energy, and curvature generation energy, with two distinct approaches for the latter. Finally, they identify the energetically favorable pathway in the combined scenario and compare their results with experiments, showing that the constant-area pathway better fits the experimental data.

Strengths:

The manuscript is well-written, well-organized, and presents the details of the theoretical analysis with sufficient clarity.<br /> The calculations are valid, and the elastic membrane model is an appropriate choice for addressing the differences between the constant curvature and constant area models.<br /> The authors' approach of distinguishing two distinct free energy terms-clathrin assembly and curvature generation-and then combining them to identify the favorable pathway is both innovative and effective in addressing the problem.<br /> Notably, their identification of the energetically favorable pathways, and how these pathways either lead to full endocytosis or fail to proceed due to insufficient energetic drives, is particularly insightful.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have carefully addressed all my comments, and the revised manuscript is now clear, rigorous, and satisfactory.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study by Akhtar et al. aims to investigate the link between systemic metabolism and respiratory demands, and how sleep and the circadian clock regulate metabolic states and respiratory dynamics. The authors leverage genetic mutants that are defective in sleep and circadian behavior in combination with indirect respirometry and steady-state LC-MS-based metabolomics to address this question in the Drosophila model.

First, the authors performed respirometry (on groups of 25 flies) to measure oxygen consumption (VO2) and carbon dioxide production (VCO2) to calculate the respiratory quotient (RQ) across the 24-hour day (12h:12h light-dark cycle) and assess metabolic fuel utilization. They observed that among all the genotypes tested, wild type (WT) flies and per0 flies in LD and WT flies in DD exhibit RQ >1. They concluded the >1 RQ is consistent with active lipogenesis. In contrast, the short-sleep mutants fumin (fmn) and sleepless (sss) showed significantly different RQ; the fmn exhibits a slight reduction in RQ values, suggesting increased reliance on carbohydrate metabolism, while sss exhibits even lower RQ (0.94), consistent with a shift toward lipid and protein catabolism.

The authors then proceeded to bin these measurements in 12-hour partitions, ZT0-12 and ZT12-24, to assess diurnal differences in average values of VO2, VCO2, and RQ. They observed significant day-night differences in metabolic rates in WT-LD flies, with higher rates during the day. The diurnal differences remain in the short-sleep mutants, but the overall metabolic rates are higher. WT-DD flies exhibit the lowest respiratory activity, although the day-night differences remain in free-running conditions. Finally, per01 mutants exhibit no significant change in day-night respiratory rates, suggesting that a functional circadian clock is necessary for diurnal differences in metabolic rates.

They then performed finer-resolution 24-hour rhythmic analysis (RAIN and JTK) to determine if VO2, VCO2, and RQ exhibit 24-hour rhythmic and if there are genotype-specific differences. Based on their criteria, VCO2 is rhythmic in all conditions tested, while VO2 is rhythmic in all conditions except in fmn-LD. Finally, RQ is rhythmic in all 3 mutants but not in WT-LD and WT-DD. Peak phases for the rhythms were deduced using JTK lag values.

The authors proceeded to leverage a previously published steady-state metabolite dataset to investigate the potential association of RQ with metabolite profiles. Spearman correlation was performed to identify metabolites that exhibit coupling to respiratory output. Positive and negative lag analysis were subsequently performed to further characterize these associations based on the timing of the metabolite peak changes relative to RQ fluctuations. The authors suggest that a positive lag indicates that metabolite changes occur after shifts in RQ, and a negative lag signifies that metabolite changes precede RQ changes. To visualize metabolic pathways that exhibit these temporal relationships, a clustered heatmap and enrichment analysis were performed. Through these analyses, they concluded that both sleep and circadian systems are essential for aligning metabolic substrate selection with energy demands, and different metabolic pathways are misregulated in the different mutants with sleep and circadian defects.

Strength:

The research questions this study explores are significant, given that metabolism and respiratory demand are central to animal biology. The experimental methods used, including the well-characterized fly genetic mutants, the newly developed method for indirect calorimetry measurements, and LC-MS-based metabolomics, are all appropriate. This study provides insights into the impact of sleep and circadian rhythm disruption on metabolism and respiratory demand and serves as a foundation for future mechanistic investigations.

Weaknesses:

There are some conceptual flaws that the authors need to address regarding circadian biology, and some of the conclusions can be better supported by additional analysis to provide a stronger foundation for future functional investigation. At times, the methods, especially the statistical analysis, are not well articulated; they need to be better explained.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

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

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

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

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors investigate how sleep loss and circadian disruption affect whole-organism metabolism in Drosophila melanogaster. They used chamber-based flow-through respirometry to measure oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production in wild-type flies and in mutants with impaired sleep or circadian function. These measurements were then integrated with a previously published metabolomics dataset to explore how respiratory dynamics align with metabolic pathways. The central claim is that wild-type flies display anticipatory coordination of metabolic processes with circadian time, while mutants exhibit reactive shifts in substrate use, redox imbalance, and signs of mitochondrial stress.

Strengths:

The study has several strengths. Continuous high-resolution respirometry in flies is challenging, and its application across multiple genotypes provides good comparative insight. The conceptual framework distinguishing anticipatory from reactive metabolic regulation is interesting. The translational framing helps place the work in a broader context of sleep, circadian biology, and metabolic health.

Weaknesses:

At the same time, the evidence supporting the conclusions is somewhat limited. The metabolomics data were not newly generated but repurposed from prior work, reducing novelty. The biological replication in the respirometry assays is low, with only a small number of chambers per genotype. Importantly, respiratory parameters in flies are strongly influenced by locomotor activity, yet no direct measurements of activity were included, making it difficult to separate intrinsic metabolic changes from behavioral differences in mutants. In addition, repeated claims of "mitochondrial stress" are not directly substantiated by assays of mitochondrial function. The study also excluded female flies entirely, despite well-documented sex differences in metabolism, which narrows the generality of the findings.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Pournejati et al investigates how BK (big potassium) channels and CaV1.3 (a subtype of voltage-gated calcium channels) become functionally coupled by exploring whether their ensembles form early-during synthesis and intracellular trafficking-rather than only after insertion into the plasma membrane. To this end, the authors use the PLA technique to assess the formation of ion channel associations in the different compartments (ER, Golgi or PM), single-molecule RNA in situ hybridization (RNAscope), and super-resolution microscopy.

Strengths:

The manuscript is well written and addresses an interesting question, combining a range of imaging techniques. The findings are generally well-presented and offer important insights into the spatial organization of ion channel complexes, both in heterologous and endogenous systems.

Weaknesses:

The authors have improved their manuscript after revisions, and some previous concerns have been addressed. Still, the main concern about this work is that the current experiments do not quantitatively or mechanistically link the ensembles observed intracellularly (in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) or Golgi) to those found at the plasma membrane (PM). As a result, it is difficult to fully integrate the findings into a coherent model of trafficking. Specifically, the manuscript does not address what proportion of ensembles detected at the PM originated in the ER. Without data on the turnover or half-life of these ensembles at the PM, it remains unclear how many persist through trafficking versus forming de novo at the membrane. The authors report the percentage of PLA-positive ensembles localized to various compartments, but this only reflects the distribution of pre-formed ensembles. What remains unknown is the proportion of total BK and CaV1.3 channels (not just those in ensembles) that are engaged in these complexes within each compartment. Without this, it is difficult to determine whether ensembles form in the ER and are then trafficked to the PM, or if independent ensemble formation also occurs at the membrane. To support the model of intracellular assembly followed by coordinated trafficking, it would be important to quantify the fraction of the total channel population that exists as ensembles in each compartment. A comparable ensemble-to-total ratio across ER and PM would strengthen the argument for directed trafficking of pre-assembled channel complexes.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The co-localization of large conductance calcium- and voltage activated potassium (BK) channels with voltage-gated calcium channels (CaV) at the plasma membrane is important for the functional role of these channels in controlling cell excitability and physiology in a variety of systems.

An important question in the field is where and how do BK and CaV channels assemble as 'ensembles' to allow this coordinated regulation - is this through preassembly early in the biosynthetic pathway, during trafficking to the cell surface or once channels are integrated into the plasma membrane. These questions also have broader implications for assembly of other ion channel complexes.

Using an imaging based approach, this paper addresses the spatial distribution of BK-CaV ensembles using both overexpression strategies in tsa201 and INS-1 cells and analysis of endogenous channels in INS-1 cells using proximity ligation and superesolution approaches. In addition, the authors analyse the spatial distribution of mRNAs encoding BK and Cav1.3.

The key conclusion of the paper that BK and CaV1.3 are co-localised as ensembles intracellularly in the ER and Golgi is well supported by the evidence. However, whether they are preferentially co-translated at the ER, requires further work. Moreover, whether intracellular pre-assembly of BK-CaV complexes is the major mechanism for functional complexes at the plasma membrane in these models requires more definitive evidence including both refinement of analysis of current data as well as potentially additional experiments.

Strengths & Weaknesses

(1) Using proximity ligation assays of overexpressed BK and CaV1.3 in tsa201 and INS-1 cells the authors provide strong evidence that BK and CaV can exist as ensembles (ie channels within 40 nm) at both the plasma membrane and intracellular membranes, including ER and Golgi. They also provide evidence for endogenous ensemble assembly at the Golgi in INS-1 cells and it would have been useful to determine if endogenous complexes are also observe in the ER of INS-1 cells. There are some useful controls but the specificity of ensemble formation would be better determined using other transmembrane proteins rather than peripheral proteins (eg Golgi 58K).

(2) Ensemble assembly was also analysed using super-resolution (dSTORM) imaging in INS-1 cells. In these cells only 7.5% of BK and CaV particles (endogenous?) co-localise that was only marginally above chance based on scrambled images. More detailed quantification and validation of potential 'ensembles' needs to be made for example by exploring nearest neighbour characteristics (but see point 4 below) to define proportion of ensembles versus clusters of BK or Cav1.3 channels alone etc. For example, it is mentioned that a distribution of distances between BK and Cav is seen but data are not shown.

(3) The evidence that the intracellular ensemble formation is in large part driven by co-translation, based on co-localisation of mRNAs using RNAscope, requires additional critical controls and analysis. The authors now include data of co-localised BK protein that is suggestive but does not show co-translation. Secondly, while they have improved the description of some controls mRNA co-localisation needs to be measured in both directions (eg BK - SCN9A as well as SCN9A to BK) especially if the mRNAs are expressed at very different levels. The relative expression levels need to be clearly defined in the paper. Authors also use a randomized image of BK mRNA to show specificity of co-localisation with Cav1.3 mRNA, however the mRNA distribution would not be expected to be random across the cell but constrained by ER morphology if co-translated so using ER labelling as a mask would be useful?

(4) The authors attempt to define if plasma membrane assemblies of BK and CaV occur soon after synthesis. However, because the expression of BK and CaV occur at different times after transient transfection of plasmids more definitive experiments are required. For example, using inducible constructs to allow precise and synchronised timing of transcription. This would also provide critical evidence that co-assembly occurs very early in synthesis pathways - ie detecting complexes at ER before any complexes at Golgi or plasma membrane.

(5) While the authors have improved the definition of hetero-clusters etc it is still not clear in superesolution analysis, how they separate a BK tetramer from a cluster of BK tetramers with the monoclonal antibody employed ie each BK channel will have 4 binding sites (4 subunits in tetramer) whereas Cav1.3 has one binding site per channel. Thus, how do authors discriminate between a single BK tetramer (molecular cluster) with potential 4 antibodies bound compared to a cluster of 4 independent BK channels.

(6) The post-hoc tests used for one way ANOVA and ANOVA statistics need to be defined throughout

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors present a clearly written and beautifully presented piece of work demonstrating clear evidence to support the idea that BK channels and Cav1.3 channels can co-assemble prior to their assertion in the plasma membrane.

Strengths:

The experimental records shown back up their hypotheses and the authors are to be congratulated for the large number of control experiments shown in the ms.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In the manuscript by Fu et al., the authors developed a chemo-immunological method for the reliable detection of Kacac, a novel post-translational modification, and demonstrated that acetoacetate and AACS serve as key regulators of cellular Kacac levels. Furthermore, the authors identified the enzymatic addition of the Kacac mark by acyltransferases GCN5, p300, and PCAF, as well as its removal by deacetylase HDAC3. These findings indicate that AACS utilizes acetoacetate to generate acetoacetyl-CoA in the cytosol, which is subsequently transferred into the nucleus for histone Kacac modification. A comprehensive proteomic analysis has identified 139 Kacac sites on 85 human proteins. Bioinformatics analysis of Kacac substrates and RNA-seq data reveal the broad impacts of Kacac on diverse cellular processes and various pathophysiological conditions. This study provides valuable additional insights into the investigation of Kacac and would serve as a helpful resource for future physiological or pathological research.

Comments on revised version:

The authors have made efforts to revise this manuscript and address my concerns. The revisions are appropriate and have improved the quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper presents a timely and significant contribution to the study of lysine acetoacetylation (Kacac). The authors successfully demonstrate a novel and practical chemo-immunological method using the reducing reagent NaBH4 to transform Kacac into lysine β-hydroxybutyrylation (Kbhb).

Strengths:

This innovative approach enables simultaneous investigation of Kacac and Kbhb, showcasing its potential in advancing our understanding of post-translational modifications and their roles in cellular metabolism and disease.

Weaknesses:

The experimental evidence presented in the article is insufficient to fully support the authors' conclusions. In the in vitro assays, the proteins used appear to be highly inconsistent with their expected molecular weights, as shown by Coomassie Brilliant Blue staining (Figure S3A). For example, p300, which has a theoretical molecular weight of approximately 270 kDa, appeared at around 37 kDa; GCN5/PCAF, expected to be ~70 kDa, appeared below 20 kDa. Other proteins used in the in vitro experiments also exhibited similarly large discrepancies from their predicted sizes. These inconsistencies severely compromise the reliability of the in vitro findings. Furthermore, the study lacks supporting in vivo data, such as gene knockdown experiments, to validate the proposed conclusions at the cellular level.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors validate the contribution of RAP2A to GB progression. RAp2A participates in asymetric cell division, and the localization of several cell polarity markers including cno and Numb.

Strengths:

The use of human data, Drosophila models and cell culture or neurospheres is a good scenario to validate the hypothesis using complementary systems.

Moreover, the mechanisms that determine GB progression, and in particular glioma stem cells biology, are relevant for the knowledge on glioblastoma and opens new possibilities to future clinical strategies.

Weaknesses:

While the manuscript presents a well-supported investigation into RAP2A's role in GBM, some methodological aspects could benefit from further validation. The major concern is the reliance on a single GB cell line (GB5), including multiple GBM lines, particularly primary patient-derived 3D cultures with known stem-like properties, would significantly enhance the study's robustness.

Several specific points raised in previous reviews have improved this version of the manuscript:

• The specificity of Rap2l RNAi has been further confirmed by using several different RNAi tools.

• Quantification of phenotypic penetrance and survival rates in Rap2l mutants would help determine the consistency of ACD defects. The authors have substantially increased the number of samples analyzed including three different RNAi lines (both the number of NB lineages and the number of different brains analyzed) to confirm the high penetrance of the phenotype.

• The observations on neurosphere size and Ki-67 expression require normalization (e.g., Ki-67+ cells per total cell number or per neurosphere size). This is included in the manuscript and now clarified in the text.

• The discrepancy in Figures 6A and 6B requires further discussion. The authors have included a new analysis and further explanations and they can conclude that in 2 cell-neurospheres there are more cases of asymmetric divisions in the experimental condition (RAP2A) than in the control.

• Live imaging of ACD events would provide more direct evidence. Live imaging was not done due to technical limitations. Despite being a potential contribution to the manuscript, the current conclusions of the manuscript are supported by the current data, and live experiments can be dispensable

• Clarification of terminology and statistical markers (e.g., p-values) in Figure 1A would improve clarity. This has been improved.

Comments on revisions:

The manuscript has improved the clarity in general, and I think that it is suitable for publication. However, for future experiments and projects, I would like to insist in the relevance of validating the results in vivo using xenografts with 3D-primary patient-derived cell lines or GB organoids.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This study investigates the role of RAP2A in regulating asymmetric cell division (ACD) in glioblastoma stem cells (GSCs), bridging insights from Drosophila ACD mechanisms to human tumor biology. They focus on RAP2A, a human homolog of Drosophila Rap2l, as a novel ACD regulator in GBM is innovative, given its underexplored role in cancer stem cells (CSCs). The hypothesis that ACD imbalance (favoring symmetric divisions) drives GSC expansion and tumor progression introduces a fresh perspective on differentiation therapy. However, the dual role of ACD in tumor heterogeneity (potentially aiding therapy resistance) requires deeper discussion to clarify the study's unique contributions against existing controversies.

Comments on revisions:

More experiments as suggested in the original assessment of the submission are needed to justify the hypothesis drawn in the manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This thoughtful and thorough mechanistic and functional study reports ARHGAP36 as a direct transcriptional target of FOXC1, which regulates Hedgehog signaling (SUFU, SMO, and GLI family transcription factors) through modulation of PKAC. Clinical outcome data from patients with neuroblastoma, one of the most common extracranial solid malignancies in children, demonstrate that ARHGAP36 expression is associated with improved survival. Although this study largely represents a robust and near-comprehensive set of focused investigations on a novel target of FOXC1 activity, several significant omissions undercut the generalizability of the findings reported.

(1) It is notable that the volcano plot in Figure 1a does now show evidence of canonical Hedgehog gene regulation, even though the subsequent studies in this paper clearly demonstrate that ARHGAP36 regulates Hedgehog signal transduction. Is this because canonical Hedgehog target genes (GLI1, PTCH1, SUFU) simply weren't labeled? Or is there a technical limitation that needs to be clarified? A note about Hedgehog target genes is made in conjunction with Table S1, but the justification or basis of defining these genes as Hedgehog targets is unclear. More broadly, it would be useful to see ontology analyses from these gene expression data to understand FOXC1 target genes more broadly. Ontology analyses are included in a supplementary table, but network visualizations would be much preferred.

(2) Likewise, the ChIP-seq data in Figure 2 are under-analyzed, focusing only on the ARHGAP36 locus and not more broadly on the FOXC1 gene expression program. This is a missed opportunity that should be remedied with unbiased analyses intersecting differentially expressed FOXC1 peaks with differentially expressed genes from RNA-sequencing data displayed in Figure 1.

(3) RNA-seq and ChIP-seq data strongly suggest that FOXC1 regulates ARHGAP36 expression, and the authors convincingly identify genomic segments at the ARHGAP36 locus where FOXC1 binds, but they do not test if FOXC1 specifically activates this locus through the creation of a luciferase or similar promoter reporter. Such a reagent and associated experiments would not only strengthen the primary argument of this investigation but could serve as a valuable resource for the community of scientists investigating FOXC1, ARHGAP36, the Hedgehog pathway, and related biological processes. CRISPRi targeting of the identified regions of the ARHGAP locus is a useful step in the right direction, but these experiments are not done in a way to demonstrate FOXC1 dependency.

(4) It would be useful to see individual fluorescence channels in association with images in Figure 3b.

(5) Perhaps the most significant limitation of this study is the omission of in vivo data, a shortcoming the authors partly mitigate through the incorporation of clinical outcome data from pediatric neuroblastoma patients in the context of ARHGAP36 expression. The authors also mention that high levels of ARHGAP36 expression were also detected in "specific CNS, breast, lung, and neuroendocrine tumors," but do not provide clinical outcome data for these cohorts. Such analyses would be useful to understand the generalizability of their findings across different cancer types. More broadly, how were high, medium, and low levels of ARHGAP36 expression identified? "Terciles" are mentioned, but such an approach is not experimentally rigorous, and RPA or related approaches (nested rank statistics, etc) are recommended to find optimal cutpoints for ARHGAP36 expression in the context of neuroblastoma, "specific CNS, breast, lung, and neuroendocrine" tumor outcomes.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

FOXC1 is a transcription factor essential for the development of neural crest-derived tissues and has been identified as a key biomarker in various cancers. However, the molecular mechanisms underlying its function remain poorly understood. In this study, the authors used RNA-seq, ChIP-seq, and FOXC1-overexpressing cell models to show that FOXC1 directly activates transcription of ARHGAP36 by binding to specific cis-regulatory elements. Elevated expression of FOXC1 or ARHGAP36 was found to enhance Hedgehog (Hh) signaling and suppress PKA activity. Notably, overexpression of either gene also conferred resistance to Smoothened (SMO) inhibitors, indicating ligand-independent activation of Hh signaling. Analysis of public gene expression datasets further revealed that ARHGAP36 expression correlates with improved 5-year overall survival in neuroblastoma patients. Together, these findings uncover a novel FOXC1-ARHGAP36 regulatory axis that modulates Hh and PKA signaling, offering new insights into both normal development and cancer progression.

The main strengths of the study are:

(1) Identification of a novel signaling pathway involving FOXC1 and ARHGAP36, which may play a critical role in both normal development and cancer biology.

(2) Mechanistic investigation using RNA-seq, ChIP-seq, and functional assays to elucidate how FOXC1 regulates ARHGAP36 and how this axis modulates Hh signaling.

(3) Clinical relevance demonstrated through analysis of neuroblastoma patient datasets, linking ARHGAP36 expression to improved 5-year overall survival.

The main weaknesses of the study are:

(1) Lack of validation in neuroblastoma models - the study does not directly test its findings in neuroblastoma cell models, limiting translational relevance.

(2) Incomplete mechanistic insight into PKA regulation - the study does not fully elucidate how FOXC1-ARHGAP36 regulates PKAC activity at the molecular level.

(3) Insufficient discussion of clinical outcome data - while ARHGAP36 expression correlates with improved survival in neuroblastoma, the manuscript lacks a clear interpretation of this unexpected finding, especially given the known oncogenic roles of FOXC1, ARHGAP36, and Hh signaling.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The focus of the research is to understand how transcription factors with high expression in neural crest cell-derived cancers (e.g., neuroblastoma) and roles in neural crest cell development function to promote malignancy. The focus is on the transcription factor FOXC1 and using murine cell culture, gain- and loss-of-function approaches, and ChIP profiling, among other techniques, to place PKC inhibitor ARHGAP36 mechanistically between FOXC1 and another pathway associated with malignancy, Sonic Hedgehog (SHH).

Strengths:

Major strengths are the mechanistic approaches to identify FOXC1 direct targets, definitively showing that FOXC1 transcriptional regulation of ARHGAP36 leads to dysregulation of SHH signaling downstream of ARHGAP36 inhibition of PKC. Starting from a screen of Foxc1 OE to get to ARHGAP36 and then using genetic and pharmacological manipulation to work through the mechanism is very well done. There is data that will be of use to others studying FOXC1 in mesenchymal cell types, in particular, the FOXC1 ChIP-seq.

Weaknesses:

Work is almost all performed in NIH3T3 or similar cells (mouse cells, not patient or mouse-derived cancer cells), so the link to neuroblastoma that forms the major motivation of the work is not clear. The authors look at ARHGAP36 levels in association with the neuroblastoma patient survival; however, the finding, though interesting and quite compelling, is misaligned with what the literature shows about FOXC1 and SHH, their high expression is associated with increased malignancy (also maybe worse outcomes?). Therefore, ARHGAP36 expression may be more complicated in a tumor cell or may be unrelated to FOXC1 or SHH, leaving one to wonder what the work in NIH3T3 cells, though well done, is telling us about the mechanisms of FOXC1 as an oncogene in neuroblastoma cells or in any type of cancer cell. Does it really function as an SHH activator to drive tumor growth? The 'oncogenic relevance' and 'contribution to malignancy' claimed in the last paragraph of the introduction are currently weakly supported by the data as presented. This could be improved by studying some of these mechanisms in patient-derived neuroblastoma cells with high FOXC1 expression. Does inhibiting FOXC1 change SHH and ARHGAP36 and have any effect on cell proliferation or migration? Alternatively, does OE of FOXC1 in NIH3T3 cells increase their migration or stimulate proliferation in some way, and is this dependent on ARHGAP36 or SHH? Application of their mechanistic approaches in cancer cells or looking for hallmarks of cancer phenotypes with FOXC1 OE (and dependent on SHH or ARHGAP36) could help to make a link with cellular phenotypes of malignant cells.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Kong et al.'s work describes a new approach that does exactly what the title states: "Correction of local beam-induced sample motion in cryo-EM images using a 3D spline model." I find the method appropriate, logical, and well-explained. Additionally, the work suggests using 2DTM-related measurements to quantify the improvement of the new method compared to the old one in cisTEM, Unblur. I find this part engaging; it is straightforward, accurate, and, of course, the group has a strong command of 2DTM, presenting a thorough study.

However, everything in the paper (except some correct general references) refers to comparisons with the full-frame approach, Unblur. Still, we have known for more than a decade that local correction approaches perform better than global ones, so I do not find anything truly novel in their proposal of using local methods (the method itself- Unbend- is new, but many others have been described previously). In fact, the use of 2DTM is perhaps a more interesting novelty of the work, and here, a more systematic study comparing different methods with these proposed well-defined metrics would be very valuable. As currently presented, there is no doubt that it is better than an older, well-established approach, and the way to measure "better" is very interesting, but there is no indication of how the situation stands regarding newer methods.

Regarding practical aspects, it seems that the current implementation of the method is significantly slower than other patch-based approaches. If its results are shown to exceed those of existing local methods, then exploring the use of Unbend, possibly optimizing its code first, could be a valuable task. However, without more recent comparisons, the impact of Unbend remains unclear.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors present a new method, Unbend, for measuring motion in cryo-EM images, with a particular emphasis on more challenging in situ samples such as lamella and whole cells<br /> (that can be more prone to overall motion and/or variability in motion across a field of view). Building on their previous approach of full-frame alignment (Unblur), they now perform full-frame alignment followed by patch alignment, and then use these outputs to generate a 3D cubic spline model of the motion. This model allows them to estimate a continuous, per-pixel shift field for each movie frame that aims to better describe complex motions and so ultimately generate improved motion-corrected micrographs. Performance of Unbend is evaluated using the 2D template matching (2DTM) method developed previously by the lab, and results are compared to using full-frame correction alone. Several different in situ samples are used for evaluation, covering a broad range that will be of interest to the rapidly growing in situ cryo-EM community.

Strengths:

The method appears to be an elegant way of describing complex motions in cryo-EM samples, and the authors present convincing data that Unbend generally improves SNR of aligned micrographs as well as increases detection of particles matching the 60S ribosome template when compared to using full-frame correction alone. The authors also give interesting insights into how different areas of a lamella behave with respect to motion by using Unbend on a montage dataset collected previously by the group. There is growing interest in imaging larger areas of in situ samples at high resolution, and these insights contribute valuable knowledge. Additionally, the availability of data collected in this study through the EMPIAR repository will be much appreciated by the field.

Weaknesses:

While the improvements with Unbend vs. Unblur appear clear, it is less obvious whether Unbend provides substantial gains over patch motion correction alone (the current norm in the field). It might be helpful for readers if this comparison were investigated for the in situ datasets. Additionally, the authors are open that in cases where full motion correction already does a good job, the extra degrees of freedom in Unbend can perhaps overfit the motions, making the corrections ultimately worse. I wonder if an adaptive approach could be explored, for example, using the readout from full-frame or patch correction to decide whether a movie should proceed to the full Unbend pipeline, or whether correction should stop at the patch estimation stage.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary

Kong and coauthors describe and implement a method to correct local deformations due to beam-induced motion in cryo-EM movie frames. This is done by fitting a 3D spline model to a stack of micrograph frames using cross-correlation-based local patch alignment to describe the deformations across the micrograph in each frame, and then computing the value of the deformed micrograph at each pixel by interpolating the undeformed micrograph at the displacement positions given by the spline model. A graphical interface in cisTEM allows the user to visualise the deformations in the sample, and the method has been proven to be successful by showing improvements in 2D template matching (2DTM) results on the corrected micrographs using five in situ samples.

Impact

This method has great potential to further streamline the cryo-EM single particle analysis pipeline by shortening the required processing time as a result of obtaining higher quality particles early in the pipeline, and is applicable to both old and new datasets, therefore being relevant to all cryo-EM users.

Strengths

(1) One key idea of the paper is that local beam induced motion affects frames continuously in space (in the image plane) as well as in time (along the frame stack), so one can obtain improvements in the image quality by correcting such deformations in a continuous way (deformations vary continuously from pixel to pixel and from frame to frame) rather than based on local discrete patches only. 3D splines are used to model the deformations: they are initialised using local patch alignments and further refined using cross-correlation between individual patch frames and the average of the other frames in the same patch stack.

(2) Another strength of the paper is using 2DTM to show that correcting such deformations continuously using the proposed method does indeed lead to improvements. This is shown using five in situ datasets, where local motion is quantified using statistics based on the estimated motions of ribosomes.

Weaknesses

(1) While very interesting, it is not clear how the proposed method using 3D splines for estimating local deformations compares with other existing methods that also aim to correct local beam-induced motion by approximating the deformations throughout the frames using other types of approximation, such as polynomials, as done, for example MotionCor2.

(2) The use of 2DTM is appropriate, and the results of the analysis are enlightening, but one shortcoming is that some relevant technical details are missing. For example, the 2DTM SNR is not defined in the article, and it is not clear how the authors ensured that no false positives were included in the particles counted before and after deformation correction. The Jupyter notebooks where this analysis was performed have not been made publicly available.

(3) It is also not clear how the proposed deformation correction method is affected by CTF defocus in the different samples (are the defocus values used in the different datasets similar or significantly different?) or if there is any effect at all.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Chengjian Zhao et al. focused on the interactions between vascular, biliary, and neural networks in the liver microenvironment, addressing the critical bottleneck that the lack of high-resolution 3D visualization has hindered understanding of these interactions in liver disease.

Strengths:

This study developed a high-resolution multiplex 3D imaging method that integrates multicolor metallic compound nanoparticle (MCNP) perfusion with optimized CUBIC tissue clearing. This method enables the simultaneous 3D visualization of spatial networks of the portal vein, hepatic artery, bile ducts, and central vein in the mouse liver. The authors reported a perivascular structure termed the Periportal Lamellar Complex (PLC), which is identified along the portal vein axis. This study clarifies that the PLC comprises CD34⁺Sca-1⁺ dual-positive endothelial cells with a distinct gene expression profile, and reveals its colocalization with terminal bile duct branches and sympathetic nerve fibers under physiological conditions.

Weaknesses:

This manuscript is well-written, organized, and informative. However, there are some points that need to be clarified.

(1) After MCNP-dye injection, does it remain in the blood vessels, adsorb onto the cell surface, or permeate into the cells? Does the MCNP-dye have cell selectivity?

(2) All MCNP-dyes were injected after the mice were sacrificed, and the mice's livers were fixed with PFA. After the blood flow had ceased, how did the authors ensure that the MCNP-dyes were fully and uniformly perfused into the microcirculation of the liver?

(3) It is advisable to present additional 3D perspective views in the article, as the current images exhibit very weak 3D effects. Furthermore, it would be better to supplement with some videos to demonstrate the 3D effects of the stained blood vessels.

(4) In Figure 1-I, the authors used MCNP-Black to stain the central veins; however, in addition to black, there are also yellow and red stains in the image. The authors need to explain what these stains are in the legend.

(5) There is a typo in the title of Figure 4F; it should be "stem cell".

(6) Nuclear staining is necessary in immunofluorescence staining, especially for Figure 5e. This will help readers distinguish whether the green color in the image corresponds to cells or dye deposits.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The present manuscript of Xu et al. reports a novel clearing and imaging method focusing on the liver. The authors simultaneously visualized the portal vein, hepatic artery, central vein, and bile duct systems by injecting metal compound nanoparticles (MCNPs) with different colors into the portal vein, heart left ventricle, inferior vena cava, and the extrahepatic bile duct, respectively. The method involves: trans-cardiac perfusion with 4% PFA, the injection of MCNPs with different colors, clearing with the modified CUBIC method, cutting 200 micrometer thick slices by vibratome, and then microscopic imaging. The authors also perform various immunostaining (DAB or TSA signal amplification methods) on the tissue slices from MCNP-perfused tissue blocks. With the application of this methodical approach, the authors report dense and very fine vascular branches along the portal vein. The authors name them as 'periportal lamellar complex (PLC)' and report that PLC fine branches are directly connected to the sinusoids. The authors also claim that these structures co-localize with terminal bile duct branches and sympathetic nerve fibers, and contain endothelial cells with a distinct gene expression profile. Finally, the authors claim that PLC-s proliferate in liver fibrosis (CCl4 model) and act as a scaffold for proliferating bile ducts in ductular reaction and for ectopic parenchymal sympathetic nerve sprouting.

Strengths:

The simultaneous visualization of different hepatic vascular compartments and their combination with immunostaining is a potentially interesting novel methodological approach.

Weaknesses:

This reviewer has several concerns about the validity of the microscopic/morphological findings as well as the transcriptomics results. In this reviewer's opinion, the introduction contains overstatements regarding the potential of the method, there are severe caveats in the method descriptions, and several parts of the Results are not fully supported by the documentation. Thus, the conclusions of the paper may be critically viewed in their present form and may need reconsideration by the authors.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In the reviewed manuscript, researchers aimed to overcome the obstacles of high-resolution imaging of intact liver tissue. They report successful modification of the existing CUBIC protocol into Liver-CUBIC, a high-resolution multiplex 3D imaging method that integrates multicolor metallic compound nanoparticle (MCNP) perfusion with optimized liver tissue clearing, significantly reducing clearing time and enabling simultaneous 3D visualization of the portal vein, hepatic artery, bile ducts, and central vein spatial networks in the mouse liver. Using this novel platform, the researchers describe a previously unrecognized perivascular structure they termed Periportal Lamellar Complex (PLC), regularly distributed along the portal vein axis. The PLC originates from the portal vein and is characterized by a unique population of CD34⁺Sca-1⁺ dual-positive endothelial cells. Using available scRNAseq data, the authors assessed the CD34⁺Sca-1⁺ cells' expression profile, highlighting the mRNA presence of genes linked to neurodevelopment, biliary function, and hematopoietic niche potential. Different aspects of this analysis were then addressed by protein staining of selected marker proteins in the mouse liver tissue. Next, the authors addressed how the PLC and biliary system react to CCL4-induced liver fibrosis, implying PLC dynamically extends, acting as a scaffold that guides the migration and expansion of terminal bile ducts and sympathetic nerve fibers into the hepatic parenchyma upon injury.

The work clearly demonstrates the usefulness of the Liver-CUBIC technique and the improvement of both resolution and complexity of the information, gained by simultaneous visualization of multiple vascular and biliary systems of the liver at the same time. The identification of PLC and the interpretation of its function represent an intriguing set of observations that will surely attract the attention of liver biologists as well as hepatologists; however, some claims need more thorough assessment by functional experimental approaches to decipher the functional molecules and the sequence of events before establishing the PLC as the key hub governing the activity of biliary, arterial, and neuronal liver systems. Similarly, the level of detail of the methods section does not appear to be sufficient to exactly recapitulate the performed experiments, which is of concern, given that the new technique is a cornerstone of the manuscript.

Nevertheless, the work does bring a clear new insight into the liver structure and functional units and greatly improves the methodological toolbox to study it even further, and thus fully deserves the attention of readers.

Strengths:

The authors clearly demonstrate an improved technique tailored to the visualization of the liver vasulo-biliary architecture in unprecedented resolution.

This work proposes a new biological framework between the portal vein, hepatic arteries, biliary tree, and intrahepatic innervation, centered at previously underappreciated protrusions of the portal veins - the Periportal Lamellar Complexes (PLCs).

Weaknesses:

Possible overinterpretation of the CD34+Sca1+ findings was built on re-analysis of one scRNAseq dataset.

Lack of detail in the materials and methods section greatly limits the usefulness of the new technique to other researchers.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors used an in vitro microfluidic system where HUVECs are exposed to high, low, or physiologic (normal) shear stress to demonstrate that both high and low shear stress for 24 hours resulted in decreased KLF6 expression, decreased lipid peroxidation, and increased cell death, which was reversible upon treatment with Fer-1, the ferroptosis inhibitor. RNA sequencing (LSS vs normal SS) revealed decreased steroid synthesis and UPR signaling in low shear stress conditions, which they confirmed by showing reduced expression of proteins that mitigate ER stress under both LSS and HSS. Decreased KLF6 expression after exposure to HSS/LSS was associated with decreased expression of regulators of ER stress (PERK, BiP, MVD), which was restored with KLF6 overexpression. Overexpression of KLF6 also restored SLC7A11 expression, Coq10, and reduced c11 bodipy oxidation state- all markers of lipid peroxidation and ferroptosis. The authors then used vascular smooth muscle cells (atherosclerotic model) with HUVECs and monocytes to show that KLF6 overexpression reduces the adhesion of monocytes and lipid accumulation in conditions of low shear stress.

Strengths:

(1) The use of a microfluidic device to simulate shear stress while keeping the pressure constant when varying the shear stress applied is improved and more physiologic compared to traditional cone and shearing devices. Similarly, the utilization of both low and high shear stress in most experiments is a strength.

(2) This study provides a link between disturbed shear stress and ferroptosis, which is novel, and fits nicely with existing knowledge that endothelial cell ferroptosis promotes atherosclerosis. This concept was also recently reported in September 2025, when a publication also demonstrated that LSS triggers ferroptosis in vascular endothelial cells (PMID: 40939914), which partly validates these findings.

Weaknesses:

(1) While HUVECs are commonly used in endothelial in vitro studies, it would be preferable to confirm the findings using an arterial cell line, such as human coronary artery cells, when studying mechanisms of early atherosclerosis. Furthermore, physiologic arterial shear stress is higher than venous shear stress, and different vascular beds have varying responses to altered shear stress; as such, the up- and downregulated pathways in HUVECs should be confirmed in an arterial system.

(2) The authors provide convincing evidence of disturbances in shear stress inducing endothelial ferroptosis with assays for impaired lipid peroxidation and increased cell death that was reversed with a ferroptosis inhibitor. However, more detailed characterization of ferroptosis with iron accumulation assays, as well as evaluating GPX4 activity as a consequence of the impaired mevalonate pathway, and testing for concomitant apoptosis in addition to ferroptosis, would add to the data.

(3) The authors state that KLF2 and KLF4 are not amongst the differentially expressed genes downregulated by reduced shear stress, which is contrary to previous data, where both KLF2 and KLF4 are well studied to be upregulated by physiologic laminar shear stress. While this might be due to the added pressure in their microfluidic system, it also might be due to changes in gene expression over time. In this case, a time course experiment would be needed. It is possible that KLF2, KLF4 and KLF6 are all reduced in low (and high) shear stress and cooperatively regulate the endothelial cell phenotype. Both KLF2 and KLF4 have been shown to be protective against atherosclerosis.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Cui et al. titled "abnormal shear stress induces ferroptosis in endothelial cells via KLF6 downregulation" investigated in a microfluidic device the effect of 24-hour low, medium, and high shear stress levels upon human vein endothelial cells. The authors found that KLF6 is an important regulator of endothelial cell ferroptosis through the BiP-PERK-Slc7a11 and MVD-ID11-CoQ10 axis under both low and high shear stress, postulating this may explain the spatial preference of atherosclerosis at bifurcations of the arteries.

Strengths:

The main strength of the study is the use of a microfluidic device within which the authors could vary the shear stress (low, medium, high), whilst keeping fluid pressure near the physiological range of 70 mmHg. Deciding to focus on transcription factors that respond to shear stress, the authors found KLF6 in their dataset, for which they provide compelling evidence that endothelial cell ferroptosis is triggered by both excessive and insufficient shear stress, inversely correlating with KLF6 expression. Importantly, it was demonstrated that cell death in endothelial cells during HSS and LSS was prevented through the addition of Fer-1, supporting the role of ferroptosis. Moreso, the importance of KLF6 as an essential regulator was demonstrated through KLF6 overexpression.

Weaknesses:

There are some major concerns with the results:

(1) Inappropriate statistical tests were used (i.e., an unpaired t-test cannot be used to compare more than two groups).<br /> (2) Inconsistencies in western blot normalization as different proteins seem to have been used (GAPDH and B-actin) without specifying which is used when and why this differs.<br /> (3) Absence of transcriptomic analysis on HSS-exposed endothelial cells (which is not explained).

Moreso, the conclusions are predominantly based on an in vitro microfluidic chip model seeded with HUVECs. Although providing mechanistic insight into the effects of shear stress on (venous) endothelial cells, it does not recapitulate the in vivo complexity. The absence of validation (a.o. levels of KLF6) in clinical samples and/or animal models limits the translatability of the reported findings towards atherosclerosis. Among others, assessing the spatial heterogeneity of KLF6 abundance in atherosclerotic plaques depending on its proximity to arterial bifurcations may be interesting.

Points to be addressed:

(1) As a statistical test, the authors report having used unpaired t-tests; however, often three groups are compared for which t-tests are inadequate. This is faulty as, amongst other things, it does not take multiple comparison testing into account.

(2) Both B-Actin and GAPDH seem to have been used for protein-level normalization. Why? The Figure 2HL first panel reports B-actin, whereas the other three report GAPDH. The same applies to Figures 3E-F, where both are shown, and it is not mentioned which of the two has been used. Moreso, uncropped blots seem to be unavailable as supplementary data for proper review. These should be provided as supplementary data.

(3) LSS and MSS were compared based on transcriptomic analysis. Conversely, RNA sequencing was not reported for the HSS. Why is this data missing? It would be valuable to assess transcriptomics following HSS, and also to allow transcriptomic comparison of LSS and HSS.

(4) Actual sample sizes should be reported rather than "three or more". Moreso, it would be beneficial to show individual datapoints in bar graphs rather than only mean with SD if sample sizes are below 10 (e.g., Figures 1B-H, Figure 2G, etc.).

(5) The authors claim that by modifying the thickness of the middle layer, shear stress could be modified, whilst claiming to keep on-site pressure within physiological ranges (approx. 70 mmHg) as a hallmark of their microfluidic devices. Has it been experimentally verified that pressures indeed remain around 70 mmHg?

(6) A coculture model (VSMC, EC, monocytes) is mentioned in the last part of the results section without any further information. Information on this model should be provided in the methods section (seeding, cell numbers, etc.). Moreover, comparison of LSS vs LSS+KLF6 OE and HSS vs HSS+KLF6 OE is shown. It would benefit the interpretation of the outcomes if MSS were also shown. I twould also be beneficial to demonstrate differences between LSS, MSS, and HSS in this coculture model (without KLF6 OE).

(7) The experiments were solely performed with a venous endothelial cell line (HUVECs). Was the use of an arterial endothelial cell line considered? It may translate better towards atherosclerosis, which occurs within arteries. HUVECs are not accustomed to the claimed near-physiological pressures.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary

The authors completed a statistically rigorous analysis of the synchronization of sharp-wave ripples in the hippocampal CA1 across and within hemispheres. They used a publicly available dataset (collected in the Buzsaki lab) from 4 rats (8 sessions) recorded with silicon probes in both hemispheres. Each session contained approximately 8 hours of activity recorded during rest. The authors found that the characteristics of ripples did not differ between hemispheres, and that most ripples occurred almost simultaneously on all probe shanks within a hemisphere as well as across hemispheres. The differences in amplitude and exact timing of ripples between recording sites increased slightly with distance between recording sites. However, the phase coupling of ripples (in the 100-250 Hz range), changed dramatically with distance between recording sites. Ripples in opposite hemispheres were about 90% less coupled than ripples on nearby tetrodes in the same hemisphere. Phase coupling also decreased with distance within the hemisphere. Finally, pyramidal cell and interneuron spikes were coupled to the local ripple phase and less so to ripples at distant sites or the opposite hemisphere.

The authors also analyzed the changes in ripple coupling in relation to a couple of behavioral variables. Interestingly, while exposure to a novel track increased ripple abundance by ~5%, it did not change any form of ripple coupling within or between hemispheres.

Strengths

The analysis was well-designed and rigorous. The authors used statistical tests well suited to the hypotheses being tested, and clearly explained these tests. The paper is very clearly written, making it easy to understand and reproduce the analysis. The authors included an excellent review of the literature to explain the motivation for their study.

Weaknesses

The authors have addressed all of my concerns and recommendations.

This paper presents an important and unique analysis of ripple coupling. The same method could be used in the future to analyze the effects of other behavioral variables, such as satiety versus hunger, sleep deprivation, or enrichment, to address potential functions and causes of ripple coupling.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Lu & Golomb combined EEG, artificial neural networks, and multivariate pattern analyses to examine how different visual variables are processed in the brain. The conclusions of the paper are mostly well supported.

The authors find that not only real-world size is represented in the brain (which was known), but both retinal size and real-world depth is represented, at different time points or latencies, which may reflect different stages of processing. Prior work has not been able to answer the question of real-world depth due to stimuli used. The authors made this possible by assess real-world depth and testing it with appropriate methodology, accounting for retinal and real-world size. The methodological approach combining behavior, RSA, and ANNs is creative and well thought out to appropriately assess the research questions, and the findings may be very compelling if backed up with some clarifications and further analyses.

The work will be of interest to experimental and computational vision scientists, as well as the broader computational cognitive neuroscience community as the methodology is of interest and the code is or will be made available. The work is important as it is currently not clear what the correspondence between many deep neural network models are and the brain are, and this work pushes our knowledge forward on this front. Furthermore, the availability of methods and data will be useful for the scientific community.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The authors used an open EEG dataset of observers viewing real-world objects. Each object had a real-world size value (from human rankings), a retinal size value (measured from each image), and a scene depth value (inferred from the above). The authors combined the EEG and object measurements with extant, pre-trained models (a deep convolutional neural network, a multimodal ANN, and Word2vec) to assess the time course of processing object size (retinal and real-world) and depth. They found that depth was processed first, followed by retinal size, and then real-world size. The depth time course roughly corresponded to the visual ANNs, while the real-world size time course roughly corresponded to the more semantic models.

The time course result for the three object attributes is very clear and a novel contribution to the literature. The authors have revised the ANN motivations to increase clarity. Additionally, the authors have appropriately toned down some of the language about novelty, and the addition of a noise ceiling has helped the robustness of the work.

While I appreciate the addition of Cornet in the Supplement, I am less compelled by the authors' argument for Word2Vec over LLMs for "pure" semantic embeddings. While I'm not digging in on this point, this choice may prematurely age this work.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This study presents cryoEM-derived structures of the Trypanosome aquaporin AQP2, in complex with its natural ligand, glycerol, as well as two trypanocidal drugs, pentamidine and melarsoprol, which use AQP2 as an uptake route. The structures are high quality and the density for the drug molecules is convincing, showing a binding site in the centre of the AQP2 pore.

