Memphis decree

The decree in three languages: 1. Greek: the language of the ptolemaic dynasty 2. Egyptian hieroglyphics for the priests and 3. Demotic for the common people

See below:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Olmstead et al. present a single-cell nuclear sequencing dataset that interrogates how hippocampal gene expression changes in response to distinct physiological stimuli and across circadian time. The authors perform single-nucleus RNA sequencing on mouse hippocampal tissue after (1) kainic acid-induced seizure, (2) exposure to an enriched environment, and (3) at multiple circadian phases.

The dataset is rigorously collected, and a major strength is the use of the previously established ABC taxonomy from Yao et al. (2023) to define cell types. The authors further show that this taxonomy is largely independent of activity-driven transcriptional programs. Using these annotations, they examine activity-regulated gene expression across neuronal and glial subclasses. They identify ZT12, corresponding to the transition from the light to the dark period, as transcriptionally distinct from other circadian time points, and show that this pattern is conserved across many cell types. Finally, they test how circadian phase influences activity-dependent gene expression by exposing mice to an enriched environment at different times of day, and report no significant interaction between circadian phase and enriched environment exposure.

A crucial consideration for users of this dataset is the potential confounding effect between circadian phase and locomotor activity. This is particularly relevant because dentate gyrus activity is strongly modulated by locomotion. The authors acknowledge this issue in the Discussion and provide useful guidance for how to interpret their findings, considering this confound.

Taken together, this dataset represents a useful resource for the neuroscience community, particularly for investigators interested in how novel experience and circadian phase shape activity-related and immediate early gene expression in the hippocampus

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This manuscript presents the ACT-DEPP dataset, a comprehensive single-nucleus RNA-sequencing atlas of the mouse hippocampus that examines how activity-dependent and circadian transcriptional programs intersect. The dataset spans multiple experimental conditions and circadian time points, clarifying how cell-type identity relates to transcriptional state. In particular, the authors compare stimulus-evoked activity programs (environmental enrichment and kainate-induced seizures) with circadian phase-dependent transcriptional oscillations. They also identify a transcriptional inflection point near ZT12 and argue that immediate early gene (IEG) induction is broadly maintained across circadian phases, with minimal ZT-dependent modulation.

Strengths:

The study is ambitious in scope and data volume, and outlines the data-processing and atlas-registration workflows. The side-by-side treatment of stimulus paradigms and ZT sampling provides a coherent framework for parsing state (activity) from phase (circadian) across diverse neuronal and non-neuronal classes. Several findings - especially the ZT12 "inflection" and the differential sensitivity of pathways across subclasses - are intriguing.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors acknowledge, but do not adequately address, the fundamental confounding factor between circadian phase and spontaneous locomotor activity. The assertion that these represent "orthogonal regulatory axes," based on largely non-overlapping DEGs, may be overstated. The absence of behavioral monitoring during baseline is a major limitation.

(2) The statement "Thus, novel experiences and seizures trigger categorically distinct transcriptional responses-with respect to both magnitude and specific genes-in these hippocampal subregions" is overstated, given the data presented. Figure 2A-B shows that approximately one-third of EE-induced DEGs at 30 minutes overlap with KA DEGs, and this overlap increases substantially at 6 hours in CA1 (where EE and KA responses become "fully shared"). This suggests the responses are quantitatively different rather than "categorically distinct."

(3) In Figure 4B, "active cells" are defined as those with {greater than or equal to}3 of 15 IEGs above the 90th percentile, with thresholds apparently calibrated in CA1. Because baseline expression distributions differ across subclasses, this rule can bias activation rates across cell types.

(4) Few genes show significant ZT × stimulus (EE or seizure) interactions, concentrated in neuronal populations. Given unequal nucleus counts and biological replicates across subclasses, small effects may be underpowered.

(5) In Figure 6 I, J, the relationship between the highlighted pathways/functions and circadian phase is not yet explicit.

(6) Line 276-280: The enrichment of lncRNAs at ZT12 in CA1 is intriguing but underdeveloped. What are these lncRNAs, and what might they regulate?

Overall, most descriptive conclusions are supported (e.g., broad phase-robustness of classical IEGs; an inflection near ZT12). Claims about the separability/orthogonality of activity vs circadian programs, and about categorical distinctions between EE and KA responses, would benefit from more conservative wording or additional analyses to rule out behavioral and power-related alternatives.

Maybe a reference here to the functional purpose of dermal papillae in improving grip.

Do we want to split the hair that hypodermis is technically not part of the skin, but supports the skin and attaches it to the muscle beneath?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors use calcium recordings from STN to measure STN activity during spontaneous movement and in a multi-stage avoidance paradigm. They also use optogenetic inhibition and lesion approaches to test the role of STN during the avoidance paradigm. The paper reports a large amount of data and makes many claims, some seem well supported to this Reviewer, others not so much.

Strengths:

Well-supported claims include data showing that during spontaneous movements, especially contraversive ones, STN calcium activity is increased using bulk photometry measurements. Single-cell measures back this claim but also show that it is only a minority of STN cells that respond strongly, with most showing no response during movement, and a similar number showing smaller inhibitions during movement.

Photometry data during cued active avoidance procedures show that STN calcium activity sharply increases in response to auditory cues, and during cued movements to avoid a footshock. Optogenetic and lesion experiments are consistent with an important role for STN in generating cue-evoked avoidance. And a strength of these results is that multiple approaches were used.

Original Weaknesses:

I found the experimental design and presentation convoluted and some of the results over-interpreted.

As presented, I don't understand this idea that delayed movement is necessarily indicative of cautious movements. Is the distribution of responses multi-modal in a way that might support this idea; or do the authors simply take a normal distribution and assert that the slower responses represent 'caution'? Even if responses are multi-modal and clearly distinguished by 'type', why should readers think this that delayed responses imply cautious responding instead of say: habituation or sensitization to cue/shock, variability in attention, motivation, or stress; or merely uncertainty which seems plausible given what I understand of the task design where the same mice are repeatedly tested in changing conditions. This relates to a major claim (i.e., in the title).

Related to the last, I'm struggling to understand the rationale for dividing cells into 'types' based the their physiological responses in some experiments.

In several figures the number of subjects used was not described. This is necessary. Also necessary is some assessment of the variability across subjects. The only measure of error shown in many figures relates trial-to-trial or event variability, which is minimal because in many cases it appears that hundreds of trials may have been averaged per animal, but this doesn't provide a strong view of biological variability (i.e., are results consistent across animals?).

It is not clear if or how spread of expression outside of target STN was evaluated, and if or how or how many mice were excluded due to spread or fiber placements. Inadequate histological validation is presented and neighboring regions that would be difficult to completely avoid, such as paraSTN may be contributing to some of the effects.

Raw example traces are not provided.

The timeline of the spontaneous movement and avoidance sessions were not clear, nor the number of events or sessions per animal and how this was set. It is not clear if there was pre-training or habituation, if many or variable sessions were combined per animal, or what the time gaps between sessions was, or if or how any of these parameters might influence interpretation of the results.

Comments on revised version:

The authors removed the optogenetic stimulation experiments, but then also added a lot of new analyses. Overall the scope of their conclusions are essentially unchanged.

Part of the eLife model is to leave it to the authors discretion how they choose to present their work. But my overall view of it is unchanged. There are elements that I found clear, well executed, and compelling. But other elements that I found difficult to understand and where I could not follow or concur with their conclusions.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

(1) Vglut2 isn't a very selective promoter for the STN. Did the authors verify every injection across brain slices to ensure the para-subthalamic nucleus, thalamus, lateral hypothalamus, and other Vglut2-positive structures were never infected?

The STN is anatomically well-confined, with its borders and the overlying zona incerta (composed of GABAergic neurons) providing protection against off-target expression in most neighboring forebrain regions. All viral injections were histologically verified and did not into extend into thalamic or hypothalamic areas. As described in the Methods, we employed an app we developed (Brain Atlas Analyzer, available on OriginLab) that aligns serial histological sections with the Allen Brain Atlas to precisely assess viral spread and confirm targeting accuracy. The experiments included in the revised manuscript now focus on optogenetic inhibition and irreversible lesion approaches—three complementary methods that consistently targeted the STN and yielded similar behavioral effects.

(2) The authors say in the methods that the high vs low power laser activation for optogenetic experiments was defined by the behavioral output. This is misleading, and the high vs low power should be objectively stated and the behavioral results divided according to the power used, not according to the behavioral outcome.

Optogenetic excitation is no longer part of the study.

(3) In the fiber photometry experiments exposing mice to the range of tones, it is impossible to separate the STN response to the tone from the STN response to the movement evoked by the tone. The authors should expose the mouse to the tones in a condition that prevents movement, such as anesthetized or restrained, to separate out the two components.

The new mixed-effects modeling approach clearly differentiates sensory (auditory) from motor contributions during tone-evoked STN activation. In prior work (see Hormigo et al, 2023, eLife), we explored experimental methods such as head restraint or anesthesia to reduce movement, but we concluded that these approaches are unsuitable for addressing this question. Mice exhibit substantial residual movement even when head-fixed, and anesthesia profoundly alters neural excitability and behavioral state, introducing major confounds. To fully eliminate movement would require paralysis and artificial ventilation, which would again disrupt physiological network dynamics and raise ethical concerns. Therefore, the current modeling approach—incorporating window-specific covariates for movement—is the most appropriate and rigorous way to dissociate tone-evoked sensory activity from motor activity in behaving animals.

(4) The claim 'STN activation is ideally suited to drive active avoids' needs more explanation. This claim comes after the fiber photometry experiments during active avoidance tasks, so there has been no causality established yet.

Text adjusted. 

(5) The statistical comparisons in Figure 7E need some justification and/or clarification. The 9 neuron types are originally categorized based on their response during avoids, then statistics are run showing that they respond differently during avoids. It is no surprise that they would have significantly different responses, since that is how they were classified in the first place. The authors must explain this further and show that this is not a case of circular reasoning.

Statistically verifying the clustering is useful to ensure that the selected number of clusters reflects distinct classes. It is also necessary when different measurements are used to classify (movement time series classified the avoids) and to compare neuronal types within each avoid mode/class (know called “mode”). Moreover, the new modeling approach goes beyond the prior statistical limitations related to considering movement and neuronal variables separately. 

(6) The authors show that neurons that have strong responses to orientation show reduced activity during avoidance. What are the implications of this? The author should explain why this is interesting and important.

The new modeling approach goes beyond the prior analysis limitations. For instance, it shows that most of the prior orienting related activations closely reflect the orienting movement, and only in a few cases (noted and discussed in the results) orienting activations are related to the behavioral contingencies or behavioral outcomes in the task. 

(8) The experiments in Figure 10 are used to say that STN stimulation is not aversive, but they only show that STN stimulation cannot be used as punishment in place of a shock. This doesn't mean that it is not aversive; it just means it is not as aversive as a shock. The authors should do a simpler aversion test, such as conditioned or real-time place preference, to claim that STN stimulation is not aversive. This is particularly surprising as previous work (Serra et al., 2023) does show that STN stimulation is aversive.

Optogenetic excitation is no longer part of the study. 

(7) It is not clear which conditions each mouse experienced in which order. This is critical to the interpretation of Figure 9 and the reduction of passive avoids during STN stimulation. Did these mice have the CS1+STN stimulation pairing or the STN+US pairing prior to this experiment? If they did, the stimulation of the STN could be strongly associated with either punishment or with the CS1 that predicts punishment. If that is the case, stimulating the STN during CS2 could be like presenting CS1+CS2 at the same time and could be confusing.

Optogenetic excitation is no longer part of the study. 

(8) The experiments in Figure 10 are used to say that STN stimulation is not aversive, but they only show that STN stimulation cannot be used as punishment in place of a shock. This doesn't mean that it is not aversive; it just means it is not as aversive as a shock. The authors should do a simpler aversion test, such as conditioned or real-time place preference, to claim that STN stimulation is not aversive. This is particularly surprising as previous work (Serra et al., 2023) does show that STN stimulation is aversive.

Optogenetic excitation is no longer part of the study.

(9) In the discussion, the idea that the STN encodes 'moving away' from contralateral space is pretty vague and unsupported. It is puzzling that the STN activates more strongly to contraversive turns, but when stimulated, it evokes ipsiversive turns; however, it seems a stretch to speculate that this is related to avoidance. In the last experiments of the paper, the axons from the STN to the GPe and to the midbrain are selectively stimulated. Do these evoke ipsiversive turns similarly?

Optogenetic excitation is no longer part of the study. 

(10) In the discussion, the authors claim that the STN is essential for modulating action timing in response to demands, but their data really only show this in one direction. The STN stimulation reliably increases the speed of response in all conditions (except maximum speed conditions such as escapes). It seems to be over-interpreting the data to say this is an inability to modulate the speed of the task, especially as clear learning and speed modulation do occur under STN lesion conditions, as shown in Figure 12B. The mice learn to avoid and increase their latency in AA2 vs AA1, though the overall avoids and latency are different from controls. The more parsimonious conclusion would be that STN stimulation biases movement speed (increasing it) and that this is true in many different conditions.

Optogenetic excitation is no longer part of the study.

(11)  In the discussion, the authors claim that the STN projections to the midbrain tegmentum directly affect the active avoidance behavior, while the STN projections to the SNr do not affect it. This seems counter to their results, which show STN projections to either area can alter active avoidance behavior. What is the laser power used in these terminal experiments? If it is high (3mW), the authors may be causing antidromic action potentials in the STN somas, resulting in glutamate release in many brain areas, even when terminals are only stimulated in one area. The authors could use low (0.25mW) laser power in the terminals to reduce the chance of antidromic activation and spatially restrict the optical stimulation.

Optogenetic excitation is no longer part of the study. 

(12) Was normality tested for data prior to statistical testing?

Yes, although now we use mixed models

(13) Why are there no error bars on Figure 5B, black circles and orange triangles?

When error bars are not visible, they are smaller than the trace thickness or bar line—for example, in Figure 5B, the black circles and orange triangles include error bars, but they are smaller than the symbol size.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

(1) I really don't understand or accept this idea that delayed movement is necessarily indicative of cautious movements. Is the distribution of responses multi-modal in a way that might support this idea, or do the authors simply take a normal distribution and assert that the slower responses represent 'caution'? Even if responses are multi-modal and clearly distinguished by 'type', why should readers think this that delayed responses imply cautious responding instead of say: habituation or sensitization to cue/shock, variability in attention, motivation, or stress; or merely uncertainty which seems plausible given what I understand of the task design where the same mice are repeatedly tested in changing conditions. This relates to a major claim (i.e., in the work's title).

In our study, “caution” is defined operationally as the tendency to delay initiation of an avoidance response in demanding situations (e.g., taking more time or care before crossing a busy street). The increase in avoidance latency with task difficulty is highly robust, as we have shown previously through detailed analyses of timing distributions and direct comparisons with appetitive behaviors (e.g., Zhou et al., 2022 JNeurosci). Moreover, we used the tracked movement time series to statistically classify responses into cautious modes, which is likely novel. This definition can dissociate cautious responding from broader constructs listed by a reviewer, such as attention, motivation, or stress, which must be explicitly defined to be rigorously considered in this context, including the likelihood that they covary with caution without being equivalent to it. 

Cue-evoked orienting responses at CS onset are directly measured, and their habituation and sensitization have been characterized in our prior work (e.g., Zhou et al., 2023 JNeurosci). US-evoked escapes are also measured in the present study and directly compared with avoidance responses. Together, these analyses provide a rigorous and consistent framework for defining and quantifying caution within our behavioral procedures.

Importantly, mice exhibit cautious responding as defined here across different tasks, making it more informative to classify avoidance responses by behavioral mode rather than by task alone. Accordingly, in the miniscope, single-neuron, and mixed-effects model analyses, we classified active avoids into distinct modes reflecting varying levels of caution. Although these modes covary with task contingencies, their explicit classification improves model predictability and interpretability with respect to cautious responding.

(2) Related to the last, I'm struggling to understand the rationale for dividing cells into 'types' based the their physiological responses in some experiments (e.g., Figure 7).

This section has now been expanded into 3 figures (Fig. 7-9) with new modeling approaches that should make the rationale more straight forward.

By emphasizing the mixed-effects modeling results and integrating these analyses directly into the figures, the revised manuscript now more clearly delineates what is encoded at the population and single-neuron levels. Including movement and baseline covariates allowed us to dissociate motor-related modulation from other neural signals, substantially clarifying the distinction between movement encoding and other task-related variables, which we focus on in the paper. These analyses confirm the strong role of the STN in representing movement while revealing additional signals related to aversive stimulation and cautious responding that persist after accounting for motor effects. These signals arise from distinct neuronal populations that can be differentiated by their movement sensitivity and activation patterns across avoidance modes, reflecting varying levels of caution. At the same time, several effects that initially reflected orienting-related activity at CS-onset (note that our movement tracking captures both head position and orientation as a directional vector) dissipated once movement and baseline covariates were included in the models, emphasizing the utility of the analytical improvements in the revision.

(3)The description and discussion of orienting head movements were not well supported, but were much discussed in the avoidance datasets. The initial speed peaks to cue seem to be the supporting data upon which these claims rest, but nothing here suggests head movement or orientation responses.

As described in the methods (and noted above), we track the head and decompose the movement into rotational and translational components. With the new approach, several effects that initially reflected orienting-related activity at CS-onset (note that our movement tracking captures both head position and orientation as a directional vector) dissipated once movement and baseline covariates were included in the models, emphasizing the utility of the analytical improvements in the revision.

(4) Similar to the last, the authors note in several places, including abstract, the importance of STN in response timing, i.e., particularly when there must be careful or precise timing, but I don't think their data or task design provides a strong basis for this claim.

The avoidance modes and the measured latencies directly support the relation to action timing, but now the portion of the previous paper about optogenetic excitation and apparently the main source of criticism is no longer in the present study. 

(5) I think that other reports show that STN calcium activity is recruited by inescapable foot shock as well. What do these authors see? Is shock, independent of movement, contributing to sharp signals during escapes?

The question, “Is shock, independent of movement, contributing to sharp signals during escapes?” is now directly addressed in the revised analyses. By incorporating movement and baseline covariates into the mixed-effects models, we dissociate STN activity related to aversive stimulation from that associated with motor output. The results show that shock-evoked STN activation persists even after controlling for movement within defined neuronal populations, supporting a specific nociceptive contribution independent of motor dynamics—a dissociation that appears to be new in this field.

(6) In particular, and related to the last point, the following work is very relevant and should be cited:  Note that the focus of this other paper is on a subset of VGLUT2+ Tac1 neurons in paraSTN, but using VGLUT2-Cre to target STN will target both STN and paraSTN.

We appreciate the reviewer’s reference to the recent preprint highlighting the role of the para-subthalamic nucleus in avoidance learning. However, our study focused specifically on performance in well-trained mice rather than on learning processes. Behavioral learning is inherently more variable and can be disrupted by less specific manipulations, whereas our experiments targeted the stable execution of learned avoidance behaviors. Future work will extend these findings to the learning phase and examine potential contributions of subthalamic subdivisions, which our current Vglut2-based manipulations do not dissociate. We will consider this and related work more closely in those studies.

(7) In multiple other instances, claims that were more tangential to the main claims were made without clearly supporting data or statistics. E.g., claim that STN activation is related to translational more than rotational movement; claim that GCaMP and movement responses to auditory cues were small; claims that 'some animals' responded differently without showing individual data.

We have adjusted the text accordingly.

(8) In several figures, the number of subjects used was not described. This is necessary. Also necessary is some assessment of the variability across subjects. The only measure of error shown in many figures relates to trial-to-trial or event variability, which is minimal because, in many cases, it appears that hundreds of trials may have been averaged per animal, but this doesn't provide a strong view of biological variability. When bar/line plots are used to display data, I recommend showing individual animals where feasible.

All experiments report number of mice and sessions. Wherever feasible, we display individual data points (e.g., Figures 1 and 2) to convey variability directly. However, in cases where figures depict hundreds of paired (repeated-measures) data points, showing all points without connecting them would not be appropriate, while linking them would make the figures visually cluttered and uninterpretable. All plots and traces include measures of variability (SEM), and the raw data will be shared on Dryad. When error bars are not visible, they are smaller than the trace thickness or bar line—for example, in Figure 5B, the black circles and orange triangles include error bars, but they are smaller than the symbol size.

Also, to minimize visual clutter, only a subset of relevant comparisons is highlighted with asterisks, whereas all relevant statistical results, comparisons, and mouse/session numbers are fully reported in the Results section, with statistical analyses accounting for the clustering of data within subjects and sessions.

(9) Can the authors consider the extent to which calcium imaging may be better suited to identify increases compared to decreases and how this may affect the results, particularly related to the GRIN data when similar numbers of cells show responses in both directions (e.g., Figure 3)?

This is an interesting issue related to a widely used technique beyond the scope of our study.

(10) Raw example traces are not provided.

We do not think raw traces are useful here. All figures contain average traces to reflect the activity of the estimated population.

(11) The timeline of the spontaneous movement and avoidance sessions was not clear, nor was the number of events or sessions per animal nor how this was set. It is not clear if there was pre-training or habituation, if many or variable sessions were combined per animal, or what the time gaps between sessions were, or if or how any of these parameters might influence interpretation of the results.

We have enhanced the description of the sessions, including the number of animals and sessions, which are daily and always equal per animals in each group of experiments. As noted, the sessions are part of the random effects in the model.

(12) It is not clear if or how the spread of expression outside of the target STN was evaluated, and if or how many mice were excluded due to spread or fiber placements.

The STN is anatomically well-confined, with its borders and the overlying zona incerta (composed of GABAergic neurons) providing protection against off-target expression in most neighboring forebrain regions. All viral injections were histologically verified and did not into extend into thalamic or hypothalamic areas. As described in the Methods, we employed an app we developed (Brain Atlas Analyzer, available on OriginLab) that aligns serial histological sections with the Allen Brain Atlas to precisely assess viral spread and confirm targeting accuracy. The experiments included in the revised manuscript now focus on optogenetic inhibition and irreversible lesion approaches—three complementary methods that consistently targeted the STN and yielded similar behavioral effects.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewing Editor Comments:

The primary feedback agreed upon by all the reviewers was that the manuscript requires significant streamlining as it is currently overly long and convoluted.

We thank the reviewers and editors for their thoughtful and constructive feedback. In response to the primary comment that “the manuscript requires significant streamlining as it is currently overly long and convoluted,” we have substantially revised and refocused the paper. Specifically, we streamlined the included data and enhanced the analyses to emphasize the central findings: the encoding of movement, cautious responding, and punishment in the STN during avoidance behavior. We also focused the causal component of the study by including only the loss-of-function experiments—both optogenetic inhibition and irreversible viral/electrolytic lesions—that establish the critical role of STN circuits in generating active avoidance. Together, these revisions enhance clarity, tighten the narrative focus, and align the manuscript more closely with the reviewers’ recommendations.

Major revisions include the addition of mixed-effects modeling to dissociate the contributions of movement from other STN-encoded signals related to caution and punishment. This modeling approach allowed us to reveal that these components are statistically separable, demonstrating that movement, cautious responding, and aversive input are encoded by neuronal subsets. To streamline the manuscript and address reviewer concerns, we removed the optogenetic excitation experiments. As revised, the paper presents a more concise and cohesive narrative showing that STN neurons differentially encode movement, caution, and aversive stimuli, and that this circuitry is essential for generating active avoidance behavior.

Many of the specific points raised by reviewers now fall outside the scope of the revised manuscript. This is primarily because the revised version omits data and analyses related to optogenetic excitation and associated control experiments. By removing these components, the paper now presents a streamlined and internally consistent dataset focused on how the STN encodes movement, cautious responding, and aversive outcomes during avoidance behavior, as well as on loss-of-function experiments demonstrating its necessity for generating active avoidance. Below, we address the points that remain relevant across reviews.

Following extensive revisions, the current manuscript differs in several important ways from what the assessment describes:

The description that the study “uses fiber photometry, implantable lenses, and optogenetics” is more accurately represented as using both fiber photometry and singleneuron calcium imaging with miniscopes, combined with optogenetic and irreversible lesion approaches.

The phrase stating that “active but not passive avoidance depends in part on STN projections to substantia nigra” is better characterized as “STN projections to the midbrain,” since our data show that optogenetic inhibition of STN terminals in both the mesencephalic reticular tegmentum (MRT) and substantia nigra pars reticulata (SNr) produce equivalent effects, and thus these sites are combined in the study. 

Finally, the original concern that evidence for STN involvement in cautious responding or avoidance speed was incomplete no longer applies. The revised focus on encoding, through the inclusion of mixed-effects modeling, now dissociates movement-related, cautious, and aversive components of STN activity. By removing the optogenetic excitation data, we no longer claim that the STN controls caution but rather that it encodes cautious responding, alongside movement and punishment signals. Furthermore, loss-of-function experiments demonstrate that silencing STN output abolishes active avoidance entirely, supporting an essential role for the STN in generating goal-directed avoidance behavior—a behavioral domain that, unlike appetitive responding, is fundamentally defined by caution and the need to balance action timing under threat.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Show individual data points on bar plots.

Wherever feasible, we display individual data points (e.g., Figures 1 and 2) to convey variability directly. However, in cases where figures depict hundreds of paired (repeatedmeasures) data points, showing all points without connecting them would not be appropriate, while linking them would make the figures visually cluttered and uninterpretable. All plots and traces include measures of variability (SEM), and the raw data will be shared on Dryad. When error bars are not visible, they are smaller than the trace thickness or bar line—for example, in Figure 5B, the black circles and orange triangles include error bars, but they are smaller than the symbol size.

Also, to minimize visual clutter, only a subset of relevant comparisons is highlighted with asterisks, whereas all relevant statistical results, comparisons, and mouse/session numbers are fully reported in the Results section, with statistical analyses accounting for the clustering of data within subjects and sessions.

(2) The active avoidance experiments are confusing when they are introduced in the results section. More explanation of what paradigms were used and what each CS means at the time these are introduced would add clarity. For example, AA1, AA2, etc, are explained only with references to other papers, but a brief description of each protocol and a schematic figure would really help.

The avoidance protocols (AA1–4) are now described briefly but clearly in the Results section (second paragraph of “STN neurons activate during goal-directed avoidance contingencies”) and in greater detail in the Methods section. As stated, these tasks were conducted sequentially, and mice underwent the same number of sessions per procedure, which are indicated. All relevant procedural information has been included in these sections. Mice underwent daily sessions and learnt these tasks within 1-2 sessions, progressing sequentially across tasks with an equal number of sessions per task (7 per task), and the resulting data were combined and clustered by mouse/session in the statistical models.

(3) How do the Class 1, 2, 3 avoids relate to Class 1, 2, 3 neural types established in Figure 3? It seems like they are not related, and if that is the case, they should be named something different from each other to avoid confusion. (4) Similarly, having 3 different cell types (a,b,c) in the active avoidance seems unrelated to the original classification of cell types (1,2,3), and these are different for each class of avoid. This is very confusing, and it is unclear how any of these types relate to each other. Presumably, the same mouse has all three classes of avoids, so there are recordings from each cell during each type of avoid.

The terms class, mode, and type are now clearly distinguished throughout the manuscript. Modes refer to distinct patterns of avoidance behavior that differ in the level of cautious responding (Mode 3 is most cautious). Within each mode, types denote subgroups of neurons identified based on their ΔF/F activity profiles. In contrast, classes categorize neurons according to their relationship to movement, determined by cross-correlation analyses between ΔF/F and head speed (Class1-4; Fig. 7 is a new analysis) or head turns (ClassA-C, renamed from 1-3). This updated terminology clarifies the analytic structure, highlighting distinct neuronal populations within each analysis. For example, during avoidance behaviors, these classifications distinguish neurons encoding movement-, caution-, and outcome-related signals. Comparisons are conducted within each analytical set, within classes (A-C or 1-4 separately), within avoidance modes, or within modespecific neuronal types.

…So the authors could compare one cell during each avoid and determine whether it relates to movement or sound, or something else. It is interesting that types a,b, and c have the exact same proportions in each class of avoid, and makes it important to investigate if these are the exact same cells or not.

That previous table with the a,b,c % in the three figure panels was a placeholder, which was not updated in the included figure. It has now been correctly updated. They do not have the same proportions as shown in Fig. 9, although they are similar.

Also, these mice could be recorded during the open field, so the original neural classification (class 1, 2,3) could be applied to these same cells, and then the authors can see whether each cell type defined in the open field has a different response to the different avoid types. As it stands, the paper simply finds that during movement and during avoidance behaviors, different cells in the STN do different things.

We included a new analysis in Fig. 7 that classifies neurons based on the cross-correlation with movement. The inclusion of the models now clearly assigns variance to movement versus the other factors, and this analysis leads to the classification based on avoid modes. 

(5) The use of the same colors to mean two different things in Figure 9 is confusing. AA1 vs AA2 shouldn't be the same colors as light-naïve vs light signaling CS.

Optogenetic excitation is no longer part of the study.

(6) The exact timeline of the optogenetics experiments should be presented as a schematic for understanding. It is not clear which conditions each mouse experienced in which order. This is critical to the interpretation of Figure 9 and the reduction of passive avoids during STN stimulation. Did these mice have the CS1+STN stimulation pairing or the STN+US pairing prior to this experiment? If they did, the stimulation of the STN could be strongly associated with either punishment or with the CS1that predicts punishment. If that is the case, stimulating the STN during CS2 could be like presentingCS1+CS2 at the same time and could be confusing. The authors should make it clear whether the mice were naïve during this passive avoid experiment or whether they had experienced STN stimulation paired with anything prior to this experiment.

Optogenetic excitation is no longer part of the study.

(20) Similarly, the duration of the STN stimulation should be made clear on the plots that show behavior over time (e.g., Figure 9E).

Optogenetic excitation is no longer part of the study.

(21) There is just so much data and so many conditions for each experiment here. The paper is dense and difficult to read. It would really benefit readability if the authors put only the key experiments and key figure panels in the main text and moved much of the repetitive figure panels to supplemental figures. The addition of schematic drawings for behavioral experiment timing and for the different AA1, AA2, and AA3 conditions would also really improve clarity.

By focusing the study, we believe it has substantially improved clarity and readability. 

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Minor error in results 'Cre-AAV in the STN of Vglut2-Cre' Fixed.

(2) In some Figure 2 panels, the peaks appear to be cut off, and blue traces are obscured by red.

In Fig. 2, the peaks of movement (speed) traces are intentionally truncated to emphasize the rising phase of the turn, which would otherwise be obscured if the full y-axis range were displayed (peaks and other measures are statistically compared). This adjustment enhances clarity without omitting essential detail and is now noted in the legend.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This is an impressive paper that offers a much-needed 3D standardized brain atlas for the hackled-orb weaving spider Uloborus diversus, an emerging organism of study in neuroethology. The authors used a detailed immunohistological wholemount staining method that allowed them to localize a wide range of common neurotransmitters and neuropeptides and map them on a common brain atlas. Through this approach, they discovered groups of cells that may form parts of neuropils that had not previously been described, such as the 'tonsillar neuropil', which might be part of a larger insect-like central complex. Further, this work provides unique insights into previously underappreciated complexity of higher-order neuropils in spiders, particularly the arcuate body, and hints at a potentially important role for the mushroom bodies in vibratory processing for web-building spiders.

Strengths:

To understand brain function, data from many experiments on brain structure must be compiled to serve as a reference and foundation for future work. As demonstrated by the overwhelming success in genetically tractable laboratory animals, 3D standardized brain atlases are invaluable tools-especially as increasing amounts of data are obtained at the gross morphological, synaptic, and genetic levels, and as functional data from electrophysiology and imaging are integrated. Among 'non-model' organisms, such approaches have included global silver staining and confocal microscopy, MRI, and more recently, micro-computed tomography (X-ray) scans used to image multiple brains and average them into a composite reference. In this study, the authors used synapsin immunoreactivity to generate an averaged spider brain as a scaffold for mapping immunoreactivity to other neuromodulators. Using this framework, they describe many previously known spider brain structures and also identify some previously undescribed regions. They argue that the arcuate body-a midline neuropil thought to have diverged evolutionarily from the insect central complex-shows structural similarities that may support its role in path integration and navigation.

Having diverged from insects such as the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster over 400 million years ago, spiders are an important group for study-particularly due to their elegant web-building behavior, which is thought to have contributed to their remarkable evolutionary success. How such exquisitely complex behavior is supported by a relatively small brain remains unclear. A rich tradition of spider neuroanatomy emerged in the previous century through the work of comparative zoologists, who used reduced silver and Golgi stains to reveal remarkable detail about gross neuroanatomy. Yet, these techniques cannot uncover the brain's neurochemical landscape, highlighting the need for more modern approaches-such as those employed in the present study.

A key insight from this study involves two prominent higher-order neuropils of the protocerebrum: the arcuate body and the mushroom bodies. The authors show that the arcuate body has a more complex structure and lamination than previously recognized, suggesting it is insect central complex-like and may support functions such as path integration and navigation, which are critical during web building. They also report strong synapsin immunoreactivity in the mushroom bodies and speculate that these structures contribute to vibratory processing during sensory feedback, particularly in the context of web building and prey localization. These findings align with prior work that noted the complex architecture of both neuropils in spiders and their resemblance (and in some cases greater complexity) compared to their insect counterparts. Additionally, the authors describe previously unrecognized neuropils, such as the 'tonsillar neuropil,' whose function remains unknown but may belong to a larger central complex. The diverse patterns of neuromodulator immunoreactivity further suggest that plasticity plays a substantial role in central circuits.

Weaknesses:

My major concern, however, is some of the authors' neuroanatomical descriptions rely too heavily on inference rather than what is currently resolvable from their immunohistochemistry stains alone.

Comments on revisions:

I thought that the authors did an excellent job responding to the reviews, and I have no further comments.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Artiushin et al. establish a comprehensive 3D atlas of the brain of the orb-web building spider Uloborus diversus. First, they use immunohistochemistry detection of synapsin to mark and reconstruct the neuropils of the brain of six specimens and they generate a standard brain by averaging these brains. Onto this standard 3D brain, they plot immunohistochemical stainings of major transmitters to detect cholinergic, serotonergic, octopaminergic/taryminergic and GABAergic neurons, respectively. Further, they add information on the expression of a number of neuropeptides (Proctolin, AllatostatinA, CCAP, and FMRFamide). Based on this data and 3D reconstructions, they extensively describe the morphology of the entire synganglion, the discernible neuropils, and their neurotransmitter/neuromodulator content.

Strengths:

While 3D reconstruction of spider brains and the detection of some neuroactive substances have been published before, this seems to be the most comprehensive analysis so far, both in terms of the number of substances tested and the ambition to analyze the entire synganglion. Interestingly, besides the previously described neuropils, they detect a novel brain structure, which they call the tonsillar neuropil.<br /> Immunohistochemistry, imaging, and 3D reconstruction are convincingly done, and the data are extensively visualized in figures, schemes, and very useful films, which allow the reader to work with the data. Due to its comprehensiveness, this dataset will be a valuable reference for researchers working on spider brains or on the evolution of arthropod brains.

Weaknesses:

As expected for such a descriptive groundwork, new insights or hypotheses are limited, apart from the first description of the tonsillar neuropil. A more comprehensive labeling in the panels of the mentioned structures would help to follow the descriptions. The reconstruction of the main tracts of the brain would be a very valuable complementary piece of data.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary

Artiushin et al. created the first three-dimensional atlas of a synganglion in the hackled orb-weaver spider, which is becoming a popular model for web-building behavior. Immunohistochemical analysis with an impressive array of antisera reveals subcompartments of neuroanatomical structures described in other spider species as well as two previously undescribed arachnid structures, the protocerebral bridge, hagstone, and paired tonsillar neuropils. The authors describe the spider's neuroanatomy in detail and discuss similarities and differences from other spider species. The final section of the discussion examines the homology between onychophoran and chelicerate arcuate bodies and mandibulate central bodies.

Strengths

The authors set out to create a detailed 3D atlas and accomplished this goal.

Exceptional tissue clearing and imaging of the nervous system reveal the three-dimensional relationships between neuropils and some connectivity that would not be apparent in sectioned brains.

A detailed anatomical description makes it easy to reference structures described between the text and figures.

The authors used a large palette of antisera which may be investigated in future studies for function in the spider nervous system and may be compared across species.

Weaknesses

It would be useful for non-specialists if the authors would introduce each neuropil with some orientation about its function or what kind of input/output it receives, if this is known for other species. Especially those structures that are not described in other arthropods, like the opisthosomal neuropil. Are there implications for neuroanatomical findings in this paper on the understanding of how web-building behaviors are mediated by the brain?

Likewise, where possible, it would be helpful to have some discussion of the implications of certain neurotransmitters/neuropeptides being enriched in different areas. For example, GABA would signal areas of inhibitory connections, such as inhibitory input to mushroom bodies, as described in other arthropods. In the discussion section on relationships between spider and insect midline neuropils, are there similarities in expression patterns between those described here and in insects?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This is an impressive paper that offers a much-needed 3D standardized brain atlas for the hackled-orb weaving spider Uloborus diversus, an emerging organism of study in neuroethology. The authors used a detailed immunohistological whole-mount staining method that allowed them to localize a wide range of common neurotransmitters and neuropeptides and map them on a common brain atlas. Through this approach, they discovered groups of cells that may form parts of neuropils that had not previously been described, such as the 'tonsillar neuropil', which might be part of a larger insect-like central complex. Further, this work provides unique insights into the previously underappreciated complexity of higher-order neuropils in spiders, particularly the arcuate body, and hints at a potentially important role for the mushroom bodies in vibratory processing for web-building spiders.

Strengths:

To understand brain function, data from many experiments on brain structure must be compiled to serve as a reference and foundation for future work. As demonstrated by the overwhelming success in genetically tractable laboratory animals, 3D standardized brain atlases are invaluable tools - especially as increasing amounts of data are obtained at the gross morphological, synaptic, and genetic levels, and as functional data from electrophysiology and imaging are integrated. Among 'non-model' organisms, such approaches have included global silver staining and confocal microscopy, MRI, and, more recently, micro-computed tomography (X-ray) scans used to image multiple brains and average them into a composite reference. In this study, the authors used synapsin immunoreactivity to generate an averaged spider brain as a scaffold for mapping immunoreactivity to other neuromodulators. Using this framework, they describe many previously known spider brain structures and also identify some previously undescribed regions. They argue that the arcuate body - a midline neuropil thought to have diverged evolutionarily from the insect central complex - shows structural similarities that may support its role in path integration and navigation.

Having diverged from insects such as the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster over 400 million years ago, spiders are an important group for study - particularly due to their elegant web-building behavior, which is thought to have contributed to their remarkable evolutionary success. How such exquisitely complex behavior is supported by a relatively small brain remains unclear. A rich tradition of spider neuroanatomy emerged in the previous century through the work of comparative zoologists, who used reduced silver and Golgi stains to reveal remarkable detail about gross neuroanatomy. Yet, these techniques cannot uncover the brain's neurochemical landscape, highlighting the need for more modern approaches-such as those employed in the present study.

A key insight from this study involves two prominent higher-order neuropils of the protocerebrum: the arcuate body and the mushroom bodies. The authors show that the arcuate body has a more complex structure and lamination than previously recognized, suggesting it is insect central complex-like and may support functions such as path integration and navigation, which are critical during web building. They also report strong synapsin immunoreactivity in the mushroom bodies and speculate that these structures contribute to vibratory processing during sensory feedback, particularly in the context of web building and prey localization. These findings align with prior work that noted the complex architecture of both neuropils in spiders and their resemblance (and in some cases greater complexity) compared to their insect counterparts. Additionally, the authors describe previously unrecognized neuropils, such as the 'tonsillar neuropil,' whose function remains unknown but may belong to a larger central complex. The diverse patterns of neuromodulator immunoreactivity further suggest that plasticity plays a substantial role in central circuits.

Weaknesses:

My major concern, however, is that some of the authors' neuroanatomical descriptions rely too heavily on inference rather than what is currently resolvable from their immunohistochemistry stains alone.

We would like to thank the reviewers for their time and effort in carefully reading our manuscript and providing helpful feedback, and particularly for their appreciation and realistic understanding of the scope of this study and its context within the existing spider neuroanatomical literature.

Regarding the limitations and potential additions to this study, we believe these to be well-reasoned and are in agreement. We plan to address some of these shortcomings in future publications.

As multiple reviewers remarked, a mapping of the major tracts of the brain would be a welcome addition to understanding the neuroanatomy of U. diversus. This is something which we are actively working on and hope to provide in a forthcoming publication. Given the length of this paper as is, we considered that a treatment of the tracts would be better served as an additional paper. Likewise, mapping of the immunoreactive somata of the currently investigated targets is a component which we would like to describe as part of a separate paper, keeping the focus of the current one on neuropils, in order to leverage our aligned volumes to describe co-expression patterns, which is not as useful for the more widely dispersed somata. Furthermore, while we often see somata through immunostaining, the presence and intensity of the signal is variable among immunoreactive populations. We are finding that these populations are more consistently and comprehensively revealed thru fluorescent in situ hybridization.

We appreciate the desire of the reviewers for further information regarding the connectivity and function of the described neuropils, and where possible we have added additional statements and references. That being said, where this context remains sparse is largely a reflection of the lack of information in the literature. This is particularly the case for functional roles for spider neuropils, especially higher order ones of the protocerebrum, which are essentially unexamined. As summarized in the quite recent update to Foelix’s Spider Neuroanatomy, a functional understanding for protocerebral neuropil is really only available for the visual pathway. Consequently, it is therefore also difficult to speak of the implications for presence or absence of particular signaling elements in these neuropils, if no further information about the circuitry or behavioral correlates are available. Finally, multiple reviewers suggested that it might be worthwhile to explore a comparison of the arcuate body layer innervation to that of the central bodies of insects, of which there is a richer literature. This is an idea which we were also initially attracted to, and have now added some lines to the discussion section. Our position on this is a cautious one, as a series of more recent comparative studies spanning many insect species using the same antibody, reveals a considerable amount of variation in central body layering even within this clade, which has given us pause in interpreting how substantive similarities and differences to the far more distant spiders would be. Still, this is an interesting avenue which merits an eventual comprehensive analysis, one which would certainly benefit from having additional examples from more spider species, in order to not overstate conclusions based on the currently limited neuroanatomical representation.

Given our framing for the impetus to advance neuroanatomical knowledge in orb-web builders, the question of whether the present findings inform the circuitry controlling web-building is one that naturally follows. While we are unable with this dataset alone to define which brain areas mediate web-building - something which would likely be beyond any anatomical dataset lacking complementary functional data – the process of assembling the atlas has revealed structures and defined innervation patterns in previously ambiguous sectors of the spider brain, particularly in the protocerebrum. A simplistic proposal is that such regions, which are more conspicuous by our techniques and in this model species, would be good candidates for further inquiries into web-building circuitry, as their absence or oversight in past work could be attributable to the different behavioral styles of those model species. Regardless, granted that such a hypothesis cannot be readily refuted by the existing neuroanatomical literature, underscores the need to have more finely refined models of the spider brain, to which we hope that we have positively contributed to and are gratified by the reviewer’s enthusiasm for the strengths of this study.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Brenneis 2022 has done a very nice and comprehensive study focused on the visual system - this might be worth including.

Thank you, we have included this reference on Line 34.

(2) L 29: When talking about "connectivity maps", the emerging connectomes based on EM data could be mentioned.

Additional references have been added, thank you. Line 35.

(3) L 99: Please mention that you are going to describe the brain from ventral to dorsal.

Thank you, we have added a comment to Line 99.

(4) L 13: is found at the posterior.

Thank you, revised.

(5) L 168: How did you pick those two proctolin+ somata, given that there is a lot of additional punctate signal?

Although not visible in this image, if you scroll through the stack there is a neurite which extends from these neurons directly to this area of pronounced immunoreactivity.

(6) Figure 1: Please add the names of the neuropils you go through afterwards.

We have added labels for neuropils which are recognizable externally.

(7) Figure 1 and Figure 5: Please mark the esophagus.

Label has now been added to Figure 1. In Figure 5, the esophagus should not really be visible because these planes are just ventral to its closure.

(8) Figure 5A: I did not see any CCAP signal where the arrow points to; same for 5B (ChAT).

In hindsight, the CCAP point is probably too minor to be worth mentioning, so we have removed it.

The ChAT signal pattern in 5B has been reinforced by adding a dashed circle to show its location as well.

(9) L 249: Could the circular spot also be a tract (many tracts lack synapsin - at least in insects)?

Yes, thank you for pointing this out – the sentence is revised (L274). We are currently further analyzing anti-tubulin volumes and it seem that indeed there are tracts which occupy these synapsin-negative spaces, although interestingly they do not tend to account for the entire space.

(10) L 302: Help me see the "conspicuous" thing.

Brace added to Fig. 8B, note in caption.

(11) L 315: Please first introduce the number of the eyes and how these relate to 1{degree sign} and 2{degree sign} pathway. Are these separate pathways from separate eyes or two relay stations of one visual pathway?

We have expanded the introduction to this section (L336). Yes, these are considered as two separate visual pathways, with a typical segregation of which eyes contribute to which pathway – although there is evidence for species-specific differences in these contributions. In the context of this atlas, we are not currently able to follow which eyes are innervating which pathway.

(12) L 343: It seems that the tonsillar neuropil could be midline spanning (at least this is how I interpret the signal across the midline). Would it make sense to re-formulate from a paired structure to midline-spanning? Would that make it another option for being a central complex homolog?

In the spectrum from totally midline spanning and unpaired (e.g., arcuate body (at least in adults)) to almost fully distinct and paired (e.g., mushroom bodies (although even here there is a midline spanning ‘bridge’)), we view the tonsillar to be more paired due to the oval components, although it does have a midline spanning section, particularly unambiguous just posterior to the oval sections.

Regarding central complex homology, if the suggestion is that the tonsillar with its midline spanning component could represent the entire central complex, then this is a possibility, but it would neglect the highly innervated and layered arcuate body, which we think represent a stronger contender – at least as a component of the central complex. For this reason, we would still be partial to the possibility that the tonsillar is a part of the central complex, but not the entire complex.

(13) L 407: ...and dorsal (..) lobe...

Added the word ‘lobe’ to this sentence (L429).

(14) L 620ff: Maybe mention the role of MBs in learning and memory.

A reference has been added at L661.

(15) L 644: In the context of arcuate body homology with the central body, I was missing a discussion of the neurotransmitters expressed in the respective parts in insects. Would that provide additional arguments?

This is an interesting comparison to explore, and is one that we initially considered making as well. There are certainly commonalities that one could point to, particularly in trying to build the case of whether particular lobes of the arcuate body are similar to the fan-shaped or ellipsoid bodies in insects. Nevertheless, something which has given us pause is studying the more recent comparative works between insect species (Timm et al., 2021, J Comp Neuro, Homberg et al., 2023, J Comp Neuro), which also reveal a fair degree of heterogeneity in expression patterns between species – and this is despite the fact that the neuropils are unambiguously homologous. When comparing to a much more evolutionarily distant organism such as the spider, it becomes less clear which extant species should serve as the best point of comparison, and therefore we fear making specious arguments by focusing on similarities when there are also many differences. We have added some of these comments to the discussion (L699-725).

Throughout the text, I frequently had difficulties in finding the panels right away in the structures mentioned in the text. It would help to number the panels (e.g., 6Ai, Aii, Aii,i etc) and refer to those in the text. Further, all structures mentioned in the text should be labelled with arrows/arrowheads unless they are unequivocally identified in the panel

Thank you for the suggestion. We have adopted the additional numbering scheme for panels, and added additional markers where suggested.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) L 18: "neurotransmitter" should be pluralized.

Thank you, revised (L18).

(2) L 55: Missing the word "the" before "U. diversus".

Thank you, revised (L57).

(3) L 179: Change synaptic dense to "synapse-dense".

Thank you, revised (L189).

(4) L 570: "present in" would be clearer than "presented on in".

Our intention here was to say that Loesel et al did not show slices from the subesophageal mass for CCAP, so it was ambiguous as to whether it had immunoreactivity there but they simply did not present it, or if it indeed doesn’t show signal in the subesophageal. But agreed, this is awkward phrasing which has been revised (L606-608), thank you.

(5) L 641: It would be worth noting that the upper and lower central bodies are referred to as the fan-shaped and ellipsoid bodies in many insects.

Thank you, this has been added in L694.

(6) L 642: Although cited here regarding insect central body layers, Strausfeld et al. 2006 mainly describe the onychophoran brain and the evolutionary relationship between the onychophoran and chelicerate arcuate bodies. The phylogenetic relationships described here would strengthen the discussion in the section titled "A spider central complex?"

The phylogenetic relationship of onychophorans and chelicerates remains controversial and therefore we find it tricky to use this point to advance the argument in that discussion section, as one could make opposing arguments. The homology of the arcuate body (between chelicerates, onychophorans, and mandibulates) has likewise been argued over, with this Strausfeld et al paper offering one perspective, while others are more permissive (good summary at end of Doeffinger et al., 2010). Our thought was simply to draw attention to grossly similar protocerebral neuropils in examples from distantly related arthropods, without taking a stance, as our data doesn’t really deeply advance one view over the other.

(7) L 701- Noduli have been described in stomatopods (Thoen et al., Front. Behav. Neurosci., 2017).

This is an important addition, thank you – it has been incorporated and cited (L766).

(8) Antisera against DC0 (PKA-C alpha) may distinguish globuli cells from other soma surrounding the mushroom bodies, but this may be accomplished in future studies.

Agreed, this is something we have been interested in, but have not yet acquired the antibody.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

Overall, this paper is both timely and important. However, it may face some resistance from classically trained arthropod neuroanatomists due to the authors' reliance on immunohistochemistry alone. A method to visualize fiber tracts and neuropil morphology would have been a valuable and grounding complement to the dataset and can be added in future publications. Tract-tracing methods (e.g., dextran injections) would strengthen certain claims about connectivity - particularly those concerning the mushroom bodies. For delineating putative cell populations across regions, fluorescence in situ hybridization for key transcripts would offer convincing evidence, especially in the context of the arcuate body, the tonsillar neuropil, and proposed homologies to the insect central complex.

That said, the dataset remains rich and valuable. Outlined below are a number of issues the authors may wish to address. Most are relatively minor, but a few require further clarification.

(1) Abstract

(a) L 12-14: The authors should frame their work as a novel contribution to our understanding of the spider brain, rather than solely as a tool or stepping stone for future studies. The opening sentences currently undersell the significance of the study.

Thank you for your encourament! We have revised the abstract.

(b) Rather than touting "first of its kind" in the abstract, state what was learned from this.

Thank you, we have revised the abstract.

(c) The abstract does not mention the major results of the study. It should state which brain regions were found. It should list all of the peptides and transmitters that were tested so that they can be discoverable in searches.

Thank you, revised.

(2) Introduction

(a) L 38: There's a more updated reference for Long (2016): Long, S. M. (2021). Variations on a theme: Morphological variation in the secondary eye visual pathway across the order of Araneae. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 529(2), 259-280.

Thank you, this has been updated (L41 and elsewhere).

(b) L 47: While whole-mount imaging offers some benefits, a downside is the need for complete brain dissection from the cuticle, which in spiders likely damages superficial structures (such as the secondary eye pathways).

True – we have added this caveat to the section (L48-51).

(c) L 49-52: If making this claim, more explicit comparisons with non-web building C. saeli in terms of neuropil presence, volume, or density later in the paper would be useful.

We do not have the data on hand to make measured comparisons of C. salei structures, and the neuropils identified in this study are not clearly identifiable in the slices provided in the literature, so would likely require new sample preparations. We’ve removed the reference to proportionality and softened this sentence slightly – we are not trying to make a strong claim, but simply state that this is a possibility.

(3) Results

(a) The authors should state how they accounted for autofluorescence.

While we did not explicitly test for autofluorescence, the long process of establishing a working whole-mount immuno protocol and testing antibodies produced many examples of treated brains which did not show any substantial signal.  We have added a note to the methods section (L866).

(b) L 69: There is some controversy in delineating the subesophageal and supraesophageal mass as the two major divisions despite its ubiquity in the literature. It might be safer to delineate the protocerebrum, deutocerebrum, and fused postoral ganglia (including the pedipalp ganglion) instead.

Thank you for this insight, we have modified the section, section headings and Figure 1 to account for this delineation as well. We have chosen to include both ways of describing the synganglion, in order to maintain a parallel with the past literature, and to be further accessible to non-specialist readers. L73-77

(c) L 90: It might be useful to include a justification for the use of these particular neuropeptides.

Thank you, revised. L97-99.

(d) L 106 - 108: It is stated that the innervation pattern of the leg neuropils is generally consistent, but from Figure 2, it seems that there are differences. The density of 5HT, Proctolin, ChAT, and FMRFamide seems to be higher in the posterior legs. AstA seems to have a broader distribution in L1 and is absent in L4.

