Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Disruption of the nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) de novo Synthesis Pathway, by which L-tryptophan is converted to NAD results in multi-organ malformations which collectively has been termed Congenital NAD Deficiency Disorder (CNDD).

While NAD de novo synthesis is primarily active in the liver postnatally, the site of activity prior to and during organogenesis is unknown. However, mouse embryos are susceptible to CNDD between E7.5-E12.5, before the embryo has developed a functional liver. Therefore, NAD de novo synthesis is likely active in another cell or tissue during this time window of susceptibility.

The body of work presented in this paper continues the corresponding author's labs investigation of the cause and effects of NAD Deficiency and the primary goal was to determine the cell or tissue responsible for NAD de novo synthesis during early embryogenesis.

The authors conclude that visceral yolk sac endoderm is the source of NAD de novo synthesis, which is essential for mouse embryonic development, and furthermore that the dynamics of NAD synthesis are conserved in human equivalent cells and tissues, the perturbation of which results in CNDD.

Strengths:

Overall, the primary findings regarding the source of NAD synthesis, the temporal requirement and conservation between rodent and human species is quite novel and important for our understanding of NAD synthesis and function and role in CNDD.

The authors used UHPLC-MS/MS to quantify NAD+ and NAD-related metabolites and showed convincingly that the NAD salvage pathway can compensate for the loss of NAD synthesis in Haao-/- embryos, then determined that Haao activity was present in the yolk sac prior to hepatic development identifying this organ as the site of de novo NAD synthesis. Dietary modulation between E7.5-10.5 was sufficient to induce CNDD phenotypes, narrowing the window of susceptibility, and then re-analysis of RNA-seq datasets suggested the endoderm was the cell source of NAD synthesis.

Weaknesses:

Page 4 and Table S4. The descriptors for malformations of organs such as the kidney and vertebrae are quite vague and uninformative. More specific details are required to convey the type and range of anomalies observed as a consequence of NAD deficiency.

Can the authors define whether the role for the NAD pathway in a couple of tissue or organ systems is the same. By this I mean is the molecular or cellular effect of NAD deficiency the same in the vertebrae and organs such as the kidney. What unifies the effects on these specific tissues and organs and are all tissues and organs affected. If some are not, can the authors explain why they escape the need for the NAD pathway.

Page 5 and Figure 6C. The expectation and conclusion for whether specific genes are expressed in particular cell types in scRNA-seq datasets depends on number of cells sequenced, the technology (methodology) used, the depth of sequencing and also the resolution of the analysis. It is therefore essential to perform secondary validation of the analysis of scRNA-seq data. At a minimum, the authors should perform in situ hybridization or immunostaining for Tdo2, Afmid, Kmo, Kynu, Haao, Qprt and Nadsyn1 or some combination thereof at multiple time points during early mouse embryogenesis to truly understand the spatiotemporal dynamics of expression and NAD synthesis.

Absolute functional proof of the yolk sac endoderm as being essential and required for NAD synthesis in the context of CNDD might require conditional deletion of Haao in the yolk sac versus embryo using appropriate Cre driver lines or in the absence of a conditional allele, could be performed by tetraploid embryo-ES cell complementation approaches. But temporal dietary intervention can also approximate the same thing by perturbing NAD synthesis then the yolk sac is the primary source versus when the liver becomes the primary source in the embryo.

In further revisions, the authors have added data to Supp Table 4 and Supplemental Figures 1 and 2

Although the authors did not perform in situ hybridization for some of the genes requested to define the critical cell type of expression, available scRNA-sequencing suggests the yolk sac endoderm are the only likely source of NAD synthesis prior to its synthesis in the liver. Absolute functional proof of the yolk sac endoderm as being essential and required for NAD synthesis in the context of CNDD still requires validation but nonetheless it seems likely given the absence of a functional liver in embryos prior to E12.5. The authors provided some additional data pertaining to the type of kidney and vertebral anomalies observed which makes this data more complete.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this paper by Brickwedde et al., the authors observe an increase in posterior alpha when anticipating auditory as opposed to visual targets. The authors also observe an enhancement in both visual and auditory steady-state sensory evoked potentials in anticipation of auditory targets, in correlation with enhanced occipital alpha. The authors conclude that alpha does not reflect inhibition of early sensory processing, but rather orchestrates signal transmission to later stages of the sensory processing stream. However, there are several major concerns that need to be addressed in order to draw this conclusion.

First, I am not convinced that the frequency tagging method and the associated analyses are adequate for dissociating visual vs auditory steady-state sensory evoked potentials.

Second, if the authors want to propose a general revision for the function of alpha, it would be important to show that alpha effects in the visual cortex for visual perception are analogous to alpha effects in the auditory cortex for auditory perception.

Third, the authors propose an alternative function for alpha - that alpha orchestrates signal transmission to later stages of the sensory processing stream. However, the supporting evidence for this alternative function is lacking. I will elaborate on these major concerns below.

(1) Potential bleed-over across frequencies in the spectral domain is a major concern for all of the results in this paper. The fact that alpha power, 36Hz and 40Hz frequency-tagged amplitude and 4Hz intermodulation frequency power is generally correlated with one another amplifies this concern. The authors are attaching specific meaning to each of these frequencies, but perhaps there is simply a broadband increase in neural activity when anticipating an auditory target compared to a visual target?

(2) Moreover, 36Hz visual and 40Hz auditory signals are expected to be filtered in the neocortex. Applying standard filters and Hilbert transform to estimate sensory evoked potentials appears to rely on huge assumptions that are not fully substantiated in this paper. In Figure 4, 36Hz "visual" and 40Hz "auditory" signals seem largely indistinguishable from one another, suggesting that the analysis failed to fully demix these signals.

(3) The asymmetric results in the visual and auditory modalities preclude a modality-general conclusion about the function of alpha. However, much of the language seems to generalize across sensory modalities (e.g., use of the term 'sensory' rather than 'visual').

(4) In this vein, some of the conclusions would be far more convincing if there was at least a trend towards symmetry in source-localized analyses of MEG signals. For example, how does alpha power in the primary auditory cortex (A1) compare when anticipating auditory vs visual target? What do the frequency-tagged visual and auditory responses look like when just looking at the primary visual cortex (V1) or A1?

(5) Blinking would have a huge impact on the subject's ability to ignore the visual distractor. The best thing to do would be to exclude from analysis all trials where the subjects blinked during the cue-to-target interval. The authors mention that in the MEG experiment, "To remove blinks, trials with very large eye-movements (> 10 degrees of visual angle) were removed from the data (See supplement Fig. 5)." This sentence needs to be clarified since eye-movements cannot be measured during blinking. In addition, it seems possible to remove putative blink trials from EEG experiments as well, since blinks can be detected in the EEG signals.

(6) It would be interesting to examine the neutral cue trials in this task. For example, comparing auditory vs visual vs neutral cue conditions would be indicative of whether alpha was actively recruited or actively suppressed. In addition, comparing spectral activity during cue-to-target period on neutral-cue auditory correct vs incorrect trials should mimic the comparison of auditory-cue vs visual-cue trials. Likewise, neutral-cue visual correct vs incorrect trials should mimic the attention-related differences in visual-cue vs auditory-cue trials.

(7) In the abstract, the authors state that "This implies that alpha modulation does not solely regulate 'gain control' in early sensory areas but rather orchestrates signal transmission to later stages of the processing stream." However, I don't see any supporting evidence for the latter claim, that alpha orchestrates signal transmission to later stages of the processing stream. If the authors are claiming an alternative function to alpha, this claim should be strongly substantiated.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Brickwedde et al. investigate the role of alpha oscillations in allocating intermodal attention. A first EEG study is followed up with a MEG study that largely replicates the pattern of results (with small to be expected differences). They conclude that a brief increase in the amplitude of auditory and visual stimulus-driven continuous (steady-state) brain responses prior to the presentation of an auditory - but not visual - target speaks to the modulating role of alpha that leads them to revise a prevalent model of gating-by-inhibition.

Overall, this is an interesting study on a timely question, conducted with methods and analysis that are state-of-the-art. I am particularly impressed by the author's decision to replicate the earlier EEG experiment in MEG following the reviewer's comments on the original submission. Evidently, great care was taken to accommodate the reviewer's suggestions.

Nevertheless, I am struggling with the report for two main reasons: It is difficult to follow the rationale of the study, due to structural issues with the narrative and missing information or justifications for design and analysis decisions, and I am not convinced that the evidence is strong, or even relevant enough for revising the mentioned alpha inhibition theory. Both points are detailed further below.

Strength/relevance of evidence for model revision: The main argument rests on 1) a rather sustained alpha effect following the modality cue, 2) a rather transient effect on steady-state responses just before the expected presentation of a stimulus, and 3) a correlation between those two. Wouldn't the authors expect a sustained effect on sensory processing, as measured by steady-state amplitude irrespective of which of the scenarios described in Figure 1A (original vs revised alpha inhibition theory) applies? Also, doesn't this speak to the role of expectation effects due to consistent stimulus timing? An alternative explanation for the results may look like this: Modality-general increased steady-state responses prior to the expected audio stimulus onset are due to increased attention/vigilance. This effect may be exclusive (or more pronounced) in the attend-audio condition due to higher precision in temporal processing in the auditory sense or, vice versa, too smeared in time due to the inferior temporal resolution of visual processing for the attend-vision condition to be picked up consistently. As expectation effects will build up over the course of the experiment, i.e., while the participant is learning about the consistent stimulus timing, the correlation with alpha power may then be explained by a similar but potentially unrelated increase in alpha power over time.

Structural issues with the narrative and missing information: Here, I am mostly concerned with how this makes the research difficult to access for the reader. I list the major points below:

In the introduction the authors pit the original idea about alpha's role in gating against some recent contradictory results. If it's the aim of the study to provide evidence for either/or, predictions for the results from each perspective are missing. Also, it remains unclear how this relates to the distinction between original vs revised alpha inhibition theory (Fig. 1A). Relatedly if this revision is an outcome rather than a postulation for this study, it shouldn't be featured in the first figure.

The analysis of the intermodulation frequency makes a surprise entrance at the end of the Results section without an introduction as to its relevance for the study. This is provided only in the discussion, but with reference to multisensory integration, whereas the main focus of the study is focussed attention on one sense. (Relatedly, the reference to "theta oscillations" in this sections seems unclear without a reference to the overlapping frequency range, and potentially more explanation.) Overall, if there's no immediate relevance to this analysis, I would suggest removing it.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Brickwedde et al. attempt to clarify the role of alpha in sensory gain modulation by exploring the relationship between attention-related changes in alpha and attention-related changes in sensory-evoked responses, which surprisingly few studies have examined given the prevalence of the alpha inhibition hypothesis. The authors use robust methods and provide novel evidence that alpha likely exhibits inhibitory control over later processing, as opposed to early sensory processing, by providing source-localization data in a cross-modal attention task.

This paper seems very strong, particularly given that the follow-up MEG study both (a) clarifies the task design and separates the effect of distractor stimuli into other experimental blocks, and (b) provides source-localization data to more concretely address whether alpha inhibition is occurring at or after the level of sensory processing, and (c) replicates most of the EEG study's key findings.

There are some points that would be helpful to address to bolster the paper. First, the introduction would benefit from a somewhat deeper review of the literature, not just reviewing when the effects of alpha seem to occur, but also addressing how the effect can change depending on task and stimulus design (see review by Morrow, Elias & Samaha (2023). Additionally, the discussion could benefit from more cautionary language around the revision of the alpha inhibition account. For example, it would be helpful to address some of the possible discrepancies between alpha and SSEP measures in terms of temporal specificity, SNR, etc. (see Peylo, Hilla, & Sauseng, 2021). The authors do a good job speculating as to why they found differing results from previous cross-modal attention studies, but I'm also curious whether the authors think that alpha inhibition/modulation of sensory signals would have been different had the distractors been within the same modality or whether the cues indicated target location, rather than just modality, as has been the case in so much prior work?

Overall, the analyses and discussion are quite comprehensive, and I believe this paper to be an excellent contribution to the alpha-inhibition literature.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors explore associations between plasma metabolites and glaucoma, a primary cause of irreversible vision loss worldwide. The study relies on measurements of 168 plasma metabolites in 4,658 glaucoma patients and 113,040 controls from the UK Biobank. The authors show that metabolites improve the prediction of glaucoma risk based on polygenic risk score (PRS) alone, albeit weakly. The authors also report a "metabolomic signature" that is associated with a reduced risk (or "resilience") for developing glaucoma among individuals in the highest PRS decile (reduction of risk by an estimated 29%). The authors highlight the protective effect of pyruvate, a product of glycolysis, for glaucoma development and show that this molecule mitigates elevated intraocular pressure and optic nerve damage in a mouse model of this disease.

Strengths:

This work provides additional evidence that glycolysis may play a role in the pathophysiology of glaucoma. Previous studies have demonstrated the existence of an inverse relationship between intraocular pressure and retinal pyruvate levels in animal models (Hader et al. 2020, PNAS 117(52)) and pyruvate supplementation is currently being explored for neuro-enhancement in patients with glaucoma (De Moraes et al. 2022, JAMA Ophthalmology 140(1)). The study design is rigorous and relies on validated, standard methods. Additional insights gained from a mouse model are valuable.

Weaknesses:

Caution is warranted when examining and interpreting the results of this study. Among all participants (cases and controls) glaucoma status was self-reported, determined on the basis of ICD codes or previous glaucoma laser/surgical therapy. This is problematic as it is not uncommon for individuals in the highest PRS decile to have undiagnosed glaucoma (as shown in previous work by some of the authors of this article). The authors acknowledge a "relatively low glaucoma prevalence in the highest decile group" but do not explore how undiagnosed glaucoma may affect their results. This also applies to all controls selected for this study. The authors state that "50 to 70% of people affected [with glaucoma] remain undiagnosed". Therefore, the absence of self-reported glaucoma does not necessarily indicate that the disease is not present. Validation of the findings from this study in humans is, therefore, critical. This should ideally be performed in a well-characterized glaucoma cohort, in which case and control status has been assessed by qualified clinicians.

The authors indicate that within the top decile of PRS participants with glaucoma are more likely to be of white ethnicity, while they are more likely to be of Black and Asian ethnicity if they are in the bottom half of PRS. Have the authors explored how sensitive their predictions are to ethnicity? Since their cohort is predominantly of European ancestry (85.8%), would it make sense to exclude other ethnicities to increase the homogeneity of the cohort and reduce the risk for confounders that may not be explicitly accounted for?

The authors discuss the importance of pyruvate, and lactate for retinal ganglion cell survival, along with that of several lipoproteins for neuroprotection. However, there is a distinction to be made between locally produced/available glycolysis end products and lipoproteins and those circulating in the blood. It may be useful to discuss this in the manuscript, and for the authors to explore if plasma metabolites may be linked to metabolism that takes place past the blood-retinal barrier.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have used the UK Biobank data to interrogate the association between plasma metabolites and glaucoma.

(1) They initially assessed plasma metabolites as predictors of glaucoma: The addition of NMR-derived metabolomic data to existing models containing clinical and genetic data was marginal.

(2) They then determined whether certain metabolites might protect against glaucoma in individuals at high genetic risk: Certain molecules in bioenergetic pathways (lactate, pyruvate, and citrate) conferred protection.

(3) They provide support for protection conferred by pyruvate in a murine model.

Strengths:

(1) The huge sample size supports a powerful statistical analysis and the opportunity for the inclusion of multiple covariates and interactions without overfitting the models.

(2) The authors have constructed a robust methodology and statistical design.

(3) The manuscript is well written, and the study is logically presented.

(4) The figures are of good quality.

(5) Broadly, the conclusions are justified by the findings.

Weaknesses:

(1) Although it is an invaluable treasure trove of data, selection bias and self-reporting are inescapable problems when using the UK Biobank data for glaucoma research. The high-impact glaucoma-related GWAS publications (references 26 and 27) referenced in support of the method suffer the same limitations. This doesn't negate the conclusions but must be taken into consideration. The authors might note that it is somewhat reassuring that the proportion of glaucoma cases (4%) is close to what would be expected in a population-based study of 40-69-year-olds of predominantly white ethnicity.

(2) As noted by the authors, a limitation is the predominantly white ethnicity profile that comprises the UK Biobank.

(3) Also as noted by the authors, the study is cross-sectional and is limited by the "correlation does not imply causation" issue.

(4) The optimal collection, transport, and processing of the samples for NMR metabolite analysis is critical for accurate results. Strict policies were in place for these procedures, but deviations from protocol remain an unknown influence on the data.

(5) In addition, all UK Biobank blood samples had unintended dilution during the initial sample storage process at UK Biobank facilities. (Julkunen, H. et al. Atlas of plasma NMR biomarkers for health and disease in 118,461 individuals from the UK Biobank. Nat Commun 14, 604 (2023) Samples from aliquot 3, used for the NMR measurements, suffered from 5-10% dilution. (Allen, Naomi E., et al. Wellcome Open Research 5 (2021): 222.) Julkunen et al. report that "The dilution is believed to come from mixing of participant samples with water due to seals that failed to hold a system vacuum in the automated liquid handling systems. While this issue is likely to have an impact on some of the absolute biomarker concentration values, it is expected to have limited impact on most epidemiological analyses."

Impact:

The findings advance personalized prognostics for glaucoma that combine metabolomic and genetic data. In addition, the protective effect of certain metabolites influences further research on novel therapeutic strategies.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study addresses how faces and bodies are integrated in two STS face areas revealed by fMRI in the primate brain. It builds upon recordings and analysis of the responses of large populations of neurons to three sets of images, that vary face and body positions. These sets allowed the authors to thoroughly investigate invariance to position on the screen (MC HC), to pose (P1 P2), to rotation (0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315), to inversion, to possible and impossible postures (all vs straight), to the presentation of head and body together or in isolation. By analyzing neuronal responses, they found that different neurons showed preferences for body orientation, head orientation, or the interaction between the two. By using a linear support vector machine classifier, they show that the neuronal population can decode head-body angle presented across orientations, in the anterior aSTS patch (but not middle mSTS patch), except for mirror orientation.

Strengths:

These results extend prior work on the role of Anterior STS fundus face area in face-body integration and its invariance to mirror symmetry, with a rigorous set of stimuli revealing the workings of these neuronal populations in processing individuals as a whole, in an important series of carefully designed conditions.

Minor issues and questions that could be addressed by the authors:

(1) Methods. While monkeys certainly infer/recognize that individual pictures refer to the same pose with varying orientations based on prior studies (Wang et al.), I am wondering whether in this study monkeys saw a full rotation of each of the monkey poses as a video before seeing the individual pictures of the different orientations, during recordings.

(2) Experiment 1. The authors mention that neurons are preselected as face-selective, body-selective, or both-selective. Do the Monkey Sum Index and ANOVA main effects change per Neuron type?

(3) I might have missed this information, but the correlation between P1 and P2 seems to not be tested although they carry similar behavioral relevance in terms of where attention is allocated and where the body is facing for each given head-body orientation.

(4) Is the invariance for position HC-MC larger in aSTS neurons compared to mSTS neurons, as could be expected from their larger receptive fields?

(5) L492 "The body-inversion effect likely results from greater exposure to upright than inverted bodies during development". Monkeys display more hanging upside-down behavior than humans, however, does the head appear more tilted in these natural configurations?

(6) Methods in Experiment 1. SVM. How many neurons are sufficient to decode the orientation?

(7) Figure 3D 3E. Could the authors please indicate for each of these neurons whether they show a main effect of face, body, or interaction, as well as their median corrected correlation to get a flavor of these numbers for these examples?

(8) Methods and Figure 1A. It could be informative to precise whether the recordings are carried in the lateral part of the STS or in the fundus of the STS both for aSTS and mSTS for comparison to other studies that are using these distinctions (AF, AL, MF, ML).

Wang, G., Obama, S., Yamashita, W. et al. Prior experience of rotation is not required for recognizing objects seen from different angles. Nat Neurosci 8, 1768-1775 (2005). https://doi-org.insb.bib.cnrs.fr/10.1038/nn1600

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper investigates the neuronal encoding of the relationship between head and body orientations in the brain. Specifically, the authors focus on the angular relationship between the head and body by employing virtual avatars. Neuronal responses were recorded electrophysiologically from two fMRI-defined areas in the superior temporal sulcus and analyzed using decoding methods. They found that: (1) anterior STS neurons encode head-body angle configurations; (2) these neurons distinguish aligned and opposite head-body configurations effectively, whereas mirror-symmetric configurations are more difficult to differentiate; and (3) an upside-down inversion diminishes the encoding of head-body angles. These findings advance our understanding of how visual perception of individuals is mediated, providing a fundamental clue as to how the primate brain processes the relationship between head and body - a process that is crucial for social communication.

Strengths:

The paper is clearly written, and the experimental design is thoughtfully constructed and detailed. The use of electrophysiological recordings from fMRI-defined areas elucidated the mechanism of head-body angle encoding at the level of local neuronal populations. Multiple experiments, control conditions, and detailed analyses thoroughly examined various factors that could affect the decoding results. The decoding methods effectively and consistently revealed the encoding of head-body angles in the anterior STS neurons. Consequently, this study offers valuable insights into the neuronal mechanisms underlying our capacity to integrate head and body cues for social cognition-a topic that is likely to captivate readers in this field.

Weaknesses:

I did not identify any major weaknesses in this paper; I only have a few minor comments and suggestions to enhance clarity and further strengthen the manuscript, as detailed in the Private Recommendations section.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Zafirova et al. investigated the interaction of head and body orientation in the macaque superior temporal sulcus (STS). Combining fMRI and electrophysiology, they recorded responses of visual neurons to a monkey avatar with varying head and body orientations. They found that STS neurons integrate head and body information in a nonlinear way, showing selectivity for specific combinations of head-body orientations. Head-body configuration angles can be reliably decoded, particularly for neurons in the anterior STS. Furthermore, body inversion resulted in reduced decoding of head-body configuration angles. Compared to previous work that examined face or body alone, this study demonstrates how head and body information are integrated to compute a socially meaningful signal.

Strengths:

This work presents an elegant design of visual stimuli, with a monkey avatar of varying head and body orientations, making the analysis and interpretation straightforward. Together with several control experiments, the authors systematically investigated different aspects of head-body integration in the macaque STS. The results and analyses of the paper are mostly convincing.

Weaknesses:

(1) Using ANOVA, the authors demonstrate the existence of nonlinear interactions between head and body orientations. While this is a conventional way of identifying nonlinear interactions, it does not specify the exact type of the interaction. Although the computation of the head-body configuration angle requires some nonlinearity, it's unclear whether these interactions actually contribute. Figure 3 shows some example neurons, but a more detailed analysis is needed to reveal the diversity of the interactions. One suggestion would be to examine the relationship between the presence of an interaction and the neural encoding of the configuration angle.

(2) Figure 4 of the paper shows a better decoding of the configuration angle in the anterior STS than in the middle STS. This is an interesting result, suggesting a transformation in the neural representation between these two areas. However, some control analyses are needed to further elucidate the nature of this transformation. For example, what about the decoding of head and body orientations - dose absolute orientation information decrease along the hierarchy, accompanying the increase in configuration information?

(3) While this work has characterized the neural integration of head and body information in detail, it's unclear how the neural representation relates to the animal's perception. Behavioural experiments using the same set of stimuli could help address this question, but I agree that these additional experiments may be beyond the scope of the current paper. I think the authors should at least discuss the potential outcomes of such experiments, which can be tested in future studies.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors describe a new computational method (SegPore), which segments the raw signal from nanopore-direct RNA-Seq data to improve the identification of RNA modifications. In addition to signal segmentation, SegPore includes a Gaussian Mixture Model approach to differentiate modified and unmodified bases. SegPore uses Nanopolish to define a first segmentation, which is then refined into base and transition blocks. SegPore also includes a modification prediction model that is included in the output. The authors evaluate the segmentation in comparison to Nanopolish and Tombo, and they evaluate the impact on m6A RNA modification detection using data with known m6A sites. In comparison to existing methods, SegPore appears to improve the ability to detect m6A, suggesting that this approach could be used to improve the analysis of direct RNA-Seq data.

Strengths:

SegPore addresses an important problem (signal data segmentation). By refining the signal into transition and base blocks, noise appears to be reduced, leading to improved m6A identification at the site level as well as for single-read predictions. The authors provide a fully documented implementation, including a GPU version that reduces run time. The authors provide a detailed methods description, and the approach to refine segments appears to be new.

Weaknesses:

In addition to Nanopolish and Tombo, f5c and Uncalled4 can also be used for segmentation, however, the comparison to these methods is not shown. The overall improvement in accuracy appears to be relatively small. The run time and resources that are required to run SegPore are not shown, however, it appears that the GPU version is essential, which could limit the application of this method in practice. The method was only applied to data from the RNA002 direct RNA-Sequencing version, which is not available anymore, currently, it remains unclear if the methods still work on RNA004.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The work seeks to improve the detection of RNA m6A modifications using Nanopore sequencing through improvements in raw data analysis. These improvements are said to be in the segmentation of the raw data, although the work appears to position the alignment of raw data to the reference sequence and some further processing as part of the segmentation, and result statistics are mostly shown on the 'data-assigned-to-kmer' level.

As such, the title, abstract, and introduction stating the improvement of just the 'segmentation' does not seem to match the work the manuscript actually presents, as the wording seems a bit too limited for the work involved.

The work itself shows minor improvements in m6Anet when replacing Nanopolish eventalign with this new approach, but clear improvements in the distributions of data assigned per kmer. However, these assignments were improved well enough to enable m6A calling from them directly, both at site-level and at read-level.

Strengths:

A large part of the improvements shown appear to stem from the addition of extra, non-base/kmer specific, states in the segmentation/assignment of the raw data, removing a significant portion of what can be considered technical noise for further analysis. Previous methods enforced the assignment of all raw data, forcing a technically optimal alignment that may lead to suboptimal results in downstream processing as data points could be assigned to neighbouring kmers instead, while random noise that is assigned to the correct kmer may also lead to errors in modification detection.

For an optimal alignment between the raw signal and the reference sequence, this approach may yield improvements for downstream processing using other tools.<br /> Additionally, the GMM used for calling the m6A modifications provides a useful, simple, and understandable logic to explain the reason a modification was called, as opposed to the black models that are nowadays often employed for these types of tasks.

Weaknesses:

The work seems limited in applicability largely due to the focus on the R9's 5mer models. The R9 flow cells are phased out and not available to buy anymore. Instead, the R10 flow cells with larger kmer models are the new standard, and the applicability of this tool on such data is not shown. We may expect similar behaviour from the raw sequencing data where the noise and transition states are still helpful, but the increased kmer size introduces a large amount of extra computing required to process data and without knowledge of how SegPore scales, it is difficult to tell how useful it will really be. The discussion suggests possible accuracy improvements moving to 7mers or 9mers, but no reason why this was not attempted.

The manuscript suggests the eventalign results are improved compared to Nanopolish. While this is believably shown to be true (Table 1), the effect on the use case presented, downstream differentiation between modified and unmodified status on a base/kmer, is likely limited as during actual modification calling the noisy distributions are usually 'good enough', and not skewed significantly in one direction to really affect the results too terribly.

Furthermore, looking at alternative approaches where this kind of segmentation could be applied, Nanopolish uses the main segmentation+alignment for a first alignment and follows up with a form of targeted local realignment/HMM test for modification calling (and for training too), decreasing the need for the near-perfect segmentation+alignment this work attempts to provide. Any tool applying a similar strategy probably largely negates the problems this manuscript aims to improve upon.

Finally, in the segmentation/alignment comparison to Nanopolish, the latter was not fitted(/trained) on the same data but appears to use the pre-trained model it comes with. For the sake of comparing segmentation/alignment quality directly, fitting Nanopolish on the same data used for SegPore could remove the influences of using different training datasets and focus on differences stemming from the algorithm itself.

Appraisal:

The authors have shown their method's ability to identify noise in the raw signal and remove their values from the segmentation and alignment, reducing its influences for further analyses. Figures directly comparing the values per kmer do show a visibly improved assignment of raw data per kmer. As a replacement for Nanopolish eventalign it seems to have a rather limited, but improved effect, on m6Anet results. At the single read level modification modification calling this work does appear to improve upon CHEUI.

Impact:

With the current developments for Nanopore-based modification largely focusing on Artificial Intelligence, Neural Networks, and the like, improvements made in interpretable approaches provide an important alternative that enables a deeper understanding of the data rather than providing a tool that plainly answers the question of whether a base is modified or not, without further explanation. The work presented is best viewed in the context of a workflow where one aims to get an optimal alignment between raw signal data and the reference base sequence for further processing. For example, as presented, as a possible replacement for Nanopolish eventalign. Here it might enable data exploration and downstream modification calling without the need for local realignments or other approaches that re-consider the distribution of raw data around the target motif, such as a 'local' Hidden Markov Model or Neural Networks. These possibilities are useful for a deeper understanding of the data and further tool development for modification detection works beyond m6A calling.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Nucleotide modifications are important regulators of biological function, however, until recently, their study has been limited by the availability of appropriate analytical methods. Oxford Nanopore direct RNA sequencing preserves nucleotide modifications, permitting their study, however, many different nucleotide modifications lack an available base-caller to accurately identify them. Furthermore, existing tools are computationally intensive, and their results can be difficult to interpret.

Cheng et al. present SegPore, a method designed to improve the segmentation of direct RNA sequencing data and boost the accuracy of modified base detection.

Strengths:

This method is well-described and has been benchmarked against a range of publicly available base callers that have been designed to detect modified nucleotides.

Weaknesses:

However, the manuscript has a significant drawback in its current version. The most recent nanopore RNA base callers can distinguish between different ribonucleotide modifications, however, SegPore has not been benchmarked against these models.

I recommend that re-submission of the manuscript that includes benchmarking against the rna004_130bps_hac@v5.1.0 and rna004_130bps_sup@v5.1.0 dorado models, which are reported to detect m5C, m6A_DRACH, inosine_m6A and PseU.

A clear demonstration that SegPore also outperforms the newer RNA base caller models will confirm the utility of this method.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Insects inhabit diverse environments and have neuroanatomical structures appropriate to each habitat. Although the molecular mechanism of insect neural development has been mainly studied in Drosophila, the beetle, Tribolium castaneum has been introduced as another model to understand the differences and similarities in the process of insect neural development. In this manuscript, the authors focused on the origin of the central complex. In Drosophila, type II neuroblasts have been known as the origin of the central complex. Then, the authors tried to identify those cells in the beetle brain. They established a Tribolium fez enhancer trap line to visualize putative type II neuroblasts and successfully identified 9 of those cells. In addition, they also examined expression patterns of several genes that are known to be expressed in the type II neuroblasts or their lineage in Drosophila. They concluded that the putative type II neuroblasts they identified were type II neuroblasts because those cells showed characteristics of type II neuroblasts in terms of genetic codes, cell diameter, and cell lineage.

Strengths:

The authors established a useful enhancer trap line to visualize type II neuroblasts in Tribolium embryos. Using this tool, they have identified that there are 9 type II neuroblasts in the brain hemisphere during embryonic development. Since the enhancer trap line also visualized the lineage of those cells, the authors found that the lineage size of the type II neuroblasts in the beetle is larger than that in the fly. They also showed that several genetic markers are also expressed in the type II neuroblasts and their lineages as observed in Drosophila.

Comments on revisions:

The revisions have improved the manuscript greatly. However, I still have some concerns about the lack of examination of the expression of NB markers. Without examining the expression of at least one unequivocal neuroblast marker, no one can say confidently that it is a neuroblast. However, it is acknowledged that such a marker is currently not available for Tribolium.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The authors address the question of differences in the development of the central complex (Cx), a brain structure mainly controlling spatial orientation and locomotion in insects, which can be traced back to the neuroblast lineages that produce the Cx structure. The lineages are called type-II neuroblast (NB) lineages and assumed to be conserved in insects. While Tribolium castaneum produces a functional larval Cx that only consists of one part of the adult Cx structure, the fan-shaped body, in Drosophila melanogaster a non-functional neuropile primordium is formed by neurons produced by the embryonic type-II NBs which then enter a dormant state and continue development in late larval and pupal stages.

The authors present a meticulous study demonstrating that type-II neuroblast (NB) lineages are indeed present in the developing brain of Tribolium castaneum. In contrast to type-I NB lineages, type-II NBs produce additional intermediate progenitors. The authors generate a fluorescent enhancer trap line called fez/earmuff which prominently labels the mushroom bodies but also the intermediate progenitors (INPs) of the type-II NB lineages. This is convincingly demonstrated by high resolution images that show cellular staining next to large pointed labelled cells, a marker for type-II NBs in Drosophila melanogaster. Using these and other markers (e.g. deadpan, asense), the authors show that the cell type composition and embryonic development of the type-II NB lineages are similar to their counterparts in Drosophila melanogaster. Furthermore, the expression of the Drosophila type-II NB lineage markers six3 and six4 in subsets of the Tribolium type-II NB lineages (anterior 1-4 and 1-6 type-II NB lineages) and the expression of the Cx marker skh in the distal part of most of the lineages provide further evidence that the identified NB lineages are equivalent to the Drosophila lineages that establish the central complex. However, in contrast to Drosophila, there are 9 instead of 8 embryonic type-II NB lineages per brain hemisphere and the lineages contain more progenitor cells compared to the Drosophila lineages. The authors argue that the higher number of dividing progenitor cells supports the earlier development of a functional Cx in Tribolium.

While the manuscript clearly shows that type-II NB lineages similar to Drosophila exist in Tribolium, it does not establish a direct link between the characteristics of these lineages and a functional larval Cx in Tribolium, i.e., it does not identify the cause of the heterochronic development of the Cx in these insects. However, the detailed study lays the foundation for lineage tracing and gene function experiments that will elucidate if the higher number of Tribolium type-II NB lineage progenitors, the additional lineage and the timing of developmental progression of the progenitors can indeed be linked with the earlier function of the Cx and/or if other components are required for establishing the functional larval neural circuits in Tribolium such as e.g. larval born neurons as is the case in Drosophila.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper, Rethemeier et al capitalize on their previous observation that the beetle central complex develops heterochronically compared to the fly and try to identify the developmental origin of this difference. For this reason, they use a fez enhancer trap line that they generated to study the neuronal stem cells (INPs) that give rise to the central complex. Using this line and staining against Drosophila type-II neuroblast markers, they elegantly dissect the number of developmental progression of the beetle type II neuroblasts. They show that the NBs, INPs, and GMCs have a conserved marker progression by comparing to Drosophila marker genes, although the expression of some of the lineage markers (otd, six3, and six4) is slightly different. Finally, they show that the beetle type II neuroblasts lineages are likely longer than the equivalent ones in Drosophila and argue that this might be the underlying reason for the observed heterochrony.

Strengths:

- Very interesting study system that compares a conserved structure that, however, develops in a heterochronic manner.<br /> - Identification of a conserved molecular signature of type-II neuroblasts between beetles and flies. At the same time, identification of transcription factors expression differences in the neuroblasts, as well as identification of an extra neuroblast.<br /> - Nice detailed experiments to describe the expression of conserved and divergent marker genes, including some lineaging looking into co-expression of progenitor (fez) and neuronal (skh) markers.

Weaknesses:

- The link between size and number of neuroblast lineages and the earlier central complex development in beetles is not examined.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In the work by Scerbo et al, the authors aim to better understand the open question of what factors constrain cells that are genetically predisposed to form cancer (e.g. those with a potentially cancer-causing mutation like activated Ras) to only infrequently undergo this malignant transformation, with a focus on the influence of embryonic or pluripotency factors (e.g. VENTX/NANOG). Using genetically defined zebrafish models, the authors can inducibly express the KRASG12V oncogene using a combination of Cre/Lox transgenes further controlled by optogenetically inducible Cre-activated (CreER fusion that becomes active with light-induced uncaging of a tamoxifen-analogue in a targeted region of the zebrafish embryo). They further show that transient expression and activation of a pluripotency factor (e.g. Ventx fused to a GR receptor that is activated with addition of dexamethasone) must occur in the model in order for overgrowth of cells to occur. This paper describes a genetically tractable and modifiable system for studying the requirements for inducing cellular hyperplasia in a whole organism by combining overexpression of canonical genetic drivers of cancer (like Ras) with epigenetic modifiers (like specific transcription factors), which could be used to study an array of combinations and temporal relationships of these cancer drivers/modifiers.

Strengths:

The combination of Cre/lox inducible gene expression with potentially localized optogenetic induction (CreER and uncaging of tamoxifen analogues) of recombination as well as inducible activation of a transcription factor expressed via mRNA injection (GR-fusion to the TF and dex induction) offers a flexible system for manipulating cell growth, identity, and transcriptional programs. With this system, the authors establish that Ras activation and at least transient Ventx overexpression are together required to induce a hyperproliferative phenotype in zebrafish tissues.

The ability to live image embryos over the course of days with inducible fluorophores indicating recombination events and transgene overexpression offers a tractable in vivo system for studying hyperplastic cells in the context of a whole organism.

The transplant experiments demonstrate the ability of the induced hyperplastic cells to grow upon transfer to new host.

Weaknesses:

There is minimal quantitation of key aspects of the system, most critically in the efficiency of activation of the Ras-TFP fusion (Fig 1) in, purportedly, a single cell. The authors note "On average the oncogene is then activated in a single cell, identified within ~1h by the blue fluorescence of its nuclear marker) but no additional quantitative information is provided. For a system that is aimed at "a statistically relevant single-cell<br /> tracking and characterization of the early stages of tumorigenesis", such information seems essential.

The authors indicate that a single cell is "initiated" (Fig 2) using the laser optogenetic technique, but without definitive genetic lineage tracing, it is not possible to conclude that cells expressing TFP distant from the target site near the ear are daughter cells of the claimed single "initiated" cell. A plausible alternative explanation is 1) that the optogenetic targeting is more diffuse (i.e. some of the light of the appropriate wavelength hits other cells nearby due to reflection/diffraction), so these adjacent cells are additional independent "initiated" cells or 2) that the uncaged tamoxifen analogue can diffuse to nearby cells and allow for CreER activation and recombination. In Fig 2B, the claim is made that "the activated cell has divided, giving rise to two cells" - unless continuously imaged or genetically traced, this is unproven. In addition, it appears that Figures S3 and S4 are showing that hyperplasica can arise in many different tissues (including intestine, pancreas, and liver, S4C) with broad Ras + Ventx activation (while unclear from the text, it appears these embryos were broadly activated and were not "single cell activated using the set-up in Fig 1E? This should be clarified in the manuscript). In Fig S7 where single cell activation and potential metastasis is discussed, similar gut tissues have TFP+ cells that are called metastatic, but this seems consistent with the possibility that multiple independent sites of initiation are occurring even when focal activation is attempted.

Although the hyperplastic cells are transplantable (Fig 4), the use of the term "cells of origin of cancer" or metastatic cells should be viewed with care in the experiments showing TFP+ cells (Fig 1, 2, 3) in embryos with targeted activation for the reasons noted above.

Comments on latest version:

The authors have clarified and strengthened a number of important conclusions/claims.

In Figure 4, the requirement for both kRas and VentX activation for successful transplant and survival of transplanted activated cells does indeed support the need for both MAPK activation and the reprogramming factor. A limitation remains that, as in a tail vein injection in a mouse model, this may be a better measure of the ability of disbursed cells to survive in the embryo, and not "native" metastatic behavior as cells may just lodge in ectopic sites, and survive, but not exhibit complete metastatic potential. Still, these are interesting and important results about the combination effects of an oncogene and a reprogramming factor.

Further, the addition of Fig 2A and additional explanation in the text on the specificity of the light-induced activation of the Ras and/or VentX supports that transgene induction is indeed limited to one or a few cells. We agree that visual tracking of daughter cells over days is technically challenging and will be a revealing and exciting potential addition in the future.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study employs an optogenetics approach aimed at activating oncogene (KRASG12V) expression in a single somatic cell, with a focus on following the progression of activated cell to examine tumourigenesis probabilities under altered tissue environments. The research explores the role of stemness factors (VENTX/NANOG/OCT4) in facilitating oncogenic RAS (KRASG12V)-driven malignant transformations. Although the evidence provided is incomplete, the authors propose an important mechanism whereby reactivation of re-programming factors correlates with the increased likelihood of a mutant cell undergoing malignant transformation.

Strengths:

· Innovative Use of Optogenetics: The application of optogenetics for precise activation of KRAS in a single cell is valuable to the field of cancer biology, offering an opportunity to uncover insight into cellular responses to oncogenic mutations.<br /> · Important Observations: The findings concerning stemness factors' role in promoting oncogenic transformation are important, contributing data to the field of cancer biology.

Weaknesses:

Lack of Methodological Clarity: The manuscript lacks detailed descriptions of methodologies, making it difficult to fully evaluate the experimental design and reproducibility, rendering incomplete evidence to support the conclusion. Improving methodological transparency and data presentation will crucially strengthen the paper's contributions to understanding the complex processes of tumorigenesis.

Sub-optimal Data Presentation and Quality:<br /> The resolution of images through-out the manuscript are too low. Images presented in Figure 2 and Figure 4 are of very low resolution. It is very hard to distinguish individual cells and in which tissue they might reside.<br /> Lack of quantitative data and control condition data obtained from images of higher magnification limits the ability to robustly support the conclusions.

Here are some details:<br /> · Tissue specificity of the cells express KRASG12V oncogene: In this study, the ubiquitin promoter was used to drive oncogenic KRASG12V expression. Despite this, the authors claim to activate KRAS in a single brain cell based on their localized photo-activation strategy. However, upon reviewing the methods section, the description was provided that 'Localized uncaging was performed by illumination for 7 minutes on a Nikon Ti microscope equipped with a light source peaking at 405 nm, Figure 1. The size of the uncaging region was controlled by an iris that defines a circular illumination with a diameter of approximately 80 μm.' It is surprising that an epi-fluorescent microscope with an illumination diameter of around 80μm can induce activation in a single brain cell beneath skin tissue. Additionally, given that the half-life for mTFP maturation is around 60 minutes, it is likely that more cells from a variety of different lineages could be activated, but the fluorescence would not be visible until more than 1-hour post-illumination. Authors might want to provide more evidence to support their claim on the single cell KRAS activation.<br /> · Stability of cCYC: The manuscript does not provide information on the half-life and stability of cCYC. Understanding these properties is crucial for evaluating the system's reliability and the likelihood of leakiness, which could significantly influence the study's outcomes.<br /> · Metastatic Dissemination claim: Typically, metastatic cancer cells migrate to and proliferate within specific niches that are conducive to outgrowth, such as the caudal hematopoietic tissue (CHT) or liver. In Figure 3 A, an image showing the presence of mTFP expressing cells in both the head and tail regions of the larva, with additional positive dots located at the fin fold. This is interpreted as "metastasis" by the authors. However, the absence of supportive cellular compartment within the fin-fold tissue makes the presence of mTFP-positive metastatic cells there particularly puzzling. This distribution raises concerns about the spatial specificity of the optogenetic activation protocol.<br /> The unexpected locations of these signals suggest potential ectopic activation of the KRAS oncogene, which could be occurring alongside or instead of targeted activation. This issue is critical as it could affect the interpretation of whether the observed mTFP signal expansion over time is due to actual cell proliferation and infiltration, or merely a result of ectopic RAS transgene activation.<br /> · Image Resolution Concerns: The cells depicted in Figure 3C β, which appear to be near the surface of the yolk sac and not within the digestive system as suggested in the MS, underscore the necessity for higher-resolution imaging. Without clearer images, it is challenging to ascertain the exact locations and states of these cells, thus complicating the assessment of experimental results.<br /> · The cell transplantation experiment is lacking protocol details: The manuscript does not adequately describe the experimental protocols used for cell transplantation, particularly concerning the origin and selection of cells used for injection into individual larvae. This omission makes it difficult to evaluate the reliability and reproducibility of the results. Such as the source of transplanted cells:<br /> • If the cells are derived from hyperplastic growths in larvae where RAS and VX (presumably VENTX) were locally activated, the manuscript fails to mention any use of fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) to enrich mTFP-positive cells. Such a method would be crucial for ensuring the specificity of the cells being studied and the validity of the results.<br /> • If the cells are obtained from whole larvae with induced RAS + VX expression, it is notable and somewhat surprising that the larvae survived up to six days post-induction (6dpi) before cells were harvested for transplantation. This survival rate and the subsequent ability to obtain single cell suspensions raise questions about the heterogeneity of the RAS + VX expressing cells that transplanted.<br /> · Unclear Experimental Conditions in Figure S3B: The images in Figure S3B lack crucial details about the experimental conditions. It is not specified whether the activation of KRAS was targeted to specific cells or involved whole-body exposure. This information is essential for interpreting the scope and implications of the results accurately.<br /> · Contrasting Data in Figure S3C compared to literatures: The graph in Figure S3C indicates that KRAS or KRAS + DEX induction did not result in any form of hyperplastic growth. This observation starkly contrasts with previous literature where oncogenic KRAS expression in zebrafish led to significant hyper-proliferation and abnormal growth, as evidenced by studies such as those published in and Neoplasia (2018), DOI: 10.1016/j.neo.2018.10.002; Molecular Cancer (2015), DOI: 10.1186/s12943-015-0288-2; Disease Models & Mechanisms (2014) DOI: 10.1242/dmm.007831. The lack of expected hyperplasia raises questions about the experimental setup or the specific conditions under which KRAS was expressed. The authors should provide detailed descriptions of the conditions under which the experiments were conducted in Figure S3B and clarifying the reasons for the discrepancies observed in Figure S3C are crucial. The authors should discuss potential reasons for the deviation from previous reports.<br /> Further comments:<br /> Throughout the study, KRAS-activated cell expansion and metastasis are two key phenotypes discussed that Ventx is promoting. However, the authors did not perform any experiments to directly show that KRAS+ cells proliferate only in Ventx-activated conditions. The authors also did not show any morphological features or time-lapse videos demonstrating that KRAS+ cells are motile, even though zebrafish is an excellent model for in vivo live imaging. This seems to be a missed opportunity for providing convincing evidence to support the authors' conclusions.<br /> There were minimal experimental details provided for the qPCR data presented in the supplementary figures S5 and S6, therefore, it is hard to evaluate results obtained.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

When different groups (populations, species) are presented with similar environmental pressures, how similar are the ultimate targets (genes, pathways)? This study sought to illuminate this broader question via experimental evolution in D. simulans and quantifying gene-expression changes, specifically in the context of standing genetic variation (and not de novo mutation). Ultimately, the authors showed pleiotropy and standing-genetic variation play a significant role in the "predictability" of evolution.

