Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Numerous studies by the authors and other groups have demonstrated an important role for HIV gene expression kidney cells in promoting progressive chronic kidney disease, especially HIV associated nephropathy. The authors had previously demonstrated a role for protein kinase R (PKR) in a non-HIV transgenic model of kidney disease (Okamoto, Commun Bio, 2021). In this study, the authors used innovative techniques including bulk and single nuclear RNAseq to demonstrate that mice expressing a replication-incompetent HIV transgene have prominent dysregulation of mitochondrial gene expression and activation of PKR and that treatment of these mice with a small molecule PKR inhibitor ameliorated the kidney disease phenotype in HIV-transgenic mice. They also identified STAT3 as a key upstream regulator of kidney injury in this model, which is consistent with previously published studies. Other important advances include identifying the kidney cell types that express the HIV transgene and have dysregulation of cellular pathways.

Strengths:

Major strengths of the study include the use of a wide variety of state-of-the-art molecular techniques to generate important new data on the pathogenesis of kidney injury in this commonly used model of kidney disease and the identification of PKR as a potential druggable target for the treatment of HIV-induced kidney disease. The authors also identify a potential novel cell type within the kidney characterized by high expression of mitochondrial genes.

Weaknesses:

Though the HIV-transgenic model used in these studies results in a phenotype that is very similar to HIV-associated nephropathy in humans, the model has several limitations that may prevent direct translation to human disease, including the fact that mice lack several genetic factors that are important contributors to HIV and kidney pathogenesis in humans. Additional studies are therefore needed to confirm these findings in human kidney disease.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study is convincing because they performed time-resolved X-ray crystallography under different pH conditions using active/inactive metal ions and PpoI mutants, as with the activity measurements in solution in conventional enzymatic studies. Although the reaction mechanism is simple and maybe a little predictable, the strength of this study is that they were able to validate that PpoI catalyzes DNA hydrolysis through "a single divalent cation" because time-resolved X-ray study often observes transient metal ions which are important for catalysis but are not predictable in previous studies with static structures such as enzyme-substrate analog-metal ion complexes. The discussion of this study is well supported by their data. This study visualized the catalytic process and mutational effects on catalysis, providing a new insight into the catalytic mechanism of I-PpoI through a single divalent cation. The authors found that His98, a candidate of proton acceptor in the previous experiments, also affects the Mg2+ binding for catalysis without the direct interaction between His98 and the Mg2+ ion, suggesting that "Without a proper proton acceptor, the metal ion may be prone for dissociation without the reaction proceeding, and thus stable Mg2+ binding was not observed in crystallo without His98". In the future, this interesting feature observed in I-PpoI should be investigated by biochemical, structural and computational analyses using other one metal-ion dependent nucleases.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Most polymerases and nucleases use two or three divalent metal ions in their catalytic functions. The family of His-Me nucleases, however, use only one divalent metal ion, along with a conserved histidine, to catalyze DNA hydrolysis. The mechanism has been studied previously but, according to the authors, it remained unclear. By use of time resolved X-ray crystallography, this work convincingly demonstrated that only one M2+ ion is involved in the catalysis of the His-Me I-PpoI 19 nuclease, and proposed concerted functions of the metal and the histidine.

Strengths:

This work performs mechanistic studies, including the number and roles of metal ion, pH dependence, and activation mechanism, all by structural analyses, coupled with some kinetics and mutagenesis. Overall, it is a highly rigorous work. This approach was first developed in Science (2016) for a DNA polymerase, in which Yang Cao was the first author. It has subsequently been applied to just 5 to 10 enzymes by different labs, mainly to clarify two versus three metal ion mechanisms. The present study is the first one to demonstrate a single metal ion mechanism by this approach.<br /> Furthermore, on the basis of the quantitative correlation between the fraction of metal ion binding and the formation of product, as well as the pH dependence, and the data from site specific mutants, the authors concluded that the functions of Mg2+ and His are a concerted process. A detailed mechanism is proposed in Figure 6.<br /> Even though there are no major surprises in the results and conclusions, the time-resolved structural approach and the overall quality of the results represent a significant step forward for the Me-His family of nucleases. In addition, since the mechanism is unique among different classes of nucleases and polymerases, the work should be of interest to readers in DNA enzymology, or even mechanistic enzymology in general.

Weaknesses:

Two relatively minor issues are raised here for consideration by the authors:

p. 4, last para, lines 1-2: "we next visualized the entire reaction process by soaking I-PpoI crystals in buffer....". This is a little over-stated. The structures being observed are not reaction intermediates. They are mixtures of substrates and products in the enzyme-bound state. The progress of the reaction is limited by the progress of soaking of the metal ion. Crystallography is just been used as a tool to monitor the reaction (and provide structural information about the product). It would be more accurate to say that "we next monitored the reaction progress by soaking...."

p. 5, beginning of the section. The authors on one hand emphasized the quantitative correlation between Mg ion density and the product density. On the other hand, they raised the uncertainty in the quantitation of Mg2+ density versus Na+ density, thus they repeated the study with Mn2+ which has distinct anomalous signals. This is a very good approach. However, still no metal ion density is shown in the key figure 2A. It will be clearer to show the progress of metal ion density in a figure (in addition to just plots), whether it is Mg or Mn.

Revised version: The authors have properly revised the paper in response to both questions raised in the weakness section. The first issue is an important clarification for others working on similar approaches also. For the second issue, the metal ion density is nicely shown in Fig. S4 now.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Zheng et al. study the 'glass' transitions that occurs in proteins at ca. 200K using neutron diffraction and differential isotopic labeling (hydrogen/deuterium) of the protein and solvent. To overcome limitations in previous studies, this work is conducted in parallel with 4 proteins (myoglobin, cytochrome P450, lysozyme and green fluorescent protein) and experiments were performed at a range of instrument time resolutions (1ns - 10ps). The author's data looks compelling, and suggests that transitions in the protein and solvent behavior are not coupled and contrary to some previous reports, the apparent water transition temperature is a 'resolution effect'; i.e. instrument response is limited. This is likely to be important in the field, as a reassessment of solvent 'slaving' and the role of the hydration shell on protein dynamics should be reassessed in light of these findings.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The manuscript entitled "Decoupling of the Onset of Anharmonicity between a Protein and Its Surface Water around 200 K" by Zheng et al. presents a neutron scattering study trying to elucidate if at the dynamical transition temperature water and protein motions are coupled. The origin of the dynamical transition temperature has been debated for decades, specifically its relation to hydration.

The study is rather well conducted, with a lot of effort to acquire the perdeuterated proteins, and some results are interesting.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):<br /> Summary:

Zhu et al., investigate the cellular defects in glia as a result of loss in DEGS1/ifc encoding the dihydroceramide desaturase. Using the strength of Drosophila and its vast genetic toolkit, they find that DEGS1/ifc is mainly expressed in glia and its loss leads to profound neurodegeneration. This supports a role for DEGS1 in the developing larval brain as it safeguards proper CNS development. Loss of DEGS1/ifc leads to dihydroceramide accumulation in the CNS and induces alteration in the morphology of glial subtypes and a reduction in glial number. Cortex and ensheathing glia appeared swollen and accumulated internal membranes. Astrocyte-glia on the other hand displayed small cell bodies, reduced membrane extension and disrupted organization in the dorsal ventral nerve cord. They also found that DEGS1/ifc localizes primarily to the ER. Interestingly, the authors observed that loss of DEGS1/ifc drives ER expansion and reduced TGs and lipid droplet numbers. No effect on PC and PE and a slight increase in PS.

The conclusions of this paper are well supported by the data. The study could be further strengthened by a few additional controls and/or analyses.

Strengths:

This is an interesting study that provides new insight into the role of ceramide metabolism in neurodegeneration.

The strength of the paper is the generation of LOF lines, the insertion of transgenes and the use of the UAS-GAL4/GAL80 system to assess the cell-autonomous effect of DEGS1/ifc loss in neurons and different glial subtypes during CNS development.

The imaging, immunofluorescence staining and EM of the larval brain and the use of the optical lobe and the nerve cord as a readout are very robust and nicely done.

Drosophila is a difficult model to perform core biochemistry and lipidomics but the authors used the whole larvae and CNS to uncover global changes in mRNA levels related to lipogenesis and the unfolded protein responses as well as specific lipid alterations upon DEGS1/ifc loss.

Weaknesses:

The authors performed lipidomics and RTqPCR on whole larvae and larval CNS from which it is impossible to define the cell type-specific effects. Ideally, this could be further supported by performing single cell RNAseq on larval brains to tease apart the cell-type specific effect of DEGS1/ifc loss.

It's clear from the data that the accumulation of dihydroceramide in the ER triggers ER expansion but it remains unclear how or why this happens. Additionally, the authors assume that, because of the reduction in LD numbers, that the source of fatty acids comes from the LDs. But there is no data testing this directly.

The authors performed a beautiful EMS screen identifying several LOF alleles in ifc. However, the authors decided to only use KO/ifcJS3. The paper could be strengthened if the authors could replicate some of the key findings in additional fly lines.

The authors use M{3xP3-RFP.attP}ZH-51D transgene as a general glial marker. However, it would be advised to show the % overlap between the glial marker and the RFP since a lot of cells are green positive but not perse RFP positive and vice versa.

The authors indicate that other 3xP3 RFP and GFP transgenes at other genomic locations also label most glia in the CNE. Do they have a preferential overlap with the different glial subtypes?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The manuscript by Zhu et al. describes phenotypes associated with the loss of the gene ifc using a Drosophila model. The authors suggest their findings are relevant to understanding the molecular underpinnings of a neurodegenerative disorder, HLD-18, which is caused by mutations in the human ortholog of ifc, DEGS1.<br /> The work begins with the authors describing the role for ifc during fly larval brain development, demonstrating its function in regulating developmental timing, brain size, and ventral nerve cord elongation. Further mechanistic examination revealed that loss of ifc leads to depleted cellular ceramide levels as well as dihydroceramide accumulation, eventually causing defects in ER morphology and function. Importantly, the authors showed that ifc is predominantly expressed in glia and is critical for maintaining appropriate glial cell numbers and morphology. Many of the key phenotypes caused by the loss of fly ifc can be rescued by overexpression of human DEGS1 in glia, demonstrating the conserved nature of these proteins as well as the pathways they regulate. Interestingly, the authors discovered that the loss of lipid droplet formation in ifc mutant larvae within the cortex glia, presumably driving the deficits in glial wrapping around axons and subsequent neurodegeneration, potentially shedding light on mechanisms of HLD-18 and related disorders.

Strengths:<br /> Overall, the manuscript is thorough in its analysis of ifc function and mechanism. The data images are high quality, the experiments are well controlled, and the writing is clear.

Weaknesses:<br /> (1) The authors clearly demonstrated a reduction in number of glia in the larval brains of ifc mutant flies. What remains unclear is whether ifc loss leads to glial apoptosis or a failure for glia to proliferate during development. The authors should distinguish between these two hypotheses using apoptotic markers and cell proliferation markers in glia.

(2) It is surprising that human DEGS1 expression in glia rescues the noted phenotypes despite the different preference for sphingoid backbone between flies and mammals. Though human DEGS1 rescued the glial phenotypes described, can animal lethality be rescued by glial expression of human DEGS1? Are there longer-term effects of loss of ifc that cannot be compensated by the overexpression of human DEGS1 in glia (age-dependent neurodegeneration, etc.)?

(3) The mechanistic link between the loss of ifc and lipid droplet defects is missing. How do defects in ceramide metabolism alter triglyceride utilization and storage? While the author's argument that the loss of lipid droplets in larval glia will lead to defects in neuronal ensheathment, a discussion of how this is linked to ceramides needs to be added.

(4) On page 10, the authors use the words "strong" and "weak" to describe where ifc is expressed. Since the use of T2A-GAL4 alleles in examining gene expression is unable to delineate the amount of gene expression from a locus, the terms "broad" and "sparse" labeling (or similar terms) should be used instead.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> In this manuscript, the authors report three novel ifc alleles: ifc[js1], ifc[js2], and ifc[js3]. ifc[js1] and ifc[js2] encode missense mutations, V276D and G257S, respectively. ifc[js3] encodes a nonsense mutation, W162*. These alleles exhibit multiple phenotypes, including delayed progression to the late-third larval instar stage, reduced brain size, elongation of the ventral nerve cord, axonal swelling, and lethality during late larval or early pupal stages.<br /> Further characterization of these alleles the authors reveals that ifc is predominantly expressed in glia and localizes to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). The expression of ifc gene governs glial morphology and survival. Expression of fly ifc cDNA or human DEGS1 cDNA specifically in glia, but not neurons, rescues the CNS phenotypes of ifc mutants, indicating a crucial role for ifc in glial cells and its evolutionary conservation. Loss of ifc results in ER expansion and loss of lipid droplets in cortex glia. Additionally, loss of ifc leads to ceramide depletion and accumulation of dihydroceramide. Moreover, it increases the saturation levels of triacylglycerols and membrane phospholipids. Finally, the reduction of dihydroceramide synthesis suppresses the CNS phenotypes associated with ifc mutations, indicating the key role of dihydroceramide in causing ifc LOF defects.

Strengths:<br /> This manuscript unveils several intriguing and novel phenotypes of ifc loss-of-function in glia. The experiments are meticulously planned and executed, with the data strongly supporting their conclusions.

Weaknesses:<br /> I didn't find any obvious weakness.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors present a theoretical treatment of what they term the "Wright-Fisher-Haldane" model, a claimed modification of the standard model of genetic drift that accounts for variability in offspring number, and argue that it resolves a number of paradoxes in molecular evolution. Ultimately, I found this manuscript quite strange. The notion of effective population size as inversely related to the variance in offspring number is well known in the literature, and not exclusive to Haldane's branching process treatment. However, I found the authors' point about variance in offspring changing over the course of, e.g. exponential growth fairly interesting, and I'm not sure I'd seen that pointed out before. Nonetheless, I don't think the authors' modeling, simulations, or empirical data analysis are sufficient to justify their claims.

Weaknesses:

I have several outstanding issues. First of all, the authors really do not engage with the literature regarding different notions of an effective population. Most strikingly, the authors don't talk about Cannings models at all, which are a broad class of models with non-Poisson offspring distributions that nonetheless converge to the standard Wright-Fisher diffusion under many circumstances, and to "jumpy" diffusions/coalescents otherwise (see e.g. Mohle 1998, Sagitov (2003), Der et al (2011), etc.). Moreover, there is extensive literature on effective population sizes in populations whose sizes vary with time, such as Sano et al (2004) and Sjodin et al (2005). Of course in many cases here the discussion is under neutrality, but it seems like the authors really need to engage with this literature more.

The most interesting part of the manuscript, I think, is the discussion of the Density Dependent Haldane model (DDH). However, I feel like I did not fully understand some of the derivation presented in this section, which might be my own fault. For instance, I can't tell if Equation 5 is a result or an assumption - when I attempted a naive derivation of Equation 5, I obtained E(K_t) = 1 + r/c*(c-n)*dt. It's unclear where the parameter z comes from, for example. Similarly, is equation 6 a derivation or an assumption? Finally, I'm not 100% sure how to interpret equation 7. I that a variance effective size at time t? Is it possible to obtain something like a coalescent Ne or an expected number of segregating sites or something from this?

Similarly, I don't understand their simulations. I expected that the authors would do individual-based simulations under a stochastic model of logistic growth, and show that you naturally get variance in offspring number that changes over time. But it seems that they simply used their equations 5 and 6 to fix those values. Moreover, I don't understand how they enforce population regulation in their simulations---is N_t random and determined by the (independent) draws from K_t for each individual? In that case, there's no "interaction" between individuals (except abstractly, since logistic growth arises from a model that assumes interactions between individuals). This seems problematic for their model, which is essentially motivated by the fact that early during logistic growth, there are basically no interactions, and later there are, which increases variance in reproduction. But their simulations assume no interactions throughout!

The authors also attempt to show that changing variance in reproductive success occurs naturally during exponential growth using a yeast experiment. However, the authors are not counting the offspring of individual yeast during growth (which I'm sure is quite hard). Instead, they use an equation that estimates the variance in offspring number based on the observed population size, as shown in the section "Estimation of V(K) and E(K) in yeast cells". This is fairly clever, however, I am not sure it is right, because the authors neglect covariance in offspring between individuals. My attempt at this derivation assumes that I_t | I_{t-1} = \sum_{I=1}^{I_{t-1}} K_{i,t-1} where K_{i,t-1} is the number of offspring of individual i at time t-1. Then, for example, E(V(I_t | I_{t-1})) = E(V(\sum_{i=1}^{I_{t-1}} K_{i,t-1})) = E(I_{t-1})V(K_{t-1}) + E(I_{k-1}(I_{k-1}-1))*Cov(K_{i,t-1},K_{j,t-1}). The authors have the first term, but not the second, and I'm not sure the second can be neglected (in fact, I believe it's the second term that's actually important, as early on during growth there is very little covariance because resources aren't constrained, but at carrying capacity, an individual having offspring means that another individuals has to have fewer offspring - this is the whole notion of exchangeability, also neglected in this manuscript). As such, I don't believe that their analysis of the empirical data supports their claim.

Thus, while I think there are some interesting ideas in this manuscript, I believe it has some fundamental issues: first, it fails to engage thoroughly with the literature on a very important topic that has been studied extensively. Second, I do not believe their simulations are appropriate to show what they want to show. And finally, I don't think their empirical analysis shows what they want to show.

References:

Möhle M. Robustness results for the coalescent. Journal of Applied Probability. 1998;35(2):438-447. doi:10.1239/jap/1032192859

Sagitov S. Convergence to the coalescent with simultaneous multiple mergers. Journal of Applied Probability. 2003;40(4):839-854. doi:10.1239/jap/1067436085

Der, Ricky, Charles L. Epstein, and Joshua B. Plotkin. "Generalized population models and the nature of genetic drift." Theoretical population biology 80.2 (2011): 80-99

Sano, Akinori, Akinobu Shimizu, and Masaru Iizuka. "Coalescent process with fluctuating population size and its effective size." Theoretical population biology 65.1 (2004): 39-48

Sjodin, P., et al. "On the meaning and existence of an effective population size." Genetics 169.2 (2005): 1061-1070

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This theoretical paper examines genetic drift in scenarios deviating from the standard Wright-Fisher model. The authors discuss Haldane's branching process model, highlighting that the variance in reproductive success equates to genetic drift. By integrating the Wright-Fisher model with the Haldane model, the authors derive theoretical results that resolve paradoxes related to effective population size.

Strengths:

The most significant and compelling result from this paper is perhaps that the probability of fixing a new beneficial mutation is 2s/V(K). This is an intriguing and potentially generalizable discovery that could be applied to many different study systems.

The authors also made a lot of effort to connect theory with various real-world examples, such as genetic diversity in sex chromosomes and reproductive variance across different species.

Weaknesses:

One way to define effective population size is by the inverse of the coalescent rate. This is where the geometric mean of Ne comes from. If Ne is defined this way, many of the paradoxes mentioned seem to resolve naturally. If we take this approach, one could easily show that a large N population can still have a low coalescent rate depending on the reproduction model. However, the authors did not discuss Ne in light of the coalescent theory. This is surprising given that Eldon and Wakeley's 2006 paper is cited in the introduction, and the multiple mergers coalescent was introduced to explain the discrepancy between census size and effective population size, superspreaders, and reproduction variance - that said, there is no explicit discussion or introduction of the multiple mergers coalescent.

The Wright-Fisher model is often treated as a special case of the Cannings 1974 model, which incorporates the variance in reproductive success. This model should be discussed. It is unclear to me whether the results here have to be explained by the newly introduced WFH model, or could have been explained by the existing Cannings model.

The abstract makes it difficult to discern the main focus of the paper. It spends most of the space introducing "paradoxes".

The standard Wright-Fisher model makes several assumptions, including hermaphroditism, non-overlapping generations, random mating, and no selection. It will be more helpful to clarify which assumptions are being violated in each tested scenario, as V(K) is often not the only assumption being violated. For example, the logistic growth model assumes no cell death at the exponential growth phase, so it also violates the assumption about non-overlapping generations.

The theory and data regarding sex chromosomes do not align. The fact that \hat{alpha'} can be negative does not make sense. The authors claim that a negative \hat{alpha'} is equivalent to infinity, but why is that? It is also unclear how theta is defined. It seems to me that one should take the first principle approach e.g., define theta as pairwise genetic diversity, and start with deriving the expected pair-wise coalescence time under the MMC model, rather than starting with assuming theta = 4Neu. Overall, the theory in this section is not well supported by the data, and the explanation is insufficient.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Ruan and colleagues consider a branching process model (in their terminology the "Haldane model") and the most basic Wright-Fisher model. They convincingly show that offspring distributions are usually non-Poissonian (as opposed to what's assumed in the Wright-Fisher model), and can depend on short-term ecological dynamics (e.g., variance in offspring number may be smaller during exponential growth). The authors discuss branching processes and the Wright-Fisher model in the context of 3 "paradoxes": (1) how Ne depends on N might depend on population dynamics; (2) how Ne is different on the X chromosome, the Y chromosome, and the autosomes, and these differences do match the expectations base on simple counts of the number of chromosomes in the populations; (3) how genetic drift interacts with selection. The authors provide some theoretical explanations for the role of variance in the offspring distribution in each of these three paradoxes. They also perform some experiments to directly measure the variance in offspring number, as well as perform some analyses of published data.

Strengths:

(1) The theoretical results are well-described and easy to follow.

(2) The analyses of different variances in offspring number (both experimentally and analyzing public data) are convincing that non-Poissonian offspring distributions are the norm.

(3) The point that this variance can change as the population size (or population dynamics) change is also very interesting and important to keep in mind.

(4) I enjoyed the Density-Dependent Haldane model. It was a nice example of the decoupling of census size and effective size.

Weaknesses:

(1) I am not convinced that these types of effects cannot just be absorbed into some time-varying Ne and still be well-modeled by the Wright-Fisher process.

(2) Along these lines, there is well-established literature showing that a broad class of processes (a large subset of Cannings' Exchangeable Models) converge to the Wright-Fisher diffusion, even those with non-Poissonian offspring distributions (e.g., Mohle and Sagitov 2001). E.g., equation (4) in Mohle and Sagitov 2001 shows that in such cases the "coalescent Ne" should be (N-1) / Var(K), essentially matching equation (3) in the present paper.

(3) Beyond this, I would imagine that branching processes with heavy-tailed offspring distributions could result in deviations that are not well captured by the authors' WFH model. In this case, the processes are known to converge (backward-in-time) to Lambda or Xi coalescents (e.g., Eldon and Wakely 2006 or again in Mohle and Sagitov 2001 and subsequent papers), which have well-defined forward-in-time processes.

(4) These results that Ne in the Wright-Fisher process might not be related to N in any straightforward (or even one-to-one) way are well-known (e.g., Neher and Hallatschek 2012; Spence, Kamm, and Song 2016; Matuszewski, Hildebrandt, Achaz, and Jensen 2018; Rice, Novembre, and Desai 2018; the work of Lounès Chikhi on how Ne can be affected by population structure; etc...)

(5) I was also missing some discussion of the relationship between the branching process and the Wright-Fisher model (or more generally Cannings' Exchangeable Models) when conditioning on the total population size. In particular, if the offspring distribution is Poisson, then conditioned on the total population size, the branching process is identical to the Wright-Fisher model.

(6) In the discussion, it is claimed that the last glacial maximum could have caused the bottleneck observed in human populations currently residing outside of Africa. Compelling evidence has been amassed that this bottleneck is due to serial founder events associated with the out-of-Africa migration (see e.g., Henn, Cavalli-Sforza, and Feldman 2012 for an older review - subsequent work has only strengthened this view). For me, a more compelling example of changes in carrying capacity would be the advent of agriculture ~11kya and other more recent technological advances.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The study presented by Paoli et al. explores temporal aspects of neuronal encoding of odors and their perception, using bees as a general model for insects. The neuronal encoding of the presence of an odor is not a static representation; rather, its neuronal representation is partly encoded by the temporal order in which parallel olfactory pathways participate and are combined. This aspect is not novel, and its relevance in odor encoding and recognition has been discussed for more than the past 20 years.

The temporal richness of the olfactory code and its significance have traditionally been driven by results obtained based on electrophysiological methods with temporal resolution, allowing the identification and timing of the action potentials in the different populations of neurons whose combination encodes the identity of an odor. On the other hand, optophysiological methods that enable spatial resolution and cell identification in odor coding lack the temporal resolution to appreciate the intricacies of olfactory code dynamics.

(1) In this context, the main merit of Paoli et al.'s work is achieving an optical recording that allows for spatial registration of olfactory codes with greater temporal detail than the classical method and, at the same time, with greater sensitivity to measure inhibitions as part of the olfactory code.

The work clearly demonstrates how the onset and offset of odor stimulation triggers a dynamic code at the level of the first interneurons of the olfactory system that changes at every moment as a natural consequence of the local inhibitory interactions within the first olfactory neuropil, the antennal lobe. This gives rise to the interesting theory that each combination of activated neurons along this temporal sequence corresponds to the perception of a different odor. The extent to which the corresponding postsynaptic layers integrate this temporal information to drive the perception of an odor, or whether this sequence is, in a sense, a journey through different perceptions, is challenging to address experimentally.

In their work, the authors propose a computational approach and olfactory learning experiments in bees to address these questions and evaluate whether the sequence of combinations drives a sequence of different perceptions. In my view, it is a highly inspiring piece of work that still leaves several questions unanswered.

(2) In my opinion, the detailed temporal profile of the response of projection neurons and their respective probabilities of occurrence provide valuable information for understanding odor coding at the level of neurons transferring information from the antennal lobes to the mushroom bodies. An analysis of these probabilities in each animal, rather than in the population of animals that were measured, would aid in better comprehending the encoding function of such temporal profiles. Being able to identify the involved glomeruli and understanding the extent to which the sequence of patterns and inhibitions is conserved for each odor across different animals, as it is well known for the initial excitatory burst of activity observed in previous studies without the fine temporal detail, would also be highly significant.

In my view, the computational approach serves as a useful tool to inspire future experiments; however, it appears somewhat simplistic in tackling the complexity of the subject. One question that I believe the researchers do not address is to what extent the inhibitions recorded in the projection neurons are integrated by the Kenyon cells and are functional for generating odor-specific patterns at that level.

Lastly, the behavioral result indicating a difference in conditioned response latency after early or delayed learning protocol is interesting. However, it does not align with the expected time for the neuronal representation that was theoretically rewarded in the delayed protocol. This final result does not support the authors' interpretation regarding the existence of a smell and an after-smell as separate percepts that can serve as conditioned stimuli.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The manuscript describes a series of experiments using human intracranial neural recordings designed to evaluate processing of self-generated speech in the setting of feedback delays. Specifically, the authors aim to address the question about the relationship between speech-induced suppression and feedback sensitivity in the auditory cortex, which, relationship has been conflicting in the literature. They found a correlation between speech suppression and feedback delay sensitivity, suggesting a common process. Additional controls were done for possible forward suppression/adaptation, as well as controlling for other confounds due to amplification, etc.

Strengths:<br /> The primary strength of the manuscript is the use of human intracranial recording, which is a valuable resource and gives better spatial and temporal resolution than many other approaches. The use of delayed auditory feedback is also novel and has seen less attention than other forms of shifted feedback during vocalization. Analyses are robust and include demonstrating a scaling of neural activity with the degree of feedback delay, more robust evidence for error encoding than simply using a single feedback perturbation.

Weaknesses:<br /> Some of the analyses performed differ from those used in past work, which limits the ability to directly compare the results. Notably, past work has compared feedback effects between production and listening, which was not done here. There were also some unusual effects in the data, such as increased activity with no feedback delay when wearing headphones, that the authors attempted to control for with additional experiments, but remain unclear. Confounds by behavioral results of delayed feedback are also unclear.

Overall the work is well done and clearly explained. The manuscript addresses an area of some controversy and does so in a rigorous fashion, namely the correlation between speech-induced suppression and feedback sensitivity (or lack thereof). While the data presented overlap that collected and used for a previous paper, this is expected given the rare commodity these neural recordings represent. Contrasting these results to previous ones using pitch-shifted feedback should spawn additional discussion and research, including verification of the previous finding, looking at how the brain encodes feedback during speech over multiple acoustic dimensions, and how this information can be used in speech motor control.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> In "Speech-induced suppression and vocal feedback sensitivity in human cortex", Ozker and colleagues use intracranial EEG to understand audiomotor feedback during speech production using a speech production and delayed auditory feedback task. The purpose of the paper is to understand where and how speaker induced suppression occurs, and whether this suppression might be related to feedback monitoring. First, they identified sites that showed auditory suppression during speech production using a single word auditory repetition task and a visual reading task, then observed whether and how these electrodes show sensitivity to auditory feedback using a DAF paradigm. The stimuli were single words played auditorily or shown visually and repeated or read aloud by the participant. Neural data were recorded from regular- and high-density grids from the left and right hemisphere. The main findings were:<br /> • Speaker induced suppression is strongest in the STG and MTG, and enhancement is generally seen in frontal/motor areas except for small regions of interest in dorsal sensorimotor cortex and IFG, which can also show suppression.<br /> • Delayed auditory feedback, even when simultaneous, induces larger response amplitudes compared to the typical auditory word repetition and visual reading tasks. The authors presume this may be due to effort and attention required to perform the DAF task.<br /> • The degree of speaker induced suppression is correlated with sensitivity to delayed auditory feedback, and is strongest for ~200 ms of delayed auditory feedback.<br /> • pSTG (behind TTS) is more strongly modulated by DAF than mid-anterior STG

Strengths:<br /> Overall, I found the manuscript to be clear, the methodology and statistics to be solid, and the findings mostly quite robust. The large number of participants with high density coverage over both the left and right lateral hemispheres allows for a greater dissection of the topography of speaker induced suppression and changes due to audiomotor feedback. The tasks were well-designed and controlled for repetition suppression and other potential caveats.

Weaknesses:<br /> I am happy with the changes the authors made in response to my first round of comments.

The authors addressed my comments relating to plotting relative to the onset of articulation in Figure 1 and also addressed whether the amount of suppression varies according to more interfering delayed auditory feedback (though the correlations between sensitivity and suppression are a little noisy, they are positive). Finally, I am also satisfied with the inclusion of more group data in Figure 4.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors want to elucidate which are the mechanisms that regulate the immune response in physiological conditions in cortical development. To achieve this goal, authors used a wide range of mutant mice to analyse the consequences of immune activation in the formation of cortical ectopia in mice.

Strengths:

The authors demonstrated that Abeta monomers are anti-inflammatory and inhibit microglial activation. This is a novel result that demonstrates the physiological role of APP in cortical development.

Weaknesses:

-On the other hand, cortical ectopia has been already described in mouse models in which the amyloid signalling has been disrupted (Herms et al., 2004; Guenette et al., 2006), making the current study less novel.

One of the molecules analysed is Ric8a, a GTPase activator involved in neuronal development. Authors used the conditional mutant mice Emx1-Ric8a to delete Ric8a from early progenitors and glutamatergic neurons in the pallium. Emx1-Ric8a mutant mice present cortical ectopias and authors attributed this malformation to the increase in inflammatory response due to Ric8a deletion in microglia. Several discordances do not fit this interpretation:

-The role of Ric8a in cortical development and function has been already described in several papers, but none of them has been cited in the current manuscript (Kask et al., 2015, 2018; Ruisu et al., 2013; Tonissoo et al., 2006).

-Ectopia formation in the cortex has been already described in Nestin-Ric8a cKO mice (Kask et al., 2015). In the current manuscript, authors analyzed the same mutant mice (Nestin-Ric8a), but they did not detect any ectopia. Authors should discuss this discordance.

-Authors claim that microglia express Emx1, and therefore, Ric8a is deleted in microglia cells. However, the arguments for this assumption are very weak and the evidence suggests that this is not the case. This is an important point considering that authors want to emphasise the role of Ric8a in microglia activation, and therefore, additional experiments should demonstrate that Ric8a is deleted in microglia in Emx1-Ric8a mutant mice.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Kwon et al. used several conditional KO mice for the deletion of ric8a or app in different cell types. Some of them exhibited pial basement membrane breaches leading to neuronal ectopia in the neocortex.

They first investigated ric8a, a Guanine Nucleotide Exchange Factor for Heterotrimeric G Proteins. They observed the above-mentioned phenotype when ric8a is deleted from microglia and neural cells (ric8a-emx1-cre or dual deletion with cre combination cx3cr1 (in microglia) and nestin (in neural cells)) but not in microglia alone or neural cells alone (whether it is in CR cells (ric8a-Wnt3a-cre), post-mitotic neurons (nex-cre or dlx5/6-cre), or in progenitors and their progeny (nestin-cre or foxg1-cre). They also show that ric8a KO mutant microglia cells stimulated in vitro by LPS exhibit an increased TNFa, IL6 and IL1b secretion compared to controls (Fig 2). They therefore injected LPS in vivo and observed the neuronal ectopia phenotype in the ric8a-cx3cr1-cre (microglial deletion) cortices at P0 (Fig 2). They suggest that ric8a KO in neuronal cells mimics immune stimulation (but we have no clue how ric8a KO in neural cells would induce immune stimulation).

The authors then turned their attention on APP. They observed neuronal ectopia into the marginal zone when APP is deleted in microglia (app-cxcr3-cre) + intraperitoneal LPS injection (they did not show it, but we have to assume there would not be a phenotype without the injection of LPS) (Fig 3). (The phenotype is similar but not identical to ric8a-cx3cr1-cre + LPS. They suggest that the reason is because they had to inject 3 times less LPS due to enhanced immune sensitivity in this genetic background but it is only a hypothesis). After in vitro stimulation by LPS, app mutant microglia show a reduced secretion of TNFa and IL6 but not IL1b (this is the opposite to ric8a-cx3cr1-cre microglia cells) while peritoneal macrophages in culture show increased secretion of TNFa, IL1, IL6 and IL23 (fig 3 and Suppl. Fig 9).

Amyloid beta (Ab) being one of the molecules binding to APP, the authors showed that Ab40 monomers (they did not test Ab40 oligomers) partially inhibit cytokines (TNFa, IL6, IL1b, MCP-1, IL23a, IL10) secretion in vitro by microglia stimulated by LPS but does not affect secretion by microglia from app-cx3cr1-cre (tested for TNFa, IL6, IL1b, IL23a, IL10) (Fig 4, Suppl fig 10) (but still does it in aplp2-cx3cr1-cre) and does not affect secretion by ric8a-cx3cr1-cre microglia (tested for TNFa and IL6 but still suppress IL1b) (Therefore here is another difference between app and ric8a KO microglia).

The authors injected inhibitors of Akt or Stat3 in the ric8a-emx1-cre cortex and found it suppressed neuronal ectopia (Fig 5, Suppl fig 11). It is not clear whether it suppresses immune stimulation from neuronal cells or immune reaction from microglia cells.

Finally, the authors examined the activities of MMP2 and MMP9 in the developing cortex using gelatin gel zymography. The activity and protein levels of MMP9 but not MMP2 in the ric8a-emx1-cre cortex were claimed significantly increased (Fig 5, Suppl fig 12). Unfortunately, they did not show it in the app-cx3cr1-cre +LPS mouse. They make a connection between ric8a deletion and MMP9 but unfortunately do not make the connection between app deletion and MMP9, which is at the center of the pathway claimed to be important here). Then they injected BB94, a broad-spectrum inhibitor of MMPs or an inhibitor specific for MMP9 and 13. They both significantly suppress the number and the size of the ectopia in ric8a mutants (Fig5).

After reading the manuscript, I still do not know how ric8a in neural cells is involved in the immune inhibition. Is it through the control of Ab monomers? In addition, the authors did not show in vivo data supporting that Ab monomers are the key players here. As the authors said, this is not the only APP interactor. Finally, I still do not know how ric8a is linked to APP in microglia in the model.

While several of the findings presented in this manuscript are of potential interest, there are a number of shortcomings. Here are some suggestions that could improve the manuscript and help substantiate the conclusions:

(1) As the title suggests it, the focus is on Ab and APP functions in microglia. However, the analysis is more focused on ric8a. The connection between ric8a and APP in this study is not investigated, besides the fact that their deletion induces somewhat similar but not identical phenotypes. Showing a similar phenotype is not enough to conclude that they are working on the same pathway. The authors should find a way to make that connection between ric8a and app in the cells investigated here.

(2) This would help to show the appearance of breaches in the pial basement membrane leading to neuronal ectopia; to investigate laminin debris, cell identity, Wnt pathway for app-cxcr3-cre + LPS injection as you did for ric8a-emx1-cre.

(3) As a control, this would help to show that app-cxcr3-cre without the LPS injection does not display the phenotype.

(4) This would help to show the activity and protein levels of MMP9 and MMP2 and perform the rescue experiments with the inhibitors in the app-cx3cr1-cre cortex +LPS.

(5) Is MMP9 secreted by microglia cells or neural cells?

(6) The in vitro evidence indicates that one of the multiple APP interactors, ie Ab40 monomers, is less effective in suppressing the expression of some cytokines by microglia cells mutants for ric8a (TNFa and IL6 but still suppress IL1b) or APP (TNFa, IL6, IL1b, IL23a, IL10) when compared to WT. But there are other interactors for APP. In order to support the claim, it seems crucial to have in vivo data to show that Ab40 monomers are the molecules involved in preventing the breach in the pial basement membrane.

(7) In order to claim that this is specific to Ab40 monomers and not oligomers, it is necessary to show that the Ab40 oligomers do not have the same effect in vitro and in vivo. Also, an assay should be done to show that your Ab preparations are pure monomers or oligomers.

(8) Most of the cytokine secretion assays used microglia cells in culture. Two results draw my attention. Ric8a deletion increases TNFa and IL6 secretion after LPS stimulation in vitro on microglia cells while app deletion decreases their secretion. Then later, papers show that the decrease in IL1b induced by Ab on microglia cells is prevented by APP deletion but not ric8a deletion. Those two pieces of data suggest that ric8a and APP might not be in the same pathway. In addition, the phenotype from app-cxcr3-cre + LPS injection and ric8a-cxcr3-cre + LPS injection are not exactly the same. It could be due to the level of LPS as the author suggests or it might not be. More experiments are needed to prove they are in the same pathway.

(9) How do the authors reconcile the reduced TNFa and IL6 secretion upon stimulation of app mutant microglia with the model where app is attenuating immune response in vivo? Line 213 says that microglia exhibit attenuated immune response following chronic stimulation but I don't know if 3 hours of LPS in vitro is a chronic stimulation.

(10) Line 119: In their model, the authors suggest that there is a breach in pial basement membrane but that the phenotype is different from the retraction of the radial fibers due to reduced adhesion. So, could the author discuss to what substrate the radial fibers are attached to, in their model where the pial surface is destroyed?

(11) The authors should show that the increased cytokine secretion observed in vitro is also happening in vivo in ric8a-emx1-cre compared to WT mice and compared to ric8a-nestin-cre mice. Or when app is deleted in microglia (app-cxcr3-cre) + LPS injection compared to WT mice +LPS.

(12) The authors injected inhibitors of Akt or Stat3 in the ric8a-emx1-cre cortex and found that it suppressed neuronal ectopia (Fig 5, Suppl fig 11). Does it suppress immune stimulation from neuronal cells or immune reaction from microglia cells?

(13) Fig 5 and Supplementary fig 12: Please show a tubulin loading control in Fig 5i as you did in suppl fig 12 d (gel zymography). Please provide a gel zymography showing side by side Control, mutant and mutant +DM/S3I treatment. The same request for the MMP9 staining. Please provide statistics for control vs mutant for suppl fig 12c and d.

(14) Please provide the name and the source of the MMP9/13 inhibitor used in this study.

(15) The results show that deletion of ric8a in microglia and neural cells induced pia membrane breaches but no phenotype is apparent in ric8a deletion in microglia or neural cells alone. Then, the results showed that intraperitoneal injection of LPS induced the phenotype in ric8a-cxcr3-cre mutants. It would be beneficial as a control supporting the model to show that the insult induced by LPS injection does not induce the phenotype in the ric8a-foxg1-cre mice.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> Meissner et al describe an update on the collection of split-GAL4 lines generated by a consortium led by Janelia Research Campus. This follows the same experimental pipeline described before and presents as a significant increment to the present collection. This will strengthen the usefulness and relevance of "splits" as a standard tool for labs that already use this tool and attract more labs and researchers to use it.

Strengths:<br /> This manuscript presents a solid step to establish Split-GAL4 lines as a relevant tool in the powerful Drosophila toolkit. Not only does the raw number of available lines contribute to the relevance of this tool in the "technical landscape" of genetic tools, but additional features of this effort contribute to the successful adoption. These include:<br /> (1) A description of expression patterns in the adult and larvae, expanding the "audience" for these tools<br /> (2) A classification of line combination according to quality levels, which provides a relevant criterion while deciding to use a particular set of "splits".<br /> (3) Discrimination between male and female expression patterns, providing hints regarding the potential role of these gender-specific circuits.<br /> (4) The search engine seems to be user-friendly, facilitating the retrieval of useful information.<br /> Overall, the authors employed a pipeline that maximizes the potential of the Split-GAL4 collection to the scientific community.

Weaknesses:<br /> The following aspects apply:<br /> The use of split-GAL4 lines has improved tremendously the genetic toolkit of Drosophila and this manuscript is another step forward in establishing this tool in the genetic repertoire that laboratories use. Thus, this would be a perfect opportunity for the authors to review the current status of this tool, addressing its caveats and how to effectively implement it into the experimental pipeline.

(1) While the authors do bring up a series of relevant caveats that the community should be aware of while using split-GAL4 lines, the authors should take the opportunity to address some of the genetic issues that frequently arise while using the described genetic tools. This is particularly important for laboratories that lack the experience using split-GAL4 lines and wish to use them. Some of these issues are covertly brought up, but not entirely clarified.<br /> First, why do the authors (wisely) rescreen the lines using UAS-CsChrimson-mVenus? One reason is that using another transgene (such as UAS-GFP) and/or another genomic locus can drive a different expression pattern or intensities. Although this is discussed, this should be made more explicit and the readers should be aware of this.<br /> Second, it would be important to include a discussion regarding the potential of hemidriver lines to suffer from transvection effects whenever there is a genetic element in the same locus. These are serious issues that prevent a more reliable use of split-GAL4 lines that, once again, should be discussed.

(2) The authors simply mention that the goal of the manuscript is to "summarize the results obtained over the past decade.". A better explanation would be welcomed in order to understand the need of a dedicated manuscript to announce the availability of a new batch of lines when previous publications already described the Split-GAL4 lines. At the extreme, one might question why we need a manuscript for this when a simple footnote on Janelia's website would suffice.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The manuscript by Meissner et al. describes a collection of 3060 Drosophila lines that can be used to genetically target very small numbers of brain cells. The collection is the product of over a decade of work by the FlyLight Project Team at the Janelia Research Campus and their collaborators. This painstaking work has used the intersectional split-Gal4 method to combine pairs of so-called hemidrivers into driver lines capable of highly refined expression, often targeting single cell types. Roughly one-third of the lines have been described and characterized in previous publications and others will be described in manuscripts still in preparation. They are brought together here with many new lines to form one high-quality collection of lines with exceptional selectivity of expression. As detailed in the manuscript, all of the lines described have been made publicly available accompanied by an online database of images and metadata that allow researchers to identify lines containing neurons of interest to them. Collectively, the lines include neurons in most regions of both the adult and larval nervous systems, and the imaging database is intended to eventually permit anatomical searching that can match cell types targeted by the lines to those identified at the EM level in emerging connectomes. In addition, the manuscript introduces a second, freely accessible database of raw imaging data for many lower quality, but still potentially useful, split-Gal4 driver lines made by the FlyLight Project Team.

