Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This paper by Schommartz and colleagues investigates the neural basis of memory reinstatement as a function of both how recently the memory was formed (recent, remote) and its development (children, young adults). The core question is whether memory consolidation processes as well as the specificity of memory reinstatement differ with development. A number of brain regions showed a greater activation difference for recent vs. remote memories at the long versus shorter delay specifically in adults (cerebellum, parahippocampal gyrus, LOC). A different set showed decreases in the same comparison, but only in children (precuneus, RSC). The authors also used neural pattern similarity analysis to characterize reinstatement, though still in this revised paper I have substantive concerns about how the analyses were performed. While scene-specific reinstatement decreased for remote memories in both children and adults, claims about its presence cannot be made given the analyses. Gist-level reinstatement was observed in children but not adults, but I also have concerns about this analysis. Broadly, the behavioural and univariate findings are consistent with the idea memory consolidation differs between children and adults in important ways, and takes a step towards characterizing how.

Strengths:

The topic and goals of this paper are very interesting. As the authors note, there is little work on memory consolidation over development, and as such this will be an important data point in helping us begin to understand these important differences. The sample size is great, particularly given this is an onerous, multi-day experiment; the authors are to be commended for that. The task design is also generally well controlled, for example as the authors include new recently learned pairs during each session.

Weaknesses:

As noted above and in my review of the original submission, the pattern similarity analysis for both item and category-level reinstatement were performed in a way that is not interpretable given concerns about temporal autocorrelation within scanning run. Unfortunately these issues remain of concern in this revision because they were not rectified. Most of my review focuses on this analytic issue, though I also outline additional concerns.

(1) The pattern similarity analyses are largely uninterpretable due to how they were performed.

(a) First, the scene-specific reinstatement index: The authors have correlated a neural pattern during a fixation cross (delay period) with a neural pattern associated with viewing a scene as their measure of reinstatement. The main issue with this is that these events always occurred back-to-back in time. As such, the two patterns will be similar due simply to the temporal autocorrelation in the BOLD signal. Because of the issues with temporal autocorrelation within scanning run, it is always recommended to perform such correlations only across different runs. In this case, the authors always correlated patterns extracted from the same run, and which moreover have temporal lags that are perfectly confounded with their comparison of interest (i.e., from Fig 4A, the "scene-specific" comparisons will always be back-to-back, having a very short temporal lag; "set-based" comparisons will be dispersed across the run, and therefore have a much higher lag). The authors' within-run correlation approach also yields correlation values that are extremely high - much higher than would be expected if this analysis was done appropriately. The way to fix this would be to restrict the analysis to only cross-run comparisons, which is not possible given the design.

To remedy this, in the revision the authors have said they will refrain from making conclusions about the presence of scene-specific reinstatement (i.e., reinstatement above baseline). While this itself is an improvement from the original manuscript, I still have several concerns. First, this was not done thoroughly and at times conclusions/interpretations still seem to imply or assume the presence of scene reinstatement (e.g., line 979-985, "our research supports the presence of scene-specific reinstatement in 5-to-7-year-old children"; line 1138). Second, the authors' logic for the neural-behavioural correlations in the PLSC analysis involved restricting to regions that showed significant reinstatement for the gist analysis, which cannot be done for the analogous scene-specific reinstatement analysis. This makes it challenging to directly compare these two analyses since one was restricted to a small subset of regions and only children (gist), while scene reinstatement included both groups and all ROIs. Third, it is also unclear whether children and adults' values should be directly comparable given pattern similarity can be influenced by many factors like motion, among other things.

My fourth concern with this analysis relates to the lack of regional specificity of the effects. All ROIs tested showed a virtually identical pattern: "Scene-specific reinstatement" decreased across delays, and was greater in children than adults. I believe control analyses are needed to ensure artifacts are not driving these effects. This would greatly strengthen the authors' ability to draw conclusions from the "clean" comparison of day 1 vs. day 14. (A) The authors should present results from a control ROI that should absolutely not show memory reinstatement effects (e.g., white matter?). Results from the control ROI should look very different - should not differ between children and adults, and should not show decreases over time. (B) Do the recent items from day 1 vs. day 14 differ? If so, this could suggest something is different about the later scans (and if not, it would be reassuring). (C) If the same analysis was performed comparing the object cue and immediately following fixation (rather than the fixation and the immediately following scene), the results should look very different. I would argue that this should not be an index of reinstatement at all since it involves something presented visually rather than something reinstated (i.e., the scene picture is not included in this comparison). If this control analysis were to show the same effects as the primary analysis, this would be further evidence that this analysis is uninterpretable and hopelessly confounded.

(b) For the category-based neural reinstatement: (1) This suffers from the same issue of correlations being performed within run. Again, to correct this the authors would need to restrict comparisons to only across runs (i.e., patterns from run 1 correlated with patterns for run 2 and so on). The authors in their response letter have indicated that because the patterns being correlated are not derived from events in close temporal proximity, they should not suffer from the issue of temporal autocorrelation. This is simply not true. For example, see the paper by Prince et al. (eLife 2022; on GLMsingle). This is not the main point of Prince et al.'s paper, but it includes a nice figure that shows that, using standard modelling approaches, the correlation between (same-run) patterns can be artificially elevated for lags as long as ~120 seconds (and can even be artificially reduced after that; Figure 5 from that paper) between events. This would affect many of the comparisons in the present paper. The cleanest way to proceed is to simply drop the within-run comparisons, which I believe the authors can do and yet they have not. Relatedly, in the response letter the authors say they are focusing mainly on the change over time for reinstatement at both levels including the gist-type reinstatement; however, this is not how it is discussed in the paper. They in fact are mainly relying on differences from zero, as children show some "above baseline" reinstatement while adults do not, but I believe there were no significant differences over time (i.e., the findings the authors said they would lean on primarily, as they are arguably the most comparable). (2) This analysis uses a different approach of comparing fixations to one another, rather than fixations to scenes. In their response letter and the revised paper, the authors do provide a bit of reasoning as to why this is the most sensible. However, it is still not clear to me whether this is really "reinstatement" which (in my mind) entails the re-evoking of a neural pattern initially engaged during perception. Rather, could this be a shared neural state that is category specific? In any case, I think additional information should be added to the text to clarify that this definition differs from others in the literature. The authors might also consider using some term other than reinstatement. Again (as I noted in my prior review), the finding of no category-level reinstatement in adults is surprising and confusing given prior work and likely has to do with the operationalization of "reinstatement" here. I was not quite sure about the explanation provided in the response letter, as category-level reinstatement is quite widespread in the brain for adults and is robust to differences in analytic procedures etc. (3) Also from a theoretical standpoint-I'm still a bit confused as to why gist-based reinstatement would involve reinstatement of the scene gist, rather than the object's location (on the screen) gist. Were the locations on the screen similar across scene backgrounds from the same category? It seems like a different way to define memory retrieval here would be to compare the neural patterns when cued to retrieve the same vs. similar (at the "gist" level) vs. different locations across object-scene pairs. This is somewhat related to a point from my review of the initial version of this manuscript, about how scene reinstatement is not necessary. The authors state that participants were instructed to reinstate the scene, but that does not mean they were actually doing it. The point that what is being measured via the reinstatement analyses is actually not necessary to perform the task should be discussed in more detail in the paper.

(2) Inspired by another reviewer's comment, it is unclear to me the extent to which age group differences can be attributed to differences in age/development versus memory strength. I liked the other reviewer's suggestions about how to identify and control for differences in memory strength, which I don't think the authors actually did in the revision. They instead showed evidence that memory strength does seem to be lower in children, which indicates this is an interpretive confound. For example, I liked the reviewer's suggestion of performing analyses on subsets of participants who were actually matched in initial learning/memory performance would have been very informative. As it is, the authors didn't really control for memory strength adequately in my opinion, and as such their conclusions about children vs. adults could have been reframed as people with weak vs. strong memories. This is obviously a big drawback given what the authors want to conclude. Relatedly, I'm not sure the DDM was incorporated as the reviewer was suggesting; at minimum I think the authors need to do more work in the paper to explain what this means and why it is relevant. (I understand putting it in the supplement rather than the main paper, but I still wanted to know more about what it added from an interpretive perspective.)

(3) Some of the univariate results reporting is a bit strange, as they are relying upon differences between retrieval of 1- vs. 14-day memories in terms of the recent vs. report difference, and yet don't report whether the regions are differently active for recent and remote retrieval. For example in Figure 3A, neither anterior nor posterior hippocampus seem to be differentially active for recent vs. remote memories for either age group (i.e., all data is around 0). Precuneus also interestingly seems to show numerically recent>remote (values mostly negative), whereas most other regions show the opposite. This difference from zero (in either direction) or lack thereof seems important to the message. In response to this comment on the original manuscript, the authors seem to have confirmed that hippocampal activity was greater during retrieval than implicit baseline. But this was not really my question - I was asking whether hippocampus is (and other ROIs in this same figure are) differently engaged for recent vs. remote memories.

(4) Related to point 3, the claims about hippocampus with respect to multiple trace theory feel very unsupported by the data. I believe the authors want to conclude that children's memory retrieval shows reliance on hippocampus irrespective of delay, presumably because this is a detailed memory task. However the authors have not really shown this; all they have shown is that hippocampal involvement (whatever it is) does not vary by delay. But we do not have compelling evidence that the hippocampus is involved in this task at all. That hippocampus is more active during retrieval than implicit baseline is a very low bar and does not necessarily indicate a role in memory retrieval. If the authors want to make this claim, more data are needed (e.g., showing that hippocampal activity during retrieval is higher when the upcoming memory retrieval is successful vs. unsuccessful). In the absence of this, I think all the claims about multiple trace theory supporting retrieval similarly across delays and that this is operational in children are inappropriate and should be removed.

(5) There are still not enough methodological details in the main paper to make sense of the results. Some of these problems were addressed in the revision but others remain. For example, a couple of things that were unclear: that initially learned locations were split, where half were tested again at day 1 and the other half at day 14; what specific criterion was used to determine to pick the 'well-learned' associations that were used for comparisons at different delay periods (object-scene pairs that participants remembered accurately in the last repetition of learning? Or across all of learning?).

(6) In still find the revised Introduction a bit unclear. I appreciated the added descriptions of different theories of consolidation, though the order of presented points is still a bit hard to follow. Some of the predictions I also find a bit confusing as laid out in the introduction. (1) As noted in the paper multiple trace theory predicts that hippocampal involvement will remain high provided memories retained are sufficiently high detail. The authors however also predict that children will rely more on gist (than detailed) memories than adults, which would seem to imply (combined with the MTT idea) that they should show reduced hippocampal involvement over time (while in adults, it should remain high). However, the authors' actual prediction is that hippocampus will show stable involvement over time in both kids and adults. I'm having a hard time reconciling these points. (2) With respect to the extraction of gist in children, I was confused by the link to Fuzzy Trace Theory given the children in the present study are a bit young to be showing the kind of gist extraction shown in the Brainerd & Reyna data. Would 5-7 year olds not be more likely to show reliance on verbatim traces under that framework? Also from a phrasing perspective, I was confused about whether gist-like information was something different from just gist in this sentence: "children may be more inclined to extract gist information at the expense of detailed or gist-like information." (p. 8) - is this a typo?

(7) For the PLSC, if I understand this correctly, the profiles were defined for showing associations with behaviour across age groups. (1) As such, is it not "double dipping" to then show that there is an association between brain profile and behaviour-must this not be true by definition? If I am mistaken, it might be helpful to clarify this in the paper. (2) In addition, I believe for the univariate and scene-specific reinstatement analyses these profiles were defined across both age groups. I assume this doesn't allow for separate definition of profiles across the two group (i.e., a kind of "interaction"). If this is the case, it makes sense that there would not be big age differences... the profiles were defined for showing an association across all subjects. If the authors wanted to identify distinct profiles in children and adults they may need to run another analysis. (3) Also, as for differences between short delay brain profile and long delay brain profile for the scene-specific reinstatement - there are 2 regions that become significant at long delay that were not significant at a short delay (PC, and CE). However, given there are ceiling effects in behaviour at the long but not short delay, it's unclear if this is a meaningful difference or just a difference in sensitivity. Is there a way to test whether the profiles are statistically different from one another? (4) As I mentioned above, it also was not ideal in my opinion that all regions were included for the scene-specific reinstatement due to the authors' inability to have an appropriate baseline and therefore define above-chance reinstatement. It makes these findings really challenging to compare with the gist reinstatement ones.

(8) I would encourage the authors to be specific about whether they are measuring/talking about memory representations versus reinstatement, unless they think these are the same thing (in which case some explanation as to why would be helpful). For example, especially under the Fuzzy Trace framework, couldn't someone maintain both verbatim and gist traces of a memory yet rely more on one when making a memory decision?

(9) With respect to the learning criteria - it is misleading to say that "children needed between two to four learning-retrieval cycles to reach the criterion of 83% correct responses" (p. 9). Four was the maximum, and looking at the Figure 1C data it appears as though there were at least a few children who did not meet the 83% minimum. I believe they were included in the analysis anyway? Please clarify. Was there any minimum imposed for inclusion?

(10) For the gist-like reinstatement PLSC analysis, results are really similar a short and long delays and yet some of the text seems to implying specificity to the long delay. One is a trend and one is significant (p. 31), but surely these two associations would not be statistically different from one another?

(11) As a general comment, I had a hard time tying all of the (many) results together. For example adults show more mature neocortical consolidation-related engagement, which the authors say is going to create more durable detailed memories, but under multiple trace theory we would generally think of neocortical representations as providing more schematic information. If the authors could try to make more connections across the different neural analyses, as well as tie the neural findings in more closely with the behaviour & back to the theoretical frameworks, that would be really helpful.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Reviews):

Summary:

This paper by Schommartz and colleagues investigates the neural basis of memory reinstatement as a function of both how recently the memory was formed (recent, remote) and its development (children, young adults). The core question is whether memory consolidation processes as well as the specificity of memory reinstatement differ with development. A number of brain regions showed a greater activation difference for recent vs. remote memories at the long versus shorter delay specifically in adults (cerebellum, parahippocampal gyrus, LOC). A different set showed decreases in the same comparison, but only in children (precuneus, RSC). The authors also used neural pattern similarity analysis to characterize reinstatement, though I have substantive concerns about how this analysis was performed and as such will not summarize the results. Broadly, the behavioural and univariate findings are consistent with the idea that memory consolidation differs between children and adults in important ways, and takes a step towards characterizing how.

Strengths:

The topic and goals of this paper are very interesting. As the authors note, there is little work on memory consolidation over development, and as such this will be an important data point in helping us begin to understand these important differences. The sample size is great, particularly given this is an onerous, multi-day experiment; the authors are to be commended for that. The task design is also generally well controlled, for example as the authors include new recently learned pairs during each session.

Weaknesses:

As noted above, the pattern similarity analysis for both item and category-level reinstatement was performed in a way that is not interpretable given concerns about temporal autocorrelation within the scanning run. Below, I focus my review on this analytic issue, though I also outline additional concerns.

We thank the reviewer for both the positive and critical appraisal of our paper.

(1) The pattern similarity analyses were not done correctly, rendering the results uninterpretable (assuming my understanding of the authors' approach is correct).

a. First, the scene-specific reinstatement index: The authors have correlated a neural pattern during a fixation cross (delay period) with a neural pattern associated with viewing a scene as their measure of reinstatement. The main issue with this is that these events always occurred back-to-back in time. As such, the two patterns will be similar due simply to the temporal autocorrelation in the BOLD signal. Because of the issues with temporal autocorrelation within the scanning run, it is always recommended to perform such correlations only across different runs. In this case, the authors always correlated patterns extracted from the same run, which moreover have temporal lags that are perfectly confounded with their comparison of interest (i.e., from Fig 4A, the "scene-specific" comparisons will always be back-to-back, having a very short temporal lag; "set-based" comparisons will be dispersed across the run, and therefore have a much higher lag). The authors' within-run correlation approach also yields correlation values that are extremely high - much higher than would be expected if this analysis was done appropriately. The way to fix this would be to restrict the analysis to only cross-run comparisons, but I don't believe this is possible unfortunately given the authors' design; I believe the target (presumably reinstated) scene only appears once during scanning, so there is no separate neural pattern during the presentation of this picture that they can use. For these reasons, any evidence for "significant scene-specific reinstatement" and the like is completely uninterpretable and would need to be removed from the paper.

We thank the reviewer for this important input. We acknowledge that our study design leads to temporal autocorrelation in the BOLD signal when calculating RSA between fixation and scene time windows. We also recognize that we cannot interpret the significance of scene-specific reinstatement compared to zero and have accordingly removed this information. Nevertheless, our primary objective was to investigate changes in scene-specific reinstatement in relation to the different time delays of retrieval. Given that the retrieval procedure is the same over time and presumably similarly influenced by temporal autocorrelations, we argue that our results must be attributed to the relative differences in reinstatement across recent and remote trials. Bearing this in mind, we argue that our results can be interpreted in terms of delay-related changes in reinstatement. This information is discussed in pp. 21, 40 of the manuscript.

We agree with the reviewer that cross-run comparisons would be extremely interesting. This could be achieved by introducing the same items repeatedly across different runs, which was not possible in our current setup since we were interested in single exposure retrieval and practical time restriction in scanning children. We have  introduced this idea in Limitations and Discussion sections (pp. 40, 44) of the manuscript to inform future studies.

Finally, thanks to the reviewer’s comment, we identified a bug in the final steps of our RSA calculation. Fischer’s z-transformation was incorrectly applied to r-1 values, resulting in abnormally high values. We apologize for this error. We have revised the scripts and rectified the bug by correctly applying Fischer’s z-transformation to the r similarity values. We also adjusted the methods description figure accordingly (Figure 5, p. 22). This adjustment led to slightly altered reinstatement indices. Nevertheless, the overall pattern of delay-related attenuation in the scene-specific reinstatement index, observed in both children and adults, remains consistent. Similarly, we observed gist-like reinstatement uniquely in children.

b. From a theoretical standpoint, I believe the way this analysis was performed considering the fixation and the immediately following scene also means that the differences between recent and remote could have to do with either the reactivation (processes happening during the fixation, presumably) or differences in the processing of the stimulus itself (happening during the scene presentation). For example, people might be more engaged with the more novel scenes (recent) and therefore process those scenes more; such a difference would be interpreted in this analysis as having to do with reinstatement, but in fact could be just related to the differential scene processing/recognition, etc.

Thank you for your insightful comments. We acknowledge the theoretical concerns raised about distinguishing between the effects of reactivation processes occurring during fixation and differential processing of the stimulus itself during scene presentation. Specifically, the notion that engagement levels with recent scenes could result in enhanced processing, which might be misattributed to memory reinstatement mechanisms.

We argue, however, that during scene presentation, scenes are processed more “memory-wise” rather than “perception-wise”, since both recent and remote memories are well-learned, as we included only correctly recalled memories in the analysis.

We concur that scene presentations entail perceptual processing; however, such processing would be consistent across all items, given that they were presented with the same repeated learning procedure, rendering them equally familiar to participants. In addition, we would argue that distinct activation patterns elicited during varying delays are more likely attributable to memory-related processing, since participants actively engaged in a memory-based decision-making task during these intervals. We have incorporated this rationale into the discussion section of our manuscript (p. 40).

With this in mind, we hypothesized that in case of “memory-wise” processing, the neural engagement during the scene time window should be higher for remote compared to recent  items, and this increases with passing time as more control and effort should be exhibited during retrieval due to reorganized and distributed nature of memories. If the scenes are processed more “perception-wise”, we would expect higher neural engagement during the retrieval of recent compared to remote items. Our exploratory analysis (detailed overview in supplementary materials, Figure S3, Table S9) revealed a higher neural activation for remote compared to recent items in medial temporal, prefrontal, occipital and cerebellar brain regions, supporting the notion of “memory-wise” processes during scene time window. However, this exploratory analysis cannot provide a direct solution to the reviewer’s concern as our paradigm per se cannot arbitrate between “memory-wise” and “perception-wise” nature of retrieval. We added the point to the discussion (see p. 40).

c. For the category-based neural reinstatement:

(1) This suffers from the same issue of correlations being performed within the run. Again, to correct this the authors would need to restrict comparisons to only across runs (i.e., patterns from run 1 correlated with patterns for run 2 and so on). With this restriction, it may or may not be possible to perform this analysis, depending upon how the same-category scenes are distributed across runs. However, there are other issues with this analysis, as well.

(2) This analysis uses a different approach of comparing fixations to one another, rather than fixations to scenes. The authors do not motivate the reason for this switch. Please provide reasoning as to why fixation-fixation is more appropriate than fixation-scene similarity for category-level reinstatement, particularly given the opposite was used for item-level reinstatement. Even if the analyses were done properly, it would remain hard to compare them given this difference in approach.

(3) I believe the fixation cross with itself is included in the "within category" score  Is this not a single neural pattern correlated with itself, which will yield maximal similarity (pearson r=1) or minimal dissimilarity (1-pearson r=0)? Including these comparisons in the averages for the within-category score will inflate the difference between the "within-category" and "between-category" comparisons. These (e.g., forest1-forest1) should not be included in the within-category comparisons considered; rather, they should be excluded, so the fixations are always different but sometimes the comparisons are two retrievals of the same scene type (forest1-forest2), and other times different scene types (forest1-field1)

(4) It is troubling that the results from the category reinstatement metric do not seem to conceptually align with past work; for example, a lot of work has shown category-level reinstatement in adults. Here the authors do not show any category-level reinstatement in adults (yet they do in children), which generally seems extremely unexpected given past work and I would guess has to do with the operationalization of the metric.

Thank you for this important input regarding category-based reinstatement.

(1) The distribution of within-category items across runs was approximately similar and balanced. Additionally, within runs, they were presented randomly without close temporal proximity. Based on this arrangement, we believe that the issue of close temporal autocorrelation, as pointed out by the reviewer in the context of scene-specific reinstatement, may not apply to the same extent here. Again, our focus is not on the absolute level of category-based reinstatement, but the relative difference across conditions (recent vs. remote short delay vs. remote long delay) which are equally impacted by the autocorrelations.  

(2) We apologize for not motivating this analysis further. Whereas the scene-reinstatement index (i.e., fixation to scene correlation) gives us a measure of the pre-activation of a concrete scene (e.g., a yellow forest in autumn), the gist-like reinstatement gives us a measure of the pre-activation of a whole category of scenes (e.g., forests). Critically, our window of interest is the fixation period for both sets of analysis (in the absence of any significant visual input). The scene-specific reinstatement uses the scene window as a neural template against which the fixation period can be compared, while the gist-like reinstatement compares similarity of reactivation pattern for trials from the same category but differ in the exact memory content. The reinstatement of more generic, gist-like memory (e.g., forest) across multiple trials should yield more similar neural activation patterns. Significant gist-like reinstatement would suggest that neural patterns for scenes within the same category are more generic, as indicated by higher similarity among them. On the other hand, a more detailed reinstatement of specific types of forests (e.g., a yellow forest in autumn, green pine trees, a bare-leaved forest in spring, etc.) that differ in various dimensions could result in neural activation patterns that are as dissimilar as those seen in the reinstatement of scenes from entirely different categories. Through this methodology, we could distinguish between more generic, gist-like reinstatement and more specific, detailed reinstatement. This is now clarified in the manuscript, see p. 25.

(3) We apologize for the confusion caused by the figure and analysis description. In our analysis, we indeed excluded the correlation of the fixation cross with itself. Consequently, the diagonal in the figure should be blank to indicate this. This is now revised in the manuscript (Figure 7B and in Methods).

(4) We appreciate your concern and recognize that the terminology we used might not align perfectly with the conventional understanding of category-based reinstatement. Typically, category-level neural representations (as discussed in Polyn et al., 2005; Jafarpour et al., 2014; among others) are investigated to identify specific brain areas associated with encoding/perception of scenes or faces. Our aim, however, was to explore the mnemonic reinstatement of highly detailed scenes that were elaborately encoded, with the hypothesis that substantial representational transformations would occur over time and vary with age. This hypothesis is based on the memory literature, including the Fuzzy-Trace Theory, the Contextual Binding Theory, and the Trace Transformation Theory (Brainerd & Reyna, 1998; Yonelinas, 2019; Moscovitch & Gilboa, 2023). Therefore, we renamed 'category-based' reinstatement to 'gist-like' reinstatement, which clarifies our concept and better aligns it with existing literature.

We anticipated that young adults, having the ability to retain detailed narratives post-encoding, would demonstrate a reinstatement of scenes with distinct details, making these scenes dissimilar from each other (see similar findings in Sommer et al., 2021). In contrast, given the anticipated lesser strategic elaboration during learning in children, we hypothesized that they would demonstrate a shallower, more gist-like reinstatement (for instance, children recalling a forest or a field in a general sense without specific details or vivid imagery). This could result in higher category-based similarity, as children might reinstate a more generic forest concept.

We did not gather additional data on the verbal quality of reinstatement due to the limited scanning time available for children, so these assumptions remain unverified. However, anecdotal observations post-retrieval indicated that adults often reported very vivid scenes associated with clear narrative recall. In contrast, children frequently described more vague memories (e.g., “I know it was a forest”) without specific details. Future studies should include measures to assess the quality of reinstatement, potentially outside the scanning environment.

(2) I did not see any compelling statistical evidence for the claim of less robust consolidation in children.

Specifically in terms of the behavioral results of retention of the remote items at 1 vs 14 days, shown in Figure 2B, the authors conclude that memory consolidation is less robust in children (line 246). Yet they do not report statistical evidence for this point, as there was no interaction of this effect with the age group. Children had worse memory than adults overall (in terms of a main effect - i.e. across recent and remote items). If it were consolidation-specific, one would expect that the age differences are bigger for the remote items, and perhaps even most exaggerated for the 14-day-old memories. Yet this does not appear to be the case based on the data the authors report. Therefore, the behavioral differences in retention do not seem to be consolidation specific, and therefore might have more to do with differences in encoding fidelity or retrieval processes more generally across the groups. This should be considered when interpreting the findings.

Thank you for highlighting this important issue. We acknowledge that our initial description and depiction of our behavioral findings may not have effectively conveyed the main message about memory consolidation. Therefore, we have revised the behavioral results section (see pp. 12-14) to communicate our message more clearly.

As detailed in the methods section, we reported retention rates only for those items that were correctly (100%) learned on day 0, day 1, and day 14. This approach meant that different participants had varying numbers of items learned correctly. However, this strategy allowed us to address our primary question: whether memory consolidation, based on all items initially encoded successfully, is comparably robust between groups.

To illustrate the change in retention rate slopes over time for recently learned items (i.e., immediately 30 minutes after learning), short delay remote, and long delay remote items, relative to the initially correctly learned items more clearly and straightforward, we conducted the following analysis: after observing no differences between sessions in both age groups for recent items on days 1 and 14, we combined the recent items. This approach enabled us to investigate how the slope of memory retention for initially correctly learned items (with a baseline of 100%) changes over time. We observed a significant interaction between item type (recent, short delay remote, long delay remote) and group (F(3,250) = 17.35, p < .001, w2 = .16). The follow up of this interaction revealed significantly less robust memory consolidation across all delay times in children compared to young adults. This information is added in the manuscript in pp. 12-14. We have also updated the figures, incorporating the baseline of 100% correct performance.

(3) Please clarify which analyses were restricted to correct retrievals only. The univariate analyses states that correct and incorrect trials were modelled separately but does not say which were considered in the main contrast (I assume correct only?). The item specific reinstatement analysis states that only correct trials were considered, but the category-level reinstatement analysis does not say. Please include this detail.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We indeed limited our analysis – including univariate, specific reinstatement, and gist-like analyses – to only correctly remembered items. This decision was made because our goal was to observe delay-related changes in the neural correlates of correct memories, which are potentially stronger. We have incorporated this information into the manuscript.

(4) To what extent could performance differences be impacting the differences observed across age groups? I think (see prior comment) that the analyses were probably limited to correct trials, which is helpful, but still yields pretty big differences across groups in terms of the amount of data going into each analysis. In general, children showed more attenuated neural effects (e.g., recent/remote or session effects); could this be explained by their weaker memory? Specifically, if only correct trials are considered that means that fewer trials would be going into the analysis for kids, especially for the 14-day remote memories, and perhaps pushing the remove > recent difference for this condition towards 0. The authors might be able to address this analytically; for example, does the remote > recent difference in the univariate data at day 14 correlate with day 14 memory?

Thank you for pointing this out. Indeed, there was a significant relationship between remote > recent difference in the univariate data and memory performance at day 14 across both age group (see Figure 4C-D). The performance of all participants including children was above chance level for remote trial on day 14. In addition, although number of remote trials was lower in children (18 trials on average) in comparison to adults (22 trials on average), we believe that the number of remote trials was not too low or different across groups for the contrast.

(5) Some of the univariate results reporting is a bit strange, as they are relying upon differences between retrieval of 1- vs. 14-day memories in terms of the recent vs. report difference, and yet don't report whether the regions are differently active for recent and remote retrieval. For example, in Figure 3A, neither anterior nor posterior hippocampus seem to be differentially active for recent vs. remote memories for either age group (i.e., all data is around 0). This difference from zero or lack thereof seems important to the message - is that correct? If so, can the authors incorporate descriptions of these findings?

Thank you for this valuable input. When examining recent and remote retrieval separately, indeed both the anterior and posterior regions of the hippocampus exhibited significant activation from zero in adults (all p < .0003FDRcorr) and children (all p < .014FDRcorr, except for recent posterior hippocampus) during all delays. We include this information in the manuscript (see p. 17) and add it to the supplementary materials (Figure S2, Table S7).

(6) Please provide more details about the choices available for locations in the 3AFC task. (1) Were they different each time, or always the same? If they are always the same, could this be a motor or stimulus/response learning task? (2) Do the options in the 3AFC always come from the same area - in which case the participant is given a clue as to the gist of the location/memory? Or are they sometimes randomly scattered across the image (in which case gist memory, like at a delay, would be sufficient for picking the right option)? Please clarify these points and discuss the logic/impact of these choices on the interpretation of the results.Response: Thank you for pointing this out. During learning and retrieval, we employed the 3AFC (Three-Alternative Forced Choice) task.

The choices for locations varied across scenes while remained the same across time within individuals. There were 18 different key locations for the objects, distributed across the stimulus set. This means the locations of the objects were quite heterogeneous and differed between objects. The location of the object within the task was presented once during encoding and remained consistent throughout learning. Given the location heterogeneity, we believe our task cannot be reduced to a mere “stimulus/response learning task” but is more accurately described as an object-location associations task.

Similar to the previous description, the options for the 3AFC task did not originate from the same area, as there were 18 different areas in total. The three choice options were distributed equally: so sometimes the “correct” answer was the left option, sometimes in the middle option, or sometimes the right option. Therefore, we believe that the 3AFC task did not provide clues to the location but required detailed and precise memory of the location. Moreover, the options were not randomly scattered but rather presented close together in the scene, demanding a high level of differentiation between choices.

Taking all the above into consideration, we assert that precise object-location associative memory is necessary for a correct answer. We have added this information to the manuscript (p. 9).

(7) Often p values are provided but test statistics, effect sizes, etc. are not - please include this information. It is at times hard to tell whether the authors are reporting main effects, interactions, pairwise comparisons, etc.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We realize that including this information in the Tables may not be the most straightforward approach. Therefore, we have incorporated the test statistics, effect sizes, and related details into the text of the results section for clarity.

(8) There are not enough methodological details in the main paper to make sense of the results. For example, it is not clear from reading the text that there are new object-location pairs learned each day.

Thank you for pointing this out. We have added this information to the main manuscript. Additionally, we have emphasized this information in the text referring to Figure 1B.

(9) The retrieval task does not seem to require retrieval of the scene itself, and as such it would be helpful for the authors to both explain their reasoning for this task to measure reinstatement. Strictly speaking, participants could just remember the location of the object on the screen. Was it verified that children and adults were recalling the actual scene rather than just the location (e.g. via self-report)? It's possible that there may be developmental differences in the tendency to reinstate the scene depending on e.g., their strategy.

Thank you for highlighting this important point. Indeed, the retrieval task included explicit instructions for participants to recall and visualize the scene associated with the object presented during the fixation time window. Participants were also instructed to recollect the location of the object within the scene. Since the location was contextually bound to the scene and each object had a unique location in each scene, the location of the object was always embedded in the specific scene context. We have added this information to both the Methods and Results sections.

From the self-reports of the participants (which unfortunately were not systematically collected on all occasions), they indicated that when they could recall the scene and the location due to the memory of stories created during strategic encoding, it aided their memory for the scene and location immensely. We also concur with your observation that children and young adults may differ in their ability to reinstate scenes, depending on the success of their employed recall strategies. This task was conducted with an awareness of potential developmental differences in the ability to form complex contextual memories. Our elaborative learning procedure was designed to minimize these differences. It is important to note though we did not expect children to achieve performance levels fully comparable to adults. There may indeed be developmental differences in reinstatement, such as due to differences in knowledge availability and accessibility (Brod, Werkle-Bergner, & Shing, 2013). We think that these differences may underlie our findings of neural reinstatement. This is now discussed in p. 34-35, 39-43 of the manuscript.

(10) In general I found the Introduction a bit difficult to follow. Below are a few specific questions I had.

a. At points findings are presented but the broader picture or take-home point is not expressed directly. For example, lines 112-127, these findings can all be conceptualized within many theories of consolidation, and yet those overarching frameworks are not directly discussed (e.g., that memory traces go from being more reliant on the hippocampus to more on the neocortex). Making these connections directly would likely be helpful for many readers.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have incorporated a summary of the general frameworks of memory consolidation into the introduction. This addition outlines how our summarized findings, particularly those related to memory consolidation for repeatedly learned information, align with these frameworks (see lines 126-138, 146-150).

b. Lines 143-153 - The comparison of the Tompary & Davachi (2017) paper with the Oedekoven et al. (2017) reads like the two analyses are directly comparable, but the authors were looking at different things. The Tompary paper is looking at organization (not reinstatement); while the Oedekoven et al. paper is measuring reinstatement (not organization). The authors should clarify how to reconcile these findings.

Thank you for highlighting this aspect. We have revised how we present the results from Tompary & Davachi (2017). This study examined memory reorganization for memories both with and without overlapping features, and it observed higher neural similarity for memories with overlapping features over time. The authors also explored item-specific reinstatement for recent and remote memories by assessing encoding-retrieval similarity. Since Oedekoven et al. (2017) utilized a similar approach, their results are comparable in terms of reinstatement. We have updated and expanded our manuscript to clarify the parallels between these studies (see lines 157-162).

c. Line 195-6: I was confused by the prediction of "stable involvement of HC over time" given the work reviewed in the Introduction that HC contribution to memory tends to decrease with consolidation. Please clarify or rephrase.

Drawing on the Contextual Binding Theory (Yonelinas et al., 2019), as well as the Multiple Trace Theory (Nadel et al., 2000) and supported for instance by evidence from Sekeres et al. (2018), we hypothesized that detailed contextual memories formed through repeated and strategic learning would strengthen the specificity of these memories, resulting in consistent hippocampal involvement for successfully recalled contextualized detailed memories. We have included additional explanatory information in the manuscript to clarify this hypothesis (see lines 217-219).

d. Lines 200-202: I was a bit confused about this prediction. Firstly, please clarify whether immediate reinstatement has been characterized in this way for kids versus adults. Secondly, don't adults retain gist more over long delays (with specific information getting lost), at least behaviourally? This prediction seems to go against that; please clarify.

Thank you for raising this important point. Indeed, there are no prior studies that examined memory reinstatement over extended durations in children. The primary existing evidence suggests that neural specificity or patterns of neural representations in children can be robustly observed, while neural selectivity or univariate activation in response to the same stimuli tends to mature later (i.e., Fandakova et al., 2019). Bearing this in mind and recognizing that such neural patterns can be observed in both children and adults, we hypothesized that adults may form stronger detailed contextual memories compared to children. By employing strategies such as creating stories, adults might more easily recall scenes without the need to resort to forming generic or gist-like memories (for example, 'a red fox was near the second left pine tree in a spring green forest'). This assumption aligns with the Fuzzy Trace Theory (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995), which posits that verbatim memories can be created without the extraction of a gist.

Conversely, we hypothesized that children, due to the ongoing maturation of associative and strategic memory components (as discussed in Shing et al., 2008 and 2010), which are dependent respectively on the hippocampus (HC) and the prefrontal cortex (PFC), would be less adept at creating, retaining, and extracting stories to aid their retrieval process. This could result in them remembering more generic integrated information, like the relationship between a fox and some generic image of a forest. We have added explanatory information to the manuscript to elucidate these points (see lines 225-230).

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) For Figure 3, I would highly recommend changing the aesthetics for the univariate data - at least on my screen they appear to be open boxes with solid vs. dashed lines, and as such look identical to the recent vs. remove distinction in Figure 2B. It also doesn't match the legend for me, which shows the age groups having purple vs. yellow coloring.

Thank you for this observation. We have adjusted Figure 2 (now Figure 3) (please refer to p. 14) accordingly, now utilizing purple and yellow colors to distinguish between the age groups.

(2) Lines 329-330, it is not true that "all" indices were significant from zero but this is only apparent if you read the next sentence. Please rephrase to clarify. e.g., "All ... indices with a few exceptions ... were significantly..."?

Based on the above suggestions and considering our primary focus on time-related changes in scene-specific reinstatement, we will refrain from further interpreting the relative expression of individual scene-specific indices against 0. Consequently, we have removed this information from our analysis.

(3) It is challenging to interpret some of the significance markers, such as those in Figure 3. For example what effects are being denoted by the asterisks and bars above vs. below the data on panel D? Please clarify and/or note in the legend.

We have included a note in the legend to clarify the meaning of all significance markers. In addition, we decided to state any significant main and interaction effects in the figure rather that to use significance markers.

(4) For Figures 2 and 3, only the meaning of error bars is described in the caption. It is not explained in the caption what the boxes, lines, and points denote. Please clarify.

Thank you for highlighting this. We have added explanations to the figure's annotation for clarity. Please note, that considering other review’s suggestions figure plots may have been adjusted or changed, resulting in adjustment of the explanations in the figure annotation.

(5) How were recent and remote interspersed relative to one another? The text says that each run had 10 recent and 10 remote pairs, presented in a "pseudo-random order" - not clear what that (pseudo) means in this case. Please clarify.

Thank you for raising this point. We provide this information in the Methods section “Materials and Procedure”: 'The jitters and the order of presentation for recent and remote items were determined using OptimizeXGUI (Spunt, 2016), following an exponential distribution (Dale, 1999). Ten unique recently learned pairs (from the same testing day) and ten unique remotely learned items (from Day 0) were distributed within each run (in total three runs) in the order as suggested by the software as the most optimal. There were three runs with unique sets of stimuli each resulting in thirty unique recent and thirty unique remote stimuli overall.'

(6) Figure 1A, second to last screen on the learning cycles row - what would be presented to participants here, one of these three emojis? What does the sleepy face represent? I see some of these points were mentioned in the methods, but additional clarification in the caption would be helpful.

Thank you for highlighting this. We have included this information in the figure caption. Specifically, the sleepy face symbol in the figure denotes a 'missed response'.

(7) Not clear how the jittered fixation time between object presentation and scene test is dealt with in representational similarity analyses.

Thank you for pointing this out. Beta estimates were obtained from a Least Square Separate (LSS) regression model. Each event was modeled with their respective onset and duration and, as such, one beta value was estimated per event (with the lags between events differing from trial to trial). We have edited the corresponding section (see p. 53).  

(8) It was a little bit strange to have used anterior vs posterior HPC ROIs separately in univariate analysis but then combined them for multivariate. There are many empirical and theoretical motivations for looking at item-specific and category reinstatement in anterior and posterior HPC separately, so I was surprised not to see this. Please explain this reasoning.

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the reviewer and included the anterior and posterior HC ROIs into the multivariate analysis. Please see the revised results section (pp. 13-15).

(9) The term "neural specificity" is introduced (line 164) without explanation; please clarify.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The term ‘neural specificity’ refers to the neural representational distinctiveness of information. In other words, ‘neural specificity,’ as defined by Fandakova et al. (2019), refers to the distinctiveness of neural representations in the regions that process that sensory input. We decided, however to refrain from using this term and instead to use neural representational distinctiveness, which is more self-explaining and was also introduced in the manuscript.

(10) Age range is specified as 5-7 years initially (line 187) and then 6-7 years (line 188).

We have corrected the age range in line 188 to '5 to 7 years.'

Reviewer #2 (Public Reviews):

Schommartz et al. present a manuscript characterizing neural signatures of reinstatement during cued retrieval of middle-aged children compared to adults. The authors utilize a paradigm where participants learn the spatial location of semantically related item-scene memoranda which they retrieve after short or long delays. The paradigm is especially strong as the authors include novel memoranda at each delayed time point to make comparisons across new and old learning. In brief, the authors find that children show more forgetting than adults, and adults show greater engagement of cortical networks after longer delays as well as stronger item-specific reinstatement. Interestingly, children show more category-based reinstatement, however, evidence supports that this marker may be maladaptive for retrieving episodic details. The question is extremely timely both given the boom in neurocognitive research on the neural development of memory, and the dearth of research on consolidation in this age group. Also, the results provide novel insights into why consolidation processes may be disrupted in children. Despite these strengths, there are quite a few important design and analytical choices that derail my enthusiasm for the paper. If the authors could address these concerns, this manuscript would provide a solid foundation to better understand memory consolidation in children.

We thank the reviewer for both the positive and critical appraisal of our paper.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) My greatest concern is the difference in memory accuracy that emerges as soon as immediate learning, which undermines the interpretation of any consolidation-related differences. This concern is two-fold. The authors utilize an adaptive learning approach in which participants learn to criteria or stop after 4 repetitions. This type of approach leads to children seeing the stimuli more often during learning compared to adults, which on its own could have consequences for consolidation-related neural markers. Specifically, within adults theoretical and empirical work this shows that repeating information can actually lead to more gist-like representations, which is the exact profile the children are showing. While there could be a strength to this approach because it allows for equivocal memory, the decision to stop repetitions before criteria means that memory performance is significantly lower in the children, which again could have consequences to consolidation-related neural markers. First, the authors do not show any of the learning-related data which would be critical to assess the impact of this design choice. Second, there are likely differences in memory strength at the delay, making it extremely difficult to determine if the neural markers reflect development, worse memory strength, or both. This issue is compounded by the use of a 3-AFC paradigm, wherein "correct responses" included in the analysis could contain a significant amount of guessing responses. I think a partial solution to this problem is to analyze the RT data and include them in the analyses or use a drift-diffusion modeling approach to get more precise estimates of memory strength to control for this feature. An alternative is to sub-select participants in each group to have a sample matched on performance (including # of repetitions) and re-run all the analyses in this sub-sample. Without addressing these concerns it is near impossible to interpret the presented data.

Thank you for highlighting this point.

Firstly, we believe that our approach, involving strategic and repeated learning coupled with feedback, enhances the formation of detailed contextual memories. The retrieval procedure also emphasized the need for detailed memory for location. These are critical differences in experimental procedure from previous studies, which enhanced the importance of detailed representations and likely reduced the likelihood of forming gist-like memories.

Indeed, we ceased further learning after the fourth repetition. Extensive piloting, where we initially stopped after the seventh repetition, showed no improvement beyond the fourth repetition. In fact, performance tended to decline due to fatigue. Therefore, we limited the number of repetition cycles to the point where an improvement of performance was still feasible. Even though children exhibited lower final learning performance overall, we believe our procedure facilitated them to reach their maximal performance within the experimental setup.

To address the reviewer’s concern, we included learning data to illustrate the progression of learning (see Fig. 1C, pp. 9-10 in Results).

When interpreting the retention rates, it is important to note that we reported retention rates only for items that were correctly learned (100%) on day 0, day 1, and day 14. This approach meant that different participants had varying numbers of items learned correctly. However, this method enabled us to address our primary question: whether memory consolidation, based on all items initially encoded successfully, is comparably robust between the groups. To simultaneously examine the change in retention rate slopes over time for recent (30 minutes after learning), short delay (one night after) remote, and long delay (two weeks after) remote items, we conducted a separate analysis of retention rates for recent items on days 1 and 14. After observing no differences between sessions in both age groups, we combined the data for recent items. This allowed us to investigate how the slope of memory retention for initially correctly learned items (with a baseline of 100%) changes over time. We observed a significant interaction between item type (recent, short delay remote, long delay remote) and group. Analysis of this interaction revealed significantly less robust memory consolidation across all delay times for children compared to young adults. The figures have been adjusted accordingly to incorporate the baseline of 100% correct performance.

Following your suggestion, we also employed the drift diffusion model approach to characterize memory strength, calculating drift rate, boundary and non-decision time parameters. We added the results to the Supplementary Materials (section S2.1, Figure S1).

Generally, our findings indicate lower overall drift rate in children when considering all items that had to be learned. We also observed that adults show higher slope of decline in drift rate in short and long delay, which, however, are characterized still by higher memory strength compared to children. Both age groups required similar amount of evidence to make decision, which declined with delay. It may indicate an adaptation of weaker memory. Further, we observed lesser non-decision time in children compared to adults, potentially suggesting less error checking or less thorough processing and memory access through strategy in children.

Overall, these results indicate weaker memory strength in children as a quantitative measure. It may nevertheless stem from qualitatively different memory representations that children form, as our RSA findings suggest. We believe that our neural effect reflects the effect of interest (i.e., worse memory due to lower memory strength in children). When controlled for, it will take away variance of interest in the neural data. Therefore, we will refrain from including memory strength into the model. However, we will include mean RT as the indicator of general response tendencies.

Given that the paper is already very complex and long, we opted to add the diffusion model results to the Supplementary Materials (section S2.1, Fig. S1), while discussing the results in the discussion (p. 35).

(2) More discussion of the behavioral task should be included in the results, in particular the nature of the adaptive learning paradigm including the behavioral results as well as the categorical nature of the memoranda. Without this information, it is difficult for the reader to understand what category-level versus item-level reinstatement reflects.

Thank you for this valuable input. We have incorporated this information into the results section. Please refer to pp. 9-10, 12, 14, 21, 25-26 for the added details.

(3) Some of the methods for the reinstatement analysis were unclear to me or warranted further adjustment. I believe the authors compared the scene against all other scenes. I believe it would be more appropriate to only compare this against scenes drawn from the same category as opposed to all scenes. Secondly, from my reading, it seems like the reinstatement was done during the scene presentation, rather than the object presentation in which they would retrieve the scene. I believe the reinstatement results would be much stronger if it was captured during the object presentation rather than the re-presentation of the scene. Or perhaps both sets of analyses should be included.

We apologize for the confusion regarding the analysis method.

During the review process we have improved the description of this analysis and hope it is easier to follow now. In short, we used both approaches (within and between categories) to suit different goals (I.e., measuring scene-reinstatement and gist-like reinstatement).

Both types of reinstatement were assessed during the fixation cross to avoid confounds with the object itself being on the screen. We only used the scene window in one analysis (scene-reinstatement index) as a neural template to track its pre-activation during the fixation. So, as the reviewer suggests, our rationale is that the reinstatement indeed starts taking place at the short object presentation window, but importantly, extends to the fixation window. We added this clarifying information to the results section (see p. 21-27).

(4) For the univariate results, it was unclear to me when reading the results whether they were focusing on the object presentation portion of the trial or the scene presentation portion of the trial. Again, I think the claims of reinstatement related activity would be stronger if they accounted for the object presentation period.

Thank you for pointing this out. Indeed, the univariate results were based on the object presentation time window. We added this information to the results section (Fig. 3, pp. 14, 16).

(5) Further, given the univariate differences shown across age groups, the authors should re-run all analyses for the RSA controlling for mean activation within the ROI.

Thank you for highlighting this. We re-ran all analysis for the RSA controlling for the mean activation within the ROI. The results remained unchanged. We have added this information to the results section as well as in Table S8 and S11 in the Supplementary Materials for further details.

(6) The authors should include explicit tests across groups for their brain-behavior analyses if they want to make any developmentally relevant interpretations of the data. Also, It would be helpful to include similar analyses to those using the univariate signals, and not just the RSA results.

Following reviewer’s suggestion, we included brain-behavior analyses for univariate data as well as RSA data with explicit tests across groups. These can be found in the Results Section pp. 18-20, 28-32. Due to the interdependence of predefined ROIs and to avoid running a high number of correlation tests, we employed the partial least square correlation analysis for this purpose. This approach focuses on multivariate links between specified Regions of Interest (ROIs) and fluctuations in memory performance over short and long delays across different age cohorts. We argue that this multivariate strategy offers a more comprehensive understanding of the relationships between brain metrics across various ROIs and memory performance, given their mutual dependence and connectivity (refer to Genon et al. (2022) for similar discussions).

(7) There could be dramatic differences in memory processing across 5-7 year olds. I know the sample is a little small for this, but I would like to see regressions done within the middle childhood group in addition to the across-group comparisons.

We have included information detailing the relationship between memory retention rate and age within the child group (refer to p. 13). In the child group, both recent and short delay remote memory improved with age. However, the retention rate for long-delayed memory did not show a significant improvement with increasing age in children.

(8) I am concerned that the authors used global-signal as a regressor in their first-level analyses, given that there could be large changes in the amount of univariate activation that occurs across groups. This approach can lead to false positives and negatives that obscure localized differences. The authors should remove this term, and perhaps use the mean sum of the white matter or CSF to achieve the noise regressor they wanted to include.

We understand the reviewers' concerns. However, we believe that our approach is recommended for the pediatric population. Specifically, Graff et al., 2021, found that global signal regression is a highly efficacious denoising technique in their study of 4 to 8-year-old children. This technique was previously suggested for adults by Ciric et al., 2017, and the benefits in terms of motion and physiological noise removal outweigh the potential costs of removing some signal of interest, as indicated by Behzadi et al., 2007. Additionally, we incorporated the six anatomic component-based noise correction (CompCor) to account for WM and CSF signals, as recommended in the pediatric literature.

(9) The authors discuss the relationship between hippocampal reactivation and worse memory through the lens of Schapiro et al., but a new paper by Tanriverdi et al came out in JOCN recently that is more similar to the authors' findings.

Thank you for highlighting the recent paper by Tanriverdi et al. in JOCN, which aligns closely with our findings. We appreciate the suggestion and agree that exploring this alignment could further enrich our discussion on the relationship between hippocampal reactivation and memory retention. We incorporated this work in our revised manuscript .

Minor Comments

- I was surprised that the authors did not see any differences in univariate signals for memory retrieval as a function of development, as much of the prior work has shown differences (for example work by Tracy Riggins). I believe this contrast should be highlighted in the discussion.

- Given the robust differences in sleep patterns across childhood and the role of sleep in systems consolidation framework, I think this feature should be highlighted in either the introduction or discussion.

- Could the authors report on differences (or lack of differences) in head motion across the groups, and if they are different whether they could include them as a confounding variable.

I believe we included six motion parameters and their derivatives into the model

Thank you for your comments.

First, prior works on univariate signals of memory retrieval focused mostly on remembered vs forgotten contrasts, while in our study we focused on remote vs recent in short and long delay only for correctly remembered items. This can partially explain the results. We highlighted this information in the discussion session.

Second, we agree with the reviewer that sleep patterns across childhood should be addressed in the analysis. Therefore, we incorporated them in the discussion section.

Third, indeed head motion were included in the analysis as confounding variables, as adding them is highly recommended for the developmental population (e.g., Graff et al. 2021). As an example, we observed higher framewise displacement in children compared to adults, t = -16(218), p <. 001, as well as in translational y, t = -2.33(288), p = .02.

Reviewer #3 (Public Reviews):

Summary:

This study aimed to understand the neural correlates of memory recall over short (1-day) and long (14-days) intervals in children (5-7 years old) relative to young adults. The results show that children recall less than young adults and that this is accompanied by less activation (relative to young adults) in brain networks associated with memory retrieval.

Strengths:

This paper is one of few investigating long-term memory (multiple days) in a developmental population, an important gap in the field. Also, the authors apply a representational similarity analysis to understand how specific memories evolve over time. This analysis shows how the specificity of memories decreases over time in children relative to adults. This is an interesting finding.

We thank the reviewer for the appraisal of our manuscript.

Weaknesses:

Overall, these results are consistent with what we already know: recall is worse in children relative to adults (e.g., Cycowicz et al., 2001) and children activate memory retrieval networks to a lesser extent than adults (Bauer et al, 2017).

It seems that the reduced activation in memory recall networks is likely associated with less depth of memory encoding in children due to inattentiveness, reduced motivation, and documented differences in memory strategies. In regard to this, there was consideration of IQ, sex, and handedness but these were not included as covariates as they were not significant although I note p<.16 suggests there was some level of association nonetheless. Also, IQ is measured differently for the children and adults so it's not clear these can be directly contrasted. The authors suggest the instructed elaborative encoding strategy is effective for children and adults but the reference in support of this (Craik & Tulving, 1975) does not seem to support this point.

Thank you for your review, and we appreciate your valuable feedback. Here are our responses and clarifications:

Regarding the novelty of the results in terms of mentioned existent literature, we believe that in contrast to Cycowicz et al. (2001) and Bauer et al (2017), etc, we assess not only immediate memory after encoding with semantic judgement of abstract associations, but add to these findings investigating consolidation-related changes in complex associative and contextual information in much under investigated sample of 5-to-7-year-old preschoolers. With this we are able to infer also how neural representations of children change over time, providing invaluable insights into knowledge formation in this developmental cohort.

With this, the observed age differences are not so of primary importance, as time-related changes in mnemonic representations observed in children.

Regarding the assumption of inattentiveness in children, we want to emphasize that the experimenter was present throughout the learning process, closely supervising the children. We observed prompt responses to every trial in children and noted an increase in accuracy over the encoding-learning cycles, leading us to conclude that the children were indeed attentive to the task. The observed accuracy improvement across learning cycles  indicates increase in remembered information. Furthermore, we took measures to ensure their engagement, including extensive training in both verbal and computerized versions to ensure that they understood and actively created stories to support their learning.

We collected motivation data after each task execution in children, and the results indicated that they scored high in motivation. Children not only completed the tasks but also expressed their willingness to participate in subsequent appointments, highlighting their active involvement in the study.

The observed differences in the efficiency of strategy utilization were expected, given developmental differences in the associative and strategic components of memory in children, as noted in prior research (Shing, 2008, 2010).

We appreciate your point about IQ, sex, and handedness. These variables were indeed included in the behavioral models, and mean brain activation was also included in the brain data models, addressing the potential influence of these factors on our results.

While it's true that we applied different tests to measure IQ in children and adults, these tests targeted comparable subtests that addressed similar cognitive constructs. As the final IQ values are standardized, we believe it is appropriate to compare them between the two groups.

Lastly, we agree that the citation Craik & Tulving, 1975 supports the notion of effectiveness of instructed elaborative learning only in adults, but not in children. For this purpose, we added relevant literature for the child cohort (i.e., Pressley, 1982; Pressley et al., 1981; Shing et al., 2008).

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

An additional point for the authors to consider is that the hypotheses were uncertain. The first is that prefrontal, parietal, cerebellar, occipital, and PHG brain regions would have greater activation over time in adults and not children - which is very imprecise as this is basically the whole brain. Moreover, brain imaging data may be in opposition to this prediction: e.g., the hippocampus has a delayed maturational pattern beyond 5-yrs (e.ge., Canada 2019; Uematsu 2012) and some cortical data predicts earlier development in these regions.

Thank you for your feedback, and we appreciate your insights regarding our hypotheses.

The selection of our regions of interest (ROIs) was guided by prior literature that has demonstrated the interactive involvement of multiple brain areas in memory retrieval and consolidation processes. Additionally, our recent work utilizing multivariate partial least square correlation analysis (Schommartz, 2022, Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience) has indicated that unique profiles derived from the structural integrity of multiple brain regions are differentially related to short and long-delay memory consolidation.

Indeed, the literature suggests that the hippocampus may exhibit a more delayed maturational pattern extending into adolescence, as supported by studies such as Canada (2019) and Uematsu (2012), etc. We added this information as well as findings from the literature on cortical development to be more balanced in our review of the literature.

Given this complexity, we believe it is important to emphasize in our discussion that both the medial temporal lobe, including the hippocampus, and cortical structures, as well as the cerebellum, undergo profound neural maturation. We highlight these nuances in our revised manuscript to provide a more comprehensive perspective on the developmental differences in memory retention over time.

The writing was challenging to follow - consider as an example on page 9 the sentence that spans 10 lines of text.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and have made efforts to streamline the text, ensuring that sentences are not overly long or complex to improve readability and comprehension.

I found the analysis (and accompanying figures) a bit of a data mine - there are so many results that are hard to digest and in other cases highly redundant one from the other. This may be resolved in part by moving redundant findings to the supplemental. Some were hard to follow - so when there is a line between recent and recent data, that seems confusing to connect data that, I believe, are different sets of items. Later scatterplots (Fig 7) have pale yellow dots that I had a hard time seeing.

Thank you for bringing up your concerns regarding the analysis and figures in our manuscript. We have carefully considered your feedback and made several improvements to address these issues.

To alleviate the challenge of digesting numerous results, we have taken steps to enhance clarity and reduce redundancy. Specifically, we have moved some of the redundant findings to the supplementary sections, which should help streamline the main manuscript and make it more reader friendly.

Regarding the line between 'recent' and 'recent data,' figure were transformed to a clearer version. Furthermore, we have improved the visibility of certain elements, such as the pale-yellow dots in the scatterplots (Fig 1, 2, 4, etc. ), to ensure that readers can better discern the data points.

data provides ease to donors and gives them the tangibility about the growth from their funds, making it easier to communicate with the donors and ask for additional funding. A grassroots organisation frowns not just by numbers but the improvement qualitatively to the society they bring, this means that when it comes to M&E, it's not just important to have a systematic data collection in place but also a keep monitoring of qualitative improvement that the work of the NGO is bringing, and to formulate frameworks to monitor this growth and evaluate it. Giving it as much significance as quanitative data

This is so interesting to me. It's interesting because I want to know what all of the divisions are. I didn't know there could be that many divisions just in psychology.

reply to u/67comet at https://www.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1e4hu0s/smith_corona_electra_120_ribbon_carrier_not_moving/

That piece is called a ribbon vibrator which moves the ribbon up and down. They generally operate on gravity and as a result they need to be clean and free from oil, gunk, hair, dust, etc. Usually they slide up and down freely. There's a colloquial saying in the typewriter space that "A typewriter isn't really broken unless it's clean and broken."

Occasionally ribbon vibrators can become bent which makes them inoperable and this can be remedied with some light forming (bending) with an appropriate screwdriver or needle nosed plier. You can search YouTube and you'll find a variety of videos for cleaning and forming these back into shape so that they slide cleanly.

As for your missing 1/! slug, it's unlikely that you'll find someone selling just the slug itself and then you'll need to solder it on perfectly and/or adjust it slightly with appropriate tools to get the right alignment. Far better is to check around with repair shops that might have the same or similar machines which they're parting out and then you could request one. Your best bet is to purchase the entire typebar and slug assembly from a donor machine which you can then swap out into your machine and skip the soldering. For this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFMu6dUROGA can give you tips.

To find donor machines, try repair shops on this list: https://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/tw-repair.html

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Reply to the reviewers

Manuscript number: RC-2024-02516

Corresponding author(s): Christopher Shoemaker

__1. __General Statements [optional]

Thank you to all the reviewers for their helpful efforts on behalf of our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort they have invested in providing valuable feedback.

Overall, the positive reception from our reviewers highlighted their appreciation for our approach and findings. Moreover, their comments underscored the relevance and potential impact of our findings, particularly within the fields of autophagy and protein interaction networks. Their detailed and constructive critiques will also help refine both the content and presentation of our work.

