Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In recent years, lots of researchers tried to explore the existence of new acetyltransferase and deacetylase by using specific antibody enrichment technologies and high resolution mass spectrometry. Here is an example for this effort. Yuqian Wang et al. studied a novel Zn2+- and NAD+-independent KDAC protein, AhCobQ, in Aeromonas hydrophila. They studied the biological function of AhCobQ by using biochemistry method and MS identification technology to confirm it. These results extended our understanding of the regulatory mechanism of bacterial lysine acetylation modifications. However, I find this conclusion is a little speculative, and unfortunately it also doesn't totally support the conclusion as the authors provided.

Major concerns:

-It is a little arbitrary to come to the title "Aeromonas hydrophila CobQ is a new type of NAD+- and Zn2+-independent protein lysine deacetylase in prokaryotes." It should be modified to delete the "in the prokaryotes" except that the authors get new more evidence in the other prokaryotes for the existence of the AhCobQ.<br /> -I was confused about the arrangement of the supplementary results. Because there are no citations for Figures S9-S19.<br /> -Same to the above, there are no data about Tables S1-S6.<br /> -All the load control is not integrated. Please provide all of the load controls with whole PAGE gel or whole membrane western blot results. Without these whole results, it is not convincing to come the conclusion as the authors mentioned in the context.<br /> -Thoroughly review the materials & methods section. It is unclear to me what exactly the authors describe in the method. All the experimental designs and protocols should be described in detail, including growth conditions, assay conditions, and purification conditions, etc.<br /> -Include relevant information about the experiments performed in the figure legends, such as experimental conditions, replicates, etc. Often it is not clear what was done based on the figure legend description.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authiors show that SVZ derived astrocytes respond to a middle carotid artery occlusion (MCAO) hypoxia lesion by secreting and modulating hyaluronan at the edge of the lesion (penumbra) and that hyaluronin is a chemoattractant to SVZ astrocytes. They use lineage tracing of SVZ cells to determine their origin. They also find that SVZ derived astrocytes express Thbs-4 but astrocytes at the MCAO-induced scar do not. Also, they demonstrate that decreased HA in the SVZ is correlated with gliogenesis. While much of the paper is descriptive/correlative they do overexpress Hyaluronan synthase 2 via viral vectors and show this is sufficient to recruit astrocytes to the injury. Interestingly, astrocytes preferred to migrate to the MCAO than to the region of overexpressed HAS2.

Strengths:

The field has largely ignored the gliogenic response of the SVZ, especially with regards to astrocytic function. These cells and especially newborn cells may provide support for regeneration. Emigrated cells from the SVZ have been shown to be neuroprotective via creating pro-survival environments, but their expression and deposition of beneficial extracellular matrix molecules is poorly understood. Therefore, this study is timely and important. The paper is very well written and the flow of results logical.

Comments on revised version:

The authors have addressed my points and the paper is much improved. Here are the salient remaining issues that I suggest be addressed.

The authors have still not shown, using loss of function studies, that Hyaluronan is necessary for SVZ astrogenesis and or migration to MCAO lesions.

(1) The co-expression of EGFr with Thbs4 and the literature examination is useful.

(2) Too bad they cannot explain the lack of effect of the MCAO on type C cells. The comparison with kainate-induced epilepsy in the hippocampus may or may not be relevant.

(3) Thanks for including the orthogonal confocal views in Fig S6D.

(4) The statement that "BrdU+/Thbs4+ cells mostly in the dorsal area" and therefore they mostly focused on that region is strange. Figure 8 clearly shows Thbs4 staining all along the striatal SVZ. Do they mean the dorsal segment of the striatal SVZ or the subcallosal SVZ? Fig. 4b and Fig 4f clearly show the "subcallosal" area as the one analysed but other figures show the dorsal striatal region (Fig. 2a). This is important because of the well-known embryological and neurogenic differences between the regions.

(5) It is good to know that the harsh MCAO's had already been excluded.

(6) Sorry for the lack of clarity - in addition to Thbs4, I was referring to mouse versus rat Hyaluronan degradation genes (Hyal1, Hyal2 and Hyal3) and hyaluronan synthase genes (HAS1 and HAS2) in order to address the overall species differences in hyaluronan biology thus justifying the "shift" from mouse to rat. You examine these in the (weirdly positioned) Fig. 8h,i. Please add a few sentences on mouse vs rat Thbs4 and Hyaluronan relevant genes.

(7) Thank you for the better justification of using the naked mole rat HA synthase.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aimed to study the activation of gliogenesis and the role of newborn astrocytes in a post-ischemic scenario. Combining immunofluorescence, BrdU-tracing and genetic cellular labelling, they tracked the migration of newborn astrocytes (expressing Thbs4) and found that Thbs4-positive astrocytes modulate the extracellular matrix at the lesion border by synthesis but also degradation of hyaluronan. Their results point to a relevant function of SVZ newborn astrocytes in the modulation of the glial scar after brain ischemia. This work's major strength is the fact that it is tackling the function of SVZ newborn astrocytes, whose role is undisclosed so far.

Strengths:

The article is innovative, of good quality, and clearly written, with properly described Materials and Methods, data analysis and presentation. In general, the methods are designed properly to answer the main question of the authors, being a major strength. Interpretation of the data is also in general well done, with results supporting the main conclusions of this article.

In this revised version, the points raised/weaknesses were clarified and discussed in the article.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

When you search for something, you need to maintain some representation (a "template") of that target in your mind/brain. Otherwise, how would you know what you were looking for? If your phone is in a shocking pink case, you can guide your attention to pink things based on a target template that includes the attribute 'pink'. That guidance should get you to the phone pretty effectively if it is in view. Most real-world searches are more complicated. If you are looking for the toaster, you will make use of your knowledge of where toasters can be. Thus, if you are asked to find a toaster, you might first activate a template of a kitchen or a kitchen counter. You might worry about pulling up the toaster template only after you are reasonably sure you have restricted your attention to a sensible part of the scene.

Zhou and Geng are looking for evidence of this early stage of guidance by information about the surrounding scene in a search task. They train Os to associate four faces with four places. Then, with Os in the scanner, they show one face - the target for a subsequent search. After an 8 sec delay, they show a search display where the face is placed on the associated scene 75% of the time. Thus, attending to the associated scene is a good idea. The questions of interest are "When can the experimenters decode which face Os saw from fMRI recording?" "When can the experimenters decode the associated scene?" and "Where in the brain can the experimenters see evidence of this decoding? The answer is that the face but not the scene can be read out during the face's initial presentation. The key finding is that the scene can be read out (imperfectly but above chance) during the subsequent delay when Os are looking at just a fixation point. Apparently, seeing the face conjures up the scene in the mind's eye.

This is a solid and believable result. The only issue, for me, is whether it is telling us anything specifically about search. Suppose you trained Os on the face-scene pairing but never did anything connected to the search. If you presented the face, would you not see evidence of recall of the associated scene? Maybe you would see the activation of the scene in different areas and you could identify some areas as search specific. I don't think anything like that was discussed here.

You might also expect this result to be asymmetric. The idea is that the big scene gives the search information about the little face. The face should activate the larger useful scene more than the scene should activate the more incidental face, if the task was reversed. That might be true if the finding is related to a search where the scene context is presumed to be the useful attention guiding stimulus. You might not expect an asymmetry if Os were just learning an association.

It is clear in this study that the face and the scene have been associated and that this can be seen in the fMRI data. It is also clear that a valid scene background speeds the behavioral response in the search task. The linkage between these two results is not entirely clear but perhaps future research will shed more light.

It is also possible that I missed the clear evidence of the search-specific nature of the activation by the scene during the delay period. If so, I apologize and suggest that the point be underlined for readers like me.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This work is one of the best instances of a well-controlled experiment and theoretically impactful findings within the literature on templates guiding attentional selection. I am a fan of the work that comes out of this lab and this particular manuscript is an excellent example as to why that is the case. Here, the authors use fMRI (employing MVPA) to test whether during the preparatory search period, a search template is invoked within the corresponding sensory regions, in the absence of physical stimulation. By associating faces with scenes, a strong association was created between two types of stimuli that recruit very specific neural processing regions - FFA for faces and PPA for scenes. The critical results showed that scene information that was associated with a particular cue could be decoded from PPA during the delay period. This result strongly supports the invoking of a very specific attentional template.

Strengths:

There is so much to be impressed with in this report. The writing of the manuscript is incredibly clear. The experimental design is clever and innovative. The analysis is sophisticated and also innovative. The results are solid and convincing.

Weaknesses:

I only have a few weaknesses to point out.<br /> This point is not so much of a weakness, but a further test of the hypothesis put forward by the authors. The delay period was long - 8 seconds. It would be interesting to split the delay period into the first 4seconds and the last 4seconds and run the same decoding analyses. The hypothesis here is that semantic associations take time to evolve, and it would be great to show that decoding gets stronger in the second delay period as opposed to the period right after the cue. I don't think this is necessary for publication, but I think it would be a stronger test of the template hypothesis.<br /> Type in the abstract "curing" vs "during."<br /> It is hard to know what to do with significant results in ROIs that are not motivated by specific hypotheses. However, for Figure 3, what are the explanations for ROIs that show significant differences above and beyond the direct hypotheses set out by the authors?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The manuscript contains a carefully designed fMRI study, using MVPA pattern analysis to investigate which high-level associate cortices contain target-related information to guide visual search. A special focus is hereby on so-called 'target-associated' information, that has previously been shown to help in guiding attention during visual search. For this purpose the author trained their participants and made them learn specific target-associations, in order to then test which brain regions may contain neural representations of those learnt associations. They found that at least some of the associations tested were encoded in prefrontal cortex during the cue and delay period.

The manuscript is very carefully prepared. As far as I can see, the statistical analyses are all sound and the results integrate well with previous findings.

I have no strong objections against the presented results and their interpretation.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Ren et al developed a novel computational method to investigate cell evolutionary trajectory for scRNA-seq samples. This method, MGPfact, estimates pseudotime and potential branches in the evolutionary path through explicitly modeling the bifurcations in a Gaussian process. They benchmarked this method using synthetic as well as real world samples and showed superior performance for some of the tasks in cell trajectory analysis. They further demonstrated the utilities of MGPfact using single cell RNA-seq samples derived from microglia or T cells and showed that it can accurately identify the differentiation timepoint and uncover biologically relevant gene signatures.

Strengths:

Overall I think this is a useful new tool that could deliver novel insights for the large body of scRNA-seq data generated in the public domain. The manuscript is written is a logical way and most parts of the method are well described.

Comments on revisions:

In this revision, the authors have sufficiently addressed all of my concerns. I don't have any follow-up comments.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary of the manuscript:

Authors present MGPfactXMBD, a novel model-based manifold-learning framework designed to address the challenges of interpreting complex cellular state spaces from single-cell RNA sequences. To overcome current limitations, MGPfactXMBD factorizes complex development trajectories into independent bifurcation processes of gene sets, enabling trajectory inference based on relevant features. As a result, it is expected that the method provides a deeper understanding of the biological processes underlying cellular trajectories and their potential determinants.

MGPfactXMBD was tested across 239 datasets, and the method demonstrated similar to slightly superior performance in key quality-control metrics to state-of-the-art methods. When applied to case studies, MGPfactXMBD successfully identified critical pathways and cell types in microglia development, validating experimentally identified regulons and markers. Additionally, it uncovered evolutionary trajectories of tumor-associated CD8+ T cells, revealing new subtypes with gene expression signatures that predict responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors in independent cohorts.

Overall, MGPfactXMBD represents a relevant tool in manifold-learning for scRNA-seq data, enabling feature selection for specific biological processes and enhancing our understanding of the biological determinants of cell fate.

Summary of the outcome:

The novel method addresses core state-of-the-art questions in biology related to trajectory identification. The design and the case studies are of relevance.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed all my previous comments to satisfaction.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Kang et al. provide the first experimental insights from holographic stimulation of auditory cortex. Using stimulation of functionally-defined ensembles, they test whether overactivation of a specific subpopulation biases simultaneous and subsequent sensory-evoked network activations.

Strengths:

The investigators use a novel technique to investigate the sensory response properties in functionally defined cell assemblies in auditory cortex. These data provide the first evidence of how acutely perturbing specific frequency-tuned neurons impacts the tuning across a broader population.

Weaknesses:

I have several main concerns about the interpretation of these data:<br /> (1) The premise of the paper suggests that sensory responses are noisy at the level of neurons, but that population activity is reliable and that different neurons may participate in sensory coding on different trials. However, no analysis related to single trial variance or overall stability of population coding is provided. Specifically, showing that population activity is stable across trials in terms of total activity level or in some latent low dimensional representation would be required to support the concept of "homeostatic balancing".<br /> (2) Rebalancing would predict either that the responses of stimulated neurons would remain A) elevated after stimulation due to a hebbian mechanism or B) suppressed due to high activity levels on previous trials, a homeostatic mechanism. The authors report suppression in targeted neurons after stimulation blocks, but this appears similar to all other non-stimulated neurons. How do the authors interpret the post-stimulation effect in stimulated neurons?<br /> (3) The authors suggest that ACtx is different from visual cortex in that neurons with different tuning properties are intermingled. While that is true at the level of individual neurons, there is global order, as demonstrated by the authors own widefield imaging data and others at the single cell level (e.g. Tischbirek et al. 2019). Generally, distance is dismissed as a variable in the paper, but this is not convincing. Work across multiple sensory systems, including the authors own work, has demonstrated that cortical neuron connectivity is not random but varies as a function of distance (e.g. Watkins et al. 2014). Better justification is needed for the spatial pattern of neurons that were chosen for stimulation. Further, analyses that account for center of mass of stimulation, rather than just the distance from any stimulated neuron would be important to any negative result related to distance.<br /> (4) Data curation and presentation: Broadly, the way the data were curated and plotted makes it difficult to determine how well-supported the authors claims are. In terms of curation, the removal of outliers 3 standard deviations above the mean in the analysis of stimulation effects is questionable. Given the single-cell stimulation data presented in Figure 1, the reader is led to believe that holographic stimulation is quite specific. However, the justification for removing these outliers is that there may be direct stimulation 20-30 um from the target. Without plotting and considering the outliers as well, it is difficult to understand if these outsized responses are due to strong synaptic connections with neighboring neurons or rather just direct off-target stimulation. Relatedly, data presentation is limited to the mean + SEM for almost all main effects and pre-post stimulation effects are only compared indirectly. Whether stimulation effects are driven by just a few neurons that are particularly suppressed or distinct populations which are suppressed or enhanced remains unclear.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The goal of HiJee Kang et al. in this study is to explore the interaction between assemblies of neurons with similar pure-tone selectivity in mouse auditory cortex. Using holographic optogenetic stimulation in a small subset of target cells selective for a given pure tone (PTsel), while optically monitoring calcium activity in surrounding non-target cells, they discovered a subtle rebalancing process: co-tuned neurons that are not optogenetically stimulated tend to reduce their activity. The cortical network reacts as if an increased response to PTsel in some tuned assemblies is immediately offset by a reduction in activity in the rest of the PTsel-tuned assemblies, leaving the overall response to PTsel unchanged. The authors show that this rebalancing process affects only the responses of neurons to PTsel, not to other pure tones. They also show that assemblies of neurons that are not selective for PTsel don't participate in the rebalancing process. They conclude that assemblies of neurons with similar pure-tone selectivity must interact in some way to organize this rebalancing process, and they suggest that mechanisms based on homeostatic signaling may play a role.

The conclusions of this paper are very interesting but some aspects of the study including methods for optogenetic stimulation, statistical analysis of the results and interpretation of the underlying mechanisms need to be clarified and extended.

(1) This study uses an all-optical approach to excite a restricted group of neurons chosen for their functional characteristics (their frequency tuning), and simultaneously record from the entire network observable in the FOV. As stated by the authors, this approach is applied for the first time to the auditory cortex, which is a tour de force. However, such an approach is complex and requires precise controls to be convincing. In the manuscript, several methodological aspects are not sufficiently described to allow a proper understanding.<br /> (i) The use of CRmine together with GCaMP8s has been reported as problematic as the 2Ph excitation of GCaMP8s also excites the opsin. Here, the authors use a red-shifted version of CRmine to prevent such cross excitation by the imaging laser. To be convincing, they should explain how they controlled for the absence of rsCRmine activation by the 940nm light. Showing the fluorescence traces immediately after the onset of the imaging session would ensure that neurons are not excited as they are imaged.<br /> (ii) Holographic patterns used to excite 5 cells simultaneously may be associated with out-of-focus laser hot spots. Cells located outside of the FOV could be activated, therefore engaging other cells than the targeted ones in the stimulation. This would be problematic in this study as their tuning may be unrelated to the tuning of the targeted cells. To control for such an effect, one could in principle decouple the imaging and the excitation planes, and check for the absence of out-of-focus unwanted excitation.<br /> (iii) The control shown in Figure 1B is intended to demonstrate the precision of the optogenetic stimulation: when the stimulation spiral is played at a distance larger or equal to 20 µm from a cell, it does not activate it. However, in the rest of the study, the stimulation is applied with a holographic approach, targeting 5 cells simultaneously instead of just one. As the holographic pattern of light could produce out-of-focus hot spots (absent in the single cell control), we don't know what is the extent of the contamination from non-targeted cells in this case. This is important because it would determine an objective criterion to exclude non-targeted but excited cells (last paragraph of the Result section: "For the stimulation condition, we excluded non-target cells that were within 15 µm distance of the target cells...")

(2) A strength of this study comes from the design of the experimental protocol used to compare the activity in non-target co-tuned cells when the optogenetic stimulation is paired with their preferred tone versus a non-preferred pure tone. The difficulty lies in the co-occurrence of the rebalancing process and the adaptation to repeated auditory stimuli, especially when these auditory stimuli correspond to a cell's preferred pure tones. To distinguish between the two effects, the authors use a comparison with a control condition similar to the optogenetic stimulation conditions, except that the laser power is kept at 0 mW. The observed effect is shown as an extra reduction of activity in the condition with the optogenetic paired with the preferred tone, compared to the control condition. The specificity of this extra reduction when stimulation is synchronized with the preferred tone, but not with a non-preferred tone, is a potentially powerful result, as it points to an underlying mechanism that links the assemblies of cells that share the same preferred pure tones.<br /> The evidence for this specificity is shown in Figure 3A and 3D. However, the universality of this specificity is challenged by the fact that it is observed for 16kHz preferring cells, but not so clearly for 54kHz preferring cells: these 54kHz preferring cells also significantly (p = 0.044) reduce their response to 54kHz in the optogenetic stimulation condition applied to 16kHz preferring target cells compared to the control condition. The proposed explanation for this is the presence of many cells with a broad frequency tuning, meaning that these cells could have been categorized as 54kHz preferring cells, while they also responded significantly to a 16kHz pure tone. To account for this, the authors divide each category of pure tone cells into three subgroups with low, medium and high frequency preferences. Following the previous reasoning, one would expect at least the "high" subgroups to show a strong and significant specificity for an additional reduction only if the optogenetic stimulation is targeted to a group of cells with the same preferred frequency. Figure 3D fails to show this. The extra reduction for the "high" subgroups is significant only when the condition of opto-stimulation synchronized with the preferred frequency is compared to the control condition, but not when it is compared to the condition of opto-stimulation synchronized with the non-preferred frequency.<br /> Therefore, the claim that "these results indicate that the effect of holographic optogenetic stimulation depends not on the specific tuning of cells, but on the co-tuning between stimulated and non-stimulated neurons" (end of paragraph "Optogenetic holographic stimulation decreases activity in non-target co-tuned ensembles") seems somewhat exaggerated. Perhaps increasing the number of sessions in the 54kHz target cell optogenetic stimulation condition (12 FOV) to the number of sessions in the 16kHz target cell optogenetic stimulation condition (18 FOV) could help to reach significance levels consistent with this claim.

(3) To interpret the results of this study, the authors suggest that mechanisms based on homeostatic signaling could be important to allow the rebalancing of the activity of assemblies of co-tuned neurons. In particular, the authors try to rule out the possibility that inhibition plays a central role. Both mechanisms could produce effects on short timescales, making them potential candidates. The authors quantify the spatial distribution of the balanced non-targeted cells and show that they are not localized in the vicinity of the targeted cells. They conclude that local inhibition is unlikely to be responsible for the observed effect. This argument raises some questions. The method used to quantify spatial distribution calculates the minimum distance of a non-target cell to any target cell. If local inhibition is activated by the closest target cell, one would expect the decrease in activity to be stronger for non-target cells with a small minimum distance and to fade away for larger minimum distances. This is not what the authors observe (Figure 4B), so they reject inhibition as a plausible explanation. However, their quantification doesn't exclude the possibility that non-target cells in the minimum distance range could also be close and connected to the other 4 target cells, thus masking any inhibitory effect mediated by the closest target cell. In addition, the authors should provide a quantitative estimate of the range of local inhibition in layers 2/3 of the mouse auditory cortex to compare with the range of distances examined in this study (< 300 µm). Finally, the possibility that some target cells could be inhibitory cells themselves is considered unlikely by the authors, given the proportions of excitatory and inhibitory neurons in the upper cortical layers. On the other hand, it should be acknowledged that inhibitory cells are more electrically compact, making them easier to be activated optogenetically with low laser power.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors optogenetically stimulate 5 neurons all preferring the same pure tone frequency (16 or 54 kHz) in the mouse auditory cortex using a holography-based single cell resolution optogenetics during sound presentation. They demonstrate that the response boosting of target neurons leads to a broad suppression of surrounding neurons, which is significantly more pronounced in neurons that have the same pure tone tuning as the target neurons. This effect is immediate and spans several hundred micrometers. This suggests that the auditory cortical network balances its activity in response to excess spikes, a phenomenon already seen in visual cortex.

Strengths:

The study is based on a technologically very solid approach based on single-cell resolution two-photon optogenetics. The authors demonstrate the potency and resolution of this approach. The inhibitory effects observed upon targeted stimulation are clear and the relative specificity to co-tuned neurons is statistically clear although the effect size is moderate.

Weaknesses:

The evaluation of the results is brief and some aspects of the observed homeostatic are not quantified. For example, it is unclear whether stimulation produces a net increase or decrease of population activity, or if the homeostatic phenomenon fully balances activity. A comparison of population activity for all imaged neurons with and without stimulation would be instructive. The selectivity for co-tuned neurons is significant but weak. Although it is difficult to evaluate this issue, this result may be trivial, as co-tuned neurons fire more strongly. Therefore, the net activity decrease is expected to be larger, in particular, for the number of non-co-tuned neurons which actually do not fire to the target sound. The net effect for the latter neurons will be zero just because they do not respond. The authors do not make a very strong case for a specific inhibition model in comparison to a broad and non-specific inhibitory effect. Complementary modeling work would be needed to fully establish this point.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:<br /> This work done by Huang et.al. revealed the complex regulatory functions and transcription network of 172 unknown transcription factors of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1. The authors utilized ChIP-seq to profile TFs binding site information across the genome, demonstrating diverse regulatory relationships among them via hierarchical networks with three levels. They further constructed thirteen ternary regulatory motifs in small subs and co-association atlas with 7 core associated clusters. The study also uncovered 24 virulence-related master regulators. The pan-genome analysis uncovered both the conservation and evolution of TFs with P. aeruginosa complex and related species. Furthermore, they established a web-based database combining both existing and novel data from HT-SELEX and ChIP-seq to provide TF binding site information. This study offered valuable insights into studying transcription regulatory networks in P. aeruginosa and other microbes.

Strengths:<br /> The results are presented with clarity, supported by well-organized figures and tables that not only illustrate the study's findings but also enhance the understanding of complex data patterns.

Weaknesses:<br /> The results of this manuscript are mainly presented in systematic figures and tables. Some of the results need to be discussed as an illustration how readers can utilize these datasets.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this work, the authors comprehensively describe the transcriptional regulatory network of Pseudomonas aeruginosa through the analysis of transcription factor binding characteristics. They reveal the hierarchical structure of the network through ChIP-seq, categorizing transcription factors into top-, middle-, and bottom-level, and reveal a diverse set of relationships among the transcription factors. Additionally, the authors conduct a pangenome analysis across the Pseudomonas aeruginosa species complex as well as other species to study the evolution of transcription factors. Moreover, the authors present a database with new and existing data to enable the storage and search of transcription factor binding sites. The findings of this study broaden our knowledge on the transcriptome of P. aeruginosa.

This study sheds light on the complex interconnections between various cellular functions that contribute to the pathogenicity of P. aeruginosa, along with the associated regulatory mechanisms. Certain findings, such as the regulatory tendencies of DNA-binding domain-types, provides valuable insights on the possible functions of uncharacterized transcription factors and new functions of those that have already been characterized. The techniques used hold great potential for discovery of transcription factor functions in understudied organisms as well.

The study would benefit from a more clear discussion on the implications of various findings, such as binding preferences, regulatory preferences, and the link between regulatory crosstalk and virulence. Additionally, the pangenome analysis would be furthered through a discussion of the divergence of the transcription factors of P. aeruginosa PAO1across species in relation to the findings on the hierarchical structure of the transcriptional regulatory network.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this work, Urbanska and colleagues use a machine-learning based crossing of mechanical characterisations of various cells in different states and their transcriptional profiles. Using this approach, they identify a core set of five genes that systematically vary together with the mechanical state of the cells, although not always in the same direction depending on the conditions. They show that the combined transcriptional changes in this gene set is strongly predictive of a change in the cell mechanical properties, in systems that were not used to identify the genes (a validation set). Finally, they experimentally after the expression level of one of these genes, CAV1, that codes for the caveolin 1 protein, and show that, in a variety of cellular systems and contexts, perturbations in the expression level of CAV1 also induce changes in cell mechanics, cells with lower CAV1 expression being generally softer.