We would still stand by the generalization that the innervation pattern is fairly similar for each leg. The L1 neuropils tend to be bigger than the posterior legs, which might explain the difference in density. Another important aspect to keep in mind is that not all of the leg neuropils appear at the exact same imaging plane as we move from ventral to dorsal. If you scroll through the synapsin stack (ventral to dorsal), you will see that L2 and L3 appear first, followed shortly by L1, and then L4, and at the dorsal end of the subesophageal they disappear in the opposite order. The observations listed here are true for the single z-plane in Figure 2, but the fact that they don’t appear at the same time seems to mainly account for these differences. For example, if you scroll further ventrally in the AstA volume, you will see a very similar innervation appear in L4 as well, even though it is absent in the Fig. 2 plane. We plan to have these individual volumes available from a repository so that they can be individually examined to better see the signal at all levels. At the moment, the entire repository can be accessed here: https://doi.org/10.35077/ace-moo-far.

(e) Figure 1 and elsewhere: The axes for the posterior and lateral views show Lateral and Medial. It would be more accurate to label them Left and Right. because it does not define the medial-to-lateral axis. The medial direction is correct for only one hemiganglion, and it's the opposite for the contralateral side.

Thank you, revised.

(f) In Figures that show particular sections, it might be helpful to include a plane in the standard brain to illustrate where that section is.

Yes, we agree and it was our original intention. It is something we can attempt to do, but there is not much room in the corners of many of the synapsin panels, making it harder to make the 3D representation big enough to be clear.

(g) Figure 2, 3: Presenting the z-section stack separately in B and C is awkward because it makes it seem that they are unrelated. I think it would be better to display the z160-190 directly above its corresponding z230-260 for each of the exemplars in B and C. Since there's no left-right asymmetry, a hemibrain could be shown for all examples as was done for TH in D. It's not clear why TH was presented differently.

Thank you for this suggestion. We rearranged the figure as described, but ultimately still found the original layout to be preferrable, in part because the labelling becomes too cramped. We hope that the potential confusion of the continuity of the B and C sections will be mitigated by focusing on the z plane labels and overall shape – which should suggest that the planes are not far from each other. We trust that the form of the leg neuropils is recognizable in both B and C synapsin images, and so readers will make the connection.

Regarding TH, this panel is apart from the rest because we were unable to register the TH volume to the standard brain because the variant of the protocol which produced good anti-TH staining conflicted with synapsin, and we could not simultaneously have adequate penetration of the synapsin signal. We did not want to align the TH panel with the others to avoid potential confusion that this was a view from the same z-plane of a registered volume, as the others are. We have added a note to the figure caption.

(h) The locations of the labels should be consistent. The antisera are below the images in Figure 2, above in Figure 3, and to the bottom left in Figure 5. The slices are shown above in Figure 2 and below in Figure 3.

Thank you, this has been revised for better consistency.

(i) It is surprising to me that there is no mention of the neuronal somata visible in Figure 2 and Figure 3. A typical mapping of the brain would map the locations of the neurons, not just the neuropils.

Our first arrangement of this paper described each immunostain individually from ventral to dorsal, including locations of the immunoreactive somata which could be observed. To aid the flow of the paper and leverage the aligned volumes to emphasize co-expression in the function divisions of the brain, we re-formulated to this current layout which is organized around neuropils. Somata locations are tricky to incorporate in this format of the paper which focuses on key z-planes or tight max projections, because the relevant immunoreactive somata are more dispersed throughout the synganglion, not always overlapping in neighboring z-planes. Further, since only a minority of the antisera we used can reveal traceable projections from the supplying somata in the whole-mount preparation, we would be quite limited in the degree to which we could integrate the specific somata mapping with expression patterns in the neuropil.  Finally, compared to immuno, which can be variable in staining intensity between somata for the same target, we find that FISH reveals these locations more clearly and comprehensively – so while we agree that this mapping would also be useful for the atlas, we would like to better provide this information in a future publication using whole-mount FISH.

(j) L 139: There is a reference to a "brace" in Figure 3B, which does not seem to exist. There's one in Figure 3C.

There is a smaller brace near the bottom of the TDC2 panel in Fig. 3B.

(k) L 151 should be "3D".

Thank you, revised (L160).

(l) Figure 4C: It is not mentioned in the legend that the bottom inset is Proctolin without synapsin.

Thank you, revised (L1213).

(m) L 199: Are the authors sure this subdivision is solely on the anterior-posterior axis? Could it also be dorsal ventral? (i.e., could this be an artifact of the protocerebrum and deutocerebrum?)

Yes, this division can be appreciated to extend somewhat in the dorsal-ventral axis and it is possible that this is the protocerebrum emerging after the deutocerebrum, although this area is largely dorsal to the obvious part of the deutocerebrum. In the horizontal planes there appears to be a boundary line which we use for this subdivision in order to assist in better describing features within this generally ventral part of the protocerebrum – referred to as “stalk” because it is thinner before the protocerebrum expands in size, dorsally. Our intention was more organizational, and as stated in the text, this area is likely heterogenous and we are not suggesting that it has a unified function, so being a visual artifact would not be excluded.

(n) L 249: Could it also indicate large tracts projecting elsewhere?

Yes, definitely, we have evidence that part of the space is occupied by tracts. Revised, thank you (L262).

(o) L 281: Several investigators, including Long (2021,) noted very large and robust mushroom bodies of Nephila.

Thank you – the point is well taken that there are examples of orb-web builders that do have appreciable mushroom bodies. We have added a note in this section (L295), giving the examples of Deinopis spinosa and Argiope trifasciata (Figure 4.20 and 4.22 in Long, 2016).

It looks like these species make the point better than Nephila, as Long lists the mushroom body percentage of total protocerebral volume for D. spinosa as 4.18%, for A. trifasciata as 2.38%, but doesn’t give a percentage for Nephila clavipes (Figure 4.24) and only labels the mushroom bodies structures as “possible” in the figure.

In Long (2021), Nephilidae is described as follows: “In Nephilidae, I found what could be greatly reduced medullae at the caudal end of the laminae, as well as a structure that has many physical hallmarks of reduced mushroom bodies”

(p) L 324: If the authors were able to stain for histamine or supplement this work with a different dissection technique for the dorsal structures, the visual pathways might have been apparent, which seems like a very important set of neuropils to include in a complete brain atlas.

Yes, for this reason histamine has been an interesting target which we have attempted to visualize, but unfortunately have not yet been able to successfully stain for in U. diversus. An additional complication is that the antibodies we have seen call for glutaraldehyde fixation, which may make them incompatible with our approach to producing robust synapsin staining throughout the brain. 

We agree that the lack of the complete visual pathway is a substantial weakness of our preparation, and should be amended in future work, but this will likely require developing a modified approach in order to preserve these delicate structures in U. diversus.

(q) L 331: Is this bulbous shape neuropil, or just the remains of neuropil that were not fully torn away during dissection?

This certainly is a severed part of the primary pathway, although it seems more likely that the bulbous shape is indicative of a neuropil form, rather than just being a happenstance shape that occurred during the breakage. We have examples where the same bulbous shape appears on both sides, and in different brains. It is possible that this may be the principal eye lamina – although we did not see co-staining with expected markers in examples where it did appear, so cannot be sure.

(r) L 354: Is tyraminergic co-staining with the protocerebral bridge enough evidence to speculate that inputs are being supplied?

We agree that this is not compelling, and have removed the statement.

(s) L 372: This whole structure appears to be a previously described structure in spiders, the 'protocerebral commissure'.

We are reasonably sure that what we are calling the PCB is a distinct structure from the protocerebral bridge (PCC). In Babu and Barth’s (1984) horizontal slice (Fig. 11b), you can see the protocerebral commissure immediately adjacent to the mushroom body bridge. It is found similarly located in other species, as can be seen in the supplementary 3D files provided by Steinhoff et al., (2024).

While not visible with synapsin in U. diversus, we likewise can make out a commissure in this area in close proximity to the mushroom body bridge using tubulin staining. What we are calling the protocerebral bridge is a structure which is much more dorsal to the protocerebral commissure, not appearing in the same planes as the MB bridge.

(t) L 377: Do you have an intuition why the tonsillar neuropil and the protocerebral bridge would show limited immunoreactivity, while the arcuate body's is quite extensive?

This is an interesting question. Given the degree of interconnection and the fact that multiple classes of neurons in insects will innervate both central body as well as PCB or noduli, perhaps it would be expected that expression in tonsillar and protocerebral bridge should be commensurate to the innervation by that particular neurotransmitter expressing population in the arcuate body. Apart from the fact that the arcuate body is just bigger, perhaps this points to a great role of the arcuate body for integration, whereas the tonsillar and PCB may engage in more particular processing, or be limited to certain sensory modalities.

Interestingly, it seems that this pattern of more limited immunoreactivity in the PCB and noduli compared with the central bodies (fan-shaped/ellipsoid) also appears in insects (Kahsai et al., 2010, J Comp Neuro, Timm et al., 2021, J Comp Neuro, Homberg et al., 2023, J Comp Neuro) – particularly, with almost every target having at least some layering in the fan-shaped body (Kahsai et al., 2010, J Comp Neuro).  For example, serotoninergic innervation is fairly consistently seen in the upper and lower central bodies across insects, but its presence in the PCB or noduli is more variable – appearing in one or the other in a species-dependent manner (Homberg et al., 2023, J Comp Neuro).

(4) Discussion

(a) L 556: But if confocal images from slices are aligned, is the 3D shape not preserved?

Yes, fair enough – the point we wanted to make was that there is still a limitation in z resolution depending on the thickness of the slices used, which could obscure structures, but perhaps this is too minor of a comment.

(b) L 597: This is a very interesting result. I agree it's likely to do with the processing of mechanosensory information relevant to web activities, and the mushroom body seems like the perfect candidate for this.

(c) L 638: Worth noting that neuropil volume vs density of synapses might play a role in this, as the literature is currently a bit ambiguous with regards to the former.

Thank you, noted (L689).

(d) L 651: The latter seems far more plausible.

Agreed, though the presence of mushroom bodies appears to be variable in spiders, so we didn’t want to take a strong stance, here.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Ho et al. hypothesised that autoreactive T cells receiving enhanced TCR signals during positive selection in the thymus are primed for generating effector and memory T cells. They used CD5 as a marker for TCR signal strength during their selection at the double positive stage. Supporting their hypothesis, naïve T cells with high CD5 proliferated better and expressed markers of T cell activation compared to naïve T cells with lower levels of CD5. Furthermore, results showed that autoimmune diabetes can be efficiently induced after the transfer of naïve CD5 hi T cells compared to CD5 lo T cells. This provided solid evidence in support of their hypothesis that T cells receiving higher basal TCR signaling are primmed to develop into effector T cells. However, all functional characterisation was done on the cells in the periphery and CD5 hi cells in the peripheral lymphoid compartment can receive tonic TCR signaling. Hence, the function of CD5 hi T cells might not be related to development and programming in the thymus. This is a major hurdle in the interpretation of the results and justifying the title of the study. The evidence that transgenic PTPN22 expression could not regulate T cell activation in CD5 hi TCR transgenic autoreactive T cells was weak. Studying T cell development in TCR transgenic mice and looking at TCR downstream signaling could be misleading due to transgenic expression of TCR at all developmental stages.

Strengths:

(1) Demonstrating that CD5 hi cells in naïve CD8 T cell compartment express markers of T cell activation, proliferation and cytotoxicity at a higher level

(2) Using gene expression analysis, study showed CD5 hi cells among naïve CD8 T cells are transcriptionally poised to develop into effector or memory T cells.

(3) Study showed that CD5 hi cells have higher basal TCR signaling compared to CD5 lo T cells.

(4) Key evidence of pathogenicity of autoreactive CD5 hi T cells was provided by doing the adoptive transfer of CD5 hi and CD5 lo CD8 T cells into NOD Rag1-/- mice and comparing them.

Weaknesses:

(1) Although CD5 can be used as a marker for self-reactivity and T cell signal strength during thymic development, it can also be regulated in the periphery by tonic TCR signaling or when T cells are activated by its cognate antigen. Hence, TCR signals in the periphery could also prime the T cells towards effector/memory differentiation. That's why from the evidence presented here it cannot be concluded that this predisposition of T cells towards effector/memory differentiation is programmed due to higher reactivity towards self-MHC molecules in the thymus, as stated in the title.

(2) Flow cytometry data needs to be revisited for the gating strategy, biological controls and interpretation.

(3) Evidence linking CD5 hi cells to more effector phenotype using gene enrichment scores is very weak.

(4) Experiments done in this study did not address why CD5 hi T cells could be negatively regulated in NOD mice when PTPN22 is overexpressed resulting in protection from diabetes but the same cannot be achieved in NOD8.3 mice.

(5) Experimental evidence provided to show that PTPN22 overexpression does not regulate TCR signaling in NOD8.3 T cells is weak.

(6) TCR sequencing analysis does not conclusively show that CD5 hi population is linked with autoreactive T cells. Doing single-cell RNAseq and TCR seq analysis would have helped address this question.

(7) When analysing data from CD5 hi T cells from the pancreatic lymph node, it is difficult to discriminate if the phenotype is just because of T cells that would have just encountered the cognate antigen in the draining lymph node or if it is truly due to basal TCR signaling.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Review #1 (Public review):

Figures 1 through 4 contain data that largely recapitulate published findings (Fulton et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2024; Swee et al., 2016; Dong et al., 2021); it is noted that there is value in confirming phenotypic differences between naive CD5lo and CD5hi CD8 T cells in the NOD background. It is important to contextualize the data while being wary of making parallels with results obtained from CD5lo and CD5hi CD4 T cells. There should also be additional attention paid to the wording in the text describing the data (e.g., the authors assert that, in Figure 4C, the “CD5hi group exhibited higher percentages of CD8+ T cells producing TNF-α, IFN-γ and IL-2” though there is no difference in IL-2 nor consistent differences in TNF-α between the CD5lo and CD5hi population^hi CD8⁺ and CD5^loCD8⁺ T cells have been previously characterized in other genetic backgrounds. In our study, we aimed to confirm and extend these observations specifically in the autoimmune-prone NOD background, which had not been systematically addressed. Additionally, we carefully reviewed the text describing Figure 4C and revised the wording to accurately reflect the observed data (line 263-264). Specifically, we now state that the CD5^hi group exhibited higher levels of IFN-γ and a trend toward increased TNF-α, while IL-2 production did not show a significant difference.

The comparison of CD5 across thymocyte populations is cautioned due to variation in developmental stages, particularly in transgenic models. The reported differences may reflect maturation stages rather than self-reactivity.

We appreciate the reviewer’s important point regarding the interpretation of CD5 levels across thymocyte subsets. In our revised manuscript (lines 455–471), we have added clarification that CD5 expression in DN and DP subsets reflects pre-TCR and TCR signaling events during thymic development. We also acknowledge that differences in maturation stages, especially in the NOD8.3 transgenic model, may influence CD5 expression. We now discuss this caveat and interpret our results with caution, particularly emphasizing that our data support but do not sufficiently define their differential self-reactivity.

The conclusion that PTPN22 overexpression does not inhibit the diabetogenic potential of CD5^hiCD8⁺ T cells is potentially confounded by differences between polyclonal and TCR transgenic systems.

We thank the reviewer for raising this concern. We acknowledge that this system introduces confounders due to differences in precursor frequencies and clonal expansion compared to polyclonal repertoires. These differences may affect the responsiveness to phosphatase-mediated attenuation of signaling. Therefore, while our results support that high-affinity autoreactive CD8⁺ T cells may be less sensitive to PTPN22 overexpression, we do not claim that this finding generalizes to all autoreactive CD8⁺ T cells. Rather, it highlights a potential inability of peripheral tolerance in T cells with strong intrinsic self-reactivity.

TCR sequencing data shows variability; is this representative of the overall repertoire?

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We acknowledge that data from bulk TCR sequencing has potential limitations, including variability across experiments and limited resolution at the clonotype level. To improve representativeness and reduce sampling bias, we performed TCR repertoire analysis in two independent experiments. In each experiment, naïve CD5^hi CD8⁺ and CD5^loCD8⁺ T cells were sorted from pooled peripheral lymph nodes of at least 20 individual NOD mice per group. This approach allowed us to capture a broader range of clonotypes and ensured that the resulting repertoire profiles reflect the characteristics of the overall CD5^hi and CD5^lo populations, rather than isolated outliers. Despite some variability, we observed consistent trends in key features, such as shorter CDR3β length, altered TRAV/TRBV usage and reduced diversity in the CD5^hi subset across both experiments. To enhance resolution and directly assess clonotype-specific reactivity, we plan to perform single-cell RNA and TCR sequencing in future studies, as noted in the revised Discussion (lines 466–471).

Clarifications are requested regarding naive gating, controls, gMFI reporting, and missing methods.

We thank the reviewer for these specific suggestions. We have revised figure legends to better describe gating strategies and included appropriate controls in Figures or Supplementary Figures. Regarding gMFI reporting, we have now shown in the figure legends whether values are reported as gMFI. Additionally, we have added the missing methods for cytokine staining, EdU incorporation, overlapped count matrix construction and TCR repertoire diversity metrics.

Review #2 (Public review):

Summary Comment:

The study is nicely performed, but the definition of naive T cells using only CD44 and CD62L may be oversimplified. CD5hi naive T cells express higher CD44 than CD5lo cells.

We thank the reviewer for the critical evaluation and thoughtful comment. As noted, we defined naïve CD8⁺ T cells using a well-established gating strategy based on CD44^lo and CD62L^hi expression, consistent with previous studies (Immunity. 2010; 32(2):214–26; Nat Immunol. 2015; 16(1):107–17). We acknowledge that CD44 is expressed along a continuum, and indeed, within the naïve gate, CD5^hi CD8⁺ T cells exhibited slightly higher CD44 levels compared to their CD5^lo counterparts. However, both subsets remained well below the CD44 expression observed in conventional effector/memory CD8⁺ T cells, supporting their classification as naïve. To further validate this, we assessed additional markers associated with activation and memory differentiation, including CD69, PD-1, KLRG1 and CD25. These analyses confirmed that the sorted CD5^hi and CD5^lo populations retained a phenotypically naïve profile while exhibiting meaningful differences in baseline activation readiness (Figure 1F).

Review #3 (Public review):

CD5 can be regulated by peripheral signals. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that predisposition to effector/memory differentiation is solely programmed in the thymus.

We thank the reviewer for this important point. We agree that CD5 expression can be dynamically regulated in the periphery by tonic TCR signals and antigen encounter, as also reflected in our own data that cells with high CD5 level display elevated activation potential upon encountering antigen (e.g., Figure 3L). To minimize the confounding effects of pre-existing peripheral activation, we performed an adoptive T cell transfer experiment (Figure 4). In this experiment, naïve CD5^hiCD⁺and CD5^loCD8⁺T cells were sorted from the peripheral lymph nodes of young (6–8-week-old) prediabetic NOD mice and transferred into NOD Rag1^–/– recipients. After 4 weeks, we compared the disease phenotypes and functional profiles of CD8⁺ T cells from these two groups. This approach allowed us to evaluate the stability and differentiation capacity of CD5^hi versus CD5^lo cells in a lymphopenic environment, while excluding the possibility that the observed differences were due to already activated CD8⁺T cells at the time of isolation. We have revised the Discussion (lines 440–450) to acknowledge these experimental limitations and clarify that, while our findings demonstrate functional differences between CD5^hiCD8⁺ and CD5^loCD8⁺T cells, we cannot fully exclude contributions from peripheral influences.

Experiments do not explain why PTPN22 overexpression protects in polyclonal T cells but not in NOD8.3 mice.

We appreciate this critical comment. Our findings support that autoreactive T cells with high-affinity TCRs as in NOD8.3 mice receive strong signaling that even PTPN22 overexpression is insufficient to attenuate their activation and effector function. We acknowledge that further mechanistic studies are needed to fully elucidate the differential effects of PTPN22 in polyclonal versus TCR-transgenic settings.

Evidence that PTPN22 does not regulate TCR signaling in NOD8.3 T cells is weak.

We thank the reviewer for this critical comment. Our data show that NOD8.3 T cells with an intrinsic high CD5-associated self-reactivity are more resistant to transgenic Pep-mediated change in the phosphorylation status of TCR signaling molecules CD3ζ and Erk and CD5 expression (Figure 6, B-D). However, we agree that additional functional assays would strengthen this conclusion.

TCR sequencing does not conclusively link CD5hi cells with autoreactivity; single-cell analysis is needed.

We agree with this critical comment. Bulk TCR sequencing revealed repertoire features associated with autoreactivity, but cannot definitively link specific TCRs to function. We have acknowledged this in the discussion (lines 466–471) and highlighted plans to perform single-cell analysis.

CD5hi cells in the PLNs may reflect antigen exposure rather than basal signaling.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. As also noted in Figure 3L, CD5 expression can be influenced by peripheral tonic TCR signals and recent antigen exposure. To minimize the contribution of peripheral activation, we particularly characterized naïve CD8⁺T cells isolated from the peripheral lymph nodes of young (6–8-week-old) prediabetic NOD mice before the onset of overt autoimmunity. Furthermore, we performed an adoptive transfer experiment (Figure 4) using sorted naïve CD5^hiCD8⁺ and CD5^loCD8⁺T cells from these mice and characterized their disease phenotype after 4 weeks in lymphopenic NOD Rag1^–/– recipients and evaluated the effector function of CD8⁺T cells. This approach allowed us to compare the differentiation potential of these subsets in a controlled setting, independent of their activation status at the time of isolation. We have revised the Discussion (lines 440–450) to emphasize that, while our data support functional differences between CD5^hiCD8⁺ and CD5^loCD8⁺T cells, we cannot fully exclude the role of peripheral cues in shaping CD5 expression.

Provide proper gating controls and representative flow plots.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have revised figure legends to better describe gating strategies and included representative flow cytometry plots and appropriate gating controls in Figures or Supplementary Figures.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The authors):

(1) The figure presentation is inconsistent and the labels/font are often too small to read easily.

As Reviewer suggested, the figure presentation has been revised for consistency. Labels and fonts have been adjusted for improved readability. Specific figures that were difficult to read have been reformatted with larger fonts and clearer legends.

(2) A careful review of the text to ensure clarity of the content is suggested (e.g., “gratitude” at line 91, “were generally lied” at line 123).

Thanks for Reviewer’s comments. The text has been carefully reviewed for clarity and grammatical accuracy. Corrections have been made, including changing “gratitude” to “magnitude” (line 47) and “were generally lied” to “fell between” (line 79).

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) The definition of naïve T cells based solely on CD44low and CD62Lhigh staining may be oversimplistic. Indeed, even within this definition, naïve CD5high CD8 T cells express much higher levels of CD44 than CD5low CD8 T cells.

Thanks for Reviewer’s comments. We used a literature-supported gating strategy (Immunity. 2010; 32(2):214–26; Nat Immunol. 2015; 16(1):107–17) to define naïve T cells based on CD44^low and CD62L^high expression. It is important to note that CD44 expression exists along a continuum. While we were initially surprised to observe that CD5^loCD8⁺T cells expressed relatively higher levels of CD44 than CD5^loCD8⁺T cells within the naïve gate, both populations still exhibited significantly lower CD44 expression compared to conventional effector/memory CD8⁺T cells. To further validate the distinction between CD5^hi and CD5 subsets, we also examined additional markers such as CD69, PD1, KLRG1 and CD25, which supported their phenotypic differences within the naïve compartment (Figure 1F).

(2) Figure 1G should show the proportion of IGRP-tetramer+ in the three groups of CD8 T cells. Additionally, it would be useful to assess reactivity against a pool of other islet autoantigens using a similar strategy.

As suggested by the reviewer, the revised manuscript now includes additional data showing the proportion of IGRP-tetramer+ cells (Supplementary Figure 1D), as well as reactivity against another islet autoantigen, insulin-1/insulin-2 (Insulin B15–23) (Supplementary Figure 1E). The description of these results, including the proportions of IGRP-tetramer⁺ and Insulin B15–23⁺ CD8⁺Tcells, has been added to lines 126–129 of the revised manuscript.

(3) The resolution of Figure 2 is suboptimal and at places poorly visible. Figure 2D is stated to show “two significant pathways stand out.” In fact, the data are barely significant, and the authors may want to correct their statement.

The resolution of Figure 2 has been improved. As Reviewer suggested, the text has been revised to state “two potential pathways stand out” (line 187) instead of “two significant pathways stand out”.

(4) Figure 3C-F and 3H, showing fold change over baseline values would be much easier for the reader to grasp the data.

As Reviewer suggested, data in Figures 3C-F and 3H now are shown in fold change over baseline values for clarity. Baseline gMFI is the mean of each group (total CD⁺ , CD5^hiCD8⁺ and CD5^loCD8⁺) at 0 μg/ml anti-CD3, with fold changes calculated for stimulation conditions (0.625-10 μg/ml anti-CD3). The figure legend has been updated accordingly.

(5) Figure 4A, it would be much more valuable to show the diabetes frequency upon transfer of CD25- CD4 T cells alone and upon transfer of CD5high CD8 T cells alone. The word “spontaneous” in the Figure 4A legend seems inappropriate.

Thanks for the Reviewer’s comment. We apologize for not including the data for the CD25 CD4⁺ T cell transfer group in the original manuscript. While this group was part of our initial experimental design, we had considered it a control group and unintentionally omitted it from the figure. The revised manuscript now includes this group in Figure 4A. In addition, the term “spontaneous” has been replaced with “diabetes incidence” in the Figure 4A legend and manuscript (line 248). Regarding the suggestion to assess CD5^hiCD8⁺T cells transfer alone, we appreciate the Reviewer’s point. However, previous studies have shown that CD8⁺ T cells alone are not effective and sufficient to induce diabetes in adoptive transfer models, and that effective β-cell destruction typically requires both CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cell subsets. For instance, Christianson et al. (1993) demonstrated that enriched CD8⁺ T cells from NOD mice fail to transfer diabetes on their own, while CD4⁺ T cells—particularly from diabetic donors—can induce disease only under specific conditions and are significantly potentiated by co-transfer of CD8⁺cells. These findings have contributed to the widely available standard of co-transferring both subsets when studying diabetogenic potential in NOD models (Diabetes. 1993;42(1):44–55).

(6) Line 257-258, please remove “indicating superior in vivo proliferation by the CD5hi subset.” Indeed, several other possibilities may explain the phenotype, including survival, migration, etc.

As Reviewer suggested, the phrase “indicating superior in vivo proliferation by the CD5^hi subset” has been replaced with “implying increased expansion and activation/effector potential” (line 261).

(7) Figure 5A, it is unclear to this referee what is the significance of CD5 and pCD3zeta expression on DN thymocytes. Do these cells express rearranged alpha/beta TCR? Is it signaling through pre-TCRalpha/TCRbeta pairs?

Thanks a lot for this important question. In the revised manuscript, we have expanded the discussion (line 455–471) to address the developmental significance of CD5 and pCD3ζ expression on DN thymocytes. CD5 expression at this stage reflects pre-TCR signaling strength during early selection, which occurs following successful TCRβ rearrangement. The associated phosphorylation of CD3ζ indicates activation of downstream signaling through the pre-TCRα/TCRβ complex. As discussed in the revised text, these early signals play a critical role in determining lineage progression and self-reactivity tuning. We now acknowledge that signaling at the DN stage occurs through the pre-TCRα/TCRβ heterodimer, not a fully rearranged αβ TCR, and that CD5 expression serves as a marker of the strength of these initial pre-selection signals (Sci Signal. 2022;15(736):eabj9842.). These developmental checkpoints are essential for calibrating TCR sensitivity and ensuring proper thymocyte maturation. This has been clarified in the revised discussion (line 455–471).

(8) Figure 5F, could the DP TCRbeta- CD69- thymocytes from 8.3-TCR NOD mice already express low levels of the self-reactive TCR at this stage to explain their high expression of CD5? Addressing the question experimentally would be useful.

Thanks a lot for this useful comment. According to a review by Huseby et al. (2022), expression of a functional TCRβ chain begins at the DN3 stage, initiating progression through the β-selection checkpoint. This is followed by TRAV locus recombination, resulting in the generation of αβ TCR-expressing double-positive 1 (DP-1) thymocytes. At the DP-1 stage, the quality of TCR signaling driven by self-pMHC interactions governs both positive and negative selection, as well as the development of nonconventional T cell lineages. We hypothesize that in transgenic NOD8.3 mice, which express pre-rearranged Tcra and Tcrb transgenes derived from the islet-reactive CD8⁺T cell clone NY8.3, thymocytes undergo allelic exclusion and lack the clonal diversity seen in non-transgenic mice. As a result, NOD8.3 thymocytes may receive strong TCR signals from early developmental stages (DN3 and DP-1) even without undergoing normal selection checkpoints. While the elevated TCR signal observed in NOD8.3 is indeed artificial, this model provides a unique system to test our hypothesis—namely, whether a strongly self-reactive TCR can generate high basal signaling during thymic development that overrides the negative regulatory effects of phosphatases like Pep. This possibility has been acknowledged in the revised Discussion section, along with a plan to validate the hypothesis experimentally (line 455–471).

(9) Figure 7, single-cell TCR-seq would be much more appropriate to tackle the question of self-reactivity of CD5hi vs. CD5low CD8 T cells.

Thanks a lot for this useful comment. The limitations of bulk TCR-seq are acknowledged, and single-cell TCR-seq is proposed as a future direction (line 455–471).

Note, for Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors) (7) (8) (9), the discussion paragraphs are included to address the reviewers’ questions (line 455–471).

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) Positive controls (activated T cells from PLN or spleen), gating controls (whole naïve T cells), and representative flow-cytometry plots are needed for T-bet, EOMES, GzmB, and cytokine staining in Figure 1.

As Reviewer suggested, we added representative gating controls for T-bet, EOMES, GzmB and cytokine staining in Supplementary Figure 1 of revised manuscript.

(2) For Figure 1F, MFI for activation markers for the CD44hiCD62Llo cells should be provided for the comparison of PLN data.

As Reviewer suggested, MFI data for these markers have been included in Figure 1F of revised manuscript.

(3) In many places and figure legends, it is not mentioned from which organ cells were collected, i.e., spleen or PLN.

As Reviewer suggested, the origin of cells for each experiment has been explicitly indicated in the figure legends or figure content to ensure clarity.

(4) In the pancreatic lymph node, autoreactive T cells might be upregulating CD5 because they are encountering antigens. This should be addressed in the discussion.

As Reviewer suggested, this issue has been included in the discussion of revised manuscript (line 440-450).

(5) It is not clear if T cells from the spleen and PLN were stimulated to detect the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines.

Thanks for the critical comment. The stimulation protocol and cytokine staining method have been added to the Supplementary material’s Supplementary methods section Cytokine staining in revised manuscript.

(6) Figure 4C-D: It is not clear if analysis was done on naïve T cells or if they were stimulated.

Thanks for the comment. Additionally, the stimulation and cytokine staining methods used in Figure 4C-D have been described in detail in the Supplementary Materials section Cytokine staining of revised manuscript.

(7) IGRP gating in Figure 4F should be revisited with negative controls.

Thanks for the critical comment. Negative controls have been added and used to adjust IGRP gating, and this is now mentioned in the figure legend of revised manuscript.

(8) Interpretation that only CD5hi cells form a central memory T cell population (Figure 4F) could be misleading.

Thanks for this valuable comment. We agree with that in conventional CD8⁺ T cell immune responses, both CD5^hi and CD5^lo subsets have the potential to differentiate into central memory T cells. In our experimental approach, we adoptively transferred sorted CD5^hiCD8⁺ or CD5^loCD8⁺cells into Rag1^-/- recipients and specifically analyzed PLNs four weeks after transfer. Using CD44 and CD62L expression as conventional markers for central memory T cells, we barely observed a CD44^hiCD62L^hi population in CD5^loCD8⁺transferred group. Based on these results, we stated: “This analysis underscores that the central memory T cell population and the frequency of islet autoantigen-specific CD8⁺T cells are higher in the CD5^hi transferred subset within the PLNs, implying more robust immune responses initiated by the CD5^hicells” (line 272–274). Importantly, we did not intend to imply that only CD5^hi cells can form central memory T cells, but rather that they were more enriched for this phenotype under the specific conditions and time point analyzed. 

(9) IL-2 gating representative plot should be provided for Figure 5A.

As Reviewer suggested, a representative IL-2 gating plot has been included in the revised Supplementary Figure 3B.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The main finding of this work is that microbiota impacts lifespan though regulating the expression of a gut hormone (Tk) which in turn acts on its receptor expressed on neurons. This conclusion is robust and based on a number of experimental observations, carefully using techniques in fly genetics and physiology: 1) microbiota regulates Tk expression, 2) lifespan reduction by microbiota is absent when Tk is knocked down in gut (specifically in the EEs), 3) Tk knockdown extends lifespan and this is recapitulated by knockdown of a Tk receptor in neurons. These key conclusions are very convincing. Additional data are presented detailing the relationship between Tk and insulin/IGF signalling and Akh in this context. These are two other important endocrine signalling pathways in flies. The presentation and analysis of the data are excellent.

There are only a few experiments or edits that I would suggest as important to confirm or refine the conclusions of this manuscript. These are:

(1) When comparing the effects of microbiota (or single bacterial species) in different genetic backgrounds or experimental conditions, I think it would be good to show that the bacterial levels are not impacted by the other intervention(s). For example, the lifespan results observed in Figure 2A are consistent with Tk acting downstream of the microbes but also with Tk RNAi having an impact on the microbiota itself. I think this simple, additional control could be done for a few key experiments. Similarly, the authors could compare the two bacterial species to see if the differences in their effects come from different ability to colonise the flies.

(2) The effect of Tk RNAi on TAG is opposite in CR and Ax or CR and Ap flies, and the knockdown shows an effect in either case (Figure 2E, Figure 3D). Why is this? Better clarification is required.

(3) With respect to insulin signalling, all the experiments bar one indicate that insulin is mediating the effects of Tk. The one experiment that does not is using dilpGS to knock down TkR99D. Is it possible that this driver is simply not resulting in an efficient KD of the receptor? I would be inclined to check this, but as a minimum I would be a bit more cautious with the interpretation of these data.

(4) Is it possible to perform at least one lifespan repeat with the other Tk RNAi line mentioned? This would further clarify that there are no off-target effects that can account for the phenotypes.

There are a few other experiments that I could suggest as I think they could enrich the current manuscript, but I do not believe they are essential for publication:

(5) The manuscript could be extended with a little more biochemical/cell biology analysis. For example, is it possible to look at Tk protein levels, Tk levels in circulation, or even TkR receptor activation or activation of its downstream signalling pathways? Comparing Ax and CR or Ap and CR one would expect to find differences consistent with the model proposed. This would add depth to the genetic analysis already conducted. Similarly, for insulin signalling - would it be possible to use some readout of the pathway activity and compare between Ax and CR or Ap and CR?

(6) The authors use a pan-acetyl-K antibody but are specifically interested in acetylated histones. Would it be possible to use antibodies for acetylated histones? This would have the added benefit that one can confirm the changes are not in the levels of histones themselves.

(7) I think the presentation of the results could be tightened a bit, with fewer sections and one figure per section.

Significance:

The main contribution of this manuscript is the identification of a mechanism that links the microbiota to lifespan. This is very exciting and topical for several reasons:

(1) The microbiota is very important for overall health but it is still unclear how. Studying the interaction between microbiota and health is an emerging, growing field, and one that has attracted a lot of interest, but one that is often lacking in mechanistic insight. Identifying mechanisms provides opportunities for therapies. The main impact of this study comes from using the fruit fly to identify a mechanism.

(2) It is very interesting that the authors focus on an endocrine mechanism, especially with the clear clinical relevance of gut hormones to human health recently demonstrated with new, effective therapies (e.g. Wegovy).

(3) Tk is emerging as an important fly hormone and this study adds a new and interesting dimension by placing TK between microbiota and lifespan.

I think the manuscript will be of great interest to researchers in ageing, human and animal physiology and in gut endocrinology and gut function.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Marcu et al. demonstrate a gut-neuron axis that is required for the lifespan-shortening effects mediated by gut bacteria. They show that the presence of commensal bacteria-particularly Acetobacter pomorum-promotes Tk expression in the gut, which then binds to neuronal tachykinin receptors to shorten lifespan. Tk has also recently been reported to extend lifespan via adipokinetic hormone (Akh) signaling (Ahrentløv et al., Nat Metab 7, 2025), but the mechanism here appears distinct. The lifespan shortening by Ap via Tk seems to be partially dependent on foxo and independent of both insulin signaling and Akh-mediated lipid mobilization.

Although the detailed mechanistic link to lifespan is not fully resolved, the experiment and its results clearly show the involvement of the molecules tested. This work adds a valuable dimension to our growing understanding of how gut bacteria influence host longevity. However, there are some points that should be addressed.

(1) Tk+ EEC activity should be assessed directly, rather than relying solely on transcript levels. Approaches such as CaLexA or GCaMP could be used.

(2) In Line243, the manuscript states that the reporter activity was not increased in the posterior midgut. However, based on the presented results in Fig4E, there is seemingly not apparent regional specificity. A more detailed explanation is necessary.

(3) If feasible, assessing foxo activation would add mechanistic depth. This could be done by monitoring foxo nuclear localization or measuring the expression levels of downstream target genes.

(4) Fig1C uses Adh for normalization. Given the high variability of the result, the authors should (1) check whether Adh expression levels changed via bacterial association and/or (2) compare the results using different genes as internal standard.

(5) While the difficulty of maintaining lifelong axenic conditions is understandable, it may still be feasible to assess the induction of Tk (i.e.. Tk transcription or EE activity upregulation) by the microbiome on males.

(6) We also had some concerns regarding the wording of the title.<br /> Fig6B and C suggests that TkR86C, in addition to TkR99D, may be involved in the A. pomorum-lifespan interaction. Consider revising the title to refer more generally to the "tachykinin receptor" rather than only TkR99D.<br /> The difference between "aging" and "lifespan" should also be addressed. While the study shows a role for Tk in lifespan, assessment of aging phenotypes (e.g. Climbing assay, ISC proliferation) beyond the smurf assay is required to make conclusions about aging.

(7) The statement in Line 82 that EEs express 14 peptide hormones should be supported with an appropriate reference, if available.

Significance:

General assessment: The main strength of this study is the careful and extensive lifespan analyses, which convincingly demonstrate the role of gut microbiota in regulating longevity. The authors clarify an important aspect of how microbial factors contribute to lifespan control. The main limitation is that the study primarily confirms the involvement of previously reported signaling pathways, without identifying novel molecular players or previously unrecognized mechanisms of lifespan regulation.

Advance: The lifespan-shortening effect of Acetobacter pomorum (Ap) has been reported previously, as has the lifespan-shortening effect of Tachykinin (Tk). However, this study is the first to link these two factors mechanistically, which represents a significant and original contribution to the field. The advance is primarily mechanistic, providing new insight into how microbial cues converge on host signaling pathways to influence ageing.

Audience: This work will be of particular interest to a specialized audience of basic researchers in ageing biology. It will also attract interest from microbiome researchers who are investigating host-microbe interactions and their physiological consequences. The findings will be useful as a conceptual framework for future mechanistic studies in this area.

Field of expertise: Drosophila ageing, lifespan, microbiome, metabolism

Author response:

(1) General Statements

The goal of our study was to mechanistically connect microbiota to host longevity. We have done so using a combination of genetic and physiological experiments, which outline a role for a neuroendocrine relay mediated by the intestinal neuropeptide Tachykinin, and its receptor TkR99D in neurons. We also show a requirement for these genes in metabolic and healthspan effects of microbiota.

The referees' comments suggest they find the data novel and technically sound. We have added data in response to numerous points, which we feel enhance the manuscript further, and we have clarified text as requested. Reviewer #3 identified an error in Figure 4, which we have rectified. We felt that some specific experiments suggested in review would not add significant further depth, as we articulate below.

Altogether our reviewers appear to agree that our manuscript makes a significant contribution to both the microbiome and ageing fields, using a large number of experiments to mechanistically outline the role(s) of various pathways and tissues. We thank the reviewers for their positive contributions to the publication process.

(2) Description of the planned revisions

Reviewer #2:

Not…essential for publication…is it possible to look at Tk protein levels?

We have acquired a small amount of anti-TK antibody and we will attempt to immunostain guts associated with A. pomorum and L. brevis. We are also attempting the equivalent experiment in mouse colon reared with/without a defined microbiota. These experiments are ongoing, but we note that the referee feels that the manuscript is a publishable unit whether these stainings succeed or not.

(3) Description of the revisions that have already been incorporated in the transferred manuscript

Reviewer #1:

Can the authors state in the figure legends the numbers of flies used for each lifespan and whether replicates have been done?

We have incorporated the requested information into legends for lifespan experiments.

Do the interventions shorten lifespan relative to the axenic cohort? Or do they prevent lifespan extension by axenic conditions? Both statements are valid, and the authors need to be consistent in which one they use to avoid confusing the reader.

We read these statements differently. The only experiment in which a genetic intervention prevented lifespan extension by axenic conditions is neuronal TkR86C knockdown (Figure 6B-C). Otherwise, microbiota shortened lifespan relative to axenic conditions, and genetic knockdowns extend blocked this effect (e.g. see lines 131-133). We have ensured that the framing is consistent throughout, with text edited at lines 198-199, 298-299, 311-312, 345-347, 407-408, 424-425, 450, 497-503.

TkRNAi consistently reduces lipid levels in axenic flies (Figs 2E, 3D), essentially phenocopying the loss of lipid stores seen in control conventionally reared (CR) flies relative to control axenic. This suggests that the previously reported role of Tk in lipid storage - demonstrated through increased lipid levels in TkRNAi flies (Song et al (2014) Cell Rep 9(1): 40) - is dependent on the microbiota. In the absence of the microbiota TkRNAi reduces lipid levels. The lack of acknowledgement of this in the text is confusing

We have added text at lines 219-222 to address this point. We agree that this effect is hard to interpret biologically, since expressing RNAi in axenics has no additional effect on Tk expression (Figure S7). Consequently we can only interpret this unexpected effect as a possible off-target effect of RU feeding on TAG, specific to axenic flies. However, this possibility does not void our conclusion, because an off-target dimunition of TAG cannot explain why CR flies accumulate TAG following Tk^RNAi induction. We hope that our added text clarifies.

I have struggled to follow the authors logic in ablating the IPCs and feel a clear statement on what they expected the outcome to be would help the reader.

We have added the requested statement at lines 423-424, explaining that we expected the IPC ablation to render flies constitutively long-lived and non-responsive to A pomorum.

Can the authors clarify their logic in concluding a role for insulin signalling, and qualify this conclusion with appropriate consideration of alternative hypotheses?

We have added our logic at lines 449-454. In brief, we conclude involvement for insulin signalling because FoxO mutant lifespan does not respond to Tk^RNAi, and diminishes the lifespan-shortening effect of A. pomorum. However, we cannot state that the effects are direct because we do not have data that mechanistically connects Tk/TkR99D signalling directly in insulin-producing cells. The current evidence is most consistent with insulin signalling priming responses to microbiota/Tk/TkR99D, as per the newly-added text.

Typographical errors

We have remedied the highlighted errors, at lines 128-140.

Reviewer #2:

it would be good to show that the bacterial levels are not impacted [by TkRNAi]

We have quantified CFUs in CR flies upon ubiquitous TkRNAi (Figure S5), finding that the RNAi does not affect bacterial load. New text at lines 138-139 articulates this point.

The effect of Tk RNAi on TAG is opposite in CR and Ax or CR and Ap flies, and the knockdown shows an effect in either case (Figure 2E, Figure 3D). Why is this?

As per response to Reviewer #1, we have added text at lines 219-222 to address this point.

Is it possible to perform at least one lifespan repeat with the other Tk RNAi line mentioned?

We have added another experiment showing longevity upon knockdown in conventional flies, using an independent TkRNAi line (Figure S3).

Reviewer #3:

In Line243, the manuscript states that the reporter activity was not increased in the posterior midgut. However, based on the presented results in Fig4E, there is seemingly not apparent regional specificity. A more detailed explanation is necessary.

We thank the reviewer sincerely for their keen eye, which has highlighted an error in the previous version of the figure. In revisiting this figure we have noticed, to our dismay, that the figures for GFP quantification were actually re-plots of the figures for (ac)K quantification. This error led to the discrepancy between statistics and graphics, which thankfully the reviewer noticed. We have revised the figure to remedy our error, and the statistics now match the boxplots and results text.

Fig1C uses Adh for normalization. Given the high variability of the result, the authors should (1) check whether Adh expression levels changed via bacterial association

We selected Adh on the basis of our RNAseq analysis, which showed it was not different between AX and CV guts, whereas many commonly-used “housekeeping” genes were. We have now added a plot to demonstrate (Figure S2).

The statement in Line 82 that EEs express 14 peptide hormones should be supported with an appropriate reference

We have added the requested reference (Hung et al, 2020) at line 86.

(4) Description of analyses that authors prefer not to carry out

Reviewer #1:

I'd encourage the authors to provide lifespan plots that enable comparison between all conditions

We have avoided this approach because the number of survival curves that would need to be presented on the same axis (e.g. 16 for Figure 5) is not legible. However we have ensured that axes on faceted plots are equivalent and with grid lines for comparison. Moreover, our approach using statistical coefficients (EMMs) enables direct quantitative comparison of the differences among conditions.

Reviewer #2:

Is it possible that this driver is simply not resulting in an efficient KD of the receptor? I would be inclined to check this

This comment relates to Figure 7G. We do see an effect of the knockdown in this experiment, so we believe that the knockdown is effective. However the direction of response is not consistent with our hypothesis so the experiment is not informative about the role of these cells. We therefore feel there is little to be gained by testing efficacy of knockdown, which would also be technically challenging because the cells are a small population in a larger tissue which expresses the same transcripts elsewhere (i.e. necessitating FISH).

Would it be possible to use antibodies for acetylated histones?

The comment relates to Figure 4C-E. The proposed studies would be a significant amount of work because, to our knowledge, the specific histone marks which drive activation in TK+ cells remain unknown. On the other hand, we do not see how this information would enrich the present story, rather such experiments would appear to be the beginning of something new. We therefore agree with Reviewer #1 (in cross-commenting) that this additional work is not justified.

Reviewer #3:

Tk+ EEC activity should be assessed directly, rather than relying solely on transcript levels. Approaches such as CaLexA or GCaMP could be used.

We agree with reviewers 1-2 (in cross-commenting) that this proposal is non-trivial and not justified by the additional insight that would be gained. As described above, we are attempting to immunostain Tk, which if successful will provide a third line of evidence for regulation of Tk+ cells. However we note that we already have the strongest possible evidence for a role of these cells via genetic analysis (Figure 5).

While the difficulty of maintaining lifelong axenic conditions is understandable, it may still be feasible to assess the induction of Tk (ie. Tk transcription or EE activity upregulation) by the microbiome on males.

As the reviewer recognises, maintaining axenic experiments for months on end is not trivial. Given the tendency for males either to simply mirror female responses to lifespan-extending interventions, or to not respond at all, we made the decision in our work to only study females. We have instead emphasised in the manuscript that results are from female flies.

TkR86C, in addition to TkR99D, may be involved in the A. pomorum-lifespan interaction. Consider revising the title to refer more generally to the "tachykinin receptor" rather than only TkR99D.

We disagree with this interpretation: the results do not show that TkR86C-RNAi recapitulates the effect of enteric Tk-RNAi. A potentially interesting interaction is apparent, but the data do not support a causal role for TkR86C. A causal role is supported only for TkR99D, knockdown of which recapitulates the longevity of axenic flies and Tk^RNAi flies_._ Therefore we feel that our current title is therefore justified by the data, and a more generic version would misrepresent our findings.

The difference between "aging" and "lifespan" should also be addressed.

The smurf phenotype is a well-established metric of healthspan. Moreover, lifespan is the leading aggregate measure of ageing. We therefore feel that the use of “ageing” in the title is appropriate.

If feasible, assessing foxo activation would add mechanistic depth. This could be done by monitoring foxo nuclear localization or measuring the expression levels of downstream target genes.

Foxo nuclear localisation has already been shown in axenic flies (Shin et al, 2011). We have added text and citation at lines 401-402.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Hernandez-Nunez et al. investigate the development and function of neural circuits involved in the regulation of heart rate in larval zebrafish. Using conserved genetic markers, they identify neural pathways involved in the bidirectional control of heart rate and in providing sensory feedback, potentially enabling more precise tuning. The main observation is that the different elements of this circuit are laid down in a developmentally staggered manner.

At 4 days old, the heart rate is invariant to a range of sensory stimuli, and the vagal motor or sympathetic pathways could not be seen to innervate the heart. Progressively through development, the heart is first innervated by the vagal motor pathway, whose axons are cholinergic, before the formation of phox2bb+ intracardiac neurons (ICNs). At this stage, before the first ICNs are observed, activation of the vagal motor pathway by optogenetic activation of a localized population of cholinergic hindbrain neurons leads to bradycardia. After the vagal motor innervation begins, the sympathetic pathway innervates the heart, which could be visualized in the form of TH+ fibers from the anterior paravertebral ganglia (APG). The activity of the TH+ APG neurons was diverse and showed proportional, integral, and derivative-like relationships to the heart rate, suggesting a role in more precise tuning of the rate than what could be achieved through the vagal pathway alone. The sensory vagus innervation of the heart was identified to be the last stage to develop; however, neurons in the nodose ganglion exhibited diverse responses tuned to the heart rate well before the innervation reached the heart. The authors attribute this to the fact that other indirect sensory cues from the gills or vasculature could be used to sense heart rate prior to innervation.

This study identifies key components of the control loop required for the regulation of heart rate in zebrafish. The control mechanism appears to be independent of the cues that trigger heart rate changes, indicating that the circuit is indeed part of an interoceptive pathway for heart rate control. Evidence for the staggered development of the vagal-motor, sympathetic, and sensory pathways is conclusive, and as the authors discuss, this phenomenon progressively allows for finer-grained control of the heart rate. This could be achieved through proportional-integral-derivative-like control properties emerging in a diverse set of neurons in the APG and sensory feedback of the state of the heart. In line with these findings, the baseline variability of heart rate prior to innervation at 4 days old appears to be comparatively lower than the later stages (Figure 1C, D, Supplementary Figure 1C-F) and increases over development.

Based on this observation and the time courses of the kernels identified by the GLMs, I would expect heart rate fluctuations of a finer time scale, ultimately limited by the time course of GCaMP6s, to be captured by the models in Figures 3, 5, and 7, in addition to the stimulus-locked changes that are highlighted. While the models yield valuable insight in the form of the activation kernels and their potential roles, in one instance, this captures the potential contribution of either the motor vagus or the APG to the change in heart rate. This makes it challenging to identify where it falls short and the potential functions of pathways that are yet to be discovered.

Lastly, the proposed anatomical connectivity of the heart-brain circuit is based on tracts observed in this study as well as those inferred from function and from previous studies.

(1) It is not clear from the images presented here whether the VSNs send feedback projections to the brainstem VPN.

(2) Do the brainstem neurons identified by their functional roles send efferent projections via the motor vagus nerve? This is unclear from the results presented and needs to be clarified in the text.

(3) Add appropriate clarifying annotations to Figure 9 and a section of text discussing the potential unknowns in the proposed circuit diagram.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The authors present highly impressive in vivo voltage‐imaging data, demonstrating neuronal activity at subcellular, cellular, and population levels in a developing organism. The approach provides excellent spatial and temporal resolution, with sufficient signal-to-noise to detect hyperpolarizations and subthreshold events. The visualization of contralateral synchrony and its developmental loss over time is particularly compelling. The observation that ipsilateral synchrony persists despite contralateral desynchronization is a striking demonstration of the power of GEVIs in vivo. While I outline several points that should be addressed, I consider this among the strongest demonstrations of in vivo GEVI imaging to date.

Major points:

(1) Clarification of GEVI performance characteristics

There is a widespread misconception in the GEVI field that response speed is the dominant or primary determinant of sensor performance. Although fast kinetics are certainly desirable, they are not the only (or even necessarily the limiting) factor for effective imaging. Kinetic speed specifies the time to reach ~63% of the maximal ΔF/F for a given voltage step (typically 100 mV, approximating the amplitude of a neuronal action potential), but in practical imaging, a slower sensor with a large ΔF/F can outperform a faster sensor with a small ΔF/F. In this context, the authors' use of ArcLight is actually instructive. ArcLight is one of the slower GEVIs in common use, yet Figures S1a-b clearly show that it still reports voltage transients in vivo very well. I therefore strongly recommend moving these panels into the main text to emphasize that robust in vivo imaging can be achieved even with a relatively slow GEVI, provided the signal amplitude and SNR are adequate. This will help counteract the common misunderstanding in the field.