In response to the reviews, we have proposed targeted revisions to the manuscript, all of which are well within our lab's capabilities and can be executed efficiently. We have detailed our responses to each specific point raised by the reviewers below. * *

• *

__2. __Description of the planned revisions

• *

Reviewer #1

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

1. EVIDENCE, REPRODUCIBILITY AND CLARITY Summary:

Selective autophagy receptors (SARs) of the Sequestosome-1 like receptor group (SLRs) including SQSTM1(Sequestosome-1)/p62, NBR1, TAX1BP1, NDP52, CALCOCO1 and Optineurin are soluble SARs that engage cargo and ATG8 family proteins as well as components of the core autophagy machinery like FIP200/RBCC1 to bring about the autophagic degradation of the cargo and themselves. In the autophagic degradation of protein aggregates (aggrephagy) the most studied SAR p62 collaborates with the archetypal autophagy receptor NBR1 and also TAX1BP1 to bring about effective turnover of ubiquitinated cargos sequestered into p62 bodies or droplets by liquid-liquid phase separation. How this intricate co-operation of these SARs is orchestrated is incompletely understood. In the paper by North et al entitled "The LC3-interacting region of NBR1 is a protein interaction hub enabling optimal flux" the authors use peptide arrays to map the binding sites for ATG8-family proteins LC3A and GABARAPL1, FIP200 and TAX1BP1 to the autophagy receptor NBR1. The authors find that three short linear interaction motifs (SLiMs), the LIR, FIR and TIR interacting with ATG8 family proteins, FIP200 and TAX1BP1, respectively, partly overlap in a short region of NBR1 that can adopt different conformations to accommodate the different binding partners. In short, the different interactions are mediated by distinct overlapping determinants, rather than a single, convergent, SLiM. While the important binding determinants for ATG8 proteins and FIP200 show more overlap and it was not possible here to find mutations that distinguish LIR and FIR binding, TAX1BP1 bound more to a region downstream of the LIR and a specific mutation in NBR1 and in TAX1BP1 could abolish binding. Checking the role of phosphorylations in augmenting binding using phosphomimetic mutations it was seen that while FIP200 and Atg8-family binding were generally augmented by phosphorylation, TAX1BP1 binding did not respond to these mutations. Very interestingly, the authors found that co-expression of TAX1BP1 with tandem-tagged NBR1 in pentaKO cells (not expressing the SLRs p62, NBR1, NDP52, TAX1BP1 and OPTN) increased significantly the autophagic turnover of NBR1. None of the other SLRs could do this. Instead, this over-expression assay revealed a competition.

Major points:

1) In Fig 4 the peptide array binding assay is not sufficient as it is only semiquantitative. The data shown should be accompanied by a more direct binding assay allowing the determination of kDs for the binding where the WT peptides are directly compared to the phosphor mimicking mutant peptides. Here the fluorescence anisotropy assay the authors use in Suppl Fig. 1E or ITC, OctetRed96 or another assay suitable for kD determinations should be used.

Response: Thank you for the constructive comments regarding our peptide array binding assay. We agree that the semi-quantitative nature of this method limits its ability to provide detailed binding affinity measurements. To address this, we will purify multiple peptides and assess the binding affinities between phosphomimetic+/- LIR peptides and Atg8s, FIP200, and TAX1BP1. While testing all peptides may be cost and time prohibitive, we will prioritize a representative range for this validation effort.

2) As this paper is already dominated by the use of peptides it would significantly enhance the quality of the data if the authors had included studied with peptides phosphorylated at the specific positions to allow comparison with the phosphomimetic substitutions to aspartate.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comment. We agree that incorporating studies with peptides phosphorylated at specific positions could provide a more nuanced comparison with the phosphomimetic substitutions to aspartate. Previous studies, including Popelka and Klionsky (2022) and Kliche et al. (2022), have indeed suggested that phosphomimetic substitutions do not perfectly replicate phosphorylation events.

In response, we plan to order a peptide array containing phosphorylated peptides, not merely phosphomimetics, and will conduct additional experiments with TAX1BP1, FIP200, and LC3A. This approach will allow us to directly assess the effects of actual phosphorylation compared to phosphomimetic substitutions.

While we acknowledge the possibility of subtle differences in binding affinity or regulatory interactions, we anticipate that the primary conclusions of our study—namely, that TAX1BP1 is largely insensitive to phosphorylation, whereas FIP200 and LC3A binding activities are affected—will remain unchanged. These experiments will provide valuable data to confirm the robustness of our conclusions under the conditions of true phosphorylation.

3) The quality of the 2D peptide array probing of GST-LC3A binding in Fig 3A is poor. Is this a stripped and re-probed membrane? I do not think these data are publication quality and the experiment should be redone unless the authors have very good arguments against my suggestion. It would also be nice to see a 2D peptide array of GABARAPL1 binding too to make the comparative study complete.

Response: Thank you for your constructive feedback regarding the quality of the 2D peptide array probing of GST-LC3A in Figure 3A. As you rightly pointed out, the membrane was indeed stripped and reprobed, with LC3A being the final probe. This method sometimes introduces artifacts, such as the 'ring' effect observed, which are common with this technique. However, the results consistently aligned with established consensus sequences for LC3, reinforcing the reliability of our findings despite the suboptimal image quality.

Recognizing the concerns about the quality of the blot, we are prepared to repeat this experiment using a new commercial vendor, as our previous collaborator is no longer available. We anticipate some differences in the appearance of the blots due to changes in dot size and spacing from the new supplier. Given these variations, we propose adding the revised blot to the supplementary materials rather than the main figures to avoid disrupting the visual continuity of the data presentation.

Additionally, in response to the reviewer’s suggestion, we will include a 2D peptide array probing for GABARAPL1. This will enhance the comparative analysis within our study.

One alternative (related to Reviewer 3, comment 3) that we can deliver is using our LIR arrays to derive consensus sequences for LC3 binders and GABARAPL1 binders. In doing this, we find the same differences in LC3 and GABARAP binding preferences that were reported previously in Rogov et al 2017. Recovering these known, and somewhat subtle, differences in binding preference further bolster the validity of our approach.

4) For the data shown in Fig 6 it should be noted that although these are very interesting results a clear limitation of the study is that the results on the autophagic turnover is based on overexpressing the SLRs in the pentaKO cells. In a physiological setting with all relevant actors in place and with a different stoichiometry the effects could likely be different.

Response: We appreciate the observation regarding the limitations of our study due to the use of overexpressed SLRs in pentaKO cells. As the reviewer rightly points out, the stoichiometry and interaction dynamics in a physiological setting might differ significantly. Critically, after submission of this manuscript, a recent preprint by Sascha Martens’ group (Bauer et al. BioRxiv) has shown similar results using endogenously tagged p62, TAX1BP1, and NBR1. This study corroborates our results, suggesting that the interactions we observed are not merely artifacts of overexpression but reflect genuine biological phenomena. We will incorporate a detailed discussion of this study in the Discussion section of our manuscript to contextualize our findings within a more physiologically relevant framework.

Therefore, we believe that our reductionist approach, while not fully reflective of physiological conditions, offers valuable and generalizable insights into the intricate cooperation of SARs in autophagy.

Minor points:

1) It would be beneficial for the reader to show a cartoon of the domain organization of both TAX1BP1 and NBR1 in Figure 1. NBR1 is shown in supplemental figure 1, but there is no depiction of the domain organization of TAX1BP1.

Response: As suggested, a domain schematic for NBR1 and TAX1BP1 will be included.

2) The authors say at the bottom of page 4 "Complementary in vivo studies reveal that while SLRs typically compete". But do they actually typically compete? Is this not a result of the experimental strategies employed? There is more a shortage of SLRs based on cargo competition as shown recently by Peter Kim's group that excessive pexophagy may reduce mitophagy etc. (Germain et al. 2023).

Response: Thank you for pointing out this overstatement. We will soften this statement.

3) In Fig. 3D it should be shown that D, E, A and V are preferred residues at position +1 for LC3A binding.

Response: As suggested, we will amend the figure to include these residues at the +1 position.

4) In such a 2D mutational analysis it is often just as important to determine which residues are not allowed for binding. It would therefore be nice if the authors could summarize/visualize their results in a better way in Fig 3D to also show the residues that lead to loss of binding. These could be shown below the sequence and the use of color to distinguish basic, acidic, hydrophobic and aromatic residues could be attempted.

Response: As suggested, we will add to this figure to make it more comprehensive by including residues that are both preferred and lead to loss of binding. Furthermore, we have incorporated the use of color to distinguish the traits of different residues (basic, acidic, hydrophobic and aromatic) that are dis(favored) at each position.

5) Line 327: To be clear about the fact that this is an overexpression assay "simultaneous expression" should be corrected to simultaneous overexpression".

Response: We will make the suggested change.

6) There are LIRs and FIRs that overlap and those that do not. To check the degree of overlaps that may occur among known LIRs the authors made a peptide array with 100 established LIR sequences taken from the LIR-Central database (Chatzichristofi et al., 2023). The peptide array was probed with LC3A (29 bound), GABARAPL1 (49 bound), the FIP200 Claw domain (57 bound) and the TAX1BP1 CC2 domain (49 bound). As much as one third (32) of the LIR peptides were not bound by any of the four probes. Do the authors have a good explanation for the fact that so many peptides did not bind?

Response: Thank you for highlighting the significant number of LIR peptides that did not bind to any of the probes in our study. At first, we were similarly surprised by this. In our manuscript, we will expand on several factors that might explain this observation:

• Specificity of Atg8 Family Proteins: The LIR-Central database indicates that these sequences bind at least one Atg8-family protein, but not necessarily all. Our assay might not have included the specific Atg8 proteins that some LIRs preferentially bind.
• Peptide Solubility and Conformation: The solubility and conformational stability of peptides printed on an array can vary, affecting binding efficiency. Certain sequences may not adopt the optimal conformation for binding under these assay conditions.
• Sequence Context and Accessibility: The native context in which the LIR motif is contained, including neighboring amino acids, can influence binding. Peptide arrays strip these peptides of their physiological context. As short linear interaction motifs, the assumption is that context will not strongly affect binding, but it’s known that many LIRs adopt partially structured motifs that influence binding (e.g. a C-terminal helix). Our peptide array approach is likely to impede such secondary structures from forming and may limit binding.
• Misannotated sequences. The LIRs included from the database have varying levels of validation. Some sequences might be misannotated and, therefore, do not bind any of the probes. These discussion points will be included in the manuscript to provide a comprehensive explanation for the observed data.

7) Strangely enough, the NBR1 peptide used in Figure 2A did not bind any of the probes while the NBR1 peptides used in Fig. 1C bound very well. Do the authors have any explanation for this?

Response: Thank you for noting the discrepancy in NBR1 peptide binding observed in Figure 2A compared to Figure 1C. This observation was noted by all reviewers. The difference likely arises from the solubility issues associated with the NBR1 peptide in the format used for Figure 2A, where the peptide sequence included the LIR motif plus 10 amino acids on each side. The core LIR sequence of NBR1 (YIII) is highly hydrophobic, which can affect its solubility and, consequently, its observed binding in our peptide array.

To overcome this, we optimized the LIR sequence of NBR1 for peptide arrays (amino acids 725-749), which includes seven residues before the LIR and 14 residues after. This shift enhanced solubility and facilitated more reliable probing in our experiments (notably Fig 3). In Fig2A and other assays, both the standard and the optimized formats of the NBR1 LIR were included: the standard format to maintain consistency with other LIRs extracted from the LIR-Central database and the optimized version as a control to validate our results.

We will detail this explanation in the manuscript, clarifying the rationale behind the observed binding differences.

Significance

SIGNIFICANCE

I found this paper very interesting to read with a lot of interesting new detailed and useful information on binding specificity for the proteins and motifs involved. It is a generally well performed study with interesting results. I also very much enjoyed the Discussion section which opens up for several interesting possible scenarios. The study also produced important point mutants that can be used in future studies to selectively abolish TAX1BP1 binding to NBR1. I think this is a "must read" paper for researchers interested in selective autophagy and co-operation between SARs, and more generally for getting some insight into how SLiMs may work. As such, this paper will be of interest for all interested in autophagy research and for a wider audience too as it is in essence about how overlapping SLiMs may be employed to orchestrate multiple protein-protein interactions using distinct overlapping determinants, rather than a single, convergent, SLiM. It is also one of the very few papers I have come across exploiting the power of the peptide array method so extensively with success for mapping protein binding sites.

It could perhaps be interesting if the authors discussed their results in relation to another study from the group of Sascha Martens on the role of TAX1BP1 in p62 bodies or condensates (doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.17.594671). These two papers should be read together as they are both very interesting and important contributions.

Response: Thank you for pointing out this important reference that was posted shortly after our manuscript was submitted. As mentioned above, we will include an expanded discussion section to discuss these corroborating findings. We will also include a citation to Ferrari et al (PMID: ) on Tau evasion of autophagy through exclusion of TAX1BP1.

Reviewer #2

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

Summary In this manuscript, North et al. examined how short linear interaction motifs (SLiMs) help to orchester selective autophagy receptors (SARs) function during cargo engulfment in autophagosomes. In particular, the authors focused on NBR1 as a model SAR to address the role of its role in the clearance of protein aggregates (aggrephagy). Using binding assays, the authors showed that a SLiM harboring NBR1's LIR motif also mediates binding to FIP200 and TAX1BP1. Intrigued by these overlapping binding sites, the authors probed 100 LIRs for their binding to TAX1BP1's coiled-coil 2 region (CC2), FIP200's claw domain and two different ATG8 family members and found heterogenous binding pattern and distinct correlation between these four binding partners. Using mutational peptide arrays of NBR1's SLiM, the authors revealed unique binding determinants of these NBR1 partners and their potential differential regulation by phosphorylation. Taking advantage of their new NBR1 binding insights, the authors structurally modeled the binding of TAX1BP1's CC2 to NBR1's SLiM and identified crucial residues in both proteins for this interaction. Lastly, the authors turned to autophagy flux assays in cells and showed that TAX1BP1 acts synergistically with NBR1 to increase its lysosomal delivery. Overall, the claims and the conclusions are largely supported by the data. However, a few critical issues should be addressed.

Are the data and the methods presented in such a way that they can be reproduced?

Are the experiments adequately replicated and statistical analysis adequate?

Major comments

1) What are the expression levels of the different tf-SAR fusions compared to the endogenous levels of the respective SAR? And are tf-NBR1 protein levels changed upon co-expression of the other SARs?

__Response: __We appreciate the questions concerning the expression levels of tf-SAR fusions relative to the endogenous levels of the respective SARs, similar to inquiries from Reviewer 1 (major comment 4). In our study, the levels of tf-NBR1 are notably higher than the endogenous levels. Interestingly, we observed that the co-expression of autophagy-competent NBR1 and TAX1BP1 generally leads to a decrease in the levels of both proteins, likely due to enhanced autophagic turnover. This pattern is not seen with autophagy-deficient mutants, suggesting a functional interaction affecting protein stability.

Furthermore, a recent preprint by Sascha Martens’ group (Bauer et al., BioRxiv) has presented findings that echo our results using endogenously tagged versions of p62, TAX1BP1, and NBR1. This study supports our observations, indicating that the interactions and effects we report are not artifacts of overexpression but are reflective of genuine biological processes. These findings will be thoroughly discussed in the Discussion section of our manuscript to provide context for our results within a physiologically relevant framework.

Therefore, we believe that our reductionist approach, while not fully reflective of physiological conditions, offers valuable and generalizable insights into the intricate cooperation of SARs in autophagy.

2) Which of the 100 LIRs have been shown to specifically bind LC3A or GABARAPL1? The authors should include this information from the literature in Figure 2 (e.g., highlighted by color or else).

__Response: __Thank you for your suggestion to detail the specific interactions between the 100 LIRs and Atg8 homologs like LC3A and GABARAPL1 in Figure 2. While each LIR in the LIR-Central database has been validated, detailed information on which LIRs bind specific Atg8 homologs—and with what relative affinity—is often lacking in the literature. This gap makes it challenging to present comprehensive binding preferences in a visually coherent way within Figure 2.

Nevertheless, we recognize the value of such information. We plan to conduct a thorough literature review on all 100 LIRs included in our study. Should we find sufficient and reliable data regarding binding specificities, we will incorporate this into Figure 2, potentially using color coding or another method to highlight these relationships clearly.

We can also perform the reciprocal experiment by using our LIR arrays to derive consensus sequences for LC3 binders and GABARAPL1 binders. In doing this, we find the same differences in LC3 and GABARAP preferences that were reported previously in Rogov et al 2017. Recovering these known, and somewhat subtle, differences in binding preference further bolster the validity of our approach. These new data will be added to the manuscript.

3) How effective is the stripping of the peptide array? The authors should provide evidence that there is no carry over binding from sequential probing the array. As a control, the authors should at least repeat probing for the last binder in their sequential binding assay with a new peptide array that has not yet been incubated with a different binder and then stripped.

__Response: __This is an important question, related to Reviewer 1 (comment 3), as the stripping of the peptide array can be variably affective. Prior to performing any of the arrays included in this manuscript, we did several validation arrays to identify the proper ordering of probes (e.g. what proteins can be stripped, which cannot). FIP200 and TAX1BP1 probing was performed on fresh or successfully stripped blots. LC3A probing was done last, as there is substantial previous literature defining the LC3 motif. However, the results of the LC3A binding consistently aligned with established consensus sequences for LC3, reinforcing the reliability of our findings despite the stripping process. Therefore, while stripping sometimes introduces artifacts, such as the 'ring effect’ observed in Figure 3A, the results did not appear to be influenced by prior probes.

As suggested, we are prepared to repeat the LC3A probing on a new array to fully cement this interpretation. We note, however, that this will be done using a new commercial vendor, as our previous collaborator is no longer available (The original blots were ordered over 3 years ago). We anticipate some differences in the appearance of the blots due to changes in dot size and spacing from the new supplier. Given these variations, we propose adding the revised blot to the supplementary materials rather than the main figures to avoid disrupting the visual continuity of the data presentation.

4) What is the number of replicates for the peptide array assays?

__Response: __Due to cost considerations, peptide array assays in our study were conducted as one or two replicates. We understand the limitations this presents in terms of statistical robustness and variability assessment. However, where possible, we supplemented these assays with additional validation experiments and controls to ensure reliability of our findings. For critical experiments, including key interaction validations, we used independent biochemical assays to confirm the results obtained from the peptide arrays.

5) The authors should test whether the enhancement of NBR1 flux by TAX1BP1 is only due to the contribution of an additional LIR or potential other functions of TAX1BP1 (e.g. ubiquitin binding or FIP200 binding). The authors should expand the panel shown in Figure 6E with TAX1BP1 mutant which are deficient in ubiquitin or FIP200 binding.

__Response: __We thank the reviewer for their suggestion. We will include data with TAX1BP1 mutants that are deficient in ubiquitin or FIP200 binding

Minor comments

6) Molecular weight markers are missing on immunoblots.

__Response: __We apologize for this oversight. We will amend figure to include molecular weight markers.

7) It would be more informative (since some proteins have more than one LIR) if the actual LIR motif would be displayed next to the peptide array (as e.g. done for NBR1) and not only in the supplements.

__Response: __We appreciate this thoughtful input and will consider its implementation carefully. We will explore the feasibility of integrating this detail in a manner that maintains figure clarity.

8) Along this line in Figure 2A, NBR1's LIR (marked with a red star) is among the LIRs for which no binding was observed. The authors should explain this.

Response: Thank you for noting the discrepancy in NBR1 peptide binding observed in Figure 2A compared to Figure 1C. This observation was noted by all reviewers. The difference likely arises from the solubility issues associated with the NBR1 peptide in the format used for Figure 2A, where the peptide sequence included the LIR motif plus 10 amino acids on each side. The core LIR sequence of NBR1 (YIII) is highly hydrophobic, which can affect its solubility and, consequently, its observed binding in our peptide array.

To overcome this, we optimized the LIR sequence of NBR1 for peptide arrays (amino acids 725-749), which includes seven residues before the LIR and 14 residues after. This shift enhanced solubility and facilitated more reliable probing in our experiments (notably Fig 3). In Fig2A and other assays, both the standard and the optimized formats of the NBR1 LIR were included: the standard format to maintain consistency with other LIRs extracted from the LIR-Central database and the optimized version as a control to validate our results.

We will detail this explanation in the manuscript, clarifying the rationale behind the observed binding differences.

Significance

Collectively, the work of North and colleagues provide valuable new mechanistic insights into the network of interaction that governs the function of SARs. Importantly, this works extends the knowledge in the field that SARs are acting in an orchestrated manner which reinforces their delivery to lysosomes. However, given the involvement of several SARs in the same process, it is crucial to dissect the binding modalities among these factors. In this regard, the current study on fine mapping binding sites provides an important contribution. In particular, in probing the in vitro findings in reconstituted KO cells. This part is really strong. In addition, the identification of critical residues for these bindings events represents important tools for the autophagy community which will be among the basic research audience most interested in this technical study.

__ __

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

I'll begin by summarizing what I understand from the results presented, and where relevant how my understanding seems to differ from the authors' claims. I'll then make specific comments with respect to points raised in my previous review (below), using the same numbering. Because this is a revision I'll try to restrict comments here to the changes made, which provide some clarification, but leave many issues incompletely addressed.

As I understand it the main new result here is that certain recurrent network architectures promote emergence of coordinated grid firing patterns in a model previously introduced by Kropff and Treves (Hippocampus, 2008). The previous work very nicely showed that single neurons that receive stable spatial input could 'learn' to generate grid representations by combining a plasticity rule with firing rate adaptation. The previous study also showed that when multiple neurons were synaptically connected their grid representations could develop a shared orientation, although with the recurrent connectivity previously used this substantially reduced the grid scores of many of the neurons. The advance here is to show that if the initial recurrent connectivity is consistent with that of a line attractor then the network does a much better job of establishing grid firing patterns with shared orientation.

Beyond this point, things become potentially confusing. As I understand it now, the important influence of the recurrent dynamics is in establishing the shared orientation and not in its online generation. This is clear from Figure S3, but not from an initial read of the abstract or main text. This result is consistent with Kropff and Treves' initial suggestion that 'a strong collateral connection... from neuron A to neuron B... favors the two neurons to have close-by fields... Summing all possible contributions would result in a field for neuron B that is a ring around the field of neuron A.' This should be the case for the recurrent connections now considered, but the evidence provided doesn't convincingly show that attractor dynamics of the circuit are a necessary condition for this to arise. My general suggestion for the authors is to remove these kind of claims and to keep their interpretations more closely aligned with what the results show.

We would like to clarify that the simple (flexible) attractor is a weaker condition than the ones previously used to align grid cells. However, by no means we claim that it is a necessary condition for grid maps to align. Other architectures, certainly more complex ones but perhaps even simpler ones, can align grid maps in our model.

Major (numbered according to previous review)

(1) Does the network maintain attractor dynamics after training? Results now show that 'in a trained network without feedforward Hebbian learning the removal of recurrent collaterals results in a slight increase in gridness and spacing'. This clearly implies that the recurrent collaterals are not required for online generation of the grid patterns. This point needs to be abundantly clear in the abstract and main text so the reader can appreciate that the recurrent dynamics are important specifically during learning.

We respectfully disagree with the interpretation of this result. In this model cells self-organize to produce aligned grid maps. In such systems it makes sense to characterize the equilibrium states of the system. We turned learning off in Figure S3 to show that the recurrent connections have a contractive effect on grid spacing. But artificially turning off learning means that one can no longer make claims about the equilibrium states of the system, since it can no longer evolve freely. In a functional network, if the recurrent attractor is removed, the system will evolve towards poor gridness and no alignment no matter what the starting point is, as also shown in Figure S3. Several experimental results invite us to think of grid cells as the equilibrium solution of a series of constraints that is ready to change at any time: Barry et al, 2012; Yoon et al, 2013; Carpenter et al, 2015; Krupic et al, 2015; Krupic et al, 2018; Jayakumar et al, 2019.

One point in which we perhaps agree with the reviewer is that information about the hexagonal maps is kept in the feedforward weights, while behavior and the recurrent collaterals act as constraints of which these feedforward weights are the equilibrium solution.

(2) Additional controls for Figure 2 to test that it is connectivity rather than attractor dynamics (e.g. drawing weights from Gaussian or exponential distributions). The authors provide one additional control based on shuffling weights. However, this is far from exhaustive and it seems difficult on this basis to conclude that it is specifically the attractor dynamics that drive the emergence of coordinated grid firing.

Again, we do not claim that this is the only way in which grid maps can be aligned, but it is the simplest one proposed so far. We were asked if it was the specific combination of input weights to a cell rather than the organization provided by the attractor which resulted in aligned maps. By shuffling the inputs to a cell we keep the combination of inputs invariant but lose the attractor architecture. Since grid maps in this new situation are not aligned, we can safely conclude that it is not the combination of inputs per se, but the specific organization of these inputs that allows grid alignment. It is not fully clear to us what ‘exhaustive’ means in this context.

(3) What happens if recurrent connections are turned off? The new data clearly show that the recurrent connections are not required for online grid firing, but this is not clear from the abstract and is hard to appreciate from the main text.

This point is related to (1). Absent this constraint, Figure S3 shows that the system evolves toward larger spacing, with poorer gridness and no alignment.

(4) This is addressed, although the legend to Fig. S2D could provide an explanation / definition for the y-axis values.

We have now added: Mean input fields are the sum of all inputs of a given kind entering a neuron at a given moment in time, averaged across cells and time.

(5) Given the 2D structure of the network input it perhaps isn't surprising that the network generates 2D representations and this may have little to do with its 1D connectivity. The finding that the networks maintain coordinated grids when recurrent connections are switched off supports my initial concern and the authors explanation, to me at least, remain confusing. I think it would be helpful to consider that the connectivity is specifically important for establishing the coordinated grid firing, but that the online network does not require attractor dynamics to generate coordinated grid firing.

This point is related to (1) and (3). We agree with the reviewer that the input lies within a 2D manifold, but this is not something that the network has to find out because it receives one datapoint of information at a time. This alone is not enough to form aligned grid cells, since each grid cell can find a roughly equivalent equilibrium in a different direction. It is only the constraint imposed by the recurrent collaterals that aligns grid maps, and, as we show, this constraint does not need to be constructed ad hoc to work on 2D, as previously thought. When recurrent connections are switched off, the system evolves toward unaligned grid maps, with larger spacing and lower gridness. Regarding the results obtained after modifying the network and turning off learning, we think they have a very limited scope (in this case showing the contractive effect of recurrent collaterals on grid spacing), given that the system is artificially being kept out of its natural equilibrium.

(6) Clarity of the introduction. This is somewhat clearer, but I wonder if it would be hard for someone not familiar with the literature to accurately appreciate the key points.

We have made our best effort to improve the clarity of the introduction.

(7) Remapping. I'm not sure why this is ill posed. It seems the proposed model can not account for remapping results (e.g. Fyhn et al. 2007). Perhaps the authors could just clearly state this as a limitation of the model (or show that it can do this).

We view our model as perfectly consistent with Fyhn et al, 2007. Remapping is not triggered by the network itself, though, but rather by a re-arrangement of the inputs requiring the network to learn new associations. Different simulations of the same model with identical parameters can be interpreted as remapping experiments.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The paper proposes an alternative to the attractor hypothesis, as an explanation for the fact that grid cell population activity patterns (within a module) span a toroidal manifold. The proposal is based on a class of models that were extensively studied in the past, in which grid cells are driven by synaptic inputs from place cells in the hippocampus. The synapses are updated according to a Hebbian plasticity rule. Combined with an adaptation mechanism, this leads to patterning of the inputs from place cells to grid cells such that the spatial activity patterns are organized as an array of localized firing fields with hexagonal order. I refer to these models below as feedforward models.

It has already been shown by Si, Kropff, and Treves in 2012 that recurrent connections between grid cells can lead to alignment of their spatial response patterns. This idea was revisited by Urdapilleta, Si, and Treves in 2017. Thus, it should already be clear that in such models, the population activity pattern spans a manifold with toroidal topology. The main new contributions in the present paper are (i) in considering a form of recurrent connectivity that was not directly addressed before. (ii) in applying topological analysis to simulations of the model. (iii) in interpreting the results as a potential explanation for the observations of Gardner et al.

We wanted to note that we do not see this paper as proposing an alternative to the attractor hypothesis, given that we use attractor networks, but rather as an exploration of possibilities not yet visited by this hypothesis.

Strengths:

The exploration of learning in a feedforward model, when recurrent connectivity in the grid cell layer is structured in a ring topology, is interesting. The insight that this not only align the grid cells in a common direction but also creates a correspondence between their intrinsic coordinate (in terms of the ring-like recurrent connectivity) and their tuning on the torus is interesting as well, and the paper as a whole may influence future theoretical thinking on the mechanisms giving rise to the properties of grid cells.

Weaknesses:

(1) In Si, Kropff and Treves (2012) recurrent connectivity was dependent on the head direction tuning, in addition to the location on a 2d plane, and therefore involved a ring structure. Urdapilleta, Si, and Treves considered connectivity that depends on the distance on a 2d plane. The novelty here is that the initial connectivity is structured uniquely according to latent coordinates residing on a ring.

The recurrent architectures in the cited works are complex and require arranging cells in a 2D manifold to calculate connectivity based on their relative 2D position. In other words, the 2D structure is imprinted in the architecture, as in our 2D condition. In this work the network is much simpler and only requires neighboring relations in 1D. Such relationships have been shown to spontaneously emerge in the hippocampal formation (Pastalkova et al, 2008; Gonzalo Cogno et al, 2024).

(2) The paper refers to the initial connectivity within the grid cell layer as one that produces an attractor. However, it is not shown that this connectivity, on its own, indeed sustains persistent attractor states. Furthermore, it is not clear whether this is even necessary to obtain the results of the model. It seems possible that (possibly weaker) connections with ring topology, that do not produce attractor dynamics but induce correlations between neurons with similar locations on the ring would be sufficient to align the spatial response patterns during the learning of feedforward weights.

Regarding the first part of the comment, the recurrent collaterals create one or at times multiple bumps of activity in the network so that neighboring (interconnected) cells activate together. An initial random state of activity rapidly falls into this dynamic, constrained by the attractor. To us this is not surprising given that this connectivity is the classical means of creating a continuous attractor. Perhaps there is some deeper meaning in this comment that we are not fully grasping.

Regarding the second part of the comment, we fully agree with the reviewer. We are presenting what so far is the simplest connectivity that can align grid maps, but by no means we claim that it is the simplest possible one. Regarding weaker connections with ring topology, we show in Figure S2 that a ring attractor with too weak or too strong connections is incapable of aligning grids, since a balance between feedforward and feedback inputs is required.

(3) Given that all the grid cells are driven by an input from place cells that span a 2d manifold, and that the activity in the grid cell network settles on a steady state which is uniquely determined by the inputs, it is expected that the manifold of activity states in the grid cell layer, corresponding to inputs that locally span a 2d surface, would also locally span a 2d plane. The result is not surprising. My understanding is that this result is derived as a prerequisite for the topological analysis, and it is therefore quite technical.

We understand that the reviewer is referring to the motivation behind studying local dimensionality. We agree that the topological analysis approach is quite technical, but it provides unique insights. The theorem of closed surfaces, which allows us to deduce a toroidal topology from Betti numbers (1,2,1), only applies to closed surfaces. One thus needs to show that the point cloud is a surface (local dimensionality of 2) and is closed (no borders or singularities). If borders or singularities were present, a toroidal topology could not be claimed from these Betti numbers. Thus, it is a crucial step of the analysis.

(4) The modeling is all done in planar 2d environments, where the feedforward learning mechanism promotes the emergence of a hexagonal pattern in the single neuron tuning curve. Under the scenario in which grid cell responses are aligned (i.e. all neurons develop spatial patterns with the same spacing and orientation) it is already quite clear, even without any topological analysis that the emerging topology of the population activity is a torus.

However, the toroidal topology of grid cells in reality has been observed by Gardner et al also in the wagon wheel environment, in sleep, and close to boundaries (whereas here the analysis is restricted to the a sub-region of the environment, far away from the walls). There is substantial evidence based on pairwise correlations that it persists also in various other situations, in which the spatial response pattern is not a hexagonal firing pattern. It is not clear that the mechanism proposed in the present paper would generate toroidal topology of the population activity in more complex environments. In fact, it seems likely that it will not do so, and this is not explored in the manuscript.

We agree that our work was constrained to exploration in 2D and that the situations posed by the reviewer are challenging, but we do not see them as unsurmountable. The wagon wheel shows a preservation of toroidal topology locally, where the behavior of the animal is rather 2-dimensional. Globally, hexagonal maps are lost, which is compatible with some flexibility in the way grid maps are formed. If sleep meant that all inputs are turned off, our model would predict a dynamic dictated by the architecture (1D for the ring attractor, for example), but we do not really know that this is the case. In the future, we intend to explore predictive activity along the linear attractor, which could both result in path integration and in some level of preservation of the activity when inputs are completely turned off.

Regarding boundaries, as we have argued before, the cited work chooses to filter away what looks like more than half of the overall explained variance through PCA, and this is only before applying a non-linear dimensionality reduction algorithm. It is specifically shown that the analyzed components are the ones with global periodicity throughout the environment. Thus, it is conceivable that through this approach, local irregularities found only at the borders are disregarded in favor of a clearer global picture. While using a different methodology, our approach follows a similar spirit, albeit with far less noisy data.

(5) Moreover, the recent work of Gardner et al. demonstrated much more than the preservation of the topology in the different environments and in sleep: the toroidal tuning curves of individual neurons remained the same in different environments. Previous works, that analyzed pairwise correlations under hippocampal inactivation and various other manipulations, also pointed towards the same conclusion. Thus, the same population activity patterns are expressed in many different conditions. In the present model, this preservation across environments is not expected. Moreover, the results of Figure 6 suggest that even across distinct rectangular environments, toroidal tuning curves will not be preserved, because there are multiple possible arrangements of the phases on the torus which emerge in different simulations.

We agree with this observation. A symmetry in our implementation results in the fact that only ~50% of times the system falls in the preferred solution, and the rest of the times it falls into other local minima. Whether this result is at odds with current observations can be debated on the basis of probabilities. However, we believe that the symmetry we found is purely circumstantial, and that it can be broken by elements such as head direction modulation or other ingredients used to achieve path integration. In other words, we acknowledge that symmetry is an issue of the implementation we show here (which has been kept as simple as possible to serve as a proof-of-principle) but we do not think that it is a defining feature of flexible attractors in general. We expect that future implementations that incorporate path integration capabilities will not present this kind of symmetry in the space of solutions.

Regarding the rigid phase translation across modalities, while this effect is very clear in Gardner et al, it is less so in other datasets. The analyses shown in Hermansen et al (2024) can rather be interpreted as somewhere in the way between perfect rigid translation and fully randomized phases across navigation modalities.

(6) In real grid cells, there is a dense and fairly uniform representation of all phases (see the toroidal tuning of grid cells measured by Gardner et al). Thus, the highly clustered phases obtained in the model (Fig. S1) seem incompatible with the experimental reality. I suspect that this may be related to the difficulty in identifying the topology of a torus in persistent homology analysis based on the transpose of the matrix M.

We partly agree with this observation and note that a pattern of ordered phases is an issue not only for the 1D attractor but also for the 2D one, which appears much more uniform than in experimental data. The low number of neurons we used for computational economy and the full connectivity could be key ingredients to generate these phase patterns. To show that this is not a defining feature of flexible attractors, apart from the fact that these patterns appear also with non-flexible 2D architectures, we included in Figure S1 simulations with ‘fragmented 1D’ architectures. In this case the architecture is a superposition of 20 random 1D stripe-like attractors. While the alignment of maps achieved with this architecture is almost at the same level as the one obtained with 1D and 2D attractors, the phases are much more similar to what has been observed experimentally, and less uniform than what is obtained with 2D attractors.

(7) The motivations stated in the introduction came across to me as weak. As now acknolwledged in the manuscript, attractor models can be fully compatible with distortions of the hexagonal spatial response patterns - they become incompatible with this spatial distortions only if one adopts a highly naive and implausible hypothesis that the attractor state is updated only by path integration. While attractor models are compatible with distortions of the spatial response pattern, it is very difficult to explain why the population activity patterns are tightly preserved across multiple conditions without a rigid two-dimentional attractor structure. This strong prediction of attractor models withstood many experimental tests - in fact, I am not aware of any data set where substantial distortions of the toroidal activity manifold were observed, despite many attempts to challenge the model. This is the main motivation for attractor models. The present model does not explain these features, yet it also does not directly offer an explanation for distortions in the spatial response pattern.

Some interesting examples are experiments in 3D, where grid cells presumably communicate with each other through the same recurrent collaterals, but global periodicity is lost and only some local order is preserved even away from boundaries (Ginosar et al, 2021; Grieves et al, 2021). While these datasets have not been explored using topological analysis, they serve as strong motivators to understanding 2D grid cells as one equilibrium solution that arises under some set of constraints, but belongs to a wider space of possible solutions that may arise as well under more flexible constraints. Even (and especially) if one adheres to the hypothesis that grid cells are pre-wired into a 2D torus, a concept like flexible attractors might become useful to understand how their activity is rendered in 3D. Another strong motivation is our lack of understanding of how a perfectly balanced 2D structure is formed and maintained. Simpler architectures could be thought of as alternatives, but also as an intermediate step towards it.

Regarding the rigid phase translation across modalities, while this effect is very clear in Gardner et al, it is less so in other datasets. The analyses shown in Hermansen et al (2024) can rather be interpreted as somewhere in the way between perfect rigid translation and fully randomized phases.

In a separate point, although it might not be strictly related to the comment, we do not fully share the idea that persistent activity patterns during sleep are necessary or sufficient conditions for attractor dynamics, although we do agree that attractors could be the mechanism behind them and any alternative is at least as complex as attractors. On the necessity side, attractors in the hippocampus are not constantly engaged (Wills et al, 2005). For sufficiency, one should prove that no other network is capable of reproducing the phenomenon, and to our best knowledge we are still far from that point.

(8) There is also some weakness in the mathematical description of the dynamics. Mathematical equations are formulated in discrete time steps, without a clear interpretation in terms of biophysically relevant time scales. It appears that there are no terms in the dynamics associated with an intrinsic time scale of the neurons or the synapses (a leak time constant and/or synaptic time constants). I generally favor simple models without lots of complexity, yet within this style of modelling, the formulation adopted in this manuscript is unconventional, introducing a difficulty in interpreting synaptic weights as being weak or strong, and a difficulty in interpreting the model in the context of other studies.

We chose to keep the model as simple as possible and in the line of previous publications developing it. However, we see the usefulness of putting it in what in the meantime has become a canonical framework. Fortunately this has been done by D’Albis and Kempter (2017). In our simplified version of the model there is no leak term and adaptation on its own brings down activity in the absence of input, but we agree that such a term could be added, albeit not without modifying all other network parameters.

In my view, the weaknesses discussed above limit the ability of the model, as it stands, to offer a compelling explanation for the toroidal topology of grid cell population activity patterns, and especially the rigidity of the manifold across environments and behavioral states. Still, the work offers an interesting way of thinking on how the toroidal topology might emerge.

Reviewer 1:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

See comments above. In addition:

(1) Abstract: '...interconnected by a two-dimensional attractor guided by path integration'. This is unclear. I think the intended meaning might be along the lines of '...their being computed by a 2D continous attractor that performs path integration'?

'path integration allowing for no deviations from the hexagonal pattern' This is incorrect. Local modulation of the gain of the speed input to a standard CAN would distort the grid pattern.

'Using topological data analysis, we show that the resulting population activity is a sample of a torus' Activity in the model?

'More generally, our results represent a proof of principle against the intuition that the architecture and the representation manifold of an attractor are topological objects of the same dimensionality, with implications to the study of attractor networks across the brain' I guess one might hold this intuition, but it strikes me as obvious that if you impose an sufficiently strong n-dimensional input on a network then it it's activity could have the same dimensionality. I don't really see this as being a point worth highlighting. Perhaps the more interesting point, it that during learning the recurrent connectivity aligns the grid fields of neurons in the network, and this may be a specific function of the 1D attractor dynamcis, although I don't think the authors have made this point convincing.

'The flexibility of this low dimensional attractor allows it to negotiate the geometry of the representation manifold with the feedforward inputs'. See above for comments on the use of 'negotiate'.

'while the ensemble of maps preserves features of the network architecture'. I don't understand this. What is the 'ensemble of maps' and what are the features referred to.

We have reviewed the abstract considering these points. Regarding the ‘strong n-dimensional input’, we want to point out that it is not the input itself that generates a torus (the no attractor condition does not lead to a torus) but rather the interplay between the input and the attractor.

‘Perhaps the more interesting point …’, we do not fully understand how this sentence deviates from our own conclusions. We here show that a strong n-dimensional input is not enough to align grid cells (produce a n-torus), it is the interplay between inputs and attractor dynamics that does so, even if the attractor is not n-dimensional in terms of architecture.

The ensemble of maps refers to the transpose of the population activity matrix, where each point in the cloud is a map, and the features refer to the persistent homology.

(2) The manuscript still fails to clarify the difference between a model that path integrates in two dimensions and a model that simply represents information with a given dimensionality. The argument that it's surprising that a network with 1D architecture represents a higher dimensional input strikes me as incorrect and an unnecessary attempt to argue for conceptual importance. At least to me this isn't surprising. It would be surprising if the 1D network could path integrate but this doesn't seem to be the case.

In response to the reviewer’s concerns, we have made clear in the introduction and discussion that this model has no path integration capabilities, although we aim to develop a model capable of path integration using the kind of simple architecture presented here. We want to highlight here that equating attractor dynamics with path integration would be a conceptual mistake.

(3) Other wording also seems to make unnecessary conceptual claims. E.g. The repeated use of 'negotiate' implies some degree of intelligence, or at least an exchange of information, that isn't shown to exist. I wonder if more precise language could be used? As I understand it the dimensionality is bounded by the inputs on the one hand, and the network connectivity on the other, with the actual dimensionality being a function of the recurrent and feedforward synaptic weights. There's clearly some role for the relative weights and the properties of plasticity rules, but I don't see any evidence for a negotiation.

An interesting observation in Figure S2 is that grid maps are aligned only if the relative strength of feedforward and recurrent inputs is similar. If one of them can impose over the other, grid maps do not align. This equilibrium can metaphorically be thought of as a negotiation instance, where the negotiation is an emergent property of the system rather than something happening at an individual synapse.

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

Reviewer #1:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Major

(1) What is the evidence that, after training, the 1D network maintains its attractor dynamics when feedforward inputs are active? If the claim is that it does then it's important to provide evidence, e.g. responses to perturbations, or other tests. The alternative is that after training the recurrent inputs are drowned out by the feed forward spatial inputs.

We agree with the reviewer on the importance of this point. In our model, networks are always learning, and the population activity represented by aligned grid maps in a trained network is a dynamic equilibrium that emerges from the interplay between feedforward and collateral constraints. If Hebbian learning is turned off, one gets a snapshot of the network at that moment. We now show in Fig. S3 that in a trained network without feedforward Hebbian learning the removal of recurrent collaterals results in a slight increase in gridness and spacing. The expansion is due to the fact that, as we argue in the Results section, the attractor has a contractive effect on grid maps, which could relate to observations in novel environments (Barry et al, 2007). If Hebbian learning is turned on in the same situation, the maps, no longer constrained by the attractor, drift toward the equilibrium solution of the ‘No attractor’ condition, with significantly larger spacing, no alignment and lower individual gridness. Thus, the attractor is the force preventing them to do so when feedforward Hebbian learning is on.

These observations point to the key role played by the attractor not only in forming but also in sustaining grid activity. The dynamic equilibrium framework fits well known properties of the system, such as its capacity to recalibrate very fast (Jayakumar et al, 2019), although this particular feature cannot be modeled with the current version of our model, that lacks path integration capabilities.

(2) It would be useful to include additional control conditions for Figure 2 to test the hypothesis that it is simply connectivity, rather than attractor dynamics, that drives alignment.

This could be achieved by randomly assigning strengths to the recurrent connections, e.g. drawing from exponential or Gaussian distributions.

We agree and have included Fig. S2b-d, showing that the same distribution of collateral input weights entering each neuron, but lacking the 1D structure provided by the attractor, does not align grid maps. This is achieved by shuffling rows in the connectivity matrix, while avoiding self connections to make the comparison fair (self connections substantially alter the dynamic of the network, making it much more rigid). We observed that individual grid maps have very low gridness levels, even lower than in the no-attractor condition. In contrast, they have levels of population gridness slightly higher than in the no-attractor condition, but closer to 0 than to levels achieved with attractors. Our interpretation of these results is that irregular connectivity achieves some alignment in a few arbitrary directions and/or locations, which improves the coordination between maps at the expense of impairing rather than improving hexagonal responses of individual cells. Such observations stand in clear context to what is observed with continuous attractors with an orderly architecture.

These results suggest that it is the structure of the attractor that allows grid cells to be aligned rather than the mere presence of recurrent collateral connections.

(3) It seems conceivable that once trained the recurrent connections would no longer be required for alignment. Can this be evaluated by considering what happens if the recurrent connections are turned off after training (or slowly turned off during training)? Does the network continue to generate aligned grid fields?

This point has elements in common with point 1. As we argued in that response, the attractor has two main effects on grid maps: it aligns them and it contracts them. If the attractor is turned off, feedforward Hebbian learning progressively drives maps toward the solution obtained for the ‘no attractor’ condition, characterized by maps with larger spacing, poorer gridness and lack of alignment.

(4) After training what is the relative strength of the recurrent and feedforward inputs to each neuron?

Both recurrent and feedforward synaptic-strength matrices are normalized throughout training, so that the overall incoming synaptic strength to each neuron is invariant. Because of this, although individual feed-forward and recurrent input fields vary dynamically, their average is constant, with the exception of the very first instances of the simulation, before a stable regime is reached in grid-cell activity levels. We have included Fig. S2d, showing the dynamics of feedforward and recurrent mean fields throughout learning as well as their ratio. In addition, Fig. S2a shows that the strength of recurrent relative to feedforward inputs is an important parameter, since alignment is only obtained in an intermediate range of ratios.

(5) It would be helpful to also evaluate the low dimensional structure of the input to the network. Assuming it has a 2D structure, as it represents 2D space, can an explanation be provided for why it is surprising that the trained network also encodes activity with a 2D manifold? It strikes me that the more interesting finding might relate to alignment of the grids rather than claims about a 1D attractor encoding a 2D representation. Either way, stronger evidence and clearer discussion would be helpful.

The reviewer is correct in assuming that the input has a 2D structure, that can be represented by a sheet embedded in a high dimensional space and thus has the Betti numbers [1,0,0]. The surprising element in our results is that we are showing for the first time that the population activity of an attractor network is constrained to a manifold that results from the negotiation between the architecture of the attractor and the inputs, and does not merely reflect the former as previously assumed. In this sense, the alignment of grid cells by a 1D attractor is an instance of the more general case that 1D attractors can encode 2D representations.

It is certainly the case that the 2D input is a strong constraint pushing population activity toward a 2D manifold. However, the final form of the 2D manifold is strongly constrained by the attractor, as shown by the contrast with the no-attractor condition (a 2D sheet, as in the input, vs a torus when the attractor is present). The 1D attractor is able to flexibly adapt to the constraint posed by the inputs while doing its job (as demonstrated in previous points), which results in 2D grid maps aligned by a 1D attractor. Generally speaking, this work provides a proof of principle demonstrating that the topology of the attractor architecture and the manifold of the population activity space need not be identical, as previously widely assumed by the attractor community, and need not even have the same dimensionality. Instead, a single architecture can potentially be applied to many purposes. Hence, our work provides a valuable new perspective that applies to the study of attractors throughout the brain.

(6) The introduction should be clearer about the different types of grid model and the computations they implement. E.g. The authors' previous model generates grid fields from spatial inputs, but if my understanding is correct it isn't able to path integrate. By contrast, while the many 2D models with continuous attractor dynamics also generate grid representations, they do so by path integration mechanisms that are computationally distinct from the spatial transformation implemented by feedforward models (see also general comments above).

We agree with the reviewer and have made this point explicit in the introduction.

(7) A prediction from continuous attractor models is that when place cells remap the low dimensional manifold of the grid activity is unaffected, except that the location of the activity bump is moved. It strikes me as important to test whether this is the case for the model presented here (my intuition is that it won't be, but it would be important to establish either way).

We want to emphasize that our model is a continuous attractor model, so the question regarding the difference between what our model and continuous attractor network models predict is an ill-posed one. One of our main conclusions is precisely that attractors can work in a wider spectrum of ways than previously thought.

In lack of a better definition, our multiple simulations could be thought of as training in different arenas. It is true that in our model maps take time to form, but this is also the case in novel environments (Barry et al, 2007 ), and continuous attractor models exclusively or strongly guided by self motion cues struggle to replicate this phenomenon. We show that the current version of our model accepts multiple solutions (in practice four but conceptually infinite countable), all of them resulting in a torus for the population activity (i.e. the same topology or low dimensional manifold). It is not clear to us how easy it would be to differentiate between most of these solutions in experimental data, with only incomplete information. This said, incorporating a symmetry-breaking ingredient to the model, for example related to head direction modulation, could perhaps lead to the prevalence of a single type of solution. We intend to explore this possibility in the future in order to add path-integration capabilities to the system, as described in the discussion.

(8) The Discussion implies that 1D networks could perform path integration in a manner similar to 2D networks. This is a strong claim but isn't supported by evidence in the study. I suggest either providing evidence that this is the case for models of this kind or replacing it with a more careful discussion of the issue.

The current version of our model has no path integration capabilities, as is now made explicit in the Introduction and Discussion. In addition, we have now made clear that the idea that path integration could perhaps be implemented using 1D networks is, although reasonable, purely speculative.

Minor

(1) Introduction. 'direct excitatory communication between them'. Suggest rewording to 'local synaptic interactions', as communication can also be purely inhibitory (e.g. Burak and Fiete, 2009) or indirect by excitation of local interneurons (e.g. Pastoll et al., Neuron, 2013).

We agree and have adopted this phrasing.

(2) The decision to focus the topology analysis on the 60 cm wide central square appears somewhat arbitrary. Are the irregularities referred to a property of the trained networks or would they also emerge with analysis of simulated ideal data? Can more justification be expanded and supplementary analyses be shown when the whole arena is used?

In practical terms, a subsampling of the data to around half was needed because the persistent homology packages struggle to handle large amounts of data, especially in the calculation of H2. We decided to cut a portion of contiguous pixels in the open field at least larger than the hexagonal tile representing the whole grid population period (as represented in Figure 6). Leaving the borders aside was a logical choice since it is known that the solution at the borders is particularly influenced by the speed anisotropy of the virtual rat (see Si, Kropff & Treves, 2012), in a way that mimics how borders locally influence grid maps in actual rats (Krupic et al, 2015). The specific way in which our virtual rat handles borders is arbitrary and might not generalize. A second issue around borders is that maps are differently affected by incomplete smoothing, although this issue does not apply to our data because we did not smooth across neighboring pixels. In sum, considering the central 60 cm wide square was sufficient to contain the whole torus and a reasonable compromise that would allow us to perform all analyses in the part of the environment less influenced by boundaries.

(3) It could help the general reader to briefly explain what a persistence diagram is.

This is developed in the Appendix, but we have now added a reference to it and a brief description in the main text.

(4) For the analyses in Figure 3-4, and separately for Figure 5, it might help the reader to provide visualizations of the low dimensional point cloud.

All these calculations take place in the original high-dimensional point cloud. Doing them in a reduced space would be incorrect because there is no dimensionality reduction technique that guarantees the preservation of topology. In Figure 7 we reduce the dimensionality of data but emphasize that it is only done for visualization purposes, not to characterize topology. We also point out in this Figure that the same non-linear dimensionality reduction technique applied to objects with identical topology yields a wide variety of visualizations, some of them clear and some less clear. This observation further exemplifies why one cannot assume that a dimensionality-reduction technique preserves topology, even for a low-dimensional object embedded in a high-dimensional space.

(5) The detailed comparison of the dynamics of each model is limited by the number of data points. Why not address this by new simulations with more neurons?

We are not sure we understand this comment. In Figure 2, the dynamics for each model are markedly different. These are averages over 100 simulations. We are not sure what benefit would be obtained from adding more neurons. Before starting this work we searched for the minimal number of neurons that would result in convergence to an aligned solution in 2D networks, which we found to be around 100. Optimizing this parameter in advance was important to reduce computational costs throughout our work.

(6) Could the variability in Figure 7 also be addressed by increasing the number of data points?

As we argued in a previous point, there is no reason to expect preservation of topology after applying Isomap. We believe this lack of topology preservation to be the main driver of variability.

(7) Page/line numbers would be useful.

We agree. However, the text is curated by biorxiv which, to our best knowledge, does not include them.

Reviewer 2:

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) I highly suggest that the author rewrite some parts of the Results. There are lots of details which should be put into the Methods part, for example, the implementation details of the network, the analysis details of the toroidal topology, etc. It will be better to focus on the results part first in each section, and then introduce some of the key details of achieving these results, to improve the readability of the work.

This suggestion contrasts with that of Reviewer #1. As a compromise, we decided to include in the Results section only methodological details that are key to understanding the conclusions, and describe everything else in the Methods section.

(2) 'Progressive increase in gridness and decrease in spacing across days have been observed in animals familiarizing with a novel environment...' From Fig.2c I didn't see much decrease. The authors may need to carry out some statistical test to prove this. Moreover, even the changes are significant, this might be not the consequence of the excitatory collateral constraint. To prove this, the authors may need to offer some direct evidence.

We agree that the decrease is not evident in this figure due to the scale, so we are adding the correlation in the figure caption as proof. In addition, several arguments, some related to new analyses, demonstrate that the attractor contracts grid maps. First, the ‘no attractor’ condition has a markedly larger spacing compared to all other conditions (Fig. 2a). We also now show that spacing monotonically decreases with the strength of recurrent relative to feedforward weights, in a way that is rather independent of gridness (Fig. S2a). Second, as we now show in Fig. S2b-d, simulations with a shuffled 1D attractor, such that the sum of input synapses to each neuron are the same as in the 1D condition but no structure is present, lead to a spacing that is mid-way between the ‘no attractor’ condition and the conditions with attractors. Third, as we now show in Fig. S3a, turning off both recurrent connections and feedforward learning in a trained network results in a small increase in spacing. Fourth, as we now show in Fig. S3b, turning off recurrent connections while feedforward learning is kept on increases grid spacing to levels comparable to those of the ‘no attractor’ condition. All these elements support a role of the attractor in contracting grid spacing.

(3) Some of the items need to be introduced first before going into details in the paper, for instance, the stipe-like attractor network, the Betti number, etc.

We have added in the Results section a brief description and references to full developments in the Appendix.

Reviewer 3 (Public Review):

(1) It is not clear to me that the proposal here is fundamentally new. In Si, Kropff and Treves (2012) recurrent connectivity was dependent on the head direction tuning and thus had a ring structure. Urdapilleta, Si, and Treves considered connectivity that depends on the distance on a 2d plane.

In the work of Si et al connectivity is constructed ad-hoc for conjunctive cells to represent a torus, it depends on head-directionality but also on the distance in a 2D plane. The topology of this architecture has not been assessed, but it is close to the typical 2D ‘rigid’ constraint. In the work of Urdapilleta et al, the network is a simple 2D one. The difference with our work is that we focus on the topology of the recurrent network and do not use head-direction modulation. In this context, we prove that a 1D network is enough to align grid cells and, more generally, we provide a proof of principle that the topology of the architecture and the representation space of an attractor network do not need to be identical, as previously assumed by the attractor community. These two important points were neither argued, speculated nor self-evident from the cited works.

(2) The paper refers to the connectivity within the grid cell layer as an attractor. However, would this connectivity, on its own, indeed sustain persistent attractor states? This is not examined in the paper. Furthermore, is this even necessary to obtain the results in the model? Perhaps weak connections that do not produce an attractor would be sufficient to align the spatial response patterns during the learning of feedforward weights, and reproduce the results? In general, there is no exploration of how the strength of collateral interactions affects the outcome.

The reviewer makes several important points. Local excitation combined with global inhibition is the archetypical architecture for continuous attractors (see for example Knierim and Zhang, Annual review of neuroscience, 2012). Thus, in the absence of feedforward input, we observe a bump of activity. As in all continuous attractors, this bump is not necessarily ‘persistent’ and instead is free to move along the attractor.

We cannot prove that there is not a simpler architecture that has the same effect as our 1D or 1DL conditions, and we think that there are some interesting candidates to investigate in the future. What we now prove in new Fig. S2b-d is that it is not the strength of recurrent connections themselves, but instead the continuous attractor structure that aligns grid cells in our model. To demonstrate this, we shuffle incoming recurrent connections to each neuron in the 1D condition (while avoiding self-connections for fairness), and show that training does not lead to grid alignment. We also show in Fig. S1 that an architecture represented by 20 overlapping 1DL attractors, each formed by concatenating 10 random cells, aligns grid cells to levels slightly lower but similar to the 1D or 1DL attractors. This architecture can perhaps be considered as simpler to build in biological terms than all the others, but it is still constituted by continuous attractors.

The strength of recurrent collaterals, or more precisely the recurrent to feedforward ratio, is crucial in our model to achieve a negotiated outcome from constraints imposed by the attractor and the inputs. We now show explicit measures of this ratio in Fig. S2, as well as examples showing that an imbalance in this ratio impairs grid alignment. When the ratio is too high or too low, both individual and population gridness are low. Interestingly, grid spacing behaves differently, decreasing monotonically with the relative strength of recurrent connections.

(3) I did not understand what is learned from the local topology analysis. Given that all the grid cells are driven by an input from place cells that spans a 2d manifold, and that the activity in the grid cell network settles on a steady state that depends only on the inputs, isn't it quite obvious that the manifold of activity in the grid cell layer would have, locally, a 2d structure?

The dimensionality of the input is important, although not the only determinant of the topology of the activity. The recurrent collaterals are the other determinant, and their architecture is a crucial feature. For example, as we now show in Figure S2b-d, shuffled recurrent synaptic weights fail to align grid cells. In the 1D condition, if feedforward inputs were absent, the dynamics of the activity would be confined to a ring. The opposite condition is our ‘no attractor’ condition, in which activity in the grid cell layer mimics the topology of inputs, a 2D sheet (and not a torus). It is in the intermediate range, when both feedforward and recurrent inputs are important, that a negotiated solution (a torus) is achieved.

The analyses of local dimensionality and local homology of Figure 3 are crucial steps to demonstrate toroidal topology. According to the theorem of classification of closed surfaces, global homology is not enough to univocally define the topology of a point cloud, and thus this step cannot be skipped. The step is aimed to prove that the point cloud is indeed a closed surface.

(4) The modeling is all done in planar 2d environments, where the feedforward learning mechanism promotes the emergence of a hexagonal pattern in the single neuron tuning curve. This, combined with the fact that all neurons develop spatial patterns with the same spacing and orientation, implies even without any topological analysis that the emerging topology of the population activity is a torus.

We cannot agree with this intuition. In the ‘no attractor’ condition, individual maps have hexagonal symmetry with standardized spacing, but given the lack of alignment the population activity is not a closed surface and thus not a torus. It can rather be described as a 2D sheet embedded in a high dimensional space, a description that also applies to the input space.

While it is rather evident that an ad hoc toroidal architecture folds this 2D population activity into a torus, it is less evident and rather surprising that 1D architectures have the same capability. This is the main novelty in our work.

(5) Moreover, the recent work of Gardner et al. demonstrated much more than the preservation of the topology in the different environments and in sleep: the toroidal tuning curves of individual neurons remained the same in different environments. Previous works, that analyzed pairwise correlations under hippocampal inactivation and various other manipulations, also pointed towards the same conclusion. Thus, the same population activity patterns are expressed in many different conditions. In the present model, the results of Figure 6 suggest that even across distinct rectangular environments, toroidal tuning curves will not be preserved, because there are multiple possible arrangements of the phases on the torus which emerge in different simulations.