Overall the approach seems accessible, sound and is well described. My personal expertize is not suited to judge its validity, novelty or relevance, so I do not make comments on that. The results it provides seem to have been thoroughly tested by the authors (using different types of mechanical characterisations of the cells) and to be robust in their predictive value. The authors also show convincingly that one of the genes they identified, CAV1, is not only correlated with the mechanical properties of cells, but also that changing its expression level affects cell mechanics. At this stage, the study appears mostly focused on the description and validation of the methodological approach, and it is hard to really understand what the results obtain really mean, the importance of the biological finding - what is this set of 5 genes doing in the context of cell mechanics? Is it really central, or is it just one of the set of knobs on which the cell plays - and it is identified by this method because it is systematically modulated but maybe, for any given context, it is not the dominant player - all these fundamental questions remain unanswered at this stage. On one hand, it means that the study might have identified an important novel module of genes in cell mechanics, but on the other hand, it also reveals that it is not yet easy to interpret the results provided by this type of novel approach.

Comments on revisions:

In their point-by-point answer, the authors did a great effort to provide pedagogical answers that clarified most of the points I had raised. They also did more analysis, some of which are included as supplementary data, and added a few sentences to the main text and discussion. As far as I am concerned, I see no particular issue with the revised article. I think it will be interesting both as a new type of approach in mechanobiology, and also as a motivation for more experimentally oriented labs to test the hypothesis proposed in the article and the 'module' they found.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Strengths:

This is an interesting topic and a novel theme. The visualisations and presentation are to a very high standard. The Introduction is very well-written and introduces the main concepts well, with a clear logical structure and good use of the literature. The methods are detailed and well described and written in such a fashion that they are transparent and repeatable.

Weaknesses:

I only have one major issue, which is possibly a product of the structure requirements of the paper/journal. This relates to the Results and Discussion, line 91 onwards. I understand the structure of the paper necessitates delving immediately into the results, but it is quite hard to follow due to a lack of background information. In comparison to the Methods, which are incredibly detailed, the Results in the main section reads as quite superficial. They provide broad overviews of broad findings but I found it very hard to actually get a picture of the main results in its current form. For example, how the different species factor in, etc.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The study tries to assess how the rise of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau affected patterns of bird migration between their breeding and wintering sites. They do so by correlating the present distribution of the species with a set of environmental variables. The data on species distributions come from eBird. The main issue lies in the problematic assumption that species correlations between their current distribution and environment were about the same before the rise of the Plateau. There is no ground truthing and the study relies on Movebank data of only 7 species which are not even listed in the study. Similarly, the study does not outline the boundaries of breeding sites NE of the Plateau. Thus it is absolutely unclear potentially which breeding populations it covers.

Strengths:

I like the approach for how you combined various environmental datasets for the modelling part.

Weaknesses:

The major weakness of the study lies in the assumption that species correlations between their current distribution and environments found today are back-projected to the far past before the rise of the Q-T Plateau. This would mean that species responses to the environmental cues do not evolve which is clearly not true. Thus, your study is a very nice intellectual exercise of too many ifs.

The second major drawback lies in the way you estimate the migratory routes of particular birds. No matter how good the data eBird provides is, you do not know population-specific connections between wintering and breeding sites. Some might overwinter in India, some populations in Africa and you will never know the teleconnections between breeding and wintering sites of particular species. The few available tracking studies (seven!) are too coarse and with limited aspects of migratory connectivity to give answer on the target questions of your study.

Your set of species is unclear, selection criteria for the 50 species are unknown and variability in their migratory strategies is likely to affect the direction of the effects. In addition, the position of the breeding sites relative to the Q-T plate will affect the azimuths and resulting migratory flyways. So in fact, we have no idea what your estimates mean in Figure 2.

There is no way one can assess the performance of your statistical exercises, e.g. performances of the models.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The mechanism by which WNT signals are received and transduced into the cell has been the topic of extensive research. Cell surface levels of the WNT receptors of the FZD family are subject to tight control and it's well established that the transmembrane ubiquitin ligases ZNRF3 and RNF43 target FZDs for degradation and that proteins of the R-spondin family block this effect. This manuscript explores the role that WNT proteins play in receptor internalization, recycling and degradation, and the authors provide evidence that WNTs promote interactions of FZD with the ubiquitin ligases. Using cells mutant in all 3 DVL genes, the authors demonstrate that this effect of WNT on FZD is DVL-independent.

Strengths:

Overall, the data are of good quality and support the authors' hypothesis. Strengths of this study are the use of CRISPR-mutated cell lines to establish genetic requirements for the various components. The finding that FZD internalization and degradation is WNT dependent and does not involve DVL is novel.

Weaknesses:

Weaknesses of the work include a heavy reliance on overexpression and monitoring the effects in a single cell line, HEK293. In addition, the claim of specificity - only FZD5 and FZD8 participate in this process - is not strongly supported.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this manuscript Luo et al uncover that the ZNRF3/RNF43 E3 ubiquitin ligases participate in the selective endocytosis and degradation of FZD5/8 receptors in response to Wnt stimulation. Interestingly, DVL proteins have previously been shown to be important for RNF43/ZNRF3-dependent ubiquitination of Frizzled receptors but in this study the authors show that DVL proteins are only important for ligand and RNF43/ZNRF3-independent FZD endocytosis. Although it is well established that ZNRF3 and RNF43 promote the endocytosis and degradation of FZD receptors as part of a negative regulatory loop to dampened B-catenin signaling, the dependency of Wnt stimulation for this process and the specificity of this degradation for different FZD receptors remained poorly characterized.

In my opinion there are two significant findings of this study: 1) Wnt proteins are required for ZNRF3/RNF43 mediated endocytosis and degradation of FZD receptors and this constitutes an important negative regulatory loop. 2) The ZNRF3/RNF43 substrate selectivity for FZD5/8 over the other 8 Frizzleds. Of course, many questions remain, and new ones emerge as is often the case, but these findings challenge our dogmatic view on how the ZNRF3/RNF43 regulate Wnt signaling and emphasize their role in Wnt-dependent Frizzled endocytosis/degradation and beta-catenin signaling. Below I have suggestions to strengthen the manuscript.

(1) Given their results the authors conclude that upregulation of Frizzled on the plasma membrane is not sufficient to explain the stabilization of beta-catenin seen in the ZNRF3/RNF43 mutant cells. This interpretation is sound, and they suggest in the discussion that ZNRF3/RNF43-mediated ubiquitination could serve as a sorting signal to sort endocytosed FZD to lysosomes for degradation and that absence or inhibition of this process would promote FZD recycling. This should be relatively easy to test using surface biotinylation experiments and would considerably strengthen the manuscript.<br /> (2) The authors show that the FZD5 CRD domain is required for endocytosis since a mutant FZD5 protein in which the CRD is removed does not undergo endocytosis. This is perhaps not surprising since this is the site of Wnt binding, but the authors show that a chimeric FZD5CRD-FZD4 receptor can confer Wnt-dependent endocytosis to an otherwise endocytosis incompetent FZD4 protein. Since the linker region between the CRD and the first TM differs between FZD5 and FZD4 it would be interesting to understand whether the CRD specifically or the overall arrangement (such as the spacing) is the most important determinant.<br /> (3) I find it surprising that only FZD5 and FZD8 appear to undergo endocytosis or be stabilized at the cell surface upon ZNRF3/RNF43 knockout. Is this consistent with previous literature? Is that a cell-specific feature? These findings should be tested in a different cell line, with possibly different relative levels of ZNRF3 and RNF43 expression.<br /> (4) If FZD7 is not a substrate of ZNRF3/RNF43 and therefore is not ubiquitinated and degraded, how do the authors reconcile that its overexpression does not lead to elevated cytosolic beta-catenin levels in Figure 5B?<br /> (5) For Figure 5B, it would be interesting if the authors could evaluate whether overexpression of FZD5 in the ZNRF3/RNF43 double knockout lines would synergize and lead to further increase in cytosolic beta-catenin levels. As control if the substrate selectivity is clear FZD7 overexpression in that line should not do anything.<br /> (6) In Figure 6G, the authors need to show cytosolic levels of beta-catenin in the absence of Wnt in all cases.<br /> (7) Since the authors show that DVL is not involved in the Wnt and ZRNF3-dependent endocytosis they should repeat the proximity biotinylation experiment in figure 7 in the DVL triple KO cells. This is an important experiment since previous studies showed that DVL was required for the ZRNF3/RNF43-mediated ubiqtuonation of FZD.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript aimed to study the role of Rudhira (also known as Breast Carcinoma Amplified Sequence 3), an endothelium-restricted microtubules-associated protein, in regulating of TGFβ signaling. The authors demonstrate that Rudhira is a critical signaling modulator for TGFβ signaling by releasing Smad2/3 from cytoskeletal microtubules and how that Rudhira is a Smad2/3 target gene. Taken together, the authors provide a model of how Rudhira contributes to TGFβ signaling activity to stabilize the microtubules, which is essential for vascular development.

Strengths:

The study used different methods and techniques to achieve aims and support conclusions, such as Gene Ontology analysis, functional analysis in culture, immunostaining analysis, and proximity ligation assay. This study provides unappreciated additional layer of TGFβ signaling activity regulation after ligand-receptor interaction.

Weaknesses:

(1) It is unclear how current findings provide a better understanding of Rudhira KO mice, which the authors published some years ago.

(2) Why do they use HEK cells instead of SVEC cells in Fig 2 and 4 experiments?

(3) A model shown in Fig 5E needs improvement to grasp their findings easily.

Comments on revised version:

The authors have adequately responded to the reviewers' concerns.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

It was first reported in 2000 that Smad2/3/4 are sequestered to microtubules in resting cells and TGF-β stimulation releases Smad2/3/4 from microtubules, allowing activation of the Smad signaling pathway. Although the finding was subsequently confirmed in a few papers, the underlying mechanism has not been explored. In the present study, the authors found that Rudhira/breast carcinoma amplified sequence 3 is involved in release Smad2/3 from microtubules in response to TGF-β stimulation. Rudhira is also induced by TGF-β and probably involved in stabilization of microtubules in the delayed phase after TGF-β stimulation. Therefore, Rudhira has two important functions downstream of TGF-β in the early as well as delayed phase.

Strengths:

This work aimed to address an unsolved question on one of the earliest events after TGF-β stimulation. Based on loss-of-function experiments, the authors identified Rudhira, as a key player that triggers Smad2/3 release from microtubules after TGF-β stimulation. This is an important first step for understanding the initial phase of Smad signaling activation.

Weaknesses:

Currently, the processes how Rudhira causes the release of Smad proteins from microtubules and how Rudhira is mobilized to microtubules in response to TGF-β remain unclear. The authors are expected to address these points experimentally in the future.

This reviewer is also afraid that some of the biochemical data lack appropriate controls and are not convincing enough.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authiors show that SVZ derived astrocytes respond to a middle carotid artery occlusion (MCAO) hypoxia lesion by secreting and modulating hyaluronan at the edge of the lesion (penumbra) and that hyaluronin is a chemoattractant to SVZ astrocytes. They use lineage tracing of SVZ cells to determine their origin. They also find that SVZ derived astrocytes express Thbs-4 but astrocytes at the MCAO-induced scar do not. Also, they demonstrate that decreased HA in the SVZ is correlated with gliogenesis. While much of the paper is descriptive/correlative they do overexpress Hyaluronan synthase 2 via viral vectors and show this is sufficient to recruit astrocytes to the injury. Interestingly, astrocytes preferred to migrate to the MCAO than to the region of overexpressed HAS2.

Strengths:

The field has largely ignored the gliogenic response of the SVZ, especially with regards to astrocytic function. These cells and especially newborn cells may provide support for regeneration. Emigrated cells from the SVZ have been shown to be neuroprotective via creating pro-survival environments, but their expression and deposition of beneficial extracellular matrix molecules is poorly understood. Therefore, this study is timely and important. The paper is very well written and flow of result logical.

Comments on revised version:

Thanks for addressing my final points.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In their manuscript, Ardaya et al address the impact of ischemia-induced astrogliogenesis from the adult SVZ and their effect on remodeling of the extracellular matrix (ECM) in the glial scar. The authors show that the levels of Thbs4, a marker previously identified to be expressed in astrocytes and neural stem cells (NSCs) of the SVZ, strongly increase upon ischemia. While proliferation is significantly increase shortly after ischemia, Nestin and DCX (markers for NSCs and neuroblasts, respectively) decrease and Thbs4 levels suggesting that the neurogenic program is halted and astrogenesis is enhanced. By fate-mapping, the authors show that astrocytes derive from SVZ NSCs and migrate towards the lesion. These SVZ-derived astrocytes strongly express Thbs4 and populate the border of the lesion, while local astrocytes do not express Thbs4 and localize to both scar and border. Interestingly, the Thbs4-positive astrocytes appear to represent a second wave of astrocytes accumulating at the scar, following an immediate reaction of first wave reactive gliosis by local astrocytes. Mechanistically, the study presents evidence that the degradation of hyaluronan (HA), a key component of the extracellular matrix (ECM) is downregulated in the SVZ after ischemia, potentially inducing astrogliogenesis, while HA accumulation at the lesion side represents at least one signal to recruit the newly generated astrocytes. In the aim to facilitate tissue regeneration after ischemic injury, the authors propose that the Thbs4-positive astrocytes could be a promising therapeutical target to modulate the glial scar after brain ischemia.

Strengths:

This topic is timely and important since the focus of previous studies was almost exclusively on the role of neurogenesis. The generation of adult-born astrocytes has been proven in both neurogenic niches under physiological conditions, but the implicated function in pathology has not been sufficiently addressed yet.

Weaknesses:

The study presented by Ardaya et al presents good evidence that a population of astrocytes that express Thbs4 contribute to scar formation after ischemic injury. The authors demonstrate that ischemic injury increases proliferation in the SVZ, decreases neurogenesis and increases astrogenesis. However, whether astrogenesis is a result of terminal differentiation of type B cells or their proliferation remains unclear. Here, a combination of fate mapping and thymidine analogue-tracing would have been conclusively.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Bowler et al. present a thoroughly tested system for modularized behavioral control of navigation-based experiments, particularly suited for pairing with 2-photon imaging but applicable to a variety of techniques. This system, which they name behaviorMate, represents an important methodological contribution to the field of behavioral and systems neuroscience. As the authors note, behavioral control paradigms vary widely across laboratories in terms of hardware and software utilized and often require specialized technical knowledge to make changes to these systems. Having a standardized, easy to implement, and flexible system that can be used by many groups is therefore highly desirable.

Strengths:

The present manuscript provides compelling evidence of the functionality and applicability of behaviorMate. The authors report benchmark tests for high-fidelity, real-time update speed between the animal's movement and the behavioral control, on both the treadmill-based and virtual reality (VR) setups. The VR system relies on Unity, a common game development engine, but implements all scene generation and customizability in the authors' behaviorMate and VRMate software, which circumvents the need for users to program task logic in C# in Unity. Further, the authors nicely demonstrate and quantify reliable hippocampal place cell coding in both setups, using synchronized 2-photon imaging. This place cell characterization also provides a concrete comparison between the place cell properties observed in treadmill-based navigation vs. visual VR in a single study, which itself is a valuable contribution to the field.

Weaknesses: None noted.

Documentation for installing and operating behaviorMate is available via the authors' lab website and Github, linked in the manuscript.

The authors have addressed all of my requests for clarification from the previous round of review. This work will be of great interest to systems neuroscientists looking to integrate flexible head-fixed behavioral control with neural data acquisition.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The authors present behaviorMate, an open-source behavior control system including a central GUI and compatible treadmill and display components. Notably, the system utilize the "Intranet of things" scheme and the components communicate through local network, making the system modular, which in turn allows user to configure the setup to suit their experimental needs. Overall, behaviorMate is a useful resource for researchers performing head-fixed VR imaging studies involving 1D navigation tasks, as the commercial alternatives are often expensive and inflexible to modify.

One major utility of behaviorMate is an open-source alternative to commercial behavior apparatus for head-fixed imaging studies involving 1D navigation tasks. The documentation, BOM, CAD files, circuit design, source and compiled software, along with the manuscript, create an invaluable resource for neuroscience researcher looking to set up a budget-friendly VR and head-fixed imaging rig. Some features of behaviorMate, including the computer vision-based calibration of treadmill, and the decentralized, Android-based display devices, are very innovative approaches and can be quite useful in practical settings.

behaviorMate can also be used as a set of generic schema and communication protocols that allows the users to incorporate recording and stimulation devices during a head-fixed imaging experiment. Due to the "Intranet of things" approach taken in the design, any hardware that supports UDP communication can in theory be incorporated into the system. In terms of current capability, behaviorMate supports experimental contingencies based on animal position and time and synchronization with external recording devices using a TTL start signal. Further customization involving more complicated experimental contingencies, more accurate recording synchronization (for example with ephys recording devices), incorporation of novel behavior and high-speed neural recording hardware beyond GPIO signaling would require modification of the Java source and custom hardware implementation. Modification to the Java source of behaviorMate can be performed with basic familiarity with object-oriented programming using the Java programming language, and a JavaFX-based plugin system is under development to make such customizations more approachable for users.

In summary, the manuscript presents a well-developed and useful open-source behavior control system for head-fixed VR imaging experiments with innovative features.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this work, the authors present an open-source system called behaviourMate for acquiring data related to animal behavior. The temporal alignment of recorded parameters across various devices is highlighted as crucial to avoid delays caused by electronics dependencies. This system not only addresses this issue but also offers an adaptable solution for VR setups. Given the significance of well-designed open-source platforms, this paper holds importance.

Advantages of behaviorMate:

The cost-effectiveness of the system provided.<br /> The reliability of PCBs compared to custom-made systems.<br /> Open-source nature for easy setup.<br /> Plug & Play feature requiring no coding experience for optimizing experiment performance (only text based Json files, 'context List' required for editing).

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Time periods in which experience regulates early plasticity in sensory circuits are well established, but the mechanisms that control these critical periods are poorly understood. In this manuscript, Leier and Foden and colleagues examine early-life critical periods that regulate the Drosophila antennal lobe, a model sensory circuit for understanding synaptic organization. Using early-life (0-2 days old) exposure to distinct odorants, they show that constant odor exposure markedly reduces the volume, synapse number, and function of the VM7 glomerulus. The authors offer evidence that these changes are mediated by invasion of ensheathing glia into the glomerulus where they phagocytose connections via a mechanism involving the engulfment receptor Draper.

This manuscript is a striking example of a study where the questions are interesting, the authors spent a considerable amount of time to clearly think out the best experiments to ask their questions in the most straightforward way, and expressed the results in a careful, cogent, and well-written fashion. It was a genuine delight to read this paper. Overall, this is an incredibly important finding, a careful analysis, and an excellent mechanistic advance in understanding sensory critical period biology.

Comments on latest version:

In the revision, the authors have clearly thought deeply and added provocative new data. They have addressed my concerns and I laud them on an excellent study.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Sensory experiences during developmental critical periods have long-lasting impacts on neural circuit function and behavior. However, the underlying molecular and cellular mechanisms that drive these enduring changes are not fully understood. In Drosophila, the antennal lobe is composed of synapses between olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs) and projection neurons (PNs), arranged into distinct glomeruli. Many of these glomeruli show structural plasticity in response to early-life odor exposure, reflecting the sensitivity of the olfactory circuitry to early sensory experiences.<br /> In their study, the authors explored the role of glia in the development of the antennal lobe in young adult flies, proposing that glial cells might also play a role in experience-dependent plasticity. They identified a critical period during which both structural and functional plasticity of OSN-PN synapses occur within the ethyl butyrate (EB)-responsive VM7 glomerulus. When flies were exposed to EB within the first two days post-eclosion, significant reductions in glomerular volume, presynaptic terminal numbers, and postsynaptic activity were observed. The study further highlights the importance of the highly conserved engulfment receptor Draper in facilitating this critical period plasticity. The authors demonstrated that, in response to EB exposure during this developmental window, ensheathing glia increase Draper expression, infiltrate the VM7 glomerulus, and actively phagocytose OSN presynaptic terminals. This synapse pruning has lasting effects on circuit function, leading to persistent decreases in both OSN-PN synapse numbers and spontaneous PN activity as analyzed by perforated patch-clamp electrophysiology to record spontaneous activity from PNs postsynaptic to Or42a OSNs .

In my view, this is an intriguing and potentially valuable set of data.

Comments on latest version:

After carefully reviewing the revised manuscript, I am satisfied with the authors' responses to my initial suggestions, particularly regarding the synaptic readouts used in their analyses. The authors have clarified their approach with appropriate changes in wording, which enhance the manuscript's clarity and address my previous concerns. Although I believe it could have been beneficial to incorporate postsynaptic markers to further substantiate the findings, I understand this may not have been feasible within the scope of the current study.

Overall, I find that the major claims of the manuscript are now sufficiently supported by the presented data. The revisions have improved the manuscript, and I am confident it meets the standards for publication. I therefore recommend the manuscript for publication in its current form.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This work has significant relevance to the field, both practically and naturally. Combatting or preventing toxic cyanobacterial blooms is an active area of environmental research that offers a practical backbone for this manuscript's ideas. Additionally, the formation and behavior of cellular aggregates, in general, is of widespread interest in many fields, including marine and freshwater ecology, healthcare and antibiotic resistance research, biophysics, and microbial evolution. In this field, there are still outstanding questions regarding how microbial aggregates form into communities, including if and how they come together from separate places. Therefore, I believe that researchers from many distinct fields would find interest in the topic of this paper, particularly Figure 5, in which a phase space that is meant to represent the different modes of aggregate formation and destruction is suggested, dependent on properties of the fluid flow and particle concentration.

Altogether, the authors were mostly successful in their investigation, and I find most of their claims to be justified. In particular, the authors achieve strong results from their experiments regarding aggregate fragmentation. However, readers could benefit from some clarification in a couple of key areas. Additionally, I found that some of the authors' claims were based on weak or nonexistent data. Below, I outline the key claims of the paper and indicate the level to which they were supported by their data.

- Their first major claim is that fluid flows alone must be quite strong in order to fragment the cyanobacterial aggregates they have studied. With their rheological chamber, they explicitly show that energy dissipation rates must exceed "natural" conditions by multiple orders of magnitude in order to fragment lab strain colonies, and even higher to disrupt natural strains sampled from a nearby freshwater lake. This claim is well-supported by their experiments and data.<br /> - The authors then claim that the fragmentation of aggregates due to fluid flows occurs through erosion of small pieces. Because their experimental setup does not allow them to explicitly observe this process (for example, by watching one aggregate break into pieces), they implement an idealized model to show that the nature of the changes to the size histogram agrees with an erosion process. However, in Figure 2C there is a noticeable gap between their experiment and the prediction of their model. Additionally, in a similar experiment shown in Figure S6, the experiment cannot distinguish between an idealized erosion model and an alternative, an idealized binary fission model where aggregates split into equal halves. For these reasons, this claim is weakened.<br /> - Their third major claim is that fluid flows only weakly cause cells to collide and adhere in a "coming together" process of aggregate formation. They test this claim in Figure 3, where they suspend single cells in their test chamber and stir them at moderate intensity, monitoring their size histogram. They show that the size histogram changes only slightly, indicating that aggregation is, by and large, not occurring at a high rate. Therefore, they lend support to the idea that cell aggregation likely does not initiate group formation in toxic cyanobacterial blooms. Additionally, they show that the median size of large colonies also does not change at moderate turbulent intensities. These results agree with previous studies (their own citation 25) indicating that aggregates in toxic blooms are clonal in nature. This is an important result and well-supported by their data, but only for this specific particle concentration and stirring intensity. Later, in Figure 5 they show a much broader range of particle concentrations and energy dissipation rates that they leave untested.<br /> - The fourth major result of the manuscript is displayed in Equation 8 and Figure 5, where the authors derive an expression for the ratio between the rate of increase of a colony due to aggregation vs. the rate due to cell division. They then plot this line on a phase map, altering two physical parameters (concentration and fluid turbulence) to show under what conditions aggregation vs. cell division are more important for group formation. Because these results are derived from relatively simple biophysical considerations, they have the potential to be quite powerful and useful and represent a significant conceptual advance. However, there is a region of this phase map that the authors have left untested experimentally. The lowest energy dissipation rate that the authors tested in their experiment seemed to be \dot{epsilon}~1e-2 [m^2/s^3], and the highest particle concentration they tested was 5e-4, which means that the authors never tested Zone II of their phase map. Since this seems to be an important zone for toxic blooms (i.e. the "scum formation" zone), it seems the authors have missed an important opportunity to investigate this regime of high particle concentrations and relatively weak turbulent mixing.

Other items that could use more clarity:<br /> - The authors rely heavily on size distributions to make the claims of their paper. Yet, how they generated those size distributions is not clearly shown in the text. Of primary concern, the authors used a correction function (Equation S1) to estimate the counts of different size classes in their image analysis pipeline. Yet, it is unclear how well this correction function actually performs, what kinds of errors it might produce, and how well it mapped to the calibration dataset the authors used to find the fit parameters.<br /> - Second, in their models they use a fractal dimension to estimate the number of cells in the group from the group radius, but the agreement between this fractal dimension fit and the data is not shown, so it is not clear how good an approximation this fractal dimension provides. This is especially important for their later derivation of the "aggregation-to-cell division" ratio (Equation 8).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this work, the authors investigate the role of fluid flow in shaping the colony size of a freshwater cyanobacterium Microcystis. To do so, they have created a novel assay by combining a rheometer with a bright field microscope. This allows them to exert precise shear forces on cyanobacterial cultures and field samples, and then quantify the effect of these shear forces on the colony size distribution. Shear force can affect the colony size in two ways: reducing size by fragmentation and increasing size by aggregation. They find limited aggregation at low shear rates, but high shear forces can create erosion-type fragmentation: colonies do not break in large pieces, but many small colonies are sheared off the large colonies. Overall, bacterial colonies from field samples seem to be more inert to shear than laboratory cultures, which the authors explain in terms of enhanced intercellular adhesion mediated by secreted polysaccharides.