Strengths:<br /> Both the stock collection and the image databases are substantial and important resources that will be of obvious interest to neuroscientists conducting research in Drosophila. Although many researchers will already be aware of the basic resources generated at Janelia, the comprehensive description provided in this manuscript represents a useful summary of past and recent accomplishments of the FlyLight Team and their collaborators and will be very valuable to newcomers in the field. In addition, the new lines being made available and the effort to collect all lines that have been generated that have highly specific expression patterns is very useful to all.

Weaknesses:<br /> The collection of lines presented here is obviously somewhat redundant in including lines from previously published collections. Potentially confusing is the fact that previously published split-Gal4 collections have also touted lines with highly selective expression, but only a fraction of those lines have been chosen for inclusion in the present manuscript. For example, the collection of Shuai et al. (2023) describes some 800 new lines, many with specificity for neurons with connectivity to the mushroom body, but only 168 of these lines were selected for inclusion here. This is presumably because of the more stringent criteria applied in selecting the lines described in this manuscript, but it would be useful to spell this out and explain what makes this collection different from those previously published (and those forthcoming).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary: This manuscript describes the creation and curation of a collection of genetic driver lines that specifically label small numbers of neurons, often just a single to handful of cell types, in the central nervous system of the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. The authors screened over 77,000 split hemidriver combinations to yield a collection of 3060 lines targeting a range of cell types in the adult Drosophila central nervous system and 1373 lines characterized in third-instar larvae. These genetic driver lines have already contributed to several important publications and will no doubt continue to do so. It is a truly valuable resource that represents the cooperation of several labs throughout the Drosophila community.

Strengths:<br /> The authors have thoughtfully curated and documented the lines that they have created, so that they may be maximally useful to the greater community. This documentation includes confocal images of neurons labeled by each driver line and when possible, a list of cell types labeled by the genetic driver line and their identity in an EM connectome dataset. The authors have also made available some information from the other lines they created and tested but deemed not specific or strong enough to be included as part of the collection. This additional resource will be a valuable aid for those seeking to label cell types that may not be included in the main collection.

Weaknesses:<br /> None, this is a valuable set of tools that took many years of effort by several labs. This collection will continue to facilitate important science for years to come.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Their findings elucidate the mechanisms underlying 2-AA-mediated reduction of pyruvate transport into mitochondria, which impairs the interaction between ERRα and PGC1α, consequently suppressing MPC1 expression and reducing ATP production in tolerized macrophages.

This paper presents a novel discovery regarding the mechanisms through which PA regulates the bioenergetics of tolerized macrophages. This paper will provide valuable insights for the journal's broad readership of scientists.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The study tries to connect energy metabolism with immune tolerance during bacterial infection. The mechanism details the role of pyruvate transporter expression via ERRalpha-PGC1 axis, resulting in pro-inflammatory TNF alpha signalling responsible for acquired infection tolerance.

Strengths:

Overall, the study is an excellent addition to the role of energy metabolism during bacterial infection. The mechanism-based approach in dissecting the roles of metabolic coactivator, transcription factor, mitochondrial transporter and pro-inflammatory cytokine during acquired tolerance towards infections indicates a detailed and well-written study. The in vivo studies in mice nicely corroborate with the cell line-based data, indicating the requirement for further studies in human infections with another bacterial model system.

Weakness:

Revised version doesn't have much weakness as authors have performed some of the critical experiments to answer the concerns. Moreover, authors promted that a few concerns like public data sets, etc are out of scope of this work or they will perform such experiments in future.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Sumarac et al investigate differences in globus pallidus internus (GPi) spike activity and short- and long-term plasticity of direct pathway projections in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) and dystonia. Their main claims are that GPi neurons exhibit distinct characteristics in these two disorders, with PD associated with specific power-frequency oscillations and dystonia showing lower firing rates, increased burstiness, and less regular activity. Additionally, long-term plasticity and synaptic depression appear to differ between the two conditions. The authors suggest that these findings support the concept of hyperfunctional GPi output in PD and hypofunctional output in dystonia, possibly driven by variations in plasticity of striato-pallidal synapses. Overall enthusiasm is relatively high, but I think the discussion omits discussing findings that don't align well with standard models.

Strengths:

- These types of studies are valuable as the data arise from patients who have dystonia or PD. This could provide unique insights into disease pathophysiology that might not be recapitulated in animal systems work.

Comments on latest version:

The authors addressed my concerns in their revision.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors investigated how neuronal activity and metrics of plasticity using local electrical stimulation in the GPi were different between Parkinson's disease and dystonia patients.

Strengths:

The authors achieved their aims of comparing the dynamics related to stimulation induced metrics of plasticity in GPi between dystonia and PD, which has not been previously explored. These results could directly inform DBS protocols to improve treatment. The methods are clearly described and results are strong with measurements from a large population of patients for each disease group, and with distinct findings for each group. These results also may help provide insight as to the differences in terms of dynamics of therapeutic stimulation effects in the different disease groups.

Weaknesses:

After the revisions, the discussion contains many more details and comparisons to relevant literature, which will be helpful for readers to appreciate the importance of the results. The conclusion could have been strengthened as well, as it seems to be a very general summary of their findings without consideration of their clinical implications and importance. However, this may be a minor issue.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The authors aim to consider the effects of phonotactics on the effectiveness of memory reactivation during sleep. They have created artificial words that are either typical or atypical and showed that reactivation improves memory for the latter but not the former.

Strengths:<br /> This is an interesting design and a creative way of manipulating memory strength and typicality. In addition, the spectral analysis on both the wakefulness data and the sleep data is well done. The article is clearly written and provides a relevant and comprehensive of the literature and of how the results contribute to it.

Weaknesses:<br /> (1) Unlike most research involving artificial language or language in general, the task engaged in this manuscript did not require (or test) learning of meaning or translation. Instead, the artificial words were arbitrarily categorised and memory was tested for that categorisation. This somewhat limits the interpretation of the results as they pertain to language science, and qualifies comparisons with other language-related sleep studies that the manuscript builds on.

(2) Participants had to determine whether words are linked with reward or omission of punishment (if correctly categorised). Therefore, the task isn't a mere item categorisation task (group A/B), but also involves the complicated effects of reward (e.g., reward/loss asymmetries as predicted by prospect theory). This is not, in itself, a flaw, but there isn't a clear hypothesis as to the effects of reward on categorisation, and therefore no real justification for this design. This aspect of the task may add unneeded complexity (at best) or some reward-related contamination of the results (at worst).

(3) The study starts off with a sample size of N=39 but excludes 17 participants for some crucial analyses. This is a high number, and exclusion criteria were not pre-registered. Having said that, some criteria seem very reasonable (e.g., excluding participants who were not fully exposed to words during sleep).

(4) Relatedly, the final N is low for a between-subjects study (N=11 per group). This is adequately mentioned as a limitation, but since it does qualify the results, it seemed important to mention it here.

(5) The linguistic statistics used for establishing the artificial words are all based on American English, and are therefore in misalignment with the spoken language of the participants (which was German). This is a limitation of the study. The experimenters did not check whether participants were fluent in English. In all fairness, the behavioural effects presented in Figure 2A are convincing, providing a valuable manipulation test.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The work by Klaassen & Rasch investigates the influence of word learning difficulty on sleep-associated consolidation and reactivation. They elicited reactivation during sleep by applying targeted memory reactivation (TMR) and manipulated word learning difficulty by creating words more similar (easy) or more dissimilar (difficult) to our language.<br /> In one group of participants, they applied TMR of easy words and in another group of participants, they applied TMR of difficult words (between-subjects design).<br /> They showed that TMR leads to higher memory benefits in the easy compared to the difficult word group. On a neural level, they showed an increase in spindle power (in the up-state of an evoked response) when easy words were presented during sleep.

Strengths:<br /> The authors investigate a research question relevant to the field, that is, which experiences are actually consolidated during sleep. To address this question, they developed an innovative task and manipulated difficulty in an elegant way.

Overall, the paper is clearly structured, results and methods are described in an understandable way. The analyses approach is solid.

Weaknesses:<br /> (1) Sample size<br /> For a between-subjects design, the sample size is too small (N = 22). The main finding (also found in the title "Difficulty in artificial word learning impacts targeted memory reactivation") is based on an independent samples t-test with 11 participants/group.<br /> The authors explicitly mention the small sample size and the between-subjects design as a limitation in their discussion. Nevertheless, making meaningful inferences based on studies with such a small sample size is difficult.

(2) Choice of task<br /> Even though the task itself is innovative, there would have been tasks better suited to address the research question. The main disadvantage the task and the operationalisation of memory performance (d') have is that single-trial performance cannot be calculated. Consequently, choosing individual items for TMR is not possible.<br /> Additionally, TMR of low vs. high difficulty is conducted between subjects (and independently of pre-sleep memory performance) which is a consequence of the task design.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> In this study, the authors investigated the effects of targeted memory reactivation (TMR) during sleep on memory retention for artificial words with varying levels of phonotactical similarity to real words. The authors report that the high phonotactic probability (PP) words showed a more pronounced EEG alpha decrease during encoding and were more easily learned than the low PP words. Following TMR during sleep, participants who had been cued with the high PP TMR, remembered those words better than 0, whilst no such difference was found in the other conditions. Accordingly, the authors report higher EEG spindle band power during slow-wave up-states for the high PP as compared to low PP TMR trials. Overall, the authors conclude that artificial words which are easier to learn benefit more from TMR than those which are difficult to learn.

Strengths:<br /> (1) The authors have carefully designed the artificial stimuli to investigate the effectiveness of TMR on words that are easy to learn and difficult to learn due to their levels of similarity with prior word-sound knowledge. Their approach of varying the level of phonotactic probability enables them to have better control over phonotactical familiarity than in a natural language and are thus able to disentangle which properties of word learning contribute to TMR success.

(2) The use of EEG during wakeful encoding and sleep TMR sheds new light on the neural correlates of high PP vs low PP both during wakeful encoding and cue-induced retrieval during sleep.

Weaknesses:<br /> (1) The present analyses are based on a small sample and comparisons between participants rather than within participants. Considering that the TMR benefits are based on changes in memory categorization between participants, it could be argued that the individuals in the high PP group were more susceptible to TMR than those in the low PP group for reasons other than the phonotactic probabilities of the stimuli (e.g., these individuals might be more attentive to sounds in the environment during sleep). While the authors acknowledge the small sample size and between-subjects comparison as a limitation, these results should be interpreted with caution.

Impact:<br /> This work is likely to contribute to the subfield of sleep and memory, and their experimental methods could provide a useful resource for those which investigate memory processing of linguistic material.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors sought to understand the stage-dependent regulation of exophergenesis, a process thought to contribute to promoting neuronal proteostasis in C. elegans. Focusing on the ALMR neuron, they show that the frequency of exopher production correlates with the timing of reproduction. Using many genetic tools, they dissect the requirements of this pathway to eventually find that occupancy of the uterus acts as a signal to induce exophergenesis. Interestingly, the physical proximity of neurons to the egg zone correlates with exophergenesis frequency. The authors conclude that communication between the uterus and proximal neurons occurs through the sensing of mechanic forces of expansion normally provided by egg occupancy to coordinate exophergenesis with reproduction.

Strengths:

The genetic data presented is thorough and solid, and the observation is novel.

Weaknesses:

The authors have addressed the main weakness of the study in the revised manuscript, by providing data showing stimulation of exopher production in a single-copy transgenic line. Whether this process is related to the extrusion of cellular damage by the neurons in relatively young day 2 animals should be addressed in future studies.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This paper reports that mechanical stress from egg accumulation is a biological stimulus that drives the formation of extruded vesicles from the neurons of C. elegans ALMR touch neurons. Using powerful genetic experiments only readily available in the C. elegans system, the authors manipulate oocyte production, fertilization, embryo accumulation, and egg-laying behavior, providing convincing evidence that exopher production is driven by stretch-dependent feedback of fertilized, intact eggs in the adult uterus. Shifting the timing of egg production and egg laying alters the onset of observed exophers. Pharmacological manipulation of egg laying has the predicted effects, with animals retaining fewer eggs having fewer exophers and animals with increased egg accumulation having more. The authors show that egg production and accumulation have dramatic consequences to the viscera, and moving the ALMR process away from eggs prevents the formation of exophers. This effect is not unique to ALMR but is also observed in other touch neurons, with a clear bias toward neurons whose cell bodies are adjacent to the filled uterus. Embryos lacking an intact eggshell with reduced rigidity have impaired exopher production. Acute injection into the uterus to mimic the stretch that accompanies egg production causes a similar induction of exopher release. Together these results are consistent with a model where stretch caused by fertilized embryo accumulation, and not chemical signals from the eggs themselves or egg release, underlies ALMR exopher production seen in adult animals.

Strengths:

Overall, the experiments are very convincing, using a battery of RNAi and mutant approaches to distinguish direct from indirect effects. Indeed, these experiments provide a model generally for how one would methodically test different models for exopher production. The source and factors influencing exopher production had previously been unclear. This study addresses how and when they form in the animal using physiologically meaningful manipulations. The stage is now set to address at a cellular level how exophers like these are made and what their functions are.

Weaknesses:

Not many. The experiments are about as good as could be done. Some of the n's on the more difficult to work strains or experiments are comparatively low, but this is not a significant concern because the number of different, complementary approaches used. The microinjection experiment is very interesting, and the authors have added additional details on how these experiments were conducted in the revised manuscript. The authors have now included data from strains bearing a single-copy transgene that expresses mKate2 in the same neurons, showing that induced egg accumulation drives a similar degree of exopher production. This indicates that exposers seen are generated in response to specific biological conditions and not merely an artifact of mCherry protein over-expression.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this paper, the authors use the C. elegans system to explore how already-stressed neurons respond to additional mechanical stress. Exophers are large extracellular vesicles secreted by cells, which can contain protein aggregates and organelles. These can be a way of getting rid of cellular debris, but as they are endocytosed by other cells can also pass protein, lipid, and RNA to recipient cells. The authors find that when the uterus fills with eggs or otherwise expands, a nearby neuron (ALMR) is far more likely to secrete exophers. This paper highlights the importance of the mechanical environment in the behavior of neurons and may be relevant to the response of neurons exposed to traumatic injury.

Strengths:

The paper has a logical flow and a compelling narrative supported by crisp and clear figures.

The evidence that egg accumulation leads to exopher production is strong. The authors use a variety of genetic and pharmacological methods to show that increasing pressure leads to more exopher production, and reducing pressure leads to lower exopher production. For example, egg-laying defective animals, which retain eggs in the uterus, produce many more exophers, and hyperactive egg-laying is accompanied by low exopher production. The authors even inject fluid into the uterus and observe the production of exophers.

Weaknesses:

The main weakness of the paper is that it does not explore the molecular mechanism by which the mechanical signals are received or responded to by the neuron. The authors are currently addressing this in their follow-up studies.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study by Paoli et al. used a resonant scanning multiphoton microscope to examine olfactory representation in the projection neurons (PNs) of the honeybee with improved temporal resolution. PNs were classified into 9 groups based on their response patterns. Authors found that excitatory repose in the PNs precedes the inhibitory responses for ~40ms, and ~50% of PN responses contain inhibitory components. They built the neural circuit model of the mushroom body (MB) with evolutionally conserved features such as sparse representation, global inhibition, and a plasticity rule. This MB model fed with the experimental data could reproduce a number of phenomena observed in experiments using bees and other insects, including dynamical representations of odor onset and offset by different populations of Kenyon cells, prolonged representations of after-smell, different levels of odor-specificity for early/delay conditioning, and shift of behavioral timing in delay conditioning. The trace conditioning was also tested experimentally, although bees did not shift the timing of PER response to the post-odor period as the model predicted. The experimental data and the model provide a solid basis for future studies.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Tuberosa et al outlines the generation of a new set of transgenic mice that express different recombinases specifically in Smim32 positive cells. They show that Smim32 is a useful marker of the mouse claustrum. Therefore, these mice could be useful for functional studies focused on measuring claustrum activity or manipulating the claustrum using optogenetic and pharmacogenetic tools.

Strengths:

The manuscript provides a new genetic approach to target claustrum neurons, using Smim32. The work may help future studies where claustrum excitatory neurons are measured or manipulated.

Weaknesses:

A toolbox is only useful if others can use it. Therefore, these mice should be made available to the community through commercial vendors. Without this added step, this toolbox and method does not provide any utility to the research community.

The data presented and quantified in each figure subpanel are from N = 1 mouse. This is not acceptable or conventional. Replication is an important aspect of any paper, and currently, there are no replicates contained in the manuscript. Additional examples of female mice should also be included and separately quantified. Mice from different litters should be used for replicates.

Given the preliminary nature of these data from the minimum possible number of mice, a better characterization of all data should be undertaken.

The tone of the paper implies that this is the superior way to locate the claustrum. A more balanced discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of these mice should be included. Several sentences highlighting the shortfalls of other approaches are overstated and should be toned down.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Rodent studies of claustrum are complicated by the tube-like shape of this nucleus. As such, judicious viral strategies alone or in combination with existing Cre driver lines (Egr2, Gnb4, Slc17a6, and Tbx21) represent the current gold standard for claustrum structure and function investigation. Any improvement in tools that would allow better genetic access to the claustrum are always desired, as with any nucleus in brain. This paper describes the expression pattern of the gene Smim32 and characterization of new mouse transgenic lines expressing Cre/Flp recombinase driven by the Smim32 promoter. The authors should be applauded for the work to develop these new tools presented in the study. Overall, the strengths of the paper lie in the development of new mouse lines that are well-characterized in comparison to other molecular markers of the claustrum. Weaknesses lie in poor anatomical definitions of the claustrum (and endopiriform nucleus). Smim32 expression is used to define claustrum anatomical boundaries, rather than first using several structural, molecular, and connectivity lines of evidence to define the claustrum anatomically and then to assess whether Smim32 expression fits within this anatomical definition. Another major weakness is the fact that Cre/Flp expression driven by the Smim32 promoter is present in non-claustrum regions, including the neighboring cortex, striatum, and endopiriform nucleus as well as the more distant thalamic reticular nucleus. Despite this, the conclusion of the study, as communicated by the authors, is that selective interrogation of the claustrum is now possible with these Smim32-based tools. Therefore, the data do not support the claims and conclusions.

Very concerning is problematic language in the abstract and introduction sections that diminish the impact of several published studies (not cited) that have led to important findings regarding claustrum function. The authors Create an argument that all the research performed thus far on the claustrum is unreliable because targeting the structure has been sub-optimal. This is definitely not the case for several studies from multiple labs. If investigators new to the claustrum were to read this paper, they would conclude that all previous data hold little-to-no value and that using these tools set forth the possibility, at long last, to solve claustrum structural and functional queries. Here is an example from the abstract of the problematic language: "However, research on the CLA has been challenging due to difficulties in specifically and comprehensively targeting its neuronal populations. In various cases, this limitation has led to inconsistent findings and a lack of reliable data." (no references cited). Since Smim32 driven recombinase (in 61 or 62lrod) is not exclusively expressed in the claustrum, it is not clear how Smim32 is an advantage over possible Nr4a2 or, the more selective, GNB4 Cre driver lines. Taken together, the goal of the study as articulated in the Introduction: "Our goal was here to generate genetic tools capable of targeting the majority of mouse CLA projection neurons without affecting other brain cell populations, or tissues outside the brain" has not been met and, therefore, the conclusion of the study based on the data "With these genetic tools in hand, the comprehensive targeting and functional probing of the densely connected CLA is now possible" is unfortunately also unmet.

The manuscript does convincingly show that Smim32 targets excitatory neurons in the claustrum as evidenced by exclusive overlap of Smim32 expression with Vglut2 and not GAD (fig 1 and suppl fig 1). Additionally, the manuscript provides sufficient evidence that neurons in the claustrum area expressing Smim32 further co-express a number of other molecular markers of claustrum, including Nr4a2 (fig1), Lxn, Gnb4, and Oprk1 (fig 2), and Slc17a6 (suppl fig 1). The authors further show that Smim32 is not co-expressed with molecular markers of layer VI cortex like Ctgf and Rprm (fig 2). However, by limiting the line of evidence to molecular expression, the study fails to escape the limitations of molecular markers, which cannot by themselves be used to define the anatomical boundary of the claustrum. The expression of several of these markers in the neighboring endopiriform nucleus, including Smim32, is evidence that using molecular markers as a sole indicator of the anatomy of the claustrum is not warranted.

While the anatomical boundaries of the claustrum remain somewhat debated, several standards have emerged to delineate claustrum boundaries. These include immunoreactivity against Gng2 (or PV, especially in rat) to indicate claustrum or against Crym to counter-indicate claustrum. In addition, injection of retrograde tracers into the anterior cingulate cortex or retrosplenial cortex, for example, results in selective targeting of (large) subpopulations of claustrum neurons that help define claustrum location. Further targeting of neurons projecting to the anterior insula or thalamus has been used to delineate the boundaries of what some consider the claustrum shell and others consider the deep layers of the insula. The use of any of these approaches to delineate the claustrum anatomy should be used to describe the spatial distribution of Smim32 and Cre or FlpO in the transgenic lines.

The manuscript provides a description of Smim32 promoter-driven tdTomato in the three transgenic Cre lines during development. This shows strong expression in claustrum and not in surrounding regions. However, as the claustrum borders are not distinct without markers, the anatomical boundary of claustrum for this analysis is deemed arbitrary - an issue that is exacerbated when looking at the developing brain where atlases are less precise and boundaries of the claustrum are ill-defined.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In the manuscript by Tuberosa et al., the authors set out to identify a genetic marker for the claustrum to create transgenic mice as tools to study this challenging brain region. To achieve this, the authors first re-analyzed published scRNAseq datasets from mouse frontal cortex and identified a unique cluster expressing Smim32, which correlated with Nr4a2, a previously reported claustrum marker (though also expressed in layer 6 and elsewhere). Importantly, Smim32 was also found to strongly express in the layer 6 and the thalamic reticular nucleus (with weaker expression in other parts of cortex, striatum, thalamus, olfactory bulb and more). The authors then extensively characterize Smim32 expression relative to a few other genes associated with claustrum and layer 6, as well as creating several novel transgenic mice focused on the Smim32 gene.

Strengths:

The main strength of the paper is the well done scRNAseq analysis, the beautiful ISH images/reconstructions, and the assessment of gene expression throughout development. The main value of this paper is adding the Smim32 gene to the list of markers expressed in the claustrum, though it is not specific to the claustrum, showing extensive expression in TRN and layer 6 of cortex.

Weaknesses:

The main weaknesses are that the results do not support the conclusion, namely that the Smim32 gene is not specific to the claustrum and that no other orthogonal approaches were used to define the claustrum, such as retrograde neuroanatomical tracing from cortex. Also, these results are of limited applicability as the gene expression was only performed in mice, so it is unclear how Smim32 relates to claustrum in other mammalian species (e.g. primates), which have a very clearly defined claustrum. The article is also missing some key literature on the anatomical definition of claustrum, specifically as it relates to the endopiriform nucleus (which is putatively considered part of the claustrum in rodents).

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary

In this study, Takagi and colleagues demonstrate that changes in axonal arborization of the segmental wave motor command neurons are sufficient to change behavioral motor output.

The authors identify the Wnt receptors DFz2 and DFz4 and the ligand Wnt4 as modulators of stereotypic segmental arborization patterns of segmental wave neurons along the anterior-posterior body axis. Based on both embryonic expression pattern analysis and genetic manipulation of the signaling components in wave neurons (receptors) and the neuropil (Wnt4) the authors convincingly demonstrate that Wnt4 acts as a repulsive ligand for DFz2 that restricts posterior axon guidance of both anterior and posterior wave neurons. They also provide the first evidence that Wnt4 potentially acts as an attractive ligand for Df4 to promote the posterior extension of p-wave neurons. Interestingly, artificial optogenetic activation of all wave neurons that normally induces backward locomotion due to the activity of anterior wave neurons, fails to induce backward locomotion in a DFz2 knockdown condition with altered axonal extensions of all wave neurons towards posterior segments. In addition, the authors now observe enhanced fast-forward locomotion, a feature normally induced by posterior wave neurons. Consistent with these findings, they observe that the natural response to an anterior tactile stimulus is similarly altered in DFz2 knockdown animals. The animals respond with less backward movement and increased fast forward motion. These results suggest that alterations in the innervation pattern of wave motor command neurons are sufficient to switch behavioral response programs.

Strengths

The authors convincingly demonstrate the importance of Wnt signaling for anterior-posterior axon guidance of a single class of motor command neurons in the larval CNS. The demonstration that alteration of the expression level of a single axon guidance receptor is sufficient to not only alter the innervation pattern but to significantly modify the behavioral response program of the animal provides a potential entry point to understanding behavioral adaptations during evolution.

Weaknesses

While the authors demonstrate an alteration of the behavioral response to a natural tactile stimulus the observed effects, a reduction of backward motion and increased fast-foward locomotion, currently cannot be directly correlated to the morphological alterations observed in the single-neuron analyses. The authors do not report any loss of innervation in the "normal" target region but only a small additional innervation of more posterior regions. An analysis of synaptic connectivity and/or a more detailed morphological analysis that is supported by a larger number of analyzed neurons both in control and experimental animals would further strengthen the confidence of the study. As the authors suggest an alteration of the command circuitry, a direct observation of the downstream activation pattern in response to selective optogenetic stimulation of anterior wave neurons would further strengthen their claims (analogous to Takagi et al., 2017, Figure 4).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors previously demonstrated that anterior-located a-Wave neurons (neuromeres A1-A3) extend axons anteriorly to connect to circuits inducing backward locomotion, while p-Wave axon (neuromeres A4-A7) project posteriorly to promote forward locomotion in Drosophila larvae. In the manuscript, the authors aim to determine the molecular mechanisms involved in wiring the segmentally homologous Wave neurons distinctively and thus are functionally different in modulating forward or backward locomotion. The genetic screen focused on Wnt/Fz-signaling due to its known anterior-to-posterior guidance roles in mammals and nematodes.

Strengths:

Knock-down (KD) DFz2 with two independent RNAi-lines caused ectopic posterior axon and dendrite extension for all a- and p-Wave neurons, with a-Wave axon extending into regions where p-Wave axons normally project. Both behavioral assays (optogenetic stimulation of all Wave neurons or tactile stimuli on heads using a von Frey filament) show that backward movement is reduced or absent and that the speed of evoked fast-forward locomotion is increased. This demonstrates that altered projections of Wave do alter behavior and the DFz2 KD phenotype is consistent with the potential aberrant wiring of a-Wave neurons to forward locomotion-promoting circuits instead of to backward locomotion-promoting circuits.

The main conclusion, that Wnt/Fz-signaling is essential for the guidance of Wave neurons and in diversifying their protection pattern in a segment-specific manner, is further supported by the results showing that DFz2 gain of function causes shortening of a-Wave but not p-Wave axon extensions towards the posterior end and that KD of DFz4 causes axonal shortening only in A6-p-Wave neurons but does not affect dendrites or processes of other Wave neurons. A role for ligand Wnt4 is demonstrated by results indicating that WNT4 mutants' posterior extension of a-Wave axons was elongated similar to DFz2 KD animals and p-Wave axon extension towards the posterior end was shortened similar to DFz2 KD animals. Finally, a DWnt4 gradient decreasing from the posterior (A8) to the anterior end (A2), similar to that described in other species, is supported by analyses of DWnt4 gene expression (using Wnt4 Trojan-Gal4) and protein expression (using antibodies). In contrast, DFz2 receptor levels seemed to decrease from the anterior (A2) to the posterior end (A5/6). Together the results support the conclusion that opposing Wnt/Fz ligand-receptor gradients contribute to the diversification of Wave neurons in a location-dependent manner and that DFz2 and DFz4 have opposing effects on axon extension.

Weaknesses:

Wave axon and dendrite projections are not exclusively determined by Wnt4, DFz2, and DFz4, and are likely to involve other Fz receptors, Wt ligands, and other types of receptor-ligand signaling pathways. This is in part supported by the fact that Wnt4 loss of function also resulted in phenotypes that do not mimic DFz2 KD or DFz4 KD (Figures 3D, E, and F) and that other Fz/Wnt mutants caused wave neuron phenotypes (Figure 1-supplement 2, D+E). This is not a weakness per se, since it doesn't affect the main conclusion of the manuscript. However, the description and analyses of the data in particular for Figure 1-supplement 2 D should be clarified in the legend. The number within the bars and the asterisks are not defined. It's presumed they refer to numbers of animals assessed and the asterisk next to DFz2 and DFz4 indicate statistically significant differences. However, only one p-value is provided in the legend. It is also unclear if p-values for the other mutants have not been determined or are non-significant. At least for mutants like Corin, which also exhibit altered axon projections, the p-values should be provided.

Figure 4 D, F. The gradient for Wnt4 was determined by comparison of expression levels of other segments to A8 but the gradient for DFz2 was by comparison to A2 and the data supports opposing gradients. However, for DFz2 (Figure 4, F) it seems that the gradient is bi-directional with the lowest being in A5 and increasing towards A2 as well as A8. Analysis should be performed in reference to A8 as well to determine if it is indeed bi-directional. While such a finding would not affect the interpretation of a-Wave neurons, it may impact conclusions about p-Wave neuron projections.

As discussed above, the DFz2 KD phenotypes are consistent with the potential aberrant wiring of a-Wave neurons to forward locomotion-promoting circuits instead of to backward locomotion-promoting circuits. However, since the axon and dendrites of a-Wave and p-Wave are affected the actual dendritic and axonal contributions for the altered behavior remain elusive. The authors certainly considered a potential contribution of altered dendrite projection of a-Wave neurons to the phenotype and their conclusion that altered axonal projections are involved is supported by the optogenetic experiment "bypassing" sensory input (albeit it seems unlikely that all Wave neurons are activated simultaneously when perceiving natural stimuli). However, the author should also consider that altered perception and projection of p-Wave neuron may directly (e.g. extended P-wave axon projections increase forward locomotion input thereby overriding backward locomotion) or indirectly (e.g. feedback loops between forward and backward circuits) contribute to the altered behavioral phenotypes in both assays. It is probably noteworthy that the more complex behavioral alterations observed with mechanical stimulation are likely to also be caused by altered dendritic projections.

Presynaptic varicosities of a-Wave neurons in DFz2 KD animals are indicated by orange arrows in Figure 1. However, no presynaptic markers have been used to confirm actual ectopic synaptic connections. At least the authors should more clearly define what parameters they used to "visually" define potential presynaptic varicosities. Some arrows seem to point to more "globular structures" but for several others, it's unclear what they are pointing at.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors present a novel CRISPR/Cas9-based genetic tool for the dopamine receptor dop1R2. Based on the known function of the receptor in learning and memory, they tested the efficacy of the genetic tool by knocking out the receptor specifically in mushroom body neurons. The data suggest that dop1R2 is necessary for longer-lasting memories through its action on ⍺/ß and ⍺'/ß' neurons but is dispensable for short-term memory and thus in ɣ neurons. The experiments impressively demonstrate the value of such a genetic tool and illustrate the specific function of the receptor in subpopulations of KCs for longer-term memories. The data presented in this manuscript are significant.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript examines the role of the dopamine receptor, Dop1R2, in memory formation. This receptor has complex roles in supporting different stages of memory, and the neural mechanisms for these functions are poorly understood. The authors are able to localize Dop1R2 function to the vertical lobes of the mushroom body, revealing a role in later (presumably middle-term) aversive and appetitive memory. In general, the experimental design is rigorous, and statistics are appropriately applied. While the manuscript provides a useful tool, it would be strengthened further by additional mechanistic studies that build on the rich literature examining the roles of dopamine signaling in memory formation. The claim that Dop1R2 is involved in memory formation is strongly supported by the data presented, and this manuscript adds to a growing literature revealing that dopamine is a critical regulator of olfactory memory. However, the manuscript does not necessarily extend much beyond our understanding of Dop1R2 in memory formation, and future work will be needed to fully characterize this reagent and define the role of Dop1R2 in memory.

Strengths:

(1) The FRT lines generated provide a novel tool for temporal and spatially precise manipulation of Dop1R2 function. This tool will be valuable to study the role of Dop1R2 in memory and other behaviors potentially regulated by this gene.

(2) Given the highly conserved role of Dop1R2 in memory and other processes, these findings have a high potential to translate to vertebrate species.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors state Dop1R2 associates with two different G-proteins. It would be useful to know which one is mediating the loss of aversive and appetitive memory in Dop1R2 knockout flies.

(2) It would be interesting to examine 24hr aversive memory, in addition to 24hr appetitive memory.

(3) The manuscript would be strengthened by added functional analysis. What are the DANs that signal through Dop1R. How do these knockouts impact MBONs?

(4) Also in Figure 2, the lobe-specific knockouts might be moved to supplemental since there is no effect. Instead, consider moving the control sensory tests into the main figure.

(5) Can the single-cell atlas data be used to narrow down the cell types in the vertical lobes that express Dop1R2? Is it all or just a subset?

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Kaldun et al. investigated the role of Dopamine Receptor Dop1R2 in different types and stages of olfactory associative memory in Drosophila melanogaster. Dop1R2 is a type 1 Dopamine receptor that can act both through Gs-cAMP and Gq-ERCa2+ pathways. The authors first developed a very useful tool, where tissue-specific knock-out mutants can be generated, using Crispr/Cas9 technology in combination with the powerful Gal4/UAS gene-expression toolkit, very common in fruit flies.<br /> They direct the K.O. mutation to intrinsic neurons of the main associative memory centre fly brain-the mushroom body (MB). There are three main types of MB-neurons, or Kenyon cells, according to their axonal projections: a/b; a'/b', and g neurons.

Kaldun et al. found that flies lacking dop1R2 all over the MB displayed impaired appetitive middle-term (2h) and long-term (24h) memory, whereas appetitive short-term memory remained intact. Knocking-out dop1R2 in the three MB neuron subtypes also impaired middle-term, but not short-term, aversive memory.

These memory defects were recapitulated when the loss of the dop1R2 gene was restricted to either a/b or a'/b', but not when the loss of the gene was restricted to g neurons, showcasing a compartmentalized role of Dop1R2 in specific neuronal subtypes of the main memory centre of the fly brain for the expression of middle and long-term memories.

Strengths:

(1) The conclusions of this paper are very well supported by the data, and the authors systematically addressed the requirement of a very interesting type of dopamine receptor in both appetitive and aversive memories. These findings are important for the fields of learning and memory and dopaminergic neuromodulation among others. The evidence in the literature so far was generated in different labs, each using different tools (mutants, RNAi knockdowns driven in different developmental stages...), different time points (short, middle, and long-term memory), different types of memories (Anesthesia resistant, which is a type of protein synthesis independent consolidated memory; anesthesia sensitive, which is a type of protein synthesis-dependent consolidated memory; aversive memory; appetitive memory...) and different behavioral paradigms. A study like this one allows for direct comparison of the results, and generalized observations.

(2) Additionally, Kaldun and collaborators addressed the requirement of different types of Kenyon cells, that have been classically involved in different memory stages: g KCs for memory acquisition and a/b or a'/b' for later memory phases. This systematical approach has not been performed before.

(3) Importantly, the authors of this paper produced a tool to generate tissue-specific knock-out mutants of dop1R2. Although this is not the first time that the requirement of this gene in different memory phases has been studied, the tools used here represent the most sophisticated genetic approach to induce a loss of function phenotypes exclusively in MB neurons.

Weaknesses:

(1) Although the paper does have important strengths, the main weakness of this work is that the advancement in the field could be considered incremental: the main findings of the manuscript had been reported before by several groups, using tissue-specific conditional knockdowns through interference RNAi. The requirement of Dop1R2 in MB for middle-term and long-term memories has been shown both for appetitive (Musso et al 2015, Sun et al 2020) and aversive associations (Plaçais et al 2017).

(2) The approach used here to genetically modify memory neurons is not temporally restricted. Considering the role of dopamine in the correct development of the nervous system, one must consider the possible effects that this manipulation can have in the establishment of memory circuits. However, previous studies addressing this question restricted the manipulation of Dop1R2 expression to adulthood, leading to the same findings than the ones reported in this paper for both aversive and appetitive memories, which solidifies the findings of this paper.

(3) The authors state that they aim to resolve disparities of findings in the field regarding the specific role of Dop1R2 in memory, offering a potent tool to generate mutants and addressing systematically their effects on different types of memory. Their results support the role of this receptor in the expression of long-term memories, however in the experiments performed here do not address temporal resolution of the genetic manipulations that could bring light into the mechanisms of action of Dop1R2 in memory. Several hypotheses have been proposed, from stabilization of memory, effects on forgetting, or integration of sequences of events (sensory experiences and dopamine release).

Overall, the authors generated a very useful tool to study dopamine neuromodulation in any given circuit when used in combination with the powerful genetic toolkit available in Drosophila. The reports in this paper confirmed a previously described role of Dop1R2 in the expression of aversive and appetitive LTM and mapped these effects to two specific types of memory neurons in the fly brain, previously implicated in the expression and consolidation of long-term associative memories.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This paper explores how diverse forms of inhibition impact firing rates in models for cortical circuits. In particular, the paper studies how the network operating point affects the balance of direct inhibition from SOM inhibitory neurons to pyramidal cells, and disinhibition from SOM inhibitory input to PV inhibitory neurons. This is an important issue as these two inhibitory pathways have largely been studies in isolation. Support for the main conclusions is generally solid, but could be strengthened by additional analyses.

Strengths:

A major strength of the paper is the systematic exploration of how circuit architecture effects the impact of inhibition. This includes scans across parameter space to determine how firing rates and stability depend on effective connectivity. This is done through linearization of the circuit about an effective operating point, and then the study of how perturbations in input effect this linear approximation.

Weaknesses:

The linearization approach means that the conclusions of the paper are valid only on the linear regime of network behavior. The paper would be substantially strengthened with a test of whether the conclusions from the linearized circuit hold over a large range of network activity. Is it possible to simulate the full network and do some targeted tests of the conclusions from linearization? Those tests could be guided by the linearization to focus on specific parameter ranges of interest.

The results illustrated in the figures are generally well described but there is very little intuition provided for them. Are there simplified examples or explanations that could be given to help the results make sense? Here are some places such intuition would be particularly helpful:<br /> page 6, paragraph starting "In sum ..."<br /> Page 8, last paragraph<br /> Page 10, paragraph starting "In summary ..."<br /> Page 11, sentence starting "In sum ..."

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Bos and colleagues address the important question of how two major inhibitory interneuron classes in the neocortex differentially affect cortical dynamics. They address this question by studying Wilson-Cowan-type mathematical models. Using a linearized fixed point approach, they provide convincing evidence that the existence of multiple interneuron classes can explain the counterintuitive finding that inhibitory modulation can increase the gain of the excitatory cell population while also increasing the stability of the circuit's state to minor perturbations. This effect depends on the connection strengths within their circuit model, providing valuable guidance as to when and why it arises.

Overall, I find this study to have substantial merit. I have some suggestions on how to improve the clarity and completeness of the paper.

Strengths:

(1) The thorough investigation of how changes in the connectivity structure affect the gain-stability relationship is a major strength of this work. It provides an opportunity to understand when and why gain and stability will or will not both increase together. It also provides a nice bridge to the experimental literature, where different gain-stability relationships are reported from different studies.

(2) The simplified and abstracted mathematical model has the benefit of facilitating our understanding of this puzzling phenomenon. (I have some suggestions for how the authors could push this understanding further.) It is not easy to find the right balance between biologically detailed models vs simple but mathematically tractable ones, and I think the authors struck an excellent balance in this study.

Weaknesses:

(1) The fixed-point analysis has potentially substantial limitations for understanding cortical computations away from the steady-state. I think the authors should have emphasized this limitation more strongly and possibly included some additional analyses to show that their conclusions extend to the chaotic dynamical regimes in which cortical circuits often live.

(2) The authors could have discussed -- even somewhat speculatively -- how SST interneurons fit into this picture. Their absence from this modelling framework stands out as a missed opportunity.

(3) The analysis is limited to paths within this simple E,PV,SOM circuit. This misses more extended paths (like thalamocortical loops) that involve interactions between multiple brain areas. Including those paths in the expansion in Eqs. 11-14 (Fig. 1C) may be an important consideration.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> Bos et al study a computational model of cortical circuits with excitatory (E) and two subtypes of inhibition - parvalbumin (PV) and somatostatin (SOM) expressing interneurons. They perform stability and gain analysis of simplified models with nonlinear transfer functions when SOM neurons are perturbed. Their analysis suggests that in a specific setup of connectivity, instability and gain can be untangled, such that SOM modulation leads to both increases in stability and gain. This is in contrast with the typical direction in neuronal networks where increased gain results in decreased stability.

Strengths:<br /> - Analysis of the canonical circuit in response to SOM perturbations. Through numerical simulations and mathematical analysis, the authors have provided a rather comprehensive picture of how SOM modulation may affect response changes.

- Shedding light on two opposing circuit motifs involved in the canonical E-PV-SOM circuitry - namely, direct inhibition (SOM -> E) vs disinhibition (SOM -> PV -> E). These two pathways can lead to opposing effects, and it is often difficult to predict which one results from modulating SOM neurons. In simplified circuits, the authors show how these two motifs can emerge and depend on parameters like connection weights.

- Suggesting potentially interesting consequences for cortical computation. The authors suggest that certain regimes of connectivity may lead to untangling of stability and gain, such that increases in network gain are not compromised by decreasing stability. They also link SOM modulation in different connectivity regimes to versatile computations in visual processing in simple models.

Weaknesses:<br /> The computational analysis is not novel per se, and the link to biology is not direct/clear.

Computationally, the analysis is solid, but it's very similar to previous studies (del Molino et al, 2017). Many studies in the past few years have done the perturbation analysis of a similar circuitry with or without nonlinear transfer functions (some of them listed in the references). This study applies the same framework to SOM perturbations, which is a useful and interesting computational exercise, in view of the complexity of the high-dimensional parameter space. But the mathematical framework is not novel per se, undermining the claim of providing a new framework (or "circuit theory").