We agree with the reviewer in the main point, although the recently found ring activity in the absence of sensory feedback (Gonzalo Cogno et al, 2023) suggests that what is happening in the EC is more nuanced than a pre-wired torus. Solutions in Figure 6 are different ways of folding a 1D strip into a torus, with or without the condition of periodicity in the 1D strip. Whether or not these different solutions would be discernible from one another in a practical setup is not clear to us. For example, global homology, as addressed in the Gardner paper, is the same for all these solutions. Furthermore, while our solutions of up to order 3 are highly discernable, higher order solutions, potentially achievable with other network parameters, would be impossible to discern by eye in representations similar to the ones in Figure 6. In addition, while we chose to keep our model in the simplest possible form as a clear proof of principle, new elements introduced to the model such as head directionality could break the symmetry and lead to the prevalence of one preferred solution for all simulation replicates. We plan to investigate this possibility in the future when attempting to incorporate path-integration capabilities to the model.

(6) In real grid cells, there is a dense and fairly uniform representation of all phases (see the toroidal tuning of grid cells measured by Gardner et al). Here the distribution of phases is not shown, but Figure 7 suggests that phases are non uniformly represented, with significant clustering around a few discrete phases. This, I believe, is also the origin for the difficulty in identifying the toroidal topology based on the transpose of the matrix M: vectors representing the spatial response patterns of individual neurons are localized near the clusters, and there are only a few of them that represent other phases. Therefore, there is no dense coverage of the toroidal manifold that would exist if all phases were represented equally. This is not just a technical issue, however: there appears to be a mismatch between the results of the model and the experimental reality, in terms of the phase coverage.

As mentioned in the results section, Figure 7 is meant for visualization purposes only, and serves more as cautionary tale regarding the imprevisible risks of non-linear dimensionality reduction than as a proof of the organization of activity in the network. Isomap is a non-linear transformation that deforms each of our solutions in a unique way so that, while all have the topology of a torus embedded in a high dimensional space, only a few of them exhibited one of two possible toroidal visualizations in a 3D Isomap reduction. Isomap, as well as all other popular dimensionality reduction techniques, provide no guarantee of topology invariance. A better argument to judge the homogenous distribution of phases is persistent homology, which identifies relatively large holes (compared to the sampling spacing) in the original manifold embedded in a high dimensional space. In our case, persistent homology identified only two holes significantly larger than noise (the two cycles of a torus) and one cavity in all conditions that included attractors. Regarding the specific distribution of phases in different conditions, however, see our reply below.

(7) The manuscript makes several strong claims that incorrectly represent the relation between experimental data and attractor models, on one hand, and the present model on the other hand. For the latter, see the comments above. For the former, I provide a detailed list in the recommendations to the authors, but in short: the paper claims that attractor models induce rigidness in the neural activity which is incompatible with distortions seen in the spatial response patterns of grid cells. However, this claim seems to confuse distortions in the spatial response pattern, which are fully compatible with the attractor model, with distortions in the population activity patterns, which would be incompatible with the attractor model. The attractor model has withstood numerous tests showing that the population activity manifold is rigidly preserved across conditions - a strong prediction (which is not made, as far as I can see, by feedforward models). I am not aware of any data set where distortions of the population activity manifold have been identified, and the preservation has been demonstrated in many examples where the spatial response pattern is disrupted. This is the main point of two papers cited in the present manuscript: by Yoon et al, and Gardner et al.

First of all, we would like to note that our model is a continuous attractor model. Different attractor models have different outcomes, and one of the main conclusions of our manuscript is that attractors can do a wider range of operations than previously thought.

We agree with the reviewer that distortions in spatial activity (which speak against a purely path-integration guided attractor) should not be confused with distortions in the topology of the population activity (which would instead speak against the attractor dynamics itself). We have rephrased these observations in the manuscript. In fact, we believe that the capacity of grid cells to present distorted maps without a distortion of the population activity topology, as shown for example by Gardner and colleagues, could result from a tension between feedforward and recurrent inputs, the potential equilibriums of which our manuscript aims to characterize.

(8) There is also some weakness in the mathematical description of the dynamics. Mathematical equations are formulated in discrete time steps, without a clear interpretation in terms of biophysically relevant time scales. It appears that there are no terms in the dynamics associated with an intrinsic time scale of the neurons or the synapses, and this introduces a difficulty in interpreting synaptic weights as being weak or strong. As mentioned above, the nature of the recurrent dynamics within the grid cell network (whether it exhibits continuous attractor behavior) is not sufficiently clear.

We agree with the reviewer that our model is rather simple, and we value the extent to which this simplicity allows for a deep characterization. All models are simplifications and the best model in any given setup is the one with the minimum amount of complexity necessary to describe the phenomenon under study. We believe that to understand whether or not a 1D continuous attractor architecture can result in a toroidal population activity, a biophysically detailed model, with prohibitive computational costs, would have been unnecessarily complex. This argument does not intend to demerit biophysically detailed models, which are capable of addressing a wider range of questions regarding, for example, the spiking dynamics of grid cells, which cannot be addressed by our simple model.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

The work points to an interesting scenario for the emergence of toroidal topology, but the interpretation of this idea should be more nuanced. I recommend reconsidering the claims about limitations of the attractor theory, and acknowledging the limitations of the present theory.

I don't see the limitations mentioned above as a reason to reject the ideas proposed in this manuscript, for two main reasons: first, additional research might reveal a regime of parameters where some issues can be resolved (e.g. the clustering of phases). In addition, the mechanism described here might act at an early stage in development to set up initial dynamics along a toroidal manifold, while other mechanisms might be responsible for the rigidity of the toroidal manifold in an adult animal. But all this implies that the novelty in the present manuscript is weaker than implied, the ability to explain experimental observations is more limited than implied, and these limitations should be acknowledged and discussed.

I recommend reporting on the distribution of grid cell phases and, if indeed clustered, this should be discussed. It will be helpful to explore whether this is the reason for the difficulty in identifying the toroidal topology based on the collection of spatial response patterns (using the transpose of the matrix M).

Ideally, a more complete work would also explore in a more systematic and parametric way the influence of the recurrent connectivity's strength on the learning, and whether a toroidal manifold emerges also in non-planar, such as the wagon-wheel environment studied in Gardner et al.

Part of these recommendations have been addressed in the previous points (public review). Regarding the reason why the transpose of M does not fully recapitulate architecture with our conservative classification criteria, we believe that there is no reason why it should in the first place. We view the fact that the transpose of M recapitulates some features of the architecture as a purely phenomenological observation, and we think it is important as a proof that M is not exactly the same for the different conditions. We imagined that if M matrices were exactly the same this could be due to poor spatial sampling by our bins. Knowing that they are intrinsically different is important even if the reason why they have these specific features is not fully clear to us.

Although we do not think that the distribution of phases is related to the absence of a cavity in the transpose of M or to the four clusters found in Isomap projections, it remains an interesting question that we did not explore initially. We are now showing examples of the distribution of phases in Figure S1. We observed that in both 2D and 1D conditions phases are distributed following rather regular patterns. Whether or not these patterns are compatible with experimental observations of phase distribution is to our view debatable, given that so far state-of-the-art techniques have only allowed to simultaneously record a small fraction of the neurons belonging to a given module. This said, we think that it is important to note that ordered phase patterns are an anecdotal outcome of our simulations rather than a necessary outcome of flexible attractors or attractors in general. To prove this point, we simulated a condition with a new architecture represented by the overlap of 20 short 1DL attractors, each recruiting 10 random neurons from the pool of 100 available ones.

The rest of the parameters of the simulations were identical to those in the other conditions.

By definition, the topology of this architecture has Betti numbers [20,0,0]. We show in Figure S1 that this architecture aligns grid cells, with individual and population gridness reaching slightly lower levels compared to the 1D condition. However, the distribution of phases of these grid cells has no discernible pattern. This result is an arbitrary example that serves as a proof-of-principle to show that flexible attractors can align grid cells without exhibiting ordered phases, not a full characterization of the outcome of this type of architecture, which we leave for future work. For the rest of our work, we stick to the simplest versions of 1D architectures, which allow for a more in-depth characterization.

The wagon-wheel is an interesting case in which maps loose hexagonal symmetry although the population activity lies in a torus, perhaps evidencing the tension between feedforward and recurrent inputs and suggesting that grid cell response does not obey the single master of path integration. If we modeled it with a 1D attractor, we believe the outcome would strongly depend on virtual rat trajectory. If the trajectory was strictly linear, the population activity would be locally one-dimensional and potentially represented by a ring. Instead, if the trajectory allowed for turns, i.e. a 2D trajectory within a corridor-like maze, the population activity would be toroidal as in our open field simulations, while maps would not have perfect hexagonal symmetry, mimicking experimental results.

More minor comments:

Recurrent dynamics are modeled as if there is no intrinsic synaptic or membrane time constant. This may be acceptable for addressing the goals of this paper, but it is a bit unusual and it will be helpful to explain and justify this choice.

As mentioned above, we believe that the best model in a given setup is the one with the lowest number of complexities that can still address the phenomenon under study. One does not use general relativity to build a bridge, although it provides a ‘more accurate’ description of the physics involved. All models are simplifications, and the more complex a model, the more it has to be taken as a black box.

The Introduction mentions that in most models interaction between co-modular neurons occurs through direct excitatory communication, but in quite a few models the interaction is inhibitory. The crucial feature is that the interaction is strongly inhibitory between neurons that differ in their tuning, and either less inhibitory or excitatory between neurons with similar phases.

We agree that directed inhibition has been shown to be as efficient as directed excitation, and we have modified the introduction to reflect this.

The Discussion claims that the present work is the first one in which the topology of the recurrent architecture differs from the topology of the emergent state space. However, early works on attractor models of grid cells showed how neural connectivity which is arranged on a 2d plane, without any periodic boundary conditions, leads to a state space that exhibits the toroidal topology. Therefore, this claim should be revised.

We agree, although the 2D sheet in this case acts as a piece of the torus, and locally the input space and architecture are identical objects. It could be argued that architectures that represent a 2D local slice of the torus, the whole torus, or several cycles around the torus form a continuous family parametrized by the extension of recurrent connections, and as a consequence it is not surprising that these works have not made claims about the incongruence between architecture and representation topologies. The 2D sheet connectivity is still constructed ad hoc to organize activity in a 2D bump, and there is no negotiation between disparate constraints because locally the constraints imposed by input and architecture are the same. We believe this situation is conceptually different from our flexible 1D attractors. We have adapted our claim to include this technical nuance.

Why are neural responses in the perimeter of the environment excluded from the topological analysis? The whole point of the toroidal manifold analysis on real experimental data is that the toroidal manifold is preserved regardless of the animal's location and behavioral condition.

We agree, although experimental data needs to go through extensive pre-processing such as dimensionality reduction before showing a toroidal topology. Such manipulations might smooth away the specific effects of boundaries on maps, together with other sources of noise. In our case, the original reason to downsample the dataset is related to the explosion in computational time that we experience with the ripser package when using more than ~1000 data points. For a proof-of-principle characterization we were much more interested in what happened in the center of the arena, where a 1D attractor could fold itself to confine population activity into a torus. The area we chose was sufficiently large to contain the whole torus. Borders do affect the way the attractor folds (they also affect grid maps in real rats). We feel that these imperfections could be interesting to study in relation to the parameters controlling how our virtual rat behaves at the borders, but not at this proof-of-principle stage.

The periodic activity observed in Ref. 29 could in principle provide the basis for the ring arrangement of neurons. However, it is not yet clear whether grid cells participate in this periodic activity.

We agree. So far it seems that entorhinal cells in general participate in the ring, which would imply that all kinds of cells are involved. However, it could well be that only some functional types participate in the ring and grid cells specifically do not, as future experiments will tell.

Author response:

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

eLife assessment

This valuable work explores death coding data to understand the impact of COVID-19 on cancer mortality. The work provides solid evidence that deaths with cancer as a contributing cause were not above what would be expected during pandemic waves, suggesting that cancer did not strongly increase the risk of dying of COVID-19. These results are an interesting exploration into the coding of causes of death that can be used to make sense of how deaths are coded during a pandemic in the presence of other underlying diseases, such as cancer.

We thank the editor and reviewers for the time they took to review our manuscript and for the thoughtful suggestions they provided. We have completed several revisions based on their feedback and we feel our paper is stronger as a result. However, none of these revisions change the overall conclusions of our study.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In the paper "Disentangling the relationship between cancer mortality and COVID-19", the authors study whether the number of deaths in cancer patients in the USA went up or down during the first year (2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic. They found that the number of deaths with cancer mentioned on the death certificate went up, but only moderately. In fact, the excess with-cancer mortality was smaller than expected if cancer had no influence on the COVID mortality rate and all cancer patients got COVID with the same frequency as in the general population. The authors conclude that the data show no evidence of cancer being a risk factor for COVID and that the cancer patients were likely actively shielding themselves from COVID infections.

Strengths:

The paper studies an important topic and uses sound statistical and modeling methodology. It analyzes both, deaths with cancer listed as the primary cause of death, as well as deaths with cancer listed as one of the contributing causes. The authors argue, correctly, that the latter is a more important and reliable indicator to study relationships between cancer and COVID. The authors supplement their US-wide analysis by analysing three states separately.

Weaknesses:

The main findings of the paper can be summarized as six numbers. Nationally, in 2022, multiple-cause cancer deaths went up by 2%, Alzheimer's deaths by 31%, and diabetes deaths by 39%. At the same time, assuming no relationship between these diseases and either Covid infection risk or Covid mortality risk, the deaths should have gone up by 7%, 46%, and 28%. The authors focus on cancer deaths and as 2% < 7%, conclude that cancer is not a risk factor for COVID and that cancer patients must have "shielded" themselves against Covid infections.

However, I did not find any discussion of the other two diseases. For diabetes, the observed excess was 39% instead of "predicted by the null model" 28%. I assume this should be interpreted as diabetes being a risk factor for Covid deaths. I think this should be spelled out, and also compared to existing estimates of increased Covid IFR associated with diabetes.

And what about Alzheimer's? Why was the observed excess 31% vs the predicted 46%? Is this also a shielding effect? Does the spring wave in NY provide some evidence here? Why/how would Alzheimer's patients be shielded? In any case, this needs to be discussed and currently, it is not.

We thank the reviewer for their positive feedback on the paper and for these suggestions. It is true that we have emphasized the impact on cancer deaths, as this was the primary aim of the paper. In the revised version, we have expanded the results and discussion sections to more fully describe the other chronic conditions we used as comparators (lines 267-284;346 – 386).

Note that we are somewhat reluctant to designate any of these conditions as risk factors based solely on comparing the time series model with the demographic model of our expectations. As we mention in the discussion, there is considerable uncertainty around estimates from the demographic model in terms of the size of the population-at-risk, the mean age of the population-at-risk, and the COVID-19 infection rates and infection fatality ratios. Our demographic model is primarily used to demonstrate the effects of competing risks across types of cancers and chronic conditions, since these findings are robust to model assumptions. In contrast, the demographic model should be used with caution if the goal is to titrate the level of these risk factors (as the level of imputed risk is dependent on model assumptions). In the updated version of the manuscript, we have included uncertainty intervals in Table 3, using the upper and lower bounds of the estimated infection rates and IFRs, to better represent this uncertainty. We have also discussed this uncertainty more explicitly in the text and ran sensitivity analyses with different infection rate assumptions in the discussion (lines 354-362; 367 -370).

We would like to note that rather than interpreting the absolute results, we used this demographic model as a tool to understand the relative differences between these conditions. From the demographic model we determined that we would expect to see much higher mortality in diabetes and Alzheimer’s deaths compared to cancer deaths due to three factors (1. Size of population-at-risk, 2. Mean age of the population-at-risk, 3. Baseline risk of mortality from the condition), that are separate from the COVID-19 associated IFR. And in general, this is what we observed.

In comparing the results from the demographic model to the observed excess, diabetes does standout as an outlier from cancer and Alzheimer’s disease in that the observed excess is consistently above the null hypothesis which does lend support to the conclusion that diabetes is in fact a risk factor for COVID-19. A conclusion which is also supported by many other studies. Our findings for hematological cancers are also similar, in that we find consistent support for this condition being a risk factor. We have commented on this in the discussion and added a few references (lines 346-354; 395-403).

Our hypothesis regarding non-hematological cancer deaths (lower than anticipated mortality due to shielding) could also apply to Alzheimer’s deaths. Furthermore, we used the COVID-19 attack rate for individuals >65 years (based on the data that is available), but we estimate that the mean age of Alzheimer’s patients is actually 80-81 years, so this attack rate may in fact be a bit too high, which would increase our expected excess. We have commented on this in the discussion (lines 363-377).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The article is very well written, and the approach is quite novel. I have two major methodological comments, that if addressed will add to the robustness of the results.

(1) Model for estimating expected mortality. There is a large literature using a different model to predict expected mortality during the pandemic. Different models come with different caveats, see the example of the WHO estimates in Germany and the performance of splines (Msemburi et al Nature 2023 and Ferenci BMC Medical Research Methodology 2023). In addition, it is a common practice to include covariates to help the predictions (e.g., temperature and national holidays, see Kontis et al Nature Medicine 2020). Last, fitting the model-independent for each region, neglects potential correlation patterns in the neighbouring regions, see Blangiardo et al 2020 PlosONE.

Thank you for these comments and suggestions. We agree there are a range of methods that can be used for this type of analysis, and they all come with their strengths, weaknesses, and caveats. Broadly, the approach we chose was to fit the data before the pandemic (2014-2019), and project forward into 2020. To our knowledge it is not a best practice to use an interpolating spline function to extrapolate to future years. This is demonstrated by the WHO estimates in Germany in the paper you mention. This was our motivation for using polynomial and harmonic terms.

Based on the above:

a. I believe that the authors need to run a cross-validation to justify model performance. I would suggest training the data leaving out the last year for which they have mortality and assessing how the model predicts forward. Important metrics for the prediction performance include mean square error and coverage probability, see Konstantinoudis et al Nature Communications 2023. The authors need to provide metrics for all regions and health outcomes.

Thank you for this suggestion. We agree that our paper could be strengthened by including cross validation metrics to justify model performance. Based on this suggestion, and your observations regarding Alzheimer’s disease, we have done two things. First, for the full pre-pandemic period (2014-2019) for each chronic condition and location we tested three different models with different degree polynomials (1. linear only, 2. linear + second degree polynomial, 3. linear + second degree polynomial + third degree polynomial) and used AIC to select the best model for each condition and location. Next, also in response to your suggestion, we estimated coverage statistics. Using the best fit model from the previous step, we then fit the model to data from 2014-2018 only and used the model to predict the 2019 data. We calculated the coverage probability as the proportion of weekly observed data points that fell within the 95% prediction interval. For all causes of death and locations the coverage probability was 100% (with the exception of multiple cause kidney disease in California, which is only shown in the appendix). The methods and results have been updated to reflect this change and we have added a figure to the appendix showing the selected model and coverage probability for each cause of death and location (lines 504 – 519; 847-859; Appendix 1- Figure 11).

b. In the context of validating the estimates, I think the authors need to carefully address the Alzheimer case, see Figure 2. It seems that the long-term trends pick an inverse U-shape relationship which could be an overfit. In general, polynomials tend to overfit (in this case the authors use a polynomial of second degree).It would be interesting to see how the results change if they also include a cubic term in a sensitivity analysis.

Thank you for this observation. Based on the changes described above, the model for Alzheimer’s disease now includes a cubic term in the national data and in Texas and California. The model with the second-degree polynomial remained the best fit for New York (Appendix 1 – Figure 11).

c. The authors can help with the predictions using temperature and national holidays, but if they show in the cross-validation that the model performs adequately, this would be fine.

At the scale of the US, adding temperature or environmental covariates is difficult and few US-wide models do so (see Goldstein 2012 and Quandelacy 2014 for examples from influenza). Furthermore, because we are looking at chronic disease outcomes, it is unclear that viral covariates or national holidays would drive these outcomes in the same way as they would if we were looking at mortality outcomes more directly related to transmissible diseases (such as respiratory mortality). Our cross validation also indicates that our models fit well without these additional covariates.

d. It would be nice to see a model across the US, accounting for geography and spatial correlation. If the authors don't want to fit conditional autoregressive models in the Bayesian framework, they could just use a random intercept per region.

We think the reviewer is mistaken here about the scale of our national analysis. Our national analysis did not fit independent models for each state or region. Rather, we fit a single model to the weekly-level national mortality data where counts for the whole of the US have been aggregated. We have clarified in the text (lines 156, 464). As such, we do not feel a model accounting for spatial correlation would be appropriate nor would we be able to include a random intercept for each region. We did fit three states independently (NY, TX, CA), but these states are very geographically distant from each other and unlikely to be correlated. These states were chosen in part because of their large population sizes, yet even in these states, confidence intervals were very wide for certain causes of death. Fitting models to each of the 50 US states, most of which are smaller than those chosen here, would exacerbate this issue.

(2) I think the demographic model needs further elaboration. It would be nice to show more details, the mathematical formula of this model in the supplement, and explain the assumptions

Thank you for this comment. We have added additional details on the demographic model to the methods. We have also extended this analysis to each state to further strengthen our conclusions (lines 548-590).

Reviewing Editor Recommendations:

I think that perhaps something that is missing is that the authors never make their underlying assumption explicit: they are assuming that if cancer increases the risk of dying of COVID-19, this would be reflected in the data on multiple causes of death where cancer would be listed as one of the multiple causes rather than as the underlying cause, and that their conclusions are predicated on this assumption. I would suggest explicitly stating this assumption, as opposed to other reasons why cancer mortality would increase (ex. if cancer care worsened during pandemic waves leading to poorer cancer survival).

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added a few sentences to the introduction to make this assumption clear (lines 106-112).

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

- It could make sense to add "in the United States" into the title, as the paper only analyses US data.

- It may make sense to reformulate the title from "disentangling the relationship..." into something that conveys the actual findings, e.g. "Lack of excess cancer mortality during Covid-19 pandemic" or something similar. Currently, the title tells nothing about the findings.

Thank you for these suggestions. We have added “in the US” to the title. However, we feel that our findings are a bit more subtle than the suggested reformulation would imply, and we prefer to leave it in its current form.

- Abstract, lines 42--45: This is the main finding of the paper, but I feel it is simplified too strongly in the abstract. Your simulations do *not* "largely explain" excess mortality with cancer; they give higher numbers! Which you interpret as "shielding" etc., but this is completely absent from the abstract. This sentence makes the impression that you got a good fit between simulated excess and real excess, which I would say is not the case.

Thank you for this comment. We have rephrased the sentence in the abstract to better reflect our intentions for using the demographic model (lines 46-49). As stated above, the purpose of the demographic model was not to give a good fit with the observed excess mortality. Rather, we used the demographic model as a tool to understand the relative differences between these conditions in terms of expected excess mortality given the size, age-distribution, and underlying risk of death from the condition itself, assuming similar IFR and attack rates. And based on this, we conclude that it is not necessarily surprising that we see higher excess mortality for diabetes and Alzheimer’s compared to cancer.

- Results line 237: you write that it's "more consistent with the null hypothesis", however clearly it is *not* consistent with the null hypothesis either (because 2% < 7%). You discuss in the Discussion that it may be due to shielding, but it would be good to have at least one sentence about it already here in the Results, and refer to the Discussion.

We have mentioned this in the results and refer to the discussion (lines 277-278).

- Results line 239: why was it closer to the assumption of relative risk 2? If I understand correctly, your model prediction for risk=1 was 7% and for risk=2 it was 13%. In NY you observed 8% (line 187). How is this closer to risk=2?

Thank you for this observation. We have updated the demographic model with new data, extended the model to state-level data, and included confidence intervals on these estimates. We have also added additional discussion around the differences between our observations and expectations (lines 249-284).

- Discussion line 275: "we did not expect to see large increases" -- why exactly? Please spell it out here. Was it due to the age distribution of the cancer patients? Was it due to the high cancer death risk?

We demonstrate that it is the higher baseline risk of death for cancer that seems to be driving our low expectations for cancer excess mortality (lines 304-320). We have added this to the sentence to clarify our conclusions on this point and have added a figure to better illustrate this concept of competing risks (Figure 6).

- Methods, line 405: perhaps it makes sense to cite some other notable papers on Covid excess mortality such as Msemburi et al Nature 2023, Karlinsky & Kobak eLife 2021, Islam et al BMJ 2021, etc.

Thank you for mentioning this oversight. We certainly should have cited these papers and have included them in the updated version.

- Methods line 410: why did you use a 5-week moving average? Why not fit raw weekly death counts? NB regression should be able to deal with it.

Smoothing time series data with a moving average prior to running regression models is a very common practice. We did a sensitivity analysis using the raw data. This produced excess estimates with slightly larger confidence intervals, but does not change the overall conclusions of the paper.

- Methods line 416: please indicate the software/library/package you used for fitting NB regression.

We fit the NB regression using the MASS package in R version 4.3. We have added this to the methods (line 519).

- Line 489: ORCHID -> ORCID

I think this is why I've enjoyed building keyboards in recent years. Steep learning curve for me (no background in electronics or C), but it's enough to know there's a solution for pretty much every problem I might encounter. It's an on-ramp to engaging with something like writing. It fosters the notion that there is a "solution", I just need to keep digging. Keyboard building as training for a resilient creative practice. Yes.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this paper, the authors investigate the impact of fecal microbiota transfer (FMT) on intestinal recovery from enterotoxigenic E. coli infection following antibiotic treatment. Using a piglet model of intestinal infection, the authors demonstrate that FMT reduces weight loss and diarrhea and enhances the expression of tight junction proteins. Sequencing analysis of the intestinal microbiota following FMT showed significant increases in Akkermansia muciniphila and Bacteroides fragilis. Using additional mouse and organoid models, the authors examine the impact of these microbes on intestinal recovery and modulation of the Wnt signaling pathway. Overall, the data support the notion that FMT following ETEC infection is beneficial, however, additional investigation is required to fully elucidate the mechanisms involved.

Strengths:

Initial experiments used a piglet model of infection to test the value of FMT on recovery from E. coli. The FMT treatment was beneficial and the authors provide solid evidence that the treatment increased the diversity of the microbiota and enhanced the recovery of the intestinal epithelium. Sequencing data highlighted an increase in Akkermansia muciniphila and Bacteroides fragilis after FMT.

The mouse data are consistent with the observations in pigs, and reveal that daily gavage with A. muciniphila or B. fragilis enhances intestinal recovery based on histological analysis, expression of tight junction proteins, and analysis of intestinal barrier function.

The authors demonstrate the benefit of probiotic treatment following infection using a range of model systems.

Weaknesses:

Without sequencing the pre-infection pig microbiota or the FMT input material itself, it's challenging to firmly say that the observed bloom in Akkermansia muciniphila and Bacteroides fragilis stemmed from the FMT.

Response: We have determined the relative abundance of each bacterium in fecal bacterial suspension, referring to Hu et al. (2018). The absolute abundances of Akkermansia muciniphila and Bacteroides fragilis in the FMT were 1.3 × 103 ± 2.6 × 103 and 4.5 × 103 ± 6.1 × 103 respectively.

Reference:

Hu LS, Geng SJ, Li Y, et al. Exogenous Fecal Microbiota Transplantation from Local Adult Pigs to Crossbred Newborn Piglets. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 8.

The lack of details for the murine infection model, such as weight loss and quantification of bacterial loads over time, make it challenging for a reader to fully appreciate how treatment with Akkermansia muciniphila and Bacteroides fragilis is altering the course of infection. Bacterial loads of E. coli were only quantified at one time point, and the mice that received A. muciniphila and B. fragilis had very low levels of E. coli. Therefore, it is not clear if all mice were subjected to the same level of infection in the first place. The reduced translocation of E. coli to the organs and enhanced barrier function may just reflect the low level of infection in these mice. Further, the authors' conclusion that the effect is specific to A. muciniphila or B. fragilis would be more convincing if the experiments included an inert control bacterium, to demonstrate that gavage with any commensal microbe would not elicit a similar effect.

The weight loss was added in Figure S2A. All mice were subjected to the same level of infection in the first place.

Many of the conclusions in the study are drawn from the microscopy results. However, the methods describing both light microscopy and electron microscopy lack sufficient detail. For example, it is not clear how many sections and fields of view were imaged or how the SEM samples were prepared and dehydrated. The mucus layer does not appear to be well preserved, which would make it challenging to accurately measure the thickness of the mucus layer.

For light microscopy, 3-4 fields were selected from each mouse to count about 30 crypts. The method of electron microscopy was complemented on line 263-270. We have removed data of the mucus layer.

Gene expression data appears to vary across the different models, for example, Wnt3 expression in mice versus organoids. Additional experiments may be required to clarify the mechanisms involved. Considering that both of the bacteria tested elicited similar changes in Wnt signaling, this pathway might be broadly modulated by the microbiota.

The reason why the Wnt3 expression pattern is different in mice and in porcine intestinal organoids may be caused by the different infection periods of ETEC in vivo and in vitro. Furthermore, in vivo, the stem cell niche of intestinal stem cells is not only regulated by intestinal epithelial cells, but also affected by mesenchymal cells in connective tissues (Luo et al., 2022). However, in vitro models, stem cell niche is only regulated by epithelial secretory factors, which may also account for the differences in in vitro and in vivo results.

It has been reported that B. fragilis pretreatment significantly increased the relative abundance of A. muciniphila in the intestine of CDI mice, and the growth and maintenance of A. muciniphila were involved in the restoration of intestinal barrier integrity after CDI infection, indicating that there might exist a bacterial metabolic symbiosis between A. muciniphila and B. fragilis (Deng et al., 2018).

References:

Luo HM, Li MX, Wang F, et al. The role of intestinal stem cell within gut homeostasis: Focusing on its interplay with gut microbiota and the regulating pathways. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2022, 18(13): 5185-5206.

Deng HM, Yang SQ, Zhang YC, et al. Bacteroides fragilis Prevents Clostridium difficile Infection in a Mouse Model by Restoring Gut Barrier and Microbiome Regulation. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9.

The unconventional choice to not include references in the results section makes it challenging for the reader to put the results in context with what is known in the field. Similarly, there is a lack of discussion acknowledging that B. fragilis is a potential pathogen, associated with intestinal inflammation and cancer (Haghi et al. BMC Cancer 19, 879 (2019) ), and how this would impact its utility as a potential probiotic.

Bacteroides fragilis is one of the symbiotic anaerobes within the mammalian gut and is also an opportunistic pathogen which often isolated from clinical specimens. Bacteroides fragilis was first isolated from the pathogenic site and considered to be pathogenic bacteria. However, with the deepening of research, it is gradually realized that in the long-term evolution process, Bacteroides fragilis colonized in the gut has established a friendly relationship with the host, which is an essential component for maintaining the health of the host, especially for obesity, diabetes and immune deficiency diseases. We have supplemented the discussion on line 598-603.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Ma X. et al proposed that A. muciniphila was a key strain that promotes the proliferation and differentiation of intestinal stem cells by acting on the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway. They used various models, such as the piglet model, mouse model, and intestinal organoids to address how A. muciniphila and B. fragilis offer protection against ETEC infection. They showed that FMT with fecal samples, A. muciniphila or B. fragilis protected piglets and/or mice from ETEC infection, and this protection is manifested as reduced intestinal inflammation/bacterial colonization, increased tight junction/Muc2 proteins, as well as proper Treg/Th17 cells. Additionally, they demonstrated that A. muciniphila protected basal-out and/or apical-out intestinal organoids against ETEC infection via Wnt signaling. While a large body of work has been performed in this study, there are quite a few questions to be addressed.

Major comments:

- The similar protective effect of FMT with fecal samples, A. muciniphila or B. fragilis is perhaps not that surprising, considering that FMT likely restores microbiota-mediated colonization resistance against ETEC infection. While FMT with fecal samples increases SCFAs, it is unclear whether/how FMT with A. muciniphila or B. fragilis alter the microbiota composition/abundance as well as metabolites in the current models in a way that offers protection.

We examined changes in the gut microbiota of mice treated with A. muciniphila and B. fragilis through 16s rRNA, and results showed that both A. muciniphila and B. fragilis improved the alpha and beta diversities of the microbiota, while these results were not included in this manuscript.

- Does ETEC infection in piglets/mice cause histological damage in the intestines? These data should be shown.

The results of scanning electron microscopy (Figure 3A) showed the intestinal damage of piglets after ETEC infection. H&E staining and transmission electron microscopy (Figure 5A and 5B) showed the intestinal damage of mice after ETEC infection.

- Line 447, "ETEC adheres to intestinal epithelial cells". However, there is no data showing the adherence (or invasion) of ETEC to intestinal epithelial cells, irrespective of piglets/mouse/organoids.

The scanning electron microscope (Figure 3A bottom) showed that ETEC K88 infected piglets existed obvious rod-shaped bacterial adhesion on the surface of microvilli. Figure 2C showed the colonization of ETEC K88 in the jejunum and colon of piglets. Figure S2A showed the E. coli colonization in intestines and other tissues of mice.

- In both basal-out and apical-out intestinal organoid models, A. muciniphila protects organoids against ETEC infection. Did ETEC enter into intestinal epithelial cells at all after only one hour of infection? Is the protection through certain A. muciniphila metabolites?

It has been reported that the duration of the co-culture for studying the host-microbiota cross-talk by apical-out organoids model is 1 hour (Poletti et al., 2021). In addition, Co et al. (2019) used apical-out organoids model to study host-pathogen interactions, with Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium or Listeria monocytogenes invading organoids for an hour.

References:

Poletti M, Arnauts K, Ferrante M, et al. Organoid-based Models to Study the Role of Host-microbiota Interactions in IBD. J. Crohns Colitis. 2021, 15(7): 1222-1235.

Co JY, Margalef-Catala M, Li XN, et al. Controlling Epithelial Polarity: A Human Enteroid Model for Host-Pathogen Interactions. Cell Reports. 2019, 26(9): 2509-2520.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Ma et al. describes a multi-model (pig, mouse, organoid) investigation into how fecal transplants protect against E. coli infection. The authors identify A. muciniphila and B. fragilis as two important strains and characterize how these organisms impact the epithelium by modulating host signaling pathways, namely the Wnt pathway in lgr5 intestinal stem cells.

Strengths:

The strengths of this manuscript include the use of multiple model systems and follow-up mechanistic investigations to understand how A. muciniphila and B. fragilis interacted with the host to impact epithelial physiology.

Weaknesses:

The major weakness is that, as presented, the manuscript is quite difficult to follow, even for someone familiar with the field. The lack of detail in figure legends, organization of the text, and frequent use of non-intuitive abbreviated group names without a clear key (ex. EP/EF, or C E A B) make comprehension challenging. The results section is perhaps too succinct and does not provide sufficient information to understand experimental design and interpretation without reading the methods section first or skipping to the discussion (as an example: WNT-c59 treatment). Extensive revisions could be encouraged to aid in communicating the potentially exciting findings.

The abbreviations of experimental groups are firstly defined in the Methods and Materials, and we have supplemented the experimental design in the results section on line 397-399, 439-442 and 516-520.

The bioinformatics section of the methods requires revision and may indicate issues in the pipeline. Merging the forward and reverse reads may represent a problem for denoising. Also since these were sequenced on a NovaSeq, the error learning would have to be modified or the diversity estimates would be inappropriately multiplied. "Alpha diversity and beta diversity were calculated by normalized to the same sequence randomly." Not sure what this means, does this mean subsampled? "Blast was used for sequence alignment", does this mean the taxonomic alignment? This would need to be elaborated on and database versions should be included. The methods, including if any form of multiple testing was included, for LEFSE was also not included.

Denoising was conducted using UNOISE3 to correct for sequencing errors. Subsequent analysis of alpha diversity and beta diversity were all performed based on the output normalized data. Multiple sequence alignment was performed using MUSCLE (v3.8.31) software to obtain the phylogenetic relationships of all OTUs sequences. We have supplemented the method of multiple testing on line 323-328.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

At some points, the rationale for using both porcine and murine models was unclear, and it would be helpful for the reader to elaborate on the benefits of these models and why they were used in the introduction. Similarly, it would be helpful to describe the benefits of basal-in organoids versus injecting standard organoids with bacteria.

The main subject of this study was piglets, supplemented by a mouse model for validation. Interpretation of measurements from organoid microinjection experiments must account for multiple confounding variables such as heterogeneous exposure concentrations and durations, as well as impacts of disrupting the organoid wall. We have added the description in the introduction on line 88-90.

Line 165 -- The number of piglets used seems high, is it correct approximately 100 pigs were used?

Nine litters were selected for processing, while only 18 piglets were finally slaughtered.

There is very little discussion of the preliminary experiment that the authors used to determine how much bacteria to use. I recommend either discussing the data and how the doses were chosen or omitting it. It was not clear if the authors used pasteurized or live bacteria in the experiments. It would also be interesting to include a discussion of the observation that relatively low levels of Akkermansia (10^6 CFU) appeared more beneficial than the higher doses, typically used in these types of experiments.

We removed these results. The experiments used live bacteria.

Microscopy methods for both light microscopy and EM would be stronger with added details including how many sections and fields of view were imaged and how the numbers of goblet cells normalized across samples. Without having a clear cross-section of a crypt, it is not clear to me how the images can be used to accurately quantify the number of cells per crypt. Additional details in the methods on how many total crypts were counted should also be included.

For light microscopy, 3-4 fields were selected from each mouse to count about 30 crypts. We have removed the data of the mucus layer and goblet cells.

Line 236 -- missing which gene was used.

The Genbank Accession was added on line 232-233.

Line 310 -- OTU nomenclature.

We have supplemented the OTU nomenclature on line 314.

Line 413 -- This line seems inconsistent with the data analysis described in the methods section. The authors may need to expand their description of the 16S data analysis to be clear and reproducible.

We have redescribed the 16S data analysis on line 312-328.

Line 413 -- it is not surprising that 16s analysis did not capture species, it will have limited resolution beyond the genus level.

We deleted this sentence.

Methods are missing some details on the data analysis, eg. methods/programs and statistical analysis of PCoA and NMDS, LefSe.

The methods and statistical analysis of PCoA, NMDS and LEfSe were supplemented on line 323-328.

Fig 4C -- The images do not clearly capture the mucus layer or how it was analyzed. The sections appear to be cut at a slight angle, with multiple partial sections of crypts. I think this might make it challenging to count goblet cells, especially if the counts are normalized over the number of crypts or villi. The mucus layer does not appear well preserved. For example, I would expect to see an intact mucus layer lining the colon in the PBS control group. Re-cutting sections with a clean cross-section through the tissue will make data analysis easier.

We have removed data of the mucus layer.

Fig 4D -- The images appear to be of the mouse proximal colon, whereas the mucus layer and most muc2 will be in the distal colon. If the authors have tissue sections of the distal colon, this may give a clearer image of the mucus layer and might be more consistent with the TEM images in Fig. 4B.

We apologize for the absence of the distal colon sections.

To fully preserve the mucus layer, in addition to fixing in Carnoy's solution, the embedding process must be run without the standard washes in 70% ethanol (see: Johansson and Hansson. Methods Mol Biol. (2012) 229; doi: 10.1007/978-1-61779-513-8_13). The mucus will wash away during standard paraffin embedding if the tissue is washed with 70% ethanol, and I wonder if that has occurred in these samples.

The tissue wasn’t washed with 70% ethanol.

Fig 6A and 6B -- Although the legend indicates that the data is representative of two independent experiments, it is not clear how many fields of view or cells were imaged. In the bar graphs, it is not clear how many crypts were analyzed and from how many fields of view.

3-4 fields were selected from each mouse to count about 30 crypts.

**For all of the bar graphs, this could be addressed by displaying all of the data points, rather than just the mean, to give the reader a sense of how many cells were counted. (as was done in Fig 7B).

We have changed the bar graphs with data points.

498-501 -- The text says that the gene expression patterns in the organoids are consistent with the in vivo data, but the data patterns of gene expression appear to be different. For example, patterns for Wnt3 and B-catenin expression in mice, appear to be the opposite of what was observed in the organoid?

Lines 509-512 mean that the expression patterns of mice in organoids and in vivo is consistent. Figure 7C was incorrectly written as Figure 8C, we have changed it.

Since Akkermansia does not grow under aerobic conditions, it should be made clear that the organoid co-culture treatment does not involve actively growing bacterial cultures.

Reunanen et al. found that Akkermansia can tolerate oxygen, more than 90% Akkermansia can keep for 1 h under oxic, 5% CO2 conditions.

Reference:

Reunanen J, Kainulainen V, Huuskonen L, et al. Akkermansia muciniphila Adheres to Enterocytes and Strengthens the Integrity of the Epithelial Cell Layer. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 81(11): 3655-3662.

Minor points

Line 50 -"evidence".

We have changed to “evidence” on line 49.

Line 64, 422 - italicize, check italics throughout.

We have checked italics throughout the manuscript.

Line 64 - may need to be reworded.

We have changed to “Clostridioides difficile” on line 66.

Line 77 - pathogen.

We have changed to “pathogen” on line 77.

Line 161 - the.

We have removed “the” on line 161.

Line 178 - mouse.

We have changed to “mouse” on line 179.

Line 313 -- wording is confusing.

We have changed the description on line 319-320.

Line 318 -- Silva version #.

The version is Silva 132. We have added it on line 316.

Line 334 - Manufacturer for Live/Dead cell stain?

The Live/Dead cell stain was used BD Biosciences FVS510. We have added it on line 345.

Line 433 -- FD4 not defined until here.

We have refined the FD4 on line 218-219.

Line 512 -- but did not promote.

We have changed to “but did not promote” on line 526.

Line 517 -- Looks like this should be "basal-in organoids" instead of basal-out?

We have changed the "basal-out" to "apical-to" on line 531.

Line 546 -- induced neonatal should be protected?

They are in separate pens.

Jumps from Fig 7B to Fig 8C in the text.

We apologize for the wrong writing, and we have change it.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for The Authors):

The title itself is a bit misleading. Please consider changing it. The authors meant that A. muciniphila prevents pathogen invasion, but does not function in pathogen invasion.

We have changed the title.

Major comments:

- Figures 4A, 4D, and 6B should include presentation of cross-section pictures.

We provided cross-section pictures to the journal.

- Figures 7, 8, and 9 should indicate clearly whether mouse or piglet organoids are used. For instance, in the main text, line 490, it indicates piglet organoids, but in Figure 7A legend, it indicates mouse tissue.

We apologize for the misspelling, and have changed to “mice” on line 501-502.

- In Figure 7A, the 3rd row, 2nd panel, crypts formed into spherical organoids; whereas in Figure 8, ETEC infection of basal-out organoids formed budding organoids. This needs to be better explained.

Mouse intestinal organoids were cultured ex vivo from crypts isolated from mice infected with ETEC, while porcine intestinal organoids were co-cultured with ETEC in vitro.

Minor comments:

- In the result section, the numbering of Figures or supplementary Figures is problematic, i.e it should start with Figure 1..., Figure S1, but not directly go to Figure S2A etc.

The Figure 1 was in Materials and Methods.

- Line 458, please add the gating strategy used in the flow cytometry study.

The gating strategy was added on line 351-356.

- The effect of A. muciniphila on the proliferation of intestinal epithelium through the Wnt/β-catenin signaling pathway is well known (such as PMID: 32138776). The authors should discuss this in detail.

We have supplemented the discussion on line 637-639.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

It is somewhat unusual that the results from the piglets are in the supplement as this is a major strength of the manuscript (Fig S2).

We have put these results into Figure 2 of the manuscript.

"Collectively, our results may provide theoretical basis that FMT is a promising mitigation method for pathogenic bacteria infection and a new strategy for precise application of FMT in clinical and livestock production"- This is somewhat of an odd statement as the introduction of the manuscript completely skips over most of what is known about FMTs in the context of C. difficile. Also if anything, does the authors' own data not point mostly at using A. muciniphila on its own? Clinical trials are well underway in humans.

We have changed the sentences to “Collectively, our results may provide theoretical basis that A. muciniphila is a promising method to repair intestinal barrier damage and a new strategy for the precise application of A. muciniphila in livestock production.” on line 98-100.

Line 26: I am not sure probiotic is the right word here given its strict scientific definition. Perhaps beneficial or protective would be more appropriate.

We have changed “probiotic” to “beneficial” on line 25.

Line 27: I believe AIMD is antibiotic-induced microbiome-depletion in most usages which may be more accurate and informative than dysregulated.

The type, dosing, and time of antibiotic we used were applied to induce microbiota disorder.

It would appear that there are issues in the reference formatting where a number of journal names are missing.

We have re-edited the reference formatting.

Line 64- I believe eLife requires the standard practice of italicizing genus and species names. Also Clostridium difficile should now be referred to as Clostridioides difficile.

We have changed to “Clostridioides difficile” and italicized it on line 66 and 569. The italicizing genus and species names were checked throughout the manuscript.

Figure S2C: is it not clear why the melt curve was included here, but the legend should make it more clear what is being shown. I assume this is to provide evidence of specificity?

The melting curve was used to demonstrate that only the ETEC K88 could be amplified by the primers we used. We have added an illustration in the figure legend.

Figure 2D: there should be a quantitative analysis done on the staining of Muc2.

We have quantified the staining of MUC2 in Figure 3D.

Figure 3: The legends are not sufficient. For example: it is not clear what Figure 3A actually shows as the y-axis is not labelled and it is not clear what the relationship is between this and the anosim which is a function for permanova.

Anosim analysis was performed using the R software with anosim package function based on the rank order of Bray-Curtis distance values to test the significance of differences between groups. The y-axis is the rank of the distance between samples.

Line 416- OTU not OUT.

We have changed to “OTU” on line 428.

Figure 4- the naming key needs to be included in the figure legend. C, E, A, and B are immediately obvious.

The naming key was included in the figure legend.

Methods: additional information on the flow cytometry gating strategy/controls should be included.

The gating strategy was added on line 351-356.

Again, it's not that this is wrong, it's just a fairly simple idea, and everything he dresses it up with is made up bullshit. There's no indication he's academically qualified to generate the findings he claims, and the vagueness of his language does not indicate to me someone who has spent much time reading the kind of things he would have to read to know what he claims to know.

Supporting statehood and full citizenship for territories we occupied a century ago might be - and I'm just throwing this out there - the right thing to do. Sorry not sorry that it happens to be good politics.

And the filibuster is a procedural loophole created by segregationists to obstruct civil rights laws, not some sacrosanct constitutional canon.

It's always projection with these guys. They can't imagine someone

Adjustment screw for the Olympia SM3 on feet shift set up is just to the side of the ribbon spool/cup. Gerren indicates that he's never been able to do this adjustment properly with the typewriter body on, so it's much easier to do with it off.

The bottom adjustment point (through the side of the frame) allows one to set the base line for the on foot for the lower case letters while the top one sets the upper case.

Gerren credits Phoenix Typewriter for most of the material he's learned in terms of fixing typewriters.

Bill at Philly Typewriter has an apprentice program, but there aren't many shops that do this. (Gerren makes a joke that it's free (child) labor.)

Trip point adjustments

The trip point is the point at which the typebar trips the movement of the escapement.

The adjustment point for it is reachable by removing the small protecting plate on the bottom at the back of the machine. The escapement trigger is just underneath it.

The lower one (top if the machine is upside down) is for the lower case; the top one is for the upper case.

Screwing the screw in will cause the trip to occur sooner.

Spacebar adjustment mechanisms [13:00]

There are two, one set in the front of the bottom of the typewriter and two screws in the back, right near the escapement.

If the spacebar is hit too many times while cleaning and repairing, the spacebar won't work properly and will need some minor adjustment when the body is put back on.

He shows at the end how to remove the keytops of the individual keys.

The final check is the shift lock mechanism to make sure its aligned properly.

unfortunately imgur is not responding to me and their "breakage of all accounts linked to facebook has severely deffaced my lack of

keeping up with making sure r==g was not "for sure required" in order for this site to remain picture-perfect in any case i am working on fixing things as I am also adding significant amounts of information including full backups of social media and other important information like "Native american language resources"

http://arkloud.xyz/transfer-2024-01-14-06-12-49 http://arkloud.xyz/transfer-2024-01-26-03-30-22

For those of you that "think you have (?)" -- think again; from Azrael to whomever damned our current faux and mistaken "medical world" in Nevada--the Constitution (your light and hope ... if you do care; at the end of this thing) and the Hippocratic Oath ... basically z'd and diseased--in my mind--in retrospect now---from the days of the (it's not a) game: Hungry Hungry Hippo. Dear Pig-Sty; I do not jest on the word thirsty, nor it's relation to Bethalhem or the Manger or the Farm--now by his word to me, in the Farmer.

I'm still sitting here; on the "foot of the bed" in the very room where (for remembrance of the day; I'm going to call this other) Adam (Azrael [ther: Thurisaz and Azithromycin)) confirmed or at least responded verbally (in the mirror, to the mirror; seemingly in response to the request of the mirror/me) that "it speaks" ... talking not in undertones or any kind of obscurity about the thing I call "planck space stuff" (P.S.S.) in relation to some kind of gamey looking process that I've noted really ... happening only around Clearwater and Phoenix. This is a "time period" I'd set aside to sort of link as a second stepping stone in a series of only one other "safe jump back point" that was set (in another place and time that I no longer consider safe at all) upon just reaching Kentucky for the first time.

We've reached past the firmament here; just yesterday--for the first time in many years with "living passengers" and it's a sort of monument to the very strange time--and very strange experience of seeing "Mono" and the previously very loudly noted "apparent decade old time travel research" into the strange "Koran-tine" pandemic of the day--the "Corona virus." It came fairly quickly over the course of only a few months and seems to have forever changed the face of the America ... I've continued to write seems to stray farther and farther from the "thing and people I loved so much." At the very same time--this exact period--I've noticed Monoceros and connected it to a significant message similar to the "Atlas" of Earth which through time has just noted "looking out my back door" as I listened to Credence Clearwater Revival--and minutes ago tried to "make clear" the tie between the single bridge depicted on a map of what could be the very first ... "road between two stars" in a constellation just west of Orion (galactically, and with no imagination in the same temporal schpiel of "frumlegt an" ... the Masonic and Judeochristian connection between Easter and Yeast ... and the land of the rising red sun)--which only through some kind of (not really a) stretch of mythology would instantly tie to Jerusalem ... were it's "true pronounciation" ever really spoken or understood outside the context of "Gilgamesh" ... to Cupid and Eros and "the arrows of 'the hunter you know so well' (Europe, Time has Come)."

#MONO #SEE #CC #LIKE #KISSING #EROS\ \ Monoceros; the "one bridge" constellation just to the "galactic east" of Orion; perhaps something like an "arrow" to Eros ... though I fear what you "see." #WYME #MENE https://t.co/GBHGCHhzLa

--- @hysz@mstdn.io ... @c@qoto.org (@notmymessiah) May 31, 2020

Here ... connecting yesterday's SpaceX launch of the first human into space in over a decade--to the "one giant leap" spoken by Neil Armstrong on July 20, 1969 ... and to the galactic bridge between Andromeda and the Milky Way I've been dreaming up and writing about--and maybe even to the three trips across the Atlantic that Christopher Columbus made to get us all the way to another mentioning of Mastodon and the "Cambridges" that define in some special way the beginning and end of that word that most likely will forever now be tied to "cable" ... and yet another Earthene microcosm for a technical road between stars.

... Nonnus, in his Dionysiaca, [nam] means "Zeus-limp" and that Hermes named the new born Dionysus this, "because Zeus while he *ried his burden διανοεῖν one foot with a limp from the weight of his thigh, and nysos in Syracusan language means limping" ..https://t.co/a95hysTfCU pic.twitter.com/LcEwcyVvg3

--- Adam Marshall Dobrin -- @suzq@rettiwtkcuf.social (@yitsheyzeus) June 3, 2020

Az, I imagine; also recently ... in the last several months since my visit to "Space Station VEGA" in or around Area 51 and what the name and shape of "Nevada" secretly swirls and congeals around ... the important words and mentioning were the linking of multiple London's across disparate Earths or perhaps just "realms of the United Kingdom" and explaining that even a city of the "almost same people" talking to themselves caused a kind of Renaissance--this of course relates to "Mastodon" as ... what it is is a kind of decentralized bridge of things like Twitter and our cellular SMS--that could technically "instantly" link multiple Earths--were there, of course, such a thing.

It's time to cancel a singular planet existence.

--- Bored Elon Musk (@BoredElonMusk) May 26, 2020

for - climate crisis - reflections - perspectives - human vs deep time

adjacency - between - climate crisis - different perspectives - human vs - deep time - adjacency relationship - Our global industrialized world is perturbing the carbon cycle so far out of equilibrium that the status quo civilization cannot persist very far into the future<br /> - the earth system has been through many such perturbations and it ALWAYS self corrects - Even the most extreme climate events earth has ever experienced are called transient because they are still relatively short in geological time - In the long term, the planet will restore equilibrium no matter how much extreme the perturbations human civilization creates in the next few centuries - In the long term, the earth is going to be fine - Homo sapien is just one of millions of species, most of which have gone extinct - We should NOT feel we are exceptional - We are comparing different timescales: - human lifetimes are measured in a hundred years - earth system time scales are measured in millions of years - even if there were another mass extinction event, on a geological time scale of tens of million years a new biosphere will regenerate and the ocean chemistry will be restored - Here we have an interesting intersectionality of different timescales. - paleontologists provide a deep time perspective - while we humans live in a timescale of no greater than 100 years - our bodies cannot directly sense change in deep time - therefore, any scientific information about deep time will need to go through our cognitive system - Our body is not evolutionarily designed to biologically respond to information on a deep-time timescale - It may be beneficial to help us see from a deep-time perspective to appreciate the geological-scale changes we are responsible for

for - book - The Price is Wrong: Why Capitalism won't Save the Planet - Brett Christopher

to - book - The Price is Wrong: Why Capitalism won't Save the Planet - Brett Christopher - https://hyp.is/h01Tyj9uEe-rEhuQgFWRuQ/www.versobooks.com/en-gb/products/3069-the-price-is-wrong

See above about growing too.big/fast and losing personal touch.

Author response:

Please find below our provisional author response, outlining the revisions we plan to undertake to address the Recommendations received:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) A set of recent advances have shown that embeddings of unsupervised/self-supervised speech models aligned to auditory responses to speech in the temporal cortex (e.g. Wav2Vec2: Millet et al NeurIPS 2022; HuBERT: Li et al. Nat Neurosci 2023; Whisper: Goldstein et al. bioRxiv 2023). These models are known to preserve a variety of speech information (phonetics, linguistic information, emotions, speaker identity, etc) and perform well in a variety of downstream tasks. These other models should be evaluated or at least discussed in the study.

We plan to evaluate two of these other models, Wav2Vec2 and HuBERT, in the brain encoding and RSA parts.

(2) The test statistics of the results in Fig 1c-e need to be revised. Given that logistic regression is a convex optimization problem typically converging to a global optimum, these multiple initializations of the classifier were likely not entirely independent. Consequently, the reported degrees of freedom and the effect size estimates might not accurately reflect the true variability and independence of the classifier outcomes. A more careful evaluation of these aspects is necessary to ensure the statistical robustness of the results.

We plan to address this point to ensure the statistical robustness of our results.

(3) In Line 198, the authors discuss the number of dimensions used in their models. To provide a comprehensive comparison, it would be informative to include direct decoding results from the original spectrograms alongside those from the VLS and LIN models. Given the vast diversity in vocal speech characteristics, it is plausible that the speaker identities might correlate with specific speech-related features also represented in both the auditory cortex and the VLS. Therefore, a clearer understanding of the original distribution of voice identities in the untransformed auditory space would be beneficial. This addition would help ascertain the extent to which transformations applied by the VLS or LIN models might be capturing or obscuring relevant auditory information.

We plan to include direct decoding results from the original spectrograms in addition from the VLS and LIN models.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

We plan to address the following points raised by Reviewer #2:

(1) English mistakes, rewordings:

a. L31: 'in voice' > consider rewording (from a voice?).

b. L33: consider splitting sentence (after interactions).

c. L39: 'brain' after parentheses.

d. L45-: certainly DNNs 'as a powerful tool' extend to audio (not just image and video) beyond their use in brain models.

e. L52: listened to / heard.

f. L63: use second/s consistently.

g. L64: the reference to Figure 5D is maybe a bit confusing here in the introduction.

h. L79-88: this section is formulated in a way that is too detailed for the introduction text (confusing to read). Consider a more general introduction to the VLS concept here and the details of this study later.

i. L99-: again, I think the experimental details are best saved for later. It's good to provide a feel for the analysis pipeline here, but some of the details provided (number of averages, denoising, preprocessing), are anyway too unspecific to allow the reader to fully follow the analysis.

We will correct the mistakes, apply the suggested rewordings, and clarify the points raised.

(2) Clarification.

• L159: what was the motivation for classifying age as a 2-class classification problem? Rather than more classes or continuous prediction? How did you choose the age split?

• L263: Is the test of RDM correlation>0 corrected for multiple comparisons across ROIs, subjects, and models?

• L379: 'these stimuli' - weren't the experimental stimuli different from those used to train the V/AE?

• L443: what are 'technical issues' that prevented subject 3 from participating in 48 runs??

• L444: participants were instructed to 'stay in the scanner'!? Do you mean 'stay still', or something?

• L463: Hearing thresholds of 15 dB: do you mean that all had thresholds lower than 15 dB at all frequencies and at all repeated audiogram measurements?

• L472: were the 4 category levels balanced across the dataset (in number of occurrences of each category combination)?

• L482: the test stimuli were selected as having high energy by the amplitude envelope. It is unclear what this means (how is the envelope extracted, what feature of it is used to measure 'high energy'?)

• L500 was the audio filtered to account for the transfer function of the Sensimetrics headphones?

• L500: what does 'comfortable level' correspond to and was it set per session (i.e. did it vary across sessions)?

• L526- does the normalization imply that the reconstructed spectrograms are normalized? Were the reconstructions then scaled to undo the normalization before inversion?

• L606: does the identity GLM model the denoised betas from the first GLM or simply the BOLD data? The text indicates the latter, but I suspect the former.

• L704: could you unpack this a bit more? It is not easy to see why you specify the summing in the objective. Shouldn't this just be the ridge objective for a given voxel/ROI? Then you could just state it in matrix notation.

• L716: you used robust scaling for the classifications in latent space but haven't mentioned scaling here. Are we to assume that the same applies?

• L720: Pearson correlation as a performance metric and its variance will depend on the choice of test/train split sizes. Can you show that the results generalize beyond your specific choices? Maybe the report explained variance as well to get a better idea of performance.

• Could you specify (somewhere) the stimulus timing in a run? ISI and stimulus duration are mentioned in different places, but it would be nice to have a summary of the temporal structure of runs.

We will clarify the points raised.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

We plan to address the following points raised by Reviewer #3:

Comments:

• Code and data are not currently available.

• In the supplementary material, it would be beneficial to present the different analyses as boxplots, as in the main text, but with the ROIs in the left and right hemispheres separated, to better show potential hemispheric effect. Although this information is available in the Supplementary Tables, it is currently quite tedious to access it.

• In Figure 3a, it might be beneficial to order the identities by age for each gender in order to more clearly illustrate the structure of the RDMs,

• In Figure 3b, the variance for the correlations for the aTVA is higher than in other regions, why?

• Please make sure that all acronyms are defined, and that they are redefined in the figure legends.

• Gender and age are primarily encoded by different brain regions (Figure 5, pTVA vs aTVA). How does this finding compare with existing literature?

We will upload the code and the preprocessed data; improve the supplementary material figures; Fix Figure 3 according to the Reviewer’s suggestion, and clarify the points raised.

MAKE "MIAMI MANSION ON SABBATH BOAT"

fuck worlds reaction to "post-it note" entitled, every word, every language;

fallen fallen is the tower of babylon and

$ leviticule you all

w - I want to know that does government can regulate any library? why they have a powerful authority of library?

Is there truth in this regarding medicine? Can we get more out of nature than media and common knowledge portrays? I am not certain, nor is this an area of research for me; but the truth is that it is fascinating to think about.

