Author Response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors revisit the specific domains/signals required for the redirection of an inner nuclear membrane protein, emerin, to the secretory pathway. They find that epitope tagging influences protein fate, serving as a cautionary tale for how different visualisation methods are used. Multiple tags and lines of evidence are used, providing solid evidence for the altered fate of different constructs.

Strengths:

This is a thorough dissection of domains and properties that confer INM retention vs secretion to the PM/lysosome, and will serve the community well as a caution regarding the placement of tags and how this influences protein fate.

Weaknesses:

Biogenesis pathways are not explored experimentally: it would be interesting to know if the lysosomal pool arrives there via the secretory pathway (eg by engineering a glycosylation site into the lumenal domain) or by autophagy, where failed insertion products may accumulate in the cytoplasm and be degraded directly from cytoplasmic inclusions.

This manuscript is a Research Advance that follows previous work that we published in eLife on this topic (Buchwalter et al., eLife 2019; PMID 31599721). In that prior publication, we showed that emerin-GFP arrives at the lysosome by secretion and exposure at the PM, followed by internalization. While we state these previous findings in this manuscript, we did not explicitly restate here how we came to that conclusion. In the 2019 study, we (i) engineered in a glycosylation site, which demonstrated that emerin-GFP receives complex, Endo H-resistant N-glycans, indicating passage through the Golgi; (ii) performed cell surface labeling, which confirmed that emerin accesses the PM; and interfered with (iii) the early secretory pathway using brefeldin A and with (iv) lysosomal function using bafilomycin A1. Further, we ruled out autophagy as a major contributor to emerin trafficking by treating cells with the PI3K inhibitor KU55933, which had no effect on emerin’s lysosomal delivery.

It would be helpful if the topology of constructs could be directly demonstrated by pulse-labelling and protease protection. It's possible that there are mixed pools of both topologies that might complicate interpretation.

We demonstrate that emerin’s TMD inserts in a tail-anchored orientation (C terminus in ER lumen) by appending a GFP tag to either the N or C terminus, followed by anti-GFP antibody labeling of unpermeabilized cells (Fig. 1G). This shows the preferred topology of emerin’s wild type TMD.

As the reviewer points out, it is possible that our manipulations of the TMD sequence (Fig. 2D-E) alter its preferred topology of membrane insertion. We addressed this question by performing anti-GFP and anti-emerin antibody labeling of the less hydrophobic TMD mutant (EMD-TMDm-GFP) after selective permeabilization of the plasma membrane (Figure 2 supplement, panel F). If emerin biogenesis is normal, the GFP tag should face the ER lumen while the emerin antibody epitope should be cytosolic. If the fidelity of emerin’s membrane insertion is impaired, the GFP tag could be exposed to the cytosol (flipped orientation), which would be detected by anti-GFP labeling upon plasma membrane permeabilization. We find that the C-terminal GFP tag is completely inaccessible to antibody when the PM is selectively permeabilized with digitonin, but is readily detected when all intracellular membranes are permeabilized with Triton-X-100. These data confirm that mutating emerin’s TMD does not disrupt the protein’s membrane topology.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Mella et al. investigate the effect of GFP tagging on the localization and stability of the nuclear-localized tail-anchored (TA) protein Emerin. A previous study from this group showed that C-terminally GFP-tagged Emerin protein traffics to the plasma membrane and reaches lysosomes for degradation. It is suggested that the C-terminal tagging of tail-anchored proteins shifts their insertion from the post-translational TRC/GET pathway to the co-translational SRP-mediated pathway. The authors of this paper found that C-terminal GFP tagging causes Emerin to localize to the plasma membrane and eventually reach lysosomes. They investigated the mechanism by which Emerin-GFP moves to the secretory pathway. By manipulating the cytosolic domain and the hydrophobicity of the transmembrane domain (TMD), the authors identify that an ER retention sequence and strong TMD hydrophobicity contribute to Emerin trafficking to the secretory pathway. Overall, the data are solid, and the knowledge will be useful to the field. However, the authors do not fully answer the question of why C-terminally GFP-tagged Emerin moves to the secretory pathway. Importantly, the authors did not consider the possible roles of GFP in the ER lumen influencing Emerin trafficking to the secretory pathway.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Major concerns:

(1) The authors suggest that an ER retention sequence and high hydrophobicity of Emerin TMD contribute to its trafficking to the secretory pathway. However, these two features are also present in WT Emerin, which correctly localizes to the inner nuclear membrane. Additionally, the authors show that the ER retention sequence is normally obscured by the LEM domain. The key difference between WT Emerin and Emerin-GFP is the presence of GFP in the ER lumen. The authors missed investigating the role of GFP in the ER lumen in influencing Emerin trafficking to the secretory pathway. It is likely that COPII carrier vesicles capture GFP protein in the lumen as part of the bulk flow mechanism for transport to the Golgi compartment. The authors could easily test this by appending a KDEL sequence to the C-terminus of GFP; this should now redirect the protein to the nucleus.

We agree with the reviewer’s point that the presence of lumenal GFP somehow promotes secretion of emerin from the ER, likely at the stage of enhancing its packaging into COPII vesicles. We struggle to think about how to interpret the KDEL tagging experiment that the reviewer proposes, as the KDEL receptor predominantly recycles soluble proteins from the Golgi to the ER, while emerin is a membrane protein; and we have shown that emerin already contains a putative COPI-interacting RRR recycling motif in its cytosolic domain.

Nevertheless, we agree with the reviewer that it is worthwhile to test the possibility that addition of GFP to emerin’s C-terminus promotes capture by COPII vesicles. We have evaluated this question by performing temperature block experiments to cause cargo accumulation within stalled COPII-coated ER exit sites, then comparing the propensity of various untagged and tagged emerin variants to enrich in ER exit sites as judged by colocalization with the COPII subunit Sec31a. These data now appear in Figure 4 supplement 1. These experiments indicate that emerin-GFP samples ER exit sites significantly more than does untagged emerin. Further, the ER exit site enrichment of emerin-GFP is dampened by shortening emerin’s TMD. We do not see further enrichment of any emerin variant in ER exit sites when COPII vesicle budding is stalled by low temperature incubation, implying that emerin lacks any positive sorting signals that direct its selective enrichment in COPII vesicles. Altogether, these data indicate that both emerin’s long and hydrophobic TMD and the addition of a lumenal GFP tag increase emerin’s propensity to sample ER exit sites and undergo non-selective, “bulk flow” ER export.

(2) The authors nicely demonstrate that the hydrophobicity of Emerin TMD plays a role in its secretory trafficking. I wonder if this feature may be beneficial for cells to degrade newly synthesized Emerin via the lysosomal pathway during mitosis, as the nuclear envelope breakdown may prevent the correct localization of newly synthesized Emerin. The authors could test Emerin localization during mitosis. Such findings could add to the physiological significance of their findings. At the minimum, they should discuss this possibility.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion. It is attractive to speculate that secretory trafficking might enable lysosomal degradation of emerin during mitosis, when its lamin anchor has been depolymerized. However, we think it is unlikely that mitotic trafficking contributes significantly to the turnover flux of untagged emerin; if it did, we would expect to see higher steady state levels and/or slowed turnover of emerin mutants that cannot traffic to the lysosome. We did not observe this outcome. Instead, mutations that enhance (RA) or impair (TMDm) emerin trafficking had no effect on the untagged protein’s steady-state levels (Fig. 4G).

Minor concerns:

(1) On page 7, the authors note that "FLAG-RA construct was not poorly expressed relative to WR, in contrast with RA-GFP (Figures S3C, 2I)." The expression levels of these proteins cannot be compared across two different blots.

We apologize for this confusion; we were implying two distinct comparisons to internal controls present on each blot. We have adjusted the text to read “FLAG-RA construct was not poorly expressed relative to FLAG-WT (Fig. S3C) in contrast to RA-GFP compared to WT-GFP (Fig. 2I).”

(2) In the first paragraph of the discussion, the authors suggest that aromatic amino acids facilitate trafficking to lysosomes. However, they only replaced aromatic amino acids with alanine residues. If they want to make this claim, they should test other amino acids, particularly hydrophobic amino acids such as leucine.

The reviewer may be inferring more import from our statement than we intended. We focused on these aromatic residues within the TMD because they contribute strongly to its overall hydrophobicity. Experimentally, we determined that nonconservative alanine substitutions of these aromatic residues inhibited trafficking. We do not state and do not intend to imply that the aromatic character of these residues specifically influences trafficking propensity, and we agree with the reviewer that to test such a question would require additional substitutions with non-aromatic hydrophobic amino acids.

We realize that our phrasing may have been misleading by opening with discussion of the aromatic amino acids; in the revised discussion paragraph, we instead lead with discussion of TMD hydrophobicity, and then state how the specific substitutions we made affect trafficking.

Reviewing Editor comments:

While reviewer 1 did not provide any recommendations to the authors, I agree with this reviewer that the authors should validate the topology of their tagged proteins (at least for the one used to draw key conclusions). Given that Emerin is a tail-anchored protein, having a big GFP tag at the C-terminus could mess up ER insertion, causing the protein to take a wrong topology or even be mislocalized in the cytosol, particularly under overexpression conditions. In either case, it can be subject to quality control-dependent clearance via either autophagy, ERphagy, or ER-to-lysosome trafficking. I think that the authors should try a few straightforward experiments such as brefeldin A treatment or dominant negative Sar1 expression to test whether blocking conventional ER-to-Golgi trafficking affects lysosomal delivery of Emerin. I also think that the authors should discuss their findings in the context of the RESET pathway reported previously (PMID: 25083867). The ER stress-dependent trafficking of tagged Emerin to the PM and lysosomes appears to follow a similar trafficking pattern as RESET, although the authors did not demonstrate that Emerin traffic to lysosomes via the PM. In this regard, they should tone down their conclusion and discuss their findings in the context of the RESET pathway, which could serve as a model for their substrate.

We agree that validating the topology of TMD mutants is important, and now include these experiments in the revised manuscript (please see our response to Reviewer 1 above).

Please see our response to Reviewer 1’s public review; we previously determined that emerin-GFP undergoes ER-to-Golgi trafficking (see our 2019 study).

We recognize the major parallels between our findings and the RESET pathway. In our 2019 study, we found that similarly to other RESET cargoes, emerin-GFP travels through the secretory pathway, is exposed at the PM, and is then internalized and delivered to lysosomes. We discussed these strong parallels to RESET in our 2019 study. In this revised manuscript, we now also point out the parallels between emerin trafficking and RESET and cite the 2014 study by Satpute-Krishnan and colleagues (PMID 25083867)

Author Response:

The following is the authors response to the original reviews.

Reviewer #1 (Public review): 

Summary: 

The authors report four cryoEM structures (2.99 to 3.65 Å resolution) of the 180 kDa, full-length, glycosylated, soluble Angiotensin-I converting enzyme (sACE) dimer, with two homologous catalytic domains at the N- and C-terminal ends (ACE-N and ACE-C). ACE is a protease capable of effectively degrading Aβ. The four structures are C2 pseudo-symmetric homodimers and provide insight into sACE dimerization. These structures were obtained using discrete classification in cryoSPARC and show different combinations of open, intermediate, and closed states of the catalytic domains, resulting in varying degrees of solvent accessibility to the active sites. 

To deepen the understanding of the gradient of heterogeneity (from closed to open states) observed with discrete classification, the authors performed all-atom MD simulations and continuous conformational analysis of cryo-EM data using cryoSPARC 3DVA, cryoDRGN, and RECOVAR. cryoDRGN and cryoSPARC 3DVA revealed coordinated open-closed transitions across four catalytic domains, whereas RECOVAR revealed independent motion of two ACE-N domains, also observed with cryoSPARC-focused classification. The authors suggest that the discrepancy in the results of the different methods for continuous conformational analysis in cryo-EM could result from different approaches used for dimensionality reduction and trajectory generation in these methods. 

Strengths: 

This is an important study that shows, for the first time, the structure and the snapshots of the dynamics of the full-length sACE dimer. Moreover, the study highlights the importance of combining insights from different cryo-EM methods that address questions difficult or impossible to tackle experimentally while lacking ground truth for validation. 

Weaknesses: 

The open, closed, and intermediate states of ACE-N and ACE-C in the four cryo-EM structures from discrete classification were designated quantitatively (based on measured atomic distances on the models fitted into cryo-EM maps, Figure 2D). Unfortunately, atomic models were not fitted into cryo-EM maps obtained with cryoSPARC 3DVA, cryoDRGN, and RECOVAR, and the open/closed states in these cases were designated based on qualitative analysis. As the authors clearly pointed out, there are many other methods for continuous conformational heterogeneity analysis in cryo-EM. Among these methods, some allow analyzing particle images in terms of atomic models, like MDSPACE (Vuillemot et al., J. Mol. Biol. 2023, 435:167951), which result in one atomic model per particle image and can help in analyzing cooperativity of domain motions through measuring atomic distances or angular differences between different domains (Valimehr et al., Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25: 3371). This could be discussed in the article. 

Reviewer #2 (Public review): 

Summary: 

The manuscript presents a valuable contribution to the field of ACE structural biology and dynamics by providing the first complete full-length dimeric ACE structure in four distinct states. The study integrates cryo-EM and molecular dynamics simulations to offer important insights into ACE dynamics. The depth of analysis is commendable, and the combination of structural and computational approaches enhances our understanding of the protein's conformational landscape. However, the strength of evidence supporting the conclusions needs refinement, particularly in defining key terms, improving structural validation, and ensuring consistency in data analysis. Addressing these points through major revisions will significantly improve the clarity, rigor, and accessibility of the study to a broader audience, allowing it to make a stronger impact in the field. 

Strengths: 

The integration of cryo-EM and MD simulations provides valuable insights into ACE dynamics, showcasing the authors' commitment to exploring complex aspects of protein structure and function. This is a commendable effort, and the depth of analysis is appreciated. 

Weaknesses: 

Several aspects of the manuscript require further refinement to improve clarity and scientific rigor as detailed in my recommendations for the authors. 

Reviewer #3 (Public review): 

Summary: 

Mancl et al. report four Cryo-EM structures of glycosylated and soluble Angiotensin-I converting enzyme (sACE) dimer. This moves forward the structural understanding of ACE, as previous analysis yielded partially denatured or individual ACE domains. By performing a heterogeneity analysis, the authors identify three structural conformations (open, intermediate open, and closed) that define the openness of the catalytic chamber and structural features governing the dimerization interface. They show that the dimer interface of soluble ACE consists of an N-terminal glycan and protein-protein interaction region, as well as C-terminal protein-protein interactions. Further heterogeneity mining and all-atom molecular dynamic simulations show structural rearrangements that lead to the opening and closing of the catalytic pocket, which could explain how ACE binds its substrate. These studies could contribute to future drug design targeting the active site or dimerization interface of ACE. 

Strengths: 

The authors make significant efforts to address ACE denaturation on cryo-EM grids, testing various buffers and grid preparation techniques. These strategies successfully reduce denaturation and greatly enhance the quality of the structural analysis. The integration of cryoDRGN, 3DVA, RECOVAR, and all-atom simulations for heterogeneity analysis proves to be a powerful approach, further strengthening the overall experimental methodology. 

Weaknesses: 

In general, the findings are supported by experimental data, but some experimental details and approaches could be improved. For example, CryoDRGN analysis is limited to the top 5 PCA components for ease of comparison with cryoSPARC 3DVA, but wouldn't an expansion to more components with CryoDRGN potentially identify further conformational states? The authors also say that they performed heterogeneity analysis on both datasets but only show data for one. The results for the first dataset should be shown and can be included in supplementary figures. In addition, the authors mention that they were not successful in performing cryoSPARC 3DFLex analysis, but they do not show their data or describe the conditions they used in the methods section. These data should be added and clearly described in the experimental section. 

Some cryo-EM data processing details are missing. Please add local resolution maps, box sizes, and Euler angle distributions and reference the initial PDB model used for model building. 

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors): <br /> Major point: 

The authors could discuss the use of continuous conformational heterogeneity analysis methods that analyze particle images in terms of atomic models, based on MD simulations, like MDSPACE (Vuillemot et al., J. Mol. Biol. 2023, 435:167951). MDSPACE can be used on a dataset preprocessed with cryoSPARC or Relion by discrete classification to reduce compositional heterogeneity and obtain initial particle poses. It results in one atomic model per particle image and can help in analyzing the cooperativity of domain motions by measuring atomic distances or angular differences between different domains (Valimehr et al., Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25: 3371). 

We agree that MDSPACE is a promising and useful tool for analysis, and are excited to implement such a method. Prior to manuscript submission, we have had discussions with the primary author, Slavica Jonic, about how we may employ her software in our analysis. Unfortunately, we were unable to overcome significant computational issues, notably MDSPACE’s lack of GPU functionality, which prevent us from employing MDSPACE in a reasonable manner for our dataset. We hope to employ MDSPACE in future work, once the computational issues have been addressed, and have added a section on MDSPACE to the discussion in an effort to increase the visibility of MDSPACE, as we feel it is an exciting approach that deserves more visibility. We have added a substantial discussion on this point, specifically on MDspace as follows:

line 565-574

Similarly, MDSPACE holds tremendous promise as a method for investigating conformational dynamics from cryo-EM data (61). MDSPACE integrates cryo-EM particle data with short MD simulations to fit atomic models into each particle image through an iterative process which extracts dynamic information. However, the lack of GPU-enabled processing for MDSPACE requires either a dedicated a computational setup that diverges from most other cryo-EM software, or access to a CPU-based supercomputer, which severely limits the accessibility of such software. Despite these challenges, both 3DFlex and MDSPACE use promising approaches to study protein conformational dynamics. We look forward to exploring effective methods to incorporate these strategies into our future research.

Minor points: 

(1) Lines 348-350: "The discrepancy in population size between these clusters is likely due to bias in the initial particle poses, rather than a subunit-specific preference for the open state." Which bias? The cluster size is related to conformations, not to poses. 

We hope to emphasize that the assignment of particles to either the OC or CO cluster is likely due to the particle orientation within the complete dimer refinement, and the discrepancy in size between OC and CO clusters does not necessarily indicate a domain specific preference for one state or another, which would carry allosteric implications. This remains a possibility, but we hope to avoid over-interpretation of our results with the statement above.

The statement was altered to now read:

Line 418-423

“The discrepancy in population size between these clusters is likely due to bias in the initial particle orientation, rather than a subunit-specific preference for the open state. As the O/C state and the C/O state are 180 degree rotations of each other, particle assignment to either cluster is likely influenced by the initial particle orientation of the complete dimer, and we currently lack the data to discern any allosteric implication to the orientation assignment.”

(2) Line 519: "Micrographs with a max CTF value worse than 4Å were removed from the dataset,..." (also, lines 822-823 in supplementary material). <br /> Do you want to say that micrographs with a resolution worse than 4 A were removed? 

Max CTF value was replaced with CTF fit resolution to properly match the parameter used in Cryosparc.

(3) Figure 2C: The black lines are barely visible. Can you make them thicker and in red color? 

The figure has been amended.

(4) Figure 2D: The values for Chain A and Chain B in the second row (ACE-C) of sACE-3.05 columns are 17.9 (I) (Chain A) and 13.9 (C) (Chain B). Shouldn't they be reversed (13.9 (C) (Chain A) and 17.9 (I) (Chain B))? 

The values are now correct. sACE-3.65 chains were flipped in the table, and the updated color scheme should make it easier to map the values from the table to their corresponding structure.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors): 

The manuscript presents the first complete full-length dimeric ACE structure. The integration of cryo-EM and MD simulations provides valuable insights into ACE dynamics, showcasing the authors' commitment to exploring complex aspects of protein structure and function. This is a commendable effort, and the depth of analysis is appreciated. However, several aspects of the manuscript require further refinement to improve clarity and scientific rigor. In the view of this reviewer, a major revision is necessary. Please see the detailed comments below: 

(1) Definition of "Conformational Heterogeneity": The term "conformational heterogeneity" should be clearly defined when citing references 27-29. <br /> References 27 and 29 use MD simulations, which reveal "conformational flexibility" rather than "conformational heterogeneity" as observed in cryo-EM data. A more precise distinction should be made. 

We have changed the term “conformational heterogeneity” to the broader “conformational dynamics

(2) Figure Adjustments for Clarity: <br /> Figure 1B: A scale bar is needed for accurate representation. 

A 100 Angstrom scale bar was added to figure 1B.

Figure 2A, B: Using a Cα trace representation would improve clarity and make structural differences more apparent. 

We found using a Cα trace representation makes the figure too confusing and impossible to determine individual structural elements. Everything just becomes a jumble of lines.

Additionally, a Cα displacement vs. residue index plot (with Figure 1A placed along the x-axis) should be included alongside Figures 2A and B to provide quantitative insight into structural variations. 

This analysis has been combined with several other suggestions and now comprises a new figure 4.

(3) Structural Resolution and Validation: <br /> Euler angle distribution and 3D-FSC analysis should be provided to help the audience assess how these factors influence the resolution of each structure. <br /> Local resolution analysis in Relion should be included to determine if there are dynamic differences among the four structures. <br /> To enhance structural interpretation, the manuscript would benefit from showcasing examples of bulky side-chain densities (e.g., Trp, Phe, Tyr) for each of the four structures. 

Information is included in Figure S3 and S5.

(4) Glycan Modeling Considerations: <br /> Since the resolution of cryo-EM does not allow for precise glycan composition determination, additional experimental validation (e.g., Glyco-MS) would strengthen the modeling. If experimental support is unavailable, appropriate references should be cited to justify the modeled glycans. 

Minimal glycan modeling was performed with the goal of demonstrating that the protein is glycosylated. We have highlighted that we chose 12 N-linked glycosylation sites that have the observed extra density, an indication that glycan should be present and modeled them with complex glycans in the manuscript.  

(5) Advanced Cryo-EM and MD Analyses: 3DFlex Analysis: <br /> It is recommended that the authors explore 3DFlex to better capture conformational variability. CryoSPARC's community support can assist in proper implementation. 

We have incorporated our 3Dflex analysis in our discussion as follows:

Line 553-565

Surprisingly, we did not observe such motion using cryoSPARC 3DFlex, a neural network-based method analyzing our cryo-EM data of sACE (54). Central to the working of cryoSPARC 3DFlex is the generation of a tetrahedral mesh used to calculate deformations within the particle population. Proper generation of the mesh is critical for obtaining useful results and must often be determined empirically. Despite several attempts, we were unable to obtain results from 3DFlex comparable to what we observed with our other methods. Even using the results from our 3DVA as prior input to 3DFlex, the largest conformational change we observed was a slight wiggling at the bottom of the D3a subdomain (Movie S12). The authors of 3DFlex note that 3DFlex struggles to model intricate motions, and the implementation of custom tetrahedral meshes currently requires a non-cyclical fusion strategy between mesh segments. Given these limitations, and the complexity of sACE conformational dynamics, it appears that sACE, as a system, is not well-suited to analysis via 3DFlex in its current implementation.

(6) Movie Consistency: <br /> The MD simulation movies should use the same color coding as the first four movies for consistency. Similarly, the 3DVar analysis map should be color-coded to enhance interpretability. 

MD simulation movies are re-colored.

(7) MD Simulations - Data Extraction and Validation: <br /> The manuscript includes several long-timescale MD simulations, but further analysis is needed to extract meaningful dynamic information. Suggested analyses include: <br /> a. RMSF (Root Mean Square Fluctuation) Analysis: Calculate RMSF from MD trajectories and compare it with local resolution variations in cryo-EM maps. 

RMSF values were included in the new figure 4 along with structural depictions colored by RMSF value to localize variation to the structure.

b. Assess whether regions exhibiting lower dynamics correspond to higher resolution in cryo-EM. 

Information is added to Figure 4, Figure S3, S5, S6.

c. Compare RMSF between simulations with and without glycans to identify potential effects. 

This has been done in Figure 4.

d. Clustering Analysis: Use the four solved structures as reference states to cluster MD simulation trajectories. Determine if the population states observed in MD simulations align with cryo-EM findings. 

This has been done in supplementary figure S10.

e. Principal Component Analysis (PCA): Perform PCA on MD trajectories and compare with dynamics inferred from cryo-EM analyses (3DVar, cryoDRGN, and RECOVAR) to ensure consistency. 

This has been done in supplementary figure S11.

f. Correction of RMSF Analysis or the y-axis label in Figure S9: The RMSF values cannot be negative by definition. The authors should carefully review the code used for this calculation or explicitly define the metric being measured. 

The Y-axis label has been corrected to clarify that the plot depicts the change in RMSF values when comparing the glycosylated and non-glycosylated MD simulations.

(8) Discussion on Coordinated Motion and Allostery: <br /> The discussion of coordinated motion and allosteric regulation between sACE-N domains should be explicitly connected to experimental evidence mentioned in the introduction: <br /> "Enzyme kinetics analysis suggests negative cooperativity between two catalytic domains (31-33). However, ACE also exhibits positive synergy toward Ab cleavage and allostery to enhance the activity of its binding partner, the bradykinin receptor (11, 34)." 

(9) The authors should elaborate on how their new insights provide a mechanistic explanation for these experimental observations. 

(10) Connection to Therapeutic Implications: <br /> The discussion section should more explicitly connect the structural findings to potential therapeutic applications, which would significantly enhance the impact of the study. 

These three points (8-10) were addressed in a significant overhaul to the discussion section.

In summary, this study makes a valuable contribution to the field of ACE structural biology and dynamics. The combination of cryo-EM and MD simulations is particularly powerful, and with major revisions, this manuscript has the potential to make a strong impact. Addressing the points outlined above will significantly improve clarity, strengthen the scientific claims, and enhance the manuscript's accessibility to a broader audience. I appreciate the authors' rigorous approach to this complex topic and encourage them to refine their work to fully highlight the significance of their findings. 

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors): 

(1) The authors incorrectly refer to their ACE construct as full-length throughout the manuscript. Given that they are purifying the soluble region (aa 1-1231), saying full-length ACE is not the correct nomenclature. I suggest removing full-length and using soluble ACE (sACE) throughout the text. 

We utilize the term full-length to highlight the fact that our structures contain both the N and C domains for both subunits in the dimer, in contrast to the previously published ACE cryo-EM structure. We have clarified in the text that we refer to the full-length soluble region of ACE (sACE), and sACE is used to specifically refer to our construct throughout the text, except when referring to ACE in a more generalized biological context in the introduction and discussion.

(2) The authors could show differences between the different structural states by measuring and displaying the alpha carbon distances. For example, in Figures 2A, B, 3A, and 4B and C. 

Alpha carbon displacements for each residue have been added to the new figure 4.

(3) Most figures, with a few exceptions (Figures 2 and S11), are of low quality. Perhaps they are not saved in the same format. In addition, the color schemes used throughout the figures and movies are not consistent. For example, in Figure 1 D2 domains are in green, while they appear yellow in Figure 2 and later. Please double-check all coloring schemes and keep them consistent throughout the manuscript. In addition, it would be good to keep the labeling of the domains in the subsequent figures, as it is difficult to remember which domain is which throughout the manuscript. 

We are unsure of how to address the low quality issue, our files and the online versions appear to be of suitable high quality. We will work with editorial staff to ensure all files are of suitable quality. The color scheme has been revised throughout the manuscript to ensure consistency and better differentiate between domains and chains.

(4) Figure 1. Indicate exactly where in panel A ACE-N ends and ACE-C starts. Also, the pink and magenta, as well as aqua vs. light blue, are hard to distinguish. 

We have updated coloring scheme.

(5) Figure 2. In the figure legend, the use of brackets for defining closed, intermediate, and open states is confusing, given that the panels are also described with brackets, and some letters match between them. Using a hyphen or bolding the abbreviations could help. Also, define chains A and B, make the black lines that I assume indicate distances in C bold or thicker as they are very hard to see in the figure, and add to the legend what those lines mean. 

The abbreviations have been changed from parentheses to quotes, and suggestions have been implemented.

(6) Figure 4 is confusing as shown. Since the authors mention the general range of motion in sACE-N first in the text, wouldn't it make more sense to show panel B first and then panel A? Also, can you point and label the "tip connecting the two long helices of the D1a subdomain" in the figure? It is not clear to me where this region is in B. In addition, add a description of the arrows in B and C to the figure legend. 

Most changes incorporated. The order should make more sense now in light of other changes.

(7) Figure 5. Can the authors add a description to the legend as to what the arrows indicate and their thickness? 

Done

(8) Add a scale bar to the micrograph images in the supplementary figures. 

Figure S2 and S4 need the scale bar.

(9) Provide a more comprehensive description of buffers used in the DF analysis, as this information could be useful to others. 

We have included the data in Table S1.<br /> (10) Line 51: Reference format not consistent with other references: (Wu et al., 2023). 

Fixed

(11) Line 66: Define "ADAM". 

The definition has been added.

(12) Line 90: The authors say: Recent open state structures of sACE-N, sACE monomer, and a sACE-N dimer, along with molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of sACE-C, have begun to reveal the conformational heterogeneity, though it remains under-studied (27-29)." Can the authors clarify what "it" refers to? The full-length ACE, sACE, or its specific domains? 

The sentence now reads: Recent open state structures of sACE-N, sACE monomer, and a sACE-N dimer, along with molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of sACE-C, have begun to reveal ACE conformational dynamics, though they remain under-studied (29-31).

(13) Line 204: "The comparison of our dimeric sACE cryoEM structures of reveals the conformational dynamics of sACE catalytic domains." The second "of" should be removed. 

Fixed<br /> (14) Line 268: "From room mean square fluctuation (RMSF) analysis..." "room" should be replaced with "root."

Fixed

Author Response:

We would like to thank the reviewers and editors for your consideration of our manuscript, your kind comments about the value of our study, and for providing constructive feedback. We intend to submit a revised version of the manuscript and address the concerns and recommendations. This will include improvements to the statistical analyses, text content, and text format. 

Specifically, we will:

1. Revise the text to better explain the experimental methods, interpretation of results and how our findings are situated in the literature. Although we still believe that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that temperate tree species other than Fagus sylvatica may show similar patterns, we understand the reviewers concerns regarding these statements and will revise them.

2. Add a supplemetal analysis of leaf chlorophyll content data to use leaf discolouration as an alternative marker of the end of the growing season. On this we would like to make two important points. Firstly, we agree with the reviewers that bud set often occurs before leaf discolouration. In experiment 1, bud set occurred on average on day-of-year (DOY) 262, onset of leaf senescence (last day when leaf chlorophyll content fell below 90% of its measured maximum) occurred on average at the same time – DOY 261, and mid-senescence (50% leaf discolouration) occurred on DOY 320. We do not agree that this excludes the combined discussion of bud set and leaf senescence timing. Whilst environmental drivers can affect parts of plants differently, often responses from different end-of-season indicators (e.g. bud set and leaf discolouration) are similar, even if only directionally. Secondly, shifts in bud set timing will remain the key focus of the manuscript as we believe it has greater physiological relevence to plant development, whereas leaf discolouration may simply follow bud set as a symptom of the completion of growth (reduced sink activity).

3. Address points raised about potential additional drivers of our observed phenological shifts. For example, photoperiod effects and the Sosltice-as-Phenology-Switch hypothesis are not mutually exclusive, the annual progression of photoperiod is fundamental to how we suggest the switch is regulated (please see L66-68 in the original manuscript). The reviewers also comment on the significant differences in soil water content between the treatment groups in Fig. S1. However, all pots were watered sufficiently to avoid water deficit and all efforts were made to minimise differences in water availabiltiy. A provisional analysis shows only one treatment pair (6 - Late_July_Extreme vs. 7 - Early_August_Moderate) had significantly different soil water content, a pair whose differences are not discussed.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public review):  

Summary: 

The paper describes the cryoEM structure of RAD51 filament on the recombination intermediate. In the RAD51 filament, the insertion of a DNA-binding loop called the L2 loop stabilizes the separation of the complementary strand for the base-pairing with an incoming ssDNA and the non-complementary strand, which is captured by the second DNA-binding channel called the site II. The molecular structure of the RAD51 filament with a recombination intermediate provides a new insight into the mechanism of homology search and strand exchange between ssDNA and dsDNA. 

Strengths: 

This is the first human RAD51 filament structure with a recombination intermediate called the D-loop. The work has been done with great care, and the results shown in the paper are compelling based on cryo-EM and biochemical analyses. The paper is really nice and important for researchers in the field of homologous recombination, which gives a new view on the molecular mechanism of RAD51-mediated homology search and strand exchange. 

Weaknesses: 

The authors need more careful text writing. Without page and line numbers, it is hard to give comments. 

We would like to thank the reviewer for their kind words of appreciation of our work.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):  

Summary: 

Homologous recombination (HR) is a critical pathway for repairing double-strand DNA breaks and ensuring genomic stability. At the core of HR is the RAD51-mediated strand-exchange process, in which the RAD51-ssDNA filament binds to homologous double-stranded DNA (dsDNA) to form a characteristic D-loop structure. While decades of biochemical, genetic, and single-molecule studies have elucidated many aspects of this mechanism, the atomic-level details of the strand-exchange process remained unresolved due to a lack of atomic-resolution structure of RAD51 D-loop complex. 

In this study, the authors achieved this by reconstituting a RAD51 mini-filament, allowing them to solve the RAD51 D-loop complex at 2.64 Å resolution using a single particle approach. The atomic resolution structure reveals how specific residues of RAD51 facilitate the strand exchange reaction. Ultimately, this work provides unprecedented structural insight into the eukaryotic HR process and deepens the understanding of RAD51 function at the atomic level, advancing the broader knowledge of DNA repair mechanisms. 

Strengths: 

The authors overcame the challenge of RAD51's helical symmetry by designing a minifilament system suitable for single-particle cryo-EM, enabling them to resolve the RAD51 D-loop structure at 2.64 Å without imposed symmetry. This high resolution revealed precise roles of key residues, including F279 in Loop 2, which facilitates strand separation, and basic residues on site II that capture the displaced strand. Their findings were supported by mutagenesis, strand exchange assays, and single-molecule analysis, providing strong validation of the structural insights. 

Weaknesses: 

Despite the detailed structural data, some structure-based mutagenesis data interpretation lacks clarity. Additionally, the proposed 3′-to-5′ polarity of strand exchange relies on assumptions from static structural features, such as stronger binding of the 5′-arm-which are not directly supported by other experiments. This makes the directional model compelling but contradicts several well-established biochemical studies that support a 5'-to-3' polarity relative to the complementary strand (e.g., Cell 1995, PMID: 7634335; JBC 1996, PMID: 8910403; Nature 2008, PMID: 18256600). 

Overall: 

The 2.6 Å resolution cryoEM structure of the RAD51 D-loop complex provides remarkably detailed insights into the residues involved in D-loop formation. The high-quality cryoEM density enables precise placement of each nucleotide, which is essential for interpreting the molecular interactions between RAD51 and DNA. Particularly, the structural analysis highlights specific roles for key domains, such as the N-terminal domain (NTD), in engaging the donor DNA duplex. 

This structural interpretation is further substantiated by single-molecule fluorescence experiments using the KK39,40AA NTD mutant. The data clearly show a significant reduction in D-loop formation by the mutant compared to wild-type, supporting the proposed functional role of the NTD observed in the cryoEM model. 

However, the strand exchange activity interpretation presented in Figure 5B could benefit from a more rigorous experimental design. The current assay measures an increase in fluorescence intensity, which depends heavily on the formation of RAD51-ssDNA filaments. As shown in Figure S6A, several mutants exhibit reduced ability to form such filaments, which could confound the interpretation of strand exchange efficiency. To address this, the assay should either: (1) normalize for equivalent levels of RAD51-ssDNA filaments across samples, or (2) compare the initial rates of fluorescence increase (i.e., the slope of the reaction curve), rather than endpoint fluorescence, to better isolate the strand exchange activity itself. 

We agree with the reviewer that the reduced filament-forming ability of some of the RAD51 mutants complicates a straightforward interpretation of their strand-exchange assay. Interestingly, the RAD51 mutants that appear most impaired are the esDNA-capture mutants that do not contact the ssDNA in the structure of the pre-synaptic filament. However, the RAD51 NTD mutants, that display the most severe defect in strand-exchange, have a near-WT filament forming ability.

Based on the structural features of the D-loop, the authors propose that strand pairing and exchange initiate at the 3'-end of the complementary strand in the donor DNA and proceed with a 3'-to-5' polarity. This conclusion, drawn from static structural observations, contrasts with several well-established biochemical studies that support a 5'-to-3' polarity relative to the complementary strand (e.g., Cell 1995, PMID: 7634335; JBC 1996, PMID: 8910403; Nature 2008, PMID: 18256600). While the structural model is compelling and methodologically robust, this discrepancy underscores the need for further experiments. 

We would like to thank the reviewer for highlighting the importance of our findings to our understanding of the mechanism of homologous recombination.

The reviewer correctly points out that the polarity of strand exchange by RecA and RAD51 is an extensively researched topic that has been characterised in several authoritative studies. In our paper, we simply describe the mechanistic insights obtained from the structural D-loop models of RAD51 (our work) and RecA (Yang et al, PMID: 33057191).The structures illustrate a very similar mechanism of Dloop formation that proceeds with opposite polarity of strand exchange for RAD51 and RecA. Comparison of the D-loop structures for RecA and RAD51 provides an attractive explanation for the opposite polarity, as caused by the different positions of their dsDNA-binding domains in the filament structure. 

We agree with the reviewer that further investigation will be needed for an adequate rationalisation of the available evidence. We will mention the relevant literature in the revised version of the manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):  

Summary: 

Built on their previous pioneer expertise in studying RAD51 biology, in this paper, the authors aim to capture and investigate the structural mechanism of human RAD51 filament bound with a displacement loop (D-loop), which occurs during the dynamic synaptic state of the homologous recombination (HR) strand-exchange step. As the structures of both pre- and post-synaptic RAD51 filaments were previously determined, a complex structure of RAD51 filaments during strand exchange is one of the key missing pieces of information for a complete understanding of how RAD51 functions in the HR pathway. This paper aims to determine the high-resolution cryo-EM structure of RAD51 filament bound with the D-loop. Combined with mutagenesis analysis and biophysical assays, the authors aim to investigate the D-loop DNA structure, RAD51-mediated strand separation and polarity, and a working model of RAD51 during HR strand invasion in comparison with RecA. 

Strengths: 

(1) The structural work and associated biophysical assays in this paper are solid, elegantly designed, and interpreted.  These results provide novel insights into RAD51's function in HR. 

(2) The DNA substrate used was well designed, taking into consideration the nucleotide number requirement of RAD51 for stable capture of donor DNA. This DNA substrate choice lays the foundation for successfully determining the structure of the RAD51 filament on D-loop DNA using single-particle cryo-EM. 

(3) The authors utilised their previous expertise in capping DNA ends using monomeric streptavidin and combined their careful data collection and processing to determine the cryo-EM structure of full-length human RAD51 bound at the D-loop in high resolution. This interesting structure forms the core part of this work and allows detailed mapping of DNA-DNA and DNA-protein interaction among RAD51, invading strands, and donor DNA arms (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4). The geometric analysis of D-loop DNA bound with RAD51 and EM density for homologous DNA pairing is also impressive (Figure S5). The previously disordered RAD51's L2-loop is now ordered and traceable in the density map and functions as a physical spacer when bound with D-loop DNA. Interestingly, the authors identified that the side chain position of F279 in the L2_loop of RAD51_H differs from other F279 residues in L2-loops of E, F, and G protomers. This asymmetric binding of L2 loops and RAD51_NTD binding with donor DNA arms forms the basis of the proposed working model about the polarity of csDNA during RAD51-mediated strand exchange. 

(4) This work also includes mutagenesis analysis and biophysical experiments, especially EMSA, singlemolecule fluorescence imaging using an optical tweezer, and DNA strand exchange assay, which are all suitable methods to study the key residues of RAD51 for strand exchange and D-loop formation (Figure 5). 

Weaknesses: 

(1) The proposed model for the 3'-5' polarity of RAD51-mediated strand invasion is based on the structural observations in the cryo-EM structure. This study lacks follow-up biochemical/biophysical experiments to validate the proposed model compared to RecA or developing methods to capture structures of any intermediate states with different polarity models. 

(2) The functional impact of key mutants designed based on structure has not been tested in cells to evaluate how these mutants impact the HR pathway. 

The significance of the work for the DNA repair field and beyond: 

Homologous recombination (HR) is a key pathway for repairing DNA double-strand breaks and involves multiple steps. RAD51 forms nucleoprotein filaments first with 3' overhang single-strand DNA (ssDNA), followed by a search and exchange with a homologous strand. This function serves as the basis of an accurate template-based DNA repair during HR. This research addressed a long-standing challenge of capturing RAD51 bound with the dynamic synaptic DNA and provided the first structural insight into how RAD51 performs this function. The significance of this work extends beyond the discovery of biology for the DNA repair field, into its medical relevance. RAD51 is a potential drug target for inhibiting DNA repair in cancer cells to overcome drug resistance. This work offers a structural understanding of RAD51's function with the D-loop and provides new strategies for targeting RAD51 to improve cancer therapies. 

We thank the reviewer for their positive comments on the significance of our work. Concerning the proposed polarity of strand exchange based on our structural finding, please see our reply to the previous reviewer; we agree with the reviewer that further experimentation will be needed to to reach a settled view on this.

Testing the functional effects of the RAD51 mutants on HR in cells was not an aim of the current work but we agree that it would be a very interesting experiment, which would likely provide further important insights into the mechanism of strand exchange at the core of the HR reaction.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

Major points:

(1) Structural analysis showed a critical role of F279 in the L2 loop. However, the biochemical study showed that the F279A substitution did not provide a strong defect in the in vitro strand exchange, as shown in Figure 5B. Moreover, a previous study by Matsuo et al. FEBS J, 2006; ref 43) showed human RAD51-F279A is proficient in the in vitro strand exchange. These suggest that human RAD51 F279 is not critical for the strand exchange. The authors need more discussions of the role of F279 or the L2 for the RAD51-mediated reactions in the Discussion.

In the strand-exchange essay of Figure 5B, the F279A mutant shows the mildest phenotype, in agreement with the findings of Matsuo et al. Accordingly, in the text we describe the F279A mutant as having a “modest impact” on strand-exchange.

We have now added a brief comment to the relevant text, pointing out that the result of the strand exchange assay for F279A are in agreement with the previous findings by Matsuo et al., and adding the reference.

(2) In some parts, the authors cited the newest references rather than the paper describing the original findings. For RAD51 paralogs, why are these three (refs 21,22, 23) selected here? For FIGNL1, why is only one (ref 24) chosen?

The cited publications were chosen to acquaint the reader with the latest structural and mechanistic advances about the function of some of the most important and well-studied recombination mediator proteins. For completeness, we have now added a further reference for FIGNL1 - Ito, Masaru et al, Nat Comm, 2023 – in the Introduction, to provide the reader with an additional pointer to our current knowledge about the mechanism of FIGNL1 in Homologous Recombination.

Minor points:

(1) Page 3, line 1 in the second paragraph, the reaction of "HR": HR should be homology search and strand exchange. HR is used incorrectly throughout the text, please check them. Remove "strandexchange" from ATPases in line 2.

We believe that HR is used correctly in this context, as we refer to the biochemical reactions of HR, which includes the search for homology and strand exchange.

We have removed “strand-exchange” from ATPases in line 2, as requested by the reviewer.

(2) Supplementary Figure 1B, C, "EMSA" experiment: Please indicate an experimental condition in the legend: how ssDNA and dsDNA were mixed with RAD51. In (B), this is not an actual EMSA result, but rather a native gel analysis of reaction products with the D-loop. In (C), was the binding of RAD51 to the pre-formed D-loop examined? Which is correct here? Moreover, why do the authors need streptavidin in this experiment? Please explain why this is necessary for the EMSA assay. Please show where is Cy3 or Cy5 labels on the DNAs should be shown in the schematic drawing.

The conditions for the experiments of Supplementary figure 1B, C are reported in the Methods section.

Panel B shows the mobility shifts of the ssDNA and dsDNA sequences in panel A, so it is appropriate to describe it as an EMSA.

We did not examine the binding of RAD51 to a pre-formed D-loop.

We used streptavidine in the experiment of Supplementary Figure 1C to show that streptavidine binding did not interfere with D-loop reconstitution.

The position of the Cy3, Cy5 labels in the DNAs is reported in Table S1.

(3) Figure S4B, page 6, line 6 from the top, 5'-arm and 3'-arm: please add them to the figure. And also, please explain what 5'-arm and 3'-arm are here in the text, as shown in lines 3-5 in the second paragraph of the same page.

We thank the reviewer for spotting this slight incongruity. We have removed the reference to 5’- and 3’arms of the donor DNA in the initial description of the D-loop (first paragraph of the “D-loop structure” section, 6 lines from the top), as the nomenclature for the arms of the donor DNA is introduced more appropriately in the following paragraph. Thus, there is no need to re-label Figure S4B; we note that the 5’- and 3’-labels are added to the arms of the donor DNA in Figure S4D.

(4) Page 7, line 4, and Figure 2E, "C24": C24 should be C26 here (Figure 2D shows that position 24 in esDNA is "T").

We thank the reviewer for spotting this typo, that is now corrected in the revised version of Figure 2 and in the text.

(5) Page 8, line 1, K284: It would be nice to show "K284" in Figure 3F.

We have added the side chain of K284 to Figure 3F, as suggested by the reviewer.

(6) Page 8, second paragraph, line 3 from the bottom, "5'-arm" should be "3'-arm" for the binding of RAD51A NTD to ds DNA (Figure 4D).

We thank the reviewer for spotting this typo, that is now corrected in the revised version of the text.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

I understand that the strand exchange polarity of RAD51 should be opposite to that of RecA. But in the RecA manuscript (Nature 2020), it states (in the extended figure 1) " Because the mini-filament consists of fused RecA protomers, it does not reflect the effects a preferential polarity of RecA polymerization might have on the directionality of strand exchange. Also, our strand exchange reactions do not include the single-stranded DNA binding protein SSB that is involved in strand exchange in vivo and may sequester released DNA strands."

We are aware that the findings by Yang et al, 2020 were obtained with a multi-protomeric RecA chimera and that their construct might not therefore recapitulate a potential effect of RecA polymerisation on the directionality of strand-exchange. 

Comparison of the RecA and RAD51 D-loop structures shows that RecA and RAD51 adopt the same asymmetric mechanism of D-loop formation, which begins at one arm of the donor DNA and proceeds with donor unwinding and strand invasion until the second arm is captured, completing D-loop formation. However, the cryoEM structures provide compelling evidence that, after engagement with the donor DNA, RecA and RAD51 proceed to unwind the donor with opposite polarity; the structures provide a clear rationale for this, because of the different position of their dsDNA-binding domains relative to the ATPase domain.

We acknowledge that there exists an extensive body of literature that has investigated the polarity of strand exchange by RecA and RAD51 under a variety of experimental conditions, and we have added a brief comment to the text to reflect this, as well as some of the key citations. Undoubtedly, and as we also mention in our reply to the public reviews, further experimental work will be needed for a full reconciliation of the available evidence.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) I have a minor comment regarding the DNA shown in the structural figures in this work. The authors have used different colours to differentiate between isDNA, esDNA, and csDNA for easier interpretation. However, these colour codes are inconsistent across Figures 1, 2, 3, and 5. This inconsistency makes it difficult to interpret which strand is which, particularly for readers unfamiliar with D-loops and strand invasion. A consistent colour scheme for the DNA strands would enhance the quality of the structural figures.

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment about the colour scheme of the strands in the D-loop. We chose a unique colour scheme for each figure, to help the reader focus on the particular structural features that we wanted to highlight in the figure. So for instance, in figure 1D we chose to highlight the relationship (complementary vs identical) of the donor DNA strands with the the invading strand; in figure 2, the emphasis is on distinguishing the homologously paired dsDNA (pink) from the exchanged strand (magenta), as a consequence of L2 loop binding; etc.

(2) I have another comment regarding the rationale behind naming the RAD51 protomers (A to H) within the structure, which could confuse general readers if not clearly explained. In this paper, the RAD51 protomer is RAD51_A when closest to the 3' end of the isDNA. I assume the authors chose this order because HR generates a 3' ssDNA overhang before strand invasion. It would be beneficial for the introduction and results sections to mention this property of the 3' ssDNA overhang and the reasoning behind this naming strategy. This explanation will help readers understand how it differs from other naming orders used in RecA/RAD51 with ssDNA, where protomer A is closer to the 5' ssDNA.

We thank the reviewer for their insightful comment. We chose to name as chain A the RAD51 protomer nearest to the 3’-end of the isDNA to be consistent with the naming scheme that we use for all our published RAD51 filament structures.

(3) I have highlighted some text within this paper that has contradicting parts for authors to clarify and correct:

"Overall, the structural features of the RAD51 D-loop provide a strong indication that strand pairing and exchange begins at the 3'-end of the complementary strand in the donor DNA and progresses with 3'-to5' polarity (Fig. 5F)"

"The observed 5'-to-3' polarity of strand-exchange by RAD51 is opposite to the 3'-to-5' polarity of bacterial RecA (Fig. S8), that was determined based on cryoEM structures of RecA D-loops".

We thank the reviewer for alerting us to this inconsistency that has now been corrected in the revised manuscript.

(4) Figure S8 last model: NTD should be CTD in the title; Figure 2B: resolution scale bar needs A unit. We thank the reviewer for spotting this typo that has now been corrected in the revised version of figure S8. 

We couldn’t find a missing resolution scale bar in Figure 2B; however, we have added a missing resolution bar with A unit to Fig. S3B.

Author Response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Reviewer #1(Public Review):

Summary:

The authors extended a previous study of selective response to herbivory in Arabidopsis, in order to look specifically for selection on induced epigenetic variation ("Lamarckian evolution"). They found no evidence. In addition, they re-examined result from a previously published study arguing that environmentally induced epigenetic variation was common, and found that these findings were almost certainly artifactual.

Strengths:

The paper is very clearly written, there is no hype, and the methods used are state-of-the-art.

Weaknesses:

The result is negative, so the best you can do is put an upper bound on any effects.

Significance:

Claims about epigenetic inheritance and Lamarckian evolution continue to be made based on very shaky evidence. Convincing negative results are therefore important. In addition, the study presents results that, to this reviewer, suggest that the 2024 paper by Lin et al. [26] should probably be retracted.

Reviewer #2(Public Review):

In this paper, the authors examine the extent to which epigenetic variation acquired during a selection treatment (as opposed to standing epigenetic variation) can contribute to adaptation in Arabidopsis. They find weak evidence for such adaptation and few differences in DNA methylation between experimental groups, which contrasts with another recent study (reference 26) that reported extensive heritable variation in response to the environment. The authors convincingly demonstrate that the conclusions of the previous study were caused by experimental error, so that standing genetic variation was mistaken for acquired (epigenetic) variation. Given the controversy surrounding the possible role of epigenetic variation in mediating phenotypic variation and adaptation, this is an important, clarifying contribution.

I have a few specific comments about the analysis of DNA methylation:

(1) The authors group their methylation analysis by sequence context (CG, CHG, CHH). I feel this is insufficient, because CG methylation can appear in two distinct forms: gene body methylation (gbM), which is CG-only methylation within genes, and transposable element (TE) and TE-like methylation (teM), which typically involves all sequence contexts and generally affects TEs, but can also be found within genes. GbM and teM have distinct epigenetic dynamics, and it is hard to know how methylation patterns are changing during the experiment if gbM and teM are mixed. This can also have downstream consequences (see point below).

We thank Reviewer 2 for this suggestion. We usually separate the three contexts because they are set by different enzymes and not because of the general process or specific function. It would indeed be informative to group DMCs into gbM and teM, but as there are many regions with overlaps between genes and transposons, this also adds some complexity. Given that there were very few DMCs, we wanted to keep it simple. Therefore, we wrote that 87.3% of the DMCs were close to or within genes and that 98.1% were close to and within genes or transposons. Together with the clear overrepresentation of the CG context, this indicates that most of the DMCs were related to gbM. We updated the paragraph and specifically referred to gbM to make this point clearer.

(2) For GO analysis, the authors use all annotated genes as a control. However, most of the methylation differences they observe are likely gbM, and gbM genes are not representative of all genes. The authors' results might therefore be explained purely as a consequence of analyzing gbM genes, and not an enrichment of methylation changes in any particular GO group.

We are grateful to Reviewer #2 for this suggestion. We updated the GO analysis and defined the background as genes with cytosines that we tested for differences in methylation and which also exhibited overall at least 10% methylation (i.e., one cytosine per gene was sufficient). This resulted in a decrease of the background gene set from 34'615 to 18'315 genes. We still detect enrichment of terms related to epigenetic regulation, transport and growth processes. We have updated the corresponding paragraph accordingly.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for The Authors):

This paper is very clearly written and could be published as-is. The writing could be improved in a few places, for example:

"We realized that in this recent study (26), potential errors may have confounded treatments with genetic variation. This is because in that study, Lin and colleagues kept lineages 1-to-1 throughout the experiment by single-seed descent."

“This” in the second sentence seems to refer to the confounding, not your realization thereof.

I am sure there are more: just give the manuscript a good read-through.

We thank the Reviewer for pointing out that some sentences may not be clear. We have edited the manuscript and focused on avoiding misleading or unclear wording.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for The Authors):

(1) The authors should distinguish gbM from teM and repeat the GO term analysis with an appropriate set of control genes.

See our response to the public reviews above.

(2) The authors' experimental design should allow them to directly assess whether the rates of epigenetic change are affected by the selective environment. This would require comparison of methylation patterns of individual plants prior to treatment with their progeny (the progeny is what the authors have currently analyzed). This would entail gathering new data, and I don't feel that this analysis is essential, but given the question the authors are addressing (the extent to which a selective environment can induce heritable epigenetic variation), it seems important to test whether the rates of epigenetic change are at all affected by the selection treatment.

While this is a very valuable recommendation, we can currently not address it because the person who gathered the data works at a different university now. However, we keep this in mind for future projects.

Again, we would like to thank the reviewers for the constructive suggestions that help us to improve the manuscript.

Author Response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this study, the authors developed three case studies:

(1) transcriptome profiling of two human cell cultures (HEK293 and HeLa)

(2) identification of experimentally enriched transcripts in cell culture (RiboMinus and RiboPlus treatments)

(3) identification of experimentally manipulated genes in yeast strains (gene knockouts or strains transformed with plasmids containing the deleted gene for overexpression). Sequencing was performed using the Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT), the only technology that allows for real-time analysis. The real-time transcriptomic analysis was performed using NanopoReaTA, a recent toolbox for comparative transcriptional analyses of Nanopore-seq data, developed by the group (Wierczeiko and Pastore et al. 2023). The authors aimed to show the use of the tool developed by them in data generated by ONT, evidencing the versatility of the tool and the possibility of cost reduction since the sequencing by ONT can be stopped at any time since enough data were collected.

Strengths: 

Given that Oxford Nanopore Technologies offers real-time sequencing, it is extremely useful to develop tools that allow real-time data analysis in parallel with data generation. The authors demonstrated that this strategy is possible for both human cell lines and yeasts in the case studies presented. It is a useful strategy for the scientific community, and it has the potential to be integrated into clinical applications for rapid and cost-effective quality checks in specific experiments such as overexpression of genes.

Weaknesses:

In relation to the RNA-Seq analyses, for a proper statistical analysis, a greater number of replicates should have been performed. The experiments were conducted with a minimal number of replicates (2 replicates for case study 1 and 2 and 3 replicates for case study 3).

We have addressed this issue by performing two new sets of experiments: similar HEK293 vs HeLa with 10 replicates per condition and heatshocked vs non-heat shock with 6 replicates per condition. In the case of HEK293 vs HeLa comparison, we kept the 2 replicates per condition comparison to demonstrate the effect of limited replication number, simulating an early-stage evaluation of the experimental approach to obtain valuable quality control metrics. Nevertheless, we show that relevant and reproducible data can be obtained even with a lower replication number (2 replicates per condition), compared to a higher replication number (10 replicates), across both PromethION and MinION sequencing platforms.

Regarding the experimental part, some problems were observed in the conversion to doublestranded and loading for Nanopore-Seq, which were detailed in Supplementary Material 2. This fact is probably reflected in the results where a reduction in the overall sequencing throughput and detected gene number for HEK293 compared to HeLa were observed (data presented in Supplementary Figure 2). It is necessary to use similar quantities of RNA/cDNA since the sequencing occurs in real-time. The authors should have standardized the experimental conditions to proceed with the sequencing and perform the analyses.

We completely agree with the reviewer. In the 10-replicate HEK vs HeLa experiment, we collected similar data to what was presented in Supplementary Material 2. We chose to include this information to highlight the experimental variability that can arise during Nanopore-seq library preparation, particularly with cDNA synthesis. This type of information is not often highlighted in Nanoporebased studies, yet it is crucial to be aware of such differences. Despite these variations, we identified a consistent set of DEGs across comparisons of low versus high replicate numbers. Importantly, NanopoReaTA successfully provided realtime monitoring (e.g. detected number of genes per replicate/condition) as it allows for informed decision-making regarding the next steps in sequencing-based experiments.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Transcriptomics technologies play important roles in biological studies. Technologies based on second-generation sequencing, such as mRNA-seq, face some serious obstacles, including isoform analysis, due to short read length. Third-generation sequencing technologies perfectly solve these problems by having long reads, but they are much more expensive. The authors presented a useful real-time strategy to minimize the cost of sequencing with Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT). The authors performed three sets of experiments to illustrate the utility of the real-time strategy. However, due to the problems in experimental design and analysis, their aims are not completely achieved. If the authors can significantly improve the experiments and analysis, the strategy they proposed will guide biologists to conduct transcriptomics studies with ONT in a fast and cost-effective way and help studies in both basic research and clinical applications.

Strengths:

The authors have recently developed a computational tool called NanopoReaTA to perform real-time analysis when cDNA/RNA samples are sequenced with ONT (Wierczeiko et al., 2023). The advantage of real-time analysis is that the sequencing can be stopped once enough data is collected to save cost. Here, they described three sets of experiments: a comparison between two human cell lines, a comparison among RNA preparation procedures, and a comparison between genetically modified yeasts. Their results show that the real-time strategy works for different species and different RNA preparation methods.

Weaknesses:

However, especially considering that the computational tool NanopoReaTA is their previous work, the authors should present more helpful guidelines to perform real-time ONT analysis and more advanced analysis methods. There are four major weaknesses:

(1) For all three sets of experiments, the authors focused on sample clustering and gene-level differential expression analysis (DEA), and only did little analysis on isoform level and even nothing in any figures in the main text. Sample clustering and gene-level DEA can be easily and well done using mRNA-seq at a much cheaper cost. Even for initial data quality checking, mRNA-seq can be first done in Illumina MiSeq/NextSeq which is quick, before deep sequencing in HiSeq/NovaSeq. The real power of third-generation RNA sequencing is the isoform analysis due to the long read length. At least for now, PacBio Iso-seq is very expensive and one cannot analyze the data in real-time. Thus, the authors should focus on the real-time isoform analysis of ONT to show the advantages.

We are aware that isoform analysis is one of the powers of real-time monitoring of long-read data, especially with Nanopore-seq. That is why we have included pipelines such as DRIM-seq and DEX-seq, which could provide valuable information about the differential transcript usage (i.e. isoforms). However, interpreting the results in a biologically meaningful context, particularly regarding the role of specific isoforms, remains challenging. This is especially relevant as our main goal is to demonstrate NanopoReaTA's utility as a real-time transcriptomic tool that offers valuable quality control and meaningful insights. Nevertheless, in the heat-shock experiments, we have identified one isoform that was differentially expressed and included it in the main figure. We hope that with the right experimental setup, users could use the incorporated tools for meaningful analyses for isoforms identification.

(2) The sample sizes are too small in all three sets of experiments: only two for sets 1 and 2, and three for set 3. For DEA, three is the minimal number for proper statistics. But a sample size of three always leads to very poor power. Nowadays, a proper transcriptomics study usually has a larger sample size. Besides the power issue, biological samples always contain many outliers due to many reasons. It is crucial to show whether the real-time analysis also works for larger sample sizes, such as 10, i.e., 20 samples in total. Will the performance still hold when the sample number is increasing? What is the maximum sample number for an ONT run? If the samples need to be split into multiple runs, how the real-time analysis will be adjusted? These questions are quite useful for researchers who plan to use ONT.

We thank the reviewer for their suggestion. We performed the suggested experiment in the HEK293 vs HeLa, taking 10 replicates per condition and acquired the data during the sequencing. As you can see in the results (Figure 2), the performance held very well, from the first hour up until the 24hour mark. In theory, the maximum number of barcodes that can be integrated in a sequencing run can be used for the pair-wise comparison. We are using 24 barcoding kit (provided by ONT) therefore we can include up to 12 replicates per condition. We are aware that there is a 96 barcoding kit that could be used as well. However, it is important to note that with more samples integrated in the sequencing run, less reads will be generated per sample. Therefore, it is important to plan properly the number of replicates used per sequencing run.

(3) According to the manuscript, real-time analysis checks the sequencing data in a few time points, this is usually called sequential analysis or interim analysis in statistics which is usually performed in clinical trials to save cost. Care must be taken while performing these analyses, as repeated checks on the data can inflate the type I error rate. Thus, the authors should develop a sequential analysis procedure for real-time RNA sequencing.

We would like to respond to this comment by addressing two points: 1) Quality control: During the analysis we offer two main statistics, which enable scientists to assess the experimental development. For each iteration the change in relative gene counts per sample is computed to assess the convergence towards 0. Moreover, for each iteration the number of detected genes per sample is computed to assess whether the number of detected reads is saturated. These metrics allow the user to independently assess whether samples within the experimental development reach a stable state, to reveal a meaningful timepoint of data evaluation. 

Sequential analysis: One solution to lower the type 1 error during sequential analysis is using the Pocock boundary, a systematic lowering of the p-value threshold depending on the number of interim analyses. We offer in NanopoReaTA a custom choice of the p-value threshold during the analysis. This allows researchers to set their parameters as needed.  

(4) The experimental set 1 (comparison between two completely different human cell lines) and experimental set 2 (comparison among RNA preparation procedures) are not quite biologically meaningful. If it is possible, it is better for the authors to perform an experiment more similar to a real situation for biological discovery. Then the manuscript can attract more researchers to follow its guidelines.

We took the suggestion of reviewer 2 (from recommendation for authors) to perform heat-shock experimental comparison between heatshocked and non-heat shocked cells from the same cell line (HEK293). We sequenced the sample (6 replicates per condition) and one-hour postsequencing initiation, we already identified three DEGs (including HSPA1A, DNAJB1, and HSP90AA1) known to be upregulated in heat shock conditions (Yonezawa and Bono 2023, Sanchez-Briñas et al. 2023). Therefore, we illustrate how NanopoReaTA can capture biologically relevant insights in real time.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for The Authors):

(1) The comparison between two different human cell lines doesn't have much biological relevance. It would be more interesting and useful to evaluate the genes and transcripts expressed from the same cell in different conditions.

As mentioned previously, we conducted a heat-shock experimental comparison between heat-shocked and non-heat-shocked within the same cell line HEK293. We observed reliable results already within one hour of initiating the sequencing.

(2) Increase the number of replicates to give greater confidence in the results.

We have addressed the replicate issue by performing two new sets of experiments: HEK293 vs HeLa with 10 replicates per condition and heatshocked vs non-heat shock with 6 replicates per condition. In both cases, we obtained reliable and reproducible results (even when comparing with lower replicate number).

(3) One of the advantages of performing Nanopore sequencing is the possibility of sequencing RNA molecules directly. It would be interesting to test the real-time analysis strategy in parallel using direct RNA sequencing if it is possible.

That is a great point. In theory, it would be possible to perform realtime differential gene expression on direct RNA data (since the pipeline for such analysis is already integrated in NanopoReaTA), however the limiting factor is the lack of multiplexing. To perform real-time transcriptomic analysis with direct RNA-seq data, one would need to sequence at least 4 flow cells (MinION or PromethION), each containing one sample (2 flow cells per condition to perform pairwise transcriptomic analyses). Despite the possibility of such an analysis, this scenario will not be cost-effective as this will increase significantly the costs for the amount of data gathered. We are aware that ONT is planning to release a multiplexing option to direct RNA-seq in the unforeseen future. We have integrated the option of direct RNA-seq analyses for the day that such option will be available, and the users will be able to perform real-time transcriptomic analysis with dRNA-seq data.  

Some minor weakneses are below:

(4) With respect to the text as a whole, the authors should be more careful with standardization, such as mL/ml and uL/ul, Ribominus/RiboMinus.

We have standardized the nomenclature to µL, mL and Ribominus (due to trademark).  

(5) Set up paragraphs on page 9 and throughout the text when necessary.

We have set the suggested paragraphs on page 9 and throughout the text.

(6) Please, check the word form in the sentence: "To isolate the RNA form the

RiboMinus{trade mark, serif} supernatant.."

The word has been corrected.

(7) In order to make clear to the reader at the outset, I suggest including in the methodology how many biological replicates were performed for each cell type studied (cell lines and yeast strains).

_For cell line w_e have included now the number of replicates used for each replicate. We have included this also for yeast setups. 

(8) Please, check the Supplementary Tables as the word VERDADEIRO has not been translated (TRUE) in Supplementary Table 1.

This issue appears to be influenced by the language settings configured on the viewer's computer.

(9) On page 17, I suggest including the absorbance used to measure RNA concentration in HEK293 and HeLa cell lines. Also, I suggest including how the quality of the RNA extracted from the cell cultures and yeast strains was determined. Was the ratio 260/280 and 260/230 calculated? Given that the material was extracted with Trizol, which has phenol and chloroform in its composition, it would be important to evaluate the quality of the RNA, especially by calculating the 260/230 ratio.

We have included a statement regarding the concentrations and quality of RNA in the “RNA isolation” section within the material and methods.

(10) On page 18, the topic of Selective purification of ribosomal-depleted (RiboMinus) and ribosomal-enriched (RiboPlus) transcripts needs to be better detailed, especially in the last two sentences. For example: "The pooled bead samples (containing the rRNA) were further processed with Trizol RNA isolation to complete the purification." This sentence should be detailed to make it clear that this procedure is what you call ribosomal-enriched (RiboPlus).

Qualitative analysis of the material was performed after rRNA depletion and enrichment.

We have made these sentences clearer.

(9) On the topic of Direct cDNA-native barcoding Nanopore library preparation and sequencing, in the following sentences: "Concentration determination (1 μl) and adapter ligation using 5 μL NA, 10 μL NEBNext Quick Ligation Reaction Buffer (5X), and 5 μL Quick T4 DNA Ligase (NEB, cat # E6056) were performed. Pooled library purification with 0.7X AMPure XP Beads resulted in a final elution volume of 33 μl EB. Concentration of the pooled barcoded library was determined using Qubit (1 μl)."

Two concentration determinations were performed, before and after adapter ligation. I suggest writing one sentence for concentration determination and another for adapter ligation.

We applied the reviewer’s suggestion. 

(11) In the section Experimental Design in Results, the first sentences are part of the methodology and are described in materials and methods. I suggest removing it from the results and rewriting the text. Results of the RNA extraction methodology and library preparation were shown in supplementary material. Thus, the authors could mention that the results were presented in supplementary material.

We have revised this section to remove the details of RNA extraction and library preparation, focusing instead on the pipeline and experimental setups. The methodology is outlined in Figure 1, as well as in the materials and methods and the supplementary figures for each experimental setup.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

For major weakness 4 described in the Public Review, the authors could try experiments like:

(1) comparison between females and males of tissues or primary cells; or

(2) comparison between cell lines before and after heat shock.

They are easy to perform and much more similar to real experimental designs for discovery, and the authors may actually have some new findings because usually people do not do much investigation on the isoform level using mRNA-seq.

We thank the reviewer for their suggestions. We performed the heat-shock experimental comparison between heat-shocked and non-heat shocked cells from the same cell line (HEK293). We sequenced the sample (6 replicates per condition) and already one-hour post-sequencing initiation, we identified three DEGs including HSPA1A, DNAJB1, and HSP90AA1 reported to be upregulated heat shock conditions (Yonezawa and Bono 2023, Sanchez-Briñas et al. 2023). We have identified one differentially expressed isoform and included it in the main figure.

There are two minor weaknesses:

(1) Many figure numbers in the main text are wrong, including:

Page 4, "similarity plot and principal component analysis (PCA) (Figure 1B, 1C)";

Page 7, "same intervals as mentioned earlier (Figure 1A)", and "Next, we inspected the PCA and dissimilarity plots (Figure 2B";

Page 10, "process (Supplementary Figure 19A) until the 24-hour PSI mark point (Figure 9B", and "NEW1 was the sole differentially expressed gene (Figure 9D)".

The authors should be more careful about this. It is very confusing for readers.

We have addressed these points in the text. 

(2) The texts in the figures are too small to recognize, especially in Figures 4 and 5. The reason is that there are too many sub-figures in one figure. Is that really necessary to put more than 20 sub-figures in one? The authors should better summarize their results. For example, remove sub-figures with little information; do not show figures with the same styles again and again in the main text and just summarize them instead.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have updated the figure to focus on the most relevant comparisons (new1Δ-pEV vs. WT-pEV and rkr1Δ-pEV vs. WT-pEV), providing a clearer and more realistic comparison between mutant and wild-type conditions in the main figure. Additionally, a summary and all related comparisons are included in Supplementary Documents S4 and S5. We believe these supplementary figures are essential to demonstrate NanopoReaTA's capabilities as a quality control tool, effectively detecting expected transcriptomic alterations in real-time.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have developed self-amplifying RNAs (saRNAs) encoding additional genes to suppress dsRNA-related inflammatory responses and cytokine release. Their results demonstrate that saRNA constructs encoding anti-inflammatory genes effectively reduce cytotoxicity and cytokine production, enhancing the potential of saRNAs. This work is significant for advancing saRNA therapeutics by mitigating unintended immune activation.

Strengths:

This study successfully demonstrates the concept of enhancing saRNA applications by encoding immune-suppressive genes. A key challenge for saRNA-based therapeutics, particularly for non-vaccine applications, is the innate immune response triggered by dsRNA recognition. By leveraging viral protein properties to suppress immunity, the authors provide a novel strategy to overcome this limitation. The study presents a well-designed approach with potential implications for improving saRNA stability and minimizing inflammatory side effects.

We thank Reviewer #1 for their thorough review and for recognizing both the significance of our work and the potential of our strategy to expand saRNA applications beyond vaccines.

Weaknesses:

(1) Impact on Cellular Translation:

The authors demonstrate that modified saRNAs with additional components enhance transgene expression by inhibiting dsRNA-sensing pathways. However, it is unclear whether these modifications influence global cellular translation beyond the expression of GFP and mScarlet-3 (which are encoded by the saRNA itself). Conducting a polysome profiling analysis or a puromycin labeling assay would clarify whether the modified saRNAs alter overall translation efficiency. This additional data would strengthen the conclusions regarding the specificity of dsRNA-sensing inhibition.

We thank the Reviewer for this insightful suggestion. We performed a puromycin labeling assay to assess global translation rates (Figure 3—figure supplement 1c). This experiment revealed that the E3 construct significantly reduces global protein synthesis, despite driving high levels of saRNAencoded transgene expression (Figure 1d, e). In contrast, the E3-NSs-L* construct mitigated this reduction in global translation while maintaining moderate transgene expression. These findings support our hypothesis that E3 enhances transgene output in part by activating RNase L, which degrades host mRNAs and thereby reduces ribosomal competition. We appreciate the Reviewer’s recommendation of this experiment, which has strengthened the manuscript.

(2) Stability and Replication Efficiency of Long saRNA Constructs:

The saRNA constructs used in this study exceed 16 kb, making them more fragile and challenging to handle. Assessing their mRNA integrity and quality would be crucial to ensure their robustness.

Furthermore, the replicative capacity of the designed saRNAs should be confirmed. Since Figure 4 shows lower inflammatory cytokine production when encoding srIkBα and srIkBαSmad7-SOCS1, it is important to determine whether this effect is due to reduced immune activation or impaired replication. Providing data on replication efficiency and expression levels of the encoded anti-inflammatory proteins would help rule out the possibility that reduced cytokine production is a consequence of lower replication.

We thank the Reviewer for these valuable suggestions.

To assess the integrity of the saRNA constructs, we performed denaturing gel electrophoresis (Supplemental Figure 6c). The native saRNA, E3, and E3-NSs-L* constructs each migrated as a single band. The moxBFP, srIκBα, and srIκBα-Smad7-SOCS1 constructs showed both a full-length transcript and a lower-abundance truncated band (Supplemental Figure 6d), suggestive of a cryptic terminator sequence introduced in a region common to these three constructs.

To evaluate replicative capacity, we performed qPCR targeting EGFP, which is encoded by all constructs. This analysis revealed that the srIκBα-Smad7-SOCS1 construct exhibited lower replication efficiency than both native saRNA and E3. Several factors may contribute to this difference, including the longer transcript length, reduced molar input when equal mass was used for transfection, prevention of host mRNA degradation due to RNase L inhibition, or the presence of truncated transcripts.

Given these confounding variables, we revised our approach to analyzing cytokine production. Rather than comparing all six constructs together, we split the analysis into two parts: (1) the effects of dsRNA-sensing pathway inhibition (Figure 4a), and (2) the effects of inflammatory signalling inhibition (Figure 4c). For the latter, we compared srIκBα and srIκBα-Smad7-SOCS1 to moxBFP, as these three constructs are more comparable in size, share the same truncated transcript, and all encode L* to inhibit RNase L. This strategy minimizes the likelihood that differences in the cytokine responses are due to variation in replication efficiency.

(3) Comparative Data with Native saRNA:

Including native saRNA controls in Figures 5-7 would allow for a clearer assessment of the impact of additional genes on cytokine production. This comparison would help distinguish the effect of the encoded suppressor proteins from other potential factors.

We thank the Reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We have added the native saRNA condition to Figure 5 as a visual reference. However, due to the presence of truncated transcripts in the constructs designed to inhibit inflammatory signalling pathways, the actual amount of full-length saRNA delivered in these conditions is likely lower than expected, despite using equal total RNA mass for transfection. This complicates direct comparisons with constructs targeting dsRNAsensing pathways, which do not show transcript truncation. For this reason, native saRNA was included only as a visual reference and was not used in statistical comparisons with the inflammatory signalling inhibitor constructs.

(4) In vivo Validation and Safety Considerations:

Have the authors considered evaluating the in vivo potential of these saRNA constructs? Conducting animal studies would provide stronger evidence for their therapeutic applicability. If in vivo experiments have not been performed, discussing potential challenges - such as saRNA persistence, biodistribution, and possible secondary effectswould be valuable.

(5) Immune Response to Viral Proteins:

Since the inhibitors of dsRNA-sensing proteins (E3, NSs, and L*) are viral proteins, they would be expected to induce an immune response. Analyzing these effects in vivo would add insight into the applicability of this approach.

We appreciate the Reviewer’s points regarding in vivo validation and safety considerations. While in vivo studies are beyond the scope of the present investigation, we agree that evaluating therapeutic potential, biodistribution, persistence, and secondary effects will be essential for future translation. We have now included a brief discussion of these considerations at the end of the revised discussion. In ongoing work, we are planning follow-up studies incorporating in vivo imaging and functional assessments of saRNA-driven cargo delivery in preclinical models of inflammatory joint pain.

Regarding the immune response to viral proteins, we agree that this is an important consideration and have now included a clearer discussion of this limitation in the revised manuscript. Specifically, we highlight that encoding multiple viral inhibitors (E3, NSs, and L*), in combination with the VEEV replicase, may increase the likelihood of adaptive immune recognition via MHC class I presentation. This could lead to cytotoxic T cell–mediated clearance of saRNA-transfected cells, thereby limiting therapeutic durability. We emphasize that addressing both intrinsic cytotoxicity and immune-mediated clearance will be essential for advancing the clinical potential of this platform.

(6) Streamlining the Discussion Section:

The discussion is quite lengthy. To improve readability, some content - such as the rationale for gene selection-could be moved to the Results section. Additionally, the descriptions of Figure 3 should be consolidated into a single section under a broader heading for improved coherence.

Thank you for these helpful suggestions. We have streamlined the Discussion to improve readability and have moved the rationale for gene selection to the results section, as recommended. In addition, we have consolidated the Figure 3 descriptions to improve coherence and to simplify the presentation.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Lim et al. have developed a self-amplifying RNA (saRNA) design that incorporates immunomodulatory viral proteins, and show that the novel design results in enhanced protein expression in vitro in mouse primary fibroblast-like synoviocytes. They test constructs including saRNA with the vaccinia virus E3 protein and another with E3, Toscana virus NS protein and Theiler's virus L protein (E3 + NS + L), and another with srIκBα-Smad7SOCS1. They have also tested whether ML336, an antiviral, enables control of transgene expression.

Strengths:

The experiments are generally well-designed and offer mechanistic insight into the RNAsensing pathways that confer enhanced saRNA expression. The experiments are carried out over a long timescale, which shows the enhance effect of the saRNA E3 design compared to the control. Furthermore, the inhibitors are shown to maintain the cell number, and reduce basal activation factor-⍺ levels.

We thank Reviewer #2 for their thoughtful and detailed assessment of our manuscript, and for recognizing the mechanistic insights provided by our study. We also appreciate their positive comments on the experimental design, the extended timescale, and the observed effects on transgene expression, cell viability, and basal fibroblast activation factor-α levels.

Weaknesses:

One limitation of this manuscript is that the RNA is not well characterized; some of the constructs are quite long and the RNA integrity has not been analyzed. Furthermore, for constructs with multiple proteins, it's imperative to confirm the expression of each protein to confirm that any therapeutic effect is from the effector protein (e.g. E3, NS, L). The ML336 was only tested at one concentration; it is standard in the field to do a dose-response curve. These experiments were all done in vitro in mouse cells, thus limiting the conclusion we can make about mechanisms in a human system.

Thank you for your detailed feedback. We have added new experiments and clarified limitations in the revised manuscript to address these concerns:

RNA integrity: We performed denaturing gel electrophoresis on the in vitro transcribed saRNA constructs (Supplemental Figure 7c). Constructs targeting dsRNA-sensing pathways migrated as a single band, while those targeting inflammatory signalling pathways showed both a full-length product and a common, lower-abundance truncated transcript. This suggests that the actual amount of full-length RNA delivered for the constructs inhibiting inflammatory signalling was overestimated. To account for this, we avoided direct comparisons between the two types of constructs and instead focused on comparisons within each type to ensure more meaningful interpretation.

Confirmation of protein expression: While we acknowledge that direct measurement of each protein would provide additional insight, we believe the functional assays presented offer strong evidence that the encoded proteins are expressed and exert their intended biological effects. Additionally, IRES functionality was confirmed visually using fluorescent protein reporters, supporting the successful expression of downstream genes.

ML336 concentration–response: We have now performed a concentration–response analysis for ML336 (Figure 8a and b), which demonstrates its ability to modulate transgene expression in a concentration-dependent manner.

Use of human cells: We agree that testing these constructs in human cells is essential for future translational applications and are actively exploring opportunities to evaluate them in patientderived FLS. However, previous studies have shown that Theiler’s virus L* does not inhibit human RNase L (Sorgeloos et al., PLoS Pathog 2013). As a result, it is highly likely that the E3-NSs-L* construct will not function as intended in human systems. Addressing this limitation will be a priority in our future work, where we aim to develop constructs incorporating inhibitors specific to human RNase L to ensure efficacy in human cells.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

Figure 2c is not indicated.

Thank you for pointing out this error. It has now been corrected in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) The Graphical Abstract is a bit confusing; suggest modifying it to represent the study and findings more accurately.

We have revised the graphical abstract to improve clarity and better reflect the study’s design and main findings. Thank you for the suggestion.

(2) The impact of this paper would be greatly improved if these experiments were repeated, at least partially, in human cells. The rationale for mouse cells in vitro is unclear.

The rationale for developing constructs targeting mouse cells is based on our intention to utilize these constructs in mouse models of inflammatory joint pain in future studies.

We recognize that incorporating data from human cells would significantly enhance the translational relevance of our work, and we are actively pursuing collaborations to test these constructs in patient-derived FLS. However, a key component of our saRNA constructs—Theiler’s virus L*—has been shown to inhibit mouse, but not human, RNase L (Sorgeloos et al., PLoS Pathog 2013). Consequently, the E3-NSs-L* polyprotein may not function as intended in human cells. To address this limitation, future work will focus on developing constructs that incorporate inhibitors specific to human RNase L, thereby facilitating more effective translation of our findings to human systems.

(3) The ML336 was only tested at one concentration and works mildly well, but would be more impactful if tested in a dose-response curve.

We have now performed a concentration–response analysis for ML336 (Figure 8a and b), which demonstrates its concentration-dependent effects on transgene expression and saRNA elimination. Thank you for the suggestion.

(4) Overall, there is not a cohesive narrative to the story, instead it comes off as we tried these three different approaches, and they worked in different contexts.

We have revised the graphical abstract, results, and discussion to improve the cohesiveness of the manuscript’s narrative and to better integrate the mechanistic rationale linking the different approaches. We appreciate the feedback.

(5) The title is not supported by the data; the saRNA is still somewhat cytotoxic, immunostimulatory and the antiviral minimally controls transgene expression; suggest making this reflect the data.

We have revised the title to better reflect the scope of the data and the mechanistic focus of the study. The updated title emphasizes the pathways targeted and the outcomes demonstrated, while avoiding overstatement. Thank you for this helpful recommendation.

Author response:

We would like to thank the reviewers and the editorial team for all their thoughtful and constructive feedback. The reviewers provided many helpful comments which we will work to incorporate in our resubmission as we believe they will significantly enhance the quality of our manuscript.

An overarching critique shared among reviewers was regarding limitations in our datasets. Namely, lower N-values for certain groups make some conclusions less reliable. We acknowledge this limitation and will add more experiments to address this concern. Additionally, attention was drawn to our reliance on using the generalized linear model (GLM) for making claims about rebalancing and learning-related changes. To address this, we will work to include additional analyses such as ACC spike-triggered average CA1sup responses, cross-covariances between ACC and CA1sup cells in post-task sleep, and ripple-triggered cross-correlations, among others as per reviewer recommendations. We will also provide a deeper analysis of the weights CA1 neuron in our GLM analysis and their specific features during learning. In accordance, we will provide a clearer description of our learning paradigm including performance data for each animal and how performance relates to our analyses. Overall, we will include more analyses of our datasets across various task events such as recall, to make more efficient use of the full repertoire of our recordings.

Concerns were also raised regarding some aspects of our statistical analyses. During revision, we will ensure we select the most appropriate statistical measure for each of our tests. Our paper implements the use of tetrode recordings to assess sublayer identification. This approach comes with limitations, and in our resubmission, we will provide a more detailed explanation of those limitations along with a more thorough description of our measures to mitigate them.

Lastly, in our follow-up submission we will work to improve the written clarity of findings. Specifically, we will simplify and better explain our findings and provide clearer justification for our interpretations and choice of analyses.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

A) The presentation of the paper must be strengthened. Inconsistencies, mislabelling, duplicated text, typos, and inappropriate colour code should be changed.

We spotted and corrected several inconsistencies and mislabelling issues throughout the text and figures. Thanks!  

B) Some claims are not supported by the data. For example, the sentence that says that "adolescent mice showed lower discrimination performance than adults (l.22) should be rewritten, as the data does not show that for the easy task (Figure 1F and Figure 1H).

We carefully reviewed the specific claims and fixed some of the wording so it adheres to the data shown.

C) In Figure 7 for example, are the quantified properties not distinct across primary and secondary areas?

We now carried out additional analysis to test this. We found that while AUDp and AUDv exhibit distinct tuning properties, they show similar differences between adolescent and adult neurons (see Supplementary Table 6, Fig. S7-1a-h). Note that TEa and AUDd could not be evaluated due to low numbers of modulated neurons in this protocol.

D) Some analysis interpretations should be more cautious. (..) A lower lick rate in general could reflect a weaker ability to withhold licking- as indicated on l.164, but also so many other things, like a lower frustration threshold, lower satiation, more energy, etc).

That is a fair comment, and we refined our interpretations. Moreover, we also addressed whether impulsiveness impacted lick rates. In the Educage, we found that adolescent mice had shorter ITIs only after FAs (Fig. S2-1). In the head-fixed setup, we examined (1) the proportion of ITIs where licks occurred (Fig. S3-1c) and (2) the number of licks in these ITIs (Fig. S3-1d). We found no differences between adolescents and adults, indicating that the differences observed in the main task are not due to general differences in impulsiveness (Fig. S2-1, Fig. S3-1c, d). Finally, we note that potential differences in satiation were already addressed in the original manuscript by carefully examining the number of trials completed across the session. See also Review 3, comment #1 below.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

A) For some of the analyses that the authors conducted it is unclear what the rationale behind them is and, consequently, what conclusion we can draw from them.

We reviewed the manuscript carefully and revised the relevant sections to clarify the rationale behind the analyses. See detailed responses to all the reviewer’s specific comments.

B) The results of optogenetic manipulation, while very interesting, warrant a more in-depth discussion.

We expanded our discussion on these experiments (L495-511) and also added an additional analysis to strengthen our findings (Fig. S3-2e).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

(1) The authors report that "adolescent mice showed lower auditory discrimination performance compared to adults" and that this performance deficit was due to (among other things) "weaker cognitive control". I'm not fully convinced of this interpretation, for a few reasons. First, the adolescents may simply have been thirstier, and therefore more willing to lick indiscriminately. The high false alarm rates in that case would not reflect a "weaker cognitive control" but rather, an elevated homeostatic drive to obtain water. Second, even the adult animals had relatively high (~40%) false alarm rates on the freely moving version of the task, suggesting that their behavior was not particularly well controlled either. One fact that could help shed light on this would be to know how often the animals licked the spout in between trials. Finally, for the head-fixed version of the task, only d' values are reported. Without the corresponding hit and false alarm rates (and frequency of licking in the intertrial interval), it's hard to know what exactly the animals were doing.

irst, as requested, we added the Hit rates and FA rates for the head-fixed task (Fig. S3-1a). Second, as requested by the reviewr, we performed additional analyses in both the Educage and head-fixed versions of the task. Specifically, we analyzed the ITI duration following each trial outcome. We found that adolescent mice had shorter ITIs only after Fas (Fig. S2-1). In the head-fixed setup, we examined (1) the proportion of ITIs during which licks occurred (Fig. S3-1c) and (2) the number of licks in these ITIs (Fig. S3-1d). We found no differences between adolescents and adults, indicating that the differences observed in the main task are not due to general differences in impulsiveness (Fig. S2-1, Fig. S3-1c, d). See also comment #D of reviewer #1 above.

B) There are some instances where the citations provided do not support the preceding claim. For example, in lines 64-66, the authors highlight the fact that the critical period for pure tone processing in the auditory cortex closes relatively early (by ~P15). However, one of the references cited (ref 14) used FM sweeps, not pure tones, and even provided evidence that the critical period for this more complex stimulus occurred later in development (P31-38). Similarly, on lines 72-74, the authors state that "ACx neurons in adolescents exhibit high neuronal variability and lower tone sensitivity as compared to adults." The reference cited here (ref 4) used AM noise with a broadband carrier, not tones.

We carefully checked the text to ensure that each claim is accurately supported by the corresponding reference.

C) Given that the authors report that neuronal firing properties differ across auditory cortical subregions (as many others have previously reported), why did the authors choose to pool neurons indiscriminately across so many different brain regions?

We appreciate the reviewer’s concern. While we acknowledge that pooling neurons across auditory cortical subregions may obscure region-specific effects, our primary focus in this study is on developmental differences between adolescents and adults, which were far more pronounced than subregional differences.

To address this potential limitation: (1) We analyzed firing differences across subregions during task engagement (see Fig. S4-1, S4-2, S4-3; Supplementary Tables 2 and 3). (2) We have now added new analyses for the passive listening condition in AUDp and AUDv (Fig. S7-1; Supplementary Table 6).

These analyses support our conclusion that developmental stage has a greater impact on auditory cortical activity than subregional location in the contexts examined. For clarity and cohesion, the main text emphasizes developmental differences, while subregional analyses are presented in the Supplement.

D) And why did they focus on layers 5/6? (Is there some reason to think that age-related differences would be more pronounced in the output layers of the auditory cortex than in other layers?)

We agree that other cortical layers, particularly supragranular layers, are important for auditory processing and plasticity. Our focus on layers 5/6 was driven by both methodological and biological considerations. Methodologically, our electrode penetrations were optimized to span multiple auditory cortical areas, and deeper layers provided greater mechanical stability for chronic recordings. Biologically, layers 5/6 contain the principal output neurons of the auditory cortex and are well-positioned to influence downstream decision-making circuits. We acknowledge the limitation of our recordings to these layers in the manuscript (L268; L464-8).

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) The presentation of the paper must be strengthened. As it is now, it makes it difficult to appreciate the strengths of the results. Here are some points that should be addressed:

a) The manuscript is full of inconsistencies that should be fixed to improve the reader's understanding. For example, the description on l.217 and the Figure. S3-1b, the D' value of 0 rounded to 0.01 on l. 735 (isn't it rather the z-scored value that is rounded? A D' of 0 is not a problem), the definition of lick bias on l. 750 and the values in Fig.2, the legend of Figure 7F and what is displayed on the graph (is it population sparseness or responsiveness?), etc.

We adjusted the legend and description of former Fig. S3-1b (now Fig. S3-2b).

We now clarify that the rounded values refer to z-scored hit and false alarm rates that we used in the d’ calculation. We adjusted the definition of the lick bias in Fig. 2 and Fig. S3-1b (L804).

We replaced ‘population responsiveness’ with ‘population sparseness’ throughout the figures, legend and the text.

b) References to figures are sometimes wrong (for example on l. 737,739).

c) Some text is duplicated (for example l. 814 and l. 837).

d) Typos should be corrected (for example l. 127, 'the', l. 787, 'upto').

We deleted the incorrect references of this section, removed the duplicated text, and corrected the typos.

e) Color code should be changed (for example the shades of blue for easy and hard tasks - they are extremely difficult to differentiate).

After consideration, we decided to retain the blue color code (i.e., Fig. 1d, Fig. 3d, Fig. 4e-g, Fig. 5c, Fig. 6d–g), where the distinction between the shades of blue appears sufficiently clear and maintains visual consistency and aesthetic appeal. We did however, made changes in the other color codes (Fig. 4, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7).

f) Figure design should be improved. For example, why is a different logic used for displaying Figure 5A or B and Figure 1E?

We adjusted the color scheme in Fig. 5. We chose to represent the data in Fig. 5 according to task difficulty, as this arrangement best illustrates the more pronounced deficits in population decoding in adolescents during the hard task.

f) Why use a 3D representation in Figure 4G? (2)

The 3D representation in Fig. 4g was chosen to illustrate the 3-way interactions between onset-latency, maximal discriminability, and duration of discrimination.

g) Figure 1A, lower right panel- should "response" not be completed by "lick", "no lick"?

We changed the labels to “Lick” and “No Lick” in Fig. 1a.

h) l.18 the age mentioned is misleading, because the learning itself actually started 20 days earlier than what is cited here.

Corrected.

i) Explain what AAV5-... is on l.212.

We added an explanation of virus components (see L216-220).

(2) The comparison of CV in Figure 2 H-J is interesting. I am curious to know whether the differences in the easy and hard tasks could be due to a decrease in CV in adults, rather than an increase in CV in adolescents? Also, could the difference in J be due to 3 outliers?

We agree that the observed CV differences may reflect a reduction in variability in adults rather than an increase in adolescents. We have revised the Results section accordingly to acknowledge this interpretation.

Regarding the concern about potential outliers in Fig. 2J, we tested the data for outliers using the isoutlier function in MATLAB (defining outliers as values exceeding three standard deviations from the mean) and found no such cases.

(3) Figure 2c shows that there is no difference in perceptual sensitivity between adolescents and adults, whereas the conclusion from Figure 4 is that adolescents exhibit lower discriminability in stimulus-related activity. Aren't these results contradictory?

This is a nuanced point. The similar slopes of the psychometric functions (Fig. 2c) indicating comparable perceptual sensitivity and the lower AUC observed in the ACx of adolescents (Fig. 4) do not necessarily contradict each other. These two measures capture related but distinct issues: psychometric slopes reflect behavioral output, which integrates both sensory encoding and processing downstream to ACx, while the AUC analysis reflects stimulus-related neural activity in ACx, which may still include decision-related components.<br /> Note that stimulus-related neural discriminability outside the context of the task is not different between adolescent and adult experts (Fig. 7h; p = 0.9374, Kruskal Willis Test after Tukey-Kramer correction for multiple comparisons; not discussed in the manuscript). This suggests that there are differences that emerge when we measure during behavior. Also note that behavior may rely on processing beyond ACx, and it is possible that downstream areas compensate for weaker cortical discriminability in adolescents — but this issue merits further investigation.

(4) Why do you think that the discrimination in hard tasks decreases with learning (Figure 6D vs Figure 6F)?

This is another nuanced point, and we can only speculate at this stage. While it may appear counterintuitive that single-neuron discriminability (AUC) for the hard task is reduced after learning (Fig. 6D vs. 6F), we believe this may reflect a shift in sensory coding in expert animals. In a recent study (Haimson et al., 2024; Science Advances), we found that learning alters single-neuron responses in the easy versus hard task in complex and distinct ways, which may account for this result. It is also possible that, in expert mice, top-down mechanisms such as feedback from higher-order areas act to suppress or stabilize sensory responses in auditory cortex, reducing the apparent stimulus selectivity of single neurons (e.g., AUC), even as behaviorally relevant information is preserved or enhanced at the population level.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

This is very interesting work and I enjoyed reading the manuscript. See below for my comments, queries and suggestions, which I hope will help you improve an already very good paper.

We thank the reviewer for the meticulous and thoughtful review.

(1) Line 107: x-axis of panel 1e says 'pre-adolescent'.

(2) Line 130: replace 'less' with 'fewer'.

(3) Line 153: 'both learned and catch trials': I find the terminology here a bit confusing. I would typically understand a catch trial to be a trial without a stimulus but these 'catch' trials here have a stimulus. It's just that they are not rewarded/punished. What about calling them probe trials instead?

We corrected the labelling (1), reworded to ‘fewer’ and ‘probe trials’ (2,3).