Link to biology: the most interesting result of the paper with regard to biology is the suggestion of a regime in which gain and stability can be modulated in an unconventional way - however, it is difficult to link the results to biological networks:<br /> - A general weakness of the paper is a lack of direct comparison to biological parameters or experiments. How different experiments can be reconciled by the results obtained here, and what new circuit mechanisms can be revealed? In its current form, the paper reads as a general suggestion that different combinations of gain modulation and stability can be achieved in a circuit model equipped with many parameters (12 parameters). This is potentially interesting but not surprising, given the high dimensional space of possible dynamical properties. A more interesting result would have been to relate this to biology, by providing reasoning why it might be relevant to certain circuits (and not others), or to provide some predictions or postdictions, which are currently missing in the manuscript.<br /> - For instance, a nice motivation for the paper at the beginning of the Results section is the different results of SOM modulation in different experiments - especially between L23 (inhibition) and L4 (disinhibition). But no further explanation is provided for why such a difference should exist, in view of their results and the insights obtained from their suggested circuit mechanisms. How the parameters identified for the two regimes correspond to different properties of different layers?<br /> - Another caveat is the range of parameters needed to obtain the unintuitive untangling as a result of SOM modulation. From Figure 4, it appears that the "interesting" regime (with increases in both gain and stability) is only feasible for a very narrow range of SOM firing rates (before 3 Hz). This can be a problem for the computational models if the sweet spot is a very narrow region (this analysis is by the way missing, so making it difficult to know how robust the result is in terms of parameter regions). In terms of biology, it is difficult to reconcile this with the realistic firing rates in the cortex: in the mouse cortex, for instance, we know that SOM neurons can be quite active (comparable to E neurons), especially in response to stimuli. It is therefore not clear if we should expect this mechanism to be a relevant one for cortical activity regimes.<br /> - One of the key assumptions of the model is nonlinear transfer functions for all neuron types. In terms of modelling and computational analysis, a thorough analysis of how and when this is necessary is missing (an analysis similar to what has been attempted at in Figure 6 for synaptic weights, but for cellular gains). In terms of biology, the nonlinear transfer function has experimentally been reported for excitatory neurons, so it's not clear to what extent this may hold for different inhibitory subtypes. A discussion of this, along with the former analysis to know which nonlinearities would be necessary for the results, is needed, but currently missing from the study. The nonlinearity is assumed for all subtypes because it seems to be needed to obtain the results, but it's not clear how the model would behave in the presence or absence of them, and whether they are relevant to biological networks with inhibitory transfer functions.<br /> - Tuning curves are simulated for an individual orientation (same for all), not considering the heterogeneity of neuronal networks with multiple orientation selectivity (and other visual features) - making the model too simplistic.

for - paper review - building a system-based Theory of Change using Participatory Systems Mapping - participatory systems mapping - SRG / Indyweb dev - system mapping - participatory approach

summary - I'm reviewing this paper because the title seems salient for the development of our own participatory Stop Reset Go system mapping tool within Indyweb ecosystem. - The building of - a systems-based Theory of Change using - Participatory Systems Mapping - is salient to our own project and aligns to it with different language: - Theory of Change with uses theory to perform an evaluation and propose an intervention - The Stop Reset Go framework focuses on the specific type of process called "improvement", or - transforming a process to make it "better" in some way

to - Indyweb project info page - https://hyp.is/RRevQk0UEe-xwP-i8Ywwqg/opencollective.com/open-learning-commons/projects/indy-learning-commons

for - Indyweb information page - Open Collective Indyweb

from - Paper Review - Participatory Systems Mapping - https://hyp.is/FSRodE0QEe-Z26cIILK6sw/journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1356389020980493

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Dr. Santamaria's group previously utilized antigen-specific nanomedicines to induce immune tolerance in treating autoimmune diseases. The success of this therapeutic strategy has been linked to expanded regulatory mechanisms, particularly the role of T-regulatory type-1 (TR1) cells. However, the differentiation program of TR1 cells remained largely unclear. Previous work from the authors suggested that TR1 cells originate from T follicular helper (TFH) cells. In the current study, the authors aimed to investigate the epigenetic mechanisms underlying the transdifferentiation of TFH cells into IL-10-producing TR1 cells. Specifically, they sought to determine whether this process involves extensive chromatin remodeling or is driven by pre-existing epigenetic modifications. Their goal was to understand the transcriptional and epigenetic changes facilitating this transition and to explore the potential therapeutic implications of manipulating this pathway.

The authors successfully demonstrated that the TFH-to-TR1 transdifferentiation process is driven by pre-existing epigenetic modifications rather than extensive new chromatin remodeling. The comprehensive transcriptional and epigenetic analyses provide robust evidence supporting their conclusions.

Strengths:

(1) The study employs a broad range of bulk and single-cell transcriptional and epigenetic tools, including RNA-seq, ATAC-seq, ChIP-seq, and DNA methylation analysis. This comprehensive approach provides a detailed examination of the epigenetic landscape during the TFH-to-TR1 transition.

(2) The use of high-throughput sequencing technologies and sophisticated bioinformatics analyses strengthens the foundation for the conclusions drawn.

(3) The data generated can serve as a valuable resource for the scientific community, offering insights into the epigenetic regulation of T-cell plasticity.

(4) The findings have significant implications for developing new therapeutic strategies for autoimmune diseases, making the research highly relevant and impactful.

Weaknesses:

(1) While the scope of this study lies in transcriptional and epigenetic analyses, the conclusions need to be validated by future functional analyses.

(2) This study successfully identified key transcription factors and epigenetic marks. How these factors mechanistically drive chromatin closure and gene expression changes during the TFH-to-TR1 transition requires further investigation.

(3) The study provides a snapshot of the epigenetic landscape. Future dynamic analysis may offer more insights into the progression and stability of the observed changes.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This study, based on their previous findings that TFH cells can be converted into TR1 cells, conducted a highly detailed and comprehensive epigenetic investigation to answer whether TR1 differentiation from TFH is driven by epigenetic changes. Their evidence indicated that the downregulation of TFH-related genes during the TFH to TR1 transition depends on chromatin closure, while the upregulation of TR1-related genes does not depend on epigenetic changes.

Strengths:

A significant advantage of their approach lies in its detailed and comprehensive assessment of epigenetics. Their analysis of epigenetics covers chromatin open regions, histone modifications, DNA methylation, and using both single-cell and bulk techniques to validate their findings. As for their results, observations from different epigenetic perspectives mutually supported each other, lending greater credibility to their conclusions. This study effectively demonstrates that (1) the TFH-to-TR1 differentiation process is associated with massive closure of OCRs, and (2) the TR1-poised epigenome of TFH cells is a key enabler of this transdifferentiation process. Considering the extensive changes in epigenetic patterns involved in other CD4+ T lineage commitment processes, the similarity between TFH and TR1 in their epigenetics is intriguing.

They performed correlation analysis to answer the association between "pMHC-NP-induced epigenetic change" and "gene expression change in TR1". Also, they have made their raw data publicly available, providing a comprehensive epigenomic database of pMHC-NP-induced TR1 cells. This will serve as a valuable reference for future research.

Weaknesses:

A major limitation is that this study heavily relies on a premise from the previous studies performed by the same group on pMHC-NP-induced T-cell responses. This significantly limits the relevance of their conclusion to a broader perspective. Specifically, differential OCRs between Tet+ and naïve T cells were limited to only 821, as compared to 10,919 differential OCRs between KLH-TFH and naïve T cells (Figure 2A), indicating that the precursors and T cell clonotypes that responded to pMHC-NP were extremely limited. This limitation should be clearly discussed in the Discussion section.

This article uses peak calling to determine whether a region has histone modifications, claiming that the regions with histone modifications in TFH and TR1 are highly similar. However, they did not discuss the differences in histone modification intensities measured by ChIP-seq. For example, as shown in Figure 6C, IL10 H3K27ac modification in Tet+ cells showed significantly higher intensity than KLH-TFH, while in this article, it may be categorized as "possessing same histone modification region". This will strengthen their conclusions.

Last, the key findings of this study are clear and convincing, but some results and figures are unnecessary and redundant. Some results are largely a mere confirmation of the relationship between histone marks and chromatin status. I propose to reduce the number of figures and text that are largely confirmatory. Overall, I feel this paper is too long for its current contents.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The study of human intelligence has been the focus of cognitive neuroscience research, and finding some objective behavioral or neural indicators of intelligence has been an ongoing problem for scientists for many years. Melnick et al, 2013 found for the first time that the phenomenon of spatial suppression in motion perception predicts an individual's IQ score. This is because IQ is likely associated with the ability to suppress irrelevant information. In this study, a high-resolution MRS approach was used to test this theory. In this paper, the phenomenon of spatial suppression in motion perception was found to be correlated with the visuo-spatial subtest of gF, while both variables were also correlated with the GABA concentration of MT+ in the human brain. In addition, there was no significant relationship with the excitatory transmitter Glu. At the same time, SI was also associated with MT+ and several frontal cortex FCs.

Strengths:

(1) 7T high-resolution MRS is used.

(2) This study combines the behavioral tests, MRS, and fMRI.

Weaknesses:

Major:

(1) In Melnick (2013) IQ scores were measured by the full set of WAIS-III, including all subtests. However, this study only used visual spatial domain of gF. I wonder why only the visuo-spatial subtest was used not the full WAIS-III? I am wondering whether other subtests were conducted and, if so, please include the results as well to have comprehensive comparisons with Melnick (2013).

Minor:

(1) Table 1 and Table supplementary 1-3 contain many correlation results. But what are the main points of these values? Which values do the authors want to highlight? Why are only p-values shown with significance symbols in Table supplementary 2??

(2) Line 27, it is unclear to me what is "the canonical theory".

(3) Throughout the paper, the authors use "MT+", I would suggest using "hMT+" to indicate the human MT complex, and to be consistent with the human fMRI literature.

(4) At the beginning of the results section, I suggest including the total number of subjects. It is confusing what "31/36 in MT+, and 28/36 in V1" means.

(5) Line 138, "This finding supports the hypothesis that motion perception is associated with neural activity in MT+ area". This sentence is strange because it is a well established finding in numerous human fMRI papers. I think the authors should be more specific about what this finding implies.

(6) There are no unit labels for all x- and y-axies in Figure 1. I only see the unit for Conc is mmol per kg wet weight.

(7) Although the correlations are not significant in Figure supplement 2&3, please also include the correlation line, 95% confidence interval, and report the r values and p values (i.e., similar format as in Figure 1C).

(8) There is no need to separate different correlation figures into Figure supplementary 1-4. They can be combined into the same figure.

(9) Line 213, as far as I know, the study (Melnick et al., 2013) is a psychophysical study and did not provide evidence that the spatial suppression effect is associated with MT+.

(10) At the beginning of the results, I suggest providing more details about the motion discrimination tasks and the measurement of the BDT.

(11) Please include the absolute duration thresholds of the small and large sizes of all subjects in Figure 1.

(12) Figure 5 is too small. The items in plot a and b can be barely visible.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

(1) Throughout the manuscript, hMT+ connectivity with the frontal cortex has been treated as an a priori hypothesis/space. However, there is no such motivation or background literature mentioned in the Introduction. Can the authors clarify the necessity of functional connectivity? In other words, can BOLD activity of hMT+ in the localizer task substitute for functional connectivity between hMT+ and the frontal cortex?

(2) There is an obvious mismatch between the in-text description and the content of the figure:

"In contrast, there was no correlation between BDT and GABA levels in V1 voxels (figure supplement 1a). Further, we show that SI significantly correlates with GABA levels in hMT+ voxels (r = 0.44, P = 0.01, n = 31, Figure 3d). In contrast, no significant correlation between SI and GABA concentrations in V1 voxels was observed (figure supplement 1b)."

(3) The authors' response to my previous round of review indicated that the "V1 ROIs" covered a substantial amount of V3 (32%). Therefore, it would no longer be appropriate to call these "V1 ROIs". I'd suggest renaming them as "Early Visual Cortex (EVC) ROIs" to be more accurate. Can the authors justify why choosing the left hemisphere for visual intelligence task, which is typically believed to be right lateralized?

(4) "Small threshold" and "large threshold" are neither standard descriptions, and it is unclear what "small threshold" refers to in the following figure caption. Additionally, the unit (ms) is confusing. Does it refer to timing?

"(f) Peason's correlation showing significant negative correlations between BDT and small threshold."

(5) In the response letter, the authors mentioned incorporating the neural efficiency hypothesis in the Introduction, but the revised Introduction does not contain such information.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this revised manuscript, authors have conducted epigenetic and transcriptomic profiling to understand how environmental chemicals such as BPS can cause epimutations that can propagate to future generations. They used isolated somatic cells from mice (Sertoli, granulosa), pluripotent cells to model preimplantation embryos (iPSCs) and cells to model the germline (PGCLCs). This enabled them to model sequential steps in germline development, and when/how epimutations occur. The major findings were that BPS induced unique epimutations in each cell type, albeit with qualitative and quantitative cell-specific differences; that these epimutations are prevalent in regions associated with estrogen-response elements (EREs); and that epimutations induced in iPSCs are corrected as they differentiate into PGCLCs, concomitant with the emergence of de novo epimutations. This study will be useful in understanding the multigenerational effects of EDCs, and underlying mechanisms.

Strengths include:

(1) Using different cell types representing life stages of epigenetic programming and during which exposures to EDCs have different effects. This progression revealed information both about the correction of epimutations and the emergence of new ones in PGCLCs.

(2) Work conducted by exposing iPSCs to BPS or vehicle, then differentiating to PGCLCs, revealed that novel epimutations emerged.

(3) Relating epimutations to promoter and enhancer regions

During the review process, authors improved the manuscript through better organization, clarifying previous points from reviewers, and providing additional data.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript uses cell lines representative of germ line cells, somatic cells and pluripotent cells to address the question of how the endocrine disrupting compound BPS affects these various cells with respect to gene expression and DNA methylation. They find a relationship between the presence of estrogen receptor gene expression and the number of DNA methylation and gene expression changes. Notably, PGCLCs do not express estrogen receptors and although they do have fewer changes, changes are nevertheless detected, suggesting a nonconical pathway for BPS-induced perturbations. Additionally, there was a significant increase in the occurrence of BPS-induced epimutations near EREs in somatic and pluripotent cell types compared to germ cells. Epimutations in the somatic and pluripotent cell types were predominantly in enhancer regions whereas that in the germ cell type was predominantly in gene promoters.

Strengths:

The strengths of the paper include the use of various cell types to address sensitivity of the lineages to BPS as well as the observed relationship between the presence of estrogen receptors and changes in gene expression and DNA methylation.

Weaknesses:

The weakness, which has been addressed by the authors, includes the fact that exposures are more complicated in a whole organism than in an isolated cell line.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Quach et al. report a detailed investigation into the defense mechanisms of Caenorhabditis elegans in response to predatory threats from Pristionchus pacificus. Based on principles from predatory imminence and prey refuge theories, the authors delineate three defense modes (pre-encounter, post-encounter, and circa-strike) corresponding to increasing levels of threat proximity. These modes are observed in a controlled but naturalistic setup and are quantified by multiple behavioral outputs defined in time and/or space domains allowing nuanced phenotypic assays. The authors demonstrate that C. elegans displays graded defense behavioral responses toward varied lethality of threats and that only life-threatening predators trigger all three defense modes. The study also offers a narrative on the behavioral strategies and underlying molecular regulation, focusing on the roles of SEB-3 receptors and NLP-49 peptides in mediating responses in these defense modes. They found that the interplay between SEB-3 and NLP-49 peptides appears complex, as evidenced by the diverse outcomes when either or both genes are manipulated in various behavioral modes.

Strengths:

The paper presents an interesting story, with carefully designed experiments and necessary controls, and novel findings and implications about predator-induced defensive behaviors and underlying molecular regulation in this important model organism. The design of experiments and description of findings are easy to follow and well-motivated. The findings contribute to our understanding of stress response systems and offer broader implications for neuroethological studies across species.

Weaknesses:

Although overall the study is well designed and movitated, the paper could benefit from further improvements on some of the methods descriptions and experiment interpretations.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, the authors characterize the defensive responses of C. elegans to the predatory Pristionchus species. Drawing parallels to ecological models of predatory imminence and prey refuge theory, they outline various behaviors exhibited by C. elegans when faced with predator threats. They also find that these behaviors can be modulated by the peptide NLP-49 and its receptor SEB-3 in various degrees.

The conclusions of this paper are mostly well-supported, the writing and the figures are clear and easy to interpret. However, some of the claims need to be better supported and the unique findings of this work should be clarified better in text.

(1) Previous work by the group (Quach, 2022) showed that Pristionchus adopt a "patrolling strategy" on a lawn with adult C. elegans and this depends on bacterial lawn thickness. Consequently, it may be hypothesized that C. elegans themselves will adopt different predator avoidance strategies depending on predator tactics differing due to lawn variations. The authors have not shown why they selected a particular size and density of bacterial lawn for the experiments in this paper, and should run control experiments with thinner and denser lawns with differing edge densities to make broad arguments about predator avoidance strategies for C. elegans. In addition, C. elegans leaving behavior from bacterial lawns (without predators) are also heavily dependent on density of bacteria, especially at the edges where it affects oxygen gradients (Bendesky, 2011), and might alter the baseline leaving rates irrespective of predation threats. The authors also do not mention if all strains or conditions in each figure panel were run as day-matched controls. Given that bacterial densities and ambient conditions can affect C. elegans behavior, especially that of lawn-leaving, it is important to run day-matched controls.

(2) Both the patch-leaving and feeding in outstretched posture behaviors described here in this study were reported in an earlier paper by the same group (Quach, 2022) as mentioned by the authors in the first section of the results. While they do characterize these further in this study, these are not novel findings of this work.

(3) For Figures 1F-H, given that animals can reside on the lawn edges as well as the center, bins explored are not a definitive metric of exploration since the animals can decide to patrol the lawn boundary (especially since the lawns have thick edges). The authors should also quantify tracks along the edge from videographic evidence as they have done previously in Figure 5 of Quach, 2022 to get a total measure of distance explored.

(4) Where were the animals placed in the wide-arena predator-free patch post encounter? It is mentioned that the animal was placed at the center of the arena in lines 220-221. While this makes sense for the narrow-arena, it is unclear how far from the patch animals were positioned for the wide exit arena. Is it the same distance away as the distance of the patch from the center of the narrow exit arena? Please make this clear in the text or in the methods.

(5) Do exit decisions from the bacterial patch scale with number of bites or is one bite sufficient? Do all bites lead to bite-induced aversive response? This would be important to quantify especially if contextualizing to predatory imminence.

(6) Why are the threats posed by aversive but non-lethal JU1051 and lethal PS312 evaluated similarly? Did the authors characterize if the number of bites are different for these strains? Can the authors speculate on why this would happen in the discussion?

(7) The authors indicate that bites from the non-aversive TU445 led to a low number of exits and thus it was consequently excluded from further analysis. If anything, this strain would have provided a good negative control and baseline metrics for other circa-strike and post-encounter behaviors.

8) For Figures 3 G and H, the reduction in bins explored (bins_none - bins_RS1594) due to the presence of predators should be compared between wildtype and mutants, instead of the difference between none and RS5194 for each strain.

(9) While the authors argue that baseline speeds of seb-3 are similar to wild type (Figure S3), previous work (Jee, 2012) has shown that seb-3 not only affects speed but also roaming/dwelling states which will significantly affect the exploration metric (bins explored) which the authors use in Figs 3G-H and 4E-F. Control experiments are necessary to avoid this conundrum. Authors should either visualize and quantify tracks (as suggested in 3) or quantify roaming-dwelling in the seb-3 animals in the absence of predator threat.

(10) While it might be beyond the scope of the study, it would be nice if the authors could speculate on potential sites of actions of NLP-49 in the discussion, especially since it is expressed in a distinct group of neurons.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Kan et al. report the serendipitous discovery of a Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain that kills N. gonorrhoeae. They use TnSeq to identify that the anti-gonococcal agent is oxydifficidin and show that it acts at the ribosome and that one of the dedA gene products in N. gonorrhoeae MS11 is important for moving the oxydifficidin across the membrane.

Strengths:

This is an impressive amount of work, moving from a serendipitous observation through TnSeq to characterize the mechanism by which Oxydifficidin works.

Weaknesses:

(1) There are important gaps in the manuscript's methods.

(2) The work should evaluate antibiotics relevant to N. gonorrhoeae.

(3) The genetic diversity of dedA and rplL in N. gonorrhoeae is not clear, neither is it clear whether oxydifficidin is active against more relevant strains and species than tested so far.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Kan et al. present the discovery of oxydifficidin as a potential antimicrobial against N. gonorrhoeae, including multi-drug resistant strains. The authors show the role of DedA flippase-assisted uptake and the specificity of RplL in the mechanism of action for oxydifficidin. This novel mode of action could potentially offer a new therapeutic avenue, providing a critical addition to the limited arsenal of antibiotics effective against gonorrhea.

Strengths:

This study underscores the potential of revisiting natural products for antibiotic discovery of modern-day-concerning pathogens and highlights a new target mechanism that could inform future drug development. Indeed there is a recent growing body of research utilising AI and predictive computational informatics to revisit potential antimicrobial agents and metabolites from cultured bacterial species. The discovery of oxydifficidin interaction with RplL and its DedA-assisted uptake mechanism opens new research directions in understanding and combating antibiotic-resistant N. gonorrhoeae. Methodologically, the study is rigorous employing various experimental techniques such as genome sequencing, bioassay-guided fractionation, LCMS, NMR, and Tn-mutagenesis.

Weaknesses:

The scope is somewhat narrow, focusing primarily on N. gonorrhoeae. This limits the generalizability of the findings and leaves questions about its broader antibacterial spectrum. Moreover, while the study demonstrates the in vitro effectiveness of oxydifficidin, there is a lack of in vivo validation (i.e., animal models) for assessing pre-clinical potential of oxydifficidin. Potential SNPs within dedA or RplL raise concerns about how quickly resistance could emerge in clinical settings.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors have shown that oxydifficidin is a potent inhibitor of Neisseria gonorrhoeae. They were able to identify the target of action to rpsL and showed that resistance could occur via mutation in the DedA flippase and RpsL.

Strengths:

This was a very thorough and clearly argued set of experiments that supported their conclusions.

Weaknesses:

There was no obvious weakness in the experimental design. Although it is promising that the DedA mutations resulted in attenuation of fitness, it remains an open question whether secondary rounds of mutation could overcome this selective disadvantage which was untried in this study.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This paper details a study of endothelial cell vessel formation during zebrafish development. The results focus on the role of aquaporins, which mediate the flow of water across the cell membrane, leading to cell movement. The authors show that actin and water flow together drive endothelial cell migration and vessel formation. If any of these two elements are perturbed, there are observed defects in vessels. Overall, the paper significantly improves our understanding of cell migration during morphogenesis in organisms.

Strengths:

The data are extensive and are of high quality. There is a good amount of quantification with convincing statistical significance. The overall conclusion is justified given the evidence.

Weaknesses:

There are two weaknesses, which if addressed, would improve the paper.

(1) The paper focuses on aquaporins, which while mediates water flow, cannot drive directional water flow. If the osmotic engine model is correct, then ion channels such as NHE1 are the driving force for water flow. Indeed this water is shown in previous studies. Moreover, NHE1 can drive water intake because the export of H+ leads to increased HCO3 due to the reaction between CO2+H2O, which increases the cytoplasmic osmolarity (see Li, Zhou and Sun, Frontiers in Cell Dev. Bio. 2021). If NHE cannot be easily perturbed in zebrafish, it might be of interest to perturb Cl channels such as SWELL1, which was recently shown to work together with NHE (see Zhang, et al, Nat. Comm. 2022).

(2) In some places the discussion seems a little confusing where the text goes from hydrostatic pressure to osmotic gradient. It might improve the paper if some background is given. For example, mention water flow follows osmotic gradients, which will build up hydrostatic pressure. The osmotic gradients across the membrane are generated by active ion exchangers. This point is often confused in literature and somewhere in the intro, this could be made clearer.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Directional migration is an integral aspect of sprouting angiogenesis and requires a cell to change its shape and sense a chemotactic or growth factor stimulus. Kondrychyn I. et al. provide data that indicate a requirement for zebrafish aquaporins 1 and 8, in cellular water inflow and sprouting angiogenesis. Zebrafish mutants lacking aqp1a.1 and aqp8a.1 have significantly lower tip cell volume and migration velocity, which delays vascular development. Inhibition of actin formation and filopodia dynamics further aggravates this phenotype. The link between water inflow, hydrostatic pressure, and actin dynamics driving endothelial cell sprouting and migration during angiogenesis is highly novel.

Strengths:

The zebrafish genetics, microscopy imaging, and measurements performed are of very high quality. The study data and interpretations are very well-presented in this manuscript.

Weaknesses:

Some of the findings and interpretations could be strengthened by additional measurements and further discussion. Also, a better comparison and integration of the authors' findings, with other previously published findings in mice and zebrafish would strengthen the paper.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Kondrychyn and colleagues describe the contribution of two Aquaporins Aqp1a.1 and Aqp8a.1 towards angiogenic sprouting in the zebrafish embryo. By whole-mount in situ hybridization, RNAscope, and scRNA-seq, they show that both genes are expressed in endothelial cells in partly overlapping spatiotemporal patterns. Pharmacological inhibition experiments indicate a requirement for VEGR2 signaling (but not Notch) in transcriptional activation.

To assess the role of both genes during vascular development the authors generate genetic mutations. While homozygous single mutants appear less affected, aqp1a.1;aqp8a.1 double mutants exhibit severe defects in EC sprouting and ISV formation.

At the cellular level, the aquaporin mutants display a reduction of filopodia in number and length. Furthermore, a reduction in cell volume is observed indicating a defect in water uptake.

The authors conclude, that polarized water uptake mediated by aquaporins is required for the initiation of endothelial sprouting and (tip) cell migration during ISV formation. They further propose that water influx increases hydrostatic pressure within the cells which may facilitate actin polymerization and formation membrane protrusions.

Strengths:

The authors provide a detailed analysis of Aqp1a.1 and Aqp8a.1 during blood vessel formation in vivo, using zebrafish intersomitic vessels as a model. State-of-the-art imaging demonstrates an essential role in aquaporins in different aspects of endothelial cell activation and migration during angiogenesis.

Weaknesses:

With respect to the connection between Aqp1/8 and actin polymerization/filopodia formation, the evidence appears preliminary and the authors' interpretation is guided by evidence from other experimental systems.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Heer and Sheffield used 2 photon imaging to dissect the functional contributions of convergent dopamine and noradrenaline inputs to the dorsal hippocampus CA1 in head restrained mice running down a virtual linear path. Mice were trained to collect water reward at the end of the track and on test days, calcium activity was recorded from dopamine (DA) axons originating in ventral tegmental area (VTA, n=7) and noradrenaline axons from the locus coeruleus (LC, n=87) under several conditions. When mice ran laps in a familiar environment, VTA DA axons exhibited ramping activity along the track that correlated with distance to reward and velocity to some extent, while LC input activity remained constant across the track, but correlated invariantly with velocity and time to motion onset. A subset of recordings taken when the reward was removed showed diminished ramping activity in VTA DA axons, but no changes in the LC axons, confirming that DA axon activity is locked to reward availability. When mice were subsequently introduced to a new environment, the ramping to reward activity in the DA axons disappeared, while LC axons showed a dramatic increase in activity lasting 90s (6 laps) following the environment switch. In the final analysis, the authors sought to disentangle LC axon activity induced by novelty vs. behavioral changes induced by novelty by removing periods in which animals were immobile and established that the activity observed in the first 2 laps reflected novelty-induced signal in LC axons.

The revised manuscript included additional evidence of increased (but transient) signal in LC axons after a transition to a novel environment during periods of immobility, and also that a change from dark to familiar environment induces a peak in LC axon activity, showing that LC input to dCA1 may not solely signal novelty.

Strengths:

The results presented in this manuscript provide insights into the specific contributions of catecholaminergic input to the dorsal hippocampus CA1 during spatial navigation in a rewarded virtual environment, offering a detailed analysis at the resolution of single axons. The data analysis is thorough and possible confounding variables and data interpretation are carefully considered.

The authors have addressed my concerns in a thorough manner. The reviewer also appreciates the increased transparency of reporting in the revised manuscript.

Weaknesses:

Listed below are some remaining comments.<br /> The increase in LC activity with any change in environment (from familiar to novel or from dark to familiar) suggests that LC input acts not solely as a novelty signal, but as a general arousal or salience signal in response to environmental changes. Based on this, I have a couple of questions:

• Is the overall claim that LC input to the dHC signals novelty still valid based on observed findings - as claimed throughout the manuscript?<br /> • Would the omission of a reward be considered a salient change in the environment that activates LC signals, or is the LC not involved with processing reward-related information? Has the activity of LC and VTA axons been analysed in the seconds following reward presentation and/or omission?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors used 2-photon Ca2+-imaging to study the activity of ventral tegmental area (VTA) and locus coeruleus (LC) axons in the CA1 region of the dorsal hippocampus in head-fixed male mice moving on linear paths in virtual reality (VR) environments.

The main findings were as follows:<br /> - In a familiar environment, activity of both VTA axons and LC axons increased with the mice's running speed on the Styrofoam wheel, with which they could move along a linear track through a VR environment.<br /> - VTA, but not LC, axons showed marked reward position-related activity, showing a ramping-up of activity when mice approached a learned reward position.<br /> - In contrast, activity of LC axons ramped up before initiation of movement on the Styrofoam wheel.<br /> - In addition, exposure to a novel VR environment increased LC axon activity, but not VTA axon activity.

Overall, the study shows that the activity of catecholaminergic axons from VTA and LC to dorsal hippocampal CA1 can partly reflect distinct environmental, behavioral and cognitive factors. Whereas both VTA and LC activity reflected running speed, VTA, but not LC axon activity reflected the approach of a learned reward and LC, but not VTA, axon activity reflected initiation of running and novelty of the VR environment.

I have no specific expertise with respect to 2-photon imaging, so cannot evaluate the validity of the specific methods used to collect and analyse 2-photon calcium imaging data of axonal activity.

Strengths:

(1) Using a state-of-the-art approach to record separately the activity of VTA and LC axons with high temporal resolution in awake mice moving through virtual environments, the authors provide convincing evidence that activity of VTA and LC axons projecting to dorsal CA1 reflect partly distinct environmental, behavioral and cognitive factors.

(2) The study will help a) to interpret previous findings on how hippocampal dopamine and norepinephrine or selective manipulations of hippocampal LC or VTA inputs modulate behavior and b) to generate specific hypotheses on the impact of selective manipulations of hippocampal LC or VTA inputs on behavior.

Weaknesses:

(1) The findings are correlational and do not allow strong conclusions on how VTA or LC inputs to dorsal CA1 affect cognition and behavior. However, as indicated above under Strengths, the findings will aid the interpretation of previous findings and help to generate new hypotheses as to how VTA or LC inputs to dorsal CA1 affect distinct cognitive and behavioral functions.

(2) Some aspects of the methodology would benefit from clarification.<br /> First, to help others to better scrutinize, evaluate and potentially to reproduce the research, the authors may wish to check if their reporting follows the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines for the full and transparent reporting of research involving animals (https://arriveguidelines.org/). For example, I think it would be important to include a sample size justification (e.g., based on previous studies, considerations of statistical power, practical considerations or a combination of these factors). The authors should also include the provenance of the mice. Moreover, although I am not an expert in 2-photon imaging, I think it would be useful to provide a clearer description of exclusion criteria for imaging data (see below, Recommendations for the authors).<br /> Second, why were different linear tracks used for studies of VTA and LC axon activity (from line 362)? Could this potentially contribute to the partly distinct activity correlates that were found for VTA and LC axons?<br /> Third, the authors seem to have used two different criteria for defining immobility. Immobility was defined as moving at <5 cm/s for the behavioral analysis in Fig. 3a, but as <0.2 cm/s for the imaging data analysis in Fig. 4 (see legends to these figures and also see Methods, from line 447, line 469, line 498)? I do not understand why, and it would be good if the authors explained this.

(3) In the Results section (from line 182) the authors convincingly addressed the possibility that less time spent immobile in the novel environment may have contributed to the novelty-induced increase of LC axon activity in dorsal CA1 (Fig. 4). In addition, initially (for the first 2-4 laps), the mice also ran more slowly in the novel environment (Fig. 3aIII, top panel). Given that LC and VTA axon activity were both increasing with velocity (Fig. 1F), reduced velocity in the novel environment may have reduced LC and VTA axon activity, but this possibility was not addressed. Reduced LC axon activity in the novel environment could have blunted the novelty-induced increase. More importantly, any potential novelty-induced increase in VTA axon activity could have been masked by decreases in VTA axon activity due to reduced velocity. The latter may help to explain the discrepancy between the present study and previous findings that VTA neuron firing was increased by novelty (see Discussion, from line 243). It may be useful for the authors to address these possibilities based on their data in the Results section, or to consider them in their Discussion.

(4) Sensory properties of the water reward, which the mice may be able to detect, could account for reward-related activity of VTA axons (instead of an expectation of reward). Do the authors have evidence that this is not the case? Occasional probe trials, intermixed with rewarded trials, could be used to test for this possibility.

REVIEW OF THE REVISED MANUSCRIPT<br /> I thank the authors for their responses addressing some of the weaknesses I raised in my original comments.

Regarding their clarification of some methodological issues [Point 2) above], I have a few additional comments:<br /> - I appreciate that the authors clearly state the sample sizes contributing to the data. However, sample size justifications (e.g. based on previous studies, considerations of statistical power, practical considerations or a combination of these factors) are still lacking.<br /> - It is good that the authors have now clearly indicated how many mice they excluded due to lack of GCaMP expression or due to failure to reach the behavioral criteria. They also indicated that they discarded some of the collected datasets, based on the visual assessment of imaging sessions and the registration metrics output by suite2p. I appreciate that this may be common practice (although I am not using 2-photon imaging myself). However, I note that to minimize the risk of experimenter bias and improve reproducibility, it would be preferable to have more clearly defined quantitative criteria for such exclusions.<br /> - The authors clarified in their response why they used two different linear tracks for their studies of VTA and LC axon activity. I would encourage them to include this clarification in the manuscript. From the authors' response, I understand that they chose the different track lengths to facilitate comparison to previous studies involving LC and VTA axon recordings. However, given that the present paper aimed to compare LC and VTA axon recordings, the use of different track lengths for LC and VTA axon recordings remains a limitation of the present paper.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Heer and Sheffield provide a well-written manuscript that clearly articulates the theoretical motivation to investigate specific catecholaminergic projections to dorsal CA1 of the hippocampus during a reward-based behavior. Using 2-photon calcium imaging in two groups of cre transgenic mice, the authors examine activity of VTA-CA1 dopamine and LC-CA1 noradrenergic axons during reward seeking in a linear track virtual reality (VR) task. The authors provide a descriptive account of VTA and LC activities during walking, approach to reward, and environment change. Their results demonstrate LC-CA1 axons are activated by walking onset, modulated by walking velocity, and heighten their activity during environment change. In contrast, VTA-CA1 axons were most activated during approach to reward locations. Together the authors provide a functional dissociation between these catecholamine projections to CA1. A major strength to their approach is the methodological rigor of 2-photon recording, data processing, and analysis approaches to accommodate their unequal LC-CA1 and VTA-CA1 sample sizes. These important systems neuroscience studies provide solid evidence that will contribute to the broader field of navigation and memory.

Weaknesses:

The conclusions of this manuscript are mostly well supported by the data. However, increasing the sample size of the VTA-CA1 group and using experimental methods that are identical among LC-CA1 and VTA-CA1 groups would help to fully support the author's conclusions.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Nitta et al. use a fly model of autosomal dominant optic atrophy to provide mechanistic insights into distinct disease-causing OPA1 variants. It has long been hypothesized that missense OPA1 mutations affecting the GTPase domain, which are associated with more severe optic atrophy and extra-ophthalmic neurologic conditions such as sensorineural hearing loss (DOA plus), impart their effects through a dominant negative mechanism, but no clear direct evidence for this exists particularly in an animal model. The authors execute a well-designed study to establish their model, demonstrating a mitochondrial phenotype and optic atrophy measured as axonal degeneration. They leverage this model to provide the first direct evidence for a dominant negative mechanism for 2 mutations causing DOA plus by expressing these variants in the background of a full hOPA1 complement.

Strengths of the paper include well-motivated objectives and hypotheses, and overall solid design and execution. There is a thorough discussion of the interpretation and context of the findings. The results technically support their primary conclusions with minor limitations. First, while only partial rescue of the most clinically relevant metric for optic atrophy in this model is now acknowledged, the result nevertheless hamstrings the mechanistic experiments that follow. Second, the results statistically support a dominant negative effect of DOA plus-associated variants, yet the data show a marginal impact on axonal degeneration for these variants. In added experiments, the ability of WT hOPA1 and I382M but not 2708del, D438V or R445H to rescue ROS levels or mitophagy in the context of dOPA1 knockdown serves to support axonal number as a valid measure of mitochondrial function in this context. However, the critical experiment demonstrating a dominant negative effect was performed in the context of expressing WT hOPA1 along with a pathogenic variant, in which no differences in ROS, COXII expression or mitophagy were seen. This makes it difficult to conclude that the dominant negative effect of D438V and R445H on axon number is related to mitochondrial function.

As an animal model of DOA that may serve for rapid assessment of suspected OPA1 variants, the results overall support utility of this model in identifying pathogenic variants but not in distinguishing haploinsufficiency from dominant negative mechanisms among those variants. The impact of this work in providing the first direct evidence of a dominant negative mechanism is under-stated considering how important this question is in development of genetic treatments for dominant optic atrophy.

Comments on revised version:

The authors have addressed the comments in my initial review. Through these modification and those related to the comments from the other reviewers, the manuscript is strengthened.

Comments on author responses to each of the reviews:

Reviewer 1:

Interpretation of data has been appropriately reorganized in the discussion.

Quantified mitochondria in the model show no difference in number. There is reduced size and structural abnormalities on electron microscopy.

Application of mito-QC revealed increased mitophagy.

Regarding partial rescue of axonal number in the mutant model, statistical significance between control and rescue is still not depicted in Figure 4D. Detailing possible explanations for this has been addressed in the discussion. However, only partial rescue of the most clinically relevant metric for optic atrophy in this model hamstrings subsequent mechanistic experiments that follow.

Discussion regarding variant I382M has been improved.

While reviewer 1's concerns about axonal number as a biomarker for OPA1 function are valid, it is worth noting that this is the most clinically relevant marker in the context of DOA. That said, I agree that the mechanistic DN/HI studies needed support using other measures of mitochondrial function, and the authors have done this. The ability of WT hOPA1 and I382M but not 2708del, D438V or R445H to rescue ROS levels or mitophagy in the context of dOPA1 knockdown serves to support axonal number as a valid measure of mitochondrial function in this context. However, the critical experiment demonstrating a dominant negative effect was performed in the context of expressing WT hOPA1 along with a pathogenic variant, in which no differences in ROS, COXII expression or mitophagy were seen. This makes it difficult to conclude that the (marginal) DN effect of D438V and R445H on axon number is related to mitochondrial function, and serves as a minor weakness of the paper.

Which exons are included in the transcript, and therefore, which isoforms are expressed in the model, has been addressed.

Reviewer 2:

The authors have addressed the need to include greater methodological details.

Language concerning the clinical utility of the model in informing treatment decisions has been appropriately modified. As pointed out by Reviewer 1, additional studies were needed to better establish the potential clinical utility of this model in screening DOA variants. The authors have completed those experiments, and the results overall support utility of this model in identifying pathogenic variants but not in distinguishing HI/DN mechanisms among those variants.

Reviewer 3:

The author has addressed the partial rescue effect as above.

The authors have not modified the text to acknowledge the marginal effect sizes in the critical experiment of the study that demonstrates a DN effect. Statistically, the results indeed support a dominant negative effect of DOA plus-associated variants, yet the data show a marginal impact on axonal degeneration for these variants. This remains a weakness of the study.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Cai et al use a combination of mouse transgenic lines to re-examine the question of the embryonic origin of telencephalic oligodendrocytes (OLs). Their tools include a novel Flp mouse for labelling mature oligodendrocytes and a number of pre-existing lines (some previously generated by the last author in Josh Huang's lab) that allowed combinatorial or subtractive labelling of oligodendrocytes with different origins. The conclusion is that cortically-derived OLs are the predominant OL population in the motor and somatosensory cortex and underlying corpus callosum, while the LGE/CGE generates OLs for the piriform cortex and anterior commissure rather than the cerebral cortex. Small numbers of MGE-derived OLs persist long-term in the motor, somatosensory and piriform cortex.

Strengths:

The strength and novelty of the manuscript lie in the elegant tools generated and used. These have enabled the resolution of the issue regarding the contribution of different telencephalic progenitor zones to the cortical oligodendrocyte population.

Comments on latest version:

The revised manuscript by Cai et al has addressed all the issues raised. I have some minor comments:

Figure 2: The y axis in figure 2L should be the same as the y axis in 2M to make the contribution to Mo and SS more clear.

Figure 3: Although this is clear in the figure, A an B should be labelled as classical model and new model to help the reader understand immediately what the two figures show.

Suppl Fig 2: It is not clear what 1-7 represent. It should be made clear in the legend which areas have been pooled into the different bins. The X axis should be labelled.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Otero-Coronel et al. address an important question for neuroscience - how does a premotor neuron capable of directly controlling behavior integrate multiple sources of sensory inputs to inform action selection? For this, they focused on the teleost Mauthner cell, long known to be at the core of a fast escape circuit. What is particularly interesting in this work is the naturalistic approach they took. Classically, the M-cell was characterized, both behaviorally and physiologically, using an unimodal sensory space. Here the authors make the effort (substantial!) to study the physiology of the M-cell taking into account both the visual and auditory inputs. They performed well-informed electrophysiological approaches to decipher how the M-cell integrates the information of two sensory modalities depending on the strength and temporal relation between them.

Strengths:

The empirical results are convincing and well-supported. The manuscript is well-written and organized. The experimental approaches and the selection of stimulus parameters are clear and informed by the bibliography. The major finding is that multisensory integration increases the certainty of environmental information in an inherently noisy environment.

Weaknesses:

Even though the manuscript and figures are well organised, I found myself struggling to understand key points of the figures.

For example, in Figure 1 it is not clear what are actually the Tonic and Phasic components. The figure will benefit from more details on this matter. Then, in Figure 4 the label for the traces in panel A is needed since I was not able to pick up that they were coming from different sensory pathways.

In line 338 it should be optic tectum and not "optical tectum".

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Otero-Coronel and colleagues use a combination of acoustic stimuli and electrical stimulation of the tectum to study MSI in the M-cells of adult goldfish. They first perform a necessary piece of groundwork in calibrating tectal stimulation for maximal M-cell MSI, and then characterize this MSI with slightly varying tectal and acoustic inputs. Next, they quantify the magnitude and timing of FFI that each type of input has on the M-cell, finding that both the tectum and the auditory system drive FFI, but that FFI decays more slowly for auditory signals. These are novel results that would be of interest to a broader sensory neuroscience community. By then providing pairs of stimuli separated by 50ms, they assess the ability of the first stimulus to suppress responses to the second, finding that acoustic stimuli strongly suppress subsequent acoustic responses in the M-cell, that they weakly suppress subsequent tectal stimulation, and that tectal stimulation does not appreciably inhibit subsequent stimuli of either type. Finally, they show that M-cell physiology mirrors previously reported behavioural data in which stronger stimuli underwent less integration.

The manuscript is generally well-written and clear. The discussion of results is appropriately broad and open-ended. It's a good document. Our major concerns regarding the study's validity are captured in the individual comments below. In terms of impact, the most compelling new observation is the quantification of the FFI from the two sources and the logical extension of these FFI dynamics to M-cell physiology during MSI. It is also nice, but unsurprising, to see that the relationship between stimulus strength and MSI is similar for M-cell physiology to what has previously been shown for behavior. While we find the results interesting, we think that they will be of greatest interest to those specifically interested in M-cell physiology and function.

Strengths:

The methods applied are challenging and appropriate and appear to be well executed. Open questions about the physiological underpinnings of M-cell function are addressed using sound experimental design and methodology, and convincing results are provided that advance our understanding of how two streams of sensory information can interact to control behavior.

Weaknesses:

Our concerns about the manuscript are captured in the following specific comments, which we hope will provide a useful perspective for readers and actionable suggestions for the authors.

Comment 1 (Minor):

Line 124. Direct stimulation of the tectum to drive M-cell-projecting tectal neurons not only bypasses the retina, it also bypasses intra-tectal processing and inputs to the tectum from other sources (notably the thalamus). This is not an issue with the interpretation of the results, but this description gives the (false) impression that bypassing the retina is sufficient to prevent adaptation. Adding a sentence or two to accurately reflect the complexity of the upstream circuitry (beyond the retina) would be welcome.

Comment 2 (Major):

The premise is that stimulation of the tectum is a proxy for a visual stimulus, but the tectum also carries the auditory, lateral line, and vestibular information. This seems like a confound in the interpretation of this preparation as a simple audio-visual paradigm. Minimally, this confound should be noted and addressed. The first heading of the Results should not refer to "visual tectal stimuli".

Comment 3 (Major):

Figure 1 and associated text.

It is unclear and not mentioned in the Methods section how phasic and tonic responses were calculated. It is clear from the example traces that there is a change in tonic responses and the accumulation of subthreshold responses. Depending on how tonic responses were calculated, perhaps the authors could overlay a low-passed filtered trace and/or show calculations based on the filtered trace at each tectal train duration.

Comment 4 (Minor):

Figure 3 and associated text.<br /> This is a lovely experiment. Although it is not written in text, it provides logic for the next experiment in choosing a 50ms time interval. It would be great if the authors calculated the first timepoint at which the percentage of shunting inhibition is not significantly different from zero. This would provide a convincing basis for picking 50ms for the next experiment. That said, I suspect that this time point would be earlier than 50m s. This may explain and add further complexity to why the authors found mostly linear or sublinear integration, and perhaps the basis for future experiments to test different stimulus time intervals. Please move calculations to Methods.