Strengths:

-This study is timely, as cyanobacterial blooms are an increasing problem in freshwater lakes. They are expected to increase in frequency and severeness because of rising temperatures, and it is worthwhile learning how these blooms are formed. More generally, how physical aspects such as flow and shear influence colony formation is often overlooked, at least in part because of experimental challenges. Therefore, the method developed by the authors is useful and innovative, and I expect applications beyond the presented system here.<br /> -A strong feature of this paper is the highly quantitative approach, combining theory with experiments, and the combination of laboratory experiments and field samples.

Weaknesses:

-Especially the introduction seems to imply that shear force is a very important parameter controlling colony formation. However, if one looks at the results this effect is overall rather modest, especially considering the shear forces that these bacterial colonies may experience in lakes. The main conclusion seems that not shear but bacterial adhesion is the most important factor in determining colony size. As the importance of adhesion had been described elsewhere, it is not clear what this study reveals about cyanobacterial colonies that was not known before.<br /> -The agreement between model and experiments is impressive, but the role of the fit parameters in achieving this agreement needs to be further clarified.<br /> -The article may not be very accessible for readers with a biology background. Overall, the presentation of the material can be improved by better describing their new method.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The goal of this project is to test the hypothesis that individual differences in experience with multiple languages relate to differences in brain structure, specifically in the transverse temporal gyrus. The approach used here is to focus specifically on the phonological inventories of these languages, looking at the overall size of the phonological inventory as well as the acoustic and articulatory diversity of the cumulative phonological inventory in people who speak one or more languages. The authors find that the thickness of the transverse temporal gyrus (either the primary TTG, in those with one TTG, or in the second TTG, in people with multiple gyri) was related to language experience, and that accounting for the phonological diversity of those languages improved the model fit. Taken together, the evidence suggests that learning more phonemes (which is more likely if one speaks more than one language) leads to experience-related plasticity brain regions implicated in early auditory processing.

Strengths:

This project is rigorous in its approach--not only using a large sample but replicating the primary finding in a smaller, independent sample. Language diversity is difficult to quantify, and likely to be qualitatively and quantitatively distinct across different populations, and the authors use a custom measure of multilingualism (accounting for both number of languages as well as age of acquisition) and three measures of phonological diversity. The team has been careful in discussion of these findings, and while it is possible that pre-existing differences in brain structure could lead to an aptitude difference which could drive one to learn more than one language, the fine-grained relationships with phonological diversity seem less likely to emerge from aptitude rather than experience.

The authors have satisfied my curiosity regarding other potential confounds in the data, including measurements of lexical distance as well as phonological typology.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This work investigates the possible association between language experience and morphology of the superior temporal cortex, a part of the brain responsible for the processing of auditory stimuli. Previous studies have found associations between language and music proficiency as well as language learning aptitude and cortical morphometric measures in regions in the primary and associated auditory cortex. These studies have most often, however, focused on finding neuroanatomical effects of difference between features in a few (often two) languages or from learning single phonetic/phonological features and have often been limited in terms of N. On this background, the authors use more sophisticated measures of language experience that take into account the age of onset and the differences in phonology between languages the subjects have been exposed as well as a larger number of subjects (N = 146 + 69) to relate language experience to the shape and structure of the superior temporal cortex, measured from T1-weighted MRI data. It shows solid evidence for there being a negative relationship between language experience and the right 2nd transverse temporal gyrus as well as some evidence for the relationship representing phoneme-level cross-linguistic information.

Strengths

The use of entropy measures to quantify language experience and include typological distance measures allows for a more general interpretation of the results and is an important step toward respecting and making use of linguistic diversity in neurolinguistic experiments.

A relatively large group of subjects with a range of linguistic backgrounds.

The full analysis of the structure of the superior temporal cortex including cortical volume, area, as well as the shape of the transverse gyrus/gyri. There is a growing literature on the meaning of the shape and number of the transverse gyri in relation to language proficiency and the authors explore all measures given the available data.

The authors chose to use a replication data set to verify their data, which is applaudable. However, see the relevant point under "Weaknesses".

Weaknesses

Even if the language experience and typological distance measures are a step in the right direction for correctly associating language exposure with cortical plasticity, it still is a measure that is insensitive to the intensity of the exposure.

Only the result from the multiple transverse temporal gyri (2nd TTG) is analyzed in the replicated dataset. Only the association in the right hemisphere 2nd TTG is replicated but this is not reflected in the discussion or the conclusions. The positive correlation in the right TTG is thus not attempted to be replicated.

The replication dataset differed in more ways than the more frequent combination of English and German experience, as mentioned in the discussion. Specifically, the fraction of monolinguals was higher in the replication dataset and the samples came from different scanners. It would be better if the primary and replication datasets were more equally matched.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The study uses structural MRI to identify how the number, degree of experience, and phonemic diversity of language(s) that a speaker knows can influence the thickness of different sub-segments of auditory cortex. In both a primary and replication sample of adult speakers, the authors find key differences in cortical thickness within specific subregions of cortex due to either the age at which languages are acquired (degree of experience) or the diversity of the phoneme inventories carried by that/those language(s) (breadth of experience).

Strengths:

The results are first and foremost quite fascinating and I do think they make a compelling case for the different ways in which linguistic experience shapes auditory cortex.

The study uses a number of different measures to quantify linguistic experience, related to how many languages a person knows (taking into account the age at which each was learned) as well as the diversity of the phoneme inventories contained within those languages. The primary sample is moderately large for a study that focuses on brain-behaviour relationships; a somewhat smaller replication sample is also deployed in order to test the generality of the effects.

Analytic approaches benefit from the careful use of brain segmentation techniques that nicely capture key landmarks and account for vagaries in the structure of STG that can vary across individuals (e.g., the number of transverse temporal gyri varies from 1-4 across individuals).

Weaknesses:

The specificity of these effects is interesting; some effects really do appear to be localized to left hemisphere and specific subregions of auditory cortex e.g., TTG. There is an ancillary analysis that examines regions outside auditory cortex to examine whether these are the only brain regions for which such effects occur. Expanding the search space to a whole-brain analysis, and a more lenient statistical threshold, does reveal only small patches of the brain outside auditory cortex show similar effects. Notably, these could be due to inflated type-1 error, but overall we would need a much larger sample to be certain.

Discussion of potential genetic differences underlying the findings is interesting. It does represent one alternative account that does not have to do with plasticity/experience, as the authors acknowledge.

The replication sample is useful and a great idea. It does however feature roughly half the number of participants. As the authors are careful to point out, that statistical power is weaker and given small effects in some cases we should not be surprised that the results only partially replicated in that sample.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The main conclusion of this manuscript, that the mediator kinases supporting the IFN response in Downs syndrome cell lines, represents an important addition to understanding the pathology of this affliction.

Strengths:

Mediator kinase stimulates cytokine production. Both RNAseq and metabolomics clearly demonstrate a stimulatory role for CDK8/CDK19 in the IFN response. The nature of this role, direct vs. indirect, is inferred by previous studies demonstrating that inflammatory transcription factors are Cdk8/19 substrates. The cytokine and metabolic changes are clear cut and provide a potential avenue to mitigate these associated pathologies.

Weaknesses:

Seahorse analysis is normally calculated with specific units for oxygen consumption, ATP production, etc. It would be of interest to see the actual values of OCR (e.g., pmol/O2 consumption/number of cells) between the D21 and T21 cell lines rather than standardizing the results. Previous studies reported reduced mitochondrial function with DS cell lines and model systems (e.g., see [10.1016/j.bbadis.2022.166388] and aberrant mitochondrial morphology/oxidative stress [10.1016/j.cmet.2012.12.005] [10.1016/j.neuroscience.2022.12.003]. This report observes elevated mitochondrial function in the T21 cells vs. the D21 control. There are several potential reasons for these differences but it is not up to the authors to rectify their results with others. However, it would be of interest to the general reader that they be mentioned in the discussion.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Cozzolino et al. demonstrate that inhibition of the Mediator kinase CDK8 and its paralog CDK19 suppresses hyperactive interferon (IFN) signaling in Down syndrome (DS), which results from trisomy of chromosome 21 (T21). Numerous pathologies associated with DS are considered direct consequences of chronic IFN pathway activation, and thus hyperactive IFN signaling lies at the heart of pathophysiology. The collective interrogation of transcriptomics, metabolomics, and cytokine screens in sibling-matched cell lines (T21 vs D21) allows the authors to conclude that Mediator kinase inhibition could mitigate chronic, hyperactive IFN signaling in T21. To probe the functional outcomes of Mediator kinase inhibition, the authors performed cytokine screens, transcriptomic, and untargeted metabolomics. This collective approach revealed that Mediator kinases establish IFN-dependent cytokine responses at least in part through transcriptional regulation of cytokine genes and receptors. Mediator kinase inhibition suppresses cell responses during hyperactive IFN signaling through inhibition of pro-inflammatory transcription factor activity (anti-inflammatory effect) and alteration of core metabolic pathways, including upregulation of anti-inflammatory lipid mediators, which served as ligands for specific nuclear receptors and downstream phenotypic outcomes (e.g., oxygen consumption). These data provided a mechanistic link between Mediator kinase activity and nuclear receptor function. Finally, the authors also disclosed that Mediator kinase inhibition alters splicing outcomes.

Overall, this study reveals a mechanism by which Mediator kinases regulate gene expression and establish that its inhibition antagonizes chronic IFN signaling through collective transcriptional, metabolic, and cytokine responses. The data have implications for DS and other chronic inflammatory conditions, as Mediator kinase inhibition could potentially mitigate pathological immune system hyperactivation.

Comments on revisions:

In the record of version, the authors have improved readability and also incorporated experiments that provide compelling support to the main discovery of the story. Below I summarize the previous strengths and how they improved noted weaknesses.

(1) One major strength of this study is the mechanistic evidence linking Mediator kinases to hyperactive IFN signaling through transcriptional changes impacting cell signaling and metabolism.<br /> (2) Another major strength of this study is the use of sibling matched cell lines (T21 vs D21) from various donors (not just one sibling pair), and further cross-referencing with data from large cohorts, suggesting that part of the data and conclusions are generalizable.<br /> (3) Another major strength of this study is the combined experimental approach including transcriptomics, untargeted metabolomics and cytokine screens to define the mechanisms underlying suppression of hyperactive interferon signaling in DS upon Mediator kinase inhibition.<br /> (4) Another major strength of this study is the significance of the work to DS and its potential impact to other chronic inflammatory conditions.<br /> (5) The previously noted weakness regarding the roles of nuclear receptors to activation of an anti-inflammatory program upon Mediator kinase inhibition was not directly experimentally addressed because existing data from other studies (referenced in this version) have linked specific nuclear receptors to lipid biosynthesis and anti-inflammatory cascades. This is considered acceptable.<br /> (6) The presentation of the splicing data analysis is not better integrated in the overall story.<br /> (7) The authors improved the readability of the manuscript by providing specific details throughout.<br /> (8) Figures were improved and simplified when possible to facilitate readability.<br /> (9) The authors now clarified the PRO-Seq (TFEA analysis) explaining that their data is consistent with the general observation that stimulus-responsive genes is controlled by enhancer-bound TFs.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Liu et al. present CROWN-seq, a technique that simultaneously identifies transcription-start nucleotides and quantifies N6,2'-O-dimethyladenosine (m6Am) stoichiometry. This method is derived from ReCappable-seq and GLORI, a chemical deamination approach that differentiates A and N6-methylated A. Using ReCappable-seq and CROWN-seq, the authors found that genes frequently utilize multiple transcription start sites, and isoforms beginning with an Am are almost always N6-methylated. These findings are consistently observed across nine cell lines. Unlike prior reports that associated m6Am with mRNA stability and expression, the authors suggest here that m6Am may increase transcription when combined with specific promoter sequences and initiation mechanisms. Additionally, they report intriguing insights on m6Am in snRNA and snoRNA and its regulation by FTO. Overall, the manuscript presents a strong body of work that will significantly advance m6Am research.

Strengths:

The technology development part of the work is exceptionally strong, with thoughtful controls and well-supported conclusions.

Weaknesses:

Given the high stoichiometry of m6Am, further association with upstream and downstream sequences (or promoter sequences) does not appear to yield strong signals. As such, transcription initiation regulation by m6Am, suggested by the current work, warrants further investigation.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In the manuscript "Decoding m6Am by simultaneous transcription-start mapping and methylation quantification" Liu and co-workers describe the development and application of CROWN-Seq, a new specialized library preparation and sequencing technique designed to detect the presence of cap-adjacent N6,2'-O-dimethyladenosine (m6Am) with single nucleotide resolution. Such a technique was a key need in the field since prior attempts to get accurate positional or quantitative measurements of m6Am positioning yielded starkly different results and failed to generate a consistent set of targets. As noted in the strengths section below the authors have developed a robust assay that moves the field forward.

Furthermore, their results show that most mRNAs whose transcription start nucleotide (TSN) is an 'A' are in fact m6Am (85%+ for most cell lines). They also show that snRNAs and snoRNAs have a substantially lower prevalence of m6Am TSNs.

Strengths:

Critically, the authors spent substantial time and effort to validate and benchmark the new technique with spike-in standards during development, cross-comparison with prior techniques, and validation of the technique's performance using a genetic PCIF1 knockout. Finally, they assayed nine different cell lines to cross-validate their results. The outcome of their work (a reliable and accurate method to catalog cap-adjacent m6Am) is a particularly notable achievement and is a needed advance for the field.

Weaknesses:

No major concerns were identified by this reviewer.

Mid-level Concerns: All previous concerns were addressed in the revised version

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

m6Am is an abundant mRNA modification present on the TSN. Unlike the structurally similar and abundant internal mRNA modification m6A, m6Am's function has been controversial. One way to resolve controversies surrounding mRNA modification functions has been to develop new ways to better profile said mRNA modification. Here, Liu et al. developed a new method (based on GLORI-seq for m6A-sequencing), for antibody-independent sequencing of m6Am (CROWN-seq). Using appropriate spike-in controls and knockout cell lines, Liu et al. clearly demonstrated CROWN-seq's precision and quantitative accuracy for profiling transcriptome-wide m6Am. Subsequently, the authors used CROWN-seq to greatly expand the number of known m6Am sites in various cell lines and also determine m6Am stoichiometry to generally be high for most genes. CROWN-seq identified gene promoter motifs that correlate best with high stoichiometry m6Am sites, thereby identifying new determinants of m6Am stoichiometry. CROWN-seq also helped reveal that m6Am does not regulate mRNA stability or translation (as opposed to past reported functions). Rather, m6Am stoichiometry correlates well with transcription levels. Finally, Liu et al. reaffirmed that FTO mainly demethylates m6Am, not of mRNA but of snRNAs and snoRNAs.

Strengths:

This is a well-written manuscript that describes and validates a new m6Am-sequencing method: CROWN-seq as the first m6Am-sequencing method that can both quantify m6Am stoichiometry and profile m6Am at single-base resolution. These advantages facilitated Liu et al. to uncover new potential findings related to m6Am regulation and function. I am confident that CROWN-seq will likely be the gold standard for m6Am-sequencing henceforth.

Weaknesses:

Though the authors have uncovered a potentially new function for m6Am, they need to be clear that without identifying a mechanism, their data might only be demonstrating a correlation between the presence of m6Am and transcriptional regulation rather than causality.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors use thermal proteome profiling to capture changes in protein stability following a brief (30 min) treatment of cells with various mitochondrial stressors. This approach identified PEBP1 as a potentiator of Integrated Stress Response (ISR) induction by various mitochondrial stressors, although the specific dynamics vary by stressor. PEBP1 deletion attenuates DELE1-HRI-mediated activation of the ISR, independent of its known role in the RAF/MEK/ERK pathway. These effects can be bypassed by HRI overexpression and do not affect DELE1 processing. Interestingly, in cells, PEBP1 physically interacts with eIF2alpha, but not its phosphorylated form (eIF2alpha-P), leading the authors to suggest that PEBP1 functions as a scaffold to promote eIF2alpha phosphorylation by HRI.

Strengths:

The authors present a clear and well-structured study, beginning with an original and unbiased approach that effectively addresses a novel question. The investigation of PEBP1 as a specific regulator of the DELE1-HRI signaling axis is particularly compelling, supported by extensive data from both genetic and pharmacological manipulations. Including careful titrations, time-course experiments, and orthogonal approaches strengthens the robustness of their findings and bolsters their central claims.

Moreover, the authors skillfully integrate publicly available datasets with their original experiments, reinforcing their conclusions' generality and broader relevance. This comprehensive combination of methodologies underscores the reliability and significance of the study's contributions to our understanding of stress signaling.

Weaknesses:

While the study presents exciting findings, there are a few areas that could benefit from further exploration. The HRI-DELE1 pathway was only recently discovered, leaving many unanswered questions. The observation that PEBP1 interacts with eIF2alpha, but not with its phosphorylated form, suggests a novel mechanism for regulating the Integrated Stress Response (ISR). However, as they note themselves, the authors do not delve into the biochemical or molecular mechanisms through which PEBP1 promotes HRI signaling. Given the availability of antibodies against phosphorylated HRI, it would have been interesting to explore whether PEBP1 influences HRI phosphorylation. Furthermore, since the authors already have recombinant PEBP1 protein (as shown in Figure 1D), additional in vitro experiments such as in vitro immunoprecipitation, FRET, or surface plasmon resonance (SPR) could have confirmed the interaction with eIF2alpha. Future studies might investigate whether PEBP1 directly interacts with HRI, stimulates its auto-phosphorylation or kinase activity, or serves as a template for oligomerization, potentially supported by structural characterization of the complex and mutational validation.

Another point of weakness is the unclear significance of the 1.5-2x enhanced interaction with eIF2alpha upon PEBP1 phosphorylation, as there is little evidence to show that this increase has any downstream effects. The ATF4-luciferase reporter experiments, comparing WT and S153D overexpression, may have reached saturation with WT, making it difficult to detect further stimulation by S153D. Additionally, expression levels for WT and mutant forms are not provided, making it challenging to interpret the results. It would also be interesting to explore whether combined mitochondrial stress and PMA treatment further enhance the ISR.

Lastly, while the authors claim that oligomycin does not significantly alter the melting temperature of recombinant PEBP1 in vitro, the data in Figure S1D suggest a small shift. Without variance measures across replicates or background subtraction, this claim is less convincing. The inclusion of statistical analyses would strengthen the interpretation of these results.

Impact on the field:

The study's relevance is underscored by the fact that overactive ISR is linked to a broad range of neurodegenerative diseases and cognitive disorders, a field actively being explored for therapeutic interventions, with several drugs currently in clinical trials. Similarly, mitochondrial dysfunction plays a well-established role in brain health and other diseases. Identifying new targets within these pathways, like PEBP1, could provide alternative therapeutic strategies for treating such conditions. Therefore, gaining a deeper understanding of the mechanisms through which PEBP1 influences ISR regulation is highly pertinent and could have far-reaching implications for the development of future therapies.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this work, Cheng et al use the TPP/MS-CETSA strategy to discover new components for the mitochondria arm of the Integrated Stress Response. By using short exposures of several drugs that potentially induce mitochondrial stress, they find significant CETSA shifts for the scaffold protein PEBP1 both for antimycinA and oligomycin, making PEBP1 a candidate for mitochondrial-induced ISR signaling. After extensive follow-up work, they provide good support that PEBP1 is likely involved in ISR, and possibly act through an interaction with the key ISR effector node EIF2a.

Strengths:

The work adds an important understanding of ISR signaling where PEBP1 might also constitute a druggable node to attenuate cellular stress. Although CETSA has great potential for dissecting cellular pathways, there are few studies where this has been explored, particularly with such an extensive follow-up, also giving the work methodological implications. Together I therefore think this study could have a significant impact.

Weaknesses:

The TPP/MS-CETSA experiment is quite briefly described and might have a too relaxed cut-off. The assays confirming interactions between PEBP1 and EIF2a might not be fully conclusive.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper, Chang and Meliala et al. demonstrate that PEBP1 is a modulator of the ISR, specifically through the induction of mitochondrial stress. The authors utilize thermal proteome profiling (TPP) by which they identify PEPB1 as a thermally stabilized protein upon oligomycin treatment, indicating its role in mitochondrial stress. Moreover, RNA-sequencing analysis indicated that PEBP1 may be specifically modulating the mitochondrial stress-induced ISR, as PEBP1 knock-out reduces phosphorylation of eIF2α. They also show that PEBP1 function is independent of ER stress specifically tunicamycin treatment and loss of PEBP1 does affect mitochondrial ISR but in an OMA1, DELE1 independent manner. Thus, the authors hypothesized that PEBP1 interacts directly with eIF2α, functioning as a scaffolding protein. However, direct co-immunoprecipitation failed to demonstrate PEBP1 and eIF2α potential interaction. The authors then used a NanoBiT luminescence complementation assay to show the PEBP1-eIF2a interaction and its disruption by S51 phosphorylation.

Strengths:

Taken together, this work is novel, and the data presented suggests PEBP1 has a role as a modulator of the mitochondrial ISR, enhancing the signal to elicit the necessary response.

Weaknesses:

The one major issue of this work is the lack of a mechanism showing precisely how PEBP1 amplifies the mitochondrial integrated stress response. The work, as it is described, presents data suggesting PEBP1's role in the ISR but fails to present a more conclusive mechanism.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Arafi et al. present results of studies designed to better understand the effects of mutations in the presenilin-1 (PSEN1) gene on proteolytic processing of the amyloid precursor protein (APP). This is important because APP processing can result in the production of the amyloid β-protein (Aβ), a key pathologic protein in Alzheimer's disease (AD). Aβ exists in various forms that differ in amino acid sequence and assembly state. The predominant forms of Aβ are Aβ40 and Aβ42, which are 40 and 42 amino acids in length, respectively. Shorter and longer forms derive from processive proteolysis of the Aβ region of APP by the heterotetramer β-secretase, within which presenilin 1 possesses the active site of the enzyme. Each form may become toxic if it assembles into non-natively folded, oligomeric, or fibrillar structures. A deep mechanistic understanding of enzyme-substrate interactions is a first step toward the design and successful use of small-molecule therapeutics for AD.

The key finding of Arafi et al. is that PSEN1 amino acid sequence is a major determinant of enzyme turnover number and the diversity of products. For the biochemist, this may not be surprising, but in the context of understanding and treating AD, it is immense because it shifts the paradigm from targeting the results of γ-secretase action, viz., Aβ oligomers and fibrils, to targeting initial Aβ production at the molecular level. It is the equivalent of taking cancer treatment from simple removal of tumorous tissue to the prevention of tumor formation and growth. Arafi et al. have provided us with a blueprint for the design of small-molecule inhibitors of γ-secretase. The significance of this achievement cannot be overstated.

Strengths and weaknesses:

The comprehensiveness and rigor of the study are notable. Rarely have I reviewed a manuscript reporting results of so many orthogonal experiments, all of which support the authors' hypotheses, and of so many excellent controls. In addition, as found in clinical trial reports, the limitations of the study were discussed explicitly. None of these significantly affected the conclusions of the study.

Some minor concerns were expressed during the review process. The authors have revised the manuscript, and in doing so, dealt appropriately with the concerns and strengthened the manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The work by Arafi et al. show the effect of Familial Alzheimer's Disease presenilin-1 mutants on endoproteinase and carboxylase activity. They have elegantly demonstrated how some of mutants alter each step of processing. Together with FLIM experiments, this study provides additional evidence to support their 'stalled complex hypotheses'.

Strengths:

This is a beautiful biochemical work. The approach is comprehensive.

Weaknesses:

However, the novelty of this manuscript is questionable since this group has published similar work with different mutants (Ref 11) .

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this work, Kanie and colleagues explored the role of NCS1 in capturing the ciliary vesicle. The microscopy was well executed and appropriately quantified. The authors convincingly show that while NCS1 is important for capturing the ciliary vesicle, another unknown distal appendage component is partially redundant in that ciliary vesicle capture and ciliary assembly are not fully dependent on NCS1. Overall, I am convinced by the data, and my only concern is that the discussion of the mouse phenotypes does not do a good job of putting this gene into the greater context of the complexity of mouse mutations.

Interestingly NCS1 has been previously studied in the context of neurotransmission and the new findings raise questions about whether prior findings are actually due to neuronal cilia defects.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Kanie et al have recently characterized DAP protein CEP89 as important for the recruitment of the ciliary vesicle. Here, they describe a novel interacting partner for CEP89 that can bind membranes and therefore mediates its role in ciliary vesicle recruitment. An initial LAP tag pull-down and mass spectrometry experiment finds NCS-1 and C3ORF14 as CEP89 interactors. This interaction is mapped in the context of the ciliary vesicle formation. From the data presented, it is clear that, upon knockout, the function of these proteins might be compensated by others, as the phenotype can eventually recover over time.

In terms of the biological significance of this interaction, it would be good to examine (via co-immunoprecipitation) whether the CEP89/NCS-1/C3ORF14 interaction takes place upon serum starvation. Does the complex change?

Also, for the subdistal appendage localization of NCS-1 and C3ORF14, would this also change upon serum starvation?

For the ciliation results and the recruitment of IFT88 in CEP89 knockout cell lines, this contradicts previous work from Tanos et al (PMID: 23348840), as well as Hou et al (PMID: 36669498). A parallel comparison using siRNA, a transient knockout system, or a degron system would help understand this. A similar point goes for Figure 4, where the effect on ciliogenesis is minimal in knockout cells, but acute siRNA has been shown to have a stronger phenotype.