The results of this manuscript look at the interplay between pleiotropy, standing genetic variation and parallelism (i.e. predictability of evolution) in gene expression. Ultimately, their results suggest that (a) pleiotropic genes typically have a smaller range in variation/expression, and (b) adaptation to similar environments tends to favor changes in pleiotropic genes, which leads to parallelism in mechanisms (though not dramatically). However, it is still uncertain how much parallelism is directly due to pleiotropy, instead of a complex interplay between them and ancestral variation.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Lai and collaborators use a previously published RNAseq dataset derived from an experimental evolution set up to compare the pleiotropic properties of genes which expression evolved in response to fluctuating temperature for over 100 generations. The authors correlate gene pleiotropy with the degree of parallelisms in the experimental evolution set up to ask: are genes that evolved in multiple replicates more or less pleiotropic?

They find that, maybe counter to expectation, highly pleiotropic genes show more replicated evolution. And such effect seems to be driven by direct effects (which the authors can only speculate on) and indirect effect through low variance in pleiotropic genes (which the authors indirectly link to genetic variation underlying gene expression variance).

Weaknesses:

The results offer new insights into the evolution of gene expression and into the parameters that constrain such evolution, i.e., pleiotropy. Although the conclusions are supported by the data, I find the interpretation of the results a little bit complicated.

Major comment:

The major point I ask the authors to address is whether the connection between polygenic adaptation and parallelism can indeed be used to interpret gene expression parallelism. If the answer is not, please rephrase the introduction and discussion, if the answer is yes, please make it explicit in the text why it is so.

The authors argument: parallelism in gene expression is the same as parallelism in SNP allele frequency (AFC) (see L389-383 here they don't mention that this explanation is derived from SNP parallelism and not trait parallelism, and see Fig1 b). In previous publications the authors have explained the low level of AFC parallelism using a polygenic argument. Polygenic traits can reach a new trait optimum via multiple SNPs and therefore although the trait is parallel across replicates, the SNPs are not necessarily so.

In the current paper, they seem to be exchanging SNP AFC by gene expression, and to me, those are two levels that cannot be interchanged. Gene expression is a trait, not a SNP, and therefore the fact that a gene expression doesn't replicate cannot be explained by polygenic basis, because again the trait is gene expression itself. And, actually the results of the simulations show that high polygenicity = less trait parallelism (Fig4).

Now, if the authors focus on high parallel genes (present in e.g. 7 or more replicates) and they show that the eQTLs for those genes are many (highly polygenic) and the AFC of those eQTL are not parallel, then I would agree with the interpretation. But, given that here they just assess gene expression and not eQTL AFC, I do not think they can use the 'highly polygenic = low parallelism' explanation.

The interpretation of the results to me, should be limited to: genes with low variance and high pleiotropy tend to be more parallel, and the explanation might be synergistic pleiotropy.

Comments on revisions: The authors didn't really address any of the comments made by any of the reviewers - basically nothing was changed in the main text. Therefore, I leave my original review unchanged.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The authors aim to understand how gene pleiotropy affects parallel evolutionary changes among independent replicates of adaptation to a new hot environment of a set of experimental lines of Drosophila simulans using experimental evolution. The flies were RNAsequenced after more than 100 generations of lab adaptation and the changes in average gene expression were obtained relative to ancestral expression levels from reconstructed ancestral lines. Parallelism of gene expression change among lines is evaluated as variance in differential gene expression among lines relative to error variance. Similarly, the authors ask how the standing variation in gene expression estimated from a handful of flies from a reconstructed outbred line affects parallelism. The main findings are that parallelism in gene expression responses is positively associated with pleiotropy and negatively associated with expression variation. Those results are in contradiction with theoretical predictions and empirical findings. To explain those seemingly contradictory results the authors invoke the role of synergistic pleiotropy and correlated selection, although they do not attempt to measure either.

Strengths:

The study uses highly replicated outbred laboratory lines of Drosophila simulans evolved in the lab under constant hot regime for over 100 generations. This allows for robust comparisons of evolutionary responses among lines.

The manuscript is well written and the hypotheses are clearly delineated at the onset.

The authors have run a causal analysis to understand the causal dependencies between pleiotropy and expression variation on parallelism.

The use of whole-body RNA extraction to study gene expression variation is well justified.

Weaknesses:

The accuracy of the estimate of ancestral phenotypic variation in gene expression is likely low because estimated from a small sample of 20 males from a reconstructed outbred line. It might not constitute a robust estimate of the genetic variation of the evolved lines under study.

There are no estimates of the standing genetic variation of expression levels of the genes under study, only estimates of their phenotypic variation. I wished the authors had been clear about that limitation and had refrained from equating phenotypic variation in expression level with standing genetic variation.

Moreover, since the phenotype studied is gene expression, its genetic basis extends beyond expressed sequences. The phenotypic variation of a gene's expression may thus likely misrepresent the genetic variation available for its evolution. The authors do not present evidence that sequence variation correlates with expression variation.

The authors have not attempted to estimate synergistic pleiotropy among genes, nor how selection acts on gene expression modules. It makes their conclusion regarding the role of synergistic pleiotropy rather speculative.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary

The authors conducted a study on one of the fundamental research topics in neuroscience: neural mechanisms of credit assignment. Building on the original studies of Walton and his colleagues and subsequent studies on the same topic, the authors extended the research into the delayed credit assignment problem with clever task design, which compared the non-delayed (direct) and delayed (indirect) credit assignment processes. Their primary goal was to elucidate the neural basis of these processes in humans, advancing our understanding beyond previous studies.

Major Strengths and Considerations

Strengths:

(1) Innovative task design distinguishing between direct and indirect credit assignment.<br /> (2) Use of sophisticated multivariate pattern analysis to identify neural correlates of pending representations.<br /> (3) Well-executed study with clear presentation of results.<br /> (4) Extension of previous research to human subjects, providing valuable comparative insights.

Considerations for Future Research:

(1) The task design, while clear and effective, might be further developed to capture more real-world complexity in credit assignment.<br /> (2) There's potential for deeper exploration of the role of task structure understanding in credit assignment processes.<br /> (3) The interpretation of lateral orbitofrontal cortex (lOFC) involvement could be expanded to consider its role in both credit assignment and task structure representation.

Achievement of Aims and Support of Conclusions

The authors successfully achieved their aim of investigating direct and indirect credit assignment processes in humans. Their results provide valuable insights into the neural representations involved in these processes. The study's conclusions are generally well-supported by the data, particularly in identifying neural correlates of pending representations crucial for delayed credit assignment.

Impact on the Field and Utility of Methods

This study makes a significant contribution to the field of credit assignment research by bridging animal and human studies. The methods, particularly the multivariate pattern analysis approach, provide a robust template for future investigations in this area. The data generated offers valuable insights for researchers comparing human and animal models of credit assignment, as well as those studying the neural basis of decision-making and learning.

The study's focus on the lOFC and its role in credit assignment adds to our understanding of this brain region's function

Additional Context and Future Directions

(1) Temporal ambiguity in credit assignment: While the current design provides clear task conditions, future studies could explore more ambiguous scenarios to further reflect real-world complexity.

(2) Role of task structure understanding: The difference in task comprehension between human subjects in this study and animal subjects in previous studies offers an interesting point of comparison.

(3) The authors used a sophisticated method of multivariate pattern analysis to find the neural correlate of the pending representation of the previous choice, which will be used for credit assignment process in the later trials. The authors tend to use expressions that these representations are maintained throughout this intervening period. However the analysis period is specifically at the feedback period, which is irrelevant for the credit assignment of the immediately preceding choice. This task period can interfere with the interference of ongoing credit assignment process. Thus, rather than the passive process of maintaining the information of the previous choice, the activity of this specific period can mean the active process of protecting the information from interfering and irrelevant information. It would be great if the authors could comment on this important interpretational issue.

(4) Broader neural involvement: While the focus on specific regions of interest (ROIs) provided clear results, future studies could benefit from a whole-brain analysis approach to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the neural networks involved in credit assignment.

Comments after the revision:

The authors have adequately addressed the majority of concerns raised in my previous review. The manuscript has demonstrably improved as a result of these revisions and represents a valuable contribution to the literature on credit assignment.

However, some limitations persist that, while not readily resolvable within the scope of the current study, warrant attention. Specifically, the investigation focuses primarily on the temporal dimension of credit assignment. In real-world scenarios, the complexity of credit assignment extends beyond temporal distance to encompass the inherent ambiguity of causal attribution arising from the presence of multiple potential causal events. Resolving this ambiguity necessitates a form of structural understanding of the environment, a capacity presumably possessed by humans and animals. While the experimental design of this study provides explicit cues regarding the structure of the environment, deciphering such structure in natural settings is a crucial component of the credit assignment process.<br /> Future research should prioritize the investigation of credit assignment within more ecologically valid contexts, focusing on the role of structural understanding in navigating the causal ambiguity inherent in real-world environments. Addressing this aspect will be crucial for developing a more complete and nuanced understanding of credit assignment mechanisms.

In addition, the newly added whole-brain searchlight decoding analysis provides an important nuance regarding the neural substrates of credit assignment (Figure S7). The results reveal not only activity in the lateral orbitofrontal cortex (lOFC), but also, and more robustly, in the medial orbitofrontal cortex/ventromedial prefrontal cortex (mOFC/vmPFC) specifically during the "indirect transition condition" and not the "direct transition condition." This finding suggests a potentially more significant role for mOFC/vmPFC in processing complex, non-immediate credit assignment scenarios. This nuance should be explicitly noted to appreciate the complexity of the neural mechanisms at play.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The present manuscript addresses a longstanding challenge in neuroscience: how the brain assigns credit for delayed outcomes, especially in real-world learning scenarios where decisions and outcomes are separated by time. The authors focus on the lateral orbitofrontal cortex and hippocampus, key regions involved in contingent learning. By integrating fMRI data and behavioral tasks, the authors examined how neural circuits maintain a causal link between past decisions and delayed outcomes. Their findings offer insights into mechanisms that could have critical implications for understanding human decision-making.

Strengths:

- The experimental designs were extremely well thought-out. The authors successfully coupled behavioral data and neural measures (through fMRI) to explore the neural mechanisms of contingent learning. This integration adds robustness to the findings and strengthens their relevance.<br /> - The emphasis on the interaction between the lateral orbitofrontal cortex (lOFC) and hippocampus (HC) in this study is very well-targeted. The reported findings regarding their dynamic interactions provide valuable insights into contingent learning in humans.<br /> - The use of advanced modeling framework and analytical techniques allowed the authors to uncover new mechanistic insights regarding a complex case of decision-making process. The methods developed will also benefit analyses of future neuroimaging data on a range of decision-making tasks as well.

Weaknesses:

- Given the limited temporal resolution of fMRI and that the measured signal is an indirect measure of neural activity, it is unclear the extent to which the reported causality reflects the true relationship/interactions between neurons in different regions. That said, I believe this concern is minimized by a series of well-thought-out and robust analyses which consistently point to compelling results.

Comments on revisions:

Thank you for your thorough point-by-point responses to my comments and questions. After carefully reviewing the responses and additional analyses/results provided, I do not have further comments. Importantly, I believe the authors have done a great job addressing inevitable limitations that are inherent to fMRI signals. The thoughtful analyses used in the study combined with the timely questions the manuscript is able to address make the study an important contribution to the field.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The authors apply multivoxel decoding analyses from fMRI during reward feedback about the cues previously chosen that led to that feedback. They compare two versions of the task - one in which the feedback is provided about the current trial, and one in which the feedback is provided about the previous trial. Reward probability changes slowly over time, so subjects need to identify which cues are leading to reward at a given time. They find that evidence for recall of the cue in lateral orbitofrontal cortex (lOFC) and hippocampus (HC). They also find that in the second condition, where feedback is for the one-back trial, this representation is mediated by the lateral frontal pole (FPl).

Overall, the analyses are clean and elegant and seem to be complete. I have only a few comments, all of which can be public.

(1) They do find (not surprisingly) that the one-back task is harder. It would be good to ensure that the reason that they had more trouble detecting direct HC & lOFC effects on the harder task was not because the task is harder and thus that there are more learning failures on the harder one-back task. (I suspect their explanation that it is mediated by FPl is likely to be correct. But it would be nice to do some subsampling of the zero-back task [matched to the success rate of the one-back task] to ensure that they still see the direct HC and lOFC there.)

(2) The evidence that they present in the main text (Figure 3) that the HC and lOFC are mediated by FPl is a correlation. I found the evidence presented in Supplemental Figure 7 to be much more convincing. As I understand it, what they are showing in SF7 is that when FPl decodes the cue, then (and only then) HC and lOFC decode the cue. If my understanding is correct, then this is a much cleaner explanation for what is going on than the secondary correlation analysis. If my understanding here is incorrect, then they should provide a better explanation of what is going on so as to not confuse the reader.

(3) I like the idea of "credit spreading" across trials (Figure 1E). I think that credit spreading in each direction (into the past [lower left] and into the future [upper right]) is not equivalent. This can be seen in Figure 1D, where the two tasks show credit spreading differently. I think a lot more could be studied here. Does credit spreading in each of these directions decode in interesting ways in different places in the brain?

Comments on revisions:

After revision, I have no additional comments.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This manuscript determines how PA28g, a proteasome regulator that is overexpressed in tumors, and C1QBP, a mitochondrial protein for maintaining oxidative phosphorylation that plays a role in tumor progression, interact in tumor cells to promote their growth, migration and invasion. Evidence for the interaction and its impact on mitochondrial form and function was provided although it is not particularly strong.

The revised manuscript corrected mislabeled data in figures and provides more details in figure legends. Misleading sentences and typos were corrected. However, key experiments that were suggested in previous reviews were not done, such as making point mutations to disrupt the protein interactions and assess the consequence on protein stability and function. Results from these experiments are critical to determine whether the major conclusions are fully supported by the data.

The second revision of the manuscript included the proximity ligation data to support the PA28g-C1QBP interaction in cells. However, the method and data were not described in sufficient detail for readers to understand. The revision also includes the structural models of the PA28g-C1QBP complex predicted by AlphaFold. However, the method and data were not described with details for readers to understand how this structural modeling was done, what is the quality of the resulting models, and the physical nature of the protein-protein interaction such as what kind of the non-covalent interactions exist in the interface of the protein complexes. Furthermore, while the interactions mediated by the protein fragments were tested by pull-down experiments, the interactions mediated by the three residues were not tested by mutagenesis and pull-down experiments. In summary, the revision was improved, but further improvement is needed

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Barlow and coauthors utilized the high-parameter imaging platform of CODEX to characterize the cellular composition of immune cells in situ from tissues obtained from organ donors with type 1 diabetes, subjects presented with autoantibodies who are at elevated risk, or non-diabetic organ donor controls. The panels used in this important study were based up prior publications using this technology, as well a priori and domain specific knowledge of the field by the investigators. Thus, there was some bias in the markers selected for analysis. The authors acknowledge that these types of experiments may be complemented moving forward with the inclusion of unbiased tissue analysis platforms that are emerging that can conduct a more comprehensive analysis of pathological signatures employing emerging technologies for both high-parameter protein imaging and spatial transcriptomics.

Strengths:

In terms of major findings, the authors provide important confirmatory observations regarding a number of autoimmune-associated signatures reported previously. The high parameter staining now increases the resolution for linking these features with specific cellular subsets using machine learning algorithms. These signatures include a robust signature indicative of IFN-driven responses that would be expected to induce a cytotoxic T cell mediated immune response within the pancreas. Notable findings include the upregulation of indolamine 2,3-dioxygenase-1 in the islet microvasculature. Furthermore, the authors provide key insights as to the cell:cell interactions within organ donors, again supporting a previously reported interaction between presumably autoreactive T and B cells.

Weaknesses:

These studies also highlight a number of molecular pathways that will require additional validation studies to more completely understand whether they are potentially causal for pathology, or rather, epiphenomenon associated with increased innate inflammation within the pancreas of T1D subjects. Given the limitations noted above, the study does present a rich and integrated dataset for analysis of enriched immune markers that can be segmented and annotated within distinct cellular networks. This enabled the authors to analyze distinct cellular subsets and phenotypes in situ, including within islets that peri-islet infiltration and/or intra-islet insulitis.

Despite the many technical challenges and unique organ donor cohort utilized, the data are still limited in terms of subject numbers - a challenge in a disease characterized by extensive heterogeneity in terms of age of onset and clinical and histopathological presentation. Therefore, these studies cannot adequately account for all of the potential covariates that may drive variability and alterations in the histopathologies observed (such as age of onset, background genetics, and organ donor conditions). In this study, the manuscript and figures could be improved in terms of clarifying how variable the observed signatures were across each individual donor, with the clear notion that non-diabetic donors will present with some similar challenges and variability.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aimed to characterize the cellular phenotype and spatial relationship of cell types infiltrating the islets of Langerhans in human T1D using CODEX, a multiplexed examination of cellular markers

Strengths:

Major strengths of this study are the use of pancreas tissue from well-characterized tissue donors, the use of CODEX, a state-of-the-art detection technique of extensive characterization and spatial characterization of cell types and cellular interactions. The authors have achieved their aims with the identification of the heterogeneity of the CD8+ T cell populations in insulitis, the identification of a vasculature phenotype and other markers that may mark insulitis-prone islets, and characterization of tertiary lymphoid structures in the acinar tissue of the pancreas. These findings are very likely to have a positive impact on our understanding (conceptual advance) of the cellular factors involved in T1D pathogenesis which the field requires to make progress in therapeutics.

Weaknesses:

A major limitation of the study is the cohort size, which the authors directly state. However, this study provides avenues of inquiry for researchers to gain further understanding of the pathological process in human T1D.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have responded well to the 3 critiques. They have addressed my specific comments in their revised text.<br /> I have no further comments.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors applied an innovative approach (CO-Detection by indEXing - CODEX) together with sophisticated computational analyses to image pancreas tissues from rare organ donors with type 1 diabetes. They aimed to assess key features of inflammation in both islet and extra-islet tissue areas; they report that the extra-islet space of lobules with extensive islet infiltration differs from the extra-islet space of less infiltrated areas within the same tissue section. The study also identifies four sub-states of inflamed islets characterized by the activation profiles of CD8+T cells enriched in islets relative to the surrounding tissue. Lymphoid structures are identified in the pancreas tissue away from islets, and these were enriched in CD45RA+ T cells - a population also enriched in one of the inflamed islet sub-states. Together, these data help define the coordination between islets and the extra-islet pancreas in the pathogenesis of human T1D.

Strengths:

The analysis of tissue from well-characterized organ donors, provided by the Network for the Pancreatic Organ Donor with Diabetes, adds strength to the validity of the findings.

By using their innovative imaging/computation approaches, key known features of islet autoimmunity were confirmed, providing validation of the methodology.

The detection of IDO+ vasculature in inflamed islets - but not in normal islets or islets that have lost insulin-expression links this expression to the islet inflammation, and it is a novel observation. IDO expression in the vasculature may be induced by inflammation and may lost as disease progresses, and it may provide a potential therapeutic avenue.

The high-dimensional spatial phenotyping of CD8+T cells in T1D islets confirmed that most T cells were antigen experienced. Some additional subsets were noted: a small population of T cells expressing CD45RA and CD69, possibly naive or TEMRA cells, and cells expressing Lag-3, Granzyme-B, and ICOS.

While much attention has been devoted to the study of the insulitis lesion in T1D, our current knowledge is quite limited; the description of four sub-clusters characterized by the<br /> activation profile of the islet-infiltrating CD8+T cells is novel. Their presence in all T1D donors, indicates that the disease process is asynchronous and is not at the same stage across all islets. Although this concept is not novel, this appears to be the most advanced characterization of insulitis stages.

When examining together both the exocrine and islet areas, which is rarely done, authors report that pancreatic lobules affected by insulitis are characterized by distinct tissue markers. Their data support the concept that disease progression may require crosstalk between cells in the islet and extra-islet compartments. Lobules enriched in β-cell-depleted islets were also enriched in nerves, vasculature, and Granzyme-B+/CD3- cells, which may be natural killer cells.

Lastly, authors report that immature tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS) exist both near and away from islets, where CD45RA+ CD8+T cells aggregate, and also observed an inflamed islet-subcluster characterized by an abundance of CD45RA+/CD8+ T cells. These TLS may represent a point of entry for T cells and this study further supports their role in islet autoimmunity.

Weaknesses:

As the author themselves acknowledge, the major limitation is that the number of donors examined is limited as those satisfying study criteria are rare. Thus, it is not possible to examine disease heterogeneity, and the impact of age at diagnosis. Of 8 T1D donors examined, 4 would be considered newly diagnosed (less than 3 months from onset) and 4 had longer disease durations (2, 2, 5 and 6 years). It was unclear if disease duration impacted the results in this small cohort. In the introduction, the authors discuss that most of the pancreata from nPOD donors with T1D lack insulitis. This is correct, yet it is a function of time from diagnosis. Donors with shorter duration will be more likely to have insulitis. A related point is that the proportion of islets with insulitis is low even near diagnosis, Finally, only one donor was examined that while not diagnosed with T1D, was likely in the preclinical disease stage and had autoantibodies and insulitis. This is a critically important disease stage where the methodology developed by the investigators could be applied in future efforts.

While this was not the focus of this investigation, it appears that the approach was very much immune-focused and there could be value in examining islet cells in greater depth using the methodology the authors developed.

Additional comments

Overall, the authors were able to study pancreas tissues from T1D donors and perform sophisticated imaging and computational analysis that reproduce and importantly extend our understanding of inflammation in T1D. Despite the limitations associated with the small sample size, the results appear robust, and the claims are well supported.

The study expands the conceptual framework of inflammation and islet autoimmunity, especially by the definition of different clusters (stages) of insulitis and by the characterization of immune cells in and outside the islets.

Comments on revisions:

I have not felt the need to update the initial review.

However, I note that the paragraph describing the nPOD repository (lines 154-158) can be misinterpreted that insulitis is infrequent in T1D (17 of 200 donors had it) without the clarification that insulitis is present around the time of diagnosis in most patients and it subsides over time. Thus, authors are urged to clarify that the presence of insulitis and its severity are impacted by the disease stage and disease duration.

The last sentence of this paragraph, lines 164-165, although linked to the previous sentence about the cause of death in the donors, may be misconstrued in the context of this paragraph, and it is unclear what data support this statement. Please delete this sentence.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have thoroughly addressed all my concerns. The revised version of the current manuscript is solid now. It's very interesting that there is bi-potential ability of human CD29/CD56+ myogenic progenitors. The current study substantiates the medical translational potential for human CD29/CD56+ myogenic progenitors in promoting tendon regeneration.

Strengths:

CD29+/CD56+ stem/progenitor cells were transplanted into immunodeficient mice with a tendon injury, and human cells expressing tenogenic markers contributed to the repair of the injured tendon. Furthermore, the authors also show better tendon biomechanical properties and plantarflexion force after transplantation.

Weaknesses:

None. The authors have thoroughly addressed all my concerns.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The fundamental claim of the manuscript is that rRNA genes experience substitutions much too quickly, given that they are a multi-copy gene system. As clarified by the authors in their response, and as I think is relatively clear in the manuscript, they are collapsing all copies of the rRNA array down. They first quantify polymorphism (in this expanded definition, where polymorphism means variable at a given site across any copy). The authors find elevated levels of heterozygosity in rRNA genes compared to single copy genes, which isn't surprising, given that there is a substantially higher target size; that being said, the increase in polymorphism is smaller than the increase in target size. They then look at substitutions between mouse species and also between human and chimp, and argue that the substitution rate is too fast compared to single copy genes in many cases.

[Editors' note: we invite readers to consult the review in full from the previous version of the submission: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.99992.2.sa1]

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This revision has further improved the clarity of the paper, better articulating assumptions of the model and data analysis. I particularly appreciate the authors' thorough response to eLife assessment. However, the authors did not provide point-by-point response to the specific comments I had from last round of review and didn't revise the manuscript accordingly, so my major concerns remain.

At conceptual level, my biggest concern with the model is the lack of constraint on V*(K), which makes the null neutral model too "liberal". On the one hand, the number of descendants of each gene copy must be non-negative; on the other hand, even homogenizing process within an individual is extremely strong, it cannot "spread" gene copies across individuals, so the maximum number of descendants of one gene copy cannot exceed the number of offspring that individual has times C. For these reasons, I believe there must be a theoretical upper bound of the value of V*(K), and the actual V*(K) is likely much smaller under realistic strength of the homogenizing process. When I asked about modeling of the underlying homogenizing process, I did not mean the authors need to include specific molecular process in the model; instead, I am asking the authors to provide some realistic scenarios that can give rise to very large V*(K) values. As a result of the very "liberal" neutral model, although I do agree that rejection of null provides stronger evidence for selection in human, it is unclear whether there is no evidence of selection in mouse. Please see below for my specific comments regarding the definition and assumptions of V*(K) (copied from last review).

Regarding the data analysis, although I understand the authors' methodology and rationale behind, I am not convinced that high sequence similarity between rDNA copies guarantees no biases in alignment and variant calling. Furthermore, given divergence between species, I am particularly concerned about the practice of aligning reads of different species to human and mus musculus reference sequences. A separate issue is the calculation of divergence level. Instead of using Fst>0.8 as the criterion of calling fixed sites, the authors could calculate the pairwise average divergence between a random copy from one species and a random copy from another species. Mathematically, this could be calculated as p1(1-p2)+p2(1-p1). The observation that the estimated substitution rates for rDNA with and without CpG sites are so close seems to be an indication of technical error. Please also see below for my specific questions about data analysis (copied from last round of review).

Specific comments from last round of review:

Questions regarding V*(K)<br /> (1) Another key parameter V*(K) was still not defined within the paper. In response 9, the authors explained that V*(K) refers to "the number of progeny to whom the gene copy of interest is transmitted (K) over a specific time interval". However, the meaning of "progeny" remains unclear. Are the authors referring to the descendent copies of a gene copy, or the offspring individuals (i.e., the living organisms)? For example, if a variant spreads horizontally through homogenizing processes and transmits vertically to multiple offspring individuals, the number of descent gene copies could differ substantially from the number of descendent individuals to whom a gene copy is transmitted to. This distinction needs to be clarified and clearly stated in the paper.

(2) The authors state that V*(K)>=1 for rDNA genes because of the homogenizing processes (lines 139-141) without providing justification. It is unclear, at least to me, whether homogenizing processes are expected increase or decrease the variance in "reproductive success" across gene copies. Moreover, the authors claim that V*(K) "can potentially reach values in the hundreds and may even exceed C, resulting in C*=C/V*(K)<1" (Response 7). This claim is unlikely to be true, as the minimum value of K is bounded by zero and E(K) is assumed to be 1. Even in the extreme case that 1% gene copies leave large numbers of descends while the others leave none, V*(K) would still be less than 100. Such extreme case seems highly improbable, given realistic rates of the homogenizing processes.

(3) Regardless of how the authors define V*(K), it is not immediately clear why Equation 1 (N*=NC/V*(K)) holds. Both sides of the equation have their independent meanings, so the authors need to provide a step-by-step derivation demonstrating that they are equal. Only by doing this will the implicit underlying assumptions become clearer. I also strongly recommend that the authors conduct forward-in-time simulations with fixed N, C, V*(K) (however they define it) and μ to confirm that the right side of Equation 1 actually predicts the N* as calculated from the polymorphism level using the equation in line 165.

Questions about Ne* for multi-copy system

(1) While Ne is clearly defined in the standard single-copy gene model as the reciprocal of genetic drift (i.e., the decay in heterozygosity), its meaning for multiple-copy genes is unclear. Based on the context, it appears that the authors define Ne as the parameter that fits the population polymorphism level (Hs) using the equation in line 165. This definition is reasonable, but it should be explicitly clarified in the text."

(2) Without providing justification, the authors assumed that a certain number N* exists for rRNA such that it fits both the polymorphism level (line 156) in recent timescales and divergence level in longer timescales (i.e., in the comparison between Tf and Td). However, if N, C or any other relevant parameters have varied substantially throughout evolution, N* is expected to vary with time, and the same value may not fit both polymorphism and divergence data simultaneously.

Questions about data analysis

(1) A significant issue with aligning reads to a single reference genome is reference bias, referring to the phenomenon that reads carrying the reference alleles tend to align more easily than those with one or more non-reference alleles, thus creating a bias in genotype calling or variant allele frequency quantification. As a result, there may be an underrepresentation of non-reference alleles in called variants or an underestimate of non-reference allele frequency, particularly in regions with high genetic diversity. Simply focusing on bi-allelic SNVs is insufficient to minimize reference bias. Given the fourfold increase in diversity within rDNA, the authors must either provide evidence that reference bias is not a significant concern or adopt graph-based reference genomes or more sophisticated alignment algorithms to address this issue.

(2) The potential for reference bias also renders the analysis of divergence sites unreliable, as aligning reads from one species (e.g. chimpanzee) to the reference of another species (e.g., human) is likely to introduce biases in variant calling between the two. One commonly adopted approach to address this imbalance is to align reads from both species to a third reference genome that is expected to be equidistantly related to both.

(3) Although it is somewhat reassuring that the estimated divergence rate of rDNA between human and macaque is comparable to that of the rest of the genome, there still remains concern of a under-estimation of divergence in rDNA regions due to reference bias issue. Note that while the "third genome" approach reduces imbalance between two genomes in comparison, it may still under-estimate overall divergence level due to under-calling of non-reference variants.<br /> (4) In response to my question about the similarity in rDNA substitution rates estimated with or without CpG sites, the authors suggest that this "may be due to strong homogenizing forces, which can rapidly fix or eliminate variants" (response17). However, this explanation is insufficient, because the observed substitution rate depends on the mutation rate multiplied by the fixation probability, and accelerated fixation or loss does not alter either. Unless the authors can provide more convincing explanation, technical errors in calling of fixed sites still remain a concern.

Minor points:

Line 157: The statement "where μ is the mutation rate of the entire gene" must be wrong, as the heterozygosity calculated with such μ would correspond to the chance of seeing two different haplotypes at gene level, which is incompatible with the empirical calculation specified in Equation 2. Instead, μ must represent the mutation rate per site averaged over the entire gene.

In response 22, the authors explained that the allele frequency spectrum shown in Fig 3 is folded, because the ancestral allele was not determined. However, this is inconsistent with x-axis Fig 3 ranging between 0 and 1. I suspect the x-axis represents the frequency of the alternative (i.e., non-reference) allele. If so, the reported correlation is inflated, as the reference allele is somewhat random, and a variant at joint ALT allele frequencies of (0.9, 0.9) is no different from a variant at (0.1, 0.1). The proper way of calculate this correlation is to first determine the minor allele frequency across individuals and then calculate the correlation between minor allele frequencies.

Similarly, in response 14, it is unclear what the x-axis represents. Is it the ALT allele frequency or derived allele frequency? If the former, why are only variants with AF>0.8 defined as fixed variants, while those with AF<0.2 excluded? If it is the latter, please describe how ancestral state is determined.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The revision by Ruan et al clarifies several aspects of the original manuscript that were difficult to understand, and I think it presents some useful and interesting ideas. I understand that the authors are distinguishing their model from the standard Wright-Fisher model in that the population size is not imposed externally, but is instead a consequence of the stochastic reproduction scheme. Here, the authors chose a branching process but in principle any Markov chain can probably be used. Within this framework, the authors are particularly interested in cases where the variance in reproductive success changes through time, as explored by the DDH model, for example. They argue with some experimental results that there is a reason to believe that the variance in reproductive success does change over time.

One of the key aspects of the original manuscript that I want to engage with is the DDH model. As the authors point out, their equations 5 and 6 are assumptions, and not derived from any principles. In essence, the authors are positing that that the variance in reproductive success, given by 6, changes as a function of the current population size. There is nothing "inherent" to a negative binomial branching mechanism that results in this: in fact, the the variance in offspring number could in principle be the same for all time. As relates to models that exist in the literature, I believe that this is the key difference: unlike Cannings models, the authors allow for a changing variance in reproduction through time.

This is, of course, an interesting thing to consider, and I think that the situation the authors point out, in which drift is lower at small population sizes and larger at large population sizes, is not appreciated in the literature. However, I am not so sure that there is anything that needs to be resolved in Paradox 1. A very strong prediction of that model is that Ne and N could be inversely related, as shown by the blue line in Fig 3b. This suggests that you could see something very strange if you, for example, infer a population size history using a Wright-Fisher framework, because you would infer a population *decline* when there is in fact a population *expansion*. However, as far as I know there are very few "surprising population declines" found in empirical data. An obvious case where we know there is very rapid population growth is human populations; I don't think I've ever seen an inference of recent human demographic history from genetic data that suggests anything other than a massive population expansion. While I appreciate the authors empirical data supporting their claim of Paradox 1 (more on the empirical data later), it's not clear to me that there's a "paradox" in the literature that needs explaining so much as this is a "words of caution about interpreting inferred effective population sizes". To be clear, I think those words of caution are important, and I had never considered that you might be so fundamentally misled as to infer decline when there is growth, but calling it a "paradox" seems to suggest that this is an outstanding problem in the literature, when in fact I think the authors are raising a *new* and important problem. Perhaps an interesting thing for the authors to do to raise the salience of this point would be to perform simulations under this model and then infer effective population sizes using e.g. dadi or psmc and show that you could identify a situation in which the true history is one of growth, but the best fit would be one of decline

The authors also highlight that their approach reflects a case where the population size is determined by the population dynamics themselves, as opposed to being imposed externally as is typical in Cannings models. I agree with the authors that this aspect of population regulation is understudied. Nonetheless, several manuscripts have dealt with the case of population genetic dynamics in populations of stochastically fluctuating size. For example, Kaj and Krone (2003) show that under pretty general conditions you get something very much like a standard coalescent; for example, combining their theorem 1 with their arguments on page 36 and 37, they find that exchangeable populations with stochastic population dynamics where the variance does not change with time still converge to exactly the coalescent you would expect from Cannings models. This is strongly suggestive that the authors key result isn't about stochastic population dynamics per se, but instead related to arguing that variance in reproductive success could change through time. In fact, I believe that the result of Kaj and Krone (2003) is substantially more general than the models considered in this manuscript. That being said, I believe that the authors of this manuscript do a much better job of making the implications for evolutionary processes clear than Kaj and Krone, which is important---it's very difficult to understand from Kaj and Krone the conditions under which effective population sizes will be substantially impacted by stochastic population dynamics.

I also find the authors exposition on Paradox 3 to be somewhat strange. First of all, I'm not sure there's a paradox there at all? The authors claim that the lack of dependence of the fixation probability on Ne is a paradox, but this is ultimately not surprising---fixation of a positively selected allele depends mostly on escaping the boundary layer, which doesn't really depend on the population size (see Gillespie's book "The Causes of Molecular Evolution" for great exposition on boundary layer effects). Moreover, the authors *use a Cannings-style argument* to get gain a good approximation of how the fixation probability changes when there is non-Poisson reproduction. So it's not clear that the WFH model is really doing a lot of work here. I suppose they raise the interesting point that the particularly simple form of p(fix) = 2s is due to the assumption that variance in offspring is equal to 1.

In addition, I raised some concerns about the analysis of empirical results on reproductive variance in my original review, and I don't believe that the authors responded to it at all. I'm not super worried about that analysis, but I think that the authors should probably respond to me.

Overall, I feel like I now have a better understanding of this manuscript. However, I think it still presents its results too strongly: Paradox 1 contains important words of caution that reflect what I am confident is an under appreciated possibility, and Paradox 3 is, as far as I'm concerned, not a paradox at all. I have not addressed Paradox 2 very much because I think that another reviewer had solid and interesting comments on that front and I am leaving it to them. That being said, I do think Paradox 2 actually presents a deep problem in the literature and that the authors' argument may actually represent a path toward a solution.

This manuscript can be a useful contribution to the literature, but as it's presented at the moment, I think most of it is worded too strongly and it continues to not engage appropriately with the literature. Theoretical advances are undoubtedly important, and I think the manuscript presents some interesting things to think about, but ultimately needs to be better situated and several of the claims strongly toned down.

References:<br /> Kaj, I., & Krone, S. M. (2003). The coalescent process in a population with stochastically varying size. Journal of Applied Probability, 40(1), 33-48.

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.

Comments on previous revisions:

The author has addressed some of the concerns in my review, and I think the revised manuscript is more clear. I like the discussion about the caveats of the WFH model.

I hope the authors could also discuss the conditions needed for V(K)/Ne to be a reasonable approximation. It is currently unclear how the framework should be adopted in general.

The idea about estimating male-female V(K) ratios from population genetic data is interesting. Unfortunately, the results fell short. The accuracy of their estimators (derived using approximation Ne/V(K) approximation, and certain choice of theta, and then theta estimated with Watterson's estimator) should be tested with simulated results before applying to real data. The reliability of their estimator and their results from real data are unclear.

Arguments made in this paper sometimes lack precision (perhaps the authors want to emphasize intuition, but it seems more confusing than otherwise). For example: The authors stated that "This independence from N seems intuitively obvious: when an advantageous mutation increases to say, 100 copies in determining a population (depending mainly on s), its fixation would be almost certain, regardless of N.". Assuming large Ne, and with approximation, one could assume the probability of loss is e^(-2sn), but the writing about "100 copies" and "almost certain" is very imprecise, in fact, a mutation with s=0.001 segregating at 100 copies in a large Ne population is most probably lost. Whereas in a small population, it will be fixed. Yet the following sentence states "regardless of N. This may be a most direct argument against equating genetic drift, certainly no less important than 1/ N . with N, or Ne (which is supposed to be a function of N's)." I find this new paragraph misleading.

Some of the statements/wordings in this paper still seem too strong to me.

Comments on revisions:

The authors toned down. I am a bit confused because I do not seem to find any point-to-point response to my review.

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:

- The theoretical results are well-described and easy to follow.<br /> - The analyses of different variances in offspring number (both experimentally and analyzing public data) are convincing that non-Poissonian offspring distributions are the norm.<br /> - 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.<br /> - I enjoyed the Density-Dependent Haldane model. It was a nice example of the decoupling of census size and effective size.<br /> - Equation (10) is a nice result

Comments on revisions:

I appreciate the effort that the authors have put into the revision, but I still find the framing to be a bit confusing -- these apparent paradoxes only appear in the most basic version of Wright-Fisher models, and so framing the paper as the solution to these paradoxes overlooks much previous work. Saying that existing work discussing exactly these phenomena is "beyond the scope of this study", without citing or interacting in any way with that work is unscholarly. I agree with the authors that the apparent paradoxes that they consider and interesting, and by thinking about branching processes, the apparent paradoxes appear to be less paradoxical, but without contextualizing this work in the substantial Wright-Fisher literature (e.g., Cannings Exchangeable Models and the work of Möhle) it misrepresents the state of the field and the contributions of this paper.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Janssens et al. addressed the challenge of mapping the location of transcriptionally unique cell types identified by single nuclei sequencing (snRNA-seq) data available through the Fly Cell Atlas. They identified 100 transcripts for head samples and 50 transcripts for fly body samples allowing identification of every unique cell type discovered through the Fly Cell Atlas. To map all of these cell types, the authors divided the fly body into head and body samples and used the Molecular Cartography (Resolve Biosciences) method to visualize these transcripts. This approach allowed them to build spatial tissue atlases of the fly head and body, to identify the location of previously unknown cell types and the subcellular localization of different transcripts. By combining snRNA-seq data from the Fly Cell Atlas with their spatially resolved transcriptomics (SRT) data, they demonstrated an automated cell type annotation strategy to identify uncharacterized clusters and infer their location in the fly body. This manuscript constitutes a proof-of-principle study to map the location of the cells identified by ever-growing single-cell transcriptomics datasets generated by others.

Strengths:

The authors used the Molecular Cartography (Resolve Biosciences) method to visualize 100 transcripts for head samples and 50 transcripts for fly body samples in high resolution. This method achieves high resolution by multiplexing a large number of transcript visualization steps and allows the authors to map the location of unique cell types identified by the Fly Cell Atlas.

Weaknesses:

Combining single-nuclei sequencing (snRNA-seq) data with spatially resolved transcriptomics (SRT) data is challenging, and the methods used by the authors in this study cannot reliably distinguish between cells, especially in brain regions where the processes of different neurons are clustered, such as neuropils. This means that a grid that the authors mark as a unique cell may actually be composed of processes from multiple cells.

Comments on revisions:

I believe the authors have improved the manuscript by addressing all the concerns and incorporating the suggestions raised by the reviewers. I have no further concerns or suggestions.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The significance of Notch in liver cancer has been inconsistently described to date. The authors conduct a PDX screen using JAG1 ab and identify 2 sensitive tumor models. Further characterization with bulk RNA seq, scRNA seq, and ATAC seq of these tumors was performed.

Strengths:

The reliance on an extensive panel of PDXs makes this study more definitive than prior studies.

Gene expression analyses seem robust.

Identification of a JAG1-dependent signature associated with hepatocyte differentiation is interesting.

Weaknesses:

The introduction is rather lengthy and not entirely accurate. HCC is a single cancer type/histology. There may be variants of histology (allusion to "mixed-lineage" is inaccurate as combined HCC-CCa are not conventionally considered HCC and are not treated as HCC in clinical practice as they are even excluded from HCC trials), but any cancer type can have differences in differentiation. Just state there are multiple molecular subtypes of this disease.