Comment 5 (Major):

Figure 4C and lines 398-410.<br /> These are beautiful examples of M-cell firing, but the text suggests that they occurred rarely and nowhere close to significantly above events observed from single modalities. We do not see this as a valid result to report because there is insufficient evidence that the phenomenon shown is consistent or representative of your data.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This work identified new NMD inhibitors and tested them for cancer treatment, based on the hypothesis that inhibiting NMD could lead to the production of cancer neoantigens from the stabilized mutant mRNAs, thereby enhancing the immune system's ability to recognize and kill cancer cells. Key points of the study include:

• Development of an RNA-seq based method for NMD analysis using mixed isogenic cells that express WT or mutant transcripts of STAG2 and TP53 with engineered truncation mutations.

• Application of this method for a drug screen and identified several potential NMD inhibitors.

• Demonstration that one of the identified compounds, LY3023414, inhibits NMD by targeting the SMG1 protein kinase in the NMD pathway in cultured cells and mouse xenografts.

• Due to the in vivo toxicity observed for LY3023414, the authors developed 11 new SMG1 inhibitors (KVS0001-KVS0011) based on the structures of the known SMG1 inhibitor SMG1i-11 and the SMG1 protein itself.

• Among these, KVS0001 stood out for its high potency, excellent bioavailability and low toxicity in mice. Treatment with KVS0001 caused NMD inhibition and increased presentation of neoantigens on MHC-I molecules, resulting in the clearance of cancer cells in vitro by co-cultured T cells and cancer xenografts in mice by the immune system.

These findings support the strategy of targeting the NMD pathway for cancer treatment and provide new research tools and potential lead compounds for further exploration.

Strengths:

The RNA-seq based NMD analysis, using isogenic cell lines with specific NMD-inducing mutations, represents a novel approach for the high-throughput identification of potential NMD modulators or genetic regulators. The effectiveness of this method is exemplified by the identification of a new activity of AKT1/mTOR inhibitor LY3023414 in inhibiting NMD.

The properties of KVS0001 described in the manuscript as a novel SMG1 inhibitor suggest its potential as a lead compound for further testing the NMD-targeting strategies in cancer treatment. Additionally, this compound may serve as a useful research tool.

The results of the in vitro cell killing assay and in vivo xenograft experiments in both immuno-proficient and immune-deficient mice indicate that inhibiting NMD could be a viable therapeutic strategy for certain cancers.

Weaknesses:

The authors did not address the potential effects of NMD/SMG1 inhibitors on RNA splicing. Given that the transcripts of many RNA-binding proteins are natural targets of NMD, inhibiting NMD could significantly alter splicing patterns. This, in turn, might influence the outcomes of the RNA-seq-based method for NMD analysis and result interpretation.

While the RNA-seq based approach offers several advantages for analyzing NMD, the effects of NMD/SMG1 inhibitors observed through this method should be confirmed using established NMD reporters. This step is crucial to rule out the possibility that mutations in STAG2 or TP53 affect NMD in cells, as well as to address potential clonal variations between different engineered cell lines.

The results from the SMG1/UPF1 knockdown and SMG1i-11 experiments presented in Figure 3 correlate with the effects seen for LY3023414, but they do not conclusively establish SMG1 as the direct target of LY3023414 in NMD inhibition. An epistatic analysis with LY3023414 and SMG1-knockdown is needed.

Comment on the revised version:

Although KVS0001 exhibits promising properties as an SMG1 inhibitor for cancer treatment, it remains unclear if it is superior to existing SMG1 inhibitors, as no direct comparisons have been made.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Several publications during the past years provided evidence that NMD protects tumor cells from being recognized by the immune system by suppressing the display of neoantigens, and hence NMD inhibition is emerging as a promising anti-cancer approach. However, the lack of an efficacious and specific small molecule NMD inhibitor with suitable pharmacological properties is currently a major bottleneck in the development of therapies that rely on NMD inhibition. In this manuscript, the authors describe their screen for identifying NMD inhibitors, which is based on isogenic cell lines that either express wild-type or NMD-sensitive transcript isoforms of p53 and STAG2. Using this setup, they screened a library of 2658 FDA-approved or late-phase clinical trial drugs and had 8 hits. Among them they further characterized LY3023414, showing that it inhibits NMD in cultured cells and in a mouse xenograft model, where it, however, was very toxic. Because LY3023414 was originally developed as a PI3K inhibitor, the authors claim that it inhibits NMD by inhibiting SMG1. While this is most likely true, the authors do not provide experimental evidence for this claim. Instead, they use this statement to switch their attention to another previously developed SMG1 inhibitor (SMG1i-11), of which they design and test several derivatives. Of these derivatives, KVS0001 showed the best pharmacological behavior. It upregulated NMD-sensitive transcripts in cultured cells and the xenograft mouse model, and two predicted neoantigens could indeed be detected by mass spectrometry when the respective cells were treated with KVS0001. A bispecific antibody targeting T cells to a specific antigen-HLA complex led to increased IFN-gamma release and killing of cancer cells expressing this antigen-HLA complex when they were treated with KVS0001. Finally, the authors show that renal (RENCA) or lung cancer cells (LLC) were significantly inhibited in tumor growth in immunocompetent mice treated with KVS0001. Overall, this establishes KVS0001 as a novel and promising ant-cancer drug that by inhibiting SMG1 (and therewith NMD) increases the neoantigen production in the cancer cells and reveals them to the body's immune system as "foreign".

Strengths:

The novelty and significance of this work consist in the development of a novel and - judging from the presented data - very promising NMD inhibiting drug that is suitable for applications in animals. This is an important advance for the field, as previous NMD inhibitors were not specific, lacked efficacy, or were very toxic and hence not suitable for animal application. It will be still a long way with many challenges ahead towards an efficacious NMD inhibitor that is safe for use in humans, but KVS0001 appears to be a molecule that bears promise for follow-up studies. In addition, while the idea of inhibiting NMD to trigger neoantigen production in cancer cells and so reveal them to the immune system has been around for quite some time, this work provides ample and compelling support for the feasibility of this approach, at least for tumors with a high mutational burden.

Main weaknesses:

There is a disconnect between the screen and the KVS0001 compound, that they describe and test in the second part of the manuscript since KVS0001 is a derivative of the SMG1 inhibitors developed by Gopalsamy et al. in 2012 and not of the lead compound identified in the screen (LY3023414). Because of high toxicity in the mouse xenograft experiments, the authors did not follow up LY3023414 but instead switched to the published SMG1i-11 drug of Gopalsamy and colleagues, a molecule that is widely used among NMD researchers for NMD inhibition in cultured cells. Therefore, in my view, the description of the screen is obsolete, and the paper could just start with the optimization of the pharmacological properties of SMG1i-11 and the characterization of KVS0001. Even though the screen is based on an elegant setup and was executed successfully, it was ultimately a failure as it didn't reveal a useful lead compound that could be further optimized.

Additional points:

- Compared to SMG1i-11, KVS0001 seems less potent in inhibiting SMG1 (higher IC50). It would therefore be important to also compare the specificity of both drugs for SMG1 over other kinases at the actually applied concentrations (1 uM for SMG1i-11, 5 uM for KVS0001). The Kinativ Assay (Fig. S13) was performed with 100 nM KVS0001, which is 50-fold less than the concentration used for functional assays and hence not really meaningful. In addition, more information on the pharmacokinetic properties and toxicology of KVS0001 would allow a better judgment of the potential of this molecule as a future therapeutic agent.<br /> - On many figures, the concentrations of the used drugs are missing. Please ensure that for every experiment that includes drugs, the drug concentration is indicated.<br /> - Do the authors have an explanation for why LY3023414 has a much stronger effect on the p53 than on the STAG2 nonsense allele (Fig. 1B, S8), whereas emetine upregulates the STAG2 nonsense alleles more than the p53 nonsense allele (Fig. S5). I find this curious, but the authors do not comment on it.<br /> - While it is a strength of the study that the NMD inhibitors were validated on many different truncation mutations in different cell lines, it would help readers if a table or graphic illustration was included that gives an overview of all mutant alleles tested in this study (which gene, type of mutation, in which cell type). In the current version, this information is scattered throughout the manuscript.<br /> - Lines 194 and 302: That SMG1i-11 was highly insoluble in the hands of the authors is surprising. It is unclear why they used variant 11j, since variant 11e of this inhibitor is widely used among NMD researchers and readily dissolves in DMSO.<br /> - Line 296: The authors claim that they were able to show that LY3023414 inhibited the SMG1 kinase, which is not true. To show this, they would have for example to show that LY3023414 prevents SMG1-mediated UPF1 phosphorylation, as they did for KVS0001 and SMG1i-11 in Fig. 3F. Unless the authors provide this data, the statement should be deleted or modified.

Comments on the revised version:

- The authors have satisfactorily addressed all my "Additional points" listed above.

- With the new publishing model of Life, the authors ultimately decide on whether or not to follow reviewers suggestions, and in this case, the authors decided (against my suggestion) to leave the screening part in the manuscript, although it did not result in a useful lead compound. They argue it helped them define in an unbiased way SMG1 as the ideal target for NMD disruption. I would counterargue that this has been known in the field for quite a while.

- One last suggestion I have to the authors would be to modify the statement in the abstract "This led to the design of a novel SMG1 inhibitor", because what they call "novel" is, in reality, a chemical improvement of the pharmacological properties of a previously reported SMG1 inhibitor (Gopalsamy et al., 2012).

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In their article "The Geometric Basis of Epithelial Convergent<br /> Extension", Brauns and colleagues present a physical analysis of drosophila axis extension that couples in toto imaging of cell contours (previously published dataset), force inference, and theory. They seek to disentangle the respective contributions of active vs passive T1 transitions in the convergent extension of the lateral ectoderm (or germband) of the fly embryo.

The revision made by the authors has greatly improved their work, which was already very interesting, in particular the use of force inference throughout intercalation events to identify geometric signatures of active vs passive T1s, and the tension/isogonal decomposition. The new analysis of the Snail mutant adds a lot to the paper and makes their findings on the criteria for T1s very convincing.

About the tissue scale issues raised during the first round of review. Although I do not find the new arguments fully convincing (see below), the authors did put a lot of effort to discuss the role of the adjacent posterior midgut (PMG) on extension, which is already great. That will certainly provide the interested readers with enough material and references to dive into that question.

I still have some issues with the authors' interpretation on the role of the PMG, and on what actually drives the extension. Although it is clear that T1 events in the germ band are driven by active local tension anisotropy (which the authors show but was already well-established), it does not show that the tissue extension itself is powered by these active T1s. Their analysis of "fence" movies from Collinet et al 2015 (Tor mutants and Eve RNAi) is not fully convincing. Indeed, as the authors point out themselves, there is no flow in Tor mutant embryos, even though tension anisotropy is preserved. They argue that in Tor embryos the absence of PMG movement leaves no room for the germband to extend properly, thus impeding the flow. That suggests that the PMG acts as a barrier in Tor mutants - What is it attached to, then? The authors also argue that the posterior flow is reduced in "fenced" Eve RNAi embryos (which have less/no tension anisotropy), to justify their claim that it is the anisotropy that drives extension. However, previous data, including some of the authors' (Irvine and Wieschaus, 1994 - Fig 8), show that the first, rapid phase of germband extension is left completely unaffected in Eve mutants (that lack active tension anisotropy). Although intercalation in Eve mutants is not quantified in that reference, this was later done by others, showing that it is strongly reduced. Similarly, the Cyto-D phenotype from Clement et al 2017, in which intercalation is also strongly reduced, also displays normal extension.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Main comment from 1st review:

Weaknesses:<br /> The modeling is interesting, with the integration of tension through tension triangulation around vertices and thus integrating force inference directly in the vertex model. However, the authors are not using it to test their hypothesis and support their analysis at the tissue level. Thus, although interesting, the analysis at the tissue level stays mainly descriptive.

Comments on the revised version:

My main concern was that the author did not use the analysis of mutant contexts such as Snail and Twist to confirm their predictions. They made a series of modifications, clarifying their conclusions. In particular, they now included an analysis of Snail mutant and show that isogonal deformations in the ventro-lateral regions are absent when the external pulling force of the VF is abolished, supporting the idea that isogonal strain could be used as an indicator of external forces (Fig7 and S6).

They further discuss their results in the context of what was published regarding the mutant backgrounds (fog, torso-like, scab, corkscrew, ksr) where midgut invagination is disrupted, and where germ band buckles, and propose that this supports the importance of internal versus external forces driving GBE.<br /> Overall, these modifications, in addition to clarifications in the text, clearly strengthen the manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this work, Simon et al present a new computational tool to assess non-Brownian single-particle dynamics (aTrack). The authors provide a solid groundwork to determine the motion type of single trajectories via an analytical integration of multiple hidden variables, specifically accounting for localization uncertainty, directed/confined motion parameters, and, very novel, allowing for the evolution of the directed/confined motion parameters over time. This last step is, to the best of my knowledge, conceptually new and could prove very useful for the field in the future. The authors then use this groundwork to determine the motion type and its corresponding parameter values via a series of likelihood tests. This accounts for obtaining the motion type which is statistically most likely to be occurring (with Brownian motion as null hypothesis). Throughout the manuscript, aTrack is rigorously tested, and the limits of the methods are fully explored and clearly visualised. The authors conclude with allowing the characterization of multiple states in a single experiment with good accuracy and explore this in various experimental settings. Overall, the method is fundamentally strong, well-characterised, and tested, and will be of general interest to the single-particle-tracking field.

Strengths:

(1) The use of likelihood ratios gives a strong statistical relevance to the methodology. There is a sharp decrease in likelihood ratio between e.g. confinement of 0.00 and 0.05 and velocity of 0.0 and 0.002 (figure 2c), which clearly shows the strength of the method - being able to determine 2nm/timepoint directed movement with 20 nm loc. error and 100 nm/timepoint diffusion is very impressive.

(2) Allowing the hidden variables of confinement and directed motion to change during a trajectory (i.e. the q factor) is very interesting and allows for new interpretations of data. The quantifications of these variables are, to me, surprisingly accurate, but well-determined.

(3) The software is well-documented, easy to install, and easy to use.

Weaknesses:

(1) The aTrack principle is limited to the motions incorporated by the authors, with, as far as I can see, no way to add new analytical non-Brownian motion. For instance, being able to add a dynamical state-switching model (i.e. quick on/off switching between mobile and non-mobile, for instance, repeatable DNA binding of a protein), could be of interest. I don't believe this necessarily has to be incorporated by the authors, but it might be of interest to provide instructions on how to expand aTrack.

(2) The experimental data does not very convincingly show the usefulness of aTrack. The authors mention that SPBs are directed in mitosis and not in interphase. This can be quantified and studied by microscopy analysis of individual cells and confirming the aTrack direction model based on this, but this is not performed. Similarly, the size of a confinement spot in optical tweezers can be changed by changing the power of the optical tweezer, and this would far more strongly show the quantitative power of aTrack.

(3) The software has a very strict limit on the number of data points per trajectory, which is a user input. Shorter trajectories are discarded, while longer trajectories are cut off to the set length. It is not explained why this is necessary, and I feel it deletes a lot of useful data without clear benefit (in experimental conditions).

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Weiss and co-authors presented a versatile probabilistic tool. aTrack helps in classifying tracking behaviors and understanding important parameters for different types of single particle motion types: Brwonian, Confined, or Directed motion. The tool can be used further to analyze populations of tracks and the number of motion states. This is a stand-alone software package, making it user-friendly for a broad group of researchers.

Strengths:

This manuscript presents a novel method for trajectory analysis.

Weaknesses:

(1) In the results section, is there any reason to choose the specific range of track length for determining the type of motion? The starting value is fine, and would be short enough, but do the authors have anything to report about how much is too long for the model?

(2) Robustness to model mismatches is a very important section that the authors have uplifted diligently. Understanding where and how the model is limited is important. For example, the authors mentioned the limitation of trajectory length, do the authors have any information on the trajectory length range at which this method works accurately? This would be of interest to readers who would like to apply this method to their own data.

(3) aTrack extracts certain parameters from the trajectories to determine the motion types. However, it is not very clear how certain parameters are calculated. For example, is the diffusion coefficient D calculated from fitting, and how is the confinement factor defined and estimated, with equations? This information will help the readers to understand the principles of this algorithm.

(4) The authors mentioned the scenario where a particle may experience several types of motion simultaneously. How do these motions simulated and what do they mean in terms of motion types? Are they mixed motion (a particle switches motion types in the same trajectory) or do they simply present features of several motion types? It is not intuitive to the readers that a particle can be diffusive (Brownian) and direct at the same time.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors present a software package "aTrack" for identification of motion types and parameter estimation in single-particle tracking data. The software is based on maximum likelihood estimation of the time-series data given an assumed motion model and likelihood ratio tests for model selection. They characterized the performance of the software mostly on simulated data and showed that it is applicable to experimental data.

Strengths:

A potential advantage of the presented method is its wide applicability to different motion types.

Weaknesses:

(1) There has been a lot of similar work in this field. Even though the authors included many relevant citations in the introduction, it is still not clear what this work uniquely offers. Is it the first time that direct MLE of the time-series data was developed? Suggestions to improve would include (a) better wording in the introduction section, (b) comparing to other popular methods (based on MSD, step-size statistics (Spot-On, eLife 2018;7:e33125), for example) using the simulated dataset generated by the authors, (c) comparing to other methods using data set in challenges/competitions (Nat. Comm (2021) 12:6253).

(2) The Hypothesis testing method presented here has a number of issues: first, there is no definition of testing statistics. Usually, the testing statistics are defined given a specific (Type I and/or Type II) error rate. There is also no discussion of the specificity and sensitivity of the testing results (i.e. what's the probability of misidentification of a Brownian trajectory as directed? etc). Related, it is not clear what Figure 2e (and other similar plots) means, as the likelihood ratio is small throughout the parameter space. Also, for likelihood ratio tests, the authors need to discuss how model complexity affects the testing outcome (as more complex models tend to be more "likely" for the data) and also how the likelihood function is normalized (normalization is not an issue for MLE but critical for ratio tests).

(3) Relating to the mathematical foundation (Figure 1b). The measured positions are drawn as direct arrows from the real position states: this infers instantaneous localization. In reality, there is motion blur which introduces a correlation of the measured locations. Motion blur is known to introduce bias in SPT analysis, how does it affect the method here?

(4) The authors did not go through the interpretation of the figure. This may be a matter of style, but I find the figures ambiguous to interpret at times.

(5) It is not clear to me how the classification of the 5 motion types was accomplished.

(6) Figure 3. Caption: what is ((d_{est}-0.1)/0.1)? Also panel labeled as "d" should be "e".

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Rademacher et al. present a paper showing that chronic chemogenetic excitation of dopaminergic neurons in the mouse midbrain results in differential degeneration of axons and somas across distinct regions (SNc vs VTA). These findings are important. This mouse model also has the advantage of showing a axon-first degeneration over an experimentally-useful time course (2-4 weeks). 2. The findings that direct excitation of dopaminergic neurons causes differential degeneration sheds light on the mechanisms of dopaminergic neuron selective vulnerability. The evidence that activation of dopaminergic neurons causes degeneration and alters mRNA expression is convincing, as the authors use both vehicle and CNO control groups, but the evidence that chronic dopaminergic activation alters circadian rhythm and motor behavior is incomplete as the authors did not run a CNO-control condition in these experiments.

Strengths:

This is an exciting and important paper.

The paper compares mouse transcriptomics with human patient data.

It shows that selective degeneration can occur across the midbrain dopaminergic neurons even in the absence of a genetic, prion, or toxin neurodegeneration mechanism.

Weaknesses:

Major concerns:

(1) The lack of a CNO-positive, DREADD-negative control group in the behavioral experiments is the main limitation in interpreting the behavioral data. Without knowing whether CNO on its own has an impact on circadian rhythm or motor activity, the certainty that dopaminergic hyperactivity is causing these effects is lacking.

(2) One of the most exciting things about this paper is that the SNc degenerates more strongly than the VTA when both regions are, in theory, excited to the same extent. However, it is not perfectly clear that both regions respond to CNO to the same extent. The electrophysiological data showing CNO responsiveness is only conducted in the SNc. If the VTA response is significantly reduced vs the SNc response, then the selectivity of the SNc degeneration could just be because the SNc was more hyperactive than the VTA. Electrophysiology experiments comparing the VTA and SNc response to CNO could support the idea that the SNc has substantial intrinsic vulnerability factors compared to the VTA.

(3) The mice have access to a running wheel for the circadian rhythm experiments. Running has been shown to alter the dopaminergic system (Bastioli et al., 2022) and so the authors should clarify whether the histology, electrophysiology, fiber photometry, and transcriptomics data are conducted on mice that have been running or sedentary.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors investigated the effect of chronic activation of dopamine neurons using chemogenetics. Using Gq-DREADDs, the authors chronically activated midbrain dopamine neurons and observed that these neurons, particularly their axons, exhibit increased vulnerability and degeneration, resembling the pathological symptoms of Parkinson's disease. Baseline calcium levels in midbrain dopamine neurons were also significantly elevated following the chronic activation. Lastly, to identify cellular and circuit-level changes in response to dopaminergic neuronal degeneration caused by chronic activation, the authors employed spatial genomics (Visium) and revealed comprehensive changes in gene expression in the mouse model subjected to chronic activation. In conclusion, this study presents novel data on the consequences of chronic hyperactivation of midbrain dopamine neurons.

Strengths:

This study provides direct evidence that the chronic activation of dopamine neurons is toxic and gives rise to neurodegeneration. In addition, the authors achieved the chronic activation of dopamine neurons using water application of clozapine-N-oxide (CNO), a method not commonly employed by researchers. This approach may offer new insights into pathophysiological alterations of dopamine neurons in Parkinson's disease. The authors also utilized state-of-the-art spatial gene expression analysis, which can provide valuable information for other researchers studying dopamine neurons. Although the authors did not elucidate the mechanisms underlying dopaminergic neuronal and axonal death, they presented a substantial number of intriguing ideas in their discussion, which are worth further investigation.

Weaknesses:

Many claims raised in this paper are only partially supported by the experimental results. So, additional data are necessary to strengthen the claims. The effects of chronic activation of dopamine neurons are intriguing; however, this paper does not go beyond reporting phenomena. It lacks a comprehensive explanation for the degeneration of dopamine neurons and their axons. While the authors proposed possible mechanisms for the degeneration in their discussion, such as differentially expressed genes, these remain experimentally unexplored.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Rademacher and colleagues examined the effect on the integrity of the dopamine system in mice of chronically stimulating dopamine neurons using a chemogenetic approach. They find that one to two weeks of constant exposure to the chemogenetic activator CNO leads to a decrease in the density of tyrosine hydroxylase staining in striatal brain sections and to a small reduction of the global population of tyrosine hydroxylase positive neurons in the ventral midbrain. They also report alterations in gene expression in both regions using a spatial transcriptomics approach. Globally, the work is well done and valuable and some of the conclusions are interesting. However, the conceptual advance is perhaps a bit limited in the sense that there is extensive previous work in the literature showing that excessive depolarization of multiple types of neurons associated with intracellular calcium elevations promotes neuronal degeneration. The present work adds to this by showing evidence of a similar phenomenon in dopamine neurons. In terms of the mechanisms explaining the neuronal loss observed after 2 to 4 weeks of chemogenetic activation, it would be important to consider that dopamine neurons are known from a lot of previous literature to undergo a decrease in firing through a depolarization-block mechanism when chronically depolarized. Is it possible that such a phenomenon explains much of the results observed in the present study? It would be important to consider this in the manuscript. The relevance to Parkinson's disease (PD) is also not totally clear because there is not a lot of previous solid evidence showing that the firing of dopamine neurons is increased in PD, either in human subjects or in mouse models of the disease. As such, it is not clear if the present work is really modelling something that could happen in PD in humans.

Comments on the introduction:

The introduction cites a 1990 paper from the lab of Anthony Grace as support of the fact that DA neurons increase their firing rate in PD models. However, in this 1990 paper, the authors stated that: "With respect to DA cell activity, depletions of up to 96% of striatal DA did not result in substantial alterations in the proportion of DA neurons active, their mean firing rate, or their firing pattern. Increases in these parameters only occurred when striatal DA depletions exceeded 96%." Such results argue that an increase in firing rate is most likely to be a consequence of the almost complete loss of dopamine neurons rather than an initial driver of neuronal loss. The present introduction would thus benefit from being revised to clarify the overriding hypothesis and rationale in relation to PD and better represent the findings of the paper by Hollerman and Grace.

It would be good that the introduction refers to some of the literature on the links between excessive neuronal activity, calcium, and neurodegeneration. There is a large literature on this and referring to it would help frame the work and its novelty in a broader context.

Comments on the results section:

The running wheel results of Figure 1 suggest that the CNO treatment caused a brief increase in running on the first day after which there was a strong decrease during the subsequent days in the active phase. This observation is also in line with the appearance of a depolarization block.

The authors examined many basic electrophysiological parameters of recorded dopamine neurons in acute brain slices. However, it is surprising that they did not report the resting membrane potential, or the input resistance. It would be important that this be added because these two parameters provide key information on the basal excitability of the recorded neurons. They would also allow us to obtain insight into the possibility that the neurons are chronically depolarized and thus in depolarization block.

It is great that the authors quantified not only TH levels but also the levels of mCherry, co-expressed with the chemogenetic receptor. This could in principle help to distinguish between TH downregulation and true loss of dopamine neuron cell bodies. However, the approach used here has a major caveat in that the number of mCherry-positive dopamine neurons depends on the proportion of dopamine neurons that were infected and expressed the DREADD and this could very well vary between different mice. It is very unlikely that the virus injection allowed to infect 100% of the neurons in the VTA and SNc. This could for example explain in part the mismatch between the number of VTA dopamine neurons counted in panel 2G when comparing TH and mCherry counts. Also, I see that the mCherry counts were not provided at the 2-week time point. If the mCherry had been expressed genetically by crossing the DAT-Cre mice with a floxed fluorescent reported mice, the interpretation would have been simpler. In this context, I am not convinced of the benefit of the mCherry quantifications. The authors should consider either removing these results from the final manuscript or discussing this important limitation.

Although the authors conclude that there is a global decrease in the number of dopamine neurons after 4 weeks of CNO treatment, the post-hoc tests failed to confirm that the decrease in dopamine number was significant in the SNc, the region most relevant to Parkinson's. This could be due to the fact that only a small number of mice were tested. A "n" of just 4 or 5 mice is very small for a stereological counting experiment. As such, this experiment was clearly underpowered at the statistical level. Also, the choice of the image used to illustrate this in panel 2G should be reconsidered: the image suggests that a very large loss of dopamine neurons occurred in the SNc and this is not what the numbers show. A more representative image should be used.

In Figure 3, the authors attempt to compare intracellular calcium levels in dopamine neurons using GCaMP6 fluorescence. Because this calcium indicator is not quantitative (unlike ratiometric sensors such as Fura2), it is usually used to quantify relative changes in intracellular calcium. The present use of this probe to compare absolute values is unusual and the validity of this approach is unclear. This limitation needs to be discussed. The authors also need to refer in the text to the difference between panels D and E of this figure. It is surprising that the fluctuations in calcium levels were not quantified. I guess the hypothesis was that there should be more or larger fluctuations in the mice treated with CNO if the CNO treatment led to increased firing. This needs to be clarified.

Although the spatial transcriptomic results are intriguing and certainly a great way to start thinking about how the CNO treatment could lead to the loss of dopamine neurons, the presented results, the focussing of some broad classes of differentially expressed genes and on some specific examples, do not really suggest any clear mechanism of neurodegeneration. It would perhaps be useful for the authors to use the obtained data to validate that a state of chronic depolarization was indeed induced by the chronic CNO treatment. Were genes classically linked to increased activity like cfos or bdnf elevated in the SNc or VTA dopamine neurons? In the striatum, the authors report that the levels of DARP32, a gene whose levels are linked to dopamine levels, are unchanged. Does this mean that there were no major changes in dopamine levels in the striatum of these mice?

The usefulness of comparing the transcriptome of human PD SNc or VTA sections to that of the present mouse model should be better explained. In the human tissues, the transcriptome reflects the state of the tissue many years after extensive loss of dopamine neurons. It is expected that there will be few if any SNc neurons left in such sections. In comparison, the mice after 7 days of CNO treatment do not appear to have lost any dopamine neurons. As such, how can the two extremely different conditions be reasonably compared?

Comments on the discussion:

In the discussion, the authors state that their calcium photometry results support a central role of calcium in activity-induced neurodegeneration. This conclusion, although plausible because of the very broad pre-existing literature linking calcium elevation (such as in excitotoxicity) to neuronal loss, should be toned down a bit as no causal relationship was established in the experiments that were carried out in the present study.

In the discussion, the authors discuss some of the parallel changes in gene expression detected in the mouse model and in the human tissues. Because few if any dopamine neurons are expected to remain in the SNc of the human tissues used, this sort of comparison has important conceptual limitations and these need to be clearly addressed.

A major limitation of the present discussion is that it does not discuss the possibility that the observed phenotypes are caused by the induction of a chronic state of depolarization block by the chronic CNO treatment. I encourage the authors to consider and discuss this hypothesis. Also, the authors need to discuss the fact that previous work was only able to detect an increase in the firing rate of dopamine neurons after more than 95% loss of dopamine neurons. As such, the authors need to clearly discuss the relevance of the present model to PD. Are changes in firing rate a driver of neuronal loss in PD, as the authors try to make the case here, or are such changes only a secondary consequence of extensive neuronal loss (for example because a major loss of dopamine would lead to reduced D2 autoreceptor activation in the remaining neurons, and to reduced autoreceptor-mediated negative feedback on firing). This needs to be discussed.

There is a very large, multi-decade literature on calcium elevation and its effects on neuronal loss in many different types of neurons. The authors should discuss their findings in this context and refer to some of this previous work. In a nutshell, the observations of the present manuscript could be summarized by stating that the chronic membrane depolarization induced by the CNO treatment is likely to induce a chronic elevation of intracellular calcium and this is then likely to activate some of the well-known calcium-dependent cell death mechanisms. Whether such cell death is linked in any way to PD is not really demonstrated by the present results.

The authors are encouraged to perform a thorough revision of the discussion to address all of these issues, discuss the major limitations of the present model, and refer to the broad pre-existing literature linking membrane depolarization, calcium, and neuronal loss in many neuronal cell types.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Trutti and colleagues used 7T fMRI to identify brain regions involved in subprocesses of updating the content of working memory. Contrary to past theoretical and empirical claims that the striatum serves a gating function when new information is to be entered into working memory, the relevant contrast during a reference-back task did not reveal significant subcortical activation. Instead, the experiment provided support for the role of subcortical (and cortical) regions in other subprocesses.

Strengths:

The use of high-field imaging optimized for subcortical regions in conjunction with the theory-driven experimental design mapped well to the focus on a hypothetical striatal gating mechanism.

Consideration of multiple subprocesses and the transparent way of identifying these, summarized in a table, will make it easy for future studies to replicate and extend the present experiment.

Weaknesses:

The reference-back paradigm seems to only require holding a single letter in working memory (X or O; Figure 1). It remains unclear how such low demand on working memory influences associated fMRI updating responses. It is also not clear whether reference-switch trials with 'same' response truly tax working-memory updating (and gate opening), as the working-memory content/representation does not need to be updated in this case. These potential design issues, together with the rather low number of experimental trials, raise concerns about the demonstrated absence of evidence for striatal gate opening.

The authors provide a motivation for their multi-step approach to fMRI analyses. Still, the three subsections of fMRI results (3.2.1; 3.2.2; 3.3.3) for 4 subprocesses each (gate opening, gate closing, substitution, updating mode) made the Results section complex and it was not always easy to understand why some but not other approaches revealed significant effects (as the midbrain in gate opening).

The many references to the role of dopamine are interesting, but the discussion of dopaminergic pathways and signals remains speculative and must be confirmed in future studies (e.g., with PET imaging).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The study reported by Trutti et al. uses high-field fMRI to test the hypothesized involvement of subcortical structure, particularly striatum, in WM updating. Specifically, participants were scanned while performing the Reference Back task (e.g., Rac-Lubashevsky and Kessler, 2016), which tests constructs like working memory gate opening and closing and substitution. While striatal activation was involved in substitution, it was not observed in gate opening. This observation is cited as a challenge to cortico-striatal models of WM gating, like PBWM (Frank and O'Reilly, 2005).

Strengths:

While there have been prior fMRI studies of the reference back task (Nir-Cohen et al., 2020), the present study overcomes limitations in prior work, particularly with regard to subcortical structures, by applying high-field imaging with a more precise definition of ROIs. And, the fMRI methods are careful and rigorous, overall. Thus, the empirical observations here are useful and will be of interest to specialists interested in working memory gating or the reference back task specifically.

Weaknesses:

I am less persuaded by the more provocative points regarding the challenge it presents to models like PBWM, made in several places by the paper. As detailed below, issues with conceptual clarity of the main constructs and their connection to models, like PBWM, along with some incomplete aspects of the results, make this stronger conclusion less compelling.

(1) The relationship of the Nir-Cohen et al. (2020) task analysis of the reference back task, with its contrasts like gate opening and closing, and the predictions of PBWM is far from clear to me for several reasons.

First, contrasts like gate opening and gate closing make strong finite state assumptions. As far as I know, this is not an assumption of PBWM, certainly not for gate opening. At a minimum, PBWM is default closed because of the tonic inhibition of cortico-thalamic dynamics by the globus pallidus. Indeed, this was even noted in the discussion of this paper, which seems to acknowledge this discrepancy, but then goes on to conclude that they have challenged the PBWM model anyway.

Second, as far as I know, PBWM emphasizes go/no-go processes around constructs of input- and output-gating, rather than state shifts between gate opening and closing. While this relationship is less clear in reference back, substituting task-relevant items into working memory does appear to be an example of input gating, as modeled by PBWM. Thus, it is not clear to me why the substitution contrast would not be more of a test of input gating than the gate opening contrast, which requires assumptions that are not clear are required by the model, as noted above.

Third, PBWM relies on striatal mechanisms to solve the problem of selective gating, inputting, or outputting items in memory while also holding on to others. Selective gating contrasts with global gating, in which everything in memory is gated or nothing. The reference back task is a test of global gating. It is an important distinction because non-striatal mechanisms that can solve global gating, cannot solve selective gating. Indeed, this limitation of non-striatal mechanisms was the rationale for PBWM adding striatum. The connectivity of the striatum with the cortex permits this selectivity. It is not clear that the reference back task tests these selective demands in the first place. That limitation in this task was the rationale behind the recent Rac-Lubashevsky and Frank (2022) paper using the reference back 2 procedure that modifies the original reference back for selective gating.

So, if the primary contribution of the paper is to test PBWM, as suggested by the first line of the abstract, then it is not clear that the reference back task in general, or the gate opening contrast in particular, is the best test of these predictions. Other contrasts (substitution), or indeed, tasks (reference back 2) would have been better suited.

(2) In general, observations of univariate activity in the striatum have been notoriously variable in the context of WM. Indeed, Chatham et al. (2014) who tested working memory output gating - notably in a direct test of the predictions of PBWM - noted this variability. They too did not observe univariate activation in the striatum associated with selective output gating. Rather they found evidence of increased connectivity between the striatum and cortex during selective output gating. They argued that one account of this difference is that striatal gating dynamics emerge from the balance between the firing of both Go and NoGo cell populations that decide whether to gate or not. It is not always clear how this balance should relate to univariate activation in the striatum. Thus, the present study might also test cortico-striatal connectivity, rather than relying exclusively on univariate activation, in their test of striatal involvement in these WM constructs.

(3) It is concerning that there was no behavioral cost for comparison switch vs. repeat trials. This differs from with prior observations from the reference back (e.g., Nir-Cohen et al., 2020), and in general, is odd given the task switch/cue interpretation component. This failure to observe a basic behavioral effect raises a concern about how participants approached this task and how that might differ from prior reports of the reference back. If they were taking an unusual strategy, it further complicates the interpretation of these results and the implications they hold for theory.

In summary, the present observations are useful, particularly for those interested in the reference back task. For example, they might call into question verbal theories and task analyses of the reference back task that tie constructs like gate-opening to striatal mechanisms. However, given the ambiguities noted above, the broader implications for models like PBWM, or indeed, other models of working memory gating, are less clear.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors designed an EEG experiment to investigate how listeners use temporal structure to optimise sensory detection. Listeners heard 2 seconds of noise and had to detect a faint tone in one of 3 temporal locations (equally spaced in time). In a minority of trials, no tone was presented. Focussing on these 'no tone' trials, the authors show that the EEG 'temporally tracks' the expected tone locations. This temporal tracking behaviour is also shown in a recurrent neural network trained on the same task. The authors interpret these findings as evidence of neural gain control in the service of sequential temporal anticipation.

Strengths:

The study uses an elegant experimental design and sophisticated EEG analyses. It is striking how clear the neural signatures are (of sequential expectation in the absence of sensory input). A further strength is the use of neural network modelling to elucidate the possible neural computations.

Weaknesses:

My first major comment concerns the theoretical implications of the study. An account based on gain control and temporal anticipation seems highly plausible. But are there other plausible accounts that the current data argue against? Or are there specific versions of gain control / temporal anticipation theories that the data supports and others that the data doesn't support? To develop the manuscript, I think the authors could relate their results in a more specific way to existing accounts, outlining not only what accounts their results favor but also which accounts their data falsify. In doing so I think the study will have a stronger influence on shaping the field.

My second major comment concerns the consistent lag that is observed between tone location and neural/model responses. This would seem to be inconsistent with an anticipation account, which would instead predict zero or a negative lag. This should be discussed. While I agree the decrease in response magnitude that occurs with tone location is inconsistent with expectation violation, the positive lag that is observed seems more consistent with expectation violation than temporal anticipation/gain control.

My third major comment is a suggestion to present some further analyses that I think will be informative. First is reporting more extensively the ERP results. This currently appears in one of the panels but there are no statistical tests reported in the main text and only the tone present data is shown. Given that expectation violation has been observed most consistently with ERPs, is there evidence of this in the 'no tone' trials and if so, does it correlate over participants with the power modulation effect or rate of false alarms? Doing this analysis will possibly be informative for assessing the plausibility of different functional accounts of the data e.g. expectation violation/prediction error. My second suggestion is to report the tone present trial data. When the tone is for example presented in the first location, does the response during tone locations 2 and 3 get suppressed? And does the same occur in the neural network model? If so, this would speak to a highly dynamic form of gain control (if the gain control account is correct).

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The study designs an EEG experiment to study how the brain better detects targets by exploiting information about when the target may appear. The study finds that the power fluctuations of alpha and beta oscillations can indicate the time intervals in which the target may appear. Furthermore, a RNN trained on the same task can also exploit such temporal information to better detect targets at the expected time intervals.

Strengths:

(1) The design of the experiment is elegant.

(2) The EEG analysis approach is highly advanced.

(3) The study combines human EEG experiments and computational modeling to address potential computational neural mechanisms.

Weaknesses:

The RNN is used both for modeling, which is commendable, and for simulating new psychophysics experiments, which can be problematic. In other words, it is very dangerous to predict human performance in a novel condition using RNN and assume that prediction is the same as the actual human performance. Comparing the RNN performance in two different noise conditions cannot directly "suggest that the 2 Hz neural modulation observed in Corrected Cluster 234 served to enhance sensory sensitivity to the target tone at the anticipated temporal locations, while selectively suppressing sensory noise during irrelevant noise periods." Here, much stronger evidence is to actually do the behavioral tests in two noise conditions in humans, but even that behavioral experiment cannot directly indicate the function of a neural response. In other words, the conclusion "additional analyses and perturbations on the RNNs indicated that the neural power modulations in the alpha-beta band resulted from selective suppression of irrelevant noise periods and heightened sensitivity to anticipated temporal locations" is not supported. The model does not have alpha or beta oscillations at all, which is OK, but directly concluding the function of alpha/beta oscillations based on the behavior of a model that does not have these oscillations is not appropriate.

Relatedly, better detection of a target may reflect a change either in sensory processing or in decision-making, while the second possibility seems to be ignored.

The results section has a lot of discussions, which should be moved to the discussion section.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this article, the authors investigated how the brain anticipates sequences of potential sensory events, using temporal predictability to enhance perception. To do so, they combined a tone detection task, electrophysiological recordings, and recurrent neural network models. The stimuli consisted of continuous white noise embedded with either a single tone presented at one of 3 equidistant (500ms) temporal locations, or no tone. The main analyses were carried out on no-tone trials, in which subjects only anticipated future events. First, a modulation power spectrum analysis revealed 4 frequency clusters, and a coupling analysis allowed the authors to group 3 of them together into cluster 234. The time course of the latter aligned with the temporal locations, reaching a local maximum following each of them. The power of cluster 234 during no-tone trials was positively correlated with behavioral performance (d') during tone trials, but not with false alarm rate. Then, the authors trained several continuous-time recurrent neural networks to model the experimental paradigm. After the networks were tuned to reflect the average d' of human subjects, a neural network analogue of EEG was extracted from the activity of neurons. The latter displayed a peak at 2Hz, its time course aligned with the temporal locations, reaching a local maximum both before and after each of them, and its d' score was higher for tones located at one of the temporal locations. A network trained with randomly occurring tones displayed no 2Hz activity and d' independent from tone location. Finally, the authors perturbed the excitatory/inhibitory ratio of neurons within the network, finding that more inhibition resulted in earlier peaks in the neural network activity.

Strengths:

(1) The experimental paradigm introduced in this study is original and well-built, allowing for the study of the targeted phenomenon. The fact that relevant neural signals were found despite the absence of sensory cues proves the setup is promising, opening the way for future works, playing with different parameters: number of tones, time between tones, sequence of temporal locations complexity, sequence of events...etc.

(2) The statistical analysis was exhaustive, the authors consistently introduced controls for different conditions and alternative hypotheses, thoroughly explaining each step of the analysis as well as the choices behind them. The supplementary figures further helped understand the data and answer interrogation one might have. This comprehensive approach was well-appreciated.

(3) The use of more biologically plausible networks, compared to traditional RNNs, to model the response of subjects is a promising approach, which can give clues as to the mechanism at play, but also make predictions that can then be proven (or disproven) by future experiments.

The authors provided a work of good technical quality and reported their methods and findings transparently, making for good reproducibility and evaluation.

Weaknesses:

(1) The most glaring weakness of the paper lies in its interpretation of the different results. Conclusions are scattered around the paper, mostly unclear, and do not always make much sense with regard to the data. For example, the authors never address the absence of a peak before the first temporal location: why would subjects not "suppress" noise before the first temporal location given its (strong) predictability? Moreover, they immediately assume a functional role for the neural signature they found, as well as a direct link between the mechanisms at play in their RNN and the human brain, thus jumping to hasty and unreliable conclusions. The authors seemed to have a strong bias towards a hypothesis (predictive gain control) and tried to fit their data into it.

- The authors cited very few relevant papers on related fields, notably on omission, and therefore did not build efficiently on previous works (e.g., Yabe, Raij, Schröger, Bekinschtein, Chait, Auksztulewicz...). Moreover, at several points in the paper, they make choices about their analysis or model without proper justification or cited sources, even when explicitly pointing to the existence of research supporting said choices.

- Only a single electrode (out of 64) was used (Cz) to carry out every analysis. Without proper justification, this choice could be misinterpreted. Moreover, adopting instead a multivariate approach (incorporating all channels) would give more strength to the paper.

- Overall, the observed electrophysiological results could be more simply explained by a mechanism akin to a go/no-go (a tone/no-tone) or omission response happening after each temporal location, as subjects have learned when to make that inference. The delay of the response with regards to temporal location would change due to error accumulation in time perception, rather than "the anticipation of the first temporal location facilitating the anticipation of the second", which makes little sense. Moreover, a response in Cz could be expected.