An elegant phenotype rescue is shown in Figure 5. An interesting question would be, how does this mutant and/or the myristoylation affect the recruitment of C3ORF14?

For the EF-hand mutants, it would be good to use control mutants, from known Ca2+ binding proteins as a control for the experiment shown.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This work addresses an important question aimed at understanding how membrane docking to the distal appendages is regulated during ciliogenesis. In this study, Tomoharu and colleagues identified interactions between CEP89 (important for RAB34-positive membrane localization to the mother centriole) and NCS1 and C3ORF14. Both these CEP89 interacting proteins were characterized as distal appendage localized proteins between CEP89 and RAB34 based on super-resolution microscopy. Ciliogenesis investigations using knockout cells indicated that NCS1 and CEP89 have similar impaired ciliation due to disruption in vesicle recruitment/RAB34 to the mother centriole, while C3ORF14 had less effect on ciliogenesis. The authors refer to the ciliogenesis requirement for CEP89/NCS1 as ciliary vesicles, which has been previously referred to as preciliary vesicle or distal appendage vesicles. NCS1 distal appendage localization was dependent on CEP89 and TTBK2, but it is not clear how TTBK2 affects NCS1. The authors subsequently performed double knockouts with NCS1 and other distal appendage proteins and showed stronger effects on mother centriole RAB34 levels, suggesting efficient membrane docking during ciliogenesis requires several distal appendage proteins. This is consistent with NCS1 knockout mice which do not display typical ciliopathy phenotypes. These mice do display obesity, which is associated with cilia dysfunction, and show reduced ciliary protein levels. As noted by the authors, the in vivo results for NCS1 knockouts could be affected by the mouse background which was not evaluated. The authors demonstrate the NCS1 myristoylation motif is required for RAB34 localization to the mother centrioles, providing a mechanistic explanation for how distal appendage proteins could interact with membranes during ciliogenesis. Overall the authors' findings support an important role for NCS1 in regulating ciliogenesis via myristoylation-dependent interaction with RAB34-positive membranes docked at the mother centriole.

Joint Public Review:

This manuscript tests the notion that bulky membrane glycoproteins suppress viral infection through non-specific interactions. Using a suite of biochemical, biophysical, and computational methods in multiple contexts (ex vivo, in vitro, and in silico), the authors collect evidence supporting the notion that (1) a wide range of surface glycoproteins erect an energy barrier for the virus to form stable adhesive interface needed for fusion and uptake and (2) the total amount of glycan, independent of their molecular identity, additively enhanced the suppression.

As a functional assay the authors focus on viral infection starting from the assumption that a physical boundary modulated by overexpressing a protein-of-interest could prevent viral entry and subsequent infection. Here they find that glycan content (measured using the PNA lectin) of the overexpressed protein and total molecular weight, that includes amino acid weight and the glycan weight, is negatively correlated with viral infection. They continue to demonstrate that it is in effect the total glycan content, using a variety of lectin labelling, that is responsible for reduced infection in cells. Because the authors do not find a loss in virus binding this allows them to hypothesize that the glycan content presents a barrier for the stable membrane-membrane contact between virus and cell. They subsequently set out to determine the effective radius of the proteins at the membrane and demonstrate that on a supported lipid bilayer the glycosylated proteins do not transition from the mushroom to the brush regime at the densities used. Finally, using Super Resolution microscopy they find that above an effective radius of 5 nm proteins are excluded from the virus-cell interface.

The experimental design does not present major concerns and the results provide insight on a biophysical mechanism according to which, repulsion forces between branched glycan chains of highly glycosylated proteins exert a kinetic energy barrier that limits the formation of a membrane/viral interface required for infection.

However several general and specific concerns remain that the author is recommended to address before their claims as above are compelling.

GENERAL QUESTIONS:

(1) For many enveloped viruses, the attachment factors - paradoxically - are also surface glycoproteins, often complexed with a distinct fusion protein. The authors note here that the glycoportiens do not inhibit the initial binding, but only limit the stability of the adhesive interface needed for subsequent membrane fusion and viral uptake. How these antagonistic tendencies might play out should be discussed.

(2) Unlike polymers tethered to solid surface undergoing mushroom-to-brush transition in density-dependent manner, the glycoproteins at the cell surface are of course mobile (presumably in a density-dependent manner). They can thus redistribute in spatial patterns, which serve to minimize the free energy. I suggest the authors explicitly address how these considerations influence the in vitro reconstitution assays seeking to assess the glycosylation-dependent protein packing.

(3) The discussion of the role of excluded volume in steric repulsion between glycoprotein needs clarification. As presented, it's unclear what the role of "excluded volume" effects is in driving steric repulsion? Do the authors imply depletion forces? Or the volume unavailable due to stochastic configurations of gaussian chains? How does the formalism apply to branched membrane glycoproteins is not immediately obvious.

(4) The authors showed that glycoprotein expression inversely correlated with viral infection and link viral entry inhibition to steric hindrance caused by the glycoprotein. Alternative explanations would be that the glycoprotein expression (a) reroutes endocytosed viral particles or (b) lowers cellular endocytic rates and via either mechanism reduce viral infection. The authors should provide evidence that these alternatives are not occurring in their system. They could for example experimentally test whether non-specific endocytosis is still operational at similar levels, measured with fluid-phase markers such as 10kDa dextrans.

(5) The authors approach their system with the goal of generalizing the cell membrane (the cumulative effect of all cell membrane molecules on viral entry), but what about the inverse? How does the nature of the molecule seeking entry affect the interface? For example, a lipid nanoparticle vs a virus with a short virus-cell distance vs a virus with a large virus-cell distance?

SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:

(1) The proposed mechanism indicates that glycosylation status does not produce an effect in the "trapping" of virus, but in later stages of the formation of the virus/membrane interface due to the high energetic costs of displacing highly glycosylated molecules at the vicinity of the virus/membrane interface. It is suggested to present a correlation between the levels of glycans in the Calu-3 cell monolayers and the number of viral particles bound to cell surface at different pulse times. Results may be quantified following the same method as shown in Figure 2 for the correlation between glycosylation levels and viral infection (in this case the resulting output could be number of viral particles bound as a function of glycan content).

(2) The use of the purified glycosylated and non-glycosylated ectodomains of MUC1 and CD-43 to establish a relationship between glycosylation and protein density into lipid bilayers on silica beads is an elegant approach. An assessment of the impact of glycosylation in the structural conformation of both proteins, for instance determining the Flory radius of the glycosylated and non-glycosylated ectodomains by the FRET-FLIM approach used in Figure 4 would serve to further support the hypothesis of the article.

(3) The MUC1 glycoprotein is reported to have a dramatic effect in reducing viral infection shown in Fig 1F. On the contrary, in a different experiment shown in Fig2D and Fig2H MUC1 has almost no effect in reducing viral infection. It is not clear how these two findings can be compatible.

(4) Why is there a shift in the use of the glycan marker? How does this affect the conclusions? For the infection correlation relating protein expression with glycan content the PNA-lectin was used together with flow cytometry. For imaging the infection and correlating with glycan content the SSA-lectin is used.

(5) The authors in several instances comment on the relevance and importance of the total glycan content. Nevertheless, these conclusions are often drawn when using only one glycan-binding lectin. In fact, the anti-correlation with viral infection is distinct for the various lectins (Fig 2D and Fig 2H). Would it make more sense to use a combination of lectins to get a full glycan spectrum?

(6) Fig 3A shows virus binding to HEK cells upon MUC1 expression. Please provide the surface expression of the MUC1 so that the data can be compared to Fig 1F. Nevertheless, it is not clear why the authors used MUC expression as a parameter to assess virus binding. Alternatively, more conclusive data supporting the hypothesis would be the absence of a correlation between total glycan content and virus binding capacity.

(7) While the use of the Flory model could provide a simplification for a (disordered) flexible structure such as MUC1, where the number of amino acids equals N in the Flory model, this generalisation will not hold for all the proteins. Because folding will dramatically change the effective polypeptide chain-length and reduce available positioning of the amino acids, something the authors clearly measured (Fig 4G), this generalisation is not correct. In fact, the generalisation does not seem to be required because the authors provide an estimation for the effective Flory radius using their FRET approach

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Overall, the data presented in this manuscript is of good quality. Understanding how cells control RPA loading on ssDNA is crucial to understanding DNA damage responses and genome maintenance mechanisms. The authors used genetic approaches to show that disrupting PCNA binding and SUMOylation of Srs2 can rescue the CPT sensitivity of rfa1 mutants with reduced affinity for ssDNA. In addition, the authors find that SUMOylation of Srs2 depends on binding to PCNA and the presence of Mec1.

Comments on revisions:

I am satisfied with the revisions made by the authors, which helped clarify some points that were confusing in the initial submission.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This revised manuscript mostly addresses previous concerns by doubling down on the model without providing additional direct evidence of interactions between Srs2 and PCNA, and that "precise sites of Srs2 actions in the genome remain to be determined." One additional Srs2 allele has been examined, showing some effect in combination with rfa1-zm2.

Many of the conclusions are based on reasonable assumptions about the consequences of various mutations, but direct evidence of changes in Srs2 association with PNCA or other interactors is still missing. There is an assumption that a deletion of a Rad51-interacting domain or a PCNA-interacting domain have no pleiotropic effects, which may not be the case. How SLX4 might interact with Srs2 is unclear to me, again assuming that the SLX4 defect is "surgical" - removing only one of its many interactions.

One point of concern is the use of t-tests without some sort of correction for multiple comparisons - in several figures. I'm quite sceptical about some of the p < 0.05 calls surviving a Bonferroni correction. Also in 4B, which comparison is **? Also, admittedly by eye, the changes in "active" Rad53 seem much greater than 5x. (also in Fig. 3, normalizing to a non-WT sample seems odd).

What is the WT doubling time for this strain? From the FACS it seems as if in 2 h the cells have completed more than 1 complete cell cycle. Also in 5D. Seems fast...

I have one over-arching confusion. Srs2 was shown initially to remove Rad51 from ssDNA and the suppression of some of srs2's defects by deleting rad51 made a nice, compact story, though exactly how srs2's "suppression of rad6" fit in isn't so clear (since Rad6 ties into Rad18 and into PCNA ubiquitylation and into PCNA SUMOylation). Now Srs2 is invoked to remove RPA. It seems to me that any model needs to explain how Srs2 can be doing both. I assume that if RPA and Rad51 are both removed from the same ssDNA, the ssDNA will be "trashed" as suggested by Symington's RPA depletion experiments. So building a model that accounts for selective Srs2 action at only some ssDNA regions might be enhanced by also explaining how Rad51 fits into this scheme.

As a previous reviewer has pointed out, CPT creates multiple forms of damage. Foiani showed that 4NQO would activate the Mec1/Rad53 checkpoint in G1- arrested cells, presumably because there would be single-strand gaps but no DSBs. Whether this would be a way to look specifically at one type of damage is worth considering; but UV might be a simpler way to look.

As also noted, the effects on the checkpoint and on viability are quite modest. Because it isn't clear (at least to me) why rfa1 mutants are so sensitive to CPT, it's hard for me to understand how srs2-zm2 has a modest suppressive effect: is it by changing the checkpoint response or facilitating repair or both? Or how srs2-3KR or srs2-dPIM differ from Rfa1-zm2 in this respect. The authors seem to lump all these small suppressions under the rubric of "proper levels of RPA-ssDNA" but there are no assays that directly get at this. This is the biggest limitation.

Srs2 has also been implicated as a helicase in dissolving "toxic joint molecules" (Elango et al. 2017). Whether this activity is changed by any of the mutants (or by mutations in Rfa1) is unclear. In their paper, Elango writes: "Rare survivors in the absence of Srs2 rely on structure-specific endonucleases, Mus81 and Yen1, that resolve toxic joint-molecules" Given the involvement of SLX4, perhaps the authors should examine the roles of structure-specific nucleases in CPT survival?

Experiments that might clarify some of these ambiguities are proposed to be done in the future. For now, we have a number of very interesting interactions that may be understood in terms of a model that supposes discriminating among gaps and ssDNA extensions by the presence of PCNA, perhaps modified by SUMO. As noted above, it would be useful to think about the relation to Rad6.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The superfamily I 3'-5' DNA helicase Srs2 is well known for its role as an anti-recombinase, stripping Rad51 from ssDNA, as well as an anti-crossover factor, dissociating extended D-loops and favoring non-crossover outcome during recombination. In addition, Srs2 plays a key role in in ribonucleotide excision repair. Besides DNA repair defects, srs2 mutants also show a reduced recovery after DNA damage that is related to its role in downregulating the DNA damage signaling or checkpoint response. Recent work from the Zhao laboratory (PMID: 33602817) identified a role of Srs2 in downregulating the DNA damage signaling response by removing RPA from ssDNA. This manuscript reports further mechanistic insights into the signaling downregulation function of Srs2.

Using the genetic interaction with mutations in RPA1, mainly rfa1-zm2, the authors test a panel of mutations in Srs2 that affect CDK sites (srs2-7AV), potential Mec1 sites (srs2-2SA), known sumoylation sites (srs2-3KR), Rad51 binding (delta 875-902), PCNA interaction (delta 1159-1163), and SUMO interaction (srs2-SIMmut). All mutants were generated by genomic replacement and the expression level of the mutant proteins was found to be unchanged. This alleviates some concern about the use of deletion mutants compared to point mutations. Double mutant analysis identified that PCNA interaction and SUMO sites were required for the Srs2 checkpoint dampening function, at least in the context of the rfa1-zm2 mutant. There was no effect of this mutants in a RFA1 wild type background. This latter result is likely explained by the activity of the parallel pathway of checkpoint dampening mediated by Slx4, and genetic data with an Slx4 point mutation affecting Rtt107 interaction and checkpoint downregulation support this notion. Further analysis of Srs2 sumoylation showed that Srs2 sumoylation depended on PCNA interaction, suggesting sequential events of Srs2 recruitment by PCNA and subsequent sumoylation. Kinetic analysis showed that sumoylation peaks after maximal Mec1 induction by DNA damage (using the Top1 poison camptothecin (CPT)) and depended on Mec1. This data are consistent with a model that Mec1 hyperactivation is ultimately leading to signaling downregulation by Srs2 through Srs2 sumoylation. Mec1-S1964 phosphorylation, a marker for Mec1 hyperactivation and a site found to be needed for checkpoint downregulation after DSB induction, did not appear to be involved in checkpoint downregulation after CPT damage. The data are in support of the model that Mec1 hyperactivation when targeted to RPA-covered ssDNA by its Ddc2 (human ATRIP) targeting factor, favors Srs2 sumoylation after Srs2 recruitment to PCNA to disrupt the RPA-Ddc2-Mec1 signaling complex. Presumably, this allows gap filling and disappearance of long-lived ssDNA as the initiator of checkpoint signaling, although the study does not extend to this step.

Strengths<br /> (1) The manuscript focuses on the novel function of Srs2 to downregulate the DNA damage signaling response and provide new mechanistic insights.<br /> (2) The conclusions that PCNA interaction and ensuing Srs2-sumoylation are involved in checkpoint downregulation are well supported by the data.

Weaknesses<br /> (1) Additional mutants of interest could have been tested, such as the recently reported Pin mutant, srs2-Y775A (PMID: 38065943), and the Rad51 interaction point mutant, srs2-F891A (PMID: 31142613).<br /> (2) The use of deletion mutants for PCNA and RAD51 interaction is inferior to using specific point mutants, as done for the SUMO interaction and the sites for post-translational modifications.<br /> (3) Figure 4D and Figure 5A report data with standard deviations, which is unusual for n=2. Maybe the individual data points could be plotted with a color for each independent experiment to allow the reader to evaluate the reproducibility of the results.

Comments on revisions:

In this revision, the authors adequately addressed my concerns. The only issue I see remaining is the site of Srs2 action. The authors argue in favor of gaps and against R-loops and ssDNA resulting from excessive supercoiling. The authors do not discuss ssDNA resulting from processing of one-sided DSBs, which are expected to result from replication run-off after CPT damage but are not expected to provide the 3'-junction for preferred PCNA loading. Can the authors exclude PCNA at the 5'-junction at a resected DSB?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In the present study, Dr. Ihara demonstrated a key role of oxLDL in enhancing Ang II-induced Gq signaling by promoting the AT1/LOX1 receptor complex formation.

Strengths:

This study is very exciting and the work is also very detailed, especially regarding the mechanism of LOX1-AT1 receptor interaction and its impact on oxidative stress, fibrosis and inflammation.

Weaknesses:

The direct evidence for the interaction between AT1 and LOX1 receptors in cell membrane localization is relatively weak.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

While the findings might be valid, there is enough uncertainty that these results should not be considered anything other than preliminary, warranting a more thorough and rigorous investigation.

Comments on revisions:

As the author mentioned that due to the receptor internalisation of AT1 and/or LOX1 induced by AngII or Ox-LDL makes it difficult to detect receptor interaction at the membrane by Co-IP. If so, the GPCR internalisation related pathway should be activated, such as GRKs, arrestin2 could be activated and enhanced during this process, whether they could further provide the evidence for these changes in different groups by Western blot or IF images.

If the authors don't know why the results across experiments can vary so greatly nor control them, how do we know that their interpretation of the very modest intra-experimental variability they observe is correct? They explain away the difference in biosensor activity response to the likely respective insertion sites that were used. While this can be true, and even might be true, it is important to note that the publication they cite shows that the sensors in the third loop and the C-terminus respond very similarly. In fact, the authors concluded: "Our results also suggest that positioning conformational biosensors into ICL3 and the C-tail effectively reports canonical G protein-mediated signaling downstream of the AT1R." Moreover, it is unclear why the less sensitive biosensor (as least as measured by degree of DBRET) is the one that appears to show enhancement. I suppose one could argue that the activity is maximal using the C-tail and one must use a less responsive reporter to detect the effect, but this is a rationalization for an unexplained result rather than a validated mechanistic explanation. If the other results were more compelling, perhaps this would be less of an issue. Finally, they did not explain why a control, non-specific antibody wasn't used for the studies presented in panel 2d. This would have been an easy study to have done in the interim. It also would have been important to test the effect of the LOX1-ab on the effects of AngII treatment alone.

In their response to the gene expression studies, the authors attribute the lack of a robust response for some genes to the low dose of oxLDL that was used but give no justification for their choice for this low dose. More importantly, they present the data for a number of hand-picked genes rather than a global assessment of response. Their justification---cost constraints---isn't sufficient to justify this incomplete analysis. Their selective rt-PCR results are a pilot study.

There is no direct evidence in this study that shows that "partial" EMT is occurring in vivo. The rt-PCR studies presented in Fig 8 are not sufficient. Even if one accepts their incomplete analysis of transcriptomic studies using RT-PCR rather than a complete transcriptomic assessment, the study was done on bulk RNA from the entire kidney. The source material includes all cell types, not just epithelial cells, so there is no way to be sure that EMT is occurring. As noted elsewhere, they found no histologic evidence for injury and had no immunostaining results demonstrating "partial EMT" of damaged renal epithelial cells.

All of the evidence described is indirect, and the responses, while plausible, are generally excuses for lack of truly unequivocally positive results. The authors acknowledge the potential confounders of lower BP response in the Lox1-KO, unexpected weight loss in response to high fat diet, the lack of meaningful histologic evidence of injury, and they also acknowledge the absence of increased Gq signaling in the kidney, which is central to their model, but defend the entire model based on some minor changes in urinary 8-OHdG and albumin levels and a curated set of transcriptional changes. Their data could support their model---loss of Lox1 seems to reduce the levels somewhat, but the data are preliminary.

There remain serious reservations about the immunostaining results, with explanations and new data not reassuring. The authors report that they are unable to co-stain for Lox1 and AT1R because both were generated in rabbit, but this reviewer didn't ask for co-staining of the two markers. Rather, it was co-staining showing that Lox1 and ATR1 in fact stain in a specific manner to the same nephron segments. The authors have added a supplementary figure showing co-staining for LOX1/AT1R with megalin, a marker for proximal tubules. However, several aspects of this are problematic:

i. The pattern in the new Supp Fig 10 does not look like that in Fig 9. In the latter, staining is virtually everywhere, all nephron segments, and predominantly basolateral. In Supp Fig 10, they note that the pattern is primarily in the microvilli of the proximal tubule, where megalin is present. The new studies also seem to be a bit more specific, ie there are some tubules that appear to not stain with the markers.

ii. It is difficult to be certain that the megalin staining isn't simply "bleed-through" of the signal from the other antibody. The paper doesn't describe the secondary antibody used for megalin to be sure that the emission spectra completely non-overlapping and it isn't clear that the microscope that was used offers necessary precision.

iii. Their explanation for the pattern of AT1R staining is unconvincing. AT1R immunolocalization is known to be challenging, prompting Schrankl et al to do a definitive study using RNAscope to localize its expression in mice, rats and humans (Am J Physiol Renal Physiol 320: F644-F653, 2021). It argues against the pattern seen in Figure 9 (diffuse tubular expression), though it does suggest it is present in proximal tubules in mice. But perhaps more problematic for their model is that AT1R is not expressed in human tubules (or at least the RNA is undetectable).

Why isn't there more colocalization apparent for the AT1R and LOX1 if they form a co-receptor complex? They say that the complexes may be very dynamic, yet their movie in Suppl Fig 1 does not really support that. Not only are there few overlapping puncta in the static image, there is very little change over the duration of the movie. We don't see complexes form and then disappear and we see few new complexes form.

The explanation for why the number of replicates is variable is not reassuring. The authors note that it was because of the higher variability of the results, necessitating a higher "N" to achieve significance, but this has the appearance of P-chasing.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This work uses transgenic reporter lines to isolate entpd5a+ cells representing classical osteoblasts in the head and non-classical (osterix-) notochordal sheath cells. The authors also include entpd5a- cells, col2a1a+ cells to represent the closely associated cartilage cells. In a combination of ATAC and RNA-Seq analysis, the genome-wide transcriptomic and chromatin status of each cell population is characterized, validating their methodology and providing fundamental insights into the nature of each cell type, especially the less well-studied notochordal sheath cells. Using these data, the authors then turn to a thorough and convincing analysis of the regulatory regions that control the expression of the entpd5a gene in each cell population. Determination of transcriptional activities in developing zebrafish, again combined with ATAC data and expression data of putative regulators, results in a compelling and detailed picture of the regulatory mechanisms governing the expression of this crucial gene.

Strengths:

The major strength of this paper is the clever combination of RNA-Seq and ATAC analysis, further combined with functional transcriptional analysis of the regulatory elements of one crucial gene. This results in a very compelling story.

Weaknesses:

No major weaknesses were identified, except for all the follow-up experiments that one can think of, but that would be outside of the scope of this paper.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Complementary to mammalian models, zebrafish has emerged as a powerful system to study vertebrate development and to serve as a go-to model for many human disorders. All vertebrates share the ancestral capacity to form a skeleton. Teleost fish models have been a key model to understand the foundations of skeletal development and plasticity, pairing with more classical work in amniotes such as the chicken and mouse. However, the genetic foundation of the diversity of skeletal programs in teleosts has been hampered by mapping similarities from amniotes back and not objectively establishing more ancestral states. This is most obvious in systematic, objective analysis of transcriptional regulation and tissue specification in differentiated skeletal tissues. Thus, the molecular events regulating bone-producing cells in teleosts have remained largely elusive. In this study, Petratou et al. leverage spatial experimental delineation of specific skeletal tissues -- that they term 'classical' vs 'non-classical' osteoblasts -- with associated cartilage of the endo/peri-chondrial skeleton and inter-segmental regions of the forming spine during development of the zebrafish, to delineate molecular specification of these cells by current chromatin and transcriptome analysis. The authors further show functional evidence of the utility of these datasets to identify functional enhancer regions delineating entp5 expression in 'classical' or 'non-classical' osteoblast populations. By integration with paired RNA-seq, they delineate broad patterns of transcriptional regulation of these populations as well as specific details of regional regulation via predictive binding sites within ATACseq profiles. Overall the paper was very well written and provides an essential contribution to the field that will provide a foundation to promote modeling of skeletal development and disease in an evolutionary and developmentally informed manner.

Strengths:

Taken together, this study provides a comprehensive resource of ATAC-seq and RNA-seq data that will be very useful for a wide variety of researchers studying skeletal development and bone pathologies. The authors show specificity in the different skeletal lineages and show the utility of the broad datasets for defining regulatory control of gene regulation in these different lineages, providing a foundation for hypothesis testing of not only agents of skeletal change in evolution but also function of genes and variations of unknown significance as it pertains to disease modeling in zebrafish. The paper is excellently written, integrating a complex history and experimental analysis into a useful and coherent whole. The terminology of 'classical' and 'non-classical' will be useful for the community in discussing the biology of skeletal lineages and their regulation.

Weaknesses:

Two items arose that were not critical weaknesses but areas for extending the description of methods and integration into the existing data on the role of non-classical osteoblasts and establishment/canalization of this lineage of skeletal cells.

(1) In reading the text it was unclear how specific the authors' experimental dissection of the head/trunk was in isolating different entp5a osteoblast populations. Obviously, this was successful given the specificity in DEG of results, however, analysis of contaminating cells/lineages in each population would be useful - e.g. using specific marker genes to assess. The text uses terms such as 'specific to' and 'enriched in' without seemingly grounded meaning of the accuracy of these comments. Is it really specific - e.g. not seen in one or other dataset - or is there some experimental variation in this?