There is minimal data on the PDXs, despite this being highlighted throughout the text. Clinical and possibly some molecular characterization of these cancers should be provided. It is also odd that the authors include only 35 HCC and then a varied sort of cancer histologies, which is peculiar given their prior statements regarding the heterogeneity of HCC.

"super-responder" is not a meaningful term, I would eliminate this use as it has no clinical or scientific convention that I am aware of.

The "expansion" of the PDX screen is poorly described. Why weren't these PDXs included in the first screen? This is quite odd as the responses in the initial screen were underwhelming. What was the denominator number of all PDXs that were assessed for JAG1 and NOTCH2 expression? This is important as it clarifies how relevant JAG1 inhibition would be to an unselected HCC population.

Was there some kind of determination of the optimal dose or dose dependency for the JAG1 ab? The original description of the JAG1 ab was in mouse lungs, not malignant or liver cells. In addition, supplementary Figure 2D is missing. There needs to be data provided on the specificity of the human-specific JAG1 ab and the anti-NOTCH2 ab. I'm not familiar with these ab, and if they are not publicly accessible reagents, more transparency on this is needed. In addition, given the reliance of the entire paper on these antibodies, I would recommend orthogonal approaches (either chemical or genetic) to confirm the sensitivity and insensitivity of select PDXs to Notch inhibition.

scRNA-seq data seems to add little to the paper and there is no follow-up of the findings. Are the low-expressing JAG1 cells eventually enriched in treated tumors contributing to disease recurrence?

The discussion should be tempered. The finding of only 2 PDXs that are sensitive out of 45+ tumors treated or selected for indicates that JAG1/NOTCH2 inhibition is likely only effective in rare HCC.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors used a large panel of hepatocellular carcinoma patient-derived xenograft models to test the hypothesis that the developmental dependence of the liver on Jagged1-Notch2 signaling is retained in at least a subset of hepatocellular carcinomas. This led to the identification of two models that were extraordinarily sensitive to well-characterized, specific inhibitory antibodies against Jagged1 or Notch2. Based on additional analyses in these in vivo models, the authors provide compelling evidence that the response is due to the inhibition of human Notch2 and human Jagged1 on tumor cells and that this inhibition leads to a change in gene expression from a progenitor-like state to a hepatocyte-like state accompanied by cell cycle arrest. This change in cell state is associated with up-regulation of HNF4a and CEBPB and increased accessibility of predicted HNF4a and CEBPB genomic binding sites, accompanied by loss of accessibility to sequences predicted to bind TFs linked to multipotent liver progenitors. The authors put forth a plausible model in which inhibition of Notch2 downregulates transcriptional repressors of the Hairy/Enhancer of Split family, leading to increased expression of CEBPB and changes in gene expression that drive hepatocyte differentiation.

Strengths:

The strengths of the paper include the breadth of the preclinical screen in PDX models (which may be of an unprecedented size as preclinical trials go), the high quality of the well-characterized antibodies used as therapeutics and as biological perturbagens, the quality of the data and data analysis, and the authors balanced discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of their findings.

Weaknesses:

The principal weakness is the inability to clearly demonstrate the "translatability" of the PDX findings to primary human hepatocellular carcinoma.

Additional Comments:

Hepatocellular carcinoma is increasing in frequency and is difficult to treat; cure is only possible through early diagnosis and surgery, often in the form of liver transplantation. It is also a common cancer, and so even if only 5% of tumors (a value based on the frequency of super-responders in this preclinical trial) fall into the Jagged1-Notch2 group defined by Seidel et al., the development of an effective therapy for this subgroup would be a very important advance. The chief limitation of their work is that it stops short of identifying primary human hepatocellular carcinomas that correspond to the super-responder PDX models. It can be hoped that their intriguing observations will spur work aimed at filling this gap

There are several other loose ends. An unusual feature of this model is that both Jagged 1 and Notch2 are expressed in the same cells, and even in the same individual cells. In developmental systems, the expression of ligands and receptors in the same cell generally produces receptor inhibition rather than activation, a phenomenon described as cis inhibition. Their super-responder tumor models appear to break this rule, and how and why this is so remains to be understood. A follow-up question is what explains the observed heterogeneity in tumor cells, both at the level of Notch2 activation and scRNAseq clustering, and whether these different cell states are static or interchangeable.

Another unanswered issue pertains to the nature of the tumor response to Notch signaling blockade, which appears to be mainly cell cycle arrest. There are a number of human tumors with cell autonomous Notch signaling due to gain of function Notch receptor mutations that also respond to Notch blockade with cell cycle arrest, such as T cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL). In general, clinical trials of pan-Notch inhibitors such as gamma-secretase inhibitors have been disappointing in such tumors, perhaps reflecting a limitation of treatments with significant toxicity that do not kill tumor cells directly. It could be argued that this limitation will be mitigated by the apparently excellent safety profile of Notch2 blocking antibody, which perhaps could be administered for a sustained period, akin to the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in chronic myeloid leukemia---but this remains to be determined.

A minor comment is reserved for the statement in the discussion that "In chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, which results from an inactivating mutation in the y-secretase complex component nicastrin, Notch signaling has a tumor suppressive function, that is mediated through direct repression of CEBPA and PU.1 by HES1 (Klinakis et al., 2011)". Thousands of cases of CMML and related myeloid tumors have been subjected to whole exome and even whole genome sequencing without the identification of Notch signaling pathway mutations. Thus, an important tumor suppressive role for Notch-mediated through HES1 in myeloid tumors is not proven.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Notch is active in HCC, but generally not mutated. The authors use a JAG1-selective blocking antibody in a large panel of liver cancer patient-derived xenograft models. They find JAG-dependent HCCs, and these are aggressive and proliferative. Notch inhibition induces cycle arrest and promotes hepatocyte differentiation, through upregulation of CEBPA expression and activation of existing HNF4A, mimicking normal developmental programs.

The authors use aJ1.b70, a potent and selective therapeutic antibody that inhibits JAG1 against PDX models. They tested over 40 PDX models and found a handful of super-responders to single-agent inhibition. In LIV78 and Li1035 cancer cells, NOTCH2 was expressed and required, in contrast to NOTCH1. RNA-seq showed that the responsive HCCs resembled the S2 transcriptional class of HCCs, which were enriched for Notch-dependent models. They conclude that these dependent tumors have transcriptomes that resemble a hybrid progenitor cell expressing FGF9 and GAS7. Inhibition was able to induce hepatocyte differentiation away from a NOTCH-driven progenitor program. scRNA-seq analysis showed a large population of NOTCH-JAG expressing cells but also showed that there are cells that did not. Not surprisingly, NOTCH2 inhibition leads to increased CEBPA and HNF4A transcriptional activity, which are standard TFs in hepatocytes.

Strengths:

The paper provides useful information about the frequency of HCCs and CCA that respond to NOTCH inhibition and could allow us to anticipate the super-responder rate if these antibodies were actually used in the clinic. The inhibitor tools are highly specific, and provide useful information about NOTCH activities in liver cancers. The large number of PDXs and the careful transcriptomic analyses were positives about the study.

Weaknesses:

The paper is mostly descriptive.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This article investigates the phenotype of macrophages with a pathogenic role in arthritis, particularly focusing on arthritis induced by immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy.

Building on prior data from monocyte-macrophage coculture with fibroblasts, the authors hypothesized a unique role for the combined actions of prostaglandin PGE2 and TNF. The authors studied this combined state using an in vitro model with macrophages derived from monocytes of healthy donors. They complemented this with single-cell transcriptomic and epigenetic data from patients with ICI-RA, specifically, macrophages sorted out of synovial fluid and tissue samples. The study addressed critical questions regarding the regulation of PGE2 and TNF: Are their actions co-regulated or antagonistic? How do they interact with IFN-γ in shaping macrophage responses?

This study is the first to specifically investigate a macrophage subset responsive to the PGE2 and TNF combination in the context of ICI-RA, describes a new and easily reproducible in vitro model, and studies the role of IFNgamma regulation of this particular Mф subset.

Strengths:

Methodological quality: The authors employed a robust combination of approaches, including validation of bulk RNA-seq findings through complementary methods. The methods description is excellent and allows for reproducible research. Importantly, the authors compared their in vitro model with ex vivo single-cell data, demonstrating that their model accurately reflects the molecular mechanisms driving the pathogenicity of this macrophage subset.

Weaknesses:

Introduction: The introduction lacks a paragraph providing an overview of ICI-induced arthritis pathogenesis and a comparison with other types of arthritis. Including this would help contextualize the study for a broader audience.

Results Section: At the beginning of the results section, the experimental setup should be described in greater detail to make an easier transition into the results for the reader, rather than relying just on references to Figure 1 captions.

There is insufficient comparison between single-cell RNA-seq data from ICI-induced arthritis and previously published single-cell RA datasets. Such a comparison may include DEGs and GSEA, pathway analysis comparison for similar subsets of cells. Ideally, an integration with previous datasets with RA-tissue-derived primary monocytes would allow for a direct comparison of subsets and their transcriptomic features.

While it's understandable that arthritis samples are limited in numbers and myeloid cell numbers, it would still be interesting to see the results of PGE2+TNF in vitro stimulation on the primary RA or ICI-RA macrophages. It would be valuable to see RNA-Seq signatures of patient cell reactivation in comparison to primary stimulation of healthy donor-derived monocytes.

Discussion: Prior single-cell studies of RA and RA macrophage subpopulations from 2019, 2020, 2023 publications deserve more discussion. A thorough comparison with these datasets would place the study in a broader scientific context.<br /> Creating an integrated RA myeloid cell atlas that combines ICI-RA data into the RA landscape would be ideal to add value to the field.<br /> As one of the next research goals, TNF blockade data in RA and ICI-RA patients would be interesting to add to such an integrated atlas. Combining responders and non-responders to TNF blockade would help to understand patient stratification with the myeloid pathogenic phenotypes. It would be great to read the authors' opinion on this in the Discussion section.

Conclusion: The authors demonstrated that while PGE2 maintains the inflammatory profile of macrophages, it also induces a distinct phenotype in simultaneous PGE2 and TNF treatment. The study of this specific subset in single-cell data from ICI-RA patients sheds light on the pathogenic mechanisms underlying this condition, however, how it compares with conventional RA is not clear from the manuscript.<br /> Given the substantial incidence of ICI-induced autoimmune arthritis, understanding the unique macrophage subsets involved for future targeting them therapeutically is an important challenge. The findings are significant for immunologists, cancer researchers, and specialists in autoimmune diseases, making the study relevant to a broad scientific audience.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary/Significance of the findings:

The authors have done a great job by extensively carrying out transcriptomic and epigenomic analyses in the primary human/mouse monocytes/macrophages to investigate TNF-PGE2 (TP) crosstalk and their regulation by IFN-γ in the Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) synovial macrophages. They proposed that TP induces inflammatory genes via a novel regulatory axis whereby IFN-γ and PGE2 oppose each other to determine the balance between two distinct TNF-induced inflammatory gene expression programs relevant to RA and ICI-arthritis.

Strengths:

The authors have done a great job on RT-qPCR analysis of gene expression in primary human monocytes stimulated with TNF and showing the selective agonists of PGE2 receptors EP2 and EP4 22 that signal predominantly via cAMP. They have beautifully shown IFN-γ opposes the effects of PGE2 on TNF-induced gene expression. They found that TP signature genes are activated by cooperation of PGE2-induced AP-1, CEBP, and NR4A with TNF-induced NF-κB activity. On the other hand, they found that IFN-γ suppressed induction of AP-1, CEBP, and NR4A activity to ablate induction of IL-1, Notch, and neutrophil chemokine genes but promoted expression of distinct inflammatory genes such as TNF and T cell chemokines like CXCL10 indicating that TP induces inflammatory genes via IFN-γ in the RA and ICI-arthritis.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors carried out most of the assays in the monocytes/macrophages. How do APC-cells like Dendritic cells behave with respect to this TP treatment similar dosing?

(2) The authors studied 3h and 24h post-treatment transcriptomic and epigenomic. What happens to TP induce inflammatory genes post-treatment 12h, 36h, 48h, 72h. It is critical to see the upregulated/downregulated genes get normalised or stay the same throughout the innate immune response.

(3) The authors showed IL1-axis in response to the TP-treatment. Do other cytokine axes get modulated? If yes, then how do they cooperate to reduce/induce inflammatory responses along this proposed axis?

Overall, the data looks good and acceptable but I need to confirm the above-mentioned criticisms.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The current article presents a new type of analytical approach to the sequential organisation of whale song units.

Strengths:

The detailed description of the internal temporal structure of whale songs is something that has been thus far lacking.

Weaknesses:

The conceptual and terminological bases of the paper are problematical and hamper comparison with other taxa, including humans. According to signal theory, codas are indexical rather than symbolic. They signal an individual's group identity. Borrowing from humans and linguistics, coda inter-group variation represents a case of accents - phonologically different varieties of the same call - not dialects, confirming they are an index. This raises serious doubt about whether alleged "symbolism" and similarity between whale and human vocal behaviour is factual. The same applies to the difference between ICIs (inter-click interval) and IOIs (inter-onset interval). If the two are equivalent, variation in click duration needs to be shown so small that can be considered negligible. This raises serious doubt about whether the alleged variation in whale codas is indeed rhythmic in nature and prevents future efforts for comparison with the vocal capacities of other species. The scope and relevance of this paper for the broader field is limited.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Lejeune et al. demonstrated sex-dependent differences in the susceptibility to MRSA infection. The authors demonstrated the role of the microbiota and sex hormones as potential determinants of susceptibility. Moreover, the authors showed that Th17 cells and neutrophils contribute to the sex hormone-dependent protection in female mice.

Strengths:

The role of microbiota was examined in various models (germ-free, co-housing, microbiota transplantation). The identification of responsible immune cells was achieved using several genetic knockouts and cell-specific depletion models. The involvement of sex hormones was clarified using ovariectomy and the FCG model.

Weaknesses:

The specific microbial species/strains responsible for the protection, as well as the mechanisms by which these bacteria regulate sex hormone-mediated protection, remain unclear. However, this does not diminish the conceptual significance of the study.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have adequately addressed my previous concerns, and the revised manuscript shows significant improvement.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Using a mouse model of Staphylococcus aureus gut colonization Lejeune et al demonstrate that the microbiome, immune system, and sex are important contributing factors for whether this important human pathogen persists in the gut. The work begins by describing differential gut clearance of S. aureus in female B6 mice bred at NYU compared to those from Jackson Laboratories (JAX). NYU female mice cleared S. aureus from the gut but NYU male mice and mice of both sexes from JAX exhibited persistent gut colonization. Further experimentation demonstrated that differences between staphylococcal gut clearance in NYU and JAX female mice were attributed to the microbiome. However, NYU male and female mice harbor similar microbiomes, supporting the conclusion that the microbiome cannot account for the observed sex-dependent clearance of S. aureus gut colonization. To identify factors responsible for female clearance of S. aureus, the authors performed RNAseq on intestinal epithelia cells and cells enriched within the lamina propria. This analysis revealed sex-dependent transcriptional responses in both tissues. Genes associated with immune cell function and migration were distinctly expressed between the sexes. To determine which immune cell types contribute to S. aureus clearance Lejeune et al employed genetic and antibody-mediated immune cell depletion. This experiment demonstrated that CD4+ IL17+ cells and neutrophils promote elimination of S. aureus from the gut. Subsequent experiments, including the use of the 'four core genotype model' were conducted to discern between the roles of sex chromosomes and sex hormones. This work demonstrated that sex-chromosome linked genes are not responsible for clearance, increasing the likelihood that hormones play a dominant role in controlling S. aureus gut colonization.

Strengths:

A strength of the work is the rigorous experimental design. Appropriate controls were executed and, in most cases, multiple approaches were conducted to strengthen the authors' conclusions. The conclusions are supported by the data.<br /> The following suggestions are offered to improve an already strong piece of scholarship.

Weaknesses:

The correlation between female sex hormones and elimination of S. aureus from the gut could be further validated by quantifying sex hormones produced in the four core genotype mice in response to colonization. Additionally, and this may not be feasible, but according to the proposed model administering female sex hormones to male mice should decrease colonization. Finally, knowing whether the quantity of IL-17a CD4+ cells change in the OVX mice has the potential to discern whether the abundance/migration of the cells or their activation is promoted by female sex hormones.

In the Discussion the authors highlight previous work establishing a link between immune cells and sex hormone receptors, but whether the estrogen (and progesterone) receptor is differentially expressed in response to S. aureus colonization could be assessed in the RNAseq dataset. Differential expression of known X and Y chromosome linked genes were discussed but specific sex hormones or sex hormone receptors, like the estrogen receptor were not. This potential result could be highlighted.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have adequately addressed my comments. I have only one minor adjustment: the Esr1 mice should be included the Materials and Methods.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Cao et al. examines an important but understudied question of how chronic exposure to heat drives changes in affective and social behaviors. It has long been known that temperature can be a potent driver of behaviors and can lead to anxiety and aggression. However, the neural circuitry that mediates these changes is not known. Cao et al. take on this question by integrating optical tools of systems neuroscience to record and manipulate bulk activity in neural circuits, in combination with a creative battery of behavior assays. They demonstrate that chronic daily exposure to heat leads to changes in anxiety, locomotion, social approach, and aggression. They identify a circuit from preoptic area (POA) to posterior paraventricular thalamus (pPVT) in mediating these behavior changes. The POA-PVT circuit increases activity during heat exposure. Further, manipulation of this circuit can drive affective and social behavioral phenotypes even in the absence of heat exposure. Moreover, silencing this circuit during heat exposure prevents the development of negative phenotypes. Overall the manuscript makes an important contribution to the understudied area of how ambient temperature shapes motivated behaviors.

Strengths

The use of state-of-the-art systems neuroscience tools (in vivo optogenetics and fiber photometry, slice electrophysiology), chronic temperature-controlled experiments, and a rigorous battery of behavioral assays to determine affective phenotypes. The optogenetic gain of function of affective phenotypes in the absence of heat, and loss of function in the presence of heat are very convincing manipulation data. Overall a significant contribution to the circuit-level instantiation of temperature induced changes in motivated behavior, and creative experiments.

Weaknesses

The authors have fully addressed all of my questions and concerns, with the exception of one comment. They mention that they did carry out measurements of core body temperature as a control during optogenetic experiments and did not see any effects. However, I could only find this reported in the text but could not find the data in the main or supplementary figures.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The study by Cao et al. highlights an interesting and important aspect of heat- and thermal biology: the effect of repetitive, long-term heat exposure and its impact on brain function.<br /> Even though peripheral, sensory temperature sensors and afferent neuronal pathways conveying acute temperature information to the CNS have been well established, it is largely unknown how persistent, long-term temperature stimuli interact with and shape CNS function, and how these thermally-induced CNS alterations modulate efferent pathways to change physiology and behavior. This study is therefore not only novel but, given global warming, also timely.

The authors provide compelling evidence that neurons of the paraventricular thalamus change plastically over three weeks of episodic heat stimulation and they convincingly show that these changes affect behavioral outputs such as social interactions, and anxiety related behaviors.

Strengths:

• It is impressive that the assessed behaviors can be (i) recruited by optogenetic fiber activation and (ii) inhibited by optogenetic fiber inhibition when mice are exposed to heat. Technically, when/how long is the fiber inhibition performed? It says in the text "3 min on and 3 min off". Is this only during the 20 minutes heat stimulation or also at other times?<br /> • It is interesting that the frequency of activity in pPVT neurons, as assessed by fiber photometry, stays increased after long-term heat exposure (day 22) when mice are back at normal room temperature. This appears similar to a previous study that found long-term heat exposure to transform POA neurons plastically to become tonically active (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.08.06.606929v1 ). Interestingly, the POA neurons that become tonically active by persistent heat exposure described in the above study are largely excitatory and thus these could drive the activity of the pPVT neurons analyzed in this study.<br /> How can it be reconciled that the majority of the inputs from the POA are found to be largely inhibitory (Fig. 2H)? Is it possible that this result stems from the fact that non-selective POA-to-pPVT projections are labelled by the approach used in this study and not only those pathways activated by heat? These points would be nice to discuss.<br /> • It is very interesting that no LTP can be induced after chronic heat exposure (Fig. K-M); the authors suggest that "the pathway in these mice were already saturated" (line 375). Could this hypothesis be tested in slices by employing a protocol to extinguish pre-existing (chronic heat exposure-induced) LTP? This would provide further strength to the findings/suggestion that an important synaptic plasticity mechanism is at play that conveys behavioral changes upon chronic heat stimulation.<br /> • It is interesting that long-term heat does not increase parameters associated with depression (Fig. 1N-Q), how is it with acute heat stress, are those depression parameters increased acutely? It would be interesting to learn if "depression indicators" increase acutely but then adapt (as a consequence of heat acclimation) or if they are not changed at all and are also low during acute heat exposure.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this study, Cao et al. explore the neural mechanisms by which chronic heat exposure induces negative valence and hyperarousal in mice, focusing on the role of the posterior paraventricular nucleus (pPVT) neurons that receive projections from the preoptic area (POA). The authors show that chronic heat exposure leads to heightened activity of the POA projection-receiving pPVT neurons, potentially contributing to behavioral changes such as increased anxiety level and reduced sociability, along with heightened startle responses. In addition, using electrophysiological methods, the authors suggest that increased membrane excitability of pPVT neurons may underlie these behavioral changes. The use of a variety of behavioral assays enhances the robustness of their claim. Moreover, while previous research on thermoregulation has predominantly focused on physiological responses to thermal stress, this study adds a unique and valuable perspective by exploring how thermal stress impacts affective states and behaviors, thereby broadening the field of thermoregulation.

While the manuscript has been revised and some efforts have been made to address the reviewers' concerns, the majority of the issues raised remain insufficiently resolved. Therefore, the reviewer has highlighted key major points that the authors should address to strengthen the manuscript's conclusions.

Major points<br /> The manuscript highlights the increased activity in pPVT neurons receiving projections from the POA (Figure 3) and shows that these neurons are necessary for heat-induced behavioral changes (Figures 4N-W). However, it remains unclear whether the POA-to-pPVT projection itself plays a critical role. Since pPVT recipient neurons can receive inputs from various brain regions, the role of the POA input in driving these effects needs to be validated more explicitly.<br /> (1) To establish this, the authors should conduct experiments directly inhibiting the POA-to-pPVT projection and demonstrate whether the increased activity in pPVT neurons due to chronic heat exposure is abolished when the POA is blocked.<br /> (2) Alternatively, the authors could use anterograde labeling from the POA and specifically target recipient neurons in the pPVT to confirm that the observed excitatory inputs originate from the POA (related to Figure 6).<br /> (3) If these experiments are not feasible, the authors should consider toning down the emphasis on the POA's role throughout the manuscript and discussing this limitation explicitly. The term "POA recipient pPVT neurons" should be used consistently to avoid misleading implications that the POA-to-pPVT excitatory projection is definitively established as the key pathway.<br /> a) For example, in lines 368-369, the phrase "The increase in presynaptic excitability of the POA to pPVT excitatory pathway" represents a logical jump, as the data only support the "differential increase in presynaptic excitability of the excitatory pathway" (as described in lines 358-359) without specifically confirming the POA-to-pPVT pathway.<br /> b) Similarly, in lines 442-446, the statement "the role of excitatory projections from POA to pPVT in chronic heat exposure-induced emotional changes" should be revised to "the role of excitatory projection recipient pPVT in chronic heat~," as the data do not provide direct evidence that heat-responsive POA neurons projecting to pPVT mediate these effects. Such revisions would improve clarity and ensure that the conclusions remain aligned with the presented data.

Joint Public Review:

Satoshi Yamashita et al., investigate the physical mechanisms driving tissue bending using the cellular Potts Model, starting from a planar cellular monolayer. They argue that apical length-independent tension control alone cannot explain bending phenomena in the cellular Potts Model, contrasting with previous works, particularly Vertex Models. They conclude that an apical elastic term, with zero rest value (due to endocytosis/exocytosis), is necessary to achieve apical constriction and that tissue bending can be enhanced by adding a supracellular myosin cable. Additionally, a very high apical elastic constant promotes planar tissue configurations, opposing bending.

Strengths:

- The finding of the required mechanisms for tissue bending in the cellular Potts Model provides a natural alternative for studying bending processes in situations with highly curved cells.

- Despite viewing cellular delamination as an undesired outcome in this particular manuscript, the model's capability to naturally allow T1 events might prove useful for studying cell mechanics during out-of-plane extrusion.

[Editors' note: The previous reviews have not been updated, as the changes to the manuscript were restricted to refining the text. The authors addressed all of the minor points raised by the reviewers. Some of the major points such as the lack of a summary quantification still stand. The previous reviews are here: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.93496.2.sa1]

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Dopamine neurons contribute to motivated and motor behaviors in many ways, and ample recent evidence has suggested that distinct dopamine neuron subclasses support discrete behavioral and circuit functions. Prior studies have subdivided dopamine neurons by spatial localization, gene expression patterns, and physiological properties. However, many of these studies were bound by previous technical limitations that made comprehensive subclassification efforts difficult or impossible. The main goal of this manuscript was to characterize and further define dopamine neuron heterogeneity in the ventral midbrain. The study uses cutting-edge single nucleus RNA-seq (on the 10X Genomics platform) and spatial transcriptomics (on the MERFISH platform) to define dopamine neuron heterogeneity with unprecedented resolution. The result is a convincing and comprehensive subclassification of dopamine neurons into three main families, each with major branches and subtypes. In addition, the study reports comparisons between wild type mice and mice that harbor a G2019S mutation in the Lrrk2 gene, which models a common cause of autosomally dominant Parkinson's Disease in humans. These results, while less robust due to the nature of the group comparisons, nevertheless identify vulnerability within specific dopamine neuron subpopulations. This vulnerability may contribute unique risk to dopamine neuron loss in the context of Parkinson's disease. Overall, the study is careful and rigorous and provides a critical resource for the rapidly evolving knowledge of dopamine neuron subtypes.

Strengths:

-The creation of a public-facing app where the snRNA-seq data can be investigated by anyone is a major strength.<br /> -The manuscript includes careful comparisons to prior datasets that have sought to explore dopamine neuron heterogeneity. The result is a useful synthesis of new findings with previously published work, which is helpful for moving the field forward in this area.<br /> -The integration of snRNA-seq with MERFISH results is particularly strong, and enables insight not only into subclassification, but also into how this relates to spatial localization. The careful neuroanatomy reveals important distinctions between Sox6, Calb1, and Gad2 positive dopamine neuron families, with some degree of spatial overlap.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Gaertner and colleagues present a study examining the transcriptomic diversity and spatial location of dopaminergic neurons from mice and examine the changes in gene expression resulting from knock in of the Parkinson's LRRK G2019S risk variant. Overall, I found the manuscript presented their study very clearly, well written with very clear figures for the most part. I am not an expert on mouse neuroanatomy but found their classification reasonably well justified and spatial orientation of dopaminergic neurons within the mouse brain informative and clear. While trends were clear and well presented, the apparent spatial heterogeneity suggests that knowledge of the functional connections and roles of these neurons will be required to better interpret the results presented but nonetheless their findings exposed significant detail that is required for further understanding.

The study of the transcriptional effects of the LRRK2 KI was also informative and clearly framed in terms of a focused analyses on the effects of the KI only on dopaminergic neurons.

I thank the authors for addressing my previous concerns and comments, and feel they have done so well. I agree that as GSEA only includes ranked genes from the specific study, the gene set is already limited to the relevant background.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The strengths of this paper are clear: The authors are asking a novel question about geometric representation that would be relevant to a broad audience. Their question has a clear grounding in pre-existing mathematical concepts, that have been only minimally explored in cognitive science. Moreover, the data themselves are quite striking, such that my only concern would be that the data seem almost too perfect. It is hard to know what to make of that, however. From one perspective, this is even more reason the results should be published. Yet I am of the (perhaps unorthodox) opinion that reviewers should voice these gut reactions, even if it does not influence the evaluation otherwise. I have a few additional comments:

(1) The authors have now explained their theoretical position in a much more thorough and accessible way. I applaud them for that.

(2) Although I continue to believe that the manipulation in Experiment 1 is imperfect, I am convinced by the authors that the subsequent evidence is more convincing, and thus that the merit of this work lies mostly in those data.

If these results are robust, I believe the authors have discovered something of great value. While this paper stops short of providing definitive evidence in support of the Erlangen program (just as most work in vision science has stopped short of providing definitive evidence in support of its favored view), the data are sufficiently novel and provocative that these theories are worth entertaining further.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study examined the changes in ATL GABA levels induced by cTBS and its relationship with BOLD signal changes and performance in a semantic task. The findings suggest that the increase in ATL GABA levels induced by cTBS is associated with a decrease in BOLD signal. The relationship between ATL GABA levels and semantic task performance is nonlinear, and more specifically, the authors propose that the relationship is an inverted U-shaped relationship.

Strengths:

The findings of the research regarding the increase of GABA and decrease of BOLD caused by cTBS, as well as the correlation between the two, appear to be reliable. This should be valuable for understanding the biological effects of cTBS.

Weakness:

I am pleased to see the authors' feedback on my previous questions and suggestions, and I believe the additional data analysis they have added is helpful. Here are my reserved concerns and newly discovered issues.

(1) Regarding the Inverted U-Shaped Curve In the revised manuscript, the authors have accepted some of my suggestions and conducted further analysis, which is now presented in Figure 3B. These results provide partial support for the authors' hypothesis. However, I still believe that the data from this study hardly convincingly support an inverted U-shaped distribution relationship.<br /> The authors stated in their response, "it is challenging to determine the optimal level of ATL GABA," but I think this is achievable. From Figures 4C and 4D, the ATL GABA levels corresponding to the peak of the inverted U-shaped curve fall between 85 and 90. In my understanding, this can be considered as the optimal level of ATL GABA estimated based on the existing data and the inverted U-shaped curve relationship. However, in the latter half of the inverted U-shaped curve, there are quite few data points, and such a small number of data points hardly provides reliable support for the quantitative relationship in the latter half of the curve. I suggest that the authors should at least explicitly acknowledge this and be cautious in drawing conclusions. I also suggest that the authors consider fitting the data with more types of non-linear relationships, such as a ceiling effect (a combination of a slope and a horizontal line), or a logarithmic curve.

(2) In Figure 2F, the authors demonstrated a strong practice effect in this study, which to some extent offsets the decrease in behavioral performance caused by cTBS. Therefore, I recommend that the authors give sufficient consideration to the practice effect in the data analysis.<br /> One issue is the impact of the practice effect on the classification of responders and non-responders. Currently, most participants are classified as non-responders, suggesting that the majority of the population may not respond to the cTBS used in this study. This greatly challenges the generalizability of the experimental conclusions. However, the emergence of so many non-responders is likely due to the prominent practice effect, which offsets part of the experimental effect. If the practice effect is excluded, the number of responders may increase. The authors might estimate the practice effect based on the vertex simulation condition and reclassify participants after excluding the influence of the practice effect.<br /> Another issue is that considering the significant practice effect, the analysis in Figure 4D, which mixes pre- and post-test data, may not be reliable.

(3) The analysis in Figure 3A has a double dipping issue. Suppose we generate 100 pairs of random numbers as pre- and post-test scores, and then group the data based on whether the scores decrease or increase; the pre-test scores of the group with decreased scores will have a very high probability of being higher than those of the group with increased scores. Therefore, the findings in Figure 3A seem to be meaningless.

(4) The authors use IE as a behavioral measure in some analyses and use accuracy in others. I recommend that the authors adopt a consistent behavioral measure.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors combined inhibitory neurostimulation (continuous theta-burst stimulation, cTBS) with subsequent MRI measurements to investigate the impact of inhibition of the left anterior temporal lobe (ATL) on task-related activity and performance during a semantic task and link stimulation-induced changes to the neurochemical level by including MR spectroscopy (MRS). cTBS effects in the ATL were compared with a control site in the vertex. The authors found that relative to stimulation of the vertex, cTBS significantly increased the local GABA concentration in the ATL. cTBS also decreased task-related semantic activity in the ATL and potentially delayed semantic task performance by hindering a practice effect from pre to post. Finally, pooled data with their previous MRS study suggest an inverted u-shape between GABA concentration and behavioral performance. These results help to better understand the neuromodulatory effects of non-invasive brain stimulation on task performance.

Strengths:

Multimodal assessment of neurostimulation effects on the behavioral, neurochemical, and neural levels. In particular, the link between GABA modulation and behavior is timely and potentially interesting.

Weaknesses:

The analyses are not sound. Some of the effects are very weak and not all conclusions are supported by the data since some of the comparisons are not justified. There is some redundancy with a previous paper by the same authors, so the novelty and contribution to the field are overall limited. A network approach might help here.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors used cTBS TMS, magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) as the main methods of investigation. Their data show that cTBS modulates GABA concentration and task-dependent BOLD in the ATL, whereby greater GABA increase following ATL cTBS showed greater reductions in BOLD changes in ATL. This effect was also reflected in the performance of the behavioural task response times, which did not subsume to practice effects after AL cTBS as opposed to the associated control site and control task. This is in line with their first hypothesis. The data further indicates that regional GABA concentrations in the ATL play a crucial role in semantic memory because individuals with higher (but not excessive) GABA concentrations in the ATLs performed better on the semantic task. This is in line with their second prediction. Finally, the authors conducted additional analyses to explore the mechanistic link between ATL inhibitory GABAergic action and semantic task performance. They show that this link is best captured by an inverted U-shaped function as a result of a quadratic linear regression model. Fitting this model to their data indicates that increasing GABA levels led to better task performance as long as they were not excessively low or excessively high. This was first tested as a relationship between GABA levels in the ATL and semantic task performance; then the same analyses were performed on the pre and post-cTBS TMS stimulation data, showing the same pattern. These results are in line with the conclusions of the authors.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have comprehensively addressed my comments from the first round of review, and I consider most of their answers and the steps they have taken satisfactorily. Their insights prompted me to reflect further on my own knowledge and thinking regarding the ATL function.

I do, however, have an additional and hopefully constructive comment regarding the point made about the study focusing on the left instead of bilateral ATL. I appreciate the methodological complexities and the pragmatic reasons underlying this decision. Nevertheless, briefly incorporating the justification for this decision into the manuscript would have been beneficial for clarity and completeness. The presented argument follows an interesting logic; however, despite strong previous evidence supporting it, the approach remains based on an assumption. Given that the authors now provide the group-level fMRI results captured more comprehensively in Supplementary Figure 2, where the bilateral pattern of fMRI activation can be observed in the current data, the authors could have strengthened their argument by asserting that the activation related to the given semantic association task in this data was bilateral. This would imply that the TMS effects and associated changes in GABA should be similar for both sites. Furthermore, it is worth noting the approach taken by Pobric et al. (2007, PNAS), who stimulated a site located 10 mm posterior to the tip of the left temporal pole along the middle temporal gyrus (MTG) and not the bilateral ATL.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study explores the immune microenvironment of the placenta in preeclampsia (PE), which is often accompanied by gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Using CyTOF, they found that placentas from PE cases showed increased frequencies of memory-like Th17 cells, memory-like CD8⁺ T cells, and pro-inflammatory macrophages, alongside decreased levels of anti-inflammatory macrophages and granulocyte myeloid-derived suppressor cells (gMDSCs) compared to normal pregnancies. Further analysis revealed a positive correlation between pro-inflammatory macrophages and the expanded T cell populations, and a negative correlation with gMDSCs. Single-cell RNA sequencing provided mechanistic insights: transferring a specific subset of pro-inflammatory macrophages (F4/80⁺CD206⁻ with a distinct gene expression profile) from the uterus of PE mice to normal pregnant mice induced the formation of pathogenic memory-like Th17 cells via the IGF1-IGF1R pathway. This cellular interplay not only contributed to the development but also to the recurrence of PE. Additionally, these macrophages promoted the production of memory-like CD8⁺ T cells while inhibiting gMDSCs at the maternal-fetal interface, culminating in PE-like symptoms in mice. In conclusion, the study identifies a PE-specific immune cell network regulated by pro-inflammatory macrophages, offering new insights into the pathogenesis of preeclampsia.

Strengths:

Utilization of both human placental samples and multiple mouse models to explore the mechanisms linking inflammatory macrophages and T cells to preeclampsia (PE).<br /> Incorporation of cutting-edge and complementary techniques such as CyTOF, scRNA-seq, bulk RNA-seq, and flow cytometry.

Identification of specific immune cell populations and their roles in PE.<br /> Demonstration of the adverse effects of pro-inflammatory macrophages and T cells on pregnancy outcomes through in vivo manipulations.

Comments on revised version:

Several weaknesses were addressed during revision by conducting additional experiments, clarifying the manuscript's text, and incorporating new data that was not initially included.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Fei, Lu, Shi, et al. present a thorough evaluation of the immune cell landscape in pre-eclamptic human placentas by single-cell multi-omics methodologies compared to normal control placentas. Based on their findings of elevated frequencies of inflammatory macrophages and memory-like Th17 cells, they employ adoptive cell transfer mouse models to interrogate the coordination and function of these cell types in pre-eclampsia immunopathology. They demonstrate the putative role of the IGF1-IGF1R axis as the key pathway by which inflammatory macrophages in the placenta skew CD4+ T cells towards an inflammatory IL-17A-secreting phenotype that may drive tissue damage, vascular dysfunction, and elevated blood pressure in pre-eclampsia, leaving researchers with potential translational opportunities to pursue this pathway in this indication.

They present a major advance to the field in their profiling of human placental immune cells from pre-eclampsia patients where most extant single-cell atlases focus on term versus preterm placenta, or largely examine trophoblast biology with a much rarer subset of immune cells. While the authors present vast amounts of data at both the protein and RNA transcript level, we, the reviewers, feel this manuscript is still in need of much more clarity in its main messaging, and more discretion in including only key data that supports this main message most effectively.

Strengths:

(1) This study combines human and mouse analyses and allows for some amount of mechanistic insight into the role of pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory macrophages in the pathogenesis of pre-eclampsia (PE), and their interaction with Th17 cells.

(2) Importantly, they do this using matched cohorts across normal pregnancy and common PE comorbidities like gestation diabetes (GDM).

(3) The authors have developed clear translational opportunities from these "big data" studies by moving to pursue potential IGF1-based interventions.

[Editors' note: the authors have provided responses to the previously identified weaknesses]

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors investigated the elasticity of controllability by developing a task that manipulates the probability of achieving a goal with a baseline investment (which they refer to as inelastic controllability) and the probability that additional investment would increase the probability of achieving a goal (which they refer to as elastic controllability). They found that a computational model representing the controllability and elasticity of the environment accounted better for the data than a model representing only the controllability. They also found that prior biases about the controllability and elasticity of the environment were associated with a composite psychopathology score. The authors conclude that elasticity inference and bias guide resource allocation.

Strengths:

This research takes a novel theoretical and methodological approach to understanding how people estimate the level of control they have over their environment, and how they adjust their actions accordingly. The task is innovative and both it and the findings are well-described (with excellent visuals). They also offer thorough validation for the particular model they develop. The research has the potential to theoretically inform the understanding of control across domains, which is a topic of great importance.

Weaknesses:

An overarching concern is that this paper is framed as addressing resource investments across domains that include time, money, and effort, and the introductory examples focus heavily on effort-based resources (e.g., exercising, studying, practicing). The experiments, though, focus entirely on the equivalent of monetary resources - participants make discrete actions based on the number of points they want to use on a given turn. While the same ideas might generalize to decisions about other kinds of resources (e.g., if participants were having to invest the effort to reach a goal), this seems like the kind of speculation that would be better reserved for the Discussion section rather than using effort investment as a means of introducing a new concept (elasticity of control) that the paper will go on to test.

Setting aside the framing of the core concepts, my understanding of the task is that it effectively captures people's estimates of the likelihood of achieving their goal (Pr(success)) conditional on a given investment of resources. The ground truth across the different environments varies such that this function is sometimes flat (low controllability), sometimes increases linearly (elastic controllability), and sometimes increases as a step function (inelastic controllability). If this is accurate, then it raises two questions.

First, on the modeling front, I wonder if a suitable alternative to the current model would be to assume that the participants are simply considering different continuous functions like these and, within a Bayesian framework, evaluating the probabilistic evidence for each function based on each trial's outcome. This would give participants an estimate of the marginal increase in Pr(success) for each ticket, and they could then weigh the expected value of that ticket choice (Pr(success)*150 points) against the marginal increase in point cost for each ticket. This should yield similar predictions for optimal performance (e.g., opt-out for lower controllability environments, i.e., flatter functions), and the continuous nature of this form of function approximation also has the benefit of enabling tests of generalization to predict changes in behavior if there was, for instance, changes in available tickets for purchase (e.g., up to 4 or 5) or changes in ticket prices. Such a model would of course also maintain a critical role for priors based on one's experience within the task as well as over longer timescales, and could be meaningfully interpreted as such (e.g., priors related to the likelihood of success/failure and whether one's actions influence these). It could also potentially reduce the complexity of the model by replacing controllability-specific parameters with multiple candidate functions (presumably learned through past experience, and/or tuned by experience in this task environment), each of which is being updated simultaneously.

Second, if the reframing above is apt (regardless of the best model for implementing it), it seems like the taxonomy being offered by the authors risks a form of "jangle fallacy," in particular by positing distinct constructs (controllability and elasticity) for processes that ultimately comprise aspects of the same process (estimation of the relationship between investment and outcome likelihood). Which of these two frames is used doesn't bear on the rigor of the approach or the strength of the findings, but it does bear on how readers will digest and draw inferences from this work. It is ultimately up to the authors which of these they choose to favor, but I think the paper would benefit from some discussion of a common-process alternative, at least to prevent too strong of inferences about separate processes/modes that may not exist. I personally think the approach and findings in this paper would also be easier to digest under a common-construct approach rather than forcing new terminology but, again, I defer to the authors on this.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper, the authors test whether controllability beliefs and associated actions/resource allocation are modulated by things like time, effort, and monetary costs (what they call "elastic" as opposed to "inelastic" controllability). Using a novel behavioral task and computational modeling, they find that participants do indeed modulate their resources depending on whether they are in an "elastic," "inelastic," or "low controllability" environment. The authors also find evidence that psychopathology is related to specific biases in controllability.

Strengths:

This research investigates how people might value different factors that contribute to controllability in a creative and thorough way. The authors use computational modeling to try to dissociate "elasticity" from "overall controllability," and find some differential associations with psychopathology. This was a convincing justification for using modeling above and beyond behavioral output and yielded interesting results. Interestingly, the authors conclude that these findings suggest that biased elasticity could distort agency beliefs via maladaptive resource allocation. Overall, this paper reveals some important findings about how people consider components of controllability.

Weaknesses:

The primary weakness of this research is that it is not entirely clear what is meant by "elastic" and "inelastic" and how these constructs differ from existing considerations of various factors/calculations that contribute to perceptions of and decisions about controllability. I think this weakness is primarily an issue of framing, where it's not clear whether elasticity is, in fact, theoretically dissociable from controllability. Instead, it seems that the elements that make up "elasticity" are simply some of the many calculations that contribute to controllability. In other words, an "elastic" environment is inherently more controllable than an "inelastic" one, since both environments might have the same level of predictability, but in an "elastic" environment, one can also partake in additional actions to have additional control over achieving the goal (i.e., expend effort, money, time).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

A bias in how people infer the amount of control they have over their environment is widely believed to be a key component of several mental illnesses including depression, anxiety, and addiction. Accordingly, this bias has been a major focus in computational models of those disorders. However, all of these models treat control as a unidimensional property, roughly, how strongly outcomes depend on action. This paper proposes---correctly, I think---that the intuitive notion of "control" captures multiple dimensions in the relationship between action and outcome is multi-dimensional. In particular, the authors propose that the degree to which outcome depends on how much *effort* we exert, calling this dimension the "elasticity of control". They additionally propose that this dimension (rather than the more holistic notion of controllability) may be specifically impaired in certain types of psychopathology. This idea thus has the potential to change how we think about mental disorders in a substantial way, and could even help us better understand how healthy people navigate challenging decision-making problems.