- As for the results of RNN, not only is the analogy with actual neurophysiological activity limited, both in principle (simple E/I dynamics) and in implementation (inference is only done at the end of each trial), but the authors do not address the activity before the first temporal location, which is a major difference with human data. Their assumption that both RNN and cluster 234 are functionally related to gain control is thus further flawed. Moreover, the analysis of the RNN is lacking, for example, the authors did not compare false positive/negative of different delays, or analyzed Wout.

- The phrasing and introduction of the paper are misleading, as confusion can arise between predicting a sequence of events (several events in a row) and predicting a single event appearing at different potential locations. It should be clarified that the paper does not address sequences of events at any point.

It seems the authors already drew their conclusion beforehand and fit the data to match this bias. As such, the interpretation of the data is messy, flawed, and often hasty, drawing erroneous conclusions and parallels.

Overall, the manuscript is of good technical quality and communicated results very transparently, but the authors seem to have a strong confirmation bias towards temporal anticipation and gain control, thus leading to flawed interpretations.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors investigate pleiotropy in the genetic loci previously associated to a range of neuropsychiatric disorders: Alzheimer's disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), frontotemporal dementia, Parkinson's disease, and schizophrenia. The local statistical fine-mapping and variant colocalisation approaches they use have the potential to uncover not only shared loci but also shared causal variants between these disorders. There is existing literature describing the pleiotropy between ALS and these other disorders but here the authors apply state-of-the-art, local genetic correlation approaches to further refine any relationships.

Complex disease and GWAS is not my area of expertise but the authors managed to present their methods and results in a clear, easy-to-follow manner. Their results statistically support several correlations between the disorders and, for ALS and AD, a shared variant in the vicinity of the lead SNP from the original ALS GWAS. Such findings could have important implications for our understanding of the mechanisms of such disorders and eventually the possibility of managing and treating them.

The authors have built a useful pipeline that plugs together all the gold-standard, existing software to perform this analysis and made it openly available which is commendable. However, there is little discussion of what software is available to perform global and local correlation analysis and, if there are multiple tools available, why they consider the ones they selected to be the gold-standard.

There is some mention of previous findings of genetic pleiotropy between ALS and these other disorders in the introduction, and discussion of their improved ALS-AD evidence relative to previous work. However, detailed comparisons of their other correlations to what was described before for the same pairs of disorders (if any) is missing. Adding this would strengthen the impact of this paper.

Finally, being new to this approach I found the abstract a little confusing. Initially, the shared causal variant between ALS and AD is mentioned but immediately in the following sentence they describe how their study "suggested that disease- implicated variants in these loci often differ between traits". After reading the whole paper I understood that the ALS-AD shared variant was the exception but it may be best to restructure this part of the abstract. Additionally, in the abstract the authors state that different variants "suggests the role of distinct mechanisms across diseases despite shared loci". Is it not possible that different variants in the same regulatory region or protein-coding parts of a gene could be having the same effect and mechanism? Or does the methodology to establish that different variants are involved automatically mean that the variants are too distant for this to be possible?

These concerns were addressed in the revised version of this manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Spargo and colleagues present an analysis of the shared genetic architectures of Schizoprehnia and several late-onset neurological disorders. In contrast to many polygenic traits for which global genetic correlation estimates are substantial, global genetic correlation estimates for neurological conditions are relatively small, likely for several reasons. One is that assortative mating, which will spuriously inflate genetic correlation estimates, is likely to be less salient for late-onset conditions. Another, which the authors explore in the current manuscript, is that some loci affecting two or more conditions (i.e., pleiotropic loci) may have effects in opposite directions, or shared loci are sparse, such that the global genetic correlation signal washes out.

The authors apply a local genetic correlation approach that assesses the presence and direction of pleiotropy in much smaller spatial windows across the genome. Then, within regions evidencing local genetic correlations for a given trait pair, they apply fine-mapping and colocalization methods to attempt to differentiate between two scenarios: that the two traits share the same causal variant in the region or that distinct loci within the region influence the traits. Interestingly, the authors only discover one instance of the former: an SNP in the HLA region appearing to confer risk for both AD and ALS. This is in contrast to six regions with distinct causal loci, and twenty regions with no clear shared loci.

Finally, the authors have published their analysis pipeline such that other researchers might easily apply the same techniques to other collections of traits.

Strengths:<br /> - All such analysis pipelines involve many decision points where there is often no clear correct option. Nonetheless, the authors clearly present their reasoning behind each such decision.<br /> - The authors have published their analytic pipeline such that future researchers might easily replicate and extend their findings.

Weaknesses:<br /> - The majority of regions display no clear candidate causal variants for the traits, whether shared or distinct. Further, despite the potential of local genetic correlation analysis to identify regions with effects in opposing directions, all of the regions for causal variants were identified for both traits evidenced positive correlations. The reasons for this aren't clear and the authors would do well to explore this in greater detail.<br /> - The authors very briefly discuss how their findings differ from previous analyses because of their strict inclusion for "high-quality" variants. This might be the case, but the authors do not attempt to demonstrate this via simulation or otherwise, making it difficult to evaluate their explanation.

These concerns were addressed in the revised version of this manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this paper, Steinemann et al. characterized the nature of stochastic signals underlying the trial-averaged responses observed in lateral intraparietal cortex (LIP) of non-human primates (NHPs), while these performed the widely used random dot direction discrimination task. Ramp-up dynamics in the trial averaged LIP responses were reported in numerous papers before. But the temporal dynamics of these signals at the single-trial level have been subject to debate. Using large scale neuronal recordings with Neuropixels in NHPs, allows the authors to settle this debate rather compellingly. They show that drift-diffusion like computations account well for the observed dynamics in LIP.

Strengths:

This work uses innovative technical approaches (Neuropixel recordings in behaving macaque monkeys). The authors tackle a vexing question that requires measurements of simultaneous neuronal population activity and hence leverage this advanced recording technique in a convincing way.

They use different population decoding strategies to help interpret the results.

They also compare how decoders relying on the data-driven approach using dimensionality reduction of the full neural population space compares to decoders relying on more traditional ways to categorize neurons that are based on hypotheses about their function. Intriguingly, although the functionally identified neurons are a modest fraction of the population, decoders that only rely on this fraction achieve comparable decoding performance to those relying on the full population. Moreover, decoding weights for the full population did not allow the authors to reliably identify the functionally identified subpopulation.

The revision addressed the minor weaknesses to our satisfaction.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Steinemann, Stine, and their co-authors studied the noisy accumulation of sensory evidence during perceptual decision-making using Neuropixels recordings in awake, behaving monkeys. Previous work has largely focused on describing the neural underpinnings through which sensory evidence accumulates to inform decisions, a process which on average resembles the systematic drift of a scalar decision variable toward an evidence threshold. The additional order of magnitude in recording throughput permitted by the methodology adopted in this work offers two opportunities to extend this understanding. First, larger-scale recordings allow for the study of relationships between the population activity state and behavior without averaging across trials. The authors' observation here of covariation between the trial-to-trial fluctuations of activity and behavior (choice, reaction time) constitutes interesting new evidence for the claim that neural populations in LIP encode the behaviorally-relevant internal decision variable. Second, using Neuropixels allows the authors to sample LIP neurons with more diverse response properties (e.g. spatial RF location, motion direction selectivity), making the important question of how decision-related computations are structured in LIP amenable to study. For these reasons, the dataset collected in this study is unique and potentially quite valuable. This revised manuscript addresses a number of questions regarding analyses which were unclear in the original manuscript, and as a result the study is a strong contribution toward our understanding of neural mechanisms of decision making.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This is an interesting and thorough paper describing the modes of locomotion of the nematode C. elegans in the context of random exploration or response to an aversive stimulus. The authors collect extensive statistics on various locomotor states and compare findings to a minimal mathematical model inspired by the data. Their data reveal biases in two modes of turning- gradual and sharp- which define the path structure of the animal moving on an agar plate. The authors also find that animals tend to overcome inherent anatomical/physiological biases to locomotion when escaping aversive stimuli.

Understanding animal navigation is a window for revealing efficient algorithms for exploration of space, and also allows testing of the extent to which we understand how the nervous system produces specific behaviors. This paper adds important analysis towards these goals. I have a couple of comments that may be worth considering:

(1) The authors place a circular barrier of SDS near the edges of their plates and assume that this aversive stimulus is only sensed when the animal is near the barrier. However, it is possible that the SDS diffuses enough into the interior of the plate to affect the navigation statistics. In this case, the data they have accumulated may in fact be some sort of combination of exploratory locomotion and a general background SDS aversive stimulus. Can the authors control for this? Perhaps test the plates at different distances and times for SDS diffusion? Or replace the barrier with a physical one and not a chemical one?

(2) The authors do not look at mutants or perturb the physiology in defined ways relevant to the locomotion being studied to test their model. Specifically, it would be of interest to identify neural circuits that govern some of the parameters in the model. Although the authors bring this up in their Discussion section, it seems appropriate for this paper, as it would considerably bolster the impact of the work.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Turning behavior plays a crucial role in animal exploration and escape responses, regardless of the presence or absence of environmental cues. These turns can be broadly categorized into two categories: strong reorientations, characterized by sudden changes in path directionality, and smooth turns, which involve gradual changes in the direction of motion, leading to sinuosity and looping patterns. One of the key model animals to study these behaviors is the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, in which the role of strong reorientations has been thoroughly studied. Despite their impact on trajectories, smooth turns have received less attention and remain poorly understood. This study addresses this gap in the literature, by studying the interplay between smooth turns and strong reorientations in nematodes moving in a uniform environment, surrounded by an aversive barrier. The authors use this set-up to study both exploration behavior (when the worm is far from the aversive barrier) and avoidance behavior (when the worm senses the aversive barrier). The main claims of the paper are that (1) during exploratory behavior, the parameters governing strong reorientations are optimized to compensate for the effect of smooth turns, increasing exploration efficiency, and (2) during avoidance, strong reorientations are biased towards the side that maximizes escape success. To support these two claims, the paper presents a detailed quantitative characterization of the statistics of smooth turns and strong reorientations. These results offer insights that may interest a diverse audience, including those in movement ecology, animal search behavior, and the study of Caenorhabditis elegans. In our opinion, the experimental work and data analysis are of the highest quality, resulting in a very clean characterization of C. elegans' turning behavior. However, the experimental design and data analyses presented are not fully aligned with some of the central conclusions drawn, and in particular, we believe that further work is needed to fully support the claim that strong reorientations are optimized to increase exploration efficiency.

Strengths:

The authors have addressed important questions in movement ecology through hypothesis-driven experiments. The choice of C. elegans as a model organism to investigate the impact of turning dynamics on escape and exploration is well-justified by its limited repertoire of strong reorientation behaviors and consistent turning bias across strains and individuals. The quality of the experimental data is very high, using state-of-the-art techniques, and a set-up where a robust and reproducible avoidance response can be studied. The data analysis benefits from state-of-the-art techniques and a deep understanding of C. elegans' behavior, resulting in a very clean and very clear set of results. We particularly appreciated the use of a ventral/dorsal reference system (rather than a left/right one), which is more natural and insightful. As a result, the paper presents one of the best characterizations of C. elegans sharp turning behavior published to date. We find that the claim that strong reorientations are chosen in a way that optimizes avoidance behavior is solid and well-supported. The manuscript is well-written and maintains a coherent line of reasoning throughout.

Weaknesses:

Our primary concerns revolve around the significance and rigor of the research on exploratory behavior. First, we believe that the experimental arena was too small for accurately observing the unfolding of exploration. The movement of assayed animals was clearly impaired by boundary effects, which obscured key elements of C. elegans exploratory behavior such as the mean square displacement or large-scale trajectory structures emerging from curvature bias. Second, we think that the proof that strong reorientations are optimized to maximize exploration performance is too indirect: it relies on a particular model with some unrealistic assumptions and lacks a quantification of the gains provided by the optimization to the individuals. We believe that a more thorough and direct analysis would be needed to fully support the claim.

Public Review:

The study addresses the role of enkephalins, which are specifically expressed by regulatory T cells (Treg), in sensory perception in mice. The authors used a combination of transcriptomic databases available online to characterize the molecular signature of Treg. The proenkephalin gene Penk is among the most enriched transcripts, suggesting that Treg plays an analgesic role through the release of endogenous opioids. In addition, in silico analysis suggests that Penk is regulated by the TNFR superfamily; this being experimentally confirmed. Using flow cytometry analysis, the authors then show that Penk is mostly expressed in Treg of the skin and colon, compared to other immune cells. Finally, genetic conditional excision of Penk, selectively in Treg, results in heat hypersensitivity, as assessed by behavior analysis.

Editors' note: The authors accepted most if not all the suggestions given by the reviewers and the revised version of the manuscript is substantially improved.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary and strength:<br /> The authors undertook to assemble and annotate the genome sequence of the Malabar grouper fish, with the aim to provide molecular resources for fundamental and applied research. Even though this is more mainstream, the task is still daunting and labor intensive. Currently, high quality and fully annotated genome sequences are of strategic importance in modern biology. The authors make use of the resource to address the endocrine control of an ecologically and developmentally relevant life cycle transition, metamorphosis. As opposed to amphibian and flat fish where body plan changes, fish metamorphosis is anatomically more subtle and much less known, although it is clear that thyroid hormone (TH) signaling is a key player. The authors thus provide a repertoire of TH-relevant gene expression changes during development and across post-embryonic transitions and correlate developmental stages with changes of gene expression. Overall, this work represents a significant advance in the field.

Fish 'metamorphosis' is well known because it is not as spectacular as amphibians. This work clearly provides technical and theoretical resources to address in a more systematic manner the molecular changes occurring during development and post-embryonic transitions. Heterochrony is a major source of functional and life cycle diversity in fish, which blurs our anatomy-based understanding of fish biology, and has a direct impact on the protocols and rearing procedures used to produce live stocks. This work illustrates how, by using genomics coupled to simple experimental endocrinology, one directly addresses these challenges.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors present data on outer membrane vesicle (OMV) production in different mutants, but they state that this is beyond the scope of the current manuscript, which I disagree with. This data could provide valuable physiological context that is otherwise lacking. The preliminary blots suggest that YafK does not alter OMV biogenesis. I recommend repeating these blots with appropriate controls, such as blotting for proteins in the culture media, an IM protein, periplasmic protein and an OM protein to strengthen the reliability of these findings. Including this data in the manuscript, even if it does not directly support the initial hypothesis, would enhance the physiological relevance of the study. Currently, the manuscript relies completely on the experimental setup (labeling-mass spec) previously developed by the authors, which limits the broader scope and interpretability of this study.

Additionally susceptibility of strains to detergents like SDS can be tested to provide a much needed physisological context to the study.

In summary, the authors should consider revising the manuscript to improve clarity, substantiate their claims with more detailed evidence, and include additional experimental results that provide necessary physiological context to their study.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The authors of this study have sought to better understand the timing and location of the attachment of the lpp lipoprotein to the peptidoglycan in E. coli, and to determine whether YafK is the hydrolase that cleaves lpp from the peptidoglycan.

Strengths:<br /> The method is relatively straightforward. The authors are able to draw some clear conclusions from their results, that lpp molecules get cleaved from the peptidoglycan and then re-attached, and that YafK is important for that cleavage.

Weaknesses:<br /> Figure 3 and 4 - why are the data shown here only two biological replicates, when there are 3-5 replicates shown in table S1 and S2? This makes it seem like you are cherry picking your favorite replicates. Please present the data as the mean of all the replicates performed, with error shown on the graph.

This work will have a moderate impact on the field of research in which the connections between the OM and peptidoglycan are being studied in E. coli. Since lpp is not widely conserved in gram negatives, the impact across species is not clear. The authors do not discuss the impact of their work in depth.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Koren et al. derive and analyse a spiking network model optimised to represent external signals using the minimum number of spikes. Unlike most prior work using a similar setup, the network includes separate populations of excitatory and inhibitory neurons. The authors show that the optimised connectivity has a like-to-like structure, leading to the experimentally observed phenomenon of feature competition. They also characterise the impact of various (hyper)parameters, such as adaptation timescale, ratio of excitatory to inhibitory cells, regularisation strength, and background current. These results add useful biological realism to a particular model of efficient coding. However, not all claims seem fully supported by the evidence. Specifically, several biological features, such as the ratio of excitatory to inhibitory neurons, which the authors claim to explain through efficient coding, might be contingent on arbitrary modelling choices. In addition, earlier work has already established the importance of structured connectivity for feature competition. A clearer presentation of modelling choices, limitations, and prior work could improve the manuscript.

Major comments:

(1) Much is made of the 4:1 ratio between excitatory and inhibitory neurons, which the authors claim to explain through efficient coding. I see two issues with this conclusion: (i) The 4:1 ratio is specific to rodents; humans have an approximate 2:1 ratio (see Fang & Xia et al., Science 2022 and references therein); (ii) the optimal ratio in the model depends on a seemingly arbitrary choice of hyperparameters, particularly the weighting of encoding error versus metabolic cost. This second concern applies to several other results, including the strength of inhibitory versus excitatory synapses. While the model can, therefore, be made consistent with biological data, this requires auxiliary assumptions.

(2) A growing body of evidence supports the importance of structured E-I and I-E connectivity for feature selectivity and response to perturbations. For example, this is a major conclusion from the Oldenburg paper (reference 62 in the manuscript), which includes extensive modelling work. Similar conclusions can be found in work from Znamenskiy and colleagues (experiments and spiking network model; bioRxiv 2018, Neuron 2023 (ref. 82)), Sadeh & Clopath (rate network; eLife, 2020), and Mackwood et al. (rate network with plasticity; eLife, 2021). The current manuscript adds to this evidence by showing that (a particular implementation of) efficient coding in spiking networks leads to structured connectivity. The fact that this structured connectivity then explains perturbation responses is, in the light of earlier findings, not new.

(3) The model's limitations are hard to discern, being relegated to the manuscript's last and rather equivocal paragraph. For instance, the lack of recurrent excitation, crucial in neural dynamics and computation, likely influences the results: neuronal time constants must be as large as the target readout (Figure 4), presumably because the network cannot integrate the signal without recurrent excitation. However, this and other results are not presented in tandem with relevant caveats.

(4) On repeated occasions, results from the model are referred to as predictions claimed to match the data. A prediction is a statement about what will happen in the future - but most of the "predictions" from the model are actually findings that broadly match earlier experimental results, making them "postdictions". This distinction is important: compared to postdictions, predictions are a much stronger test because they are falsifiable. This is especially relevant given (my impression) that key parameters of the model were tweaked to match the data.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this work, the authors present a biologically plausible, efficient E-I spiking network model and study various aspects of the model and its relation to experimental observations. This includes a derivation of the network into two (E-I) populations, the study of single-neuron perturbations and lateral-inhibition, the study of the effects of adaptation and metabolic cost, and considerations of optimal parameters. From this, they conclude that their work puts forth a plausible implementation of efficient coding that matches several experimental findings, including feature-specific inhibition, tight instantaneous balance, a 4 to 1 ratio of excitatory to inhibitory neurons, and a 3 to 1 ratio of I-I to E-I connectivity strength. It thus argues that some of these observations may come as a direct consequence of efficient coding.

Strengths:

While many network implementations of efficient coding have been developed, such normative models are often abstract and lacking sufficient detail to compare directly to experiments. The intention of this work to produce a more plausible and efficient spiking model and compare it with experimental data is important and necessary in order to test these models.

In rigorously deriving the model with real physical units, this work maps efficient spiking networks onto other more classical biophysical spiking neuron models. It also attempts to compare the model to recent single-neuron perturbation experiments, as well as some long-standing puzzles about neural circuits, such as the presence of separate excitatory and inhibitory neurons, the ratio of excitatory to inhibitory neurons, and E/I balance. One of the primary goals of this paper, to determine if these are merely biological constraints or come from some normative efficient coding objective, is also important.

Though several of the observations have been reported and studied before (see below), this work arguably studies them in more depth, which could be useful for comparing more directly to experiments.

Weaknesses:

Though the text of the paper may suggest otherwise, many of the modeling choices and observations found in the paper have been introduced in previous work on efficient spiking models, thereby making this work somewhat repetitive and incremental at times. This includes the derivation of the network into separate excitatory and inhibitory populations, discussion of physical units, comparison of voltage versus spike-timing correlations, and instantaneous E/I balance, all of which can be found in one of the first efficient spiking network papers (Boerlin et al. 2013), as well as in subsequent papers. Metabolic cost and slow adaptation currents were also presented in a previous study (Gutierrez & Deneve 2019). Though it is perfectly fine and reasonable to build upon these previous studies, the language of the text gives them insufficient credit.

Furthermore, the paper makes several claims of optimality that are not convincing enough, as they are only verified by a limited parameter sweep of single parameters at a time, are unintuitive and may be in conflict with previous findings of efficient spiking networks. This includes the following. Coding error (RMSE) has a minimum at intermediate metabolic cost (Figure 5B), despite the fact that intuitively, zero metabolic cost would indicate that the network is solely minimizing coding error and that previous work has suggested that additional costs bias the output. Coding error also appears to have a minimum at intermediate values of the ratio of E to I neurons (effectively the number of I neurons) and the number of encoded variables (Figures 6D, 7B). These both have to do with the redundancy in the network (number of neurons for each encoded variable), and previous work suggests that networks can code for arbitrary numbers of variables provided the redundancy is high enough (e.g., Calaim et al. 2022). Lastly, the performance of the E-I variant of the network is shown to be better than that of a single cell type (1CT: Figure 7C, D). Given that the E-I network is performing a similar computation as to the 1CT model but with more neurons (i.e., instead of an E neuron directly providing lateral inhibition to its neighbor, it goes through an interneuron), this is unintuitive and again not supported by previous work. These may be valid emergent properties of the E-I spiking network derived here, but their presentation and description are not sufficient to determine this.

Alternatively, the methodology of the model suggests that ad hoc modeling choices may be playing a role. For example, an arbitrary weighting of coding error and metabolic cost of 0.7 to 0.3, respectively, is chosen without mention of how this affects the results. Furthermore, the scaling of synaptic weights appears to be controlled separately for each connection type in the network (Table 1), despite the fact that some of these quantities are likely linked in the optimal network derivation. Finally, the optimal threshold and metabolic constants are an order of magnitude larger than the synaptic weights (Table 1). All of these considerations suggest one of the following two possibilities. One, the model has a substantial number of unconstrained parameters to tune, in which case more parameter sweeps would be necessary to definitively make claims of optimality. Or two, parameters are being decoupled from those constrained by the optimal derivation, and the optima simply corresponds to the values that should come out of the derivation.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In their paper the authors tackle three things at once in a theoretical model: how can spiking neural networks perform efficient coding, how can such networks limit the energy use at the same time, and how can this be done in a more biologically realistic way than previous work?

They start by working from a long-running theory on how networks operating in a precisely balanced state can perform efficient coding. First, they assume split networks of excitatory (E) and inhibitory (I) neurons. The E neurons have the task to represent some lower dimensional input signal, and the I neurons have the task to represent the signal represented by the E neurons. Additionally, the E and I populations should minimize an energy cost represented by the sum of all spikes. All this results in two loss functions for the E and I populations, and the networks are then derived by assuming E and I neurons should only spike if this improves their respective loss. This results in networks of spiking neurons that live in a balanced state, and can accurately represent the network inputs.

They then investigate in-depth different aspects of the resulting networks, such as responses to perturbations, the effect of following Dale's law, spiking statistics, the excitation (E)/inhibition (I) balance, optimal E/I cell ratios, and others. Overall, they expand on previous work by taking a more biological angle on the theory and showing the networks can operate in a biologically realistic regime.

Strengths:

(1) The authors take a much more biological angle on the efficient spiking networks theory than previous work, which is an essential contribution to the field.

(2) They make a very extensive investigation of many aspects of the network in this context, and do so thoroughly.

(3) They put sensible constraints on their networks, while still maintaining the good properties these networks should have.

Weaknesses:

(1) The paper has somewhat overstated the significance of their theoretical contributions, and should make much clearer what aspects of the derivations are novel. Large parts were done in very similar ways in previous papers. Specifically: the split into E and I neurons was also done in Boerlin et al (2008) and in Barrett et al (2016). Defining the networks in terms of realistic units was already done by Boerlin et al (2008). It would also be worth it to discuss Barrett et al (2016) specifically more, as there they also use split E/I networks and perform biologically relevant experiments.

(2) It is not clear from an optimization perspective why the split into E and I neurons and following Dale's law would be beneficial. While the constraints of Dale's law are sensible (splitting the population in E and I neurons, and removing any non-Dalian connection), they are imposed from biology and not from any coding principles. A discussion of how this could be done would be much appreciated, and in the main text, this should be made clear.

(3) Related to the previous point, the claim that the network with split E and I neurons has a lower average loss than a 1 cell-type (1-CT) network seems incorrect to me. Only the E population coding error should be compared to the 1-CT network loss, or the sum of the E and I populations (not their average). In my author recommendations, I go more in-depth on this point.

(4) While the paper is supposed to bring the balanced spiking networks they consider in a more experimentally relevant context, for experimental audiences I don't think it is easy to follow how the model works, and I recommend reworking both the main text and methods to improve on that aspect.

Assessment and context:

Overall, although much of the underlying theory is not necessarily new, the work provides an important addition to the field. The authors succeeded well in their goal of making the networks more biologically realistic, and incorporating aspects of energy efficiency. For computational neuroscientists, this paper is a good example of how to build models that link well to experimental knowledge and constraints, while still being computationally and mathematically tractable. For experimental readers, the model provides a clearer link between efficient coding spiking networks to known experimental constraints and provides a few predictions.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The question of whether eyespots mimic eyes has certainly been around for a very long time and led to a good deal of debate and contention. This isn't purely an issue of how eyespots work either, but more widely an example of the potential pitfalls of adopting 'just-so-stories' in biology before conducting the appropriate experiments. Recent years have seen a range of studies testing eye mimicry, often purporting to find evidence for or against it, and not always entirely objectively. Thus, the current study is very welcome, rigorously analysing the findings across a suite of papers based on evidence/effect sizes in a meta-analysis.

Strengths:

The work is very well conducted, robust, objective, and makes a range of valuable contributions and conclusions, with an extensive use of literature for the research. I have no issues with the analysis undertaken, just some minor comments on the manuscript. The results and conclusions are compelling. It's probably fair to say that the topic needs more experiments to really reach firm conclusions but the authors do a good job of acknowledging this and highlighting where that future work would be best placed.

Weaknesses:

There are few weaknesses in this work, just some minor amendments to the text for clarity and information.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Many prey animals have eyespot-like markings (called eyespots) which have been shown in experiments to hinder predation. However, why eyespots are effective against predation has been debated. The authors attempt to use a meta-analytical approach to address the issue of whether eye-mimicry or conspicuousness makes eyespots effective against predation. They state that their results support the importance of conspicuousness. However, I am not convinced by this.

There have been many experimental studies that have weighed in on the debate. Experiments have included manipulating target eyespot properties to make them more or less conspicuous, or to make them more or less similar to eyes. Each study has used its own set of protocols. Experiments have been done indoors with a single predator species, and outdoors where, presumably, a large number of predator species predated upon targets. The targets (i.e, prey with eyespot-like markings) have varied from simple triangular paper pieces with circles printed on them to real lepidopteran wings. Some studies have suggested that conspicuousness is important and eye-mimicry is ineffective, while other studies have suggested that more eye-like targets are better protected. Therefore, there is no consensus across experiments on the eye-mimicry versus conspicuousness debate.

The authors enter the picture with their meta-analysis. The manuscript is well-written and easy to follow. The meta-analysis appears well-carried out, statistically. Their results suggest that conspicuousness is effective, while eye-mimicry is not. I am not convinced that their meta-analysis provides strong enough evidence for this conclusion. The studies that are part of the meta-analysis are varied in terms of protocols, and no single protocol is necessarily better than another. Support for conspicuousness has come primarily from one research group (as acknowledged by the authors), based on a particular set of protocols.

Furthermore, although conspicuousness is amenable to being quantified, for e.g., using contrast or size of stimuli, assessment of 'similarity to eyes' is inherently subjective. Therefore, manipulation of 'similarity to eyes' in some studies may have been subtle enough that there was no effect.

There are a few experiments that have indeed supported eye-mimicry. The results from experiments so far suggest that both eye-mimicry and conspicuousness are effective, possibly depending on the predator(s). Importantly, conspicuousness can benefit from eye-mimicry, while eye-mimicry can benefit from conspicuousness.

Therefore, I argue that generalizing based on a meta-analysis of a small number of studies that conspicuousness is more important than eye-mimicry is not justified. To summarize, I am not convinced that the current study rules out the importance of eye-mimicry in the evolution of eyespots, although I agree with the authors that conspicuousness is important.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

As our understanding of the immune system increases it becomes clear that murine models of immunity cannot always prove an accurate model system for human immunity. However, mechanistic studies in humans are necessarily limited. To bridge this gap many groups have worked on developing humanised mouse models in which human immune cells are introduced into mice allowing their fine manipulation. However, since human immune cells will attack murine tissues, it has proven complex to establish a human-like immune system in mice. To help address this, Vecchione et al have previously developed several models using human cell transfer into mice with or without human thymic fragments that allow negative selection of autoreactive cells. In this report they focus on the examination of the function of the B-helper CD4 T-cell subsets T-follicular helper (Tfh) and T-peripheral helper (Tph) cells. They demonstrate that these cells are able to drive both autoantibody production and can also induce B-cell independent autoimmunity.

Strengths:

A strength of this paper is that currently there is no well-established model for Tfh or Tph in HIS mice and that currently there is no clear murine Tph equivalent making new models for the study of this cell type of value. Equally, since many HIS mice struggle to maintain effective follicular structures Tfh models in HIS mice are not well established giving additional value to this model.

Weaknesses:

A weakness of the paper is that the models seem to lack a clear ability to generate germinal centres. For Tfh it is unclear how we can interpret their function without the structure where they have the greatest influence. In some cases, the definition of Tph does not seem to differentiate well between Tph and highly activated CD4 T-cells in general.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Humanized mice, developed by transplanting human cells into immunodeficient NSG mice to recapitulate the human immune system, are utilized in basic life science research and preclinical trials of pharmaceuticals in fields such as oncology, immunology, and regenerative medicine. However, there are limitations to using humanized mice for mechanistic analysis as models of autoimmune diseases due to the unnatural T cell selection, antigen presentation/recognition process, and immune system disruption due to xenogeneic GVHD onset.

In the present study, Vecchione et al. detailed the mechanisms of autoimmune disease-like pathologies observed in a humanized mouse (Human immune system; HIS mouse) model, demonstrating the importance of CD4+ Tfh and Tph cells for the disease onset. They clarified the conditions under which these T cells become reactive using techniques involving the human thymus engraftment and mouse thymectomy, showing their ability to trigger B cell responses, although this was not a major factor in the mouse pathology. These valuable findings provide an essential basis for interpreting past and future autoimmune disease research conducted using HIS mice.

Strengths:

(1) Mice transplanted with human thymus and HSCs were repeatedly executed with sufficient reproducibility, with each experiment sometimes taking over 30 weeks and requiring desperate efforts. While the interpretation of the results is still debatable, these description is valuable knowledge for this field of research.

(2) Mechanistic analysis of T-B interaction in humanized mice, which has not been extensively addressed before, suggests part of the activation mechanism of autoreactive B cells. Additionally, the differences in pathogenicity due to T cell selection by either the mouse or human thymus are emphasized, which encompasses the essential mechanisms of immune tolerance and activation in both central and peripheral systems.

Weaknesses:

(1) In this manuscript, for example in Figure 2, the proportion of suppressive cells like regulatory T cells is not clarified, making it unclear to what extent the percentages of Tph or Tfh cells reflect immune activation. It would have been preferable to distinguish follicular regulatory T cells, at least. While Figure 3 shows Tregs are gated out using CD25- cells, it is unclear how the presence of Treg cells affects the overall cell population immunogenic functionally.

(2) The definition of "Disease" discussed after Figure 6 should be explicitly described in the Methods section. It seems to follow Khosravi-Maharlooei et al. 2021. If the disease onset determination aligns with GVHD scoring, generally an indicator of T cell response, it is unsurprising that B cell contribution is negligible. The accelerated disease onset by B cell depletion likely results from lymphopenia-induced T cell activation. However, this result does not prove that these mice avoid organ-specific autoimmune diseases mediated by auto-antibodies and the current conclusion by the authors may overlook significant changes. For instance, would defining Disease Onset by the appearance of circulating autoantibodies alter the result of Disease-Free curve? Are there possibly histological findings at the endpoint of the experiment suggesting tissue damage by autoantibodies?

(3) Helper functions, such as differentiating B cells into CXCR5+, were demonstrated for both Hu/Hu and Mu/Hu-derived T cells. This function seemed higher in Hu/Hu than in Mu/Hu. From the results in Figure 7-8, Hu/Hu Tph/Tfh cells have a stronger T cell identity and higher activation capacity in vivo on a per-cell basis than Mu/Hu's ones. However, Hu/Hu-T cells lacked an ability to induce class-switching in contrast to Mu/Hu's. The mechanisms causing these functional differences were not fully discussed. Discussions touching on possible changes in TCR repertoire diversity between Mu/Hu- and Hu/Hu- T cells would have been beneficial.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Cording et al. investigated how deletion of CNTNAP2, a gene associated with autism spectrum disorder, alters corticostriatal engagement and behavior. Specifically, the authors present slice electrophysiology data showing that striatal projection neurons (SPNs) are more readily driven to fire action potentials in response to stimulation of corticostriatal afferents, and this is due to increases in SPN intrinsic excitability rather than changes in excitatory or inhibitory synaptic inputs. The authors show that CNTNAP2 mice display repetitive behaviors, enhanced motor learning, and cognitive inflexibility. Overall the authors' conclusions are supported by their data, but a few claims could use some more evidence to be convincing.

Strengths:

The use of multiple behavioral techniques, both traditional and cutting-edge machine learning-based analyses, provides a powerful means of assessing repetitive behaviors and behavioral transitions/rigidity. Characterization of both excitatory and inhibitory synaptic responses in slice electrophysiology experiments offers a broad survey of the synaptic alterations that may lead to increased corticostriatal engagement of SPNs.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors conclude that increased cortical engagement of SPNs is due to changes in SPN intrinsic excitability rather than synaptic strength (either excitatory or inhibitory). One weakness is that only AMPA receptor-mediated responses were measured. Though the holding potential used for experiments in Figure 1F-I wasn't clear, recordings were presumably performed at a hyperpolarized potential that limits NMDA receptor-mediated responses. Because the input-output experiments used to conclude that corticostriatal engagement of SPNs is elevated (Figure 1B-E) were conducted in the current clamp, it is possible that enhanced NMDA receptor engagement contributed to increased SPN responses to cortical stimulation. Confirming that NMDA receptor-mediated EPSC components are not altered would strengthen the main conclusion.

(2) Data clearly show that SPN intrinsic excitability is increased in knockout mice. Given that CNTNAP2 has been linked to potassium channel regulation, it would be helpful to show and quantify additional related electrophysiology data such as negative IV curve responses and action potential hyperpolarization.

(3) As it stands, the reported changes in dorsolateral striatum SPN excitability are only correlative with reported changes in repetitive behaviors, motor learning, and cognitive flexibility.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This is an important study characterizing striatal dysfunction and behavioral deficits in Cntnap2-/- mice. There is growing evidence suggesting that striatal dysfunction underlies core symptoms of ASD but the specific cellular and circuit level abnormalities disrupted by different risk genes remain unclear. This study addresses how the deletion of Cntnap2 affects the intrinsic properties and synaptic connectivity of striatal spiny projection neurons (SPN) of the direct (dSPN) and indirect (iSPN) pathways. Using Thy1-ChR2 mice and optogenetics the authors found increased firing of both types of SPNs in response to cortical afferent stimulation. However, there was no significant difference in the amplitude of optically-evoked excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) or spine density between Cntnap2-/- and WT SPNs, suggesting that the increased corticostriatal coupling might be due to changes in intrinsic excitability. Indeed, the authors found Cntnap2-/- SPNs, particularly dSPNs, exhibited higher intrinsic excitability, reduced rheobase current, and increased membrane resistance compared to WT SPNs. The enhanced spiking probability in Cntnap2-/- SPNs is not due to reduced inhibition. Despite previous reports of decreased parvalbumin-expressing (PV) interneurons in various brain regions of Cntnap2-/- mice, the number and function (IPSC amplitude and intrinsic excitability) of these interneurons in the striatum were comparable to WT controls.

This study also includes a comprehensive behavioral analysis of striatal-related behaviors. Cntnap2-/- mice demonstrated increased repetitive behaviors (RRBs), including more grooming bouts, increased marble burying, and increased nose poking in the holeboard assay. MoSeq analysis of behavior further showed signs of altered grooming behaviors and sequencing of behavioral syllables. Cntnap2-/- mice also displayed cognitive inflexibility in a four-choice odor-based reversal learning assay. While they performed similarly to WT controls during acquisition and recall phases, they required significantly more trials to learn a new odor-reward association during reversal, consistent with potential deficits in corticostriatal function.

Strengths:

This study provides significant contributions to the field. The finding of altered SPN excitability, the detailed characterization of striatal inhibition, and the comprehensive behavioral analysis are novel and valuable to understanding the pathophysiology of Cntnap2-/- mice.

Weaknesses:

(1) The approach based on Thy-ChR2 mice has the advantage of overcoming issues caused by injection efficiency and targeting variability. However, the spread of oEPSC amplitudes across mice shown in panels of Figure 1 G/I is very high with almost one order of magnitude difference between some mice. Given this is one of the most important points of the study it will be important to further analyze and discuss what this variability might be due to. Typically, in acute slice recordings, the within-animal variability is larger than the variability across animals. From the sample sizes reported it seems the authors sampled a large number of animals, but with a relatively low number of neurons per animal (per condition). Could this be one of the reasons for this variability?

(2) This is particularly important because the analysis of corticostriatal evoked APs in panels C and E is performed on pooled data without considering the variability in evoked current amplitudes across animals shown in G and I. Were the neurons in panels C/E recorded from the same mice as shown in G/I? If so, it would be informative to regress AP firing data (say at 20% LED) to the average oEPSC amplitude recorded on those mice at the same light intensity. However, if the low number of neurons recorded per mouse is due to technical limitations, then increasing the sample size of these experiments would strengthen the study.

(3) On a similar note, there is no discussion of why iSPNs also show increased corticostriatal evoked firing in Figure 1E, despite the difference in intrinsic excitability shown in Figure 3. This suggests other potential mechanisms that might underlie altered corticostriatal responses. Given the role of Caspr2 in clustering K channels in axons, altered presynaptic function or excitability could also contribute to this phenotype, but potential changes in PPR have not been explored in this study.

(4) Male and female SPNs have different intrinsic properties but the number and/or balance of M/F mice used for each experiment is not reported.

(5) There is no mention of how membrane resistance was calculated, and no I/V plots are shown.

(6) It would be interesting to see which behavior transitions most contribute to the decrease in entropy. Are these caused by repeated or perseverative grooming bouts? Or is this inflexibility also observed across other behaviors? The transition map in Figure S5 shows the overall number of syllables and transitions but not their sequence during behavior. Can this be analyzed by calculating the ratio of individual 𝑢𝑖 × 𝑝𝑖,𝑗 × log2 𝑝𝑖,𝑗 factors across genotypes?

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors analyzed Cntnap2 KO mice to determine whether loss of the ASD risk gene CNTNAP2 alters the dorsal striatum's function.

Strengths:

The results demonstrate that loss of Cntnap2 results in increased excitability of striatal projection neurons (SPNs) and altered striatal-dependent behaviors, such as repetitive, inflexible behaviors. Unlike other brain areas and cell types, synaptic inputs onto SPNs were normal in Cntnap2 KO mice. The experiments are well-designed, and the results support the authors' conclusions.

Weaknesses:

The mechanism underlying SPN hyperexcitability was not explored, and it is unclear whether this cellular phenotype alone can account for the behavioral alterations in Cntnap2 KO mice. No clear explanation emerges for the variable phenotype in different brain areas and cell types.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Boldt et al test several possible relationships between trandiagnostically-defined compulsivity and cognitive offloading in a large online sample. To do so, they develop a new and useful cognitive task to jointly estimate biases in confidence and reminder-setting. In doing so, they find that over-confidence is related to less utilization of reminder-setting, which partially mediates the negative relationship between compulsivity and lower reminder-setting. The paper thus establishes that, contrary to the over-use of checking behaviors in patients with OCD, greater levels of transdiagnostically-defined compulsivity predict less deployment of cognitive offloading. The authors offer speculative reasons as to why (perhaps it's perfectionism in less clinically-severe presentations that lowers the cost of expending memory resources), and set an agenda to understand the divergence in cognition between clinical and nonclinical samples. Because only a partial mediation had robust evidence, multiple effects may be at play, whereby compulsivity impacts cognitive offloading via overconfidence and also by other causal pathways.

Strengths:

The study develops an easy-to-implement task to jointly measure confidence and replicates several major findings on confidence and cognitive-offloading. The study uses a useful measure of cognitive offloading - the tendency to set reminders to augment accuracy in the presence of experimentally manipulated costs. Moreover, the utilizes multiple measures of presumed biases - overall tendency to set reminders, the empirically estimated indifference point at which people engage reminders, and a bias measure that compares optimal indifference points to engage reminders relative to the empirically-observed indifference points. That the study observes convergenence along all these measures strengthens the inferences made relating compulsivity to the under-use of reminder-setting. Lastly, the study does find evidence for one of several a priori hypotheses and sets a compelling agenda to try to explain why such a finding diverges from an ostensible opposing finding in clinical OCD samples and the over-use of cognitive offloading.

Weaknesses:

Although I think this design and study are very helpful for the field, I felt that a feature of the design might reduce the tasks's sensitivity to measuring dispositional tendencies to engage cognitive offloading. In particular, the design introduces prediction errors, that could induce learning and interfere with natural tendencies to deploy reminder-setting behavior. These PEs comprise whether a given selected strategy will be or not be allowed to be engaged. We know individuals with compulsivity can learn even when instructed not to learn (e.g., Sharp, Dolan, and Eldar, 2021, Psychological Medicine), and that more generally, they have trouble with structure knowledge (eg Seow et al; Fradkin et al), and thus might be sensitive to these PEs. Thus, a dispositional tendency to set reminders might be differentially impacted for those with compulsivity after an NPE, where they want to set a reminder, but aren't allowed to. After such an NPE, they may avoid more so the tendency to set reminders. Those with compulsivity likely have superstitious beliefs about how checking behaviors leads to a resolution of catastrophes, which might in part originate from inferring structure in the presence of noise or from purely irrelevant sources of information for a given decision problem.

It would be good to know if such learning effects exist if they're modulated by PE (you can imagine PEs are higher if you are more incentivized - e.g., 9 points as opposed to only 3 points - to use reminders, and you are told you cannot use them), and if this learning effect confounds the relationship between compulsivity and reminder-setting.

A more subtle point, I think this study can be more said to be an exploration than a deductive test of a particular model -> hypothesis -> experiment. Typically, when we test a hypothesis, we contrast it with competing models. Here, the tests were two-sided because multiple models, with mutually exclusive predictions (over-use or under-use of reminders) were tested. Moreover, it's unclear exactly how to make sense of what is called the direct mechanism, which is supported by partial (as opposed to complete) mediation.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Boldt et al. investigated whether previously established relationships between transdiagnostic psychiatric symptom dimensions and confidence distortions would result in downstream influences on the confidence-related behaviour of reminder setting. 600 individuals from the general population completed a battery of psychiatric symptom questionnaires and an online reminder-setting task. In line with previous studies, individuals high in compulsivity (CIT) showed over-confidence in their task performance, whereas individuals high in anxious depression (AD) tended to be under-confident. Crucially, the over-confidence associated with CIT partially mediated a decreased tendency to use external reminders during task performance, whereas the under-confidence associated with AD did not result in any alteration in the external reminder setting. The authors suggest that metacognitive monitoring is impaired in CIT which has a knock-on effect on reminder setting behaviour, but that a direct link also exists between CIT and reduced reminder setting independently of confidence.