(2) ArcLight's voltage-response range

ArcLight is shifted toward more negative potentials (V₁/₂ ≈ −30 mV). This improves subthreshold detection but makes distinguishing action potentials from subthreshold transients more challenging. The comparison with GCaMP is helpful because the Ca²⁺ signal largely reflects action potentials. Panels S1c-f show similar onset kinetics but a longer decay for GCaMP. Surprisingly, the ΔF/F amplitudes are comparable; typically, GCaMP changes are larger. To support lines 193-194, the authors should include a table summarizing the onset/offset kinetics and ΔF/F ranges for neurons expressing ArcLight versus GCaMP.

Additionally, the expected action-potential amplitude in zebrafish neurons should be stated. In Figure S1b, a 40 mV change appears to produce ~0.5% ΔF/F, but this should be quantified and noted. Could this comparison to GCaMP help resolve action potentials from subthreshold bursts?

(3) Axonal versus somatic amplitudes (Line 203)

The manuscript states that voltage amplitudes are "slightly smaller" in axons than in somata; this requires quantitative values and statistical testing. More importantly, differences in optical amplitude reflect factors such as expression levels, background fluorescence, and optical geometry, not necessarily true differences in voltage amplitude. The axonal signals are clearly present, but their relative magnitude should not be interpreted without correction.

(4) Figure 4C: need for an off-ROI control

Figure 4C should include a control ROI located away from ROI3 to demonstrate that the axonal signal is not due to background fluctuations, similar to the control shown in Figure S3. Although the ΔF image suggests localization, showing the trace explicitly would strengthen the point. The fluorescence-change image in Figure 4c should also be fully explained in the legend.

(5) Figure 5: hyperpolarization signals

Figure 5 is particularly impressive. It appears that Cell 2 at 18.5 hpf and Cell 1 at 18 hpf exhibit hyperpolarizing events. The authors should confirm that these are true hyperpolarizations by giving some indication of how often they were observed.

(6) SNR comparison (Lines 300-302)

The claim that ArcLight and GCaMP exhibit comparable SNR requires statistical support across multiple cells.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aimed to establish a long-term voltage imaging platform to investigate how coordinated neuronal activity emerges during spinal cord development in zebrafish embryos. Using the genetically encoded voltage indicator ArcLight, they tracked membrane potential dynamics in motor neurons at population, single-cell, and subcellular levels from 18 to 23 hours post-fertilization (hpf), revealing relationships between firing maturation, waveform characteristics, and axonal outgrowth.

Strengths:

(1) Technical advancement in developmental voltage imaging:

This study demonstrates voltage imaging of motor neurons in the developing vertebrate spinal cord. The approach successfully captures voltage dynamics at multiple spatial scales-neuronal population, single-cell, and subcellular compartments.

(2) Insights into the relationship between morphological and functional maturation:

The work reveals important relationships between voltage dynamics maturation and morphological changes.

(3) Kinetics analysis of membrane potential waveform enabled by voltage imaging:

The characterization of "immature" versus "mature" firing based on quantitative waveform parameters provides insights into functional maturation that are inaccessible by calcium imaging. This analysis reveals a maturation process in the biophysical properties of developing neurons.

(4) Matching of voltage indicator kinetics to biological signal:

The authors' choice of ArcLight, despite its slow kinetics compared to newer GEVIs, proved well-suited to the low-frequency activity patterns in developing spinal neurons (frequency ~0.3 Hz).

Weaknesses:

(1) Insufficient comparison with prior calcium imaging studies:

While the authors state that voltage imaging provides superior temporal resolution compared to calcium imaging (lines 192-196, 301), and this is generally true, the current manuscript does not adequately cite or discuss previous calcium imaging studies. Since neural activity occurs at low frequency in the developing spinal cord, calcium imaging is adequate for characterizing the emergence of coordinated activity patterns in the developing zebrafish spinal cord. Notably, Wan et al. (2019, Cell) performed a comprehensive single-cell reconstruction of emerging population activity in the entire developing zebrafish spinal cord using calcium imaging. This work should be properly acknowledged and compared. The specific advantages of voltage imaging over these prior studies need to be more clearly articulated, e.g. detection of subthreshold events and membrane potential waveform kinetics.

(2) Considerations for generalizability of the ArcLight-based voltage imaging approach:

While this study successfully demonstrates voltage imaging using ArcLight in the developing spinal cord, the generalizability of this approach to later developmental stages and other neural systems warrants discussion. ArcLight exhibits relatively slow kinetics (rise time ~100-200 ms, decay τ ~200-300 ms). In the current study, these kinetics are well-suited to the developmental activity patterns observed (firing frequency ~0.3 Hz), representing appropriate matching of indicator properties to biological timescales. However, the same approach may be less suitable for later developmental stages when neural activity occurs at higher frequencies.

(3) Incomplete methodological descriptions:

As a paper establishing a new imaging approach, several critical details are missing or unclear.

(a) Imaging system specifications: The imaging setup description lacks essential information, including light source specifications, excitation wavelength/filter sets, and light power at the sample. The authors should also clarify whether wide-field optics was used rather than confocal or selective plane imaging.

(b) Long-term imaging protocol: Whether neurons were imaged continuously or with breaks between imaging sessions is not explicitly stated. The current phrasing could be interpreted as a continuous 4.5-hour recording, which would be technically impressive but may not be what was actually done.

(c) Image processing procedures: Denoising and bleach correction procedures are mentioned but not described, which is critical for a methods-focused paper.

(d) The waveform classification (Supplementary Figure S6) shows overlapping kinetics between "immature" and "mature" firing, yet the classification method is not adequately justified.

(e) Given that photostability and toxicity are critical considerations for long-term voltage imaging, these aspects warrant further clarification. While the figures suggest stable ArcLight fluorescence during the experiments, the manuscript lacks quantification of photobleaching, a discussion of potential toxicity concerns associated with the indicator, and information regarding the maximum duration over which the ArcLight signal can faithfully report physiological voltage dynamics.

(4) Incomplete data representation and quantification:

(a) The claim of "reduced variability" in calcium imaging (line 194) is not clearly demonstrated in Supplementary Figure S1.

(b) Amplitude distributions for cell/subcellular compartments are not systematically quantified. Figure S3 shows ~5% changes in some axons versus ~2% in others, but it remains unclear whether these variabilities reflect differences between axonal compartments within the same cell, between individual cells, or between individual fish.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript reported a method for deep brain imaging with a GRIN lens that combines "low-NA telecentric scanning (LNTS) of laser excitation with high-NA fluorescence collection" to achieve a larger FOV than conventional approaches.

Strengths:

The manuscript presented in vivo structural images and calcium activity results in side-by-side comparison to wide-field epi fluorescence imaging through a GRIN lens and two-photon scanning imaging.

Weaknesses:

(1) Lack of sufficient technique information on the "high-NA (1.0) fluorescence collection". Is it custom-made or an off-the-shelf component? The only optical schematic, Figure 1, shows two lenses and a Si-PMT as the collection apparatus. There is no information about the lenses and the spacing between each component.

(2) There is no discussion about the speed limitation of the LNTS method, which, as a scanning-based method, is limited by the scanner speed. At a 10 Hz frame rate, the LNTS, although it has a better FOV, is much slower than widefield fluorescence imaging. The 10 Hz speed is not sufficient for some fast calcium activities.

(3) Supplementary Figure 5 is irrelevant to the main claim of the manuscript. This is a preliminary simulation related to the authors' proposed future work.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study introduces a simple optical strategy for one-photon imaging through GRIN lenses that prioritizes coverage while maintaining practical signal quality. By using low-NA telecentric scanned excitation together with high-NA collection, the approach aims to convert nearly the full lens facet into a usable field of view (FOV) with uniform contrast and visible somata. The method is demonstrated in 4-µm fluorescent bead samples and mouse brain, with qualitative comparisons to widefield and two-photon (2P) imaging. Because the configuration relies on standard components and a minimalist optical layout, it may enable broader access to large-area cellular imaging in the deep brain across neuroscience laboratories.

Strengths:

(1) This method mitigates off-axis aberrations and enlarges the usable FOV. It achieves near full-facet usable FOV with consistent centre-to-edge contrast, as evidenced by 4-µm fluorescent bead samples (uniform visibility to the edge) and in vivo microglia imaging (resolvable somata across the field).

(2) The optical design is simple and supports efficient photon collection, lowering the barrier to adoption relative to adaptive optics (AO) or lens design-based correction. Using standard components and treating the GRIN lens as a high-NA (~1.0) light pipe increases collection efficiency for ballistic and scattered fluorescence. Figure annotations report the illumination energy required to reach a fixed detected-photon target (e.g., ~1000 detected photons per bead/cell for the 500-µm FOV condition), and under this equal-output criterion, the LNTS configuration achieves comparable or better image quality at lower illumination energy than conventional wide-field imaging, supporting improved photon efficiency and implying reduced bleaching and heating for equivalent signal levels.

(3) The in vivo functional recordings are stable and exhibit strong signals. In vivo calcium imaging shows high-SNR ΔF/F₀ traces that remain stable over ~30-minute sessions with only modest baseline drift reported, supporting physiological measurements without heavy denoising and enabling large-scale data collection.

(4) The low-NA excitation provides an extended focal depth, enabling more neurons to be tracked concurrently within a single FOV while maintaining practical signal quality. It reduces sensitivity to axial motion and minor misalignment and enhances overall experimental efficiency.

Weaknesses:

(1) Quantitative characterization is limited. Resolution and contrast are not comprehensively mapped as functions of field position and depth, and a clear, operational definition of "usable FOV" is not specified with threshold criteria.

(2) The claim of approximately 100% usable FOV is largely supported by qualitative images; standardized metrics (e.g., PSF/MTF maps, contrast-to-noise ratio profiles, cell-detection yield versus radius) are needed to calibrate expectations and enable comparison across systems.

(3) The trade-off inherent to low NA excitation, namely a broader axial PSF and possible neuropil/background contamination, is acknowledged qualitatively but not quantified. Analyses that separate in-focus from out-of-focus signal would help readers judge single-cell fidelity across the field.

(4) Generalizability remains to be established. Performance across multiple GRIN models (e.g., diameter, NA), wavelengths, is not yet demonstrated. Longer-session photobleaching, heating, and phototoxicity, particularly near the edge of the FOV, also require fuller evaluation.

Readers should view it as a coverage-first strategy that enlarges the FOV while accepting a modest trade-off in resolution due to the low-NA excitation and the extended axial PSF.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper proposes a non-decision time (NDT)-informed approach to estimating time-varying decision thresholds in diffusion models of decision making. The manuscript motivates the method well, outlines the identifiability issues it is intended to address, and evaluates it using simulations and two empirical datasets. The aim is clear, the scope is deliberately focused, and the manuscript is well written. The core idea is interesting, technically grounded, and a meaningful contribution to ongoing work on collapsing thresholds.

Strengths:

The manuscript is logically structured and easy to follow. The emphasis on parameter recovery is appropriate and appreciated. The finding that the exponential NDT-informed function produces substantially better recovery than the hyperbolic form is useful, given the importance placed on identifiability earlier in the paper. The threshold visualisations are also helpful for interpreting what the models are doing. Overall, the work offers a well-defined, methodologically oriented contribution that will interest researchers working on time-varying thresholds.

Weaknesses / Areas for Clarification:

A few points would benefit from clarification, additional analysis, or revised presentation:

(1) It would help readers to see a concrete demonstration of the trade-off between NDT and collapsing thresholds, to give a sense of the scale of the identifiability problem motivating the work.

(2) Before moving to the empirical datasets, the manuscript really needs a simulation-based model-recovery comparison, since all major conclusions of the empirical applications rely on model comparison. One approach might be to simulate from (a) an FT model with across-trial drift variability and (b) one of the CT models, then fit both models to each of the simulated data sets. This would address a longstanding issue: sometimes CT models are preferred even when the estimated collapse in the thresholds is close to zero. A recovery study would confirm that model selection behaves sensibly in the new framework.

(3) An additional subtle point is that BIC is defined in terms of the maximised log-likelihood of the model for the data being modelled. In the joint model, the parameter estimates maximise the combined likelihood of behavioural and non-decision-time data. This means the behavioural log-likelihood evaluated at the joint MLEs is not the behavioural MLE. If BIC is being computed for the behavioural data only, this breaks the assumptions underlying BIC. The only valid BIC here would be one defined for the joint model using the joint likelihood.

(4) Table 1 sets up the Study 1 comparisons, but there's no row for the FT model. Similarly, Figures 10 and 13 would be more informative if they included FT predictions. This matters because, in Study 1, the FT model appears to fit aggregate accuracy better than the BIC-preferred collapsing model, currently shown only in Appendix 5. Some discussion of why would strengthen the argument.

(5) In Figure 7, the degree of decay underestimation is obscured by using a density plot rather than a scatterplot, consistent with the other panels of the same figure. Presenting it the same way would make the mis-recovery more transparent. The accompanying text may also need clarification: when data are generated from an FT model with across-trial drift variability, the NDT-informed model seems to infer FT boundaries essentially. If that's correct, the model must be misfitting the simulated data. This is actually a useful result as it suggests across-trial drift variability in FT models is discriminable from collapsing-threshold models. It would be good to make this explicit.

(6) Given the large recovery advantage of the exponential NDT-informed function over the hyperbolic one, the authors may want to consider whether the results favour adopting the former more generally. Given these findings, I would consider recommending the exponential NDT-informed model for future use.

(7) In Study 2 (Figure 13), all models qualitatively miss an interesting empirical pattern: under speed emphasis, errors are faster than corrects, while under accuracy emphasis, errors become slower. The error RT distribution in the speed condition is especially poorly captured. It would be helpful for the authors to comment, as it suggests that something theoretically relevant is missing from all models tested.

(8) The threshold visualisations extend to 3 seconds, yet both datasets show decisions mostly finishing by ~1.5 seconds. Shortening the x-axis would better reflect the empirical RT distributions and avoid unintentionally overstating the timescale of the empirical decision processes.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The current paper addresses an important issue in evidence accumulation models: many modelers implement flat decision boundaries because the collapsing alternatives are hard to reliably estimate. Here, using simulations, the authors demonstrate that parameter recovery can be drastically improved by providing the model with additional data (specifically, an EEG-informed estimate of non-decision time). Moreover, in two empirical datasets, it is shown that those EEG-informed models provide a better fit to the data. The method seems sound and promising and might inform future work on the debate regarding flat vs collapsing choice boundaries. As an evidence-accumulation enthusiast, I am quite excited about this work, although for a broader audience, the immediate applicability of this approach seems limited because it does require EEG data (i.e. limiting widespread use of the method or e.g., answering questions about individual differences that require a very large N).

That Ibn Battuta, a Moroccan traveler, is very renowned for traversing 73,000 miles over a 30-year period. His destinations included Africa, Middle East, India, China, Europe, and Mali, which lies in sub Saharan Africa.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) are among the most widely distributed soil microorganisms, forming symbiotic relationships (AM symbiosis) with approximately 70% of terrestrial vascular plants. AMF are considered obligate biotrophs that rely on host-derived symbiotic carbohydrates. However, it remains unclear whether symbiotic AMF can access exogenous non-symbiotic carbon sources. By conducting three interconnected and complementary experiments, Chen et al. investigated the direct uptake of exogenous 13C1-labeled myristate by symbiotic Rhizophagus irregularis, R. intraradices, and R. diaphanous, and assessed their growth responses using AMF-carrot hairy root co-culture systems (Experiments 1 and 2). They also explored the environmental distribution of myristate in plant and soil substrates, and evaluated the impact of exogenous myristate on the symbiotic carbon-phosphorus exchange between R. irregularis and alfalfa or rice in a greenhouse experiment (Experiment 3). Given that the AM symbiosis not only plays a significant role in the biogeochemical cycling of C and P elements but also acts as a key driver of plant community structure and productivity. The topic of this manuscript is relevant. The study is well-designed, and the manuscript is well-written. I find it easy and interesting to follow the entire narrative.

Strengths:

The manuscript provides evidence from 13C labeling and molecular analyses showing that symbiotic AMF can absorb non-symbiotic C sources like myristate in the presence of plant-derived symbiotic carbohydrates, challenging the traditional assumption that AMF exclusively rely on symbiotic carbon sources supplied from associated host plants. This finding advances our understanding of the nutritional interactions between AMF and host plants. Furthermore, the manuscript reveals that myristate is widely present in diverse soil and plant components; however, exogenous myristate disrupts the carbon-phosphorus exchange in arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. These insights have significant implications for the application and regulation of the AM symbiosis in sustainable agriculture and ecological restoration.

Weaknesses:

The limitations of this study include:

(1) The absorption of myristate by symbiotic AMF was observed only after exogenous application under artificial conditions, which may not accurately reflect natural environments.

(2) The investigation into the mechanism by which myristate disrupts C-P exchange in AM symbiosis remains preliminary.

Nevertheless, the authors have adequately discussed these limitations in the manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have addressed a major question since the discovery of myristate uptake from AM fungi as a non-symbiotic C source. Myristate has been used to grow some AM fungi axenically, but the biological significance of this saprobic attitude in natural or agronomical environments remained unexplored. The results of this research soundly demonstrate that myristate-derived C is used by AM fungi, leading to improved development of both extraradical and intraradical mycelium (at least under low P conditions). However, this does not lead to obvious advantages for the plant, since symbiotic nutrient exchange (carbon and phosphorus) is reduced upon myristate application. Furthermore, myristate-treated plants quench their defence responses.

Strengths:

The study is extensive, based on a solid experimental setup and methodological approach, combining several state-of-the-art techniques. The conclusions are novel and of high relevance for the scientific community. The writing is fluent and clear.

Weaknesses:

Some of the figures should be improved for clarity. The conclusions do not express a conclusive remark that, in my opinion, emerges clearly from the results: myristate application in agriculture does not seem to be a very promising approach, since it unbalances the symbiosis nutritional equilibrium and may weaken plant immunity. This is a very important point (albeit rather unpleasant for applicative scientists) that should be stressed in the conclusions.

DOI: 10.1007/s13402-025-01113-1

Resource: (CLS Cat# 300342/p657_SK-OV-3, RRID:CVCL_0532)

Curator: @evieth

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0532

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s13402-025-01111-3

Resource: (NCI-DTP Cat# NCI-H1299, RRID:CVCL_0060)

Curator: @evieth

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0060

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s13402-025-01111-3

Resource: (RRID:CVCL_6955)

Curator: @evieth

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_6955

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s13402-025-01111-3

Resource: (CCLV Cat# CCLV-RIE 1035, RRID:CVCL_0023)

Curator: @evieth

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0023

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s13402-025-01111-3

Resource: (RRID:CVCL_B288)

Curator: @evieth

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_B288

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s13402-025-01111-3

Resource: (RRID:CVCL_0248)

Curator: @evieth

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0248

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s13402-025-01111-3

Resource: (RRID:CVCL_0320)

Curator: @evieth

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0320

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s13402-025-01111-3

Resource: (KCLB Cat# 30177, RRID:CVCL_0459)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0459

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s13402-025-01111-3

Resource: (NCI-DTP Cat# MCF7, RRID:CVCL_0031)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0031

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s13402-025-01111-3

Resource: (BCRJ Cat# 0331, RRID:CVCL_B260)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_B260

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s13402-025-01111-3

Resource: (RRID:CVCL_0063)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0063

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s13402-025-01111-3

Resource: (RRID:CVCL_0291)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0291

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s13402-025-01111-3

Resource: (KCLB Cat# 80009, RRID:CVCL_7254)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_7254

What is this?

DOI: 10.1007/s13402-025-01111-3

Resource: (CLS Cat# 300266/p487_LOVO, RRID:CVCL_0399)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0399

What is this?

DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-25-1749

Resource: (CLS Cat# 300342/p657_SK-OV-3, RRID:CVCL_0532)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0532

What is this?

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-32061-3

Resource: (Thermo Fisher Scientific Cat# A-11070, RRID:AB_2534114)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2534114

What is this?

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-32061-3

Resource: (Thermo Fisher Scientific Cat# 32-2700, RRID:AB_2533073)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:AB_2533073

What is this?

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-32061-3

Resource: RRID:MGI:5698383

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:MGI:5698383

What is this?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This is an extremely important manuscript in the evolution of cerebral perfusion imaging using Arterial Spin Labelling (ASL). The number of subjects that were scanned has provided the authors with a unique opportunity to explore many potential associations between regional cerebral blood flow (CBF) and clinical and demographic variables.

Strengths:

The major strength of the manuscript is the access to an unprecedentedly large cohort of subjects. It demonstrates the sensitivity of regional tissue blood flow in the brain as an important marker of resting brain function. In addition, the authors have demonstrated a thorough analysis methodology and good statistical rigour.

Weaknesses:

This reviewer did not identify any major weaknesses in this work.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This is an interesting study exploring methods for reconstructing visual stimuli from neural activity in the mouse visual cortex. Specifically, it uses a competition dataset (published in the Dynamic Sensorium benchmark study) and a recent winning model architecture (DNEM, dynamic neural encoding model) to recover visual information stored in ensembles of mouse visual cortex.

Strengths:

This is a great start for a project addressing visual reconstruction. It is based on physiological data obtained at a single-cell resolution, the stimulus movies were reasonably naturalistic and representative of the real world, the study did not ignore important correlates such as eye position and pupil diameter, and of course, the reconstruction quality exceeded anything achieved by previous studies. There appear to be no major technical flaws in the study, and some potential confounds were addressed upon revision. The study is an enjoyable read.

Weaknesses:

The study is technically competent and benchmark-focused, but without significant conceptual or theoretical advances. The inclusion of neuronal data broadens the study's appeal, but the work does not explore potential principles of neural coding, which limits its relevance for neuroscience and may create some disappointment to some neuroscientists. The authors are transparent that their goal was methodological rather than explanatory, but this raises the question of why neuronal data were necessary at all, as more significant reconstruction improvements might be achievable using noise-less artificial video encoders alone (network-to-network decoding approaches have been done well by teams such as Han, Poggio, and Cheung, 2023, ICML). Yet, even within the methodological domain, the study does not articulate clear principles or heuristics that could guide future progress. The finding that more neurons improve reconstruction aligns with well-established results in the literature that show that higher neuronal numbers improve decoding in general (for example, Hung, Kreiman, Poggio, and DiCarlo, 2005) and thus may not constitute a novel insight.

Specific issues:

(1) The study showed that it could achieve high-quality video reconstructions from mouse visual cortex activity using a neural encoding model (DNEM), recovering 10-second video sequences and approaching a two-fold improvement in pixel-by-pixel correlation over attempts. As a reader, I was left with the question: okay, does this mean that we should all switch to DNEM for our investigations of mouse visual cortex? What makes this encoding model special? It is introduced as "a winning model of the Sensorium 2023 competition which achieved a score of 0.301...single trial correlation between predicted and ground truth neuronal activity," but as someone who does not follow this competition (most eLife readers are not likely to do so, either), I do not know how to gauge my response. Is this impressive? What is the best theoretical score, given noise and other limitations? Is the model inspired by the mouse brain in terms of mechanisms or architecture, or was it optimized to win the competition by overfitting it to the nuances of the data set? Of course, I know that as a reader, I am invited to read the references, but the study would stand better on its own, if it clarified how its findings depended on this model.

The revision helpfully added context to the Methods about the range of scores achieved by other models, but this information remains absent from the Abstract and other important sections. For instance, the Abstract states, "We achieve a pixel-level correlation of 0.57 between the ground truth movie and the reconstructions from single-trial neural responses," yet this point estimate (presented without confidence intervals or comparisons to controls) lacks meaning for readers who are not told how it compares to prior work or what level of performance would be considered strong. Without such context, the manuscript undercuts potentially meaningful achievements.

(2) Along those lines, the authors conclude that "the number of neurons in the dataset and the use of model ensembling are critical for high-quality reconstructions." If true, these principles should generalize across network architectures. I wondered whether the same dependencies would hold for other network types, as this could reveal more general insights. The authors replied that such extensions are expected (since prior work has shown similar effects for static images) but argued that testing this explicitly would require "substantial additional work," be "impractical," and likely not produce "surprising results." While practical difficulty alone is not a sufficient reason to leave an idea untested, I agree that the idea that "more neurons would help" would be unsurprising. The question then becomes: given that this is a conclusion already in the field, what new principle or understanding has been gained in this study?

(3) One major claim was that the quality of the reconstructions depended on the number of neurons in the dataset. There were approximately 8000 neurons recorded per mouse. The correlation difference between the reconstruction achieved by 1000 neurons and 8000 neurons was ~0.2. Is that a lot or a little? One might hypothesize that 7000 additional neurons could contribute more information, but perhaps, those neurons were redundant if their receptive fields are too close together or if they had the same orientation or spatiotemporal tuning. How correlated were these neurons in response to a given movie? Why did so many neurons offer such a limited increase in correlation? Originally, this question was meant to prompt deeper analysis of the neural data, but the authors did not engage with it, suggesting a limited understanding of the neuronal aspects of the dataset.

(4) We appreciated the experiments testing the capacity of the reconstruction process, by using synthetic stimuli created under a Gaussian process in a noise-free way. But this originally further raised questions: what is the theoretical capability for reconstruction of this processing pipeline, as a whole? Is 0.563 the best that one could achieve given the noisiness and/or neuron count of the Sensorium project? What if the team applied the pipeline to reconstruct the activity of a given artificial neural network's layer (e.g., some ResNet convolutional layer), using hidden units as proxies for neuronal calcium activity? In the revision, this concern was addressed nicely in the review in Supplementary Figure 3C. Also, one appreciates that as a follow up, the team produced error maps (New Figure 6) that highlight where in the frames the reconstruction are likely to fail. But the maps went unanalyzed further, and I am not sure if there was a systematic trend in the errors.

(5) I was encouraged by Figure 4, which shows how the reconstructions succeeded or failed across different spatial frequencies. The authors note that "the reconstruction process failed at high spatial frequencies," yet it also appears to struggle with low spatial frequencies, as the reconstructed images did not produce smooth surfaces (e.g., see the top rows of Figures 4A and 4B). In regions where one would expect a single continuous gradient, the reconstructions instead display specular, high-frequency noise. This issue is difficult to overlook and might deserve further discussion.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper presents a method for reconstructing input videos shown to a mouse from the simultaneously recorded visual cortex activity (two-photon calcium imaging data). The publicly available experimental dataset is taken from a recent brain-encoding challenge, and the (publicly available) neural network model that serves to reconstruct the videos is the winning model from that challenge (by distinct authors). The present study applies gradient-based input optimization by backpropagating the brain-encoding error through this selected model (a method that has been proposed in the past, with other datasets). The main contribution of the paper is, therefore, the choice of applying this existing method to this specific dataset with this specific neural network model. The quantitative results appear to go beyond previous attempts at video input reconstruction (although measured with distinct datasets). The conclusions have potential practical interest for the field of brain decoding, and theoretical interest for possible future uses in functional brain exploration.

Strengths:

The authors use a validated optimization method on a recent large-scale dataset, with a state-of-the-art brain encoding model. The use of an ensemble of 7 distinct model instances (trained on distinct subsets of the dataset, with distinct random initializations) significantly improves the reconstructions. The exploration of the relation between reconstruction quality and number of recorded neurons will be useful to those planning future experiments.

Weaknesses:

The main contribution is methodological, and the methodology combines pre-existing components without any new original component.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews: 

Reviewer #2 (Public review): 

Summary: 

This is an interesting study exploring methods for reconstructing visual stimuli from neural activity in the mouse visual cortex. Specifically, it uses a competition dataset (published in the Dynamic Sensorium benchmark study) and a recent winning model architecture (DNEM, dynamic neural encoding model) to recover visual information stored in ensembles of mouse visual cortex. 

Strengths: 

This is a great start for a project addressing visual reconstruction. It is based on physiological data obtained at a single-cell resolution, the stimulus movies were reasonably naturalistic and representative of the real world, the study did not ignore important correlates such as eye position and pupil diameter, and of course, the reconstruction quality exceeded anything achieved by previous studies. There appear to be no major technical flaws in the study, and some potential confounds were addressed upon revision. The study is an enjoyable read. 

Weaknesses: 

The study is technically competent and benchmark-focused, but without significant conceptual or theoretical advances. The inclusion of neuronal data broadens the study's appeal, but the work does not explore potential principles of neural coding, which limits its relevance for neuroscience and may create some disappointment to some neuroscientists. The authors are transparent that their goal was methodological rather than explanatory, but this raises the question of why neuronal data were necessary at all, as more significant reconstruction improvements might be achievable using noise-less artificial video encoders alone (network-to-network decoding approaches have been done well by teams such as Han, Poggio, and Cheung, 2023, ICML). Yet, even within the methodological domain, the study does not articulate clear principles or heuristics that could guide future progress. The finding that more neurons improve reconstruction aligns with well-established results in the literature that show that higher neuronal numbers improve decoding in general (for example, Hung, Kreiman, Poggio, and DiCarlo, 2005) and thus may not constitute a novel insight. 

We thank the reviewer for this second round of comments and hope we were able to address the remaining points below. 

Indeed, using surrogate noiseless data is interesting and useful when developing such methods, or to demonstrate that they work in principle. But in order to evaluate if they really work in practice, we need to use real neuronal data. While we did not try movie reconstruction from layers within artificial neural networks as surrogate data, in Supplementary Figure 3C we provide the performance of our method using simulated/predicted neuronal responses from the dynamic neural encoding model alongside real neuronal responses.

Specific issues: 

(1)The study showed that it could achieve high-quality video reconstructions from mouse visual cortex activity using a neural encoding model (DNEM), recovering 10-second video sequences and approaching a two-fold improvement in pixel-by-pixel correlation over attempts. As a reader, I was left with the question: okay, does this mean that we should all switch to DNEM for our investigations of mouse visual cortex? What makes this encoding model special? It is introduced as "a winning model of the Sensorium 2023 competition which achieved a score of 0.301...single trial correlation between predicted and ground truth neuronal activity," but as someone who does not follow this competition (most eLife readers are not likely to do so, either), I do not know how to gauge my response. Is this impressive? What is the best theoretical score, given noise and other limitations? Is the model inspired by the mouse brain in terms of mechanisms or architecture, or was it optimized to win the competition by overfitting it to the nuances of the data set? Of course, I know that as a reader, I am invited to read the references, but the study would stand better on its own, if it clarified how its findings depended on this model. 

The revision helpfully added context to the Methods about the range of scores achieved by other models, but this information remains absent from the Abstract and other important sections. For instance, the Abstract states, "We achieve a pixel-level correlation of 0.57 between the ground truth movie and the reconstructions from single-trial neural responses," yet this point estimate (presented without confidence intervals or comparisons to controls) lacks meaning for readers who are not told how it compares to prior work or what level of performance would be considered strong. Without such context, the manuscript undercuts potentially meaningful achievements. 

We appreciate that the additional information about the performance of the SOTA DNEM to predict neural responses could be made more visible in the paper and will therefore move it from the methods to the results section instead: 

Line 348 “This model achieved an average single-trial correlation between predicted and ground truth neural activity of 0.291 during the competition, this was later improved to 0.301. The competition benchmark models achieved 0.106, 0.164 and 0.197 single-trial correlation, while the third and second place models achieved 0.243 and 0.265. Across the models, a variety of architectural components were used, including 2D and 3D convolutional layers, recurrent layers, and transformers, to name just a few.” will be moved to the results.

With regard to the lack of context for the performance of our reconstruction in the abstract, we may have overcorrected in the previous revision round and have tried to find a compromise which gives more context to the pixel-level correlation value: 

Abstract: “We achieve a pixel-level correlation of 0.57 (95% CI [0.54, 0.60]) between ground-truth movies and single-trial reconstructions. Previous reconstructions based on awake mouse V1 neuronal responses to static images achieved a pixel-level correlation of 0.238 over a similar retinotopic area.”

(2) Along those lines, the authors conclude that "the number of neurons in the dataset and the use of model ensembling are critical for high-quality reconstructions." If true, these principles should generalize across network architectures. I wondered whether the same dependencies would hold for other network types, as this could reveal more general insights. The authors replied that such extensions are expected (since prior work has shown similar effects for static images) but argued that testing this explicitly would require "substantial additional work," be "impractical," and likely not produce "surprising results." While practical difficulty alone is not a sufficient reason to leave an idea untested, I agree that the idea that "more neurons would help" would be unsurprising. The question then becomes: given that this is a conclusion already in the field, what new principle or understanding has been gained in this study? 

As mentioned in our previous round of revisions, we chose not to pursue the comparison of reconstructions using different model architectures in this manuscript because we did not think it would add significant insights to the paper given the amount of work it would require, and we are glad the reviewer agrees. 

While the fact that more neurons result in better reconstructions is unsurprising, how quickly performance drops off will depend on the robustness of the method, and on the dimensionality of the decoding/reconstruction task (decoding grating orientation likely requires fewer neurons than gray scale image reconstruction, which in turn likely requires fewer neurons than full color movie reconstruction). How dependent input optimization based image/movie reconstruction is on population size has not been shown, so we felt it was useful for readers to know how well movie reconstruction works with our method when recording from smaller numbers of neurons. 

(3) One major claim was that the quality of the reconstructions depended on the number of neurons in the dataset. There were approximately 8000 neurons recorded per mouse. The correlation difference between the reconstruction achieved by 1000 neurons and 8000 neurons was ~0.2. Is that a lot or a little? One might hypothesize that 7000 additional neurons could contribute more information, but perhaps, those neurons were redundant if their receptive fields are too close together or if they had the same orientation or spatiotemporal tuning. How correlated were these neurons in response to a given movie? Why did so many neurons offer such a limited increase in correlation? Originally, this question was meant to prompt deeper analysis of the neural data, but the authors did not engage with it, suggesting a limited understanding of the neuronal aspects of the dataset. 

We apologize that we did not engage with this comment enough in the previous round. We assumed that the question arose because there was a misunderstanding about figure 5: 1000 not 1 neuron is sufficient to reconstruct the movies to a pixel-level correlation of 0.344. Of course, the fact that increasing the number of neurons from 1000 to 8000 only increased the reconstruction performance from 0.344 to 0.569 (65% increase in correlation) is still worth discussing. To illustrate this drop in performance qualitatively, we show 3 example frames from movie reconstructions using 1000-8000 neurons in Author response image 1.

Author response image 1.

3 example frames from reconstructions using different numbers of neurons. 

As the reviewer points out, the diminishing returns of additional neurons to reconstruction performance is at least partly because there is redundancy in how a population of neurons represents visual stimuli. In supplementary figure S2, we inferred the on-off receptive fields of the neurons and show that visual space is oversampled in terms of the receptive field positions in panel C. However, the exact slope/shape of the performance vs population size curve we show in Figure 5 will also depend on the maximum performance of our reconstruction method, which is limited in spatial resolution (Figure 4 & Supplementary Figure S5). It is possible that future reconstruction approaches will require fewer neurons than ours, so we interpret this curve rather as a description of the reconstruction method itself than a feature of the underlying neuronal code. For that reason, we chose caution and refrained from making any claims about neuronal coding principles based on this plot. 

(4) We appreciated the experiments testing the capacity of the reconstruction process, by using synthetic stimuli created under a Gaussian process in a noise-free way. But this originally further raised questions: what is the theoretical capability for reconstruction of this processing pipeline, as a whole? Is 0.563 the best that one could achieve given the noisiness and/or neuron count of the Sensorium project? What if the team applied the pipeline to reconstruct the activity of a given artificial neural network's layer (e.g., some ResNet convolutional layer), using hidden units as proxies for neuronal calcium activity? In the revision, this concern was addressed nicely in the review in Supplementary Figure 3C. Also, one appreciates that as a follow up, the team produced error maps (New Figure 6) that highlight where in the frames the reconstruction are likely to fail. But the maps went unanalyzed further, and I am not sure if there was a systematic trend in the errors. 

We are happy to hear that we were able to answer the reviewers’ question of what the maximum theoretical performance of our reconstruction process is in figure 3C. Regarding systematic trends in the error maps, we also did not observe any clear systematic trends. If anything, we noticed that some moving edges were shifted, but we do not think we can quantify this effect with this particular dataset. 

(5) I was encouraged by Figure 4, which shows how the reconstructions succeeded or failed across different spatial frequencies. The authors note that "the reconstruction process failed at high spatial frequencies," yet it also appears to struggle with low spatial frequencies, as the reconstructed images did not produce smooth surfaces (e.g., see the top rows of Figures 4A and 4B). In regions where one would expect a single continuous gradient, the reconstructions instead display specular, high-frequency noise. This issue is difficult to overlook and might deserve further discussion. 

Thank you for pointing this out, this is indeed true. The reconstructions do have high frequency noise. We mention this briefly in line 102 “Finally, we applied a 3D Gaussian filter with sigma 0.5 pixels to remove the remaining static noise (Figure S3) and applied the evaluation mask.” In revisiting this sentence, we think it is more appropriate to replace “remove” with “reduce”. This noise is more visible in the Gaussian noise stimuli (Figure 4) because we did not apply the 3D Gaussian filter to these reconstructions, in case it interfered with the estimates of the reconstruction resolution limits. 

Given that the Gaussian noise and drifting grating stimuli reconstructions were from predicted activity (“noise-free”), this high-frequency noise is not biological in origin and must therefore come from errors in our reconstruction process. This kind of high-frequency noise has previously been observed in feature visualization (optimizing input to maximize the activity of a specific node within a neural network to visualize what that node encodes; Olah, et al., "Feature Visualization", https://distill.pub/2017/feature-visualization/, 2017). It is caused by a kind of overfitting, whereby a solution to the optimization is found that is not “realistic”. Ways of combating this kind of noise include gradient smoothing, image smoothing, and image transformations during optimization, but these methods can restrict the resolution of the features that are recovered. Since we were more interested in determining the maximum resolution of stimuli that can be reconstructed in Figure 4 and Supplementary Figures 5-6, we chose not to apply these methods.

Reviewer #3 (Public review): 

Summary: 

This paper presents a method for reconstructing input videos shown to a mouse from the simultaneously recorded visual cortex activity (two-photon calcium imaging data). The publicly available experimental dataset is taken from a recent brain-encoding challenge, and the (publicly available) neural network model that serves to reconstruct the videos is the winning model from that challenge (by distinct authors). The present study applies gradient-based input optimization by backpropagating the brain-encoding error through this selected model (a method that has been proposed in the past, with other datasets). The main contribution of the paper is, therefore, the choice of applying this existing method to this specific dataset with this specific neural network model. The quantitative results appear to go beyond previous attempts at video input reconstruction (although measured with distinct datasets). The conclusions have potential practical interest for the field of brain decoding, and theoretical interest for possible future uses in functional brain exploration. 

Strengths: 

The authors use a validated optimization method on a recent large-scale dataset, with a state-of-the-art brain encoding model. The use of an ensemble of 7 distinct model instances (trained on distinct subsets of the dataset, with distinct random initializations) significantly improves the reconstructions. The exploration of the relation between reconstruction quality and number of recorded neurons will be useful to those planning future experiments. 

Weaknesses: 

The main contribution is methodological, and the methodology combines pre-existing components without any new original component. 

We thank the reviewer for their balanced assessment of our manuscript.

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review): 

Summary: 

This paper presents a method for reconstructing videos from mouse visual cortex neuronal activity using a state-of-the-art dynamic neural encoding model. The authors achieve high-quality reconstructions of 10-second movies at 30 Hz from two-photon calcium imaging data, reporting a 2-fold increase in pixel-by-pixel correlation compared to previous methods. They identify key factors for successful reconstruction including the number of recorded neurons and model ensembling techniques. 

Strengths: 

(1) A comprehensive technical approach combining state-of-the-art neural encoding models with gradient-based optimization for video reconstruction. 

(2) Thorough evaluation of reconstruction quality across different spatial and temporal frequencies using both natural videos and synthetic stimuli. 

(3) Detailed analysis of factors affecting reconstruction quality, including population size and model ensembling effects. 

(4) Clear methodology presentation with well-documented algorithms and reproducible code. 

(5) Potential applications for investigating visual processing phenomena like predictive coding and perceptual learning. 

We thank the reviewer for taking the time to provide this valuable feedback. We would like to add that in our eyes one additional main contribution is the step of going from reconstruction of static images to dynamic videos. We trust that in the revised manuscript, we have now made the point more explicit that static image reconstruction relies on temporally averaged responses, which negates the necessity of having to account for temporal dynamics altogether. 

Weaknesses: 

The main metric of success (pixel correlation) may not be the most meaningful measure of reconstruction quality: 

High correlation may not capture perceptually relevant features.

Different stimuli producing similar neural responses could have low pixel correlations The paper doesn't fully justify why high pixel correlation is a valuable goal 

This is a very relevant point. In retrospect, perhaps we did not justify this enough. Sensory reconstruction typically aims to reconstruct sensory input based on brain activity as faithfully as possible. A brain-to-image decoder might therefore be trained to produce images as close to the original input as possible. The loss function to train the decoder would therefore be image similarity on the pixel level. In that case, evaluating reconstruction performance based on pixel correlation is somewhat circular. 

However, when reconstructing videos, we optimize the input video in terms of its perceptual similarity to the original video and only then evaluate pixel-level similarity. The perceptual similarity metric we optimize for is the estimate of how the neurons in mouse V1 respond to that video. We then evaluate the similarity of this perceptually optimized video to the original input video with pixel-level correlation. In other words, we optimize for perceptual similarity and then evaluate pixel similarity. If our method optimized pixel-level similarity, then we would agree that perceptual similarity is a more relevant evaluation metric. We do not think it was clear in our original submission that our optimization loss function is a perceptual loss function, and have now made this clearer in Figure 1C-D and have clarified this in the results section, line 70:

“In effect, we optimized the input video to be perceptually similar with respect to the recorded neurons.”

And in line 110: 

“Because our optimization of the movies was based on a perceptual loss function, we were interested in how closely these movies matched the originals on the pixel level.”

We chose to use pixel correlation to measure pixel-level similarity for several reasons. 1) It has been used in the past to evaluate reconstruction performance (Yoshida et al., 2020), 2) It is contrast and luminance insensitive, 3) correlation is a common metric so most readers will have an intuitive understanding of how it relates to the data. 

To further highlight why pixel similarity might be interesting to visualize, we have included additional analysis in Figure 6 illustrating pixel-level differences between reconstructions from experimentally recorded activity and predicted activity. 

We expect that the type of perceptual similarity the reviewer is alluding to is pretrained neural network image embedding similarity (Zhang et al., 2018: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1801.03924). While these metrics seem to match human perceptual similarity, it is unclear if they reflect mouse vision. We did try to compare the embedding similarity from pretrained networks such as VGG16, but got results suggesting the reconstructed frames were no more similar to the ground truth than random frames, which is obviously not true. This might be because the ground truth videos were too different in resolution from the training data of these networks and because these metrics are typically very sensitive to decreases in resolution. 

The best alternative approach to evaluate mouse perceptual similarity would be to show the reconstructed videos to the same animals while recording the same neurons and to compare these neural activation patterns to those evoked by the original ground truth videos. This has been done for static images in the past: Cobos et al., bioRxiv 2022, found that static image reconstructions generated using gradient descent evoked more similar trial-averaged (40 trials) responses to those evoked by ground truth images compared to other reconstruction methods. Unfortunately, we are currently not able to perform these in vivo experiments, which is why we used publicly available data for the current paper. We plan to use this method in the future. But this method is also not flawless as it assumes that the average response to an image is the best reflection of how that image is represented, which may not be the case for an individual trial.

As far as we are aware, there is currently no method that, given a particular activity pattern in response to an image/video, can produce an image/video that induces a neural activity pattern that is closer to the original neural response than simply showing the same image/video again. Hypothetically, such a stimulus exists because of various visual processing phenomena we mention in our discussion (e.g., predictive coding and selective attention), which suggest that the image that is represented by a population of neurons likely differs from the original sensory input. In other words, what the brain represents is an interpretation of reality not a pure reflection. Experimentally verifying this is difficult, as these variations might be present on a single trial level. The first step towards establishing a method that captures the visual representation of a population of neurons is sensory reconstruction, where the aim is to get as close as possible to the original sensory input. We think pixel-level correlation is a stringent and interpretable metric for this purpose, particularly when optimizing for perceptual similarity rather than image similarity directly.

Comparison to previous work (Yoshida et al.) has methodological concerns: Direct comparison of correlation values across different datasets may be misleading; Large differences in the number of recorded neurons (10x more in the current study); Different stimulus types (dynamic vs static) make comparison difficult; No implementation of previous methods on the current dataset or vice versa. 

Yes, we absolutely agree that direct comparison to previous static image reconstruction methods is problematic. We primarily do so because we think it is standard practice to give related baselines. We agree that direct comparison of the performance of video reconstruction methods to image reconstruction methods is not really possible. It does not make sense to train and apply a dynamic model on a static image data set where neural activity is time-averaged, as the temporal kernels could not be learned. Conversely, for a static model, which expects a single image as input and predicts time averaged responses, it does not make sense to feed it a series of temporally correlated movie frames and to simply concatenate the resulting activity perdition. The static model would need to be substantially augmented to incorporate temporal dynamics, which in turn would make it a new method. This puts us in the awkward position of being expected to compare our video reconstruction performance to previous image reconstruction methods without a fair way of doing so. We have now added these caveats in line 119:

“However, we would like to stress that directly comparing static image reconstruction methods with movie reconstruction approaches is fundamentally problematic, as they rely on different data types both during training and evaluation (temporally averaged vs continuous neural activity, images flashed at fixed intervals vs continuous movies).”

We have also toned down the language, emphasising the comparison to previous image reconstruction performance in the abstract, results, and conclusion. 

Abstract: We removed “We achieve a ~2-fold increase in pixel-by-pixel correlation compared to previous state-of-the-art reconstructions of static images from mouse V1, while also capturing temporal dynamics.” and replaced with “We achieve a pixel-level correction of 0.57 between the ground truth movie and the reconstructions from single-trial neural responses.”

Discussion: we removed “In conclusion, we reconstruct videos presented to mice based on the activity of neurons in the mouse visual cortex, with a ~2-fold improvement in pixel-by-pixel correlation compared to previous static image reconstruction methods.” and replaced with “In conclusion, we reconstruct videos presented to mice based on single-trial activity of neurons in the mouse visual cortex.”

We have also removed the performance table and have instead added supplementary figure 3 with in-depth comparison across different versions of our reconstruction method (variations of masking, ensembling, contrast & luminance matching, and Gaussian blurring). 

Limited exploration of how the reconstruction method could provide insights into neural coding principles beyond demonstrating technical capability. 

The aim of this paper was not to reveal principles of neural coding. Instead, we aimed to achieve the best possible performance of video reconstructions and to quantify the limitations. But to highlight its potential we have added two examples of how sensory reconstruction has been applied in human vision research in line 321: 

“Although fMRI-based reconstruction techniques are starting to be used to investigate visual phenomena in humans (such as illusions [Cheng et al., 2023] and mental imagery [Shen et al., 2019; Koide-Majima et al., 2024; Kalantari et al., 2025]), visual processing phenomena are likely difficult to investigate using existing fMRI-based reconstruction approaches, due to the low spatial and temporal resolution of the data.”

We have also added a demonstration of how this method could be used to investigate which parts of a reconstruction from a single trial response differs from the model's prediction (Figure  6). We do this by calculating pixel-level differences between reconstructions from the recorded neural activity and reconstructions from the expected neural activity (predicted activity by the neural encoding model). Although difficult to interpret, this pixel-by-pixel error map could represent trial-by-trial deviations of the neural code from pure sensory representation. But at this point we cannot know whether these errors are nothing more than errors in the reconstruction process. To derive meaningful interpretations of these maps would require a substantial amount of additional work and in vivo experiments and so is outside the scope of this paper, but we include this additional analysis now to highlight a) why pixel-level similarity might be interesting to quantify and visualize and b) to demonstrate how video reconstruction could be used to provide insights into neural coding, namely as a tool to identify how sensory representations differ from a pure reflection of the visual input.  

The claim that "stimulus reconstruction promises a more generalizable approach" (line 180) is not well supported with concrete examples or evidence. 

What we mean by generalizable is the ability to apply reconstruction to novel stimuli, which is not possible for stimulus classification. We now explain this better in the paragraph in line 211: 

“Stimulus identification, i.e. identifying the most likely stimulus from a constrained set, has been a popular approach for quantifying whether a population of neurons encodes the identity of a particular stimulus [Földiák, 1993, Kay et al., 2008]. This approach has, for instance, been used to decode frame identity within a movie [Deitch et al., 2021, Xia et al., 2021, Schneider et al., 2023, Chen et al.,2024]. Some of these approaches have also been used to reorder the frames of the ground truth movie [Schneider et al., 2023] based on the decoded frame identity. Importantly, stimulus identification methods are distinct from stimulus reconstruction where the aim is to recreate what the sensory content of a neuronal code is in a way that generalizes to new sensory stimuli [Rakhimberdina et al., 2021]. This is inherently a more demanding task because the range of possible solutions is much larger. Although stimulus identification is a valuable tool for understanding the information content of a population code, stimulus reconstruction could provide a more generalizable approach, because it can be applied to novel stimuli.”

All the stimuli we reconstructed were not in the training set of the model, i.e., novel. We have also downed down the claim: we have replaced “promises” with “could provide”. 

The paper would benefit from addressing how the method handles cases where different stimuli produce similar neural responses, particularly for high-speed moving stimuli where phase differences might be lost in calcium imaging temporal resolution. 

Thank you for this suggestion, we think this is a great question. Calcium dynamics are slow and some of the high temporal frequency information could indeed be lost, particularly phase information. In other words, when the stimulus has high temporal frequency information, it is harder to decode spatial information because of the slow calcium dynamics. Ideally, we would look at this effect using the drifting grating stimuli; however, this is problematic because we rely on predicted activity from the SOTA DNEM, and due to the dilation of the first convolution, the periodic grating stimulus causes aliasing. At 15Hz, when the temporal frequency of the stimulus is half the movie frame rate, the model is actually being given two static images, and so the predicted activity is the interleaved activity evoked by two static images. We therefore do not think using the grating stimuli is a good idea. But we have used the Gaussian stimuli as it is not periodic, and is therefore less of a problem. 

We have now also reconstructed phase-inverted Gaussian noise stimuli and plotted the video correlation between the reconstructions from activity evoked by phase-inverted stimuli. On the one hand, we find that even for the fastest changing stimuli, the correlation between the reconstructions from phase inverted stimuli are negative, meaning phase information is not lost at high temporal frequencies. On the other hand, for the highest spatial frequency stimuli, the correlation is negative. So, the predicted neural activity (and therefore the reconstructions) are phase-insensitive when the spatial frequency is higher than the reconstruction resolution limit we identified (spatial length constant of 1 pixel, or 3.38 degrees). Beyond this limit, the DNEM predicts activity in response to phase-inverted stimuli, which, when used for reconstruction, results in movies which are more similar to each other than the stimulus that actually evokes them. 

However, not all information is lost at these high spatial frequencies. If we plot the Shannon entropy in the spatial domain or the motion energy in the temporal domain, we find that even when the reconstructions fail to capture the stimulus at a pixel-specific level (spatial length constant of 1 pixel, or 3.38 degrees), they do capture the general spatial and temporal qualities of the videos. 

We have added these additional analyses to Figure 4 and Supplementary Figure 5.

Reviewer #2 (Public review): 

This is an interesting study exploring methods for reconstructing visual stimuli from neural activity in the mouse visual cortex. Specifically, it uses a competition dataset (published in the Dynamic Sensorium benchmark study) and a recent winning model architecture (DNEM, dynamic neural encoding model) to recover visual information stored in ensembles of the mouse visual cortex. 

This is a great project - the physiological data were measured at a single-cell resolution, the movies were reasonably naturalistic and representative of the real world, the study did not ignore important correlates such as eye position and pupil diameter, and of course, the reconstruction quality exceeded anything achieved by previous studies. Overall, it is great that teams are working towards exploring image reconstruction. Arguably, reconstruction may serve as an endgame method for examining the information content within neuronal ensembles - an alternative to training interminable numbers of supervised classifiers, as has been done in other studies. Put differently, if a reconstruction recovers a lot of visual features (maybe most of them), then it tells us a lot about what the visual brain is trying to do: to keep as much information as possible about the natural world in which its internal motor circuits may act consequently. 

While we enjoyed reading the manuscript, we admit that the overall advance was in the range of those that one finds in a great machine learning conference proceedings paper. More specifically, we found no major technical flaws in the study, only a few potential major confounds (which should be addressable with new analyses), and the manuscript did not make claims that were not supported by its findings, yet the specific conceptual advance and significance seemed modest. Below, we will go through some of the claims, and ask about their potential significance. 

