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.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Fuchsberger et al. demonstrate a set of experiments which ultimately identifies the de novo synthesis of GluA1-, but not GluA2-containing Ca2+ permeable AMPA receptors as a key driver of dopamine-dependent LTP (DA-LTP) during conventional post-before-pre spike-timing dependent (t-LTD) induction. The authors further identify adenylate cyclase 1/8, cAMP, and PKA as the crucial mitigators of these actions. While some comments have been identified below, the experiments presented are thorough and address the aims of the manuscript, figures are presented clearly (with minor comments), and experimental samples sizes and statistical analyses are suitable. Suitable controls have been utilized to confirm the role of Ca2+ permeable AMPAR. This work provides a valuable step forward built on convincing data towards understanding the underlying mechanisms of spike-timing dependent plasticity and dopamine.

Strengths:

Appropriate controls were used.

The flow of data presented is logical and easy to follow.

The quality of the data is solid.

Weaknesses:

Our concerns raised within the first round of review have been appropriately addressed by the authors.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The aim was to identify the mechanisms that underlie a form of long-term potentiation (LTP) that requires activation of dopamine (DA).

Strengths:

The authors have provided multiple lines of evidence that supports their conclusions; namely that this pathway involves activation of a cAMP / PKA pathway that leads to the insertion of calcium permeable AMPA receptors.

Weaknesses:

Some of the experiments could have been conducted in a more convincing manner.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The manuscript of Fuchsberger et al. investigates the cellular mechanisms underlying dopamine-dependent long-term potentiation (DA-LTP) in mouse hippocampal CA1 neurons. The authors conducted a series of experiments to measure the effect of dopamine on the protein synthesis rate in hippocampal neurons and its role in enabling DA-LTP. The key results indicate that protein synthesis is increased in response to dopamine and neuronal activity in the pyramidal neurons of the CA1 hippocampal area, mediated via the activation of adenylate cyclases subtypes 1 and 8 (AC1/8) and the cAMP-dependent protein kinase (PKA) pathway. Additionally, the authors show that postsynaptic DA-induced increases in protein synthesis are required to express DA-LTP, while not required for conventional t-LTP.

The increased expression of the newly synthesized GluA1 receptor subunit in response to DA supports the formation of homomeric calcium-permeable AMPA receptors (CP-AMPARs). This evidence aligns well with data showing that DA-LTP expression requires the GluA1 AMPA subunit and CP-AMPARs, as DA-LTP is absent in the hippocampus of a GluA1 genetic knock-out mouse model.

Comments on revisions:

The authors addressed adequately all my comments.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The paper presents a model for sequence generation in the zebra finch HVC, which adheres to cellular properties measured experimentally. However, the model is fine-tuned and exhibits limited robustness to noise inherent in the inhibitory interneurons within the HVC, as well as to fluctuations in connectivity between neurons. Although the proposed microcircuits are introduced as units for sub-syllabic segments (SSS), the backbone of the network remains a feedforward chain of HVC_RA neurons, similar to previous models.

Strengths:

The model incorporates all three of the major types of HVC neurons. The ion channels used and their kinetics are based on experimental measurements. The connection patterns of the neurons are also constrained by the experiments.

Weaknesses:

The model is described as consisting of micro-circuits corresponding to SSS. This presentation gives the impression that the model's structure is distinct from previous models, which connected HVC_RA neurons in feedforward chain networks (Jin et al 2007, Li & Greenside, 2006; Long et al 2010; Egger et al 2020). However, the authors implement single HVC_RA neurons into chain networks within each micro-circuit and then connect the end of the chain to the start of the chain in the subsequent micro-circuit. Thus, the HVC_RA neuron in their model forms a single-neuron chain. This structure is essentially a simplified version of earlier models.

In the model of the paper, the chain network drives the HVC_I and HVC_X neurons. The role of the micro-circuits is more significant in organizing the connections: specifically, from HVC_RA neurons to HVC_I neurons, and from HVC_I neurons to both HVC_X and HVC_RA neurons.

How useful is this concept of micro-circuits? HVC neurons fire continuously even during the silent gaps. There are no SSS during these silent gaps.

A significant issue of the current model is that the HVC_RA to HVC_RA connections require fine-tuning, with the network functioning only within a narrow range of g_AMPA (Figure 2B). Similarly, the connections from HVC_I neurons to HVC_RA neurons also require fine-tuning. This sensitivity arises because the somatic properties of HVC_RA neurons are insufficient to produce the stereotypical bursts of spikes observed in recordings from singing birds, as demonstrated in previous studies (Jin et al 2007; Long et al 2010). In these previous works, to address this limitation, a dendritic spike mechanism was introduced to generate an intrinsic bursting capability, which is absent in the somatic compartment of HVC_RA neurons. This dendritic mechanism significantly enhances the robustness of the chain network, eliminating the need to fine-tune any synaptic conductances, including those from HVC_I neurons (Long et al 2010).

Why is it important that the model should NOT be sensitive to the connection strengths?

First, the firing of HVC_I neurons is highly noisy and unreliable. HVC_I neurons fire spontaneous, random spikes under baseline conditions. During singing, their spike timing is imprecise and can vary significantly from trial to trial, with spikes appearing or disappearing across different trials. As a result, their inputs to HVC_RA neurons are inherently noisy. If the model relies on precisely tuned inputs from HVC_I neurons, the natural fluctuations in HVC_I firing would render the model non-functional. The authors should incorporate noisy HVC_I neurons into their model to evaluate whether this noise would render the model non-functional.

Second, Kosche et al. (2015) demonstrated that reducing inhibition by suppressing HVC_I neuron activity makes HVC_RA firing less sparse but does not compromise the temporal precision of the bursts. In this experiment, the local application of gabazine should have severely disrupted HVC_I activity. However, it did not affect the timing precision of HVC_RA neuron firing, emphasizing the robustness of the HVC timing circuit. This robustness is inconsistent with the predictions of the current model, which depends on finely tuned inputs and should, therefore, be vulnerable to such disruptions.

Third, the reliance on fine-tuning of HVC_RA connections becomes problematic if the model is scaled up to include groups of HVC_RA neurons forming a chain network, rather than the single HVC_RA neurons used in the current work. With groups of HVC_RA neurons, the summation of presynaptic inputs to each HVC_RA neuron would need to be precisely maintained for the model to function. However, experimental evidence shows that the HVC circuit remains functional despite perturbations, such as a few degrees of cooling, micro-lesions, or turnover of HVC_RA neurons. Such robustness cannot be accounted for by a model that depends on finely tuned connections, as seen in the current implementation.

The authors examined how altering the channel properties of neurons affects the activity in their model. While this approach is valid, many of the observed effects may stem from the delicate balancing required in their model for proper function.

In the current model, HVC_X neurons burst as a result of rebound activity driven by the I_H current. Rebound bursts mediated by the I_H current typically require a highly hyperpolarized membrane potential. However, this mechanism would fail if the reversal potential of inhibition is higher than the required level of hyperpolarization. Furthermore, Mooney (2000) demonstrated that depolarizing the membrane potential of HVC_X neurons did not prevent bursts of these neurons during forward playback of the bird's own song, suggesting that these bursts (at least under anesthesia, which may be a different state altogether) are not necessarily caused by rebound activity. This discrepancy should be addressed or considered in the model.

Some figures contain direct copies of figures from published papers. It is perhaps a better practice to replace them with schematics if possible.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper, the authors use numerical simulations to try to understand better a major experimental discovery in songbird neuroscience from 2002 by Richard Hahnloser and collaborators. The 2002 paper found that a certain class of projection neurons in the premotor nucleus HVC of adult male zebra finch songbirds, the neurons that project to another premotor nucleus RA, fired sparsely (once per song motif) and precisely (to about 1 ms accuracy) during singing.

The experimental discovery is important to understand since it initially suggested that the sparsely firing RA-projecting neurons acted as a simple clock that was localized to HVC and that controlled all details of the temporal hierarchy of singing: notes, syllables, gaps, and motifs. Later experiments suggested that the initial interpretation might be incomplete: that the temporal structure of adult male zebra finch songs instead emerged in a more complicated and distributed way, still not well understood, from the interaction of HVC with multiple other nuclei, including auditory and brainstem areas. So at least two major questions remain unanswered more than two decades after the 2002 experiment: What is the neurobiological mechanism that produces the sparse precise bursting: is it a local circuit in HVC or is it some combination of external input to HVC and local circuitry? And how is the sparse precise bursting in HVC related to a songbird's vocalizations?

The authors only investigate part of the first question, whether the mechanism for sparse precise bursts is local to HVC. They do so indirectly, by using conductance-based Hodgkin-Huxley-like equations to simulate the spiking dynamics of a simplified network that includes three known major classes of HVC neurons and such that all neurons within a class are assumed to be identical. A strength of the calculations is that the authors include known biophysically deduced details of the different conductances of the three major classes of HVC neurons, and they take into account what is known, based on sparse paired recordings in slices, about how the three classes connect to one another. One weakness of the paper is that the authors make arbitrary and not well-motivated assumptions about the network geometry, and they do not use the flexibility of their simulations to study how their results depend on their network assumptions. A second weakness is that they ignore many known experimental details such as projections into HVC from other nuclei, dendritic computations (the somas and dendrites are treated by the authors as point-like isopotential objects), the role of neuromodulators, and known heterogeneity of the interneurons. These weaknesses make it difficult for readers to know the relevance of the simulations for experiments and for advancing theoretical understanding.

Strengths:

The authors use conductance-based Hodgkin-Huxley-like equations to simulate spiking activity in a network of neurons intended to model more accurately songbird nucleus HVC of adult male zebra finches. Spiking models are much closer to experiments than models based on firing rates or on 2-state neurons.

The authors include information deduced from modeling experimental current-clamp data such as the types and properties of conductances. They also take into account how neurons in one class connect to neurons in other classes via excitatory or inhibitory synapses, based on sparse paired recordings in slices by other researchers.

The authors obtain some new results of modest interest such as how changes in the maximum conductances of four key channels (e.g., A-type K+ currents or Ca-dependent K+ currents) influence the structure and propagation of bursts, while simultaneously being able to mimic accurately current-clamp voltage measurements.

Weaknesses:

One weakness of this paper is the lack of a clearly stated, interesting, and relevant scientific question to try to answer. In the introduction, the authors do not discuss adequately which questions recent experimental and theoretical work have failed to explain adequately, concerning HVC neural dynamics and its role in producing vocalizations. The authors do not discuss adequately why they chose the approach of their paper and how their results address some of these questions.

For example, the authors need to explain in more detail how their calculations relate to the works of Daou et al, J. Neurophys. 2013 (which already fitted spiking models to neuronal data and identified certain conductances), to Jin et al J. Comput. Neurosci. 2007 (which already discussed how to get bursts using some experimental details), and to the rather similar paper by E. Armstrong and H. Abarbanel, J. Neurophys 2016, which already postulated and studied sequences of microcircuits in HVC. This last paper is not even cited by the authors.

The authors' main achievement is to show that simulations of a certain simplified and idealized network of spiking neurons, which includes some experimental details but ignores many others, match some experimental results like current-clamp-derived voltage time series for the three classes of HVC neurons (although this was already reported in earlier work by Daou and collaborators in 2013), and simultaneously the robust propagation of bursts with properties similar to those observed in experiments. The authors also present results about how certain neuronal details and burst propagation change when certain key maximum conductances are varied.

However, these are weak conclusions for two reasons. First, the authors did not do enough calculations to allow the reader to understand how many parameters were needed to obtain these fits and whether simpler circuits, say with fewer parameters and simpler network topology, could do just as well. Second, many previous researchers have demonstrated robust burst propagation in a variety of feed-forward models. So what is new and important about the authors' results compared to the previous computational papers?

Also missing is a discussion, or at least an acknowledgment, of the fact that not all of the fine experimental details of undershoots, latencies, spike structure, spike accommodation, etc may be relevant for understanding vocalization. While it is nice to know that some models can match these experimental details and produce realistic bursts, that does not mean that all of these details are relevant for the function of producing precise vocalizations. Scientific insights in biology often require exploring which of the many observed details can be ignored and especially identifying the few that are essential for answering some questions. As one example, if HVC-X neurons are completely removed from the authors' model, does one still get robust and reasonable burst propagation of HVC-RA neurons? While part of the nucleus HVC acts as a premotor circuit that drives the nucleus RA, part of HVC is also related to learning. It is not clear that HVC-X neurons, which carry out some unknown calculation and transmit information to area X in a learning pathway, are relevant for burst production and propagation of HVC-RA neurons, and so relevant for vocalization. Simulations provide a convenient and direct way to explore questions of this kind.

One key question to answer is whether the bursting of HVC-RA projection neurons is based on a mechanism local to HVC or is some combination of external driving (say from auditory nuclei) and local circuitry. The authors do not contribute to answering this question because they ignore external driving and assume that the mechanism is some kind of intrinsic feed-forward circuit, which they put in by hand in a rather arbitrary and poorly justified way, by assuming the existence of small microcircuits consisting of a few HVC-RA, HVC-X, and HVC-I neurons that somehow correspond to "sub-syllabic segments". To my knowledge, experiments do not suggest the existence of such microcircuits nor does theory suggest the need for such microcircuits.

Another weakness of this paper is an unsatisfactory discussion of how the model was obtained, validated, and simulated. The authors should state as clearly as possible, in one location such as an appendix, what is the total number of independent parameters for the entire network and how parameter values were deduced from data or assigned by hand. With enough parameters and variables, many details can be fit arbitrarily accurately so researchers have to be careful to avoid overfitting. If parameter values were obtained by fitting to data, the authors should state clearly what the fitting algorithm was (some iterative nonlinear method, whose results can depend on the initial choice of parameters), what the error function used for fitting (sum of least squares?) was, and what data were used for the fitting.

The authors should also state clearly the dynamical state of the network, the vector of quantities that evolve over time. (What is the dimension of that vector, which is also the number of ordinary differential equations that have to be integrated?) The authors do not mention what initial state was used to start the numerical integrations, whether transient dynamics were observed and what were their properties, or how the results depended on the choice of the initial state. The authors do not discuss how they determined that their model was programmed correctly (it is difficult to avoid typing errors when writing several pages or more of a code in any language) or how they determined the accuracy of the numerical integration method beyond fitting to experimental data, say by varying the time step size over some range or by comparing two different integration algorithms.

Also disappointing is that the authors do not make any predictions to test, except rather weak ones such as that varying a maximum conductance sufficiently (which might be possible by using dynamic clamps) might cause burst propagation to stop or change its properties. Based on their results, the authors do not make suggestions for further experiments or calculations, but they should.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Structural colors (SC) are based on nanostructures reflecting and scattering light and producing optical wave interference. All kinds of living organisms exhibit SC. However, understanding the molecular mechanisms and genes involved may be complicated due to the complexity of these organisms. Hence, bacteria that exhibit SC in colonies, such as Flavobacterium IR1, can be good models.

Based on previous genomic mining and co-occurrence with SC in flavobacterial strains, this article focuses on the role of a specific gene, moeA, in SC of Flavobacterium IR1 strain colonies on an agar plate. moeA is involved in the synthesis of the molybdenum cofactor, which is necessary for the activity of key metabolic enzymes in diverse pathways.

The authors clearly showed that the absence of moeA shifts SC properties in a way that depends on the nutritional conditions. They further bring evidence that this effect was related to several properties of the colony, all impacted by the moeA mutant: cell-cell organization, cell motility and colony spreading, and metabolism of complex carbohydrates. Hence, by linking SC to a single gene in appearance, this work points to cellular organization (as a result of cell-cell arrangement and motility) and metabolism of polysaccharides as key factors for SC in a gliding bacterium. This may prove useful for designing molecular strategies to control SC in bacterial-based biomaterials.

Strengths:

The topic is very interesting from a fundamental viewpoint and has great potential in the field of biomaterials.

The article is easy to read. It builds on previous studies with already established tools to characterize SC at the level of the flavobacterial colony. Experiments are well described and well executed. In addition, the SIBR-Cas method for chromosome engineering in Flavobacteria is the most recent and is a leap forward for future studies in this model, even beyond SC.

Weaknesses:

The paper appears a bit too descriptive and could be better organized. Some of the results, in particular the proteomic comparison, are not well exploited (not explored experimentally). In my opinion, the problem originates from the difficulty in explaining the link between the absence of moeA and the alterations observed at the level of colony spreading and polysaccharide utilization, and the variation in proteomic content.

First, the effect of moeA deletion on molybdenum cofactor synthesis should be addressed.

Second, as I was reading the entire manuscript, I kept asking myself if moeA (and by extension molybdenum cofactor) was really involved in SC or it was an indirect effect. For example, what if the absence of moeA alters the cell envelope because the synthesis of its building blocks is perturbed, then subsequently perturbates all related processes, including gliding motility and protein secretion? It would help to know if the effects on colony spreading and polysaccharide metabolism can be uncoupled. I don't think the authors discussed that clearly.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors constructed an in-frame deletion of moeA gene, which is involved in molybdopterin cofactor (MoCo) biosynthesis, and investigated its role in structural colors in Flavobacterium IR1. The deletion of moeA shifted colony color from green to blue, reduced colony spreading, and increased starch degradation, which was attributed to the upregulation of various proteins in polysaccharide utilization loci. This study lays the ground for developing new colorants by modifying genes involved in structural colors.

Major strengths and weaknesses:

The authors conducted well-designed experiments with appropriate controls and the results in the paper are presented in a logical manner, which supports their conclusions. Using statistical tests to compare the differences between the wild type and moeA mutant, and adding a significance bar in Figure 4B, would strengthen their claims on differences in cell motility regarding differences in cell motility. Additionally, in the result section (Figure 6), the authors suggest that the shift in blue color is "caused by cells which are still highly ordered but narrower", which to my knowledge is not backed up by any experimental evidence.

Overall, this is a well-written paper in which the authors effectively address their research questions through proper experimentation. This work will help us understand the genetic basis of structural colors in Flavobacterium and open new avenues to study the roles of additional genes and proteins in structural colors.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors isolated and cultured pulmonary artery smooth muscle cells (PASMC) and pulmonary artery adventitial fibroblasts (PAAF) of the lung samples derived from the patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and the healthy volunteers. They performed RNA-seq and proteomics analyses to detail the cellular communication between PASMC and PAAF, which are the main target cells of pulmonary vascular remodeling during the pathogenesis of PAH. The authors revealed that PASMC and PAAF retained their original cellular identity and acquired different states associated with the pathogenesis of PAH, respectively.

Strengths:

Although previous studies have shown that PASMC and PAAF cells each have an important role in the pathogenesis of PAH, there have been scarce reports focusing on the interactions between PASMC and PAAF. These findings may provide valuable information for elucidating the pathogenesis of pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Comments on revisions:

The authors adequately responded to my concerns and revised their manuscript to elaborate on the new data from new experiments and address my queries. Although some of the issues I initially raised could not be fully resolved, the revised manuscript has been significantly improved. This manuscript provides essential insights into the communications across the PASMCs and PAAFs in PAH. This would greatly interest various researchers in both basic and clinical fields.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Utilizing a combination of transcriptomic and proteomic profiling as well as cellular phenotyping from source-matched PASMC and PAAFs in IPAH, this<br /> study sought to explore a molecular comparison of these cells in order to track distinct cell fate trajectories and acquisition of their IPAH-associated cellular states. The authors also aimed to identify cell-cell communication axes in order to infer mechanisms by which these two cells interact and depend upon external cues. This study will be of interest to the scientific and clinical communities of those interested in pulmonary vascular biology and disease. It also will appeal to those interested in lung and vascular development as well as multi-omic analytic procedures.

Strengths:

(1) This is one of the first studies using orthogonal sequencing and phenotyping for characterization of source-matched neighoring mesenchymal PASMC and PAAF cells in healthy and diseased IPAH patients. This is a major strength which allows for direct comparison of neighboring cell types and the ability to address an unanswered question regarding the nature of these mesenchymal "mural" cells at a precise molecular level.

(2) Unlike a number of multi-omic sequencing papers that read more as an atlas of findings without structure, the inherent comparative organization of the study and presentation of the data were valuable in aiding the reader in understanding how to discern the distinct IPAH-associated cell states. As a result, the reader not only gleans greater insight into these two interacting cell types in disease but also now can leverage these datasets more easily for future research questions in this space.

(3) There are interesting and surprising findings in the cellular characterizations, including the low proliferative state of IPAH-PASMCs as compared to the hyperproliferative state in IPAH-PAAFs. Furthermore, the cell-cell communication axes involving ECM components and soluble ligands provided by PAAFs that direct cell state dynamics of PASMCs offer some of the first and foundational descriptions of what are likely complex cellular interactions that await discovery.

(4) Technical rigor is quite high in the -omics methodology and in vitro phenotyping tools used.

Weaknesses:

There are some weaknesses in the methodology that should temper the conclusions:

(1) The number of donors sampled for PAAF/PASMCs was relatively small for both healthy controls and IPAH patients. Thus, while the level of detail of -omics profiling was quite deep, the generalizability of their findings to all IPAH patients or Group 1 PAH patients is limited. In the revised manuscript, the authors addressed this concern with important text changes and additional data.

(2) While the study utilized early passage cells, these cells nonetheless were still cultured outside the in vivo milieu prior to analysis. Thus, while there is an assumption that these cells do not change fundamental behavior outside the body, that is not entirely proven for all transcriptional and proteomic signatures. As such, the major alterations that are noted would be more compelling if validated from tissue or cells derived directly from in vivo sources. Without such validation, the major limitation of the impact and conclusions of the paper is that the full extent of the relevance of these findings to human disease is not known. The authors addressed this concern appropriately with significant text changes to clarify these limitations for the reader.

(3) While the presentation of most of the manuscript was quite clear and convincing, the terminology and conclusions regarding "cell fate trajectories" throughout the manuscript did not seem to be fully justified. That is, all of the analyses were derived from cells originating from end-stage IPAH, and otherwise, the authors were not lineage tracing across disease initiation or development (which would be impossible currently in humans). So, while the description of distinct "IPAH-associated states" makes sense, any true cell fate trajectory was not clearly defined. The revised manuscript has removed this terminology and replaced it with more precise language.

Comments on revisions:

The authors were quite responsive to all of my concerns, offering both important revisions to the presentation of the work as well as new data. While some of the limitations were not fully resolved (and the authors provide appropriate justification for this), the revised manuscript is much improved. It will be of great interest to both the scientific and clinical communities.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper from Sutlief et al. focuses on an apparent contradiction observed in experimental data from two related types of pursuit-based decision tasks. In "forgo" decisions, where the subject is asked to choose whether or not to accept a presented pursuit, after which they are placed into a common inter-trial interval, subjects have been shown to be nearly optimal in maximizing their overall rate of reward. However, in "choice" decisions, where the subject is asked which of two mutually-exclusive pursuits they will take, before again entering a common inter-trial interval, subjects exhibit behavior that is believed to be sub-optimal. To investigate this contradiction, the authors derive a consistent reward-maximizing strategy for both tasks using a novel and intuitive geometric approach that treats every phase of a decision (pursuit choice and inter-trial interval) as vectors. From this approach, the authors are able to show that previously-reported examples of sub-optimal behavior in choice decisions are in fact consistent with a reward-maximizing strategy. Additionally, the authors are able to use their framework to deconstruct the different ways the passage of time impacts decisions, demonstrating the time cost contains both an opportunity cost and an apportionment cost, as well as examine how a subject's misestimation of task parameters impacts behavior.

Strengths:

The main strength of the paper lies in the authors' geometric approach to studying the problem. The authors chose to simplify the decision process by removing the highly technical and often cumbersome details of evidence accumulation that is common in most of the decision-making literature. In doing so, the authors were able to utilize a highly accessible approach that is still able to provide interesting insights into decision behavior and the different components of optimal decision strategies.

Weaknesses:

The authors have made great improvements to the strength of their evidence through revision, especially concerning their treatment of apportionment cost. However, I am concerned that the story this paper tells is far from concise, and that this weakness may limit the paper's audience and overall impact. I would strongly suggest making an effort to tighten up the language and structure of the paper to improve its readability and accessibility.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The goal of the paper is to examine the objective function of total reward rate in an environment to understand behavior of humans and animals in two types of decision-making tasks: 1) stay/forgo decisions and 2) simultaneous choice decisions. The main aims are to reframe the equation of optimizing this normative objective into forms that are used by other models in the literature like subjective value and temporally discounted reward. One important contribution of the paper is the use of this theoretical analysis to explain apparent behavioral inconsistencies between forgo and choice decisions observed in the literature.

Strengths:

The paper provides a nice way to mathematically derive different theories of human and animal behavior from a normative objective of global reward rate optimization. As such, this work has value in trying to provide a unifying framework for seemingly contradictory empirical observations in literature, such as differentially optimal behaviors in stay-forgo v/s choice decision tasks. The section about temporal discounting is particularly well motivated as it serves as another plank in the bridge between ecological and economic theories of decision-making. The derivation of the temporal discounting function from subjective reward rate is much appreciated as it provides further evidence for potential equivalence between reward rate optimization and hyperbolic discounting, which is known to explain a slew of decision-making behaviors in the economics literature.

Weaknesses:

(1) Readability and organization:<br /> While I appreciate the detailed analysis and authors' attempts to provide as many details as possible, the paper would have benefitted from a little selectivity on behalf of the authors so that the main contributions aren't buried by the extensive mathematical detail provided.<br /> For instance, in Figure 5, the authors could have kept the most important figures (A, B and G) to highlight the most relevant terms in the subjective value instead of providing all possible forms of the equation.

Further, in subfigure 5E, is there a reason that the outside reward r_out is shown to be zero? The text referencing 5E is also very unclear: "In so downscaling, the subjective value of a considered pursuit (green) is to the time it would take to traverse the world were the pursuit not taken, 𝑡_out, as its opportunity cost subtracted reward (cyan) is to the time to traverse the world were it to be taken (𝑡_in+ 𝑡_out) (Figure 5E)."

In the abstract, the malapportionment of time is mentioned as a possible explanation for reconciling observed empirical results between simultaneous and sequential decision-making. However, perhaps due to the density of mathematical detail presented, the discussion of the malapportionment hypothesis is pushed all the way to the end of the discussion section.

(2) Apportionment Cost definition and interpretation<br /> This additional cost arises in their analyses from redefining the opportunity cost in terms of just "outside" rewards so that the subjective value of the current pursuit and the opportunity cost are independent of each other. However, in doing so, an additional term arises in defining the subjective value of a pursuit, named here the "apportionment cost". The authors have worked hard to provide a definition to conceptualize the apportionment cost though it remains hard to intuit, especially in comparison to the opportunity cost. The additive form of apportionment cost (Equation 9) doesn't add much in way of intuition or their later analyses for the malapportionment hypothesis. It appears that the most important term is the apportionment scaling term so just focusing on this term will help the reader through the subsequent analyses.

(3) Malapportionment Hypothesis: From where does this malapportionment arise?<br /> The authors identify the range of values for t_in and t_out in Figure 18, the terms comprising the apportionment scaling term, that lead to optimal forgo behaviors despite suboptimally rejecting the larger-later (LL) choice in choice decisions. They therefore conclude that a lower apportionment scale, which arises from overestimating the time required outside the pursuit (t_out) or underestimating the time required at the current pursuit (t_in). What is not discussed though is whether and how the underestimation of t_out and overestimation of t_in can be dissociated, though it is understood that empirical demonstration of this dissociation is outside the scope of this work.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors investigate the role of HSPA2 during mouse preimplantation development. Knocking down HSPA2 in zygotes, the authors describe lower chances of developing into blastocysts, which show a reduced number of inner cell mass cells. They find that HSPA2 mRNA and protein levels show some heterogeneity among blastomeres at the 4-cell stage and propose that HSPA2 could contribute to skewing their relative contribution to embryonic lineages. To test this, the authors try to reduce HSPA2 expression in one of the 2-cell stage blastomere and propose that it biases their contribution to towards extra-embryonic lineages. To explain this, the authors propose that HSPA2 would interact with CARM1, which controls chromatin accessibility around genes regulating differentiation into embryonic lineage.

Strengths:

(1) The study offers simple and straightforward experiments with large sample sizes.

(2) Unlike most studies in the field, this research often relies on both mRNA and protein levels to analyse gene expression and differentiation.

Weaknesses:

(1) Image and statistical analyses are not well described.

(2) The functionality of the overexpression construct is not fully validated.

(3) Tracking of KD cells in embryos injected at the 2-cell stage with GFP is unclear.

(4) A key rationale of the study relies on measuring small differences in the levels of mRNA and proteins using semi-quantitative methods to compare blastomeres. As such, it is not possible to know whether those subtle differences are biologically meaningful. For example, the lowest HSPA2 level of the embryo with the highest level is much higher than the top cell from the embryo with the lowest level. What does this level mean then? Does this mean that some blastomeres grafted from strong embryos would systematically outcompete all other blastomeres from weaker embryos? That would be very surprising. I think the authors should be more careful and consider the lack of quantitative power of their approach before reaching firm conclusions. Although to be fair, the authors only follow a long trend of studies with the same intrinsic flaw of this approach.

(5) Some of the analyses on immunostaining do not take into account that this technique only allows for semi-quantitative measurements and comparisons.<br /> a) Some of the microscopy images are shown with an incorrect look-up table.<br /> b) Some of the schematics are incorrect and misleading.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Gao et al. use RNA-seq to identify Hspa2 as one of the earliest transcripts heterogeneously distributed between blastomeres. Functional studies are performed using siRNA knockdown showing Hspa2 may bias cells toward the ICM lineage via interaction with the known methyltransferase CARM1.

Strengths:

This study tackles an important question regarding the origins of the first cell fate decision in the preimplantation embryo. It provides novelty in its identification of Hspa2 as a heterogeneous transcript in the early embryo and proposes a plausible mechanism showing interactions with Carm1. Multiple approaches are used to validate their functional studies (FISH, WB, development rates, proteomics). Given only 4 other transcripts/RNA have been identified at or before the 4-cell stage (LincGET, CARM1, PRDM14, HMGA1), this would be an important addition to our understanding of how TE vs ICM fate is established.

Weaknesses:

The RNA-seq results leading the authors to focus on Hspa2 are not included in the manuscript. This dataset would serve as an important resource but is neither included nor discussed. Nor is it mentioned whether Hspa2 was identified in prior RNA-seq embryos studies (for example Deng Science 2014).