The authors then continue to study this system using molecular dynamics simulations. Their simulations indicate that the drugs can pass through the pore and identify a weak binding site in the centre of the pore, which corresponds with that identified through cryoEM analysis. They also simulate the effect of drug resistance mutations which suggests that the mutations reduce the affinity for drugs and therefore might reduce the likelihood that the drugs enter into the centre of the pore, reducing the likelihood that they progress through into the cell.

While the cryoEM and MD studies are well conducted, it is a shame that the drug transport hypothesis was not tested experimentally. For example, did they do cryoEM with AQP2 with drug resistance mutations and see if they could see the drugs in these maps? They might not bind, but another possibility is that the binding site shifts, as seen in Chen et al? Do they have an assay for measuring drug binding? I think that some experimental validation of the drug binding hypothesis would strengthen this paper. The authors describe in their response why these experiments are challenging.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors present 3.2-3.7 Å cryo-EM structures of Trypanosoma brucei aquaglyceroporin-2 (TbAQP2) bound to glycerol, pentamidine or melarsoprol and combine them with extensive all-atom MD simulations to explain drug recognition and resistance mutations. The work provides a persuasive structural rationale for (i) why positively selected pore substitutions enable diamidine uptake, and (ii) how clinical resistance mutations weaken the high-affinity energy minimum that drives permeation. These insights are valuable for chemotherapeutic re-engineering of diamidines and aquaglyceroporin-mediated drug delivery.

My comments are on the MD part

Strengths:

The study

Integrates complementary cryo-EM, equilibrium and applied voltage MD simulations, and umbrella-sampling PMFs, yielding a coherent molecular-level picture of drug permeation.

Offers direct structural rationalisation of long-standing resistance mutations in trypanosomes, addressing an important medical problem.

Comments on revisions:

Most of the weaknesses have been resolved during the revision process.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Recent studies have established that trypanocidal drugs, including pentamidine and melarsoprol, enter the trypanosomes via the glyceroaquaporin AQP2 (TbAQP2). Interestingly, drug resistance in trypanosomes is, at least in part, caused by recombination with the neighbouring gene, AQP3, which is unable to permeate pentamidine or melarsoprol. The effect of the drugs on cells expressing chimeric proteins is significantly reduced. In addition, controversy exists regarding whether TbAQP2 permeates the drugs like an ion channel, or whether it serves as a receptor that triggers downstream processes upon drug binding. In this study the authors set out to achieve these objectives: 1) to understand the molecular interactions between TbAQP2 and glycerol, pentamidine, and melarsoprol, and 2) to determine the mechanism by which mutations that arise from recombination with TbAQP3 result in reduced drug permeation.

The cryo-EM structures provide details of glycerol and drug binding, and show that glycerol and the drugs occupy the same space within the pore. Finally, MD simulations and lysis assays are employed to determine how mutations in TbAQP2 result in reduced permeation of drugs by making entry and exit of the drug relatively more energy-expensive. Overall, the strength of evidence used to support the author's claims is solid.

Strengths:

The cryo-EM portion of the study is strong, and while the overall resolution of the structures is in the 3.5Å range, the local resolution within the core of the protein and the drug binding sites is considerably higher (~2.5Å).<br /> I also appreciated the MD simulations on the TbAQP2 mutants and the mechanistic insights that resulted from this data.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors do not provide any experimental validation the drug binding sites in TbAQP2 due to lacking resources. However, the claims have been softened in the revised paper.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Roseby and colleagues report on a body region-specific sensory control of the fly larval righting response, a body contortion performed by fly larvae to correct their posture when they find themselves in an inverted (dorsal side down) position. This is an important topic because of the general need for animals to move about in the correct orientation and the clever methodologies used in this paper to uncover the sensory triggers for the behavior. Several innovative methodologies are developed, including a body region-specific optogenetic approach along different axial positions of the larva, region-specific manipulation of surface contacts with the substrate, and a 'water unlocking' technique to initiate righting behaviors, a strength of the manuscript. The authors found that multidendritic neurons, particularly the daIV neurons, are necessary for righting behavior. The contribution of daIV neurons had been shown by the authors in a prior paper (Klann et al, 2021), but that study had used constitutive neuronal silencing. Here, the authors used acute inactivation to confirm this finding. Additionally, the authors describe an important role for anterior sensory neurons and a need for dorsal substrate contact. Conversely, ventral sensory elements inhibit the righting behavior, presumably to ensure that the ventral-side-down position dominates. They move on to test the genetic basis for righting behavior and, consistent with the regional specificity they observe, implicate sensory neuron expression of Hox genes Antennapedia and Abdominal-b in self-righting.

Strengths:

Strengths of this paper include the important question addressed and the elegant and innovative combination of methods, which led to clear insights into the sensory biology of self-righting, and that will be useful for others in the field. This is a substantial contribution to understanding how animals correct their body position. The manuscript is very clearly written and couched in interesting biology.

Limitations:

(1) The interpretation of functional experiments is complicated by the proposed excitatory and inhibitory roles of dorsal and ventral sensory neuron activity, respectively. So, while silencing of an excitatory (dorsal) element might slow righting, silencing of inputs that inhibit righting could speed the behavior. Silencing them together, as is done here, could nullify or mask important D-V-specific roles. Selective manipulation of cells along the D-V axis could help address this caveat.

(2) Prior studies from the authors implicated daIV neurons in the righting response. One of the main advances of the current manuscript is the clever demonstration of region-specific roles of sensory input. However, this is only confirmed with a general md driver, 190(2)80, and not with the subset-specific Gal4, so it is not clear if daIV sensory neurons are also acting in a regionally specific manner along the A-P axis.

(3) The manuscript is narrowly focused on sensory neurons that initiate righting, which limits the advance given the known roles for daIV neurons in righting. With the suite of innovative new tools, there is a missed opportunity to gain a more general understanding of how sensory neurons contribute to the righting response, including promoting and inhibiting righting in different regions of the larva, as well as aspects of proprioceptive sensing that could be necessary for righting and account for some of the observed effects of 109(2)80.

(4) Although the authors observe an influence of Hox genes in righting, the possible mechanisms are not pursued, resulting in an unsatisfying conclusion that these genes are somehow involved in a certain region-specific behavior by their region-specific expression. Are the cells properly maintained upon knockdown? Are axon or dendrite morphologies of the cells disrupted upon knockdown?

(5) There could be many reasons for delays in righting behavior in the various manipulations, including ineffective sensory 'triggering', incoherent muscle contraction patterns, initiation of inappropriate behaviors that interfere with righting sequencing, and deficits in sensing body position. The authors show that delays in righting upon silencing of 109(2)80 are caused by a switch to head casting behavior. Is this also the case for silencing of daIV neurons, Hox RNAi experiments, and silencing of CO neurons? Does daIII silencing reduce head casting to lead to faster righting responses?

(6) 109(2)80 is expressed in a number of central neurons, so at least some of the righting phenotype with this line could be due to silenced neurons in the CNS. This should at least be acknowledged in the manuscript and controlled for, if possible, with other Gal4 lines.

Other points

(7) Interpretation of roles of Hox gene expression and function in righting response should consider previous data on Hox expression and function in multidendritic neurons reported by Parrish et al. Genes and Development, 2007.

(8) The daIII silencing phenotype could conceivably be explained if these neurons act as the ventral inhibitors. Do the authors have evidence for or against such roles?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary

This work explores the relationship between body structure and behavior by studying self-righting in Drosophila larvae, a conserved behavior that restores proper orientation when turned upside-down. The authors first introduce a novel "water unlocking" approach to induce self-righting behavior in a controlled manner. Then, they develop a method for region-specific inhibition of sensory neurons, revealing that anterior, but not posterior, sensory neurons are essential for proper self-righting. Deep-learning-based behavioral analysis shows that anterior inhibition prolongs self-righting by shifting head movement patterns, indicating a behavioral switch rather than a mere delay. Additional genetic and molecular experiments demonstrate that specific Hox genes are necessary in sensory neurons, underscoring how developmental patterning genes shape region-specific sensory mechanisms that enable adaptive motor behaviors.

Strengths

The work of Roseby et al. does what it says on the tin. The experimental design is elegant, introducing innovative methods that will likely benefit the fly behavior community, and the results are robustly supported, without overstatement.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript is clearly written, flows smoothly, and features well-designed experiments. Nevertheless, there are areas that could be improved. Below is a list of suggestions and questions that, if addressed, would strengthen this work:

(1) Figure 1A illustrates the sequence of self-righting behavior in a first instar larva, while the experiments in the same figure are performed on third instar larvae. It would be helpful to clarify whether the sequence of self-righting movements differs between larval stages. Later on in the manuscript, experiments are conducted on first instar larvae without explanation for the choice of stage. Providing the rationale for using different larval stages would improve clarity.

(2) What was the genotype of the larvae used for the initial behavioral characterization (Figure 1)? It is assumed they were wild type or w1118, but this should be stated explicitly. This also raises the question of whether different wild-type strains exhibit this behavior consistently or if there is variability among them. Has this been tested?

(3) Could the observed slight leftward bias in movement angles of the tail (Figure 1I and S1) be related to the experimental setup, for example, the way water is added during the unlocking procedure? It would be helpful to include some speculation on whether the authors believe this preference to be endogenous or potentially a technical artifact.

(4) The genotype of the larvae used for Figure 2 experiments is missing.

(5) The experiment shown in Figure 2E-G reports the proportion of larvae exhibiting self-righting behavior. Is the self-righting speed comparable to that measured using the setup in Figure 1?

(6) Line 496 states: "However, the effect size was smaller than that for the entire multidendritic population, suggesting neurons other than the daIVs are important for self-righting". Although I agree that this is the more parsimonious hypothesis, an alternative interpretation of the observed phenomenon could be that the effect is not due to the involvement of other neuronal populations, but rather to stronger Gal4 expression in daIVs with the general driver compared to the specific one. Have the authors (or someone else) measured or compared the relative strengths of these two drivers?

(7) Is there a way to quantify or semi-quantify the expression of the Hox genes shown in Figure 6A? Also, was this experiment performed more than once (are there any technical replicates?), or was the amount of RNA material insufficient to allow replication?

(8) Since RNAi constructs can sometimes produce off-target effects, it is generally advisable to use more than one RNAi line per gene, targeting different regions. Given that Hox genes have been extensively studied, the RNAis used in Figure 6B are likely already characterized. If this were the case, it would strengthen the data to mention it explicitly and provide references documenting the specificity and knockdown efficiency of the Hox gene RNAis employed. For example, does Antp RNAi expression in the 109(2)80 domain decrease Antp protein levels in multidendritic anterior neurons in immunofluorescence assays?

(9) In addition to increasing self-righting time, does Antp downregulation also affect head casting behavior or head movement speed? A more detailed behavioral characterization of this genetic manipulation could help clarify how closely it relates to the behavioral phenotypes described in the previous experiments.

(10) Does down-regulation of Antp in the daIV domain also increase self-righting time?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The importance of RNA editing in producing protein diversity is a widespread process that can regulate how genes function in various cellular contexts. Despite the importance of the process, we still lack a thorough knowledge of the profile of RNA editing targets in known cells. Crane and colleagues take advantage of a recently acquired scRNAseq database for Drosophila type Ib and Is larval motoneurons and identify the RNA editing landscape that differs in those cells. They find both canonical (A --> I) and non-canonical sites and characterize the targets, their frequencies, and determine some of the "rules" that influence RNA editing. They compare their database with existing databases to determine a reliance on the most well-known deaminase enzyme ADAR, determine the activity-dependence of editing profiles, and identify editing sites that are specific to larval Drosophila, differing from adults. The authors also identify non-canonical editing sites, especially in the newly appreciated and identified regulator of synaptic plasticity, Arc1.

The paper represents a strong analysis of recently made RNAseq databases from their lab and takes a notable approach to integrate this with other databases that have been recently produced from other sources. One of the places where this manuscript succeeds is in a thorough approach to analyzing the considerable amount of data that is out there regarding RNAseq in these differing motoneurons, but also in comparing larvae to adults. This is a strong advance. It also enables the authors to begin to determine rules for RNA editing. From an analytical standpoint, this paper is a notable advance in seeking to provide a biological context for massive amounts of data in the field. Further, it addresses some biological aspects in comparing WT and adar mutants to assess one potential deaminase, addresses activity-dependence, and begins to reveal profiles of canonical and non-canonical editing.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The study uses single-neuron Patch-seq RNA sequencing in two subgroups of Drosophila larval motoneurons (1s and 1b) and identifies 316 high-confidence canonical mRNA edit sites, which primarily (55%) occur in the coding regions of the mRNAs (CDS). Most of the canonical mRNA edits in the CDS regions include neuronal and synaptic proteins such as Complexin, Cac, Para, Shab, Sh, Slo, EndoA, Syx1A, Rim, RBP, Vap33, and Lap, which are involved in neuronal excitability and synaptic transmission. Of the 316 identified canonical edit sites, 60 lead to missense RNAs in a range of proteins (nAChRalpha5, nAChRalpha6, nAChRbeta1, ATPalpha, Cacophony, Para, Bsk, Beag, RNase Z) that are likely to have an impact on the larval motoneurons' development and function. Only 27 sites show editing levels higher than 90% and a similar editing profile is observed between the 1s and 1b motoneurons when looking at the number of edit sites and the fraction of reads edited per cell, with only 26 RNA editing sites showing a significant difference in the editing level. The variability of edited and unedited mRNAs suggests stochastic editing. The two subsets of motoneurons show many noncanonical editing sites, which, however, are not enriched for neuron-specific genes, therefore causing more silent changes compared to canonical editing sites. Comparison of the mRNA editing sites and editing rate of the single neuron Patch-seq RNA sequencing dataset to three other RNAseq datasets, one from same stage larval motoneurons and two from adult heads nuclei, show positive correlations in editing frequencies of CDS edits between the patch-sec larval 1b + 1s MNs and all other three datasets, with stronger correlations for previously annotated edits and weaker correlations for unannotated edits. Several of the identified editing targets are only present in the single neuron Patch-seq RNA sequencing dataset, suggesting cell-type-specific or developmental-specific editing. Editing appears to be resistant to changes in neuronal activity as only a few sites show evidence of being activity-regulated.

Strengths:

The study employs GAL4 driver lines available in the Drosophila model to identify two subtypes of motoneurons with distinct biophysical and morphological features. In combination with single-neuron Patch-seq RNA sequencing, it provides a unique opportunity to identify RNA editing sites and rates specific to specific motoneuron subtypes. The RNA seq data is robustly analysed, and high-confidence mRNA edit sites of both canonical and noncanonical RNA editing are identified.

The mRNA editing sites identified from the single neuron Patch-seq RNA sequencing data are compared to editing sites identified across other RNAseq datasets collected from animals at similar or different developmental stages, allowing for the identification of editing sites that are common to all or specific to a single dataset.

Weaknesses:

Although the analysed motoneurons come from two distinct subtypes, it is unclear from how many Drosophila larvae the motoneurons were collected and from which specific regions along the ventral nerve cord (VNC). Therefore, the study does not consider possible differences in editing rate between samples from different larvae that could be in different active states or neurons located at different regions of the VNC, which would receive inputs from slightly different neuronal networks.

The RNA samples include RNAs located both in the nucleus and the cytoplasm, introducing a potential compartmental mismatch between the RNA and the enzymes mediating the editing, which could influence editing rate. Similarly, the age of the RNAs undergoing editing is unknown, which may influence the measured editing rates.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The study consists of extensive computational analyses of their previously released Patch-seq data on single MN1-Ib and MNISN-Is neurons. The authors demonstrate the diversity of A>I editing events at single-cell resolution in two different neuronal cell types, identifying numerous A>I editing events that vary in their proportion, including those that cause missense mutations in conserved amino acids. They also consider "noncanonical" edits, such as C>T and G>A, and integrate publicly available data to support these analyses.

In general, the study contains a valuable resource to assess RNA editing in single neurons and opens several questions regarding the diversity and functional implications of RNA editing at single-cell resolution. The conclusions from the study are generally supported by their data; however, the study is currently based on computational predictions and would therefore benefit from experimentation to support their hypotheses and demonstrate the effects of the editing events identified on neuronal function and phenotype.

Strengths:

The study uses samples that are technically difficult to prepare to assess cell-type-specific RNA editing events in a natural model. The study also uses public data from different developmental stages that demonstrate the importance of considering cell type and developmental stage-specific RNA regulation. These critical factors, particularly that of developmental timing, are often overlooked in mechanistic studies.

Extensive computational analysis, using public pipelines, suitable filtering criteria, and accessible custom code, identifies a number of RNA editing events that have the potential to impact conserved amino acids and have subsequent effects on protein function. These observations are supported through the integration of several public data sets to investigate the occurrence of the edits in other data sets, with many identified across multiple data sets. This approach allowed the identification of a number of novel A>I edits, some of which appear to be specific to this study, suggesting cell/developmental specificity, whilst others are present in the public data sets but went unannotated.

The study also considers the role of Adar in the generation of A>I edits, as would be expected, by assessing the effect of Adar expression on editing rates using public data from adar mutant tissue to demonstrate that the edits conserved between experiments are mainly Adar-sensitive. This would be stronger if the authors also performed Patch-seq experiments in adar mutants to increase confidence in the identified edit sites.

Weaknesses:

Whilst the study makes interesting observations using advanced computational approaches, it does not demonstrate the functional implications of the observed editing events. The functional impact of the edits is inferred from either the nature of the change to the coding sequence and the amino acid conservation, or through integration of other data sets. Although these could indeed imply function, further experimentation would be required to confirm such as using their Alphafold models to predict any changes in structure. This limitation is acknowledged by the authors, but the overall strength of the interpretation of the analysis could be softened to represent this.

The study uses public data from more diverse cellular populations to confirm the role of Adar in introducing the A>I edits. Whilst this is convincing, the ideal comparison to support the mechanism behind the identified edits would be to perform patch-seq experiments on 1b or 1s neurons from adar mutants. However, although this should be considered when interpreting the data, these experiments would be a large amount of work and beyond the scope of the paper.

By focusing on the potential impact of editing events that cause missense mutations in the CDS, the study may overlook the importance of edits in noncoding regions, which may impact miRNA or RNA-binding protein target sites. Further, the statement that noncanonical edits and those that induce silent mutations are likely to be less impactful is very broad and should be reconsidered. This is particularly the case when suggesting that silent mutations may not impact the biology. Given the importance of codon usage in translational fidelity, it is possible that silent mutations induced by either A>I or noncanonical editing in the CDS impact translation efficiency. Indeed, this could have a greater impact on protein production and transcript levels than a single amino acid change alone.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Hoon Cho et al. present a novel investigation into the role of PexRAP, an intermediary in ether lipid biosynthesis, in B cell function, particularly during the Germinal Center (GC) reaction. The authors profile lipid composition in activated B cells both in vitro and in vivo, revealing the significance of PexRAP. Using a combination of animal models and imaging mass spectrometry, they demonstrate that PexRAP is specifically required in B cells. They further establish that its activity is critical upon antigen encounter, shaping B cell survival during the GC reaction.

Mechanistically, they show that ether lipid synthesis is necessary to modulate reactive oxygen species (ROS) levels and prevent membrane peroxidation.

Highlights of the Manuscript:

The authors perform exhaustive imaging mass spectrometry (IMS) analyses of B cells, including GC B cells, to explore ether lipid metabolism during the humoral response. This approach is particularly noteworthy given the challenge of limited cell availability in GC reactions, which often hampers metabolomic studies. IMS proves to be a valuable tool in overcoming this limitation, allowing detailed exploration of GC metabolism.

The data presented is highly relevant, especially in light of recent studies suggesting a pivotal role for lipid metabolism in GC B cells. While these studies primarily focus on mitochondrial function, this manuscript uniquely investigates peroxisomes, which are linked to mitochondria and contribute to fatty acid oxidation (FAO). By extending the study of lipid metabolism beyond mitochondria to include peroxisomes, the authors add a critical dimension to our understanding of B cell biology.

Additionally, the metabolic plasticity of B cells poses challenges for studying metabolism, as genetic deletions from the beginning of B cell development often result in compensatory adaptations. To address this, the authors employ an acute loss-of-function approach using two conditional, cell-type-specific gene inactivation mouse models: one targeting B cells after the establishment of a pre-immune B cell population (Dhrs7b^f/f, huCD20-CreERT2) and the other during the GC reaction (Dhrs7b^f/f; S1pr2-CreERT2). This strategy is elegant and well-suited to studying the role of metabolism in B cell activation.

Overall, this manuscript is a significant contribution to the field, providing robust evidence for the fundamental role of lipid metabolism during the GC reaction and unveiling a novel function for peroxisomes in B cells.

Comments on revisions:

There are still some discrepancies in gating strategies. In Fig. 7B legend (lines 1082-1083), they show representative flow plots of GL7+ CD95+ GC B cells among viable B cells, so it is not clear if they are IgDneg, as the rest of the GC B cells aforementioned in the text.

Western blot confirmation: We understand the limitations the authors enumerate. Perhaps an RT-qPCR analysis of the Dhrs7b gene in sorted GC B cells from the S1PR2-CreERT2 model could be feasible, as it requires a smaller number of cells. In any case, we agree with the authors that the results obtained using the huCD20-CreERT2 model are consistent with those from the S1PR2-CreERT2 model, which adds credibility to the findings and supports the conclusion that GC B cells in the S1PR2-CreERT2 model are indeed deficient in PexRAP

Lines 222-226: We believe the correct figure is 4B, whereas the text refers to 4C.

Supplementary Figure 1 (line 1147): The figure title suggests that the data on T-cell numbers are from mice in a steady state. However, the legend indicates that the mice were immunized, which means the data are not from steady-state conditions.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Cho et al. investigate the role of ether lipid biosynthesis in B cell biology, particularly focusing on GC B cell, by inducible deletion of PexRAP, an enzyme responsible for the synthesis of ether lipids.

Strengths:

Overall, the data are well-presented, the paper is well-written and provides valuable mechanistic insights into the importance of PexRAP enzyme in GC B cell proliferation.

Weaknesses:

More detailed mechanisms of the impaired GC B cell proliferation by PexRAP deficiency remain to be further investigated. In minor part, there are issues for the interpretation of the data which might cause confusions by readers.

Comments on revisions:

The authors improved the manuscript appropriately according to my comments.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors use the theory of planned behavior to understand whether or not intentions to use sex as a biological variable (SABV), as well as attitude (value), subjective norm (social pressure), and behavioral control (ability to conduct behavior), across scientists at a pharmacological conference. They also used an intervention (workshop) to determine the value of this workshop in changing perceptions and misconceptions. Attempts to understand the knowledge gaps were made.

Strengths:

The use of SABV is limited in terms of researchers using sex in the analysis as a variable of interest in the models (and not a variable to control). To understand how we can improve on the number of researchers examining the data with sex in the analyses, it is vital we understand the pressure points that researchers consider in their work. The authors identify likely culprits in their analyses. The authors also test an intervention (workshop) to address the main bias or impediments for researchers' use of sex in their analyses.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The investigators tested a workshop intervention to improve knowledge and decrease misconceptions about sex inclusive research.

Strengths:

The investigators included control groups and replicated the study in a second population of scientists. The results appear to be well substantiated. Figures are easy to understand.

Weaknesses: None noted

Comments on revised version:

The authors have responded appropriately to all of my concerns.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript aims to determine cultural biases and misconceptions in inclusive sex research and evaluate the efficacy of interventions to improve knowledge and shift perceptions to decrease perceived barriers for including both sexes in basic research.

Overall, this study demonstrates that despite the intention to include both sexes and a general belief in the importance of doing so, relatively few people routinely include both sexes. Further, the perceptions of barriers to doing so are high, including misconceptions surrounding sample size, disaggregation, and variability of females. There was also a substantial number of individuals without the statistical knowledge to appropriately analyze data in studies inclusive of sex. Interventions increased knowledge and decreased perception of barriers.

Strengths:

(1) This manuscript provides evidence for the efficacy of interventions for changing attitudes and perceptions of research.

(2) This manuscript also provides a training manual for expanding this intervention to broader groups of researchers.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Asthenospermia, characterized by reduced sperm motility, is one of the major causes of male infertility. The "9 + 2" arranged MTs and over 200 associated proteins constitute the axoneme, the molecular machine for flagellar and ciliary motility. Understanding the physiological functions of axonemal proteins, particularly their links to male infertility, could help uncover the genetic causes of asthenospermia and improve its clinical diagnosis and management. In this study, the authors generated Ankrd5 null mice and found that ANKRD5-/- males exhibited reduced sperm motility and infertility. Using FLAG-tagged ANKRD5 mice, mass spectrometry, and immunoprecipitation (IP) analyses, they confirmed that ANKRD5 is localized within the N-DRC, a critical protein complex for normal flagellar motility. However, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and cryo-electron tomography (cryo-ET) of sperm from Ankrd5 null mice did not reveal significant structural abnormalities.

Strengths:

The phenotypes observed in ANKRD5-/- mice, including reduced sperm motility and male infertility, are conversing. The authors demonstrated that ANKRD5 is an N-DRC protein that interacts with TCTE1 and DRC4. Most of the experiments are well-designed and executed.

Comments on revised version:

My concerns have been addressed.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript investigates the role of ANKRD5 (ANKEF1) as a component of the N-DRC complex in sperm motility and male fertility. Using Ankrd5 knockout mice, the study demonstrates that ANKRD5 is essential for sperm motility and identifies its interaction with N-DRC components through IP-mass spectrometry and cryo-ET. The results provide insights into ANKRD5's function, highlighting its potential involvement in axoneme stability and sperm energy metabolism.

Strengths:

The authors employ a wide range of techniques, including gene knockout models, proteomics, cryo-ET, and immunoprecipitation, to explore ANKRD5's role in sperm biology.

Comments on revised version:

The authors have already addressed the issues I am concerned about.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

By expressing protein in a strain that is unable to phosphorylate KdpFABC, the authors achieve structures of the active wildtype protein, capturing a new intermediate state, in which the terminal phosphoryl group of ATP has been transferred to a nearby Asp, and ADP remains covalently bound. The manuscript examines the coupling of potassium transport and ATP hydrolysis by a comprehensive set of mutants. The most interesting proposal revolves around the proposed binding site for K+ as it exits the channel near T75. Nearby mutations to charged residues cause interesting phenotypes, such as constitutive uncoupled ATPase activity, leading to a model in which lysine residues can occupy/compete with K+ for binding sites along the transport pathway.

Strengths:

The high resolution (2.1 Å) of the current structure is impressive, and allows many new densities in the potassium transport pathway to be resolved. The authors are judicious about assigning these as potassium ions or water molecules, and explain their structural interpretations clearly. In addition to the nice structural work, the mechanistic work is thorough. A series of thoughtful experiments involving ATP hydrolysis/transport coupling under various pH and potassium concentrations bolsters the structural interpretations and lends convincing support to the mechanistic proposal. The SSME experiments are rigorous.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The study presents significant findings on the role of mitochondrial depletion in axons and its impact on neuronal proteostasis. It effectively demonstrates how the loss of axonal mitochondria and elevated levels of eIF2β contribute to autophagy collapse and neuronal dysfunction. The use of Drosophila as a model organism and comprehensive proteome analysis adds robustness to the findings.

In this revision, the authors have responded thoughtfully to previous concerns. In particular, they have addressed the need for a quantitative analysis of age-dependent changes in eIF2β and eIF2α. By adding western blot data from multiple time points (7 to 63 days), they show that eIF2β levels gradually increase until middle age, then decline. In milton knockdown flies, this pattern appears shifted, supporting the idea that mitochondrial defects may accelerate aging-related molecular changes. These additions clarify the temporal dynamics of eIF2β and improve the overall interpretation.

Other updates include appropriate corrections to figures and quantification methods. The authors have also revised some of their earlier mechanistic claims, presenting a more cautious interpretation of their findings.

Overall, this work provides new insights into how mitochondrial transport defects may influence aging-related proteostasis through eIF2β. The manuscript is now more convincing, and the revisions address the main points raised earlier. I find the updated version much improved.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In the manuscript, the authors aimed to elucidate the molecular mechanism that explains neurodegeneration caused by the depletion of axonal mitochondria. In Drosophila, starting with siRNA depletion of milton and Miro, the authors attempted to demonstrate that the depletion of axonal mitochondria induces the defect in autophagy. From proteome analyses, the authors hypothesized that autophagy is impacted by the abundance of eIF2β and the phosphorylation of eIF2α. The authors followed up the proteome analyses by testing the effects of eIF2β overexpression and depletion on autophagy. With the results from those experiments, the authors proposed a novel role of eIF2β in proteostasis that underlies neurodegeneration derived from the depletion of axonal mitochondria, which they suggest accelerates age-dependent changes rather than increasing their magnitude.

Strong caution is necessary regarding the interpretation of translational regulation resulting from the milton KD. The effect of milton KD on translation appears subtle, if present at all, in the puromycin incorporation experiments in both the initial and revised versions. Additionally, the polysome profiling data in the revised manuscript lack the clear resolution for ribosomal subunits, monosomes, and polysomes that is typically expected in publications.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The aim of this study was a better understanding of the reproductive life history of acoels. The acoel Hofstenia miamia, an emerging model organism, is investigated; the authors nevertheless acknowledge and address the high variability in reproductive morphology and strategies within Acoela.

The morphology of male and female reproductive organs in these hermaphroditic worms is characterised through stereo microscopy, immunohistochemistry, histology, and fluorescent in situ hybridization. The findings confirm and better detail historical descriptions. A novelty in the field is the in situ hybridization experiments, which link already published single-cell sequencing data to the worms' morphology. An interesting finding, though not further discussed by the authors, is that the known germline markers cgnl1-2 and Piwi-1 are only localized in the ovaries and not in the testes.

The work also clarifies the timing and order of appearance of reproductive organs during development and regeneration, as well as the changes upon de-growth. It shows an association of reproductive organ growth to whole body size, which will be surely taken into account and further explored in future acoel studies. This is also the first instance of non-anecdotal degrowth upon starvation in H. miamia (and to my knowledge in acoels, except recorded weight upon starvation in Convolutriloba retrogemma [1]).

Egg laying through the mouth is described in H. miamia for the first time as well as the worms' behavior in egg laying, i.e. choosing the tanks' walls rather than its floor, laying eggs in clutches, and delaying egg-laying during food deprivation. Self-fertilization is also reported for the first time.

The main strength of this study is that it expands previous knowledge on the reproductive life history traits in H. miamia and it lays the foundation for future studies on how these traits are affected by various factors, as well as for comparative studies within acoels. As highlighted above, many phenomena are addressed in a rigorous and/or quantitative way for the first time. This can be considered the start of a novel approach to reproductive studies in acoels, as the authors suggest in the conclusion. It can be also interpreted as a testimony of how an established model system can benefit the study of an understudied animal group.

The main weakness of the work is the lack of convincing explanations on the dynamics of self-fertilization, sperm storage, and movement of oocytes from the ovaries to the central cavity and subsequently to the pharynx. These questions are also raised by the authors themselves in the discussion. Another weakness (or rather missing potential strength) is the limited focus on genes. Given the presence of the single-cell sequencing atlas and established methods for in situ hybridization and even transgenesis in H. miamia, this model provides a unique opportunity to investigate germline genes in acoels and their role in development, regeneration, and degrowth. It should also be noted that employing Transmission Electron Microscopy would have enabled a more detailed comparison with other acoels, since ultrastructural studies of reproductive organs have been published for other species (cfr e.g. [2],[3],[4]). This is especially true for a better understanding of the relation between sperm axoneme and flagellum (mentioned in the Results section), as well as of sexual conflict (mentioned in the Discussion).

(1) Shannon, Thomas. 2007. 'Photosmoregulation: Evidence of Host Behavioral Photoregulation of an Algal Endosymbiont by the Acoel Convolutriloba Retrogemma as a Means of Non-Metabolic Osmoregulation'. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia [Dissertation].

(2) Zabotin, Ya. I., and A. I. Golubev. 2014. 'Ultrastructure of Oocytes and Female Copulatory Organs of Acoela'. Biology Bulletin 41 (9): 722-35.

(3) Achatz, Johannes Georg, Matthew Hooge, Andreas Wallberg, Ulf Jondelius, and Seth Tyler. 2010. 'Systematic Revision of Acoels with 9+0 Sperm Ultrastructure (Convolutida) and the Influence of Sexual Conflict on Morphology'.

(4) Petrov, Anatoly, Matthew Hooge, and Seth Tyler. 2006. 'Comparative Morphology of the Bursal Nozzles in Acoels (Acoela, Acoelomorpha)'. Journal of Morphology 267 (5): 634-48.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

While the phylogenetic position of Acoels (and Xenacoelomorpha) remains still debated, investigations of various representative species are critical to understanding their overall biology.

Hofstenia is an Acoels species that can be maintained in laboratory conditions and for which several critical techniques are available. The current manuscript provides a comprehensive and widely descriptive investigation of the productive system of Hofstenia miamia.

Strengths:

(1) Xenacoelomorpha is a wide group of animals comprising three major clades and several hundred species, yet they are widely understudied. A comprehensive state-of-the-art analysis on the reprodutive system of Hofstenia as representative is thus highly relevant.

(2) The investigations are overall very thorough, well documented, and nicely visualised in an array of figures. In some way, I particularly enjoyed seeing data displayed in a visually appealing quantitative or semi-quantitative fashion.

(3) The data provided is diverse and rich. For instance, the behavioral investigations open up new avenues for further in-depth projects.

Weaknesses:

While the analyses are extensive, they appear in some way a little uni-dimensional. For instance the two markers used were characterized in a recent scRNAseq data-set of the Srivastava lab. One might have expected slightly deeper molecular analyses. Along the same line, particularly the modes of spermatogenesis or oogenesis have not been further analysed, nor the proposed mode of sperm-storage.

[Editors' note: In their response, the authors have suitably addressed these concerns or have satisfactorily explained the challenges in addressing them.]

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This study investigates the contribution of renal dysfunction to systemic and neuronal decline in Drosophila models of Gaucher disease (Gba1b mutants) and Parkinson's disease (Parkin mutants). While lysosomal and mitochondrial pathways are known drivers in these disorders, the role of kidney-like tissues in disease progression has not been well explored.

The authors use Drosophila melanogaster to model renal dysfunction, focusing on Malpighian tubules (analogous to renal tubules) and nephrocytes (analogous to podocytes). They employ genetic mutants, tissue-specific rescues, imaging of renal architecture, redox probes, functional assays, nephrocyte dextran uptake, and lifespan analyses. They also test genetic antioxidant interventions and pharmacological treatment.

The main findings show that renal pathology is progressive in Gba1b mutants, marked by Malpighian tubule disorganization, stellate cell loss, lipid accumulation, impaired water and ion regulation, and reduced nephrocyte filtration. A central theme is redox dyshomeostasis, reflected in whole-fly GSH reduction, paradoxical mitochondrial versus cytosolic redox shifts, reduced ROS signals, increased lipid peroxidation, and peroxisomal impairment. Antioxidant manipulations (Nrf2, Sod1/2, CatA, and ascorbic acid) consistently worsen outcomes, suggesting a fragile redox balance rather than classical oxidative stress. Parkin mutants also develop renal degeneration, with impaired mitophagy and complete nephrocyte dysfunction by 28 days, but their mechanism diverges from that of Gba1b. Rapamycin treatment rescues several renal phenotypes in Gba1b but not in Parkin, highlighting distinct disease pathways.

The authors propose that renal dysfunction is a central disease-modifying feature of Gaucher and Parkinson's disease models, driven by redox imbalance and differential engagement of lysosomal (Gba1b) vs. mitochondrial (Parkin) mechanisms. They suggest that maintaining renal health and redox balance may represent therapeutic opportunities and biomarkers in neurodegenerative disease. This is a significant manuscript that reframes GD/PD pathology through the lens of renal health. The data are extensive. However, several claims are ahead of the evidence and should be supported with additional experiments.

Major Comments:

(1) The abstract frames progressive renal dysfunction as a "central, disease-modifying feature" in both Gba1b and Parkin models, with systemic consequences including water retention, ionic hypersensitivity, and worsened neuro phenotypes. While the data demonstrates renal degeneration and associated physiological stress, the causal contribution of renal defects versus broader organismal frailty is not fully disentangled. Please consider adding causal experiments (e.g., temporally restricted renal rescue/knockdown) to directly establish kidney-specific contributions.

(2) The manuscript shows multiple redox abnormalities in Gba1b mutants (reduced whole fly GSH, paradoxical mitochondrial reduction with cytosolic oxidation, decreased DHE, increased lipid peroxidation, and reduced peroxisome density/Sod1 mislocalization). These findings support a state of redox imbalance, but the driving mechanism remains broad in the current form. It is unclear if the dominant driver is impaired glutathione handling or peroxisomal antioxidant/β-oxidation deficits or lipid peroxidation-driven toxicity, or reduced metabolic flux/ETC activity. I suggest adding targeted readouts to narrow the mechanism.

(3) The observation that broad antioxidant manipulations (Nrf2 overexpression in tubules, Sod1/Sod2/CatA overexpression, and ascorbic acid supplementation) consistently shorten lifespan or exacerbate phenotypes in Gba1b mutants is striking and supports the idea of redox fragility. However, these interventions are broad. Nrf2 influences proteostasis and metabolism beyond redox regulation, and Sod1/Sod2/CatA may affect multiple cellular compartments. In the absence of dose-response testing or controls for potential off-target effects, the interpretation that these outcomes specifically reflect redox dyshomeostasis feels ahead of the data. I suggest incorporating narrower interpretations (e.g., targeting lipid peroxidation directly) to clarify which redox axis is driving the vulnerability.

(4) This manuscript concludes that nephrocyte dysfunction does not exacerbate brain pathology. This inference currently rests on a limited set of readouts: dextran uptake and hemolymph protein as renal markers, lifespan as a systemic measure, and two brain endpoints (LysoTracker staining and FK2 polyubiquitin accumulation). While these data suggest that nephrocyte loss alone does not amplify lysosomal or ubiquitin stress, they may not fully capture neuronal function and vulnerability. To strengthen this conclusion, the authors could consider adding functional or behavioral assays (e.g., locomotor performance)

(5) The manuscript does a strong job of contrasting Parkin and Gba1b mutants, showing impaired mitophagy in Malpighian tubules, complete nephrocyte dysfunction by day 28, FRUMS clearance defects, and partial rescue with tubule-specific Parkin re-expression. These findings clearly separate mitochondrial quality control defects from the lysosomal axis of Gba1b. However, the mechanistic contrast remains incomplete. Many of the redox and peroxisomal assays are only presented for Gba1b. Including matched readouts across both models (e.g., lipid peroxidation, peroxisome density/function, Grx1-roGFP2 compartmental redox status) would make the comparison more balanced and strengthen the conclusion that these represent distinct pathogenic routes.

(6) Rapamycin treatment is shown to rescue several renal phenotypes in Gba1b mutants (water retention, RSC proliferation, FRUMS clearance, lipid peroxidation) but not in Parkin, and mitophagy is not restored in Gba1b. This provides strong evidence that the two models engage distinct pathogenic pathways. However, the therapeutic interpretation feels somewhat overstated. Human relevance should be framed more cautiously, and the conclusions would be stronger with mechanistic markers of autophagy (e.g., Atg8a, Ref(2)p flux in Malpighian tubules) or with experiments varying dose, timing, and duration (short-course vs chronic rapamycin).

(7) Several systemic readouts used to support renal dysfunction (FRUMS clearance, salt stress survival) could also be influenced by general organismal frailty. To ensure these phenotypes are kidney-intrinsic, it would be helpful to include controls such as tissue-specific genetic rescue in Malpighian tubules or nephrocytes, or timing rescue interventions before overt systemic decline. This would strengthen the causal link between renal impairment and the observed systemic phenotypes.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In the present study, the authors tested renal function in Gba1b-/- flies and its possible effect on neurodegeneration. They showed that these flies exhibit progressive degeneration of the renal system, loss of water homeostasis, and ionic hypersensitivity. They documented reduced glomerular filtration capacity in their pericardial nephrocytes, together with cellular degeneration in microtubules, redox imbalance, and lipid accumulation. They also compared the Gba1b mutant flies to Parkin mutants and evaluated the effect of treatment with the mTOR inhibitor rapamycin. Restoration of renal structure and function was observed only in the Gba1b mutant flies, leading the authors to conclude that the mutants present different phenotypes due to lysosomal stress in Gba1b mutants versus mitochondrial stress in Parkin mutant flies.

Comments:

(1) The authors claim that: "renal system dysfunction negatively impacts both organismal and neuronal health in Gba1b-/- flies, including autophagic-lysosomal status in the brain." This statement implies that renal impairments drive neurodegeneration. However, there is no direct evidence provided linking renal defects to neurodegeneration in this model. It is worth noting that Gba1b-/- flies are a model for neuronopathic Gaucher disease (GD): they accumulate lipids in their brains and present with neurodegeneration and decreased survival, as shown by Kinghorn et al. (The Journal of Neuroscience, 2016, 36, 11654-11670) and by others, which the authors failed to mention (Davis et al., PLoS Genet. 2016, 12: e1005944; Cabasso et al., J Clin Med. 2019, 8:1420; Kawasaki et al., Gene, 2017, 614:49-55).

(2) The authors tested brain pathology in two experiments:

(a) To determine the consequences of abnormal nephrocyte function on brain health, they measured lysosomal area in the brain of Gba1b-/-, Klf15LOF, or stained for polyubiquitin. Klf15 is expressed in nephrocytes and is required for their differentiation. There was no additive effect on the increased lysosomal volume (Figure 3D) or polyubiquitin accumulation (Figure 3E) seen in Gba1b-/- fly brains, implying that loss of nephrocyte viability itself does not exacerbate brain pathology.

(b) The authors tested the consequences of overexpression of the antioxidant regulator Nrf2 in principal cells of the kidney on neuronal health in Gba1b-/- flies, using the c42-GAL4 driver. They claim that "This intervention led to a significant increase in lysosomal puncta number, as assessed by LysoTrackerTM staining (Figure 5D), and exacerbated protein dyshomeostasis, as indicated by polyubiquitin accumulation and increased levels of the ubiquitin-autophagosome trafficker Ref(2)p/p62 in Gba1b-/- fly brains (Figure 5E). Interestingly, Nrf2 overexpression had no significant effect on lysosomal area or ubiquitin puncta in control brains, demonstrating that the antioxidant response specifically in Gba1b-/- flies negatively impacts disease states in the brain and renal system."<br /> Notably, c42-GAL4 is a leaky driver, expressed in salivary glands, Malpighian tubules, and pericardial cells (Beyenbach et al., Am. J. Cell Physiol. 318: C1107-C1122, 2020). Expression in pericardial cells may affect heart function, which could explain deterioration in brain function.

Taken together, the contribution of renal dysfunction to brain health remains debatable.

Based on the above, I believe the title should be changed to: Redox Dyshomeostasis Links Renal and Neuronal Dysfunction in Drosophila Models of Gaucher disease. Such a title will reflect the results presented in the manuscript.

(3) The authors mention that Gba1b is not expressed in the renal system, which means that no renal phenotype can be attributed directly to any known GD pathology. They suggest that systemic factors such as circulating glycosphingolipids or loss of extracellular vesicle-mediated delivery of GCase may mediate renal toxicity. This raises a question about the validity of this model to test pathology in the fly kidney. According to Flybase, there is expression of Gba1b in renal structures of the fly.

(4) It is worth mentioning that renal defects are not commonly observed in patients with Gaucher disease. Relevant literature: Becker-Cohen et al., A Comprehensive Assessment of Renal Function in Patients With Gaucher Disease, J. Kidney Diseases, 2005, 46:837-844.

(5) In the discussion, the authors state: "Together, these findings establish renal degeneration as a driver of systemic decline in Drosophila models of GD and PD..." and go on to discuss a brain-kidney axis in PD. However, since this study investigates a GD model rather than a PD model, I recommend omitting this paragraph, as the connection to PD is speculative and not supported by the presented data.

(6) The claim: "If confirmed, our findings could inform new biomarker strategies and therapeutic targets for GBA1 mutation carriers and other at-risk groups. Maintaining renal health may represent a modifiable axis of intervention in neurodegenerative disease," extends beyond the scope of the experimental evidence. The authors should consider tempering this statement or providing supporting data.

(7) The conclusion, "we uncover a critical and previously overlooked role for the renal system in GD and PD pathogenesis," is too strong given the data presented. As no mechanistic link between renal dysfunction and neurodegeneration has been established, this claim should be moderated.

(8) The relevance of Parkin mutant flies is questionable, and this section could be removed from the manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Hull et al examine Drosophila mutants for the Gaucher's disease locus GBA1/Gba1b, a locus that, when heterozygous, is a risk factor for Parkinson's. Focusing on the Malpighian tubules and their function, they identify a breakdown of cell junctions, loss of haemolymph filtration, sensitivity to ionic imbalance, water retention, and loss of endocytic function in nephrocytes. There is also an imbalance in ROS levels between the cytoplasm and mitochondria, with reduced glutathione levels, rescue of which could not improve longevity. They observe some of the same phenotypes in mutants of Parkin, but treatment by upregulation of autophagy via rapamycin feeding could only rescue the Gba1b mutant and not the Parkin mutant.

Strengths:

The paper uses a range of cellular, genetic, and physiological analyses and manipulations to fully describe the renal dysfunction in the GBa1b animals. The picture developed has depth and detail; the data appears sound and thorough.

Weaknesses:

The paper relies mostly on the biallelic Gba1b mutant, which may reflect dysfunction in Gaucher's patients, though this has yet to be fully explored. The claims for the heterozygous allele and a role in Parkinson's is a little more tenuous, making assumptions that heterozygosity is a similar but milder phenotype than the full loss-of-function.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors used weighted ensemble enhanced sampling molecular dynamics (MD) to test the hypothesis that a double mutant of Abl favors the DFG-in state relative to the WT and therefore causes the drug resistance to imatinib.

Strengths:

The authors employed three novel progress coordinates to sample the DFG flip of ABl. The hypothesis regarding the double mutant's drug resistance is novel.

Weaknesses:

The study contains many uncertain aspects. As such, major conclusions do not appear to be supported.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed some of my concerns, but these concerns remain to be addressed:

(1) Definition of the DFG conformation (in vs out). The authors specified their definition in the revised manuscript, but it has not been validated for a large number of kinases to distinguish between the two states. Thus, I recommend that the authors calculate the FES using another definition (see Tsai et al, JACS 2019, 141, 15092−15101) to confirm their findings. This FES can be included in the SI.