Unfortunately, my view is that neither the theoretical nor empirical aspects of the paper really deliver on that promise. In particular, most (perhaps all) of the interesting claims in the paper have weak empirical support.

Starting with theory, the elasticity idea does not truly "extend" the standard control model in the way the authors suggest. The reason is that effort is simply one dimension of action. Thus, the proposed model ultimately grounds out in how strongly our outcomes depend on our actions (as in the standard model). Contrary to the authors' claims, the elasticity of control is still a fixed property of the environment. Consistent with this, the computational model proposed here is a learning model of this fixed environmental property. The idea is still valuable, however, because it identifies a key dimension of action (namely, effort) that is particularly relevant to the notion of perceived control. Expressing the elasticity idea in this way might support a more general theoretical formulation of the idea that could be applied in other contexts. See Huys & Dayan (2009), Zorowitz, Momennejad, & Daw (2018), and Gagne & Dayan (2022) for examples of generalizable formulations of perceived control.

Turning to experiment, the authors make two key claims: (1) people infer the elasticity of control, and (2) individual differences in how people make this inference are importantly related to psychopathology.

Starting with claim 1, there are three sub-claims here; implicitly, the authors make all three. (1A) People's behavior is sensitive to differences in elasticity, (1B) people actually represent/track something like elasticity, and (1C) people do so naturally as they go about their daily lives. The results clearly support 1A. However, 1B and 1C are not supported.

Starting with 1B, the experiment cannot support the claim that people represent or track elasticity because the effort is the only dimension over which participants can engage in any meaningful decision-making (the other dimension, selecting which destination to visit, simply amounts to selecting the location where you were just told the treasure lies). Thus, any adaptive behavior will necessarily come out in a sensitivity to how outcomes depend on effort. More concretely, any model that captures the fact that you are more likely to succeed in two attempts than one will produce the observed behavior. The null models do not make this basic assumption and thus do not provide a useful comparison.

For 1C, the claim that people infer elasticity outside of the experimental task cannot be supported because the authors explicitly tell people about the two notions of control as part of the training phase: "To reinforce participants' understanding of how elasticity and controllability were manifested in each planet, [participants] were informed of the planet type they had visited after every 15 trips." (line 384).

Finally, I turn to claim 2, that individual differences in how people infer elasticity are importantly related to psychopathology. There is much to say about the decision to treat psychopathology as a unidimensional construct. However, I will keep it concrete and simply note that CCA (by design) obscures the relationship between any two variables. Thus, as suggestive as Figure 6B is, we cannot conclude that there is a strong relationship between Sense of Agency and the elasticity bias---this result is consistent with any possible relationship (even a negative one). The fact that the direct relationship between these two variables is not shown or reported leads me to infer that they do not have a significant or strong relationship in the data.

There is also a feature of the task that limits our ability to draw strong conclusions about individual differences in elasticity inference. As the authors clearly acknowledge, the task was designed "to be especially sensitive to overestimation of elasticity" (line 287). A straightforward consequence of this is that the resulting *empirical* estimate of estimation bias (i.e., the gamma_elasticity parameter) is itself biased. This immediately undermines any claim that references the directionality of the elasticity bias (e.g. in the abstract). Concretely, an undirected deficit such as slower learning of elasticity would appear as a directed overestimation bias.

When we further consider that elasticity inference is the only meaningful learning/decision-making problem in the task (argued above), the situation becomes much worse. Many general deficits in learning or decision-making would be captured by the elasticity bias parameter. Thus, a conservative interpretation of the results is simply that psychopathology is associated with impaired learning and decision-making.

Minor comments:

Showing that a model parameter correlates with the data it was fit to does not provide any new information, and cannot support claims like "a prior assumption that control is likely available was reflected in a futile investment of resources in uncontrollable environments." To make that claim, one must collect independent measures of the assumption and the investment.

Did participants always make two attempts when purchasing tickets? This seems to violate the intuitive model, in which you would sometimes succeed on the first jump. If so, why was this choice made? Relatedly, it is not clear to me after a close reading how the outcome of each trial was actually determined.

It should be noted that the model is heuristically defined and does not reflect Bayesian updating. In particular, it overestimates control by not using losses with less than 3 tickets (intuitively, the inference here depends on your beliefs about elasticity). I wonder if the forced three-ticket trials in the task might be historically related to this modeling choice.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study identified three independent components of glucose dynamics-"value," "variability," and "autocorrelation", and reported important findings indicating that they play an important role in predicting coronary plaque vulnerability. Although the generalizability of the results needs further investigation due to the limited sample size and validation cohort limitations, this study makes several notable contributions: validation of autocorrelation as a new clinical indicator, theoretical support through mathematical modeling, and development of a web application for practical implementation. These contributions are likely to attract broad interest from researchers in both diabetology and cardiology and may suggest the potential for a new approach to glucose monitoring that goes beyond conventional glycemic control indicators in clinical practice.

Strengths:

The most notable strength of this study is the identification of three independent elements in glycemic dynamics: value, variability, and autocorrelation. In particular, the metric of autocorrelation, which has not been captured by conventional glycemic control indices, may bring a new perspective for understanding glycemic dynamics. In terms of methodological aspects, the study uses an analytical approach combining various statistical methods such as factor analysis, LASSO, and PLS regression, and enhances the reliability of results through theoretical validation using mathematical models and validation in other cohorts. In addition, the practical aspect of the research results, such as the development of a Web application, is also an important contribution to clinical implementation.

Weaknesses:

The most significant weakness of this study is the relatively small sample size of 53 study subjects. This sample size limitation leads to a lack of statistical power, especially in subgroup analyses, and to limitations in the assessment of rare events. In terms of validation, several challenges exist, including geographical and ethnic biases in the validation cohorts, lack of long-term follow-up data, and insufficient validation across different clinical settings. In terms of data representativeness, limiting factors include the inclusion of only subjects with well-controlled serum cholesterol and blood pressure and the use of only short-term measurement data. In terms of elucidation of physical mechanisms, the study is not sufficient to elucidate the mechanisms linking autocorrelation and clinical outcomes or to verify them at the cellular or molecular level.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Sugimoto et al. explore the relationship between glucose dynamics - specifically value, variability, and autocorrelation - and coronary plaque vulnerability in patients with varying glucose tolerance levels. The study identifies three independent predictive factors for %NC and emphasizes the use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)-derived indices for coronary artery disease (CAD) risk assessment. By employing robust statistical methods and validating findings across datasets from Japan, America, and China, the authors highlight the limitations of conventional markers while proposing CGM as a novel approach for risk prediction. The study has the potential to reshape CAD risk assessment by emphasizing CGM-derived indices, aligning well with personalized medicine trends.

Strengths:

(1) The introduction of autocorrelation as a predictive factor for plaque vulnerability adds a novel dimension to glucose dynamic analysis.

(2) Inclusion of datasets from diverse regions enhances generalizability.

(3) The use of a well-characterized cohort with controlled cholesterol and blood pressure levels strengthens the findings.

(4) The focus on CGM-derived indices aligns with personalized medicine trends, showcasing the potential for CAD risk stratification.

Weaknesses:

(1) The link between autocorrelation and plaque vulnerability remains speculative without a proposed biological explanation.

(2) The relatively small sample size (n=270) limits statistical power, especially when stratified by glucose tolerance levels.

(3) Strict participant selection criteria may reduce applicability to broader populations.

(4) CGM-derived indices like AC_Var and ADRR may be too complex for routine clinical use without simplified models or guidelines.

(5) The study does not compare CGM-derived indices to existing advanced CAD risk models, limiting the ability to assess their true predictive superiority.

(6) Varying CGM sampling intervals (5-minute vs. 15-minute) were not thoroughly analyzed for impact on results.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a retrospective analysis of 53 individuals over 26 features (12 clinical phenotypes, 12 CGM features, and 2 autocorrelation features) to examine which features were most informative in predicting percent necrotic core (%NC) as a parameter for coronary plaque vulnerability. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated a better ability to predict %NC from 3 selected CGM-derived features than 3 selected clinical phenotypes. LASSO regularization and partial least squares (PLS) with VIP scores were used to identify 4 CGM features that most contribute to the precision of %NC. Using factor analysis they identify 3 components that have CGM-related features: value (relating to the value of blood glucose), variability (relating to glucose variability), and autocorrelation (composed of the two autocorrelation features). These three groupings appeared in the 3 validation cohorts and when performing hierarchical clustering. To demonstrate how these three features change, a simulation was created to allow the user to examine these features under different conditions.

Review:

The goal of this study was to identify CGM features that relate to %NC. Through multiple feature selection methods, they arrive at 3 components: value, variability, and autocorrelation. While the feature list is highly correlated, the authors take steps to ensure feature selection is robust. There is a lack of clarity of what each component (value, variability, and autocorrelation) includes as while similar CGM indices fall within each component, there appear to be some indices that appear as relevant to value in one dataset and to variability in the validation. We are sceptical about statements of significance without documentation of p-values. While hesitations remain, the ability of these authors to find groupings of these many CGM metrics in relation to %NC is of interest. The believability of the associations is impeded by an obtuse presentation of the results with core data (i.e. correlation plots between CGM metrics and %NC) buried in the supplement while main figures contain plots of numerical estimates from models which would be more usefully presented in supplementary tables. Given the small sample size in the primary analysis, there is a lot of modeling done with parameters estimated where simpler measures would serve and be more convincing as they require less data manipulation. A major example of this is that the pairwise correlation/covariance between CGM_mean, CGM_std, and AC_var is not shown and would be much more compelling in the claim that these are independent factors. Lack of methodological detail is another challenge. For example, the time period of CGM metrics or CGM placement in the primary study in relation to the IVUS-derived measurements of coronary plaques is unclear. Are they temporally distant or proximal/ concurrent with the PCI? A patient undergoing PCI for coronary intervention would be expected to have physiological and iatrogenic glycemic disturbances that do not reflect their baseline state. This is not considered or discussed. The attempts at validation in external cohorts, Japanese, American, and Chinese are very poorly detailed. We could only find even an attempt to examine cardiovascular parameters in the Chinese data set but the outcome variables are unspecified with regard to what macrovascular events are included, their temporal relation to the CGM metrics, etc. Notably macrovascular event diagnoses are very different from the coronary plaque necrosis quantification. This could be a source of strength in the findings if carefully investigated and detailed but due to the lack of detail seems like an apples-to-oranges comparison. Finally, the simulations at the end are not relevant to the main claims of the paper and we would recommend removing them for the coherence of this manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study represents an incremental step toward mitochondrial DNA editing but raises several concerns regarding its impact and broader applicability. The reported in vitro editing efficiency of 17% in mitotic cells, with non-specific editing across multiple A:T sites, offers limited improvement over prior technologies like DdCBE. Editing efficiency for the Mt-Atp6 gene was even lower (~4%), rendering it unlikely to produce functional changes relevant to mitochondrial function or bioenergetics.

While the modified TadA8e(V28R) mutant alleviated toxicity and enabled sufficient AAV production for in vivo experiments, the low in vivo editing efficiency (~4%) after 4 weeks was disappointing and unlikely to be biologically meaningful. Furthermore, the use of P1 postnatal tissues, which are still developing, raises questions about their suitability as models for postmitotic tissues, especially since the brain - a key organ affected by mitochondrial diseases - was excluded from the analysis.

Despite demonstrating feasibility for mitochondrial adenine base editing, the study highlights significant limitations, underscoring the need for further optimization. The reviewer also suggests adopting clearer terminology, such as "pathological variant" instead of "mutation," to enhance precision.

Strengths:

The study demonstrates the feasibility of adenine base editing in mitochondrial DNA, marking a step forward in expanding mitochondrial genome engineering capabilities. A notable strength is the development of a modified TadA8e(V28R) mutant, which successfully mitigated toxicity and enabled sufficient AAV production for in vivo experiments. This technical advancement addresses a key challenge in mitochondrial gene editing and provides a foundation for improving delivery methods and reducing off-target effects.

Additionally, the study highlights the potential for targeted mitochondrial DNA modifications using optimized TALEs, achieving A:T to G:C conversions in multiple genes. While the in vitro editing efficiency remains modest, the approach represents an important proof-of-concept for potentially advancing mitochondrial editing technologies, particularly in the context of addressing pathological variants.

Weaknesses:

The major weaknesses of the study center around its low editing efficiency, both in vitro and in vivo. In vitro editing achieved only 17% efficiency in mitotic cells, while the efficiency for the Mt-Atp6 gene was even lower, around 4%. This level of editing is unlikely to produce meaningful functional or biological changes, particularly in cells with pathological mtDNA variants. Similarly, in vivo, editing efficiency after a 4-week exposure period remained at approximately 4%, which is insufficient to support claims of effective mitochondrial genome editing. Another significant limitation is the lack of editing specificity, as observed changes occurred at multiple A:T sites within and across the editing window rather than being confined to a single position, raising concerns about precision and off-target effects.

The use of P1 postnatal mouse tissues also raises questions about the relevance of the model, as these tissues are still undergoing development and may not truly reflect postmitotic states. This casts doubt on whether the findings are transferable to mature tissues, such as the adult brain, which is frequently affected by mitochondrial diseases. Furthermore, the exclusion of brain tissue from the analysis limits the study's applicability to neurological disorders, a key area of mitochondrial disease research. The rationale for excluding brain tissue is not addressed, leaving an important gap in the study's scope.

The findings also lack novelty, as the reported low efficiency and lack of specificity are consistent with previous studies, making it unclear whether this work represents a significant advancement over existing technologies.

Collectively, these weaknesses underscore the need for further optimization of the approach, improved targeting specificity, and validation in more relevant models to demonstrate therapeutic potential.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The authors have demonstrated the use of adenine base editors delivered via adeno-associated viruses to introduce edits in the mitochondrial genome. The manuscript describes the methodology well, and the conclusions are aptly supported by the results. It highlights the potential of these base editors to model mtDNA variations in somatic tissues in animal models.

However, there are a few comments that need to be addressed:

(1) Limitations of the small sample size need to be explained clearly for the results described.

(2) It will be beneficial for the readers if some light is shed on the possible reasons why the efficiencies of adenine base editing are lower than those reported for published cytosine base editors to introduce edits in the mitochondrial DNA.

(3) The conclusion should more explicitly address the limitations and future directions on low editing efficiency and what can be possible optimization steps.

(4) In Figure 1, A-to-G editing for the genes Mt-Cytb, Mt-CoII, and Mt-Atp6 appears to be strand-specific for the different architectures of adenine base editors. Do authors have a possible hypothesis if one of the strands is more favorable to editing depending on where the TadA8 binds or is it random?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In all animals, the fertilized egg is transcriptionally silent, and thus early embryonic development relies on maternally deposited factors. A key mode of regulation is translational control to produce the proteins needed by the developing embryo. In zebrafish as well as other animals, distinct ribosomes, those coming from the maternal pool (maternal ribosomes produced in the germ line/oocytes), and those produced from new transcription after genome activation (somatic ribosomes). In zebrafish, the maternal pool consists of a "maternal" rRNA produced from rDNA on chromosome 4, that has previously been shown to be amplified or expressed specifically in the germ line and in oocytes. The observed sex-specific expression of m-rDNA has led to models that it is involved in sex differentiation and/or maternal control of early embryonic development, both as mediators of translation and as a source of raw materials needed to produce new ribosomes. The work to date in the field indicates that maternal and somatic ribosomes are distinct in their expression profiles but whether they have unique, or gene-specific activities awaits determining if somatic rDNA can functionally replace m-rDNA.

In this manuscript, the authors investigated the expression profiles, protein composition, and ability of maternal and somatic ribosome components to interact with one another and their association with polysomes. This study reports sequence differences between maternal and somatic ribosomal components as well as proteomics and structural analysis of ribosome composition in oocytes and early development. This analysis shows that ribosome subunit composition changes over developmental time but did not uncover evidence suggesting maternal or somatic ribosome-specific ribosomal protein paralog use. The key findings of this work are:<br /> (1) Observation of hybrid ribosomes composed of subunits of maternal and somatic origin in the embryo.<br /> (2) Detection of both maternal and somatic ribosomes in polysomes, indicating maternal and somatic ribosomes both support translation in the embryos and may not be functionally unique.<br /> (3) Persistent expression of m-rRNA in germ cells, suggesting m-ribosomes, as the main ribosome type present, are important for translation in germ cells. The question of ribosome heterogeneity and the function of maternal versus somatic rDNA and ribosomes is of great interest to the broader scientific community. Overall, the manuscript is clearly written and the solid data provided support the main ideas and conclusions.

Specific points are detailed below.

(1) In Figure 1D the m-rRNA abundance goes down at 3dpf, then up again while the s-rRNA steadily increases and peaks at 3dpf then drops thereafter. As presented in the graph it is unclear if this up-then-down trend is consistently observed or not. There are bars on the graph for m-rRNA but not for s-rRNA, thus it is unclear how many times this experiment was performed for the s-rRNA or how variable the results were from sample to sample. Beyond this technical point, if the pattern is consistent, this is an interesting observation as it would signal either a shift in rDNA transcription to silence the somatic locus and/or post-transcriptional targeted degradation of the somatic rRNA in germ cells.

(2) Although qualified by the authors to some extent, the conclusion regarding maternal ribosomes and specificity related to the translation of germ line-specific transcripts is potentially confusing or misleading. Since the maternal form appears to be the only or predominant form of ribosomes in the germ cells at this stage, these would be the only ribosomes available for translation in germ cells. So, any RNA being translated in the germ cells, even RNAs that are not specifically expressed in the germline would be "enriched in association with" and translated by the maternal ribosomes in germ cells. Additional supporting evidence would be required to support the conclusion that the maternal ribosomes are specifically dedicated to the translation of germ cell-specific RNAs, like nanos3, rather than just general translation in germ cells. Consistent with a more general role for the maternal ribosomes in translation in germ cells, differential codon use has been previously documented for the RNAs produced in oocytes (aka maternal RNAs) (for example Bazzini et al EMBO 2016; Mishima and Tomari Mol Cell 2016), and tRNA genes were recently reported by Wilson and Postlethwait to reside along with the maternal 5S genes and maternal-specific spliceosome components in the region of chromosome 4 that is differentially activated in oocytes and testis (region 2 coding genes are silenced in the ovary but maternal ribosome-related genes are expressed in the ovary; region 4 contains the maternal 45S gene). Further, some of the authors of this manuscript undergo a shift in tRNA repertoire and a change in iso-decoder expression at the onset of gastrulation (Rappol et al, Nucleic Acids Research 2024). Technical limitations pose challenges to definitively testing the hypothesis, but it would be helpful to place the findings here in the context of the published work.

(3) "An alternate and non-exclusive hypothesis is that the maternal rDNA locus may be involved in PGC fate and sex determination in zebrafish." It would be helpful to further discuss the published evidence supporting this hypothesis. In accord with a potential role for m-rDNA in ovary differentiation, differential methylation of m-rDNA has been previously reported, with high methylation in testis and low methylation in ovaries. Further, several groups have shown that treating fish with broad inhibitors of methyltransferases causes testis-biased differentiation of the gonad. Finally, Moser et al (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 2024) recently published work in which CRISPR-Cas9 was used to target the 45S m-rDNA promoter and interfere with its expression. The mutants with these promoter mutations developed as fertile males, consistent with a role for m-rDNA in ovary differentiation. A recent paper from Moser et. al. (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 2024) showing that disrupting the m-rDNA locus leads to male-only development should be discussed. This paper does not exclude the possibility of a maternal role for the ribosomes since only one female was recovered among the 45S-m-rDNA mutants. The expression data in Figure 1D of this manuscript showing that m-rRNA levels go down and then up in PGCs indicates the PGCs are making their own m-rRNA. This observation together with the recovery of fertile males reported in the Moser et al study (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 2024) doesn't seem to support a requirement for m-rDNA in PGC fate or germ cell-specific translation, at least in testis, since the mutant males produce sperm and are fertile.

(4) Although the rationale for examining rRNAs in adult tumors, cultured zebrafish cell lines, and during fin regeneration is clear based on the published literature showing elevated embryonic rRNAs, this line of investigation doesn't add much to this study and is a bit of a distraction. That said, the observation that in contrast to published work, neither the maternal (early embryo) nor the specific rRNAs examined are unregulated in these contexts is important and warrants communication with the research community.

(5) The numbers of embryos and stages are not consistently stated in the manuscript. For example, in the "Isolation of zebrafish ribosome." and "isolation of monosomes" sections of the methods, the stage and number of embryos used for the IPs are not clearly stated in the methods. These important details should be stated throughout the manuscript so that others can perform future studies in a manner that will facilitate comparisons.

(6) The terminology used for the RiboFLAG experiments is potentially confusing or misleading. Specifically, different terms are used to describe the source of the ribosomes (Figure 5, Figure S7, Figure S8 and in the text). For example, "transmission" is used to describe "maternal transmission" for Mat-RiboFLAG, and "paternal transmission" is used for Som-RiboFLAG, and in Figure 5 and Figure S8 "maternally provided" and "paternally provided" are used. However, these terms may be confusing or unintentionally misleading because transmission and provided refer to two different things. In the case of Mat-RiboFLAG, the terms refer to the maternal Rpl10-FLAG ribosomes, which the progeny receive from their mother independent of whether or not they express the transgene. On the other hand, for Som-RiboFLAG, the terms refer to the transgene rather than the Rpl10-FLAG ribosomes that will be produced by the embryo using the transgene they inherited from their father. Consider instead sticking to "maternal" and "somatic", or alternatively "zygotic expression" and "maternal expression" or "zygotic ribosomes" and "maternal ribosomes".

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The study expands previous knowledge on the dual ribosome system in zebrafish by demonstrating the expression of maternal ribosomes in the primordial germ cells as well as the formation of hybrid ribosomes combining subunits of maternal and somatic ribosomes. Although the distinction between the two types is clear at the rRNA level, this is not paralleled at the protein level. An attempt to associate the expression of germ-line-specific transcripts to maternal ribosomes remains inconclusive. Thus, evidence for the functional specialisation of ribosomes in this system is still lacking.

Strengths:

The experiments are well-conducted and the main conclusions are well-supported.

Weaknesses:

The attempt to take advantage of the system to provide an example of functional ribosome specialisation is justified and the expression of maternal-type ribosomes in the germ line may still be key to understanding the expression of classes of mRNA. However, an alternative possibility related to genome evolution and sex determination is equally relevant.

Assessment following the structure of the manuscript:

Shah et al.: "A dual ribosomal system in zebrafish soma and germline"

The zebrafish dual ribosome system is attractive because it offers a favourable setting to look for ribosome specialization and my impression is that this is exactly what the authors set out to do rather than to try to understand why zebrafish have this unusual setup. If this is correct, the title and the abstract should better reflect the authors' aim and main results. The title suggests to the non-specialist that the dual ribosome system is a novel find which obviously is not the case.

I was a bit confused when reading the introduction. In the first paragraph, it was unclear to me if the degradation of maternal ribosomes is an active process different from normal turnover. I also found the third paragraph slightly out of tune with the discussion section. The dual ribosome setting at the level of ribosomal RNA genes represents an extreme case of sequence heterogeneity and appears to be sporadic in nature in that it only is reported from Plasmodium and zebrafish. The Xenopus example is 5S rRNA (as also mentioned in the discussion section), and the Drosophila example is protein composition, only. If a broader view of ribosome types is intended, there will be more examples, e.g. Trypanosomes that express different stage-dependent ribosomes at the level of rRNA modifications. The occurrence of dual ribosomes in fish should be placed in context with insight from other fish genomes, e.g. Medaka, which has only one type of ribosomes. Also, the duality in zebrafish is not restricted to ribosomes, but also comprises two types of spliceosomes. These observations suggest that the phenomenon should be investigated in the context of genome evolution. This is appropriately brought up in the discussion section, but I believe it would serve the reading of the manuscript if this was made clear from the beginning. With respect to the structural aspects, I am puzzled why one of the few other papers studying this system, Ramachandran et al. RNA 2020 (PMID: 32912962) is not referenced. This paper is focused on ribose methylation of the two types of ribosomal RNA and should be relevant to several aspects of the present study.

The manuscript reports three novel and important findings. First, the maternal-type ribosomes are expressed in PGCs, where they furthermore are shown to translate germ line-specific transcripts, and in the male germ line. Regardless, the authors wisely decide to maintain the classical terminology of maternal and somatic ribosomes. Second, both types of ribosomes are polysome-associated and thus translationally active at 24 hpf when they are found in equal amounts. An elaborate experiment shows that hybrid ribosomes are formed at this stage. Finally, a RIP experiment fails to show selectivity in ribosomal recruitment of a germ line-specific mRNA based on the nanos3 3´-UTR. There are several other results, but these are mainly confirmatory or negative, albeit of good quality and important to communicate.

The part of the study that describes differences in protein composition is a bit difficult to follow, partly because of the complexity of the results, and partly because of the disappointment that no parallel changes in proteins to the clear differences in rRNA were observed. Except for the discussion of eS8 in relation to subunit bridging, it is purely descriptive. There is quite a literature on paralog expression (e.g. in yeast and humans) and perhaps it would be possible to relate to the literature in a way that could provide more meaning to the observations. From the M&M section, it appears that the proteomics data were already published in the Leesch and Lorenzo-Orts et al. paper (Nature 2023). They are here found in Table S1 which is presented in a minimal fashion, from which it is time-consuming to extract meaningful information, e.g. on how stringently the ribosomes were prepared.

The hybrid-ribosome observation is convincing, but additional information on the choice of cycloheximide concentration would be helpful to rule out other interpretations.

The experiment on translation of primordial germ cell-specific transcripts by maternal ribosomes is a key experiment. Unfortunately, the experiment failed to show selectivity compared to somatic ribosomes, and in my reading, the promise in the abstract of "preferential association" is not quite justified. More importantly, this experiment is not exhaustive, and a more elaborate discussion on the limitations of the experiment and other approaches would be helpful.

The discussion section is interesting. Importantly, the authors make the non-specialist aware of the peculiarities of laboratory strains of zebrafish with respect to the lack of sex chromosomes and a possible connection between the rDNA locus and sex determination. This information is critical to include in a journal that has a broad readership. I was unable to follow the argument about the 3´half of 5.8S "to play a role" in ribosome degradation based on Locati et al., 2018 (which is missing from the reference list) and "serve as a target for degradation of maternal ribosomes". Kinetic effects on the degradation pattern of rRNA are frequently observed and difficult to interpret.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Ribosomes are generally considered homogeneous complexes with no inherent role in regulating translation. However, recent studies have found heterogeneity in the composition of ribosome accessory factors, proteins, and ribosomal RNA. Moreover, there is evidence that district ribosomal isoforms are produced at different developmental stages in Xenopus, Drosophila, and zebrafish. In Drosophila, germline-derived ribosomes have a different protein composition to those produced by somatic cell types. In zebrafish, germline vs. somatic ribosomes have been shown to incorporate distinct rRNA isoforms. However, the functional significance of ribosome heterogeneity is not known.

The manuscript by Shah et al., uses the power of the zebrafish to test the hypothesis that maternal ribosome isoforms have a distinct function relative to ribosome isoforms produced by somatic cells after the maternal-to-zygotic transition (MTZ). They confirm previous findings that all maternal rRNA are derived from the maternal-specific rRNA locus on Chromosome 4. Additionally, proteomic analysis showed that maternal and somatic ribosomes also differ in protein composition. Using ribosome tagging experiments they showed that maternally derived subunits can form functional heteroduplexes (hybrids) with somatic-derived subunits. Finally, they show that maternal-derived ribosomes continue to be expressed in germ cells where they preferentially associate with the maternally derived and germline localized nanos3 mRNA. This suggests a possible role of maternal ribosomes in germ cell-specific translational regulation.

Strengths:

The authors use the experimental power of zebrafish to test the hypothesis that maternal and somatic-derived ribosomes have distinct functions. They use state-of-the art proteomics, molecular modeling, and transgenesis techniques. For the most part, the data presented is clear and supports their conclusions.

Weaknesses:

Using pulldown experiments they show that maternal ribosomes associate with the PGC-enriched nanos3 RNA, suggesting a role for the maternal isoform in germline-specific translation. However, they acknowledge that the level of enrichment is similar to the level of maternal vs. somatic isoforms that localize to PGCs. The nanos3 mRNA is unique in that it is actively degraded in somatic cells shortly after MTZ so is never present in cells that express the somatic isoforms. Therefore, the association of nanos3 with maternal ribosomes shows that these ribosomes can associate with germline-specific RNAs, but does not provide compelling evidence for a maternal isoform-specific role in translational regulation.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study investigates the relationship between climate variables and malaria incidence from monthly records, for rainfall, temperature, and a measure of ENSO, in a lowland region of Kenya in East Africa. Wavelet analyses show significant variability at the seasonal scale at the 6-month scale with some variation in its signal over time, and some additional variability at the 12-month scale for some variables. As conducted, the analyses show weak (non-significant) signals at the interannual time scales (longer than seasonal). Cross-wavelet analysis also highlights the 6-month scale and the association of malaria and climate variables at that scale, with some signal at 12 months, reflecting the role of climate in seasonality. Evidence is presented for some small changes in the lags of the response of malaria to the seasonal climate drivers over time.

Strengths:

Although there have been many studies of climate drivers of malaria dynamics in East Africa, these analyses have been largely focused on highlands where these drivers are expected to exhibit the strongest signal of association with disease burden at interannual and longer time scales. It is therefore of interest to take advantage of a relatively long time series of cases to examine the role of climate variables in more endemic malaria in lowlands.

Weaknesses:

(1) Major comments:

The work is not sufficiently placed in the context of what is known about climate variability in East Africa, and the role of climate variables in the temporal variation of malaria cases in this region. This context includes the relationship between large (global/regional) drivers of interannual climate variability such as ENSO (and the Indian Ocean Dipole) and local temporal patterns in rainfall and temperature. There is for example literature on the influence of those drivers and the short and long rains in East Africa. That is, phenomena such as ENSO would influence malaria through those local climate variables. This context should be considered when formulating and interpreting the analyses.

There are conceptual problems with the design of the analyses which can limit the findings on association. It is not surprising that rainfall would exhibit a clear association at seasonal scales. It is nevertheless valuable to confirm this as the authors have done and to examine the faster than 12-month scale, given the typical pattern of two rainfall seasons in this area. However, the results on temperature are less clear. If rainfall is the main limiting factor for the transmission season, the temperature variation that would matter can be during the rainy periods. One would then see an association with temperature only in particular windows of time during the year, when rainfall is sufficient (see for example, Rodo et al. Nat. Commun. 2022, for this finding in a highland region of Ethiopia). For this situation, there would be no clear association with temperature when all months are considered, and one would not find a significant relationship (or a lagged one) between peak times in this climate factor and malaria's seasonal cases. It would be difficult for the wavelet analysis to reveal such an effect. Another consideration is whether to use an ENSO variable that includes seasonality or to use an ENSO index computed as an anomaly, to focus on interannual variability. That is, it is most relevant to consider how ENSO influences time scales of variation longer than seasonal (the multiannual variation in seasonal epidemics) and for this purpose, one would typically rely on an anomaly. This choice would better enable one to see whether there is a role of ENSO at interannual time scales. It would also make sense to analyze with cross-wavelets the effect of ENSO on local climate factors, temperature, and rainfall, and not only on malaria. This would allow us to establish evidence for a chain of causality, from a global driver of interannual variability to local climate variability to malaria incidence.

The multiresolution analysis and associated analysis of lag variations were confusing and difficult to follow as presented: (1) the lags chosen by the multiresolution analysis do not match the phase differences of the cross-wavelet analysis if I followed what was presented. On page 8, phase differences are expressed in months. I do not understand then the following statements on page 9: "The phase differences obtained by the cross-wavelet transforms were turned into lags, allowing us to plot the evolution of the lags over time". The resulting lags in Figure 6 are shorter than the phase differences provided in the text on page 8. (2) The phase difference of the cross-wavelet analyses for malaria and temperature is also too long for this climate factor to explain an effect on the vector and then on the disease. (3) In Table 3, the regression results that are highlighted are those for Land Surface Temperatures (LST) and ENSO, with a weak but significant negative linear correlation, and for LST and bednet coverage, and this is considered part of the lag analysis. The previous text and analyses up to that point do not seem to consider the relationship of ENSO and local climate variables, or that between local climate variables and bednets (which would benefit from some context for the causal pathways this would reflect).

The conclusion in the Abstract: "Our study underlines the importance of considering long-term time scales when assessing malaria dynamics. The presented wavelet approach could be applicable to other infectious diseases" needs to be reformulated. The use of "long-term" time scales for those of ENSO and interannual variability is not consistent with the climate literature, where long-term could be interpreted as decadal and longer. The time scales beyond those of seasonality, especially those of climate variability, have been addressed in many malaria studies. It is not compelling to have the significance of this study be the importance of considering those time scales. This is not new. I recommend focusing on what has been done for lowland malaria and endemic regions (for example, in Laneri et al. PNAS 2015) as there has been less work for those regions than for seasonal epidemic ones of low transmission (e.g. altitude fringes and desert ones, e.g. Laneri et al. PloS Comp. Biol. 2010; Roy et al. Mal. J. 2015). Also, wavelet analyses have been used extensively by now to consider the association of climate variables and infectious diseases at multiple time scales. There is here an additional component of the analysis but the decomposition that underlies the linear regressions is also not that new, as decompositions of time series have been used before in this area. In summary, I recommend a more appropriate and compelling conclusion on what was learned about malaria at this location and what it may tell us about other, similar, locations, but not malaria dynamics everywhere.

The conversion from monthly cases to monthly incidence needs a better explanation of the Methods, rather than a referral to another paper. This is a key aspect of the data. It may be useful to plot the monthly time series of both variables in the Supplement, for comparison.

There is plenty of evidence of the seasonal role of rainfall on malaria's seasonality in many regions. The literature cited here to support this well-known association is quite limited. It would be useful to provide a context that better reflects the literature and some context for the environmental conditions of this lowland region that would explain the dominant role of rainfall on malaria seasonality. Two papers (from 2017 and 2019) are cited in the second paragraph of the introduction as showing that "key climatic factors are rainfall and temperatures". This is a misrepresentation of the field. That these factors matter to malaria in general has been known for a very long time given that the vectors are mosquitoes, and the cited studies are particular ones that examine the mechanistic basis of this link for modeling purposes. Either these papers are presented as examples, with a more accurate description of what they add to the earlier literature or earlier literature should be acknowledged. Also, what has been much less studied is the role of these variables at interannual time scales, as potentially mediating the effects of global drivers in teleconnections.

(2) Minor comments:

In relation to the conceptual issues raised above, it would be valuable to consider whether the negative association with temperature persists if one considers mean temperature during the rainy seasons only, against the total cases in the transmission season each year (as in Rodó et al. 2021). This would allow one to disentangle whether the negative association reflects a robust result or an artifact of an interaction between temperature and rainfall so that the former matters when the latter is permissive for transmission.

The conclusion in the Discussion " This suggests that minor climate variations have a limited impact on malaria incidence at shorter time scales, whereas climatic trends may play a more substantial role in shaping long-term malaria dynamics" is unsubstantiated. There is no clear result in the paper on climatic trends that I can see.

The Abstract writes: "The true impact of climate change...". This paper is not about climate change but about climate seasonality and variability. This text needs to be changed to make it consistent with the content of the paper.

Page 2, Introduction: The statement on Pascual et al. 2008 is not completely accurate. This paper shows an interplay of climate variability and disease dynamics, but not cycles that are completely independent of climate.

Page 2, next sentence: "More recently, such cycles have been attributed to global climate drivers such as ENSO (Cazelles et al., 2023)". This writing is also somewhat unclear. Are you referring to the cycles for the same location in Kenya? Or generically, to the interannual variability of malaria?

There are multiple places in the writing that could be edited.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The analyses of long-time malaria series to investigate the complex relationship between malaria incidence and climate is hampered by the non-stationarity introduced by both changing control interventions and irregular climate events such as the el nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

Strengths:

By applying wavelets the authors were able to investigate the effect of the major climate factors such as rainfall, air and land temperature, and sea surface temperature (as a measure for ENSO) while at the same time taking into account changing bednet coverage. The wavelet approach is both flexible and powerful and was able to demonstrate well that shorter term. seasonal fluctuation in malaria incidence in Western Kenya is driven by rainfall patterns, while providing some evidence for temperature and SST may predict fluctuations at longer timescales.

Weaknesses:

While flexible and able to deal with non-stationarity, the wavelet approach does not really allow investigation of multiple factors at the same time but is limited to uni- and bivariate analyses. This limits the interpretability of the effect of complex climate patterns while also 'adjusting' for the changing control environment. There is also some concern that the choice of the wavelet and transforms used for different analyses (Morelet, Coiflet, maximal overlap discreet transform) may affect the results. The reasons for choosing these particular wavelets and transforms are not always evident.

The attempt to investigate the effect of longer terms / irregular period climate events is laudable. However, why were the analyses restricted to only ENSO (measured as SST)? Other climate factors such as e.g. the Indian Ocean Dipole (i.e. the difference in SST between the western and eastern Indian Ocean) are also known to affect climate and rainfall patterns in Eastern Africa.

Nevertheless, this work is a compelling demonstration of the utility of wavelets for the analyses of (non-stationary) epidemiological time series data.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This work derives a general theory of optimal gain modulation in neural populations. It demonstrates that population homeostasis is a consequence of optimal modulation for information maximization with noisy neurons. The developed theory is then applied to the distributed distributional code (DDC) model of the primary visual cortex to demonstrate that homeostatic DDCs can account for stimulus-specific adaptation.

What I consider to be the most important contribution of this work is the unification of efficient information transmission in neural populations with population homeostasis. The former is an established theoretical framework, and the latter is a well-known empirical phenomenon - the relationship between them has never been fully clarified. I consider this work to be an interesting and relevant step in that direction.

The theory proposed in the paper is rigorous and the analysis is thorough. The manuscript begins with a general mathematical setting to identify normative solutions to the problem of information maximization. It then gradually builds towards questions about approximate solutions, neural implementation and plausibility of these solutions, applications of the theory to specific models of neural computation (DDC), and finally comparisons to experimental data in V1. Such a connection of different levels of abstraction is an obvious strength of this work.

Overall I find this contribution interesting and assess it positively. At the same time, I have three major points of criticism, which I believe the authors should address. I list them below, followed by a number of more specific comments and feedback.

Major comments:

(1) Interpretation of key results and relationship between different parts of the manuscript. The manuscript begins with an information-transmission ansatz which is described as "independent of the computational goal" (e.g. p. 17). While information theory indeed is not concerned with what quantity is being encoded (e.g. whether it is sensory periphery or hippocampus), the goal of the studied system is to *transmit* the largest amount of bits about the input in the presence of noise. In my view, this does not make the proposed framework "independent of the computational goal". Furthermore, the derived theory is then applied to a DDC model which proposes a very specific solution to inference problems. The relationship between information transmission and inference is deep and nuanced. Because the writing is very dense, it is quite hard to understand how the information transmission framework developed in the first part applies to the inference problem. How does the neural coding diagram in Figure 3 map onto the inference diagram in Figure 10? How does the problem of information transmission under constraints from the first part of the manuscript become an inference problem with DDCs? I am certain that authors have good answers to these questions - but they should be explained much better.

(2) Clarity of writing for an interdisciplinary audience. I do not believe that in its current form, the manuscript is accessible to a broader, interdisciplinary audience such as eLife readers. The writing is very dense and technical, which I believe unnecessarily obscures the key results of this study.

(3) Positioning within the context of the field and relationship to prior work. While the proposed theory is interesting and timely, the manuscript omits multiple closely related results which in my view should be discussed in relationship to the current work. In particular:

A number of recent studies propose normative criteria for gain modulation in populations:

- Duong, L., Simoncelli, E., Chklovskii, D. and Lipshutz, D., 2024. Adaptive whitening with fast gain modulation and slow synaptic plasticity. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems<br /> - Tring, E., Dipoppa, M. and Ringach, D.L., 2023. A power law describes the magnitude of adaptation in neural populations of primary visual cortex. Nature Communications, 14(1), p.8366.<br /> - Młynarski, W. and Tkačik, G., 2022. Efficient coding theory of dynamic attentional modulation. PLoS Biology<br /> - Haimerl, C., Ruff, D.A., Cohen, M.R., Savin, C. and Simoncelli, E.P., 2023. Targeted V1 co-modulation supports task-adaptive sensory decisions. Nature Communications<br /> - The Ganguli and Simoncelli framework has been extended to a multivariate case and analyzed for a generalized class of error measures:<br /> - Yerxa, T.E., Kee, E., DeWeese, M.R. and Cooper, E.A., 2020. Efficient sensory coding of multidimensional stimuli. PLoS Computational Biology<br /> - Wang, Z., Stocker, A.A. and Lee, D.D., 2016. Efficient neural codes that minimize LP reconstruction error. Neural Computation, 28(12),

More detailed comments and feedback:

(1) I believe that this work offers the possibility to address an important question about novelty responses in the cortex (e.g. Homann et al, 2021 PNAS). Are they encoding novelty per-se, or are they inefficient responses of a not-yet-adapted population? Perhaps it's worth speculating about.

(2) Clustering in populations - typically in efficient coding studies, tuning curve distributions are a consequence of input statistics, constraints, and optimality criteria. Here the authors introduce randomly perturbed curves for each cluster - how to interpret that in light of the efficient coding theory? This links to a more general aspect of this work - it does not specify how to find optimal tuning curves, just how to modulate them (already addressed in the discussion).

(3) Figure 8 - where do Hz come from as physical units? As I understand there are no physical units in simulations.

(4) Inference with DDCs in changing environments. To perform efficient inference in a dynamically changing environment (as considered here), an ideal observer needs some form of posterior-prior updating. Where does that enter here?

(5) Page 6 - "We did this in such a way that, for all ν, the correlation matrices, ρ(ν), were derived from covariance matrices with a 1/n power-law eigenspectrum (i.e., the ranked eigenvalues of the covariance matrix fall off inversely with their rank), in line with the findings of Stringer et al. (2019) in the primary visual cortex." This is a very specific assumption, taken from a study of a specific brain region - how does it relate to the generality of the approach?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Using the theory of efficient coding, the authors study how neural gains may be adjusted to optimize coding by noisy neural populations while minimizing metabolic costs. The manuscript first presents mathematical results for the general case where the computational goals of the neural population are not specified (the computation is implicit in the assumed tuning curves) and then develops the theory for a specific probabilistic coding scheme. The general theory provides an explanation for firing rate homeostasis at the level of neural clusters with firing rate heterogeneity within clusters, and the specific application further captures stimulus-specific and neuron-specific adaptation in the visual cortex.

The mathematical derivations, simulations, and application to visual cortex data are solid as far as I can tell.

In the current format, the significance is difficult to assess fully: the manuscript is a bit sprawling, in the first half the general theory is lengthy and technical, and then in the second half a few phenomena are addressed without a clear relation between them (rate homeostasis, rate heterogeneity, synaptic homeostasis, V1 adaptation, divisive normalization), requiring several ad-hoc choices and assumptions.

Strengths:

The problem of efficient coding is a long-standing and important one. This manuscript contributes to that field by proposing a theory of efficient coding through gain adjustments, independent of the computational goals of the system. The main result is a normative explanation for firing rate homeostasis at the level of neural clusters (groups of neurons that perform a similar computation) with firing rate heterogeneity within each cluster. Both phenomena are widely observed, and reconciling them under one theory is important.

The mathematical derivations are thorough as far as I can tell. Although the model of neural activity is artificial, the authors make sure to include many aspects of cortical physiology, while also keeping the models quite general.

Section 2.5 derives the conditions in which homeostasis would be near-optimal in the cortex, which appear to be consistent with many empirical observations in V1. This indicates that homeostasis in V1 might be indeed close to the optimal solution to code efficiently in the face of noise.