Furthermore, the authors show that Hspa2 knockdown at the 1-cell stage lowers total Carm1 levels at the 4-cell stage. However, it is unclear how total abundance within the embryo alters lineage specification within blastomeres. The authors go on to propose a plausible mechanism involving Hspa2 and Carm1 interaction, but do not discuss how expression levels may be involved.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

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

Strengths:

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

Weaknesses:

Although I think this design and study are very helpful for the field, I felt that a feature of the design might reduce the tasks's sensitivity to measuring dispositional tendencies to engage cognitive offloading. In particular, the design introduces prediction errors, that could induce learning and interfere with natural tendencies to deploy reminder-setting behavior. These PEs comprise whether a given selected strategy will be or not be allowed to be engaged. We know individuals with compulsivity can learn even when instructed not to learn (e.g., Sharp, Dolan and Eldar, 2021, Psychological Medicine), and that more generally, they have trouble with structure knowledge (eg Seow et al; Fradkin et al), and thus might be sensitive to these PEs. Thus, a dispositional tendency to set reminders might be differentially impacted for those with compulsivity after an NPE, where they want to set a reminder, but aren't allowed to. After such an NPE, they may avoid moreso the tendency to set reminders. Those with compulsivity likely have superstitious beliefs about how checking behaviors lead to a resolution of catastrophes, that might in part originate from inferring structure in the presence of noise or from purely irrelevant sources of information for a given decision problem.<br /> It would be good to know if such learning effects exist, if they're modulated by PE (you can imagine PEs are higher if you are more incentivized - e.g., 9 points as opposed to only 3 points - to use reminders, and you are told you cannot use them), and if this learning effect confounds the relationship between compulsivity and reminder-setting.

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

Comments on revisions:

I have the following final comments for your manuscript revisions:

To improve the clarity of the work, I suggest a final note to the authors to say more explicitly that objective accuracy has a finer resolution *due to the number of "special circles" per trial* in their task. This task detail got lost in my read of the manuscript, and confused me with respect to the resolution of each accuracy measure. Similarly for clarification, they could point out that their exclusion criteria removes subjects that have lower OIP than their AIP analysis allows (which is good for comparison between OIP and AIP). Thus, it removes the possibility that very poor performing subjects (OIP) are forced to have a higher than actual AIP due to the range).

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

You, Zhang et al. comprehensively characterize the long-term fates of mouse HSCs in the unperturbed setting using transposon-based lineage tracing for up to 2 years post-labeling. Their analyses reveal a complex heterogeneity of long-term fates, dominated by two behaviors: i) long-lived differentiation-biased clones, and ii) self-renewal & platelet-biased clones. They further identify two categories of multipotent progenitor clones, with one group showing a markedly reduced differentiation activity.

Strengths:

You et al. present a very comprehensive and high-resolution characterization of mouse hematopoietic clonal dynamics, with robust replicates, and technical prowess. The manuscript is beautifully written, with in-depth and clear explanations of the logic behind experimental design choices, and very well-thought-out interpretations of results.

Some of the results integrate well with past observations in the field, whereas many of them are quite unique and novel.

This will surely be a highly impactful study in the field of hematopoiesis and stem cell biology.

Weaknesses:

The authors trace hematopoiesis in situ, in a fully unbiased way for almost 2-years. They compare this time course with the last few years of Cre-LoxP-based tracing studies and they make an assumption that most hematopoiesis will be derived from some type of HSC at that point in time. They then use this assumption to support that what is being measured in their model are the long-term fates of HSCs (or at least cells that were HSC at the point of labeling). While this is a generally valid assumption, the short-lived nature of certain populations (myeloid cells, megakaryocytes) means that these cells are being produced in the context of a relatively aged environment by the time of sampling, which might change the properties of the system. In other words, the "steady-state" is always changing. It is important to read and interpret this manuscript with this in consideration.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The work from You et al. elucidates the clonal contribution of ageing stem and progenitor cells to both native and perturbed hematopoiesis. The authors use a previously published in vivo lineage tracing system (Patel et al., 2022) that relies on the random integration of a transposon element in the mouse genome. They barcode all mouse cells and then look at lineage relationships between HSPC and mature populations after ~90 weeks.

Strengths:

This work offers very interesting insights into the clonal behaviour of HSPC in the native and perturbed setting during ageing. Experiments are well-planned and well-executed. Understanding the clonal output of HSPCs in aged mice in a native setting, after 5-FU treatment, and upon transplantation are important findings for the field.

Weaknesses:

We found appraising the graphs, interpreting the findings, and understanding those findings in the main text very difficult to follow. While we have made some suggestions below, we encourage the authors to think carefully about what the core messages are, and how best to visualise those, both in terms of data viz and in a schematic to summarise the key findings, and to use plain language in the text.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary

Pyrazinamide (PZA) is a key drug in the anti-TB arsenal, yet despite over 50 years of clinical use, its precise mechanism of action remains unclear. This study offers valuable insights into the in vitro potentiating effect of PZA when used with exogenous oxidative agents. The authors suggest that oxidative stress, specifically thiol oxidation, may be a primary driver of PZA/POA's bactericidal activity. Although the work is substantial, conceptually innovative, and timely, the evidence supporting the authors' conclusions requires further investigation with additional controls and experiments to fully validate the proposed mechanism of action. Once revised, this work will undoubtedly be of significant interest to the TB drug discovery community and researchers focusing on mycobacterial diseases.

Strengths

The authors have long-standing experience in the field of PZA mode of action, with several publications that have been highly relevant to the field. They are particularly well aware of the literature, and this is clearly visible in the introduction of the manuscript which is beautifully articulated. The biological question(s) and their hypotheses are also well-formulated in the introduction section.

The understanding of PZA mode of action is a long-lasting question in the TB community, therefore studies reporting well-conducted research that aims at deciphering the underlying mechanism responsible for PZA peculiar activity is always appreciated. Since PZA/POA are poorly active in conventional 7H9 media, but very potent in cellulo or in vivo; looking at host-mediated stress that can eventually lead to an increased vulnerability is extremely relevant. In that context, most of the work has been focused on host-cell endolysosomal pH but very little information is available on other stress. Thus, investigating the contribution of oxidative stress and ROS as specific host environments that might contribute to PZA/POA activity is overall novel and conceptually very interesting.

To address this question, the authors combine multiple approaches including conventional antimicrobial susceptibility profiling, CFU-based counting, and checkerboard assays to report the potentiating effect of PZA pre-treatment on hydrogen peroxide- and diamide-mediated antibacterial action. The use of multiple reference strains including Mtb H37Ra, Mtb H37Rv, M.bovis BCG, and M.bovis BCG::pncA is a great asset of the manuscript, even though they might have been more appropriately used to get further mechanistical insights on the proposed model of action. The findings are reported in 4 major figures that are clear and in an order that appears logical for the understanding of the story.

Weaknesses

Although the manuscript is conceptually very interesting and contains intriguing results, it sometimes fails to fully convince and some additional controls/experiments might help to better back up the authors' claims and really strengthen the study. Indeed, some conclusions seem premature therefore leading to some molecular assumptions regarding a potential mode of action that is not fully supported by the presented data.<br /> The rationale behind some of the experiments is not always clearly explained which makes difficult to follow the authors ideas, the biological hypothesis/model that they test, and therefore the overall scientific story.

The authors conclude their study by proposing a mechanism by which the active form of the drug POA acts in concert with exogenous ROS to promote cellular oxidative damage. This is tested within two models of macrophage infection where they propose that IFN-γ mediated ROS production is essential for PZA activity. Unfortunately, the in cellulo part presents some weaknesses and inconsistencies that the authors need to carefully address.

Finally, the in vitro experiments performed in this manuscript mainly report that PZA pre-treatment increases H2O2-mediated killing or inhibition. There is no direct evidence that clearly shows that oxidative stress drives the potent bactericidal activity of PZA. In these settings, the oxidative stress is always applied after PZA pre-treatment and is therefore likely displaying the major lethal effect.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors tested how ROS and PZA affected Mycobacterium survival to determine if ROS could have a role in the remarkable in vivo efficacy of PZA.

Strengths:

This is a well-written and clear manuscript convincingly demonstrating the synergy between PZA and reactive oxygen species in the inhibition of growth and survival of Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript would benefit from a clear statement of the rationale for the protocols used to examine the synergy of PZA with ROS, the possible models their protocols could be testing, and then how their data supports or disproves the models being tested. The manuscript appears to propose, as stated in the title, that "Oxidative stress drives potent bactericidal activity of pyrazinamide...". However their experimental design more likely tests the effect of PZA on ROS sensitivity. Indeed, by the last figure, the authors begin the present their data as PZA sensitizing the bacteria to ROS. More clarity on these possible models and the different interpretations of the data should be considered.

Impact:

The data provide important insight to expand our understanding of the in vivo efficacy of PZA in the treatment of tuberculosis.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The question of how central nervous system (CNS) lamination defects affect functional integrity is an interesting topic, though it remains a subject of debate. The authors focused on the retina, which is a relatively simple yet well-laminated tissue, to investigate the impact of afadin - a key component of adherens junctions on retinal structure and function. Their findings show that the loss of afadin leads to significant disruptions in outer retinal lamination, affecting the morphology and localization of photoreceptors and their synapses, as illustrated by high-quality images. Despite these severe changes, the study found that some functions of the retinal circuits, such as the ability to process light stimuli, could still be partially preserved. This research offers new insights into the relationship between retinal lamination and neural circuit function, suggesting that altered retinal morphology does not completely eliminate the capacity for visual information processing.

Strengths:

The retina serves as an excellent model for investigating lamination defects and functional integrity due to its relatively simple yet well-organized structure, along with the ease of analyzing visual function. The images depicting outer retinal lamination, as well as the morphology and localization of photoreceptors and their synapses, are clear and well-described. The paper is logically organized, progressing from structural defects to functional analysis. Additionally, the manuscript includes a comprehensive discussion of the findings and their implications.

Weaknesses:

While this work presents a wealth of descriptive data, it lacks quantification, which would help readers fully understand the findings and compare results with those from other studies. Furthermore, the molecular mechanisms underlying the defects caused by afadin deletion were not explored, leaving the role of afadin and its intracellular signaling pathways in retinal cells unclear. Finally, the study relied solely on electrophysiological recordings to demonstrate RGC function, which may not be robust enough to support the conclusions. Incorporating additional experiments, such as visual behavior tests, would strengthen the overall conclusions.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Ueno et al. described substantial changes in the afadin knockout retina. These changes include decreased numbers of rods and cones, an increased number of bipolar cells, and disrupted somatic and synaptic organization of the outer limiting membrane, outer nuclear layer, and outer plexiform layer. In contrast, the number and organization of amacrine cells and retinal ganglion cells remain relatively intact. They also observed changes in ERG responses and RGC receptive fields and functions using MEA recordings.

Strengths:

The morphological characterization of retinal cell types and laminations is detailed and relatively comprehensive.

Weaknesses:

(1) The major weakness of this study, perhaps, is that its findings are predominantly descriptive and lack any mechanistic explanation. As afadin is key component of adherent junctions, its role in mediating retinal lamination has been reported previously (see PMCID: PMC6284407). Thus, a more detailed dissection of afadin's role in processes, such as progenitor generation, cell migration, or the formation of retinal lamination would provide greater insight into the defects caused by knocking out afadin.

(2) The authors observed striking changes in the numbers of rods, cones, and BCs, but not in ACs or RGCs. The causes of these distinct changes in specific cell classes remain unclear. Detailed characterizations, such as the expression of afadin in early developing retina, tracing cell numbers across various early developmental time points, and staining of apoptotic markers in developing retinal cells, could help to distinguish between defects in cell generation and survival, providing a better understand of the underlying causes of these phenotypes.

(3) Although the total number of ACs or RGCs remains unchanged, their localizations are somewhat altered (Figures 2E and 4E). Again, the cause of the altered somatic localization in ACs and RGCs is unclear.

(4) One conclusion that the authors emphasise is that the function of RGCs remains detectable despite a major disrupted outer plexiform layer. However, the organization of the inner plexiform layer remains largely intact, and the axonal innervation of BCs remains unchanged. This could explain the function integrity of RGCs. In addition, the resolution of detecting RGCs by MEA is low, as they only detected 5 clusters in heterozygous animals. This represents an incomplete clustering of RGC functional types and does not provide a full picture of how functional RGC types are altered in the afadin knockout.

Minor Comments:

(1) Line 56-67: "Overall, these findings provide the first evidence that retinal circuit function can be partially preserved even when there are significant disruptions in retinal lamination and photoreceptor synapses" There is existing evidence showing substantial adaption in retinal function when retinal lamination or photoreceptor synapses are disrupted, such as PMCID: PMC10133175.

(2) Line 114-115: "we focused on afadin, which is a scaffolding protein for nectin and has no ortholog in mice." The term "Ortholog" is misused here, as the mouse has an afadin gene. Should the intended meaning be that afadin has no other isoforms in mouse?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper, Derkaloustian et. al look at the important topic of what affects fine touch perception. The observations that there may be some level of correlation with instabilities are intriguing. They attempted to characterize different materials by counting the frequency (occurrence #, not of vibration) of instabilities at various speeds and forces of a PDMS slab pulled lengthwise over the material. They then had humans make the same vertical motion to discriminate between these samples. They correlated the % correct in discrimination with differences in frequency of steady sliding over the design space as well as other traditional parameters such as friction coefficient and roughness. The authors pose an interesting hypothesis and make an interesting observation about the occurrences of instability regimes in different materials while in contact with PDMS, which is interesting for the community to see in the publication. It should be noted that the finger is complex, however, and there are many factors that may be quite oversimplified with the use of the PDMS finger, and the consideration and discounting of other parameters are not fully discussed in the main text or SI. Most importantly, however, the conclusions as stated do not align with the primary summary of the data in Figure 2.

Strengths:

The strength of this paper is in its intriguing hypothesis and important observation that instabilities may contribute to what humans are detecting as differences in these apparently similar samples.

Weaknesses:

The most important weakness is that the findings do not support the statements of findings made in the abstract. Of specific note in this regard is the primary correlation in Figure 2B between SS (steady sliding) and percent correct discrimination. While the statistical test shows significance (and is interesting!), the R-squared value is 0.38, while the R-squared value for the "Friction Coefficient vs. Percent Correct" plot has an R-squared of 0.6 and a p-value of < 0.01 (including Figure 2B). This suggests that the results do not support the claim in the abstract: "We found that participant accuracy in tactile discrimination was most strongly correlated with formations of steady sliding, and response times were negatively correlated with stiction spikes. Conversely, traditional metrics like surface roughness or average friction coefficient did not predict tactile discriminability." This is the most fundamental weakness of this paper.

Along the same lines, other parameters that were considered such as the "Percent Correct vs. Difference in Sp" and "Percent Correct vs. Difference in SFW" were not plotted for consideration in the SI. It would be helpful to compare these results with the other three metrics in order to fully understand the relationships. Other parameters such as stiction magnitude and differences in friction coefficient over the test space could also be important and interesting.

Beyond this fundamental concern, there is a weakness in the representativeness of the PDMS finger, the vertical motion, and the speed of sliding to real human exploration. The real finger has multiple layers with different moduli. In fact, the stratum corneum cells, which are the outer layer at the interface and determine the friction, have a much higher modulus than PDMS. In addition, the slanted position of the finger can cause non-uniform pressures across the finger. Both can contribute to making the PDMS finger have much more stick-slip than a real finger. In fact, if you look at the regime maps, there is very little space that has steady sliding. This does not represent well human exploration of surfaces. We do not tend to use a force and velocity that will cause extensive stick-slip (frequent regions of 100% stick-slip) and, in fact, the speeds used in the study are on the slow side, which also contributes to more stick-slip. At higher speeds and lower forces, all of the materials had steady sliding regions. Further, on these very smooth surfaces, the friction and stiction are more complex and cannot dismiss considerations such as finger material property change with sweat pore occlusion and sweat capillary forces. Also, the vertical motion of both the PDMS finger and the instructed human subjects is not the motion that humans typically use to discriminate between surfaces. Finally, fingerprints may not affect the shape and size of the contact area, but they certainly do affect the dynamic response and detection of vibrations.

This all leads to the critical question, why are friction, normal force, and velocity not measured during the measured human exploration and in a systematic study using the real human finger? The authors posed an extremely interesting hypothesis that humans may alter their speed to feel the instability transition regions. This is something that could be measured with a real finger but is not likely to be correlated accurately enough to match regime boundaries with such a simplified artificial finger.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper, the authors want to test the hypothesis that frictional instabilities rather than friction are the main drivers for discriminating flat surfaces of different sub-nanometric roughness profiles.

They first produced flat surfaces with 6 different coatings giving them unique and various properties in terms of roughness (picometer scale), contact angles (from hydrophilic to hydrophobic), friction coefficient (as measured against a mock finger), and Hurst exponent.

Then, they used those surfaces in two different experiments. In the first experiment, they used a mock finger (PDMS of 100kPA molded into a fingertip shape) and slid it over the surfaces at different normal forces and speeds. They categorized the sliding behavior as steady sliding, sticking spikes, and slow frictional waves by visual inspection, and show that the surfaces have different behaviors depending on normal force and speed. In a second experiment, participants (10) were asked to discriminate pairs of those surfaces. It is found that each of those pairs could be reliably discriminated by most participants.

Finally, the participant's discrimination performance is correlated with differences in the physical attributes observed against the mock finger. The authors found a positive correlation between participants' performances and differences in the count of steady sliding against the mock finger and a negative correlation between participants' reaction time and differences in the count of stiction spikes against the mock finger. They interpret those correlations as evidence that participants use those differences to discriminate the surfaces.

Strengths:

The created surfaces are very interesting as they are flat at the nanometer scale, yet have different physical attributes and can be reliably discriminated.

Weaknesses:

In my opinion, the data presented in the paper do not support the conclusions. The conclusions are based on a correlation between results obtained on the mock finger and results obtained with human participants but there is no evidence that the human participants' fingertips will behave similarly to the mock finger during the experiment. Figure 3 gives a hint that the 3 sliding behaviors can be observed in a real finger, but does not prove that the human finger will behave as the mock finger, i.e., there is no evidence that the phase maps in Figure 1C are similar for human fingers and across different people that can have very different stiffness and moisture levels.

I believe that the authors collected the contact forces during the psychophysics experiments, so this shortcoming could be solved if the authors use the actual data, and show that the participant responses can be better predicted by the occurrence of frictional instabilities than by the usual metrics on a trial by trial basis, or at least on a subject by subject basis. I.e. Poor performers should show fewer signs of differences in the sliding behaviors than good performers.

The sample size (10) is very small.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Strengths:

The paper describes a new perspective on friction perception, with the hypothesis that humans are sensitive to the instabilities of the surface rather than the coefficient of friction. The paper is very well written and with a comprehensive literature survey.

One of the central tools used by the author to characterize the frictional behavior is the frictional instabilities maps. With these maps, it becomes clear that two different surfaces can have both similar and different behavior depending on the normal force and the speed of exploration. It puts forward that friction is a complicated phenomenon, especially for soft materials.

The psychophysics study is centered around an odd-one-out protocol, which has the advantage of avoiding any external reference to what would mean friction or texture for example. The comparisons are made only based on the texture being similar or not.

The results show a significant relationship between the distance between frictional maps and the success rate in discriminating two kinds of surface.

Weaknesses:

The main weakness of the paper comes from the fact that the frictional maps and the extensive psychophysics study are not made at the same time, nor with the same finger. The frictional maps are produced with an artificial finger made out of PDMS which is a poor substitute for the complex tribological properties of skin.

The evidence would have been much stronger if the measurement of the interaction was done during the psychophysical experiment. In addition, because of the protocol, the correlation is based on aggregates rather than on individual interactions.

The authors compensate with a third experiment where they used a 2AFC protocol and an online force measurement. But the results of this third study, fail to convince the relation.

No map of the real finger interaction is shown, bringing doubt to the validity of the frictional map for something as variable as human fingers.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This manuscript by Ori and colleagues investigates the role of Lmod1 in muscle stem cell activation and differentiation. The study begins with a time-course mass spectrometry analysis of primary muscle stem cells, identifying Lmod1 as a pro-myogenic candidate (Figure 1). While the initial approach is robust, the subsequent characterization lacks depth and clarity. Although the data suggest that Lmod1 promotes myogenesis, the underlying mechanisms remain vague, and key experiments are missing. Please find my comments below.

(1) The authors mainly rely on coarse and less-established readouts such as myotube length and spherical Myh-positive cells. More comprehensive and standard analyses, such as co-staining for Pax7, MyoD, and Myogenin, would allow quantification of quiescent, activated, and differentiating stem cells in knockdown and overexpression experiments. The exact stage at which Lmod1 functions (stem cell, progenitor, or post-fusion) is unclear due to the limited depth of the analysis. Performing similar experiments on cultured single EDL fibers would add valuable insights.

(2) In supplementary Figure 2E, the distinction between Hoechst-positive cells and total cell counts is unclear. The authors should clarify why Hoechst-positive cells increase and relabel "reserve cells," as the term is confusing without reading the legend.

(3) The specificity of Lmod1 and Sirt1 immunostaining needs validation using siRNA-treated samples, especially as these data form the basis of the mechanistic conclusions.

(4) The authors must test the effect of Lmod1 siRNA on Sirt1 localization, as only overexpression experiments are shown.

(5) In Figure S3, the biotin signal in LMOD2 samples appears weak. The authors need to address whether comparing LMOD1 and LMOD2 is valid given the apparent difference in reaction efficiency. It would also help to highlight where Sirt1 falls on the volcano plot in S3B.

(6) The immunostaining data suggest that Lmod1 remains cytoplasmic throughout differentiation, whereas Sirt1 shows transient cytoplasmic localization at day 1 of differentiation. The authors should explain why Sirt1 is not constantly sequestered if Lmod1's cytoplasmic localization is consistent. It is also unclear whether day 1 is the key time point for Lmod1 function, as its precise role during myogenesis remains ambiguous.

(7) The introduction does not sufficiently establish the motivation or knowledge gap this work aims to address. Instead, it reads like a narration of disparate topics in a single paragraph. The authors should clarify the statement in line 150, "since this protein has been...,".

Overall, while the identification of Lmod1 as a pro-myogenic factor is convincing, the mechanistic insights are insufficient, and the manuscript would benefit from addressing these concerns.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors identify Leiomodin-1 (LMOD1) as a key regulator of early myogenic differentiation, demonstrating its interaction with SIRT1 to influence SIRT1's cellular localization and gene expression. The authors propose that LMOD1 translocates SIRT1 from the nucleus to the cytoplasm to permit the expression of myogenic differentiating genes such as MYOD or Myogenin.

Strengths:

A major strength of this work lies in the robust temporal resolution achieved through a time-course mass spectrometry analysis of in vitro muscle differentiation. This provides novel insights into the dynamic process of myogenic differentiation, often under-explored in terms of temporal progression. The authors provide a strong mechanistic case for how LMOD1 exerts its role in muscle differentiation which opens avenues to modulate.

Weaknesses:

One limitation of the study is the in vivo data. Although the authors do translate their findings in vivo for LMOD1 localization and expression, the cross-sectional imaging is not highly convincing. Longitudinal cuts or isolated fibers could have been more useful specimens to answer these questions. Moreover, the authors do not assess their in vitro SIRT1 findings in vivo. A few key experiments in regenerating or aged mice would strengthen the mechanistic insight of the findings.

Discussion:

Overall, the study emphasizes the importance of understanding the temporal dynamics of molecular players during myogenic differentiation and provides valuable proteomic data that will benefit the field. Future studies should explore whether LMOD1 modulates the nuclear-cytoplasmic shuttling of other transcription factors during muscle development and how these processes are mechanistically achieved. Investigating whether LMOD1 can be therapeutically targeted to enhance muscle regeneration in contexts such as exercise, aging, and disease will be critical for translational applications. Additionally, elucidating the interplay among LMOD1, LMOD2, and LMOD3 could uncover broader implications for actin cytoskeletal regulation in muscle biology.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the investigators identified LMOD1 as one of a subset of cytoskeletal proteins whose levels increase in the early stages of myogenic differentiation. Lmod1 is understudied in striated muscle and in particular in myogenic differentiation. Thus, this is an important study. It is also a very thorough study - with perhaps even too much data presented. Importantly, the investigators observed that LMOD1 appears to be important for skeletal regeneration, and myogenic differentiation and that it interacts with SIRT1. Both primary myoblast differentiation and skeletal muscle regeneration were studied. Rescue experiments confirmed these observations: SIRT1 can rescue perturbations of myogenic differentiation as a result of LMOD1 knockdown.

Strengths:

Particular strengths include: important topic, the use of primary skeletal cultures, the use of both cell culture and in vivo approaches, careful biomarker analysis of primary mouse myoblast differentiation, the use of two methods to probe the function of the Lmod1/SIRT1 pathway via using depletion approaches and inhibitors, and generation of six independent myoblast cultures. Results support their conclusions.

Weaknesses:

(1) Figure 1. Images of cells in Figure 1A are too small to be meaningful (especially in comparison to the other data presented in this figure). Perhaps the authors could make graphs smaller?

(2) Line 148 "We found LMOD2 to be the most abundant Lmod in whole skeletal muscle." This is confusing since most if not all prior studies have shown that Lmod3 is the predominant isoform in skeletal muscle. The two papers that are cited are incorrectly cited. Clarification to resolve this discrepancy is needed.

(3) Figure 2. Immunoflorescence (IF) panels are too small to be meaningful. Perhaps the graphs could be made smaller and more space allocated for the IF panels? This issue is apparent for just about all IF panels - they are simply too small to be meaningful. Additionally, in many of the immunofluorescence figures, the colors that were used make it difficult to discern the stained cellular structures. For example in Figure S1, orange and purple are used - they do not stand out as well as other colors that are more commonly used.

(4) There is huge variability in many experiments presented - as such, more samples appear to be required to allow for meaningful data to be obtained. For example, Figure S2. Many experimental groups, only have 3 samples - this is highly problematic - I would estimate that 5-6 would be the minimum.

(5) Ponceau S staining is often used as a loading control in this manuscript for western blots. The area/molecular weight range actually used should be specified. Not clear why in some experiments GAPDH staining is used, in other experiments Ponceau S staining is used, and in some, both are used. In some experiments, the variability of total protein loaded from lane to lane is disconcerting. For example, in Figure S4C there appears to be more than normal variability. Can the protein assay be redone and samples run again?

(6) Figure S3 - Lmod3 is included in the figure but no mention of it occurs in the title of the figure and/or legend.

(7) Abstract, line 25. "overexpression accelerates and improves the formation of myotubes". This is a confusing sentence. How is it improving the formation? A little more information about how they are different than developing myotubes in normal/healthy muscles would be helpful.

(8) It is impossible from the IF figures presented to determine where Lmod1 localizes in the myocytes. Information on its subcellular localization is important. Does it localize with Lmod2 and Lmod3 at thin filament pointed ends?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors introduce a denoising-style model that incorporates both structure and primary-sequence embeddings to generate richer embeddings of peptides. My understanding is that the authors use ESM for the primary sequence embeddings, take resolved structures (or use structural predictions from AlphaFold when they're not available), then develop an architecture to combine these two with a loss that seems reminiscent of diffusion models or masked language model approaches. The embeddings can be viewed as ensemble-style embedding of the two levels of sequence information, or with AlphaFold, an ensemble of two methods (ESM+AlphaFold). The authors also gather external datasets to evaluate their approach and compare it to previous approaches. The approach seems promising and appears to out-compete previous methods at several tasks. Nonetheless, I have strong concerns about a lack of verbosity as well as exclusion of relevant methods and references.

Advances:

I appreciate the breadth of the analysis and comparisons to other methods. The authors separate tasks, models, and sizes of models in an intuitive, easy-to-read fashion that I find valuable for selecting a method for embedding peptides. Moreover, the authors gather two datasets for evaluating embeddings' utility for predicting thermostability. Overall, the work should be helpful for the field as more groups choose methods/pretraining strategies amenable to their goals, and can do so in an evidence-guided manner.

Considerations:

Primarily, a majority of the results and conclusions (e.g., Table 3) are reached using data and methods from ProteinGym, yet the best-performing methods on ProteinGym are excluded from the paper (e.g., EVE-based models and GEMME). In the ProteinGym database, these methods outperform ProtSSN models. Moreover, these models were published over a year---or even 4 years in the case of GEMME---before ProtSSN, and I do not see justification for their exclusion in the text.

Secondly, related to comparison of other models, there is no section in the methods about how other models were used, or how their scores were computed. When comparing these models, I think it's crucial that there are explicit derivations or explanations for the exact task used for scoring each method. In other words, if the pre-training is indeed the important advance of the paper, the paper needs to show this more explicitly by explaining exactly which components of the model (and previous models) are used for evaluation. Are the authors extracting the final hidden layer representations of the model, treating these as features, then using these features in a regression task to predict fitness/thermostability/DDG etc.? How are the model embeddings of other methods being used, since, for example, many of these methods output a k-dimensional embedding of a given sequence, rather than one single score that can be correlated with some fitness/functional metric. Summarily, I think the text is lacking an explicit mention of how these embeddings are being summarized or used, as well as how this compares to the model presented.

I think the above issues can mainly be addressed by considering and incorporating points from Li et al. 2024[1] and potentially Tang & Koo 2024[2]. Li et al.[1] make extremely explicit the use of pretraining for downstream prediction tasks. Moreover, they benchmark pretraining strategies explicitly on thermostability (one of the main considerations in the submitted manuscript), yet there is no mention of this work nor the dataset used (FLIP (Dallago et al., 2021)) in this current work. I think a reference and discussion of [1] is critical, and I would also like to see comparisons in line with [1], as [1] is very clear about what features from pretraining are used, and how. If the comparisons with previous methods were done in this fashion, this level of detail needs to be included in the text.

To conclude, I think the manuscript would benefit substantially from a more thorough comparison of previous methods. Maybe one way of doing this is following [1] or [2], and using the final embeddings of each method for a variety of regression tasks---to really make clear where these methods are performing relative to one another. I think a more thorough methods section detailing how previous methods did their scoring is also important. Lastly, TranceptEVE (or a model comparable to it) and GEMME should also be mentioned in these results, or at the bare minimum, be given justification for their absence.