The larger point does make sense, too much people are focused on money for the sake of money. Money is supposed to be a means to an end; the end being the improvement of society; in the way things are currently set up.

Honestly, I can't make a lick of sense from what Mr. X is saying here lol.

At least the latter part. I understand the previous part.

Again, as Simone Weil says, media (and especially research) must contain impartial factual knowledge, not opinion and especially not propaganda. Truth is a vital need of the soul.

No amount of money should be able to buy your soul (making you spread misinformation). It's like making a deal with the devil.

Interesting food for thought for the optimization of education: should we give students not just domain knowledge (in an efficient manner) but also intercultural and experiental knowledge of the world?

Not just related to personal development such as wealth creation and personal finance, but also how other civilizations work... Tolerance. Teach them philosophy as well.

Obviously in such a way that it is attracting and they are intrinsically motivated to go to school and learn.

Raises a broader question: Is domain knowledge worth anything if you have no knowledge (or experience) about the world in itself? Can you be of any value if you do not know the world in such a manner?

This is a valid criticism (sorry Elon Musk)... By helping the other individual you in the end help society and therefore yourself.

We should be focusing on present problems that are closer to us before moving on to more abstract problems that have less value at present.

The same goes for ourselves. Try not to fix your family or neighborhood before you have fixed yourself (keep in mind diminishing returns). As Dan Koe said: "Your purpose is solving the most pressing problem you have right now." (not verbatim).

Try not to learn how to learn before your sleep schedule is excellent, before you know how to be productive and have habits.

Learning enablers first, THEN learning.

Fix first yourself, then your household, then the city, then the country, then the continent, etc. This does not have to be taken literally, but use it as a wise guidance. It's a principle rather than a law.

for - rapid whole system change - need for something that will create a new form of altruism - Ronald Wright - transition - requires an experience of re-awakening transition - need for a new religion? Deep Humanity?

comment 10 July 2024 - Deep Humanity is our attempt at this. It is not a religion, however. It is humanity, but in the deepest sense, so it is accessible to anyone in our species. Our tagline has been - Rekindling wonder in an age of crisis - However, this morning an adjacency occurred:

adjacency - between - familiarity - wonder - adjacency relationship - Familiarity hides wonder - Richard Dawkins said: - There is an anaesthetic of familiarity, - a sedative of ordinariness - which dulls the senses and hides the wonder of existence. - For those of us not gifted in poetry, - it is at least worth while from time to time - making an effort to shake off the anaesthetic. - What is the best way of countering the sluggish habitutation brought about by our gradual crawl from babyhood? - We can't actually fly to another planet. - But we can recapture that sense of having just tumbled out to life on a new world - by looking at our own world in unfamiliar ways. - That is, when a type of experience becomes familiar through repeated sensory episodes, - we lose the feeling of wonder we had when we initially experienced it - It's much like visiting a place for the very first time. We are struck with a sense of wonder because everything is unpredictable, in a safe way. We have no idea what's around the next corner. It's a surprise. - However, once we live there, and have traced that route hundreds of times, we have transformed that first magical experience into mundane experience. - So it is with everything that makes us human, with all the foundational things about reality that we learned from the moment we were born. - They have all become jaded. We've forgotten the awe of those first experiences in this reality: - our first experience of our basic senses - our first breath of air, instead of amniotic fluid - our first integration of multiple sensory experiences into a cohesive whole - the birth of objectification - the very first application of objectification to form the object we called mOTHER - the Most significant OTHER - our first encounter with the integration of multiple sensory stimuli associated with each object we construct - our first encounter with auditory human, speech symbols - our first experience with object continuity - how objects still exist even if they disappear from view momentarily - do we remember freaking out when mOTHER disappeared from view momentarily? - our first ability to communicate with mOTHER through speech symbols - our first encounter with ability to control our bodies through our own volition - our first encounter with gravity, the pull towards the ground - our first encounter with a large bright sphere suspended in the sky - our first encounter with perspective, how objects change size in our field of view as they get nearer or farer - etc... - What's missing now, is that we have repeated all these experiences so many times, that the feeling of awe no longer emerges with life - To generate awe, the repertoire of existing experiences is insufficient - now we have to create NEW experiences, we have to create novelty - Mortality Salience can help jolt us out of this fixation on novelty, and remind us of the sacred that is already here all the time - For, what happens at the time of death? All the constructions we have taken for granted in life disappear all at once, or perhaps some before others - Hence, we begin to re-experience them as relative, as constructions, and not absolutes - All living organisms have their own unique umwelt - These umwelts are all expressions of the sacred, sensing itself in different ways

• What is required is a kind of awakening, or re-awakening
• When religions do their job, it gives us a framework to engage in a shared sense of the sacred, of wonder in the mundane
• In a sense, Deep Humanity is identifying that most vital commonality in all religions and seeing all their diverse intersectionalities in simply being deeply human
• We awakened once, when we were born into the world
  • then we fell asleep through the dream of familiarity
• Now, we have to collectively re-awaken to the wonder we all experienced in that initial awakening experience as newborns

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> This paper presents a cognitive model of out-of-distribution generalisation, where the representational basis is grid-cell codes. In particular, the authors consider the tasks of analogies, addition, and multiplication, and the out-of-distribution tests are shifting or scaling the input domain. The authors utilise grid cell codes, which are multi-scale as well as translationally invariant due to their periodicity. To allow for domain adaptation, the authors use DPP-A which is, in this context, a mechanism of adapting to input scale changes. The authors present simulation results demonstrating that this model can perform out-of-distribution generalisation to input translations and re-scaling, whereas other models fail.

Strengths:<br /> This paper makes the point it sets out to - that there are some underlying representational bases, like grid cells, that when combined with a domain adaptation mechanism, like DPP-A, can facilitate out-of-generalisation. I don't have any issues with the technical details.

Weaknesses:<br /> The paper does leave open the bigger questions of 1) how one learns a suitable representation basis in the first place, 2) how to have a domain adaptation mechanism that works in more general settings other than adapting to scale. Overall, I'm left wondering whether this model is really quite bespoke or whether there is something really general here. My comments below are trying to understand how general this approach is.

COMMENTS<br /> This work relies on being able to map inputs into an appropriate representational space. The inputs were integers so it's easy enough to map them to grid locations. But how does this transfer to making analogies in other spaces? Do the inputs need to be mapped (potentially non-linearly) into a space where everything is linear? In general, what are the properties of the embedding space that allows the grid code to be suitable? It would be helpful to know just how much leg work an embedding model would have to do.

It's natural that grid cells are great for domain shifts of translation, rescaling, and rotation, because they themselves are multi-scaled and are invariant to translations and rotations. But grid codes aren't going to be great for other types of domain shifts. Are the authors saying that to make analogies grid cells are all you need? If not then what else? And how does this representation get learned? Are there lots of these invariant codes hanging around? And if so how does the appropriate one get chosen for each situation? Some discussion of the points is necessary as otherwise, the model seems somewhat narrow in scope.

For effective adaptation of scale, the authors needed to use DPP-A. Being that they are relating to brains using grid codes, what processes are implementing DPP-A? Presumably, a computational module that serves the role of DPP-A could be meta-learned? I.e. if they change their task set-up so it gets to see domain shifts in its training data an LSTM or transformer could learn to do this. The presented model comparisons feel a bit of a straw man.

I couldn't see it explained exactly how R works.

It would be useful to track down the misleading statement that Mozilla PR released that suggested that neither party was receiving kickbacks with the new Pocket integration. The reality is that that there was money changing hands related to the decision to integrate Pocket (NB: this was pre-Pocket acquisition by Mozilla), but the statement was worded just so to merely suggest that no money was changing hands without ever explicitly stating so—the idea being no doubt that they could claim plausible deniability wrt any false statements and blame the reader/listener for misunderstanding. The problem with this is that it backfired because it was so successful that Mozilla programmers who weren't in-the-know themselves took the statement to mean exactly the thing implied, and then they took to all sorts of public fora and "refuted" people using the PR piece, only these duped employees were explicitly claiming that there wasn't anything untoward going on, rather than the way the PR statement merely implied it. Plausible deniability moot.

(I was hoping after stumbling upon this old piece that I'd see the statement here, which would allow me to trace the contamination to e.g. HN comment threads around the same time, but this isn't the statement. It's a good clue as to when, precisely, it might have been issued.)

Part 3: COMPLETE Olympia SM3 Service/Set Up Guide- Carriage Adjustments/ Ring and Cylinder by [[The HotRod Typewriter Co.]]

Not mentioned in the video is that, at least on his model, most of the common adjustment points have screws or nuts which have a brassy look rather than silvery almost as a means of highlighting them as subtle adjustment points for improving the performance of the machine.

Sometimes the carriage lock mechanism on the Olympia SM3 may not clear the carriage rail completely and this can result in it rubbing on the returns which results in a zipper or grinding sound. Forming the bar that connects the lever to the mechanism can quickly remedy this issue. See timestamp 2:17

Fore and aft adjustments on carriages

Details at timestamp

Side to side adjustment on carriage:

Details at timestamp

Forward and backward carriage adjustments (on both sides):

Details at timestamp

Adjustment for the spacing between the carriage rails:

This adjustment is rarely done unless there is something drastically wrong with the machine Details at timestamp

Adjustment on the carriage stoppers for how much bounce the carriage shift might have as well as how high or low the carriage sits at it's lowest point using the triangle sliding bracket on each side of the carriage with two screws. If these force the carriage too high, it can affect where the type sits in terms of potentially interfering with the bichrome settings to make letters (especially the tallest ones) have two colors when they should only have one. Details at timestamp 8:14

Adjustment on the rear springs for how light or heavy the carriage shift may be. Raise the spring and then adjust the small "nut" on the top. Details at timestamp 9:52

Ring and Cylinder adjustment for Olympia SM3<br /> Details at timestamp

Gerren doesn't seem to understand (or perhaps doesn't discuss it) some of the mechanics behind this adjustment beyond the distance of the platen to the typeface, but the usual suggestion is that the typeface shouldn't actually strike the paper and/or the platen. Ideally there should be just enough space between the typeface and the platen that an addition sheet of paper can be easily slid between the two along with the ribbon and another sheet of paper. This will allow the typeface to just kiss the ribbon and force the ink onto the front sheet of paper. Doing this will help to protect the integrity of the paper being typed on (ie, no deep imprints being pressed into the paper -- often seen with the period), as well as the integrity of the platen (preventing chips and imprints into the rubber, especially if it has been hardened), and the longer term integrity of the ribbon which can tend to be cut into by the typeface if it's too close.

From a physics perspective there is some minor amount of flex in the typebar arm between where the "hammer" at the bottom of the typebar hits the "anvil" (aka ring) and the top of the typeface which, when typing at speed will tend to "throw" the typeface a tad farther than it would hit when the hammer hits the anvil when simply holding it against the ring manually.

I think this is too much modesty, or a kind of self-undercutting to try to convey the importance of the point. But functionally it undercuts the significance of the earlier parts of the chapter. At the end here I'm understanding the argument as being

1. The antislavery campaign shows what state-of-the-art data visualization meant c. 1800, and these two different visualizations from Clarkson make the case that he should be considered one of the canonical figures.
2. That's important because it heightens a set of ethical and political questions about whether and when to visualize. Clarkson's work can be considered a countervisualization or something -- possibly a concept to introduce ? -- because it's taking advantage of the trade etc. Also highlights dataviz as a political-rhetorical form, not just a scientific practice about astronomy etc.
3. Just because we admire things about Clarkson's career doesn't mean should literally canonize him as a saint. Equiano's reaction shows that even at that time there are a different set of requirements.

And then there is the metaphor of water and streams. This does a few things: 1. provides a counterpoint to the God's-eye, object view by adding a contingency of flow and direction, fluidity, and contingency. 2. was useful for ~1800 readers who ALSO weren't always looking for this objective god's-eye view, which is OK. (I think the infographic/dataviz distinction from the introduction here is useful, because it underlines that the more 'subjective' or whatever flow timelines are an ADVANCE on Priestley's straight lines and can be seen as such. 3. Motivates your own data visualization of the streams of with the also-canonical Mississippi visualization. I may have missed this but I think the connection here is almost fully implicit. This could be one key to motivating the water thing as your own choice.

Seeing some discussion from others here, I think the problem with these two pp is that the metaphor of the river does make sense to modern readers as noted in the paragraph above. The notion of the surging waters of justice is in the "I have a dream speech" too -- Amos's let "justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream".

"Why water" shows up as a motivating question here but it's kind of a red herring: after all you've already opted for the Mississippi analogy above. IDK honestly if it needs to be motivated -- is there any reason not to just say "I've known rivers" and then talk about them?

"Publishers are going to go down the tubes is they don't have the revenues"

Authors: the publishers are not necessarily your friends here...

IA believes it is fair use immediately but has the 5-year embargo to assuage publisher concerns

I wonder what people would want in such a website. Just, more languages? Or more community-sourced content? Or...?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors repeatedly measured the behavior of individual flies across several environmental situations in custom-made behavioral phenotyping rigs.

Strengths:

The study uses several different behavioral phenotyping devices to quantify individual behavior in a number of different situations and over time. It seems to be a very impressive amount of data. The authors also make all their behavioral phenotyping rig design and tracking software available, which I think is great and I'm sure other folks will be interested in using and adapting it to their own needs.

Weaknesses/Limitations:

I think an important limitation is that while the authors measured the flies under different environmental scenarios (i.e. with different lighting and temperature) they didn't really alter the "context" of the environment. At least within behavioral ecology, context would refer to the potential functionality of the expressed behaviors so for example, an anti-predator context, a mating context, or foraging. Here, the authors seem to really just be measuring aspects of locomotion under benign (relatively low-risk perception) contexts. This is not a flaw of the study, but rather a limitation to how strongly the authors can really say that this demonstrates that individuality is generalized across many different contexts. It's quite possible that rank order of locomotor (or other) behaviors may shift when the flies are in a mating or risky context.

The analytical framework in terms of statistical methods is lacking. It appears as though the authors used correlations across time/situations to estimate individual variation; however, far more sophisticated and elegant methods exist. The paper would be a lot stronger, and my guess is, much more streamlined if the authors employ hierarchical mixed models to analyse these data these models could capture and estimate differences in individual behavior across time and situations simultaneously. Along with this, it's currently unclear whether and how any statistical inference was performed. Right now, it appears as though any results describing how individuality changes across situations are largely descriptive (i.e. a visual comparison of the strengths of the correlation coefficients?).

Another pretty major weakness is that right now, I can't find any explicit mention of how many flies were used and whether they were re-used across situations. Some sort of overall schematic showing exactly how many measurements were made in which rigs and with which flies would be very beneficial.

I don't necessarily doubt the robustness of the results and my guess is that the author's interpretations would remain the same, but a more appropriate modeling framework could certainly improve their statistical inference and likely highlight some other cool patterns as these methods could better estimate stability and covariance in individual intercepts (and potentially slopes) across time and situation.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Yonk and colleagues show that the posterior medial thalamus (POm), which is interconnected with sensory and motor systems, projects directly to major categories of neurons in the striatum, including direct and indirect pathway MSNs, and PV interneurons. Activity in POm-striatal neurons during a sensory-based learning task indicates a relationship between reward expectation and arousal. Inhibition of these neurons slows reaction to stimuli and overall learning. This circuit is positioned to feed salient event activation to the striatum to set the stage for effective learning and action selection.

Strengths:

The results are well presented and offer interesting insight into an understudied thalamostriatal circuit. In general, this work is important as part of a general need for an increased understanding of thalamostriatal circuits in complex learning and action selection processes, which have generally received less attention than corticostriatal systems.

Weaknesses:

There could be a stronger connection between the connectivity part of the data - showing that POm neurons context D1, D2, and PV neurons in the striatum but with some different properties - and the functional side of the project. One wonders whether the POm neurons projecting to these subtypes or striatal neurons have unique signaling properties related to learning, or if there is a uniform, bulk signal sent to the striatum. This is not a weakness per se, as it's reasonable for these questions to be answered in future papers.

All the in vivo activity-related conclusions stem from data from just 5 mice, which is a relatively small sample set. Optogenetic groups are also on the small side.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study uses MEG to test for a neural signature of the trial history effect known as 'serial dependence.' This is a behavioral phenomenon whereby stimuli are judged to be more similar than they really are, in feature space, to stimuli that were relevant in the recent past (i.e., the preceding trials). This attractive bias is prevalent across stimulus classes and modalities, but a neural source has been elusive. This topic has generated great interest in recent years, and I believe this study makes a unique contribution to the field. The paper is overall clear and compelling, and makes effective use of data visualizations to illustrate the findings. Below, I list several points where I believe further detail would be important to interpreting the results. I also make suggestions for additional analyses that I believe would enrich understanding but are inessential to the main conclusions.

(1) In the introduction, I think the study motivation could be strengthened, to clarify the importance of identifying a neural signature here. It is clear that previous studies have focused mainly on behavior, and that the handful of neuroscience investigations have found only indirect signatures. But what would the type of signature being sought here tell us? How would it advance understanding of the underlying processes, the function of serial dependence, or the theoretical debates around the phenomenon?

(1a) As one specific point of clarification, on p. 5, lines 91-92, a previous study (St. John-Saaltink et al.) is described as part of the current study motivation, stating that "as the current and previous orientations were either identical or orthogonal to each other, it remained unclear whether this neural bias reflected an attraction or repulsion in relation to the past." I think this statement could be more explicit as to why/how these previous findings are ambiguous. The St. John-Saaltink study stands as one of very few that may be considered to show evidence of an early attractive effect in neural activity, so it would help to clarify what sort of advance the current study represents beyond that.

(1b) The study motivation might also consider the findings of Ranieri et al (2022, J. Neurosci) Fornaciai, Togoli, & Bueti (2023, J. Neurosci), and Luo & Collins (2023, J. Neurosci) who all test various neural signatures of serial dependence.

(2) Regarding the methods and results, it would help if the initial description of the reconstruction approach, in the main text, gave more context about what data is going into reconstruction (e.g., which sensors), a more conceptual overview of what the 'reconstruction' entails, and what the fidelity metric indexes. To me, all of that is important to interpreting the figures and results. For instance, when I first read, it was unclear to me what it meant to "reconstruct the direction of S1 during the S2 epoch" (p. 10, line 199)? As in, I couldn't tell how the data/model knows which item it is reconstructing, as opposed to just reporting whatever directional information is present in the signal.

(2a) Relatedly, what does "reconstruction strength" reflect in Figure 2a? Is this different than the fidelity metric? Does fidelity reflect the strength of the particular relevant direction, or does it just mean that there is a high level of any direction information in the signal?

(3) Then in the Methods, it would help to provide further detail still about the IEM training/testing procedure. For instance, it's not entirely clear to me whether all the analyses use the same model (i.e., all trained on stimulus encoding) or whether each epoch and timepoint is trained on the corresponding epoch and timepoint from the other session. This speaks to whether the reconstructions reflect a shared stimulus code across different conditions vs. that stimulus information about various previous and current trial items can be extracted if the model is tailored accordingly. Specifically, when you say "aim of the reconstruction" (p. 31, line 699), does that simply mean the reconstruction was centered in that direction (that the same data would go into reconstructing S1 or S2 in a given epoch, and what would differentiate between them is whether the reconstruction was centered to the S1 or S2 direction value)? Or were S1 and S2 trained and tested separately for the same epoch? And was training and testing all within the same time point (i.e., train on delay, test on delay), or train on the encoding of a given item, then test the fidelity of that stimulus code under various conditions?

(3a) I think training and testing were done separately for each epoch and timepoint, but this could have important implications for interpreting the results. Namely if the models are trained and tested on different time points, and reference directions, then some will be inherently noisier than others (e.g., delay period more so than encoding), and potentially more (or differently) susceptible to bias. For instance, the S1 and S2 epochs show no attractive bias, but they may also be based on more high-fidelity training sets (i.e., encoding), and therefore less susceptible to the bias that is evident in the retrocue epoch.

(4) I believe the work would benefit from a further effort to reconcile these results with previous findings (i.e., those that showed repulsion, like Sheehan & Serences), potentially through additional analyses. The discussion attributes the difference in findings to the "combination of a retro-cue paradigm with the high temporal resolution of MEG," but it's unclear how that explains why various others observed repulsion (thought to happen quite early) that is not seen at any stage here. In my view, the temporal (as well as spatial) resolution of MEG could be further exploited here to better capture the early vs. late stages of processing. For instance, by separately examining earlier vs. later time points (instead of averaging across all of them), or by identifying and analyzing data in the sensors that might capture early vs. late stages of processing. Indeed, the S1 and S2 reconstructions show subtle repulsion, which might be magnified at earlier time points but then shift (toward attraction) at later time points, thereby counteracting any effect. Likewise, the S1 reconstruction becomes biased during the S2 epoch, consistent with previous observations that the SD effects grow across a WM delay. Maybe both S1 and S2 would show an attractive bias emerging during the later (delay) portion of their corresponding epoch? As is, the data nicely show that an attractive bias can be detected in the retrocue period activity, but they could still yield further specificity about when and where that bias emerges.

(5) A few other potentially interesting (but inessential considerations): A benchmark property of serial dependence is its feature-specificity, in that the attractive bias occurs only between current and previous stimuli that are within a certain range of similarity to each other in feature space. I would be very curious to see if the neural reconstructions manifest this principle - for instance, if one were to plot the trialwise reconstruction deviation from 0, across the full space of current-previous trial distances, as in the behavioral data. Likewise, something that is not captured by the DoG fitting approach, but which this dataset may be in a position to inform, is the commonly observed (but little understood) repulsive effect that appears when current and previous stimuli are quite distinct from each other. As in, Figure 1b shows an attractive bias for direction differences around 30 degrees, but a repulsive one for differences around 170 degrees - is there a corresponding neural signature for this component of the behavior?

TOP STORIES FOR ADAM

| |

| | | | | |

Golda Meir, the 4th prime minister of Israel and an immigrant from Russia, lived in a mansion, the House of Hanna Bisharat, that the Israeli colonists had stolen from Palestinian Christian family in 1948. Does the Meir family still own the mansion?

| |

|

Asked in Palestine Today - Answered by Arrête Les Macroni - June 8

|

| |

[

I advise you to use real name of Golda, not the self-indegenizing name she chose, to claim indegeneity to Palestine, though she was a Ukrainian settler.

Her real name was Go...

Read more »

| |

136

| |

43

|

](https://www.quora.com/qemail/tc?al_imp=eyJ0eXBlIjogMzMsICJoYXNoIjogIjE3ODI1Mjg0NzYzNjE1MzUzMzN8MXwxfDE0Nzc3NDM3NzI4NDUxMjEifQ%3D%3D&al_pri=0&aoid=z0UzPQch4Zu&aoty=1&aty=4&cp=1&et=2&id=06708012c6b44f6aa93ffb22fd401088&uid=bwOtX03HCAF)

| | | | | |

What screams "I have a low IQ"?

| |

|

Karen Wideman, former teacher at Klein ISD - Answered November 11, 2018

|

| |

[

I have taught quite a few students who just couldn't learn or remember anything from minute to minute. I'd work and work with them and I'd think they would have the concept...

Read more »

| |

4K

| |

367

|

](https://www.quora.com/qemail/tc?al_imp=eyJ0eXBlIjogMzMsICJoYXNoIjogIjE3ODI1Mjg0NzYzNjE1MzUzMzN8MnwxfDEwNzY3NTgxNSJ9&al_pri=0&aoid=qmyJ2UtJPFA&aoty=1&aty=4&cp=2&et=2&id=06708012c6b44f6aa93ffb22fd401088&uid=bwOtX03HCAF)

| | | |

| |

| | | | | |

Do married men know when their wives are having affairs?

| |

|

J Bizzle, Master's History, University of Virginia - Answered November 30, 2023

|

| |

[

Years ago I had a girlfriend who is now an ex girlfriend, "jokingly" asked how would I respond, if i ever came home with her in the bed with another guy. I looked her dead ...

Read more »

| |

9.1K

| |

1.6K

|

](https://www.quora.com/qemail/tc?al_imp=eyJ0eXBlIjogMzMsICJoYXNoIjogIjE3ODI1Mjg0NzYzNjE1MzUzMzN8M3wxfDE0Nzc3NDM3MTk3MTczNjcifQ%3D%3D&al_pri=0&aoid=VRgvRsaFPcq&aoty=1&aty=4&cp=3&et=2&id=06708012c6b44f6aa93ffb22fd401088&uid=bwOtX03HCAF)

| | | | | |

Why are Christians not Jewish? Jesus was Jewish.

| |

|

Marc Lipshitz, Been involved in counter missionary work for 20+ years - Answered June 17

|

| |

[

It's simple- Christian beliefs are completely divorced from Judaism regardless of its desperate attempts to claim to come from it. Christian theology is vastly different to...

Read more »

| |

34

| |

23

|

](https://www.quora.com/qemail/tc?al_imp=eyJ0eXBlIjogMzMsICJoYXNoIjogIjE3ODI1Mjg0NzYzNjE1MzUzMzN8NHwxfDE0Nzc3NDM3NzUwNDY3OTUifQ%3D%3D&al_pri=0&aoid=1AQXNzKOxzr&aoty=1&aty=4&cp=4&et=2&id=06708012c6b44f6aa93ffb22fd401088&uid=bwOtX03HCAF)

| | | | | |

Why won't Donald Trump allow Penn State to release his transcripts?

| |

|

Asked in Done with the Bullshit? - Answered by Jay Valenci - June 6

|

| |

[

Because convicted felon Donald Trump's Penn State transcript would be a blank sheet of paper. That's because, it pains me to say this but convicted felon Donald Trump atten...

Read more »

| |

6.8K

| |

1.3K

|

](https://www.quora.com/qemail/tc?al_imp=eyJ0eXBlIjogMzMsICJoYXNoIjogIjE3ODI1Mjg0NzYzNjE1MzUzMzN8NXwxfDE0Nzc3NDM3NzI0NTI0MDgifQ%3D%3D&al_pri=0&aoid=FC2UaqJuiaS&aoty=1&aty=4&cp=5&et=2&id=06708012c6b44f6aa93ffb22fd401088&uid=bwOtX03HCAF)

| | | | | |

My brother passed away owing more than he owned. Am I legally required to settle his estate?

| |

|

Audrey Lewis, Food Lover - Answered February 4

|

| |

[

I'm sorry to hear about your brother's passing. Dealing with the aftermath of a loved one's death can be emotionally and financially challenging. When it comes to settling ...

Read more »

| |

4K

| |

239

|

](https://www.quora.com/qemail/tc?al_imp=eyJ0eXBlIjogMzMsICJoYXNoIjogIjE3ODI1Mjg0NzYzNjE1MzUzMzN8NnwxfDE0Nzc3NDM3MzY1OTk4MTgifQ%3D%3D&al_pri=0&aoid=7V1UeOHZau&aoty=1&aty=4&cp=6&et=2&id=06708012c6b44f6aa93ffb22fd401088&uid=bwOtX03HCAF)

| | | | | |

Putin has just said we are close to the point of no return. Do you agree that Putin isn't bluffing?

| |

|

Asked in Russia  and Ukraine  conflict - Answered by Andrew Hill - June 14

|

| |

[

America just sanctioned 2 of the main Russian currency exchanges, and the rubel fell a bit in response.

It is possible he is right. With respect to his economy, at some stag...

Read more »

| |

2.6K

| |

702

|

](https://www.quora.com/qemail/tc?al_imp=eyJ0eXBlIjogMzMsICJoYXNoIjogIjE3ODI1Mjg0NzYzNjE1MzUzMzN8N3wxfDE0Nzc3NDM3NzQyNDM3OTYifQ%3D%3D&al_pri=0&aoid=YRtgCVG6PUH&aoty=1&aty=4&cp=7&et=2&id=06708012c6b44f6aa93ffb22fd401088&uid=bwOtX03HCAF)

| | | | | |

I am 47 years old and I'm single. What should I do?

| |

|

George Harrison - Answered April 27

|

| |

[

Well what do you want to do? I'm 61 and have never been on a date. Its brutally hard but about 10 years ago I think I finally accepted my fate. I've had a great career, am ...

Read more »

| |

7.5K

| |

1.7K

|

](https://www.quora.com/qemail/tc?al_imp=eyJ0eXBlIjogMzMsICJoYXNoIjogIjE3ODI1Mjg0NzYzNjE1MzUzMzN8OHwxfDE0Nzc3NDM3NTY5MDEyNzQifQ%3D%3D&al_pri=0&aoid=IYxRCjl4yBD&aoty=1&aty=4&cp=8&et=2&id=06708012c6b44f6aa93ffb22fd401088&uid=bwOtX03HCAF)

| | | | | |

What is the dark side of each zodiac sign?

| |

|

Gulden Oldac - Updated June 18, 2019

|

| |

[

Aries: Too impulsive, easily angered

Taurus: Lazy, stubborn

Twins (Gemini): Chatterer, superficial

Cancer: Clingy, Born nagger...

Read more »

| |

1.7K

| |

180

|

](https://www.quora.com/qemail/tc?al_imp=eyJ0eXBlIjogMzMsICJoYXNoIjogIjE3ODI1Mjg0NzYzNjE1MzUzMzN8OXwxfDE0NDM5MTMxMiJ9&al_pri=0&aoid=1pcfIavOXUh&aoty=1&aty=4&cp=9&et=2&id=06708012c6b44f6aa93ffb22fd401088&uid=bwOtX03HCAF)

| | | | | |

If you call 911 by accident and tell the operator "sorry, I didn't mean to dial you," will they still send someone out?

| |

|

Angela Harding - Answered December 7, 2023

|

| |

[

When my son was 1, he accidentally called 911 on my phone. I did not know until they called back. I explained to them what I thought had happened since my son had my phone ...

Read more »

| |

286

| |

22

|

](https://www.quora.com/qemail/tc?al_imp=eyJ0eXBlIjogMzMsICJoYXNoIjogIjE3ODI1Mjg0NzYzNjE1MzUzMzN8MTB8MXwxNDc3NzQzNzIxNDQ5OTQwIn0%3D&al_pri=0&aoid=Y1f2rL37P6Z&aoty=1&aty=4&cp=10&et=2&id=06708012c6b44f6aa93ffb22fd401088&uid=bwOtX03HCAF)

| | | | | |

What should Israel do with Hamas fighters captured by the IDF in Gaza?

| |

|

Lee Leifeste - Answered June 16

|

| |

[

Quite honestly, There is absolutely no reason to keep a terrorist in prison, spending money for their daily living, aside from gaining information from them, there is no re...

Read more »

| |

240

| |

85

|

](https://www.quora.com/qemail/tc?al_imp=eyJ0eXBlIjogMzMsICJoYXNoIjogIjE3ODI1Mjg0NzYzNjE1MzUzMzN8MTF8MXwxNDc3NzQzNzc0NjcxOTkyIn0%3D&al_pri=0&aoid=doBm038DJk7&aoty=1&aty=4&cp=11&et=2&id=06708012c6b44f6aa93ffb22fd401088&uid=bwOtX03HCAF)

| | | | | |

What kind of hobbies do highly intelligent, i.e., those with intelligence levels beyond the exceptional, people have?

| |

|

Liz Marsh, BA from Northeastern State University (1973) - Updated September 4, 2020

|

| |

[

This one is not about myself, but one of the most intelligent people in my family. That is my mother, whose IQ was tested a couple of times at over 160. She had a straight ...

Read more »

| |

2.5K

| |

234

|

](https://www.quora.com/qemail/tc?al_imp=eyJ0eXBlIjogMzMsICJoYXNoIjogIjE3ODI1Mjg0NzYzNjE1MzUzMzN8MTJ8MXwxODEwODAyNCJ9&al_pri=0&aoid=dmp0qKa2hYm&aoty=1&aty=4&cp=12&et=2&id=06708012c6b44f6aa93ffb22fd401088&uid=bwOtX03HCAF)

| |

| Read more in your feed |

|

|

|

Mixins in Django REST Framework: Simplified Explanation

Mixins are small, reusable classes that provide specific behavior to a view class. They are like building blocks that you can combine to create custom views. Instead of defining the handler methods like .get() or .post() directly, mixins provide action methods which allow for more flexible composition of behaviors.

Common Mixin Classes

Here are some commonly used mixin classes from rest_framework.mixins:

1. ListModelMixin
2. Purpose: Provides the ability to list a queryset.
3. Method: .list(request, *args, **kwargs)

4. Example: ```python from rest_framework import generics, mixins from django.contrib.auth.models import User from myapp.serializers import UserSerializer

   class UserList(mixins.ListModelMixin, generics.GenericAPIView): queryset = User.objects.all() serializer_class = UserSerializer

    def get(self, request, *args, **kwargs):
        return self.list(request, *args, **kwargs)
   

   ```

5. CreateModelMixin

6. Purpose: Provides the ability to create a new model instance.
7. Method: .create(request, *args, **kwargs)

8. Example: ```python class UserCreate(mixins.CreateModelMixin, generics.GenericAPIView): queryset = User.objects.all() serializer_class = UserSerializer

    def post(self, request, *args, **kwargs):
        return self.create(request, *args, **kwargs)
   

   ```

9. RetrieveModelMixin

10. Purpose: Provides the ability to retrieve a single model instance.
11. Method: .retrieve(request, *args, **kwargs)

12. Example: ```python class UserDetail(mixins.RetrieveModelMixin, generics.GenericAPIView): queryset = User.objects.all() serializer_class = UserSerializer

     def get(self, request, *args, **kwargs):
         return self.retrieve(request, *args, **kwargs)
    

    ```

13. UpdateModelMixin

14. Purpose: Provides the ability to update an existing model instance.
15. Methods: .update(request, *args, **kwargs), .partial_update(request, *args, **kwargs)

16. Example: ```python class UserUpdate(mixins.UpdateModelMixin, generics.GenericAPIView): queryset = User.objects.all() serializer_class = UserSerializer

     def put(self, request, *args, **kwargs):
         return self.update(request, *args, **kwargs)
    
     def patch(self, request, *args, **kwargs):
         return self.partial_update(request, *args, **kwargs)
    

    ```

17. DestroyModelMixin

18. Purpose: Provides the ability to delete an existing model instance.
19. Method: .destroy(request, *args, **kwargs)
20. Example: ```python class UserDelete(mixins.DestroyModelMixin, generics.GenericAPIView): queryset = User.objects.all() serializer_class = UserSerializer

     def delete(self, request, *args, **kwargs):
         return self.destroy(request, *args, **kwargs)
    

    ```

Concrete View Classes

Concrete view classes combine generic views and mixins to provide common patterns. Here are some examples:

1. CreateAPIView
2. Purpose: Create-only endpoints.

3. Usage: ```python from rest_framework import generics

   class UserCreateView(generics.CreateAPIView): queryset = User.objects.all() serializer_class = UserSerializer ```

4. ListAPIView

5. Purpose: Read-only endpoints for a collection of model instances.

6. Usage: python class UserListView(generics.ListAPIView): queryset = User.objects.all() serializer_class = UserSerializer

7. RetrieveAPIView

8. Purpose: Read-only endpoints for a single model instance.

9. Usage: python class UserDetailView(generics.RetrieveAPIView): queryset = User.objects.all() serializer_class = UserSerializer

10. DestroyAPIView

11. Purpose: Delete-only endpoints for a single model instance.

12. Usage: python class UserDeleteView(generics.DestroyAPIView): queryset = User.objects.all() serializer_class = UserSerializer

13. UpdateAPIView

14. Purpose: Update-only endpoints for a single model instance.

15. Usage: python class UserUpdateView(generics.UpdateAPIView): queryset = User.objects.all() serializer_class = UserSerializer

16. ListCreateAPIView

17. Purpose: Read-write endpoints for a collection of model instances.

18. Usage: python class UserListCreateView(generics.ListCreateAPIView): queryset = User.objects.all() serializer_class = UserSerializer

19. RetrieveUpdateAPIView

20. Purpose: Read or update endpoints for a single model instance.

21. Usage: python class UserRetrieveUpdateView(generics.RetrieveUpdateAPIView): queryset = User.objects.all() serializer_class = UserSerializer

22. RetrieveDestroyAPIView

23. Purpose: Read or delete endpoints for a single model instance.

24. Usage: python class UserRetrieveDestroyView(generics.RetrieveDestroyAPIView): queryset = User.objects.all() serializer_class = UserSerializer

25. RetrieveUpdateDestroyAPIView

26. Purpose: Read-write-delete endpoints for a single model instance.
27. Usage: python class UserRetrieveUpdateDestroyView(generics.RetrieveUpdateDestroyAPIView): queryset = User.objects.all() serializer_class = UserSerializer

Customizing Generic Views with Mixins

You can create custom mixins to encapsulate specific behaviors and reuse them across multiple views. Here's an example of a custom mixin for looking up objects based on multiple fields:

python class MultipleFieldLookupMixin: """ Apply this mixin to any view or viewset to get multiple field filtering based on a `lookup_fields` attribute, instead of the default single field filtering. """ def get_object(self): queryset = self.get_queryset() # Get the base queryset queryset = self.filter_queryset(queryset) # Apply any filter backends filter = {} for field in self.lookup_fields: if self.kwargs.get(field): # Ignore empty fields. filter[field] = self.kwargs[field] obj = get_object_or_404(queryset, **filter) # Lookup the object self.check_object_permissions(self.request, obj) return obj

Using Custom Mixins

You can use the custom mixin with any view to apply the custom behavior:

python class RetrieveUserView(MultipleFieldLookupMixin, generics.RetrieveAPIView): queryset = User.objects.all() serializer_class = UserSerializer lookup_fields = ['account', 'username']