(2) There is no comparison to previous computational work. I would like to see a comparison between the authors' finding of the DFG-in to DFG-out transition and that described in Tsai et al, JACS 2019, 141, 15092−15101.

(3) My previous comment: "The study is not very rigorous. The major conclusions do not appear to be supported. The claim that it is the first unbiased simulation to observe DFG flip is not true. For example, Hanson, Chodera et al (Cell Chem Biol 2019), Paul, Roux et al (JCTC 2020), and Tsai, Shen et al (JACS 2019) have also observed the DFG flip." has not been adequately addressed.

The newly added paragraph clearly does not address my original comment.

"Through our work, we have simulated an ensemble of DFG flip pathways in a wild-type kinase and its variants with atomistic resolution and without the use of biasing forces, also reporting the effects of inhibitor-resistant mutations in the broader context of kinase inactivation likelihood with such level of detail. "

(4) My previous comment, "Setting the DFG-Asp to the protonated state is not justified, because in the DFG-in state, the DFG-Asp is clearly deprotonated." has not been addressed.

In the authors's response stated:

According to previous publications, DFG-Asp is frequently protonated in the DFG-in state of Abl1 kinase. For instance, as quoted from Hanson, Chodera, et al., Cell Chem Bio (2019), "Consistent with previous simulations on the DFG-Asp-out/in interconversion of Abl kinase we only observe the DFG flip with protonated Asp747 ( Shan et al., 2009 ). We showed previously that the pKa for the DFG-Asp in Abl is elevated at 6.5."

Since the pKa of DFG-Asp is 6.5, it should be deprotonated at the physiological pH 7.5. Thus, the fact that the authors used protonated DFG-Asp contradicts this. I am not requesting the authors to redo the entire simulations, but they need to acknowledge this discrepancy and add a brief discussion. See a constant pH study that demonstrates the protonation state population shift for DFG-Asp as the DFG transitions from in to out state (see Tsai et al, JACS 2019, 141, 15092−15101).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a well-written manuscript on the mechanism of the DFG flip in kinases. This conformational change is important for the toggling of kinases between active (DFG-in) and inactive (DFG-out) states. The relative probabilities of these two states are also an important determinant of the affinity of inhibitors for a kinase. However, it is an extremely slow/rare conformational change, making it difficult to capture in simulations. The authors show that weighted ensemble simulations can capture the DFG flip and then delve into the mechanism of this conformational change and the effects of mutations.

Strengths:

The DFG flip is very hard to capture in simulations. Showing that this can be done with relatively little simulation by using enhanced sampling is a valuable contribution. The manuscript gives a nice description of the background for non-experts.

Weaknesses:

The anecdotal approach to presenting the results is disappointing. Molecular processes are stochastic and the authors have expertise in describing such processes. However, they chose to put most statistical analysis in the SI. The main text instead describes the order of events in single "representative" trajectories. The main text makes it sound like these were most selected as they were continuous trajectories from the weighted ensemble simulations. It is preferable to have a description of the highest probability pathway(s) with some quantification of how probable they are. That would give the reader a clear sense of how representative the events described are.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors used weighted ensemble enhanced sampling molecular dynamics (MD) to test the hypothesis that a double mutant of Abl favors the DFG-in state relative to the WT and therefore causes the drug resistance to imatinib.

Strengths:

The authors employed the state-of-the-art weighted ensemble MD simulations with three novel progress coordinates to explore the conformational changes the DFG motif of Abl kinase. The hypothesis regarding the double mutant's drug resistance is novel.

Weaknesses:

The study contains many uncertain aspects. A major revision is needed to strengthen the support for the conclusions.

(1) Specifically, the authors need to define the DFG conformation using criteria accepted in the field, for example, see https://klifs.net/index.php.

(2) Convergence needs to be demonstrated for estimating the population difference between different conformational states.

(3) The DFG flip needs to be sampled several times to establish free energy difference.

(4) The free energy plots do not appear to show an intermediate state as claimed.

(5) The trajectory length of 7 ns in both Figure 2 and Figure 4 needs to be verified, as it is extremely short for a DFG flip that has a high free energy barrier.

(6) The free energy scale (100 kT) appears to be one order of magnitude too large.

(7) Setting the DFG-Asp to the protonated state is not justified, because in the DFG-in state, the DFG-Asp is clearly deprotonated.

(8) Finally, the authors should discuss their work in the context of the enormous progress made in theoretical studies and mechanistic understanding of the conformational landscape of protein kinases in the last two decades, particularly with regard to the DFG flip.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a well-written manuscript on the mechanism of the DFG flip in kinases. This conformational change is important for the toggling of kinases between active (DFG-in) and inactive (DFG-out) states. The relative probabilities of these two states are also an important determinant of the affinity of inhibitors for a kinase. However, it is an extremely slow/rare conformational change, making it difficult to capture in simulations. The authors show that weighted ensemble simulations can capture the DFG flip and then delve into the mechanism of this conformational change and the effects of mutations.

Strengths:

The DFG flip is very hard to capture in simulations. Showing that this can be done with relatively little simulation by using enhanced sampling is a valuable contribution. The manuscript gives a nice description of the background for non-experts.

Weaknesses:

I was disappointed by the anecdotal approach to presenting the results. Molecular processes are stochastic and the authors have expertise in describing such processes. However, they chose to put most statistical analysis in the SI. The main text instead describes the order of events in single "representative" trajectories. The main text makes it sound like these were most selected as they were continuous trajectories from the weighted ensemble simulations. I would much rather hear a description of the highest probability pathway(s) with some quantification of how probable they are. That would give the reader a clear sense of how representative the events described are.

I appreciated the discussion of the strengths/weaknesses of weighted ensemble simulations. Am I correct that this method doesn't do anything to explicitly enhance sampling along orthogonal degrees of freedom? Maybe a point worth mentioning if so.

I don't understand Figure 3C. Could the authors instead show structures corresponding to each of the states in 3B, and maybe also a representative structure for pathways 1 and 2?

Why introduce S1 and DFG-inter? And why suppose that DFG-inter is what corresponds to the excited state seen by NMR?

It would be nice to have error bars on the populations reported in Figure 3.

I'm confused by the attempt to relate the relative probabilities of states to the 32 kca/mol barrier previously reported between the states. The barrier height should be related to the probability of a transition. The DFG-out state could be equiprobable with the DFG-in state and still have a 32 kcal/mol barrier separating them.

How do the relative probabilities of the DFG-in/out states compare to experiments, like NMR?

Do the staggered and concerted DFG flip pathways mentioned correspond to pathways 1 and 2 in Figure 3B, or is that a concept from previous literature?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Domínguez-Rodrigo and colleagues make a moderately convincing case for habitual elephant butchery by Early Pleistocene hominins at Olduvai Gorge (Tanzania), ca. 1.8-1.7 million years ago. They present this at the site scale (the EAK locality, which they excavated), as well as across the penecontemporaneous landscape, analyzing a series of findspots that contain stone tools and large-mammal bones. The latter are primarily elephants, but giraffids and bovids were also butchered in a few localities. The authors claim that this is the earliest well-documented evidence for elephant butchery; doing so requires debunking other purported cases of elephant butchery in the literature, or in one case, reinterpreting elephant bone manipulation as being nutritional (fracturing to obtain marrow) rather than technological (to make bone tools). The authors' critical discussion of these cases may not be consensual, but it surely advances the scientific discourse. The authors conclude by suggesting that an evolutionary threshold was achieved at ca. 1.8 ma, whereby regular elephant consumption rich in fats and perhaps food surplus, more advanced extractive technology (the Acheulian toolkit), and larger human group size had coincided.

The fieldwork and spatial statistics methods are presented in detail and are solid and helpful, especially the excellent description (all too rare in zooarchaeology papers) of bone conservation and preservation procedures. However, the methods of the zooarchaeological and taphonomic analysis - the core of the study - are peculiarly missing. Some of these are explained along the manuscript, but not in a standard Methods paragraph with suitable references and an explicit account of how the authors recorded bone-surface modifications and the mode of bone fragmentation. This seems more of a technical omission that can be easily fixed than a true shortcoming of the study. The results are detailed and clearly presented.

By and large, the authors achieved their aims, showcasing recurring elephant butchery in 1.8-1.7 million-year-old archaeological contexts. Nevertheless, some ambiguity surrounds the evolutionary significance part. The authors emphasize the temporal and spatial correlation of (1) elephant butchery, (2) Acheulian toolkits, and (3) larger sites, but do not actually discuss how these elements may be causally related. Is it not possible that larger group size or the adoption of Acheulian technology have nothing to do with megafaunal exploitation? Alternative hypotheses exist, and at least, the authors should try to defend the causation, not just put forward the correlation. The only exception is briefly mentioning food surplus as a "significant advantage", but how exactly, in the absence of food-preservation technologies? Moreover, in a landscape full of aggressive scavengers, such excess carcass parts may become a death trap for hominins, not an advantage. I do think that demonstrating habitual butchery bears very significant implications for human evolution, but more effort should be invested in explaining how this might have worked.

Overall, this is an interesting manuscript of broad interest that presents original data and interpretations from the Early Pleistocene archaeology of Olduvai Gorge. These observations and the authors' critical review of previously published evidence are an important contribution that will form the basis for building models of Early Pleistocene hominin adaptation.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The authors argue that the Emiliano Aguirre Korongo (EAK) assemblage from the base of Bed II at Olduvai Gorge shows systematic exploitation of elephants by hominins about 1.78 million years ago. They describe it as the earliest clear case of proboscidean butchery at Olduvai and link it to a larger behavioral shift from the Oldowan to the Acheulean.

The paper includes detailed faunal and spatial data. The excavation and mapping methods appear to be careful, and the figures and tables effectively document the assemblage. The data presentation is strong, but the behavioral interpretation is not supported by the evidence.

The claim for butchery is based mainly on the presence of green-bone fractures and the proximity of bones and stone artifacts. These observations do not prove human activity. Fractures of this kind can form naturally when bones break while still fresh, and spatial overlap can result from post-depositional processes. The studies cited to support these points, including work by Haynes and colleagues, explain that such traces alone are not diagnostic of butchery, but this paper presents them as if they were.

The spatial analyses are technically correct, but their interpretation extends beyond what they can demonstrate. Clustering indicates proximity, not behavior. The claim that statistical results demonstrate a functional link between bones and artifacts is not justified. Other studies that use these methods combine them with direct modification evidence, which is lacking in this case.

The discussion treats different bodies of evidence unevenly. Well-documented cut-marked specimens from Nyayanga and other sites are described as uncertain, while less direct evidence at EAK is treated as decisive. This selective approach weakens the argument and creates inconsistency in how evidence is judged.

The broader evolutionary conclusions are not supported by the data. The paper presents EAK as marking the start of systematic megafaunal exploitation, but the evidence does not show this. The assemblage is described well, but the behavioral and evolutionary interpretations extend far beyond what can be demonstrated.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript investigates mutations and expression patterns of zinc finger proteins in Kenyan breast cancer patients.

Strengths:

Whole-exome sequencing and RNA-seq were performed on 23 breast cancer samples alongside matched normal tissues in Kenyan breast cancer patients. The authors identified mutations in ZNF217, ZNF703, and ZNF750.

Weaknesses:

(1) Research scope:

The results primarily focus on mutations in ZNF217, ZNF703, and ZNF750, with limited correlation analyses between mutations and gene expression. The rationale for focusing only on these genes is unclear. Given the availability of large breast cancer cohorts such as TCGA and METABRIC, the authors should compare their mutation profiles with these datasets. Beyond European and U.S. cohorts, sequencing data from multiple countries, including a recent Nigerian breast cancer study (doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-27079-w), should also be considered. Since whole-exome sequencing was performed, it is unclear why only four genes were highlighted and why comparisons to previous literature were not included.

(2) Language and Style Issues:

Several statements read somewhat 'unnaturally', and I strongly recommend proofreading.

(3) Methods and Data Analysis Details:

The methods section is vague, with general descriptions rather than specific details of data processing and analysis. The authors should provide:

(a) Parameters used for trimming, mapping, and variant calling (rather than referencing another paper such as Tang et al. 2023).

(b) Statistical methods for somatic mutation/SNP detection.

(c) Details of RNA purification and RNA-seq library preparation.

Without these details, the reproducibility of the study is limited.

(4) Data Reporting:

This study has the potential to provide a valuable resource for the field. However, data-sharing plans are unclear. The authors should:

(a) deposit sequencing data in a public repository.

(b) provide supplementary tables listing all detected mutations and all differentially expressed genes (DEGs).

(c) clarify whether raw or adjusted p-values were used for DEG analysis.

(d) perform DEG analyses stratified by breast cancer subtypes, since differential expression was observed by HER2 status, and some zinc finger proteins are known to be enriched in luminal subtypes.

(5) Mutation Analysis:

Visualizations of mutation distribution across protein domains would greatly strengthen interpretation. Comparing mutation distribution and frequency with published datasets would also contextualize the findings.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This work integrated the mutational landscape and expression profile of ZNF molecules in 23 Kenyan women with breast cancer.

Strengths:

The mutation landscape of ZNF217, ZNF703, and ZNF750 was comprehensively studied and correlated with tumor stage and HER2 status to highlight the clinical significance.

Weaknesses:

The current study design is relatively simple, and there is a limited cohort size, which is relatively small to reach significant findings. Thus, sample size enrichment, along with more analytic work, is needed.

Targeted exploration of the ZNF family without emphasizing the reason or clinical significance hinders the overall significance of the entire work.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aimed to define the somatic mutational landscape and transcriptomic expression of the ZNF217, ZNF703, and ZNF750 genes in breast cancers from Kenyan women and to investigate associations with clinicopathological features like HER2 status and cancer stage. They employed whole-exome and RNA-sequencing on 23 paired tumor-normal samples to achieve this.

Strengths:

(1) A major strength is the focus on a Kenyan cohort, addressing a critical gap in genomic studies of breast cancer, which are predominantly based on European or Asian populations.

(2) The integration of DNA- and RNA-level data from the same patients provides a comprehensive view, linking genetic alterations to expression changes.

Weaknesses:

(1) The small cohort size (n=23) significantly limits the statistical power to detect associations between genetic features and clinical subgroups (e.g., HER2 status, stage), rendering the negative findings inconclusive.

(2) The study is primarily descriptive. While it effectively catalogs mutations and expression changes, it does not include functional experiments to validate the biological impact of the identified alterations.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Using single-cell RNA sequencing and bioinformatics approaches, the authors aimed to discover if and how cells carrying mutations common to clonal haematopoiesis were more adherent to endothelial cells.

Strengths:

(1) The authors used matched blood and adipose tissue samples from the same patients (with the exception of the control people) to conduct their analysis.

(2) The use of bioinformatics and in-silico approaches helped to fast-track their aims to test specific inhibitors in their model cell adhesion system.

Weaknesses:

(1) The analysis was done on pooled cells; it would have been interesting to know if the same adhesion gene signatures were observed across the donors.

(2) The adhesion assays were conducted under static conditions; shear flow adhesion experiments would have been better. Mixed cultures using cell trackers would have been even better.

(3) In the intervention studies, the authors should have directly targeted the monocytes (not the endothelial cells) and should have also included DNMT3A mutant/KO cells to show specificity to TET2 CHIP.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors describe potential mechanisms underlying the changes in endothelial-monocyte interactions in patients with clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP), including reduced velocity and increased ligand interactions of CHIP-mutated monocytes. They use a combination of transcriptomics (some for the first time in these tissues in patients with CHIP), in silico analyses, and ex vivo approaches to outline the changes that occur in blood monocytes derived from patients with CHIP. These findings advance the current field, which has previously mostly used mice and/or has been focused on cancer outcomes. The authors identify distinct alterations in signaling downstream of DNTM3A or TET2 mutations, which further distinguish two major mutations that contribute to CHIP.

Strengths:

(1) Combinatorial transcriptomics was used to identify potential therapeutic targets, which is an important proof-of-concept for multiple fields.

(2) The authors identify distinct ligand interactions downstream of TET2 and DNMT3A mutations.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors extrapolate findings in adipose tissue in diabetic patients to vascular disease (ostensibly in the carotid or cardiac arteries), citing the difficulty of using tissue-matched samples. Broad-reaching conclusions need to be backed up in the relevant systems, considering how different endothelial cells in various vascular beds react. Considering these data were obtained with n=3 patients being sufficient to identify these changes, it seems that this can be performed (perhaps in silico) in the correct tissue.

(2) The selection/exclusion criteria for the diabetes samples are not noted, and therefore, the relevant conclusions cannot be fully evaluated, nor is the source of adipose tissue stated.

Appraisal:

While authors describe how to as well as the technical feasibility of integrating a number of transcriptomic techniques, they do not seem to do so to produce highly compelling data or targets within this manuscript. The potential is there to drill down to mechanisms; however, the data gathered herein do not highlight novel targets. For example, CXCL2 and 3 are already shown to be differentially expressed in TET2 loss combined with LDL treatment in the macrophages of mice. Furthermore, these authors then show that in humans, the prototypical CXC chemokine, IL8 (which mice lack), is significantly higher in TET2-mutated patients (DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1701719). The authors should demonstrate the utility of their transcriptomics by identifying and testing novel targets and focusing on the proper disease states. This could easily be a deep dive into CHIP in adipose tissue in diabetic patients.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study by Castro et al. presents an interesting blueprint for designing influenza immunogens that can induce cross-group influenza-specific antibodies. The authors used a structure-based design to transplant receptor binding site (RBS) residues from H5 and H3 into an H1 scaffold. In addition, they assembled the transplanted structures as heterotrimers. They characterized the constructs structurally and used them to immunize mice to define ELISA binding and neutralizing antibodies (Abs) to different influenza strains.

Strengths and Weaknesses:

The authors succeeded in generating the different, correctly folded immunogens. The heterotrimers would benefit from more characterization: it remains unclear whether they are even formed or whether the sample is a mix of homotrimers and whether some combinations are more likely than others. While some of these questions are complex to answer, authors should at least confirm the presence of heterotrimers.

While all constructs were able to elicit H1-specific Abs, different immunogens displayed differential ability to induce a response to the transplanted epitope. While H3-transplant resulted in H3-specific Abs, this was not the case for H5 or the heterotrimers. The importance of the finding is that authors are able to elicit polyclonal Abs neutralizing group 1 and group 2 influenza viruses with a single immunogen. A more in-depth discussion on why the H3-transplant but not the H5-transplant resulted in those specific Abs could be beneficial.

Overall, the work is a proof of concept that H1-H3 chimeric proteins can be produced and an important first step towards computational vaccines, inducing Abs to multiple groups.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript from Castro et al describes the engineering of influenza hemagglutinin H1-based head domains that display receptor-binding-site residues from H5 and H3 HAs. The initial head-only chimeras were able to bind to FluA20, which recognizes the trimer interface, but did not bind well to H5 or H3-specific antibodies. Furthermore, these constructs were not particularly stable in solution as assessed by low melting temperatures. Crystal structures of each chimeric head in complex with FluA20 were obtained, demonstrating that the constructs could adopt the intended conformation upon stabilization with FluA20. The authors next placed the chimeric heads onto an H1 stalk to create homotrimeric HA ectodomains, as well as a heterotrimeric HA ectodomain. The homotrimeric chimeric HAs were better behaved in solution, and H3- and H5-specific antibodies bound to these trimers with affinities that were only about 10-fold weaker compared to their respective wildtype HAs. The heterotrimeric chimeric HA showed transient stability in solution and could bind more weakly to the H3- and H5-specific antibodies. Mice immunized with these trimers elicited cross-reactive binding antibodies, although the cross-neutralizing titers were less robust. The most positive result was that the H1H3 trimer was able to elicit sera that neutralized both H1 and H3 viruses.

Strengths:

The manuscript is very well-written with clear figures. The biophysical and structural characterizations of the antigen were performed to a high standard. The engineering approach is novel, and the results should provide a basis for further iteration and improvement of RBS transplantation.

Weaknesses:

The main limitation of the study is that there are no statistical tests performed for the immunogenicity results shown in Figures 4 and 5. It is therefore unknown whether the differences observed are statistically significant. Additionally, fits of the BLI data in Figure 3 to the binding model used to determine the binding constants should be shown.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a careful and comprehensive study demonstrating that effector-dependent conformational switching of the MT lattice from compacted to expanded deploys the alpha tubulin C-terminal tails so as to enhance their ability to bind interactors.

Strengths:

The authors use 3 different sensors for the exposure of the alpha CTTs. They show that all 3 sensors report exposure of the alpha CTTs when the lattice is expanded by GMPCPP, or KIF1C, or a hydrolysis-deficient tubulin. They demonstrate that expansion-dependent exposure of the alpha CTTs works in tissue culture cells as well as in vitro.

Weaknesses:

There is no information on the status of the beta tubulin CTTs. The study is done with mixed isotype microtubules, both in cells and in vitro. It remains unclear whether all the alpha tubulins in a mixed isotype microtubule lattice behave equivalently, or whether the effect is tubulin isotype-dependent. It remains unclear whether local binding of effectors can locally expand the lattice and locally expose the alpha CTTs.

Appraisal:

The authors have gone to considerable lengths to test their hypothesis that microtubule expansion favours deployment of the alpha tubulin C-terminal tail, allowing its interactors, including detyrosinase enzymes, to bind. There is a real prospect that this will change thinking in the field. One very interesting possibility, touched on by the authors, is that the requirement for MAP7 to engage kinesin with the MT might include a direct effect of MAP7 on lattice expansion.

Impact:

The possibility that the interactions of MAPS and motors with a particular MT or region feed forward to determine its future interaction patterns is made much more real. Genuinely exciting.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The unstructured α- and β-tubulin C-terminal tails (CTTs), which differ between tubulin isoforms, extend from the surface of the microtubule, are post-translationally modified, and help regulate the function of MAPs and motors. Their dynamics and extent of interactions with the microtubule lattice are not well understood. Hotta et al. explore this using a set of three distinct probes that bind to the CTTs of tyrosinated (native) α-tubulin. Under normal cellular conditions, these probes associate with microtubules only to a limited extent, but this binding can be enhanced by various manipulations thought to alter the tubulin lattice conformation (expanded or compact). These include small-molecule treatment (Taxol), changes in nucleotide state, and the binding of microtubule-associated proteins and motors. Overall, the authors conclude that microtubule lattice "expanders" promote probe binding, suggesting that the CTT is generally more accessible under these conditions. Consistent with this, detyrosination is enhanced. Mechanistically, molecular dynamics simulations indicate that the CTT may interact with the microtubule lattice at several sites, and that these interactions are affected by the tubulin nucleotide state.

Strengths:

Key strengths of the work include the use of three distinct probes that yield broadly consistent findings, and a wide variety of experimental manipulations (drugs, motors, MAPs) that collectively support the authors' conclusions, alongside a careful quantitative approach.

Weaknesses:

The challenges of studying the dynamics of a short, intrinsically disordered protein region within the complex environment of the cellular microtubule lattice, amid numerous other binders and regulators, should not be understated. While it is very plausible that the probes report on CTT accessibility as proposed, the possibility of confounding factors (e.g., effects on MAP or motor binding) cannot be ruled out. Sensitivity to the expression level clearly introduces additional complications. Likewise, for each individual "expander" or "compactor" manipulation, one must consider indirect consequences (e.g., masking of binding sites) in addition to direct effects on the lattice; however, this risk is mitigated by the collective observations all pointing in the same direction.

The discussion does a good job of placing the findings in context and acknowledging relevant caveats and limitations. Overall, this study introduces an interesting and provocative concept, well supported by experimental data, and provides a strong foundation for future work. This will be a valuable contribution to the field.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors investigate how the structural state of the microtubule lattice influences the accessibility of the α-tubulin C-terminal tail (CTT). By developing and applying new biosensors, they reveal that the tyrosinated CTT is largely inaccessible under normal conditions but becomes more accessible upon changes to the tubulin conformational state induced by taxol treatment, MAP expression, or GTP-hydrolysis-deficient tubulin. The combination of live imaging, biochemical assays, and simulations suggests that the lattice conformation regulates the exposure of the CTT, providing a potential mechanism for modulating interactions with microtubule-associated proteins. The work addresses a highly topical question in the microtubule field and proposes a new conceptual link between lattice spacing and tail accessibility for tubulin post-translational modification.

Strengths:

(1) The study targets a highly relevant and emerging topic-the structural plasticity of the microtubule lattice and its regulatory implications.

(2) The biosensor design represents a methodological advance, enabling direct visualization of CTT accessibility in living cells.

(3) Integration of imaging, biochemical assays, and simulations provides a multi-scale perspective on lattice regulation.

(4) The conceptual framework proposed lattice conformation as a determinant of post-translational modification accessibility is novel and potentially impactful for understanding microtubule regulation.

Weaknesses:

There are a number of weaknesses in the paper, many of which can be addressed textually. Some of the supporting evidence is preliminary and would benefit from additional experimental validation and clearer presentation before the conclusions can be considered fully supported.

In particular, the authors should directly test in vitro whether Taxol addition can induce lattice exchange (see comments below).

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The remodeling of macromolecular substrates by AAA+ proteins is an essential aspect of life at the molecular scale, and understanding conserved and divergent features of substrate recognition across the AAA+ protein family remains an ongoing area of research. AAA+ proteins are highly modular and typically combine N-terminal recognition domain(s) with ATPase domain(s) to recognize and unfold some macromolecular target, such as dsDNA or protein substrates. This can be coupled to activity by additional C-terminal domains that further modify the substrate, such as a protease domain that hydrolyzes the extended, unstructured protein chain that emerges from the ATPase domain during substrate processing.

This work focuses on one such AAA+ protease, LONP1. LONP1 is an essential AAA+ protein involved in mitochondrial proteostasis, and disruption of its function in vivo has serious developmental consequences. This work explores the processing of two new mitochondrial protein substrates (StAR, TFAM) by LONP1 and presents new conformational states of LONP1 with closed configurations and no substrate threaded through the ATPase pores. The quality of the reconstructions and models is very good. Critically, one of these states (LONP1C3) has a completely occluded ATPase pore from the N-terminal side of the ATPase ring, where three of the six NTDs/CCDs interact tightly to form a C3-symmetric substructure preventing substrate ingress. The authors note several key interactions between amino acids forming these substructures, and perform ATPase assays on mutant LONP1 proteins to determine hydrolysis rates in the absence or presence of substrate. These patterns are recapitulated in casein disassembly assays as well. Based on these results, the authors note that the mutants have differential effects depending on the "foldedness" of the substrate, and surmise that disruption of the C3-symmetric substructure from the EM experiments is responsible for these effects - an intriguing idea. In addition to the C3 state, the authors observe additional intermediates which they place on the same conformational coordinate. One such structure is the LONP1C2 state with two splits, hinting at a conformational transition from LONP1C3 to the closed/active state.

Taken together, these results form the basis of an interesting story. However, I feel that more experimentation and analysis are needed to address several key points, or that the conclusions should be toned down. First and foremost, I note that while the hypothesis that the LONP1C3 state is a critical step in recognizing substrate "foldedness" is an interesting one, the claim is made solely on the basis of biochemical experiments with mutant LONP1, and that there is no substrate density associated with LONP1C3. In the absence of substrate density and/or structural data for the mutants, this seems like a very strong claim. More generally, the manuscript invokes the conformational landscape of LONP1C3 in multiple instances, but no such landscape is presented to show how LONP1C3 and the other states are quantitatively linked. Finally, I note the prevalence of ADP-only active sites in these intermediates, and am concerned that this might be related to the depletion of ATP under the on-grid reaction conditions. The inclusion of an ATP regeneration system may be a useful way to ensure that ATP/ADP concentrations are more physiological and that excessive ADP will not bias the conformations of the ring systems.

In summary, I believe this manuscript is exciting but would benefit from a paring back of claims, or the inclusion of some additional data to fill in some of the conceptual gaps outlined above.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This paper by Mindrebo et al. reveals multiple novel conformations of the human LONP1 protease. AAA+ proteases, like LONP1, are needed for maintaining proteostasis in cells and organelles. While structures of fully active (closed) and fully inactive (open) conformations of LONP1 are now established, the dynamics between these states and how changes in conformations may contribute to or be triggered by substrates and nucleotides are unclear. In this work, the authors characterize a novel C3-symmetric state of LONP1 bound to TFAM (a native substrate), suggesting that this C3-state is an intermediate in the open to closed cycle, and make mutations to test this model biochemically. Deeper inspection of their TFAM-bound LONP1 dataset reveals additional conformations, including a C2-symmetric and two asymmetric intermediates. All these conformations are synthesized by the authors to propose a model for how LONP1 transitions from an inactive OFF state to an active ENZ state. There are clear, interesting structural aspects to this work, revealing alternate conformations to shed light on the dynamics of LONP1. However, some of the conclusions interpret well beyond the scope of the experiments shown, and this is discussed below.

Overall, there are two major comments with the work as written that, if addressed, would make the results more compelling. First, the order of events and existence of intermediate states is primarily from static structural snapshots and fitting these structures to a possible mechanism. It would be ideal to have some biochemical or kinetic data supporting these steps and the existence of these intermediates. For example, the model is that the C3-state is an ADP-bound intermediate that blocks access and acts as a checkpoint for progression to the ENZ state of LONP1. The major evidence for this comes from a mutation (D449A) that fails to degrade TFAM as well as StAR or casein, which is taken as evidence that failure to form the C3 state reduces the ability to degrade more 'folded' substrates. A prediction of this model would be that destabilizing TFAM through mutation should improve D449A degradation. Ideally, other measures of conformational changes, such as FRET or HDX-MS, could be used to visualize this C3-state in unmutated LONP1 during the process of substrate engagement and degradation. At a minimum, using ATP hydrolysis as a proxy for forming the ENZ state and the assumption that different substrates will differentially promote formation of the C3-state means that measuring ATP hydrolysis of wt LONP1 with different substrates will be informative.

The second major comment is that the primary evidence for the importance of the C3 state is a mutation (D449A) that, based on the cryoEM structure, is incompatible with this conformation but should not affect any other state. A concern that arises is whether this mutation is doing more than simply destabilizing the C3 state and affecting substrate recognition/enzymatic activity in some other manner. To address this point, the authors could perform cryoEM characterization of the D449A mutant, which should show reduced or no presence of the C3-state, but still an intact ability to form the closed ENZ state.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The AAA+ protease LON1P is a central component of mitochondrial protein quality control and has crucial functions in diverse processes. Cryo-EM structures of LON1P defined inactive and substrate-processing active states. Here, the authors determined multiple new LON1P structural states by cryo-EM in the presence of diverse substrates. The structures are defined as on-pathway intermediates to LON1P activation. A C3-symmetry state is suggested to function as a checkpoint to scan for LON1P substrates and link correct substrate selection to LON1P activation.

Strengths:

The determination of multiple structures provides relevant information on substrate-triggered activation of LON1P. The authors support structural data by biochemical analysis of structure-based mutants.

Weaknesses:

How substrate selection is achieved remains elusive, also because substrates are not detectable in the diverse structures. It also remains in parts unclear whether mutant phenotypes can be specifically linked to a single structural state (C3). Some mutant phenotypes appear complex and do not seem to be in line with the model proposed.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This work provides evidence that slender T. brucei can initiate and complete cyclical development in Glossina morsitans without GlcNAc supplementation, in both sexes, and importantly in non-teneral flies, including salivary-gland infections.

Comparative transcriptomics show early divergence between slender- and stumpy-initiated differentiation (distinct GO enrichments), with convergence by ~72 h, supporting an alternative pathway into the procyclic differentiation program.

The work addresses key methodological criticisms of earlier studies and supports the hypothesis that slender forms may contribute to transmission at low parasitaemia.

Strengths:

(1) Directly tackles prior concerns (no GlcNAc, both sexes, non-teneral flies) with positive infections through to the salivary glands.

(2) Transcriptomic time course adds some mechanistic depth.

(3) Clear relevance to the "transmission paradox"; advances an important debate in the field.

Weaknesses:

(1) Discrepancy with Ngoune et al. (2025) remains unresolved; no head-to-head control for colony/blood source or microbiome differences that could influence vector competence.

(2) Lacks in vivo feeding validation (e.g., infecting flies directly on parasitaemic mice) to strengthen ecological relevance.

(3) Mechanistic inferences are largely correlative (although not requested, there is no functional validation of genes or pathways emerging from the transcriptomics).

(4) Reliance on a single parasite clone (AnTat 1.1) and one vector species limits external validity.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper is an exciting follow-up to two recent publications in eLife: one from the same lab, reporting that slender forms can successfully infect tsetse flies (Schuster, S et al., 2021), and another independent study claiming the opposite (Ngoune, TMJ et al., 2025). Here, the authors address four criticisms raised against their original work: the influence of N-acetyl-glucosamine (NAG), the use of teneral and male flies, and whether slender forms bypass the stumpy stage before becoming procyclic forms.

Strengths:

We applaud the authors' efforts in undertaking these experiments and contributing to a better understanding of the T. brucei life cycle. The paper is well-written and the figures are clear.

Weaknesses:

We identified several major points that deserve attention.

(1) What is a slender form? Slender-to-stumpy differentiation is a multi-step process, and most of these steps unfortunately lack molecular markers (Larcombe et al, 2023). In this paper, it is essential that the authors explicitly define slender forms. Which parameters were used? It is implicit that slender forms are replicative and GFP::PAD1-negative. Isn't it possible that some GFP::PAD1-negative cells were already transitioning toward stumpy forms, but not yet expressing the reporter? Transcriptomically, these would be early transitional cells that, upon exposure to "tsetse conditions" (in vitro or in vivo), could differentiate into PCF through an alternative pathway, potentially bypassing the stumpy stage (as suggested in Figure 4). Given the limited knowledge of early molecular signatures of differentiation, we cannot exclude the possibility that the slender forms used here included early differentiating cells. We suggest:

1.1 Testing the commitment of slender forms (e.g., using the plating assay in Larcombe et al., 2023), assessing cell-cycle profile, and other parameters that define slender forms.

1.2 In the Discussion, acknowledging the uncertainty of "what is a slender?" and being explicit about the parameters and assumptions.

1.3 Clarifying in the Materials and Methods how cultures were maintained in the 3-4 days prior to tsetse infections, including daily cell densities. Ideally, provide information on GFP expression, cell cycle, and morphology. While this will not fully resolve the concern, it will allow future reinterpretation of the data when early molecular events are better understood.

(2) Figure 1: This analysis lacks a positive control to confirm that NAG is working as expected. It would strengthen the paper if the authors showed that NAG improves stumpy infection. Once confirmed, the authors could discuss possible differences in the tsetse immune response to slender vs. stumpy forms to explain the absence of an effect on slender infections.

(3) Figure 2. To conclude that teneral flies are less infected than non-teneral flies, data from Figures 1 and 2 must be directly comparable. Were these experiments performed simultaneously? Please clarify in the figure legends. Moreover, the non-teneral flies here are still relatively young (6-7 days old), limiting comparisons with Ngoune, TMJ et al. 2025, where flies were 2-3 weeks old.

(4) Figure 3. The PCA plot (A) appears to suggest the opposite of the authors' interpretation: slender differentiation seems to proceed through a transcriptome closer to stumpy profiles. Plotting DEG numbers (panel C) is informative, but how were paired conditions selected? Besides, plotting of the number of DEGs between consecutive time points within and between parasite types is also necessary. There may also be better computational tools to assess temporal relationships. Finally, how does PAD1 transcript abundance change over time in both populations? It would also be important to depict the upregulation of procyclic-specific genes.

(5) Could methylcellulose in the medium sensitize parasites to QS-signal, leading to more frequent and/or earlier differentiation, despite low densities? If so, cultures with vs. without methylcellulose might yield different proportions of early-differentiating (yet GFP-negative) parasites. This could explain discrepancies between the Engstler and Rotureau labs despite using the same strain. The field would benefit from reciprocal testing of culture conditions. Alternatively, the authors could compare infectivity and transcriptomes of their slender forms under three conditions: (i) in vitro with methylcellulose, (ii) in vitro without methylcellulose, and (iii) directly from mouse blood.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This is a re-review following an author revision. I will go point-by-point in response to my original critiques and the authors' responses. I appreciate the authors taking the time to thoughtfully respond to the reviewer critiques.

Query 1. Based on the authors' description of their contribution to the algorithm design, it sounds like a hyperparameter search wrapped around existing software tools. I think that the use of their own language to describe these modules is confusing to potential users as well as unintentionally hides the contributions of the original LigBuilder developers. The authors should just explain the protocol plainly using language that refers specifically to the established software tools. Whether they use LigBuilder or something else, at the end of the day the description is a protocol for a specific use of an existing software rather than the creation of a new toolkit.

Query 2. I see. Correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems as though the authors are proposing using the Authenticator to identify the best distributions of compounds based on an in silico oracle (in this case, Vina score), and train to discriminate them. This is similar to training QSAR models to predict docking scores, such as in the manuscript I shared during the first round of review. In principle, one could perform this in successive rounds to create molecules that are increasingly composed of features that yield higher docking scores. This is an established idea that the authors demonstrate in a narrow context, but it also raises concern that one is just enriching for compounds with e.g., an abundance of hydrogen bond donors and acceptors. Regarding points (4) and (5), it is unclear to me how the authors perform train/test splits on unlabeled data with supervised machine learning approaches in this setting. This seems akin to a Y-scramble sanity check. Finally, regarding the discussion on the use of experimental data or FEP calculations for the determination of HABs and LABs, I appreciate the authors' point; however, the concern here is that in the absence of any true oracle the models will just learn to identify and/or generate compounds that exploit limitations of docking scores. Again, please correct me if I am mistaken. It is unclear to me how this advances previous literature in CADD outside of the specific context of incorporating some ideas into a GPCR-Gprotein framework.

Query 3. The authors mention that the hyperparameters for the ML models are just the package defaults in the absence of specification by the user. I would be helpful to know specifically what the the hyperparameters were for the benchmarks in this study; however, I think a deeper concern is still that these models are almost certainly far overparameterized given the limited training data used for the models. It is unclear why the authors did not just build a random forest classifier to discriminate their HABs and LABs using ligand- or protein-ligand interaction fingerprints or related ideas.

Query 4. It is good, and expected, that increasing the fraction of the training set size in a random split validation all the way to 100% would allow the model to perfectly discriminate HABs and LABs. This does not demonstrate that the model has significant enrichment in prospective screening, particularly compared to simpler methods. The concern remains that these models are overparameterized and insufficiently validated. The authors did not perform any scaffold splits or other out-of-distribution analysis.

Query 5. The authors contend that Gcoupler uniquely enables training models when data is scarce and ultra-large screening libraries are unavailable. Today, it is rather straightforward to dock a minimum of thousands of compounds. Using tools such as QuickVina2-GPU (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jcim.2c01504), it is possible to quite readily dock millions in a day with a single GPU and obtain the AutoDock Vina score. GPU-acclerated Vina has been combined with cavity detection tools likely multiple times, including here (https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.20043). There are multiple cavity detection tools, including the ones the authors use in their protocol.

Query 6. The authors contend that the simulations are converged, but they elected not to demonstrate stability in the predicting MM/GBSA binding energies with block averaging across the trajectory. This could have been done through the existing trajectories without additional simulation.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This is a re-review following an author revision. I will go point-by-point in response to my original critiques and the authors' responses. I appreciate the authors taking the time to thoughtfully respond to the reviewer critiques.

Query 1. Based on the authors' description of their contribution to the algorithm design, it sounds like a hyperparameter search wrapped around existing software tools. I think that the use of their own language to describe these modules is confusing to potential users as well as unintentionally hides the contributions of the original LigBuilder developers. The authors should just explain the protocol plainly using language that refers specifically to the established software tools. Whether they use LigBuilder or something else, at the end of the day the description is a protocol for a specific use of an existing software rather than the creation of a new toolkit.

Query 2. I see. Correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems as though the authors are proposing using the Authenticator to identify the best distributions of compounds based on an in silico oracle (in this case, Vina score), and train to discriminate them. This is similar to training QSAR models to predict docking scores, such as in the manuscript I shared during the first round of review. In principle, one could perform this in successive rounds to create molecules that are increasingly composed of features that yield higher docking scores. This is an established idea that the authors demonstrate in a narrow context, but it also raises concern that one is just enriching for compounds with e.g., an abundance of hydrogen bond donors and acceptors. Regarding points (4) and (5), it is unclear to me how the authors perform train/test splits on unlabeled data with supervised machine learning approaches in this setting. This seems akin to a Y-scramble sanity check. Finally, regarding the discussion on the use of experimental data or FEP calculations for the determination of HABs and LABs, I appreciate the authors' point; however, the concern here is that in the absence of any true oracle the models will just learn to identify and/or generate compounds that exploit limitations of docking scores. Again, please correct me if I am mistaken. It is unclear to me how this advances previous literature in CADD outside of the specific context of incorporating some ideas into a GPCR-Gprotein framework.

Query 3. The authors mention that the hyperparameters for the ML models are just the package defaults in the absence of specification by the user. I would be helpful to know specifically what the the hyperparameters were for the benchmarks in this study; however, I think a deeper concern is still that these models are almost certainly far overparameterized given the limited training data used for the models. It is unclear why the authors did not just build a random forest classifier to discriminate their HABs and LABs using ligand- or protein-ligand interaction fingerprints or related ideas.

Query 4. It is good, and expected, that increasing the fraction of the training set size in a random split validation all the way to 100% would allow the model to perfectly discriminate HABs and LABs. This does not demonstrate that the model has significant enrichment in prospective screening, particularly compared to simpler methods. The concern remains that these models are overparameterized and insufficiently validated. The authors did not perform any scaffold splits or other out-of-distribution analysis.

Query 5. The authors contend that Gcoupler uniquely enables training models when data is scarce and ultra-large screening libraries are unavailable. Today, it is rather straightforward to dock a minimum of thousands of compounds. Using tools such as QuickVina2-GPU (https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jcim.2c01504), it is possible to quite readily dock millions in a day with a single GPU and obtain the AutoDock Vina score. GPU-acclerated Vina has been combined with cavity detection tools likely multiple times, including here (https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.20043). There are multiple cavity detection tools, including the ones the authors use in their protocol.

Query 6. The authors contend that the simulations are converged, but they elected not to demonstrate stability in the predicting MM/GBSA binding energies with block averaging across the trajectory. This could have been done through the existing trajectories without additional simulation.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The authors have implemented several clarifications in the text and improved the connection between their findings and previous work. As stated in my initial review, I had no major criticisms of the previous version of the manuscript, and I continue to consider this a solid and well-written study. However, the revised manuscript still largely reiterates existing findings and does not offer novel conceptual or experimental advances. It supports previous conclusions suggesting a likely conserved sex determination locus in aculeate hymenopterans, but does so without functional validation (i.e., via experimental manipulation) of the candidate locus in O. biroi. I also wish to clarify that I did not intend to imply that functional assessments in the Pan et al. study were conducted in more than one focal species; my previous review explicitly states that the locus's functional role was validated in the Argentine ant.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The authors have made considerable efforts to conduct functional analyses to the fullest extent possible in this study; however, it is understandable that meaningful results have not yet been obtained. In the revised version, they have appropriately framed their claims within the limits of the current data and have adjusted their statements as needed in response to the reviewers' comments.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Subhramanian et al. carefully examined how microglia adapt their surveillance strategies during chronic neurodegeneration, specifically in prion-infected mice. The authors used ex vivo time-lapse imaging and in vitro strategies, finding that reactive microglia exhibit a highly mobile, "kiss-and-ride" behavior, which contrasts with the more static surveillance typically observed in homeostatic microglia. The manuscript provides fundamental mechanistic insights into the dynamics of microglia-neuron interactions, implicates P2Y6 signaling in regulating mobility, and suggests that intrinsic reprogramming of microglia might underlie this behavior. The conclusions are therefore compelling.

Strengths:

(1) The novelty of the study is high, in particular, the demonstration that microglia lose territorial confinement and dynamically migrate from neuron to neuron under chronic neurodegeneration.

(2) The possible implications of a stimulus-independent high mobility in reactive microglia are particularly striking. Although this is not fully explored (see comments below).

(3) The use of time-lapse imaging in organotypic slices rather than overexpression models provided a more physiological approach.

(4) Microglia-neuron interactions in neurodegeneration have broad implications for understanding the progression of other diseases that are associated with chronic inflammation, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

Weaknesses:

(1) The Cx3cr1/EGFP line labels all myeloid cells, which makes it difficult to conclude that all observed behaviors are attributable to microglia rather than infiltrating macrophages. The authors refer to this and include it as a limitation. Nonetheless, complementary confirmation by additional microglia markers would strengthen their claims.

(2) Although the authors elegantly describe dynamic surveillance and envelopment hypothesis, it is unclear what the role of this phenotype is for disease progression, i.e., functional consequences. For example, are the neurons that undergo sustained envelopment more likely to degenerate?

(3) Moreover, although the increase in mobility is a relevant finding, it would be interesting for the authors to further comment on what the molecular trigger(s) is/are that might promote this increase. These adaptations, which are at least long-lasting, confer apparent mobility in the absence of external stimuli.

(4) The authors performed, as far as I could understand, the experiments in cortical brain regions. There is no clear rationale for this in the manuscript, nor is it clear whether the mobility is specific to a particular brain region. This is particularly important, as microglia reactivity varies greatly depending on the brain region.

(5) It would be relevant information to have an analysis of the percentage of cells in normal, sub-clinical, early clinical, and advanced stages that became mobile. Without this information, the speed/distance alone can have different interpretations.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This is a nice paper focused on the response of microglia to different clinical stages of prion infection in acute brain slices. The key here is the use of time-lapse imaging, which captures the dynamics of microglial surveillance, including morphology, migration, and intracellular neuron-microglial contacts. The authors use a myeloid GFP-labeled transgenic mouse to track microglia in SSLOW-infected brain slices, quantifying differences in motility and microglial-neuron interactions via live fluorescence imaging. Interesting findings include the elaborate patterns of motility among microglia, the distinct types and duration of intracellular contacts, the potential role of calcium signaling in facilitating hypermobility, and the fact that this motion-promoting status is intrinsic to microglia, persisting even after the cells have been isolated from infected brains. Although largely a descriptive paper, there are mechanistic insights, including the role of calcium in supporting movement of microglia, where bursts of signaling are identified even within the time-lapse format, and inhibition studies that implicate the purinergic receptor and calcium transient regulator P2Y6 in migratory capacity.

Strengths:

(1) The focus on microglia activation and activity in the context of prion disease is interesting.

(2) Two different prions produce largely the same response.