[1] Feature Reuse and Scaling: Understanding Transfer Learning with Protein Language Models, Francesca-Zhoufan Li, Ava P. Amini, Yisong Yue, Kevin K. Yang, Alex X. Lu bioRxiv 2024.02.05.578959; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.05.578959<br /> [2] Evaluating the representational power of pre-trained DNA language models for regulatory genomics, Ziqi Tang, Peter K Koo bioRxiv 2024.02.29.582810; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.29.582810

Comments on revisions:

My concerns have been addressed. What seems to remain are some semantical disagreements and I'm not sure that these will be answered here. Do MSAs and other embedding methods lead to some notable type of data leakage? Does this leakage qualify as "x-shot" learning under current definitions?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

To design proteins and predict disease, we want to predict the effects of mutations on the function of a protein. To make these predictions, biologists have long turned to statistical models that learn patterns that are conserved across evolution. There is potential to improve our predictions however by incorporating structure. In this paper the authors build a denoising auto-encoder model that incorporates sequence and structure to predict mutation effects. The model is trained to predict the sequence of a protein given its perturbed sequence and structure. The authors demonstrate that this model is able to predict the effects of mutations better than sequence-only models.

As well, the authors curate a set of assays measuring the effect of mutations on thermostability. They demonstrate their model also predicts the effects of these mutations better than previous models and make this benchmark available for the community.

Strengths:

The authors describe a method that makes accurate mutation effect predictions by informing its predictions with structure.

The authors curate a new dataset of assays measuring thermostability. These can be used to validate and interpret mutation effect prediction methods in the future.

Weaknesses:

In the review period, the authors included a previous method, SaProt, that similarly uses protein structure to predict the effects of mutations, in their evaluations. They see that SaProt performs similarly to their method.

ProteinGym is largely made of deep mutational scans, which measure the effect of every mutation on a protein. These new benchmarks contain on average measurements of less than a percent of all possible point mutations of their respective proteins. It is unclear what sorts of protein regions these mutations are more likely to lie in; therefore it is challenging to make conclusions about what a model has necessarily learned based on its score on this benchmark. For example, several assays in this new benchmark seem to be similar to each other, such as four assays on ubiquitin performed in pH 2.25 to pH 3.0.

Comments on revisions:

I think the rounds of review have improved the paper and I've raised my score.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This manuscript makes a significant contribution to the field by exploring the dichotomy between chemical synaptic and gap junctional contributions to extracellular potentials. While the study is comprehensive in its computational approach, adding experimental validation, network-level simulations, and expanded discussion on implications would elevate its impact further.

Strengths:

Novelty and Scope:<br /> The manuscript provides a detailed investigation into the contrasting extracellular field potential (EFP) signatures arising from chemical synapses and gap junctions, an underexplored area in neuroscience.<br /> It highlights the critical role of active dendritic processes in shaping EFPs, pushing forward our understanding of how electrical and chemical synapses contribute differently to extracellular signals.

Methodological Rigor:<br /> The use of morphologically and biophysically realistic computational models for CA1 pyramidal neurons ensures that the findings are grounded in physiological relevance.<br /> Systematic analysis of various factors, including the presence of sodium, leak, and HCN channels, offers a clear dissection of how transmembrane currents shape EFPs.

Biological Relevance:<br /> The findings emphasize the importance of incorporating gap junctional inputs in analyses of extracellular signals, which have traditionally focused on chemical synapses.<br /> The observed polarity differences and spectral characteristics provide novel insights into how neural computations may differ based on the mode of synaptic input.

Clarity and Depth:<br /> The manuscript is well-structured, with a logical progression from synchronous input analyses to asynchronous and rhythmic inputs, ensuring comprehensive coverage of the topic.

Weaknesses and Areas for Improvement:

Generality and Validation:<br /> The study focuses exclusively on CA1 pyramidal neurons. Expanding the analysis to other cell types, such as interneurons or glial cells, would enhance the generalizability of the findings.<br /> Experimental validation of the computational predictions is entirely absent. Empirical data correlating the modeled EFPs with actual recordings would strengthen the claims.

Role of Active Dendritic Currents:<br /> The paper emphasizes active dendritic currents, particularly the role of HCN channels in generating outward currents under certain conditions. However, further discussion of how this mechanism integrates into broader network dynamics is warranted.

Analysis of Plasticity:<br /> While the manuscript mentions plasticity in the discussion, there are no simulations that account for activity-dependent changes in synaptic or gap junctional properties. Including such analyses could significantly enhance the relevance of the findings.

Frequency-Dependent Effects:<br /> The study demonstrates that gap junctional inputs suppress high-frequency EFP power due to membrane filtering. However, it could delve deeper into the implications of this for different brain rhythms, such as gamma or ripple oscillations.

Visualization:<br /> Figures are dense and could benefit from more intuitive labeling and focused presentations. For example, isolating key differences between chemical and gap junctional inputs in distinct panels would improve clarity.

Contextual Relevance:<br /> The manuscript touches on how these findings relate to known physiological roles of gap junctions (e.g., in gamma rhythms) but does not explore this in depth. Stronger integration of the results into known neural network dynamics would enhance its impact.

Suggestions for Improvement:

Broader Application:<br /> Simulate EFPs in multi-neuron networks to assess how the findings extend to network-level interactions, particularly in regions with mixed synaptic connectivity.

Experimental Correlation:<br /> Collaborate with experimental groups to validate the computational predictions using in vivo or in vitro recordings.

Mechanistic Insights:<br /> Provide a more detailed mechanistic explanation of how specific ionic currents (e.g., HCN, sodium, leak) interact during gap junctional vs. chemical synaptic inputs.

Implications for Neural Coding:<br /> Discuss how the observed differences in EFP signatures might influence neural coding, especially in circuits with heavy gap junctional connectivity.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This computational work examines whether the inputs that neurons receive through electrical synapses (gap junctions) have different signatures in the extracellular local field potential (LFP) compared to inputs via chemical synapses. The authors present the results of a series of model simulations where either electric or chemical synapses targeting a single hippocampal pyramidal neuron are activated in various spatio-temporal patterns, and the resulting LFP in the vicinity of the cell is calculated and analyzed. The authors find several notable qualitative differences between the LFP patterns evoked by gap junctions vs. chemical synapses. For some of these findings, the authors demonstrate convincingly that the observed differences are explained by the electric vs. chemical nature of the input, and these results likely generalize to other cell types. However, in other cases, it remains plausible (or even likely) that the differences are caused, at least partly, by other factors (such as different intracellular voltage responses due to, e.g., the unequal strengths of the inputs). Furthermore, it was not immediately clear to me how the results could be applied to analyze more realistic situations where neurons receive partially synchronized excitatory and inhibitory inputs via chemical and electric synapses.

Strengths:

The main strength of the paper is that it draws attention to the fact that inputs to a neuron via gap junctions are expected to give rise to a different extracellular electric field compared to inputs via chemical synapses, even if the intracellular effects of the two types of input are similar. This is because, unlike chemical synaptic inputs, inputs via gap junctions are not directly associated with transmembrane currents. This is a general result that holds independent of many details such as the cell types or neurotransmitters involved.

Another strength of the article is that the authors attempt to provide intuitive, non-technical explanations of most of their findings, which should make the paper readable also for non-expert audiences (including experimentalists).

Weaknesses:

The most problematic aspect of the paper relates to the methodology for comparing the effects of electric vs. chemical synaptic inputs on the LFP. The authors seem to suggest that the primary cause of all the differences seen in the various simulation experiments is the different nature of the input, and particularly the difference between the transmembrane current evoked by chemical synapses and the gap junctional current that does not involve the extracellular space. However, this is clearly an oversimplification: since no real attempt is made to quantitatively match the two conditions that are compared (e.g., regarding the strength and temporal profile of the inputs), the differences seen can be due to factors other than the electric vs. chemical nature of synapses. In fact, if inputs were identical in all parameters other than the transmembrane vs. directly injected nature of the current, the intracellular voltage responses and, consequently, the currents through voltage-gated and leak currents would also be the same, and the LFPs would differ exactly by the contribution of the transmembrane current evoked by the chemical synapse. This is evidently not the case for any of the simulated comparisons presented, and the differences in the membrane potential response are rather striking in several cases (e.g., in the case of random inputs, there is only one action potential with gap junctions, but multiple action potentials with chemical synapses). Consequently, it remains unclear which observed differences are fundamental in the sense that they are directly related to the electric vs. chemical nature of the input, and which differences can be attributed to other factors such as differences in the strength and pattern of the inputs (and the resulting difference in the neuronal electric response).

Some of the explanations offered for the effects of cellular manipulations on the LFP appear to be incomplete. More specifically, the authors observed that blocking leak channels significantly changed the shape of the LFP response to synchronous synaptic inputs - but only when electric inputs were used, and when sodium channels were intact. The authors seemed to attribute this phenomenon to a direct effect of leak currents on the extracellular potential - however, this appears unlikely both because it does not explain why blocking the leak conductance had no effect in the other cases, and because the leak current is several orders of magnitude smaller than the spike-generating currents that make the largest contributions to the LFP. An indirect effect mediated by interactions of the leak current with some voltage-gated currents appears to be the most likely explanation, but identifying the exact mechanism would require further simulation experiments and/or a detailed analysis of intracellular currents and the membrane potential in time and space.

In every simulation experiment in this study, inputs through electric synapses are modeled as intracellular current injections of pre-determined amplitude and time course based on the sampled dendritic voltage of potential synaptic partners. This is a major simplification that may have a significant impact on the results. First, the current through gap junctions depends on the voltage difference between the two connected cellular compartments and is thus sensitive to the membrane potential of the cell that is treated as the neuron "receiving" the input in this study (although, strictly speaking, there is no pre- or postsynaptic neuron in interactions mediated by gap junctions). This dependence on the membrane potential of the target neuron is completely missing here. A related second point is that gap junctions also change the apparent membrane resistance of the neurons they connect, effectively acting as additional shunting (or leak) conductance in the relevant compartments. This effect is completely missed by treating gap junctions as pure current sources.

One prominent claim of the article that is emphasized even in the abstract is that HCN channels mediate an outward current in certain cases. Although this statement is technically correct, there are two reasons why I do not consider this a major finding of the paper. First, as the authors acknowledge, this is a trivial consequence of the relatively slow kinetics of HCN channels: when at least some of the channels are open, any input that is sufficiently fast and strong to take the membrane potential across the reversal potential of the channel will lead to the reversal of the polarity of the current. This effect is quite generic and well-known and is by no means specific to gap junctional inputs or even HCN channels. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the functional consequence of this reversed current through HCN channels is likely to be negligible. As clearly shown in Supplementary Figure S3, the HCN current becomes outward only for an extremely short time period during the action potential, which is also a period when several other currents are also active and likely dominant due to their much higher conductances. I also note that several of these relevant facts remain hidden in Figure 3, both because of its focus on peak values, and because of the radically different units on the vertical axes of the current plots.

Finally, I missed an appropriate validation of the neuronal model used, and also the characterization of the effects of the in silico manipulations used on the basic behavior of the model. As far as I understand, the model in its current form has not been used in other studies. If this is the case, it would be important to demonstrate convincingly through (preferably quantitative) comparisons with experimental data using different protocols that the model captures the physiological behavior of at least the relevant compartments (in this case, the dendrites and the soma) of hippocampal pyramidal neurons sufficiently well that the results of the modeling study are relevant to the real biological system. In addition, the correct interpretation of various manipulations of the model would be strongly facilitated by investigating and discussing how the physiological properties of the model neuron are affected by these alterations.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript reports a comparison of microbial traits and host response traits in a laboratory model of infected granuloma using Mtb strains from different lineages. The authors report increased bacillary growth and granuloma formation, inversely associated with T cell activation that is characterized by CXCL9, granzyme B and TNF expression. They therefore infer that these T cell responses are likely to be host-protective and that the greater virulence of modern Mtb lineages may be driven by their ability to avoid triggering these responses.

Strengths:

The comparison of multiple Mtb lineages in a granuloma model that enables evaluation of the potential role of multiple host cells in Mtb control, offers a valuable experimental approach to study the biological mechanisms that underpin differential virulence of Mtb lineages that has been previously reported in clinical and epidemiological studies.

Weaknesses:

The study is rather limited to descriptive observations, and lacks experiments to test causal relationships between host and pathogen traits. Some of the presentation of the data are difficult to interpret, and some conclusions are not adequately supported by the data.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed my previous comments with appropriate revisions and explanations.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Arbués and colleagues describe the impact of mycobacterial genetic diversity on host-infection phenotypes. The authors evaluate Mtb infection and contextualize host-responses, bacterial growth and metabolic transitioning in vitro using their previously established model of blood-derived, primary-human-cells cultured within a collagen/fibronectin matrix. They seek to demonstrate the effectiveness of the model in determining mycobacterial strain specific granuloma-dependent host-pathogen interactions.

Understanding the way mycobacterial genetic diversity impacts granuloma biology in tuberculosis is an important goal. One of this works strengths is the use of primary human cells and two constituents of pulmonary extracellular matrix to model Mtb infection. The authors and others have previously shown that Mtb infected PBMC aggregates share important characteristics with early pulmonary TB granulomas. Use of multiple genetically distinct strains of Mtb defines this work and further bolsters it potential impact. However, the study is not comprehensive as lineages 6 and 7 are not tested. Experiments are primarily descriptive, and the methodologies are conventional. Correlative relationships are the manuscripts focus and effect sizes are generally small.

The main aim of this work is to extend an in vitro granuloma model to the study of a large collection of well characterized, genetically diverse representatives of the mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC). I believe that they accomplish that aim. The work does investigate MTBC infection of aggregated PBMCs using three strains each of Mtb lineages 1-5 and H37Rv, which is not a trivial undertaking. The experimental aims are to show that MTBC genetic diversity impacts growth and dormancy of granuloma bound bacteria and, the host responses of granulomatous aggregation as well as macrophage apoptosis, lymphocyte activation and soluble mediator release within granulomas. The methodologies employed are sufficient to test most of these aims. The authors conclusions regarding their results are mostly supported by the data. The conclusion that lineage impacts growth within granulomas is likely true and the data as presented reflect such a relationship. Their conclusions regarding lineage's impact on dormancy are partially supported, as their findings demonstrate that assays for dormancy identify strain-specific metabolic changes in the bacteria consistent with a dormancy-like state but also identify replicating bacteria as being dormant. The data strongly supports the impact of mycobacterial genetic diversity on a spectrum of granulomatous responses in their model system. Those findings are a highlight of the publication. The data further supports the idea that strain diversity impacts macrophage apoptosis but a relationship of apoptosis to the granulomatous response is not effectively evaluated. The association of lymphocyte activation with reduced mycobacterial growth as an aspect of granulomas is well documented in the literature and a negative correlation between T cell activation and growth is supported by the authors results. Their data also support the conclusion that soluble mediator production by PBMCs is different based on the infecting strain of mycobacteria and that IL1b modulates aggregate phenotypes in their model.

The authors contribute some valuable insights, particularly in Figure 3. Their model is higher echelon relative to others in the field, but I don't believe that it possesses all the components necessary to replicate formation of mycobacterial granulomas in vivo. That being said, their identification of donor-dependent aggregation phenotypes by mycobacterial strain has the potential to enable future investigations of human and mycobacterial genetic components that are involved in the formation of TB granulomas.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Chen and Phillips describe the dynamic appearance of cytoplasmic granules during embryogenesis analogous to SIMR germ granules, and distinct from CSR-1-containing granules, in the C. elegans germline. They show that the nuclear Argonaute NRDE-3, when mutated to abrogate small RNA binding, or in specific genetic mutants, partially colocalizes to these granules along with other RNAi factors, such as SIMR-1, ENRI-2, RDE-3, and RRF-1. Furthermore, NRDE-3 RIP-seq analysis in early vs. late embryos is used to conclude that NRDE-3 binds CSR-1-dependent 22G RNAs in early embryos and ERGO-1-dependent 22G RNAs in late embryos. These data lead to their model that NRDE-3 undergoes small RNA substrate "switching" that occurs in these embryonic SIMR granules and functions to silence two distinct sets of target transcripts - maternal, CSR-1 targeted mRNAs in early embryos and duplicated genes and repeat elements in late embryos.

Strengths:

The identification and function of small RNA-related granules during embryogenesis is a poorly understood area and this study will provide the impetus for future studies on the identification and potential functional compartmentalization of small RNA pathways and machinery during embryogenesis.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors acknowledge the following issue that loss of SIMR granules have no significant impact on NRDE-3 small RNA loading weakens the functional relevance of these structures. However, this point is clearly discussed and, as they note in their Discussion, it is entirely possible that these embryonic granules may be "incidental condensates."

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

NRDE-3 is a nuclear WAGO-clade Argonaute that, in somatic cells, binds small RNAs amplified in response to the ERGO-class 26G RNAs that target repetitive sequences. This manuscript reports that, in the germline and early embryos, NRDE-3 interacts with a different set of small RNAs that target mRNAs. This class of small RNAs were previously shown to bind to a different WAGO-clade Argonaute called CSR-1, which is cytoplasmic unlike nuclear NRDE-3. The switch in NRDE-3 specificity parallels recent findings in Ascaris where the Ascaris NRDE homolog was shown to switch from sRNAs that target repetitive sequences to CSR-class sRNAs that target mRNAs.

The manuscript also correlates the change in NRDE-3 specificity with the appearance in embryos of cytoplasmic condensates that accumulate SIMR-1, a scaffolding protein that the authors previously implicated in sRNA loading for a different nuclear Argonaute HRDE-1. By analogy, and through a set of corelative evidence, the authors argue that SIMR foci arise in embryogenesis to facilitate the change in NRDE-3 small RNA repertoire. The paper presents lots of data that beautifully documents the appearance and composition of the embryonic SIMR-1 foci, including evidence that a mutated NRDE-3 that cannot bind sRNAs accumulate in SIMR-1 foci in SIMR-1-dependent fashion.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Chen and Phillips present intriguing work that extends our view on the C. elegans small RNA network significantly. While the precise findings are rather C. elegans specific there are also messages for the broader field, most notably the switching of small RNA populations bound to an argonaute, and RNA granules behavior depending on developmental stage. The work also starts to shed more light on the still poorly understood role of the CSR-1 argonaute protein and supports its role in the decay of maternal transcripts. Overall, the work is of excellent quality, and the messages have a significant impact.

Strengths:

Compelling evidence for major shift in activities of an argonaute protein during development, and implications for how small RNAs affect early development. Very balanced and thoughtful discussion.

Weaknesses:

The switch between maternal and zygotic NRDE-3 remains unaddressed

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The works seeks to investigate the efficacy of linalool as a natural alternative for combating Saprolegnia parasitica infections, which would provide great benefit to aquaculture. This paper shows the effect of linalool in vitro using a variety of techniques including changes in S. parasitica membrane integrity following linalool exposure and alterations in cell metabolism and ribosome function. Additionally, this work goes on to show that prophylactic and concurrent treatment of linalool at the time of S. parasitica infection can improve survival and tissue damage in vivo in their grass carp infection model. The conclusions of the paper are partially supported by the data with the corrections done by the authors improving clarity such that I believe there is merit in the work.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors aimed to delineate the antimicrobial activity of linalool and tried to investigate the mode of action on linalool against S. parasitica infection. One of the main focus of this work was to identify the in vitro and in vivo mechanisms associated with the protective role of linalool against S. parasitica infection.

Strengths:

(1) Authors have used a variety of techniques to prove their hypothesis.<br /> (2) Adequate number of replicates were used in their studies.<br /> (3) Their findings showed a protective role of linalool against oomycetes and makes it an attractive future antibiotic in the aquaculture industry.

Weaknesses: The revised version of the manuscript is more thoroughly written with clearer explanations, however there are a few weaknesses in this manuscript.

(1) Although the introduction section was rewritten with rationale, it's still lengthy and not very much to the point.<br /> (2) The claim of linalool regulating the gut microbiota is based on the correlation analysis only. It's not super convincing and requires experimental validation to strengthen the claim.

Overall, the conclusions drawn by the authors are justified by the data. Importantly, this paper has discovered the novelty of the compound linalool as a potent antimicrobial agent and might open up future possibilities to use this compound in the aquaculture industry.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Wang et al. investigates the relationship between Streptococcus Suis (S. Suis) growth phases and levels of virulence factor, capsular polysaccharide (CPS), in the bacterial cell wall. They use an understudied mouse intranasal infection model to connect growth phase related CPS abundance to the pathogenicity of the bacteria in the nose, blood, and other organs. Adoptive transfer of serum against either CPS or V5 (five other virulence factors) reinforces their discovery of CPS levels on S. Suis in different organs and stages of infection. Vaccination against bacterial infections can be difficult, and understanding how the serotype of a bacterial pathogen changes between infection sights and systemic disease is critical. Further, understanding host-pathogen interactions at early time points in the upper respiratory tract may have broad implications for vaccine development. While some of the results are interesting and compelling, others are not supported by the data and require further experimental work.

Strengths:

The model of intranasal infection is compelling to expand upon work previously done in vitro and with systemic routes of infection. The histology and fluorescent imaging of the olfactory epithelium and olfactory bulb complement work in Figure 2 about the attachment of S. suis to epithelial cells and the bacterial burden over time in different organs of Figure 3. Histology was performed at 1 hour and 9 days after intranasal infection with stationary phase S. suis and drives home that this pathogen can invade the olfactory nerve and may potentially cause bacterial meningitis seen in some infected swine.

The adoptive transfer of either anti-CPS or anti-V5 to mice before infection at both longer (12 hr), and shorter (0.5 hr) time points is useful to demonstrate that the changes in cell wall composition between the NALT/CSF and blood compartments result in different efficacy in clearing bacteria from those locations. This is fundamental for the development of vaccines for the swine industry and begs those developing other bacterial vaccines to consider what virulence factors are the most useful as neutralizing antibody targets at the sight of bacterial invasion.

Demonstrating that the amount of CPS within the cell wall of S. Suis is related to the growth phase of the bacteria is an important consideration for vaccine development. While others had previously shown that CPS levels were higher in the blood than in the CNS, and that CPS decreases the invasion of epithelial cells, the close look at the olfactory epithelium at an early time point ties together in vitro findings. The control of a CPS-negative strain was critical to understanding their findings. The location and the microbial community that bacterial pathogens live within may change the growth phase and therefore also the cell wall components.

Weaknesses:

The authors present compelling data that is relevant to the development of anti-bacterial vaccinations and show a relationship between CPS levels and pathogenicity. However, the use of a laboratory murine model requiring acetic acid pre-treatment and a high i.n. dose. Therefore, the findings presented may not represent what occurs in swine. Furthermore, several conclusions are not supported by the data and require substantial new experimental support. Thus, major concerns remain that impact the validity of the findings.

Major concerns for the manuscript:

The intranasal infections were done with S. Suis in the stationary phase which has been shown to have less CPS on the cell wall. While this mimics the literature that shows S. Suis to have less CPS in the CNS, the difference in the pathogenesis of a log phase vs. stationary phage intranasal infection would be interesting. Especially because the bacteria is a part of the natural microbial community of swine tonsils, it is curious if the change in growth phase and therefore CPS levels may be a causative reason for pathogenic invasion in some pigs. To take this line of thought a step further, the authors should consider taking the bacteria from NALT/CSF and blood and compare the lag times bacteria from different organs take to enter a log growth phase to show whether the difference in CPS is because S. Suis in each location is in a different growth phase. If log phase bacteria were intranasally delivered, would it adapt a stationary phase life strategy? How long would that take? Lastly, the authors should be cautious about claims about S. suis downregulating CPS in the NALT for increased invasion and upregulating CPS to survive phagocytosis in blood. While it is true that the data shows that there are different levels of CPS in these locations, the regulation and mechanism of the recorded and observed cell wall difference is not investigated past the correlation to the growth phase. While mechanistic work is outside the scope of the current work, readers should keep in mind that these results may be explained multiple ways. In addition, the mouse model is used rather than the usual host of a pig. The NALTs of conventional pigs and SPF mice certainly have unique microbial communities and this may affect the pathogenesis of S. suis in the mouse, therefore influencing the results. Because the authors show a higher infection rate in the mouse with acetic acid, they may want to consider investigating what the mouse NALT microenvironment is naturally doing to exclude more bacterial invasion in future studies. Is it simply a host mismatch or is there something about the microbiome or steady-state immune system in the nose of mice that is different from pigs?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The authors have strengthened their conclusions by providing additional information about the specificity of their antibodies, but at the same time the authors have revealed concerning information about the source of their antibodies.

It appears that many of the antibodies used in this study have been discontinued because the supplier company was involved in a scandal of animal cruelty and all their goats and rabbits Ab products were sacrificed. The authors acknowledge that this is unfortunate but they also claim that the issue is out of their hands.

The authors' statement is false; the authors ought to not use these antibodies, just as the providing company chose to discontinue them, as<br /> those antibodies are tied to animal cruelty. The issue that the authors feel OK with using them is of concern. In short, please remove any results from unethical antibodies.

Removal of such results also best serves science. That is, any of their results using the discontinued antibodies means that the authors' results are non-reproducible and we should be striving to publish good, reproducible science.

For the antibodies that do not have unethical origins the authors claim that their antibodies have been appropriately validated, by "testing in positive control tissue and/or Western blot or in situ hybridization". This is good but needs to be expanded upon. It is a strong selling point that the Abs are validated and I want to see additional information in their Supplementary Table 2 stating for each Ab specifically:

(1) What +ve control tissue was used in the validation of each Ab and which species that +ve control came from. Likewise, if competition assays to confirm validity was used, please also specify.

(2) Which assay was the Ab validated for (WB, IHC, ELISA, all etc)

(3) For Antibodies that were validated for, or using WBs please let the reader know if there were additional bands showing.

(4) Include references to the literature that supports these validations. That is, please make it easy for the reader to appreciate the hard work that went into the validation of the Antibodies.

Finally, for the Abs, when the authors write that "All antibodies used have been validated by testing in positive control tissue and/or Western blot or in situ hybridization" I fail to understand what in situ hybridisation means in this context. I am under the impression that in situ hybridisation is some nucleic acid -hybridising-to-organ or tissue slice. Not polypeptide binding.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this study, the authors tested a dietary intervention focused on improving meal regularity. Participants first utilized a smartphone application to track their meal frequencies, and then they were asked to restrict their meal intake to times when they most often eat to enhance meal regularity for six weeks. This, supposedly, resulted in some weight loss, supposedly independent of changes in caloric intake.

The concept is appealing, and it is interesting to use a smartphone app in participants' typical everyday environment to regularize food intake. It asks from participants to stick to meal intake times that are supported in many cultures, and it asks them not to eat outside of what are likely unhealthy habits such as grazing a refrigerator late at night. In essence, this is a restrictive diet, not restricting caloric intake but the timing of food intake, and it has many parallel to time restricted feeding. It is important to note that there are many restrictive diets, and a common problem with restrictive diets is that while they allow one to lose a couple of pounds for a couple of months just as with this diet, the long-term success is very poor because they depend on restriction. This issue is still not discussed.

Further, why the participants lose weight, whether this is indeed due to a reduction in food intake as implied, or if the weight loss occurred without a reduction in caloric intake as first stated by the authors and now suggested remains to be determined as the method of food diary as a method to assess caloric intake lacks rigor as has been well established and has been shown again and again to be misleading even though many readers without that knowledge draw conclusions from such studies and they should best have been omitted.

The authors hypothesize that the intervention improves metabolism by improving circadian rhythmicity. That's plausible, but the study provides only a subjective questionnaire and lacks more objective measures such as actigraphy.

While the authors now state now that this as a pilot study, the study falls short of providing mechanistic insights into what underlies the weight loss and the many correlations provided do not make up for this weakness.

Overall, while this pilot study introduces an interesting approach to meal regularity, its limitations highlight the need for more rigorous studies to validate these findings.

(1) Unreliable method of caloric intake

The trial's reliance on self-reported caloric intake is problematic, as participants tend to underreport intake. As pointed out earlier by me and now cited in the revised manuscript, the NEJM paper (DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199212313272701) reported that some participants underreported caloric intake by approximately 50%, rendering such data unreliable and hence misleading. The question is, why include such unreliable data that is more misleading than informative at all? These data should have been omitted. More rigorous methods for assessing food intake should have been utilized. I understand this requires more effort, such as providing participants with meals, or using better methods that photograph and weigh the meals, etc., but it is certainly feasible. It has been done many times in other studies. Further, the control group was not asked to restrict their diet in any way, and hence, asking for a restriction in timing in the treatment group may be sufficient to reduce caloric intake and induce weight loss.<br /> Merely acknowledging the unreliability of self-reported caloric intake is insufficient, as it still leaves the reader with the impression that this weight loss is independent of caloric intake when, in reality, we actually have no idea if food intake contributes to it. A more robust approach to assessing food intake is imperative. Even if a decrease in caloric intake is observed through rigorous measurement, as I am convinced a more rigorous study would unveil testing this paradigm, this intervention may merely represent another restrictive diet among countless others that show that one may lose weight by going on a diet. Seemingly, any restrictive diet works for a few months. The trouble is they do not work long-term because they depend on restriction. I agree with the authors that their intervention seems common sense and has little downside, but one also needs to be realistic about the prospects of this intervention.

(2) Lack of objective data regarding circadian rhythm

The assessment of circadian rhythm using the MCTQ, a self-reported measure of chronotype, is subjective. More objective methods like actigraphy would have strengthened the study.

Actigraphy is considered better than a sleep questionnaire for assessing circadian rhythms because it provides objective data on activity patterns over time, offering a more accurate picture of sleep-wake cycles compared to subjective self-reported information from a questionnaire.

The authors' responses to my prior review are misleading.

I understand that this is a pilot study. Is it appropriate to point out weaknesses and flaws in the conclusion drawn from a pilot study? Absolutely, that is the reviewer's job.

I also understand that food intake can affect circadian rhythm, which was part of the rationale behind the study. Is it appropriate to criticize the study for not examining the effect of the intervention on circadian rhythm using objective measures provided by actigraphy? Yes, it is, as this would have provided mechanistic insights that are more rigorous. I understand that this was not the declared goal, but it should have been examined in a pilot study. To jump to the conclusion that based on prior studies, the intervention will improve circadian rhythms as the authors do is not rigorous and hence a weakness.

A less rigorous method, such as a food questionnaire, to assess caloric intake can result in inadequately supported and potentially misleading conclusions. By including it, the reader may conclude that there was no change in caloric intake when indeed we do not know. I disagree with the authors that this is a minor issue. The associations and correlations the authors provide do not solve the issue. Hence, to make it very clear, it remains to be studied if this intervention reduces weight by reducing caloric intake or other mechanisms. Including this data reduces the study's rigor as it suggests that there is no difference in food intake.