Custom Base Classes

If you frequently use a mixin across multiple views, create custom base classes:

```python class BaseRetrieveView(MultipleFieldLookupMixin, generics.RetrieveAPIView): pass

class BaseRetrieveUpdateDestroyView(MultipleFieldLookupMixin, generics.RetrieveUpdateDestroyAPIView): pass ```

This way, you can reuse the custom behavior consistently across your project.

In summary, mixins in Django REST Framework allow you to compose views with reusable actions, making your code modular and easier to maintain. The combination of mixins and generic views helps you quickly build standard CRUD (Create, Read, Update, Delete) operations with minimal code.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Good point

I also don't just mean the script, but I mean every thing. The signatures and text block I'm also printing with my typewriter. Looking online before setting this I couldn't find much info or other people doing the same thing, so I feel like it's quite unique.

It's also insane. And I get why people aren't doing it. My book is a small collection of short stories and won't be too big. I have a friend who's a book binder that will bind the text block into a hardcover book. Very excited! Just wanted to share.

[...]

Oh no but I mean it's uncommon to make signatures and text blocks from typewriters. Like each copy of the book will be made from the typewriter.

https://www.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1dtb8sn/im_two_months_in_to_my_writing_a_book_entirely_on/

Example of someone both writing and publishing a book entirely by typewriter.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this work the authors start presenting a multi-strain SIR model in which viruses circulate in an heterogeneous population with different groups characterized by different cross-immunity structures. They argue that this model can be reformulated as a random walk characterized by new variants saturating at intermediate frequencies. Then they recast their microscopic description to an effective formalism in which viral strains lose fitness independently from one another. They study several features of this process numerically and analytically, such as the average variants frequency, the probability of fixation, and the coalescent time. They compare qualitatively the dynamics of this model to variants dynamics in RNA viruses such as flu and SARS-CoV-2

Strengths:

The idea that a vanishing fitness mechanisms that produce partial sweeps may explain important features of flu evolution is very interesting. Its simplicity and potential generality make it a powerful framework. As noted by the authors, this may have important implications for predictability of virus evolution and such a framework may be beneficial when trying to build predictive models for vaccine design. The vanishing fitness model is well analyzed and produces interesting structures in the strains coalescent. Even though the comparison with data is largely qualitative, this formalism would be helpful when developing more accurate microscopic ingredients that could reproduce viral dynamics quantitatively.<br /> This general framework has a potential to be more universal than human RNA viruses, in situations where invading mutants would saturate at intermediate frequencies.

Weaknesses:

The authors build the narrative around a multi-strain SIR model in which viruses circulate in an heterogeneous population, but the connection of this model to the rest of the paper is not well supported by the analysis.<br /> When presenting the random walk coarse-grained description in section 3 of the Results, there is no quantitative relation between the random walk ingredients - importantly P(\beta) - and the SIR model, just a qualitative reasoning that strains would initially grow exponentially and saturate at intermediate frequencies. So essentially any other microscopic description with these two features would give rise to the same random walk.

Currently it's unclear whether the specific choices for population heterogeneity and cross-immunity structure in the SIR model matter for the main results of the paper. In section 2, it seems that the main effect of these ingredients are reduced oscillations in variants frequencies and a rescaled initial growth rate. But ultimately a homogeneous population would also produce steady state coexistence between strains, and oscillation amplitude likely depends on parameters choices. Thus a homogeneous population may lead to a similar coarse-grained random walk.

Similarly, it's unclear how the SIR model relates to the vanishing fitness framework, other than on a qualitative level given by the fact that both descriptions produce variants saturating at intermediate frequencies. Other microscopic ingredients may lead to a similar description, yet with quantitative differences.

At the same time, from the current analysis the reader cannot appreciate the impact of such a mean field approximation where strains lose fitness independently from one another, and under what conditions such assumption may be valid.

In summary, the central and most thoroughly supported results in this paper refer to a vanishing fitness model for human RNA viruses. The current narrative, built around the SIR model as a general work on host-pathogen eco-evolution in the abstract, introduction, discussion and even title, does not seem to match the key results and may mislead readers. The SIR description rather seems one of the several possible models, featuring a negative frequency dependent selection, that would produce coarse-grained dynamics qualitatively similar to the vanishing fitness description analyzed here.

• god, nation, family and work - traditional pillars of life
• it's exactly like cikszentmihalyi had said on flow state, that it's addicting and we'll go to far lengths just to experience it all over again

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this study, Jellinger et al. performed engram-specific sequencing and identified genes that were selectively regulated in positive/negative engram populations. In addition, they performed chronic activation of the negative engram population over 3 months and observed several effects on fear/anxiety behavior and cellular events such as upregulation of glial cells and decreased GABA levels.

Strengths:

They provide useful engram-specific GSEA data and the main concept of the study, linking negative valence/memory encoding to cellular level outcomes including upregulation of glial cells, is interesting and valuable.

Weaknesses:

A number of experimental shortcomings make the conclusion of the study largely unsupported. In addition, the observed differences in behavioral experiments are rather small, inconsistent, and the interpretation of the differences is not compelling.

Major points for improvement:

(1) Lack of essential control experiments

With the current set of experiments, it is not certain that the DREADD system they used was potent and stable throughout the 3 months of manipulations. Basic confirmatory experiments (e.g., slice physiology at 1m vs. 3m) to show that the DREADD effects on these vHP are stable would be an essential bottom line to make these manipulation experiments convincing.

In previous work from our lab performing long-term activation of Gq DREADD receptors in the vHPC, we quantify the presence of Gq receptor expression over 3-, 6- and 9-month timepoints and show that there is no decrease in receptor expression, as measured via fluorescence intensity (Suthard et al., 2023). In this study, we also address that even if our manipulation is only working for 1 month, rather than 3 months, we are observing the long-term effects of this shorter-term stimulation. This is still relevant, and only changes how we interpret these findings, as shorter-term stimulation or disruption of neuronal activity can still have detrimental effects on behavior.

Furthermore, although the authors use the mCherry vector as a control, they did not have a vehicle/saline control for the hM3Dq AAV. Thus, the long-term effects such as the increase in glial cells could simply be due to the toxicity of DREADD expression, rather than an induced activity of these cells.

For chemogenetic studies, our experimental rationale utilized a standard approach in the field, which includes one of two control options: 1) active receptor vs. control vector + ligand or 2) active receptor + ligand or saline control. We chose the first option, as this more properly controls for the potential off-target effects of the ligand itself, as shown in other previous work (Xia et al., 2017). This is particularly important for studies using CNO, as many off-target effects have been noted as a limitation (Manvich et al., 2018). We chose to use DCZ as it is closely related to CNO and newer ligands, but comes with added benefits of high specificity, low off-target effects, high potency and brain penetrance (Nagai et al., 2020), but any potential off-target effects of DCZ are yet to be completely investigated as this ligand is very new.

Evidence of DREADD toxicity has been shown at high titer levels of AAV2/7- CamKIIα-hM4D(Gi)-mCherry in the hippocampus at 5 weeks, as the reviewer pointed out in their above comment (Goossens et al., 2021). Our viral strategy is targeted to a much smaller number of cells using AAV9-DIO-Flex-hM3Dq-mCherry at a lower titer, unlike expression within a much larger population of CaMKII+ excitatory neurons in this study. Additionally, visual comparison of their viral load and expression with ours shows much more intense expression that spans a larger area of the hippocampus (Goossens et al, 2021; Figure 1D), whereas ours is isolated to a smaller region of vHPC (see Figure 1B).

Further, we attempted to quantify a decrease in neuronal health (Yousef et al., 2017) resulting from DREADD expression via NeuN counts within multiple hippocampal subregions for the 6- and 14-month groups across active Gq receptor and mCherry conditions and did not observe significant decreases in NeuN as a result (Supplemental Figure 1). However, immunohistochemistry of an individual marker may not be sufficient to capture the entire health profile of an individual neuron and future work should consider other markers of cell death or inflammation, which we have added to the Limitations & Future Work section of our Discussion.

(2) Figure 1 and the rest of the study are disconnected

The authors used the cFos-tTA system to label positive/negative engram populations, while the TRAP2 system was used for the chronic activation experiments. Although both genetic tools are based on the same IEG Fos, the sensitivity of the tools needs to be validated. In particular, the sensitivity of the TRAP2 system can be arbitrarily altered by the amount of tamoxifen (or 4OHT) and the administration protocols. The authors should at least compare and show the percentage of labeled cells in both methods and discuss that the two experiments target (at least slightly) different populations. In addition, the use of TRAP2 for vHP is relatively new; the authors should confirm that this method actually captures negative engram populations by checking for reactivation of these cells during recall by overlap analysis of Fos staining or by artificial activation.

We thank the reviewer for their comments and opportunity to discuss the marked differences between TRAP2 and DOX systems. In particular, we agree that while both systems rely on the the Fos promoter to drive an effector of interest, their efficacy and temporal resolution vary substantially depending on genetic cell-type, brain region, temporal parameters of Dox or 4-OHT delivery, subject-by-subject metabolic variability, and threshold to Fos induction given the promoter sequences inherent to each system. For example, recent studies have reported the following:

- The TRAP2 line labels a subset of endogenously activeCA1 pyramidal cells (e.g. 5-18%) while the DOX system labels 20-40% of CA1 pyramidal cells (DeNardo et al, 2019; Monasterio et al, BioRxiv 2024 ).

- The temporal windows for each range from hours in TRAP2 to 24-48 hours for DOX (DeNardo et al, 2019; Denny et al, 2014; Liu & Ramirez et al, 2012).

- The efficacy of “tagging” a population of cells with TRAP2 vs with DOX will constrain the number of possible cells that may overlap with cFos upon re-exposure to a given experience (e.g. see the observed overlaps in vCA1 - BLA circuits (Kim & Cho, 2020), compared to vCA1 in general (Ortega-de San Luis et al, 2023) and valence-specific vCA1 populations (Shpokayte et al, 2022).

- Tagging vCA1 cells with both the TRAP2 and DOX systems are nonetheless sufficient to drive corresponding behaviors (e.g. vCA1 terminal stimulation drives behavioral changes with the DOX and TRAP2 system (Shpokayte et al, 2022) and vCA1 stimulation of an updated fear-linked ensemble drives light-induced freezing in a neutral context utilizing the TRAP2 and DOX systems (Ortega-de San Luis et al, 2023)).

Finally, and promisingly, as more studies continue to link the in vivo physiological dynamics of these cell populations tagged using each system (e.g. compare Pettit et al, 2022 with Tanaka et al, 2018) and correlating their activity to behavioral phenotypes, our field is in the prime position to uncover deeper principles governing hippocampus-mediated engrams in the brain. Together, we believe a more comprehensive understanding of these systems is fully warranted, especially in the service of further cataloging cellular similarities and differences within such tagged populations.

(3)  Interpretation of the behavior data

In Figures 3a and b, the authors show that the experimental group showed higher anxiety based on time spent in the center/open area. However, there were no differences in distance traveled and center entries, which are often reduced in highly anxious mice. Thus, it is not clear what the exact effect of the manipulation is. The authors may want to visualize the trajectories of the mice's locomotion instead of just showing bar graphs.

Our findings show that our experimental group displays higher levels of anxiety-like behaviors as measured via time spent in center/open area, while there are no differences in distance traveled or center entries. For distance traveled, our interpretation is in line with complementary research (Jimenez et al, 2018; Kheirbek et al, 2013) that shows no changes in distance traveled/distance traveled in the center coupled with changes in anxiety levels as a result of manipulation within anxiety-related circuits. More broadly, any locomotion-related deficit could cause a change in distance traveled that is unrelated to anxiety-like behaviors alone. For example, a reduction in distance traveled could be coupled with a decrease in time spent in the center, but could also result only from motor or exploratory deficits. We hope that this explanation clarifies our interpretation of the open field and elevated plus maze findings in light of other literature.

In addition, the data shown in Figure 4b is somewhat surprising - the 14MO control showed more freezing than the 6MO control, which can be interpreted as "better memory in old". As this is highly counterintuitive, the authors may want to discuss this point. The authors stated that "Mice typically display increased freezing behavior as they age, so these effects during remote recall are expected" without any reference. This is nonsense, as just above in Figure 4a, older mice actually show less freezing than young mice. Overall, the behavioral effects are rather small and random. I would suggest that these data be interpreted more carefully.

In Figure 4B, we present our findings from remote recall and observe increased freezing levels in control mice with age, as mentioned by the reviewer, indicating increased memory. This is in line with previous work from Shoji & Miyakawa, 2019 which has been added as a reference for the quotation described above; we thank the reviewer for pointing this error out. As the reviewer has pointed out, above in Figure 4A, we measured freezing levels across all groups during contextual fear conditioning before the start of chronic stimulation, as this was the session we ‘tagged’ a negative memory in. Although it appears that there may be slightly lower levels of freezing in older (14-month old) mice, our findings do not determine statistical significance for difference between age group, only effects of time and subject which are expected as freezing increases within the session and animals display high levels of variability in freezing levels across many experiments (Figure 4A i-iii). We also find in previous work that control mice receiving 3-, 6- and 9-months of chronic DCZ stimulation in the vHPC with empty vector (mCherry) receptor show an increase in freezing with age (Suthard et al, 2023; Figure 2A ii).

(4) Lack of citation and discussion of relevant study

Khalaf et al. 2018 from Gräff lab showed that experimental activation of recall-induced populations leads to fear attenuation. Despite the differences in experimental details, the conceptual discrepancy should be discussed.

As mentioned by the reviewer, Khalaf et al. 2018 showed that experimental activation of recall-induced populations in the dentate gyrus leads to fear attenuation. Specifically, they pose that this fear attenuation occurs in these ensembles through updating or unlearning of the original memory trace via the engagement, rather than suppression, of an original traumatic experience. Despite the differences in experimental details with our current study and this work, we agree that the conceptual discrepancy should be discussed. First, one major difference is that we are reactivating an ensemble that was tagged during fear memory encoding, while Khalaf et al. are activating a remote recall-induced ensemble that was tagged one month after encoding. Although there is high overlap between the encoding and recall ensembles when mice are exposed to the conditioning context, these ensembles are not identical and may result in different behavioral phenotypes when chronically reactivated. Further, Khalaf et al rely on reactivation of the recall-induced ensemble during extinction to facilitate rapid fear attenuation. This differs from our current work, as their reactivation is occurring during the extinction process in the previously conditioned context, while we are reactivating chronically in the animal’s home cage over the course of a longer time period. It may be necessary that the memory is first reactivated, and thus, more liable to re-contextualization, in the original context compared to an unrelated homecage environment where there are presumably no related cues present. Importantly, this previous work tests the attenuation of fear shortly after an extinction process, while we are not traditionally extinguishing the context with aid of the memory reactivation. Finally, we are testing remote recall (3 months post-conditioning), while they are testing at a shorter time interval (28 days). In line with these ideas, future work may seek to tease out the mechanistic differences between recent and remote memory extinction both in terms of natural memory recall and chronically manipulated memory-bearing cells.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Jellinger, Suthard, et al. investigated the transcriptome of positive and negative valence engram cells in the ventral hippocampus, revealing anti- and pro-inflammatory signatures of these respective valences. The authors further reactivated the negative valence engram ensembles to assay the effects of chronic negative memory reactivation in young and old mice. This chronic re-activation resulted in differences in aspects of working memory, and fear memory, and caused morphological changes in glia. Such reactivation-associated changes are putatively linked to GABA changes and behavioral rumination.

Strengths:

Much of the content of this manuscript is of benefit to the community, such as the discovery of differential engram transcriptomes dependent on memory valence. The chronic activation of neurons, and the resultant effects on glial cells and behavior, also provide the community with important data. Laudable points of this manuscript include the comprehensiveness of behavioral experiments, as well as the cross-disciplinary approach.

Weaknesses:

There are several key claims made that are unsubstantiated by the data, particularly regarding the anthropomorphic framing of "rumination" on a mouse model and the role of GABA. The conclusions and inferences in these areas need to be carefully considered.

(1) There are many issues regarding the arguments for the behavioural data's human translation as "rumination." There is no definition of rumination provided in the manuscript, nor how rumination is similar/different to intrusive thoughts (which are psychologically distinct but used relatively interchangeably in the manuscript), nor how rumination could be modelled in the rodent. The authors mention that they are attempting to model rumination behaviours by chronically reactivating the negative engram ("To understand if our experimental model of negative rumination..."), but this occurs almost at the very end of the results section, and no concrete evidence from the literature is provided to attempt to link the behavioural results (decreased working memory, increased fear extinction times) to rumination-like behaviours. The arguments in the final paragraph of the Discussion section about human rumination appear to be unrelated to the data presented in the manuscript and contain some uncited statements. Finally, the rumination claims seem to be based largely upon a single data figure that needs to be further developed (Figure 6, see also point 2 below).

(2) The staining and analysis in Figure 6 are challenging to interpret, and require more evidence to substantiate the conclusions of these results. The histological images are zoomed out, and at this resolution, it appears that only the pyramidal cell layer is being stained. A GABA stain should also label the many sparsely spaced inhibitory interneurons existing across all hippocampal layers, yet this is not apparent here. Moreover, both example images in the treatment group appear to have lower overall fluorescence intensity in both DAPI and GABA. The analysis is also unclear: the authors mention "ROIs" used to measure normalized fluorescence intensity but do not specify what the ROI encapsulates. Presumably, the authors have segmented each DAPI-positive cell body and assessed fluorescence however, this is not explicated nor demonstrated, making the results difficult to interpret.

Based on the collective discussion from all reviewers on the completeness of our GABA quantification and its implications, we have decided to remove this figure and perform more substantive analysis of this E/I imbalance in future work.

(3) A smaller point, but more specific detail is needed for how genes were selected for GSEA analysis. As GSEA relies on genes to be specified a priori, to avoid a circular analysis, these genes need to be selected in a blind/unbiased manner to avoid biasing downstream results and conclusions. It's likely the authors have done this, but explicitly noting how genes were selected is an important context for this analysis.

As mentioned in our Methods section, gene sets were selected based on pre-existing biology and understanding of genes canonically involved in “neurodegeneration” such as those related to apoptotic pathways and neuroinflammation or “neuroprotection” such as brain-derived neurotrophic factor, to name a few. A limitation of this method is that we must avoid making strong claims about the actual function of these up- or down-regulated genes without performing proper knock-in or knock-out studies, but we hope that this provides an unbiased inventory for future experiments to perform causal manipulations.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors note that negative ruminations can lead to pathological brain states and mood/anxiety dysregulation. They test this idea by using mouse engram-tagging technology to label dentate gyrus ensembles activated during a negative experience (fear conditioning). They show that chronic chemogenetic activation of these ensembles leads to behavioral (increased anxiety, increased fear generalization, reduced fear extinction) and neural (increases in neuroinflammation, microglia, and astrocytes).

Strengths:

The question the authors ask here is an intriguing one, and the engram activation approach is a powerful way to address the question. Examination of a wide range of neural and behavioral dependent measures is also a strength.

Weaknesses:

The major weakness is that the authors have found a range of changes that are correlates of chronic negative engram reactivation. However, they do not manipulate these outcomes to test whether microglia, astrocytes, or neuroinflammation are causally linked to the dysregulated behaviors.

Recommendations For The Authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

- Figure 2c should include Month0, the BW before the start of the manipulation.

Regrettably, we do not have access to the Month 0 body weights at this time as this project changed hands over the course of the past year or so. This is an inherent limitation that we missed during analysis and we pose this as a limitation in the Results section after describing this finding. Therefore, it is possible that over the first month of stimulation (Month 0-1), there may have been a drop in body weight that rebounded by the first measurement at Month 1 that continued to increase normally through Months 2-3, as shown in our Figure 1. Thank you for this note.

- Figure 6a looks confusing - the background signal in the green channel is very different between control and experimental groups. Were representative images taken with different microscope settings?

The representative images were taken with the same microscope power settings, but were adjusted in brightness/contrast within FIJI for clarity in the Figure – we apologize that this was misleading in any way and thank the reviewer for their feedback. Further, based on the collective discussion from all reviewers on the completeness of our GABA quantification and its implications, we have decided to remove this figure and perform more substantive analysis of this E/I imbalance in future work.

- Typo mChe;try

This typo was fixed

- "During this contextual... mice in the 6- and 14- month groups..." Isn't it 3- and 11- month respectively at the time of fear conditioning? Throughout the manuscript, this point was written very confusingly.

Yes, we thank the reviewer for pointing this out. It has been corrected to 3- and 11-month old mice at the timing of fear conditioning and clarified throughout the manuscript where applicable.

- "GABAergic eYFP fluorescence" Where does the eYFP come from? The methods state that GABA quantification is based on IHC staining.

Based on the collective discussion from all reviewers on the completeness of our GABA quantification and its implications, we have decided to remove this figure and perform more substantive analysis of this

E/I imbalance in future work. We discuss this E/I balance not being directly assessed in the Limitations & Future Directions section of our Discussion, noting the importance of detailed quantification of both excitatory and inhibitory markers within the hippocampus.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) There is a full methods section ("Analysis of RNA-seq data") that mostly describes RNA-seq analysis that seemingly does not appear in the paper. This section should be reviewed.

We have included this portion of the methods that explain the previous workflow from Shpokayte et al., 2022 where this dataset was generated and this has been noted in the “Analysis of RNA-seq data” section of the methods.

(2) Figure 6: GABA staining should be more critically analyzed, as discussed above, and validated with another GABA antibody for rigor. From the representative images provided in Figure 6, it looks possibly as though the hM3Dq images were simply not fully in the focal plane when being imaged or were over-washed, as DAPI staining also appears to be lower in these images.

Based on the collective discussion from all reviewers on the completeness of our GABA quantification and its implications, we have decided to remove this figure and perform more substantive analysis of this E/I imbalance in future work. Specifically, it will be necessary to rigorously investigate both excitatory and inhibitory markers within this region to ensure these claims are substantiated. Thank you for this suggestion.

(3) The first claim that human GABAergic interneurons cause rumination is uncited. (Page 19, first sentence beginning with: "Evidence from human studies suggests...").

Based on the collective discussion from all reviewers on the completeness of our GABA quantification and its implications, we have decided to remove this figure and perform more substantive analysis of this E/I imbalance in future work. Apologies for the lack of citation in-text, the proper citation for this finding is Schmitz et al, 2017.

(4) Gene names throughout the manuscript and figure are written in the wrong format for mice (eg: Page 13, second line: SPP1, TTR, and C1QB1 instead of Spp1, Ttr, C1qb1).

This was corrected throughout the manuscript.

(5) Tense on Page 15 third sentence of the second paragraph: "...spatial working memory was assessed...".

This was corrected throughout the manuscript.

(6) Supplemental Figure 1 would benefit from normalization of the NeuN+ cell counts. The inclusion of an excitatory and inhibitory neuron marker in this figure might benefit the argument that there is a change in the excitation/inhibition of the hippocampus - as the numbers of excitatory neurons outweigh the numbers of inhibitory neurons that would be assayed here.

In an effort to normalize the NeuN+ cell counts, for each of our ROIs (6-8 single tiles for each brain region (DG, vCA1, vSub) x 3-5 coronal slices = ~18 single tiles per mouse x 3-4 mice) we captured a 300 x 300 micrometer, single-tile z-stack at 20x magnification. These ROIs were matched for dimensions and brain regions across all groups for each hippocampal subregion quantified. We initially proposed to normalize these NeuN counts over DAPI, but because DAPI includes all nuclei (microglia, oligodendrocytes, astrocytes and neurons), we weren’t sure this was the most optimal tool. We do agree that further quantification of excitatory and inhibitory cell markers would be vital to more concrete interpretation of our findings and we have added this to our Limitations & Future Work section of the Discussion.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) The DOX tagging window lacks temporal precision. I suggest the authors note this as a limitation.

We thank the reviewer for noting this, and we have added this limitation to the Methods section with the context of the 24-48 hour DOX window being longer than other methods like TRAP.

(2) Is there a homeostatic response to chronic engram stimulation? That is, is DCZ as effective in increasing neuronal excitability on day 90 as it is on day 1. This could be addressed with electrophysiology, or with IEG induction. Alternatively, the authors could refer to previous literature-- for example, Xia et al (2017) eLife-- that examined whether there was any blunting of the effects of DREADD ligands after sustained delivery via drinking water. There, of course, may be other papers as well.

As noted by the reviewer, it is important to determine if DCZ maintains its effects on neuronal excitability throughout the 3 month administration period. To address this, previous work has shown that CNO administration in drinking water over one month consistently inhibited hM4Di+ neurons without altering baseline neuronal excitability as measured by firing rate and potassium currents (Xia et al, 2017). Although this is only for one month, it is administered via the same oral route as our DCZ protocol and suggests that at least for that amount of time we are likely producing consistent effects. In our reply above to Reviewer #1’s comment, we also note that even if DCZ is only having an effect for one month, rather than 3 months, we are still observing enduring changes that resulted from this short-term disturbance.

(3) Please double check there is no group effect on weight in 6-month-old mice in Figure 2C.

Two-way RM ANOVA showed no main effect of Group within the 6-month-old control and hM3Dq groups.

Group: F(1,17) = 1.361, p=0.2594.

(4) The shock intensity is much higher than is typical for fear conditioning studies in mice. Why was this the case?

Yes, we do agree that this shock intensity is on the higher side of typical paradigms in mice, however, our lab has utilized 0.75mA to 1.5mA intensity foot shocks for contextual fear conditioning in the past (Suthard & Senne et al, 2023; 2024; Dorst & Senne et al, 2023; Grella et al., 2022; Finkelstein et al., 2022) and we maintained this protocol for internal consistency. However, it would be interesting to systematically investigate how differing intensities of foot shock, subsequent tagging of this ensemble and reactivation would uniquely impact behavioral state acutely and chronically in mice.

(5) Remote freezing is very low. The authors should comment on this-- perhaps repeated testing has led to some extinction?

A reviewer above suggested a similar phenomenon may be occuring, specifically fear attenuation as a result of chronic stimulation. They referenced previous work from Khalaf et al. 2018, where they reactivated a recall-induced ensemble, while we reactivated an ensemble tagged during encoding. We expand upon this work in light of our findings within the Limitations & Future Work section of our Discussion. However, we do appreciate the lower levels of freezing observed in remote recall and sought out other literature to understand the typical range of remote freezing levels. One thing that we note is that our remote recall is occurring 3 months after conditioning, which is much longer than typical 14-28 day protocols. However, we find that freezing levels at remote timepoints from 21-45 days results in contextual freezing levels of between 20-50% approximately (Kol et al., 2020), as well as 40-75% approximately in a variety of 28 day remote recall experiments (Lee et al., 2023). This information, together with our current experimental protocol demonstrates a wide range of remote freezing levels that may depend heavily on the foot shock intensity, duration of days after conditioning, and animal variability.

(6) "mice display increased freezing with age": please add a reference.

Apologies, we missed the citation for that claim and it has been added in-text and in the references list (Shoji & Miyakawa, 2019).

(7) Related to the low freezing levels for remote memory, why is generalization minimal? Many studies have shown that there is a time-dependent emergence of generalized fear, yet here this is not seen. Is it linked to extinction (as above)? Or genetic background?

Previous work has shown that rats receiving multiple foot shocks during conditioning displayed a time-dependent generalization of context memory, while those receiving less shocks did not (Poulos et al., 2016), as the reviewer noted in their comment. In our current study, we observe low levels of generalization in all of our groups compared to freezing levels displayed in the conditioned context at the remote timepoint, in opposition to this time-dependent enhancement of generalization. It is possible that the genetic background of our C57BL/6J mice compared to the Long-Evans rat strain in this previous work accounts for some of this difference. In addition, it is possible that the longer duration of time (3 months) compared to their remote timepoint (28 days) resulted in time-dependent decrease in generalization that decreases with greater durations of time from original conditioning. As noted above, it is indeed plausible that the reactivation of a contextual fear ensemble over time is attenuating freezing levels for both the original and similar contexts (Khalaf et al, 2018). We discuss the differences in our study and this 2018 work more comprehensively above.

(8) Morphological phenotypes of astrocytes/microglia. Would be great to do some transcriptomic profiling of microglia/astrocytes to couple with the morphological characterization (but appreciate this is beyond the scope of current work).

We thank the reviewer this suggestion, we agree that would be an incredibly informative future experiment and have added this to our Limitations & Future Experiments section of the Discussion.

(9) The authors could consider including a limitations section in their discussion which discusses potential future directions for this work:

- causal experiments.

- E/I balance is not assessed directly (interestingly, in this regard, expanded engrams are linked to increased generalization [e.g., Ramsaran et al 2023]).

Thank you for this suggestion, we have added a Limitations & Future Directions section to our Discussion and have expanded upon these suggested points.

(10) For Figure 10, consider adding an experimental design/timeline.

We are making the assumption that the reviewer meant Figure 1 instead of Figure 10 here, but note that there is a description of the viral expression duration (D0-D10), followed by an off Dox period of 48 hours (D10-D12), with subsequent engram tagging of a negative (foot shock) or positive (male-to-female exposure) on D12. In our experiments (Shpokayte et al., 2022), Dox was administered for 24 hours (D12-D13), which was followed by sacrificing the animal for cell suspension and sequencing of the positive and negative engram populations. This figure also shows the viral strategy for the Tet-tag system (Figure 1A), as well as representative viral expression in vHPC (Figure 1B). We are happy to add additional experimental design/timeline information to this figure that would be helpful to the reviewer.

Reviewer 2: Lauren Mak Summary: This manuscript describes the need for a generalized linked-read (LR) analysis package and showcases the package the authors developed to address this need. Overall, the workflow is welldesigned but there are major gaps in the benchmarking, analysis, and documentation process that need to be addressed before publication.Documentation:The purpose of multiple tool options: While the analysis package is technically sound, one major aspect is left unexplained- why are there so many algorithm options included without guidance as to which one to use? There are clearly performance differences by different algorithms (combinations of 2+ not considered either) on different types of LR sequence.Provenance of ATCC-MSA-1003: Nowhere in the manuscript is the biological and technical composition of the metagenomics control described. It would be helpful to mention that this is specifically a mock gut microbiome sample, as well as the relative abundances of the originating species as well as the absolute amounts of genetic material per species (ex. as measured by genomic coverage) in the actual dataset. As a corollary, there should be standard deviations in any figures that display a summary statistic (ex. Figure 3A- precision, recall, etc.) that seems to be averaged across the species in a sample. This includes Figure 3A and Figure 4A.Dataset details: There is no table indicating the number of reads for each dataset, which would be helpful in interpreting Figures 3 and 4.Open source?: However, there was no Github link provided, only a link to the Conda landing page. Are there thorough instructions provided for the package's installation, input, output, and environment management?Benchmarking:The lack of simulated tests: The above concern (expected performance on idealized datasets) is best addressed with simulated data, which was not done despite the fact that LRSim exists (and apparently the authors have written a tool for stLFR as well previously).Indels: What are the sizes of the indels detected? Why were newer tools, such as PopIns2, Pamir, or Novel-X not tried as well?Analysis:Lines 166-169: Figure 1 panel A1 vs. B1- why do the distribution of estimated fragment sizes from the 10x datasets look so different in metagenomic vs. human samplees, when there is reasonable consistency in TELL-Seq and stLFR datasets?Lines 182-184: Figure 3A- why is LRTK's taxonomic classification quality generally lower than the of the tools? At least in terms of recall, it should perform better as mapping reads to reference genomes should have a lower false negative rate than k-mer-based tools. Also, what is the threshold for having detect a taxon? Is it just any number of reads or is there a minimum bound?Lines 187-188: Figure 3B- at least 15% of each caller's set of variants is unique to the variant, while a maximum of 50% is universal. I'd not interpret that as consistency.Lines 192-193: Are you referring to allelic imbalance as it is popularly used to refer to expression variation between the two haplotypes of a diploid organism? This clearly doesn't apply in the case of bacteria. If this is not what you're referring to, please define and/or cite the applicable definition.Lines 201-208: It's odd that despite the 10x datasets having the largest estimated fragment size, they have some of the smallest genome fractions, NGA50, and NA50. Why is this? Are they just smaller datasets, on average?Miscellaneous:UHGG: Please mention the fact that the UHGG is the default database, as well as whether or not the user will be able to supply their own databases.Line 363: What does {M} refer to?Line 369: What does U mean here? Is this the number of uniquely aligned reads in one of the windows N that a multi-aligned read aligns to?Lines 371-372: What does 'n% most closely covered windows' refer to?Lines 399-405: How are SNVs chosen for MAI analysis from the three available SNV callers?Lines 653-656: Which dataset was used for quality evaluation?Line 665: What do the abbreviations BAF and T stand for?

Reviewer 1: Brock Peters Yang et al. describe a package of tools, LRTK, for cobarcoded reads (linked reads) agnostic of library preparation methods and sequencing platforms. In general, it appears to be a very useful tool. I have a few concerns with the manuscript as it is currently written:1. Line 203 "With Pangaea,LRTK achieves NA50 values of 1.8 Mb and 1.2 Mb for stLFR and TELL-Seq sequencing data, respectively. On 10x Genomics sequencing data, Athena exhibited superior assembly performance, with a NGA50 of 245 Kb."This is a bit of an awkward two sentences as you are comparing NA50 values for stLFR and TELL-Seq and then NGA50 for 10X Genomics and it makes it sound like 10X Genomics performed the best. Also, these numbers don't seem to agree with the figure.2. How long does an average run take to process? Say a 35X human genome coverage sample? Are there requirements for memory? A figure and metrics around this sort of thing would be helpful.3. How much data was used per library? What was the total coverage? Was the data normalized to have the same coverage per library? If not, it's very difficult to make fair comparisons between the different technologies.4. There's a section on reconstruction of long fragments, but then there really isn't any evaluation of this result and it's not clear if these are even used for anything. For all of these sequencing types I would assume that you can't really do much in the way of seed extension since the coverage across long fragments for these methods is much less than 1X. I think this needs to be developed a little more or it needs to be explained how these are used in your process or you just need to say you didn't use them for anything but here's some potential applications they could be used for. What type of file is output from this process? I think it's interesting, but just not clear how to use this data.5. I did try to install the software using Conda, but it failed and it's not clear to me why. Perhaps it's something about my environment, but you might want to have some colleagues located in different institutions try to install it to make sure it is easy to do so.

Typically in this sub, when people ask, "Is it worth it?" the presumption is that they're buying it to use for themselves. You left out your context of buying it to sell until later. This means that once you've cleaned things up, and go to try to sell it for something above $40, people are going to show up here and ask that same question. When they do, the answer is going to be that it's far too expensive, especially with shipping which is notoriously tricky, expensive, and risky.

You'll be sitting there with a typewriter that you don't care enough about to have known anything about it or if it had any particular value. This also probably means that you don't know enough about what goes into cleaning and properly adjusting a typewriter either. If someone is a sucker enough to pay the crazy mark up, it means that someone who wants to try out a typewriter will be buying a sub-par machine and have a sub-par experience.

unposted reply to u/DistributionPure6051 at https://www.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1dqr02l/is_this_worth_it/<br /> (Most of context is hiding because of downvoting)

TIL

I didn't know that most people (outside of Asia) consider "kindly" to be patronizing. The many quirks of language!

important: the image built with the Dockerfile must have the Delve debugger

(it's not just "Notice that", it should be highlighted more)

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary

The work represents progress in quantifying the number of Myo10 molecules present in the filopodia tip. It reveals that cells overexpressing fluorescently labeled Myo10 that the tip can accommodate a wide range of Myo10 motors, up to hundreds of molecules per tip.

The revised, expanded manuscript addresses all of this reviewer's original comments. The new data, analysis and writing strengthen the paper. Given the importance of filopodia in many cellular/developmental processes and the pivotal, as yet not fully understood role of Myo10 in their formation and extension, this work provides a new look at the nature of the filopodial tip and its ability to accommodate a large number of Myo10 motor proteins through interactions with the actin core and surrounding membrane.

Specific comments -

(1) One of the comments on the original work was that the analysis here is done using cells ectopically expressing HaloTag-Myo10. The author's response is that cells express a range of Myo10 levels and some metastatic cancer cells, such as breast cancer, have significantly increased levels of Myo10 compared to non-transformed cell lines. It is not really clear how much excess Myo10 is present in those cells compared to what is seen here for ectopic expression in U2OS cells, making a direct correspondence difficult.

In response to comments about the bulbous nature of many filopodia tips the authors point out that similar-looking tips are seen when cells are immunostained for Myo10, citing Berg & Cheney (2002). In looking at those images as well as images from papers examining Myo10 immunostaining in metastatic cancer cells (Arjonen et al, 2014, JCI; Summerbell et al, 2020, Sci Adv) the majority of the filopodia tips appear almost uniformly dot-like or circular. There is not too much evidence of the elongated, bulbous filopodial tips seen here.

However, in reconsidering the approach and results, it is the case that the finding here do establish the plasticity of filopodia tips that can accommodate a surprisingly (shockingly) large number of motors. The authors discuss that their results show that targeting molecules to the filopodia tip is a relatively permissive process (lines 262 - 274). That could be an important property that cells might be able to use to their advantage in certain contexts.

(2) The method for arriving at the intensity of an individual filopodium puncta (starting on line 532 and provided in the Response), and how this is corrected for transfection efficiency and the cell-to-cell variation in expression level is still not clear to this reviewer. The first part of the description makes sense - the authors obtain total molecules/cell based on the estimation on SDS-PAGE using the signal from bound Halo ligand. It then seems that the total fluorescence intensity of each expressing cell analyzed is measured, then summed to get the average intensity/cell. The 'total pool' is then arrived at by multiplying the number of molecules/cell (from SDS-PAGE) by the total number of cells analyzed. After that, then: 'to get the number of molecules within a Myo10 filopodium, the filopodium intensity was divided by the bioreplicate signal intensity and multiplied by 'total pool.' ' The meaning of this may seem simple or straightforward to the authors, but it's a bit confusing to understand what the 'bioreplicate signal intensity' is and then why it would be multiplied by the 'total pool'. This part is rather puzzling at first read.

Since the approach described here leads the authors to their numerical estimates every effort should be made to have it be readily understood by all readers. A flow chart or diagram might be helpful.

(3) The distribution of Myo10 punctae around the cell are analyzed (Fig 2E, F) and the authors state that they detect 'periodic stretches of higher Myo10 density along the plasma membrane' (line 123) and also that there is correlation and anti-correlation of molecules and punctae at opposite ends of the cells.

In the first case, it is hard to know what the authors really mean by the phrase 'periodic stretches'. It's not easy to see a periodicity in the distribution of the punctae in the many cells shown in Supp Fig 3. Also, the correlation/anti-correlation is not so easily seen in the quantification shown in Fig 2F. Can the authors provide some support or clarification for what they are stating?

(4) The authors are no doubt aware that a paper from the Tyska lab that employs a completely different method of counting molecules arrives at a much lower number of Myo10 molecules at the filopodial tip than is reported here was just posted (Fitz & Tyska, 2024, bioRxiv, DOI: 10.1101/2024.05.14.593924).

While it is not absolutely necessary for the authors to provide a detailed discussion of this new work given the timing, they may wish to consider adding a note briefly addressing it.

I really agree with this part where it says that it shows the diversityt technology has, it's also interactive, because in just one click, you may enter to a whole new world of information.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This study reports that IT neurons have biased representations toward low spatial frequency

(SF) and faster decoding of low SFs than high SFs. High SF-preferred neurons, and low SF-preferred neurons to a lesser degree, perform better category decoding than neurons with other profiles (U and inverted U shaped). SF coding also shows more sparseness than category coding in the earlier phase of the response and less sparseness in the later phase. The results are also contrasted with predictions of various DNN models.

Strengths:

The study addressed an important issue on the representations of SF information in a high-level visual area. Data are analyzed with LDA which can effectively reduce the dimensionality of neuronal responses and retain category information.

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your insightful and constructive comments which greatly contributed to the refinement of the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work and providing suggestions. We have carefully considered each of your comments and addressed the suggested revisions accordingly.

Weaknesses:

The results are likely compromised by improper stimulus timing and unmatched spatial frequency spectrums of stimuli in different categories.

The authors used a very brief stimulus duration (35ms), which would degrade the visual system's contrast sensitivity to medium and high SF information disproportionately (see Nachmias, JOSAA, 1967). Therefore, IT neurons in the study could have received more degraded medium and high SF inputs compared to low SF inputs, which may be at least partially responsible for higher firing rates to low SF R1 stimuli (Figure 1c) and poorer recall performance with median and high SF R3-R5 stimuli in LDA decoding. The issue may also to some degree explain the delayed onset of recall to higher SF stimuli (Figure 2a), preferred low SF with an earlier T1 onset (Figure 2b), lower firing rate to high SF during T1 (Figure 2c), somewhat increased firing rate to high SF during T2 (because weaker high SF inputs would lead to later onset, Figure 2d).

We appreciate your concern regarding the course-to-fine nature of SF processing in the vision hierarchy and the short exposure time of our paradigm. According to your comment, we repeated the analysis of SF representation with 200ms exposure time as illustrated in Appendix 1 - Figure 4. Our recorded data contains the 200ms version of exposure time for all neurons in the main phase. As can be seen, the results are similar to what we found with 33 ms experiments.

Next, we bring your attention to the following observations:

(1) According to Figure 2d, the average firing rate of IT neurons for HSF could be higher than LSF in the late response phase. Therefore, the amount of HSF input received by the IT neurons is as much as LSF, however, its impact on the IT response is observable in the later phase of the response. Thus, the LSF preference is because of the temporal advantage of the LSF processing rather than contrast sensitivity.

(2) According to Figure 3a, 6% of the neurons are HSF-preferred and their firing rate in HSF is comparable to the LSF firing rate in the LSF-preferred group. This analysis is carried out in the early phase of the response (70-170 ms). While most of the neurons prefer LSF, this observation shows that there is an HSF input that excites a small group of neurons. Furthermore, the highest separability index also belongs to the HSF-preferred profile in the early phase of the response which supports the impact of the HSF part of the input.

(3) Similar LSF-preferred responses are also reported by Chen et al. (2018) (50ms for SC) and Zhang et al. (2023) (3.5 - 4 secs for V2 and V4) for longer duration times.

Our results suggest that the LSF-preferred nature of the IT responses in terms of firing rate and recall, is not due to the weakness or lack of input source (or information) for HSF but rather to the processing nature of the SF in the vision hierarchy.

To address this issue in the manuscript:

Figure Appendix 1 - Figure 4 is added to the manuscript and shows the recall value and onset for R1-R5 with 200ms of exposure time.

We added the following description to the discussion:

“To rule out the degraded contrast sensitivity of the visual system to medium and high SF information because of the brief exposure time, we repeated the analysis with 200ms exposure time as illustrated in Appendix 1 - Figure 4 which indicates the same LSF-preferred results. Furthermore, according to Figure 2, the average firing rate of IT neurons for HSF could be higher than LSF in the late response phase. It indicates that the amount of HSF input received by the IT neurons in the later phase is as much as LSF, however, its impact on the IT response is observable in the later phase of the response. Thus, the LSF preference is because of the temporal advantage of the LSF processing rather than contrast sensitivity. Next, according to Figure 3(a), 6\% of the neurons are HSF-preferred and their firing rate in HSF is comparable to the LSF firing rate in the LSF-preferred group. This analysis is carried out in the early phase of the response (70-170ms). While most of the neurons prefer LSF, this observation shows that there is an HSF input that excites a small group of neurons. Additionally, the highest SI belongs to the HSF-preferred profile in the early phase of the response which supports the impact of the HSF part of the input. Similar LSF-preferred responses are also reported by Chen et. al. (2018) (50ms for SC) and Zhang et. al. (2023) (3.5 - 4 secs for V2 and V4). Therefore, our results show that the LSF-preferred nature of the IT responses in terms of firing rate and recall, is not due to the weakness or lack of input source (or information) for HSF but rather to the processing nature of the SF in the IT cortex.”

Figure 3b shows greater face coding than object coding by high SF and to a lesser degree by low SF neurons. Only the inverted-U-shaped neurons displayed slightly better object coding than face coding. Overall the results give an impression that IT neurons are significantly more capable of coding faces than coding objects, which is inconsistent with the general understanding of the functions of IT neurons. The problem may lie with the selection of stimulus images (Figure 1b). To study SF-related category coding, the images in two categories need to have similar SF spectrums in the Fourier domain. Such efforts are not mentioned in the manuscript, and a look at the images in Figure 1b suggests that such efforts are likely not properly made. The ResNet18 decoding results in Figure 6C, in that IT neurons of different profiles show similar face and object coding, might be closer to reality.

Because of the limited number of stimuli in our experiments, it is hard to discuss the category selectivity, which needs a higher number of stimuli. To overcome the limited number of stimuli in our experiment, we fixed 60% (nine out of 15 stimuli) while varying the remaining stimuli to reduce the selective bias. To check the coding capability of the IT neurons for face and non-face objects, we evaluated the recall of face vs. non-face classification in intact stimuli (similar to classifiers stated in the manuscript). Results show that at the population level, the recall value for objects is 90.45%, and for faces is 92.45%. However, the difference is not significant (p-value=0.44). On the other hand, we note that a large difference in the SI value does not translate directly to the classification accuracy, rather it illustrates the strength of representation.

Regarding the SF spectrums, after matching the luminance and contrast of the images we matched the power of the images concerning SF and category. Powers are calculated using the sum of the absolute value of the Fourier transform of the image. Considering all stimuli, the ANOVA analysis shows that various SF bands have similar power (one-way ANOVA, p-value=0.24). Furthermore, comparing the power of faces and images in all SF bands (including intact) and both unscrambled and scrambled images indicates no significant difference between face and object (p-vale > 0.1). Therefore, the result of Figure 3b suggests that IT employs various SF bands for the recognition of various objects.

Comparing the results of CNNs and IT shows that the CNNs do not capture the complexities of the IT cortex in terms of SF. One of the sources of this difference is because of the behavioral saliency of the face stimulus in the training of the primate visual system.

To address this issue in the manuscript:

The following description is added to the discussion:

“… the decoding performance of category classification (face vs. non-face) in intact stimuli is 94.2%. The recall value for objects vs. scrambled is 90.45%, and for faces vs. scrambled is 92.45% (p-value=0.44), which indicates the high level of generalizability and validity characterizing our results.”

The following description is added to the method section, SF filtering.

“Finally, we equalized the stimulus power in all SF bands (intact, R-R5). The SF power among all conditions (all SF bands, face vs. non-face and unscrambled vs. scrambled) does not vary significantly (p-value > 0.1). SF power is calculated as the sum of the square value of the image coefficients in the Fourier domain.”

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This paper aimed to examine the spatial frequency selectivity of macaque inferotemporal (IT) neurons and its relation to category selectivity. The authors suggest in the present study that some IT neurons show a sensitivity for the spatial frequency of scrambled images. Their report suggests a shift in preferred spatial frequency during the response, from low to high spatial frequencies. This agrees with a coarse-to-fine processing strategy, which is in line with multiple studies in the early visual cortex. In addition, they report that the selectivity for faces and objects, relative to scrambled stimuli, depends on the spatial frequency tuning of the neurons.

Strengths:

Previous studies using human fMRI and psychophysics studied the contribution of different spatial frequency bands to object recognition, but as pointed out by the authors little is known about the spatial frequency selectivity of single IT neurons. This study addresses this gap and they show that at least some IT neurons show a sensitivity for spatial frequency and

interestingly show a tendency for coarse-to-fine processing.

We extend our sincere appreciation for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our paper. We are grateful for the time and expertise you invested in reviewing our work. Your detailed suggestions have been instrumental in addressing several key aspects of the paper, contributing to its clarity and scholarly merit. We have carefully considered each of your comments and have made revisions accordingly.

Weaknesses and requested clarifications:

(1) It is unclear whether the effects described in this paper reflect a sensitivity to spatial frequency, i.e. in cycles/ deg (depends on the distance from the observer and changes when rescaling the image), or is a sensitivity to cycles /image, largely independent of image scale. How is it related to the well-documented size tolerance of IT neuron selectivity?

Our stimuli are filtered using cycles/images and knowing the distance of the subject to the monitor, we can calculate the cycles/degrees. To the best of our knowledge, this is also the case for all other SF-related studies. To find the relation of observations to the cycles/image and degree/image, one should keep one of them fixed while changing the other, for example changing the subject's distance to the monitor will change the SF content in terms of cycle/degree. With our current data, we cannot discriminate this effect. To address this issue, we added the following description to the discussion. To address this issue, we added the following description to the discussion:

“Finally, since our experiment maintains a fixed SF content in terms of both cycles per degree and cycles per image, further experiments are needed to discern whether our observations reflect sensitivity to cycles per degree or cycles per image.”

(2) The authors' band-pass filtered phase scrambled images of faces and objects. The original images likely differed in their spatial frequency amplitude spectrum and thus it is unclear whether the differing bands contained the same power for the different scrambled images. If not, this could have contributed to the frequency sensitivity of the neurons.

After equalizing the luminance and contrast of the images, we equilized their power concerning SF and category. The powers were calculated using the sum of the absolute values of the Fourier transform of the images. The results of the ANOVA analysis across all stimuli indicate that various SF bands exhibit similar power (one-way ANOVA, p-value = 0.24). Additionally, a comparison of power between faces and objects in all SF bands (including intact), for both unscrambled and scrambled images, reveals no significant differences (p-value > 0.1). To clarify this point, we have incorporated the following information into the Methods section.

“Finally, we equalized the stimulus power in all SF bands (intact, R-R5). The SF power among all conditions (all SF bands, face vs. non-face and unscrambled vs. scrambled) does not vary significantly (ANOVA, p-value > 0.1).”

(3) How strong were the responses to the phase-scrambled images? Phase-scrambled images are expected to be rather ineffective stimuli for IT neurons. How can one extrapolate the effect of the spatial frequency band observed for ineffective stimuli to that for more effective stimuli, like objects or (for some neurons) faces? A distribution should be provided, of the net responses (in spikes/s) to the scrambled stimuli, and this for the early and late windows.

The sample neuron in Figure 1c is chosen to be a good indicator of the recorded neurons. In the early response phase, the average firing rate to scrambled stimuli is 26.3 spikes/s which is significantly higher than the response in -50 to 50ms which is 23.4. In comparison, the mean response to intact face stimuli is 30.5 spikes/s, while object stimuli elicit an average response of 28.8 spikes/s. Moving to the late phase, T2, the responses to scrambled, face, and object stimuli are 19.5, 19.4, and 22.4 spikes/s, respectively. Moreover, when the classification accuracy for SF exceeds chance levels, it indicates a significant impact of SF bands on the IT response. This raises a direct question about the explicit coding for SF bands in the IT cortex observed for ineffective stimuli and how it relates to complex and effective stimuli, such as faces. To show the strength of neuron responses to the SF bands in scrambled images, We added Appendix 1 - Figure 2 and also added Appendix 1 - Figure 1, according to comment 4, which shows the average and std of the responses to all SF bands. The following description is added to the results section.

“Considering the strength of responses to scrambled stimuli, the average firing rate in response to scrambled stimuli is 26.3 Hz, which is significantly higher than the response observed between -50 and 50 ms, where it is 23.4 Hz (p-value=3x10-5). In comparison, the mean response to intact face stimuli is 30.5 Hz, while non-face stimuli elicit an average response of 28.8 Hz. The distribution of neuron responses for scrambled, face, and non-face in T1 is illustrated in Appendix 1 - Figure 2.

[…]

Moreover, the average firing rates of scrambled, face, and non-face stimuli are 19.5 Hz, 19.4 Hz, and 22.4 Hz, respectively. The distribution of neuron responses is illustrated in Appendix 1 Figure 2.”

(4) The strength of the spatial frequency selectivity is unclear from the presented data. The authors provide the result of a classification analysis, but this is in normalized units so that the reader does not know the classification score in percent correct. Unnormalized data should be provided. Also, it would be informative to provide a summary plot of the spatial frequency selectivity in spikes/s, e.g. by ranking the spatial frequency bands for each neuron based on half of the trials and then plotting the average responses for the obtained ranks for the other half of the trials. Thus, the reader can appreciate the strength of the spatial frequency selectivity, considering trial-to-trial variability. Also, a plot should be provided of the mean response to the stimuli for the two analysis windows of Figure 2c and 2d in spikes/s so one can appreciate the mean response strengths and effect size (see above).

The normalization of the classification result is just obtained by subtracting the chance level, which is 0.2, from the whole values. Therefore the values could still be interpreted in percent as we did in the results section. To make this clear, we removed the “a.u.” from the figure and we added the following description to the results section.

“The accuracy value is normalized by subtracting the chance level (0.2).”

Regarding the selectivity of the neuron, as suggested by your comment, we added a new figure in the appendix section, Appendix 1 - figure 2. This figure shows the strength of SF selectivity, considering trial-to-trial variability. The following description is added to the results section:

“The strength of SF selectivity, considering the trial-to-trial variability is provided in Appendix 1 Figure 2, by ranking the SF bands for each neuron based on half of the trials and then plotting the average responses for the obtained ranks for the other half of the trials.”

The firing rates of Figures 2c and 2d are normalized for better illustration since the variation in firing rates is high across neurons, as can be observed in Figure Appendix 1 - Figure 1. Since we seek trends in the response, the absolute values are not important (since the baseline firing rates of neurons are different), but the values relative to the baseline firing rate determine the trend. To address the mean response and the strength of the SF response, the following description is added to the results section.

“Considering the strength of responses to scrambled stimuli, the average firing rate in response to scrambled stimuli is 26.3 Hz, which is significantly higher than the response observed between -50 and 50 ms, where it is 23.4 Hz (p-value=3x10-5). In comparison, the mean response to intact face stimuli is 30.5 Hz, while non-face stimuli elicit an average response of 28.8 Hz. The distribution of neuron responses for scrambled, face, and non-face in T1 is illustrated in Appendix 1 - Figure 2.

[…]

Moreover, the average firing rates of scrambled, face, and non-face stimuli are 19.5 Hz, 19.4

Hz, and 22.4 Hz, respectively. The distribution of neuron responses is illustrated in Appendix 1 Figure 2.”

Furthermore, we added a figure, Appendix 1 - Figure 3, to illustrate the strength of SF selectivity in our profiles. The following is added to the results section:

“To check the robustness of the profiles, considering the trial-to-trial variability, the strength of SF selectivity in each profile is provided in Appendix 1 - Figure 3, by forming the profile of each neuron based on half of the trials and then plotting the average SF responses with the other

half of the trials.”

(5) It is unclear why such brief stimulus durations were employed. Will the results be similar, in particular the preference for low spatial frequencies, for longer stimulus durations that are more similar to those encountered during natural vision?

Please refer to the first comment of Reviewer 1.

(6) The authors report that the spatial frequency band classification accuracy for the population of neurons is not much higher than that of the best neuron (line 151). How does this relate to the SNC analysis, which appears to suggest that many neurons contribute to the spatial frequency selectivity of the population in a non-redundant fashion? Also, the outcome of the analyses should be provided (such as SNC and decoding (e.g. Figure 1D)) in the original units instead of undefined arbitrary units.

The population accuracy is approximately 5% higher than the best neuron. However, we have no reference to compare the effect size (the value is roughly similar for face vs object while the chance levels are different). However, as stated in Methods, SNC is calculated for two label modes (LSF and HSF) and it can not be directly compared to the best neuron accuracy. Regarding the unit of SNC, it can be interpreted directly to percent by multiplying by a factor of 100. We removed the “a.u.” to prevent misunderstanding and modified the results section for clearance.

“… SNC score for SF (two labels, LSF (R1 and R2) vs. HSF (R4 and R5)) and category … (average SNC for SF=0.51\%±0.02 and category=0.1\%±0.04 …”

(7) To me, the results of the analyses of Figure 3c,d, and Figure 4 appear to disagree. The latter figure shows no correlation between category and spatial frequency classification accuracies while Figure 3c,d shows the opposite.

In Figure 3c,d, following what we observed in Figure 3a,b about the category coding capabilities in the population of neurons based on the profile of the single neurons, we tested a similar idea if the coding capability of single neurons in SF/category could predict the coding capability of population neurons in terms of category/SF. Therefore, both analyses investigate a relation between a characteristic of single neurons and the coding capability of a population of similar neurons. On the other hand, in Figure 4, the idea is to check the characteristics of the coding mechanisms behind SF and category coding. In Figure 4a, we check if there exists any relation between category and SF coding capability within a single neuron activity without the impact of other neurons, to investigate the idea that SF coding may be a byproduct of an object recognition mechanism. In Figure 4b, we investigated the contribution of all neurons in population decision, again to check whether the mechanisms behind the SF and category coding are the same or not. This analysis shows how individual neurons contribute to SF or category coding at the population level. Therefore, the experiments in Figures 3 and 4 are different in the analysis method and what they were designed to investigate and we cannot directly compare the results.

(8) If I understand correctly, the "main" test included scrambled versions of each of the "responsive" images selected based on the preceding test. Each stimulus was presented 15 times (once in each of the 15 blocks). The LDA classifier was trained to predict the 5 spatial frequency band labels and they used 70% of the trials to train the classifier. Were the trained and tested trials stratified with respect to the different scrambled images? Also, LDA assumes a normal distribution. Was this the case, especially because of the mixture of repetitions of the same scrambled stimulus and different scrambled stimuli?

In response to your inquiry regarding the stratification of trials, both the training and testing data were representative of the entire spectrum of scrambled images used in our experiment. To address your concern about the assumption of a normal distribution, especially given the mixture of repetitions of the same scrambled stimulus and different stimuli, our analysis of firing rates reveals a slightly left-skewed normal distribution. While there is a deviation from a perfectly normal distribution, we are confident that this skewness does not compromise the robustness of the LDA classifier.

(9) The LDA classifiers for spatial frequency band (5 labels) and category (2 labels) have different chance and performance levels. Was this taken into account when comparing the SNC between these two classifiers? Details and SNC values should be provided in the original (percent difference) instead of arbitrary units in Figure 5a. Without such details, the results are impossible to evaluate.

For both SNC and CMI calculations in SF, we considered two labels of HSF (R4 and R5) and LSF (R1 and R2). This was mentioned in the Methods section, after equation (5). According to your comment, to make it clear in the results section, we also added this description to the results section.

“… illustrates the SNC score for SF (two labels, LSF (R1 and R2) vs. HSF (R4 and R5)) and category (face vs. non-face) … conditioned on the label, SF (LSF (R1 and R2) vs. HSF (R4 and R5)) or category, to assess the information.”

The value of SNC can also be directly converted to the percent by a factor of 100. To make it clear, we removed “a.u.” from the y-axis.

(10) Recording locations should be described in IT, since the latter is a large region. Did their recordings include the STS? A/P and M/L coordinate ranges of recorded neurons?

We appreciate your suggestion for the recording location. Nevertheless, given the complexities associated with neurophysiological recordings and the limitations imposed by our methodologies, we face challenges in precisely localizing every unit if they are located in STS or not. To address your comment, We added Appendix 1 - Figure 5 which shows the SF and category coding capability of neurons along their recorded locations.

(11) The authors should show in Supplementary Figures the main data for each of the two animals, to ensure the reader that both monkeys showed similar trends.

We added Appendix 2 which shows the consistency of the main results in the two monkeys.

(12) The authors found that the deep nets encoded better the spatial frequency bands than the IT units. However, IT units have trial-to-trial response variability and CNN units do not. Did they consider this when comparing IT and CNN classification performance? Also, the number of features differs between IT and CNN units. To me, comparing IT and CNN classification performances is like comparing apples and oranges.

Deep convolutional neural networks are currently considered the state-of-the-art models of the primate visual pathway. However, as you mentioned and based on our results, they do not yet capture various complexities of the visual ventral stream. Yet studying the similarities and differences between CNN and brain regions, such as the IT cortex, is an active area of research, such as:

a. Kubilius, Jonas, et al. "Brain-like object recognition with high-performing shallow recurrent ANNs." Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019).

b. Xu, Yaoda, and Maryam Vaziri-Pashkam. "Limits to visual representational correspondence between convolutional neural networks and the human brain." Nature Communications, 12.1 (2021).

c. Jacob, Georgin, et al. "Qualitative similarities and differences in visual object representations between brains and deep networks." Nature Communications, 12.1 (2021).

Therefore, we believe comparing IT and CNN, despite all of the differences in terms of their characteristics, can help both fields grow faster, especially in introducing brain-inspired networks.

(13) The authors should define the separability index in their paper. Since it is the main index to show a relationship between category and spatial frequency tuning, it should be described in detail. Also, results should be provided in the original units instead of undefined arbitrary units. The tuning profiles in Figure 3A should be in spikes/s. Also, it was unclear to me whether the classification of the neurons into the different tuning profiles was based on an ANOVA assessing per neuron whether the effect of the spatial frequency band was significant (as should be done).

Based on your comment, we added the description of the separability index to the methods section. However, since the separability index is defined as the division of two dispersion matrices, it has no units by nature. The tuning profiles in Figure 3a are normalized for better illustration since the variation in firing rates is high. Since we seek trends in the response, the absolute values are not important. Regarding the SF profile formation, to better present the SF profile assignment, we updated the method section. Furthermore, The strength of responses for scrambled stimuli can be observed in Appendix 1 - Figures 1 and 2.

(14) As mentioned above, the separability analysis is the main one suggesting an association between category and spatial frequency tuning. However, they compute the separability of each category with respect to the scrambled images. Since faces are a rather homogeneous category I expect that IT neurons have on average a higher separability index for faces than for the more heterogeneous category of objects, at least for neurons responsive to faces and/or objects. The higher separability for faces of the two low- and high-pass spatial frequency neurons could reflect stronger overall responses for these two classes of neurons. Was this the case? This is a critical analysis since it is essential to assess whether it is category versus responsiveness that is associated with the spatial frequency tuning. Also, I do not believe that one can make a strong claim about category selectivity when only 6 faces and 3 objects (and 6 other, variable stimuli; 15 stimuli in total) are employed to assess the responses for these categories (see next main comment). This and the above control analysis can affect the main conclusion and title of the paper.

We appreciate your concern regarding category selectivity or responsiveness of the SF profiles. First, we note that we used SI since it overcomes the limitations of the accuracy and recall metrics as they are discrete and can be saturated. Using SI, we cannot directly calculate face vs object with SI, since this index only reports one value for the whole discrimination task. Therefore, we have to calculate the SI for face/object vs scrambled to obtain a value per category. However, as you suggested, it raises the question of whether we assess how well the neural responses distinguish between actual images (faces or objects) and their scrambled versions or if we just assess the responsiveness. Based on Figure 3b, since we have face-selective (LSF and HSF preferred profiles), object-selective (inverse U), and the U profile, where SI is the same for both face and object, we believe the SF profile is associated with the category selectivity, otherwise we would have the same face/object recall in all profiles, as we have in the U shape profile.

To analyze this issue further, we calculated the number of face/object selective neurons in 70-170ms. We found 43 face-selective neurons and 36 object-selective neurons (FDR corrected p-value < 0.05). Therefore, the number of face-selective and object-selective neurons is similar. Next, we check the selectivity of the neurons within each profile. Number of face/object selective neurons is LP=13/3, HP=6/2, IU=3/9, U=14/13, and the remaining belong to the NP group. Results show higher face-selective neurons in LP and HP and a higher number of object-selective neurons in the IU class. The U class contains roughly the same number of face and object-selective neurons. This observation supports the relationship between category selectivity and profiles.

Next, we examined the average neuron response to the face and object in each profile. The difference between the firing rate of the face and object in none of the profiles was significant (Ranksum with a significance level of 0.05). However, the rates are as follows. The average firing rate (spikes/s) of face/object is LP=36.72/28.77, HP=28.55/25.52, IU=21.55/27.25, U=38.48/36.28. While the differences are not significant, they support the relationship between profiles and categories instead of responsiveness.

The following description is added to the results section to cover this point of view.

“To assess whether the SF profiles distinguish category selectivity or merely evaluate the neuron's responsiveness, we quantified the number of face/non-face selective neurons in the 70-170ms time window. Our analysis shows a total of 43 face-selective neurons and 36 non-face-selective neurons (FDR-corrected p-value < 0.05). The results indicate a higher proportion of face-selective neurons in LP and HP, while a greater number of non-face-selective neurons is observed in the IU category (number of face/non-face selective neurons: LP=13/3, HP=6/2, IU=3/9). The U category exhibits a roughly equal distribution of face and non-face-selective neurons (U=14/13). This finding reinforces the connection between category selectivity and the identified profiles. We then analyzed the average neuron response to faces and non-faces within each profile. The difference between the firing rates for faces and non-faces in none of the profiles is significant (face/non-face average firing rate (Hz): LP=36.72/28.77, HP=28.55/25.52, IU=21.55/27.25, U=38.48/36.28, Ranksum with significance level of 0.05). Although the observed differences are not statistically significant, they provide support for the association between profiles and categories rather than mere responsiveness.”

About the low number of stimuli, please check the next comment.

(15) For the category decoding, the authors employed intact, unscrambled stimuli. Were these from the main test? If yes, then I am concerned that this represents a too small number of stimuli to assess category selectivity. Only 9 fixed + 6 variable stimuli = 15 were in the main test. How many faces/ objects on average? Was the number of stimuli per category equated for the classification? When possible use the data of the preceding selectivity test which has many more stimuli to compute the category selectivity.