We thank the reviewer for the positive feedback on our paper.

(1) The study showed that it could achieve high-quality video reconstructions from mouse visual cortex activity using a neural encoding model (DNEM), recovering 10-second video sequences and approaching a two-fold improvement in pixel-by-pixel correlation over attempts. As a reader, I am left with the question: okay, does this mean that we should all switch to DNEM for our investigations of the mouse visual cortex? What makes this encoding model special? It is introduced as "a winning model of the Sensorium 2023 competition which achieved a score of 0.301... single-trial correlation between predicted and ground truth neuronal activity," but as someone who does not follow this competition (most eLife readers are not likely to do so, either), I do not know how to gauge my response. Is this impressive? What is the best achievable score, in theory, given data noise? Is the model inspired by the mouse brain in terms of mechanisms or architecture, or was it optimized to win the competition by overfitting it to the nuances of the data set? Of course, I know that as a reader, I am invited to read the references, but the study would stand better on its own if clarified how its findings depended on this model. 

This is a very good point. We do not think that everyone should switch to using this particular DNEM to investigate the mouse visual cortex, but we think DNEMs and stimulus reconstruction in general has a lot of potential. We think static neural encoding models have already been demonstrated to be an extremely valuable tool to investigate visual coding (Walker et al., 2019; Yoshida et al., 2021; Willeke et al., bioRxiv 2023). DNEMs are less common, largely because they are very large and are technically more demanding to train and use. That makes static encoding models more practical for some applications, but they do not have temporal kernels and are therefore only used for static stimuli. They cannot, for instance, encode direction tuning, only orientation tuning. But both static and dynamic encoding models have advantages over stimulus classification methods which we outline in our discussion. Here we provide the first demonstration that previous achievements in static image reconstruction are transferable to movies.

It has been shown in the past for static neural encoding models that choosing a better-performing model produces reconstructed static images that are closer to the original image (Pierzchlewicz et al., 2023). The factors in choosing this particular DNEM were its capacity to predict neural activity (benchmarked against other models), it was open source, and the data it was designed for was also available. 

To give more context to the model used in the paper, we have included the following, line 348:

“This model achieved an average single-trial correlation between predicted and ground truth neural activity of 0.291 during the competition, this was later improved to 0.301. The competition benchmark models achieved 0.106, 0.164 and 0.197 single-trial correlation, while the third and second place models achieved 0.243 and 0.265. Across the models, a variety of architectural components were used, including 2D and 3D convolutional layers, recurrent layers, and transformers, to name just a few.” 

Concerning biologically inspired model design. The winning model contained 3 fully connected layers comprising the “Cortex” just before the final readout of neural activity, but we would consider this level of biological inspiration as minor. We do not think that the exact architecture of the model is particularly important, as the crucial aspect of such neural encoders is their ability to predict neural activity irrespective of how they achieve it. There has been a move towards creating foundation models of the brain (Wang et al., 2025) and the priority so far has been on predictive performance over mechanistic interpretability or similarity to biological structures and processes. 

Finally, we would like to note that we do not know what the maximum theoretical score for single-trial responses might be, and don't think there is a good way of estimating it in this context. 

(2) Along those lines, two major conclusions were that "critical for high-quality reconstructions are the number of neurons in the dataset and the use of model ensembling." If true, then these principles should be applicable to networks with different architectures. How well can they do with other network types? 

This is a good question. Our method critically relies on the accurate prediction of neural activity in response to new videos. It is therefore expected that a model that better predicts neural responses to stimuli will also be better at reconstructing those stimuli given population activity. This was previously shown for static images (Pierzchlewicz et al., 2023). It is also expected that whenever the neural activity is accurately predicted, the corresponding reconstructed frames will also be more similar to the ground truth frames. We have now demonstrated this relationship between prediction accuracy and reconstruction accuracy in supplementary figure 4.

Although it would be interesting to compare the movie reconstruction performance of many different models with different architectures and activity prediction performances, this would involve quite substantial additional work because movie reconstruction is very resource- and time-intensive. Finding optimal hyperparameters to make such a comparison fair and informative would therefore be impractical and likely not yield surprising results. 

We also think it is unlikely that ensembling would not improve reconstruction performance in other models because ensembling across model predictions is a common way of improving single-model performance in machine learning. Likewise, we think it is unlikely that the relationship between neural population size and reconstruction performance would differ substantially when using different models, because using more neurons means that a larger population of noisy neurons is “voting” on what the stimulus is. However, we would expect that if the model were worse at predicting neural activity, then more neurons are needed for an equivalent reconstruction performance. In general, we would recommend choosing the best possible DNEM available, in terms of neural activity prediction performance, when reconstructing movies using input optimization through gradient descent. 

(3) One major claim was that the quality of the reconstructions depended on the number of neurons in the dataset. There were approximately 8000 neurons recorded per mouse. The correlation difference between the reconstruction achieved by 1 neuron and 8000 neurons was ~0.2. Is that a lot or a little? One might hypothesize that ~7,999 additional neurons could contribute more information, but perhaps, those neurons were redundant if their receptive fields were too close together or if they had the same orientation or spatiotemporal tuning. How correlated were these neurons in response to a given movie? Why did so many neurons offer such a limited increase in correlation? 

In the population ablation experiments, we compared the performance using ~1000, ~2000, ~4000, ~8000 neurons, and found an attenuation of 39.5% in video correlation when dropping 87.5% of the neurons (~1000 neurons remaining), we did not try reconstruction using just 1 neuron. 

(4) On a related note, the authors address the confound of RF location and extent. The study resorted to the use of a mask on the image during reconstruction, applied during training and evaluation (Line 87). The mask depends on pixels that contribute to the accurate prediction of neuronal activity. The problem for me is that it reads as if the RF/mask estimate was obtained during the very same process of reconstruction optimization, which could be considered a form of double-dipping (see the "Dead salmon" article, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8119(09)71202-9). This could inflate the reconstruction estimate. My concern would be ameliorated if the mask was obtained using a held-out set of movies or image presentations; further, the mask should shift with eye position, if it indeed corresponded to the "collective receptive field of the neural population." Ideally, the team would also provide the characteristics of these putative RFs, such as their weight and spatial distribution, and whether they matched the biological receptive fields of the neurons (if measured independently). 

We can reassure the reviewer that there is no double-dipping. We would like to clarify that the mask was trained only on videos from the training set of the DNEM and not the videos which were reconstructed. We have added the sentence, line 91: 

“None of the reconstructed movies were used in the optimization of this transparency mask.”

Making the mask dependent on eye position would be difficult to implement with the current DNEM, where eye position is fed to the model as an additional channel. When using a model where the image is first transformed into retinotopic coordinates in an eye position-dependent manner (such as in Wang et al., 2025) the mask could be applied in retinotopic coordinates and therefore be dependent on eye position. 

Effectively, the alpha mask defines the relative level of influence each pixel contributes to neural activity prediction. We agree it is useful to compare the shape of the alpha mask with the location of traditional on-off receptive fields (RFs) to clarify what the alpha mask represents and characterise the neural population available for our reconstructions. We therefore presented the DNEM with on-off patches to map the receptive fields of single neurons in an in silico experiment (the experimentally derived RF are not available). As expected, there is a rough overlap between the alpha mask (Supplementary Figure 2D), the average population receptive field (Supplementary Figure 2B), and the location of receptive field peaks (Supplementary Figure 2C). In principle, all three could be used during training or evaluation for masking, but we think that defining a mask based on the general influence of images on neural activity, rather than just on off patch responses, is a more elegant solution.

One idea of how to go a step further would be to first set the alpha mask threshold during training based on the % loss of neural activity prediction performance that threshold induces (in our case alpha=0.5 corresponds to ~3% loss in correlation between predicted vs recorded neural responses, see Supplementary Figure 3D), and second base the evaluation mask on a pixel correlation threshold (see example pixel correlation map in Supplementary Figure 2E) instead to avoid evaluating areas of the image with low image reconstruction confidence. 

We referred to this figure in the result section, line 83:

“The transparency masks are aligned with but not identical to the On-Off receptive field distribution maps using sparse-noise (Figure S2).” 

We have also done additional analysis on the effect of masking during training and evaluation with different thresholds in Supplementary Figure 3.

(5) We appreciated the experiments testing the capacity of the reconstruction process, by using synthetic stimuli created under a Gaussian process in a noise-free way. But this further raised questions: what is the theoretical capability for the reconstruction of this processing pipeline, as a whole? Is 0.563 the best that one could achieve given the noisiness and/or neuron count of the Sensorium project? What if the team applied the pipeline to reconstruct the activity of a given artificial neural network's layer (e.g., some ResNet convolutional layer), using hidden units as proxies for neuronal calcium activity? 

That’s a very interesting point. It is very hard to know what the theoretical best reconstruction performance of the model would be. Reconstruction performance could be decreased due to neural variability, experimental noise, the temporal kernel of the calcium indicator and the imaging frame rate, information compression along the visual hierarchy, visual processing phenomena (such as predictive coding and selective attention), failure of the model to predict neural activity correctly, or failure of the reconstruction process to find the best possible image which explains the neural activity. We don't think we can disentangle the contribution of all these sources, but we can provide a theoretical maximum assuming that the model and the reconstruction process are optimal. To that end, we performed additional simulations and reconstructed the natural videos using the predicted activity of the neurons in response to the natural videos as the target (similar to the synthetic stimuli) and got a correlation of 0.766. So, the single trial performance of 0.569 is ~75% of this theoretical maximum. This difference can be interpreted as a combination of the losses due to neuronal variability, measurement noise, and actual deviations in the images represented by the brain compared to reality. 

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion, as it gave us the idea of looking at error maps (Figure 6), where the pixel-level deviation of the reconstructions from recorded vs predicted activity is overlaid on the ground truth movie.

(6) As the authors mentioned, this reconstruction method provided a more accurate way to investigate how neurons process visual information. However, this method consisted of two parts: one was the state-of-the-art (SOTA) dynamic neural encoding model (DNEM), which predicts neuronal activity from the input video, and the other part reconstructed the video to produce a response similar to the predicted neuronal activity. Therefore, the reconstructed video was related to neuronal activity through an intermediate model (i.e., SOTA DNEM). If one observes a failure in reconstructing certain visual features of the video (for example, high-spatial frequency details), the reader does not know whether this failure was due to a lack of information in the neural code itself or a failure of the neuronal model to capture this information from the neural code (assuming a perfect reconstruction process). Could the authors address this by outlining the limitations of the SOTA DNEM encoding model and disentangling failures in the reconstruction from failures in the encoding model? 

To test if a better neural prediction by the DNEM would result in better reconstructions, we ran additional simulations and now show that neural activity prediction performance correlates with reconstruction performance (Supplementary Figure 4B). This is consistent with Pierzchlewicz et al., (2023) who showed that static image reconstructions using better encoding models leads to better reconstruction performance. As also mentioned in the answer to the previous comment, untangling the relative contributions of reconstruction losses is hard, but we think that improvements to the DNEM performance are key. Two suggestions to improving the DNEM we used would be to translate the input image into retinotopic coordinates and shift this image relative to eye position before passing it to the first convolutional layer (as is done in Wang et al. 2025), to use movies which are not spatially down sampled as heavily, to not use a dilation of 2 in the temporal convolution of the first layer and to train on a larger dataset. 

(7) The authors mentioned that a key factor in achieving high-quality reconstructions was model assembling. However, this averaging acts as a form of smoothing, which reduces the reconstruction's acuity and may limit the high-frequency content of the videos (as mentioned in the manuscript). This averaging constrains the tool's capacity to assess how visual neurons process the low-frequency content of visual input. Perhaps the authors could elaborate on potential approaches to address this limitation, given the critical importance of high-frequency visual features for our visual perception. 

This is exactly what we also thought. To answer this point more specifically, we ran additional simulations where we also reconstruct the movies using gradient ensembling instead of reconstruction ensembling. Here, the gradients of the loss with respect to each pixel of the movie is calculated for each of the model instances and are averaged at every iteration of the reconstruction optimization. In essence, this means that one reconstruction solution is found, and the averaging across reconstructions, which could degrade high-frequency content, is skipped. The reconstructions from both methods look very similar, and the video correlation is, if anything, slightly worse (Supplemental Figure 3A&C). This indicates that our original ensembling approach did not limit reconstruction performance, but that both approaches can be used, depending on what is more convenient given hardware restrictions. 

Reviewer #3 (Public review): 

Summary: 

This paper presents a method for reconstructing input videos shown to a mouse from the simultaneously recorded visual cortex activity (two-photon calcium imaging data). The publicly available experimental dataset is taken from a recent brain-encoding challenge, and the (publicly available) neural network model that serves to reconstruct the videos is the winning model from that challenge (by distinct authors). The present study applies gradient-based input optimization by backpropagating the brain-encoding error through this selected model (a method that has been proposed in the past, with other datasets). The main contribution of the paper is, therefore, the choice of applying this existing method to this specific dataset with this specific neural network model. The quantitative results appear to go beyond previous attempts at video input reconstruction (although measured with distinct datasets). The conclusions have potential practical interest for the field of brain decoding, and theoretical interest for possible future uses in functional brain exploration. 

Strengths: 

The authors use a validated optimization method on a recent large-scale dataset, with a state-of-the-art brain encoding model. The use of an ensemble of 7 distinct model instances (trained on distinct subsets of the dataset, with distinct random initializations) significantly improves the reconstructions. The exploration of the relation between reconstruction quality and the number of recorded neurons will be useful to those planning future experiments. 

Weaknesses: 

The main contribution is methodological, and the methodology combines pre-existing components without any new original components. 

We thank the reviewer for taking the time to review our paper and for their overall positive assessment. We would like to emphasise that combining pre-existing machine learning techniques to achieve top results in a new modality does require iteration and innovation. While gradient-based input optimization by backpropagating the brain-encoding error through a neural encoding model has been used in 2D static image optimization to generate maximally exciting images and reconstruct static images, we are the first to have applied it to movies which required accounting for the time domain. Previous methods used time averaged responses and were limited to the reconstruction of static images presented with fixed image intervals.

The movie reconstructions include a learned "transparency mask" to concentrate on the most informative area of the frame; it is not clear how this choice impacts the comparison with prior experiments. Did they all employ this same strategy? If not, shouldn't the quantitative results also be reported without masking, for a fair comparison? 

Yes, absolutely. All reconstruction approaches limit the field of view in some way, whether this is due to the size of the screen, the size of the image on the screen, or cropping of the presented/reconstructed images during analysis due to the retinotopic coverage of the recorded neurons. Note that we reconstruct a larger field of view than Yoshida et al. In Yoshida et al., the reconstructed field of view was 43 by 43 retinal degrees. we show the size of an example evaluation mask in comparison. 

To address the reviewer’s concern more specifically, we performed additional simulations and now also show the performance using a variety of different training and evaluation masks, including different alpha thresholds for training and evaluation masks as well as the effective retinotopic coverage at different alpha thresholds. Despite these comparisons, we would also like to highlight that the comparison to the benchmark is problematic itself. This is because image and movie reconstruction are not directly comparable. It does not make sense to train and apply a dynamic model on a static image dataset where neural activity is time averaged. Conversely, it does not make sense to train or apply a static model that expects time-averaged neural responses on continuous neural activity unless it is substantially augmented to incorporate temporal dynamics, which in turn would make it a new method. This puts us in the awkward position of being expected to compare our video reconstruction performance to previous image reconstruction methods without a fair way of doing so. We have therefore de-emphasised the phrasing comparing our method to previous publications in the abstract, results, and discussion. 

Abstract: “We achieve a ~2-fold increase in pixel-by-pixel correlation compared to previous state-of-the-art reconstructions of static images from mouse V1, while also capturing temporal dynamics.” with “We achieve a pixel-level correction of 0.57 between the ground truth movie and the reconstructions from single-trial neural responses.”

Results: “This represents a ~2x higher pixel-level correlation over previous single-trial static image reconstructions from V1 in awake mice (image correlation 0.238 +/- 0.054 s.e.m for awake mice) [Yoshida et al., 2020] over a similar retinotopic area (~43° x 43°) while also capturing temporal dynamics. However, we would like to stress that directly comparing static image reconstruction methods with movie reconstruction approaches is fundamentally problematic, as they rely on different data types both during training and evaluation (temporally averaged vs continuous neural activity, images flashed at fixed intervals vs continuous movies).”

Discussion: “In conclusion, we reconstruct videos presented to mice based on the activity of neurons in the mouse visual cortex, with a ~2-fold improvement in pixel-by-pixel correlation compared to previous static image reconstruction methods.” with “In conclusion, we reconstruct videos presented to mice based on single-trial activity of neurons in the mouse visual cortex.”

We have also removed the performance table and have instead added supplementary figure 3 with in-depth comparison across different versions of our reconstruction method (variations of masking, ensembling, contrast & luminance matching, and Gaussian blurring). 

We believe that we have given enough information in our paper now so that readers can make an informed decision whether our movie reconstruction method is appropriate for the questions they are interested in.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors): 

(1) "Reconstructions have been luminance (mean pixel value across video) and contrast (standard deviation of pixel values across video) matched to ground truth." This was not clear: was it done by the investigating team? I imagine that one of the most easily captured visual features is luminance and contrast, why wouldn't the optimization titrate these well? 

The contrast and luminance matching of the reconstructions to the ground truth videos was done by us, but this was only done to help readers assess the quality of the reconstructions by eye. Our performance metrics (frame and video correlation) are contrast and luminance insensitive. To clarify this, we have also added examples of non-adjusted frames in Supplementary Figure 3A, and added a sentence in the results, line 103: 

“When presenting videos in this paper we normalize the mean and standard deviation of the reconstructions to the average and standard deviation of the corresponding ground truth movie before applying the evaluation masks, but this is not done for quantification except in Supplementary Figure 3D.”

We were also initially surprised that contrast and luminance are not captured well by our reconstruction method, but this makes sense as V1 is largely luminance invariant (O’Shea et al., 2025 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2024.115217 ) and contrast only has a gain effect on V1 activity (Tring et al., 2024 https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jn.00336.2024). Decoding absolute contrast is likely unreliable because it is probably not the only factor modulating the overall gain of the neural population.

To address the reviewer’s comment more fully, we ran additional experiments. More specifically, to test why contrast and luminance are not recovered in the reconstructions, we checked how the predicted activity between the reconstruction and the contrast/luminance corrected reconstructions differs. Contrast and luminance adjustment had little impact on predicted response similarity on average. This makes the reconstruction optimization loss function insensitive to overall contrast and luminance so it cannot be decoded. There is a small effect on activity correlation, however, so we cannot completely rule out that contrast and luminance could be reconstructed with a different loss function. 

(2) The authors attempted to investigate the variability in reconstruction quality across different movies and 10-second snippets of a movie by correlating various visual features, such as video motion energy, contrast, luminance, and behavioral factors like running speed, pupil diameter, and eye movement, with reconstruction success. However, it would also be beneficial if the authors correlated the response loss (Poisson loss between neural responses) with reconstruction quality (video correlation) for individual videos, as these metrics are expected to be correlated if the reconstruction captures neural variance. 

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have now included this analysis and find that if the neural activity was better predicted by the DNEM then the reconstruction of the video was also more similar to the ground truth video. We further found that this effect is shift-dependent (in time), meaning the prediction of activity based on proximal video frames is more influential on reconstruction performance. 

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors): 

(1) I was confused about the choice of applying a transparency mask thresholded with alpha>0.5 during training and alpha>1 during evaluation. Why treat the two situations differently? Also, shouldn't we expect alpha to be in the [0,1] range, in which case, what is the meaning of alpha>1? (And finally, as already described in "Weaknesses", how does this choice impact the comparison with prior experiments? Did they also employ a similar masking strategy?) 

We found that applying a mask during training increased performance regardless of the size of the evaluation mask. Using a less stringent mask during training than during evaluation increases performance slightly, but also allows inspection of the reconstruction in areas where the model will be less confident without sacrificing performance, if this is desired. The thresholds of 0.5 and 1 were chosen through trial and error, but the exact values do not hold intrinsic meaning. The alpha mask values can go above 1 during their optimization. We could have clipped alpha during the training procedure (algorithm 1), but we decided this was not worth redoing at this stage, as the alphas used for testing were not above 1. All reconstruction approaches in previous publications limit the field of view in some form, whether this is due to the size of the screen, the size of the image on the screen, or the cropping of the presented/reconstructed images during analysis. 

To address the reviewer’s comment in detail, we have added extensive additional analysis to evaluate the coverage of the reconstruction achieved in this paper and how different masking strategies affect performance, as well as how the mask relates to more traditional receptive field mapping.  

(2) I would not use the word "imagery" in the first sentence of the abstract, because this might be interpreted by some readers as reconstruction of mental imagery, a very distinct question. 

We changed imagery to images in the abstract.

(3) Line 145-146: "<1 frame, or <30Hz" should be "<1 frame, or >30Hz". 

We have corrected the error.

(4) Algorithm 1, Line 5, a subscript variable 'g' should be changed to 'h'

We have corrected the error.

Additional Changes

(1) Minor grammatical errors

(2) Addition of citations: We were previously not aware of a bioRxiv preprint from 2022 (Cobos et al., 2022), which used gradient descent-based input optimization to reconstruct static images but without the addition of a diffusion model. Instead, we had cited for this method Pierzchlewicz et al., 2023 bioRxiv/NeurIPS. In Cobos et al., 2022, they compare static image reconstruction similarity to ground truth images and the similarity of the in vivo evoked activity across multiple reconstruction methods. Performance values are only given for reconstructions from trial-averaged responses across ~40 trials (in the absence of original data or code we are also not able to retrospectively calculate single-trial performance). The authors find that optimizing for evoked activity rather than image similarity produces image reconstructions that evoke more similar in vivo responses compared to reconstructions optimized for image similarity itself. We have now added and discussed the citation in the main text. 

(3) Workaround for error in the open-source code from https://github.com/lRomul/sensorium for video hashing function in the SOTA DNEM: By checking the most correlated first frame for each reconstructed movie, we discovered there was a bug in the open-source code and 9/50 movies we originally used for reconstruction were not properly excluded from the training data between DNEM instances. The reason for this error was that some of the movies are different by only a few pixels, and the video hashing function used to split training and test set folds in the original DNEM code classified these movies as different and split them across folds. We have replaced these 9 movies and provide a figure below showing the next closest first frame for every movie clip we reconstruct. This does not affect our claims. Excluding these 9 movie clips, did not affect the reconstruction performance (video correlation went from 0.563 to 0.568), so there was no overestimation of performance due to test set contamination. However, they should still be removed so some of the values in the paper have changed slightly. The only statistical test that was affected was the correlation between video correlation and mean motion energy (Supplementary Figure 4A), which went from p = 0.043 to 0.071. 

Author response image 2.

exclusion of movie clips with duplicates in the DNEM training data. A) example frame of a reconstructed movie (ground truth) and the most correlated first frame from the training data. b) all movie clips and their corresponding most correlated clip from the training data. Red boxes indicate excluded duplicates. 

check dit

I love corridos.

口譯待遇低賤無底限：

Nativecall360 這家低端公司提供一小時 USD 3 的醫療口譯（西語），顯然在招募美國外貧窮國家的線上口譯

台灣也有一票服務美國市場的線上英中醫療口譯，待遇大約 USD9-11，而且是大夜班。

Good!

typo?

19.2.3と内容が被ってますね？

「インタプリタごとに独立してロードされる」 ということですかね？であれば上記のように記載すると明確になるかなと思いました。

他とそろえて「Python 3.14」 とした方が良さそうですかね。

なんとなく読みにくい気がしました

map()メソッドでまとめて実行・結果を受け取る

とかですかねぇ？

{code-block} python になっているからシンタックスハイライトがおかしくなっています。{code-block} bashにしたほうが良さそうです。

頭に「#」を入れてコメントにしたほうがよさそうです。

間違いというわけではないのですが、公式ドキュメントの表記に合わせて fn でいいのではないかと思いました。

間違いというわけではないのですが、公式ドキュメントの表記に合わせて fn でいいのではないかと思いました（解説文のほうも同様）。

thread.pyだと「合計:」となっていて「合計」と「 :」の間にスペースが入っていませんでした。どちらかに統一したほうがよさそうです（実行結果の方も同様）。

thread.pyだと「合計:」となっていて「合計」と「 :」の間にスペースが入っていませんでした。どちらかに統一したほうがよさそうです（実行結果の方も同様）。

公式ドキュメントによると、*, はないようです。

https://docs.python.org/ja/3/library/concurrent.futures.html#concurrent.futures.ProcessPoolExecutor

いずれ？

箇条書きにしたほうが読みやすい気がしました。

毎回太字にしなくてよいかと。初出の時だけでよいのでは

Python 3.13からサポートされていますが、ここでは3.14のことしか書かない?

https://docs.python.org/ja/3.14/howto/free-threading-python.html

これはどこ情報なのか、が気になりました

完全に分離、とはどういう意味かがわかりにくい。

なにから完全に分離しているのか

表記揺れ: インタープリター

CPU数(長い文章)+4、と書いてあるのでそれがまとまりだとわかりにくいと思います。

(os.process_cpu_count()が返す)実行環境のCPU数+4と32のどちらか

だと読みやすいかな

この表現ちょっとわかりにくいかなと思いました。

buffersizeが指定されると、その数のプロセスやスレッドなどがスケジュールされ、それ以外は待ちとなる、ということですよね。

「未取得結果の最大件数」という表現がわかりにくいなと思いました

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

1. General Statements

We thank the reviewers for their overall support, thorough review, and thoughtful comments. The points raised were all warranted and we feel that addressing them has improved the quality of our manuscript. Below we respond to each of the points raised.

2. Point-by-point description of the revisions

Reviewer #1

Minor comments:

Are the lgl-1; pac-1 M-Z- double mutants dead? Only the phenotype of pac-1(M-Z-); lgl-1 (M+Z-) is shown. In figures and text throughout, it should be clear whether mutants are referring to zygotic loss or both maternal and zygotic loss, as this distinction could have major implications on the interpretation of experiments.

Almost all experiments we performed used a combination of RNAi of lgl-1 in a homozygous pac-1 null mutant background, or the other way around. RNAi should eliminate maternal product, but we hesitate to use the terminology M/Z since it has previously been used for protein degradation strategies.

We have updated the text and figure 1 to address the potential of maternal product masking earlier phenotypes, and performed additional RNAi experiments to demonstrate that the phenotypes obtained by RNAi for either pac-1 or lgl-1 in a homozygous mutant background for the other are the same as for the genetic double mutant. The results are shown as additional images and quantifications in figure 1B,C. We also updated the legend to figure 1 to make it clear that double genetic mutants are obtained from heterozygous lgl-1/+ parents.

Regarding the phenotype of lgl-1; pac-1 M-Z- double mutants: assuming the reviewer refers to M-Z- double genetic mutants, we cannot make such embryos as the pac-1(M-Z-); lgl-1(M+Z-) animals are already lethal.

In Figure 1C, it would be more appropriate to show a fully elongated WT embryo to contrast with arrested elongation in mutant embryos.

We agree with the reviewer and have replaced the 2-fold WT embryo with a 3-fold embryo.

Is the lateral spread of DLG-1 in double mutant embryos a result of failure to polarize DLG-1, or failure to maintain polarity? This should be straightforward to address in higher time resolution movies.

We have analyzed additional embryos at early stages of development. In lgl-1; pac-1 embryos we never see the appearance of complete junctions: defects are apparent already at dorsal intercalation. We interpret these results as a failure to properly polarize DLG-1. We have added additional images to Figure S2 and added this sentence to the text: Imaging of embryos from early stages of development on showed that normal continuous junctional DLG-1 bands are never established in pac-1(RNAi); lgl-1(mib201) embryos (Fig. S2B).

The lack of enhancement of hmp-1(fe4) by lgl-1(RNAi) is quite interesting, given that pac-1 does enhance hmp-1(fe4). To rule out the possibility that this result stems from incomplete lgl-1 RNAi, this experiment should be repeated using the lgl-1 null mutant.

We have done this experiment by recreating the fe4 S823F mutation in the lgl-1(null) mutant background as well as in the wild-type CGC1 background using CRISPR/Cas9. The phenotype of both was similar, but differs from that of the original PE97 strain. In the original strain, there is ~50% embryonic lethality but worms that complete embryogenesis grow up to be fertile adults. In our new "fe4" strains, nearly all animals are severely malformed with little to no elongation taking place. We are able to maintain both strains (with and without lgl-1) homozygous but with difficulty as only ~5% of animals grow up and give progeny. Apparently, there are genetic differences between PE97 and our CGC1 background that cause phenotypic differences despite having the same amino acid change in HMP-1.

Nevertheless, using our original embryonic viability criterium of 'hatching', loss of lgl-1 does not enhance the S823F mutation. We have included the following text in the manuscript:

To rule out that the lack of enhancement by lgl-1(RNAi) is due to incomplete inactivation of lgl-1, we also re-created the hmp-1(fe4) mutation (S823F) by CRISPR in lgl-1(mib201) mutant animals and wild-type controls. The phenotype of the S823F mutant we created is more severe than that of the original PE97 hmp-1(fe4) strain, with only ~5% of animals becoming fertile adults (Fig. S2F). This likely represents the presence of compensatory changes that have accumulated over time in PE97. Nevertheless, consistent with our RNAi results, the presence of lgl-1(mib201) did not further exacerbate the phenotype of HMP-1(S823F) (Fig. S2E, F). Taken together, the lack of enhancement of hmp-1(S823F) mutants by inactivation of loss of lgl-1 This observation argues against a primary role for lgl-1 in regulating cell junctions.

• Related to point 4, do pac-1 or lgl-1 null mutants enhance partial knockdown of junction protein DLG-1, or is this effect (of pac-1) specific to HMP-1/AJs?*

We have attempted to address this point using feeding RNAi against dlg-1. However, we were not able to obtain partial depletion of DLG-1. On RNAi feeding plates, control, pac-1, and lgl-1 animals did not show significant embryonic lethality. We checked RNAi effectiveness with a DLG-1::mCherry strain and found RNAi by feeding to be very ineffective. Since we could not deplete DLG-1 to a level that results in partial embryonic lethality, we were not able to address this question properly.

Does lgl-1 loss affect PAC-1 protein localization and vice versa?

It does not. We have added the following text and a figure panel: Loss-of-function mutants that strongly enhance a phenotype are often interpreted as acting in parallel pathways. We therefore examined whether loss of lgl-1 or pac-1 alters the localization of endogenously GFP-tagged LGL-1 or PAC-1. In neither null background did we detect changes in the subcellular localization of the other protein, consistent with LGL-1 and PAC-1 functioning in parallel pathways (Fig. S1D).

Reviewer #2

Very little of the imaging data are analyzed quantitatively, and in many cases it is not clear how many embryos were analyzed. While the images that are presented show clear defects, readers cannot determine how reproducible, strong or significant the phenotypes are.

We completely agree with the reviewer that interpretation of our data requires this information and apologize for the omission in the first manuscript version. The phenotypes are highly penetrant and consistent (timing of arrest, % lethality, junctional defects), and we have now added quantifications throughout the manuscript.

In particular, the data below should be quantified and, where possible, analyzed statistically:

• The frequency of the various junctional phenotypes shown in 2C

We have now quantified the junctional phenotypes. The junctional defects are highly penetrant: >90% of lgl-1; pac-1 embryos have junctional defects (new Fig. 2B). We used airy-scan confocal imaging to analyze the distribution of the different phenotypes (unaffected, spread laterally, and ring-like pattern). The results are shown in Fig. 2G.

• The expansion of DLG-1::mCherry in pac-1 lgl-1 embryos should be quantified (related to Figure 2B). For example, the percentage of membrane (marked by PH::GFP) occupied by DLG-1 could be quantified.

We have performed this quantification, shown in Fig. 2D.

- Similarly, the expansion of the aPKC domain should be quantified (Figure 3A).

An objective quantification of aPKC signal is difficult due to the relatively weak expression of aPKC::GFP and the lack of a clear demarcating boundary. This is part of the reason we measured tortuosity as a more quantifyable indicator of apical domain expansion. We have now added a qualitative observation table as Figure 3B. In addition, we have expanded the quantification of cell geometry by measuring lateral and basal surfaces. Lateral surfaces were decreased. We added the following text:

To better understand the reason for the change in geometry, we also measured the lengths of the lateral and basal surfaces (Fig. 3F). We found that the absolute lengths of the apical surfaces were not significantly different between pac-1(RNAi); lgl-1(mib201) and control animals. Instead, the lengths of the lateral domain were reduced (Fig. 3F). Hence, the more dome-shaped appearance of epidermal cells in pac-1; lgl-1 double mutant animals is due to a decrease in lateral domain size, which is consistent with the observed lateral spreading of aPKC.

• How many embryos were analyzed for each marker shown in Figure 2A, and what proportion showed the described phenotypes? This could be given in the text or in a panel.

We have added these numbers to panel 2B, and indicated the percentage in the text.

• The frequency of the various junctional phenotypes shown in 4F.

To address this, we have changed figure 4F to show three types of phenotype (strong, mild, no phenotype) and added how frequently we observed each to the panels. In rescue experiments, 18/24 embryos showed no junctional defects, while 6/24 showed a mild defect (compared to 100% severe in non-rescued embryos). To make room for this and other quantifications in Figure 4, we moved the demonstration that PAC-1 is depleted by RNAi to supplemental figure S4.

Because the genetic perturbations used are global (either deletions or RNAi), it is not established whether PAC-1/LGL-1 act in epidermal epithelial cells per se (versus an earlier requirement that manifests in epidermal epithelial cells). While I agree that this is the most likely scenario, other mechanisms are possible.

Our experiments indeed use global depletion/deletion of lgl-1 and pac-1. We cannot exclude therefore that other tissues do not contribute to the epithelial phenotypes. We assume that other tissues would be affected as well, and in fact have observed abnormal looking pharynx tissue (see our response to reviewer 3 below for examples). As the epidermis is one of the first tissue to develop it is likely the first in which phenotypes become apparent.

In particular, the overall GFP::aPKC levels appear notably higher in pac-1 lgl-1 embryos in Figure 3A. aPKC levels should be quantified to determine if this is true of pac-1 lgl-1 embryos. If so, couldn't that explain (or at least contribute to) the observed phenotypes?

Overall higher levels could indeed contribute to the phenotype. However, we have now quantified total aPKC levels in control and pac-1; lgl-1 embryos found no difference between them. We have added the following text to the manuscript: To determine if increased expression of aPKC might explain the broadened apical localization, we measured total intensity levels of aPKC::GFP. However, we detected no differences in fluorescence levels between control and pac-1(RNAi); lgl-1(mib201) animals (Fig. S3B, C).

Minor

Figure 4: For completeness, please include the embryonic viability of pac-1 lgl-1 +/- embryos treated with EV and cdc-42(RNAi), as was done for pac-1 lgl-1 pkc-3(ts) in Figure 4E. Presumably the increased proportion of viable embryos with the lgl-1 deletion allele is reflected in an overall increase in embryonic viability.

The embryonic viability indeed increases, but not as much as one might think because 15% of embryos die from the cdc-42 RNAi itself. The most important rescue argument is that we can obtain adult pac-1; lgl-1 animals with cdc-42 RNAi.

We have now included the overall rescue and the following text: Overall, cdc-42 RNAi caused a mild increase in embryonic viability (Fig. 4A). However, total embryonic viability may underestimate rescue of pac-1; lgl-1 embryonic lethality, because it also includes the ~15% lethality caused by cdc-42 inactivation itself, even among animals wild type for lgl-1.

The orientation of the inset images in Figures 2C, 3A and 3D is confusing. An illustration showing how these images are oriented relative to each other would be helpful.

We have added a figure showing how the junctions are oriented in the figures (Fig. 2E). We have also added supplemental videos S3 and S4 that should illustrate the phenotype more clearly as well.

For completeness, it would be good to test whether lgl-1(delta) is also synthetically lethal with picc-1(RNAi) (Zilberman 2017).

We like this idea and had already looked into this. Lgl-1 and picc-1 are not synthetic lethal (see graph in word file submitted). However, PICC-1 is not the only junctional localization signal for PAC-1, as demonstrated by the Nance lab. We find the data interesting but feel that it deserves a more thorough structure/function investigation of PAC-1 than we can provide here. Therefore we would prefer not to include this data.

Reviewer #3

We thank the reviewer for their support of our manuscript.

A few small areas to improve this manuscript:

p. 6 like 139: "remain" should be "remaining"

We have fixed this typo.

Could the authors mention what is the phenotype of the 10% of pac-1 animals that die?

Yes. They die with pleotropic phenotypes not resembling those of our pac-1; lgl-1 double mutant embryos. We have added examples of these to Figure S1.

Based on the Supplemental figures, it made me curious to ask: Did the authors notice changes in dorsal epidermal fusions? Cadherin normally disappears in the dorsal hyp7 cells at this time. Did the timing of the fusions change at all?

We haven't analyzed this in detail but our time-lapse videos show that dorsal fusions still take place and do not seem to be particularly delayed (overall development is slightly delayed but the delay in fusion is consistent with overall delay).

Again, curiosity driven by the Supplemental figures: did the authors notice defects in apical regions of internal organs, like the pharynx or intestine? The CDC-42 biosensor is asymmetrical in the developing intestine. See: DOI: 10.1242/bio.056911

We did not pay much attention to the intestine as PAC-1 is barely detectable in this tissue. The pharynx is formed, which we can easily detect in arrested embryos as we use GFP or BFP expressed under the myo-2 promoter to mark the deletion of pac-1. While we did not look closely, we do observe defects in pharynx development.

Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Referee #3

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

This manuscript by Jarosinska and colleagues addresses a long-standing mystery in the apical/basal polarity field: why LGL-1 and PAC-1/RhoGAP19D, which are essential in Drosophila, and in some tissue culture contexts, are not essential in C. elegans embryos.

The authors take an open-ended approach by using genetics, in the form of a genome wide RNAi screen, to find other proteins that enhance the mild phenotypes of lgl-1 mutant embryos. They uncover strong synthetic lethality when they reduce pac-1, a well-documented CDC-42 GAP that supports apical/basal polarity during early embryogenesis, and yet is also only partially required during embryogenesis.

The phenotypic analysis to understand why the embryos die when missing both lgl-1 and pac-1 leads to a careful analysis of known junctional molecules in C. elegans. Using newly made endogenously tagged junctional proteins, including DLG-1 and AFD, so that they can examine all three C. elegans apical junction complexes, the authors find a penetrant defect in the epidermal junctions as the embryos undergo elongation, an actomyosin dependent contractile event that dramatically reshapes the embryos into long, skinny tubes. With disorganized junctions, the embryos die due to ruptures, or hernias, as shown in the Supplemental Movie 2. In addition, and quite excitingly, the apical domains of the embryos are expanded. These defects are then partially rescued by removing CDC-42 or aPKC using RNAi depletion.

Major comments:

The claims and conclusions are supported by the data.

The data is presented in such a way that it is easy to understand what was done, and how measurements were obtained and evaluated.

Rigorous documentation of how the strains were built and how the genome wide RNAi screen was conducted is included in the Supplemental files.

Beautiful use of CRISPR to do the genetics:

since when they made the deletion of lgl-1 they replaced the coding sequence with GFP, they could use GFP to count the animals carrying the deletion in their double mutant analysis with pac-1 deletion mutants.

Figures are very nicely done.

The writing is clear.

Minor comments:

A few small areas to improve this manuscript:

p. 6 like 139: "remain" should be "remaining"

Could the authors mention what is the phenotype of the 10% of pac-1 animals that die?

Based on the Supplemental figures, it made me curious to ask: Did the authors notice changes in dorsal epidermal fusions? Cadherin normally disappears in the dorsal hyp7 cells at this time. Did the timing of the fusions change at all?

Again, curiosity driven by the Supplemental figures: did the authors notice defects in apical regions of internal organs, like the pharynx or intestine? The CDC-42 biosensor is asymmetrical in the developing intestine. See: DOI: 10.1242/bio.056911

Significance

This study raises interesting and important questions for the general polarity field. Early embryos have hugely redundant methods to maintain apical/basal polarity, which in C. elegans masked the roles for lgl-1 and pac-1 at earlier events, like compaction, when apical/basal polarity is first established. However, during elongation, when healthy strong junctions are a requirement, the double mutant loss of LGL-1 and PAC-1 results in expanded apical domain, that is lethal.

The study will be of interest to the broader polarity community, and to developmental biologist interested in how the apical junctions are assembled and strengthened during morphogenesis. The Discussion does a good job of showing what aspects of this study are novel, and which support prior findings that suggested, for example, that PAC-1 may have roles independent of CDC-42. I appreciate the comment that our field needs more and more sensitive biosensors to fully address the changes of key polarity regulators.

Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Referee #2

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

Summary: This study focuses on the polarization of epidermal epithelial cells in C. elegans. Whereas the basolateral polarity protein is LGL-1 is required for epithelial polarity in flies, LGL-1 is dispensable for polarization and viability in C. elegans. Through a whole-genome RNAi screen, Jarosinska et al discover that the depletion of the RhoGAP PAC-1 is synthetically lethal with an lgl-1 deletion mutant. pac-1 lgl-1 double mutants have significant polarity defects in the epidermal epithelial, including mislocalization of junctional markers and expansion of the apical aPKC domain. As a result pac-1 lgl-1 double mutants fail to maintain surface epithelial and arrest development. Genetic interaction data suggest that increased CDC42 and aPKC activity in pac-1 lgl-1 contributes, as least in part, to the polarity defects and resulting embryonic lethality.

Major comments:

Very little of the imaging data are analyzed quantitatively, and in many cases it is not clear how many embryos were analyzed. While the images that are presented show clear defects, readers cannot determine how reproducible, strong or significant the phenotypes are. In particular, the data below should be quantified and, where possible, analyzed statistically:

• The frequency of the various junctional phenotypes shown in 2C
• The expansion of DLG-1::mCherry in pac-1 lgl-1 embryos should be quantified(related to Figure 2B). For example, the percentage of membrane (marked by PH::GFP) occupied by DLG-1 could be quantified.
• Similarly, the expansion of the aPKC domain should be quantified (Figure 3A).
• How many embryos were analyzed for each marker shown in Figure 2A, and what proportion showed the described phenotypes? This could be given in the text or in a panel.
• The frequency of the various junctional phenotypes shown in 4F.

Because the genetic perturbations used are global (either deletions or RNAi), it is not established whether PAC-1/LGL-1 act in epidermal epithelial cells per se (versus an earlier requirement that manifests in epidermal epithelial cells). While I agree that this is the most likely scenario, other mechanisms are possible. In particular, the overall GFP::aPKC levels appear notably higher in pac-1 lgl-1 embryos in Figure 3A. aPKC levels should be quantified to determine if this is true of pac-1 lgl-1 embryos. If so, couldn't that explain (or at least contribute to) the observed phenotypes?

Minor

Figure 4: For completeness, please include the embryonic viability of pac-1 lgl-1 +/- embryos treated with EV and cdc-42(RNAi), as was done for pac-1 lgl-1 pkc-3(ts) in Figure 4E. Presumably the increased proportion of viable embryos with the lgl-1 deletion allele is reflected in an overall increase in embryonic viability.

The orientation of the inset images in Figures 2C, 3A and 3D is confusing. An illustration showing how these images are oriented relative to each other would be helpful.

For completeness, it would be good to test whether lgl-1(delta) is also synthetically lethal with picc-1(RNAi) (Zilberman 2017).

Significance

LGL-1 is a conserved polarity protein that is essential for viability in Drosophila. In contrast, lgl-1 mutants are viable and have weak polarity phenotypes in C. elegans. A previous study showed that LGL-1 acts redundantly with the posterior polarity proteins PAR-2 during establishment of anterior/posterior polarity in the one-cell worm embryo. Here, Jarosinska et al show that LGL-1 acts redundantly with another protein, the RhoGAP protein PAC-1, in the polarization of the embryonic epidermal epithelial. The strength of this study is the identification of redundant roles for PAC-1 and LGL-1, the apparent strength of the polarity defects in the double mutant and the broader implication that LGL-1 may act in a range of redundant, cell/tissue specific pathways to regulate polarity. The primary weakness of this study is the lack of quantification. Additionally, the aPKC and CDC42 genetic interaction data hint at potential pathways, but fall short of establishing LGL-1's or PAC-1's mechanism of action.

Advance: This works identifies a redundant genetic interaction between LGL-1 and PAC-1. While the data require additional quantification, the phenotypes presented appear clear and strong. Although the molecular mechanism by which LGL-1 and PAC-1 act is not well established in the current work, the core observation is significant and should provide a foundation for future studies dissecting the molecular mechanisms.

Audience: This work will be of interest to a broad audience. LGL-1 is conserved and its role in cell polarization and epithelial polarity is very actively studied, including in mammalian systems.

Field of expertise. C elegans embryonic development; cell polarity.

Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Referee #1

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

In this manuscript, Jarosinska and colleagues address the roles of two polarity regulators, pac-1 and lgl-1, in C. elegans epidermal polarity. Loss of function mutations in either of these gene individually does not block polarization, but through a genome-wide RNAi screen, the authors find that pac-1 and lgl-1 enhance each other to cause apical-basal polarity defects and arrest during epidermal morphogenesis. The remainder of the paper focuses on testing genetic interactions between both proteins and AJ proteins (HMP-1) as well as apical proteins (CDC-42, PKC-3). These experiments reveal some interesting differences in how lgl-1 and pac-1 interface with junctional proteins (pac-1 enhances hmp-1 but lgl-1 does not) and apical proteins (lgl-1 suppresses pkc-3 or cdc-42 partial loss but pac-1 does not).

Minor comments:

1. Are the lgl-1; pac-1 M-Z- double mutants dead? Only the phenotype of pac-1(M-Z-); lgl-1 (M+Z-) is shown. In figures and text throughout, it should be clear whether mutants are referring to zygotic loss or both maternal and zygotic loss, as this distinction could have major implications on the interpretation of experiments.
2. In Figure 1C, it would be more appropriate to show a fully elongated WT embryo to contrast with arrested elongation in mutant embryos.
3. Is the lateral spread of DLG-1 in double mutant embryos a result of failure to polarize DLG-1, or failure to maintain polarity? This should be straightforward to address in higher time resolution movies.
4. The lack of enhancement of hmp-1(fe4) by lgl-1(RNAi) is quite interesting, given that pac-1 does enhance hmp-1(fe4). To rule out the possibility that this result stems from incomplete lgl-1 RNAi, this experiment should be repeated using the lgl-1 null mutant.
5. Related to point 4, do pac-1 or lgl-1 null mutants enhance partial knockdown of junction protein DLG-1, or is this effect (of pac-1) specific to HMP-1/AJs?
6. Does lgl-1 loss affect PAC-1 protein localization and vice versa?

Significance

Overall, the manuscript provides additional insights into apical-basal polarization in C. elegans and demonstrates that lgl-1 is likely working in a similar way as in Drosophila, despite the lack of a phenotype in single lgl-1 mutants. I found the experiments to be done rigorously and interpretations of the data appropriate. All of my suggestions on improving the manuscript are minor; suggested experiments should be viewed as optional ways to strengthen the conclusions/impact of the study.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review)

Major:

(1) In line 76, the authors make a very powerful statement: 'σRNN simulation achieves higher similarity with unseen recorded trials before perturbation, but lower than the bioRNN on perturbed trials.' I couldn't find a figure showing this. This might be buried somewhere and, in my opinion, deserves some spotlight - maybe a figure or even inclusion in the abstract.

We agree with the reviewer that these results are important. The failure of σRNN on perturbed data could be inferred from the former Figures 1E, 2C-E, and 3D. Following the reviewers' comments, we have tried to make this the most prominent message of Figure 1, in particular with the addition of the new panel E. We also moved Table 1 from the  Supplementary to the main text to highlight this quantitatively. 

(2) It's mentioned in the introduction (line 84) and elsewhere (e.g., line 259) that spiking has some advantage, but I don't see any figure supporting this claim. In fact, spiking seems not to matter (Figure 2C, E). Please clarify how spiking improves performance, and if it does not, acknowledge that. Relatedly, in line 246, the authors state that 'spiking is a better metric but not significant' when discussing simulations. Either remove this statement and assume spiking is not relevant, or increase the number of simulations.

We could not find the exact quote from the reviewer, and we believe that he intended to quote “spiking is better on all metrics, but without significant margins”. Indeed, spiking did not improve the fit significantly on perturbed trials, this is particularly true in comparison with the benefits of Dale’s law and local inhibition. As suggested by the reviewer, we rephrased the sentence from this quote and more generally the corresponding paragraphs in the intro (lines 83-87) and in the results (lines 245-271). Our corrections in the results sections are also intended to address the minor point (4) raised by the same reviewer.

(3) The authors prefer the metric of predicting hits over MSE, especially when looking at real data (Figure 3). I would bring the supplementary results into the main figures, as both metrics are very nicely complementary. Relatedly, why not add Pearson correlation or R2, and not just focus on MSE Loss?

In Figure 3 for the in-vivo data, we do not have simultaneous electrophysiological recordings and optogenetic stimulation in this dataset.  The two are performed on different recording sessions. Therefore, we can only compare the effect of optogenetics on the behavior, and we cannot compute Pearson correlation or R2 of the perturbed network activity. To avoid ambiguity, we wrote “For the sessions of the in vivo dataset with optogenetic perturbation that we considered, only the behavior of an animal is recorded” on line 294. 

(4) I really like the 'forward-looking' experiment in closed loop! But I felt that the relevance of micro perturbations is very unclear in the intro and results. This could be better motivated: why should an experimentalist care about this forward-looking experiment? Why exactly do we care about micro perturbation (e.g., in contrast to non-micro perturbation)? Relatedly, I would try to explain this in the intro without resorting to technical jargon like 'gradients'.

As suggested, we updated the last paragraph of the introduction (lines 88 - 95) to give better motivation for why algorithmically targeted acute spatio-temporal perturbations can be important to dissect the function of neural circuits. We also added citations to recent studies with targeted in vivo optogenetic stimulation. As far as we know the existing previous work targeted network stimulation mostly using linear models, while we used non-linear RNNs and their gradients.

Minor:

(1) In the intro, the authors refer to 'the field' twice. Personally, I find this term odd. I would opt for something like 'in neuroscience'.

We implemented the suggested change: l.27 and l.30

(2) Line 45: When referring to previous work using data-constrained RNN models, Valente et al. is missing (though it is well cited later when discussing regularization through low-rank constraints)

We added the citation: l.45

(3) Line 11: Method should be methods (missing an 's').

We fixed the typo.

(4) In line 250, starting with 'So far', is a strange choice of presentation order. After interpreting the results for other biological ingredients, the authors introduce a new one. I would first introduce all ingredients and then interpret. It's telling that the authors jump back to 2B after discussing 2C.

We restructured the last two paragraphs of section 2.1, and we hope that the presentation order is now more logical.

(5) The black dots in Figure 3E are not explained, or at least I couldn't find an explanation.

We added an explanation in the caption of Figure 3E.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

(1) Some aspects of the methods are unclear. For comparisons between recurrent networks trained from randomly initialized weights, I would expect that many initializations were made for each model variant to be compared, and that the performance characteristics are constructed by aggregating over networks trained from multiple random initializations. I could not tell from the methods whether this was done or how many models were aggregated.

The expectation of the reviewer is correct, we trained multiple models with different random seeds (affecting both the weight initialization and the noise of our model) for each variant and aggregated the results. We have now clarified this in Methods 4.6. lines 658-662.

(2) It is possible that including perturbation trials in the training sets would improve model performance across conditions, including held-out (untrained) perturbations (for instance, to units that had not been perturbed during training). It could be noted that if perturbations are available, their use may alleviate some of the design decisions that are evaluated here.

In general, we agree with the reviewer that including perturbation trials in the training set would likely improve model performance across conditions. One practical limitation explaining partially why we did not do it with our dataset is the small quantity of perturbed trials for each targeted cortical area: the number of trials with light perturbations is too scarce to robustly train and test our models.

More profoundly, to test hard generalizations to perturbations (aka perturbation testing), it will always be necessary that the perturbations are not trivially represented in the training data. Including perturbation trials during training would compromise our main finding: some biological model constraints improve the generalization to perturbation. To test this claim, it was necessary to keep the perturbations out of the training data.

We agree that including all available data of perturbed and non-perturbed recordings would be useful to build the best generalist predictive system. It could help, for instance, for closed-loop circuit control as we studied in Figure 5. Yet, there too, it will be important for the scientific validation process to always keep some causal perturbations of interest out of the training set. This is necessary to fairly measure the real generalization capability of any model. Importantly, this is why we think out-of-distribution “perturbation testing” is likely to have a recurring impact in the years to come, even beyond the case of optogenetic inactivation studied in detail in our paper.