I did not suggest to only use an actimeter (which is a device); I suggested actigraphy. Actigraphy is widely recognized in the field for its utility in circadian rhythm research and provides objective data, while the questionnaire used is subjective. The authors do quote papers comparing their survey to actigraphy by correlation analysis, but the fundamental difference of the two approaches remains. Does an objective measure increase rigor compared to a subjective assessment? Yes, it does.

Similarly, I did not state "that any form of imposed diet appears to lead to weight loss over several months." I said that many forms of restrictive diets do induce weight loss of a similar magnitude to this diet.

The authors should have discussed the fundamental confounder of the study in that the treatment group is asked to restrict food intake to specific times while the control group is not asked to restrict in any way and the potential contribution of this to the weight loss observed.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors found that IL-1b signaling is pivotal for hypoxemia development and can modulate NETs formation in LPS+HVV ALI model.

Strengths:

They used IL1R1 ko mice and proved that IL1R1 is involved in ALI model proving that IL1b signalling leads towards ARDS. In addition, hypothermia reduces this effect, suggesting a therapeutic option.

Weaknesses:

(1) IL1R1 binds IL1a and IL1b. What would be the role of IL1a in this scenario?

(2) The authors depleted neutrophils using anti-Ly6G. What about MDSCs? Do these latter cells be involved in ARDS and VILI?

(3) The authors found that TH inhibited IL-1β release from macrophages led to less NETs formation and albumin leakage in the alveolar space in their lung injury model. A graphical abstract could be included suggesting a cellular mechanism.

(4) If Macrophages are responsible for IL1b release that via IL1R1 induces NETosis, what happens if you deplete macrophages? what is the role of epithelial cells?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Nosaka et al is a comprehensive study exploring the involvement of IL1beta signaling in a 2-hit model of lung injury + ventilation, with a focus on modulation by hypothermia.

Strengths:

The authors demonstrate quite convincingly that interleukin 1 beta plays a role in the development of ventilator-induced lung injury in this model, and that this role includes the regulation of neutrophil extracellular trap formation. The authors use a variety of in vivo animal-based and in vitro cell culture work, and interventions including global gene knockout, cell-targeted knockout and pharmacological inhibition, which greatly strengthen the ability to make clear biological interpretations.

Weaknesses:

A primary point for open discussion is the translatability of the findings to patients. The main model used, one of intratracheal LPS plus mechanical ventilation is well accepted for research exploring the pathogenesis and potential treatments for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, the interpretation may still be open to question - in the model here, animals were exposed to LPS to induce inflammation for only 2 hours, and seemingly displayed no signs of sickness, before the start of ventilation. This would not be typical for the majority of ARDS patients, and whether hypothermia could be effective once substantial injury is already present remains an open question. The interaction between LPS/infection and temperature is also complicated - in humans, LPS (or infection) induces a febrile, hyperthermic response, whereas in mice LPS induces hypothermia (eg. Ganeshan K, Chawla A. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2017;13:458-465). Given this difference in physiological response, it is therefore unclear whether hypothermia in mice and hypothermia in humans are easily comparable. Finally, the use of only young, male animals such as in the current study has been typical but may be criticised as limiting translatability to people.

Therefore while the conclusions of the paper are well supported by the data, and the biological pathways have been impressively explored, questions still remain regarding the ultimate interpretations.

Fusion Body Art Product Review - Prime Face Paint Colours

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors investigated the role of an E3 ubiquitin ligase ITCH in regulating the viral life cycle of SARS-CoV-2. The authors showed that ITCH mediates ubiquitination of the membrane (M) and envelope (E) proteins of SARS-CoV-2. Ubiquitination of E and M results in enhanced interactions between the structural proteins and redistribution of the structural proteins into autophagosomes. The authors claim that the enhanced interactions between structural proteins and trafficking of the structural proteins into autophagosomes contribute to SARS-CoV-2 replication and egress, prompting ITCH as a potential antiviral target. ITCH also alters the cellular distribution of host proteases important for spike cleavage which protect and stabilize spike with cleavage. The authors also demonstrated that SARS-CoV-2 replication is augmented by ITCH in which virus replication is significantly impaired in cells lacking ITCH expression.

Strengths:

The authors provided high-quality data with appropriate experimental controls to justify their claims and conclusions. The mechanistic analyses are excellent and presented in a logical manner. The investigation of the role of ubiquitination in coronavirus assembly and egress is novel as most previous studies focused on its role in mediating innate immune responses.

Weaknesses:

Although the authors showed that ITCH ubiquitinates E and M proteins, the claim that such ubiquitination promotes virion assembly and egress is circumstantial. The enhanced interaction between the structural proteins and targeting of ubiquitinated structural proteins into autophagosomes does not necessarily result in increased virion production and release as suggested by the authors. There is a disconnect between the ubiquitination of structural proteins and the role of ITCH in augmenting virus replication as shown in Fig. 6A and B. In addition, the authors showed that the catalytic activity of ITCH is important for the localization and maturation of host proteases. However, the mechanism behind is unknown. Also, it is unclear how protection of spike from cleavage conferred by ITCH explains its role in promoting replication as a lack of spike cleavage would inevitably compromise entry. The major weakness of the manuscript is the lack of experimental data that explains the molecular role of ITCH in relation to its phenotype observed during SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:<br /> In this manuscript Qiwang Xiang et al. investigated the role of the E3 ubiquitin ligase ITCH in the life cycle of SARS-CoV-2. They claim the following:<br /> i) ITCH promotes virion assembly by interacting with E and M proteins and enhancing their K63-linked ubiquitination<br /> ii) ITCH-mediated ubiquitination promotes autophagosome-dependent secretion of viral particles.<br /> iii) ITCH stabilizes the viral spike protein by impairing its processing by furin and catepsin L proteases.<br /> The manuscript provides an interesting exploration of ITCH's role in the SARS-CoV-2 life cycle but requires additional work to strengthen key claims and address potential confounding factors.

Strengths:

The experiments are sufficiently clear in documenting that ITCH activity is critical for efficient SARS-CoV-2 replication and for M and E proteins K63-linked ubiquitination

Weaknesses:

• The manuscript does not convincingly demonstrate how ITCH-mediated ubiquitination of E and M impacts virus assembly and release. Identifying the specific lysine residues in M and E targeted by ITCH, and generating mutant VLPs or recombinant viruses, would strengthen the conclusions.<br /> • Most of the conclusions rely on ITCH overexpression data, which may have off-target effects on Golgi integrity and vesicular trafficking. For instance, figure 4F provides evidence of altered Golgi morphology and TGN46 fragmentation raising concerns that ITCH overexpression could indirectly mislocalize furin, affecting S1/S2 cleavage of the spike protein. In addition, inhibition of furin activity may also lead to off-target effects, given its role in processing numerous host proteins.<br /> • Similarly, ITCH overexpression is likely to indirectly affect cathepsin-L maturation. In addition, the manuscript does not clarify how impaired cathepsin L activity would influence virus assembly or release.<br /> • A major concern is also the lack of quantification and statistical analysis of immunofluorescence images throughout the manuscript, which undermines the reliability of these observations.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Xiang et al. investigated the role of ubiquitin E3 ligase ITCH in SARS-CoV-2 replication. First, they described the role of ITCH on the structural proteins. Here, the ubiquitination of E and M (but not S) leads to an enhanced interaction and presumably virion assembly. In addition, E and M ubiquitination seems to be necessary for p62-guided sequestration into autophagosomes for secretion. Furthermore, ITCH regulates S proteolytic cleavage by changing furin localization and inhibiting CTSL protease maturation. In addition, SARS-CoV-2 infection upregulates ITCH phosphorylation, whereas knockout of ITCH reduces SARS-CoV-2 replication.

Strengths:

The proposed study is of interest to the virology community because it aims to elucidate the role of ubiquitination by ITCH in SARS-CoV-2 proteins. Understanding these mechanisms will address broadly applicable questions about coronavirus biology and enhance our knowledge of ubiquitination's diverse functions in cell biology.

Weakness:

The involvement of ubiquitin ligases in SARS-CoV-2 replication is not entirely new (see E3 Ubiquitin Ligase RNF5; Yuan et al., 2022; Li et al., 2023). While the data generally support the conclusions, additional work is needed to confirm the role of ITCH in SARS-CoV-2 replication in a biologically relevant context. The vast majority of data is based on transient overexpression experiments of ITCH, which ultimately leads to massive ubiquitination of several viral and host cell factors, including potentially low-affinity substrates not typically recognized under physiological conditions. In addition to that, nearly all experiments were done in cells co-overexpressing ITCH and the viral structural proteins (or cellular proteases) in HEK293T cells. Therefore, a proteomic analysis of protein ubiquitination in a) SARS-CoV-2-infected cells (ideally several cell types) and b) SARS-CoV-2-infected v2T-ITCH-KO cells would verify the ITCH-related ubiquitination of e.g., E and M and would strengthen the whole manuscript. In addition, the few key experiments using SARS-CoV-2 infected cells were performed in VeroE6 cells, which are neither human nor lung-derived. Only in one experiment were lung-derived Calu3 cells included.<br /> Moreover, the manuscript names ITCH as a central regulator of SARS-CoV-2 replication. If ITCH is beneficial for E and M interaction and thereby aids virion assembly, showing its effect on VLP production would be desirable. Clarifications regarding data acquisition and data analysis could strengthen the manuscript and its conclusions.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This study uses structural and functional approaches to investigate the regulation of the Na/Ca exchanger NCX1 by an activator, PIP2, and an inhibitor, SEA0400.

State-of-the-art methods are employed, and the data are of high quality and presented very clearly. The manuscript combines two rather different studies (one on PIP2; and one on SEA0400) neither of which is explored in the depth one might have hoped to form robust conclusions and significantly extend knowledge in the field.

The novel aspect of this work is the study of PIP2. Unfortunately, technical limitations precluded structural data on binding of the native PIP2, so an unnatural short-chained analog, di-C8 PIP2, was used instead. This raises the question of whether these two molecules, which have similar but very distinctly different profiles of activation, actually share the same binding pocket and mode of action. In an effort to address this, the authors mutate key residues predicted to be important in forming the binding site for the phosphorylated head group of PIP2. However, none of these mutations prevent PIP2 activation. The only ones that have a significant effect also influence the Na-dependent inactivation process independently of PIP2, thus casting doubt on their role in PIP2 binding, and thus identification of the PIP2 binding site. A more extensive mutagenic study, based on the di-C8 PIP2 binding site, would have given more depth to this work and might have been more revealing mechanistically.

The SEA0400 aspect of the work does not integrate particularly well with the rest of the manuscript. This study confirms the previously reported structure and binding site for SEA0400 but provides no further information. While interesting speculation is presented regarding the connection between SEA0400 inhibition and Na-dependent inactivation, further experiments to test this idea are not included here.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The study by Xue et al. reports the structural basis for the regulation of the human cardiac sodium-calcium exchanger, NCX1, by the endogenous activator PIP2 and the small molecule inhibitor SEA400. This well-written study contextualizes the new data within the existing literature on NCX1 and the broader NCX family. This work builds upon the authors' previous study (Xue et al., 2023), which presented the cryo-EM structures of human cardiac NCX1 in both inactivated and activated states. The 2023 study highlighted key structural differences between the active and inactive states and proposed a mechanism where the activity of NCX1 is regulated by the interactions between the ion-transporting transmembrane domain and the cytosolic regulatory domain. Specifically, in the inward-facing state and at low cytosolic calcium levels, the transmembrane (TM) and cytosolic domains form a stable interaction that results in the inactivation of the exchanger. In contrast, calcium binding to the cytosolic domain at high cytosolic calcium levels disrupts the interaction with the TM domain, leading to active ion exchange.

In the current study, the authors present two mechanisms explaining how both PIP2 stimulates NCX1 activity by destabilizing the protein's inactive state (i.e., by disrupting the interaction between the TM domain and the cytosolic domain) and how SEA400 stabilizes this interaction, thereby acting as a specific inhibitor of the system.

The first part of the results section addresses the effect of PIP2 and PIP2 diC8 on NCX1 activity. This is pertinent as the authors use the diC8 version of this lipid (which has a shorter acyl chain) in their subsequent cryo-EM structure due to the instability of native PIP2. I am not an electrophysiology expert; however, my main comment would be to ask whether there is sufficient data here to characterise fully the differences between PIP2 and PIP2 diC8 on NCX1 function. It appears from the text that this study is the first to report these differences, so perhaps this data needs to be more robust. The spread of the data points in Figure 1B is possibly a little unconvincing given that only six measurements were taken. Why is there one outlier in Figure 1A? Were these results taken using the same batch of oocytes? Are these technical or biological replicates? Is the convention to use statistical significance for these types of experiments?

I am also somewhat skeptical about the modelling of the PIP2 diC8 molecule. The authors state, "The density of the IP3 head group from the bound PIP2 diC8 is well-defined in the EM map. The acyl chains, however, are flexible and could not be resolved in the structure (Fig. S2)."

However, the density appears rather ambiguous to me, and the ligand does not fit well within the density. Specifically, there is a large extension in the volume near the phosphate at the 5' position, with no corresponding volume near the 4' phosphate. Additionally, there is no bifurcation of the volume near the lipid tails. I attempted to model cholesterol hemisuccinate (PDB: Y01) into this density, and it fits reasonably well - at least as well as PIP2 diC8. I am also concerned that if this site is specific for PIP2, then why are there no specific interactions with the lipid phosphates? How can the authors explain the difference between PIP2 and PIP2 diC8 if the acyl chains don't make any direct interactions with the TM domain? In short, the structures do not explain the functional differences presented in Figure 1.

The side chain densities for Arg167 and Arg220 are also quite weak. While there is some density for the side chain of Lys164, it is also very weak. I would expect that if this site were truly specific for PIP2, it should exhibit greater structural rigidity - otherwise, how is this specific?

Given this observation, have the authors considered using other PIP2 variants to determine if the specificity lies with PI4,5P2 as opposed to PI3,5P2 or PI3,4P2? A lack of specificity may explain the observed poor density.

I also noticed many lipid-like densities in the maps for this complex. Is it possible that the authors overlooked something? For instance, there is a cholesterol-like density near Val51, as well as something intriguing near Trp763, where I could model PIP2 diC8 (though this leads to a clash with Trp763). I wonder if the authors are working with mixed populations in their dataset. The accompanying description of the structural changes is well-written (assuming it is accurate).

I would recommend that the authors update the figures associated with this section, as they are currently somewhat difficult to interpret without prior knowledge of NCX architecture. My suggestions include:

- Including the density for the PIP2 diC8 in Figure 2A.

- Adding membrane boundaries (cytosolic vs. extracellular) in Figure 2B.

- Labeling the cytosolic domains in Figure 2B.

- Adding hydrogen bond distances in Figure 2A.

- Detailing the domain movements in Figure 2B (what is the significance of the grey vs. blue structures?).

The section on the mechanism of SEA400-induced inactivation is strong. The maps are of better quality than those for the PIP2 diC8 complex, and the ligand fits well. However, I noticed a density peak below F02 on SEA400 that lies within the hydrogen bonding distance of Asp825. Is this a water molecule? If so, is this significant?

Furthermore, there are many unmodeled regions that are likely cholesterol hemisuccinate or detergent molecules, which may warrant further investigation.

The authors introduce SEA400 as a selective inhibitor of NCX1; however, there is little to no comparison between the binding sites of the different NCX proteins. This section could be expanded. Perhaps Fig. 4C could include sequence conservation data.

Additionally, is the fenestration in the membrane physiological, or is it merely a hole forced open by the binding of SEA400? I was unclear as to whether the authors were suggesting a physiological role for this feature, similar to those observed in sodium channels.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

NCXs are key Ca2+ transporters located on the plasma membrane, essential for maintaining cellular Ca2+ homeostasis and signaling. The activities of NCX are tightly regulated in response to cellular conditions, ensuring precise control of intracellular Ca2+ levels, with profound physiological implications. Building upon their recent breakthrough in determining the structure of human NCX1, the authors obtained cryo-EM structures of NCX1 in complex with its modulators, including the cellular activator PIP2 and the small molecule inhibitor SEA0400. Structural analyses revealed mechanistically informative conformational changes induced by PIP2 and elucidated the molecular basis of inhibition by SEA0400. These findings underscore the critical role of the interface between the transmembrane and cytosolic domains in NCX regulation and small molecule modulation. Overall, the results provide key insights into NCX regulation, with important implications for cellular Ca2+ homeostasis.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

DiPeso et al. develop two tools to i) classify micronucleated (MN) cells, which they call VCS MN, and ii) segment micronuclei and nuclei with MNFinder. They then use these tools to identify transcriptional changes in MN cells.

The strengths of this study are:

- Developing highly specialized tools to speed up the analysis of specific cellular phenomena such as MN formation and rupture is likely valuable to the community and neglected by developers of more generalist methods.

- A lot of work and ideas have gone into this manuscript. It is clearly a valuable contribution.

- Combining automated analysis, single-cell labeling, and cell sorting is an exciting approach to enrich for phenotypes of interest, which the authors demonstrate here.

The authors addressed my original concerns related to the first version of this manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Micronuclei are aberrant nuclear structures frequently seen following the missegregation of chromosomes. The authors present two image analysis methods, one robust and another rapid, to identify micronuclei (MN) bearing cells. To analyse their software efficacy, the authors study images of cells treated with MPS1 inhibitor to induce chromosome missegregation. Next, the authors use RNA-seq to assess the outcomes of their MN-identifying methods: they do not observe a transcriptomic signature specific to MN but find changes that correlate with aneuploidy status. Overall, this work offers new tools to identify MN-presenting cells, and it sets the stage with clear benchmarks for further software development.

Strengths:

Currently, there are no robust MN classifiers with a clear quantification of their efficiency across cell lines (mIoU score). The software presented here tries to address this gap. GitHub material (images, ground truth labels, tools, protocols, etc.) provided is a great asset to computational biologists. The method has been tested in more than one cell line. This method can help integrate cell biology and 'omics' data, making it suitable for multimodal studies.

Weaknesses:

Although the classifier outperforms available tools for MN segmentation by providing mIoU, it's not yet at a point where it can be reliably applied to functional genomics assays where we expect a range of phenotypic penetrance in most cell lines (e.g., misshapen, multinucleated, and lagging DNA in addition to micronucleated cells). The discussion considers the nature and proportion of MN in RPE1 cells, and how the classifier is well-suited for RPE1 that predominantly display MN structures. Whether the classifier can rigorously assign MN-presenting cells amidst drastic nuclear aberrancies following a spindle checkpoint loss needs to be tested in the future.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors develop automated methods to visually identify micronuclei (MN) and MN-containing cells. The authors then use these methods to isolate MN-containing RPE-1 cells post-photoactivation and analyze transcriptional changes in cells with and without micronuclei. The authors find that RPE-1 cells with MN have similar transcriptomic changes as aneuploid cells and that MN rupture does not lead to vast changes in the transcriptome.

Strengths:

The authors develop a method that allows for automating measurements and analysis of micronuclei. This has been something that the field has been missing for a long time. Using such a method has the potential to greatly enhance the field's ability to analyze micronuclei and understand the downstream consequences. The authors also develop a method to identify cells with micronuclei in real-time, mark them using photoconversion, and then isolate them via cell sorting, which could change the way we isolate and study MN-containing cells, and the scale at which we do it. The authors use this method to look at the transcriptome. This method is very powerful as it can allow for the separation of a heterogenous population and subsequent analysis with a much higher sample number than previously possible.

Weaknesses:

The major weakness of this paper is the transcriptomic analysis of MN. There is in general large variance between replicates in experiments looking at cells with ruptured versus intact micronuclei. This limits our ability to assess if lack of changes are due to truly not having changes between these populations or experimental limitations. More transcriptomic analysis will be necessary to fully understand the downstream consequences of MN rupture.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The fledgling field of epitranscriptomics has encountered various technical roadblocks with implications as to the validity of early epitranscriptomics mapping data. As a prime example, the low specificity of (supposedly) modification-specific antibodies for the enrichment of modified RNAs, has been ignored for quite some time and is only now recognized for its dismal reproducibility (between different labs), which necessitates the development of alternative methods for modification detection. Furthermore, early attempts to map individual epitranscriptomes using sequencing-based techniques are largely characterized by the deliberate avoidance of orthogonal approaches aimed at confirming the existence of RNA modifications that have been originally identified.

Improved methodology, the inclusion of various controls, and better mapping algorithms as well as the application of robust statistics for the identification of false-positive RNA modification calls have allowed revisiting original (seminal) publications whose early mapping data allowed making hyperbolic claims about the number, localization and importance of RNA modifications, especially in mRNA. Besides the existence of m6A in mRNA, the detectable incidence of RNA modifications in mRNAs has drastically dropped.

As for m5C, the subject of the manuscript submitted by Zhou et al., its identification in mRNA goes back to Squires et al., 2012 reporting on >10.000 sites in mRNA of a human cancer cell line, followed by intermittent findings reporting on pretty much every number between 0 to > 100.000 m5C sites in different human cell-derived mRNA transcriptomes. The reason for such discrepancy is most likely of a technical nature. Importantly, all studies reporting on actual transcript numbers that were m5C-modified relied on RNA bisulfite sequencing, an NGS-based method, that can discriminate between methylated and non-methylated Cs after chemical deamination of C but not m5C. RNA bisulfite sequencing has a notoriously high background due to deamination artifacts, which occur largely due to incomplete denaturation of double-stranded regions (denaturing-resistant) of RNA molecules. Furthermore, m5C sites in mRNAs have now been mapped to regions that have not only sequence identity but also structural features of tRNAs. Various studies revealed that the highly conserved m5C RNA methyltransferases NSUN2 and NSUN6 do not only accept tRNAs but also other RNAs (including mRNAs) as methylation substrates, which in combination account for most of the RNA bisulfite-mapped m5C sites in human mRNA transcriptomes. Is m5C in mRNA only a result of the Star activity of tRNA or rRNA modification enzymes, or is their low stoichiometry biologically relevant?

In light of the short-comings of existing tools to robustly determine m5C in transcriptomes, other methods, like DRAM-seq, aiming to map m5C independently of ex situ RNA treatment with chemicals, are needed to arrive at a more solid "ground state", from which it will be possible to state and test various hypotheses as to the biological function of m5C, especially in lowly abundant RNAs such as mRNA.

Importantly, the identification of >10.000 sites containing m5C increases through DRAM-Seq, increases the number of potential m5C marks in human cancer cells from a couple of 100 (after rigorous post-hoc analysis of RNA bisulfite sequencing data) by orders of magnitude. This begs the question, whether or not the application of these editing tools results in editing artefacts overstating the number of actual m5C sites in the human cancer transcriptome.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The paper begins with phenotyping the DGRP for post-diapause fecundity, which is used to map genes and variants associated with fecundity. There are overlaps with genes mapped in other studies and also functional enrichment of pathways including most surprisingly neuronal pathways. This somewhat explains the strong overlap with traits such as olfactory behaviors and circadian rhythm. The authors then go on to test genes by knocking them down effectively at 10 degrees. Two genes, Dip-gamma and sbb are identified as significantly associated with post-diapause fecundity, which they also find the effects to be specific to neurons. They further show that the neurons in the antenna but not arista are required for the effects of Dip-gamma and sbb. They show that removing antenna has a diapause specific lifespan extending effect, which is quite interesting. Finally, ionotropic receptor neurons are shown to be required for the diapause associated effects.

Strengths:

Overall I find the experiments rigorously done and interpretations sound. I have no further suggestions except an ANOVA to estimate heritability of the post-diapause fecundity trait, which is routinely done in the DGRP and offers a global parameter regarding how reliable phenotyping is.

Weaknesses:

A minor point is I cannot find how many DGRP lines are used.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Gao et al. has demonstrated that the the pesticide emamectin benzoate (EB) treatment of brown plathopper (BPH) leads to increased egg laying in the insect, which is a common agricultural pest. The authors hypothesize that EB upregulates JH titer resulting in increased fecundity.

Strengths:

The finding that a class of pesticide increases fecundity of brown planthopper is interesting.

Weaknesses:

(1) EB is an allosteric modulator of GluCl. That means it EB physically interacts with GluCl initiating a structural change in the cannel protein. Yet the authors here central hypothesis is about how EB can upregulate the mRNA of GluCl. I do not know whether there is any evidence that an allosteric modulator can function as a transcriptional activator for the same receptor protein. The basic premise of the paper sounds counterintuitive. This is a structural problem and should be addressed by the authors by giving sufficient evidence about such demonstrated mechanisms before.<br /> (2) I am surprised to see a 4th instar larval application or treatment with EB results in upregulation of JH in the adult stages. Complicating the results further is the observation that a 4th instar EB application results in an immediate decrease in JH titer. There is a high possibility that this late JH titer increase is an indirect effect.<br /> (3) The writing quality of the paper needs improvement. Particularly with respect to describing processes, and abbreviations. In several instances authors have not adequately described the processes they have introduced, thus confusing the readers.<br /> (4) In the section 'EB promotes ovarian development' the authors have shown that EB treatment results in increased detention of eggs which contradicts their own results which show that EB promotes egg laying. Again, this is a serious contradiction that nullifies their hypothesis.<br /> (5) Furthermore, the results suggest that oogenesis is not affected by EB application. The authors should devote a section to discussing how they are observing increased egg numbers in EB-treated insects while not impacting Oogenesis.<br /> (6) Met is the receptor of JH and to my understanding, remains mostly constant in terms of its mRNA or protein levels throughout various developmental periods in many different insects. Therefore, the presence of JH becomes the major driving factor for physiological events and not the presence of the receptor Met. Here the authors have demonstrated an increase in Met mRNA as a result of EB treatment. Their central hypothesis is that EB increases JH titer to result in enhanced fecundity. JH action will not result in the activation of Met. Although not contradictory to the hypothesis, the increase in mRNA content of Met is contrary to the findings of the JH field thus far.<br /> (7) As pointed out before, it is hard to rationalize how a 4th instar exposure to EB can result in upregulation of key genes involved in JH synthesis at the adult stage. The authors must consider providing a plausible explanation and discussion in this regard.<br /> (8) I have strong reservations against such an irrational hypothesis that Met (the receptor for JH) and JH-Met target gene Kr-h1 regulates JH titer (Line 311, Fig 3 supplemental 2D). This would be the first report of such an event on the JH field and therefore must be analysed to depth before it may go to publication. I strongly suggest the authors remove such claims from the manuscript without substantiating it.<br /> (9) Kr-h1 is JH/Met target gene. The authors demonstrate that silencing of Kr-h1 results in inhibition of FAMeT, which is a gene involved in JH synthesis. The feedback loop in JH synthesis is unreported. Authors must go ahead with a mechanistic detail of Kr-h1 mediated JH upregulation before this can be concluded. Mere qPCR experiments are not sufficient to substantiate a claim that is completely contrary to the current understanding of JH signalling pathway.<br /> (10) Authors have performed knockdowns of JHAMT, Met and Kr-h1 to demonstrate the effect of these factors on fecundity n BPH. Additionally, they have performed rescue experiments with EB application on these knockdown insects (Figure 3K-M). This I believe is a very flawed experiment. The authors demonstrate EB works through JHAMT in upregulating JH titer. In the absence of JHAMT, EB application is not expected to rescue the phenotype. But authors have reported a complete rescue here. In the absence of Met, the receptor of JH, either EB or JH is not expected to rescue the phenotype. But a complete rescue has been reported. These two experimental results contradict their own hypothesis.<br /> (11) A significant section of the paper deals with how EB upregulates JH titer. JH is a hormone synthesized in the Corpora Allata. Yet the authors have chosen to use the whole body for all of their experiments. Changes in the whole body for mRNA of those enzymes involved in JH synthesis does may not reflect on the situation in Corpora Allata. Although working with corpora Allata is challenging, discarding the abdomen and thorax region and working with the head and neck region of the insect is easily doable. Results from such sampling is always more convincing when it comes to JH synthesis studies.<br /> (12) The phenomenon reported was specific for BPH and not found in other insects. This limits the implications of the study.<br /> (13) Overall, the molecular experiments are very poorly designed and can at best be termed superficial. There are several contradictions within the paper and no discussion or explanation has been provided for that.

Comments on revisions:

(1) The onus of making the revisions understandable to the reviewers lies with the authors. In its current form, how the authors have approached the review is hard to follow, in my opinion. Although the authors have taken a lot of effort in answering the questions posed by reviewers, parallel changes in the manuscript are not clearly mentioned. In many cases, the authors have acknowledged the criticism in response to the reviewer, but have not changed their narrative, particularly in the results section.<br /> (2) In the response to reviewers, the authors have mentioned line numbers in the main text where changes were made. But very frequently, those lines do not refer to the changes or mention just a subsection of changes done. The problem is throughout the document making it very difficult to follow the revision and contributing to the point mentioned above.<br /> (3) The authors need to infer the performed experiments rationally without over interpretation. Currently, many of the claims that the authors are making are unsubstantiated. As a result of the first review process, the authors have acknowledged the discrepancies, but they have failed to alter their interpretations accordingly.<br /> (4) I would like to point to the fact that there are significant experimental modifications added to the manuscript. The decision from the first cycle of review was given on 8th Nov 2024. The authors re-submitted the manuscript on 20th Nov 2024. It just beats my understanding, how so many experiments can be done in such a short time. The rush in resubmission is evident in the writing quality as well. Which I think is now poorer than the original version.<br /> (5) The writing quality is still extremely poor.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aimed to confirm the association between the human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-II region and tuberculosis (TB) susceptibility within admixed African populations. Building upon previous findings from the International Tuberculosis Host Genetics Consortium (ITHGC), this study sought to address the limitations of small sample size and the inclusion of admixed samples by employing the Local Ancestry Allelic Adjusted (LAAA) model, as well as identify TB susceptibility loci in an admixed South African cohort.

Strengths:

The major strengths of this study include the use of multiple TB case-control datasets from diverse South African populations and ADMIXTURE for global ancestry inference.

Weaknesses:

The major weakness of this study include insufficient significant novel discoveries and reliance on cross-validation. The use of existing models did not add value to this study.

Appraisal:<br /> The authors achieved their aims. However, the results still needed to be further validated in the future.

Impact:<br /> The innovative use of the LAAA model and the comprehensive dataset in this study may make contributions to the field of genetic epidemiology.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript is about using different analytical approaches to allow ancestry adjustments to GWAS analyses amongst admixed populations. This work is a follow-on from the recently published ITHGC multi-population GWAS (https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.84394), with the focus on the admixed South African populations. Ancestry adjustment models detected a peak of SNPs in the class II HLA DPB1, distinct from the class II HLA DQA1 loci signficant in the ITHGC analysis.