Strengths:

The study combines the latest advances in transdiagnostic approaches to psychopathology with a cleverly designed external reminder-setting task. The approach allows for investigation of what some of the downstream consequences associated with impaired metacognition in sub-clinical psychopathology may be.

The experimental design and hypotheses were pre-registered prior to data collection.

The manuscript is well written and rigorous analysis approaches are used throughout.

Weaknesses:

Participants only performed a single task so it remains unclear if the observed effects would generalise to reminder-setting in other cognitive domains.

The sample consisted of participants recruited from the general population. Future studies should investigate whether the effects observed extend to individuals with the highest levels of symptoms (including clinical samples).

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors investigate the impact of rare and extreme events on rodents' decision-making under risk, in gain and loss contexts. They describe the behavior of 20 rats performing a four-armed bandit task, where probabilistic gains (sugar pellets) and losses (time-out punishments) can - in some arms - incorporate extremely large - but rare - outcomes. They report that most rats are sensitive to rare and extreme outcomes despite their infrequent occurrence, and that this sensitivity is primarily driven by extreme loss events which they try to avoid, rather than extreme gains that they seek to obtain.

They finally propose a modification of standard reinforcement-learning, which features a specific sensitivity to rare and extreme outcomes and can account for the observed behavior.

Strengths:

The manuscript really taps into a surprisingly neglected but very relevant aspect of decision-making: the effect of rare and extreme events (REE). The authors have developed an experimental setup that seemingly allows investigation of this aspect, which is not trivial given the idiosyncratic properties of rare and extreme events.

The parameters of the experimental setup seem also to be well thought off: basically, in the absence of REE, some options are objectively better than others (because, in expectation, they overall deliver more food, or minimize time-out punishments), but this ordering reverses if REE are taken into account. This allows for a clean test of the integration of REE in the rodent's decision-making model.

The data is presented and analyzed in a very descriptive but exhaustive and transparent way, down to the description of individual rodent's behavior.

Weaknesses:

While the description and analyses of the behavioral patterns are rigorously done under the economic lens of risky decision-making, the authors' interpretation heavily relies on the assumption that rodents have built the correct model of the task during the training. Extensive details are provided about the training procedure, and the observed behavior at the end of the training, but it remains virtually impossible to disambiguate choices due to imperfect learning to choices made due to intrinsic preferences for risk or REE.

By nature, gains (food pellets) and losses (time-out punishments) are somewhat incommensurable so the interpretation of the asymmetry due to outcome valence is also subject to interpretation. There might be some additional subtleties due e.g. satiety that could come from gaining REE (i.e. the delivery of 80 pellets from the Jackpot).

In its current form, the paper is quite hard to digest. This is naturally the case with interdisciplinary work (here mixing economists and neurobiologists). But I am afraid that with the current frame, the paper is going to miss its target, in terms of audience.

The proposed model seems somewhat disconnected from the behavioral patterns: while the model suggests an effect of REE at the decision stage (i.e. with specific decision weights for those rare events), this formalism seems at odds with the observation that REE (notably in the loss domain) has an impact of subsequent behavior - (Black Swans tend to reinforce Total Sensitivity to REE) which rather suggests an effect at the learning stage.

Discussion:

This study convincingly demonstrates that REEs are processed rather uniquely, which makes sense given their evolutionary relevance. REE has indeed been somewhat neglected in previous research, and this study therefore opens an interesting new front on the fundamental aspects of decision under risk. The authors have devised an original theoretical and empirical framework that will be useful for the community, and the combination of economics analysis and rodent behavior constitutes a thought-provoking ground to think about the nature of risk preferences. The interpretation and mechanistic account of these aspects, as well as their generalizability outside the specific context of this study, remain to be strengthened.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This paper attempts to examine how rare, extreme events impact decision-making in rats. The paper used an extensive behavioural study with rats to evaluate how the probability and magnitude of outcomes impact preference. The paper, however, provides limited evidence for the conclusions because the design did not allow for the isolation of the rare, extreme events in choice. There are many confounding factors, including the outcome variance and presence of less-rare, and less-extreme outcomes in the same conditions.

Strengths:

(1) The major strength of the paper is the significant volume of behavioural data with a reasonable sample size of 20 rats.

(2) The paper attempts to examine losses with rats (a notoriously tricky problem with non-human animals) by substituting time-outs as a proxy for losses. This allows for mixed gambles that have both gain and loss possible outcomes.

(3) The paper integrates both a behavioural and a modelling approach to get at the factors that drive decision-making.

(4) The paper takes seriously the question of what it means for an event to be rare, pushing to less frequent outcomes than usually used with non-human animals.

Weaknesses:

(1) The primary issue with this work is that the primary experimental manipulation fails to isolate the rare, extreme events in choice. As I understand the task, in all the conditions with a rare extreme event (e.g., 80 pellets with probability epsilon), there is also a less-rare, less-extreme event (e.g., 12 pellets with probability 5). In addition, the variance differs between the two conditions. So, any impact attributable to the rare, extreme event could be due to the less rare event or due difference in the variance. The design does not support the conclusions. Finally, by deliberately confounding rarity and extremity, the design does not allow for assessing the impact of either aspect.

(2) The RL-modelling work also fails to show a specific impact of the rare extreme event. As best as I can understand Eq 2, the model provides a free parameter that adds a bonus to the value of either the two options with high-variance gains (A and V in the paper) or to the two options with high-variance losses (F and V in the paper). This parameter only depends on whether this option could have possibly yielded the rare, extreme outcome (i.e., based on the generative probability) and was not connected to its actual appearance. That makes it a free parameter that just bumps up (or down) the probability of selecting a pair of options. In the case of the "black swan" or high-variance loss conditions, this seems very much like a loss aversion parameter, but an additive one instead of a multiplicative one.

(3) The paper presented the methods and results with lots of neologisms and fairly obscure jargon (e.g., fragility, total REE sensitivity). That made it very hard to decipher exactly what was done and what was found. For example, on p. 4, the use of concave and convex was very hard to decipher; the text even has to repeat itself 3 times (i.e., "to repeat" and "in other words") and is still not clear. It would be much clearer (and probably accurate) to say that the options varied along the variance dimension, separately for gains and losses. Option A was low-variance gains and losses. Option B was low-variance losses and high-variance gains. Option C was high-variance losses and low-variance gains, and Option D was high-variance losses and gains. That tells much more clearly what the animals experienced without the reader having to master a set of new terminologies around fragility and robustness, which brings a set of theoretical assumptions unnecessarily into the description of the experimental design. In terms of results, "Black Swan" avoidance is more simply known as risk aversion for losses.

(4) Were the probabilities shuffled or truly random (seem to be fixed sequences, so neither)? What were the experienced probabilities? Given the fixed sequences, these experienced ("ex-post") probabilities, could differ tremendously from the scheduled ("ex ante") probabilities. It's quite possible that an animal never experienced the rare, extreme event for a specific option. It's even possible (if they only picked it on the 10th/60th choices by chance), that they only ever experienced that rare extreme event. This cannot be known given the information provided. The Supplemental info on p.55 only gives gross overall numbers but does not indicate what the rats experienced for each choice/option-which is what matters here. A simple table that indicates for each of the 4 options, how often they were selected, and how often the animals experienced each of the 6-8 possible outcome would make it much clearer how closely the experience matched the planned outcomes. In addition, by restricting the rare outcome to either the 10th or 60th activations in a session, these are not random. Did the animals learn this association?

(5) The choice data are only presented in an overprocessed fashion with a sum and a difference (in both figures and tables). The basic datum (probability/frequency of selecting each of the 4 options) is not provided directly, even if it can theoretically be inferred from the sum and the difference. To understand what the rats actually do, we first need to see how often they select each option, without these transformations.

(6) There is insufficient detail provided on the inferential statistical tests (e.g., no degrees of freedom or effect sizes), and only limited information on exactly what tests were run and how (bootstrapping, but little detail). Without code or data (only summary information is provided in the supplement), this is difficult to evaluate. In addition, the studies seem not to be pre-registered in any way, leaving many researchers with degrees of freedom. Were any alternative analysis pipelines attempted? Similarly, there were many sub-groupings of the animals, and then comparisons between them - were these post-hoc?

(7) On p. 17, there is an attempt to look at the impact of a rare, extreme event by plotting a measure of preference for the 10 trials before/after the rare, extreme event. In the human literature, the main impact of experiencing a rare, extreme event is what is known as the wavy recency effect (See Plonsky et al. 2015 in Psych Review for example). What this means is that there tends to be some immediate negative recency (e.g., avoiding a rare gain) followed by positive recency (e.g., chasing the rare gain). Using a 10-trial window would thus obscure any impact of this rare, extreme event. An analysis that looks at a time course trial-by-trial could reveal any impact.

(8) As I understood the method (p. 31), the assignment of options to physical locations was not random or counterbalanced, but deliberately biased to have one of the options in the preferred location. This would seem to create a bias towards a particular option and a bias away from the other options, which confounds the preference data in subsequent analyses.

(9) Are delays really losses? This is a big assumption. Magnitude and delay are different aspects of experience, which are not necessarily commensurable and can be manipulated independently. And, for the model, how were these delays transformed into outcomes for the model? Eq 1 skips over that. Is there an assumption of linearity? In addition, I was not wholly clear if the delays meant fewer trials in a session or if the delays merely extended the session and meant longer delays until the next choice period.

(10) The paper does not sufficiently accurately represent the existing literature on human risky decision-making (with and without rare events). Here are a few examples of misrepresented and/or missing literature:<br /> -Most studies on decision-making do not only rely on p > 10% (as per p. 2). Maybe that is true with animals, but not a fair statement generally. Some do, and some don't. There is substantial literature looking at rarer events in both descriptions (most famously with Kahneman & Tversky's work), but also in experience (which is alluded to in reference 19). That reference is not only about the situation when choices are not repeated (e.g. the sampling paradigm), but also partial feedback and full-feedback situations.

The literature on learning from rewarding experiences in humans is obliquely referenced but not really incorporated. In short, there are two main findings - firstly people underweight rare events in experience; second, people overweight extreme outcomes in experience (both contrary to description). Some related papers are cited, but their content is not used or incorporated into the logic of the manuscript.

One recent study systematically examined rarity and extremity in human risky decision-making, which seems very relevant here: Mason et al. (2024). Rare and extreme outcomes in risky choice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 31, 1301-1308.

There is a fair bit of research on the human perception of the risk of rare events (including from experience) and important events like climate. One notable paper is Newell et al (2015) in Nature Climate Change.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Lloyd et al employ an evolutionary comparative approach to study how sleep deprivation affects DNA damage repair in Astyanax mexicanus, using the cave vs surface species evolution as a playground. The work shows, convincingly, that the cavefish population has evolved an impaired DNA damage response both following sleep deprivation or a classical paradigm of DNA damage (UV).

Strengths:

The study employs a thorough multidisciplinary approach. The experiments are well conducted and generally well presented.

Weaknesses:

Having a second experimental mean to induce DNA damage would strengthen and generalise the findings.

Overall, the study represents a very important addition to the field. The model employed underlines once more the importance of using an evolutionary approach to study sleep and provides context and caveats to statements that perhaps were taken a bit too much for granted before. At the same time, the paper manages to have an extremely constructive approach, presenting the platform as a clear useful tool to explore the molecular aspects behind sleep and cellular damage in general. The discussion is fair, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the work and its implications.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript investigates the relationship between sleep, DNA damage, and aging in the Mexican cavefish (Astyanax mexicanus), a species that exhibits significant differences in sleep patterns between surface-dwelling and cave-dwelling populations. The authors aim to understand whether these evolved sleep differences influence the DNA damage response (DDR) and oxidative stress levels in the brain and gut of the fish.

Summary of the Study:

The primary objective of the study is to determine if the reduced sleep observed in cave-dwelling populations is associated with increased DNA damage and altered DDR. The authors compared levels of DNA damage markers and oxidative stress in the brains and guts of surface and cavefish. They also analyzed the transcriptional response to UV-induced DNA damage and evaluated the DDR in embryonic fibroblast cell lines derived from both populations.

Strengths of the Study:

Comparative Approach:<br /> The study leverages the unique evolutionary divergence between surface and cave populations of A. mexicanus to explore fundamental biological questions about sleep and DNA repair.

Multifaceted Methodology:<br /> The authors employ a variety of methods, including immunohistochemistry, RNA sequencing, and in vitro cell line experiments, providing a comprehensive examination of DDR and oxidative stress.

Interesting Findings:

The study presents intriguing results showing elevated DNA damage markers in cavefish brains and increased oxidative stress in cavefish guts, alongside a reduced transcriptional response to UV-induced DNA damage.

Weaknesses of the Study:

Link to Sleep Physiology:<br /> The evidence connecting the observed differences in DNA damage and DDR directly to sleep physiology is not convincingly established. While the study shows distinct DDR patterns, it does not robustly demonstrate that these are a direct result of sleep differences.

Causal Directionality:<br /> The study fails to establish a clear causal relationship between sleep and DNA damage. It is possible that both sleep patterns and DDR responses are downstream effects of a common cause or independent adaptations to the cave environment.

Environmental Considerations:<br /> The lab conditions may not fully replicate the natural environments of the cavefish, potentially influencing the results. The impact of these conditions on the study's findings needs further consideration.

Photoreactivity in Albino Fish:<br /> The use of UV-induced DNA damage as a primary stressor may not be entirely appropriate for albino, blind cavefish. Alternative sources of genotoxic stress should be explored to validate the findings.

Assessment of the Study's Achievements:

The authors partially achieve their aims by demonstrating differences in DNA damage and DDR between surface and cavefish. However, the results do not conclusively support the claim that these differences are driven by or directly related to the evolved sleep patterns in cavefish. The study's primary claims are only partially supported by the data.

Impact and Utility:

The findings contribute valuable insights into the relationship between sleep and DNA repair mechanisms, highlighting potential areas of resilience to DNA damage in cavefish. While the direct link to sleep physiology remains unsubstantiated, the study's data and methods will be useful to researchers investigating evolutionary biology, stress resilience, and the molecular basis of sleep.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Lloyd, Xia, et al. utilised the existence of surface-dwelling and cave-dwelling morphs of Astyanax mexicanus to explore a proposed link between DNA damage, aging, and the evolution of sleep. Key to this exploration is the behavioural and physiological differences between cavefish and surface fish, with cavefish having been previously shown to have low levels of sleep behaviour, along with metabolic alterations (for example chronically elevated blood glucose levels) in comparison to fish from surface populations. Sleep deprivation, metabolic dysfunction, and DNA damage are thought to be linked and to contribute to aging processes. Given that cavefish seem to show no apparent health consequences of low sleep levels, the authors suggest that they have evolved resilience to sleep loss. Furthermore, as extended wake and loss of sleep are associated with increased rates of damage to DNA (mainly double-strand breaks) and sleep is linked to repair of damaged DNA, the authors propose that changes in DNA damage and repair might underlie the reduced need for sleep in the cavefish morphs relative to their surface-dwelling conspecifics.

To fulfill their aim of exploring links between DNA damage, aging, and the evolution of sleep, the authors employ methods that are largely appropriate, and comparison of cavefish and surface fish morphs from the same species certainly provides a lens by which cellular, physiological and behavioural adaptations can be interrogated. Fluorescence and immunofluorescence are used to measure gut reactive oxygen species and markers of DNA damage and repair processes in the different fish morphs, and measurements of gene expression and protein levels are appropriately used. However, although the sleep tracking and quantification employed are quite well established, issues with the experimental design relate to attempts to link induced DNA damage to sleep regulation (outlined below). Moreover, although the methods used are appropriate for the study of the questions at hand, there are issues with the interpretation of the data and with these results being over-interpreted as evidence to support the paper's conclusions.

This study shows that a marker of DNA repair molecular machinery that is recruited to DNA double-strand breaks (γH2AX) is elevated in brain cells of the cavefish relative to the surface fish and that reactive oxygen species are higher in most areas of the digestive tract of the cavefish than in that of the surface fish. As sleep deprivation has been previously linked to increases in both these parameters in other organisms (both vertebrates and invertebrates), their elevation in the cavefish morph is taken to indicate that the cavefish show signs of the physiological effects of chronic sleep deprivation.

It has been suggested that induction of DNA damage can directly drive sleep behaviour, with a notable study describing both the induction of DNA damage and an increase in sleep/immobility in zebrafish (Danio rerio) larvae by exposure to UV radiation (Zada et al. 2021 doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2021.10.026). In the present study, an increase in sleep/immobility is induced in surface fish larvae by exposure to UV light, but there is no effect on behaviour in cavefish larvae. This finding is interpreted as representing a loss of a sleep-promoting response to DNA damage in the cavefish morph. However, induction of DNA damage is not measured in this experiment, so it is not certain if similar levels of DNA damage are induced in each group of intact larvae, nor how the amount of damage induced compares to the pre-existing levels of DNA damage in the cavefish versus the surface fish larvae. In both this study with A. mexicanus surface morphs and the previous experiments from Zada et al. in zebrafish, observed increases in immobility following UV radiation exposure are interpreted as following from UV-induced DNA damage. However, in interpreting these experiments it is important to note that the cavefish morphs are eyeless and blind. Intense UV radiation is aversive to fish, and it has previously been shown in zebrafish larvae that (at least some) behavioural responses to UV exposure depend on the presence of an intact retina and UV-sensitive cone photoreceptors (Guggiana-Nilo and Engert, 2016, doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00160). It is premature to conclude that the lack of behavioural response to UV exposure in the cavefish is due to a different response to DNA damage, as their lack of eyes will likely inhibit a response to the UV stimulus. Indeed, were the equivalent zebrafish experiment from Zada et al. to be repeated with mutant larvae fish lacking the retinal basis for UV detection it might be found that in this case too, the effects of UV on behaviour are dependent on visual function. Such a finding should prompt a reappraisal of the interpretation that UV exposure's effects on fish sleep/locomotor behaviour are mediated by DNA damage. An additional note, relating to both Lloyd, Xia, et al., and Zada et al., is that though increases in immobility are induced following UV exposure, in neither study have assays of sensory responsiveness been performed during this period. As a decrease in sensory responsiveness is a key behavioural criterion for defining sleep, it is, therefore, unclear that this post-UV behaviour is genuinely increased sleep as opposed to a stress-linked suppression of locomotion due to the intensely aversive UV stimulus.

The effects of UV exposure, in terms of causing damage to DNA, inducing DNA damage response and repair mechanisms, and in causing broader changes in gene expression are assessed in both surface and cavefish larvae, as well as in cell lines derived from these different morphs. Differences in the suite of DNA damage response mechanisms that are upregulated are shown to exist between surface fish and cavefish larvae, though at least some of this difference is likely to be due to differences in gene expression that may exist even without UV exposure (this is discussed further below).

UV exposure induced DNA damage (as measured by levels of cyclobutene pyrimidine dimers) to a similar degree in cell lines derived from both surface fish and cave fish. However, γH2AX shows increased expression only in cells from the surface fish, suggesting induction of an increased DNA repair response in these surface morphs, corroborated by their cells' increased ability to repair damaged DNA constructs experimentally introduced to the cells in a subsequent experiment. This "host cell reactivation assay" is a very interesting assay for measuring DNA repair in cell lines, but the power of this approach might be enhanced by introducing these DNA constructs into larval neurons in vivo (perhaps by electroporation) and by tracking DNA repair in living animals. Indeed, in such a preparation, the relationship between DNA repair and sleep/wake state could be assayed.

Comparing gene expression in tissues from young (here 1 year) and older (here 7-8 years) fish from both cavefish and surface fish morphs, the authors found that there are significant differences in the transcriptional profiles in brain and gut between young and old surface fish, but that for cavefish being 1 year old versus being 7-8 years old did not have a major effect on transcriptional profile. The authors take this as suggesting that there is a reduced transcriptional change occurring during aging and that the transcriptome of the cavefish is resistant to age-linked changes. This seems to be only one of the equally plausible interpretations of the results; it could also be the case that alterations in metabolic cellular and molecular mechanisms, and particularly in responses to DNA damage, in the cavefish mean that these fish adopt their "aged" transcriptome within the first year of life.

A major weakness of the study in its current form is the absence of sleep deprivation experiments to assay the effects of sleep loss on the cellular and molecular parameters in question. Without such experiments, the supposed link of sleep to the molecular, cellular, and "aging" phenotypes remains tenuous. Although the argument might be made that the cavefish represent a naturally "sleep-deprived" population, the cavefish in this study are not sleep-deprived, rather they are adapted to a condition of reduced sleep relative to fish from surface populations. Comparing the effects of depriving fish from each morph on markers of DNA damage and repair, gut reactive oxygen species, and gene expression will be necessary to solidify any proposed link of these phenotypes to sleep.

A second important aspect that limits the interpretability and impact of this study is the absence of information about circadian variations in the parameters measured. A relationship between circadian phase, light exposure, and DNA damage/repair mechanisms is known to exist in A. mexicanus and other teleosts, and differences exist between the cave and surface morphs in their phenomena (Beale et al. 2013, doi: 10.1038/ncomms3769). Although the present study mentions that their experiments do not align with these previous findings, they do not perform the appropriate experiments to determine if such a misalignment is genuine. Specifically, Beale et al. 2013 showed that white light exposure drove enhanced expression of DNA repair genes (including cpdp which is prominent in the current study) in both surface fish and cavefish morphs, but that the magnitude of this change was less in the cave fish because they maintained an elevated expression of these genes in the dark, whereas the darkness suppressed the expression of these genes in the surface fish. If such a phenomenon is present in the setting of the current study, this would likely be a significant confound for the UV-induced gene expression experiments in intact larvae, and undermine the interpretation of the results derived from these experiments: as samples are collected 90 minutes after the dark-light transition (ZT 1.5) it would be expected that both cavefish and surface fish larvae should have a clear induction of DNA repair genes (including cpdp) regardless of 90s of UV exposure. The data in Supplementary Figure 3 is not sufficient to discount this potentially serious confound, as for larvae there is only gene expression data for time points from ZT2 to ZT 14, with all of these time points being in the light phase and not capturing any dynamics that would occur at the most important timepoints from ZT0-ZT1.5, in the relevant period after dark-light transition. Indeed, an appropriate control for this experiment would involve frequent sampling at least across 48 hours to assess light-linked and developmentally-related changes in gene expression that would occur in 5-6dpf larvae of each morph independently of the exposure to UV.

On a broader point, given the effects of both circadian rhythm and lighting conditions that are thought to exist in A. mexicanus (e.g. Beale et al. 2013) experiments involving measurements of DNA damage and repair, gene expression, and reactive oxygen species, etc. at multiple times across >1 24 hour cycle, in both light-dark and constant illumination conditions (e.g. constant dark) would be needed to substantiate the authors' interpretation that their findings indicate consistently altered levels of these parameters in the cavefish relative to the surface fish. Most of the data in this study is taken at only single time points.

In summary, the authors show that there are differences in gene expression, activity of DNA damage response and repair pathways, response to UV radiation, and gut reactive oxygen species between the Pachón cavefish morph and the surface morph of Astyanax mexicanus. However, the data presented does not make the precise nature of these differences very clear, and the interpretation of the results appears to be overly strong. Furthermore, the evidence of a link between these morph-specific differences and sleep is unconvincing.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this study, Gu et al. employed novel viral strategies, combined with in vivo two-photon imaging, to map the tone response properties of two groups of cortical neurons in A1. The thalamocortical recipient (TR neurons) and the corticothalamic (CT neurons). They observed a clear tonotopic gradient among TR neurons but not in CT neurons. Moreover, CT neurons exhibited high heterogeneity of their frequency tuning and broader bandwidth, suggesting increased synaptic integration in these neurons. By parsing out different projecting-specific neurons within A1, this study provides insight into how neurons with different connectivity can exhibit different frequency response-related topographic organization.

Strengths:

This study reveals the importance of studying neurons with projection specificity rather than layer specificity since neurons within the same layer have very diverse molecular, morphological, physiological, and connectional features. By utilizing a newly developed rabies virus CSN-N2c GCaMP-expressing vector, the authors can label and image specifically the neurons (CT neurons) in A1 that project to the MGB. To compare, they used an anterograde trans-synaptic tracing strategy to label and image neurons in A1 that receive input from MGB (TR neurons).

Weaknesses:

- Perhaps as cited in the introduction, it is well known that tonotopic gradient is well preserved across all layers within A1, but I feel if the authors want to highlight the specificity of their virus tracing strategy and the populations that they imaged in L2/3 (TR neurons) and L6 (CT neurons), they should perform control groups where they image general excitatory neurons in the two depths and compare to TR and CT neurons, respectively. This will show that it's not their imaging/analysis or behavioral paradigms that are different from other labs.  

- Figures 1D and G, the y-axis is Distance from pia (%). I'm not exactly sure what this means. How does % translate to real cortical thickness? 

- For Figure 2G and H, is each circle a neuron or an animal? Why are they staggered on top of each other on the x-axis? If the x-axis is the distance from caudal to rostral, each neuron should have a different distance? Also, it seems like it's because Figure 2H has more circles, which is why it has more variation, thus not significant (for example, at 600 or 900um, 2G seems to have fewer circles than 2H).  

- Similarly, in Figures 2J and L, why are the circles staggered on the y-axis now? And is each circle now a neuron or a trial? It seems they have many more circles than Figure 2G and 2H. Also, I don't think doing a correlation is the proper stats for this type of plot (this point applies to Figures 3H and 3J).

- What does the inter-quartile range of BF (IQRBF, in octaves) imply? What's the interpretation of this analysis? I am confused as to why TR neurons show high IQR in HF areas compared to LF areas, which means homogeneity among TR neurons (lines 213 - 216). On the same note, how is this different from the BF variability?  Isn't higher IQR equal to higher variability?

- Figure 4A-B, there are no clear criteria on how the authors categorize V, I, and O shapes. The descriptions in the Methods (lines 721 - 725) are also very vague.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Gu and Liang et. al investigated how auditory information is mapped and transformed as it enters and exits an auditory cortex. They use anterograde transsynaptic tracers to label and perform calcium imaging of thalamorecipient neurons in A1 and retrograde tracers to label and perform calcium imaging of corticothalamic output neurons. They demonstrate a degradation of tonotopic organization from the input to output neurons.

Strengths:

The experiments appear well executed, well described, and analyzed.

Weaknesses:

(1) Given that the CT and TR neurons were imaged at different depths, the question as to whether or not these differences could otherwise be explained by layer-specific differences is still not 100% resolved. Control measurements would be needed either by recording (1) CT neurons in upper layers, (2) TR in deeper layers, (3) non-CT in deeper layers and/or (4) non-TR in upper layers.

(2) What percent of the neurons at the depths are CT neurons? Similar questions for TR neurons?

(3) V-shaped, I-shaped, or O-shaped is not an intuitively understood nomenclature, consider changing. Further, the x/y axis for Figure 4a is not labeled, so it's not clear what the heat maps are supposed to represent.

(4) Many references about projection neurons and cortical circuits are based on studies from visual or somatosensory cortex. Auditory cortex organization is not necessarily the same as other sensory areas. Auditory cortex references should be used specifically, and not sources reporting on S1, and V1.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors performed wide-field and 2-photon imaging in vivo in awake head-fixed mice, to compare receptive fields and tonotopic organization in thalamocortical recipient (TR) neurons vs corticothalamic (CT) neurons of mouse auditory cortex. TR neurons were found in all cortical layers while CT neurons were restricted to layer 6. The TR neurons at nominal depths of 200-400 microns have a remarkable degree of tonotopy (as good if not better than tonotopic maps reported by multiunit recordings). In contrast, CT neurons were very heterogenous in terms of their best frequency (BF), even when focusing on the low vs high-frequency regions of the primary auditory cortex. CT neurons also had wider tuning.

Strengths:

This is a thorough examination using modern methods, helping to resolve a question in the field with projection-specific mapping.

Weaknesses:

There are some limitations due to the methods, and it's unclear what the importance of these responses are outside of behavioral context or measured at single timepoints given the plasticity, context-dependence, and receptive field 'drift' that can occur in the cortex.

(1) Probably the biggest conceptual difficulty I have with the paper is comparing these results to past studies mapping auditory cortex topography, mainly due to differences in methods. Conventionally, the tonotopic organization is observed for characteristic frequency maps (not best frequency maps), as tuning precision degrades and the best frequency can shift as sound intensity increases. The authors used six attenuation levels (30-80 dB SPL) and reported that the background noise of the 2-photon scope is <30 dB SPL, which seems very quiet. The authors should at least describe the sound-proofing they used to get the noise level that low, and some sense of noise across the 2-40 kHz frequency range would be nice as a supplementary figure. It also remains unclear just what the 2-photon dF/F response represents in terms of spikes. Classic mapping using single-unit or multi-unit electrodes might be sensitive to single spikes (as might be emitted at characteristic frequency), but this might not be as obvious for Ca2+ imaging. This isn't a concern for the internal comparison here between TR and CT cells as conditions are similar, but is a concern for relating the tonotopy or lack thereof reported here to other studies.

(2) It seems a bit peculiar that while 2721 CT neurons (N=10 mice) were imaged, less than half as many TR cells were imaged (n=1041 cells from N=5 mice). I would have expected there to be many more TR neurons even mouse for mouse (normalizing by number of neurons per mouse), but perhaps the authors were just interested in a comparison data set and not being as thorough or complete with the TR imaging?

(3) The authors' definitions of neuronal response type in the methods need more quantitative detail. The authors state: ""Irregular" neurons exhibited spontaneous activity with highly variable responses to sound stimulation. "Tuned" neurons were responsive neurons that demonstrated significant selectivity for certain stimuli. "Silent" neurons were defined as those that remained completely inactive during our recording period (> 30 min). For tuned neurons, the best frequency (BF) was defined as the sound frequency associated with the highest response averaged across all sound levels.". The authors need to define what their thresholds are for 'highly variable', 'significant', and 'completely inactive'. Is best frequency the most significant response, the global max (even if another stimulus evokes a very close amplitude response), etc.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This study resolves a cryo-EM structure of the GPCR, GPR30, which was recently identified as a bicarbonate receptor by the authors' lab. Understanding the ligand and the mechanism of activation is of fundamental importance to the field of receptor signaling. However, the main claim of the paper, the identification of the bicarbonate binding site, is only partly supported by the structural and functional data, leaving the study incomplete.

Strengths:

The overall structure, and proposed mechanism of G-protein coupling seem solid. The authors perform fairly extensive unbiased mutagenesis to identify a host of positions that are important to G-protein signaling. To my knowledge, bicarbonate is the only physiological ligand that has been identified for GPR30, making this study a particularly important contribution to the field.

Weaknesses:

Without higher resolution structures and/or additional experimental assessment of the binding pocket, the assignment of the bicarbonate remains highly speculative. The local resolution is especially poor in the ECL loop region where the ligand is proposed to bind (4.3 - 4 .8 Å range). Of course, sometimes it is difficult to achieve high structural resolution, but in these cases, the assignment of ligands should be backed up by even more rigorous experimental validation.

The functional assay monitors activation of GPR30, and thus reports on not only bicarbonate binding, but also the integrity of the allosteric network that transduces the binding signal across the membrane. Thus, disruption of bicarbonate signaling by mutagenesis of the putative coordinating residues does not necessarily mean that bicarbonate binding has been disrupted. Moreover, the mutagenesis was apparently done prior to structure determination, meaning that residues proposed to directly surround bicarbonate binding, such as E218, were not experimentally validated. Targeted mutagenesis based on the structure would strengthen the story.

Moreover, the proposed bicarbonate binding site is surprising in a chemical sense, as it is located within an acidic pocket. The authors cite several other structural studies to support the surprising observation of anionic bicarbonate surrounded by glutamate residues in an acidic pocket (references 31-34). However, it should be noted that in general, these other structures also possess a metal ion (sodium or calcium) and/or a basic sidechain (arginine or lysine) in the coordination sphere, forming a tight ion pair. Thus, the assigned bicarbonate binding site in GPR30 remains an anomaly in terms of the chemical properties of the proposed binding site.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, "Cryo-EM structure of the bicarbonate receptor GPR30," the authors aimed to enrich our understanding of the role of GPR30 in pH homeostasis by combining structural analysis with a receptor function assay. This work is a natural development and extension of their previous work (PMID: 38413581). In the current body of work, they solved the first cryo-EM structure of the human GPR30-G-protein (mini-Gsqi) complex in the presence of bicarbonate ions at 3.21 Å resolution. From the atomic model built based on this map, they observed the overall canonical architecture of class A GPCR and also identified 4 extracellular pockets created by extracellular loops (ECLs) (Pockets A-D). Based on the polarity, location, and charge of each pocket, the authors hypothesized that pocket D is a good candidate for the bicarbonate binding site. To verify their structural observation, on top of the 10 mutations they generated in the previous work, the authors introduced another 11 mutations to map out the essential residues for the bicarbonate response on hGPR30. In addition, the human GPR30-G-protein complex model also allowed the authors to untangle the G-protein coupling mechanism of this special class A GPCR that plays an important role in pH homeostasis.

Strengths:

As a continuation of their recent Nature Communication publication (PMID: 38413581), this study was carefully designed, and the authors used mutagenesis and functional studies to confirm their structural observations. This work provided high-resolution structural observations for the receptor in complex with G-protein, allowing us to explore its mechanism of action, and will further facilitate drug development targeting GPR30. There were 4 extracellular pockets created by ECLs (Pockets A-D). The authors were able to filter out 3 of them and identified that pocket D was a good candidate for the bicarbonate binding site based on the polarity, location, and charge of each pocket. From there, the authors identified the key residues on GPR30 for its interaction with the substrate, bicarbonate. Together with their previous work, they carefully mapped out nine amino acids that are critical for receptor reactivity.

Weaknesses:

It is unclear how novel the aspects presented in the new paper are compared to the most recent Nature Communications publication (PMID: 38413581). Some areas of the manuscript appear to be mixed with the previous publication. The work is still impactful to the field. The new and novel aspects of this manuscript could be better highlighted.

I also have some concerns about the TGFα shedding assay the authors used to verify their structural observation. I understand that this assay was also used in the authors' previous work published in Nature Communications. However, there are still several things in the current data that raised concerns:

(1) The authors confirmed the "similar expression levels of HA-tagged hGPR30" mutants by WB in Supplemental Figure 1A and B. However, compared to the hGPR30-HA (~6.5 when normalized to the housekeeping gene, Na-K-ATPase), several mutants of the key amino acids had much lower surface expression: S134A, D210A, C207A had ~50% reduction, D125A had ~30% reduction, and Q215A and P71A had ~20% reduction. This weakens the receptor reactivity measured by the TGFα shedding assay.

(2) In the previous work, the authors demonstrated that hGPR30 signals through the Gq signaling pathway and can trigger calcium mobilization. Given that calcium mobilization is a more direct measurement for the downstream signaling of hGPR30 than the TGFα shedding assay, pairing the mutagenesis study with the calcium assay will be a better functional validation to confirm the disruption of bicarbonate signaling.

(3) It was quite confusing for Figure 4B that all statistical analyses were done by comparing to the mock group. It would be clearer to compare the activity of the mutants to the wild-type cell line.

Additional concerns about the structural data include:

(1) E218 was in close contact with bicarbonate in Figure 4D. However, there is no functional validation for this observation. Including the mutagenesis study of this site in the cell-based functional assay will strengthen this structural observation.

(2) For the flow chart of the cryo-EM data processing in Supplemental data 2, the authors started with 10,148,422 particles after template picking, then had 441,348 Particles left after 2D classification/heterogenous refinement, and finally ended with 148,600 particles for the local refinement for the final map. There seems to be a lot of heterogeneity in this purified sample. GPCRs usually have flexible and dynamic loop regions, which explains the poor resolution of the ECLs in this case. Thus, a solid cell-based functional validation is a must to assign the bicarbonate binding pocket to support their hypothesis.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

GPR30 responds to bicarbonate and regulates cellular responses to pH and ion homeostasis. However, it remains unclear how GPR30 recognizes bicarbonate ions. This paper presents the cryo-EM structure of GPR30 bound to a chimeric mini-Gq in the presence of bicarbonate. The structure together with functional studies aims to provide mechanistic insights into bicarbonate recognition and G protein coupling.

Strengths:

The authors performed comprehensive mutagenesis studies to map the possible binding site of bicarbonate.

Weaknesses:

Owing to the poor resolution of the structure, some structural findings may be overclaimed.

Based on EM maps shown in Figure 1a and Figure Supplement 2, densities for side chains in the receptor particularly in ECLs (around 4 Å) are poorly defined. At this resolution, it is unlikely to observe a disulfide bond (C130ECL1-C207ECl2) and bicarbonate ions. Moreover, the disulfide between ECL1 and ECL2 has not been observed in other GPCRs and the published structure of GPR30 (PMID: 38744981). The density of this disulfide bond could be noise.

The authors observed a weak density in pocket D, which is accounted for by the bicarbonate ions. This ion is mainly coordinated by Q215 and Q138. However, the Q215A mutation only reduced but not completely abolished bicarbonate response, and the author did not present the data of Q138A mutation. Therefore, Q215 and Q138 could not be bicarbonate binding sites. While H307A completely abolished bicarbonate response, the authors proposed that this residue plays a structural role. Nevertheless, based on the structure, H307 is exposed and may be involved in binding bicarbonate. The assignment of bicarbonate in the structure is not supported by the data.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The study "Impact of Maximal Overexpression of a Non-toxic Protein on Yeast Cell Physiology" by Fujita et al. aims to elucidate the physiological impacts of overexpressing non-toxic proteins in yeast cells. By identifying model proteins with minimal cytotoxicity, the authors claim to provide insights into cellular stress responses and metabolic shifts induced by protein overexpression.

Strengths:

The study introduces a neutrality index to quantify cytotoxicity and investigates the effects of protein burden on yeast cell physiology. The study identifies mox-YG (a non-fluorescent fluorescent protein) and Gpm1-CCmut (an inactive glycolytic enzyme) as proteins with the lowest cytotoxicity, capable of being overexpressed to more than 40% of total cellular protein while maintaining yeast growth. Overexpression of mox-YG leads to a state resembling nitrogen starvation probably due to TORC1 inactivation, increased mitochondrial function, and decreased ribosomal abundance, indicating a metabolic shift towards more energy-efficient respiration and defects in nucleolar formation.

Weaknesses:

While the introduction of the neutrality index seems useful to differentiate between cytotoxicity and protein burden, the biological relevance of the effects of overexpression of the model proteins is unclear.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Fujita et al. characterized the neutrality indexes of several protein mutants in S. cerevisiae and uncovered that mox-YG and Gpm1-CCmut can be expressed as abundant as 40% of total proteins without causing severe growth defects. The authors then looked at the transcriptome and proteome of cells expressing excess mox-YG to investigate how protein burden affects yeast cells. Based on RNA-seq and mass-spectrometry results, the authors uncover that cells with excess mox-YG exhibit nitrogen starvation, respiration increase, inactivated TORC1 response, and decreased ribosomal abundance. The authors further showed that the decreased ribosomal amount is likely due to nucleoli defects, which can be partially rescued by nuclear exosome mutations.

Strengths:

Overall, this is a well-written manuscript that provides many valuable resources for the field, including the neutrality analysis on various fluorescent proteins and glycolytic enzymes, as well as the RNA-seq and proteomics results of cells overexpressing mox-YG. Their model on how mox-YG overexpression impairs the nucleolus and thus leads to ribosomal abundance decline will also raise many interesting questions for the field.

Weaknesses:

The authors concluded from their RNA-seq and proteomics results that cells with excess mox-YG expression showed increased respiration and TORC1 inactivation. I think it will be more convincing if the authors can show some characterization of mitochondrial respiration/membrane potential and the TOR responses to further verify their -omic results.

In addition, the authors only investigated how overexpression of mox-YG affects cells. It would be interesting to see whether overexpressing other non-toxic proteins causes similar effects, or if there are protein-specific effects. It would be good if the authors could at least discuss this point considering the workload of doing another RNA-seq or mass-spectrum analysis might be too heavy.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Protein overexpression is widely used in experimental systems to study the function of the protein, assess its (beneficial or detrimental) effects in disease models, or challenge cellular systems involved in synthesis, folding, transport, or degradation of proteins in general. Especially at very high expression levels, protein-specific effects and general effects of a high protein load can be hard to distinguish. To overcome this issue, Fujita et al. use the previously established genetic tug-of-war system to identify proteins that can be expressed at extremely high levels in yeast cells with minimal protein-specific cytotoxicity (high 'neutrality'). They focus on two versions of the protein mox-GFP, the fluorescent version and a point mutation that is non-fluorescent (mox-YG) and is the most 'neutral' protein on their screen. They find that massive protein expression (up to 40% of the total proteome) results in a nitrogen starvation phenotype, likely inactivation of the TORC1 pathway, and defects in ribosome biogenesis in the nucleolus.

Strengths:

This work uses an elegant approach and succeeds in identifying proteins that can be expressed at surprisingly high levels with little cytotoxicity. Many of the changes they see have been observed before under protein burden conditions, but some are new and interesting. This work solidifies previous hypotheses about the general effects of protein overexpression and provides a set of interesting observations about the toxicity of fluorescent proteins (that is alleviated by mutations that render them non-fluorescent) and metabolic enzymes (that are less toxic when mutated into inactive versions).

Weaknesses:

The data are generally convincing, however in order to back up the major claim of this work - that the observed changes are due to general protein burden and not to the specific protein or condition - a broader analysis of different conditions would be highly beneficial.

Major points:

(1) The authors identify several proteins with high neutrality scores but only analyze the effects of mox/mox-YG overexpression in depth. Hence, it remains unclear which molecular phenotypes they observe are general effects of protein burden or more specific effects of these specific proteins. To address this point, a proteome (and/or transcriptome) of at least a Gpm1-CCmut expressing strain should be obtained and compared to the mox-YG proteome. Ideally, this analysis should be done simultaneously on all strains to achieve a good comparability of samples, e.g. using TMT multiplexing (for a proteome) or multiplexed sequencing (for a transcriptome). If feasible, the more strains that can be included in this comparison, the more powerful this analysis will be and can be prioritized over depth of sequencing/proteome coverage.

(2) The genetic tug-of-war system is elegant but comes at the cost of requiring specific media conditions (synthetic minimal media lacking uracil and leucine), which could be a potential confound, given that metabolic rewiring, and especially nitrogen starvation are among the observed phenotypes. I wonder if some of the changes might be specific to these conditions. The authors should corroborate their findings under different conditions. Ideally, this would be done using an orthogonal expression system that does not rely on auxotrophy (e.g. using antibiotic resistance instead) and can be used in rich, complex mediums like YPD. Minimally, using different conditions (media with excess or more limited nitrogen source, amino acids, different carbon source, etc.) would be useful to test the robustness of the findings towards changes in media composition.

(3) The authors suggest that the TORC1 pathway is involved in regulating some of the changes they observed. This is likely true, but it would be great if the hypothesis could be directly tested using an established TORC1 assay.

(4) The finding that the nucleolus appears to be virtually missing in mox-YG-expressing cells (Figure 6B) is surprising and interesting. The authors suggest possible mechanisms to explain this and partially rescue the phenotype by a reduction-of-function mutation in an exosome subunit. I wonder if this is specific to the mox-YG protein or a general protein burden effect, which the experiments suggested in point 1 should address. Additionally, could a mox-YG variant with a nuclear export signal be expressed that stays exclusively in the cytosol to rule out that mox-YG itself interferes with phase separation in the nucleus?