Recommendation for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendation for the authors):

The code is not very easy to follow. I know this is a lot to ask, but maybe make clear where the code is to train the different models, which I think is a great contribution of this work? I predict that many readers will want to use the code and so this will improve the impact of this work.

We updated the code to make it easier to train a model from scratch.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendation for the authors):

The figures are really tough to read. Some of that small font should be sized up, and it's tough to tell in the posted paper what's happening in Figure 2B.

We updated Figures 1 and 2 significantly, in part to increase their readability. We also implemented the "Superficialities" suggestions.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors generated knockout mice for Atad2, a conserved bromodomain-containing factor expressed during spermatogenesis. In Atad2 KO mice, HIRA, a chaperone for histone variant H3.3, was upregulated in round spermatids, accompanied by an apparent increase in H3.3 levels. Furthermore, the sequential incorporation and removal of TH2B and PRM1 during spermiogenesis were partially disrupted in the absence of ATAD2, possibly due to delayed histone removal. Despite these abnormalities, Atad2 KO male mice were able to produce offspring normally.

Strengths:

The manuscript addresses the biological role of ATAD2 in spermatogenesis using a knockout mouse model, providing a valuable in vivo framework to study chromatin regulation during male germ cell development. The observed redistribution of H3.3 in round spermatids is clearly presented and suggests a previously unappreciated role of ATAD2 in histone variant dynamics. The authors also document defects in the sequential incorporation and removal of TH2B and PRM1 during spermiogenesis, providing phenotypic insight into chromatin transitions in late spermatogenic stages. Overall, the study presents a solid foundation for further mechanistic investigation into ATAD2 function.

Weaknesses:

While the manuscript reports the gross phenotype of Atad2 KO mice, the findings remain largely superficial and do not convincingly demonstrate how ATAD2 deficiency affects chromatin.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review): 

Summary: 

The authors analyzed the expression of ATAD2 protein in post-meiotic stages and characterized the localization of various testis-specific proteins in the testis of the Atad2 knockout (KO). By cytological analysis as well as the ATAC sequencing, the study showed that increased levels of HIRA histone chaperone, accumulation of histone H3.3 on post-meiotic nuclei, defective chromatin accessibility and also delayed deposition of protamines. Sperm from the Atad2 KO mice reduces the success of in vitro fertilization. The work was performed well, and most of the results are convincing. However, this manuscript does not suggest a molecular mechanism for how ATAD2 promotes the formation of testis-specific chromatin. 

We would like to take this opportunity to highlight that the present study builds on our previously published work, which examined the function of ATAD2 in both yeast S. pombe and mouse embryonic stem (ES) cells (Wang et al., 2021). In yeast, using genetic analysis we showed that inactivation of HIRA rescues defective cell growth caused by the absence of ATAD2. This rescue could also be achieved by reducing histone dosage, indicating that the toxicity depends on histone over-dosage, and that HIRA toxicity, in the absence of ATAD2, is linked to this imbalance.

Furthermore, HIRA ChIP-seq performed in mouse ES cells revealed increased nucleosome-bound HIRA, particularly around transcription start sites (TSS) of active genes, along with the appearance of HIRA-bound nucleosomes within normally nucleosome-free regions (NFRs). These findings pointed to ATAD2 as a major factor responsible for unloading HIRA from nucleosomes. This unloading function may also apply to other histone chaperones, such as FACT (see Wang et al., 2021, Fig. 4C).

In the present study, our investigations converge on the same ATAD2 function in the context of a physiologically integrated mammalian system—spermatogenesis. Indeed, in the absence of ATAD2, we observed H3.3 accumulation and enhanced H3.3-mediated gene expression. Consistent with this functional model of ATAD2— unloading chaperones from histone- and non-histone-bound chromatin—we also observed defects in histone-toprotamine replacement.

Together, the results presented here and in Wang et al. (2021) reveal an underappreciated regulatory layer of histone chaperone activity. Previously, histone chaperones were primarily understood as factors that load histones. Our findings demonstrate that we must also consider a previously unrecognized regulatory mechanism that controls assembled histone-bound chaperones. This key point was clearly captured and emphasized by Reviewer #2 (see below).

Strengths:

The paper describes the role of ATAD2 AAA+ ATPase in the proper localization of sperm-specific chromatin proteins such as protamine, suggesting the importance of the DNA replication-independent histone exchanges with the HIRA-histone H3.3 axis. 

Weaknesses: 

(1) Some results lack quantification. 

We will consider all the data and add appropriate quantifications where necessary.

(2) The work was performed well, and most of the results are convincing. However, this manuscript does not suggest a molecular mechanism for how ATAD2 promotes the formation of testis-specific chromatin. 

Please see our comments above.

Reviewer #2 (Public review): 

Summary:

This manuscript by Liakopoulou et al. presents a comprehensive investigation into the role of ATAD2 in regulating chromatin dynamics during spermatogenesis. The authors elegantly demonstrate that ATAD2, via its control of histone chaperone HIRA turnover, ensures proper H3.3 localization, chromatin accessibility, and histone-toprotamine transition in post-meiotic male germ cells. Using a new well-characterized Atad2 KO mouse model, they show that ATAD2 deficiency disrupts HIRA dynamics, leading to aberrant H3.3 deposition, impaired transcriptional regulation, delayed protamine assembly, and defective sperm genome compaction. The study bridges ATAD2's conserved functions in embryonic stem cells and cancer to spermatogenesis, revealing a novel layer of epigenetic regulation critical for male fertility. 

Strengths:

The MS first demonstration of ATAD2's essential role in spermatogenesis, linking its expression in haploid spermatids to histone chaperone regulation by connecting ATAD2-dependent chromatin dynamics to gene accessibility (ATAC-seq), H3.3-mediated transcription, and histone eviction. Interestingly and surprisingly, sperm chromatin defects in Atad2 KO mice impair only in vitro fertilization but not natural fertility, suggesting unknown compensatory mechanisms in vivo. 

Weaknesses:

The MS is robust and there are not big weaknesses 

Reviewer #3 (Public review): 

Summary: 

The authors generated knockout mice for Atad2, a conserved bromodomain-containing factor expressed during spermatogenesis. In Atad2 KO mice, HIRA, a chaperone for histone variant H3.3, was upregulated in round spermatids, accompanied by an apparent increase in H3.3 levels. Furthermore, the sequential incorporation and removal of TH2B and PRM1 during spermiogenesis were partially disrupted in the absence of ATAD2, possibly due to delayed histone removal. Despite these abnormalities, Atad2 KO male mice were able to produce offspring normally. 

Strengths:

The manuscript addresses the biological role of ATAD2 in spermatogenesis using a knockout mouse model, providing a valuable in vivo framework to study chromatin regulation during male germ cell development. The observed redistribution of H3.3 in round spermatids is clearly presented and suggests a previously unappreciated role of ATAD2 in histone variant dynamics. The authors also document defects in the sequential incorporation and removal of TH2B and PRM1 during spermiogenesis, providing phenotypic insight into chromatin transitions in late spermatogenic stages. Overall, the study presents a solid foundation for further mechanistic investigation into ATAD2 function. 

Weaknesses:

While the manuscript reports the gross phenotype of Atad2 KO mice, the findings remain largely superficial and do not convincingly demonstrate how ATAD2 deficiency affects chromatin dynamics. Moreover, the phenotype appears too mild to elucidate the functional significance of ATAD2 during spermatogenesis. 

We respectfully disagree with the statement that our findings are largely superficial. Based on our investigations of this factor over the years, it has become evident that ATAD2 functions as an auxiliary factor that facilitates mechanisms controlling chromatin dynamics (see, for example, Morozumi et al., 2015). These mechanisms can still occur in the absence of ATAD2, but with reduced efficiency, which explains the mild phenotype we observed.

This function, while not essential, is nonetheless an integral part of the cell’s molecular biology and should be studied and brought to the attention of the broader biological community, just as we study essential factors. Unfortunately, the field has tended to focus primarily on core functional actors, often overlooking auxiliary factors. As a result, our decade-long investigations into the subtle yet important roles of ATAD2 have repeatedly been met with skepticism regarding its functional significance, which has in turn influenced editorial decisions.

We chose eLife as the venue for this work specifically to avoid such editorial barriers and to emphasize that facilitators of essential functions do exist. They deserve to be investigated, and the underlying molecular regulatory mechanisms must be understood.

(1) Figures 4-5: The analyses of differential gene expression and chromatin organization should be more comprehensive. First, Venn diagrams comparing the sets of significantly differentially expressed genes between this study and previous work should be shown for each developmental stage. Second, given the established role of H3.3 in MSCI, the effect of Atad2 knockout on sex chromosome gene expression should be analyzed. Third, integrated analysis of RNA-seq and ATAC-seq data is needed to evaluate how ATAD2 loss affects gene expression. Finally, H3.3 ChIP-seq should be performed to directly assess changes in H3.3 distribution following Atad2 knockout.  

(1) In the revised version, we will include Venn diagrams to illustrate the overlap in significantly differentially expressed genes between this study and previous work. However, we believe that the GSEAs presented here provide stronger evidence, as they indicate the statistical significance of this overlap (p-values). In our case, we observed p-value < 0.01 (**) and p < 0.001 (***).

(2) Sex chromosome gene expression was analyzed and is presented in Fig. 5C.

(3) The effect of ATAD2 loss on gene expression is shown in Fig. 4A, B, and C as histograms, with statistical significance indicated in the middle panels.

(4) Although mapping H3.3 incorporation across the genome in wild-type and Atad2 KO cells would have been informative, the available anti-H3.3 antibody did not work for ChIP-seq, at least in our hands. The authors of Fontaine et al., 2022, who studied H3.3 during spermatogenesis in mice, must have encountered the same problem, since they tagged the endogenous H3.3 gene to perform their ChIP experiments.

(2) Figure 3: The altered distribution of H3.3 is compelling. This raises the possibility that histone marks associated with H3.3 may also be affected, although this has not been investigated. It would therefore be important to examine the distribution of histone modifications typically associated with H3.3. If any alterations are observed, ChIP-seq analyses should be performed to explore them further.

Based on our understanding of ATAD2’s function—specifically its role in releasing chromatin-bound HIRA—in the absence of ATAD2 the residence time of both HIRA and H3.3 on chromatin increases. This results in the detection of H3.3 not only on sex chromosomes but across the genome. Our data provide clear evidence of this phenomenon. The reviewer is correct in suggesting that the accumulated H3.3 would carry H3.3-associated histone PTMs; however, we are unsure what additional insights could be gained by further demonstrating this point.

(3) Figure 7: While the authors suggest that pre-PRM2 processing is impaired in Atad2 KO, no direct evidence is provided. It is essential to conduct acid-urea polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (AU-PAGE) followed by western blotting, or a comparable experiment, to substantiate this claim. 

Figure 7 does not suggest that pre-PRM2 processing is affected in Atad2 KO; rather, this figure—particularly Fig. 7B—specifically demonstrates that pre-PRM2 processing is impaired, as shown using an antibody that recognizes the processed portion of pre-PRM2. ELISA was used to provide a more quantitative assessment; however, in the revised manuscript we will also include a western blot image.

(4) HIRA and ATAD2: Does the upregulation of HIRA fully account for the phenotypes observed in Atad2 KO? If so, would overexpression of HIRA alone be sufficient to phenocopy the Atad2 KO phenotype? Alternatively, would partial reduction of HIRA (e.g., through heterozygous deletion) in the Atad2 KO background be sufficient to rescue the phenotype? 

These are interesting experiments that require the creation of appropriate mouse models, which are not currently available.

(5) The mechanism by which ATAD2 regulates HIRA turnover on chromatin and the deposition of H3.3 remains unclear from the manuscript and warrants further investigation. 

The Reviewer is absolutely correct. In addition to the points addressed in response to Reviewer #1’s general comments (see above), it would indeed have been very interesting to test the segregase activity of ATAD2 (likely driven by its AAA ATPase activity) through in vitro experiments using the Xenopus egg extract system described by Tagami et al., 2004. This system can be applied both in the presence and absence (via immunodepletion) of ATAD2 and would also allow the use of ATAD2 mutants, particularly those with inactive AAA ATPase or bromodomains. However, such experiments go well beyond the scope of this study, which focuses on the role of ATAD2 in chromatin dynamics during spermatogenesis.

References:

(1) Wang T, Perazza D, Boussouar F, Cattaneo M, Bougdour A, Chuffart F, Barral S, Vargas A, Liakopoulou A, Puthier D, Bargier L, Morozumi Y, Jamshidikia M, Garcia-Saez I, Petosa C, Rousseaux S, Verdel A, Khochbin S. ATAD2 controls chromatin-bound HIRA turnover. Life Sci Alliance. 2021 Sep 27;4(12):e202101151. doi: 10.26508/lsa.202101151. PMID: 34580178; PMCID: PMC8500222.

(2) Morozumi Y, Boussouar F, Tan M, Chaikuad A, Jamshidikia M, Colak G, He H, Nie L, Petosa C, de Dieuleveult M, Curtet S, Vitte AL, Rabatel C, Debernardi A, Cosset FL, Verhoeyen E, Emadali A, Schweifer N, Gianni D, Gut M, Guardiola P, Rousseaux S, Gérard M, Knapp S, Zhao Y, Khochbin S. Atad2 is a generalist facilitator of chromatin dynamics in embryonic stem cells. J Mol Cell Biol. 2016 Aug;8(4):349-62. doi: 10.1093/jmcb/mjv060. Epub 2015 Oct 12. PMID: 26459632; PMCID: PMC4991664.

(3) Fontaine E, Papin C, Martinez G, Le Gras S, Nahed RA, Héry P, Buchou T, Ouararhni K, Favier B, Gautier T, Sabir JSM, Gerard M, Bednar J, Arnoult C, Dimitrov S, Hamiche A. Dual role of histone variant H3.3B in spermatogenesis: positive regulation of piRNA transcription and implication in X-chromosome inactivation. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022 Jul 22;50(13):7350-7366. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkac541. PMID: 35766398; PMCID: PMC9303386.

(4) Tagami H, Ray-Gallet D, Almouzni G, Nakatani Y. Histone H3.1 and H3.3 complexes mediate nucleosome assembly pathways dependent or independent of DNA synthesis. Cell. 2004 Jan 9;116(1):51-61. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(03)01064-x. PMID: 14718166.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewing Editor Comments:

I note that the reviewers had mixed opinions about the strength of the evidence in the manuscript. A revision that addresses these points would be welcome.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):  

Major points: 

(1) No line numbers: It is hard to point out the issues.

The revised version harbors line numbers.

(2) Given the results shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4, it is nice to show the chromosomal localization of histone H3.3 in spermatocytes or post-meiotic cells by Chromatin-immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq).

Although mapping H3.3 incorporation across the genome in wild-type and Atad2 KO cells would have been informative, the available anti-H3.3 antibody did not work for ChIP-seq in our hands. In fact, this antibody is not well regarded for ChIP-seq. For example, Fontaine et al. (2022), who investigated H3.3 during spermatogenesis in mice, circumvented this issue by tagging the endogenous H3.3 genes for their ChIP experiments.

(3) Figure 7B and 8: Why the authors used ELISA for the protein quantification. At least, western blotting should be shown.

ELISA is a more quantitative method than traditional immunoblotting. Nevertheless, as requested by the reviewer, we have now included a corresponding western blot in Fig. S3.

(4) For readers, please add a schematic pathway of histone-protamine replacement in sperm formation in Fig.1 and it would be nice to have a model figure, which contains the authors' idea in the last figure.

As requested by this reviewer, we have now included a schematic model in Figure 9 to summarize the main conclusions of our work.

Minor points: 

(1) Page 2, the second paragraph, "pre-PRM2: Please explain more about pre-PRM2 and/or PRM2 as well as PRM1 (Figure 6).

More detailed descriptions of PRM2 processing are now given in this paragraph. 

(2) Page 3, bottom paragraph, line 1: "KO" should be "knockout (KO)".

Done.

(3) Page 4, second paragraph bottom: Please explain more about the protein structure of germ-line-specific ATAD2S: how it is different from ATAD2L. Germ-line specific means it is also expressed in ovary?

As Atad2 is predominantly expressed in embryonic stem cells and in spermatogenic cells, we replaced all through the text germ-line specific by more appropriate terms.

(4) Figure 1C, western blotting: Wild-type testis extracts, both ATAD2L and -S are present. Does this mean that ATADS2L is expressed in both germ line as well as supporting cells. Please clarify this and, if possible, show the western blotting of spermatids well as spermatocytes.

Figure 1D shows sections of seminiferous tubules from Atad2 KO mice, in which lacZ expression is driven by the endogenous Atad2 promoter. The results indicate that Atad2 is expressed mainly in post-meiotic cells. Most labeled cells are located near the lumen, whereas the supporting Sertoli cells remain unlabeled. Sertoli cells, which are anchored to the basal lamina, span the entire thickness of the germinal epithelium from the basal lamina to the lumen. Their nuclei, however, are usually positioned closer to the basal membrane. Thus, the observed lacZ expression pattern argues against substantial Atad2 expression in Sertoli cells. 

(5) Figure 1C: Please explain a bit more about the reduction of ATAD2 proteins in heterozygous mice.

Done

(6) Figure 1C: Genotypes of the mice should be shown in the legend.

Done 

(7) Figure 1D: Please add a more magnified image of the sections to see the staining pattern in the seminiferous tubules.

The magnification does not bring more information since we lose the structure of cells within tubules due the nature of treatment of the sections for X-gal staining. Please see comments to question 1C to reviewer 2

(8) Page 5, first paragraph, line 2, histone dosage: What do the authors meant by the histone dosage? Please explain more or use more appropriate word.

"Histone dosage" refers to the amount or relative abundance of histone proteins in a cell.

(9) Figure 2A: Figure 2A: Given the result in Figure 1C, it is interesting to check the amount of HIRA in Atad2 heterozygous mice.

In Atad2 heterozygous mice, we would expect an increase in HIRA, but only to about half the level seen in the Atad2 homozygous knockout shown in Figure 2A, which is relatively modest. Therefore, we doubt that detecting such a small change—approximately half of that in Figure 2A—would yield clear or definitive results. 

(10) Figure 2A, legend (n=5): What does this "n" mean? The extract of testes from "5" male mice like Figure 2B. Or 5 independent experiments. If the latter is true, it is important to share the other results in the Supplements.

“n” refers to five WT and five Atad2 KO males. The legend has been clarified as suggested by the reviewer.

(11) Figure 2A, legend, line 2, Atad2: This should be italicized.

Done

(12) Figure 2B: Please show the quantification of amounts of HIRA protein like Fig. 2A.

As indicated in the legend, what is shown is a pool of testes from 3 individuals per genotype.

(13) Figure 2B shows an increased level of HIRA in Atad2 KO testis. This suggests the role of ATAD2 in the protein degradation of HIRA. This possibility should be mentioned or tested since ATAD2 is an AAA+ ATPase. 

The extensive literature on ATAD2 provides no indication that it is involved in protein degradation. In our early work on ATAD2 in the 2000s, we hypothesized that, as a member of the AAA ATPase family, ATAD2 might associate with the 19S proteasome subunit (through multimerization with the other AAA ATPase member of this regulatory subunit). However, both our published pilot studies (Caron et al., PMID: 20581866) and subsequent unpublished work ruled out this possibility. Instead, since the amount of nucleosome-bound HIRA increases in the absence of ATAD2, we propose that chromatin-bound HIRA is more stable than soluble HIRA once it has been released from chromatin by ATAD2.

(14) Page 6, second paragraph, line 5, ko: KO should be capitalized.

Done

(15) Page 6, second paragraph, line 2 from the bottom, chromatin dynamics: Throughout the text, the authors used "chromatin dynamics". However, all the authors analyzed in the current study is the localization of chromatin protein.  So, it is much easier to explain the results by using "chromatin status," etc. In this context, "accessibility" is better. 

We changed the term “chromatin dynamics” into a more precise term according to the context used all through the text.

(16) Figure 3: Please provide the quantification of signals of histone H3.3 in a nucleus or nuclear cytoplasm.

This request is not clear to us since we do not observe any H3.3 signal in the cytoplasm.

(17) Figure 3: As the control of specificity in post-meiotic cells, please show the image and quantification of the H3.3 signals in spermatocyte, for example.

This request is not clear to us. What specificity is meant? 

(18) Figure 3, bottom panels: Please show what the white lines indicate? 

The white lines indicate the limit of cell nucleus and estimated by Hoechst staining. This is now indicated in the legend of the figure. 

(19) Figure 4A: Please explain more about what kind of data is here. Is this wild-type and/or Atad2 KO? The label of the Y-axis should be "mean expression level". What is the standard deviation (SD) here on the X-axis. Moreover, there is only one red open circle, but the number of this class is 5611. All 5611 genes in this group show NO expression. Please explain more.

The plot displays the mean expression levels (y-axis, labeled as "mean expression level") versus the corresponding standard deviations (x-axis), both calculated from three independent biological replicates of isolated round spermatids (Atad2 wild-type and Atad2 KO). The standard deviation reflects the variability of gene expression across biological replicates. Genes were grouped into four categories (grp1: blue, grp2: cyan, grp3: green, grp4: orange) according to the quartile of their mean expression. For grp4, all genes have no detectable expression, resulting in a mean expression of zero and a standard deviation of zero; consequently, the 5611 genes in this group are represented by a single overlapping point (red open circle) at the origin. 

(20) Figure 4C: If possible, it would be better to have a statistical comparison between wild-type and the KO.  

The mean profiles are displayed together with their variability (± 2 s.e.m.) across the four replicates for both ATAD2 WT (blue) and ATAD2 KO (red). For groups 1, 2, and 3, the envelopes of the curves remain clearly separated around the peak, indicating a consistent difference in signal between the two conditions. In contrast, group 4 does not present a strong signal and, accordingly, no marked difference is observed between WT and KO in this group.

(21) Figure 5, GSEA panels: Please explain more about what the GSEA is in the legend.  The legend has been updated as follows:

(A) Expression profiles of post-meiotic H3.3-activated genes. The heatmap (left panel) displays the normalized expression levels of genes identified by Fontaine and colleagues as upregulated in the absence of histone H3.3 (Fontaine et al. 2022) for Atad2 WT (WT) and Atad2 KO (KO) samples at days 20, 22, 24, and 26 PP (D20 to D26). The colour scale represents the z-score of log-transformed DESeq2-normalized counts. The middle panel box plots display, pooled, normalized expression levels, aggregated across replicates and genes, for each condition (WT and KO) and each time point (D20 to D26). Statistical significance between WT and KO conditions was determined using a two-sided t-test, with p-values indicated as follows: * for p-value<0.05, ** for p-value<0.01 and *** for p-value<0.001. The right panel shows the results of gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA), which assesses whether predefined groups of genes show statistically significant differences between conditions. Here, the post-meiotic H3.3-activated genes set, identified by Fontaine et al. (2022), is significantly enriched in Atad2 KO compared with WT samples at day 26 (p < 0.05, FDR < 0.25). Coloured vertical bars indicate the “leading edge” genes (i.e., those contributing most to the enrichment signal), located before the point of maximum enrichment score.  (B) As shown in (A) but for the "post-meiotic H3.3-repressed genes" gene set. (C) As shown in (A) but for the " sex chromosome-linked genes " gene set.

(22) Figure 6. In the KO, the number of green cells is more than red and yellow cells, suggesting the delayed maturation of green (TH2B-positive) cells. It is essential to count the number of each cell and show the quantification.

The green cells correspond to those expressing TH2B but lacking transition proteins (TP) and protamine 1 (Prm1), indicating that they are at earlier stages than elongating–condensing spermatids. Counting these green cells simply reflects the ratio of elongating/condensing spermatids to earlier-stage cells, which varies depending on the field examined. The key point in this experiment is that in wild-type mice, only red cells (elongating/condensing spermatids) and green cells (earlier stages) are observed. By contrast, in Atad2 KO testes, a significant proportion of yellow cells appears, which are never seen in wild-type tissue. The crucial metric here is the percentage of yellow cells relative to the total number of elongating/condensing spermatids (red cells). In wild-type testes, this value is consistently 0%, whereas in Atad2 KO testes it always ranges between 50% and 100% across all fields containing substantial numbers of elongating/condensing spermatids.

(23) Figure 8A: Please show the images of sperm (heads) in the KO mice with or without decompaction.

The requested image is now displayed in Figure S5.

(24) Figure 8C: In the legend, it says n=5. However, there are more than 5 plots on the graph. Please explain the experiment more in detail.

The experiment is now better explained in the legend of this Figure.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors): 

While the study is rigorous and well performed, the following minor points could be addressed to strengthen the manuscript: 

Figure 1C should indicate each of the different types of cells present in the sections. It would be of interest to show specifically the different post-meiotic germ cells.

With this type of sample preparation, it is difficult to precisely distinguish the different cell types within the sections. Nevertheless, the staining pattern strongly indicates that most of the intensely stained cells are post-meiotic, situated near the tubule lumens and extending roughly halfway toward the basal membrane.

In the absence of functional ATAD2, the accumulation of HIRA primarily occurs in round spermatids (Fig. 2B). If technically possible, it would be of great interest to show this by IHC of testis section. 

Unfortunately, our antibody did not satisfactorily work in IHC.

The increased of H3.3 signal in Atad2 KO spermatids (Fig. 3) is interpreted because of a reduced turnover. However, alternative explanations (e.g., H3.3 misincorporation or altered chaperone affinity) should not be ruled out. 

The referee is correct that alternative explanations are possible. However, based on our previous work (Wang et al., 2021; PMID: 34580178), we demonstrated that in the absence of ATAD2, there is reduced turnover of HIRAbound nucleosomes, as well as reduced nucleosome turnover, evidenced by the appearance of nucleosomes in regions that are normally nucleosome-free at active gene TSSs. We have no evidence supporting any other alternative hypothesis.

In the MS the reduced accessibility at active genes (Fig. 4) is attributed to H3.3 overloading. However, global changes in histone acetylation (e.g., H4K5ac) or other remodelers in KO cells could be also consider.

In fact, we meant that histone overloading could be responsible for the altered accessibility. This has been clearly demonstrated in case of S. cerevisiae in the absence of Yta7 (S.  cerevisiae’ ATAD2) (PMID: 25406467).

In relation with the sperm compaction assay (Fig. 8A), the DTT/heparin/Triton protocol may not fully reflect physiological decompaction. This could be validated with alternative methods (e.g., MNase sensitivity). 

The referee is right, but since this is a subtle effect as it can be judged by normal fertility, we doubt that milder approaches could reveal significant differences between wildtype and Atad2 KO sperms.

It is surprising that despite the observed alterations in the genome organization of the sperm, the natural fertility of the KO mice is not affected (Fig. 8C). This warrants deeper discussion: Is functional compensation occurring (e.g., by p97/VCP)? Analysis of epididymal sperm maturation or uterine environment could provide insights.

As detailed in the Discussion section, this work, together with our previous study (Wang et al., 2021; PMID: 34580178), highlights an overlooked level of regulation in histone chaperone activity: the release of chromatinbound factors following their interaction with chromatin. This is an energy-dependent process, driven by ATP and the associated ATPase activity of these factors. Such activity could be mediated by various proteins, such as p97/VCP or DNAJC9–HSP70, as discussed in the manuscript, or by yet unidentified factors. However, most of these mechanisms are likely to occur during the extensive histone-to-histone variant exchanges of meiosis and post-meiotic stages. To the best of our knowledge, epididymal sperm maturation and the uterine environment do not involve substantial histone-to-histone or histone-to-protamine exchanges.

The authors showed that MSCI genes present an enhancement of repression in the absence of ATAD2 by enhancing H3.3 function. It would be also of interest to analyze the behavior of the Sex body during its silencing (zygotene to pachytene) by looking at different markers (i.e., gamma-H2AX phosphorylation, Ubiquitylation etc). 

The referee is correct that this is an interesting question. Accordingly, in our future work, we plan to examine the sex body in more detail during its silencing, using a variety of relevant markers, including those suggested by the reviewer. However, we believe that such investigations fall outside the scope of the present study, which focuses on the molecular relationship between ATAD2 and H3.3, rather than on the role of H3.3 in regulating sex body transcription. For a comprehensive analysis of this aspect, studies should primarily focus on the H3.3 mouse models reported by Fontaine and colleagues (PMID: 35766398).

Fig. 6: Co-staining of TH2B/TP1/PRM1 is convincing but would benefit from quantification (% cells with overlapping signals).

The green cells correspond to those expressing TH2B but lacking transition proteins (TP) and protamine 1 (Prm1), indicating that they are at earlier stages than elongating–condensing spermatids. Counting these green cells simply reflects the ratio of elongating/condensing spermatids to earlier-stage cells, which varies depending on the field examined. The key point is that in wild-type mice, only red cells (elongating/condensing spermatids) and green cells (earlier stages) are observed. By contrast, in Atad2 KO testes, a significant proportion of yellow cells appears, which are never seen in wild-type tissue. The crucial metric is the percentage of yellow cells relative to the total number of elongating/condensing spermatids (red cells). In wild-type testes, this value is consistently 0%, whereas in Atad2 KO testes it always ranges between 50% and 100% across all fields containing substantial numbers of elongating/condensing spermatids.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

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

Strengths:

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

Weaknesses:

The study lacks supporting in vivo data, such as gene knockdown experiments, to validate the proposed conclusions at the cellular level.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the previous reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

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

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

We appreciate the constructive and thoughtful feedbacks, which have been invaluable in enhancing the quality of our manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

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

Thank you for the positive and insightful comments.

Strengths:

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

We are grateful for the reviewer’s comments, which has contributed to enhancing the quality of our study.

Weaknesses:

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

We appreciate the reviewer’s comments. In the biochemical assays, we used the expressed catalytic domains of HATs—rather than the full-length proteins for activity testing. Specifically, the following constructs were expressed and purified: p300 (1287– 1666), GCN5 (499-663), PCAF (493-658), MOF (125-458), MOZ (497-780), MBP-MORF (361-716), Tip60 (221-512), HAT1 (20-341), and HBO1 (full length). This resulted in the observed discrepancies in molecular weight in Figure S3A compared to the expected fulllength weights. 

Although a recent study (PMID: 37382194) reported the acetoacetyltransferase activities of p300 and GCN5 in cells, we recognize that additional knockdown experiments would be necessary to substantiate their contributions to in vivo Kacac generation and to explore the functional roles of Kacac in an enzyme-specific context. We plan to address these kinds of research issues in our future work.

DOI: 10.1016/j.cmet.2025.11.011

Resource: (CLS Cat# 300342/p657_SK-OV-3, RRID:CVCL_0532)

Curator: @areedewitt04

SciCrunch record: RRID:CVCL_0532

What is this?

DOI: 10.1038/s41746-025-02228-3

Resource: PhysioNet (RRID:SCR_007345)

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:SCR_007345

What is this?

The Feedback Action Plan Template is a strong and practical resource, and it’s an ideal place to make the three movements of Engagement (⇄E) explicit. Rather than renaming the template, we suggest lightly structuring it around Reflection, Inquiry, and Action — using labels or prompts to help learners see Engagement as a process they practise over time. Much of this is already present; the main enhancement would be distinguishing an initial reflection on how feedback lands (emotionally and cognitively) from later reflection on capability development, and clearly positioning SAG insights as part of the Inquiry move.

Suggested enhancements to the Feedback Action Plan Template 1. Keep the title “Feedback Action Plan Template” The title is clear and learner-friendly. Rather than renaming it, the conceptual work can be done through how the template is structured and framed. 2. Add a brief framing line at the top to connect the template to ⇄E For example: “This Action Plan helps you practise the Engagement (⇄E) part of the SAG⇄E Insights for Learning framework by guiding you through three moves: Reflection, Inquiry, and Action.” 3. Make the three ⇄E movements explicit through light section labelling or prompts This helps learners see Engagement as a process they practise, not just a single step. 4. Surface an initial Reflection move (before action planning) Add a short reflection prompt that invites learners to notice how feedback lands emotionally and cognitively, for example: • What stood out to you in this feedback? • How did it make you feel or think differently about your work or learning? This normalises reflection and supports learning from challenge or mistakes. 5. Position SAG insights as part of the Inquiry move Reframe the existing “SAG⇄E Insights” section as Inquiry, e.g.: Which Successes, Adjustments, or Growth insights matter most right now, and why? This reinforces that SAG insights are inputs to learner sense-making, not endpoints. 6. Retain the Action section with minimal change The current focus on specific, achievable steps is strong. Optional prompts could reinforce time-bounded action (e.g. “over the next week or two”). 7. Differentiate reflection on ‘how feedback landed’ from reflection on development over time The existing “Reflection on Capability Development” section works well as a later reflection, focused on noticing learning, growth, or changes in confidence after acting on feedback. 8. Keep Support Resources and Portfolio Annotation as they are, with minor connective language if helpful These sections already align well with ⇄E and portfolio learning; small wording tweaks could simply reinforce their role in supporting the Engagement process.

At first glance the SAG⇄E acronym looks unbalanced, like there is more 'weight' on the SAG side of the double arrow than on the E side. This is not a true reflection of the power of the ⇄E portion of the framework. The ⇄E component is actually made up of three 'movements', these are 1) Reflection, 2) Inquiry and 3) Action.

Across the module, the Inquiry and Action movements of ⇄E are already well supported. Learners are asked to identify meaningful insights, ask questions of feedback, engage in dialogue, and develop concrete next steps through activities such as the Engagement response, the Action Plan, and the dialogue and evidence pages.

What is less visible, but equally important, is the first movement: Reflection. This involves learners taking a brief pause to notice how feedback lands for them emotionally and cognitively, what stands out, and what those reactions might be telling them about their learning, confidence, or developing identity.

The ‘Getting started’ section on this page already leans strongly in this direction. With a small amount of reframing or an explicit prompt, this page could more clearly signal Reflection as a deliberate and valued part of ⇄E, setting learners up to engage more intentionally with the Inquiry and Action that follow.

1

imo: uv pipの公式の見解もあると、後半のお勧めしない根拠になるかと思いました。

代案

なお、uv pip コマンドは公式では legacy workflow とされており、以下のコマンドで代替できます。

imo: 別の方法として、exclude-newerを紹介してはどうでしょうか？スクリプトを単体で配布する場合、.pyファイル内で完結できると便利で、よく使っています。pepにはないuv独自機能なのですが。

https://docs.astral.sh/uv/guides/scripts/#improving-reproducibility

```

[tool.uv]

exclude-newer = "2025-12-18T00:00:00Z"

///

```

imo: 定義しているのは、PEP 723 だと思います。 https://peps.python.org/pep-0723/#specification それを紹介している公式（準公式？）のサイトが提示されているサイトなのかなと思っていました。

以下でどうでしょうか？

PEP 723で定義され、Python Packaging User Guide」の「Inline script metadata」で紹介されています。

imo: 本文中で uv run も紹介しているので、表に追加してもいいのかなと思いました

ここも両方指定した場合と同じとか、まるっと省略してもいいかも

このへんも2回目以降は省略しちゃってもいいんじゃないかな

いいと思います

add --dev をしているので、 uv sync --extra dev のサンプルが必要な気がします。

コマンドの順番に意図はありますか？ 私のイメージですが、以下のコマンドを使うしーが少ないかなって思っています。 - venv (initをするのでvenvを作っていない 自動的に .venvができる） - lock (使ったことなかった） - pip (add / sync を使うと、pipコマンドを使う機会がほぼ無いのでは？ uv pip list は使うけど）

使う可能性の低いものは、後半にするか、削除しても良いのかもって思いました。 （このあとの説明を読むと使っているコマンドばかりなのかもって思ったりしていますが）

(uv add しないと .venvフォルダが作られないかもだけど、明示的に作る機会はすくないかなっておもいます）

や

箇条書きで体言止めと、だであるが混ざっているので、どちらかに統一したい派

ここまでの手順を再実行すると多分この結果は得られないはず。手前で環境作り直すとかした方がいいかも?

依存ライブラリも一緒に削除されているのがポイントかなと

uv lockコマンド

こっちはまだ依存関係という言葉が残っている。タイトルと表現を合わせたい

ここはuv の節なので、「uvで」はなくてもいいかなと思った。他も同様

インストール可能な一覧とインストールされていたらその場所を出力している

インストール可能なPythonの一覧を出力する。が正しいです

List the available Python installations

uv pythonがない

README.mdも説明した方が良いのでは

ディレクトリもあるので「名前」としたい

2回目は冗長なので「ファイル群」とかでよいかと

本書で紹介するuvのコマンド

でいいかな。主なというよりはこの書籍で紹介するものを列挙していると思うので

最新版の0.9.17

Están al revés, pero PISA logra la invarianza. Lo dejamos así?

Do we want to mention a very brief overview of meiosis and the reasons we need it here for those students who will not move on the Advanced A&P?

I like to point out that Telophase effectively undoes Prophase, so that if we know what happens in Prophase we can predict what happens in Telophase (the opposite).

We may also mention here that this is when the spindle fibers attach to the chromosomes.

I would suggest altering to say "use of cellular energy"

I like to point out here that this still fits the definition of passive transport because the substance that is moving (in this case, water) is moving down ITS concentration gradient.

I would reemphasize here that substances move until they achieve equilibrium. This is going to set us up better for the external respiration conversation and the problems with breathing at altitude, for example.

I much prefer to define passive transport as using energy from the environment (repulsion of like charges, for example) while active transport requires the cell to provide the energy needed for movement. If we say passive transport does not require energy, students wonder why they are moving at all. If we use environmental energy that more naturally leads to a conversation about equilibrium and how particles with like charges establish a maximum distance from each other. It also sets up the conversation for moving up or down concentration gradients.

3

What does it actually mean when a bank “puts money into a sector”?

Banks don’t usually give money. They finance things. That happens in a few main ways:

1. Loans

Banks lend money to companies. Example: An oil company wants to drill a new field → the bank gives a loan.

If the bank says no, that project often can’t happen (or becomes much more expensive).

1. Underwriting bonds and shares

Big companies raise money by issuing:

bonds (debt)

shares (equity)

Banks act as the middlemen who:

design the deal

sell it to investors

take a fee

If a bank refuses to underwrite a coal or oil expansion, that company loses easy access to capital markets.

1. Project finance

This is very direct. Banks fund specific projects like:

coal mines

LNG terminals

pipelines

No bank finance → no project.

1. General corporate finance

Even if money isn’t tied to a single oil well, banks provide:

credit lines

working capital

refinancing

This keeps fossil fuel companies alive and growing.

So… can banks really choose NOT to fund fossil fuels?

Yes. And many already do — selectively.

Banks set internal policies, for example:

“We will not finance new coal projects”

“We will stop funding Arctic drilling”

“We will only fund companies with transition plans”

These are choices, not laws of nature.

Then why do banks say “it’s complicated”?

Because of three real-world pressures:

1. Profit

Fossil fuels still make money. Oil and gas companies are:

large

politically powerful

seen as “safe” borrowers

Banks are profit-driven institutions.

1. Energy demand today

The world still runs on fossil fuels. Banks argue: “If we stop financing now, energy prices spike and economies suffer.”

There’s some truth here — but it’s also used as a convenient excuse to delay change.

1. Competition

If Bank A stops funding fossil fuels, Bank B might step in. So banks fear: “We’ll lose business, but emissions won’t go down.”

This is why collective action matters — not individual PR pledges.

So what’s the core criticism in reports like Banking on Climate Chaos?

Not that banks should:

shut off fossil fuels overnight

But that they:

publicly promise climate action

privately fund expansion of fossil fuels

Especially:

new oil and gas fields

long-life infrastructure that locks emissions in for decades

That’s the hypocrisy the report is calling out.

Acá hay transiciones en los siguientes cuadrantes:

Cardumem toma una ruta alterna y más sencilla para explorar transiciones similares.

1. Inicia por el wiki, como software documental asíncrono.
2. Se conectará con HedgeDoc como software documetal síncrono.
3. Se conectará con Hypothesis como software dialógico asíncrono.
4. Implementará progresivamente funcionalidades síncronas vía sistemas hipermedia en tiempo real.

La idea de local primero ocurrirá debido a que el servidor puede correr de manera local o remota.

alomejor seria bueno presentar en una imagen las partes del cigarrillo

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

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

Strengths:

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

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

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

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

Weaknesses:

Previous weaknesses were addressed.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

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

Strengths:

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

(2) Two different prions produce largely the same response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed my concerns in full - I think this is a very nice addition to the literature.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review)

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

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment regarding the cellular identity of the enveloping myeloid cells. As suggested, we performed triple co-immunostaining of SSLOW-infected Cx3cr1/EGFP mice using markers for neurons (NeuN), myeloid cells (IBA1), and resident microglia (TMEM119 or P2Y12). Because formic acid treatment used to deactivate prions abolishes the EGFP signal, we relied on IBA1 staining to identify the myeloid population. Our results confirmed that IBA1⁺ cells exhibiting the envelopment behavior are also TMEM119⁺ and P2Y12⁺, consistent with a resident microglial phenotype. These new data are presented in Figures S3 and S4 and described in the final section of the Results.

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

We appreciate this important question regarding the functional implications of neuronal envelopment. At present, technical limitations prevent us from continuously tracking the fate of individual enveloped neurons in prion-infected mice. Nevertheless, our recent study demonstrated that P2Y12 knockout increases the prevalence of neuronal envelopment and accelerates disease progression (Makarava et al., 2025, J. Neuroinflammation). These findings suggest that while microglial envelopment may represent an adaptive response to increased neuronal surveillance demands, excessive envelopment, as observed in the absence of P2Y12, appears to be maladaptive. A new paragraph has been added to the Discussion to address this point.

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

We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful suggestion. The molecular mechanisms underlying the increased mobility of microglia in prion-infected brains remain to be identified, and we plan to pursue this question in future studies. One possibility we briefly discuss in the revised manuscript is that proinflammatory signaling, mediated by secreted cytokines or interleukins, may drive this phenotype. Supporting this hypothesis, recent work has shown that IFNγ enhances microglial migration in the adult mouse cortex (doi:10.1073/pnas.2302892120). This work has been cited in the revised manuscript.

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

We appreciate this insightful comment highlighting the importance of regional determinants of microglial reactivity, which indeed aligns with our ongoing research interests. In our previous studies, neuronal envelopment by microglia was observed consistently across all prion-affected brain regions exhibiting neuroinflammation. Assuming that envelopment requires microglial mobility, it is reasonable to speculate that microglia are mobile in all brain regions affected by prions and displaying neuroinflammatory responses. In the current study, we focused exclusively on the cortex because this region was used for quantifying the prevalence of neuronal envelopment as a function of disease progression in our prior work (DOI: 10.1172/JCI181169), which guided the present study design. Our ongoing investigations indicate that the prevalence of envelopment is region-dependent and correlates with microglial reactivity/the degree of neuroinflammation. In prion diseases, the degree of microglial reactivity is dictated by the tropism of specific prion strains to distinct brain regions. Notably, our prior studies have shown that strain-specific sialylation patterns of PrP^Sc glycans play a key role in determining both regional strain tropism and the extent of neuroinflammatory activation (DOI: 10.3390/ijms21030828, DOI: 10.1172/JCI138677). In response to this comment, we have added a brief rationale for using the cortex in the Results section.

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

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. The percentage of mobile cells across normal, sub-clinical, early clinical, and advanced disease stages is presented in Figure 3b and described in the final paragraph of the section “Enveloping behavior of reactive myeloid cells.”

Reviewer #2 (Public review)

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

We used N = 3 animals per group throughout the study; this information has now been added to the figure legends. Animals of both sexes were included in random proportions. The sex information is now listed for each experiment in the Animals subsection of the Methods.

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

Yes, with the exception of the heat map in Figure 2d, all mobility parameters are analyzed and presented at the level of individual cells, with each cell treated as an independent observation. The primary aim of this study is to characterize behavioral patterns of single reactive myeloid cells. Analyzing data at the cell level allows us to capture the full distribution of cell behaviors and to preserve biologically meaningful heterogeneity within and across animals. By contrast, averaging values per animal would largely mask this variability. In the heat map in Figure 2d, data are averaged per animal, specifically to illustrate inter-animal variability within each group and to visualize changes across disease progression.

The potential for heterogeneity among animals has not been addressed. 

To address this concern, we now include a new Supplemental Figure (Figure S4)  presenting the data using Superplots, in which individual cells are shown as dots, animal-level average as circles, and group means calculated based on animals as black horizontal lines. These plots demonstrate that cell mobility measures are highly consistent across animals within each group, indicating limited inter-animal heterogeneity.

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

We now provide validation of PrP^Sc accumulation across disease stages by Western blot, along with quantitative analysis, in a new Supplemental Figure (Figure S2). This confirms progressive PrP^Sc accumulation with advancing disease.

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

The following description has been added to Methods to clarify morphology analysis: For microglial morphology analysis, we quantified morphological parameters (radius, area, perimeter, and shape index) for individual EGFP⁺ cells in each time frame of the time-lapse recordings using the TrackMate 7.13.2 plugin in FIJI. Parameter values for each cell were then averaged across the entire three-hour imaging period to obtain a single mean value per cell.

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

This is very interesting question which is difficult to answer due to technical challenges in monitoring the pathology or faith of individual neuronal cells as a function of their envelopment in live prion-infected animals. Our previous work revealed that both accumulation of total PrP^Sc in a brain and  accumulation of PrP^Sc specifically in lysosomal compartments of microglia due to phagocytosis precedes the onset of neuronal envelopment (DOI: 10.1172/JCI181169).  Moreover, the onset of neuronal envelopment occurred after a noticeable decline in neuronal levels of Grin1, a subunit of the NMDA receptor essential for synaptic plasticity. Reactive microglia were observed to envelop Grin1-deficient neurons, suggesting that microglia respond to neuronal dysfunction. However, considering that envelopment is very dynamic and - in most cases - reversible, correlating the degree of envelopment with dysfunction of individual neurons is technically challenging.

Recommendations for the authors

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors): 

(1) I recommend performing additional immunostaining using microglial markers to address specificity. 

These new data showing immunostaining for markers of resident microglia TMEM119 and P2Y12 are presented in Figures S6 and S7 and described in the final section of the Results.

(2) The authors can at least further discuss the functional consequences of their findings in further detail. 

A new paragraph has been added to the Discussion to address this point.

(3) Quantify the % of cells that become mobile in the different conditions. 

The percentage of mobile cells across normal, sub-clinical, early clinical, and advanced disease stages is presented in Figure 3b and described in the final paragraph of the section “Enveloping behavior of reactive myeloid cells.”

(4) Improve method details on the brain regions used and further expand the statistical section. 

We have expanded the Statistical Analysis section to indicate whether statistical comparisons and mean values were calculated at the single-cell level or the animal level for each analysis. The specific statistical tests used and the number of animals (N) are now reported in the corresponding figure legends. The sex of animals is provided in Table 1 (Methods). Only the cortical region was examined in this study; this information is stated in the Methods and is now also noted in the figure legends for clarity.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors): 

(1) More details on members of the PY2 receptor family expressed in microglia would be helpful. The study highlights a previously published prion-induced decline in the expression of P2Y12, a microglial marker that is required for intracellular neuron-microglial contacts, and P2Y6, involved in calcium transients, which is required for hypermotility. How are members of this family of receptors regulated at the gene and/or protein level in microglial and given their responsiveness to nucleotide ligands, are other members implicated in the properties being quantified here? 

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment. To address this point, we examined the expression of multiple P2Y receptors and ATP-gated P2X channels known to contribute to microglial surveillance, activation, motility, and phagocytosis, alongside the activation markers Tlr2, Cd68, and Trem2. Bulk brain transcript analyses indicated that all examined genes were upregulated in SSLOW-infected mice relative to controls (new Figure S5a). However, because microglial proliferation substantially increases microglial numbers during prion disease progression, bulk tissue measurements do not necessarily reflect per-cell expression levels. Therefore, we normalized gene expression values to the microglia-specific marker Tmem119, whose per-cell expression remains stable across disease stages (Makarava et al., 2025, J. Neuroinflammation). After normalization, Tlr2, Cd68, and Trem2 were increased approximately 10-, 6-, and 4-fold, respectively. In contrast, P2 receptor genes showed more modest changes: P2ry6 increased ~3-fold, P2ry13 ~2-fold, and P2rx7 ~1.3-fold, while P2rx4 remained unchanged (Figure S5a). Within the scope of the present study, we focused on P2Y6 due to (i) its role in regulating calcium transients, (ii) the magnitude of its upregulation relative to other P2 receptors, and (iii) its highly microglia-specific expression in the CNS. We note that currently available commercial P2Y6 antibodies lack sufficient specificity, making reliable assessment of protein-level expression challenging.

(2) Is P2Y6 expressed in any other cell type that might account for the blunted mobility of the microglia? The authors mention P2Y12 also identifies the GFP cells; however, it would be beneficial to highlight the specificity of the target in the ex vivo treatment of the infected slices.

In the brain, both P2Y12 and P2Y6 are considered highly specific to resident microglia under physiological and neuroinflammatory conditions. P2Y12 is, in fact, widely used as a canonical marker of homeostatic and resident microglia. While P2Y6 is also expressed in peripheral myeloid cells such as macrophages, our phenotypic characterization indicates that the cells exhibiting neuronal envelopment are TMEM119⁺ and P2Y12⁺, consistent with a resident microglial identity. These data, including new analyses added to the revised manuscript, support that the cells responding to P2Y6 signaling in our ex vivo slice experiments are resident microglia.

(3) The fluorescent mouse lacks Cx3cr1 - have the authors investigated why there were no apparent consequences, at least in the context of prion infection? Are there functional redundancies that might be harnessed? Does this impact the generalizability of the findings here?

The role of Cx3cr1 in prion disease has been directly examined in two independent studies (doi: 10.1099/jgv.0.000442; doi: 10.1186/1471-2202-15-44). One study reported no effect of Cx3cr1 deficiency on disease incubation time, whereas the other observed only a minor difference. Importantly, both studies found no detectable alterations in microglial activation patterns, cytokine expression, or PrP^Sc deposition in Cx3cr1-deficient mice compared to wild-type controls. Our own data (Figure S1) are consistent with these findings: disease course and PrP^Sc deposition were comparable between Cx3cr1/EGFP and wild-type mice. Moreover, we observed reactive microglial envelopment of neurons in both genotypes. Microglia isolated from SSLOW-infected Cx3cr1/EGFP mice also displayed similarly elevated mobility in vitro, in agreement with our previous observations of high mobility of microglia isolated from SSLOW-infected wild-type mice (Makarava et al., 2025, J. Neuroinflammation). Taken together, these results indicate that Cx3cr1 is not a key determinant of reactive microglial mobility or envelopment behavior in prion disease. Thus, the use of the Cx3cr1/EGFP reporter line does not compromise the generalizability of our conclusions.

(4) The distinction between high mobility and low mobility microglia is interesting - is there any evidence to suggest that the slow-moving microglia are actually a separate class - do enveloping microglia exhibit both mobility states - can the authors comment on plasticity here? 

We appreciate this insightful comment, which closely aligns with our ongoing interests. At present, we do not have evidence to support that high- versus low-mobility microglia represent distinct molecular phenotypes. Given that our time-lapse imaging spans only a three-hour window, it remains unclear whether these mobility states reflect stable cell-intrinsic properties or transient phases within a dynamic surveillance process. Notably, we observed that individual cells can transition between more stationary, neuron-associated states and highly mobile states within the same imaging session. In future work, we intend to investigate whether prolonged interactions with neuronal somas or other microenvironmental cues may drive diversification of reactive myeloid cell phenotypes.

(5) In the discussion, the authors speculate about "collective coordinated decision making" - that seems a stretch unless greater context is provided. The fact that several microglia can be found in contact with an individual neuron and that each microglia can connect with multiple neurons simultaneously is certainly interesting; however, evidence for hive behavior is entirely lacking.

We agree with the reviewer that our previous wording overstated the interpretation. The statement regarding collective decision-making has been removed.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Siddiqui et al., investigate the question of how bacterial metabolism contributes to the attraction of C. elegans to specific bacteria. They show that C. elegans prefers three bacterial species when cultured in a leucine-enriched environment. These bacterial species release more isoamyl alcohol, a known C. elegans attractant, when cultured with leucine supplement than without leucine supplement. The study shows correlative evidence that isoamyl alcohol is produced from leucine by the Ehrlich pathway. In addition, they show that SNIF-1 is a receptor for isoamyl alcohol because a null mutant of this receptor exhibits lower chemotaxis to isoamyl alcohol and that chemotaxis to isoamyl alcohol is rescued by expression of snif-1 in AWC.