(4) Line 210: The results of the optogenetics experiments are very interesting. In particular, because the effect is so dramatic and much bigger than what has been reported in the literature previously, I believe. Lick rates are dramatically reduced suggesting that the mice have pretty much stopped engaging in the task and the authors very rightly state that the 'execution' of the behavior is affected. I think it would be worth discussing the implications of these results more thoroughly, perhaps also with respect to some of the lesion work. Useful discussions on the topic can be found, for instance, in Otchy et al., 2015; Hong et al., 2018; O'Sullivan et al., 2019; Ceballo et al., 2019 and Lee et al., 2024. Are the mice unable to hear anything in laser trials and that is why they stopped licking? If they merely had trouble distinguishing them then we would perhaps expect the psychometric curves to approach chance level, i.e. to be flat near the line indicating a lick rate of 0.5. Could the dramatic decrease in lick rate be a motor issue? Can we rule out spillover of the virus to relevant motor areas? (I understand all of the 200nL of the virus were injected at a single location) Or are the effects much more dramatic than what has been reported previously simply because the GtACR2 is much more effective at silencing the auditory cortex? Could the effect be down to off-target effects, e.g. by removing excitation from a target area of the auditory cortex, rather than the disruption of cortical processing?

We have now expanded the discussion in the manuscript to more thoroughly consider alternative interpretations of the strong behavioral effect observed during ACx silencing (L495–511). In particular, we acknowledge that the suppression of licking may reflect not only impaired sensory discrimination but also broader disruptions to arousal, motivation, or motor readiness. We also discuss the potential impact of viral spread, circuit-level off-target effects, and the potency of GtACR2 as possible contributors. We highlight the need for future work using more graded or temporally precise manipulations to resolve these issues.

(5) Line 226: Reference 19 (Talwar and Gerstein 2001) is not particularly relevant as it is mostly concerned with microstimulation-induced A1 plasticity. There are, however, several other papers that should be cited (and potentially discussed) in this context. In particular, O'Sullivan et al., 2019 and Ceballo et al., 2019 as these papers investigate the effects of optogenetic silencing on frequency discrimination in head-fixed mice and find relatively modest impairments. Also relevant may be Kato et al., 2015 and Lee et al., 2024, although they look at sound detection rather than discrimination.

We changed the references and pointed the reader to the (new section) Discussion.

(6) Line 253: 'engaged [in] the task.

(7) Figure 4: It appears that panel S4-1d is not referred to anywhere in the main text.

Fixed.

(8) Line 260: Might be useful to explain a bit more about the motivation behind focusing on L5/L6. Are there mostly theoretical considerations, i.e. would we expect the infragranular layers to be more relevant for understanding the difference in task performance? Or were there also practical considerations, e. g. did the data set contain mostly L5/L6 neurons because those were easier to record from given the angle at which the probe was inserted? If those kinds of practical considerations played a role, then there is nothing wrong with that but it would be helpful to explain them for the benefit of others who might try a similar recording approach.

There were no deep theoretical considerations for targeting L5/6.  Our focus on layers 5/6 was driven by both methodological and biological considerations. Methodologically, our electrode penetrations were optimized to span multiple auditory cortical areas, and deeper layers provided greater mechanical stability for chronic recordings. Biologically, layers 5/6 contain the principal output neurons of the auditory cortex and are well-positioned to influence downstream decision-making circuits. We acknowledge the limitation of our recordings to these layers in the manuscript (L268; L463–467). See also comment D of reviewer 3.

(9) Supplementary Table 2: The numbers in brackets indicate fractions rather than percentages.

Fixed.

(10) Figure S4-3: The figure legend implies that the number of neurons with significant discriminability for the hard stimulus and significant discriminability for choice was identical. (adolescent neurons = 368, mice = 5, recordings = 10; adult n = 544, mice = 6, recordings = 12 in both cases). Presumably, that is not actually the case and rather the result of a copy/paste operation gone wrong. Furthermore, I think it would be helpful to state the fractions of neurons that can discriminate between the stimuli and between the choices that the animal made in the main text.

Thank you for spotting the mistake. We corrected the n’s and added the percentage of neurons that discriminate stimulus and choice in the main text and the figure legend.

(11) Line 301: 'We used a ... decoder to quantify hit versus correct reject trial outcomes': I'm not sure I understand the rationale here. For the single unit analysis hit and false alarm trials were compared to assess their ability to discriminate the stimuli. FA and CR trials were compared to assess whether neurons can encode the choice of the mice. But the hit and CR trials which are contrasted here differ in terms of both stimulus and behavior/choice so what is supposed to be decoded here, what is supposed to be achieved with this analysis?

Thank you for this important point. You're correct that comparing hit and CR trials captures differences in both stimulus and choice, or task-related differences. We chose this contrast for the population decoding analysis to achieve higher trial counts per session and similar number of trials which are necessary for the reliability of the analysis. While this approach does not isolate stimulus from choice encoding, it provides an overall measure of how well population activity distinguishes task-relevant outcomes. We explicitly acknowledge this issue in L313-314.

(12) Line 332: What do you mean when you say the novice mice were 'otherwise fully engaged' in the task when they were not trained to do the task and are not doing the task?

By "otherwise fully engaged," we mean that novice mice were actively participating in the task environment, similar to expert mice — they were motivated by thirst and licked the spout to obtain water. The key distinction is that novice mice had not yet learned the task rules and likely relied on trial-and-error strategies, rather than performing the task proficiently.

(13) Line 334: 'regardless of trial outcome': Why is the trial outcome not taken into account? What is the rationale for this analysis? Furthermore, in novice mice a substantial proportion of the 'go' trials are misses. In expert mice, however, the proportion of 'miss trials' (and presumably false alarms) will by definition be much smaller. Given this, I find it difficult to interpret the results of this section.

This approach was chosen to reliably decode a sufficient number of trials for each task difficulty (i.e. expert mice predominantly performed CRs on No-Go trials and novice mice often showed FAs). Utilizing all trial outcomes ensured that we had enough trials for each stimulus type to accurately estimate the AUCs. This approach avoids introducing biases due to uneven trial numbers across learning stages.

(14) Line 378: 'differences between adolescents and adults arise primarily from age': Are there differences in any of the metrics shown in 7e-h between adolescents and adults?

We confirm that differences between adolescents and adults are indeed present in some metrics but not others in Figure 7e–h. Specifically, while tuning bandwidth was similar in novice animals, it was significantly lower in adult experts (Fig. 7e; novice: p = 0.0882; expert: p = 0.0001 Kruskal Willis Test after Tukey-Kramer correction for multiple comparisons; not discussed in the manuscript). The population sparseness was similar in both novice and expert adolescent and adult neurons (Fig. 7f; novice: p = 0.2873; expert: p = 0.1017, Kruskal Willis Test after Tukey-Kramer correction for multiple comparisons; not discussed in the manuscript). The distance to the easy go stimulus was similar in novice animals, but lower in adult experts (Fig. 7g; novice: p = 0.7727; expert: p = 0.0001, Kruskal Willis Test after Tukey-Kramer correction for multiple comparisons; not discussed in the manuscript). The neuronal d-prime was similar in both novice and expert adolescent and adult neurons (Fig. 7h; novice: p = 0.7727; expert: p = 0.0001, Kruskal Willis Test after Tukey-Kramer correction for multiple comparisons; not discussed in the manuscript).

(15) Line 475: '...well and beyond...': something seems to be missing in this statement.

(16) Line 487: 'onto' should be 'into', I think.

(17) Line 610 and 613: '3 seconds' ... '2.5 seconds': Was the response window 3s or 2.5s?

(18) Line 638: 'set' should be 'setup', I believe.

All the mistakes mentioned above, were fixed. Thanks.

(19) Line 643: 'Reward-reinforcement was delayed to 0.5 seconds after the tone offset': Presumably, if they completed their fifth lick later than 0.5 seconds after the tone, the reward delivery was also delayed?

Apologies for the lack of clarity. In the head-fixed version, there was no lick threshold. Mice were reinforced after a single lick. If that lick occurred after the 0.5-second reinforcement delay following tone offset, the reward or punishment was delivered immediately upon licking.

(20) Line 661: 'effect [of] ACx'.

(21) Line 680: 'a base-station connected to chassis'. The sentence sounds incomplete.

(22) Line 746: 'infliction', I believe, should say 'inflection'.

(23) Line 769: 'non-auditory responsive units': Shouldn't that simply say 'non-responsive units'? The way it is currently written I understand it to mean that these units were responsive (to some other modality perhaps) but not to auditory stimulation.

(24) Line 791: 'bins [of] 50ms'.

(25) Line 811: 'all of' > 'of all'.

(26) Line 814: Looks like the previous paragraph on single unit analysis was accidentally repeated under the wrong heading.

(27) Line 817: 'encoded' should say 'calculated', I believe.

All the mistakes mentioned above were fixed. Thanks.

(28) Line 869: 'bandwidth of excited units': Not sure I understand how exactly the bandwidth, i.e. tuning width was measured.

We acknowledge that our previous answer was unclear and expanded the Methods section. To calculate bandwidth, we identified significant tone-evoked responses by comparing activity during the tone window to baseline firing rates at 62 dB SPL (p < 0.05). For each neuron, we counted the number of contiguous frequencies with significant excitatory responses, subtracting isolated false positives to correct for chance. We then converted this count into an octave-based bandwidth by multiplying the number of frequency bins by the octave spacing between them (0.1661 octaves per step).

(29) Line 871: 'population sparseness': Is that the fraction of tone frequencies that produced a significant response? I would have thought that this measure is very highly correlated to your measure of bandwidth, to the point of being redundant, but I may have misunderstood how one or the other is calculated. Furthermore, the Y label of Figure 7f says 'responsiveness' rather than sparseness and that would seem to be the more appropriate term because, unless I am misunderstanding this, a larger value here implies that the neuron responded to more frequencies, i.e. in a less sparse manner.

We have clarified the use of the term "population sparseness" and updated the Y-axis label in Figure 7f to better reflect this measure. This metric reflects the fraction of tone–attenuation combinations that elicited a significant excitatory response across the entire population of neurons, not within individual units.

While this measure is related to bandwidth, it captures a distinct property of the data. Bandwidth quantifies how broadly or narrowly a single neuron responds across frequencies at a fixed intensity, whereas population sparseness reflects how distributed responsiveness is across the population as a whole. Although the two measures are related, since broadly tuned neurons often contribute to lower population sparseness, they capture distinct aspects of neural coding and are not redundant.

(30) Line 881: I think this line should refer to Figure 7h rather than 7g.

Fixed.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) In the Educage, water was only available when animals engaged in the task; however, there is no mention of whether/how animal weight was monitored.

In the Educage, mice had continuous access to water by voluntarily engaging in the task, which they could perform at any time. Although body weight was not directly monitored, water access was essentially ad libitum, and mice performed hundreds of trials per day, thereby ensuring sufficient daily intake. This approach allowed us to monitor hydration (ad libitum food is supplied in the home cage). The 24/7 setup, including automated monitoring of trial counts and water consumption, was reviewed and approved by our institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC).

(2) In Figure 2B-C and Figure 2E, the y-axis reads "lick rate". At first glance, I took this to mean "the frequency of licking" (i.e. an animal typically licks at a rate of 5 Hz). However, what the authors actually are plotting here is the proportion of trials on which an animal elicited >= 5 licks during the response window (i.e. the proportion of "yes" responses). I recommend editing the y-axis and the text for clarity.

We replaced the y-label and adjusted the figure legend (Fig. 2).

(3) I didn't see any examples of raw (filtered) voltage traces. It would be worth including some to demonstrate the quality of the data.

We have added an example of a filtered voltage trace aligned to tone onset in Fig. S4-1a to illustrate data quality. In addition, all raw and processed voltage traces, along with relevant analysis code, are available through our GitHub repository and the corresponding dataset on Zenodo.

(4) The description of the calculation of bias (C) in the methods section (lines 749-750) is incorrect. The correct formula is C = -0.5 * [z(hit rate) + z(fa rate)]. I believe this is the formula that the authors used, as they report negative C values. Please clarify or correct.

Thanks for spotting this. It is now corrected.

(5) The authors use the terms 'naïve' and 'novice' interchangeably. I suggest sticking with one term to avoid potential confusion.

(6) Multiple instances: "less trials/day" should be "fewer trials/day"

(7) Supplementary Table 2: The values reported are proportions, not percentages. Please correct.

(8) Line 270: Table 2 does not show the number of neurons in the dataset categorized by region. Perhaps the authors meant Supplementary Table 2?

Fixed. Thank you for pointing these mistakes out.

(9) Figure 5C: the data from the hard task are entirely obscured by the data from the easy task. I recommend splitting it into two different plots.

We agree and split the decoding of the easy and the hard task into two graphs (left: easy task; right: hard task). Thank you!

(10) How many mice contributed to each analyzed data set? Could the authors provide a breakdown in a table somewhere of how many neurons were recorded in each mouse and which ones were included in which analyses?

We added an overview of the analyzed datasets in supplementary Table 7. Please note that the number of mice and neurons used in each analysis is also reported in the main text and legends. Importantly, all primary analyses were conducted using LME models, which explicitly account for hierarchical data structure and inter-mouse variability, thereby addressing potential concerns about data imbalance or bias.

Author Response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors): 

Overall, the manuscript could be clearer and more beneficial to the readers with the following suggested revisions:  

(1) The abstract should include information on the comparative performance of 89Zr 64Cu and 18F labeled nanobodies, especially noting the challenges with DFO-89Zr and NOTA-64Cu. 

(2) The abstract should explicitly note the types of transplants assessed and the specific PET findings.

(3) The abstract should note the negative results in terms of brain PET findings. 

We thank reviewer 1 for these three suggestions. We have now included this information in the abstract.

(4)  Based on the data shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1, it seems that the nanobodies bind to quite a few proteins other than TfR. This should be discussed frankly as a limitation. 

The presence of multiple other bands and proteins identified by LC/MS in Figure 1 is typical for immunoprecipitation experiments, as performed under the conditions used: all proteins other than TfR that are identified in Table 1 are abundant cytoplasmic (cytoskeletal) and/or nuclear proteins.  More rigorous washing would perhaps have removed some of these contaminants at the risk of losing some of the specific signal as well. We have added a comment to this effect.  In an in vivo setting, this would be of minor concern, as these proteins would be inaccessible to our nanobodies. In fact, when VHH123 radioconjugates are injected in huTfr+/+ mice (or VHH188 in C57BL/6), we observe no specific signal – which supports this conclusion. 

We therefore state: “We show that both V_HHs bind only to the appropriate TfR, with no obvious cross-reactivity to other surface-expressed proteins by immunoblot, LC/MSMS analysis of immunoprecipitates, SDS-PAGE of ³⁵S-labelled proteins and flow cytometry (Fig 1;Table 1).”. We have added some clarification to make this clearer, and we also include the full LC/MSMS data tables are also added in supplemental materials, as supplementary Table 1. We have included subcellular localization information for each protein identified through LC/MSMS in Table 1 as well.

(5)  Why did the authors use DFO, which is well known to leak Zr, rather than the current standard for 89Zr PET, DFO* (DFO-star)? 

We used DFO rather than DFO-star for several reasons: 1) because we had already conducted and published numerous other studies using DFO-conjugated nanobodies and not observed any release of ⁸⁹Zr, 2) commercially sourced clickchemistry enabled DFO-star (such as DFO*-DBCO) was not available at the time of the study. 

(6) Figure 2B appears to show complex structures, more complex than just GGG-DFOazide, and GGG-NOTA-azide. This should be explained in detail. 

We have added two supplemental figures and methods that recapitulate how we generated what we have termed as GGG-DFO-Azide and GGG-NOTA-Azide. We have updated the legend of Figure 2B. 

(7) Why is there a double band in Suppl. Fig 9 for VHH123-NOTA-Azide? 

Under optimal conditions, sortase A-mediated transpeptidation is efficient,  resulting in the formation of a peptide bond between the C-terminally LPETG-tagged protein and the GGG-probe. However, extended reaction times or suboptimal concentrations of modified GGG-probes (which are often in limited supply) in the reaction mixture, allow hydrolysis of the sortase A-LPET-protein intermediate. The hydrolysis product can no longer participate in a sortase A reaction. This is what explains the doublet in the reaction used to generate VHH123-NOTA-N₃ – the upper band is VHH123-NOTA-N₃ and the lower band is the hydrolysis product.  VHH123-LPET, is unable to react with PEG_20kDa-DBCO (the lower band that appears at the same position of migration in the next lane on the gel). We noticed that an adjacent lane was mislabelled as ‘VHH188-NOTA-PEG_20kDa’ when in fact it was ‘VHH123-NOTA-PEG_20kDa’. This has been corrected.

The hydrolysis product, VHH123-LPET, has a short circulatory half-life and obviously lacks the PEG moiety as well as the chelator. It therefore cannot chelate ⁶⁴Cu. Its presence should not interfere with PET imaging.  Since all animals were injected with the same measured dose of ⁶⁴Cu labeled-conjugate, the presence of an unlabeled TfRbinding competitor in the form of VHH123-LPET - at a << 1:1 molar ratio to the labelled nanobody – would be of no consequence.

(8) More details should be provided about the tetrazine-TCO click chemistry for 18F labeling. 

We have added supplementary methods and figures that detail how ¹⁸F-TCO was generated. For the principle of TCO-tetrazine click-chemistry, a brief description was added in the text, as well as a reference to a review on the subject.

(9) For the data shown in Figure 3H, the authors should state whether the brain tissues were capillary depleted, and if so, how this was performed and how complete the procedure was. 

No capillary depletion of the brain tissues was performed, as this was challenging to perform in compliance with the radiosafety protocols in place at our institution. We have updated the legend of figure 3H and methods to include this important detail. Whole blood gamma-counting did not show any obvious di  erence of activity across the 4 groups in figure 3G (same mice as in figure 3H), which would go against the interpretation that activity di  erences in the brain (figure 3H) are solely attributable to residual activity from blood in the capillaries. 

(10) The authors should experimentally test the hypotheses that the PEG adduct reduced BBB transcytosis. 

Reviewer 1 is correct to point out that we have not tested un-PEGylated conjugates of ⁶⁴Cu and ⁸⁹Zr with the anti-TfR nanobodies and we currently do not have the means to perform additional experiments. However, the ¹⁸F conjugates were not PEGylated, and these also fail to show any detectable signal in the CNS by PET/CT (see figure 4A). PEGylation alone cannot be the sole factor that limits transcytosis across the BBB.

(11) It was interesting to note that the Cu appears to dissociate from the NOTA chelator. The authors should provide more information about the kinetics of this process.  

We have not tested the kinetics of dissociation between ⁶⁴Cu and the NOTA conjugates in vitro, like we have done for ⁸⁹Zr and DFO (supplemental figure 2), because previous work (see references 35 and 36 by Dearling JL and Mirick GR and colleagues) has shown that NOTA and other copper chelators tend to release free copper radioisotopes in the liver, a commonly reported artifact. We have also included a new set of images that show the biodistribution of VHH123-NOTA-⁶⁴Cu in huTfR+/+ mice, where we still observe a substantial signal in the liver, indicating release of ⁶⁴Cu from NOTA, in the absence of the anti-TfR VHH binding to its target. This was clearly not seen using the DFO-⁸⁹Zr conjugates.  Binding of the VHH to TfR, followed by internalization, appears to be required for the release of ⁸⁹Zr from DFO, prompting us to investigate this phenomenon further.

(12) The authors should increase the sample size, and test two different radiolabels for the transplant imaging results (Figs. 5 and 6), since these seem to be the ones they feel are the most important, based on the title and abstract. 

We agree with reviewer 1 that more repeats would increase the significance of our findings, but we unfortunately do not have the means of performing additional experiments at this time (the lab at Boston Children’s Hospital has closed as Dr. Ploegh has retired). We believe that the results are compelling and will be of use to the in vivo imaging community.

(13) Fig. 6G appears to show a false positive result for the kidney imaging. Is this real, or an artifact of small sample size?

We agree with reviewer 1 that the kidney signals in figure 6 are somewhat puzzling. The difference between the tumor-bearing mice that received VHH123 and VHHEnh conjugates is not significant – with the obvious caveat that the VHHEnh group is comprised of only 2 mice, so sample size may well be a factor here. If we compare the signals of the VHH123 conjugate in tumor-bearing mice vs. tumor-free mice, the VHH123 conjugates would have cleared much faster in the tumor-free mice over 24 hours (since no epitope is present for VHH123 to bind to), thus weakening the kidney signal observed after 24 hours. The same would be true for all the other tissues – except for the liver (where free ⁶⁴Cu that leaks from NOTA accumulates). VHHEnh conjugates in tumor-bearing mice show a significant kidney signal – although no VHH123 target epitope is present in these mice. B16.F10 tumors at 4 weeks of growth tend to be necrotic and can passively retain any radiotracer – this generates the weak lung signal visible in Fig 6D – thus the radiotracer would clear at a slower rate than VHH123 conjugates in tumor-free mice giving a higher kidney signal at 24 hours. 

No tumors were found in the kidneys post-necropsy. We attribute the differences in kidney signals to di erent kinetics of clearance of the radioconjugates. We have added this explanation to the results and discussion.

(14) Are the results shown in Fig. 7 generalizable? The authors should the constructs with 18F labeling and without the PEG adduct. 

We agree with reviewer 1 that it would be very interesting to confirm these observations using 18F radioconjugates. The results should be generalizable, as the difference between signals can only be attributed to the presence of the recognized epitope in the placenta– which is in fact the only variable that differs between the two groups. At the time of conducting the study, we had not planned to perform the same experiments with 18F radioconjugates – partly because synthesis of 18F radioconjugates is more challenging (and costly) than the production of 89Zr-labeled nanobodies.  

(15) The authors should discuss the relative safety of 89Zr and 64Cu. It is likely to be quite a bit worse than for 18F, since the 89Zr and 64Cu have longer half-lives, dissociate from their chelators, and lodge in off-target tissues. An alternative interpretation of the authors' data could be that 89Zr and 64Cu labeling in this context are unsuitable for the stated purposes of PET imaging. In this case, the key experiments shown in Figs. 5-7 should be repeated with the 18F labeled nanobody constructs. 

Our vision was to o er a tool to the scientific community interested in in vivo tracking of cells in di erent preclinical disease models. The question of safety regarding 89Zr and 64Cu for clinical use was therefore not a factor we then considered. However, we have now included a section in the discussion about the potential safety issue of ⁸⁹Zr release and bone accumulation in clinical settings, especially for radioconjugates that target an internalizing surface protein. 

(16) The authors should remark on the somewhat surprisingly modest amount of BBB transcytosis in the discussion. What were the a inities of the nanobodies? 

The a inities and binding kinetics of both nanobodies was described in a separate work that is referenced in the introduction (references 21 and 22 by Wouters Y and colleagues). Through other methods that rely on a highly sensitive bio-assay, it was shown that both VHH123 and VHH188 are capable of transcytosis: both nanobodies coupled to a neurotensin peptide induced a drop of temperature after i.v. injection in matching mouse strains (VHH123 in C57BL/6 and VHH188 in huTfr +/+). The lack of any compelling CNS signal by PET/CT is discussed in the manuscript.

(17) More details of the methods should be provided in the supplement. 

a.  What was the source of the penta-mutant Sortase A-His6? 

Sortase A pentamutant is produced in-house, by cytoplasmic expression in E.coli (BL21 strain), using a plasmid vector encoding a truncated and mutated version of Sortase A. References were added, as well as the Addgene repository number (51140).

b.  What was the yield of the sortase reactions? 

For small proteins, such as nanobodies/ V_HHs, we find that the yield of a sortase A reaction typically is > 75%. This is what we observed for all our conjugations. The methods section was updated to include this information.

c.  What was the source of the GGG-Azide-DFO and GGG-Azide NOTA? Based on the structures shown in Fig. 2, these appear to be more complex that was noted in the text. 

We have now detailed the synthesis of GGG-DFO-Azide and GGG-NOTA-Azide in the supplementary methods.

d.  More details about the source and purity of the tetrazine and TCO labeling reagents should be provided. 

We have included information on the synthesis of GGG-tetrazine in the supplementary methods. Concerning the synthesis of ¹⁸F-TCO, we have also included a detailed description of the compound in supplementary methods. The reaction between GGG-tetrazine and ¹⁸F-TCO is now further detailed in the manuscript. 

e.  The TCO-agarose slurry purification should be explained in more detail, and the results should be shown. 

We have included a detailed procedure of how the TCO-agarose slurry purification was performed in the methods sections. We had already included the Radio-Thin Layer Chromatography QC data of the final VHH123-18F and VHH188-18F purifications in the supplementary figures – which are obtained immediately after TCOagarose slurry purification. The detailed yields of the TCO-agarose slurry purification in terms of activity of each collected fraction is now detailed in the methods section.

f.   The CT parameters should be provided.  

We have now added more information about the PET/CT imaging procedure in the methods section of the manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors): 

Authors should discuss the possibility of the TfR as a rejection antigen. Murine TfR is foreign for hTfR+/+ mice and vice versa. 

We have not discussed this possibility, as we believe the risk of rejection of huTfR+ cells in moTfR+ mice (or vice versa) is negligible. The cells and mice are of the same genetic background – save for the coding region of ectodomain of the TfR (spanning amino acids ~194 to 390 of the full length TfR, which is 763 AA). The pairwise identity of both human and mouse TfR ectodomains is of 73% after alignment of both AA sequences using Clustal Omega. We agree that we cannot formally exclude the possibility of an immune rejection, and have now mentioned this possibility in the discussion.

Is there any clinical use of the anti-human TfR receptor PET tracer? 

We do not currently envision an application for the anti-human TfR VHH in PET/CT in a clinical setting.  

Why is the in vivo anti-mouse TfR uptake level in C57BL/6 mice consistently higher than the anti-human TfR receptor PET tracer in hTfR+/+ mice? Is this due to differences in characteristics of the VHH's (e.g. a inity, internalization properties), or rather due to a different biological behavior of the hTfR-transgene (e.g. reduced internalization properties)? 

We indeed observed that VHH123 uptake and binding appears to be more robust than that of VHH188 to their respective targets. Moreover, after later times post-injection (> 48h), VHH188 appears to display a very low reactivity to C57BL/6 (moTfR+) cells (see Figure 3B). We attribute this to the respective affinities and specificities of both VHHs. We have not investigated the VHH binding kinetics of the mouse versus humanectodomain TfR proteins in vitro. Internalization should be mildly different at best, as ⁸⁹Zr release from DFO occurs with both VHHs in both C57BL/6 and huTfR +/+ mouse models (when injected in a matched configuration). The huTfR +/+ mice rely exclusively on the huTfr for their iron supply. They are healthy with no obvious pathological features. The behavior of the huTfr is therefore presumably similar, if not identical to that of the mouse Tfr, bearing in mind that the huTfr and the mouse Tfr are both reliant on mouse Tf as their ligand

The anti-TfR VHHs were initially developed as a carrier for BBB-transport of VHH-based drug conjugates (previous publications). The data shown here reduces enthusiasm towards this application. Uptake in the brain is several log-factors lower than physiological uptake elsewhere. Potential consequences of off-brain uptake on potential toxicity of VHH-based drug-conjugates could be better emphasized in the discussion. 

We did not observe a significant presence of the anti-TfR VHHs in the CNS by PET/CT. We have addressed several possibilities: longer circulation times post-injection may favor transcytosis of the VHHs through the BBB. However, because transcytosis requires endocytosis –⁸⁹Zr may be released by their chelating moiety at this step. The only radiotracers with a covalent bond between the radio-isotope and the VHHs in our work are the ¹⁸F VHHs, but the signal acquisition window may have been too short to observe transcytosis and accumulation in the CNS. Another possible caveat is that PEGylation of the radiotracers may be an obstacle to transcytosis. The circulatory halflife of unpegylated VHHs is too low to allow adequate visualization after 24 hours postinjection, as the conjugates rapidly clear from the circulation (t ½ = 30 minutes or less). We have updated the discussion to address these points.

In several locations (I have counted 5) a space is missing between words, please double-check. 

We carefully checked the manuscript to remove any remaining typos.

It is unclear to me why for the melanoma-tracking experiment the tracer is switched from the 89Zr-labeled variant to the 64Cu-labeled variant. 

The decision to switch to the ⁶⁴Cu labeled VHHs for the melanoma experiment stemmed from a wish to 1) evaluate the performance of the ⁶⁴Cu-radioconjugates in detecting transplanted cells as we had done with the ⁸⁹Zr conjugates and 2) assess how the (non-specific) liver signal seen with ⁶⁴Cu contrasts with a specific signal.  

typo in discussion: C57BL/6 instead of C57B/6         

We have corrected the typo.

It is unclear to me why in FIG1B cells are labeled with 35S. Is it correct that the signals seen are due to staining membranes with anti-TfR mAbs? Or is this an autoradiography of the gel? 

In Figure 1B cells were labeled with 35S-Met/Cys, while the images shown are indeed those of Western Blots, using an anti-TfR monoclonal antibody as the primary antibody to detect human and mouse TfR retrieved by the anti Tfr VHHs. Autoradiography using the same lysates showed the presence of contaminants in the VHH eluates, as commonly seen in immunoprecipitates from metabolically labeled cells (as distinct from IP/Westerns). For this reason, we performed a Western Blot on the same samples to confirm TfR pull-down. As written in the results section, we also performed LCMS analysis of the immunoprecipitated proteins to better characterize contaminating proteins (Table 1). To clarify this, we have now added the autoradiographs in supplementary data (supplementary figure 15) and added a reference to these observation in the results. 

ROI quantifications in all figures: these should be expressed as %ID/cc instead of %ID/g. Ex vivo tissue counts should be in %ID/g instead of cpm. 

We have converted all ROI quantification figures as %ID/cc based on the assumption that 1mL (1cc) = 1g. For ex vivo tissue counts, %ID/g has been calculated based on injected dose (except for figure 3G, where the comparisons in %ID/G are not possible due to the uncertain nature of bone marrow and whole blood). All figures have now been updated.

Fig4: it would be good to also see respective mouse controls (C57BL6 vs hTfR+/+) for the 64Cu- and 18F-labeled VHH123 tracers. Each radiolabeling methodology changes in vivo biodistribution and specificity, which can be better assessed by using appropriate controls. 

We had performed these controls but they were not included in the manuscript as deemed redundant with the results of Figure 3. We have now separated Figure 4 in two panels (Figure 4A and 4B) with figure 4A showing the 1h timepoint post-injection of VHH123 radiotracers in C57BL/6 vs huTfr^+/+ and Figure 4B showing the 24h timepoint in the same configuration. ROI analyses were also done on the huTfR^+/+ controls and were included in Figure 4C as well.

Fig7: is it correct that mouse imaging is performed at 24h p.i. and dissected embryo's at 72h p.i.? Why are there 2 days between each procedure of the same animals? 

We acquired images at di erent timepoints, specifically at 1h, 24h, 48h and 72 hours after radio-tracer injection. As 72 h was the last timepoint, the mice were sacrificed the same day and embryo dissection performed thereafter, at 72 hours post radiotracer injection. We decided to show the 24h timepoint images as they were the most representative of the series, o ering the best signal-to-noise ratio. The signal pattern did not change over the course from 24h to 72h. We have now added those timepoints in the supplementary data.

Author Response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public review): 

Summary:

The authors use analysis of existing data, mathematical modelling, and new experiments, to explore the relationship between protein expression noise, translation efficiency, and transcriptional bursting.

Strengths:

The analysis of the old data and the new data presented is interesting and mostly convincing.

Thank you for the constructive suggestions and comments. We address the individual comments below. 

Weaknesses:

(1) My main concern is the analysis presented in Figure 4. This is the core of mechanistic analysis that suggests ribosomal demand can explain the observed phenomenon. I am both confused by the assumptions used here and the details of the mathematical modelling used in this section. Firstly, the authors' assumption that the fluctuations of a single gene mRNA levels will significantly affect ribosome demand is puzzling. On average the total level of mRNA across all genes would stay very constant and therefore there are no big fluctuations in the ribosome demand due to the burstiness of transcription of individual genes. Secondly, the analysis uses 19 mathematical functions that are in Table S1, but there are not really enough details for me to understand how this is used, are these included in a TASEP simulation? In what way are mRNA-prev and mRNA-curr used? What is the mechanistic meaning of different terms and exponents? As the authors use this analysis to argue ribosomal demand is at play, I would like this section to be very much clarified.

Thank you for raising two important points. Regarding the first point, we agree that the overall ribosome demand in a cell will remain mostly the same even with fluctuations in mRNA levels of a few genes. However, what we refer to in the manuscript is the demand for ribosomes for translating mRNA molecules of a single gene. This demand will vary with the changes in the number of mRNA molecules of that gene. When the mRNA copy number of the gene is low, the number of ribosomes required for translation is low. At a subsequent timepoint when the mRNA number of the same gene goes up rapidly due to transcriptional bursting, the number of ribosomes required would also increase rapidly. This would increase ribosome demand. The process of allocation of ribosomes for translation of these mRNA molecules will vary between cells, and this process can lead to increased expression variation of that gene among cells. We have now rephrased the section between the lines 321 and 331 to clarify this point.

Regarding the second point, each of the 19 mathematical functions was individually tested in the TASEP model and stochastic simulation. The parameters ‘mRNA-curr’ and ‘mRNA-prev’ are the mRNA copy numbers at the present time point and the previous time point in the stochastic simulations, respectively. These numbers were calculated from the rate of production of mRNA, which is influenced by the transcriptional burst frequency and the burst size, as well as the rate of mRNA removal. We have now incorporated more details about the modelling part along with explanation for parameters and terms in the revised manuscript (lines 390 to 411; lines 795 to lines 807). 

(2) Overall, the paper is very long and as there are analytical expressions for protein noise (e.g. see Paulsson Nature 2004), some of these results do not need to rely on Gillespie simulations. Protein CV (noise) can be written as three terms representing protein noise contribution, mRNA expression contribution, and bursty transcription contribution. For example, the results in panel 1 are fully consistent with the parameter regime, protein noise is negligible compared to transcriptional noise. 

Thank you for referring to the paper on analytical expressions for protein noise. We introduced translational bursting and ribosome demand in our model, and these are linked to stochastic fluctuations in mRNA and ribosome numbers. In addition, our model couples transcriptional bursting with translational bursting and ribosome demand. Since these processes are all stochastic in nature, we felt that the stochastic simulation would be able to better capture the fluctuations in mRNA and protein expression levels originating from these processes. For consistency, we used stochastic simulations throughout even when the coupling between transcription and translation were not considered. 

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):  

(1) Figure 1B shows noise as Distance to Median (DM) that can be positive or negative. It is therefore misleading that the authors say there is a 10-fold increase in noise (this would be relevant if the quantity was strictly positive). How is the 10-fold estimated? Similar comments apply to Figure 1F and the estimated 37-fold. I also wonder if the datasets combined from different studies are necessarily compatible.

We have now changed the statements and mentioned the actual noise values for different classes of genes rather than the fold-changes (lines 111-113 and 143-145). We agree that the measurements for mRNA expression levels, protein synthesis rates and protein noise were obtained from experiments done by different research labs, and this could introduce more variation in the data. However, it is unlikely the experimental variations are likely to be random and do not bias any specific class of genes (in Fig. 1B and Fig. 1F) more than others.  

(2)   How Figure 1D has been generated seems confusing, the authors state this is based on the Gillespie algorithm, but in panel 1C and also in the methods, they are writing ODEs and Equations 3 and 4 stating the Euler method for the solution of ODEs. Also, I am concerned if this has been done at steady-state. The protein noise for the two-state model can be analytically obtained, and instead of simulations, the authors could have just used the expression. Also, Figure 1D shows CV while the corresponding data Figure 1B is showing mean adjusted DM. So, I am not sure if the comparison is valid. I am also very confused about the fact that the authors show CV does not depend on the mean expression of proteins and mRNA. Analytical solutions suggested there is always an inverse relationship exists between CV and mean and this has also been experimentally observed (see for example Newman et al 2006).

We used Gillespie algorithm for stochastic simulations and identified the time points when an event (for example, switching to ON or OFF states during transcriptional bursting) occurred. If an event occurred at a time point, the rates of the reactions were guided by the equations 3 and 4, as the rates of reactions were dependent on the number of mRNA (or protein) molecules present, production rates and removal rates. 

For all published datasets where we had measurements from many genes/promoters, we used the measures of adjusted noise (for mRNA noise) and Distance-to-median (DM, for protein noise). These measures of noise are corrected mean-dependence of expression noise (Newman et al., 2006). For simulations, which we performed for a single gene, and for experiments that we performed on a limited number of promoters, we used the measure of coefficient of variation (CV) to quantify noise, as calculation of adjusted noise or DM was not possible for a single gene. 

The work of Newman et al. (2006) measures noise values of different genes with different transcriptional burst characteristics and different mRNA and protein removal rates. We also see similar results in our simulations (Fig. 1E), where as we increase the mean expression by changing the transcriptional burst frequency, the protein noise goes down.     

(3) Estimating parameters of gene expression using reference 44 ignores the effect of variability in capture efficiency and cell size. In a recent paper, Tang et al Bioinformatics 39 (7), btad395 2023 addressed this issue.

Thank you for referring to the work of Tang et al. (2023). We note that the cell size and capture efficiency have a small effect on the burst frequency (Kon) but has a more pronounced effect on burst size (Tang et al., 2023). In our analysis, we considered only burst frequency and even with likely small inaccuracies in our estimation of Kon, we can capture interesting association of burst frequency with noise trends. 

(4) In the methods "αp = 0.007 per mRNA molecule per unit time", I believe it should be per protein molecule per unit time.

Corrected.

(5)  Figure 3 uses TASEP modelling but the details of this modelling are not described well.

We have now expanded the description of the modelling approach in the revised manuscript (lines 391-412; lines 693-776 and lines 797-809). In addition, we have also added more details in the figure captions. 

(6) Another overall issue is that when the authors talk about changes in burst frequency or changes in translation efficiency, it is not always clear, is this done while keeping all the other parameters constant therefore changing mean expressions, or is this done by keeping the mean expressions constant?

To test for the association between mean protein expression and protein noise, we have varied the mean expression by changing the translation initiation rate (TLinit) for the most part of the manuscript while keeping other parameters constant. In figure 5, where we decoupled TLinit from ribosome traversal rate (V), we changed the mean protein expression by changing the ribosome traversal rate while keeping other parameters constant. We have now mentioned this in the manuscript. 

(7)   I believe Figures 5 and 6 present the same data in different ways, I wonder if these can be combined or if some aspect of the data in Figure 5 could go to supplementary. Also, the statistical tests in Figure 5E and F are not clear what they are testing.

We have now moved figures 5E and 5F to the supplement (Fig. S20). We have also added details of the statistical test in the figure caption. 

Reviewer #2 (Public review): 

This work by Pal et al. studied the relationship between protein expression noise and translational efficiency. They proposed a model based on ribosome demand to explain the positive correlation between them, which is new as far as I realize. Nevertheless, I found the evidence of the main idea that it is the ribosome demand generating this correlation is weak. Below are my major and minor comments.

Thank you for your helpful suggestions and comments. We note that the direct experimental support required for the ribosome demand model would need experimental setups that are beyond the currently available methodologies. We address the individual comments below. 

Major comments: 

(1) Besides a hypothetical numerical model, I did not find any direct experimental evidence supporting the ribosome demand model. Therefore, I think the main conclusions of this work are a bit overstated.

Direct experimental evidence of the hypothesis would require generation of ribosome occupancy maps of mRNA molecules of specific genes at the level of single cells and at time intervals that closely match the burst frequency of the genes. This is beyond the currently available methodologies. However, there are other evidences that support our model. For example, earlier work in cell-free systems have showed that constraining cellular resources required for transcription or translation can increase expression heterogeneity (Caveney et al., 2017). In addition, the ribosome demand model had two predictions both of which could be validated through modelling as well as from our experiments. 

To further investigate whether removing ribosome demand from our model could eliminate the positive mean-noise correlation for a gene, we have now tested two additional sets of models where we decoupled the translation initiation rate (TLinit) from the ribosome traversal speed (V). In the first model, we changed the mean protein expression by changing the translation initiation rate but keeping the ribosome traversal speed constant. Thus, in this scenario, ribosome demand varied according to the variation in the translation initiation rate. As expected, the positive correlation between mean expression and protein noise was maintained in this condition (Fig. 5B). In the second model, we changed the mean expression by changing the ribosome traversal speed but keeping the translation initiation rate (and therefore, the ribosome demand) constant. In this situation, the relationship between mean expression and protein noise turned negative (Fig. 5B and fig. S16). These results further pointed that the ribosome demand was indeed driving the positive relationship between mean expression and protein noise. 

(2) I found that the enhancement of protein noise due to high translational efficiency is quite mild, as shown in Figure 6A-B, which makes the biological significance of this effect unclear.

We agree with the reviewer’s comment that the effect of translational efficiency on protein noise may not be as substantial as the effect of transcriptional bursting, but it has been observed in studies across bacteria, yeast, and Arabidopsis (Ozbudak et al., 2003; Blake et al., 2003; Wu et al., 2022). In addition, the relationship between translational efficiency and protein noise is in contrast with the inverse relationship observed between mean expression and noise (Newman et al., 2006; Silander et al., 2012). We also note that the goal of the manuscript was not to evaluate the relative strength of these associations, but to understand the molecular basis of the influence of translational efficiency on protein noise. 

(3) The captions for most of the figures are short and do not provide much explanation, making the figures difficult to read.

We have revised the figure captions to include more details as per the reviewer’s suggestion. 

(4)  It would be helpful if the authors could define the meanings of noise (e.g., coefficient of variation?) and translational efficiency in the very beginning to avoid any confusion. It is also unclear to me whether the noise from the experimental data is defined according to protein numbers or concentrations, which is presumably important since budding yeasts are growing cells. 

For all published datasets where we had measurements from many genes/promoters, we used the measures of adjusted noise (for mRNA noise) and Distance-tomedian (DM, for protein noise). These measures of noise are corrected mean-dependence of expression noise. For simulations, which we performed for a single gene, and for experiments that we performed on a limited number of promoters, we used the measure of coefficient of variation (CV) to quantify noise, as calculation of adjusted noise or DM was not possible for a single gene. We now mention this in line 123-124. We used the measure of protein synthesis rate per mRNA as the measure of translational efficiency (Riba et al., 2019; line 100). Alternatively, we also used tRNA adaptation index (tAI) as a measure of translational efficiency, as codon choice could also influence the translation rate per mRNA molecule (Tuller et al., 2010) (line 193). 

The protein noise was quantified from the signal intensity of GFP tagged proteins (Newman et al., 2006; and our data), which was proportional to protein numbers without considering cell volume. For quantification of noise at the mRNA level, single-cell RNA-seq data was used, which provided mRNA numbers in individual cells.  

(5) The conclusions from Figures 1D and 1E are not new. For example, the constant protein noise as a function of mean protein expression is a known result of the two-state model of gene expression, e.g., see Equation (4) in Paulsson, Physics of Life Reviews 2005.

Yes, they may not be new, but we included these results for setting the baseline for comparison with simulation results that appear in the later part of the manuscript where we included translational bursting and ribosome demand in our models. 

(6) In Figure 4C-D, it is unclear to me how the authors changed the mean protein expression if the translation initiation rate is a function of variation in mRNA number and other random variables.

The translation initiation rate varied from a basal translation initiation rate depending on the mRNA numbers and other variables. We changed the basal translation initiation rate to alter the mean protein expression levels. We have now elaborated the modelling section to incorporate these details in the revised manuscript (lines 404 to 412). 

(7) If I understand correctly, the authors somehow changed the translation initiation rate to change the mean protein expression in Figures 4C-D. However, the authors changed the protein sequences in the experimental data of Figure 6. I am not sure if the comparison between simulations and experimental data is appropriate.

It is an important observation. Even though we changed the basal translation initiation rate to change the mean expression (Fig. 4C-D), we noted in the description of the model that the changes in the translation initiation rate were also linked to changes in the translation elongation rate (Fig. 3D). Thus, an increase in the translation initiation rate was associated with faster ribosome traversal through an mRNA molecule. This has also been observed in an experimental study by Barrington et al. (2023). Therefore, the models can also be expressed in terms of the translation elongation rate or ribosome traversal speed, instead of the translation initiation rate, and this modification will not change the results of the simulations due to interconnectedness of the initiation rate and the elongation rate.  

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Minor comments:

(1)  The discussion from lines 180 to 182 appears consistent with Figure 1E. It seems that the twostate model can already explain why the genes with high burst frequency and high protein synthesis rate showed a small protein noise. It is unclear to me the purpose of this discussion.

Yes, the results from Fig. 1E were from stochastic simulations, whereas the results discussed in the lines 191 to 193 (in the revised manuscript) were based on our analysis of experimental data that is shown in Fig. 2D.

(2)  If I understand correctly, "translational efficiency" is the same as "protein synthesis rate" in this work. It would be helpful if the authors could keep the same notation throughout the paper to avoid confusion.

The protein synthesis rate per mRNA molecule is the best measure of translational efficiency, and we used the experimental data from Riba et al. (2019) for this purpose (line 99-100). Alternatively, we also used tRNA Adaptation Index (tAI) as a measure of translational efficiency, as the codon choice also influences the rate at which an mRNA molecule is translated (Tuller et al., 2010) (line 192). 

(3) On line 227, does "higher translation rate" mean "higher translation initiation rate"? The same issues happen in a few places in this paper.

Corrected now (line 243 in the revised manuscript and throughout the manuscript). 

(4) The discussion from lines 296 to 301 is unclear. It is not obvious to me how the authors obtained the conclusion that lowering translational efficiency would decrease the protein expression noise.

High translational efficiency will require more ribosomes and hence, will increase ribosome demand. If ribosome demand is the molecular basis of high expression noise for genes with bursty transcription and high translational efficiency, then we can expect a reduction in ribosome demand and a reduction in noise if we lower the translational efficiency. We have rephrased this section for clarity between the lines 334 and 339 in the revised manuscript.   

(5)  On line 324, should slower translation mean a shorter distance between neighboring ribosomes? One can imagine the extreme limit in which ribosomes move very slowly so that the mRNA is fully packed with ribosomes. 

Slower translation or ribosome traversal rate would also lower the translation initiation rate (Barrington et al., 2023). Slower traversal of ribosomes reduces the chances of collision in case of transient slow-down of ribosomes due to occurrence of one or more non-preferred codons. We have now clarified this part in the lines 360 to 369 in the revised manuscript.

(6) The text from lines 423 to 433 can be put in Methods.

We have already added this part to the methods section (lines 900 to 910) and now minimize this discussion in the results section. 

(7)  The discussion from lines 128 to 130 is unclear, and the statement appears to be consistent with the two-state model (see Figure 1E). The meaning of "initial mRNA numbers" is also unclear.

An earlier study has proposed that essential genes in yeast employs high transcription and low translation strategy for expression, likely to maintain low expression noise in these genes and to prevent detrimental effects of high expression noise (Fraser et al., 2004). However, there has been no direct supportive evidence. Therefore, we were testing whether the differences in mRNA levels and translational efficiency of genes can lead to differences in protein noise through stochastic simulations. The discussion between the lines 130 and 132 in the revised manuscript summarises the results of the simulations. 

Initial mRNA numbers - mRNA copy numbers that are present in the cell at the start of stochastic simulations. However, we have now changed it to ‘mRNA levels’ in the revised manuscript for clarity (line 131 in the revised manuscript).

(8)  On line 212, is the translation initiation rate TL_init the same thing as beta_p in Figure 3A?

βp refers to the rate of protein synthesis, which is influenced by the translational burst kinetics as well as the translation initiation rate, whereas TLinit refers to the translation initiation rate. So, these parameters are related, but are not the same.

Author Response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this study, Floedder et al report that dopamine ramps in both Pavlovian and Instrumental conditions are shaped by reward interval statistics. Dopamine ramps are an interesting phenomenon because at first glance they do not represent the classical reward prediction errors associated with dopamine signaling. Instead, they seem somewhat to bridge the gap between tonic and phasic dopamine, with an intense discussion still being held in the field about what is their actual behavioral role. Here, in tests with head-fixed mice, and dopamine being recorded with a genetically encoded fluorescent sensor in the nucleus accumbens, the authors find that dopamine ramps were only present when intertrial intervals were relatively short and the structure of the task (Pavlovian cue or progression in a VR corridor) contained elements that indicated progression towards the reward (e.g., a dynamic cue). The authors show that these findings are well explained by their previously published model of Adjusted Net Contingency of Causal Relation (ANCCR).

Strengths:

This descriptive study delineates some fundamental parameters that define dopamine ramps in the studied conditions. The short, objective, and to-the-point format of the manuscript is great and really does a service to potential readers. The authors are very careful with the scope of their conclusions, which is appreciated by this reviewer.

We thank the reviewer for their overall support of the formatting and scope of the manuscript. 

Weaknesses:

The discussion of the results is very limited to the conceptual framework of the authors' preferred model (which the authors do recognize, but it still is a limitation). The correlation analysis presented in panel l of Figure 3 seems unnecessary at best and could be misleading, as it is really driven by the categorical differences between the two conditions that were grouped for this analysis. There are some key aspects of the data and their relationship with each other, the previous literature, and the methods used to collect them, that could have been better discussed and explored.

We agree with the reviewer that a weakness of the discussion was the limited framing of the results within the ANCCR model. To address this, we have expanded our introduction and discussion sections to provide a more thorough explanation of our model and possible leading alternatives.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out that Figure 3l may be misleading for readers; we removed this panel from the revised Figure 4.

We have further addressed the specific concerns raised by the reviewer in their comments to the authors. Indeed, we agree with the reviewer that the original manuscript was narrow in its focus regarding relationships between different aspects of the data. To more thoroughly explore how key variables – including dopamine ramp slope and onset response as well as licking behavior slope – could relate to each other, we have added Extended Data Figure 8. In this figure, we show that no correlations exist between any of these key variables in either dynamic tone condition; it is our hope that this additional analysis highlights the significance of the clear relationship between dopamine ramp slope and ITI duration. 

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this manuscript by Floeder et al., the authors report a correlation between ITI duration and the strength of a dopamine ramp occurring in the time between a predictive conditioned stimulus and a subsequent reward. They found this relationship occurring within two different tasks with mice, during both a Pavlovian task as well as an instrumental virtual visual navigation task. Additionally, they observed this relationship only in conditions when using a dynamic predictive stimulus. The authors relate this finding to their previously published model ANCCR in which the time constant of the eligibility trace is proportionate to the reward rate within the task.

The relationship between ITI duration and the extent of a dopamine ramp which the authors have reported is very intriguing and certainly provides an important constraint for models for dopamine function. As such, these findings are potentially highly impactful to the field. I do have a few questions for the authors which are written below.

We thank the reviewer for their interest in our findings and belief in their potential to be impactful in the field. 

(1) I was surprised to see a lack of counterbalance within the Pavlovian design for the order of the long vs short ITI. Ramping of the lick rate does increase from the long-duration ITIs to the short-duration ITI sessions. Although of course, this increase in ramping of the licking across the two conditions is not necessarily a function of learning, it doesn't lend support to the opposite possibility that the timing of the dynamic CS hasn't reached asymptotic learning by the end of the long-duration ITI. The authors do reference papers in which overtraining tends to result in a reduction of ramping, which would argue against this possibility, yet differential learning of the dynamic CS would presumably be required to observe this effect. Do the authors have any evidence that the effect is not due to heightened learning of the timing of the dynamic CS across the experiment?

We appreciate the reviewer expressing their surprise regarding the lack of counterbalance in our Pavlovian experimental design. We previously did not explicitly do this because the ramps disappeared in the short ITI/fixed tone condition, indicating that their presence is not just a matter of total experience in the task. However, we agree that this is incidental, but not direct evidence. To address this drawback, we repeated the Pavlovian experiment in a new cohort of animals with a revised training order, switching conditions such that the short ITI/dynamic tone (SD) condition preceded the long ITI/dynamic tone (LD) condition (see revised Figure 2a). Despite this change in the training order, the main findings remain consistent: positive dLight slopes (i.e., dopamine ramps) are only observed in the SD condition (Figure 2b-d). 

We thank the reviewer for raising these questions regarding licking behavior and learning and their relationship with dopamine ramps. Indeed, a closer look at the average licking behavior reveals subtle differences across conditions (Figure 1f and Extended Data Figure 5a). While the average lick rate during the ramp window does not differ across conditions (Extended Data Figure 5c), the ramping of the lick rate during this window is higher for dynamic tone conditions compared to fixed tone conditions (Extended Data Figure 5d). Despite these differences, we still believe that the main comparison between the dopamine slope in the SD vs LD condition remains valid given their similar lick ramping slopes. Furthermore, our primary measure of learning is not lick slope, but anticipatory lick rate during the 1 s trace preceding reward delivery, which is robustly nonzero across cohorts and conditions (Figure 1g and Extended Data Figure 5b). 

Taken together, we hope that the results from our counterbalanced Pavlovian training and more rigorous analysis of lick behavior across conditions provide sufficient evidence to assuage concerns that the differences in ramping dopamine simply reflect differences in learning. 

(2) The dopamine response, as measured by dLight, seems to drop after the reward is delivered. This reduction in responding also tends to be observed with electrophysiological recordings of dopamine neurons. It seems possible that during the short ITI sessions, particularly on the shorter ITI duration trials, that dopamine levels may still be reduced from the previous trial at the onset of the CS on the subsequent trial. Perhaps the authors can observe the dynamics of the recovery of the dopamine response following a reward delivery on longer-duration ITIs in order to determine how quickly dopamine is recovering following a reward delivery. Are the trials with very short ITIs occurring within this period that dopamine is recovering from the previous trial? If so, how much of the effect may be due to this effect? It should be noted that the lack of observance of a ramp on the condition of shortduration ITIs with fixed CSs provides a potential control for this effect, yet the extent to which a natural ramp might occur following sucrose deliveries should be investigated.

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the possibility that ramps may be due to the dopamine response recovery following reward delivery. Given that peak reward dopamine responses tend to be larger in long ITI conditions, however, we felt that it was inappropriate to compare post-reward dopamine recovery times across conditions. Instead, we decided to directly compare the dLight slope 2s before cue onset (“pre-cue window,” a proxy for recovery from previous trial) with the dLight slope during our ramp window from 3 to 8s after cue onset (Extended Data Figure 6a). There were no significant differences in pre-cue dLight slope across conditions (Extended Data Figure 6b); this suggests that the ramping slopes seen in the SD condition, but not other conditions, is not simply due to the natural dopamine recovery response following reward delivery. Furthermore, if the dopamine ramps observed in the SD condition were a continuation of the post-reward dopamine recovery from the previous trial, we would expect to see a positive correlation between the dLight slope before and during the cue. However, there is no such correlation between the dLight slopes in the ramp window vs. pre-cue window in the SD condition (Extended Data Figure 6c-d). We believe that this observation, along with the builtin control of the SF condition mentioned by the reviewer, serves as evidence against the possibility of our ramp results being due to a natural ramp after reward delivery.

(3) The authors primarily relate the finding of the correlation between the ITI and the slope of the ramp to their ANCCR model by suggesting that shorter time constants of the eligibility trace will result in more precisely timed predictors of reward across discrete periods of the dynamic cue. Based on this prediction, would the change in slope be more gradual, and perhaps be more correlated with a broader cumulative estimate of reward rate than just a single trial?

To clarify, we do not propose that a smaller eligibility trace time constant results in more precise timing per se. Instead, we believe that the rapid eligibility trace decay from smaller time constants gives greater causal predictive power for later periods in the dynamic cue (see Extended Data Figure 1) since the memory of the earlier periods of the cue is weaker. 

We appreciate the reviewer’s curiosity regarding the influence of a broader cumulative estimate of reward vs. only the immediately preceding ITI on dopamine ramp slopes. Indeed, in several instrumental tasks (e.g., Krausz et al., Neuron, 2023), recent reward rate modulates the magnitude of dopamine ramps, making this an important variable to investigate. We chose to use linear regression for each mouse separately to analyze the relationship between the trial dopamine slope and the average previous ITI for the past 1 through 10 most recent trials. In the SD condition, as reported in our earlier manuscript, there was a significantly negative dependence of trial dopamine slope with the single previous ITI (i.e., if the previous ITI was long, the next trial tends to have a weaker ramp). This negative dependence, however, only held for a single previous trial; there was no clear relationship between the per-trial dopamine slope and the average of the past 2 through 10 ITIs (Extended Data Figure 7a). For the LD condition, on the other hand, there is no clear relationship between the per-trial dopamine slope and the average previous ITI for any of the past 1 through 10 trials, with one exception: there is a significantly negative dependence of trial dopamine slope with the average ITI of the previous 2 trials (Extended Data Figure 7b). This longer timescale relationship in the LD condition suggests that the adaptation of the eligibility trace time constant is nuanced and depends on the general ITI length. 

In general, though we reason that the eligibility trace time constant should depend on overall event rates, we do not currently propose a real-time update rule for the eligibility trace time constant depending on recent event rates. Accordingly, we are currently agnostic about the actual time scale of history of recent event rate calculation that mediates the eligibility trace time constant. Our experimental results suggest that when the ITI is generally short for Pavlovian conditioning, the eligibility trace time constant adapts to ITI on a rapid timescale. However, only a small fraction of the variability of this rapid fluctuation is captured by recent ITI history. A more thorough investigation of this real-time update rule would need to be done in the future.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Floeder and colleagues measure dopamine signaling in the nucleus accumbens core using fiber photometry of the dLight sensor, in Pavlovian and instrumental tasks in mice. They test some predictions from a recently proposed model (ANCCR) regarding the existence of "ramps" in dopamine that have been seen in some previous research, the characteristics of which remain poorly understood.

They find that cues signaling a progression toward rewards (akin to a countdown) specifically promote ramping dopamine signaling in the nucleus accumbens core, but only when the intertrial interval just experienced was short. This work is discussed in the context of ongoing theoretical conceptions of dopamine's role in learning.

Strengths:

This work is the clearest demonstration to date of concrete training factors that seem to directly impact whether or not dopamine ramps occur. The existence of ramping signals has long been a feature of debates in the dopamine literature and this work adds important context to that. Further, as a practical assessment of the impact of a relatively simple trial structure manipulation on dopamine patterns, this work will be important for guiding future studies. These studies are well done and thoughtfully presented.

We thank the reviewer for recognizing the context that our study adds to the dopamine literature and the potential for our experiments to guide future work. 

Weaknesses:

It remains somewhat unclear what limits are in place on the extent to which an eligibility trace is reflected in dopamine signals. In the current study, a specific set of ITIs was used, and one wonders if the relative comparison of ITI/history variables ("shorter" or "longer") is a factor in how the dopamine signal emerges, in addition to the explicit length ("short" or "long") of the ITI. Another experimental condition, where variable ITIs were intermingled, could perhaps help clarify some remaining questions.

Though we used ITIs of fixed means, due to the exponential nature of their distribution, we did intermingle ITIs of various durations in both our long and short ITI conditions. The distribution of ITI durations is visualized in Figure 1c for Pavlovian conditioning and Extended Data Figure 9b for VR navigation. 

The relative comparison between consecutive ITIs was not something we originally explored, so we thank the reviewer for wondering how it impacts the dopamine signal. To investigate this, we quantified both the change in ITI (+ or - Δ ITI for relatively longer or shorter, respectively) and the change in dopamine ramp slope between consecutive trials in the SD condition (Figure 3d). Across each mouse separately, we found a significantly negative relationship between Δ slope and Δ ITI (Figure 3e-f). Also, the average Δ slope was significantly greater for consecutive trials with a Δ ITI below -1 s compared to trials with a Δ ITI above +1 s (Figure 3g). Altogether, these findings suggest that relative comparison of ITIs does correlate with changes in the dopamine signal; a relatively longer ITI tends to have a weaker ramp, which fits in nicely with the expected inverse relationship between ITI and dopamine ramp slope from our ANCCR model.

In both tasks, cue onset responses are larger, and longer on long ITI trials. One concern is that this larger signal makes seeing a ramp during the cue-reward interval harder, especially with a fluorescence method like photometry. Examining the traces in Figure 1i - in the long, dynamic cue condition the dopamine trace has not returned to baseline at the time of the "ramp" window onset, but the short dynamic trace has. So one wonders if it's possible the overall return to baseline trend in the long dynamic conditions might wash out a ramp.

This is a good point, and we thank the reviewer for raising it. Certainly, the cue onset response is significantly larger in long ITI conditions (see Figure 1i-j and Figure 4h-j). To avoid any bleed over effect, we intentionally chose ramp window periods during later portions of the trial (in line with work from others e.g., Kim et al., Cell, 2020). While the cue onset dopamine pulse seems to have flatlined by the start of the ramp window period, the dopamine levels clearly remain elevated relative to pre-cue baseline. This type of signal has been observed with fiber photometry in other Pavlovian conditioning paradigms with long cue durations (e.g., Jeong et al., Science, 2022). Because of the persistently elevated dopamine levels, it is certainly possible that a ramping signal during the cue is getting washed out; with the bulk fluorescence photometry technique we employed in this study, this possibility is unfortunately difficult to completely rule out. However, the long ITI/fixed tone (LF) condition could serve as a potential control given the overall similarity in the dopamine signal between the LF and LD conditions: both conditions have large cue onset responses with elevated dopamine throughout the duration of the cue (see Extended Data Figures 2c and 3c). Critically, the LD condition lacks a noticeable ramp despite the dynamic tone providing information on temporal proximity to reward, which is thought to be necessary for dopamine ramps to occur. Importantly, regardless of whether a ramp is masked in the long ITI dynamic condition, most studies investigate such a condition in isolation and would report the absence of dopamine ramps. Thus, at a descriptive level, we believe it remains true that observable dopamine ramps are only present when the ITI is short. 

Not a weakness of this study, but the current results certainly make one ponder the potential function of cue-reward interval ramps in dopamine (assuming there is a determinable function). In the current data, licking behavior was similar on different trial types, and that is described as specifically not explaining ramp activity.

We agree that this work naturally raises the question of the function of dopamine ramps. However, selective and precise manipulation of only the dopamine ramps without altering other features such as phasic responses, or inducing dopamine dips, is highly technically challenging at this moment; due to this challenge, we intentionally focused on the conditions that determine the presence or absence of dopamine ramps rather than their function. We agree with the reviewer that studying the specific function of dopamine ramps is an interesting future question. 

Reviewing Editor:

The reviewers felt the results are of considerable and broad interest to the neuroscience community, but that the framing in terms of ANCCR undermined the scope of the findings as did the brief nature of the formatting of the manuscript. In addition, the reviewers felt that the relationship between ramp dynamics, behavior, and ITI conditions requires more in-depth analyses. Relatedly, the lack of counterbalancing of the ITI durations was considered to be a drawback and needs to be addressed as it may affect the baseline. Addressing these issues in a satisfactory manner would improve the assessment of the manuscript to important/convincing.

We truly appreciate the valuable feedback provided on this manuscript by all three reviewers and the reviewing editor. Based on this input, we have significantly revised the manuscript to address the issues brought up by the reviewers. Firstly, we have conducted additional experiments to counterbalance the ITI conditions for Pavlovian conditioning; this strengthened our results by confirming our original findings that ITI duration, rather than training order, is the key variable controlling the presence or absence of dopamine ramps. Secondly, we completed more rigorous analyses to further explore the relationship between dopamine dynamics, animal behavior, and ITI duration; we generally found no significant correlations between these variables, with a notable exception being our main finding between ITI duration and dopamine ramp slope. Finally, we revised and expanded our writing to both explain predictions from our ANCCR model in less technical language and explore how alternative theoretical frameworks could potentially explain our findings. In doing so, we hope that our manuscript is now more accessible and of interest to a broad audience of neuroscience readers.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

The study could be improved if the authors performed a more detailed comparison of how other theoretical frameworks, beyond ANCCR could account for the observed findings. Also, the correlation analysis presented in the panel I of Figure 3 seems unnecessary and potentially spurious, as the slope of the correlation is clearly mostly driven by the categorical differences between the two ITI conditions, which were combined for the analysis - it's not clear what is the value of this analysis beyond the group comparison presented in the following panel.

Again, we thank the reviewer for elaborating on their concern regarding Figure 3l – we have removed it from the revised Figure 4. 

The relationship between ramp dynamics with the behavior and the large differences in cue onset responses between short and long ITI conditions could have been better explored. If I understand correctly the overarching proposal of this and other publications by this group, then the differences in cue responses is determined by the spacing of rewards in a somewhat similar way that the ramps are. So, is there a trial-by-trial correlation between the amplitude of the cue responses and the slope of the ramps? Is there a correlation between any of these two measures with the licking behavior, and if so, does it change with the ITI condition? A more thorough exploration of these relationships would help support the proposal of the primacy of inter-event spacing in determining the different types of dopamine responses in learning.

There are certainly interesting relationships between dopamine dynamics, behavior, and ITI that we failed to explore in our original manuscript – we appreciate the reviewer bringing them up. We found no correlation between dopamine ramp slope and cue onset response in either the SD or LD condition (Extended Data Fig 8a-b). Moreover, we found no correlation between either of these variables and the trial-by-trial licking behavior (Extended Data Fig 8c-f). Finally, there is no relationship between licking behavior and previous ITI duration (Extended Data Fig 8g-h), suggesting that behavioral differences do not account for differences in the dopamine ramp slope. Together, the lack of significant relationships between these other variables highlights the specific, clear relationship between ITI duration and dopamine ramp slope. 

Finally, another issue I feel could have been better discussed is how the particular settings of both tasks might be biasing the results. For example, there is an issue to be considered about how the dopamine ramp dynamics reported here, especially the requirement of a dynamic cue for ramps to be present, square with the previous published results by one of the authors - Mohebi et al, Nature, 2019. In that manuscript, rats were executing a bandit task where, to this reviewer's understanding, there was no explicit dynamic cue aside from the standard sensory feedback of the rats moving around in the behavior boxes to approach a nose poke port. Is the idea that this sensory feedback could function as a dynamic cue? If that's the case, then this short-scale, movement-related feedback should also function as a dynamic cue in a freely moving Pavlovian condition, when the animals must also move towards a reward delivery port, right? Therefore, could it be that the experimental "requirement" of a dynamic cue is only present in a head-fixed condition? One could phrase this in a different way to Steelman and potentially further the authors' proposal: perhaps in any slightly more naturalistic setting, the interaction of the animals with their environment always functions as a dynamic cue indicating proximity to reward, and this relationship was experimentally isolated by the use of head fixation (but not explicitly compared with a freely moving condition) in the present study. I think that would be an interesting alternative to consider and discuss, and perhaps explore experimentally at some point.

We thank the reviewer for raising this important point regarding the influence of our experimental settings on our results. At first glance, it could appear that our results demonstrating the necessity of a dynamic cue for ramps in a head-fixed setting do not fit neatly with other results in a freely moving setup (e.g., Collins et al., Scientific Reports, 2016; Mohebi et al., Nature, 2019). Exactly as the reviewer states though, we believe that sensory feedback from the environment in freely moving preparations serves the same function as a dynamic progression of cues. We have considered the implications of methodological differences between head-fixed and freely moving preparations in the discussion section. 

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

This comment relates indirectly to comment 3, in that the authors intermix theory throughout the manuscript. I think this would be fine if the experiment was framed directly in terms of ANCCR, but the authors specifically mention that this experiment wasn't developed to distinguish between different theories. As such, it seems difficult to assess the scope of the comments regarding theory within the paper because they tend to be specifically related to ANCCR. For instance, the last comment has broad implications of how the ramp might be related to the overall reward rate, an interesting finding that constrains classes of dopamine models rather than evidence just for ANCCR. Perhaps adding a discussion section that allows the authors to focus more on theory would be beneficial for this manuscript.

We appreciate this suggestion by the reviewer. We have updated both our introduction and discussion sections to elaborate more thoroughly on theory.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

The paper could potentially benefit from the use of more accessible language to describe the conceptual basis of the work, and the predictions, and a bit of reformatting away from the brief structure with lots of supplemental discussion.

For example, in the introduction, the line - "Varying the ITI was critical because our theory predicts that the ITI is a variable controlling the eligibility trace time constant, such that a short ITI would produce a small time constant relative to the cue-reward interval (Supplementary Note 1)". As far as I can tell, this is meant to get across the notion that dopamine represents some aspect of the time between rewards - dopamine signals will differ for cues following short vs long intervals between rewards.

As written, the language of the paper takes a fair bit of parsing, but the notions are actually pretty simple. This is partly due to the brief format the paper is written in, where familiarity with the previous papers describing ANCCR is assumed.

From a readability standpoint, and the potential impact of the paper on a broad audience, perhaps this could be considered as a point for revision.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out the drawbacks of our technical language and brief formatting. To address this, we have removed the majority of the supplementary notes and expanded our introduction and discussion sections. In doing so, we hope that the conceptual foundations of this work, and potential alternative theoretical explanations, are accessible and impactful for a broad audience of readers.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public review): 

Summary: 

Early and accurate diagnosis is critical to treating N. fowleri infections, which often lead to death within 2 weeks of exposure. Current methods-sampling cerebrospinal fluid are invasive, slow, and sometimes unreliable. Therefore, there is a need for a new diagnostic method. Russell et al. address this need by identifying small RNAs secreted by Naegleria fowleri (Figure 1) that are detectable by RT-qPCR in multiple biological fluids including blood and urine. SmallRNA-1 and smallRNA-2 were detectable in plasma samples of mice experimentally infected with 6 different N. fowleri strains, and were not detected in uninfected mouse or human samples (Figure 4). Further, smallRNA-1 is detectable in the urine of experimentally infected mice as early as 24 hours post-infection (Figure 5). The study culminates with testing human samples (obtained from the CDC) from patients with confirmed N. fowleri infections; smallRNA-1 was detectable in cerebrospinal fluid in 6 out of 6 samples (Figure 6B), and in whole blood from 2 out of 2 samples (Figure 6C). These results suggest that smallRNA-1 could be a valuable diagnostic marker for N. fowleri infection, detectable in cerebrospinal fluid, blood, or potentially urine. 

Strengths: 

This study investigates an important problem, and comes to a potential solution with a new diagnostic test for N. fowleri infection that is fast, less invasive than current methods, and seems robust to multiple N. fowleri strains. The work in mice is convincing that smallRNA1 is detectable in blood and urine early in infection. Analysis of patient blood samples suggest that whole blood (but not plasma) could be tested for smallRNA-1 to diagnose N. fowleri infections. 

Thank you for comments regarding the strengths of this study. We agree that our data for detecting the biomarker in biofluids from mice is convincing. In addition, our spike-in studies with human cerebrospinal fluid, plasma, and urine (Figure 6) suggest these biofluids from humans could be used for diagnosis.

We appreciate the comment regarding plasma and recognize this was not fully explained in the manuscript. We do believe that plasma can be used to assess the biomarker. Firstly, we demonstrated equivalent sensitivity of the method to detect smallRNA-1 in plasma and urine in mice with end-stage PAM (Figure 5). In addition, spike in samples of human plasma, cerebrospinal fluid, and urine demonstrated equivalent sensitivity of detecting the biomarker (Figure 6). 

The negative result for human plasma in Figure 6C requires clarification; this sample was convalescent plasma from a survivor. The patient presented to the hospital on August 7, 2016, was treated, made a remarkable recovery, and was released from the hospital later that month. The plasma sample in Figure 6C was collected September 7, 2016, which is a month after treatment was initiated and weeks after the patient was symptom free. Our interpretation of the convalescent plasma result is the patient had cleared the active amoeba infection and that is why we did not detect the biomarker. We have added text in the discussion and in the legend for Figure 6 to clarify the convalescent plasma result. 

One additional caveat for consideration is that many of the samples we received from amoebaeinfected humans were stored at room temperatures for undefined periods of time before being moved to <-20°C (see details in Table S9). We can’t rule out possible sample degradation, but this is an unfortunate reality of obtaining human samples from individuals later confirmed to be infected with pathogenic free-living amoebae.

Weaknesses: 

(1) There are not many N. fowleri cases, so the authors were limited in the human samples available for testing. It is difficult to know how robust this biomarker is in whole blood (only 2 samples were tested, both had detectable smallRNA-1), serum (1 out of 1 sample tested negative), or human urine (presumably there is no material available for testing). This limitation is openly discussed in the last paragraph of the discussion section. 

We agree the extremely limited availability of human samples is a limitation of this study. Given the rarity of these infections in the United States, even prospective studies to systematically collect samples would be very challenging. We hope that by publishing the details of this biomarker detection is that the method can be used by diagnostic reference centers, especially in areas where outbreaks of multiple cases per year have been reported.

(2) There seems to be some noise in the data for uninfected samples (Figures 4B-C, 5B, and 6C), especially for those with serum (2E). While this is often orders of magnitude lower than the positive results, it does raise questions about false positives, especially early in infection when diagnosis would be the most useful. A few additional uninfected human samples may be helpful. 

We agree; however, we would like to point out the progression of disease in humans and mice are similar. Typically, patients survive between 10-14 days after presumed exposure and mice have similar survival times following instillation of N. fowleri amoebae into a nare of the mouse. Therefore, detection of this biomarker as early as 72 h in mice is seemingly equivalent to the onset of initial symptoms in humans.  

Reviewer #2 (Public review): 

Summary: 

The authors sought to develop a rapid and non-invasive diagnostic method for primary amoebic meningoencephalitis (PAM), a highly fatal disease caused by Naegleria fowleri. Due to the challenges of early diagnosis, they investigated extracellular vesicles (EVs) from N. fowleri, identifying small RNA biomarkers. They developed an RT-qPCR assay to detect these biomarkers in various biofluids. 

Strengths: 

(1)  This study has a clear methodological approach, which allows for the reproducibility of the experiments. 

(2) Early and Non-Invasive Diagnosis - The identification of a small RNA biomarker that can be detected in urine, plasma, and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) provides a non-invasive diagnostic approach, which is crucial for improving early detection of PAM. 

(3) High Sensitivity and Rapid Detection - The RT-qPCR assay developed in the study is highly sensitive, detecting the biomarker in 100% of CSF samples from human PAM cases and in mouse urine as early as 24 hours post-infection. Additionally, the test can be completed in ~3 hours, making it feasible for clinical use. 

(4)  Potential for Disease Monitoring - Since the biomarker is detectable throughout the course of infection, it could be used not only for early diagnosis but also for tracking disease progression and monitoring treatment efficacy. 

(5)  Strong Experimental Validation - The study demonstrates biomarker detection across multiple sample types (CSF, urine, whole blood, plasma) in both animal models and human cases, providing robust evidence for its clinical relevance. 

(6) Addresses a Critical Unmet Need - With a >97% case fatality rate, PAM urgently requires improved diagnostics. This study provides one of the first viable liquid biopsy-based diagnostic approaches, potentially transforming how PAM is detected and managed. 

Thank you for summarizing the strengths of the study.

Weaknesses: 

(1) Limited Human Sample Size - While the biomarker was detected in 100% of CSF samples from human PAM cases, the number of human samples analyzed (n=6 for CSF) is relatively small. A larger cohort is needed to validate its diagnostic reliability across diverse populations. 

As noted in response to Reviewer #1 above, we agree this is a limitation of the study; however, we were fortunate to obtain even 15 µL samples of cerebrospinal fluid, plasma, serum, or whole blood from as many patients as we did. There is an urgent need for more systematic collection and storage of samples for rare diseases like primary amoebic meningoencephalitis so that advancements in diagnostics and biomarker discovery can be conducted. It is our sincere hope that by publishing our detailed methods and experimental results in this manuscript, that additional hospitals and research centers can replicate our studies and help advance this or other techniques for early diagnosis of PAM.

(2) Lack of Pre-Symptomatic or Early-Stage Human Data - Although the biomarker was detected in mouse urine as early as 24 hours post-infection, there is no data on whether it can be reliably detected before symptoms appear in humans, which is crucial for early diagnosis and treatment initiation. 

It is difficult to envision a method to obtain these biofluids from infected humans prior to onset of symptoms. More likely the best we can hope for is that physicians include primary amoebic meningoencephalitis in their assessment of patients that present with prodromal symptoms of meningitis.

(3)  Plasma Detection Challenges - While the biomarker was detected in whole blood, it was not detected in human plasma, which could limit the ease of clinical implementation since plasma-based diagnostics are more common. Further investigation is needed to understand why it is absent in plasma and whether alternative blood-based approaches (e.g., whole blood assays) could be optimized. 

See response to Reviewer #1 above.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors): 

(1) What is the evidence that these small RNAs are secreted specifically in EVs? I believe that they are, and ultimately it doesn't impact the conclusions, but I think the evidence here could be either stronger or presented in a more obvious way. 

Our data demonstrates that smallRNA-1 is present in N. fowleri-derived EVs (Figures 2 and Supplemental Figure 7) and in the intact amoebae (Figure 3B).  Initial sequencing data to identify these smallRNA biomarkers came from PEG-precipitated EVs (Figure S1), by using methods we previously published (22). The PEG-precipitated EVs were extracted specifically for spike in studies. Finally, the smallRNAs in EVs were confirmed after extraction of EVs from 7 N. fowleri strains (Figure 2). We do not have evidence that they are secreted outside of EVs.

(2) The figure legends would be more useful with some additional information. For example: why are there two points for Nf69 in Fig 2B? In Figure 3A-B, please add more detail as to what the graphs are showing (are they histograms binned by a number of amoebae? This does not seem obvious to me). 

We agree the Figure legends should be edited for clarity and to add additional information. Both Figure legends have been updated.

In Figure 2B, each point represents the mean of three technical replicates of EV preps for each N. fowleri strain.

In Figure 3 the points indicate the Copy#/µL of a well from a 96-well plate. The histograms show the mean of these observations for each condition. 

(3)  In Figure 2E, the FBS seems like it has near detectable levels of smallRNA-1 compared to Ac and Bm (albeit N. fowleri has 4 orders of magnitude higher levels than the FBS). Because cows are likely exposed to N. fowleri and have documented infections (e.g. doi: 10.1016/j.rvsc.2012.01.002), is it possible this signal is real? 

Thank you for making this interesting observation. We agree that cows are likely to have significant exposure to N. fowleri, yet documented infections are rare. In this case we do not believe the near detectable levels of smallRNA-1 in FBS was due to an infected donor animal. This noise was likely due to extracting RNA from concentrated FBS rather than FBS diluted in cell culture media. In addition, as shown in Supplemental Figure 4, the qPCR product from EVs extracted from FBS were not the same as that from the N. fowleri-derived EVs. Please note we used a PEG extraction reagent that separates lipid particles, so this is additional evidence the smallRNAs are present in EVs.

(4)  In Figure 6A, why was the sample size greater for water and unspiked urine? Similarly, why is the number of infected mice so variable in Figure 4B? 

In Figure 6A we assayed de-identified biofluids provided by Advent Hospital in Orlando, Florida. The plasma and serum samples were pooled from multiple individuals; whereas, individual urine samples (n=8) were provided for this experiment. We have updated the legend for Figure 6A to include these details.

For Figure 4B we used plasma collected at the end-stage of disease following infections with five different strains of N. fowleri. The sample sizes varied for two reasons. First, Nf69 was the strain used most by our lab and we had plasma from several in vivo experiments. The lower sample sizes for the other strains came from an experiment with 8 mice per group. Some of these strains were less virulent and did not succumb to disease with the number of amoebae inoculated in this experiment. Thus, plasma was only collected from animals that were euthanized due to severe N.

fowleri infections. In follow up studies (e.g., Figure 5B), plasma was collected every 24 hr for analysis.

Very minor points: 

(1)  The number of acronyms (FLA, PAM, EVs, CNS, CSF, LOD) could be reduced to make this paper more reader-friendly. 

Acronyms that were used infrequently in the manuscript (FLA, CNS, LOD, mNGS, UC) have been edited to spell out the complete names. We kept the acronyms EVs and CSF because they are each used more than twenty times in the manuscript.

(2)  The decimal point in the Cq values is formatted strangely. 

The decimal points have been edited to normal format in both the manuscript and supplementary material.

(3)  Figure 3C is not intuitive. I do not understand the logic for the placement of the different samples (was row A only amoebae, B only Veros, C blank, D a mix, and F more Veros?). 

Thank you for this comment; we agree the microtiter plate schematic (Fig 3C) was misleading. We have revised Figure 3C to make the point that we tested amoebae alone, Vero cells alone, and we combined supernatants from Vero cells (alone) plus amoebae (alone) to confirm that 1) smallRNA-1 was only detected in amoeba-conditioned media, and 2) that Vero-conditioned media does not affect detection of smallRNA-1.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors): 

Minor corrections: 

The abbreviation 'Nf' for Naegleria fowleri is not appropriate in a scientific publication. According to taxonomic conventions, the correct way to abbreviate a scientific name is as follows: 

The first mention should be written in full: Naegleria fowleri. 

In subsequent mentions, the genus name should be abbreviated to its initial in uppercase, followed by a period, while the species name remains in lowercase: N. fowleri. 

The same rule applies to Balamuthia mandrillaris and Acanthamoeba species, which should be abbreviated as B. mandrillaris and Acanthamoeba spp. after their first mention. 

We agree and each of the scientific names have been updated to the proper format. Please note Nf69 is the accepted nomenclature for this N. fowleri strain, so no changes were made when referring to this specific strain.

Temperatures should be expressed in international units (°C). Please update the temperatures reported in Fahrenheit (°F) in the 'Materials and Methods' section, specifically in the 'Animal Studies' subsection. 

These changes were made in the revised manuscript.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary

This paper summarises responses from a survey completed by around 5,000 academics on their manuscript submission behaviours. The authors find several interesting stylised facts, including (but not limited to):

- Women are less likely to submit their papers to highly influential journals (*e.g.*, Nature, Science and PNAS).

- Women are more likely to cite the demands of co-authors as a reason why they didn't submit to highly influential journals.

- Women are also more likely to say that they were advised not to submit to highly influential journals.

Recommendation

This paper highlights an important point, namely that the submissions' behaviours of men and women scientists may not be the same (either due to preferences that vary by gender, selection effects that arise earlier in scientists' careers or social factors that affect men and women differently and also influence submission patterns). As a result, simply observing gender differences in acceptance rates---or a lack thereof---should not be automatically interpreted as as evidence of for or against discrimination (broadly defined) in the peer review process. I do, however, make a few suggestions below that the authors may (or may not) wish to address.

We thank the author for this comment and for the following suggestions, which we take into account in our revision of the manuscript.

Major comments

What do you mean by bias?

In the second paragraph of the introduction, it is claimed that "if no biases were present in the case of peer review, then 'we should expect the rate with which members of less powerful social groups enjoy successful peer review outcomes to be proportionate to their representation in submission rates." There are a couple of issues with this statement.

- First, the authors are implicitly making a normative assumption that manuscript submission and acceptance rates *should* be equalised across groups. This may very well be the case, but there can also be important reasons why not -- e.g., if men are more likely to submit their less ground-breaking work, then one might reasonably expect that they experience higher rejection rates compared to women, conditional on submission.

We do assume that normative statement: unless we believe that men’s papers are intrinsically better than women’s papers, the acceptance rate should be the same. But the referee is right: we have no way of controlling for the intrinsic quality of the work of men and women. That said, our manuscript does not show that there is a different acceptance rate for men and women; it shows that women are less likely to submit papers to a subset of journals that are of a lower Journal Impact Factor, controlling for their most cited paper, in an attempt to control for intrinsic quality of the manuscripts.

- Second, I assume by "bias", the authors are taking a broad definition, i.e., they are not only including factors that specifically relate to gender but also factors that are themselves independent of gender but nevertheless disproportionately are associated with one gender or another (e.g., perhaps women are more likely to write on certain topics and those topics are rated more poorly by (more prevalent) male referees; alternatively, referees may be more likely to accept articles by authors they've met before, most referees are men and men are more likely to have met a given author if he's male instead of female). If that is the case, I would define more clearly what you mean by bias. (And if that isn't the case, then I would encourage the authors to consider a broader definition of "bias"!)

Yes, the referee is right that we are taking a broad definition of bias. We provide a definition of bias on page 3, line 92. This definition is focused on differential evaluation which leads to differential outcomes. We also hedge our conversation (e.g., page 3, line 104) to acknowledge that observations of disparities may only be an indicator of potential bias, as many other things could explain the disparity. In short, disparities are a necessary but insufficient indicator of bias. We add a line in the introduction to reinforce this. The only other reference to the term bias comes on page 10, line 276. We add a reference to Lee here to contextualize.

Identifying policy interventions is not a major contribution of this paper

In my opinion, the survey evidence reported here isn't really strong enough to support definitive policy interventions to address the issue and, indeed, providing policy advice is not a major -- or even minor -- contribution of your paper, so I would not mention policy interventions in the abstract. (Basically, I would hope that someone interested in policy interventions would consult another paper that much more thoughtfully and comprehensively discusses the costs and benefits of various interventions!)

We thank the referee for this comment. While we agree that our results do not lead to definitive policy interventions, we believe that our findings point to a phenomenon that should be addressed through policy interventions. Given that some interventions are proposed in our conclusion, we feel like stating this in the abstract is coherent.

Minor comments

- What is the rationale for conditioning on academic rank and does this have explanatory power on its own---i.e., does it at least superficially potentially explain part of the gender gap in intention to submit?

The referee is right: academic rank was added to control for career age of researchers, with the assumption that this variable would influence submission behavior. However, the rank information we collected was for the time that the individual respondent took the survey, which could be different from the rank they held concerning their submission behaviors mentioned in the survey. That is why we didn't consider rank as an independent variable of interest. But I do also agree with the reviewer that it could be related to their submission behaviors in some cases. Our initial analysis shows that academic rank is not a significant predictor of whether researchers submitted to SNP, but does contribute significantly to the SNP acceptance rates and desk rejection rates of individuals in Medical Sciences.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Basson et al. study the representation of women in "high-impact" journals through the lens of gendered submission behavior. This work is clear and thorough, and it provides new insights into gender disparities in submissions, such as that women were more likely to avoid submitting to one of these journals based on advice from a colleague/mentor. The results have broad implications for all academic communities and may help toward reducing gender disparities in "high-impact" journal submissions. I enjoyed reading this article, and I have several recommendations regarding the methodology/reporting details that could help to enhance this work.

We thank the referee for their comments.

Strengths:

This is an important area of investigation that is often overlooked in the study of gender bias in publishing. Several strengths of the paper include:

(1) A comprehensive survey of thousands of academics. It is admirable that the authors retroactively reached out to other researchers and collected an extensive amount of data.

(2) Overall, the modeling procedures appear thorough, and many different questions are modeled.

(3) There are interesting new results, as well as a thoughtful discussion. This work will likely spark further investigation into gender bias in submission behavior, particularly regarding the possible gendered effect of mentorship on article submission.

Thank you for those comments.

Weaknesses:

(1) The GitHub page should be further clarified. A detailed description of how to run the analysis and the location of the data would be helpful. For example, although the paper says that "Aggregated and de-identified data by gender, discipline, and rank for analyses are available on GitHub," I was unable to find such data.

We added the link to the Github page, as well as more details on the how to run the statistical analysis. Unfortunately, our IRB approval does not allow for the sharing of the raw data.

(2) Why is desk rejection rate defined as "the number of manuscripts that did not go out for peer review divided by the number of manuscripts rejected for each survey respondent"? For example, in your Grossman 2020 reference, it appears that manuscripts are categorized as "reviewed" or "desk-rejected" (Grossman Figure 2). If there are gender differences in the denominator, then this could affect the results.

We thank the referee for pointing this out. Actually, what the referee is proposing is how we calculated it in the manuscript; the calculation mentioned in the manuscript was a mistake. We corrected the manuscript.

(3) Have you considered correcting for multiple comparisons? Alternatively, you could consider reporting P-values and effect sizes in the main text. Otherwise, sometimes the conclusions can be misleading. For example, in Figure 3 (and Table S28), the effect is described as significant in Social Sciences (p=0.04) but not in Medical Sciences (p=0.07).

We highly appreciate the suggestion. We’ve added Odds Ratio values and p-values to the main manuscript.

(4) More detail about the models could be included. It may be helpful to include this in each table caption so that it is clear what all the terms of the model were. For instance, I was wondering if journal or discipline are included in the models.

We appreciate the suggestion. We’ve added model details to the figure and table captions in the manuscript and the supplemental materials.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

This is a strong manuscript by Basson and colleagues which contributes to our understanding of gender disparities in scientific publishing. The authors examine attitudes and behaviors related to manuscript submission in influential journals (specifically, Science, Nature and PNAS). The authors rightly note that much attention has been paid to gender disparities in work that is already published, but this fails to capture the unseen hurdles that occur prior to publication (which include decisions about where to publish, desk rejections, revisions and resubmissions, etc.). They conducted a survey study to address some of these components and their results are interesting:

They find that women are less likely to submit their manuscript to Science, Nature or PNAS. While both men and women feel their work would be better suited for more specialized journals, women were more likely to think their work was 'less novel or groundbreaking.'

A smaller proportion of respondents indicated that they were actively discouraged from submitting their manuscripts to these journals. In this instance, women were more likely to receive this advice than men.

Lastly, the authors also looked at self-reported acceptance and rejection rates and found that there were no gender differences in acceptance or rejection rates.

These data are helpful in developing strategies to mitigate gender disparities in influential journals.

We thank the referee for their comments

Comments:

The methods the authors used are appropriate for this study. The low response rate is common for this type of recruitment strategy. The authors provide a thoughtful interpretation of their data in the Discussion.

We thank the referee for their comments

Reviewer #4 (Public Review):

This manuscript covers an important topic of gender biases in the authorship of scientific publications. Specifically, it investigates potential mechanisms behind these biases, using a solid approach, based on a survey of researchers.

Main strengths

The topic of the MS is very relevant given that across sciences/academia representation of genders is uneven, and identified as concerning. To change this, we need to have evidence on what mechanisms cause this pattern. Given that promotion and merit in academia are still largely based on the number of publications and impact factor, one part of the gap likely originates from differences in publication rates of women compared to men.

Women are underrepresented compared to men in journals with high impact factor. While previous work has detected this gap, as well as some potential mechanisms, the current MS provides strong evidence, based on a survey of close to 5000 authors, that this gap might be due to lower submission rates of women compared to men, rather than the rejection rates. The data analysis is appropriate to address the main research aims. The results interestingly show that there is no gender bias in rejection rates (desk rejection or overall) in three high-impact journals (Science, Nature, PNAS). However, submission rates are lower for women compared to men, indicating that gender biases might act through this pathway. The survey also showed that women are more likely to rate their work as not groundbreaking, and be advised not to submit to prestigious journals

With these results, the MS has the potential to inform actions to reduce gender bias in publishing, and actions to include other forms of measuring scientific impact and merit.

We thank the referee for their comments.

Main weakness and suggestions for improvement

(1) The main message/further actions: I feel that the MS fails to sufficiently emphasise the need for a different evaluation system for researchers (and their research). While we might act to support women to submit more to high-impact journals, we could also (and several initiatives do this) consider a broader spectrum of merits (e.g. see https://coara.eu/ ). Thus, I suggest more space to discuss this route in the Discussion. Also, I would suggest changing the terms that imply that prestigious journals have a better quality of research or the highest scientific impact (line 40: journals of the highest scientific impact) with terms that actually state what we definitely know (i.e. that they have the highest impact factor). And think this could broaden the impact of the MS

We agree with the referee. We changed the wording on impact, and added a few lines were added on this in the discussion.

(2) Methods: while methods are all sound, in places it is difficult to understand what has been done or measured. For example, only quite late (as far as I can find, it's in the supplement) we learn the type of authorship considered in the MS is the corresponding authorship. This information should be clear from the very start (including the Abstract).

We performed the suggested edits.

Second, I am unclear about the question on the perceived quality of research work. Was this quality defined for researchers, as quality can mean different things (e.g. how robust their set-up was, how important their research question was)? If researchers have different definitions of what quality means, this can cause additional heterogeneity in responses. Given that the survey cannot be repeated now, maybe this can be discussed as a limitation.

We agree that this can mean something different for researchers—probably varies by discipline, but also by gender. But that was precisely the point: whether men/women considered their “best work” to be published in higher impact venue. While there may be heterogeneity in those perceptions, the fact that 1) men and women rate their research at the same level and 2) we control for disciplinary differences should mitigate some of that.

I was surprised to see that discipline was considered as a moderator for some of the analyses but not for the main analysis on the acceptance and rejection rates.

We appreciate the attention to detail. In our analysis of acceptance and rejection rates, we conducted separate regression analyses for each discipline to capture any field-specific patterns that might otherwise be obscured.

We added more details on this to clarify.

I was also suppressed not to see publication charges as one of the reasons asked for not submitting to selected journals. Low and middle-income countries often have more women in science but are also less likely to support high publication charges.

That is a good point. However, both Science and Nature have subscription options, which do not require any APCs.

Finally, academic rank was asked of respondents but was not taken as a moderator.

Academic rank is included in the regression as a control variable (Figure 1).

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

In addition to the points in the "Weaknesses" section of the my Public Review above, I have several suggestions to improve this work.

(1) Can you please indicate what the error bars mean in each plot? I am assuming that they are 95% confidence intervals.

We appreciate the attention to detail. Yes, they are 95% confidence intervals. We’ve clarified this in the captions of the corresponding figures. 

(2) Can you provide a more detailed explanation for why the 7 journals were separated? I see that on page 3 of the supporting information you write that "Due to limited responses, analysis per journal was not always viable. The results pertaining to the journals were aggregated, with new categories based on the shared similarities in disciplinary foci of the journals and their prestige." Specifically, why did you divide the data into (somewhat arbitrary) categories as opposed to using all the data and including a journal term in your model?

The survey covered 7 journals:

• Science, Nature, and PNAS (S.N.P.)

• Nature Communications and Science Advances (NC.SA.)

• NEJM and Cell (NEJM.C.)

We believe that the first three are a class of their own: they cover all fields (while NEJM and Cell are limited to (bio)medical sciences), and have a much higher symbolic capital than both Nature Comms and Science Advances (which are receiving cascading papers from Nature and Science, respectively). We believe that factors leading to submission to S.N.P. are much different than those leading to submission to the other groups of journals, which is why we separated the analysis in that manner.

(3) You included random effects for linear regression but not for logistic regression. Please justify this choice or include additional logistic regression models with random effects.

We used mixed-effect models for linear regressions (where number of submissions, acceptance rate, or rejection rate is the dependent variable). As mentioned in the previous comment, we tested using rank as the control variable and found it had a potential impact on the variables we analyzed using linear regressions in some disciplines. Therefore, we introduced it as a random effect for all the linear regression models.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

The limitations of this work are currently described in the Supplement. It may be helpful to bring several of these items into the Discussion so that they can be addressed more prominently.