Strengths:

Excellent demonstration of GWAS analytical pipelines in highly admixed populations. Particularly the utility of ancestry adjustment to improve study power to detect novel associations. Further confirmation of the importance of the HLA class II locus in genetic susceptibility to TB.

Weaknesses:

Limited novelty compared to the group's previous existing publications and the body of work linking HLA class II alleles with TB susceptibility in South Africa or other African populations. This work includes only ~100 new cases and controls from what has already been published. High resolution HLA typing has detected significant signals in both the DQA1 and DPB1 regions identified by the larger ITHGC and in this GWAS analysis respectively (Chihab L et al. HLA. 2023 Feb; 101(2): 124-137).<br /> Despite the availability of strong methods for imputing HLA from GWAS data (Karnes J et Plos One 2017), the authors did not confirm with HLA typing the importance of their SNP peak in the class II region. This would have supported the importance of this ancestry adjustment versus prior ITHGC analysis.<br /> The populations consider active TB and healthy controls (from high-burden presumed exposed communities) and do not provide QFT or other data to identify latent TB infection.

Important methodological points for clarification and for readers to be aware of when reading this paper:

(1) One of the reasons cited for the lack of African ancestry-specific associations or suggestive peaks in the ITHGC study was the small African sample size. The current association test includes a larger African cohort and yields a near-genome-wide significant threshold in the HLA-DPB1 gene originating from the KhoeSan ancestry. Investigation is needed as to whether the increase in power is due to increased African samples and not necessarily the use of the LAAA model as stated on lines 295 and 296?

Authors response - The Manhattan plot in Figure 3 includes the results for all four models: the traditional GWAS model (GAO), the admixture mapping model (LAO), the ancestry plus allelic (APA) model and the LAAA model. In this figure, it is evident that only the LAAA model identified the association peak on chromosome 6, which lends support the argument that the increase in power is due to the use of the LAAA model and not solely due to the increase in sample size.<br /> Reviewer comment - This data supports the authors conclusions that increase power is related to the LAAA model application rather than simply increase sample size.

(2) In line 256, the number of SNPs included in the LAAA analysis was 784,557 autosomal markers; the number of SNPs after quality control of the imputed dataset was 7,510,051 SNPs (line 142). It is not clear how or why ~90% of the SNPs were removed. This needs clarification.

Authors response:<br /> In our manuscript (line 194), we mention that "...variants with minor allele frequency (MAF) < 1% were removed to improve the stability of the association tests." A large proportion of imputed variants fell below this MAF threshold and were subsequently excluded from this analysis.

Reviewers additional comment: The authors should specify the number of SNPs in the dataset before imputation and indicate what proportion of the 784,557 remaining SNPs were imputed. Providing this information might help the reader better understand the rationale behind the imputation process.

(3) The authors have used the significance threshold estimated by the STEAM p-value < 2.5x10-6 in the LAAA analysis. Grinde et al. (2019 implemented their significance threshold estimation approach tailored to admixture mapping (local ancestry (LA) model), where there is a reduction in testing burden. The authors should justify why this threshold would apply to the LAAA model (a joint genotype and ancestry approach).

Authors response: We describe in the methods (line 189 onwards) that the LAAA model is an extension of the APA model. Since the APA model itself simultaneously performs the null global ancestry only model and the local ancestry model (utilised in admixture mapping), we thus considered the use of a threshold tailored to admixture mapping appropriate for the LAAA model.

Reviewers additional comment: While the LAAA model is an extension of the APA model, the authors describe the LAAA test as 'models the combination of the minor allele and the ancestry of the minor allele at a specific locus, along with the effect of this interaction,' thus a joint allele and ancestry effects model. Grinde et al. (2019) proposed the significance threshold estimation approach, STEAM, specifically for the LA approach, which tests for ancestry effects alone and benefits from the reduced testing burden. However, it remains unclear why the authors found it appropriate to apply STEAM to the LAAA model, a joint test for both allele and ancestry effects, which does not benefit from the same reduction in testing burden.

(4) Batch effect screening and correction (line 174) is a quality control check. This section is discussed after global and local ancestry inferences in the methods. Was this QC step conducted after the inferencing? If so, the authors should justify how the removed SNPs due to the batch effect did not affect the global and local ancestry inferences or should order the methods section correctly to avoid confusion.

Authors response: The batch effect correction method utilised a pseudo-case-control comparison which included global ancestry proportions. Thus, batch effect correction was conducted after ancestry inference. We excluded 36 627 SNPs that were believed to have been affected by the batch effect. We have amended line 186 to include the exact number of SNPs excluded due to batch effect.<br /> The ancestry inference by RFMix utilised the entire merged dataset of 7 510 051 SNPs. Thus, the SNPs removed due to the batch effect make up a very small proportion of the SNPs used to conduct global and local ancestry inferences (less than 0.5%). As a result, we do not believe that the removed SNPs would have significantly affected the global and local ancestry inferences. However, we did conduct global ancestry inference with RFMix on each separate dataset as a sanity check. In the Author response tables 1 and 2, we show the average global ancestry proportions inferred for each separate dataset, the average global ancestry proportions across all datasets and the average global ancestry proportions inferred using the merged dataset. The SAC and Xhosa cohorts are shown in two separate tables due to the different number of contributing ancestral populations to each cohort. The differences between the combined average global ancestry proportions across the separate cohorts does not differ significantly to the global ancestry proportions inferred using the merged dataset.

This is an excellent response and should remain accessible to readers to clarify this issue.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors of this study sought to define a role for IgM in responses to house dust mites in the lung.

Strengths:

Unexpected observation about IgM biology.<br /> Combination of experiments to elucidate function.

Weaknesses:

Would love more connection to human disease

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Hadebe and colleagues describes a striking reduction in airway hyperresponsiveness in Igm-deficient mice in response to HDM, OVA and papain across the B6 and BALB-c backgrounds. The authors suggest that the deficit is not due to improper type 2 immune responses, nor an aberrant B cell response, despite a lack of class switching in these mice. Through RNA-Seq approaches, the authors identify few differences between the lungs of WT and Igm-deficient mice, but see that two genes involved in actin regulation are greatly reduced in IgM-deficient mice. The authors target these genes by CRISPR-Cas9 in in vitro assays of smooth muscle cells to show that these may regulate cell contraction. While the study is conceptually interesting, there are a number of limitations, which stop us from drawing meaningful conclusions.

Strengths:

Fig. 1. The authors clearly show that IgMKO mice have striking reduced AHR in the HDM model, despite the presence of a good cellular B cell response.

Weaknesses:

Due to several technical and experimental limitations, it is unclear what leads to the reduction in airway hyperresponsiveness in IGM-KO mice. The limitations as outlined previously remain.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript performs a comprehensive biochemical, structural, and bioinformatic analysis of TseP, a type 6 secretion system effector from Aeromonas dhakensis that includes identification of a domain required for secretion and residues conferring target organism specificity. Through targeted mutations, they have expanded the target range of a T6SS effector to include a gram-positive species, which are not typically susceptible to T6SS attack. Although this is not the first dual domain effector to be described, this is the first time anyone has been able to modify a T6SS effector to have an expanded target species range.

Strengths:

The thorough dissection of TseP activity and modulation of target specificity represent a novel contribution to the field of antibacterial research.

Weaknesses:

Although the mechanistic activity of TseP is fully dissected here, there are some unaddressed questions regarding the importance/evolution of the dual activity domain organization. For example, does the modified Gram-positive targeting TseP effector still kill Gram-negative bacteria in bacterial mixtures? And if so, what is the evolutionary benefit of having a TseP that cannot target Gram-positives? And can something be inferred about the biology of Aeromonas from this?

Comments on revisions:

The comments and critiques from the initial submission have been addressed. However, some of them have only been addressed in the author's rebuttal. Some of the discussion particularly regarding the validity of using E. coli PG, the ability for TseP_C4+ to still kill E. coli, and the advantages of having dual domain function effectors probably should be present in the actual manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Wang et al. investigate the role of TseP, a Type VI secretion system (T6SS) effector molecule, revealing its dual enzymatic activities as both an amidase and a lysozyme. This discovery significantly enhances the understanding of T6SS effectors, which are known for their roles in interbacterial competition and survival in polymicrobial environments. TseP's dual function is proposed to play a crucial role in bacterial survival strategies, particularly in hostile environments where competition between bacterial species is prevalent.

Strengths:

(1) The dual enzymatic function of TseP is a significant contribution, expanding the understanding of T6SS effectors.<br /> (2) The study provides important insights into bacterial survival strategies, particularly in interbacterial competition.<br /> (3) The findings have implications for antimicrobial research and understanding bacterial interactions in complex environments.

Weaknesses:

(1) The manuscript assumes familiarity with previous work, making it difficult to follow. Mutants and strains need clearer definition and references.<br /> (2) Figures lack proper controls, quantification, and clarity in some areas, notably in Figures 1A and 1C.<br /> (3) The Materials and Methods section is poorly organized, hindering reproducibility. Biophysical validation of Zn²⁺ interaction and structural integrity of proteins need to be addressed.<br /> (4) Discrepancies in protein degradation patterns and activities across different figures raise concerns about data reliability.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed most of the comments, significantly improving the manuscript. They provided clear details of mutant constructs and strains, including additional references and a revised strain. Individual data points and statistical analyses were added to key figures, ensuring transparency and reproducibility. Supplemental data, such as protein purification details and loading controls, were included to address concerns about experimental reliability. However, the authors did not perform new experiments, such as isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC) to demonstrate the interaction between Zn²⁺ and TsePN or stop-flow spectroscopy to examine enzymatic kinetics, which could have further strengthened the manuscript. I trust these aspects will be addressed in future studies.

The revised Materials and Methods section was significantly improved, providing detailed protocols for bioinformatics analyses, microscopic imaging, and enzymatic assays.

These revisions provide a clearer and more robust presentation of TseP's dual enzymatic functions and their implications in bacterial competition. The manuscript now represents a significant contribution to understanding T6SS effectors, and I recommend it for publication in its current form.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Type VI secretion systems (T6SS) are employed by bacteria to inject competitor cells with numerous effector proteins. These effectors can kill injected cells via an array of enzymatic activities. A common class of T6SS effector are peptidoglycan (PG) lysing enzymes. In this manuscript, the authors characterize a PG-lysing effector-TseP-from the pathogen Aeromonas dhakensis. While the C-terminal domain of TseP was known to have lysozyme activity, the N-terminal domain was uncharacterized. Here, the authors functionally characterize TsePN as a zinc-dependent amidase. This discovery is somewhat novel because it is rare for PG-lysing effectors to have amidase and lysozyme activity. In the second half of the manuscript, the authors utilize a crystal structure of the lysozyme TsePC domain to inform the engineering of this domain to lyse gram-positive peptidoglycan.

Strengths:

The two halves of the manuscript considered together provide a nice characterization of a unique T6SS effector and reveal potentially general principles for lysozyme engineering.

Weaknesses:

The advantage of fusing amidase and lysozyme domains in a single effector is not discussed but would appear to be a pertinent question.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have adequately addressed my previous comments. The authors did not conduct any additional experiments to address the comments made by other reviewers. However, in most cases it seems that paring down the strength of claims made in the text or adding data to the supplement is sufficient to address these concerns.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary

In this extensive comparative study, Moreno-Borrallo and colleagues examine the relationships between plasma glucose levels, albumin glycation levels, diet and life-history traits across birds. Their results confirmed the expected positive relationship between plasma blood glucose level and albumin glycation rate but also provided findings that are somewhat surprising or contrast with findings of some previous studies (positive relationships between blood glucose and lifespan, or absent relationships between blood glucose and clutch mass or diet). This is the first extensive comparative analysis of glycation rates and their relationships to plasma glucose levels and life history traits in birds that is based on data collected in a single study, with blood glucose and glycation measured using unified analytical methods (except for blood glucose data for 13 species collected from a database).

Strengths

This is an emerging topic gaining momentum in evolutionary physiology, which makes this study a timely, novel and important contribution. The study is based on a novel data set collected by the authors from 88 bird species (67 in captivity, 21 in the wild) of 22 orders, except for 13 species, for which data were collected from a database of veterinary and animal care records of zoo animals (ZIMS). This novel data set itself greatly contributes to the pool of available data on avian glycemia, as previous comparative studies either extracted data from various studies or a ZIMS database (therefore potentially containing much more noise due to different methodologies or other unstandardised factors), or only collected data from a single order, namely Passeriformes. The data further represents the first comparative avian data set on albumin glycation obtained using a unified methodology. The authors used LC-MS to determine glycation levels, which does not have problems with specificity and sensitivity that may occur with assays used in previous studies. The data analysis is thorough, and the conclusions are substantiated. Overall, this is an important study representing a substantial contribution to the emerging field evolutionary physiology focused on ecology and evolution of blood/plasma glucose levels and resistance to glycation.

Weaknesses

Unfortunately, the authors did not record handling time (i.e., time elapsed between capture and blood sampling), which may be an important source of noise because handling-stress-induced increase in blood glucose has previously been reported. Moreover, the authors themselves demonstrate that handling stress increases variance in blood glucose levels. Both effects (elevated mean and variance) are evident in Figure ESM1.2. However, this likely makes their significant findings regarding glucose levels and their associations with lifespan or glycation rate more conservative, as highlighted by the authors.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This work introduces the differentiable Gillespie algorithm, DGA, which is a differentiable variant of the celebrated (and exact) Gillespie algorithm commonly used to perform stochastic simulations across numerous fields, notably in the life sciences. The proposed DGA approximates the exact Gillespie algorithm using smooth functions yielding a suitable approximate differentiable stochastic system as a proxy for the underlying discrete stochastic system, where DGA stochastic reactions have continuous reaction index and the species abundances. To illustrate their methodology, the authors specifically consider in detail the case of a well-studied two-state promoter gene regulation system that they analyze using a machine learning approach, and by combining simulation data with analytical results. For the two-state promoter gene system, the DGA is benchmarked by accurately reproducing the results of the exact Gillespie algorithm. For this same simple system, the authors also show how the DGA can be used for estimating kinetic parameters of both simulated and real noisy experimental data. This lets them argue convincingly that the DGA can become a powerful computation tool for applications in quantitative and synthetic biology. In order to argue that the DGA can be employed to design circuits with ad-hoc input-output relations, these considerations are then extended to a more complex four-state promoter model of gene regulation. The main strength of the paper is its clarity and its pedagogical presentation of the simulation methods.

Strengths:

The main strength of the paper is its clarity and its pedagogical presentation of the simulation methods.

Weaknesses:

It would have been useful to have a brief discussion, based on a concrete example, of what can be achieved with the DGA and is totally beyond the reach of the Gillespie algorithm and the numerous existing stochastic simulation methods. A more comprehensive and quantitative analysis of the limitations of the DGA, e.g. for rare events, and how it might be used for stochastic spatial systems would have also been helpful. However, this is arguably beyond the scope of this study whose primary goal is to introduce the DGA and demonstrate that it can achieve tasks like parameter estimation and network design.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have made a sound effort to address many of the comments raised in the previous reports. This has helped improve the clarity of the discussion.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this work, the authors present a differentiable version of the widely-used Gillespie Algorithm. The Gillespie Algorithm has been used for decades to simulate the behavior of stochastic biochemical reaction networks. But while the Gillespie Algorithm is a powerful tool for the forward simulation of biochemical systems given some set of known reaction parameters, it cannot be used for reverse process, i.e. inferring reaction parameters given a set of measured system characteristics. The Differentiable Gillespie Algorithm ("DGA") overcomes this limitation by approximating two discontinuous steps in the Gillespie Algorithm with continuous functions. This makes it possible to calculate of gradients for each step in the simulation process which, in turn, allows the reaction parameters to be optimized via powerful backpropagation techniques. In addition to describing the theoretical underpinnings of DGA, the authors demonstrate different potential use-cases for the algorithm in the context of simple models of stochastic gene expression.

Overall, the DGA represents an important conceptual step forward for the field and should lay the groundwork for exciting innovations in the analysis and design of stochastic reaction networks. At the same time, significantly more work is needed to establish when the approximations made by DGA are valid and to demonstrate the viability of the algorithm in the context of complicated reaction networks.

Strengths:

This work makes an important conceptual leap by introducing a version of the Gillespie Algorithm that is end-to-end differentiable. This idea alone has the potential to drive a number of exciting innovations in the analysis, inference, and design of biochemical reaction networks. Beyond the theoretical adjustments, the authors also implement their algorithm in a Python-based codebase that combines DGA powerful optimization libraries like PyTorch. This codebase has the potential to be of interest to a wide range of researchers, even if the true scope of the method's applicability remains to be fully determined.

The authors also demonstrate how DGA can be used in practice both to infer reaction parameters from real experimental data (Figure 7) and to design networks with user-specified input-output characteristics (Figure 8). These illustrations should provide a nice roadmap for researchers interested in applying DGA to their own projects/systems.

Finally, although it does not stem directly from DGA, the exploration of pairwise parameter dependencies in different network architectures provides an interesting window into the design constraints (or lack thereof) that shape the architecture of biochemical reaction networks.

Weaknesses:

While it is clear that the DGA represents an important conceptual advancement, the authors do not do enough in the present manuscript to (i) validate the robustness of DGA inference and (ii) demonstrate that DGA inference works in the kinds of complex biochemical networks where it would actually be of legitimate use.

It is to the authors' credit that they are open and explicit about the potential limitations of DGA due to breakdowns in its continuous approximations. However they do not provide the reader with nearly enough empirical (i.e. simulation-based) or theoretical context to assess when, why, and to what extent DGA will fail in different situations. In Figure 2, they compare DGA to GA (i.e. ground-truth) in the context of a simple two state model of a stochastic transcription. Even in this minimal system, we see that DGA deviates notably from ground-truth both in the simulated mRNA distributions (Figure 2A) and in the ON/OFF state occupancy (Figure 2C). This begs the question of how DGA will scale to more complicated systems, or systems with non-steady state dynamics. Will the deviations become more severe? This is important because, in practice, there is really not much need for using DGA with a simple 2 state system-we have analytic solutions for this case. It is the more complex systems where DGA has the potential to move the needle.

A second concern is that the authors' present approach for parameter inference and error calculation does not seem to be reliable. For example, in Figure 5A, they show DGA inference results for the ON rate of a two-state system. We see substantial inference errors in this case, even though the inference problem should be non-degenerate in this case. One reason for this seems to be that the inference algorithm does not reliably find the global minimum of the loss function (Figure 2B). To turn DGA into a viable approach, it is paramount that the authors find some way to improve this behavior, perhaps by using multiple random initializations to better search the loss space.

Finally, the authors do a good job of illustrating how DGA might be used to infer biological parameters (Figure 7) and design reaction networks with desired input-output characteristics (Figure 8). However, analytic solutions exist for both of the systems they select for examples. This means that, in practice, there would be no need for DGA in these contexts, since one could directly optimize, e.g., the expressions for the mean and Fano Factor of the system in Figure 7A. I still believe that it is useful to have these examples, but it seems critical to add a use-case where DGA is the only option.

Comments on revisions:

I am concerned that the results in Figure 8D may not be correct, or that the authors may be mis-interpreting them. From my reading of the paper they cite (Lammers & Flamholz 2023), the equilibrium sharpness limit for the network they consider in Figure 8 should be 0.25. But both solutions shown in Figure 8D fall below this limit, which means that they have sharpness levels that could have been achieved with no energy expenditure. If this is the case, then it would imply that while both systems do dissipate energy, they are not doing so productively; meaning that the same results could be achieved while holding Phi=0.

I acknowledge that this could be due to a difference in how they measure sharpness, but wanted to raise it here in case it is, in fact, a genuine issue with the analysis.

There should be an easy fix for this: just set the sharper "desired response" curve in 8b to be such that it demands non-equilibrium sharpness levels (0.25)

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript introduces a differentiable variant of the Gillespie algorithm (DGA) that allows gradient calculation using backpropagation. The most significant contribution of this work is the development of the DGA itself, a novel approach to making stochastic simulations differentiable. This is achieved by replacing discontinuous operations in the traditional Gillespie algorithm with smooth, differentiable approximations using sigmoid and Gaussian functions. This conceptual advance opens up new avenues for applying powerful gradient-based optimization techniques, prevalent in machine learning, to studying stochastic biological systems.

The method was tested on a simple two-state promoter model of gene expression. The authors found that the DGA accurately captured the moments of the steady-state distribution and other major qualitative features. However, it was less accurate at capturing information about the distribution's tails, potentially because rare events result from frequent low-probability reaction events where the approximations made by the DGA have a greater impact. The authors also used the DGA to design a four-state promoter model of gene regulation that exhibited a desired input-output relationship. The DGA could learn parameters that produced a sharper response curve, which was achieved by consuming more energy.

The authors conclude that the DGA is a powerful tool for analyzing and designing stochastic systems. The discussion lays several open questions in the field and constructively addresses shortcomings of the proposed method as well as potential ways forward.

Strengths:

The DGA allows gradient-based optimization techniques to estimate parameters and design networks with desired properties.

The DGA efficacy in estimating kinetic parameters from both synthetic and experimental data. This capability highlights the DGA's potential to extract meaningful biophysical parameters from noisy biological data.

The DGA's ability to design a four-state promoter architecture exhibits a desired input-output relationship. This success indicates the potential of the DGA as a valuable tool for synthetic biology, enabling researchers to engineer biological circuits with predefined behaviours.

Weaknesses:

The study primarily focuses on analysing the steady-state properties of stochastic systems.

Comments on revisions:

Thank you for addressing all the points raised. I am looking forward to seeing the next steps in DGAs development and performance!

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript puts forward a statistical method to more accurately report the significance of correlations within data. The motivation for this study is two-fold. First, the publication of biological studies demands the report of p-values, and it is widely accepted that p-values below the arbitrary threshold of 0.05 give the authors of such studies justification to draw conclusions about their data. Second, many biological studies are limited by the number of replicate samples that are feasible, with replicates of less than 5 typical. The authors report a statistical tool that uses a permute-match approach to calculate p-values. Notably, the proposed method reduces p-values from around 0.2 to 0.04 as compared to a standard permutation test with a small sample size. The approach is clearly explained, including detailed mathematical explanations and derivations. The advantage of the approach is also demonstrated through analysis of computer-generated synthetic data with specified correlation and analysis of previously published data related to fish schooling. The authors make a clear case that this method is an improvement over the more standard approach currently used, and also demonstrate the impact of this methodology on the ability to obtain p-values that are the standard for biological research. Overall, this paper is very strong. While the subject matter seems somewhat specialized, I would make the case that this will be an important study that has broad general interest to readers. The findings are very general and applicable to many research contexts. Experimentalists also want to report accurate p-values in their work and better understand how these values are calculated. Although I believe the previous statement is true, I am not sure that many research groups doing biological work are reading specialized statistics journals regularly. Therefore a useful and broadly applicable statistical tool is well placed in this journal.<br /> Strengths:

The proposed method is broadly applicable to many realistic datasets in many experimental contexts.

The power of this method was demonstrated with both real experimental data and "synthetic" data. The advantages of the tool are clearly reported. The zebrafish data is a great example dataset.

The method solves a real-life problem that is frequently encountered by many experimental groups in the biological sciences.

The writing of the paper is surprisingly clear, given the technical nature of the subject matter. I would not at all consider myself a statistician or mathematician, but I found the text easy to follow. The authors did an impressive job guiding the reader through material that would often be difficult to grasp. The introduction was also well-written and clearly motivated the goals of the study.

Weaknesses:

A few changes could be made if the manuscript is revised. I would consider all of these points minor, but the paper could be improved if these points were addressed.

(1) The caption of Figure 2 doesn't seem to mention panel D. Figure A-2 also does not mention C in the caption.

(2) Figure 2D is a little hard to follow. First, the definition of "Power" is not clear, and I couldn't find the precise definition in the text. Second, the legend for the different lines in 2D is only given in Figure A-2. Perhaps a portion of the caption for Figure 2 is missing?

(3) The concept of circular variance for the fish data was heard to understand/visualize. The equation on line 326 did not help much. If there is a very simple picture that could be added near line 326 that helps to explain Ct and theta, that could be a big help for some readers who do not work on related systems. The analysis performed is understandable, the reader just has to accept that circular variance captions the degree of alignment of the fish.

(4) For the data discussed in Figure 3, I wasn't 100% sure how the time windows were selected. In the caption, it says "time series to different lengths starting from the first frame". So the 20 s time window was from t=0 to t= 20 s. Would a different result be obtained if a different 20 s window was chosen (from t = 4 min to t = 4 min 20 s just to give a specific example). I suppose by chance one of the time windows would give a p-value less than the target 0.05, that wouldn't be surprising. Maybe a random time window should be selected (although I am not indicating what was reported was incorrect)? A little more discussion on this aspect of the study may be helpful.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper presented a hypothesis testing procedure for the independence of two time-series that was potentially suitable for nonlinear dependence and for small-sample cases. This should bring potential benefits for biology data.

Strengths:

The test offers good flexibility for different kinds of dependence (through adjusting \rho), and seems to have good finite sample performance compared to the literature. The justification regarding the validity of the test procedure is clear.

Weaknesses:

(1) The size of the test is not guaranteed to (asymptotically) equal \alpha, which may damage the power.

(2) The computational time can be an issue for a moderately large sample size when calculating the X / Y-perfect match. It will be beneficial to include discussions on the implementations of the test.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Meteorin proteins were initially described as secreted neurotrophic factors. In this manuscript, Eggeler et al. demonstrate a novel role for Meteorins in establish left-right axis formation in the zebrafish embryo. The authors generated null mutations in each of the three zebrafish meteorin genes - metrn, metrnla, and metrnlab. Triple mutant embryos displayed phenotypes strongly associated with left-right defects such as heart looping and visceral organ placement, and disrupted expression of Nodal-responsive genes, as did single mutants for metrn and metrnla. The authors then go on to demonstrate that these defects in left-right asymmetry are likely to due to defects in Kupffer's Vesicle and the progenitor dorseal forerunner cells including impaired lumen formation and reduced fluid flow, reduced clustering among DFCs, impaired DFC migration, mislocalization of apical proteins ZO-1 and aPKC, and detachment of DFCs from the EVL. Notably, the authors found that expression of marker genes sox32 and sox17 were not affected, suggesting Meteorins are required for DFC/KV morphogenesis but not necessarily fate specification. Finally, the authors show genetic interaction between Meteorins and integrin receptors, which were previously implicated in left-right patterning. In a supplemental figure, the manuscript also presents data showing expression of meteorin genes around the chick Hensen's node, suggesting that the left-right patterning functions may be conserved among vertebrates.

Strengths:

Strengths of this study include the generation of a triple mutant line that targets all known zebrafish meteorin family members. The experiments presented in this study were rigorous, especially with respect to quantification and statistical analysis.

Weaknesses:

Although the authors convincingly demonstrate a role for Meteorins in zebrafish left-right patterning, data supporting a conserved role in other vertebrates is compelling but limited to one supplemental figure.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript the authors describe their study on the role of meteorins in establishing the left-right organizer. The left-right organizer is a transient organ in vertebrate embryos in which rotating cilia cause a fluid flow that breaks the left-right symmetry and coordinates lateralization of internal organs such as gut and heart. In zebrafish, the left-right organizer (also named Kupffer's vesicle) is formed by dorsal forerunner cells, but very little is known about how dorsal forerunner cells coalles and form this ciliated vesicle in the embryo. The authors mutated the three meteorin-coding genes in zebrafish and observed that mutations in each one of these causes laterality defects with the strongest defects observed in the triple mutant. Loss of meteorins affects nodal gene expression, which play essential roles in establishing organ laterality. Meteorins are widely expressed in developing embryos and expression in lateral plate mesoderm and dorsal forerunner cells was observed. The meteorin triple mutant embryos display defects in the migration and clustering of the dorsal forerunner cells impairing kupffer's vesicle formation and cilia rotation. Finally, the authors show that meteorins genetically interact with integrins.

Strengths:

- These authors went through the lengthy process of generating triple mutants affecting all three meteorin genes. This provides robust genetic evidence on the role of meteorins in establishing organ laterality and circumvented that interpretation of the results would be hard due to redundant functions of meteorins.<br /> - The use of life imaging on triple mutants is appreciated<br /> - High-quality imaging of dorsal forerunner to quantify cell migrations and its relation to Kupffer's vesicle formation.

Weaknesses:

- Lack of a model how meteorins regulate dorsal forerunner cell migration.<br /> - Only genetic data to suggest a link between meteorins and integrins<br /> - Besides its role in DFC migration, meteorins may also play a more direct role in regulating Nodal signaling, which is not addressed here.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

For each of the three key transcription factor (TF) proteins in E. coli, the authors generate a large library of TF binding site (TFBS) sequences on plasmids, such that each TFBS is coupled to the expression of a fluorescence reporter. By sorting the fluorescence of individual cells and sequencing their plasmids to identify each cell's TFBS sequence (sort-seq), they are able to map the landscape of these TFBSs to the gene expression level they regulate. The authors then study the topographical features of these landscapes, especially the number and distribution of local maxima, as well as the statistical properties of evolutionary paths on these landscapes. They find the landscapes to be highly rugged, with about as many local peaks as a random landscape would have, and with those peaks distributed approximately randomly in sequence space. The authors find that there are a number of peaks that produce regulation stronger than that of the wild-type sequence for each TF and that it is not too unlikely to reach one of those "high peaks" from a random starting sequence. Nevertheless, the basins of attractions for different peaks have significant overlap, which means that chance plays a major role in determining which peak a population will evolve to.

Strengths:

(1) The experiments and analysis of this paper are very well-executed and, by and large, very thorough (with an important exception identified below). I appreciated the systematic nature of the project, both the large-scale experiments done on three TFs with replicates and the systematic analysis of the resulting landscapes. This not only makes the paper easy to follow but also inspires confidence in their results since there is so much data and so many different ways of analyzing it. It's a great recipe for other studies of genotype-phenotype landscapes to follow.

(2) Considering how technical the project was, I am really impressed at how easy to read I found the paper, and the authors deserve a lot of credit for making it so. They do a great job of building up the experiments and analyses step-by-step and explaining enough of the basics of the experimental design and the essence of each analysis in the main text without getting too complicated with details that can be left to the Methods or SI. Compared to other big data papers, this one was refreshingly not overwhelming.