Strengths:

(1) This study takes a creative approach to examine the question of what specific volatile chemicals released by bacteria may signify to C. elegans by examining both bacterial metabolism and C. elegans preference behavior. Although C. elegans has long been known to be attracted to bacterial metabolites, this study may be one of the first to examine the possible role of a specific bacterial metabolic pathway in mediating attraction.

(2) A strength of the paper is the identification of SNIF-1 as a receptor for isoamyl alcohol. The ligands for very few olfactory receptors have been identified in C. elegans and so this is a significant addition to the field. The SNIF-1 null mutant strain will likely be a useful reagent for many labs examining olfactory and foraging behaviors.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors write that the leucine metabolism via the Ehrlich pathway is required for production of isoamyl alcohol by three bacteria (CEent1, JUb66, BIGb0170), but their evidence for this is correlation and not causation. They show that the gene, ilvE (which is part of the Ehrlich pathway) is upregulated in CEent1 bacteria upon exposure to leucine. Although this indicates that the ilvE gene may be involved in leucine metabolism, it does not show causation. To show causation, they need to knockout ilvE from one of these strains, show that the bacteria does not have increased isoamyl alcohol production when cultured on leucine, and that the bacteria is no longer attractive to C. elegans.

(2) Although the authors do show that the three bacterial strains they focus on (CEent1, JUb66, and BIGb0170) are more attractive to C. elegans when supplemented with leucine. Some other strains such as BIGb0393 are also more attractive with leucine supplementation and produce isoamyl alcohol (Fig 1B and Supp Table 2). It is unclear why these other strains are not included with the selected three strains.

(3) The behavioral evidence that snif-1 gene encodes a receptor for isoamyl alcohol is compelling because of the mutant phenotype and rescue experiments. The evidence would be stronger with calcium imaging of AWC neurons in response to isoamyl alcohol in the receptor mutant with the expectation that the response would be reduced or abolished in the mutant compared to wildtype.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Siddiqui et al. show that C. elegans prefers certain bacterial strains that have been supplemented with the essential amino acid (EEA) leucine. They convincingly show that some leucine enriched bacteria stimulate the production of isoamyl alcohol (IAA). IAA is an attractive odorant that is sensed by the AWC. The authors an identify a receptor, SRD-12, that is expressed in the AWC chemosensory neurons and is required for chemotaxis to IAA. The authors propose that IAA is a predominant olfactory cue that determines diet preference in C. elegans. Since leucine is an EAA, the authors propose that worm IAA sensing allows the animal provides a proxy mechanism to identify EAA rich diets.

Strengths:

The authors propose IAA as a predominant olfactory cue that determines diet preference in C. elegans providing molecular mechanism underlying diet selection. They show that wild isolates of C. elegans have strong chemotactic response to IAA indicating that IAA is an ecologically relevant odor for the worm. The paper is well written, and the presented data are convincing and well organized. This is an interesting paper that connects chemotactic response with bacterially produced odors and thus provides an understanding how animals adapt their foraging behavior through the perception of molecules that may indicate the nutritional value.

Weaknesses:

Major: While I do like the way the authors frame C. elegans IAA sensing as mechanisms to identify leucine (EAA) rich diets, it is not fully clear whether bacterial IAA production is a proxy for bacterial leucine levels.

(1) Can the authors measure leucine (or other EAA) content of the different CeMbio strains? This would substantiate the premise in the way they frame this in the introduction. While the authors convincingly show that leucine supplementation induces IAA production in some strains, it is not clear if there are lower leucine levels in the different in the non-preferred strains.

(2) It is not clear whether the non-preferred bacteria in Figure 1A and 1B have the ability to produce IAA. To substantiate the claim that C. elegans prefers CEent1, JUb66, and BIGb0170 due to their ability to generate IAA from leucine, it would be measure IAA levels in non-preferred bacteria (+ and - leucine supplementation). If the authors have these data it would be good to include this.

(3) The authors would strengthen their claim if they could show that deletion or silencing ilvE enzyme reduces IAA levels and eliminates the increased preference upon leucine supplementation.

(4) While the three preferred bacteria possess the ilvE gene, it is not clear whether this enzyme is present in the other non-preferred bacterial strains. As far as I know, the CeMbio strains have been sequenced, so it should be easy to determine if the non-preferred bacteria possess the capacity to make IAA. Does expression of ilvE in e.g. E. coli increase its preference index or are the other genes in the biosynthesis pathway missing?

(5) It is strongly implied that leucine rich diets are beneficial to the worm. Do the authors have data to show the effect on leucine supplementation on C. elegans healthspan, life-span or broodsize?

Comments on revisions:

(1) The authors have addressed most of the earlier questions. The main unresolved issue is the link between iaa production is a reflection of bacterial leucine levels. It is not clear if there are lower leucine levels in the different in non-preferred strains.

The main conclusions that: 1. some bacterial strains can convert exogenous leucine into IAA which is an attractant to C. elegans. 2. The identification of a GPCR required for IAA responses are solid. These are important results that carry the paper. My outstanding concern remains with the overinterpretation of the framing that C. elegans IAA sensing is used as a mechanism to identify leucine (EAA) rich diets. It is fine to leave this a favorite hypothesis in the discussion but statements throughout the paper need to be nuanced without leucine measurement of the different bacterial strains. (Also since for the bacterial chemotaxis assays there were only done with a single concentration of leucine makes it difficult to infer bacterial leucine concentrations). I recommend softening claims related to leucine-rich diet detection unless quantitative measurements are provided.

Part of the issue in the text lies in the difference between "supplemented" and "chemotaxis" (lab based constructs) and enriched and foraging (natural environment based). This is also the way it is set up in the introduction "Do animals use specific sensing mechanisms to find an EAA-enriched diet?". If enriched is used strictly the same as supplemented then it would be fine but in the text this distinction gets blurred and enriched drifts to the more ethological explanation.

Then it is more than just semantics since leucine-supplemented diets are not something that occurs in the natural environment. IAA production by bacteria could be a signal for a leucine rich environment and it is fine to speculate about this in the discussion.

Examples where the wording needs to be more precise to reflect the experimental results rather than the possible impact in its natural environment:

The title:' The olfactory receptor SNIF-1 mediates foraging for leucine-rich diets in C. elegans"

The intro:"Taken together, SNIF-1 regulates the dietary preference of worms to IAA-producing bacteria and thereby mediates the foraging behavior of C. elegans to leucine-enriched diets. Thus, IAA produced by bacteria is a dietary quality code for leucine-enriched bacteria."

Results "Figure 1. C. elegans relies on odors to select leucine-enriched bacteria"

Supplementation is used more in the text and the figure legends whereas headings and abstract use enriched. The experiments in the paper only describe leucine-supplemented experiments. So use I would supplemented instead of enriched when describing experiments for clarity.

For instance:

Page 4:"Microbial odors drive the preference of C. elegans for leucine-enriched diet"

Page 5: "Altogether, these findings suggested that worms rely on odors to distinguish various bacteria and find leucine-enriched bacteria"

Page 7: "Isoamyl alcohol odor is a signature for a leucine-enriched diet"

Page 9: AWC odor sensory neurons facilitate the diet preference of C. elegans for leucine-enriched diets"

page 20 "Leucine-enriched diets produce significantly higher levels of IAA odor, making up to 90% of their headspace"

(2) As suggested in the first round of review the authors now add data IAA levels in non-preferred bacteria (+ and - leucine supplementation) in table S2. While it is good to have this data, the table is not very clear. Not clear what ND stands for in the table S2. Not determined or not detected? I assume not determined since some strains Jub44, BiGb0393 Jub134 produce IAA even in the absence of LEU. The authors mention that "the abundance of IAA in these strains is significantly less". However, the table just reflects yes or no. Can the authors give an indication of the concentration to understand what significantly less means? Fig. 2c at least gives a heat map.

(3) On wormbase the gene is still called srd-12. The authors should seek permission to rename srd-12 to snif-1.

Author response:

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

eLife Assessment:

This is an important study, supported by solid to convincing data, that suggests a model for diet selection in C. elegans. The significance is that while C. elegans has long been known to be attracted to bacterial volatiles, what specific bacterial volatiles may signify to C. elegans is largely unknown. This study also provides evidence for a possible odorant/GPCR pairing.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Siddiqui et al., investigate the question of how bacterial metabolism contributes to the attraction of C. elegans to specific bacteria. They show that C. elegans prefers three bacterial species when cultured in a leucine-enriched environment. These bacterial species release more isoamyl alcohol, a known C. elegans attractant, when cultured with leucine supplement than without leucine supplement. The study shows correlative evidence that isoamyl alcohol is produced from leucine by the Ehrlich pathway. In addition, they show that SRD-12 (SNIF-1) is likely a receptor for isoamyl alcohol because a null mutant of this receptor exhibits lower chemotaxis to isoamyl alcohol and lower preference for leucine-enriched bacteria.

Strengths:

(1) This study takes a creative approach to examine the question of what specific volatile chemicals released by bacteria may signify to C. elegans by examining both bacterial metabolism and C. elegans preference behavior. Although C. elegans has long been known to be attracted to bacterial metabolites, this study may be one of the first to examine the role of a specific bacterial metabolic pathway in mediating attraction.

(2)  A strength of the paper is the identification of SRD-12 (SNIF-1) as a likely receptor for isoamyl alcohol. The ligands for very few olfactory receptors have been identified in C. elegans and so this is a significant addition to the field. The srd-12 (snif-1) null mutant strain will likely be a useful reagent for many labs examining olfactory and foraging behaviors.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors write that the leucine metabolism via the Ehrlich pathway is required for the production of isoamyl alcohol by three bacteria (CEent1, JUb66, BIGb0170), but their evidence for this is correlation and not causation. They write that the gene ilvE is a bacterial homolog of the first gene in the yeast Ehrlich pathway (it would be good to include a citation for this) and that the gene is present in these three bacterial strains. In addition, they show that this gene, ilvE, is upregulated in CEent1 bacteria upon exposure to leucine. To show causation, they need to knockout ilvE from one of these strains, show that the bacteria does not have increased isoamyl alcohol production when cultured on leucine, and that the bacteria is no longer attractive to C. elegans.

Thank you for the comment. We have added the appropriate citation [1,2]. We agree that worms’ diet preference for the preferred strains upon ilvE knockout will further strengthen the claim for IAA being used as a proxy for leucine-enriched diet. Currently, protocols and tools for genetic manipulations for CeMbio strains are not available, making this experiment not feasible at this time.  

(2) The authors examine three bacterial strains that C. elegans showed increased preference when grown with leucine supplementation vs. without leucine supplementation. However, there also appears to be a strong preference for another strain, JUb0393, when grown on plus leucine (Figure 1B). It would be good to include statistics and criteria for selecting the three strains.

Thanks for your comment. We agree that for Pantoea nemavictus, JUb393, worms seem to prefer the leucine supplemented (+ LEU) bacteria over unsupplemented (-LEU). However, when given a choice between the individual CeMbio bacteria and E. coli OP50, worms showed preference for only CEent1, JUb66, and BIGb0170 (Figure 1F). Consequently, CEent1, JUb66, and BIGb0170 were selected for further analyses. We have included statistics for Figure 1B-C and Figure S1A-G with details mentioned in the figure legend. 

(3) Although the behavioral evidence that srd-12 (snif-1) gene encodes a receptor for isoamyl alcohol is compelling, it does not meet the standard for showing that it is an olfactory receptor in C. elegans. To show it is indeed a likely receptor one or more of the following should be done:

(a) Calcium imaging of AWC neurons in response to isoamyl alcohol in the receptor mutant with the expectation that the response would be reduced or abolished in the mutant compared to wildtype.

(b)"A receptor swap" experiment where the SRD-12 (SNIF-1) receptor is expressed in AWB repulsive neuron in SRD-12 (SNIF-1) receptor mutant background with the expectation that with receptor swap C. elegans will now be repulsed from isoamyl alcohol in chemotaxis assays (experiment from Sengupta et al., 1996 odr-10 paper).

Thanks for all your comments and suggestions. While the lab currently does not have the necessary expertise to conduct calcium imaging of neurons, we have performed additional experiments to confirm the requirements of AWC neurons for SNIF-1 function. We generated transgenic worms with extrachromosomal array expressing snif-1 under (a) AWC-specific promoter, odr-1, and (b) AWB-specific promoter, str-1. As shown in new panel 6H in the revised manuscript and Author response image 1, we found that overexpression of snif-1 in AWC neurons completely rescues the chemotaxis defect of snif-1 mutant (referred at VSL2401), whereas upon the “receptor swap" in AWB neurons IAA is sensed as a repellent.  

Author response image 1.

(A) Chemotaxis index (CI) of WT, VSL2401, VSL2401 [AWCp::snif-1] and VSL2401 [AWBp::snif-1] worms to IAA at 1:1000 dilution. Significant differences are indicated as **** P ≤ 0.0001 determined by one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Dunnett’s multiple comparison test. Error bars indicate SEM (n≥15).

(4) The authors conclude that C. elegans cannot detect leucine in chemotaxis assays. It is important to add the method for how leucine chemotaxis assay was done in order to interpret these results. Because leucine is not volatile if leucine is put on the plates immediately before the worms are added (as in a traditional odor chemotaxis assay), there is no leucine gradient for the worm to detect. It would be good to put leucine on the plate several hours before worms are introduced so worms have the possibility to be able to detect the gradient of leucine (for example, see Wakabayashi et al., 2009).

Previously, the chemotaxis assays with leucine were performed like traditional odor chemotaxis assays. We also performed chemotaxis assay as detailed in Shingai et al 2005[3]. Leucine was spotted on the assay plates 5 hours prior to the introduction of worms on the plates. As shown in new panel S1H in the revised manuscript, wild-type worms do not show response to leucine in the modified chemotaxis assay.

We have included the experimental details for leucine chemotaxis assays in the revised manuscript.  

(5) The bacterial preference assay entitled "odor-only assay" is a misleading name. In the assay, C. elegans is exposed to both volatile chemicals (odors) and non-volatile chemicals because the bacteria are grown on the assay plate for 12 hours before the worms are introduced to the assay plate. In that time, the bacteria is likely releasing non-volatile metabolites into the plate which may affect the worm's preference. A true odor-only assay would have the bacteria on the lid and the worms on the plate.

The ‘odor-only’ diet preference assay does not allow for non-volatile chemicals to reach worms. We achieved this by using tripartite dishes where the compartments containing worms and bacterial odors are separated by polystyrene barriers. At the time of the assay, worms were spotted in a separate compartment from that of bacteria (as shown in schematic 1A). The soluble metabolites released by the bacteria during their growth will accumulate in the agar within the bacterial compartment alone such that worms only encounter the volatile metabolites produced by bacteria wafting past the polystyrene barrier.

(6) The findings of the study should be discussed more in the context of prior literature. For example, AWC neurons have been previously shown to be involved in bacterial preference (Harris et al., 2014; Worthy et al., 2018). In addition, CeMbio bacterial strains (the strains examined in this study) have been previously shown to release isoamyl alcohol (Chai et al. 2024).

Thanks for the suggestion. We have modified the Discussion section to discuss the study in the light of relevant prior literature.  

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Siddiqui et al. show that C. elegans prefers certain bacterial strains that have been supplemented with the essential amino acid (EEA) leucine. They convincingly show that some leucine enriched bacteria stimulate the production of isoamyl alcohol (IAA). IAA is an attractive odorant that is sensed by the AWC. The authors an identify a receptor, SRD-12 (SNIF-1), that is expressed in the AWC chemosensory neurons and is required for chemotaxis to IAA. The authors propose that IAA is a predominant olfactory cue that determines diet preference in C. elegans. Since leucine is an EAA, the authors propose that worm IAA sensing allows the animal provides a proxy mechanism to identify EAA rich diets.

Strengths:

The authors propose IAA as a predominant olfactory cue that determines diet preference in C. elegans providing molecular mechanism underlying diet selection. They show that wild isolates of C. elegans have a strong chemotactic response to IAA indicating that IAA is an ecologically relevant odor for the worm. The paper is well written, and the presented data are convincing and well organized. This is an interesting paper that connects chemotactic response with bacterially produced odors and thus provides an understanding of how animals adapt their foraging behavior through the perception of molecules that may indicate the nutritional value.

Weaknesses:

Major:

While I do like the way the authors frame C. elegans IAA sensing as mechanisms to identify leucine (EAA) rich diets it is not fully clear whether bacterial IAA production is a proxy for bacterial leucine levels.

(1) Can the authors measure leucine (or other EAA) content of the different CeMbio strains? This would substantiate the premise in the way they frame this in the introduction. While the authors convincingly show that leucine supplementation induces IAA production in some strains, it is not clear if there are lower leucine levels in the different in non-preferred strains.

Thanks for your suggestion. Estimating leucine levels in various bacteria will provide useful information, and we hope to do so in future studies.

(2) It is not clear whether the non-preferred bacteria in Figure 1A and 1B have the ability to produce IAA. To substantiate the claim that C. elegans prefers CEent1, JUb66, and BIGb0170 due to their ability to generate IAA from leucine, it would measure IAA levels in non-preferred bacteria (+ and - leucine supplementation). If the authors have these data it would be good to include this.

Thanks for the suggestion. We have included the table indicating the presence or absence of IAA production by all the bacteria under + LEU and – LEU conditions (Table S2). Some of the nonpreferred bacteria indeed produce isoamyl alcohol. However, the abundance of IAA in these strains is significantly less than in the preferred bacteria.  

Using the available genomic sequence data, we found that all CeMbio strains encode IlvE-like transaminase enzymes[4]. This suggests that presumably all the bacteria have the metabolic capacity to make alpha-ketoisocaproate (an intermediate in IAA biosynthetic pathway) from leucine. However, the regulation of metabolic flux is likely to be quite complex in various bacteria.  

(3) The authors would strengthen their claim if they could show that deletion or silencing ilvE enzyme reduces IAA levels and eliminates the increased preference upon leucine supplementation.

We agree that testing worms’ diet preference for the preferred strains upon ilvE knockout will further strengthen the claim for IAA being crucial for finding leucine-enriched diet. Currently the lab does not have the necessary expertise and standardize protocols to do genetic manipulations for the CeMbio strains.

(4) While the three preferred bacteria possess the ilvE gene, it is not clear whether this enzyme is present in the other non-preferred bacterial strains. As far as I know, the CeMbio strains have been sequenced so it should be easy to determine if the non-preferred bacteria possess the capacity to make IAA. Does the expression of ilvE in e.g. E. coli increase its preference index or are the other genes in the biosynthesis pathway missing?

Thanks for the suggestion. Using the available genomic sequence data, we find that all the bacteria in the CeMbio collection possess IlvE-like transaminase necessary for synthesis of alphaketoisocaproate, key metabolite in leucine turn over as well as precursor for IAA [4]. E. coli has an IlvE encoding gene in its genome [2]. However, we do not find IAA in the headspace of E. coli either with or without leucine supplementation. This indicates either (i) E. coli lacks enzymes for subsequent steps in IAA biosynthesis or (ii) leucine provided under the experimental regime is not sufficient to shift the metabolic flux to IAA production.  

Previous studies have suggested that in yeast, the final two steps leading to IAA production are catalyzed by decarboxylase and dehydrogenase enzymes1. The genomic and metabolic flux data available for CeMbio do not describe specific enzymes leading up to IAA synthesis [4].  

(5) It is strongly implied that leucine-rich diets are beneficial to the worm. Do the authors have data to show the effect on leucine supplementation on C. elegans healthspan, life-span or broodsize?

Edwards et al. 2015 reported a 15% increase in the lifespan of worms upon 1 mM leucine supplementation [5]. Wang et al 2018 also showed lifespan extension upon 1 mM and 10 mM leucine supplementation. They also reported that while leucine supplementation did not have any effect on brood size, it did make worms more resistant to heat, paraquat, and UV-stress [6]. These studies have been included in the discussion section.

Other comments:

Page 6. Figure 2c. While the authors' conclusions are correct based on AWC expts. it would be good at this stage to include the possibility that odors that enriched in the absence of leucine may be aversive.

Thanks for the comment. We have tested the chemotaxis response of the worms for most of the odors produced by CeMbio strains without leucine supplementation. We did not find any odor that is aversive to worms. However, we cannot completely rule out the possibility that a low abundance of aversive odor in the headspace of the bacteria was missed.

Interestingly, we did identify 2-nonanone, a known repellent, in the headspace of the preferred bacteria upon leucine supplementation. However, the abundance of 2-nonanone in headspace of bacteria is relatively low (less than 1% for CEent1, and JUb66, and ~10% for BIGb0170). This suggests that the relative abundance of odors in an odor bouquet may be a relevant factor in determining worms’ reference.  

Page 6. IAA increases 1.2-4 folds upon leucine supplementation. If the authors perform a chemotaxis assay with just IAA with 1-2-4 fold differences do you get the shift in preference index as seen with the bacteria? i.e. is the difference in IAA concentration sufficient to explain the shift in bacterial PI upon leucine supplementation? Other attractants such as Acetoin and isobutanol go up in -Leu conditions.

Thanks for the suggestion. As shown in Figure S2H and S2I, when given a choice between a concentration of IAA (1:1000 dilution) attractive to worms and a 4-fold higher amount of IAA, worms chose the latter. This result suggests that worms can distinguish between relatively small difference in concentrations of IAA.

We agree that the relative abundance of Acetoin and Isobutanol is high in -LEU conditions. The presence of other attractants in - LEU conditions should skew the preference of worms for – LEU bacteria. However, we found that worms prefer + LEU bacteria (Figure 1B), suggesting that the abundance of IAA mainly influences the diet preference of the worms.  

Page 14-15. The authors identify a putative IAA receptor based on expression studies. I compliment the authors for isolating two CRISPR deletion alleles. They show that the srd-12 (snif-1) mutants have obvious defects in IAA chemotaxis. Very few ligand-odorant receptors combinations have been identified so this is an important discovery. CenGen data indicate that srd-12 (snif-1) is expressed in a limited set of neurons. Did the authors generate a reporter to show the expression of srd-12 (snif-1)? This is a simple experiment that would add to the characterization of the SRD-12 (SNIF-1) receptor. Rescue experiments would be nice even though the authors have independent alleles. To truly claim that SRD-12 (SNIF-1) is the ligand for IAA and activates the AWC neurons would require GCamp experiments in the AWC neuron or heterologous expression system. I understand that GCamp imaging might not be part of the regular arsenal of the lab but it would be a great addition (even in collaboration with one of the many labs that do this regularly). Comparing AWC activity using GCaMP in response IAA-producing bacteria with high leucine levels in both wild-type and SRD-12 (SNIF-1) deficient backgrounds, would further support their narrative. I leave that to the authors.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. To address this comment, we rescued snif-1 mutant (referred as VSL2401) with extrachromosomal array expressing snif-1 under AWC-specific promoter as well as its native promoter. As shown in Figure 6H and Author response image 2, we find that both transgenic lines show a complete rescue of chemotaxis response to isoamyl alcohol. To find where snif-1 is expressed, we generated a transgenic line of worms expressing GFP under snif-1 promoter, and mCherry under odr-1 promoter (to mark AWC neurons). As shown in Figure 6I, we found that snif-1 is expressed faintly in many neurons, with strong expression in one of the two AWC neurons marked by odr-1::mCherry. This result suggests that SNIF-1 is expressed in AWC neuron.

We hope to perform GCaMP assay and further characterization of SNIF-1 in the future.

Author response image 2.

Chemotaxis index (CI) of WT, VSL2401, VSL2401 [AWCp:: snif-1] and VSL2401 [snif-1p::snif-1] worms to IAA at 1:1000 dilution. Significant differences are indicated as **** P ≤ 0.0001 determined by one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Dunnett’s multiple comparison test. Error bars indicate SEM (n≥15).

Minor:

Page 4 "These results suggested that worms can forage for diets enriched in specific EAA, leucine...." More precise at this stage would be to state " These results indicated that worms can forage for diets supplemented with specific EAA...".

We have changed the statement in the revised manuscript.

Page 5."these findings suggested that worms not only rely on odors to choose between two bacteria but also to find leucine enriched bacteria" This statement is not clear to me and doesn't follow the data in Fig. S2. Preferred diets in odorant assays are the IAA producing strains.

Thanks for your comment. We have revised the manuscript to make it clear. “Altogether, these findings suggested that worms rely on odors to distinguish different bacteria and find leucineenriched bacteria”. This statement concludes all the data shown in Figure 1 and Figure S1.  

Page 5. Figure S2A provides nice and useful data that can be part of the main Figure 1.

Thanks for the comment. We have incorporated the data from Figure S2A to main Figure 1.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors first tested whether EAA supplementation increases olfactory preference for bacterial food for a variety of bacterial strains. Of the EAAs, they found only leucine supplementation increased olfactory preference (within a bacterial strain), and only for 3 of the bacterial strains tested. Leucine itself was not found to be intrinsically attractive.

They determined that leucine supplementation increases isoamyl alcohol (IAA) production in the 3 preferred bacterial strains. They identify the biochemical pathway that catabolizes leucine to IAA, showing that a required enzyme for this pathway is upregulated upon supplementation.

Consistent with earlier studies, they find that AWC olfactory neuron is primarily responsible for increased preference for IAA-producing bacteria.

Testing volatile compounds produced by bacteria and identified by GC/MS, and identified several as attractive, most of them require AWC for the full effect. Adaptation assays were used to show that odorant levels produced by bacterial lawns were sufficient to induce olfactory adaptation, and adaptation to IAA reduced chemotaxis to leucine-supplemented lawns. They then showed that IAA attractiveness is conserved across wild strains, while other compounds are more variable, suggesting IAA is a principal foraging cue.

Finally, using the CeNGEN database, they developed a list of candidate IAA receptors. Using behavioral tests, they show that mutation of srd-12 (snif-1) greatly impairs IAA chemotaxis without affecting locomotion or attraction to another AWC-sensed odor, PEA.

Comments

This study will be of great interest in the field of C. elegans behavior, chemical senses and chemical ecology, and understanding of the sensory biology of foraging.

Strengths:

The identification of a receptor for IAA is an excellent finding. The combination of microbial metabolic chemistry and the use of natural bacteria and nematode strains makes an extremely compelling case for the ecological and adaptive relevance of the findings.

Weaknesses:

AWC receives synaptic input from other chemosensory neurons, and thus could potentially mediate navigation behaviors to compounds detected in whole or in part by those neurons. Language concluding detection by AWC should be moderated (e.g. p9 "worms sense an extensive repertoire...predominantly using AWC") unless it has been demonstrated.

Thanks for your comment. We have modified the manuscript to incorporate the suggestion.

srd-12 (snif-1) is not exclusively expressed in AWC. Normally, cell-specific rescue or knockdown would be used to demonstrate function in a specific cell. The authors should provide such a demonstration or explain why they are confident srd-12 (snif-1) acts in AWC.

Thanks for the comment. We have performed AWC-specific rescue of snif-1 in mutant worms. As shown in Figure 6H, we found that AWC neurons specific rescue completely recovered the chemotaxis defect of the snif-1 mutant (referred as VSL2401) for IAA. In addition, snif-1 is expressed in one of the AWC neurons.

A comparison of AWC's physiological responses between WT and srd-12 (snif-1), preferably in an unc13 background, would be nice. Even further, the expression of srd-12 (snif-1) in a different neuron type and showing that it confers responsiveness to IAA (in this case, inhibition) would be very convincing.

Thanks for the suggestion. We have performed a receptor swap experiment, where snif-1 is misexpressed in AWB neurons. We find that these worms show slight but significant repulsion to IAA compared to WT and snif-1 mutant worms (Author response image 1).

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewing Editor:

Please consider all of the reviewer comments. In particular, as noted in the individual reviews, the strength of the evidence would be bolstered by additional experiments to demonstrate that the iLvE enzyme affects IAA levels in the preferred bacteria. The reviewers note that the authors haven't shown that IAA production is a reflection of leucine content. Are the non-preferred bacteria low on leucine or lack iLvE or IAA synthesis pathways? Further, more direct evidence that SRD-12 (SNIF-1) is in fact the primary IAA receptor would further strengthen the study. The authors should also be aware that geographic distance for wild isolate C. elegans may not directly correlate with phylogenetic distance. This should be assessed/discussed for the strains used.

Thanks for the suggestions. Some of these have been addressed in response to reviewers. Thanks for your comments about possible disconnect between geographical and phylogenetic distances amongst natural isolates used here.

By analyzing the phylogenetic tree generated using neighbor-joining algorithm available at CaeNDR database, we found that QX1211 and JU3226 are phylogenetically close, but the remaining isolates fall under different clades separated by long phylogenetic distances [7,8].  

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) In the first sentence of the third paragraph of the introduction, C. elegans are described as "soildwelling." Although C. elegans has been described as soil-dwelling in the past, current research indicates they are most often found on rotten fruit, compost heaps and other bacterial-rich environments, not soil. "All Caenorhabditis species are colonizers of nutrient- and bacteria-rich substrates and none of them is a true soil nematode." from Kiontke, K. and Sudhaus, W. Ecology of Caenorhabditis species (WormBook).

Your specific comment about C. elegans’ habitat is well received. However, in that sentence we are referring to the chemosensory system of soil-dwelling animals in general, and not particularly C. elegans.

(2) Figure 3K, the model would be clearer if leucine-rich diet -> volatile chemicals ->AWC (instead of leucine-rich diet -> AWC <- volatile chemicals). The leucine-rich diet results in the production of volatile chemicals which are detected by AWC.

We have modified the figure to make it clearer.

(3) Figure 4 - it would help to include a table summarizing the volatile chemicals that each bacteria releases. Then the reader could more easily evaluate whether the adaptation to each specific odor is consistent with the change in preference for the specific bacteria based on what it releases in its headspace. In addition, Figure 4 would help to clarify whether bacteria in these experiments were cultured with or without leucine supplementation.

Table S2 summarizes the odors released by all the bacteria under + LEU and – LEU conditions.

In Figure 4, adaptation was performed by odors of bacteria when cultured under leucineunsupplemented conditions.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Page 9. Previous studies e.g. Bargmann Hartwieg and Horvitz have shown IAA is sensed by the AWC. Would be good to cite appropriately.

Thanks for the comment. The reference has been cited at p9 and p16.

References:

(1) Yuan, J., Mishra, P., and Ching, C.B. (2017). Engineering the leucine biosynthetic pathway for isoamyl alcohol overproduction in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology 44, 107-117. 10.1007/s10295-016-1855-2 %J Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology.

(2) Kanehisa, M., Furumichi, M., Sato, Y., Matsuura, Y., and Ishiguro-Watanabe, M. (2025). KEGG: biological systems database as a model of the real world. Nucleic Acids Res 53, D672-d677. 10.1093/nar/gkae909.

(3) Shingai, R., Wakabayashi, T., Sakata, K., and Matsuura, T. (2005). Chemotaxis of Caenorhabditis elegans during simultaneous presentation of two water-soluble attractants, llysine and chloride ions. Comparative biochemistry and physiology. Part A, Molecular & integrative physiology 142, 308-317. 10.1016/j.cbpa.2005.07.010.

(4) Dirksen, P., Assié, A., Zimmermann, J., Zhang, F., Tietje, A.M., Marsh, S.A., Félix, M.A., Shapira, M., Kaleta, C., Schulenburg, H., and Samuel, B.S. (2020). CeMbio - The Caenorhabditis elegans Microbiome Resource. G3 (Bethesda, Md.) 10, 3025-3039. 10.1534/g3.120.401309.

(5) Edwards, C., Canfield, J., Copes, N., Brito, A., Rehan, M., Lipps, D., Brunquell, J., Westerheide, S.D., and Bradshaw, P.C. (2015). Mechanisms of amino acid-mediated lifespan extension in Caenorhabditis elegans. BMC genetics 16, 8. 10.1186/s12863-015-0167-2.

(6) Wang, H., Wang, J., Zhang, Z.J.J.o.F., and Research, N. (2018). Leucine Exerts Lifespan Extension and Improvement in Three Types of Stress Resistance (Thermotolerance, AntiOxidation and Anti-UV Irradiation) in C. elegans. 6, 665-673.

(7) Crombie, T.A., McKeown, R., Moya, N.D., Evans, Kathryn S., Widmayer, Samuel J., LaGrassa, V., Roman, N., Tursunova, O., Zhang, G., Gibson, Sophia B., et al. (2023). CaeNDR, the Caenorhabditis Natural Diversity Resource. Nucleic Acids Research 52, D850-D858. 10.1093/nar/gkad887 %J Nucleic Acids Research.

(8) Cook, D.E., Zdraljevic, S., Roberts, J.P., and Andersen, E.C. (2017). CeNDR, the Caenorhabditis elegans natural diversity resource. Nucleic Acids Res 45, D650-d657. 10.1093/nar/gkw893.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews: 

Reviewer #1 (Public review): 

Summary: 

This work by Al-Jezani et al. focused on characterizing clonally derived MSC populations from the synovium of normal and osteoarthritis (OA) patients. This included characterizing the cell surface marker expression in situ (at time of isolation), as well as after in vitro expansion. The group also tried to correlate marker expression with trilineage differential potential. They also tested the ability of the different subpopulations for their efficacy in repairing cartilage in a rat model of OA. The main finding of the study is that CD47hi MSCs may have a greater capacity to repair cartilage than CD47lo MSCs, suggesting that CD47 may be a novel marker of human MSCs that have enhanced chondrogenic potential. 

Strengths: 

Studies on cell characterization of the different clonal populations isolated indicate that the MSC are heterogenous and traditional cell surface markers for MSCs do not accurately predict the differentiation potential of MSCs. While this has been previously established in the field of MSC therapy, the authors did attempt to characterize clones derived from single cells, as well as evaluate the marker profile at the time of isolation. While the outcome of heterogeneity is not surprising, the methods used to isolate and characterize the cells were well developed. The interesting finding of the study is the identification of CD47 as a potential MSC marker that could be related to chondrogenic potential. The authors suggest that MSCs with high CD47 repaired cartilage more effectively than MSC with low CD47 in a rat OA model. 

Weaknesses: 

While the identification of CD47 as a novel MSC marker could be important to the field of cell therapy and cartilage regeneration, there was a lack of robust data to support the correlation of CD47 expression to chondrogenesis. The authors indicated that the proteomics suggested that the MSC subtype expressed significantly more CD47 than the non-MSC subtype. However, it was difficult to appreciate where this was shown. It would be helpful to clearly identify where in the figure this is shown, especially since it is the key result of the study. The authors were able to isolate CD47hi and CD47 low cells. While this is exciting, it was unclear how many cells could be isolated and whether they needed to be expanded before being used in vivo. Additional details for the CD47 studies would have strengthened the paper. Furthermore, the CD47hi cells were not thoroughly characterized in vitro, particularly for in vitro chondrogenesis. More importantly, the in vivo study where the CD47hi and CD47lo MSCs were injected into a rat model of OA lacked experimental details regarding how many cells were injected and how they were labeled. No representative histology was presented and there did not seem to be a statistically significant difference between the OARSI score of the saline injected and MSC injected groups. The repair tissue was stained for Sox9 expression, which is an important marker of chondrogenesis but does not show production of cartilage. Expression of Collagen Type II would be needed to more robustly claim that CD47 is a marker of MSCs with enhanced repair potential. 

Reviewer #2 (Public review): 

Summary: 

This is a compelling study that systematically characterized and identified clonal MSC populations derived from normal and osteoarthritis human synovium. There is immense growth in the focus on synovial-derived progenitors in the context of both disease mechanisms and potential treatment approaches, and the authors sought to understand the regenerative potential of synovial-derived MSCs. 

Strengths: 

This study has multiple strengths. MSC cultures were established from an impressive number of human subjects, and rigorous cell surface protein analyses were conducted, at both pre-culture and post-culture timepoints. In vivo experiments using a rat DMM model showed beneficial therapeutic effects of MSCs vs non-MSCs, with compelling data demonstrating that only "real" MSC clones incorporate into cartilage repair tissue and express Prg4. Proteomics analysis was performed to characterize non-MSC vs MSC cultures, and high CD47 expression was identified as a marker for MSC. Injection of CD47-Hi vs CD47-Low cells in the same rat DMM model also demonstrated beneficial effects, albeit only based on histology. A major strength of these studies is the direct translational opportunity for novel MSC-based therapeutic interventions, with high potential for a "personalized medicine" approach. 

Weaknesses: 

Weaknesses of this study include the rather cursory assessment of the OA phenotype in the rat model, confined entirely to histology (i.e. no microCT, no pain/behavioral assessments, no molecular readouts). It is somewhat unclear how the authors converged on CD47 vs the other factors identified in the proteomics screen, and additional information is needed to understand whether true MSCs only engraft in articular cartilage or also in ectopic cartilage (in the context of osteophyte/chondrophyte formation). Some additional discussion and potential follow-up analyses focused on other cell surface markers recently described to identify synovial progenitors is also warranted. A conceptual weakness is the lack of discussion or consideration of the multiple recent studies demonstrating that DPP4+ PI16+ CD34+ stromal cells (i.e. the "universal fibroblasts") act as progenitors in all mesenchymal tissues, and their involvement in the joint is actively being investigated. Thus, it seems important to understand how the MSCs of the present study are related to these DPP4+ progenitors. Despite these areas for improvement, this is a strong paper with a high degree of rigor, and the results are compelling, timely, and important. 

Overall, the authors achieved their aims, and the results support not just the therapeutic value of clonally-isolated synovial MSCs but also the immense heterogeneity in stromal cell populations (containing true MSCs and non-MSCs) that must be investigated further. Of note, the authors employed the ISCT criteria to characterize MSCs, with mixed results in pre-culture and post-culture assessments. This work is likely to have a longterm impact on methodologies used to culture and study MSCs, in addition to advancing the field's knowledge about how synovial-derived progenitors contribute to cartilage repair in vivo.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors): 

In all figures, it would be beneficial to report the sample number used for the data reported. It is difficult to appreciate the statistical analysis without that information.

Understood, the sample number and replicates have been added to each figure legend.

Please check that Table S7 is part of the manuscript. It could not be found.

It was added as an additional excel file since it was too large to fit in the word document.

Lines 377-379 (Figure 2E): the authors write that rats receiving MSCs had a significantly lower OARSI and Krenn score vs. rats injected with non-MSCs. However, none of the bars indicating statistical significance run between these two groups. Please verify the text and figure.

This has been corrected

The details surrounding the labeling of the cells with tdTomato were not presented in the methods. 

This has been added to the methods

The fluorescent antibodies used should be listed and more details provided in the methods rather than a general statement that fluorescent antibodies were used.

Our apologies, the clones and companies have been added.

Additional information on the CD47 experiments (# cells, # animals) would have strengthened the study.

This has been added to the methods and figure legend.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors): 

My comments span minor corrections, requests for additional analyses, some suggestions for additional experiments, and requests for additional discussion of recent important studies. 

Introduction: 

The introduction is thorough and well-written. I recommend a brief discussion about the emerging evidence demonstrating that DPP4+ PI16+ CD34+ synovial cells, i.e. the "universal fibroblasts", act as stromal progenitors in development, homeostasis, and disease. Relevant osteoarthritis-related papers encompass human and mouse studies (PMIDs: 39375009, 38266107, 38477740, 36175067, 36414376).

This has been added.

Relatedly, as DPP4 is CD26 and therefore useful as a cell-surface antigen for flow cytometry, sorting, etc, it would be interesting to understand the relationship and similarities between the CD47-High cells identified in this study and the DPP4/PI16+ cells previously described. Do they overlap in phenotype/identity?

We have added a new flow cytometry figure for address this question. 

Results: 

Note type-o on Line 311: "preformed" instead of "performed". Line 313 "prolife" instead of "profile"

Thank you for catching these.

The identified convergence of the cell surface marker profile of all normal and OA clones in culture is a highly intriguing result. Do the authors have stored aliquots of these cells to demonstrate whether this would also occur in soft substrate, i.e. low stiffness culture conditions? This could be done with standard dishes coated with bulk collagen or with commercially available low-stiffness dishes (1 kPa). This is relevant to multiple studies demonstrating the induction of a myofibroblast-like phenotype by stromal cells cultured on high-stiffness plastic or glass. This is also the experiment where assessment of DPP4/CD26 could be added, if possible.

While we agree it would be interesting to determine the mechanism by which the cells phenotypes converge, we would argue that it is outside of the scope of the current manuscript. We have instead added a sentence to the discussion. 

Line 353 regarding the use of CD68 as a negative gate: can the authors pleasecomment on why they employed CD68 here and not CD45? While monocytes/macs/myeloid cells are the most abundant immune cells in synovium, CD45 would more comprehensively exclude all immune cells. 

That is a fair point, and we really don’t have any reason to have picked CD68 over CD45. In our opinion either would be a fair negative marker to use based on the literature. 

Fig 2, minor suggestion: consider adding "MSC vs non-MSC" on the experimental schematic to more comprehensively summarize the experiment. 

This has been modified 

Fig 2E should show all individual datapoints, not just bar graphs. 

This has been modified

Fig 2: Given the significant reduction in Krenn score in DMM-MSC injected knees compared to DMM-saline knees, Fig 2 should also show representative images of the synovial phenotype to demonstrate which aspects of synovial pathology were mitigated. Was the effect related to lining hyperplasia, subsynovial infiltrate, fibrosis, etc? Similarly, can the authors narrate which aspects of the OARSI score drove the treatment effect (proteoglycans vs structure vs osteophytes, etc). 

We have added a new sup figure breaking down the Krenn score as well as higher magnification images of representative synovium.

Fig 2: In the absence of microCT imaging, can the authors quantify subchondral bone morphometrics using multiple histological sections? The tibial subchondral bone in Fig 2D appears protected from sclerosis/thickening.

Unfortunately, this is beyond what are able to add to the manuscript. 

The Fig 3 results are highly compelling and interesting. Congratulations.

Thank you very much.

Fig 4A: the cell highlighted in the high-mag zoom box in Fig 4A appears to be localized within the joint capsule or patellar tendon (it is unclear which anatomic region this image represents). The highly aligned nature of the tissue and cells along a fibrillar geometry indicates that this is not synovium. The interface between synovium and the tissue in question can be clearly observed in this image. Please choose an image more representative of synovium.

We completely agree with the reviewers assessment. However, it is the synovium that overlays this tissue (Fig 4A arrow). We are simply showing that there were very few MSCs that took up residence in the synovium or the adjacent tissues. 

Fig 4C and F: please show individual data points.

This has been added

Fig 5D: I see DPP4 and ITGA5 were also hits in the proteomics analysis, which is intriguing. Besides my comments/suggestions regarding DPP4 above, please note this recent paper identifying a ITGA5+ synovial fibroblast subset that orchestrates pathological crosstalk with lymphocytes in RA, PMID: 39486872

Thank you for the information. We have added the reference in the results section. 

Fig 5B-D: How did the authors converge on CD47 as the target for follow-up study? It does not appear to be a differentially-expressed protein based on the Volcano plot in Fig 5B, and it's unclear why it is a more important factor than any of the other proteins shown in the network diagram in Fig 5D, e.g. CTSL, ITGA5, DPP4. Can the authors add a quantitative plot supporting their statement "the MSC sub-type expressed significantly more CD47 than the non-MSCs" on Line 458? 

We have re-written this line. It was incorrect to discuss amount of CD47. That was shown later with the flow analysis.  

Fig 6D: Please show individual data points and also representative histology images to demonstrate the nature of the phenotypic effect.

This has been added. 

Fig 6E-F: In what anatomic region are these images? Please add anatomic markers to clarify the location and allow the reader to interpret whether this is articular cartilage or ectopic cartilage

We have redone the figure to show the area as requested.

Relevant to this, do the authors observe this type of cellular engraftment in ectopic cartilage/osteophytes or only in articular cartilage? Understanding the contribution of these cells to the formation/remodeling of various cartilage types in the context of OA is a critical aspect of this line of investigation.

We didn’t see any contribution of these cells to ectopic cartilage formation and are actively working on a follow up study discussing this point specifically. 

Discussion: 

Besides my comments regarding DPP4 and ITGA5 above, the authors may also consider discussing PMID: 37681409 (JCI Insight 2023), which demonstrates that adult Prg4+ progenitors derived from synovium contribute to articular cartilage repair in vivo. 

We agree that there are numerous markers we could look at in future studies and that other people in the field are actively studying.

Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Referee #3

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

Summary

In this paper, Wang and Shu et al. investigate the extent to which the negative binomial (NB) distribution captures the statistical properties of single-cell like count data and the effects of using this model to interpret biophysical parameters. Assuming an underlying telegraph model of transcription, they demonstrate how the NB can produce similar if not equivalent fits to simulated data from various parameter regimes, regimes which can, notably, fall outside of the bursty transcription limit in which the telegraph model is known to have a NB form. The authors then assess how model selection favors the NB or Poisson models over the underlying telegraph model, and how technical noise can lead to greater selection/representation of the NB over the parameter regime. Finally, they demonstrate how the broader applicability of the NB impacts inference of burst size and frequency (commonly inferred from NB fits on single-cell data), preserving relative rather than absolute information.

The authors use both method of moments and MLE-based approaches to obtain and compare model fits over the same parameter regimes. They also develop the aeBIC metric which balances parametric complexity and distributional similarity to the desired, ground truth distribution, to more quickly approximate the BIC (used for model selection).

Major comments:

The likelihood of model fits is used as a main criteria for model selection and comparison (e.g., in the BIC/aeBIC metrics), however it is possible that analysis of the curvature of the likelihood may suggest greater uncertainty/less information about parameter estimates for the different statistical models across the transcriptional regimes tested. Since a major component of this study is to demonstrate to readers that nuanced model selection is important for interpreting single-cell data, it would support these efforts to see if the telegraph versus NB model fits, for example, demonstrate differences in their respective Hessian matrices for the MLE estimates. This would help determine, for those interested in comparing these fits on their data, if there is potential here to distinguish the more optimal/true model or not (i.e., what the extent of the limitations are). The authors describe how in the infinite limit of N_sigma the NB and telegraph models converge to the same distribution, which provides another biological scenario outside transcriptional bursting where the NB can be interpreted as a good statistical model. However, though many parameter regimes are possible not all are observed in real data. Thus for readers to understand how likely these regimes are to be present in the data it would be helpful to discuss in what biological scenarios such a limit may appear and if it is likely to be a common instance, etc (perhaps given the ranges of on/off times observed in the literature https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10860890/). This would parallel the discussion in the study on the bursty transcription model, often described in the literature as a widespread phenomenon. The p_cap parameter is described as representing technical capture and affords the conclusion in the Discussion that the NB can improve capture of technical noise beyond the biological noise in the system. However, as mentioned later in the Discussion, this effect could also arise from cell to cell differences in transcription rate (extrinsic, biological noise), which cannot be distinguished in this model. This point should be made clearer earlier on, as without use of control genes/spike-ins/etc we cannot distinguish the biological and technical components encompassed by the p_cap term (i.e., whether or not a spread in total UMIs observed over droplets is due to biological or technical capture differences). Since the aeBIC is being presented as a new, faster method in this study, the timing and memory usage in performing these calculations, for each model, should be presented somewhere. The Methods should also have a more explicit description of the steps/tools used to calculate the aeBIC.

Minor comments:

Figure S4 mentioned comparison of scRNA-seq with smFISH data to approximate p_cap, however given that smFISH data would have its own technical biases it does not seem exactly clear how a map from smFISH to scRNA-seq would work such as to illuminate the gap incurred by technical bias/capture. Perhaps previous literature/methods doing this can be cited here, or this idea can be fleshed out in the Discussion text for readers interested in better estimating p_cap. In Figure 4 the pink color of the Poisson in c is hard to see, and it may be easier to write the names of the different models in the respective regions that they cover (similarly in Figure 5 c) For Figure 8, it may be easier for the reader to interpret the several plots in a row by repeating the x-axis labels under each set of plots and collating all the legend labels into one box somewhere near the first plots.

Significance

General assessment: Overall, the paper is a clear and concise view on the use of the NB in analysis of sparse, transcriptomic count data, the potential effects of technical and biological noise on the pertinence of the NB as the statistical representation, and the impacts on user interpretation of biophysical parameters from these model fits. This study is useful for both biologists and computational scientists looking to gain mechanistic insight from single-cell data.

The strength of the paper is that the methodology is straightforward and uses simple numerical experiments to demonstrate how and when several common distributions can describe the type of data we encounter in single-cell genomics. They additionally connect these results to common biological interpretations from single-cell measurements and outline regimes in which inferences are likely to be incorrect.

The paper could benefit from more discussion on the biological interpretations of the findings and regimes analyzed, particularly to help readers interested in how this impacts their data analysis. Supplemental analysis on whether other criteria could potentially distinguish the models in question would also help support the conclusions of model selection/identifiability and if other properties of these model fits can be used for selection or not.

Advance: The study builds on others in the field by not just fitting several common models to this type of sparse, transcriptomic count data but also describing why these overlapping fits arise and how that affects biological interpretation. Often the focus is more on choosing a sufficient statistical representation without the underlying, mechanistic connections between the models. The results here are thus more technical and mechanistic in nature, describing both the theoretical connections between common single-cell count models and their biophysical interpretations.

Audience: This result is likely to be of interest to scientists performing data analysis and method development in single-cell genomics, particularly with mechanistic insight in mind. This would be more of interest within the domain of transcriptomics, but it also presents a methodology for studying limitations of identifiability in noisy systems which could be of interest to other biological domains.

My expertise is in developing representation learning methods and stochastic models of transcription for single-cell biology, which covers the classical models described in this study.

Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Referee #1

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

The authors present an investigation into the surprising effectiveness of the negative-binomial distribution in modelling transcript counts in single cell RNA sequencing experiments. With experimentally motivated ground-truth models that incorporate transcriptional bursting, they show that when transcription activity is large compared to degradation these distributions coincide. With a novel model selection metric, they indicate the regions of parameter space in which the negative-binomial model is a good approximation to the underlying true model. With this procedure, they also indicate that transcriptional burst parameters are unlikely to be reconstructed by an effective negative-binomial function, but that nevertheless, relative rankings between genes can be identified robustly.

I would like to commend the authors on an interesting and fairly comprehensive investigation on a topic of considerable importance in the interpretation of single cell RNA sequencing experiments, and on a well written paper. I have no major comments on issues that affect the conclusions of the paper, although I have a few minor suggestions that might aid reader's understanding of the results and their applicability.

General

It would be nice to have a comparison with some real data for the burst frequency and size, just to indicate to the reader how important these regions are compared to what might be measured. For example, if most genes are outside of the region that does not accommodate the NB distribution, then the conclusion is quite different than if most real counts are unlikely to accommodated by the NB.

Inter-cellular variability of transcription dynamics is quite a significant point of interest, so it would be good to have stated earlier that this is not considered, with the mitigation that is noted later. This is particularly important given that in the introduction, the cases mentioned seem to imply that an NB distribution would be more likely with higher inter-cellular variability.

Introduction

It would be nice to have a bit more detail here, for example on what UMIs are, and what the parameters of the NB distribution represent in general.

For smFISH, I would have thought that the more simple explanation is that the NB is often the simplest distribution with some overdispersion that fits the data, and the parameters don't necessarily need to be biologically interpretable?

It's noted later that the capture probability of modern RNASeq protocols can be ~0.3, which doesn't seem very different compared to 0.7-0.9 of smFISH, so some context here would be good.

Results

Eq 1: I don't think you lose anything by giving the Pochammer symbol and Kummer confluent geometric function explicitly here, and it would make it it a lot easier to read. That said, this equation also seems to come out of nowhere, so a reference would be nice.

I think the moment matching is reasonably convincing, but it might require a little more explicit motivation for a more general audience.

Thm. 1: Do these converge at similar rates, and if not, does that have any implications for the interpretation of the comparisons (as these are evaluated with specific values)? This might be worth a short comment.

Fig 3. In the description for this in the text, it would be nice to have an expression of the KL divergence (and what order the arguments are in), for anyone unfamiliar.

The discussion of the aeBIC seems a bit circuitous. A reasonable prior intention might be to average (or apply a voting function) to individual BIC values, rather than the aeBIC constructed here. And in fact the text goes on to note after the description that this is a good estimate of the expectation of the BIC after all, with some computational advantages. So it might be better to have a more straightforward presentation where this is proposed as an approximation to the expectation of the BIC in the first place.

Section 2.4: The intro to this section could do with a bit more background of the capture, PCR, sequencing, etc, stages, and what exactly the data generated here represents. Otherwise the discussion of zero inflation and UMIs is a little confusing.

It would also be nice to have a comment here on the effect of sequencing depth, or similar (compared to capture probability), even if this wouldn't change the interpretation.

Significance

The paper provides novel arguments towards the support of the negative-binomial distribution in describing single cell RNA sequencing data, with particular relevance to transcriptional bursting observed in numerous datasets. The paper follows from some notable prior work in the field, and integrates these into a more consistent description, particularly in relation to newer techniques such as UMIs.