Minor points:

(5) It would be great if the authors could directly compare the changes they observed at the transcriptome and proteome levels. This can help distinguish between changes that are transcriptionally regulated versus more downstream processes (like protein degradation, as proposed for ribosome components).

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Satouh et al. report giant organelle complexes in oocytes and early embryos. Although these structures have often been observed in oocytes and early embryos, their exact nature has not been characterized. The authors named these structures "endosomal-lysosomal organelles form assembly structures (ELYSAs)". ELYSAs contain organelles such as endosomes, lysosomes, and probably autophagic structures. ELYSAs are initially formed in the perinuclear region and then migrate to the periphery in an actin-dependent manner. When ELYSAs are disassembled after the 2-cell stage, the V-ATPase V1 subunit is recruited to make lysosomes more acidic and active. The ELYSAs are most likely the same as the "endolysosomal vesicular assemblies (ELVAs)", reported by Elvan Böke's group earlier this year (Zaffagnini et al. doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2024.01.031). However, it is clear that Satouh et al. identified and characterized these structures independently. These two studies could be complementary. Although the nature of the present study is generally descriptive, this paper provides valuable information about these giant structures. The data are mostly convincing, and only some minor modifications are needed for clarification and further explanation to fully understand the results.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Satouh et al report the presence of spherical structures composed of endosomes, lysosomes, and autophagosomes within immature mouse oocytes. These endolysosomal compartments have been named as Endosomal-LYSosomal organellar Assembly (ELYSA). ELYSAs increase in size as the oocytes undergo maturation. ELYSAs are distributed throughout the oocyte cytoplasm of GV stage immature oocytes but these structures become mostly cortical in the mature oocytes. Interestingly, they tend to avoid the region which contains metaphase II spindle and chromosomes. They show that the endolysosomal compartments in oocytes are less acidic and therefore non-degradative but their pH decreases and becomes degradative as the ELYSAs begin to disassemble in the embryos post-fertilization. This manuscript shows that lysosomal switching does not happen during oocyte development, and the formation of ELYSAs prevents lysosomes from being activated. Structures similar to these ELYSAs have been previously described in mouse oocytes (Zaffagnini et al, 2024) and these vesicular assemblies are important for sequestering protein aggregates in the oocytes but facilitate proteolysis after fertilization. The current manuscript, however, provides further details of endolysosomal disassembly post-fertilization. Specifically, the V1-subunit of V-ATPase targeting the ELYSAs increases the acidity of lysosomal compartments in the embryos. This is a well-conducted study and their model is supported by experimental evidence and data analyses.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Fertilization converts a cell defined as an egg to a cell defined as an embryo. An essential component of this switch in cell fate is the degradation (autophagy) of cellular elements that serve a function in the development of the egg but could impede the development of the embryo. Here, the authors have focused on the behavior during the egg-to-embryo transition of endosomes and lysosomes, which are cytoplasmic structures that mediate autophagy. By carefully mapping and tracking the intracellular location of well-established marker proteins, the authors show that in oocytes endosomes and lysosomes aggregate into giant structures that they term Endosomal LYSosomal organellar Assembl[ies] (ELYSA). Both the size distribution of the ELYSAs and their position within the cell change during oocyte meiotic maturation and after fertilization. Notably, during maturation, there is a net actin-dependent movement towards the periphery of the oocyte. By the late 2-cell stage, the ELYSAs are beginning to disintegrate. At this stage, the endo-lysosomes become acidified, likely reflecting the activation of their function to degrade cellular components.

This is a carefully performed and quantified study. The fluorescent images obtained using well-known markers, using both antibodies and tagged proteins, support the interpretations, and the quantification method is sophisticated and clearly explained. Notably, this type of quantification of confocal z-stack images is rarely performed and so represents a real strength of the study. It provides sound support for the conclusions regarding changes in the size and position of the ELYSAs. Another strength is the use of multiple markers, including those that indicate the activity state of the endo-lysosomes. Altogether, the manuscript provides convincing evidence for the existence of ELYSAs and also for regulated changes in their location and properties during oocyte maturation and the first few embryonic cell cycles following fertilization.

At present, precisely how the changes in the location and properties of the ELYSAs affect the function of the endo-lysosomal system is not known. While the authors' proposal that they are stored in an inactive state is plausible, it remains speculative. Nonetheless, this study lays the foundation for future work to address this question.

Minor point: l. 299. If I am not mistaken, there is a typo. It should read that the inhibitors of actin polymerization prevent redistribution from the cytoplasm to the cortex during maturation.<br /> Minor point: A few statements in the Introduction would benefit from clarification. These are noted in the comments to the authors.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

PROTACs are heterobifunctional molecules that utilize the Ubiquitin Proteasome System to selectively degrade target proteins within cells. Upon introduction to the cells, PROTACs capture the activity of the E3 ubiquitin ligases for ubiquitination of the targeted protein, leading to its subsequent degradation by the proteasome. The main benefit of PROTAC technology is that it expands the "druggable proteome" and provides numerous possibilities for therapeutic use. However, there are also some difficulties, including the one addressed in this manuscript: identifying suitable target-E3 ligase pairs for successful degradation. Currently, only a few out of about 600 E3 ligases are used to develop PROTAC compounds, which creates the need to identify other E3 ligases that could be used in PROTAC synthesis. Testing the efficacy of PROTAC compounds has been limited to empirical tests, leading to lengthy and often failure-prone processes. This manuscript addressed the need for faster and more reliable assays to identify the compatible pairs of E3 ligases-target proteins. The authors propose using the RiPA assay, which depends on rapamycin-induced dimerization of FKBP12 protein with FRB domain. The PROTAC technology is advancing rapidly, making this manuscript both timely and essential. The RiPA assay might be useful in identifying novel E3 ligases that could be utilized in PROTAC technology. Additionally, it could be used at the initial stages of PROTAC development, looking for the best E3 ligase for the specific target.

The authors described an elegant assay that is scalable, easy-to-use, and applicable to a wide range of cellular models. This method allows for the quantitative validation of the degradation efficacy of a given pair of E3 ligase-target proteins, using luciferase activity as a measure. Importantly, the assay also enables the measurement of kinetics in living cells, enhancing its practicality.

Strengths:

(1) The authors have addressed the crucial needs that arise during PROTAC development. In the introduction, they nicely describe the advantages and disadvantages of the PROTAC technology and explain why such an assay is needed.

(2) The study includes essential controls in experiments (important for generating new assay), such as using the FRB vector without E3 ligase as a negative control, testing different linkers (which may influence the efficacy of the degradation), and creating and testing K-less vectors to exclude the possibility of luciferase or FKBP12 ubiquitination instead of WDR5 (the target protein). Additionally, the position of the luc in the FKBP12 vector and the position of VHL in the FRB vector are tested. Different E3 ligases are tested using previously identified target proteins, confirming the assay's utility and accuracy.

(3) The study identified a "new" E3 ligase that is suitable for PROTAC technology (FBXL).

Weaknesses:

It is not clear how feasible it would be to adapt the assay for high-throughput screens. In some experiments, the efficacy of WDR5 degradation tested by immunoblotting appears to be lower than luciferase activity (e.g., Figure 2G and H).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Adhikari and colleagues developed a new technique, rapamycin-induced proximity assay (RiPA), to identify E3-ubiquitin (ub) ligases of a protein target, aiming at identifying additional E3 ligases that could be targeted for PROTAC generation or ligases that may degrade a protein target. The study is timely, as expanding the landscape of E3-ub ligases for developing targeted degraders is a primary direction in the field.

Strengths:

The study's strength lies in its practical application of the FRB:FKBP12 system. This system is used to identify E3-ub ligases that would degrade a target of interest, as evidenced by the reduction in luminescence upon the addition of rapamycin. This approach effectively mimics the potential action of a PROTAC.

Weaknesses:

(1) While the technique shows promise, its application in a discovery setting, particularly for high-throughput or unbiased E3-ub ligase identification, may pose challenges. The authors should provide more detailed insights into these potential difficulties to foster a more comprehensive understanding of RiPA's limitations.

(2) While RiPA will help identify E3 ligases, PROTAC design would still be empirical. The authors should discuss this limitation. Could the technology be applied to molecular glue generation?

(3) Controls to verify the intended mechanism of action are missing, such as using a proteasome inhibitor or VHL inhibitors/siRNA to verify on-target effects. Verification of the target E3 ligase complex after rapamycin addition via orthogonal approaches, such as IP, should be considered.

Minor concern:

The graphs in Figure 1E are missing.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript presents insights into biased signaling in GPCRs, namely cannabinoid receptors. Biased signaling is of broad interest in general, and cannabinoid signaling is particularly relevant for understanding the impact of new drugs that target this receptor. Mechanistic insight from work like this could enable new approaches to mitigate the public health impact of new psychoactive drugs. Towards that end, this manuscript seeks to understand how new psychoactive substances (NPS, e.g. MDMB-FUBINACA) elicit more signaling through β-arrestin than classical cannabinoids (e.g. HU-210). The authors use an interesting combination of simulations and machine learning.

The caption for Figure 3 doesn't explain the color scheme, so it's not obvious what the start and end states of the ligand are.

For the metadynamics simulations were multiple Gaussian heights/widths tried to see what, if any, impact that has on the unbinding pathway? That would be useful to help ensure all the relevant pathways were explored.

It would be nice to acknowledge previous applications of metadynamics+MSMs and (separately) TRAM, such as the Simulation of spontaneous G protein activation... (Sun et al. eLife 2018) and Estimation of binding rates and affinities... (Ge and Voelz JCP 2022).

What is KL divergence analysis between macrostates? I know KL divergence compares probability distributions, but it is not clear what distributions are being compared.

I suggest being more careful with the language of universality. It can be "supported" but "showing" or "proving" its universal would require looking at all possible chemicals in the class.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The investigation provides computational as well as biochemical insights into the (un)binding mechanisms of a pair of psychoactive substances into cannabinoid receptors. A combination of molecular dynamics simulation and a set of state-of-the art statistical post-processing techniques were employed to exploit GPCR-ligand dynamics.

Strengths:

The strength of the manuscript lies in the usage and comparison of TRAM as well as Markov state modelling (MSM) for investigating ligand binding kinetics and thermodynamics. Usually, MSMs have been more commonly used for this purpose. But as the authors have pointed out, implicit in the usage of MSMs lies the assumption of detailed balance, which would not hold true for many cases especially those with skewed binding affinities. In this regard, the author's usage of TRAM which harnesses both biased and unbiased simulations for extracting the same, provides a more appropriate way out.

Weaknesses:

(1) While the authors have used TRAM (by citing MSM to be inadequate in these cases), the thermodynamic comparisons of both techniques provide similar values. In this case, one would wonder what advantage TRAM would hold in this particular case.

(2) The initiation of unbiased simulations from previously run biased metadynamics simulations would almost surely introduce hysteresis in the analysis. The authors need to address these issues.

(3) The choice of ligands in the current work seems very forced and none of the results compare directly with any experimental data. An ideal case would have been to use the seminal D.E. Shaw research paper on GPCR/ligand binding as a benchmark and then show how TRAM, using much lesser biased simulation times, would fare against the experimental kinetics or even unbiased simulated kinetics of the previous report

(4) The method section of the manuscript seems to suggest all the simulations were started from a docked structure. This casts doubt on the reliability of the kinetics derived from these simulations that were spawned from docked structure, instead of any crystallographic pose. Ideally, the authors should have been more careful in choosing the ligands in this work based on the availability of the crystallographic structures.

(5) The last part of using a machine learning-based approach to analyse allosteric interaction seems to be very much forced, as there are numerous distance-based more traditional precedent analyses that do a fair job of identifying an allosteric job.

(6) While getting busy with the methodological details of TRAM vs MSM, the manuscript fails to share with sufficient clairty what the distinctive features of two ligand binding mechanisms are.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors identified and described the transcriptional trajectories leading to CMs during early mouse development, and characterized the epigenetic landscapes that underlie early mesodermal lineage specification.

The authors identified two transcriptomic trajectories from a mesodermal population to cardiomyocytes, the MJH and PSH trajectories. These trajectories are relevant to the current model for the First Heart Field (FHF) and the Second Heart Field (SHF) differentiation. Then, the authors characterized both gene expression and enhancer activity of the MJH and PSH trajectories, using a multiomics analysis. They highlighted the role of Gata4, Hand1, Foxf1, and Tead4 in the specification of the MJH trajectory. Finally, they performed a focused analysis of the role of Hand1 and Foxf1 in the MJH trajectory, showing their mutual regulation and their requirement for cardiac lineage specification.

Strengths:

The authors performed an extensive transcriptional and epigenetic analysis of early cardiac lineage specification and differentiation which will be of interest to investigators in the field of cardiac development and congenital heart disease. The authors considered the impact of the loss of Hand1 and Foxf1 in-vitro and Hand1 in-vivo.

Weaknesses:

The authors used previously published scRNA-seq data to generate two described transcriptomic trajectories.

(1) Details of the re-analysis step should be added, including a careful characterization of the different clusters and maker genes, more details on the WOT analysis, and details on the time stamp distribution along the different pseudotimes. These details would be important to allow readers to gain confidence that the two major trajectories identified are realistic interpretations of the input data.

The authors have also renamed the cardiac trajectories/lineages, departing from the convention applied in hundreds of papers, making the interpretation of their results challenging.

(2) The concept of "reverse reasoning" applied to the Waddington-OT package for directional mass transfer is not adequately explained. While the authors correctly acknowledged Waddington-OT's ability to model cell transitions from ancestors to descendants (using optimal transport theory), the justification for using a "reverse reasoning" approach is missing. Clarifying the rationale behind this strategy would be beneficial.

(3) As the authors used the EEM cell cluster as a starting point to build the MJH trajectory, it's unclear whether this trajectory truly represents the cardiac differentiation trajectory of the FHF progenitors:<br /> - This strategy infers that the FHF progenitors are mixed in the same cluster as the extra-embryonic mesoderm, but no specific characterization of potential different cell populations included in this cluster was performed to confirm this.

- The authors identified the EEM cluster as a Juxta-cardiac field, without showing the expression of the principal marker Mab21l2 per cluster and/or on UMAPs.

- As the FHF progenitors arise earlier than the Juxta-cardiac field cells, it must be possible to identify an early FHF progenitor population (Nkx2-5+; Mab21l2-) using the time stamp. It would be more accurate to use this FHF cluster as a starting point than the EEM cluster to infer the FHF cardiac differentiation trajectory.

These concerns call into question the overall veracity of the trajectory analysis, and in fact, the discrepancies with prior published heart field trajectories are noted but the authors fail to validate their new interpretation. Because their trajectories are followed for the remainder of the paper, many of the interpretations and claims in the paper may be misleading. For example, these trajectories are used subsequently for annotation of the multiomic data, but any errors in the initial trajectories could result in errors in multiomic annotation, etc, etc.

(4) As mentioned in the discussion, the authors identified the MJH and PSH trajectories as non-overlapping. But, the authors did not discuss major previously published data showing that both FHF and SHF arise from a common transcriptomic progenitor state in the primitive streak (DOI: 10.1126/science.aao4174; DOI: 10.1007/s11886-022-01681-w). The authors should consider and discuss the specifics of why they obtained two completely separate trajectories from the beginning, how these observations conflict with prior published work, and what efforts they have made at validation.

(5) Figures 1D and E are confusing, as it's unclear why the authors selected only cells at E7.0. Also, panels 1D 'Trajectory' and 'Pseudotime' suggest that the CM trajectory moves from the PSH cells to the MJH. This result is confusing, and the authors should explain this observation.

(6) Regarding the PSH trajectory, it's unclear how the authors can obtain a full cardiac differentiation trajectory from the SHF progenitors as the SHF-derived cardiomyocytes are just starting to invade the heart tube at E8.5 (DOI: 10.7554/eLife.30668).

The above notes some of the discrepancies between the author's trajectory analysis and the historical cardiac development literature. Overall, the discrepancies between the author's trajectory analysis and the historical cardiac development literature are glossed over and not adequately validated.

(7) The authors mention analyzing "activated/inhibited genes" from Peng et al. 2019 but didn't specify when Peng's data was collected. Is it temporally relevant to the current study? How can "later stage" pathway enrichment be interpreted in the context of early-stage gene expression?

(8) Motif enrichment: cluster-specific DAEs were analyzed for motifs, but the authors list specific TFs rather than TF families, which is all that motif enrichment can provide. The authors should either list TF families or state clearly that the specific TFs they list were not validated beyond motifs.

(9) The core regulatory network is purely predictive. The authors again should refrain from language implying that the TFs in the CRN have any validated role.

Regarding the in vivo analysis of Hand1 CKO embryos, Figures 6 and 7:

(10) How can the authors explain the presence of a heart tube in the E9.5 Hand1 CKO embryos (Figure 6B) if, following the authors' model, the FHF/Juxta-cardiac field trajectory is disrupted by Hand1 CKO? A more detailed analysis of the cardiac phenotype of Hand1 CKO embryos would help to assess this question.

(11) The cell proportion differences observed between Ctrl and Hand1 CKO in Figure 6D need to be replicated and an appropriate statistical analysis must be performed to definitely conclude the impact of Hand1 CKO on cell proportions.

(12) The in-vitro cell differentiations are unlikely to recapitulate the complexity of the heart fields in-vivo, but they are analyzed and interpreted as if they do.

(13) The schematic summary of Figure 7F is confusing and should be adjusted based on the following considerations:<br /> (a) the 'Wild-type' side presents 3 main trajectories (SHF, Early HT and JCF), but uses a 2-color code and the authors described only two trajectories everywhere else in the article (aka MJH and PSH). It's unclear how the SHF trajectory (blue line) can contribute to the Early HT, when the Early HT is supposed to be FHF-associated only (DOI: 10.7554/eLife.30668). As mentioned previously in Major comment 3., this model suggests a distinction between FHF and JCF trajectories, which is not investigated in the article.<br /> (b) the color code suggests that the MJH (FHF-related) trajectory will give rise to the right ventricle and outflow tract (green line), which is contrary to current knowledge.

Minor comments:

(1) How genes were selected to generate Figure 1F? Is this a list of top differentially expressed genes over each pseudotime and/or between pseudotimes?

(2) Regarding Figure 1G, it's unclear how inhibited signaling can have an increased expression of underlying genes over pseudotimes. Can the authors give more details about this analysis and results?

(3) How do the authors explain the visible Hand1 expression in Hand1 CKO in Figure S7C 'EEM markers'? Is this an expected expression in terms of RNA which is not converted into proteins?

(4) The authors do not address the potential presence of doublets (merged cells) within their newly generated dataset. While they mention using "SCTransform" for normalization and artifact removal, it's unclear if doublet removal was explicitly performed.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary of goals:

The aims of the study were to identify new lineage trajectories for the cardiac lineages of the heart, and to use computational and cell and animal studies to identify and validate new gene regulatory mechanisms involved in these trajectories.

Strengths:

The study addresses the long-standing yet still not fully answered questions of what drives the earliest specification mechanisms of the heart lineages. The introduction demonstrates a good understanding of the relevant lineage trajectories that have been previously established, and the significance of the work is well described. The study takes advantage of several recently published data sets and attempts t use these in combination to uncover any new mechanisms underlying early mesoderm/cardiac specification mechanisms. A strength of the study is the use of an in vitro model system (mESCs) to assess the functional relevance of the key players identified in the computational analysis, including innovative technology such as CRISPR-guided enhancer modulations. Lastly, the study generates mesoderm-specific Hand1 LOF embryos and assesses the differentiation trajectories in these animals, which represents a strong complementary approach to the in vitro and computational analysis earlier in the paper. The manuscript is clearly written and the methods section is detailed and comprehensive.

Comments and Weaknesses:

Overall: The computational analysis presented here integrates a large number of published data sets with one new data point (E7.0 single cell ATAC and RNA sequencing). This represents an elegant approach to identifying new information using available data. However, the data presentation at times becomes rather confusing, and relatively strong statements and conclusions are made based on trajectory analysis or other inferred mechanisms while jumping from one data set to another. The cell and in vivo work on Hand1 and Foxf1 is an important part of the study. Some additional experiments in both of these model systems could strongly support the novel aspects that were identified by the computational studies leading into the work.

(1) Definition of MJH and PSH trajectory:<br /> The study uses previously published data sets to identify two main new differentiation trajectories: the MJH and the PSH trajectory (Figure 1). A large majority of subsequent conclusions are based on in-depth analysis of these two trajectories. For this reason, the method used to identify these trajectories (WTO, which seems a highly biased analysis with many manually chosen set points) should be supported by other commonly used methods such as for example RNA velocity analysis. This would inspire some additional confidence that the MJH and PSH trajectories were chosen as unbiased and rigorous as possible and that any follow-up analysis is biologically relevant.

(2) Identification of MJH and PSH trajectory progenitors:<br /> The study defines various mesoderm populations from the published data set (Figure 1A-E), including nascent mesoderm, mixed mesoderm, and extraembryonic mesoderm. It further assigns these mesoderm populations to the newly identified MJH/PSH trajectories. Based on the trajectory definition in Figure 1A it appears that both trajectories include all 3 mesoderm populations, albeit at different proportions and it seems thus challenging to assign these as unique progenitor populations for a distinct trajectory, as is done in the epigenetic study by comparing clusters 8 (MJH) and s (PSH)(Figure 2). Along similar lines, the epigenetic analysis of clusters 2 and 8 did not reveal any distinct differences in H3K4m1, H3K27ac, or H3K4me3 at any of the time points analyzed (Figure 2F). While conceptually very interesting, the data presented do not seem to identify any distinct temporal patterns or differences in clones 2 and 8 (Figure 2H), and thus don't support the conclusion as stated: "the combined transcriptome and chromatin accessibility analysis further supported the early lineage segregation of MJH and the epigenetic priming at gastrulation stage for early cardiac genes".

(3) Function of Hand1 and Foxf1 during early cardiac differentiation:<br /> The study incorporated some functional studies by generating Hand1 and Foxf1 KO mESCs and differentiated them into mesoderm cells for RNA sequencing. These lines would present relevant tools to assess the role of Hand1 and Foxf1 in mesoderm formation, and a number of experiments would further support the conclusions, which are made for the most part on transcriptional analysis. For example, the study would benefit from quantification of mesoderm cells and subsequent cardiomyocytes during differentiation (via IF, or more quantitatively, via flow cytometry analysis). These data would help interpret any of the findings in the bulk RNAseq data, and help to assess the function of Hand1 and Foxf1 in generating the cardiac lineages. Conclusions such as "the analysis indicated that HAND1 and FOXF1 could dually regulate MJH specification through directly activating the MJH specific genes and inhibiting PSH specific genes" seem rather strong given the data currently provided.

(4) Analysis of Hand1 cKO embryos:<br /> Adding a mouse model to support the computational analysis is a strong way to conclude the study. Given the availability of these early embryos, some of the findings could be strengthened by performing a similar analysis to Figure 7B&C and by including some of the specific EEM markers found to be differentially regulated to complement the structural analysis of the embryos.

(5) Current findings in the context of previous findings:<br /> The introduction carefully introduces the concept of lineage specification and different progenitor pools. Given the enormous amount of knowledge already available on Hand1 and Foxf1, and their role in specific lineages of the early heart, some of this information should be added, ideally to the discussion where it can be put into context of what the present findings add to the existing understanding of these transcription factors and their role in early cardiac specification.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

(1) In Figure 1A, could the authors justify using E8.5 CMs as the endpoint for the second lineage and better clarify the chamber identities of the E8.5 CMs analysed? Why are the atrial genes in Figure 1C of the PSH trajectory not present in Table S1.1, which lists pseudotime-dependent genes for the MJH/PSH trajectories from Figure 1F?

(2) Could the authors increase the resolution of their trajectory and genomic analyses to distinguish between the FHF (Tbx5+ HCN4+) and the JCF (Mab21l2+/ Hand1+) within the MJH lineage? Also, clarify if the early extraembryonic mesoderm contributes to the FHF.

(3) The authors strongly assume that the juxta-cardiac field (JCF), defined by Mab21l2 expression at E7.5 in the extraembryonic mesoderm, contributes to CMs. Could the authors explain the evidence for this? Could the authors identify Mab21l2 expression in the left ventricle (LV) myocardium and septum transversum at E8.5 (see Saito et al., 2013, Biol Open, 2(8): 779-788)? If such a JCF contribution to CMs exists, the extent to which it influences heart development should be clarified or discussed.

(4) Could the authors distinguish the Hand1+ pericardium from JCF progenitors in their single-cell data and explain why they excluded other cell types, such as the endocardium/endothelium and pericardium, or even the endoderm, as endpoints of their trajectory analysis? At the NM and MM mesoderm stages, how did the authors distinguish the earliest cardiac cells from the surrounding developing mesoderm?

(5) Could the authors contrast their trajectory analysis with those of Lescroart et al. (2018), Zhang et al., Tyser et al., and Krup et al.?

(6) Previous studies suggest that Mesp2 expression starts at E8 in the presomitic mesoderm (Saga et al., 1997). Could the authors provide in situ hybridization or HCR staining to confirm the early E7 Mesp2 expression suggested by the pseudo-time analysis of the second lineage.

(7) Could the authors also confirm the complementary Hand1 and Lefty2 expression patterns at E7 using HCR or in situ hybridization? Hand1 expression in the first lineage is plausible, considering lineage tracing results from Zhang et al.

(8) Could the authors explain why Hand1 and Lefty2+ cells are more likely to be multipotent progenitors, as mentioned in the text?

(9) Could the authors comment on the low Mesp1 expression in the mesodermal cells (MM) of the MJH trajectory at E7 (Figure 1D)? Is Mesp1 transiently expressed early in MJH progenitors and then turned off by E7? Have all FHF/JCF/SHF cells expressed Mesp1?

(10) Could the authors clarify if their analysis at E7 comprises a mixture of embryonic stages or a precisely defined embryonic stage for both the trajectory and epigenetic analyses? How do the authors know that cells of the second lineage are readily present in the E7 mesoderm they analysed (clusters 0, 1, and 2 for the multiomic analysis)?

(11) Could the authors further comment on the active Notch signaling observed in the first and second lineages, considering that Notch's role in the early steps of endocardial lineage commitment, but not of CMs, during gastrulation has been previously described by Lescroart et al. (2018)?

(12) In cluster 8, Figure 2D, it seems that levels of accessibility in cluster 8 are relatively high for genes associated with endothelium/endocardium development in addition to MJH genes. Could the authors comment and/or provide further analysis?

(13) Can the authors clarify why they state that cluster 8 DAEs are primed before the full activation of their target genes, considering that Bmp4 and Hand1 peak activities seem to coincide with their gene expression in Figure 2G?

(14) Did the authors extend the multiomic analysis to Nanog+ epiblast cells at E7 and investigate if cardiac/mesodermal priming exists before mesodermal induction (defined by T/Mesp1 onset of expression)?

(15) In the absence of duplicates, it is impossible to statistically compare the proportions of mesodermal cell populations in Hand1 wild-type and knockout (KO) embryos or to assess for abnormal accumulation of PS, NM, and MM cells. Could the authors analyse the proportions of cells by careful imaging of Hand1 wild-type and KO embryos instead?

(16) Could the authors provide high-resolution images for Figure 7 B-C-D as they are currently hard to interpret?

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This paper presents a class of small molecule inhibitors of tau aggregation which was discovered through a computational screen. Analogs were generated and tested for their ability to inhibit fibril formation.

Strengths:

A few of the analogs were found to have sub-stoichiometric activity. A comparison of unseeded and seeded aggregation kinetics suggests that these compounds preferentially target early-stage aggregation.

Weaknesses:

The authors state their interest is in finding compounds that target monomeric states of tau, but their only detection method is late-stage fibril formation. In this respect, they have not really defined a mechanism of action. They state their plan to use hydrogen-exchange mass spectrometry, but there are other techniques, such as single-molecule FRET and measurement of intramolecular reconfiguration. Additionally, there is information that can be gleaned from detailed kinetic modeling of the ThT kinetics to include monomer dynamics, formation of oligomers, and secondary nucleation of fibrils.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

James et al, in this study, build on their previous work investigating tau as a drug target. The authors identify tryptanthrin (TA) and its analogs as powerful inhibitors of tau4RD aggregation, even at low concentrations (nanomolar range). Interestingly, these analogs specifically target the initial stages of aggregation, where tau self-association first begins. This targeted approach effectively explains why such small amounts of tryptanthrin analogs are sufficient for inhibition. The study further shows that slight modifications to the structure of these molecules can significantly impact their effectiveness.

Strengths:

The experiments are well-designed and executed. The reviewer, in particular, appreciates the authors for the simple yet intelligent study design to understand the mechanism of aggregation inhibition by TA analogs.

Weaknesses:

Certain areas in the manuscript need clarifications, revisions, or additional supporting studies to strengthen the outcomes. For example, the authors mostly apply a single approach to assess tau aggregation or aggregation inhibition. Using additional techniques as suggested below will be helpful.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The study conducted by the Shouldiner's group advances the understanding of mitochondrial biology through the utilization of their bi-genomic (BiG) split-GFP assay, which they had previously developed and reported. This research endeavors to consolidate the catalog of matrix and inner membrane mitochondrial proteins. In their approach, a genetic framework was employed wherein a GFP fragment (GFP1-10) is encoded within the mitochondrial genome. Subsequently, a collection of strains was created, with each strain expressing a distinct protein tagged with the GFP11 fragment. The reconstitution of GFP fluorescence occurs upon the import of the protein under examination into the mitochondria.

Strengths:

Notably, this assay was executed under six distinct conditions, facilitating the visualization of approximately 400 mitochondrial proteins. Remarkably, 50 proteins were conclusively assigned to mitochondria for the first time through this methodology. The strains developed and the extensive dataset generated in this study serve as a valuable resource for the comprehensive study of mitochondrial biology. Specifically, it provides a list of 50 "eclipsed" proteins whose role in mitochondria remains to be characterized.

Weaknesses:

The work could include some functional studies of at least one of the newly identified 50 proteins.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors addressed the question of how mitochondrial proteins that are dually localized or only to a minor fraction localized to mitochondria can be visualized on the whole genome scale. For this, they used an established and previously published method called BiG split-GFP, in which GFP strands 1-10 are encoded in the mitochondrial DNA and fused the GFP11 strand C-terminally to the yeast ORFs using the C-SWAT library. The generated library was imaged under different growth and stress conditions and yielded positive mitochondrial localization for approximately 400 proteins. The strength of this method is the detection of proteins that are dually localized with only a minor fraction within mitochondria, which so far has hampered their visualization due to strong fluorescent signals from other cellular localizations. The weakness of this method is that due to the localization of the GFP1-10 in the mitochondrial matrix, only matrix proteins and IM proteins with their C-termini facing the matrix can be detected. Also, proteins that are assembled into multimeric complexes (which will be the case for probably a high number of matrix and inner membrane-localized proteins) resulting in the C-terminal GFP11 being buried are likely not detected as positive hits in this approach. Taking these limitations into consideration, the authors provide a new library that can help in the identification of eclipsed protein distribution within mitochondria, thus further increasing our knowledge of the complete mitochondrial proteome. The approach of global tagging of the yeast genome is the logical consequence after the successful establishment of the BiG split-GFP for mitochondria. The authors also propose that their approach can be applied to investigate the topology of inner membrane proteins, however, for this, the inherent issue remains that it cannot be excluded that even the small GFP11 tag can impact on protein biogenesis and topology. Thus, the approach will not overcome the need to assess protein topology analysis via biochemical approaches on endogenous untagged proteins.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Here, Bykov et al move the bi-genomic split-GFP system they previously established to the genome-wide level in order to obtain a more comprehensive list of mitochondrial matrix and inner membrane proteins. In this very elegant split-GFP system, the longer GFP fragment, GFP1-10, is encoded in the mitochondrial genome and the shorter one, GFP11, is C-terminally attached to every protein encoded in the genome of yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. GFP fluorescence can therefore only be reconstituted if the C-terminus of the protein is present in the mitochondrial matrix, either as part of a soluble protein, a peripheral membrane protein, or an integral inner membrane protein. The system, combined with high-throughput fluorescence microscopy of yeast cells grown under six different conditions, enabled the authors to visualize ca. 400 mitochondrial proteins, 50 of which were not visualised before and 8 of which were not shown to be mitochondrial before. The system appears to be particularly well suited for analysis of dually localized proteins and could potentially be used to study sorting pathways of mitochondrial inner membrane proteins.

Strengths:

Many fluorescence-based genome-wide screens were previously performed in yeast and were central to revealing the subcellular location of a large fraction of yeast proteome. Nonetheless, these screens also showed that tagging with full-length fluorescent proteins (FP) can affect both the function and targeting of proteins. The strength of the system used in the current manuscript is that the shorter tag is beneficial for the detection of a number of proteins whose targeting and/or function is affected by tagging with full-length FPs.

Furthermore, the system used here can nicely detect mitochondrial pools of dually localized proteins. It is especially useful when these pools are minor and their signals are therefore easily masked by the strong signals coming from the major, nonmitochondrial pools of the proteins.

Weaknesses:

My only concern is that the biological significance of the screen performed appears limited. The dataset obtained is largely in agreement with several previous proteomic screens but it is, unfortunately, not more comprehensive than them, rather the opposite. For proteins that were identified inside mitochondria for the first time here or were identified in an unexpected location within the organelle, it remains unclear whether these localizations represent some minor, missorted pools of proteins or are indeed functionally important fractions and/or productive translocation intermediates. The authors also allude to several potential applications of the system but do little to explore any of these directions.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> Overall, this study provides a meticulous comparison of developmental transcriptomes between two sub-species of the annelid Streblospio benedicti. Different lineages of S. benedicti maintain one of two genetically programmed alternative life histories, the ancestral planktotrophic or derived lecithotrophic forms of development. This contrast is also seen at the inter-species level in many marine invertebrate taxa, such as echinoderms and molluscs. The authors report relatively (surprisingly?) modest differences in transcriptomes overall, but also find some genes whose expression is essentially morph-specific (which they term "exclusive").

Strengths:<br /> The study is based on dense and appropriately replicated sampling of early development. The tight clustering of each stage/morph combination in PCA space suggests the specimens were accurately categorized. The similar overall trajectories of the two morphs was surprising to me for two stage: 1) the earliest stage (16-cell), at which we might expect maternal differences due to the several-fold difference in zygote size, and 2) the latest stage (1-week), where there appears to be the most obvious morphological difference. This is why we need to do experiments!

The examination of F1 hybrids was another major strength of the study. It also produced one of the most surprising results: though intermediate in phenotype, F1 embryos have the most distinct transcriptomes, and reveal a range of fixed, compensatory differences in the parental lines. Further, the F1 lack expression of nearly all transcripts identified as morph-specific in the pure parental lines. Since the F1 larvae present intermediate traits combining the features of both morphs, this implies that morph-specific transcripts are not actually necessary for morph-specific traits. This is interesting and somewhat counter to what one might naively expect.

Weaknesses:<br /> Overall I really enjoyed this paper, and in its revised form it addresses some concerns I had in the first version. I still see a few places where it can be tightened and made more insightful.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Harry and Zakas determined the extent to which gene expression differences contribute to developmental divergence by using a model that has two distinct developmental morphs within a single species. Although the authors did collect a valuable dataset and trends in differential expression between the two morphs of S. benedicti were presented, we found limitations about the methods, system, and resources that the authors should address.

We have two major points:

(1) Background information about the biological system needs to be clarified in the introduction of this manuscript. The authors stated that F1 offspring can have intermediate larval traits compared to the parents (Line 81). However, the authors collected F1 offspring at the same time as the mother in the cross. If offspring have intermediate larval traits, their developmental timeline might be different than both parents and necessitate the collection of offspring at different times to obtain the same stages as the parents. Could the authors (1) explain why they collected offspring at the same time as parents given that other literature and Line 81 state these F1 offspring develop at intermediate rates, and (2) add the F1 offspring to Figure 1 to show morphological and timeline differences in development?

Additionally, the authors state (Lines 83-85) that they detail the full-time course of embryogenesis for both the parents and the F1 crosses. However, we do not see where the authors have reported the full-time course for embryogenesis of the F1 offspring. Providing this information would shape the remaining results of the manuscript.

(2) We have several concerns about the S. benedicti genome and steps regarding the read mapping for RNA-seq:

The S. benedicti genome used (Zakas et al. 2022) was generated using the PP morph. The largest scaffolds of this assembly correspond to linkage groups, showing the quality of this genome. The authors should point out in the Methods and/or Results sections that the quality of this genome means that PP-specific gene expression can be quantified well. However, the challenges and limitations of mapping LL-specific expression data to the PP genome should be discussed.

It is possible that the authors did not find exclusive gene expression in the LL morph because they require at least one gene to be turned on in one morph as part of the data-cleaning criteria. Because the authors are comparing all genes to the PP morph, they could be missing true exclusive genes responsible for the biological differences between the two morphs. Did they make the decision to only count genes expressed in one stage of the other morph because the gene models and mapping quality led to too much noise?

The authors state that the mapping rates between the two morphs are comparable (Supplementary Figure 1). However, there is a lot of variation in mapping the LL individuals (~20% to 43%) compared to the PP individuals. What is the level of differentiation within the two morphs in the species (pi and theta)? The statistical tests for this comparison should be added and the associated p-value should be reported. The statistical test used to compare mapping rates between the two morphs may be inappropriate. The authors used Salmon for their RNA alignment and differential expression analysis, but it is possible that a different method would be more appropriate. For example, Salmon has some limitations as compared to Kallisto as others have noted. The chosen statistical test should be explained, as well as how RNA-seq data are processed and interpreted.

What about the read mapping rate and details for the F1 LP and PL individuals? How did the offspring map to the P genome? These details should be included in Supplementary Figure 1. Could the authors also provide information about the number of genes expressed at each stage in the F1 LP and PL samples in S Figure 2? How many genes went into the PCA? Many of these details are necessary to evaluate the F1 RNA-seq analyses.

Generally, the authors need to report the statistics used in data processing more thoroughly. The authors need to report the statistics used to (1) process and evaluate the RNA-seq data and (2) determine the significance between the two morphs (Supplementary Figures 1 and 2).

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The endocannabinoid system (ECS) components are dysregulated within the lesion microenvironment and systemic circulation of endometriosis patients. Using endometriosis mouse models and genetic loss of function approaches, Lingegowda et al. report that canonical ECS receptors, CNR1 and CNR2, are required for disease initiation, progression, and T-cell dysfunction.

Strengths:

The approach uses genetic approaches to establish in vivo causal relationships between dysregulated ECS and endometriosis pathogenesis. The experimental design incorporates both bulk and single-cell RNAseq approaches, as well as imaging mass spectrometry to characterize the mouse lesions. The identification of immune-related and T-cell-specific changes in the lesion microenvironment of CNR1 and CNR2 knockout (KO) mice represents a significant advance

Weaknesses:

Although the mouse phenotypic analyses involves a detailed molecular characterization of the lesion microenvironment using genomic approaches, detailed measurements of lesion size/burden and histopathology would provide a better understanding of how CNR1 or CNR2 loss contributes to endometriosis initiation and progression. The cell or tissue-specific effects of the CNR1 and CNR2 are not incorporated into the experimental design of the studies. Although this aspect of the approach is recognized as a major limitation, global CNR1 and CNR2 KO may affect normal female reproductive tract function, ovarian steroid hormone levels, decidualization response, or lead to preexisting alterations in host or donor tissues, which could affect lesion establishment and development in the surgically induced, syngeneic mouse model of endometriosis.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The endocannabinoid system (ECS) regulates many critical functions, including reproductive function. Recent evidence indicates that dysregulated ECS contributes to endometriosis pathophysiology and microenvironment. Therefore, the authors further examined the dysregulated ECS and its mechanisms in endometriosis lesion establishment and progression using two different endometrial sources of mouse models of endometriosis with CNR1 and CNR2 knockout mice. The authors presented differential gene expressions and altered pathways, especially those related to the adaptive immune response in CNR1 and CNR2 ko lesions. Interstingly, the T-cell population was dramatically reduced in the peritoneal cavity lacking CNR2, and the loss of proliferative activity of CD4+ T helper cells. Imaging mass cytometry analysis provided spatial profiling of cell populations and potential relationships among immune cells and other cell types. This study provided fundamental knowledge of the endocannabinoid system in endometriosis pathophysiology.

Strengths:

Dysregulated ECS and its mechanisms in endometriosis pathogenesis were assessed using two different endometrial sources of mouse models of endometriosis with CNR1 and CNR2 knockout mice. Not only endometriotic lesions but also peritoneal exudate (and splenic) cells were analyzed to understand the specific local disease environment under the dysregulated ECS.

Providing the results of transcriptional profiles and pathways, immune cell profiles, and spatial profiles of cell populations support altered immune cell population and their disrupted functions in endometriosis pathogenesis via dysregulation of ECS.

L386: Role of CNR2 in T cells: Finding nearly absent CD3+ T cells in the peritoneal cavity of CNR2 ko mice is intriguing.

Interpretation of the results is well-described in discussion.

Weaknesses:

The study was terminated and characterized 7 days after EM induction surgery without the details for selecting the time point to perform the experiments.

The authors also mentioned that altered eutopic endometrium contributes to the establishment and progression of endometriosis. This reviewer agrees L324-325. If so, DEGs are likely identified between eutopic endometrium (with/without endometriosis lesion induction) and ectopic lesions. It would be nice to see the data (even though using publicly available data sets).

Figure 7 CDEF. Please add the results of the statistical analyses and analyzed sample numbers. L444-450 cannot be reviewed without them.

This reviewer agrees L498-500. In contrast, retrograded menstrual debris is not decidualized. The section could be modified to avoid misunderstanding.

The authors addressed all my concerns. I do not have any comments.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors showed that autophagy-related genes are involved in plant immunity by regulating the protein level of the salicylic acid receptor, NPR1.

The experiments are carefully designed and the data is convincing. The authors did a good job of understanding the relationship between ATG6 and NRP1.

The authors have addressed most of my previous concerns.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Zhang et al. explores the effect of autophagy regulator ATG6 on NPR1-mediated immunity. The authors propose that ATG6 directly interacts with NPR1 in the nucleus to increase its stability and promote NPR1-dependent immune gene expression and pathogen resistance. This novel role of ATG6 is proposed to be independent of its role in autophagy in the cytoplasm. The authors demonstrate through biochemical analysis that ATG6 interacts with NPR1 in yeast and very weakly in vitro. They further demonstrate using overexpression transgenic plants that in the presence of ATG6-mcherry the stability of NPR1-GFP and its nuclear pool is increased.

Comments on revised version:

The authors demonstrate the correlation between overexertion of atg6 and higher stability and activity of npr1. They claim a novel activity of atg6 in the nucleus.<br /> Overall, the experimental scope of the study is solid, however, the over-interpretation of the results substantially reduces the significance and value of this study for the target plant immunity readership.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this well-designed study, the authors of the manuscript have analyzed the impact of individually silencing 90 lipid transfer proteins on the overall lipid composition of a specific cell type. They confirmed some of the evidence obtained by their own and other research groups in the past, and additionally, they identified an unreported role for ORP9-ORP11 in sphingomyelin production at the trans-Golgi. As they delved into the nature of this effect, the authors discovered that ORP9 and ORP11 form a dimer through a helical region positioned between their PH and ORD domains.

Strengths:

This well-designed study presents compelling new evidence regarding the role of lipid transfer proteins in controlling lipid metabolism. The discovery of ORP9 and ORP11's involvement in sphingolipid metabolism invites further investigation into the impact of the membrane environment on sphingomyelin synthase activity.

Weaknesses:

There are a couple of weaknesses evident in this manuscript. Firstly, there's a lack of mechanistic understanding regarding the regulatory role of ORP9-11 in sphingomyelin synthase activity. Secondly, the broader role of hetero-dimerization of LTPs at ER-Golgi membrane contact sites is not thoroughly addressed. The emerging theme of LTP dimerization through coiled domains has been reported for proteins such as CERT, OSBP, ORP9, and ORP10. However, the specific ways in which these LTPs hetero and/or homo-dimerize and how this impacts lipid fluxes at ER-Golgi membrane contact sites remain to be fully understood.