(2) Further, it would be valuable to discuss NSC-specific genes such as calymmin (Peskin 2020) which has species and lineage-specific regulation of non-classical osteoblasts likely being a key mechanistic node for ratcheting centra-specific patterning of the spine in teleost fishes. What are dynamics observed in this gene in datasets between the different populations, especially when compared with paralogues - are there obvious cis-regulatory changes that correlate with the co-option of this gene in the early regulation of non-classical osteoblasts? The addition of this analysis/discussion would anchor discussions of the differential between different osteoblasts lineages in the paper.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

This study characterizes classical and nonclassical osteoblasts as both types were analyzed independently (integrated ATAC-seq and RNAseq). It was found that gene expression in classical and nonclassical osteoblasts is not regulated in the same way. In classical osteoblasts, Dlx family factors seem to play an important role, while Hox family factors are involved in the regulation of spinal ossification by nonclassical osteoblasts. In the second part of the study, the authors focus on the promoter structure of entpd5a. Through the identification of enhancers, they reveal complex modes of regulation of the gene. The authors suggest candidate transcription factors that likely act on the identified enhancer elements. All the results taken together provide comprehensive new insights into the process of bone development, and point to spatio-temporally regulated promoter/enhancer interactions taking place at the entpd5a locus.

Strengths:

The authors have succeeded in justifying a sound and consistent buildup of their experiments, and meaningfully integrating the results into the design of each of their follow-up experiments. The data are solid, insightfully presented, and the conclusion valid. This makes this manuscript of great value and interest to those studying (fundamental) skeletal biology.

Weaknesses:

The study is solidly constructed, the manuscript is clearly written and the discussion is meaningful - I see no real weaknesses.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Using genetically engineered Mycolicibacterium smegmatis strains, the authors tried to decipher the role of the last gene in the mycofactocin operon, mftG. They found that MftG was essential for growth in the presence of ethanol as the sole carbon source, but not for the metabolism of ethanol, evidenced by the equal production of acetaldehyde in the mutant and wild type strains when grown with ethanol (Fig 3). The phenotypic characterization of ΔmftG cells revealed a growth-arrest phenotype in ethanol, reminiscent of starvation conditions (Fig 4). Investigation of cofactor metabolism revealed that MftG was not required to maintain redox balance via NADH/NAD+, but was important for energy production (ATP) in ethanol. Since mycobacteria cannot grow via substrate-level phosphorylation alone, this pointed to a role of MftG in respiration during ethanol metabolism. The accumulation of reduced mycofactocin points to impaired cofactor cycling in the absence of MftG, which would impact the availability of reducing equivalents to feed into the electron transport chain for respiration (Fig 5). This was confirmed when looking at oxygen consumption in membrane preparations from the mutant and wild type strains with reduced mycofactocin electron donors (Fig 7). The transcriptional analysis supported the starvation phenotype, as well as perturbations in energy metabolism.

The link between mycofactocin oxidation and respiration is shown by whole-cell and membrane respiration measurements. I look forward to seeing what the electron acceptor/s are for MftG. Overall, the data and conclusions support the role of MftG in ethanol metabolism as a mycofactocin redox enzyme.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The work by Graca et al. describes a GMC flavoprotein dehydrogenase (MftG) in the ethanol metabolism of mycobacteria and provides evidence that it shuttles electrons from the mycofactocin redox cofactor to the electron transport chain.

Strengths:

Overall, this study is compelling, exceptionally well-designed and thoroughly conducted. An impressively diverse set of different experimental approaches is combined to pin down the role of this enzyme and scrutinize the effects of its presence or absence in mycobacteria cells growing on ethanol and other substrates. Other strengths of this work are the clear writing style and stellar data presentation in the figures, which makes it easy also for non-experts to follow the logic of the paper. Overall, this work therefore closes an important gap in our understanding of ethanol oxidation in mycobacteria, with possible implications for the future treatment of bacterial infections.

Weaknesses:

I see no major weaknesses in this work, which in my opinion leaves no doubt about the role of MftG.

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Graça et al. explores the role of MftG in the ethanol metabolism of mycobacteria. The authors hypothesise that MftG functions as a mycofactocin dehydrogenase, regenerating mycofactocin by shuttling electrons to the respiratory chain of mycobacteria. Although the study primarily uses M. smegmatis as a model microorganism, the findings have more general implications for understanding mycobacterial metabolism. Identifying the specific partner to which MftG transfers its electrons within the respiratory chain of mycobacteria would be an important next step, as pointed out by the authors.

Strengths

The authors have used a wide range of tools to support their hypothesis, including co-occurrence analyses, gene knockout and complementation experiments, as well as biochemical assays and transcriptomics studies.<br /> An interesting observation that the mftG deletion mutant grown on ethanol as the sole carbon source exhibited a growth defect resembling a starvation phenotype.<br /> MftG was shown to catalyse the electron transfer from mycofactocinol to components of the respiratory chain, highlighting the flexibility and complexity of mycobacterial redox metabolism.

The authors have taken on the majority of recommendations by the reviewers and made changes in the manuscript accordingly. I don't have any further suggestions.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Beyond what is stated in the title of this paper, not much needs to be summarized. eIF2A in HeLa cells promotes translation initiation of neither the main ORFs nor short uORFs under any of the conditions tested.

Strengths:

Very comprehensive, in fact, given the huge amount of purely negative data, an admirably comprehensive and well-executed analysis of the factor of interest.

Weaknesses:

The study is limited to the HeLa cell line, focusing primarily on KO of eIF2A and neglecting the opposite scenario, higher eIF2A expression which could potentially result in an increase in non-canonical initiation events.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary

Roiuk et al describe a work in which they have investigated the role of eIF2A in translation initiation in mammals without much success. Thus, the manuscript focuses on negative results. Further, the results, while original, are generally not novel, but confirmatory, since related claims have been made before independently in different systems with Haikwad et al study recently published in eLife being the most relevant.

Despite this, we find this work highly important. This is because of a massive wealth of unreliable information and speculations regarding eIF2A role in translation arising from series of artifacts that began at the moment of eIF2A discovery. This, in combination with its misfortunate naming (eIF2A is often mixed up with alpha subunit of eIF2, eIF2S1) has generated a widespread confusion among researchers who are not experts in eukaryotic translation initiation. Given this, it is not only justifiable but critical to make independent efforts to clear up this confusion and I very much appreciate the authors' efforts in this regard.

Strengths

The experimental investigation described in this manuscript is thorough, appropriate and convincing.

Weaknesses

However, we are not entirely satisfied with the presentation of this work which we think should be improved.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a valuable study providing solid evidence that the putative non-canonical initiation factor eIF2A has little or no role in the translation of any expressed mRNAs in cultured human (primarily HeLa) cells. Previous studies have implicated eIF2A in GTP-independent recruitment of initiator tRNA to the small (40S) ribosomal subunit, a function analogous to canonical initiation factor eIF2, and in supporting initiation on mRNAs that do not require scanning to select the AUG codon or that contain near-cognate start codons, especially upstream ORFs with non-AUG start codons, and may use the cognate elongator tRNA for initiation. Moreover, the detected functions for eIF2A were limited to, or enhanced by, stress conditions where canonical eIF2 is phosphorylated and inactivated, suggesting that eIF2A provides a back-up function for eIF2 in such stress conditions. CRISPR gene editing was used to construct two different knock-out cell lines that were compared to the parental cell line in a large battery of assays for bulk or gene-specific translation in both unstressed conditions and when cells were treated with inhibitors that induce eIF2 phosphorylation. None of these assays identified any effects of eIF2A KO on translation in unstressed or stressed cells, indicating little or no role for eIF2A as a back-up to eIF2 and in translation initiation at near-cognate start codons, in these cultured cells.

The study is very thorough and generally well executed, examining bulk translation by puromycin labeling and polysome analysis and translational efficiencies of all expressed mRNAs by ribosome profiling, with extensive utilization of reporters equipped with the 5'UTRs of many different native transcripts to follow up on the limited number of genes whose transcripts showed significant differences in translational efficiencies (TEs) in the profiling experiments. They also looked for differences in translation of uORFs in the profiling data and examined reporters of uORF-containing mRNAs known to be translationally regulated by their uORFs in response to stress, going so far as to monitor peptide production from a uORF itself. The high precision and reproducibility of the replicate measurements instil strong confidence that the myriad of negative results they obtained reflects the lack of eIF2A function in these cells rather than data that would be too noisy to detect small effects on the eIF2A mutations. They also tested and found no evidence for a recent claim that eIF2A localizes to the cytoplasm in stress and exerts a global inhibition of translation. Given the numerous papers that have been published reporting functions of eIF2A in specific and general translational control, this study is important in providing abundant, high-quality data to the contrary, at least in these cultured cells.

Strengths:

The paper employed two CRISPR knock-out cell lines and subjected them to a combination of high-quality ribosome profiling experiments, interrogating both main coding sequences and uORFs throughout the translatome, which was complemented by extensive reporter analysis, and cell imaging in cells both unstressed and subjected to conditions of eIF2 phosphorylation, all in an effort to test previous conclusions about eIF2A functioning as an alternative to eIF2.

Weaknesses:

There is some question about whether their induction of eIF2 phosphorylation using tunicamycin was extensive enough to state forcefully that eIF2A has little or no role in the translatome when eIF2 function is strongly impaired. Also, similar conclusions regarding the minimal role of eIF2A were reached previously for a different human cell line from a study that also enlisted ribosome profiling under conditions of extensive eIF2 phosphorylation; although that study lacked the extensive use of reporters to confirm or refute the identification by ribosome profiling of a small group of mRNAs regulated by eIF2A during stress.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In mice, Notch1 is expressed uniformly throughout the endocardium during the initial stages of heart valve formation. How, then, is Notch activated specifically in the valve forming regions? To answer this question, the authors use a combination of in vivo and ex vivo experiments to demonstrate the critical role of hemodynamic forces on Notch1 activation and provide strong evidence for a novel mechanotransduction pathway involving PKC and mTORC2.

Strengths:

(1) Novel insights into the role of PKC and mTOR were obtained using a combination of mutant studies and pharmacological studies.<br /> (2) Novel insights on the role of mechanical forces on caveolin-1 localisation.<br /> (3) Mechanical forces were manipulated using the class III antiarrhythmic drug dofetilide, which transiently blocks heartbeat. Care was taken to minimise the confounding effects of hypoxia.

Weaknesses:

The authors suggest that shear stress activates the mTORC2-PKC-Notch signalling pathway by altering the membrane lipid microstructure. Although this is a fascinating hypothesis, more evidence will be needed to prove this. In particular, it is not clear how the general addition of cholesterol in dofetilide-treated hearts would result in a rescue of regionalized membrane distribution within the AVC and in high-shear stress areas.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The overall goal of this manuscript is to understand how Notch signaling is activated in specific regions of the endocardium, including the OFT and AVC, that undergo EMT to form the endocardial cushions. Using dofetilide to transiently block circulation in E9.5 mice, the authors show that Notch receptor cleavage still occurs in the valve-forming regions due to mechanical sheer stress as Notch ligand expression and oxygen levels are unaffected. The authors go on to show that changes in lipid membrane structure activate mTOR signaling, which causes phosphorylation of PKC and Notch receptor cleavage. The data are largely convincing and support their hypothesis. The conclusions are also novel and significantly add to the field of endocardial cushion biology.

The strengths of the manuscript include the dual pharmacological and genetic approaches to block blood flow in the mouse, the inclusion of many controls including those for hypoxia, the quality of the imaging, and the clarity of the text. In the revision, the authors put forth a good faith effort to address experimentally or textually the concerns of the reviewers. Most weaknesses that were identified in the first submission were addressed and the main claims are convincing. In general, the authors achieved their aims and the results support their conclusions.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper, Bruter and colleagues report effects of inducible deletion of the genes encoding the two paralogous kinases of the Mediator complex in adult mice. The physiological roles of these two kinases, CDK8 and CDK19, are currently rather poorly understood; although conserved in all eukaryotes, and among the most highly conserved kinases in vertebrates, individual knockouts of genes encoding CDK8 homologues in different species have revealed generally rather mild and specific effects, in contrast to Mediator itself. Here, the authors provide evidence that neither CDK8 nor CDK19 are required for adult homeostasis but they are functionally redundant for maintenance of reproductive tissue morphology and fertility in males.

Strengths:

The morphological data on the atrophy of the male reproductive system and the arrest of spermatocyte meiosis are solid and are reinforced by single cell transcriptomics data, which is a challenging technique to implement in vivo. The main findings are important and will be of interest to scientists in the fields of transcription and developmental biology.

Weaknesses:

There are several major weaknesses.

The first is that data on general health of mice with single and double knockouts is not shown, nor are there any data on effects in any other tissues. This gives the impression that the only phenotype is in the male reproductive system, which would be misleading if there were phenotypes in other tissues that are not reported. Furthermore, given that the new data show differing expression of CDK8 and CDK19 between cell types in the testis, data for the genitourinary system in single knockouts are very sparse; data are described for fertility in figure 1E, ploidy and cell number in figure 3B and C, plasma testosterone and luteinizing hormone levels in figure 6C and 6D and morphology of testis and prostate tissue for single Cdk8 knockout in supplementary figure 1C (although in this case the images do not appear very comparable between control and CDK8 KO, thus perhaps wider fields should be shown), but, for example, there is no analysis of different meiotic stages or of gene expression in single knockouts. This might have provided insight into the sterility of induced CDK8 knockout.

The second major weakness is that the correlation between double knockout and reduced expression of genes involved in steroid hormone biosynthesis is portrayed as a likely causal mechanism for the phenotypes observed. While this is a possibility, there are no experiments performed to provide evidence that this is the case. Furthermore, there is no evidence shown that CDK8 and/or CDK19 are directly responsible for transcription of the genes concerned.

Finally, the authors propose that the phenotypes are independent of the kinase activity of CDK8 or CDK19 because treatment of mice for a month with an inhibitor does not recapitulate the effects of the knockout, and nor does expression of two steroidogenic genes change in cultured Leydig cells upon treatment with an inhibitor. However, there are no controls for effective target inhibition shown.

Comments on revisions:

This manuscript is in some ways improved - mainly by toning down the conclusions - but a few major weaknesses have not been addressed. I do not agree that it is not justified to perform experiments to investigate the sterility of single CDK8 knockout mice since this could be important and given that the new data show that while there is some overlap in expression of the two prologues, there are also significant differences in the testis. At the least, it would have been interesting and easy to do to show the expression of CDK8 and CDK19 in the single cell transcriptomics, since this might help to identify the different populations.

The only definitive way of concluding a kinase-independent phenotype is to rescue with a kinase dead mutant. While I agree that the inhibitors have been well validated, since they did not have any effects, it is hard to be sure that they actually reached their targets in the tissue concerned. This could have been done by cell thermal shift assay. In the absence of any data on this, the conclusion of a kinase-independent effect is weak.

Figure 2 legend includes (G) between (B) and (C), and appears to, in fact, refer to Fig 1E, for which the legend is missing the description.

Finally, Figure S1C appears wrong. Goblet cells are not in the crypt but on the villi (so the graph axis label is wrong), and there are normally between 5 and 15 per villus, so the iDKO figure is normal, but there are a surprisingly high number of goblet cells in the controls. And normally there are 10-15 Paneth cells/crypt, so it looks like these have been underestimated everywhere. I wonder how the counting was done - if it is from images such as those shown here then I am not surprised as the quality is insufficient for quantification. How many crypts and villi were counted? Given the difficulty in counting and the variability per crypt/villus, with quantitative differences like this it is important to do quantifications blind. I personally wouldn't conclude anything from this data and I would recommend to either improve it or not include it. If these data are shown, then data showing efficient double knockout in this tissue should also accompany it, by IF, Western or PCR. Otherwise, given a potentially strong phenotype, repopulation of the intestine by unrecombined crypts might have occurred - this is quite common (see Ganuza et al, EMBO J. 2012).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors tried to test the hypothesis that Cdk8 and Cdk19 stabilize the cytoplasmic CcNC protein, the partner protein of Mediator complex including CDK8/19 and Mediator protein via a kinase-independent function by generating induced double knockout of Cdk8/19. However the evidence presented suffer from a lack of focus and rigor and does not support their claims.

Strengths:

This is the first comprehensive report on the effect of a double knockout of CDK8 and CDK19 in mice on male fertility, hormones and single cell testicular cellular expression. The inducible knockout mice led to male sterility with severe spermatogenic defects, and the authors attempted to use this animal model to test the kinase-independent function of CDK8/19, previously reported for human. Single cell RNA-seq of knockout testis presented a high resolution of molecular defects of all the major cell types in the testes of the inducible double knockout mice. The authors also have several interesting findings such as reentry into cell cycles by Sertoli cells, loss of Testosterone in induced dko that could be investigated further.

Weaknesses:

The claim of reproductive defects in the induced double knockout of CDK8/19 resulted from the loss of CCNC via a kinase-independent mechanism is interesting but was not supported by the data presented. While the construction and analysis of the systemic induced knockout model of Cdk8 in Cdk19KO mice is not trivial, the analysis and data is weakened by systemic effect of Cdk8 loss, making it difficult to separate the systemic effect from the local testis effect.

The analysis of male sterile phenotype is also inadequate with poor image quality, especially testis HE sections. Male reproductive tract picture is also small and difficult to evaluate. The mice crossing scheme is unusual as you have three mice to cross to produce genotypes, while we could understand that it is possible to produce pups of desired genotypes with different mating schemes, such vague crossing scheme is not desirable and of poor genetics practice. Also using TAM treated wild type as control is ok, but a better control will be TAM treated ERT2-cre; CDK8f/f or TAM treated ERT2 Cre CDK19/19 KO, so as to minimize the impact from well-recognized effect of TAM.

While the authors proposed that the inducible loss of CDK8 in the CDK19 knockout background is responsible for spermatogenic defects, it was not clear in which cells CDK8/19 genes are interested and which cell types might have a major role in spermatogenesis. The authors also put forward the evidence that reduction/loss of Testosterone might be the main cause of spermatogenic defects, which is consistent with the expression change in genes involved in steroigenesis pathway in Leydig cells of inducible double knockout. But it is not clear how the loss of Testosterone contributed to the loss of CcnC protein.

The authors should clarify or present the data on where CDK8 and CDK19 as well as CcnC are expressed so as to help the readers to understand which tissues that both CDK might be functioning and cause the loss of CcnC. It should be easier to test the hypothesis of CDK8/19 stabilize CcnC protein using double knock out primary cells, instead of the whole testis.

Since CDK8KO and CDK19KO both have significantly reduced fertility in comparison with wildtype, it might be important to measure the sperm quantity and motility among CDK8 KO, CDK19KO and induced DKO to evaluate spermatogenesis based on their sperm production.

Some data for the inducible knockout efficiency of Cdk8 were presented in Supplemental figure 1, but there is no legend for the supplemental figures, it was not clear which band represented deletion band, which tissues were examined? Tail or testis? It seems that two months after the injection of Tam, all the Cdk8 were completely deleted, indicating extremely efficient deletion of Tam induction by two-month post administration. Were the complete deletion of Cdk8 happening even earlier ? an examination of timepoints of induced loss would be useful and instructional as to when is the best time to examine phenotypes.

The authors found that Sertoli cells re-entered cell cycle in the inducible double knockout but stop short of careful characterization other than increased expression of cell cycle genes.

Overall this work suffered from a lack of focus and rigor in the analysis and lack of sufficient evidence to support their main conclusions.

Comments on revisions:

This reviewer appreciated the authors' effort in improving the quality of this manuscript during their revision. While some concerns remain, the revision is a much improved work and the authors addressed most of my major concerns.<br /> Figure 2E CDK8 and CDK19 immunofluorescent staining images seem to show CDK8 and CDK19 location are completely distinct and in different cells, the authors need to elaborate on this results and discuss what such a distinct location means in line of their double knockout data.

Minor comments:

Supplemental figure 1(C) legend typo : (C) Periodic acid-Schiff stained sections of ilea of tamoxifen treated R26/Cre/ERI2 and DKO mice.

While the effort to identify and generate new antibodies is appreciated, the specificity of the antibodies used should be examined and presented if available.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript focuses on the apparent involvement of a proposed copper-responsive regulator in the chemotactic response of Pseudomonas putida to Cu(II), a chemorepellent. Broadly, this area is of interest because it could provide insight into how soil microbes mitigate metal stress. Additionally, copper has some historical agricultural use as an antimicrobial, thus can accumulate in soil. The manuscript bases its conclusions on an in vitro screen to identify interacting partners of CheA, an essential kinase in the P. putida chemotaxis-signaling pathway. Much of the subsequent analysis focuses on a regulator of the CsoR/RcnR family (PP_2969).

Weaknesses:

The data presented in this work does not support the model (Figure 8). In particular, PP_2969 is linked to Ni/Co resistance not Cu resistance. Further, it is not clear how the putative new interactions with CheA would be integrated into diverse responses to various chemoattract/repellents. These two comments are justified below.

PP_2969

• The authors present a sequence alignment (Figure S5) that is the sole based for their initial assignment of this ORF as a CsoR protein. There is conservation of the primary coordinating ligands (highlighted with asterisks) known to be involved in Cu(I) binding to CsoR (ref 31). There are some key differences, though, in residues immediately adjacent to the conserved Cys (the preceding Ala, which is Tyr in the other sequences). The effect of these change may be significant in a physiological context.

• The gene immediately downstream of PP_2969 is homologous to E. coli RcnA, a demonstrated Ni/Co efflux protein, suggesting that P2969 may be Ni or Co responsive. Indeed PP_2970 has previously been reported as Ni/Co responsive (J. Bact 2009 doi:10.1128/JB.00465-09). The host cytosol plays a critical role in determining metal-response, in addition to the protein, which can explain the divergence from the metal response expected from the alignment.

• The previous JBact study also explains the lack of an effect (Figure 5b) of deleting PP_2969 on copper-efflux gene expression (copA-I, copA-II, and copB-II) as these are regulated by CueR not PP_2969 consistent with the previous report. Deletion of CsoR/RcnR family regulator will result in constitutive expression of the relevant efflux/detoxification gene, at a level generally equivalent to the de-repression observed in the presence of the signal.

• Further, CsoR proteins are Cu(I) responsive so measuring Cu(II) binding affinity is not physiologically relevant (Figures 5a and S5b). The affinities of demonstrated CsoR proteins are 10-18 M and these values are determined by competition assay. The MTS assay and resulting affinities are not physiologically relevant.

• The DNA-binding assays are carried out at protein concentrations well above physiological ranges (Figs 5c and d, and S5c, d). The weak binding will in part result from using DNA-sequences upstream of the copA genes and not from from PP_2970.

CheA interactions

There is no consideration given to the likely physiological relevance of the new interacting partners for CheA.

• How much CheA is present in the cell (copies) and how many copies of other proteins are present? How would specific responses involving individual interacting partners be possible with such a heterogenous pool of putative CheA-complexes in a cell. For PP_2969, the affinity reported (Figure 5A) may lay at the upper end of the CsoR concentration range (for example, CueR in Salmonella is present at ~40 nM).

• The two-hybrid system experiment uses a long growth time (60 h) before analysis. Even low LacZ activity levels will generate a blue colour, depending upon growth medium (see doi: 10.1016/0076-6879(91)04011-c). It is also not clear how Miller units can be accurately or precisely determined from a solid plate assay (the reference cited describes a protocol for liquid culture).

Comments on revised version:

The authors have replied in detail to the various comments about the original manuscripts. However, the responses are generally lengthy rationalisations of the original interpretation of the data and do not fundamentally address critical concerns raised about the physiological relevance of the results. The response appears to rest on the assumption that the numerous interacting partners obtained from the initial screen are all true positives and that all subsequent experimental results are interpreted to justify that assumption. In the case of CsoR, the experimental results and interpretation are inconsistent with previously published studies of the metal and DNA-binding properties of CsoR proteins. The following points reiterate comments from the previous review, in the hopes that the authors will, at the very least, consider the likelihood that the "CsoR" protein they have identified is in fact responsive to a different metal. Further, that the authors consider multiple possible interpretations of the data, particularly those that are inconsistent with the model/hypothesis (and take this into account in their experimental design.

• (Figure 4) Almost all purified proteins will bind Cu(II) most tightly in vitro, followed by Zn(II) and Ni(II). This behaviour is a consequence of the Irving-Williams affinity series (doi.org/10.1038/162746a0 and doi.org/10.1039/JR9530003192, especially Figure 4) and is not considered an indicator of physiological metal preference. Biomolecules will exhibit the same behaviour as small organic ligands towards first row transition ions because of the flexibility of their structures. Thus, the results obtained are unsurprising and, because of the method used, have no physiological relevance.

• The authors cite other in vivo work as evidence for varied metal-response by regulator proteins. However, experiments in these citations are of limited relevance because some focus on other structural classes of metalloregulator proteins (so not relevant here) while others focus on changes in metal accumulation by overexpression of the regulator protein, with no examination of the metal-specificity of the efflux protein (the key determinant of the physiological response of the regulator protein - why turn on expression of an efflux protein that can't pump out a particular metal? Finally, adding equivalent concentrations of metals to growing cells is not a good comparison as metals are toxic at different concentrations. The regulators will only have evolved to be just good enough, not perfect, with respect to selectivity. Laboratory experimental conditions often explore non-physiological conditions.

• It is also important to re-emphasise the authors' own statements on lines 90-93 that P. putida has a CueR protein. This is consistent with the phylogenetic distribution of CueR proteins in gram-negative bacteria. The CsoR proteins, in contrast, are found only in gram-positive bacteria. This inconsistency is ignored by the authors.

• The implications of the Irving-Williams series on metal-specific responses of bacterial metalloregulator proteins are described in the following references: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2021.102095, 10.1074/jbc.R114.588145, and 10.1038/s41589-018-0211-4). The last reference of this set provides an experimental basis for why metalloregulator affinities for Cu (and Zn and Ni) are so tight (and why the values obtained in Figure 4 in this manuscript are not relevant).

• Similarly, the previous experimental studies of CsoR proteins not cited by the authors (10.1021/ja908372b 10.1021/bi900115w) provide rigourous experimental approaches for measuring metal and DNA-binding affinities and further highlight the weakness of the experimental design in this manuscript.