(3) Use of time-lapse provides insight into the dynamics of microglia, distinguishing between types of contact - mobility vs motility - and providing insight into the duration/transience and reversibility of extensive somatic contacts that include brief and focused connections in addition to soma envelopment.

(4) Imaging window selection (3 hours) guided by prior publications documenting preserved morphology, activity, and gene expression regulation up to 4 hours.

(5) The distinction between high mobility and low mobility microglia is interesting, especially given that hyper mobility seems to be an innate property of the cells.

(6) The live-imaging approach is validated by fixed tissue confocal imaging.

(7) The variance in duration of neuron/microglia contacts is interesting, although there is no insight into what might dictate which status of interaction predominates.

(8) The reversibility of the enveloping action, that is not apparently a commitment to engulfment, is interesting, as is the fact that only neurons are selected for this activity.

(9) The calcium studies use the fluorescent dye calbryte-590 to pick up neuronal and microglial bursts - prolonged bursts are detected in enveloped neurons and in the hyper-mobile microglia - the microglial lead is followed up using MRS-2578 P2Y6 inhibitor that blunts the mobility of the microglia.

Weaknesses:

(1) The number of individual cells tracked has been provided, but not the number of individual mice. The sex of the mice is not provided.

(2) The statistical approach is not clear; was each cell treated as a single observation?

(3) The potential for heterogeneity among animals has not been addressed.

(4) Validation of prion accumulation at each clinical stage of the disease is not provided.

(5) How were the numerous captures of cells handled to derive morphological quantitative values? Based on the videos, there is a lot of movement and shape-shifting.

(6) While it is recognized that there are limits to what can be measured simultaneously with live imaging, the authors appear to have fixed tissues from each time point too - it would be very interesting to know if the extent or prion accumulation influences the microglial surveillance - i.e., do the enveloped ones have greater pathology>

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors developed a new phenological lag metric and applied this analytical framework to a global dataset to synthesize shifts in spring phenology and assess how abiotic constraints influence spring phenology.

Strengths:

The dataset developed in this study is extensive, and the phenological lag metric is valuable.

Weaknesses:

The stability of the method used to calculate forcing requirements needs improvement, for example by including different base temperature thresholds. In addition, the visualization of the results should be improved.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In the current article, Octavia Soegyono and colleagues study "The influence of nucleus accumbens shell D1 and D2 neurons on outcome-specific Pavlovian instrumental transfer", building on extensive findings from the same lab. While there is a consensus about the specific involvement of the Shell part of the Nucleus Accumbens (NAc) in specific stimulus-based actions in choice settings (and not in General Pavlovian instrumental transfer - gPIT, as opposed to the Core part of the NAc), mechanisms at the cellular and circuitry levels remain to be explored. In the present work, using sophisticated methods (rat Cre-transgenic lines from both sexes, optogenetics and the well-established behavioral paradigm outcome-specific PIT - sPIT), Octavia Soegyono and colleagues decipher the differential contribution of dopamine receptors D1 and D2 expressing-spiny projection neurons (SPNs).

After validating the viral strategy and the specificity of the targeting (immunochemistry and electrophysiology), the authors demonstrate that while both NAc Shell D1- and D2-SPNs participate in mediating sPIT, NAc Shell D1-SPNs projections to the Ventral Pallidum (VP, previously demonstrated as crucial for sPIT), but not D2-SPNs, mediates sPIT. They also show that these effects were specific to stimulus-based actions, as value-based choices were left intact in all manipulations.

This is a well-designed study and the results are well supported by the experimental evidence. The paper is extremely pleasant to read and add to the current literature.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Soegyono et a. describes a series of experiments designed to probe the involvement of dopamine D1 and D2 neurons within the nucleus accumbens shell in outcome-specific Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (osPIT), a well-controlled assay of cue-guided action selection based on congruent outcome associations. They used an optogenetic approach to phasically silence NAc shell D1 (D1-Cre mice) or D2 (A2a-Cre mice) neurons during a subset of osPIT trials. Both manipulations disrupted cue-guided action selection but had no effects on negative control measures/tasks (concomitant approach behavior, separate valued guided choice task), nor were any osPIT impairments found in reporter only control groups. Separate experiments revealed that selective inhibition of NAc shell D1 but not D2 inputs to ventral pallidum were required for osPIT expression, thereby advancing understanding of the basal ganglia circuitry underpinning this important aspect of decision making.

Strengths:

The combinatorial viral and optogenetic approaches used here were convincingly validated through anatomical tract-tracing and ex vivo electrophysiology. The behavioral assays are sophisticated and well-controlled to parse cue and value guided action selection. The inclusion of reporter only control groups is rigorous and rules out nonspecific effects of the light manipulation. The findings are novel and address a critical question in the literature. Prior work using less decisive methods had implicated NAc shell D1 neurons in osPIT but suggested that D2 neurons may not be involved. The optogenetic manipulations used in the current study provides a more direct test of their involvement and convincingly demonstrate that both populations play an important role. Prior work had also implicated NAc shell connections to ventral pallidum in osPIT, but the current study reveals the selective involvement of D1 but not D2 neurons in this circuit. The authors do a good job of discussing their findings, including their nuanced interpretation that NAc shell D2 neurons may contribute to osPIT through their local regulation of NAc shell microcircuitry.

Weaknesses:

The current study exclusively used an optogenetic approach to probe the function of D1 and D2 NAc shell neurons. Providing a complementary assessment with chemogenetics or other appropriate methods would strengthen conclusions, particularly the novel demonstration for D2 NAc shell involvement. Likewise, the null result of optically inhibiting D2 inputs to ventral pallidum leaves open the possibility that a more complete or sustained disruption of this pathway may have impaired osPIT.

Conclusions:

The research described here was successful in providing critical new insights into the contributions of NAc D1 and D2 neurons in cue-guided action selection. The authors' data interpretation and conclusions are well reasoned and appropriate. They also provide a thoughtful discussion of study limitations and implications for future research. This research is therefore likely to have a significant impact on the field.

Comments on the previous version:

I have reviewed the rebuttal and revised manuscript and have no remaining concerns.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The paper reports some interesting patterns in epistasis in a recently published large fitness landscape dataset. The results may have implications for our understanding of fitness landscapes and protein evolution. However, this version of the paper remains fairly descriptive and has significant deficiencies in clarity and rigor.

The authors have addressed some of my criticisms (e.g., I appreciate the additional analysis of synonymous mutations, and a more rigorous approach to calling fitness peaks), but many of the issues raised in my first round of review remain in the current version. Frankly, I am quite disappointed that the authors did not address my comments point by point, which is the norm. The remaining (and some new) issues are below.

(1a) (Modified from first round) I previously suggested to dissect what appears to be three different patterns of epistasis: "strong" and "weak" global epistasis and what one can could "purely idiosyncratic", i.e., not dependent on background fitness. The authors attempted to address this, but I don't think what they have done is sufficient. They make a statement "The lethal mutations have a slope smaller than -0.7 and average slope of -0.98. The remaining mutations all have a slope greater than -0.56" (LL 274-276)", but there is no evidence provided to support this claim. This is a strong and I think interesting statement (btw, how is "lethal" defined?) and warrants a dedicated figure. This statement suggests that the mixed patterns shown in Figure 5 can actually be meaningfully separated. Why don't the authors show this? Instead, they still claim "overall, global epistasis is not very strong on the folA landscape" (LL. 273-274). I maintain that this claim does not quite capture the observations.

Later in the text there is a whole section called "Only a small fraction of mutations exhibit strong global epistasis", which also seems related to this issue. First, I don't follow the logic here. Why is this section separate from this initial discussion? Second, here the authors claim "only a small subset of mutations exhibits strong global epistasis (R^2 > 0.5)" and then "This sharp contrast suggests a binary behavior of mutations: they either exhibit strong global epistasis (R2 > 0.5), or not (R2 < 0.5)." But this R^2 threshold seems arbitrary, and I don't see any statistical support for this binary nature.

(1b) (Verbatim from first round) Another rather remarkable feature of this plot is that the slopes of the strong global epistasis patterns sem to be very similar across mutations. Is this the case? Is there anything special about this slope? For example, does this slope simply reflect the fact that a given mutation becomes essentially lethal (i.e., produces the same minimal fitness) in a certain set of background genotypes?

(1c) (Verbatim from first round) Finally, how consistent are these patterns with some null expectations? Specifically, would one expect the same distribution of global epistasis slopes on an uncorrelated landscape? Are the pivot points unusually clustered relative to an expectation on an uncorrelated landscape?

(1d) (Verbatim from first round) The shapes of the DFE shown in Figure 7 are also quite interesting, particularly the bimodal nature of the DFE in high-fitness (HF) backgrounds. I think this bimodalilty must be a reflection of clustering of mutation-background combinations mentioned above. I think the authors ought to draw this connection explicitly. Do all HF backgrounds have a bimodal DFE? What mutations occupy the "moving" peak?

(1e) (Modified from first round). I still don't understand why there are qualitative differences in the shape of the DFE between functional and non-functional backgrounds (Figure 8B,C). Why is the transition between bimodal DFE in Figure 8B and unimodal DFE in Figure 8C is so abrupt? Perhaps the authors can plot the DFEs for all backgrounds on the same plot and just draw a line that separates functional and non-functional backgrounds so that the reader can better see whether DFE shape changes gradually or abruptly.

(1f) (Modified from first round) I am now more convinced that synonymous mutations alter epistasis and behave differently than non-synonymous mutations, but I still have some questions. (i) I would have liked a side-by-side comparison of synonymous and non-synonymous mutations, both in terms of their effects on fitness and on epistasis.<br /> (ii) The authors claim (LL 278-286) that "synonymous substitutions tend to follow two recurring behaviors" but this is not shown. To demonstrate this, the authors ought to plot (for example) the distribution of slopes of regression lines. Is this distribution actually bimodal? (iii) Later in the same paragraph the authors say "synonymous changes do not exhibit very strong background fitness-dependence". I don't see how this follows from the previous discussion.

(2) The authors claim to have improved statistical rigor of their analysis, but the Methods section is really thin and inadequate for understanding how the statistical analyses were done.

(3) In general, I notice a regrettable lack of attention to detail in the text, which makes me worried about a similar problem in the actual data analysis. Here are a few examples. (i) Throughout the text, the authors now refer to functional and non-functional genotypes, but several figures and captions retained the old HF and LF designations. (ii) Figure 7 is called Figure 8. (iii) Figure 3B is not discussed, though it logically precedes Figure 3A and 3C. (iv) Many of my comments, especially minor, were not addressed at all.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have studied a previously published large dataset on the fitness landscape of a 9 base-pair region of the folA gene. The objective of the paper is to understand various aspects of epistasis in this system, which the authors have achieved through detailed and computationally expensive exploration of the landscape. The authors describe epistasis in this system as "fluid", meaning that it depends sensitively on the genetic background, thereby reducing the predictability of evolution at the genetic level. However, the study also finds some robust patterns. The first is the existence of a "pivot point" for a majority of mutations, which is a fixed growth rate at which the effect of mutations switches from beneficial to deleterious (consistent with a previous study on the topic). The second is the observation that the distribution of fitness effects (DFE) of mutations is predicted quite well by the fitness of the genotype, especially for high-fitness genotypes. While the work does not offer a synthesis of the multitude of reported results, the information provided here raises interesting questions for future studies in this field.

Strengths:

A major strength of the study is its multifaceted approach, which has helped the authors tease out a number of interesting epistatic properties. The study makes a timely contribution by focusing on topical issues like global epistasis, the existence of pivot points, and the dependence of DFE on the background genotype and its fitness.

The authors have classified pairwise epistasis into six types, and found that the type of epistasis changes depending on background mutations. Switches happen more frequently for mutations at functionally important sites. Interestingly, the authors find that even synonymous mutations can alter the epistatic interaction between mutations in other codons, and this effect is uncorrelated with the direct fitness effects of the synonymous mutations. Alongside the observations of "fluidity", the study reports limited instances of global epistasis (which predicts a simple linear relationship between the size of a mutational effect and the fitness of the genetic background in which it occurs). Overall, the work presents strong evidence for the genetic context-dependent nature of epistasis in this system.

Weaknesses:

Despite the wealth of information provided by the study, there are a few points of concern.

The authors find that in non-functional genotypic backgrounds, most pairs of mutations display no epistasis. However, we do not know if this simply because a significant epistatic signal is hard to detect since all the fitness values involved in calculating epistasis are small (and therefore noise-prone). A control can be done by determining whether statistically significant differences exist among the fitness values themselves. In the absence of such information, it is hard to understand whether the classification of epistasis for non-functional backgrounds into discrete categories, such as in Fig 1C, is meaningful.

The authors have looked for global epistasis (i.e. a negative dependence of mutational fitness effect on background fitness) in all 108 (9x12) mutations in the landscape. They report that the majority of the mutations (77/108 or about 71 per cent) display weak correlation between fitness effect and background fitness (R^2<0.2), and a relatively small proportion show particularly strong correlation (R^2>0.5). They therefore conclude that global epistasis in this system is 'binary'-meaning that strong global epistasis is restricted to a few sites, whereas weak global epistasis occurs in the rest (Figure 5). Precise definitions of 'strong' and 'weak' are not given in the text, but the authors do mention that they are interested here primarily in detecting whether a correlation with background fitness exists or not. This again raises the question of the extent to which the low (and possibly noisy) fitness values of non-functional backgrounds can confound the results. For example, would the results be much the same if the analysis was repeated with only high-fitness backgrounds or only those sets of genotypes where the fitness differences between backgrounds and mutants were significant?<br /> Apart from this, I am also a bit conceptually perplexed by the term 'binary behavior', which suggests that the R^2 values should belong to two distinct classes; but, even assuming that the reported results are robust, Figure S12 shows that most values are 0.2 or less whereas higher values are more or less evenly distributed in the range 0.2-1.0, rather than showing an overall bimodal pattern. An especially confusing remark by the authors in this regard is the following; "This sharp contrast suggests a binary behavior of mutations: they either exhibit strong global epistasis (R^2 > 0.5), or not (R^2 < 0.5)'.

Conclusions: As large datasets on empirical fitness landscapes become increasingly available, more computational studies are needed to extract as much information from them as possible. The authors have made a timely effort in this direction. It is particularly instructive to learn from the work that higher-order epistasis is pervasive in the studied intragenic landscape, at least in functional genotypic backgrounds. Some of the analysis and interpretations in the paper require careful scrutiny, and the lack of a synthesis of the multitude of reported results leaves something to be desired. But the paper contains intriguing observations that can fuel further research into the factors shaping the topography of complex landscapes.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Dendrotweaks provides to its users a solid tool to implement, visualize, tune, validate, understand, and reduce single-neuron models that incorporate complex dendritic arbors with differential distribution of biophysical mechanisms. The visualization of dendritic segments and biophysical mechanisms therein provide users an intuitive way to understand and appreciate dendritic physiology.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The paper by Makarov et al. describes the software tool called DendroTweaks, intended for examination of multi-compartmental biophysically detailed neuron models. It offers extensive capabilities for working with very complex distributed biophysical neuronal models and should be a useful addition to the growing ecosystem of tools for neuronal modeling.

Strengths

• This Python-based tool allows for visualization of a neuronal model's compartments.

• The tool works with morphology reconstructions in the widely used .swc and .asc formats.

• It can support many neuronal models using the NMODL language, which is widely used for neuronal modeling.

• It permits one to plot the properties of linear and non-linear conductances in every compartment of a neuronal model, facilitating examination of model's details.

• DendroTweaks supports manipulation of the model parameters and morphological details, which is important for exploration of the relations of the model composition and parameters with its electrophysiological activity.

• The paper is very well written - everything is clear, and the capabilities of the tool are described and illustrated with great attention to details.

Weaknesses

• Not a really big weakness, but it would be really helpful if the authors showed how the performance of their tool scales. This can be done for an increasing number of compartments - how long does it take to carry out typical procedures in DendroTweaks, on a given hardware, for a cell model with 100 compartments, 200, 300, and so on? This information will be quite useful to understand the applicability of the software.

Let me also add here a few suggestions (not weaknesses, but something that can be useful, and if the authors can easily add some of these for publication, that would strongly increase the value of the paper).

• It would be very helpful to add functionality to read major formats in the field, such as NeuroML and SONATA.

• Visualization is available as a static 2D projection of the cell's morphology. It would be nice to implement 3D interactive visualization.

• It is nice that DendroTweaks can modify the models, such as revising the radii of the morphological segments or ionic conductances. It would be really useful then to have the functionality for writing the resulting models into files for subsequent reuse.

• If I didn't miss something, it seems that DendroTweaks supports allocation of groups of synapses, where all synapses in a group receive the same type of Poisson spike train. It would be very useful to provide more flexibility. One option is to leverage the SONATA format, which has ample functionality for specifying such diverse inputs.

• "Each session can be saved as a .json file and reuploaded when needed" - do these files contain the whole history of the session or the exact snapshot of what is visualized when the file is saved? If the latter, which variables are saved, and which are not? Please clarify.

Comments on revisions:

In this revised version of the paper, the authors addressed all my comments. While many of the suggestions were addressed by textual changes in the manuscript or an explanation in the response to the reviewers (rather than adding substantial new functionality to the tool), DendroTweaks in its current updated state does represent an advanced and useful tool. Further extensions can be added as the development of the tool continues, in interaction with the community.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors conducted a human neuroimaging study investigating the role of context in the representation of fear associations when the contingencies between a conditioned stimulus and shock unconditioned stimulus switches between contexts. The novelty of the analysis centered on neural pattern similarity to derive a measure of context and cue stability and generalization across different regions of the brain. Given the complexity and nuance of the results, it is kind of difficult to provide a concise summary. But during fear and reversal, there was cue generalization (between current CS+ cues) in the canonical fear network, and "item stability" for cues that changed their association with the shock in the IFG and precuneus. Reinstatement was quantified as pattern similarity for items or sets of cues from the earlier phases to the test phases, and they found different patterns in the IFG and dmPFC. A similar analytical strategy was applied to contexts.

Strengths:

Overall, I found this to be a novel use of MVPA to study the role of context in reversal/extinction of human fear conditioning that yielded interesting results. The paper was overall well-written, with a strong introduction and fairly detailed methods and results. The lack of any univariate contrast results from the test phases was used as motivation for the neural pattern similarity approach, which I appreciated as a reader.

I have no additional or new comments. The authors adequately addressed my major comments and concerns.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a timely and original study on the geometry of macroscopic (2.5 mm) brain representations of multiple cues and contexts in Pavlovian fear conditioning. The authors report that these representations differ between initial learning, and reversal learning, and remain stable during extinction.

Strengths:

The authors address an important question and use a rigorous experimental methodology.

Weaknesses:

The findings are limited by the chosen spatial resolution (2.5 mm) which is far away from what modern fMRI can achieve. Also, region-of-interesting findings should be considered exploratory due to the chosen FDR method for correction for multiple comparison (which is transparently reported).

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Henning et al. examine the impact of GABAergic feedback inhibition on the motion-sensitive pathway of flies. Based on a previous behavioral screen, the authors determined that C2 and C3, two GABAergic inhibitory feedback neurons in the optic lobes of the fly, are required for the optomotor response. Through a series of calcium imaging and disruption experiments, connectomics analysis, and follow-up behavioral assays, the authors concluded that C2 and C3 play a role in temporally sharpening visual motion responses. While this study employs a comprehensive array of experimental approaches, I have some reservations about the interpretation of the results in their current form. I strongly encourage the authors to provide additional data to solidify their conclusions. This is particularly relevant in determining whether this is a general phenomenon affecting vision or a specific effect on motion vision. Knowing this is also important for any speculation on the mechanisms of the observed temporal deficiencies.

Strengths:

This study uses a variety of experiments to provide a functional, anatomical, and behavioral description of the role of GABAergic inhibition in the visual system. This comprehensive data is relevant for anyone interested in understanding the intricacies of visual processing in the fly.

Weaknesses:

(1) The most fundamental criticism of this study is that the authors present a skewed view of the motion vision pathway in their results. While this issue is discussed, it is important to demonstrate that there are no temporal deficiencies in the lamina, which could be the case since C2 and C3, as noted in the connectomics analysis, project strongly to laminar interneurons. If the input dynamics are indeed disrupted, then the disruption seen in the motion vision pathway would reflect disruptions in temporal processing in general and suggest that these deficiencies are inherited downstream. A simple experiment could test this. Block C2, C3, and both together using Kir2.1 and Shibire independently, then record the ERG. Alternatively, one could image any other downstream neuron from the lamina that does not receive C2 or C3 input.

(2) Figure 6c. More analysis is required here, since the authors claim to have found a loss in inhibition (ND). However, the difference in excitation appears similar, at least in absolute magnitude (see panel 6c), for PD direction for the T4 C2 and C3 blocks. Also, I predict that C2 & C3 block statistically different from C3 only, why? In any case, it would be good to discuss the clear trend in the PD direction by showing the distribution of responses as violin plots to better understand the data. It would also be good to have some raw traces to be able to see the differences more clearly, not only polar plots and averages.

(3) The behavioral experiments are done with a different disruptor than the physiological ones. One blocks chemical synapses, the other shunts the cells. While one would expect similar results in both, this is not a given. It would be great if the authors could test the behavioral experiments with Kir2.1, too.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The work by Henning et al. explores the role of feedback inhibition in motion vision circuits, providing the first identification of inhibitory inheritance in motion-selective T4 and T5 cells of Drosophila. This work advances our current knowledge in Drosophila motion vision and sets the way for further exploring the intricate details of direction-selective computations.

Strengths:

Among the strengths of this work is the verification of the GABAergic nature of C2 and C3 with genetic and immunohistochemical approaches. In addition, double-silencing C2&C3 experiments help to establish a functional role for these cells. The authors holistically use the Drosophila toolbox to identify neural morphologies, synaptic locations, network connectivity, neuronal functions, and the behavioral output.

Weaknesses:

The authors claim that C2 and C3 neurons are required for direction selectivity, as per the publication's title; however, even with their double silencing, the directional T4 & T5 responses are not completely abolished. Therefore, the contribution of this inherited feedback in direction-selective computations is not a prerequisite for its emergence, and the title could be re-adjusted.

Connectivity is assessed in one out of the two available connectome datasets; therefore, it would make the study stronger if the same connectivity patterns were identified in both datasets.

The mediating neural correlates from C2 & C3 to T4 & T5 are not clarified; rather, Mi1 is found to be one of them. The study could be improved if the same set of silencing experiments performed for C2-Mi1 were extended to C2 &C3-Tm1 or Tm4 to find the T5 neural mediators of this feedback inhibition loop. Stating more clearly from the connectomic analysis, the potential T5 mediators would be equally beneficial. Future experiments might also disentangle the parallel or separate functions of C2 and C3 neurons.

Finally, the authors' conclusions derive from the set of experiments they performed in a logical manner. Nonetheless, the Discussion could benefited from a more extensive explanation on the following matters: why do the ON-selective C2 and C3 neurons control OFF-generated behaviors, why the T4&T5 responses after C2&C3 silencing differ between stationary and moving stimuli and finally why C2 and not C3 had an effect in T5 DS responses, as the connectivity suggests C3 outputting to two out of the four major T5 cholinergic inputs.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This article is about the neural circuitry underlying motion vision in the fruit fly. Specifically, it regards the roles of two identified neurons, called C2 and C3, that form columnar connections between neurons in the lamina and medulla, including neurons that are presynaptic to the elementary motion detectors T4 and T5. The approach takes advantage of specific fly lines in which one can disable the synaptic outputs of either or both of the C2/3 cell types. This is combined with optical recording from various neurons in the circuit, and with behavioral measurements of the turning reaction to moving stimuli.

The experiments are planned logically. The effects of silencing the C2/C3 neurons are substantial in size. The dominant effect is to make the responses of downstream neurons more sustained, consistent with a circuit role in feedback or feedforward inhibition. Silencing C2/C3 also makes the motion-sensitive neurons T4/T5 less direction-selective. However, the turning response of the fly is affected only in subtle ways. Detection of motion appears unaffected. But the response fails to discriminate between two motion pulses that happen in close succession. One can conclude that C2/C3 are involved in the motion vision circuit, by sharpening responses in time, though they are not essential for its basic function of motion detection.

Strengths:

The combination of cutting-edge methods available in fruit fly neuroscience. Well-planned experiments carried out to a high standard. Convincing effects documenting the role of these neurons in neural processing and behavior.

Weaknesses:

The report could benefit from a mechanistic argument linking the effects at the level of single neurons, the resulting neural computations in elementary motion detectors, and the altered behavioral response to visual motion.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This work by Reitz, Z. L. et al. developed an automated tool for high-throughput identification of microbial metallophore biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) by integrating knowledge of chelating moiety diversity and transporter gene families. The study aimed to create a comprehensive detection system combining chelator-based and transporter-based identification strategies, validate the tool through large-scale genomic mining, and investigate the evolutionary history of metallophore biosynthesis across bacteria.

Major strengths include providing the first automated, high-throughput tool for metallophore BGC identification, representing a significant advancement over manual curation approaches. The ensemble strategy effectively combines complementary detection methods, and experimental validation using HPLC-HRMS strengthens confidence in computational predictions. The work pioneers a global analysis of metallophore diversity across the bacterial kingdom and provides a valuable dataset for future computational modeling.

Some limitations merit consideration. First, ground truth datasets derived from manual curation may introduce selection bias toward well-characterized systems, potentially affecting performance assessment accuracy. Second, the model's dependence on known chelating moieties and transporter families constrains its ability to detect novel metallophore architectures, limiting discovery potential in metagenomic datasets. Third, while the proposed evolutionary hypothesis is internally consistent, it lacks direct validation and remains speculative without additional phylogenetic studies.

The authors successfully achieved their stated objectives. The tool demonstrates robust performance metrics and practical utility through large-scale application to representative genomes. Results strongly support their conclusions through rigorous validation, including experimental confirmation of predicted metallophores via HPLC-HRMS analysis.

The work provides a significant and immediate impact by enabling the transition from labor-intensive manual approaches to automated screening. The comprehensive phylogenetic framework advances understanding of bacterial metal acquisition evolution, informing future studies on microbial metal homeostasis. Community utility is substantial, since the tool and accompanying dataset create essential resources for comparative genomics, algorithm development, and targeted experimental validation of novel metallophores.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study presents a systematic and well-executed effort to identify and classify bacterial NRP metallophores. The authors curate key chelator biosynthetic genes from previously characterized NRP-metallophore biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) and translate these features into an HMM-based detection module integrated within the antiSMASH platform.

The new algorithm is compared with a transporter-based siderophore prediction approach, demonstrating improved precision and recall. The authors further apply the algorithm to large-scale bacterial genome mining and, through reconciliation of chelator biosynthetic gene trees with the GTDB species tree using eMPRess, infer that several chelating groups may have originated prior to the Great Oxidation Event.

Overall, this work provides a valuable computational framework that will greatly assist future in silico screening and preliminary identification of metallophore-related BGCs across bacterial taxa.

Strengths:

(1) The study provides a comprehensive curation of chelator biosynthetic genes involved in NRP-metallophore biosynthesis and translates this knowledge into an HMM-based detection algorithm, which will be highly useful for the initial screening and annotation of metallophore-related BGCs within antiSMASH.

(2) The genome-wide survey across a large bacterial dataset offers an informative and quantitative overview of the taxonomic distribution of NRP-metallophore biosynthetic chelator groups, thereby expanding our understanding of their phylogenetic prevalence.

(3) The comparative evolutionary analysis, linking chelator biosynthetic genes to bacterial phylogeny, provides an interesting and valuable perspective on the potential origin and diversification of NRP-metallophore chelating groups.

Weaknesses:

(1) Although the rule-based HMM detection performs well in identifying major categories of NRP-metallophore biosynthetic modules, it currently lacks the resolution to discriminate between fine-scale structural or biochemical variations among different metallophore types.

(2) While the comparison with the transporter-based siderophore prediction approach is convincing overall, more information about the dataset balance and composition would be appreciated. In particular, specifying the BGC identities, source organisms, and Gram-positive versus Gram-negative classification would improve transparency. In the supplementary tables, the "Just TonB" section seems to include only BGCs from Gram-negative bacteria - if so, this should be clearly stated, as Gram type strongly influences siderophore transport systems.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study explores the use of Transport-based morphometry (TBM) to predict hematoma expansion and growth 24 hours post-event, leveraging Non-Contrast Computed Tomography (NCCT) scans combined with clinical and location-based information. The research holds significant clinical potential, as it could enable early intervention for patients at high risk of hematoma expansion, thereby improving outcomes. The study is well-structured, with detailed methodological descriptions and a clear presentation of results. However, the practical utility of the predictive tool requires further validation, as the current findings are based on retrospective data. Additionally, the impact of this tool on clinical decision-making and patient outcomes needs to be further investigated.

Strengths

(1) Clinical Relevance: The study addresses a critical need in clinical practice by providing a tool that could enhance diagnostic accuracy and guide early interventions, potentially improving patient outcomes.

(2) Feature Visualization: The visualization and interpretation of features associated with hematoma expansion risk are highly valuable for clinicians, aiding in the understanding of model-derived insights and facilitating clinical application.

(3) Methodological Rigor: The study provides a thorough description of methods, results, and discussions, ensuring transparency and reproducibility.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed my concerns.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Donofrio et al. investigated cerebellar Purkinje cell (PC) degeneration during normal aging using both mouse and human samples. They found that PC loss followed a stripe pattern rather than occurring randomly. Although this pattern resembled the pattern of zebrin II expression in the anterior cerebellum, the overall pattern was different from zebrin II expression. Surviving PCs exhibited severe degeneration, including thickened axons, axonal torpedoes and shrunken dendrites. These structural changes were accompanied by functional deficits in motor coordination and tremor. Understanding why certain PC subpopulations are more vulnerable than others may provide insight into regional susceptibility (or resilience) to aging and inform potential therapeutic strategies for age-related neurological disorders. Overall, the findings are novel and significant, supported by compelling evidence from structural and functional analyses. The authors have fully addressed my previous concerns and improved the clarity of their presentation. I believe this work will have a significant impact in the field.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The cerebellum is known to be vulnerable to aging, yet specific cell type vulnerability remains understudied. This important study convincingly demonstrate that the normal aged mouse cerebellum exhibits Purkinje cell loss, and that the vulnerable PCs to age are arranged on the basis of known Zebrin stripe pattern that represents a particular subtype of the PCs. As the authors wrote, future studies should investigate why this PC loss phenotype occurs stochastically across the population, and whether these findings parallel human cerebellar aging.

Strength:

• Banding pattern of PC loss is very clearly demonstrated by combining immunostaining for Zebrin.

• A critical methodological concern that a standard PC marker, Calbindin, could be compromised in aging has been addressed by performing control experiments with appropriate counterstaining and a transgenic mouse.

• Parallels with neurodegenerative phenotype would be helpful to understand the mechanisms of age-related PC loss in future.

Weakness:

• Limited strain diversity: The study exclusively uses C57BL/6J mice despite known genetic and motor differences among even closely related strains like C57BL/6N, weakening the generalizability of the findings. However, on the other hand, the presence of age-related PC loss makes C57BL/6J an interesting mouse model for studying aging of the cerebellum.

• Linkages with normal human aging and cerebellar function is not supported well. It remains unclear whether this PC loss phenomenon is universal or specific to a particular individual, and whether specific to human PC subtype.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Donofrio et al. report a new observation that in normal aging mice, anti-calbindin whole-mount staining and coronal immunohistochemistry in the cerebellum often show a sagittally patterned loss of Purkinje cells with age. The authors address a central concern that calbindin antibody staining alone is not sufficient to definitively assess Purkinje cell loss, and corroborate their antibody staining data with transgenic Pcp2-CRE x flox-GFP reporter mice and Neutral Red staining. The authors then investigate whether this patterned Purkinje loss correlates with the known parasagittal expression of zebrin-II, finding a strong but imperfect correlation with zebrin-II antibody staining. They next draw a connection between this age-related Purkinje loss to the age-related decline in motor function in mice, with trending but non-significant statistical association between the severity/patterning of Purkinje loss and motor phenotypes within cohorts of aged mice. Finally, the authors look at post-mortem human cerebellar tissues from deceased healthy donors between 21 and 74 years of age, finding a positive correlation between Purkinje degeneration and age, but with unknown spatial patterning.

The conclusions drawn from this study are well supported by the data provided, with image quantification corroborating visual observations. The authors highlight several examples of parasagittal patterning of Purkinje cell degeneration in disease, and they show that proper methodologies must be used to account for these patterns to avoid highly variable data in the sagittal plane. The authors aptly point out that additional work is needed to investigate the spatial patterns of Purkinje cell loss in the human cerebellum.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In their paper entitled "Combined transcriptomic, connectivity, and activity profiling of the medial amygdala using highly amplified multiplexed in situ hybridization (hamFISH)" Edwards et al. present a new method designated as hamFISH (highly amplified multiplexed in situ hybridization) that enables sequential detection of {less than or equal to}32 genes using multiplexed branched DNA amplification. As proof-of-principle, the authors apply the new technique - in conjunction with connectivity, and activity profiling - to the medial amygdala (MeA) of the mouse, which is a critical nucleus for innate social and defensive behaviors.

As mentioned by Edwards et al., hamFISH could prove beneficial as an affordable alternative to other in situ transcriptomic methods, including commercial platforms, that are resource-intensive and require complex analysis pipelines. Thus, the authors envision that the method they present could democratize in situ cell-type identification in individual laboratories.

The data presented by Edwards et al. is convincing. The authors use the appropriate and validated methodology in line with the current state-of-the-art. The paper makes a strong case for the benefits of hamFISH when combining transcriptomics studies with connectivity tracing and immediate early gene-based activity profiling. Notably, the authors also discuss the caveats and limitations of their study/approach in an open and transparent manner.

Comments on revisions:

In their revised paper, Edwards et al. have made an effort to improve manuscript clarity. Revisions made address the non-public "recommendations for the authors." The main criticism that prevents a more enthusiastic overall assessment, i.e., absence of some more in-depth hypothesis-based analysis (though, as originally mentioned, maybe beyond the study's scope), is still valid.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The authors describe the development and implementation of hamFISH, a sensitive multiplexed ISH method. They leverage a pre-existing scRNA-seq dataset for the MeA to design 32 probes that combinatorically represent MeA neuronal populations - ~80% of MeA neurons express at least three of these 32 markers. Using these markers to assess the spatial organization of the MeA, the authors identify a novel population of Ndnf+ projection neurons and characterize their connectivity with anterograde and retrograde labeling. They additionally combine hamFISH with CTB labeling of three principal MeA projections sites to show that 75% of MeA neurons have only a single projection target. Finally, they engage adult male mice in encounters with other adult males (aggression), females (mating), and pups (infanticide), followed with hamFISH and c-fos labeling to relate cell identity to behavior. Their overall conclusion is that hamFISH-defined cell types are broadly active to multiple sensory stimuli. However, the data presented are not sufficient to conclude that no selectivity exists.

A strength of the manuscript is the novel hamFISH approach, which is technically innovative and could potentially be adopted by many labs. However, a weakness is that the 32 selected hamFISH marker genes employed here are predominantly neuropeptides. These genes, such as Tac1, Cartpt, Adcyap1, Calb1, and Gal, are expressed throughout the MeA, and many other brain regions and are not selective for transcriptomic cell types or developmental lineages. The use of hamFISH probes that provide a more stringent classification of cell type or cell identity could potentially provide a different picture of sensory response selectivity within the MeA. Thus, although the data in the manuscript are exemplary, the biological insight into MeA function is more limited.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Edwards et al. describe hamFISH, a customizable and cost-efficient method for performing targeted spatial transcriptomics. hamFISH utilizes highly amplified multiplexed branched DNA amplification, and the authors extensively describe hamFISH development and its advantages over prior variants of this approach.

The authors then used hamFISH to investigate an important circuit in the mouse brain for social behavior, the medial amygdala (MeA). To develop a hamFISH probe set capable of distinguishing MeA neurons, the authors mined published single cell RNA-sequencing datasets of the MeA, ultimately creating a panel of 32 hamFISH probes that mostly cover the identified MeA cell types. They evaluated over 600,000 MeA cells and classified neurons into 16 inhibitory and 10 excitatory types, many of which are spatially clustered.

The authors combined hamFISH with viral and other circuit tracer injections to determine whether the identified MeA cell populations sent and/or received unique inputs from connected brain regions, finding evidence that several cell types had unique patterns of input and output. Finally, the authors performed hamFISH on the brains of male mice that were placed in behavioral conditions that elicit aggressive, infanticidal, or mating behaviors, finding that some cell populations are selectively activated (as assessed by c-fos mRNA expression) in specific social contexts.

Strengths:

(1) The authors developed an optimized tissue preparation protocol for hamFISH and implemented oligopools instead of individually synthesized oligonucleotides to reduce costs. The branched DNA amplification scheme improved smFISH signal compared to previous methods, and multiple variants provide additional improvements in signal intensity and specificity. Compared to other spatial transcriptomics methods, the pipeline for imaging and analysis is streamlined, and is compatible with other techniques like fluorescence-based circuit tracing. This approach is cost-effective and has several advantages that make it a valuable addition to the list of spatial transcriptomics toolkits.

(2) Using 31 probes, hamFISH was able to detect 16 inhibitory and 10 excitatory neuron types in the MeA subregions, including the vast majority of cell types identified by other transcriptomics approaches. The authors quantified the distributions of these cell types along the anterior-posterior, dorsal-ventral, and medial-lateral axes, finding spatial segregation among some, but not all, MeA excitatory and inhibitory cell types. The authors additionally identified a class of inhibitory neurons expressing Ndnf (and a subset of these that express Chrna7) that project to multiple social chemosensory circuits.

(3) The authors combined hamFISH with MeA input and output mapping, finding cell-type biases in the projections to the MPOA, BNST, and VMHvl, and inputs from multiple regions.

(4) The authors identified excitatory and inhibitory cell types, and patterns of activity across cell types, that were selectively activated during various social behaviors, including aggression, mating, and infanticide, providing new insights and avenues for future research into MeA circuit function.

Weaknesses:

(1) Gene selection for hamFISH is likely to still be a limiting factor, even with the expanded (32-probe) capacity. This may have contributed to the lack of ability to identify sexually dimorphic cell types (Fig. S2B). This is an expected tradeoff for a method that has major advantages in terms of cost and adaptability.

(2) Adaptation of hamFISH, for example, to adapt it to other brain regions or tissues, may require extensive optimization. This does not preclude it from being highly useful for other brain regions with extra effort.

(3) Pairing this method with behavioral experiments is likely to require further optimization, as c-fos mRNA expression is an indirect and incomplete survey of neuronal activity (e.g. not all cell types upregulate c-fos when electrically active). As such, there is a risk of false negative results that limit its utility for understanding circuit function.

(4) The incompatibility of hamFISH with thicker tissue samples and minimal optical sectioning introduce additional technical limitations. For example, it would be difficult to densely sample larger neural circuits using serial 20 micron sections.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In the current article, Octavia Soegyono and colleagues study "The influence of nucleus accumbens shell D1 and D2 neurons on outcome-specific Pavlovian instrumental transfer", building on extensive findings from the same lab. While there is a consensus about the specific involvement of the Shell part of the Nucleus Accumbens (NAc) in specific stimulus-based actions in choice settings (and not in General Pavlovian instrumental transfer - gPIT, as opposed to the Core part of the NAc), mechanisms at the cellular and circuitry levels remain to be explored. In the present work, using sophisticated methods (rat Cre-transgenic lines from both sexes, optogenetics and the well-established behavioral paradigm outcome-specific PIT - sPIT), Octavia Soegyono and colleagues decipher the differential contribution of dopamine receptors D1 and D2 expressing-spiny projection neurons (SPNs).

After validating the viral strategy and the specificity of the targeting (immunochemistry and electrophysiology), the authors demonstrate that while both NAc Shell D1- and D2-SPNs participate in mediating sPIT, NAc Shell D1-SPNs projections to the Ventral Pallidum (VP, previously demonstrated as crucial for sPIT), but not D2-SPNs, mediates sPIT. They also show that these effects were specific to stimulus-based actions, as value-based choices were left intact in all manipulations.

This is a well-designed study and the results are well supported by the experimental evidence. The paper is extremely pleasant to read and add to the current literature.

Comments on revisions:

We thank the authors for their detailed responses and for addressing our comments and concerns.

To further improve consistency and transparency, we kindly request that the authors provide, for Supplemental Figures S1-S4, panels E (raw data for lever presses during the PIT test), the individual data points together with the corresponding statistical analyses in the figure legends.

In addition, regarding Supplemental Figure S3, panel E, we note the absence of a PIT effect in the eYFP group under the ON condition, which appears to differ from the net response reported in the main Figure 5, panel B. Could the authors clarify this apparent discrepancy?

We also note a discrepancy between the authors' statement in their response ("40 rats excluded based on post-mortem analyses") and the number of excluded animals reported in the Materials and Methods section, which adds up to 47. We kindly ask the authors to clarify this point for consistency.

Finally, as a minor point, we suggest indicating the total number of animals used in the study in the Materials and Methods section.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Soegyono et a. describes a series of experiments designed to probe the involvement of dopamine D1 and D2 neurons within the nucleus accumbens shell in outcome-specific Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (osPIT), a well-controlled assay of cue-guided action selection based on congruent outcome associations. They used an optogenetic approach to phasically silence NAc shell D1 (D1-Cre mice) or D2 (A2a-Cre mice) neurons during a subset of osPIT trials. Both manipulations disrupted cue-guided action selection but had no effects on negative control measures/tasks (concomitant approach behavior, separate valued guided choice task), nor were any osPIT impairments found in reporter only control groups. Separate experiments revealed that selective inhibition of NAc shell D1 but not D2 inputs to ventral pallidum were required for osPIT expression, thereby advancing understanding of the basal ganglia circuitry underpinning this important aspect of decision making.

Strengths:

The combinatorial viral and optogenetic approaches used here were convincingly validated through anatomical tract-tracing and ex vivo electrophysiology. The behavioral assays are sophisticated and well-controlled to parse cue and value guided action selection. The inclusion of reporter only control groups is rigorous and rules out nonspecific effects of the light manipulation. The findings are novel and address a critical question in the literature. Prior work using less decisive methods had implicated NAc shell D1 neurons in osPIT but suggested that D2 neurons may not be involved. The optogenetic manipulations used in the current study provides a more direct test of their involvement and convincingly demonstrate that both populations play an important role. Prior work had also implicated NAc shell connections to ventral pallidum in osPIT, but the current study reveals the selective involvement of D1 but not D2 neurons in this circuit. The authors do a good job of discussing their findings, including their nuanced interpretation that NAc shell D2 neurons may contribute to osPIT through their local regulation of NAc shell microcircuitry.

Weaknesses:

The current study exclusively used an optogenetic approach to probe the function of D1 and D2 NAc shell neurons. Providing a complementary assessment with chemogenetics or other appropriate methods would strengthen conclusions, particularly the novel demonstration for D2 NAc shell involvement. Likewise, the null result of optically inhibiting D2 inputs to ventral pallidum leaves open the possibility that a more complete or sustained disruption of this pathway may have impaired osPIT.

Conclusions:

The research described here was successful in providing critical new insights into the contributions of NAc D1 and D2 neurons in cue-guided action selection. The authors' data interpretation and conclusions are well reasoned and appropriate. They also provide a thoughtful discussion of study limitations and implications for future research. This research is therefore likely to have a significant impact on the field.

Comments on revisions:

I have reviewed the rebuttal and revised manuscript and have no remaining concerns.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In the current article, Octavia Soegyono and colleagues study "The influence of nucleus accumbens shell D1 and D2 neurons on outcome-specific Pavlovian instrumental transfer", building on extensive findings from the same lab. While there is a consensus about the specific involvement of the Shell part of the Nucleus Accumbens (NAc) in specific stimulus-based actions in choice settings (and not in General Pavlovian instrumental transfer - gPIT, as opposed to the Core part of the NAc), mechanisms at the cellular and circuitry levels remain to be explored. In the present work, using sophisticated methods (rat Cre-transgenic lines from both sexes, optogenetics, and the well-established behavioral paradigm outcome-specific PIT-sPIT), Octavia Soegyono and colleagues decipher the differential contribution of dopamine receptors D1 and D2 expressing spiny projection neurons (SPNs).

After validating the viral strategy and the specificity of the targeting (immunochemistry and electrophysiology), the authors demonstrate that while both NAc Shell D1- and D2-SPNs participate in mediating sPIT, NAc Shell D1-SPNs projections to the Ventral Pallidum (VP, previously demonstrated as crucial for sPIT), but not D2-SPNs, mediates sPIT. They also show that these effects were specific to stimulus-based actions, as value-based choices were left intact in all manipulations.

This is a well-designed study, and the results are well supported by the experimental evidence. The paper is extremely pleasant to read and adds to the current literature.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Soegyono et al. describes a series of experiments designed to probe the involvement of dopamine D1 and D2 neurons within the nucleus accumbens shell in outcome-specific Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (osPIT), a well-controlled assay of cue-guided action selection based on congruent outcome associations. They used an optogenetic approach to phasically silence NAc shell D1 (D1-Cre mice) or D2 (A2a-Cre mice) neurons during a subset of osPIT trials. Both manipulations disrupted cue-guided action selection but had no effects on negative control measures/tasks (concomitant approach behavior, separate valued guided choice task), nor were any osPIT impairments found in reporter-only control groups. Separate experiments revealed that selective inhibition of NAc shell D1 but not D2 inputs to ventral pallidum was required for osPIT expression, thereby advancing understanding of the basal ganglia circuitry underpinning this important aspect of decision making.

Strengths:

The combinatorial viral and optogenetic approaches used here were convincingly validated through anatomical tract-tracing and ex vivo electrophysiology. The behavioral assays are sophisticated and well-controlled to parse cue and value-guided action selection. The inclusion of reporter-only control groups is rigorous and rules out nonspecific effects of the light manipulation. The findings are novel and address a critical question in the literature. Prior work using less decisive methods had implicated NAc shell D1 neurons in osPIT but suggested that D2 neurons may not be involved. The optogenetic manipulations used in the current study provide a more direct test of their involvement and convincingly demonstrate that both populations play an important role. Prior work had also implicated NAc shell connections to ventral pallidum in osPIT, but the current study reveals the selective involvement of D1 but not D2 neurons in this circuit. The authors do a good job of discussing their findings, including their nuanced interpretation that NAc shell D2 neurons may contribute to osPIT through their local regulation of NAc shell microcircuitry.