Added content

Reviewer #4 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) Line 40: add 'as leading authors of papers published in' before ' 'journals'

Done

(2) Explain what the direction in the ' relationship between' line 62 is

Added

(3) Lines 101-102 - this is a bit unclear. Please, provide some more info, also including what did these studies find.

Added

(4) Is 'sociodemographic' the best term in line 120

Yes, we believe so.

(5) Results would benefit from a short intro with the info on the number of respondents, also by gender.

Those are present at the end of the intro (and in the methods, at the end). We nonetheless added gender.

(6) Line 134 add how many woman and man did submit to Science, Nature, and PNAS

Added. In all disciplines combined, 552 women and 1,583 men ever submitted to these three elite journals. More details can be found in SI Table 9

(7) Add 'Self-' before reported, line 141

Added

(8) Add sample sizes to Figs 1 and 2

Those are in the appendix

(9) Line 168 - unclear if this is ever or as their first choice

We do not discriminate – it is whether the considered it at all.

(10) Add sample size in line 177

Added. 480 women and 1404 men across all disciplines reported desk rejections by S.N.P. journals.

(11) I would like to see some discussion on the fact that the highest citation paper will also be a paper that the authors have submitted earlier in their careers given that citations will pile up over time.

Those are actually quite evenly distributed. We modified the supplementary materials.

(12) Data availability - be clear that supporting info contains only summary data. Also, while the Data availability statement refers to de-identified data on Github, the Github page only contains the code, and the note that 'The STAT code used for our analyses is shared.

We are unable to share the survey response details publicly per IRB protocols.' Why were de-identified data shared? This is extremely important to allow for the reproducibility of MS results. I would also suggest sharing data in a trusted repository (e.g. Dryad, ZENODO...) rather than on Github, as per current recommendations on the best practices for data sharing.

Thank you for your careful reading and for highlighting the importance of clear data availability. We will revise our Data Availability Statement to explicitly state that the supporting information contains only summary data and that the complete analysis code is available on GitHub.

We understand the importance of sharing de-identified data for reproducibility. However, our IRB strictly prohibits the sharing of any individual-level data, including de-identified files, to protect participant confidentiality. Consequently, the summary data included in the supporting information, together with the provided code, is intended to facilitate the verification of our core findings. Our previous statement regarding “de-identified” data sharing was inaccurate and thus has been removed. We apologize for the confusion.

In light of your suggestion, we are also exploring depositing the summary data and code in a trusted repository (e.g., Dryad or Zenodo) to further align with current best practices for data sharing.

Author response:

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

We thank the editor and reviewers for their thoughtful evaluations. We would like to clarify that the revised manuscript does not make a general claim about the absence of ripple-associated synchronous population activity. Rather, we report only that the synchronous ensembles observed in our data were not associated with contralateral ripple oscillations. This distinction is clearly reflected in the revised Title, Abstract, Introduction, Results, and Discussion. We also explicitly acknowledged the methodological limitation of recording LFP from the contralateral side of the hippocampus.

To further improve clarity and prevent potential misinterpretation, we are submitting a revised version (R4) in which we:

(1) Replace the word "surprisingly" with the more neutral "Moreover";

(2) Refer to ripple events consistently as "contralateral ripples (c-ripples)";

(3)Expand the discussion of limitations inherent to contralateral LFP recordings.

Additionally, while Buzsaki et al. (2003) wrote that "These findings suggest ripples emerge locally and independently in the two hemispheres", the same study also presents data and reports that "Ripple episodes occurred simultaneously in the left and right CA1 regions" (p. 206). Our original citation was intended to reflect this nuance. Nevertheless, to avoid any potential misinterpretation, we have removed the co-occurrence statement with its associated citations in the revised (R4) manuscript.

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

For many years, there has been extensive electrophysiological research investigating the relationship between local field potential patterns and individual cell spike patterns in the hippocampus. In this study, using state-ofthe-art imaging techniques, they examined spike synchrony of hippocampal cells during locomotion and immobility states. In contrast to conventional understanding of the hippocampus, the authors demonstrated that hippocampal place cells exhibit prominent synchronous spikes locked to theta oscillations.

Strengths:

The voltage imaging used in this study is a highly novel method that allows recording not only suprathreshold-level spikes but also subthreshold-level activity. With its high frame rate, it offers time resolution comparable to electrophysiological recordings.

Comments on revisions: I have no further comments.

We thank the reviewer for constructive reviews and for recognizing the strength of our study.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study employed voltage imaging in the CA1 region of the mouse hippocampus during the exploration of a novel environment. The authors report synchronous activity, involving almost half of the imaged neurons, occurred during periods of immobility. These events did not correlate with SWRs, but instead, occurred during theta oscillations and were phased locked to the trough of theta. Moreover, pairs of neurons with high synchronization tended to display non-overlapping place fields, leading the authors to suggest these events may play a role in binding a distributed representation of the context.

Strengths:

Technically this is an impressive study, using an emerging approach that allows single cell resolution voltage imaging in animals, that while head-fixed, can move through a real environment. The paper is written clearly and suggests novel observations about population level activity in CA1.

Comments on revisions:

I have no further major requests and thank the authors for the additional data and analyses.

We thank the reviewer for recognizing the strength of our study and for appreciating the additional data and analyses we provided during the revision process.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In the present manuscript, the authors use a few minutes of voltage imaging of CA1 pyramidal cells in head fixed mice running on a track while local field potential (LFPs) are recorded. The authors suggest that synchronous ensembles of neurons are differentially associated with different types of LFP patterns, theta and ripples. The experiments are flawed in that the LFP is not "local" but rather collected the other side of the brain.

Strengths:

The authors use a cutting-edge technique.

Weaknesses:

Although the authors have toned down their claims, the statement in the title ("Synchronous Ensembles of Hippocampal CA1 Pyramidal Neurons Associated with Theta but not Ripple Oscillations During Novel Exploration") is still unsupported.

One could write the same title while voltage imaging one mouse and recording LFP from another mouse.

To properly convey the results, the title should be modified to read

"Synchronous Ensembles of Hippocampal CA1 Pyramidal Neurons Associated with Contralateral Theta but not with Contralateral Ripple Oscillations During Novel Exploration"

Without making this change, the title - and therefore the entire work - is misleading at best.

We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive suggestion regarding the title. We fully understand the concern that our original title may have overstated the specificity of the contralateral LFP recordings, potentially allowing for misinterpretation.

In our results, synchronous ensembles are associated with intracellular theta oscillations recorded from the ipsilateral hippocampus and with extracellular theta but not ripples oscillations recorded from the contralateral hippocampus. To clarify this distinction and minimize the potential for misinterpretation, we have revised the abstract accordingly. 

Abstract (line18):

“… Notably, these synchronous ensembles were not associated with contralateral ripple oscillations but were instead phase-locked to theta waves recorded in the contralateral CA1 region. Moreover, the subthreshold membrane potentials of neurons exhibited coherent intracellular theta oscillations with a depolarizing peak at the moment of synchrony.”

Based on this, we propose the following revised title, which we believe more effectively communicates the central finding of our study: 

“Synchronous Ensembles of Hippocampal CA1 Pyramidal Neurons During Novel Exploration”. 

Compared to the reviewer’s suggested title, this version offers a clearer and more concise summary of our findings while allowing important methodological details to be fully conveyed in the abstract and main text. While the suggested title accurately reflects the source of the LFP signals, it does not mention the intracellular theta oscillations recorded from the ipsilateral hippocampus, which are a critical part of our results. Including both the intracellular and extracellular recording contexts in the title would make it overly long and potentially less accessible to readers. In contrast, the revised title succinctly captures the core phenomenon, and the updated abstract now explicitly clarifies the relationship between the synchronous ensembles and both types of oscillatory signals. 

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s input, which helped us refine both the language and the presentation of our findings. We hope these changes address the concern and clarify the scope of our work. 

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Change the title. Although the authors have toned down their claims, the statement in the title ("Synchronous Ensembles of Hippocampal CA1 Pyramidal Neurons Associated with Theta but not Ripple Oscillations During Novel Exploration") is still unsupported. One could write the same title while voltage imaging one mouse and recording LFP from another mouse. To properly convey the results, the title should be modified to read

"Synchronous Ensembles of Hippocampal CA1 Pyramidal Neurons Associated with Contralateral Theta but not with Contralateral Ripple Oscillations During Novel Exploration"

Without making this change, the title - and therefore the entire work - is misleading at best. But if you can manage that (and attend to comment #2 below), then the manuscript would not be making any false statements.

Please see our reply in the public review above.

(2) Report the exact locations of the contralateral recording electrodes. In their rebuttal, the authors supplies a figure ("Author response image 1") in which they show damage to the neocortex and fluorescence signal in the CA1 pyramidal cell layer. This is useful, but it is unclear from which animal this histology was generated.

Please include this (or another similar) photograph in Figure 1B, right next to the voltage imaging photograph. Indicate from which animal each photograph was obtained - ideally, provide the two photographs from the same animal. Second, please include such paired photographs - along with paired signals - for every animal that you are able to.

If you can manage that, it will add credibility to the statement that the recordings are indeed from the contralateral CA1 pyramidal cell layer (as opposed to from the contralateral hemisphere).

We thank the reviewer for this important point. We have followed the suggestion and now provide paired photographs showing LFP electrode tracks and voltage images from the same animal (see revised Figure 1B)

In addition, we have included similar paired photographs for additional animals used in this study (see Figure 1-figure supplement 1).

These updates directly support the claim that LFP recordings were obtained from the contralateral CA1 pyramidal layer, rather than from the contralateral hemisphere. We sincerely thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion, which has substantially strengthened our manuscript.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Functional lateralization between the right and left hemispheres is reported widely in animal taxa, including humans. However, it remains largely speculative as to whether the lateralized brains have a cognitive gain or a sort of fitness advantage. In the present study, by making use of the advantages of domestic chicks as a model, the authors are successful in revealing that the lateralized brain is advantageous in the number sense, in which numerosity is associated with spatial arrangements of items. Behavioral evidence is strong enough to support their arguments. Brain lateralization was manipulated by light exposure during the terminal phase of incubation, and the left-to-right numerical representation appeared when the distance between items gave a reliable spatial cue. The light-exposure induced lateralization, though quite unique in avian species, together with the lack of intense inter-hemispheric direct connections (such as the corpus callosum in the mammalian cerebrum), was critical for the successful analysis in this study. Specification of the responsible neural substrates in the presumed right hemisphere is expected in future research. Comparable experimental manipulation in the mammalian brain must be developed to address this general question (functional significance of brain laterality) is also expected.

We sincerely appreciate the Reviewer's insightful feedback and his/her recognition of the key contributions of our study.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This is the first study to show how a L-R bias in the relationship between numerical magnitude and space depends on brain lateralisation, and moreover, how is modulated by in ovo conditions.

Strengths:

Novel methodology for investigating the innateness and neural basis of an L-R bias in the relationship between number and space.

We would like to thank the Reviewer for their valuable feedback and for highlighting the key contributions of our study.

Weaknesses:

I would query the way the experiment was contextualised. They ask whether culture or innate pre-wiring determines the 'left-to-right orientation of the MNL [mental number line]'.

We thank the Reviewer for raising this point, which has allowed us to provide a more detailed explanation of this aspect. Rather than framing the left-to-right orientation of the mental number line (MNL) as exclusively determined by either cultural influences or innate pre-wiring, our study highlights the role of environmental stimulation. Specifically, prenatal light exposure can shape hemispheric specialization, which in turn contributes to spatial biases in numerical processing. Please see lines 115-118.

The term, 'Mental Number Line' is an inference from experimental tasks. One of the first experimental demonstrations of a preference or bias for small numbers in the left of space and larger numbers in the right of space, was more carefully described as the spatial-numerical association of response codes - the SNARC effect (Dehaene, S., Bossini, S., & Giraux, P. (1993). The mental representation of parity and numerical magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371-396).

We have refined our description of the MNL and SNARC effect to ensure conceptual accuracy in the revised manuscript; please see lines 53-59.

This has meant that the background to the study is confusing. First, the authors note, correctly, that many other creatures, including insects, can show this bias, though in none of these has neural lateralisation been shown to be a cause. Second, their clever experiment shows that an experimental manipulation creates the bias. If it were innate and common to other species, the experimental manipulation shouldn't matter. There would always be an L-R bias. Third, they seem to be asserting that humans have a left-to-right (L-R) MNL. This is highly contentious, and in some studies, reading direction affects it, as the original study by Dehaene et al showed; and in others, task affects direction (e.g. Bachtold, D., Baumüller, M., & Brugger, P. (1998). Stimulus-response compatibility in representational space. Neuropsychologia, 36, 731-735, not cited). Moreover, a very careful study of adult humans, found no L-R bias (Karolis, V., Iuculano, T., & Butterworth, B. (2011), not cited, Mapping numerical magnitudes along the right lines: Differentiating between scale and bias. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(4), 693-706). Indeed, Rugani et al claim, incorrectly, that the L-R bias was first reported by Galton in 1880. There are two errors here: first, Galton was reporting what he called 'visualised numerals', which are typically referred to now as 'number forms' - spontaneous and habitual conscious visual representations - not an inference from a number line task. Second, Galton reported right-to-left, circular, and vertical visualised numerals, and no simple left-to-right examples (Galton, F. (1880). Visualised numerals. Nature, 21, 252-256.). So in fact did Bertillon, J. (1880). De la vision des nombres. La Nature, 378, 196-198, and more recently Seron, X., Pesenti, M., Noël, M.-P., Deloche, G., & Cornet, J.-A. (1992). Images of numbers, or "When 98 is upper left and 6 sky blue". Cognition, 44, 159-196, and Tang, J., Ward, J., & Butterworth, B. (2008). Number forms in the brain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(9), 1547-1556.

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to discuss numerical spatialization in greater detail. We have clarified that an innate predisposition to spatialize numerosity does not necessarily exclude the influence of environmental stimulation and experience. We have proposed an integrative perspective, incorporating both cultural and innate factors, suggesting that numerical spatialization originates from neural foundations while remaining flexible and modifiable by experience and contextual influences. Please see lines 69–75.

We have incorporated the Reviewer’s suggestions and cited all the recommended papers; please see lines 47–75.

If the authors are committed to chicks' MN Line they should test a series of numbers showing that the bias to the left is greater for 2 and 3 than for 4, etc.

What does all this mean? I think that the paper should be shorn of its misleading contextualisation, including the term 'Mental Number Line'. The authors also speculate, usefully, on why chicks and other species might have a L-R bias. I don't think the speculations are convincing, but at least if there is an evolutionary basis for the bias, it should at least be discussed.

In the revised version of the manuscript, we have resorted to adopt the Spatial Numerical Association (SNA). We thank the Reviewer for this valuable comment.

We appreciated the Reviewer’s suggestion regarding the evolutionary basis of lateralization and have included considerations of its relevance in chicks and other species; please see lines 143-151 and 381-386.

This paper is very interesting with its focus on why the L-R bias exists, and where and why it does not.

We wish to thank the Reviewer again for his/her work.

Reviewer #1(Public review)

(1) Introduction needs to be edited to make it much more concise and shorter. Hypotheses (from line 67 to 81) and predictions (from line 107 to 124) must be thoroughly rephrased, because (a) general readers are not familiar with the hypotheses (emotional valence and BAFT), (b) the hypotheses may or may not be mutually exclusive, and therefore (c) the logical linkage between the hypotheses and the predicted results are not necessarily clear. Most general readers may be embarrassed by the apparently complicated logical constructs of this study. Instead, it is recommended that focal spotlight should be given to the issue of functional contributions of brain lateralization to the cognitive development of number sense.

We thank the Reviewer for these comments, which allowed us to improve the clarity of our hypotheses and predictions. We thoroughly rephrased them to ensure they are accessible to general readers and specified that the models may or may not be mutually exclusive. Additionally, we highlighted the functional contributions of brain lateralization to the cognitive development of number sense, addressing the suggested focal point. While we have shortened the introduction, we opted to retain essential background information to ensure readers are well-informed about the relevant scientific literature. Please review the entire introduction, particularly lines 84–118 and 218.

(2) In relation to the above (a), abbreviations need to be reexamined. MNL (mental number line) appears early on lines 27 and 49, whereas the possibly related conceptual term SNA appeared first on line 213, without specification to "spatial numerical association".

We thank the Reviewer for bringing this to our attention. We have addressed the suggestions, and the term SNA has been used specifically to refer to numerical spatialization in non-human animals. Please see lines 27-30.

(3) By the way, what difference is there between MNL and SNA? Please specify the difference if it is important. If not important, is it possible that one of these two is consistently used in this report, at least in the Introduction?

We clarified the distinction between MNL and SNA and have consistently used SNA in this report; please see lines 47-75.

(4) In relation to the above (a and b), clarification of the hypotheses and their abbreviations in the form of a table or a graphical representation will strongly reinforce the general readers' understanding. It is also possible that some of these hypotheses are discussed later in the Discussion, rather than in Introduction.

We appreciated this suggestion and have now clarified the hypotheses, also providing a table/graphical representation, aiming to enhance accessibility for general readers; please see lines 110-118, and 218.

(5) Figures 1 and 2 are transparent and easily understandable; however, the statistical details in the Results may bother the readers as the main points are doubly represented in Figures 1, 2, and Table 1. These (statistics and Table 1) may go to the supplementary file, if the editor agrees.

We would prefer to keep Table 1 and the statistical details as part of the main article to provide readers with a comprehensive overview of the experimental results. However, if the editors also suggest to move them to the supplementary file, we are open to making this adjustment.

(6) In Figure 1D and E, and text lines 139-140. Figure 1D shows that the chick is looking monocularly by the right eye, but the text (line 139) says "left eye in use. Is it correct?

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this incongruity. We have corrected the text to align with Figure 1D and E; please see lines 180-181.

(7) Methods. The behavioral experiment was initiated on Wednesday (8 a.m.; line 479), but at what age? At what post-hatch day was the experiment terminated? A simple graphical illustration of the schedule will be quite helpful.

We have added the requested details, specifying that experiments began on the third post-hatch day and ended on the fifth day; please see lines 533-539.

Additionally, we have included a graphical illustration of the schedule to enhance clarity; please see line 666.  

(8) Methods. How many chicks were excluded from the study in the course of Pre-training (line 525) and Training (line 535-536)? Was the exclusion rate high, or just negligible?

We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. We have now included the number of subjects excluded during the training phase; please see lines 593-597.

We wish to thank the Reviewer again for his/her work.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews: 

Reviewer #1 (Public review): 

Summary: 

This work integrates two timepoints from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study to understand how neuroimaging, genetic, and environmental data contribute to the predictive power of mental health variables in predicting cognition in a large early adolescent sample. Their multimodal and multivariate prediction framework involves a novel opportunistic stacking model to handle complex types of information to predict variables that are important in understanding mental health-cognitive performance associations. 

Strengths: 

The authors are commended for incorporating and directly comparing the contribution of multiple imaging modalities (task fMRI, resting state fMRI, diffusion MRI, structural MRI), neurodevelopmental markers, environmental factors, and polygenic risk scores in a novel multivariate framework (via opportunistic stacking), as well as interpreting mental health-cognition associations with latent factors derived from partial least squares. The authors also use a large well-characterized and diverse cohort of adolescents from the ABCD Study. The paper is also strengthened by commonality analyses to understand the shared and unique contribution of different categories of factors (e.g., neuroimaging vs mental health vs polygenic scores vs sociodemographic and adverse developmental events) in explaining variance in cognitive performance 

Weaknesses: 

The paper is framed with an over-reliance on the RDoC framework in the introduction, despite deviations from the RDoC framework in the methods. The field is also learning more about RDoC's limitations when mapping cognitive performance to biology. The authors also focus on a single general factor of cognition as the core outcome of interest as opposed to different domains of cognition. The authors could consider predicting mental health rather than cognition. Using mental health as a predictor could be limited by the included 9-11 year age range at baseline (where many mental health concerns are likely to be low or not well captured), as well as the nature of how the data was collected, i.e., either by self-report or from parent/caregiver report. 

Thank you so much for your encouragement.

We appreciate your comments on the strengths of our manuscript.

Regarding the weaknesses, the reliance on the RDoC framework is by design. Even with its limitations, following RDoC allows us to investigate mental health holistically. In our case, RDoC enabled us to focus on a) a functional domain (i.e., cognitive ability), b) the biological units of analysis of this functional domain (i.e., neuroimaging and polygenic scores), c) potential contribution of environments, and d) the continuous individual deviation in this domain (as opposed to distinct categories). We are unaware of any framework with all these four features.

Focusing on modelling biological units of analysis of a functional domain, as opposed to mental health per se, has some empirical support from the literature. For instance, in Marek and colleagues’ (2022) study, as mentioned by a previous reviewer, fMRI is shown to have a more robust prediction for cognitive ability than mental health. Accordingly, our reasons for predicting cognitive ability instead of mental health in this study are motivated theoretically (i.e., through RDoC) and empirically (i.e., through fMRI findings). We have clarified this reason in the introduction of the manuscript.

We are aware of the debates surrounding the actual structure of functional domains where the originally proposed RDoC’s specific constructs might not fit the data as well as the data-driven approach (Beam et al., 2021; Quah et al., 2025). However, we consider this debate as an attempt to improve the characterisation of functional domains of RDoC, not an effort to invalidate its holistic, neurobiological and basicfunctioning approach. Our use of a latent-variable modelling approach through factor analyses moves towards a data-driven direction. We made the changes to the second-to-last paragraph in the introduction to make this point clear:

“In this study, inspired by RDoC, we a) focused on cognitive abilities as a functional domain, b) created predictive models to capture the continuous individual variation (as opposed to distinct categories) in cognitive abilities, c) computed two neurobiological units of analysis of cognitive abilities: multimodal neuroimaging and PGS, and d) investigated the potential contributions of environmental factors. To operationalise cognitive abilities, we estimated a latent variable representing behavioural performance across various cognitive tasks, commonly referred to as general cognitive ability or the gfactor (Deary, 2012). The g-factor was computed from various cognitive tasks pertinent to RDoC constructs, including attention, working memory, declarative memory, language, and cognitive control. However, using the g-factor to operationalise cognitive abilities caused this study to diverge from the original conceptualisation of RDoC, which emphasises studying separate constructs within cognitive abilities (Morris et al., 2022; Morris & Cuthbert, 2012). Recent studies suggest an improvement to the structure of functional domains by including a general factor, such as the g-factor, in the model, rather than treating each construct separately (Beam et al., 2021; Quah et al., 2025). The g-factor in children is also longitudinally stable and can forecast future health outcomes (Calvin et al., 2017; Deary et al., 2013). Notably, our previous research found that neuroimaging predicts the g-factor more accurately than predicting performance from separate individual cognitive tasks (Pat et al., 2023). Accordingly, we decided to conduct predictive models on the g-factor while keeping the RDoC’s holistic, neurobiological, and basic-functioning characteristics.”

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary: 

This paper by Wang et al. uses rich brain, behaviour, and genetics data from the ABCD cohort to ask how well cognitive abilities can be predicted from mental-health-related measures, and how brain and genetics influence that prediction. They obtain an out-ofsample correlation of 0.4, with neuroimaging (in particular task fMRI) proving the key mediator. Polygenic scores contributed less. 

Strengths: 

This paper is characterized by the intelligent use of a superb sample (ABCD) alongside strong statistical learning methods and a clear set of questions. The outcome - the moderate level of prediction between the brain, cognition, genetics, and mental health - is interesting. Particularly important is the dissection of which features best mediate that prediction and how developmental and lifestyle factors play a role. 

Thank you so much for the encouragement. 

Weaknesses: 

There are relatively few weaknesses to this paper. It has already undergone review at a different journal, and the authors clearly took the original set of comments into account in revising their paper. Overall, while the ABCD sample is superb for the questions asked, it would have been highly informative to extend the analyses to datasets containing more participants with neurological/psychiatric diagnoses (e.g. HBN, POND) or extend it into adolescent/early adult onset psychopathology cohorts. But it is fair enough that the authors want to leave that for future work. 

Thank you very much for providing this valuable comment and for your flexibility.

For the current manuscript, we have drawn inspiration from the RDoC framework, which emphasises the variation from normal to abnormal in normative samples (Morris et al., 2022). The ABCD samples align well with this framework.

We hope to extend this framework to include participants with neurological and psychiatric diagnoses in the future. We have begun applying neurobiological units of analysis for cognitive abilities, assessed through multimodal neuroimaging and polygenic scores (PGS), to other datasets containing more participants with neurological and psychiatric diagnoses. However, this is beyond the scope of the current manuscript. We have listed this as one of the limitations in the discussion section:

“Similarly, our ABCD samples were young and community-based, likely limiting the severity of their psychopathological issues (Kessler et al., 2007). Future work needs to test if the results found here are generalisable to adults and participants with stronger severity.”

In terms of more practical concerns, much of the paper relies on comparing r or R2 measures between different tests. These are always presented as point estimates without uncertainty. There would be some value, I think, in incorporating uncertainty from repeated sampling to better understand the improvements/differences between the reported correlations. 

This is a good suggestion. We have now included bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals in all of our scatter plots, showing the uncertainty of predictive performance.

The focus on mental health in a largely normative sample leads to the predictions being largely based on the normal range. It would be interesting to subsample the data and ask how well the extremes are predicted. 

We appreciate this comment. Similar to our response to Reviewer 2’s Weakness #1, our approach has drawn inspiration from the RDoC framework, which emphasises the variation from normal to abnormal in normative samples (Morris et al., 2022). Subsampling the data would make us deviate from our original motivation. 

Moreover, we used 17 mental healh variables in our predictive models: 8 CBCL subscales, 4 BIS/BAS subscales and 5 UPSS subscales. It is difficult to subsample them. Perhaps a better approach is to test the applicability of our neurobiological units of analysis for cognitive abilities (multimodal neuroimaging and PGS) in other datasets that include more extreme samples. We are working on this line of studies at the moment, and hope to show that in our future work. 

Reviewer 2’s Weakness #4

A minor query - why are only cortical features shown in Figure 3? 

We presented both cortical and subcortical features in Figure 3. The cortical features are shown on the surface space, while the subcortical features are displayed on the coronal plane. Below is an example of these cortical and subcortical features from the ENBack contrast. The subcortical features are presented in the far-right coronal image.

We separated the presentation of cortical and subcortical features because the ABCD uses the CIFTI format (https://www.humanconnectome.org/software/workbenchcommand/-cifti-help). CIFTI-format images combine cortical surface (in vertices) with subcortical volume (in voxels). For task fMRI, the ABCD parcellated cortical vertices using Freesurfer’s Destrieux atlas and subcortical voxels using Freesurfer’s automatically segmented brain volume (ASEG).

Due to the size of the images in Figure 3, it may have been difficult for Reviewer 2 to see the subcortical features clearly. We have now added zoomed-in versions of this figure as Supplementary Figures 4–13.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the autors):

(1) In the abstract, could the authors mention which imaging modalities contribute most to the prediction of cognitive abilities (e.g., working memory-related task fMRI)? 

Thank you for the suggestion. Following this advice, we now mention which imaging modalities led to the highest predictive performance. Please see the abstract below.

“Cognitive abilities are often linked to mental health across various disorders, a pattern observed even in childhood. However, the extent to which this relationship is represented by different neurobiological units of analysis, such as multimodal neuroimaging and polygenic scores (PGS), remains unclear. 

Using large-scale data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study, we first quantified the relationship between cognitive abilities and mental health by applying multivariate models to predict cognitive abilities from mental health in children aged 9-10, finding an out-of-sample r\=.36 . We then applied similar multivariate models to predict cognitive abilities from multimodal neuroimaging, polygenic scores (PGS) and environmental factors. Multimodal neuroimaging was based on 45 types of brain MRI (e.g., task fMRI contrasts, resting-state fMRI, structural MRI, and diffusion tensor imaging). Among these MRI types, the fMRI contrast, 2-Back vs. 0-Back, from the ENBack task provided the highest predictive performance (r\=.4). Combining information across all 45 types of brain MRI led to the predictive performance of r\=.54. The PGS, based on previous genome-wide association studies on cognitive abilities, achieved a predictive performance of r\=.25. Environmental factors, including socio-demographics (e.g., parent’s income and education), lifestyles (e.g., extracurricular activities, sleep) and developmental adverse events (e.g., parental use of alcohol/tobacco, pregnancy complications), led to a predictive performance of r\=.49. 

In a series of separate commonality analyses, we found that the relationship between cognitive abilities and mental health was primarily represented by multimodal neuroimaging (66%) and, to a lesser extent, by PGS (21%). Additionally, environmental factors accounted for 63% of the variance in the relationship between cognitive abilities and mental health. The multimodal neuroimaging and PGS then explained 58% and 21% of the variance due to environmental factors, respectively. Notably, these patterns remained stable over two years. 

Our findings underscore the significance of neurobiological units of analysis for cognitive abilities, as measured by multimodal neuroimaging and PGS, in understanding both a) the relationship between cognitive abilities and mental health and b) the variance in this relationship shared with environmental factors.”

(2) Could the authors clarify what they mean by "completing the transdiagnostic aetiology of mental health" in the introduction? (Second paragraph). 

Thank you. 

We intended to convey that understanding the transdiagnostic aetiology of mental health would be enhanced by knowing how neurobiological units of cognitive abilities, from the brain to genes, capture variations due to environmental factors. We realise this sentence might be confusing. Removing it does not alter the intended meaning of the paragraph, as we clarified this point later. The paragraph now reads:

“According to the National Institute of Mental Health’s Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework (Insel et al., 2010), cognitive abilities should be investigated not only behaviourally but also neurobiologically, from the brain to genes. It remains unclear to what extent the relationship between cognitive abilities and mental health is represented in part by different neurobiological units of analysis -- such as neural and genetic levels measured by multimodal neuroimaging and polygenic scores (PGS). To fully comprehend the role of neurobiology in the relationship between cognitive abilities and mental health, we must also consider how these neurobiological units capture variations due to environmental factors, such as sociodemographics, lifestyles, and childhood developmental adverse events (Morris et al., 2022). Our study investigated the extent to which a) environmental factors explain the relationship between cognitive abilities and mental health, and b) cognitive abilities at the neural and genetic levels capture these associations due to environmental factors. Specifically, we conducted these investigations in a large normative group of children from the ABCD study (Casey et al., 2018). We chose to examine children because, while their emotional and behavioural problems might not meet full diagnostic criteria (Kessler et al., 2007), issues at a young age often forecast adult psychopathology (Reef et al., 2010; Roza et al., 2003). Moreover, the associations among different emotional and behavioural problems in children reflect transdiagnostic dimensions of psychopathology (Michelini et al., 2019; Pat et al., 2022), making children an appropriate population to study the transdiagnostic aetiology of mental health, especially within a framework that emphasises normative variation from normal to abnormal, such as the RDoC (Morris et al., 2022).“

(3) It is unclear to me what the authors mean by this statement in the introduction: "Note that using the word 'proxy measure' does not necessarily mean that the predictive model for a particular measure has a high predictive performance - some proxy measures have better predictive performance than others". 

We added this sentence to address a previous reviewer’s comment: “The authors use the phrasing throughout 'proxy measures of cognitive abilities' when they discuss PRS, neuroimaging, sociodemographics/lifestyle, and developmental factors. Indeed, the authors are able to explain a large proportion of variance with different combinations of these measures, but I think it may be a leap to call all of these proxy measures of cognition. I would suggest keeping the language more objective and stating these measures are associated with cognition.” 

Because of this comment, we assumed that the reviewers wanted us to avoid the misinterpretation that a proxy measure implies high predictive performance. This term is used in machine learning literature (for instance, Dadi et al., 2021). We added the aforementioned sentence to ensure readers that using the term 'proxy measure' does not necessarily mean that the predictive model for a particular measure has high predictive performance. However, it seems that our intention led to an even more confusing message. Therefore, we decided to delete that sentence but keep an earlier sentence that explains the meaning of a proxy measure (see below).

“With opportunistic stacking, we created a ‘proxy’ measure of cognitive abilities (i.e., predicted value from the model) at the neural unit of analysis using multimodal neuroimaging.”

(4) Overall, despite comments from reviewers at another journal, I think the authors still refer to RDoC more than needed in the intro given the restructuring of the manuscript. For instance, at the end of page 4 and top of page 5, it becomes a bit confusing when the authors mention how they deviated from the RDoC framework, but their choice of cognitive domains is still motivated by RDoC. I think the chosen cognitive constructs are consistent with what is in ABCD and what other studies have incorporated into the g factor and do not require the authors to further justify their choice through RDoC. Also, there is emerging work showing that RDoC is limited in its ability to parse apart meaningful neuroimaging-based patterns; see for instance, Quah et al., Nature 2025 (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-55831-z). 

Thank you very much for your comment. We have addressed it in our Response to Reviewer 1’s summary, strengths, and weaknesses above. We have rewritten the paragraph to clarify the relevance of our work to the RDoC framework and to recent studies aiming to improve RDoC constructs (including that from Quah and colleagues).

(5) I am still on the fence about the use of 'proxy measures of cognitive abilities' given that it is defined as the predictive performance of mental health measures in predicting cognition - what about just calling these mental health predictors? Also, it would be easier to follow this train of thought throughout the manuscript. But I leave it to the authors if they decide to keep their current language of 'proxy measure of cognition'. 

Thank you so much for your flexibility. As we explained previously, this ‘proxy measures’ term is used in machine learning literature (for instance, Dadi et al., 2021). We thought about other terms, such as “score”, which is used in genetics, i.e., polygenic scores (Choi et al., 2020). and has recently been used in neuroimaging, i.e., neuroscore (Rodrigue et al., 2024). However, using a ‘score’ is a bit awkward for mental health and socio-demographics, lifestyle and developmental adverse events. Accordingly, we decided to keep the term ‘proxy measures’.

(6) It is unclear which cognitive abilities are being predicted in Figure 1, given the various domains that authors describe in their intro. Is it the g-factor from CFA? This should be clarified in all figure captions. 

Yes, cognitive abilities are operationalised using a second-order latent variable, the g-factor from a CFA. We now added the following sentence to Figure 1, 2, 4 to make this point clearer. Thank you for the suggestion:

“Cognitive abilities are based on the second-order latent variable, the g-factor, based on a confirmatory factor analysis of six cognitive tasks.”

(7) I think it may also be worthwhile to showcase the explanatory power cognitive abilities have in predicting mental health or at least comment on this in the discussion. Certainly, there may be a bidirectional relationship here. The prediction direction from cognition to mental health may be an altogether different objective than what the paper currently presents, but many researchers working in psychiatry may take the stance (with support from the literature) that cognitive performance may serve as premorbid markers for later mental health concerns, particularly given the age range that the authors are working with in ABCD. 

Thank you for this comment. 

It is important to note that we do not make a directional claim in these cross-sectional analyses. The term "prediction" is used in a machine learning sense, implying only that we made an out-of-sample prediction (Yarkoni & Westfall, 2017). Specifically, we built predictive models on some samples (i.e., training participants) and applied our models to test participants who were not part of the model-building process. Accordingly, our predictive models cannot determine whether mental health “causes” cognitive abilities or vice versa, regardless of whether we treat mental health or cognitive abilities as feature/explanatory/independent variables or as target/response/outcome variables in the models. To demonstrate directionality, we would need to conduct a longitudinal analysis with many more repeated samples and use appropriate techniques, such as a cross-lagged panel model. It is beyond the scope of this manuscript and will need future releases of the ABCD data.

We decided to use cognitive abilities as a target variable here, rather than a feature variable, mainly for theoretical reasons. This work was inspired by the RDoC framework, which emphasises functional domains. Cognitive abilities is the functional domain in the current study. We created predictive models to predict cognitive abilities based on a) mental health, b) multimodal neuroimaging, c) polygenic scores, and d) environmental factors. We could not treat cognitive abilities as a functional domain if we used them as a feature variable. For instance, if we predicted mental health (instead of cognitive abilities) from multimodal neuroimaging and polygenic scores, we would no longer capture the neurobiological units of analysis for cognitive abilities.

We now made it clearer in the discussion that our use of predictive models cannot provide the directional of the effects

“Our predictive modelling revealed a medium-sized predictive relationship between cognitive abilities and mental health. This finding aligns with recent meta-analyses of case-control studies that link cognitive abilities and mental disorders across various psychiatric conditions (Abramovitch et al., 2021; East-Richard et al., 2020). Unlike previous studies, we estimated the predictive, out-of-sample relationship between cognitive abilities and mental disorders in a large normative sample of children. Although our predictive models, like other cross-sectional models, cannot determine the directionality of the effects, the strength of the relationship between cognitive abilities and mental health estimated here should be more robust than when calculated using the same sample as the model itself, known as in-sample prediction/association (Marek et al., 2022; Yarkoni & Westfall, 2017). Examining the PLS loadings of our predictive models revealed that the relationship was driven by various aspects of mental health, including thought and externalising symptoms, as well as motivation. This suggests that there are multiple pathways—encompassing a broad range of emotional and behavioural problems and temperaments—through which cognitive abilities and mental health are linked.”

(8) There is a lot of information packed into Figure 3 in the brain maps; I understand the authors wanted to fit this onto one page, and perhaps a higher resolution figure would resolve this, but the brain maps are very hard to read and/or compare, particularly the coronal sections. 

Thank you for this suggestion. We agree with Reviewer 1 that we need to have a better visualisation of the feature-importance brain maps. To ensure that readers can clearly see the feature importance, we added a Zoom-in version of the feature-importance brain maps as Supplementary Figures 4 – 13.

(9) It would be helpful for authors to cluster features in the resting state functional connectivity correlation matrices, and perhaps use shorter names/acronyms for the labels. 

Thank you for this suggestion. 

We have now added a zoomed-in version of the feature importance for rs-fmri as Supplementary Figure 7 (for baseline) and 12 (for follow-up).

(10) Figures 4a) and 4b): please elaborate on "developmental adverse" in the title. I am assuming this is referring to childhood adverse events, or "developmental adversities". 

Thank you so much for pointing this out. We meant ‘developmental adverse events’. We have made changes to this figure in the current manuscript.

(11) For the "follow-up" analyses, I would recommend the authors present this using only the features that are indeed available at follow-up, even if the list of features is lower, otherwise it becomes a bit confusing with the mix of baseline and follow-up features. Or perhaps the authors could make this more clear in the figures by perhaps having a different color for baseline vs follow-up features along the y-axis labels. 

Thank you for this advice. We have now added an indicator in the plot to show whether the features were collected in the baseline or follow-up. We also added colours to indicate which type of environmental factors they were. It is now clear that the majority of the features that were collected at baseline, but were used for the followup predictive model, were developmental adverse events.

(12) Minor: Makowski et al 2023 reference can be updated to Makowski et al 2024, published in Cerebral Cortex. 

Thank you for pointing this out. We have updated the citation accordingly. 

References

Abramovitch, A., Short, T., & Schweiger, A. (2021). The C Factor: Cognitive dysfunction as a transdiagnostic dimension in psychopathology. Clinical Psychology Review, 86, 102007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102007

Beam, E., Potts, C., Poldrack, R. A., & Etkin, A. (2021). A data-driven framework for mapping domains of human neurobiology. Nature Neuroscience, 24(12), 1733–1744. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-021-00948-9

Calvin, C. M., Batty, G. D., Der, G., Brett, C. E., Taylor, A., Pattie, A., Čukić, I., & Deary, I. J. (2017). Childhood intelligence in relation to major causes of death in 68 year follow-up: Prospective population study. BMJ, j2708. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j2708

Casey, B. J., Cannonier, T., Conley, M. I., Cohen, A. O., Barch, D. M., Heitzeg, M. M., Soules, M. E., Teslovich, T., Dellarco, D. V., Garavan, H., Orr, C. A., Wager, T. D., Banich, M. T., Speer, N. K., Sutherland, M. T., Riedel, M. C., Dick, A. S., Bjork, J. M., Thomas, K. M., … ABCD Imaging Acquisition Workgroup. (2018). The Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study: Imaging acquisition across 21 sites. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 32, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2018.03.001

Choi, S. W., Mak, T. S.-H., & O’Reilly, P. F. (2020). Tutorial: A guide to performing polygenic risk score analyses. Nature Protocols, 15(9), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-020-0353-1

Dadi, K., Varoquaux, G., Houenou, J., Bzdok, D., Thirion, B., & Engemann, D. (2021). Population modeling with machine learning can enhance measures of mental health. GigaScience, 10(10), giab071. https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giab071

Deary, I. J. (2012). Intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 453–482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100353

Deary, I. J., Pattie, A., & Starr, J. M. (2013). The Stability of Intelligence From Age 11 to Age 90 Years: The Lothian Birth Cohort of 1921. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2361–2368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613486487

East-Richard, C., R. -Mercier, A., Nadeau, D., & Cellard, C. (2020). Transdiagnostic neurocognitive deficits in psychiatry: A review of meta-analyses. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne, 61(3), 190–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000196

Insel, T., Cuthbert, B., Garvey, M., Heinssen, R., Pine, D. S., Quinn, K., Sanislow, C., & Wang, P. (2010). Research Domain Criteria (RDoC): Toward a New Classification Framework for Research on Mental Disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167(7), 748–751. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09091379

Kessler, R. C., Amminger, G. P., Aguilar-Gaxiola, S., Alonso, J., Lee, S., & Üstün, T. B. (2007). Age of onset of mental disorders: A review of recent literature. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 20(4). https://journals.lww.com/co-psychiatry/fulltext/2007/07000/age_of_onset_of_mental_disorders_a_review_of .10.aspx

Marek, S., Tervo-Clemmens, B., Calabro, F. J., Montez, D. F., Kay, B. P., Hatoum, A. S., Donohue, M. R., Foran, W., Miller, R. L., Hendrickson, T. J., Malone, S. M., Kandala, S., Feczko, E., Miranda-Dominguez, O., Graham, A. M., Earl, E. A., Perrone, A. J., Cordova, M., Doyle, O., … Dosenbach, N. U. F. (2022). eproducible brain-wide association studies require thousands of individuals. Nature, 603(7902), 654–660. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04492-9

Michelini, G., Barch, D. M., Tian, Y., Watson, D., Klein, D. N., & Kotov, R. (2019). Delineating and validating higher-order dimensions of psychopathology in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study. Translational Psychiatry, 9(1), 261. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-019-0593-4

Morris, S. E., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2012). Research Domain Criteria: Cognitive systems, neural circuits, and dimensions of behavior. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 14(1), 29–37.

Morris, S. E., Sanislow, C. A., Pacheco, J., Vaidyanathan, U., Gordon, J. A., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2022). Revisiting the seven pillars of RDoC. BMC Medicine, 20(1), 220. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-022-02414-0

Pat, N., Riglin, L., Anney, R., Wang, Y., Barch, D. M., Thapar, A., & Stringaris, A. (2022). Motivation and Cognitive Abilities as Mediators Between Polygenic Scores and Psychopathology in Children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 61(6), 782-795.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2021.08.019

Pat, N., Wang, Y., Bartonicek, A., Candia, J., & Stringaris, A. (2023). Explainable machine learning approach to predict and explain the relationship between task-based fMRI and individual differences in cognition. Cerebral Cortex, 33(6), 2682–2703. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhac235

Quah, S. K. L., Jo, B., Geniesse, C., Uddin, L. Q., Mumford, J. A., Barch, D. M., Fair, D. A., Gotlib, I. H., Poldrack, R. A., & Saggar, M. (2025). A data-driven latent variable approach to validating the research domain criteria framework. Nature Communications, 16(1), 830. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-55831-z

Reef, J., Diamantopoulou, S., van Meurs, I., Verhulst, F., & van der Ende, J. (2010). Predicting adult emotional and behavioral problems from externalizing problem trajectories in a 24-year longitudinal study. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 19(7), 577–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-010-0088-6

Rodrigue, A. L., Hayes, R. A., Waite, E., Corcoran, M., Glahn, D. C., & Jalbrzikowski, M. (2024). Multimodal Neuroimaging Summary Scores as Neurobiological Markers of Psychosis. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 50(4), 792–803. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbad149

Roza, S. J., Hofstra, M. B., Van Der Ende, J., & Verhulst, F. C. (2003). Stable Prediction of Mood and Anxiety Disorders Based on Behavioral and Emotional Problems in Childhood: A 14-Year Follow-Up During Childhood, Adolescence, and Young Adulthood. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(12), 2116–2121. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.12.2116

Yarkoni, T., & Westfall, J. (2017). Choosing Prediction Over Explanation in Psychology: Lessons From Machine Learning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1100–1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617693393

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Perlee et al. sought to generate a zebrafish line where CRISPR-based gene editing is exclusively limited to the melanocyte lineage, allowing assessment of cell-type restricted gene knockouts. To achieve this, they knocked in Cas9 to the endogenous mitfa locus, as mitfa is a master regulator of melanocyte development. The authors use multiple candidate genes - albino, sox10, tuba1a, ptena/ptenb, tp53 - to demonstrate their system induces lineagerestricted gene editing. This method allows researchers to bypass embryonic lethal and non-cell autonomous phenotypes emerging from whole body knockout (sox10, tuba1a), drive directed phenotypes, such as depigmentation (albino), and induce lineage-specific tumors, such as melanomas (ptena/ptenb, tp53, when accompanied with expression of BRAFV600E). While the genetic approaches are solid, the argued increase in efficiency of this model compared to current tools was untested, and therefore unable to be assessed. Furthermore, the mechanistic explanations proposed to underlie their phenotypes are mostly unfounded, as discussed further in the Weaknesses section. Despite these concerns, there is still a clear use for this genetic methodology and its implementation will be of value to many in vivo researchers.

Strengths:

The strongest component of this manuscript is the genetic control offered by the mitfa:Cas9 system and the ability to make stable, lineage-specific knockouts in zebrafish. This is exemplified by the studies of tuba1a, where the authors nicely show non-cell autonomous mechanisms have obfuscated the role of this gene in melanocyte development. In addition, the mitfa:Cas9 system is elegantly straightforward and can be easily implemented in many labs. Mostly, the figures are clean, controls are appropriate, and phenotypes are reproducible. The invented method is a welcomed addition to the arsenal of genetic tools used in zebrafish.

Weaknesses:

The major weaknesses of the manuscript include the overly bold descriptions of the value of the model and the superficial mechanistic explanations for each biological vignette.

The authors argue that a major advantage of this system is its high efficiency. However, no direct comparison is made with other tools that achieve the same genetic control, such as MAZERATI. This is a missed opportunity to provide researchers the ability to evaluate these two similar genetic approaches. In addition, Fig.1 shows that not all melanocytes express Cas9. This is a major caveat that goes unaddressed. It is of paramount importance to understand the percentage of mitfa+ cells that express Cas9. The histology shown is unclear and too zoomed out of a scale to make any insightful conclusions, especially in Fig.S1. It would also be beneficial to see data regarding Cas9 expression in adult melanocytes, which are distinct from embryonic melanocytes in zebrafish. Moreover, this system still requires the injection of a plasmid encoding gRNAs of interest, which will yield mosaicism. A prime example of this discrepancy is in Fig.6, where sox10 is clearly still present in "sox10 KO" tumors.

We agree with these points. While our method has the advantage of endogenous knockin (thus keeping all regulatory elements), you are correct that we did not make a direct comparison with existing technologies like MAZERATI, and therefore we cannot make comparative claims about efficiency. Based on this, we have revised the manuscript to remove these points, reduce the strength/boldness of the claims, and make it more clear what our system achieves in comparison to existing systems. In reference to the other specific points you raise above about mosaicism and extent of Cas9 expression:

- We have added a paragraph to address the advantages and disadvantages of mitfaCas9 compared to expression of Cas9 with lineage-specific promoters including MAZERATI in the discussion.  

- Figure 1C has been revised to more clearly show the overlap of mitfa and Cas9 in melanocytes. 

- We then quantified the percentage of mitfa+ cells expressing Cas9 from the in situ hybridizations (Supplemental Figure S1D). We did attempt to look at Cas9 protein expression in both embryonic and adult melanocytes by immunofluorescence. Unfortunately, the Cas9 antibodies commercially available did not work on the zebrafish embryos or adult tailfins, so we are limited in proper quantification to the in situs in the embryos.

The authors argue that their model allows rapid manipulation of melanocyte gene expression. Enthusiasm for the speed of this model is diminished by minimal phenotypes in the F0, as exemplified in Fig.2. Although the authors say >90% of fish have loss of pigmentation, this is misleading as the phenotype is a very weak, partial loss. Only in the F1 generation do robust phenotypes emerge, which takes >6 months to generate. How this is more efficient than other tools that currently exist is unclear and should be discussed in more detail.

This needed clarification, and we have now modified the Discussion to reflect this more accurately. What we were trying to show is that both F0 and F1 fish can be useful in screening for the effect of any given gene. In the F0, while you are correct that the phenotype is indeed weak/partial, it is also quantifiable and therefore can be used as a rapid screen for potential effects of knockout, so it can help with speed. The major advantage of the F1 generation is that we can generate fully penetrant phenotypes for recessive genes since the fish just needs to have 1 copy of the Cas9/sgRNA instead of 2. This means we do not have to go to F2 or F3 generations, which really does save time. But we agree this could be achieved using MAZERATI, and so we have added these considerations to the manuscript, as we feel these are important.

In Figure 3, the authors find that melanocyte-specific knockout of sox10 leads to only a 25% reduction in melanocytes in the F1 generation. This is in contradiction to prior literature cited describing sox10 as indispensable for melanocyte development. In addition, the authors argue that sox10 is required for melanocyte regeneration. This claim is not accurate, as >50% of melanocytes killed upon neocuproine treatment can regenerate. This data would indicate that sox10 is required for only a subset of melanocytes to develop (Fig.3C) and for only a subset to regenerate (Fig.3G). This is an interesting finding that is not discussed or interrogated further.

We too were initially very puzzled by this result. We do not completely understand it, but we have two thoughts about it. First could be timing. sox10 usually starts to be expressed around the 1-somite stage, and so in the original sox10/colourless mutant (which truly has no melanocytes), sox10 will be lost during those early stages. In contrast, mitf comes on later (around 18hpf) so this might indicate that there is a subset of melanocytes that are dependent upon this early expression of sox10. This may indicate that there could be different functions of sox10 early in melanocyte development versus later timepoints after melanocytes have already been specified. This might also help explain our findings during regeneration.  Second could be genetic compensation. Since in the other parts of the paper we seem to see a somewhat reciprocal relationship between sox10 and sox9, it is conceivable that loss of sox10 in the melanocytes could be compensated for by sox9 (or even other genes) in our CRISPR approach (as opposed to the ENU allele in colourless). Since we really do not fully understand this, we have added a section to the Discussion about this issue, mentioning these possibilities but leaving open other yet to be defined mechanisms.

Tumor induction by this model is weak, as indicated by the tumor curves in Figs.5,6. This might be because these fish are mitfa heterozygous. Whereas the avoidance of mitfa overexpression driven by other models including MAZERATI is a benefit of this system, the effect of mitfa heterozygosity on tumor incidence was untested. This is an essential question unaddressed in the manuscript.

We agree that in the BRAF;p53 group especially tumor incidence is very low, although PTEN loss does accelerate it. One possibility is exactly as you stated, and that mitfa heterozygosity is the etiology. The other possibility is that in the MAZERATI approach (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30385465/) the authors used the casper background as opposed to the wild-type T5D as we did in our study. In unpublished observations, we have found that casper (with miniCoopR rescue) is markedly more sensitive to melanoma induction compared to WT fish in this setting. In fact, in looking at our BRAF;p53 curves compared to the original Patton paper curves (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15694309/) which were also done in a WT background with no miniCoopR, they are fairly similar. This might indicate that casper + miniCoopR particularly sensitizes the fish to melanoma. However, because we do not fully know the reasons for this, we have now included both of these possible reasons in the Discussion.

In Fig.6, the authors recapitulate previous findings with their model, showing sox10 KO inhibits tumor onset. The tumors that do develop are argued to be highly invasive, have mesenchymal morphology, and undergo phenotypic switching from sox10 to sox9 expression. The data presented do not sufficiently support these claims. The histology is not readily suggestive of invasive, mesenchymal melanomas. Sox10 is still present in many cells and sox9 expression is only found in a small subset (<20%). Whether sox10-null cells are the ones expressing sox9 is untested. If sox9-mediated phenotypic switching is the major driver of these tumors, the authors would need to knockout sox9 and sox10 simultaneously and test whether these "rare" types of tumors still emerge. Additional histological and genetic evaluation is required to make the conclusions presented in Fig.6. It feels like a missed opportunity that the authors did not attempt to study genes of unknown contribution to melanoma with their system.

We did not mean to overstate the admittedly early observations from these fish. Invasiveness in the fish models can be difficult to precisely quantify, and therefore is somewhat qualitative. While we did not mean to imply that every cell that loses sox10 will become sox9 positive (which is clearly not the case), the human single-cell RNA-seq data does suggest these are somewhat mutually exclusive populations (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32753671/). This phenomenon has also long been observed even prior to single-cell approaches (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25629959/). So while we agree our data is not definitive in this regard, it is consistent with the literature and was presented mainly to provide areas for future exploration with the model. 

Overall, this manuscript introduces a solid method to the arsenal of zebrafish genetic tools but falls short of justifying itself as a more efficient and robust approach than what currently exists. The mechanisms provided to explain observed phenotypes are tenuous. Nonetheless, the mitfa:Cas9 approach will certainly be of value to many in vivo biologists and lays the foundation to generate similar methods using other tissue-specific regulators and other Cas proteins.

We hope that by toning down the language around what we have observed, and providing as honest an assessment as possible as to what might be occurring, that the manuscript will be helpful for future studies aiming to knock out genes in the melanocyte lineage.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript describes a genetic tool utilizing mutant mitfa-Cas9 expressing zebrafish to knockout genes to analyze their function in melanocytes in a range of assays from developmental biology to tumorigenesis. Overall, the data are convincing and the authors cover potential caveats from their model that might impact its utility for future work.

Strengths:

The authors do an excellent job of characterizing several gene deletions that show the specificity and applicability of the genetic mitfa-Cas9 zebrafish to studying melanocytes.

Weaknesses:

Variability across animals not fully analyzed.

To more clearly show variability across animals, we calculated the percentage of mitfa+ cells that express Cas9 across n=7 mitfaCas9 embryos. We also expanded Supplemental Figure 2 to show loss of pigmentation across n=7 individual adult MG-albino F2 fish instead of one representative image.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Perlee et al. present a method for generating cell-type restricted knockouts in zebrafish, focusing on melanocytes. For this method, the authors knock-in a Cas9 encoding sequence into the mitfa locus. This mitfaCas9 line has restricted Cas9 expression, allowing the authors to generate melanocyte-specific knockouts rapidly by follow-up injection of sgRNA expressing transposon vectors.

The paper presents some interesting vignettes to illustrate the utility of their approach. These include 1) a derivation of albino mutant fish as a demonstration of the method's efficiency, 2) an interrogation and novel description of tuba1a as a potential non-autonomous contributor to melanocyte dispersion, and 3) the generation of sox10 deficient melanoma tumors that show "escape" of sox10 loss through upregulation of sox9. The latter two examples highlight the usefulness of cell-type targeted knockouts (Body-wide sox10 and tuba1a loss elicit developmental defects). Additionally, the tumor models involve highly multiplexed sgRNAs for tumor initiation which is nicely facilitated by the stable Cas9.

Strengths:

The approach is clever and could prove very useful for studying melanocytes and other cell types. As the authors hint at in their discussion, this approach would become even more powerful with the generation of other Cas9-restricted lineages so a single sgRNA construct can be screened across many lineages rapidly (or many sgRNA and fish lines screened combinatorially).

The biological findings used to demonstrate the power of the approach are interesting in their own right. If it proves true, tuba1a's non-autonomous effects on melanosome dispersion are striking, and this example demonstrates very nicely how one could use Perlee et al.'s approach to search for other non-autonomous mechanisms systematically. Similarly, the observation of the sox9 escape mechanism with sox10 loss is a beautiful demonstration of the relevance of SOX10/SOX9's reciprocal regulation in vivo. This system would be a very nice model for further interrogating mechanisms/interventions surrounding Sox10 in melanoma.

Finally, the figure presentation is very nice. This work involves complex genetic approaches including multiple fish generations and multiplexed construct injections. The vector diagrams and breeding schemes in the paper make everything very clear/"grok-able," and the paper was enjoyable to read.

Weaknesses:

The mitfa-driven GFP on their sgRNA-expressing cassette is elegant, but it makes one wonder why the endogenous knock-in is necessary. It would strengthen the motivation of the work if the authors could detail the potential advantages and disadvantages of their system compared to expressing Cas9 with a lineage-specific promoter from a transposon in their introduction or discussion.

We agree this needed a better and more clear explanation. There are many excellent examples of promoter driven Cas9 approaches. Within melanocytes, Ablain and others have developed the MAZERATI system (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30385465/) which is very powerful, especially for melanoma development. In our minds, the major advantage of endogenous knockin is that we retain all of the natural regulatory elements (many of which are not known) and so small promoter fragments always run the risk of missing certain types of regulation. While these regulatory elements may not matter under homeostatic conditions, they may become very important under perturbation, stress or disease states. This is why it is common, for example, in the mouse field, to knock in things like Cre into endogenous loci. We have now added a clarification of this to the manuscript.

Related to the above - is mitfa haplosufficient? If the mitfaCas9/+ fish have any notable phenotypes, it would be worth noting for others interested in using this approach to study melanoma and pigmentation.

In normal melanocytes, mitfa is haplosufficient. There are no visible differences between mitfaCas9/+ and wild-type fish at any stages of development (Figure S1C). Although we did not directly compare tumor growth in mitfa-/+ and mitfa+/+ fish in this study, it is possible that the disruption of mitfa in mitfaCas9/+ fish affects melanoma development. Most zebrafish melanoma models involve the overexpression of mitfa with MiniCoopR vectors and it would be interesting in future studies to determine how mitfa heterozygosity affects melanoma initiation or progression. 

A core weakness (and also potential strength) of the system is that introduced edits will always be non-clonal (Fig 2H/I). The activity of individual sgRNAs should always be validated in the absence of any noticeable phenotype to interpret a negative result. Additionally, caution should be taken when interpreting results from rare events involving positive outgrowth (like tumorogenesis) to account for the fact many cells in the population might not have biallelic null alleles (i.e., 100% of the gene product removed).

Along those lines: in my opinion, the tuba1a results are the most provocative finding in the paper, but they lack key validation. With respect to cutting activity, the Alt-R and transgenic sgRNA expression approaches are not directly comparable. Since there is no phenotype in the melanocyte specific tuba1a knockouts, the authors must confirm high knockout efficiency with this set of reagents before making the claim there is a non-autonomous phenotype. This can be achieved with GFP+ sorting and NGS like they performed with their albino melanocytes.

The whole-body tuba1a knockout phenotype is expected to be pleiotropic, and this expectation might mask off-target effects. Controls for knockout specificity should be included. For instance, confidence in the claims would greatly increase if the dispersed melanosome phenotype could be recovered with guide-resistant tuba1a re-expression and if melanocyte-restricted tuba1a reexpression failed to rescue. As a less definitive but adequate alternative, the authors could also test if another guide or a morpholino against tuba1a phenocopies the described Alt-R edited fish.

Thank you for your thoughtful suggestions, which led us to an important discovery. While validating the original tuba1a guide RNA, we found that tuba1a sg1 also targets tuba1c, a gene that shares 99.78% homology with tuba1a in zebrafish. To determine which gene was responsible for the melanocyte phenotype, we designed multiple new guide RNAs specifically targeting either tuba1a or tuba1c and used Alt-R to globally knock them out in zebrafish embryos. However, none of these guides successfully replicated the phenotype (Sanger sequencing validation for the most efficient tuba1a and tuba1c guides is provided below).

Ultimately, we identified a new guide RNA (5’-GGTCTACAAAGACAGCCCTA-3’) that successfully phenocopied the original tuba1a sg1 melanocyte phenotype. Tuba1c—but not tuba1a—was predicted to have a mismatch at the 3’ end of the guide sequence, which is typically expected to inhibit target cleavage. Surprisingly, despite this mismatch, we observed robust cleavage in both tuba1a and tuba1c. Since the melanocyte phenotype was only reproducible when both tuba1a and tuba1c were targeted, this suggests potential compensatory interactions between these highly similar genes. We have updated the text and figures to reflect this finding and have included validation of this second guide RNA (tuba1a/c sg2) in Supplemental Figure 3.

As you suggested, we also conducted GFP+ sorting and NGS to confirm knockout of both tuba1a and tuba1c in melanocytes of mitfaCas9 fish (Figure S3G). The knockout percentages were comparable to those observed in our previous experiment with MG_-albino_ fish. This also confirms that this method can be used to sort and sequence GFP+ cells even when pigmentation is retained, which was not the case for albino fish. 

I have similar questions about the sox10 escapers, but these suggestions are less critical for supporting the authors claims (especially given the nice staining). Are the sox10 tumors relatively clonal with respect to sox10 mutations? And are the sox10 tumor mutations mostly biallelic frameshifts or potential missense mutations/single mutations that might not completely remove activity? I am particularly curious as SOX10 doesn't seem to be completely absent (and is still very high in some nuclei) in the immunohistochemistry.

We attempted to address this question by performing DNA sequencing on the FFPE blocks that we had retained from the original study. While our sequencing facility said this should be possible, we could not consistently generate high enough quality DNA to make a definitive statement either way. While we are very curious to know what the nature of the mutations are in these “escapers”, the student who performed these studies has now graduated, and it would take us several additional months to a year to fully address it. Given this, we would prefer to leave this open question to a future paper, but have addressed this limitation in the Discussion.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewing Editor:

Overall, the reviewers felt and eLife concurs that your manuscript is insightful and appropriate for publication. Reviewers were impressed by your generating a zebrafish line where CRISPRbased gene editing is exclusively limited to the melanocyte lineage, allowing assessment of celltype restricted gene knockouts. Your use of multiple candidate genes to demonstrate that your system induces lineage-restricted gene editing is compelling and will be of interest to the broad readership of eLife. This method will allow researchers to bypass embryonic lethal and non-cell autonomous phenotypes emerging from whole body knockout, drive directed phenotypes, such as depigmentation, and induce lineage-specific tumors, such as melanomas. This said, the argued increase in efficiency of this model compared to current tools was untested, and therefore it remains difficult for a reader to assess the extent to which your new model represents a major advance over prior ones. Of additional concern are the mechanistic explanations proposed to underlie the phenotypes, as these are largely unfounded. Thus, in preparing your final publication version of the paper, eLife strongly encourages you to fully address the reviewers' thoughtful comments. In particular, the boldness of the claims made in the manuscript should be reduced. Terms like "highly efficient" and "rapid" are unsupported due to the lack of comparison with other well-established methods, like MAZERATI.

As discussed above in each of the reviewer points above, we agree with both of these points. We have reduced the boldness of the claims, with a better discussion of the different approaches. We also address the potential mechanisms of our observations, and where and why we still lack an understanding of what gives rise to those phenotypes. 

There are also some minor discrepancies that should be edited in the manuscript: Fig.2A plasmid description is written oppositely in text; Fig.3 labels G-H are swapped in the legend description; Fig.5A MTdT is unexplained. This is a non-exhaustive list, and the authors are encouraged to carefully read through their manuscript to revise other minor mistakes and formatting errors.

Figure 2A was revised to show the correct orientation of mitfa:GFP and the guide RNA cassette as described in the text. Figure 3 legend was fixed. We have gone through the manuscript again to make sure we have not made any other errors, to the best of our knowledge.

The biggest concern is the expression of cas9 and the weak histological support shown in Fig.1 and Fig.S1. It would be a benefit to all readers and potential future users to know how robust cas9 expression is in the melanocyte lineage. It would be helpful if there is a way to analyze the percentage of cells that are mutated in each animal to understand the variability that can exist across animals with the method.

We have revised Figure 1C to show additional melanocytes and added a new quantification of Cas9 RNA expression in melanocytes (S1D). 

The analysis of the scRNA sequencing could also be described more fully.

More details have been added to the scRNA sequencing analysis including the functions that were used. 

The final major concern is whether this model is genuinely more valuable than MAZERATI. A more elaborate discussion would benefit potential future users to guide their decisions regarding which tool best suits their experimental goals.

As noted above, we agree with this statement. The reviewers are correct in that we did not directly compare our system to MAZERATI, and therefore cannot make any claims about efficiency in a comparative regard. Therefore, in our revised Discussion, we talk about the relative strengths and weaknesses of each approach, and emphasize that our approach mainly has the advantage of retaining endogenous regulatory elements for mitfa, but that each user should decide which is the best approach for their problem.

There are also some minor concerns that should be addressed.

Are the mitfaCas9 fish used as homozygotes before the first cross? If so, might be nice to include their nacre-like phenotype in diagrams like Fig 2A.

For these studies, heterozygous mitfaCas9 fish were used for all breedings and progeny were sorted for BFP+ eyes. This enabled the comparison to sibling controls without Cas9 expression. 

BFP+ eye screening for mitfaCas9 is elegant and included nicely in the diagrams. Are germline sgRNA integrants identified in F1 with melanocyte GFP? Or present at a high enough efficiency that this is not relevant? This would be good to include in the diagrams.

Germline sgRNA integrants are identified with melanocyte GFP in embryos. Figure 2A has been edited to show GFP expression. 

Most cells are GFP positive in S3C (the F0 "mosaic"). It might be nice to show a single GFP stripe like in the other panels for direct comparison of edited/non-edited in the same fish.

This figure (now S3E) has been edited to show a clear comparison between GFP+ and GFP- cells in the same fish. 

177 - CRISPR-Seq is basically amplicon sequencing. This would measure efficiency but not "specificity" as described. Off-target activity would have to be measured at other loci etc. Not necessary to do, but I don't think measured.

In this case, “specificity” refers to cell type specificity, not genomic specificity. We are measuring cell type specificity by comparing on-target cutting in GFP+ cells (melanocytes) versus GFP- cells (non-mitfa expressing cells). We did not look at off-target activity of Cas9 in this study and have edited the text to make this clearer. 

219 -"several gaps were visible"

Fixed

286 - TUBA1A should be italicized

Fixed

399 - SOX9's most enriched dependency in DepMap is cutaneous melanoma and its top coessential gene is SOX10. I'm not sure the SOX9/SOX10 interaction couldn't be parsed from DepMap alone.

This is true, and the DepMap was actually somewhat of an inspiration for our own studies. We have modified the line to acknowledge this and explain the main advantage of our system is in vivo confirmation of what the DepMap had alluded to.

433 - "fewer animals since all F1 animals (even those for recessive alleles) are informative."

The fact that this is approach is faster and more efficient per animal is important to highlight (and very believable), but is this technically true given not all F1 fish will have Cas9 or a germline sgRNA integration?

In considering this statement, we agree with you and decided to remove it from the text.

We hope the comments in both the public and private reviews will help improve the manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

Overall, the boldness of the claims made in the manuscript should be reduced. Terms like "highly efficient" and "rapid" are unsupported due to the lack of comparison with other wellestablished methods, like MAZERATI.

As discussed above, we agree with this and have now modified the manuscript to better reflect what our system achieves in comparison to the well developed systems such as MAZERATI. Because we have not done a direct comparison, we are not able to make any claims about comparative efficiency, and instead focus on the potential benefits of a knockin approach, which is the maintenance of endogenous regulatory elements.

There are some minor discrepancies that should be edited in the manuscript: Fig.2A plasmid description is written oppositely in text; Fig.3 labels G-H are swapped in the legend description; Fig.5A MTdT is unexplained. This is a non-exhaustive list, and the authors are encouraged to carefully read through their manuscript to revise other minor mistakes and formatting errors.

Figure 2A was revised to show the correct orientation of mitfa:GFP and the guide RNA cassette as described in the text. Figure 3 legend was fixed. We have gone through the manuscript again to make sure we have not made any other errors, to the best of our knowledge.

The biggest concern is the expression of cas9 and the weak histological support shown in Fig.1 and Fig.S1. It would be a benefit to all readers and potential future users to know how robust cas9 expression is in the melanocyte lineage.

We have revised Figure 1C to show additional melanocytes and added a new quantification of Cas9 RNA expression in melanocytes (S1D). 

The second major concern is whether this model is genuinely more valuable than MAZERATI. A more elaborate discussion would benefit potential future users to guide their decision regarding which tool best suits their experimental goals.

As noted above, we agree with this statement. The reviewers are correct in that we did not directly compare our system to MAZERATI, and therefore cannot make any claims about efficiency in a comparative regard. Therefore, in our revised Discussion, we talk about the relative strengths and weaknesses of each approach, and emphasize that our approach mainly has the advantage of retaining endogenous regulatory elements for mitfa, but that each user should decide which is the best approach for their problem.

We hope the comments in both the public and private reviews will help improve the manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

While that authors show the indel charts for the Crispr mutations generated in the supplement. However, I wonder if there is a way to analyze the percentage of cells that are mutated in each animal to understand the variability that can exist across animals with the method.

We have revised Figure 1C to show additional melanocytes and added a new quantification of Cas9 RNA expression in melanocytes (S1D). 

The analysis of the scRNA sequencing could be described more fully.

More details have been added to the scRNA sequencing analysis including the functions that were used. 

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

This was an excellent read, and I'm very interested in seeing it in its final form. Congratulations! My larger critiques are outlined in the public reviews. A few smaller points:

Are the mitfaCas9 fish used as homozygotes before the first cross? If so, might be nice to include their nacre-like phenotype in diagrams like Fig 2A.

For these studies, heterozygous mitfaCas9 fish were used for all breedings and progeny were sorted for BFP+ eyes. This enabled the comparison to sibling controls without Cas9 expression. 

BFP+ eye screening for mitfaCas9 is elegant and included nicely in the diagrams. Are germline sgRNA integrants identified in F1 with melanocyte GFP? Or present at a high enough efficiency that this is not relevant? This would be good to include in the diagrams.

Germline sgRNA integrants are identified with melanocyte GFP in embryos. Figure 2A has been edited to show GFP expression. 

Most cells are GFP positive in S3C (the F0 "mosaic"). It might be nice to show a single GFP stripe like in the other panels for direct comparison of edited/non-edited in the same fish.

This figure (now S3E) has been edited to show a clear comparison between GFP+ and GFP- cells in the same fish. 

177 - My understanding is that CRISPR-Seq is basically amplicon sequencing. This would measure efficiency but not "specificity" as described. Off-target activity would have to be measured at other loci etc. Not necessary to do in my opinion, but I don't think measured.

In this case, “specificity” refers to cell type specificity, not genomic specificity. We are measuring cell type specificity by comparing on-target cutting in GFP+ cells (melanocytes) versus GFP- cells (non-mitfa expressing cells). We did not look at off-target activity of Cas9 in this study and have edited the text to make this clearer. 

219 -"several gaps were visible"

Fixed

286 - TUBA1A should be italicized

Fixed

399 - I think I understand the logic of the DepMap argument, and the importance of studying tumor initiation in vivo stands for itself. But here is maybe not the best example (or might need clarification)? - SOX9's most enriched dependency in DepMap is cutaneous melanoma and its top co-essential gene is SOX10. I'm not sure the SOX9/SOX10 interaction couldn't be parsed from DepMap alone.

This is true, and the DepMap was actually somewhat of an inspiration for our own studies. We have modified the line to acknowledge this and explain the main advantage of our system is in vivo confirmation of what the DepMap had alluded to.

433 - "fewer animals since all F1 animals (even those for recessive alleles) are informative."

The fact that this is approach is faster and more efficient per animal is important to highlight (and very believable), but is this technically true given not all F1 fish will have Cas9 or a germline sgRNA integration?

In considering this statement, we agree with you and decided to remove it from the text.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Garbelli et al. investigates the roles of excitatory amino acid transporters (EAATs) in retinal bipolar cells. The group previously identified that EAAT5b and EAAT7 are expressed at the dendritic tips of bipolar cells, where they connect with photoreceptor terminals. The previous study found that the light responses of bipolar cells, measured by electroretinogram (ERG) in response to white light, were reduced in double mutants, though there was little to no reduction in light responses in single mutants of either EAAT5b or EAAT7.

The current study further explores the roles of EAAT5b and EAAT7 in bipolar cells' chromatic responses. The authors found that bipolar cell responses to red light, but not to green or UV-blue light, were reduced in single mutants of both EAAT5b and EAAT7. In contrast, UV-blue light responses were reduced in double mutants. Additionally, the authors observed that EAAT5b, but not EAAT7, is strongly localized in the UV cone-enriched area of the eye, known as the "Strike Zone (SZ)." This led them to investigate the impact of the EAAT5b mutation on prey detection performance, which is mediated by UV cones in the SZ. Surprisingly, contrary to the predicted role of EAAT5b in prey detection, EAAT5b mutants did not show any changes in prey detection performance compared to wild-type fish. Interestingly, EAAT7 mutants exhibited enhanced prey detection performance, though the underlying mechanisms remain unclear.

The distribution of EAAT7 protein in the outer plexiform layer across the eye correlates with the distribution of red cones. Based on this, the authors tested the behavioral performance driven by red light in EAAT5b and EAAT7 mutants. The results here were again somewhat contrary to predictions based on ERG findings and protein localization: the optomotor response was reduced in EAAT5b mutants, but not in EAAT7 mutants.

Strengths:

Although the paper lacks cohesive conclusions, as many results contradict initial predictions as mentioned above, the authors discuss possible mechanisms for these contradictions and suggest future avenues for study. Nevertheless, this paper demonstrates a novel mechanism underlying chromatic information processing.

The manuscript is well-written, the data are well-presented, and the analysis is thorough.

We are happy about the perceived strengths of our manuscript.

Weaknesses:

I have only a minor comment. The authors present preliminary data on mGluR6b distribution across the eye. Since this result is based on a single fish, I recommend either adding more samples or removing this data, as it does not significantly impact the paper's main conclusions.

We agree that the mGluR6 result is statistically underpower (we would never claim differently). The data is based on only one clutch of fish, comprising 11 eyes. Since the data is anyway in the supplement and not part of the main story, we would like to keep it to spur further investigations into anisotropic distribution of synaptic proteins.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Garbelli et. al. set out to elucidate the function of two glutamate transporters, EAAT5b and EAAT7, in the functional and behavioral responses to different wavelengths of light. The question is an interesting one, because these transporters are well positioned to affect responses to light, and their distribution in the retina suggests that they could play differential roles in visual behaviors. However, the low resolution of both the functional and behavioral data presented here means that the conclusions are necessarily a bit vague.

In Figure 1, the authors show that the double KO has a decreased ERG response to UV/blue and red wavelengths. However, the individual mutations only affect the response to red light, suggesting that they might affect behaviors such as OMR which typically rely on this part of the visual spectrum. However, there was no significant change in the response to UV/blue light of any intensity, making it unclear whether the mutations could individually play roles in the detection of UV prey. Based on the later behavioral data, it seems likely that at least the EAAT7 KO should affect retinal responses to UV light, but it may be that the ERG does not have the spatial or temporal resolution to detect the difference, or that the presence of blue light overwhelmed any effect of the individual knockouts on the response to UV light.

In Figures 5 and 6, the authors compare the two knockouts to wild-type fish in terms of their sensitivity to UV prey in a hunting assay. The EAAT5b KO showed no significant impairment in UV sensitivity, while the EAAT7 KO fish actually had an increased hunting response to UV prey. However, there is no comparison of the KO and WT responses to different UV intensities, only in bulk, so we cannot conclude that the EAAT7 KO is allowing the fish to detect weaker prey-like stimuli.

We have now reported in both in the results paragraph and in the methods section that response-comparison of intensity-specific responses were non-significant in all instances of analyses (Chi-square test with p>0.05). We decided not to add the information to the figure as it does not add to the data and risks causing excessive clutter of an already complex graph.

As reviewer #2 rightfully states, we cannot conclude that EAAT7 KO is allowing the fish to detect weaker prey-like stimuli. We only intend to suggest that a lack of EAAT7 might facilitate prey detection events as the number of hunting events in total, is increased compared to WT.

In Figure 7, the EAAT5b KO seems to cause a decrease in OMR behavior to red grating stimuli, but only one stimulus is tested, so it is unclear whether this is due to a change in visual sensitivity or resolution.

We fully agree that further experiments presenting different stimuli in the setup may very well reveal more details on the nature of the observed defect and thank reviewer #2 for the suggestion. We feel that identifying the reason of the defect lies outside of the scope of this paper, but should definitely be investigated in future studies.

The conclusions made in the manuscript are appropriately conservative; the abstract states that these transporters somehow influence prey detection and motion sensing, and this is probably true. However, it is unclear to what extent and how they might be acting on these processes, so the conclusions are a bit unsatisfying.

In terms of impact on the field, this work highlights the potential importance of these two transporters to visual processing, but further studies will be required to say how important they are and what they are doing. The methods presented here are not novel, as UV prey and red OMR stimuli and behaviors have previously been described.

We agree that this study is not fully conclusive but a first step towards a clarification of the role of glutamate transporters in shaping visual behavior.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Suggestions for improved or additional experiments, data, or analyses:

Figure 3:

(a) What is the intensity of the light emitted by the UV and yellow LEDs and experienced by the larva, e.g. in nW? This is necessary in order to be able to compare and replicate the results.

Stimuli intensities in microwatts are now included and reported in the Materials and Methods sections

(b) In Figure 3D, are all the example eye movement events hunting initiations? Does right eye/left eye positive or negative angle change denote convergence?

As indicated in the figure legend, hunting initiations are indicated by black dots on the graph. In Stytra’s eye tracking system, eye convergence is indicated by an increase in the left eye angle and a decrease in the right eye angle. Both these points have now been clarified in the figure legend.

(c) Also in 3D, the tail angle plot and x-axis are too small to read.

Figure 3D has been reformatted to be more legible.

(d) How much eye convergence constitutes a response? In order to compare the findings to previous studies of prey capture, it would be best to use a bimodal distribution of eye angles to set a convergence threshold for each fish (e.g. Paride et. al., eLife 2019), but there should at least be a clear threshold mentioned.

We have expanded the explanation of how the response detection paradigm was calculated. We acknowledge that this analysis has limitations in terms of comparability with previous studies, as it was developed de novo, based on the format of eye coordinate data provided by Stytra and refined through iterative comparison with experimental video recordings. Since the threshold was defined relative to the average noise level of the trace, it is difficult to specify an exact value. However, we are happy to share the Python scripts used for the analysis to facilitate further investigation.

(e) The previous study using artificial UV prey stimuli to trigger hunting (Khan et. al., Current Biology 2023) should be acknowledged.

This is an indeed an embarrassing omission, not excused by the first version of this section being drafted before the Khan publication. We have now cited this important study.

Figure 5:

Was the response at any individual intensity significantly lower in the mutant? If not, this should be clearly stated.

Yes, and this is now clearly stated in the main text

Figure 6:

Again, it would be more informative to know for which intensities the KO response was significantly greater than WT.

This is now also clearly stated in the main text

Figure 7:

(a) What are the intensity units?

We now clarified in the figure that the intensity shown in the graph is digital intensity

(b) Similar to Figures 5 and 6, it would be more informative to know at which intensities the KO response was significantly different from WT.

We now report the measured optical powers relative to the digital intensities in the Materials and Methods sections.

Suggestion for writing:

The discussion was a bit discursive. A more structured discussion, sequentially explaining each of the key results, would be easier for the reader to follow. And, it would be helpful to have hypotheses for how these transporter mutants could cause each of the changes in visual behaviors that were observed.

We agree that the discussion needed improvements. We have completely rewritten the discussion and hope that it now more concisely put our results into context.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors present a new protocol to assess social dominance in pairs and triads of C57BL/6j mice, based on a competition to access a hidden food pellet. Using this new protocol, the authors have been able to identify stable ranking among male and female pairs, while reporting more fluctuant hierarchies among triads of males. Ranking readouts identified with this new apparatus were compared to the outcomes obtained with the same animals competing in the tube and in the warm spot tests, which have been both commonly used during the last decade to identify social ranks in rodents under laboratory conditions.

Strengths:

FPCT allows for easy and fast identification of a winner and a loser in the context of food competition. The apparatus and the protocol are relatively easy and quick to implement in the lab and free from any complex post-processing/analysis, which qualifies it for wide distribution, particularly within laboratories that do not have the resources to implement more sophisticated protocols. Hierarchical readouts identified through the FPCT correlate with social ranks identified with the tube and the warm spot tests, which have been widely adopted during the last decade and allow for study comparison.

Weaknesses:

While the FPCT is validated by the tube and the warm spot test, this paper would have gained strength by providing a more ethologically based validation. Tube and warm spot tests have been shown to provide conflicting results and might not been a sufficient measurement for social ranking (see Varholik et al, Scientific reports, 2019; Battivelli et al, Biological psychiatry, 2024). Instead, a general consensus pushing toward more ethological approaches for neuroscience studies is emerging.

We appreciate all the reviewers for recognizing the strength of the FPCT setup and the data. We also appreciate the reviewers for pointing out weakness and giving us valuable suggestions that help us to improve the quality of our manuscript through revision.

In this manuscript, we found the ranking results of the FPCT were largely consistent with the tube and the warm spot tests. Such a finding was unexpected by us as we considered that different competitive targets of different paradigms should provide the mice with distinct appeals and enable them to exert their specific advantages. However, the consistency between the FPCT and tube test was observed in the pairs of female mice, pairs of male mice and triads of male mice. The consistency between the FPCT, tube test and warm spot test was observed in pairs of male mice and triads of male mice. Thus, we concluded that there is a social rank-order stability of mice. 

We acknowledge that it’d better if this conclusion could be validated by more ethological approaches like urine-marking analysis and water competition test. Whereas, we did not rule out inconsistency of ranking results between two or more paradigms. Actually, there were inconsistent cases in our experiments. The inconsistency of ranking results between paradigms, even between FPCT and tube test, could be amplified if the tests were operated with other details of experimental protocols and conditions. This is in that too many factors and aspects can affect the readouts, such as formation of colony, tasks, test protocols, habituation and training. Using tube test itself, both stable 1,2 and unstable 3 ranking results have been reported.

Other papers already successfully identified social ranks dyadic food competition, using relatively simple scoring protocol (see for example Merlot et al., 2006), within a more naturalistic set-up, allowing the 2 opponents to directly interact while competing for the food. A potential issue with the FPCT, is that the opponents being isolated from each other, the normal inhibition expected to appear in subordinates in the presence of a dominant to access food, could be diminished, and usually avoiding subordinates could be more motivated to push for the access to the food pellet.

The hierarchical structure of mice colony could be established on the basis of physical aspects—such as muscular strength, vigorousness of fighting—and psychological aspects— such as boldness, focused motivation, active self-awareness of status. In the contexts of currently available food contest paradigms where the mice compete with bodily interaction, the physical and psychological aspects are intermingled in the interpretation of the mice’s winning/losing. In the FPCT, the opponents are isolated from each other so that the importance of direct bodily interaction in a competition is minimized, facilitating the exposure of psychological factors contributing to the establishment and/or expression of social status of the mice. In this study, the overall stable ranking results across the FPCT, tube test and warm spot test indicate that the status sense of animals is part of a comprehensive identify of self-recognition of individuals in an established mice social colony.

There are issues with use of the English language throughout the text. Some sentences are difficult to understand and should be clarified and/or synthesized.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out language issues. We have carefully corrected the grammar errors.

Open question:

Is food restriction mandatory? Palatable food pellet is not sufficient to trigger competition? Food restriction has numerous behavioral and physiological consequences that would be better to prevent to be able to clearly interpret behavioral outcomes in FPCT (see for example Tucci et al., 2006).

We thank the reviewer for raising this question. In the preliminary experiments, we noticed that food restriction was mandatory and palatable food pellet was not sufficient to trigger competition. In order to limit the potential influence of food restriction on competitive behavior, the mice underwent only a 24-hour food deprivation period at the beginning of training, followed by mild restriction of food supply to meet basic energy requirement.

Conclusive remarks:

Although this protocol attempts to provide a novel approach to evaluate social ranks in mice, it is not clear how it really brings a significant advance in neuroscience research. The FPCT dynamic is very similar to the one observed in the tube test, where mice compete to navigate forward in a narrow space, constraining the opponent to go backward. The main difference between the FPCT and the tube test is the presence of food between the opponents. In the tube test, a food reward was initially used to increase motivation to cross the tube and push the opponent upon the testing day. This component has been progressively abandoned, precisely because it was not necessary for the mice to compete in the tube.

This paper would really bring a significant contribution to the field by providing a neuronal imaging or manipulation correlate to the behavioral outcome obtained by the application of the FPCT.

Thank the reviewer for this comment on the significance of the FPCT paradigm. In this manuscript, we think it is interesting to report that the ranking results were consistent across the FPCT, tube test and warm spot test. This finding indicates that the status sense of animals might be a part of a comprehensive identify of self-recognition of individuals in an established social colony. 

Moreover, we are conducting researches on biological consequences and mechanisms of social competition. Hopefully, the results of the on-going project will be published in the near future.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors have devised a novel assay to measure relative social rank in mice that is aimed at incorporating multiple aspects of social competition while minimizing direct contact between animals. Forming a hierarchy often involves complex social dynamics related to competitive drives for different fundamental resources including access to food, water, territory, and sexual mates. This makes the study of social dominance and its neural underpinnings hard, warranting the development of new tools and methods that can help understand both social functions as well as dysfunction.

Strengths:

This study showcases an assay called the Food Pellet Competition Test where cagemate mice compete for food, without direct contact, by pushing a block in a tube from opposite directions. The authors have attempted to quantify motivation to obtain the food independent of other factors such as age, weight, sex, etc. by running the assay under two conditions: one where the food is accessible and one where it isn't. This assay results in an impressive outcome consistency across days for females and males paired housed and for male groups of three. Further, the determined social ranks correlate strongly with two common assays: the tube test and the warm spot test.

Weaknesses:

This new assay has limited ethological validity since mice do not compete for food without touching each other with a block in the middle. In addition, the assay may only be valid for a single trial per day making its utility for recording neural recordings and manipulations limited to a single sample per mouse. Although the authors attempt to measure motivation as a factor driving who wins the social competition, the data is limited. This novel assay requires training across days with some mice reaching criteria before others. From the data reported, it is unclear what effects training can have on the outcome of social competition. Beyond the data shown, the language used throughout the manuscript and the rationale for the design of this novel assay is difficult to understand.

We appreciate the reviewers for the valuable comments on the strength and weakness of our manuscript. 

The design mentality of the FPCT was to (1) provide researchers with a choice of new food competition paradigm and (2) expose psychological factors influencing the establishment and/or expression social status in mice by avoiding direct physical competition between contenders (see revised Abstract and the last paragraph in the Introduction).

As a result, the consistent ranking across the FPCT, tube test and warm spot test might indicate that the status sense of animals is part of a comprehensive identify of self-recognition of individuals in an established social colony. 

We suggest to perform the FPCT test one trial per day per mouse as the mice might lose interest in the food pellet if it is tested frequently in a day, but it is practical to perform the FPCT assay for several days. 

Regarding the training, we suggest 4-5 days for training as we did. In this revision, we add training data which show the progressing latency of food-getting of mice (Figure 1). At the last day of training, the mice would go directly to push the block and eat the food after they entered the arena.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out language issues. We have carefully corrected the errors.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The laboratory mouse is an ideal animal to study the neural and psychological underpinnings of social dominance behavior because of its economic cost and the animals' readiness to display dominant and subordinate behaviors in simple and testable environments. Here, a new and novel method for measuring dominance and the individual social status of mice is presented using a food competition assay. Historically, food competition assays have been avoided because they occur in an open arena or the home cage, and it can be difficult to assess who gets priority access to the resource and to avoid aggressive interactions such as bite wounding. Now, the authors have designed a narrow rectangular arena separated in half by a sliding floor-to-ceiling obstacle, where the mice placed at opposite sides of the obstacle compete by pushing the obstacle to gain priority access to a food pellet resting on the arena floor under the obstacle. One can also place the food pellet within the obstacle to restrict priority access to the food and measure the time or effort spent pushing the obstacle back and forth. As hypothesized, the outcomes in the food competition test were significantly consistent with those of the more common tube test (space competition) and warm spot competition test. This suggests that these animals have a stereotypic dominance organization that exists across multiple resource domains (i.e., food, space, and temperature). Only male and female C57 mice in same-sex pairs or triads were tested.

Strengths:

The design of the apparatus and the inclusion of females are significant strengths within the study.

Weaknesses:

There are at least two major weaknesses of the study: neglecting the value of test inconsistency and not providing the mice time to recognize who they are competing with.

Several studies have demonstrated that although inbred mice in laboratory housing share similar genetics and environment, they can form diverse types of hierarchical organizations (e.g., loose, stable, despotic, linear, etc.) and there are multiple resource domains in the home cage that mice compete over (e.g., space, food, water, temperature, etc.). The advantage of using multiple dominance assays is to understand the nuances of hierarchical organizations better. For example, some groups may have clear dominant and subordinate individuals when competing for food, but the individuals may "change or switch" social status when competing for space. Indeed, social relationships are dynamic, not static. Here, the authors have provided another test to measure another dimension of dominance: food competition. Rather than highlight this advantage, the authors highlight that the test is in agreement with the standard tube test and warm spot test and that C57 mice have stereotypic dominance across multiple domains. While some may find this great, it will leave many to continue using the tube test only (which measures the dimension of space competition) and avoid measuring food competition. If the reader looks at Figures 6E, F, and G they will see examples of inconsistency across the food competition test, tube test, and warm spot test in triads of mice. These groups are quite interesting and demonstrate the diversity of social dynamics in groups of inbred mice in highly standardized environmental conditions. Scientists interested in dominance should study groups that are consistent and inconsistent across multiple dimensions of dominance (e.g., space, food, mates, etc.).

Unlike the tube test and warm spot test, the food competition test presented here provides no opportunity for the animals to identify their opponent. That is, they cannot sniff their opponent's fur or anogenital region, which would allow them an opportunity to identify them individually. Thus, as the authors state, the test only measures psychological motivation to get a food reward. Notably, the outcome in the direct and indirect testing of food competition is in agreement, leaving many to wonder whether they are measuring the social relationship or the effort an individual puts forth in attaining a food reward regardless of the social opponent. Specifically, in the direct test, an individual can retrieve the food reward by pushing the obstacle out of the way first. In the indirect test, the animals cannot retrieve the reward and can only push the obstacle back and forth, which contains the reward inside. In Figure 4E, you can see that winners spent more time pushing the block in the indirect test. Thus, whether the test measures a social relationship or just the likelihood of gaining priority access to food is unclear. To rectify this issue, the authors could provide an opportunity for the animals to interact before lowering the obstacle and raising(?) a food reward. They may also create a very long one-sided apparatus to measure the amount of effort an individual mouse puts forth in the indirect test with only one individual - or any situation with just one mouse where the moving obstacle is not pushed back, and the animal can just keep pushing until they stop. This would require another experiment. It also may not tell us much more since it remains unclear whether inbred mice can individually identify one another

(see https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1057 for more details).

A minor issue is that the write-up of the history of food competition assays and female dominance research is inaccurate. Food competition assays have a long history since at least the 1950s and many people study female dominance now.

Food competition: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1950.9712776, https://psycnet.apa.org/fullte xt/1953-03267-

001.pdf, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbi.2003.11.007, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-02204507-5

Female dominance: history  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2023.03.020,  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0 031-9384(01)00494-2,  https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7036.99.4.411

We thank the reviewers very much for so many helpful comments and suggestions.

In this manuscript, we want to address the overall and averagely consistency of ranking results between FPCT, tube test and warm spot test) as an unexpected finding. We agree that the inconsistency of social ranking occurred between trials and between paradigms should not be ignored. In the revision, we added description and discussion of inconsistent part of the different test paradigms (paragraph 2 in the section 3 of the Result, last 2 sentences of paragraph 4 in the Discussion)

Although the two opponents were separated each other, they were able to see and sniff each other because the block is transparency, there are holes in the lower portion of the block, and there is the gap between the block and chamber (Supplementary figures 1 and 2). In the female but not male groups, the presence of a cagemate opponent during the test 1 could significantly disturb the female mice and increase the its latency to get the food, comparing with last day of training when there was no opponent (Figure 3A). This indicates that one mouse, at least female mouse, could identify the existence of the opponent in the opposite side of the chamber. To further see whether social relation was influential to readouts of the FPCT, we performed additional experiments using two groups of non-cagemate mice to perform the competition. We did not detect obviously different ranks between the two groups (Figure 1H-1J), suggesting that establishment of social colony is necessary for FPCT to distinguish social ranks of mice.

Thank the reviewer for reminding us to recognize the history of food competition assays. We have added the citations and discussions of related literatures, both for male (paragraph 2 in the Introduction; paragraph 3 in the Discussion) and female (paragraph 1 of section 3 in the Results; paragraph 4 in the Discussion) mice. 

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

There are issues with use of the English language throughout the text. Some sentences are difficult to understand and should be clarified and/or synthesized.

We appreciate the reviewer for constructive comments and helpful corrections.

“Despite that 6 in 9 groups of mice display some extent of flipped ranking (Figures 6B-6G) and only 3 in 9 groups displayed continuously unaltered ranking (Figure 6H) during a total of 9 trials consisting of 3 trials of FPCT, 3 trials of tube test and 1 trial of WST, an obvious stable linear intragroup hierarchy was observed throughout all the trials and tasks"

The above sentence has been re-written as: The ranking result showed that 6 in 9 groups of mice displayed some extent of flipped ranking (Figures 4B-4G), and only 3 in 9 groups displayed continuously unaltered ranking (Figure 4H). Averagely, in the totally 27 trials consisting of 12 trials of FPCT, 12 trials of tube test and 3 trials of WST, an obvious stable linear intragroup hierarchy was observed across all the trials and tasks (paragraph 1 of section 4 in the Results).

"it is hard to attribute winning a competition in a shared space to stronger motivation rather than muscular superiority".

The above sentence has been deleted and re-written in paragraph 1 of section 4 in the Results and paragraph 3 in the Discussion.

"Unexpectedly, in most of the trials the mice preserved the winner or loser identity acquired in FPCT into tube test and WST (Figures 5L-5O)".

Why this is unexpected? Instead, it looks like this result is expected (tube test has been successfully applied to identify ranks in females, see Leclair et al, eLife, 2021).