We used only the main phase recorded data, which contains 15 images in each session. Each image results in 12 stimuli (intact, R1-R5, and phase-scrambled version). Thus, there exists a total of 180 unique stimuli in each session. Increasing the number of images would have increased the recording time. We compensated for this limitation by increasing the diversity of images in each session by picking the most responsive ones from the selectivity phase. On average, 7.54 of the stimuli were face in each session. We added this information to the Methods section. Furthermore, as mentioned in the discussion, for each classification run, the number of samples per category is equalized. We note that we cannot use the selectivity data for analysis, since the SF-related stimuli are filtered in different bands.

Recommendations For The Authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

I suggest that the authors double-check their results by performing control experiments with longer stimulus duration and SF-spectrum-matched face and object stimuli.

Thanks for your suggestion, according to your comment, we added Appendix 1 - Figure 3.

In addition, I had a very difficult time understanding the differences between Figure 3c and Figure 4a. Please rewrite the descriptions to clarify.

Thanks for your suggestion, we tried to revise the description of these two figures. The following description is added to the results section for Figure 3c.

“Next, to examine the relation between the SF (category) coding capacity of the single neurons and the category (SF) coding capability of the population level, we calculated the correlation between coding performance at the population level and the coding performance of single neurons within that population (Figure 3 c and d). In other words, we investigated the relation between single and population levels of coding capabilities between SF and category. The SF (or category) coding performance of a sub-population of 20 neurons that have roughly the same single-level coding capability of the category (or SF) is examined.”

Lines 147-148: The text states that 'The maximum accuracy of a single neuron was 19.08% higher than the chance level'. However, in Figure 4, the decoding accuracies of individual neurons for category and SF range were between 49%-90% and 20%-40%, respectively.

Please explain the discrepancies.

The first number is reported according to chance level which is 20%, thus the unnormalized number is 39% which is consistent with the SF accuracy in Figure 4. We added the following description to prevent any misunderstanding.

“… was 19.08\% higher than the chance level (unnormalized accuracy is 49.08\%, neuron \#193, M2).”

Lines 264-265: Should 'the alternative for R3 and R4' be 'the alternative for R4 and R5'?

Thanks for your attention, it's “R4 and R5”. We corrected that mistake.

Lines 551-562: The labels for SF classification are R1-R5. Is it a binary or a multi-classification task?

It’s a multi-label classification. We made it clear in the text.

“… labels were SF bands (R1, R2, ..., R5, multi-label classifier).”

Figure 4b: Neurons in SF/category decoding exhibit both positive and negative weights. However, in the analysis of sparse neuron weights in Equation 6, only the magnitude of the weights is considered. Is the sign of weight considered too?

We used the absolute value of the neuron weight to calculate sparseness. We also corrected Equation 6.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) Line 52: what do the authors mean by coordinate processing in object recognition?

To avoid any potential misunderstanding, we used the exact phrase in Saneyoshi and Michimata (2015). It is in fact, coordinate relations processing. Coordinate relations specify the metric information of the relative locations of objects.

(2) About half of the Introduction is a summary of the Results. This can be shortened.

Thanks for your suggestion.

(3) Line 134: Peristimulus time histogram instead of Prestimulus time histogram.

Thanks for your attention. We corrected that.

(4) Line 162: the authors state that R1 is decoded faster than R5, but the reported statistic is only for R1 versus R2.

It was a typo, the p-value is only reported for R1 and R5.

(5) Line 576: which test was used for the asses the statistical significance?

The test is Wilcoxon signed-rank. We added it to the text.

(6) How can one present a 35 ms long stimulus with a 60 Hz frame rate (the stimuli were presented on a 60Hz monitor (line 470))? Please correct.

Thanks for your attention. We corrected that. The time of stimulus presentation is 33ms and the monitor rate is 120Hz.

Author response:

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

These are valuable findings that support a link between low-dimensional brain network organization, patterns of ongoing thought, and trait-level personality factors, making it relevant for researchers in the field of spontaneous cognition, personality, and neuropsychiatry. While this link is not entirely new, the paper brings to bear a rich dataset and a well-conducted study, to approach this question in a novel way. The evidence in support of the findings is convincing.

We thank the reviewers and editors for their time, feedback, and recommendations for improvement. We have revised the manuscript with those recommendations in mind and provide a point-by-point description of the revisions below.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors ran an explorative analysis in order to describe how a "tri-partite" brain network model could describe the combination of resting fMRI data and individual characteristics. They utilized previously obtained fMRI data across four scanning runs in 144 individuals. At the end of each run, participants rated their patterns of thinking on 12 statements (short multi-dimensional experience sampling-MDES) using a 0-100% visual analog scale. Also, 71 personality traits were obtained on 21 questionnaires. The authors ran two separate principal component analyses (PCA) to obtain low dimensional summaries of the two individual characteristics (personality traits from questionnaires, and thought patterns from MDES). The dimensionality reduction of the fMRI data was done by means of gradient analysis, which was combined with Neurosynth decoding to visualize the functional axis of the gradients. To test the reliability of thought components across scanning time, intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated for the thought patterns, and discriminability indices were calculated for whole gradients. The relationship between individual differences in traits, thoughts, and macro-scale gradients was tested with multivariate regression.

The authors found: a) reliability of thought components across the one hour of scanning, b) Gradient 1 differentiated between visual regions and DMN, Gradient 2 dissociated somatomotor from visual cortices, Gradient 3 differentiated the DMN from the fronto-parietal system, c) the associations between traits/thought patterns and brain gradients revealed significant effects of "introversion" and "specific internal" thought: "Introversion" was associated with variant parcels on the three gradients, with most of parcels belonging to the VAN and then to the DMN; and "Specific internal thought" was associated with variant parcels on the three gradients with most of parcels belonging to the DAN and then the visual. The authors conclude that interactions between attention systems and the DMN are important influences on ongoing thought at rest.

Strengths:

The study's strength lies in its attempt to combine brain activity with individual characteristics using state-of-the-art methodologies.

Weaknesses:

The study protocol in its current form restricts replicability. This is largely due to missing information on the MRI protocol and data preprocessing. The article refers the reader to the work of Mendes et al 2019 which is said to provide this information, but the paper should rather stand alone with all this crucial material mentioned here, as well. Also, effect sizes are provided only for the multiple multivariate regression of the inter-class correlations, which makes it difficult to appreciate the power of the other obtained results. 

Thank you for these comments. We have addressed both issues by adding effect sizes for reported trait and thought related effects within the results table (Table 3, Line 427) and providing more information about the fMRI protocol and preprocessing steps.  (Lines 162- 188)

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors set out to draw further links between neural patterns observed at "rest" during fMRI, with their related thought content and personality traits. More specifically, they approached this with a "tri-partite network" view in mind, whereby the ventral attention network (VAN), the dorsal attention network (DAN), and the default mode network (DMN) are proposed to play a special role in ongoing conscious thought. They used a gradients approach to determine the low dimensional organisation of these networks. In concert, using PCA they reduced thought patterns captured at four time points during the scan, as well as traits captured from a large battery of questionnaires.

The main findings were that specific thought and trait components were related to variations in the organisation of the tri-partite networks, with respect to cortical gradients.

Strengths of the methods/results: Having a long (1 hr) resting state MRI session, which could be broken down into four separate scanning/sampling components is a strength. Importantly, the authors could show (via intra-class correlation coefficients) the similarity of thoughts and connectivity gradients across the entire session. Not only did this approach increase the richness of the data available to them, it speaks in an interesting way to the stability of these measures. The inclusion of both thought patterns during scanning along with trait-level dispositional factors is most certainly a strength, as many studies will often include either/or of these, rather than trying to reconcile across. Of the two main findings, the finding that detailed self-generated thought was associated with a decoupling of regions of DAN from regions in DMN was particularly compelling, in light of mounting literature from several fields that support this.

Weaknesses of the methods/results: Considering the richness of the thought and personality data, I was a little surprised that only two main findings emerged (i.e., a relationship with trait introversion, and a relationship with the "specific internal" thought pattern). I wondered whether, at least in part and in relation to traits, this might stem from the large and varied set of questionnaires used to discern the traits. These questionnaires mostly comprised personality/mood, but some sampled things that do not fall into that category (e.g., musicality, internet addition, sleep), and some related directly to spontaneous thought properties (e.g., mind wandering, musical imagery). It would be interesting to see what relationships would emerge by being more selective in the traits measured, and in the tools to measure them.

We agree that being more selective in trait measures and measuring tools could lead to more insights into trait – brain relationships. In part the emergence of only two main findings could also be a trade-off of multiple comparison corrections inherent in our current approach (i.e. 400 separate models for all parcels). Furthermore, we have adjusted the text in the discussion in this revision to highlight that more targeted measures of personality (e.g. self-consciousness) could provide a more nuanced view of the relationship between traits and patterns of thought at rest. (Line 532):

“In the future it may also be important to consider measures of traits that could have relationships to both neural activity and or experience at rest (e.g. self-consciousness de Caso et al., 2017, or autistic tendencies, Turnbull et al., 2020a).”  

Taken together, the main findings are interesting enough. However, the real significance of this work, and its impact, lie in the richness of the approach: combing across fMRI, spontaneous thought, and trait-level factors. Triangulating these data has important potential for furthering our understanding of brain-behaviour relationship across different levels of organisation.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Recommendations for improving the writing and presentation.

- Frame the study objectives more clearly. If it's about which theoretical framework best supports the data, you might need to advocate on why the tri-partite approach is a more efficient framework than others. If not, the argument will beg the question: you will find an effect on this model, so you will claim that this is an informative model. For example, if the focus is on these three RSNs and thought reporting, the authors might want to contextualize it historically, like how from two networks (DMN-antagonistic; Vanhaudenhuyse JCognNeurosci 2012; Demertzi et al, NetwNeuroci 2022) we end up to three and why this is a more suitable approach. What about whole-brain connectomic approaches, such as the work by Amico et al? 

We have expanded on the objectives and rationale of the study by editing/ expanding the introduction as follows (Lines 84-87): 

“Traditionally, it was argued that the DMN was thought to have an antagonistic relationship with systems linked to external processing (Fox et al., 2005). However, according to the ‘tri-partite’ network accounts the relationship between the DMN and other brain systems is more nuanced. From this perspective key hubs of the ventral attention network, such as the anterior insula and dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex, help gate access to conscious experience, influencing regardless of the focus of attention. This is hypothesised to occur because the VAN influences interactions between the DAN, which is more important for external mental content (Corbetta and Shulman, 2002), and the DMN which is important when states (including tasks) rely more on internal representations (Smallwood et al., 2021a)..”  (… and Lines 112:125):

“Our current study explored whether this “tri-partite network” view of ongoing conscious thought derived from studies focused on understanding conscious experience, provides a useful organizing framework for understanding the relation between observed brain activity at rest and patterns of cognition/ personality traits. Such analysis is important because at rest there are multiple features of brain activity that can be identified via complex analyses that include regions that show patterns of coactivation (which are traditionally viewed as forming a cohesive network, (Biswal et al., 1995) as well as patterns of anti-correlation with other regions (e.g. Fox et al., 2005). However, it is unclear which of these relationships reflect aspects of cognition or behaviour or are in fact aspects of the functional organization of the cortex (Fox and Raichle, 2007). Consequently, our study builds on foundational work (e.g. Vanhaudenhuyse et al., 2011) in order to better understand which aspects of neural function observed at rest are mostly likely linked to cognition and behaviour. With this aim in mind, we examined links between macro-scale neural activation and both (i) trait descriptions of individuals and (ii) patterns of ongoing thought.”

- As there was no explicit description of the adopted design and the fMRI procedure, I deduced that it was about a within-subject design, 1-hour scanning session, comprised of four runs, each lasting 15 min, can that be correct? In any case, an explicit description of the design and the fMRI procedure eases the reading and replicability. 

Thank you for pointing this out. We have now restructured and edited the text relating to write those details clearly and explain the MDES part of the procedure in the same section. It now reads (Lines 162:167): 

“Resting state fMRI with Multidimensional Experience Sampling (MDES)

The current sample includes one hour of fully pre-processed rs-fMRI data from 144 participants (four scans from 135 participants, and three scans from nine participants whose data were missing or incomplete). The rs-fMRI was performed in four adjacent 15-minute sessions each immediately followed by MDES which retrospectively measured various dimensions of spontaneous thought during the scan.”

- Was there a control to the analysis, such as a gradient which also associated with these characteristics? Anything else?

In our analyses we explore multiple gradients and how they link to traits and thoughts at rest. While there is no explicit control, each analyses provides a constraint on the interpretation of the other analyses. We have added the following text to expand on this point (Line 372): 

“To this end, we performed a multiple multivariate regression with thoughts, traits, and nuisance variables (motion, age and gender) as independent variables, with whole brain functional organisation, as captured by the first three gradients, as dependent variables. In this analytic approach relationships between cognition along one gradient but not along another help identify which relationships between brain systems are mostly likely to relate to the feature of cognition in question (i.e. each gradient acts as a control for the other).”  

- I feel that Table 1 (list of tests) carries less information compared to Supplementary Table 1 (how spontaneous thought was reported and scored). I would suggest swapping them, unless Table 1 further contains which outcome measures per test were used for the analysis.  

Thank you for this suggestion. Table showing the MDES questions has now been moved to the main text (Table 1, Line 194). However, as there is no other description of the questionnaires included in the main text, we have also retained the table listing personality/ trait questionnaires (Table 2, Line 200).

- Ten group-level gradients were calculated out of which three were shown on the basis of previous work. Please, visualize all 10 gradients as complementary material to inform potential future works on how these look.  

Thank you for this suggestion. Supplementary figure 3 now shows all 10 gradients.

- Please provide more information on preprocessing, especially with motion artifacts and how the global signal was processed.  

Thank you for pointing this out. We have now included the following text, summarized from Mendes et al., 2019, to describe the preprocessing in brief (Line 171:188): 

“Motion correction parameters were derived by rigid-body realignment of the timeseries to the first (after discarding the first five volumes) volume with FSL MCFLIRT (Jenkinson et al., 2002). Parameters for distortion correction were calculated by rigidly registering a temporal mean image of this time series to the fieldmap magnitude image using FSL FLIRT (Jenkinson and Smith, 2001) which was then unwarped using FSL FUGUE (Jenkinson et al., 2012). Transformation parameters were derived by coregistering the unwarped temporal mean to the subject’s structural scan using FreeSurfer’s boundary-based registration algorithm (Greve and Fischl, 2009). All three spatial transformations were then combined and applied to each volume of the original time series in a single interpolation step. The time series was residualised against the six motion parameters, their first derivatives, “outliers” identified by Nipype’s rapidart algorithm (https://nipype.readthedocs.io/en/latest/interfaces/ A CompCor (Behzadi et al., 2007) approach was implemented to remove physiological noise from the residual time-series- which included first six principal components from all the voxels identified as white-matter cerebrospinal fluid. The denoised time series were temporally filtered to a frequency range between 0.01 and 0.1 Hz using FSL, mean centered and variance normalized using Nitime (Rokem et al., 2009). Imaging and pre-processing protocols are described in detail in Mendes et al (Mendes et al., 2019).”

- Please, describe the duration of the whole process, and when the questionnaire data were collected.

We apologize for the lack of clarity. “Data” section of the Methods has now been edited to explain this more clearly, it now reads (Line 146:154):

“The dataset used here is part of the MPI-Leipzig Mind-Brain-Body (MPILMBB) database (Mendes et al., 2019). The complete dataset consists of a battery of selfreported personality measures, measures of spontaneous thought, task data, and structural and resting-state functional MRI (one hour, divided into four adjacent 15-min sessions) from participants between 20 and 75 years of age. Data were collected over a period of five days, with the MRI sessions always falling on day 3. The questionnaires were completed by participants before and after this day, using Limesurvey (https://www.limesurvey.org: version 2.00+) at their own convenience and using penand-paper on-site. A detailed description of the participants, measures, and data acquisition protocol has been previously published along with the dataset (Mendes et al., 2019).”

- In light of the discussion about sample sizes and the power of the correlations, can you indicate the effect sizes of the reported results?  

Thank you for pointing this out. Effect sizes have been added to the results table (Table 3, Line 427)

Minor corrections to the text and figures

- Introduction: "Our sample was a cohort....states were explanatory variables": Better move this part to Methods. Ideally, provide the hypotheses here, the ways you wanted to test them, and how you would negate them. What would it mean that you got the hypotheses confirmed? What would the opposite outcome mean? 

We have added the following text before this part to clarify expand on the objective of the study (Lines 112:125): 

“Our current study explored whether this “tri-partite network” view of ongoing conscious thought derived from studies focused on understanding conscious experience, provides a useful organising framework for understanding the relation between observed brain activity at rest and patterns of cognition/ personality traits. Such analysis is important because at rest there are multiple features of brain activity that can be identified via complex analyses that include regions that show patterns of coactivation (which are traditionally viewed as forming a cohesive network, (Biswal et al., 1995) as well as patterns of anti-correlation with other regions (e.g. Fox et al., 2005). However, it is unclear which of these relationships reflect aspects of cognition or behaviour or are in fact aspects of the functional organisation of the cortex (Fox and Raichle, 2007). Consequently, our study builds on foundational work (e.g. Vanhaudenhuyse et al., 2011) in order to better understand which aspects of neural function observed at rest are mostly likely linked to cognition and behaviour. With this aim in mind, we examined links between macro-scale neural activation and both (i) trait descriptions of individuals and (ii) patterns of ongoing thought.”   

We have refrained from listing hypothesis, as the analyses we performed were data driven rather than hypothesis driven to include all possible associations between largescale connectivity patterns and individual state and trail level differences in personality and thought/ experience. We hope that the added text provides more context to understand this rationale.  

- Please, clarify whether "conscious thought" means "reportable. 

Thank you for this suggestion. We have now edited the first reference to thought patterns in the discussions to read “self-reports of ongoing thought”, instead of just “ongoing thought” (Line 432)

- Please, clarify whether "experience" and "thought" are used interchangeably. This is because experience can also be ineffable, beyond thought reporting. 

To clarify this in the context of the current study, we have edited first reference to “ongoing experience” in the introduction to “self-reports of ongoing experience”. (Line 75)

- To ease reading comprehension for each Figure, communicate the main findings first, before describing the figures. 

We believe this lack of clarity is caused by including the figure reference in the heading of the results subsections. We hope this issue is fixed by editing the text in the following manner (Line 381):

“Trait Introversion 

Along the first gradient, a parcel within the right orbitofrontal cortex (within the executive control network, shown in orange) showed more similarity with transmodal regions for individuals high on introversion. Six parcels within the ventral attention network, including anterior insula, operculum and cingulate cortex were closer to the somatomotor end along gradient two (shown in purple). The same regions showed lower scores along the third gradient in participants with higher introversion scores, indicating stronger integration with the default mode network. A parcel within posterior cingulate cortex (control) was also more segregated from the visual end of gradient two in participants with higher introversion scores. Associations between trait “introversion” and brain-wide activity are shown in Figure 4.”

Comment by jeremydean: There’s also a growing culture of people on Twitter hacking the microblogging platform as an annotation tool. They call them Screenshorts, Tweets that use screenshots of highlighted text to ground commentary. To me it’s just web annotation 1.0. But they’re just trying to be good English students, right?

From a pedagogical and rhetorical perspective, at least, an annotated Trump speech is more effective than a random comment out there in the ether of the net. Similarly, a close read of the Clinton emails I believe would reveal there’s not much of a story there. But as a culture, we are not engaging with politics in that way, and we would be better off if we did.

Comment by BMBOD: I think there are particular personal epistemological assumptions tied up in this, that impact not only how we wish web annotation to be used, but how it functionally can and will primarily be used. If you approach knowledge as something coming from an authority, it is very hard to fathom being able to create it yourself, or talk back to it, even if those platforms exist. Conversely, if you think any opinion is valid, because knowledge is completely subjected as individual "truths" then I think you end up with what we see in a majority of places on the internet that allow discourse... I wonder if, and suspect that, hypothes.is could a powerful tool in shifting personal epistemology - especially where the text creators or "authorities" engage with annotators and the comments they pose...

...forgive me, I bring everything back to personal epistemologies

Comment by actualham: I know I am basically just another lit crit perspective here, but honestly that background-- particularly as a poststructuralist and probably as a postmodernist--inflects so much of my thinking about what the web is and can be. I think moving from English to Interdisciplinary Studies has also made me value the perspective that sees all knowledge as always incomplete; I love that my new field has a core value of noting that there is always another perspective, even if it's not visible or known yet. So when I work with students on the web-- especially in "intro" courses that are supposed to indoctrinate them to the core principles and theories of Interdisciplinary Studies-- I like to present the web as a space that allows and supports dynamism rather than stasis (process over product). But this is so out of line with so much about how teachers think about "public" writing and projects; we want them to be "portfolio" worthy, tidy, complete. When student work is flawed, I think it's a reminder to us about how we can think of all scholarly work. I love that H lets us focus on critique without a requirement that we devalue the work-- in fact, quite the opposite (we critique what has value and potential and impact and utility...). Just thinking out loud, but I think this aspect of "open-endedness" is really the core (ha ha-- irony) of so many of my areas of interest right now.

Comment by markreadman: As Ben says here, the process is opened up to scrutiny, becomes 'part of the work', which means that we have to read these images differently – we're not going to fall into the trap of what Gregory Currie calls 'aesthetic empiricism' and judge the photos as art works in a vacuum. But perhaps there's the danger, lurking, of aestheticising the abject? And (although it's probably the seaside setting that prompts this association) the beach photos taken by the participants just occasionally reminded me of some of Martin Parr's New Brighton photographs. So what kinds of photographic language have the participants internalised? Are they conscious or unconscious rhetoricians of the image?

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Like many papers in the last 5-10 years, this work brings a computational approach to the study of promoters and transcription, but unfortunately disregards or misrepresents much of the existing literature and makes unwarranted claims of novelty. My main concerns with the current paper are outlined below although the problems are deeply embedded.

Strengths:

The data could be useful if interpreted properly, taking into account i) the role of translation ii) other promoter elements, and iii) the relevant literature.

Weaknesses:

(1) Incorrect assumptions and oversimplification of promoters.

- There is a critical error on line 68 and Figure 1A. It is well established that the -35 element consensus is TTGACA but the authors state TTGAAA, which is also the sequence represented by the sequence logo shown and so presumably the PWM used. It is essential that the authors use the correct -35 motif/PWM/consensus.

-Likely, the authors have made this mistake because they have looked at DNA sequence logos generated from promoter alignments anchored by either the position of the -10 element or transcription start site (TSS), most likely the latter. The distance between the TSS and -10 varies. Fewer than half of E. coli promoters have the optimal 7 bp separation with distances of 8, 6, and 5 bp not being uncommon (PMID: 35241653). Furthermore, the distance between the -10 and -35 elements is also variable (16,17, and 18 bp spacings are all frequently found, PMID: 6310517). This means that alignments, used to generate sequence logos, have misaligned -35 hexamers. Consequently, the true consensus is not represented. If the alignment discrepancies are corrected, the true consensus emerges. This problem seems to permeate the whole study since this obviously incorrect consensus/motif has been used throughout to identify sequences that resemble -35 hexamers.

- An uninformed person reading this paper would be led to believe that prokaryotic promoters have only two sequence elements: the -10 and -35 hexamers. This is because the authors completely ignore the role of the TG motif, UP element, and spacer region sequence. All of these can compensate for the lack of a strong -35 hexamer and it's known that appending such elements to a lone -10 sequence can create an active promoter (e.g. PMIDs 15118087, 21398630, 12907708, 16626282, 32297955). Very likely, some of the mutations, classified as not corresponding to a -10 or -35 element in Figure 2, target some of these other promoter motifs.

- The model in Figure 4C is highly unlikely. There is no evidence in the literature that RNAP can hang on with one "arm" in this way. In particular, structural work has shown that sequence-specific interactions with the -10 element can only occur after the DNA has been unwound (PMID: 22136875). Further, -10 elements alone, even if a perfect match to the consensus, are non-functional for transcription. This is because RNAP needs to be directed to the -10 by other promoter elements, or transcription factors. Only once correctly positioned, can RNAP stabilise DNA opening and make sequence-specific contacts with the -10 hexamer. This makes the notion that RNAP may interact with the -10 alone, using only domain 2 of sigma, extremely unlikely.

(2) Reinventing the language used to describe promoters and binding sites for regulators.

- The authors needlessly complicate the narrative by using non-standard language. For example, On page 1 they define a motif as "a DNA sequence computationally predicted to be compatible with TF binding". They distinguish this from a binding site "because binding sites refer to a location where a TF binds the genome, rather than a DNA sequence". First, these definitions are needlessly complicated, why not just say "putative binding sites" and "known binding sites" respectively? Second, there is an obvious problem with the definitions; many "motifs" with also be "bindings sites". In fact, by the time the authors state their definitions, they have already fallen foul of this conflation; in the prior paragraph they stated: "controlled by DNA sequences that encode motifs for TFs to bind". The same issue reappears throughout the paper.

- The authors also use the terms "regulatory" and non-regulatory" DNA. These terms are not defined by the authors and make little sense. For instance, I assume the authors would describe promoter islands lacking transcriptional activity (itself an incorrect assumption, see below)as non-regulatory. However, as horizontally acquired sections of AT-rich DNA these will all be bound by H-NS and subject to gene silencing, both promoters for mRNA synthesis and spurious promoters inside genes that create untranslated RNAs. Hence, regulation is occurring.

- Line 63: "In prokaryotes, the primary regulatory sequences are called promoters". Promoters are not generally considered regulatory. Rather, it is adjacent or overlapping sites for TFs that are regulatory. There is a good discussion of the topic here (PMID: 32665585).

(3) The authors ignore the role of translation.

- The authors' assay does not measure promoter activity alone, this can only be tested by measuring the amount of RNA produced. Rather, the assay used measures the combined outputs of transcription and translation. If the DNA fragments they have cloned contain promoters with no appropriately positioned Shine-Dalgarno sequence then the authors will not detect GFP or RFP production, even though the promoter could be making an RNA (likely to be prematurely terminated by Rho, due to a lack of translation). This is known for promoters in promoter islands (e.g. Figure 1 in PMID: 33958766).

- In Figure S6 it appears that the is a strong bias for mutations resulting in RFP expression to be close to the 3' end of the fragment. Very likely, this occurs because this places the promoter closer to RFP and there are fewer opportunities for premature termination by Rho

(4) Ignoring or misrepresenting the literature.

- As eluded to above, promoter islands are large sections of horizontally acquired, high AT-content, DNA. It is well known that such sequences are i) packed with promoters driving the expression on RNAs that aren't translated ii) silenced, albeit incompletely, by H-NS and iii) targeted by Rho which terminates untranslated RNA synthesis (PMIDs: 24449106, 28067866, 18487194). None of this is taken into account anywhere in the paper and it is highly likely that most, if not all, of the DNA sequences the authors have used contain promoters generating untranslated RNAs.

- The authors state that GC content does not correlate with the emergence of new promoters. It is known that GC content does correlate to the emergence of new promoters because promoters are themselves AT-rich DNA sequences (e.g. see Figure 1 of PMID: 32297955). There are two reasons the authors see no correlation in this work. First, the DNA sequences they have used are already very AT-rich (between 65 % and 78 % AT-content). Second, they have only examined a small range of different AT-content DNA (i.e. between 65 % and 78 %). The effect of AT-content on promoter emerge is most clearly seen between AT-content of between around 40 % and 60 %. Above that level, the strong positive correlation plateaus.

- Once these authors better include and connect their results to the previous literature, they can also add some discussion of how previous papers in recent years may have also missed some of this important context.

(5) Lack of information about sequences used and mutations.

- To properly assess the work any reader will need access to the sequences cloned at the start of the work, where known TSSs are within these sequences (ideally +/- H-NS, which will silence transcription in the chromosomal context but may not when the sequences are removed from their natural context and placed in a plasmid). Without this information, it is impossible to assess the validity of the authors' work.

- The authors do not account for the possibility that DNA sequences in the plasmid, on either side of the cloned DNA fragment, could resemble promoter elements. If this is the case, then mutations in the cloned DNA will create promoters by "pairing up" with the plasmid sequences. There is insufficient information about the DNA sequences cloned, the mutations identified, or the plasmid, to determine if this is the case. It is possible that this also accounts for mutational hotspots described in the paper.

(6) Overselling the conclusions.

Line 420: The paper claims to have generated important new insights into promoters. At the same time, the main conclusion is that "Our study demonstrates that mutations to -10 and -35 boxes motifs are the primary paths to create new promoters and to modulate the activity of existing promoters". This isn't new or unexpected. People have been doing experiments showing this for decades. Of course, mutations that make or destroy promoter elements create and destroy promoters. How could it be any other way?

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

[Editors' note: This review contains many criticisms that apply to the whole sub-field of slow/fast gamma oscillations in the hippocampus, as opposed to this particular paper. In the editors' view, these comments are beyond the scope of any single paper. However, they represent a view that, if true, should contextualise the interpretation of this paper and all papers in the sub-field. In doing so, they highlight an ongoing debate within the broader field.]

Summary:

The authors aimed to elucidate the role of dynamic gamma modulation in the development of hippocampal theta sequences, utilizing the traditional framework of "two gammas," a slow and a fast rhythm. This framework is currently being challenged, necessitating further analyses to establish and secure the assumed premises before substantiating the claims made in the present article.

The results are too preliminary and need to integrate contemporary literature. New analyses are required to address these concerns. However, by addressing these issues, it may be possible to produce an impactful manuscript.

I. Introduction<br /> Within the introduction, multiple broad assertions are conveyed that serve as the premise for the research. However, equally important citations that are not mentioned potentially contradict the ideas that serve as the foundation. Instances of these are described below:

(1) Are there multiple gammas? The authors launched the study on the premise that two different gamma bands are communicated from CA3 and the entorhinal cortex. However, recent literature suggests otherwise, offering that the slow gamma component may be related to theta harmonics:

From a review by Etter, Carmichael and Williams (2023)<br /> "Gamma-based coherence has been a prominent model for communication across the hippocampal-entorhinal circuit and has classically focused on slow and fast gamma oscillations originating in CA3 and medial entorhinal cortex, respectively. These two distinct gammas are then hypothesized to be integrated into hippocampal CA1 with theta oscillations on a cycle-to-cycle basis (Colgin et al., 2009; Schomburg et al., 2014). This would suggest that theta oscillations in CA1 could serve to partition temporal windows that enable the integration of inputs from these upstream regions using alternating gamma waves (Vinck et al., 2023). However, these models have largely been based on correlations between shifting CA3 and medial entorhinal cortex to CA1 coherence in theta and gamma bands. In vivo, excitatory inputs from the entorhinal cortex to the dentate gyrus are most coherent in the theta band, while gamma oscillations would be generated locally from presumed local inhibitory inputs (Pernía-Andrade and Jonas, 2014). This predominance of theta over gamma coherence has also been reported between hippocampal CA1 and the medial entorhinal cortex (Zhou et al., 2022). Another potential pitfall in the communication-through-coherence hypothesis is that theta oscillations harmonics could overlap with higher frequency bands (Czurkó et al., 1999; Terrazas et al., 2005), including slow gamma (Petersen and Buzsáki, 2020). The asymmetry of theta oscillations (Belluscio et al., 2012) can lead to harmonics that extend into the slow gamma range (Scheffer-Teixeira and Tort, 2016), which may lead to a misattribution as to the origin of slow-gamma coherence and the degree of spike modulation in the gamma range during movement (Zhou et al., 2019)."

And from Benjamin Griffiths and Ole Jensen (2023)<br /> "That said, in both rodent and human studies, measurements of 'slow' gamma oscillations may be susceptible to distortion by theta harmonics [53], meaning open questions remain about what can be attributed to 'slow' gamma oscillations and what is attributable to theta."

This second statement should be heavily considered as it is from one of the original authors who reported the existence of slow gamma.

Yet another instance from Schomburg, Fernández-Ruiz, Mizuseki, Berényi, Anastassiou, Christof Koch, and Buzsáki (2014):<br /> "Note that modulation from 20-30 Hz may not be related to gamma activity but, instead, reflect timing relationships with non-sinusoidal features of theta waves (Belluscio et al., 2012) and/or the 3rd theta harmonic."

One of this manuscript's authors is Fernández-Ruiz, a contemporary proponent of the multiple gamma theory. Thus, the modulation to slow gamma offered in the present manuscript may actually be related to theta harmonics.

With the above emphasis from proponents of the slow/fast gamma theory on disambiguating harmonics from slow gamma, our first suggestion to the authors is that they A) address these statements (citing the work of these authors in their manuscript) and B) demonstrably quantify theta harmonics in relation to slow gamma prior to making assertions of phase relationships (methodological suggestions below). As the frequency of theta harmonics can extend as high as 56 Hz (PMID: 32297752), overlapping with the slow gamma range defined here (25-45 Hz), it will be important to establish an approach that decouples the two phenomena using an approach other than an arbitrary frequency boundary.

(2) Can gammas be segregated into different lamina of the hippocampus? This idea appears to be foundational in the premise of the research but is also undergoing revision.

As discussed by Etter et al. above, the initial theory of gamma routing was launched on coherence values. However, the values reported by Colgin et al. (2009) lean more towards incoherence (a value of 0) rather than coherence (1), suggesting a weak to negligible interaction. Nevertheless, this theory is coupled with the idea that the different gamma frequencies are exclusive to the specific lamina of the hippocampus.

Recently, Deschamps et al. (2024) suggested a broader, more nuanced understanding of gamma oscillations than previously thought, emphasizing their wide range and variability across hippocampal layers. This perspective challenges the traditional dichotomy of gamma sub-bands (e.g., slow vs. medium gamma) and their associated cognitive functions based on a more rigid classification according to frequency and phase relative to the theta rhythm. Moreover, they observed all frequencies across all layers.

Similarly, the current source density plots from Belluscio et al. (2012) suggest that SG and FG can be observed in both the radiatum and lacunosum-moleculare.

Therefore, if the initial coherence values are weak to negligible and both slow and fast gamma are observed in all layers of the hippocampus, can the different gammas be exclusively related to either anatomical inputs or psychological functions (as done in the present manuscript)? Do these observations challenge the authors' premise of their research? At the least, please discuss.

(3) Do place cells, phase precession, and theta sequences require input from afferent regions? It is offered in the introduction that "Fast gamma (~65-100Hz), associated with the input from the medial entorhinal cortex, is thought to rapidly encode ongoing novel information in the context (Fernandez-Ruiz et al., 2021; Kemere, Carr, Karlsson, & Frank, 2013; Zheng et al., 2016)".

CA1 place fields remain fairly intact following MEC inactivation include Ipshita Zutshi, Manuel Valero, Antonio Fernández-Ruiz , and György Buzsáki (2022)- "CA1 place cells and assemblies persist despite combined mEC and CA3 silencing" and from Hadas E Sloin, Lidor Spivak, Amir Levi, Roni Gattegno, Shirly Someck, Eran Stark (2024) - "These findings are incompatible with precession models based on inheritance, dual-input, spreading activation, inhibition-excitation summation, or somato-dendritic competition. Thus, a precession generator resides locally within CA1."

These publications, at the least, challenge the inheritance model by which the afferent input controls CA1 place field spike timing. The research premise offered by the authors is couched in the logic of inheritance, when the effect that the authors are observing could be governed by local intrinsic activity (e.g., phase precession and gamma are locally generated, and the attribution to routed input is perhaps erroneous). Certainly, it is worth discussing these manuscripts in the context of the present manuscript.

II. Results

(1) Figure 2-<br /> a. There is a bit of a puzzle here that should be discussed. If slow and fast frequencies modulate 25% of neurons, how can these rhythms serve as mechanisms of communication/support psychological functions? For instance, if fast gamma is engaged in rapid encoding (line 72) and slow gamma is related to the integration processing of learned information (line 84), and these are functions of the hippocampus, then why do these rhythms modulate so few cells? Is this to say 75% of CA1 neurons do not listen to CA3 or MEC input?

b. Figure 2. It is hard to know if the mean vector lengths presented are large or small. Moreover, one can expect to find significance due to chance. For instance, it is challenging to find a frequency in which modulation strength is zero (please see Figure 4 of PMID: 30428340 or Figure 7 of PMID: 31324673).

i. Please construct the histograms of Mean Vector Length as in the above papers, using 1 Hz filter steps from 1-120Hz and include it as part of Figure 2 (i.e., calculate the mean vector length for the filtered LFP in steps of 1-2 Hz, 2-3 Hz, 3-4 Hz,... etc). This should help the authors portray the amount of modulation these neurons have relative to the theta rhythm and other frequencies. If the theta mean vector length is higher, should it be considered the primary modulatory influence of these neurons (with slow and fast gammas as a minor influence)?

ii. It is possible to infer a neuron's degree of oscillatory modulation without using the LFP. For instance, one can create an ISI histogram as done in Figure 1 here (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.20.461152v3.full.pdf+html; "Distinct ground state and activated state modes of firing in forebrain neurons"). The reciprocal of the ISI values would be "instantaneous spike frequency". In favor of the Douchamps et al. (2024) results, the figure of the BioRXiV paper implies that there is a single gamma frequency modulate as there is only a single bump in the ISIs in the 10^-1.5 to 10^-2 range. Therefore, to vet the slow gamma results and the premise of two gammas offered in the introduction, it would be worth including this analysis as part of Figure 2.

c. There are some things generally concerning about Figure 2.

i. First, the raw trace does not seem to have clear theta epochs (it is challenging to ascertain the start and end of a theta cycle). Certainly, it would be worth highlighting the relationship between theta and the gammas and picking a nice theta epoch.

ii. Also, in panel A, there looks to be a declining amplitude relationship between the raw, fast, and slow gamma traces, assuming that the scale bars represent 100uV in all three traces. The raw trace is significantly larger than the fast gamma. However, this relationship does not seem to be the case in panel B (in which both the raw and unfiltered examples of slow and fast gamma appear to be equal; the right panels of B suggest that fast gamma is larger than slow, appearing to contradict the A= 1/f organization of the power spectral density). Please explain as to why this occurs. Including the power spectral density (see below) should resolve some of this.

iii. Within the example of spiking to phase in the left side of Panel B (fast gamma example)- the neuron appears to fire near the trough twice, near the peak twice, and somewhere in between once. A similar relationship is observed for the slow gamma epoch. One would conclude from these plots that the interaction of the neuron with the two rhythms is the same. However, the mean vector lengths and histograms below these plots suggest a different story in which the neuron is modulated by FG but not SG. Please reconcile this.

iv. For calculating the MVL, it seems that the number of spikes that the neuron fires would play a significant role. Working towards our next point, there may be a bias of finding a relationship if there are too few spikes (spurious clustering due to sparse data) and/or higher coupling values for higher firing rate cells (cells with higher firing rates will clearly show a relationship), forming a sort of inverse Yerkes-Dodson curve. Also, without understanding the magnitude of the MVL relative to other frequencies, it may be that these values are indeed larger than zero, but not biologically significant.

- Please provide a scatter plot of Neuron MVL versus the Neuron's Firing Rate for 1) theta (7-9 Hz), 2) slow gamma, and 3) fast gamma, along with their line of best fit.

- Please run a shuffle control where the LFP trace is shifted by random values between 125-1000ms and recalculate the MVL for theta, slow, and fast gamma. Often, these shuffle controls are done between 100-1000 times (see cross-correlation analyses of Fujisawa, Buzsaki et al.).

- To establish that firing rate does not play a role in uncovering modulation, it would be worth conducting a spike number control, reducing the number of spikes per cell so that they are all equal before calculating the phase plots/MVL.

(2) Something that I anticipated to see addressed in the manuscript was the study from Grosmark and Buzsaki (2016): "Cell assembly sequences during learning are "replayed" during hippocampal ripples and contribute to the consolidation of episodic memories. However, neuronal sequences may also reflect preexisting dynamics. We report that sequences of place-cell firing in a novel environment are formed from a combination of the contributions of a rigid, predominantly fast-firing subset of pyramidal neurons with low spatial specificity and limited change across sleep-experience-sleep and a slow-firing plastic subset. Slow-firing cells, rather than fast-firing cells, gained high place specificity during exploration, elevated their association with ripples, and showed increased bursting and temporal coactivation during postexperience sleep. Thus, slow- and fast-firing neurons, although forming a continuous distribution, have different coding and plastic properties."

My concern is that much of the reported results in the present manuscript appear to recapitulate the observations of Grosmark and Buzsaki, but without accounting for differences in firing rate. A parsimonious alternative explanation for what is observed in the present manuscript is that high firing rate neurons, more integrated into the local network and orchestrating local gamma activity (PING), exhibit more coupling to theta and gamma. In this alternative perspective, it's not something special about how the neurons are entrained to the routed fast gamma, but that the higher firing rate neurons are better able to engage and entrain their local interneurons and, thus modulate local gamma. However, this interpretation challenges the discussion around the importance of fast gamma routed from the MEC.

a. Please integrate the Grosmark & Buzsaki paper into the discussion.

b. Also, please provide data that refutes or supports the alternative hypothesis in which the high firing rate cells are just more gamma modulated as they orchestrate local gamma activity through monosynaptic connections with local interneurons (e.g., Marshall et al., 2002, Hippocampal pyramidal cell-interneuron spike transmission is frequency dependent and responsible for place modulation of interneuron discharge). Otherwise, the attribution to a MEC routed fast gamma routing seems tenuous.<br /> c. It is mentioned that fast-spiking interneurons were removed from the analysis. It would be worth including these cells, calculating the MVL in 1 Hz increments as well as the reciprocal of their ISIs (described above).

(3) Methods - Spectral decomposition and Theta Harmonics.

a. It is challenging to interpret the exact parameters that the authors used for their multi-taper analysis in the methods (lines 516-526). Tallon-Baudry et al., (1997; Oscillatory γ-Band (30-70 Hz) Activity Induced by a Visual Search Task in Humans) discuss a time-frequency trade-off where frequency resolution changes with different temporal windows of analysis. This trade-off between time and frequency resolution is well known as the uncertainty principle of signal analysis, transcending all decomposition methods. It is not only a function of wavelet or FFT, and multi-tapers do not directly address this. (The multitaper method, by using multiple specially designed tapers -like the Slepian sequences- smooths the spectrum. This smoothing doesn't eliminate leakage but distributes its impact across multiple estimates). Given the brevity of methods and the issues of theta harmonics as offered above, it is worth including some benchmark trace testing for the multi-taper as part of the supplemental figures.

i. Please spectrally decompose an asymmetric 8 Hz sawtooth wave showing the trace and the related power spectral density using the multiple taper method discussed in the methods.

ii. Please also do the same for an elliptical oscillation (perfectly symmetrical waves, but also capable of casting harmonics). Matlab code on how to generate this time series is provided below:<br /> A = 1; % Amplitude<br /> T = 1/8; % Period corresponding to 8 Hz frequency<br /> omega = 2*pi/T; % Angular frequency<br /> C = 1; % Wave speed<br /> m = 0.9; % Modulus for the elliptic function (0<br /> x = linspace(0, 2*pi, 1000); % temporal domain<br /> t = 0; % Time instant

% Calculate B based on frequency and speed<br /> B = sqrt(omega/C);

% Cnoidal wave equation using the Jacobi elliptic function<br /> u = A .* ellipj(B.*(x - C*t), m).^2;

% Plotting the cnoidal wave<br /> figure;<br /> plot(x./max(x), u);<br /> title('8 Hz Cnoidal Wave');<br /> xlabel('time (x)');<br /> ylabel('Wave amplitude (u)');<br /> grid on;

The Symbolic Math Toolbox needs to be installed and accessible in your MATLAB environment to use ellipj. Otherwise, I trust that, rather than plotting a periodic orbit around a circle (sin wave) the authors can trace the movement around an ellipse with significant eccentricity (the distance between the two foci should be twice the distance between the co-vertices).

iii. Line 522: "The power spectra across running speeds and absolute power spectrum (both results were not shown)...". Given the potential complications of multi-taper discussed above, and as each convolution further removes one from the raw data, it would be the most transparent, simple, and straightforward to provide power spectra using the simple fft.m code in Matlab (We imagine that the authors will agree that the results should be robust against different spectral decomposition methods. Otherwise, it is concerning that the results depend on the algorithm implemented and should be discussed. If gamma transience is a concern, the authors should trigger to 2-second epochs in which slow/fast gamma exceeds 3-7 std. dev. above the mean, comparing those resulting power spectra to 2-second epochs with ripples - also a transient event). The time series should be at least 2 seconds in length (to avoid spectral leakage issues and the issues discussed in Talon-Baudry et al., 1997 above).

Please show the unmolested power spectra (Y-axis units in mV2/Hz, X-axis units as Hz) as a function of running speed (increments of 5 cm/s) for each animal. I imagine three of these PSDs for 3 of the animals will appear in supplemental methods while one will serve as a nice manuscript figure. With this plot, please highlight the regions that the authors are describing as theta, slow, and fast gamma. Also, any issues should be addressed should there be notable differences in power across animals or tetrodes (issues with locations along proximal-distal CA1 in terms of MEC/LEC input and using a local reference electrode are discussed below).

iv. Schomberg and colleagues (2014) suggested that the modulation of neurons in the slow gamma range could be related to theta harmonics (see above). Harmonics can often extend in a near infinite as they regress into the 1/f background (contributing to power, but without a peak above the power spectral density slope), making arbitrary frequency limits inappropriate. Therefore, in order to support the analyses and assertions regarding slow gamma, it seems necessary to calculate a "theta harmonic/slow gamma ratio". Aru et al. (2015; Untangling cross-frequency coupling in neuroscience) offer that: " The presence of harmonics in the signal should be tested by a bicoherence analysis and its contribution to CFC should be discussed." Please test both the synthetic signals above and the raw LFP, using temporal windows of greater than 4 seconds (again, the large window optimizes for frequency resolution in the time-frequency trade-off) to calculate the bicoherence. As harmonics are integers of theta coupled to itself and slow gamma is also coupled to theta, a nice illustration and contribution to the field would be a method that uses the bispectrum to isolate and create a "slow gamma/harmonic" ratio.

(4) I appreciate the inclusion of the histology for the 4 animals. Knerim and colleagues describe a difference in MEC projection along the proximal-distal axis of the CA1 region (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3866456/)- "There are also differences in their direct projections along the transverse axis of CA1, as the LEC innervates the region of CA1 closer to the subiculum (distal CA1), whereas the MEC innervates the region of CA1 closer to CA2 and CA3 (proximal CA1)" From the histology, it looks like some of the electrodes are in the part of CA1 that would be dominated by LEC input while a few are closer to where the MEC would project.

a. How do the authors control for these differences in projections? Wouldn't this change whether or not fast gamma is observed in CA1?

b. I am only aware of one manuscript that describes slow gamma in the LEC which appeared in contrast to fast gamma from the MEC (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abf3119). One would surmise that the authors in the present manuscript would have varying levels of fast gamma in their CA1 recordings depending on the location of the electrodes in the Proximal-distal axis, to the extent that some of the more medial tetrodes may need to be excluded (as they should not have fast gamma, rather they should be exclusively dominated by slow gamma). Alternatively, the authors may find that there is equal fast gamma power across the entire proximal-distal axis. However, this would pose a significant challenge to the LEC/slow gamma and MEC/fast gamma routing story of Fernandez-Ruiz et al. and require reconciliation/discussion.

c. Is there a difference in neuron modulation to these frequencies based on electrode location in CA1?

(5) Given a comment in the discussion (see below), it will be worth exploring changes in theta, theta harmonic, slow gamma, and fast gamma power with running speed as no changes were observed with theta sequences or lap number versus. Notably, Czurko et al., report an increase in theta and harmonic power with running speed (1999) while Ahmed and Mehta (2012) report a similar effect for gamma.

a. Please determine if the oscillations change in power and frequency of the rhythms discussed above change with running speed using the same parameters applied in the present manuscript. The specific concern is that how the authors calculate running speed is not sensitive enough to evaluate changes.

b. It is astounding that animals ran as fast as they did in what appears to be the first lap (Figure 3F), especially as rats' natural proclivity is thigmotaxis and inquisitive exploration in novel environments. Can the authors expand on why they believe their rats ran so quickly on the first lap in a novel environment and how to replicate this? Also, please include the individual values for each animal on the same plot.

c. Can the authors explain how the statistics on line 169 (F(4,44)) work? Specifically, it is challenging to determine how the degrees of freedom were calculated in this case and throughout if there were only 4 animals (reported in methods) over 5 laps (depicted in Figure 3F. Given line 439, it looks like trials and laps are used synonymously). Four animals over 5 laps should have a DOF of 16.

(6) Throughout the manuscript, I am concerned about an inflation of statistical power. For example on line 162, F(2,4844). The large degrees of freedom indicate that the sample size was theta sequences or a number of cells. Since multiple observations were obtained from the same animal, the statistical assumption of independence is violated. Therefore, the stats need to be conducted using a nested model as described in Aarts et al. (2014; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24671065/). A statistical consult may be warranted.

(7) It is stated that one tetrode served as a quiet recording reference. The "quiet" part is an assumption when often, theta and gamma can be volume conducted to the cortex (e.g., Sirota et al., 2008; This is often why laboratories that study hippocampal rhythms use the cerebellum for the differential recording electrode and not an electrode in the corpus callosum). Generally, high frequencies propagate as well as low frequencies in the extracellular milieu (https://www.eneuro.org/content/4/1/ENEURO.0291-16.2016). For transparency, the authors should include a limitation paragraph in their discussion that describes how their local tetrode reference may be inadvertently diminishing and/or distorting the signal that they are trying to isolate. Otherwise, it would be worth hearing an explanation as to how the author's approach avoids this issue.

Apologetically, this review is already getting long. Moreover, I have substantial concerns that should be resolved prior to delving into the remainder of the analyses. e.g., the analyses related to Figure 3-5 assert that FG cells are important for sequences. However, the relationship to gamma may be secondary to either their relationship to theta or, based on the Grosmark and Buzsaki paper, it may just be a phenomenon coupled to the fast-firing cells (fast-firing cells showing higher gamma modulation due to a local PING dynamic). Moreover, the observation of slow gamma is being challenged as theta harmonics, even by the major proponents of the slow/fast gamma theory. Therefore, the report of slow gamma precession would come as an unsurprising extension should they be revealed to be theta harmonics (however, no control for harmonics was implemented; suggestions were made above). Following these amendments, I would be grateful for the opportunity to provide further feedback.

III. Discussion.

a. Line 330- it was offered that fast gamma encodes information while slow gamma integrates in the introduction. However, in a task such as circular track running (from the methods, it appears that there is no new information to be acquired within a trial), one would guess that after the first few laps, slow gamma would be the dominant rhythm. Therefore, one must wonder why there are so few neurons modulated by slow gamma (~3.7%).

b. Line 375: The authors contend that: "...slow gamma, related to information compression, was also required to modulate fast gamma phase-locked cells during sequence development. We replicated the results of slow gamma phase precession at the ensemble level (Zheng et al., 2016), and furthermore observed it at late development, but not early development, of theta sequences." In relation to the idea that slow gamma may be coupled to - if not a distorted representation of - theta harmonics, it has been observed that there are changes in theta relative to novelty.

i. A. Jeewajee, C. Lever, S. Burton, J. O'Keefe, and N. Burgess (2008) report a decrease in theta frequency in novel circumstances that disappears with increasing familiarity.

ii. One could surmise that this change in frequency is associated with alterations in theta harmonics (observed here as slow gamma), challenging the author's interpretation.

iii. Therefore, the authors have a compelling opportunity to replicate the results of Jeewajee et al., characterizing changes of theta along with the development of slow gamma precession, as the environment becomes familiar. It will become important to demonstrate, using bicoherence as offered by Aru et al., how slow gamma can be disambiguated from theta harmonics. Specifically, we anticipate that the authors will be able to quantify A) theta harmonics (the number, and their respective frequencies and amplitudes), B) the frequency and amplitude of slow gamma, and C) how they can be quantitatively decoupled. Through this, their discussion of oscillatory changes with novelty-familiarity will garner a significant impact.

c. Broadly, it is interesting that the authors emphasize the gamma frequency throughout the discussion. Given that the power spectral density of the Local Field Potential (LFP) exhibits a log-log relationship between amplitude and frequency, as described by Buzsáki (2005) in "Rhythms of the Brain," and considering that the LFP is primarily generated through synaptic transmembrane currents (Buzsáki et al., 2012), it seems parsimonious to consider that the bulk of synaptic activity occurs at lower frequencies (e.g., theta). Since synaptic transmission represents the most direct form of inter-regional communication, one might wonder why gamma (characterized by lower amplitude rhythms) is esteemed so highly compared to the higher amplitude theta rhythm. Why isn't the theta rhythm, instead, regarded as the primary mode of communication across brain regions? A discussion exploring this question would be beneficial.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Estevam et al. reports new insights into the regulation of the receptor tyrosine kinase MET gained from two deep mutational scanning (DMS) datasets. In this paper, the authors use a classic selection system for oncogenic kinase signaling, the murine Ba/F3 cell line, to assess the functional effects of thousands of mutations in the kinase domains of MET in two contexts: (1) fusion of the whole MET intracellular region to the dimerization domain TPR, and (2) the same fusion protein, but with exon 14, which encodes part of the juxtamembrane region of MET, skipped. Critically, exon 14 skipping yields a version of MET that is found in many cancers and has higher signaling activity than the canonical MET isoform. The authors extensively analyze their DMS data to very convincingly show that their selection assay reports on kinase activity, by illustrating that many functionally important structural components of the kinase domain are not tolerant of mutation. Then, they turn their attention to a helical region of the juxtamembrane region (αJM), immediately after exon 14, which is posited to play a regulatory role in MET. Their DMS data illustrate that the strength and mutational tolerance of interactions between αJM and the key αC helix in the kinase domain depends on the presence or absence of exon 14. They also identify residues in the N-lobe of the kinase, such as P1153, which are not conserved across tyrosine kinases but appear to be essential for MET and MET-like kinases. Finally, the authors analyze their DMS data in the context of clinically-observed mutations and drug-resistance mutations.

Overall, this manuscript is exciting because it provides new insights into MET regulation in general, as well as the role of exon 14. It also reveals ways in which the JM region of MET is different from that of many other receptor tyrosinekinases. The exon 14-skipped fusion protein DMS data is somewhat underexplored and could be discussed in greater detail, which would elevate excitement about the work. Furthermore, some of the cell biological validation experiments and the juxtaposition with clinical data are perhaps not assessed/interpreted as clearly they could be. Some constructive suggestions are given below to enhance the impact of the manuscript.

Strengths:

The main strengths of this paper, also summarized above in the summary, are as follows:

(1) The authors very convincingly show that Ba/F3 cells can be coupled with deep mutational scanning to examine MET mutational effects. This is most clearly shown by highlighting how all of the known kinase structure and regulatory elements are highly sensitive to mutations, in accordance with a few other DMS datasets on other kinases.

(2) A highlight of this paper is the juxtaposition of two DMS datasets for two different isoforms of the MET receptor. Very few comparisons like this exist in the literature, and they show how small changes to the overall architecture of a protein can impact its regulation and mutational sensitivity.

(3) Another exciting advance in this manuscript is the deep structural analysis of the MET juxtamembrane region with respect to that of other tyrosine kinases - guided by the striking effect of mutations in the juxtamembrane helical region. The authors illustrate how the JM region of MET differs from that of other tyrosine kinases.

(4) Overall, this manuscript will provide a resource for interpreting clinically relevant MET mutations.

Weaknesses:

(1) The manuscript is front-loaded with extensive analysis of the first DMS dataset, in which exon 14 is present, however, the discussion and analysis of the exon 14-skipped dataset is somewhat limited. In particular, a deeper discussion of the differences between the two datasets is warranted, to lay out the full landscape of mutations that have different functional consequences in the two isoforms. Rather, the authors only focus on differences in the JM region. What are the broader structural effects of exon 14 skipping across the whole kinase domain?

Thank you for your feedback on our manuscript and our analysis of the exon 14 skipped mutational scanning data. The lack of a robust growth differential  between the wild type MET intracellular domain and the exon 14 skipped isoform within the Ba/F3 system suggests that there is not a significant growth advantage related to exon 14 skipping, likely due to the constitutive activation of both constructs by the TPR domain, which also suggests that the assay is potentially less sensitive to nuanced JM-driven effects between these two isoforms, aside from the highly sensitive ⍺JM-helix. We also lose insight on membrane-related interactions imposed on the juxtamembrane that may be important to fully understand the differences between these two isoforms in the cytoplasmically-expressed context. Therefore, we can at most speculate exon 14 skipped related differences between these two datasets.

With these caveats in mind, to further address exon 14 and juxtamembrane-driven differences between these two mutational landscapes, we calculated the absolute score difference between TPR-METΔEx14 and TPR-MET (|METΔEx14 - MET|) and plotted the |ΔScore| in a heatmap. Overall, the two landscapes, as noted in the text, are largely similar with differences emerging mostly for specific mutations. Where we see the largest secondary structural difference continues to be the ⍺JM-helix, where MET is more sensitive to helix-breaking mutations such as proline. Again L1062 has the greatest difference in sensitivity between these two datasets for the ⍺JM-helix, with the introduction of negative charge resulting in loss-of-function for the TPR-MET kinase domain but having a null effect in the TPR-METΔEx14 kinase domain. Other positions with strong differences include the ⍺G and APE motif.

We have incorporated more detailed discussion in text. 

(2) It is unclear if gain-of-function mutations can actually be detected robustly in this specific system. This isn't a problem at face value, as different selection assays have different dynamic ranges. However, the authors don't discuss the statistical significance and reproducibility of gain- vs loss-of-function mutations, and none of the gain-of-function mutations are experimentally validated (some appear to show loss-of-function in their cellular validation assay with full-length MET). The manuscript would benefit from deeper statistical analysis (and discussion in the text) of gain-of-function mutations, as well as further validation of a broad range of activity scores in a functional assay. For the latter point, one option would be to express individual clones from their library in Ba/F3 cells and blot for MET activation loop phosphorylation (which is probably a reasonable proxy for activity/activation).

Thank you for your comment on the statistical interpretations of gain-of-function (GOF) and loss-of-function (LOF) mutations. In this study we classify GOF and LOF based on the following metrics:

(1) The difference between the missense mutation score and the wild type synonymous score for a given position must be smaller than the calculated propagated error, for both IL-3 withdrawal and IL-3 conditions

(2) Missense mutations must be ≥ ±2 standard deviations (SD) from the mean of wild type synonymous mutations

Given that our assay was conducted in a constitutively active kinase in the TPR-fusion context, gain-of-function mutations are expected to not only be rare, but also supersede baseline fitness. Within the IL-3 conditions, we expect that cells are not reliant or “addicted” to MET for growth proliferation. Nevertheless, due to the parallel nature of the screen, we can compare scores for variants in the IL-3 control and IL-3 withdrawal conditions to filter mutations that are solely exhibiting high fitness under selective pressure.

To identify these mutations we 1) calculated the propagation of error between IL-3 and IL-3 withdrawal scores for the same variant 2) calculated the absolute difference between IL-3 and IL-3 withdrawal scores for the same variant 3) filtered variants if the IL-3 withdrawal score was ≥ +2 SDs, the IL-3 score was ≤ 0, and the absolute score difference between IL-3 and withdrawal conditions was larger than the propagated error.

In analyzing mutations within the IL-3 withdrawal conditions, applying our statistical metrics, we find 33 mutations within the MET library, and 30 in the METΔEx14 library, that have a score of ≥ +2 SD and low propagated error. By increasing our boundary to ≥+2.5 SD, we can classify mutations with even higher confidence, identifying 10 mutations within the MET library, and 9 in the METΔEx14 library (Supplemental Data Figure 7).

(3) In light of point 2, above, much of the discussion about clinically-relevant gain-of-function mutations feels a bit stretched - although this section is definitely very interesting in premise. A clearer delineation of gain-of-function, with further statistical support and ideally also some validation, would greatly strengthen the claims in this section.

To address this concern, we have provided additional analysis and details on gain-of-function (GOF) classification in Supplemental Data Figure 5 and the overlap between GOF and clinically associated mutations in Supplemental Data Figure 8. Within our gain-of-function classifications, we pick up on several mutations at positions that have been clinically detected and experimentally validated in previous studies in both libraries (D1228, G1163, L1195), and show that GOF mutations also have low variance.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors describe a deep mutational scanning (DMS) study of the kinase domain of the c-MET receptor tyrosine kinase. The screen is conducted with a highly activated fusion oncoprotein - Tpr-MET - in which the MET kinase domain is fused to the Tpr dimerization element. The mutagenized region includes the entire kinase domain and an alpha-helix in the juxtamembrane region that is essentially part of the MET kinase domain. The DMS screen is carried out in two contexts, one containing the entire cytoplasmic region of MET, and the other with an "exon 14 deletion" which removes a large portion of the juxtamembrane region (but retains the aforementioned alpha-helix). The work provides a robust and essentially exhaustive catalog of the effect of mutations (within the kinase domain) on the ability of the Tpr-MET fusion oncoproteins to drive IL3-independent growth of Ba/F3 cells. Every residue in the kinase is mutated to every natural amino acid. Given the design of the screen, one would expect it to be a powerful tool for identifying mutations that impair catalytic activity and therefore impair IL3-independent proliferation, but not the right tool for identifying gain-of-function mutations that operate by shifting the kinase from an inactive to active state (because the Tpr-Met fusion construct is already very highly activated). This is borne out by the data, which reveal many many deleterious mutations and few "gain-of-function" mutations (which are of uncertain significance, as discussed below).

Strengths:

The authors take a very scholarly and thorough approach to interpreting the effect of mutations in light of available information for the structure and regulation of MET and other kinases. They examine the effect of mutations in the so-called catalytic (C) and regulatory (R) spines, the interface between the JM alpha-helix and the C-helix, the glycine-rich loop, and other key elements of the kinase, providing a structural rationale for the deleterious effect of mutations. Comparison of the panoply of deleterious mutations in the TPR-met versus TPR- exon14del-MET DMS screens reveals an interesting difference - the exon14 deletion MET is much more tolerant of mutations in the JM alpha-helix/C-helix interface. The reason for this is unclear, however.

Weaknesses:

Because the screens were conducted with highly active Tpr-MET fusions, they have limited power to reveal gain-of-function mutations. Indeed, to the extent that Tpr-MET is as active or even more active than ligand-activated WT MET, one could argue that it is "fully" activated and that any additional gain of fitness would be "super-physiologic". I would expect such mutations to be rare (assuming that they could be detected at all in the Ba/F3 proliferation assay). Consistent with this, the authors note that gain-of-function mutations are rare in their screen (as judged by being more fit than the average of synonymous mutations). In their discussion of cancer-associated mutations, they highlight several "strong GOF variants in the DMS". It is unclear what the authors mean by "strong GOF", indeed it is unclear to this reviewer whether the screen has revealed any true gain of function mutations at all. A few points in this regard:

(1) More active than the average of synonymous mutations (nucleotide changes that have no effect on the sequence of the expressed protein) seems to be an awfully low bar for GOF - by that measure, several synonymous mutations would presumably be classified as GOF.

We completely agree that any mutation above the average synonymous would not be a robust assessment and thus why we statically filtered mutations in our entire analysis. To this point, and that of  Reviewer 1, we have further outlined our statistical definitions. In classifying mutations as GOF or LOF, the following parameters were used:

(1) The difference between the missense mutation score and the wild type synonymous score for a given position must be smaller than the calculated propagated error, for both IL-3 withdrawal and IL-3 conditions

(2) Missense mutations must be ≥ ±2 standard deviations (SD) from the mean of wild type synonymous mutations

Therefore, only variants at the tail-ends of the mutational distribution were assessed, and further filtered based on propagation of error. For this reason, a “strong GOF” mutation as noted in this study is one that improves the fitness of an already active kinase. As pointed out, within our analysis, these are very rare occurrences, and in focusing on cancer-associated mutations we find that the variants that meet these statistical parameters require a larger genetic “leap” in the codon space. Overall, we have also changed our language in reference to GOF mutations in text.

We hope this concern has been addressed in the new Supplemental Data Figures.

(2) In the +IL3 heatmap in supplemental Figure 1A, there is as much or more "blue" indicating GOF as in the -IL3 heatmap, which could suggest that the observed level of gain in fitness is noise, not signal.

We hope this concern has been addressed in the previous responses and new Supplemental Data Figures.

(3) And finally, consistent with this interpretation, in Supplemental Figure 1C, comparing the synonymous and missense panels in the IL3 withdrawal condition suggests that the most active missense mutations (characterized here as strong GOF) are no more active than the most active synonymous mutations.

We hope this concern has been addressed in the previous responses and figures above.

My other major concern with the work as presented is that the authors conflate "activity" and "activation" in discussing the effects of mutations. "Activation" implies a role in regulation - affecting a switch between inactive and active conformations or states - at least in this reviewer's mind. As discussed above, the screen per se does not probe activation, only activity. To the extent that the residues discussed are important for activation/regulation of the kinase, that information is coming from prior structural/functional studies of MET and other kinases, not from the DMS screen conducted here. Of course, it is appropriate and interesting for the authors to consider residues that are known to form important structural/regulatory elements, but they should be careful with the use of activity vs. activation and make it clear to the reader that the screen probes the former. One example - in the abstract, the authors rightly note that their approach has revealed a critical hydrophobic interaction between the JM segment and the C-helix, but then they go on to assert that this points to differences in the regulation of MET and other RTKs. There is no evidence that this is a regulatory interaction, as opposed to simply a structural element present in MET (and indeed the authors' examination of prior crystal structures shows that the interaction is present in both active and inactive states.