Weaknesses:

The current study exclusively used an optogenetic approach to probe the function of D1 and D2 NAc shell neurons. Providing a complementary assessment with chemogenetics or other appropriate methods would strengthen conclusions, particularly the novel demonstration of D2 NAc shell involvement. Likewise, the null result of optically inhibiting D2 inputs to the ventral pallidum leaves open the possibility that a more complete or sustained disruption of this pathway may have impaired osPIT.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors present data demonstrating that optogenetic inhibition of either D1- or D2-MSNs in the NAc Shell attenuates expression of sensory-specific PIT while largely sparing value-based decision on an instrumental task. They also provide evidence that SS-PIT depends on D1-MSN projections from the NAc-Shell to the VP, whereas projections from D2-MSNs to the VP do not contribute to SS-PIT.

Strengths:

This is clearly written. The evidence largely supports the authors' interpretations, and these effects are somewhat novel, so they help advance our understanding of PIT and NAc-Shell function.

Weaknesses:

I think the interpretation of some of the effects (specifically the claim that D1-MSNs do not contribute to value-based decision making) is not fully supported by the data presented.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors used high-density probe recordings in the medial prefrontal cortex (PFC) and hippocampus during a rodent spatial memory task to examine functional sub-populations of PFC neurons that are modulated vs. unmodulated by hippocampal sharp-wave ripples (SWRs), an important physiological biomarker that is thought to have role in mediating information transfer across hippocampal-cortical networks for memory processes. SWRs are associated with reactivation of representations of previous experiences, and associated reactivation in hippocampal and cortical regions have been proposed to have a role in memory formation, retrieval, planning, and memory-guided behavior. This study focuses of awake SWRs that are prevalent during immobility periods during pauses in behavior. Previous studies have reported strong modulation of a subset of prefrontal neurons during hippocampal SWRs, with some studies reporting prefrontal reactivation during SWRs that have a role in spatial memory processes. The study seeks to extend these findings by examining activity of SWR-modulated vs. unmodulated neurons across PFC sub-regions, and whether there is a functional distinction between these two kinds of neuronal populations with respect to representing spatial information and supporting memory-guided decision making.

Strengths:

The major strength of the study is the use of Neuropixels 1.0 probes to monitor activity throughput the dorsal-ventral extent of the rodent medial prefrontal cortex, permitting an investigation of functional distinction in neuronal populations across PFC sub-regions. They are able to show that SWR-unmodulated neurons, in addition to having stronger spatial tuning than SWR-modulated neurons as previously reported, also show stronger directional selectivity, and theta-cycle skipping properties.

Weaknesses:

(1) The title and abstract have been updated to reflect the updated interpretation that prefrontal neurons are involved in spatial tuning and signaling upcoming choice independently from hippocampal SWRs, implying the negative that these functions do not happen during SWRs. The evidence presented, however, is lacking and the analyses has key limitations that preclude such a conclusion. First, the fact that prefrontal neurons decode past and future choices independently of the hippocampus, not just hippocampal SWRs, is well-established (for e.g., Baeg et al., 2003, 10.1016/s0896-6273(03)00597-x). Second, the statement that prefrontal neurons are involved in spatial tuning independently from SWRs is inconsistent, since spatial tuning is assessed during exploratory behaviors that are not associated with SWRs. Apart from showing that non-local decoding occurs in prefrontal cortex outside SWR time periods, which is already established, the conclusion needs evidence this does not occur during SWR time periods, which is not presented.

(2) The results show that SWR-modulated prefrontal neurons are more linked to hippocampal non-local representations, whereas SWR-unmodulated neurons encode upcoming choice independently of SWRs. This is logical, and implies that SWR-modulated prefrontal neurons are involved in non-local decoding during hippocampal non-local representations. This hints at potentially multiple mechanisms, one involving independent prefrontal non-local decoding, and another involving prefrontal and hippocampal non-local decoding.

(3) The analyses have key limitations. The Methods section notes that decoding was performed in 50ms bins, periods with running speed less than 15cm/s were excluded, then decoded probabilities summed for each maze segment, followed by grouping probabilities together for local and non-local decoding. This implies that decoding segments can span entire maze segments or long time periods - this needs to be clarified and quantified. When examining time-locking of decoding segments to hippocampal SWRs, only non-local segments that occurred within 2 secs of SWRs were used. This raises several concerns. First, prefrontal modulation by hippocampal SWRs lasts primarily <500ms, so a 2sec temporal proximity will lead to non-SWR modulation periods being included in the analyses. In addition, even for decoding segments that may be in close temporal proximity, these can be very long, based on the analyses description. This can lead to spurious results. Second, if only running speeds >15cm/s were included, immobility periods are necessarily being excluded, which is when SWRs occur. So, this analysis cannot be used to investigate decoding during SWRs; rather, a direct approach of extracting prefrontal activity during SWRs and then decoding this activity is required.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This work by den Bakker and Kloosterman contributes to the vast body of research exploring the dynamics governing the communication between the hippocampus (HPC) and the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) during spatial learning and navigation. Previous research showed that population activity of mPFC neurons is replayed during HPC sharp-wave ripple events (SWRs), which may therefore correspond to privileged windows for the transfer of learned navigation information from the HPC, where initial learning occurs, to the mPFC, which is thought to store this information long term. Indeed, it was also previously shown that the activity of mPFC neurons contains task-related information that can inform about the location of an animal in a maze, which can predict the animals' navigational choices. Here, the authors aim to show that the mPFC neurons that are modulated by HPC activity (SWRs and theta rhythms) are distinct from those "encoding" spatial information. This result could suggest that the integration of spatial information originating from the HPC within the mPFC may require the cooperation of separate sets of neurons.

This observation may be useful to further extend our understanding of the dynamics regulating the exchange of information between the HPC and mPFC during learning. However, my understanding is that this finding is mainly based upon a negative result, which cannot be statistically proven by the failure to reject the null hypothesis. Moreover, in my reading, the rest of the paper mainly replicates phenomena that have already been described, with the original reports not correctly cited. My opinion is that the novel elements should be precisely identified and discussed, while the current phrasing in the manuscript, in most cases, leads readers to think that these results are new. Detailed comments are provided below.

Major concerns:

ORIGINAL COMMENT: (1) The main claim of the manuscript is that the neurons involved in predicting upcoming choices are not the neurons modulated by the HPC. This is based upon the evidence provided in Figure 5, which is a negative result that the authors employ to claim that predictive non-local representations in the mPFC are not linked to hippocampal SWRs and theta phase. However, it is important to remember that in a statistical test, the failure to reject the null hypothesis does not prove that the null hypothesis is true. Since this claim is so central in this work, the authors should use appropriate statistics to demonstrate that the null hypothesis is true. This can be accomplished by showing that there is no effect above some size that is so small that it would make the effect meaningless (see https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370304801108).

AUTHOR RESPONSE: We would like to highlight a few important points here. (1) We indeed do not intend to claim that the SWR-modulated neurons are not at all involved in predicting upcoming choice, just that the SWR-unmodulated neurons may play a larger role. We have rephrased the title and abstract to make this clearer.

REVIEWER COMMENT: The title has been rephrased but still conveys the same substantive claim. The abstract sentence also does not clearly state what was found. Using "independently" in the new title continues to imply that SWR modulation and prediction of upcoming choices are separate phenomena. By contrast, in your response here in the rebuttall you state only that "SWR-unmodulated neurons may play a larger role," which is a much more tempered claim than what the manuscript currently argues. Why is this clarification not adopted in the article? Moreover, the main text continues to use the same arguments as before; beyond the cosmetic changes of title and abstract, the claim itself has not materially changed.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: (2) The hypothesis that we put forward is based not only on a negative effect, but on the findings that: the SWR-unmodulated neurons show higher spatial tuning (Fig 3b), more directional selectivity (Fig 3d), more frequent encoding of the upcoming choice at the choice point (new analysis, added in Fig 4d), and higher spike rates during the representations of the upcoming choice (Fig 5b). This is further highlighted by the fact that the representations of upcoming choice in the PFC are not time locked to SWRs (whereas the hippocampal representations of upcoming choice are; see Fig 5a and Fig 6a), and not time-locked to hippocampal theta phase (whereas the hippocampal representations are; see Fig 5c and Fig 6c). Finally, the representations of upcoming and alternative choices in the PFC do not show a large overlap in time with the representations in the hippocampus (see updated Fig 4e were we added a statistical test to show the likelihood of the overlap of decoded timepoints). All these results together lead us to hypothesize that SWR-modulation is not the driving factor behind non-local decoding in the PFC.

REVIEWER COMMENT: I do not see how these precisions address my remark. The main claim in the title used to be "Neurons in the medial prefrontal cortex that are not modulated by hippocampal sharp-wave ripples are involved in spatial tuning and signaling upcoming choice." It is now "Neurons in the medial prefrontal cortex are involved in spatial tuning and signaling upcoming choice independently from hippocampal sharp-wave ripples." The substance has not changed. This specific claim is supported solely by Figure 5.

The other analyses cited describe functional characteristics of SWR-unmodulated neurons but, unless linked by explicit new analyses, do not substantiate independence/orthogonality between SWR modulation and non-local decoding in PFC. If there is an analysis that makes this link explicit, it should be clearly presented; as it stands, I cannot find an explanation in the manuscript for why "all these results together" justify the conclusion that "All these results together lead us to hypothesize that SWR-modulation is not the driving factor behind non-local decoding in the PFC". Also: is the main result of this work a "hypothesis"? If so, this should be clearly differentiated from a conclusion supported by results and analyses.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: (3) Based on the reviewers suggestion, we have added a statistical test to compare the phase-locking based of the non-local decoding to hippocampal SWRs and theta phase to shuffled posterior probabilities. Instead of looking at all SWRs in a -2 to 2 second window, we have now only selected the closest SWR in time within that window, and did the statistical comparison in the bin of 0-20 ms from SWR onset. With this new analysis we are looking more directly at the time-locking of the decoded segments to SWR onset (see updated Fig 5a and 6a).

REVIEWER COMMENT: I appreciate the added analysis focusing on the closest SWR and a 0-20 ms bin. My understanding is that you consider the revised analyses in Figures 5a and 6a sufficient to show that predictive non-local representations in mPFC are not linked to hippocampal SWRs and theta phase.

First, the manuscript should explicitly explain the rationale for this analysis and why it is sufficient to support the claim. From the main text it is not possible to understand what was done; the Methods are hard to follow, and the figure legends are not clearly described (e.g. the shuffle is not even defined there).

Specific points I could not reconcile:

i) The gray histograms in the revised Figures 5a and 6a now show a peak at zero lag, whereas in the previous version they were flat, although they are said to plot the same data. What changed?

ii) Why choose a 20 ms bin? A single narrow bin invites false negatives. Please justify this choice.

iii) Comparing to a shuffle is a useful control, but when the p-value is non-significant we only learn that no difference was detected under that shuffle-not that there is no difference or that the processes are independent.

ORIGINAL COMMENT: (2) The main claim of the work is also based on Figure 3, where the authors show that SWRs-unmodulated mPFC neurons have higher spatial tuning, and higher directional selectivity scores, and a higher percentage of these neurons show theta skipping. This is used to support the claim that SWRs-unmodulated cells encode spatial information. However, it must be noted that in this kind of task, it is not possible to disentangle space and specific task variables involving separate cognitive processes from processing spatial information such as decision-making, attention, motor control, etc., which always happen at specific locations of the maze. Therefore, the results shown in Figure 3 may relate to other specific processes rather than encoding of space and it cannot be unequivocally claimed that mPFC neurons "encode spatial information". This limitation is presented by Mashoori et al (2018), an article that appears to be a major inspiration for this work. Can the authors provide a control analysis/experiment that supports their claim? Otherwise, this claim should be tempered. Also, the authors say that Jadhav et al. (2016) showed that mPFC neurons unmodulated by SWRs are less tuned to space. How do they reconcile it with their results?

AUTHOR RESPONSE: The reviewer is right to assert caution when talking about claims such as spatial tuning where other factors may also be involved. Although we agree that there may be some other factors influencing what we are seeing as spatial tuning, it is very important to note that the behavioral task is executed on a symmetrical 4-armed maze, where two of the arms are always used for the start of the trajectory, and the other two arms (North and South) function as the goal (reward) arms. Therefore, if the PFC is encoding cognitive processes such as task phases related to decision-making and reward, we would not be able to differentiate between the two start arms and the two goal arms, as these represent the same task phases. Note also that the North and South arm are illuminated in a pseudo-random order between trials and during cue-based rule learning this is a direct indication of where the reward will be found. Even in this phase of the task, the PFC encodes where the animal will turn on a trial-to-trial basis (meaning the North and South arm are still differentiated correctly on each trial even though the illumination and associated reward are changing).

REVIEWER COMMENT: I appreciate that the departure location was pseudorandomized. However, this control does not rule out that PFC activity reflects motor preparation (left vs right turns) and associated perceptual decision-making/attentional processes that are inherently tied to a specific action. As such, it cannot by itself support the claim that PFC neurons "encode spatial information." Moreover, the authors acknowledge here that "other factors may also be involved," yet this caveat is not reflected in the manuscript. Why?

AUTHOR RESPONSE: Secondly, importantly, the reviewer mentions that we claimed that Jadhav et al. (2016) showed that mPFC neurons unmodulated by SWRs are less tuned to space, but this is incorrect. Jadhav et al. (2016) showed that SWR-unmodulated neurons had lower spatial coverage, meaning that they are more spatially selective (congruent with our results). We have rephrased this in the text to be clearer.

REVIEWER COMMENT: Thanks for clarifying this.

ORIGINAL COMMENT: (3) My reading is that the rest of the paper mainly consists of replications or incremental observations of already known phenomena with some not necessarily surprising new observations:<br /> a) Figure 2 shows that a subset of mPFC neurons is modulated by HPC SWRs and theta (already known), that vmPFC neurons are more strongly modulated by SWRs (not surprising given anatomy), and that theta phase preference is different between vmPFC and dmPFC (not surprising given the fact that theta is a travelling wave).

AUTHOR RESPONSE: The finding that vmPFC neurons are more strongly modulated by SWRs than dmPFC indeed matches what we know from anatomy, but that does not make it a trivial finding. A lot remains unknown about the mPFC subregions and their interactions with the hippocampus, and not every finding will be directly linked to the anatomy. Therefore, in our view this is a significant finding which has not been studied before due to the technical complexity of large-scale recordings along the dorsal-ventral axis of the mPFC.

REVIEWER COMMENT: This finding is indeed non-trivial; however, it seems completely irrelevant to the paper's main claim unless the Authors can argue otherwise.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: Similarly, theta being a traveling wave (which in itself is still under debate), does not mean we should assume that the dorsal and ventral mPFC should follow this signature and be modulated by different phases of the theta cycle. Again, in our view this is not at all trivial, but an important finding which brings us closer to understanding the intricate interactions between the hippocampus and PFC in spatial learning and decision-making.

REVIEWER COMMENT: Yes, but in what way does this support the manuscript's primary claim? This is unclear to me.

ORIGINAL COMMENT: b) Figure 4 shows that non-local representations in mPFC are predictive of the animal's choice. This is mostly an increment to the work of Mashoori et al (2018). My understanding is that in addition to what had already been shown by Mashoori et al here it is shown how the upcoming choice can be predicted. The author may want to emphasize this novel aspect.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: In our view our manuscript focuses on a completely different aspect of learning and memory than the paper the reviewer is referring to (Mashoori et al. 2018). Importantly, the Mashoori et al. paper looked at choice evaluation at reward sites and shows that disappointing reinforcements are associated with reactivations in the ACC of the unselected target. This points to the role of the ACC in error detection and evaluation. Although this is an interesting result, it is in essence unrelated to what we are focusing on here, which is decision making and prediction of upcoming choices. The fact that the turning direction of the animal can be predicted on a trial-to-trial basis, and even precedes the behavioral change over the course of learning, sheds light on the role of the PFC in these important predictive cognitive processes (as opposed to post-choice reflective processes).

REVIEWER COMMENT: Indeed, as I said, the new element here is that the upcoming choice can be predicted. This appears only incremental and could belong to another story; as the manuscript is currently written, it does not support the article's main claim. I would like to specify that, regarding this and the other points above, my inability to see how these minor results support the Authors' claim may reflect my misunderstanding; nevertheless, this suggests that the manuscript should be extensively rewritten and reorganized to make the Authors' meaning clear.

ORIGINAL COMMENT: c) Figure 6 shows that prospective activity in the HPC is linked to SWRs and theta oscillations. This has been described in various forms since at least the works of Johnson and Redish in 2007, Pastalkova et al 2008, and Dragoi and Tonegawa (2011 and 2013), as well as in earlier literature on splitter cells. These foundational papers on this topic are not even cited in the current manuscript.

AUTHOR RESPONSE: We have added these citations to the introduction (line 37).

REVIEWER COMMENT: This is an example of how the Authors fail to acknowledge the underlying problem with how the manuscript is written; the issue has not been addressed except with a cosmetic change like the one described above. The Results section contains a series of findings that are well-known phenomena described previously (see below). Prior results should be acknowledged at the beginning of each relevant paragraph, followed by an explicit statement of what is new, so that readers can distinguish replication from novelty. Here, I pointed specifically to the results of Figure 6, and the Authors deemed it sufficient simply to add the citations I indicated to an existing sentence in the Introduction, while keeping the Results description unchanged. As written, this reads as if these phenomena are being described for the first time. This is incorrect. It is hard to avoid the impression that the Authors did not take this concern seriously; the same issue appears elsewhere in the manuscript, and I fail to see how the Authors "have improved clarity of the text throughout to highlight the novelty of our results better."

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This study presents a thorough investigation of remote memory deficits in the APP/PS1 mouse model of Alzheimer's disease, highlighting the progressive emergence of these deficits alongside selective hyperexcitability of PV interneurons in the mPFC. By combining viral-TRAP labeling and patch-clamp electrophysiology, the authors demonstrate increased inhibitory input onto engram cells in APP/PS1 mice, despite preserved engram size and reactivation. The revised manuscript successfully addresses earlier concerns by clarifying the relationship between amyloid pathology and circuit dysfunction, acknowledging the correlative nature of the findings, and integrating possible contributions of excitatory remodeling and broader network changes, including oscillatory disruptions. Although the precise mechanistic link between PV hyperexcitability, increased inhibition, and impaired remote memory remains to be empirically established, the study convincingly argues for inhibitory microcircuit alterations as an early contributor to cognitive decline in AD.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this paper Chang et al follow up on their lab's previous findings about the secreted protein Shv and its role in activity-induced synaptic remodeling at the fly NMJ. Previously they reported that shv mutants have impaired synaptic plasticity. Normally a high stimulation paradigm should increase bouton size and GluR expression at synapses but this does not happen in shv mutants. The phenotypes relating to activity-dependent plasticity were completely recapitulated when Shv was knocked down only in neurons and could be completely rescued by incubation in exogenously applied Shv protein. The authors also showed that Shv activation of integrin signaling on both the pre- and post-synapse was the molecular mechanism underlying its function in plasticity. Here they extend their study to consider a role of Shv derived from glia in modulating synaptic features at baseline and remodeling conditions. The authors show evidence that Shv is expressed in both neurons and glia. Despite the fact that neuron-specific RNAi knockdown of Shv recapitulated the plasticity phenotypes seen in whole animal mutants, the authors asked whether glial-specific knockdown would have any effects. Surprisingly, knockdown of Shv only in glia also blocked plasticity, just like neuron-specific knockdown, and supporting an important role for glial-derived Shv in plasticity. Unlike neuronal knockdown, though, glial knockdown also caused abnormally high baseline GluR expression. Restoring Shv in ONLY glia in mutant animals is sufficient to completely rescue the plasticity phenotypes and baseline GluR expression, but glial-Shv does not appear to activate integrin signaling which was shown to be the mechanism for neuronally derived Shv to control plasticity. This suggests a different or indirect mechanism of action for glial-derived Shv. This led the authors to hypothesize that glial Shv might work via controlling the levels of neuronal Shv and/or extracellular glutamate. To test these hypotheses, they provide evidence that in the absence of glial Shv, synaptic levels of Shv go up overall, suggesting that glial Shv could somehow have a suppressive effect on release of neuronal Shv. This would indirectly modulate integrin signaling to control plasticity. Using an extracelluar glutamate sensor in presynaptic boutons, they also observe decreased signal (extracellular glutamate) from the sensor in glial Shv KD animals, and increased signal in glial Shv overexpression animals, supporting the hypothesis that glial Shv can regulate glutamate levels somehow. These results establish glia as an important source of Shv in these processes and identify some mechanisms for how this might be accomplished. Several outstanding questions remain-most importantly: how/why do glial-derived and neuronal-derived Shv have different effects when in the same space? No obvious isoform or size differences were found, and the same rescue construct expressed either in neurons or glia could have different effects on integrin activation or glutamate levels. Answering these questions using modified rescue constructs will be an important future direction to understand Shv function specifically and how neurons and glia work together in this context--and potentially many other contexts.

Comments on revisions:

The authors addressed my and the other reviewers' concerns from the original review adequately and this has strengthened the paper substantially.

One small omission to correct: In Figures 4 and 6, the graphs in the figures do not have a legend for the colored bars.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Chang and colleagues provides compelling evidence that glia-derived Shriveled (Shv) modulates activity-dependent synaptic plasticity at the Drosophila neuromuscular junction (NMJ). This mechanism differs from the previously reported function of neuronally released Shv, which activates integrin signaling. They further show that this requirement of Shv is acute and that glial Shv supports synaptic plasticity by modulating neuronal Shv release and the ambient glutamate levels. However, there are a number of conceptual and technical issues that need to be addressed.

Major comments

(1) From the images provided for Fig 2B +RU486, the bouton size appears to be bigger in shv RNAi + stimulation, especially judging from the outline of GluR clusters.

(2) The shv result needs to be replicated with a separate RNAi.

(3) The phenotype of shv mutant resembles that of neuronal shv RNAi - no increased GluR baseline. Any insights why that is the case?

(4) In Fig 3B, SPG shv RNAi has elevated GluR baseline, while PG shv RNAi has a lower baseline. In both cases, there is no activity induced GluR increase. What could explain the different phenotypes?

(5) In Fig 4C, the rescue of PTP is only partial. Does that suggest neuronal shv is also needed to fully rescue the deficit of PTP in shv mutants?

(6) The observation in Fig 5D is interesting. While there is a reduction in Shv release from glia after stimulation, it is unclear what the mechanism could be. Is there a change in glial shv transcription, translation or the releasing machinery? It will be helpful to look at the full shv pool vs the released ones.

(7) In Fig 5E, what will happen after stimulation? Will the elevated glial Shv after neuronal shv RNAi be retained in the glia?

(8) It would be interesting to see if the localization of shv differs based on if it is released by neuron or glia, which might be able to explain the difference in GluR baseline. For example, by using glia-Gal4>UAS-shv-HA and neuronal-QF>QUAS-shv-FLAG. It seems important to determine if they mix together after release? It is unclear if the two shv pools are processed differently.

(9) Alternatively, do neurons and glia express and release different Shv isoforms, which would bind different receptors?

(10) It is claimed that Sup Fig 2 shows no observable change in gross glial morphology, further bolstering support that glial Shv does not activate integrin. This seems quite an overinterpretation. There is only one image for each condition without quantification. It is hard to judge if glia, which is labeled by GFP (presumably by UAS-eGFP?), is altered or not.

(11) The hypothesis that glutamate regulates GluR level as a homeostatic mechanism makes sense. What is the explanation of the increased bouton size in the control after glutamate application in Fig 6?

(12) What could be a mechanism that prevents elevated glial released Shv to activate integrin signaling after neuronal shv RNAi, as seen in Fig 5E?

(13) Any speculation on how the released Shv pool is sensed?

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed most of my previous comments and questions in their revision.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Rishiq et al. investigate whether natural killer (NK) cells can interact with Fusobacterium nucleatum and identify the molecular mediators involved in this interaction. The authors propose that the bacterial adhesin RadD may bind to the activating NK cell receptor NKp46 (NCR1 in mice), leading to NK cell activation and tumor control. While the topic is of significant interest and the hypothesis intriguing, the manuscript lacks critical experimental evidence, contains several technical concerns, and requires substantial revisions.

Major Concerns:

(1) Lack of Direct Evidence for RadD-NKp46 Interaction

The central claim that RadD interacts with NKp46 is not formally demonstrated. A direct binding assay (e.g., Biacore, ELISA, or pull-down with purified proteins) is essential to support this assertion. The absence of this fundamental experiment weakens the mechanistic conclusions of the study.

(2) Figure 2: Binding Specificity and Bacterial Strains

A CEACAM1-Ig control should be included in all binding experiments to distinguish between specific and non-specific Ig interactions. There is differential Ig binding between strains ATCC 23726 and 10953. The authors should quantify RadD expression in each strain to determine if the difference in binding is due to variation in RadD levels.

(3) Figure 3: Flow Cytometry Inconsistencies and Missing Controls

What do the FITC-negative, Ig-negative events represent? The authors should clarify whether these are background signals, bacterial aggregates, or debris.

Panel B, CEACAM1-Ig binding appears markedly increased compared to WT bacteria. The reason for this enhancement should be discussed-does it reflect upregulation of the bacterial ligand or an artifact of overexpression? Fluorescence compensation should be carefully reviewed for the NKp46/NCR1-Ig binding assays to ensure that the signals are not due to spectral overlap or nonspecific binding. Importantly, binding experiments using the FadI/RadD double knockout strain are missing and should be included. This control is essential.

In Panel E, the basis for calculating fold-change in MFI is unclear. Please indicate the reference condition to which the change is normalized.

(4) Figure 4: Binding Inhibition and Receptor Sensitivity

Panel A lacks representative FACS plots and is currently difficult to interpret. Differences in the sensitivity of human vs. mouse NKp46 to arginine inhibition should be discussed, given species differences in receptor-ligand interactions. What are the inhibition results using F. nucleatum strains deficient in FadI?

In Panel B, CEACAM1-Ig and RadD-deficient bacteria must be included as negative controls for binding specificity upon anti-NKp46 blocking.

(5) Figure 5: Functional NK Activation and Tumor Killing

In Panels B and C, the key control condition (NK cells + anti-NKp46, without bacteria) is missing. This is needed to evaluate if NKp46 recognition is involved in tumor killing. The authors should explicitly test whether pre-incubation of NK cells with bacteria enhances their anti-tumor activity. Alternatively, could bacteria induce stress signals in tumor cells that sensitize them to NK killing? This distinction is critical.

(6) Figure 5D: Mechanism of Peripheral Activation

It is suggested that contact between bacteria and NK cells in the periphery leads to their activation. Can the authors confirm whether this pre-activation leads to enhanced killing of tumor targets, or if bacteria-tumor co-localization is required? The literature indicates that F. nucleatum localizes intracellularly within tumor cells. If so, how is RadD accessible to NKp46 on infiltrating NK cells?

(8) Figure 5E and In Vivo Relevance

Surprisingly, F. nucleatum infection is associated with increased tumor burden. Does this reflect an immunosuppressive effect? Are NK cells inhibited or exhausted in infected mice (TGIT, SIGLEC7...)? If NK cell activation leads to reduced tumor control in the infected context, the role of RadD-induced activation needs further explanation. RadD-deficient bacteria, which do not activate NK cells, result in even poorer tumor control. This paradox needs to be addressed: how can NK activation impair tumor control while its absence also reduces tumor control?

(9) NKp46-Deficient Mice: Inconsistencies

In Ncr1⁻/⁻ mice, infection with WT or RadD-deficient F. nucleatum has no impact on tumor burden. This suggests that NKp46 is dispensable in this context and casts doubt on the physiological relevance of the proposed mechanism. This contradiction should be discussed more thoroughly.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In the present study, Rishiq et al. investigated whether the RadD protein expressed by Fusobacterium nucleatum subsp. Nucleatum serves as a natural ligand for the NK-activating receptor NKp46, and whether RadD-NKp46 interaction enhances NK cell cytotoxicity against tumor cells. To address this, the authors first performed an association analysis of F. nucleatum abundance and NKp46 expression in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) using the TCMA and TCGA databases, respectively. While a positive association between NKp46⁺ and F. nucleatum⁺ status with improved overall survival was observed in HNSC patients, no such correlation was found in CRC.

Next, they examined the binding of NKp46-Ig to various F. nucleatum strains. To confirm that this interaction was mediated specifically by RadD, they employed a RadD-deficient mutant strain. Finally, to establish the functional relevance of the RadD-NKp46 interaction in promoting NK cell cytotoxicity and anti-tumor responses, they utilized a syngeneic mouse breast cancer model. In this setup, AT3 cells were orthotopically implanted into the mammary fat pad of C57BL/6 wild-type (WT) or Ncr1-deficient (NCR1⁻/⁻; murine orthologue of human NKp46) mice, followed by intravenous inoculation with either WT F. nucleatum or the ∆RadD mutant strain.

Strengths:

A notable strength of the work is that it identifies a previously unrecognized activating interaction between F. nucleatum RadD and the NK cell receptor NKp46, demonstrating that the same bacterial protein can engage distinct NK cell receptors (activating or inhibitory) to exert context-dependent effects on anti-tumor immunity. This dual-receptor insight adds depth to our understanding of F. nucleatum-immune interactions and highlights the complexity of microbial modulation of the tumor microenvironment.

Weaknesses:

(1) A previous study by this group (PMID: 38952680) demonstrated that RadD of F. nucleatum binds to NK cells via Siglec-7, thereby diminishing their cytotoxic potential. They further proposed that the RadD-Siglec-7 interaction could act as an immune evasion mechanism exploited by tumor cells. In contrast, the present study reports that RadD of F. nucleatum can also bind to the activating receptor NKp46 on NK cells, thereby enhancing their cytotoxic function.

While F. nucleatum-mediated tumor progression has been documented in breast and colon cancers, the current study proposes an NK-activating role for F. nucleatum in HNSC. However, it remains unclear whether tumor-infiltrating NK cells in HNSC exhibit differential expression of NKp46 compared to Siglec-7. Furthermore, heterogeneity within the NK cell compartment, particularly in the relative abundance of NKp46⁺ versus Siglec-7⁺ subsets, may differ substantially among breast, colon, and HNSC tumors. Such differences could have been readily investigated using publicly available single-cell datasets. A deeper understanding of this subset heterogeneity in NK cells would better explain why F. nucleatum is passively associated with a favorable prognosis in HNSC but correlates with poor outcomes in breast and colon cancers.

(2) The in vivo tumor data (Figure 5D-F) appear to contradict the authors' claims. Specifically, Figure 5E suggests that WT mice engrafted with AT3 breast tumors and inoculated with WT F. nucleatum exhibited an even greater tumor burden compared to mice not inoculated with F. nucleatum, indicating a tumor-promoting effect. This finding conflicts with the interpretation presented in both the results and discussion sections.

(3) Although the authors acknowledge that F. nucleatum may have tumor context-specific roles in regulating NK cell responses, it is unclear why they chose a breast cancer model in which F. nucleatum has been reported to promote tumor growth. A more appropriate choice would have been the well-established preclinical oral cancer model, such as the 4-nitroquinoline 1-oxide (4NQO)-induced oral cancer model in C57BL/6 mice, which would more directly relate to HNSC biology.

(4) Since RadD of F. nucleatum can bind to both Siglec-7 and NKp46 on NK cells, exerting opposing functional effects, the expression profiles of both receptors on intratumoral NK cells should be evaluated. This would clarify the balance between activating and inhibitory signals in the tumor microenvironment and provide a more mechanistic explanation for the observed tumor context-dependent outcomes.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This is an interesting study on the role of FGF signaling in the induction of primitive streak like-cells (PS-LC) in human 2D-gastruloids. The authors use a previously characterized standard culture that generates a ring of PS-LCs (TBXT+) and correlate this with pERK staining. A requirement for FGF signaling in TBXT induction is demonstrated via pharmacological inhibition of MEK and FGFR activity. A second set of culture conditions (with no exogenous FGFs) suggests that endogenous FGFs are required for pERK and TBXT induction. The authors then characterize, via scRNA-seq, various components of the FGF pathway (genes for ligand, receptors, ERK regulators, HSPG regulation). They go on to characterize the pFGFR1, receptor isoforms and polarized localization of this receptor. Finally, they perform FGF4 inhibition and use a cell line with a limited FGF17 inactivation (heterozygous null) and show that loss of these FGFs reduce PS-LC and derivative cell types.

Strengths:

(1) As the authors point out, the role of FGF signaling in gastrulation is less well understood than other signaling pathways. Hence this is a valuable contribution to that field.

(2) The FGF4 and FGF17 loss-of-function experiments in Figure 5 are very intriguing. This is especially so given the intriguing observation that these FGFs appear to be dominating in this model of human gastrulation, in contrast to what FGFs dominate in mice, chick and frogs.

(3) In general this paper is valuable as a further development of the Human gastruloid system and the role of FGF signaling in the induction of PS-CLs. The wide net that the authors cast in characterizing FGF ligand gene, receptor isoforms, and downstream components provides a foundation for future work. As the authors write near the beginning of the Discussion "Many questions remain."

Weaknesses:

(1) FGFs are cell survival factors in various aspects of development. The authors fail to address cell death due to loss of FGF signaling in any of their experiments. For example, in Figure 1E (which requires statistical analysis) and 1G (the bottom FGFRi row), there appears to be a significant amount of cell loss. Is this due to cell death? The authors should address the question of whether the role of FGF/ERK signaling is to keep the cells alive.

(2) Regarding the sparse cells in 1G, is there a reduction in cell number only with FGFRi and not MEKi? Is this reproducible? Gattiglio et al (Development, 2023, PMID: 37530863) present data supporting a "community effect" in the FGF-induced mesoderm differentiation of mouse embryonic stem cells. Could a community effect be at play in this human system (especially given the images in the bottom row of 1G). If the authors don't address this experimentally they should at least address the ideas in Gattoglio et al.

(3) Do the FGF4 and FGF17 LOF experiments in Figure 5 affect cell number like FGFRi in Figure 1? Why examine PS-LC induction only in FGF17 heterozygous cells and not homozygous FGF17 nulls?

(4) The idea that FGF8 plays a dominant role during gastrulation of other species but not humans is so intriguing it warrants deeper testing. The authors dismiss FGF8 because its mRNA "...levels always remained low." (line 363) as well as the data published in Zhai et al (PMID: 36517595) and Tyser et al (PMID: 34789876). But there are cases in mouse development where a gene was expressed at levels so low, it might be dismissed, and yet LOF experiments revealed it played a role or even was required in a developmental process. The authors should consider FGF8 inhibition or inactivation to explore its potential role, despite its low levels of expression.

(5) Redundancy is a common feature in FGF genetics. What is the effect of inhibiting FGF4 in FGF17 LOF cells?

(6) I suggest stating that the authors take more caution describing FGF gradients. For example, in one Results heading they write "Endogenous FGF4 and FGF17 gradients underly the ERK activity pattern.", implying an FGF protein gradient. However, they only present data for FGF mRNA , not protein. This issue would be clarified if they used proper nomenclature for gene, mRNA (italics) and protein (no italics) throughout the paper.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed my concerns.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The role of FGFs in embryonic development and stem cell differentiation has remained unclear due to its complexity. In this study, the authors utilized a 2D human stem cell-based gastrulation model to investigate the functions of FGFs. They discovered that FGF-dependent ERK activity is closely linked to the emergence of primitive streak cells. Importantly, this 2D model effectively illustrates the spatial distribution of key signaling effectors and receptors by correlating these markers with cell fate markers, such as T and ISL1. Through inhibition and loss-of-function studies, they further corroborated the needs of FGF ligands. Their data shows that FGFR1 is the primary receptor, and FGF2/4/17 are the key ligands for primitive streak development, which aligns with observations in primate embryos. Additional experiments revealed that the reduction of FGF4 and FGF17 decreases ERK activity.

Strengths:

This study provides comprehensive data and improves our understanding of the role of FGF signaling in primate primitive streak formation. The authors provide new insights related to the spatial localization of the key components of FGF signaling and attempt to reveal the temporal dynamics of the signal propagation and cell fate decision, which has been challenging.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Jo and colleagues set out to investigate the origins and functions of localized FGF/ERK signaling for the differentiation and spatial patterning of primitive streak fates of human embryonic stem cells in a well-established micropattern system. They demonstrate that endogenous FGF signaling is required for ERK activation in a ring-domain in the micropatterns, and that this localized signaling is directly required for differentiation and spatial patterning of specific cell types. Through high-resolution microscopy and transwell assays, they show that cells receive FGF signals through basally localized receptors. Finally, the authors find that there is a requirement for exogenous FGF2 to initiate primitive streak-like differentiation, but endogenous FGFs, especially FGF4 and FGF17, fully take over at later stages.

Even though some of the authors' findings - such as the localized expression of FGF ligands during gastrulation and the importance of FGF/ERK signaling for cell differentiation in the primitive streak - have been reported in model organisms before, this is one of the first studies to investigate the role of FGF signaling during primitive streak-like differentiation of human cells. In doing so, the paper reports a number of interesting and valuable observations, namely the basal localization of FGF receptors which mirrors that of BMP and Nodal receptors, as well as the existence of a positive feedback loop centered on FGF signaling that drives primitive-streak differentiation. In the revised version of their work, the authors have furthermore dissected the role of different FGFs through knockdown approaches. These experiments reveal discrete functions for different FGF genes in their system, as well as interesting differences between the role of specific FGFs in human compared to model systems.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have appropriately addressed all comments and suggestions from the previous round of review. The only textual change that I would still like to suggest is to write explicitly in the main text corresponding to Fig. 1 that the mTESR1 medium used for these initial experiments already contains FGF. This is something that is probably known to experts in the field, but not necessarily to a broader readership.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This manuscript puts forward the concept that there is a specific time window during which YAP/TAZ driven transcription provides feedback for optimal endothelial cell adhesion, cytoskeletal organization and migration. The study follows up on previous elegant findings from this group and others which established the importance of YAP/TAZ-mediated transcription for persistent endothelial cell migration. The data presented here extends the concept at two levels: first, the data may explain why there are differences between experimental setups where YAP/TAZ activity are inhibited for prolonged times (e.g. cultures of YAP knockdown cells), versus experiments in which the transient inhibition of YAP/TAZ and (global) transcription affects endothelial cell dynamics prior to their equilibrium.

All experiments are convincing, clearly visualized and quantified.

The strength of the paper is that it clearly indicates that there are temporal controlled feedback systems, which is important knowledge for understanding the mechanisms that drive endothelial collective cell behavior.

A potential limitation of the in vivo experiments is that the inhibitors may include off-target effects as well. To solve this caveat in future research endeavours, which is beyond the scope of the current study, it would be interesting to study this process in knockout models, combined with optogenetics and transgenic zebrafish lines that visualize endothelial cell functional properties such as proliferation and migration.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Here the effect of overall transcription blockade, and then specifically depletion of YAP/TAZ transcription factors was tested on cytoskeletal responses, starting from a previous paper showing YAP/TAZ-mediated effects on the cytoskeleton and cell behaviors. Here, primary endothelial cells were assessed on substrates of different stiffness and parameters such as migration, cell spreading, and focal adhesion number/length were tested upon transcriptional manipulation. Zebrafish subjected to similar manipulations were also assessed during the phase of intersegmental vessel elongation. The conclusion was that there is a feedback loop of 4 hours that is important for the effects of mechanical changes to be translated into transcriptional changes that then permanently affect the cytoskeleton.

The idea is intriguing and a previous paper contains data supporting the overall model. The fish washout data is quite interesting and supports the kinetics conclusions. New transcriptional profiling in this version supports that cytoskeletal genes are differentially regulated with YAP/TAZ manipulations.

Major strengths:

The combination of in vitro and in vivo assessment provides evidence for timing in physiologically relevant contexts, and rigorous quantification of outputs is provided. The idea of defining temporal aspects of the system is quite interesting. New RNA profiling supports the model.

Weaknesses:

Actinomycin D blocks most transcription so exposure for hours likely leads to secondary and tertiary effects and perhaps effects on viability.

Comments on latest version:

I read the author response to previous reviews, and it seems they agree with the weaknesses stated in the reviews but did not provide any text or data revisions.

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

Summary:

Mason DE et al. have extended their previous study on continuous migration of cells regulated by a feedback loop that controls gene expression by YAP and TAZ. Time scale of the negative feedback loop is derived from the authors' adhesion-spreading-polarization-migration (ASPM) assay. Involvement of transcription-translation in the negative feedback loop is evidenced by the experiments using Actinomycin D. The time scale of mechanotransduction-dependent feedback demonstrated by cytoskeletal alteration in the actinomycin D-treated endothelial colony forming cells (ECFCs) and that shown in the ECFCs depleted of YAP/TAZ by siRNA. The authors examine the time scale when ECFCs are attached to MeHA matrics (soft, moderate, and stiff substrate) and show the conserved time scale among the conditions they use, although instantaneous migration, cell area, and circularity vary. Finally, they tried to confirm that the time scale of the feedback loop-dependent endothelial migration by the effect of washout of Actinomycin D (inhibition of gene transcription), Puromycin (translational inhibition), and Verteporfin (YAP/TAZ inhibitor) on ISV extension during sprouting angiogenesis. They conclude that endothelial motility required for vascular morphogenesis is regulated by a mechanotransduction-mediated feedback loop that is dependent on YAP/TAZ-dependent transcriptional regulation.

Strengths:

The authors conduct ASPM assay to find the time scale of feedback when ECFCs attach to three different matrics. They observe the common time scale of feedback. Thus, under very specific conditions they use, the reproducibility is validated by their ASPM assay. The feedback loop mediated by inhibition of gene expression by Actinomycin D is similar to that obtained from YAP/TAZ-depleted cells, suggesting the mechanotranduction might be involved in the feedback loop. The time scale representing infection point might be interesting when considering the continuous motility in cultured endothelial cells, although it might not account for the migration of endothelial cells that is controlled by a wide variety of extracellular cues. In vivo, stiffness of extracellular matrix is merely one of the cues.

Weaknesses:

ASPM assay is based on attachment-dependent phenomenon. The time scale, including the inflection point determined by ASPM experiments using cultured cells and the mechanotransduction-based theory, do not seem to fit in vivo ISV elongation. Although it is challenging to find the conserved theory of continuous cell motility of endothelial cells, the data is preliminary and does not support the authors' claim. There is no evidence that mechanotransduction solely determines the feedback loop during elongation of ISVs.

Comments on revisions:

The authors' methods using ASPM assay might suggest the feedback loop by their in vitro culture assay. They still need to confirm the loop in vivo using zebrafish intersegmental vessels. The time course of the feedback loop is supported by the ASPM assay. However, the feedback loop is not confirmed in vivo, although it might be suggested by the phenotypes of the ISV treated with drugs. Thus, in the abstract and in the results section, they had better rewrite the interpretation. They have not yet confirmed the feedback loop in vivo.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript explores behavioral responses of C. elegans to hydrogen sulfide, which is known to exert remarkable effects on animal physiology in a range of contexts. The possibility of genetic and precise neuronal dissection of responses to H2S motivates the study of responses in C. elegans.

The authors have followed up observations in the initial version of the manuscript, and their data do not support the direct sensing of H2S by the ASJ neurons or other sensory neurons. Genetic and parallel analysis of O2 and CO2 responsive pathways do not reveal further insights regarding potential mechanisms underlying H2S sensing. Gene expression analysis extends prior work. Finally, the authors have examined how H2S-evoked locomotory behavioral responses are affected in mutants with altered stress and detoxification response to H2S, most notably hif-1 and egl-9. These data, while examining locomotion, are more suggestive that observed effects on animal locomotion are secondary to altered organismal toxicity as opposed to specific behavioral responedse

Overall, the manuscript provides a wide range of preliminary observations of genetic interactions that may influence locomotory responses to H2S, but mechanistic insight or a synthesis of disparate data is lacking.

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors establish a behavioral paradigm for avoidance of H2S and conduct a large candidate screen to identify genetic requirements. They follow up by genetically dissecting a large number of implicated pathways - insulin, TGF-beta, oxygen/HIF-1, and mitochondrial ROS, which have varied effects on H2S avoidance. They additionally assay whole-animal gene expression changes induced by varying concentrations and durations of H2S exposure.

Strengths:

The implicated pathways are tested extensively through mutants of multiple pathway molecules. The authors address previous reviewer concerns by directly testing the ability of ASJ to respond to H2S via calcium imaging. This allows the authors to revise their previous conclusion and determine that ASJ does not directly respond to H2S and likely does not initiate the behavioral response. Extensive experiments manipulating the mitochondrial ETC and ROS support the authors' revised model that mitochondrial toxicity is the major driver of H2S avoidance.

It seems possible that HIF-1 and SKN-1 signaling directly modulate ROS toxicity while ASJ neurons and the oxygen sensing circuit could modulate the avoidance behavior. How this neuronal interaction happens remains unknown.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Okazaki et al. showed flickering stimuli to patients with unilateral spatial neglect (USN) and measured EEG responses. They compared this with another patient group (post-stroke, but no USN) and healthy controls. The author's rationale was to entrain intrinsic brain rhythms using the flicker of different frequencies (3-30 Hz). Effects found unique to the 9-Hz stimulation condition differentiate USN patients from the other groups, leading them to conclude that USN can be characterized by increased hemispheric alpha asymmetry, driven by a relatively increased response in the intact hemisphere.

Strengths:

This study is principled empirical work that benefits from access to special patient groups of considerable size (about 60 stroke patients in total, and 20 USN). The authors use state-of-the-art established methods to (1) deliver and (2) quantify the responses to the flicker stimulation in the EEG recordings. In addition, they use phase-coupling measures to investigate cross-frequency coupling (here: alpha-gamma) and a measure of directed connectivity between brain areas, transfer entropy. The results are supported by means of simulations using a coupled-oscillators model.

Weaknesses:

In my eyes, the major conceptual weakness of the study is that the authors make the a priori assumption that the flicker stimulation entrains intrinsic brain rhythms, especially alpha (9 Hz). To date, there is no direct (and only equivocal indirect) evidence that alpha rhythms can be entrained with periodic visual stimulation. In the present study, the assumption of alpha entrainment permeates some analytical decisions - where it would be possible to separate stimulus-driven from intrinsic rhythms more strongly than is currently the case, potentially yielding deeper insights into the oscillopathy of USN - and, ultimately, the interpretation of the results. Another potential issue to consider here is the analysis of gamma rhythms in EEG data, absent a control of miniature eye movements, a known problem (Yuval-Greenberg et al., 2008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.03.027) that may be exacerbated here, given that USN patients could show different auxiliary gaze behaviour.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This study investigates how altered neural oscillations may contribute to unilateral spatial neglect (USN) following right-hemisphere stroke. By combining steady-state visual evoked potentials (SSVEPs), phase-amplitude coupling (PAC), transfer entropy (TE), and computational modeling, the authors aim to show that USN arises from disrupted hemispheric synchronization dynamics rather than simply from lesion extent. The integration of empirical EEG data with a mechanistic model is a major strength and offers a valuable new perspective on how frequency-specific neural dynamics relate to clinical symptoms.