Weaknesses:

(1) The main weakness of this paper, in my view, is that it felt disconnected from the larger body of work on fitness and genotype-phenotype landscapes, including previous data on TFBSs in E. coli, genotype-phenotype maps of TFBSs in other systems, protein sequence landscapes (e.g., from mutational scans or combinatorially-complete libraries), and fitness landscapes of genomic mutations (e.g., combinatorially-complete landscapes of antibiotic resistance alleles). I have no doubt the authors are experts in this literature, and they probably cite most of it already given the enormous number of references. But they don't systematically introduce and summarize what was already known from all that work, and how their present study builds on it, in the Abstract and Introduction, which left me wondering for most of the paper why this project was necessary. Eventually, the authors do address most of these points, but not until the end, in the Discussion. Readers who have no familiarity with this literature might read this paper thinking that it's the first paper ever to study topography and evolutionary paths on genotype-phenotype landscapes, which is not true.

There were two points that made this especially confusing for me. First, in order to choose which nucleotides in the binding sites to vary, the authors invoke existing data on the diversity of these sequences (position-weight matrices from RegulonDB). But since those PWMs can imply a genotype-phenotype map themselves, an obvious question I think the authors needed to have answered right away in the Introduction is why it is insufficient for their question. They only make a brief remark much later in the Results that the PWM data is just observed sequence diversity and doesn't directly reflect the regulation strength of every possible TFBS sequence. But that is too subtle in my opinion, and such a critical motivation for their study that it should be a major point in the Introduction.

The second point where the lack of motivation in the Introduction created confusion for me was that they report enormous levels of sign epistasis in their data, to the point where these landscapes look like random uncorrelated landscapes. That was really surprising to me since it contrasts with other empirical landscape data I'm familiar with. It was only in the Discussion that I found some significant explanation of this - namely that this could be a difference between prokaryotic TFBSs, as this paper studies, and the eukaryotic TFBSs that have been the focus of many (almost all?) previous work. If that is in fact the case - that almost all previous studies have focused on eukaryotic TFBSs or other kinds of landscapes, and this is the first to do a systematic test of prokaryotic TFBS, then that should be a clear point made in the Abstract and Introduction. (I find a comparable statement only in the very last paragraph of the Discussion.) If that's the case, then I would also find that point to be a much stronger, more specific conclusion of this paper to emphasize than the more general result of observing epistasis and contingency (as is currently emphasized in the Abstract), which has been discussed in tons of other papers. This raises all sorts of exciting questions for future studies - why do the landscapes of prokaryotic TFBSs differ so dramatically from almost all the other landscapes we've observed in biology? What does that mean for the evolutionary dynamics of these different systems?

(2) I am a bit concerned about the lack of uncertainties incorporated into the results. The authors acknowledge several key limitations of their approach, including the discreteness of the sort-seq bins in determining possible values of regulation strength, the existence of a large number of unsampled sequences in their genotype space, as well as measurement noise in the fluorescence readouts and sequencing. While the authors acknowledge the existence of these factors, I do not see much attempt to actually incorporate the effect of these uncertainties into their conclusions, which I suspect may be important. For example, given the bin size for the fluorescence in sort-seq, how confident are they that every sequence that appears to be a peak is actually a peak? Is it possible that many of the peak sequences have regulation strengths above all their neighbors but within the uncertainty of the fluorescence, making it possible that it's not really a peak? Perhaps such issues would average out and not change the statistical nature of their results, which are not about claiming that specific sequences are peaks, just how many peaks there are. Nevertheless, I think the lack of this robustness analysis makes the results less convincing than they otherwise would be.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The authors aim to investigate the ability of evolution to create strong transcription factor binding sites (TFBSs) de novo in E. coli. They focus on three global transcriptional regulators: CRP, Fis, and IHF, using a massively parallel reporter assay to evaluate the regulatory effects of over 30,000 TFBS variants. By analyzing the resulting genotype-phenotype landscapes, they explore the ruggedness, accessibility, and evolutionary dynamics of regulatory landscapes, providing insights into the evolutionary feasibility of strong gene regulation. Their experiments show that de novo adaptive evolution of new gene regulation is feasible. It is also subject to a blend of chance, historical contingency, and evolutionary biases that favor some peaks and evolutionary paths.

(1) Strengths of the methods and results:

The authors successfully employed a well-designed sort-seq assay combined with high-throughput sequencing to map regulatory landscapes. The experimental design ensures reliable measurement of regulation strengths. Their system accounts for gene expression noise and normalizes measurements using appropriate controls.

Comprehensive Landscape Mapping:<br /> The study examines ~30,000 TFBS variants per transcription factor, providing statistically robust and thorough maps of the regulatory landscapes for CRP, Fis, and IHF. The landscapes are rigorously analyzed for ruggedness (e.g., number of peaks) and epistasis, revealing parallels with theoretical uncorrelated random landscapes.

Evolutionary Dynamics Simulations:<br /> Through simulations of adaptive walks under varying population dynamics, the authors demonstrate that high peaks in regulatory landscapes are accessible despite ruggedness. They identify key evolutionary phenomena, such as contingency (multiple paths to peaks) and biases toward specific evolutionary outcomes.

Biological Relevance and Novelty:<br /> The author's work is novel in focusing on global regulators, which differ from previously studied local regulators (e.g., TetR). They provide compelling evidence that rugged landscapes are navigable, facilitating de novo evolution of regulatory interactions. The comparison of landscapes for CRP, Fis, and IHF underscores shared topographical features, suggesting general principles of global transcriptional regulation in bacteria.

(2) Weaknesses of the methods and results:

Undersampling of Genotype Space:<br /> While the quality filtering of the data ensures robustness, ~40% of the TFBS space remains uncharacterized. The authors acknowledge this limitation but could improve the analysis by employing subsampling or predictive modeling.

Simplified Regulatory Architecture:<br /> The study considers a minimal system of a single TFBS upstream of a reporter gene. While this may have been necessary for clarity, this simplification may not reflect the combinatorial complexity of transcriptional regulation in vivo.

Lack of Experimental Validation of Simulations:<br /> The adaptive walks are based on simulated dynamics rather than experimental evolution. Incorporating in vivo experimental evolution studies would strengthen the conclusions. Although this is a large request for the paper, that would not prevent publication.

Impact on the Field:<br /> This study advances our understanding of adaptive landscapes in gene regulation and offers a critical step toward deciphering how global regulators evolve de novo binding sites. The findings provide foundational insights for synthetic biology, evolutionary genetics, and systems biology by highlighting the evolutionary accessibility of strong regulation in bacteria.

Utility of Methods and Data:<br /> The sort-seq approach, combined with landscape analysis, provides a robust framework that can be extended to other transcription factors and systems. If made publicly available, the study's data and code would be valuable for researchers modeling transcriptional regulation or studying evolutionary dynamics.

Additional Context:<br /> The study builds on a growing body of work exploring regulatory evolution. For instance, recent studies on local regulators like TetR and AraC have revealed high ruggedness and epistasis in TFBS landscapes. This study distinguishes itself by focusing on global regulators, which are more biologically complex and influential in bacterial gene networks. The observed evolutionary contingency aligns with findings in other biological systems, such as protein evolution and RNA folding landscapes, underscoring the generality of these evolutionary principles.

Conclusion:<br /> The authors successfully mapped the genotype-phenotype landscapes for three global regulators and simulated evolutionary dynamics to assess the feasibility of strong TFBS evolution. They convincingly demonstrate that ruggedness and epistasis, while prominent, do not preclude the evolution of strong regulation. Their results support the notion that gene regulation evolves through a blend of chance, contingency, and evolutionary biases.

This paper makes a significant contribution to the understanding of regulatory evolution in bacteria. While minor limitations exist, the authors' methods are robust, and their findings are well-supported. The work will likely be of broad interest to researchers in molecular evolution, synthetic biology, and gene regulation.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Cupollilo et al describes the development, characterization, and application of a novel activity labeling system; fast labelling of engram neurons (FLEN). Several such systems already exist but this study adds additional capability by leveraging an activity marker that is destabilized (and thus temporally active) as well as being driven by the full-length promoter of cFos. The authors demonstrate the activity-dependent induction and time course of expression, first in cultured neurons and then in vivo in hippocampal CA3 neurons after one trial of contextual fear conditioning. In a series of ex vivo experiments, the authors perform patch clamp analysis of labeled neurons to determine if these putative engram neurons differ from non-labelled neurons using both the FLEN system as well as the previously characterized RAM system. Interestingly the early labelled neurons at 3 h post CFC (FLEN+) demonstrated no differences in excitability whereas the RAM-labelled neurons at 24h after CFC had increased excitability. Examination of synaptic properties demonstrated an increase in sEPCS and mEPSC frequencies as well as those for sIPSCs and mIPSCs which was not due to a change in the mossy fiber input to these neurons.

Strengths:

Overall the data is of high quality and the study introduces a new tool while also reassessing some principles of circuit plasticity in the CA3 that have been the focus of prior studies.

Weaknesses:

No major weaknesses were noted.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Cupollilo et al. investigate the properties of hippocampal CA3 neurons that express the immediate early gene cFos in response to a single foot shock. They compare ex-vivo the electrophysiological properties of these "engram neurons" labeled with two different cFos promoter-driven green markers: Their new tool FLEN labels neurons 2-6 h after activity, while RAM contains additional enhancers and peaks considerably later (>24 h). Since the fraction of labeled CA3 cells is comparable with both constructs, it is assumed (but not tested) that they label the same population of activated neurons at different time points. Both FLEN+ and RAM+ neurons in CA3 receive more synaptic inputs compared to non-expressing control neurons, which could be a causal factor for cFos activation, or a very early consequence thereof. Frequency facilitation and E/I ratio of mossy fiber inputs were also tested, but are not different in both cFos+ groups of neurons. One day after foot shock, RAM+ neurons are more excitable than RAM- neurons, suggesting a slow increase in excitability as a major consequence of cFos activation.

Strengths:

The study is conducted to high standards and contributes significantly to our understanding of memory formation and consolidation in the hippocampus. Modifications of intrinsic neuronal properties seem to be more salient than overall changes in the total number of (excitatory and inhibitory) inputs, although a switch in the source of the synaptic inputs would not have been detected by the methods employed in this study

Weaknesses:

With regard to the new viral tool, a direct comparison between the new tool FLEN and existing cFos reporters is missing.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

After mating, male mice undergo a behavioral switch from infanticide to parental behavior (postmating switch). The neural mechanisms underlying this switch are still largely unknown. Studies performed in different mouse strains have also resulted in mixed evidence for whether mating (specifically: ejaculation) itself is sufficient for this switch, or whether subsequent cohabitation with the pregnant female, and parental experience with pups is required. Recent work found that while lesions to the central part of the medial preoptic area (cMPOA) promote infanticidal behavior, lesions to the rhomboid nucleus of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTrh) inhibit infanticide. The current work convincingly adds to this evidence by showing that mating and cohabitation lead to reduced inhibition from Cart-positive medial amygdala neurons onto cMPOA neurons, and that this synaptic change is in fact critical for the postmating switch. Further, the authors demonstrate that parental experience increases inhibitory synaptic transmission onto BSTrh neurons. The male postmating switch thus appears to rely on two sequential stages of synaptic plasticity.

Strengths:

(1) The behavioral characterization is thorough and the authors nicely manage to disentangle the relative contributions of mating, cohabitation, and parental experience to the postmating switch. Their finding of dissociable plasticity mechanisms underlying mating/cohabitation vs pup experience is intriguing.

(2) Most conclusions are based on complementary evidence from different experimental approaches and are compelling.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors do not provide an explicit synthesis/model of the circuit-level changes underlying this switch. For instance, how does cMPOA-to-BSTrh connectivity change in fathers, and how does the necessity of the cMPOA for the exposure/sensitisation effect square with the effect being postsynaptic in the BSTrh?

(2) The presentation of the manuscript (clarity of language, grammar, reporting of stats in figures etc.) needs to be improved.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The present study identifies how mating and pup experience are correlated with differences in inhibitory neurotransmission underlying the promotion of paternal behavior toward pups. The study builds on existing knowledge about the circuit between the medial amygdala, medial preoptic area, and the bed nucleus of stria terminalis to uncover synaptic changes correlated with behavior. The authors find that inhibition from the medial amygdala is decreased in the medial preoptic area and increased in the bed nucleus of stria terminalis to promote paternal behavior in mated males.

Strengths:

The authors use a combination of in vivo activity manipulation and slice electrophysiology to study the role of inhibition in this circuit in dynamic infant-directed behavior induced by mating.

Weaknesses:

(1) Some technical and methodological details are incomplete or missing for interpretation of the significance of the findings. Statistical details are also left out.

(2) The rationale for using Cartpt as a marker is not fully explained. This marker has activity-dependent expression and this possibility is not explored experimentally--for example, could exposure to objects or pups change expression (or the number of cells expressing) cartpt alone?

(3) The cfos experiment is quantified by exposing a male to a pup inside a tea ball. Therefore, it is unclear how the male was classified as infanticidal or parental based on the available criteria provided in the methods section.

(4) There is no information about inclusion/exclusion criteria for chemical and viral experiments. Specifically, there is no information provided about the validation of the lesion experiment--how large were the lesions? Is there concern about leakage of the chemical into the recorded region (MPOA and BNST are adjacent).

(5) The authors do not provide information about how long rAAV is allowed to express before quantifying retrograde transport.

(6) For statistics, the authors do not provide information distinguishing the main effects from multiple comparisons post hoc testing for the ANOVA analyses.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Ito et al. investigate the role of synaptic plasticity in the medial preoptic area (MPOA) pathway of male mice and its involvement in transitions from infanticidal aggression to parental behavior. Using optogenetics, whole-cell patch-clamp recordings, and behavioral assays, they demonstrate that inhibitory synaptic transmission from the posterior-dorsal medial amygdala (MePD) to the central MPOA (cMPOA) decreases following mating and cohabitation with pregnant females. This synaptic disinhibition is correlated with a reduction in aggressive behavior toward pups. They further show that paternal experience induces enhanced inhibitory transmission in the rhomboid nucleus of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTrh), downstream of the MPOA, through postsynaptic mechanisms. These findings suggest a circuit-based model where social experiences and mating induce synaptic changes in the Me-cMPOA-BSTrh pathway, mediating the transition to parental behavior.

The conclusions of this paper are largely supported by the data, but several methodological and conceptual aspects require clarification or additional experiments.

(1) When evaluating the Me Cartpt-expressing neuron projection to the cMPOA, the authors compared excitatory postsynaptic currents (EPSCs) and inhibitory postsynaptic currents (IPSCs). However, the standard procedure for isolating these currents is to hold the membrane potential at the reversal potential for inhibitory or excitatory currents, respectively. The authors appear not to have followed this procedure, making it unclear how EPSCs and IPSCs were calculated. This requires clarification to ensure the validity of their reported E/I balance changes.

(2) The authors chose to assess parental behavior over four consecutive days. It is unclear why this specific timeframe was selected. A justification for this choice would strengthen the interpretation of the behavioral data.

(3) The experimental design in Figure 5, where the authors lesioned the entire cMPOA to assess its role in BSTrh inhibition, presents several limitations: First, the effects on BSTrh activity could result from indirect circuit alterations rather than direct cMPOA projections. The current lesion approach cannot disentangle these possibilities. Second, the cMPOA is a heterogeneous region containing diverse neuronal subtypes. Full lesions prevent the differentiation of the roles played by distinct populations within this region. Third, lesion specificity is questionable, as some lesions extended beyond the cMPOA boundaries (Figure S5). This overextension complicates the interpretation of the results and requires tighter control.

(4) In Figure 3, the authors show that optogenetic inhibition of Me projections to the cMPOA modifies the frequency of spontaneous inhibitory postsynaptic currents (sIPSCs). However, the proposed mechanism that this modulation reflects inter-neuronal network activity within the cMPOA lacks sufficient experimental validation. Additional experiments assessing circuit-level interactions could substantiate these claims.

(5) While the paper highlights synaptic changes in the cMPOA, it does not establish a direct relationship between these changes and the social experience. How do mating and cohabitation with females impact this pathway and modulate synaptic strength? The discussion could benefit from integrating these factors into their proposed model.

Overall, the paper offers valuable insights into the neural circuitry underlying male parental behavior, particularly the synaptic dynamics of the Me-cMPOA-BSTrh pathway. However, addressing these methodological and conceptual limitations would significantly enhance the clarity and impact of the work.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The propagation of electrical signals within neuronal circuits is tightly regulated by the physical and molecular properties of neurons. Since neurons vary in size across species, the question arises whether propagation speed also varies to compensate for it. The present article compares numerous speed-related properties in human and rat neurons. They found that the larger size of human neurons seems to be compensated by a faster propagation within dendrites but not axons of these neurons. The faster dendritic signal propagation was found to arise from wider dendritic diameters and greater conductance load in human neurons. In addition, the article provides a careful characterization of human dendrites and axons, as the field has only recently begun to characterize post-operative human cells. There are only a few studies reporting dendritic properties and these are not all consistent, hence there is added value of reporting these findings, particularly given that the characterization is condensed in a compartmental model.

Strengths

The study was performed with great care using standard techniques in slice electrophysiology (pharmacological manipulation with somatic patch-clamp) as well as some challenging ones (axonal and dendritic patch-clamp). Modeling was used to parse out the role of different features in regulating dendritic propagation speed. The finding that propagation speed varies across species is novel as previous studies did not find a large change in membrane time constant nor axonal diameters (a significant parameter affecting speed). A number of possible, yet less likely factors were carefully tested (Ih, membrane capacitance). The main features outlined here are well known to regulate speed in neuronal processes. The modeling was also carefully done to verify that the magnitude of the effects is consistent with the difference in biophysical properties. Hence, the findings appear very solid to me.

Weaknesses

The role of diameter in regulating propagation speed is well known in the axon literature.

Comment on the revised version: the authors have now made clearer that the role of diameter was well known in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper, Oláh and colleagues introduce new research data on the cellular and biophysical elements involved in transmission within the pyramidal circuits of the human neocortex. They gathered a comprehensive set of patch-clamp recordings from human and rat pyramidal neurons to compare how the temporal aspect of neuronal processing is maintained in the larger human neocortex. A range of experimental techniques have been used, including two-photon guided dual whole-cell recordings, electron microscopy, complemented by theoretical and computational methods.

The authors find that synaptically connected pyramidal neurons within the human neocortex have longer intercellular path lengths. They go on to show that the short soma to soma latencies is not due to propagation velocity along the axon but instead reflects a higher propagation speed of synaptic potentials from dendrite to soma. Next, in a series of extensive computational modeling studies focusing on the synaptic potentials, the authors show that the shorter latency may be explained by larger diameters, affecting the cable properties and resulting is relatively faster propagation of EPSPs in the human neuron. The manuscript is well-written, and the physiological experiments and in-depth theoretical steps for the simulations are clear. Whether passive cable properties of the dendrites alone are responsible for higher velocities remains to be further investigated. Based on the present data the contribution of active membrane properties cannot be excluded.

Strengths:

The authors used complex 2P-guided dual whole-cell recordings in human neurons. In combination with detailed reconstructions, these approaches represent the next steps in unravelling the information processing in human circuits.

The computational modelling and cable theory application to the experimentally constrained simulations provides an integrated view of the passive membrane properties of human neurons.

Weaknesses:

Whether the cable properties alone are the main explanation for speeding the electrical signaling in human pyramidal neurons deserves further studies.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study indicates that connections across human cortical pyramidal cells have identical latencies despite a larger mean dendritic and axonal length between somas in human cortex. A precise demonstration combining detailed electrophysiology and modeling, indicates that this property is due to faster propagation of signals in proximal human dendrites. This faster propagation is itself due to a slightly thicker dendrite, to a larger capacitive load, and to stronger hyperpolarizing currents. Hence, the biophysical properties of human pyramidal cells are adapted such that they do not compromise information transfer speed.

Strengths:

The manuscript is clear and very detailed. The authors have experimentally verified a large number of aspects that could affect propagation speed and have pinpointed the most important one. This paper provides an excellent comparision of biophysical properties between rat and human pyramidal cells. Thanks to this approach a comprehensive description of the mechanisms underlying the acceleration of propagation in human dendrite is provided.

Weaknesses:

The weaknesses I had identified have been addressed by the authors.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Davenport et al have investigated how a masculinizing dose of estrogen changes the transcriptomes of several key song nuclei song and adjacent brain areas in juvenile zebra finches of both sexes. Only male zebra finches sing, learn song, and normally have a fully developed song control circuitry, so the study was aimed at further understanding how genetic and hormonal factors contribute to the dimorphism in song behavior and related brain circuitry in this species. Using WGCNA and follow-up correlations to re-analyze published transcriptome datasets, the authors provide evidence that the main variance of several identified gene co-expression modules significantly correlates with one or some of the factors examined, including sex, estrogen treatment, regional neuroanatomy, chromosomal placement, or vocal learning, noting that the latter is largely based on inference due to expression in song control nuclei.

Strengths:

Among the main strengths are the thorough gene co-expression module and correlation analyses, and the inclusion of both song nuclei and adjacent areas, the latter serving as sort of controls for areas that are not dimorphic and likely broadly present in birds in general. In situ hybridization data discussed in a previous publication (Choe et al., Hormones and Behavior, 2021) provides some support for the neuroanatomical specializations of gene expression. It is also significant that the transcriptome re-analysis was performed with an improved genome assembly that also includes the sex chromosomes, thus expanding the Z/W chromosome gene analyses in Friedrich et al, Cell Reports, 2022. The most relevant finding is arguably the identification of some modules where gene expression variation within song nuclei correlates with hormonal effects and/or gene location on sex chromosomes, which are present at different dosages between sexes. Sex differences in gene expression in areas that are not song nuclei may also bring insights into functions other than song behavior or vocal learning. The study also shows how a published RNA-seq dataset can be reanalyzed in novel and informative ways.

Weaknesses:

The validation of the inferred direction of regulation in the identified co-expression modules is limited to the in situ data mentioned above. Further evidence that representative genes in the main modules differ in expression when comparing sexes or E2- vs VEH-treated tissues using independent samples and/or methods would provide further validation and enhance rigor. Most importantly, E2 is known to exert various actions on brain physiology and neuronal function. Because there was no manipulation of candidate genes, nor assessment/manipulation of vocal behavior or vocal learning, an involvement of the identified candidate genes in setting up the sexual dimorphism of the song system or song behavior was not directly tested in this study. For the latter reason, the implication of the Title (..."gene expression associated with vocal learning...") is not well supported. While novel insights were gained into brain expression of Z chromosome genes, it cannot be excluded that the higher male expression of some Z genes may not affect brain cell function and thus may not require active compensation (as discussed for nucleus RA in Friedrich et al, Cell Reports, 2022).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors provide an open-source graphic user interface (GUI) called Heron, implemented in Python, that is designed to help experimentalists to:

(1) Design experimental pipelines and implement them in a way that is closely aligned with their mental schemata of the experiments<br /> (2) Execute and control the experimental pipelines with numerous interconnected hardware and software on a network.

The former is achieved by representing an experimental pipeline using a Knowledge Graph and visually representing this graph in the GUI. The latter is accomplished by using an actor model to govern the interaction among interconnected nodes through messaging, implemented using ZeroMQ. The nodes themselves execute user-supplied code in, but not limited to, Python.

Using three showcases of behavioral experiments on rats, the authors highlighted four benefits of their software design:

(1) The knowledge graph serves as a self-documentation of the logic of the experiment, enhancing the readability and reproducibility of the experiment,<br /> (2) The experiment can be executed in a distributed fashion across multiple machines that each has different operating system or computing environment, such that the experiment can take advantage of hardware that sometimes can only work on a specific computer/OS, a commonly seen issue nowadays,<br /> (3) The users supply their own Python code for node execution that is supposed to be more friendly to those who do not have a strong programming background,<br /> (4) The GUI can also be used as an experiment control panel for users to control/update parameters on the fly.

Strengths:

(1) The software is light-weight and open-source, provides a clean and easy-to-use GUI,<br /> (2) The software answers the need of experimentalists, particularly in the field of behavioral science, to deal with the diversity of hardware that becomes restricted to run on dedicated systems. It can also be widely adopted in many other experimental settings.<br /> (3) The software has a solid design that seems to be functionally reliable and useful under many conditions, demonstrated by a number of sophisticated experimental setups.<br /> (4) The software is well documented. The authors pay special attention to documenting the usage of the software and setting up experiments using this software.

Comments on revisions: The authors have addressed my concerns from the initial review.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Using in vivo fiber-photometry the authors first establish that DA release when contacting their partner mouse increases with days of cohabitation while this increase is not observed when contacting a stranger mouse. Similar effects are found in D1-MSNs and D2-MSNs with the D1-MSN responses increasing and D2-MSN responses decreasing with days of cohabitation. They then use slice physiology to identify underlying plasticity/adaptation mechanisms that could contribute to the changes in D1/D2-MSN responses. Last, to address causality the authors use chemogenetic tools to selectively inhibit or activate NAc shell D1 or D2 neurons that project to the ventral pallidum. They found that D2 inhibition facilitates bond formation while D2 excitation inhibits bond formation. In contrast, both D1-MSN activation and inhibition inhibits bond formation.

Strengths:

The strength of the manuscript lies in combining in vivo physiology to demonstrate circuit engagement and chemogenetic manipulation studies to address circuit involvement in pair bond formation in a monogamous vole.

Weaknesses:

Weaknesses include that a large set of experiments within the manuscript are dependent on using short promoters for D1 and D2 receptors in viral vectors. As the authors acknowledge this approach can lead to ectopic expression and the presented immunohistochemistry supports this notion. It seems to me that the presented quantification underestimates the degree of ectopic expression that is observed by eye when looking at the presented immunohistochemistry. However, given that Cre transgenic animals are not available for Microtus mandarinus and given the distinct physiological and behavioral outcomes when imaging and manipulating both viral-targeted populations this concern is minor.

The slice physiology experiments provide some interesting outcomes but it is unclear how they can be linked to the in vivo physiological outcomes and some of the outcomes don't match intuitively (e.g. cohabitation enhances excitatory/inhibitory balance in D2-MSNs but the degree of contact-induced inhibition is enhanced in D2-MSN).

One interesting finding is that the relationship between D2-MSN and pair bond formation is quite clear (inhibition facilitates while excitation inhibits pair bond formation). In contrast, the role of D1-MSNs is more complicated since both excitation and inhibition disrupts pair bond formation. This is not convincingly discussed.

It seemed a missed opportunity that physiological read out is limited to males. I understand though that adding females may be beyond the scope of this manuscript.

Comments on revised version:

The authors addressed most of my comments, some would still need to be addressed.

(1) Previous comment: "The authors do not use an isosbestic control wavelength in photometry experiments, although they do use EGFP control mice which show no effects of these interventions, a within-subject control such as an isosbestic excitation wavelength could give more confidence in these data and rule out motion artefacts within subjects."

The authors should include a paragraph in the discussion addressing the limitations of not using an internal control for the fiberphotometric measurements.

(2) Previous Comment: The slice physiology experiments provide some interesting outcomes but it is unclear how they can be linked to the in vivo physiological outcomes and some of the outcomes don't match intuitively (e.g. cohabitation enhances excitatory/inhibitory balance in D2-MSNs but the degree of contact-induced inhibition is enhanced in D2-MSN).

My comment may not have been clear and the response didn't address my comment. What is missing in the discussion is an explanation of why a relative increase in excitation of D2-MSNs in the slice (Fig. 4J) is associated with an increased inhibition in vivo (Fig. 2H)?

(3) Previous Comment: One interesting finding is that the relationship between D2-MSN and pair bond formation is quite clear (inhibition facilitates while excitation inhibits pair bond formation). In contrast, the role of D1-MSNs is more complicated since both excitation and inhibition disrupt pair bond formation. This is not convincingly discussed.

Similarly, here the response provided does not address my question. Please focus on discussing why both excitation and inhibition of D1-MSNs can disrupt pair bond formation (Figure 7).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript is evaluating changes in dopamine signaling in the nucleus accumbens following pair bonding and exposure to various stimuli in mandarin voles. In addition, the authors present chemogenetic data which demonstrates excitation and inhibition of D1 and D2 MSN affect pair bond formation.

Strengths:

The experimental designs are strong. The approaches are innovative and use cutting-edge methods. The manuscript is well written.

Comments on revised version:

I appreciate the efforts by the authors to address many of my previous comments. The issues that remain are those associated with the statistics. It seems that not all statistical analyses were performed with the correct test. For example, the photometry data comparing emissions during partner vs stranger investigation over time would be best performed as a two-way ANOVA with odor type and time being separate variables. Also, there are paired t-tests being performed by calculating an average deltaF/F during the 4 second window following the being of a behavioral event. I think an area-under-the-curve calculation of these events would better capture the fluorescent emissions of these events as an index. Details in the Result describing the data being analyzed via ANOVA vs t-tests when reporting the results would be useful for the reviewer to understand each analysis.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The authors demonstrated that NINJ1 promotes TF-positive MV release during pyroptosis and thereby triggers coagulation. Coagulation is one of the risk factors that can cause secondary complications in various inflammatory diseases, making it a highly important therapeutic target in clinical treatment. This paper effectively explains the connection between pyroptosis and MV release with Ninj1, which is a significant strength. It provides valuable insight into the potential of targeting Ninj1 as a therapeutic strategy.

Although the advances in this paper are valuable, several aspects need to be clarified. Some comments are discussed below.

(1) Since it is not Ninj1 directly regulating coagulation but rather the MV released by Ninj1 playing a role, the title should include that. The current title makes it seem like Ninj1 directly regulates inflammation and coagulation. It would be better to revise the title.

(2) Ninj1 is known to be an induced protein that is barely expressed in normal conditions. As you showed in "Fig1G" data, control samples showed no detection of Ninj1. However, in "Figure S1", all tissues (liver, lung, kidney and spleen) expressed Ninj1 protein. If the authors stimulated the mice with fla injection, it should be mentioned in the figure legend.

(3) In "Fig3A", the Ninj1 protein expression was increased in the control of BMDM +/- cell lysate rather than fla stimulation. However, in MV, Ninj1 was not detected at all in +/- control but was only observed with Fla injection. The authors need to provide an explanation for this observation. Additionally, looking at the MV β-actin lane, the band thicknesses appear to be very different between groups. It seems necessary to equalize the protein amounts. If that is difficult, at least between the +/+ and +/- controls.

(4) Since the authors focused Ninj1-dependent microvesicle (MV) release, they need to show MV characterizations (EM, NTA, Western for MV markers, etc...).

(5) To clarify whether Ninj1-dependent MV induces coagulation, the authors need to determine whether platelet aggregation is reduced with isolated +/- MVs compared to +/+ MVs.