Thank you, and we completely agree that the distinction between “activity” and “activation” is important and that we can at most speculate and propose models for effects related to activation from this screen. We have edited the text to reflect these distinctions. In respect to activation and the second point, we believe the screen highlights the ⍺JM-C interface as a critical structural region, which may have a role in regulation based on the paradigm of juxtamembrane regulation in RTKs, the presence of a similar interface in TAM family kinases, the co-movement of the ⍺JM-helix and ⍺C-helix between active and inactive conformations in the structural ensemble, and the observation that within the TPR-METΔEx14 library there is a greater tolerance for mutations at interface positions than TPR-MET. We hope that are follow-up studies that directly probe the ⍺JM-C interface in respect to the entire juxtamembrane to truly say if/ what role this conserved motif plays in regard to MET function. We have changed the language of the text to reflect how these differences contribute to our proposed model, rather than any unintended assertion on direct regulatory effects.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Suggested major points to address:

(1) Although the authors show that several key functional residues in the kinase domain are highly sensitive to mutation, it would be nice if the authors further established a clear connection between kinase activity and enrichment in the Ba/F3 assay. Specifically, it is unclear to what extent there is a correlation between the extent of enrichment/depletion and kinase activity - is a larger activity score necessarily indicative of higher kinase activity? This is partly validated by the P1153L mutation autophosphorylation western blots in Figure 4B, but this correlation is somewhat undermined by the data in 5F. Autophosphorylation data (or phosphorylation data on a direct downstream substrate) for a few mutants would really solidify what the activity score is truly reporting. This might also clarify the extent to which the difference between the two screens can be interpreted, and the extent to which gain-of-function can be interpreted.

The Ba/F3 assay was carefully chosen for its addiction to exogenous IL-3, which serves as a permissive signaling switch. Any mutation that prevents TPR-MET/ΔEx14 from properly functioning is therefore dampening its signaling ability. Nevertheless, it is possible that some mutations with high scores are truly improving activity and others are sustaining activity through more stable interactions than the wild type kinase domain or with downstream signaling partners, which would require careful biochemical dissection outside the scope of this study. To address these points, we now refer to the mutation score simply as “score” rather than “activity score” and further discuss these caveats in text.

(2) Overall, the exon 14-skipped dataset is under-discussed in the paper. The comparison of the two datasets is where most deep insights are likely to be found, and so a more thorough analysis/discussion of this dataset would really elevate the significance of the paper. For example, there appear to be a very large number of mutations that have divergent effects in the two screens (everything along the dashed lines in Figure 5D), but it's unclear where most of these mutations lie on the structure. It would be helpful if the residues with divergent mutational effects between the two screens (Supplementary Figure 5E) were mapped onto a structure of the JM-KD construct.

To address this concern, new analysis has been added to the supplement, showing the score differences between MET and METΔEx14 mutations as a heatmap (Supplemental Data Figure 7A). Within this analysis we further applied our statistical filtering methods and structurally mapped positions with the greatest differential scores to show where divergent effects cluster (Supplemental Data Figure 7D). Consistent with our previous reports, the ⍺JM-helix and ⍺C-helix show the largest cluster of divergent effects, in addition to sites such as the ⍺G and APE motif. Further discussion of these points have been added to the text.

(3) Based on the observations that αJM-αC interactions seem to be less strictly required in the exon 14 mutant, the hypothesis that exon 14 skipping merely removes a Cbl docking site seems largely unsatisfactory. There seems to be more direct structural alterations that could explain this change, but these are not really discussed or speculated on. Related to this, while L1062 mutations are more tolerated, as the authors showed in both the mutational heatmap and the cellular experiments, its binding counterpart L1125 still seems to be somewhat immutable based on the heatmaps. So, more hypothesis/exploration of how exon 14 skipping affects MET KD structure would be a nice addition to the paper.

We agree that loss of the Cbl docking site is an insufficient model to capture the full nature of JM regulation and exon 14 skipping effects, which was a major incentive for this study. The outstanding ⍺JM-⍺C-helix sensitivity also excites us because it points to a potential regions of the JM that potentially is involved in kinase activity through ⍺C-helix interactions, much like the CDK models and other RTK-JM interactions. We observed that the ⍺JM-⍺C helix retain contact, and propose that the ⍺JM-⍺C helix move in unison between active and inactive conformations. However, it is possible that a more complicated mechanism might also exist, where there is a larger degree of maintenance of these contacts in a homodimer. For instance, in Figure 3G, if you compare the ⍺JM-helix conformations, in both RON and AXL there is more distance and a pivot away from the ⍺C-helix. It’s is possible that there are shared mechanisms between the MET and TAM families that could further elucidate exactly how these ⍺JM-helices interact with the kinase domain during the activity transitions and what biophysical role JM truncations play.

(4) The discussion about mutations S1122Q and L1062D is a bit confusing and incomplete. From the DMS data, it appears that L1062D should be mildly gain-of-function for the exon 14 deletion variant and very loss of function for wild-type MET. In the validation HeLa cell experiments L1062D is loss-of-function in both contexts, but a mention of this discrepancy is omitted. Then, when the discordance between DMS and HeLa cell experiments is observed again for S1122Q, it is explicitly called out for activation-loop phosphorylation, but then there is no mention of the fact that HGF stimulation leads to greater pERK levels for S1122Q in the exon 14 deletion context (the opposite of the DMS result). The Erk phosphorylation discrepancy should be mentioned. It is entirely reasonable, as the authors suggest, that there are differences between full-length MET and the TPR fusions, but the enhanced Erk phosphorylation by the S1122Q mutation is surprising (and intriguing!). This section could use some re-analysis/re-writing and further discussion.

Thank you for this comment. As noted L1062D shows slight GOF in METΔEx14 but LOF in MET. The blots show expression of L1062D and S1122Q in the full length receptor in the absence and presence of HGF stimulation. L1062D is loss of function for both contexts only in -HGF conditions, but shows expression in phosphorylated METΔEx14, but not MET. For S1122Q, indeed there is a stronger pERK signal in the METΔEx14, which highlights how probing all regions of phosphorylation (A-loop and C-tail) and many MET-associate pathways (ERK, AKT) may be important to understand in what way these mutations are affect MET phosphorylation and proliferation. We have included this point in the text.

(5) Related to the previous point, one other thing to consider here is that perhaps gain-of-function mutations are simply not detectable in this particular DMS assay. The authors state that GOF and LOF are defined as 2 standard deviations from the mean of the WT-synonymous distribution. How many mutations are actually designated to be GOF based on this criterion? Are those GOF mutations as reproducible as the LOF mutations? It would be worthwhile to separately analyze the variance in activity scores for every loss-of-function mutation and gain-of-function mutation. It seems likely that loss-of-function scores are a lot more reproducible than gain-of-function ones, suggesting that the most apparent gain-of-function signal is just noise in the assay. The few outliers to this point (true gain-of-function mutations) may be some of the ones discussed in Figure 6. If this is true, it would lend confidence to the claims associated with Figure 6.

In analyzing and classifying both GOF and LOF mutations, error was a main filtering parameter. Each fitness score, calculated by Enrich2, is representative of the slope across time points  and biological replicates for the read frequency of the mutation. The associated standard error (SE) reflects the variance for each mutation within the scoring framework (Rubin et al., 2017). Mutations were then further filtered based on low propagated error, calculated by comparing the standard error (SE) of each missense mutation to the SE of the respective wild type synonymous mutation. Therefore, mutations were only classified as GOF or LOF if there was low error, in addition to the other score filters previously described. We have plotted the classified GOF mutations with their respective SE in the newly incorporated Supplemental Data Figure 8C.

(6) In the discussion of panels 6C and 6D, the assertion is that the "clinical, not validated" category has more mutations that are low-fitness outliers than the "clinical, validated" category. From the graphs, it's actually hard to tell if this is the case for two reasons: (1) the way the graphs are normalized, (to the largest value in each histogram), you cannot compare bar heights (and thus number of mutations) between two histograms on the same graph. (2) Just looking at the shapes of the distributions, or considering maybe the mean or median values, it's unclear whether the "validated" and "not validated" populations are actually different from one another.

This is an important indication, and we have added analysis showing the distribution and number of clinically-associated mutations within our libraries without normalization in the main text and in Supplemental Data Figure 8A-B.

(7) This sentence in the last results section is somewhat unclear: "GOF resistance mutations may indicate an effect on the equilibrium of kinase activation, whereas LOF resistance mutations likely affect inhibitor-protein interactions directly." The first part makes sense, but it is not totally obvious how one can infer anything about inhibitor-protein interactions from mutations that are LOF with respect to kinase activity. Related to this, how are LOF mutations selected in the presence of an inhibitor? Is the assumption here that the mutation might totally abrogate inhibitor binding but only slightly impair the kinase? Perhaps this could be explained a bit more.

Here, the idea we wanted to get across is that there are two models  that can explain how a mutation can contribute to resistance: shift the activity equilibrium at baseline or directly impair drug effects and restore baseline activity. Mutations that are labeled resistant and GOF, favor the first model. Mutations that are labeled resistant and LOF, favor the second model. In the presence of an inhibitor, which is in the scope outside of this study, LOF mutations would be sensitive to the inhibitor (ie WT-like and sensitive).

(8) Some additional details of the library preparation and sequencing should be given in the methods section. It appears that the variable region of the library is roughly 275 amino acid residues long, which means >800 bases. How was this sequenced? From the methods, it sounds like all of the variants were pooled into a single library, but then sequencing was done using a 300x300 paired-end Illumina kit, which would not cover the length of the whole variable region. Was the library actually screened in segments as sub-libraries and then separately sequenced? Alternatively, was the whole library screened at once, and then different segments were amplified out for sequencing? If the latter approach is used, this could yield confounding results for counting wild-type variants that have the parent wild-type coding sequence. For example, if you amplify your kinase library in three segments after a single selection on the whole library, and you sequence those three segments separately, you might find a read that appears as wild-type in the part you amplified/sequenced but has a mutation in a region that you did not sequence. If this approach is taken, the counts for the wild-type sequence would be inaccurate, in which case, how is the data normalized with WT as a reference? Regardless of the method used, some more details should be provided in the methods section.

In this study, we used the Nextera XT DNA Library Preparation Kit (Illumina), which uses a tagmentanation approach that randomly fragments our 861 bp amplicon into ~300 bp fragments with a transposase, resulting in a Poisson distribution of fragment sizes. This allows for direct sequencing of all amplicons and libraries with an SP300 paired-end run, which we ran on two lanes of a NovaSeq6000. Samples are demultiplexed  and processed by our analysis pipeline with a lookup table that associates the unique dual index to the specific sample (library, time point, biological replicate, IL-3 condition).

The TPR-MET and TPR-METΔEx14 libraries were prepared in parallel throughout the entire experiment, from cloning to virus generation to transductions, screening, cell harvesting, sequencing prep, and sequencing. In other words, the TPR-MET and TPR-METΔEx14 were transduced into their own, respective batch of cells for each biological replicate, then selected and screened on the same day for each replicate and time point. Each library and condition (time point, biological replicate, IL-3 condition) was prepared in parallel but still an independent sample. At the stage of tagmentation, each sample was arrayed, where each well corresponds to a library, biological replicate, and time point. At the stage of sequencing, samples across the two libraries were normalized to 10mM (library, biological replicate, time point, IL-3 condition) then pooled together and all run on two lanes of the same NovaSeq6000 flow cell.

PCR and sequencing bias was one of the most important parameters for us, which is why we performed tagmentation in parallel and sequenced everything on the same run. We have added extra details to the methods and hope that we have clarified your questions on this matter.

Suggested minor points to address:

(1) TPR (as in TPR-MET fusion) is not defined in the text when it is first mentioned. And it wasn't immediately clear that this is not a membrane-associated domain (Figure 5E makes this way more obvious than Figure 1B does). Perhaps this could be made more explicit in the text or in Figure 1.

We have incorporated a new schematic in Figure 1B to better illustrate the TPR-fusion constructs used within this study. The usage of the TPR-fusion is first mentioned in the introduction, paragraph 4, and revised the main-text to delineate the usage of the TPR-fusion more clearly.

(2) In Figure 2G, it would be helpful if the wild-type amino acid residue was listed underneath the position number in the two graphs (even though those residues are also highlighted in 2H).

Thank you for this recommendation, we have added the wild type amino acid next to the position number in the x-axis label.

(3) For Supplementary Data Figure 2, is it possible to calculate conservation scores at each position using some kind of evolutionary model, rather than relying on visual inspection of the sequence logo? Can one quantitatively assert that the C-spine is less conserved than the R-spine overall, or can this only be said for certain positions? Related to this, in comparing Figure 2G to Supplementary Data Figure 2, it is interesting that there isn't any obvious correspondence between mutational tolerance and conservation within the C-spine. For example, 1165 seems to be the most conserved position in the C-spine, but several substitutions are tolerated at this position, just like 1210, which is one of the least conserved positions in the C-spine. Finally, it's very likely that positions 1165, 1210, 1272, and 1276 co-vary, given that they all pack into the same hydrophobic cluster. This might be why they appear less conserved. These last few points might be worth discussing briefly if the authors want to relate mutational tolerance to evolutionary conservation.

Thank you for this recommendation. To better quantitatively determine C-spine versus R-spine conservation, we performed a multiple sequence alignment of all RTK kinase domain sequences to properly identify corresponding R- and C-spine locations, as previously done in generating the spine logos, then used the bio3D structural bioinformatics package in R to calculate the conservation score of each residue position by amino acid “similarity” with a blosum62 matrix (Supplemental Data Figure 2B). In concordance with the logos, we find that C-spine positions 1092, 1108, 1165 have the highest conservation scores, even compared to some R-spine mutations. We also see across the alignment that indeed, C-spine positions 1165 1210,1211,1212, and 1272, and 1276 co-vary within RTK families. We have revised the text to reflect these points, and more specifically discuss position-level conservation rather than generalizing conservation for the C- and R-spines.

(4) On Page 7 of the merged document, there appear to be some figure labeling errors. In the first and second paragraphs of the "Critical contacts between..." section, Figure 3B is referenced multiple times as a structural alignment/ensemble, but this is a heatmap.

Thank you for catching this! The correct figure panels are now referenced.

(5) In the text describing Figure 3A, it is stated that the structures were aligned to the N-lobe, but the figure legend says that all structures were aligned to alpha-C and alpha-JM.

Thank you - a local alignment to the ⍺JM-helix and ⍺C-helix is correct, the idea here being that if the ⍺JM-helix and ⍺C-helix are linked to an active/inactive conformation like in the case of the insulin receptor, these two clusters could be revealed through the structural ensemble. However, we discovered this was not the case, combined with the DMS sensitivity to mutations at the packing interface leads us to believe that the MET JM has a distinctive regulatory mechanism that relies on this ⍺C-helix interface. We have made this correction to the text.

(6) It would be helpful if the alpha-C and alpha-JM helices in Figure 3D were labeled on the MET structures.

The ⍺C-helix and ⍺JM-helix are now labeled in Figure 3D.

(7) It appears that Figure 4E is never explicitly referenced in the text.

Thank you, Figure 4E is now appropriately referenced in the text.

(8) Throughout the Figure 6 legend, for the histograms, it is stated that "Counts are normalized to the total mutations in each screen dataset." This might not be the correct description of normalization, as this would mean that the sum of all of the bins should equal 1. Rather, the normalization appears to be to the bin with the largest number of mutants in it, which is given a value of 1. This difference is really critical to how one visually inspects the overlaid histograms.

Thank you for this comment. Here, the intention was to aid in the visualization of the distribution of cancer-associated and resistance associated mutations, which is a much smaller population compared to the whole library and becomes easily masked. We originally applied a “stat(ncount)” function in R, which as noted scales the data and sets the peak to 1, which only applied to the clinical and cancer-associated mutations plotted. Now, to better compare distributions, normalization has been removed, instead opting to overlay the distributions of all missense mutations and the subset of clinical mutations directly with their own y-axis scale. This modification has been made throughout Figure 6 panels, hopefully improving interpretability.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

A few thoughts/suggestions:

(1) Regarding kinase regulation, the "closing of N- and C-lobe" upon activation is an often mentioned component of activation, and I'm sure is true in many cases, but it is not a general feature of kinase activation.

The text has been updated - we removed the description of N- and C-lobe closure. 

(2) With respect to the inactive state of MEK, the DFG-flipped structure discussed here is almost certainly an inhibitor-induced conformation. Again, DFG-flip is often discussed as a mechanism of kinase regulation, and while in some kinases this might be the case, more often it is a drug-induced or drug-stabilized inactive conformation. The SRC/CDK-like inactive conformation in 2G15 is more likely a physiologically relevant inactive state. (or even better, the ATP-bound inactive state structure 3DKC, which exhibits a somewhat different SRC/CDK-like inactive conformation).

The PDB 3R7O structure was chosen as the main representation because it was the clearest representation of a wild type structure with an aligned R- and C- spine, solvent-exposed, phosphorylated activation loop. Although 3DKC is bound to ATP, this structure is still in an inactive conformation and has stabilizing mutations (Y1234/F, Y1235D) and an atypical alpha helix structure in the activation loop. However, we agree the SRC/CDK-like inactive conformation is an important representation and we have incorporated our structural mapping on 2G15 in the new supplemental figures with further details on statistical analysis and comparison of libraries.

(3) Following the comments above, I would describe the process of activation in a simpler way (in any case, it is peripheral to the work described here). Something along the lines of "phosphorylation on tyrosines XX and XX induces rearrangement of the activation segment and promotes and stabilizes the inward active position of the C-helix." Can go on to mention that this forms the E1127/K1110 salt bridge. (The DFG is already "in" in the SRc/CDK-like inactive state).

We have changed the language to more simply describe activation. Thank you!

(4) Would be great to see DMS with the intact receptor done in a way that could identify mutations that lead to activation in a ligand-independent manner. (but obviously beyond the scope of this paper).

Agreed! This would be an excellent follow up for the future, especially to elucidate juxtamembrane regulation, as the membrane context is likely required.

A typo or two:

Boarded instead of bordered/outlined in legend to Fig. 1.

P11553L in the 2nd line of the 2nd paragraph in that section.

Thank you, we have addressed these typos!

Author response:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Abbasi et al. assess in this MEG study the directed connectivity of both cortical and subcortical regions during continuous speech production and perception. The authors observed bidirectional connectivity patterns between speech-related cortical areas as well as subcortical areas in production and perception. Interestingly, they found in speaking low-frequency connectivity from subcortical (the right cerebellum) to cortical (left superior temporal) areas, while connectivity from the cortical to subcortical areas was in the high frequencies. In listening a similar cortico-subcortical connectivity pattern was observed for the low frequencies, but the reversed connectivity in the higher frequencies was absent.

The work by Abbasi and colleagues addresses a relevant, novel topic, namely understanding the brain dynamics between speaking and listening. This is important because traditionally production and perception of speech and language are investigated in a modality-specific manner. To have a more complete understanding of the neurobiology underlying these different speech behaviors, it is key to also understand their similarities and differences. Furthermore, to do so, the authors utilize state-of-the-art directed connectivity analyses on MEG measurements, providing a quite detailed profile of cortical and subcortical interactions for the production and perception of speech. Importantly, and perhaps most interesting in my opinion, is that the authors find evidence for frequency-specific directed connectivity, which is (partially) different between speaking and listening. This could suggest that both speech behaviors rely (to some extent) on similar cortico-cortical and cortico-subcortical networks, but different frequency-specific dynamics.

These elements mentioned above (investigation of both production and perception, both cortico-cortical and cortico-subcortical connectivity is considered, and observing frequency-specific connectivity profiles within and between speech behaviors), make for important novel contributions to the field. Notwithstanding these strengths, I find that they are especially centered on methodology and functional anatomical description, but that precise theoretical contributions for neurobiological and cognitive models of speech are less transparent. This is in part because the study compares speech production and perception in general, but no psychophysical or psycholinguistic manipulations are considered. I also have some critical questions about the design which may pose some confounds in interpreting the data, especially with regard to comparing production and perception.

(1) While the cortico-cortical and cortico-subcortical connectivity profiles highlighted in this study and the depth of the analyses are impressive, what these data mean for models of speech processing remains on the surface. This is in part due, I believe, to the fact that the authors have decided to explore speaking and listening in general, without targeting specific manipulations that help elucidate which aspects of speech processing are relevant for the particular connectivity profiles they have uncovered. For example, the frequency-specific directed connectivity is it driven by low-level psychophysical attributes of the speech or by more cognitive linguistic properties? Does it relate to the monitoring of speech, timing information, and updating of sensory predictions? Without manipulations trying to target one or several of these components, as some of the referenced work has done (e.g., Floegel et al., 2020; Stockert et al., 2021; Todorović et al., 2023), it is difficult to draw concrete conclusions as to which representations and/or processes of speech are reflected by the connectivity profiles. An additional disadvantage of not having manipulations within each speech behavior is that it makes the comparison between listening and speaking harder. That is, speaking and listening have marked input-output differences which likely will dominate any comparison between them. These physically driven differences (or similarities for that matter; see below) can be strongly reduced by instead exploring the same manipulations/variables between speaking and listening. If possible (if not to consider for future work), it may be interesting to score psychophysical (e.g., acoustic properties) or psycholinguistic (e.g., lexical frequency) information of the speech and see whether and how the frequency-specific connectivity profiles are affected by it.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The current study is indeed part of a larger project investigating the role of the internal forward model in speech perception and production. In the original, more comprehensive study, we also included a masked condition where participants produced speech as usual, but their auditory perception was masked. This allowed us to examine how the internal forward model behaves when it doesn't receive the expected sensory consequences of generated speech. However, for the current study, we focused solely on data from the speaking and listening conditions due to its specific research question. We agree that further manipulations would be interesting. However, for this study our focus was on natural speech and we avoided other manipulations (beyond masked speech) so that we can have sufficiently long recording time for the main speaking and listening conditions.

(2) Recent studies comparing the production and perception of language may be relevant to the current study and add some theoretical weight since their data and interpretations for the comparisons between production and perception fit quite well with the observations in the current work. These studies highlight that language processes between production and perception, specifically lexical and phonetic processing (Fairs et al., 2021), and syntactic processing (Giglio et al., 2024), may rely on the same neural representations, but are differentiated in their (temporal) dynamics upon those shared representations. This is relevant because it dispenses with the classical notion in neurobiological models of language where production and perception rely on (partially) dissociable networks (e.g., Price, 2010). Rather those data suggest shared networks where different language behaviors are dissociated in their dynamics. The speech results in this study nicely fit and extend those studies and their theoretical implications.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion and we will include these references and the points made by the reviewer in our revised manuscript.

(3) The authors align the frequency-selective connectivity between the right cerebellum and left temporal speech areas with recent studies demonstrating a role for the right cerebellum for the internal modelling in speech production and monitoring (e.g., Stockert et al., 2021; Todorović et al., 2023). This link is indeed interesting, but it does seem relevant to point out that at a more specific scale, it does not concern the exact same regions between those studies and the current study. That is, in the current study the frequency-specific connectivity with temporal regions concerns lobule VI in the right cerebellum, while in the referenced work it concerns Crus I/II. The distinction seems relevant since Crus I/II has been linked to the internal modelling of more cognitive behavior, while lobule VI seems more motor-related and/or contextual-related (e.g., D'Mello et al., 2020; Runnqvist et al., 2021; Runnqvist, 2023).

We thank the reviewer for their insightful comment. The reference was intended to provide evidence for the role of the cerebellum in internal modelling in speech. We do not claim that we have the spatial resolution with MEG to reliably spatially resolve specific parts of the cerebellum.

(4) On the methodological side, my main concern is that for the listening condition, the authors have chosen to play back the speech produced by the participants in the production condition. Both the fixed order as well as hearing one's own speech as listening condition may produce confounds in data interpretation, especially with regard to the comparison between speech production and perception. Could order effects impact the observed connectivity profiles, and how would this impact the comparison between speaking and listening? In particular, I am thinking of repetition effects present in the listening condition as well as prediction, which will be much more elevated for the listening condition than the speaking condition. The fact that it also concerns their own voice furthermore adds to the possible predictability confound (e.g., Heinks-Maldonado et al., 2005). In addition, listening to one's speech which just before has been articulated may, potentially strategically even, enhance inner speech and "mouthing" in the participants, hereby thus engaging the production mechanism. Similarly, during production, the participants already hear their own voice (which serves as input in the subsequent listening condition). Taken together, both similarities or differences between speaking and listening connectivity may have been due to or influenced by these order effects, and the fact that the different speech behaviors are to some extent present in both conditions.

This is a valid point raised by the reviewer. By listening to their own previously produced speech, our participants might have anticipated and predicted the sentences easier. However, during designing our experiment, we tried to lower the chance of this anticipation by several steps. First, participants were measured in separate sessions for speech production and perception tasks. There were always several days' intervals between performing these two conditions. Secondly, our questions were mainly about a common/general topic. Consequently, participants may not remember their answers completely.

Importantly, using the same stimulus material for speaking and listening guaranteed that there was no difference in the low-level features of the material for both conditions that could have affected the results of our statistical comparison.

Due to bone conduction, hearing one’s unaltered own speech from a recording may seem foreign and could lead to unwanted emotional reactions e.g. embarrassment, so participants were asked whether they heard their own voice in a recording already (e.g. from a self-recorded voice-message in WhatsApp) which most of them confirmed. Participants were also informed that they were going to hear themselves during the measurement to further reduce unwanted psychophysiological responses.

(5) The ability of the authors to analyze the spatiotemporal dynamics during continuous speech is a potentially important feat of this study, given that one of the reasons that speech production is much less investigated compared to perception concerns motor and movement artifacts due to articulation (e.g., Strijkers et al., 2010). Two questions did spring to mind when reading the authors' articulation artifact correction procedure: If I understood correctly, the approach comes from Abbasi et al. (2021) and is based on signal space projection (SSP) as used for eye movement corrections, which the authors successfully applied to speech production. However, in that study, it concerned the repeated production of three syllables, while here it concerns continuous speech of full words embedded in discourse. The articulation and muscular variance will be much higher in the current study compared to three syllables (or compared to eye movements which produce much more stable movement potentials compared to an entire discourse). Given this, I can imagine that corrections of the signal in the speaking condition were likely substantial and one may wonder (1) how much signal relevant to speech production behavior is lost?; (2) similar corrections are not necessary for perception, so how would this marked difference in signal processing affect the comparability between the modalities?

One of the results of our previous study (Abbasi et al., 2021) was that the artefact correction was not specific to individual syllables but generalised across syllables. Also, the repeated production of syllables was associated with substantial movements of the articulators mimicking those observed during naturalistic speaking. We therefore believe that the artefact rejection is effective during speaking. We also checked this by investigating speech related coherence in brain parcels in spatial proximity to the articulators. In our previous study we also show that the correction method retains neural activity to a very large degree. We are therefore confident that speaking and listening conditions can be compared and that the loss of true signals from correcting the speaking data will be minor.

References:

• Abbasi, O., Steingräber, N., & Gross, J. (2021). Correcting MEG artifacts caused by overt speech. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 15, 682419.

• D'Mello, A. M., Gabrieli, J. D., & Nee, D. E. (2020). Evidence for hierarchical cognitive control in the human cerebellum. Current Biology, 30(10), 1881-1892.

• Fairs, A., Michelas, A., Dufour, S., & Strijkers, K. (2021). The same ultra-rapid parallel brain dynamics underpin the production and perception of speech. Cerebral Cortex Communications, 2(3), tgab040.

• Floegel, M., Fuchs, S., & Kell, C. A. (2020). Differential contributions of the two cerebral hemispheres to temporal and spectral speech feedback control. Nature Communications, 11(1), 2839.

• Giglio, L., Ostarek, M., Sharoh, D., & Hagoort, P. (2024). Diverging neural dynamics for syntactic structure building in naturalistic speaking and listening. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(11), e2310766121.

• Heinks‐Maldonado, T. H., Mathalon, D. H., Gray, M., & Ford, J. M. (2005). Fine‐tuning of auditory cortex during speech production. Psychophysiology, 42(2), 180-190.

• Price, C. J. (2010). The anatomy of language: a review of 100 fMRI studies published in 2009. Annals of the new York Academy of Sciences, 1191(1), 62-88.

• Runnqvist, E., Chanoine, V., Strijkers, K., Pattamadilok, C., Bonnard, M., Nazarian, B., ... & Alario, F. X. (2021). Cerebellar and cortical correlates of internal and external speech error monitoring. Cerebral Cortex Communications, 2(2), tgab038.

• Runnqvist, E. (2023). Self-monitoring: The neurocognitive basis of error monitoring in language production. In Language production (pp. 168-190). Routledge.

• Stockert, A., Schwartze, M., Poeppel, D., Anwander, A., & Kotz, S. A. (2021). Temporo-cerebellar connectivity underlies timing constraints in audition. Elife, 10, e67303.

• Strijkers, K., Costa, A., & Thierry, G. (2010). Tracking lexical access in speech production: electrophysiological correlates of word frequency and cognate effects. Cerebral cortex, 20(4), 912-928.

• Todorović, S., Anton, J. L., Sein, J., Nazarian, B., Chanoine, V., Rauchbauer, B., ... & Runnqvist, E. (2023). Cortico-cerebellar monitoring of speech sequence production. Neurobiology of Language, 1-21.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors re-analyse MEG data from a speech production and perception study and extend their previous Granger causality analysis to a larger number of cortical-cortical and in particular cortical-subcortical connections. Regions of interest were defined by means of a meta-analysis using Neurosynth.org and connectivity patterns were determined by calculating directed influence asymmetry indices from the Granger causality analysis results for each pair of brain regions. Abbasi et al. report feedforward signals communicated via fast rhythms and feedback signals via slow rhythms below 40 Hz, particularly during speaking. The authors highlight one of these connections between the right cerebellum lobule VI and auditory association area A5, where in addition the connection strength correlates negatively with the strength of speech tracking in the theta band during speaking (significant before multiple comparison correction). Results are interpreted within a framework of active inference by minimising prediction errors.

While I find investigating the role of cortical-subcortical connections in speech production and perception interesting and relevant to the field, I am not yet convinced that the methods employed are fully suitable to this endeavour or that the results provide sufficient evidence to make the strong claim of dissociation of bottom-up and top-down information flow during speaking in distinct frequency bands.

Strengths:

The investigation of electrophysiological cortical-subcortical connections in speech production and perception is interesting and relevant to the field. The authors analyse a valuable dataset, where they spent a considerable amount of effort to correct for speech production-related artefacts. Overall, the manuscript is well-written and clearly structured.

Weaknesses:

The description of the multivariate Granger causality analysis did not allow me to fully grasp how the analysis was performed and I hence struggled to evaluate its appropriateness. Knowing that (1) filtered Granger causality is prone to false positives and (2) recent work demonstrates that significant Granger causality can simply arise from frequency-specific activity being present in the source but not the target area without functional relevance for communication (Schneider et al. 2021) raises doubts about the validity of the results, in particular with respect to their frequency specificity. These doubts are reinforced by what I perceive as an overemphasis on results that support the assumption of specific frequencies for feedforward and top-down connections, while findings not aligning with this hypothesis appear to be underreported. Furthermore, the authors report some main findings that I found difficult to reconcile with the data presented in the figures. Overall, I feel the conclusions with respect to frequency-specific bottom-up and top-down information flow need to be moderated and that some of the reported findings need to be checked and if necessary corrected.

Major points

(1) I think more details on the multivariate GC approach are needed. I found the reference to Schaum et al., 2021 not sufficient to understand what has been done in this paper. Some questions that remained for me are:

(i) Does multivariate here refer to the use of the authors' three components per parcel or to the conditioning on the remaining twelve sources? I think the latter is implied when citing Schaum et al., but I'm not sure this is what was done here?

If it was not: how can we account for spurious results based on indirect effects?

Yes, multivariate refers to the three components.

(ii) Did the authors check whether the GC of the course-target pairs was reliably above the bias level (as Schaum et. al. did for each condition separately)? If not, can they argue why they think that their results would still be valid? Does it make sense to compute DAIs on connections that were below the bias level? Should the data be re-analysed to take this concern into account?

We performed statistics on DAI and believe that this is a valid approach. We argue that random GC effects would not survive our cluster-corrected statistics.

(iii) You may consider citing the paper that introduced the non-parametric GC analysis (which Schaum et al. then went on to apply): Dhamala M, Rangarajan G, Ding M. Analyzing Information Flow in Brain Networks with Nonparametric Granger Causality. Neuroimage. 2008; 41(2):354-362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.02. 020

Thanks, we will add this reference in the revised version.

(2) GC has been discouraged for filtered data as it gives rise to false positives due to phase distortions and the ineffectiveness of filtering in the information-theoretic setting as reducing the power of a signal does not reduce the information contained in it (Florin et al., 2010; Barnett and Seth, 2011; Weber et al. 2017; Pinzuti et al., 2020 - who also suggest an approach that would circumvent those filter-related issues). With this in mind, I am wondering whether the strong frequency-specific claims in this work still hold.

This must be a misunderstanding. We are aware of the problem with GC on filtered data. But GC was here computed on broadband data and not in individual frequency bands.

(3) I found it difficult to reconcile some statements in the manuscript with the data presented in the figures:

(i) Most notably, the considerable number of feedforward connections from A5 and STS that project to areas further up the hierarchy at slower rhythms (e.g. L-A5 to R-PEF, R-Crus2, L CB6 L-Tha, L-FOP and L-STS to R-PEF, L-FOP, L-TOPJ or R-A5 as well as R-STS both to R-Crus2, L-CB6, L-Th) contradict the authors' main message that 'feedback signals were communicated via slow rhythms below 40 Hz, whereas feedforward signals were communicated via faster rhythms'. I struggled to recognise a principled approach that determined which connections were highlighted and reported and which ones were not.

(ii) "Our analysis also revealed robust connectivity between the right cerebellum and the left parietal cortex, evident in both speaking and listening conditions, with stronger connectivity observed during speaking. Notably, Figure 4 depicts a prominent frequency peak in the alpha band, illustrating the specific frequency range through which information flows from the cerebellum to the parietal areas." There are two peaks discernible in Figure 4, one notably lower than the alpha band (rather theta or even delta), the other at around 30 Hz. Nevertheless, the authors report and discuss a peak in the alpha band.

(iii) In the abstract: "Notably, high-frequency connectivity was absent during the listening condition." and p.9 "In contrast with what we reported for the speaking condition, during listening, there is only a significant connectivity in low frequency to the left temporal area but not a reverse connection in the high frequencies."

While Fig. 4 shows significant connectivity from R-CB6 to A5 in the gamma frequency range for the speaking, but not for the listening condition, interpreting comparisons between two effects without directly comparing them is a common statistical mistake (Makin and Orban de Xivry). The spectrally-resolved connectivity in the two conditions actually look remarkably similar and I would thus refrain from highlighting this statement and indicate clearly that there were no significant differences between the two conditions.

(iv) "This result indicates that in low frequencies, the sensory-motor area and cerebellum predominantly transmit information, while in higher frequencies, they are more involved in receiving it."

I don't think that this statement holds in its generality: L-CB6 and R-3b both show strong output at high frequencies, particularly in the speaking condition. While they seem to transmit information mainly to areas outside A5 and STS these effects are strong and should be discussed.

We appreciate the reviewer's thoughtful comments. We acknowledge that not all connectivity patterns strictly adhere to the initial observation regarding feedback and feedforward communication. It's true that our primary focus was on interactions between brain regions known to be crucial for speech prediction, including auditory, somatosensory, and cerebellar areas. However, we also presented connectivity patterns across other regions to provide a more comprehensive picture of the speech network. We believe this broader perspective can be valuable for future research directions.

Regarding the reviewer's observation about the alpha band peak in Figure 4, we agree that a closer examination reveals the connectivity from right cerebellum to the left parietal is in a wider low frequency range. We will refrain from solely emphasizing the alpha band and acknowledge the potential contribution of lower frequencies to cerebellar-parietal communication.

We also appreciate the reviewer highlighting the need for a more nuanced interpretation of the listening condition connectivity compared to the speaking condition. The reviewer is correct in pointing out that while Figure 4 suggests a high-frequency connectivity from L-A5 to R-CB only in the speaking condition, a direct statistical comparison between conditions might not reveal a significant difference. We will revise the manuscript to clarify this point.

Finally, a closer examination of Figure 3 revealed that the light purple and dark green edges in the speaking condition for R-CB6 and L-3b suggest outgoing connections at low frequencies, while other colored edges indicate information reception at high frequencies. We acknowledge that exceptions to this directional pattern might exist and warrant further investigation in future studies.

(4) "However, definitive conclusions should be drawn with caution given recent studies raising concerns about the notion that top-down and bottom-up signals can only be transmitted via separate frequency channels (Ferro et al., 2021; Schneider et al., 2021; Vinck et al., 2023)."

I appreciate this note of caution and think it would be useful if it were spelled out to the reader why this is the case so that they would be better able to grasp the main concerns here. For example, Schneider et al. make a strong point that we expect to find Granger-causality with a peak in a specific frequency band for areas that are anatomically connected when the sending area shows stronger activity in that band than the receiving one, simply because of the coherence of a signal with its own linear projection onto the other area. The direction of a Granger causal connection would in that case only indicate that one area shows stronger activity than the other in the given frequency band. I am wondering to what degree the reported connectivity pattern can be traced back to regional differences in frequency-specific source strength or to differences in source strength across the two conditions.

This is indeed an important point. That is why we are discussing our results with great caution and specifically point the reader to the relevant literature. We are indeed thinking about a future study where we investigate this connectivity using other connectivity metrics and a detailed consideration of power.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In the current paper, Abbasi et al. aimed to characterize and compare the patterns of functional connectivity across frequency bands (1 Hz - 90 Hz) between regions of a speech network derived from an online meta-analysis tool (Neurosynth.org) during speech production and perception. The authors present evidence for complex neural dynamics from which they highlight directional connectivity from the right cerebellum to left superior temporal areas in lower frequency bands (up to beta) and between the same regions in the opposite direction in the (lower) high gamma range (60-90 Hz). Abbasi et al. interpret their findings within the predictive coding framework, with the cerebellum and other "higher-order" (motor) regions transmitting top-down sensory predictions to "lower-order" (sensory) regions in the lower frequencies and prediction errors flowing in the opposite direction (i.e., bottom-up) from those sensory regions in the gamma band. They also report a negative correlation between the strength of this top-down functional connectivity and the alignment of superior temporal regions to the syllable rate of one's speech.

Strengths:

(1) The comprehensive characterization of functional connectivity during speaking and listening to speech may be valuable as a first step toward understanding the neural dynamics involved.

(2) The inclusion of subcortical regions and connectivity profiles up to 90Hz using MEG is interesting and relatively novel.

(3) The analysis pipeline is generally adequate for the exploratory nature of the work.

Weaknesses:

(1) The work is framed as a test of the predictive coding theory as it applies to speech production and perception, but the methodological approach is not suited to this endeavor.

We agree that we cannot provide definite evidence for predictive coding in speech production and perception and we believe that we do not make that claim in the manuscript. However, our results are largely consistent with what can be expected based on predictive coding theory.

(2) Because of their theoretical framework, the authors readily attribute roles or hierarchy to brain regions (e.g., higher- vs lower-order) and cognitive functions to observed connectivity patterns (e.g., feedforward vs feedback, predictions vs prediction errors) that cannot be determined from the data. Thus, many of the authors' claims are unsupported.

We will revise the manuscript to more clearly differentiate our results (e.g. directed Granger-Causality from A to B) from their interpretation (potentially indicating feedforward or feedback signals).

(3) The authors' theoretical stance seems to influence the presentation of the results, which may inadvertently misrepresent the (otherwise perfectly valid; cf. Abbasi et al., 2023) exploratory nature of the study. Thus, results about specific regions are often highlighted in figures (e.g., Figure 2 top row) and text without clear reasons.

Our connectograms reveal a multitude of results that we hope is interesting to the community. At the same time the wealth of findings poses a problem for describing them. We did not see a better way then to highlight specific connections of interest.

(4) Some of the key findings (e.g., connectivity in opposite directions in distinct frequency bands) feature in a previous publication and are, therefore, interesting but not novel.

We actually see this as a strength of the current manuscript. The computation of connectivity is here extended to a much larger sample of brain areas. It is reassuring to see that the previously reported results generalise to other brain areas.

(5) The quantitative comparison between speech production and perception is interesting but insufficiently motivated.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have addressed that in detail in response to the point (1&4) of reviewer 1.

(6) Details about the Neurosynth meta-analysis and subsequent selection of brain regions for the functional connectivity analyses are incomplete. Moreover, the use of the term 'Speech' in Neurosynth seems inappropriate (i.e., includes irrelevant works, yielding questionable results). The approach of using separate meta-analyses for 'Speech production' and 'Speech perception' taken by Abbasi et al. (2023) seems more principled. This approach would result, for example, in the inclusion of brain areas such as M1 and the BG that are relevant for speech production.

We agree that there are inherent limitations in automated meta-analysis tools such as Neurosynth. Papers are used in the meta-analysis that might not be directly relevant. However, Neurosynth has proven its usefulness over many years and has been used in many studies. We also agree that our selection of brain areas is not complete. But Granger Causality analysis of every pair of ROIs leads to complex results and we had to limit our selection of areas.

(7) The results involving subcortical regions are central to the paper, but no steps are taken to address the challenges involved in the analysis of subcortical activity using MEG. Additional methodological detail and analyses would be required to make these results more compelling. For example, it would be important to know what the coverage of the MEG system is, what head model was used for the source localization of cerebellar activity, and if specific preprocessing or additional analyses were performed to ensure that the localized subcortical activity (in particular) is valid.

There is a large body of evidence demonstrating that MEG can record signals from deep brain areas such as thalamus and cerebellum including Attal & Schwarz 2013, Andersen et al, Neuroimage 2020; Piastra et al., 2020; Schnitzler et al., 2009. These and other studies provide evidence that state-of-the-art recording (with multichannel SQUID systems) and analysis is sufficient to allow reconstruction of subcortical areas. However, spatial resolution is clearly reduced for these deep areas. We will add a statement in the revised manuscript to acknowledge this limitation.

(8) The results and methods are often detailed with important omissions (a speech-brain coupling analysis section is missing) and imprecisions (e.g., re: Figure 5; the Connectivity Analysis section is copy-pasted from their previous work), which makes it difficult to understand what is being examined and how. (It is also not good practice to refer the reader to previous publications for basic methodological details, for example, about the experimental paradigm and key analyses.) Conversely, some methodological details are given, e.g., the acquisition of EMG data, without further explanation of how those data were used in the current paper.

We will revise the relevant sections of the manuscript.

(9) The examination of gamma functional connectivity in the 60 - 90 Hz range could be better motivated. Although some citations involving short-range connectivity in these frequencies are given (e.g., within the visual system), a more compelling argument for looking at this frequency range for longer-range connectivity may be required.

Given previous evidence of connectivity in the gamma band we think that it would be a weakness to exclude this frequency band from analysis.

(10) The choice of source localization method (linearly constrained minimum variance) could be explained, particularly given that other methods (e.g. dynamic imaging of coherent sources) were specifically designed and might potentially be a better alternative for the types of analyses performed in the study.

Both LCMV and DICS are beamforming methods. We used LCMV because we wanted used Granger Causality which requires broadband signals. DICS would only provide frequency-specific band-limited signals.

(11) The mGC analysis needs to be more comprehensively detailed for the reader to be able to assess what is being reported and the strength of the evidence. Relatedly, first-level statistics (e.g., via estimation of the noise level) would make the mGC and DAI results more compelling.

We perform group-level cluster-based statistics on mGC while correcting for multiple comparisons across frequency bands and brain parcels and report only significant results. This is an established approach that is routinely used in this type of studies.

(12) Considering the exploratory nature of the study, it is essential for other researchers to continue investigating and validating the results presented in the current manuscript. Thus, it is concerning that data and scripts are not fully and openly available. Data need not be in its raw state to be shared and useful, which circumvents the stated data privacy concerns.

We acknowledge the reviewer's concern regarding the full availability of the dataset. Due to privacy limitations on the collected data, we are unable to share it publicly at this time. However, to promote transparency and enable further exploration, we have provided the script used for data analysis and an example dataset. This example dataset should provide a clear understanding of the data structure and variables used in the analysis. Additionally, we are happy to share the complete dataset upon request from research teams interested in performing in-depth secondary analyses.

If you've got heavy impressions going to the level of the backing sheet or things like your period cutting holes directly through your paper, then it's not really so much an issue of typing too hard, but your carriage is slightly out of alignment with respect to your type bars.

Your typeface shouldn't actually hit the platen when pressed (or held forward), but should just kiss the ribbon which then places the imprint onto the paper. Holding your typeslug forward against the type guide you should have just enough space to slip a piece of paper between your slug and the platen. If there isn't a tiny bit of space, your typeface will chew up your ribbon and paper over time. The typing thunk sound that typewriters make isn't the slug hitting the platen (aka cylinder), but the typebar hitting the anvil (aka ring).

The proper adjustment for fixing this is thus commonly called a ring and cylinder adjustment and how it's effected depends on whether you have a segment shift or a carriage shift machine. On many machines it requires adjusting two screws on either side of the machine. It changes the distance of platen from typeface and can prevent your making holes in the paper and/or ribbon, which isn't good. Sometimes using a simple backing sheet can remedy a bit of this distance problem, especially on platens which have hardened or shrunk slightly over time. Searching YouTube for your make/model (or similar models) will usually show you the adjustment you'll need to make to remedy these problems.

See also: https://hypothes.is/a/AegRziHnEe-Ud_stVcPQLA

Reply to u/Bitter_Rent_141 at https://www.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1dnnh2n/is_this_normal/

to believe i sprokened to call dis an AESOP miracle just for a second; as if the Valdeez and Yuan had found Arabian Coffers spilled all over the Carribean Galactica ... or something

maybe didn't... and Shakespeare ties that same story of some kind of ... betrayal ... to his famous words and those words somehow in my mind directly link to the kiss of Judas. Another table, another era; and one less "mesa" ... but again here we are staring at what is supposed to be an obvious and clear "technical revolution" of the progress of democracy--one that's clearly been stalled and halted by things like "not amending the Constitution properly" (that's according to me, and that's before really seeing you) ... and then here even in a place where we can acknowledge that those laws are archaic and backwards and not "up to speed" with the current needs of a technocratic civilization, we still fail to do anything about "voting for ideas over people" something he once said was a victory--or about the world's software degrading to something less than even remotely "unclear" ... communication itself is clearly being lost, and it's clearly something to do with "censorship" and something to do with "a secret" and something to do with ...

If I could tell you, I really can't discerne what exactly it is that Dave says in his songs stands between "what we see" and "what we do."

[a chanukah miracle!]

To be standing here and having an actual well schooled and intelligent rabbi trying to rewrite the meaning of the word "anarchy" ... in order to promote it; to say it's something other than ... "anarchy" that's the crux of what I see--a world that just wants to skip ahead, to fast forward through all the work and the struggle of actually rebuilding or building something that works; to "assuming" the system that allowed for this place to be ... so poorly managed, that it must be everything it says or shows or makes believe it truly isn't capable of ... "emancipation" of something that doesn't like the word water, and doesn't like the idea of being masses, or massless; and on top of all that doesn't even want to put it's two cents in--other than to say, I'm with Ivan or I'm with Taylor or "long live Bianca" and through it all, words like "now that you're gone, I can finally step up and move along" ...

Back to the sky; I suppose ... is what it is that the "river" means to Taylor, and I just wonder in our song what's left here--if I was wrong to assume our system wouldn't have allowed the mass slavery of entire civilization and to believe that your "brains" must be simulated ... as in "not actually here" but rather there--or just to assume you wouldn't be so damned hubratically sure that whatever you are ... it's so far above and so far advanced of the "things you pretend to be here" that you can just disregard the mass enslavement of them or yourselves or whatever it truly is; to look around and show you in this place, it's clear we care more for animals than for each other, and it's surely obvious that in the grand scheme---were we not so wrong here--we might have been right about "being so much more advanced." It's that leap to something so much smarter and so much ... more capable; like growing fingers and exiting the womb, that's the kind of experience and the magical leap forward I envision the ascension and the singularity to be--except here we are,

NEGA-OIL: in a symphonic creschendo straight out of Carnegie's "Old Bailey" ...

` "Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition!

The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.

Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V." ` https://bookroo.com/quotes/v-for-vendetta

Some publishers can be too much for certain works (depending on the goal for reading)

The dialogue around this idea brings up the concept of mindfulness and intention again, saying that with video games, you have the choice to take a break from them or switch to another game, but in a gamified reality, we cannot take a step back from life. In a way, I think that it it up to each individual to ask themselves these types of questions C. Thi Nguyen asks himself, such as "was that worthwhile? was that interesting?" etc. Society perhaps was not as "gamified," but humanity has always "funneled" our values down one "particular pre-established path" in a way. Humans are social and certain things are socially acceptable and some are deemed frowned upon. Nothing will be universally agreed upon, but social pressure itself, not just gamification, has contributed to this issue.

But this is in fact what is now quite clearly possible today. Using employees as frontline moderators and enforcers of unevenly applied ToS is officially an old school brute force tactic. There are only two viable techniques now IMHO... 1) is AI assisted pre-moderation, and 2) is community driven meta-moderation (e.g. semi-random, community self-moderation).

for - AI evolution - nightmare scenario - US govt may seize Open AI assets if it arrives at superintelligence

AI evolution - projection - US govt may seize Open AI assets if it arrives at superintelligence - He makes a good point here - If Open AI, or Google achieve superintelligence that is many times more intelligent than any human, - the US government would be fearful that they could be overthrown or that the technology can be stolen and fall into the wrong hands

This is ABSSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT "UN SE LINUX ALED" MACROMEDIA SHOCKWAVE FLASH all over again; it is embarrassingly not just "bugs in advanced mathematics hidden inside frame buffer mathematics and "OpenGL" it's a significant glaring opening that brave has sbrvaely alerted me to as a "Google add-on to Chome" that makes yet another floating .VA inside Virginia or .IT ... your "Infomration Technology" departments are patenty compromised by Plex sovereignty, weither it be of Menlo or Sunnyvale;

the Mountain will not prevail against Veritae Trantor.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS “AS IS” AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED SURVIVABILITY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF IMMORTALITY NOR MORTALITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

The third law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed system at thermodynamic equilibrium approaches a constant value when its temperature approaches absolute zero. This constant value cannot depend on any other parameters characterizing the system, such as pressure or applied magnetic field. At absolute zero (zero kelvins) the system must be in a state with the minimum possible energy.

Entropy is related to the number of accessible microstates, and there is typically one unique state (called the ground state) with minimum energy.^[1]^ In such a case, the entropy at absolute zero will be exactly zero. If the system does not have a well-defined order (if its order is glassy, for example), then there may remain some finite entropy as the system is brought to very low temperatures, either because the system becomes locked into a configuration with non-minimal energy or because the minimum energy state is non-unique. The constant value is called the residual entropy of the system.^[2]^

In physics, physical chemistry and engineering, fluid dynamics is a subdiscipline of fluid mechanics that describes the flow of fluids---liquids and gases. It has several subdisciplines, including aerodynamics (the study of air and other gases in motion) and hydrodynamics (the study of liquids in motion). Fluid dynamics has a wide range of applications, including calculating forces and moments on aircraft, determining the mass flow rate of petroleum through pipelines, predicting weather patterns, understanding nebulae in interstellar space and modelling fission weapon detonation.

Fluid dynamics offers a systematic structure---which underlies these practical disciplines---that embraces empirical and semi-empirical laws derived from flow measurement and used to solve practical problems. The solution to a fluid dynamics problem typically involves the calculation of various properties of the fluid, such as flow velocity, pressure, density, and temperature, as functions of space and time.

Before the twentieth century, hydrodynamics was synonymous with fluid dynamics. This is still reflected in names of some fluid dynamics topics, like magnetohydrodynamics and hydrodynamic stability, both of which can also be applied to gases.^[1]^

In ufology, a close encounter is an event in which a person witnesses an unidentified flying object (UFO). This terminology and the system of classification behind it were first suggested in astronomer and UFO researcher J. Allen Hynek's 1972 book The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry.[1] Categories beyond Hynek's original three have been added by others but have not gained universal acceptance, mainly because they lack the scientific rigor that Hynek aimed to bring to ufology.[2]

Sightings more than 150 metres (500 ft) from the witness are classified as daylight discs, nocturnal lights or radar/visual reports.[3] Sightings within about 150 metres (500 ft) are subclassified as various types of close encounters. Hynek and others argued that a claimed close encounter must occur within about 150 metres (500 ft) to greatly reduce or eliminate the possibility of misidentifying conventional aircraft or other known phenomena.[4]

Hynek's scale became well known after being referenced in a 1977 film, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, which is named after the third level of the scale. Promotional posters for the film featured the three levels of the scale, and Hynek himself makes a cameo appearance near the end of the film.

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/project-star-gate-cia-central-intelligence-agency-a7534191.html

What is "remote coordinate viewing" .... and "how do I get on the payroll?

Maybe if I waste some more time writing about "the perpetual motion machine" and the absolute simplicity of the duality of that and of course, the First Law, you know "an object in motion tends to stay in motion, unless opposed by an equal an opposite force--either that or some kind of mass hysteria against the idea that things can just keep on going and going and going without any kind of propulsion.

It's things like "the air we breathe" and the course our rockets veer the Holy vessel of all humanity off by "just a smidgen" that sort of remind me what "equal and opposite force" mean, in sum and total, of all the things we've done and all the things we will ever do.

i did not really write this with my heart or my mind, just my hands. i was high, "again i remember it like it was yesterday" ... i was up all night talking on the phone and doing dextromethorphan, which is a fancy way to say ... reading lycaeum.org and listening to "internet people" talk my ear off about things like buffer overflows and routing systems. prodigies, credit card algorithms, stuff kind of out of the lore of Da Vinci and "Catch me if you Can" ...

In any case I was "forced to go to school the following day" despite pretending to be very ill, and saying I was too sick to drive myself. I walked straight into the computer science labratory and sat down next to one of my best friends, an older classmate who left a year or two before I for Vassar College. I sat down, and had an assignment to use a certain set of words in the creation of a poem.

This is what I came up with,

The poem was, and continues to be so "pertinent to what is going on" that my English teacher distributed it to the entire class, not just "my class of 30 people" but the entire class of something like a hundred or so, and if I remmeber correctly it was a Hindi student a year older than me that took me aside and corrected my use of Shiva, specifrically, in this poem

... which appears to not be present ...

as "the creator, sustainor, and destroyer" in their religion. I am not certain if it has changed in the way I believe Vishnu has changed in this place where histories and mythologies appear to be merging from different worlds or for different purposes. but today I will check and see who Oppenheimer was quoting when he said the words

behold i have become as death, the destroyer of worlds.

and wonder if it is the "pervader, the provider" or more appropriately exactly who I think, Vishnu, as some kind of aspect of Shiva. I didn't really study Hindi that much but I studied Oppenheimer, and I sort of "get religion" as in I have a "Sixth Sense."

and I tlak to dead people. all the time.

I'm writing fluidly and chronistically. I just checked, Google has corrected me the first word is apparently "now" rather than "behold" ... of interest maybe more or less than remembering the "as" or asking ChatGPT to intralinearly describe the translation from Hindu. \

In the day of our lord June Twenty Second, Two Thousand and Twenty Four

I wrote this in high school, in Mrs. Hawkins 10th grade English class, at Pine Crest. Through some act, miraculously preserved with some scriptendipity that does nothing short of make it's name shine with brilliant truth.

Have a good (long) day.

http://www.poetry.com/historical_users/2867416-Adam%20M%20Dobrin/4663419-From-the-First-to-the-Last

# From the First to the Last

by Adam M Dobrin

In a world of infidel believers

the true wonders of life unseen,

the Lord is neglected.

as a growing child veers from his fathers will, callow, we have

veered from the path of God.

The time and meticulous detail spent to create this immaculate

world, and the miracle of life

it represents have been forgotten

yet the Lord, through the haste of

his anger--destruction

the likes of Sodom and Gomorrah and the great flood of Noah lives.

As we inverterated, we lost touch

with truth and heritage.

Human innocence antediluvian, unbeknown to the true wrath of God;

Before the loss of infinite longevity in primeval Eden.

I suppose it's important ...

You know, to know that I didn't know who I was going to pretend I was going to be when I grew up, or what I was going to do or not do; I had no idea what language and music had to do with God and heaven and, for instance I am one of "those people" who simply did not believe that there was such a thing, because I ddin't see any outright proof that "the Bible was real."

I suppose you could call me a strange kind of Atheist, as the Revelation unfolded, and even somehow before that, I had a strange sense of "being in the right place at the right time" and sort of understanding and working with computers with more ease and clarity than others. When I finally saw how much of religion was clearly absolutely tied to the creation of DARPA and "the internet" and all of our computing constructs, it was very clear to me the purpose was to "build Heaven" ... something I still wasn't sure had ever been done.

My idea, you say?

Somehwere between puppets and pens, Arthur Pendragons or Homo Sapiens; it's hard to really fathom what it's like to look back on how igorant I really was; but as the number of co-conspirators in the plot to design a giant computer system inside the heart of many stars expands to include not just Mr. Morrison (who is actually my computer science teacher who ran the computer lab where this poem was written--also I'm pretty sure he's not Jim, who is always here to help me when I need him, hopefully also) ... but the entire Academy and the writers and the series of things we eventually find out considerable from the 33rd degree might be "Masonically" metaphors for continuing the hallowing of understanding things like the machanics of how civilizations work, how to build houses and Icarus, planes, trains, and automobiles.

Everyone, really ... now if I can just finagle some magic letters that might join together and get me out of this ER ...

America, oh America, how God shed his Grace on thee; and crowns, try "good" ... tiaras, coronas, even ceilings ... and thank God for the Holy Floor that kept us out of the molten "solar fusion" core of ... digging our way halfway to Bratislava.

for - AI music theft - citation - Noam Chomsky - quote - Noam Chomsky - AI as plagiarism on a grand scale

to - P2P Foundation - commons transition plan - Michel Bauwens - netarchical capitalism - predatory capitalism - https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Commons_Transition_Plan#Solving_the_value_crisis_through_a_social_knowledge_economy

Can you draw any sort of hypotheses from this analysis? It's a lot of data and I'm just wondering exactly what it all means in the context of the rest!

These have been selling at auction sites over the past several months for $45-$75 plus shipping based only on pictures and without any information at all about their working condition, so all-in you probably got a great deal. I'm just finishing up work on cleaning up a 1951 2Y series Skyriter myself, and I really like its typing action. Don't throw away the spools if it came with them as they're non-standard and slightly smaller than the ubiquitous universal spools. This being said you can buy the standard 1/2" ribbon and manually spool new ribbon onto your existing spools. Mine didn't have spools at all, but I found some replacements (with ribbon) at https://www.ribbonsunlimited.com/. Take note that it's not a bichrome machine, so you can buy a single color ribbon.

There are two screws that hold the chassis of these into the bottom of their case. They're hiding just underneath the carriage. Once removed, the typewriter lifts back and up and out of the base. You'll find the serial number on the right hand side of the frame underneath the platen and can use it to date your machine with the database: https://typewriterdatabase.com/smithcorona.86.typewriter-serial-number-database. Based on appearance alone, I'd place it as a 1960 3Y series based on the color, the badging and the white keys. You can look at others' individual models and notes at https://typewriterdatabase.com/Smith+Corona.Skyriter.86.bmys. If I'm right about the date, Richard Polt has online manuals available for the 1960 as well as others at: https://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/tw-manuals.html.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjumGF9NFE8 is a pretty solid cleaning primer. Searching YouTube will uncover some potential additional advice in addition to what you can find at https://site.xavier.edu/polt/typewriters/tw-restoration.html or in his book. I will say that in cleaning mine, the mineral spirits dissolved the glue holding the felt on underneath the typebars, but it was in terrible shape anyway and needed replacing. The foam strip underneath that felt came out unscathed without much effort on my part to be careful with it.

Most of the mechanics are pretty basic and easy to clean/service. Unless there's something dramatically wrong with it, you could very likely clean and service it yourself. (As an example, I had to re-slot the mechanism for the margin release which was almost too easy.) Even the mid-level repair issues for it can be easily found on YouTube if you're handy with a screwdriver (Joe Van Cleave and Phoenix Typewriter in particular have several model specific videos on the Skyriter). The platen and rollers come out fairly easy with a small screwdriver and removing one half of a spring on the back of the paper tray. This gives you great access to clean the escapement from above as well as to potentially send them off to JJ Short Associates for replacement via https://www.jjshort.com/typewriter-platen-repair.php. If you're less handy, Polt's website has a list of repair shops around the world that could clean/repair it for you.

Good luck with it. I hope you like yours as much as I like mine. They're one of the most solid and sought after ultra-portables out there.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Li et al.'s goal is to understand the mechanisms of audiovisual temporal recalibration. This is an interesting challenge that the brain readily solves in order to compensate for real-world latency differences in the time of arrival of audio/visual signals. To do this they perform a 3-phase recalibration experiment on 9 observers that involves a temporal order judgment (TOJ) pretest and posttest (in which observers are required to judge whether an auditory and visual stimulus were coincident, auditory leading or visual leading) and a conditioning phase in which participants are exposed to a sequence of AV stimuli with a particular temporal disparity. Participants are required to monitor both streams of information for infrequent oddballs, before being tested again in the TOJ, although this time there are 3 conditioning trials for every 1 TOJ trial. Like many previous studies, they demonstrate that conditioning stimuli shift the point of subjective simultaneity (pss) in the direction of the exposure sequence.

These shifts are modest - maxing out at around -50 ms for auditory leading sequences and slightly less than that for visual leading sequences. Similar effects are observed even for the longest offsets where it seems unlikely listeners would perceive the stimuli as synchronous (and therefore under a causal inference model you might intuitively expect no recalibration, and indeed simulations in Figure 5 seem to predict exactly that which isn't what most of their human observers did). Overall I think their data contribute evidence that a causal inference step is likely included within the process of recalibration.

Strengths:

The manuscript performs comprehensive testing over 9 days and 100s of trials and accompanies this with mathematical models to explain the data. The paper is reasonably clearly written and the data appear to support the conclusions.

Weaknesses:

While I believe the data contribute evidence that a causal inference step is likely included within the process of recalibration, this to my mind is not a mechanism but might be seen more as a logical checkpoint to determine whether whatever underlying neuronal mechanism actually instantiates the recalibration should be triggered.

The authors' causal inference model strongly predicts that there should be no recalibration for stimuli at 0.7 ms offset, yet only 3/9 participants appear to show this effect. They note that a significant difference in their design and that of others is the inclusion of longer lags, which are unlikely to originate from the same source, but don't offer any explanation for this key difference between their data and the predictions of a causal inference model.

I'm also not completely convinced that the causal inference model isn't 'best' simply because it has sufficient free parameters to capture the noise in the data. The tested models do not (I think) have equivalent complexity - the causal inference model fits best, but has more parameters with which to fit the data. Moreover, while it fits 'best', is it a good model? Figure S6 is useful in this regard but is not completely clear - are the red dots the actual data or the causal inference prediction? This suggests that it does fit the data very well, but is this based on predicting held-out data, or is it just that by having more parameters it can better capture the noise? Similarly, S7 is a potentially useful figure but it's not clear what is data and what are model predictions (what are the differences between each row for each participant; are they two different models or pre-test post-test or data and model prediction?!).

I'm not an expert on the implementation of such models but my reading of the supplemental methods is that the model is fit using all the data rather than fit and tested on held-out data. This seems problematic.

I would have liked to have seen more individual participant data (which is currently in the supplemental materials, albeit in a not very clear manner as discussed above).

The way that S3 is described in the text (line 141) makes it sound like everyone was in the same direction, however, it is clear that 2 /9 listeners show the opposite pattern, and 2 have confidence intervals close to zero (albeit on the -ve side).