The application to the data of Benucci et al 2013 is the first to offer a normative explanation of stimulus-specific and neuron-specific adaptation in V1.

Weaknesses:

The novelty and significance of the work are not presented clearly. The relation to other theoretical work, particularly Ganguli and Simoncelli and other efficient coding theories, is explained in the Discussion but perhaps would be better placed in the Introduction, to motivate some of the many choices of the mathematical models used here.

The manuscript is very hard to read as is, it almost feels like this could be two different papers. The first half seems like a standalone document, detailing the general theory with interesting results on homeostasis and optimal coding. The second half, from Section 2.7 on, presents a series of specific applications that appear somewhat disconnected, are not very clearly motivated nor pursued in-depth, and require ad-hoc assumptions.

For instance, it is unclear if the main significant finding is the role of homeostasis in the general theory or the demonstration that homeostatic DDC with Bayes Ratio coding captures V1 adaptation phenomena. It would be helpful to clarify if this is being proposed as a new/better computational model of V1 compared to other existing models.

Early on in the manuscript (Section 2.1), the theory is presented as general in terms of the stimulus dimensionality and brain area, but then it is only demonstrated for orientation coding in V1.

The manuscript relies on a specific response noise model, with arbitrary tuning curves. Using a population model with arbitrary tuning curves and noise covariance matrix, as the basis for a study of coding optimality, is problematic because not all combinations of tuning curves and covariances are achievable by neural circuits (e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27145916/ )

The paper Benucci et al 2013 shows that homeostasis holds for some stimulus distributions, but not others i.e. when the 'adapter' is present too often. This manuscript, like the Benucci paper, discards those datasets. But from a theoretical standpoint, it seems important to consider why that would be the case, and if it can be predicted by the theory proposed here.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Bu et al examined the dynamics of TRPV4 channel in cell overcrowding in carcinoma conditions. They investigated how cell crowding (or high cell confluence) triggers a mechano-transduction pathway involving TRPV4 channels in high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) cells that leads to large cell volume reduction (or cell volume plasticity) and pro-invasive phenotype.

In vitro, this pathway is highly selective for highly malignant invasive cell lines derived from a normal breast epithelial cell line (MCF10CA) compared to the parent cell line, but not present in another triple-negative invasive breast epithelial cell line (MDA-MB-231). The authors convincingly showed that enhanced TRPV4 plasmamembrane localization correlates with high-grade DCIS cells in patient tissue samples. Specifically in invasive MCF10DCIS.com cells they showed that overcrowding or over-confluence leads to a decrease in cell volume and intracellular calcium levels. This condition also triggers the trafficking of TRPV4 channels from intracellular stores (nucleus and potentially endosomes), to the plasma membrane (PM). When these over-confluent cells are incubated with a TRPV4 activator, there is an acute and substantial influx of calcium, attesting the fact that there are high number of TRPV4 channels present on the PM. Long-term incubation of these over-confluent cells with the TRPV4 activator results in the internalization of the PM-localized TRPV4 channels.

In contrast, cells plated at lower confluence primarily have TRPV4 channels localized in the nucleus and cytosol. Long-term incubation of these cells at lower confluence with a TRPV4 inhibitor leads to the relocation of TRPV4 channels to the plasma membrane from intracellular stores and a subsequent reduction in cell volume. Similarly, incubation of these cells at low confluence with PEG 3000 (a hyperosmotic agent) promotes the trafficking of TRPV4 channels from intracellular stores to the plasma membrane.

Strengths:

The study is elegantly designed and the findings are novel. Their findings on this mechano-transduction pathway involving TRPV4 channels, calcium homeostasis, cell volume plasticity, motility and invasiveness will have a great impact in the cancer field and potentially applicable to other fields as well. Experiments are well-planned and executed, and the data is convincing. Authors investigated TRVP4 dynamics using multiple different strategies- overcrowding, hyperosmotic stress, pharmacological and genetic means, and showed a good correlation between different phenomena.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The metastasis poses a significant challenge in cancer treatment. During the transition from non-invasive cells to invasive metastasis cells, cancer cells usually experience mechanical stress due to a crowded cellular environment. The molecular mechanisms underlying mechanical signaling during this transition remain largely elusive. In this work, the authors utilize an in vitro cell culture system and advanced imaging techniques to investigate how non-invasive and invasive cells respond to cell crowding, respectively.

The results clearly show that pre-malignant cells exhibit a more pronounced reduction in cell volume and are more prone to spreading compared to non-invasive cells. Furthermore, the study identifies that TRPV4, a calcium channel, relocates to the plasma membrane both in vitro and in vivo (patient's samples). Activation and inhibition of TRPV4 channel can modulate the cell volume and cell mobility. These results unveil a novel mechanism of mechanical sensing in cancer cells, potentially offering new avenues for therapeutic intervention targeting cancer metastasis by modulating TRPV4 activity. This is a very comprehensive study, and the data presented in the paper are clear and convincing. The study represents a very important advance in our understanding of the mechanical biology of cancer.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study by Jena et al. addresses important questions on the fundamental mechanisms of genetic adaptation, specifically, does adaptation proceed via changes of copy number (gene duplication and amplification "GDA") or by point mutation. While this question has been worked on (for example by Tomanek and Guet) the authors add several important aspects relating to resistance against antibiotics and they clarify the ability of Lon protease to reduce duplication formation (previous work was more indirect).

A key finding Jena et al. present is that point mutations after significant competition displace GDA. A second one is that alternative GDA constantly arise and displace each other (see work on GDA-2 in Figure 3). Finally, the authors found epistasis between resistance allele that was contingent on lon. Together this shows an intricate interplay of lon proteolysis for the evolution and maintenance of antibiotic resistance by gene duplication.

Strengths:

The study has several important strengths: (i) the work on GDA stability and competition of GDA with point mutations is a very promising area of research and the authors contribute new aspects to it, (ii) rigorous experimentation, (iii) very clearly written introduction and discussion sections. To me, the best part of the data is that deletion of lon stimulates GDA, which has not been shown with such clarity until now.

Weaknesses:

Previously raised minor weaknesses and technical questions have been adequately resolved in the revised manuscript. As the experiments and their results are described in great detail the interested reader needs stamina. The details will, however, be informative to the specialist.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This is an important paper that investigates the relationship between proteolytic stability of an antibiotic target enzyme and the evolution of antibiotic resistance via increased gene copy number. The target of the antibiotic trimethoprim is dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR). In Escherichia coli, DHFR is encoded by folA and the major proteolysis housekeeping protease is Lon (lon). In this manuscript, the authors report the result of the experimental evolution of a lon mutant strain of E. coli in response to sub-inhibitory concentrations of the antibiotic trimethoprim then investigate the relationship between proteolytic stability of DHFR mutants and the evolution of folA gene duplication. After 25 generations of serial passaging in a fixed concentration of trimethoprim, the authors found that folA duplication events were more common during evolution of the lon strain, than the wt strain. However, with continued passaging, some folA duplications were replaced by a single copy of folA containing a trimethoprim resistance-conferring point mutation. Interestingly, evolution of the lon strain in the setting of increasing concentrations of trimethoprim resulted in evolved strains with different levels of DHFR expression. In particular, some strains maintained two copies of a mutant folA that encoded an unstable DHFR. In a lon+ background, this mutant folA did not express well and did not confer trimethoprim resistance. However, in the lon- background, it displayed higher expression and conferred high-level trimethoprim resistance. The authors concluded that maintenance of the gene duplication event (and the absence of Lon) compensated for the proteolytic instability of this mutant DHFR. In summary, they provide evidence that the proteolytic stability of an antibiotic target protein is an important determinant of the evolution of target gene copy number in the setting of antibiotic selection.

Strengths:

The major strength of this paper is identifying an example of antibiotic resistance evolution that illustrates the interplay between the proteolytic stability and copy number of an antibiotic target in the setting of antibiotic selection. The results are rigorous and convincingly support the conclusions. This paper will be of interest to any biologist that studies the evolution of resistance mechanisms or gene duplication.

Weaknesses:

The impact of this finding is somewhat limited given that it is a single example that occurred in a lon strain of E. coli. Although the specific mechanism is unlikely to occur naturally, this study represents an important and convincing proof of the principle that gene duplication can provide increased expression demand for an unstable resistance determinant in the setting of antibiotic selection.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

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

Strengths:

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

Weaknesses:

This is quite a complicated protocol and analysis plan. The authors did a decent job explaining it, given the complexity of the approach and the dense results. But it did take reading it a couple of times to start to understand it. I'm not sure if there is a simpler way to describe the approach though. Just an observation. But perhaps there is a better way to explain the density of the different comparisons between the multiple cues and contexts. It can be difficult to totally avoid jargon in a complex scientific article, but the paper is very jargon-y.

Here are a few more comments and stray observations, in no particular order of importance.

(1) I had a difficult time unpacking lines 419-420: "item stability represents the similarity of the neural representation of an item to other representations of this same item."

(2) The authors use the phrase "representational geometry" several times in the paper without clearly defining what they mean by this.

(3) The abstract is quite dense and will likely be challenging to decipher for those without a specialized knowledge of both the topic (fear conditioning) and the analytical approach. For instance, the goal of the study is clearly articulated in the first few sentences, but then suddenly jumps to a sentence stating "our data show that contingency changes during reversal induce memory traces with distinct representational geometries characterized by stable activity patterns across repetitions..." this would be challenging for a reader to grok without having a clear understanding of the complex analytical approach used in the paper.

(4) Minor: I believe it is STM200 not the STM2000.

(5) Line 146: "...could be particularly fruitful as a means to study the influence of fear reversal or extinction on context representations, which have never been analyzed in previous fear and extinction learning studies." I direct the authors to Hennings et al., 2020, Contextual reinstatement promotes extinction generalization in healthy adults but not PTSD, as an example of using MVPA to decipher reinstatement of the extinction context during test.

(6) This is a methodological/conceptual point, but it appears from Figure 1 that the shock occurs 2.5 seconds after the CS (and context) goes off the screen. This would seem to be more like a trace conditioning procedure than a standard delay fear conditioning procedure. This could be a trivial point, but there have been numerous studies over the last several decades comparing differences between these two forms of fear acquisition, both behaviorally and neurally, including differences in how trace vs delay conditioning is extinguished.

(7) In Figure 4, it would help to see the individual data points derived from the model used to test significance between the different conditions (reinstatement between Acq, reversal, and test-new).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

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

Strengths:

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

Weaknesses:

The findings are limited (a) by the chosen spatial resolution (2.5 mm) which is far away from what modern fMRI can achieve, and (b) by the statistical analysis method. While transparently reported, their voxel-wise correction for multiple comparisons rests on a false discovery rate (i.e. 5% of the reported findings should be considered false positives) and there is no correction for the number of hypothesis tests (with an exception in some post hoc tests). Furthermore, there are some minor presentation issues that the authors could address to improve clarity.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors seek to understand the role of different ratios of excitatory to inhibitory (EI) neurons, which in experimental studies of the cerebral cortex have been shown to range from 4 to 9. They do this through a simulation study of sparsely connected networks of excitatory and inhibitory neurons.

Their main finding is that the participation ratio and decoding accuracy increase as the E/I ratio decreases. This suggests higher computational complexity.

This is the start of an interesting computational study. However, there is no analysis to explain the numerical results, although there is a long literature of reduced models for randomly connected neural networks which could potentially be applied here. (For example, it seems that the authors could derive a mean field expression for the expected firing rate and variance - hence CV - which could be used to target points in parameter space (vs. repeated simulation in Figures 1,2).) The paper would be stronger and more impactful if this was attempted.

Strengths:

Some issues I appreciated are:

(1) The use of a publicly available simulator (Brian), which helps reproducibility. I would also request that the authors supply submission or configuration scripts (if applicable, I don't know Brian).

(2) A thorough exploration of the parameter space of interest (shown in Figure 2).

(3) A good motivation for the underlying question: other things being equal, how does the E/I ratio impact computational capacity?

Weaknesses:

(1) Lack of mathematical analysis of the network model

Major issues I recommend that the authors address (not sure whether these are "weaknesses"):

(1) In "Coding capacity in different layers of visual cortex" the authors measure PR values from layers 2/3 and 4 in VISp and find that layer 2/3 has a higher PR than layer 4.

But in Dahmen et al. 2020 (https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.02.365072 ), the opposite was found (see Figure 2d of Dahmen et al.): layer 2 had a lower PR than layer 4. Can the authors explain how that difference might arise? i.e. were they analyzing the same data sets? If so why the different results? Could it have to do with the way the authors subsample for the E/I ratio?

From the Methods of that paper: "Visual stimuli were generated using scripts based on PsychoPy and followed one of two stimulus sequences ("brain observatory 1.1" and<br /> "functional connectivity"). We focused on spontaneous neural activity registered while the animal was not performing any task. In each session, the spontaneous activity condition lasted 30 minutes while the animal was in front of a screen of mean grey luminance. We, therefore, analyzed 26 of the original 58 sessions corresponding to the "functional connectivity" subdataset as they included such a period of spontaneous activity. " This suggests to me they may have analyzed recordings with the other stimulus sequence; however, the hypothesis that E/I ratio should modulate dimensionality would not seem to "care" about which stimulus sequence was used.

(2) In Discussion (pg. 20, line 383): "They showed that brain regions closer to sensory input, like the thalamus, have higher dimensionality than those further away, such as<br /> the visual cortex. " How is this consistent with the hypothesis that "higher dimensionality might be linked to more complex cognitive functions"?

(3) What is the probability of connection between different populations? e.g. the probability of there being a synaptic connection between any two E cells? I could not find a statement about this. It should be included in the Methods.

(4) pg. 27, line 540: "Synchronicity within the network" For each cell pair, the authors use the maximum cross-correlation over time lag. I don't think I have seen this before. Can the authors explain why they use this measurement, vs (a) integrated cross-correlation or (b) cross-correlation at some time scale? Also, it seems like this fails to account for neuron pairs for which there is a strong inhibitory correlation.

(5) "When stimulated, a time-varying input, μext(t), is applied to 2,000 randomly selected excitatory neurons. " I would guess that computing PR would depend on the overlap of the 500 neurons analyzed and this population. Do the authors check or control for that?

5b) Related: to clarify, are the 500 neurons chosen from the analysis equally likely to be E or I neurons?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Alizadeh et al. investigate how varying cellular E/I (excitatory/inhibitory) composition impacts coding across cortical layers. They build on findings from a recent study (Huang et al., 2022) that demonstrated a decrease in the fraction of inhibitory neurons from L2/3 to L4. Using a network of excitatory and inhibitory leaky integrate-and-fire neurons, they systematically assess how these anatomical features influence the dimensionality of network activity and coding capacity. Their key finding is that increasing the proportion of inhibitory neurons enhances the dimensionality of activity and improves the encoding of time-varying stimuli.

Strengths:

The authors use a clear methodology and well-established model of network activity that allows them to relate network parameters to the coding properties. They systematically evaluate the impact of the key features of the inhibitory population. Thus, in addition to changing the fraction of inhibitory cells, they control for the inhibitory firing threshold of inhibitory neurons and connection strength between inhibitory and excitatory cells. Furthermore, they show their modeling results are aligned with the analysis of the spiking activity in L2/3 vs. L4 from the Allen Institute data.

Weaknesses:

One general shortcoming of this approach is that it focuses on a small preselected number of network features. For example, it is unclear to what extent the results would be affected by other aspects of the organization of cortical columns, such as subclasses of inhibitory cells (SOM, VIP, PV), specific differences in synapses, realistic population sizes, or even connectivity between layers. Similarly, the models of L2/3 and L4 are constrained based on a limited set of observations, and it has not been demonstrated whether the same findings hold true for V1 recordings analyzed by the authors.

The modeling relies on anatomical data from the barrel cortex, but the decoding comparison is based on V1 data. This raises questions about how anatomical differences between regions may influence the conclusions.

The coding capacity appears inversely correlated with the firing rate, which in this study is largely influenced by the properties of the inhibitory population. It would be important to confirm that the observed changes in coding capacity and participation ratio are not solely driven by firing rate changes.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This manuscript presents a pipeline incorporating a deep generative model and peptide property predictors for the de novo design of peptide sequences with dual antimicrobial/antiviral functions. The authors synthesized and experimentally validated three peptides designed by the pipeline, demonstrating antimicrobial and antiviral activities, with one leading peptide exhibiting antimicrobial efficacy in animal models.

Overall, the authors have addressed each major comment through new experiments, particularly by validating 24 peptides, clarifying alignment methods, and demonstrating sequence novelty. These additions have strengthened the manuscript. To further refine the work, it would be helpful to briefly describe any steps taken to mitigate GAN pathologies (such as mode collapse), provide a short rationale for the use of five AVP classifiers and how they complement each other, and clearly present the expanded experimental data (including MIC values and antiviral results) in the main text. Finally, the authors should also compare their approach with recently described deep-learning-enabled antibiotic discovery methods.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study marks a noteworthy advance in the targeted design of AMPs, leveraging a pioneering deep learning framework to generate potent bifunctional peptides with specificity against both bacteria and viruses. The introduction of a GAN for generation and a GCN-based AMPredictor for MIC predictions is methodologically robust and a major stride in computational biology. Experimental validation in vitro and in animal models, notably with the highly potent P076 against a multidrug-resistant bacterium and P002's broad-spectrum viral inhibition, underpins the strength of their evidence. The findings are significant, showcasing not just promising therapeutic candidates, but also demonstrating a replicable means to rapidly develop new antimicrobials against the threat of drug-resistant pathogens.

Strengths:

The de novo AMP design framework combines a generative adversarial network (GAN) with an AMP predictor (AMPredictor), which is a novel approach in the field. The integration of deep generative models and graph-encoding activity regressors for discovering bifunctional AMPs is cutting-edge and addresses the need for new antimicrobial agents against drug-resistant pathogens. The in vitro and in vivo experimental validations of the AMPs provide strong evidence to support the computational predictions. The successful inhibition of a spectrum of pathogens in vitro and in animal models gives credibility to the claims. The discovery of effective peptides, such as P076, which demonstrates potent bactericidal activity against multidrug-resistant A. baumannii with low cytotoxicity, is noteworthy. This could have far-reaching implications for addressing antibiotic resistance. The demonstrated activity of the peptides against both bacterial and viral pathogens suggests that the discovered AMPs have a wide therapeutic potential and could be effective against a range of pathogens.

Comments on revisions: I have no further comments on revisions.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Dong et al. described a deep learning-based framework of antimicrobial (AMP) generator and regressor to design and rank de novo antimicrobial peptides (AMPs). For generated AMPs, they predicted their minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) using a model that combines the Morgan fingerprint, contact map and ESM language model. For their selected AMPs based on predicted MIC, they also use a combination of antiviral peptide (AVP) prediction models to select AMPs with potential antiviral activity. They experimentally validated 3 candidates for antimicrobial activity against S. aureus, A. baumannii, E. coli, and P. aeruginosa, and their toxicity on mouse blood and three human cell lines. The authors select their most promising AMP (P076) for in vivo experiments in A. baumannii-infected mice. They finally test the antiviral activity of their 3 AMPs against viruses.

Strengths:

- The development of de novo antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) with the novelty of being bifunctional (antimicrobial and antiviral activity).

- Novel, combined approach to AMP activity prediction from their amino acid sequence.

Weaknesses:

- I missed the justification for combined antiviral and antibacterial activities. As the authors responded, less than 10% of the training data has antiviral activity. Therefore, I do not understand how the high percentage of antiviral activities was achieved. Especially reading that the antiviral filtering did not have an influence on the number of antiviral peptides obtained.

- I had difficulty in reading the story because of the use of acronyms without referring to their full name for the first time, and incomplete information annotation in figures and captions.

Joint Public Review:

This is an interesting, timely, and high-quality study on the potential neuroprotective capabilities of C-C chemokine receptor type 5 (CCR5) antagonists in ischemic stroke. The focus is on preclinical investigations.

An outstanding feature is that stroke patient representatives have directly participated in the work. Although this is often called for, it is hardly realized in research practice, so the work goes beyond established standards.

The included studies were assessed regarding the therapeutic impact and their adherence to current quality assurance guidelines such as STAIR and SRRR, another important feature of this work. While overall results were promising, there were some shortcomings regarding guideline adherence.

The paper is very well written and concise yet provides much highly useful information. It also has very good illustrations, and extremely detailed and transparent supplements.

[Editors' note: The authors have responded appropriately to the comments shared by the reviewers. The authors have provided a good academic justification for not needing to update the literature search, as one of the reviewers had suggested.]

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript entitled "Phosphodiesterase 1A Physically Interacts with YTHDF2 and Reinforces the Progression of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer" explores the role of PDE1A in promoting NSCLC progression by binding to the m6A reader YTHDF2 and regulating the mRNA stability of several novel target genes, consequently activating the STAT3 pathway and leading to metastasis and drug resistance.

Strengths:

The study addresses a novel mechanism involving PDE1A and YTHDF2 interaction in NSCLC, contributing to our understanding of cancer progression.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary

This revised manuscript investigates the role and the mechanism by which PDE1 impacts NSCLC progression. They provide evidence to demonstrate that PDE1 binds to m6A reader YTHDF2, in turn, regulating STAT3 signaling pathway through its interaction, promoting metastasis and angiogenesis.

Strength:

The study uncovers a novel PDE1A/YTHDF2/SOCS2/STAT3 pathway in NSCLC progression and the findings provide a potential treatment strategy for NSCLC patients with metastasis.

Weakness:

In discussion, it is stated in the revised version that "the role of YTHDF2 in PDE1A-driven tumor metastasis should be elucidated in future studies", however, given that physical interaction of PDE1A and YTHDF2 plays a critical role in PDE1A-mediated NSCLC metastasis, whether YTHDF2 mimicking the effect of PDE1A in metastasis will strength the manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper presents a compelling and comprehensive study of decision-making under uncertainty. It addresses a fundamental distinction between belief-based (cognitive neuroscience) formulations of choice behavior with reward-based (behavioral psychology) accounts. Specifically, it asks whether active inference provides a better account of planning and decision making, relative to reinforcement learning. To do this, the authors use a simple but elegant paradigm that includes choices about whether to seek both information and rewards. They then assess the evidence for active inference and reinforcement learning models of choice behavior, respectively. After demonstrating that active inference provides a better explanation of behavioral responses, the neuronal correlates of epistemic and instrumental value (under an optimized active inference model) are characterized using EEG. Significant neuronal correlates of both kinds of value were found in sensor and source space. The source space correlates are then discussed sensibly, in relation to the existing literature on the functional anatomy of perceptual and instrumental decision-making under uncertainty.

Comments on revisions:

Many thanks for attending to my previous comments. I think your manuscript is now easier to read - and your new (Bayesian) analyses are described clearly.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper aims to investigate how the human brain represents different forms of value and uncertainty that participate in active inference within a free-energy framework, in a two-stage decision task involving contextual information sampling, and choices between safe and risky rewards, which promotes shifting between exploration and exploitation. They examine neural correlates by recording EEG and comparing activity in the first vs second half of trials and between trials in which subjects did and did not sample contextual information, and perform a regression with free-energy-related regressors against data "mapped to source space."

Strengths:

This two-stage paradigm is cleverly designed to incorporate several important processes of learning, exploration/exploitation and information sampling that pertain to active inference. Although scalp/brain regions showing sensitivity to the active-inference related quantities do not necessarily suggest what role they play, they are illuminating and useful as candidate regions for further investigation. The aims are ambitious, and the methodologies are impressive. The paper lays out an extensive introduction to the free energy principle and active inference to make the findings accessible to a broad readership.

Weaknesses:

It is worth noting that the high lower-cutoff of 1 Hz in the bandpass filter, included to reduce the impact of EEG noise, would remove from the EEG any sustained, iteratively updated representation that evolves with learning across trials, or choice-related processes that unfold slowly over the course of the 2-second task windows. It is thus possible there are additional processes related to the active inference quantities that are missed here. This is not a flaw as one must always try to balance noise removal against signal removal in filter settings - it is just a caveat. As the authors also note, the regions showing up as correlated with model parameters change depending on source modelling method and correction for multiple comparisons, warranting some caution around the localisation aspect.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Juvenile hormone (JH) is a pleiotropic terpenoid hormone in insects that mainly regulates their development and reproduction. In particular, its developmental functions are described as the "status quo" action, as its presence in the hemolymph (the insect blood) prevents metamorphosis-initiating effects of ecdysone, another important hormone in insect development, and maintains the juvenile status of insects.

While such canonical functions of JH are known to be mediated by its intracellular receptor complex composed of Met and Tai, there have been multiple reports suggesting the presence of cell membrane receptor(s) for JH, which mediate non-genomic effects of this terpenoid hormone. In particular, the presence of receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) that phosphorylate Met/Tai in response to JH and thus indirectly affect the canonical JH signaling pathway has been strongly suggested. Given the importance of JH in insect physiology and the fact that the JH signaling pathway is a major target of insect growth regulators, elucidating the identify and functions of putative JH membrane receptors is of great significance form both basic and applied perspectives.

In the present study, the authors identified candidate receptors for such cell membrane JH receptors, CAD96CA and FGFR1, in the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera.

Strengths:

Their in vitro analyses are conducted thoroughly using multiple methods, which overall support their claim that these receptors can bind to JH and mediate their non-genomic effects.

Their CRISPR-Cas-mediated mutagenesis in vivo shows that mutation of the two RTKs causes acceleration of pupation, which is consistent with the mutant phenotype of the intracellular JH receptor, Met1. Although this is different from the typical phenotype one would expect from JH signaling deficiency in lepidopteran insects (i.e. precocious metamorphosis), the results overall support their claim that these two RTKs modulate genomic JH effects by phosphorylating the intracellular receptors.

Weaknesses:

Although their loss-of-function analyses suggest that the two RTKs likely have redundant functions in vivo, it is unclear whether they have any different functions in mediating JH functions in different physiological contexts. It also remains unknown whether other endogenous ligands for these RTKs affect canonical, genomic JH signaling in vivo.

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

Juvenile Hormone (JH) plays a key role in insect development and physiology. Although the intracellular receptor for JH was identified long ago, a number of studies have shown that part of JH functions should be fulfilled through binding to an unknown membrane receptor, which was proposed to belong to the RTK family. In this study, the authors screened all RTKs from the H. armigera genome for their ability to mediate responses to JH III treatment both in cultured cells and in developping animals. They also present convincing evidence that CAD96CA and FGFR1 directly bind JH III, and that their role might be conserved in other insect species.

Strengths:

Altogether, the experimental approach is very complete and elegant, providing evidence for the role of CAD96CA and FGFR1 in JH signalling using different techniques and in different contexts. I believe that this work will open new perspectives to study the role of JH and better understand what is the contribution of signalling through membrane receptors for JH-dependent developmental processes.

Weaknesses:

Unfortunately, the revised manuscript does not show significant improvement. While the identification of the receptors is highly convincing, important issues about the biological relevance remain unaddressed.

First, the main point I raised about the first version of this article is that the redundancy and/or specificity of the two receptors should be clarified, even though I understand that it cannot be deeply investigated here. I believe that this point, shared by all reviewers, is highly relevant for the scope of this work. In this revised version, it is still unclear how to reconcile gain and loss-of-function experiments and the different expression profiles of the receptors.

Second, the newly added explanations and pieces of discussion provided about the mild in vivo phenotypes of early pupation upon Cad96ca or Fgfr1 knock-out do not clarify the issue but instead put emphasis on methodological issues. Indeed, it is not clear whether the mild phenotypes reflect the biological role of Cad96ca and Fgfr1, or the redundancy of these two RTKs (and/or others), or some issue with the knock-out strategy (partial efficiency, mosaicism...).

Finally, parts of the updated discussion and the modifications to the figures are confusing.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Juvenile hormone (JH) is a pleiotropic terpenoid hormone in insects that mainly regulates their development and reproduction. In particular, its developmental functions are described as the "status quo" action, as its presence in the hemolymph (the insect blood) prevents metamorphosis-initiating effects of ecdysone, another important hormone in insect development, and maintains the juvenile status of insects.

While such canonical functions of JH are known to be mediated by its intracellular receptor complex composed of Met and Tai, there have been multiple reports suggesting the presence of cell membrane receptor(s) for JH, which mediate non-genomic effects of this terpenoid hormone. In particular, the presence of receptor tyrosine kinase(s) that phosphorylate Met/Tai in response to JH and thus indirectly affect the canonical JH signaling pathway has been strongly suggested. Given the importance of JH in insect physiology and the fact that the JH signaling pathway is a major target of insect growth regulators, elucidating the identify and functions of putative JH membrane receptors is of great significance from both basic and applied perspectives.

In the present study, the authors identified candidate receptors for such cell membrane JH receptors, CAD96CA and FGFR1, in the cotton bollworm Helicoverpa armigera.

Strengths:

Their in vitro analyses are conducted thoroughly using multiple methods, which overall supports their claim that these receptors can bind to JH and mediate their non-genomic effects.

Weaknesses:

Results of their in vivo experiments, particularly those of their loss-of-function analyses using CRISPR mutants are still preliminary, and the results rather indicate that these membrane receptors do not have any physiologically significant roles in vivo. More specifically, previous studies in lepidopteran species have clearly and repeatedly shown that precocious metamorphosis is the hallmark phenotype for all JH signaling-deficient larvae. In contrast, the present study showed that Cad96ca and Fgfr1 G0 mutants only showed slight acceleration in their pupation timing, which is not a typical phenotype one would expect from JH signaling deficiency. This is inconsistent with their working model provided in Figure 6, which indicates that these cell membrane JH receptors promote the canonical JH signaling by phosphorylating Met/Tai.

If the authors argue that this slight acceleration of pupation is indeed a major JH signaling-deficient phenotype in Helicoverpa, they need to provide more data to support their claim by analyzing CRISPR mutants of other genes involved in JH signaling, such as Jhamt and Met. An alternative explanation is that there is functional redundancy between CAD96CA and FGFR1 in mediating phosphorylation of Met/Tai. This possibility can be tested by analyzing double knockouts of these two receptors.

Currently, the validity of their calcium imaging analysis in Figure 5 is also questionable. When performing calcium imaging in cultured cells, it is critically important to treat all the cells at the end of each experiment with a hormone or other chemical reagents that universally induce calcium increase in each particular cell line. Without such positive control, the validity of calcium imaging data remains unknown, and readers cannot properly evaluate their results.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Li et al. identified CAD96CA and FGF1 among 20 receptor tyrosine kinase receptors as mediators of JH signaling. By performing a screen in HaEpi cells with overactivated JH signaling, the authors pinpointed two main RTKs that contribute to the transduction of JH. Using the CRISPR/Cas9 system to generate mutants, the authors confirmed that these RTKs are required for normal JH activation, as precocious pupariation was observed in their absence. Additionally, the authors demonstrated that both CAD96CA and FGF1 exhibit a high affinity for JH, and their activation is necessary for the proper phosphorylation of Tai and Met, transcription factors that promote the transcriptional response. Finally, the authors provided evidence suggesting that the function of CAD96CA and FGF1 as JH receptors is conserved across insects.

Strengths:

The data provided by the authors are convincing and support the main conclusions of the study, providing ample evidence to demonstrate that phosphorylation of the transducers Met and Tai mainly depends on the activity of two RTKs. Additionally, the binding assays conducted by the authors support the function of CAD96CA and FGF1 as membrane receptors of JH. The study's results validate, at least in H. amigera, the predicted existence of membrane receptors for JH.

Weaknesses:

The authors have provided evidences that the Cad96Ca and FGF1 RTK receptors contribute to JH signaling through CRISPR/Cas9, inducing precocious metamorphosis, although not to the same extent as absence of JH. Therefore, it still remains unclear whether these RTKs are completely required for pathway activation or only necessary for high activation levels during the last larval stage.

While the authors have included some additional data, the mechanism by which different RTKs function in transducing JH signaling in a tissue specific manner is still unclear. As the authors note in the discussion, it is possible that other RTKs may also play a role in facilitating the transduction of JH signaling.

Lastly, the study does not yet explain how RTKs with known ligands could also bind JH and contribute to JH signaling activation. Although receptor promiscuity has been suggested as a possible mechanism, future studies could explore whether activation of RTK pathways by their known ligands induces certain levels of JH transducer phosphorylation, which, in the presence of JH, could contribute to full pathway activation without the need for direct JH-RTK binding.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This work is meant to help create a foundation for future studies of the Central Complex, which is a critical integrative center in the fly brain. The authors present a systematic description of cellular elements, cell type classifications, behavioral evaluations and genetic resources available to the Drosophila neuroscience community.

Strengths:

The work contributes new, useful and systematic technical information in compelling fashion to support future studies of the fly brain. It also continues to set a high and transparent standard by which large-scale resources can be defined and shared.

Weaknesses:

Manuscript revisions by the authors addressed all proposed weaknesses from the original version.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper, Wolff et al. describe an impressive collection of newly created split-GAL4 lines targeting specific cell types within the central complex (CX) of Drosophila. The CX is an important area in the brain that has been involved in the regulation of many behaviors including navigation and sleep/wake. The authors advocate that to fully understand how the CX functions, cell-specific driver lines need to be created. In that respect, this manuscript will be of very important value to all neuroscientists trying to elucidate complex behaviors using the fly model. In addition, and providing a further very important finding, the authors went on to assess neurotransmitter/neuropeptides and their receptors expression in different cells of the CX. These findings will also be of great interest to many and will help further studies aimed at understanding the CX circuitries. The authors then investigated how different CX cell types influence sleep and wake. While the description of the new lines and their neurochemical identity is excellent, the behavioral screen seems to be unfinished and could have been more matured.

Strengths:

(1) The description of dozens of cell-specific split-GAL4 lines is extremely valuable to the fly community. The strength of the fly system relies on the ability to manipulate specific neurons to investigate their involvement in a specific behavior. Recently, the need to use extremely specific tools has been highlighted by the identification of sleep-promoting neurons located in the VNC of the fly as part of the expression pattern of the most widely used dorsal-Fan Shaped Body (dFB) GAL4 driver. These findings should serve as a warning to every neurobiologist, make sure that your tool is clean. In that respect, the novel lines described in this manuscript are fantastic tools that will help the fly community.<br /> (2) The description of neurotransmitter/neuropeptides expression pattern in the CX is of remarkable importance and will help design experiments aimed at understanding how the CX functions.

Weaknesses:

(1) I find the behavioral (sleep) screen of this manuscript to be incomplete. It appears to me that this part of the paper is not as developed as it could be. The authors have performed neuronal activation using thermogenetic and/or optogenetic approaches. For some cell types, only thermogenetic activation is shown. There is no silencing data and/or assessment of sleep homeostasis or arousal threshold. The authors find that many CX cell types modulate sleep and wake but it's difficult to understand how these findings fit one with the other. It seems that each CX cell type is worthy of its own independent study and paper. I am fully aware that a thorough investigation of every CX neuronal type in sleep and wake regulation is a herculean task. So, altogether I think that this manuscript will pave the way for further studies on the role of CX neurons in sleep regulation.<br /> (2) Linked to point 1, it is possible that the activation protocols used in this study are insufficient for some neuronal types. The authors have used 29{degree sign} for thermogenetic activation (instead of the most widely used 31{degree sign}) and a 2Hz optogenetic activation protocol. The authors should comment on the fact that they may have missed some phenotypes by using these mild activation protocols.<br /> (3) There are multiple spelling errors in the manuscript that need to be addressed.

Comments on revisions:

I am satisfied with the authors response. This paper provides excellent starting points for additional studies into the role of different CX cell types in sleep and wake.

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

Summary:

This is an important study that underscores that reproduction-survival trade-offs are not manifested (contrary to what generally accepted theory predicts) across a range of studies on birds. This has been studied by a meta-analytical approach, gathering data from a set of 46 papers (30 bird species). The overall conclusion is that there are no trade-offs apparent unless experimental manipulations push the natural variability to extreme values. In the wild, the general pattern for within-species variation is that birds with (naturally) larger clutches survive better.

Likely impact:

I think this is an important contribution to a slow shift in how we perceive the importance of trade-offs in ecology and evolution in general. While the current view still is that one individual excelling in one measure of its life history (i.e. receiving benefits) must struggle (i.e. pay costs) in another part. However, a positive correlation between all aspects of life history traits is possible within an individual (such as due to developmental conditions or fitting to a particular environment). Simply, some individuals can perform generally better (be of good quality than others).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors investigated the expression profile of enterochromaffine (EC) cells after creating a new tryptophan hydroxylase 1 (Tph1) GFP-reporter mouse using scRNAseq and confirmative RNAscope analysis. They distinguish 14 clusters of Tph1+ cells found along the gut axis. The manuscript focuses on two of these, (i) a multihormonal cell type shown to express markers of pathogen/toxin and nutrient detection in the proximal small intestine, and (ii) on a EC-cluster in the distal colon, which expresses Piezo2, rendering these cells mechanosensitive. In- and ex- vivo data explore the role of the mechanosensitive EC population for intestinal/colonic transit, using chemogenetic activation, diptheria-toxin receptor dependent cell ablation and conditional gut epithelial specific Piezo2 knock-out. Whilst some of these data are confirmative of previous reports - Piezo2 has been implicated in mechanosensitive serotonin release previously, as referred to by the authors - the data are solid and emphasize the importance of mechanosensitive serotonin release for colonic propulsion. The transcriptomic data will guide future research.

Strengths:

The transcriptomic data, whilst confirmative, is more granular than previous data sets. Employing new tools to establish a role of mechanosensitive EC cells for colonic and thus total intestinal transit.

Weaknesses:

(1) The proposed villus/crypt distribution of the14 cell types is not verified adequately. The RNAscope and immunohistochemistry samples presented do not allow assessment if this interpretation is correct - spatial transcriptomics, now approaching single cell resolution, likely will help to verify this claim.

(2) The physiological function and/or functionality of most of the transcriptomically enriched gene products has not been assessed. Whilst a role for Piezo2 expressing cells for colonic transit is convincingly demonstrated the nature of the mechanical stimulus or the stimulus-secretion coupling downstream of Piezo2 activation is not clear.

Comments on revisions: I am happy with the manuscript as is.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The objective of this study was to infer the population dynamics (rates of differentiation, division, and loss) and lineage relationships of clonally expanding NK cell subsets during an acute immune response.

Strengths:

A rich dataset and thorough analysis of a particular class of stochastic models.

Weaknesses:

The stochastic models used are quite simple; each population is considered homogeneous with first-order rates of division, death, and differentiation. In Markov process models such as these, there is no dependence of cellular behavior on its history of divisions. In recent years models of clonal expansion and diversification, in the settings of T and B cells, have progressed beyond this picture. So I was a little surprised that there was no mention of the literature exploring the role of replicative history in differentiation (e.g. Bresser Nat Imm 2022), nor of the notion of family 'division destinies' (either in division number or the time spent proliferating, as described by the Cyton and Cyton2 models developed by Hodgkin and collaborators; e.g. Heinzel Nat Imm 2017). The emerging view is that variability in clone (family) size may arise predominantly from the signals delivered at activation, which dictate each precursor's subsequent degree of expansion, rather than from the fluctuations deriving from division and death modeled as Poisson processes.

As you pointed out, the Gerlach and Buchholz Science papers showed evidence for highly skewed distributions of family sizes and correlations between family size and phenotypic composition. Is it possible that your observed correlations could arise if the propensity for immature CD27+ cells to differentiate into mature CD27- cells increases with division number? The relative frequency of the two populations would then also be impacted by differences in the division rates of each subset - one would need to explore this. But depending on the dependence of the differentiation rate on division number, there may be parameter regimes (and time points) at which the more differentiated cells can predominate within large clones even if they divide more slowly than their immature precursors. One might not then be able to rule out the two-state model. I would like to see a discussion or rebuttal of these issues.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Wethington et al. investigated the mechanistic principles underlying antigen-specific proliferation and memory formation in mouse natural killer (NK) cells following exposure to mouse cytomegalovirus (MCMV), a phenomenon predominantly associated with CD8+ T cells. Using a rigorous stochastic modeling approach, the authors aimed to develop a quantitative model of NK cell clonal dynamics during MCMV infection.

Initially, they proposed a two-state linear model to explain the composition of NK cell clones originating from a single immature Ly49+CD27+ NK cell at 8 days post-infection (dpi). Through stochastic simulations and analytical investigations, they demonstrated that a variant of the two-state model incorporating NK cell death could explain the observed negative correlation between NK clone sizes at 8 dpi and the percentage of immature (CD27+) NK cells (Page 8, Figure 1e, Supplementary Text 1). However, this two-state model failed to accurately reproduce the first (mean) and second (variance and covariance) moments of the measured CD27+ and CD27- NK cell populations within clones at 8 dpi (Figure 1g).

To address this limitation, the authors increased the model's complexity by introducing an intermediate maturation state, resulting in a three-stage model with the transition scheme: CD27+Ly6C- → CD27-Ly6C- → CD27-Ly6C+. This three-stage model quantitatively fits the first and second moments under two key constraints: (i) immature CD27+ NK cells exhibit faster proliferation than CD27- NK cells, and (ii) there is a negative correlation (upper bound: -0.2) between clone size and the fraction of CD27+ cells. The model predicted a high proliferation rate for the intermediate stage and a high death rate for the mature CD27-Ly6C+ cells.

Using NK cell reporter mice data from Adams et al. (2021), which tracked CD27+/- cell population dynamics following tamoxifen treatment, the authors validated the three-stage model. This dataset allowed discrimination between NK cells originating from the bone marrow and those pre-existing in peripheral blood at the onset of infection. To test the prediction that mature CD27- NK cells have a higher death rate, the authors measured Ly49H+ NK cell viability in the mice spleen at different time points post-MCMV infection. Experimental data confirmed that mature (CD27-) NK cells exhibited lower viability compared to immature (CD27+) NK cells during the expansion phase (days 4-8 post-infection).

Further mathematical analyses using a variant of the three-stage model supported the hypothesis that the higher death rate of mature CD27- cells contributes to a larger proportion of CD27- cells in the dead cell compartment, as introduced in the new variant model.

Altogether, the authors proposed a three-stage quantitative model of antigen-specific expansion and maturation of naïve Ly49H+ NK cells in mice. This model delineates a maturation trajectory: (i) CD27+Ly6C- (immature) → (ii) CD27-Ly6C- (mature I) → (iii) CD27-Ly6C+ (mature II). The findings highlight the highly proliferative nature of the mature I (CD27-Ly6C-) phenotype and the increased cell death rate characteristic of the mature II (CD27-Ly6C+) phenotype.

Strengths:

By designing models capable of explaining correlations, first and second moments, and employing analytical investigations, stochastic simulations, and model selection, the authors identified the key processes underlying antigen-specific expansion and maturation of NK cells. This model distinguishes the processes of antigen-specific expansion, contraction, and memory formation in NK cells from those observed in CD8+ T cells. Understanding these differences is crucial not only for elucidating the distinct biology of NK cells compared to CD8+ T cells but also for advancing the development of NK cell therapies currently under investigation.

Weaknesses:

The conclusions of this paper are largely supported by the available data. However, a comparative analysis of model predictions with more recent works in the field would be desirable. Moreover, certain aspects of the simulations, parameter inference, and modeling require further clarification and expansion, as outlined below:

(1) Initial Conditions and Grassmann Data: The Grassmann data is used solely as a constraint, while the simulated values of CD27+/CD27- cells could have been directly fitted to the Grassmann data, which assumes a 1:1 ratio of CD27+/CD27- at t = 0. This approach would allow for an alternative initial condition rather than starting from a single CD27+ cell, potentially improving model applicability.

(2) Correlation Coefficients in the Three-State Model: Although the parameter scan of the three-state model (Figure 2) demonstrates the potential for achieving negative correlations between colony size and the fraction of CD27+ cells, the authors did not present the calculated correlation coefficients using the estimated parameter values from fitting the three-state model to the data. Including these simulations would provide additional insight into the parameter space that supports negative correlations and further validate the model.