Regardless of the unresolved points mentioned above, this manuscript presents a valuable conceptual advancement in the study of the impact of lipid transfer on overall lipid metabolism. Moreover, it encourages further exploration of the interplay among LTP actions across various cellular organelles.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors set out to determine which lipid transfer proteins impact the lipids of Golgi apparatus, and they identified a reasonable number of "hits" where the lack of one lipid transfer protein affected a particular Golgi lipid or class of lipids. They then carried out something close to a "proof of concept" for one lipid (sphingomyelin) and two closely related lipid transfer proteins (ORP9/ORP11). They looked into that example in great detail and found a previous unknown relationship between the level of phosphatidylserine in the Golgi (presumably trans-Golgi, trans-Golgi Network) and function of the sphingomyelin synthase enzyme. This was all convincingly done - results support their conclusions - showing that the authors achieved their aims.

Impact:

There are likely to be 2 types of impact:

(I) cell biology: sphoingomyelin synthase, ORP9/11 will be studied in future in more informed ways to understand (a) the role of different Golgi lipids - this work opens that out and produces a to more questions than answers (b) the role of different ORPs: what distinguishes ORP11 from its paralogy ORP10?

(ii) molecular biochemistry: combining knockdown miniscreen with organelle lipidomics must be time-consuming, but here it is shown to be quite a powerful way to discover new aspects of lipid-based regulation of protein function. This will be useful to others as an example, and if this kind of workflow could be automated, then the possible power of the method could be widely applied.

Strengths:

Nicely controlled data;

Wide-ranging lipidomics dataset with repeats and SDs - all data easily viewed.

Simple take home message that PS traffic to the TGN by ORP9/11 is required for some aspect of SMS1 function.

Weaknesses:

Model and Discussion:

Despite the authors saying that this has been addressed in their rebuttal, I still struggle to find any ideas about the aspect of SMS1 function that is being affected.

As I mentioned before, even if no further experiments were carried out the authors could discuss possibilities. one might speculate what the PS is being used for. For example, is it a co-factor for integral membrane proteins, such as flippases? Is it a co-factor for peripheral membrane proteins, such as yet more LTPs? The model could include the work of Peretti et al (2008), which linked Nir2 activity exchanging PI:PA (Yadav et al, 2015) to the eventual function of CERT. Could the PS have a role in removing/reducing DAG produced by CERT?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this work, Mohamed Y. El-Naggar and co-workers present a detailed electronic characterization of cable bacteria from Southern California freshwater sediments. The cable bacteria could be reliably enriched in laboratory incubations, and subsequent TEM characterization and 16S rRNA gene phylogeny demonstrated their belonging to the genus Candidatus Electronema. Atomic force microscopy and two-point probe resistance measurements were then used to map out the characteristics of the conductive nature, followed by microelectrode four-probe measurements to quantify the conductivity.

Interestingly, the authors observe that some freshwater cable bacteria filaments displayed a higher degree of robustness upon oxygen exposure than what was previously reported for marine cable bacteria. Finally, a single nanofiber conductivity on the order of 0.1 S/cm is calculated, which matches the expected electron current densities linking electrogenic sulphur oxidation to oxygen reduction in sediment and is consistent with hopping transport.

Strengths and weaknesses:

A comprehensive study is applied to characterise the conductive properties of the sampled freshwater cable bacteria. Electrostatic force microscopy and conductive atomic force microscopy provide direct evidence of the location of conductive structures. Four-probe microelectrode devices are used to quantify the filament resistance, which presents a significant advantage over commonly used two-probe measurements that include contributions from contact resistances. While the methodology is convincing, I find that some of the conclusions seem to be drawn on very limited sample sizes, which display widely different behaviour. In particular:

The authors observe that the conductivity of freshwater filaments may be less sensitive to oxygen exposure than previously observed for marine filaments. This is indeed the case for an interdigitated array microelectrode experiment (presented in Figure 5) and for a conductive atomic force microscopy experiment (described in line 391), but the opposite is observed in another experiment (Figure S1). It is therefore difficult to assess the validity of the conclusion until sufficient experimental replications are presented.

The calculation of a single nanofiber conductivity is based on experiment and calculation with significant uncertainty. E.g. for the number of nanofibres in a single filament that varies depending on the filament size (Frontiers in microbiology, 2018, 9: 3044.), and the measured CB resistance, which does not scale well with inner probe separation (Figure 5). A more rigorous consideration of these uncertainties is required.

Comments on revised version:

The authors address all of the comments carefully.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Little is known about the local circuit mechanisms in the preoptic area (POA) that regulate body temperature. This carefully executed study investigates the role of GABAergic interneurons in the POA that express neurotensin (NTS). The principal finding is that GABA-release from these cells inhibits neighboring neurons, including warm-activated PACAP neurons, thereby promoting hyperthermia, whereas NTS released from these cells has the opposite effect, causing a delayed activation and hypothermia. This is shown through an elegant series of experiments that include slice recordings alongside matched in vivo functional manipulations. The roles of the two neurotransmitters are distinguished using a cell-type-specific knockout of Vgat as well as pharmacology to block GABA and NTS receptors. Overall, this is an excellent study that is noteworthy for revealing local circuit mechanisms in the POA that control body temperature and also for highlighting how amino acid neurotransmitters and neuropeptides released from the same cell can have opposing physiologic effects.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors aim to assess the effect of salt stress on root:shoot ratio, identify the underlying genetic mechanisms, and evaluate their contribution to salt tolerance. To this end, the authors systematically quantified natural variations in salt-induced changes in root:shoot ratio. This innovative approach considers the coordination of root and shoot growth rather than exploring biomass and the development of each organ separately. Using this approach, the authors identified a gene cluster encoding eight paralog genes with a domain-of-unknown-function 247 (DUF247), with the majority of SNPs clustering into SR3G (At3g50160). In the manuscript, the authors utilized an integrative approach that includes genomic, genetic, evolutionary, histological, and physiological assays to functionally assess the contribution of their genes of interest to salt tolerance and root development.

Strengths:

The holistic approach and integrative methodologies presented in the manuscript are essential for gaining a mechanistic understanding of a complex trait such as salt tolerance. The authors focused on At3g50160 but included in their analyses additional DUF247 paralogs, which further contributes to the strength of their approach. In addition, the authors considered the developmental stage (young seedlings, early or late vegetative stages) and growth conditions of the plants (agar plates or soil) when investigating the role of SR3G in salt tolerance and root or shoot development.

Weaknesses:

The authors' claims and interpretation of the results are not fully supported by the data and analyses. In several cases, the authors report differences that are not statistically significant (e.g., Figures 4A, 7C, 8B, S14, S16B, S17C), use inappropriate statistical tests (e.g., t-test instead of Dunnett Test/ANOVA as in Figures 10B-C, S19-23), present standard errors that do not seem to be consistent with the post-hoc Tukey HSD Test (e.g., Figures 4, 9B-C, S16B), or lack controls (e.g., Figure 5C-E, staining of the truncated versions with FM4-64 is missing).

In other cases, traits of root system architecture and expression patterns are inconsistent between different assays despite similar growth conditions (e.g., Figures S17A-B vs. 10A-C vs. 6A, and Figures S16B vs. 4A/9B), or T-DNA insertion alleles of WRKY75 that are claimed to be loss-of-function show comparable expression of WRKY75 as WT plants. Additionally, several supplemental figures are mislabeled (Figures S6-9), and some figure panels are missing (e.g., Figures S16C and S17E).

Consequently, the authors' decisions regarding subsequent functional assays, as well as major conclusions about gene function, including SR3G function in root system architecture, involvement in root suberization, and regulation of cellular damage are incomplete.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Salt stress is a significant and growing concern for agriculture in some parts of the world. While the effects of sodium excess have been studied in Arabidopsis and (many) crop species, most studies have focused on Na uptake, toxicity, and overall effects on yield, rather than on developmental responses to excess Na, per se. The work by Ishka and colleagues aims to fill this gap.

Working from an existing dataset that exposed a diverse panel of A. thaliana accessions to control, moderate, and severe salt stress, the authors identify candidate loci associated with altering the root:shoot ratio under salt stress. Following a series of molecular assays, they characterize a DUF247 protein which they dub SR3G, which appears to be a negative regulator of root growth under salt stress.

Overall, this is a well-executed study that demonstrates the functional role played by a single gene in plant response to salt stress in Arabidopsis.

The abstract and beginning of the Discussion section highlight the "new tool" developed here for measuring biomass accumulation. I feel that this distracts from the central aims of the study, which is really about the role of a specific gene in root development under salt stress. I would suggest moving the tool description to less prominent parts of the manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Assessment of cardiac LEC transcriptomes post-MI may yield new targets to improve lymphatic function. scRNAseq is a valid approach as cardiac LECs are rare compared to blood vessel endothelial cells.

Strengths:

Extensive bioinformatics approaches employed by the group.

Weaknesses:

Too few cells are included in scRNAseq data set and the spatial transcriptomics data that was exploited has little relevance, or rather specificity, for cardiac lymphatics. This study seems more like a collection of preliminary transcriptomic data than a conclusive scientific report to help advance the field.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This study integrated single-cell sequencing and spatial transcriptome data from mouse heart tissue at different time points post-MI. They identified four transcriptionally distinct subtypes of lymphatic endothelial cells and localized them in space. They observed that LECs subgroups are localized in different zones of infarcted heart with functions. Specifically, they demonstrated that LEC ca III may be involved in directly regulating myocardial injuries in the infarcted zone concerning metabolic stress, while LEC ca II may be related to the rapid immune inflammatory responses of the border zone in the early stage of MI. LEC ca I and LEC collection mainly participate in regulating myocardial tissue edema resolution in the middle and late stages post-MI. Finally, cell trajectory and Cell-Chat analyses further identified that LECs may regulate myocardial edema through Aqp1, and likely affect macrophage infiltration through the galectin9-CD44 pathway. The authors concluded that their study revealed the dynamic transcriptional heterogeneity distribution of LECs in different regions of the infarcted heart and that LECs formed different functional subgroups that may exert different bioeffects in myocardial tissue post-MI.

Strengths:

The study addresses a significant clinical challenge, and the results are of great translational value. All experiments were carefully performed, and their data support the conclusion.

Weaknesses:

(1) Language expression must be improved. Many incomplete sentences exist throughout the manuscript. A few examples: Lines 70-71: In order to further elucidate the effects and regulatory mechanisms of the lymphatic vessels in the repair process of myocardial injury following MI. Lines 71-73: This study, integrated single-cell sequencing and spatial transcriptome data from mouse heart tissue at different time points after MI from publicly available data (E-MTAB-7895, GSE214611) in the ArrayExpress and gene expression omnibus (GEO) databases. Line 88-89: Since the membrane protein LYVE1 can present lymphatic vessel morphology more clearly than PROX1.

(2) The type of animal models (i.e., permeant MI or MI plus reperfusion) included in ArrayExpress and gene expression omnibus (GEO) databases must be clearly defined as these two models may have completely different effects on lymphatic vessel development during post-MI remodeling.

(3) Lines 119-120: Caution must be taken regarding Cav1 as a lymphocyte marker because Cav1 is expressed in all endothelial cells, not limited to LEC.

(4) Figure 1 legend needs to be improved. RZ, BZ, and IZ need to be labeled in all IF images. Day 0 images suggest that RZ is the tissue section from the right ventricle. Was RZ for all other time points sampled from the right ventricular tissue section?

(5) The discussion section needs to be improved and better focused on the findings from the current study.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

It has been demonstrated that cardiac lymphatics are essential for cardiac health and function. Moreover, post-myocardial infarction, targeting lymphatics by stimulating lymphangiogenesis has been shown to improve cardiac inflammation, fibrosis, and function. Then, the aim of this study was to evaluate the transcriptomic changes of cardiac lymphatic endothelial cells (LECs) after a myocardial infarction, which could reveal new therapeutic targets targeting lymphatic function. Moreover, investigating the cell-cell communication between lymphatic and immune cells would give critical information for a better understanding of the disease.

Strengths:

The use of scRNAseq data to evaluate LECs is an effective strategy considering the small proportion of LECs compared to blood endothelial cells. The extensive bioinformatic analysis used by the authors for three different data sets.

Weaknesses:

Among a total of 44,860 cells, only 242 LECs and 5,688 endothelial cells were identified. This small number of LECs is not representative and is insufficient to reliably distinguish four different clusters. The bioinformatic analysis is not supported by significant results in their in vivo and in vitro experiments.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors developed three case studies: (1) transcriptome profiling of two human cell cultures (HEK293 and HeLa), (2) identification of experimentally enriched transcripts in cell culture (RiboMinus and RiboPlus treatments), and (3) identification of experimentally manipulated genes in yeast strains (gene knockouts or strains transformed with plasmids containing the deleted gene for overexpression). Sequencing was performed using the Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT), the only technology that allows for real-time analysis. The real-time transcriptomic analysis was performed using NanopoReaTA, a recent toolbox for comparative transcriptional analyses of Nanopore-seq data, developed by the group (Wierczeiko and Pastore et al. 2023). The authors aimed to show the use of the tool developed by them in data generated by ONT, evidencing the versatility of the tool and the possibility of cost reduction since the sequencing by ONT can be stopped at any time since enough data were collected.

Strengths:

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

Weaknesses:

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

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

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

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

Strengths:

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

Weaknesses:

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

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

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

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

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

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Assessment

This study develops a potentially useful metric for quantifying codon usage adaptation – the Codon Adaptation Index of Species (CAIS) – that is intended to allow for more direct comparisons of the strength of selection at the molecular level across species by controlling for interspecies variation in amino acid usage and GC content. As evidence to support there claim CAIS better controls for GC content and amino acid usage across species, they note that CAIS has only a weak positive correlation with GC% (that does not stand up to multiple hypothesis testing correction) while CAI has a clear negative correlation with GC%. Using CAIS, they find better adapted species have more disordered protein domains; however, excitement about these findings is dampened due to (1) this result is also observed using the effective number of codons (ENC) and

(2) concerns over the interpretation of CAIS as a proxy for the effectiveness of selection.

Public Review

Summary

The goal of the authors in this study is to develop a more reliable approach for quantifying codon usage such that it is more comparable across species. Specifically, the authors wish to estimate the degree of adaptive codon usage, which is potentially a general proxy for the strength of selection at the molecular level. To this end, the authors created the Codon Adaptation Index for Species (CAIS) that attempts to control for differences in amino acid usage and GC% across species. Using their new metric, the authors observe a positive relationship between CAIS and the overall “disorderedness” of a species protein domains. I think CAIS has the potential to be a valuable tool for those interested in comparing codon adaptation across species in certain situations. However, I have certain theoretical concerns about CAIS as a direct proxy for the efficiency of selection sNe when mutation bias changes across species.

Strengths

(1) I appreciate that the authors recognize the potential issues of comparing CAI when amino acid usage varies and correct for this in CAIS. I think this is sometimes an under-appreciated point in the codon usage literature, as CAI is a relative measure of codon usage bias (i.e. only considers synonyms). However, the strength of natural selection on codon usage can potentially vary across amino acids, such that comparing mean CAI between protein regions with different amino acid biases may result in spurious signals of statistical significance.

(2) The CAIS metric presented here is generally applicable to any species that has an annotated genome with protein-coding sequences. A significant improvement over the previous version is the implementation of software tool for applying this method.

(3) The authors do a better job of putting their results in the context of the underlying theory of CAIS compared to the previous version.

(4) The paper is generally well-written.

Weaknesses

(1) The previously observed correlation between CAIS and body size was due to a bug when calculating phylogenetic independent contrasts. I commend the authors for acknowledging this mistake and updating the manuscript accordingly. I feel that the unobserved correlation between CAIS and body size should remain in the final version of the manuscript. Although it is disappointing that it is not statistically significant, the corrected results are consistent with previous findings (Kessler and Dean 2014).

(2) I appreciate the authors for providing a more detailed explanation of the theoretical basis model. However, I remain skeptical that shifts in CAIS across species indicates shifts in the strength of selection. I am leaving the math from my previous review here for completeness.

As in my previous review, let’s take a closer look at the ratio of observed codon frequencies vs. expected codon frequencies under mutation alone, which was previously notated as RSCUS in the original formulation. In this review, I will keep using the RSCUS notation, even though it has been dropped from the updated version. The key point is this is the ratio of observed and expected codon frequencies. If this ratio is 1 for all codons, then CAIS would be 0 based on equation 7 in the manuscript – consistent with the complete absence of selection on codon usage. From here on out, subscripts will only be used to denote the codon and it will be assumed that we are only considering the case of r = genome for some species s.

I think what the authors are attempting to do is “divide out” the effects of mutation bias (as given by Ei), such that only the effects of natural selection remain, i.e. deviations from the expected frequency based on mutation bias alone represents adaptive codon usage. Consider Gilchrist et al. GBE 2015, which says that the expected frequency of codon i at selection-mutation-drift equilibrium in gene g for an amino acid with Na synonymous codons is

where ∆M is the mutation bias, ∆η is the strength of selection scaled by the strength of drift, and φg is the gene expression level of gene g. In this case, ∆M and ∆η reflect the strength and direction of mutation bias and natural selection relative to a reference codon, for which ∆M,∆η = 0. Assuming the selection-mutation-drift equilibrium model is generally adequate to model of the true codon usage patterns in a genome (as I do and I think the authors do, too), the Ei,g could be considered the expected observed frequency codon i in gene g

E[Oi,g].

Let’s re-write the  in the form of Gilchrist et al., such that it is a function of mutation bias ∆M. For simplicity we will consider just the two codon case and assume the amino acid sequence is fixed. Assuming GC% is at equilibrium, the term gr and 1 − gr can be written as

where µx→y is the mutation rate from nucleotides x to y. As described in Gilchrist et al. MBE 2015 and Shah and Gilchrist PNAS 2011, the mutation bias . This can be expressed in terms of the equilibrium GC content by recognizing that

As we are assuming the amino acid sequence is fixed, the probability of observing a synonymous codon i at an amino acid becomes just a Bernoulli process.

If we do this, then

Recall that in the Gilchrist et al. framework, the reference codon has ∆MNNG,NNG \= 0 =⇒ e−∆MNNG,NNG \=

(1) Thus, we have recovered the Gilchrist et al. model from the formulation of Ei under the assumption that natural selection has no impact on codon usage and codon NNG is the pre-defined reference codon. To see this, plug in 0 for ∆η in equation (1).

We can then calculate the expected RSCUS using equation (1) (using notation E[Oi]) and equation (6) for the two codon case. For simplicity assume, we are only considering a gene of average expression (defined as ). Assume in this case that NNG is the reference codon (∆MNNG,∆ηNNG \= 0).

This shows that the expected value of RSCUS for a two codon amino acid is expected to increase as the strength of selection ∆η increases, which is desired. Note that ∆η in Gilchrist et al. is formulated in terms of selection against a codon relative to the reference, such that a negative value represents that a codon is favored relative to the reference. If ∆η = 0 (i.e. selection does not favor either codon), then E[RSCUS] = 1. Also note that the expected RSCUS does not remain independent of the mutation bias. This means that even if sNe (i.e. the strength of natural selection) does not change between species, changes to the strength and direction of mutation bias across species could impact RSCUS. Assuming my math is right, I think one needs to be cautious when interpreting CAIS as representative of the differences in the efficiency of selection across species except under very particular circumstances.

Consider our 2-codon amino acid scenario. You can see how changing GC content without changing selection can alter the CAIS values calculated from these two codons. Particularly problematic appears to be cases of extreme mutation biases, where CAIS tends toward 0 even for higher absolute values of the selection parameter. Codon usage for the majority of the genome will be primarily determined by mutation biases,

with selection being generally strongest in a relatively few highly-expressed genes. Strong enough mutation biases ultimately can overwhelm selection, even in highly-expressed genes, reducing the fraction of sites subject to codon adaptation.

Peer review image 1.

Peer review image 2.

CAIS (Low Expression)

Peer review image 3.

CAIS (Average Expression)

Peer review image 4.

CAIS (High Expression)

If we treat the expected codon frequencies as genome-wide frequencies, then we are basically assuming this genome made up entirely of a single 2-codon amino acid with selection on codon usage being uniform across all genes. This is obviously not true, but I think it shows some of the potential limitations of the CAIS approach. Based on these simulations, CAIS seems best employed under specific scenarios. One such case could be when it is known that mutation bias varies little across the species of interest. Looking at the species used in this manuscript, most of them have a GC content around 0.41, so I suspect their results are okay (assuming things like GC-biased gene conversion are not an issue). Outliers in GC content probably are best excluded from the analysis.

Although I have not done so, I am sure this could be extended to the 4 and 6 codon amino acids. One potential challenge to CAIS is the non-monotonic changes in codon frequencies observed in some species (again, see Shah and Gilchrist 2011 and Gilchrist et al. 2015).

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this work, the authors provide a valuable transcriptomic resource for the intermediate free-living transmission stage (miracidium larva) of the blood fluke. The single-cell transcriptome inventory is beautifully supplemented with in situ hybridization, providing spatial information and absolute cell numbers for many of the recovered transcriptomic states. The identification of sex-specific transcriptomic states within the populations of stem cells was particularly unexpected. The work comprises a rich resource to complement the biology of this complex system.

Comments on revised version:

I have read through the responses and the revised manuscript. I think together this results in an improved version.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript the authors have generated a single-cell atlas of the miracidium, the first free-living stage of an important human parasite, Schistosoma mansoni. Miracidia develop from eggs produced in the mammalian (human) host and are released into freshwater, where they can infect the parasite's intermediate snail host to continue the life cycle. This study adds to the growing single-cell resources that have already been generated for other life-cycle stages and, thus, provides a useful resource for the field.

Strengths:

Beyond generating lists of genes that are differentially expressed in different cell types, the authors validated many of the cluster-defining genes using in situ hybridization chain reaction. In addition to providing the field with markers for many of the cell types in the parasite at this stage, the authors use these markers to count the total number of various cell types in the organism. Because the authors realized that their cell isolation protocols were biasing the cell types they were sequencing, they applied a second method to help them recover additional cell types.

Schistosomes have ZW sex chromosomes and the authors make the interesting observation that the stem cells at this stage are already expressing sex (i.e. W)-specific genes.

Comments on revised version:

The manuscript has been improved after revisions. The methods, data and analyses broadly support the claims with only minor weaknesses.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study of mixed glutamate/GABA transmission from axons of the supramammillary nucleus to dentate gyrus seeks to sort out whether the two transmitters are released from the same or different synaptic vesicles. This conundrum has been examined in other dual-transmission cases and even in this particular pathway, there are different views. The authors use a variety of electrophysiological and immunohistochemical methods to reach the surprising (to me) conclusion that glutamate and GABA-filled vesicles are distinct yet released from the same nerve terminals. The strength of the conclusion rests on the abundance of data (approaches) rather than the decisiveness of any one approach, and I came away believing that the boutons may indeed produce and release distinct types of vesicles, but have reservations. Accepting the conclusion, one is now left with another conundrum, not addressed even in the discussion: how can a single bouton sort out VGLUTs and VIAATs to different vesicles, position them in distinct locations with nm precision, and recycle them without mixing? And why do it this way instead of with single vesicles having mixed chemical content? For example, could a quantitative argument be made that separate vesicles allow for higher transmitter concentrations? I feel the paper needs to address these problems with some coherent discussion, at minimum.

Major concerns:

(1) Throughout the paper, the authors use repetitive optogenetic stimulation to activate SuM fibers and co-release glutamate and GABA. There are several issues here: first, can the authors definitively assure the reader that all the short-term plasticity is presynaptic and not due to ChR2 desensitization? This has not been addressed. Second, can the authors also say that all the activated fibers release both transmitters? If for example 20% of the fibers retained a one-transmitter identity and had distinct physiological properties, could that account for some of the physiological findings?

(2) PPR differences in Figures 1F-I are statistically significant but still quite small. You could say they are more similar than different in fact, and residual differences are accounted for by secondary factors like differential receptor saturation.

(3) The logic of the GPCR experiments needs a better setup. I could imagine different fibers released different transmitters and had different numbers of mGluRs, so that one would get different modulations. On the assumption that all the release is from a single population of boutons, then either the mGluRs are differentially segregated within the bouton, or the vesicles have differential responsiveness to the same modulatory signal (presumably a reduced Ca current). This is not developed in the paper.

(4) The biphasic events of Figures 3 and S3: I find these (unaveraged) events a bit ambiguous. Another way to look at them is that they are not biphasic per se but rather are not categorizable. Moreover, these events are really tiny, perhaps generated by only a few receptors whose open probability is variable, thus introducing noise into the small currents.

(5) Figure 4 indicates that the immunohistochemical analysis is done on SuM terminals, but I do not see how the authors know that these terminals come from SuM vs other inputs that converge in DG.

(6) Figure 4E also shows many GluN1 terminals not associated with anything, not even Vglut, and the apparent numbers do not mesh with the statistics. Why?

(7) Do the conclusions based on the fluorescence immuno mesh with the apparent dimensions of the EM active zones and the apparent intermixing of labeled vesicles in immuno EM?

(8) Figure 6 is not so interesting to me and could be removed. It seems to test the obvious: EPSPs promote firing and IPSPs oppose it.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors investigated the release properties of glutamate/GABA co-transmission at the supramammillary nucleus (SuM)-granule cell (GC) synapses using in vitro electrophysiology and anatomical approaches at the light and electron microscopy level. They found that SuM to dentate granule cell synapses, which co-release glutamate and GABA, exhibit distinct differences in paired-pulse ratio, Ca2+ sensitivity, presynaptic receptor modulation, and Ca2+ channel-vesicle coupling configuration for each neurotransmitter. The study shows that glutamate/GABA co-release produces independent glutamatergic and GABAergic synaptic responses, with postsynaptic targets segregated. They show that most SuM boutons form distinct glutamatergic and GABAergic synapses in close proximity, characterized by GluN1 and GABAAα1 receptor labeling, respectively. Furthermore, they demonstrate that glutamate/GABA co-transmission exhibits distinct short-term plasticity, with glutamate showing frequency-dependent depression and GABA showing frequency-independent stable depression.

Their findings suggest that these distinct modes of glutamate/GABA co-release by SuM terminals serve as frequency-dependent filters of SuM inputs.

Strengths:

The conclusions of this paper are mostly well supported by the data.

Weaknesses:

Some aspects of Supplementary Figure 1A and the table need clarification. Specifically, the claim that the authors have stimulated an axon fiber rather than axon terminals is not convincingly supported by the diagram of the experimental setup. Additionally, the antibody listed in the primary antibodies section recognizes the gamma2 subunit of the GABAA receptor, not the alpha1 subunit mentioned in the results and Figure 4.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Hirai et al investigated the release properties of glutamate/GABA co-transmission at SuM-GC synapses and reported that glutamate/GABA co-transmission exhibits distinct short-term plasticity with segregated postsynaptic targets. Using optogenetics, whole-cell patch-clamp recordings, and immunohistochemistry, the authors reveal distinct transmission modes of glutamate/GABA co-release as frequency-dependent filters of incoming SuM inputs.

Strengths:

Overall, this study is well-designed and executed; conclusions are supported by the results. This study addressed a long-standing question of whether GABA and glutamate are packaged in the same vesicles and co-released in response to the same stimuli in the SuM-GC synapses (Pedersen et al., 2017; Hashimotodani et al., 2018; Billwiller et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020; Ajibola et al., 2021). Knowledge gained from this study advances our understanding of neurotransmitter co-release mechanisms and their functional roles in the hippocampal circuits.

Weaknesses:

No major issues are noted. Some minor issues related to data presentation and experimental details are listed below.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Previous research shows that humans tend to adjust learning in environments where stimulus-outcome contingencies become more volatile. This learning rate adaptation is impaired in some psychiatric disorders, such as depression and anxiety. In this tudy the authors reanalyze previously published data on a reversal learning task with two volatility levels. Through a new model they provide some evidence for an alternative explanation whereby the learning rate adaptation is driven by different decision-making strategies and not learning deficits. In particular, they propose that adjusting of learning can be explained by deviations from the optimal decision-making strategy (based on maximizing expected utility) due to response stickiness or focus on reward magnitude. Furthermore, a factor related to general psychopathology of individuals with anxiety and depression negatively correlated with the weight on the optimal strategy and response stickiness, while it correlated positively with the magnitude strategy (a strategy that ignores the probability of outcome).

The main strength of the study is a novel and interesting explanation of an otherwise well-established finding in human reinforcement learning. This proposal is supported by rigorously conducted parameter retrieval and the comparison of the novel model to a wide range of previously published models. The authors explore from many angles, if and why the predictions from the new proposed model are superior to previously applied models.

My previous concerns were addressed in the revised version of the manuscript. I believe that the article now provides a new perspective on a well-established learning effect and offer a novel set of interesting response models that can be applied to a wide array of decision-making problems.

I see two limitations of the study not mentioned in the discussion of the manuscript. First, the task features binary inputs and responses, therefore unexpected uncertainty (volatility) is impossible to differentiate from the uncertainty about outcomes, and exploration is inseparable from random choices. Future work could validate these findings in task designs that allow to distinguish these processes. Second, clinical results are based on a small sample of patients and should be interpreted with this in mind.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

This paper presents a new formulation of a computational model of adaptive learning amid environmental volatility. Using a behavioral paradigm and data set made available by the authors of an earlier publication (Gagne et al., 2020), the new model is found to fit the data well. The model's structure consists of three weighted controllers that influence decisions on the basis of (1) expected utility, (2) potential outcome magnitude, and (3) habit. The model offers an interpretation of psychopathology-related individual differences in decision-making behavior in terms of differences in the relative weighting of the three controllers.

Strengths:

The newly proposed "mixture of strategies" (MOS) model is evaluated relative to the model presented in the original paper by Gagne et al., 2020 (here called the "flexible learning rate" or FLR model) and two other models. Appropriate and sophisticated methods are used for developing, parameterizing, fitting, and assessing the MOS model, and the MOS model performs well on multiple goodness-of-fit indices. Parameters of the model show decent recoverability and offer a novel interpretation for psychopathology-related individual differences. Most remarkably, the model seems to be able to account for apparent differences in behavioral learning rates between high-volatility and low-volatility conditions even with no true condition-dependent change in the parameters of its learning/decision processes. This finding calls into question a class of existing models that attribute behavioral adaptation to adaptive learning rates.

Weaknesses:

The authors have responded to the weaknesses noted previously.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this paper, the authors aimed to test the ability of bumblebees to use bird-view and ground-view for homing in cluttered landscapes. Using modelling and behavioural experiments, the authors showed that bumblebees rely most on ground-views for homing.

Strengths:

The behavioural experiments are well-designed, and the statistical analyses are appropriate for the data presented. 

Weaknesses:

Views of animals are from a rather small catchment area.

Missing a discussion on why image difference functions were sufficient to explain homing in wasps (Murray and Zeil 2017).

The artificial habitat is not really 'cluttered' since landmarks are quite uniform, making it difficult to infer ecological relevance.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In a 1.5m diameter, 0.8m high circular arena bumblebees were accustomed to exiting the entrance to their nest on the floor surrounded by an array of identical cylindrical landmarks and to forage in an adjacent compartment which they could reach through an exit tube in the arena wall at a height of 28cm. The movements of one group of bees were restricted to a height of 30cm, the height of the landmark array, while the other group was able to move up to heights of 80cm, thus being able to see the landmark array from above.

During one series of tests, the flights of bees returning from the foraging compartment were recorded as they tried to reach the nest entrance on the floor of the arena with the landmark array shifted to various positions away from the true nest entrance location. The results of these tests showed that the bees searched for the net entrance in the location that was defined by the landmark array.

In a second series of tests, access to the landmark array was prevented from the side, but not from the top, by a transparent screen surrounding the landmark array. These tests showed that the bees of both groups rarely entered the array from above, but kept trying to enter it from the side.<br /> The authors express surprise at this result because modelling the navigational information supplied by panoramic snapshots in this arena had indicated that the most robust information about the location of the nest entrance within the landmark array was supplied by views of the array from above, leading to the following strong conclusions:<br /> line 51: "Snapshot models perform best with bird's eye views";<br /> line 188: "Overall, our model analysis could show that snapshot models are not able to find home with views within a cluttered environment but only with views from above it.";<br /> line 231: "Our study underscores the limitations inherent in snapshot models, revealing their inability to provide precise positional estimates within densely cluttered environments, especially when compared to the navigational abilities of bees using frog's-eye views."

Strengths:

The experimental set-up allows for the recording of flight behaviour in bees, in great spatial and temporal detail. In principle, it also allows for the reconstruction of the visual information available to the bees throughout the arena.

Weaknesses:

Modelling:<br /> Modelling left out information potentially available to the bees from the arena wall and in particular from the top edge of the arena and cues such as cameras outside the arena. For instance, modelled IDF gradients within the landmark array degrade so rapidly in this environment, because distant visual features, which are available to bees, are lacking in the modelling. Modelling furthermore did not consider catchment volumes, but only horizontal slices through these volumes.

Behavioural analysis:<br /> The full potential of the set-up was not used to understand how the bees' navigation behaviour develops over time in this arena and what opportunities the bees have had to learn the location of the nest entrance during repeated learning flights and return flights.

Without a detailed analysis of the bees' behaviour during 'training', including learning flights and return flights, it is very hard to follow the authors' conclusions. The behaviour that is observed in the tests may be the result of the bees' extended experience shuttling between the nest and the entry to the foraging arena at 28cm height in the arena wall. For instance, it would have been important to see the return flights of bees following the learning flights shown in Figure 17.

Basically, both groups of bees (constrained to fly below the height of landmarks (F) or throughout the height of the arena (B)) had ample opportunities to learn that the nest entrance lies on the floor of the landmark array. The only reason why B-bees may not have entered the array from above when access from the side was prevented, may simply be that bumblebees, because they bumble, find it hard to perform a hovering descent into the array.

General:

The most serious weakness of the set-up is that it is spatially and visually constrained, in particular lacking a distant visual panorama, which under natural conditions is crucial for the range over which rotational image difference functions provide navigational guidance. In addition, the array of identical landmarks is not representative of natural clutter and, because it is visually repetitive, poses un-natural problems for view-based homing algorithms. This is the reason why the functions degrade so quickly from one position to the next (Figures 9-12), although it is not clear what these positions are (memory0-memory7).<br /> In conclusion, I do not feel that I have learnt anything useful from this experiment; it does suggest, however, that to fully appreciate and understand the homing abilities of insects, there is no alternative but to investigate these abilities in the natural conditions in which they have evolved.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Das and Menon describe an analysis of a large open-source iEEG dataset (UPENN-RAM). From encoding and recall phases of memory tasks, they analyzed power and phase-transfer entropy as a measure of directed information flow in regions across a hypothesized tripartite network system. The anterior insula (AI) was found to have heightened high gamma power during encoding and retrieval, which corresponded to suppression of high gamma power in the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC) during encoding but not recall. In contrast, directed information flow from (but not to) AI to mPFC/PCC and dorsal posterior parietal/middle frontal cortex is high during both time periods when PTE is analyzed with broadband but not narrowband activity. They claim that these findings significantly advance an understanding of how network communication facilitates cognitive operations such as control over memory and that the AI of the salience network (SN) is responsible for governing the switch between the frontoparietal network (FPN) and default-mode network (DMN) when shifting between externally- and internally-driven processing.

I find this question interesting and important and agree with the authors that iEEG presents a unique opportunity to investigate the temporal dynamics within network nodes. However, I am not convinced that their claims are supported by the results currently presented. In particular, the fact that network-level communication is not modulated significantly compared to rest and does not relate to behavior suggests that PTE analyses may not be tapping into task-relevant communication. Moreover, dissociation of network effects - present during both encoding and recall - from local power suppression effects - present only during encoding - suggests that these sets of results may index separate and not unitary task processes.

Strengths:

- The authors present results from an impressively sized iEEG sample. For reader context, this type of invasive human data is difficult and time-consuming to collect and many similar studies in high-level journals include 5-20 participants, typically not all of whom have electrodes in all regions of interest. It is excellent that they have been able to leverage open-source data in this way.

- Preprocessing of iEEG data also seems sensible and appropriate based on field standards.

- The authors tackle the replication issues inherent in much of the literature by replicating findings across task contexts, demonstrating that the principles of network communication evidenced by their results generalize in multiple task memory contexts. Again, the number of iEEG patients who have multiple tasks' worth of data is impressive.

Weaknesses:

• The motivation for investigating the tripartite network during memory tasks is not currently well-elaborated. Though the authors mention, for example, that "the formation of episodic memories relies on the intricate interplay between large-scale brain networks (p. 4)", there are no citations provided for this statement, and the reader is unable to evaluate whether the nodes and networks evidenced to support these processes are the same as networks measured here.

• In addition, though the tripartite network has been proposed to support cognitive control processes, and the neural basis of cognitive control is the framed focus of this work, the authors do not demonstrate that they have measured cognitive control in addition to simple memory encoding and retrieval processes. Tasks that have investigated cognitive control over memory (such as those cited on p. 13 - Badre et al., 2005; Badre & Wagner, 2007; Wagner et al., 2001; Wagner et al., 2005) generally do not simply include encoding, delay, and recall (as the tasks used here), but tend to include some manipulation that requires participants to engage control processes over memory retrieval, such as task rules governing what choice should be made at recall (e.g., from Badre et al., 2005 Fig. 1: congruency of match, associative strength, number of choices, semantic similarity). Moreover, though there are task-responsive signatures in the nodes of the tripartite networks, concluding that cognitive control is present because cognitive control networks are active would be a reverse inference.

• It is currently unclear if the directed information flow from AI to DMN and FPN nodes truly arises from task-related processes such as cognitive control or if it is a function of static brain network characteristics constrained by anatomy (such as white matter connection patterns, etc.). This is a concern because the authors did not find that influences of AI on DMN or FPN are increased relative to a resting baseline (collected during the task) or that directed information flow differs in successful compared to unsuccessful retrieval. I doubt that this AI influence is 1) supporting a switch between the DMN and FPN via the SN or 2) relevant for behavior if it doesn't differ from baseline-active task or across accuracy conditions. An additional comparison that may help investigate whether this is reflective of static connectivity characteristics would be a baseline comparison during non-task rest or sleep periods.

• Related to the above concern, it is also questionable how directed information flow from AI facilitates switching between FPN and DMN during both encoding and recall if high gamma activity does not significantly differ in AI versus PCC or mPFC during recall as it does during encoding. It seems erroneous to conclude that the network-level communication is happening or happening with the same effect during both task time points when these effects are decoupled in such a way from the power findings.

• Missing information about the methods used for time-frequency conversion for power calculation and the power normalization/baseline-correction procedure bars a thorough evaluation of power calculation methods and results.

If revisions to the manuscript can address concerns about directed information flow possibly being due to anatomical constraints - such as by indicating that directed information flow is not present during non-task rest or sleep - this work may convey important information about the structure and order of communication between these networks during attention to tasks in general. However, the ability of the findings to address cognitive control-specific communication and the nature of neurophysiological mechanisms of this communication - as opposed to the temporal order and structure of recruited networks - may be limited.

Because phase-transfer entropy is presented as a "causal" analysis in this investigation (PTE), I also believe it is important to highlight for readers recent discussions surrounding the description of "causal mechanisms" in neuroscience (see "Confusion about causation" section from Ross and Bassett, 2024, Nature Neuroscience). A large proportion of neuroscientists (admittedly, myself included) use "causal" only to refer to a mechanism whose modulation or removal (with direct manipulation, such as by lesion or stimulation) is known to change or control a given outcome (such as a successful behavior). As Ross and Bassett highlight, it is debatable whether such mechanistic causality is captured by Granger "causality" (a.k.a. Granger prediction) or the parametric PTE, and the imprecise use of "causation" may be confusing. The authors could consider amending language regarding this analysis if they are concerned about bridging these definitions of causality across a wide audience.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, the authors leverage a large public dataset of intracranial EEG (the University of Pennsylvania RAM repository) to examine electrophysiologic network dynamics involving the participation of salience, frontoparietal, and default mode networks in the completion of several episodic memory tasks. They do this through a focus on the anterior insula (AI; salience network), which they hypothesize may help switch engagement between the DMN and FPN in concert with task demands. By analyzing high-gamma spectral power and phase transfer entropy (PTE; a putative measure of information "flow"), they show that the AI shows higher directed PTE towards nodes of both the DMN and FPN, during encoding and recall, across multiple tasks. They further demonstrate that high-gamma power in the PCC/precuneus is decreased relative to the AI during memory encoding. They interpret these results as evidence of "triple-network" control processes in memory tasks, governed by a key role of the AI.

I commend the authors on leveraging this large public dataset to help contextualize network models of brain function with electrophysiological mechanisms - a key problem in much of the fMRI literature. I also appreciate that the authors emphasized replicability across multiple memory tasks, in an effort to demonstrate conserved or fundamental mechanisms that support a diversity of cognitive processes. However, I believe that their strong claims regarding causal influences within circumscribed brain networks cannot be supported by the evidence as presented. In my efforts to clearly communicate these inadequacies, I will suggest several potential analyses for the authors to consider that might better link the data to their central hypotheses.

(1) As a general principle, the effects that the authors show - both in regards to their high-gamma power analysis and PTE analysis - do not offer sufficient specificity for a reader to understand whether these are general effects that may be repeated throughout the brain, or whether they reflect unique activity to the networks/regions that are laid out in the Introduction's hypothesis. This lack of specificity manifests in several ways, and is best communicated through examples of control analyses.

First, the PTE analysis is focused solely on the AI's interactions with nodes of the DMN and FPN; while it makes sense to focus on this putative "switch" region, the fact that the authors report significant PTE from the AI to nodes of both networks, in encoding and retrieval, across all tasks and (crucially) also at baseline, raises questions about the meaningfulness of this statistic. One way to address this concern would be to select a control region that would be expected to have little/no directed causal influence on these networks and repeat the analysis. Alternatively (or additionally), the authors could examine the time course of PTE as it evolves throughout an encoding/retrieval interval, and relate that to the timing of behavioral events or changes in high-gamma power. This would directly address an important idea raised in their own Discussion, "the AI is well-positioned to dynamically engage and disengage with other brain areas."

Second, the authors state that high-gamma suppression in the PCC/precuneus relative to the AI is an anatomically specific signature that is not present in the FPN. This claim does not seem to be supported by their own evidence as presented in the Supplemental Data (Figures S2 and S3), which to my eye show clear evidence of relative suppression in the MFG and dPPC (e.g. S2a and S3a, most notably) which are notated as "significant" with green bars. I appreciate that the magnitude of this effect may be greater in the PCC/precuneus, but if this is the claim it should be supported by appropriate statistics and interpretation.

(2) I commend the authors on emphasizing replicability, but I found their Bayes Factor (BF) analysis to be difficult to interpret and qualitatively inconsistent with the results that they show. For example, the authors state that BF analysis demonstrates "high replicability" of the gamma suppression effect in Figure 3a with that of 3c and 3d. While it does appear that significant effects exist across all three tasks, the temporal structure of high gamma signals appears markedly different between the two in ways that may be biologically meaningful. Moreover, it appears that the BF analysis did not support replicability between VFR and CATVFR, which is very surprising; these are essentially the same tasks (merely differing in the presence of word categories) and would be expected to have the highest degree of concordance, not the lowest. I would suggest the authors try to analytically or conceptually reconcile this surprising finding.

To aid in interpretability, it would be extremely helpful for the authors to assess across-task similarity in high-gamma power on a within-subject basis, which they are well-powered to do. For example, could they report the correlation coefficient between HGP timecourses in paired-associates versus free-recall tasks, to better establish whether these effects are consistent on a within-subject basis? This idea could similarly be extended to the PTE analysis. Across-subject correlations would also be a welcome analysis that may provide readers with better-contextualized effect sizes than the output of a Bayes Factor analysis.