(6) Even with the authors well established experiments with haploid mice, it is a critical limitation of this paper. To improve the quality of this paper, the authors should consider confirming the findings using mouse macrophage cell lines, such as generating Ninj1-/- Raw264.7 cell lines, to examine the homozygous effect.

(7) There was a paper reported in 2023 (Zhou, X. et al., NINJ1 Regulates Platelet Activation and PANoptosis in Septic Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023) that revealed the relationship between Ninj1 and coagulation. According to this paper, inhibition of Ninj1 in platelets prevents pyroptosis, leading to reduced platelet activation and, consequently, the suppression of thrombosis. How about the activation of platelets in Ninj1 +/- mice? The author should add this paper in the reference section and discuss the platelet functions in their mice.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors main goal is to understand the mechanism by which pyroptosis (through the formation of Gasdermin D (GSDMD) pores in the plasma membrane) contributes to increased release of procoagulant Tissue Factor-containing microvesicles (MV). Their previous data demonstrate that GSDMD is critical for the release of MV that contains Tissue Factor (TF), thus making a link between pyroptosis and hypercoagulation. Given the recent identification of NINJ1 being responsible for plasma membrane rupture (Kayagaki et al. Nature 2011), the authors wanted to determine if NINJ1 is responsible for TF-containing MV release. Given the constitutive ninj1 KO mouse leads to partial embryonic lethality, the authors decide to use a heterozygous ninj1 KO mouse (ninj1+/-), and demonstrate that Ninj1 plays a role in release of TF-containing MV.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Golamalamdari, van Schaik, Wang, Kumar Zhang, Zhang and colleagues study interactions between the speckle, nucleolus and lamina in multiple cell types (K562, H1, HCT116 and HFF). Their datasets define how interactions between the genome and the different nuclear landmarks relate to each other and change across cell types. They also identify how these relationships change in K562 cells in which LBR and LMNA are knocked out.

Strengths:

Overall, there are a number of datasets that are provided, and several "integrative" analyses performed. This is a major strength of the paper, and I imagine the datasets will be of use to the community to further probed and the relationships elucidated here further studied. An especially interesting result was that specific genomic regions (relative to their association with the speckle, lamina, and other molecular characteristics) segregate relative to the equatorial plane of the cell.

Weaknesses:

The experiments are primarily descriptive, and the cause-and-effect relationships are limited (though the authors do study the role of LMNA/LBR knockdown with their technologies).

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The drug Ivermectin is used to effectively treat a variety of worm parasites in the world, however resistance to Ivermectin poses a rising challenge for this treatment strategy. In this study, the authors found that loss of the E3 ubiquitin ligase UBR-1 in the worm C. elegans results in resistance to Ivermectin. In particular, the authors found that ubr-1 mutants are resistant to the effects of Ivermectin on worm viability, body size, pharyngeal pumping and locomotion. The authors previously showed that loss of UBR-1 disrupts homeostasis of the amino acid and neurotransmitter glutamate resulting in increased levels of glutamate in C. elegans. Here, the authors found that the sensitivity of ubr-1 mutants to Ivermectin can be restored if glutamate levels are reduced using a variety of different methods. Conversely, treating worms with exogenous glutamate to increase glutamate levels also results in resistance to Ivermectin supporting the idea that increased glutamate promotes resistance to Ivermectin. The authors found that the primary known targets of Ivermectin, glutamate-gated chloride channels (GluCls), are downregulated in ubr-1 mutants providing a plausible mechanism for why ubr-1 mutants are resistant to Ivermectin. Although it is clear that loss of GluCls can lead to resistance to Ivermectin, this study suggests that one potential mechanism to decrease GluCl expression is via disruption of glutamate homeostasis that leads to increased glutamate. This study suggests that if parasitic worms become resistant to Ivermectin due to increased glutamate, their sensitivity to Ivermectin could be restored by reducing glutamate levels using drugs such as Ceftriaxone in a combination drug treatment strategy.

Strengths:

- The use of multiple independent assays (i.e., viability, body size, pharyngeal pumping, locomotion and serotonin-stimulated pharyngeal muscle activity) to monitor the effects of Ivermectin<br /> - The use of multiple independent approaches (got-1, eat-4, ceftriaxone drug, exogenous glutamate treatment) to alter glutamate levels to support the conclusion that increased glutamate in ubr-1 mutants contributes to Ivermectin resistance

Weaknesses:

- The primary target of Ivermectin is GluCls so it is not surprising that alteration of GluCl expression or function would lead to Ivermectin resistance<br /> - It remains to be seen what percent of Ivermectin resistant parasites in the wild have disrupted glutamate homeostasis as opposed to mutations that more directly decrease GluCl expression or function.

Comments on revisions: All my concerns have been addressed by the authors.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors provide a very thorough investigation on the role of UBR-1 in anthelmintic resistance using the non-parasitic nematode, C. elegans. Anthelmintic resistance to macrocyclic lactones is a major problem in veterinary medicine and likely just a matter of time until resistance emerges in human parasites too. Therefore, this study providing novel insight into the mechanisms of ivermectin resistance is particularly important and significant.

Strengths:

The authors use very diverse technologies (behavior, genetics, pharmacology, genetically encoded reporters) to dissect the role of UBR-1 in ivermectin resistance. Deploying such a comprehensive suite of tools and approaches provides exceptional insight into the mechanism of how UBR-1 functions in terms of ivermectin resistance.

Weaknesses:

I do not see any major weaknesses in this study. My only concern is whether the observations made by the authors would translate to any of the important parasitic helminths in which resistance has naturally emerged in the field. This is always a concern when leveraging a non-parasitic nematode to shed light on a potential mechanism of resistance of parasitic nematodes, and I understand that it is likely beyond the scope of this paper to test some of their results in parasitic nematodes.

Comments on revisions: The authors have now addressed all my concerns.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Li et al propose to better understand the mechanisms of drug resistance in nematode parasites by studying mutants of the model roundworm C. elegans that are resistant to the deworming drug ivermectin. They provide compelling evidence that loss-of-function mutations in the E3 ubiquitin ligase encoded by the UBR-1 gene make worms resistant to the effects of ivermectin (and related compounds) on viability, body size, pharyngeal pumping rate, and locomotion and that these mutant phenotypes are rescued by a UBR-1 transgene. They propose that the mechanism is resistance is indirect, via the effects of UBR-1 on glutamate production. They show mutations (vesicular glutamate transporter eat-4, glutamate synthase got-1) and drugs (glutamate, glutamate uptake enhancer ceftriaxone) affecting glutamate metabolism/transport modulate sensitivity to ivermectin in wild type and ubr-1 mutants. The data are generally consistent with greater glutamate tone equating to ivermectin resistance. Finally, they show that manipulations that are expected to increase glutamate tone appear to reduce expression of the targets of ivermectin, the glutamate-gated chloride channels, which is known to increase resistance.

There is a need for genetic markers of ivermectin resistance in livestock parasites that can be used to better track resistance and to tailor drug treatment. The discovery of UBR-1 as a resistance gene in C. elegans will provide a candidate marker that can be followed up in parasites. The data suggest Ceftriaxone would be a candidate compound to reverse resistance.

Strengths:

The strength of the study is the thoroughness of the analysis and the quality of the data. There can be little doubt that ubr-1 mutations do indeed confer ivermectin resistance. The use of both rescue constructs and RNAi to validate mutant phenotypes is notable. Further, the variety of manipulations they use to affect glutamate metabolism/transport makes a compelling argument for some kind of role for glutamate in resistance.

Weaknesses:

The use of single ivermectin dose assays can be misleading. A response change at a single dose shows that the dose-response curve has shifted, but the response is not linear with dose, so the degree of that shift may be difficult to discern and may result from a change in slope but not EC50.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Joshua G. Medina-Feliciano et al. investigated the single-cell transcriptomic profile of holoturian regenerating intestine following evisceration, a process used to expel their viscera in response to predation. Using single-cell RNA-Sequencing and standard analysis such as "Find cluster markers", "Enrichment analysis of Gene Ontology" and "RNA velocity", they identify 13 cell clusters and their potential cell identity. Based on bioinformatic analysis they identified potentially proliferating clusters and potential trajectories of cell differentiation. This manuscript represents a useful dataset that can provide candidate cell types and cell markers for more in-depth functional analysis of the holoturian intestine regeneration.

The conclusions of this paper are supported only by bioinformatic analyses since the in vivo validation through HCR is not sufficient to support them.

Strengths:

- The Authors are providing a single-cell dataset obtained from sea cucumbers regenerating their intestines. This represents the first fundamental step to an unbiased approach to better understand this regeneration process and the cellular dynamics taking part in it.

- The Authors run all the standard analyses providing the reader with a well digested set of information about cell clusters, potential cell types, potential functions and potential cell differentiation trajectories.

Weaknesses:

- The Authors frequently report the percentage of cells with a specific feature (either labelled or expressing a certain gene or belonging to a certain cluster). This number can be misleading since that is calculated after cell dissociation and additional procedures (such as staining or sequencing and dataset cleanup) that can heavily bias the ratio between cell types. Similarly, the Authors cannot compare cell percentage between anlage and mesentery samples since that can be affected by technical aspects related to cell dissociation, tissue composition and sequencing depth.

- The Authors did not validate all the clusters.

- There is no validation of the trajectory analysis and there is no validation of the proliferating cluster with H3P or EdU co-labeling.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This research offers a comprehensive analysis of the regenerative process in sea cucumbers and builds upon decades of previous research. The approach involves a detailed examination using single-cell sequencing, making it a crucial reference paper while shedding new light on regeneration in this organism.

Strengths:

Detailed analysis of single-cell sequencing data and high-quality RNA localization images provide significant new insights into regeneration in sea cucumbers and, more broadly, in animals. Identifying a proliferating cluster of cells is very interesting and may open avenues to identify the cell lineage history and deeper molecular properties of the cells that regenerate the intestine.

Weaknesses:

The spatial context of the RNA localization images is challenging to interpret in this spatially complex tissue organization. Although the authors have taken care to perform RNA localization staining, it is still challenging to relate these data to their schematic model. This is only a minor weakness that will almost certainly be clarified by future work from the authors as they follow up on findings.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have done a good job at creating a "resource" paper for the study of gut regeneration in sea cucumbers. They present a single-cell RNAseq atlas for the reconstitution of Holothuria glaberrima gut following self-evisceration in response to a potassium chloride injection. The authors provide data characterizing cellular populations and precursors of the regenerating anlage at 9 days post evisceration. As a "Tools and Resources" contribution to eLife, this work, with some revisions, could be appropriate. It will be impactful in the fields of regeneration, particularly in invertebrates, but also in comparative studies in other species, including evolutionary studies. Some of these comparative studies could extend to vertebrates and could therefore impact regenerative medicine in the future.

Strengths:

• Novel and useful information for a model organism and question for which this type of data has not yet been reported<br /> • Single-cell gene expression data will be valuable for developing testable hypotheses in the future<br /> • Marker genes for cell types provided to the field<br /> • Interesting predictions about possible lineage relationships between cells during sea cucumber gut regeneration<br /> • Authors have done a good job in the revision of making sure not to overstate the lineage claims in absence of definitive lineage-tracing experiments<br /> • Authors have improved the figures and the overall readability of the figures and text

Specific questions:

- Is there any way to systematically compare these cells to evolutionarily-diverged cells in distant relatives to sea cucumbers? Or even on a case-by-case basis? For example, is there evidence for any of these transitory cell types to have correlate(s) in vertebrate gut regeneration?

• Authors acknowledged this would be interesting and important, but they say in the response document this is outside the scope of the current manuscript and more data would be needed to do this well.

- Line 808: The authors may make a more accurate conclusion by saying that the characteristics are similar to blastemas or behaves like a blastema rather than it is blastema. There is ambiguity about the meaning of this term in the field, but most researchers seem to currently have in mind that the "blastema" definitions includes a discrete spatial organization of cells, and here these cells are much more spread out. This could be a good opportunity for the authors to engage in this dialogue, perhaps parsing out the nuances of what a "blastema" is, what the term has traditionally referred to, and how we might consider updating this term or at least re-framing the terminology to be inclusive of functions that "blastemas" have traditionally had in the literature and how they may be dispersed over geographical space in an organism more so than the more rigid, geographically-restricted definition many researchers have in mind. However, if the authors choose to elaborate on these issues, those elaborations do belong in the discussion, and the more provisional terminology we mention here could be used throughout the paper until that element of the revised discussion is presented. We would welcome the authors to do this as a way to point the field in this direction as this is also how we view the matter. For example, some of the genes whose expression has been observed to be enriched following removal of brain tissue in axolotls (such as kazald2, Lust et al.), are also upregulated in traditional blastemas, for instance, in the limb, but we appreciate that the expression domain may not be as localized as in a limb blastema. Additionally, since there is now evidence that some aspects of progenitor cell activation even in limb regeneration extend far beyond the local site of amputation injury (Johnson et al., Payzin-Dogru et al.), there is an opportunity to connect the dots and make the claim that there could be more dispersion of "blastema function" than previously appreciated in the field. Diving a bit more into these nuances may also enable a better conceptual framework of how blastema function may evolve across vast evolutionary time and between different injury contexts in super-regenerative organisms.

• Authors addressed this comment and agree it is interesting, but given how much territory they had to cover and space limitations, they will save this type of discussion and comparative theoretical work for the future.

Overall, the manuscript is much improved.

Joint Public Review:

Páramo et al. used 3D geometric morphometric analyses of the articulated femur, tibia, and fibula of 17 macronarian taxa (known to preserve these three skeletal elements) to investigate morphological changes that occurred in the hind limb through the evolutionary history of this sauropod clade. A principal components analysis was completed to understand the distribution of the morphological variation. A supertree was constructed to place evolutionary trends in morphological variation into phylogenetic context, and hind limb centroid size was used to investigate potential relationships between skeletal anatomy and gigantism. The majority of the results did not yield statistically significant differences, but they did identify interesting shape-change trends, especially within subclades of Titanosauria. Many previous studies have attempted to elucidate a link between wide-gauge posture and gigantism, which in this study Páramo et al. investigate among several titanosaurian subclades. They propose that morphologies associated with wide-gauge posture arose in parallel with increasing body size among basal members of Macronaria and that this connection became less significant once wide-gauge posture was acquired within Titanosauria. The authors also suggest that other biomechanical factors influenced the independent evolution of subclades within Titanosauria and that these influences resulted in instances of convergent evolution. Therefore, they infer that, overall, wide-gauge posture was not significantly correlated with gigantism, though some morphological aspects of hind limb skeletal anatomy appear to have been associated with gigantism. Their work also supports previous findings of a decrease in body size within Titanosauriformes (which they found to be not significant with shape variables but significant with Pagel's lambda). Collectively, their results support and build on previous work to elucidate more specifics on the evolution of this enigmatic clade. Further study will show if their hypotheses stand or if the inclusion of additional specimens and taxa yields alternative results.

[Editors' note: One of the original reviewers, Reviewer 2, reviewed this revised version of the manuscript; they reported satisfaction with the changes made by the authors in response to the original reviewer comments.]

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this paper, the authors had 2 aims:

(1) Measure macaques' aversion to sand and see if its' removal is intentional, as it likely in an unpleasurable sensation that causes tooth damage.

(2) Show that or see if monkeys engage in suboptimal behavior by cleaning foods beyond the point of diminishing returns, and see if this was related to individual traits such as sex and rank, and behavioral technique.

They attempted to achieve these aims through a combination of geochemical analysis of sand, field experiments, and comparing predictions to an analytical model.

The authors' conclusions were that they verified a long-standing assumption that monkeys have an aversion to sand as it contains many potentially damaging fine grained silicates, and that removing it via brushing or washing is intentional.

They also concluded that monkeys will clean food for longer than is necessary, i.e. beyond the point of diminishing returns, and that this is rank-dependent.

High and low-ranking monkeys tended not to wash their food, but instead over-brushed it, potentially to minimize handling time and maximize caloric intake, despite the long-term cumulative costs of sand.

This was interpreted through the *disposable soma hypothesis*, where dominants maximize immediate needs to maintain rank and increase reproductive success at the potential expense of long-term health and survival.

# Strengths

The field experiment seemed well designed, and their quantification of the physical and mineral properties of quartz particles (relative to human detection thresholds) seemed good relative to their feret diameter and particle circularity (to a reviewer that is not an expert in sand). The *Rank Determination* and *Measuring Sand* sections were clear.

In achieving Aim 1, the authors validated a commonly interpreted, but unmeasured function, of macaque and primate behavior-- a key study/finding in primate food processing and cultural transmission research.

I commend their approach in trying to develop a quantitative model to generate predictions to compare to empirical data for their second aim.<br /> This is something others should strive for.

I really appreciated the historical context of this paper in the introduction and found it very enjoyable and easy to read.

I do think that interpreting these results in the context of the *disposable soma hypothesis* and the potential implications in the *paleolithic matters* section about interpreting dental wear in the fossil record are worthwhile.

# Weaknesses

Several of my concerns in an earlier review were addressed in revision, which I appreciate. One thing I think could strengthen this paper is a clearer link to social foraging theory to explore heterogeneity in handling times (as the currency they are trying to maximize).

I am satisfied with the improvements in statistics and that I can access the code and data.

I am still struck that there was an analysis of only trials where <3 individuals are present. If rank was important, I would imagine that behavior might be different in social contexts when theft, scrounging, policing, aggression, or other distractions might occur-- where rank would have effects on foraging behavior. Maybe lower rankers prioritize rapid food intake then. If rank should be related to investment in this behavior, we might expect this to be magnified (or different) in social contexts where it would affect foraging. It might just be that the data was too hard to score or process in those settings, or the analysis was limited. Additionally, I think that more robust metrics of rank from more densely sampled focal follow data would be a better measure, but I acknowledge the limitations in getting the ideal . Since rank is central to the interpretation of these results, I think that reduced social contexts in which rank was analyzed and the robustness of the data from which rank was calculated and analyzed are the main weaknesses of the evidence presented in this paper.

While some of the boxes about raccoons and Concorde Fallacy were interesting, they did feel like a bit of a distraction from the main message in the paper.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This revised paper provides evidence that food washing and brushing in wild long-tailed macaques are deliberate behaviors to remove sand that can damage tooth enamel. The demonstration of the immediate functional importance of these behaviors is nicely done, and there is some interesting initial evidence that macaques differ systematically in their investment in food cleaning based on dominance rank.

The authors interpret this evidence as support for "disposable soma" effects: that reduced time and effort invested food washing in high-ranking individuals is attributable to prioritizing reproductive effort. Given that the analysis is on a single group with no longitudinal data, there are no fitness measures or fitness proxies, the energetic constraints faced by this population are not clear, and both sexes are combined into a single dominance hierarchy (trade-offs between different forms of investment are typically thought to differ between sexes), this conclusion is premature, although an interesting foundation for future studies.

More generally, the results directly supported by the data collection and analysis (grit on Koshima likely damages macaque teeth; processing food helps mitigate the damage; there is some interesting interindividual variation in food processing time, and that time is not always in line with what appears to be optimal) tend to be combined with interpretation that is much more speculative (e.g., the effect sizes observed are consequential for fitness; high-ranking animals are making choices that optimize their long-term fitness at the expense of their soma). This is in part a stylistic choice but can have the effect of drawing attention away from the stronger empirical findings and/or be misleading. Similarly, although I appreciate that the authors were trying to interpret and respond to previous feedback from reviewers, I found the addition of the box text on the raccoon nomenclature and on irrational behavior and the Concorde effect distracting (more intro-textbook style than journal article style).

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In their manuscript, Gomez-Frittelli and colleagues characterize the expression of cadherin6 (and -8) in colonic IPANs of mice. Moreover, they found that these cdh6-expressing IPANs are capable of initiating colonic motor complexes in the distal colon, but not proximal and midcolon. They support their claim by morphological, electrophysiological and optogenetic, and pharmacological experiments.

Strengths:

The work is very impressive and involves several genetic models and state-of-the-art physiological setups including respective controls. It is a very well-written manuscript that truly contributes to our understanding of GI-motility and its anatomical and physiological basis. The authors were able to convincingly answer their research questions with a wide range of methods without overselling their results.

Weaknesses:

The authors put quite some emphasis on stating that cdh6 is a synaptic protein (in the title and throughout the text), which interacts in a homophilic fashion. They deduct that cdh6 might be involved in IPAN-IPAN synapses (line 247ff.). However, Cdh6 does not only interact in synapses and is expressed by non-neuronal cells as well (see e.g., expression in the proximal tubuli of the kidney). Moreover, cdh6 does not only build homodimers, but also heterodimers with Chd9 as well as Cdh7, -10, and -14 (see e.g., Shimoyama et al. 2000, DOI: 10.1042/0264-6021:3490159). It would therefore be interesting to assess the expression pattern of cdh6-proteins using immunostainings in combination with synaptic markers to substantiate the authors' claim or at least add the possibility of cell-cell-interactions other than synapses to the discussion. Additionally, an immunostaining of cdh6 would confirm if the expression of tdTomato in smooth muscle cells of the cdh6-creERT model is valid or a leaky expression (false positive).

Comments on revisions:

The authors have updated their manuscript and have provided insights and discussions to my remarks.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Intrinsic primary afferent neurons are an interesting population of enteric neurons that transduce stimuli from the mucosa, initiate reflexive neurocircuitry involved in motor and secretory functions, and modulate gut immune responses. The morphology, neurochemical coding, and electrophysiological properties of these cells have been relatively well described in a long literature dating back to the late 1800's but questions remain regarding their roles in enteric neurocircuitry, potential subsets with unique functions, and contributions to disease. Here, the authors provide RNAscope, immunolabeling, electrophysiological, and organ function data characterizing IPANs in mice and suggest that Cdh6 is an additional marker of these cells.

Strengths:

This paper would likely be of interest to the enteric neuroscience community and increases information regarding the properties of IPANs in mice. These data are useful and suggest that prior data from studies of IPANs in other species are likely translatable to mice.

Weaknesses:

Major weaknesses:<br /> (1) The novelty of this study is relatively limited. The main point of novelty suggests an additional marker of IPANs (Cdh6) that would add to the known list of markers for these cells. How useful this would be is unclear. Other main findings basically confirm that IPANs in mice display the same classical characteristics that have been known for many years from studies in guinea pigs, rats, mice and humans.

(2) Critical controls are needed to support the optogenetic experiments. Control experiments are needed to show that ChR2 expression 1) does not change the baseline properties of the neurons, 2) that stimulation with the chosen intensity of light elicits physiologically relevant responses in those neurons, and 3) that stimulation via ChR2 elicits comparable responses in IPANs in the different gut regions focused on here. These essential controls remain absent in the study and limit confidence in the data derived from this model.

(3) The motor effects observed in optogenetic experiments are difficult to understand in the absence of good controls for optogenetic control of the proposed neuron population (discussed above). It remains unclear how stimulating IPANs in the distal colon would generate retrograde CMCs while stimulating IPANs in the proximal colon did nothing. Key controls confirming that the optogentic stimulus was adequate, specific, and relevant are needed. In addition, better characterization of the Cdh6+ population of cells in both regions would be needed to understand the mechanisms underlying these effects.

(4) From the data shown, it is clear that expression driven by the Cdh6CreERT2 driver is not confined to IPANs. There is obviously expression of GFP and ChR2 in smooth muscle cells. This is a major limitation for the physiological experiments that attempt to use this model to specifically stimulate IPANs and assess changes in gut motor function. Better characterization of this model is needed and control experiments are necessary to assess whether functional ChR2 is expressed in cells beyond the proposed subtype of enteric IPANs.

(5) Some of the main conclusions of this study are overstated and claims of priority are made that are not true. For example, the authors state on lines 27-28 of the abstract that their findings provide the "first demonstration of selective activation of a single neurochemical and functional class of enteric neurons". This is certainly not true since Gould et al (AJP-GIL 2019) expressed ChR2 in nitrergic enteric neurons and showed that activating those cells disrupted CMC activity. In fact, prior work by the authors themselves (Hibberd et al Gastro 2018) showed that activating calretinin neurons with ChR2 evoked motor responses. Work by other groups has used chemogenetics and optogenetics to show effects of activating multiple other classes of neurons in the gut.

(6) The electrophysiological characterization of mouse IPANs is useful but is limited to a small subset of Cdh6+ neurons in the distal colon myenteric plexus. Therefore, it remains unclear how well the properties reported here might reflect those of other Cdh6+ IPANs in the same or different regions. Similarly, blocking IH with ZD7288 affects all IPANs and does not add specific information regarding the role of the proposed Cdh6+ subtype.

(7) The submucosal plexus (SMP) also contains enteric IPANs and these were not included in the analysis of Cdh6 expression. Whether or not the proposed IPAN marker Cdh6 would be useful for identifying or targeting those cells remains unclear.

[Editor's note: The Reviewing Editor considers that further controls requested from the reviewers have largely been provided already in prior publications by other groups, as they concern specifically tools published years ago but in a different tissue context. Hence the methodology used to deliver the results reported here fall within the standard practices in the field. The comprehensive, multi-technique approach to the results is compelling in and of itself, and ought to suffice, rendering this work reproducible and therefore a basis for further research.]

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Asthenospermia, characterized by reduced sperm motility, is one of the major causes of male infertility. The "9 + 2" arranged MTs and over 200 associated proteins constitute the axoneme, the molecular machine for flagellar and ciliary motility. Understanding the physiological functions of axonemal proteins, particularly their links to male infertility, could help uncover the genetic causes of asthenospermia and improve its clinical diagnosis and management. In this study, the authors generated Ankrd5 null mice and found that ANKRD5-/- males exhibited reduced sperm motility and infertility. Using FLAG-tagged ANKRD5 mice, mass spectrometry, and immunoprecipitation (IP) analyses, they confirmed that ANKRD5 is localized within the N-DRC, a critical protein complex for normal flagellar motility. However, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and cryo-electron tomography (cryo-ET) of sperm from Ankrd5 null mice did not reveal any structural abnormalities.

Strengths:

The phenotypes observed in ANKRD5-/- mice, including reduced sperm motility and male infertility, are conversing. The authors demonstrated that ANKRD5 is an N-DRC protein that interacts with TCTE1 and DRC4. Most of the experiments are thoughtfully designed and well executed.

Weaknesses:

The cryo-FIB and cryo-ET analyses require further investigation, as detailed below. The molecular mechanism by which the loss of ANKRD5 affects sperm flagellar motility remains unclear. The current conclusion that Ankrd5 knockout reduces axoneme stability is not well-supported. Specifically, are other axonemal proteins diminished in Ankrd5 knockout sperm? Conducting immunofluorescence analyses and revisiting the quantitative proteomics data may help address these questions.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript investigates the role of ANKRD5 (ANKEF1) as a component of the N-DRC complex in sperm motility and male fertility. Using Ankrd5 knockout mice, the study demonstrates that ANKRD5 is essential for sperm motility and identifies its interaction with N-DRC components through IP-mass spectrometry and cryo-ET. The results provide insights into ANKRD5's function, highlighting its potential involvement in axoneme stability and sperm energy metabolism.

Strengths:

The authors employ a wide range of techniques, including gene knockout models, proteomics, cryo-ET, and immunoprecipitation, to explore ANKRD5's role in sperm biology.

Weaknesses:

(1) Limited Citations in Introduction: Key references on the role of N-DRC components (e.g., DRC1, DRC2, DRC3, DRC5) in male infertility are missing, which weakens the contextual background.

(2) Lack of Functional Insights: While interacting proteins outside the N-DRC complex were identified, their potential roles and interactions with ANKRD5 are not adequately explored or discussed.

(3) Mitochondrial Function Uncertainty: Immunofluorescence suggests possible mitochondrial localization for ANKRD5, but experiments on its role in energy metabolism (e.g., ATP production, ROS) are insufficient, especially given the observed sperm motility defects.

(4) Glycolysis Pathway Impact: Proteomic analysis indicates glycolysis pathway disruptions in Ankrd5-deficient sperm, but the link between these changes and impaired motility is not well explained.

(5) Cryo-ET Data Limitations: The structural analysis of the DMT lacks clarity on how ANKRD5 influences N-DRC or RS3. The low quality of RS3 data hinders the interpretation of ANKRD5's impact on axoneme structure.

(6) Discussion of Findings: The manuscript could benefit from a deeper discussion on the broader implications of ANKRD5's interactions and its role in sperm energy metabolism and motility mechanisms.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors examined the role of Afadin, a key adaptor protein associated with cell-adhesion molecules, in retinal development. Using a conditional knockout mouse line (Six3-Cre; AfadinF/F), the authors successfully characterized a disorganized pattern of various neuron types in the mutant retinae. Despite these altered distributions, the retinal neurons maintained normal cell numbers and seemingly preserved some synaptic connections. Notably, tracing results indicated mistargeting of retinal ganglion cell (RGC) axon projections to the superior colliculus, and electroretinography (ERG) analyses suggested deficits in visual functions.

Strengths:

This compelling study provides solid evidence addressing the important question of how cell-adhesion molecules influence neuronal development. Compared to previous research conducted in other parts of the central nervous system (CNS), the clearly defined lamination of cell types in the retina serves as a unique model for studying the aberrant neuronal localizations caused by Afadin knockout. The data suggest that cell-cell interactions are critical for retinal cellular organization and proper axon pathfinding, while aspects of cell fate determination and synaptogenesis remain less understood. This work has broad implications not only for retinal studies but also for developmental biology and regenerative medicine.

Weaknesses:

While the phenotypes observed in the Afadin knockout (cKO) mice are intriguing, I would expect to see evidence confirming that Afadin is indeed knocked out in the retina through immunostaining. Specifically, is Afadin knocked out only in certain retinal regions and not others, as suggested by Figures 4A-B? Are Afadin levels different among distinct neuron types, which could mean that its knockout may have a more pronounced impact on certain cell types, such as rods compared to others?

The authors suggest that synapses may form between canonical synaptic partners, based on the proximity of their processes (Figure 2). However, more solid evidence is needed to verify these synapses through the use of synaptic marker staining or transsynaptic labeling before drawing further conclusions.

Although the Afadin cKO mice displayed dramatic phenotypes, additional experiments are necessary to clarify the details of this process. By manipulating Afadin levels in specific cell types or at different developmental time points, we could gain a better understanding of how Afadin regulates accurate retinal lamination and axonal projection.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study by Lum and colleagues reports on the role of Afadin, a cytosolic adapter protein that organizes multiple cell adhesion molecule families, in the generation and maintenance of complex cellular layers in the mouse retina. They used a conditional deletion approach, removing Afadin in retinal progenitors, and allowing them to analyze broad effects on retinal neuron development.