We thank the reviewer for raising this point. FPCT is different from tube test and warm spot test at least in two aspects: competition for food vs space; presence vs absence of direct bodily interaction during competition. Some mice might be active in food competition, but not in space competition, while others might be on the contrary. Some mice might be good at physical contest, while others might be good at play tricks. Therefore, these factors made us expect task-specific outcomes of ranking results.

Vocabulary issues:

"Stereotypic", to talk about rank stability in a different context does not look appropriate. In behavioral neuroscience, stereotypy is more excepted to intend abnormal repetitive behaviors. The stability that the authors seem to indicate with the word "stereotype" refers rather to the concept of "consistency" or "stability".

We thank the reviewer for this detailed explanation. We have chosen to use "stability" to describe the data.

"Society", to talk about groups or colonies of animals sounds a bit odd. Society evokes more abstract concepts more likely to fit with human organization. I suggest the use of "group" or "colony".

"Hide" to qualify the block preventing access to the food pellet. It is said that the block is transparent. We suggest the use of "inaccessible" instead of hidden.

We strongly encourage the authors to further edit the entire script to improve language.

Thank the reviewer for kind correction. We have corrected the above vocabulary misuse. 

Technical issues / typos:

Figure 1. The picture does not seem optimal to visualize the apparatus.

Missing unit legend in Figure 4E.

Supplementary videos 2 and 4 are missing.

We have added a frontal view of the apparatus in the figure (Supplementary Figure 1), added a unit to the Figure 2F (previous Figure 4E), and we will make sure to upload the missing videos.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

While the assay shows promise as a tool for studying social dominance, the study suffers from some limitations such as lack of ethological relevance. In addition, there is a lack of rationale and methodological clarity in the manuscript that can impact the ability of other scientists to be able to perform this novel assay.

(1) Related to lack of scientific rigor:

a. In the first paragraph of the introduction, the authors mention that "disability in social recognition and unsatisfied social status are associated with brain diseases such as autism, depression and schizophrenia". Both papers that they cited refer to mouse models, not humans (which is the species that is attributed these diagnoses clinically). In addition, neither citation discusses schizophrenia. While social dysfunctions can indeed be related to these diseases, to my knowledge this is not caused by a change in "social status" and there is no human data with patient populations and social status. Therefore, this sentence is inaccurate and there is no research that demonstrates that.

We thank the reviewer for raising this point. To express the opinion and cite literatures more accurately, we improved the sentence in the 1st paragraph of Introduction as follows: “Impaired awareness of social competition has been documented in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD)4,5, and reduced social interaction has been characterized in corresponding animal models6. Similarly, maladaptive responses to social status loss has been associated with patient depressive disorders7,8 and animal models of depression1,9”. The reviewer is right that no patient disease is causally related with social status, and only depression has been proposedly associated with change of social status7,8.

b. In the second paragraph of the introduction, the authors mention a scarcity of research papers with designs for food competition-based social hierarchy assays for mice. At least two such papers have been published in the past few years (DOIs https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-

021-04000-5 and https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04507-5). The authors should acknowledge the existence of these and other assays and discuss how their work would be related. In the same paragraph, they also mention that existing assays suffer from "hierarchy instability" and "complex calculations" without showing any citations or details for these claims.

We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We acknowledged that there are some available food competitions to measure social hierarchy for mice. But relative to space competition, food competition tests have not been used so commonly and widely. No food competition paradigm has been accepted as generally as some space competition paradigms like tube test and warm spot test. To improve the language and scientific expression, we revised the sentences as follows: “Relative to space competition, food competition tests for mice have been designated and applied less commonly in animal studies despite its long history 28-30. Several issues could be thought to be the underlying limitations for the application of food competition paradigms. First, there are methodological issues in some of these approaches, such as long video recording duration and difficulty in analyzing animal’s behaviors during competitive physical interaction in videos, hindering their application by laboratories that cannot afford sophisticated equipment and analysis”. Corresponding citations have been updated (see paragraph 3 in the Introduction).

c. The authors say that their study is the first to demonstrate that female mice follow social ranks. This is not the first study to do so and the authors should acknowledge existing publications that have done the same (eg DOI https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71401).

We have followed the reviewer’s suggestion to increase citations regarding social ranking of female mice tested by competition paradigms, especially food competition paradigms (see paragraph 1 of section 3 in the Results; paragraph 4 in the Discussion).

(2) Related to problems with interpretation of data:

a. The authors showed the assay works for females and males in pairwise housing, but two mice don't make a hierarchy, as hierarchies require a minimum of three individuals. Therefore, whether the assay works for females caged in three is an important question that is unaddressed in this study and is a caveat. extended the competition assay to male mice that are housed in cages of three. It would be important to show whether the assay generalizes well for female mice with this three-animal housing as well as discuss the effect of using even bigger groups of mice on the results of the assay.

We thank the reviewer for raising questions related to the interpretation of data and giving us the insightful the suggestions. We agree that it is interesting and important to probe if FPCT works for a group of three female mice. Although social rankings of pairs of male and female mice were not significantly different (new Figure 2D-2F and 3F-3H), that of triads of male and female mice could be different. We have tested trads of male mice and found that the mice displayed an overall linear hierarchical ranking. We would like to use FPCT to investigate the rankings of trads of female mice and even bigger group of mice in the future. In the present manuscript we’d like to address the feasible application of the FPCT in smaller groups. In the Discussion, we add contents commenting group size effect on social competition tests (see paragraph 4 in the Discussion).

b. The authors claim that "test 2" of their assay helps assert the motivation of mice for social competition as in Figure 4E. This could simply be a readout of how strong the mice are (muscle mass). To claim that this is indeed related to motivation during the FPCT assay, the authors should show the correlation of this readout with the latency to push the block during the social competition task.

We appreciate the reviewer for raising this question. The dimensions establishing the social structures include physical and psychological factors. In the FPCT paradigm, the two contenders are separated so that physical factors are minimized in this context and psychological factors should play more important role in competition in comparison with previous reported food competition paradigms. Therefore, in the revised manuscript we consider to attribute the ranking results mainly to psychological factors, rather than only motivation which is just one of the numerous psychological factors (paragraph 3 of Discussion). Moreover, in the Discussion we point out that we could not exclude physical factors still participate in the determination of competitive outcomes since some of mice pairs pushed the block simultaneously (paragraph 3 of Discussion).

c.The authors mention that they are interested to understand which factors lead to the outcome of the competition such as age, sex, physical strength, training level, and intensity of psychological motivation. However, in all their runs of the assay, they always matched these variables between the competitors. They should clarify that they were instead controlling for these variables. Another thing to note here is that while they controlled the body mass of the animals, that isn't the same as physical strength, as a lighter mouse can have more muscle mass than a heavier mouse. They should either specify this limitation or quantify the additional metric of "muscle mass" which is a much better proxy for physical strength. Thus, the claim that the outcome of the competition is solely affected by motivation is not convincing since they didn't rule out the others such as quantifying the rate of learning during training and strength.

We thank the reviewer for addressing this question. As our response to the question in (c), we acknowledge that it is not accurate to ascribe the outcomes of FPCT to psychological motivation. In the revised manuscript, the dimensions of contributing factors to the outcomes of FPCT have been simplified to physical and psychological factors. We consider that the psychological factor could be the main driver of mice participating in FPCT (see paragraph 3 of Discussion).

d. In the discussion, the authors mention that their task only requires a single day of food deprivation (the day before the first trial) while other assays suffer from a continued food deprivation protocol. However, the authors also use 10g per cage as the amount of food instead of giving them ad libitum access. Limited food is a food deprivation method. Thus, this is an inaccurate claim.

We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We have clarified the requirement of food restriction for FPCT in the revision. The mice were deprived of food for 24 hours while water consumption remained normally to enhance the appeal of the food pellet to the mice. Then, after 24 hours of food deprivation, each cage of mice was given 10 g of food every morning to meet their daily food requirements until the end of the test (see FPCT procedure section in Methods and materials).

e.In the second section of the results, the authors run their assay with female mice that are housed in cages of two. This section suffers from the same limitations as the first and can be improved by showing the training data, correlations of competition outcome with "motivation" and ruling out the other factors that could contribute to the outcome. Further, the authors saying that their FPCT assay is enough to show that female mice follow a social hierarchy by itself is a weak claim. They should instead include their cross-validation with the others to strengthen it.

We appreciate the reviewer for raising this question. We have taken the reviewer’s suggestion to show the training data (Figures 1E, 2A and 3A). As the factors contributing to the outcomes of FPCT are diverse, we’d like not to control and determine the exact factor in the current manuscript. We agree with the reviewer that cross-validation with different paradigms is suggested for the studies to rank social hierarchy as the ranking results could be variable with tasks, procedures and operations.

f.  In the last paragraph of the introduction, the authors mention how their assay involves "peaceful competition" since the mice are not in direct contact and hence cannot exhibit aggression. The authors do not address the limitation that a lack of physical contact actually makes the assay less ethological. Further, since the mice are housed in groups of two and three, it is not guaranteed that the mice will not be aggressive during their time in the home cage, which could affect their behavior during the competition assay. Whether the assay causes more aggression in the cage due to the lack of physical contact during the competition is not addressed in this study.

We thank the reviewer for raising this point. Diverse factors affect the outcomes of a food competition test, some of which belong to psychological factors and others belong to physical factors. We agree that a lack of physical contact makes the assay less naturally ethological. However, when the social statuses have been established during habituation housing a group of mice for enough time, the win/lose outcomes in the FPCT could be a readout of the expression of social statuses since the mice cannot exhibit aggression in the test. We have revised the Introduction and Discussion (paragraph 3 of Discussion). Thank you.

(3) Related to lack of methodological rigor and rationale clarity:

a. In the first section of the results, the authors run their assay with male mice that are housed in cages of two. While the data that they display is promising, we do not see how mice change behavior across days of training and how that relates to the outcome of the competition. It would be valuable to also show the training data for the mice, answering questions related to competency and any inter-animal variabilities prior to rank assessment. Plotting the training data across all days would be helpful for the other parts of the results as well. This is especially important because the methods mention that mice are trained until they get to the criterium, so this means that different individuals get different amounts of training.

We appreciate the reviewer for addressing the importance of showing training data. We have taken the reviewer’s suggestion and shown the training data (Figures 1E, 2A and 3A).

b.  It is unclear why the assay was run only once per mouse pair per day since most protocols for the tube test involve multiple repetitions each day while alternating the side from which the mice enter. The authors should address whether a single trial per day is enough to show consistent results and that it wouldn't vary with more.

We suggest to run the FPCT once or twice per mouse per day under conditions of mild food restriction, training and test procedures in this manuscript. Frequent tests might make the mice’s interest in the food pellet gradually diminished because the food supply was not fully deprived. According to our data, the outcomes of FPCT in 4 consecutive days were overall stable.

c.  In the results the authors say that they "raised 3 male mice" which may be incorrect because they report in the methods buying the mice buy mice and they housed all their mice for only three days before running the assay which might be too little for the hierarchy to stabilize. The authors should comment on what was the range of the cohabitation across different cages and whether it had an impact on the results.

According to our experiments, housing the mice for 3 days is enough to establish a mice social colony with relative stable status structure. Prolonged housing may produce either similar, stabler or more dynamic social colony.

d. There are also some formatting and/or convention issues in the results. The first figure callout in the results is for Figure 4 instead of Figure 1 (which is the standard). This is because the authors do not explain how the mice are trained for the task in the results section and show limited data about the training of the task. Not showing comprehensive training data would make replication of this study very difficult.

We appreciate the reviewer for raising this question. We have re-arranged the figures. The new arrangement of figures started with schematic drawing of FPCT procedure and training data (Figure 1).

e. The authors don't report the exact p-values in the figures

We reported the difference level in the figures in the revised manuscript. Thank you.

4. The writing of the manuscript suffers from a lack of clarity in most sections of the manuscript.

Here are several examples that are critical:

a. In the title and abstract, it isn't clear what the authors mean by "stereotype". It could be a behavior during the competition, or that the social ranks across assays are correlated or that the rank for the new assay is consistent across days.

b. There are several instances where the authors anthropomorphize mice using human features such as "urbanization" and "society" which are not established factors affecting mouse hierarchy. This further extends to anthropomorphizing mice in ways that are not standard such as an animal being "timid" or "bold" which would be hard to measure in mice, if not impossible.

c. Across the social dominance literature, relative social rank is described using more general "dominant" and "subordinate" titles instead of "superior" and "inferior" that are sometimes used in the manuscript. The authors should follow the standard language so that readers understand.

d.  In the third paragraph of the introduction, the authors say "Thus, it is more likely expected that different paradigms to weigh the social competency and status may lead to diverse readouts, given that competitive factors are included in competition paradigms." This sentence suffers from multiple syntax errors thereby reducing clarity

e. There are several typos in the manuscript such as using "dominate" instead of "dominant", "grades" instead of "outcomes" and "forth" instead of "fourth", to give a few examples.

We thank the reviewer for careful reading of the manuscript and very helpful comments. We have taken the above suggestions and improved the writing of the manuscript. For examples, "stereotype" was replaced by “stability”, mice "society" was expressed by "colony", the sentence “Thus, it is more.... in competition paradigms” has been deleted.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) The justification for the design of this new test paradigm is unclear. In the abstract, you state that the field needs a reliable, valid, and easily executable test. Your test provides this, as you state, but how is it better than the tube test? Does the tube test suffer from taskspecific win-or-lose outcomes? Can you provide evidence for this? The nature methods protocol for the tube test (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-018-0116-4) "strongly suggest using more than two dominance measures, for example, by also carrying out the warm spot test, or territory urine marking or ultrasonic courtship vocalization assays." This would suggest that results from the tube test can be task-specific, but I am not convinced that you have demonstrated that results from your food competition test are not task-specific. Indeed, by your title, one must run multiple tests.

This same problem is apparent in the introduction. In the second paragraph, there is a discussion of the tube test, warm spot test, and food competition tests. What is the problem with these tests?

I believe that social dominance relationships are complex and dynamic social relationships indicating who has priority access to a resource between multiple animals that live together. In these living situations, several resources can often be capitalized competed over-for example, space, food, mates, temperature, etc. Currently, we have tests to measure space via the tube test or urine marking, mates via ultrasonic vocalization, temperature via warm spot test, and food via food competition assays. The tube test, urine marking assay, and ultrasonic vocalization test have been demonstrated to be reliable, valid, and easily executable. However, the food competition assays are often difficult to execute because it is difficult to interpret the dominant behaviors and aggressive behaviors like bite wounding can occur during the test. Here, you present a new food competition assay to address these issues and show that it can be used in conjunction with other assays to measure social dominance across multiple resources easily. In doing so, you revealed that many same-sex groups of C57 mice have a stereotypic pattern of dominance behavior when competing across multiple types of resources: space, temperature, and food.

I ask that you please rebut if you disagree with me, and adjust your abstract, introduction, and discussion accordingly.

We thank the reviewer for all the constructive comments. We have adjusted the Abstract, Introduction and Discussion of the manuscript.

We recognize and appreciate the valuable tube test, warm spot test and many other competition tests, including food competitions. Tube test and warm spot test are space competition tasks. Relative to space competition, food competition tests for mice have been designated and applied less commonly in animal studies. Several issues (such as methodological issue, aggressive behaviors occurring in competition, and prolonged food deprivation) could be thought to be the underlying limitations of the application of food competition paradigms (paragraph 3 in the Introduction). Therefore, we clarify that the justification for the design of FPCT was “to have a new choice of food competition paradigm for mice, and to facilitate the exposure of psychological aspects contributing to the winning/losing outcomes in competitions” (last paragraph in the Introduction).

FPCT is different from tube test and warm spot test at least in two ways. FPCT is food completion task where the mice need no physical contact during competition, while tube test and WST are space competition tasks where the mice need direct physical contact during competition. Therefore, we expected inconsistent evaluation results of competitiveness and rankings if we compared FPCT with typically available competition paradigms—tube test and WST (last paragraph in the Introduction).

(2)  The design of the test needs to be described before the results. You can either move the methods section before the results or add a paragraph in the introduction to better describe the test. Here, you can also reference Figures 1 through 3 so that the figures are presented in the order of which they are mentioned in the paper. (It is very confusing that the first reference to a figure is Figure 4, when it should be Figure 1).

We appreciate the reviewer for raising this point and giving us suggestions. We have added a new section (section 1) in the Results. In the revised manuscript, the figures in the Results start with Figure 1 which shows schematic drawing of FPCT procedure, training data and some test results (Figure 1).

(3)  The sentence describing Figure 4H. You argue that this shows that the mice are well and equally trained. It also shows that they have the same motivation or preference for the food.

We appreciate the reviewer for this helpful comment. Data in previous Figures 4H and 5I have been presented as new Figures 2A and 3A, respectively, of revised manuscript. These retrospect analysis of training data displayed similar training level of food-getting and craving state for food (Sections 2 and 3 in the Results).

(4)  "Social ranking of multiple cagemate mice using FPCT, tube test and WST"

Here, you claim that "comparison of inter-task consistency revealed that the ranks evaluated by FPCT, tube test and WST did not differ from each other...Figure 6K." Okay, however, it is important to discuss the three cases when there wasn't consistency between the tests! Figure 6E-G.

We appreciate the reviewer for raising this point. In the revised manuscript, we add description and discussion of inconsistent part of the different test paradigms (paragraph 2 in the section 3 of the Result, last 2 sentences of paragraph 4 in the Discussion)

(5)  Replace all instances of "gender" with "sex". Animals do not have a gender.

(6)  Adjust the strain of the mice to C57BL/6JNifdc.

We have replaced "gender" with "sex" and “C57BL/6J” with “C57BL/6JNifdc”. Thank you for your careful correction.

(7)  What is the justification for running the warm spot test for one day and the other tests for four days?

From the consecutive FPCT and tube test, we already knew that the ranking results were overall stable. This stability was still observed in the day of warm spot test. A bad point for frequent warm spot test is that mice get much stress due to exposure in ice-cold environment. Therefore, we terminated the competition test after only one trial of warm spot test.

(8)  Grammar

The second sentence of the abstract: ...recognized as a valuable...

Results, sentence after "...was observed (Figure 4G)." it should be "Fourth"

We have corrected these and other grammar errors. We appreciate the reviewers for very careful review and all helpful comments.

Author Response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public review): 

The authors survey the ultrastructural organization of glutamatergic synapses by cryo-ET and image processing tools using two complementary experimental approaches. The first approach employs so-called "ultra-fresh" preparations of brain homogenates from a knock-in mouse expressing a GFP-tagged version of PSD-95, allowing Peukes and colleagues to specifically target excitatory glutamatergic synapses. In the second approach, direct in-tissue (using cortical and hippocampal regions) targeting of the glutamatergic synapses employing the same mouse model is presented. In order to ascertain whether the isolation procedure causes any significant changes in the ultrastructural organization (and possibly synaptic macromolecular organization) the authors compare their findings using both of these approaches. The quantitation of the synaptic cleft height reveals an unexpected variability, while the STA analysis of the ionotropic receptors provides insights into their distribution with respect to the synaptic cleft.

The main novelty of this study lies in the continuous claims by the authors that the sample preservation methods developed here are superior to any others previously used. This leads them as well to systematically downplay or directly ignore a substantial body of previous cryo-ET studies of synaptic structure. Without comparisons with the cryo-ET literature, it is very hard to judge the impact of this work in the field. Furthermore, the data does not show any better preservation in the so-called "ultra-fresh" preparation than in the literature, perhaps to the contrary as synapses with strangely elongated vesicles are often seen. Such synapses have been regularly discarded for further analysis in previous synaptosome studies (e.g. Martinez-Sanchez 2021). Whilst the targeting approach using a fluorescent PSD95 marker is novel and seems sufficiently precise, the authors use a somewhat outdated approach (cryo-sectioning) to generate in-tissue tomograms of poor quality. To what extent such tomograms can be interpreted in molecular terms is highly questionable. The authors also don't discuss the physiological influence of 20% dextran used for high-pressure freezing of these "very native" specimens.

Lastly, a large part of the paper is devoted to image analysis of the PSD which is not convincing (including a somewhat forced comparison with the fixed and heavy-metal staining room temperature approach). Despite being a technically challenging study, the results fall short of expectations. 

Our manuscript contains a discussion of both conventional EM and cryoET of synapses. We apologise if we have omitted referencing or discussing any earlier cryoET work. This was certainly not our intention, and we include a more complete discussion of published cryoET work on synapses in our revised manuscript.

The reviewer is concerned that the synaptic vesicles in some synapse tomograms are “stretched” and that this may reflect poor preservation.  We would like to point out that such non-spherical synaptic vesicles have also been previously reported in cryoET of primary neurons grown on EM grids (Tao et al., J. Neuro, 2018). Indeed, there is no reason per se to suppose synaptic vesicles are always spherical and there are many diverse families of proteins expressed at the synapse that shape membrane curvature (BAR domain proteins, synaptotagmin, epsins, endophilins and others). We will add further discussion of this issue in the revised manuscript.

The reviewer regards ‘cryo-sectioning’ as outdated and cryoET data from these preparations as “poor quality”. We respectfully disagree. Preparing brain tissues for cryoET is generally considered to be challenging. The first successful demonstration of preparing such samples was before the advent of the cryoEM resolution revolution (with electron counting detectors) by Zuber et al (Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.,2005) preparing cryo-sections/CEMOVIS of in vitro brain cultures. We followed this technique to prepare tissue cryo-sections for cryoET in our manuscript. Recently, cryoFIB-SEM liftout has been developed as an alternative method to prepare tissue samples for cryoET (Mahamid et al., J. Struct. Biol., 2015) and only more recently this method became available to more laboratories. Both techniques introduce damage as has been described (Han et al., J. Microsc., 2008; Lucas et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 2023). Importantly no like-for-like, quantitative comparison of these two methodologies has yet been performed. We have recently demonstrated that the molecular structure of amyloid fibrils within human brain is preserved down to the protein fold level in samples prepared by cryo-sectioning (Gilbert et al., Nature, 2024). We will add further detail on the process by which we excluded poor quality tomograms from our analysis, which we described in detail in our methods section.

The reviewer asks what the physiological effect is of adding 20% w/v ~40,000 Da dextran? This is a reasonable concern since this could in principle exert osmotic pressure on the tissue sample. While we did not investigate this ourselves, earlier studies have (Zuber et al, 2005) showing cell membranes were not damaged by and did not have any detectable effect on cell structure in the presence of this concentration of dextran.

The reviewer is not convinced by our analysis of the apparent molecular density of macromolecules in the postsynaptic compartment that in conventional EM is called the postsynaptic density. However, the reviewer provides no reasoning for this assessment nor alternative approaches that could be attempted. We would like to add that we have tested multiple different approaches to objectively measure molecular crowding in cryoET data, that give comparable results. We believe that our conclusion – that we do not observe an increased molecular density conserved at the postsynaptic membrane, and that the PSD that we and others observed by conventional EM does not correspond to a region of increased molecular density - is well supported by our data.  We and the other reviewers consider this an important and novel observation.

Reviewer #2 (Public review): 

Summary: 

The authors set out to visualize the molecular architecture of the adult forebrain glutamatergic synapses in a near-native state. To this end, they use a rapid workflow to extract and plunge-freeze mouse synapses for cryo-electron tomography. In addition, the authors use knockin mice expression PSD95-GFP in order to perform correlated light and electron microscopy to clearly identify pre- and synaptic membranes. By thorough quantification of tomograms from plunge- and high-pressure frozen samples, the authors show that the previously reported 'post-synaptic density' does not occur at high frequency and therefore not a defining feature of a glutamatergic synapse.

Subsequently, the authors are able to reproduce the frequency of post-synaptic density when preparing conventional electron microscopy samples, thus indicating that density prevalence is an artifact of sample preparation. The authors go on to describe the arrangement of cytoskeletal components, membraneous compartments, and ionotropic receptor clusters across synapses.

Demonstrating that the frequency of the post-synaptic density in prior work is likely an artifact and not a defining feature of glutamatergic synapses is significant. The descriptions of distributions and morphologies of proteins and membranes in this work may serve as a basis for the future of investigation for readers interested in these features.

Strengths: 

The authors perform a rigorous quantification of the molecular density profiles across synapses to determine the frequency of the post-synaptic density. They prepare samples using two cryogenic electron microscopy sample preparation methods, as well as one set of samples using conventional electron microscopy methods. The authors can reproduce previous reports of the frequency of the post-synaptic density by conventional sample preparation, but not by either of the cryogenic methods, thus strongly supporting their claim. 

We thank the reviewer for their generous assessment of our manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public review): 

Summary: 

The authors use cryo-electron tomography to thoroughly investigate the complexity of purified, excitatory synapses. They make several major interesting discoveries: polyhedral vesicles that have not been observed before in neurons; analysis of the intermembrane distance, and a link to potentiation, essentially updating distances reported from plastic-embedded specimen; and find that the postsynaptic density does not appear as a dense accumulation of proteins in all vitrified samples (less than half), a feature which served as a hallmark feature to identify excitatory plastic-embedded synapses. 

Strengths: 

(1)The presented work is thorough: the authors compare purified, endogenously labeled synapses to wild-type synapses to exclude artifacts that could arise through the homogenation step, and, in addition, analyse plastic embedded, stained synapses prepared using the same quick workflow, to ensure their findings have not been caused by way of purification of the synapses. Interestingly, the 'thick lines of PSD' are evident in most of their stained synapses.

(2)I commend the authors on the exceptional technical achievement of preparing frozen specimens from a mouse within two minutes.

(3)The approaches highlighted here can be used in other fields studying cell-cell junctions.

(4)The tomograms will be deposited upon publication which will enable neurobiologists and researchers from other fields to carry on data evaluation in their field of expertise since tomography is still a specialized skill and they collected and reconstructed over 100 excellent tomograms of synapses, which generates a wealth of information to be also used in future studies.

(5) The authors have identified ionotropic receptor positions and that they are linked to actin filaments, and appear to be associated with membrane and other cytosolic scaffolds, which is highly exciting.

(6) The authors achieved their aims to study neuronal excitatory synapses in great detail, were thorough in their experiments, and made multiple fascinating discoveries. They challenge dogmas that have been in place for decades and highlight the benefit of implementing and developing new methods to carefully understand the underlying molecular machines of synapses.

Weaknesses: 

The authors show informative segmentations in their figures but none have been overlayed with any of the tomograms in the submitted videos. It would be helpful for data evaluation to a broad audience to be able to view these together as videos to study these tomograms and extract more information. Deposition of segmentations associated with the tomgrams would be tremendously helpful to Neurobiologists, cryo-ET method developers, and others to push the boundaries.

Impact on community: 

The findings presented by Peukes et al. pertaining to synapse biology change dogmas about the fundamental understanding of synaptic ultrastructure. The work presented by the authors, particularly the associated change of intermembrane distance with potentiation and the distinct appearance of the PSD as an irregular amorphous 'cloud' will provide food for thought and an incentive for more analysis and additional studies, as will the discovery of large membranous and cytosolic protein complexes linked to ionotropic receptors within and outside of the synaptic cleft, which are ripe for investigation. The findings and tomograms available will carry far in the synapse fields and the approach and methods will move other fields outside of neurobiology forward. The method and impactful results of preparing cryogenic, unlabelled, unstained, near-native synapses may enable the study of how synapses function at high resolution in the future.

We thank the reviewer for their supportive assessment of our manuscript.  We thank the reviewer for suggesting overlaying segmentations with videos of the raw tomographic volumes. We will include this in our revised manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors): 

Major comments: 

(1) The previous literature on synaptic cryo-ET studies is systematically ignored. The results presented here (and their novelty) must be compared directly with this body of work, rather than with classical EM.

Our submitted manuscript included a 3-paragraph discussion of earlier synaptic cryoET studies, albeit we apologize that a seminal citation was missing, which we have corrected in our revised manuscript. We have now also included an additional brief discussion related to several more recent cryoET studies (see citations below) that were published after our pre-print was first deposited in 2021.

(1) Held, R.G., Liang, J., and Brunger, A.T. (2024). Nanoscale architecture of synaptic vesicles and scaffolding complexes revealed by cryo-electron tomography. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 121, e2403136121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2403136121.

(2) Held, R.G., Liang, J., Esquivies, L., Khan, Y.A., Wang, C., Azubel, M., and Brunger, A.T. (2024). In-Situ Structure and Topography of AMPA Receptor Scaffolding Complexes Visualized by CryoET. bioRxiv, 2024.10.19.619226. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.10.19.619226.

(3)Matsui, A., Spangler, C., Elferich, J., Shiozaki, M., Jean, N., Zhao, X., Qin, M., Zhong, H., Yu, Z., and Gouaux, E. (2024). Cryo-electron tomographic investigation of native hippocampal glutamatergic synapses. eLife 13, RP98458. https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.98458.

(4)Glynn, C., Smith, J.L.R., Case, M., Csöndör, R., Katsini, A., Sanita, M.E., Glen, T.S., Pennington, A., and Grange, M. (2024). Charting the molecular landscape of neuronal organisation within the hippocampus using cryo electron tomography. bioRxiv, 2024.10.14.617844. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.10.14.617844.

We discuss the above papers in our revised manuscript with the following:

“Since submission of our manuscript, several reports of synapse cryoET from within cultured primary neurons (Held et al., 2024a, 2024b)  and mouse brain(Glynn et al., 2024; Matsui et al., 2024) were prepared by cryoFIB-milling. These new datasets are largely consistent with the data reported here. CryoFIB-SEM has the advantage of overcoming the local knife damage caused by cryo-sectioning but introduces amorphization across the whole sample that diminishes the information content (Al-Amoudi et al., 2005; Lovatt et al., 2022; Lucas and Grigorieff, 2023). We have recently shown cryoET data is capable of revealing subnanometer resolution in-tissue protein structure from vitreous cryo-sections (Gilbert et al., 2024) and near-atomic structures within cryo-sections has recently been demonstrated (Elferich et al., 2025).”

Although there is variation between individual synapses, PSDs are clearly visible in several previous cryo-ET studies (even if it's not as striking as in heavy-metal stained samples). In fact, although the contrast of the images is generally poor, PSDs are also visible in several examples shown in Figure 1 - Supplement 3. Not being able to detect them seems more of a problem of the workflow used here than of missing features. The authors should also discuss why heavy-metal stains would accumulate on a non-existing structure (PSD) in conventional EM.

We agree that apparent higher molecular density can be observed in example tomographic data of earlier cryoET studies. We also report individual examples of similar synapses in our dataset. A key strength of our approach is that we have assessed the molecular architecture of large numbers of adult brain synapses acquired by an unbiased approach (solely guided by PSD95 cryoCLEM), which indicate that a higher molecular density proximal to the postsynaptic membrane is not a conserved feature of glutamatergic synapses in the adult brain. There is no rationale for our cryoCLEM approach being a ‘problem of the workflow’.

The reviewer misunderstands the weaknesses of conventional/room temperature EM workflows (including resin-embedding and freeze substitution). It is unavoidable that most proteins are damaged by denaturation and/or washed away by washing samples in organic solvents (methanol/acetone that directly denature most proteins) during tissue preparation for conventional EM. It is therefore conceivable that in such preparations a relative increase in contrast proximal to the postsynaptic membrane (‘PSD’) would appear if cytoplasmic proteins were washed away during these harsh organic solved washing steps, leaving only those denatured proteins that are tethered to the postsynaptic membrane. It is not that the PSD is absent in cryoEM, rather that this difference in molecular crowding is not evident when tissues are imaged directly by cryoEM and have not undergone the harsh sample preparation required for conventional/room temperature EM.

(2) Whether the synapses examined here are in a more physiological state than those analyzed in other papers remains absolutely unclear. For example, the quality of the tomographic slice shown in Figure 1C is poor, with the majority of synaptic vesicles looking suspiciously elongated. 

We addressed this in our public reviews.

(3) How were actin filaments segmented and quantified (e.g. for Fig 1E)? Apart from actin, can the authors show some examples of other macromolecular complexes (e.g. ribosomes) that they are able to identify in synapses (based on the info in supplementary tables)? Also, the mapping of glutamatergic receptors is not convincing, as the molecules were picked manually. To analyze their distribution, they should be mapped as comprehensively as possible by e.g. template matching.

Actin filaments identified by ~7 nm diameter with ~70° branch points were manually segmented in IMOD. The number of filaments was counted per postsynaptic compartment. We have amended the methods section to include this description.

“In the PoSM, F-actin formed a network with ~70° branch points (Figure 1–figure supplement 1C) likely formed by Arp2/3, as expected(Pizarro-Cerdá 2017,Fäßler 2020) . Putative filament copy number in the PoSM was estimated by manual segmentation in IMOD.” Manual picking was validated by the quality of the subtomogram average, which although only reached modest resolution (25 Å) is consistent with the identification of ionotropic glutamate receptors.

(4) In the section "Synaptic organelles" the authors should provide some general information on the average number and size of synaptic vesicles (for the in-tissue tomograms).

We have provided this information in the methods section:

“The average diameter of synaptic vesicles was 40.2 nm and the minimum and maximum dimensions ranged from 20 to 57.8 nm, measured from the outside of the vesicle that included ellipsoidal synaptic vesicles similar to those previously reported (Tao et al., 2018).” A detailed survey of the presynaptic compartment, including the number of presynaptic vesicles was not the focus of our manuscript. We have deposited all tomograms from our dataset for any further data mining.

Can the "flat tubular membranes compartments" be attributed to ER? The angular vesicles certainly have a typical ER appearance, as such morphology has been seen in several cryo-ET studies of neuronal and non-neuronal cells.

In neuronal cells we regard it as unsafe to describe an intracellular organelle as being endoplasmic reticulum on the basis of morphology alone (eg. Smooth ER described widely in conventional EM) because of the apparent diversity of distinct organelles. As described in our methods section, we could have confidence that a membrane compartment is ER when we observe ribosomes tethered to the membrane. In instances where flat/tubular membranes did not have associated ribosomes, we take the cautious view that there is not sufficient evidence to define these as ER.

Importantly, polyhedral vesicles were distinct from the flat/tubular membranes that resembled ER and are at present organelles of unknown identity. It will be important in future experiments to determine what are the protein constituents of these distinct organelle types to understand both their functions and how these distinct membrane architectures are assembled.

Therefore, the sentences in lines 198-199 are simply wrong. Additionally, features of even higher membrane curvature are common in the ER (e.g. Collado et al., Dev Cell 2019). 

We thank the reviewer for bringing our attention to this excellent paper (Collado et al.). We agree that the sentence describing the curvature being higher than all other membranes except mitochondrial cristae is wrong. We have removed this sentence in the revised manuscript.

(5)The quality of the tomographic data for the in-tissue sample is low, likely due to cryo-sectioning-induced artifacts, as extensively documented in the literature. Additionally, the authors used 20% dextran as cryo-protectant for high-pressure freezing, which contrasts with statements like those in lines 342-344. Given that several publications describing the in-tissue targeting of synapses (e.g. from Eric Gouaux's lab) are available, the quality of the tomographic data presented in this work is underwhelming and limits the conclusions that can be drawn, not providing a solid basis for future studies of in-tissue synapse targeting. However, the complete workflow (excluding the sectioning part) can be adapted for a cryo-FIB approach. The authors should discuss the limitations of their approach. 

Our manuscript preprint was deposited in the Biorxiv several years before Matsui/Gouaux’s recent ELife paper that reported a novel work-flow for in-tissue cryoET. It is difficult to directly compare data from our and Matsui/Gouaux’s approach because the latter reported a dataset of only 3 tomograms. Note also that Matsui/Gouaux followed our approach of using 20% dextran 40,000 as a cryo-preservative. The use of 20% dextran 40,000 as a cryo-protectant was first established by Zuber et al., 2005 (PMID: 16354833) and shown avoid hyper-osmotic pressure and cell membrane rupture. However, Matsui/Gouaux additionally included 5% sucrose in their cryoprotectant. We did not include sucrose as cryo-preservative because this exerts osmotic pressure and was not necessary to achieve vitreous tissues in our workflow.

Before high-pressure freezing, Matsui/Gouaux also incubated tissue slices in a HEPES-buffered artificial cerebrospinal fluid (that included 2 mM CaCl2 but did not include glucose as an energy source) for 1 h at room temperature to label AMPA receptors with Fab fragment-Au conjugates. Under these conditions, neurons can elicit both physiological and excitotoxic action potentials (even though AMPARs were themselves antagonised with ZK-200775). The absence of glucose is a concern, and it is unclear to what extent tissue viability is affected by this incubation step. In contrast, we chose to use an NMDG-based artificial cerebrospinal fluid for slice preparation and high-pressure freezing that is a well-established method for preserving neuronal viability (Ting et al., 2018).

We addressed the supposed limitations of cryo-sectioning versus cryoFIB-SEM in our public response. In particular, we have recently shown that cryo-sectioning produced a  subnanometer resolution in-tissue structure of a protein, that has so far only been achieved for ribosome within cryoFIB-SEM sample preparations. A discussion of cryo-sectioning versus cryoFIB-SEM must be informed by new data that directly compares these methods, which is not the subject of our eLife paper. We also cite a recent preprint directly comparing cryoFIB-milled lamellae with cryo-sections and showing that near atomic resolution structures can also be obtained from the latter sample preparations (Elferich et al., 2025).

(6) The authors show (in Supplementary) putative tethers connecting SV and the plasma membrane. Is it possible to improve the image quality (e.g. some sort of filtering or denoising) so that the tethers appear more obvious? Can the authors observe connectors linking synaptic vesicles? 

We have tested multiple iterative reconstruction and denoising approaches, including SIRT and noise2noise filtering in Isonet. We observed instances of macromolecular complexes linking one synaptic vesicle with another. However, there was no question we sought to answer by performing a quantitative analysis of these linkers.

(7) Figure 4F is missing. 

Thank you for spotting this omission. We have corrected this in the revised manuscript.

(8) Most quantifications lack statistical analyses. These need to be included, and only statistically significant findings should be discussed. Terms like "significantly" (e.g. Line 144) should only be used in these cases.

We used the term ‘significantly’ in the results section (line 143 and line 166 in revised text, we cite figure 1H and 2F showing analyses in which we have in fact performed statistical tests (t-tests with Bonferroni correction) comparing the voxel intensities in regions of the cytoplasm that are proximal versus distal to the postsynaptic membrane. We have amended the main text to include the details of the statistical test that we performed. Also, we neglected to include a description of the statistical test in line 241, which cites Figure 3G. We have corrected this in the revised text.

Minor comments: 

(1) Can the authors comment on why only 1-2 grids are prepared per mouse brain (in M&M -section)?

We prepared only two grids in order to have prepared samples within 2 minutes, to limit deterioration of the sample.

(2) Figure 1 Supplement 2 and its legend are confusing (averaging of non-aligned versus aligned post-synaptic membrane). Can the authors describe more clearly their molecular density profile analysis?

We apologise that this figure legend was insufficient. We have included a detailed description of our molecular density profile analysis in the methods section entitled ‘Molecular density profile analysis’. In the revised manuscript we have now also included a citation to this methods section in Figure – figure 1 supplement 2 legend.

(3) Please clarify with higher precision the areas were recorded in relation to the fluorescent spots (e.g. Figures 3A-C).

We have included a white rectangular annotation in the cryoCLEM inset panels of Figures 3A-C to indicate the field of view of each corresponding tomographic slice. This shows that PSD95-GFP puncta localise to the postsynaptic compartments in each tomogram.

(4) Figure 4 Supplement 2D is not clear: the connection between receptors and actin should be shown in a segmentation.

We agree with the reviewer. A ‘connection’ is not clear, which is expected because the cytoplasmic domain of ionotropic glutamate receptor subunits is composed of a non-globular/intrinsically disordered sequence. We have amended our description of the proximity of actin cytoskeleton to ionotropic glutamate receptor clusters in the main text replacing “associated with” to “adjacent to”.

(5) Line 341: the reference is referred to by a number (56) at the end of the sentence, rather than by name.

Good spot. We have corrected this in the revised manuscript.

(6) Line 968: tomograms is misspelled. 

Good spot. We have corrected this error (line 1018 in our revised manuscript).

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors): 

(1) On page 11: "The position of (i)onotropic receptor...". 

Good spot. We have corrected this.

(2) On page 13: "Slightly higher relative molecular density..." this line ends with a citation to reference '56', but the works cited are not numbered.

Good spot. We have corrected this in the revised manuscript.

(3) On page 46: "as described in (69)..." the works cited are not numbered. 

Good spot. We have corrected this in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors): <br /> (1) The title does not do the work justice. The authors make many exciting discoveries, e.g. PSD appearance, new polyhedral vesicles, ionotropic receptor positions, and intermembrane distance changes even within the synaptic cleft, but title their manuscript "The molecular infrastructure of glutamatergic synapses in the mammalian forebrain". It is also a bit misleading, since one would have expected more molecular detail and molecular maps as part of the work, so the authors may think about updating the title to reflect their exciting work. 

We thank the reviewer for recognising the exciting discoveries in our manuscript. Summarising all these in a title is challenging. We intend ‘molecular infrastructure’ to mean a structure composed of many molecules including proteins (by analogy ‘transport infrastructure’ is composed of many roads, ports and train lines).

(2) It would be in the spirit of eLife and open science if the authors could submit their segmentations alongside the tomographic data to either EMPIAR or pdb-dev (if they accept it) or the new CZII cryoET data portal for neurobiologists, method developers, and others to use. 

We agree with the reviewer. We have deposited in subtomogram averaged map of AMPA receptor in EMDB, and all tilt series and 4x binned tomographic reconstructions described in our manuscript (figure 1- table1 and figure 2 -table 2), together with segmentations in EMPIAR.  

(3) Methods: the authors establish an exciting new workflow to get from living mice to frozen specimens within 2 minutes and perform many unique analyses that would be useful to different fields. Their methods section overall is well described and contains criteria and details that should allow others to apply experiments to their scientific problems. However, it would be very helpful to expand on the methods in the 'annotation and analysis [...]' and "Subtomogram averaging" sections, to at least in short describe the steps without having to embark on a reference journey for each method and generally provide more detail. For the annotation section, the software used for annotation is not listed. Table 1 only contains the list of the counts of organelles etc. identified in each tomogram, no processing details. 

We have revised the methods section ‘annotation and analysis’ including software used (IMOD). We have also included a slightly more detailed description of subtomogram averaging. We did not include ‘processing details’ because there are none - identification of constituents in each tomogram was carried out manually, as described in the methods section.

(4) Some of the tomograms submitted as videos may have slipped through as an early version since they appear to be originating from not perfectly aligned tiltseries; vesicles and membranes can be observed 'rubberbanding'. The authors should go through and check their videos. 

We thank the referee for suggesting we double check our tomogram videos. All movies are representative tomographic reconstructions from ultra-fresh synapse preparations (Figure 1 – videos 1-7) and synapses in tissue cryo-sections (Figure 2 – videos 1-2). We have double checked that the videos correspond to tomograms that were aligned as good as possible. In general, tissue cryo-section tomograms reconstructed less well than ultra-fresh synapse tomograms, which limits the information content of these data, as expected. Consequently, the reconstructions shown in these videos were all reconstructed as best we could (testing multiple approaches in IMOD, and more recent software packages, eg. AreTomo). While we think it is important to share all tomograms, regardless of quality, we were careful to exclude tomograms for analysis that did not contain sufficient information for analysis (as described in the methods section).

Minor suggestions: 

(1) Page 13, line 341, reference 56, but references are not numbered. Please update.

Good spot. We have corrected this in the revised manuscript.

(2) Page 33, line 746, the figure legend is not referencing the correct figure panels G-K should be I-K;

We have amended the Figure 3 legend to “(G-K) Snapshots and quantification of membrane remodeling within glutamatergic synapses”.

(3) Page 33, line 750; reads 'same as E', but should be 'same as G'. 

Good spot. We have corrected this in the revised manuscript.

(4) Page 35, Figure 4: Please use more labels: Figure 4B: it would be helpful to use different colors for each view and match to the tomogram - then non-experts could easily relate the projections and real data; Figure 4C: please label domains; Figure 4F: the figure panel got lost. 

This is an interesting idea. While our subtomgram average of 2522 subvolumes provided decent evidence that these are ionotropic receptors, we are reluctant to label specific putative domains of individual subvolumes in the raw tomographic slice because the resolution of the raw tomogram (particularly in the Z-direction) is worse and may not be sufficient to resolve definitely each domain layer. We hope the reviewer appreciates our cautious approach.

(5) Page 42, line 933: incomplete sentence. 

Good spot. We have corrected this in the revised manuscript.

(6) Page 46, line 1038; Reference 69 is in brackets, but references are not numbered. Please update.

Good spot. We have corrected this in the revised manuscript.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Reviewing Editor Comments:

Focus and Scope:

The paper attempts to address too many topics simultaneously, resulting in a lack of focus and insufficient depth in the treatment of individual components.

We have moved this selective clinical review section that was previously Part I in the paper now to Part II, given the importance of leading off with the meta-analysis and resource before doing a selective review, which are now Part I. In the lead in to Part II, we now indicate that the review is not intended to be comprehensive, because there are other recent comprehensive reviews, which we cite. This part of the paper merely aims to generate hypotheses on the directionality of effects ripe for testing on how TUS could be used to excite or suppress function, illustrated with specific clinical examples. The importance of this section, even though not comprehensive, is that it should provide the reader with examples on how the directionality of TUS could be used specifically in a range of clinical applications. The reader will find that the same hypotheses do not apply to different clinical disorder. Therefore, patient specific hypotheses need to be motivated and then subsequently tested with empirical application of TUS, which Part II provides.

Part II. Selective TUS clinical applications review and TUS directionality hypotheses starts at line 458. Part I, the meta-analysis and resource section starts at line 199, after the Introduction on TUS and the importance on understanding how the directionality of TUS effects could be better understood.

Strengthening the Meta-Analysis:

The meta-analysis is the strongest aspect of the paper and should be expanded to include the relevant statistics. However, it currently omits several key concepts, studies, and discussion points, particularly related to replication and the dominance of results from specific groups. These omissions should be addressed even with a focus on meta-analysis.

We thank the reviewer for their enthusiasm about the meta-analysis, which we have now promoted to Part I in the revised paper. We have substantially updated the latest database (inTUS_DATABASE_1-2025.csv) and ensured that the R markdown script can re-generate all of the results and statistical values. We have inserted additional statistical values in the main manuscript, as requested. The inTUS Resource is located here (https://osf.io/arqp8/ under Cafferatti_et_al_inTUS_Resource), and we have aimed to make it as user friendly to use and contribute to as possible. For instance, the reader can find them all in the HTML link summarizing the R markdown output with all statistical values here: https://rpubs.com/BenSlaterNeuro/1268823, a part of the inTUS resource.

Since the last submission, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of TUS studies in healthy participants. We have curated and included all of the relevant studies we could find in the 1-2025 database, as the next large expansion of the database (now including 52 experiments in healthy participants). We then reran and report the results of the statistical tests via the R markdown script (starting at line 336). Finally, the online database (inTUS_DATABASE_1-2025.csv) has additional columns, suggested by the reviewers, including one to identify the same groups that conducted the TUS study, based on a social network analysis. The manuscript figures (Table 1 and Table 2) did not have the space to expand the data tables, but these additional columns are available in the database online. Finally, we have ensured that the resource is as easy to use as possible (line 862 has the Introduction to the inTUS Resource – which is also the online READ ME file), and we have been in contact with the iTRUSST consortium leads who are interested in discussing hosting the resource and helping it to become self-sustaining.

Conceptual Development:

The more conceptual part of the paper is underdeveloped. It lacks sufficient supporting data, a well-articulated argument, and a clear derivation or development of a concrete model.

To ensure that the conceptual sections are well developed, we have revised the introduction, including the background on TUS and bases for the interest in the directionality of effects. We have also revised the TUS mechanisms background as suggested by the reviewers. For Part I, the meta-analysis basis and hypotheses we have ensured the rationale is clearer. The hypotheses are based on several lines of research in the animal model and human literature as cited (starting with line 211). For Part II, the selective clinical review, we have revised this section as well to have each section on lowintensity TUS and end in a hypothesis on the directionality of TUS effects. Starting at line 199 we have clarified the scope of the review and ensured that all the relevant experiments in healthy participants (n = 52 experiments) have now been included in the next key update of the resource and meta-analysis in this key paper update.

Database Curation:

The authors should provide more detailed information about how the database will be curated and made accessible. They may consider collaborating with ITRUSST.

We have expanded the information on the Resource documents (starting at line 862) to make the resource as user friendly as possible. At the beginning of the resource development stage we had contacted but not heard from the ITRUSST consortium. Encouraged by this comment we again reached out and are now in contact with the ITRUSST consortium leads who are interested in discussing sustaining the resource. It would be wonderful to have the resource linked to other ITTRUST tools, since it was inspired by the organization. Practically what this means is that the resource rather than being hosted on Open Science Framework, would potentially be hosted on the ITRUSST web site (https://itrusst.com/). These discussions are in progress, but the next key update to the database (1-2025) is already available and reported in this key update to our original paper.

Reviewer #1: (Public Review)

Summary:

This paper is a relevant overview of the currently published literature on lowintensity focussed ultrasound stimulation (TUS) in humans, with a meta-analysis of this literature that explores which stimulation parameters might predict the directionality of the physiological stimulation effects.

The pool of papers to draw from is small, which is not surprising given the nascent technology. It seems nevertheless relevant to summarize the current field in the way done here, not least to mitigate and prevent some of the mistakes that other non-invasive brain stimulation techniques have suffered from, most notably the theory- and data-free permutation of the parameter space.

The meta-analysis concludes that there are, at best, weak trends toward specific parameters predicting the direction of the stimulation effects. The data have been incorporated into an open database, that will ideally continue to be populated by the community and thereby become a helpful resource as the field moves forward.

Strengths:

The current state of human TUS is concisely and well summarized. The methods of the meta-analysis are appropriate. The database is a valuable resource.

Weaknesses:

These are not so much weaknesses but rather comments and suggestions that the authors may want to consider.

We thank the reviewer for their support of the resource and meta-analysis. We have implemented the suggestions next as follows.

I may have missed this, but how will the database be curated going forward? The resource will only be as useful as the quality of data entry, which, given the complexity of TUS can easily be done incorrectly.

We have added a paragraph on how authors could use the Qualtrics form to submit their data and the curation process involved (from line 891). Currently, this process cannot be automated because we continue to find that reported papers do not report the TUS parameters that ITRUSST has encouraged the community to report (Martin et al., 2024). We can dedicate for a TUS expert to ensure that every 6 or 12 months the data base is curated and expanded. The current version is the latest 1-2025 update to the data base. Longer term we are in discussion with ITRUSST on whether the resource could become self sustaining when TUS papers regularly reporting all the relevant parameters such that the database expansion becomes trivial, and then the Resource R markdown script and other tools can be used to re-evaluate the statistical tests and the user can conduct secondary hypothesis testing on the data.

It would be helpful to report the full statistics and effect sizes for all analyses. At times, only p-values are given. The meta-analysis only provides weak evidence (judged by the p-values) for two parameters having a predictive effect on the direction of neuromodulation. This reviewer thinks a stronger statement is warranted that there is currently no good evidence for duty cycle or sonication direction predicting outcome (though I caveat this given the full stats aren't reported). The concern here is that some readers may gallop away with the impression that the evidence is compelling because the p-value is on the correct side of 0.05.

We have ensured that the R script can generate the full statistics from the tests and the effect sizes for all the analyses, and now also report more of the key statistical values in the revised paper (starting at line 336). As suggested, we have also ensured that the interpretation is sufficiently nuanced given the small sample sizes and the p-values below 0.1 but above 0.05 are interpreted as a statistical trend.

This reviewer thinks the issue of (independent) replication should be more forcefully discussed and highlighted. The overall motivation for the present paper is clearly and thoughtfully articulated, but perhaps the authors agree that the role that replication has to play in a nascent field such as TUS is worth considering.

We completely agree and have added additional columns to the online database to identify unique groups, using a social network analysis, and independent replications. These expanded tables did not fit in the manuscript versions of Tables 1 and 2 but are fully available in the Resource data tables ready for further analysis by interested resource users.

A related point is that many of the results come from the same groups (the so-called theta-TUS protocol being a clear example). The analysis could factor this in, but it may be helpful to either signpost independent replications, which studies come from the same groups, or both.

In the expanded database tables (inTUS_DATABASE_1-2025.csv: https://osf.io/arqp8/ under Cafferatti_et_al_inTUS_Resource) we have added a column to identify independent replication.

The recent study by Bao et al 2024 J Phys might be worth including, not least because it fails to replicate the results on theta TUS that had been limited to the same group so far (by reporting, in essence, the opposite result).

Thank you. We have added this study and over a dozen recent TUS studies in healthy participants to the database and redone the analyses.

The summary of TUS effects is useful and concise. Two aspects may warrant highlighting, if anything to safeguard against overly simplistic heuristics for the application of TUS from less experienced users. First, could the effects of sonication (enhancing vs suppressing) depend on the targeted structure? Across the cortex, this may be similar, but for subcortical structures such as the basal ganglia, thalamus, etc, the idiosyncratic anatomy, connectivity, and composition of neurons may well lead to different net outcomes. Do the models mentioned in this paper account for that or allow for exploring this? And is it worth highlighting that simple heuristics that assume the effects of a given TUS protocol are uniform across the entire brain risk oversimplification or could be plain wrong? Second, and related, there seems to be the implicit assumption (not necessarily made by the authors) that the effects of a given protocol in a healthy population transfer like for like to a patient population (if TUS protocol X is enhancing in healthy subjects, I can use it for enhancement in patient group Y). This reviewer does not know to which degree this is valid or not, but it seems simplistic or risky. Many neurological and psychiatric disorders alter neurotransmission, and/or lead to morphological and structural changes that would seem capable of influencing the impact of TUS. If the authors agree, this issue might be worth highlighting.

We agree that given the divergence in circuits and cellular constituents between cortical and subcortical areas, it is important to distinguish studies that have focused on cortical or subcortical brain areas. The online data tables identify the target region. The analyses can be used to focus on the cortical or subcortical sites for analysis, although for the current version of the database there are too few subcortical sites with which to conduct analyses on subcortical sites. On the second point, that pathology may have affected the results, we completely agree and have clarified that the current database only includes healthy participant experiments for this reason. We are considering future updates to the resource may include clinical patient results (Line 247).

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

Minor edits (I wouldn't call them "corrections").

We sincerely appreciate the constructive comments and have aimed to address them all as suggested.

Perhaps the most relevant edit pertains to the statistics.

We now report the more complete statistical results (line 336) and the R markdown script can re-generate all the statistical values for the tests.

The issue of replication also seems relevant and ought to be raised. This reviewer does not want to prescribe what to do or impose the view the authors ought to adopt.

In the online version of the data tables for the latest dataset, we have added a column in the data table as suggested that identifies independent groups and replications.

The other points are left to the authors' discretion.

We have aimed to address all of the reviewer’s points. Thank you for the constructive input which has helped to improve the expanded database and resource.

Reviewer #2: (Public Review)

Summary:

This paper describes a number of aspects of transcranial ultrasound stimulation (TUS) including a generic review of what TUS might be used for; a meta-analysis of human studies to identify ultrasound parameters that affect directionality; a comparison between one postulated mechanistic model and results in humans; and a description of a database for collecting information on studies.

Strengths:

The main strength was a meta-analysis of human studies to identify which ultrasonic parameters might result in enhancement or suppression of modulation effects. The meta-analysis suggests that none of the US parameters correlate significantly with effects. This is a useful result for researchers in the field in trying to determine how the parameter space should be further investigated to identify whether it is possible to indeed enhance or suppress brain activity with ultrasound.

The database is a good idea in principle but would be best done in collaboration with ITRUSST, an international consortium, and perhaps should be its own paper.

Weaknesses:

The paper tries to cover too many topics and some of the technical descriptions are a bit loose. The review section does not add to the current literature. The comparison with a mechanistic model is limited to comparing data with a single model at a time when there is no general agreement in the field as to how ultrasound might produce a neuromodulation effect. The comparison is therefore of limited value.

We appreciate the reviewer’s assessment and interest in the meta-analysis and database to guide the development of TUS for more systematic control of the directionality of neuromodulation. With this next key expansion of the database (inTUS_DATABASE_1-2025.csv) we have added over a dozen new studies that have been published since our original submission (n = 52 experiments). We have also moved the ‘review’ part of the paper below the meta-analysis and resource description. We have clarified that the clinical review section (now Part II in the revised manuscript) is not intended as a comprehensive review but as a selective review showing how hypotheses on the directionality of TUS effects need to be carefully developed for specific patient groups that require different effects to be induced at specific brain areas. Finally, we have gotten in contact with the ITRUSST consortium leads, as suggested, and are in discussion on whether the inTUS resource could be hosted by ITRUSST. Since these discussions are ongoing practically what this might mean is moving the resource from the Open Science Framework to ITRUSST webpages, which would be a trivial update of the link to the resource in OSF.

We also sincerely appreciate the time and care the reviewer has given to provide us with the below guidance, all of which we have aimed to take on board in the revised paper.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Line 24/25 - I suggest avoiding using the term "deep brain stimulation" in reference to TUS as the term is normally used to describe electrically implanted electrodes.

We have removed the term “deep” brain stimulation in reference to TUS to avoid confusion with electrical DBS for patient treatment [Line 24].

Line 25 - I don't think "computational modelling" has changed how TUS can be done. There is still much to be understood about mechanisms. I think the modelling aspects of the paper should be toned down. Indeed the NICE data that is presented later appears to have a weak, if any, correlation to the outcomes.

We have revised the manuscript text throughout to ensure that the computational modeling contributions are not overstated, as noted, given the lack of strong correlation to the NICE model outcomes by the meta-analysis including in the latest results with the more extensive database (n = 52).

Line 32 - "exponentially increasing" is a well-defined technical term and the increase in studies should be quantified to ensure it is indeed exponential. I agree that TUS studies in humans are increasing but a quick tally of the data by year in the meta-analysis reported here doesn't suggest that it follows an "exponential" growth.

We have changed “exponential” to “to increase”. [Line 32]

Line 50 - I would suggest using the term sub-MHz rather than 100-1,000 kHz as it is challenging to deliver ultrasound at 1 MHz through the skull. The highest frequency in the meta-analysis is 850 kHz; but the majority are in the 200-500 kHz range.

We have made this correction to sub-MHz. [Line 54]

Line 58/59 - Is the FDA publication on diagnostic imaging relevant for saying that 50 W/cm2 is a lowintensity TUS? I think it's perhaps reasonable to say that intensities below diagnostic thresholds are "low intensities" but that is not clear in the text. I would refer to ITRUSST on what is appropriate for defining what is low, medium, or high.

We have cut the reference to the FDA here since it is, as noted, not as relevant as pointing to the ITRUSST definition.

Line 65/66 - I agree that ultrasound for neuromodulation is gaining traction and there is an increase in activity, but it also has a long history with the work of the Fry brothers published in the 1950s; and extensive work of Gavrilov in humans starting in the 1970s.

We have added citations to the Fry brothers and Gavrilov to the text in this section. [Line 69/70]

Line 75 - I think the intermembrane cavitation mechanism is unlikely to be due to "microbubbles" in a lipid membrane. The predicted displacements are on the order of nanometres, so they are unlikely to generate microbubbles. The work on comparing with NICE is limited. Note there are a number of experimental papers that have reported an absence of intra-membrane cavitation, including the Yoo et al 2022 which is referenced later in the paragraph. Also, there are other models, such as Liao et al 2021 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598020-78553-2).

As suggested, we have removed this phrase on microbubble formation as a likely mechanism. We have also added the Liao paper to this paragraph as it is relevant.

Line 83 - "At the lower intensities..." it is not clear whether this means all TUS intensities or the lower end of intensities used in TUS.

We now use the following wording here: “low intensities”. [Line 86]  

Line 85/86 - "more continuous stimulation" the modulation paradigms haven't been described yet and so pulse vs continuous hasn't been made clear to the reader. Also "more continuous" is very loose terminology. Something is either continuous or it isn't.

We agree and have removed “more” to be clear that the stimulation is continuous. [Line 88]

Line 87/88 - "TUS does not .. cavitation ..when ..ISPTA...<14 W/cm2". You can't use ISPTA to determine cavitation. It is the peak negative pressure which is the key driver for cavitation and the MI which is the generally accepted (although grudgingly by some) metric for assessing cavitation risk. You can link the negative pressure to ISPPA but not really to ISPTA. In histotripsy for example the ISPTA is low due to the low duty cycles to avoid heating but the cavitation is a huge effect. Technical terminology is loose.

We have corrected this to “TUS does not appear to cause significant heating or cavitation of brain tissue when the intensity remains low, based on Mechanical and Thermal Index values and recommendations of use”. [Line 90/91]

Line 89 - What is meant by "low intensity TUS"? I think all TUS used in the literature counts as low intensity - in that it is below the level allowed for diagnostic imaging.

We have ensured that the text is focused on TUS being low-intensity and only in the introduction do we distinguish low intensity TUS from moderate and high intensity TUS, such as used for thermal ablation [Lines 62-66].

Line 88/89 - Most temperature rises in brain tissue in TUS are well below 1 C - will this really change membrane capacitance significantly? If so it would have been good to consider a model for it.

We have revised this statement as “thermal effects could at least minimally alter cell membrane capacitance…”. [Line 93]

Line 111 - The text refers to "recent studies" but then the next two references are from 1990 and 2005 which I would argue don't count as "recent".

We have corrected this wording to “previous studies”. [Line 114]

Lines 122/129 - This paragraph on TMS pulsing should be linked to the TUS paragraph on pulsing (lines 109/116). The intervening paragraph on anaesthesia is relevant but breaks the flow.

We have merged the paragraph on anesthesia to the prior one on TUS so that the TMS paragraph is linked more closely to it [starting on line 112].

Line 130/131 - It is not clear to me that current studies are being guided by computational models. I think there is still no generally accepted theory for mechanisms. If the authors want to do a mechanisms paper then they should compare a few.

We have revised this as suggested to not overstate the contribution of the limited computational modeling studies throughout the manuscript.

Line 132 on - There are a number of studies that suggest that NICE is likely not the mechanism by which TUS produces neuromodulation.

We have revised this sentence as follows: “Although it remains questionable whether intramembrane cavitation is a key mechanism for TUS, the NICE model simulations explored a broad set of TUS parameters, including TUS intensity and the continuity of stimulation (duty cycle) on modelled neuronal responses.” [Lines 139/142]

Lines 137-140 - Terms are defined after their use. Things like ISPPTA, PRF, TI, and MI have been discussed already and so the terms should have been defined earlier. The authors should think carefully about how the material is presented to make it more logical for the reader.

We have ensured that the definitions precede the use of abbreviations and have added abbreviations to the tables.

Part I Line 180-437 - The review of potential applications for TUS reads like an introductory chapter of a thesis. It is entirely proper for a thesis to have a chapter like this, but it is not really relevant for a peer-reviewed research article. There are also numerous applications, e.g. mapping areas associated with decisions, or treating patients with addiction, which are not included, so it is not exhaustive. I would suggest this part be removed.

We have moved the ‘review’ part of the paper to Part II, given the metaanalysis and resource should be more prominent as Part I. In the review now Part II of the paper we also now make it clear that there are recent comprehensive reviews of the clinical literature ( line 465/467). Namely, the purpose of our selective review is to demonstrate how directionality of TUS effects need to be specific for the clinical application intended, given the great variability in clinical effects that might be desired, brain areas targeted and pathology being treated. We have also aimed to ensure that each section summary is scholarly and academically written to a high level. All the co-authors contributed to these sections so we have also edited to have some consistency across sections, with sections ending with directionality of TUS hypotheses that could be developed for empirical testing.

Line 453 - It is stated that "ISPTA, which mathematically integrates ISSPA by the sonication DC" It sounds rather grand to mathematically integrate but you can't integrate with respect to DC, you can integrate with respect to time. If you integrate intensity with respect to time over pulse and over the sonication time then one finds that ISPTA = DC x ISPPA, multiplication is also an important mathematical function and should be given its due. Lastly, I think there is a typo and ISSPA should read ISPPA

We have corrected the typo and the statement to “mathematically multiplies ISPPA by the continuity of sonication”. [Line 221/222]

Line 454 - I don't think ISPTA is a good measure of "dose." In radiation physics dose is well defined in terms of absorbed energy. The equivalent has yet to be defined for TUS so I would avoid using dose. The ISPTA does relate to TI - although it depends not just on the spatial peak but also on the spatial distribution and the frequency-dependent absorption coefficient of the tissue. I would just avoid the use of "dose" until the field has a better idea of what is going on.

We have cut this phrase on dose as suggested.

Page 16 Box 1 - TI is defined as diagnostic ultrasound imaging it is based on. Also, I think TI is dimensionless; it is referenced to a 1-degree temperature rise and so it can be interpreted in terms of celsius or kelvin; but to be technically accurate it is dimensionless.

We have made TI dimensionless in Box 1

Page 17 Box 2 - Here you have no units for TI - which is correct but inconsistent with Box 1. But the legend suggests a 2 K temperature rise where as your Box allows for 6 K. The value of 6 is consistent with FDA but my understanding of the BMUS guidelines is the TI must be less than or equal to 0.7 for unlimited time or less than 3 if the duration is less than 1 minute. I accept that the table is labelled FDA limits, but the bold table caption is "Recommendations for TUS parameters" I think you should give the ITRUSST values rather than FDA.

We have revised this Box legend to better distinguish the FDA and ITRUSST recommendation where they differ (e.g., the importance of ISPTA and the TI values). See revised legend for Box 2.

Page 18 Box 3 - Not sure what this is trying to show? Also, what is "higher intensity" and "lower intensity"?

Why not just give a range of values in each box?

We agree that the higher and lower intensities likely to lead to enhancement or suppression are poorly defined and have noted this in the legend: “Note that the threshold for ISPPA qualifying as ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ intensity is currently poorly understood, or may non-linearly interact with other factors” [Line 751/754, Box 3].

Line 444 - The hypotheses should be stated more clearly. Maybe I am just dense, but it is not obvious to me from box 3.

We provide the basis for the hypotheses in the manuscript text on the paragraph [Lines 106-179].

Line 481/482 - The intensity of a diagnostic ultrasound system is very well characterised. It just might be that the authors didn't report it. It is not clear what is meant by the "continuity." I guess it's to do with pulsing - which is also well defined but perhaps also not reported.

We agree and have revised this as follows “For the meta-analysis, we only included studies that either reported a basic set of TUS stimulation parameters or those sufficient for estimating the required parameters or those sufficient for estimating the required parameters necessary for the meta-analysis” [Lines 256/258]

Figure 2 - What is the purpose of this figure? Did you carry out simulations for all the studies? It doesn't seem to be relevant to the data here.

This figure illustrates the TUS targeting approach and simulations, in this case conducted in k-plan. These were conducted to evaluate approximations to ISPPA in brain values from the studies that did not report these values [Lines 264/268]).  

Figure 4 - The data in these figures is nice (and therefore doesn't need to have a NICE curve) To me it clearly shows that the data in the literature does not obviously segment into enhancement vs suppression with DC. I suspect it is the same with PRF. I think it would have been better if C and D had PRF on the horizontal axis for on-line and off-line so that effect could be seen more clearly.

We have kept the NICE curve only for a reference that some readers familiar with the NICE model might want to see overlaid in the figure, but have ensured that the text throughout makes clear that the NICE model predictions are not as statistically robust as initially anecdotally thought. PRF results are not significant but we do show a panel with the PRF measures on one axis (Fig. 4D). Figure 5 also shows box plot results with PRF as well as the other key TUS parameters. Moreover, in the inTUS resource we have provided an app for users to explore the data (https://benslaterneuro.shinyapps.io/Caffaratti_inTUS_Resource/).

Figure 5 - The text on the axes is too small to read. Was the DC significant for both on-line and offline? What about ISPPA for off-line. At least by eye, it looks as different as DC. Figure 5C doesn't add anything.

We have boosted the font for Figure 5 and have cut panel 5C since it was not adding much. We have also checked whether DC parameter was significant separately for on-line and off-line effects, but the sample sizes were too small for significance, and the statistical test was not significantly different for Online and Offline effects even in the 12025 database. Therefore they might look stronger for Offline effects in some of the plots in Figure 5, but are currently statistically indistinguishable [Lines 347/348].

Table 1 - There is a typo in the 3rd column. FF should have units of kHz, not KHz. In addition, SD should have units of s as that is the SI symbol for seconds. I would swap columns 9 and 10 so that ISPPA in water and ISPPA in the brain are next to each other.

We have corrected the typo in the 3rd column and ensured that units are kHz. SD in the tables has units of ‘s’ for seconds and have put ISPPA in water and in brain next to each other in the data tables.

Line 767 - "M.K. was supported..." There are TWO MKs in the author list.

We have changed this to M.Ka. for Marcus Kaiser.

Author response:

We thank the Reviewers for their thoughtful and helpful critiques. Below we provide a point-bypoint response to the comment raised.

Reviewer #1:

(1) Labels should be added in the Figures and should be uniform across all Figures (some are distorted).

We thank the Reviewer for pointing out this issue. As requested, labels have been edited to ensure they are legible and are consistent in font, size, and style.  

Reviewer #2:

(1) As for Figure 2F, Setd2-SET activity on WT rNuc (H3) appears to be significantly lower compared to what is extensively reported in the literature. This is particularly puzzling given that Figure 2B suggests that using 3H-SAM, H3-nuc are much better substrates than K36me1, whereas in Figure 3F, rH3 is weaker than K36me1. It is recommended for the authors to perform additional experimental repeats and include a quantitative analysis to ensure the consistency and reliability of these findings.  

We appreciate the Reviewer’s points. We respectfully suggest that these comments may reflect potential confusion around interpreting how different assays detect in vitro methylation, what data can and cannot be compared, and the nature of the different substrates used. 

With respect to point 1 (Western signal significantly lower compared to extensive literature): To the best of our knowledge, it would be extremely challenging to make a quantitative argument comparing the strength of the Western signal in Figure 2F with results reported in the literature. Specifically, comparing our results with previous studies would require (1) all the studies to have used the exact same antibodies as antibody signal intensities vary depending on the specific activity and selectively of a particular antibody and even its lot number, (2) similar in vitro methylation reaction condition, (3) the same type of recombinant nucleosomes used, and so on. Further, given that these are Western blots, we do not understand how one could interpret an absolute activity level. In the figure, all we can conclude is that in in vitro methylation reactions, our recombinant SETD2 protein methylates rNucs to generate mono-, di-, and tri-methylation at K36 (using vetted antibodies (see Fig. 2e)). If there is a specific paper within the extensive literature that the Reviewer highlights, we could look more into the details of why the signals are different (our guess is that any difference would largely be due to the use of different antibodies). We add that it might be challenging to find a similar experiment performed in the literature; we are not aware of a similar experiment. 

With respect to comparing Figure 2B and 2F: We do not understand how one can meaningfully compare incorporation of radiolabeled SAM to antibody-based detection on film using an antibody against specific methyl states. In particular, regarding the question regarding comparing rH3 vs H3K36me1 nucleosomes, we point out that in using recombinant nucleosomes installed with native modifications (e.g. H3K36me1), in which the entire population of the starting material is mono-methylated, then naturally the Western signal with an anti-H3K36me1 antibody will be strong. In Fig. 2b, the assay is incorporation of radiolabeled methyl, which is added to the preexiting mono-methylated substrate. In other words, the results are entirely consistent if one understands how the methylation reactions were performed, how methylation was detected, and the nature of the reagents.

(2) The additional bands observed in Figure 4B, which appear to be H4, should be accompanied by quantification of the intensity of the H3 bands to better assess K36me3 activity. Additionally, the quantification presented in Figure 4C for SAH does not seem accurate as it potentially includes non-specific methylation activity, likely from H4. This needs to be addressed for clarity and accuracy. 

We thank the reviewer for this comment. The additional bands observed in Figure 4B represent degradation products of histone H3, not H4 methylation. This is commonly seen in in vitro reactions using recombinant nucleosomes, where partial proteolysis of H3 can occur under the assay conditions.  

(3) In Figure 4E, the differences between bound and unbound substrates are not sufficiently pronounced. Given the modest differences observed, authors might want to consider repeating the assay with sufficient replicates to ensure the results are statistically robust.

In Figure 4E, we observe a clear difference between the bound and unbound substrate. To aid interpretation, we have clarified in the figure where the bound complex migrates on the gel, while the unbound nucleosomes migrate at the bottom of the gel. The differences are indeed subtle, which we highlight in the text.  

(4) Regarding labeling, there are multiple issues that need correction: In the depiction of Epicypher's dNuc, it is crucial to clearly mark H2B as the upper band, rather than ambiguously labeling H2A/H2B together when two distinct bands are evident. In Figure 3B and D, the histones appear to be mislabeled, and the band corresponding to H4 has been cut off. It would be beneficial to refer to Figure 3E for correct labeling to maintain consistency and accuracy across figures. 

Thank you for pointing this out. To avoid any confusion, we have delineated the H2B and H2A markers and indicate the band corresponding to H4.

(5) There are issues with the image quality in some blots; for instance, Figure 2EF and Figure 2D exhibit excessive contrast and pixelation, respectively. These issues could potentially obscure or misrepresent the data, and thus, adjustments in image processing are recommended to provide clearer, more accurate representations. 

Contrast adjustments were applied uniformly across each entire image and were not used to modify any specific region of the blot. We have corrected the issue of increased pixelation in Figure 2D. 

(6) The authors are recommended to provide detailed descriptions of the materials used, including catalog numbers and specific products, to allow for reproducibility and verification of experimental conditions. 

We have added the missing product specifications and catalog numbers to ensure clarity and reproducibility of the experiments.

(7) The identification of Setd2 as a tumor suppressor in KrasG12C-driven LUAD is a significant finding. However, the discussion on how this discovery could inspire future therapeutic approaches needs to be more balanced. The current discussion (Page 10) around the potential use of inhibitors is somewhat confusing and could benefit from a clearer explanation of how Setd2's role could be targeted therapeutically. It would be beneficial for the authors to explore both current and potential future strategies in a more structured manner, perhaps by delineating between direct inhibitors, pathway modulators, and other therapeutic modalities. 

SETD2 is a tumor suppressor in lung cancer (as we show here and many others have clearly established in the literature) and thus we would recommend avoiding a SETD2 inhibitor to treat solid tumors, as it could have a very much unwanted affect.  Our discussion addresses a different point regarding the relative importance of the enzymatic activity versus other, nonenzymatic functions of SETD2. We believe that a detailed exploration of the therapeutic potential of inhibiting SETD2 would be better suited in a review or a more therapy-focused manuscript.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

We thank the reviewers and editors for their careful consideration of our work and pointing out areas where the current version lacked clarity or necessary experiments. Based on the reviews we have made the following significant changes to the revised version:

(1) Revised the text to focus on the distinct pathogen responses to indole in isolation versus fecal material.

We believe the key takeaway from this work is that the native context of a given effector, in this case indole, can elicit markedly different bacterial responses compared to the pure compound in isolation. This is because natural environments contain multiple, often conflicting, stimuli that complicate predictions of overall chemotactic behavior. For example, while indole has been proposed to mediate chemorepulsion and contribute to colonization resistance against enteric pathogens, our findings challenge this model. We provide evidence that feces, the intestinal source of indole, actually induces attraction, and that indole taxis may in fact benefit the pathogen through prioritizing niches with low microbial competition. Put another way, the biological reservoir of indole, fecal material, generates an attraction response but indole regulated the degree of attraction.

Most current understanding of chemotaxis is based on responses to individual, purified effectors. Our study highlights the need to investigate chemotactic responses in the presence of native mixtures, which better reflect the complexity of natural environments and may reveal new functional insights relevant for disease.

Reviewer comments indicated that these core points above were not clearly conveyed in the previous version, and that the manuscript's logical flow needed improvement. In this revised version, we have substantially rewritten the text and removed extraneous content to sharpen the focus on these central findings. We have also aligned our discussion more closely with the experimental data. While we appreciated the reviewers’ thoughtful suggestions, we chose not to expand on topics that fall outside the scope of our current experiments.

(2) Provide new chemotaxis data with mixtures of fecal effectors (Fig. 5).

Related to the above, the reviewers and editors brought up concerns that our discovery of pathogen fecal attraction was underexplored. Although we showed Tsr to be important for mediating fecal attraction, even the tsr mutant showed attraction to a lesser degree, and the reviewers noted that we did not identify what other fecal attractants could be involved.

Fecal material is a complex biological material (as noted by Reviewer 3) and contains effectors already characterized as chemoattractants and chemorepellents. It would be ideal to be able to perform some experiment where individual effectors are removed from fecal material and then quantify chemotaxis. We considered methods to do this but ultimately found this approach unfeasible. Instead, we employed a reductionist approach and developed a synthetic approximate of fecal material containing a mixture of known chemoeffectors at fecal-relevant concentrations (Fig. 5). We used this defined system as a way to test the specific roles of the Tsr effectors L-Ser (attractant) and indole (repellent) in relation to glucose, galactose, and ribose (sensed through the chemoreceptor Trg), and L-Asp (sensed through the chemoreceptor Tar). We chose these effectors as they have reasonable structure-function relationships established in prior work, and had information available about their concentrations in fecal material. We present these data as a new Figure 5, and also provide videos clearly showing the responses to each treatment (Movies 7-10).

This defined system provided several new insights that help understand and model indole taxis amidst other fecal effectors. First, the complete effector mixture, like fecal treatment, elicits attraction. Second, L-Ser is able to negate indole chemorepulsion in cotreatments of the two effectors, and also other chemoattractants in the absence of L-Ser also negate this repulsion, albeit to a lesser degree, helping to explain why the tsr mutant still shows attraction to fecal material. Lastly, we also show that the degree of attraction in this system is controlled by indole, with mixtures containing greater indole showing less attraction. We feel this is an important addition to the study because it provides a new view on how indole-taxis functions in pathogen colonization; rather than causing the pathogen to swim away (like pure indole does) indole helps the pathogen rank and prioritize its attraction to fecal effector mixtures, biasing navigation toward lower indolecontaining niches.

We also acknowledge that this defined system does not capture all possible interactions. Indeed, there are even a few chemoreceptors in Salmonella for which the sensing functions remain poorly understood. Nonetheless, we believe the data offer mechanistic context for understanding fecal attraction and suggest that factors beyond Tsr, L-Ser, and indole also contribute to the observed behaviors, aligning with other data we present.

(3) Provide new data that show that E. coli MG1655, and disease-causing clinical isolate strains of the Enterobacteriaceae Tsr-possessing species E. coli, Citrobacter koseri, and Enterobacter cloacae exhibit fecal attraction (Fig. 4).

An important new finding from this study is our direct test of whether indole-rich fecal material elicits repulsion. Contrary to expectations, given that for E. coli indole is a wellcharacterized strong chemorepellent, we show that fecal material instead elicits attraction in non-typhoidal Salmonella.

Reviewers raised the question of whether our observations regarding indole taxis and attraction to indole-rich feces in Salmonella are similar or relevant to E. coli. While a full dissection of indole taxis in E. coli is beyond the scope of this study and has been the focus of extensive prior research, we sought to address this point by examining whether other enteric pathogens respond similarly to the native indole reservoir, fecal material. To this end, we present new data demonstrating that, like S. Typhimurium, E. coli and other representative enteric pathogens and pathobionts possessing Tsr are also attracted to indole-rich feces (Fig. 4, Movies 4–6, Fig. S4).

Notably, these new results represent some of the first characterizations of chemotactic behavior in the clinical isolates we examined, including E. coli NTC 9001 (a urinary tract infection isolate), Citrobacter koseri, and Enterobacter cloacae, adding another element of novelty to this work.

(4) Repeated all of the explant Salmonella Typhimurium infection studies and added a new experimental control competition between WT and an invasion-deficient mutant (invA).

Although our new colonic explant system was noted as a novelty and strength of this work, it was also seen as a weakness in that some of the results were surprising and difficult to link to chemotactic behavior. Reviewer 3 also brought up the need to be clear about our usage of the term ‘invasion’ in reference to S. Typhimurium entering nonphagocytic host cells, and requested we test an invasion-inhibited mutant (which we do in new experiments, now Fig. S1). We also note that some of the interpretations of these data were made challenging by result variability.

To help address these issues we performed additional replicates for all of our explant experiments (contained within Figure 1, Fig. S1-S2, and Data S1), to provide greater power for our analyses. These new data provide a clearer view of this system that revise our interpretations from the prior version of this study. While treatment with indole alone does suppress the WT advantage over chemotactic mutants for both total colonization and cellular invasion, essentially all other treatments have a similar result with a timedependent increase in both colonization and invasion, dependent on chemotaxis and Tsr. A remaining unique feature of fecal treatment is an increase in the cellular invaded population of the cells at 3 h post-infection. As requested by Reviewer 3, we provide new experimental data showing that in competitions between WT and an invasion-deficient mutant (invA), with fecal material pretreatment, we see the WT has an advantage only for the gentamicin-treated qualifications, providing some support that our model selects for the invaded sub-population. Although we note that the invA still can invade through alternative mechanisms (as discussed in earlier work such as here: https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6968.12614), so the relative amount of presumed cellular invasion is less than WT, and not zero, in our experiments (Fig. S1).

One point of confusion in the previous version of the text was the assay design for the explant experiments, which is important to understand in order to interpret the results. During the explant infection bacteria are not immersed in the effector treatment solution, rather the tissue is soaked in the effector solution beforehand and then exposed to a 300 µl buffer solution containing the bacteria. This means that the bacteria experience only the residue of that treatment at concentrations far lower. We have added clarity about this through revising Fig. 1 to include a conceptual diagram of the assay (Fig. 1C), and added a new supplementary Fig. S5 that summarizes the explant data in this same conceptual model. We provide detail on the method in the text in lines 115-137. In describing the results, and synthesizing them in the discussion, we now state:

Line 112: “This establishes a chemical gradient which we can use to quantify the degree to which different effector treatments are permissive of pathogen association with, and cellular invasion of, the intestinal mucosa (Fig. 1C).”

And, a new section in the discussion devoted to describing the explant infections:

Line: 366: “Our explant experiments can be thought of as testing whether a layer of effector solution is permissive to pathogen entry to the intestinal mucosa, and whether chemotaxis provides an advantage in transiting this chemical gradient to associate with, and invade, the tissue (Fig. 1C, Fig. S5).”

As mentioned above, we have honed the text to focus on the disparity between the effects of indole alone versus treatments with indole-rich feces to help clarify how these data advance our understanding of the indole taxis in directing pathogenesis. While our explant studies still confirm the role of factors other than L-Ser, indole, and Tsr in directing Salmonella infection and cellular invasion, we now include further analyses of other fecal effectors (described above) that provide some insights into how fecal effectors have some redundancy in their impact.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study shows, perhaps surprisingly, that human fecal homogenates enhance the invasiveness of Salmonella typhimurium into cells of a swine colonic explant. This effect is only seen with chemotactic cells that express the chemoreceptor Tsr. However, two molecules sensed by Tsr that are present at significant concentrations in the fecal homogenates, the repellent indole and the attractant serine, do not, either by themselves or together at the concentrations in which they are present in the fecal homogenates, show this same effect. The authors then go on to study the conflicting repellent response to indole and attractant response to serine in a number of different in vitro assays.

Strengths:

The demonstration that homogenates of human feces enhance the invasiveness of chemotactic Salmonella Typhimurium in a colonic explant is unexpected and interesting. The authors then go on to document the conflicting responses to the repellent indole and the attractant serine, both sensed by the Tsr chemoreceptor, as a function of their relative concentration and the spatial distribution of gradients.

Thank you for your summary and acknowledgement of the strengths of this work. We hope the revised text and additional data we provide further improve your view of the study.

Weaknesses:

The authors do not identify what is the critical compound or combination of compounds in the fecal homogenate that gives the reported response of increased invasiveness. They show it is not indole alone, serine alone, or both in combination that have this effect, although both are sensed by Tsr and both are present in the fecal homogenates. Some of the responses to conflicting stimuli by indole and serine in the in vitro experiments yield interesting results, but they do little to explain the initial interesting observation that fecal homogenates enhance invasiveness.

Thank you for noting these weaknesses. We have provided new data using a defined mixture of fecal effectors to further investigate the roles of L-Ser, indole, and other effectors present in feces that we did not initially study. We have refined our discussion of these results to hopefully improve the clarity of our conclusions. We show now both in explant studies (Fig. 1I) and chemotaxis responses to a defined fecal effector system (Fig. 5) that L-Ser is able to abolish both the suppression of indole-mediated WT advantage and also indole chemorepulsion, respectively. We also show the latter can be accomplished by other fecal chemoattractants (Fig. 5). This is in line with our earlier finding that Tsr, the sensor of indole and L-Ser, is an important mediator of fecal attraction but not the sole mediator.

As this reviewer points out, there are indeed other factors mediating invasion that we do not elucidate here, but we do note these possibilities in the text (lines: 125-127):

“This benefit may arise from a combination of factors, including sensing of host-emitted effectors, redox or energy taxis, and/or swimming behaviors that enhance infection [5,30,31,35].”

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript presents experiments using an ex vivo colonic tissue assay, clearly showing that fecal material promotes Salmonella cell invasion into the tissue. It also shows that serine and indole can modulate the invasion, although their effects are much smaller. In addition, the authors characterized the direct chemotactic responses of these cells to serine and indole using a capillary assay, demonstrating repellent and attractant responses elicited by indole and serine, respectively, and that serine can dominate when both are present. These behaviors are generally consistent with those observed in E. coli, as well as with the observed effects on cell invasion.

Strengths:

The most compelling finding reported here is the strong influence of fecal material on cell invasion. Also, the local and time-resolved capillary assay provides a new perspective on the cell's responses.

Thank you for acknowledging these aspects of the study.

Weaknesses:

The weakness is that indole and serine chemotaxis does not seem to control the fecal-mediated cell invasion and thus the underlying cause of this effect remains unclear.

In addition, the fact that serine alone, which clearly acts as a strong attractant, did not affect cell invasion (compared to buffer) is somewhat puzzling. Additionally, wild-type cells showed nearly a tenfold advantage even without any ligand (in buffer), suggesting that factors other than chemotaxis might control cell invasion in this assay, particularly in the serine and indole conditions. These observations should probably be discussed.

Addressed above.

Final comment. As shown in reference 12, Tar mediates attractant responses to indole, which appear to be absent here (Figure 3J). Is it clear why? Could it be related to receptor expression?

Thank you for noting this. We now mention this in the discussion. In the course of this work, we encountered a number of apparent inconsistencies, or differences, between what we were observing with S. Typhimurium and what had been reported previously in studies of Tsr function in E. coli. We indeed noted that some studies had investigated a role of Tar for indole taxis (in E. coli), hence why we determined whether, and confirmed, that Tsr is required for indole taxis for S. Typhimurium (Fig. 6).

We do not know the reason for this apparent difference between the two bacteria, but we have previously shown with our same strain of S. Typhimurium IR715, under the same growth assay, and preparation protocol, that L-Asp is a strong chemoattractant for both WT and the tsr mutant (see Glenn et al. 2024, eLife, Fig. 5G: https://iiif.elifesciences.org/lax:93178%2Felife-93178-fig5-v1.tif/full/1500,/0/default.jpg).

This supports that this strain of Salmonella indeed has a functional Tar present and is expressed at a level sufficient for sensing L-Asp. So, if Tar generally mediates indole sensing we do not know why we would not see that in Salmonella. Hence, we do not see any role for Tar in indole chemorepulsion in our strain of study, which is different than reported for E. coli, but we cannot confirm the reason.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Franco and colleagues describe careful analyses of Salmonella chemotactic behavior in the presence of conflicting environmental stimuli. By doing so, the authors describe that this human pathogen integrates signals from a chemoattractant and a chemorepellent into an intermediate "chemohalation" phenotype.

Strengths:

The study was clearly well-designed and well-executed. The methods used are appropriate and powerful. The manuscript is very well written and the analyses are sound. This is an interesting area of research and this work is a positive contribution to the field.

Thank you for your comments.

Weaknesses:

Although the authors do a great job in discussing their data and the observed bacterial behavior through the lens of chemoattraction and chemorepulsion to serine and indole specifically, the manuscript lacks, to some extent, a deeper discussion on how other effectors may play a role in this phenomenon. Specifically, many other compounds in the mammalian gut are known to exhibit bioactivity against Salmonella. This includes compounds with antibacterial activity, chemoattractants, chemorepellers, and chemical cues that control the expression of invasion genes. Therefore, authors should be careful when making conclusions regarding the effect of these 2 compounds on invasive behavior.

Thank you for this comment, and we agree with your point. We hope we have revised the text and provided new data to address your concern. We have also chosen for clarity to keep our text close to our experimental data and so have refrained from speculating about some topics, even though you are absolutely correct about the immense complexity of these systems.

It is important that the word invasion is used in the manuscript only in its strictest sense, the ability displayed by Salmonella to enter non-phagocytic host cells. With that in mind, authors should discuss how other signals that feed into the control of Salmonella invasion can be at play here.

Thank you for your recommendation. We have revised the text to hopefully be clearer on our meaning of invasion in regard to Salmonella entering non-phagocytic host cells, essentially changing our usage to ‘cellular invasion’ throughout.

It is also a commonly-used phrase in reference to enteric infections and the colonization resistance conferred by the microbiome to refer to ‘invading pathogens’ (i.e. invasion in the sense of a new microbe colonizing the intestines), For instance, this recent review on Salmonella makes use of the term invading pathogen (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-021-00561-4). We acknowledge the confusion by this dual use of the term. We have mostly removed our statements using invasion in this context. We hope our language is clearer in this revised version.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

It was difficult to understand the true intent or importance of the study described in this manuscript. The first figure in the paper showed that a Salmonella Typhimurium strain lacking either CheY, and thus incapable of any chemotaxis, or the Tsr chemoreceptor, and thus incapable of sensing serine or indole, was modestly inferior to the wild-type version of that strain in invading the cells of a swine colonic explant. It then showed that, in the presence of a human fecal homogenate, the wild-type strain had a much greater advantage in invading the colonic cells. Thus, the presence of the fecal homogenate significantly increased invasiveness in a way that depends on chemotaxis and the Tsr chemoreceptor.

As human feces were determined to contain 882 micromolar indole and 338 micromolar serine, the effects of those concentrations of either indole or serine alone or in combination were tested. The somewhat surprising finding was that neither indole nor serine alone nor in combination changed the result from the experiment done with just buffer in the colonic explant.

The clear conclusion of this initial study is that both chemotaxis in general and chemotaxis mediated by Tsr improve the invasiveness of S. Typhimurium. They provide a much bigger advantage in the presence of human feces. However, two molecules present in the feces that are sensed by Tsr, serine, and indole, seem to have no effect on invasiveness either alone or in combination.

At this point, the parsimonious interpretation is that there is something else in human feces that is responsible for the increased invasiveness, and the authors acknowledge this possibility. However, they do not take what appears to be the obvious approach: to look for additional factors in human feces that might be responsible, either by themselves or in combination with indole and/or serine, for the increased invasiveness. Instead, they carry out a detailed examination of the counteracting effects of indole as a repellent and of serine as an attractant as a function of their relative concentrations and their spatial distributions.

Thank you for your comments. In our revised version, we have undertaken some additional studies of other fecal effectors that help better understand the relationship between L-Ser and indole, but also the roles of other chemoattractants (glucose, galactose, ribose, L-Asp) in mediating fecal attraction (Fig. 5). We agree with the reviewer and conclude that fecal attraction and the cell invasion phenotype mediated by fecal treatment are influenced by factors other than only Tsr, indole, and L-Ser. Our new data do show that L-Ser is sufficient to block both the invasion suppression effects of indole (negating the WT advantage) and also indole chemorepulsion, therefore making our detailed examination of the counteracting effects more relevant for understanding this system.

What they find is what other studies have shown, primarily with S. Typhimurium's relative, the gamma-proteobacterium Escherichia coli.

At high indole and low serine concentrations, the repulsion by indole wins out. At low indole and high serine concentrations, attraction by serine wins out. What is perhaps novel is what happens at an intermediate ratio of concentrations. Repulsion by indole dominates at short distances from the source, so there is a zone of clearing. At longer distances, attraction by serine dominates, so there is an accumulation of cells in a "halo" around the zone of clearing. Thus, assuming that serine and indole diffuse equally, the repulsive effect of indole dominates until its concentration falls below some critical level at which the concentration of serine is still high enough to exert an attractive effect.

They go on to show, using ITC, that serine binds to the periplasmic ligand-binding domain (LBD) of Tsr, something that has been studied extensively with very similar E. coli Tsr.

They also show that indole does not bind to the Tsr LBD, which also is known for E. coli Tsr.

This would be newsworthy only if the results were different for S. Typhimurium than for E. coli. As it is, it is merely confirmatory of something that was already known about Tsr of enteric bacteria.

An idea that the authors introduce, if I understand it correctly, is that a repellent response to something in feces, perhaps indole, drives S. Typhimurium chemotactically competent cells out of the colonic lumen and promotes invasion of the bacteria into the cells of the colonic lining. If the feces contain both an attractant and a repellent, bacteria might be attracted by the feces to the lining of the intestine and then enter the colonic cells to escape a repellent, perhaps indole. That is an interesting proposition.

In summary, I think that the initial experimental approach is fine. I do not understand the failure to follow up on the effect of the fecal homogenates in promoting invasion by chemotactic bacteria possessing Tsr. It seems there must be something else in the homogenates that is sensed by Tsr. Other amino acids and related compounds are also sensed by Tsr. Perhaps it is energy or oxygen taxis, which is partially mediated by Tsr, as the authors acknowledge.

Much of the work reported here is quasi-repetitive with work done with E. coli Tsr. Minimally, previous work on E. coli Tsr should be explained more thoroughly rather than dealt with only as a citation.

Thank you for your comments.

We would like to confirm our agreement that E. coli and S. enterica indeed possess similarities. They are Gammaproteobacteria and inhabit/infect the gut. But also we note they diverged evolutionarily during the Jurassic period (ca. 140 million years ago, see: PMC94677). In the context of colonizing humans, the former is a pathobiont, indoleproducer, and a native member of the microbiome, whereas the latter is a frank pathogen and does not produce indole. Hence, there are many reasons to believe one is not an approximate of the other, especially when it comes to causing disease.