(3) Viability Dynamics and Adaptive Response: The authors measured the time evolution of CD27+/- dynamics and viability over 30 days post-infection (Figure 4). It would be valuable to test whether the three-state model can reproduce the adaptive response of CD27- cells to MCMV infection, particularly the observed drop in CD27- viability at 5 dpi (prior to the 8 dpi used in the study) and its subsequent rebound at 8 dpi. Reproducing this aspect of the experiment is critical to determine whether the model can simultaneously explain viability dynamics and moment dynamics. Furthermore, this analysis could enable sensitivity analysis of CD27- viability with respect to various model parameters.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study introduces a novel therapeutic strategy for patients with high-risk HER2-positive breast cancer and demonstrates that the incorporation of pyrotinib into adjuvant trastuzumab therapy can improve invasive disease-free survival.

Strengths:

The study features robust logic and high-quality data. Data from 141 patients across 23 centers were analyzed, thereby effectively mitigating regional biases and endowing the research findings with high applicability.

Weaknesses:

(1) Introduction and Discussion: Update the literature regarding the efficacy of pyrotinib combined with trastuzumab in treating HER2-positive advanced breast cancer.<br /> (2) Did all the data have a normal distribution? Expand the description of statistical analysis.<br /> (3) The novelty and innovative potential of your manuscript compared to the published literature should be described in more detail in the abstract and discussion section.<br /> (4) Figure legend should provide a bit more detail about what readers should focus on.<br /> (5) P-values should be clarified for the analysis.<br /> (6) The order (A, B, and C) in Figure 3 should be labeled in the upper left corner of the Figure.

Comments on revisions:

The authors responded well to my questions.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

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 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.

Comments on latest version:

The authors have largely addressed my concerns and comments. I have no additional comments for this round of review.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

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 which demonstrates the functional role played by a single gene in plant response to salt stress in Arabidopsis.

Comments on latest version:

All of the issues that I raised in previous reviews have been addressed by the authors. That said, there are several points that I see have come up in subsequent reviews that remain unresolved.

In response to Reviewer 1, comment 2, regarding changes in expression differences, the authors are misinterpreting simple statistical results. They say that they performed Tukey tests for differences of means, finding, for example, that two means have the same group assignments (in this case, both "c,d") but then argue that "we still observed a clear reduction in WRKY75 transcript abundance." This is not how statistical tests work - we cannot perform a formal test for means and then just do an eyeball test. They also misinterpret the result in which one mean is assigned "b,c,d" results and a second "c,d" - these are statistically overlapping means.

Having said this, I do think that the subtle differences in expression between these different alleles is not critical to the central message of the study. It can be difficult to recapitulate results between labs, much less between different synthetic alleles. I think, in this case, we can let readers decide for themselves whether the reported differences - or lack thereof - is important for follow-up work.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study by Fang et al., the authors show how STAMBPL1 promotes TNBC angiogenesis via a feed-forward GRHL3/HIF1a/VEGFA axis. They demonstrate that STAMBPL1 interacts with FOXO1, define the required domains in each protein, and illustrate that this interaction facilitates FOXO1 transcriptional factor activity, which then activates GRHL3/HIF1a/VEGFA signaling. Lastly, they show that the combination of VEGFR and FOXO1 inhibitors can synergistically suppress STAMBPL1-overexpressing TNBC.

Strengths:

The manuscript is clearly written, and the results are well explained. The observation that STAMBPL1 mediates GRHL3 transcription through its interaction with FOXO1 is novel. The findings also have important translational potential.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In their manuscript, Fang and colleagues make a notable contribution to the field of oncology, particularly in advancing our understanding of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The research delineates the role of STAMBPL1 in promoting angiogenesis in TNBC through its interaction with FOXO1 and the subsequent activation of the GRHL3/HIF1A/VEGFA axis. The evidence presented is robust, with a combination of in vitro experiments, RNA sequencing, and in vivo studies providing a comprehensive view of the molecular mechanisms at play. The strength of the evidence is anchored in the systematic approach and the utilization of multiple methodologies to substantiate the findings.

Strengths:

The manuscript presents a methodologically robust framework, incorporating RNA-sequencing, chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assays, and a suite of in vitro and in vivo model systems, which collectively substantiate the claims regarding the pro-angiogenic role of STAMBPL1 in TNBC. The employment of multiple cellular models, conditioned media to assess HUVEC functional responses, and xenograft tumor models in murine hosts offers a comprehensive evaluation of STAMBPL1's impact on angiogenic processes.A salient strength of this work is the identification of GRHL3 as a transcriptional target of STAMBPL1 and the demonstration of a physical interaction between STAMBPL1 and FOXO1, which modulates GRHL3-driven HIF1A transcription. The study further suggests a potential therapeutic strategy by revealing the synergistic inhibitory effects of combined VEGFR and FOXO1 inhibitor treatment on TNBC tumor growth.

Weaknesses:

A potential limitation of the study is the reliance on specific cellular and animal models, which may constrain the extrapolation of these findings to the broader spectrum of human TNBC biology. Furthermore, while the study provides evidence for a novel regulatory axis involving STAMBPL1, FOXO1, and GRHL3, the multifaceted nature of angiogenesis may implicate additional regulatory factors not exhaustively addressed in this research.

Appraisal of Achievement and Conclusion Support:

The authors have successfully demonstrated that STAMBPL1 promotes HIF1A transcription and activates the HIF1α/VEGFA axis in a non-enzymatic manner, leading to increased angiogenesis in TNBC. The results are generally supportive of their conclusions, with clear evidence that STAMBPL1 upregulates HIF1α expression and enhances the activity of HUVECs. The study also shows that STAMBPL1 interacts with FOXO1 to promote GRHL3 transcription, which in turn activates HIF1A.

Impact on the Field and Utility:

This research is poised to exert a substantial impact on the oncological research community by uncovering the role of STAMBPL1 in TNBC angiogenesis and by identifying the STAMBPL1/FOXO1/GRHL3/HIF1α/VEGFA axis as a potential therapeutic target. The findings could pave the way for the development of novel therapeutic strategies for TNBC, a subtype characterized by a paucity of effective treatment options. The methodologies utilized in this study are likely to be valuable to the research community, offering a paradigm for investigating the role of deubiquitinating enzymes in oncogenic processes.

Additional Context:

It would be beneficial for readers to understand the broader context of TNBC research and the current challenges in treating this aggressive cancer subtype. The significance of this work is heightened by the lack of effective treatments for TNBC, making the identification of new therapeutic targets particularly important. Furthermore, understanding the specific mechanisms by which STAMBPL1 regulates HIF1α expression could provide insights into hypoxia signaling in other cancer types as well.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Fang et al. describe a new oncogenic function of the STAMBPL1 protein in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). STAMBPL1 is a deubiquitinase that has been poorly studied in cancer. Previous reports identify it as a promoter of epithelial to mesenchymal transition or an inhibitor of cisplatin-induced cell death, but its participation to other cancer phenotypes has not been investigated. Fang et al. find that in cell line models of TNBC, STAMBPL1 promotes expression of the transcription factor HIF-1a and its downstream target VEGF, with the consequence of stimulating neo-angiogenesis in vitro and in vivo. Mechanistically, the authors find that this occurs via a non-enzymatic and indirect mechanism, that is by promoting the expression of GRHL3, a transcription factor that in turn binds to the HIF-1a promoter to stimulate its transcription. Interestingly, the way by which STAMPB1 promotes GRHL3 expression is by facilitating the transcriptional activity of FOXO1, a known regulator of GRHL3. Because the authors find that STAMBPL1 and FOXO1 interact, they suggest that STAMBPL1 may promote the formation of an active transcriptional complex containing FOXO1, perhaps by facilitating the recruitment of transcriptional coactivators.

In conclusion, these data position for the first time the STAMBPL1 deubiquitinase in a FOXO-GRHL3 regulatory axis for the control of VEGF expression and tumor angiogenesis.

The main weaknesses of this work are that the relevance of this molecular axis to the pathogenesis of TNBC is not clear, and it is not clearly established whether this is a regulatory pathway that occurs in hypoxic conditions or independently of oxygen levels.

Major criticisms:

(1) Both FOXO1 and GRHL3 have been previously described as tumor suppressors, with reports of FOXO1 inhibiting tumor angiogenesis. Therefore, this work describes an apparently contradictory function of these proteins in TNBC. While it is not surprising that the same genes perform divergent functions in different tumor contexts, a stronger evidence in support of the oncogenic function of these two genes should be provided to make the data more convincing.<br /> To strengthen the notion that STAMBPL1, FOXO and GRHL3 are overexpressed in TNBC, the authors have utilized the BCIP tool to analyze their expression in the Metabric database. According to this analysis, the levels of STAMBPL1and GRHL3 are not higher in breast cancer than in adjacent tissues, and the levels of FOXO1 are lower. Nonetheless, the authors observe that their expression levels are significantly (yet not dramatically) higher in TNBC compared to non-TNBC (Fig.S6A-C). However, these new data do not provide convincing evidence of the relevant tumor suppressive function of these genes in TNBC, as neither is more expressed in tumors compared to adjacent normal tissues.

(2) Because STAMBPL1 overexpression in normoxic conditions is sufficient to cause HIF-1a protein accumulation, it is not clear why the authors then use hypoxic conditions to analyze the effect of STAMBPL1 on HIF-1a transcription Avoiding HIF1-a protein degradation should not have any effect on its transcription. At the same time, it is not clear nor is being explained why different hypoxic conditions are sometimes used, resulting in different mRNA levels of HIF-1a and its downstream targets and quite significant fluctuations within the same cell line from one experimental setting to the next. In conclusion, it is not clear what is the relevance of the new HIF-1a regulatory axis described in this paper in normoxic or hypoxic conditions.

(3) Another critical point is that necessary experimental controls are sometimes missing, and this is reducing the strength of some of the conclusions enunciated by the authors. As an example, experiments where overexpression of STAMBPL1 is coupled to silencing of FOXO1 to demonstrate dependency lack FOXO1silencing the absence of STAMBPL1 overexpression. Because diminishing FOXO1 expression affects HIF-1a/VEGF transcription even in the absence of STAMBPL1 (shown in Figure 7C, D), it is not clear if the data presented in Figure 7G are significant. The difference between HIF-1a expression upon FOXO1 silencing should be compared in the presence or absence of STAMBPL1 overexpression to understand if FOXO1 impacts HIF-1a transcription dependently or independently of STAMBPL1.

In addition, some minor comments to improve the quality of this manuscript are provided.

(1) In Figures 2A and D, where endogenous versus STAMBPL1 expression is shown, it is not clear what is the molecular weight of these proteins as they both appear to be of 55 KDa, even though according to the authors the exogenous protein is bigger than the endogenous and the lower band in Figure 2D is reported to be the endogenous STAMBPL1.

(2) In Figure 2, the effect of STAMBPL1 overexpression on HIF-1a mRNA is minor. At the same time, it seems that the protein levels of HIF-1a are quite high (or at least visible by WB) in normoxic cells even in the absence of STAMBPL1 overexpression. This raises questions about the type of regulation that HIF-1a is subjected to in these cells.

In general, because only two cell lines are used in this study and the data in patients do not appear to strongly support an oncogenic function of STAMBPL1 in TNBC (via its overexpression), data should be more solid and additional experiments should be provided to substantiate the oncogenic function of this pathway in TNCB.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper provide a resource for researchers studying the marine annelid Platynereis dumerilii. It is only the third whole body connectome to be assembled and thus provides a comparison with those less complex animals: the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans and the tunicate Ciona intestinialis. The paper catalogs all cells in the body, not just neurons, and details how sensory neurons, interneurons, motor neurons, and effector organs are connected. From this, the authors are able to extract information about the organization of different aspects of the nervous system. These include the extent of recurrent connectivity, unimodal and multimodal sensory processing, and long-range and short-range connectivity.

Several interesting conclusion are drawn, including the concept that circuit evolution might have proceeded by duplication and diversion of cell types, much as it has been posited that gene evolution has occurred. It also informs the understanding of the evolution of segmental body plans in annelids by mapping and comparing cells in each segment.

Strengths:

This paper contains a wealth of data. The raw dataset is available. The codes and scripts are provided to allow interested readers to utilize this dataset.

The analysis is painstakingly meticulous. The diagrams are organized to orient the reader to the complexities this overwhelming analysis

Weaknesses:

The strength of the paper is also its weakness. It contains so much data and analysis that it is burdensome to read and understand. There are 16 multi-panel data figures in the main text and another 38 supplemental figures and 5 videos.

The impact of the paper is diminished by its size and depth. The paper could be broken up into smaller thematic papers that would be more accessible to researchers interested in particular topics. For example, there could be a single paper on the mushroom body and another paper on the segmental organization.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed all of my concerns.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This study presents a refined approach to enhance the sensitivity of PCR for detecting Trypanosoma cruzi in blood by employing DNA fragmentation and deep sampling, involving multiple replicate PCR reactions. Combined with serial blood sampling, these methods enabled consistent detection of the parasite in infected humans, non-human primates, and dogs, including hosts with very low parasitemia levels.

Inspired by earlier methods that cleaved kinetoplast DNA (kDNA) to improve target distribution, this study targets nuclear satellite DNA repeats, which are tandemly arranged in T. cruzi chromosomes. By fragmenting DNA prior to PCR, the authors reduced subsampling errors, breaking large fragments into smaller, evenly distributed units. This improved the frequency of positive reactions and reduced variability among replicate Cq values.

Using contrived blood samples, the study demonstrated that this approach significantly enhances PCR positivity. Moreover, the findings suggest that cell pellets from blood yield higher concentrations of parasite DNA compared to whole blood, prompting a reevaluation of current diagnostic practices, which predominantly use whole blood lysates.

The study also highlights the importance of deep sampling. Serial testing across multiple blood samples mitigated the variability in parasitemia, addressing challenges first noted in early xenodiagnosis studies (Cerisola et al., 1977).

The proposed DNA extraction and amplification procedures effectively captured parasitemia dynamics, achieving detection sensitivities with quantification limits as low as ~0.00025 parasite equivalents/mL, approaching the detection of a single target copy per reaction.

This work underscores the utility of deep-sampling PCR in monitoring parasitemia dynamics and guiding treatment strategies, especially in chronic infections. It also stresses the importance of treating individuals with low parasitic loads, as immune control may change over time.

Strengths:

The strategies used for increasing PCR sensitivity offer the potential for enhancing treatment monitoring and understanding the dynamics of parasite-host interactions in chronic Chagas disease.

Weaknesses:

While the study offers valuable insights for research in T.cruzi infection dynamics and monitoring of trypanocidal drugs efficacy, its broader adoption depends on the development of cost-effective and scalable alternatives to labor-intensive techniques such as sonication, currently required for DNA fragmentation. Additionally, the reliance on blood cell pellets and the DNA fragmentation protocol introduces extra processing steps, which may not be feasible for many clinical laboratories, particularly in resource-limited endemic areas that require simpler and more streamlined procedures.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study introduces a valuable methodological innovation for detecting Trypanosoma cruzi, the causative agent of Chagas disease, using "deep-sampling PCR" which combines DNA fragmentation with multiple qPCR replications (>300 in some cases) on each sample. The authors aim to overcome the limitations of current qPCR methods by increasing the sensitivity of detection, which is fundamental for evaluating treatment responses in chronic Chagas disease patients. The work also evaluates the approach in multiple host species (macaques, humans, and dogs), at different times and across different sample types, including whole blood, blood cell pellets, plasma, and tissues.

Strengths:

The primary strength of this study lies in its methodological novelty, particularly the combination of multiple parallel PCR reactions and DNA fragmentation to enhance sensitivity. It is a sort of brute-force method for detecting the parasite. This approach promises the detection of parasitic DNA at levels significantly lower than those achievable with standard qPCR methods. Additionally, the authors demonstrate the utility of this method in tracking parasitemia dynamics and post-treatment responses in macaques and dogs, providing valuable insights for both research and clinical applications.

Weaknesses:

(1) Methodological Concerns on detection and quantification limits

Some methodological inconsistencies and limitations were observed that merit consideration. In Figure 1, there is a clear lack of consistency with theoretical expectations and with the trends observed in Figure 4A. Based on approximate calculations, having 10^-7 parasite equivalents with 100,000 target copies per parasite implies an average of 0.01 target copies per reaction. This would suggest an amplification rate of approximately 1 in 100 reactions, yet the observed 30% amplification appears disproportionately high. In addition, Figure 4A (not fragmented) shows lower values of positivity than Figure 1 for 10^-5 and 10^-6 dilutions showing this inconsistency among experiments. Some possible explanations could account for this inconsistency: (1) an inaccurate quantification of the starting number of parasites used for serial dilutions, or (2) random contamination not detected by negative controls, potentially due to a low number of template molecules.

Similarly, Figure 5B presents another inconsistency in theoretical expectations for amplification. The authors report detecting amplification in reactions containing 10^-9 parasites after DNA fragmentation. Based on the figure, at least 3 positives (as I can see because raw data is not available) out of 388 PCRs are observed at this dilution. Assuming 100,000 copies of satellite DNA per parasite, the probability of a single copy being present in a 10^-9 dilution is approximately 1/10,000. If we assume this as the probability of amplification of a PCR (an approximation), by using a simple binomial calculation, the probability of at least 3 positive reactions out of 388 is approximately 9.39 x 10^-6 (in ideal conditions, likely lower in real-world scenarios). This translates to a probability of about 1 in 100,000 to observe such frequency of positives, which is highly improbable and suggests either inaccuracies in the initial parasite quantification or issues with contamination. In addition, at 10^-6 PE/reactions (the proposed limit of quantification) it is observed that 40% of repetitions are amplified. The number of repetitions is not specified but probably more than 50 according to the graph. Such dilution implies 0.1 targets per reaction (assuming 100.000 copies divided by 10^6), which means a total of 5 target molecules to distribute among the reactions (0.1 targets multiplied by 50 reactions). It seems highly improbable that 40% of the reactions (20/50) would amplify under the described conditions. Even considering 200.000 target copies per parasite implies 0.2 targets per reaction and an average of 10 molecules to distribute among 50 reactions. The approximate probability of the observation of at least 20/50 positives can be calculated by determining the probability of a reaction to receive targets by assuming a random distribution of the targets among the tubes, p= 1 - (1 - 1/50)^10, and then by using a binomial distribution to determine the probability that at least 20 reactions receive at least one target copy. The probability of at least 20/50 positive reactions in a dilution of 10^-6 parasites (200.000 target copies per parasite) is 0.00028. Consequently, the observed result is highly unlikely.

2) Lack of details on contamination detection

Additionally, the manuscript does not provide enough details on how cross-contamination was detected or managed. It is unclear how the negative controls (NTCs) and no-template controls were distributed across plates, in terms of both quantity and placement. This omission is critical, as the low detection thresholds targeted in this study increase the risk of false positives by contamination. To ensure reliability and reproducibility, future uses of the technique would benefit from more standardized and clearly documented protocols for control placement and handling.

3) Unclear relevance for treatment monitoring in Humans

In Figure 7A, the results suggest that the deep-sampling PCR method does not provide a clearly significant improvement over conventional qPCR in humans. Of the 9 samples tested, 6 (56%) were consistently amplified in all or nearly all reactions, indicating these samples could also be reliably detected with standard PCR protocols. Two additional samples were detected only with the deep-sampling approach, increasing sensitivity to 78%; however, these detections might be attributable to random chance given the limited sample size. While the authors acknowledge the small sample size in the discussion, they do not address the fact that a similar increase in sensitivity was reported in citation 5, where only 3 samples were tested with 3 replicates each. This raises an important question: how many PCR reactions are needed in human samples to reach a plateau in detection rates? This issue should be further discussed to contextualize the results and their implications.

Despite these limitations, this work represents a promising step forward in the development of highly sensitive diagnostic tools for T. cruzi. It offers a novel foundation for advancing the detection and monitoring of parasitemia, which could significantly benefit Chagas disease research community and clinicians focused on neglected tropical diseases. While addressing the methodological inconsistencies and improving robustness will be critical, this study provides valuable insights and data that could lead to future innovations in parasitological research and diagnostics.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Jirouskova and colleagues in their study have carried out an in depth proteomic characterization of the dynamics of the liver fibrotic response and the resulting resolution in two distinct models of liver injury: CCl4-induced model of hepatotoxicity and pericentral/bridging liver fibrosis and the DDC feeding model of obstructive cholestasis and periportal fibrosis. They focussed on both the insoluble extracellular matrix (ECM) components as well as the soluble secreted factors produced by hepatic stellate cells (HSCs) and/or portal fibroblasts (PFs). They identified compartment- and time-resolved proteomic signatures in the two models with disease-specific factors or matrisomes. Their study also identified phenotypic differences between the models such as that while the CCl4-induced model induced profound hepatotoxicity followed by resolution, the DDC model induced more lasting liver damage and proteomic changes that resembled advanced human liver fibrosis favouring hepatocarcinogenesis.

Overall, this comprehensive and very well conducted study is rigorous and well planned. The conclusions are supported by compelling studies and analyses. One caveat is the lack of mechanistic experiments to prove causality, but this can be carried out in follow-up studies.

Strengths:

• A major strength in the study is that the experiments are rigorous and very well conducted. For instance, the authors utilized two models of liver fibrosis to study different aspects of the pathology - hepatotoxicity vs cholestasis. In addition, 4 time points for each model were investigated - 2 for fibrosis development and 2 for fibrosis resolution. They have taken 3 components for proteomic analyses - total lysates, insoluble ECM components as well as the soluble secreted factors. Thus, the authors provide a comprehensive overview of the fibrosis and resolution process in these models.

• Another great strength of the study is that the methodology utilized was able to dissect unique pathways relevant for each model as well as common targets. For example, the authors identified known pathways such as mTOR signalling to be differentially regulated in the CCl4 vs DDC model. mTOR signalling was increased in the DDC model that is associated with hyperproliferation. Thus showing that the approach taken is specific enough to distinguish between the two similar (both induce fibrosis) but distinct mechanisms (hepatotoxicity vs cholestasis) is a strong point of the study.

Weaknesses:

• A caveat of the study is that the authors have not conducted mechanistic (gain of function/loss of function) studies from any of their identified targets to truly prove causality. This remains one of the limitations of this study. Thus, future studies should investigate this point in detail. For instance, it would have been intriguing to dissect if knocking out specific genes involved in one specific model or genes common to both would yield distinct phenotypic outcomes.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors suggest that ECM abundance and composition change depending on the aetiology of liver fibrosis. To understand this they have investigated the proteome in two models of animal fibrosis and resolution. They suggest their findings could provide a foundation for future anti-fibrotic therapies.

The revised version has been improved. Although some areas remain (described below), it is perhaps the dataset that will be most valuable.

Strengths:

The dataset appears well supported and will be valuable.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript is still fairly descriptive but on balance this is a useful dataset and appears to have broad support in that regard.

There are no conclusions that can be drawn from their rebuttal regarding the human data they included as it is one patient per group and will most likely change dramatically with more patients. As such this area is still an issue but they have improved some of the data elsewhere.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The paper by Gao et al. describes the effect of capsaicin on the NRF2/KEAP1 pathway. The authors carried out a set of in vitro and in vivo experiments that addressed the mechanisms of the protective effect of capsaicin on ethanol-induced cytotoxicity.

The authors conclude that capsaicin activates NRF2, which leads to the induction of cytoprotective genes, preventing oxidative damage. The paper shows that capsaicin may directly bind to KEAP1 and that it is a noncovalent modification of the Kelch domain.

The authors also designed new albumin-coated capsaicin nanoparticles, which were tested for the therapeutic effect in vivo.

I appreciate the authors' experimental efforts to strengthen the study's conclusions. However, in my opinion, the paper is still not fully technically sound, which weakens the strength of the evidence.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper the authors wanted to show that capsaicin can disrupt the interaction between Keap1 and Nrf2 by directly binding to Keap1 at an allosteric site. The resulting stabilization of Nrf2 would protect CAP-treated gastric cells from alcohol- induced redox stress and damage as well as inflammation (both in vitro and in vivo)

Strengths:

One major strength of the study is the use of multiple methods (CoIP, SPR, BLI, deuterium exchange MS, CETSA, MS simulations, target gene expression) that consistently show for the first time that capsaicin can disrupt the Nrf2/Keap1 interaction at an allosteric site and lead to stabilization and nuclear translocation of Nrf2.<br /> Moreover, efforts to show causal involvement of the Keap/Nrf2 axis for the made cellular observations as well as addressing potential off target effects of the polypharmacological CAP appreciated.

One point that still hampers a bit of full appreciation of the capsaicin effect in cells is that capsaicin is not investigated alone, but mostly in combination with alcohol only.<br /> Moreover, the true add-on value of the developed nanoparticles remains obscure.<br /> The partly relatively high levels of NRF2 in putatively unstressed cells question the validity of used models.

The rationale for switching between different CAP concentrations is unclear /not entirely convincing.

The language and introduction could be improved.

Overall, the authors are convinced that capsaicin (although weakly) can bind to Keap1 and releases Nrf2 from degradation, with relevance for biological settings. With this, the authors provide a significant finding with marked relevance for the redox/Nrf2 as well as natural products /hit discovery communities.

- Figure 2C: It is still not clear why naïve (unstressed /untreated cells) already show rather high nuclear abundance of Nrf2 (shouldn´t Nrf2 be continuously tagged for degradation by Keap1)<br /> - Figure 2G-H: Why switch to rather high concentrations?<br /> - Figure 2I: in the pics of mitochondria the control mitochondria look way more punctuated (likely fissed) than the ones treated with EtOH or EtOH + CAP. Wouldn´t one expect that EtOH leads to mitochondrial fission and CAP can prevent it?<br /> - Figure 3H: High basal Nrf2 levels in unstressed/untreated HEK WT cells, why?<br /> - Figure 4a: Inclusion of an additional Keap1 binding protein (one with a ETGE motif) would have been desirable (to get information on specificity/risks of off-target (unwanted) effects of CAP)<br /> - Figure 4D: Why is there no stabilization of Nrf2 by CAP in lane 2 ?<br /> - Figure 4f: 5% DMSO is a rather high solvent concentration , why so high (the solvent alone seems to have quite marked effects !)<br /> - Figure 6/7: not expert enough to judge formulations and histology scores. However, the benefit of the encapsulated capsaicin does not become entirely clear to me, as CAP and IRHSA@CAP mostly do not significantly differ in their elicited response.<br /> - Figure 7: Rebamipide was introduced as positive control in the text with an activating effect on Nrf2, but there is no induction of hmox and nqo in Figure 7f, why? It does not look as the positive control was wisely chosen.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study reports the effects of psilocin on iPSC-derived human cortical neurons.

Strengths:

The characterization was comprehensive, involving immunohistochemistry of various markers, 5-HT2A receptors, BDNF, and TrkB, transcriptomics analyses, morphological determination, electrophysiology, and finally synaptic protein measurements. The results are in close agreement with prior work (PMID 29898390) on rat-cultured cortical neurons. Nevertheless, there is value in confirming those earlier findings and furthermore demonstrating the effects in human neurons, which are important for translation. The genetic, proteomics, and cell structure analyses used in this paper are its major strengths. The study supports the value of using iPSC-derived human cortical neurons for drug development involving psychedelics-related compounds.

Weaknesses:

(1) Line 140: 5-HT2A receptor expression was found via immunocytochemistry to reside in the somatodendritic and axonal compartments. However, prior work from ex vivo tissue using electron microscopy has found predominantly 5-HT2A receptor expression in the somatodendritic compartment (PMID: 12535944). Was this antibody validated to be 5-HT2A receptor-specific? Can the authors reason why the discrepancy may arise, and if the axonal expression is specific to the cultured neurons?

(2) Line 143: It would be helpful to specify the dose of psilocin tested, and describe how this dose was chosen.

(3) Figure 1: The interpretation is that the differential internalization in the axonal and somatodendritic compartments is time-dependent. However, given that only one dose is tested, it is also possible that this reflects dose dependence, with the longer time exposure leading to higher dose exposure, so these variables are related. That is, if a higher dose is given, internalization may also be observed after 10 minutes in the dendritic compartment.

(4) Figure 3 & 4: What is the 'control' here? A more appropriate control for the 24 hours after psilocin application would be 24 hours after vehicle application. Here the authors are looking at before and after, but the factor of time elapsed and perturbation via application is not controlled for.

(5) The sample size was not clearly described. In the figure legend, N = the number of neurites is provided, but it is unclear how many cells have been analyzed, and then how many of those cells belong to the same culture. These are important sample size information that should be provided. Relatedly, statistical analyses should consider that the neurites from the same cells are not independent. If the neurites indeed come from the same cells, then the sample size is much smaller and a statistical analysis considering the nested nature of the data should be used.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this article, Schmidt et al use iPSC-derived human cortical neurons to test the effects the psychedelic psilocin in different models of neuroplasticity.

Using human iPSC-derived cortical neurons, the authors test the expression of 5-HT2A and subcellular distribution, as well as the effect of different times of exposure to psilocin on 5-HT2A expression. The authors evaluated the effect of the 5-HT2 antagonist ketanserin, as well as the inhibition of dynamin-dependent endocytic pathways with dynasore. Gene expression and plasticity (structural and functional) was also evaluated after different times of exposure to psilocin.

In general, results are interesting since they use the iPSC to evaluate the potentially translationally relevant effects of psilocin (the active metabolite of the psychedelic psilocybin). However, there are a few concerns that need to be addressed:

(1) My main critique is the lack of experimental validation of selectivity and/or specificity of the anti-5-HT2A antibody targeting the extracellular loop of the 5-HT2A receptor (Alomone labs, cat # ASR-033). Most of the primary antibodies targeting class A GPCRs (including the 5-HT2A receptor) have very limited selectivity. Without validation (using for example knockdown techniques to decrease expression of 5-HT2A in their iPSC-derived human cortical neurons), the experiments using this antibody should be excluded from the manuscript.

(2) Did the author evaluate whether 5-HT is present in the cell media? If it is, this may affect the functional outcomes evaluated throughout, since as the endogenous ligand it would in principle activate the 5-HT2A receptor.

(3) Some of the datasets are not statistically analyzed (or quantified), such as Figure S1F.

(4) Another important concern is the experimental design used to evaluate the effect of psilocin at different time points (24h, 4 days and 10 days). One of the unique and translationally interesting effects of psychedelics including psilocybin is that the in vivo plasticity-related effects (increased structural or synaptic plasticity for example) are observed post-acutely, or once the active compound psilocin is fully metabolized, or not present in the CNS directly targeting the 5-HT2A. Using the iPSC, it seems that the authors continuously exposed cells to psilocin (for hours or even days) at least for some of the experimental techniques. Since this is not the model of what occurs using an in vivo model (such as a single dose of psilocybin to mice, collecting frontal cortex samples 24-h after drug administration, once the active compound is fully metabolized), the authors' findings lack translational validity. Can the authors comment on this?

(5) In Figure 2E, it seems that ketamine by itself is reducing BDNF density. How then the authors conclude that ketamine blocks psi-induced effects? Using a more selective 5-HT2A antagonist such as M100907 could also improve the outcome (in terms of selectivity) of this experiment.

(6) To evaluate neurite complexity, the authors used the AAV-CamKII-mCherry viral vector, but mCherry (Fig 4A) seems to be retained in the nucleus.

(7) Minor: Reference 36- this is a review article that does not mention the psychedelic psilocin

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The paper attempts to elucidate how feral (wild) pigs cause distortion of the environment in over 54 countries of the world, particularly Australia.

The paper displays proof that over $120 billion worth of facilities were destroyed annually in the United States of America.

The authors have tried to infer that the findings of their work were fundamental and possessing a compelling strength of evidence.

Strengths:

(1) Clearly stating feral (wild) pigs as a problem in the environment.

(2) Stating how 54 countries were affected by the feral pigs.

(3) Mentioning how $120 billion was lost in the US, annually, as a result of the activities of the feral pigs.

(4) Amplifying the fact that 14 species of animals were being driven into extinction by the feral pigs.

(5) Feral pigs possessing zoonotic abilities.

(6) Feral pigs acting as reservoirs for endemic diseases like brucellosis and leptospirosis.

(7) Understanding disease patterns by the social dynamics of feral pig interactions.

(8) The use of 146 GPS-monitored feral pigs to establish their social interaction among themselves.

Weaknesses:

None, as the weaknesses had been already addressed.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors sought to understand social interactions both within and between groups of feral pigs, with the intent of applying their findings to models of disease transmission. The authors analyzed GPS tracking data from across various populations to determine patterns of contact that could support the transmission of a range of zoonotic and livestock diseases.<br /> The analysis then focused on the effects of sex, group dynamics, and seasonal changes on contact rates that could be used to base targeted disease control strategies which would prioritize the removal of adult males for reducing intergroup disease transmission.

Strengths:

It utilized GPS tracking data from 146 feral pigs over several years, effectively capturing seasonal and spatial variation in the social behaviors of interest. Using proximity-based social network analysis, this work provides a highly resolved snapshot of contact rates and interactions both within and between groups, substantially improving research in wildlife disease transmission.<br /> Results were highly useful and provided practical guidance for disease management, showing that control targeted at adult males could reduce intergroup disease transmission, hence providing an approach for the control of zoonotic and livestock diseases.

Weaknesses:

None, as the authors have already addressed the identified weaknesses.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In Pech et al. the authors take advantage of a genetic model organism to investigate the convergent impact of multiple mutations linked to Parkinson's Disease (PD). To investigate this question they leverage Drosophila genetics to create wild type and mutant alleles for five different mutations linked to PD. An additional novel focus of this work is an examination of the animals in an early phase before apparent dopaminergic degeneration. Having generated this resource, authors discover apply an impressive array of experiments including behavioural assays, calcium imaging and single-cell profiling. They also cross-validate their findings in human PD brains. Strikingly, the authors discover common dysregulated genes between fly and human that converges on synaptic dysregulation. Finally, they demonstrate that even in early timepoints, there is extensive dysfunction of olfactory projection neuron calcium.

This is a fantastic, comprehensive, timely and landmark pan-species work that demonstrates the convergence of multiple familial PD mutations onto a synaptic program. It is extremely well written and the authors have addressed all my comments in this review. I recommend this work be published as soon as possible.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study investigates the cellular and molecular events leading to hyposmia, an early dysfunction in Parkinson's disease (PD), which develops up to 10 years prior to motor symptoms. The authors use five Drosophila knock-in models of familial PD genes (LRRK2, RAB39B, PINK1, DNAJC6 (Aux), and SYNJ1 (Synj)), three expressing human genes and two Drosophila genes with equivalent mutations.

The authors carry out single-cell RNA sequencing of young fly brains and single-nucleus RNA sequencing of human brain samples. The authors found that cholinergic olfactory projection neurons (OPN) were consistently affected across the fly models, showing synaptic dysfunction before the onset of motor deficits, known to be associated with dopaminergic neuron (DAN) dysfunction.

Single-cell RNA sequencing revealed significant transcriptional deregulation of synaptic genes in OPNs across all five fly PD models. This synaptic dysfunction was confirmed by impaired calcium signalling and morphological changes in synaptic OPN terminals. Furthermore, these young PD flies exhibited olfactory behavioural deficits that were rescued by selective expression of wild-type genes in OPNs.

Single-nucleus RNA sequencing of post-mortem brain samples from PD patients with LRRK2 risk mutations revealed similar synaptic gene deregulation in cholinergic neurons, particularly in the nucleus basalis of Meynert (NBM). Gene ontology analysis highlighted enrichment for processes related to presynaptic function, protein homeostasis, RNA regulation, and mitochondrial function.

This study provides compelling evidence for the early and primary involvement of cholinergic dysfunction in PD pathogenesis, preceding the canonical DAN degeneration. The convergence of familial PD mutations on synaptic dysfunction in cholinergic projection neurons suggests a common mechanism contributing to early non-motor symptoms like hyposmia. The authors also emphasise the potential of targeting cholinergic neurons for early diagnosis and intervention in PD.

Strengths:

This study presents a novel approach, combining multiple mutants to identify salient disease mechanisms. The quality of the data and analysis is of a high standard, providing compelling evidence for the role of OPN neurons in olfactory dysfunction in PD. The authors also provide evidence to show that early olfactory defects lead to later dopaminergic neuron dysfunction. The comprehensive single-cell RNA sequencing data from both flies and humans is a valuable resource for the research community. The identification of consistent impairments in cholinergic olfactory neurons, at early disease stages, is a powerful finding that highlights the convergent nature of PD progression. The comparison between fly models and human patients' brains provides strong evidence of the conservation of molecular mechanisms of disease, which can be built upon in further studies using flies to prove causal relationships between the defects described here and neurodegeneration.

The identification of specific neurons involved in olfactory dysfunction opens up potential avenues for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript extends previous research by this group by relating variation in pupil size to the endpoints of saccades produced by human participants under various conditions including trial-based choices between pairs of spots and search for small items in natural scenes. Based on the premise that pupil size is a reliable proxy of "effort", the authors conclude that less costly saccade targets are preferred. Finding that this preference was influenced by the performance of a non-visual, attention-demanding task, the authors conclude that a common source of effort animates gaze behavior and other cognitive tasks.

Strengths:

Strengths of the manuscript include the novelty of the approach, the clarity of the findings, and the community interest in the problem.

Weaknesses:

Enthusiasm for this manuscript is reduced by the following weaknesses:

(1) A relationship between pupil size and saccade production seems clear based on the authors' previous and current work. What is at issue is the interpretation. The authors test one, preferred hypothesis, and the narrative of the manuscript treats the hypothesis that pupil size is a proxy of effort as beyond dispute or question. The stated elements of their argument seem to go like this:<br /> PROPOSITION 1: Pupil size varies systematically across task conditions, being larger when tasks are more demanding.<br /> PROPOSITION 2: Pupil size is related to the locus coeruleus.<br /> PROPOSITION 3: The locus coeruleus NE system modulates neural activity and interactions.<br /> CONCLUSION: Therefore, pupil size indexes the resource demand or "effort" associated with task conditions.<br /> How the conclusion follows from the propositions is not self-evident. Proposition 3, in particular, fails to establish the link that is supposed to lead to the conclusion.

(2) The authors test one, preferred hypothesis and do not consider plausible alternatives. Is "cost" the only conceivable hypothesis? The hypothesis is framed in very narrow terms. For example, the cholinergic and dopamine systems that have been featured in other researchers' consideration of pupil size modulation are missing here. Thus, because the authors do not rule out plausible alternative hypotheses, the logical structure of this manuscript can be criticized as committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

(3) The authors cite particular publications in support of the claim that saccade selection is influenced by an assessment of effort. Given the extensive work by others on this general topic, the skeptic could regard the theoretical perspective of this manuscript as too impoverished. Their work may be enhanced by consideration of other work on this general topic, e.g, (i) Shenhav A, Botvinick MM, Cohen JD. (2013) The expected value of control: an integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron. 2013 Jul 24;79(2):217-40. (ii) Müller T, Husain M, Apps MAJ. (2022) Preferences for seeking effort or reward information bias the willingness to work. Sci Rep. 2022 Nov 14;12(1):19486. (iii) Bustamante LA, Oshinowo T, Lee JR, Tong E, Burton AR, Shenhav A, Cohen JD, Daw ND. (2023) Effort Foraging Task reveals a positive correlation between individual differences in the cost of cognitive and physical effort in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023 Dec 12;120(50):e2221510120.

(4) What is the source of cost in saccade production? What is the currency of that cost? The authors state (page 13), "... oblique saccades require more complex oculomotor programs than horizontal eye movements because more neuronal populations in the superior colliculus (SC) and frontal eye fields (FEF) [76-79], and more muscles are necessary to plan and execute the saccade [76, 80, 81]." This statement raises questions and concerns. First, the basis of the claim that more neurons in FEF and SC are needed for oblique versus cardinal saccades is not established in any of the publications cited. Second, the authors may be referring to the fact that oblique saccades require coordination between pontine and midbrain circuits. This must be clarified. Second, the cost is unlikely to originate in extraocular muscle fatigue because the muscle fibers are so different from skeletal muscles, being fundamentally less fatigable. Third, if net muscle contraction is the cost, then why are upward saccades, which require the eyelid, not more expensive than downward? Thus, just how some saccades are more effortful than others is not clear.

(5) The authors do not consider observations about variation in pupil size that seem to be incompatible with the preferred hypothesis. For example, at least two studies have described systematically larger pupil dilation associated with faster relative to accurate performance in manual and saccade tasks (e.g., Naber M, Murphy P. Pupillometric investigation into the speed-accuracy trade-off in a visuo-motor aiming task. Psychophysiology. 2020 Mar;57(3):e13499; Reppert TR, Heitz RP, Schall JD. Neural mechanisms for executive control of speed-accuracy trade-off. Cell Rep. 2023 Nov 28;42(11):113422). Is the fast relative to the accurate option necessarily more costly?

(6) The authors draw conclusions based on trends across participants, but they should be more transparent about variation that contradicts these trends. In Figures 3 and 4 we see many participants producing behavior unlike most others. Who are they? Why do they look so different? Is it just noise, or do different participants adopt different policies?

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed the concerns and questions raised in the original review.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this valuable study, the authors found that the macrolide drug rapamycin, which is an important pharmacological tool in the clinic and the research lab, is less specific than previously thought. They provide solid functional evidence that rapamycin activates TRPM8 and begin to develop an NMR method to measure the specific binding of a ligand to a membrane protein.

Strengths:

The authors use a variety of complementary experimental techniques in several different systems, and their results support the conclusions drawn.

Weaknesses:

The proposed location of the rapamycin binding pocket within the membrane means that molecular docking approaches designed for soluble proteins alone do not provide solid evidence for a rapamycin binding pocket location in TRPM8, but the authors are appropriately careful in stating that the model is consistent with their functional experiments. The novel STTD method is intriguing and supportive of the functional results and docking predictions, but further validation of this method is needed.

Impact:

This work provides still more evidence for the polymodality of TRP channels, reminding both TRP channel researchers and those who use rapamycin in other contexts that the adjective "specific" is only meaningful in the context of what else has been explicitly tested.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed my major concerns from the previous round of revision, and I agree that those things that remain un-done are outside the scope of this manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Tóth and Bazeli et al. find rapamycin activates heterologously-expressed TRPM8 and dissociated sensory neurons in a TRPM8-dependent way with Ca2+-imaging. With electrophysiology and STTD-NMR, they confirmed the activation is through direct interaction with TRPM8. Using mutants and computational modeling, the authored localized the binding site to the groove between S4 and S5, different than the binding pocket of cooling agents such as menthol. The hydroxyl group on carbon 40 within the cyclohexane ring in rapamycin is indispensable for activation, while other rapalogs with its replacement, such as everolimus, still bind but cannot activate TRPM8. Overall, the findings provide new insights into TRPM8 functions and may indicate previously-unknown physiological effects or therapeutic mechanisms of rapamycin.

Strengths:

The authors spent extensive effort on demonstration that the interaction between TRPM8 and rapamycin is direct. The evidence is solid. In probing the binding site and the structural-function relationship, the authors combined computational simulation and functional experiments. It is very impressive to see that "within" a rapamycin molecule, the portion shared with everolimus is for "binding", while the hydroxyl group in the cyclohexane ring is for activation. Such detailed dissection represents a successful trial in computational biology-facilitated, functional experiment-validated study of TRP channel structural-activity relationship. The research draws the attention of scientists, including those outside the TRP channel field, to previously-neglected effects of rapamycin, and therefore the manuscript deserves broad readership.

Weaknesses:

The significance of the research could be improved by showing or discussing whether a similar binding pocket is present in other TRP channels, and hence rapalogs might bind to or activate these TRP channels. Additionally, while the finding on TRPM8 is novel, it is worthwhile to perform more comprehensive pharmacological characterization, including single-channel recording and a few more mutant studies to offer further insight into the mechanism of rapamycin binding to S4~S5 pocket driving channel opening. It is also necessary to know if rapalogs have independent or synergistic effects on top of other activators, including cooling agents and lower temperature, and its dependence on regulators such as PIP2.