The work has several notable strengths. The combination of experimental and modeling approaches is innovative and powerful, and the findings provide a coherent mechanistic framework linking abnormal neural entrainment to attentional deficits. The study also provides concrete evidence to support the potential for frequency-specific neuromodulatory interventions, which could have translational relevance.

At the same time, there are areas where the evidence could be clarified or contextualized further. The manuscript would benefit from more detailed characterization of lesions, since differences in lesion topography (white vs. gray matter, occipital vs. parietal areas) could greatly improve our understanding of the physiopathology causing unilateral spatial neglect and the altered neural oscillations reported. Methodological choices, such as focusing analyses on occipital electrodes rather than parietal sites, and the potential influence of volume conduction in transfer entropy analyses, also need clearer justification/elaboration. In addition, while the authors report several neural metrics, it is not always clear why SSVEP power was chosen as the primary correlate of clinical severity over other measures. More broadly, the manuscript would be strengthened by clearer definitions of dependent variables and reporting of software and toolboxes used.

Overall, the study makes a significant contribution by demonstrating that USN can be conceptualized as a disorder of disrupted oscillatory dynamics. With some clarifications and expansions, the paper will provide readers with a clearer understanding of both the strengths and the limitations of the evidence, and it will stand as a valuable reference for future work on oscillatory mechanisms in stroke and attention.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study presents a novel toolkit for visualizing and manipulating neurotransmitter-specific vesicles in C. elegans neurons, addressing the challenge of tracking neurotransmitter dynamics at the level of individual synapses. The authors engineered endogenously tagged vesicular transporters for glutamate, GABA, acetylcholine, and monoamines, enabling cell-specific labeling while maintaining physiological function. Additionally, they developed conditional knockout strains to disrupt neurotransmitter synthesis in single neurons. The study reveals that over 10% of neurons in C. elegans exhibit co-transmission, with a detailed case study on the ADF sensory neuron, where serotonin and acetylcholine are trafficked in distinct vesicle pools. The approach provides a powerful platform for studying neurotransmitter identity, synaptic architecture, and co-transmission.

Strengths:

(1) This toolkit offers a generalizable framework that can be applied to other model organisms, advancing the ability to investigate synaptic plasticity and neural circuit logic with molecular precision.

(2) Through the use of this toolkit, the authors uncover molecular heterogeneity at individual synapses, revealing co-transmission in over 10% of neurons, and offer new insights into neurotransmitter trafficking and synaptic plasticity, advancing our understanding of synaptic organization.

Weaknesses:

(1) While the article introduces valuable tools for visualizing neurotransmitter vesicles in vivo, the core techniques are based on previously established methods. The study does not present significant technological breakthroughs, limiting the novelty of the methodological advancements.

(2) The article does not fully explore the potential implications or the underlying mechanisms governing this process, while the discovery of co-transmission in over 10% of neurons is an intriguing finding. A deeper investigation into the functional uniqueness and interactions of neurotransmitters released from individual co-transmitting neurons - perhaps through case study examples - would strengthen the study's impact.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors developed fluorescent reporters to visualize the subcellular localization of vesicular transporters for glutamate, GABA, acetylcholine, and monoamines in vivo. They also developed cell-specific knockout methods for these vesicular transporters. To my knowledge, this is the first comprehensive toolkit to label and ablate vesicular transporters in C. elegans. They carefully and strategically designed the reporters and clearly explained the rationale behind their construct designs. Meanwhile, they used previously established functional assays to confirm that the reporters are functional. They also tested and confirmed the effect of cell-specific and pan-neuronal knockout of several of these transporters.

Strengths:

The tools developed are versatile: they generated both green and red fluorescent reporters for easy combination with other reporters; they established the method for cell-type-specific KO to analyze the function of the neurotransmitter in different cell types. The reagents allow visualization of specific synapses among other processes and cell bodies. In addition, they also developed a binary expression method to detect co-transmission "We reasoned that if two neurotransmitters were co-expressed in the same neuron, driving Flippase under the promoter of one transmitter would activate the conditional reporter - resulting in fluorescence - only in cells also expressing a second neurotransmitter identity". Overall, this is a versatile and valuable toolkit with well-designed and carefully validated reagents. This toolkit will likely be widely used by the C. elegans community.

Weaknesses:

The authors evaluated the positions of fluorescent puncta by visually comparing their positions with the positions of synapses indicated by EM reconstruction. It would provide stronger supportive evidence if the authors also examined co-localization of these reporters with well-established synaptic reporters previously published by their lab, such as reporters that label presynaptic sites of AIY interneurons.

This toolkit will likely be widely used by the C. elegans community. To facilitate the adoption of the approach and method by worm labs, the authors should include their plan for the dissemination of all of the reagents included in the kit, along with all of the associated information, including construct sequences and the protocols for their use.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Cuentas-Condori et al. generate cell-specific tools for visualizing the endogenous expression of, as well as knocking out, four different classes of neurotransmitter vesicular transporters (glutamatergic, cholinergic, GABAergic, and monoaminergic) in C. elegans. They then use these tools in an intersectional strategy to provide evidence for the co-expression of these transporters in individual neurons, suggesting co-transmission of the associated neurotransmitters.

Strengths:

A major strength of the work is the generation of several endogenous tools that will be of use to the community. Additionally, this adds to accumulating evidence of co-transmission of different classes of neurotransmitters in the nervous system.

Weaknesses:

A weakness of the study is a lack of comparison to previously published single-cell sequencing data. These tools are alternatively described in the manuscript as superior to the sequencing data and as validation of the sequencing data, but neither claim can be assessed without knowing how they compare and contrast to that data. It is thus not clear to what extent the conclusions of this paper are an advance over what could be determined from the sequencing data on its own. Finally, some technical considerations should be discussed as potential caveats to the robustness of their intersectional strategy for concluding that certain genes are indeed co-expressed. Overall, claims about co-transmission should be tempered by the caveats presented in the discussion, suggesting that co-expression of these transporters is not in and of itself sufficient for neurotransmitter release.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Jouary et al. present Megabouts, a Transformer-based classifier and Python toolbox for automated categorization of zebrafish movement bouts into 13 bout types. This is potentially a very useful tool for the zebrafish community. It is broadly applicable to a wide variety of behavioral paradigms and could help to unify behavioral quantification across labs. The overall implementation is technically sound and thoughtfully engineered. The choice of standard Transformer architecture is well-justified (e.g., it can handle long-term tracking data and process missing data, integrates posture and trajectory information over time, and shows robustness to variable frame rates and partial occlusion). The data augmentation strategies (e.g., downsampling, tail masking, and temporal jitter) are well designed to enhance cross-condition generalization. Thus, I very much support this work.

For the benefit of the end users of this tool, several clarifications and additional analyses would be helpful:

(1) What is the source and nature of the classification errors? The reported accuracy is <80% with trajectory data and still <90% with trajectory + tail data.

(1a) Is this due to model failure (is overfitting a concern? How unbiased were the test sets?), imperfections of the preprocessing step (how sensitive is this to noise in the input data?), or underlying ambiguity in the biological data (e.g., do some "errors" reflect intermediate patterns that don't map neatly onto the 13 discrete classes)?

(1b) A systematic error analysis would be helpful. Which classes are most often confused? Are errors systematic (e.g., slow swims vs. routine turns) or random?

(1c) Can confidence of classification be provided for each bout in the data? How would the authors recommend that the end user deal with misclassifications (e.g., by manual correction)?<br /> Overall, the end user would benefit greatly from more information on potential failure modes and their root causes.

(2) How well does the trained network generalize across labs and setups? To what extent have the authors tested this on datasets from other labs to determine how well the pretrained model transfers across datasets? Having tested the code provided by the authors on a short stretch of x-y zebrafish trajectory data obtained independently, the pipeline generates phantom movement annotations. The underlying cause is unclear.

(2a) One possibility is that preprocessing steps may be highly sensitive to slight noise in the x-y positional data, which leads to noise in the speed data. The neural net, in turn, classifies noise into movement annotations. It would be helpful if the authors could add Gaussian noise to the x-y trajectory data and then determine the extent to which the computational pipeline is robust to noise.

(2b) When testing the pipeline, some stationary periods are classified as movements. Which step of the pipeline gave rise to the issue is unclear. Thus, explicit cross-lab validation and robustness tests (e.g., adding Gaussian noise to trajectories) would strengthen the claims of this paper.

(2c) Lastly, given the potential issue of generalization across labs, it would be helpful to provide/outline the steps for users in different labs to retrain and fine-tune the model.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Overall, the manuscript is well organized and clearly written. However, in this reviewer's opinion, the manuscript suffers from multiple major weaknesses.

Strengths:

The strengths of the paper are unclear; they have not been articulated well by the authors.

Weaknesses:

The pipeline is designed to analyze larval zebrafish behaviors, which by definition is considered a highly specialized, if not niche, application. Hence, the scope of this manuscript is extremely narrow, and consequently, the overall significance and the broader impact on the field of behavioral neuroscience are rather low. Broadening the scope would significantly improve the manuscript's impact. Second, it was noted that the authors neglect to present an unbiased discussion of how their pipeline compares to well-established and time-proven pipelines used to track larval zebrafish behaviors. This reviewer also failed to detect any new biological insights presented or improvements compared to existing methods, further questioning the overall significance and impact of this manuscript. Finally, the core claim of the manuscript lacks meaningful experimental data that would allow an unbiased and more definitive evaluation of the claims made regarding the Megabouts pipeline. The critical experiment to achieve this would be to run an identical set of behavioral assays (e.g., PPI, social behaviors) on different platforms (e.g., a commercial and a non-commercial one) and then determine if Megabouts correctly analyzes and integrates the results. While this might sound to the authors like an 'outside the scope' experiment, this reviewer would argue that it is the only meaningful experiment to validate the central claim put forward in this manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this manuscript, the authors introduce Megabouts, a software package designed to standardize the analysis of larval zebrafish locomotion, through clustering the 2D posture time series into canonical behavioral categories. Beyond a first, straightforward segmentation that separates glides from powered movements, Megabouts uses a Transformer neural network to classify the powered movements (bouts). This Transformer network is trained with supervised examples. The authors apply their approach to improve the quantification of sensorimotor transformations and enhance the sensitivity of drug-induced phenotype screening. Megabouts also includes a separate pipeline that employs convolutional sparse coding to analyze the less predictable tail movements in head-restrained fish.

I presume that the software works as the authors intend, and I appreciate the focus on quantitative behavior. My primary concerns reflect an implicit oversimplification of animal behavior. Megabouts is ultimately a clustering technique, categorizing powered locomotion into distinct, labelled states which, while effective for analysis, may confuse the continuous and fluid nature of animal behavior. Certainly, Megabouts could potentially miss or misclassify complex, non-stereotypical movements that do not fit the defined categories. In fact, it appears that exactly this situation led the authors to design a new clustering for head-restrained fish. Can we anticipate even more designs for other behavioral conditions?

Ultimately, I am not yet convinced that Megabouts provides a justifiable picture of behavioral control. And if there was a continuous "control knob", which seems very likely, wouldn't that confuse the clustering process, as many distinct clusters would correspond to, say, different amplitudes of the same control knob?

There has been tremendous recent progress in the measurement and analysis of animal behavior, including both continuous and discrete perspectives. However, the supervised clustering approach described here feels like a throwback to an earlier era. Yes, it's more automatic and quantifiable, and the amount of data is fantastic. But ultimately, the method is conceptually bound to the human eye in conditions where we are already familiar.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript investigates the interplay between spontaneous attention and melody formation during polyphonic music listening. The authors use EEG recordings during uninstructed listening to examine how attention bias influences melody processing, employing both behavioural measures and computational modelling with music transformers. The study introduces a very clever pitch-inversion manipulation design to dissociate high-voice superiority from melodic salience, and proposes a "weighted integration" model where attention dynamically modulates how multiple voices are combined into perceived melody.

Strengths:

(1) The attention bias findings (Figure 2) are compelling and methodologically sound, with convergent evidence from both behavioral and neural measures.

(2) The pitch-inversion manipulation appears to super elegantly dissociate two competing factors (high-voice superiority vs melodic salience), moreover, the authors claim that the chosen music lends itself perfectly to his PolyInv condition. A claim I cannot really evaluate, but which would make it even more neat.

(3) Nice bridge between hypotheses and operationalisations.

Weaknesses:



The results in Figure 3 are very striking, but I have a number of questions before I can consider myself convinced. 


(1) Conceptual questions about surprisal analysis:


The pattern of results seems backwards to me. Since the music is inherently polyphonic in PolyOrig, I'd expect the polyphonic model to fit the brain data better - after all, that's what the music actually is. These voices were composed to interact harmonically, so modeling them as independent monophonic streams seems like a misspecification. Why would the brain match this misspecified model better?
<br /> Conversely, it would seem to me the pitch inversion in PolyInv disrupts (at least to some extent) the harmonic coherence, so if anywhere, I'd a priori expect that in this condition, listeners would rather be processing streams separately - making the monophonic model fit better there (or less bad), not in PolyOrig. The current pattern is exactly opposite to what seems logical to me.


(2) Missing computational analyses:


If the transformer is properly trained, it should "understand" (i.e., predict/compress) the polyphonic music better, right? Can the authors demonstrate this via perplexity scores, bits-per-byte, or other prediction metrics, comparing how well each model (polyphonic vs monophonic) handles the music in both conditions? Similarly, if PolyInv truly maintains musical integrity as claimed, the polyphonic model should handle it as well as PolyOrig. But if the inversion does disrupt the music, we should see this reflected in degraded prediction scores. These metrics would validate whether the experimental manipulation works as intended. Also, how strongly are the surprisal streams correlated? There are many non-trivial modelling steps that should be reported in more detail.


(3) Methodological inconsistencies:

Why are the two main questions (Figures 2 and 3) answered with completely different analytical approaches? The switch from TRF to CCA with match-vs-mismatch classification seems unmotivated. I think it's very important to provide a simpler model comparison - just TRF with acoustic features plus either polyphonic or monophonic surprisal - evaluated on relevant electrodes or the full scalp. This would make the results more comparable and interpretable.

(4) Presentation and methods:

a) Coming from outside music/music theory, I found the paper somewhat abstract and hard to parse initially. The experimental logic becomes clearer with reflection, but you're doing yourselves a disservice with the jargon-heavy presentation. It would be useful to include example stimuli.

b) The methods section is extremely brief - no details whatsoever are provided regarding the modelling: What specific music transformer architecture? Which implementation of this "anticipatory music transformer"? Pre-trained on what corpus - monophonic, polyphonic, Western classical only? What constituted "technical issues" for the 9 excluded participants? What were the channel rejection criteria?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors sought to understand the drivers of spontaneous attentional bias and melodic expectation generation during listening to short two-part classical pieces. They measured scalp EEG data in a monophonic condition and trained a model to reconstruct the audio envelope from the EEG. They then used this model to probe which of the two voices was best reflected in the neural signal during two polyphonic conditions. In one condition, the original piece was presented, in the other, the voices were switched in an attempt to distinguish between effects of (a) the pitch range of one voice compared to the other and (b) intrinsic melodic features. They also collected a behavioural measure of attentional bias for a subset of the stimuli in a separate study. Further modelling assessed whether expectations of how the melody would unfold were formed based on an integrated percept of melody across the two voices, or based on a single voice. The authors sought to relate the findings to different theories of how musical/auditory scene analysis occurs, based on divided attention, figure-ground perception, and stream integration.

Strengths:

(1) A clever but simple manipulation - transposing the voices such that the higher one became the lower one - allowed an assessment of different factors that might affect the allocation of attention.

(2) State-of-the-art analytic techniques were applied to (a) build a music attention decoder (these are more commonly encountered for speech) and (b) relate the neural data to features of the stimulus at the level of acoustics and expectation.

(3) The effects appeared robust across the group, not driven by a handful of participants.

Weaknesses:

(1) A key goal of the work is to establish the relative importance for the listener's attention of a voice's (a) mean pitch in the context of the two voices (high-voice superiority) and (b) intrinsic melodic statistics/motif attractiveness. The rationale of the experimental manipulation is that switching the relative height of the lines allows these to be dissociated by imparting the same high-voice benefit to the new high-voice and the same preferred intrinsic melodic statistics to the new low voice. However, previous work suggests that the high-voice superiority effect is not all-or-nothing. Electrophysiology supported by auditory nerve modelling found it to depend on the degree of voice separation in a non-monotonic way (see https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2013.07.014 at p. 68). Although the authors keep the overall pitch of the lower (and upper) line fixed across conditions, systematically different contour patterns across the voices could give rise to a sub-optimal distribution of separations in the PolyInv versus PolyOrig condition. This could weaken the high-voice superiority effect in PolyInv and explain the pattern of results. One could argue that such contour differences are examples of the "intrinsic melodic statistics" put forward as the effect working in opposition to high-voice superiority, but it is their interaction across voices that matters here.

(2) Although melody statistics are mentioned throughout, none have been calculated. It would be helpful to see the features that presumably lead to "motif attractiveness" quantified, as well as how they differ across lines. The work of David Huron, such as at https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3469013.3469016, provides examples that could be calculated with ease and compared across the two lines: "the tendency for small over large pitch movements, for large leaps to ascend, for musical phrases to fall in pitch, and for phrases to begin with an initial pitch rise". The authors also mention differences in ornamentation. Such comparisons would make it more tangible for the reader as to what differs across the original "melody" and "support" line. In particular, as the authors themselves note, lines in double-counterpoint pieces can, to a degree, operate interchangeably. Bach's inventions in particular use a lot of direct repetition (up to octave invariance), which one would expect to minimise differences in the statistics mentioned. The references purporting to relate to melodic statistics (11-14 in original numbering) seem rather to relate to high-voice superiority.

(3) The exact nature of the transposition manipulation is obscured by a confusing Figure 1B, which shows an example in which the transposed line does not keep the same note-to-note interval structure as the original line.

(4) The transformer model is barely described in the main text. Even readers who are familiar with the Hidden Markov Models (e.g., in IDyOM) previously used by some of the authors to model melodic surprise and entropy would benefit from a brief description in the main text at least of how transformer models are different. The Methods section goes a little further but does not mention what the training set was, nor the relative weight given to long- and short-term memory models.

(5) The match-mismatch procedure should be explained in enough detail for readers to at least understand what value represents chance performance and why performance would be measured as an average over participants. Relatedly, there is no description at all of CCA or the match-mismatch procedure in the Methods.

(6) Details of how the integration model was implemented will be critical to interpreting the results relating to melodic expectations. It is not clear how "a single melody combining the two streams" was modelled, given that at least some notes presumably overlapped in time.

(7) The authors propose a weighted integration model, referring in the Discussion to dynamics and an integration rate. They do show that in the PolyOrig case, the top stream bias is highest and the monophonic model gives the best prediction, while in the PolyInv case, the top stream bias is weaker and the polyphonic model provides the best prediction. However, that doesn't seem to say anything about the temporal rate of integration, just the degree, which could be fixed over the whole stimulus. Relatedly, the terms "strong attention bias" and "weak attention bias" in Highlight 4 might give the impression of different attention modes for a given listener, or perhaps different types of listeners, but this seems to be shorthand for how attention is allocated for different types of stimuli (namely those that have or have not had their voices reversed).

(8) Another aspect of the presentation relating to temporal dynamics is that in places (e.g., Highlight 1), the authors suggest they are tracking attention dynamically. However, as acknowledged in the Discussion, neither the behavioural nor neural measure of attentional bias are temporally resolved. The measures indicate that on average participants attend more to the higher line (less so when it formed the lower line in the original composition).

(9) It is not clear whether the sung-back data were analysed (and if not why participants were asked to sing the melody back rather than just listen to the two components and report which they thought was the melody). It is also not stated whether the order in which the high and low voices were played back was randomised. If not, response biases or memory capacity might have affected the behavioural attention data.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper, Winchester and colleagues investigated melodic perception in natural music listening. They highlight the central role of attentional processes in identifying one particular stream in polyphonic material, and propose to compare several theoretical accounts, namely (1) divided attention, (2) figure-ground separation, and (3) stream integration. In parallel, the authors compare the relative strength of exogenous attentional effects (i.e., salience) produced by two common traits of melodies: high-pitch (compared to other voices), and attractive statistics. To ensure the generalisability of their results to real-life listening contexts, they developed a new uninstructed listening paradigm in which participants can freely attend to any part of a musical stimulus.

Major strengths and weaknesses of the methods and results:

(1) Winchester and colleagues capitalized on previous attention decoding techniques and proposed an uninstructed listening paradigm. This is an important innovation for the study of music perception in ecological settings, and it is used here to investigate the spontaneous attentional focus during listening. The EEG decoding results obtained are coherent with the behavioral data, suggesting that the paradigm is robust and relevant.

(2) The authors first evaluate the relative importance of high-pitch and statistics in producing an attentional bias (Figure 2). Behavioral results show a clear pattern, in which both effects are present, with a dominance of the high-pitch one. The only weakness inherent to this protocol is that behavioral responses are measured based on a second presentation of short samples, which may induce a different attentional focus than in the first uninstructed listening.

(3) Then, the analyses of EEG data compare the decoding results of each melody (the high or low voice, and with "richer" or "poorer" statistics), and show a similar pattern of results. However, this report leaves open the possibility of a confounding factor. In this analysis, a TRF decoding model is first trained based on the presentation of monophonic samples, and it is later used to decode the envelope of the corresponding melodies in the polyphonic scenario. The fitting scores of the training phase are not reported. If the high-pitch or richer melodies were to produce higher decoding scores during monophonic listening (due to properties of the physiological response, or to perceptual processes), a similar difference could be expected during polyphonic listening. To capture attentional biases specifically, the decoding scores in the polyphonic conditions should be compared to the scores in the monophonic conditions, and attention could be expected to increase the decoding of the attended stream or decrease the unattended one.

(4) Then, Winchester and colleagues investigate the processing of melodic information by evaluating the encoding of melodic surprise and uncertainty (Figure 3). They compare the surprise and uncertainty estimated from a monophonic or a polyphonic model (Anticipatory Music Transformer), and analyse the data with a CCA analysis. The results show a double dissociation, where the processing of melodies with a strong attentional bias (high-pitch, rich statistics) is better approximated with a monophonic model, while a polyphonic model better classifies the other melodies. While this global result is compelling, it remains a preliminary and intriguing finding, and the manuscript does not further investigate it. As it stands, the result appears more like a starting point for further exploration than a definitive finding that can support strong theoretical claims. First, it could be complemented by a comparison of the encoding of individual melodies (e.g., AMmono high-voice vs AMmono low-voice, in PolyOrig and PolyInv conditions) to highlight a more direct correspondence with the previous results (Figure 2) and allow a more precise interpretation. Second, additional analyses or experiments would be needed to unpack this result and provide greater explanatory power. Additionally, the CCA analysis is not described in the method. The statistical testing conducted on this analysis seems to be performed across the 250 repetitions of the evaluation rather than across the 40 participants, which may bias the resulting p-values. Moreover, the choice and working principle of the Anticipatory Music Transformer are not described in the method. Overall, these results seem at first glance solid, but the missing parts of the method do not allow for full evaluation or replication of them.

An appraisal of whether the authors achieved their aims, and whether the results support their conclusions:

(1) Winchester and colleagues aimed at identifying the melodic stream that attracts attention during the listening of natural polyphonic music, and the underlying attentional processes. Their behavioral results confirm that high-pitched and attractive statistics increase melodic salience with a greater effect size of the former, as stated in the discussion. The TRF analyses of EEG data seem to show a similar pattern, but could also be explained by confounding factors. Next, the authors interpret the CCA results as the results of stream segregation when there is a high melodic salience, and stream integration when there are weaker attentional biases. These interpretations seem to be supported by the data, but unfortunately, no additional analyses or experiments have been conducted to further evaluate this hypothesis. The authors also acknowledge that their results do not show whether stream segregation occurs via divided attention or figure-ground separation. However, the lack of information about the music model used (Anticipatory Music Model) and the way it was set up raises some questions about its relevance and limits as a model of cognition (e.g. Is this transformer a "better" model of the listeners' expectations than the well-established IDyOM model, and why ?), and about the validity of those results.

(2) Overall, the authors achieved most of the aims presented in the introduction, although they couldn't give a more precise account of the attentional processes at stake. The interpretations are sound and not overstated, with the exception of potential confounding factors that could compromise the conclusions on the neural tracking of salient melodies (EEG results, Figure 2).

Impact of the work on the field, and the utility of the methods and data to the community:

The new uninstructed listening paradigm introduced in this paper will likely have an important impact on psychologists and neuroscientists working on music perception and auditory attention, enabling them to conduct experiments in more ecological settings. While the attentional biases towards melodies with high-pitch and attractive statistics are already known, showing their relative effect is an important step in building precise models of auditory attention, and allows future paradigms to explore more fine-grained effects. Finally, the stream segregation and integration shown with this paradigm could be important for researchers working on music perception. Future work may be necessary to identify the models (Markov chains, deep learning) and setup (data analysis, stimuli, control variables) that do or do not replicate these results.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a well-structured and interesting manuscript that investigates how herbivorous insects, specifically whiteflies and planthoppers, utilize salivary effectors to overcome plant immunity by targeting the RLP4 receptor.

Strengths:

The authors present a strong case for the independent evolution of these effectors and provide compelling evidence for their functional roles.

Weaknesses:

Western blot evidence for effector secretion is weak. The possibility of contamination from insect tissues during the sample preparation should be avoided.

Below are some specific comments and suggestions to strengthen the manuscript.

(1) Western blot evidence for effector secretion:

The western blot evidence in Figure 1, which aims to show that the insect protein is secreted into plants, is not fully convincing. The band of the expected size (~30 kDa) in the infested tissues is very weak. Furthermore, the high and low molecular weight bands that appear in the infested tissues do not match the size of the protein in the insects themselves, and a high molecular weight band also appears in the uninfested control tissues. It is difficult to draw a definitive conclusion that this protein is secreted into the plants based on this evidence. The authors should also address the possibility of contamination from insect tissues during the sample preparation and explain how they have excluded this possibility.

(2) Inconsistent conclusion (Line 156 and Figure 3c): T

The statement in line 156 is inconsistent with the data presented in Figure 3c. The figure clearly shows that the LRR domain of the protein is the one responsible for the interaction with BtRDP, not the region mentioned in the text. This is a critical misrepresentation of the experimental findings and must be corrected. The conclusion in the text should accurately reflect the data from the figure.

(3) Role of SOBIR1 in the RLP4/SOBIR1 Complex:

The authors demonstrate that the salivary effectors destabilize the RLP4 receptor, leading to a decrease in its protein levels and a reduction in the RLP4/SOBIR1 complex. A key question remains regarding the fate of SOBIR1 within this complex. The authors should clarify what happens to the SOBIR1 protein after the destabilization of RLP4. Does SOBIR1 become unbound, targeted for degradation itself, or does it simply lose its function without RLP4? This would provide further insight into the mechanism of action of the effectors.

(4) Clarification on specificity and evolutionary claims:

The paper's most significant claim is that the effectors from both whiteflies and planthoppers "independently evolved" to target RLP4. While the functional data is compelling, this evolutionary claim would be more convincing with stronger evidence. Showing that two different effector proteins target the same host protein is a fascinating finding but without a robust phylogenetic analysis, the claim of independent evolution is not fully supported. It would be valuable to provide a more detailed evolutionary analysis, such as a phylogenetic tree of the effector proteins, showing their relationship to other known insect proteins, to definitively rule out a shared, but highly divergent, common ancestor.

(5) Role of SOBIR1 in the interaction:

The results suggest that the effectors disrupt the RLP4/SOBIR1 complex. It is not entirely clear if the effectors are specifically targeting RLP4, SOBIR1, or both. Further experiments, such as a co-immunoprecipitation assay with just RLP4 and the effector, could clarify if the effector can bind to RLP4 in the absence of SOBIR1. This would help to definitively place RLP4 as the primary target.

(6) Transcriptome analysis (Lines 130-143):

The transcriptome analysis section feels disconnected from the rest of the manuscript. The findings, or lack thereof, from this analysis do not seem to be directly linked to the other major conclusions of the paper. This section could be removed to improve the manuscript's overall focus and flow. If the authors believe this data is critical, they should more clearly and explicitly connect the conclusions of the transcriptome analysis to the core findings about the effector-RLP4 interaction.

(7) Signal peptide experiments (Lines 145 and beyond):

The experiments conducted with the signal peptide (SP) are questionable. The SP is typically cleaved before the protein reaches its final destination. As such, conducting experiments with the SP attached to the protein may have produced biased observations and could lead to unjustified conclusions about the protein's function within the plant cell. We suggest the authors remove the experiments that include the signal peptide.

(8) Overly strong conclusion and unclear evidence (Line 176):

The use of the word "must" on line 176 is very strong and presents a definitive conclusion without sufficient evidence. The authors state that the proteins must interact with SOBIR1, but they do not provide a clear justification for this claim. Is SOBIR1 the only interaction partner for NtRLP4? The authors should provide a specific reason for focusing on SOBIR1 instead of demonstrating an interaction with NtRLP4 first. Additionally, do BtRDP or NlSP694 also interact with SOBIR1 directly? The authors should either tone down their language to reflect the evidence or provide a clearer justification for this strong claim.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors tested an interesting hypothesis that white flies and planthoppers independently evolved salivary proteins to dampen plant immunity by targeting a receptor-like protein.

Strengths:

The authors used a wide range of methods to dissect the function of the white fly protein BtRDP and identify its host target NtRLP4.

Weaknesses:

(1) Serious concerns about protein work.

I did not find the indicated protein bands for anti-BtRDP in Figures 1a and 1b in the original blot pictures shown in Figure S30. In Figure 1a, I can't get the point of showing an unspecific protein band with a size of ~190 kD as a loading control for a protein of ~ 30 kD.

The data discrepancy led me to check other Western blot pictures. Similarly, Figures 2d, 3b, 3d, and S15b (anti-Myc) do not correspond to the original blots shown. In addition, the anti-Myc blot in Figure 4i, all blot pictures in Figures 5b, 5h, and S19a appeared to be compressed vertically. These data raised concerns about the quality of the manuscript.

Blots shown in Figure 3d, 4f, 4g, and 4h appeared to be done at a different exposure rate compared to the complete blot shown in Figure S30. The undesirable connection between Western blot pictures shown in the figures and the original data might be due to the reduced quality of compressed figures during submission. Nevertheless, clarification will be necessary to support the strength of the data provided.

(2) Misinterpretation of data.

I am afraid the authors misunderstood pattern-triggered immunity through receptor-like proteins. It is true that several LRR-type RLPs constitutively associate with SOBIR1, and further recruit BAK1 or other SERKs upon ligand binding. One should not take it for granted that every RLP works this way. To test the hypothesis that NtRLP4 confers resistance to B.tabaci infestation, the author compared transcriptional profiles between an EV plant line and an RLP4 overexpression line. If I understood the methods and figure legends correctly, this was done without B. tabaci treatment. This experimental design is seriously flawed. To provide convincing genetic evidence, independent mutant lines (optionally independent overexpression lines) in combination with different treatments will be necessary. Otherwise, one can only conclude that overexpressing the RLP4 protein generated a nervous plant. In addition, ROS burst, but not H2O2 accumulation, is a common immune response in pattern-triggered immunity.

(3) Lack of logic coherence.

The written language needs substantial improvement. This impeded the readability of the work. More importantly, the logic throughout the manuscript appeared scattered. The choice of testing protein domains for protein-protein interactions, using plants overexpressing an insect protein to study its subcellular localization, switching back and forth between using proteins with signal peptides and without signal peptides, among others, lacks a clear explanation.

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.

Weaknesses:

(1) I found the naming of BtRDP and NlSP694 somewhat confusing. The authors defined BtRDP as "B. tabaci RLP-degrading protein," whereas NlSP694 appears to have been named after the last three digits of its GenBank accession number (MF278694, presumably). Is there a standard convention for naming newly identified proteins, for example, based on functional motifs or sequence characteristics? As it stands, the inconsistency makes it difficult for readers to clearly distinguish these proteins from those reported in other studies.

(2) Figure 2 and other figures. Transgenic experiments require at least two independent lines, because results from a single line may be confounded by position effects or unintended genomic alterations, and multiple lines provide stronger evidence for reproducibility and reliability.

(3) Figure 3e. Quantitative analysis of NtRLP4 was required. Additionally, since only one band was observed in oeRLP, were any tags included in the construct?

(4) Figure 4a. The RNAi effect appears to be well rescued in Line 1 but poorly in Line 2. Could the authors clarify the reason for this difference?

(5) ROS accumulation is shown for only a single leaf. A quantitative analysis of ROS accumulation across multiple samples would be necessary to support the conclusion. The same applies to Figure 16f.

(6) Figure 4f: NtRLP4 abundance was significantly reduced in oeBtRDP plants but not in oeBtRDP-SP. Although coexpression analysis suggests that BtRDP promotes NtRLP4 degradation in an ubiquitin-dependent manner, the reduced NtRLP4 levels may not result from a direct interaction between BtRDP and NtRLP4. It is possible that BtRDP influences other factors that indirectly affect NtRLP4 abundance. The authors should discuss this possibility.

(7) The statement in lines 335-336 that 'Overexpression of NtRLP4 or NtSOBIR1 enhances insect feeding, while silencing of either gene exerts the opposite effect' is not supported by the results shown in Figures S16-S19. The authors should revise this description to accurately reflect the data.

(8) BtRDP is reported to attach to the salivary sheath. Does the planthopper NlSP694 exhibit a similar secretion localization (e.g., attachment to the salivary sheath)? The authors should supplement this information or discuss the potential implications of any differences in secretion localization between BtRDP and NlSP694 for their respective modes of action.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

A summary of what the authors were trying to achieve:

Zhang et al. examine connections between supramammillary (SuM) neurons and the subiculum in the context of stress-induced anxiety-like behaviors. They identify stress-activated neurons (SANs) in the SuM using Fos2A-iCreERT2 TRAP mice and show that reactivation of SANs increases anxiety-like behavior and corticosterone levels. Circuit mapping reveals inputs from glutamatergic neurons in both ventral and dorsal subiculum (Sub) to SANs. vSub neurons showing calcium dynamics correlated with open-arm exploration in the elevated zero maze (EZM), which is interpreted to indicate a link to e. Finally, chronic inhibition of vSub→SuM neurons during chronic social defeat stress (CSDS) reduces anxiety-like behaviors.

An account of the major strengths and weaknesses of the methods and results:

Strengths:

The manuscript provides compelling evidence for monosynaptic connections from the subiculum to SuM neurons activated by stress. Demonstrating that SuM neuronal activity is altered after CSDS is of particular interest, potentially linking SuM circuits to stress-related psychiatric disorders. The TRAP approach highlights a stress-responsive population of neurons, and reactivation studies suggest behavioral relevance. Together, these data contribute to an emerging literature implicating SuM in stress and anxiety regulation.

Weaknesses

As presented, the manuscript has limitations that weaken support for the central conclusions drawn by the authors. Many of the findings align with prior work on this topic, but do not extend those findings substantially.<br /> An overarching limitation is the lack of temporal resolution in the manipulations relative to the behavioral assays. This is particularly important for anxiety-like behaviors, as antecedent exposures can alter performance. In the open field and elevated zero maze assays, testing occurred 30 minutes after CNO injection. During much of this interval, the targeted neurons were likely active, making it difficult to determine whether observed behavioral changes were primary - resulting directly from SuM neuronal activity - or secondary, reflecting a stress-like state induced by prolonged activation of SuM and related circuits. This concern also applies to the chronic inhibition of ventral subiculum (vSub) neurons during 10 days of CSDS.

The combination of stressors (foot shock and CSDS) and behavioral assays further complicates interpretation. The precise role of SuM neurons, including SANs, remains unclear. Both vSub and dSub neurons responded to foot shock, but only vSub neurons showed activity differences associated with open-arm transitions in the EZM.

In light of prior studies linking SuM to locomotion (Farrell et al., Science 2021; Escobedo et al., eLife 2024), the absence of analyses connecting subpopulations to locomotor changes weakens the claim that vSub neurons selectively encode anxiety. Because open- and closed-arm transitions are inherently tied to locomotor activity, locomotion must be carefully controlled to avoid confounding interpretations.

Another limitation is the narrow behavioral scope. Beyond open field and EZM, no additional assays were used to assess how SAN reactivation affects other behaviors. Without richer behavioral analyses, interpretations about fear engrams, freezing, or broader stress-related functions of SuM remain incomplete.

In addition, small n values across several datasets reduce confidence in the strength of the conclusions.

Figure level concerns:

(1) Figure 1: In Figure 1, the acute recruitment of SuM neurons by for shock is paired with changes in neural activity induced by social defeat stress. Although interesting, the connections of changes induced by a chronic stressor to Fos induction following acute foot shock are unclear and do not establish a baseline for the studies in Figure 3 on activation of SANs by social stressors.

(2) Figure 2: The chemogenetic experiments using AAV-hSyn-Gq-DREADDs lack data or images, or hit maps showing viral spread across animals. This omission is critical given the small size of SuM, where viral spread directly determines which neurons are manipulated. Without this, it is difficult to interpret findings in the context of prior studies on SuM circuits involved in threats and rewards.

(3) Figure 3: The TRAP experiments show that the number of labeled neurons following foot shock (Figure 3F) is approximately double that of baseline home-cage animals, though y-axis scaling complicates interpretation. It is unclear whether this reflects true Fos induction, low TRAP efficiency, or baseline recombination. Overlap analyses are also limited. For example, it is not shown what proportion of foot shock SANs are reactivated by subsequent foot shock. Comparisons of Fos induction after sucrose reward are also weakened by the very low Fos signal observed. If sucrose reward does not robustly induce Fos in SuM, its utility in distinguishing reward- versus stress-activated neurons is questionable. Thus, conclusions about overlap between SANs and socially stressed neurons remain uncertain due to the missing quantification of Fos+ populations.

(4) Supplemental Figure 3: The claim that "SANs in the SuM encode anxiety but not fear memory" is not well supported. Inhibition of SANs (Gi-DREADDs) did not alter freezing behavior, but the absence of change could reflect technical issues (e.g., insufficient TRAP efficiency, low expression of Gi-DREADDs). Moreover, the manuscript does not provide a positive control showing that SuM SANs inhibition alters anxiety-like behavior, making it difficult to interpret the negative result. Prior work (Escobedo et al., eLife 2024) suggests SuM neurons drive active responses, not freezing, raising further interpretive questions.

(5) Figure 4: The statement that corticosterone concentration is "usually used to estimate whether an individual is anxious" (line 236) is an overstatement. Corticosterone fluctuates dynamically across the day and responds to a broad range of stimuli beyond anxiety.

(6) Figures 5-6: The conclusion that vSub neurons encode anxiety-like behavior is not firmly supported. Data from photo-activating terminals in SuM is shown for ex vivo recording, but not in vivo behavior, which would strengthen support for this conclusion. Both vSub and dSub neurons responded to foot shock. The key evidence comes from apparent differential recruitment during open-arm exploration. However, the timing appears to lag arm entry, no data are provided for closed-arm entry, and there is heterogeneity across animals. These limitations reduce confidence in the authors' central claim regarding vSub-specific encoding of anxiety.

An appraisal of whether the authors achieved their aims, and whether the results support their conclusions:

(1) From the data presented, the authors conclude that "the SuM is the critical brain region that regulates anxiety" (line 190). This interpretation appears overstated, as it downplays well-established contributions of other brain regions and does not place SuM's role within a broader network context. The data support that SuM neurons are recruited by foot shock and, to a lesser extent, by acute social stress. However, the alterations in activity of SuM subpopulations following chronic stress reported in Figure 1 remain largely unexplored, limiting insight into their functional relevance.

(2) The limited temporal resolution of DREADD-based manipulations leaves alternative explanations untested. For example, if SANs encode signals of threat, generalized stress, or nociception, then prolonged activation could indirectly alter behavior in the open field and EZM assays, rather than reflecting direct anxiety regulation.

(3) The conclusion that "SuM store information about stress but not memory" (line 240) is not fully supported, particularly with respect to possible roles in memory. The lack of a role in memory of events, as opposed to the output of threat or stress memory, may be true, but is functionally untested in presented experiments. The data do indicate activation of the SuM neuron by foot shock, which has been previously reported(Escobedo et al eLife 2024). The changes in SuM activity following chronic stress (Figure 1) are intriguing, but their relationship to "stress information storage" is not clearly established.

A discussion of the likely impact of the work on the field, and the utility of the methods and data to the community:

The reported results align with prior studies on SuM and Sub areas' roles in stress in anxiety. There are limitations due to narrowly focused behavioral assays and the limited temporal resolution of the tools used. Overall, the study further supports a role for SuM in threat and stress responses. The reported changes in SuM neuron activity following chronic stress may offer new insights into stress-induced disorders and behavioral changes.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This manuscript investigates the neural mechanisms of anxiety and identifies the supramammillary nucleus (SuM) as a critical hub in mediating anxiety-related behaviors. The authors describe a population of neurons in the SuM that are activated by acute and chronic stress. While their activity is not required for fear memory recall, reactivation of these neurons after chronic stress robustly increases anxiety-like behaviors as well as physiological stress markers. Circuit analysis further shows that these stress-activated neurons are driven by inputs from the ventral, but not dorsal, subiculum, and inhibition of this pathway exerts an anxiolytic effect.

The study provides an elegant integration of techniques to link stress, neuronal ensembles, and circuit function, thereby advancing our understanding of the neural substrates of anxiety. A particularly notable point is the selective role of these stress-activated neurons in anxiety, but not in associative fear memory, which highlights functional distinctions between neural circuits underlying anxiety and fear.

Some aspects would benefit from clarification. For example, how selective is the recruitment of this population to stress compared with other aversive states, and how should one best interpret their definition as "stress-activated neurons" given the relatively modest overlap across stress exposures? In addition, the use of the term "engram" in this context raises conceptual questions. Is it appropriate to describe a neuronal ensemble encoding an emotional state as an engram, a term usually tied to specific memory recall?

Overall, this work makes a valuable contribution by identifying SuM stress-activated neurons and their ventral subiculum inputs as central elements of the circuitry underlying anxiety. These findings provide a valuable framework for future studies investigating anxiety circuitry and may inform the development of targeted interventions for stress-related disorders.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aim to investigate the mechanisms of anxiety. The paper focuses on the supramammillary nucleus (SuM) based on a fos screen and recordings showing that footshock and social defeat stress increase activity in this region. Using activity-dependent tagging, they show that reactivation of stress-activated neurons in SuM has an anxiety-like effect, reducing open-arm exploration in the elevated zero task. They then investigate the ventral subiculum as a potential source of anxiety-related information for SuM. They show that ventral subiculum (vSub) inputs to SuM are more strongly activated than dSub when mice explore the open arms of the elevated zero. Finally, they show that DREADD-mediated inhibition of vSub-SuM projections alleviates stress-enhanced anxiety. Overall, the results provide good evidence that SuM contains a stress-activated neuronal population whose later activity increases anxiety-like behavior. It further provides evidence that vSub projects to SuM are activated by stress, and their inhibition alleviates some effects of stress.

Strengths:

Strengths of this paper include the use of convergent methods (e.g., fos plus electrode recordings, footshock, and social defeat) to demonstrate that the SuM is activated by different forms of stress. The activity-dependent tagging experiment shows that footshock-activated SuM neurons are reactivated by social defeat but not by sucrose is also compelling because it provides evidence that SuM neurons are driven by some integrative aspect of stress rather than by a simple sensory stimulus.

Weaknesses:

The strength of some of the evidence is judged to be incomplete. The paper provides good evidence that SuM contains stress-responsive neurons, and the activity of these neurons increases some measure of anxiety-like behavior. However, the evidence that the vSub-SuM projection "encodes anxiety" and that the SuM is a key regulator of anxiety is judged to be incomplete. The claim that SuM generates an "anxiety engram" is also judged to be incompletely supported by the evidence. Namely, what is unclear is whether these cells/regions encode anxiety per se versus modulate behaviors (like exploration) that tend to correlate with anxiety. Since many brain regions respond to footshock and other stressors, the response of SuM to these stimuli is not strong evidence for a role in anxiety. I am not convinced that the identified SuM cells have a specific anxiety function. As the authors mention in the introduction, SuM regulates exploration and theta activity. Since theta potently regulates hippocampal function, there is the concern that SuM manipulations could have broad effects. As shown in Supplementary Figure 2, stimulating stress-responsive cells in SuM potently reduces general locomotor exploration. This raises concerns that the manipulation could have broader effects that go beyond just changes in anxiety-like behavior. Furthermore, the meaning of an "anxiety engram" is unclear. Would this engram encode stress, the sense of a potential threat, or the behavioral response? A more developed analysis of the behavioral correlates of SuM activity and the behavioral effects of SuM manipulations could give insight into these questions.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript characterizes a functional peptidergic system in the echinoderm Apostichopus japonicus that is related to the widely conserved family of calcitonin/diuretic hormone 31 (CT/DH31) peptides in bilaterian animals. In vitro analysis of receptor-ligand interactions, using multiple receptor activation assays, identifies three cognate receptors for two CT-like peptides in the sea cucumber, which stimulate cAMP, calcium, and ERK signaling. Only one of these receptors clusters within the family of calcitonin and calcitonin-like receptors (CTR/CLR) in bilaterian animals, whereas two other receptors cluster with invertebrate pigment dispersing factor receptors (PDFRs). In addition, this study sheds light on the expression and in vivo functions of CT-like peptides in A. japonicus, by quantitative real-time PCR, immunohistochemistry, pharmacological experiments on body wall muscle and intestine preparations, and peptide injection and RNAi knockdown experiments. This reveals a conserved function of CT-like peptides as muscle relaxants and growth regulators in A. japonicus.