• The DNA-binding assays are not physiologically relevant because they do not use DNA from the operator regulated by the candidate protein (why this was not explored in the revision is difficult to understand). The mobility shift observed at these high protein concentrations will result from non-specific binding. It is unsurprising that Cu(II) has an effect on DNA binding as it is added at such high concentrations relative to both protein and DNA so as to compete for DNA-binding with the protein (which binds weakly because there is no specific recognition site). The 10:1 ratio of Cu:CsoR is 10-times higher than needed as this class of proteins will show decreases in DNA-affinity in the presence of the correct metal at 1:1 stoichiometry. As indicated above, the authors need to consider alternative interpretations for their results rather than try to rationalise the results to fit the model.

The points raised above readily address the authors' own comments in the response as to their surprise at some of the results and their inconsistency with the model.

Even if the authors were to identify the correct metal to which the protein responds, there are still fundamental issues with experimental design and interpretation that would need to be addressed to indicate any link between the protein and chemotaxis.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript (Baron, Oviedo et al., 2024) builds on a previous study from the Wiseman lab (Perea, Baron et al., 2023) and describes the identification of novel nucleoside mimetics that activate the HRI branch of the ISR and drive mitochondrial elongation. The authors develop an image processing and analysis pipeline to quantify the effects of these compounds on mitochondrial networks and show that these HRI activators mitigate ionomycin driven mitochondrial fragmentation. They then show that these compounds rescue mitochondrial morphology defects in patient-derived MFN2 mutant cell lines.

Strengths:

The identification of new ISR modulators opens new avenues for biological discovery surrounding the interplay between mitochondrial form/function and the ISR, a topic that is of broad interest. Conceptually, this work suggests that such compounds might represent new potential therapeutics for certain mitochondrial disorders. Additionally, the development of a quantitative image analysis pipeline is valuable and has the potential to extract subtle effects of various treatments on mitochondrial morphology.

Weaknesses:

While the ISR modulators described here correct the morphology of mitochondria in MFN2.D414V mutant cells, the impact of these compounds on the function of mitochondria in the mutant cells remains unaddressed. Sharma et al., 2022 provide data for a deficit in mitochondrial OCR in MFN2.D414V cells which, if rescued by these compounds, would strengthen the argument that pharmacological ISR kinase activation is a strategy for targeting the functional consequences of the dysregulation of mitochondrial form.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary.

Mitochondrial dysfunction is associated with a wide spectrum of genetic and age-related diseases. Healthy mitochondria form a dynamic reticular network and constantly fuse, divide, and move. In contrast, dysfunctional mitochondria have altered dynamic properties resulting in fragmentation of the network and more static mitochondria. It has recently been reported that different types of mitochondrial stress or dysfunction activate kinases that control the integrated stress response, including HRI, PERK and GCN2. Kinase activity results in decreased global translation and increased transcription of stress response genes via ATF4, including genes that encode mitochondrial protein chaperones and proteases (HSP70 and LON). In addition, the ISR kinases regulate other mitochondrial functions including mitochondrial morphology, phospholipid composition, inner membrane organization, and respiratory chain activity. Increased mitochondrial connectivity may be a protective mechanism that could be initiated by pharmacological activation of ISR kinases, as was recently demonstrated for GCN2.

A small molecule screening platform was used to identify nucleoside mimetic compounds that activate HRI. These compounds promote mitochondrial elongation and protect against acute mitochondrial fragmentation induced by a calcium ionophore. Mitochondrial connectivity is also increased in patient cells with a dominant mutation in MFN2 by treatment with the compounds.

Strengths:

(1) The screen leverages a well-characterized reporter of the ISR: translation of ATF4-FLuc is activated in response to ER stress or mitochondrial stress. Nucleoside mimetic compounds were screened for activation of the reporter, which resulted in the identification of nine hits. The two most efficacious in dose response tests were chosen for further analysis (0357 and 3610). The authors clearly state that the compounds have low potency. These compounds were specific to the ISR and did not activate the unfolded protein response or the heat shock response. Kinases activated in the ISR were systematically depleted by CRISPRi revealing that the compounds activate HRI.<br /> (2) The status of the mitochondrial network was assessed with an Imaris analysis pipeline and attributes such as length, sphericity, and ellipsoid principal axis length were quantified. The characteristics of the mitochondrial network in cells treated with the compounds were consistent with increased connectivity. Rigorous controls were included. These changes were attenuated with pharmacological inhibition of the ISR.<br /> (3) Treatment of cells with the calcium ionophore results in rapid mitochondrial fragmentation. This was diminished by pre-treatment with 0357 or 3610 and control treatment with thapsigargin and halofuginone.<br /> (4) Pathogenic mutations in MFN2 result in the neurodegenerative disease Charcot-Marie-Tooth Syndrome Type 2A (CMT2A). Patient cells that express Mfn2-D414V possess fragmented mitochondrial networks and treatment with 0357 or 3610 increased mitochondrial connectivity in these cells.

Weaknesses:

The weakness is the limited analysis of cellular changes following treatment with the compounds.<br /> (1) Unclear how 0357 or 3610 alter other aspects of cellular physiology. While this would be satisfying to know, it may be that the authors determined that broad, unbiased experiments such as RNAseq or proteomic analysis are not justified due to the limited translational potential of these specific compounds.<br /> (2) There are many changes in Mfn2-D414V patient cells including reduced respiratory capacity, reduced mtDNA copy number, and fewer mitochondrial-ER contact sites. These experiments are relatively narrow in scope and quantifying more than mitochondrial structure would reveal if the compounds improve mitochondrial function, as is predicted by their model.

Comments on revisions:

Many reviewer concerns have been addressed or will be addressed in forthcoming manuscripts.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Mitochondrial injury activates eiF2α kinases-PERK, GCN2, HRI and PKR-which collectively regulate the Integrated Stress Response (ISR) to preserve mitochondrial function and integrity. Previous work has demonstrated that stress-induced and pharmacologic stress-independent ISR activation promotes adaptive mitochondrial elongation via the PERK and GCN2 kinases, respectively. Here, the authors demonstrate that pharmacologic ISR inducers of HRI and GCN2 enhance mitochondrial elongation and suppress mitochondrial fragmentation in two disease models, illustrating the therapeutic potential of pharmacologic ISR activators. Specifically, the authors first used an innovative ISR translational reporter to screen for nucleoside mimetic compounds that induce ISR signaling, and identified two compounds, 0357 and 3610, that preferentially activate HRI. Using a mitochondrial-targeted GFP MEF cell line, the authors next determined that these compounds (as well as the GCN2 activator, halofuginone) enhance mitochondrial elongation in an ISR-dependent manner. Moreover, pretreatment of MEFs with these ISR kinase activators suppressed pathological mitochondrial fragmentation caused by a calcium ionophore. Finally, pharmacologic HRI and GCN2 activation was found to preserve mitochondrial morphology in human fibroblasts expressing a pathologic variant in MFN2, a defect that leads to mitochondrial fragmentation and is a cause of Charcot Marie Tooth Type 2A disease.

Strengths:

This well-written manuscript has several notable strengths, including the demonstration of the potential therapeutic benefit of ISR modulation. New chemical entities with which to further interrogate this stress response pathway are also reported. In addition, the authors used an elegant screen to isolate compounds that selectively activate the ISR and identify which of the four kinases was responsible for activation. Special attention was also paid to a thorough evaluation of the effect of their compounds on other stress response pathways (i.e. the UPR, and heat and oxidative stress responses), thereby minimizing the potential for off-target effects. The implementation of automated image analysis rather than manual scoring to quantify mitochondrial elongation is not only practical but also adds to the scientific rigor, as does the complementary use of both the calcium ionophore and MFN2 models to enhance confidence and the broad therapeutic potential for pharmacology ISR manipulation.

Weaknesses:

The only minor concerns are with regard to effects on cell health and the timing of pharmacological administration.

Comments on revisions:

In this revised manuscript the authors demonstrate that pharmacological activation of the eiF2α kinases, HRI and GCN2, induce adaptive mitochondrial elongation and suppress mitochondrial fragmentation in two disease models, illustrating the translational potential of pharmacological ISR modulation.

In revising their manuscript the authors adequately addressed the concerns. In response to comments about the potential toxicity of their compounds, 0357 and 3610, the authors furnish evidence that neither compound significantly reduced viability of HEK293 cells (Figure S1G). Understandably, the authors focused the present work on the acute effects of their compounds. Several other attributes are noteworthy: First, that injury attributable to chronic ISR activation in cell culture may ultimately be circumvented by altering the in vivo pharmacodynamic and pharmacodynamic properties of the compounds, thereby preserving the translation potential for these (and related) compounds. Second, the authors also reasonably explain that the rapidity of ionomycin-induced injury, necessitating that the inducers are administered prior to treatment. Their assessment of the effects of the compounds on mitochondrial fragmentation in MFN2 mutant fibroblasts-in combination with the preserved viability of HEK293 cells-is sufficient to demonstrate the practical pharmacological potential for these (or related) agents.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This work uses transgenic reporter lines to isolate entpd5a+ cells representing classical osteoblasts in the head and non-classical (osterix-) notochordal sheath cells. The authors also include entpd5a- cells, col2a1a+ cells to represent the closely associated cartilage cells. In a combination of ATAC and RNA-Seq analysis, the genome-wide transcriptomic and chromatin status of each cell population is characterized, validating their methodology and providing fundamental insights into the nature of each cell type, especially the less well-studied notochordal sheath cells. Using these data, the authors then turn to a thorough, and convincing analysis of the regulatory regions that control the expression of the entpd5a gene in each cell population. Determination of transcriptional activities in developing zebrafish, again combined with ATAC data and expression data of putative regulators results in a compelling, and detailed picture of the regulatory mechanisms governing expression of this crucial gene.

Strengths:

The major strength of this paper is the clever combination of RNA-Seq and ATAC analysis, further combined with functional transcriptional analysis of the regulatory elements of one crucial gene. This results in a very compelling story.

Weaknesses:

No major weakness, except for all the follow-up experiments that one can think of, but that would be outside of the scope of this paper.

Comments on revisions:

The description of Supplementary Figure 1 is still confusing: in the results section, it says "We photo converted and directly imaged entpd5a:Kaede positive embryos starting from the 15 somite- stage (s), when we could first detect the fluorophore along the newly-formed notochord progenitor cells (Suppl. Fig. 1E). We repeated photoconversion and imaging at 18, 21 and 24s (Suppl. Fig. 1F-H). ...(Suppl. Fig 1E)"<br /> In the response, the authors say "we could see new Kaede expression under the control of the entpd5a promoter region within 1.5 hours of photoconversion, as shown in Suppl. Figure 1E-H."<br /> In the legend to Suppl. Fig. 1, it says "Using the entpd5a:Kaede photoconversion line we first detect entpd5a expression at the 15 somite-stage (E). Following the same embryo, active expression of the gene continues until prior to 24 hpf (F-H)."<br /> So my questions are: -was there a delay between photoconversion and imaging - was the same delay used for all pictures - was there indeed additional photoconversion for Fig.1 F-H before imaging?<br /> This could be stated in Materials and Methods, and maybe in the legend to Suppl. Fig. 1

All other issues have been addressed.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Complementary to mammalian models, zebrafish has emerged as a powerful system to study vertebrate development and serve as a go-to model for many human disorders. All vertebrates share the ancestral capacity to form a skeleton. Teleost fish models have been a key model to understand the foundations of skeletal development and plasticity, pairing with more classical work in amniotes such as the chicken and mouse. However, the genetic foundation of the diversity of skeletal programs in teleosts have been hampered by mapping similarities from amniotes back and not objectively establishing more ancestral states. This is most obvious in systematic, objective analysis of transcriptional regulation and tissue specification in differentiated skeletal tissues. Thus, the molecular events regulating bone-producing cells in teleosts have remained largely elusive. In this study, Petratou et al. leverage spatial experimental delineation of specific skeletal tissues -- that they term 'classical' vs 'non-classical' osteoblasts -- with associated cartilage of the endo/peri-chondrial skeleton and inter-segmental regions of the forming spine during development of the zebrafish, to delineate molecular specification of these cells by current chromatin and transcriptome analysis. The authors further show functional evidence of the utility of these datasets to identify functional enhancer regions delineating entp5 expression delineated in 'classical' or 'non-classical' osteoblast populations. By integration with paired RNA-seq, they delineate broad patterns of transcriptional regulation of these populations as well as specific detail of regional regulation via predictive binding sites within ATACseq profiles. Overall the paper was very well written and provides an essential contribution to the field that will provide a foundation to promote modeling of skeletal development and disease in an evolutionary and developmentally informed manner.

Strengths:

Taken together, this study provides a comprehensive resource of ATAC-seq and RNA-seq data that will be very useful for a wide variety of researchers studying skeletal development and bone pathologies. The authors show specificity in the different skeletal lineages and show utility of the broad datasets for defining regulatory control of gene regulation in these different lineages, providing the foundation for hypothesis testing of not only agents of skeletal change in evolution but also function of genes and variations of unknown significance as it pertains to disease modeling in zebrafish. The paper is excellently written, integrating a complex history and experimental analysis into a useful and coherent whole. The terminology of 'classical' and 'non-classical' will be useful for the community in discussing biology of skeletal lineages and their regulation.

Weaknesses:

Two items arose that proposed areas for extending the description to integrate the data into the existing data on role of non-classical osteobasts and establishment/canalization of this lineage of skeletal cells.

(1) It was unclear how specific the authors' experimental dissection of head/trunk was in isolating different entp5a osteoblast populations. Obviously, this was successful given the specificity in DEG of results, however an analysis of contaminating cells/lineages in each population would be useful - e.g. maybe use specific marker genes to assess. The text uses terms such as 'specific to' and 'enriched in' without seemingly grounded meaning of the accuracy of these comments. Is it really specific e.g. not seen in one or other dataset, or is there some experimental variation in this?

(2) Further, it would be valuable to discuss NSC-specific genes such as calymmin (Peskin 2020) which has species and lineage specific regulation of non-classical osteoblasts likely being a key mechanistic node for ratcheting centra-specific patterning of the spine in teleost fishes. What are dynamics observed in this gene in datasets between the different populations, especially when compared with paralogues - is there obvious cis-regulatory changes that correlate with the co-option of this gene in early regulation of non-classical osteoblasts? The addition of this analysis/discussion would anchor discussions of a differential between different osteoblasts lineages in the paper.

Comments on revisions: All issues have been addressed.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study characterizes classical and nonclassical osteoblasts as both types were analyzed independently (integrated ATAC-seq and RNAseq). It was found that gene expression in classical and nonclassical osteoblasts is not regulated in the same way. In classical osteoblasts Dlx family factors seem to play an important role, while Hox family factors are involved in the regulation of spinal ossification by nonclassical osteoblasts. In the second part of the study, the authors focus on the promoter structure of entpd5a. Through the identification of enhancers they reveal complex modes of regulation of the gene. The authors suggest candidate transcription factors that likely act on the identified enhancer elements. All the results taken together provide comprehensive new insights into the process of bone development, and point to spatio-temporally regulated promoter/enhancer interactions taking place at the entpd5a locus.

Strengths:

The authors have succeeded in justifying a sound and consistent buildup of their experiments, and meaningfully integrate the results into the design of each of their follow-up experiments. The data are solid, insightfully presented, and the conclusion valid. This makes this manuscript of great value and interest to those studying (fundamental) skeletal biology.

Weaknesses:

The study is solidly constructed, the manuscript is clearly written and the discussion is meaningful - I see no real weaknesses.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This study investigated the phosphoryl transfer mechanism of the enzyme adenylate kinase, using SCC-DFTB quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical (QM/MM) simulations, along with kinetic studies exploring the temperature and pH dependence of the enzyme's activity, as well as the effects of various active site mutants. Based on a broad free energy landscape near the transition state, the authors proposed the existence of wide transition states (TS), characterized by the transferring phosphoryl group adopting a meta-phosphate-like geometry with asymmetric bond distances to the nucleophilic and leaving oxygens. In support of this finding, kinetic experiments were conducted with Ca2+ ions at different temperatures and pH, which revealed a reduced entropy of activation and unique pH-dependence of the catalyzed reaction.

Strengths:

A combined application of simulation and experiments is a strength.

Weaknesses:

The conclusion that the enzyme-catalyzed reaction involves a wide transition state is not sufficiently clarified with some concerns about the determined free energy profiles compared to the experimental estimate. (See Recommendations for the authors.)

Comments on revisions:

While the authors have made some improvements in clarifying the manuscript, questions still remain about their conclusion regarding the wide-TS, which appears this may be a misinterpretation of the simulation results. Also, they should clearly point out the large discrepancies between DFTB QM/MM and PBE QM/MM results (shape of free energy files) and also between steered MD and umbrella sampling results (barriers). Another question is the large change in activation entropy (between the reaction with and without divalent cations). This difference may be difficult to attribute sorely to the difference in the reaction geometries near TS.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors report results of QM/MM simulations and kinetic measurements for the phosphoryl-transfer step in adenylate kinase. The main assertion of the paper is that a wide transition state ensemble is a key concept in enzyme catalysis as a strategy to circumvent entropic barriers. This assertion is based on observation of a "structurally wide" set of energetically equivalent configurations that lie along the reaction coordinate in QM/MM simulations, together with kinetic measurements that suggest a decrease of the entropy of activation.

Strengths:

The study combines theoretical calculations and supporting experiments.

Weaknesses:

The current paper hypothesizes a "wide" transition state ensemble as a catalytic strategy and key concept in enzyme catalysis. Overall, it is not clear the degree to which this hypothesis is fully supported by the data. The reasons are as follows:

(1) Enzyme catalysis reflects a rate enhancement with respect to a baseline reaction in solution. In order to assert that something is part of a catalytic strategy of an enzyme, it would be necessary to demonstrate from simulations that the activation entropy for the baseline reaction is indeed greater and the transition state ensemble less "wide". Alternatively stated, when indicating there is a "wide transition state ensemble" for the enzyme system - one needs to indicate that is with respect to the non-enzymatic reaction. However, these simulations were not performed and the comparisons not demonstrated. The authors state "This chemical step would take about 7000 years without the enzyme" making it impossible to measure; nonetheless, the simulations of the nonenzymatic reaction would be fairly straightforward to perform in order to demonstrate this key concept that is central to the paper. Rather, the authors examine the reaction in the absence of a catalytically important Mg ion.

(2) The observation of a "wide conformational ensemble" is not a quantitative measure of entropy. In order to make a meaningful computational prediction of the entropic contribution to the activation free energy, one would need to perform free energy simulations over a range of temperatures (for the enzymatic and non-enzymatic systems). Such simulations were not performed, and the entropy of activation was thus not quantified by the computational predictions. The authors instead use a wider TS ensemble as a proxy for larger entropy, and miss an opportunity to compare directly to the experimental measurements.

Comments on revisions:

Overall, I do not think the authors have been able to quantitatively support their conclusion, and the qualitative support is somewhat weak. This makes the interpretation of the computational results somewhat speculative. Nonetheless, comparison was made for models with and without divalent ions, and the experimental data is valuable.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The work analyzes how centrosomes mature before cell division. A critical aspect is the accumulation of pericentriolar material (PCM) around the centrioles to build competent centrosomes that can organize the mitotic spindle. The present work builds on the idea that the accumulation of PCM is catalyzed either by the centrioles themselves (leading to a constant accumulation rate) or by enzymes activated by the PCM itself (leading to autocatalytic accumulation). These ideas are captured by a previous model derived for PCM accumulation in C. elegans (Zwicker et al, PNAS 2014) and are succinctly summarized by Eq. 1. The main addition of the present work is to allow the activated enzymes to diffuse in the cell, so they can also catalyze the accumulation of PCM in other centrosomes (captured by Eqs. 2-4). The authors show that this helps centrosomes to reach the same size, independent of potential initial mismatches.

A strength of the paper is the simplicity of the equations, which are reduced to the bare minimum and thus allow a detailed inspection of the physical mechanism, e.g., using linear stability analysis. The possible shortcoming of this approach, namely that all equations assume that the diffusion of molecules is much faster than any of the reactive time scales, is addressed in Appendix 4. The authors show convincingly that their model compensates for initial size differences in centrosomes and leads to more similar final sizes. They carefully discuss parameter values used in their model, and they propose concrete experiments to test the theory. The model could thus stimulate additional experiments and help us understand how cells tightly control their centrosomes, which is crucial for faithful mitosis.

Comments on revised version:

The authors addressed my comments satisfactorily.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this paper, Banerjee & Banerjee argue that a solely autocatalytic assembly model of the centrosome leads to size inequality. The authors instead propose a catalytic growth model with a shared enzyme pool. Using this model, the authors predict that size control is enzyme-mediate and are able to reproduce various experimental results such as centrosome size scaling with cell size and centrosome growth curves in C. elegans.

The paper contains interesting results and is well-written and easy to follow/understand.

Comments on revised version:

The authors made a number of revisions that significantly improved the manuscript, including analyzing the impact of finite diffusion, more thorough stability analysis, and enhanced comparison to experimental results.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary and Strengths:

The very well-written manuscript by Lövestam et al. from the Scheres/Goedert groups entitled "Twelve phosphomimetic mutations induce the assembly of recombinant full-length human tau into paired helical filaments" demonstrates the in vitro production of the so-called paired helical filament Alzheimer's disease (AD) polymorph fold of tau amyloids through the introduction of 12 point mutations that attempt to mimic the disease-associated hyper-phosphorylation of tau. The presented work is very important because it enables disease-related scientific work, including seeded amyloid replication in cells, to be performed in vitro using recombinant-expressed tau protein.

Weaknesses:

The following points are asked to be addressed by the authors:

(i) In the discussion it would be helpful to note the findings that in AD the chemical structure tau (including phosphorylation) is what defines the polymorph fold and not the buffer/cellular environment. It would be further interesting to discuss these findings in respect to the relationship between disease and structure. The presented findings suggest that due to a cellular/organismal alteration, such as aging or Abeta aggregation, tau is specifically hyper-phosphorylated which then leads to its aggregation into the paired helical filaments that are associated with AD.

(ii) The conditions used for each assembly reaction are a bit hard to keep track of and somewhat ambiguous. In order to help the reader, I would suggest making a table to show conditions used for each type of assembly (including the diameter / throw of the orbital shaker) and the results (structural/biological) of those conditions. For example, presumably the authors did not have ThT in the samples used for cryo-EM but the methods section does not specify this. Also, the presence of trace NaCl is proposed as a possible cause for the CTE fold to appear in the 0N4R sample (page 4) but no explanation of why this particular sample would have more NaCl than the others. Furthermore, it appears that NaCl was actually used in the seeded assembly reactions that produced the PHF and not the CTE fold. This would seem to indicate the CTE structure of 0N4R-PAD12 is not actually induced by NaCl (like it was for tau297-391). In order for the reader to better understand the reproducibility of the polymorphs, it would be helpful to indicate in how many different conditions and how many replicates with new protein preparations each polymorph was observed (could be included in the same table)

(iii) It is not clear how the authors calculate the percentage of each filament type. In Figure 1 it is stated "discarded solved particles (coloured) and discarded filaments in grey" which leaves the reviewer wondering what a "discarded solved particle" is and which filaments were discarded. From the main text one guesses that the latter is probably false positives from automated picking but if so, these should not be referred to as filaments. Also, are the percentages calculated for filaments or segments? In any case, it would be more helpful in such are report to know the best estimate of the ratio of identified filament types without confusing the reader with a measure of the quality of the picking algorithm. Please clarify. Also, a clarification is asked for the significance of the varying degrees of PHF and AD monomer filaments in the various assembly conditions. It could be expected that there is significant variability from sample to sample but it would be interesting to know if there has been any attempt to reproduce the samples to measure this variability. If not, it might be worth mentioning so that the % values are taking with the appropriate sized grain of salt. Finally, the representation of the data in Figure 1 would seem to imply that the 0N3R forms less or no monofilament AD fold because no cross-section is shown for this structure, however it is very similar to (or statistically the same as) the 1:1 mix of 0N3R:0N4R.

(iv) The interpretation of the NMR data on soluble tau that the mutations on the second site are suppressing in part long range dynamic interaction around the aggregation-initiation site (FIA) is sound. It is in particular interesting to find that the mutations have a similar effect as the truncation at residue 391. An additional experiment using solvent PREs to elaborate on the solvent exposed sequence-resolved electrostatic potential and the intra-molecular long range interactions would likely strengthen the interpretation significantly (Iwahara, for example, Yu et al, in JACS 2024). Figure 6D Figure supplement shows the NMR cross peak intensities between tau 151-391 and PAD12tau151-391. Overall the intensities of the PAD12 tau construct are more intense which could be interpreted with less conformational exchange between long range dynamic interactions. There are however several regions which do not show any intensity anymore when compared with the corresponding wildtype construct such as 259-262, 292-294 which should be discussed/explained.

(v) Concerning the Cryo-EM data from the different hyper-phosphorylation mimics, it would seem that the authors could at least comment on the proportion of monofilament and paired-filaments even if they could not solve the structures. Nonetheless, based on their previous publications, one would also expect that they could show whether the non-twisted filaments are likely to have the same structure (by comparing the 2D classes to projections of non-twisted models). Also, it is very interesting to note that the twist could be so strongly controlled by the charge distribution on the non-structured regions (and may be also related to the work by Mezzenga on twist rate and buffer conditions). Is the result reported in Figure 2 a one-off case or was it also reproducible?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript addresses an important impediment in the field of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and tauapathy research by showing that 12 specific phosphomimetic mutations in full-length tau allow the protein to aggregate into fibrils with the AD fold and the fold of chronic traumatic encephalopathy fibrils in vitro. The paper presents comprehensive structural and cell based seeding data indicating the improvement of their approach over previous in vitro attempts on non-full-length tau constructs. The main weaknesses of this work results from the fact that only up to 70% of the tau fibrils form the desired fibril polymorphs. In addition, some of the figures are of low quality and confusing.