The ubiquity of the negative-binomial distribution means that these arguments will be of relevance to those that perform theoretical or statistical modelling of single cell RNA sequencing data, and theoretically justifies many widely held assumptions. However, the paper does not make any reference to specific reference datasets or commonly observed values, so where in the parameter space data likely lies would still need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

My expertise is in mathematical modelling and statistics, with some experience of the analysis of single cell RNA sequencing data.

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

The PDF version of point-by-point response includes figures (I, II, III,... IX) that are not included in the manuscript nor in this post but serve to illustrate and clarify our replies to the reviewers' comments.

Dear Editor,

Many thanks for forwarding the comments from reviewers #1-#4 regarding our manuscript (Preprint #RC-2025-03087144), entitled "HIV-1 Envelope glycoprotein modulates CXCR4 clustering and dynamics on the T cell membrane", by Quijada-Freire A. et al.

We have carefully reviewed all reviewer comments and prepared our specific, detailed responses. Alongside this, we have created a revised version of the manuscript to post them on BioRxiv, and we are pleased to announce that we will transfer this new version to an affiliate journal for consideration.

Reviewer #1

Thank you very much for considering that our manuscript evaluates an important question and that the reagents used are well prepared and characterized. We also much appreciate that you consider the information generated as potentially useful for those studying HIV infection processes and strategies to prevent infection.

• While a single particle tracking routine was applied to the data, it's not clear how the signal from a single GFP was defined and if movement during the 100 ms acquisition time impacts this. My concern would be that the routine is tracking fluctuations, and these are related to single particle dynamics, it appears from the movies that the density or the GFP tagged receptors in the cells is too high to allow clear tracking of single molecules. SPT with GFP is very difficult due to bleaching and relatively low quantum yield. Current efforts in this direction that are more successful include using SNAP tags with very photostable organic fluorophores. The data likely does mean something is happening with the receptor, but they need to be more conservative about the interpretation. *

Some of the paradoxical effects might be better understood through deeper analysis of the SPT data, particularly investigation of active transport and more detailed analysis of "immobile" objects. Comments on early figures illustrate how this could be approached. This would require selecting acquisitions where the GFP density is low enough for SPT and performing a more detailed analysis, but this may be difficult to do with GFP.

When the authors discuss clusters of 3, how do they calibrate the value of GFP and the impact of diffusion on the measurement. One way to approach this might be single molecules measurements of dilute samples on glass vs in a supported lipid bilayer to map the streams of true immobility to diffusion at >1 µm2/sec.

We fully understand the reviewer's apprehensions regarding the application of these high-end biophysical techniques, in particular the associated complexity of the data analysis. We provide below extensive explanations on our methodology, which we hope will satisfactorily address all of the reviewer's concerns.

We would first like to emphasize that the experimental conditions and the quantitative analysis used in our current experiments are similar to the established protocols and methodologies applied by our group previously (Martinez-Muñoz et al. Mol. Cell, 2018; García-Cuesta et al. PNAS, 2022; Gardeta et al. Frontiers in Immunol., 2022; García-Cuesta et al.eLife, 2024; Gardeta et al. Cell. Commun. Signal., 2025) and by others (Calebiro et al. PNAS, 2013; Jaqaman et al. Cell,2011; Mattila et al. Immunity, 2013; Torreno-Pina et al. PNAS, 2014; Torreno-Pina et al. PNAS, 2016).

As SPT (single-particle tracking) experiments require low-expressing conditions in order to follow individual trajectories (Manzo & García-Parajo Rep. Prog. Phys., 2015), we transiently transfected Jurkat CD4+ cells with CXCR4-AcGFP or CXCR4R334X-AcGFP. At 24 h post-transfection, cells expressing low CXCR4-AcGFP levels were selected by a MoFlo Astrios Cell Sorter (Beckman-Coulter) to ensure optimal conditions for SPT. Using Dako Qifikit (DakoCytomation), we quantified the number of CXCR4 receptors and found ∼8,500 - 22,000 CXCR4-AcGFP receptors/cell, which correspond to a particle density ∼2 - 4.5 particles/mm2 (Figure I, only for review purposes) and are similar to the expression levels found in primary human lymphocytes.

These cells were resuspended in RPMI supplemented with 2% FBS, NaPyr and L-glutamine and plated on 96-well plates for at least 2 h. Cells were centrifuged and resuspended in a buffer with HBSS, 25 mM HEPES, 2% FBS (pH 7.3) and plated on glass-bottomed microwell dishes (MatTek Corp.) coated with fibronectin (FN) (Sigma-Aldrich, 20 mg/ml, 1 h, 37{degree sign}C). To observe the effect of the ligand, we coated dishes with FN + CXCL12; FN + X4-gp120 or FN + VLPs, as described in material and methods; cells were incubated (20 min, 37{degree sign}C, 5% CO2) before image acquisition.

For SPT measurements, we use a total internal reflection fluorescence (TIRF) microscope (Leica AM TIRF inverted) equipped with an EM-CCD camera (Andor DU 885-CS0-#10-VP), a 100x oil-immersion objective (HCX PL APO 100x/1.46 NA) and a 488-nm diode laser. The microscope was equipped with incubator and temperature control units; experiments were performed at 37{degree sign}C with 5% CO2. To minimize photobleaching effects before image acquisition, cells were located and focused using the bright field, and a fine focus adjustment in TIRF mode was made at 5% laser power, an intensity insufficient for single-particle detection that ensures negligible photobleaching. Image sequences of individual particles (500 frames) were acquired at 49% laser power with a frame rate of 10 Hz (100 ms/frame). The penetration depth of the evanescent field used was 90 nm.

We performed automatic tracking of individual particles using a very well established and common algorithm first described by Jaqaman (Jaqaman et al. Nat. Methods, 2008). Nevertheless, we would stress that we implemented this algorithm in a supervised fashion, i.e., we visually inspect each individual trajectory reconstruction in a separate window. Indeed, this algorithm is not able to quantify merging or splitting events.

We follow each individual fluorescence spot frame-by-frame using a three-by-three matrix around the centroid position of the spot, as it diffuses on the cell membrane. To minimize the effect of photon fluctuations, we averaged the intensity over 20 frames. Nevertheless, to assure the reviewer that most of the single molecule traces last for at least 50 frames (i.e., 5 seconds), we provide the following data and arguments. We currently measure the photobleaching times from individual CD86-AcGFP spots exclusively having one single photobleaching step to guarantee that we are looking at individual CD86-AcGFP molecules. The distribution of the photobleaching times is shown below (Figure II, only for review purposes). Fitting of the distribution to a single exponential decay renders a t0 value of ~5 s. Thus, with 20 frames averaging, we are essentially measuring the whole population of monomers in our experiments. As the survival time of a molecule before photobleaching will strongly depend on the excitation conditions, we used low excitation conditions (2 mW laser power, which corresponds to an excitation power density of ~0.015 kW/cm2 considering the illumination region) and longer integration times (100 ms/frame) to increase the signal-to-background for single GFP detection while minimizing photobleaching.

To infer the stoichiometry of receptor complexes, we also perform single-step photobleaching analysis of the TIRF trajectories to establish the existence of different populations of monomers, dimers, trimers and nanoclusters and extract their percentage. Some representative trajectories of CXCR4-AcGFP with the number of steps detected are shown in new Supplementary Figure 1.

The emitted fluorescence (arbitrary units, a.u.) of each spot in the cells is quantified and normalized to the intensity emitted by monomeric CD86-AcGFP spots that strictly showed a single photobleaching step (Dorsch et al. Nat. Methods,2009). We have preferred to use CD86-AcGFP in cells rather than AcGFP on glass to exclude any potential effect on the different photodynamics exhibited by AcGFP when bound directly to glass. We have also previously shown pharmacological controls to exclude CXCL12-mediated receptor clustering due to internalization processes (Martinez-Muñoz et al. Mol. Cell, 2018) that, together with the evaluation of single photobleaching steps and intensity histograms, allow us to exclude the presence of vesicles in our data. Thus, the dimers, trimers and nanoclusters found in our data do correspond to CXCR4 molecules on the cell surface. Finally, distribution of monomeric particle intensities, obtained from the photobleaching analysis, was analyzed by Gaussian fitting, rendering a mean value of 980 {plus minus} 86 a.u. This value was then used as the monomer reference to estimate the number of receptors per particle in both cases, CXCR4-AcGFP and CXCR4R334X-AcGFP (new Supplementary Figure 1).

• I understand that the CXCL12 or gp120 are attached to the substrate with fibronectin for adhesion. I'm less clear how how that VLPs are integrated. Were these added to cells already attached to FN?*

For TIRF-M experiments, cells were adhered to glass-bottomed microwell dishes coated with fibronectin, fibronectin + CXCL12, fibronectin + X4-gp120, or fibronectin + VLPs. As for CXCL12 and X4-gp120, the VLPs were attached to fibronectin taking advantage of electrostatic interactions. To clarify the integration of the VLPs in these assays, we have stained the microwell dishes coated with fibronectin and those coated with fibronectin + VLPs with wheat germ agglutinin (WGA) coupled to Alexa647 (Figure III, only for review purposes) and evaluated the staining by confocal microscopy. These results indicate the presence of carbohydrates on the VLPs and are, therefore, indicative of the presence of VLPs on the fibronectin layer.

Moreover, it is important to remark that the effect of the VLPs on CXCR4 behavior at the cell surface observed by TIRF-M confirmed that the VLPs remained attached to the substrate during the experiment.

• Fig 1A- The classification of particle tracks into mobile and immobile is overly simplistic description that goes back to bulk FRAP measurements and it not really applicable to single molecule tracking data, where it's rare to see anything that is immobile and alive. An alternative classification strategy uses sub-diffusion, normal diffusion and active diffusion (or active transport) to descriptions and particles can transition between these classes over the tracking period. Fig 1B- this data might be better displayed as histograms showing distributions within the different movement classes.*

In agreement with the reviewer's commentary, the majority of the particles detected in our TIRF-M experiments were indeed mobile. However, we also detected a variable, and biologically appreciable, percentage of immobile particles depending on the experimental condition analyzed (Figure 1A in the main manuscript). To establish a stringent threshold for identifying these immobile particles under our specific experimental conditions, we used purified monomeric AcGFP proteins immobilized on glass coverslips. Our analysis demonstrated that 95% of these immobilized proteins showed a diffusion coefficient £0.0015 mm2/s; consequently, this value was established as the cutoff to distinguish immobile from mobile trajectories. While the observation of truly immobile entities in a dynamic, living system is rare, the presence of these particles under our conditions is biologically significant. For instance, the detection of large, immobile receptor nanoclusters at the plasma membrane is entirely consistent with facilitating key cellular processes, such as enabling the robust signaling cascade triggered by ligand binding or promoting the crucial events required for efficient viral entry into the cells.

Regarding the mobile receptors (defined as those with D1-4 values exceeding 0.0015 mm2/s), we observed distinct diffusion profiles derived from mean square displacement (MSD) plots (Figure V) (Manzo & García-Parajo Rep. Prog. Phys., 2015), which were further classified based on motion, using the moment scaling spectrum (MSS) (Ewers et al. PNAS, 2005). Under all experimental conditions, the majority of mobile particles, ∼85%, showed confined diffusion: for example under basal conditions, without ligand addition, ∼90% of mobile particles showed confined diffusion, ∼8.5% showed Brownian-free diffusion and ∼1.5% exhibited directed motion (new Supplementary Figure 5A in the main manuscript). These data have been also included in the revised manuscript to show, in detail, the dynamic parameters of CXCR4.

Due to the space constraints, it is very difficult to include all the figures generated. However, to ensure comprehensive assessment and transparency (for the purpose of this review), we have included below representative plots of the MSD values as a function of time from individual trajectories, showing different types of motion obtained in our experiments (Figure IV, only for review purposes).

• Fig 1C,D- It would be helpful to see a plot of D vs MSI at a single particle level. In comparing C and D I'm surprised there is not a larger difference between CXCL12 and X4-gp120. It would also be very important to see the behaviour of X4-gp120 on the CXCR4 deficient Jurkat that would provide a picture of CD4 diffusion. The CXCR4 nanoclustering related to the X4-gp120 could be dominated by CD4 behaviour.*

As previously described, all analyses were performed under SPT conditions (see previous response to point 1 in this reply). Figure 1C details the percentage of oligomers (>3 receptors/particle) calibrated using Jurkat CD4+ cells electroporated with monomeric CD86-AcGFP (Dorsch et al. Nat. Methods, 2009). The monomer value was determined by analyzing photobleaching steps as described in our previous response to point 1.

In our experiments, we observed a trend towards a higher number of oligomers upon activation with CXCL12 compared with X4-gp120. This trend was further supported by measurements of Mean Spot Intensity. However, the values are also influenced by the number of larger spots, which represents a minor fraction of the total spots detected.

The differences between the effect triggered by CXCL12 or X4-gp120 might also be attributed to a combination of factors related to differences in ligand concentration, their structure, and even to the technical requirements of TIRF-M. Both ligands are in contact with the substrate (fibronectin) and the specific nature of this interaction may differ between both ligands and influence their accessibility to CXCR4. Moreover, the requirement of the prior binding of gp120 to CD4 before CXCR4 engagement, in contrast to the direct binding of CXCL12 to CXCR4, might also contribute to the differences observed.

We previously reported that CXCL12-mediated CXCR4 dynamics are modulated by CD4 co-expression (Martinez-Muñoz et al. Mol. Cell, 2018). We have now detected the formation of CD4 heterodimers with both CXCR4 and CXCR4R334X, and found that these conformations are influenced by gp120-VLPs. In the present manuscript, we did not focus on CD4 clustering as it has been extensively characterized previously (Barrero-Villar et al. J. Cell Sci., 2009; Jiménez-Baranda et al. Nat. Cell. Biol., 2007; Yuan et al. Viruses, 2021). Regarding the investigation of the effects of X4-gp120 on CXCR4-deficient Jurkat cells, which would provide a picture of CD4 diffusion, we would note that a previous report has already addressed this issue using single-molecule super-resolution imaging, and revealed that CD4 molecules on the cell membrane are predominantly found as individual molecules or small clusters of up to 4 molecules, and that the size and number of these clusters increases upon virus binding or gp120 activation (Yuan et al. Viruses, 2021).

• Fig S1D- This data is really interesting. However, if both the CD4 and the gp120 have his tags they need to be careful as poly-His tags can bind weakly to cells and increasing valency could generate some background. So, they should make the control is fair here. Ideally, using non-his tagged person of sCD4 and gp120 would be needed ideal or they need a His-tagged Fab binding to gp120 that doesn't induce CXCR4 binding.*

New Supplementary Figure 2D shows that X4-gp120 does not bind Daudi cells (these cells do not express CD4) in the absence of soluble CD4. While the reviewer is correct to state that both proteins contain a Histidine Tag, cell binding is only detected if X4-gp120 binds sCD4. Nonetheless, we have included in the revised Supplementary Figure 2D a control showing the negative binding of sCD4 to Daudi cells in the absence of X4-gp120. Altogether, these results confirm that only sCD4/X4-gp120 complexes bind these cells.

• Fig S4- Panel D needs a scale bar. I can't figure out what I'm being shown without this.*

Apologies. A scale bar has been included in this panel (new Supplementary Figure 6D).

Reviewer #2

• This study is well described in both the main text and figures. Introduction provides adequate background and cites the literature appropriately. Materials and Methods are detailed. Authors are careful in their interpretations, statistical comparisons, and include necessary controls in each experiment. The Discussion presents a reasonable interpretation of the results. Overall, there are no major weaknesses with this manuscript.*

We very much appreciate the positive comments of the reviewer regarding the broad interest and strength of our work.

• NL4-3deltaIN and immature HIV virions are found to have less associated gp120 relative to wild-type particles. It is not obvious why this is the case for the deltaIN particles or genetically immature particles. Can the authors provide possible explanations? (A prior paper was cited, Chojnacki et al Science, 2012 but can the current authors provide their own interpretation.)*

Our conclusion from the data is actually exactly the opposite. As shown in Figure 2D, the gp120 staining intensity was higher for NL4-3DIN particles (1,786 a.u.) than for gp120-VLPs (1,223 a.u.), indicating lower expression of Env proteins in the latter. Furthermore, analysis of gp120 intensity per particle (Figure 2E) confirmed that gp120-VLPs contained fewer gp120 molecules per particle than NL4-3DIN virions. These levels were comparable with, or even lower than, those observed in primary HIV-1 viruses (Zhu et al. Nature, 2006). This reduction was a direct consequence of the method used to generate the VLPs, as our goal was to produce viral particles with minimal gp120 content to prevent artifacts in receptor clustering that might occur using high levels of Env proteins in the VLPs to activate the receptors.

This misunderstanding may arise from the fact that we also compared Gag condensation and Env distribution on the surface of gp120-VLPs with those observed in genetically immature particles and integrase-defective NL4-3ΔIN virions, which served as controls. STED microscopy data revealed differences in Env distribution between gp120-VLPs and NL4-3ΔIN virions, supporting the classification of gp120-VLPs as mature particles (Figure 2 A,B).

Reviewer #3

We thank the reviewer for considering that our work offers new insights into the spatial organization of receptors during HIV-1 entry and infection and that the manuscript is well written, and the findings significant.

• For mechanistic basis of gp120-CXCR4 versus CXCL12-CXCR4 differences. Provide additional structural or biochemical evidence to support the claim that gp120 stabilises a distinct CXCR4 conformation compared to CXCL12. If feasible, include molecular modelling, mutagenesis, or cross-linking experiments to corroborate the proposed conformational differences.*

We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this point. The specific claim that gp120 stabilizes a conformation of CXCR4 that is distinct from the CXCL12-bound state was not explicitly stated in our manuscript, although we agree that our data strongly support this possibility. It is important to consider that CXCL12 binds directly to CXCR4, whereas gp120 requires prior sequential binding to CD4, and its subsequent interaction is with a CXCR4 molecule that is already forming part of the CD4/CXCR4 complex, as demonstrated by our FRET experiments and supported by previous studies (Zaitseva et al. J. Leuk. Biol., 2005; Busillo & Benovic Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 2007; Martínez-Muñoz et al. PNAS, 2014). This difference makes it inherently complex to compare the conformational changes induced by gp120 and CXCL12 on CXCR4.

However, our findings show that both stimuli induce oligomerization of CXCR4, a phenomenon not observed when mutant CXCR4R334X was exposed to the chemokine CXCL12 (García-Cuesta et al. PNAS, 2022).

1. CXCL12 induced oligomerization of CXCR4 but did not affect the dynamics of CXCR4R334X (Martinez-Muñoz et al. Mol. Cell, 2018; García-Cuesta et al. PNAS, 2022). By contrast, X4-gp120 and the corresponding VLPs-which require initial binding to CD4 to engage the chemokine receptor-stabilized oligomers of both CXCR4 and CXCR4R334X.

FRET analysis revealed distinct FRET50 values for CD4/CXCR4 (2.713) and CD4/CXCR4R334X (0.399) complexes, suggesting different conformations for each complex. Consistent with previous reports (Balabanian et al. Blood, 2005; Zmajkovicova et al. Front. Immunol., 2024; García-Cuesta et al. PNAS, 2022), the molecular mechanisms activated by CXCL12 are distinct when comparing CXCR4 with CXCR4R334X. For instance, CXCL12 induces internalization of CXCR4, but not of mutant CXCR4R334X. Conversely, X4-gp120 triggers approximately 25% internalization of both receptors. Similarly, CXCL12 does not promote CD4 internalization in cells co-expressing CXCR4 or CXCR4R334X, whereas X4-gp120 does, although CD4 internalization was significantly higher in cells co-expressing CXCR4.

These findings suggest that CD4 influences the conformation and the oligomerization state of both co-receptors. To further support this hypothesis, we have conducted new in silico molecular modeling of CD4 in complex with either CXCR4 or its mutant CXCR4R334X using AlphaFold 3.0 (Abramson et al. Nature, 2024). The server was provided with both sequences, and the interaction between the two molecules for each protein was requested. It produced a number of solutions, which were then analyzed using the software ChimeraX 1.10 (Meng et al. Protein Sci., 2023). CXCR4 and its mutant, CXCR4R334X bound to CD4, were superposed using one of the CD4 molecules from each complex, with the aim of comparing the spatial positioning of CD4 molecules when interacting with CXCR4.

As illustrated in Figure V (only for review purposes), the superposition of the CD4/CXCR4 complexes was complete. However, when CD4/CXCR4 complexes were superimposed with CD4/CXCR4R334X complexes using the same CD4 molecule as a reference, indicated by an arrow in the figure, a clear structural deviation became evident. The main structural difference detected was the positioning of the CD4 transmembrane domains when interacting with either the wild-type or mutant CXCR4. While in complexes with CXCR4, the angle formed by the lines connecting residues E416 at the C-terminus end of CD4 with N196 in CXCR4 was 12{degree sign}, for the CXCR4R334X complex, this angle increased to 24{degree sign}, resulting in a distinct orientation of the CD4 extracellular domain (Figure VI, only for review purposes).

To further analyze the models obtained, we employed PDBsum software (Laskowski & Thornton Protein Sci., 2021) to predict the CD4/CXCR4 interface residues. Data indicated that at least 50% of the interaction residues differed when the CD4/CXCR4 interaction surface was compared with that of the CD4/CXCR4R334X complex (Figure VII, only for review purposes). It is important to note that while some hydrogen bonds were present in both complex models, others were exclusive to one of them. For instance, whereas Cys394(CD4)-Tyr139 and Lys299(CD4)-Glu272 were present in both CD4/CXCR4 and CD4/CXCR4R334X complexes, the pairs Asn337(CD4)-Ser27(CXCR4R334X) and Lys325(CD4)-Asp26(CXCR4R334X) were only found in CD4/CXCR4R334X complexes.

These findings, which are consistent with our FRET results, suggest distinct interaction surfaces between CD4 and the two chemokine receptors. Overall, these results are compatible with differences in the spatial conformation adopted by these complexes.

• For Empty VLP effects on CXCR4 dynamics: Explore potential causes for the observed effects of Env-deficient VLPs. It's valuable to include additional controls such as particles from non-producer cells, lipid composition analysis, or blocking experiments to assess nonspecific interactions. *

As VLPs are complex entities, we thought that the relevant results should be obtained comparing the effects of Env(-) VLPs with gp120-VLPs. Therefore, we would first remark that regardless of the effect of Env(-) VLPs on CXCR4 dynamics, the most evident finding in this study is the strong effect of gp120-VLPs compared with control Env(-) VLPs. Nevertheless, regarding the effect of the Env(-) VLPs compared with medium, we propose several hypotheses. As several virions can be tethered to the cell surface via glycosaminoglycans (GAGs), we hypothesized that VLPs-GAGs interactions might indirectly influence the dynamics of CXCR4 and CXCR4R334X at the plasma membrane. Additionally, membrane fluidity is essential for receptor dynamics, therefore VLPs interactions with proteins, lipids or any other component of the cell membrane could also alter receptor behavior. It is well known that lipid rafts participate in the interaction of different viruses with target cells (Nayak & Hu Subcell. Biochem., 2004; Manes et al. Nat. Rev. Immunol., 2003; Rioethmullwer et al. Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 2006) and both the lipid composition and the presence of co-expressed proteins modulate ligand-mediated receptor oligomerization (Gardeta et al. Frontiers in Immunol., 2022; Gardeta et al. Cell. Commun. Signal., 2025). We have thus performed Raster Image Correlation Spectroscopy (RICS) analysis to assess membrane fluidity through membrane diffusion measurements on cells treated with Env(-) VLPs.

Jurkat cells were labeled with Di-4-ANEPPDHG and seeded on FN and on FN + VLPs prior to analysis by RICS on confocal microscopy. The results indicated no significant differences in membrane diffusion under the treatment tested, thereby discarding an effect of VLPs on overall membrane fluidity (Figure VIII, only for review purposes).

Nonetheless, these results do not rule out other non-specific interactions of Env(-) VLPs with membrane proteins that could affect receptor dynamics. For instance, it has been reported that C-type lectin DC-SIGN acts as an efficient docking site for HIV-1 (Cambi et al. J. Cell. Biol., 2004; Wu & KewalRamani Nat. Rev. Immunol., 2006). However, a detailed investigation of these possible mechanisms is beyond the scope of this manuscript.

• For Direct link between clustering and infection efficiency - Test whether disruption of CXCR4 clustering (e.g., using actin cytoskeleton inhibitors, membrane lipid perturbants, or clustering-deficient mutants) alters HIV-1 fusion or infection efficiency*.

Designing experiments using tools that disrupt receptor clustering by interacting with the receptors themselves is difficult and challenging, as these tools bind the receptor and can therefore alter parameters such as its conformation and/or its distribution at the cell membrane, as well as affect some cellular processes such as HIV-1 attachment and cell entry. Moreover, effects on actin polymerization or lipids dynamics can affect not only receptor clustering but also impact on other molecular mechanisms essential for efficient infection.

Many previous reports have, nonetheless, indirectly correlated receptor clustering with cell infection efficiency. Cholesterol plays a key role in the entry of several viruses. Its depletion in primary cells and cell lines has been shown to confer strong resistance to HIV-1-mediated syncytium formation and infection by both CXCR4- and CCR5-tropic viruses (Liao et al. AIDS Res. Hum. Retrovisruses, 2021). Moderate cholesterol depletion also reduces CXCL12-induced CXCR4 oligomerization and alters receptor dynamics (Gardeta et al. Cell. Commun. Signal., 2025). By restricting the lateral diffusion of CD4, sphingomyelinase treatment inhibits HIV-1 fusion (Finnegan et al. J. Virol., 2007). Depletion of sphingomyelins also disrupts CXCL12-mediated CXCR4 oligomerization and its lateral diffusion (Gardeta et al. Front Immunol., 2022). Additional reports highlight the role of actin polymerization at the viral entry site, which facilitates clustering of HIV-1 receptors, a crucial step for membrane fusion (Serrano et al. Biol. Cell., 2023). Blockade of actin dynamics by Latrunculin A treatment, a drug that sequesters actin monomers and prevents its polymerization, blocks CXCL12-induced CXCR4 dynamics and oligomerization (Martínez-Muñoz et al. Mol. Cell, 2018).

Altogether, these findings strongly support our hypothesis of a direct link between CXCR4 clustering and the efficiency of HIV-1 infection.

• CD4/CXCR4 co-endocytosis hypothesis - Support the proposed model with direct evidence from live-cell imaging or co-localization experiments during viral entry. Clarification is needed on whether internalization is simultaneous or sequential for CD4 and CXCR4.*

When referring to endocytosis of CD4 and CXCR4, we only hypothesized that HIV-1 might promote the internalization of both receptors either sequentially or simultaneously. The hypothesis was based in several findings:

1) Previous studies have suggested that HIV-1 glycoproteins can reduce CD4 and CXCR4 levels during HIV-1 entry (Choi et al. Virol. J., 2008; Geleziunas et al. FASEB J, 1994; Hubert et al. Eur. J. Immunol., 1995).

2) Receptor endocytosis has been proposed as a mechanism for HIV-1 entry (Daecke et al. J. Virol., 2005; Aggarwal et al.Traffick, 2017; Miyauchi et al. Cell, 2009; Carter et al. Virology, 2011).

3) Our data from cells activated with X4-gp120 demonstrated internalization of CD4 and chemokine receptors, which correlated with HIV-1 infection in PBMCs from WHIM patients and healthy donors.

4) CD4 and CXCR4 have been shown to co-localize in lipid rafts during HIV-1 infection (Manes et al. EMBO Rep., 2000; Popik et al. J. Virol., 2002)

5) Our FRET data demonstrated that CD4 and CXCR4 form heterocomplexes and that FRET efficiency increased after gp120-VLPs treatment.

We agree with the reviewer that further experiments are required to test this hypothesis, however, we believe that this is beyond the scope of the current manuscript.

Minor Comments:

• The conclusions rely solely on the HXB2 X4-tropic Env. It would strengthen the study to assess whether other X4 or dual-tropic strains induce similar receptor clustering and dynamics.*

The primary goal of our current study was to investigate the dynamics of the co-receptor CXCR4 during HIV-1 infection, motivated by previous reports showing CD4 oligomerization upon HIV-1 binding and gp120 stimulation (Yuan et al.Viruses, 2021). We initially used a recombinant X4-gp120, a soluble protein that does not fully replicate the functional properties of the native HIV-1 Env. Previous studies have shown that Env consists of gp120 trimers, which redistribute and cluster on the surface of virions following proteolytic Gag cleavage during maturation (Chojnacki et al. Nat. Commun., 2017). An important consideration in receptor oligomerization studies is the concentration of recombinant gp120 used, as it does not accurately reflect the low number of Env trimers present on native HIV-1 particles (Hart et al. J. Histochem. Cytochem., 1993; Zhu et al. Nature, 2006). To address these limitations, we generated virus-like particles (VLPs) containing low levels of X4-gp120 and repeated the dynamic analysis of CXCR4. The use of primary HIV-1 isolates was limited, in this project, to confirm that PBMCs from both healthy donors and WHIM patients were equally susceptible to infection. This result using a primary HIV-1 virus supports the conclusion drawn from our in vitroapproaches. We thus believe that although the use of other X4- and dual-tropic strains may complement and reinforce the analysis, it is far beyond the scope of the current manuscript.

• Given the observed clustering effects, it would be valuable to explore whether gp120-induced rearrangements alter epitope exposure to broadly neutralizing antibodies like 17b or 3BNC117. This would help connect the mechanistic insights to therapeutic relevance.*

As 3BNC117, VRC01 and b12 are broadly neutralizing mAbs that recognize conformational epitopes on gp120 (Li et al. J. Virol., 2011; Mata-Fink et al. J. Mol. Biol., 2013), they will struggle to bind the gp120/CD4/CXCR4 complex and therefore may not be ideal for detecting changes within the CD4/CXCR4 complex. The experiment suggested by the reviewer is thus challenging but also very complex. It would require evaluating antibody binding in two experimental conditions, in the absence and in the presence of oligomers. However, our data indicate that receptor oligomerization is promoted by X4-gp120 binding, and the selected antibodies are neutralizing mAbs, so they should block or hinder the binding of gp120 and, consequently, receptor oligomerization. An alternative approach would be to study the neutralizing capacity of these mAbs on cells expressing CD4/CXCR4 or CD4/CXCR4R334X complexes. Variations in their neutralizing activity could be then extrapolated to distinct gp120 conformations, which in turn may reflect differences between CD4/CXCR4 and CD4/CXCR4R334X complexes.

We thus assessed the ability of the VRC01 and b12, anti-gp120 mAbs, which were available in our laboratory, to neutralize gp120 binding on cells expressing CD4/CXCR4 or CD4/CXCR4R334X. Specifically, increasing concentrations of each antibody were preincubated (60 min, 37ºC) with a fixed amount of X4-gp120 (0.05 mg/ml). The resulting complexes were then incubated with Jurkat cells expressing CD4/CXCR4 or CD4/CXCR4R334X (30 min, 37ºC) and, finally, their binding was analyzed by flow cytometry. Although we did not observe statistically significant differences in the neutralization capacity of b12 or VRC01 for the binding of X4-gp120 depending on the presence of CXCR4 or CXCR4334X, we observed a trend for greater concentrations of both mAbs to neutralize X4-gp120 binding in Jurkat CD4/CXCR4 cells than in Jurkat CD4/CXCR4R334X cells (Figure IX, only for review purposes).

These slight alterations in the neutralizing capacity of b12 and VRC01 mAbs may thus suggest minimal differences in the conformations of gp120 depending of the coreceptor used. We also detected that X4-gp120 and VLPs expressing gp120, which require initial binding to CD4 to engage the chemokine receptor, stabilized oligomers of both CXCR4 and CXCR4R334X, but FRET data indicated distinct FRET50 values between the partners, (2.713) for CD4/CXCR4 and (0.399) for CD4/CXCR4R334X (Figure 5A,B in the main manuscript). Moreover, we also detected significantly more CD4 internalization mediated by X4-gp120 in cells co-expressing CD4 and CXCR4 than in those co-expressing CD4 and CXCR4R334X (Figure 6 in the main manuscript). Overall these latter data and those included in Figures V, VI and VII of this reply, indicate distinct conformations within each receptor complexes.

• TIRF imaging limits analysis to the cell substrate interface. It would be useful to clarify whether CXCR4 receptor clustering occurs elsewhere, such as at immunological synapses or during cell-to-cell contact.*

In recent years, chemokine receptor oligomerization has gained significant research interest due to its role in modulating the ability of cells to sense chemoattractant gradients. This molecular organization is now recognized as a critical factor in governing directed cell migration (Martínez-Muñoz et al. Mol. Cell, 2018; García-Cuesta et al. PNAS, 2022, Hauser et al.Immunity, 2016). In addition, advanced imaging techniques such as single-molecule and super-resolution microscopy have been used to investigate the spatial distribution and dynamic behaviour of CXCR4 within the immunological synapse in T cells (Felce et al. Front. Cell Dev. Biol., 2020). Building on these findings, we are currently conducting a project focused on characterizing CXCR4 clustering specifically within this specialized cellular region.

• In LVP experiments, it would be useful to report transduction efficiency (% GFP+ cells) alongside MSI data to relate VLP infectivity with receptor clustering functionally.*

These experiments were designed to validate the functional integrity of the gp120 conformation on the LVPs, confirming their suitability for subsequent TIRF microscopy. Our objective was to establish a robust experimental tool rather than to perform a high-throughput quantification of transduction efficiency. It is for that reason that these experiments were included in new Supplementary Figure S6, which also contains the complete characterization of gp120-VLPs and LVPs. In such experimental conditions, quantifying the percentage of GFP-positive cells relative to the total number of cells plated in each well is very difficult. However, in line with the reviewer's commentary and as we used the same number of cells in each experimental condition, we have included, in the revised manuscript, a complementary graph illustrating the GFP intensity (arbitrary units) detected in all the wells analyzed (new Supplementary Fig. 6E).

• To ensure that differences in fusion events (Figure 7B) are attributable to target cell receptor properties, consider confirming that effector cells express similar levels of HIV-1 Env. Quantifying gp120 expression by flow cytometry or western blot would rule out the confounding effects of variable Env surface density.*

In these assays (Figure 7B), we used the same effector cells (cells expressing X4-gp120) in both experimental conditions, ensuring that any observed differences should be attributable solely to the target cells, either JKCD4X4 or JKCD4X4R334X. For this reason, in Figure 7A we included only the binding of X4-gp120 to the target cells which demonstrated similar levels of the receptors expressed by the cells.

• HIV-mediated receptor downregulation may occur more slowly than ligand-induced internalization. Including a 24-hour time point would help assess whether gp120 induces delayed CD4 or CXCR4 loss beyond the early effects shown and to better capture potential delayed downregulation induced by gp120.*

The reviewer suggests using a 24-hour time point to facilitate detection of receptor internalization. However, such an extended incubation time may introduce some confounding factors, including receptor degradation, recycling and even de novo synthesis, which could affect the interpretation of the results. Under our experimental conditions, we observed that CXCL12 did not trigger CD4 internalization whereas X4-gp120 did. Interestingly, CD4 internalization depended on the co-receptor expressed by the cells.

• Increase label font size in microscopy panels for improved readability.*

Of course; the font size of these panels has been increased in the revised version.

• Consider adding more references on ligand-induced co-endocytosis of CD4 and chemokine receptors during HIV-1 entry.*

We have added more references to support this hypothesis (Toyoda et al. J. Virol., 2015; Venzke et al. J. Virol., 2006; Gobeil et al J. Virol., 2013).

• For Statistical analysis. Biological replicates are adequate, and statistical tests are generally appropriate. For transparency, report n values, exact p-values, and the statistical test used in every figure legend and discussed in the results.*

Thank you for highlighting the importance of transparency in statistical reporting. We confirm that the n values for all experiments have been included in the figure legends. The statistical tests used for each analysis are also clearly indicated in the figure legends, and the interpretation of these results is discussed in detail in the Results section. Furthermore, the Methods section specifies the tests applied and the thresholds for significance, ensuring full transparency regarding our analytical approach.

In accordance with established conventions in the field, we have utilized categorical significance indicators (e.g., n.s., *, **, ***) within our figures to enhance readability and focus on biological trends. This approach is widely adopted in high-impact literature to prevent visual clutter. However, to ensure full transparency and reproducibility, we have ensured that the underlying statistical tests and thresholds are clearly defined in the respective figure legends and Methods section.

Reviewer #4

We thank the reviewer for considering that this work is presented in a clear fashion, and the main findings are properly highlighted, and for remarking that the paper is of interest to the retrovirology community and possibly to the broader virology community.

We also agree on the interest that X4-gp120 clusters CXCR4R334X suggests a different binding mechanism for X4-gp120 from that of the natural ligand CXCL12, an aspect that we are now evaluating. These data also indicate that WHIM patients can be infected by HIV-1 similarly to healthy people.

• The observation that "empty VLPs" reduce CXCR4 diffusivity is potentially interesting. However, it is not supported by the data owing to insufficient controls. The authors correctly discuss the limitations of that observation in the Discussion section (lines 702-704). However, they overinterpret the observation in the Results section (lines 509-512), suggesting non-specific interactions between empty VLPs, CD4 and CXCR4. I suggest either removing the sentence from the Results section or replacing it with a sentence similar to the one in the Discussion section.*

In accordance with the reviewer`s suggestion, the sentence in the result section has been replaced with one similar to that found in the discussion section. In addition, we have performed Raster Image Correlation Spectroscopy (RICS) analysis using the Di-4-ANEPPDHQ lipid probe to assess membrane fluidity by means of membrane diffusion, and compared the results with those of cells treated with Env(-) VLPs. The results indicated that VLPs did not modulate membrane fluidity (Figure VIII in this reply). Nonetheless, these results do not rule out other potential non-specific interactions of the Env(-) VLPs with other components of the cell membrane that might affect receptor dynamics (see our response to point 2 of reviewer #3 p. 14-15 of this reply).

• In the case of the WHIM mutant CXCR4-R334X, the addition of "empty VLPs" did not cause a significant change in the diffusivity of CXCR4-R334X (Figure 4B). This result is in contrast with the addition of empty VLPs to WT CXCR4. However, the authors neither mention nor comment on that result in the results section. Please mention the result in the paper and comment on it in relation to the addition of empty VLPs to WT CXCR4.*

We would remark that the main observation in these experiments should focus on the effect of gp120-VLPs, and the results indicates that gp120-VLPs promoted clustering of CXCR4 and of CXCR4R334X and reduced their diffusion at the cell membrane. The Env(- ) VLPs were included as a negative control in the experiments, to compare the data with those obtained using gp120-VLPs. However, once we observed some residual effect of the Env(-) VLPs, we decided to give a potential explanation, formulated as a hypothesis, that the Env(-) VLPs modulated membrane fluidity. We have now performed a RICS analysis using Di-4-ANEPPDHQ as a lipid probe (Figure IX only for review purposes). The results suggest that Env(-) VLPs do not modulate cell membrane fluidity, although we do not rule out other potential interactions with membrane proteins that might alter receptor dynamics. We appreciate the reviewer's observation and agree that this result can be noted. However, since the main purpose of Figure 4B is to show that gp120-VLPs modulate the dynamics of CXCR4R334X rather than to remark that the Env(-) VLPs also have some effects, we consider that a detailed discussion of this specific aspect would detract from the central finding and may dilute the primary narrative of the study.

Minor comments

• It would be helpful for the reader to combine thematically or experimentally linked figures, e.g., Figures 3 and 4.*

• Figures 3 and 4 are very similar. Please unify the colours in them and the order of the panels (e.g. Figure 3 panel A shows diffusivity of CXCR4, while Figure 4 panel A shows MSI of CXCR4-R334X).*

While we considered consolidating Figures 3 and 4, we believe that maintaining them as separate entities enhances conceptual clarity. Since Figure 3 establishes the baseline dynamics for wild-type CXCR4 and Figure 4 details the distinct behavior of the CXCR4R334X mutant, keeping them separate allows the reader to fully appreciate the specificities of each system before making a cross-comparison.

• Some parts of the Discussion section could be shortened, moved to the Introduction (e.g.,lines 648-651), or entirely removed (e.g.,lines 633-635 about GPCRs).*

In accordance, the Discussion section has been reorganized and shortened to improve clarity.

• I suggest renaming "empty VLPs" to "Env(−) VLPs" (or similar). The name empty VLPs can mislead the reader into thinking that these are empty vesicles.*

The term empty VLPs has been renamed to Env(−) VLPs throughout the manuscript to more accurately reflect their composition. Many thanks for this suggestion.

• Line 492 - please rephrase "...lower expression of Env..." to "...lower expression of Env or its incorporation into the VLPs...".*

The sentence has been rephrased

• Line 527 - The data on CXCL12 modulating CXCR4-R334X dynamics and clustering are not present in Figure 4 (or any other Figure). Please add them or rephrase the sentence with an appropriate reference. Make clear which results are yours.*

• Line 532 - Do the data in the paper really support a model in which CXCL12 binds to CXCR4-R334X? If not, please rephrase with an appropriate reference.*

Previous studies support the association of CXCL12 with CXCR4R334X (Balabanian et al. Blood, 2005; Hernandez et al. Nat Genet., 2003; Busillo & Benovic Biochim. Biophys. Acta, 2007). In fact, this receptor has been characterized as a gain-of-function variant for this ligand (McDermott et al. J. Cell. Mol. Med., 2011). The revised manuscript now includes these bibliographic references to support this commentary. In any case, our previous data indicate that CXCL12 binding does not affect CXCR4R334X dynamics (García-Cuesta et al. PNAS, 2022).

• Line 695 - "...lipid rafts during HIV-1 (missing word?) and their ability to..." During what?*

Many thanks for catching this mistake. The sentence now reads: "Although direct evidence for the internalization of CD4 and CXCR4 as complexes is lacking, their co-localization in lipid rafts during HIV-1 infection (97-99) and their ability to form heterocomplexes (22) strongly suggest they could be endocytosed together."

Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Referee #4

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

This paper provides new insights into the organisational changes of the X4-tropic HIV-1 co-receptor CXCR4 upon binding of the viral receptor-binding protein X4-gp120, either in its soluble form or when displayed on virus-like particles (VLPs) as Env. The study employs single-particle tracking total internal reflection fluorescence (SPT-TIRF) microscopy to quantify the dynamics and clustering of CXCR4 on CD4+ T cells. The data show that CXCR4 clusters in the presence of X4-gp120 and VLPs, a phenomenon also observed for the primary HIV-1 receptor CD4. The authors also show that a WHIM mutant of CXCR4 (CXCR4-R334X) that does not cluster in the presence of its natural ligand, CXCL12, clusters in the presence of X4-gp120 and VLPs.

The following points should be clarified or improved prior to publication:

Major comments:

1. The observation that "empty VLPs" reduce CXCR4 diffusivity is potentially interesting. However, it is not supported by the data owing to insufficient controls. The authors correctly discuss the limitations of that observation in the Discussion section (lines 702-704). However, they overinterpret the observation in the Results section (lines 509-512), suggesting non-specific interactions between empty VLPs, CD4 and CXCR4. I suggest either removing the sentence from the Results section or replacing it with a sentence similar to the one in the Discussion section.
2. In the case of the WHIM mutant CXCR4-R334X, the addition of "empty VLPs" did not cause a significant change in the diffusivity of CXCR4-R334X (Figure 4B). This result is in contrast with the addition of empty VLPs to WT CXCR4. However, the authors neither mention nor comment on that result in the results section. Please mention the result in the paper and comment on it in relation to the addition of empty VLPs to WT CXCR4.

Minor comments:

1. It would be helpful for the reader to combine thematically or experimentally linked figures, e.g., Figures 3 and 4.
2. Figures 3 and 4 are very similar. Please unify the colours in them and the order of the panels (e.g. Figure 3 panel A shows diffusivity of CXCR4, while Figure 4 panel A shows MSI of CXCR4-R334X).
3. Some parts of the Discussion section could be shortened, moved to the Introduction (e.g., lines 648-651), or entirely removed (e.g., lines 633-635 about GPCRs).
4. I suggest renaming "empty VLPs" to "Env(−) VLPs" (or similar). The name empty VLPs can mislead the reader into thinking that these are empty vesicles.
5. Line 492 - please rephrase "...lower expression of Env..." to "...lower expression of Env or its incorporation into the VLPs...".
6. Line 527 - The data on CXCL12 modulating CXCR4-R334X dynamics and clustering are not present in Figure 4 (or any other Figure). Please add them or rephrase the sentence with an appropriate reference. Make clear which results are yours.
7. Line 532 - Do the data in the paper really support a model in which CXCL12 binds to CXCR4-R334X? If not, please rephrase with an appropriate reference.
8. Line 695 - "...lipid rafts during HIV-1 (missing word?) and their ability to..." During what?

Significance

In summary, the work is presented in a clear fashion, and the main findings are properly highlighted. The paper is of interest to the retrovirology community and possibly to the broader virology community. The findings are not entirely surprising because it has been shown previously that the binding of Env to CD4 mediates CD4 clustering, which would also suggest clustering of the co-receptor. Nonetheless, the paper provides strong evidence that CXCR4 clusters and changes its dynamics in the presence of CD4 and X4-gp120. Moreover, the evidence that X4-gp120 clusters CXCR4-R334X is of high interest because it suggests a different binding mechanism for X4-gp120 from that of the natural ligand CXCL12, raising questions for further research. The diffusivity data with empty VLPs require additional controls to strengthen the evidence. My expertise is in virology and structural biology. I did not comment on the technical aspects of the light-microscopy experiments in the study because these are beyond my expertise.

Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Referee #3

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

The author investigates how the HIV-1 Env glycoprotein modulates the nanoscale organisation and dynamics of the CXCR4 co-receptor on CD4⁺ T cells. The author demonstrates that HIV-1 Env induces CXCR4 clustering distinct from that triggered by its natural ligand (CXCL12), implicating spatial receptor organization as a determinant of infection. This study investigates how HIV-1 Env (specifically X4-tropic gp120) alters the membrane organization and dynamics of the chemokine receptor CXCR4 and its WHIM-associated mutant, CXCR4R334X, in a CD4-dependent manner. Using single-particle tracking total internal reflection fluorescence microscopy (SPT-TIRF-M), the authors demonstrate that both soluble gp120 and virus-like particles (VLPs) displaying gp120 induce CXCR4 nanoclustering, reduce receptor diffusivity, and promote immobile nanoclusters of CXCR4 at the membrane of Jurkat T cells and primary CD4⁺ T cell blasts.The work offers new insights into the spatial organisation of receptors during HIV-1 entry and infection. The manuscript is well-written, and the findings are significant.

Major Comments: 1. For mechanistic basis of gp120-CXCR4 versus CXCL12-CXCR4 differences

Provide additional structural or biochemical evidence to support the claim that gp120 stabilises a distinct CXCR4 conformation compared to CXCL12.

If feasible, include molecular modelling, mutagenesis, or cross-linking experiments to corroborate the proposed conformational differences. 2. For Empty VLP effects on CXCR4 dynamics

Explore potential causes for the observed effects of Env-deficient VLPs. It's valuable to include additional controls such as particles from non-producer cells, lipid composition analysis, or blocking experiments to assess nonspecific interactions. 3. For Direct link between clustering and infection efficiency - Test whether disruption of CXCR4 clustering (e.g., using actin cytoskeleton inhibitors, membrane lipid perturbants, or clustering-deficient mutants) alters HIV-1 fusion or infection efficiency. 4. CD4/CXCR4 co-endocytosis hypothesis - Support the proposed model with direct evidence from live-cell imaging or co-localization experiments during viral entry. Clarification is needed on whether internalization is simultaneous or sequential for CD4 and CXCR4.

Minor Comments: 1. The conclusions rely solely on the HXB2 X4-tropic Env. It would strengthen the study to assess whether other X4 or dual-tropic strains induce similar receptor clustering and dynamics. 2. Given the observed clustering effects, it would be valuable to explore whether gp120-induced rearrangements alter epitope exposure to broadly neutralizing antibodies like 17b or 3BNC117. This would help connect the mechanistic insights to therapeutic relevance. 3 . TIRF imaging limits analysis to the cell substrate interface. It would be useful to clarify whether CXCR4 receptor clustering occurs elsewhere, such as at immunological synapses or during cell-to-cell contact. 4. In LVP experiments, it would be useful to report transduction efficiency (% GFP+ cells) alongside MSI data to relate VLP infectivity with receptor clustering functionally. 5. To ensure that differences in fusion events (Figure 7B) are attributable to target cell receptor properties, consider confirming that effector cells express similar levels of HIV-1 Env. Quantifying gp120 expression by flow cytometry or western blot would rule out the confounding effects of variable Env surface density 6. HIV-mediated receptor downregulation may occur more slowly than ligand-induced internalization. Including a 24-hour time point would help assess whether gp120 induces delayed CD4 or CXCR4 loss beyond the early effects shown and to better capture potential delayed downregulation induced by gp120. 7. Increase label font size in microscopy panels for improved readability. 8. Consider adding more references on ligand-induced co-endocytosis of CD4 and chemokine receptors during HIV-1 entry. For Statistical analysis. Biological replicates are adequate, and statistical tests are generally appropriate. For transparency, report n values, exact p-values, and the statistical test used in every figure legend and discussed in the results.

Referee cross-commenting

Overall, the manuscript provides compelling mechanistic insight into HIV-1 entry by demonstrating Env-induced CXCR4 clustering, including in WHIM mutant receptors. While the core findings are well supported and of high interest, clarifications regarding Env trimer densities, receptor internalization, and the contribution of empty VLPs would further strengthen the work.

Significance

Nature and significance of the advance

This work marks a conceptual and mechanistic breakthrough in understanding HIV-1 entry. It goes beyond the static view of Env-co-receptor interaction to show that nanoscale reorganization of CXCR4, distinct from chemokine-induced clustering, occurs during HIV-1 Env engagement and may be essential for infection Context within existing literature. Previous studies established Env-induced CD4 clustering (Yin et al., 2020) and chemokine-induced CXCR4 nanocluster formation (Martínez-Muñoz et al., 2018), but the exact nanoscale rearrangement of CXCR4 in the context of HIV-1 Env and physiological Env densities remains unquantified. This study addresses this gap using SPT-TIRF, STED microscopy, and functional assays.

Audience and influence

The findings will be of interest to researchers in HIV virology, membrane receptor biology, viral entry mechanisms, and therapeutic target development. The receptor-clustering aspect could also influence broader fields of study, such as GPCR organization and immune receptor signalling.

Reviewer expertise

I can evaluate HIV-1 entry mechanisms, viral glycoprotein-host-host-host receptor interactions, single-molecule fluorescence microscopy, and membrane protein dynamics. I am less equipped to evaluate the deep structural modelling aspects, though the in silico AlphaFold results are straightforward to interpret in context.

Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

Referee #1

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

The authors investigate the impact of surface bound HIV gp120 and VLPs on CXCR4 dynamics in Jurkat T cells expressing WT or WHIM syndrome mutated CXCR4, which has a defective response to CXCL12. Jurkat cells were transfected with CXCR4-AcGFP. Images were acquired and a single particle tracking routine was applied to generate information about nanoclustering and diffusion, and FRET was used to investigate CD4-CXCR4 proximity. They compare effects of soluble gp120 to immature and mature VLPs, which include varying degrees of gp120 clustering. They find that solid phase gp120 or VLP can increase CXCR4 clustering size and decrease diffusion in Jurkat cells. Surprisingly, VLP lacking gp120 could increase CXCR4 clustering and speed, which is paradoxical as there were no known ligands on the VLPs, but they likely carry many cellular proteins with potential interactions. The impact of CXCL12 and gp120 binding to CXCR4 was different in terms of clustering and receptor down-regulation.

While a single particle tracking routine was applied to the data, it's not clear how the signal from a single GFP was defined and if movement during the 100 ms acquisition time impacts this. My concern would be that the routine is tracking fluctuations, and these are related to single particle dynamics, it appears from the movies that the density or the GFP tagged receptors in the cells is too high to allow clear tracking of single molecules. SPT with GFP is very difficult due to bleaching and relatively low quantum yield. Current efforts in this direction that are more successful include using SNAP tags with very photostable organic fluorophores. The data likely does mean something is happening with the receptor, but they need to be more conservative about the interpretation.

Some of the paradoxical effects might be better understood through deeper analysis of the SPT data, particularly investigation of active transport and more detailed analysis of "immobile" objects. Comments on early figures illustrate how this could be approached. This would require selecting acquisitions where the GFP density is low enough for SPT and performing a more detailed analysis, but this may be difficult to do with GFP.

When the authors discuss clusters of <2 or >3, how do they calibrate the value of GFP and the impact of diffusion on the measurement. One way to approach this might be single molecules measurements of dilute samples on glass vs in a supported lipid bilayer to map the streams of true immobility to diffusion at >1 µm2/sec.