Strengths:

This work combines both in vitro and in vivo functional assays to identify a CT-like peptidergic system in an economically relevant echinoderm species, the sea cucumber A. japonicus. A major strength of the study is that it identifies three G protein-coupled receptors for AjCT-like peptides, one related to the CTR/CLR family and two related to the PDFR family. A similar finding was previously reported for the CT-related peptide DH31 in Drosophila melanogaster that activates both CT-type and PDF-type receptors. Here, the authors expand this observation to a deuterostomian animal, which suggests that receptor promiscuity is a more general feature of the CT/DH31 peptide family and that CT/DH31-like peptides may activate both CT-type and PDF-type receptors in other animals as well.

Besides the identification of receptor-ligand pairs, the downstream signaling pathways of AjCT receptors have been characterized, revealing broad and in some cases receptor-specific effects on cAMP, calcium, and ERK signaling.

Functional characterization of the CT-related peptide system in heterologous cells is complemented with ex vivo and in vivo experiments. First, peptide injection and RNAi knockdown experiments establish transcriptional regulation of all three identified receptors in response to changing AjCT peptide levels. Second, ex vivo experiments reveal a conserved role for the two CT-like peptides as muscle relaxants, which have differential effects on body wall muscle and intestine preparations. Finally, peptide injection and knockdown experiments uncover a growth-promoting role for one CT-like peptide (AjCT2). Injection of AjCT2 at high concentration, or long-term knockdown of the AjCT precursor, affects diverse growth-related parameters including weight gain rate, specific growth rate, and transcript levels of growth-regulating transcription factors. The authors also reveal a growth-promoting function for the PDFR-like receptor AjPDFR2, suggesting that this receptor mediates the effects of AjCT2 on growth.

Weaknesses:

Expression of CT-like peptides was investigated both at transcript and protein level, but insight into the expression of the three peptide receptors is limited. This makes it difficult to understand the mechanism underlying the (different) functions of the two CT-like peptides in vivo. The authors identify differences in signal transduction cascades activated by each peptide, which might underpin distinct functions, but these differences were established only in heterologous cells.

The authors show overlapping phenotypes for a long-term knockdown of the AjCT precursor and the AjPDFR2 receptor, suggesting that the growth-regulating functions of AjCT2 are mediated by this receptor pathway. However, it remains unclear whether this mechanism underpins the growth-regulating function of AjCT2, until further in vivo evidence for this ligand-receptor interaction is presented. For example, the authors could investigate whether knockdown of AjPDFR2 attenuates the effects of AjCT2 peptide injection. In addition, a functional PDF system in this species remains uncharacterized, and a potential role of PDF-like peptides in growth regulation has not yet been investigated in A. japonicus. Therefore, it also remains unclear whether the ability of CT-like peptides to activate PDFRs is an evolutionary ancient property of this peptide family or whether this is an example of convergent evolution in some protostomian (Drosophila) and deuterostomian (sea cucumber) species.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors show that A. japonicus calcitonins (AjCT1 and AjCT2) activate not only the calcitonin/calcitonin-like receptor, but they also activate the two "PDF receptors", ex vivo. They also explore secondary messenger pathways that are recruited following receptor activation. They determine the source of CT1 and CT2 using qPCR and in situ hybridization and finally test the effects of these peptides on tissue contractions, feeding and growth. This study provides solid evidence that CT1 and CT2 act as ligands for calcitonin receptors; however, evidence supporting cross-talk between CT peptides and "PDF receptors" is weak.

Strengths:

This is the first study to report pharmacological characterization of CT receptors in an echinoderm. Multiple lines of evidence in cell culture (receptor internalization and secondary messenger pathways) support this conclusion.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This preprint from Shaowei Zhao and colleagues presents results that suggest tumorous germline stem cells (GSCs) in the Drosophila ovary mimic the ovarian stem cell niche and inhibit the differentiation of neighboring non-mutant GSC-like cells. The authors use FRT-mediated clonal analysis driven by a germline-specific gene (nos-Gal4, UASp-flp) to induce GSC-like cells mutant for bam or bam's co-factor bgcn. Bam-mutant or bgcn-mutant germ cells produce tumors in the stem cell compartment (the germarium) of the ovary (Figure 1). These tumors contain non-mutant cells - termed SGC for single-germ cells. 75% of SGCs do not exhibit signs of differentiation (as assessed by bamP-GFP) (Figure 2). The authors demonstrate that block in differentiation in SGC is a result of suppression of bam expression (Figure 2). They present data suggesting that in 73% of SGCs, BMP signaling is low (assessed by dad-lacZ) (Figure 3) and proliferation is less in SGCs vs GSCs. They present genetic evidence that mutations in BMP pathway receptors and transcription factors suppress some of the non-autonomous effects exhibited by SGCs within bam-mutant tumors (Figure 4). They show data that bam-mutant cells secrete Dpp, but this data is not compelling (see below) (Figure 5). They provide genetic data that loss of BMP ligands (dpp and gbb) suppresses the appearance of SGCs in bam-mutant tumors (Figure 6). Taken together, their data support a model in which bam-mutant GSC-like cells produce BMPs that act on non-mutant cells (i.e., SGCs) to prevent their differentiation, similar to what is seen in the ovarian stem cell niche. This preprint from Shaowei Zhao and colleagues presents results that suggest tumorous germline stem cells (GSCs) in the Drosophila ovary mimic the ovarian stem cell niche and inhibit the differentiation of neighboring non-mutant GSC-like cells. The authors use FRT-mediated clonal analysis driven by a germline-specific gene (nos-Gal4, UASp-flp) to induce GSC-like cells mutant for bam or bam's co-factor bgcn. Bam-mutant or bgcn-mutant germ cells produce tumors in the stem cell compartment (the germarium) of the ovary (Figure 1). These tumors contain non-mutant cells - termed SGC for single-germ cells. 75% of SGCs do not exhibit signs of differentiation (as assessed by bamP-GFP) (Figure 2). The authors demonstrate that block in differentiation in SGC is a result of suppression of bam expression (Figure 2). They present data suggesting that in 73% of SGCs, BMP signaling is low (assessed by dad-lacZ) (Figure 3) and proliferation is less in SGCs vs GSCs. They present genetic evidence that mutations in BMP pathway receptors and transcription factors suppress some of the non-autonomous effects exhibited by SGCs within bam-mutant tumors (Figure 4). They show data that bam-mutant cells secrete Dpp, but this data is not compelling (see below) (Figure 5). They provide genetic data that loss of BMP ligands (dpp and gbb) suppresses the appearance of SGCs in bam-mutant tumors (Figure 6). Taken together, their data support a model in which bam-mutant GSC-like cells produce BMPs that act on non-mutant cells (i.e., SGCs) to prevent their differentiation, similar to what in seen in the ovarian stem cell niche.

Strengths:

(1) Use of an excellent and established model for tumorous cells in a stem cell microenvironment.

(2) Powerful genetics allow them to test various factors in the tumorous vs non-tumorous cells.

(3) Appropriate use of quantification and statistics.

Weaknesses:

(1) What is the frequency of SGCs in nos>flp; bam-mutant tumors? For example, are they seen in every germarium, or in some germaria, etc, or in a few germaria?

(2) Does the breakdown in clonality vary when they induce hs-flp clones in adults as opposed to in larvae/pupae?

(3) Approximately 20-25% of SGCs are bam+, dad-LacZ+. Firstly, how do the authors explain this? Secondly, of the 70-75% of SGCs that have no/low BMP signaling, the authors should perform additional characterization using markers that are expressed in GSCs (i.e., Sex lethal and nanos).

(4) All experiments except Figure 1I (where a single germarium with no quantification) were performed with nos-Gal4, UASp-flp. Have the authors performed any of the phenotypic characterizations (i.e., figures other than Figure 1) with hs-flp?

(5) Does the number of SGCs change with the age of the female? The experiments were all performed in 14-day-old adult females. What happens when they look at a young female (like 2-day-old). I assume that the nos>flp is working in larval and pupal stages, and so the phenotype should be present in young females. Why did the authors choose this later age? For example, is the phenotype more robust in older females? Or do you see more SGCs at later time points?

(6) Can the authors distinguish one copy of GFP versus 2 copies of GFP in germ cells of the ovary? This is not possible in the Drosophila testis. I ask because this could impact the clonal analyses diagrammed in Figure 4A and 4G and in 6A and B. Additionally, in most of the figures, the GFP is saturated, so it is not possible to discern one vs two copies of GFP.

(7) More evidence is needed to support the claim of elevated Dpp levels in bam or bgcn mutant tumors. The current results with the dpp-lacZ enhancer trap in Figure 5A, B are not convincing. First, why is the dpp-lacZ so much brighter in the mosaic analysis (A) than in the no-clone analysis (B)? It is expected that the level of dpp-lacZ in cap cells should be invariant between ovaries, and yet LacZ is very faint in Figure 5B. I think that if the settings in A matched those in B, the apparent expression of dpp-lacZ in the tumor would be much lower and likely not statistically significant. Second, they should use RNA in situ hybridization with a sensitive technique like hybridization chain reactions (HCR) - an approach that has worked well in numerous Drosophila tissues, including the ovary.

(8) In Figure 6, the authors report results obtained with the bamBG allele. Do they obtain similar data with another bam allele (i.e., bamdelta86)?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

While the study by Zhang et al. provides valuable insights into how germline tumors can non-autonomously suppress the differentiation of neighboring wild-type germline stem cells (GSCs), several conceptual and technical issues limit the strength of the conclusions.

Major points:

(1) Naming of SGCs is confusing. In line 68, the authors state that "many wild-type germ cells located outside the niche retained a GSC-like single-germ-cell (SGC) morphology." However, bam or bgcn mutant GSCs are also referred to as "SGCs," which creates confusion when reading the text and interpreting the figures. The authors should clarify the terminology used to distinguish between wild-type SGCs and tumor (bam/bgcn mutant) SGCs, and apply consistent naming throughout the manuscript and figure legends.

a) The same confusion appears in Figure 2. It is unclear whether the analyzed SGCs are wild-type or bam mutant cells. If the SGCs analyzed are Bam mutants, then the lack of Bam expression and failure to differentiate would be expected and not informative. However, if the SGCs are wild-type GSCs located outside the niche, then the observation would suggest that Bam expression is silenced in these wild-type cells, which is a significant finding. The authors should clarify the genotype of the SGCs analyzed in Figure 2C, as this information is not currently provided.

b) In Figures 4B and 4E, the analysis of SGC composition is confusing. In the control germaria (bam mutant mosaic), the authors label GFP⁺ SGCs as "wild-type," which makes interpretation unclear. Note, this is completely different from their earlier definition shown in line 68.

c) Additionally, bam⁺/⁻ GSCs (the first bar in Figure 4E) should appear GFP⁺ and Red⁺ (i.e., yellow). It would be helpful if the authors could indicate these bam⁺/⁻ germ cells directly in the image and clarify the corresponding color representation in the main text. In Figure 2A, although a color code is shown, the legend does not explain it clearly, nor does it specify the identity of bam⁺/⁻ cells alone. Figure 4F has the same issue, and in this graph, the color does not match Figure 4A.

(2) The frequencies of bam or bgcn mutant mosaic germaria carrying [wild-type] SGCs or wild-type germ cell cysts with branched fusomes, as well as the average number of wild-type SGCs per germarium and the number of days after heat shock for the representative images, are not provided when Figure 1 is first introduced. Since this is the first time the authors describe these phenotypes, including these details is essential. Without this information, it is difficult for readers to follow and evaluate the presented observations.

(3) Without the information mentioned in point 2, it causes problems when reading through the section regarding [wild-type] SGCs induced by impairment of differentiation or dedifferentiation. In lines 90-97, the authors use the presence of midbodies between cystocytes as a criterion to determine whether the wild-type GSCs surrounded by tumor GSCs arise through dedifferentiation. However, the cited study (Mathieu et al., 2022) reports that midbodies can be detected between two germ cells within a cyst carrying a branched fusome upon USP8 loss.

a) Are wild-type germ cell cysts with branched fusomes present in the bam mutant mosaic germaria? What is the proportion of germaria containing wild-type SGCs versus those containing wild-type germ cell cysts with branched fusomes?

b) If all bam mutant mosaic germaria carry only wild-type GSCs outside the niche and no germaria contain wild-type germ cell cysts with branched fusomes, then examining midbodies as an indicator of dedifferentiation may not be appropriate.

c) If, however, some germaria do contain wild-type germ cell cysts with branched fusomes, the authors should provide representative images and quantify their proportion.

d) In line 95, although the authors state that 50 germ cell cysts were analyzed for the presence of midbodies, it would be more informative to specify how many germaria these cysts were derived from and how many biological replicates were examined.

(4) Note that both bam mutant GSCs and wild-type SGCs can undergo division to generate midbodies (double cells), as shown in Figure 4H. Therefore, the current description of the midbody analysis is confusing. The authors should clarify which cell types were examined and explain how midbodies were interpreted in distinguishing between cell division and differentiation.

(5) The data in Figure 5 showing Dpp expression in bam mutant tumorous GSCs are not convincing. The Dpp-lacZ signal appears broadly distributed throughout the germarium, including in escort cells. To support the claim more clearly, the authors should present corresponding images for Figures 5D and 5E, in which dpp expression was knocked down in the germ cells of bam or bgcn mutant mosaic germaria. Showing these images would help clarify the localization and specificity of Dpp-lacZ expression relative to the tumorous GSCs.

(6) While Figure 6 provides genetic evidence that bam mutant tumorous GSCs produce Dpp to inhibit the differentiation of wild-type SGCs, it should be noted that these analyses were performed in a dpp⁺/⁻ background. To strengthen the conclusion, the authors should include appropriate controls showing [dpp⁺/⁻; bam⁺/⁻] SGCs and [dpp⁺/⁻; bam⁺/⁻] germ cell cysts without heat shock (as referenced in Figures 6F and 6I).

(7) Previous studies have reported that bam mutant germ cells cause blunted escort cell protrusions (e.g., Kirilly et al., Development, 2011), which are known to contribute to germ cell differentiation (e.g., Chen et al., Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology, 2022). The authors should include these findings in the Discussion to provide a broader context and to acknowledge how alterations in escort cell morphology may further influence differentiation defects in their model.

(8) Since fusome morphology is an important readout of SGCs vs differentiation. All the clonal analysis should have fusome staining.

(9) Figure arrangement. It is somewhat difficult to identify the figure panels cited in the text due to the current panel arrangement.

(10) The number of biological replicates and germaria analyzed should be clearly stated somewhere in the manuscript-ideally in the Methods section or figure legends. Providing this information is essential for assessing data reliability and reproducibility.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Zhang et al. investigated how germline tumors influence the development of neighboring wild-type (WT) germline stem cells (GSC) in the Drosophila ovary. They report that germline tumors inhibit the differentiation of neighboring WT GSCs by arresting them in an undifferentiated state, resulting from reduced expression of the differentiation-promoting factor Bam. They find that these tumor cells produce low levels of the niche-associated signaling molecules Dpp and Gbb, which suppress bam expression and consequently inhibit the differentiation of neighboring WT GSCs non-cell-autonomously. Based on these findings, the authors propose that germline tumors mimic the niche to suppress the differentiation of the neighboring stem cells.

Strengths:

This study addresses an important biological question concerning the interaction between germline tumor cells and WT germline stem cells in the Drosophila ovary. If the findings are substantiated, they could provide valuable insights applicable to other stem cell systems.

Weaknesses:

Previous work from Xie's lab demonstrated that bam and bgcn mutant GSCs can outcompete WT GSCs for niche occupancy. Furthermore, a large body of literature has established that the interactions between escort cells (ECs) and GSC daughters are essential for proper and timely germline differentiation (the differentiation niche). Disruption of these interactions leads to arrest of germline cell differentiation in a status with weak BMP signaling activation and low bam expression, a phenotype virtually identical to what is reported here.

Thus, it remains unclear whether the observed phenotype reflects "direct inhibition by tumor cells" or "arrested differentiation due to the loss of the differentiation niche". Because most data were collected at a very late stage (more than 10 days after clonal induction), when tumor cells already dominate the germarium, this question cannot be solved. To distinguish between these two possibilities, the authors could conduct a time-course analysis to examine the onset of the WT GSC-like single-germ-cell (SGC) phenotype and determine whether early-stage tumor clones with a few tumor cells can suppress the differentiation of neighboring WT GSCs with only a few tumor cells present. If tumor cells indeed produce Dpp and Gbb (as proposed here) to inhibit the differentiation of neighboring germline cells, a small cluster or probably even a single tumor cell generated at an early stage might prevent the differentiation of their neighboring germ cells.

The key evidence supporting the claim that tumor cells produce Gpp and Gbb comes from Figures 5 and 6, which suggest that tumor-derived dpp and gbb are required for this inhibition. However, interpretation of these data requires caution.

In Figure 5, the authors use dpp-lacZ to support the claim that dpp is upregulated in tumor cells (Figure 5A and 5B). However, the background expression in somatic cells (ECs and pre-follicular cells) differs noticeably between these panels. In Figure 5A, dpp-lacZ expression in somatic cells in 5A is clearly higher than in 5B, and the expression level in tumor cells appears comparable to that in somatic cells (dpp-lacZ single channel). Similarly, in Figure 5B, dpp-lacZ expression in germline cells is also comparable to that in somatic cells. Providing clear evidence of upregulated dpp and gbb expression in tumor cells (for example, through single-molecular RNA in situ) would be essential.

Most tumor data present in this study were collected from the bam[86] null allele, whereas the data in Figure 6 were derived from a weaker bam[BG] allele. This bam[BG] allele is not molecularly defined and shows some genetic interaction with dpp mutants. As shown in Figure 6E, removal of dpp from homozygous bam[BG] mutant leads to germline differentiation (evidenced by a branched fusome connecting several cystocytes, located at the right side of the white arrowhead). In Figure 6D, fusome is likely present in some GFP-negative bam[BG]/bam[BG] cells. To strengthen their claim that the tumor produces Dpp and Gbb to inhibit WT germline cell differentiation, the authors should repeat these experiments using the bam[86] null allele.

It is well established that the stem niche provides multiple functional supports for maintaining resident stem cells, including physical anchorage and signaling regulation. In Drosophila, several signaling molecules produced by the niche have been identified, each with a distinct function - some promoting stemness, while others regulate differentiation. Expression of Dpp and Gbb alone does not substantiate the claim that these tumor cells have acquired the niche-like property. To support their assertion that these tumors mimic the niche, the authors should provide additional evidence showing that these tumor cells also express other niche-associated markers. Alternatively, they could revise the manuscript title to more accurately reflect their findings.

In the Method section, the authors need to provide details on how dpp-lacZ expression levels were quantified and normalized.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study investigates the effects of transcriptional activation on chromatin dynamics and mobility. Using a breast cancer model, the authors examine the effects of estrogen receptor-a (ERa) stimulation and the resulting transcriptional activation on chromatin behavior at ERa-dependent loci during three distinct phases: unstimulated, acute stimulation, and chronic stimulation. Through live DNA and RNA imaging, the authors claim that ERa-dependent target genes display distinct bursting dynamics during periods of acute versus chronic simulation, accompanied by an overall increase in chromatin mobility. Notably, they claim that ERa-dependent loci display increased mobility during the non-bursting phase compared to the bursting phase. The study also attempts to explore the role of condensates in mediating these transcriptional and chromatin mobility changes using a single-molecule tracking assay to identify a unique population of low diffusion-coefficient molecules that appears upon E2 stimulation and is sensitive to 1,6-hexanediol.

Strengths:

While the study develops interesting tools that have the potential to provide useful insights into the relationship between transcriptional state, genomic locus mobility, and condensate formation, several major claims lack key supportive evidence, and the methods are inadequately established and described.

Weaknesses:

(1) The use of 1,6 hexanediol experiments is not suitable for drawing conclusions in live cell experiments, as this assay is now widely recognized to be plagued with artifacts and inadequate as a test for condensate formation. 1,6 hexanediol perturbs all hydrophobic interactions and has effects ranging from perturbing kinase and phosphatase activities (Düster et al, J. Biol. Chem., 2021), immobilizing and condensing chromatin in living cells (Itoh et al., Life Sci. Alliance 2021), disrupting nuclear pore complexes (Ribbeck et al., EMBO 2002), nuclear transport (Barrientos et al., Nucleus, 2023), and does not disrupt charge-mediated phase separation (Zheng et al., EMBO, 2025). There is also a discussion on these effects in a recent article: Current practices in the study of biomolecular condensates: a community comment, Alberti, Nat. Comm., 2025.

(2) The chromatin mobility is analyzed using displacement, and the differences are typically less than 50 nm. There is no discussion on the precision of this measurement and what these small differences may mean. No control loci are assessed to see if this effect is specific to the genes of interest or global.

(3) The SMT analysis is performed using Mean Square Displacement fitting of short single trajectories, which is error-prone, and no analysis is performed on the localization precision or error in estimation of the key parameters. Potential artifacts from this analysis are reflected in the distribution of alpha and diffusion coefficients that are presented in this paper, which include physically impossible values on which major claims rest.

(4) No experiment is performed to directly connect foci/cluster/condensation formation of ER at the genes of interest. Given these points alone, it is impossible to assess whether any of the claims made in the current manuscript are correct.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors use a combination of state-of-the-art live-cell imaging techniques to track transcriptional bursting, DNA mobility, and single-molecule tracking to discern biophysical behaviours of chromatin and condensate formation in response to ER𝛼 activation. Surprisingly, the authors find that loci in estradiol-stimulated cells display enhanced mobility during the non-bursting phase. The authors attribute the reduced mobility of the loci during transcriptional bursts to condensate formation of ER𝛼 on enhancers regulating the bursting gene. Inhibition of transcription with flavopiridol shifts the loci and ER𝛼 to a non-confined state. These findings open the door to performing more complex multi-color live-cell imaging assays to fully interrogate the role of transcription factor condensates, DNA mobility, and subnuclear localization in the regulation of transcriptional bursting kinetics, and should be of great benefit to researchers studying mechanisms of gene regulation.

Strengths:

The authors presented a series of advanced multi-color live cell imaging assays used to correlate changes in DNA mobility with transcriptional bursting of a gene. By using such a defined temporal trigger associated with the addition of estroldiol to cells, the authors were also able to elegantly characterize changes in the diffusive properties of different classes of ER𝛼 during the acute (early, <2 hours) and chronic (late, >2 hours) phases of estrogen-responsive gene activation. Interestingly, one particular class of ER𝛼 that changed between acute and chronic phases was also responsive to 1,6-hexanediol treatment, suggesting that the authors are assaying ER𝛼 behaviours related to condensate formation. The authors also examined how the proximity of the NRIP1 gene to interchromatin granules impacted transcriptional bursting kinetics. There was no correlation of DNA mobility nor transcription bursting associated with localization to interchromatin granules, suggesting that other higher-order, architectural associations are regulating these processes. The imaging data were also supported by genomic GRO-seq and ChIP-seq assays showing changes in genomic occupancy of a number of transcription factors, including ER𝛼, during the pre-acute, acute, and chronic phases.

Weaknesses:

Although there are a number of compelling strengths to support the author's interpretation of the data, the paper is written in a way that lacks clarity and detail on a number of technical components. This lack of details, in particular related to how endogenous tagging of DNA, ER𝛼, and interchromatin granules (e.g. SC35) potentially impacts transcriptional bursting, makes it difficult for the reader to sufficiently judge any potential limitations of these complex engineered cell lines. Another potential weakness is the lack of any experiments directly measuring ER𝛼 diffusive properties in close proximity to the bursting gene. It is noted that this type of experiment examining transcription factor binding on a bursting gene is very technically challenging, given the different timescales of measurement of bursting (seconds-minutes) versus ER𝛼 diffusion (sub-seconds). However, these types of experiments would go a long way to supporting the authors' conclusions regarding how changes in DNA mobility and transcription bursting may be directly related to ER𝛼 condensate formation on enhancers.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors explore dynamic chromosomal mobility and transcriptional bursting events in mammalian cells, particularly focusing on ERα-dependent gene activation. The authors investigate how the physical movement of DNA loci changes during different phases of gene transcription (bursting vs. non-bursting, acute vs. chronic stimulation). Using advanced live-cell imaging techniques, including SMT of ERα and dual DNA/RNA visualization, the study reveals a multi-state model of DNA mobility linked to the formation of transcription factor condensates. The authors conclude that differential DNA kinetics serve as a reliable indicator for detecting condensate formation during gene activation, offering new insights into the mechanisms regulating gene expression within the nucleus.

Strengths:

The authors have done substantial work, and a major strength of the manuscript is being able to image both DNA and RNA from the same gene, as well as the TF that acts on that gene. This multi-pronged approach leads to complementary insights into transcription bursting mechanisms.

Weaknesses:

A major weakness of the manuscript is the lack of appropriate controls that support the specificity of the effects observed. The exclusive focus on condensates as the underlying mechanism to explain their data is also a bit limiting.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors report the structure of the human CTF18-RFC complex bound to PCNA. Similar structures (and more) have been reported by the O'Donnell and Li labs. This study should add to our understanding of CTF18-RFC in DNA replication and clamp loaders in general. However, there are numerous major issues that I recommend the authors fix.

Strengths:

The structures reported are strong and useful for comparison with other clamp loader structures that have been reported lately.

Comments on revisions:

The revised manuscript is greatly improved. The comparison with hRFC and the addition of direct PCNA loading data from the Hedglin group are particular highlights. I think this is a strong addition to the literature.

I only have minor comments on the revised manuscript.

(1) The clamp loading kinetic data in Figure 6 would be more easily interpreted if the three graphs all had the same x axes, and if addition of RFC was t=0 rather than t=60 sec.

(2) The author's statement that "CTF18-RFC displayed a slightly faster rate than RFC" seems to me a bit misleading, even though this is technically correct. The two loaders have indistinguishable rate constants for the fast phase, and RFC is a bit slower than CTF18-RFC in the slow phase. However, the data also show that RFC is overall more efficient than CTF18-RFC at loading PCNA because much more flux through the fast phase (rel amplitudes 0.73 vs 0.36). Because the slow phase represents such a reduced fraction of loading events, the slight reduction in rate constant for the slow phase doesn't impact RFC's overall loading. And because the majority of loading events are in the fast phase, RFC has a faster halftime than CTF18-RFC. (Is it known what the different phases correspond to? If it is known, it might be interesting to discuss.)

(3) AAA+ is an acronym for "ATPases Associated with diverse cellular Activities" rather than "Adenosine Triphosphatase Associated".

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary

Briola and co-authors have performed a structural analysis of the human CTF18 clamp loader bound to PCNA. The authors purified the complexes and formed a complex in solution. They used cryo-EM to determine the structure to high resolution. The complex assumed an auto-inhibited conformation, where DNA binding is blocked, which is of regulatory importance and suggests that additional factors could be required to support PCNA loading on DNA. The authors carefully analysed the structure and compared it to RFC and related structures.

Strength & Weakness

Their overall analysis is of high quality, and they identified, among other things, a human-specific beta-hairpin in Ctf18 that flexible tethers Ctf18 to Rfc2-5. Indeed, deletion of the beta-hairpin resulted in reduced complex stability and a reduction in a primer extension assay with Pol ε. Moreover, the authors identify that the Ctf18 ATP-binding domain assumes a more flexible organisation.

The data are discussed accurately and relevantly, which provides an important framework for rationalising the results.

All in all, this is a high-quality manuscript that identifies a key intermediate in CTF18-dependent clamp loading.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have done a nice job with the revision.

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.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript would have benefited from a more detailed biochemical analysis using mutagenesis and assays to tease apart the differences with the canonical RFC complex. Analysis of the FRET assay could be improved.

Overall appraisal:

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

Comments on revisions:

While the authors addressed my previous specific concerns, they have now added a new experiment which raises new concerns.

The FRET clamp loading experiments (Fig. 6) appear to be overfitted so that the fitted values are unlikely to be robust and it is difficult to know what they mean, and this is not explained in this manuscript. Specifically, the contribution of two exponentials is floated in each experiment. By eye, CTF18-RFC looks much slower than RFC1-RFC (as also shown previously in the literature) but the kinetic constants and text suggest it is faster. This is because the contribution of the fast exponential is substantially decreased, and the rate constants then compensate for this. There is a similar change in contribution of the slow and fast rates between WT CTF18 and the variant (where the data curves look the same) and this has been balanced out by a change in the rate constants, which is then interpreted as a defect. I doubt the data are strong enough to confidently fit all these co-dependent parameters, especially for CTF18, where a fast initial phase is not visible. I would recommend either removing this figure or doing a more careful and thorough analysis.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This paper by Troyer et al. measures the positioning and diffusivity of RNaseE-mEos3.2 proteins in E. coli as a function of rifampicin treatment, compares RNaseE to other E. coli proteins, and measures the effect of changes in domain composition on this localization and motion. The straightforward study is thoroughly presented, including very good descriptions of the imaging parameters and the image analysis/modeling involved, which is good because the key impact of the work lies in presenting this clear methodology for determining the position and mobility of a series of proteins in living bacteria cells.

Most of my concerns in the original review were addressed in this round of revisions based on new text, experiments, and analysis, including most notably:

-A revision of the abstract to focus on the actual topic of the manuscript.<br /> -New experiments (Fig. S1) to confirm that there is no significant undercounting of the fast-moving cytoplasmic population<br /> -Removing the experiments discussion related to degradosome proteins rather than overstating results.<br /> -Improving the logical flow and writing.

One minor concern still remains:

-Though the discussion of the rifampicin-treated cells is improved, this experiment is motivated (line 196) as "To test the effect of mRNA substrates on RNE diffusion", but the conclusion of the paragraph (based on similarities with the effect on LacY) is that the observed changes are due to factors other than the concentration of mRNA substrates, such that the effect of mRNA has not been tested.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Troyer and colleagues have studied the in vivo localisation and mobility of the E.coli RNaseE (a protein key for mRNA degradation in all bacteria) as well as the impact of two key protein segments (MTS and CTD) on RNase E cellular localisation and mobility. Such sequences are important to study since there is significant sequence diversity within bacteria, as well as lack of clarity about their functional effects. Using single-molecule tracking in living bacteria, the authors confirmed that >90% of RNaseE localised on the membrane, and measured its diffusion coefficient. Via a series of mutants, they also showed that MTS leads to stronger membrane association and slower diffusion compared to a transmembrane motif (despite the latter being more embedded in the membrane), and that the CTD weakens membrane binding. The study also rationalised how the interplay of MTS and CTD modulate mRNA metabolism (and hence gene expression) in different cellular contexts.

The authors have also done an excellent job addressing reviewer's concerns and improving the manuscript during revision.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Troyer et al quantitatively measured the membrane localization and diffusion of RNase E, an essential ribonuclease for mRNA turnover as well as tRNA and rRNA processing in bacteria cells. Using single-molecule tracking in live E. coli cells, the authors investigated the impact of membrane targeting sequence (MTS) and the C-terminal domain (CTD) on the membrane localization and diffusion of RNase E under various perturbations. Finally, the authors tried to correlate the membrane localization of RNase E to its function on co- and post-transcriptional mRNA decay using lacZ mRNA as a model.

The major findings of the manuscripts include:

(1) WT RNase E is mostly membrane localized via MTS, confirming previous results. The diffusion of RNase E is increased upon removal of MTS or CTD, and more significantly increased upon removal of both regions.

(2) By tagging RNase E MTS and different lengths of LacY transmembrane domain (LacY2, LacY6 or LacY12) to mEos3.2, the results demonstrate that short LacY transmembrane sequence (LacY2 and LacY6) can increase the diffusion of mEos3.2 on the membrane compared to MTS, further supported by the molecular dynamics simulation. The similar trend was roughly observed in RNase E mutants with MTS switched to LacY transmembrane domains.

(3) The removal of RNase E MTS significantly increases the co-transcriptional degradation of lacZ mRNA, but has minimal effect on the post-transcriptional degradation of lacZ mRNA. Removal of CTD of RNase E overall decrease the mRNA decay rates, suggesting the synergistic effect of CTD on RNase E activity.

Strengths:

(1) The manuscript is clearly written with very detailed methods description and analysis parameters.

(2) The conclusions are mostly supported by the data and analysis.

(3) Some of the main conclusions are interesting and important for understanding the cellular behavior and function of RNase E.

Weaknesses:

The authors have addressed my previous concerns in the revised manuscript.

Comments on revisions:

I have one additional comment. When interpreting the small increase in the diffusion coefficient of RNase E when treating the cell with rifampicin, the authors rule out the possibility that only a small fraction of RNase E interacts with mRNA and suggest that it is more likely the mRNA-RNase E interaction is transient. However, I am wondering about an alternative possibility that RNase E prefers mRNAs with low ribosome density or even untranslated mRNAs?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Here I submit my previous review and a great deal of additional information following on from the initial review and the response by the authors.

* Initial Review *

Assessment:

This manuscript is based upon the unprecedented identification of an apparently highly unusual trigeminal nuclear organization within the elephant brainstem, related to a large trigeminal nerve in these animals. The apparently highly specialized elephant trigeminal nuclear complex identified in the current study has been classified as the inferior olivary nuclear complex in four previous studies of the elephant brainstem. The entire study is predicated upon the correct identification of the trigeminal sensory nuclear complex and the inferior olivary nuclear complex in the elephant, and if this is incorrect, then the remainder of the manuscript is merely unsupported speculation. There are many reasons indicating that the trigeminal nuclear complex is misidentified in the current study, rendering the entire study, and associated speculation, inadequate at best, and damaging in terms of understanding elephant brains and behaviour at worst.

Original Public Review:

The authors describe what they assert to be a very unusual trigeminal nuclear complex in the brainstem of elephants, and based on this, follow with many speculations about how the trigeminal nuclear complex, as identified by them, might be organized in terms of the sensory capacity of the elephant trunk.<br /> The identification of the trigeminal nuclear complex/inferior olivary nuclear complex in the elephant brainstem is the central pillar of this manuscript from which everything else follows, and if this is incorrect, then the entire manuscript fails, and all the associated speculations become completely unsupported.

The authors note that what they identify as the trigeminal nuclear complex has been identified as the inferior olivary nuclear complex by other authors, citing Shoshani et al. (2006; 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2006.03.016) and Maseko et al (2013; 10.1159/000352004), but fail to cite either Verhaart and Kramer (1958; PMID 13841799) or Verhaart (1962; 10.1515/9783112519882-001). These four studies are in agreement, but the current study differs.

Let's assume for the moment that the four previous studies are all incorrect and the current study is correct. This would mean that the entire architecture and organization of the elephant brainstem is significantly rearranged in comparison to ALL other mammals, including humans, previously studied (e.g. Kappers et al. 1965, The Comparative Anatomy of the Nervous System of Vertebrates, Including Man, Volume 1 pp. 668-695) and the closely related manatee (10.1002/ar.20573). This rearrangement necessitates that the trigeminal nuclei would have had to "migrate" and shorten rostrocaudally, specifically and only, from the lateral aspect of the brainstem where these nuclei extend from the pons through to the cervical spinal cord (e.g. the Paxinos and Watson rat brain atlases), the to the spatially restricted ventromedial region of specifically and only the rostral medulla oblongata. According to the current paper the inferior olivary complex of the elephant is very small and located lateral to their trigeminal nuclear complex, and the region from where the trigeminal nuclei are located by others appears to be just "lateral nuclei" with no suggestion of what might be there instead.

Such an extraordinary rearrangement of brainstem nuclei would require a major transformation in the manner in which the mutations, patterning, and expression of genes and associated molecules during development occur. Such a major change is likely to lead to lethal phenotypes, making such a transformation extremely unlikely. Variations in mammalian brainstem anatomy are most commonly associated with quantitative changes rather than qualitative changes (10.1016/B978-0-12-804042-3.00045-2).

The impetus for the identification of the unusual brainstem trigeminal nuclei in the current study rests upon a previous study from the same laboratory (10.1016/j.cub.2021.12.051) that estimated that the number of axons contained in the infraorbital branch of the trigeminal nerve that innervate the sensory surfaces of the trunk is approximately 400 000. Is this number unusual? In a much smaller mammal with a highly specialized trigeminal system, the platypus, the number of axons innervating the sensory surface of the platypus bill skin comes to 1 344 000 (10.1159/000113185). Yet, there is no complex rearrangement of the brainstem trigeminal nuclei in the brain of the developing or adult platypus (Ashwell, 2013, Neurobiology of Monotremes), despite the brainstem trigeminal nuclei being very large in the platypus (10.1159/000067195). Even in other large-brained mammals, such as large whales that do not have a trunk, the number of axons in the trigeminal nerve ranges between 400,000 and 500,000 (10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_988-1). The lack of comparative support for the argument forwarded in the previous and current study from this laboratory, and that the comparative data indicates that the brainstem nuclei do not change in the manner suggested in the elephant, argues against the identification of the trigeminal nuclei as outlined in the current study. Moreover, the comparative studies undermine the prior claim of the authors, informing the current study, that "the elephant trigeminal ganglion ... point to a high degree of tactile specialization in elephants" (10.1016/j.cub.2021.12.051). While clearly the elephant has tactile sensitivity in the trunk, it is questionable as to whether what has been observed in elephants is indeed "truly extraordinary".

But let's look more specifically at the justification outlined in the current study to support their identification of the unusually located trigeminal sensory nuclei of the brainstem.

(1) Intense cytochrome oxidase reactivity<br /> (2) Large size of the putative trunk module<br /> (3) Elongation of the putative trunk module<br /> (4) Arrangement of these putative modules correspond to elephant head anatomy<br /> (5) Myelin stripes within the putative trunk module that apparently match trunk folds<br /> (6) Location apparently matches other mammals<br /> (7) Repetitive modular organization apparently similar to other mammals.<br /> (8) The inferior olive described by other authors lacks the lamellated appearance of this structure in other mammals

Let's examine these justifications more closely.

(1) Cytochrome oxidase histochemistry is typically used as an indicative marker of neuronal energy metabolism. The authors indicate, based on the "truly extraordinary" somatosensory capacities of the elephant trunk, that any nuclei processing this tactile information should be highly metabolically active, and thus should react intensely when stained for cytochrome oxidase. We are told in the methods section that the protocols used are described by Purkart et al (2022) and Kaufmann et al (2022). In neither of these cited papers is there any description, nor mention, of the cytochrome oxidase histochemistry methodology, thus we have no idea of how this histochemical staining was done. In order to obtain the best results for cytochrome oxidase histochemistry, the tissue is either processed very rapidly after buffer perfusion to remove blood or in recently perfusion-fixed tissue (e.g., 10.1016/0165-0270(93)90122-8). Given: (1) the presumably long post-mortem interval between death and fixation - "it often takes days to dissect elephants"; (2) subsequent fixation of the brains in 4% paraformaldehyde for "several weeks"; (3) The intense cytochrome oxidase reactivity in the inferior olivary complex of the laboratory rat (Gonzalez-Lima, 1998, Cytochrome oxidase in neuronal metabolism and Alzheimer's diseases); and (4) The lack of any comparative images from other stained portions of the elephant brainstem; it is difficult to support the justification as forwarded by the authors. It is likely that the histochemical staining observed is background reactivity from the use of diaminobenzidine in the staining protocol. Thus, this first justification is unsupported.<br /> Justifications (2), (3), and (4) are sequelae from justification (1). In this sense, they do not count as justifications, but rather unsupported extensions.

(4) and (5) These are interesting justifications, as the paper has clear internal contradictions, and (5) is a sequelae of (4). The reader is led to the concept that the myelin tracts divide the nuclei into sub-modules that match the folding of the skin on the elephant trunk. One would then readily presume that these myelin tracts are in the incoming sensory axons from the trigeminal nerve. However, the authors note that this is not the case: "Our observations on trunk module myelin stripes are at odds with this view of myelin. Specifically, myelin stripes show no tapering (which we would expect if axons divert off into the tissue). More than that, there is no correlation between myelin stripe thickness (which presumably correlates with axon numbers) and trigeminal module neuron numbers. Thus, there are numerous myelinated axons, where we observe few or no trigeminal neurons. These observations are incompatible with the idea that myelin stripes form an axonal 'supply' system or that their prime function is to connect neurons. What do myelin stripe axons do, if they do not connect neurons? We suggest that myelin stripes serve to separate rather than connect neurons." So, we are left with the observation that the myelin stripes do not pass afferent trigeminal sensory information from the "truly extraordinary" trunk skin somatic sensory system, and rather function as units that separate neurons - but to what end? It appears that the myelin stripes are more likely to be efferent axonal bundles leaving the nuclei (to form the olivocerebellar tract). This justification is unsupported.

(6) The authors indicate that the location of these nuclei matches that of the trigeminal nuclei in other mammals. This is not supported in any way. In ALL other mammals in which the trigeminal nuclei of the brainstem have been reported they are found in the lateral aspect of the brainstem, bordered laterally by the spinal trigeminal tract. This is most readily seen and accessible in the Paxinos and Watson rat brain atlases. The authors indicate that the trigeminal nuclei are medial to the facial nerve nucleus, but in every other species, the trigeminal sensory nuclei are found lateral to the facial nerve nucleus. This is most salient when examining a close relative, the manatee (10.1002/ar.20573), where the location of the inferior olive and the trigeminal nuclei matches that described by Maseko et al (2013) for the African elephant. This justification is not supported.

(7) The dual to quadruple repetition of rostro-caudal modules within the putative trigeminal nucleus as identified by the authors relies on the fact that in the neurotypical mammal, there are several trigeminal sensory nuclei arranged in a column running from the pons to the cervical spinal cord, these include (nomenclature from Paxinos and Watson in roughly rostral to caudal order) the Pr5VL, Pr5DM, Sp5O, Sp5I, and Sp5C. But, these nuclei are all located far from the midline and lateral to the facial nerve nucleus, unlike what the authors describe in the elephants. These rostrocaudal modules are expanded upon in Figure 2, and it is apparent from what is shown that the authors are attributing other brainstem nuclei to the putative trigeminal nuclei to confirm their conclusion. For example, what they identify as the inferior olive in figure 2D is likely the lateral reticular nucleus as identified by Maseko et al (2013). This justification is not supported.

(8) In primates and related species, there is a distinct banded appearance of the inferior olive, but what has been termed the inferior olive in the elephant by other authors does not have this appearance, rather, and specifically, the largest nuclear mass in the region (termed the principal nucleus of the inferior olive by Maseko et al, 2013, but Pr5, the principal trigeminal nucleus in the current paper) overshadows the partial banded appearance of the remaining nuclei in the region (but also drawn by the authors of the current paper). Thus, what is at debate here is whether the principal nucleus of the inferior olive can take on a nuclear shape rather than evince a banded appearance. The authors of this paper use this variance as justification that this cluster of nuclei could not possibly be the inferior olive. Such a "semi-nuclear/banded" arrangement of the inferior olive is seen in, for example, giraffe (10.1016/j.jchemneu.2007.05.003), domestic dog, polar bear, and most specifically the manatee (a close relative of the elephant) (brainmuseum.org; 10.1002/ar.20573). This justification is not supported.

Thus, all the justifications forwarded by the authors are unsupported. Based on methodological concerns, prior comparative mammalian neuroanatomy, and prior studies in the elephant and closely related species, the authors fail to support their notion that what was previously termed the inferior olive in the elephant is actually the trigeminal sensory nuclei. Given this failure, the justifications provided above that are sequelae also fail. In this sense, the entire manuscript and all the sequelae are not supported.

What the authors have not done is to trace the pathway of the large trigeminal nerve in the elephant brainstem, as was done by Maseko et al (2013), which clearly shows the internal pathways of this nerve, from the branch that leads to the fifth mesencephalic nucleus adjacent to the periventricular grey matter, through to the spinal trigeminal tract that extends from the pons to the spinal cord in a manner very similar to all other mammals. Nor have they shown how the supposed trigeminal information reaches the putative trigeminal nuclei in the ventromedial rostral medulla oblongata. These are but two examples of many specific lines of evidence that would be required to support their conclusions. Clearly tract tracing methods, such as cholera toxin tracing of peripheral nerves cannot be done in elephants, thus the neuroanatomy must be done properly and with attention to detail to support the major changes indicated by the authors.

So what are these "bumps" in the elephant brainstem?

Four previous authors indicate that these bumps are the inferior olivary nuclear complex. Can this be supported?

The inferior olivary nuclear complex acts "as a relay station between the spinal cord (n.b. trigeminal input does reach the spinal cord via the spinal trigeminal tract) and the cerebellum, integrating motor and sensory information to provide feedback and training to cerebellar neurons" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542242/). The inferior olivary nuclear complex is located dorsal and medial to the pyramidal tracts (which were not labelled in the current study by the authors but are clearly present in Fig. 1C and 2A) in the ventromedial aspect of the rostral medulla oblongata. This is precisely where previous authors have identified the inferior olivary nuclear complex and what the current authors assign to their putative trigeminal nuclei. The neurons of the inferior olivary nuclei project, via the olivocerebellar tract to the cerebellum to terminate in the climbing fibres of the cerebellar cortex.

Elephants have the largest (relative and absolute) cerebellum of all mammals (10.1002/ar.22425), this cerebellum contains 257 x109 neurons (10.3389/fnana.2014.00046; three times more than the entire human brain, 10.3389/neuro.09.031.2009). Each of these neurons appears to be more structurally complex than the homologous neurons in other mammals (10.1159/000345565; 10.1007/s00429-010-0288-3). In the African elephant, the neurons of the inferior olivary nuclear complex are described by Maseko et al (2013) as being both calbindin and calretinin immunoreactive. Climbing fibres in the cerebellar cortex of the African elephant are clearly calretinin immunopositive and also are likely to contain calbindin (10.1159/000345565). Given this, would it be surprising that the inferior olivary nuclear complex of the elephant is enlarged enough to create a very distinct bump in exactly the same place where these nuclei are identified in other mammals?

What about the myelin stripes? These are most likely to be the origin of the olivocerebellar tract and probably only have a coincidental relationship to the trunk. Thus, given what we know, the inferior olivary nuclear complex as described in other studies, and the putative trigeminal nuclear complex as described in the current study, is the elephant inferior olivary nuclear complex. It is not what the authors believe it to be, and they do not provide any evidence that discounts the previous studies. The authors are quite simply put, wrong. All the speculations that flow from this major neuroanatomical error are therefore science fiction rather than useful additions to the scientific literature.

What do the authors actually have?<br /> The authors have interesting data, based on their Golgi staining and analysis, of the inferior olivary nuclear complex in the elephant.

* Review of Revised Manuscript *

Assessment:

There is a clear dichotomy between the authors and this reviewer regarding the identification of specific structures, namely the inferior olivary nuclear complex and the trigeminal nuclear complex, in the brainstem of the elephant. The authors maintain the position that in the elephant alone, irrespective of all the published data on other mammals and previously published data on the elephant brainstem, these two nuclear complexes are switched in location. The authors maintain that their interpretation is correct, but this reviewer maintains that this interpretation is erroneous. The authors expressed concern that the remainder of the paper was not addressed by the reviewer, but the reviewer maintains that these sequelae to the misidentification of nuclear complexes in the elephant brainstem render any of these speculations irrelevant as the critical structures are incorrectly identified. It is this reviewer's opinion that this paper is incorrect. I provide a lot of detail below in order to provide support to the opinion I express.