We agree that much of what is known about indole taxis has come from excellent studies in well-behaved laboratory strains of E. coli, a powerful model. We believe that expanding this work to include clinically relevant pathogens is important for understanding its role in human disease. In this study, we contribute to that broader understanding by providing new mechanistic insights into Tsr-mediated indole taxis in S. Typhimurium, along with data demonstrating fecal attraction in other enteric pathogens and pathobionts. These findings help define a more general role for Tsr in enteric colonization and disease. While some of our results indeed confirm and extend prior findings, we respectfully believe that such confirmation in relevant pathogenic strains adds value to the field.

Regarding our ITC studies, to our knowledge no other study has investigated, using ITC whether indole does or does not bind the LBD (which we show it does not), nor investigated whether it interferes with L-Ser sensing (which we show it does not). Hence, these are not duplicate findings, although we do acknowledge this leaves the mechanism of indolesensing undiscovered. If we are incorrect in this regard, please provide us a citation and we will be happy to include it and revise our comments.

We now clarify in the text on lines 378-381: “While these leave the molecular mechanism of indole-sensing unresolved, it does eliminate two possibilities that have not, to our knowledge, been tested previously. Overall, our data add support to the hypothesis that a non-canonical sensing mechanism is employed by Tsr to respond to indole [8,18,69].”

Lastly, as noted by the reviewer, and which we mention in the text, essentially all prior studies on indole taxis were conducted in E. coli, and this is not what is new and novel about the work we present, which is focused on S. Typhimurium and testing the prediction that fecal indole protects against pathogen invasion. We have added in a few additional points of comparisons between our results and prior studies. While we appreciate that much understanding has come from E. coli as a model for indole taxis, we feel discussing prior work in extensive detail would be more suitable for a review and would occlude our new findings about Salmonella, and other enterics.

In an earlier version of the manuscript, we included more background on E. coli indole taxis. However, we found that the historical literature in this area was somewhat inconsistent, with different assays using varying time points and indole concentrations, often leading to results that were difficult to reconcile. Providing sufficient context to explain these discrepancies required considerable space and, ultimately, detracted from the focus of our current study. Hence, we have only brought in comparisons with E. coli where most relevant to the present work. Also, we provide new data that E. coli also exhibits fecal attraction, and so there is reason to believe the mechanisms we study here are also relevant to that system.

Some minor points

(1) Hyphens are not needed with constructs like "naturally occurring" or "commonly used".

Thank you. Revisions made throughout.

(2) The word "frank" as in "frank pathogen" seems odd. It seems "potent" would be better.

Thank you for this comment. Per your recommendation, we have removed this term.

The term ‘frank pathogen’ is standard usage in the field of bacterial pathogenesis in reference to a microbe that always causes disease in its host (in this case humans) and causes disease in otherwise healthy hosts (example: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369527420300345). We actually used this specific term to distinguish an aspect of novelty of our study because E. coli can, sometimes, be a pathogen (i.e. a pathobiont) and of course E. coli indole taxis has been previously studied. Ours is the first study of indole taxis in a frank pathogen.

(3) It is unnecessary to coin a new word, chemohalation, to describe a phenomenon that is a simple consequence of repulsion by higher concentrations of a repellent and attraction by lower concentrations of attractant to generate a halo pattern of cell distribution.

Thank you for your opinion on this. We have softened our statements on this point, and in the newly revised version of the text less space is devoted to this idea. We now state in line 304-307:

“There exists no consensus descriptor for taxis of this nature, and so we suggest expanding the lexicon with the term “chemohalation,” in reference to the halo formed by the cell population, and which is congruent with the commonly-used terms chemoattraction and chemorepulsion.”

We appreciate the reviewer’s perspective and agree that the behavior we describe can be viewed as the result of competing attractant and repellent cues. However, we find that the traditional framework of “chemoattraction” and “chemorepulsion” is often insufficient to describe the spatial positioning behaviors we observe in our system. In our experience presenting and discussing this work, especially with audiences outside the chemotaxis field, it has been challenging to convey these dynamics clearly using only those two terms.

For this reason, we introduced the term chemohalation to describe this more nuanced behavior, which appears to reflect a balance of signals rather than a simple unidirectional response. More bacteria enter the field of view, but they are clearly positioned differently than regular ‘chemoattraction.’ We also note that Reviewers 2 and 3 did not raise concerns about the term, and after careful consideration, we have opted to retain it in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Lines 143-156 seem somewhat overcomplicated and may be confusing. For example: in line 143: "However, when colonic tissue was treated with purified indole at the same concentration, the competitive advantage of WT over the chemotactic mutants was abolished compared to fecaltreated tissue...". But indole was tested alone, so it did not abolish the response; rather the absence of fecal material did.

We appreciate your point. We have made revisions throughout to help improve the clarity of how we discuss the explant infection data and provide new visuals to help explain the experiment and data (Fig. 1C, Fig. S5).

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Line 46 - Are references 9-11 really about topography?

Thank you. You are correct. Revised and eliminated this statement.

(2) Lines 87-89 - It seems to me that a bit more information on this would be helpful to the reader.

In our revision of the text, to make it more centered on our primary findings of the differences between indole taxis when indole is the sole effector versus amidst other effectors, we have removed this section.

(3) Line 112 - When mentioning the infection of the cecum and colon, authors should specify that this is in mice.

Thank you for this comment. In our revised version we provide references both for animal model infections and work in human patients (ex: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140673676921000)

We have revised our statement to be (Line 99-100: “Salmonella Typhimurium preferentially invades tissue of the distal ileum but also infects the cecum and colon in humans and animal models [42–46].”

(4) Lines 122-123 - Authors state that "This experimental setup simulates a biological gradient in which the effector concentration is initially highest near the tissue and diffuses outward into the buffer solution.". Was this experimentally demonstrated? If not, authors should tone this down.

We have removed this comment and instead present a conceptual diagram illustrating this idea (Fig. 1C). Also, addressed by above.

(5) When looking at the results in Figure 1, I wonder what the results of this experiment would be if the authors tested an invasion mutant of Salmonella. In a strain that is able to perform chemotaxis (attraction and repulsion) but unable to actively invade, would there be a phenotype here? Is it possible that the fecal material affects cellular uptake of Salmonella, independently of active invasion? I don't think the authors necessarily need to perform this experiment, but I think it could be informative and this possibility should at least be discussed.

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We have included new data of an explant co-infection experiment with WT and an invasion-deficient mutant invA (Fig. S1). Under these conditions, WT exhibits an advantage in the gentamicin-treated homogenate, but not the untreated homogenate, suggestive of an advantage in cellular invasion.

However, we did not repeat all experiments with this genetic background. We felt that would be outside the scope of this work, and would probably require dual chemotaxis/invA deletions to assess the impact of each, which also could be difficult to interpret. The hypothesis mentioned by the Reviewer is possible, but we were not able to devise a way to test this idea, as it seems we would need to deactivate all other mechanisms of Salmonella invasion.

(6) Lines 137-140 - Because this is a competition experiment and results are plotted as CI, the reader can't readily assess the impact of human feces on invasion by WT Salmonella.

Thank you for pointing this out. We want to mention that the data are plotted as CI in the main text, but the supplemental contains the disaggregated CFU data (Fig. S1-2) and the numerical values (Data S1).

Please include the magnitude of induction in this sentence, compared to the buffer control.

The text of this section has been changed to account for new data.

Additionally, although unlikely, the presence of the chemotaxis mutants in the same infection may be a confounding factor. In order to irrefutably ascertain that feces induces invasion, I suggest authors perform this experiment with the wildtype strain (and mutant) alone in different conditions.

Thank you for this suggestion, although after careful consideration we have decided not to repeat these explant studies with monoinfections. Coinfections are a common tool in Salmonella pathogenesis studies, including prior chemotaxis studies which our work builds upon (ex: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3630101/). The explant experiments, even controlling as many aspects as we did, still show lots of variability and one way to mitigate this is through competition experiments so that each strain experiences the same environment.

We agree that a cost of this approach is that one strain may affect the other, or may alter the environment in a way that impacts the other. Thus, the resulting data must also be understood through this lens. We have revised the text to stay closer to the competitive advantage phenotype.

(7) Line 150 - Authors state that bacterial loads are similar. However, authors should perform and report statistical analyses of these comparisons, at least in the supplementary data.

We have removed this statement as requested. We do note, however, that the mean CFU values across treatments at identical time points appear qualitatively similar, which is an observation that does not require statistical testing.

(8) Lines 154-154 - This seems incorrect, as the effect observed with the mixture of indole and serine is very similar to the addition of serine alone. Therefore, there was no "neutralization" of their individual effects.

We have revised this statement.

(9) Line 159-161 - I strongly suggest authors reword this sentence. I don't think this is the best way to describe these results. The stronger phenotype observed was with the fecal material. Therefore, it is the indole (alone) condition that does not "elicit a response". Focusing on indole too much here ignores everything else that is present in feces and also the fact that there was a drastic phenotype when feces were used.

Thank you for your opinion on this. We believe this is one of the ways in which our earlier draft was unclear. It was actually a primary motivation of this work to test whether there were differences in pathogen infection, mediated by chemotaxis, in the presence of indole as a singular effector or in its near-native context in fecal material, and our revised text centers our study around this question. We believe this distinction is important for the reasons mentioned earlier.

Relative to buffer treatment, indole changes the behavior of the system, eliminating the WT advantage, and this is the effect we refer to. We have made many revisions to the text of these sections and hope it better conveys this idea. We expect we may still have differences regarding the interpretation of these results, but regardless, thank you for your suggestions and we have tried to implement them to improve the clarity of the text.

(10) Line 162 - Again, I disagree with this. Indole does not have an effect to be cancelled out by serine.

Addressed above, and this text has been changed. Also, we provide new chemotaxis data that at fecal-relevant concentrations of indole and L-Ser, indole chemorepulsion is overridden (Fig. 5).

(11) Lines 166-168 - Again, this is a skewed analysis. Indole and serine could not possibly provide an "additive effect" since they do not provide an effect alone. There is nothing to be added.

This text has been deleted.

(12) Lines 168-170 - Most of the citations provided to this sentence are inadequate. Our group has previously shown that the mammalian gut harbors thousands of small molecules (Antunes LC et al. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2011). You obviously do not have to cite our work, but there is significant literature out there about the complexity of the gut metabolome.

Thank you for this comment. We have revised this particular text, but do make mention of potential other effectors driving these effects, which was also requested by the other reviewers.

Your work and others indeed support there being thousands of molecules in the gut, but our work centers on chemotaxis, and bacteria have a small number of chemoreceptors and only sense a very tiny fraction of these molecules as effectors. Since the impacts of infection of the explants depends on chemotaxis, we keep our comments restricted to those, but agree that there are likely many interactions involved, such as those impacting gene expression.

Please note our more detailed description of the explant infection assay (and shown in Fig. 1C) that may change your view on the significance of non-chemotaxis effects. The bacteria only experience the effectors at low concentration, not the high concentration that is used to soak and prepare the tissue prior to infection.

(13) Figure 2 - The letter 'B' from panel B is missing.

Thank you very much for bringing this oversite to our attention. We have fixed this.

(14) Legend of Figure 3 - Panel J is missing a proper description. Figure legends need improvement in general, to increase clarity.

Thank you for noting this. This is now Fig. 6E. We have provided an additional description of what this panel shows. We have edited the legend text to read: “E. Shows a quantification of the relative number of cells in the field of view over time following treatment with 5 mM indole for a competition experiment with WT and tsr (representative image shown in F).”

We also have made other edits to figure legends to improve their clarity and add additional experimental details and context. By breaking up larger figures into smaller figures, we also hope to have improved the clarity of our data presentation.

(15) Lines 264-265 - Maybe I am missing something, but I do not see the ITC data for serine alone.

We have clarified in the text that this was measured in our previous study https://elifesciences.org/articles/93178). The present study is a ‘Research Advance’ article format, and so builds on our prior observation.

We have revised the text to read: “To address these possibilities, we performed ITC of 50 μM Tsr LBD with L-Ser in the presence of 500 μM indole and observed a robust exothermic binding curve and KD of 5 µM, identical to the binding of L-Ser alone, which we reported previously (Fig. 6H) [36].”

(16) Lines 296-297 - What is the effect of these combinations of treatments on bacterial cells? I commend the authors for performing the careful growth assays, but I wonder if bacterial lysis could be a factor here. I am not doubting the effect of chemotaxis, but I am wondering if toxic effects could be a confounding factor. For instance, could it be that the "avoidance" close to the compound source and subsequent formation of a halo suggest bacterial death and lysis? I suggest the authors perform a very simple experiment, where bacteria are exposed to the compounds at various concentrations and combinations, and cells are observed over time to ensure that no bacterial lysis occurs.

Thank you for mentioning this possibility. If we understand correctly, the Reviewer is asking if the chemohalation effect we report could be from the bacteria lysing near the source. Our data actually argue against this possibility through a few lines of evidence.

First, if this were the case in experiments with the cheY mutant, we would also see an effect near the source. But actually, in experiments with either the cheY mutant or the tsr mutant, neither of which can sense indole, the bacteria just ignore the stimulus and show an even distribution (see current Fig. 6F).

Second, our calculations suggest that in the chemotaxis assay (CIRA), the bacteria only experience rather low local concentration of indole, mostly I the nM concentration range, because as soon as the effector treatment is injected into the greater volume, it is immediately diluted. This means the local concentration is far below what we see inhibits growth of the cells in the long run and may not be toxic (Fig. 7, Fig. S3).

Lastly, in the representative video presented we can observe individual cells approach and exit the treatment (Movie 11). Due to the above we have not performed additional experiments to test for lysis.

(17) Lines 310-311 - Isn't this the opposite of the model you propose in Figure 5? The higher the concentration of indole in the lumen the more likely Salmonella is to swim away from it and towards the epithelium, favoring invasion, no?

We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this point and apologize for any confusion caused. In response, we have revised the text to place less emphasis on chemohalation, and the specific statement and model in question have now been removed. Instead, we provide a summary of our explant data in light of the other analyses in the study (Fig. S5).

What we meant here was in relation to the microscopic level, not whether or not a host/intestine is colonized. To put it another way, we think our data supports that the pathogen colonizes and infects the host regardless of indole presence, but it uses indole as a means to prioritize which tissues are optimal for colonization at the microscopic level. The prediction made by others was that bacteria swim away from indole source and therefor this could prevent or inhibit pathogen colonization of the intestines, which our data does not support.

(18) Lines 325-326 - Maybe, but feces also contain several compounds with antibacterial activity, as well as other compounds that could elicit chemorepulsion. This should be stated and discussed.

We have removed this statement since we did not explicitly test the growth of the bacteria with fecal treatments. We have refrained from speculating further in the text since we do not have direct knowledge of how that relationship with differing effectors could play out.

We agree with the reviewer that the growth assays are reductionist and give insight only into the two effectors studied. We provide evidence from several different types of enterics that they all exhibit fecal attraction, and it seems unlikely the bacteria would be attracted to something deleterious, but we have not confirmed.

(19) Lines 371-374 - How preserved (or not) is the mucus layer in this model? The presence of an inhibitory molecule in the lumen does not necessarily mean that it will protect against invasion. It is possible that by sensing indole in the lumen Salmonella preferentially swims towards the epithelium, thus resulting in enhanced evasion.

The text in question has been removed. However, we acknowledge the reviewer’s point, and that these explant tissues do not fully model an in vivo intestinal environment. Other than a gentle washing with PBS to remove debris prior to the experiment the tissue is not otherwise manipulated, and feasibly the mucus layer is similar to its in vivo state.

In mentioning this hypothesis about indole, which our data do not support, we were echoing a prediction from the field, proposed in the studies we cite. We agree with the reviewer that there were other potential outcomes of indole impacting chemotaxis and invasion, and indeed our data supports that.

(20) Lines 394-395 - The authors need to remember that the ability to invade the intestinal epithelium is not only a product of chemoattraction and repulsion forces. Several compounds in the gut are used by Salmonella as cues to alter invasion gene expression. See PMID: 25073640, 28754707, 31847278, and many others.

Thank for you for this point, and we now include these citations. We have revised the text in question, stating:

“In addition to the factors we have investigated, it is already well-established in the literature that the vast metabolome in the gut contains a complex repertoire of chemicals that modulate Salmonella cellular invasion, virulence, growth, and pathogenicity [79–81].”

Our intent is not to diminish the role of other intestinal chemicals but rather to put our new findings into the context of bacterial pathogenesis. We do provide evidence that specific chemoeffectors present in fecal material alter where bacteria localize through chemotaxis, which is one method of control over colonization.

(21) Line 408 - I think it could be hard to observe this using your experimental approach.

Because you need to observe individual cells, the number of cells you observe is relatively small. If, in a bet-hedging strategy, the proportion of cells that were chemoattracted to indole was relatively low you likely would not be able to distinguish it from an occasional distribution close to the repellent source. You may or may not want to discuss this.

Thank you for this observation. It is indeed challenging to both observe large scale population behaviors and also the behaviors of individual cells in the same experiment. Our ability to make this distinction is similar to the approach used in the study we cite, so that is our comparison.

But, if there was a subpopulation that was attracted we would predict a ‘bull’s-eye’ population structure, with some cells attracted and other avoiding the source, which we do not see - we see the halo. So, we find no evidence of the bet-hedging response seen in a different study using E. coli and using different time scales than we have.

(22) Lines 410-411 - What could the other attractants be? Would it be possible/desirable to speculate on this?

We have changed the text here, but we present new data that examines some of these other attractants (Fig. 5).

(23) Line 431 - What exactly do you mean by "running phenotype"? Please, provide a brief explanation.

We have removed this text, but a running phenotype means the swimming bacteria rarely make direction changes (i.e. tumbles), which has been associated with promoting contact with the epithelium, described in the references we cite. Hence, this type of swimming behavior could contribute to the effects we observe in the explant studies, potentially explaining some of the Tsr-mediated advantage that was not dependent on L-Ser/indole.

(24) Line 441 - Other work has shown that feces contain inhibitors of invasion gene expression. The authors should integrate this knowledge into their model. In fact, indole has been shown to repress host cell invasion by Salmonella, so it is important that authors understand and discuss the fact that the impact of indole is multifaceted and not only a reflection of its action as a chemorepellent. PMID: 29342189, 22632036.

We agree with the reviewer about this point, and mention this in the text (lines 55-57): “Indole is amphipathic and can transit bacterial membranes to regulate biofilm formation and motility, suppress virulence programs, and exert bacteriostatic and bactericidal effects at high concentrations [16–18,20–22].”

We have added in the references suggested.

What we test here is the specific hypothesis made by others in the field about indole chemorepulsion serving to dissuade pathogens from colonizing.

For instance, the statement from: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0190613

“Since indole is also a chemorepellent for EHEC [23], it is intriguing to speculate that in addition to attenuating Salmonella virulence, indole also attenuates the recruitment and directed migration of Salmonella to its infection niche in the GI tract.”

And from: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916974117

“We propose that indole spatially segregates cells based on their state of adaptation to repel invaders while recruiting beneficial resident bacteria to growing microbial communities within the GI tract.”

And

“Thus, foreign ingested bacteria, including invading pathogens such as E. coli O157:H7 and S. enterica, are likely to be prevented by indole from gaining a foothold in the mucosa.”

As shown by others, indole certainly does have many roles in controlling pathogenesis, and there are other chemicals we do not investigate that control invasion and bacterial growth, but we keep our statements here restricted to chemotaxis since that is what are experiments and data show.

(25) Line 472 - "until fully motile". How long did this take, how variable was it, and how was it determined?

Thank you for asking for this clarification. We have added that the time was between 1-2 h, and confirmed visually. Our methods are similar to those described in earlier chemotaxis studies (ex: 10.1128/jb.182.15.4337-4342.2000).

(26) Line 487 - I worry that the fact fecal samples were obtained commercially means that compound stability/degradation may be a factor to consider here. How long had the sample been in storage? Is this information available?

Thank you for this question. We agree that the fecal sample we used serves as a model system and we cannot rule out that handling by the supplier could potentially alter its contents in some way that would impact bacterial chemosensing. However, we note that the measurements of L-Ser and indole we obtained are in the appropriate range for what other studies have shown.

The fecal sample used for all work in the study were from a single healthy human donor, obtained from Lee Biosolutions (https://www.leebio.com/product/395/fecal-stool-samplehuman-donor-991-18). The supplier did not state the explicit date of collection, nor indicated any specific handline or storage methods that would obviously degrade its native metabolites, but we cannot rule that out. In our hands, the fecal sample was collected and kept frozen at -20 C. For research purposes, portions were extracted and thawed as needed, maintaining the frozen state of the original sample to limit degradation from freeze-thaws.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this paper, Li and colleagues overcome solubility problems to determine the structure of FtsEX bound to EnvC from E. coli.

Strengths:

The structural work is well done and the work is consistent with previous work on the structure of this complex from P. aerugionsa.

Weaknesses:

The model does not take into account all information that the authors obtained as well as known in vivo data.

The work lacks a clear comparison to the Pseudomonas structure highlighting new information that was obtained so that it is readily available to the reader.

The authors set out to obtain the structure of FtsEX-EnvC complex from E. coli. Previously, they were unable to do so but were able to determine the structure of the complex from P. aeruginosa. Here they persisted in attacking the E. coli complex since more is known about its involvement in cell division and there is a wealth of mutants in E. coli. The structural work is well done and recapitulates the results this lab obtained with this complex from P. aeruginosa. It would be helpful to compare more directly the results obtained here with the E. coli complex with the previously reported P. aeruginosa complex - are they largely the same or has some insight been obtained from the work that was not present in the previous complex from P. aeruginosa. This is particularly the case in discussing the symmetrical FtsX dimer binding to the asymmetrical EnvC, since this is emphasized in the paper. However, Figures 3C & D of this paper appear similar to Figures 2D & E of the P. aeruginosa structure. Presumably, the additional information obtained and presented in

Figure 4 is due to the higher resolution, but this needs to be highlighted and discussed to make it clear to a general audience.

The main issue is the model (Figure 6). In the model ATP is shown to bind to FtsEX before EnvC, however, in Figure 1c it is shown that ADP is sufficient to promote binding of FtsEX to EnvC.

The work here is all done in vitro, however, information from in vivo needs to be considered. In vivo results reveal that the ATP-binding mutant FtsE(D162N)X promotes the recruitment of EnvC (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2011 108:E1052-60). Thus, even FtsEX in vivo can bind EnvC without ATP (not sure if this mutant can bind ADP).

Perhaps the FtsE protein from E. coli has to have bound nucleotides to maintain its 3D structure.

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback and valuable suggestions. We have carefully revised the manuscript to address these concerns, incorporating additional analysis and discussion to enhance clarity and improve the accuracy of our interpretation.

Regarding the relationship between EnvC binding and nucleotide binding to FtsEX, our previous study on P. aeruginosa FtsEX demonstrated that FtsEX can bind EnvC even in the absence of nucleotide (PMID: 37186861, Fig. 3C). However, for E. coli FtsEX (Fig. S1 in this study), ATP is required to stabilize the complex in vitro, preventing us from directly testing whether EnvC binding is ATP-dependent. The reviewer raised an important point about the FtsED162N mutant study, from which previous studies suggests that this mutant may still retain ATP binding, as observed in its homolog MacB (PMID: 29109272, PMID: 32636250). Additionally, previous work (PMID: 22006325) has shown that the PLD domain of FtsX can bind EnvC directly, even in the absence of the NBD domain, a finding further supported by Crow’s lab (PMID: 33097670). Taken together, these studies indicate that EnvC binding to FtsEX is likely nucleotideindependent, while ATP binding primarily stabilizes FtsE dimerization, reinforcing FtsEX complex formation.

In line with these findings, our results suggest a stabilizing role of ATP in FtsEX assembly, whereas EnvC binding does not appear to be nucleotide-dependent. However, we acknowledge that the precise sequence of ATP binding and EnvC recruitment within the cell remains unresolved. To reflect this, we have revised the manuscript to incorporate these insights (L190-201, L445-451), clearly stated the limitations (L450-451, L887-890), and updated our model (Fig. 6) to avoid assigning a definitive sequence to EnvC and ATP binding.

Additionally, we have strengthened the structural comparison between E. coli and P. aeruginosa FtsEX, as the reviewer suggested. We have now included a detailed comparative analysis (L282-306, Fig. S9), which reveals that the transmembrane and nucleotide-binding domains are highly superimposable. The primary structural distinction lies in a slight tilting difference in the bound EnvC, which appears to stem from the conformation of the X-lobes within the PLD domains. Highlighting these differences helps clarify how our new structural data provide additional insights beyond what was previously observed in P. aeruginosa.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Peptidoglycan remodeling, particularly that carried out by enzymes known as amidases, is essential for the later stages of cell division including cell separation. In E. coli, amidases are generally activated by the periplasmic proteins EnvC (AmiA and AmiB) and NlpD (AmiC). The ABC family member, FtsEX, in turn, has been implicated as a modulator of amidase activity through interactions with EnvC. Specifically how FtsEX regulates EnvC activity in the context of cell division remains unclear.

Strengths:

Li et al. make two primary contributions to the study of FtsEX. The first, the finding that ATP binding stabilizes FtsEX in vitro, enables the second, structural resolution of fulllength FtsEX both alone (Figure 2) and in combination with EnvC (Figure 3). Leveraging these findings, the authors demonstrate that EnvC binding stimulates FtsEX-mediated ATP hydrolysis approximately two-fold. The authors present structural data suggesting EnvC binding leads to a conformational change in the complex. Biochemical reconstitution experiments (Figure 5) provide compelling support for this idea.

Weaknesses:

The potential impact of the study is curtailed by the lack of experiments testing the biochemical or physiological relevance of the model which is derived almost entirely from structural data.

Altogether the data support a model in which interaction with EnvC, results in a conformational change stimulating ATP hydrolysis by FtsEX and EnvC-mediated activation of the amidases, AmiA and AmiB. However, the study is limited in both approach and scope. The importance of interactions revealed in the structures to the function of FtsEX and its role in EnvC activation are not tested. Adding biochemical and/or in vivo experiments to fill in this gap would allow the authors to test the veracity of the model and increase the appeal of the study beyond the small number of researchers specifically interested in FtsEX.

Thank you for your thoughtful review and constructive feedback. We appreciate your recognition of our study’s contributions, particularly the structural resolution of fulllength E coli FtsEX, its interaction with EnvC, and our biochemical characterization of EnvC-stimulated ATP hydrolysis.

We understand the importance of further biochemical and in vivo validation to support our model. While our study primarily provides a structural framework for understanding FtsEX function, many key residues identified in our E. coli structures have already been tested in prior cell physiological studies. For example, residues critical for the FtsEXEnvC interaction were examined in our collaborator David Roper’s lab in collaboration with Crow’s lab (PMID: 33097670, L319-321).

With the structural blueprint provided by our full-length E. coli FtsEX-EnvC complex, we now have a foundation to explore several key functional aspects of this system. Future mutagenesis studies will help dissect the roles of specific residues in ATP binding/hydrolysis, coupling between the TMD and NBD domains, interactions between the PLD and TMD domains of FtsX, and signal transduction from the NBD, through the TMD and PLD to EnvC. Additionally, we aim to investigate how the symmetrical PLD domain recruits asymmetrical EnvC and how the dynamics of PLD of FtsX and CCD domains of EnvC contribute to the complex’s function.

As these experiments require specialized expertise in cell physiology and PG degradation assays, we are actively collaborating with experts in these areas to pursue them. We are committed to furthering this work and providing deeper biochemical and in vivo insights into the function of the FtsEX complex in cell division.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) As mentioned, two things could strengthen the paper. One is to take into account that ADP or possibly nucleotide-free FtsEX can bind EnvC. The second is to highlight any differences between the structures from E. coli and P. aeruginosa.

Thank you for these insightful suggestions. In our revision, we have (1) carefully considered the possibility of EnvC binding independently of nucleotide and (2) have incorporated a detailed comparison between the newly obtained E. coli FtsEX/EnvC structure and that of P. aeruginosa.

Regarding the relationship between EnvC binding and ATP binding to FtsEX, our previous study on P. aeruginosa FtsEX demonstrated that FtsEX can bind EnvC in the absence of nucleotide (PMID: 37186861, Fig 3C). However, for E. coli FtsEX systems (Fig S1 in this study), ATP is necessary for FtsEX stabilization in vitro, which limited us from further directly testing whether EnvC binding is ATP-dependent or not.

We appreciate the reviewer’s reference to the FtsE(D162N) mutant study. Previous studies suggest that D162N mutant may still retain ATP binding, similar to its homolog MacB (PMID: 29109272; PMID: 32636250). Additionally, findings from Winkler’s lab (PMID: 22006325) indicate that the PLD domain of FtsX can bind EnvC directly, even in the absence of the NBD domain, a result further supported by study from Crow’s lab (PMID: 33097670). Collectively, these studies suggest that EnvC binding to FtsEX is nucleotide-independent, while ATP binding likely stabilizes FtsE dimerization, thereby reinforcing FtsEX complex formation, as the reviewer suggested.

Thus, consistent with previous studies, our results so far support a stabilizing role of ATP in FtsEX assembly, while EnvC binding itself does not appear to be nucleotidedependent. However, the available evidence remains inconclusive, and the precise sequence of ATP binding and EnvC recruitment within the cell is still unclear. In our revision, we have now incorporated these analyses in L190-201 and L445-451, stated the limitations (L450-451 and L887-890) and updated our model (Fig. 6) to avoid assigning a definitive sequence to EnvC and ATP binding.

For the structural comparison between E. coli and P. aeruginosa FtsEX, we have added a detailed analysis in L282-306 and Supplementary figure 9. In summary, we found that the transmembrane domain and nucleotide-binding domain are highly superimposable, with only minor differences observed. The primary distinction lies in a slight tilting difference in the bound EnvC, which appears to come from the conformation of the X-lobes within the PLD domains.

(2) Line 129. Concerning the role of ATP in stabilizing the complex. It is clear that ADP can do it as well (Figure 1c). This is mentioned in line 131 but not considered in the model.

Thank you for pointing this out. We have now revised the relevant sections in the manuscript (L190-201 and L445-451) and updated the model (Fig 6) accordingly. In the revised manuscript, we acknowledge the reviewer’s point that ATP may primarily serve to stabilize the FtsEX complex. Additionally, we have explicitly clarified that EnvC binding appears to be nucleotide-independent. Regarding the model, we state that the current study does not provide sufficient evidence to determine the precise sequence of EnvC and ATP binding to FtsEX in the cell. We believe these revisions, incorporating the reviewer’s suggestions, improve the accuracy of our interpretation.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) The introduction is written for an audience with significant expertise in bacterial PG synthesis and is thus difficult for those outside the field to follow.

Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the introduction, particularly the first passage (L51–63), to improve readability and make it more accessible to a broader audience.

(1) Figure 1: Please express ATP hydrolysis data in ATP/FtsEX/minute. (It is currently nmol/mg/min).

Changed accordingly, thank you!

(2) Figure 4: Please clarify in the legend and in the figure itself which structures correspond to full-length data from cryoEM data or truncated (FtsEX-PLD domain) protein data from previous crystallographic studies.

Both the FtsEX and FtsEX/EnvC complex structures shown in Figure 4 were obtained from our cryo-EM data using full-length proteins. To avoid any confusion, we have now further clarified this in the figure legend (L857).

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the previous reviews

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewing Editor Comments:

The resubmitted version of the manuscript adequately addressed several initial comments made by reviewing editors, including a more detailed analysis of the results (such as those of bilayer thickness). This version was seen by 2 reviewers. Both reviewers recognize this work as being an important contribution to the field of BK and voltage-dependent ion channels in general. The long trajectories and the rigorous/novel analyses have revealed important insights into the mechanisms of voltage-sensing and electromechanical coupling in the context of a truncated variant of the BK channel. Many of these observations are consistent with structural and functional measurements of the channel, available thus far. The authors also identify a novel partially expanded state of the channel pore that is accessed after gating-charge displacement, which informs the sequence of structural events accompanying voltage-dependent opening of BK.

However, there are key concerns regarding the use of the truncated channel in the simulations. While many gating features of BK are preserved in the truncated variant, studies have suggested that opening of the channel pore to voltage-sensing domain rearrangement is impaired upon gating-ring deletion. So the inferences made here might only represent a partial view of the mechanism of electromechanical coupling.

It is also not entirely clear whether the partially expanded pore represents a functionally open, sub-conductance, or another closed state. Although the authors provide evidence that the inner pore is hydrated in this partially open state, in the absence of additional structural/functional restraints, a confident assignment of a functional state to this structure state is difficult. Functional measurements of the truncated channel seem to suggest that not only is their single channel conductance lower than full-length channels, but they also appear to have a voltage-independent step that causes the gates to open. It is unclear whether it is this voltage-independent step that remains to be captured in these MD trajectories. A clean cut resolution of this conundrum might not be feasible at this time, but it could help present the various possibilities to the readers.

We appreciate the positive comments and agree that there will likely be important differences between the mechanistic details of voltage activation between the Core-MT and full-length constructs of BK channels. We also agree that the dilated pore observed in the simulation may not be the fully open state of Core-MT.

Nonetheless, the notion that the simulation may not have captured the full pore opening transition or the contribution of the CTD should not render the current work “incomplete”, because a complete understanding of BK activation would be an unrealistic goal beyond the scope of this work. We respectfully emphasize that the main insights of the current simulations are the mechanisms of voltage sensing (e.g., the nature of VSD movements, contributions of various charged residues, how small charge movements allow voltage sensing, etc.) as well as the role of the S4-S5-S6 interface in VSD-pore coupling. As noted by the Editor and reviewers, these insights represent important steps towards establishing a more complete understanding of BK activation.

Below are the specific comments of the two experts who have assessed the work and made specific suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Although the successful simulation of V-dependent K+ conduction through the BK channel pore and analysis of associated state dependent VSD/pore interactions and coupling analysis is significant, there are two related questions that are relevant to the conclusions and of interest to the BK channel community which I think should be addressed or discussed.

One key feature of BK channels is their extraordinarily large conductance compared to other K+ selective channels. Do the simulations of K+ conductance provide any insight into this difference? Is the predicted conductance of BK larger than that of other K+ channels studied by similar methods? Is there any difference in the conductance mechanism (e.g., the hard and soft knock-on effects mentioned for BK)?

The molecular basis of the large conductance of BK channels is indeed an interesting and fundamental question. Unfortunately, this is beyond the scope of this work and the current simulation does not appear to provide any insight into the basis of large conductance. It is interesting to note, though, the conductance is apparently related to the level of pore dilation and the pore hydration level, as increasing hydration level from ~30 to ~40 waters in the pore increases the simulated conductance from ~1.5 to 6 pS (page 8). This is consistent with previous atomistic simulations (Gu and de Groot, Nature Communications 2023; ref. 33) showing that the pore hydration level is strongly correlated with observed conductance. As noted in the manuscript, the conductance mechanism through the filter appears highly similar to previous simulations of other K+ channels (Page 8). Given the limit conductance events observed in the current simulations, we will refrain from discussing possible basis of the large conductance in BK channels except commenting on the role of pore hydration (page 8; also see below in response to #5).

The pore in the MD simulations does not open as wide as the Ca-bound open structure, which (as the authors note) may mean that full opening requires longer than 10 us. I think that is highly likely given that the two 750 mV simulations yielded different degrees of opening and that in BK channels opening is generally much slower than charge movement. Therefore, a question is - do any of the conclusions illustrated in Figures 6, S5, S6 differ if the Ca-bound structure is used as the open state? For example, I expect the interactions between S5 and S6 might at least change to some extent as S6 moves to its final position. In this case, would conclusions about which residues interact, and get stronger or weaker, be the same as in Figures S6 b,c? Providing a comparison may help indicate to what extent the conclusions are dependent on achieving a fully open conformation.

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and have further analyzed the information flow and coupling pathways using the simulation trajectory initiated from the Ca²⁺-bound cryo-EM structure (sim 7, Table S1). The new results are shown in two new SI Figures S7 and S8, and new discussion has been added to pages 14-15. Comparing Figures 5 and S7, we find that dynamic community, coupling pathways, and information flow are highly similar between simulation of the open and closed states, even though there are significant differences in S5 contacts in the simulated open state vs Ca²⁺-bound open state (Figure S8). Interestingly, there are significant differences in S4-S5 packing in the simulated and Ca²⁺-bound open states (Figure S8 top panel), which likely reflect important difference in VSD/pore interactions during voltage vs Ca²⁺ activation.

(2) P4 Significance -"first, successful direct simulation of voltage-activation"

This statement may need rewording. As noted above Carrasquel-Ursulaez et al.,2022 (reference 39) simulated voltage sensor activation under comparable conditions to the current manuscript (3.9 us simulation at +400 mV), and made some similar conclusions regarding R210, R213 movement, and electric field focusing within the VSD. However, they did not report what happens to the pore or simulate K+ movement. So do the authors here mean something like "first, successful direct simulation of voltage-dependent channel opening"?

We agree with the reviewer and have revised the statement to “ … the first successful direct simulation of voltage-dependent activation of the big potassium (BK) channel, ..”

(3) P5 "We compare the membrane thickness at 300 and 750 mV and the results reveal no significant difference in the membrane thickness (Figure S2)"

The figure also shows membrane thickness at 0 mV and indicates it is 1.4 Angstroms less than that at 300 or 750 mV. Whether or not this difference is significant should be stated, as the question being addressed is whether the structure is perturbed owing to the use of non-physiological voltages (which would include both 300 and 750 mV).

We have revised the Figure S2 caption to clarify that one-way ANOVA suggest the difference is not significant.

(4) P7 "It should be noted that the full-length BK channel in the Ca2+ bound state has an even larger intracellular opening (Figure 2f, green trace), suggesting that additional dilation of the pore may

occur at longer timescales."

As noted above, I agree it is likely that additional pore dilation may occur at longer timescales. However, for completeness, I suppose an alternative hypothesis should be noted, e.g. "...suggesting that additional dilation of the pore may occur at longer timescales, or in response to Ca-binding to the full length channel."

This is a great suggestion. Revised as suggested.

(5) Since the authors raise the possibility that they are simulating a subconductance state, some more discussion on this point would be helpful, especially in relation to the hydrophobic gate concept. Although the Magleby group concluded that the cytoplasmic mouth of the (fully open) pore has little impact on single channel conductance, that doesn't rule out that it becomes limiting in a partially open conformation. The simulation in Figure 3A shows an initial hydration of the pore with ~15 waters with little conductance events, suggesting that hydration per se may not suffice to define a fully open state. Indeed, the authors indicate that the simulated open state (w/ ~30-40 waters) has 1/4th the simulated conductance of the open structure (w/ ~60 waters). So is it the degree of hydration that limits conductance? Or is there a threshold of hydration that permits conductance and then other factors that limit conductance until the pore widens further? Addressing these issues might also be relevant to understanding the extraordinarily large conductance of fully open BK compared to other K channels.

We agree with the reviewer’s proposal that pore hydration seems to be a major factor that can affect conductance. This is also well in-line with the previous computational study by Gu and de Groot (2023). We have now added a brief discussion on page 8, stating “Besides the limitation of the current fixed charge force fields in quantitively predicting channel conductance, we note that the molecular basis for the large conductance of BK channels is actually poorly understood (78). It is noteworthy that the pore hydration level appears to be an important factor in determining the apparent conductance in the simulation, which has also been proposed in a previous atomistic simulation study of the Aplysia BK channel (33).”

Minor points

(1) P5 "the fully relaxed pore profile (red trace in Figure S1d, top row) shows substantial differences compared to that of the Ca2+-free Cryo-EM structure of the full-length channel."

For clarity, I suggest indicating which is the Ca-free profile - "... Ca2+-free Cryo-EM structure of the full-length channel (black trace)."

We greatly appreciate the thoughtful suggestion. Revised as suggested.

(2) P8 "Consistent with previous simulations (78-80), the conductance follows a multi-ion mechanism, where there are at least two K+ ions inside the filter"

For clarity, I suggest indicating these are not previous simulations of BK channels (e.g., "previous simulations of other K+ channels ...").

Author response: Revised as suggested. Thank you.

(3) Figure 2, S1 - grey traces representing individual subunits are very difficult to see (especially if printed). I wonder if they should be made slightly darker. Similar traces in Figure 3 are easier to see.

The traces in Figure S1 are actually the same thickness in Figure 3 and they appear lighter due to the size of the figure. Figure 2 panels a-c have been updated to improve the resolution.

(4) Figure 2 - suggest labeling S6 as "S6 313-324" (similar to S4 notation) to indicate it is not the entire segment.

Figure 2 panel d) has been updated as suggested.

(5) Figure 2 legend - "Voltage activation of Core-MT BK channels. a-d)..."

It would be easier to find details corresponding to individual panels if they were referenced individually. For example:

"a-d) results from a 10-μs simulation under 750 mV (sim2b in Table S1). Each data point represents the average of four subunits for a given snapshot (thin grey lines), and the colored thick lines plot the running average. a) z-displacement of key side chain charged groups from initial positions. The locations of charged groups were taken as those of guanidinium CZ atoms (for Arg) and sidechain carboxyl carbons (for Asp/Glu) b) z-displacement of centers-of-mass of VSD helices from initial positions, c) backbone RMSD of the pore-lining S6 (F307-L325) to the open state, and d) tilt angles of all TM helices. Only residues 313-324 of S6 were included inthe tilt angle calculation, and the values in the open and closed Cryo-EM structures are marked using purple dashed lines. "

We appreciate the thoughtful suggestion and have revised the caption as suggested.

(6) Figure S1 - column labels a,b,c, and d should be referenced in the legend.

The references to column labels have been added to Figure S1 caption.

(7) References need to be double-checked for duplicates and formatting.

a) I noticed several duplicate references, but did not do a complete search: Budelli et al 2013 (#68, 100), Horrigan Aldrich 2002 (#22,97), Sun Horrigan 2022 (#40, 86), Jensen et al 2012 (#56,81).

b) Reference #38 is incorrectly cited with the first name spelled out and the last name abbreviated.

We appreciate the careful proofreading of the reviewer. The duplicated references were introduced by mistake due to the use of multiple reference libraries. We have gone through the manuscript and removed a total of 5 duplicated references.

Response to additional reviewer comments

My only new comment is that the numbering of residues in Fig. S8 does not match the standard convention for hSlo and needs to be doublechecked. For the residues I checked, the numbers appear to be shifted 3 compared hSlo (e.g. Y315, P317, E318, G324 should be Y318, P320, E321, G327).

We greatly appreciate the reviewer for catching the errors in residue labels. Figure S8 has now been updated to include correct residue labels. Thanks!

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

This manuscript has been through a previous level of review. The authors have provided their responses to the previous reviewers, which appear to be satisfactory, and I have no additional comments, beyond the caveats concerning interpretations based on the truncated channel, which are noted above.

We greatly appreciate the constructive comments and insightful advice. Please see above response to the Reviewing Editor’s comments for response and changes regarding the caveats concerning interpretations of the current simulations.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study provides comprehensive instructions for using the chromatophore tracking software, Chromas, to track and analyse the dynamics of large numbers of cephalopod chromatophores across various spatiotemporal scales. This software addresses a long-standing challenge faced by many researchers who study these soft-bodied creatures, known for their remarkable ability to change colour rapidly. The updated software features a user-friendly interface that can be applied to a wide range of applications, making it an essential tool for biologists focused on animal dynamic signalling. It will also be of interest to professionals in the fields of computer vision and image analysis.

Strengths:

This work provides detailed instructions for this toolkit along with examples for potential users to try. The Gitlab inventory hosts the software package, installation documentation, and tutorials, further helping potential users with a less steep learning curve.

Weaknesses:

The evidence supporting the authors' claims is solid, particularly demonstrated through the use of cuttlefish and squid. However, it may not be applicable to all coleoid cephalopods yet, such as octopuses, which have an incredibly versatile ability to change their body forms.

The reviewer is right to highlight this limitation. We clarified, in the revised manuscript, that CHROMAS relies on the assumption that chromatophore activity occurs primarily in a plane — a condition that is valid most of the time in squid and cuttlefish, where the majority of skin deformations are in-plane (with small occasional papillae). In cephalopods such as octopuses, however, in which the skin may undergo large 3-dimensional deformations through the action of papillary musculature, this assumption may not always hold. Although octopods’ bodies are more spherical (less flat) than those of squid and cuttlefish, CHROMAS should still be usable and useful if applied to smaller skin areas, especially because chromatophore density is often even higher in octopoda than in sepiidae.

We added the following paragraph in the discussion:

Another known limitation concerns the biological assumptions underlying the current version of CHROMAS. The pipeline is designed for surfaces that remain reasonably planar and undergo deformations primarily in two dimensions. In cephalopods such as octopuses, in which the skin can undergo substantial three-dimensional morphological changes, analysing chromatophore dynamics may require complementary three-dimensional tracking of the skin surface to correct for out-of-plane deformations and maintain accurate measurement of chromatophore activity.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors developed a computational pipeline named CHROMAS to track and analyse chromatophore dynamics, which provides a wide range of biological analysis tools without requiring the user to write code.

Strengths:

(1) CHROMAS is an integrated toolbox that provides tools for different biological tasks such as: segment, classify, track and measure individual chromatophores, cluster small groups of chromatophores, analyse full-body patterns, etc.

(2) It could be used to investigate different species. The authors have already applied it to analyse the skin of the bobtail squid Euprymna berryi and the European cuttlefish Sepia officinalis.

(3) The tool is open-source and easy to install. The paper describes in detail the command format to complete each task and provides relevant sample figures.

Weaknesses:

(1) The generality and robustness of the proposed pipeline need to be verified through more experimental evaluations. For example, the implementation algorithm depends on relatively specific or obvious image features, clean backgrounds, and objects that do not move too fast.

(2) The pipeline lacks some kind of self-correction mechanism. If at one moment there is a conflicting match with the previous frames, how does the system automatically handle it to ensure that the tracking results are accurate over a long period of time?

We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. CHROMAS does rely on relatively clean imaging conditions for optimal performance. However, the computational features of the pipeline — segmentation, tracking, and downstream analysis — have been designed to perform reliably as long as the segmentation models are trained on frames that reflect the diversity of the dataset (e.g., variations in lighting or minor background noise). It is correct, however, that acquiring the necessary quality of input data is both important and non-trivial. The pipeline is designed to work best with high-resolution footage of chromatophores under clear imaging conditions — specifically, with minimal water surface distortion, minimal particulate matter in the water column, and stable focus.

To mitigate issues arising from motion blur or focus loss, CHROMAS includes an automatic frame quality control step that detects and discards frames that are out of focus, including those where the animal moves too fast for reliable tracking.

To assist future users, we have now added a section under Discussion detailing the recommended recording conditions and video characteristics for effective analysis with CHROMAS. It reads:

Recommended Video Parameters for Optimal Use of CHROMAS

The performance of CHROMAS depends on the quality of the input videos. Although the pipeline analyses each frame independently and has no frame rate requirement, we recommend recording at 20 frames per second at least, to capture chromatophore dynamics accurately. Sharp, in-focus frames are critical, particularly for moving subjects, where higher shutter speeds help minimize motion blur. For reliable segmentation, each chromatophore should cover at least 10 pixels across its fully expanded diameter. Higher spatial resolution, with chromatophores covering around 50 pixels in diameter, are recommended if sub-chromatophore dynamics are of interest. Recording conditions should minimize background noise, and the water column should be as clear as possible, free of particles or debris. The water surface should be kept as calm and planar as possible to avoid optical artifacts. If wide-angle lenses or other optics that may introduce distortion are used, lens correction algorithms should be applied during preprocessing to compensate for the optical distortions. For long-term tracking applications (e.g., developmental studies), frequent imaging sessions are recommended. Newly differentiated chromatophores are initially light colored (e.g., yellow) and thus visually distinct from mature chromatophores (which are dark); over days to weeks, however, the light chromatophores darken and become increasingly difficult to differentiate from older ones. Recording at appropriate and regular intervals thus helps track individual chromatophores across developmental stages and improves the reliability of long-term analyses. Following these recommendations will help segmentation, tracking, and analysis with CHROMAS.

CHROMAS does not implement an active self-correction mechanism in the sense of real-time error recovery. Yet, several steps are in place to ensure the reliability of registration and tracking over time. During registration, a set of points is tracked across frames using optical flow. If the displacement of a point between two frames exceeds a biologically plausible threshold, that point is automatically discarded from the registration calculation to prevent error propagation. If too many points are discarded, the registration step fails, preventing the acceptance of a poor alignment.

In addition, masterframes (the averages of all aligned frames in a chunk) are generated at the end of the registration process to enable the visual verification of the quality of the mapping.

During stitching, CHROMAS calculates reprojection errors between chunks, providing a quantitative measure of stitching validity and allowing users to detect and correct potential mismatches.

We have revised the Results section to explicitly highlight the error-checking mechanisms implemented during registration and stitching to maintain tracking accuracy over time.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Figures 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 showed the bobtail squid, however, all command lines for these figures were referred to "sepia_example.dataset".

We thank the reviewer for noticing this inconsistency. We have corrected the labeling of the dataset name in the command line examples from "sepia_example.dataset" to the neutral term "example.dataset" to avoid any confusion regarding the species used in the figures.

(2) It's excellent that Chromas includes a manual pre-alignment function. However, it's unclear how the authors determined the registration of selected chromatophores across different ages in the long-term tracking session. Given the rapid growth of cephalopods and presumably skin expansion with increased chromatophores, it would be helpful to provide more details or examples on this process.

The manual pre-alignment function provides an interactive interface allowing the user to select a set of matching chromatophores across frames from different developmental stages. The accuracy of this process depends on the user's ability to recognize individual chromatophores reliably over time. Critically, it is not necessary to identify all those chromatophores; a representative subset is sufficient to interpolate the spatial mapping and align the surrounding chromatophores.

To limit the potential challenges associated with chromatophore development, frequent imaging sessions (every few days) are recommended initially. Excessive intervals between recordings can result in relative displacements among existing chromatophores and the sudden appearance of newly matured chromatophores, both of which complicate manual matching.

It should be noted that these challenges are not limitations of the CHROMAS pipeline itself, but rather relate to experimental design choices that affect the quality and traceability of the dataset. The exact parameters (e.g., size/duration of the datasets, spatial resolution, frame rate and intervals between recording sessions) to be used must be adapted to each experimental animal, each age, and ultimately, each question.

Recommended video acquisition parameters, including guidance on recording frequency for long-term chromatophore tracking, have been added to the Discussion section.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) More detailed information should be given, such as operating system requirements, camera frame rate requirements, target size and speed limitations, when chunking videos into usable segments, the minimum length of each segment, etc.

CHROMAS is platform-independent and requires only a functioning Python 3.9+ environment, regardless of the operating system or OS version, as described in “Methods – Implementation details”.

Although CHROMAS does not require specific frame rates and because it analyses each frame independently, the quality of each image—and thus of imaging parameters—is critical to enable reliable chromatophore segmentation. If an animal remains relatively calm during recording, low shutter speeds will be adequate for image sharpness. Conversely, if the animal moves frequently or rapidly, it will be preferable to use a higher frame rate and a higher shutter speed to minimize motion blur. Recording parameters should therefore be adjusted accordingly, primarily to optimize image clarity and maintain frames in sharp focus.

The frame rate should be sufficiently high also to capture the fast dynamics of chromatophore expansions and contractions. Although the pipeline has no specific frame rate requirement, we recommend image rates of at least 20 frames per second to sample the temporal patterns of chromatophore activity adequately, based on biological considerations.

Each chromatophore should be represented by a sufficiently large number of pixels in each recorded image to enable the reliable estimation of its size, shape, and dynamics. If the spatial resolution is too low, individual chromatophores may appear as small pixel clusters, reducing the accuracy of area and shape measurements and introducing quantization artifacts. Based on our experience, we recommend recording conditions that result in each chromatophore covering at least 10 pixels across its diameter when fully expanded to ensure accurate segmentation and quantitative whole-chromatophore analysis. For sub-chromatophore motion analysis, we recommend a minimum of 50 pixels across the fully expanded diameter.

These considerations relate to optimizing biological sampling and image quality for analysis, and are not technical requirements imposed by CHROMAS itself.

We added a Discussion section outlining the recommended recording conditions and video parameters to facilitate effective use of CHROMAS.

(2) This pipeline does not include functionality to correct for lens distortion, which may affect the results when accurate measurement of single chromatophore morphology is required.

We thank the reviewer for this observation. We agree that lens distortion can affect the accurate measurement of chromatophore morphology if present. However, the current datasets analysed with CHROMAS were recorded using a long macro lens with minimal distortion, and visual inspections as well as quantitative assessments of chromatophore geometry did not indicate measurable optical deformation. We acknowledge that for other imaging setups —particularly those relying on the use of wide-angle lenses— lens distortion could introduce artifacts. In such cases, we recommend applying standard lens distortion correction during preprocessing, prior to analysis with CHROMAS.

We have also addressed this point in the newly added section under the Discussion.

(3) How to perform expansion for single chromatophores shown in Figure 6, and how to keep the expansion area consistent?

The graph in Figure 6 illustrates the expansion of a single chromatophore over time and was generated entirely using the "areas" command and visualization tools available within CHROMAS.

Spatial consistency is maintained because CHROMAS, through its registration and area extraction steps, tracks the identity of each chromatophore across the video, allowing the same individual to be followed reliably over time.

(4) Tables 1 and 2: it's better to add the units of the values in each column.<br />

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have added the appropriate units to each column in Tables 1 and 2 to improve clarity.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors aimed to enhance the effectiveness of PARP inhibitors (PARPi) in treating high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) by inhibiting PRMT1/5 enzymes. They conducted a drug screen combining PARPi with 74 epigenetic modulators to identify promising combinations.

Zhang et al. reported that protein arginine methyltransferase (PRMT) 1/5 inhibition acts synergistically to enhance the sensitivity of Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) in high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) cells. The authors are the first to perform a drug screen by combining PARPi with 74 well-characterized epigenetic modulators that target five major classes of epigenetic enzymes. Their drug screen identified both PRMT1/5 inhibitors with high combination and clinical priority scores in PARPi treatment. Notably, PRMT1/5 inhibitors significantly enhance PARPi treatment-induced DNA damage in HR-proficient HGSOC and TNBC cells through enhanced maintenance of gene expression associated with DNA damage repair, BRCAness, and intrinsic innate immune pathways in cancer cells. Additionally, bioinformatic analysis of large-scale genomic and functional profiles from TCGA and DepMap further supports that PRMT1/5 are potential therapeutic targets in oncology, including HGSOC and TNBC. These results provide a strong rationale for the clinical application of a combination of PRMT and PARP inhibitors in patients with HR-proficient ovarian and breast cancer. Thus, this discovery has a high impact on developing novel therapeutic approaches to overcome resistance to PARPi in clinical cancer therapy. The data and presentation in this manuscript are straightforward and reliable.

Strengths:

(1) Innovative Approach: First to screen PARPi with a large panel of epigenetic modulators.

(2) Significant Results: Found that PRMT1/5 inhibitors significantly boost PARPi effectiveness in HR-proficient HGSOC and TNBC cells.

(3) Mechanistic Insights: Showed how PRMT1/5 inhibitors enhance DNA damage repair and immune pathways.

(4) Robust Data: Supported by extensive bioinformatic analysis from large genomic databases.

Weaknesses:

(1) Novelty Clarification: Needs clearer comparison to existing studies showing similar effects.

(2) Unclear Mechanisms: More investigation is needed on how MYC targets correlate with PRMT1/5.

(3) Inconsistent Data: ERCC1 expression results varied across cell lines.

(4) Limited Immune Study: Using immunodeficient mice does not fully explore immune responses.

(5) Statistical Methods: Should use one-way ANOVA instead of a two-tailed Student's t-test for multiple comparisons.

We sincerely thank Reviewer #1 for the insightful and constructive feedback, as well as for the kind acknowledgment of the significance of our work: “These results provide a strong rationale for the clinical application of a combination of PRMT and PARP inhibitors in patients with HR-proficient ovarian and breast cancer. Thus, this discovery has a high impact on developing novel therapeutic approaches to overcome resistance to PARPi in clinical cancer therapy. The data and presentation in this manuscript are straightforward and reliable.” We greatly appreciate the reviewer #1’s thoughtful comments, which have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. In response, we conducted additional experiments and analyses, and made comprehensive revisions to the text, figures, and supplementary materials. In the “Recommendations for the authors” sections, we have provided point-by-point responses to each of the reviewer’s comments, which were immensely helpful in guiding our revisions. We believe these updates have substantially strengthened the manuscript and have fully addressed all reviewer concerns.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors show that a combination of arginine methyltransferase inhibitors synergize with PARP inhibitors to kill ovarian and triple-negative cancer cell lines in vitro and in vivo using preclinical mouse models.

PARP inhibitors have been the common targeted-therapy options to treat high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). PRMTs are oncological therapeutic targets and specific inhibitors have been developed. However, due to the insufficiency of PRMTi or PARPi single treatment for HGSOC and TNBC, designing novel combinations of existing inhibitors is necessary. In previous studies, the authors and others developed an "induced PARPi sensitivity by epigenetic modulation" strategy to target resistant tumors. In this study, the authors presented a triple combination of PRMT1i, PRMT5i and PARPi that synergistically kills TNBC cells. A drug screen and RNA-seq analysis were performed to indicate cancer cell growth dependency of PRMT1 and PRMT5, and their CRISPR/Cas9 knockout sensitizes cancer cells to PARPi treatment. It was shown that the cells accumulate DNA damage and have increased caspase 3/7 activity. RNA-seq analysis identified BRCAness genes, and the authors closely studied a top hit ERCC1 as a downregulated DNA damage protein in PRMT inhibitor treatments. ERCC1 is known to be synthetic lethal with PARP inhibitors. Thus, the authors add back ERCC1 and reduce the effects of PRMT inhibitors suggesting PRMT inhibitors mediate, in part, their effect via ERCC1 downregulation. The combination therapy (PRMT/PARP) is validated in 2D cultures of cell lines (OVCAR3, 8 and MDA-MB-231) and has shown to be effective in nude mice with MDA-MB-231 xenograph models.

Strengths and weaknesses:

Overall, the data is well-presented. The experiments are well-performed, convincing, and have the appropriate controls (using inhibitors and genetic deletions) and statistics.

They identify the DNA damage protein ERCC1 to be reduced in expression with PRMT inhibitors. As ERCC1 is known to be synthetic lethal with PARPi, this provides a mechanism for the synergy. They use cell lines only for their study in 2D as well as xenograph models.

We sincerely thank Reviewer #2 for the insightful and constructive feedback, as well as for the kind acknowledgment of the significance of our work: “Overall, the data are well-presented. The experiments are well-performed, convincing, and supported by appropriate controls (using inhibitors and genetic deletions) and statistics.” We greatly appreciate the reviewer #2’s thoughtful comments, which have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. In response, we conducted additional experiments and analyses, and made comprehensive revisions to the text, figures, and supplementary materials. In the “Recommendations for the authors” sections, we have provided point-by-point responses to each of the reviewer’s comments, which were immensely helpful in guiding our revisions. We believe these updates have substantially strengthened the manuscript and have fully addressed all reviewer concerns.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Recent studies have revealed promising synergistic effects between PRMT inhibitors and chemotherapy, as well as DDR-targeting drugs (ref. 89-92). In the discussion, the authors should highlight what is novel in this study compared to the reported studies.

We thank the reviewer for this important comment and fully agree that prior studies have demonstrated the potential of PRMT inhibitors to enhance the efficacy of DNA damage-targeting agents and certain chemotherapies[1-4]. In response to the reviewer’s constructive suggestion, we have now revised the discussion to highlight the novel aspects of our study compared to previously reported findings. Specifically, our work presents several key advances that go beyond prior studies. Below, we would like to emphasize the novelty of our current study as follows:

In the clinic, a strategy termed “induced PARP inhibitor (PARPi) sensitivity by epigenetic modulation” is being evaluated to sensitize homologous recombination (HR)-proficient tumors to PARPi treatments. Together with other groups, we reported that repression of BET activity significantly reduces the expression levels of essential HR genes by inhibiting their super-enhancers[5]. This preclinical discovery is now being assessed in a Phase 1b/2 clinical trial combining the BET inhibitor ZEN-3694 with the PARPi talazoparib for the treatment of patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) who do not carry germline BRCA1/2 mutations. Promising anti-tumor activity has been observed in this ongoing trial[6]. Importantly, gene expression profiles from paired tumor biopsies demonstrated robust target engagement, evidenced by repression of BRCA1 and RAD51 mRNA expression, consistent with our preclinical findings in xenograft models. Based on these encouraging results, the trial is being expanded to a Phase 2b stage to enroll additional TNBC patients. Moreover, other combination strategies[7-13] based on this “induced PARPi sensitivity by epigenetic modulation” approach have also shown promising clinical responses in both intrinsic and acquired HR-proficient settings. Notably, these clinical studies indicate that the strategy is well-tolerated, likely due to cancer cells being particularly sensitive to epigenetic repression of DNA damage response (DDR) genes, compared with normal cells.

However, two key clinical challenges remain for broader application of this strategy in oncology: 1) which clinically actionable epigenetic drugs can produce the strongest synergistic effects with PARPi? and 2) can a BRCA-independent approach be developed? To address these questions, we performed a drug screen combining the FDA-approved PARPi olaparib with a panel of clinically relevant epigenetic drugs. This panel includes 74 well-characterized epigenetic modulators targeting five major classes of epigenetic enzymes, comprising 7 FDA-approved drugs, 14 agents in clinical trials, and 54 in preclinical development. Notably, both type I PRMT inhibitors (PRMTi) and PRMT5 inhibitors (PRMT5i) achieved high combination and clinical prioritization scores in the screen. Functional assays demonstrated that PRMT inhibition markedly enhances PARPi-induced DNA damage in HR-proficient cancer cell lines. In line with a strong positive correlation between PRMT and DDR gene expression across primary tumors, we observed that PRMT activity supports the transcription of DDR genes and maintains a BRCAness-like phenotype in cancer cells. These findings provide strong rationale for clinical development of PRMT/PARPi combinations in patients with HR-proficient ovarian or breast cancers. Mechanistic characterization from our study further supports PRMTi clinical development by elucidating mechanisms of action, identifying rational combinations, defining predictive biomarkers, and guiding dosing strategies.

We believe our studies will be of significant interest to the cancer research community for several reasons. First, they address major clinical challenges in women’s cancers, specifically, high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) and TNBC, both of which are aggressive malignancies with limited therapeutic options. Second, they offer a novel solution to overcome PARPi resistance. Our earlier discovery of “induced PARPi sensitivity by epigenetic modulation” has already shown promising clinical results and represents a new path to overcome both primary and acquired resistance to PARPi and platinum therapies. Third, they focus on a clinically translatable drug class. Selective and potent PRMT inhibitors have been developed by leading pharmaceutical companies, with more than ten currently in advanced clinical trials. Fourth, they support mechanism-driven combination strategies. Preclinical evaluation of PRMTi-based combinations with other therapeutic agents is urgently needed for future clinical success. Finally, our work highlights understudied but therapeutically relevant mechanisms in cancer biology. In-depth mechanistic analysis of the PRMT regulome is essential, and our studies provide important new insights into how PRMTs regulate transcription, RNA splicing, DNA damage repair, and anti-tumor immune responses in the context of HGSOC and TNBC.

In summary, our study identifies PRMT1 and PRMT5 as key epigenetic regulators of DNA damage repair and shows that their inhibition sensitizes HR-proficient tumors to PARP inhibitors by repressing transcription and altering splicing of BRCAness genes. Distinct from prior strategies, dual inhibition of type I PRMT and PRMT5 exhibits strong synergy, allowing for lower-dose combination treatments that may reduce toxicity. Our findings also nominate ERCC1 as a potential predictive biomarker and suggest that MYC-driven tumors may be particularly responsive to this approach. Collectively, these results offer a mechanistic rationale and translational framework to broaden the clinical application of PARP inhibitors.

(2) In Figures 3H-J, MYC targets were likely to correlate with the expression levels of PRMT1/PRMT5 in various public datasets, supporting previous reports that the Myc-PRMT loop plays critical roles during tumorigenesis (ref. 45). "Myc-targets" signatures were also the most significant signatures correlated with the expression of PRMT1 and PRMT5. The authors suggest that under MYC-hyperactivated conditions, tumors may be extremely sensitive to PRMT inhibitors or PRMTi/PARPi combination. However, the underlying mechanism remains unclear.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the critical and insightful comments. We fully agree that more direct evidence is needed to establish the regulatory relationship between MYC and PRMT1/5. To investigate the effect of c-Myc on PRMT1 and PRMT5 expression, we analyzed RNA-seq data from P493-6 Burkitt lymphoma cells, which harbor a tetracycline (Tet)-repressible MYC transgene. In this system, MYC expression can be suppressed to very low levels and then reactivated, enabling a gradual increase in c-Myc protein levels[14]. Upon Tet removal to induce MYC expression, we observed a robust upregulation of both PRMT1 (4.3-fold) and PRMT5 (3.6-fold) RNA levels within 24 hours, as measured by RNA-seq. These findings indicate that MYC activation can transcriptionally upregulate PRMT1 and PRMT5. To determine whether this regulation is directly driven by MYC, we further analyzed MYC ChIP-seq profiles from the same cell line following 24 hours of MYC induction. Consistently, we observed remarkably increased MYC binding at the promoter regions of both PRMT1 and PRMT5 genes. Interestingly, MYC’s regulatory influence was not limited to PRMT1 and PRMT5, we also observed transcriptional upregulation of other PRMT family members, including PRMT3, PRMT4, and PRMT6, in response to MYC activation. Together with the data presented in Figure 3H, these new results strongly suggest that MYC directly upregulates the expression of PRMT family genes by binding to their promoter regions. Consequently, increased PRMT expression may facilitate MYC’s regulation of target gene expression and splicing in cancer cells. In cancers with MYC hyperactivation, this feed-forward loop may be amplified, creating a potential therapeutic vulnerability. In response to the reviewer’s insightful suggestion, we have further explored how MYC regulates PRMT1/5 and whether this regulation modulates the efficacy of PRMT inhibitors in oncology. These unpublished observations are currently being prepared for a separate manuscript, and we have now incorporated a discussion of these unpublished findings into the revised version of this manuscript. We thank the reviewer again for the thoughtful and constructive comments regarding the MYC–PRMT regulatory axis.

(3) In Figure 5F, ERCC1 expression was unlikely to be reduced in cells treated with GSK025, especially in OVCAR8 cells, although other cells, including TNBC cells, are dramatically changed after treatment.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the critical and insightful comments. We agree with the reviewer that in Figure 5F, although GSK025 treatment reduced ERCC1 expression, the loading control Tubulin also showed a notable decrease in the OVCAR8 cell line. This may be because Tubulin expression is not specifically affected by the chemical inhibitor GSK025 in this particular cell line, or it may be secondarily reduced as a consequence of PRMT inhibitor-induced cell death. As the reviewer pointed out, this phenomenon was not observed in other cell lines, suggesting that the effect on Tubulin is not specific to PRMT inhibition. To further investigate, we employed CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knockout of PRMT1 or PRMT5 in OVCAR8 cells, a more specific genetic approach to inhibit PRMT activity. In both cases, ERCC1 expression was significantly reduced, whereas Tubulin levels remained stable (Figure 5G). These results support the conclusion that PRMT1 and PRMT5 specifically regulate ERCC1 expression in OVCAR8 cells. The inconsistent effect on Tubulin is likely due to nonspecific cellular responses to chemical inhibition, which are generally more variable and less precise than those induced by genetic perturbation.

(4) In Figure 7H-L, MDA-MB-231 cells were implanted subcutaneously in nude immunodeficient mice to confirm the synergistic therapeutic action of the PRMTi/PARPi combination in vivo. Although PRMT inhibition activates intrinsic innate immune pathways in cancer cells, suggesting that PRMTi treatments may enhance intrinsic immune reactions in tumor cells, the use of nude immune deficient mice means that changes in the tumor immune microenvironment remain unknown.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the critical and insightful comments. We fully agree with the reviewer that our in vivo experiments using the human cancer cell line MDA-MB-231 in immunodeficient nude mice limit our ability to assess changes in the tumor immune microenvironment. We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important limitation. While the primary goal of the current study was to investigate the therapeutic synergy between PRMT inhibition and PARP inhibition in cancer cells, we would like to take this opportunity to share additional unpublished data that further support and extend the reviewer’s point regarding the immunomodulatory effects of PRMT inhibitors. In syngeneic mouse tumor models, we have observed that the combination of PRMT inhibition and PARP inhibition leads to a more robust anti-tumor immune response compared to either treatment alone. Specifically, we found increased infiltration of CD8⁺ cytotoxic T cells within the tumor microenvironment, suggesting enhanced immune activation and tumor immunogenicity. Furthermore, we have also obtained preliminary evidence that PRMT inhibition can potentiate immune checkpoint blockade therapy. Mechanistically, this may be mediated through the activation of the STING1 pathway and the upregulation of splicing-derived neoantigens, both of which have been implicated in promoting tumor immune visibility. These findings indicate that beyond enhancing DNA damage response, PRMT inhibition may have a broader impact on tumor-immune interactions and could serve as a promising strategy to sensitize tumors to immunotherapy. A separate manuscript detailing these results is currently in preparation and will be submitted for publication as an independent research article. In light of the reviewer’s thoughtful suggestions and in consideration of feedback from Reviewer #2, who recommended removing Figure 6 from the manuscript, we have carefully reevaluated the overall organization of the manuscript. Given the scope and focus of the current work, as well as the desire to maintain a concise and coherent narrative, we decided to move the content originally presented in Figure 6 to the supplementary materials. This figure is now included as Supplementary Figure S5 in the revised version of the manuscript. We believe this change helps streamline the main text while still making the additional data available for interested readers.

(5) In Figures 6-7, a two-tailed Student's t-test was used to determine the statistical differences among multiple comparisons, which should be performed by one-way ANOVA followed by a post hoc test.

We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful and important comment regarding the choice of statistical method. We fully agree with the reviewer that one-way ANOVA followed by a post hoc test is one of the standard approaches for multiple group comparisons. In response to the suggestion, we have performed one-way ANOVA on our data and found that the statistical conclusions are consistent with those obtained from the two-tailed Student’s t-tests. For example, in the first panel of Figure 6A (OVCAR8 treated with GSK715), one-way ANOVA (p = 1.1 × 10^-6), followed by Tukey’s HSD test, confirmed significant differences between control and Olaparib (p = 0.000165), control and GSK715 (p = 0.000145), control and combination (p = 6.067 × 10^-7), Olaparib and combination (p = 0.0003523), and GSK715 and combination (p = 0.0004015), consistent with the conclusions from the two-tailed t-test shown in Figure 6H. Additionally, we would like to explain why two-tailed Student’s t-tests were used in our current study. When comparisons are predefined and conducted pairwise (i.e., two groups at a time), a two-tailed Student’s t-test is statistically equivalent to one-way ANOVA for those comparisons. In our study, each comparison involved only two groups, and we therefore chose t-tests for hypothesis-driven, specific comparisons rather than exploratory multiple testing. This approach aligns with valid statistical principles. All statistical analyses presented in Figures 6-7 were designed to evaluate specific, biologically meaningful comparisons (e.g., treatment vs. control or treatment A vs treatment B). The study was hypothesis-driven, not exploratory, and did not involve simultaneous comparisons across multiple groups. In such cases, the t-test provides a more direct and interpretable result for targeted comparisons. The use of Student’s t-tests reflects the focused nature of the analysis, where each test directly addresses a specific biological question rather than a global group comparison. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comments on the statistical methods.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) If the authors kept the tumors of various sizes in Figure 7I, it would be important to assess the protein and/or mRNA level of ERCC1 to further support their mechanism.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the insightful comments. We fully agree that evaluating ERCC1 expression in drug-treated tumor samples is critical to support the proposed mechanism. Due to the limited volume of tumor specimens and extensive necrosis observed after three weeks of treatment in the condition used for Figure 7I, we were unable to obtain sufficient material for expression analysis in the original cohort. To address this, we conducted an additional experiment using xenograft-bearing mice (MDA-MB-231 model), initiating treatment when tumors reached approximately 200 mm³ to ensure adequate tissue collection. We also shortened the treatment duration to 7 days to assess early molecular responses to therapy, rather than downstream effects. Consistent with our in vitro results, both GSK715 and GSK025 significantly reduced ERCC1 RNA expression (0.79 ± 0.17, p = 0.03; 0.82 ± 0.11, p = 0.02, respectively), and the combination treatment further decreased ERCC1 expression (0.49 ± 0.20, p = 0.0003), as determined by qRT-PCR. A two-tailed Student’s t-test was used for statistical analysis. In this experiment, we used the same dosing regimen as in the three-week treatment shown in Figure 7I. Importantly, the shorter treatment period and moderate tumor size at treatment initiation minimized necrosis and did not significantly affect tumor growth, allowing for reliable molecular evaluation. We sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting this important point.

(2) Figure 2G: please explain why two bands remain for sgPRMT1.

We greatly appreciate the reviewer for raising this insightful and important question. As the reviewer pointed out, an additional band appeared after PRMT1 knockdown in OVCAR8 cells using two sequence-independent gRNAs. Notably, this band was not observed in MDA-MB-231 cells. The antibody used to detect PRMT1 (clone A33, #2449, Cell Signaling Technology) is widely adopted in PRMT1 research, with over 65 citations supporting its specificity. Interestingly, previous studies[15] have identified seven PRMT1 isoforms (v1–v7), generated through alternative splicing and exhibiting tissue-specific expression patterns. Of these, three isoforms are detectable using the A33 antibody. We believe the additional band observed upon sgRNA treatment likely represents a PRMT1 isoform that is normally expressed at low levels in OVCAR8 cells. Upon knockdown of the major isoforms by CRISPR/Cas9, expression of this minor isoform may have increased as part of a compensatory feedback mechanism, rendering it detectable by immunoblotting. Because PRMT1 isoform expression is largely tissue-type specific, it is not surprising that the same band was absent in MDA-MB-231 cells, which are derived from a different lineage than OVCAR8 cells. The reviewer raised an important question regarding the role of PRMT1 isoforms in regulating DNA damage response in cancer. We agree this is an intriguing direction and will investigate it further in future studies.

(3) Figure 4D: Please correct the figure legend so the description matches the color in the figure. Red and blue are absent.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the critical and insightful comments. The figure legend for Figure 4D has been corrected in the revised version of the manuscript to accurately match the colors shown in the figure. We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue.

(4) Figure 7A and B: please indicate the cell lines used.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the critical and insightful comments. In Figure 7A and 7B, human embryonic kidney 293T (HEK293T) cells were used due to their high transfection efficiency and widespread application in reporter assays. This information has been incorporated into the figure legend for Figures 7A and 7B.

(5) What is the link with ERCC1 splicing because reduced overall ERCC1 expression is clear?

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the critical and insightful comments. As the reviewer pointed out, although the direct impact of ERCC1 alternative splicing on its protein expression remains to be fully elucidated, it is likely that PRMT inhibition induces aberrant splicing events that result in the production of alternative ERCC1 isoforms with impaired or altered function. These splicing changes may compromise ERCC1’s role in DNA repair pathways. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 4G, we observed a reduction in the total ERCC1 mRNA reads following PRMTi treatment. This decrease may be attributed, at least in part, to the instability of the alternatively spliced ERCC1 transcripts, which could be more prone to degradation. In combination with the transcriptional downregulation of ERCC1 induced by PRMT inhibition, these alternative splicing events may lead to a further reduction in functional ERCC1 protein levels. This dual impact on ERCC1 expression, through both decreased transcription and the generation of unstable or non-functional isoforms, likely contributes to the enhanced cellular sensitivity to PARP inhibitors observed in our study. We believe this represents an important mechanistic insight into how PRMT inhibition modulates the DNA damage response in cancer cells, and further studies are warranted to investigate the precise role of ERCC1 splicing regulation in this context. We thank the reviewer for pointing out this interesting future research direction.

(6) Figure 7J: From the graph, it seems like Olaparib+G715 and G715+G025 have a similar effect on tumor volume (two curves overlap). Please discuss.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the critical and insightful comments. In the current study, the doses used for single-agent treatments were selected based on prior publications. For example, the dose of GSK715 was guided by a recent study from the GSK group[16]. Our in vitro and in vivo findings, together with previously published data, consistently demonstrate that GSK715 is more potent than both GSK025 and Olaparib. Notably, treatment with GSK715 alone led to significantly greater inhibition of tumor growth compared to either GSK025 or Olaparib administered individually. This higher potency of GSK715 also explains the comparable levels of tumor suppression observed in the combination groups, including GSK715 plus Olaparib and GSK715 plus GSK025. These results suggest that GSK715 is likely the primary driver of efficacy in the two drug combination settings. Importantly, this observation provides a valuable opportunity to further refine and optimize the dosing strategy for GSK715. Specifically, because GSK715 is highly potent, its dose may be reduced when used in combination regimens without compromising therapeutic efficacy. This approach could significantly improve the safety profile of GSK715 by minimizing potential dose-related toxicities, thereby enhancing its suitability for future clinical development in combination therapy contexts.

(7) Discussion: "PRMT5i increased global sDMA levels"-> "... aDMA levels.".

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the critical and insightful comments. In response, we have corrected the sentence in the discussion from “PRMT5i increased global sDMA levels, which suggested that type I PRMT and PRMT5 share a substrate (i.e., MMA) and/or their functions are compensatory” to “PRMT1i increased global sDMA levels, which suggested that type I PRMT and PRMT5 share a substrate (i.e., MMA) and/or their functions are compensatory.” We apologize for the misstatement and have corrected this error in the revised version of the manuscript.

(8) In addition to the methods, add that nude mice were used in the body of the results and the figure legend for Figure 7J.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the critical and insightful comments. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have added that immunodeficient nude mice were used in both the body of the Results section and the figure legend for Figure 7J, in addition to the Methods section. We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion.

(9) Figure 6 can be deleted to focus the manuscript. It does not add to the PARP inhibition story, but only suggests a link to immunotherapy where this has been reported previously PMID: 35578032 and 32641491.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the critical and insightful comments. Reviewer #1 also raised a related concern regarding the relevance of this section to the main focus of the manuscript. In consideration of both reviewers’ comments, we have decided to move the data previously shown in Figure 6 to the supplementary section as Supplementary Figure S5. This revision allows us to streamline the main text and maintain a clear focus on the core findings related to PARP inhibition. At the same time, we believe the immunotherapy-related observation may still be of interest to some readers. By presenting these results in the supplementary materials, we ensure that this potentially relevant link remains accessible without distracting from the primary narrative of the manuscript. We greatly appreciate the reviewers’ guidance in helping us improve the clarity and focus of our work. We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful suggestion.

References

(1) Dominici, C., et al. Synergistic effects of type I PRMT and PARP inhibitors against non-small cell lung cancer cells. Clin Epigenetics 13, 54 (2021).

(2) O'Brien, S., et al. Inhibiting PRMT5 induces DNA damage and increases anti-proliferative activity of Niraparib, a PARP inhibitor, in models of breast and ovarian cancer. BMC Cancer 23, 775 (2023).

(3) Carter, J., et al. PRMT5 Inhibitors Regulate DNA Damage Repair Pathways in Cancer Cells and Improve Response to PARP Inhibition and Chemotherapies. Cancer Res Commun 3, 2233-2243 (2023).

(4) Li, Y., et al. PRMT blockade induces defective DNA replication stress response and synergizes with PARP inhibition. Cell Rep Med 4, 101326 (2023).

(5) Yang, L., et al. Repression of BET activity sensitizes homologous recombination-proficient cancers to PARP inhibition. Sci Transl Med 9(2017).

(6) Aftimos, P.G., et al. A phase 1b/2 study of the BET inhibitor ZEN-3694 in combination with talazoparib for treatment of patients with TNBC without gBRCA1/2 mutations. Journal of Clinical Oncology 40, 1023-1023 (2022).

(7) Karakashev, S., et al. BET Bromodomain Inhibition Synergizes with PARP Inhibitor in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Cell Rep 21, 3398-3405 (2017).

(8) Sun, C., et al. BRD4 Inhibition Is Synthetic Lethal with PARP Inhibitors through the Induction of Homologous Recombination Deficiency. Cancer Cell 33, 401-416 e408 (2018).

(9) Johnson, S.F., et al. CDK12 Inhibition Reverses De Novo and Acquired PARP Inhibitor Resistance in BRCA Wild-Type and Mutated Models of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Cell Rep 17, 2367-2381 (2016).

(10) Iniguez, A.B., et al. EWS/FLI Confers Tumor Cell Synthetic Lethality to CDK12 Inhibition in Ewing Sarcoma. Cancer Cell 33, 202-216 e206 (2018).

(11) Shan, W., et al. Systematic Characterization of Recurrent Genomic Alterations in Cyclin-Dependent Kinases Reveals Potential Therapeutic Strategies for Cancer Treatment. Cell Rep 32, 107884 (2020).

(12) Muvarak, N.E., et al. Enhancing the Cytotoxic Effects of PARP Inhibitors with DNA Demethylating Agents - A Potential Therapy for Cancer. Cancer Cell 30, 637-650 (2016).

(13) Abbotts, R., et al. DNA methyltransferase inhibitors induce a BRCAness phenotype that sensitizes NSCLC to PARP inhibitor and ionizing radiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 116, 22609-22618 (2019).

(14) Lin, C.Y., et al. Transcriptional amplification in tumor cells with elevated c-Myc. Cell 151, 56-67 (2012).

(15) Goulet, I., Gauvin, G., Boisvenue, S. & Cote, J. Alternative splicing yields protein arginine methyltransferase 1 isoforms with distinct activity, substrate specificity, and subcellular localization. J Biol Chem 282, 33009-33021 (2007).

(16) Fedoriw, A., et al. Anti-tumor Activity of the Type I PRMT Inhibitor, GSK3368715, Synergizes with PRMT5 Inhibition through MTAP Loss. Cancer Cell 36, 100-114 e125 (2019).

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study uses a cell-based computational model to simulate and study T cell development in the thymus. They initially applied this model to assess the effect of the thymic epithelial cells (TECs) network on thymocyte proliferation and demonstrated that increasing TEC size, density, or protrusions increased the number of thymocytes. They postulated and confirmed that this was due to changes in IL7 signalling and then expanded this work to encompass various environmental and cell-based parameters, including Notch signalling, cell cycle duration, and cell motility. Critical outcomes from the computational model were tested in vivo using medaka fish, such as the role of IL-7 signalling and minimal effect of Notch signalling.

Strengths:

The strength of the paper is the use of computational modelling to obtain unique insights into the niche parameters that control T cell development, such as the role of TEC architecture, while anchoring those findings with in vivo experiments. I can't comment on the model itself, as I am not an expert in modelling, however, the conclusions of the paper seem to be wellsupported by the model.

Weaknesses:

One potential issue is that many of the conclusions are drawn from the number of thymocytes, or related parameters such as the thymic size or proliferation of the thymocytes. The study only touches briefly on the influence of the thymic niche on other aspects of thymocyte behaviour, such as their differentiation and death.

We thank the reviewer for this constructive feedback. Indeed, the strength of our approach lies in the close cooperation between modellers and experimentalists. One advantage of the model is its ability to manipulate challenging or even impossible variables, such as TEC dimensions, which cannot be varied experimentally with current tools. 

The reviewer rightly pointed out that our validation focuses on comparing cell numbers or organ size as a proxy for cell numbers.

In our previous study (Aghaallaei et al., Science Advances, 2021), we focused more on differentiation and used the computational model to predict how proportions of T-cell sublineages would vary according to different parameter values, including the IL-7 availability. One of the initial inspirations for the focus on proliferation in this manuscript was the observation in this previous work that overexpression of IL-7 in the niche resulted in overproliferation. We also focused on proliferation and organ size because these are more easily measured in experimental conditions with the tools that we have available in medaka, allowing better comparisons to the computational results.

Regarding cell death, our experimental observations do not suggest that it plays a role before the final stages of T cell maturation. Hence, the model also does not include apoptosis before this stage either. 

However, we do agree that taking a closer look at the regulation of differentiation and cell death would be an exciting avenue for future study!

Please see our response to author recommendations below for more information on these points. Moreover, to make the model more accessible to non-experts, we have created new schematic figures, which we can be found in the Appendix of the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have worked up a ``virtual thymus' using EPISIM, which has already been published. Attractive features of the computational model are stochasticity, cell-to-cell variability, and spatial heterogeneity. They seek to explore the role of TECs, that release IL-7 which is important in the process of thymocyte division.

In the model, ordinary clones have IL7R levels chosen from a distribution, while `lesioned' clones have an IL7R value set to the maximum. The observation is that the lesioned clones are larger families, but the difference is not dramatic. This might be called a cell-intrinsic mechanism. One promising cell-extrinsic mechanism is mentioned: if a lesioned clone happens to be near a source of IL-7 and begins to proliferate, the progeny can crowd out cells of other clones and monopolise the IL-7 source. The effect will be more noticeable if sources are rare, so is seen when the TEC network is sparse.

Strengths:

Thymic disfunctions are of interest, not least because of T-ALL. New cells are added, one at a time, to simulate the conveyor belt of thymocytes on a background of stationary cells. They are thus able to follow cell lineages, which is interesting because one progenitor can give rise to many progeny.

There are some experimental results in Figures 4,5 and 6. For example, il7 crispant embryos have fewer thymocytes and smaller thymii; but increasing IL-7 availability produces large thymii.

Weaknesses:

On the negative side, like most agent-based models, there are dozens of parameters and assumptions whose values and validity are hard to ascertain.

The stated aim is to mimic a 2.5-to-11 day-old medaka thymus, but the constructed model is a geometrical subset that holds about 100 cells at a time in a steady state. The manuscript contains very many figures and lengthy descriptions of simulations run with different parameters values and assumptions. The abstract and conclusion did not help me understand what exactly has been done and learned. No attempt to synthesise observations in any mathematical formula is made.

The reviewer raises several important points to consider when working with mathematical or computational models.

As in many other agent-based models, we agree that our model makes use of many parameters. Many of these parameters summarize multiple steps and are treated as phenomenological, i.e. they do not represent a microscopic event such as the rate of an individual chemical reaction, but more high-level processes such as "rate of differentiation". Realistically, this process should consist of cascades of pathway components that regulate transcription factors.

In the supplementary material of our previous work (Aghaallaei et al., Science Advances, 2021) we provided an in-depth explanation of the mathematical formulation and rationale behind our choices in relation to the available biological data to select assumptions and restrict parameter value ranges. Four parameters that could not be characterized with pre-existing data, but which were crucial to the model's predictions, were studied in detail in that publication. Hence, the submitted manuscript starts with a well-calibrated model that has been tailored for the medaka thymus. The submitted manuscript explores the robustness of the system to lesions,  which we conceptualize as alterations in parameter values. We were surprised by how well the model recapitulated the time scales of overproliferation in the thymus of medaka embryos, which further supports the notion that our previous model calibration was successful.

Another important point raised by the reviewer is that the "validity [of parameters and assumptions is] hard to ascertain". We agree, which is precisely the reason why we aim to test the model's predictions through experimentation. Importantly, a model does not need to be perfect to be useful. For example, in the submitted manuscript we observed a discrepancy between model predictions and experimental results that led us to hypothesize negative feedback regulation from the proliferative state to differentiation. 

Thus, a major strength of modelling approaches is that they allow to identify erroneous or missing assumptions about the structure of the regulatory interaction network and its parametrization which can advance our scientific understanding of the underlying biology. Using models as an investigative tool is fundamental to the philosophy of systems biology (Kitano, Science, 2002), and is what we strive for.

The reviewer rightfully points out that we only represent a geometric subset of the organ. In our preliminary work, we considered representing the full three-dimensional thymus; however, we later simplified our approach, as the organ is a symmetric ellipsoid at this developmental stage. This decision vastly reduced our computational costs, enabling us to explore parameter space more effectively.

Nevertheless, we apologize if the submitted manuscript did not sufficiently emphasize the main insights of the paper, model limitations, and model construction. In the revised manuscript, we have improved the abstract and discussion sections to explicitly highlight the main results and limitations. We have also provided further details of the model's structure and underlying logic in the appendix.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Tsingos et al. seek to advance beyond the current paradigm that proliferation of malignant cells in T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia occurs in a cell-autonomous fashion. Using a computational agent-based model and experimental validation, they show instead that cell proliferation also depends on interaction with thymic epithelial cells (TEC) in the thymic niche. One key finding is that a dense TEC network inhibits the proliferation of malignant cells and favors the proliferation of normal cells, whereas a sparse TEC network leads to rapid expansion of malignant thymocytes.

Strengths:

A key strength of this study is that it combines computational modeling using an agent-based model with experimental work. The original modeling and novel experimental work strengthen each other well. In the agent-based model, the authors also tested the effects of varying a few key parameters of cell proliferation.

Weaknesses:

A minor weakness is that the authors did not conduct a global sensitivity analysis of all parameters in their agent-based model to show that the model is robust to variation, which would demonstrate that their results would still hold under a reasonable level of variation in the model and model parameters. This is a minor point, and such a supporting study would end in an appendix or supplement.

The reviewer highlights the lack of a global sensitivity analysis as a minor weakness. 

In our previous work (Aghaallaei et al., Science Advances, 2021), we studied parameters sensitivity for some parameters, while in the submitted manuscript, we extended this exploration to parameters that we expected to be the most meaningful for cell proliferation.

In the revised version of the manuscript, we have included an additional supplementary figure alongside Figure 4 to show the effect of changing parameters in "control" simulations lacking a lesioned clone. These data are also provided in the source data to Figure 4. While this does not constitute an exhaustive exploration of all parameter space, it provides a useful overview of the effect of the studied parameters on thymocyte population size in the absence of lesioned clones.

Response to reviewer recommendations

In the revision, we have improved the manuscript to address the reviewers’ points. The following is an overview of the changes to the manuscript:

• We wrote an extensive Appendix to better explain the model implementation.

• The Abstract was rewritten to improve clarity on what was done and to highlight the main findings.

• Subheadings to paragraphs were rewritten to better emphasize the main findings.

• Font sizes in Figure 2J and Figure 4E were increased to improve readability.

• The spacing of graphical elements in the legend of Figure 4E was improved.

• An error in Figure 5B was corrected (the legend labels had been accidentally swapped).

• A new supplementary figure to Figure 4 shows the sensitivity of clone size in control simulations for a subset of the tested parameter combinations.

• The Conclusion section was rewritten to better highlight limitations of the study and Improve the summary of the main findings. 

• Minor wording improvements were done throughout the text to improve readability.

In the following we respond to the reviewers’ individual recommendations.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

I am not an expert in modelling, so I apologise if I missed these points in the manuscript. I am slightly confused about how differentiation and death are included in the model. At the beginning of the results you mention that you model a 5 um slice, is it known which stages of development occur in that section of the thymus? 

We thank the reviewer for this question and appreciate the opportunity to clarify. Our virtual thymus is based on the medaka embryonic thymus, which we have extensively characterized using functional analyses and noninvasive in toto imaging (Bajoghli et al., Cell, 2009; Bajoghli et al., J Immunology, 2015; Aghaallaei et al., Science Advances, 2021; Aghaallaei, Eur J Immunology, 2022). These studies allowed us to map thymocyte developmental stages and migratory trajectories within the spatial context of a fully functional medaka thymus (see Figure 7 in Bajoghli et al., J Immunology, 2015).

To simplify the biological system without compromising model fidelity, we chose to simulate a representative 5 µm slice from the ventral half of the thymus. Importantly, the medaka thymus is a symmetric organ (Bajoghli et al., J Immunology 2015), hence this slice captures all key events of T-cell development, including thymus homing, differentiation, proliferation, selection, and egress akin to our in vivo observations (see Figure 7 in Bajoghli et al., 2015 and Figure 7a in Aghaallaei et al., Science Advances, 2021).

Furthermore, our model incorporates the spatial organization of the thymic cortex and medulla by including two types of thymic epithelial cells (TECs): cortical TECs positioned on the outer side, and medullary TECs on the inner side (see Figure Supplement 7 in Aghaallaei et al., Science Advances, 2021). Differentiation and cell death are modeled as discrete steps along the developmental trajectory, informed by our in vivo observations.

We apologize to the reviewer if the workings of the model were not sufficiently clear in the original manuscript. To address this, and as also requested by reviewer 2, we provided an extensive Appendix in the revised version of the manuscript that also includes visual summaries of the model logic in the form of intuitive flowcharts.

And is it known, or do you factor in, whether there are changes in the responsiveness of the thymocytes to signals, such as notch and IL7, depending on their state of differentiation?

We have previously examined the roles of IL-7 (Aghaallaei et al., Science Advances, 2021) and Notch1 (Aghaallaei et al., Europ J Immunology, 2022) signaling in the medaka thymus. These studies demonstrated that T cell progenitors are responsive to both IL7 and Notch signaling, whereas more differentiated, non-proliferative thymocytes are unresponsive to IL-7. Our in vivo observations further suggest that mature thymocytes require Notch signaling during the thymic selection process. This appears to be a species-specific phenomenon (Aghaallaei et al., Europ J Immunology, 2022). 

In the computational model, we include this state-specific responsiveness by incorporating a dependence on IL-7 and Notch signaling in the cellular decision to commit to the cell cycle (see Appendix Figure 6, and Appendix section X.) and in the decision of differentiating into αβ⁺ or γδ⁺ T cell subtypes (see Appendix Figure 5, and Appendix section IX.). Although the model still calculates pathway signaling activity for thymocytes in the differentiated stage belonging to the αβ⁺ or γδ⁺ subtype, this signaling activity has no downstream consequences for the cells’ behavior in the model.

Note that in the computational model we do not incorporate feedback loops that regulate pathway activity (for example, it could be that thymocytes upregulate the IL7R receptor at some point in their differentiation trajectory – in the absence of speciesspecific knowledge of such regulatory feedbacks, we have chosen not to include any in our model).

And you mention the stages of development are incorporated into the model but the main output that you discuss is thymocyte number or proliferation. It would be interesting to use the model to explore how parameters related to differentiation are changed by, for example, the level of IL7 signalling.

We agree that examining how factors like IL-7 signaling influence thymocyte differentiation is a promising direction for future work. Based on our previous modelling work (Aghaallaei et al., Science Advances, 2021), we expect that increased IL7 availability or sensitivity should result in an increase of cells differentiating into the γδ⁺ T cell subtype. As molecular tools for medaka continue to advance, we anticipate being able to refine and expand the model accordingly.