Strengths:

This study provides significant progress towards a very important and timely topic in the amyloid community, namely the in vitro production of tau fibrils found in patients.

The 12 specific phosphomimetic mutations presented in this work will have an immediate impact in the field since they can be easily reproduced.

Multiple high-resolution structures support the success of the phosphomimetic mutation approach.

Additional data show the seeding efficiency of the resulting fibrils, their reduced tendency to bundle, and their ability to be labeled without affecting core structure or seeding capability.

Weaknesses:

Despite the success of making full-length AD tau fibrils, still ~30% of the fibrils are either not PHF, or not accounted for. A small fraction of the fibrils are single filaments and another ~20% are not accounted for. The authors mention that ~20% of these fibrils were not picked by the automated algorithm. However, it would be important to get additional clarity about these fibrils. Therefore, it would improve the impact of the paper if the authors could manually analyze passed-over particles to see if they are compatible with PHF or fall into a different class of fibrils. In addition, it would be helpful if the authors could comment on what can be done/tried to get the PHF yield closer to 90-100%

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study combines predictions from MD simulations with sophisticated experimental approaches including native mass spectrometry (nMS), cryo-EM, and thermal protein stability assays to investigate the molecular determinants of cardiolipin (CDL) binding and binding-induced protein stability/function of an engineered model protein (ROCKET), as well as of the native E. coli intramembrane rhomboid protease, GlpG.

Strengths:

State-of-the-art approaches and sharply focused experimental investigation lend credence to the conclusions drawn. Stable CDL binding is accommodated by a largely degenerate protein fold that combines interactions from distant basic residues with greater intercalation of the lipid within the protein structure. Surprisingly, there appears to be no direct correlation between binding affinity/occupancy and protein stability.

Weaknesses:

(i) While aromatic residues (in particular Trp) appear to be clearly involved in the CDL interaction, there is no investigation of their roles and contributions relative to the positively charged residues (R and K) investigated here. How do aromatics contribute to CDL binding and protein stability, and are they differential in nature (W vs Y vs F)? (ii) In the case of GlpG, a WR pair (W136-R137) present at the lipid-water on the periplasmic face (adjacent to helices 2/3) may function akin to the W12-R13 of ROCKET in specifically binding CDL. Investigation of this site might prove to be interesting if it indeed does. (iii) Examples of other native proteins that utilize combinatorial aromatic and electrostatic interactions to bind CDL would provide a broader perspective of the general applicability of these findings to the reader (for e.g. the adenine nucleotide translocase (ANT/AAC) of the mitochondria as well as the mechanoenzymatic GTPase Drp1 appear to bind CDL using the common "WRG' motif.)

Overall, using both model and native protein systems, this study convincingly underscores the molecular and structural requirements for CDL binding and binding-induced membrane protein stability. This work provides much-needed insight into the poorly understood nature of protein-CDL interactions.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The work in this paper discusses the use of CG-MD simulations and nMS to describe cardiolipin binding sites in a synthetically designed that can be extrapolated to a naturally occurring membrane protein. While the authors acknowledge their work illuminates the challenges in engineering lipid binding they are able to describe some features that highlight residues within GlpG that may be involved in lipid regulation of protease activity, although further study of this site is required to confirm it's role in protein activity.

Comments<br /> Discrepancy between total CDL binding in CG simulations (Fig 1d) and nMS (Fig 2b,c) should be further discussed. Limitations in nMS methodology selecting for tightest bound lipids?<br /> Mutation of helical residues to alanine not only results in loss of lipid binding residues but may also impact overall helix flexibility, is this observed by the authors in CG-MD simulations? Change in helix overall RMSD throughout simulation? The figures shown in Fig.1H show what appear to be quite significant differences in APO protein arrangement between ROCKET and ROCKET AAXWA.<br /> CG-MD force experiments could be corroborated experimentally with magnetic tweezer unfolding assays as has been performed for the unfolding of artificial protein TMHC2. Alternatively this work could benefit to referencing Wang et al 2019 "On the Interpretation of Force-Induced Unfolding Studies of Membrane Proteins Using Fast Simulations" to support MD vs experimental values.<br /> Did the authors investigate if ROCKET or ROCKETAAXWA copurifies with endogenous lipids? Membrane proteins with stabilising CDL often copurify in detergent and can be detected by MS without the addition of CDL to the detergent solution. Differences in retention of endogenous lipid may also indicate differences in stability between the proteins and is worth investigation.<br /> Do the AAXWA and ROCKET have significantly similar intensities from nMS? The AAXWA appears to show slight lower intensities than the ROCKET.<br /> Can the authors extend their comments on why densities are observed only around site 2 in the cryo-em structures when site 1 is the apparent preferential site for ROCKET.<br /> The authors state that nMS is consistent with CDL binding preferentially to Site 1 in ROCKET and preferentially to Site 2 in the ROCKET AAXWA variant, yet it unclear from the text exactly how these experiments demonstrate this.<br /> As carried out for ROCKET AAXWA the total CDL binding to A61P and R66A would add to supporting information of characterisation of lipid stabilising mutations.<br /> Did the authors investigate a double mutation to Site 2 (e.g. R66A + M16A)?<br /> Was the stability of R66A ever compared to the WT or only to AAXWA?<br /> How many CDL sites in the database used are structurally verified?<br /> The work on GlpG could benefit from mutagenesis or discussion of mutagenesis to this site. The Y160F mutation has already been shown to have little impact on stability or activity (Baker and Urban Nat Chem Biol. 2012).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The relationships of proteins and lipids: it's complicated. This paper illustrates how cardiolipins can stabilize membrane protein subunits - and not surprisingly, positively charged residues play an important role here. But more and stronger binding of such structural lipids does not necessarily translate to stabilization of oligomeric states, since many proteins have alternative binding sites for lipids which may be intra- rather than intermolecular. Mutations which abolish primary binding sites can cause redistribution to (weaker) secondary sites which nevertheless stabilize interactions between subunits. This may be at first sight counterintuitive but actually matches expectations from structural data and MD modelling. An analogous cardiolipin binding site between subunits is found in E.coli tetrameric GlpG, with cardiolipin (thermally) stabilizing the protein against aggregation.

Strengths:

The use of the artificial scaffold allows testing of hypothesis about the different roles of cardiolipin binding. It reveals effects which are at first sight counterintuitive and are explained by the existence of a weaker, secondary binding site which unlike the primary one allows easy lipid-mediated interaction between two subunits of the protein. Introducing different mutations either changes the balance between primary and secondary binding sites or introduced a kink in a helix - thus affecting subunit interactions which are experimentally verified by native mass spectrometry.

Weaknesses:

The artificial scaffold is not necessarily reflecting the conformational dynamics and local flexibility of real, functional membrane proteins. The example of GlpG, while also showing interesting cardiolipin dependency, illustrates the case of a binding site across helices further but does not add much to the main story. It should be evident that structural lipids can be stabilizing in more than one way depending on how they bind, leading to different and possibly opposite functional outcomes.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The authors set out to analyse the roles of the teichoic acids of Streptococcus pneumoniae in supporting the maintenance of the periplasmic region. Previous work has proposed the periplasm to be present in Gram positive bacteria and here advanced electron microscopy approach was used. This also showed a likely role for both wall and lipo-teichoic acids in maintaining the periplasm. Next, the authors use a metabolic labelling approach to analyse the teichoic acids. This is a clear strength as this method cannot be used for most other well studied organisms. The labelling was coupled with super-resolution microscopy to be able to map the teichoic acids at the subcellular level and a series of gel separation experiments to unravel the nature of the teichoic acids and the contribution of genes previously proposed to be required for their display. The manuscript could be an important addition to the field but there are a number of technical issues which somewhat undermine the conclusions drawn at the moment. These are shown below and should be addressed. More minor points are covered in the private Recommendations for Authors.

Weaknesses to be addressed:

(1) l. 144 Was there really only one sample that gave this resolution? Biological repeats of all experiments are required.

(2) Fig. 4A. Is the pellet recovered at "low" speeds not just some of the membrane that would sediment at this speed with or without LTA? Can a control be done using an integral membrane protein and Western Blot? Using the tacL mutant would show the behaviour of membranes alone.

(3) Fig. 4A. Using enzymatic digestion of the cell wall and then sedimentation will allow cell wall associated proteins (and other material) to become bound to the membranes and potentially effect sedimentation properties. This is what is in fact suggested by the authors (l. 1000, Fig. S6). In order to determine if the sedimentation properties observed are due to an artefact of the lysis conditions a physical breakage of the cells, using a French Press, should be carried out and then membranes purified by differential centrifugation. This is a standard, and well-established method (low-speed to remove debris and high-speed to sediment membranes) that has been used for S. pneumoniae over many years but would seem counter to the results in the current manuscript (for instance Hakenbeck, R. and Kohiyama, M. (1982), Purification of Penicillin-Binding Protein 3 from Streptococcus pneumoniae. European Journal of Biochemistry, 127: 231-236).

(4) l. 303-305. The authors suggest that the observed LTA-like bands disappear in a pulse chase experiment (Fig. 6B). What is the difference between this and Fig. 5B, where the bands do not disappear? Fig. 5C is the WT and was only pulse labelled for 5 min and so would one not expect the LTA-like bands to disappear as in 6B?

(5) Fig. 6B, l. 243-269 and l. 398-410. If, as stated, most of the LTA-like bands are actually precursor then how can the quantification of LTA stand as stated in the text? The "Titration of Cellular TA" section should be re-evaluated or removed? If you compare Fig. 6C WT extract incubated at RT and 110oC it seems like a large decrease in amount of material at the higher temperature. Thus, the WT has a lot of precursors in the membrane? This needs to be quantified.

(6) L. 339-351, Fig. 6A. A single lane on a gel is not very convincing as to the role of LytR. Here, and throughout the manuscript, wherever statements concerning levels of material are made, quantification needs to be done over appropriate numbers of repeats and with densitometry data shown in SI.

(7) 14. l. 385-391. Contrary to the statement in the text, the zwitterionic TA will have associated counterions that result in net neutrality. It will just have both -ve and +ve counterions in equal amounts (dependent on their valency), which doesn't matter if it is doing the job of balancing osmolarity (rather than charge).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The Gram-positive cell wall contains for a large part of TAs, and is essential for most bacteria. However, TA biosynthesis and regulation is highly understudied because of the difficulties in working with these molecules. This study closes some of our important knowledge gaps related to this and provides new and improved methods to study TAs. It also shows an interesting role for TAs in maintaining a 'periplasmic space' in Gram positives. Overall, this is an important piece of work. It would have been more satisfying if the possible causal link between TAs and periplasmic space would have been more deeply investigated with complemented mutants and CEMOVIS. For the moment, there is clearly something happening but it is not clear if this only happens in TA mutants or also in strains with capsules/without capsules and in PG mutants, or in lafB (essential for production of another glycolipid) mutants. Finally, some very strong statements are made suggesting several papers in the literature are incorrect, without actually providing any substantiation/evidence supporting these claims. This work pioneers some new methods that will definitively move the field forward.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aim at measuring the apoptotic fraction of motorneurons in developing zebrafish spinal cord to assess the extent of neuronal apoptosis during the development of of a vertebrate embryo in an in vivo context

Strengths:

The transgenic fish line tg(mnx1:sensor C3) appears to be a good reagent for motorneuron apoptosis studies, while further validation of its motorneuron specificity should be performed

Weaknesses:

The results do not support the conclusions. The main "selling point" as summarized in the title is that the apoptotic rate of zebrafish motorneurons during development is strikingly low (~2% ) as compared to the much higher estimate (~50%) by previous studies in other systems. The results used to support the conclusion are that only a small percentage (under 2%) of apoptotic cells were found over a large population at a variety of stages 24-120hpf. This is fundamentally flawed logic, as a short-time window measure of percentage cannot represent the percentage on the long-term. For example, at any year under 1% of human population die, but over 100 years >99% of the starting group will have died. To find the real percentage of motorneurons that died, the motorneurons born at different times must be tracked over long term, or the new motorneuron birth rate must be estimated.

Similar argument can be applied to the macrophage results.

The conclusion regarding timing of axon and cell body caspase activation and apoptosis timing also has clear issues. The ~minutes measurement are too long as compared to the transport/diffusion timescale between the cell body and the axon, caspase activity could have been activated in the cell body and either caspase or the cleaved sensor move to the axon in several seconds. The authors' results are not high frequency enough to resolve these dynamics

Many statements suggest oversight of literature, for example, in abstract "however, there is still no real-time observation showing this dying process in live animals.".

Many statements should use more scholarly terms and descriptions from the spinal cord or motorneuron, neuromuscular development fields, such as line 87 "their axons converged into one bundle to extend into individual somite, which serves as a functional unit for the development and contraction of muscle cells"

The transgenic line is perhaps the most meaningful contribution to the field as the work stands. However, mnx1 promoter is well known for its non-specific activation - while the images do suggest the authors' line is good, motorneuron markers should be used to validate the line. This is especially important for assessing this population later as mnx1 may be turned off in mature neurons. The author's response regarding mnx1 specificity does not mitigate the original concern.

Overall, this work does not substantiate its biological conclusions and therefore do not advance the field. The transgenic line has the potential for addressing the questions raised but requires different sets of experiments. The line and the data as reported are useful on their own by providing a short-term rate of apoptosis of the motorneuron population.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Jia and colleagues developed a fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET)-based biosensor to study programmed cell death in the zebrafish spinal cord. They applied this tool to study death of zebrafish spinal motor neurons.

Strengths:

Their analysis shows that the tool is a useful biosensor of motor neuron apoptosis in living zebrafish and can reveal which part of the neuron undergoes caspase activation first, achieving two of their aims.

Weaknesses:

The third aim, to provide novel insights into the spatiotemporal properties and occurrence rates of motor neuron death requires additional context and investigation, especially to understand the significance of the differences they report between zebrafish motor neuron programmed cell death and what has been previously described in chicks and rodents. For example, mnx1 expresses not only in motor neurons, but also in interneurons. However, the way the authors counted living and dead cells does not take this into consideration, potentially underestimating the percentage of motor neurons that died. Previous studies of chicks and rodents showed widespread differences in the timing of motor neuron programmed cell death and the number of cells that died depending on the spinal cord region examined. The authors have not described which spinal cord segments they examined or whether they examined motor neurons in limb-bearing segments which have been best studied in other species. Previous literature investigated the death of an identified zebrafish motor neuron and provided experimental evidence that it is independent of limitations in muscle innervation area, suggesting it is not coupled to muscle-derived neurotrophic factors. Thus, the authors need to acknowledge that even previous to their study, there was literature suggesting that programmed cell death of at least one motor neuron in zebrafish does not easily fit into the "neurotrophic hypothesis" as it is generally formulated. Finally, the authors need to be mindful that showing that something does not happen in an observational study cannot reveal the capabilities of the cells involved without an experimental test.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study demonstrates the significant role of secretory leukocyte protease inhibitor (SLPI) in regulating B. burgdorferi-induced periarticular inflammation in mice. They found that SLPI-deficient mice showed significantly higher B. burgdorferi infection burden in ankle joints compared to wild-type controls. This increased infection was accompanied by infiltration of neutrophils and macrophages in periarticular tissues, suggesting SLPI's role in immune regulation. The authors strengthened their findings by demonstrating a direct interaction between SLPI and B. burgdorferi through BASEHIT library screening and FACS analysis. Further investigation of SLPI as a target could lead to valuable clinical applications.

The conclusions of this paper are mostly well supported by data, but two aspects need attention:

(1) Cytokine Analysis:<br /> The serum cytokine/chemokine profile analysis appears without TNF-alpha data. Given TNF-alpha's established role in inflammatory responses, comparing its levels between wild-type and infected B. burgdorferi conditions would provide valuable insight into the inflammatory mechanism.<br /> (2) Sample Size Concerns:<br /> While the authors note limitations in obtaining Lyme disease patient samples, the control group is notably smaller than the patient group. This imbalance should either be addressed by including additional healthy controls or explicitly justified in the methodology section.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Yu and coworkers investigates the potential role of Secretory leukocyte protease inhibitor (SLPI) in Lyme arthritis. They show that, after needle inoculation of the Lyme disease (LD) agent, B. burgdorferi, compared to wild type mice, a SLPI-deficient mouse suffers elevated bacterial burden, joint swelling and inflammation, pro-inflammatory cytokines in the joint, and levels of serum neutrophil elastase (NE). They suggest that SLPI levels of Lyme disease patients are diminished relative to healthy controls. Finally, they find that SLPI may interact directly the B. burgdorferi.

Strengths:

Many of these observations are interesting and the use of SLPI-deficient mice is useful (and has not previously been done).

Weaknesses:

(a) The known role of SLPI in dampening inflammation and inflammatory damage by inhibition of NE makes the enhanced inflammation in the joint of B. burgdorferi-infected mice a predicted result; (b) The potential contribution of the greater bacterial burden to the enhanced inflammation is not addressed; (c) The relationship of SLPI binding by B. burgdorferi to the enhanced disease of SLPI-deficient mice is not clear; and (d) Several methodological aspects of the study are unclear.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors investigated the role of secretory leukocyte protease inhibitors (SLPI) in developing Lyme disease in mice infected with Borrelia burgdorferi. Using a combination of histological, gene expression, and flow cytometry analyses, they demonstrated significantly higher bacterial burden and elevated neutrophil and macrophage infiltration in SLPI-deficient mouse ankle joints. Furthermore, they also showed direct interaction of SLPI with B. burgdorferi, which likely depletes the local environment of SLPI and causes excessive protease activity. These results overall suggest ankle tissue inflammation in B. burgdorferi-infected mice is driven by unchecked protease activity.

Strengths:

Utilizing a comprehensive suite of techniques, this is the first study showing the importance of anti-protease-protease balance in the development of periarticular joint inflammation in Lyme disease.

Weaknesses:

Due to the limited sample availability, the authors investigated the serum level of SLPI in both in Lyme arthritis patients and patients with earlier disease manifestations.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aimed to elucidate the recruitment order and assembly of the Cdv proteins during Sulfolobus acidocaldarius archaeal cell division using a bottom-up reconstitution approach. They employed liposome-binding assays, EM, and fluorescence microscopy with in vitro reconstitution in dumbbell-shaped liposomes to explore how CdvA, CdvB, and the homologues of ESCRT-III proteins (CdvB, CdvB1, and CdvB2) interact to form membrane remodeling complexes.<br /> The study sought to reconstitute the Cdv machinery by first analyzing their assembly as two sub-complexes: CdvA:CdvB and CdvB1:CdvB2ΔC. The authors report that CdvA binds lipid membranes only in the presence of CdvB and localizes preferentially to membrane necks. Similarly, the findings on CdvB1:CdvB2ΔC indicate that truncation of CdvB2 facilitates filament formation and enhances curvature sensitivity in interaction with CdvB1. Finally, while the authors reconstitute a quaternary CdvA:CdvB:CdvB1:CdvB2 complex and demonstrate its enrichment at membrane necks, the mechanistic details of how these complexes drive membrane remodeling by subcomplexes removal by the proteasome and/or CdvC remain speculative.<br /> Although the work highlights intriguing similarities with eukaryotic ESCRT-III systems and explores unique archaeal adaptations, the conclusions drawn would benefit from stronger experimental validation and a more comprehensive mechanistic framework.

Strengths:

The study of machinery assembly and its involvement in membrane remodeling, particularly using bottom-up reconstituted in vitro systems, presents significant challenges. This is particularly true for systems like the ESCRT-III complex, which localizes uniquely at the lumen of membrane necks prior to scission. The use of dumbbell-shaped liposomes in this study provides a promising experimental model to investigate ESCRT-III and ESCRT-III-like protein activity at membrane necks.<br /> The authors present intriguing evidence regarding the sequential recruitment of ESCRT-III proteins in crenarchaea-a close relative of eukaryotes. This finding suggests that the hierarchical recruitment characteristic of eukaryotic systems may predate eukaryogenesis, which is a significant and exciting contribution. However, the broader implications of these findings for membrane remodeling mechanisms remain speculative, and the study would benefit from stronger experimental validation and expanded contextualization within the field.

Weaknesses:

This manuscript presents several methodological inconsistencies and lacks key controls to validate its claims. Additionally, there is insufficient information about the number of experimental repetitions, statistical analyses, and a broader discussion of the major findings in the context of open questions in the field.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The Crenarchaeal Cdv division system represents a reduced form of the universal and ubiquitous ESCRT membrane reverse-topology scission machinery, and therefore a prime candidate for synthetic and reconstitution studies. The work here represents a solid extension of previous work in the field, clarifying the order of recruitment of Cdv proteins to curved membranes.

Strengths:

The use of a recently developed approach to produce dumbbell-shaped liposomes (De Franceschi et al. 2022), which allowed the authors to assess recruitment of various Cdv assemblies to curved membranes or membrane necks; reconstitution of a quaternary Cdv complex at a membrane neck.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript is a bit light on quantitative detail, across the various figures, and several key controls are missing (CdvA, B alone to better interpret the co-polymerisation phenotypes and establish the true order of recruitment, for example) - addressing this would make the paper much stronger. The authors could also include in the discussion a short paragraph on implications for our understanding of ESCRT function in other contexts and/or in archaeal evolution, as well as a brief exploration of the possible reasons for the discrepancy between the foci observed in their liposome assays and the large rings observed in cells - to better serve the interests of a broad audience.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this report, De Franceschi et al. purify components of the Cdv machinery in archaeon M. sedula and probe their interactions with membrane and with one-another in vitro using two main assays - liposome flotation and fluorescent imaging of encapsulated proteins. This has the potential to add to the field by showing how the order of protein recruitment seen in cells is related to the differential capacity of individual proteins to bind membranes when alone or when combined.

Strengths:

Using the floatation assay, they demonstrate that CdvA and CdvB bind liposomes when combined. While CdvB1 also binds liposomes under these conditions, in the floatation assay, CdvB2 lacking its C-terminus is not efficiently recruited to membranes unless CdvAB or CdvB1 are present. The authors then employ a clever liposome assay that generates chained spherical liposomes connected by thin membrane necks, which allows them to accurately control the buffer composition inside and outside of the liposome. With this, they show that all four proteins accumulate in necks of dumbbell-shaped liposomes that mimic the shape of constricting necks in cell division. Taken altogether, these data lead them to propose that Cdv proteins are sequentially recruited to the membrane as has also been suggested by in vivo studies of ESCRT-III dependent cell division in crenarchaea.

Weaknesses:

These experiments provide a good starting point for the in vitro study the interaction of Cdv system components with the membrane and their consecutive recruitment. However, several experimental controls are missing that complicate their ability to draw strong conclusions. Moreover, some results are inconsistent across the two main assays which make the findings difficult to interpret.

(1) Missing controls.

Various protein mixtures are assessed for their membrane-binding properties in different ways. However, it is difficult to interpret the effect of any specific protein combination, when the same experiment is not presented in a way that includes separate tests for all individual components. In this sense, the paper lacks important controls.

For example, Fig 1C is missing the CdvB-only control. The authors remark that CdvB did not polymerise (data not shown) but do not comment on whether it binds membrane in their assays. In the introduction, Samson et al., 2011 is cited as a reference to show that CdvB does not bind membrane. However, here the authors are working with protein from a different organism in a different buffer, using a different membrane composition and a different assay. Given that so many variables are changing, it would be good to present how M. sedula CdvB behaves under these conditions.

Similarly, there is no data showing how CdvB alone or CdvA alone behave in the dumbbell liposome assay. Without these controls, it's impossible to say whether CdvA recruits CdvB or the other way around.

The manuscript would be much stronger if such data could be added.

(2) Some of the discrepancies in the data generated using different assays are not discussed.

The authors show that CdvB2∆C binds membrane and localizes to membrane necks in the dumbbell liposome assay, but no membrane binding is detected in the flotation assay. The discrepancy between these results further highlights the need for CdvB-only and CdvA-only controls.

(3) Validation of the liposome assay.

The experimental setup to create dumbbell-shaped liposomes seems great and is a clever novel approach pioneered by the team. Not only can the authors manipulate liposome shape, they also state that this allows them to accurately control the species present on the inside and outside of the liposome. Interpreting the results of the liposome assay, however, depends on the geometry being correct. To make this clearer, it would seem important to include controls to prove that all the protein imaged at membrane necks lie on the inside of liposomes. In the images in SFig3 there appears to be protein outside of the liposome. It would also be helpful to present data to show test whether the necks are open, as suggested in the paper, by using FRAP or some other related technique.

(4) Quantification of results from the liposome assay.

The paper would be strengthened by the inclusion of more quantitative data relating to the liposome assay. Firstly, only a single field of view is shown for each condition. Because of this, the reader cannot know whether this is a representative image, or an outlier? Can the authors do some quantification of the data to demonstrate this? The line scan profiles in the supplemental figures would be an example of this, but again in these Figures only a single image is analyzed.

We would recommend that the authors present quantitative data to show the extent of co-localization at the necks in each case. They also need a metric to report instances in which protein is not seen at the neck, e.g. CdvB2 but not CdvB1 in Fig2I, which rules out a simple curvature preference for CdvB2 as stated in line 182.

Secondly, the authors state that they see CdvB2∆C recruited to the membrane by CdvB1 (lines 184-187, Fig 2I). However, this simple conclusion is not borne out in the data. Inspecting the CdvB2∆C panels of Fig 2I, Fig3C, and Fig3D, CdvB2∆C signal can be seen at positions which don't colocalize with other proteins. The authors also observe CdvB2∆C localizing to membrane necks by itself (Fig 2E). Therefore, while CdvB1 and CdvB2∆C colocalize in the flotation assay, there is no strong evidence for CdvB2∆C recruitment by CdvB1 in dumbbells. This is further underscored by the observation that in the presented data, all Cdv proteins always appear to localize at dumbbell necks, irrespective of what other components are present inside the liposome. Although one nice control is presented (ZipA), this suggests that more work is required to be sure that the proteins are behaving properly in this assay. For example, if membrane binding surfaces of Cdv proteins are mutated, does this lead to the accumulation of proteins in the bulk of the liposome as expected?