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

I still find it really impressive that the Purkinje cell stimulation so closely mimics the pathogenic phenotypes - in my opinion, the strongest part of the paper. I would like just a little clarification on some of my previous questions.

Major points:

(1) Can the authors clarify where the new units came from? Are these units that were recorded before the initial submission and excluded, but are now included? If so, why were they excluded before? Or are these units that were recorded since the original submission?

The number of units increased in Figure 1 for three reasons: 1) We have now plotted the classifier results in Figure 1 instead of the validation results, which have been moved to Figure 1 Supplement 3. 2) In response to reviewer comments, we no longer include units that had >60 s of recording in both our model creation and validation. We had previously used 30 s for creating the model and a different 30 s for validating the model, if an additional 30 s were available. 3) We changed our model creation and validation strategy based on previous reviewer comments. The new units in Figures 2-4 were taken from our pool of previously collected but unanalyzed data (we collect neural data on a rolling basis and thus these data were not initially available). We were fortunate to have these data to analyze in order to address the concerns about the number of cells included in the manuscript. The number of units increased in Figure 5 because new units were recorded in response to reviewer comments.

(2) Why did some of the neuron counts go down? For example, in Pdx1Cre;Vglut2fl/fl mice, the fraction of units with the control signature went from 11/21 to 7/23. Is this because the classifier changed between the original submission and the revision?

Yes, the proportion of cells matching each classification changed due to the different parameters and thresholds used in the updated classifier model.

Minor points:

In the Discussion: "We find some overlap and shared spike features between the different disease phenotypes and show that healthy cerebellar neurons can adapt multiple disease-associated spike train signatures." I think "adapt" should be "adopt"

In the Discussion: "compare" is misspelled as "compared"

Thank you for bringing these typos to our attention. We will upload a new version of the text with the typos corrected.

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

We would like to thank the Reviewers for providing excellent and constructive suggestions that have enabled us to strengthen our overall presentation of our data. We have addressed each of the comments by altering the text, providing additional data, and revising the figures, as requested.

Below are our explanations for how we have altered the manuscript in this revised version.

Recommendations for the authors:

I think you will have seen from the comments that there was great enthusiasm for the importance of this study. There were also shared concerns about how the classifier may be inadequate in its current format, as well as specific suggestions to consider to improve. I hope that you will consider a revision to really amplify the impact of the importance of this study.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Distinct motor phenotypes are reflected in different neuronal firing patterns at different loci in motor circuits. However, it is difficult to determine if these altered firing patterns: 1) reflect the underlying neuropathology or phenotype, 2) whether these changes are intrinsic to the local cell population or caused by larger network changes, and 3) whether abnormal firing patterns cause or reflect abnormal movement patterns. This manuscript attempts to address these questions by recording neural firing patterns in deep cerebellar nucleus neurons in several models of cerebellar dysfunction with distinct phenotypes. They develop a classifier based on parameters of single unit spike trains that seems to do an inconsistent job of predicting phenotype (though it does fairly well for tremor). The major limitation of the recording/classifier experiments is the low number of single units recorded in each model, greatly limiting statistical power. However, the authors go on to show that specific patterns of Purkinje cell stimulation cause consistent changes in interposed nucleus activity that map remarkably well onto behavioral phenotypes. Overall, I did not find the recording/classifier results to be very convincing, while the stimulation results strongly indicate that interposed nucleus firing patterns are sufficient to drive distinct behavioral phenotypes.

We thank the reviewer for their comments. We describe below how we have addressed the major concerns.

Major concerns:

(1) I don't think it's legitimate to use two 30-second samples from the same recording to train and validate the classifier. I would expect recordings from the same mouse, let alone the same unit, to be highly correlated with each other and therefore overestimate the accuracy of the classifier. How many of the recordings in the training and validation sets were the same unit recorded at two different times?

We previously published a paper wherein we measured the correlation (or variability) between units recorded from the same mouse versus units recorded from different mice (see: Van der Heijden et al., 2022 – iScience, PMID: 36388953). In this paper we did not find that nuclei neuron recordings from the same mouse were more correlated or similar to each other than recordings from different mice. 

Upon this reviewer comment, however, we did observe strong correlations between the two 30-second samples from the same recording units. We therefore decided to no longer validate our classifier based on a training and validation sets that had overlapping units. Instead, we generated 12 training sets and 12 non-overlapping validation sets based on our entire database. We then trained 12 classifier models and ranked these based on their classification ability on the validation sets (Figure 1 – supplemental Figure 3). We found that the top two performing classifier models were the same, and used this model for the remainder of the paper. 

(2) The n's are not convincing for the spike signature analyses in different phenotypic models. For example, the claim is that Pdx1Cre;Vglut2fl/fl mice have more "control" neurons than ouabain infusion mice (more severe phenotype). However, the numbers are 11/21 and 7/20, respectively. The next claim is that 9/21 dystonic neurons are less than 11/20 dystonic neurons. A z-test for proportions gives a p-value of 0.26 for the first comparison and a pvalue of 0.44 for the second. I do not think any conclusions can be drawn based on these data.

We included more cells in our analyses and found that the z-test for n the proportion of cells with the “control” and “dystonia” signature is indeed statistically significant. 

(3) Since the spiking pattern does not appear to predict an ataxic phenotype and the n's are too small to draw a conclusion for the dystonic mice, I think the title is very misleading - it does not appear to be true that "Neural spiking patterns predict behavioral phenotypes...", at least in these models.

We have changed the title to: “Cerebellar nuclei cells produce distinct pathogenic spike signatures in mouse models of ataxia, dystonia, and tremor.” We feel that this new title captures the idea that we find differences between spike signatures associated with ataxia, dystonia, and tremor and that these signatures induce pathological movements.

(4) I don't think it can be concluded from the optogenetic experiments that the spike train signatures do not depend on "developmental changes, ...the effect of transgene expression, ... or drug effects outside the cerebellum." The optogenetic experiments demonstrate that modulating Purkinje cell activity is sufficient to cause changes in DCN firing patterns and phenotypes (i.e., proof-of-principle). However, they do not prove that this is why DCN firing is abnormal in each model individually.

Thank you for highlighting this section of the text. We agree that the optogenetic experiments cannot explain why the DCN is firing abnormally in each model. We have edited this section of the text to prevent this conclusion from being drawn by the readers.

Minor points:

(1) It would be nice to see neural recordings in the interposed nucleus during Purkinje terminal stimulation to verify that the firing patterns observed during direct Purkinje neuron illumination are reproduced with terminal activation. This should be the case, but I'm not 100% certain it is.

We have edited the text to clarify that representative traces and analysis of interposed nucleus neurons in response to Purkinje terminal stimulation are the data in Figure 5.

(2) How does the classifier validation (Fig. 1E) compare to chance? If I understand correctly, 24/30 neurons recorded in control mice are predicted to have come from control mice (for example). This seems fairly high, but it is hard to know how impressive this is. One approach would be to repeat the analysis many (1000s) of times with each recording randomly assigned to one of the four groups and see what the distribution of "correct" predictions is for each category, which can be compared against the actual outcome.

We have now also included the proportion of spike signatures in the entire population of neurons and show that the spike signatures are enriched in each of the four groups (control, ataxia, dystonia, tremor) relative to the presence of these signatures in the population (Figure 1E). 

(3) I don't think this is absolutely necessary, but do the authors have ideas about how their identified firing patterns might lead to each of these phenotypes? Are there testable hypotheses for how different phenotypes caused by their stimulation paradigms arise at a network level?

We have added some ideas about how these spike signatures might lead to their associated phenotypes to the discussion.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) As mentioned earlier, my main concern pertains to the overall architecture and training of the classifier. Based on my reading of the methods and the documentation for the classifier model, I believe that the classifier boundaries may be biased by the unequal distribution of neurons across cerebellar disease groups (e.g., n=29 neurons in control versus n=19 in ataxics). As the classifier is trained to minimize the classification error across the entire sample, the actual thresholds on the parameters of interest may be influenced by the overrepresentation of neurons from control mice. To address this issue, one possible solution would be to reweight each group so that the overall weight across classes is equal. However, I suggest a better strategy might be to revise the classifier architecture altogether (as detailed below).

We have retrained the classifier model based on equal numbers of ataxic, dystonic, and tremor cells (n=20) but we intentionally included more control cells (n=25). We included more control cells because we assume this is the baseline status for all cerebellar neurons and wanted to avoid assigning disease signatures to healthy neurons too easily. 

(2) As the authors make abundantly clear, one mouse model of disease could potentially exhibit multiple phenotypes (e.g., a mouse with both ataxia and tremor). To address this complexity, it might be more valuable to predict the probability of a certain CN recording producing specific behavioral phenotypes. In this revised approach, the output of the classifier wouldn't be a single classification (e.g., "this is an ataxic mouse") but rather the probability of a certain neural recording corresponding to ataxia-like symptoms (e.g., "the classifier suggests that this mouse has a 76% likelihood of exhibiting ataxic symptoms given this CN recording"). This modification wouldn't require additional data collection, and the exemplar disease models could still be used to train such a revised network/classifier, with each mouse model corresponding to 0% probability of observing all other behavioral phenotypes except for the specific output corresponding to the disease state (e.g., L7CreVgat-fl/fl would be 0% for all categories except ataxia, which would be trained to produce a score of 100%). This approach could enhance the validation results across other mouse models by allowing flexibility in a particular spike train parameter to produce a diverse set of phenotypes.

This is a great comment. Unfortunately, our current dataset is constrained to fully address this comment for the following reasons:

- We have a limited number of neurons on which we can train our classifier neurons. Further dividing up the groups of neurons or complicating the model limited the power of our analyses and resulted in overfitting of the model on too few neurons.

- The recording durations (30 seconds) used to train our model are likely too short to find multiple disease signatures within a single recording. We feel that the complex phenotypes are likely resulting from cells within one mouse exhibiting a mix of disease signatures (as in the Car8wdl/wdl mice).

We think this question would be great for a follow-up study that uses a large number of recordings from single mice to fully predict the mouse phenotype based on the population spike signatures. 

To limit confusion about our classifier model, we have also altered the language of our manuscript and refer to the cells exhibiting a spike signature instead of predicting a phenotype. 

However, the paper falls short in terms of the classifier model itself. The current implementation of this classifier appears to be rather weak. For instance, the crossvalidated performance on the same disease line mouse model for tremor is only 56%. While I understand that the classifier aims to simplify a high-dimensional dataset into a more manageable decision tree, its rather poor performance undermines the authors' main objectives. In a similar vein, although focusing on three primary features of spiking statistics identified by the decision tree model (CV, CV2, and median ISI) is useful for understanding the primary differences between the firing statistics of different mouse models, it results in an overly simplistic view of this complex data. The classifier and its reliance on the reduced feature set are the weakest points of the paper and could benefit from further analysis and a different classification architecture. Nevertheless, it is commendable that the authors have collected high-quality data to validate their classifier. Particularly impressive is their inclusion of data from multiple mouse models of ataxia, dystonia, and tremor, enabling a true test of the classifier's generalizability.

We intentionally simplified our parameter space from a high-dimensional dataset into a more manageable decision tree. We did this for the following reasons:

- The parameters, even though all measuring different features, are highly correlated (see Figure 1 – supplemental Figure 2). Further, we were training our dataset on a limited number of recordings. We found that including all parameters (for example using a linear model) caused overfitting of the data and poor model performance.

- Describing the spike signatures using a lower number of parameters allowed us to design optogenetic parameters that would mimic this parameter space. This would be infinitely more complex with a bigger parameter space. 

We agree with the reviewer that inclusion of multiple mouse models in addition to the optogenetics experiments provide the classifier’s generalizability. 

Minor Comments:

(1) The blown-up CN voltage traces in Figures 5C and Supplementary Figure 2B appear more like bar plots than voltage traces on my machine.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have improved the rendering of the traces.

(2) The logic in lines 224-228 is somewhat confusing. The spike train signatures are undoubtedly affected by all the factors mentioned by the authors. What, I believe, the authors intend to convey is that because changes in CN firing rates can be driven by multiple factors, it is the CN firing properties themselves that likely drive disease-specific phenotypes.

We agree that our discussion of the CN firing needs clarification. We have made the appropriate edits in the text.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

It's quite astounding that this can be done from single spike trains from what are almost certainly mixed populations of neurons. Could you add something to the discussion about this? Some questions that could be addressed would be would multiple simultaneous recordings additionally help classify these diseases, or would non-simultaneous recordings from the same animal be useful? Also more discussion about which cells you are likely recording from would be useful.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have added discussion about multiple recordings, simultaneous vs non-simultaneous recordings, and our thoughts on the cell population recorded in this work.

Data in figure 2 is difficult to understand - it appears that the majority of dysregulated cells in 2 ataxic models are classified as dystonia cells, not ataxic cells. This appears surprising as it seems to be at odds with earlier data from Fig 1. In my opinion, it is not discussed adequately in the Results or Discussion section.

We have added further discussion of the ataxia models represented in Figures 1 and 2.

Minor comment:

The colours of the subdivisions of the bars in 2C and 3C, and the rest of the paper appear to be related to the groups in the middle (under "predicted"), but the colours are much paler in the figure than in the legend, although the colours in the bars and the legends match in the first figure (1E). Does this signify something?

These figures were remade with the same colors across the board.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript looks at the single-cell spike signatures taken from in vivo cerebellar nuclear neurons from awake mice suffering from 3 distinct diseases and uses a sophisticated classifier model to predict disease based on a number of different parameters about the spiking patterns, rather than just one or two. Single read-outs of spike firing patterns did not show significant differences between all 4 groups meaning that you need to analyze multiple parameters of the spike trains to get this information. The results are really satisfying and intriguing, with some diseases separating very well, and others having more overlap. It also represents a significant advancement for the rigor and creativity used for analyzing cerebellar output spike patterns. I really like this paper, it's a clever idea and has been done very well.

The authors examine multiple distinct forms of different diseases, including different types of ataxia, dystonia, and tremor. While some of the interpretation of this work remains unclear to this reviewer (in particular Fig. 2, with ataxia models), I applaud the rigor, and sharing complex data that is not always straightforward to understand.

Strengths:

The work is technically impressive and the analysis pushes the envelope of how cerebellar dysfunction is classified, which makes it an important paper for the field.<br /> It's well written. The approach it is taking is clever. The analysis is thorough, and the authors examine a wide array of different disease models, which is time-consuming, costly, and very challenging to do. It's a very strong manuscript.

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Reply to the reviewers

*Reviewer #1 *

1. The authors conclude that RFP-Ac expression is restricted to emerging SOPs and surroundings cells at 18h APF, indicating that Ac is activated later than Sc. Can the authors provide images for RFP-Ac expression at 10h and 16h APF similar to GFP-Sc as shown in their figures. Do the SOPs that contain high levels of both Ac and Sc (as some SOPs have Sc expression but not Ac) undergo fate divergence and SB faster than the SOPs containing higher levels of only Sc?

We are now showing the expression pattern of GFP-SC and RFP-Ac/GFP-Ac in fixed samples stained also for E-cad at 13h, 16h and 18h APF (Fig 1I-K' and Fig S1E-G'). Ac and Sc were found to be activated around the same time. However, Ac appeared to accumulate at lower levels than Sc prior to SOP selection in the central domain of the ADHN (Fig 1J-K'). We also confirmed that Ac was more strongly expressed in SOPs. Additionally, SOPs appeared to accumulate both Ac and Sc, i.e. SOPs with high levels of GFP-Sc also showed a strong RFP-Ac signal (Fig S1H-H'). Finally, since RFP-Ac was not detectable in living pupae, possibly due to the rapid turn-over of Ac and the slow maturation of RFP, we could not study more precisely the relative dynamics of Ac and Sc. For the same reason, we could not address whether the rate of fate divergence (measured using GFP-Sc) varied with the level of Ac.

2. It would be interesting to see the spatial and temporal dynamics of Ac and Sc in Notch mutants or even Notch dynamics in Sc and Ac mutants to better understand the progression fate divergence and its effect on lateral inhibition in real time.

Following the reviewer's suggestion, we examined the expression pattern of NRE-deGFP, a Notch activity reporter, in ac sc double mutant pupae at 16h and 24h APF (Fig S3A-D). This showed that the initial pattern of NRE-deGFP at 16h APF (signal detected in posterior ADHN cells as well as in the ADHN) did not depend on Ac and Sc. By contrast, the second phase of NRE-deGFP expression (in cells of the proneural ADHN domain, around emerging SOPs) was found to depend on the activity of Ac and Sc. Thus, strong Notch activation observed in cells surrounding emerging SOPs was found to depend on the activity of Ac-Sc, presumably because Ac and Sc are required for SOP specification and SOPs produce Delta, serving as the local source to activate Notch (see also our response to reviewer 3, point #6). Thus, since NRE-deGFP was not up-regulated in the proneural ADHN domain of sc10-1 ac3 mutant pupae, a quantitative analysis of the dynamics of NRE-deGFP may not be informative.

The reviewer also suggested us to study the dynamics of GFP-Sc in Notch mutants. One can easily predict that most Notch mutant cells would accumulate GFP-Sc, as observed in the notum (PMID: 28386027). Therefore, analysis of fate symmetry breaking is unlikely to be useful in that context. Likewise, a FDI analysis would not be relevant. From a technical point of view, live imaging of GFP-Sc would have to be performed in Notch mutant clones. This is because RNAi against Notch (strong 10xUAS-Notch hp2 construct, PMID: 19487563) driven by escargot-Gal4 to knock down Notch in larval histoblasts only led to a partial loss of Notch function (our unpublished data). Generation of Notch mutant clones in the abdomen would require constructing appropriate GFP-Sc Notch FRT recombinant chromosome as well as generating a new FRT GFP-Sc chromosome with an infrared marker (not currently available) to compare the relative dynamics of GFP-Sc in wild-type and mutant cells. In sum, this proposed experiment would take a significant amount of time and is unlikely to shed new light. Given that this experiment is not essential to support the claims of the paper and that it is not clear to us what would be learnt from this experiment, we opted for not performing this experiment.

Minor comments * 1. In figure 1F and F', the authors mention GFP-Sc is not expressed prior to 14h, however, there is still GFP signal detected in their imaging. Can the authors comment what would be the cause of this GFP signal or was it due to non-specific background signal during their imaging analysis?*

We thank the referee for raising this issue. Yes, a strong autofluorescence signal was detected prior to the onset of GFP-Sc expression. We provide below the results of our analysis of the autofluorescence signal (Fig R1) relative to the nuclear signal (Fig R2), and how normalization of the signal was used to measure the specific GFP-Sc signal.

Analysis of the autofluorescence signal over time

To estimate the autofluorescence signal, we measured the average intensity of the signal acquired in the GFP channel for each frame and plotted these values over time. The results are shown in Fig R1 below:

*Fig R1: temporal profile of the autofluorescence signal *

Each measurement corresponds to the average intensity measured in the GFP channel over the entire field at each z-section and for each time point. Mean and SD values of measured are shown over time in black and grey, respectively. Time is in frame number (dt is 2.5 min). The data shown above corresponds to movie 1 (see also Fig 2).

This plot indicates that the autofluorescence signal was progressively bleached. We therefore excluded from our analysis the first 50 time points when the autofluorescence signal was initially strong. No nuclear GFP-Sc signal was detectable in these first 50 frames in the cells of the central area of the ADHN which are studied here (see Fig 2A', t=1:12, time frame #29).

While revising the manuscript, we realized that t=0 corresponded to two distinct time points in the first version of our manuscript: it corresponded to the onset of imaging in Fig 2A-D', and to t=2:08 (time frame #51) in all other figures showing data following removal of the first 50 time points. We have now fixed this issue and are presenting all data with t=0 corresponding to the onset of imaging.

Analysis of the nuclear fluorescence signal over time

To detect the nuclear GFP-Sc signal, we measured the average intensity of the signal acquired in the GFP channel (raw intensity values corresponding to the sum of the GFP-Sc and autofluorescence signals) in segmented nuclei (in 3D, within the entire z-stack). These values were plotted over time (pink curve in Fig R2 below; the autofluorescence is plotted in black, as in Fig R1, for the sake of comparison). This showed that the intensity of the signal measured in nuclei was initially identical to the mean intensity measured across the entire field of view, indicative of autofluorescence only. A specific increase in signal intensity in nuclei (relative to the entire field of view) was detectable after 2h of imaging (time frame 48 in Fig R1; dt is 2.5 min). Importantly, mean intensity values of the autofluorescence signal appeared to be approximately 10-fold stronger than the mean intensity associated with the nuclear GFP-Sc signal.

Fig R2: temporal profile of the GFP-Sc signal

*The plot in pink corresponds to the average intensity in the GFP channel (raw intensity values corresponding to the GFP-Sc and/or autofluorescence signals) per nucleus (within the entire z-stack) for each time point. Mean and SD values measured in each nucleus are shown over time (in pink; these data correspond to movie 1; shown also in Fig 3). This plot (pink) should be compared with the plot shown in Fig R1 (also in black in Fig R2). The intensity difference between the pink and black curves was attributed to the specific GFP-Sc signal. *

Signal normalization and analysis of the GFP-Sc signal

In our study, we normalized the GFP-Sc signal by dividing the averaged value measured in each single nucleus (data corresponding to the pink curve in Fig R2) by the mean value of the signal measured at the same time point in the same channel in the entire image stack (data corresponding to the black curve in Fig R1/R2). Given the low intensity of the GFP-Sc signal, and the small number of pixels corresponding to Scute-expressing nuclei over the entire field of view, this value should closely reflect the autofluorescence noise. Thus, the background autofluorescence signal should be close to 1. This was experimentally verified by measuring the normalized intensity values of the PDHN nuclei that did not express Scute: a mean intensity value of 0.96 +/- 0.10 was measured (at time frame #51; see Fig R1 below). In contrast, the normalized GFP-Sc values measured several hours before SB were found to be close to 1.1 (see Fig 3D). Whether these values reflect very low levels of nuclear GFP-Sc that cannot be detected visually or result from imperfect normalization of the signal remain unclear. Given the intensity and non-uniformity of the autofluorescence signal, we cannot exclude the latter. For this reason, we chose to not over-interpret the initial low intensity values of GFP-Sc.

In the materials and methods, the authors mention that prior to imaging the larvae and pupae are grown at 18, 21 or 25{degree sign}C. Is there a reason why the larvae and pupae are grown at different temperatures for different experiments? Can the authors specify (i.e. in the figure legends) in which experiments different temperatures were used?

Larvae and pupae were grown at different temperatures for convenience, i.e. to adapt the time interval between staging at 0h APF and mounting for live imaging. Indeed, it is much easier to obtain 10-14h APF pupae by collecting staged pupae at 0h APF the day before and incubating them overnight at lower temperature to slow-down development. However, all live imaging experiments were performed at 23-25{degree sign}C, and we have no reason to think that this prior incubation would affect the process studied here.

The citations need to have a better format as they show up as each citation within a single bracket which makes it a little hard to read when multiple references are cited in a single sentence. fixed

In the abstract, the sentence 'Unexpectedly, we observed at low frequency (10%) pairs of cells that are in direct contact at the time of SB'. SB should be replaced with "Symmetry breaking", as it appeared for the first time in the manuscript and should be written out in full. fixed

Throughout the manuscript there are instances where the abbreviations are written in full with the abbreviation in brackets after they have already been introduced in the introduction which can be changed to just the abbreviation itself. fixed

In the discussion on page 11, 'our observation...', our needs to be changed to Our. fixed

7. It would be nice to have arrow heads or dotted lines around the cells or areas on interest in both, all the figures and movies, so that it will be easier to follow the results. The videos have a lot of background due to fragmented apoptotic nuclei, etc. as mentioned by the authors, hence arrow heads or dotted lines would bring viewers focus on the areas of interest.

fixed (see for instance Fig 1D, Fig 2A, Fig 5B, Fig 7A, Fig S3D, etc...)

8. It would be helpful to have anterior - posterior axis (i.e. with an arrow) shown on top of all the figures.

In our earlier version, we indicated that 'In this and all other figures, dorsal is up and anterior is left' in the legend of Fig 1B. We have now moved this sentence at the end of Fig 1 to have it more apparent. Additionally, the AP axis is now clearly indicated in Fig 1C. We believe that it is not necessary to repeat this orientation in all figures.

Scale bars are missing in all figures, videos, and figure legends. Added

Only movies 1 and 3 are referenced in the text. All movies are now referenced in the text

Keeping the colors in the movies and figures consistent and same would be helpful. For example, Movie 2 Histone3.3-mIFP marker is in blue but in figure 3 it is in magenta. fixed (H3.3-mIFP in magenta in this movie, now numbered 3)

As mentioned above, it would be helpful if the authors have arrow heads or dotted lines around the cells or areas of interest in both the figures and movies for better representation of their data. For example, movie 1 shows a larger area of imaging than shown in figure 2A, which makes it hard to follow the cells of interest in the movie.

An additional movie corresponding to the SOP shown in Fig 2A is now provided (new movie 2).

--

Reviewer #2

1. Despite "symmetry breaking" being the main focus of the paper, in the Introduction, the authors do not explain what this term means and do not provide any description of this process. This is a critical point that makes understanding of the goals of the paper difficult. Therefore, the authors are encouraged to provide more information and a clear description of this term/phenomenon. We thank the reviewer for this suggestion, we are now stating in the introduction what symmetry breaking means in the context of lateral inhibition: 'To describe and study the process of SOP selection, we studied fate SB. The latter refers to the transition point when one cell, the future SOP, starts to stably accumulate a higher level of GFP-Sc relative to its immediate neighbors.'

The role of Achaete in the story is not clear. Even though both factors are required for SOP determination, the authors mainly focus on Scute, so it is not very clear what the role of Achaete in this process is, if there is any. As shown in the paper, Achaete is expressed later when heterogeneity is promoting cell fate divergence. Is Achaete maybe contributing to cell heterogeneity/ cell fate divergence?

We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We now show in Fig S1A-D that abdominal bristles develop in a protein null allele of sc (scM6 ) as well as in an ac mutant corresponding to a 45 kb deletion that removes ac but not sc (PMID: 16216235)). Together with our analysis of sc10-1 ac3 __mutant flies, we can now conclude that __Sc and Ac act redundantly for SOP specification in the pupal abdomen. We have also further studied the expression of Ac relative to Sc and E(spl)HLH-m3 (see our response above to point #1 of reviewer 1). We fully agree with the reviewer that cell-to-cell variations in Ac expression might contribute to proneural heterogeneity and SB. This is now briefly discussed.

Minor points: * * 1. Symmetry Breaking (SB) should be abbreviated in the Abstract. The authors initially use the full term without abbreviation, and only on page 5, the abbreviation is finally defined; however, it should be introduced much earlier.

fixed

The second-to-last sentence in the abstract, "These lateral inhibition defects were correlated via cellular rearrangements," is unclear regarding what defects the authors are referring to.

This sentence was rewritten: 'Live imaging showed that these patterning defects were corrected via cellular rearrangements associated with global tissue fluidity, not via cell fate change.'

For clarity, being more specific in the text in regards to description of the figure panels would be beneficial (e.g. page 3 Fig 1C-E); referring to C-E together makes it hard to understand what does each panel shows.

fixed

In many instances, the movies are not properly referenced (e.g. on page 5, third row simply states "movies"), making it difficult to discern which movie should be checked. On page 8, when authors refer to movie 3, they likely meant movie 5.

fixed

Figure S1 requires some corrections.

We thank the reviewer for helping us improve the presentation of our results.

The authors use the short name "scute" initially and then switch to the shortened version "sc'.

fixed

Additionally, the nlsRFP (blue) is difficult to see; adjusting the levels or changing colors/showing separate channels may improve visibility.

The authors mention clone borders, but none are shown. It would greatly help to outline the borders in all figures.

The ubiquitous nlsRFP marker is now shown in magenta in Fig S1I that now shows only 2 channels to outline the ADHN (white dotted line) and the clones (yellow dotted lines).

We also outlined the clone borders in Fig 4C,C'.

Genotypes of the samples should be indicated, and clarification is needed regarding what "n" represents (number of cells, clones, or flies).

The genotype studied in Fig S1 and Fig 4 (which is the only complex genotype studied here) is now indicated in the Methods section. We have clarified what the different 'n' meant, in Fig 4 (see text) and elsewhere (see legend of Fig S2 for instance).

What do the arrows in the panel B show?

Thanks for pointing this out. The arrows in Fig S1I' indicate Cut/Hnt-positive cells (SOPs) within the clones (as now explained in the legend).

It is also recommended to display important channels as separate black and white images.

Separate channels are now shown in Fig S1 and S3.

Additionally, the use of RNAi against GFP instead of RNAi against scute should be justified; using RNAi GFP as the genotype on the graph could be interpreted as a control genotype rather than downregulation of scute.

A RNAi construct against GFP was used because this construct was known to very efficient and specific. Indeed, a strong knock-down of GFP-Sc was obtained by this approach (see Fig 4C'). We did not test sc RNAi constructs in the context of GFP-Sc. To avoid confusion, we are now indicating Sc downregulation (gfp RNAi) in Fig 4C'.

In the Figure 2 Legend, the authors use "std" as an abbreviation to define standard deviation. Typically, this is abbreviated as SD.

fixed

In Figure 4E, the authors do not explain on why there are points on the x-axis that correspond to a decimal number of cells.

Since heterogeneity was calculated over a 20 min interval, we likewise calculated the number of neighbors over the same time interval. Thus, the number of neighbors for each SOP corresponds to an averaged value calculated over this time interval. This is now explained in the legend.

--

Reviewer #3

1. First and foremost, the authors should state in the first paragraph of the Results that scGFP is a CRISPR knockin and thus it's the only source of Sc protein in the animals imaged (this is stated only in the Methods section). Thanks for this comment, we agree that this is one of the strengths of our work that we should emphasize. We now state in the results section: 'GFP-Sc is produced from the endogenous locus such that all Sc molecules produced in these pupae are GFP-tagged'

The magnitude of the Sc increase should be commented on. Based on the intensity and FDI plots in Fig. 3B-E, an increase of 15-17% in the amount of Sc is suggested (the FDI plateaus at 0.08, which gives 1.08/0.92 = 1.17x the level of Sc in the SOP vs the surrounding cells). However, in the stills shown in Fig. 2BCD and in Fig. 3A, the intensity differential between SOPs and neighbors seems at least 100% (ie at least double the intensity, which would yield an FDI of >1/3 =0.33). Why is this high contrast never seen in the quantitative measurements?

Thanks for asking about the fold change of GFP-Sc levels in SOPs, from SB to its plateau. This fold change can be seen in Fig 3D: the normalized value of GFP-Sc is 1.12 at SB, and 1.26 three hours after SB (when the FDI plateaus), indicative of a 2.2x fold increase of GFP-Sc in SOPs (0.26/0.12= 2.2, following background subtraction; see our detailed response to reviewer #1, minor point 1, about background signal analysis and normalization of the signal). This fold-change value is now indicated in the legend of Fig 3D. Obviously, this fold-change value is highly sensitive to signal normalization. Since the autofluorescence signal was stronger than the GFP-Sc signal (see Fig R2 above) and varied over time (due to bleaching; see Figs R1 and R2 above), we feel that this fold-change value should be taken with a grain of salt.

From Fig. 2A-D it appears that the ScGFP fluorescence intensity is at the same level or weaker than nearby autofluorescence. Please state (1) how you confirmed that the histoblast nest has lower autofluorescence than the larval epidermis and (2) how you corrected for histoblast nest autofluorescence in your quantifications.

As detailed above (our response to reviewer #1, minor point 1), the specific GFP-Sc signal is ten-times lower than the autofluorescence signal. We did not compare the autofluorescence signal produce by larval and imaginal cells (but note that larval epidermal cells had a stronger autofluorescence signal; see the yellow dots in Fig 2A). Normalization of the signal to correct for autofluorescence was explained in the Methods (and is also detailed above in our response to reviewer #1, minor point 1).

The paradoxical result of Fig. S1B should be discussed. On the one hand it is stated that "Ac and Sc specify the fate of the Sensory Organ Precursor cells (SOPs)" (p.2) and on the other S1B shows SOP specification in the absence of Sc. Are the SOPs shown in Fig S1B rare exceptions? Do the authors believe that these rare exceptions are there because of inefficient RNAi (since in comparison with S1A, in the null condition almost no SOPs should be formed)? Or they are the SOPs in RNAi clones as rare as the occasional bristles in S1A?

We do not see the result of Fig S1B as paradoxical but interpreted this result assuming that Ac and Sc were redundant for SOP determination. We now provide clear genetic evidence in support of this view (see our response above to reviewer #2, point 2). Otherwise, we found that RNAi is efficient (see loss of the GFP signal in clone in Fig. 4C'). In adult males, the density of bristles appeared to be quite normal over clonal patches of gfp RNAi cells (not shown), consistent with Ac being redundant with Sc

One figure that is not straightforward to interpret is Fig. 4E. It plots ScGFP heterogeneity vs. number of RNAi neighbors. Each point in the plot must be an individual SOP (165 total). Therefore, its neighbors (the x-axis) should take integral (not decimal) values. How can a single SOP have a decimal number of RNAi neighbors, especially since heterogeneity was sampled over a 10min time-window, when not much cell rearrangement can take place? Please explain.

Since heterogeneity was calculated over a 20 min interval, we likewise calculated the number of neighbors over the same time interval. Thus, the number of neighbors for each SOP corresponds to an averaged value calculated over this time interval. This is now explained in the legend: 'Note that the number of neighbors was likewise calculated over this time interval, and the resulting number of neighbors may not take an integral value.'

I found the discussion of the Notch reporter dynamics (Fig. 7) confusing in several places. * * (6a) Whereas it's clear that there is plenty of Notch signaling going on before SBN, the authors repeatedly imply that Notch signaling starts after SBN. For example, in the Results (p.9) they state "Thus, this quantitative approach failed to detect a phase of reciprocal Notch signaling during which proneural cluster cells would both send and receive a Delta-Notch signal prior to SOP emergence." The fact that the NRE-deGFP gave a robust signal before the start of the movies clearly means that mutual inhibition was going on for quite some time before SB. In fact, an FDI of 0 for >4h prior to SBN (Fig. 7G) means exactly this: that the level of Notch response among the cluster cells is equivalent ("mutual inhibition" lasts for at least 4h before SBN). (6b) In the first paragraph of this section (p.8) they comment that the pre-existence of Notch signaling is unexpected - why? I interpret it to simply be mutual inhibition (see above). Then they go on to quantitate the average Notch response intensity over the entire posterior ADHN (please define the borders the "posterior" ADHN). I question the informational value of this analysis (averaging over a large region), when Notch signaling is known to have intense local cell-to-cell variability (also evident in the stills shown in Fig. 7A,B,C).

We apologize for not describing well enough the data shown in Fig 7E, and for not explaining clearly our interpretation of the NRE-deGFP signal.

While the observation of a strong NRE-deGFP signal indeed indicates that Notch signaling had been active prior to the time of observation (in this sense, Notch is indeed active long before SBN), this does not necessarily imply that Notch is still active at that time. This is because the deGFP protein produced by the NRE-deGFP reporter is stable relative to the time scale of the studied process. Its measured half-life in S2 cells cultured at 25{degree sign}C is 2h (PMID: 31140975). Based on this data, the NRE-deGFP signal is likely to remain detectable several hours after Notch signaling has been switched off. If the rate of production of deGFP is lower than its rate of degradation, then the NRE-deGFP signal is expected to progressively decay over time. We believe that this is what we observed in our movies: while a strong signal was detected over the posterior half of the ADHN at 14-15h APF, this signal decreased over time (Fig 7D). To interpret the temporal dynamics of NRE-deGFP signal in terms of instantaneous Notch activity, we examined the Rate of Change (ROC): an increase of the NRE-deGFP signal over time (positive ROC) would indicate that Notch activity is increasing (more precisely, the production rate of deGFP is higher than its rate of degradation), whereas a decrease (negative ROC) indicates that Notch becomes less active (or inactive if the rate of decrease approximates the decay rate of the deGFP protein). Our data shown in Fig 7D showed that the NRE-deGFP signal (measured in the area indicated with a dotted line in Fig 7A,B; this area was defined by the initial pattern of NRE-deGFP) decreased over time (negative ROC) between t=1 and t=6.5h. We therefore conclude that Notch signaling is decreasing to reach a minimum at t=~3.5h, indicating that the level of Notch activity is at its lowest around the time of SB. At this minimum, the decay rate corresponds to a protein half-life of 4.4h, which is not so different from the measured half-time of deGFP in S2 cells (particularly if one assumes a 1.4x difference between the decay rates measured at 22 and 25{degree sign}C, based on the known temperature-dependent speed of development). This is why we conclude that Notch signaling is very low at this stage. Additionally, no NRE-deGFP signal was detected before t=4:30h (movie 7) in the initially NRE-deGFP negative cells (located anterior to the area indicated with a dotted line in Fig 7A). This indicated that Notch was activated late in this area. Together, our observations are not consistent with the view that Notch mediates a strong mutual inhibition signal over a prolonged time interval prior to SB.

To further study the pattern of Notch activity, we have monitored over time the accumulation pattern of GFP-tagged E(spl)m3-HLH (GFP-m3) (PMID: 31375669) in fixed sample (Fig S3F-G'). This confirmed that Notch was active in posterior ADHN cells and in the PDHN prior to 14h APF, i.e. prior to the onset of Ac and Sc, and that Notch activation extended to the central ADHN domain at 17-18h APF (Fig S3E-E' and G-G', and Fig 7I-I''), coinciding with SOP emergence.

Otherwise, the reviewer is correct when stating that a FDI value close to 0 indicates that the level of measured fluorescence among the different cells of the considered cluster is similar. Such a FDI value would be measured if cells did not express NRE-deGFP or had decreasing but similar levels of NRE-deGFP. This FDI value does not, per se, imply that Notch is active.

And then they move on to a (much more informative) cell-by-cell analysis, without even changing paragraphs, making it hard for the reader to follow. (6c) The conclusion at the end of the second paragraph (p. 9) "It also showed that SB was detected soon after the onset of Notch-mediated inhibitory signaling." is nowhere supported by data. If I understand well, SB refers to Sc and "the onset of Notch-mediated inhibitory signaling" refers to SBN (which is the onset of ASYMMETRY in Notch signaling, not the onset of Notch signaling, which has been going on for hours earlier). I don't see any data comparing SB with SBN. In fact, this is an important question to address (see below - comment 10).

We apologize for the lack of clarity in our writing, we meant: "It also showed that SBN was detected soon after the onset of Notch-mediated inhibitory signaling."

Yes, SBN refers to the onset of asymmetry in Notch signaling, as measured using NRE-deGFP. As explained above (but see also our response to point #7 below), our data do not provide evidence for a detectable Notch signal prior to SBN.

We agree that comparing SB and SBN would be nice. Unfortunately, our current tools do not permit a detailed comparison (see our detailed response below, point #10).

Mutual inhibition amongst neighboring cells has been proposed to involve (besides mutual Notch signaling) an increase in Sc levels in 2-3 cells in a cluster before the singularization of a single SOP. The authors seem rather biased against such a transient Sc hike based on their results in Fig. 2D, where the neighboring cells stay at rather constant basal Sc levels for several hours, while the Sc SB event happens. However, looking at an individual SOP in Fig. 2B, I do detect a mild hike in the pink curve right around SB in the blue curve. Could the average result from 160 SOPs (in Fig 2D) simply blur such transient Sc hikes, if they happen with different kinetics for different SOPs? Couldn't the 10% of SOP twins (shown in Fig. 6) represent a special case of this transient "subcluster" Sc hike? I would appreciate some discussion on this point. [Whether Sc is transiently upregulated or not, however, does not change my firm conclusion - from the data presented - that Notch-mediated mutual inhibition has been going on long before SBN.]

First, our data are consistent with the notion that a few proneural cells progressively accumulate higher level of Scute prior to SB (as proposed above). Indeed, the moderate increase in both GFP-Sc levels and coefficient of variation values (GFP-Sc heterogeneity) seen prior to SB correspond to what the reviewer has in mind (higher levels of GFP-Sc in a few proneural cluster cells). We also appreciate the reviewer's comment about the plot shown in Fig 2D. However, we strongly feel that our quantitative analysis of a large dataset is a strength. Thus, we do not find useful to discretize a continuous process by introducing the notion of 'subclusters' of 2-3 cells. Likewise, we believe that it is more informative to focus our analysis on the entire dataset using average and SD values and do not wish to base our interpretation of the process based on selected tracks (the one shown in Fig 2B only served as an illustration of how we performed our analysis and has no interpretation value).

The reviewer also states that "mutual inhibition amongst neighboring cells has been proposed to involve an increase in Sc levels in 2-3 cells in a cluster before the singularization of a single SOP". Since there is no published description of the pattern of accumulation of Scute in abdominal histoblats (to our best knowledge), we hypothesize that this statement applies to the proneural clusters in the developing wing disc. This is because the accumulation pattern of Sc has been studied in detail in that context by the Modollel and Carroll labs (PMID: 2044965, PMID: 2044964). However, their description of the accumulation pattern of Scute (in fixed samples, using anti-Sc antibodies) did not refer to sub-clusters of 2-3 cells. We would appreciate if the reviewer could direct us to the relevant published observation.

Finally, we are not sure to follow the reviewer when she/he firmly concluded from our data that Notch-mediated mutual inhibition has been going on long before SBN. Instead, our data clearly showed that the ADHN region that produced SOPs exhibited two distinct NRE-deGFP patterns, with Notch signaling being active prior to imaging (i.e. prior to 14h APF) and decreasing to reach a minimum of Notch activation around 17h APF (i.e. around the time of SB, as determined by GFP-Sc imaging) in the posterior area of the ADHN.

Thus, our data do not show that mutual inhibition does not take place in this tissue but rather imply that the phase of mutual inhibition (or competition) must be relatively short, or transient, and that competition amongst proneural cluster cells operate at low Notch and Sc levels (probably contrary to what many people have in mind).

Some minor points: * * 8. Please change Cad-GFP to Ecad-GFP or shg-GFP, as Cad misdirects to caudal.

Thanks, changed into Ecad-GFP and Ecad-mKate

What is c in "(x,y,z,c,t) movies"? (a fifth independent variable?)

c stands for channel. This is relatively standard nomenclature.

The authors show that Sc displays a SB event leading to FDI of 0.08 and the Notch reporter displays another SB (SBN) leading to a much more pronounced FDI of -0.2. Are these two events (the hike of Sc levels and the plummeting of Notch signal) contemporaneous or does one precede the other? Having both tagged with GFP makes it impossible to image simultaneously, but the authors could register each reporter's dynamics relative to the time of SOP division (as done in Fig. 5C) to get a sense of their relative order.

We do agree with the reviewer that it would be nice to be able to align in time these two data sets. Unfortunately, the temporal correlation between SB and the SOP division is too variable (4.7 +/- 1.1) to confidently align these two datasets using this event as a time reference. New tools are needed (see our response to point #11 below).

Where in the above timeline is the SOP fate definitively adopted? neur-nlsGFP, Ac-RFP, m3Cherry and Sens detection in Figs. 1 and 7 give us a rough idea that these other markers appear around the time of Sc FDI peaking, around 3h after the initial SB. But this is not presented in an organized fashion - the reader collects this information sporadically. A reanalysis of the already existing data attempting to place these various markers in an integrated timeline would be of great importance in understanding the details of this cell fate specification process. Which is the earliest SB event? sc, neur or Notch? How long does it take from that early SB until definitive SOP markers (Sens) first appear?

We agree with the reviewer, it would be interesting to extend the approach reported here for Scute to characterize SB and rate of FDI for other key factors governing the selection of SOPs. As pointed out by the reviewer (point #10 above), it would also be important to register in time these various events. Unfortunately, the maturation time of RFP, mCherry, FP670, etc... appeared to be too slow relative to the rapid turnover of the Ac, Sc and E(spl)-HLH factors prevented us from performing two-color imaging. Hence, current tools do not permit to determine which is the earliest SB event.

More genetic perturbations could be performed to solidify the model of cell-cell communication during lateral inhibition. Two obvious ones come to mind: (a) How would the Sc-GFP dynamics change in a Notch-RNAi background? (b) How would the NRE-deGFP dynamics change in a sc-RNAi background?

See our detailed response to reviewer #1, major point #2.

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Reply to the reviewers

We thank the reviewers for taking the time to read and comprehensively evaluate our manuscript. We are pleased that, overall, they recognize the quality of our data and that it supports our conclusions. We are grateful for their comments, insights and advice and have revised the manuscript accordingly as described in the point-by-point response below. We believe that the revised manuscript is substantially improved by some experimental additions, additional replicates, improved analysis and increased clarity. Some key enhancements are as follows:

Previously we had found increased expression of the WNT pathway following CHRDL2 treatment, using RNA seq. We have now demonstrated this experimentally using the cellular levels and localisation of β-catenin. Previously we had shown that overexpression of CHRDL2 increased resistance to common chemotherapy treatments, as well as irradiation in colorectal cell lines. We have now shown that cells surviving treatment show a further reduction SMAD1/5/8 phosphorylation indicating a selection for CHRLD2 high cells during the treatment. We have also demonstrated a decrease in chemotherapy sensitivity in intestinal organoids treated with secreted forms of CHRDL2.

1. Point-by-point description of the revisions

This section is mandatory. *Please insert a point-by-point reply describing the revisions that were already carried out and included in the transferred manuscript. *

Reviewer #1

__Evidence, reproducibility and clarity __

Clarkson and Lewis present data suggesting that overexpression of Chordin like 2 (CHRDL2) can affect colorectal cancer cell responses to chemotherapy agents, possibly by modulating stem-cell like pathways. I have the following comments:

1. Fig. 1J-it is standard to show the images of cell migration-this is important here, given the modest effect of CHRDL2 overexpression here.

We have now included 3 replicate control and CHRDL2 overexpressing cell images in this figure panel to support the quantification in the graph.

Fig. 2A-the very small error bars for most of the data on the curves suggests these are n=1 experiments with multiple technical replicates to generate the error bars. Please clarify. The legend says n=3 with ANOVA analysis but no significance detected. Please clarify.

All experiments in this figure were done with 5 technical replicates per experiment, this was replicated at least three times to give n=3 biological replicates. The error bars represent the standard error of the mean of these 3 biological replicates as stated in the legend. Some data points showed very little data variation, hence the small error bars. Raw data is available if requested.

1. Fig. 2B-given the overlapping error bars here, how can there be a pWe have removed this representation of the data as it combined many different experiments with variable cell types and chemotherapeutics and it was difficult to carry out meaningful statistics. An overview of the data can be better seen in table form as shown in the revised figure 2B.

Fig. 2G-did the authors try to estimate the concentration of CHRDL2 in the conditioned medium? Which cell line was used to generate this CM?

Conditioned media was harvested from the matching transgenic cell lines with inducible CHRDL2. eg RKO cells were treated with media collected from doxycycline induced transgenic RKO cells whereas CaCO2 cells were treated with media from CaCO2 cells. The concentration of doxycycline was represented by ++ for 10ug/ml, the same notation we have used for directly induced cells treated with 10ug/ml dox.

We did not try to quantify the absolute concentration of CHRDL2 but we have shown the relative amount on a Western blot normalised with a ponceau stain (quantification now included in supplementary figure 1).

We have clarified our description of this experiment, inserting the following statement, "Conditioned media was harvested from corresponding cell lines with the inducible CHRDL2 transgene and the parental control cells. Induction of CHRDL2 to generate conditioned media was carried out using the same concentration and duration of doxycycline treatment as the cells in figure 2A. "

Fig. 5-what is the potential mechanism for gene expression changes in response to CHRDL2 overexpression? Is it all due to BMP inhibition? More mechanistic detail would be welcome here.

We have suggested other pathways involved in these functional effects based on our RNA seq data but at the moment it is not possible to say whether any changes are independent of BMP signaling. CHRDL2 is relatively understudied and as yet there is not much literature supporting BMP independent actions of CHRDL2. However, we have added some discussion and reference to an article suggesting interactions between CHRLD2 and YAP (Wang et al., 2022) including the following statement on page 17: "While the changes in BMP and WNT signaling shown in our GSEA analysis suggest that the effects of CHRDL2 in our system work directly through inhibition of BMP, it is not possible to rule out that some pathways are affected by BMP independent actions of CHRLD2. Indeed, Wang et al, suggest that CHRDL2 can directly alter phosphorylation and activity of YAP in gastric cancer cell lines, which merits further exploration (Wang et al., 2022)"

Significance

Unclear whether genetically engineered inducible overexpression has any real physiological significance but we all use cell models so this is OK.

Reviewer #2

__Evidence, reproducibility and clarity __

Summary: In the manuscript entitled "BMP antagonist CHRDL2 enhances the cancer stem-cell phenotype and increases chemotherapy resistance in Colorectal Cancer" the authors demonstrated that Chordin-like 2 (CHDRL2), a secreted BMP antagonist, promotes a chemo-resistant colorectal cancer stem cell phenotype through the inhibition of BMP signaling. The authors took advantage of both 2D engineered colorectal cancer (CRC) cells and healthy murine 3D organoid systems. Specifically, the authors showed a decreased proliferation rate and reduced clonogenic capability upon overexpression of CHRDL2 in established human colon cancer cell lines. Subsequently, they identified a chemo-resistant phenotype upon standard therapies (5FU, Oxaliplatin and Irinotecan) in CHDRL2 overexpressing cells by performing MTS assay. The authors showed that this chemo-resistant phenotype is associated with ATM and RAD21 activation, supporting an induction of DNA damage signaling pathway. Of note, the authors assessed that the exposure of 3D murine organoid to CHRDL2 resulted in a stem-like phenotype induction accompanied by a reduction of the differentiated counterpart. From RNA-seq data analysis emerged the upregulation of genes associated to stemness and DNA repair pathways in CHRDL2 overexpressing cells.

Major comments: 1. In the first paragraph of the result section authors assessed that "Colorectal adenocarcinoma cell lines were deliberately chosen to encompass a range of CHRDL2 expression levels and genetic mutations", without showing qRT-PCR or WB data on the differential expression levels of CHRDL2 in a panel of immortalized CRC cell lines. Authors should include these data to better support their choice.

*We have now included some qRT-PCR in supplementary figure 1 alongside a table of some of the key driver mutations in each cell line. Western blotting of these cells shows only a very low concentration of CHRDL2 protein. As shown in figure 1B in the control columns, no significant protein expression is observed in any line. *

In Figure 1F, authors described a reduction of cell proliferation in CRC cell lines expressing high levels of CHRDL2 only under low glucose conditions. Why did the authors perform the assay under these conditions? They should better argue this aspect and validated the role of CHRDL2 in metabolism rewiring by performing additional in vitro assays.

We have removed this aspect of the paper as it does not add significantly to our overall conclusions and we can clearly see the effects of CHRDL2 overexpression under standard growth conditions (Figure 1G).

The authors should evaluate the role of CHRDL2 in promoting a stem-like phenotype in human colon cancer stem cells freshly isolated from patients and characterized.

We would very much like to do experiments such as this but it is beyond the scope of this study and will be included in upcoming grant proposals.

In order to confirm the data obtained on 3D murine organoids system obtained from normal Intestinal Stem Cells, authors should investigate the stemness induction, driven by CHRDL2, also in human intestinal organoids.

Experiments using human intestinal organoids are currently planned and ethical approval applications and grant proposals are underway for future experiments of this nature.

The authors should evaluate the oncogenic role of CHRDL2, through the maintenance of stemness, by performing orthotopic or subcutaneous experiments in vivo model.

Similarly, this is not possible for this manuscript but is planned for the future alongside a transgenic mouse model of inducible CHRDL2 overexpression in the intestine.

BMPs proteins are part of a very broad protein family. In the introduction section, authors should indicate the specific BMP protein on which CHRDL2 exerts its inhibitory function. Moreover, they should have assessed BMP protein levels in CACO2, LS180, COLO320 and RKO cell lines.

We have clarified the interactions between CHRDL2 and specific BMPs in the introduction. We have not specifically assessed the BMP protein levels in our cells however we have now included an analysis of expression data from the Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia in supplementary figure 1 C.

In first panel, the authors should quantify the secreted levels of CHRDL2 in the media of overexpressing CHRDL2 cell lines.

We have done this using the ponceau staining as a loading control and the results are displayed (supplementary figure 1).

In Figure 2D the authors should use the appropriate controls and describe this with more details in results section.

In this figure we have used Hoechst staining followed by FACs analysis to identify the cell cycle profile of our CHRDL2 treated cells. We have improved the description of this in the methods section. Appropriate controls for staining, both negative and positive, are used when setting up the analysis for this experiment. The cell cycle profile is calculated using the Novocyte in house software. We have now included the histogram plots in the main figure to clarify these data in figure 2D.

In Figure 3A, the authors should have performed the assay by choosing IC50.

*We attempted these experiments with the IC50 levels, however the high amount of cell death and frequency of apoptotic cells meant that clear images were difficult to obtain. We therefore reduced the concentrations and still had very measurable effects. *

In Supplementary Fig. 4A-B. the results are unclear. The control cell lines are already chemo resistant.

Again, we used IC25 levels of the drugs so that our cells were damaged but still live throughout the experiment. This has been explained on page 10.

The authors should review and add statistical analysis in both main and supplementary figures.

*We have now added additional details about statistical analysis throughout the figures, legend and main text, showing all significance levels as well as non-significance for each data set. * Minor comments: 1. The quality of immunofluorescence and WB images should be implemented, and in the immunofluorescence panels scale bars should be added.

We have added or improved scale bars on each immunofluorescence image. Western blot images have been improved.

In the graphical abstract authors reported that CHRDL2 overexpression increase WNT and EMT pathways, without performing any specific assay to demonstrate this. Authors should correct and graphically improve the graphical abstract.

*This is a good point and we have now carried out Beta-catenin immunofluorescence as a measure of WNT signaling on both our cancer cell lines - showing an increase in nuclear beta-catenin (figure 1J and K), and our organoids - showing an increase in overall levels and cytoplasmic staining (Figure 4 F). In terms of EMT markers we have carried out immunofluorescence on IQGAP1 (Figure 1K). IQGAP1 is significantly upregulated in CHRDL2 cells, reflecting its role in reduced cell adhesion and increased migration. This correlates with our data showing increased cellular migration as well as the increase in EMT related transcription in our RNAseq data. *

The term "significantly" in the discussion section is inappropriately referred to data showed in the histogram in Figure 1J. Moreover, in Figure 1Jthe authors should delete from the y-axis the term "corrected".

We have changed significantly to substantially

The term "significant" in discussion is inappropriately referred to BMI1 expression level if compared to the histogram in Figure 4G.

We have changed significantly to "a trend to increase"

In Figure 2C the authors should add the unit of measurement (fold over control) in the table.

We have done this

In Figure 4E the authors should add the figure legend reporting OLFM4 protein.

We have done this

The authors should include few sentences summarizing the findings at the end of each paragraph.

We have added short summaries at the start or end of each section to improve the flow of the results section.

Significance

General assessment: Overall, the work is aimed to elucidate the role of CHRDL2 already considered a poor prognosis biomarker involved in the promotion of CRC (PMID: 28009989), in promoting stem-like properties. The authors elucidated new additional insights into the molecular mechanisms regulating stemness phenotype induced by the BMP antagonist CHRDL2 in CRC. The authors include in the study a large amount of data, which only partially support their hypothesis. However, this manuscript lacks organization and coherence, making it challenging to follow and read. Numerous concerns need to be addressed, along with some sentences to rephrase in the result and discussion sections.

Advance: The manuscript reported some functional insights on the role of CHRDL2 in colorectal cancer, but additional data should be added to support authors 'conclusions.

Audience: The manuscript is suggested for basic research scientists.

__Reviewer #3 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):____ __ Summary BMP antagonist CHRDL2 enhances the cancer stem-cell phenotype and increases chemotherapy resistance in Colorectal Cancer Eloise Clarkson et al. The manuscript explored the function of CHRDL2, a BMP antagonist, on colorectal cancer (CRC). The authors found that CHRDL2 overexpression can enhance the survival of CRC cells during chemotherapy and irradiation treatment with elevated levels of stem-cell markers and reduced differentiation. Further RNA-seq analysis revealed that CHRDL2 increased the expression of stem-cell markers, WNT signaling and other well-established cancer-associated pathways. Overall, the manuscript is well-written and presented. I have some suggestions:

Major points:

1. The authors assert BMP antagonism was demonstrated by assessing levels of phosphorylated SMAD1/5 (Figure 1G). However, the immunoblotting assay only depicted P-SMAD 1/5 levels and B-ACTIN as internal control. It's suggested to include total-SMAD1/5 immunoblotting as an internal control to further support the claim of BMP antagonism.

The reviewer is correct that this is the best control. Western blotting has now been performed with total SMAD1 protein expression used as an internal control and this is shown in Figure 1D and Supplementary figure 1F

The authors argue that CHRDL2 overexpression reduced the proliferation of CRC cell lines, as evidenced by cell proliferation assays. However, from Figure 1E, the reduction in proliferation appears insignificant. It would be beneficial to perform one-way ANOVA tests on each time point for CHRDL2+ and CHRDL2++ with Control in Figure 1E to ascertain significance.

*We now have repeated this experiment to reduce variability and have also provided two-way ANOVA analysis between Control and CHRDL2+ and Control and CHRDL2++. One-way ANOVA at timepoint 96hr also provided with details in the figure legend. *

The findings indicating that overexpressing CHRDL2 can confer resistance to chemotherapy in CRC cells (Figure 2A-C) are noteworthy. To deepen the understanding of BMP signaling in cancer stemness and the molecular underpinning of CHRDL2 antagonism, additional western blot assays on P-SMAD1/5 with CHRDL2 overexpression and drug treatment are recommended.

*Western blotting of P-SMAD1/5 upon cells treated with IC50 5FU has now been performed in figure 2C (in the same experiment as the revised panels in figure 1D). The data suggest that CHRDL2 overexpressing cells able to survive chemotherapy have higher levels of P-SMAD1/5 reduction compared to that of untreated cells, strongly suggesting that chemotherapy treatment acts to select the cells with the highest CHRDL2 expression. We thank reviewer 3 for this suggested experiment and have included further discussion on this on page 9. *

The assertion that extrinsic CHRDL2 addition diminishes differentiation and enhances stem-cell numbers in an intestinal organoid model is intriguing. As BMP signaling inhibition contributes to intestinal cell stemness, incorporating additional layers for BMP antagonism of CHRDL2 on intestinal organoids through immunoblotting or real-time quantitative PCR for treated organoids would augment the conclusions.

As stated in the response to reviewer 2, we have investigated Beta-catenin in our organoids following CHRDL2 treatment using immunofluorescence and find that the levels are increased with the staining shifting from the membrane to the cytoplasm and nucleus (Figure 4F).

The authors claim CHRDL2 overexpression can decrease BMP signaling based on GSEA analysis (Figure 5E). However, the GSEA results did not demonstrate the downregulation of BMP signaling. Reanalysis of this GSEA analysis is warranted.

*We agree with this point and have changed the description of this result since the gene set covers both positive and negative regulators of the BMP pathway. We cannot conclusively say from this RNAseq data set that BMP signaling is "downregulated", however since SMAD phosphorylation is increased and nuclear beta-catenin is increased, overall we suggest that the changes we see are likely to represent the effects of decreased BMP signaling along with increased WNT signaling. *

Minor Points:

6.Provide the threshold/cutoff values chosen for differential expressed genes (DEGs) in CHRDL2+ and CHRDL2++ RNA-seq compared with control cells. Explain the minimal overlap between CHRDL2 LOW and CHRDL2 HIGH DEGs. Consider presenting all DEGs in CHRDL2 LOW and CHRDL2 HIGH compared with control cells in one gene expression heatmap for better visualization.

We have now provided the cutoff values for the DEGs in the legend for figure 5 (PThe minimal overlap of DEGs in the low and high expressing cells is an interesting point. We hypothesize that this may be related to the different effects of intermediate vs high levels of WNT signaling that occurs in colon cancer cells, frequently discussed in the literature as the "Just right hypothesis" (Lamlum et al. 1999, Albuquerque et al., 2002, Lewis et al., 2010). However, we haven't included this in the discussion as it merits further exploration. However, we have mainly focused on specific genes that are modified in both data sets, which are more likely to be the direct result of CHRDL2 modification. *

After DEGs analysis, perform Gene Ontology (GO) analysis on these DEGs to further investigate possible gene functions rather than selectively discussing some genes, enhancing understanding of CHRDL2 functions in CRC cells.

We have carried out this analysis using a variety of tools and have now included a Gene Ontology Panther analysis as supplementary figure 7. We have included a comment on this in the text on page 14 saying "Gene ontology analysis supports these findings with enrichment in biological processes such as cellular adhesion, apoptosis and differentiation. "

Conduct similar experiments in both 2D culture and organoid systems, if feasible, to provide more comprehensive insights into CHRDL2's oncogenic roles in CRC tumor progression.

*We have now performed chemotherapy treatment on our organoid systems, and have found that organoids with extrinsic CHRDL2 addition have a higher survival rate after chemotherapy compared to a control (Figure 4H and I). *

Label significance (*, **, ***, and n.s.) for every CRC cell line treated with CHRDL2 in Figure 2D, 2F, 2J, 4G, 5D, and 5F.

We have done this

Label the antibodies with different colors used for immunofluorescence in the figure text in Figure 4E.

We have done this

* * Include replicate dots for the Control group in the bar plots in Figure 1F and 2B.

We have done this

* * Add scale bars in Figure 3A and correct similar issues in other figures if applicable.

We have done this

* *13.Correct grammar and punctuation mistakes throughout the manuscript. For example:

We have done this and further proofread our revised manuscript

Page 7: "As seen in Figure 1J, CHRDL2 overexpression significantly increased the number of migrated cells (P *We have now added additional details about statistical analysis throughout the figures, legend and main text, showing all significance levels as well as non-significance for each data set. * Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

The current study presents compelling evidence demonstrating that BMP signaling antagonist CHRDL2 enhances colon stem cell survival in colorectal cancer cell lines and organoid models. Further validation through CRC mouse models could offer invaluable insights into the clinical relevance and therapeutic implications of CHRDL2 in colorectal cancer.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors describe a framework for working with genotype data and associated metadata, specifically geared towards ancient DNA. The Poseidon framework aims to address long-standing data coordination issues in ancient population genomics research. These issues can usefully be thought of as two primary, separate problems:

(1) The genotype merging problem. Often, genotype calls made by a new study are not made publicly available, or they are only made available in an ad-hoc fashion without consistency in formatting between studies. Other users will typically want to combine genotypes from many previously published studies with their own newly produced genotypes, but a lack of coordination and standards means that this is challenging and time-consuming.

(2) The metadata problem. All genomes need informative metadata to be usable in analyses, and this is even more true for ancient genomes which have temporal and often cultural dimensions to them. In the ancient DNA literature, metadata is often only made available in inconsistently formatted supplementary tables, such that reuse requires painstakingly digging through these to compile, curate and harmonise metadata across many studies.

Poseidon aims to solve both of these problems at the same time, and additionally provide a bit of population genetics analysis functionality. The framework is a quite impressive effort, that clearly has taken a lot of work and thought. It displays a great deal of attention to important aspects of software engineering and reproducibility. How much usage it will receive beyond the authors themselves remains to be seen, as there is always a barrier to entry for any new sophisticated framework. But in any case, it clearly represents a useful contribution to the human ancient genomics community.

The paper is quite straightforward in that it mainly describes the various features of the framework, both the way in which data and metadata are organised, and the various little software tools provided to interact with the data. This is all well-described and should serve as a useful introduction for any users of the framework, and I have no concerns with the presentation of the paper. Perhaps it gets a bit too detailed for my taste at times, but it's up to the authors how they want to write the paper.

I thus have no serious concerns with the paper. I do have some thoughts and comments on the various choices made in the design of the framework, and how these fit into the broader ecosystem of genomics data. I wouldn't necessarily describe much of what follows as criticism of what the authors have done - the authors are of course free to design the framework and software that they want and think will be useful. And the authors clearly have done more than basically anyone else in the field to tackle these issues. But I still put forth the points below to provide some kind of wider discussion within the context of ancient genomics data management and its future.

* * *

The authors state that there is no existing archive for genotype data. This is not quite true. There is the European Variation Archive (EVA, https://www.ebi.ac.uk/eva/), which allows archiving of VCFs and is interlinked to raw data in the ENA/SRA/DDBJ. If appropriately used, the EVA and associated mainstream infrastructure could in principle be put to good use by the ancient genomics community. In practice, it's basically not used at all by the ancient genomics community, and partly this is because EVA doesn't quite provide exactly what's needed (in particular with regards to metadata fields). Poseidon aims to provide a much more custom-tailored solution for the most common use cases within the human ancient DNA field, but it could be argued that such a solution is only needed because the ancient genomics community has largely neglected the mainstream infrastructure. In some sense, by providing such a custom-tailored solution that is largely independent of the mainstream infrastructure, I feel like efforts such as Poseidon (and AADR) - while certainly very useful - might risk contributing to further misaligning the ancient genomics community from the rest of the genomics community, rather than bringing it closer. But the authors cannot really be blamed for that - they are simply providing a resource that will be useful to people given the current state of things.

The BioSamples database (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biosamples/) is an attempt to provide universal sample IDs across the life sciences and is used by the archives for sequence reads (ENA/SRA/DDBJ). Essentially every published ancient sample already has a BioSample accession, because this is required for the submission of sequence reads to ENA/SRA/DDBJ. It would thus have seemed natural to make BioSamples IDs a central component of Poseidon metadata, so as to anchor Poseidon to the mainstream infrastructure, but this is not really done. There are some links being made to ENA in the .ssf "sequence source" files used by the Poseidon package, including sample accessions, but this seems more ad-hoc.

The package uses PLINK and EIGENSTRAT file formats to represent genotypes, which in my view are not particularly good formats for long-term and rigorous data management in genomics. These file formats cannot appropriately represent multiallelic loci, haplotype phase, or store information on genotype qualities, coverage, etc. The standard in the rest of genomics is VCF, a much more robust and flexible format with better software built around it. Insisting on keeping using these arguably outdated formats is one way in which the ancient genomics community risks disaligning itself from the mainstream.

I could not find any discussion of reference genomes: knowing the reference genome coordinate system is essential to using any genotype file. For comparison, in the EVA archive, every VCF dataset has a "Genome Assembly" metadata field specifying the accession number of the reference genome used. It would seem to me like a reference genome field should be part of a Poseidon package too. In practice, the authors likely use some variant of the hg19 / GRCh37 human reference, which is still widely used in ancient genomics despite being over a decade out of date. Insisting on using an outdated reference genome is one way in which the ancient genomics community is disaligning itself from the mainstream, and it complicates comparisons to data from other sub-fields of genomics.

A fundamental issue contributing to the genome merging problem, not unique to ancient DNA, is that genotype files are typically filtered to remove sites that are not polymorphic within the given study - this means that files from two different studies will often contain different and not fully overlapping sets of sites, greatly complicating systematic merging. I don't see any discussion of how Poseidon deals with this. In practice, it seems the authors are primarily concerned with data on the commonly used 1240k array set, such that the set of SNPs is always well-defined. But does Poseidon deal with the more general problem of non-overlapping sites between studies, or is this issue simply left to the user to worry about? This would be of relevance to whole-genome sequencing data, and there are certainly plenty of whole-genome datasets of great interest to the research community (including archaic human genomes, etc).