I understand that the CXCL12 or gp120 are attached to the substrate with fibronectin for adhesion. I'm less clear how how that VLPs are integrated. Were these added to cells already attached to FN? Fig 1A- The classification of particle tracks into mobile and immobile is overly simplistic description that goes back to bulk FRAP measurements and it not really applicable to single molecule tracking data, where it's rare to see anything that is immobile and alive. An alternative classification strategy uses sub-diffusion, normal diffusion and active diffusion (or active transport) to descriptions and particles can transition between these classes over the tracking period. Fig 1B- this data might be better displayed as histograms showing distributions within the different movement classes. Fig 1C,D- It would be helpful to see a plot of D vs MSI at a single particle level. In comparing C and D I'm surprised there is not a larger difference between CXCL12 and X4-gp120. It would also be very important to see the behaviour of X4-gp120 on the CXCR4 deficient Jurkat that would provide a picture of CD4 diffusion. The CXCR4 nanoclustering related to the X4-gp120 could be dominated by CD4 behaviour.

Fig S1D- This data is really interesting. However, if both the CD4 and the gp120 have his tags they need to be careful as poly-His tags can bind weakly to cells and increasing valency could generate some background. So, they should make the control is fair here. Ideally, using non-his tagged person of sCD4 and gp120 would be needed ideal or they need a His-tagged Fab binding to gp120 that doesn't induce CXCR4 binding.

Fig S4- Panel D needs a scale bar. I can't figure out what I'm being shown without this.

Significance

The strengths are that its an important question and the reagents are well prepared and characterised. They are detecting quantitative effects that will likely be reproducible. The information generated is potentially useful for those studying HIV infection processes and strategies to prevent infection.

The major weakness is that the conditions for the SPT experiments are not ideal in that the density of particles is too high for SPT and the single molecule basis for assessing nanoclusters is not clear. This means that the data is getting at complex molecules phenomena and less likely be generating pure single molecules measurements.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This important study by Bohorquez et al examines the determinants necessary for concentrating the spatial modulator of cell division, MinD, at the future site of division and the cell poles. Proper localization of MinD is necessary to bring the division inhibitor, MinC, in proximity to the cell membrane and cell poles where it prevents aberrant assembly of the division machinery. In contrast to E. coli, in which MinD oscillates from pole-to-pole courtesy of a third protein MinE, how MinD localization is achieved in B. subtilis-which does not encode a MinE analog-has remained largely a mystery. The authors present compelling data indicating that MinD dimerization is dispensable for membrane localization but required for concentration at the cell poles. Dimerization is also important for interactions between MinD and MinC, leading to the formation of large protein complexes. Computational modeling, specifically a Monte Carlo simulation, supports a model in which differences in diffusion rates between MinD monomers and dimers lead to concentration of MinD at cell poles. Once there, interaction with MinC increases the size of the complex, further reinforcing diffusion differences. Notably, interactions with MinJ-which has previously been implicated in MinCD localization, are dispensable for concentrating MinD at cell poles although MinJ may help stabilize the MinCD complex at those locations.

[Editor's note: The editors and reviewers have no further comments and encourage the authors to proceed with a Version of Record.]

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the previous reviews

Public Review:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The authors used fluorescence microscopy, image analysis, and mathematical modeling to study the effects of membrane affinity and diffusion rates of MinD monomer and dimer states on MinD gradient formation in B. subtilis. To test these effects, the authors experimentally examined MinD mutants that lock the protein in specific states, including Apo monomer (K16A), ATP-bound monomer (G12V) and ATP-bound dimer (D40A, hydrolysis defective), and compared to wild-type MinD. Overall, the experimental results support the conclusions that reversible membrane binding of MinD is critical for the formation of the MinD gradient, but the binding affinities between monomers and dimers are similar.

The modeling part is a new attempt to use the Monte Carlo method to test the conditions for the formation of the MinD gradient in B. subtilis. The modeling results provide good support for the observations and find that the MinD gradient is sensitive to different diffusion rates between monomers and dimers. This simulation is based on several assumptions and predictions, which raises new questions that need to be addressed experimentally in the future.  

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This important study by Bohorquez et al examines the determinants necessary for concentrating the spatial modulator of cell division, MinD, at the future site of division and the cell poles. Proper localization of MinD is necessary to bring the division inhibitor, MinC, in proximity to the cell membrane and cell poles

where it prevents aberrant assembly of the division machinery. In contrast to E. coli, in which MinD 50 oscillates from pole-to-pole courtesy of a third protein MinE, how MinD localization is achieved in B. 51 subtilis-which does not encode a MinE analog-has remained largely a mystery. The authors present 52 compelling data indicating that MinD dimerization is dispensable for membrane localization but required 53 for concentration at the cell poles. Dimerization is also important for interactions between MinD and MinC, 54 leading to the formation of large protein complexes. Computational modeling, specifically a Monte Carlo 55 simulation, supports a model in which differences in diffusion rates between MinD monomers and dimers 56 lead to concentration of MinD at cell poles. Once there, interaction with MinC increases the size of the 57 complex, further reinforcing diffusion differences. Notably, interactions with MinJ-which has previously 58 been implicated in MinCD localization, are dispensable for concentrating MinD at cell poles although MinJ may help stabilize the MinCD complex at those locations.

Comments on revisions:  

I believe the authors put respectable effort into revisions and addressing reviewer comments, particularly 64      those that focused on the strengths of the original conclusions. The language in the current version of the manuscript is more precise and the overall product is stronger.  

We are happy to learn that the reviewer considers our manuscript ready for publication.  

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):  

The author has adequately answered the questions that were raised in my previous comments. There are only few minor revisions needed for improvement.  

Line 48−49: 'These proteins ensure that cell division occurs at midcell and not close to nascent division sites or cell poles'  

delete 'nascent division site'  

This has now been corrected as suggested.

Line 64−65: 'MinC inhibits polymerization of FtsZ by direct protein-protein interactions and needs to bind to the Walker A-type ATPase MinD for its recruitment to septa or the polar regions of the cell'

delete 'septa or', because MinD recruits MinC to the cell poles to block polar division, not septal formation.  

This has now been corrected as suggested.

Supplemental information:

Some parameters in Table S1 are missing definitions. If these parameters relate to terms described in the "Methods" section, please add the corresponding parameter symbols after the terms.  

We would like to thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have improved Table S1 and corrected the related parameters in the Methods section (lines 605-619).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript reports the high-resolution cryo-EM structures of the endogenous TolC-YbjP-AcrABZ complex and a TolC-YbjP subcomplex from E. coli, identifying a novel accessory subunit. This work is an impressive effort that provides valuable structural insights into this native complex.

Strengths:

(1) The study successfully determines the structure of the complete, endogenously purified complex, marking a significant achievement.

(2) The identification of a previously unknown accessory subunit is an important finding.

(3) The use of cryo-EM to resolve the complex, including potential post-translational modifications such as N-palmitoyl and S-diacylglycerol, is a notable highlight.

Weaknesses:

(1) Clarity and Interpretation: Several points need clarification. Additionally, the description of the sample preparation method, which is a key strength, is currently misplaced and should be introduced earlier.

(2) Data Presentation: The manuscript would benefit significantly from improved figures.

(3) Supporting Evidence: The inclusion of the protein purification profile as a supplementary figure is essential. Furthermore, a discussion comparing the endogenous AcrB structure to those obtained in other systems (e.g., liposomes) and commenting on observed lipid densities would strengthen the overall analysis.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript "Structural mechanisms of pump assembly and drug transport in the AcrAB-TolC efflux system" by Ge et al. describes the identification of a previously uncharacterized lipoprotein, YbjP, as a novel partner of the well-studied Enterobacterial tripartite efflux pump AcrAB-TolC. The authors present cryo-electron microscopy structures of the TolC-YbjP subcomplex and the complete AcrABZ-TolC-YbjP assembly. While the identification and structural characterization of YbjP are potentially novel, the stated focus of the manuscript-mechanisms of pump assembly and drug transport - is not sufficiently addressed. The manuscript requires reframing to emphasize the principal novelty associated with YbjP and significant development of the other aspects, especially the claimed novelty of the AcrB drug-efflux cycle.

Strengths:

The reported association of YbjP with AcrAB-TolC is novel; however, a recent deposition of a preceding and much more detailed manuscript to the BioRxiv server (Horne et al., https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.03.19.644130) removes much of the immediate novelty.

Weaknesses:

While the identification of YbjP is novel, the authors do not appear to acknowledge the precedence of another work (Horne et al., 2025), and it is not cited within the correct context in the manuscript.

Several results presented in the TolC-YbjP section do not represent new findings regarding TolC structure itself. The structure and gating behaviour of TolC should be more thoroughly introduced in the Introduction, including prior work describing channel opening and conformational transitions. The current manuscript does not discuss the mechanistic role of helices H3/H4 and H7/H8 in channel dilation, despite implying that YbjP binding may influence these features. Only the original closed TolC structure is cited, and the manuscript does not address prior mutational studies involving the D396 region, though this residue is specifically highlighted in the presented structures.

The manuscript provides only a general structural alignment between the closed TolC-YbjP subcomplex and the open TolC observed in the full pump assembly. However, multiple open, closed, and intermediate conformations of AcrAB-TolC have already been reported. Thus, YbjP alone cannot be assumed to account for TolC channel gating. A systematic comparison with existing structures is necessary to determine whether YbjP contributes any distinct allosteric modulation.

The analysis of AcrB peristaltic action is superficial, poorly substantiated and importantly, not novel. Several references to the ATP-synthase cycle have been provided, but this has been widely established already some 20 years ago - e.g. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1131542.

The most significant limitation of the study is the absence of functional characterization of YbjP in vivo or in vitro. While the structural association between YbjP and TolC is interesting, the biological role of YbjP remains unclear. Moreover, the manuscript does not examine structural differences between the presented complex and previously solved AcrAB-TolC or MexAB-OprM assemblies that might support a mechanistic model.

Author response:

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review): 

Summary: 

This manuscript investigates the biological mechanism underlying the assembly and transport of the AcrAB-TolC efflux pump complex. By combining endogenous protein purification with cryo-EM analysis, the authors show that the AcrB trimer adopts three distinct conformations simultaneously and identify a previously uncharacterized lipoprotein, YbjP, as a potential additional component of the complex. The work aims to advance our understanding of the AcrAB-TolC efflux system in near-native conditions and may have broader implications for elucidating its physiological mechanism. 

Strengths: 

Overall, the manuscript is clearly presented, and several of the datasets are of high quality. The use of natively isolated complexes is a major strength, as it minimizes artifacts associated with reconstituted systems and enables the discovery of a novel subunit. The authors also distinguish two major assemblies-the TolC-YbjP sub-complex and the complete pump-which appear to correspond to the closed and open channel states, respectively. The conceptual advance is potentially meaningful, and the findings could be of broad interest to the field. 

Weaknesses: 

(1) As the identification of YbjP is a key contribution of this work, a deeper comparison with functional "anchor" proteins in other efflux pumps is needed. Including an additional supplementary figure illustrating these structural comparisons would be valuable. 

We appreciate this helpful suggestion. We will expand the comparative analysis between YbjP and established anchoring or accessory components in other efflux pumps, and we will add a new supplementary figure illustrating these structural relationships.

(2) The observation of the LTO states in the presence of TolC represents an important extension of previous findings. A more detailed discussion comparing these LTO states to those reported in earlier structural and biochemical studies would improve the clarity and significance of this point. 

We agree. In the revised manuscript we will expand our discussion of the LTO conformations, including a direct comparison with previously reported structural and biochemical observations, to better contextualize the significance of our findings.

Reviewer #2 (Public review): 

Summary: 

This manuscript reports the high-resolution cryo-EM structures of the endogenous TolC-YbjP-AcrABZ complex and a TolC-YbjP subcomplex from E. coli, identifying a novel accessory subunit. This work is an impressive effort that provides valuable structural insights into this native complex. 

Strengths: 

(1) The study successfully determines the structure of the complete, endogenously purified complex, marking a significant achievement. 

(2) The identification of a previously unknown accessory subunit is an important finding. 

(3) The use of cryo-EM to resolve the complex, including potential post-translational modifications such as N-palmitoyl and S-diacylglycerol, is a notable highlight. 

Weaknesses: 

(1) Clarity and Interpretation: Several points need clarification. Additionally, the description of the sample preparation method, which is a key strength, is currently misplaced and should be introduced earlier. 

Thank you for pointing this out. We will reorganize the text to introduce the sample preparation strategy earlier and clarify the points that may cause ambiguity.

(2) Data Presentation: The manuscript would benefit significantly from improved figures. 

We agree and will revise the figures to improve clarity, consistency, and readability. Additional schematic illustrations will also be included where appropriate.

(3) Supporting Evidence: The inclusion of the protein purification profile as a supplementary figure is essential. Furthermore, a discussion comparing the endogenous AcrB structure to those obtained in other systems (e.g., liposomes) and commenting on observed lipid densities would strengthen the overall analysis. 

We appreciate these suggestions. We will add the purification profile and expand the comparison between our endogenous AcrB structure and previously reported structures from reconstituted systems, including a more detailed discussion of lipid densities.

Reviewer #3 (Public review): 

Summary: 

The manuscript "Structural mechanisms of pump assembly and drug transport in the AcrAB-TolC efflux system" by Ge et al. describes the identification of a previously uncharacterized lipoprotein, YbjP, as a novel partner of the well-studied Enterobacterial tripartite efflux pump AcrAB-TolC. The authors present cryo-electron microscopy structures of the TolC-YbjP subcomplex and the complete AcrABZ-TolC-YbjP assembly. While the identification and structural characterization of YbjP are potentially novel, the stated focus of the manuscript-mechanisms of pump assembly and drug transport - is not sufficiently addressed. The manuscript requires reframing to emphasize the principal novelty associated with YbjP and significant development of the other aspects, especially the claimed novelty of the AcrB drug-efflux cycle. 

Strengths: 

The reported association of YbjP with AcrAB-TolC is novel; however, a recent deposition of a preceding and much more detailed manuscript to the BioRxiv server (Horne et al., https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.03.19.644130) removes much of the immediate novelty. 

Weaknesses: 

While the identification of YbjP is novel, the authors do not appear to acknowledge the precedence of another work (Horne et al., 2025), and it is not cited within the correct context in the manuscript. 

We thank the reviewer for rasising this important point regarding the independent nature of our work.

Our study indeed progressed independently. The process began with our purification of an endogenous protein sample containing the AcrAB-TolC efflux pump. During our cryo-EM analysis, we observed an unassigned density in the map, for which we built a preliminary main-chain model. A subsequent search of structural databases, including AlphaFold predictions, allowed us to identify this density as the protein YbjP. It was only after this identification that we became aware of the related preprint by Horne et al. on BioRxvi (Posted March 19, 2025).

Therefore, our structural determination of YbjP was conducted entirely independently. We fully acknowledge and respect the work by Horne et al. and have already cited their reprint in our manuscript. While their detailed structural data, maps, and coordinates are not yet publicly available, we have described their findings appropriately. We agree that our manuscript can better reflect this context and will carefully check for any missing citations to ensure that their contribution is properly and clearly acknowledged.

We also believe that the two studies are mutually complementary and collectively reinforce the emerging understanding of YbjP.

Several results presented in the TolC-YbjP section do not represent new findings regarding TolC structure itself.

We agree that the TolC features we describe are consistent with previously reported structural characteristics. However, these observations could only be confirmed in the context of the newly determined TolC–YbjP subcomplex, which was not available prior to this study. We will clarify this point in the revision to avoid overstating novelty.

The structure and gating behaviour of TolC should be more thoroughly introduced in the Introduction, including prior work describing channel opening and conformational transitions.

We appreciate this suggestion and agree that a more comprehensive overview of TolC gating and conformational transitions will strengthen the Introduction. We will revise the text to incorporate relevant prior structural and functional studies.

The current manuscript does not discuss the mechanistic role of helices H3/H4 and H7/H8 in channel dilation, despite implying that YbjP binding may influence these features.

Thank you for this comment. The primary novel contributions of this manuscript are the identification of YbjP and the structural characterization of AcrB in three distinct states. The discussion of the dilation mechanism, while included because we observed the closed TolC-YbjP state, is a secondary point. In the revised manuscript, we will expand this discussion as suggested.

Only the original closed TolC structure is cited, and the manuscript does not address prior mutational studies involving the D396 region, though this residue is specifically highlighted in the presented structures. 

We appreciate the reviewer drawing attention to this oversight. We will add citations to the relevant mutational and mechanistic studies, including those involving the D396 region, and more clearly discuss these findings in relation to our structural observations.

The manuscript provides only a general structural alignment between the closed TolC-YbjP subcomplex and the open TolC observed in the full pump assembly. However, multiple open, closed, and intermediate conformations of AcrAB-TolC have already been reported. Thus, YbjP alone cannot be assumed to account for TolC channel gating. A systematic comparison with existing structures is necessary to determine whether YbjP contributes any distinct allosteric modulation. 

We agree with the reviewer’s assessment and appreciate the constructive suggestion. In our revised manuscript, we will expand the structural comparison to include previously reported open, closed, and intermediate AcrAB–TolC conformations. This expanded analysis will more clearly position our findings within the existing structural framework.

The analysis of AcrB peristaltic action is superficial, poorly substantiated and importantly, not novel. Several references to the ATP-synthase cycle have been provided, but this has been widely established already some 20 years ago - e.g. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1131542. 

We thank the reviewer for this comment. We fully acknowledge the foundational studies that established the AcrB functional cycle and its analogy to the ATP-synthase mechanism. While previous work indeed defined the LTO (Loose, Tight, Open) cycle of AcrB, those structures were obtained using AcrB in isolation. In contrast, our endogenous sample, which includes the native constraints of AcrA from above and the presence of AcrZ, reveals conformational changes in the transmembrane and porter domains that differ from those previously reported. We interpret these differences as reflecting a more physiologically relevant mechanism. In our revision, we will provide a detailed discussion to contextualize these distinctions within the existing literature.

The most significant limitation of the study is the absence of functional characterization of YbjP in vivo or in vitro. While the structural association between YbjP and TolC is interesting, the biological role of YbjP remains unclear.

We agree that the lack of functional characterization is a limitation of the present work. Our study focuses on structural elucidation and structural analysis. Although the recent preprint you mentioned suggests that YbjP deletion may not produce a strong phenotype, we are still interested in conducting additional experiments to explore its potential roles in future work. We will revise the text to clearly acknowledge this limitation.

Moreover, the manuscript does not examine structural differences between the presented complex and previously solved AcrAB-TolC or MexAB-OprM assemblies that might support a mechanistic model.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We will incorporate a more detailed comparative analysis with existing AcrAB–TolC and MexAB–OprM structures and highlight similarities and differences that may inform mechanistic interpretation.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Lu and colleagues demonstrates convincingly that PRRT2 interacts with brain voltage-gated sodium channels to enhance slow inactivation in vitro and in vivo. The work is interesting and rigorously conducted. The relevance to normal physiology and disease pathophysiology (e.g., PRRT2-related genetic neurodevelopmental disorders) seems high. Some simple additional experiments could elevate the impact and make the study more complete.

Strengths:

Experiments are conducted rigorously, including experimenter blinding and appropriate controls. Data presentation is excellent and logical. The paper is well written for a general scientific audience.

Weaknesses:

There are a few missing experiments and one place where data are over-interpreted.

(1) An in vitro study of Nav1.6 is conspicuously absent. In addition to being a major brain Na channel, Nav1.6 is predominant in cerebellar Purkinje neurons, which the authors note lack PRRT2 expression. They speculate that the absence of PRRT2 in these neurons facilitates the high firing rate. This hypothesis would be strengthened if PRRT2 also enhanced slow inactivation of Nav1.6. If a stable Nav1.6 cell were not available, then simple transient co-transfection experiments would suffice.

(2) To further demonstrate the physiological impact of enhanced slow inactivation, the authors should consider a simple experiment in the stable cell line experiments (Figure 1) to test pulse frequency dependence of peak Na current. One would predict that PRRT2 expression will potentiate 'run down' of the channels, and this finding would be complementary to the biophysical data.

(3) The study of one K channel is limited, and the conclusion from these experiments represents an over-interpretation. I suggest removing these data unless many more K channels (ideally with measurable proxies for slow inactivation) were tested. These data do not contribute much to the story.

(4) In Figure 2, the authors should confirm that protein is indeed expressed in cells expressing each truncated PRRT2 construct. Absent expression should be ruled out as an explanation for absent enhancement of slow inactivation.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

As a member of DspB subfamily, PRRT2 is primarily expressed in the nervous system and has been associated with various paroxysmal neurological disorders. Previous studies have shown that PRRT2 directly interacts with Nav1.2 and Nav1.6, modulating channel properties and neuronal excitability.

In this study, Lu et al. reported that PRRT2 is a physiological regulator of Nav channel slow inactivation, promoting the development of Nav slow inactivation and impeding the recovery from slow inactivation. This effect can be replicated by the C-terminal region (256-346) of PRRT2, and is highly conserved across species from zebrafish, mouse, to human PRRT2. TRARG1 and TMEM233, the other two DspB family members, showed similar effects on Nav1.2 slow inactivation. Co-IP data confirms the interaction between Nav channels and PRRT2. Prrt2-mutant mice, which lack PRRT2 expression, require lower stimulation thresholds for evoking after-discharges when compared to WT mice.

Strengths:

(1) This study is well designed, and data support the conclusion that PRRT2 is a potent regulator of slow inactivation of Nav channels.

(2) This study reveals similar effects on Nav1.2 slow inactivation by PRRT2, TMEM233, and TRARG1, indicating a common regulation of Nav channels by DspB family members (Supplemental Figure 2). A recent study has shown that TMEM233 is essential for ExTxA (a plant toxin)-mediated inhibition on fast inactivation of Nav channels; and PRRT2 and TRARG1 could replicate this effect (Jami S, et al. Nat Commun 2023). It is possible that all three DspB members regulate Nav channel properties through the same mechanism, and exploring molecules that target PRRT2/TRARG1/TMEM233 might be a novel strategy for developing new treatments of DspB-related neurological diseases.

Weaknesses:

(1) Previously, the authors have reported that PRRT2 reduces Nav1.2 current density and alters biophysical properties of both Nav1.2 and Nav1.6 channels, including enhanced steady-state inactivation, slower recovery, and stronger use-dependent inhibition (Lu B, et al. Cell Rep 2021, Fig 3 & S5). All those changes are expected to alter neuronal excitability and should be discussed.

(2) In this study, the fast inactivation kinetics was examined by a single stimulus at 0 mV, which may not be sufficient for the conclusion. Inactivation kinetics at more voltage potentials should be added.

(3) It is a little surprising that there is no difference in Nav1.2 current density in axon-blebs between WT and Prrt2-mutant mice (Figure 7B). PRRT2 significantly shifts steady-state slow inactivation curve to hyperpolarizing direction, at -70 mV, nearly 70% of Nav1.2 channels are inactivated by slow inactivation in cells expressing PRRT2 when compared to less than 10% in cells expressing GFP (Figure supplement 1B); with a holding potential of -70 mV, I would expect that most of Nav channels are inactivated in axon-blebs from WT mice but not in axon-blebs from Prrt2-mutant mice, and therefore sodium current density should be different in Figure 7B, which was not. Any explanation?

(3) Besides Nav channels, PRRT2 has been shown to act on Cav2.1 channels as well as molecules involved in neurotransmitter release, which may also contribute to abnormal neuronal activity in Prrt2-mutant mice. These should be mentioned when discussing PRRT2's role in neuronal resilience.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This paper reveals that the neuronal protein PRRT2, previously known for its association with paroxysmal dyskinesia and infantile seizures, modulates the slow inactivation of voltage-gated sodium ion (Nav) channels, a gating process that limits excitability during prolonged activity. Using electrophysiology, molecular biology, and mouse models, the authors show that PRRT2 accelerates entry of Nav channels into the slow-inactivated state and slows their recovery, effectively dampening excessive excitability. The effect seems evolutionarily conserved, requires the C-terminal region of PRRT2, and is recapitulated in cortical neurons, where PRRT2 deficiency leads to hyper-responsiveness and reduced cortical resilience in vivo. These findings extend the functional repertoire of PRRT2, identifying it as a physiological brake on neuronal excitability. The work provides a mechanistic link between PRRT2 mutations and episodic neurological phenotypes.

Comments:

(1) The precise structural interface and the molecular basis of gating modulation remain inferred rather than demonstrated.

(2) The in vivo phenotype reflects a complex circuit outcome and does not isolate slow-inactivation defects per se.

(3) Expression of PRRT2 in muscle or heart is low, so the cross isoform claims are likely of limited physiological significance.

(4) The mechanistic separation between the trafficking of PRRT2 and its gating effects is not clearly resolved.

(5) Additional studies with Nav1.6 should be carried out.

Author response:

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Lu and colleagues demonstrates convincingly that PRRT2 interacts with brain voltage-gated sodium channels to enhance slow inactivation in vitro and in vivo. The work is interesting and rigorously conducted. The relevance to normal physiology and disease pathophysiology (e.g., PRRT2-related genetic neurodevelopmental disorders) seems high. Some simple additional experiments could elevate the impact and make the study more complete.

Strengths:

Experiments are conducted rigorously, including experimenter blinding and appropriate controls. Data presentation is excellent and logical. The paper is well written for a general scientific audience.

Weaknesses:

There are a few missing experiments and one place where data are over-interpreted.

(1) An in vitro study of Nav1.6 is conspicuously absent. In addition to being a major brain Na channel, Nav1.6 is predominant in cerebellar Purkinje neurons, which the authors note lack PRRT2 expression. They speculate that the absence of PRRT2 in these neurons facilitates the high firing rate. This hypothesis would be strengthened if PRRT2 also enhanced slow inactivation of Nav1.6. If a stable Nav1.6 cell were not available, then simple transient co-transfection experiments would suffice.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we will examine whether PRRT2 modulates slow inactivation of Nav1.6 channels using heterologous co-expression experiments.

(2) To further demonstrate the physiological impact of enhanced slow inactivation, the authors should consider a simple experiment in the stable cell line experiments (Figure 1) to test pulse frequency dependence of peak Na current. One would predict that PRRT2 expression will potentiate 'run down' of the channels, and this finding would be complementary to the biophysical data.

We agree that examining pulse frequency-dependent changes in peak sodium current would provide a functional readout linking PRRT2-mediated enhancement of slow inactivation to use-dependent channel availability. In the revision, we will include a pulse-train protocol to quantify use-dependent attenuation (“run-down”) of peak sodium current across stimulation trains and will compare this adaptation between control and PRRT2-expressing conditions.

(3) The study of one K channel is limited, and the conclusion from these experiments represents an over-interpretation. I suggest removing these data unless many more K channels (ideally with measurable proxies for slow inactivation) were tested. These data do not contribute much to the story.

We agree with the reviewer’s assessment. To avoid over-interpretation and to maintain focus on PRRT2-dependent regulation of Nav channel slow inactivation, we will remove potassium channel dataset and the associated conclusions from the revised manuscript.

(4) In Figure 2, the authors should confirm that protein is indeed expressed in cells expressing each truncated PRRT2 construct. Absent expression should be ruled out as an explanation for the enhancement of slow inactivation.

We appreciate the reviewer’s concern regarding expression of the truncated PRRT2 constructs in the Nav1.2 stable cell line, particularly PRRT2(1-266), which shows little effect on slow inactivation of Nav1.2 channels. In the revision, we will include expression controls for each truncation construct in the Nav1.2-expressing cells to rule out lack of expression as an explanation for the observed functional differences.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

As a member of DspB subfamily, PRRT2 is primarily expressed in the nervous system and has been associated with various paroxysmal neurological disorders. Previous studies have shown that PRRT2 directly interacts with Nav1.2 and Nav1.6, modulating channel properties and neuronal excitability.

In this study, Lu et al. reported that PRRT2 is a physiological regulator of Nav channel slow inactivation, promoting the development of Nav slow inactivation and impeding the recovery from slow inactivation. This effect can be replicated by the C-terminal region (256-346) of PRRT2, and is highly conserved across species from zebrafish, mouse, to human PRRT2. TRARG1 and TMEM233, the other two DspB family members, showed similar effects on Nav1.2 slow inactivation. Co-IP data confirms the interaction between Nav channels and PRRT2. Prrt2-mutant mice, which lack PRRT2 expression, require lower stimulation thresholds for evoking after-discharges when compared to WT mice.

Strengths:

(1) This study is well designed, and data support the conclusion that PRRT2 is a potent regulator of slow inactivation of Nav channels.

(2) This study reveals similar effects on Nav1.2 slow inactivation by PRRT2, TMEM233, and TRARG1, indicating a common regulation of Nav channels by DspB family members (Supplemental Figure 2). A recent study has shown that TMEM233 is essential for ExTxA (a plant toxin)-mediated inhibition on fast inactivation of Nav channels; and PRRT2 and TRARG1 could replicate this effect (Jami S, et al. Nat Commun 2023). It is possible that all three DspB members regulate Nav channel properties through the same mechanism, and exploring molecules that target PRRT2/TRARG1/TMEM233 might be a novel strategy for developing new treatments of DspB-related neurological diseases.

Weaknesses:

(1) Previously, the authors have reported that PRRT2 reduces Nav1.2 current density and alters biophysical properties of both Nav1.2 and Nav1.6 channels, including enhanced steady-state inactivation, slower recovery, and stronger use-dependent inhibition (Lu B, et al. Cell Rep 2021, Fig 3 & S5). All those changes are expected to alter neuronal excitability and should be discussed.

We agree that PRRT2 has been reported to exert multiple effects on Nav channels which are all expected to influence neuronal excitability (Fruscione et al., 2018; Lu et al., 2021; Valente et al., 2023). In the revised manuscript, we will expand the Discussion to integrate these prior findings and to clarify how these PRRT2-dependent changes may interact with (and potentially converge on) modulation of slow inactivation to shape neuronal excitability.

(2) In this study, the fast inactivation kinetics was examined by a single stimulus at 0 mV, which may not be sufficient for the conclusion. Inactivation kinetics at more voltage potentials should be added.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In the revision, we will extend our analysis of Nav1.2 fast-inactivation kinetics across a range of test potentials (e.g., -20, -10, 0, +10 and +20 mV) in the presence and absence of PRRT2.

(3) It is a little surprising that there is no difference in Nav1.2 current density in axon-blebs between WT and Prrt2-mutant mice (Figure 7B). PRRT2 significantly shifts steady-state slow inactivation curve to hyperpolarizing direction, at -70 mV, nearly 70% of Nav1.2 channels are inactivated by slow inactivation in cells expressing PRRT2 when compared to less than 10% in cells expressing GFP (Figure supplement 1B); with a holding potential of -70 mV, I would expect that most of Nav channels are inactivated in axon-blebs from WT mice but not in axon-blebs from Prrt2-mutant mice, and therefore sodium current density should be different in Figure 7B, which was not. Any explanation?

We appreciate the reviewer for raising this point. In our axonal bleb recordings, although the holding potential was -70 mV, sodium current density was measured after a hyperpolarizing pre-pulse (-110 mV) to relieve inactivation immediately prior to the test depolarization (as described in the Methods). Thus, the current density measurement in Figure 7B reflects the maximal available current following this recovery step, rather than the steady-state availability at -70 mV. In the revision, we will state this explicitly in the Results and/or figure legend to avoid confusion.

(4) Besides Nav channels, PRRT2 has been shown to act on Cav2.1 channels as well as molecules involved in neurotransmitter release, which may also contribute to abnormal neuronal activity in Prrt2-mutant mice. These should be mentioned when discussing PRRT2's role in neuronal resilience.

We agree with the reviewer. In the revised manuscript, we will broaden the Discussion to acknowledge PRRT2 functions beyond Nav channels, including reported roles in Cav2.1 regulation and neurotransmitter release. We will frame the in vivo phenotypes in Prrt2-mutant mice as likely arising from convergent mechanisms—altered intrinsic excitability together with changes in synaptic transmission.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This paper reveals that the neuronal protein PRRT2, previously known for its association with paroxysmal dyskinesia and infantile seizures, modulates the slow inactivation of voltage-gated sodium ion (Nav) channels, a gating process that limits excitability during prolonged activity. Using electrophysiology, molecular biology, and mouse models, the authors show that PRRT2 accelerates entry of Nav channels into the slow-inactivated state and slows their recovery, effectively dampening excessive excitability. The effect seems evolutionarily conserved, requires the C-terminal region of PRRT2, and is recapitulated in cortical neurons, where PRRT2 deficiency leads to hyper-responsiveness and reduced cortical resilience in vivo. These findings extend the functional repertoire of PRRT2, identifying it as a physiological brake on neuronal excitability. The work provides a mechanistic link between PRRT2 mutations and episodic neurological phenotypes.

Comments:

(1) The precise structural interface and the molecular basis of gating modulation remain inferred rather than demonstrated.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. In the revision, we will make it explicit that our structural modeling are based on prediction rather than evidential. We will also expand the Limitations section to highlight that direct structural and biochemical mapping of the PRRT2-Nav interface (e.g., through targeted mutagenesis, crosslinking, and/or structural determination) will be required to define the binding interface and establish the molecular basis of gating modulation.

(2) The in vivo phenotype reflects a complex circuit outcome and does not isolate slow-inactivation defects per se.

We agree with the reviewer. In the revision, we will refine the Discussion to avoid over-attributing the in vivo phenotype to slow-inactivation defects alone and to explicitly state that impaired slow inactivation in Prrt2-mutant mice represents one plausible contributing mechanism to reduced cortical resilience, alongside other PRRT2-dependent process.

(3) Expression of PRRT2 in muscle or heart is low, so the cross-isoform claims are likely of limited physiological significance.

We thank the review for your comment about physiological relevance. In the revised manuscript, we will clarify that our Nav isoform panel was designed to assess mechanistic generality at the channel level rather than to imply broad in vivo relevance across tissues. We will also expand the Discussion to emphasize that any therapeutic strategy involving PRRT2 delivery should consider its consistent effect on slow inactivation across multiple Nav isoforms.

(4) The mechanistic separation between the trafficking effect of PRRT2 and its gating effects is not clearly resolved.

We appreciate the reviewer for raising this important point. In the revision, we will expand the Discussion to clarify why we interpret the effect of PRRT2 on slow inactivation as a gating modulation rather than a secondary consequence of altered channel abundance or localization. First, our slow inactivation measurements are expressed as the fraction of available channels after depolarization conditioning relative to baseline availability within the same cell (post-/pre-conditioning), which minimizes confounding by differences in initial surface expression. Second, the slow inactivation of Nav channel occurs on a rapid, activity-dependent timescale (seconds), whereas remarkable changes in trafficking and surface abundance generally develop over longer intervals (minutes to hours).

(5) Additional studies with Nav1.6 should be carried out.

We thank the reviewer’s suggestion. We will include Nav1.6 slow inactivation experiments in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study uses dental traits of a large sample of Chinese mammals to track evolutionary patterns through the Paleocene. It presents and argues for a 'brawn before bite' hypothesis - mammals increased in body size disparity before evolving more specialized or adapted dentitions. The study makes use of an impressive array of analyses, including dental topographic, finite element, and integration analyses, which help to provide a unique insight into mammalian evolutionary patterns.

Strengths:

This paper helps to fill in a major gap in our knowledge of Paleocene mammal patterns in Asia, which is especially important because of the diversification of placentals at that time. The total sample of teeth is impressive and required considerable effort for scanning and analyzing. And there is a wealth of results for DTA, FEA, and integration analyses. Further, some of the results are especially interesting, such as the novel 'brawn before bite' hypothesis and the possible link between shifts in dental traits and arid environments in the Late Paleocene. Overall, I enjoyed reading the paper, and I think the results will be of interest to a broad audience.

Weaknesses:

I have four major concerns with the study, especially related to the sampling of teeth and taxa, that I discuss in more detail below. Due to these issues, I believe that the study is incomplete in its support of the 'brawn before bite' hypothesis. Although my concerns are significant, many of them can be addressed with some simple updates/revisions to analyses or text, and I try to provide constructive advice throughout my review.

(1) If I understand correctly, teeth of different tooth positions (e.g., premolars and molars), and those from the same specimen, are lumped into the same analyses. And unless I missed it, no justification is given for these methodological choices (besides testing for differences in proportions of tooth positions per time bin; L902). I think this creates some major statistical concerns. For example, DTA values for premolars and molars aren't directly comparable (I don't think?) because they have different functions (e.g., greater grinding function for molars). My recommendation is to perform different disparity-through-time analyses for each tooth position, assuming the sample sizes are big enough per time bin. Or, if the authors maintain their current methods/results, they should provide justification in the main text for that choice.

Also, I think lumping teeth from the same specimen into your analyses creates a major statistical concern because the observations aren't independent. In other words, the teeth of the same individual should have relatively similar DTA values, which can greatly bias your results. This is essentially the same issue as phylogenetic non-independence, but taken to a much greater extreme.

It seems like it'd be much more appropriate to perform specimen-level analyses (e.g., Wilson 2013) or species-level analyses (e.g., Grossnickle & Newham 2016) and report those results in the main text. If the authors believe that their methods are justified, then they should explain this in the text.

(2) Maybe I misunderstood, but it sounds like the sampling is almost exclusively clades that are primarily herbivorous/omnivorous (Pantodonta, Arctostylopida, Anagalida, and maybe Tillodonta), which means that the full ecomorphological diversity of the time bins is not being sampled (e.g., insectivores aren't fully sampled). Similarly, the authors say that they "focused sampling" on those major clades and "Additional data were collected on other clades ... opportunistically" (L628). If they favored sampling of specific clades, then doesn't that also bias their results?

If the study is primarily focused on a few herbivorous clades, then the Introduction should be reframed to reflect this. You could explain that you're specifically tracking herbivore patterns after the K-Pg.

(3) There are a lot of topics lacking background information, which makes the paper challenging to read for non-experts. Maybe the authors are hindered by a short word limit. But if they can expand their main text, then I strongly recommend the following:

(a) The authors should discuss diets. Much of the data are diet correlates (DTA values), but diets are almost never mentioned, except in the Methods. For example, the authors say: "An overall shift towards increased dental topographic trait magnitudes ..." (L137). Does that mean there was a shift toward increased herbivory? If so, why not mention the dietary shift? And if most of the sampled taxa are herbivores (see above comment), then shouldn't herbivory be a focal point of the paper?

(b) The authors should expand on "we used dentitions as ecological indicators" (L75). For non-experts, how/why are dentitions linked to ecology? And, again, why not mention diet? A strong link between tooth shape and diet is a critical assumption here (and one I'm sure that all mammalogists agree with), but the authors don't provide justification (at least in the Introduction) for that assumption. Many relevant papers cited later in the Methods could be cited in the Introduction (e.g., Evans et al. 2007).

(c) Include a better introduction of the sample, such as explicitly stating that your sample only includes placentals (assuming that's the case) and is focused on three major clades. Are non-placentals like multituberculates or stem placentals/eutherians found at Chinese Paleocene fossil localities and not sampled in the study, or are they absent in the sampled area?

(d) The way in which "integration" is being used should be defined. That is a loaded term which has been defined in different ways. I also recommend providing more explanation on the integration analyses and what the results mean.

If the authors don't have space to expand the main text, then they should at least expand on the topics in the supplement, with appropriate citations to the supplement in the main text.

(4) Finally, I'm not convinced that the results fully support the 'brawn before bite' hypothesis. I like the hypothesis. However, the 'brawn before ...' part of the hypothesis assumes that body size disparity (L63) increased first, and I don't think that pattern is ever shown. First, body size disparity is never reported or plotted (at least that I could find) - the authors just show the violin plots of the body sizes (Figures 1B, S6A). Second, the authors don't show evidence of an actual increase in body size disparity. Instead, they seem to assume that there was a rapid diversification in the earliest Paleocene, and thus the early Paleocene bin has already "reached maximum saturation" (L148). But what if the body size disparity in the latest Cretaceous was the same as that in the Paleocene? (Although that's unlikely, note that papers like Clauset & Redner 2009 and Grossnickle & Newham 2016 found evidence of greater body size disparity in the latest Cretaceous than is commonly recognized.) Similarly, what if body size disparity increased rapidly in the Eocene? Wouldn't that suggest a 'BITE before brawn' hypothesis? So, without showing when an increase in body size diversity occurred, I don't think that the authors can make a strong argument for 'brawn before [insert any trait]".

Although it's probably well beyond the scope of the study to add Cretaceous or Eocene data, the authors could at least review literature on body size patterns during those times to provide greater evidence for an earliest Paleocene increase in size disparity.

Author response:

eLife Assessment

This important study fills a major geographic and temporal gap in understanding Paleocene mammal evolution in Asia and proposes an intriguing "brawn before bite" hypothesis grounded in diverse analytical approaches. However, the findings are incomplete because limitations in sampling design - such as the use of worn or damaged teeth, the pooling of different tooth positions, and the lack of independence among teeth from the same individuals - introduce uncertainties that weaken support for the reported disparity patterns. The taxonomic focus on predominantly herbivorous clades also narrows the ecological scope of the results. Clarifying methodological choices, expanding the ecological context, and tempering evolutionary interpretations would substantially strengthen the study.

We thank Dr. Rasmann for the constructive evaluation of our manuscript. Considering the reviewers’ comments, we plan to implement revisions to our study focusing on (1) expansion of the fossil sample description, including a detailed account of the process of excluding extremely worn or damaged teeth from all analyses, (2) expanded reporting of the analyses done on individual tooth positions, and tempering the interpretation of the pooled samples in light of the issues raised by reviewers, (3) providing a more comprehensive introduction that includes an overview of the Paleocene mammal faunas in south China, which unevenly samples certain clades whereas others are extremely rare, and why the current available fossil samples would not permit a whole-fauna analysis to be adequately conducted across the three land mammal age time bins of the Paleocene in China. We believe these revisions would substantially strengthen the study’s robustness and impact for understanding the ecomorphological evolution of the earliest abundant placental mammals during the Paleocene in Asia.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This work provides valuable new insights into the Paleocene Asian mammal recovery and diversification dynamics during the first ten million years post-dinosaur extinction. Studies that have examined the mammalian recovery and diversification post-dinosaur extinction have primarily focused on the North American mammal fossil record, and it's unclear if patterns documented in North America are characteristic of global patterns. This study examines dietary metrics of Paleocene Asian mammals and found that there is a body size disparity increase before dietary niche expansion and that dietary metrics track climatic and paleobotanical trends of Asia during the first 10 million years after the dinosaur extinction.

Strengths:

The Asian Paleocene mammal fossil record is greatly understudied, and this work begins to fill important gaps. In particular, the use of interdisciplinary data (i.e., climatic and paleobotanical) is really interesting in conjunction with observed dietary metric trends.

Weaknesses:

While this work has the potential to be exciting and contribute greatly to our understanding of mammalian evolution during the first 10 million years post-dinosaur extinction, the major weakness is in the dental topographic analysis (DTA) dataset.

There are several specimens in Figure 1 that have broken cusps, deep wear facets, and general abrasion. Thus, any values generated from DTA are not accurate and cannot be used to support their claims. Furthermore, the authors analyze all tooth positions at once, which makes this study seem comprehensive (200 individual teeth), but it's unclear what sort of noise this introduces to the study. Typically, DTA studies will analyze a singular tooth position (e.g., Pampush et al. 2018 Biol. J. Linn. Soc.), allowing for more meaningful comparisons and an understanding of what value differences mean. Even so, the dataset consists of only 48 specimens. This means that even if all the specimens were pristinely preserved and generated DTA values could be trusted, it's still only 48 specimens (representing 4 different clades) to capture patterns across 10 million years. For example, the authors note that their results show an increase in OPCR and DNE values from the middle to the late Paleocene in pantodonts. However, if a singular tooth position is analyzed, such as the lower second molar, the middle and late Paleocene partitions are only represented by a singular specimen each. With a sample size this small, it's unlikely that the authors are capturing real trends, which makes the claims of this study highly questionable.

We thank Reviewer 1 for their careful review of our manuscript. A major external limitation of the application of DTA to fossil samples is the availability of specimens. Whereas a typical study design using extant or geologically younger/more abundant fossil species would preferably sample much larger quantities of teeth from each treatment group (time bins, in our case), the rarity of well-preserved Paleocene mammalian dentitions in Asia necessitates the analysis of small samples in order to make observations regarding major trends in a region and time period otherwise impossible to study (see Chow et al. 1977). That said, we plan to clarify methodological details in response to the reviewer’s comments, including a more comprehensive explanation of our criteria for exclusion of broken tooth crowns from the analyses. We also plan to expand our results reporting on individual tooth position analysis, potentially including resampling and/or simulation analyses to assess the effect of small and uneven samples on our interpretation of results. Lastly, we plan to revise the discussion and conclusion accordingly, including more explicit distinction between well-supported findings that emerge from various planned sensitivity analyses, versus those that are more speculative and tentative in nature.

Chow, M., Zhang, Y., Wang, B., and Ding, S. (1977). Paleocene mammalian fauna from the Nanxiong Basin, Guangdong Province. Paleontol. Sin. New Ser. C 20, 1–100.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study uses dental traits of a large sample of Chinese mammals to track evolutionary patterns through the Paleocene. It presents and argues for a 'brawn before bite' hypothesis - mammals increased in body size disparity before evolving more specialized or adapted dentitions. The study makes use of an impressive array of analyses, including dental topographic, finite element, and integration analyses, which help to provide a unique insight into mammalian evolutionary patterns.

Strengths:

This paper helps to fill in a major gap in our knowledge of Paleocene mammal patterns in Asia, which is especially important because of the diversification of placentals at that time. The total sample of teeth is impressive and required considerable effort for scanning and analyzing. And there is a wealth of results for DTA, FEA, and integration analyses. Further, some of the results are especially interesting, such as the novel 'brawn before bite' hypothesis and the possible link between shifts in dental traits and arid environments in the Late Paleocene. Overall, I enjoyed reading the paper, and I think the results will be of interest to a broad audience.

Weaknesses:

I have four major concerns with the study, especially related to the sampling of teeth and taxa, that I discuss in more detail below. Due to these issues, I believe that the study is incomplete in its support of the 'brawn before bite' hypothesis. Although my concerns are significant, many of them can be addressed with some simple updates/revisions to analyses or text, and I try to provide constructive advice throughout my review.

(1) If I understand correctly, teeth of different tooth positions (e.g., premolars and molars), and those from the same specimen, are lumped into the same analyses. And unless I missed it, no justification is given for these methodological choices (besides testing for differences in proportions of tooth positions per time bin; L902). I think this creates some major statistical concerns. For example, DTA values for premolars and molars aren't directly comparable (I don't think?) because they have different functions (e.g., greater grinding function for molars). My recommendation is to perform different disparity-through-time analyses for each tooth position, assuming the sample sizes are big enough per time bin. Or, if the authors maintain their current methods/results, they should provide justification in the main text for that choice.

We thank Reviewer 2 for raising several issues worthy of clarification. Separate analyses for individual tooth positions were performed but not emphasized in the first version of the study. In our revised version we plan to highlight the nuances of the results from premolar versus molar partition analyses.

Also, I think lumping teeth from the same specimen into your analyses creates a major statistical concern because the observations aren't independent. In other words, the teeth of the same individual should have relatively similar DTA values, which can greatly bias your results. This is essentially the same issue as phylogenetic non-independence, but taken to a much greater extreme.

It seems like it'd be much more appropriate to perform specimen-level analyses (e.g., Wilson 2013) or species-level analyses (e.g., Grossnickle & Newham 2016) and report those results in the main text. If the authors believe that their methods are justified, then they should explain this in the text.

We plan to emphasize individual tooth position analyses in our revisions, and provide a stronger justification for our current treatment of multiple teeth from the same individual specimens as independent samples. We recognize the statistical nonindependence raised by Reviewer 2, but we would point out that from an ecomorphological perspective, it is unclear to us that the heterodont dentition of these early Cenozoic placental mammals should represent a single ecological signal (and thus warrant using only a single tooth position as representative of an individual’s DTA values). We plan to closely examine the nature of nonindependence in the DTA data within individuals, to assess a balanced approach to maximize information content from the relatively small and rare fossil samples used, while minimizing signal nonindependence across the dentition.

(2) Maybe I misunderstood, but it sounds like the sampling is almost exclusively clades that are primarily herbivorous/omnivorous (Pantodonta, Arctostylopida, Anagalida, and maybe Tillodonta), which means that the full ecomorphological diversity of the time bins is not being sampled (e.g., insectivores aren't fully sampled). Similarly, the authors say that they "focused sampling" on those major clades and "Additional data were collected on other clades ... opportunistically" (L628). If they favored sampling of specific clades, then doesn't that also bias their results?

If the study is primarily focused on a few herbivorous clades, then the Introduction should be reframed to reflect this. You could explain that you're specifically tracking herbivore patterns after the K-Pg.

We plan to revise the introduction section to more accurately reflect the emphasis on those clades. However, we would note that conventional dietary ecomorphology categories used to characterize later branching placental mammals are likely to be less informative when applied to their Paleocene counterparts. Although there are dental morphological traits that began to characterize major placental clades during the Paleocene, distinctive dietary ecologies have not been demonstrated for most of the clade representatives studied. Thus, insectivory was probably not restricted to “Insectivora”, nor carnivory to early Carnivmorpha or “Creodonta”, each of which represented less than 5% of the taxonomic richness during the Paleocene in China (Wang et al. 2007).

Wang, Y., Meng, J., Ni, X., and Li, C. (2007). Major events of Paleogene mammal radiation in China. Geol. J. 42, 415–430.

(3) There are a lot of topics lacking background information, which makes the paper challenging to read for non-experts. Maybe the authors are hindered by a short word limit. But if they can expand their main text, then I strongly recommend the following:

(a) The authors should discuss diets. Much of the data are diet correlates (DTA values), but diets are almost never mentioned, except in the Methods. For example, the authors say: "An overall shift towards increased dental topographic trait magnitudes ..." (L137). Does that mean there was a shift toward increased herbivory? If so, why not mention the dietary shift? And if most of the sampled taxa are herbivores (see above comment), then shouldn't herbivory be a focal point of the paper?

We plan to revise the text to make clearer connections between DTA and dietary inferences, and at the same time advise caution in making one-to-one linkages between them. Broadly speaking, dental indices such as DTA are phenotypic traits, and as in other phenotypic traits, the strength of structure-function relationships needs to be explicitly established before dietary ecological inferences can be confidently made. There is, to date, no consistent connection between dental topology and tooth use proxies and biomechanical traits in extant non-herbivorous species (e.g., DeSantis et al. 2017, Tseng and DeSantis 2024), and in our analyses, FEA and DTA generally did not show strong correlations to each other. Thus, we plan to continue to exercise care in interpreting DTA data as dietary data.

DeSantis LRG, Tseng ZJ, Liu J, Hurst A, Schubert BW, Jiangzuo Q. Assessing niche conservatism using a multiproxy approach: dietary ecology of extinct and extant spotted hyenas. Paleobiology. 2017;43(2):286-303. doi:10.1017/pab.2016.45

Tseng ZJ, DeSantis LR. Relationship between tooth macrowear and jaw morphofunctional traits in representative hypercarnivores. PeerJ. 2024 Nov 11;12:e18435.

(b) The authors should expand on "we used dentitions as ecological indicators" (L75). For non-experts, how/why are dentitions linked to ecology? And, again, why not mention diet? A strong link between tooth shape and diet is a critical assumption here (and one I'm sure that all mammalogists agree with), but the authors don't provide justification (at least in the Introduction) for that assumption. Many relevant papers cited later in the Methods could be cited in the Introduction (e.g., Evans et al. 2007).

Thank you for this suggestion. We plan to expand the introduction section to better contextualize the methodological basis for the work presented.

(c) Include a better introduction of the sample, such as explicitly stating that your sample only includes placentals (assuming that's the case) and is focused on three major clades. Are non-placentals like multituberculates or stem placentals/eutherians found at Chinese Paleocene fossil localities and not sampled in the study, or are they absent in the sampled area?

We thank Reviewer 2 for raising this important point worthy of clarification. Multituberculates are completely absent from the first two land mammal ages in the Paleocene of Asia, and non-placentals are rare in general (Wang et al. 2007). We plan to provide more context for the taxonomic sampling choices made in the study.

Wang, Y., Meng, J., Ni, X., and Li, C. (2007). Major events of Paleogene mammal radiation in China. Geol. J. 42, 415–430.

(d) The way in which "integration" is being used should be defined. That is a loaded term which has been defined in different ways. I also recommend providing more explanation on the integration analyses and what the results mean.

If the authors don't have space to expand the main text, then they should at least expand on the topics in the supplement, with appropriate citations to the supplement in the main text.