Additional discussion that might be helpful:

The authors did confirm that rapamycin does not activate TRPV1, TRPA1 and TRPM3. But other TRP channels, particularly other structurally-similar TRPM channels, should be discussed or tested. Alignment of the amino acid sequences or structures at the predicted binding pocket might predict some possible outcomes. In particular, rapamycin is known to activate TRPML1 in a PI(3,5)P2-dependent manner, which should be highlighted in comparison among TRP channels (PMID: 35131932, 31112550).

After revision:

I acknowledge that the authors have addressed some of the questions in their revised version. They have explained that additional experiments might be beyond the scope of the current study. I appreciate their effort in doing their best to improve the manuscript and to leave the rest in discussion.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Rapamycin is a macrolide of immunologic therapeutic importance, proposed as a ligand of mTOR. It is also employed as in essays to probe protein-protein interactions.<br /> The authors serendipitously found that the drug rapamycin and some related compounds, potently activate the cationic channel TRPM8, which is the main mediator of cold sensation in mammals. The authors show that rapamycin might bind to a novel binding site that is different from the binding site for menthol, the prototypical activator of TRPM8. These convincing results are important to a wide audience, since rapamycin is a widely used drug and is also employed in essays to probe protein-protein interactions, which could be affected by potential specific interactions of rapamycin with other membrane proteins, as illustrated herein.

Strengths:

The authors employ several experimental approaches to convincingly show that rapamycin activates directly the TRPM8 cation channel and not an accessory protein or the surrounding membrane. In general, the electrophysiological, mutational and fluorescence imaging experiments are adequately carried out and cautiously interpreted, presenting a clear picture of the direct interaction with TRPM8. In particular, the authors convincingly show that the interactions of rapamycin with TRPM8 are distinct from interactions of menthol with the same ion channel.

Weaknesses:

The main weakness of the manuscript was the NMR method employed to show that rapamycin binds to TRPM8. The authors developed and deployed a novel signal processing approach based on subtraction of several independent NMR spectra to show that rapamycin binds to the TRPM8 protein and not to the surrounding membrane or other proteins. In this revised version the authors have strengthened the evidence that the method gives solid results and have improved the clarity of the presentation.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have greatly improved the quality of the presentation of the NMR data and have answered my concerns regarding the new methodology. The manuscript is improved and represents an important contribution.

Joint Public Review:

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors investigate how different domains of the presynaptic protein UNC-13 regulate synaptic vesicle release in the nematode C. elegans. By generating numerous point mutations and domain deletions, they propose that two membrane-binding domains (C1 and C2B) can exhibit "mutual inhibition," enabling either domain to enhance or restrain transmission depending on its conformation. The authors also explore additional N-terminal regions, suggesting that these domains may modulate both miniature and evoked synaptic responses. From their electrophysiological data, they present a "functional switch" model in which UNC-13 potentially toggles between a basal state and a gain-of-function state, though the physiological basis for this switch remains partly speculative.

Strengths:

(1) The authors conduct a thorough exploration of how mutations in the C1, C2B, and other regulatory domains affect synaptic transmission. This includes single, double, and triple mutations, as well as domain truncations, yielding a large, informative dataset.

(2) The study includes systematically measuring both spontaneous and evoked synaptic currents at neuromuscular junctions, under various experimental conditions (e.g., different Ca²⁺ levels), which strengthens the reliability of their functional conclusions.

(3) Findings that different domain disruptions produce distinct effects on mEPSCs, mIPSCs, and evoked EPSCs suggest UNC-13 may adopt an elevated functional state to regulate synaptic transmission.

Weaknesses:

It remains unclear whether the various domain alterations truly converge on a single "gain-of-function" state or instead represent multiple pathways for enhancing UNC-13 activity. Different mutations selectively affect spontaneous or evoked release, suggesting that each variant may not share the same underlying mechanism. Moreover, many conclusions rely on combining domain deletions or point mutations, yet the electrophysiological data show distinct outcomes across EPSCs, IPSCs, mini, and evoked responses. This raises questions about whether these manipulations all act on the same pathway and whether their observed additivity or suppression genuinely reflects a single mechanistic process. A unifying model-or at least a clearer explanation of why the authors infer one mechanistic state across different domain manipulations would strengthen the paper's conclusions.

The manuscript proposes that UNC-13 toggles from a basal to a "gain-of-function" state under normal synaptic activity. However, it does not address when or how this switch might occur in vivo, since it is demonstrated principally via artificial mutations. Providing direct evidence or additional discussion of such switching under physiological conditions would be particularly informative.

What is the physiological significance of the proposed gain-of-function state? The data suggest that certain mutants (e.g., HK+D1-5N) lacking the gain-of-function state can still support synaptic transmission at wild-type levels. How do the authors reconcile this with the idea that the gain-of-function state plays a critical role at the synapse?

The authors determined the fluorescence intensity of mApple-tagged UNC-13 variants (Figure 1J-K and Figure 7J-K), finding no significant changes compared to the wild-type. However, a more detailed analysis of the density or distribution of fluorescent puncta in axons could clarify whether certain mutations alter the localization of UNC-13 at synapses. Demonstrating colocalization with wild-type UNC-13 (or another presynaptic marker) would help rule out mislocalization effects.

The study mainly relies on extrachromosomal transgenes, which can show variable copy numbers and expression levels among individual worm strains. This variability might complicate interpretation, as differences in expression could mask or exaggerate certain phenotypes.

Finally, the discussion is somewhat diffused. Streamlining the text to focus on the most direct connections would help readers pinpoint the key conclusions and open questions.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This is an interesting and timely computational study using molecular dynamics simulation as well as quantum mechanical calculation to address why tyrosine (Y), as part of an intrinsically disordered protein (IDP) sequence, has been observed experimentally to be stronger than phenylalanine (F) as a promoter for biomolecular phase separation. Notably, the authors identified the aqueous nature of the condensate environment and the corresponding dielectric and hydrogen bonding effects as a key to understanding the experimentally observed difference. This principle is illustrated by the difference in computed transfer free energy of Y- and F-containing pentapeptides into a solvent with various degrees of polarity. The elucidation offered by this work is important. The computation appears to be carefully executed, the results are valuable, and the discussion is generally insightful. However, there is room for improvement in some parts of the presentation in terms of accuracy and clarity, including, e.g., the logic of the narrative should be clarified with additional information (and possibly additional computation), and the current effort should be better placed in the context of prior relevant theoretical and experimental works on cation-π interactions in biomolecules and dielectric properties of biomolecular condensates. Accordingly, this manuscript should be revised to address the following, with added discussion as well as inclusion of references mentioned below.

(1) Page 2, line 61: "Coarse-grained simulation models have failed to account for the greater propensity of arginine to promote phase separation in Ddx4 variants with Arg to Lys mutations (Das et al., 2020)". As it stands, this statement is not accurate, because the cited reference to Das et al. showed that although some coarse-grained models, namely the HPS model of Dignon et al., 2018 PLoS Comput did not capture the Arg to Lys trend, the KH model described in the same Dignon et al. paper was demonstrated by Das et al. (2020) to be capable of mimicking the greater propensity of Arg to promote phase separation than Lys. Accordingly, a possible minimal change that would correct the inaccuracy of this statement in the manuscript would be to add the word "Some" in front of "coarse-grained simulation models ...", i.e., it should read "Some coarse-grained simulation models have failed ...". In fact, a subsequent work [Wessén et al., J Phys Chem B 126: 9222-9245 (2022)] that applied the Mpipi interaction parameters (Joseph et al., 2021, already cited in the manuscript) showed that Mpipi is capable of capturing the rank ordering of phase separation propensity of Ddx4 variants, including a charge scrambled variant as well as both the Arg to Lys and the Phe to Ala variants (see Figure 11a of the above-cited Wessén et al. 2022 reference). The authors may wish to qualify their statements in the introduction to take note of these prior results. For example, they may consider adding a note immediately after the next sentence in the manuscript "However, by replacing the hydrophobicity scales ... (Das et al., 2020)" to refer to these subsequent findings in 2021-2022.

(2) Page 8, lines 285-290 (as well as the preceding discussion under the same subheading & Figure 4): "These findings suggest that ... is not primarily driven by differences in protein-protein interaction patterns ..." The authors' logic in terms of physical explanation is somewhat problematic here. In this regard, "Protein-protein interaction patterns" appear to be a straw man, so to speak. Indeed, who (reference?) has argued that the difference in the capability of Y and F in promoting phase separation should be reflected in the pairwise amino acid interaction pattern in a condensate that contains either only Y (and G, S) and only F (and G, S) but not both Y and F? Also, this paragraph in the manuscript seems to suggest that the authors' observation of similar contact patterns in the GSY and GSF condensates is "counterintuitive" given the difference in Y-Y and F-F potentials of mean force (Joseph et al., 2021); but there is nothing particularly counterintuitive about that. The two sets of observations are not mutually exclusive. For instance, consider two different homopolymers, one with a significantly stronger monomer-monomer attraction than the other. The condensates for the two different homopolymers will have essentially the same contact pattern but very different stabilities (different critical temperatures), and there is nothing surprising about it. In other words, phase separation propensity is not "driven" by contact pattern in general, it's driven by interaction (free) energy. The relevant issue here is total interaction energy or the critical point of the phase separation. If it is computationally feasible, the authors should attempt to determine the critical temperatures for the GSY condensate versus the GSF condensate to verify that the GSY condensate has a higher critical temperature than the GSF condensate. That would be the most relevant piece of information for the question at hand.

(3) Page 9, lines 315-316: "...Our ε [relative permittivity] values ... are surprisingly close to that derived from experiment on Ddx4 condensates (45{plus minus}13) (Nott et al., 2015)". For accuracy, it should be noted here that the relative permittivity provided in the supplementary information of Nott et al. was not a direct experimental measurement but based on a fit using Flory-Huggins (FH), but FH is not the most appropriate theory for a polymer with long-spatial-range Coulomb interactions. To this reviewer's knowledge, no direct measurement of relative permittivity in biomolecular condensates has been made to date. Explicit-water simulation suggests that the relative permittivity of Ddx4 condensate with protein volume fraction ≈ 0.4 can have a relative permittivity ≈ 35-50 (Das et al., PNAS 2020, Fig.7A), which happens to agree with the ε = 45{plus minus}13 estimate. This information should be useful to include in the authors' manuscript.

(4) As for the dielectric environment within biomolecular condensates, coarse-grained simulation has suggested that whereas condensates formed by essentially electric neutral polymers (as in the authors' model systems) have relative permittivities intermediate between that of bulk water and that of pure protein (ε = 2-4, or at most 15), condensates formed by highly charged polymers can have relative permittivity higher than that of bulk water [Wessén et al., J Phys Chem B 125:4337-4358 (2021), Fig.14 of this reference]. In view of the role of aromatic residues (mainly Y and F) in the phase separation of IDPs such as A1-LCD and LAF-1 that contain positively and negatively charged residues (Martin et al., 2020; Schuster et al., 2020, already cited in the manuscript), it should be useful to address briefly how the relationship between the relative phase-separation promotion strength of Y vs F and dielectric environment of the condensate may or may not be change with higher relative permittivities.

(5) The authors applied the dipole moment fluctuation formula (Eq.2 in the manuscript) to calculate relative permittivity in their model condensates. Does this formula apply only to an isotropic environment? The authors' model condensates were obtained from a "slab" approach (page 4 and thus the simulation box has a rectangular geometry. Did the authors apply Equation 2 to the entire simulation box or only to the central part of the box with the condensate (see, e.g., Figure 3C in the manuscript). If the latter is the case, is it necessary to use a different dipole moment formula that distinguishes between the "parallel" and "perpendicular" components of the dipole moment (see, e.g., Equation 16 in the above-cited Wessén et al. 2021 paper). A brief added comment will be useful.

(6) With regard to the general role of Y and F in the phase separation of biomolecules containing positively charged Arg and Lys residues, the relative strength of cation-π interactions (cation-Y vs cation-F) should be addressed (in view of the generality implied by the title of the manuscript), or at least discussed briefly in the authors' manuscript if a detailed study is beyond the scope of their current effort. It has long been known that in the biomolecular context, cation-Y is slightly stronger than cation-F, whereas cation-tryptophan (W) is significantly stronger than either cation-Y and cation-F [Wu & McMahon, JACS 130:12554-12555 (2008)]. Experimental data from a study of EWS (Ewing sarcoma) transactivation domains indicated that Y is a slightly stronger promoter than F for transcription, whereas W is significantly stronger than either Y or F [Song et al., PLoS Comput Biol 9:e1003239 (2013)]. In view of the subsequent general recognition that "transcription factors activate genes through the phase-separation capacity of their activation domain" [Boija et al., Cell 175:1842-1855.e16 (2018)] which is applicable to EWS in particular [Johnson et al., JACS 146:8071-8085 (2024)], the experimental data in Song et al. 2013 (see Figure 3A of this reference) suggests that cation-Y interactions are stronger than cation-F interactions in promoting phase separation, thus generalizing the authors' observations (which focus primarily on Y-Y, Y-F and F-F interactions) to most situations in which cation-Y and cation-F interactions are relevant to biomolecular condensation.

(7) Page 9: The observation of weaker effective F-F (and a few other nonpolar-nonpolar) interactions in a largely aqueous environment (as in an IDP condensate) than in a nonpolar environment (as in the core of a folded protein) is intimately related to (and expected from) the long-recognized distinction between "bulk" and "pair" as well as size dependence of hydrophobic effects that have been addressed in the context of protein folding [Wood & Thompson, PNAS 87:8921-8927 (1990); Shimizu & Chan, JACS 123:2083-2084 (2001); Proteins 49:560-566 (2002)]. It will be useful to add a brief pointer in the current manuscript to this body of relevant resources in protein science.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this preprint, De Sancho and López use alchemical molecular dynamics simulations and quantum mechanical calculations to elucidate the origin of the observed preference of Tyr over Phe in phase separation. The paper is well written, and the simulations conducted are rigorous and provide good insight into the origin of the differences between the two aromatic amino acids considered.

Strengths:

The study addresses a fundamental discrepancy in the field of phase separation where the predicted ranking of aromatic amino acids observed experimentally is different from their anticipated rankings when considering contact statistics of folded proteins. While the hypothesis that the difference in the microenvironment of the condensed phase and hydrophobic core of folded proteins underlies the different observations, this study provides a quantification of this effect. Further, the demonstration of the crossover between Phe and Tyr as a function of the dielectric is interesting and provides further support for the hypothesis that the differing microenvironments within the condensed phase and the core of folded proteins is the origin of the difference between contact statistics and experimental observations in phase separation literature. The simulations performed in this work systematically investigate several possible explanations and therefore provide depth to the paper.

Weaknesses:

While the study is quite comprehensive and the paper well written, there are a few instances that would benefit from additional details. In the methods section, it is unclear as to whether the GGXGG peptides upon which the alchemical transforms are conducted are positioned restrained within the condensed/dilute phase or not. If they are not, how would the position of the peptides within the condensate alter the calculated free energies reported? It would also be interesting to see what the variation in the transfer of free energy is across multiple independent replicates of the transform to assess the convergence of the simulations. Additionally, since the authors use a slab for the calculation of these free energies, are the transfer free energies from the dilute phase to the interface significantly different from those calculated from the dilute phase to the interior of the condensate? The authors mention that the contact statistics of Phe and Tyr do not show significant difference and thereby conclude that the more favorable transfer of Tyr primarily originates from the dielectric of the condensate. However, the calculation of contacts neglects the differences in the strength of interactions involving Phe vs. Tyr. Though the authors consider the calculation of energy contact formation later in the manuscript, the scope of these interactions are quite limited (Phe-Phe, Tyr-Tyr, Tyr-Amide, Phe-Amide) which is not sufficient to make a universal conclusion regarding the underlying driving forces. A more appropriate statement would be that in the context of the minimal peptide investigated the driving force seems to be the difference in dielectric. However, it is worth mentioning that the authors do a good job of mentioning some of these caveats in the discussion section.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors address the paradox of how tyrosine can act as a stronger sticker for phase separation than phenylalanine, despite phenylalanine being higher on the hydrophobicity scale and exhibiting more prominent pairwise contact statistics in folded protein structures compared to tyrosine.

Strengths:

This is a fascinating problem for the protein science community with special relevance for the biophysical condensate community. Using atomistic simulations of simple model peptides and condensates as well as quantum calculations, the authors provide an explanation that relies on the dielectric constant of the medium and the hydration level that either tyrosine or phenylalanine can achieve in highly hydrophobic vs. hydrophilic media. The authors find that as the dielectric constant decreases, phenylalanine becomes a stronger sticker than tyrosine. The conclusions of the paper seem to be solid, it is well-written and it also recognises the limitations of the study. Overall, the paper represents an important contribution to the field.

Weaknesses:

How can the authors ensure that a condensate of GSY or GSF peptides is a representative environment of a protein condensate? First, the composition in terms of amino acids is highly limited, second the effect of peptide/protein length compared to real protein sequences is also an issue, and third, the water concentration within these condensates is really low as compared to real experimental condensates. Hence, how can we rely on the extracted conclusions from these condensates to be representative for real protein sequences with a much more complex composition and structural behaviour?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Wang and Colleagues present a study aimed at demonstrating the feasibility of repeated ultrasound localization microscopy (ULM) recording sessions on mice chronically implanted with a cranial window transparent to US. They provided quantitative information on their protocol, such as the required number of Contrast enhancing microbubbles (MBs) to get a clear image of the vasculature of a brain coronal section. Also, they quantified the co-registration quality over time-distant sessions and the vasodilator effect of isoflurane.

Strengths:

Strengths: the study showed a remarkable performance in recording precisely the same brain coronal section over repeated imaging sessions. In addition, it sheds light on the vasodilator effect of isoflurane (an anesthetic whose effects are not fully understood) on the different brain vasculature compartments, although, as the Authors stated, some insights in this aspect have already been published with other imaging techniques. The experimental setting and protocol are very well described.

Wang and co-authors submitted a revised version of their study, which shows improvements in the clarity of the data description.<br /> However, the flaws and limitations of this study are substantially unchanged.

The main issues are:<br /> - Statistics are still inadequate. The TOST test proposed in this revised version is not equivalent to an ANOVA. Indeed, multivariate analyses should be the most appropriate, given that some quantifications were probably made on multiple vessels from different mice. The 3 reviewers mentioned the flaws in statistics as the primary concern.<br /> - No new data has been added, such as testing other anesthetics.<br /> - The Authors still insist on using the term Vascularity which they define as: 'proportion of the pixel count occupied by blood vessels within each ROI, obtained by binarizing the ULM vessel density maps and calculating the percentage of the pixels with MB signal.'. Why not use apparent cerebral blood volume or just CBV? Introducing an unnecessary and redundant term is not scientifically acceptable. In this revised version, vascularity is also used to indicate a higher vascular density (Line 275), which does not make sense: blood vessels do not generate from the isoflurane to the awake condition in a few minutes. Rev2 also raised this point.<br /> - The long-term recordings mentioned by the Authors refer to the 3-week time frame analyzed in this study. However, within each acquisition, the time available from imaging is only a few minutes (< 10', referring to most of the plots showing time courses) after the animals' arousal from isoflurane and before bubbles disappear. This limitation should be acknowledged.<br /> - The more precise description of the number of mice and blood vessels analyzed in Figure 6 makes it apparent the limited number of independent samples used to support the findings of this work. A limitation that should be acknowledged. The newly provided information added as Supplementary Figure 1 should be moved to the main text, eventually in the figure legends. The limited data in support of the findings was also highlighted by Rev2 and, indirectly, by Rev3.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors present a very interesting collection of methods and results using brain ultrasound localization microscopy (ULM) in awake mice. They emphasize the effect of the level of anesthesia on the quantifiable elements assessable with this technique (i.e. vessel diameter, flow speed, in veins and arteries, area perfused, in capillaries) and demonstrate the possibility of achieving longitudinal cerebrovascular assessment in one animal during several weeks with their protocol.<br /> The authors made a good rewriting of the article based on the reviewers' comments. One of the message of the first version of the manuscript was that variability in measurements (vessel diameter, flow velocity, vascularity) were much more pronounced under changes of anesthesia than when considering longitudinal imaging across several weeks. This message is now not quite mitigated, as longitudinal imaging seems to show a certain variability close to the order of magnitude observed under anesthesia. In that sense, the review process was useful in avoiding hasty conclusion and calls for further caution in ULM awake longitudinal imaging, in particular regarding precision of positioning and cancellation of tissue motion.

Strengths:

Even if the methods elements considered separately are not new (brain ULM in rodents, setup for longitudinal awake imaging similar to those used in fUS imaging, quantification of vessel diameters/bubble flow/vessel area), when masterfully combined as it is done in this paper, they answer two questions that have been long-running in the community: what is the impact of anesthesia on the parameters measured by ULM (and indirectly in fUS and other techniques)? Is it possible to achieve ULM in awake rodents for longitudinal imaging? The manuscript is well constructed, well written, and graphics are appealing.<br /> The manuscript has been much strengthened by the round of review, with more animals for the longitudinal imaging study.

Weaknesses:

Some weaknesses remain, not hindering the quality of the work, that the authors might want to answer or explain.<br /> - When considering fig 4e and fig 4j together: it seems that in fig 4e the vascularity reduction in the cortical ROI is around 30% for downward flow, and around 55% for upward flow; but when grouping both cortical flows in fig 4j, the reduction is much smaller (~5%), even at the individual level (only mouse 1 is used in fig 4e). Can you comment on that?<br /> - When considering fig4e, fig 4j, fig6e and fig6i altogether, it seems that vascularity can be highly variable, whether it be under anesthesia or vascular imaging, with changes between 5 to 40%. Is this vascularity quantification worth it (namely, reliable for example to quantify changes in a pathological model requiring longitudinal imaging)?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper proposes a neural mechanism underlying the perception of ambiguous images: neuromodulation changes the gain of neural circuits promoting a switch between two possible percepts. Converging evidence for this is provided by indirect measurements of neuromodulatory activity and large-scale brain dynamics which are linked by a neural network model. However, both the data analysis as well as the computational modeling are incomplete and would benefit from a more rigorous approach.

This is a revised version of the manuscript which, in my view, is a considerable step forward compared to the original submission.

In particular, the authors now model phasic gain changes in the RNN, based on the network's uncertainty. This is original and much closer to what is suggested by the phasic pupil responses. They also show that switching is actually a network effect because switching times depend on network configuration (Fig 2). This resolves my main comments 1 and 2 about the model.

The mechanism, as I understand it, is different from what the authors described before in the RNN with tonic gain changes. As uncertainty increases, the network enters a regime in which the two excitatory populations start to oscillate. My intuition is that this oscillation arises from the feedback loop created by the new gain control mechanism. If my intuition is correct, I think it would be worth to explain this mechanism in the paper more explicitly.

Overall, the modeling part of the paper has changed quite a lot and I think it is now more solid which is why I have updated my "strength of evidence" rating.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This paper tests the hypothesis that perceptual switches during the presentation of ambiguous stimuli are accompanied by changes in neuromodulation that alter neural gain and trigger abrupt changes in brain activity. To test this hypothesis, the study combines pupillometry, artificial recurrent network (RNN) analysis and fMRI recording. In particular, the study uses methods of energy landscape analysis inspired by physics, which is particularly interesting.

Strengths

- The authors should be commended for combining different methods (pupillometry, RNNs, fMRI) to test their hypothesis. This combination provides a mechanistic insight into perceptual switches in the brain and artificial neural networks.<br /> - The study combines different viewpoints and fields of scientific literature, including neuroscience, psychology, physics, and dynamical systems. In order to make this combination more accessible to the reader, the different aspects are presented in a pedagogical way to be accessible to all fields.<br /> - This combination of methods and viewpoints is rarely done, so it is very useful.<br /> - The authors introduce dynamic gain modulation in their recurrent neural network, which is novel. They devote a section of the paper to studying the dynamics, fixed points and convergence of this type of network.

Weaknesses

- The study may not be specific to perceptual switches. This is because the study relies on a paradigm in which participants report when they identify a switch in the item category. Therefore, it is unclear whether the effects reported in the paper are related to the perceptual switch itself, to attention, or to the detection of behaviourally relevant events. The authors are cautious and explicitly acknowledge this point in their study.<br /> - The demonstration of the causal role of gain modulation in perceptual switches is partial. This causality is clearly demonstrated in the simulation work with the RNN. However, it is not fully demonstrated in the pupil analysis and the fMRI analysis. One reason is that this work is correlative (which is already very informative). An analysis of the timing of the effect might have overcome this limitation. For example, in a previous study, the same group showed that fMRI activity in the LC region precedes changes in the energy landscape of fMRI dynamics, which is a step towards investigating causal links between gain modulation, changes in the energy landscape and perceptual switches.<br /> - Some effects may reflect the expectation of a perceptual switch rather than the perceptual switch itself. To mitigate this risk, the design of the fMRI task included catch trials, in which no switch occurs, to reduce the expectation of a switch. The pupil study, however, did not include such catch trials.<br /> - The paper uses RNN-based modelling to provide mechanistic insight into the role of gain modulation in perceptual switches. However, the RNN solves a task that differs markedly from that performed by human participants, which may limit the explanatory value of the model. The RNN is provided with two inputs characterising the sensory evidence supporting the first and last image category in the sequence (e.g. plane and shark). In contrast, observers in the task were naïve as to the identity of the last image at the beginning of the sequence. The brain first receives sensory evidence about the image category (e.g. plane) with which the sequence begins, which is very easy to recognise, then it sees a sequence of morphed images and has to discover what the final image category will be. To discover the final image category, the brain has to search a vast space of possible second images (it is a shark?, a frog?, a bird?, etc.), rather than comparing the likelihood of just two categories. This search process and the perceptual switch in the task appear to be mechanistically different from the competition between two inputs in the RNN.<br /> - Another aspect of the motivation for the RNN model remains unclear. The authors introduce dynamic gain modulation in the RNN, but it is not clear what the added value of dynamic gain modulation is. Both static (Fig. S1) and dynamic (Fig. 2F) gain modulation lead to the predicted effect: faster switching when the gain is larger.<br /> - The authors are to be commended for addressing their research questions with multiple tools and approaches. There are links between the different parts of the study. The RNN and the pupil are linked by the notion of gain modulation, the RNN and the fMRI analysis are linked by the study of the energy landscape, the fMRI study and the pupil study are indirectly linked by previous work for this group showing that the peak in LC fMRI activity precedes a flattening of the energy landscape. These links are very interesting but could have been stronger and more complete.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study reports that spatial frequency representation can predict category coding in the inferior temporal cortex. The original conclusion was based on likely problematic stimulus timing (33 ms which was too brief). Now the authors claim that they also have a different set of data on the basis of longer stimulus duration (200 ms).

One big issue in the original report was that the experiments used a stimulus duration that was too brief and could have weakened the effects of high spatial frequencies and confounded the conclusions. Now the authors provided a new set of data on the basis of a longer stimulus duration and made the claim that the conclusions are unchanged. These new data and the data in the original report were collected at the same time as the authors report.

The authors may provide an explanation why they performed the same experiments using two stimulus durations and only reported one data set with the brief duration. They may also explain why they opted not to mention in the original report the existence of another data set with a different stimulus duration, which would otherwise have certainly strengthened their main conclusions.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This paper aimed to examine the spatial frequency selectivity of macaque inferotemporal (IT) neurons and its relation to category selectivity. The authors suggest in the present study that some IT neurons show a sensitivity for the spatial frequency of scrambled images. Their report suggests a shift in preferred spatial frequency during the response, from low to high spatial frequencies. This agrees with a coarse-to-fine processing strategy, which is in line with multiple studies in the early visual cortex. In addition, they report that the selectivity for faces and objects, relative to scrambled stimuli, depends on the spatial frequency tuning of the neurons.

Strengths:

Previous studies using human fMRI and psychophysics studied the contribution of different spatial frequency bands to object recognition, but as pointed out by the authors little is known about the spatial frequency selectivity of single IT neurons. This study addresses this gap and shows spatial frequency selectivity in IT for scrambled stimuli that drive the neurons poorly. They related this weak spatial frequency selectivity to category selectivity, but these findings are premature given the low number of stimuli they employed to assess category selectivity.

The authors revised their manuscript and provided some clarifications regarding their experimental design and data analysis. They responded to most of my comments but I find that some issues were not fully or poorly addressed. The new data they provided confirmed my concern about low responses to their scrambled stimuli. Thus, this paper shows spatial frequency selectivity in IT for scrambled stimuli that drive the neurons poorly (see main comments below). They related this (weak) spatial frequency selectivity to category selectivity, but these findings are premature given the low number of stimuli to assess category selectivity.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

(1) Summary of the Paper:

This paper by Chen et al. examines the cellular composition and gene expression of the hypothalamic medial preoptic area (MPOA) in two closely related deer mouse species (P. maniculatus and P. polionotus) that exhibit distinct social behaviors. Through single-nucleus RNA sequencing (snRNA-seq), Chen et al., identify sex- and species-specific neuronal cell types that likely contribute to differences in mating and parental care. By comparing monogamous and promiscuous species, the study provides insights into how neuronal diversity and gene expression changes in the MPOA might underlie the evolution of social behaviors.

(2) Strengths of the Paper:

The paper excels in several areas. First, the data presentation is clear and well-organized, making the complex findings easy to follow. The writing is straightforward and highly accessible, which enhances the overall readability. The experimental design is innovative, particularly in how they combined samples from different species into the same dataset and then used post-hoc identification to distinguish cell types by species. This dramatically controls for potential batch effects in my opinion. Additionally, the authors contextualize their findings within the framework of previously published studies on Mus musculus, providing a strong comparative analysis that enhances the significance of their work.

(3) Weaknesses of the Paper:

The major limitation of the study is the absence of causal experiments linking the observed changes in MPOA cell types to species-specific social behaviors. While the study provides valuable correlational data, it lacks functional experiments that would demonstrate a direct relationship between the neuronal differences and behavior. For instance, manipulating these cell types or gene expressions in vivo and observing their effects on behavior would have strengthened the conclusions, although I certainly appreciate the difficulty in this, especially in non-musculus mice. Without such experiments, the study remains speculative about how these neuronal differences contribute to the evolution of social behaviors.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors report several interesting species and sex differences in cell type expression that may relate to species differences in behavior. The differential cell type abundance findings build on previously observed species/sex differences in behavior and brain anatomy. These data will be a valuable resource for behavioral neuroscientists. These findings are important but the manuscript goes too far in attributing causal influences to differences in behavior. A second important problem is that dissections used for the sequencing data include other neuropeptide-rich areas of the hypothalamus like the PVN. Although histology is included, the results into the main manuscript often do not include the mPOA making it hard to know if species/sex differences are consistent across different hypothalamic regions. The manuscript would benefit from more precise language.

Strengths:

The data are novel because cell-type atlases are available for only a few species.

The authors have clearly defined appropriate steps taken to obtain trustworthy estimations of cell type abundance. Furthermore, the criteria for each cell type assignment was described in a way for readers to easily replicate. The rigor in comparing cell abundance provides convincing evidence that these species have differences in MPOA cellular composition.

The authors have a good explanation for why 19 of the 53 neuron clusters were not classified (possible Mus/Peromyscus anatomical differences, some cell types don't have well-defined transcriptional profiles)

Validated findings with histology.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors performed snRNA-seq in the pre-optic area (POA), a heterogeneous brain region implicated in multiple innate behaviors, comparing two species of Peromyscus mice that possess strikingly different parenting behaviors. P. polionotus show high levels of parental care from both sexes of parent, and P. maniculatus show lower levels of care, predominantly displayed by dams rather than sires. The overall goal of understanding the genomic basis of behavioral variation is significant and of broad interest and comparative studies in POA in these two species is an excellent approach to tackle this question. The authors correctly point out that existing studies largely compare species that are highly divergent, such as mice and humans, which confounds the association of specific neuronal populations or gene expression patterns with distinct behaviors. They identify neuronal populations with differential abundance between species and sexes, and additionally report sex and species differences in gene expression within each transcriptomic cell type. Their cell type classification is aided by mapping their Peromyscus cells onto a previously existing POA single cell dataset generated in lab mice. The detection and validation of previously observed sex differences in the Gal/Moxd1 cell type, and species differences in Avp expression provides additional support that their data are robust. Importantly, the authors demonstrate reduced sexual dimorphism in the POA of P. polionotus, compared to P. maniculatus, and prior knowledge in rats and mice. This finding suggests a potential neural substrate for the increased parental behavior in P. polionotus.

Strengths:

This is a pioneering comparative snRNA-seq study that provides a roadmap for similar approaches in non-traditional model organisms.

The authors have identified populations that may underlie sex- and species- differences in parenting behavior in rodents.

A significant strength of the manuscript is the histological validation of their most robust marker genes.

Weaknesses:

My primary concern is that the dataset is limited: 52,121 neuronal nuclei across 24 samples, which does not provide many cells per cluster to analyze comparatively across sex and species, particularly given the heterogeneity of the large region dissected, which contains adjacent regions such as the PVN and SCN.

There is no explanation for the finding that there is a female-bias in gene expression across all cell types in P. polionotus.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Guo and Uusisaari describes a series of experiments that employ a novel approach to address long-standing questions on the inferior olive in general and the role of the nucleo-olivary projection specifically. For the first time, they optimized the ventral approach to the inferior olive to facilitate imaging in this area that is notoriously difficult to reach. Using this approach, they are able to compare activity in two olivary regions, the PO and DAO, during different types of stimulation. They demonstrate the difference between the two regions, linked to Aldoc-identities of downstream Purkinje cells, and that there is co-activation resulting in larger events when they are clustered. Periocular stimulation also drives larger events, related to co-activation. Using optogenetic stimulation they activate the nucleo-olivary (N-O) tract and observe a wide range of responses, from excitation to inhibition. Zooming in on inhibition they test the assumption that N-O activation can be responsible for suppression of sensory-evoked events. Instead, they suggest that the N-O input can function to suppress background activity while preserving the sensory-driven responses.

Strengths:

This is an important study, tackling the long-standing issue of the impossibility to do imaging in the inferior olive and using that novel method to address the most relevant questions. The experiments are technically very challenging, the results are presented clearly and the analysis is quite rigorous. There is quite a lot of room for interpretation, see weaknesses, but the authors make an effort to cover many options.

Weaknesses:

The heavy anesthesia that is required during the experiment could severely impact the findings. Because of the anesthesia, the firing rate of IO neurons is found to be ~0.1 Hz, significantly lower than the 1 Hz found in non-anesthetized mice. This is mentioned and discussed, but what the consequences could be cannot be understated and should be addressed more. Although the methods and results are described in sufficient detail, there are a few points that, when addressed, would improve the manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The authors developed a strategy to image inferior olive somata via viral GCaMP6s expression, an implanted GRIN lens, and a one-photon head-mounted microscope, providing the first in vivo somatic recordings from these neurons. The main new findings relate to the activation of the nucleoolivary pathway, specifically that: this manipulation does not produce a spiking rebound in the IO; it exerts a larger effect on spontaneous IO spiking than stimulus (airpuff)-evoked spiking. In addition, several findings previously demonstrated in vivo in Purkinje cell complex spikes or inferior olivary axons are confirmed here in olivary somata: differences in event sizes from single cells versus co-activated cells; reduced coactivation when activating the NO pathway; more coactivation within a single zebrin compartment.

The study presents some interesting findings, and for the most part, the analyses are appropriate. My two principal critiques are that the study does not acknowledge major technical limitations and their impact on the claims; and the study does not accurately represent prior work with respect to the current findings.

Several significant technical limitations necessarily impact the veracity of several of the claims:

(1) The authors use GCaMP6s, which has a tau_1/2 of >1 s for a normal spike, and probably closer to 2 s (10.1038/nature12354) for the unique and long type of olivary spikes that give rise to axonal bursts (10.1016/j.neuron.2009.03.023). Indeed, the authors demonstrate as much (Fig. 2B1). This affects at least several claims:

a. The authors report spontaneous spike rates of 0.1 Hz. They attribute this to anesthesia, yet other studies under anesthesia recording Purkinje complex spikes via either imaging or electrophysiology report spike rates as high as 1.5 Hz (10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2525-10.2011). This discrepancy is not acknowledged and a plausible explanation is not given. Citations are not provided that demonstrate such low anesthetized spike rates, nor are citations provided for the claim that spike rates drop increasingly with increasing levels of anesthesia when compared to awake resting conditions. More likely, this discrepancy reflects spikes that are missed due to a combination of the indicator kinetics and low imaging sensitivity (see (2)), neither of which are presented as possible plausible alternative explanations.

b. Many claims are made throughout about co-activation ("clustering"), but with the GCaMP6s rise time to peak (0.5 s), there is little technical possibility to resolve co-activation. This limitation is not acknowledged as a caveat and the implications for the claims are not engaged with in the text.

c. The study reports an ultralong "refractory period" (L422-etc) in the IO, but this again must be tempered by the possibility that spikes are simply being missed due to very slow indicator kinetics and limited sensitivity. Indeed, the headline numeric estimate of 1.5 s (L445) is suspiciously close to the underlying indicator kinetic limitation of ~1-2 s.

(2) The study uses endoscopic one-photon miniaturized microscope imaging. Realistically, this is expected to permit an axial point spread function (z-PSF) on the order of ~40um, which must substantially reduce resolution and sensitivity. This means that if there *is* local coactivation, the data in this study will very likely have individual ROIs that integrate signals from multiple neighboring cells. The study reports relationships between event magnitude and clustering, etc; but a fluorescence signal that contains photons contributed by multiple neighboring neurons will be larger than a single neuron, regardless of the underlying physiology - the text does not acknowledge this possibility or limitation.

Second, the text makes several claims for the first multicellular in vivo olivary recordings. (L11; L324, etc). I am aware of at least two studies that have recorded populations of single olivary axons using two-photon Ca2+ imaging up to 6 years ago (10.1016/j.neuron.2019.03.010; 10.7554/eLife.61593). This technique is not acknowledged or discussed, and one of these studies is not cited. No argument is presented for why axonal imaging should not "count" as multicellular in vivo olivary recording: axonal Ca2+ reflects somatic spiking.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This study provides a thorough analysis of Nup107's role in Drosophila metamorphosis, demonstrating that its depletion leads to developmental arrest at the third larval instar stage due to disruptions in ecdysone biosynthesis and EcR signaling. Importantly, the authors establish a novel connection between Nup107 and Torso receptor expression, linking it to the hormonal cascade regulating pupariation.

However, some contradictory results weaken the conclusions of the study. The authors claim that Nup107 is involved in the translocation of EcR from the cytoplasm to the nucleus. However, the evidence provided in the paper suggests it more likely regulates EcR expression positively, as EcR is undetectable in Nup107-depleted animals, even below background levels. Additionally, the link between Nup107 and Torso is not fully substantiated. While overexpression of Torso appears to rescue the lack of 20E production in the prothoracic gland, the distinct phenotypes of Torso and Nup107 depletion-developmental delay in the former versus complete larval arrest in the latter complicate understanding of Nup107's precise role.

To clarify these discrepancies, further investigation into whether Nup107 interacts with other critical signaling pathways related to the regulation of ecdysone biosynthesis, such as EGFR or TGF-β, would be beneficial and could strengthen the findings.

In summary, although the study presents some intriguing observations, several conclusions are not well-supported by the experimental data.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Kawadkar et al investigates the role of Nup107 in developmental progression via the regulation of ecdysone signaling. The authors identify an interesting phenotype of Nup107 whole-body RNAi depletion in Drosophila development - developmental arrest at the late larval stage. Nup107-depleted larvae exhibit mislocalization of the Ecdysone receptor (EcR) from the nucleus to the cytoplasm and reduced expression of EcR target genes in salivary glands, indicative of compromised ecdysone signaling. This mis-localization of EcR in salivary glands was phenocopied when Nup107 was depleted only in the prothoracic gland (PG), suggesting that it is not nuclear transport of EcR but the presence of ecdysone (normally secreted from PG) that is affected. Consistently, whole-body levels of ecdysone were shown to be reduced in Nup107 KD, particularly at the late third instar stage when a spike in ecdysone normally occurs. Importantly, the authors could rescue the developmental arrest and EcR mislocalization phenotypes of Nup107 KD by adding exogenous ecdysone, supporting the notion that Nup107 depletion disrupts biosynthesis of ecdysone, which arrests normal development. Additionally, they found that rescue of the Nup107 KD phenotype can also be achieved by over-expression of the receptor tyrosine kinase torso, which is thought to be the upstream regulator of ecdysone synthesis in the PG. Transcript levels of the torso are also shown to be downregulated in the Nup107KD, as are transcript levels of multiple ecdysone biosynthesis genes. Together, these experiments reveal a new role of Nup107 or nuclear pore levels in hormone-driven developmental progression, likely via regulation of levels of torso and torso-stimulated ecdysone biosynthesis.

Strengths:

The developmental phenotypes of an NPC component presented in the manuscript are striking and novel, and the data appears to be of high quality. The rescue experiments are particularly significant, providing strong evidence that Nup107 functions upstream of torso and ecdysone levels in the regulation of developmental timing and progression.

Weaknesses:

The underlying mechanism is however not clear, and any insight into how Nup107 may regulate these pathways would greatly strengthen the manuscript. Some suggestions to address this are detailed below.

Major questions:

(1) Determining how specific this phenotype is to Nup107 vs. to reduced NPC levels overall would give some mechanistic insight. Does knocking down other components of the Nup107 subcomplex (the Y-complex) lead to similar phenotypes? Given the published gene regulatory function of Nup107, do other gene regulatory Nups such as Nup98 or Nup153 produce these phenotypes?

(2) In a related issue, does this level of Nup107 KD produce lower NPC levels? It is expected to, but actual quantification of nuclear pores in Nup107-depleted tissues should be added. These and the above experiments would help address a key mechanistic question - is this phenotype the result of lower numbers of nuclear pores or specifically of Nup107?

(3) Additional experiments on how Nup107 regulates the torso would provide further insight. Does Nup107 regulate transcription of the torso or perhaps its mRNA export? Looking at nascent levels of the torso transcript and the localization of its mRNA can help answer this question. Or alternatively, does Nup107 physically bind the torso?

(4) The depletion level of Nup107 RNAi specifically in the salivary gland vs. the prothoracic gland should be compared by RT-qPCR or western blotting.

(5) The UAS-torso rescue experiment should also include the control of an additional UAS construct - so Nup107; UAS-control vs Nup107; UAS-torso should be compared in the context of rescue to make sure the Gal4 driver is functioning at similar levels in the rescue experiment.

Minor:

(6) Figures and figure legends can stand to be more explicit and detailed, respectively.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study by Kawadkar et al, the authors investigate the developmental role of Nup107, a nucleoporin, in regulating the larval-to-pupal transition in Drosophila through RNAi knockdown and CRISPR-Cas9-mediated gene editing. They demonstrate that Nup107, an essential component of the nuclear pore complex (NPC), is crucial for regulating ecdysone signaling during developmental transitions. The authors show that the depletion of Nup107 disrupts these processes, offering valuable insights into its role in development.

Specifically, they find that:

(1) Nup107 depletion impairs pupariation during the larval-to-pupal transition.<br /> (2) RNAi knockdown of Nup107 results in defects in EcR nuclear translocation, a key regulator of ecdysone signaling.<br /> (3) Exogenous 20-hydroxyecdysone (20E) rescues pupariation blocks, but rescued pupae fail to close.<br /> (4) Nup107 RNAi-induced defects can be rescued by activation of the MAP kinase pathway.

Strengths:

The manuscript provides strong evidence that Nup107, a component of the nuclear pore complex (NPC), plays a crucial role in regulating the larval-to-pupal transition in Drosophila, particularly in ecdysone signaling.

The authors employ a combination of RNAi knockdown, CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, and rescue experiments, offering a comprehensive approach to studying Nup107's developmental function.

The study effectively connects Nup107 to ecdysone signaling, a key regulator of developmental transitions, offering novel insights into the molecular mechanisms controlling metamorphosis.