Public Review of Current Submission:

As indicated in my previous review of this manuscript (see above), it is my opinion that the authors have misidentified, and indeed switched, the inferior olivary nuclear complex (IO) and the trigeminal nuclear complex (Vsens). It is this specific point only that I will address in this second review, as this is the crucial aspect of this paper - if the identification of these nuclear complexes in the elephant brainstem by the authors is incorrect, the remainder of the paper does not have any scientific validity.

The authors, in their response to my initial review, claim that I "bend" the comparative evidence against them. They further claim that as all other mammalian species exhibit a "serrated" appearance of the inferior olive, and as the elephant does not exhibit this appearance, what was previously identified as the inferior olive is actually the trigeminal nucleus and vice versa.

For convenience, I will refer to IOM and VsensM as the identification of these structures according to Maseko et al (2013) and other authors and will use IOR and VsensR to refer to the identification forwarded in the study under review.<br /> The IOM/VsensR certainly does not have a serrated appearance in elephants. Indeed, from the plates supplied by the authors in response (Referee Fig. 2), the cytochrome oxidase image supplied and the image from Maseko et al (2013) shows a very similar appearance. There is no doubt that the authors are identifying structures that closely correspond to those provided by Maseko et al (2013). It is solely a contrast in what these nuclear complexes are called and the functional sequelae of the identification of these complexes (are they related to the trunk sensation or movement controlled by the cerebellum?) that is under debate.

Elephants are part of the Afrotheria, thus the most relevant comparative data to resolve this issue will be the identification of these nuclei in other Afrotherian species. Below I provide images of these nuclear complexes, labelled in the standard nomenclature, across several Afrotherian species.

(A) Lesser hedgehog tenrec (Echinops telfairi)

Tenrecs brains are the most intensively studied of the Afrotherian brains, these extensive neuroanatomical studies were undertaken primarily by Heinz Künzle. Below I append images (coronal sections stained with cresol violet) of the IO and Vsens (labelled in the standard mammalian manner) in the lesser hedgehog tenrec. It should be clear that the inferior olive is located in the ventral midline of the rostral medulla oblongata (just like the rat) and that this nucleus is not distinctly serrated. The Vsens is located in the lateral aspect of the medulla skirted laterally by the spinal trigeminal tract (Sp5). These images and the labels indicating structures correlate precisely with that provided by Künzle (1997, 10.1016/S0168- 0102(97)00034-5), see his Figure 1K,L. Thus, in the first case of a related species, there is no serrated appearance of the inferior olive, the location of the inferior olive is confirmed through connectivity with the superior colliculus (a standard connection in mammals) by Künzle (1997), and the location of Vsens is what is considered to be typical for mammals. This is in agreement with the authors, as they propose that ONLY the elephants show the variations they report.

Review image 1.

(B) Giant otter shrew (Potomogale velox)

The otter shrews are close relatives of the Tenrecs. Below I append images of cresyl violet (left column) and myelin (right column) stained coronal sections through the brainstem with the IO, Vsens and Sp5 labelled as per standard mammalian anatomy. Here we see hints of the serration of the IO as defined by the authors, but we also see many myelin stripes across the IO. Vsens is located laterally and skirted by the Sp5. This is in agreement with the authors, as they propose that ONLY the elephants show the variations they report.

Review image 2.

(C) Four-toed sengi (Petrodromus tetradactylus)

The sengis are close relatives of the Tenrecs and otter shrews, these three groups being part of the Afroinsectiphilia, a distinct branch of the Afrotheria. Below I append images of cresyl violet (left column) and myelin (right column) stained coronal sections through the brainstem with the IO, Vsens and Sp5 labelled as per standard mammalian anatomy. Here we see vague hints of the serration of the IO (as defined by the authors), and we also see many myelin stripes across the IO. Vsens is located laterally and skirted by the Sp5. This is in agreement with the authors, as they propose that ONLY the elephants show the variations they report.

Review image 3.

(D) Rock hyrax (Procavia capensis)

The hyraxes, along with the sirens and elephants form the Paenungulata branch of the Afrotheria. Below I append images of cresyl violet (left column) and myelin (right column) stained coronal sections through the brainstem with the IO, Vsens and Sp5 labelled as per the standard mammalian anatomy. Here we see hints of the serration of the IO (as defined by the authors), but we also see evidence of a more "bulbous" appearance of subnuclei of the IO (particularly the principal nucleus), and we also see many myelin stripes across the IO. Vsens is located laterally and skirted by the Sp5. This is in agreement with the authors, as they propose that ONLY the elephants show the variations they report.

Review image 4.

(E) West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus)

The sirens are the closest extant relatives of the elephants in the Afrotheria. Below I append images of cresyl violet (top) and myelin (bottom) stained coronal sections (taken from the University of Wisconsin-Madison Brain Collection, https://brainmuseum.org, and while quite low in magnification they do reveal the structures under debate) through the brainstem with the IO, Vsens and Sp5 labelled as per standard mammalian anatomy. Here we see the serration of the IO (as defined by the authors). Vsens is located laterally and skirted by the Sp5. This is in agreement with the authors, as they propose that ONLY the elephants show the variations they report.

Review image 5.

These comparisons and the structural identification, with which the authors agree as they only distinguish the elephants from the other Afrotheria, demonstrate that the appearance of the IO can be quite variable across mammalian species, including those with a close phylogenetic affinity to the elephants. Not all mammal species possess a "serrated" appearance of the IO. Thus, it is more than just theoretically possible that the IO of the elephant appears as described prior to this study.

So what about elephants? Below I append a series of images from coronal sections through the African elephant brainstem stained for Nissl, myelin, and immunostained for calretinin. These sections are labelled according to standard mammalian nomenclature. In these complete sections of the elephant brainstem, we do not see a serrated appearance of the IOM (as described previously and in the current study by the authors). Rather the principal nucleus of the IOM appears to be bulbous in nature. In the current study, no image of myelin staining in the IOM/VsensR is provided by the authors. However, in the images I provide, we do see the reported myelin stripes in all stains - agreement between the authors and reviewer on this point. The higher magnification image to the bottom left of the plate shows one of the IOM/VsensR myelin stripes immunostained for calretinin, and within the myelin stripes axons immunopositive for calretinin are seen (labelled with an arrow). The climbing fibres of the elephant cerebellar cortex are similarly calretinin immunopositive (10.1159/000345565). In contrast, although not shown at high magnification, the fibres forming the Sp5 in the elephant (in the Maseko description, unnamed in the description of the authors) show no immunoreactivity to calretinin.

Review image 6.

Peripherin Immunostaining

In their revised manuscript the authors present immunostaining of peripherin in the elephant brainstem. This is an important addition (although it does replace the only staining of myelin provided by the authors which is unusual as the word myelin is in the title of the paper) as peripherin is known to specifically label peripheral nerves. In addition, as pointed out by the authors, peripherin also immunostains climbing fibres (Errante et al., 1998). The understanding of this staining is important in determining the identification of the IO and Vsens in the elephant, although it is not ideal for this task as there is some ambiguity. Errante and colleagues (1998; Fig. 1) show that climbing fibres are peripherin-immunopositive in the rat. But what the authors do not evaluate is the extensive peripherin staining in the rat Sp5 in the same paper (Errante et al, 1998, Fig. 2). The image provided by the authors of their peripherin immunostaining (their new Figure 2) shows what I would call the Sp5 of the elephant to be strongly peripherin immunoreactive, just like the rat shown in Errant et al (1998), and moreover in the precise position of the rat Sp5! This makes sense as this is where the axons subserving the "extraordinary" tactile sensitivity of the elephant trunk would be found (in the standard model of mammalian brainstem anatomy). Interestingly, the peripherin immunostaining in the elephant is clearly lamellated...this coincides precisely with the description of the trigeminal sensory nuclei in the elephant by Maskeo et al (2013) as pointed out by the authors in their rebuttal. Errante et al (1998) also point out peripherin immunostaining in the inferior olive, but according to the authors this is only "weakly present" in the elephant IOM/VsensR. This latter point is crucial. Surely if the elephant has an extraordinary sensory innervation from the trunk, with 400,000 axons entering the brain, the VsensR/IOM should be highly peripherin-immunopositive, including the myelinated axon bundles?! In this sense, the authors argue against their own interpretation - either the elephant trunk is not a highly sensitive tactile organ, or the VsensR is not the trigeminal nuclei it is supposed to be.

Summary:

(1) Comparative data of species closely related to elephants (Afrotherians) demonstrates that not all mammals exhibit the "serrated" appearance of the principal nucleus of the inferior olive.

(2) The location of the IO and Vsens as reported in the current study (IOR and VsensR) would require a significant, and unprecedented, rearrangement of the brainstem in the elephants independently. I argue that the underlying molecular and genetic changes required to achieve this would be so extreme that it would lead to lethal phenotypes. Arguing that the "switcheroo" of the IO and Vsens does occur in the elephant (and no other mammals) and thus doesn't lead to lethal phenotypes is a circular argument that cannot be substantiated.

(3) Myelin stripes in the subnuclei of the inferior olivary nuclear complex are seen across all related mammals as shown above. Thus, the observation made in the elephant by the authors in what they call the VsensR, is similar to that seen in the IO of related mammals, especially when the IO takes on a more bulbous appearance. These myelin stripes are the origin of the olivocerebellar pathway and are indeed calretinin immunopositive in the elephant as I show.

(4) What the authors see aligns perfectly with what has been described previously, the only difference being the names that nuclear complexes are being called. But identifying these nuclei is important, as any functional sequelae, as extensively discussed by the authors, is entirely dependent upon accurately identifying these nuclei.

(4) The peripherin immunostaining scores an own goal - if peripherin is marking peripheral nerves (as the authors and I believe it is), then why is the VsensR/IOM only "weakly positive" for this stain? This either means that the "extraordinary" tactile sensitivity of the elephant trunk is non-existent, or that the authors have misinterpreted this staining. That there is extensive staining in the fibre pathway dorsal and lateral to the IOR (which I call the spinal trigeminal tract), supports the idea that the authors have misinterpreted their peripherin immunostaining.

(5) Evolutionary expediency. The authors argue that what they report is an expedient way in which to modify the organisation of the brainstem in the elephant to accommodate the "extraordinary" tactile sensitivity. I disagree. As pointed out in my first review, the elephant cerebellum is very large and comprised of huge numbers of morphologically complex neurons. The inferior olivary nuclei in all mammals studied in detail to date, give rise to the climbing fibres that terminate on the Purkinje cells of the cerebellar cortex. It is more parsimonious to argue that, in alignment with the expansion of the elephant cerebellum (for motor control of the trunk), the inferior olivary nuclei (specifically the principal nucleus) have had additional neurons added to accommodate this cerebellar expansion. Such an addition of neurons to the principal nucleus of the inferior olive could readily lead to the loss of the serrated appearance of the principal nucleus of the inferior olive and would require far less modifications in the developmental genetic program that forms these nuclei. This type of quantitative change appears to be the primary way in which structures are altered in the mammalian brainstem.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Here I submit my previous review and a great deal of additional information following on from the initial review and the response by the authors.

* Initial Review *

Assessment:

This manuscript is based upon the unprecedented identification of an apparently highly unusual trigeminal nuclear organization within the elephant brainstem, related to a large trigeminal nerve in these animals. The apparently highly specialized elephant trigeminal nuclear complex identified in the current study has been classified as the inferior olivary nuclear complex in four previous studies of the elephant brainstem. The entire study is predicated upon the correct identification of the trigeminal sensory nuclear complex and the inferior olivary nuclear complex in the elephant, and if this is incorrect, then the remainder of the manuscript is merely unsupported speculation. There are many reasons indicating that the trigeminal nuclear complex is misidentified in the current study, rendering the entire study, and associated speculation, inadequate at best, and damaging in terms of understanding elephant brains and behaviour at worst.

Original Public Review:

The authors describe what they assert to be a very unusual trigeminal nuclear complex in the brainstem of elephants, and based on this, follow with many speculations about how the trigeminal nuclear complex, as identified by them, might be organized in terms of the sensory capacity of the elephant trunk.<br /> The identification of the trigeminal nuclear complex/inferior olivary nuclear complex in the elephant brainstem is the central pillar of this manuscript from which everything else follows, and if this is incorrect, then the entire manuscript fails, and all the associated speculations become completely unsupported.

The authors note that what they identify as the trigeminal nuclear complex has been identified as the inferior olivary nuclear complex by other authors, citing Shoshani et al. (2006; 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2006.03.016) and Maseko et al (2013; 10.1159/000352004), but fail to cite either Verhaart and Kramer (1958; PMID 13841799) or Verhaart (1962; 10.1515/9783112519882-001). These four studies are in agreement, the current study differs.

Let's assume for the moment that the four previous studies are all incorrect and the current study is correct. This would mean that the entire architecture and organization of the elephant brainstem is significantly rearranged in comparison to ALL other mammals, including humans, previously studied (e.g. Kappers et al. 1965, The Comparative Anatomy of the Nervous System of Vertebrates, Including Man, Volume 1 pp. 668-695) and the closely related manatee (10.1002/ar.20573). This rearrangement necessitates that the trigeminal nuclei would have had to "migrate" and shorten rostrocaudally, specifically and only, from the lateral aspect of the brainstem where these nuclei extend from the pons through to the cervical spinal cord (e.g. the Paxinos and Watson rat brain atlases), the to the spatially restricted ventromedial region of specifically and only the rostral medulla oblongata. According to the current paper the inferior olivary complex of the elephant is very small and located lateral to their trigeminal nuclear complex, and the region from where the trigeminal nuclei are located by others, appears to be just "lateral nuclei" with no suggestion of what might be there instead.

Such an extraordinary rearrangement of brainstem nuclei would require a major transformation in the manner in which the mutations, patterning, and expression of genes and associated molecules during development occurs. Such a major change is likely to lead to lethal phenotypes, making such a transformation extremely unlikely. Variations in mammalian brainstem anatomy are most commonly associated with quantitative changes rather than qualitative changes (10.1016/B978-0-12-804042-3.00045-2).

The impetus for the identification of the unusual brainstem trigeminal nuclei in the current study rests upon a previous study from the same laboratory (10.1016/j.cub.2021.12.051) that estimated that the number of axons contained in the infraorbital branch of the trigeminal nerve that innervate the sensory surfaces of the trunk is approximately 400 000. Is this number unusual? In a much smaller mammal with a highly specialized trigeminal system, the platypus, the number of axons innervating the sensory surface of the platypus bill skin comes to 1 344 000 (10.1159/000113185). Yet, there is no complex rearrangement of the brainstem trigeminal nuclei in the brain of the developing or adult platypus (Ashwell, 2013, Neurobiology of Monotremes), despite the brainstem trigeminal nuclei being very large in the platypus (10.1159/000067195). Even in other large-brained mammals, such as large whales that do not have a trunk, the number of axons in the trigeminal nerve ranges between 400 000 and 500 000 (10.1007/978-3-319-47829-6_988-1). The lack of comparative support for the argument forwarded in the previous and current study from this laboratory, and that the comparative data indicates that the brainstem nuclei do not change in the manner suggested in the elephant, argues against the identification of the trigeminal nuclei as outlined in the current study. Moreover, the comparative studies undermine the prior claim of the authors, informing the current study, that "the elephant trigeminal ganglion ... point to a high degree of tactile specialization in elephants" (10.1016/j.cub.2021.12.051). While clearly the elephant has tactile sensitivity in the trunk, it is questionable as to whether what has been observed in elephants is indeed "truly extraordinary".

But let's look more specifically at the justification outlined in the current study to support their identification of the unusual located trigeminal sensory nuclei of the brainstem.

(1) Intense cytochrome oxidase reactivity<br /> (2) Large size of the putative trunk module<br /> (3) Elongation of the putative trunk module<br /> (4) Arrangement of these putative modules correspond to elephant head anatomy<br /> (5) Myelin stripes within the putative trunk module that apparently match trunk folds<br /> (6) Location apparently matches other mammals<br /> (7) Repetitive modular organization apparently similar to other mammals.<br /> (8) The inferior olive described by other authors lacks the lamellated appearance of this structure in other mammals

Let's examine these justifications more closely.

(1) Cytochrome oxidase histochemistry is typically used as an indicative marker of neuronal energy metabolism. The authors indicate, based on the "truly extraordinary" somatosensory capacities of the elephant trunk, that any nuclei processing this tactile information should be highly metabolically active, and thus should react intensely when stained for cytochrome oxidase. We are told in the methods section that the protocols used are described by Purkart et al (2022) and Kaufmann et al (2022). In neither of these cited papers is there any description, nor mention, of the cytochrome oxidase histochemistry methodology, thus we have no idea of how this histochemical staining was done. In order to obtain the best results for cytochrome oxidase histochemistry, the tissue is either processed very rapidly after buffer perfusion to remove blood or in recently perfusion-fixed tissue (e.g., 10.1016/0165-0270(93)90122-8). Given: (1) the presumably long post-mortem interval between death and fixation - "it often takes days to dissect elephants"; (2) subsequent fixation of the brains in 4% paraformaldehyde for "several weeks"; (3) The intense cytochrome oxidase reactivity in the inferior olivary complex of the laboratory rat (Gonzalez-Lima, 1998, Cytochrome oxidase in neuronal metabolism and Alzheimer's diseases); and (4) The lack of any comparative images from other stained portions of the elephant brainstem; it is difficult to support the justification as forwarded by the authors. It is likely that the histochemical staining observed is background reactivity from the use of diaminobenzidine in the staining protocol. Thus, this first justification is unsupported.<br /> Justifications (2), (3), and (4) are sequelae from justification (1). In this sense, they do not count as justifications, but rather unsupported extensions.

(4) and (5) These are interesting justifications, as the paper has clear internal contradictions, and (5) is a sequelae of (4). The reader is led to the concept that the myelin tracts divide the nuclei into sub-modules that match the folding of the skin on the elephant trunk. One would then readily presume that these myelin tracts are in the incoming sensory axons from the trigeminal nerve. However, the authors note that this is not the case: "Our observations on trunk module myelin stripes are at odds with this view of myelin. Specifically, myelin stripes show no tapering (which we would expect if axons divert off into the tissue). More than that, there is no correlation between myelin stripe thickness (which presumably correlates with axon numbers) and trigeminal module neuron numbers. Thus, there are numerous myelinated axons, where we observe few or no trigeminal neurons. These observations are incompatible with the idea that myelin stripes form an axonal 'supply' system or that their prime function is to connect neurons. What do myelin stripe axons do, if they do not connect neurons? We suggest that myelin stripes serve to separate rather than connect neurons." So, we are left with the observation that the myelin stripes do not pass afferent trigeminal sensory information from the "truly extraordinary" trunk skin somatic sensory system, and rather function as units that separate neurons - but to what end? It appears that the myelin stripes are more likely to be efferent axonal bundles leaving the nuclei (to form the olivocerebellar tract). This justification is unsupported.

(6) The authors indicate that the location of these nuclei matches that of the trigeminal nuclei in other mammals. This is not supported in any way. In ALL other mammals in which the trigeminal nuclei of the brainstem have been reported they are found in the lateral aspect of the brainstem, bordered laterally by the spinal trigeminal tract. This is most readily seen and accessible in the Paxinos and Watson rat brain atlases. The authors indicate that the trigeminal nuclei are medial to the facial nerve nucleus, but in every other species the trigeminal sensory nuclei are found lateral to the facial nerve nucleus. This is most salient when examining a close relative, the manatee (10.1002/ar.20573), where the location of the inferior olive and the trigeminal nuclei matches that described by Maseko et al (2013) for the African elephant. This justification is not supported.

(7) The dual to quadruple repetition of rostro-caudal modules within the putative trigeminal nucleus as identified by the authors relies on the fact that in the neurotypical mammal, there are several trigeminal sensory nuclei arranged in a column running from the pons to the cervical spinal cord, these include (nomenclature from Paxinos and Watson in roughly rostral to caudal order) the Pr5VL, Pr5DM, Sp5O, Sp5I, and Sp5C. But, these nuclei are all located far from the midline and lateral to the facial nerve nucleus, unlike what the authors describe in the elephants. These rostrocaudal modules are expanded upon in Figure 2, and it is apparent from what is shown is that the authors are attributing other brainstem nuclei to the putative trigeminal nuclei to confirm their conclusion. For example, what they identify as the inferior olive in figure 2D is likely the lateral reticular nucleus as identified by Maseko et al (2013). This justification is not supported.

(8) In primates and related species, there is a distinct banded appearance of the inferior olive, but what has been termed the inferior olive in the elephant by other authors does not have this appearance, rather, and specifically, the largest nuclear mass in the region (termed the principal nucleus of the inferior olive by Maseko et al, 2013, but Pr5, the principal trigeminal nucleus in the current paper) overshadows the partial banded appearance of the remaining nuclei in the region (but also drawn by the authors of the current paper). Thus, what is at debate here is whether the principal nucleus of the inferior olive can take on a nuclear shape rather than evince a banded appearance. The authors of this paper use this variance as justification that this cluster of nuclei could not possibly be the inferior olive. Such a "semi-nuclear/banded" arrangement of the inferior olive is seen in, for example, giraffe (10.1016/j.jchemneu.2007.05.003), domestic dog, polar bear, and most specifically the manatee (a close relative of the elephant) (brainmuseum.org; 10.1002/ar.20573). This justification is not supported.

Thus, all the justifications forwarded by the authors are unsupported. Based on methodological concerns, prior comparative mammalian neuroanatomy, and prior studies in the elephant and closely related species, the authors fail to support their notion that what was previously termed the inferior olive in the elephant is actually the trigeminal sensory nuclei. Given this failure, the justifications provided above that are sequelae also fail. In this sense, the entire manuscript and all the sequelae are not supported.

What the authors have not done is to trace the pathway of the large trigeminal nerve in the elephant brainstem, as was done by Maseko et al (2013), which clearly shows the internal pathways of this nerve, from the branch that leads to the fifth mesencephalic nucleus adjacent to the periventricular grey matter, through to the spinal trigeminal tract that extends from the pons to the spinal cord in a manner very similar to all other mammals. Nor have they shown how the supposed trigeminal information reaches the putative trigeminal nuclei in the ventromedial rostral medulla oblongata. These are but two examples of many specific lines of evidence that would be required to support their conclusions. Clearly tract tracing methods, such as cholera toxin tracing of peripheral nerves cannot be done in elephants, thus the neuroanatomy must be done properly and with attention to details to support the major changes indicated by the authors.

So what are these "bumps" in the elephant brainstem?

Four previous authors indicate that these bumps are the inferior olivary nuclear complex. Can this be supported?

The inferior olivary nuclear complex acts "as a relay station between the spinal cord (n.b. trigeminal input does reach the spinal cord via the spinal trigeminal tract) and the cerebellum, integrating motor and sensory information to provide feedback and training to cerebellar neurons" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK542242/). The inferior olivary nuclear complex is located dorsal and medial to the pyramidal tracts (which were not labelled in the current study by the authors but are clearly present in Fig. 1C and 2A) in the ventromedial aspect of the rostral medulla oblongata. This is precisely where previous authors have identified the inferior olivary nuclear complex and what the current authors assign to their putative trigeminal nuclei. The neurons of the inferior olivary nuclei project, via the olivocerebellar tract to the cerebellum to terminate in the climbing fibres of the cerebellar cortex.

Elephants have the largest (relative and absolute) cerebellum of all mammals (10.1002/ar.22425), this cerebellum contains 257 x109 neurons (10.3389/fnana.2014.00046; three times more than the entire human brain, 10.3389/neuro.09.031.2009). Each of these neurons appears to be more structurally complex than the homologous neurons in other mammals (10.1159/000345565; 10.1007/s00429-010-0288-3). In the African elephant, the neurons of the inferior olivary nuclear complex are described by Maseko et al (2013) as being both calbindin and calretinin immunoreactive. Climbing fibres in the cerebellar cortex of the African elephant are clearly calretinin immunopositive and also are likely to contain calbindin (10.1159/000345565). Given this, would it be surprising that the inferior olivary nuclear complex of the elephant is enlarged enough to create a very distinct bump in exactly the same place where these nuclei are identified in other mammals?

What about the myelin stripes? These are most likely to be the origin of the olivocerebellar tract and probably only have a coincidental relationship to the trunk. Thus, given what we know, the inferior olivary nuclear complex as described in other studies, and the putative trigeminal nuclear complex as described in the current study, is the elephant inferior olivary nuclear complex. It is not what the authors believe it to be, and they do not provide any evidence that discounts the previous studies. The authors are quite simply put, wrong. All the speculations that flow from this major neuroanatomical error are therefore science fiction rather than useful additions to the scientific literature.

What do the authors actually have?<br /> The authors have interesting data, based on their Golgi staining and analysis, of the inferior olivary nuclear complex in the elephant.

* Review of Revised Manuscript *

Assessment:

There is a clear dichotomy between the authors and this reviewer regarding the identification of specific structures, namely the inferior olivary nuclear complex and the trigeminal nuclear complex, in the brainstem of the elephant. The authors maintain the position that in the elephant alone, irrespective of all the published data on other mammals and previously published data on the elephant brainstem, these two nuclear complexes are switched in location. The authors maintain that their interpretation is correct, this reviewer maintains that this interpretation is erroneous. The authors expressed concern that the remainder of the paper was not addressed by the reviewer, but the reviewer maintains that these sequelae to the misidentification of nuclear complexes in the elephant brainstem renders any of these speculations irrelevant as the critical structures are incorrectly identified. It is this reviewer's opinion that this paper is incorrect. I provide a lot of detail below in order to provide support to the opinion I express.

Public Review of Current Submission:

As indicated in my previous review of this manuscript (see above), it is my opinion that the authors have misidentified, and indeed switched, the inferior olivary nuclear complex (IO) and the trigeminal nuclear complex (Vsens). It is this specific point only that I will address in this second review, as this is the crucial aspect of this paper - if the identification of these nuclear complexes in the elephant brainstem by the authors is incorrect, the remainder of the paper does not have any scientific validity.

The authors, in their response to my initial review, claim that I "bend" the comparative evidence against them. They further claim that as all other mammalian species exhibit a "serrated" appearance of the inferior olive, and as the elephant does not exhibit this appearance, that what was previously identified as the inferior olive is actually the trigeminal nucleus and vice versa.

For convenience, I will refer to IOM and VsensM as the identification of these structures according to Maseko et al (2013) and other authors and will use IOR and VsensR to refer to the identification forwarded in the study under review.<br /> The IOM/VsensR certainly does not have a serrated appearance in elephants. Indeed, from the plates supplied by the authors in response (Referee Fig. 2), the cytochrome oxidase image supplied and the image from Maseko et al (2013) shows a very similar appearance. There is no doubt that the authors are identifying structures that closely correspond to those provided by Maseko et al (2013). It is solely a contrast in what these nuclear complexes are called and the functional sequelae of the identification of these complexes (are they related to the trunk sensation or movement controlled by the cerebellum?) that is under debate.

Elephants are part of the Afrotheria, thus the most relevant comparative data to resolve this issue will be the identification of these nuclei in other Afrotherian species. Below I provide images of these nuclear complexes, labelled in the standard nomenclature, across several Afrotherian species.

(A) Lesser hedgehog tenrec (Echinops telfairi)

Tenrecs brains are the most intensively studied of the Afrotherian brains, these extensive neuroanatomical studies undertaken primarily by Heinz Künzle. Below I append images (coronal sections stained with cresol violet) of the IO and Vsens (labelled in the standard mammalian manner) in the lesser hedgehog tenrec. It should be clear that the inferior olive is located in the ventral midline of the rostral medulla oblongata (just like the rat) and that this nucleus is not distinctly serrated. The Vsens is located in the lateral aspect of the medulla skirted laterally by the spinal trigeminal tract (Sp5). These images and the labels indicating structures correlate precisely with that provide by Künzle (1997, 10.1016/S0168- 0102(97)00034-5), see his Figure 1K,L. Thus, in the first case of a related species, there is no serrated appearance of the inferior olive, the location of the inferior olive is confirmed through connectivity with the superior colliculus (a standard connection in mammals) by Künzle (1997), and the location of Vsens is what is considered to be typical for mammals. This is in agreement with the authors, as they propose that ONLY the elephants show the variations they report.

Review image 1.

(B) Giant otter shrew (Potomogale velox)

The otter shrews are close relatives of the Tenrecs. Below I append images of cresyl violet (left column) and myelin (right column) stained coronal sections through the brainstem with the IO, Vsens and Sp5 labelled as per standard mammalian anatomy. Here we see hints of the serration of the IO as defined by the authors, but we also see many myelin stripes across the IO. Vsens is located laterally and skirted by the Sp5. This is in agreement with the authors, as they propose that ONLY the elephants show the variations they report.

Review image 2.

(C) Four-toed sengi (Petrodromus tetradactylus)

The sengis are close relatives of the Tenrecs and otter shrews, these three groups being part of the Afroinsectiphilia, a distinct branch of the Afrotheria. Below I append images of cresyl violet (left column) and myelin (right column) stained coronal sections through the brainstem with the IO, Vsens and Sp5 labelled as per standard mammalian anatomy. Here we see vague hints of the serration of the IO (as defined by the authors), and we also see many myelin stripes across the IO. Vsens is located laterally and skirted by the Sp5. This is in agreement with the authors, as they propose that ONLY the elephants show the variations they report.

Review image 3.

(D) Rock hyrax (Procavia capensis)

The hyraxes, along with the sirens and elephants form the Paenungulata branch of the Afrotheria. Below I append images of cresyl violet (left column) and myelin (right column) stained coronal sections through the brainstem with the IO, Vsens and Sp5 labelled as per the standard mammalian anatomy. Here we see hints of the serration of the IO (as defined by the authors), but we also see evidence of a more "bulbous" appearance of subnuclei of the IO (particularly the principal nucleus), and we also see many myelin stripes across the IO. Vsens is located laterally and skirted by the Sp5. This is in agreement with the authors, as they propose that ONLY the elephants show the variations they report.

Review image 4.

(E) West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus)

The sirens are the closest extant relatives of the elephants in the Afrotheria. Below I append images of cresyl violet (top) and myelin (bottom) stained coronal sections (taken from the University of Wisconsin-Madison Brain Collection, https://brainmuseum.org, and while quite low in magnification they do reveal the structures under debate) through the brainstem with the IO, Vsens and Sp5 labelled as per standard mammalian anatomy. Here we see the serration of the IO (as defined by the authors). Vsens is located laterally and skirted by the Sp5. This is in agreement with the authors, as they propose that ONLY the elephants show the variations they report.

Review image 5.

These comparisons and the structural identification, with which the authors agree as they only distinguish the elephants from the other Afrotheria, demonstrate that the appearance of the IO can be quite variable across mammalian species, including those with a close phylogenetic affinity to the elephants. Not all mammal species possess a "serrated" appearance of the IO. Thus, it is more than just theoretically possible that the IO of the elephant appears as described prior to this study.

So what about elephants? Below I append a series of images from coronal sections through the African elephant brainstem stained for Nissl, myelin, and immunostained for calretinin. These sections are labelled according to standard mammalian nomenclature. In these complete sections of the elephant brainstem, we do not see a serrated appearance of the IOM (as described previously and in the current study by the authors). Rather the principal nucleus of the IOM appears to be bulbous in nature. In the current study, no image of myelin staining in the IOM/VsensR is provided by the authors. However, in the images I provide, we do see the reported myelin stripes in all stains - agreement between the authors and reviewer on this point. The higher magnification image to the bottom left of the plate shows one of the IOM/VsensR myelin stripes immunostained for calretinin, and within the myelin stripes axons immunopositive for calretinin are seen (labelled with an arrow). The climbing fibres of the elephant cerebellar cortex are similarly calretinin immunopositive (10.1159/000345565). In contrast, although not shown at high magnification, the fibres forming the Sp5 in the elephant (in the Maseko description, unnamed in the description of the authors) show no immunoreactivity to calretinin.

Review image 6.

Peripherin Immunostaining

In their revised manuscript the authors present immunostaining of peripherin in the elephant brainstem. This is an important addition (although it does replace the only staining of myelin provided by the authors which is unusual as the word myelin is in the title of the paper) as peripherin is known to specifically label peripheral nerves. In addition, as pointed out by the authors, peripherin also immunostains climbing fibres (Errante et al., 1998). The understanding of this staining is important in determining the identification of the IO and Vsens in the elephant, although it is not ideal for this task as there is some ambiguity. Errante and colleagues (1998; Fig. 1) show that climbing fibres are peripherin-immunopositive in the rat. But what the authors do not evaluate is the extensive peripherin staining in the rat Sp5 in the same paper (Errante et al, 1998, Fig. 2). The image provided by the authors of their peripherin immunostaining (their new Figure 2) shows what I would call the Sp5 of the elephant to be strongly peripherin immunoreactive, just like the rat shown in Errant et al (1998), and more over in the precise position of the rat Sp5! This makes sense as this is where the axons subserving the "extraordinary" tactile sensitivity of the elephant trunk would be found (in the standard model of mammalian brainstem anatomy). Interestingly, the peripherin immunostaining in the elephant is clearly lamellated...this coincides precisely with the description of the trigeminal sensory nuclei in the elephant by Maskeo et al (2013) as pointed out by the authors in their rebuttal. Errante et al (1998) also point out peripherin immunostaining in the inferior olive, but according to the authors this is only "weakly present" in the elephant IOM/VsensR. This latter point is crucial. Surely if the elephant has an extraordinary sensory innervation from the trunk, with 400 000 axons entering the brain, the VsensR/IOM should be highly peripherin-immunopositive, including the myelinated axon bundles?! In this sense, the authors argue against their own interpretation - either the elephant trunk is not a highly sensitive tactile organ, or the VsensR is not the trigeminal nuclei it is supposed to be.

Summary:

(1) Comparative data of species closely related to elephants (Afrotherians) demonstrates that not all mammals exhibit the "serrated" appearance of the principal nucleus of the inferior olive.

(2) The location of the IO and Vsens as reported in the current study (IOR and VsensR) would require a significant, and unprecedented, rearrangement of the brainstem in the elephants independently. I argue that the underlying molecular and genetic changes required to achieve this would be so extreme that it would lead to lethal phenotypes. Arguing that the "switcheroo" of the IO and Vsens does occur in the elephant (and no other mammals) and thus doesn't lead to lethal phenotypes is a circular argument that cannot be substantiated.

(3) Myelin stripes in the subnuclei of the inferior olivary nuclear complex are seen across all related mammals as shown above. Thus, the observation made in the elephant by the authors in what they call the VsensR, is similar to that seen in the IO of related mammals, especially when the IO takes on a more bulbous appearance. These myelin stripes are the origin of the olivocerebellar pathway, and are indeed calretinin immunopositive in the elephant as I show.

(4) What the authors see aligns perfectly with what has been described previously, the only difference being the names that nuclear complexes are being called. But identifying these nuclei is important, as any functional sequelae, as extensively discussed by the authors, is entirely dependent upon accurately identifying these nuclei.

(4) The peripherin immunostaining scores an own goal - if peripherin is marking peripheral nerves (as the authors and I believe it is), then why is the VsensR/IOM only "weakly positive" for this stain? This either means that the "extraordinary" tactile sensitivity of the elephant trunk is non-existent, or that the authors have misinterpreted this staining. That there is extensive staining in the fibre pathway dorsal and lateral to the IOR (which I call the spinal trigeminal tract), supports the idea that the authors have misinterpreted their peripherin immunostaining.

(5) Evolutionary expediency. The authors argue that what they report is an expedient way in which to modify the organisation of the brainstem in the elephant to accommodate the "extraordinary" tactile sensitivity. I disagree. As pointed out in my first review, the elephant cerebellum is very large and comprised of huge numbers of morphologically complex neurons. The inferior olivary nuclei in all mammals studied in detail to date, give rise to the climbing fibres that terminate on the Purkinje cells of the cerebellar cortex. It is more parsimonious to argue that, in alignment with the expansion of the elephant cerebellum (for motor control of the trunk), the inferior olivary nuclei (specifically the principal nucleus) have had additional neurons added to accommodate this cerebellar expansion. Such an addition of neurons to the principal nucleus of the inferior olive could readily lead to the loss of the serrated appearance of the principal nucleus of the inferior olive, and would require far less modifications in the developmental genetic program that forms these nuclei. This type of quantitative change appears to be the primary way in which structures are altered in the mammalian brainstem.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Assessment

This study develops a potentially useful metric for quantifying codon usage adaptation – the Codon Adaptation Index of Species (CAIS) – that is intended to allow for more direct comparisons of the strength of selection at the molecular level across species by controlling for interspecies variation in amino acid usage and GC content. As evidence to support there claim CAIS better controls for GC content and amino acid usage across species, they note that CAIS has only a weak positive correlation with GC% (that does not stand up to multiple hypothesis testing correction) while CAI has a clear negative correlation with GC%. Using CAIS, they find better adapted species have more disordered protein domains; however, excitement about these findings is dampened due to (1) this result is also observed using the effective number of codons (ENC) and

(2) concerns over the interpretation of CAIS as a proxy for the effectiveness of selection.

Public Review

Summary

The goal of the authors in this study is to develop a more reliable approach for quantifying codon usage such that it is more comparable across species. Specifically, the authors wish to estimate the degree of adaptive codon usage, which is potentially a general proxy for the strength of selection at the molecular level. To this end, the authors created the Codon Adaptation Index for Species (CAIS) that attempts to control for differences in amino acid usage and GC% across species. Using their new metric, the authors observe a positive relationship between CAIS and the overall “disorderedness” of a species protein domains. I think CAIS has the potential to be a valuable tool for those interested in comparing codon adaptation across species in certain situations. However, I have certain theoretical concerns about CAIS as a direct proxy for the efficiency of selection sNe when mutation bias changes across species.

Strengths

(1) I appreciate that the authors recognize the potential issues of comparing CAI when amino acid usage varies and correct for this in CAIS. I think this is sometimes an under-appreciated point in the codon usage literature, as CAI is a relative measure of codon usage bias (i.e. only considers synonyms). However, the strength of natural selection on codon usage can potentially vary across amino acids, such that comparing mean CAI between protein regions with different amino acid biases may result in spurious signals of statistical significance.

(2) The CAIS metric presented here is generally applicable to any species that has an annotated genome with protein-coding sequences. A significant improvement over the previous version is the implementation of software tool for applying this method.

(3) The authors do a better job of putting their results in the context of the underlying theory of CAIS compared to the previous version.

(4) The paper is generally well-written.

Weaknesses

(1) The previously observed correlation between CAIS and body size was due to a bug when calculating phylogenetic independent contrasts. I commend the authors for acknowledging this mistake and updating the manuscript accordingly. I feel that the unobserved correlation between CAIS and body size should remain in the final version of the manuscript. Although it is disappointing that it is not statistically significant, the corrected results are consistent with previous findings (Kessler and Dean 2014).

(2) I appreciate the authors for providing a more detailed explanation of the theoretical basis model. However, I remain skeptical that shifts in CAIS across species indicates shifts in the strength of selection. I am leaving the math from my previous review here for completeness.

As in my previous review, let’s take a closer look at the ratio of observed codon frequencies vs. expected codon frequencies under mutation alone, which was previously notated as RSCUS in the original formulation. In this review, I will keep using the RSCUS notation, even though it has been dropped from the updated version. The key point is this is the ratio of observed and expected codon frequencies. If this ratio is 1 for all codons, then CAIS would be 0 based on equation 7 in the manuscript – consistent with the complete absence of selection on codon usage. From here on out, subscripts will only be used to denote the codon and it will be assumed that we are only considering the case of r = genome for some species s.

I think what the authors are attempting to do is “divide out” the effects of mutation bias (as given by Ei), such that only the effects of natural selection remain, i.e. deviations from the expected frequency based on mutation bias alone represents adaptive codon usage. Consider Gilchrist et al. GBE 2015, which says that the expected frequency of codon i at selection-mutation-drift equilibrium in gene g for an amino acid with Na synonymous codons is

where ∆M is the mutation bias, ∆η is the strength of selection scaled by the strength of drift, and φg is the gene expression level of gene g. In this case, ∆M and ∆η reflect the strength and direction of mutation bias and natural selection relative to a reference codon, for which ∆M,∆η = 0. Assuming the selection-mutation-drift equilibrium model is generally adequate to model of the true codon usage patterns in a genome (as I do and I think the authors do, too), the Ei,g could be considered the expected observed frequency codon i in gene g

E[Oi,g].

Let’s re-write the  in the form of Gilchrist et al., such that it is a function of mutation bias ∆M. For simplicity we will consider just the two codon case and assume the amino acid sequence is fixed. Assuming GC% is at equilibrium, the term gr and 1 − gr can be written as

where µx→y is the mutation rate from nucleotides x to y. As described in Gilchrist et al. MBE 2015 and Shah and Gilchrist PNAS 2011, the mutation bias . This can be expressed in terms of the equilibrium GC content by recognizing that

As we are assuming the amino acid sequence is fixed, the probability of observing a synonymous codon i at an amino acid becomes just a Bernoulli process.

If we do this, then

Recall that in the Gilchrist et al. framework, the reference codon has ∆MNNG,NNG \= 0 =⇒ e−∆MNNG,NNG \=

(1) Thus, we have recovered the Gilchrist et al. model from the formulation of Ei under the assumption that natural selection has no impact on codon usage and codon NNG is the pre-defined reference codon. To see this, plug in 0 for ∆η in equation (1).

We can then calculate the expected RSCUS using equation (1) (using notation E[Oi]) and equation (6) for the two codon case. For simplicity assume, we are only considering a gene of average expression (defined as ). Assume in this case that NNG is the reference codon (∆MNNG,∆ηNNG \= 0).

This shows that the expected value of RSCUS for a two codon amino acid is expected to increase as the strength of selection ∆η increases, which is desired. Note that ∆η in Gilchrist et al. is formulated in terms of selection against a codon relative to the reference, such that a negative value represents that a codon is favored relative to the reference. If ∆η = 0 (i.e. selection does not favor either codon), then E[RSCUS] = 1. Also note that the expected RSCUS does not remain independent of the mutation bias. This means that even if sNe (i.e. the strength of natural selection) does not change between species, changes to the strength and direction of mutation bias across species could impact RSCUS. Assuming my math is right, I think one needs to be cautious when interpreting CAIS as representative of the differences in the efficiency of selection across species except under very particular circumstances.

Consider our 2-codon amino acid scenario. You can see how changing GC content without changing selection can alter the CAIS values calculated from these two codons. Particularly problematic appears to be cases of extreme mutation biases, where CAIS tends toward 0 even for higher absolute values of the selection parameter. Codon usage for the majority of the genome will be primarily determined by mutation biases,

with selection being generally strongest in a relatively few highly-expressed genes. Strong enough mutation biases ultimately can overwhelm selection, even in highly-expressed genes, reducing the fraction of sites subject to codon adaptation.

Peer review image 1.

Peer review image 2.

CAIS (Low Expression)

Peer review image 3.

CAIS (Average Expression)

Peer review image 4.

CAIS (High Expression)

If we treat the expected codon frequencies as genome-wide frequencies, then we are basically assuming this genome made up entirely of a single 2-codon amino acid with selection on codon usage being uniform across all genes. This is obviously not true, but I think it shows some of the potential limitations of the CAIS approach. Based on these simulations, CAIS seems best employed under specific scenarios. One such case could be when it is known that mutation bias varies little across the species of interest. Looking at the species used in this manuscript, most of them have a GC content around 0.41, so I suspect their results are okay (assuming things like GC-biased gene conversion are not an issue). Outliers in GC content probably are best excluded from the analysis.

Although I have not done so, I am sure this could be extended to the 4 and 6 codon amino acids. One potential challenge to CAIS is the non-monotonic changes in codon frequencies observed in some species (again, see Shah and Gilchrist 2011 and Gilchrist et al. 2015).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors examine the role of the medial frontal cortex of mice in exploiting statistical structure in tasks. They claim that mice are "proactive": they predict upcoming changes, rather than responding in a "model-free" way to environmental changes. Further, they speculate that the estimation of future change (i.e., prediction of upcoming events, based on learning temporal regularities) might be "a main ... function of dorsal medial frontal cortex (dmFC)." Unfortunately, the current manuscript contains flaws such that the evidence supporting these claims is inadequate.

Strengths:

Understanding the neural mechanisms by which we learn about statistical structure in the world is an important goal. The authors developed an interesting task and used model-based techniques to try to understand the mechanisms by which perturbation of dmFC influenced behavior. They demonstrate that lesions and optogenetic silencing of dmFC influence behavior, showing that this region has a causal influence on the task.

Weaknesses:

I was concerned that the main behavioral effects shown in Figure 1F were a statistical artifact. By requiring the Geometric block length to be preceded by a performance-based block, the authors introduce a dependence that can generate the phenomena they describe as anticipation.

To demonstrate this, I simulated their task with an agent that does not have any anticipation of the change point (Reviewer image 1). The agent repeats the previous action with probability `p(repeat)` (similar to the choice kernel in the author's models). If the agent doesn't repeat then the next choice depends on the previous outcome. If the previous choice was rewarded, it stays with `P(WS)` and chooses randomly with `1-P(WS)`. If the previous choice was unrewarded, it switches with `P(LS)` and chooses randomly with `1-P(LS)`.

Review image 1.

An agent with `P(WS)=P(LS)=P(repeat)=0.85` shows the same phenomena as the mice: a difference in performance before the block switch and "earlier" crossing of the midpoint after the switch. https://imgdrop.io/image/aHn6y. The phenomena go away in the simulations when a fixed block length of 20 trials is followed by a Geometric block length.

The authors did not completely rely on the phenomena of Figure 1F for their conclusions. They did a model comparison to provide evidence that animals are anticipating the switch. Unfortunately, the authors did not use state-of-the-art methods in this section of the paper. In particular, they failed to show that under a range of generative parameters for each model class, the model selection process chooses the correct model class (i.e. a confusion matrix). A more minor point, they used BIC instead of a more robust cross-validated metric for model selection. Finally, instead of comparing their "best" anticipating model to their 2nd best model (without anticipation), they compared their best to their 4th best (Supp Fig 3.5). This seems misleading.

Given all of the the above issues, it is hard to critically evaluate the model-based analysis of the effects of lesions/optogenetics.