The study presents high-quality and extensive characterization of the cellular phenotypes, supporting the main conclusions of the paper. They show that Afadin loss results in significant disorganization of the retinal cellular layers and the neuropil, producing rosettes and displacement of cells away from their resident layers. The major classes of neurons in the inner retina are affected, and some neurons are, remarkably, displaced to the other side of the inner plexiform layer. Nevertheless, they mostly target their synaptic partners, including the RGCs to distant retinorecipient targets in the brain. The main conclusions are as follows. Afadin is necessary for establishing and maintaining the retinal architecture. It is not necessary for the generation of the correct numbers/densities of retinal neuron subtypes. Moreover, Afadin loss preserves associations between known synaptic partners and preserves axonal targeting to retinorecipient layers. The consequences on photoreceptor viability and visual processing are also interesting, underscoring the essential function for maintaining retinal structure and function. Overall the main conclusions describing the consequences are supported by the results.

Strengths:

The study provides new knowledge on the requirement of Afadin in retinal development. The introduction and discussion effectively set up the rationale for this work, and place it in the context of previous studies of Afadin in other regions of the CNS.

The study presents high-quality and extensive characterizations of the cellular phenotypes resulting from Afadin loss. By analyzing various aspects of retinal organization - from cellular densities to axon targeting to brain - the study narrows down the role of a structure for promoting the establishment of the layers, or maintenance. The data are straightforward and convincing, and the interpretations are bounded by the data shown (though minor weakness re. survival). Another important finding is that the targeting of retinal neuron processes to synaptic partners, including retinorecipient targets in the brain, are intact.

The study is important as it establishes a focused requirement for Afadin to set up and preserve the overall cellular organizations within the retinal tissue. The demonstration that Afadin is needed for photoreceptor viability and overall visual function enhances impact by establishing its functional importance.

The manuscript is well well-written and presented. The images are attractive and compelling, and the figures are well organized.

Weaknesses:

(1) Expanding on the developmental mechanism is beyond the scope of the study, and would not add to the main conclusions. However, the manuscript would be improved by providing more clarity on the developmental emergence of the defects. The study left me questioning whether the rosettes and cell displacements occur during earlier stages of retina development, or are progressive. For instance, do the RGCs migrate and establish within the GCL correctly at first, and then are displaced with the progressive disorganization? Or are they disorganized and delaminate en route? Images of RGC staining at P0, or earlier during their migration, would be informative. Data in Figure 1 is limited to DAPI staining at P7. Figure 4 shows an image of rod photoreceptors at P7, with their displacement in the GCL layer (and not contained within a rosette). Are the progenitors mislocalized due to delamination?

A few additional thoughts on how these defects compare to other mutants with rosettes might give us more context for understanding the results.

(2) The manuscript reports that the densities of major inner retinal classes are unaffected. There are a few details missing for this point. How were the cell densities quantified (in terms of ROI size), and normalized? This information is lacking in the methods. There is a striking thickening of the GCL in the DAPI-labeled images shown in Figure 1. What are these cells?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors address the role of the centromere histone core in force transduction by the kinetochore.

Strengths:

They use a hybrid DNA sequence that combines CDEII and CDEIII as well as Widom 601 so they can make stable histones for biophysical studies (provided by the Widom sequence) and maintain features of the centromere (CDE II and III).

Weaknesses:

The main results are shown in one figure (Figure 2). Indeed the Centromere core of Widom and CDE II and III contribute to strengthening the binding force for the OA-beads. The data are very nicely done and convincingly demonstrate the point. The weakness is that this is the entire paper. It is certainly of interest to investigators in kinetochore biology, but beyond that, the impact is fairly limited in scope.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper provides a valuable addendum to the findings described in Hamilton et al. 2020 (https://doi.org/ 10.7554/eLife.56582). In the earlier paper, the authors reconstituted the budding yeast centromeric nucleosome together with parts of the budding yeast kinetochore and tested which elements are required and sufficient for force transmission from microtubules to the nucleosome. Although budding yeast centromeres are defined by specific DNA sequences, this earlier paper did not use centromeric DNA but instead the generic Widom 601 DNA. The reason is that it has so far been impossible to stably reconstitute a budding yeast centromeric nucleosome using centromeric DNA.

In this new study, the authors now report that they were able to replace part of the Widom 601 DNA with centromeric DNA from chromosome 3. This makes the assay more closely resemble the in vivo situation. Interestingly, the presence of the centromeric DNA fragment makes one type of minimal kinetochore assembly, but not the other, withstand stronger forces.

Which kinetochore assembly turned out to be affected was somewhat unexpected, and can currently not be reconciled with structural knowledge of the budding yeast centromere/kinetochore. This highlights that, despite recent advances (e.g. Guan et al., 2021; Dendooven et al., 2023), aspects of budding yeast kinetochore architecture and function remain to be understood and that it will be important to dissect the contributions of the centromeric DNA sequence.

Given the unexpected result, the study would become yet more informative if the authors were able to pinpoint which interactions contribute to the enhanced force resistance in the presence of centromeric DNA.

Strength:

The paper demonstrates that centromeric DNA can increase the attachment strength between budding yeast microtubules and centromeric nucleosomes.

Weakness:

How centromeric DNA exerts this effect remains unclear.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Casas-Tinto et al., provide new insight into glial plasticity using a crush injury paradigm in the ventral nerve cord (VNC) of adult Drosophila. The authors find that both astrocyte-like glia (ALG) and ensheating glia (EG) divide under homeostatic conditions in the adult VNC and identify ALG as the glial population that specifically ramps up proliferation in response to injury, whereas the number of EGs decreases following the insult. Using lineage-tracing tools, the authors interestingly observe interconversion of glial subtypes, especially of EGs into ALGs, which occurs independent of injury and is dependent on the availability of the transcription factor Prospero in EGs, adding to the plasticity observed in the system. Finally, when tracing the progeny of glia, Casas-Tinto and colleagues detect cells of neuronal identity and provide evidence that such glia-derived neurogenesis is favored following ventral nerve cord injury, which puts forward a remarkable way in which glia can respond to neuronal damage.

Strengths:

This study highlights a new facet of adult nervous system plasticity at the level of the ventral nerve cord, supporting the view that proliferative capacity is maintained in the mature CNS and stimulated upon injury.

The injury paradigm is well chosen, as the organization of the neuromeres allows specific targeting of one segment, compared to the remaining intact and with the potential to later link observed plasticity to behavior such as locomotion.

Numerous experiments have been carried out in 7-day old flies, showing that the observed plasticity is not due to residual developmental remodeling or a still immature VNC.

Different techniques are used to observe proliferation in the VNC.

By elegantly combining different methods, the authors show glial divisions including with mitotic-dependent tracing and find that the number of generated glia is refined by apoptosis later on.

The work identifies prospero in glia as important coordinator of glial cell fate, from development to the adult context, which draws further attention to the upstream regulatory mechanisms.

Weaknesses:

The authors do not discuss their results on gliogenesis or neurogenesis in the adult VNC to previous findings made in the context of the injured adult brain.

The authors speculate about the role of glial inter-conversion for tissue homeostasis or regeneration, but no supportive evidence is cited or provided. Further experiments will be required to test the function of the described glial plasticity.

Elav+ cells originating from glia do not express markers for mature neurons at the analysed time-point. If they will eventually differentiate<br /> or what type of structure is formed by them will have to be followed up in future studies.

Context/Discussion

Highlighting some differences in the reactiveness of glia in the VNC compared to the brain could reveal important differences in repair strategies in different areas of the CNS.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Casas-Tintó et al. explore the role of glial cell in the response to a neurodegenerative injury in the adult brain. They used Drosophila melanogaster as a model organism, and found that glial cells are able to generate new neurons through the mechanism of transdifferentiation in response to injury. This paper provides a new mechanism in regeneration, and gives an understanding to the role of glial cells in the process.

The authors have now addressed all my concerns.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors investigated sleep and circadian rhythm disturbances in Fmr1 KO mice. Initially, they monitored daily home cage behaviors to assess sleep and circadian disruptions. Next, they examined the adaptability of circadian rhythms in response to photic suppression and skeleton photic periods. To explore the underlying mechanisms, they traced retino-suprachiasmatic connectivity. The authors further analyzed the social behaviors of Fmr1 KO mice and tested whether a scheduled feeding strategy could mitigate sleep, circadian, and social behavior deficits. Finally, they demonstrated that scheduled feeding corrected cytokine levels in the plasma of mutant mice.

Strengths:

(1) The manuscript addresses an important topic-investigating sleep deficits in an FXS mouse model and proposing a potential therapeutic strategy.

(2) The study includes a comprehensive experimental design with multiple methodologies, which adds depth to the investigation.

Weaknesses:

(1) The first serious issue in the manuscript is the lack of a clear description of how they performed the experiments and the missing definitions of various parameters in the results. Given that monitoring and analyzing sleep behaviors are the key experiments of this manuscript, I use the "Immobility-Based Sleep Behavior" section of Methods as an example to elaborate:

Incomplete or Incorrect Description of Tracking Threshold:<br /> o The phrase "tracked the (40 sec or greater as previously described" is incomplete and does not clarify what is being tracked. This appears to be an error in writing or editing.<br /> Unclear Relationship Between Threshold and EEG Validation:<br /> o The threshold "40 sec or greater" is mentioned without context or explanation of what it represents (e.g., sleep bout duration, inactivity, or another parameter). The reference to Fisher et al. (2016) and "99% correlation with EEG-defined sleep" seems misaligned with the paragraph's content.

Confusing Definition of Sleep Bout:<br /> o The definition of a sleep bout is unclear. Sleep bouts should logically be based on periods of inactivity, not activity. The sentence suggesting sleep is measured by "activity staying above the threshold" is confusing. The phrase "3 counts of sleep per minute for longer than one minute" requires clarification.

Unclear Data Selection for Analysis:<br /> o The phrase "2 days with the best recording quality" is vague and does not specify how "best" was determined or why only two days out of five were analyzed.

Awkward Grammar and Structure:<br /> o Phrases like "Acquiring data were exported in 1-min bins" are grammatically awkward. "Acquiring" should be "Acquired." Some sentences are overly long and lack clarity, making the text harder to follow.<br /> In addition to this section, the authors should review all paragraphs in the Methods section to improve readability.

(2) Although the manuscript has a relatively long Methods section, some essential information is missing. For instance, the definition of sleep bout, as described above, is unclear. Additional missing information includes:

Figure 2: "Rhythmic strength (%)" and "Cycle-to-cycle variability (min)."<br /> Figure 3: "Activity suppression."<br /> Figure 4: "Rhythmic power (V%)" (is this different from rhythmic strength (%)?) and "Subjective day activity (%)."<br /> Figure 5: Clear labeling of the SCN's anatomical features and an explanation for quantifying only the ventral part instead of the entire SCN. Alternatively, the authors should consider quantifying the whole SCN.<br /> Figure 6: Inconsistencies in terms like "Sleep frag. (bout #)" and "Sleep bouts (#)." Consistent terminology throughout the manuscript is essential.

(3) Figure 1A shows higher mouse activity during ZT13-16. It is unclear why the authors scheduled feeding during ZT15-21, as this seems to disturb the rhythm. Consistent with this, the body weights of WT and Fmr1 KO mice decreased after scheduled feeding. The authors should explain the rationale for this design clearly.

(4) The interpretation of social behavior results in Figure 6 is questionable. The authors claim that Fmr1 KO mice cannot remember the first stranger in a three-chamber test, writing, "The reduced time in exploring and staying in the novel-mouse chamber suggested that the Fmr1 KO mutants were not able to distinguish the second novel mouse from the first now-familiar mouse." However, an alternative explanation is that Fmr1 KO mice do remember the first stranger but prefer to interact with it due to autistic-like tendencies. Data in Table 5 show that Fmr1 KO mice spent more time interacting with the first stranger in the 3-chamber social recognition test, which support this possibility. Similarly, in the five-trial social test, Fmr1 KO mice's preference for familiar mice might explain the reduced interaction with the second stranger.

In Figure 6C (five-trial social test results), only the fifth trial results are shown. Data for trials 1-4 should be provided and compared with the fifth trial. The behavioral features of mice in the 5-trial test can then be shown completely. In addition, the total interaction times for trials 1-4 (154 {plus minus} 15.3 for WT and 150 {plus minus} 20.9 for Fmr1 KO) suggest normal sociability in Fmr1 KO mice (it is different from the results of 3-chamber). Thus, individual data for trials 1-4 are required to draw reliable conclusions.

In Table 6 and Figure 6G-6J, the authors claim that "Sleep duration (Figures 6G, H) and fragmentation (Figures 6I, J) exhibited a moderate-strong correlation with both social recognition and grooming." However, Figure 6I shows a p-value of 0.077, which is not significant. Moreover, Table 6 shows no significant correlation between SNPI of the three-chamber social test and any sleep parameters. These data do not support the authors' conclusions.

(5) Figure 7 demonstrates the effect of scheduled feeding on circadian activity and sleep behaviors, representing another critical set of results in the manuscript. Notably, the WT+ALF and Fmr1 KO+ALF groups in Figure 7 underwent the same handling as the WT and Fmr1 KO groups in Figures 1 and 2, as no special treatments were applied to these mice. However, the daily patterns observed in Figures 7A, 7B, 7F, and 7G differ substantially from those shown in Figures 2B and 1A, respectively. Additionally, it is unclear why the WT+ALF and Fmr1 KO+ALF groups did not exhibit differences in Figures 7I and 7J, especially considering that Fmr1 KO mice displayed more sleep bouts but shorter bout lengths in Figures 1C and 1D.

Furthermore, it is not specified whether the results in Figure 7 were collected after two weeks of scheduled feeding (for how many days?) or if they represent the average data from the two-week treatment period.

The rationale behind analyzing "ZT 0-3 activity" in Figure 7D instead of the parameters shown in Figures 2C and 2D is also unclear.

In Figure 7F, some data points appear to be incorrectly plotted. For instance, the dark blue circle at ZT13 connects to the light blue circle at ZT14 and the dark blue circle at ZT17. This is inconsistent, as the dark blue circle at ZT13 should link to the dark blue circle at ZT14. Similarly, it is perplexing that the dark blue circle at ZT16 connects to both the light blue and dark blue circles at ZT17. Such errors undermine confidence in the data. The authors need to provide a clear explanation of how these data were processed.

Lastly, in the Figure 7 legend, Table 6 is cited; however, this appears to be incorrect. It seems the authors intended to refer to Table 7.

(6) Similar to the issue in Figure 7F, the data for day 12 in Supplemental Figure 2 includes two yellow triangles but lacks a green triangle. It is unclear how the authors constructed this chart, and clarification is needed.

(7) In Figure 8, a 5-trial test was used to assess the effect of scheduled feeding on social behaviors. It is essential to present the results for all trials (1 to 4). Additionally, it is unclear whether the results for familial mice in Figure 8A correspond to trials 1, 2, 3, or 4.<br /> The legend for Figure 8 also appears to be incorrect: "The left panels show the time spent in social interactions when the second novel stranger mouse was introduced to the testing mouse in the 5-trial social interaction test. The significant differences were analyzed by two-way ANOVA followed by Holm-Sidak's multiple comparisons test with feeding treatment and genotype as factors." This description does not align with the content of the left panels. Moreover, two-way ANOVA is not the appropriate statistical analysis for Figure 8A. The authors need to provide accurate details about the analysis and revise the figure legend accordingly.

(8) The circadian activity and sleep behaviors of Fmr1 KO mice have been reported previously, with some findings consistent with the current manuscript, while others contradict it. Although the authors acknowledge this discrepancy, it seems insufficiently thorough to simply state that the reasons for the conflicts are unknown. Did the studies use the same equipment for behavior recording? Were the same parameters used to define locomotor activity and sleep behaviors? The authors are encouraged to investigate these details further, as doing so may uncover something interesting or significant.

(9) Some subtitles in the Results section and the figure legends do not align well with the presented data. For example, in the section titled "Reduced rhythmic strength and nocturnality in the Fmr1 KOs," it is unclear how the authors justify the claim of altered nocturnality in Fmr1 KO mice. How do the authors define changes in nocturnality? Additionally, the tense used in the subtitles and figure legends is incorrect. The authors are encouraged to carefully review all subtitles and figure legends to correct these errors and enhance readability.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In the present study, the authors, using a mouse model of Fragile X syndrome, explore the very interesting hypothesis that restricting food access over a daily schedule will improve sleep patterns and, subsequently, behavioral capacities. By restricting food access from 12h to 6h over the nocturnal period (active period for mice), they show, in these KO mice, an improvement of the sleep pattern accompanied by reduced systemic levels of inflammatory markers and improved behavior. Using a classical mouse model of neurodevelopmental disorder (NDD), these data suggest that eating patterns might improve sleep quality, reduce inflammation and improve cognitive/behavioral capacities in children with NDD.

Strengths:

Overall, the paper is very well-written and easy to follow. The rationale of the study is generally well-introduced. The data are globally sound. The provided data support the interpretation overall.

Weaknesses:

(1) The introduction part is quite long in the Abstract, leaving limited space for the data provided by the present study.

(2) A couple of points are not totally clear for a non-expert reader:<br /> - The Fmr1/Fxr2 double KO mice are not well described.<br /> - What is the rationale for performing both LD and DD measures?

(3) The data on cytokines and chemokines are interesting. However, the rationale for the selection of these molecules is not given. In addition, these measures have been performed in the systemic blood. Measures in the brain could be very informative.

(4) An important question is the potential impact of fasting vs the impact of the food availability restriction. Indeed fasting has several effects on brain functioning including cognitive functions.

(5) How do the authors envision the potential translation of the present study to human patients? How to translate the 12 to 6 hours of food access in mice to children with Fragile X syndrome?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript presents a comprehensive structure-guided secretome analysis of gall-forming microbes, providing valuable insights into effector diversity and evolution. The authors have employed AlphaFold2 to predict the 3D structures of the secretome from selected pathogens and conducted a thorough comparative analysis to elucidate commonalities and unique features of effectors among these phytopathogens.

Strengths:

The discovery of conserved motifs such as 'CCG' and 'RAYH' and their central role in maintaining the overall fold is an insightful finding. Additionally, the discovery of a nucleoside hydrolase-like fold conserved among various gall-forming microbes is interesting.

Weaknesses:

Important conclusions are not verified by experiments.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Soham Mukhopadhyay et al. investigated the protein folding of the secretome from gall-forming microbes using the AI-based structure modeling tool AlphaFold2. Their study analyzed six gall-forming species, including two Plasmodiophorid species and four others spanning different kingdoms, along with one non-gall-forming Plasmodiophorid species, Polymyxa betae. The authors found no effector fold specifically conserved among gall-forming pathogens, leading to the conclusion that their virulence strategies are likely achieved through diverse mechanisms. However, they identified an expansion of the Ankyrin repeat family in two gall-forming Plasmodiophorid species, with a less pronounced presence in the non-gall-forming Polymyxa betae. Additionally, the study revealed that known effectors such as CCG and AvrSen1 belong to sequence-unrelated but structurally similar (SUSS) effector clusters.

Strengths:

(1) The bioinformatics analyses presented in this study are robust, and the AlphaFold2-derived resources deposited in Zenodo provide valuable resources for researchers studying plant-microbe interactions. The manuscript is also logically organized and easy to follow.

(2) The inclusion of the non-gall-forming Polymyxa betae strengthens the conclusion that no effector fold is specifically conserved in gall-forming pathogens and highlights the specific expansion of the Ankyrin repeat family in gall-forming Plasmodiophorids.

(3) Figure 4a and 4b effectively illustrate the SUSS effector clusters, providing a clear visual representation of this finding.

(4) Figure 1 is a well-designed, comprehensive summary of the number and functional annotations of putative secretomes in gall-forming pathogens. Notably, it reveals that more than half of the analyzed effectors lack known protein domains in some pathogens, yet some were annotated based on their predicted structures, despite the absence of domain annotations.

Weaknesses:

(1) The effector families discussed in this paper remain hypothetical in terms of their functional roles, which is understandable given the challenges of demonstrating their functions experimentally. However, this highlights the need for experimental validation as a next step.

(2) Some analyses, such as those in Figure 4e, emphasize motifs derived from sequence alignments of SUSS effector clusters. Since these effectors are sequence-unrelated, sequence alignments might be unreliable. It would be more rigorous to perform structure-based alignments in addition to sequence-based ones for motif confirmation. For instance, methods described in Figure 3E of de Guillen et al. (2015, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1005228) or tools like Foldseek (https://search.foldseek.com/foldmason) could be useful for aligning structures of multiple sequences.

(3) When presenting AlphaFold-generated structures, it is essential to include confidence scores such as pLDDT and PAE. For example, in Figure 1D of Derbyshire and Raffaele (2023, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-40949-9), the structural representations were colored red due to their high pLDDT scores, emphasizing their reliability.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The goal of this study was to overcome the apparent difficulty in constructing structural models of the open state of the CFTR chloride channel. While several CFTR structural models at near-atomic resolution have been published under a variety of conditions, none of them have demonstrated a pore open across the full dimension of the plasma membrane. Instead, these have routinely been referred to as "near-open" models. In the present study, the authors extended their findings from a prior paper from their group that investigated a series of brief MD simulations, a small number of which exhibited permeation events where chloride ions permeated the pore. This study included massively repeated simulations initiated from these aforementioned Cl permeable conformations. Extensive analysis of the data identified a novel penta-helical structure that comprises the channel pore. This comprehensive study attempted to explain several features of conducting CFTR channels, including single-channel conductance, selectivity, and the mechanisms linking the ATP-induced dimerization of the cytosolic nucleotide-binding domains (NBDs) to the opening of the channel pore (a.k.a., "pore-gating".

Strengths:

The major strength of this study is its comprehensive nature. The approaches applied are cutting-edge and beyond, and are used to explain many different aspects of channel function in CFTR. The strength of evidence is very strong. The paper is extremely well-written, and the arguments are well-supported.

Weaknesses:

The major weakness is that none of the novel conclusions (i.e., those arising solely from this study and not previously published (have been supported by experimental confirmation. That is typical of computational studies such as this.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Although recent cryo-EM structures of the CFTR ion channel were reported in a putative open state (ATP-bound, NBD-dimerized), it remains unclear whether these structures explain the conductive properties of the open channel observed in functional experiments. To investigate this, the authors conducted extensive molecular dynamics simulations at different voltages. The simulations are started from snapshots of their prior work, based on the experimental putative open state and including conditions with high negative voltage. Their analysis reveals that the cryo-EM structure represents a near-open metastable state, with most trajectories transitioning to either more closed or more open conformations, leading to the identification of a potential new open state. Permeation rate analysis shows that, unlike the other states, the proposed open state exhibits functional conductive properties of the open channel, although a strong inward rectification, inconsistent with experimental data, is also noted. Further structural analysis and simulations of ATP-unbound closed states offer additional mechanistic insights.

Overall, this work tackles key questions about CFTR: What is the true open conductive state? Does the ATP-bound cryo-EM structure reflect an actual open state? What is the ion permeation mechanism, and what structural changes occur during the closed-to-open transition? Which residues are critical, particularly those linked to diseases like CF? The study, based on a comprehensive set of all-atom molecular dynamics simulations, including a range of physiologically relevant voltages, provides important insights in this regard. It identifies key structural states, permeation pathways, critical residues, and conductance properties that can be directly compared to functional data. Notably, the analysis identifies a new open state of the channel, which, systematic analysis convincingly demonstrates is a conductive conformation of the channel, in line with experimental data at negative voltages. The authors carefully address some of the limitations of their results, exploring and discussing discrepancies with functional experiments, such as inward rectification. The work is also very well written, with a clear and logical presentation of key findings.

The main weakness of this study is that the simulation data rely on the conventional CHARMM36 force field for Cl− ions, which has been shown to significantly underestimate the interaction between Cl− and proteins (J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2021, 17, 6240-6261). For example, the conventional CHARMM36 force field destabilizes the Cl-binding site in CLC-ec1. The latter ion unbinds irreversibly during microseconds-long simulations which is at odds with the experimental binding affinity.

This imbalance in Cl−/protein/water interactions could significantly impact the CFTR simulations, potentially altering state populations and Cl− permeability. Notably, recent work by Levring and Chen (Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024) identifies a likely Cl− binding site in the bottleneck region of the channel, which contradicts the simulation results showing low occupancy Cl− ions in this region (Fig. 1B and Fig. 6A). This discrepancy may be due to the underestimation of Cl−/protein interactions. Indeed, Orabi et al. have proposed corrections that specifically tune these interactions, including those with aromatic residues, in line with the binding site geometry suggested by Levring and Chen. This imbalance in interactions may also lead to an underestimation of the conductance in the experimental near-open state.<br /> Balanced Cl−/protein interactions could also influence voltage/current relationships, potentially affecting the degree of inward rectification. For example, higher Cl− occupancy in the bottleneck region may stabilize the down state of R334, along with other measured interactions, thereby increasing conductance as the authors have shown.

The experimental evidence reported and discussed by the authors in support of the proposed open state is largely qualitative. For instance, in Figure 4 Supplement 2 there is a significant overlap in the distances and SASA distributions of open and near-open states for the reported residues (are those residues water accessible in the simulations?).

Given the known limitations of the standard CHARMM36 Cl− force field and in the absence of robust experimental validation of the proposed open state, I recommend validating at least part of the results using an independent set of simulations (not started from the previous ones) with an updated Cl− force field. It would be especially important to reassess whether the experimental near-open state is truly metastable and less probable than the new open state, and confirm that the near-open state exhibits negligible conductance.

A minor point worth discussing is whether the observed inward rectification may be influenced by hysteresis or incomplete equilibration, as many simulations were started from prior trajectories at large negative voltages and may not have fully relaxed. For instance, is not uncommon that small structural changes in backbone and sidechains occur in several microseconds (Shaw et al., Science, 2010). That said, discrepancies in current-voltage relationships are not unexpected due to challenges in simulation sampling and force field accuracy (J Gen Physiol 2013 May;141(5):619-32) as the authors stated.

Another minor point to address is the preparation of the simulation setup for the ATP-free structure of the protein. It would be helpful to specify whether any particular controls or steps were taken, given that the structure is based on a relatively low resolution (3.87 Å) model.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Background:

Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Conductance Regulator (CFTR) is a chloride channel whose dysfunction underlies cystic fibrosis, a life-limiting condition caused by thick, sticky mucus buildup in the lungs and other organs. Despite multiple high-resolution structures of CFTR, these snapshots have all captured the channel in a non-conducting or "closed" conformation - even when the protein was prepared under conditions that should favor channel opening. This discrepancy has posed a key challenge: how can a channel be experimentally observed as closed while physiological tests demonstrate it conducts chloride ions?

Key Findings:

(1) Stable Open Conformation

Through repeated molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of human CFTR in lipid bilayers, researchers observed a reproducible, stable open state. Unlike previous transient openings seen in single-run or short simulations, this conformation remains consistently permeable over extended timescales.

(2) Penta-Helical Arrangement

The authors highlight a "penta-helical" pore-lining arrangement in which five transmembrane helices symmetrically organize to create a clear ion-conduction pathway. This novel configuration resolves the previously puzzling hydrophobic bottleneck found in cryo-EM structures.

(3) Conductance Close to Experimental Values

By analyzing chloride ion flow under near-physiological voltages, they calculate a channel conductance aligning well with electrophysiological measurements. This alignment provides strong support that the observed structure is functionally relevant.

(4) Roles of Key Residues

Several positively charged (cationic) residues in the pore appear crucial for guiding and stabilizing chloride ions. Simultaneously, small kinks in certain helices may act as structural "hinges," allowing or blocking chloride passage.

How to Interpret These Results:

(1) Bridging a Major Gap: The study tackles the mismatch between static "closed" CFTR structures and their known open-channel function. Successfully capturing a stable open state in MD simulations is a significant step toward reconciling what cryo-EM data shows versus what physiological experiments have long told us.

(2) Strength in Multiple Replicas: Running many simulation repeats (rather than relying on a single trajectory) lends credibility. Only if a phenomenon is reproducible across multiple runs can it be considered robust.

(3) Consistency with Mutational Data: Observing that known functional hotspots (e.g., specific charged residues) play a key role in the new pore model further validates these findings.

Important Caveats and Limitations:

(1) Simulation Timescales vs. Biology<br /> Even extended MD (on the microsecond scale) is still much faster, simpler, and more controlled than real cellular processes.

(2) Physiological existence of the penta-helical pore<br /> Although the simulations and results are highly compelling, several factors leave open the possibility of a physiological open conformation differing from the observed penta-helical pore. These factors include ATP hydrolysis, interactions with physiological binding partners, the native membrane environment, and regions not modeled in the CFTR structures, such as the R domain. Most importantly, the transmembrane voltage is very high (500mV).

Bottom Line:

This work delivers a long-awaited, near-physiological view of CFTR's open conformation. It provides a foundational structure against which future experimental and computational studies can be compared. By demonstrating reliable chloride conduction and matching established biophysical data, these simulations bring us closer to understanding - and potentially targeting - CFTR's gating mechanism in health and disease. Readers should applaud the breakthroughs while recognizing that further exploration (including more complex in vitro and in vivo experiments) will still be necessary to capture the full dynamism of CFTR in the living cell environment.

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

Summary:

The structural mechanism of anion permeation through the open CFTR pore has remained unresolved and is subject to ongoing debate. That is because even in CFTR structures obtained under conditions that normally maximally activate the channel (phosphorylation + ATP + non-hydrolytic mutations + potentiator drugs) a bottleneck region in the pore, too narrow to allow passage of hydrated chloride ions, is observed.

The present study uses molecular dynamics (MD) simulations initiated from such "quasi-open" states to address local conformational dynamics of the pore. The authors conclude that the quasi-open structure stably relaxes to a fully open conformation on the sub-microsecond time scale. They provide a detailed analysis of this fully open structure and of the mechanism of chloride permeation. They conclude that two major exit pathways (a central and a peripheral) exist for chloride ions, and that the ions remain near-fully hydrated throughout the pore: chloride-protein interactions displace only 1-2 waters from the first solvation shell. Furthermore, the simulations provide some hints for conformational changes involved in gating.

Strengths:

The findings are interpreted in the context of the large body of published functional studies on CFTR permeation properties, and caveats are adequately discussed.

Weaknesses:

The conclusions on gating would benefit from further discussions. In particular, a fair comparison of the timescale at which channel gating happens, and that of the MD simulations would strengthen the manuscript.