The use of exogenous 20-hydroxyecdysone (20E) and activation of the MAP kinase pathway provides a strong mechanistic perspective, suggesting that Nup107 may influence EcR signaling and ecdysone biosynthesis.

Weaknesses:

The authors do not sufficiently address the potential off-target effects of RNAi, which could impact the validity of their findings. Alternative approaches, such as heterozygous or clonal studies, could help confirm the specificity of the observed phenotypes.

NPC Complex Specificity: While the authors focus on Nup107, it remains unclear whether the observed defects are specific to this nucleoporin or if other NPC components also contribute to similar defects. Demonstrating similar results with other NPC components would strengthen their claims.

Although the authors show that Nup107 depletion disrupts EcR signaling, the precise molecular mechanism by which Nup107 influences this process is not fully explored. Further investigation into how Nup107 regulates EcR nuclear translocation or ecdysone biosynthesis would improve the clarity of the findings.

There are some typographical errors and overly strong phrases, such as "unequivocally demonstrate," which could be softened. Additionally, the presentation of redundant data in different tissues could be streamlined to enhance clarity and flow.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors propose a "unifying method to evaluate inter-areal interactions in different types of neuronal recordings, timescales, and species". The method consists of computing the variance explained by a linear decoder that attempts to predict individual neural responses (firing rates) in one area based on neural responses in another area.

The authors apply the method to previously published calcium imaging data from layer 4 and layers 2/3 of 4 mice over 7 days, and simultaneously recorded Utah array spiking data from areas V1 and V4 of 1 monkey over 5 days of recording. They report distributions over "variance explained" numbers for several combinations: from mouse V1 L4 to mouse V1 L2/3, from L2/3 to L4, from monkey V1 to monkey V4, and from V4 to V1. For their monkey data, they also report the corresponding results for different temporal shifts. Overall, they find the expected results: responses in each of the two neural populations are predictive of responses in the other, more so when the stimulus is not controlled than when it is, and with sometimes different results for different stimulus classes (e.g., gratings vs. natural images).

Strengths:

(1) Use of existing data.

(2) Addresses an interesting question.

Weaknesses:

Unfortunately, the method falls short of the state of the art: both generalized linear models (GLMs), which have been used in similar contexts for at least 20 years (see the many papers, both theoretical and applied to neural population data, by e.g. Simoncelli, Paninsky, Pillow, Schwartz, and many colleagues dating back to 2004), and the extension of Granger causality to point processes (e.g. Kim et al. PLoS CB 2011). Both approaches are substantially superior to what is proposed in the manuscript, since they enforce non-negativity for spike rates (the importance of which can be seen in Figure 2AB), and do not require unnecessary coarse-graining of the data by binning spikes (the 200 ms time bins are very long compared to the time scale on which communication between closely connected neuronal populations within an area, or between related areas, takes place).

In terms of analysis results, the work in the manuscript presents some expected and some less expected results. However, because the monkey data are based on only one monkey (misleadingly, the manuscript consistently uses the plural "monkeys"), none of the results specific to that monkey, nor the comparison of that one monkey to mice, are supported by robust data. One of the main results for mice (bimodality of explained variance values, mentioned in the abstract) does not appear to be quantified or supported by a statistical test and is only present in two out of three mice. Moreover, the two data sets differ in too many aspects to allow for any conclusions about whether the comparisons reflect differences in species (mouse vs. monkey), anatomy (L2/3-L4 vs. V1-V4), or recording technique (calcium imaging vs. extracellular spiking).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this work, the authors investigated the extent of shared variability in cortical population activity in the visual cortex in mice and macaques under conditions of spontaneous activity and visual stimulation. They argue that by studying the average response to repeated presentations of sensory stimuli, investigators are discounting the contribution of variable population responses that can have a significant impact at the single trial level. They hypothesized that, because these fluctuations are to some degree shared across cortical populations depending on the sources of these fluctuations and the relative connectivity between cortical populations within a network, one should be able to predict the response in one cortical population given the response of another cortical population on a single trial, and the degree of predictability should vary with factors such as retinotopic overlap, visual stimulation, and the directionality of canonical cortical circuits.

To test this, the authors analyzed previously collected and publicly available datasets. These include calcium imaging of the primary visual cortex in mice and electrophysiology recordings in V1 and V4 of macaques under different conditions of visual stimulation. The strength of this data is that it includes simultaneous recordings of hundreds of neurons across cortical layers or areas. However, the weaknesses of calcium dynamics (which has lower temporal resolution and misses some non-linear dynamics in cortical activity) and multi-unit envelope activity (which reflects fluctuations in population activity rather than the variance in individual unit spike trains), underestimate the variability of individual neurons. The authors deploy a regression model that is appropriate for addressing their hypothesis, and their analytic approach appears rigorous and well-controlled.

From their analysis, they found that there was significant predictability of activity between layer II/III and layer IV responses in mice and V1 and V4 activity in macaques, although the specific degree of predictability varied somewhat with the condition of the comparison with some minor differences between the datasets. The authors deployed a variety of analytic controls and explored a variety of comparisons that are both appropriate and convincing that there is a significant degree of predictability in population responses at the single trial level consistent with their hypothesis. This demonstrates that a significant fraction of cortical responses to stimuli is not due solely to the feedforward response to sensory input, and if we are to understand the computations that take place in the cortex, we must also understand how sensory responses interact with other sources of activity in cortical networks. However, the source of these predictive signals and their impact on function is only explored in a limited fashion, largely due to limitations in the datasets. Overall, this work highlights that, beyond the traditionally studied average evoked responses considered in systems neuroscience, there is a significant contribution of shared variability in cortical populations that may contextualize sensory representations depending on a host of factors that may be independent of the sensory signals being studied.

Strengths:

This work considers a variety of conditions that may influence the relative predictability between cortical populations, including receptive field overlap, latency that may reflect feed-forward or feedback delays, and stimulus type and sensory condition. Their analytic approach is well-designed and statistically rigorous. They acknowledge the limitations of the data and do not over-interpret their findings.

Weaknesses:

The different recording modalities and comparisons (within vs. across cortical areas) limit the interpretability of the inter-species comparisons. The mechanistic contribution of known sources or correlates of shared variability (eye movements, pupil fluctuations, locomotion, whisking behaviors) were not considered, and these could be driving or a reflection of much of the predictability observed and explain differences in spontaneous and visual activity predictions. Previous work has explored correlations in activity between areas on various timescales, but this work only considered a narrow scope of timescales. The observation that there is some degree of predictability is not surprising, and it is unclear whether changes in observed predictability with analysis conditions are informative of a particular mechanism or just due to differences in the variance of activity under those conditions. Some of these issues could be addressed with further analysis, but some may be due to limitations in the experimental scope of the datasets and would require new experiments to resolve.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Neural activity in the visual cortex has primarily been studied in terms of responses to external visual stimuli. While the noisiness of inputs to a visual area is known to also influence visual responses, the contribution of this noisy component to overall visual responses has not been well characterized.

In this study, the authors reanalyze two previously published datasets - a Ca++ imaging study from mouse V1 and a large-scale electrophysiological study from monkey V1-V4. Using regression models, they examine how neural activity in one layer (in mice) or one cortical area (in monkeys) predicts activity in another layer or area. Their main finding is that significant predictions are possible even in the absence of visual input, highlighting the influence of non-stimulus-related downstream activity on neural responses. These findings can inform future modeling work of neural responses in the visual cortex to account for such non-visual influences.

A major weakness of the study is that the analysis includes data from only a single monkey. This makes it hard to interpret the data as the results could be due to experimental conditions specific to this monkey, such as the relative placement of electrode arrays in V1 and V4. The authors perform a thorough analysis comparing regression-based predictions for a wide variety of combinations of stimulus conditions and directions of influence. However, the comparison of stimulus types (Figure 4) raises a potential concern. It is not clear if the differences reported reflect an actual change in predictive influence across the two conditions or if they stem from fundamental differences in the responses of the predictor population, which could in turn affect the ability to measure predictive relationships. The authors do control for some potential confounds such as the number of neurons and self-consistency of the predictor population. However, the predictability seems to closely track the responsiveness of neurons to a particular stimulus. For instance, in the monkey data, the V1 neuronal population will likely be more responsive to checkerboards than to single bars. Moreover, neurons that don't have the bars in their RFs may remain largely silent. Could the difference in predictability be just due to this? Controlling for overall neuronal responsiveness across the two conditions would make this comparison more interpretable.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Epiney et al. use single-nuclei RNA sequencing (snRNA-seq) to characterize the lineage of Type-2 (T2) neuroblasts (NBs) in the adult Drosophila brain. To isolate cells born from T2 NBs, the authors used a genetic tool that specifically allows the permanent labeling of T2-derived cell types, which are then FAC-sorted for snRNA-seq. This effective labeling approach also allows them to compare the isolated T2 lineage cells with T1-derived cell types by a simple exclusion method. The authors begin by describing a transcriptomic atlas for all T1 and T2-derived neuronal and glia clusters, reporting that the T2-derived lineage comprises 161 neuronal clusters, in contrast to the T1 lineage which comprises 114 of them. The authors then use the expression of VAChT, VGlut, Gad1, Tbh, Ple, SerT, and Tdc2 to show that T2 neuroblasts generate all major neuron classes of fast-acting neurotransmitters. Strikingly, they show that a subset of glia and neuronal clusters have disproportionate enrichment in males or females, suggesting that T2 neuroblasts generate sex-biased cell types. The authors then proceed to characterize neuropeptide expression across T2-derived neuronal clusters and argue that the same neuropeptide can be expressed across different cell types, while similar cell types can express distinct neuropeptides. The functional implication of both observations, however, remains to be tested. Furthermore, the authors describe combinatorial transcription factor (TF) codes that are correlated with neuropeptide expression for T2-derived neurons along with an overall TF code for all T2-derived cell types, both of which will serve as an important starting point for future investigations. Finally, the authors map well-studied neuronal types of the central complex to the clusters of their T2-derived snRNA-seq dataset. They use known marker combinations, bulk RNA-seq data and highly specific split-GAL4 driver lines to annotate their T2-derived atlas, establishing a comprehensive transcriptomic atlas that would guide future studies in this field.

Strengths:

This study provides an in-depth transcriptomic characterization of neurons and glia derived from Type-2 neuroblast lineages. The results of this manuscript offer several future directions to investigate the mechanisms of diversifying neuronal identity. The datasets of T1-derived and T2-derived cells will pave the way for studies focused on the functional analysis of combinatorial TF codes specifying cell identity, sex-based differences in neurogenesis and gliogenesis, the relationship between neuropeptide (co)expression and cell identity, and the differential contributions of distinct progenitor populations to the same cell type.

Weaknesses:

The study presents several important observations based on the characterization of Type II neuroblast-derived lineages. However, a mechanistic insight is missing for most observations. The idea that there is a sex-specific bias to certain T2-derived neurons and glial clusters is quite interesting, however, the functional significance of this observation is not tested or discussed extensively. Finally, the authors do not show whether the combinatorial TF code is indeed necessary for neuropeptide expression or if this is just a correlation due to cell identity being defined by TFs. Functional knockdown of some candidate TFs for a subset of neuropeptide-expressing cells would have been helpful in this case.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Epiney et al., present a single-nucleus sequencing analysis of Drosophila adult central brain neurons and glia. By employing an ingenious permanent labeling technique, they trace the progeny of T2 neuroblasts, which play a key role in the formation of the central complex. This transcriptomic dataset is poised to become a valuable resource for future research on neurogenesis, neuron morphology, and behavior.

The authors further delve into this dataset with several analyses, including the characterization of neurotransmitter expression profiles in T2-derived neurons. While some of the bioinformatic analyses are preliminary, they would benefit from additional experimental validation in future studies.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Detecting unexpected epistatic interactions among multiple mutations requires a robust null expectation - or neutral function - that predicts the combined effects of multiple mutations on phenotype, based on the effects of individual mutations. This study assessed the validity of the product neutrality function, where the fitness of double mutants is represented as the multiplicative combination of the fitness of single mutants, in the absence of epistatic interactions. The authors utilized a comprehensive dataset on fitness, specifically measuring yeast colony size, to analyze epistatic interactions.

The study confirmed that the product function outperformed other neutral functions in predicting the fitness of double mutants, showing no bias between negative and positive epistatic interactions. Additionally, in the theoretical portion of the study, the authors applied a well-established theoretical model of bacterial cell growth to simulate the growth rates of both single and double mutants under various parameters. The simulations further demonstrated that the product function was superior to other functions in predicting the fitness of hypothetical double mutants. Based on these findings, the authors concluded that the product function is a robust tool for analyzing epistatic interactions in growth fitness and effectively reflects how growth rates depend on the combination of multiple biochemical pathways.

Strengths:

By leveraging a previously published extensive dataset of yeast colony sizes for single- and double-knockout mutants, this study validated the relevance of the product function, commonly used in genetics to analyze epistatic interactions. The finding that the product function provides a more reliable prediction of double-mutant fitness compared to other neutral functions offers significant value for researchers studying epistatic interactions, particularly those using the same dataset.

Notably, this dataset has previously been employed in studies investigating epistatic interactions using the product neutrality function. The current study's findings affirm the validity of the product function, potentially enhancing confidence in the conclusions drawn from those earlier studies. Consequently, both researchers utilizing this dataset and readers of previous research will benefit from the confirmation provided by this study's results.

Weaknesses:

This study exhibits several significant logical flaws, primarily arising from the following issues: a failure to differentiate between distinct phenotypes, instead treating them as identical; an oversight of the substantial differences in the mechanisms regulating cell growth between prokaryotes and eukaryotes; and the adoption of an overly specific and unrealistic set of assumptions in the mutation model. Additionally, the study fails to clearly address its stated objective-investigating the mechanistic origin of the multiplicative model. Although it discusses conditions under which deviations occur, it falls short of achieving its primary goal. Moreover, the paper includes misleading descriptions and unsubstantiated reasoning, presented without proper citations, as if they were widely accepted facts. Readers should consider these issues when evaluating this paper. Further details are discussed below.

(1) Misrepresentation of the dataset and phenotypes

The authors analyze a dataset on the fitness of yeast mutants, describing it as representative of the Malthusian parameter of an exponential growth model. However, they provide no evidence to support this claim. They assert that the growth of colony size in the dataset adheres to exponential growth kinetics; in contrast, it is known to exhibit linear growth over time, as indicated in [Supplementary Note 1 of https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1534]. Consequently, fitness derived from colony size should be recognized as a different metric and phenotype from the Malthusian parameter. Equating these distinct phenotypes and fitness measures constitutes a fundamental error, which significantly compromises the theoretical discussions based on the Malthusian parameter in the study.

(2) Misapplication of prokaryotic growth models

The study attempts to explain the mechanistic origin of the multiplicative model observed in yeast colony fitness using a bacterial cell growth model, particularly the Scott-Hwa model. However, the application of this bacterial model to yeast systems lacks valid justification. The Scott-Hwa model is heavily dependent on specific molecular mechanisms such as ppGpp-mediated regulation, which plays a crucial role in adjusting ribosome expression and activity during translation. This mechanism is pivotal for ensuring the growth-dependency of the ribosome fraction in the proteome, as described in [https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2201585119]. Unlike bacteria, yeast cells do not possess this regulatory mechanism, rendering the direct application of bacterial growth models to yeast inappropriate and potentially misleading. This fundamental difference in regulatory mechanisms undermines the relevance and accuracy of using bacterial models to infer yeast colony growth dynamics.

If the authors intend to apply a growth model with macroscopic variables to yeast double-mutant experimental data, they should avoid simply repurposing a bacterial growth model. Instead, they should develop and rigorously validate a yeast-specific growth model before incorporating it into their study.

(3) Overly specific assumptions in the theoretical model

The theoretical model in question assumes that two mutations affect only independent parameters of specific biochemical processes, an overly restrictive premise that undermines its ability to broadly explain the occurrence of the multiplicative model in mutations. Additionally, experimental evidence highlights significant limitations to this approach. For example, in most viable yeast deletion mutants with reduced growth rates, the expression of ribosomal proteins remains largely unchanged, in direct contradiction to the predictions of the Scott-Hwa model, as indicated in [https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.28034]. This discrepancy emphasizes that the Scott-Hwa model and its derivatives do not reliably explain the growth rates of mutants based on current experimental data, suggesting that these models may need to be reevaluated or alternative theories developed to more accurately reflect the complex dynamics of mutant growth.

(4) Lack of clarity on the mechanistic origin of the multiplicative model

The study falls short of providing a definitive explanation for its primary objective: elucidating the "mechanistic origin" of the multiplicative model. Notably, even in the simplest case involving the Scott-Hwa model, the underlying mechanistic basis remains unexplained, leaving the central research question unresolved. Furthermore, the study does not clearly specify what types of data or models would be required to advance the understanding of the mechanistic origin of the multiplicative model. This omission limits the study's contribution to uncovering the biological principles underlying the observed fitness patterns.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The paper deals with the important question of gene epistasis, focusing on asking what is the correct null model for which we should declare no epistasis.

In the first part, they use the Synthetic Genetic Array dataset to claim that the effects of a double mutation on growth rate are well predicted by the product of the individual effects (much more than e.g. the additive model). The second (main) part shows this is also the prediction of two simple, coarse-grained models for cell growth.

I find the topic interesting, the paper well-written, and the approach innovative.

One concern I have with the first part is that they claim that:<br /> "In these experiments, the colony area on the plate, a proxy for colony size, followed exponential growth kinetics. The fitness of a mutant strain was determined as the rate of exponential growth normalized to the rate in wild type cells."

There are many works on "range expansions" showing that colonies expand at a constant velocity, the speed of which scales as the square root of the growth rate (these are called "Fisher waves", predicted in the 1940', and there are many experimental works on them, e.g. https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.0710150104) If that's the case, the area of the colony should be proportional to growth_rate X time^2 , rather than exp(growth_rate*time), so the fitness they might be using here could be the log(growth_rate) rather than growth_rate itself? That could potentially have a big effect on the results.

Additional comments/questions:

(1) What is the motivation for the model where the effect of two genes is the minimum of the two?

(2) How seriously should we take the Scott-Hwa model? Should we view it as a toy model to explain the phenomenon or more than that? If the latter, then since the number of categories in the GO analysis is much more than two (47?) in many cases the analysis of the experimental data would take pairs of genes that both affect one process in the Scott-Hwa model - and then the product prediction should presumably fail? The same comment applies to the other coarse-grained model.

(3) There are many works in the literature discussing additive fitness contributions, including Kaufmann's famous NK model as well as spin-glass-type models (e.g. Guo and Amir, Science Advances 2019, Reddy and Desai, eLife 2021, Boffi et al., eLife 2023) These should be addressed in this context.

(4) The experimental data is for deletions, but it would be interesting to know the theoretical model's prediction for the expected effects of beneficial mutations and how they interact since that's relevant (as mentioned in the paper) for evolutionary experiments. Perhaps in this case the question of additive vs. multiplicative matters less since the fitness effects are much smaller.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This study is focused on identifying unique, innovative surface markers for mature Achilles tendons by combining the latest multi-omics approaches and in vitro evaluation, which would address the knowledge gap of the controversial identity of TPSCs with unspecific surface markers. The use of multi-omics technologies, in vivo characterization, in vitro standard assays of stem cells, and in vitro tissue formation is a strength of this work and could be applied for other stem cell quantification in musculoskeletal research. The evaluation and identification of Cd55 and Cd248 in TPSCs have not been conducted in tendons, which is considered innovative. Additionally, the study provided solid sequencing data to confirm co-expressions of Cd55 and Cd248 with other well-described surface markers such as Ly6a, Tpp3, Pdgfra, and Cd34. Generally, the data shown in the manuscript support the claims that the identified surface antigens mark TPSCs in juvenile tendons.

However, there are missing links between scientific questions aimed to be addressed in Introduction and Methodology/Results. If the study focuses on unsatisfactory healing responses of mature tendons and understanding of mature TPSCs, at least mature Achilles tendons from more than 12-week-old mice and their comparison with tendons from juvenile/neonatal mice should be conducted. However, either 2-week or 6-week-old mice, used for characterization here, are not skeletally mature, Additionally, there is a lack of complete comparison of TPSCs between 2-week and 6-week-old mice in the transcriptional and epigenetic levels.

In order to distinguish TPSCs and characterize their epigenetic activities, the authors used scRNA-seq, snRNA-seq, and snATAC-seq approaches. The integration, analysis, and comparison of sequencing data across assays and/or time points is confusing and incomplete. For example, it should be more comprehensive to integrate both scRNA-seq and snRNA-seq data (if not, why both assays were used for Achilles tendons of both 2-week and 6-week timepoints). snRNA-seq and snATAC-seq data of 6-week-old mice were separately analyzed. No comparison of difference and similarity of TPSCs of 2-week and 6-week-old mice was conducted.

Given the goal of this work to identify specific TPSC markers, the specificity of Cd55 and Cd248 for TPSCs is not clear. First, based on the data shown here, Cd55 and Cd248 mark the same cell population which is identified by Ly6a, TPPP3, and Pdgfra. Although, for instance, Cd34 is expressed by other tissues as discussed here, no data/evidence is provided by this work showing that Cd55 and Cd248 are not expressed by other musculoskeletal tissues/cells. Second, the immunostaining of Cd55 and Cd248 doesn't support their specificity. What is the advantage of using Cd55 and Cd248 for TPSCs compared to using other markers?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The molecular signature of tendon stem cells is not fully identified. The endogenous location of tendon stem cells within the native tendon is also not fully elucidated. Several molecular markers have been identified to isolate tendon stem cells but they lack tendon specificity. Using the declining tendon repair capacity of mature mice, the authors compared the transcriptome landscape and activity of juvenile (2 weeks) and mature (6 weeks) tendon cells of mouse Achilles tendons and identified CD55 and CD248 as novel surface markers for tendon stem cells. CD55+ CD248+ FACS-sorted cells display a preferential tendency to differentiate into tendon cells compared to CD55neg CD248neg cells.

Strengths:

The authors generated a lot of data on juvenile and mature Achilles tendons, using scRNAseq, snRNAseq, and ATACseq strategies. This constitutes a resource dataset.

Weaknesses:

The analyses and validation of identified genes are not complete and could be pushed further. The endogenous expression of newly identified genes in native tendons would be informative. The comparison of scRNAseq and snRNAseq datasets for tendon cell populations would strengthen the identification of tendon cell populations.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In their report, Tsutsumi et al., use single nucleus transcriptional and chromatin accessibility analyses of mouse achilles tendon in an attempt to uncover new markers of tendon stem/progenitor cells. They propose CD55 and CD248 as novel markers of tendon stem/progenitor cells.

Strengths:

This is an interesting and important research area. The paper is overall well written.

Weaknesses:

Major problems:

(1) It is not clear what tissue exactly is being analyzed. The authors build a story on tendons, but there is little description of the dissection. The authors claim to detect MTJ and cartilage cells, but not bone or muscle cells. The tendon sheath is known to express CD55, so the population of "progenitors" may not be of tendon origin.

(2) Cluster annotations are seemingly done with a single gene. Names are given to cells without functional or spatial validation. For example, MTJ cells are annotated based on Postn, but it is never shown that Postn is only expressed at the MTJ, and not in other anatomical locations in the tendon.

(3) The authors compare their data to public data based on interrogating single genes in their dataset. It is now standard practice to integrate datasets (eg, using harmony), or at a minimum using gene signatures built into Seurat (eg AddModuleScore).

(4) Progenitor populations (SP1, SP2). The authors claim these are progenitors but show very clearly that they express macrophage genes. What are they, macrophages or fibroblasts?

(5) All omics analysis is done on single data points (from many mice pooled). The authors make many claims on n=1 per group for readouts dependent on sample number (eg frequency of clusters).

(6) The scRNAseq atlas in Figure 1 is made by analyzing 2W and 6W tendons at the same time. The snRNAseq and ATACseq atlas are built first on 2W data, after which the 6W data is compared. Why use the 2W data as a reference? Why not analyze the two-time points together as done with the scRNAseq?

(7) Figure 5: The authors should show the gating strategy for FACS. Were non-fibroblasts excluded (eg, immune cells, endothelia...etc). Was a dead cell marker used? If not, it is not surprising that fibroblasts form colonies and express fibroblast genes when compared to CD55-CD248- immune cells, dead cells, or debris. Can control genes such as Ptprc or Pecam1 be tested to rule out contamination with other cell types?

Minor problems:

(1) Report the important tissue processing details: type of collagenase used. Viability before loading into 10x machine.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This manuscript presents an interesting new framework (VARX) for simultaneously quantifying effective connectivity in brain activity during sensory stimulation and how that brain activity is being driven by that sensory stimulation. The core idea is to combine the Vector Autoregressive model that is often used to infer Granger-causal connectivity in brain data with an encoding model that maps the features of a sensory stimulus to that brain data. The authors do a nice job of explaining the framework. And then they demonstrate its utility through some simulations and some analysis of real intracranial EEG data recorded from subjects as they watched movies. They infer from their analyses that the functional connectivity in these brain recordings is essentially unaltered during movie watching, that accounting for the driving movie stimulus can protect one against misidentifying brain responses to the stimulus as functional connectivity, and that recurrent brain activity enhances and prolongs the putative neural responses to a stimulus.

This manuscript presents an interesting new framework (VARX) for simultaneously quantifying effective connectivity in brain activity during sensory stimulation and how that brain activity is being driven by that sensory stimulation. Overall, I thought this was an interesting manuscript with some rich and intriguing ideas. That said, I had some concerns also - one potentially major - with the inferences drawn by the authors on the analyses that they carried out.

Main comments:

(1) My primary concern with the way the manuscript is written right now relates to the inferences that can be drawn from the framework. In particular, the authors want to assert that, by incorporating an encoding model into their framework, they can do a better job of accounting for correlated stimulus-driven activity in different brain regions, allowing them to get a clearer view of the underlying innate functional connectivity of the brain. Indeed, the authors say that they want to ask "whether, after removing stimulus-induced correlations, the intrinsic dynamic itself is preserved". This seems a very attractive idea indeed. However, it seems to hinge critically on the idea of fitting an encoding model that fully explains all of the stimulus-driven activity. In other words, if one fits an encoding model that only explains some of the stimulus-driven response, then the rest of the stimulus-driven response still remains in the data and will be correlated across brain regions and will appear as functional connectivity in the ongoing brain dynamics - according to this framework. This residual activity would thus be misinterpreted. In the present work, the authors parameterize their stimulus using fixation onsets, film cuts, and the audio envelope. All of these features seem reasonable and valid. However, they surely do not come close to capturing the full richness of the stimuli, and, as such, there is surely a substantial amount of stimulus-driven brain activity that is not being accounted for by their "B" model and that is being absorbed into their "A" model and misinterpreted as intrinsic connectivity. This seems to me to be a major limitation of the framework. Indeed, the authors flag this concern themselves by (briefly) raising the issue in the first paragraph of their caveats section. But I think it warrants much more attention and discussion.

(2) Related to the previous comment, the authors make what seems to me to be a complex and important point on page 6 (of the pdf). Specifically, they say "Note that the extrinsic effects captured with filters B are specific (every stimulus dimension has a specific effect on each brain area), whereas the endogenous dynamic propagates this initial effect to all connected brain areas via matrix A, effectively mixing and adding the responses of all stimulus dimensions. Therefore, this factorization separates stimulus-specific effects from the shared endogenous dynamic." It seems to me that the interpretation of the filter B (which is analogous to the "TRF") for the envelope, say, will be affected by the fact that the matrix A is likely going to be influenced by all sorts of other stimulus features that are not included in the model. In other words, residual stimulus-driven correlations that are captured in A might also distort what is going on in B, perhaps. So, again, I worry about interpreting the framework unless one can guarantee a near-perfect encoding model that can fully account for the stimulus-driven activity. I'd love to hear the authors' thoughts on this. (On this issue - the word "dominates" on page 12 seems very strong.)

(3) Regarding the interpretation of the analysis of connectivity between movies and rest... that concludes that the intrinsic connectivity pattern doesn't really differ. This is interesting. But it seems worth flagging that this analysis doesn't really account for the specific dynamics in the network that could differ quite substantially between movie watching and rest, right? At the moment, it is all correlational. But the dynamics within the network could be very different between stimulation and rest I would have thought.

(4) I didn't really understand the point of comparing the VARX connectivity estimate with the spare-inverse covariance method (Figure 2D). What was the point of this? What is a reader supposed to appreciate from it about the validity or otherwise of the VARX approach?

(5) I think the VARX model section could have benefitted a bit from putting some dimensions on some of the variables. In particular, I struggled a little to appreciate the dimensionality of A. I am assuming it has to involve both time lags AND electrode channels so that you can infer Granger causality (by including time) between channels. Including a bit more detail on the dimensionality and shape of A might be helpful for others who want to implement the VARX model.

(6) A second issue I had with the inferences drawn by the authors was a difficulty in reconciling certain statements in the manuscript. For example, in the abstract, the authors write "We find that the recurrent connectivity during rest is largely unaltered during movie watching." And they also write that "Failing to account for ... exogenous inputs, leads to spurious connections in the intrinsic "connectivity".

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors apply the recently developed VARX model, which explicitly models intrinsic dynamics and the effect of extrinsic inputs, to simulated data and intracranial EEG recordings. This method provides a directed method of 'intrinsic connectivity'. They argue this model is better suited to the analysis of task neuroimaging data because it separates the intrinsic and extrinsic activity. They show: that intrinsic connectivity is largely unaltered during a movie-watching task compared to eyes open rest; intrinsic noise is reduced in the task; and there is intrinsic directed connectivity from sensory to higher-order brain areas.

Strengths:

(1) The paper tackles an important issue with an appropriate method.

(2) The authors validated their method on data simulated with a neural mass model.

(3) They use intracranial EEG, which provides a direct measure of neuronal activity.

(4) Code is made publicly available and the paper is written well.

Weaknesses:

It is unclear whether a linear model is adequate to describe brain data. To the author's credit, they discuss this in the manuscript. Also, the model presented still provides a useful and computationally efficient method for studying brain data - no model is 'the truth'.

Appraisal of whether the authors achieve their aims:

As a methodological advancement highlighting a limitation of existing approaches and presenting a new model to overcome it, the authors achieve their aim. Generally, the claims/conclusions are supported by the results.

The wider neuroscience claims regarding the role of intrinsic dynamics and external inputs in affecting brain data could benefit from further replication with another independent dataset and in a variety of tasks - but I understand if the authors wanted to focus on the method rather than the neuroscientific claims in this manuscript.

Impact:

The authors propose a useful new approach that solves an important problem in the analysis of task neuroimaging data. I believe the work can have a significant impact on the field.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This work seeks to predict differences in neural function and behavior between male and hermaphrodite C. elegans by comparing their nervous system maps of synaptic wiring. The authors then seek to validate some of their predictions by measuring differences in neural activity or behavior, including in response to neuron-specific genetic manipulations. In particular, the authors focus on the role of neuron AVA which has notable differences in its connectivity between the male and hermaphrodite, and they use this and behavior measurements to argue for a role of AVA in mate-searching behavior in males.

Strengths:

A major strength of this work is its approach to investigating differences in wiring between males and hermaphrodites in a systematic and quantitative way. The work laudably takes advantage of recently available comprehensive connectomes, including across sexes of the same species, and applies concepts from network science to mining their differences. Another strength of the work is that it supplements network analysis with measurements of behavior, including with cell-specific genetic manipulations. The measurements and analysis will be of value to the scientific community.

Weaknesses:

The evidence to support conclusions about the special relationship between differences in AVA's wiring and male mate-finding appears incomplete. The authors selected AVA based on changes in wiring and then observed a decrease in male chemotaxis towards hermaphrodites for animals in which neuron AVA is inhibited. This is presented as evidence that specifically AVA is important for mate-finding, and therefore that changes in wiring inform changes in function. But given AVA's known role in all reversal-related locomotion, it is important to more forcefully rule out an alternative hypothesis that the observed deficits in mate-finding could be explained by any reversal circuitry motor defect (including those without wiring differences), rather than specifically attributed to AVA and its wiring. Similarly, more evidence is needed to show that deficits in reversal circuitry preferentially affect mate-seeking compared to other goal-directed navigation behaviors.

There are some areas where methods would benefit from further justification or clarification. For example, the work would benefit from better justification for selecting sub-networks to study, or for combining bilaterally symmetric neurons. More details are also needed to better interpret calcium imaging studies, such as details about the indicator and illumination wavelength and intensity.

Finally, there are some weaknesses inherent to the entire field of connectomic analysis that are necessarily also present here. For example, it is unclear how to weight the relative contributions of chemical versus electrical gap junctions when performing analyses of the wiring diagram, and the choice could potentially influence results. The wiring diagram also lacks information about timescales of neural dynamics or the role of neuromodulators or other molecular details that may influence the strength or function of various connections, and this poses a major challenge for predicting neural dynamics from neural wiring. For example, in their neural dynamics simulation, the authors assume that all neurons have the same conductance and reversal potentials - a standard practice - despite known diversity among neurons that limits the usefulness of this approach. It will be helpful to further acknowledge these limitations of the broader field.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In their study, Wang and co-workers aimed to identify sexual dimorphisms in the connectomes of male and hermaphrodite C. elegans, and link these to sex-related behaviors. To this end they analyzed and compared various network properties of simplified male and hermaphrodite connectome datasets, and then focused on the AVA premotor neurons, linking their distinctive connectivity with their differential influence on reversing behaviors between the two sexes.

Strengths:

The study employs a range of basic methods from network and computational neuroscience and provides experimental testing of one of the predictions of the analysis.

Weaknesses:

Various aspects of sexual dimorphism in the nervous system of C. elegans have already been described and discussed (reviewed, for example, in Emmons 2018, Walsh et al. 2021). In particular, Cook et al, (2019), who mapped the male connectome (which serves as the key data in the current study), included in their work an analysis of connectome-level differences between males and hermaphrodites. Unfortunately, the foundations of the current study are somewhat problematic, and the results it provides are rather rudimentary and do not provide substantial new insight.

My critique of the study can be organized around several major issues.

(1) Source data

A large portion of the work is based on the analysis of a single male and a single hermaphrodite connectome datasets from Cook et al. 2019. These original connectomes were simplified in the current study, merging most individual neurons into neuron class nodes. As a measure of edge weight, the authors used the number of synaptic contacts between each two nodes. Cook et al. 2019 estimated this number to be of high variance, and even when considering unweighted connectivity (whether two nodes are at all connected or not) substantial variability exists between independent connectome datasets (e.g., Birari and Rabinowitch, 2024). Therefore, basing the analysis on synaptic weights from a single connectome (for each sex) may be somewhat unreliable.

On top of this, a huge gap may exist between connectome structure and function, especially when overlooking: (1) the sign of the synapses (excitatory vs. inhibitory), (2) synaptic efficiency (a single strong synapse may be more efficient than multiple weak synapses), (3) the spatial distribution of the synapses (clusters of synapses, for example, may be stronger than scattered synapses). These should at the very least be acknowledged. Moreover, the pooling of electrical and chemical synapses done by the authors is problematic, as is assuming all electrical synapses are bidirectional. These and other factors may undermine the results of the analysis, and, again, at the very least should be considered and discussed.

A minimal validation of the analysis could be achieved by sensitivity analyses. For example, studying how consistent the results are when: separately analyzing the chemical and electrical networks; binarizing synaptic contacts to existing vs. non-existing connections regardless of weight; and comparing with additional connectome datasets (at least for hermaphrodites).

Another important approach for validation would be synaptic labeling of key pathways, in order to establish the extent to which they maintain sexual dimorphism across the population (as performed, for example, by Cook et al., 2019; Pechuk et al. 2022).

(2) Statistical analysis

Comparing any two connectomes will show differences in connectivity and other network properties. The question is to what degree the differences found in the current study between two particular male and hermaphrodite connectomes transcend such basic inconsistencies. This fundamental question is not addressed in the manuscript.

A second major concern is that a considerable portion of the results are based on improper comparisons between male and hermaphrodite connectome measures.

In Figure 1D,I,M,V, Figure 2D,H,L, Figure 4E,I there is no sense in statistically testing the differences between hermaphrodite sex-specific (N=2) and shared nodes. The sample size is way too small. Corresponding conclusions about male-specific neurons being different from hermaphrodite-specific neurons in terms of connectivity are thus improperly founded. Similarly, the analyses in Figure 1P,S, 2O,R contain more data points, because of connectivity, but could still be misleading, since all the edges there contain either HSN or VC (just two nodes).

More so, any claim comparing the differences between two measures in males vs. hermaphrodites should be based on a 2X2 (or 3X2) design (e.g., tested using 2-way ANOVA with an interaction term). It is erroneous to interpret comparisons between two effects without directly comparing them (Makin et al., 2019).

When more than one comparison is performed, a one-way ANOVA should precede post hoc analyses, and corrections for multiple comparisons should be carried out and reported.

The plots in Figure 1E,W and Figure 4F,J are illustrative but do not contain any statistical test to support the claims about which functions are emphasized in which sex. They also rely on a very superficial categorization of individual neuron class function, whereas in reality, in C. elegans many neurons serve multiple functions.

In Figures 5-7 individual data points should be plotted, and the error bars and boxes should be defined (in all figures).

Finally, Figure 3C,F,I,L,N,P and Figure 5A-C lack statistical analysis (e.g., via bootstrapping). In addition, the term 'significantly' in the text should be reserved for statistical significance.

(3) Testing network predictions

A key emphasis of the network analysis concerns the AVA premotor neurons. It is well established that reversing behavior is controlled by premotor neurons such as AVA (e.g., Maricq et al. 1995) and that AVA activity is spontaneous and coupled to reversing (e.g., Chronis et al. 2007). More so, it has already been shown that male reversal frequency is higher than that of hermaphrodites (e.g., Mah et al. 1992; Zhao et al. 2003). Similar findings in the current study are thus not very surprising. The current study does add some new detail. Namely, the higher frequency of AVA activity in adult males compared to hermaphrodites, and the presumably sex-specific roles of RIC and DVC as well as several AVA glutamate receptors, in modulating reversing. At the same time, PQR, for example, showed no such role, contrary to the predictions.

Incidentally, AVA is not a commander neuron, but rather a command or, preferably, a premotor neuron. Altogether, the major specific focus of the analysis, predicting a sexually dimorphic role for AVA, is not very novel.

(4) Further predictions

The discussion section presents several additional predictions stemming from the analysis. However, to me, they seem almost arbitrary.

The statement claiming that the authors found the male pharyngeal connectome to be more strongly wired to the main connectome as opposed to previous findings, is unclear. Sex-specific differences in connectivity between the pharyngeal and somatic networks are immediately evident from the connectomes and do not require graph theoretical tools to be discovered (page 4 and discussion of Figure 3N).

The prediction that the AIY→RIA→RMD_DV circuit may facilitate pheromone-guided olfactory steering behavior in males is not very strong. On the one hand, it is known that males respond to sex pheromones (notably, however, if these pheromone receptors are ectopically expressed in hermaphrodites then hermaphrodites also respond to the pheromones [Wan et al. 2019]). Since these pheromone-sensing neurons are also involved in other sensory processes, it is quite trivial that the circuits involved in general sensory-based steering should be shared with specific pheromone-based steering. The fact that the interneurons in the circuit may be more strongly connected (excitatory, inhibitory, electrical?) in males could imply many things but does not add much to the picture.

The authors also mention AFD as having more synaptic contacts with AIY in males, and link this somehow to the dimorphic expression of insulin-like peptides in AFD. However, neuropeptide-based transmission is largely independent of synaptic connections, so I don't see the relevance.

(5) Methods

The example provided in the Methods section for calculating graph measures is very helpful. I am not sure, however, why the length of a path was defined as the reciprocal sum of the edge weights of the connections within the path. Why the reciprocal? Is it the sum of the reciprocals? Do more synaptic contacts imply a shorter path?

The description in the text (as opposed to the Methods section) of node strength is not very clear: "The node strength measures how strongly a node directly possesses with other nodes in the network" - This should be clarified.

For the RC simulation, I assume the sodium and potassium conductances are fixed. If so, they are leak currents themselves. What does the extra leak current represent? Obviously the simulation includes multiple arbitrary assumptions and parameter values. It would be useful to discuss at least the considerations for choosing the model design and parameters. I also assume that the delayed responses in the bottom neurons in Figure 4A (that still respond) are due to indirect synaptic connections (path lengths > 1)?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study presents an important finding that the activation of TFEB by sulforaphane (SFN) could promote lysosomal exocytosis and biogenesis in NPC, suggesting a potential mechanism by SFN for the removal of cholesterol accumulation, which may contribute to the development of new therapeutic approaches for NPC treatment.

Strengths:

The cell-based assays are convincing, utilizing appropriate and validated methodologies to support the conclusion that SFN facilitates the removal of lysosomal cholesterol via TFEB activation.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed most of my questions. I have only one minor technical point to emphasize, which does not affect the overall strength of the evidence for this project.

The pKa values of pHrodo Green (P35368, pKa=6.757) and pHrodo Red-Dex (P10361, pKa=6.816) are very similar. Prof. Xu's article, cited in the response letter (Hu, Li et al. 2022), is an excellent example of lysosomal pH measurement. He used LysoTracker Red DND-99 for a rough estimation of lysosomal acidity, and for accurate monitoring of lysosomal pH, he employed the ratiometric OG488-dex (pKa 4.6).

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Fuchs describes a novel method of enzymatic protein-protein conjugation using the enzyme Connectase. The author is able to make this process irreversible by screening different Connectase recognition sites to find an alternative sequence that is also accepted by the enzyme. They are then able to selectively render the byproduct of the reaction inactive, preventing the reverse reaction, and add the desired conjugate with the alternative recognition sequence to achieve near-complete conversion. I agree with the authors that this novel enzymatic protein fusion method has several applications in the field of bioconjugation, ranging from biophysical assay conduction to therapeutic development. Previously the author has published on the discovery of the Connectase enzymes and has shown its utility in tagging proteins and detecting them by in-gel fluorescence. They now extend their work to include the application of Connectase in creating protein-protein fusions, antibody-protein conjugates, and cyclic/polymerized proteins. As mentioned by the author, enzymatic protein conjugation methods can provide several benefits over other non-specific and click chemistry labeling methods. Connectase specifically can provide some benefits over the more widely used Sortase, depending on the nature of the species that is desired to be conjugated. Overall, this method provides a novel, reproducible way to enzymatically create protein-protein conjugates.

The manuscript is well-written and will be of interest to those who are specifically working on chemical protein modifications and bioconjugation.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have improved the manuscript significantly by clarifying the questions raised adding new text, providing additional references and/or adding additional data. The thorough study and efficiency of the method for enzymatic protein-protein conjugation using the enzyme Connectase warrants publication of this manuscript in its current form.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Unlike previous traditional protein fusion protocols, the author claims their proposed new method is fast, simple, specific, reversible, and results in a complete 1:1 fusion. A multi-disciplinary approach from cloning and purification, biochemical analyses, and proteomic mass spec confirmation revealed fusion products were achieved.

Strengths:

The author provides convincing evidence that an alternative to traditional protein fusion synthesis is more efficient with 100% yields using connectase. The author optimized the protocol's efficiency with assays replacing a single amino acid and identification of a proline aminopeptidase, Bacilius coagulans (BcPAP), as a usable enzyme to use in the fusion reaction. Multiple examples including Ubiquitin, GST, and antibody fusion/conjugations reveal how this method can be applied to a diverse range of biological processes.

Weaknesses:

Though the ~100% ligation efficiency is an advancement, the long recognition linker may be the biggest drawback. For large native proteins that are challenging/cannot be synthesized and require multiple connectase ligation reactions to yield a complete continuous product, the multiple interruptions with long linkers will likely interfere with protein folding, resulting in non-native protein structures. This method will be a good alternative to traditional approaches as the author mentioned but limited to generating epitope/peptide/protein tagged proteins, and not for synthetic protein biology aimed at examining native/endogenous protein function in vitro.