Moreover, we see strong potential for adapting the current computational framework to model thymopoiesis in other species, such as mouse or human, where stage-specific markers are well characterized. We have now explicitly mentioned this opportunity for future development in the conclusion section of the revised manuscript (see page #26).

It is also mentioned in the description of the model that the cells can die at the end of the development process. However, is death incorporated into the earlier stages of development? For instance, it is possible that when signals, such as a notch, are at low levels the thymocytes at certain stages of development will die.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. In a previous study, we mapped the spatial distribution of apoptotic cells within the medaka thymus and did not observe cell death in the region where ETPs enter the cortical thymus (Bajoghli et al., J Immunology, 2015) and where Notch1 signaling becomes activated (Aghaallaei et al., Europ J Immunology, 2021). Notch mutants exhibit a markedly reduced number of thymocytes, this reduction could be attributed either to impaired thymus homing or increased cell death within the thymus. However, our unpublished data shows that the total number of apoptotic cells in Notch1b-deficient thymus is comparable to their wild-type siblings. In fact, our in vivo observations revealed that the frequency of thymus colonization by progenitors is significantly reduced in the notch1b mutant (Aghaallaei et al., J E Immunol., 2021). Based on these in vivo observations, our computational model incorporates cell death only at the end of the thymocyte developmental trajectory. The current model does not consider cell death at earlier stages. 

Overall, the manuscript was well-written and the figures were clear and well-presented. A minor point would be that the writing in some of the figures was too small and difficult to read, such as in Figure 4. I also sometimes struggled to find the definition of the acronyms in the figures, for example in Figure 3 it would be helpful if the definitions for D, SD, and SA were given in the figure legend as well as in the figure itself.

We thank the reviewer for the kind words. We have reworked the figures to have larger more readable font sizes and improved figure legends as suggested.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Suppose the computational results did throw up an important new phenomenon. How might researchers seek to replicate it? If no mathematical relations can be given, can at least the code be made publicly available?

We apologize to the reviewer if the workings of the model were not sufficiently clear in the submitted manuscript. However, we believe there may have been a misunderstanding, and we would like to clarify that both the mathematical formulations and the code used in this study were publicly available in the scientific record at the time of submission.

Specifically, the full source code for the virtual thymus model is hosted in a permanent Zenodo repository (accessible here: https://zenodo.org/records/11656320), which includes:

- Model files and links to source codes for the simulation environment;

- Pre-compiled binary versions of the simulation environment (EPISIM) for both Windows and Linux platforms;

- Detailed documentation, including step-by-step instructions on how to install and use the provided files.

The repository link is cited in the manuscript (see page 38) and in the section “Data and materials availability”.  

In addition, the mathematical framework that underpins the computational model has already been published and described in detail in our previous work (Aghaallaei, et al. Science Advances, 2021). In the supplementary material of this publication, we provide extensive documentation of the model, including:

- A 13-page textual explanation of the design rationale;

- 44 equations describing model implementation;

- Parameter choices, partial sensitivity analysis, additional simulations, and supporting data presented in two figures and four tables.

Nonetheless, to improve transparency, we have added an extensive Appendix in the revised version of the manuscript that also includes visual summaries of the model logic in the form of intuitive flowcharts. We hope this clarification and the new provided appendix assures the reviewer that both reproducibility and transparency have been central to our approach. 

What about the growth of the animal and its thymus over weeks 2-11?

We thank the reviewer for this insightful question. Indeed, our current computational model does not incorporate thymus growth over time. We decided not to model the dynamic increase in TEC numbers or organ size over time because we wanted to maintain simplicity and computational tractability. Therefore, we assumed a steadystate thymic environment. The model is therefore limited to representing thymopoiesis under homeostatic conditions, as it appears to stabilize by day 11. This is a recognized limitation of the current model. Looking ahead, we plan to develop a more advanced computational framework that incorporates thymic growth and dynamic changes in cellular composition over time. We have now included a brief note on this limitation in the conclusion of the revised manuscript (see page #26).

Author response:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The usefulness of the proposed new metric of "variant consistency" and how it can guide users in selecting demultiplexing methods seems a little unclear. It correlates with the level of ambient RNA/DNA contamination, which makes it look like a metric on data quality. However, it does depend on the exact demultiplexing method, yet it's not clear how it directly connects to the "accuracy" of each demultiplexing method, which is the most important property that users of these methods care about. Since the simulated data has ground truth of donor identities available, I would suggest using the simulated data to show whether "variant consistency" directly indicates the accuracy of each method, especially the accuracy within those "C2" reads.

I also think the tool and analyses presented in this paper need some further clarification and documentation on the details, such as how the cell-type gene and peak probabilities are determined in the simulation, and how doublets from different cell types are handled in the simulation and analysis. A few analyses and figures also need a more detailed description of the exact methods used. 

We thank the reviewer for their suggestions. We plan on revising the manuscript to reflect their suggestions, which will include clarification of the variant consistency metric and its relationship with demultiplexing accuracy based on the simulations and additional detail regarding ambisim’s generation of multiplexed snRNA/snATAC.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

(1) Throughout the manuscript, the figure legends are difficult to understand, and this makes it difficult to interpret the graphs.

(2) Since this is both a new tool and a benchmark, it would be worthwhile in the Discussion to comment on which demultiplexing tools one may want to choose for their dataset, especially given the warning against ensemble methods. From this extensive benchmarking, one may want to choose a tool based on the number of donors one has pooled, the modalities present, and perhaps even the ambient RNA (if it has been estimated previously).

(3) What are the minimal computational requirements for running ambisim? What is the time cost? 

We thank the reviewer for their suggestions. We plan on updating the manuscript to better clarify figure legends. We will also outline a set of concrete recommendations in our discussion section based on different multiplexed experimental designs. Finally, we will also include extra computational benchmarks for ambisim.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the previous reviews

Recommendations for the authors: 

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors): 

(1) The use of the term "language network" throughout is unclear. Does this refer to work by Ev Fedorenko (i.e., does it distinguish language from other cognitive and sensorimotor domains)? There does not seem to be much in the behavior presented here that aligns with an interpretation about language per se. 

We understand the reviewer’s point according to the work by Evelina Fedorenko considering this distinction. It is important to precise that in our present study we did not refer to her work when using the term “language network”.

(2) Fig 4A: the "B" is missing on the figure panel to denote which Broadmann areas are shown. 

We updated the figure panel by adding the “B” for more clarity.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors): 

I think it would be worth mentioning the relatively sparse coverage of the right hemisphere in your abstract. 

We agree with this suggestion, we updated the abstract as follows :  

“Our use of language, which is profoundly social in nature, essentially takes place in interactive contexts and is shaped by precise coordination dynamics that interlocutors must observe. Thus, language interaction is highly demanding on fast adjustment of speech production. Here, we developed a real-time coupled-oscillators virtual partner that allows - by changing the coupling strength parameters - to modulate the ability to synchronise speech with a virtual speaker. Then, we recorded the intracranial brain activity of 16 patients with drug-resistant epilepsy while they performed a verbal coordination task with the virtual partner (VP). More precisely, patients had to repeat short sentences synchronously with the VP. This synchronous speech task is efficient to highlight both the dorsal and ventral language pathways. Importantly, combining time-resolved verbal coordination and neural activity shows more spatially differentiated patterns and different types of neural sensitivity along the dorsal pathway. More precisely, high-frequency activity in left secondary auditory regions is highly sensitive to verbal coordinative dynamics, while primary regions are not. Finally, while bilateral engagement was observed in the high-frequency activity of the IFG BA44— which seems to index online coordinative adjustments that are continuously required to compensate deviation from synchronisation—interpretation of right hemisphere involvement should be approached cautiously due to relatively sparse electrode coverage. These findings illustrate the possibility and value of using a fully dynamic, adaptive and interactive language task to gather deeper understanding of the subtending neural dynamics involved in speech perception, production as well as their interaction.”

There are a few places in your results section which haven't been updated to reflect the fact that some sections refer only to the left hemisphere e.g. 

Page 11 line 347: "Overall, neural responses are present in all six canonical frequency bands" I think this should be "In the left hemisphere, neural responses are present...". 

Page 12 line 355: "As expected, the whole language network is strongly involved..." I think this should be "As expected, the whole left hemisphere language network is strongly involved".  Page 17 (third paragraph of the discussion): "The observed negative correlation between verbal coordination and high-frequency activity (HFa) in STG BA22" I think this should be "in left STG BA22". 

We thank the reviewer for highlighting these important points. The updated lines are as follows:

Page 11 line 348: ”In the left hemisphere, neural responses are present in all six canonical frequency bands…”  

Page 12 line 356: ”As expected, the whole left hemisphere language network is strongly involved..." Page 17 lines 502-503 : “The observed negative correlation between verbal coordination and highfrequency activity (HFa) in left STG BA22 suggests a suppression of neural responses as the degree of behavioural synchrony increases.”

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the previous reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Shin et al. conduct extensive electrophysiological and behavioral experiments to study the mechanisms of short-term synaptic plasticity at excitatory synapses in layer 2/3 of the rat medial prefrontal cortex. The authors interestingly find that short-term facilitation is driven by progressive overfilling of the readily releasable pool, and that this process is mediated by phospholipase C/diacylglycerol signaling and synaptotagmin-7 (Syt7). Specifically, knockdown of Syt7 not only abolishes the refilling rate of vesicles with high fusion probability, but it also impairs the acquisition of trace fear memory.

Overall, the authors offer novel insight to the field of synaptic plasticity through well-designed experiments that incorporate a range of techniques.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have adequately addressed my earlier comments and questions.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

All the comments from Reviewer #2 are the same as her/his comments to our original manuscript. Therefore, we have already responded to all the following comments in the first revision. Here we described our additional responses to the same comments.

Summary:

Shin et al aim to identify in a very extensive piece of work a mechanism that contributes to dynamic regulation of synaptic output in the rat cortex at the second time scale. This mechanism is related to a new powerful model and is well versed to test if the pool of SV ready for fusion is dynamically scaled to adjust supply demand aspects. The methods applied are state-of-the-art and both address quantitative aspects with high signal to noise. In addition, the authors examine both excitatory output onto glutamatergic and GABAergic neurons, which provides important information on how general the observed signals are in neural networks. The results are compellingly clear and show that pool regulation may be predominantly responsible. Their results suggests that a regulation of release probability, the alternative contender for regulation, is unlikely to be involved in the observed short term plasticity behavior (but see below). Besides providing a clear analysis of the underlying physiology, they test two molecular contenders for the observed mechanism by showing that loss of Synaptotagmin7 function and the role of the Ca dependent phospholipase activity seems critical for the short term plasticity behavior. The authors go on to test the in vivo role of the mechanism by modulating Syt7 function and examining working memory tasks as well as overall changes in network activity using immediate early gene activity. Finally, they model their data, providing strong support for their interpretation of TS pool occupancy regulation.

Strengths:

This is a very thorough study, addressing the research question from many different angles and the experimental execution is superb. The impact of the work is high, as it applies recent models of short term plasticity behavior to in vivo circuits further providing insights how synapses provide dynamic control to enable working memory related behavior through non-permanent changes in synaptic output.

Weaknesses:

While this work is carefully examined and the results are presented and discussed in a detailed manner, the reviewer is still not fully convinced that regulation of release probability is not a putative contributor to the observed behavior. No additional work is needed, but in the moment, I am not convinced that changes in release probability are not in play. One solution may be to extend the discussion of changes in rules probability as an alternative.

As the Reviewer #3 suggested, we examined the dependence of EPSC amplitude on extracellular [Ca²⁺] ([Ca²⁺]_o) in order to test our assertion that vesicular release probability (p_v) is already saturated in resting conditions at L2/3 recurrent synapses. A three-fold increase is expected according to Dodge and Rahamimoff (1967), if resting p_v has enough room to increase, when [Ca²⁺]_o is elevated from 1.3 to 2.5 mM. We found an increase in the baseline EPSC amplitude only by 23%, and this change was not statistically significant, supporting our assertion.

Fig 3. I am confused about the interpretation of the Mean Variance analysis outcome. Since the data points follow the curve during induction of short term plasticity, doesn't these suggests that release probability and not the pool size increases?

We separated the conventional release probability into a multiplication of p_v and p_occ, in which p_v = probability of TS vesicles and p_occ = occupancy of release sites by TS vesicles. In this regard, the abscissa of V-M plot represents the conventional release probability. Because p_v is close to unity, we interpreted a change along the abscissa as a change of p_occ.

Related, to measure the absolute release probability and failure rate using the optogenetic stimulation technique is not trivial as the experimental paradigm bias the experiment to a given output strength, and therefore a change in release probability cannot be excluded.

We agree to this concern. Because EPSC data were obtained by optogenetic stimulation, it cannot be ruled out a possibility that optogenetic stimulation biased the release probability. Although we found that STP obtained by dual patch experiment was not different from that by optogenetic stimulation, it needs to confirm our conclusion using dual patch or other methods.

Fig. 4B interprets the phorbol ester stimulation to be the result of pool overfilling, however, phorbol ester stimulation has also been shown to increase release probability without changing the size of the readily releasable pool. The high frequency of stimulation may occlude an increased paired pulse depression in presence of OAG, that others have interpreted in mammalian synapses as an increase in release probability.

Provided that pv of TS vesicles is very high, the OAG-induced increase in EPSC1 and low STF and PTA are consistent with higher baseline p_occ in PDBu conditions, while the number of docking sites is limited. It should be noted that previous PDBu-induced invariance of the RRP size is based on measuring the RRP size using hypertonic solution (Basu et al., 2007). Given that this sucrose method releases not only TS but also LS vesicles, the sucrose-based RRP size may not be affected by PDBu or OAG at L2/3 synapses too. Therefore, PDBu or OAG-induced increase in p_occ (proportion of TS vesicles over LS+TS vesicles) would result in an increase in release probability without a change in the RRP size.

The literature on Syt7 function is still quite controversial. An observation in the literature that loss of Syt7 function in the fly synapse leads to an increase of release probability. Thus the observed changes in short term plasticity characteristics in the Syt7 KD experiments may contain a release probability component. Can the authors really exclude this possibility? Figure 5 shows for the Syt7 KD group a very prominent depression of the EPSC/IPSC with the second stimulus, particularly for the short interpulse intervals, usually a strong sign of increased release probability, as lack of pool refilling can unlikely explain the strong drop in synaptic output.

Comments on revisions:

I am satisfied with the reply of the authors and I do not have any further points of concern.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The results are consistent with the main claim that facilitation is caused by overfilling a readily releasable pool, but alternative interpretations continue to seem more likely, especially when the current results are taken together with previous studies. Key doubts could be resolved with a single straightforward experiment (see below).

The central issue is the interpretation of paired pulse depression that occurs when the interval between action potentials is 25 ms, but not when 50. To summarize: a similar phenomenon was observed at Schaffer collateral synapses (Dobrunz and Stevens, 1997), but was interpreted as evidence for a decrease in pv. Ca2+-channel inactivation was proposed as the mechanism, but this was not proven. The key point for evaluating the current study is that Dobrunz and Stevens specifically ruled out the kind of decrease in pocc that is the keystone premise of the current study because the depression occurred independently of whether or not the first action potential elicited exocytosis. Of course, the mechanism might be different at layer 2/3 cortical synapses. But, it seems reasonable to hope that the older hypothesis would be ruled out for the cortical synapses before concluding that the new hypothesis must be correct.

The old and new hypotheses could be distinguished from each other cleanly with a straightforward experiment. Most/maybe all central synapses strengthen a great amount when extracellular Ca2+ is increased from 1.3 to 2 mM, even when intracellular Ca2+ is buffered with EGTA. According to the authors' model, this is only possible when pv is low, and so could not occur at synapses between layer 2/3 neurons. Because of this, confirmation that increasing extracellular Ca2+ does not change synaptic strength would support the hypothesis that baseline pv is high, as the authors claim, and the support would be impressive because large changes have been seen at every other type of synapse where this has been studied (to my knowledge at least). In contrast, the Ca2+ imaging experiment that has been added to the new version of the manuscript does not address the central issue because a wide range of mechanisms could, in principle, decrease release without involving prior exocytosis or altering bulk Ca2+ signals, including: a small decrease in nano-domain Ca2+, which wouldn't be detected because nano-domains contribute a minuscule amount to the bulk signal during Ca2+-imaging; or even very fast activity-dependent undocking of synaptic vesicles, which was reported in the same Kusick et al, 2020 study that is central to the LS/TS terminology adopted by the authors.

Additional points:

(1) A new section in the Discussion (lines 458-475) suggests that previous techniques employed to show that augmentation and facilitation are caused by increases in pv did not have the resolution to distinguish between pv and pocc, but this is misleading. The confusion might be because the terminology has changed, but this is all the more reason to clarify this section. The previous evidence for increases in pv - and against increases in pocc - is as follows: The residual Ca2+ that drives augmentation decreases the latency between the onset of hypertonic solution and onset of the postsynaptic response by about 150 ms, which is large compared to the rise time of the response. The decrease indicates that the residual Ca2+ drives a decrease in the energy barrier that must be overcome before readily releasable vesicles can undergo exocytosis, which is precisely the type of mechanism that would enhance pv. In contrast, an increase in pocc could change the rise time, but not the latency. There is a small change in the rise time, but this could be caused by changes in either pv or pocc, and one of the studies (Garcia-Perez and Wesseling, 2008) showed that augmentation occluded facilitation, even at times when pocc was reduced by a factor of 3, which would seem to argue against parallel increases in both pv and pocc.

We greatly appreciate for pointing out our mis-understanding. We acknowledge that the post-tetanic acceleration of the latency in the hypertonicity-induced vesicle release may reflect a decrease in the activation energy barrier (ΔEa) for vesicle fusion resulting in an increase in fusion probability of TS vesicles (Stevens and Wesseling, 1999; Garcia-Perez and Wesseling, 2008). We agree that such latency changes are not easily explained by increases in p_occ alone. Indeed, Taschenberger et al (2016) concluded that PTP is similar to the PDBu-induced increase in baseline EPSCs. Subsequently, Lin et al (2025) estimated PDBu-induced changes of TS vesicle pool size and p_fusion of TS vesicles (these correspond to p_occ and p_v in this study, respectively), and found that PDBu increases majorly the former (2 folds) and minorly the latter (1.3 folds). Although it has not been directly tested, it is possible that PTP increases p_v. Accordingly, we corrected the first statement of the paragraph, and mentioned the possibility for a post-tetanic increase in p_v of TS vesicles.

It should be noted, however, it is still puzzling what is represented by the acceleration of the latency in the hypertonicity-induced vesicle release. Schotten et al (2015) simulated how vesicle release rate is affected by reducing ΔEa for vesicle fusion. They found that a reduction of ΔEa resulted in increases in the peak amplitude and shorter time-to-peak of vesicle fusion, but did not accelerate the latency. Therefore, it remains to be clarified whether shorter latency can be regarded as lower activation barrier.  Moreover, the sucrose-induced release rate is comparable with the vesicle recruitment rate (1-2/s; Neher, Neuron, 2008). This slowness of sucrose-induced vesicle release rate makes it difficult to distinguish the vesicle fusion rate from their priming rate.

(2) Similar evidence from hypertonic stimulation indicates that Phorbol esters increase pv, but I am not aware of evidence ruling out a parallel increase in pocc.

As noted above, none of known mechanisms can clearly explain the PDBu-induced shorter latency to hypertonicity-induced vesicle fusion (Schotten et al, 2015). Even if shorter latency reflects higher p_v, it does not rule out a concurrent change in p_occ. Supporting this notion, Lin et al. (2025) showed in the framework of the two state vesicle fusion model that PDBu application leads to a substantial increase in the number of TS vesicles (vesicles having high fusion propensity), with a moderate change in fusion probability (p_fusion). In light of previous observation that high tonicity (500 or 1000 mOsm) did not alter the RRP size (Basu et al., 2007), the results of Lin et al. (2025) can be interpreted as an increase of ‘p_occ’ in terms of the present study.

Reference:

Schotten et al. (2015). Additive effects on the energy barrier for synaptic vesicle fusion cause supralinear effects on the vesicle fusion rate. eLife 4:e05531.

Lin, K.-H., Ranjan, M., Lipstein, N., Brose, N., Neher, E., & Taschenberger, H. (2025). Number and relative abundance of synaptic vesicles in functionally distinct priming states determine synaptic strength and short-term plasticity. J. Physiology.

Comments on revisions:

There are at least two straightforward ways to address the main concern.

The first would be experiments analogous to those in Dobrunz and Stevens that show that - unlike at Schaffer collateral synapses - paired pulse depression at L2/3 synapses requires neurotransmitter release. I proposed this in the first round, but realized since that a simpler and more powerful strategy would be to test directly that pv is/is-not near 1.0 in 1.2 mM Ca2+ simply by increasing to 2 mM Ca2+ (and showing that synaptic strength does-not/does change). This would be powerful because the increase in Ca2+ greatly increases synaptic strength at Schaffer collaterals by about 2.5-fold. Concerns about a confounding elevation in the basal intracellular Ca2+ concentration could be easily neutralized by pre-treating with EGTA-AM, which the authors have already done for other experiments.

We thank to Reviewer #3 for suggesting an experiment for testing our assertion that the vesicular release probability (p_v) is very high at layer 2/3 recurrent excitatory synapses. As the Reviewer recommended, we assessed EPSC changes induced by an increase in extracellular calcium concentration ([Ca²⁺]_o). The results are added as Figure 3—figure supplement 3 to the revised manuscript.

Dodge and Rahamimoff (1967) discovered a fourth-power relationship between end-plate potential (EPP) and [Ca²⁺]_o at a neuromuscular junction. More specifically they found

EPP amplitude µ  ([Ca²⁺]_o / (1 + [Ca²⁺]_o /1.1 mM + [Ma²⁺]_o /2.97 mM))⁴.

This equation nicely predicts the effects of high external calcium on EPSC amplitudes observed at the calyx synapses: a 2.6-fold increase of EPSC by changing [Ca²⁺]_o from 1.25 to 2 mM  (Thanawala and Regehr, 2013; predicted as 2.57);  a 2.36-fold increase by changing [Ca²⁺] from 1.5 to 2 mM (Lin and Taschenberger, 2025; predicted as 2.16). In the framework of two-step priming model, Lin et al. (2015) estimated a 1.9-fold increase (from 0.22 to 0.42) in p_v of TS vesicles and a 1.23-fold increase in the number of TS vesicles. It is clear that the increase in p_v would be possible only if p_v is not saturated, while the increase in the number of TS vesicles is still possible regardless of baseline p_v of TS vesicles.

The Dodge and Rahamimoff’s equation predicts a 3.24-fold increase in baseline EPSC amplitude by elevating [Ca Ca²⁺]_o from 1.3 mM to 2.5 mM at L2/3 synapses. Contrary to this prediction, our recordings revealed a 1.23 fold increase in baseline EPSC amplitude, and this change was not statistically significant.

Given the steep dependence of vesicle release on [Ca²⁺]_o, this minimal increase strongly suggests that p_v at L2/3 recurrent synapses is already near maximal at rest, limiting the dynamic range for further enhancement through increased calcium influx. Accordingly, we observed a small but statistically significant decrease in the paired-pulse ratio (PPR) at higher [Ca²⁺]_o. Although this reduction in PPR might be indicative of increased p_v, it is more consistent with a slight increase in p_occ rather than a substantive increase in p_v under the context of very high p_v. Accordingly, Lin et al. (2025) recently estimated an increase in the TS vesicle subpool size as 1.23-fold by elevating [Ca²⁺]_o under the framework of the two-step vesicle priming mode. Taken together, these findings suggest that an increase in the number of TS vesicles or p_occ may contribute to both an increase in baseline EPSC amplitudes and a decrease in PPR.

Overall, our central claim that baseline p_v is near maximal at L2/3 recurrent synapses is supported by 1) high baseline PPR; 2) insensitivity to EGTA-AM; 3) high double failure rate; 4) insensitivity to elevating [Ca²⁺]_o. These data are difficult to reconcile with a model in which facilitation is mediated by Ca²⁺-dependent increases in p_v. Instead, our results support a mechanism in which facilitation arises from changes in release site occupancy.

References

Dodge, F.A., & Rahamimoff, R. (1967). Co-operative action of calcium ions in transmitter release at the neuromuscular junction. J Physiol, 193(2), 419–432. 

Thanawala, M.S., & Regehr, W.G. (2013). Presynaptic calcium influx controls neurotransmitter release in part by regulating the effective size of the readily releasable pool. J Neurosci, 33(11), 4625–4633.

Lin, K.-H., Ranjan, M., Lipstein, N., Brose, N., Neher, E., & Taschenberger, H. (2025). Number and relative abundance of synaptic vesicles in functionally distinct priming states determine synaptic strength and short-term plasticity. J. Physiology.

Neher E, Sakaba T (2008) Multiple Roles of Calcium Ions in the Regulation of Neurotransmitter Release. Neuron 59:861-872.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the previous reviews

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

The authors have taken into consideration and addressed all my previous comments.

This referee has one major concern remaining: although the authors have refined their analysis of mitochondrial morphology, my concern regarding the characterization of mitochondria in Drp1-depleted zygotes as "elongated" persists.

Taking into account this reviewers' comment, the following description has been changed. Line 256-257: “Quantification of the aspect ratio (major axis/minor axis) suggests that mitochondria are significantly elongated in Drp1-depleted embryos" to “The mean aspect ratio (major axis/minor axis) increased slightly from 1.36 in control to 1.66 in Drp1-depleted embryos ."

(1) The morphological analysis of mitochondria reveals that both axes increase in length. Yet, the aspect ratio it is virtually unchanged, at least in biologically relevant terms, if not statistically.

- Please calculate and represent mitochondrial aspect ratio as major axis/minor axis in fig 2M.

- Could the authors also display individual data points in the graphs of Figure 2 K, L and M?

We have revised the graph display format in accordance with the reviewer's suggestions.

(2) The authors provide PMID: 25264261 as an example, yet mitochondria in PMID: 35704569 are apparently elongated. Judging by the authors discussion about the differences between these two studies, it would be enriching to comment, in the discussion of the manuscript, on the differences in morphology and to the reason why these might arise

This referee believes that the unconventional mitochondrial morphology upon fission inhibition, reported here, enhances the relevance of the study and raises questions that could promote novel research lines, if thoroughly discussed in the manuscript.

Thank you for your insightful suggestion. However, since the latter paper (PMID: 35704569) lacks EM images, it would be difficult to accurately assess the elongation. Thus, we would like to reconsider the mitochondrial morphological changes in zygotes caused by Drp1 deletion levels based on the results of future research.

Minor

(1) Labels for the staining used are missing in figure 1-figure supplement 1

(2) Line 218. Could the intended sentence be:

"Live imaging of mitochondria (mt-GFP) and chromosomes (H2B-mCherry) in Myo19 depleted zygotes shows symmetric distribution and partitioning of mitochondria during the first embryonic cleavage (Figure 1-figure supplement 2A, 2B; Figure 1-Video 2)."

(3) Figure 2M: Please calculate and represent mitochondrial aspect ratio as major axis/minor axis.

(4) Include a label with the experimental condition in figure 1 fig supp 2.

(5) Line 592: missing reference.

Thank you for your careful correction. We have corrected all the points the reviewer pointed out in the revised version.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

The authors have sufficiently revised the manuscript to accommodate the majority of suggestions provided by myself and the other reviewers. While it would have been useful to see further clarity around mitochondrial transport, the data presented provide valuable insight into the role of a mitochondrial dynamics regulator in mediating the first mitosis event in embryo development.

We thank again reviewer 2 for the helpful comment. We would like to address the issue of (aggregated) mitochondrial transport, including analysis methods, as a future challenge.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

After reading through the comments of other reviewers, what authors could potentially improve their manuscript had been largely summarized in three following points.

(1) Authors would better clarify whether a loss of Drp1 contributes to the chromosome segregation defects directly (e.g. checking SAC-like activity) or indirectly (aggregated mitochondria became physically obstacle; maybe in part getting the cytoskeleton involved).

(2) Although the level of Myo19 may not be so high (given the low level of TRAK2 in oocytes: Lee et al. PNAS 2024, PMID 38917013), authors would better further clarify the effect of Myo19-Trim with timelapse (e.g. EB3-GFP/Mt-DsRed) and EM analysis (detailed mitochondrial architecture).

(3) Authors would better clarify phenotypic heterogeneity/variety regarding the degree of alteration in mitochondrial morphology/ architecture dependent on the levels of Drp1 loss with detailed quantification of EM images to address why aggregation of mitochondria in Drp1-/- parthenote (possibly, more likely Drp1 protein-free) looks different/weaker than Trim-awayed one. Employment of the parthenotes of Trim-awayed MII oocytes might also complement the further discussion.

The revised preprinted have addressed all the points described above. Authors have also adequately indicated the limitations at each of the specific points. Revisions authors made have consolidated their conclusion, thus still, making this study an excellent one.The only remaining weakness is that the authors have not undertaken additional experiments to clarify any role for mitochondrial transport following Drp1 depletion.

We thank again reviewer 3 for the insightful comments. We would like to address the comments you have raised (points that were unclear in this study) as issues for future study.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Chua, Daugherty, and Smith analyze a new set of archaeal 20S proteasomes obtained by cryo-EM that illustrate how the occupancy of the HbYX binding pocket induces gate opening. They do so primarily through a V24Y mutation in the αsubunit. These results are supported by a limited set of mutations in K66 in the α subunit, bringing new emphasis to this unit.

Strengths:

The new structure's analysis is comprehensive, occupying the entire manuscript. As such, the scope of this manuscript is very narrow, but the strength of the data is solid, and they offer an interesting and important new piece to the gate-opening literature.

Weaknesses:

Major Concerns

(1) This manuscript rests on one new cryo-EM structure, leading to a single (albeit convincing) experiment demonstrating the importance of occupying the pocket and moving K66. Could a corresponding bulky mutation at K66 not activate the 20S proteasome?

Thank you for this insightful question. We believe such a mutation would likely not activate the proteasome, and would likely  be detrimental to gate opening. Our previous work (Smith et al., Molecular Cell, 2007), and data presented in this manuscript, demonstrate that a K66A mutation, which removes the side chain, blocks 20S gate opening. Furthermore, our new αV24Y T20S structure reveals that Lys66 forms specific hydrogen bonds with surrounding residues that are crucial for stabilizing the open gate conformation (Fig. 5). An aromatic or bulky hydrophobic mutation at this position would be unable to form these essential hydrogen bonds and would likely disrupt the necessary stabilizing interactions.  

(2) To emphasize the importance of this work, the authors highlight the importance of gateopening to human 20S proteasomes. However, the key distinctions between these proteasomes are not given sufficient weight.

(a) As the authors note, the six distinct Rpt C-termini can occupy seven different pickets. However, how these differences would impact activation is not thoroughly discussed.

We appreciate the reviewer's point regarding the complexities of eukaryotic 26S proteasome activation. While our manuscript discusses some aspects of this, we agree that a detailed mechanistic extrapolation from our archaeal T20S model to the diverse interactions within the human 26S proteasome is challenging. As we elaborate in our response to Reviewer #2 (Recommendation #3), the significant differences in α-ring composition (homoheptameric vs. heteroheptameric) and the multifactorial nature of Rpt C-termini binding make direct, wide-reaching speculations about specific pocket contributions in the eukaryotic system difficult at this stage. Our aim was to focus on the conserved fundamental role of the HbYX hydrophobic pocket itself. 

(b) With those other sites, the relative importance of various pockets, such as the one controlling the α3 N-terminus, should be discussed more thoroughly as a potential critical difference.

The reviewer raises an excellent point about the regulation of specific α-subunits, like the α3 N-terminus, which acts as a lynchpin in gating. Understanding its precise regulation in the eukaryotic 26S proteasome is indeed a key goal in the field. However, determining which specific HbYX binding events (e.g., in the α2-α3 pocket, the α3-α4 pocket, or cooperative binding across multiple pockets) control the α3 subunit's conformation is beyond the scope of what our current T20S structural data can definitively inform. The cooperative nature of HbYX binding and its precise allosteric consequences across the heteroheptameric α-ring are complex questions that remain to be fully elucidated in the eukaryotic system. Our study focuses on demonstrating the sufficiency of hydrophobic pocket occupancy for activation in a conserved manner, which we propose is a fundamental aspect of HbYX action. Identifying which of the seven distinct eukaryotic hydrophobic pockets must be engaged for full activation remains an important area for future research.

(c) These differences can lead to eukaryote 20S gates shifting between closed and open and having a partially opened state. This becomes relevant if the goal is to lead to an activated 20S. It would have been interesting to have archaea 20S with a mix of WT and V24Y α-subunits. However, one might imagine the subclassification problem would be challenging and require an extraordinary number of particles.

We agree with the reviewer that exploring mixed subunit populations is an interesting idea, particularly given the dynamic and potentially partially open states of eukaryotic proteasomes. We have previously considered co-expressing WT and V24Y α-subunits. However, the interpretation of such experiments would be challenging. With 14 potential sites for mutant incorporation across the two homoheptameric α-rings, a heterogeneous population of proteasomes with varying numbers and arrangements of V24Y subunits would be generated. Correlating any observed changes in activity or structure (e.g. via cryoEM subclassification, would be exceedingly difficult) to specific stoichiometries or arrangements of mutant subunits would be highly complex and likely inconclusive for deriving clear mechanistic insights.

(d) Furthermore, the conservation of the amino acids around the binding pocket was not addressed. This seems particularly important in the relative contribution of a residue analogous to K66 or V24.

We apologize for the mislabeled figure title in the previous submission, which may have made this information less accessible. We have now corrected the title for Supplemental Figure S10 (previously S9). This figure presents the sequence alignment showing the conservation of residues in and around the HbYX hydrophobic pocket, including those analogous to T20S αV24, αL21, and αA154. As discussed in the manuscript, key residues that form this pocket, such as those corresponding to and surrounding T20S L21 and A154, are indeed well conserved in human α-subunits. This conservation supports the relevance of our findings to eukaryotic proteasomes.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Chuah et al. reports the experimental results that suggest the occupancy of the HbYX pockets suffices for proteasome gate opening. The authors conducted cryo-EM reconstructions of two mutant archaeal proteasomes. The work is technically sound and may be of special interest in the field of structural biology of the proteasomes.

Strengths:

Overall, the work incrementally deepens our understanding of the proteasome activation and expands the structural foundation for therapeutic intervention of proteasome function. The evidence presented appears to be well aligned with the existing literature, which adds confidence in the presentation.

Weaknesses:

The paper may benefit from some minor revision by making improvements on the figures and necessary quantitative comparative studies.

We appreciate the reviewers thoughtful critique of our manuscript and have made the requested changes and provided further perspectives mentioned below.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Line 467: Mammalian should be replaced with eukaryotic.

Done.  

(2) Figure 1 Caption: The descriptions of the blue and green boxes should be described in panel A's caption rather than waiting until panel C.

Done.

(3) Figure 2 A: For greater clarity, the asterisks should be replaced with the numbers H4, H5, and H6.

Done.

(4) Figure 7 caption: The panels are misannotated. What is listed as E should become D, and what is listed as F should become E.

Done.

(5) The title for Figure S9, "αV24Y T20S validation," is inappropriate. A better title should discuss the sequence conservation of those amino acids. Why is the arrow drawing attention to L21 when the paper is about V24? There should be a corresponding alignment that includes K66.

Thank you for pointing out the title issue for Figure S10 (previously S9); this has now been corrected to reflect its focus on sequence conservation. The arrow highlighting L21 (and its eukaryotic analogues) is intended to draw attention to a key residue that, along with A154, forms part of the hydrophobic pocket occupied by V24Y. As detailed in the main text and shown in Figures 3C, 3D, and 4G, measurements involving L21 were used to demonstrate the widening of this pocket upon V24Y mutation or ZYA binding.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

The authors might consider improving the manuscript by addressing the following minor issues:

(1) Figure 1: it might be easier for readers to understand what the authors meant to show by superimposing the atomic model of the mutated sidechain with the density map. In this case, the density map could be rendered half-transparent, or it could be represented by mesh.

We appreciate this suggestion for enhancing Figure 1. While we agree that showing the model fit within the density is valuable, we found that incorporating this directly into the comparative overlay panels of Figure 1 (which already depict multiple aligned density maps) made the figure overly complex and visually detracted from its primary message of comparing overall conformational states. However, we do provide a clear illustration of the model-to-map fit for the αV24Y T20S structure in Supplemental Figure S3, where the atomic model is shown within the transparent map surface. Furthermore, all our maps and models are publicly available, and we encourage interested readers to perform detailed comparisons. We believe this approach balances clarity in the main figure with the provision of detailed validation data.  

(2) What is the solvent-inaccessible surface area of the mutated side-chain buried by its hydrophobic interaction with the HbYX pockets? How is this buried surface area compared to the solvent-accessible surface area of the HbYX pocket without the mutation?

We appreciate the idea of another visual to answer the question and provide the reader with a better perception of this pocket in the WT versus V24Y T20S. To address this we added a new Supplemental Figure 7 with surfaces showing this comparison including each separate pocket and an overlay with solid and mesh surfaces. We also added this line to the text: “Moreover, molecular surface representations of the hydrophobic pocket clearly show occupancy by the mutant tyrosine’s side chain (Fig. S7)”.

(3) Based on the data of the buried surface area of the mutated side-chain (requested above), can the authors make some quantitative comparison with the activated eukaryotic proteasome (either human or yeast 26S) with the alpha-pocket occupied with HbYX motifs from Rpt subunits? How similar are they?

This is a thoughtful suggestion, and we understand the interest in directly comparing pocket occupancy across systems. While we draw general parallels regarding HbYXdependent activation in the discussion, we believe a direct quantitative extrapolation of specific surface area occupancies from our T20S V24Y mutant to the eukaryotic system would be overly speculative and unlikely to yield further definitive insights into the eukaryotic gate-opening mechanism at this time. The primary reason for this is the significant disparity in complexity between the archaeal T20S and eukaryotic 26S proteasomes. The eukaryotic α-ring is a heteroheptamer, composed of seven distinct αsubunits, which creates seven non-identical inter-subunit pockets. In contrast, our study utilizes the homoheptameric archaeal T20S. Furthermore, eukaryotic 26S proteasome activation involves the intricate binding of multiple C-terminal tails from the six different Rpt ATPase subunits of the 19S regulatory particle. These C-termini include various HbYX motifs as well as non-HbYX tails, and they interact with the diverse α-subunit pockets in a highly complex, multifactorial manner that drives what appears to be an allosteric mechanism for gate regulation.

Crucially, the precise number of C-termini required for 20S gate-opening in the eukaryotic system, the specific combination of these Rpt C-termini, and even the exact inter-subunit pockets that must be occupied to induce robust gate opening are still areas of active investigation and are not resolved (as discussed in our manuscript). Therefore, attempting to extrapolate nuances, such as the precise degree of hydrophobic pocket occupancy from our single, engineered αV24Y side-chain (which models one specific type of Hb-pocket interaction in a simplified system) to each of the potentially five or more different Rpt Ctermini interactions within the various 20S inter-subunit pockets in the eukaryotic 26S proteasome, would involve too many assumptions and would not provide reliable predictive power to understand mechanism.

However, regarding the fundamental question of how a hydrophobic group occupies the HbYX pocket in our archaeal model system, we believe Figure 4D provides relevant insight that may address the reviewer's underlying curiosity. This figure carefully illustrates the spatial overlap, showing that the engineered αV24Y side-chain and the hydrophobic 'Z' group of the ZYA HbYX-mimetic occupy the same region within the T20S inter-subunit hydrophobic pocket. This provides a clear visual comparison of this key 'Hb' interaction in our defined and structurally characterized system.

(4) It may be helpful that at the end of the discussion, the authors make some comments on how the current results might offer insights into the eukaryotic proteasome activation, and on what the limitations of the current study are.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We agree that discussing the implications for eukaryotic proteasome activation and the study's limitations is important.

Insights into Eukaryotic Proteasome Activation:

We have indeed discussed how our current findings with the αV24Y T20S mutant offer insights into eukaryotic proteasome activation in the Discussion section. To briefly summarize:

(1) Conservation of the Target Site: Our study highlights that the key residues forming the hydrophobic pocket targeted by the αV24Y mutation (αL21 and αA154 in T20S) are well-conserved in the human 20S α-subunits (as shown in Fig. S9). This suggests that the mechanism of inducing gate opening through occupancy of this specific hydrophobic 'Hb' pocket by an aromatic residue is a plausible strategy for activating eukaryotic proteasomes.

(2) Relevance of the IT Switch: The αV24Y mutation, by occupying the Hb-pocket, allosterically affects the conserved IT switch, promoting an open-gate conformation. As detailed in our previous work (Chuah et al., Commun. Biol. 2023; Ref. 31 in the current manuscript), this IT switch mechanism is also functionally conserved in most human α-subunits. The current study reinforces that direct manipulation of the Hb-pocket is sufficient to trigger this conserved downstream gating machinery.

(3) Therapeutic Implications: These findings further pinpoint the HbYX hydrophobic pocket as a specific and promising target for the design of small molecule proteasome activators aimed at human proteasomes.

While these parallels are informative, we reiterate our caution (as also mentioned in response to comment #3 and in the manuscript regarding direct quantitative extrapolation due to the increased complexity of the heteroheptameric eukaryotic α-ring and the multifactorial nature of Rpt C-termini interactions.

We also agree that we should add a statement regarding key limitation raised by the reviewer, to our manuscript. Below is the key limitations paragraph that has been added to the penultimate paragraph of the discussion: 

“While this study provides significant insights, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations. A key limitation stems from using the homoheptameric archaeal T20S as our model. Although this simpler system allows for more reliable dissection of fundamental mechanisms, and core elements like HbYX-induced gate opening are conserved at the intersubunit pocket level, the overall T20S and eukaryotic 20S/26S proteasomes differ significantly in their complexity. Specifically, our engineered αV24Y mutation results in a tyrosine constitutively occupying all seven identical hydrophobic pockets. This contrasts with the eukaryotic proteasome, which possesses seven distinct α-subunit pockets that interact with various Rpt C-termini through dynamic binding. Moreover, the specific Rpt Ctermini interactions—whether acting individually or cooperatively—that are essential to drive gate opening in the eukaryotic system remain incompletely understood. Therefore, while insights from our archaeal system are valuable for understanding general principles, direct comparisons and extrapolations to the intricate allostery and interaction complexities of the eukaryotic 26S proteasome must be made with caution.”

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the previous reviews

Reviewer #2:

Minor reviews:

The caveats are (1) the particular point will perhaps only be interesting to a small slice of the eQTL research community; (2) the authors provide no statistical controls/error estimate or independent validation of the variance partitioning analysis in Figure 3, and (3) the authors don't seem to use the single-cell growth/fitness estimates for anything else, as Figure 4 uses loci mapped to growth from a previously published, standard culture-by-culture approach. It would be appropriate for the manuscript to mention these caveats.

We have added two small mention of these caveats – mainly that the study may not generalize, and that the study does not attempt to try the variance partitioning on other traits or other system where the values of the partitions are better established.

I also think it is not appropriate for the manuscript to avoid a comparison between the current work and Boocock et al., which reports single-cell eQTL mapping in the same yeast system. I recommend a citation and statement of the similarities and differences between the papers.

We have added this reference and a clear statement of similarities between the two studies. It was not our intention to avoid this; we had simply not seen that study in the initial submission.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This is an interesting follow-up to a paper published in Human Molecular Genetics reporting novel roles in corticogenesis of the Kif7 motor protein that can regulate the activator as well as the repressor functions of the Gli transcription factors in Shh signalling. This new work investigates how a null mutation in the Kif7 gene affects the formation of corticofugal and thalamocortical axon tracts and the migration of cortical interneurons. It demonstrates that the Kif7 null mutant embryos present with ventriculomegaly and heterotopias as observed in patients carrying KIF7 mutations. The Kif7 mutation also disrupts the connectivity between the cortex and thalamus and leads to an abnormal projection of thalamocortical axons. Moreover, cortical interneurons show migratory defects that are mirrored in cortical slices treated with the Shh inhibitor cyclopamine suggesting that the Kif7 mutation results in a down-regulation of Shh signalling. Interestingly, these defects are much less severe at later stages of corticogenesis.

Strengths/weaknesses:

The findings of this manuscript are clearly presented and are based on detailed analyses. Using a compelling set of experiments, especially the live imaging to monitor interneuron migration, the authors convincingly investigate Kif7's roles and their results support their major claims. The migratory defects in interneurons and the potential role of Shh signalling present novel findings and provide some mechanistic insights but rescue experiments would further support Kif7's role in interneuron migration. Similarly, the mechanism underlying the misprojection which has previously been reported in other cilia mutants remains unexplored. Taken together, this manuscript makes novel contributions to our understanding of the role of primary cilia in forebrain development and to the aetiology of neural symptoms in ciliopathy patients.

We again thank Reviewer 1 for her/his positive assessment of our article. We have addressed several weaknesses identified by the reviewer, supplementing the initial results with new data, and correcting or clarifying the text where necessary. Our detailed responses to the reviewer’s recommendations appear at the end of each comment.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) The authors report remarkable phenotypic changes in E14.5 embryos in the projection patterns of corticofugal/thalamocortical axons and in interneuron migration, but some of those phenotypes appear much less severe at E16.5. This might be indicative of a delay in development. Does the migration of interneurons to more dorsal regions correspond to an extended Cxcl12 expression? Do interneuorons still show migratory defects at E16.5? To address a potential delay, the authors could, if feasible, repeat Tbr2/Tomato and L1 or neurofilament stainings in E18.5 embryos?

The question of a possible developmental delay in Kif7 -/- embryos is important. To document this topic, we have extended our study initially focused on embryonic stage E14.5 to earlier (E12.5) and later (E16.5, E18.5/P0) developmental stages. We added new data on E12.5 (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. S4) and E18.5 (Fig. 3, Fig. 4) embryos in the main figures, and considerably extended the data on E16.5 embryos (Fig. 1, Fig. 3). The legends of figures and the text of the result section (p5-p6) have been modified accordingly. We now describe developmental defects in Kif7 -/- embryos, which are not simple developmental delays. The sequences of thalamic axon development and cIN migration are representative of this complexity.

Thalamic axons: the pioneer projection is misrouted to the amygdala at E14.5 (Fig. 4B) whereas most Kif7 -/- thalamic axons extend to the cortex at E16.5, with a slight delay compared to WT axons (Fig. 4D). At E18.5, the Kif7 -/- thalamo-cortical projection appears rather normal in the rostral forebrain but is drastically reduced in the median and caudal forebrain (Fig. 4E). This strong decrease is confirmed by neurofilament staining performed at E18.5 which identifies a major loss of corticofugal and thalamo-cortical projections in Kif7 -/- brains (Fig. 4F). 

Migrating cIN: During normal development, CXCL12 maintains cIN in their tangential pathways as they start to colonize the cortical wall (E13.5/E14.5). Then CXCL12 drops in the SVZ (Tiveron et al., 2006; Caronia-Brown and Grove, 2011) allowing wild type cIN to invade the cortical plate (Stumm et al., 2003; Li et al., 2008; Atkins et al., 2023). In Kif7 -/- embryos, CXCL12 is never expressed in the SVZ of the dorsal cortex. Therefore Kif7 -/- cIN migrate radially in the dorsal cortex instead of tangentially. We have improved our text in the result section to clarify this transient defect (p8-9).

(2) Figure 1D: The overview of the Gsh2 and Tbr2 stainings does not allow us to see details of the PSPB. The lines indicating the position of the PSPB are not helpful either. Higher magnifications are required to see whether there are subtle differences at these boundaries as observed for other cilia mutants.

We thank the reviewer for her/his question that allowed us to identify a mild default of patterning at the PSB, illustrated by high magnification pictures in the Fig. 1D and described in the result section (p5). This subtle defect of PSB patterning is consistent with previous observations in Kif7 -/- embryos (Putoux et al, 2019) and appears milder than the PSB defect in hypomorphic Gli3 Pdn mutants (PSB shifted dorsally and less well defined as illustrated in Kuschel et al, 2003 and Magnani et al., 2010).

(3) Figure 3: The authors report an interesting mis-projection of thalamocortical axons towards the amygdala. A very similar pattern has been described in Gli3 hypomorphic Pdn mutants (Magnani et al., 2010), in Rfx3, and in Inpp5e null mutant embryos (Magnani et al., 2015). These papers lend further support that this Kif7 phenotype is Gli3 dependent and should be cited in the manuscript. Moreover, the mechanism(s) underlying this mis-projection remain unexplored. Is this phenotype rescued in the previously reported Kif7/ Gli3D699 double mutants? Is there an abnormal expression of axon guidance molecules?

We deeply thank the reviewer for drawing our attention to the abnormal projection of thalamic axons to the amygdala described in the Gli3 Pdn mutant and in two ciliary mutants, Rfx3 -/- and Lnpp5e -/-. We cite these two papers (Magnani et al., 2010, 2015) in the revised manuscript (p7). In the Gli3 Pdn mutant, transplantation experiments show that a patterning defect of the ventral telencephalon (VT) underlies the mis-projection of the thalamus to the amygdala (Magnani et al, 2010). In the Rfx3 ciliary mutant, two possible mechanisms are proposed: pre-thalamus patterning defect and ectopic Netrin and Slit1 expression in the VT (Magnani et al, 2015). We do agree that understanding the mechanism of the thalamic misprojection in the Kif7 mutant would be of great interest. However, given the complexity of the putative mechanisms described in the Gli3 Pdn and Rfx3 mutants, we believe that this question deserves further investigation in a future study. Finally, the possibility that the thalamic projection defect observed in Kif7 -/- embryos could be rescued in Kif7/Gli3699 (double mutants in which Gli3R is overexpressed in the dorsal and ventral forebrain) is very unlikely. Our two main arguments are:

(1) Magnani et al (2015) did not rescue the TCA pathfinding defect in the Rfx3 -/- ciliary mutant when they overexpressed GLI3-R (see TCA description in the Rfx3/ Gli3699 double mutant, last paragraph of the result section). The authors concluded “This finding could be explained by a requirement for Gli activator and not Gli repressor function in VT {ventral telencephalon} patterning and indeed, Gli3 western blots showed that the levels of Gli3R are not altered in the VT of Rfx3 -/- embryos”.

(2) The GLI3-R/Gli3-FL ratio is decreased in the cortex of the Kif7 -/- embryos (dorsal telencephalon) as expected, whereas it is very low in the MGE of WT embryos (ventral telencephalon) and remains unaltered in the Kif7 -/- embryos (Fig. 2B).  

Similarly, the analysis of Kif7 -/- cIN migratory defects leads us to conclude that Kif7 ablation impairs Gli activation function rather than Gli repressor function in the VT where cIN are generated.

(4) Figure 4: The authors should discuss the difference between Tbr2 and Cxcl12 expression which does not extend into the dorsal-most cortical SVZ.

We observed that the transient CXCL12 expression is lacking in the SVZ of the dorsal cortex of Kif7 -/- embryos at E14.5, in a region where TBR2 cells abnormally reach the cortical surface and intermingle with post-mitotic cells. A sentence in our previous version (lines 233-234) could suggest a link between the abnormal location of TBR2 expressing cells and the lack of CXCL12 expression. Having found no data in the literature to explain the absence of CXCL12 expression in the brain by an abnormal cellular environment or by a defect in transcription factor expression, we do not want to further elaborate on differences and similarities between TBR2 and CXCL12 expression patterns in the Kif7 -/- brain. We have modified our text accordingly in the result section of the revised manuscript (p8-9). 

(5) Figure 5: The authors convincingly describe migratory defects of interneurons. The treatment with Shh agonist and antagonist provides some mechanistic insights but genetic or pharmacological rescue experiments would lend further support. For example, they could treat Kif7 mutant sections with Shh agonists or analyse Kif7/Gli3D699 double mutants.

We thank the reviewer for her/his positive assessment of our analysis of the cIN migration. Unfortunately, the rescue experiments proposed by the reviewer should not help to further support our conclusions. First, Kif7 ablation in cIN prevents the processing of any SHH signal in the transcriptional pathway. Second, increasing GLI3R by crossing Kif7 -/- animals with Gli3D699 mice could possibly rescue the alterations of layering in the dorsal cortex where the GLI3R/GLI-FL ratio is strongly decreased and the SHH pathway activated. Such a rescue had been previously described for corpus callosum defects (Putoux et al., 2019). However, because cIN are generated in the ventral forebrain where SHH signaling predominantly activates the formation of GLI-A and where Kif7 ablation does not alter the GLI3 ratio, GLI3R re-introduction in the basal forebrain should rather increase the migratory defects of Kif7 -/- cIN instead of producing a rescue. To further support our conclusion, we analyzed the migratory behavior of Kif7 -/- cIN in a WT cortical environment. The results illustrated in the Fig. 6A and described in page 9 of the result section confirm that the migration defects of Kif7 -/-  cIN are reminiscent of an inhibition but not an activation of the  transcriptional SHH pathway (same phenotype as in Kif3a ciliary mutants described in Baudoin et al, 2012).

(6) Figure 6: The authors describe the Shh mRNA and protein expression with relevance to interneuron migration. In contrast to the in situ hybridisation, the immunofluorescence analysis is not very convincing and requires further controls. The authors should at least show a no primary antibody control and, if available, could include a staining on Shh mutants. These additional controls are important as Shh protein expression in the developing cortex is highly controversial and a recent paper describes a different pattern (Manuel et al., 2022: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001563#). Moreover, it remains unclear whether the Shh protein expression is uniform within the cortex or follows lateral to medial or ventricular to pial gradients. A more thorough description and corresponding figures would be helpful. 

Manuel et al. (2022) used the SHH KO (generated by Chiang et al., 1996) that develops a long proboscis to validate the rabbit anti-SHH antibodies (from Genetech) used in their study. They show a lack of SHH signal in the SHH KO. However, it is difficult to identify the cortex in this mouse line and the authors did not specify which part of the SHH protein was used to generate antibodies. We wished to use the SHH KO generated by Chiang and backcrossed on a C57B/6 line (Rash and Grove, 2007) that develops a layered neocortex at E17.5. However,

(1) the SHH KO was obtained by replacing exon2 with a PGK-neo cassette and could express a 101 aa truncated protein comprising the N-ter part of the protein, and

(2) the antibody we used, is a polyclonal N-ter antibody that targets the active SHH protein (Cys25-Gly198 part of SHH protein used as immunogen to produce the antibody). We thus thought that this labeling experiment will not give information on the specificity of the antibody, some epitopes being able to recognize the truncated protein produced in the SHH KO.

To overcome the lack of a good mutant mice to validate the SHH N-ter antibodies, we analyzed the SHH immunostaining pattern at E12.5 and compared the expression profile with previously published SHH mRNA expression patterns. The border of the third ventricle and the ZLI were strongly immunostained by SHH-Nter antibodies and these regions were shown to express SHH mRNA at E12.5-E13.5 (Kicker et al. 2004, Loulier et al., 2005, Sahara et al., 2007 and Fig. 7B1). In brain sections at E14.5, only the choroid plexus was strongly labeled and some structures showed diffused labeling. We analyzed the distribution of SHH mRNAs in the cortex using a highly sensitive technique (RNAscop) at E14.5 and showed that very few cortical cells expressed SHH mRNA and at very low level. Anti-SHH-Nter antibodies immunostained numerous bright dots throughout the cortical neuropile, which is not surprising for a diffusible factor like SHH. However, the labeling was not homogeneous and showed a ventricle to pial gradient at E12.5 and aligned distributions in the different cortical layers at E14.5. We have described the expression pattern in more detail and modified the Fig. S4 by adding an image of immunostaining performed without SHH N-ter antibody.  

(7) Figure S1: The Gli3 Western blot needs to be quantified. As the authors only show one control and one mutant sample, it remains unclear how representative this blot is. In addition to Gli3R and Gli3FL, the authors should also determine the ratio of both isoforms. Are there also differences in the MGE?

We now produce results of Gli3 western blots in the cortex and MGE of several E14.5 Kif7 KO (n=4) and WT (n=4) embryos. The GLI3R/GLI3FL ratio has been determined in the cortex and in the MGE of WT and mutant embryos. Results are illustrated in the Fig. 2. 

Minor points:

The authors should carefully amend the literature on Gli genes and forebrain development. For example:

(1) Line 85: Add Hasenpusch-Theil et al., 2018.

We added this reference.

(2) Line 141: Remove Magnani et al., 2010 (they characterized hypomorphic Gli3 Pdn mutants) and replace with Kuschel et al., 2003.

Since our revised figure 2 illustrates GLI3 western blots and compare GLI3R/GLI3FL ratios in the cortex and MGE of WT and Kif7-/- embryos, we no longer cite these papers in the result section.

(3) Line 380: Replace reference with Theil, 2005.

We have replaced Magnani et al, 2014 by Theil 2005 in the sentence.

(4) Line 414: Rallu et al is not an appropriate reference for this as this manuscript does not investigate the expression of a single cortical marker in Shh/Gli3 double mutants.

We removed the reference Rallu et al. in the sentence.

(5) Reference in line 355: do not use Vancouver style.

We apologize for the mistake that was corrected.

(6) Spelling: Line 447 it should read "choroid plexus"

We again apologize for the mistake that has been corrected.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study investigates the role of KIF7, a ciliary kinesin involved in the Sonic Hedgehog (SHH) signaling pathway, in cortical development using Kif7 knockout mice. The researchers examined embryonic cortex development (mainly at E14.5), focusing on structural changes and neuronal migration abnormalities.

Strengths:

(1) The phenotype observed is interesting, and the findings provide neurodevelopmental insight into some of the symptoms and malformations seen in patients with KIF7 mutations.<br /> (2) The authors assess several features of cortical development, including structural changes in layers of the developing cortex, connectivity of the cortex with the thalamus, as well as migration of cINs from CGE and MGE to the cortex.

We greatly thank Reviewer 2 for her/his positive assessment of our work that characterize the neurodevelopmental defects induced by KIF7 ablation. We have deeply reorganized and implemented data in the figures to show changes occurring in different cortical cell types and at different stages. We have moreover corrected and clarified the text where necessary. Our detailed responses to the reviewer’s recommendations appear at the end of each comment.

Weaknesses:

(1) The Kif7 null does have phenotype differences from individual mutations seen in patients. It would be interesting to add more thoughts about how the null differs from these mutants in ciliary structure and SHH signaling via the cilium.

We are grateful to the Reviewer for recalling that Kif7 ablation alters SHH signaling within primary cilium and has a strong effect on ciliary structure. In the revised version of the manuscript, we discuss data from the literature that describe these alterations in human (Putoux et al, 2011) and in murine KIF7 depleted cells (He et al, 2015; Cheung et al., 2009; Lai et al., 2021) (discussion p13).

(2) The description of altered cortex development at E14.5 is perhaps rather descriptive. It would be useful to assess more closely the changes occurring in different cell types and stages. For this it seems very important to have a time course of cortical development and how the structural organization changes over time. This would be easy to assess with the addition of serial sections from the same. It might also be interesting to see how SHH signaling is altered in different cortical cell types over time with a SHH signaling reporter mouse.

We thank the Reviewer for her/his request that helped us to improve our description of developmental defaults in the Kif7 -/- cortex.  In the revised manuscript, we have expanded our study initially focused on embryonic stage E14.5 to earlier (E12.5) and later (E16.5, E18.5 /P0) developmental stages. Instead of focusing on median forebrain sections, we have expanded our observations to rostral and caudal sections. Altogether, these new observations allow us to describe more precisely the complex developmental defects in the Kif7 -/- cortex over time, in specific cortical regions (dorsal versus lateral cortex, and rostral versus caudal levels). Figures 1, 3, 4, and S4 have been deeply edited to present new data on E12.5 (Fig. 1, Fig. 3, Fig. S4), E16.5 (Fig. 1, Fig. 3) and E18.5 (Fig. 3, Fig. 4) embryos. We have modified the legends and text in the result section (p5-6) accordingly. We agree with the Reviewer that deciphering how SHH signaling is altered in the different cortical cells over time should be highly interesting and relevant. Nevertheless, we anticipate complex analyses and consider that they should be retained for future studies.

(3) Abnormal neurodevelopmental phenotypes have been widely reported in the absence of other key genes affecting primary cilia function (Willaredt et al., J Neurosci 2008; Guo et al., Nat Commun 2015). It would be interesting to have more discussion of how the Kif7 null phenotype compares to some of these other mutants.

We agree with this Reviewer concern. In the revised manuscript, we discuss our results with regard to previous observations in other ciliary mutants. The murine cobblestone mutant described in Willaredt et al. (2008) indeed shows defects similar to those we describe in the Kif7 -/- mouse. We thank again the Reviewer for her/his helpful comment that allowed us to strengthen and better interpret our results. Guo et al (2015) did not conduct a study of ciliary mutants. Nevertheless, their characterization of cortical developmental defects following invalidation of genes involved in human ciliopathies identified cell autonomous defects in cortical progenitors and in differentiating cortical neurons, which corroborate our observations (p.15)

(4) The authors see alterations in cIN migration to the cortex and observe distinct differences in the pattern of expression of Cxcl12 as well as suggest cell-intrinsic differences within cIN in their ability to migrate. The slice culture experiments though make it a little difficult to interpret the cell intrinsic effects on cIN of loss of Kif7, as the differences in Cxcl12 patterns still exist presumably in the slice cultures. It would be useful to assess their motility in an assay where they were isolated, as well as assess transcriptional changes in cINs in vivo lacking KIF7 for expression patterns that may affect motility or other aspects of migration.

To circumvent the difference in the expression profile of CXCL12 in the dorsal cortex of WT and Kif7 -/- embryos on the migratory behavior of cIN, we compared the trajectories and dynamics of WT and Kif7 -/- cIN imaged in the lateral cortex where CXCL12 expression appears similar in WT and Kif7 -/- brains.

We moreover followed the reviewer recommendation and analyzed the migratory behavior of Kif7 -/- cIN that migrate as isolated cells on a dissociated substrate of WT cortical cells. We sincerely thank the reviewer for her/his suggestion as the results revealed an interesting and relevant ciliary phenotype in migrating Kif7 -/- cIN. This additional experiment confirms that Kif7 -/- cIN exhibit the same migratory defects as those initially characterized in the Kif3a -/-  ciliary mutant.  The new results are illustrated in the Fig. 6A and described in the result section (p9). We agree with the reviewer that the analysis of transcriptional changes that could affect Kif7 -/- cIN motility and migration would be very interesting to study, but this study is beyond the scope of the present article.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Review:

Review #1 (Public review):

Also, they observed no difference in the binding free energy of phosphatidyl-serine with wild TREM2-Ig and mutant TREM2-Ig, which is a bit inconsistent with the previous report with experiment studies by Journal of Biological Chemistry 293, (2018), Alzheimer's and Dementia 17, 475-488 (2021), Cell 160, 1061-1071 (2015).

We agree with the reviewer that our results do not fully recapitulate experimental findings and directly note this in the body of our work, particularly given the known limitations of free energy calculations in MD simulations, as outlined in the Limitations section. Our claim is that the loss-of-function effects of the R47H variant extend beyond decreased binding affinities which are likely due to variable binding patterns. We have also re-analyzed and highlighted statistically significant differences in interaction entropies. Ultimately, our claim is that mutational effects extend beyond experimentally confirmed differences in binding affinities.

Perhaps the authors made significant efforts to run a number of simulations for multiple models, which is nearly 17 microseconds in total; none of the simulations has been repeated independently at least a couple of times, which makes me uncomfortable to consider this finding technically true. Most of the important conclusions that authors claimed, including the opposite results from previous research, have been made on the single run, which raises the question of whether this observation can be reproduced if the simulation has been repeated independently. Although the authors stated the sampling number and length of MD simulations in the current manuscript as a limitation of this study, it must be carefully considered before concluding rather than based on a single run.

To address this comment, we have added numerous replicates to our simulations of WT and R47H (s)TREM2 without lipids and substantially increased the total simulation time. Each pure protein system now has six total microsecond-long technical replicates. The addition of replicates strengthens the validity of the work and allows us to make stronger novel conclusions than with one simulation alone, particularly for claims regarding the CDR2 loop and sTREM2 stalk.  In our models with phospholipids, running multiple independent biological replicates of the same system offers a more rigorous methodology than simply repeating simulations of the same docked model. This strategy allows us to sample several distinct starting configurations, thereby minimizing biases introduced by docking algorithms and single-model reliance.

sTREM2 shows a neuroprotective effect in AD, even with the mutations with R47H, as evidenced by authors based on their simulation. sTREM2 is known to bind Aβ within the AD and reduce Aβ aggregation, whereas R47H mutant increases Aβ aggregation. I wonder why the authors did not consider Aβ as a ligand for their simulation studies. As a reader in this field, I would prefer to know the protective mechanism of sTREM2 in Aβ aggregation influenced by the stalk domain.

Our initial approach for this study used Aβ as a ligand rather than phospholipids. However, we noted the difficulties in simulating Aβ, particularly in choosing relevant Aβ structures and oligomeric states (n-mers). We believe that phospholipids represent an equally pertinent ligand for TREM2, given its critical role in lipid sensing and metabolism. Furthermore, there is growing recognition in the AD research community of the need to move beyond Aβ and focus on other understudied pathological mechanisms.

In a similar manner, why only one mutation is considered "R47H" for the study? There are more server mutations reported to disrupt tethering between these CDRs, such as T66M. Although this "T66M" is not associated with AD, I guess the stalk domain protective mechanism would not be biased among different diseases. Therefore, it would be interesting to see whether the findings are true for this T66M.

In most previous studies, the mechanism for CDR destabilization by mutant was explored, like the change of secondary structures and residue-wise interloop interaction pattern. While this is not considered in this manuscript, neither detailed residue-wise interaction that changed by mutant or important for 'ligand binding" or "stalk domain".

These are both excellent points that deserve extensive investigation, although we note that our paper does include significant protein-protein and protein-ligand interaction mapping that encompasses both the CDR2 loop and stalk, analyses which were not performed in any previous papers. In a separate paper, we explored more detailed residue-wise interactions for the CDR2 loop (Lietzke et al., Alzheimer’s and Dementia, 2025). While R47H is the most common and prolific mutation in literature, an extensive catalog of other mutations is important to explore. To this end, we are currently preparing a separate publication that will explore a larger mutational library and include more detailed sTREM2 analyses. 

The comparison between the wild and mutant and other different complex structures must be determined by particular statistical calculations to state the observed difference between different structures is significant. Since autocorrelation is one of the major concerns for MD simulation data for predicting statistical differences, authors can consider bootstrap calculations for predicting statistical significance.

The addition of numerous replicates across systems negates potential effects from autocorrelation and allows us to include standard deviations to critically assess the validity of our claims.

Review #2 (Public review):

The authors state that reported differences in ligand binding between the TREM2 and sTREM2 remain unexplained, and the authors cite two lines of evidence. The first line of evidence, which is true, is that there are differences between lipid binding assays and lipid signaling assays. However, signaling assays do not directly measure binding. Secondly, the authors cite Kober et al 2021 as evidence that sTREM2 and TREM2 showed different affinities for Abeta1-42 in a direct binding assay. Unfortunately, when Kober et al measured the binding of sTREM2 and Ig-TREM2 to Abeta they reported statistically identical affinities (Kd = 3.8 {plus minus} 2.9 µM vs 5.1 {plus minus} 3.7 µM) and concluded that the stalk did not contribute measurably to Abeta binding.

We appreciate the reviewer’s insight and acknowledge the need to clarify our interpretation of Kober et al. (2021). We have adjusted how we cite Kober et al. and reframed the first paragraph in the second results section.

In line with these findings, our energy calculations reveal that sTREM2 exhibits weaker—but still not statistically significant—binding affinities for phospholipids compared to TREM2. These results suggest that while overall binding affinity might be similar, differences in binding patterns or specific lipid interactions could still contribute to functional differences observed between TREM2 and sTREM2.

The authors appear to take simulations of the Ig domain (without any stalk) as a surrogate for the full-length, membrane-bound TREM2. They compare the Ig domain to a sTREM2 model that includes the stalk. While it is fully plausible that the stalk could interact with and stabilize the Ig domain, the authors need to demonstrate why the full-length TREM2 could not interact with its own stalk and why the isolated Ig domain is a suitable surrogate for this state.

We believe that this is a major limitation of all computational work of TREM2 to-date, and of experimental work which only presents the Ig-like domain. This is extensively discussed in the limitations section of our paper and treated carefully throughout the text. We are currently working toward a separate manuscript that will represent the first biologically relevant model of full-length TREM2 in a membrane and will rigorously assess the current paradigm of using the Ig-like domain as an experimental surrogate for TREM2.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Perhaps the authors made significant efforts to run a number of simulations for multiple models, which is nearly 17 microseconds in total; none of the simulations has been repeated independently at least a couple of times, which makes me uncomfortable to consider this finding technically true. Most of the important conclusions that authors claimed, including the opposite results from previous research, have been made on the single run, which raises the question of whether this observation can be reproduced if the simulation has been repeated independently. Although the authors stated the sampling number and length of MD simulations in the current manuscript as a limitation of this study, it must be carefully considered before concluding rather than based on a single run.

To address this comment, we have added numerous replicates to our simulations of WT and R47H (s)TREM2 without lipids and substantially increased the total simulation time. Each pure protein system now has six total microsecond-long technical replicates. The addition of replicates strengthens the validity of the work and allows us to make stronger novel conclusions than with one simulation alone, particularly for claims regarding the CDR2 loop and sTREM2 stalk.  In our models with phospholipids, running multiple independent biological replicates of the same system offers a more rigorous methodology than simply repeating simulations of the same docked model. This strategy allows us to sample several distinct starting configurations, thereby minimizing biases introduced by docking algorithms and single-model reliance. 

(2) sTREM2 shows a neuroprotective effect in AD, even with the mutations with R47H, as evidenced by authors based on their simulation. sTREM2 is known to bind Aβ within the AD and reduce Aβ aggregation, whereas R47H mutant increases Aβ aggregation. I wonder why the authors did not consider Aβ as a ligand for their simulation studies. As a reader in this field, I would prefer to know the protective mechanism of sTREM2 in Aβ aggregation influenced by the stalk domain.

Our initial approach for this study used Aβ as a ligand rather than phospholipids. However, we noted the difficulties in simulating Aβ, particularly in choosing relevant Aβ structures and oligomeric states (n-mers). We believe that phospholipids represent an equally pertinent ligand for TREM2, given its critical role in lipid sensing and metabolism. Furthermore, there is growing recognition in the AD research community of the need to move beyond Aβ and focus on other understudied pathological mechanisms.

(3) In a similar manner, why only one mutation is considered "R47H" for the study? There are more server mutations reported to disrupt tethering between these CDRs, such as T66M. Although this "T66M" is not associated with AD, I guess the stalk domain protective mechanism would not be biased among different diseases. Therefore, it would be interesting to see whether the findings are true for this T66M.

(4) In most previous studies, the mechanism for CDR destabilization by mutant was explored, like the change of secondary structures and residue-wise interloop interaction pattern. While this is not considered in this manuscript, neither detailed residue-wise interaction that changed by mutant or important for 'ligand binding" or "stalk domain".

These are both excellent points that deserve extensive investigation, although we note that our paper does include significant protein-protein and protein-ligand interaction mapping that encompasses both the CDR2 loop and stalk, analyses which were not performed in any previous papers. In a separate paper, we explored more detailed residue-wise interactions for the CDR2 loop (Lietzke et al., Alzheimer’s and Dementia, 2025). While R47H is the most common and prolific mutation in literature, an extensive catalog of other mutations is important to explore. To this end, we are currently preparing a separate publication that will explore a larger mutational library and include more detailed sTREM2 analyses.

(5) The comparison between the wild and mutant and other different complex structures must be determined by particular statistical calculations to state the observed difference between different structures is significant. Since autocorrelation is one of the major concerns for MD simulation data for predicting statistical differences, authors can consider bootstrap calculations for predicting statistical significance.

The addition of numerous replicates across systems negates potential effects from autocorrelation and allows us to include standard deviations to critically assess the validity of our claims.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Major points:

(1) I encourage the authors to review Figure 5D and the text of section 2.7 from Kober et al 2021, which argued that "(t)he identical (within error) binding affinities indicated that the TREM2 Ig domain composes the majority (if not entirety) of the mAβ42 binding surface."

We appreciate the reviewer’s insight and acknowledge the need to clarify our interpretation of Kober et al. (2021). We have adjusted how we cite Kober et al and reframed the first paragraph in the second results section.

(2) The abstract and text need extensive revision to address the major concerns, which jeopardize the biological premise and significance of the work.

We have made changes to the abstract and text to reflect concerns and revisions.

(3) The title and abstract should change to reflect the contents of the paper. The authors do not directly measure lipid binding, nor are any of the computations done in a membrane environment. The authors do not measure anything in the brain.

We have modified the title to better reflect the content of the paper. The paper measures lipid binding in the form of free energy calculations and interaction maps.

Minor points:

(1) How does the conservation of the TREM2 stalk compare to the Ig domain as they relate to the TREM2 family?

While this study may inspire further exploration of other TREM receptors, we do not believe that our results extend to other TREM family members because of relatively low homology.

(2) Please show the locations of the glycosylation sites on a model in Figure 1 and discuss their potential contribution to the ligand binding surfaces.

N-linked glycosylation points are now noted on the sequence map of Figure 1 and updated in the text.

(3) There is an isoform of TREM2 that produces a secreted product that is similar to the sTREM2 produced by proteolysis. The authors should comment as to whether their findings would apply to secreted TREM2.

We have addressed this with a new line in the ‘Ideas and Speculation’ section.

(4) This sentence on p. 2, line 73 references a review, not a study:

This has been corrected.

(5) "Yet, one study suggested effective TREM2 stimulation by PLs may require co-presentation with other molecules, potentially reflecting the nature of lipoprotein endocytosis30"

This has been corrected.

(6) Is "inclusive" on line 88 a typo for inconclusive?

This has been corrected.

(7) "Further, there is a strong correlation between the levels of sTREM2 in the cerebrospinal fluid and that of Tau, however correlation with Aβ is inclusive"

This has been corrected.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This work provides a new potential tool to manipulate Tregs function for therapeutic use. It focuses on the role of PGAM in Tregs differentiation and function. The authors, interrogating publicly available transcriptomic and proteomic data of human regulatory T cells and CD4 T cells, state that Tregs express higher levels of PGAM (at both message and protein levels) compared to CD4 T cells. They then inhibit PGAM by using a known inhibitor ECGC and show that this inhibition affects Tregs differentiation. This result was also observed when they used antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) to knockdown PGAM1.

PGAM1 catalyzes the conversion of 3PG to 2PG in the glycolysis cascade. However, the authors focused their attention on the additional role of 3PG: acting as starting material for the de novo synthesis of serine.

They hypothesized that PGAM1 regulates Tregs differentiation by regulating the levels of 3PG that are available for de novo synthesis of serine, which has a negative impact on Tregs differentiation. Indeed, they tested whether the effect on Tregs differentiation observed by reducing PGAM1 levels was reverted by inhibiting the enzyme that catalyzes the synthesis of serine from 3PG.

The authors continued by testing whether both synthesized and exogenous serine affect Tregs differentiation and continued with in vivo experiments to examine the effects of dietary serine restriction on Tregs function.

In order to understand the mechanism by which serine impacts Tregs function, the authors assessed whether this depends on the contribution of serine to one-carbon metabolism and to DNA methylation.

The authors therefore propose that extracellular serine and serine whose synthesis is regulated by PGAM1 induce methylation of genes Tregs associated, downregulating their expression and overall impacting Tregs differentiation and suppressive functions.

Strengths:

The strength of this paper is the number of approaches taken by the authors to verify their hypothesis. Indeed, by using both pharmacological and genetic tools in in vitro and in vivo systems they identified a potential new metabolic regulation of Tregs differentiation and function.

We are grateful to the reviewer for their thoughtful and constructive consideration of our work. We appreciate their comment that the number of approaches taken to test our hypothesis represents a strength that increases confidence in the conclusions.

Weaknesses:

Using publicly available transcriptomic and proteomic data of human T cells, the authors claim that both ex vivo and in vitro polarized Tregs express higher levels of PGAM1 protein compared to CD4 T cells (naïve or cultured under Th0 polarizing conditions). The experiments shown in this paper have all been carried out in murine Tregs. Publicly available resources for murine data (ImmGen -RNAseq and ImmPRes - Proteomics) however show that Tregs do not express higher PGAM1 (mRNA and protein) compared to CD4 T cells. It would be good to verify this in the system/condition used in the paper.

This is a fair comment. Although our pharmacologic and genetic studies demonstrated the importance of PGAM in Treg differentiation and suppressive function in murine cells, thereby corroborating the hypothesis formed based on human CD4 cell expression data, we agree that investigating PGAM expression in murine Tregs is important in the context of our work. In reviewing the ImmPres proteomics database, the reviewer is correct that PGAM1 expression was not higher in iTregs compared to other subsets, including Th17 cells. However, when compared to other glycolytic enzymes, expression of PGAM1 increases out of proportion in iTregs. In particular, the ratio of PGAM1 to GAPDH expression is much greater in iTregs compared to Th17 cells. This data is now shown in the revised Figure S5. The disproportionate increase in PGAM1 expression is consistent with the regulatory role of PGAM in the Treg-Th17 axis via modulation of 3PG concentrations, a metabolite that lies between GAPDH and PGAM in the glycolytic pathway. The divergent expression changes between GAPDH and PGAM furthermore support the conclusion that GAPDH and PGAM play opposite roles in Treg differentiation.

It would also be good to assess the levels of both PGAM1 mRNA and protein in Tregs PGAM1 knockdown compared to scramble using different methods e.g. qPCR and western blot. However, due to the high levels of cell death and differentiation variability, that would require cells to be sorted.

We appreciate this comment. As noted by the reviewer, assessing PGAM1 expression via qPCR and Western blot would require cell sorting, which we do not currently have the resources to pursue. However, we measured the effect of ASOs on PGAM1 protein expression using anti-PGAM1 antibody via flow cytometry, which allowed gating on viable cells. As shown in Figure S3A, PGAM-targeted ASOs led to an approximately 40% decrease in PGAM1 expression, as measured by mean fluorescence intensity (MFI). Furthermore, we now show in revised Figure S2 that ASO uptake was near-complete in our cultured CD4 cells.

It is not specified anywhere in the paper whether cells were sorted for bulk experiments. Based on the variability of cell differentiation, it would be good if this was mentioned in the paper as it could help to interpret the data with a different perspective.

Cells were not sorted for bulk experiments. In the revised manuscript, this point is made clear in the text, figure legends, and Methods. It is worth noting that all bulk experiments were conducted on samples with greater than 70% cell viability (greater than 90% for stable isotope tracing studies).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have tried to determine the regulatory role of Phosphoglycerate mutate (PGAM), an enzyme involved in converting 3-phosphoglycerate to 2-phosphoglycerate in glycolysis, in differentiation and suppressive function of regulatory CD4 T cells through de novo serine synthesis. This is done by contributing one carbon metabolism and eventually epigenetic regulation of Treg differentiation.

Strengths:

The authors have rigorously used inhibitors and antisense RNA to verify the contribution of these pathways in Treg differentiation in-vitro. This has also been verified in an in-vivo murine model of autoimmune colitis. This has further clinical implications in autoimmune disorders and cancer.

We very much appreciate these comments about the rigor of the work and its implications.

Weaknesses:

The authors have used inhibitors to study pathways involved in Treg differentiation. However, they have not studied the context of overexpression of PGAM, which was the actual reason to pursue this study.

We appreciate this comment and agree that overexpression of PGAM would be an excellent way to complement and further corroborate our findings. Unfortunately, despite attempting several methods, we were unable to consistently induce overexpression of PGAM1 in our primary T cell cultures.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

I would suggest increasing the font size for flow cytometry gates. Percentages are the focus of the analysis, and it is very hard to read any.

We have increased the font size on all flow cytometry gates, as suggested.

Moreover, most of the flow data show Tregs polarization based on CD25 and FOXP3 expression. However, Figure 3 A, Figure 4D and Figure S3 show Tregs polarization based on FSC and Foxp3. Is there any reason for this?

Antibody staining against CD25 was poor in the experiments noted, which is why Foxp3 alone was used to identify Treg cells in these experiments.

Especially for Figure 3A, other cells could also express Foxp3 making interpretation difficult.

This is a fair comment. With respect to Figures 4D and S3 (now revised Figure S4), these experiments were conducted in isolated CD4 cells, in which the population of CD25-Foxp3+ cells is minimal following Treg polarization (as evident in our other figures). Regarding Figure 3A, previous work has found minimal expression of Foxp3 in circulating non-T cells (Devaud et al., 2014, PMID 25063364), such that we have confidence the identified Foxp3 expressing cells are, in fact, Treg cells. Notably, Figure 3A was already gated on CD4+ T cells, and in the periphery of wild-type mice, these would be reasonably referred to as Tregs, although this does not apply to diseased states or specific cases such as the tumor microenvironment.

The level of murine Tregs differentiation varies a lot among experiments. The % of CD4+CD25+FOXP3+ is ranging from 14% to 77% (controls). It would be good to understand and verify why such differentiation variability.

For most of our Treg polarization experiments, % differentiation in the control group falls within the 35 – 55% range. We found that treatment with ASOs (even scrambled control ASOs) tended to decrease Treg polarization overall, leading to lower numbers of Foxp3 expression in these experiments. Differentiation was similarly low in a few experiments that did not involve the use of ASOs, which we believe was caused by batch variability in the recombinant TGF-b that was used for polarization. Despite this variability, experiments were conducted with sufficient independent experiments and biological replicates to observe consistent trends and to have confidence in the results, as corroborated by statistical testing and the wide variety of experimental approaches used to verify our conclusions. Notably controls were run in every experiment, allowing accurate comparisons to be made in each individual experiment.

Similar comments apply to the level of cell death observed in the cultures of polarizing Tregs.

Although there was some variability in cell viability between experiments, flow cytometry experiments were always gated on live cells, and we believe concerns about reproducibility are substantially mitigated by the number of independent experiments, biological replicates, and distinct experimental approaches used for verification of the experimental findings. For all bulk experiments, cell viability was greater than 70% and equal across samples. For the flux studies, viability was greater than 90% and equal across samples.

Figure 2 B and D: EGCG has been used at two different concentrations. Is it lower in Figure 2D because of one condition being a combination of inhibitors or is it a typo?

The doses stated in the original legend are correct. Yes, drug doses were optimized for combination-treatment experiments. This point is now clarified in the figure legend.

Figure 2G: The description in the results does not match figure legend - Text - serine/glycine-free media or control (serine/glycine-containing) media; figure legend - serine/glycine-free media or media containing 4 mM serine.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this discrepancy, which was an error in the text. The two conditions used were 1) serine/glycine-free media, and 2) serine/glycine-free media supplemented with 4 mM serine. The text and figure legend have both been updated to clarify this point.

Figure 3 F and G: the graphs do not show the individual points.

Individual points were not shown in these graphs because they are derived from scRNA-seq data, with SCFEA calculated from individual cells. As such, there are far too many data points to display all individual values.

CD4+ T-cell isolation and culture: cells were cultured in 50%RPMI and 50% AIM-V.

I thought that AIM-V medium was intended to be for human cultures. Could some of the conditions explain the low level of differentiation observed in some experiments? If there is such variability it might be because the conditions used are not optimal and therefore not reproducible.

We appreciate this critique. Although AIM-V media is often used for ex vivo human T cell cultures, it can similarly be used for mouse T cell culture with the addition of b-mercaptoethanol, as suggested by ThermoFisher and as used in prior publications, such as PMID 36947105. As outlined in the responses above, the differentiation we observed was consistent in most experiments, with some variability based on experimental conditions (such as lower differentiation in the setting of ASO treatment). Furthermore, we believe the number of independent experiments, biological replicates, and independent experimental approaches used in the study supports the reproducibility of our findings.

Figures S1 A, S2 B, and S4: the flow data are shown using both heights (FSC) and area (zombie NIR dye). It would be better to use areas for both parameters.

In the revised manuscript, areas are now used on both the x- and y-axes for these figures.

Figure S1 B and S2 C: The bar graphs are both showing proliferation index, however, the graphs are labelled differently in the two figures and in the legend (proliferation index -Fig S1 B; division index -Fig S2 C and replication index in the legend of Fig S2 C). The explanation of how the index has been calculated should probably go in the legend of the first figure that shows it.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. In the revised manuscript, we have ensured consistency in the terminology (“proliferation index” is now used consistently), and the explanation of the proliferation index calculation is now included in the legend to Figure S1, where the proliferation index first appears.

Were Tregs PGAM1 KD used for RNAseq sorted or not? Based on the plots shown in Figure S2 B there is ~ 50% death which needs to be taken into consideration for the analysis if not depleted.

Similar question for all bulk experiments. It is not specified in the methods or figure legends.

The cells used for RNAseq and other bulk experiments were not sorted. This point is now made clear in the text, figure legends, and Methods. However, cultures were only used for bulk analyses if the viability in those particular experiments was greater than 70%. Given the sensitivity of stable isotope tracing analyses, cultures were only analyzed for those studies if viability was greater than 90%. In these experiments, viability was similar across samples.

It was mentioned in Figure 1 that the PGAM KD led to transcriptional changes that impacted MYC targets and mTORC1 signalling. It would be good to validate these findings maybe with more targeted experiments.

We appreciate this suggestion and agree that validation and further investigation of these critical targets would be worthwhile. However, because of limitations to resources and the fact that these findings are not critical to the main conclusions of the study, we consider these experiments as future directions beyond the scope of the current work.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Here are a few suggestions and recommendations to improve the research study.

(1) The authors have used the word 'vehicle' in most of the figures, however, this word is not explained well in the figure legend. The authors may want to clarify to readers whether vehicle is a plasmid or a solvent for control purposes. For example, in Figure 1D, if vehicle is a plasmid, then another sample for vehicle +/-EGCG should be considered for the rigor in results.

Thank you for identifying this point of confusion. For all drug treatment experiments, vehicle controls consisted of solvent alone without drug. For ASO experiments, the control condition consisted of scrambled ASO. This point is now made clear in the Methods (“Drug and ASO Treatments” section) as well as in the main text. Furthermore, the figure legends and axes have been edited such that “vehicle” is only used to refer to drug experiments (in which solvent vehicle alone was used as control), and “control” is used to refer to ASO experiments (in which scrambled ASO served as control).

(2) Figure 1H represents the RNAseq data for knockdown of PGAM1. It might be interesting to see similar data for the overexpression of PGAM1.

We appreciate this comment and agree that overexpression of PGAM1 would be an excellent way to complement and further corroborate our findings using PGAM1 knockdown and pharmacologic inhibition. Unfortunately, despite attempting several methods, we were unable to consistently induce overexpression of PGAM1 in our primary T cell cultures.

(3) The font in most of the data from flow cytometry experiments (for example 1I) is not legible. Please increase the font size to make it legible.

Font sizes have been increased.

(4) Figure S2, PGAM expression was measured by Flow cytometry experiments. A similar experiment using western Blot, the direct measurement of protein expression, will strengthen the evidence.

We appreciate this comment. As noted in the public reviews, Western blot would require sorting of viable cells, and unfortunately we do not currently have the resources to conduct additional experiments with FACS. However, we respectfully note that assessing protein expression via flow cytometry quantifies protein levels based on antibody binding, similar to Western blot (or in-cell Western blot), while also allowing gating on viable cells. We also note that nearly 100% of cultured CD4 cells took up ASO, as shown in revised Figure S2.

(5) Figure 1J, it is mentioned in the text that 10 datasets were studied. a normalized parameter such as overexpression or suppression could be studied with the variance. It will be good to understand the variability in response among different datasets.

We thank the reviewer for the opportunity to clarify this data. This data was taken from a single published dataset (Dykema et al., 2023, PMID 37713507) in which 10 distinct subsets of tumor-infiltrating Tregs (TIL-Tregs) were identified, rather than from 10 distinct datasets. After identifying the Activated (1)/OX40hiGITRhi cluster of TIL-Tregs as a highly suppressive subset that correlates with resistance to immune checkpoint blockade, Dykema et al. compared gene expression in this subset to the bulked collection of the other 9 subsets, and the data shown in Figure 1J is derived from this analysis. As such, the data in Figure 1J is, indeed, a normalized parameter of overexpression, showing overexpression of PGAM1 in this highly suppressive subset versus other subsets, out of proportion to proximal rate-limiting glycolytic enzymes. The main text and figure/figure legend have been edited to clarify this point.

(6) It will be good to rephrase that the roles of PGAM and GAPDH are opposite, this paragraph is confusing since words such as "supporting Treg differentiation" and "augments Treg differentiation" have been used, although the data in S3 and 1D are opposite. Any possible explanation for the opposing roles of PGAM and GAPDH, despite their involvement in the same pathway of glycolysis, can be added to build up the interest of readers. What is the comparison of the expression of GAPDH and PGAM in Figure 1J?

We thank the reviewer for this comment, as we appreciate that the language used in our initial manuscript was confusing. We have edited the main text, in both the Results and Discussion section, in order to clarify this point and provide explanation as suggested. Indeed, our experimental data indicate that GAPDH and PGAM play opposing roles in Treg differentiation; whereas inhibiting GAPDH activity leads to greater Treg differentiation (shown in revised Figure S4 and our previously published work), similarly inhibiting PGAM leads to diminished Treg differentiation. We view this point (that enzymes within the same glycolytic pathway can have divergent roles in T cells) as a primary implication of these findings, with the explanation that individual enzymes within the same pathway can differentially regulate the concentrations of key immunoactive metabolites. In our study, we identified 3PG as a key immunoactive metabolite whose concentration would be differentially impacted by GAPDH activity versus PGAM activity, since it lies downstream of GAPDH but upstream of PGAM.

To provide further evidence for the opposing roles of GAPDH and PGAM, we analyzed existing datasets. In the revised Figure S5, we show that the PGAM1/GAPDH expression ratio increases in both human and mouse Tregs compared to other CD4 subsets.

(7) Figure 2C, what is M+1, M+2 etc. Does it represent the number of hrs? If so, why are the results for 6 hrs are not shown since the study was for 6 hrs? And what is happening with M+2?

We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this point and apologize for prior confusion. The terminology “M+n” refers to mass-shift produced by incorporation of 13-carbon. When a metabolite incorporates a single 13-carbon atom, it has a mass-shift of one (M+1), whereas incorporation of three 13-carbon atoms produces a mass-shift of three (M+3). Because we used uniformly 13-carbon labeled glucose, 3PG derived from the labeled glucose will have all three carbons labeled (M+3), as will serine that is newly synthesized from 3PG. Because serine can enter the downstream one-carbon cycle and be recycled, we also see the appearance of recycled serine with a single 13-carbon (M+1). The critical point in Figure 2C is that labeled serine is higher in Th17 versus Treg cells, demonstrating that de novo serine synthesis from glycolysis is greater. The main text has been edited to clarify this important point.

(8) Including the quantification of inhibition and rescuing effect of EDCG and NCT will be helpful to readers.

The inhibition and rescuing effects of these drugs are quantified in Figures 2D and 2E as they relate to Treg differentiation. The reviewer may be referring to quantification of relative effects on 3PG levels and serine synthesis. If so, we unfortunately do not have the resources to complete these studies, which would require large-scale quantitative mass spectrometry studies or enzyme activity assays.

(9) Figure 2D and 2E: The authors could also experiment with a dose dependence curve on EGCG and NCT on this phenotype for Treg differentiation. That can help understand the balance between serine pathways and glycolysis pathways. Similarly, the dose dependence of 3PG for Figure 2E and comparing it to the kinetic constants of these enzymes involved and cellular concentrations, these details will be helpful to understand the metabolic dynamics, because this phenotype could be an interplay of both 3PG and serine concentrations.

We appreciate this suggestion and agree that establishing detailed dose-dependence curves and relating these findings to enzyme kinetics would yield additional insights into the biochemical regulation provided by PGAM and PHGDH. Unfortunately we do not have the resources to pursue these additional studies, which therefore lie beyond the scope of our current work.

(10) Figure 4: Explanation for no effect of methionine supplementation?

Thank you for raising this point. We speculate that methionine supplementation had minimal effect because physiologic levels of serine were sufficient to provide basal substrates for the one-carbon cycle. On the other hand, eliminating methionine produced enough of a decrease in one-carbon metabolism to potentiate the effects of excess serine. This point is now briefly addressed in the text.

(11) For direct connection between PGAM and methylation, methylation experiments could be worked out with NCT1 and SHIN1 (as in Figure 4H).

We very much appreciate this suggestion, which we agree would provide a strong complementary approach. Unfortunately we do not have the resources to pursue these studies currently. However, we believe the increased methylation observed following PGAM knockdown (Figure 4G) as strong evidence that PGAM activity directly modulates methylation.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have assembled a cohort of 10 SiNET, 1 SiAdeno, and 1 lung MiNEN samples to explore the biology of neuroendocrine neoplasms. They employ single-cell RNA sequencing to profile 5 samples (siAdeno, SiNETs 1-3, MiNEN) and single-nuclei RNA sequencing to profile seven frozen samples (SiNET 4-10).

They identify two subtypes of siNETs, characterized by either epithelial or neuronal NE cells, through a series of DE analyses. They also report findings of higher proliferation in non-malignant cell types across both subtypes. Additionally, they identify a potential progenitor cell population in a single-lung MiNEN sample.

Strengths:

Overall, this study adds interesting insights into this set of rare cancers that could be very informative for the cancer research community. The team probes an understudied cancer type and provides thoughtful investigations and observations that may have translational relevance.

Weaknesses:

The study could be improved by clarifying some of the technical approaches and aspects as currently presented, toward enhancing the support of the conclusions:

(1) Methods: As currently presented, it is possible that the separation of samples by program may be impacted by tissue source (fresh vs. frozen) and/or the associated sequencing modality (single cell vs. single nuclei). For instance, two (SiNET1 and SiNET2) of the three fresh tissues are categorized into the same subtype, while the third (SiNET9) has very few neuroendocrine cells. Additionally, samples from patient 1 (SiNET1 and SiNET6) are separated into different subtypes based on fresh and frozen tissue. The current text alludes to investigations (i.e.: "Technical effects (e.g., fresh vs. frozen samples) could also impact the capture of distinct cell types, although we did not observe a clear pattern of such bias."), but the study would be strengthened with more detail.

We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive review. Due to the difficulty in obtaining enough SiNET samples, we used two platforms to generate data - single cell analysis of fresh samples, and single nuclei analysis of frozen samples. We opted to combine both sample types in our analysis while being fully aware of the potential for batch effects. We therefore agree that this is a limitation of our work, and that differences between samples should be interpreted with caution.

Nevertheless, we argue that the two SiNET subtypes that we have identified are very unlikely to be due to such batch effect. First, the epithelial SiNET subtype was not only detected in two fresh samples but also in one frozen sample (albeit with relatively few cells, as the reviewer correctly noted). Second, and more importantly, the epithelial SiNET subtype was also identified in analysis of an external and much larger cohort of bulk RNA-seq SiNET samples that does not share the issue of two platforms (as seen in Fig. 2f). Moreover, the proportion of samples assigned to the two subtypes is similar between our data and the external data. We therefore argue that the identification of two SiNET subtypes cannot be explained by the use of two data platforms. However, we agree that the results should be further investigated and validated by future studies.

The reviewer also commented that two samples from the same patient which were profiled by different platforms (SiNET1 and SiNET6) were separated into different subtypes. We would like to clarify that this is not the case, since SiNET6 was not included in the subtype analysis due to too few detected Neuroendocrine cells, and was not assigned to any subtype, as noted in the text and as can be seen by its exclusion from Figure 2 where subtypes are defined. We apologize that our manuscript may have given the wrong impression about SiNET6 classification (it was labeled in Fig. 4a in a misleading manner). In the revised manuscript, we corrected the labeling in Fig. 4a and clarified that SiNET6 is not assigned to any subtype. We also further acknowledge the limitation of the two platforms and the arguments in favor of the existence of two SiNET subtypes.     

(Additional specific recommendations for the authors are provided below)

(2) Results:

Heterogeneity in the SiNET tumor microenvironment: It is unclear if the current analysis of intratumor heterogeneity distinguishes the subtypes. It may be informative if patterns of tumor microenvironment (TME) heterogeneity were identified between samples of the same subtype. The team could also evaluate this in an extension cohort of published SiNET tumors (i.e. revisiting additional analyses using the SiNET bulk RNAseq from Alvarez et al 2018, a subset of single-cell data from Hoffman et al 2023, or additional bulk RNAseq validation cohorts for this cancer type if they exist [if they do not, then this could be mentioned as a need in Discussion])

We agree that analysis of an independent cohort will assist in defining the association between TME and the SiNET subtype. However, the sample size required for that is significantly larger than the data available. In the revised manuscript we note that as a direction for future studies.

(3) Proliferation of NE and immune cells in SiNETs: The observed proliferation of NE and immune cells in SiNETs may also be influenced by technical factors (including those noted above). For instance, prior studies have shown that scRNA-seq tends to capture a higher proportion of immune cells compared to snRNA-seq, which should be considered in the interpretation of these results. Could the team clarify this element?

We agree that different platforms could affect the observed proportions of immune cells, and more generally the proportions of specific cell types. However, the low proliferation of Neuroendocrine cells and the higher proliferation of immune cells (especially B cells, but also T cells and macrophages) is consistently observed in both platforms, as shown in Fig. 4a, and therefore appears to be reliable despite the limitations of our work. We clarify this consistency in the revised manuscript. 

(4) Putative progenitors in mixed tumors: As written, the identification of putative progenitors in a single lung MiNEN sample feels somewhat disconnected from the rest of the study. These findings are interesting - are similar progenitor cell populations identified in SiNET samples? Recognizing that ideally additional validation is needed to confidently label and characterize these cells beyond gene expression data in this rare tumor, this limitation could be addressed in a revised Discussion.

We do not find evidence for similar progenitors in the SiNET samples, but they also do not contain two co-existing lineages of cancer cells within the same tumor, so this is harder to define. We agree about the need for additional validation for this specific finding and have noted that in the revised Discussion.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The research identifies two main SiNET subtypes (epithelial-like and neuronal-like) and reveals heterogeneity in non-neuroendocrine cells within the tumor microenvironment. The study validates findings using external datasets and explores unexpected proliferation patterns. While it contributes to understanding SiNET oncogenic processes, the limited sample size and depth of analysis present challenges to the robustness of the conclusions.

Strengths:

The studies effectively identified two subtypes of SiNET based on epithelial and neuronal markers. Key findings include the low proliferation rates of neuroendocrine (NE) cells and the role of the tumor microenvironment (TME), such as the impact of Macrophage Migration Inhibitory Factor (MIF).

Weaknesses:

However, the analysis faces challenges such as a small sample size, lack of clear biological interpretation in some analyses, and concerns about batch effects and statistical significance.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors set out to profile small intestine neuroendocrine tumors (siNETs) using single-cell/nucleus RNA sequencing, an established method to characterize the diversity of cell types and states in a tumor. Leveraging this dataset, they identified distinct malignant subtypes (epithelial-like versus neuronal-like) and characterized the proliferative index of malignant neuroendocrine cells versus non-malignant microenvironment cells. They found that malignant neuroendocrine cells were far less proliferative than some of their non-malignant counterparts (e.g., B cells, plasma cells, epithelial cells) and there was a strong subtype association such that epithelial-like siNETs were linked to high B/plasma cell proliferation, potentially mediated by MIF signaling, whereas neuronal-like siNETs were correlated with low B/plasma cell proliferation. The authors also examined a single case of a mixed lung tumor (neuroendocrine and squamous) and found evidence of intermediate/mixed and stem-like progenitor states that suggest the two differentiated tumor types may arise from the same progenitor.

Strengths:

The strengths of the paper include the unique dataset, which is the largest to date for siNETs, and the potentially clinically relevant hypotheses generated by their analysis of the data.

Weaknesses:

The weaknesses of the paper include the relatively small number of independent patients (n = 8 for siNETs), lack of direct comparison to other published single-cell NET datasets, mixing of two distinct methods (single-cell and single-nucleus RNA-seq), lack of direct cell-cell interaction analyses and spatially-resolved data, and lack of in vitro or in vivo functional validation of their findings.

The analytical methods applied in this study appear to be appropriate, but the methods used are fairly standard to the field of single-cell omics without significant methodological innovation. As the authors bring forth in the Discussion, the results of the study do raise several compelling questions related to the possibility of distinct biology underlying the epithelial-like and neuronal-like subtypes, the origin of mixed tumors, drivers of proliferation, and microenvironmental heterogeneity. However, this study was not able to further explore these questions through spatially-resolved data or functional experiments.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Methods:

a) Could the team clarify the discrepancy in subtype assignment between two samples from the same patient? i.e. are these samples from the same tumor? If so, what does the team think is the explanation for the difference in subtype assignment?

As noted above in response to the public review of reviewer #1, SiNET6 was in fact not assigned to any subtype (due to insufficient NE cells) and hence there was no discrepancy. We apologize for the misleading labeling of SiNET6 in the previous version and have corrected this In the revised version of Figure 4.

b) What is the rationale for scoring tumor-derived programs on samples with no tumor cells? For instance, SiNET3 does not contain NE cells, and SiNET9 has a very low fraction of NE cells. Please clarify how the scoring was performed on these samples, as the program assignments may be driven by other cell types in samples with little to no NE cells.

Scoring for tumor-derived programs was done only for the NE cells. Accordingly, SiNET3 was not scored or assigned to any of the programs. SINET9 was included in this analysis - although it had a relatively small fraction of NE cells, the absolute number of profiled cells was particularly high in this sample and therefore the number of NE cells was 130, higher than our cutoff of 100 cells.

c) Given the heterogeneity of cell types within each sample, would there be a way to provide a refined sense of confidence for certain cell type annotations? This would be helpful given the heterogeneity in marker gene expression and the absence of gold-standard markers for fibroblasts and endothelial cells in this cancer type. Additionally, there seems to be an unusually large proportion of NK and T cells - was there selection for this (given that these tumors are largely not immune infiltrated)?

Author Response: Except for the Neuroendocrine cells, there are six TME cell types that we consistently find in multiple SiNET samples: macrophages, T cells, B/plasma cells, fibroblasts, endothelial and epithelial cells. Each of these cell types are identified as discrete clusters in analysis of the respective tumors (as shown in Fig. 1a,b and Fig. S1), and these are exactly the six most common non-malignant cell types that we and others found in single cell analysis across various other tumor types (e.g. see Gavish et al. 2023, ref. #15). The signatures used to annotate these cell types are shown in Table S2, and they primarily consist of classical markers that are traditionally used to define those cell types. We therefore believe that the annotation of these typical tumor-associated cell types is robust and does not include major uncertainties. In addition to these five common cell types, there are three cell types that we find only in 1-2 of the samples – epithelial cells, plasma cells and NK cells. Again, we believe that their annotation is robust, and these cell types are primarily not used for further analysis.

There was no selection for any specific cell types in this study. Nevertheless, single cell (or single nuclei) analysis may lead to biases towards specific cell types, that we cannot evaluate directly from the data. NK cells were detected only in one tumor. T cells were detected in eight of the ten samples; but in four of those samples the frequency of T cells was lower than 5% and only in one sample the frequency was above 20%. Therefore, while we cannot exclude a technical bias towards high frequency of T/NK cells, we do not consider these frequencies as high enough to suggest this specific type of bias. In the revised manuscript, we clarify that the commonly observed cell types in SiNETs are the same as those commonly observed in other tumors and we acknowledge the possibility of a technical bias in cell type capture.  

d) Evaluating the expression of one gene at a time may not effectively demonstrate subtype-specific patterns, particularly when comparing NE cells from one tumor to non-NE cells from another, which may not be an appropriate approach for identifying differentially expressed genes. DE analysis coupled with concordance analysis, for example, could strengthen the results.

We apologize, but we do not fully understand this comment. We note that the initial normalization by non-NE cells was done in order to decrease batch effects when combining the data of the two platforms. We also note that the two subtypes were identified by two distinct approaches, as shown in Fig. 2c and in Fig. 2f.

(2) Results:

See the above public review.

(3) Minor Comments:

a) Results: Single cell and single nuclei RNA-seq profiling of SiNETs

The results say ten primary tumor samples from eight patients. Later in the paragraph it says, "After initial quality controls, we retained 29,198 cells from the ten patients." Please clarify to either ten samples or eight patients.

Indeed these are ten samples rather than ten patients. We corrected that in the revised version and thank the reviewer for noticing our error.

b) Methods:

- Please specify which computational tools were used to perform quality control, signature scoring, etc.

The approaches for quality control, scoring etc. are described in the methods. We implemented these approaches with R code and did not use other computational tools.

- Minor point but be consistent with naming convention (ie, siAdeno vs SiAdeno) throughout the paper. For example, under "Sample Normalization, Filtering and annotations" change "siAdeno" to "SiAdeno."

Thank you for noting this, we corrected that.

- Add processing and analysis of MiNEN sample to the methods section. It is not mentioned in the methods at all.

As noted in the revised manuscript, the MiNEN sample was analyzed in the same way as the SiNET fresh samples.

c) Supplementary Figures:

Figure S1: Change (A-H) to (A-I) to account for all panels in the figure.

Figure S4: Add (C) after "the siAdeno sample" in the legend.

Thank you for noting this, we corrected that.

(4) Font size is quite small in the main figures.

We enlarged the font in selected figure panels.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) The small number of samples used in some analyses affects the robustness of the findings. Increasing the sample size or including more validation data could improve the statistical reliability and make the results more convincing. The authors should consider expanding the cohort size or integrating additional external datasets to increase statistical power.

We agree with the reviewer that adding more samples would improve the reliability of the results. However, the external data that we found was not comparable enough to enable integration with our data, and we are unable to profile additional SiNET samples in our lab. We hope that future studies would support our results and extend them further.

(2) The biological significance of differentially expressed genes needs more depth, limiting the insights into SiNET biology. The authors should perform a comprehensive pathway enrichment analysis and integrate findings with existing literature. Tools like Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) or Overrepresentation Analysis (ORA) could provide a more holistic view of altered biological processes.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We did examine the functional enrichment of differentially expressed genes and did not find additional enrichments that we felt were important to highlight beyond what we described. We report the genes in supplementary tables, enabling other researchers to examine these lists further. 

(3) The unexpected finding of higher proliferation in non-malignant cells requires further investigation and plausible biological explanation. The authors should perform additional analyses to explore potential mechanisms, such as investigating cell cycle regulators or performing in vitro validation experiments. The authors should consider single-cell trajectory analysis to explore these highly proliferative non-malignant cells' potential differentiation or activation states.

We agree that our results are descriptive and that we do not fully explain the mechanism for the high level of non-malignant cell proliferation. We did attempt to perform follow up computational analysis. These analyses raised the hypothesis that high levels of MIF are causing the proliferation of immune cells. Additional analyses that we performed were not sufficient to conclusively identify a mechanism, and we felt that they were not informative enough to be included in the manuscript. Further in vitro (or in vivo) studies are beyond the scope of the current work.

(3) More details are required on methods used for p-value adjustment, and criteria for statistical significance should be clearly defined. Additionally, integrating scRNA-seq and snRNA-seq data needs a more thorough explanation, including batch effect mitigation and more explicit cell clustering representation. The authors should clearly describe p-value adjustments (e.g., FDR) and batch correction methods (e.g., Harmony, FastMNN integration) and include additional figures showing corrected UMAP plots or heatmaps post-batch correction to enhance the confidence in results.

We now clarify in the Methods our use of FDR for p-value adjustments. As for batch correction, we have avoided the use of integration methods as we believe that they tend to distort the data and decrease tumor-specific signals. Instead, we primarily analyzed one tumor at a time and never directly compared cell profiles across distinct tumors but only compared the differences between subpopulations; specifically, we normalized the expression of NE cells by subtracting the expression of reference non-NE cells from the same tumor as a method to decrease batch effects. We now clarify this point in the Methods section.

(4) The lack of analysis of interactions between different cell types limits understanding of tumor microenvironment dynamics. The authors should employ cell-cell interaction analysis tools (e.g., CellPhoneDB, NicheNet) to explore potential communication networks within the tumor microenvironment. This could provide valuable insights into how different cell types influence tumor progression and maintenance.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have tried to use such methods but found the results difficult to interpret since these approaches generated very long lists of potential cell-cell interactions that are largely not unique to the SiNET context and their relevance remains unclear without follow up experiments, which are beyond the scope of this work. We therefore focused only on ligand/receptors that came up robustly through specific analyses such as the differences between SiNET subtypes. In particular, MIF is highly expressed in the epithelial subtype, and remarkably, MIF upregulation is shared across multiple cell types. Thus, the cell-cell interactions that are suggested by the SiNET data as somewhat unique to this context are those involving MIF and its receptor (CD74 on immune cell types), while other interactions detected by the proposed methods primarily reflect the generic ligand/receptors expressed by corresponding TME cell types.   

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) For a relatively small dataset, the mixing of single-cell versus single-nucleus RNA-seq should be discussed more. It would be nice to have 1-2 tumors that are analyzed by both methods to compare and increase our understanding of how these different approaches may affect the results. This could be accomplished by splitting a fresh tumor into two parts, processing it fresh for single-cell RNA-seq, and freezing the other part for single-nucleus RNA-seq.

We agree with the reviewer that the different techniques may bias our results and we refer to this limitation in the Results and Discussion sections. However, it is important to note that we do not directly integrate the primary data across these modalities, but rather analyze each tumor separately and only combine the results across tumors. For example, we first compare the NE cells from each tumor to control non-NE cells from the same tumor and then only compare the sets of NE-specific genes across tumors. Moreover, the subtypes that we detect cannot be explained by these modalities, as the first subtype contains samples from both methods and these subtypes are further demonstrated in external bulk data. Similarly, the results regarding low proliferation of NE cells and high proliferation of B/plasma cells are observed across both modalities. We therefore argue that while the combination of methods is a limitation of this work it does not account for the main results.  

(2) The authors state that they defined the siNET transcriptomic signature by comparing their siNET single-cell/nucleus data to other NETs profiled by bulk RNA-seq. Some of the genes in the signature, such as CHGA, are widely used as markers for NETs (and not specific for siNET). The authors should address this in more detail.

To define the SiNET transcriptomic signature we first analyzed each tumor separately and compared the expression of Neuroendocrine (NE) cells to that of non-NE cells to detect NE-specific genes. Next, we compared the lists of NE-specific genes across the 8 SiNET patients and found a subset of 26 genes which were shared across most of the analyzed SiNET samples (Fig. 2a). Thus, the signature was defined only from analysis of SiNETs and not based on comparison to other types of NETs and hence it is expected that the signature could contain both SiNET-specific genes and more generic NET genes such as CHGA.

Only after defining this signature, we went on to compare it between SiNETs and other types of NETs (pancreatic and rectal) based on external bulk RNA-seq data. In this comparison, we observed that the signature was clearly higher in SiNETs than in the other NETs (Fig. 2b). This result supports the accuracy of the signature and further suggests that it contains a fraction of SiNET-specific genes and not only generic NET genes such as CHGA. Thus, we would expect this signature to perform well also for distinguishing between SiNET and types of NETs, but it does contain a subset of genes that would be high in the other NETs. Finally, we note that even though CHGA is a generic NET marker, the bulk RNA-seq data would suggest that, at least at the mRNA level, this gene is still higher expressed in SiNETs than in other NETs. To avoid confusion regarding the definition and specificity of the SiNET transcriptomic signature we have extended the description of this section in the revised manuscript.

(3) The authors only compare their data to bulk transcriptomic data on NETs. While in some instances this makes sense given the bulk dataset has >80 tumors, they should at least cite and do some comparison to other published single-cell RNA-seq datasets of NETs (e.g., PMID: 37756410, 34671197). The former study listed has 3 siNETs, 4 pNETs, and 1 gNET. Do the epithelial-like and neuronal-like signatures show up in this dataset too?

We examined these studies but concluded that their data was inadequate to identify the two SiNET subtypes. The latter study was of pNETs, while the former study had 3 SiNET samples but only from 2 patients, and furthermore it was enriching for immune cells with only very low amounts of NE cells. Therefore, we now cite this work in the discussion but cannot use it to extend the results from our work.

(4) How did the authors statistically handle patients with more than one tumor sample (true for n = 2)? These tumor samples would not be truly independent.

In both cases where we had two distinct samples of the same patient, only one sample had sufficient NE cells to be included in NE-related analysis and therefore the other samples (SiNET3 and SiNET6) were excluded from all analysis of NE differential expression and subtypes. These samples were only included in the initial analysis (Fig. 1) and in TME-related analysis (Fig. 3-4) in which there was no statistical analysis of differences between patients and hence no problem with the inclusion of 2 samples for the same patient. We clarified this issue in the revised version.

(5) The association between siNET subtype and B/plasma cell proliferation is very interesting, as is the hypothesis regarding MIF signaling. It would be illuminating for the authors to perform cell-cell interaction analyses with methods such as CellChat in this context rather than just relying on DE. Spatial mapping would be helpful too and while this may be outside the scope of this study, it should at least be expounded upon in the Discussion section.

Indeed, spatial transcriptomic analysis would add interesting insight to our data and to SiNET biology. Unfortunately, this is not within the scope of the current project but we note this interesting possibility in the Discussion. Regarding additional methods for cell-cell interactions, we have performed such analysis but found it not informative as it highlighted a large number of interactions that are not unique SiNETs and are difficult to interpret, and therefore we do not include this in the revised version. 

(6) The authors note that in the mixed lung tumor, the NE component was more proliferative than that observed with siNETs. How does the proliferation compare to pNETs, gNETs, in other published studies? How about assessing the clonality of the SCC and LNET malignant cells with various genomic or combined genomic/transcriptomic methods?

The percentage of proliferating NE cells in the mixed lung tumor was higher than 60%. This is extremely high, approximately four-fold higher than the average that we found in a pan-cancer analysis and higher than the average of any of the >20 cancer types that we analyzed (Gavish et al. 2023, ref. #15). This remarkably high proliferation serves as a control for the low proliferation that we found in SiNET NE cells.

(7) In the Discussion on page 13, the authors write "Second, proliferation of NE cells may be inhibited by prior treatments with somatostatin analogues." How many patients were treated in this manner? This information should be made more explicit in the manuscript.

Details on pretreatment with somatostatin analogues are provided in Table S1. All patients were pre-pretreated with somatostatin analogues, with the possible exception of one patient (P8, SiNET10) for which we could not confidently obtain this information.

(8) On page 5, "bone-fide" is misspelled.

(9) On page 8, "exact identify" is misspelled.

We thank the reviewer and have corrected the typos.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors provide a study among healthy individuals, general medical patients and patients receiving haematopoietic cell transplants (HCT) to study the gut microbiome through shotgun metagenomic sequencing of stool samples. The first two groups were sampled once, while the patients receiving HCT were sampled longitudinally. A range of metadata (including current and previous (up to 1 year before sampling) antibiotic use) was recorded for all sampled individuals. The authors then performed shotgun metagenomic sequencing (using the Illumina platform) and performed bioinformatic analyses on these data to determine the composition and diversity of the gut microbiota and the antibiotic resistance genes therein. The authors conclude, on the basis of these analyses, that some antibiotics had a large impact on gut microbiota diversity, and could select opportunistic pathogens and/or antibiotic resistance genes in the gut microbiota.

Strengths:

The major strength of this study is the considerable achievement of performing this observational study in a large cohort of individuals. Studies into the impact of antibiotic therapy on the gut microbiota are difficult to organise, perform and interpret, and this work follows state-of-the-art methodologies to achieve its goals. The authors have achieved their objectives and the conclusion they draw on the impact of different antibiotics and their impact on the gut microbiota and its antibiotic resistance genes (the 'resistome', in short), are supported by the data presented in this work.

Weaknesses:

The weaknesses are the lack of information on the different resistance genes that have been identified and which could have been supplied as Supplementary Data.

We have now supplied a list of individual resistance genes as supplementary data.

In addition, no attempt is made to assess whether the identified resistance genes are associated with mobile genetic elements and/or (opportunistic) pathogens in the gut. While this is challenging with short-read data, alternative approaches like long-read metagenomics, Hi-C and/or culture-based profiling of bacterial communities could have been employed to further strengthen this work.

We agree this is a limitation, and we now refer to this in the discussion. Unfortunately we did not have funding to perform additional profiling of the samples that would have provided more information about the genetic context of the AMR genes identified.

Unfortunately, the authors have not attempted to perform corrections for multiple testing because many antibiotic exposures were correlated.

The reviewer is correct that we did not perform formal correction for multiple testing. This was because correlation between antimicrobial exposures meant we could not determine what correction would be appropriate and not overly conservative. We now describe this more clearly in the statistical analysis section.

Impact:

The work may impact policies on the use of antibiotics, as those drugs that have major impacts on the diversity of the gut microbiota and select for antibiotic resistance genes in the gut are better avoided. However, the primary rationale for antibiotic therapy will remain the clinical effectiveness of antimicrobial drugs, and the impact on the gut microbiota and resistome will be secondary to these considerations.

We agree that the primary consideration guiding antimicrobial therapy will usually be clinical effectiveness. However antimicrobial stewardship to minimise microbiome disruption and AMR selection is an increasingly important consideration, particularly as choices can often be made between different antibiotics that are likely to be equally clinically effective.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript by Peto et al., the authors describe the impact of different antimicrobials on gut microbiota in a prospective observational study of 225 participants (healthy volunteers, inpatients and outpatients). Both cross-sectional data (all participants) and longitudinal data (a subset of 79 haematopoietic cell transplant patients) were used. Using metagenomic sequencing, they estimated the impact of antibiotic exposure on gut microbiota composition and resistance genes. In their models, the authors aim to correct for potential confounders (e.g. demographics, non-antimicrobial exposures and physiological abnormalities), and for differences in the recency and total duration of antibiotic exposure. I consider these comprehensive models an important strength of this observational study. Yet, the underlying assumptions of such models may have impacted the study findings (detailed below). Other strengths include the presence of both cross-sectional and longitudinal exposure data and the presence of both healthy volunteers and patients. Together, these observational findings expand on previous studies (both observational and RCTs) describing the impact of antimicrobials on gut microbiota.

Weaknesses:

(1) The main weaknesses result from the observational design. This hampers causal interpretation and corrects for potential confounding necessary. The authors have used comprehensive models to correct for potential confounders and for differences between participants in duration of antibiotic exposure and time between exposure and sample collection. I wonder if some of the choices made by the authors did affect these findings. For example, the authors did not include travel in the final model, but travel (most importantly, south Asia) may result in the acquisition of AMR genes [Worby et al., Lancet Microbe 2023; PMID 37716364). Moreover, non-antimicrobial drugs (such as proton pump inhibitors) were not included but these have a well-known impact on gut microbiota and might be linked with exposure to antimicrobial drugs. Residual confounding may underlie some of the unexplained discrepancies between the cross-sectional and longitudinal data (e.g. for vancomycin).

We agree that the observational design means there is the potential for confounding, which, as the reviewer notes, we attempt to account for as far as possible in the multivariable models presented. We cannot exclude the possibility of residual confounding, and we highlight this as a limitation in the  discussion. We have expanded on this limitation, and mention it as a possible explanation for inconsistencies between longitudinal and cross sectional models. Conducting randomised trials to assess the impacts of multiple antimicrobials in sick, hospitalised patients would be exceptionally difficult, and so it is hard to avoid reliance on observational data in these settings.

We did record participants’ foreign travel and diet, but these exposures were not included in our models as they were not independently associated with an impact on the microbiome and their inclusion did not materially affect other estimates. However, because most participants were recruited from a healthcare setting, few had recent foreign travel and so this study was not well powered to assess the effects of travel on AMR carriage. We have added this as a limitation.

In addition, the authors found a disruption half-life of 6 days to be the best fit based on Shannon diversity. If I'm understanding correctly, this results in a near-zero modelled exposure of a 14-day-course after 70 days (purple line; Supplementary Figure 2). However, it has been described that microbiota composition and resistome (not Shannon diversity!) remain altered for longer periods of time after (certain) antibiotic exposures (e.g. Anthony et al., Cell Reports 2022; PMID 35417701). The authors did not assess whether extending the disruption half-life would alter their conclusions.

The reviewer is correct that the best fit disruption half-life of 6 days means the model assumes near-zero exposure by 70 days. We appreciate that antimicrobials can cause longer-term disruption than is represented in our model, and we refer to this in the discussion (we had cited two papers supporting this, and we are grateful for the additional reference above, which we have added). We agree that it is useful to clarify that the longer term effects may be seen in individual components of the microbiome or AMR genes, but not in overall measures of diversity, so have added this to the discussion.

(2) Another consequence of the observational design of this study is the relatively small number of participants available for some comparisons (e.g. oral clindamycin was only used by 6 participants). Care should be taken when drawing any conclusions from such small numbers.

We agree. Although our participants received a large number of different antimicrobial exposures, these were dependent on routine clinical practice at our centre and we lack data on many potentially important exposures. We had mentioned this in relation to antimicrobials not used at our centre, and have now clarified in the discussion that this also limits reliability of estimates for antimicrobials that were rarely used in study participants.

(3) The authors assessed log-transformed relative abundances of specific bacteria after subsampling to 3.5 million reads. While I agree that some kind of data transformation is probably preferable, these methods do not address the compositional data of microbiome data and using a pseudocount (10-6) is necessary for absent (i.e. undetected) taxa [Gloor et al., Front Microbiol 2017; PMID 29187837]. Given the centrality of these relative abundances to their conclusions, a sensitivity analysis using compositionally-aware methods (such as a centred log-ratio (clr) transformation) would have added robustness to their findings.

We agree that using a pseudocount is necessary for undetected taxa, which we have done assuming undetected taxa had an abundance of 10^-6 (based on the lower limit of detection at the depth we sequenced). We refer to this as truncation in the methods section, but for clarity we have now also described this as a pseudocount.  Because our analysis focusses on major taxa that are almost ubiquitous in the human gut microbiome, a pseudocount was only used for 3 samples that had no detectable Enterobacteriaciae.

We are aware that compositionally-aware methods are often used with microbiome data, and for some analyses these are necessary to avoid introducing spurious correlations. However the flaws in non-compositional analyses outlined in Gloor et al do not affect the analyses in this paper:

(1) The problems related to differing sequence depths or inadequate normalisation do not apply to our dataset, as we took a random subset of 3.5 million reads from all samples (Gloor et al correctly point out that this method has the drawback of losing some information, but it avoids problems related to variable sequencing depth)

(2) The remainder Gloor et al critiques multivariate analyses that assess correlations between multiple microbiome measurements made on the same sample, starting with a dissimilarity matrix. With compositional data these can lead to spurious correlations, as measurements on an individual sample are not independent of other measurements made on the same sample. In contrast, our analyses do not use a dissimilarity matrix, but evaluate the association of multiple non-microbiome covariates (e.g. antibiotic exposures, age) with single microbiome measures. We use a separate model for each of 11 specified microbiome components, and display these results side-by side. This does not lead to the same problem of spurious correlation as analyses of dissimilarity matrices. However, it does mean that estimates of effects on each taxa outcome have to be interpreted in the context of estimates on the other taxa. Specifically, in our models, the associations of antimicrobial exposure with different taxa/AMR genes are not necessarily independent of each other (e.g. if an antimicrobial eradicated only one taxon then it would be associated with an increase in others). This is not a spurious correlation, and makes intuitive sense when using relative abundance as outcome. However, we agree this should be made more explicit.

For these reasons, at this stage we would prefer not to increase the complexity of the manuscript by adding a sensitivity analysis.

(4) An overall description of gut microbiota composition and resistome of the included participants is missing. This makes it difficult to compare the current study population to other studies. In addition, for correct interpretation of the findings, it would have been helpful if the reasons for hospital visits of the general medical patients were provided.

We have added a summary of microbiome and resistome composition in the results section and new supplementary table 2), and we also now include microbiome and resistome profiles of all samples in the supplementary data. We also provide some more detail about the types of general medical patients included. We are not able to provide a breakdown of the initial reason for admission as this was not collected.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) Provide a supplementary table with information on the abundance of individual genes in the samples.

This supplementary data is now included.

(2) Engage with an expert in statistics to discuss how statistical analyses can be improved.

A experienced biostatistician has been involved in this study since its conception, and was involved in planning the analysis and in the responses to these comments.

(3) Typos and other minor corrections:

Methods: it is my understanding that litre should be abbreviated with a lowercase l.

Different journals have different house styles: we are happy to follow Editorial guidance.

p. 9: abuindance should be corrected to abundance.

Corrected

p. 9: relative species should be relevant species?  

Yes, corrected. Thank you.

p. 9 - 10: can the apparent lack of effect of beta-lactams on beta-lactamase gene abundance be explained by the focus on a small number of beta-lactamase resistance genes that are found in Enterobacteriaceae and which are not particularly prevalent, while other classes of resistance genes (e.g. Bacteroidal beta-lactamases) were excluded?

It is possible that including other beta-lactamases would have led to different results, but as a small number of beta-lactamases in Enterobacteriaceae are of major clinical importance we decided to focus on these (already justified in the Methods). A full list of AMR genes identified is now provided in the supplementary data.

p. 10: beta-lactamse should be beta-lactamase

Corrected

Figure 3A: could the data shown for tetracycline resistance genes be skewed by tetQ, which is probably one of the most abundant resistance genes in the human gut and acts through ribosome protection?

TetQ was included, but only accounted for 23% of reads assigned to tetracycline resistance genes so is unlikely to have skewed the overall result. We limited the analysis to a few major categories of AMR genes and, other than VanA, have avoided presenting results for single genes to limit the degree of multiple testing. We now include the resistome profile for each sample in the supplementary data so that readers can explore the data if desired.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) Given the importance of obligate anaerobic gut microbiota for human health, it might be interesting to divide antibiotics into categories based on their anti-anaerobic activity and assess whether these antibiotics differ in their effects on gut microbiota.

The large majority of antibiotics used in clinical practice have activity against aerobic bacteria and anaerobic bacteria, so it is not possible to easily categorise them this way. There are two main exceptions (metronidazole and aminoglycosides) but there was insufficient use of these drugs to clearly detect or rule out a difference between them, even when categorising antimicrobials by class, so we prefer not to frame the results in these terms. Also see our comments on this categorisation below.

(2) For estimating the abundance of anaerobic bacteria, three major groups were assessed: Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria and Clostridia. To me, this seems a bit aspecific. For example, the phylum Bacteroidetes contains some aerobic bacteria (e.g. Flavobacteriia). Would it be possible to provide a more accurate estimation of anaerobic bacteria?

We think that an emphasis on a binary aerobic/anaerobic classification is less biologically meaningful that the more granular genetic classification we use, and its use largely reflects the previous reliance on culture-based methods for bacterial identification. Although some important opportunistic human pathogens are aerobic, it is not clear that the benefit or harm of most gut commensals relates to their oxygen tolerance, and all luminal bacteria exist in an anaerobic environment. As such we prefer not to perform an additional analysis using this category. We are also not sure that this could be done reliably, as many of the taxa are characterised poorly, or not at all.

We appreciate that Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria and Clostridia are diverse taxa that include many different species, so may seem non-specific, but these were chosen because:

i) they are non-overlapping with Enterobacteriaceae and Enterococcus, the major opportunistic pathogens of clinical relevance, so could be used in parallel, and

ii) they make up the large majority of the gut microbiome in most people and most species are of low pathogenicity, so it is plausible that their disruption might drive colonisation with more pathogenic organisms (or those carrying important AMR genes).

We have more clearly stated this rationale.

(3) A statement on the availability of data and code for analysis is missing. I would highly recommend public sharing of raw sequence data and R code for analysis. If possible, it would be very valuable if processed microbiome data and patient metadata could be shared.

We agree, and these have been submitted as supplementary data. We have added the following statement “The data and code used to produce this manuscript are available in the supplementary material, including processed microbiome data, and pseudonymised patient metadata. The sequence data for this study have been deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) at EMBL-EBI under accession number PRJEB86785.”

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study by Cao et al. provides a compelling investigation into the role of mutational input in the rapid evolution of pesticide resistance, focusing on the two-spotted spider mite's response to the recent introduction of the acaricide cyetpyrafen. This well-documented introduction of the pesticide - and thus a clearly defined history of selection - offers a powerful framework for studying the temporal dynamics of rapid adaptation. The authors combine resistance phenotyping across multiple populations, extensive resequencing to track the frequency of resistance alleles, and genomic analyses of selection in both contemporary and historical samples. These approaches are further complemented by laboratory-based experimental evolution, which serves as a baseline for understanding the genetic architecture of resistance across mite populations in China. Their analyses identify two key resistance-associated genes, sdhB and sdhD, within which they detect 15 mutations in wild-collected samples. Protein modeling reveals that these mutations cluster around the pesticide's binding site, suggesting a direct functional role in resistance. The authors further examine signatures of selective sweeps and their distribution across populations to infer the mechanisms - such as de novo mutation or gene flow-driving the spread of resistance, a crucial consideration for predicting evolutionary responses to extreme selection pressure. Overall, this is a well-rounded, thoughtfully designed, and well-written manuscript. It shows significant novelty, as it is relatively rare to integrate broad-scale evolutionary inference from natural populations with experimentally informed bioassays, however, some aspects of the methods and discussion have an opportunity to be clarified and strengthened.

Strengths:

One of the most compelling aspects of this study is its integration of genomic time-series data in natural populations with controlled experimental evolution. By coupling genome sequencing of resistant field populations with laboratory selection experiments, the authors tease apart the individual effects of resistance alleles along with regions of the genome where selection is expected to occur, and compare that to the observed frequency in the wild populations over space and time. Their temporal data clearly demonstrates the pace at which evolution can occur in response to extreme selection. This type of approach is a powerful roadmap for the rest of the field of rapid adaptation.

The study effectively links specific genetic changes to resistance phenotypes. The identification of sdhB and sdhD mutations as major drivers of cyetpyrafen resistance is well-supported by allele frequency shifts in both field and experimental populations. The scope of their sampling clearly facilitated the remarkable number of observed mutations within these target genes, and the authors provide a careful discussion of the likelihood of these mutations from de novo or standing variation. Furthermore, the discovered cross-resistance that these mutations confer to other mitochondrial complex II inhibitors highlights the potential for broader resistance management and evolution.

Weaknesses:

(1) Experimental Evolution:

- Additional information about the lab experimental evolution would be useful in the main text. Specifically, the dose of cyetpyrafen used should be clarified, especially with respect to the LD50 values. How does it compare to recommended field doses? This is expected to influence the architecture of resistance evolution. What was the sample size? This will help readers contextualize how the experimental design could influence the role of standing variation.

The experimental design involved sampling approximately 6,000 individuals from the wild population ZJSX1, which were subsequently divided into two parallel cohorts under controlled laboratory conditions. The selection group (LabR) was subjected to continuous selection pressure using cyetpyrafen, while the control group (LabS) was maintained under identical laboratory conditions without exposure to acyetpyrafen. A dynamic selection regime was implemented wherein the acaricide dosage was systematically adjusted every two generations to maintain a consistent selection intensity, achieving a mortality rate of 60% ± 10% in the LabR population. This adaptive dosage strategy ensured sustained evolutionary pressure while preventing population collapse. The LC₅₀ values were tested at F1, F32, F54, F60, F62, and F66 generations using standardized bioassay protocols to quantify resistance development trajectories and optimize dosage for subsequent selection cycles. We provided the additional information in subsection 4.1 of the materials and methods section.

- The finding that lab-evolved strains show cross-resistance is interesting, but potentially complicates the story. It would help to know more about the other mitochondrial complex II inhibitors used across China and their impact on adaptive dynamics at these loci, particularly regarding pre-existing resistance alleles. For example, a comparison of usage data from 2013, 2017, and 2019 could help explain whether cyetpyrafen was the main driver of resistance or if previous pesticides played a role. What happened in 2020 that caused such rapid evolution 3 years after launch?

Although the introduction of the other two SDHI acaricides complicates the story, we would like to provide a complete background on the usage of acaricides with this mode of action in China. Although cyflumetofen was released in 2013 before cyetpyrafen, and cyenopyrafen was released in 2019 after cyetpyrafen, their market share is minor (about 3.2%) compared to cyetpyrafen (about 96.8%, personal communication). Since cross-resistance is reported among SDHIs, we could not exclude the contribution of cyflumetofen to the initial accumulation of resistance alleles, but the effect should be minor, both because of their minimal market share and because of the independent evolution of resistance in the field as found in our study. Although the contribution of cyflumetofen and cyenopyrafen cannot be entirely excluded, the rapid evolution of resistance seems likely to be mainly explained by the intensive application of cyetpyrafen. To clarify this issue, we added relevant information in the first paragraph of the discussion section.

(2) Evolutionary history of resistance alleles:

- It would be beneficial to examine the population structure of the sampled populations, especially regarding the role of migration. Though resistance evolution appears to have had minimal impact on genome-wide diversity (as shown in Supplementary Figure 2), could admixture be influencing the results? An explicit multivariate regression framework could help to understand factors influencing diversity across populations, as right now much is left to the readers' visual acuity.

The genetic structure of the populations was examined by Treemix analysis. We detected only one migration event from JXNC to SHPD (no resistance data available for these two populations), suggesting a limited role for migration to resistance evolution. The multiple regression analysis revealed that overall genetic diversity and Tajima’s D across the genome were not significantly associated with resistance levels, genetic structure or geographic coordinates (P > 0.05), which all support a limited role of migration in resistance development.

- It is unclear why lab populations were included in the migration/treemix analysis. We might suggest redoing the analysis without including the laboratory populations to reveal biologically plausible patterns of resistance evolution.

Thank you for the constructive suggestion. The Treemix analysis was redone by removing laboratory populations and is now reported.

- Can the authors explore isolation by distance (IBD) in the frequency of resistance alleles?

Thank you for the constructive suggestion. No significant isolation-by-distance pattern was detected for resistance allele frequencies across all surveyed years (2020: P=0.73; 2021: P=0.52; 2023: P=0.16; Mantel test). We added these results to the text.

- Given the claim regarding the novelty of the number of pesticide resistance mutations, it is important to acknowledge the evolution of resistance to all pesticides (antibiotics, herbicides, etc.). ALS-inhibiting herbicides have driven remarkable repeatability across species based on numerous SNPs within the target gene.

We appreciate this comment, which highlights the need to place our findings within the broader evolutionary context of pesticide resistance. We have investigated references relevant to the evolution of resistance to diverse pesticides. As far as we can tell, the 15 target mutations in eight amino acid residues are among the highest number of pesticide resistance mutations detected, especially within the context of animal studies. We have added relevant text to the second paragraph of the discussion.

- Figure 5 A-B. Why not run a multivariate regression with status at each resistance mutation encoded as a separate predictor? It is interesting that focusing on the predominant mutation gives the strongest r2, but it is somewhat unintuitive and masks some interesting variation among populations.

We conducted a multiple regression analysis to explore the influence of multiple mutations on resistance levels of field populations. However of 15 putative resistant mutations, only five were detected in more than three populations where bioassay data are available, i.e. I260T, I260V, D116G, R119C, R119L. The frequency of three of these mutations, I260T (P = 0.00128), I260V (P = 0.00423) and D116G (P = 0.00058), are significantly correlated with the resistance level of field populations. This has been added.

(3) Haplotype Reconstruction (Line 271-):

- We are a bit sceptical of the methods taken to reconstruct these haplotypes. It seems as though the authors did so with Sanger sequencing (this should be mentioned in the text), focusing only on homozygous SNPs. How many such SNPs were used to reconstruct haplotypes, along what length of sequence? For how many individuals were haplotypes reconstructed? Nonetheless, I appreciated that the authors looked into the extent to which the reconstructed haplotypes could be driven by recombination. Can the authors elaborate on the calculations in line 296? Is that the census population size estimate or effective?

Because haplotypes could not be determined when more than two loci were heterozygous, we detected haplotypes from sequencing data with at most one heterozygous locus. In total 844 individuals and 696 individuals were used to detect haplotypes of sdhB and sdhD. We detected 11 haplotypes (with 8 SNPs) and 24 haplotypes (with 11 SNPs) along 216 bp of the sdhB and 155 bp of the sdhD genes, respectively. Please see the fifth paragraph of subsection 2.4. We used ρ = 4 × Ne × d (genetic distance) (Li and Stephens, 2003) to calculate the number of effective individuals for one recombination event.

(4) Single Mutations and Their Effect (line 312-):

- It's not entirely clear how the breeding scheme resulted in near-isogenic lines. Could the authors provide a clearer explanation of the process and its biological implications?

To investigate the effect of single mutations or their combination on resistance levels, we isolated the females and males with the same homozygous/ hemizygous genotypes for creating homozygous lines. Females from these lines were not near-isogenic, but homozygous for the critical mutations. We revised the description in the methods section to clearly define these lines.

- If they are indeed isogenic, it's interesting that individual resistance mutations have effects on resistance that vary considerably among lines. Could the authors run a multivariate analysis including all potential resistance SNPs to account for interactions between them? Given the variable effects of the D116G substitution (ranging from 4-25%), could polygenic or epistatic factors be influencing the evolution of resistance?

We couldn’t conduct multivariate analysis because most lines have only one resistant SNP. The four lines homozygous for 116G were from the same population. The variable mortality may reflect other unknown mechanisms but these are beyond the scope of this study.

- Why are there some populations that segregate for resistance mutations but have no survival to pesticides (i.e., the green points in Figure 5)? Some discussion of this heterogeneity seems required in the absence of validation of the effects of these particular mutations. Could it be dominance playing a role, or do the authors have some other explanation?

We didn’t investigate the degree of dominance of each mutation. The mutation I260V shows incompletely dominant inheritance (Sun, et al. 2022). To investigate survival rate of different populations, the two-spotted spider mite T. urticae was exposed to 1000 mg/L of cyetpyrafen, higher than the recommended field dose of 100 mg/L. Such a high concentration may lead to death of an individual heterozygous for certain mutations, such as I260V.

- The authors mention that all resistance mutations co-localized to the Q-site. Is this where the pesticide binds? This seems like an important point to follow their argument for these being resistance-related.

Yes. We revised Fig. 3c to show the Q-site.

(5) Statistical Considerations for Allele Frequency Changes (Figure 3):

- It might be helpful to use a logistic regression model to assess the rate of allele frequency changes and determine the strength of selection acting on these alleles (e.g., Kreiner et al. 2022; Patel et al. 2024). This approach could refine the interpretation of selection dynamics over time.

Thank you for this suggestion. A logistic regression model was used to track allele frequencies trajectories. The selection coefficient of each allele and their joint effects were estimated.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper investigates the evolution of pesticide resistance in the two-spotted spider mite following the introduction of an SDHI acaricide, cyatpyrafen, in China. The authors make use of cyatpyrafen-naive populations collected before that pesticide was first used, as well as more recent populations (both sensitive and resistant) to conduct comparative population genomics. They report 15 different mutations in the insecticide target site from resistant populations, many reported here for the first time, and look at the mutation and selection processes underlying the evolution of resistance, through GWAS, haplotype mapping, and testing for loss of diversity indicating selective sweeps. None of the target site mutations found in resistant populations was found in pre-exposure populations, suggesting that the mutations may have arisen de novo rather than being present as standing variation, unless initially present at very low frequencies; a de novo origin is also supported by evidence of selective sweeps in some resistant populations. Furthermore, there is no significant evidence of migration of resistant genotypes between the sampled field populations, indicating multiple origins of common mutations. Overall, this indicates a very high mutation rate and a wide range of mutational pathways to resistance for this target site in this pest species. The series of population genomic analyses carried out here, in addition to the evolutionary processes that appear to underlie resistance development in this case, could have implications for the study of resistance evolution more widely.

Strengths:

This paper combines phenotypic characterisation with extensive comparative population genomics, made possible by the availability of multiple population samples (each with hundreds of individuals) collected before as well as after the introduction of the pesticide cyatpyrafen, as well as lab-evolved lines. This results in findings of mutation and selection processes that can be related back to the pesticide resistance trait of concern. Large numbers of mites were tested phenotypically to show the levels of resistance present, and the authors also made near-isogenic lines to confirm the phenotypic effects of key mutations. The population genomic analyses consider a range of alternative hypotheses, including mutations arising by de novo mutation or selection from standing genetic variation, and mutations in different populations arising independently or arriving by migration. The claim that mutations most likley arose by multiple repeated de novo mutations is therefore supported by multiple lines of evidence: the direct evidence of none of the mutations being found in over 2000 individuals from naive populations, and the indirect evidence from population genomics showing evidence of selective sweeps but not of significant migration between the sampled populations.

Weaknesses:

As acknowledged within the discussion, whilst evidence supports a de novo origin of the resistance-associated mutations, this cannot be proven definitively as mutations may have been present at a very low frequency and therefore not found within the tested pesticide-naive population samples.

We agree that we could not definitively exclude the presence of a very low incidence of favoured mutations before the introduction of this novel acaricide.

Near-isofemale lines were made to confirm the resistance levels associated with five of the 15 mutations, but otherwise, the genotype-phenotype associations are correlative, as confirmation by functional genetics was beyond the scope of this study.

We hope that future functional studies will validate the effects of these mutations on resistance in both the two-spotted spider mite T. urticae and other spider mite species. This could be done by creating near-isogenic female lines or using CRISPR-Cas9 technology, as gene knockouts have recently been established for T. urticae.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Could the authors elaborate on the environmental context (e.g., climate, geography) of the sampled populations to give more nuance to the analysis of genetic differentiation and resistance evolution?

We have explored the influence of geographic isolation on the frequency of resistance alleles by Mantel tests (isolation by distance). We didn’t investigate the influence of climate, because most of the samples were from greenhouses, where the climate to which the pest is exposed is unclear.

(2) Line 161: is this supposed to be one R and one S?

Yes, we added this information (LabR and LabS).

(3) Line 207: variation is not saturated at the first two sites because the different combinations are not seen. This is a bit misleading.

What we wanted to indicate was that the two codon positions are saturated, rather than their combinations. We revised this sentence by adding “of each codon position”.

(4) Line 376: continuous selection did not "result in a new mutation arising". Rather, the mutation arose and was subsequently selected on.

We revised the expression of this de novo mutation and selection process.

(5) Line 402: can the authors explore what Ne would be necessary to drive the number of mutational origins they observe, as in (Karasov et al. 2010)?

It is challenged to estimate Ne, especially when mutation rate data from the two-spotted spider mite T. urticae is unavailable. We observed 2.7 resistant mutations per population in samples collected in 2024, seven years after the release of cyetpyrafen. The estimated mutation rate (Θ) is  0.0193, given 20 generations per year for T. urticae. An effective population size (Ne) of 2.29*10⁶ would be necessary to reach the number of de novo mutations observed in this study, given Θ  =  3Neμ (haplodiploid sex determination of T. urticae) and a mutation rate of μ  =  2.8*10^-9 per base pair per generation as estimated for Drosophila melanogaster (Keightley et al., 2014). The high reproductive capacity of T. urticae (> 100 eggs per female) and short generation time makes it easier to reach such a population size in the field as we now note.

(6) Line 482: how did the authors precisely kill 60% of samples with their selection? What was the applied rate? In general, listing the rates of insecticide used in dose response would be useful to decipher if LD50s are projected outside of the doses used (seems like they are). In this case, authors should limit their estimates to those > the highest rate used in the dose response.

It is difficult to control mortality precisely. We applied cyetpyrafen every two generations but did not determine the LC₅₀ every two generations. When mortality was lower than 60%, another round of spraying was applied by increasing the dosage of the pesticide. The LC₅₀ values were tested at F₁, F₃₂, F₅₄, F₆₀, F₆₂, and F₆₆ generations to establish the trajectories around resistance.

(7) The light pink genomic region in Figure 2 was distracting. Why is it included if there is no discussion of genomic regions outside the sdh genes? Generally, there was a lot going on in this figure, and some guiding categories (i.e., lab selected vs wild population) on the figure itself could help orient the reader.

We included chromosome 2 colored in light pink/ red to show the selection signal across a wider genomic region. In the figure legend, we added a description of the lab selected, field resistant and field susceptible populations. Very little common selection signal was detected among resistant populations on chromosome 2, indicating this region was less likely to be involved in resistance evolution of T. urticae to cyetpyrafen. We also described the result briefly in the figure legend.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) The most significant aspect of this study is the use of multiple pest population samples taken before as well as after the introduction of a class of pesticides, allowing a thorough comparative population genomics study in a species where a range of resistance mutations have appeared within a few years. I would prefer to see a title conveying this significance, rather than the current study, which focuses on the total number of mutations and claimed notoriety of the (at that point unnamed) study species. Similarly, I would prefer an abstract that relies less on superlative claims and includes more details: the scientific name of the study species; the number of years in which resistance evolved; the number of historical specimens; how the resistance levels for single mutations were shown.

(1) The title was changed by adding “the two-spotted spider mite Tetranychus urticae” and removing the “unprecedented number” to emphasize that “recurrent mutations drive rapid evolution”, i.e., “Recurrent Mutations Drive the Rapid Evolution of Pesticide Resistance in the Two-spotted Spider Mite Tetranychus urticae.”

(2) The scientific name of the study species was added.

(3) The number of years in which resistance evolved was added.

(4) The number of historical specimens was added (2666).

(5) Because we used homozygous lines but not iso-genic lines or gene-edited lines, our bioassay data could not provide direct evidence on the level of resistance conferred by each mutation. We revised our description of the results and removed this content from the abstract.

Line 29: if you want to claim the number is unprecedented, please specify the context: unprecedented for a pesticide target in an arthropod pest? (more resistance mutations may have been found in bacteria/fungi...).

We revised the sentence by adding “in an arthropod pest”.

Line 30: rather than a claim of notoriety, it may be better to specify what damage this pest causes.

Revised by describing it as an arthropod pest.

Line 34: please clarify, was this all in different haplotypes, or were some mutations found in combination?

Done: We identified 15 target mutations, including six mutations on five amino acid residues of subunit sdhB, and nine mutations on three amino acid residues of subunit sdhD, with as many as five substitutions on one residue.

(2) The introduction begins by framing the context as resistance evolution in invertebrate pests. However, the evolutionary processes examined in the study are applicable to resistance in other systems, and potentially to other cases of rapid contemporary evolution. The authors could show wider significance for their work beyond the subfield of invertebrate pests by including more of this wider context in their introduction and discussion: even if this means they can no longer claim novelty based on the number of mutations alone, the study is a strong example of the use of population genomics combined with functional and phenotypic characterisation to investigate the evolutionary processes underlying the emergence of resistance, so could have wider importance than within its current framing.

The background was revised as mentioned above to take this into account.

For example, in lines 48-50, please clarify what is meant by pesticides here (insects/arthropods? weeds and pathogens too?) In lines 69-73, the opposite is sometimes seen in fungal pathogens, with large numbers of mutations generated in lab-evolved strains.

We extended pesticides to those targeting arthropods, weeds and pathogens. We still emphasize the situation mainly with respect to arthropod pests.

(3) Lines 91-93: how many modes of action? How recently were SDHI acaricides introduced?

Added: at least 11 groups of acaricides based on their modes of action. SDHI was launched in 2007.

(4) Line 98-102: Use in China is a useful background for the study populations, but the global context should be included too.

Yes, four SDHI acaricides developed around the globe were introduced.

(5) Line 113: They show diverse mutations, but all within the mechanism of target-site point mutations.

We agree to your suggestion. This sentence has been removed as it repeats information stated above it.

(6) Line 115-116: Yes, agreed; I think this is the main strength of the current study and should be emphasised sooner.

Thanks.

(7) Line 158: Selective sweep signals were clear in half of the resistant populations but not in the others. The suggestion that the others had undergine soft sweeps, with multiple mutations increasing in frequency simultaneously but no one reaching fixation, seems reasonable; but the authors could compare the populations that did show a sweep with those that did not (for example, was there greater diversity or evenness of genotypes in those that did not?).

Five resistant populations with selection signals identified by PBE analysis (Figure 2b) showed corresponding decreases in π and Tajima’s D near the two SDH genes but not across the genome (Figure S1).

(8) Line 313: please clarify "in combination with other mutations" within a mixed population or combined in one individual/haplotype? Also, the phrase "characterised the function" may be a little misleading, as this is a correlative analysis, not functional confirmation.

None of the combinations of different resistant mutations was observed in a single haplotype. Here, we examine resistance levels associated with a single mutation or two mutations on sdhB and sdhD in one individual, i.e. sdhB_I260V and sdhD_R119C. We revised the sentences to avoid any implication of functional confirmation.

(9) Line 358: again, please clarify the context: among arthropod pests?

Done.

(10) Line 360-363: please give some background on when and where these related compounds were introduced.

Added.

(11) Line 410: yes fitness costs may be a factor, but you could also give an example of a cost expressed in the absence of any pesticides, as well as the given example of negative cross-resistance.

We added the example of the H258Y mutation which causes both fitness costs and negative cross-resistance.

(12) Lines 419-438: this is one aspect where the situation for insecticides is in contrast with some other resistance areas.

Yes, we restricted these statements to arthropod pests.

(13) Line 466: some more detail could be given here: for example, SNP-specific monitoring would be less effective, but amplicon sequencing would be more suitable.

Yes, revised.

(14) Lines 472-475: Please list the numbers of field/lab, pre/post exposure, and sensitive/resistant populations within the main text.

Done. The number of sensitive/resistant populations was reported in the result section.

(15) Line 483: randomly selected individuals?

Yes, added randomly selected individuals.

(16) Line 556: Sanger sequencing to characterise populations? Or a number of individuals from each population?

Revised.

(17) References: there are some duplicate entries, please check this.

Checked.

(18) Figure 1e: consider a log(10) scale to better show large fold changes and avoid multiple axis breaks.

Thanks for your suggestions. However we didn’t scale the LC₅₀ value, because we wanted to show the specific impact of 1,000 mg/L. The breaks in the Y axis around 30 mg/L -1,000 mg/L reveal that the LC50s of the resistant populations were all greater than 1000 mg/L, while those of the susceptible populations were all below 30 mg/L. This justified the use 1000 mg/L as a discriminating dose to investigate resistance status and level in subsequent work.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the previous reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Azlan et al. identified a novel maternal factor called Sakura that is required for proper oogenesis in Drosophila. They showed that Sakura is specifically expressed in the female germline cells. Consistent with its expression pattern, Sakura functioned autonomously in germline cells to ensure proper oogenesis. In sakura KO flies, germline cells were lost during early oogenesis and often became tumorous before degenerating by apoptosis. In these tumorous germ cells, piRNA production was defective and many transposons were derepressed. Interestingly, Smad signaling, a critical signaling pathway for the GSC maintenance, was abolished in sakura KO germline stem cells, resulting in ectopic expression of Bam in whole germline cells in the tumorous germline. A recent study reported that Bam acts together with the deubiquitinase Otu to stabilize Cyc A. In the absence of sakura, Cyc A was upregulated in tumorous germline cells in the germarium. Furthermore, the authors showed that Sakura co-immunoprecipitated Otu in ovarian extracts. A series of in vitro assays suggested that the Otu (1-339 aa) and Sakura (1-49 aa) are sufficient for their direct interaction. Finally, the authors demonstrated that the loss of otu phenocopies the loss of sakura, supporting their idea that Sakura plays a role in germ cell maintenance and differentiation through interaction with Otu during oogenesis.

Strengths:

To my knowledge, this is the first characterization of the role of CG14545 genes. Each experiment seems to be well-designed and adequately controlled

Weaknesses:

However, the conclusions from each experiment are somewhat separate, and the functional relationships between Sakura's functions are not well established. In other words, although the loss of Sakura in the germline causes pleiotropic effects, the cause-and-effect relationships between the individual defects remain unclear.

Comments on latest version:

The authors have attempted to address my initial concerns with additional experiments and refutations. Unfortunately, my concerns, especially my specific comments 1-3, remain unaddressed. The present manuscript is descriptive and fails to describe the molecular mechanism by which Sakura exerts its function in the germline. Nevertheless, this reviewer acknowledges that the observed defects in sakura mutant ovaries and the possible physiological significance of the Sakura-Out interaction are worth sharing with the research community, as they may lay the groundwork for future research in functional analysis.

We thank the reviewer for valuable comments. We would like to investigate the molecular mechanism by which Sakura exerts its function in the germline in near future studies. 

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this study, the authors identified CG14545 (named it sakura), as a key gene essential for Drosophila oogenesis. Genetic analyses revealed that Sakura is vital for both oogenesis progression and ultimate female fertility, playing a central role in the renewal and differentiation of germ stem cells (GSC).

The absence of Sakura disrupts the Dpp/BMP signaling pathway, resulting in abnormal bam gene expression, which impairs GSC differentiation and leads to GSC loss. Additionally, Sakura is critical for maintaining normal levels of piRNAs. Also, the authors convincingly demonstrate that Sakura physically interacts with Otu, identifying the specific domains necessary for this interaction, suggesting a cooperative role in germline regulation. Importantly, the loss of otu produces similar defects to those observed in sakura mutants, highlighting their functional collaboration.

The authors provide compelling evidence that Sakura is a critical regulator of germ cell fate, maintenance, and differentiation in Drosophila. This regulatory role is mediated through modulation of pMad and Bam expression. However, the phenotypes observed in the germarium appear to stem from reduced pMad levels, which subsequently trigger premature and ectopic expression of Bam. This aberrant Bam expression could lead to increased CycA levels and altered transcriptional regulation, impacting piRNA expression. In this revised manuscript, the authors further investigated whether Sakura affects the function of Orb, a binding partner they identified, in deubiquitinase activity when Orb interacts with Bam.

We appreciate the authors' efforts to address all our comments. While these revisions have greatly improved the clarity of certain sections, some of the concerns remain unclear, while details mentioned in the responses about these studies should be incorporated in the manuscript. Specifically, the manuscript still lacks the demonstration that Sakura co-localizes with Orb/Bam despite having the means for staining and visualization. This would bring insight into the selective binding of Orb with Bam vs. Sakura perhaps at different stages of oogenesis. Such analyses would allow for more specific conclusions, further alluding to the underlying mechanism, rather than the general observations currently presented.

This elaborate study will be embraced by both germline-focused scientists and the developmental biology community.

We thank the reviewer for valuable comments. We believe that the author meant Otu, not Orb, for the binding partner of Sakura that we identified. We would like to investigate the colocalization of Sakura with other proteins including Otu and the molecular mechanism by which Sakura exerts its function in the germline in near future studies. 

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this very thorough study, the authors characterize the function of a novel Drosophila gene, which they name Sakura. They start with the observation that sakura expression is predicted to be highly enriched in the ovary and they generate an anti-sakura antibody, a line with a GFP-tagged sakura transgene, and a sakura null allele to investigate sakura localization and function directly. They confirm the prediction that it is primarily expressed in the ovary and, specifically, that it is expressed in germ cells, and find that about 2/3 of the mutants lack germ cells completely and the remaining have tumorous ovaries. Further investigation reveals that Sakura is required for piRNA-mediated repression of transposons in germ cells. They also find evidence that sakura is important for germ cell specification during development and germline stem cell maintenance during adulthood. However, despite the role of sakura in maintaining germline stem cells, they find that sakura mutant germ cells also fail to differentiate properly such that mutant germline stem cell clones have an increased number of "GSC-like" cells. They attribute this phenotype to a failure in the repression of Bam by dpp signaling. Lastly, they demonstrate that sakura physically interacts with otu and that sakura and otu mutants have similar germ cell phenotypes. Overall, this study helps to advance the field by providing a characterization of a novel gene that is required for oogenesis. The data are generally high-quality and the new lines and reagents they generated will be useful for the field.

Comments on latest version:

With these revisions, the authors have addressed my main concerns.

We thank the reviewer for valuable comments.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

The manuscript is much improved based on the changes made upon recommendations from the reviewers.

Though most of our comments have been addressed, we have a few more we wish to recommend. For previous points we made, we replied with further clarification for the authors.

Figure 1

(1) B should be the supplemental figure.

We moved the former Fig 1B to Supplemental Figure 1.

• Previous Fig1B (sakura mRNA expression level) is now Fig S2, not S1. Please make this data as Fig S1.

We moved Fig S1 to main Fig7A and renumbered Fig S2-S16 to Fig S1-S15.

(2) C - How were the different egg chamber stages selected in the WB? Naming them 'oocytes' is deceiving. Recommend labeling them as 'egg chambers', since an oocyte is claimed to be just the one-cell of that cyst.

We changed the labeling to egg chambers.

• The labels on lanes for Stages 12-13 and Stage 14, still only say "chambers", not "egg chambers". Also there is no Stage 1-3 egg chamber. More accurately, the label should be "Germarium - Stage 11 egg chambers".

We updated the lables on lanes as suggested by the reviewer.

(3) Is the antibody not detecting Sakura in IF? There is no mention of this anywhere in the manuscript.

While our Sakura antibody detects Sakura in IF, it seems to detect some other proteins as well. Since we have Sakura-EGFP fly strain (which fully rescues sakuranull phenotypes) to examine Sakura expression and localization without such non-specific signal issues, we relied on Sakura-EGFP rather than anti-Sakura antibodies for IF.

• Please put this info into the Methods section.

We added this info into the Methods section.

(4) Expand on the reliance of the sakura-EGFP fly line. Does this overexpression cause any phenotypes?

sakura-EGFP does not cause any phenotypes in the background of sakura[+/+] and sakura[+/-].

• Please add this detail into the manuscript.

We added this info into the Methods section.

Figure 5

(1) D - It might make more sense if this graph showed % instead of the numbers.

We did not understand the reviewer's point. We think using numbers, not %, makes more sense.

• Having a different 'n' number for each experiment does not allow one to compare anything except numbers of the egg chambers. This must be normalized.

We still don’t agree with the reviewer. In Fig 5D, we are showing the numbers of stage 14 oocytes per fly (= per a pair of ovaries). ‘n’ is the number of flies (= number of a pair of ovaries) examined. We now clarified this in the figure legend. Different ‘n’ number does not prevent us from comparing the numbers of stage 14 oocytes per fly. Therefore, we would like to show as it is now.

(2) Line 213 - explain why RNAi 2 was chosen when RNAi 1 looks stronger.

Fly stock of RNAi line 2 is much healthier than RNAi line 1 (without being driven Gal4) for some reasons. We had a concern that the RNAi line 1 might contain an unwanted genetic background. We chose to use the RNAi 2 line to avoid such an issue.

• Please add this information to the manuscript.

We added this info into the Methods section.

Figure 7/8 - can go to Supplemental.

We moved Fig 8 to supplemental. However, we think Fig 7 data is important and therefore we would like to present them as a main figure.

• Current Fig S1 should go to Fig 7, to better understand the relationship between pMad and Bam expression.

We moved Fig S1 to main Fig7A and renumbered Fig S2-S16 to Fig S1-S15.

Figure 9C - Why the switch to S2 cells? Not able to use the Otu antibody in the IP of ovaries?

We can use the Otu antibody in the IP of ovaries. However, in anti-Sakura Western after anti Otu IP, antibody light chain bands of the Otu antibodies overlap with the Sakura band. Therefore, we switched to S2 cells to avoid this issue by using an epitope tag.

• Please add this info to the Methods section.

We added this info into the Methods section.

Figure 10- Some images would be nice here to show that the truncations no longer colocalize.

We did not understand the reviewer's points. In our study, even for the full-length proteins. We have not shown any colocalization of Sakura and Otu in S2 cells or in ovaries, except that they both are enriched in developing oocytes in egg chambers.

• Based on your binding studies, we would expect them to colocalize in the egg chamber, and since there are antibodies and a GFP-line available, it would be important to demonstrate that via visualization.

As we wrote in the response and now in the manuscript, our antibodies are not best for immunostaining. We will try to optimize the experimental conditions in the future studies.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewing Editor (Recommendations For The Authors):

There are four main areas that need further clarification:

(1) Further and more complete assessment of senescence and the fibroblasts must be done to support the claims. 

We sincerely appreciate the Reviewing Editor's valuable suggestion regarding the addition of cellular senescence detection markers. In the revised manuscript, we have incorporated additional detection markers for cellular senescence, such as H3K9me3 and SA-β-gal staining, in healthy and periodontitis gingival samples to further validate our findings (Figure 1A, B in revised manuscripts).

(2) Confusion between ageing and senescence throughout the manuscript.

We fully understand the concerns raised by the Reviewing Editor and reviewers regarding the confusion between the concepts of ageing and senescence in the manuscript. Cellular senescence is a manifestation of ageing at the cellular level. In the revised manuscript, we have given priority to the term ‘senescence’ to describe the cell condition instead of ‘aging’.

(3) The lipid metabolism mechanistic claims are very speculative and largely unsupported by experimental data. 

We greatly appreciate the Reviewing Editor and reviewers for pointing out the incorrect statements regarding the role of lipid metabolism in regulating cellular senescence. Since the mechanism by which cellular metabolism regulates cellular senescence is not the core focus of this manuscript, we have moved the results of the metabolic analysis from the sc-RNA sequencing data to the figure supplement (Figure 4-figure supplement 1) and revised the related statements in the revised manuscript (Page 7-8, Line 186-194).

(4) Concerns about the use of Metformin as a senotherapy vs other pleiotropic effects in periodontitis and the suggestion of using an alternative Senolytic drug (Bcl2 inhibitors, etc.). 

We fully understand the concerns of the Reviewing Editor and reviewers regarding metformin as an anti-aging therapy. In the revised manuscript, we have included additional experiments using other senolytic drugs ABT-263, a Bcl2 inhibitor, in the ligature-induced periodontitis mouse model. The corresponding results could be found in the Figure 6. and Page 9-10, Line 248-264 in the revised manuscripts.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

While most of the experiments are elegantly designed and the procedures well conducted there are several critical weaknesses that temper my enthusiasm for this solid and timely work. Considering my main points, I would recommend the following:

(1) Potentiate the senescent assessment in vitro and, most importantly, in vivo. E.g. SABgal with fresh tissue, other senescent biomarkers like SAHFs (HP1g or H3K9me3), etc.

We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' suggestion to potentiate the assessment of cellular senescence. In the revised manuscript, we performed SA-β-gal staining on fresh frozen samples, revealing a significantly higher number of SA-β-gal positive cells in the gingival tissue of periodontitis, particularly in the lamina propria, while few SA-β-gal positive cells were observed in healthy gingival tissue (Figure. 1A). Additionally, we assessed the protein level changes of H3K9me3, a marker of senescence-associated heterochromatin foci (SAHF), in gingival tissues from healthy individuals and periodontitis patients. The results showed a notable increase in the number of H3K9me3 positive cells in periodontitis tissues, approximately double that found in healthy gingiva (Figure. 1B). This trend aligns with our previous findings of elevated p16 and p21 levels. Collectively, these results further confirm that periodontitis gingival tissues contain a greater number of senescent cells compared to healthy gingiva.  

(2) Claims on disturbances in lipid metabolism as a driver of CD81+ fibroblast senescence require appropriate functional/mechanistic validations and experiments of metabolism rewiring.

We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' suggestion for more experimental evidence regarding the role of lipid metabolism in driving CD81+ fibroblast senescence. The influence and mechanisms of lipid metabolism on cellular senescence is a complex and important scientific issue, and it is not the central focus of this manuscript. Therefore, to avoid causing confusion for the reviewers and readers, we have removed the metabolism analysis in the Figure 4-figure supplement 1 and revised the presentation of the relevant results in the revised manuscript to ensure a more rigorous interpretation of our findings (Page 7-8, Line 186-194). 

(3) Do LPS-stimulated HGFS implementing the senescent programme secrete C3? Detection of complement C3 at the protein level (e.g. by ELISA) would reinforce the proposed mechanism.

This is indeed a very interesting question. In response to the reviewers' suggestion, we measured the levels of C3 protein secreted by human gingival fibroblasts induced by Pg-LPS, which is one of the markers of the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP). The results indicated that, compared to untreated fibroblasts, those induced by Pg-LPS exhibited significantly higher levels of C3 secretion, approximately 1.5 times that of the control group (Figure. 5G). Additionally, we also found that primary gingival fibroblasts derived from periodontitis tissues secreted more complement C3 compared to those derived from healthy tissues (Figure. 5F). These findings suggest that the increased secretion of complement C3 by gingival fibroblasts in periodontitis tissues may be related to Pg-LPS-induced cellular senescence.

(4) The mechanism of Metformin to impair senescence and/or the SASP is not fully validated and Metformin can produce other pleiotropic effects. A key experiment (including therapeutic implications) is using a senolytic drug (e.g. Navitoclax) to causally connect the eradication of senescent CD81+ fibroblasts with the recruitment of neutrophils. If the hypothesis of the authors is correct this approach should result in reduced levels of gingival CD81 and C3 positivity, prevention of neutrophils infiltration (reduced MPO positivity), and ameliorate bone damage in ligationinduced periodontitis murine models.

We fully understand the reviewers' concerns regarding the role of metformin in alleviating cellular senescence and the possibility of it acting through non-senescent pathways. To clarify the role of cellular senescence in the recruitment of neutrophils by CD81+ fibroblasts through C3 in periodontitis, we treated a ligature-induced periodontitis mouse model with ABT-263, also known as Navitoclax. The results showed that after ABT-263 treatment, the number of p16-positive or H3K9me3-positive senescent cells in the periodontitis mice significantly decreased. Additionally, we observed reductions in the quantities of CD81+ fibroblasts, C3 protein levels, neutrophil infiltration, and osteoclasts to varying degrees in the LIP model after ABT263 treatment (Figure. 6). These results further support our hypothesis that the eradication of senescent CD81+ fibroblasts could reduce neutrophil infiltration and alveolar bone resorption. 

(5) Have the authors considered using any of the available C3/C3aR inhibitors to validate the involvement of neutrophils and the inflammatory response in periodontitis? A C3/C3aR inhibitor would be an elegant treatment group in parallel with the senolytic approach.

Thank you very much for the reviewers' suggestion to investigate neutrophil infiltration and inflammatory responses after treating periodontitis with C3/C3aR inhibitors. In a clinical study by Hasturk et al. in 2021 (Reference 1), it was found that using the C3 inhibitor AMY-101 effectively alleviated gingival inflammation levels in periodontitis patients. This was reflected in significant decreases in clinical indicators such as the modified gingival index and bleeding on probing, as well as a marked reduction in inflammatory tissue destruction markers, including MMP-8 and MMP-9. In addition, Tomoki Maekawa et al. (Reference 2) demonstrated that a peptide inhibitor of complement C3 effectively reduced inflammation levels and the extent of bone resorption in periodontitis. Moreover, research by Guglietta et al. (Reference 3) clarified that the C3 complement promotes neutrophil recruitment and the formation of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) via C3aR. And neutrophil extracellular traps are considered key pathological factors in causing sustained chronic inflammation in periodontitis (References 4 and 5). In summary, existing studies have clearly indicated that C3/C3aR inhibitors likely reduce neutrophil recruitment and inflammation in periodontitis. 

Reference

(1) Hasturk, H., Hajishengallis, G., Forsyth Institute Center for Clinical and Translational Research staff, Lambris, J. D., Mastellos, D. C., & Yancopoulou, D. (2021). Phase IIa clinical trial of complement C3 inhibitor AMY-101 in adults with periodontal inflammation. The Journal of clinical investigation, 131(23), e152973.

(2) Maekawa, T., Briones, R. A., Resuello, R. R., Tuplano, J. V., Hajishengallis, E., Kajikawa, T., Koutsogiannaki, S., Garcia, C. A., Ricklin, D., Lambris, J. D., & Hajishengallis, G. (2016). Inhibition of pre-existing natural periodontitis in non-human primates by a locally administered peptide inhibitor of complement C3. Journal of clinical periodontology, 43(3), 238–249.

(3) Guglietta, S., Chiavelli, A., Zagato, E., Krieg, C., Gandini, S., Ravenda, P. S., Bazolli, B., Lu, B., Penna, G., & Rescigno, M. (2016). Coagulation induced by C3aR-dependent NETosis drives protumorigenic neutrophils during small intestinal tumorigenesis. Nature communications, 7, 11037.

(4) Kim, T. S., Silva, L. M., Theofilou, V. I., Greenwell-Wild, T., Li, L., Williams, D. W., Ikeuchi, T., Brenchley, L., NIDCD/NIDCR Genomics and Computational Biology Core, Bugge, T. H., Diaz, P. I., Kaplan, M. J., Carmona-Rivera, C., & Moutsopoulos, N. M. (2023). Neutrophil extracellular traps and extracellular histones potentiate IL-17 inflammation in periodontitis. The Journal of experimental medicine, 220(9), e20221751.

(5) Silva, L. M., Doyle, A. D., Greenwell-Wild, T., Dutzan, N., Tran, C. L., Abusleme, L., Juang, L. J., Leung, J., Chun, E. M., Lum, A. G., Agler, C. S., Zuazo, C. E., Sibree, M., Jani, P., Kram, V., 6 Martin, D., Moss, K., Lionakis, M. S., Castellino, F. J., Kastrup, C. J., … Moutsopoulos, N. M. (2021). Fibrin is a critical regulator of neutrophil effector function at the oral mucosal barrier. Science (New York, N.Y.), 374(6575), eabl5450.

Other comments

(1) Figure 1. The authors report upregulation of the aging pathway in bulk RNAseq analyses. What about the upregulation of senescence-related pathways and differential expression of SASP-related genes in this experiment?

Thanks for this interesting question. Through further analysis of the bulk RNA sequencing results of gingival tissues from LIP mice model, we found significant alterations in multiple senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) genes and several cellular senescencerelated pathways. SASP genes, such as Icam1, Mmp3, Nos3, Igfbp7, Igfbp4, Mmp14, Timp1, Ngf, Il6, Areg, and Vegfa, were markedly upregulated in the periodontitis samples of ligature-induced mice (Figure 1-figure supplement 2A). Moreover, we observed a significant reduction in oxidative phosphorylation levels and the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle in the periodontitis group, suggesting that the occurrence of cellular senescence may be related to mitochondrial dysfunction (Figure 1figure supplement 2B and C.).

Additionally, we noted the activation of the PI3K-AKT and MAPK pathways in LIP model (Figure 1-figure supplement 2D and E), both of which can induce cellular senescence by activating the tumor suppressor pathway TP53/CDKN1A, leading to cell cycle arrest (References 1, 2). Furthermore, the NF-κB signaling pathway was also significantly enriched in LIP model (Figure 1-figure supplement 2F), which is closely associated with the secretion of SASP factors (Reference 3).

In summary, our bulk RNA sequencing results suggest enrichment of cellular senescencerelated pathways in the periodontitis group, including mitochondrial metabolic dysregulation, senescence-related pathways, and alterations in the SASP. Related results were added into Page 56 of the revised manuscripts.

Reference

(1) Tang Q, Markby GR, MacNair AJ, Tang K, Tkacz M, Parys M, Phadwal K, MacRae VE, Corcoran BM. TGF-β-induced PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway controls myofibroblast differentiation and secretory phenotype of valvular interstitial cells through the modulation of cellular senescence in a naturally occurring in vitro canine model of myxomatous mitral valve disease. Cell Prolif. 2023 Jun;56(6):e13435. doi: 10.1111/cpr.13435.

(2) Sayegh S, Fantecelle CH, Laphanuwat P, Subramanian P, Rustin MHA, Gomes DCO, Akbar AN, Chambers ES. Vitamin D3 inhibits p38 MAPK and senescence-associated inflammatory mediator secretion by senescent fibroblasts that impacts immune responses during ageing. Aging Cell. 2024 Apr;23(4):e14093.

(3) Raynard C, Ma X, Huna A, Tessier N, Massemin A, Zhu K, Flaman JM, Moulin F, Goehrig D, Medard JJ, Vindrieux D, Treilleux I, Hernandez-Vargas H, Ducreux S, Martin N, Bernard D. NF-κB-dependent secretome of senescent cells can trigger neuroendocrine transdifferentiation of breast cancer cells. Aging Cell. 2022 Jul;21(7):e13632.

(2) I wonder whether the authors could clarify how the semi quantifications for p21, p16, Masson's trichrome, C3, or MPO were done in Figures 1, 2, and 6.

Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion. We have added the semi-quantitative methods for p21, p16, Masson's trichrome, C3, and MPO in the Methods section. Specifically, for semi-quantification of protein expressions, the mean optical density (MOD) of positive stains for p21, p16, and C3 was measured using the ImageJ2 software (version 2.14.0, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD). The number of MPO-positive cells and collagen volume fractions (stained blue) for individual sections were also measured using the ImageJ2 software. (Page 19, Line 537-541 in the revised manuscripts).  

(3) Figure 2. It is unclear whether N=6 refers to 6 mice, maxilla, or fields per group.

Thank you very much for the reviewer's question. To avoid any misunderstandings for the reviewer and readers, we have added a definition of the sample size in the description of the micro-CT analysis method. Specifically, in the micro-CT quantitative analysis, the sample size n for each group consists of 6 mice, with the average value of the BV/TV of the bilateral maxillary alveolar bone taken as one sample for statistical analysis (Page 17-18, Line 488-490 in the revised manuscripts).  

(4)  igure 4K. Please provide separated staining for p16, VIM, and CD81, and not only the Merge. It is difficult to identify the triple-positive cells. Also, the arrows are difficult to observe.

Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have included separated staining for p16, VIM, and CD81, and the triple-positive cells are indicated with white arrows (Figure 5-figure supplement 1). 

(5) Overall, improve the magnifications in the IF experiments and show where the magnified areas come from.

Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion. We have enlarged the fluorescence result images.

(6) Refer to the original datasets of the scRNAseq results in figure legends.

Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion. We have indicated the source of the raw single-cell sequencing data in the figure legend.

(7) Check English grammar and writing.

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. We checked the grammar and writing in the revised manuscript assisted by a native English speaker and AI tools like Chat-GPT.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) When the authors refer to accelerated aging and/or senescence, they are doing so in comparison to what?

Thank you for the reviewer's question, which allows me to further clarify the concepts of accelerated aging and/or senescence. In sections 2.1 and Figure 1 of this manuscript, we referred to accelerated aging and/or senescence. This indicates that the gingival tissues of periodontitis patients exhibit a higher number of senescent cells and elevated levels of senescence-related markers compared to healthy gingival tissues. In the title of this manuscript, we describe CD81+ fibroblasts as a unique subpopulation with accelerated cellular senescence. This means that CD81+ fibroblasts display higher expression levels of senescence-related genes, cell cycle inhibitor p16, and SASP factors compared to other fibroblast subpopulations. To avoid any misunderstanding, we have deleted the text ‘accelerated senescence’ in the revised manuscripts. 

(2) In general, the main text does not describe the results using exact and reproducible terminology. Phrases like "X was most active", "a significant increase was observed", "the highest proportion was", and "the level of aging increased" should be supported by adding quantification details and by detailing what these comparisons are made to, to improve the reproducibility of the results.

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. To improve the reproducibility of the results, we have added quantification details in the results section and clarified what comparisons are being made through the whole manuscript.

(3) In some sections of the main text and figure legends, it is not entirely clear which sequencing experiments were conducted by the authors, which analyses were conducted by the authors on publicly available sequencing data, and which analyses were conducted on their mouse sequencing data.

Thank you for the valuable feedback from the reviewer. To further clarify the source of the sequencing data, we have clearly indicated the data source in both the results section and the figure legends. 

(4) In Figure 3H, the images showing SA-beta-gal staining on LPS-treated fibroblasts do not show convincingly the difference between treatments that are represented in the graph.

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. To further clearly show the differences between treatments, we have enlarged the partial image of SA-β-gal staining shown in Figure 2-figure supplement 2 of the revised manuscripts. 

(5) The choice of colors for Figure 4K is far from ideal as it is very difficult to tell apart red from purple channels and thus to visualize triple positive cells. A different LUT should be chosen, and separate individual channels should be shown to clearly identify triple-positive cells from others. Arrows also do not currently point at triple-positive cells.

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have included separated staining for p16, VIM, and CD81, and the triple-positive cells are marked with white arrows shown in Figure 5-figure supplement 1 of the revised manuscripts.  

(6) The authors state that treatment with metformin "alleviated.... inflammatory cell infiltration (Figure 2C), and collagen degradation (Figure 2D) as observed through H&E and Masson staining." However, I cannot find a description of how the "relative fraction of collagen" in Figure 2Gc was calculated and how the H&E image they provide shows evidence of a reduction in inflammatory cells at that magnification.

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have added details in the methods section regarding the calculation of the "relative fraction of collagen" (Page 19, Line 539-541). Specifically, the collagen volume fractions (stained blue) for individual sections were measured using ImageJ2 software. Additionally, we have marked the infiltrating inflammatory cells in the gingiva in the H&E images with black arrows shown in Figure 7-figure supplement 1B of the revised manuscripts.

(7) It appears that the in vivo experiment for metformin treatment was conducted with 6 animals per group, but this is not clear in the figures, main text, and methods.

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have included the number of mice in each group for the in vivo experiments, specifying that there are 6 mice per group in the figures, main text, and methods sections.

(8) The methodology described for the bulk RNA-sequencing experiment in mice should describe the sequencing library characteristics and some reference to quality control thresholds that were implemented (mapped and aligned reads, sequencing depth and coverage, etc.).

In the bulk RNA-sequencing experiment, the sequencing library characteristics and quality control thresholds were listed as follows:

Sequencing Library Characteristics: We utilized the Illumina TruSeq RNA Library Construction Kit, generating libraries with an insert fragment length of approximately 400-500 bp.

Quality Control Standards include the following:

Alignment and Mapping Rates: The read data for all samples underwent preliminary quality control using FastQC (v0.11.9) and were aligned using HISAT2 (v2.2.1). The average mapping rate for each sample was over 90%.

Sequencing Depth and Coverage: Each sample had a sequencing depth of 30M-40M paired reads to ensure sufficient transcript coverage. Detailed alignment statistics have been provided in the supplementary materials.

Other Quality Control Measures: During the analysis, we also utilized RSeQC (v3.0.1) to evaluate the transcript coverage and GC bias of the sequencing data.

The corresponding method description and reference were added in the Page 19-20, Line 546-558 of the revised manuscripts.

(9) Patients with periodontitis are labeled as diagnosed with "chronic periodontitis". I would like to know how the authors defined this chronic state of the disease in their inclusion criteria.

Thank you very much for the reviewer’s question, which gives us the opportunity to further clarify the definition and diagnosis of chronic periodontitis. The diagnostic criteria for patients with chronic periodontitis in this study are based on the 1999 International Workshop for a Classification of Periodontal Diseases and Conditions (Reference 1). Chronic periodontitis is a type of periodontal disease distinct from aggressive periodontitis, and it is not diagnosed based on the rate of disease progression. Clinically, the diagnosis of chronic periodontitis is primarily based on clinical attachment loss (CAL) ≥ 4 mm or probing depth (PD) ≥ 5 mm as one of the criteria for diagnosis.

Reference

(1) Armitage G. C. (2000). Development of a classification system for periodontal diseases and conditions. Northwest dentistry, 79(6), 31–35.

(10) There is no detail about the age and sex of the donors for the healthy gingival fibroblast experiments. Are they some of the patients mentioned in Supplementary Table 1? Please clarify the source and number of independent primary cultures.

Thank you very much to the reviewer for allowing us to further clarify the source and number of independent primary cultures. In the cell experiments, we used gingival fibroblasts derived from gingival tissue of two healthy volunteers and two patients with periodontitis as experimental subjects. This information has been listed in the Supplementary Table 1. 

(11) Can the authors explain why their age inclusion criteria were different for the healthy and periodontitis groups according to their methods (healthy 18-50 years old: periodontitis 18-35 years old?)

Thank you very much to the reviewer for pointing this out. We noticed that there was an error in the age range indicated for the healthy and periodontitis groups in the inclusion criteria. Based on the original inclusion criteria information, we have corrected the age range of the included population. 18-65 years old individuals were included into the both healthy and periodontitis groups. (Page 14-15, Line 396-404 in the revised manuscripts)

(12) The methodology for inclusion is confusing and does not reflect the actual information of the recruited patients and samples thus analyzed. In the text, the healthy group appears to have included 8 young adult individuals and 8 middle-aged individuals. However, the list of recruited patients shows all healthy patients were in the young adult range (below 35 years of age) while all chronic periodontitis patients were middle-aged (above 50 years of age). Please clarify.

Thank you very much to the reviewer for pointing out the issues in the article. This study included 8 healthy periodontal patients and 8 patients with periodontitis (Page 14, Line 396-398 and Supplementary Table 1 in the revised manuscripts). Since periodontitis has a higher prevalence in middle-aged and elderly populations, the periodontitis samples included in this study were mostly from this demographic. In contrast, the healthy gingival samples were sourced from patients undergoing wisdom tooth extraction, which primarily involves younger individuals. Therefore, due to the limited sample size, we could not enforce strict age matching. To address this, we repeated the relevant experiments in more consistent mouse models, which confirmed the increase in senescent cells in periodontal tissues (Figure 1D in the revised manuscripts). In summary, although the clinical samples were limited, the experimental results from the mouse models still support our conclusions.

(13) The number of biological replicates for each group used in the bulk RNA-sequencing experiment is unclear. The methods state:" For those with biological duplication, we used DESeq2 [8] (version: 1.34.0) to screen differentially expressed gene sets between two biological conditions; for those without biological duplication, we used edgeR". Please clarify the number of mouse samples sequenced and the description of the groups.

Thank you very much to the reviewer for pointing out the errors in the article. In the transcriptome sequencing, we collected gingival tissues from 3 healthy mice and gingival tissues from 3 ligature-induced periodontitis mice. Therefore, we used the DESeq2 (version: 1.34.0) method to filter for differentially expressed genes. The corresponding descriptions were revised in Page 20, Line 554-555 in the revised manuscripts.

(14) Cluster group labels are misaligned in Figure 4C.

Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion. The cluster group labels in Figure 3C of the revised manuscripts have been aligned.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Major Comments for the Authors:

(1) I do not find the immunohistochemical staining of p16 and p21 shown in Figures 2E and F to be particularly compelling. Especially as other stains of these markers used later in the manuscript are of higher quality (i.e. Figures 3F and G). Can this staining be improved to better reflect the quantifications in Figure 2G?

Thank you very much for the reviewer's suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have provided more representative images in Figure 7C in the revised manuscripts to reflect the effect of metformin treatment on the number of p16-positive cells in periodontitis. In Figure 7-figure supplement 1D of the revised manuscripts, we have marked p21-positive cells with black arrows to help readers better identify the p21-positive cells. Additionally, we have also assessed the H3K9me3 marker, which is more specific, and the results similarly indicate that metformin treatment can alleviate the formation of senescent cells in periodontitis (Figure 7-figure supplement 1E of the revised manuscript).

(2) On line 140, Supplementary Figure 2C, D is quoted to show "...an increase in senescence characteristics of fibroblasts with the severity of periodontitis." This figure panel does not appear to support this statement. Please revise.

Thank you very much for pointing out the errors in the manuscript. In the revised version, we have corrected this part of the description and added that “The results showed a decline in fibroblast proportion along with increasing disease severity (Figure 2-figure supplement 1C and D)” (Page 6, Line 153-154 of the revised manuscript)

(3) I do not find the Western Blot experiment in Figure 4L to be particularly convincing. The text states that p21, p16, and CD81 increase in a context-dependent manner upon LPS stimulation, which doesn't appear to be very evident. I recommend repeating this experiment and showing both a representative blot alongside a blot density quantification where the bars have the error shown between experiments.

Thank you very much for the reviewer’s suggestion regarding this result. During subsequent repeated experiments, we found that the result was not reproducible, and we have removed the related results.

(4) The results state that metabolic profiling of senescent fibroblasts shows an increase in the biosynthesis of Linoleic acid, linolenic acid, arachidonic acid, and steroid. However, in Figure 5B only arachidonic acid and steroid biosynthesis appear to be elevated in CD81+ Fibroblasts, while Linoleic and linolenic acid appear to be decreased. Can the authors comment on this discrepancy? Moreover, in Figure 5C steroid biosynthesis is unchanged between healthy and periodontitis samples, contrary to the claimed increased trend in the results text. Please revise this section. Also, in Figures 5 B and C some of the terms are highlighted in a red or blue box. This is not discussed in the figure legend. Could the significance of this be explained or could these highlights be removed from the figure?

Thank you very much for the reviewer’s correction regarding the errors in the manuscript. In the Page 7-8, Line 186-194 of the revised manuscripts, “Pathways related to fatty acid biosynthesis, arachidonic acid metabolism, and steroid biosynthesis were significantly upregulated in CD81+ fibroblasts (Figure 4-figure supplement 1A)” was re-wrote. Moreover, we have removed the results from Figure 5C, and the highlights in Figures 5B and C of the previous manuscripts. Since the mechanism by which cellular metabolism regulates cellular senescence is not the core focus of this manuscript, we have moved the results of the metabolic analysis from the sc-RNA sequencing data to the figure supplement (Figure 4-figure supplement 1) and revised the related statements in the revised manuscript (Page 7-8, Line 186-194).

(5) The authors state that arachidonic acid can be converted to prostaglandins and leukotrienes through COXs (which are expressed in their CD81+ Fibroblasts), accentuating inflammatory responses. Have the authors profiled for the expression of prostaglandins and leukotrienes in their CD81+ Fibroblasts or between healthy and periodontitis samples? Such data would be a great inclusion in the manuscript.

Thank you very much for the reviewer’s suggestion. Our results indicated that CD81+ gingival fibroblasts expressed higher levels of PTGS1 and PTGS2 compared to other fibroblast subpopulations. These genes encode proteins that are COX-1 and COX-2, which are key enzymes in prostaglandin biosynthesis (Figure 4-figure supplement 1 of the revised manuscript). Additionally, previous studies have reported high levels of prostaglandins and leukotrienes in periodontal tissues, and these pro-inflammatory mediators contribute to tissue destruction in periodontitis (Reference 1 and 2).

Reference

(1) Van Dyke, T. E., & Serhan, C. N. (2003). Resolution of inflammation: a new paradigm for the pathogenesis of periodontal diseases. Journal of dental research, 82(2), 82–90.

(2) Hikiji, H., Takato, T., Shimizu, T., & Ishii, S. (2008). The roles of prostanoids, leukotrienes, and platelet-activating factor in bone metabolism and disease. Progress in lipid research, 47(2), 107–126.

(6) Lines 199 and 200 state "...the cellular senescence of CD81+ fibroblasts could be attributed to disturbances in lipid metabolism". While altered lipid metabolic profiles are shown in Figure 5 to correlate with senescent fibroblasts/periodontitis tissue, no evidence is shown to suggest that they are the driver or cause of fibroblast senescence. Could this sentence be amended to better reflect the conclusions that can be drawn from the data presented?

Thank you very much for the reviewer’s suggestion. We have revised the related statements and believed that “lipid metabolism might play a role in cellular senescence of the gingival fibroblasts” in the Page 7, Line 189 of the revised manuscripts.  

Minor Comments for the Authors:

(1) There are some sentences without references that I feel would warrant referencing: - Line 112 - "Metformin, an anti-aging drug has shown potential in inhibiting cell senescence in various disease models (REFERENCE)."

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. We have included the relevant references in the Page10, Line 267-271 of the revised manuscripts.

Reference

(1) Soukas, A. A., Hao, H., & Wu, L. (2019). Metformin as Anti-Aging Therapy: Is It for Everyone?. Trends in endocrinology and metabolism: TEM, 30(10), 745–755.

(2) Kodali, M., Attaluri, S., Madhu, L. N., Shuai, B., Upadhya, R., Gonzalez, J. J., Rao, X., & Shetty, A. K. (2021). Metformin treatment in late middle age improves cognitive function with alleviation of microglial activation and enhancement of autophagy in the hippocampus. Aging cell, 20(2), e13277.

- Line 210 - "Previous studies have demonstrated the importance of sustained neutrophil infiltration in the progression of periodontitis (REFERENCE)."

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. We have included the relevant references in the Page 8, Line 211-214 of the revised manuscripts.

Reference

(1) Song, J., Zhang, Y., Bai, Y., Sun, X., Lu, Y., Guo, Y., He, Y., Gao, M., Chi, X., Heng, B. C., Zhang, X., Li, W., Xu, M., Wei, Y., You, F., Zhang, X., Lu, D., & Deng, X. (2023). The Deubiquitinase OTUD1 Suppresses Secretory Neutrophil Polarization And Ameliorates Immunopathology of Periodontitis. Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany), 10(30), e2303207.

(2) Kim, T. S., Silva, L. M., Theofilou, V. I., Greenwell-Wild, T., Li, L., Williams, D. W., Ikeuchi, T., Brenchley, L., NIDCD/NIDCR Genomics and Computational Biology Core, Bugge, T. H., Diaz, P. I., Kaplan, M. J., Carmona-Rivera, C., & Moutsopoulos, N. M. (2023). Neutrophil extracellular traps and extracellular histones potentiate IL-17 inflammation in periodontitis. The Journal of experimental medicine, 220(9), e20221751.

(3) Ando, Y., Tsukasaki, M., Huynh, N. C., Zang, S., Yan, M., Muro, R., Nakamura, K., Komagamine, M., Komatsu, N., Okamoto, K., Nakano, K., Okamura, T., Yamaguchi, A., Ishihara, K., & Takayanagi, H. (2024). The neutrophil-osteogenic cell axis promotes bone destruction in periodontitis. International journal of oral science, 16(1), 18.

(2) To improve the quality of several of the authors' claims I would recommend some further quantification of their experimental analyses. Namely:

- Figures 3 F and G

- Figures 4 I, J and K

- Figures 6 F and G

- Supplementary Figures 4 A, B, and C

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. We have supplemented the quantitative analysis results for some images based on the reviewer's recommendations, specifically in Figure. 2G, Figure. 3G, Figure 5-figure supplement 1A, B, Figure 5-figure supplement 2A and Figure 7figure supplement 3A-D in the revised manuscripts. 

(3) Figure 1L has missing x-axis annotation.

Thank you for the reminder from the reviewer. The X-axis label has been added in Figure 1-figure supplement 1D for the GO term annotation. 

(4) Line 117 is missing a reference for the experimental schematic shown in Figure 2A.

Thank you for the reminder from the reviewer. The experimental schematic shown in Figure 7A has been referenced in Page 10, Line 275-277.

(5) The "BV/TV ratio" and "CEJ-ABC distance" should be briefly explained in the results test (Lines 118 and 119).

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. We have added the explanation of "BV/TV ratio" and "CEJ-ABC distance." In Page 10-11, Line 279-281 in the revised manuscripts.

(6) Figure 2 could be improved by having some annotation for the anatomical regions shown.

Thank you for the reviewer’s valuable suggestion. We have labeled the relevant anatomical structures to enhance clarity in Figure 7 in the revised manuscripts. 

(7) The positive signal for p16 and p21 is difficult to interpret in Figure 2. Could the clarity of this be improved either by using more evident images or annotation with arrowheads indicating positive cells?

Thank you for the reviewer's suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have provided more representative images in Figure. 7C in the revised manuscripts to reflect the effect of metformin treatment on the number of p16-positive cells in periodontitis. In Figure 7-figure supplement 1D of the revised manuscripts, we have marked p21-positive cells with black arrows to help readers better identify the p21-positive cells. Additionally, we have also assessed the H3K9me3 marker, which is more specific, and the results similarly indicate that metformin treatment can alleviate the formation of senescent cells in periodontitis (Figure 7-figure supplement 1E of the revised manuscript).

(8) Figure 2Gc, d, and e are not mentioned in the results text. Please include references to these panels at the appropriate points.

Thank you for the reminder. In the revised manuscripts, Figures 2G c, d, and e in the previous manuscripts have been mentioned in the text in the Page 11, Line 284-289 of the revised manuscript. 

(9) Scale bars are missing in Supplementary Figure 2E.

Thank you for the suggestion. The scale bar has been added in the Figure 7-figure supplement 2B in the revised manuscripts. 

(10) The order of the figure panels is not always mentioned in the order they are referred to in the text. For example, Figure 3 is presented in the order of A, B, D then C. Could this be changed to reflect the order in the results text?

Thank you for the feedback. We have renumbered the figures according to the order mentioned in the original manuscript (Page 6, Line 146-149, Figure 2 in the revised manuscripts).

(11) To improve reader clarity it would be good to briefly introduce the gene expression datasets analysed, such as GSE152042. I.e. what the experimental condition is from which it is derived.

Thank you for the suggestion. We have included a brief description of the information and sources of the samples from GSE152042 in Page 6, Line 140-142 of the revised manuscripts. 

(12) To improve reader clarity I would recommend signifying clearly in the figure if the data shown is from mouse or human samples. For example in Figure 3F and G.

Thank you for the suggestion. We have moved all the results from the mouse experiments to the figures supplement (Figure 5-figure supplement 1 and 2 in the revised manuscripts).

(13) The images shown in Figure 3H for SA-beta-Gal do not seem very convincing. Could this be improved?

Thank you for the suggestion. To further illustrate the differences in SA-beta-Gal results between the groups, we have provided images at higher magnification in the Figure 2-figure supplement 2 of the revised manuscripts.  

(14) Supplementary Figure 2E would benefit from small experimental schematics that would allow the reader to appreciate the timings of the treatment for this experiment.

Thank you for the suggestion. We have added a schematic diagram in Figure 7-figure supplement 2A of the revised manuscripts to illustrate the LPS treatment, metformin treatment, and the timing of the assessments. 

(15) Figure 4K would benefit from showing the merged image and single channels of each of the stains to better assess the degree of colocalisation.

Thank you for the suggestion. We have included each individual fluorescence channel in Figure 5-figure supplement 1C of the revised manuscripts. 

(16) The writing on the X-axis of Figure 6B is almost illegible to me, although this may just be a compression artefact. This makes the interpretation of the data quite difficult. Also, for Figures 6 B and C, the meaning of the (H) and (P) annotations should be clear on either the figure or figure legend. I surmise that they represent "Healthy" and "Periodontic" samples respectively.

Thank you for the suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have enlarged Figure 6B in the previous manuscripts to better display the X-axis as shown in the Figure 5B of the revised manuscripts. Additionally, we have fully labeled "Healthy" and "Periodontitis" in Figure 5C of the revised manuscripts.

(17) MPO-positive cells are introduced on line 216, however, no explanation is provided for what population or state the expression of this protein marks. I surmise the authors are using it to detect Neutrophil populations. If so, could the authors briefly state this the first time it is used?

Thank you for the suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have added an introduction to MPO. MPO, or myeloperoxidase, is considered one of the markers for neutrophils. (Page 9, Line 240-242 of the revised manuscripts)

(18) Supplementary Figure 3D does not appear to be mentioned or discussed in the results text.

Thank you for the reminder. We have referenced Supplementary Figure 3D in the previous manuscripts in Page 9, Line 240-242 shown as Figure 5-figure supplement 2C of the revised manuscript.  

(19) Figure 6E showing increased C3 expression in periodontic samples is not very convincing and differences in expression are not evident. Can the authors provide an image that more convincingly matches their quantification?

Thank you for the suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have provided more representative images shown in Figure 5E of the revised manuscript.

(20) Figure 6I shows the expression of CD81 and SOD2 in healthy and periodontic tissue. The associated results texts (Lines 220 to 223) discuss the spatial coincidence of CD81 and MPO. Can the authors address this discrepancy in either the results text or the figure panel? Moreover, can Figure 6H and I be annotated to show the location of the gingival lamina propria to improve clarity?

Thank you for the reminder. We have revised the relevant statements in the text: "Interestingly, spatial transcriptomic analysis of gingival tissue revealed that the regions expressing CD81 and SOD2, a neutrophil marker, in periodontitis overlapped in the gingival lamina propria, showing a high spatial correlation" in Page 9, Line 223-226 of the revised manuscripts. Additionally, we have labeled the gingival lamina propria (LP) in Figure 5H of the revised manuscripts.

(21) I am confused about the purpose of Supplementary Figure 3E and what evidence it provides. Can the authors comment on this?

Thank you for the reminder. To avoid any potential misunderstanding by readers, we have deleted Supplementary Figure 3 image in the revised manuscripts

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this paper, Wang et al show that differentiated peridermal cells of the zebrafish epidermis extend cytoneme-like protrusions toward the less differentiated, intermediate layer below. They present evidence that expression of a dominant-negative cdc42, inhibits cytoneme formation and leads to elevated expression of a marker of undifferentiated keratinocytes, krtt1c19e, in the periderm layer. Data is presented suggesting the involvement of Delta-Notch signaling in keratinocyte differentiation. Finally, changes in expression of the inflammatory cytokine IL-17 and its receptors is shown to affect cytoneme number and periderm structure in a manner similar to Notch and cdc42 perturbations.

Strengths:

Overall, the idea that differentiated cells signal to underlying undifferentiated cells via membrane protrusions in skin keratinocytes is interesting and novel, and it is clear that periderm cells send out thin membrane protrusions that contain a Notch ligand. Further, perturbations that affect cytoneme number, Notch signaling, and IL-17 expression clearly lead to changes in periderm structure and gene expression.

Weaknesses:

More work is needed to determine whether the effects on keratinocyte differentiation are due to a loss of cytonemes themselves, or to broader effects of inhibiting cdc42. Moreover, more evidence is needed to support the claim that periderm cytonemes deliver Delta ligands to induce Notch signaling below. Without these aspects of the study being solidified, understanding how IL-17 affects these processes seems premature.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The aim of the study was to understand how cells of the skin communicate across dermal layers. The research group has previously demonstrated that cellular connections called airinemes contribute to this communication. The current work builds upon this knowledge by showing that differentiated keratinocytes also use cytonemes, specialized signaling filopodia, to communicate with undifferentiated keratinocytes. They show that cytonemes are the more abundant type of cellular extension used for communication between the differentiated keratinocyte layer and the undifferentiated keratinocytes. Disruption of cytoneme formation led to the expansion of the undifferentiated keratinocytes into the periderm, mimicking skin diseases like psoriasis. The authors go on to show that disruption of cytonemes results in perturbations in Notch signaling between the differentiated keratinocytes of the periderm and the underlying proliferating undifferentiated keratinocytes. Further, the authors show that Interleukin-17, also known to drive psoriasis, can restrict the formation of periderm cytonemes, possibly through the inhibition of Cdc42 expression. This work suggests that cytoneme-mediated Notch signaling plays a central role in normal epidermal regulation. The authors propose that disruption of cytoneme function may be an underlying cause of various human skin diseases.

Strengths:

The authors provide strong evidence that periderm keratinocytes cytonemes contain the notch ligand DeltaC to promote Notch activation in the underlying intermediate layer to regulate accurate epidermal maintenance.

Weaknesses:

The impact of the study would be increased if the mechanism by which Interlukin-17 and Cdc42 collaborate to regulate cytonemes was defined. Experiments measuring Cdc42 activity, rather than just measuring expression, would strengthen the conclusions.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Leveraging zebra fish as a research model, Wang et al identified "cytoneme-like structures" as a mechanism for mediating cell-cell communications among skin epidermal cells. The authors further demonstrated that the "cytoneme-like structures" can mediate Notch signaling, and the "cytoneme-like structures" are influenced by IL17 signaling.

Strengths:

Elegant zebrafish genetics, reporters, and live imaging.

Weaknesses: (minor)

This paper focused on characterizing the "cytoneme-like structures" between different layers and the NOTCH signaling. However, these "cytoneme-like structures" observed in undifferentiated KC (Figure 2B), although at a slightly lower frequency, were not interpreted. In addition, it is unclear if these "cytoneme-like structures" can mediate other signaling pathways than NOTCH.

We are currently investigating the role of cytoneme-like protrusions extended from undifferentiated keratinocytes and their role is still under investigation. We believe that addressing the function of undifferentiated keratinocyte cytonemes and exploring whether peridermal cytoneme can mediate other signaling pathways is beyond the scope of the current manuscript. However, we hope to publish our discoveries about them soon. It is worth noting that cytonemes mediate other morphogenetic signals, such as Hh, Wnt, Fgf, and TGFbeta in other contexts.

Overall, this is a solid paper with convincing data reporting the "cytoneme-like structures" in vivo, and with compelling data demonstrating the roles in NOTCH signaling and the regulation by IL17.

These findings provide a foundation for future work exploring the "cytoneme-like structures" in the mammalian system and other epithelial tissue types. This paper also suggests a potential connection between the "cytoneme-like structures" and psoriasis, which needs to be further explored in clinical samples.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Major points

- In general, representative images from each experiment should accompany the graphs shown. The inclusion of still frames from time-lapse imaging experiments in the main figures would help the reader understand the morphology and dynamics of these protrusions in control, cdc42, and IL-17 manipulations.

Thank you for the comments. We appreciate your suggestion to include representative images alongside the graphs to better illustrate the morphology and dynamics of these protrusions.

In response, we have made the following additions to our main figures.

Figure 3A now includes still images from time-lapse movies for both control and cdc42 manipulations.

Figure 5A and 6A,C now include still images for il17 manipulations.

- Data in Figure 3 is crucial as it demonstrates that cdc42DN selectively impairs cytoneme extensions without affecting other actin-based structures. It also shows that cdc42DN leads to upregulation of krtt1c19e in periderm. Therefore, these data should be presented in a comprehensive way. Still, frames of high mag views of time-lapse images from control and cdc42DN should be included in the figure. Similarly, a counter label (E-Cadherin, perhaps) showing the presence of all three layers and goblet cells at different focal planes capturing the different layers of the skin should be included. It is stated that the goblet cell number is unaffected, but they seem to be absent in the image shown in Figure 3B.

In this revised version, we have included magnified cross-sectional views. In addition to the images of the peridermal layer from the original version, we have now included the underlying intermediate and basal stem cell layers (Figure 3C-C”). We hope these data convincingly show that peridermal keratinocytes in cytoneme inhibited animals co-express krt4 and krtt1c19e markers, suggesting that peridermal keratinocytes are not fully differentiated.

We agree that the goblet cells in this particular image of experimental group appear largely absent, however, as we quantified many animals, the number of goblet cells was not significantly different between controls and experimental (Figure S2).

- The effects on periderm architecture upon broad cdc42 inhibition may not be directly due to a loss of cytonemes. Performing this experiment in a mosaic manner to determine if the effects are local and in the range of cytoneme protrusion would strengthen the conclusions. Adding a secondary perturbation to inhibit cytoneme formation in periderm cells would also strengthen the conclusions that defects are not related specifically to cdc42 inhibition, but cytonemes themselves.

Thank you for the suggestion. We confirmed that mosaic expression of cdc42DN in peridermal keratinocytes elicited local disorganization, and elevated krtt1c19e expression as we seen in transgenic lines. Also, the cdc42DN expressing cells exhibited significantly lower cytoneme extension frequency.

In addition, we found that like cdc42DN, rac1DN expressing keratinocytes exhibited significant decrease in cytoneme extension frequency, but rhoabDN show no effects (new Figure S3). These data suggest that cytoneme extension is regulated by cdc42 and rac1 but not rhoab. Further investigation is required however, at least these data suggest that the effects we observe is likely the loss of cytonemes not just specifically to cdc42 inhibition.

- Figure 4. The inclusion of an endogenous reporter of Notch activity, like Hes or Hey immunofluorescence, would strengthen the conclusion that the intermediate layer is Notch responsive.

Thank you for the suggestion. In this revised version, we have included immunostaining data in Figure 4D demonstrating that Her6 (the orthologous to human HES1) protein is expressed in the intermediate layer.

- It is not clear where along a differentiation trajectory Notch signaling and cytonemes are needed. What happens to the intermediate layer when Notch signaling or cdc42 is inhibited? Do the cells become more basal-like? Or failing to become periderm? Meaning - is Notch promoting the basal to intermediate fate transition, or the intermediate to periderm transition? A more comprehensive characterization of basal, intermediate, and periderm differentiation with markers selective to each layer would help define which step in the process is being altered.

Notch signaling is known to regulate keratinocyte terminal differentiation. Thus, it requires in the process from intermediate to peridermal transition. We observed peridermal keratinocytes still strongly express krt19 suggesting their terminal differentiation is inhibited when cytoneme mediated Notch signaling is compromised.

As seen on Figure 3C”, peridermal keratinocytes express both krt4 and krtt1c19e markers and they are located at the peridermal layer suggesting that they are not fully differentiated keratinocytes. As we included the images of intermediate and basal layers, we do not observe any noticeable defects in basal stem cells or complete depletion of intermediate keratinocytes (Fig 3C-C”). These observations suggest that notch signaling, activated by cytonemes, is required for the differentiation of undifferentiated intermediate keratinocytes into peridermal keratinocytes.

We included this interpretation in the main text.

- A number of times in the text it is suggested that cytonemes, Notch, and IL-17 signaling are essential for keratinocyte differentiation and proliferation, but proliferation (% cells in S-phase and M-phase) is not measured. Also, #of keratinocytes @ periderm is not an accurate way to report the number of cells in the periderm unless every cell in the larvae has been counted. It should be # cells/unit area.

In this revised version, we confirmed that the number of Edu+ cells among peridermal keratinocytes are significantly increased when cytonemes are inhibited (Figure 3F-G). Also, as indicated in the methods section, we indeed counted the cells in 290um x 200um square. We believe both of the data sufficiently suggest that the number of keratinocytes in periderm is significantly increased due to the lack of proper cytoneme mediated signaling.

- If the model is correct that Delta ligands from the periderm signal to intermediate cells to promote their differentiation and inhibit their proliferation, then depletion of Delta from Krt4 expressing cells should recapitulate the periderm phenotype.

It is a great suggestion. However, zebrafish skin express multiple delta ligands and we do not know what specific combination of Deltas are delivered via cytonemes. In this manuscript we identified Dlc is expressed along the cytonemes and krt4+ cells (revised Figure S4), however we are unsure whether other Delta ligands involve the notch activation. However, cytoneme inhibition is performed specifically in krt4+ cells and the downregulation of Notch activation are observed in krtt1c19e+ undifferentiated keratinocytes. In this revised version, we found that a Notch responsive protein Her6 is exclusively expressed in the cytoneme target keratinocytes, and cytoneme extending cells (krt4+) do not express Notch receptors.

- rtPCR data in Figure S3 is not properly controlled. Each gene should be tested in both krt4 and krtt1c19e expressing cells to determine their relative expression levels in different skin layers that are proposed to signal to one another. Are Notch ligands present in basal cells? These could be activating Notch in the intermediate layer.

Our intention was to merely confirm the Notch signaling components are expressed in cytoneme extending and receiving cells. Based on the new panel of RT-PCRs for notch signaling components, we confirmed again that dlc is expressed in cytoneme extending cells but not in receiving cells. Basal cells are also krtt1c19e+ but we did not detect dlc from them. Interestingly, we found that notch 2 is exclusively expressed in krtt1c19e+ cells but not from krt4+ cytoneme extending cells (now new Figure S4).

- It is not intuitive why NICD (activation) and SuHDN (inhibition) of Notch signaling should result in a similar effect on the periderm. What is the effect of NICD expression on the TP1:H2BGFP reporter? Does it hyperactivate as expected?

We agree reviewer’s concerns. It is well studied that psoriasis patients exhibits either loss or gain of notch signaling (Ota et al., 2014 Acta Histochecm Cytochem, Abdou et al., 2012 Annals of Diagnostic Pathology). However, it remains unknown the underlying mechanisms. We merely intended to showcase our zebrafish experimental manipulations recapitulate human patients’ case. However, we believe this data doesn’t require for drawing the overall conclusion but need further investigation to explain it. Thus, if the reviewers agree we want to omit it in this manuscript and leave it for future studies.

- Due to the involvement of immune signaling in hyperproliferative skin diseases the paper then investigates the role of IL-17 on cytoneme formation by overexpressing two IL-17 receptors in the periderm. Fewer cytonemes were present in the receptor over-expressing periderm cells. The rationale for overexpressing the receptors was unclear. If relevant to endogenous cytokine signaling, the periderm would be expected to express IL-17 receptors normally and respond to elevated levels of IL-17.

The rationale behind the reason of why we overexpress the IL-17 receptors is to test its autonomy of krt4+ peridermal cells. There is a debate that whether the onset of psoriasis is autonomous to keratinocytes or non-autonomous effects of immune malfunction. In addition to the overexpression of IL-17 receptors, we showed that the IL-17 ligand overexpression shows the sample effects on cytoneme extension (Fig. 6A-B).

- Experiments overexpressing IL-17 in macrophages are also suggested to limit cytoneme number whereas heterozygous deletion elevates them. Representative images and movies should be included to support the data. Western blots or immunofluorescence showing that IL-17 and its receptors are indeed overexpressed in the relevant layers/cell types should also be included as controls. Knockout of IL-17 protein in the new Crispr deletion mutant should also be shown.

In response to the reviewer’s comments, we have included representative images of peridermal keratinocytes in IL-17 ligand overexpressed and il17 CRISPR KO animals (Fig. 6A,C).

We have confirmed the overexpression of Il17rd, Il17ra1a and Il17a in the transgenic animals. For the il17 receptors, we FACS-sorted differentiated keratinocytes and performed qRT-PCR. Similarly, for the il17 ligand, we isolated skin tissue and conducted qRT-PCR (new Figure S7).

Additionally, we confirmed that IL-17 protein expression is undetectable in il17a CRISPR KO fish (Fig. S8C).

- Evidence that the effect of IL-17 upregulation on periderm architecture is via cytonemes is suggestive but not conclusive. Can the phenotype be rescued by a constitutively active cdc42?

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We are unsure whether constitutively active cdc42 expression can rescue IL-17 overexpression mediated reduction of cytoneme extension frequency. It is well expected that cdc42CA will stabilize actin polymerization in turn more cytonemes. However, it is also known sustained cdc42 activation can paradoxically lead to actin depolymerization. Thus, we concern it will be likely uninterpretable. Also, we need to generate a new transgenic line for this experiment and the baseline control experiments and validations take substantial amount of time and efforts with no confidence.

We and others believe that the cdc42 is a final effector molecule to regulate cytoneme extension given its role in actin polymerization. we provided the evidence that IL-17 overexpression significantly reduced cdc42 and rac1 expression (Figure 6E) and co-manipulation with IL17 overexpression and cdc42DN led to further down-regulation of cytoneme extension frequency in peridermal keratinocytes (Figure 6H).

- In a final experiment, the authors mutate a psoriasis-associated gene, clint1a gene and show an effect on cytonemes, Notch output, and periderm structure. More information about what this gene encodes, where the mRNA is expressed, and where the cell the protein should localize would help place this result in context for the reader.

In this revised manuscript we included more information about the clint1.

“The clathrin interactor 1 (clint1), also referred to as enthoprotin and epsinR functions as an adaptor molecule that binds SNARE proteins and play a role in clathrin-mediated vasicular transport (Wasiak, 2002). It has also been reported that clint1 is expressed in epidermis and play an important role in epidermal homeostasis and development in zebrafish (Dodd et al., 2009)”.

Minor points

- The architecture of zebrafish skin is notably distinct from that of humans and other mammals and whether parallels can be drawn with regards to cytoneme mediated signaling requires further investigation. For this reason, I believe the title should include the words 'in zebrafish skin'.

In this version, we changed the title as ‘Cytoneme-mediated intercellular signaling in keratinocytes essential for epidermal remodeling in zebrafish’.

- More details about the timing of cdc42 inhibition should be given in the main text to interpret the data. How many hours of days are the larvae treated? How does this compare to the rate of division and differentiation in the zebrafish larval epidermis?

We apologize for omitting the detailed experimental conditions for cytoneme inhibition. We have revised the main text as follows “Although the cytoneme inhibition is evident after overnight treatment with the inducing drugs, noticeable epidermal phenotypes begin to appear after 3 days of treatment. This reflects the higher cytoneme extension frequency and their potential role during metamorphic stages, which takes a couple of weeks (Figure 1C)”

- What are the genotypes of animals in Figure 4B where 'Notch expression' is being measured upon cdc42DN inhibition? Is this the TP1:H2B-GFP reporter? Again, details of the timing of this experiment are needed to evaluate the results.

We indicated the reference supplement figure for the Notch activity measure in the figure legend S4. And we added the following sentence in the main text. “Similar to the effects on the epidermis after cytoneme inhibition (Figure 3), it takes 3 days to observe a significantly reduction in Notch signal in the undifferentiated keratinocytes.”

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

- Figure 2B: the authors indicate that the undifferentiated keratinocytes (krtt1c19e+) do extend some cytonemes. Although this behavior is not a focus of the study, it would be helpful to see an image of krtt1c19e:lyn-tdTomato cytonemes. The discussion ends with an interesting statement about downward pointed protrusions coming off the undifferentiated keratinocytes. A representative image of this should be included in Figure 2.

In this revised version, we included an image of krtt1c19e positive cell that extend cytonemes in Figure 2C.

- The evidence for hyperproliferation of the undifferentiated keratinocytes would be strengthened by quantifying proliferation. Most experiments result in increased expression of krtt1c19e in the periderm layer, but it is unclear whether this is invasion, remodeling, or incomplete differentiation of the cells. Notch suppression with krtt1c19e:SuHDN and overactivation with krtt1c19e:NICD phenocopy each other. Are there differences in proliferation vs differentiation rates in these two genotypes that result in a similar phenotype?

We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. In response to the feedback, we included Edu experiments that show increased cell proliferation in keratinocytes in periderm in experimental groups. Additionally, we observed co-expressed of both differentiated marker krt4 and undifferentiated marker krtt1c19e in the keratinocytes in periderm. Since we did not observe depletion of intermediate layer, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that the phenotype represents incomplete differentiation (new Figure 3). For the krtt1c19e:NICD question, please refer to our response to reviewer #1’ comment.

- Do Cdc42DN and il17rd or il17ra1a work in parallel or in a hierarchy of signaling events to regulate cytoneme formation?

Cdc42 is widely recognized as a final effector in cytoneme extension, given its well-established role in actin polymerization, which is critical for cytoneme extension. Our data support a model where il17 signaling acts upstream of cdc42. We showed that the overexpression of il17rd or il17ra1a significantly reduced the expression of Cdc42 (Figure 6E). In double transgenic fish overexpressing il17rd and cdc42DN, we observed a more marked decrease in cytoneme extension compared to single transgenic (Figure 6H). These results collectively indicate that, at least partially, Cdc42 functions downstream of il17 signaling in the context of cytoneme formation. However, we acknowledge that additional regulatory mechanisms may be involved, given the complexity of cellular signaling networks.  

- Figure 6C: Are the effects of overexpression of il17rd specific to Cdc42, or are other Rho family GTPases like Rac and Rho also affected? Is the microridge defect (Figure 6D) also present in Tg(krt4:TetGBDTRE-v2a-cdc42DN) when induced, or could this be regulated by Rho/Rac?

We used the microridge formation as a readout to evaluate the effects of il17receptor overexpression on actin polymerization. In this revision, we demonstrate that the expression of other small GTPases is also decreased in il17rd or il17ra1a overexpressed keratinocytes (Figure 6E). Also, we confirmed that microridges exhibit significantly shorter branch length when cdc42DN or rac1DN is overexpressed (new Figure S9). It is note that we have shown that the effects on cytonemes are regulated by cdc42 and rac1 (new Figure S3).

- Please change the color of the individual data points from black to grey or another color so readers may better visualize the mean and error bars.

We agree with this comment, and in response, we have revised the figures by changing the color of the individual data points to empty circles and now the error bars are better visualized.

- Figure 1: What were the parameters used to identify an extension as a cytoneme? Please include the minimal length and max-width used in the analysis in the methods.

Thank you for the comments. We have now included the method of how we defined cytonemes and measured as follows. In zebrafish keratinocytes, lamellipodial extensions are the dominant extension type, and most filopodial extensions are less than 1µm in length, both are not easily visible at the confocal resolution we used for this study. Thus, it is easy to distinguish filopodia from cytonemes, as cytonemes have a minimum length of 4.36µm in our observations. We did not use the width parameter since there are no other protrusions except cytonemes. We calculated the cytoneme extension frequency by counting how many cytonemes extended from a cell per hour. We analyzed movies with 3-minute intervals over a total of 10 hours, as described in the section above.

- Line 149-150, (Figure S1) ML141 is a Cdc42 inhibitor, please correct the wording. Would the use of an actin polymerization inhibitor like Cytochalasin B or a depolymerizing agent (Latrunculin) increase the reduction in cytoneme formation?

Thank you for pointing it out. We have revised it in this version. We have tried Cytochalasin B or Latrunculin and the treatments killed the animals.

- Figure 2: What is the depth of the Z-axis images? Does the scale bar apply to the cross-sectional images as well? It may be beneficial to readers to expand the Z scale of the cross-section images for Figure 2C.

Sure, we enlarged the cross-sectional images. Yes, the scale bar should apply to the cross-sectional images.

- Figure 3B-B' cross-section images should be added to confirm images shown represent the periderm layer. Are there folds in the epidermis due to cdc42DN expression or are differentiated keratinocytes absent?

In response, we have included z-stack images in the revised figure 3. We found that the epidermal tissue is not flat as compared to controls, presumably due to broad cdc42DN expression (Figure 3C”).

- Figure S3: Do the EGFP+ and tdTomato+ cells have noticeable differential gene expression? The inclusion of RT-PCR analysis of all genes analyzed for both cell populations would bolster statements on lines 230-231 and 254-256.

We agree the reviewer’s comment and we have revised the RT-PCR panel in this revised version (Figure S4).

- Figure 4D-D', Please include cross-section images to indicate the focal plane for analysis.

We included cross-section images in this revised version (Figure 4E-E”).

- Figure 5B: Complimentary images visualizing the reduction of Notch would be helpful.

We are sorry not to include the data. In this revised version, we included notch reporter expression data that comparing WT, Tg(krt4:il17rd), and Tg(krt4:il17ra1a) in Figure S5E.

- Line 432-433: "Moreover, we have demonstrated that IL-17 can influence cytoneme extension by regulating Cdc42 GTPases, ultimately affecting actin polymerization." This claim would be strengthened by assaying for Cdc42 activity.

It is a great idea, and we were trying to address this issue. However, we realized that activity measure with biosensors, especially in vivo, required significant amount of time and effort and validations which seem to take a substantial amount of work needed, and no confidence to work in our end. And, it seems the current methods works for in vitro samples still has many limitations such as sensitivity issues. Although, we agree cdc42 activity measure will bolster our findings, it seems very challenging to apply it to zebrafish in vivo system.

- Line 445-447: "Clint1(Clathrin Interactor 1) plays an important role in vesicle trafficking, and it is well established that endocytic pathways are critical for multiple steps in cytoneme-mediated morphogen delivery (Kalthoff et al., 2002)." Please add references to the "endocytic pathways are critical for multiple steps in cytoneme-mediated morphogen delivery" portion of the sentence.

We revised the sentence. It is “well established” -> it is “suggested”, and added a reference (Daly et al., 2022).

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

The details of the "cytoneme inhibition" experiments need to be better clarified. How long was the dox treatment? How soon did the cells start to show "disorganization"? How soon did the KC in the periderm start to show increased proliferation?

Thank you for the valuable comment and in response, we have revised the main text as follows “Although the cytoneme inhibition is evident after overnight treatment with the inducing drugs, noticeable epidermal phenotypes begin to appear after 3 days of treatment. This reflects the higher cytoneme extension frequency and their potential role during metamorphic stages, which takes a couple of weeks (Figure 1C)”

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript presents a practical modification of the orthogonal hybridization chain reaction (HCR) technique, a promising yet underutilized method with broad potential for future applications across various fields. The authors advance this technique by integrating peptide ligation technology and nanobody-based antibody mimetics - cost-effective and scalable alternatives to conventional antibodies - into a DNA-immunoassay framework that merges oligonucleotide-based detection with immunoassay methodologies. Notably, they demonstrate that this approach facilitates a modified ELISA platform capable of simultaneously quantifying multiple target protein expression levels within a single protein mixture sample.

Strengths:

The hybridization chain reaction (HCR) technique was initially developed to enable the simultaneous detection of multiple mRNA expression levels within the same tissue. This method has since evolved into immuno-HCR, which extends its application to protein detection by utilizing antibodies. A key requirement of immuno-HCR is the coupling of oligonucleotides to antibodies, a process that can be challenging due to the inherent difficulties in expressing and purifying conventional antibodies.

In this study, the authors present an innovative approach that circumvents these limitations by employing nanobody-based antibody mimetics, which recognize antibodies, instead of directly coupling oligonucleotides to conventional antibodies. This strategy facilitates oligonucleotide conjugation - designed to target the initiator hairpin oligonucleotide of HCR -through peptide ligation and click chemistry.

Weaknesses:

The sandwich-format technique presented in this study, which employs a nanobody that recognizes primary IgG antibodies, may have limited scalability compared to existing methods that directly couple oligonucleotides to primary antibodies. This limitation arises because the C-region types of primary antibodies are relatively restricted, meaning that the use of nanobody-based detection may constrain the number of target proteins that can be analyzed simultaneously. In contrast, the conventional approach of directly conjugating oligonucleotides to primary antibodies allows for a broader range of protein targets to be analyzed in parallel.

We would like to clarify that MaMBA was specifically designed to address and overcome the limitations imposed by relying on primary antibodies’ Fc types for multiplexing. MaMBA utilizes DNA oligo-conjugated nanobodies that selectively and monovalently bind to the Fc region of IgG. This key feature allows us to barcode primary IgGs targeting different antigens independently. These barcoded IgGs can then be pooled together after barcoding, effectively minimizing the potential for cross-reactivity or crossover. Therefore, IgGs barcoded using MaMBA are functionally equivalent to those barcoded via conventional direct conjugation approaches with respect to multiplexing capability.

Additionally, in the context of HCR-based protein detection, the number of proteins that can be analyzed simultaneously is inherently constrained by fluorescence wavelength overlap in microscopy, which limits its multiplexing capability. By comparison, direct coupling of oligonucleotides to primary antibodies can facilitate the simultaneous measurement of a significantly greater number of protein targets than the sandwich-based nanobody approach in the barcode-ELISA/NGS-based technique.

As we have responded above, MaMBA barcoding of primary IgGs that target various antigens can be conducted separately. Once barcoded, these IgGs can then be combined into a single pool. Therefore, for BLISA (i.e., the barcode-ELISA/NGS-based technique), IgGs barcoded through MaMBA offer the same multiplexing capability as those barcoded using traditional direct conjugation methods.

In in situ protein imaging, spectral overlap can indeed limit the throughput of multiplexed HCR fluorescent imaging. There are two strategies to address this challenge. As demonstrated in this work with _mis_HCR and _mis_HCRn, removing the HCR amplifiers allows for multiplexed detection using a limited number of fluorescence wavelengths. This is achieved through sequential rounds of HCR amplification and imaging. Alternatively, recent computational approaches offer promising solutions for “one-shot” multiplexed imaging. These include combinatorial multiplexing (PMID: 40133518) and spectral unmixing (PMID: 35513404), which can be applied to _mis_HCR to deconvolute overlapping spectra and increase multiplexing capacity in a single imaging acquisition.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) The introduction of nanobody and peptide ligation technology is a key highlight of this study. To strengthen the manuscript, the authors should provide a more detailed discussion of the principles and applications of HCR in the Introduction or Discussion sections.

We have added a brief discussion of the HCR reaction to the revised manuscript.

(2) It would also be beneficial to include results and/or discussion on how the affinity of nanobody binding to IgG influences the success and accuracy of the technique.

We have added a brief discussion of the IgG nanobodies we used in MaMBA to the revised manuscript.

(3) Additionally, a more detailed explanation of the recognition specificity of the AEP peptide ligase used in this study should be included in the Discussion section. Prior studies have reported on the specificity of amino acid residues positioned at the C-terminus of target A (-5 to -1) and the N-terminus of target B (1 to 3) in AEP-mediated ligation, and integrating this context would enhance clarity.

We have added a brief discussion of the AEP-mediated ligation to the revised manuscript.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

eLife Assessment 

The authors utilize a valuable computational approach to exploring the mechanisms of memorydependent klinotaxis, with a hypothesis that is both plausible and testable. Although they provide a solid hypothesis of circuit function based on an established model, the model's lack of integration of newer experimental findings, its reliance on predefined synaptic states, and oversimplified sensory dynamics, make the investigation incomplete for both memory and internal-state modulation of taxis.  

We would like to express our gratitude to the editor for the assessment of our work. However, we respectfully disagree with the assessment that our investigation is incomplete, if the negative assessment is primarily due to the impact of AIY interneuron ablation on the chemotaxis index (CI) which was reported in Reference [1]. It is crucial to acknowledge that the CI determined through experimental means incorporates contributions from both klinokinesis and klinotaxis [1]. It is plausible that the impact of AIY ablation was not adequately reflected in the CI value. Consequently, the experimental observation does not necessarily diminish the role of AIY in klinotaxis. Anatomical evidence provided by the database (http://ims.dse.ibaraki.ac.jp/ccep-tool/) substantiates that ASE sensory neurons and AIZ interneurons, which have been demonstrated to play a crucial role in klinotaxis [Matsumoto et al., PNAS 121 (5) e2310735121], have the much higher number of synaptic connections with AIY interneurons. These findings provide substantial evidence supporting the validity of the presented minimal neural network responsible for salt klinotaxis.

Public Reviews: 

Reviewer #1 (Public review): 

Summary: 

This research focuses on C. elegans klinotaxis, a chemotactic behavior characterized by gradual turning, aiming to uncover the neural circuit mechanism responsible for the context-dependent reversal of salt concentration preference. The phenomenon observed is that the preferred salt concentration depends on the difference between the pre-assay cultivation conditions and the current environmental salt levels. 

We would like to express our gratitude for the time and consideration you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript.

The authors propose that a synaptic-reversal plasticity mechanism at the primary sensory neuron, ASER, is critical for this memory- and context-dependent switching of preference. They build on prior findings regarding synaptic reversal between ASER and AIB, as well as the receptor composition of AIY neurons, to hypothesize that similar "plasticity" between ASER and AIY underpins salt preference behavior in klinotaxis. This plasticity differs conceptually from the classical one as it does not rely on any structural changes but rather synaptic transmission is modulated by the basal level of glutamate, and can switch from inhibitory to excitatory. 

To test this hypothesis, the study employs a previously established neuroanatomically grounded model [4] and demonstrates that reversing the ASER-AIY synapse sign in the model agent reproduces the observed reversal in salt preference. The model is parameterized using a computational search technique (evolutionary algorithm) to optimize unknown electrophysiological parameters for chemotaxis performance. Experimental validity is ensured by incorporating constraints derived from published findings, confirming the plausibility of the proposed mechanism. 

Finally. the circuit mechanism allowing C. elegans to switch behaviour to an exploration run when starved is also investigated. This extension highlights how internal states, such as hunger, can dynamically reshape sensory-motor programs to drive context-appropriate behaviors.  

We would like to thank the reviewer for the appropriate summary of our work. 

Strengths and weaknesses: 

The authors' approach of integrating prior knowledge of receptor composition and synaptic reversal with the repurposing of a published neuroanatomical model [4] is a significant strength. This methodology not only ensures biological plausibility but also leverages a solid, reproducible modeling foundation to explore and test novel hypotheses effectively.

The evidence produced that the original model has been successfully reproduced is convincing.

The writing of the manuscript needs revision as it makes comprehension difficult.  

We would like to thank the reviewer for recognizing the usefulness of our approach. In the revised version, we improved the explanation according to your suggestions.  

One major weakness is that the model does not incorporate key findings that have emerged since the original model's publication in 2013, limiting the support for the proposed mechanism. In particular, ablation studies indicate that AIY is not critical for chemotaxis, and other interneurons may play partially overlapping roles in positive versus negative chemotaxis. These findings challenge the centrality of AIY and suggest the model oversimplifies the circuit involved in klinotaxis.

We would like to express our gratitude for the constructive feedback we have received. We concur with some of your assertions. In fact, our model is the minimal network for salt klinotaxis, which includes solely the interneurons that are connected to each other via the highest number of synaptic connections. It is important to note that our model does not consider redundant interneurons that exhibit overlapping roles. Consequently, the model is not applicable to the study of the impact of interneuron ablation. In the reference [1], the influence of interneuron ablations on the chemotaxis index (CI) has been investigated. The experimentally determined CI value incorporates the contributions from both klinokinesis and klinotaxis. Consequently, it is plausible that the impact of AIY ablation was not significantly reflected in the CI value. The experimental observation does not necessarily diminish the role of AIY in klinotaxis. 

Reference [1] also shows that ASER neurons exhibit complex, memory- and context-dependent responses, which are not accounted for in the model and may have a significant impact on chemotactic model behaviour. 

As the reviewer has noted, our model does not incorporate the context-dependent response of the ASER. Instead, the impact of the salt concentration-dependent glutamate release from the ASER [S. Hiroki et al. Nat Commun 13, 2928 (2022)] as the result of the ASER responses was in detail examined in the present study.

The hypothesis of synaptic reversal between ASER and AIY is not explicitly modeled in terms of receptor-specific dynamics or glutamate basal levels. Instead, the ASER-to-AIY connection is predefined as inhibitory or excitatory in separate models. This approach limits the model's ability to test the full range of mechanisms hypothesized to drive behavioral switching.  

We would like to express our gratitude to the reviewer for their constructive feedback. As you correctly noted, the hypothesized synaptic reversal between ASER and AIY is not explicitly modeled in terms of the sensitivity of the receptors in the AIY and the glutamate basal levels by the ASER. On the other hand, in the present study, under considering a substantial difference in the sensitivity of the two glutamate receptors on the AIY, we sought to endeavored to elucidate the impact of salt-concentration-dependent glutamate basal levels on klinotaxis. To this end, we conducted a comprehensive examination of the full range gradual change in the ASER-to-AIY connection from inhibitory to excitatory, as illustrated in Figures S4 and S5.

While the main results - such as response dependence on step inputs at different phases of the oscillator - are consistent with those observed in chemotaxis models with explicit neural dynamics (e.g., Reference [2]), the lack of richer neural dynamics could overlook critical effects. For example, the authors highlight the influence of gap junctions on turning sensitivity but do not sufficiently analyze the underlying mechanisms driving these effects. The role of gap junctions in the model may be oversimplified because, as in the original model [4], the oscillator dynamics are not intrinsically generated by an oscillator circuit but are instead externally imposed via $z_¥text{osc}$. This simplification should be carefully considered when interpreting the contributions of specific connections to network dynamics. Lastly, the complex and contextdependent responses of ASER [1] might interact with circuit dynamics in ways that are not captured by the current simplified implementation. These simplifications could limit the model's ability to account for the interplay between sensory encoding and motor responses in C. elegans chemotaxis. 

We might not understand the substance of your assertions. However, we understand that the oscillator dynamics were not intrinsically generated by the oscillator neural circuit that is explicitly incorporated into our modeling. On the other hand, the present study focuses on how the sensory input and resulting interneuron dynamics regulate the oscillatory behavior of SMB motor neurons to generate klinotaxis. The neuron dynamics via gap junctions results from the equilibration of the membrane potential yi of two neurons connected by gap junctions rather than the zi. We added this explanation in the revised manuscript as follows.

“The hyperpolarization signals in the AIZL are transmitted to the AIZR via the gap junction (Figs. S1d and S1f and Fig. 3d). This is because the neuron dynamics via gap junctions results from the equilibration of the membrane potential y_i of two neurons connected by gap junctions rather than the z_i.”

In the limitation, we added the following sentence:

“In the present study, the oscillator components of the SMB are not intrinsically generated by an oscillator circuit but are instead externally imposed via 𝑧_i^OSC. Furthermore, the complex and context-dependent responses of ASER {Luo:2014et} were not taken into consideration. It should be acknowledged as a limitation of this study that these omitted factors may interact with circuit dynamics in ways that are not captured by the current simplified implementation.”

Appraisal: 

The authors show that their model can reproduce memory-dependent reversal of preference in klinotaxis, demonstrating that the ASER-to-AIY synapse plays a key role in switching chemotactic preferences. By switching the ASER-AIY connection from excitatory to inhibitory they indeed show that salt preference reverses. They also show that the curving/turn rate underlying the preference change is gradual and depends on the weight between ASER-AIY. They further support their claim by showing that curving rates also depend on cultivated (set-point).  

We would like to thank the reviewer for assessing our work.

Thus within the constraints of the hypothesis and the framework, the model operates as expected and aligns with some experimental findings. However, significant omissions of key experimental evidence raise questions on whether the proposed neural mechanisms are sufficient for reversal in salt-preference chemotaxis.  

We agree with your opinion. The present hypothesis should be verified by experiments.

Previous work [1] has shown that individually ablating the AIZ or AIY interneurons has essentially no effect on the Chemotactic Index (CI) toward the set point ([1] Figure 6). Furthermore, in [1] the authors report that different postsynaptic neurons are required for movement above or below the set point. The manuscript should address how this evidence fits with their model by attempting similar ablations. It is possible that the CI is rescued by klinokinesis but this needs to be tested on an extension of this model to provide a more compelling argument.  

We would like to express our gratitude for the constructive feedback we have received. In the reference [1], the influence of interneuron ablations on the chemotaxis index (CI) has been investigated. It is important to acknowledge that the experimentally determined CI value encompasses the contributions of both klinokinesis and klinotaxis. It is plausible that the impact of AIY ablation was not reflected in the CI value. Consequently, these experimental observations do not necessarily diminish the role of AIY in klinotaxis. The neural circuit model employed in the present study constitutes a minimal network for salt klinotaxis, encompassing solely interneurons that are connected to each other via the highest number of synaptic connections. Anatomical evidence provided by the database (http://ims.dse.ibaraki.ac.jp/cceptool/) substantiates that ASE sensory neurons and AIZ interneurons, which have been demonstrated to play a crucial role in klinotaxis [Matsumoto et al., PNAS 121 (5) e2310735121], have the much higher number of synaptic connections with AIY interneurons. Our model does not take into account redundant interneurons with overlapping roles, thus rendering it not applicable to the study of the effects of interneuron ablation.

The investigation of dispersal behaviour in starved individuals is rather limited to testing by imposing inhibition of the SMB neurons. Although a circuit is proposed for how hunger states modulate taxis in the absence of food, this circuit hypothesis is not explicitly modelled to test the theory or provide novel insights.  

As the reviewer noted, the experimentally identified neural circuit that inhibits the SMB motor neurons in starved individuals is not incorporated in our model. Instead of incorporating this circuit explicitly, we examined whether our minimal network model could reproduce dispersal behavior under starvation conditions solely due to the experimentally demonstrated inhibitory effect of SMB motor neurons.

Impact: 

This research underscores the value of an embodied approach to understanding chemotaxis, addressing an important memory mechanism that enables adaptive behavior in the sensorimotor circuits supporting C. elegans chemotaxis. The principle of operation - the dependence of motor responses to sensory inputs on the phase of oscillation - appears to be a convergent solution to taxis. Similar mechanisms have been proposed in Drosophila larvae chemotaxis [2], zebrafish phototaxis [3], and other systems. Consequently, the proposed mechanism has broader implications for understanding how adaptive behaviors are embedded within sensorimotor systems and how experience shapes these circuits across species.

We would like to express our gratitude for useful suggestion. We added this argument in Discussion of the revised manuscript as follows.    

“The principle of operation, in which the dependence of motor responses to sensory inputs on the phase of motor oscillation, appears to be a convergent solution for taxis and navigation across species. In fact, analogous mechanisms have been postulated in the context of chemotaxis in Drosophila larvae chemotaxis {Wystrach:2016bt} and phototaxis in zebrafish {Wolf:2017ei}. Consequently, the synaptic reversal mechanism highlighted in this study offers the framework for understanding how the behaviors that are adaptive to the environment are embedded within sensorimotor systems and how experience shapes these neural circuits across species.”

Although the reported reversal of synaptic connection from excitatory to inhibitory is an exciting phenomenon of broad interest, it is not entirely new, as the authors acknowledge similar reversals have been reported in ASER-to-AIB signaling for klinokinesis ( Hiroki et al., 2022). The proposed reversal of the ASER-to-AIY synaptic connection from inhibitory to excitatory is a novel contribution in the specific context of klinotaxis. While the ASER's role in gradient sensing and memory encoding has been previously identified, the current paper mechanistically models these processes, introducing a hypothesis for synaptic plasticity as the basis for bidirectional salt preference in klinotaxis.  

The research also highlights how internal states, such as hunger, can dynamically reshape sensory-motor programs to drive context-appropriate behaviors.  

The methodology of parameter search on a neural model of a connectome used here yielded the valuable insight that connectome information alone does not provide enough constraints to reproduce the neural circuits for behaviour. It demonstrates that additional neurophysiological constraints are required.  

We would like to acknowledge the appropriate recognition of our work.

Additional Context 

Oscillators with stimulus-driven perturbations appear to be a convergent solution for taxis and navigation across species. Similar mechanisms have been studied in zebrafish phototaxis [3], Drosophila larvae chemotaxis [2], and have even been proposed to underlie search runs in ants. The modulation of taxis by context and memory is a ubiquitous requirement, with parallels across species. For example, Drosophila larvae modulate taxis based on current food availability and predicted rewards associated with odors, though the underlying mechanism remains elusive. The synaptic reversal mechanism highlighted in this study offers a compelling framework for understanding how taxis circuits integrate context-related memory retrieval more broadly.  

We would like to express our gratitude for the insightful commentary. In the revised manuscript, we incorporated the argument that the similar oscillator mechanism with stimulus-driven perturbations has been observed for zebrafish phototaxis [3] and Drosophila larvae chemotaxis [2] into Discussion.

As a side note, an interesting difference emerges when comparing C. elegans and Drosophila larvae chemotaxis. In Drosophila larvae, oscillatory mechanisms are hypothesized to underlie all chemotactic reorientations, ranging from large turns to smaller directional biases (weathervaning). By contrast, in C. elegans, weathervaning and pirouettes are treated as distinct strategies, often attributed to separate neural mechanisms. This raises the possibility that their motor execution could share a common oscillator-based framework. Re-examining their overlap might reveal deeper insights into the neural principles underlying these maneuvers. 

We would like to acknowledge your thoughtfully articulated comment. As the reviewer pointed out, the anatomical database (http://ims.dse.ibaraki.ac.jp/ccep-tool/) shows that that the neural circuits underlying weathervaning and pirouettes in C. elegans are predominantly distinct but exhibit partial overlap. When we restrict our search to the neurons that are connected to each other with the highest number of synaptic connections, we identify the projections from the neural circuit of weathervaning to the circuit of pirouettes; however we observed no reversal projections. This finding suggests that the neural circuit of weathervaning, namely, our minimal neural network, is not likely to be affected by that of pirouettes, which consists of AIB interneurons and interneurons and motor neurons the downstream. 

(1) Luo, L., Wen, Q., Ren, J., Hendricks, M., Gershow, M., Qin, Y., Greenwood, J., Soucy, E.R., Klein, M., Smith-Parker, H.K., & Calvo, A.C. (2014). Dynamic encoding of perception, memory, and movement in a C. elegans chemotaxis circuit. Neuron, 82(5), 1115-1128. 

(2) Antoine Wystrach, Konstantinos Lagogiannis, Barbara Webb (2016) Continuous lateral oscillations as a core mechanism for taxis in Drosophila larvae eLife 5:e15504. 

(3) Wolf, S., Dubreuil, A.M., Bertoni, T. et al. Sensorimotor computation underlying phototaxis in zebrafish. Nat Commun 8, 651 (2017). 

(4) Izquierdo, E.J. and Beer, R.D., 2013. Connecting a connectome to behavior: an ensemble of neuroanatomical models of C. elegans klinotaxis. PLoS computational biology, 9(2), p.e1002890. 

Reviewer #2 (Public review): 

Summary: 

This study explores how a simple sensorimotor circuit in the nematode C. elegans enables it to navigate salt gradients based on past experiences. Using computational simulations and previously described neural connections, the study demonstrates how a single neuron, ASER, can change its signaling behavior in response to different salt conditions, with which the worm is able to "remember" prior environments and adjust its navigation toward "preferred" salinity accordingly.  

We would like to express our gratitude for the time and consideration the reviewer has dedicated to reviewing our manuscript.

Strengths: 

The key novelty and strength of this paper is the explicit demonstration of computational neurobehavioral modeling and evolutionary algorithms to elucidate the synaptic plasticity in a minimal neural circuit that is sufficient to replicate memory-based chemotaxis. In particular, with changes in ASER's glutamate release and sensitivity of downstream neurons, the ASER neuron adjusts its output to be either excitatory or inhibitory depending on ambient salt concentration, enabling the worm to navigate toward or away from salt gradients based on prior exposure to salt concentration.

We would like to thank the reviewer for appreciating our research. 

Weaknesses: 

While the model successfully replicates some behaviors observed in previous experiments, many key assumptions lack direct biological validation. As to the model output readouts, the model considers only endpoint behaviors (chemotaxis index) rather than the full dynamics of navigation, which limits its predictive power. Moreover, some results presented in the paper lack interpretation, and many descriptions in the main text are overly technical and require clearer definitions.  

We would like to thank the reviewer for the constructive feedback. As the reviewer noted, the fundamental assumptions posited in the study have yet to be substantiated by biological validation, and consequently, these assumptions must be directly assessed by biological experimentation. The model performance for salt klinotaxis has been evaluated by multiple factors, including not only a chemotaxis index but also the curving rate vs. bearing (Fig. 4a, the bearing is defined in Fig. A3) and the curving rate vs. normal gradient (Fig. 4c). These two parameters work to characterize the trajectory during salt klinotaxis. In the revised version, we meticulously revised the manuscript according to the reviewer’s suggestions. We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your insightful review of our work.

Recommendations for the authors:  

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors): 

An interesting and engaging methodology combining theoretical and computational approaches. Overall I found the manuscript up to discussion a difficult read, and I would suggest revising it. I would also recommend introducing the general operating principle of the oscillator with sensory perturbations before jumping into the implementation details of signal propagation specific to C.

elegans.  

In order to elucidate the relation between the general operating principle of the oscillator with sensory perturbations and the results shown by the two graphs from the bottom in Fig. 3d, the following statement was added on page 12.

“It is remarkable that this regulatory mechanism derived via the optimization of the CI has been observed in the context of chemotaxis in Drosophila larvae chemotaxis {Wystrach:2016bt} and phototaxis in zebrafish {Wolf:2017ei}. The principle of operation, in which the dependence of motor responses to sensory inputs on the phase of motor oscillation, therefore, may serve as a convergent solution for taxis and navigation across species.”

The abstract could benefit from a clarification of terms to benefit a broader audience:  The term "salt klinotaxis" is used without prior introduction or definition. It would be beneficial to briefly explain this term, as it may not be familiar to all readers. 

Due to the limitation of the word number in the abstract, the explanation of salt klinotaxis could not be included.

Although ASER is introduced as a right-side head sensory neuron, AIY neurons are not similarly introduced. It may also benefit to introduce here that ASER integrates memory with current salt gradients, tuning its output to produce context-appropriate behaviour.  

Due to the limitation of the word number in the abstract, we could add no more the explanations. 

"it can be anticipated that the ASER-AIY synaptic transmission will undergo a reversal due to alterations in the basal glutamate Release": Where is this expectation drawn from? Is it derived from biophysical or is it a functional expectation to explain the network's output constraints?  

As delineated before this sentence, it is derived from a comprehensive consideration of the sensitivity of excitatory/inhibitory glutamate receptors expressed on the postsynaptic AIY interneurons, in conjunction with varying the basal level of glutamate transmission from ASER.

The statement that the model "revealed the modular neural circuit function downstream of ASE" could be more explicit. What specific insights about the downstream circuit were uncovered?

Highlighting one or two key findings would strengthen the impact.  

Due to the limitation of the word number in the abstract, no more details could be added here, while the sentence was revised as “revealed that the circuit downstream of ASE functions as a module that is responsible for salt klinotaxis.” This is because the salt-concentration dependent behaviors in klinitaxis can be reproduced through the modulation of the ASRE-AIY synaptic connections alone, despite the absence of alterations in the neural circuit downstream of AIY.

I believe the authors should cite Luo et al. 2014, which also studies how chemotactic behaviours arise from neural circuit dynamics, including the dynamic encoding of salt concentration by ASER, and the crucial downstream interaction with AIY for chemotactic actions. 

We would like to express our gratitude for useful suggestion. We cited Luo et al. 2014 in the discussion on the limitation of our work. 

The introduction could also be improved for clarity. Specifically in the last paragraph authors should clarify how the observed synchrony of ASER excitation to the AIZ (Matsumoto et al., 2024), validates the resulting network.  

We would like to express our gratitude for useful suggestion. We added the following explanation in the last paragraph of the introduction.

“Specifically, the synchrony of the excitation of the ASER and AIZ {Matsumoto:2024ig} taken together with the experimentally identified inhibitory synaptic transmission between the AIY and AIZ revealed that the ASER-AIY synaptic connections should be inhibitory, which was consistent with the network obtained from the most evolved model.”

In addition, we added the following explanation after “It was then hypothesized that the ASER-AIY inhibitory synaptic connections are altered to become excitatory due to a decrease in the baseline release of glutamate from the ASER when individuals are cultured under C_cult < C_test.”

This is due to the substantial difference in the sensitivity of excitatory/inhibitory glutamate receptors expressed on the postsynaptic AIY interneurons.

I would also strongly recommend replacing the term "evolved model", with "Optimized Model" or "Best-Performing Model" to clarify this is a computational optimization process with limitations - optimization through GAs does not guarantee finding global optima.  

We revised "evolved model" as "optimized model" in the main and SI text.

The text overall would benefit from editing for clarity and expression.  

According to the revisions mentioned above, we revised “best optimized model” as “most optimized model” in the main and SI text.

The font size on the plot axis in Figures 3 c&d should be increased for readability on the printed page. Label the left/right panel to indicate unconstrained / constrained evolution.  

As you noted, the font size of the subscript on the vertical axis in Figs 3c and 3d was too small. We have revised the font size of the subscript in Figs. 3c and 3d and also in Fig. 5e. At your suggestion, “unconstrained” and “constrained” have been added as labels to the left and right panels in Fig. 3.

There is no input/transmission to AIYR to step input in either model shown in Figure 3? 

As shown in Fig. S1e and S1f, there are the transmissions to the AIYR from the ASEL and ASER. 

Supplementary Figure 1 attempts to explain the interactions. There are inconsistent symbols used for inhibition and excitation between network schema (colours) and the z response plots (arrows vs circles), combined with different meanings for red/blue making it very confusing. 

We could not address the inconsistency in the color of arrows and lines with an ending between Figs. S1c and S1d and Figs. S1a and S1b. On the other hand, Figs. S1e and S1f were revised so that the consistent symbols were used for inhibition, excitation, and electrical gap connections in Figs. S1c-S1f. The same revisions were made for Fig. S7c-S7f.

Model parameters are given to 15 decimal precision, which seems excessive. Is model performance sensitive to that order? We would expect robustness around those values. The authors should identify relevant orders and truncate parameters accordingly. 

We examined the influence of the parameter truncation on the trajectory and decided that the parameters with four decimal places were appropriate. According to this, we revised Table A4.

Figure 3 caption typo "step changes I the salt concentration".  

The typo was revised in Fig. 3 caption. 

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors): 

(1) Overall, the language of the paper is not properly organized, making the paper's logic and purpose hard to follow. In the Results Section, many observations or findings lack explicit interpretation. To address this issue, the authors should consider (1) adopting the contextcontent-conclusion scheme, (2) optimizing the logic flow by clearly identifying the context and goals prior to discussing their results and findings, (3) more explicitly interpreting their results, especially in a biological context.  

We would like to express our gratitude for helpful suggestion. According to your suggestion listed below, we revised the main and SI texts.

(2) In Figure 2, trajectories from the model with AIY-AIZ constraints show a faster convergence than those from the constraint-free model. However, in the corresponding texts in the Results section, the authors claimed no significant difference. It seems that the authors made this argument only based on CI (Chemotaxis Index). Therefore, in order to address such inconsistency, the authors need more explanation on why only relying on CI, which is an endpoint metric, instead of the whole navigation.  

I would like to thank you for the helpful comment. In the present study, not only the CI but also the curving rate shown in Fig. 4 were applied to characterize the behavior in klinotaxis.

According to your comments, we revised the related description in the main text as follows:

“The difference between these CI values is slight, while the model optimized with the constraints exhibits a marginally accelerated attainment of the salt concentration peak, as shown by the trajectories. The slightly higher chemotaxis performance observed in the constrained model is not essentially attributed to the introduction of the AIY-AIZ synaptic constraints but rather depends on the specific individuals selected from the optimized individuals obtained from the evolutionary algorithm. In fact, even when the AIY-AIZ constraints are taken into consideration, the model retains a significant degree of freedom to reproduce salt klinotaxis due to the presence of a substantial parameter space. Consequently, the impact of the AIY-AIZ constraints on the optimization of the CI is expected to be negligible.”

(3) In Figures 3a and b, some inter-neuron connections are relatively weak (e.g., AIYR to AIZR in Figure 3a) - thus it is unclear whether the polarity of such synapses would significantly influence the behavioral outcome or not. The authors could consider plotting the change of the connection strengths between neurons over the course of model optimization to get a sense of confidence in each inter-neuron connection. 

In the evolutional algorithm, the parameters of individuals are subject to discontinuous variation due to the influence of selection, crossover, and mutations. Consequently, it is not straightforward to extract information regarding parameter optimization from parameter changes due to the non-systematic nature of parameter variation..

(4) In Figure 3, the order of individual figure panels is incorrect: in the main text, Figure 3 a and b were mentioned after c and d. Also, the caption of Figure 3c "negative step changes I the" should be "in".  

The main text underwent revision, with the description of Figures 3a and 3b being presented prior to that of Figures 3c and 3d. The typo was revised.

(5) In Figure 4, the order of individual figure panels is messed up: in the main text, Figure 4 a was mentioned after b.  

The main text underwent revision, with the description of Figure 4a being presented prior to that of Figure 4b.

(6) Also in Figure 4, the authors need to provide a definition/explanation of "Bearing" and "Translational Gradient". In Figure 4d, the definition of positive and negative components is not clear.  

Normal and Translational Salt Concentration Gradient in METHOD was referenced for the definition and explanation of the bearing and the translational gradient. We added the following explanation on the positive and negative components.

“The positive and negative components of the curving rate are respectively sampled from the trajectory during leftward turns (as illustrated in Fig. 4b) and rightward turns, respectively.”

(7) Figure 5: the authors need to explain why c has an error bar and how they were calculated, as this result is from a computational model. Figure 5d is experimental results - the authors need to add error bars to the data points and provide a sample size. 

As explained in Analysis of the Salt Preference Behavior in Klinotaxis in METHOD, the ensemble average of these quantities was determined by performing 100,000 sets of the simulation with randomized initial orientation for a simulation time of T_sim=200 sec. The error bars for the experimental data were added in Figs. 5c, 6a, and S9a.

(8) On Page 14, the authors said, "To this end, this end, we used the best evolved network with the constraints, in which we varied the synaptic connections between ASER and AIY from inhibitory to excitatory." How did the model change the ASER-AIY signaling specifically? The authors should provide more explanation or at least refer to the Methods Section.  

The caption of Fig. S4 was referred as the explanation on the detailed method. 

(9) Page 15: "a subset a subset exhibited a slight curve...". This observation from the model simulation is contradictory to experiments. However, their explanation of that is hard to understand.  

I would like to thank you for the helpful comment. To improve this, we added the following explanation:

“In the case of step increases in 𝑧OFF as illustrated in the second right panel from the bottom in Fig.3d, the turning angle φ is increased from its ideal oscillatory component to a value close to zero, causing the model worm to deviate from the ideal sinusoidal trajectory and gradually turn toward lower salt concentrations. On the other hand, in the case of step increases in 𝑧ON as illustrated in the second left panel from the bottom in Fig.3d, the turning angle φ is again increased from its ideal oscillatory component to a value close to zero, causing the model worm to deviate from the ideal sinusoidal trajectory and gradually turn toward higher salt concentrations. The behaviors that are consistent with these analyses are observed in the trajectory illustrated in Fig. S8b.”

(10) Last result session: inhibited SMB in starved worms is due to a mechanism unrelated to their neural network model upstream to SMB. Therefore, their results recapitulating the worms' dispersal behaviors cannot strengthen the validity of their model.  

We agree with your opinion. We think that the findings from the study of starved worms do not provide evidence to validate the neural network model upstream of SMB.   

(11) Discussion: "in contrast, the remaining neurons...". This argument lacks evidence or references.  

This argument is based on the results obtained from the present study. This sentence was revised as follows:

“This regulatory process enables the reproduction of salt concentration memory-dependent reversal of preference behavior in klinotaxis, despite the remaining neurons further downstream of the ASER not undergoing alterations and simply functioning as a modular circuit to transmit the received signals to the motor systems. Consequently, the sensorimotor circuit allows a simple and efficient bidirectional regulation of salt preference behavior in klinotaxis.”

(12) To increase the predictive power of their model, can the authors perform simulations on mutant worms, like those with altered glutamate basal level expression in ASER?  

We would like to express our gratitude for useful suggestion. The simulations, in which the weight of the ASER-AIY synaptic connection is increased from negative (inhibitory connection) to positive (excitatory connection), as illustrated in Figure S4, provide valuable insights into the relationship between varying glutamate basal levels from ASER and behavior in klinotaxis, such as the chemotaxis index.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In the present study, Chen et al. investigate the role of Endophilin A1 in regulating GABAergic synapse formation and function. To this end, the authors use constitutive or conditional knockout of Endophilin A1 (EEN1) to assess the consequences on GABAergic synapse composition and function, as well as the outcome for PTZ-induced seizure susceptibility. The authors show that EEN1 KO mice show a higher susceptibility to PTZ-induced seizures, accompanied by a reduction in the GABAergic synaptic scaffolding protein gephyrin as well as specific GABAAR subunits and eIPSCs. The authors then investigate the underlying mechanisms, demonstrating that Endophilin A1 binds directly to gephyrin and GABAAR subunits, and identifying the subdomains of Endophilin A1 that contribute to this effect. Overall, the authors state that their study places Endophilin A1 as a new regulator of GABAergic synapse function.

Strengths:

Overall, the topic of this manuscript is very timely, since there has been substantial recent interest in describing the mechanisms governing inhibitory synaptic transmission at GABAergic synapses. The study will therefore be of interest to a wide audience of neuroscientists studying synaptic transmission and its role in disease. The manuscript is well-written and contains a substantial quantity of data.

Weaknesses:

A number of questions remain to be answered in order to be able to fully evaluate the quality and conclusions of the study. In particular, a key concern throughout the manuscript regards the way that the number of samples for statistical analysis is defined, which may affect the validity of the data analysed. Addressing this weakness will be essential to providing conclusive results that support the authors' claims.

We would like to thank the reviewer for appreciation of the value of our study and careful critics to help us improve the manuscript. We will correct the way that the number of samples for statistical analysis is defined throughout the manuscript as suggested and update figures, figure legends, and Materials and Methods accordingly. For example, we will average the values for all dendritic segments from one neuron, so that each data point represents one neuron in the graphs.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The function of neural circuits relies heavily on the balance of excitatory and inhibitory inputs. Particularly, inhibitory inputs are understudied when compared to their excitatory counterparts due to the diversity of inhibitory neurons, their synaptic molecular heterogeneity, and their elusive signature. Thus, insights into these aspects of inhibitory inputs can inform us largely on the functions of neural circuits and the brain.

Endophilin A1, an endocytic protein heavily expressed in neurons, has been implicated in numerous pre- and postsynaptic functions, however largely at excitatory synapses. Thus, whether this crucial protein plays any role in inhibitory synapse, and whether this regulates functions at the synaptic, circuit, or brain level remains to be determined.

New Findings:

(1) Endophilin A1 interacts with the postsynaptic scaffolding protein gephyrin at inhibitory postsynaptic densities within excitatory neurons.

(2) Endophilin A1 promotes the organization of the inhibitory postsynaptic density and the subsequent recruitment/stabilization of GABA A receptors via Endophilin A1's membrane binding and actin polymerization activities.

(3) Loss of Endophilin A1 in CA1 mouse hippocampal pyramidal neurons weakens inhibitory input and leads to susceptibility to epilepsy.

(4) Thus the authors propose that via its role as a component of the inhibitory postsynaptic density within excitatory neurons, Endophilin A1 supports the organization, stability, and efficacy of inhibitory input to maintain the excitatory/inhibitory balance critical for brain function.

(5) The conclusion of the manuscript is well supported by the data but will be strengthened by addressing our list of concerns and experiment suggestions.

We would like to thank the reviewer for their favorable impression of manuscript. We also appreciate the great experiment suggestions to help us improve the manuscript.

Weaknesses:

Technical concerns:

(1) Figure 1F and Figure 1H, Figures 7H,J:

Can the authors justify using a paired-pulse interval of 50 ms for eEPSCs and an interval of 200 ms for eIPSCs? Otherwise, experiments should be repeated using the same paired pulse interval.

We apologize for the confusion. As illustrated by the schematic current traces, the decay time constants of eEPSCs and eIPSCs in hippocampal CA1 neurons are different. The eEPSCs exhibit a faster channel closing rate, corresponding to a smaller time constant Tau. Thus, a shorter inter-stimulus interval (50 ms) was chosen for paired-pulse ratio recordings. In contrast, the eIPSCs display a slower channel closing rate, with a Tau value larger than that of eEPSCs, so a longer inter-stimulus interval (200 ms) was used for PPR. This protocol has been long-established and adopted in previous studies (please see below for examples).

Contractor, A., Swanson, G. & Heinemann, S. F. Kainate receptors are involved in short- and long-term plasticity at mossy fiber synapses in the hippocampus. Neuron 29, 209-216, doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(01)00191-x (2001).

Babiec, W. E., Jami, S. A., Guglietta, R., Chen, P. B. & O'Dell, T. J. Differential Regulation of NMDA Receptor-Mediated Transmission by SK Channels Underlies Dorsal-Ventral Differences in Dynamics of Schaffer Collateral Synaptic Function. Journal of neuroscience 37, 1950-1964, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3196-16.2017 (2017).

(2) Figures 3G,H,I:

While 3D representations of proteins of interest bolster claims made by superresolution microscopy, SIM resolution is unreliable when deciphering the localization of proteins at the subsynaptic level given the small size of these structures (<1 micrometer). In order to determine the actual location of Endophilin A1, especially given the known presynaptic localization of this protein, the authors should complete SIM experiments with a presynaptic marker, perhaps an active zone protein, so that the relative localization of Endophilin A1 can be gleaned. Currently, overlapping signals could stem from the presynapse given the poor resolution of SIM in this context.

Thanks for your suggestions. It is certainly preferable to investigate the relative localization of endophilin A1 using both presynaptic and postsynaptic markers. For SIM imaging in Figure 3G-I, to visualize neuronal morphology, we immunostained GFP as cell fill, leaving two other channels for detection of immunofluorescent signals of endophilin A1 and another protein. We will try co-immunostaining of endophilin A1, the active zone protein bassoon (presynaptic marker) and gephyrin without morphology labeling. Alternatively, we will do co-staining of endophilin A1 and bassoon in GFP-expressing neurons. We agree that overlapping signals or proximal localization of presynaptic endophilin A1 with gephyrin or GABA_AR γ2 could not be ruled out. To note, if image resolution is improved with the use of a more advanced imaging system, the overlap between two proteins will become smaller or even disappear. With the ~110 nm lateral resolution of SIM microscopy, the degree of overlap between the two proteins of interest is much lower than in confocal microscopy. Given the presynaptic localization of endophilin, most likely we will observe a small overlap (presynatpic) or proximal localization (postsynaptic) of endophilin A1 with bassoon. Nevertheless, we will complete the SIM experiments as suggested to improve the manuscript.

Manuscript consistency:

(1) Figure 2:

The authors looked at VGAT and noticed a reduction of signals in hippocampal regions in their P21 slices, indicating that the proposed postsynaptic organization/stabilization functions of Endophilin A1 extend to the inhibitory presynapse, perhaps via Neuroligin 2-Neurexin. Simultaneously, hippocampal regions in P21 slices showed a reduction in PSD-95 signals, indicating that excitatory synapses are also affected. It would be crucial to also look at excitatory presynapses, via VGLUT staining, to assess whether EndoA1 -/- also affects presynapses. Given the extensive roles of Endophilin A1 in presynapses, especially in excitatory presynapses, this should be investigated.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Given that the both VGAT and PSD95 signals are reduced in hippocampal regions in P21 slices, it is conceivable that the proposed postsynaptic organization/stabilization functions of endophilin A1 extend to the inhibitory presynapse via Neuroligin-2-Neurexin and the excitatory presynapse as well during development. Of note, endophilin A1 knockout did not impair the distribution of Neuroligin-2 in inhibitory postsynapses (immunoisolated with anti-GABA_AR α1) in mature mice (Figure 3K), and endophilin A1 did not bind to Neuroligin-2 (Figure 4D), suggesting that endophilin A1 might function via other mechanisms. Nevertheless, as functions of endophilin A family members at the presynaptic site are well-established, the reduction of presynaptic signals in developmental hippocampal regions of EndoA^-/- mice might result from the depletion of presynaptic endophilin A1. The presynaptic deficits can be compensatory by other mechanisms as neurons mature. Certainly, we will do VGLUT staining of EndoA1^-/- brain slices as suggested to assess the role of endophilin A1 in excitatory presynapses in vivo.

(2) Figure 7C:

The authors do not assess whether p140Cap overexpression rescues GABAAR receptor loss exhibited in Endophilin A1 KO, as they did for Gephryin. This would be an important data point to show, as p140Cap may somehow rescue receptor loss by another pathway. In fact, it is mentioned in the text that this experiment was done, "Consistently, neither p140Cap nor the endophilin A1 loss-of-function mutants could rescue the GABAAR clustering phenotype in EEN1 KO neurons (Figure 7C, D)" yet the data for p140Cap overexpression seem to be missing. This should be remedied.

Thanks a lot for the thoughtful comment. We will determine whether p140Cap overexpression also rescues the GABA_AR clustering phenotype in EndoA1^-/- neurons by surface GABA_AR γ2 staining in our revised manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Chen et al. identify endophilin A1 as a novel component of the inhibitory postsynaptic scaffold. Their data show impaired evoked inhibitory synaptic transmission in CA1 neurons of mice lacking endophilin A1, and an increased susceptibility to seizures. Endophilin can interact with the postsynaptic scaffold protein gephyrin and promote assembly of the inhibitory postsynaptic element. Endophilin A1 is known to play a role in presynaptic terminals and in dendritic spines, but a role for endophilin A1 at inhibitory postsynaptic densities has not yet been described.

Strengths:

The authors used a broad array of experimental approaches to investigate this, including tests of seizure susceptibility, electrophysiology, biochemistry, neuronal culture, and image analysis.

Weaknesses:

Many results are difficult to interpret, and the data quality is not always convincing, unfortunately. The basic premise of the study, that gephyrin and endophilin A1 interact, requires a more robust analysis to be convincing.

We greatly appreciate the positive comment on our study and the very valuable feedback for us to improve the manuscript. We will conduct additional experiments to improve our data quality and strengthen our evidences according to these great constructive suggestions. To gain strong evidence for the interaction between endophilin A1 and gephyrin, we will perform in vitro pull-down assay with recombinant proteins from bacterial expression system.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) For all of the electrophysiology experiments, only the number of neurons recorded is stated, but not the number of independent animals that these neurons were obtained from. The number of independent animals used should be stated for each panel. At least 3 independent animals should be used in each group, otherwise, more data needs to be added.

We apologize for missing the information in the original manuscript. For all electrophysiological experiments, data were obtained from more than 3 experimental animals. The figure legends were updated to include the number of independent animals used for each panel.

(2) For the cell culture experiments analyzing dendritic puncta at GABAergic synapses, the number of data points analysed appears to be the number of dendritic segments quantified, regardless of whether they originate from the same neuron or not. This analysis method is not valid, since dendritic segments from the same neuron cannot be counted as statistically independent samples. The authors need to average the values for all dendritic segments from one neuron, such that one neuron equals one data point. This alteration should be made for Figures 2B, 2D, 4H, 4J, 5B, 5C, 5E, 5J, 5L, 6B, 6D, 6F, 6H, 6J, 6K,7B, and 7D. In addition, the number of independent cultures from which the neurons were obtained should be stated for each panel. At least 3 independent cultures should be used in each group, otherwise, more data need to be added.

Thanks for the criticism. We reanalyzed the data throughout the manuscript as suggested and updated the figure legends accordingly. Moreover, we increased the number of neurons from independent experiments to further confirm the results in our revised manuscript.

In the revised manuscript, we averaged the values for all dendritic segments from a single neuron and updated the data in Figure 3B, 3D, 4H, 4J, 5B, 5C, 5E, 5K, 5M, 6B, 6D, 6F, 6H, 6J, 6K,7B, and 7D.

Neurons analyzed in each group were derived from at least 3 independent cultures. Due to very low efficiency of sparse transfection in primary cultured hippocampal neurons, multiple experimental repetitions were necessary to obtain the sufficient number of neurons for analysis. We described statistical analysis in “Material and Methods” section in the original manuscript as follows:

“For all biochemical, cell biological and electrophysiological recordings, at least three independent experiments were performed (independent cultures, transfections or different mice).”

(3) Individual data points should be shown on all graphs, particularly in Figures 2C, 2F, 2I, 3F, 3K, and 3L.

Thank you for the suggestion. We replaced the original graphs with scatterplots and mean ± S.E.M. in new Figures.

(4) For each experiment, the authors should state explicitly in the methods section whether that experiment was conducted blind to genotype.

Thank you for the suggestion. We have modified the description of blind analysis for each experiment in methods section to “Seizure susceptibility was measured blindly by rating seizures on a scale of 0 to 7 as follows…”, “Quantification of immunostaining were carried out blindly…” in our revised manuscript.

(5) For each experiment, the authors should state whether they used male or female mice, and what age the mice were at the time of the experiment

Thanks a lot for the suggestion. We usually use male and female mice for neuron culture and behavioral test. We observed no sex-related differences in PTZ-induced behaviors, so the results were pooled together.

For mice ages, P0 pups were used for hippocampal neuron cultures and virus injection in electrophysiological recording assays or FingR probes assays. P14-21 mice were used for electrophysiological recording, immunofluorescent staining and FingR probes detection in brain slice, while adult mice (P60) for behavioral tests, immunofluorescent staining in brain slice and biochemical assays. We have modified the description in genders and ages of mice in methods section to “To evaluate seizure susceptibility, 8-10-week-old male and female EndoA1^+/+ or EndoA1^-/- littermates or EndoA1^fl/fl littermates were intraperitoneally administered… ”, “For virus injection, 8-9-week-old naive male and female littermates were anesthetized…”, “Male and female littermates (P21 or P60) were anesthetized and immediately perfused…”, “Hippocampi of female or male pups (P0) were rapidly dissected under sterile conditions…”, “PSD fractions from adult mouse brain were prepared as previously described…”, “Newborn EndoA1^fl/fl littermates (male or female) were anesthetized on ice for 4-5 min…” in our revised manuscript.

(6) For each experiment involving WT and KO mice, please state whether WTs and KOs were bred as littermates from heterozygous breeders

Sorry for the confusion. In our study, EndoA1^+/+ and EndoA1^-/- mice were bred as littermates from heterozygous breeders. We added the information in methods section as follows in our revised manuscript, “EndoA1^+/+ and EndoA1^-/- mice were bred as littermates from heterozygous breeders…”, “To evaluate seizure susceptibility, 8-10-week-old male and female EndoA1^+/+ or EndoA1^-/- littermates or EndoA1^fl/fl littermates…”, “For virus injection, 8-9-week-old naive male and female littermates were anesthetized…”, “Male and female littermates (P21 or P60) were anesthetized and immediately perfused…”, “For co-IP from brain lysates, the whole brain from 8-10-week-old WT and KO littermates were dissected…”, “Newborn EndoA1^fl/fl littermates (male or female) were anesthetized on ice for 4-5 min…”.

(7) For experiments comparing three or more groups, the authors claim in the methods section to have used a one-way ANOVA for statistical analysis. However, no ANOVA values are given, only the post-hoc tests. Please add the ANOVA values for each experiment before stating the values of the post-hoc analysis.

Sorry for the missing information. We used one-way ANOVA for comparing three or more groups in the original manuscript and have changed to two-way ANOVA for behavior data analysis in our revised manuscript as suggested in Recommendations (18). We added the ANOVA values (F & p values) for each experiment in new figures. For example, see Figure 1C.

(8) In Figure 1A-C, seizure susceptibility was compared in EEN+/+ and EEN-/- mice, but the methods section states that seizure susceptibility was evaluated in 8-10-week-old male C57BL/6N mice (line 513). Was this meant to indicate that the EEN+/+ and EEN-/- mice were on a C57BL/6N background? How does this match with the statement that EEN1 -/- mice were generated on a C57BL/6J background (line 467)?

We apologize for the mistake. In our study, EEN1^-/- mice were generated on a C57BL/6J background, as stated in our previously published papers (Yang et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2018) and in “Animals” in Material and Methods of our original manuscript. We had corrected the statement to “To evaluate seizure susceptibility, 8-10-week-old male and female EndoA1^+/+ or EndoA1^-/- littermates…” in Material and Methods of the revised manuscript.

(9) In the electrophysiology experiments in Figure 1E-O, it is not clear to me which neurons were recorded in the control group. The methods section states that "Whole-cell recordings were performed on an AAV-infected neuron and a neighboring uninfected neuron" (line 736). However, the figure legends states that recordings were obtained from "10 control (Ctrl, mCherry alone) and 10 EEN1 KO (mCherry and Cre) pyramidal neurons" (line 1079), which would indicate that the controls are not uninfected neurons from the same animal, but AAV-mCherry infected neurons from a different animal. Please clarify which of the two descriptions is accurate.

Thanks for catching the error! In all electrophysiological experiments, a neighboring uninfected neuron was used as the control in Figure 1E-O. This was incorrectly stated in the figure legend of the original manuscript. In the revised manuscript, the information has been corrected in figure legends of new Figure 1 (E-F).

(10) The authors show that in Endophilin A1 KO animals, eIPSCs are reduced, but mIPSC frequency and amplitude are unaltered. How do they explain this finding in the context of the fact that gephyrin and GABAAR1.

We apologize for the confusion about the data of electrophysiological recording. Compared with eIPSC, which are recorded in the presence of electrically evoked action potential that elicited a substantial release of neurotransmitter, mIPSCs are small, spontaneous currents recorded in the presence of TTX during patch-clamp experiments, resulting from the release of neurotransmitters from presynaptic terminals in the absence of action potential. The amplitude of mIPSCs typically reflects the quantal release of neurotransmitters, while their frequency can vary depending on synaptic activity and the state of the neuron.

A number of molecules fine-tune presynaptic neurotransmitter release and functions of inhibitory postsynaptic receptors. In our study, inhibitory postsynapses were partially affected in endophilin A1 knockout neurons, while presynaptic endophilin A1 remained intact during electrophysiological recordings. Conceivably, the observed deficits in endophilin A1 knockout mice were mild. Following endophilin A1 depletion, inhibitory postsynaptic receptors appeared sufficient to respond to spontaneous neurotransmitter release but may be inadequate to large amounts of neurotransmitter release evoked by action potential. Meanwhile, spontaneous synaptic activity and the state of the neuron were not obviously affected under basic state by endophilin A1 depletion during postnatal stages. Consequently, mIPSC frequency and amplitude remain unaltered but eIPSCs were reduced compared to the control neurons. This finding was consistent with behavioral experiments, where aggressive epileptic behaviors were induced by PTZ rather than spontaneous epilepsy in endophilin A1 knockout mice.

(11) Distribution of gephyrin, VGAT, and GABAARg2 differs substantially between the different layers of hippocampal area CA1, and the same goes for the other regions of the hippocampus. However, in Figure 2, it is not clear to me from the sample images which layers of each subregion the authors quantified, or indeed whether they paid attention to which layers they included in their analysis. This can lead to a substantial skewing of the data if different layers were preferentially included in the two genotypes. Please clarify which layers were analysed, and how comparability between WTs and KOs was ensured. This is particularly important given the authors' claim that Endophilin A1 acts equally at all subtypes of GABAergic synapses (lines 373- 376).

Thanks for the cautiousness! We distinguished each hippocampal subregion based on the anatomical structure in brain slices. Quantification of fluorescent mean intensity of each synaptic protein in all layers of each subregion, as shown in new Figure 2 and Figure S2A-F, revealed that GABAergic synaptic proteins were impaired in both P21 and P60 KO mice.

We further analyzed the fluorescent signal of core postsynaptic component, gephyrin, in individual layers of each subregion in the hippocampus of mature WT and KO mice, as presented in new Figures S2G-H. Our findings demonstrated a decrease in gephyrin levels across all layers of each subregion in KO mice. Additionally, we examined gephyrin clustering across the soma, axon initial segment (AIS), and dendrites in cultured mature endophilin A1 knockout hippocampal neurons, as shown in new Figure S5E-H. The results showed that gephyrin was affected in all subcellular regions following endophilin A1 knockout.

Collectively, these data suggest that endophilin A1 functions across all subtypes of GABAergic postsynapses.

(12) In Figure 3E-F, the authors state that there was no change in the total level of synaptic neurons in EEN1 KO neurons (line 188). However, there is no quantification of the total level of synaptic neurons shown, and based on the immunoblot in Figure 3E, it looks like there is a substantial reduction in NR1, NL2, and g2. The authors should present a quantification of the total levels of these proteins and adjust their statement accordingly if necessary.

Thanks a lot for your comments. We quantified the total protein levels in Figure 3E and added the result to new Figure 3F, showing that total protein levels were not obviously affected in cultured KO neurons. When normalized to total protein levels, the surface levels of GABA_A receptors were significantly compromised compared to surface GluN1 and NL2. Furthermore, the total protein levels were not affected in brains of KO mice, as shown in Figures 3K (input) and 3L (S1). Collectively, there was no change in the total level of synaptic proteins in KO neurons.

(13) In Figure 3G-I, the authors claim, based on super-resolution images as presented here, that Endophilin A1 colocalizes with gephyrin and g2. However, no quantification of this colocalization is presented. The authors should add this quantification to support their claim and indicate how many GABAergic synapses contain Endophilin A1.

Thank you for the thoughtful comments. The resolution of the images is significantly improved by super-resolution microscopy. As a result, the overlap between the two proteins will become smaller or even disappear. Since no two proteins can occupy the same physical space, they would show lower colocalization and instead exhibit proximal localization. As expected, in Figures 3G and 3H, we observed only small overlap or proximal localization of endophilin A1 with gephyrin or GABA_AR γ2. To further confirm the localization of endophilin A1 in inhibitory synapses, we co-stained endophilin A1 with both pre- and post-synaptic proteins, gephyrin and Bassoon. Then we quantified the colocalization of endophilin A1 with gephyrin or with Bassoon using the method for super-resolution images described in the reference (Andrew D. McCall. Colocalization by cross-correlation, a new method of colocalization suited for super-resolution microscopy. McCall BMC Bioinformatics (2024) 25:55). The percentage of gephyrin or Bassoon puncta that were in close proximity with endophilin A1 was also calculated, as shown in new video 5 and new Figure S4B-G. These data have been added in the revised manuscript as follows, “We further detected the localization of endophilin A1 to inhibitory synapses by co-immunostaining with both pre- and post-synaptic markers (Figure. S4B and Video 5). Quantitative analysis of super-resolution localization maps revealed that ~ 47 % puncta of gephyrin or Bassoon were proximal to endophilin A1 (Figure. S4G, n \= 14), with a mean distance between endophilin A1- and gephyrin-positive pixels of ∼ 120 nm, or between endophilin A1- and Bassoon-positive pixels of ∼ 130 nm (Figure. S4C-F).”

(14) In the quantification shown in Figure 3K-L, there are no error bars in the WT data sets. This presumably means that all values were normalized to WT. However, since this artificially eliminates the variance in the WT group, a t-test is no longer valid, since this assumes a normal distribution and normal variance, which are no longer given. The authors should either change the way they normalize their data to maintain the variance in the WT group or perform a different statistical test that can account for the artificial lack of variance in one of the groups.

Thank you for the suggestions! We modified our analysis approach. Specifically, we used mean value of WTs to normalize data to preserve the variance in the WT group and performed unpaired t-tests to assess statistical significance in Figure 3K-L. Additionally, we replaced the bar graphs with modified graphs showing individual data points. Please see Response to Recommendation (12).

(15) What is the difference between the coIP experiment in Figure 4E and 3J, right panel? In both cases, an Endophilin A1 IP is performed, and gephyrin, GABAARg2, and GABAARa1 are assessed. However, Figure 3J's right panel indicates that Endophilin A1 does interact with the GABAAR subunits, whereas Figure 4E shows that it does not. How do the authors explain this discrepancy? Were these experiments performed more than once?

Sorry for the confusion. Figure 3J and Figure 4E show data from immunoisolation assay and conventional co-immunoprecipitation (co-IP), respectively. Immunoisolation allows for the rapid and efficient separation of subcellular membrane compartments using antibodies conjugated to magnetic beads. In Figure 3J, we used antibodies against GABA_AR α1 subunit or endophilin A1 to isolate the inhibitory postsynaptic membranes or endophilin A1-associated membranous compartments. In contrast, co-immunoprecipitation detects direct protein-protein interactions in detergent-solubilized lysates. For Figure 4E, we applied antibodies against endophilin A1 to precipitate its interaction partners. The results in Figure 3J and Figure 4E demonstrate that endophilin A1 is localized in the inhibitory postsynaptic compartment and directly interacts with gephyrin, but not with GABA_ARs. Detailed information regarding the methods used for co-IP and immunoisolation can be found in “GST-pull down, co-immunoprecipitation (IP), and immunoisolation” in the “Material and Methods” section of original manuscript.

These experiments were repeated multiple times to ensure reliability. In fact, consistent data showing endophilin A1 localization in the inhibitory postsynaptic compartment were observed in Figure 3K, showing the quantified data as well.

(16) For the colocalization analysis in Figure 5A-C, what percentage of gephyrin puncta contain g2 in the WT and Endophilin A1 KO? Currently, only a correlation coefficient is provided, but not the degree of overlap. Please add this information to the figure.

Thanks for the comments on the colocalization analysis. We analyzed the percentage of gephyrin puncta overlapping with GABA_AR γ2 and added the graphs in new Figure 5C.

(17) Figure 6 investigates how actin depolarization affects GABAergic synapse function, but does not assess how Endophilin A1 contributes to this process. The authors then provide an extremely short statement in the discussion, stating that their data are contradictory to a previous study (lines 412 - 417). This section of the discussion should be expanded to address the specific role of Endophilin A1 in the consequences of actin depolymerization.

Thanks a lot for the advice. In the original manuscript, we discussed the specific role of endophilin A1 at inhibitory postsynapses as follows in Discussion:

“As membrane-binding and actin polymerization-promoting activities of endophilin A1 are both required for its function in enhancing iPSD formation and g2–containing GABA_AR clustering to iPSD, we propose that membrane-bound endophilin A1 promotes postsynaptic assembly by coordinating the plasma membrane tethering of the postsynaptic protein complex and its stabilization with the actin cytomatrix”

Following your advice, we added a statement in the revised manuscript addressing the role of endophilin A1 in actin polymerization at inhibitory postsynapses, shown as follows, “In the present study, the impaired clustering of gephyrin and GABA_A γ2 by F-actin depolymerization underscores the essential role of F-actin in the assembly and stabilization of the inhibitory postsynaptic machinery. Membrane-bound endophilin A1 promotes F-actin polymerization beneath the plasma membrane through its interaction with p140Cap, an F-actin regulatory protein, thereby facilitating and/or stabilizing the clustering of gephyrin and γ2-containing GABA_A ​receptors at postsynapses.”

(18) Which statistical analysis was conducted in Figure 7F? Given the nature of the data, a repeated measures ANOVA would be necessary to accurately assess the statistical accuracy.

Sorry for the confusion. We conducted one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey post hoc test at each time point in original Figure 7F. We have employed the method of repeated measures ANOVA followed by Tukey post hoc test as suggested in new Figure 7F. Meanwhile, we reanalyzed data in new Figure 1C with the same method. We also modified the description in “Statistical analysis” and Figure legends for new Figure1C and 7F in revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Data presentation:

(1) Figures 2A, B, D, E, G, H. Figures S2A, B, D:

Add P21 or P60 labels to these figures so that the difference between similarly stained samples (e.g. Figures 2A, B) is obvious to the reader.

Thanks! We added “P21” or “P60” labels in new Figure 2 and Figure S2 as suggested.

(2) Figures 4C, D:

The authors must make their coIP data annotation consistent. In Figure 4C, they use actual microgram amounts when, e.g., describing how much input was present, yet in Figure 4D they use + and -. The authors should pick one.

Thanks for the comments. We labeled the consistent data annotation in new Figure 4C and 4D, we also changed the label in 4F for the consistent data annotation.

(3) Figure 5A

GFP is gray in this figure, but in all other figures, it is blue. Consider changing for presentation reasons.

Thanks a lot for pointing out the problem. We replaced gray with blue color to indicate GFP in new Figure 5A.

(4) Figures 6A, C, E, G

Label graphs as either short-term or long-term drug treatment.

Thanks for the suggestion. We labeled the graphs as 60 min for short-term or 120 min for long-term drug treatment in new Figure 6A, C, E, G for convenient reading.

Annotation, grammar, spelling, typing errors:

(1) Figure 4G:

Merge and GFP labels are seemingly swapped.

Thanks a lot for sharp eye. We corrected the labels in new Figure 4G.

(2) Fig 4I:

The authors use "Gephryin" instead of GPN. They should be consistent and choose one.

Sorry for the mistake. We changed the label consistent with other figures in new Figure 4I and rearranged the images in figures for good looking.

(3) "One-hour or two-hour treatment of mature neurons with nocodazole..."

Thanks for your advice. We modified the sentence to “Treatment of mature neurons with nocodazole, a microtubule depolymerizing reagent, for one hour (short-term) or two hours (long-term), caused…”.

(4) The authors should indicate that one-hour is their short-term treatment and that two-hour is their long-term treatment so that when these terms are used later to describe LatA experiments, it is clearer to the reader.

Thanks for your comments. We modified the statement as seen in Response to Recommendation (3), it is clearer to the reader.

(5) EEA1. The authors should use a more conventional term EndoA1 so that the manuscript can be searched easily.

Thanks a lot for the suggestion. We replaced all of the term “EEN1” with “EndoA1” in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

Major Points

(1) The number of observations for the electrophysiology experiments in Figure 1 (dots are neurons) is very low and it is not clear whether the data shown is derived from different mice. The same criticism applies to the data shown in Figures 7G-K.

We apologize for the low neuron number in electrophysiology experiments. In the patch-clamp experiments, the number of neurons recorded was higher than what is shown in the figures. However, neurons with a membrane resistance (Rm) below 500 MΩ, indicating unstable seals or poor conditions, were excluded from the analysis. Additionally, we added the number of mice from which the data derived in each group in the figure legends for Figure 1, 7 and S1, this point was also raised by Reviewer #1 (Please see Response to Recommendation (1)).