(5) Rings.

The authors should comment on why they never observe large Cdv rings in their experiments. In crenarchaeal cell division, CdvA and CdvB have been observed to form large rings in the middle of the 1 micron cell, before constriction. Only in the later stages of division are the ESCRTs localized to the constricting neck, at a time when CdvA is no longer present in the ring. Therefore, if the in vitro assay used by the authors really recapitulated the biology, one would expect to see large CdvAB rings in Figs 1EF. This is ignored in the model. In the proposed model of ring assembly (line 252), CdvAB ring formation is mentioned, but authors do not discuss the fact that they do not observe CdvAB rings - only foci at membrane necks. The discussion section would benefit from the authors commenting on this.

(6) Stoichiometry

It is not clear why 100% of the visible CdvA and 100% of the the visible CdvB are shifted to the lipid fraction in 1C. Perhaps this is a matter of quantification. Can the authors comment on the stoichiometry here?

(7) Significance of quantification of MBP-tagged filaments.

Authors use tagging and removal of MBP as a convenient, controllable system to trigger polymerisation of various Cdv proteins. However, it is unclear what is the value and significance of reporting the width and length of the short linear filaments that are formed by the MBP-tagged proteins. Presumably they are artefactual assemblies generated by the presence of the tag? Similar Figure 2C doesn't seem a useful addition to the paper.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study probes the role of the NF-κB inhibitor IκBa in the regulation of pluripotency in mouse embyronic stem cells (mESCs). It follows from previous work that identified a chromatin-specific role for IκBa in the regulation of tissue stem cell differentiation. The work presented here shows that a fraction of IκBa specifically associates with chromatin in pluripotent stem cells. Using three Nfkbia-knockout lines, the authors show that IκBa ablation impairs the exit from pluripotency, with embryonic bodies (an in vitro model of mESC multi-lineage differentiation) still expressing high levels of pluripotency markers after sustained exposure to differentiation signals. The maintenance of aberrant pluripotency gene expression under differentiation conditions is accompanied by pluripotency-associated epigenetic profiles of DNA methylation and histone marks. Using elegant separation of function mutants identified in a separate study, the authors generate versions of IκBa that are either impaired in histone/chromatin binding or NF-κB binding. They show that the provision of the WT IκBa, or the NF-κB-binding mutant can rescue the changes in gene expression driven by loss of IκBa, but the chromatin-binding mutant can not. Thus the study identifies a chromatin-specific, NF-κB-independent role of IκBa as a regulator of exit from pluripotency.

Strengths:

The strengths of the manuscript lie in: (a) the use of several orthogonal assays to support the conclusions on the effects of exit from pluripotency; (b) the use of three independent clonal Nfkbia-KO mESC lines (lacking IκBa), which increase confidence in the conclusions; and (c) the use of separation of function mutants to determine the relative contributions of the chromatin-associated and NF-κB-associated IκBa, which would otherwise be very difficult to unpick.

Weaknesses:

In this reviewer's view, the term "differentiation" is used inappropriately in this manuscript. The data showing aberrant expression of pluripotency markers during embryoid body formation are supported by several lines of evidence and are convincing. However, the authors call the phenotype of Nfkbia-KO cells a "differentiation impairment" while the data on differentiation markers are not shown (beyond the fact that H3K4me1, marking poised enhancers, is reduced in genes underlying GO processes associated with differentiation and organ development). Data on differentiation marker expression from the transcriptomic and embryoid body immunofluorescent experiments, for example, should be at hand without the need to conduct many more experiments and would help to support the conclusions of the study or make them more specific. The lack of probing the differentiation versus pluripotency genes may be a missed opportunity in gaining in-depth understanding of the phenotype associated with loss of the chromatin-associated function of IκBa.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript investigates the role of IκBα in regulating mouse embryonic stem cell (ESC) pluripotency and differentiation. The authors demonstrate that IκBα knockout impairs the exit from the naïve pluripotent state during embryoid body differentiation. Through mechanistic studies using various mutants, they show that IκBα regulates ESC differentiation through chromatin-related functions, independent of the canonical NF-κB pathway.

Strengths:

The authors nicely investigate the role of IκBα in pluripotency exit, using embryoid body formation and complementing the phenotypic analysis with a number of genome-wide approaches, including transcriptomic, histone marks deposition, and DNA methylation analyses. Moreover, they generate a first-of-its-kind mutant set that allows them to uncouple IκBα's function in chromatin regulation versus its NF-κB-related functions. This work contributes to our understanding of cellular plasticity and development, potentially interesting a broad audience including developmental biologists, chromatin biology researchers, and cell signaling experts.

Weaknesses:<br /> - The study's main limitation is the lack of crucial controls using bona fide naïve cells across key experiments, including DNA methylation analysis, gene expression profiling in embryoid bodies, and histone mark deposition. This omission makes it difficult to evaluate whether the observed changes in IκBα-KO cells truly reflect naïve pluripotency characteristics.<br /> - Several conclusions in the manuscript require a more measured interpretation. The authors should revise their statements regarding the strength of the pluripotency exit block, the extent of hypomethylation, and the global nature of chromatin changes.<br /> - From a methodological perspective, the manuscript would benefit from additional orthogonal approaches to strengthen the knockout findings, which may be influenced by clonal expansion of ES cells.

Overall, this study makes an important contribution to the field. However, the concerns raised regarding controls, data interpretation, and methodology should be addressed to strengthen the manuscript and support the authors' conclusions.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:<br /> As reported above, this paper by Xu et al reports on a new method to combine the analysis of coevolutionary patterns with dynamic profiles to identify functionally important residues and reveal correlations between binding sites.

Strengths:<br /> In general, coevolutionary analysis and MD analysis are carried out separately and while there have been attempts to compare the information provided by the two, no unified framework exists. Here, the authors convincingly demonstrate that integrating signals from Dynamics and coevolution gives information that substantially overcomes the one provided by either method in isolation. While other methods are useful, they do not capture how dynamics is fundamental to define function and thus sculpts coevolution, via the 3D structure of the protein. At the same time, the authors demonstrate how coevolution in turn also influences internal dynamics. The Networks they rebuild unveil information at an even higher level: the model starts pairwise but through network representation the authors arrive to community analysis, reporting on interaction patterns that are larger than simple couples.

Weaknesses:<br /> The authors should<br /> -Make an effort in suggesting/commenting the limits of applicability of their method;<br /> -Expand discussion on how DyNoPy compares to other methods;<br /> -Dynamic is not essential in all systems (structural proteins): The authors may want to comment on possible strategies they would use for other systems where their framework may not be suitable/applicable.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:<br /> Authors introduced a computational framework, DyNoPy, that integrates residue coevolution analysis with molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to identify functionally important residues in proteins. DyNoPy identifies key residues and residue-residue coupling to generate an interaction graph and attempts to validate using two clinically relevant β-lactamases (SHV-1 and PDC-3).

Strengths:<br /> DyNoPy could not only show clinically relevance of mutations but also predict new potential evolutionary mutations. Authors have provided biologically relevant insights into protein dynamics which can have potential applications in drug discovery and understanding molecular evolution.

Weaknesses:<br /> Although DyNoPy could show the relevance of key residues in active and non-active site residues, no experiments have been performed to validate their predictions. In addition, they should compare their method with conventional techniques and show how their method could be different.

An explanation of "communities" divided in the work and how these communities are relevant to the article should be provided. In addition, choice of collective variables and their relevance in residue coupling movement is also not very well explained. Dynamics cross correlation map can also be a good method for understanding the residue movements and can explain the residue-residue coupling, it is not explained how DyNoPy is different from the conventional methods or can perform better.

In the sentence "DyNoPy identified eight significant communities of strongly coupled residues within SHV-1 (Supporting Fig. S4A)" I could not find a clear description of eight significant communities.

Again the description of communities is not clear to me in the following sentence "Detailed description of the other three communities is provided in the supporting information (Fig. S6)."

In the sentence "N170 acts as an intermediary between N136 and E166". Kindly cite the reference figure to show N179 as intermediate residue.

Please be careful with the numbers. In the sentence "These residues not only interact with each other directly but are also indirectly coupled via 21 other residues." I could count 22 other residues and not 21.

In the sentence "Unlike other substitution sites that are adjacent to the active site, R205 is situated more than 16 Å away from catalytic serine S70". Please add this label somewhere in the figure.

Please cite a reference in the sentence "This indicates that mutations on G238 would result in an alteration on protein catalytic function, as well as an increased flexibility of the protein, which strongly aligns with previous finding."

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:<br /> In this paper, Xu, Dantu and coworkers report a protocol for analyzing coevolutionary and dynamical information to identify a subset of communities that capture functionally relevant sites in beta-lactamases.

Strengths:<br /> The combination of coevolutionary information and metrics from MD simulations is interesting for capturing functionally relevant sites, which can have implications in the fields of drug discovery but also in protein design.

Weaknesses:<br /> The combination of coevolutionary information and metrics from MD simulations is not new as other protocols have been proposed along the years (the current version of the paper neglects some of them, see below), and there are a few parameters of the protocol that, in my opinion, should be better analyzed and discussed.

(1) As mentioned, the introduction of the paper lacks some important publications in the field of using graph theory to represent important interaction networks extracted from MD simulations (DOI: 10.1002/pro.4911), and also combining MD data with MSA to identify functionally relevant sites for enzyme design (doi: 10.1021/acscatal.4c04587, 10.1093/protein/gzae005).<br /> (2) The matrix used to apply graph theory (J_ij) is built from summing the scaled coevolution and degree of correlation values. The alpha and beta weights are defined, and the authors mention that alpha is set to 0.5, thus beta as well to fulfil with the alpha + beta = 1. Why a value of 0.5 has been selected? How this affects the overall results and conclusions extracted? The finding that many catalytically relevant residues are identified in the communities is not surprising given that such sites usually present a high conservation score.<br /> (3) Another important point that needs further explanation is the selection of the relevant descriptor of protein dynamics. In this study two different strategies have been used (one more global the other more local), but more details should be provided regarding their choice. What is the best strategy according to the authors? Why not using the same strategy for both related systems? The obtained results using one methodology or the other will have a large impact on the dynamical score. Another related point is: what is the impact of the MD simulation length, how the MSA is generated and number of sequences used for MSA construction?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The manuscript entitled "Blocking SHP2 1 benefits FGFR2 inhibitor and overcomes its resistance in 2 FGFR2-amplified gastric cancer" by Zhang, et al., reports that FGFR2 was amplification in 6.2% (10/161) of gastric cancer samples and that dual blocking SHP2 and FGFR2 enhanced the effects of FGFR2 inhibitor (FGFR2i) in FGFR2-amplified GC both in vitro and in vivo via suppressing RAS/ERK and PI3K/AKT pathways. Furthermore, the authors also showed that SHP2 blockade suppressed PD-1 expression and promoted IFN-γ secretion of CD8+ 46 T cells, enhancing the cytotoxic functions of T cells. Thus, the authors concluded that dual blocking SHP2 and FGFR2 is a compelling strategy for treatment of FGFR2-amplified gastric cancer. Although the finding is interesting, the finding that FGFR2 is amplified in gastric cancer and that FGFR inhibitors have some effect on treating gastric cancer is not novel. The data quality is not high, and the effects of double inhibitions are not significant. It appears that the conclusions are largely overstatement, the supporting data is weak and not compelling.

The data in Figure 1 is not novel, similar data has been reported elsewhere.

It is unclear why the two panels in Fig 2a and 2b can not be integrated into one panel, which will make it easier to compare the activities.

The synergetic effects of azd4547 and shp099 are not significant in Fig 2e and 2f, as well as in Fig. 3g and fig. 4f

Data in Fig. 5 is weak and can be removed. It is unclear why FGFR inhibitor has some activities toward t cells since t cells do not express FGFR.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript reports the application of a combined targeted therapeutic approach to gastric cancer treatment. The RTK, FGFR2 and the phosphatase, SHP2 are targeted with existing drugs; AZD457 and SHP099 respectively. Having shown increased mRNA levels of FGFR2 and SHP2 in a patient population and highlighted the issue of resistance to single therapies the combination of inhibitors is shown to reduce cancer-related signalling in two gastric cell lines. The efficacy of the dual therapy is further demonstrated in a single patient case study and mouse xenograft models. Finally, the rationale for SHP2 inhibition is shown to be linked to immune response.

Strengths:

The data is generally well presented and the study invokes a novel patient data set which could have wider value. The study provides additional evidence to support the combined therapeutic approach of RTK and phosphatase inhibition.

Weaknesses:

Combined therapy approaches targeting RTKs and SHP2 have been widely reported. Indeed, SHP099 in combination with FGFR inhibitors has been shown to overcome adaptive resistance in FGFR-driven cancers. Furthermore, the inhibition of SHP2 has been documented to have important implications in both targeting proliferative signalling as well as immune response. Thus, it is difficult to see novelty or a significant scientific advance in this manuscript. Although the data is generally well presented, there is inconsistency in the interpretation of the experimental outcomes from ex vivo, patient and mouse systems investigated. In addition, the study provides only minor or circumstantial understanding of the dual mechanism.

Using data from a 161 patient cohort FGFR2 was identified as displaying amplification of FGFR2 in ~6% with concomitant elevation of mRNA of patients which correlated with PTPN11 (SHP2) mRNA expression. The broader context of this data is of value and could add a different patient demographic to other data on gastric cancer. However, there is no detail on patient stratification or prior therapeutic intervention.

In SNU16 and KATOIII cells the combined therapy is shown to be effective and appears to be correlated with increased apoptotic effects (i.e. not immune response).

Fig 2E suggests that the combined therapy in SNU16 cells is a little better than FGFR2-directed AZD457 inhibitor alone, particularly at the higher dose.

The individual patient case study described via Fig 3 suggests efficacy of the combined therapy (at very high dosage), however, the cell biopsies only show reduced phosphorylation of ERK, but not AKT. This is at odds with the ex vivo cell-based assays. Thus, it is not clear how relevant this study is.

The mouse xenograft study shows a convincing reduction in tumor mass/volume and clear reduction in pAKT, whilst pERK remains largely unaffected by the combined therapeutic approach. This is in conflict with the previous data which seems to show the opposite effect. In all, the impact of the dual therapy is unclear with respect to the two pathways mediated by ERK and AKT.

Finally, the authors demonstrate the impact of SHP2 on PD-1 expression and propose that the SHP099/AZD4547 combination therapy significantly induces the production of IFN-γ in CD8+ T cells. This part of the study is unconvincing and would benefit from the investigation of the tumor micro-environment to assess T cell infiltration.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 (FGFR2) is a receptor tyrosine kinase that can be amplified in gastric cancer and serves as a potential therapeutic target for this patient population. However, targeting FGFR2 has shown limited efficacy. Thus, this study seeks to identify additional molecules that can be effectively targeted in FGFR2 amplified gastric cancer, with a focus on Src homology region 2-containing protein tyrosine phosphatase 2 (SHP2). The authors first demonstrate that 6% of gastric cancer patients in a cohort of human patient samples exhibit FGFR2 amplification. Furthermore, they demonstrate that FGFR2 mRNA expression is positively correlated with PTPN11 gene expression (which is the gene that encodes the SHP2 protein). Using human gastric cancer cell lines with amplified FGFR2, the authors then test the effects of combining the FGFR inhibitor AZD4547 with the SHP2 inhibitor SHP099 on tumor cell death and signaling molecules. They demonstrate that combining the two inhibitors is more effective at tumor cell killing and reducing activation of downstream signaling pathways than either inhibitor alone. In further studies, the authors obtained gastric cancer cells with FGFR2 amplification from a patient that was treated with FGFR2 inhibitor. While this patient initially showed a partial response, the patient ultimately progressed, demonstrating resistance to FGFR2 inhibition. Following isolation of tumor cells from the patient's ascites, the authors demonstrate that these cells are sensitive to the combination treatment of AZD4547 and SHP099. Further studies were performed using a xenograft model using athymic nude mice in which the combination of SHP099 and AZD4547 were found to reduce tumor growth more significantly than either treatment alone. Finally, the authors demonstrate using an in vitro culture model that this combination treatment enhances T cell mediated cytotoxicity. The authors conclude that targeting FGFR2 and SHP2 represents a potential combination strategy in gastric patients with FGFR2 amplification.

Strengths:

The authors demonstrate that FGFR2 amplification positively correlates with PTPN11 in human gastric cancer samples, providing rationale for combination therapies. Furthermore, convincing data are provided demonstrating that targeting both FGFR and SHP2 is more effective than targeting either pathway alone using in vitro and in vivo models. The use of cells derived from a gastric cancer patient that progressed following treatment with an FGFR inhibitor is also a strength. The findings from this study support the conclusion that SHP2 inhibitors enhance the efficacy of FGFR-targeted therapies in cancer patients. This study also suggests that targeting SHP2 may also be an effective strategy for targeting cancers that are resistant to FGFR-targeted therapies.

Weaknesses:

The main caveat with these studies is the lack of an immune competent model with which to test the finding that this combination therapy enhances T cell cytotoxicity in vivo. Discussing this limitation within the context of these findings and future directions for this work, particularly since the combination therapy appears to work quite well without the presence of T cells in the environment, would be beneficial.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Here the authors attempted to test whether the function of Mettl5 in sleep regulation was conserved in drosophila, and if so, by which molecular mechanisms. To do so they performed sleep analysis, as well as RNA-seq and ribo-seq in order to identify the downstream targets. They found that the loss of one copy of Mettl5 affects sleep and that its catalytic activity is important for this function. Transcriptional and proteomic analyses show that multiple pathways were altered, including the clock signaling pathway and the proteasome. Based on these changes the authors propose that Mettl5 modulate sleep through regulation of the clock genes, both at the level of their production and degradation.

Strengths:

The phenotypical consequence of the loss of one copy of Mettl5 on sleep function is clear and well-documented.

Weaknesses:

The imaging and molecular parts are less convincing.<br /> - The colocalization of Mettl5 with glial and neuronal cells is not very clear<br /> - The section on gene ontology analysis is long and confusing<br /> - Among all the pathways affected the focus on proteosome sounds like cherry picking. And there is no experiment demonstrating its impact in the Mettl5 phenotype<br /> - The ribo seq shows some changes at the level of translation efficiency but there is no connection with the Mettl5 phenotypes. In other words, how the increased usage of some codons impact clock signalling. Are the genes enriched for these codons?<br /> - A few papers already demonstrated the role of Mettl5 in translation, even at the structural level (Rong et al, Cell reports 2020) and this was not commented by the authors. In Peng et al, 2022 the authors show that the m6A bridges the 18S rRNA with RPL24. Is this conserved in Drosophila?<br /> - The text will require strong editing and the authors should check and review extensively for improvements to the use of English.

Conclusion

Despite the effort to identify the underlying molecular defects following the loss of Mettl5 the authors felt short in doing so. Some of the results are over-interpreted and more experiments will be needed to understand how Mettl5 controls the translation of its targets. References to previous works was poorly commented.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors define the m6A methyltransferase Mettl5 as a novel sleep-regulatory gene that contributes to specific aspects of Drosophila sleep behaviors (i.e., sleep drive and arousal at early night; sleep homeostasis) and propose the possible implication of Mettl5-dependent clocks in this process. The model was primarily based on the assessment of sleep changes upon genetic/transgenic manipulations of Mettl5 expression (including CRISPR-deletion allele); differentially expressed genes between wild-type vs. Mettl5 mutant; and interaction effects of Mettl5 and clock genes on sleep. These findings exemplify how a subclass of m6A modifications (i.e., Mettl5-dependent m6A) and possible epi-transcriptomic control of gene expression could impact animal behaviors.

Strengths:

Comprehensive DEG analyses between control and Mettl5 mutant flies reveal the landscape of Mettl5-dependent gene regulation at both transcriptome and translatome levels. The molecular/genetic features underlying Mettl5-dependent gene expression may provide important clues to molecular substrates for circadian clocks, sleep, and other physiology relevant to Mettl5 function in Drosophila.

Weaknesses:

While these findings indicate the potential implication of Mettl5-dependent gene regulation in circadian clocks and sleep, several key data require substantial improvement and rigor of experimental design and data interpretation for fair conclusions. Weaknesses of this study and possible complications in the original observations include but are not limited to:

(1) Genetic backgrounds in Mettl5 mutants: the heterozygosity of Mettl5 deletion causes sleep suppression at early night and long-period rhythms in circadian behaviors. The transgenic rescue using Gal4/UAS may support the specificity of the Mettl5 effects on sleep. However, it does not necessarily exclude the possibility that the Mettl5 deletion stocks somehow acquired long-period mutation allelic to other clock genes. Additional genetic/transgenic models of Mettl5 (e.g., homozygous or trans-heterozygous mutants of independent Mettl5 alleles; Mettl5 RNAi etc.) can address the background issue and determine 1) whether sleep suppression tightly correlates with long-period rhythms in Mettl5 mutants; and 2) whether Mettl5 effects are actually mapped to circadian pacemaker neurons (e.g., PDF- or tim-positive neurons) to affect circadian behaviors, clock gene expression, and synaptic plasticity in a cell-autonomous manner and thereby regulate sleep. Unfortunately, most experiments in the current study rely on a single genetic model (i.e., Mettl5 heterozygous mutant).

(2) Gene expression and synaptic plasticity: gene expression profiles and the synaptic plasticity should be assessed by multiple time-point analyses since 1) they display high-amplitude oscillations over the 24-h window and 2) any phase-delaying mutation (e.g., Mettl5 deletion) could significantly affect their circadian changes. The current study performed a single time-point assessment of circadian clock/synaptic gene expression, misleading the conclusion for Mettl5 effects. Considering long-period rhythms in Mettl5 mutant clocks, transcriptome/translatome profiles in Mettl5 cannot distinguish between direct vs. indirect targets of Mettl5 (i.e., gene regulation by the loss of Mettl5-dependent m6A vs. by the delayed circadian phase in Mettl5 mutants). 

(3) The text description for gene expression profiling and Mettl5-dependent gene regulation was very detailed, yet there is a huge gap between gene expression profiling and sleep/behavioral analyses. The model in Figure 5 should be better addressed and validated.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Xiaoyu Wu and colleagues examined the potential role in sleep of a Drosophila ribosomal RNA methyltransferase, mettl5. Based on sleep defects reported in CRISPR generated mutants, the authors performed both RNA-seq and Ribo-seq analyses of head tissue from mutants and compared to control animals collected at the same time point. While these data were subjected to a thorough analysis, it was difficult to understand the relative direction of differential expression between the two genotypes. In any case, a major conclusion was that the mutant showed altered expression of circadian clock genes, and that the altered expression of the period gene in particular accounted for the sleep defect reported in the mettl5 mutant. As noted above, a strength of this work is its relevance to a human developmental disorder as well as the transcriptomic and ribosomal profiling of the mutant. However, there are numerous weaknesses in the manuscript, most of which stem from misinterpretation of the findings, some methodological approaches, and also a lack of method detail provided. The authors seemed to have missed a major phenotype associated with the mettl5 mutant, which is that it caused a significant increase in period length, which was apparent even in a light: dark cycle. Thus the effect of the mutant on clock gene expression more likely contributed to this phenotype than any associated with changes in sleep behavior.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The paper addresses the problem of optimising the mapping of serum antibody responses against a known antigen. It uses the croEM analysis of polyclonal Fabs to antibody genes, with the ultimate aim of getting complete and accurate antibody sequences. The method, commonly termed EMPEM, is becoming increasingly used to understand responses in convalescent sera and optimisation of the workflows and provision of openly available tools is of genuine value to a growing number of people.

The authors do not address the experimental aspects of the methods and do not present novel computational tools, rather they use a series of established computational methods to provide workflows that simplify the interpretation of the EM map in terms of the sequences of dominant antibodies.

Strengths:

The paper is well-written and clearly argued. The tests constructed seem appropriate and fair and demonstrate that the workflow works pretty well. For a small subset (~17%) of the EMPEM maps analysed the workflow was able to get convincing assignments of the V-genes.

Weaknesses:

The AI methods used are not a substitute for high quality data and at present very few of the results obtained from EMPEM will be of sufficient quality to robustly assign the sequence of the antibody. However, rather more are likely to be good enough, especially in combination with MS data, to provide a pretty good indication of the V-gene family.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this manuscript, the authors seek to demonstrate that it is possible to sequence antibody variable domains from cryoEM reconstructions in combination with bottom-up LC-MSMS. In particular, they extract de novo sequences from single particle-cryo-EM-derived maps of antibodies using the "deep-learning tool ModelAngelo", which are run through the program Stitch to try to select the top scoring V-gene and construct a placeholder sequence for the CDR3 of both the heavy and light chain of the antibody under investigation. These reconstructed variable domains are then used as templates to guide the assembly of de novo peptides from LC-MS/MS data to improve the accuracy of the candidate sequence.

Using this approach the authors claim to have demonstrated that "cryoEM reconstructions of monoclonal antigen-antibody complexes may contain sufficient information to accurately narrow down candidate V-genes and that this can be integrated with proteomics data to improve the accuracy of candidate sequences".

WhiIe the approach is clearly a work in progress, the manuscript should made easier to understand for the general reader. Indeed, I had a hard time understanding the workflow until I got to Fig. 3. So re-ordering the figures, for example, may be helpful in this regard.

It would be useful to provide additional concrete examples where the described workflow would assist in the elucidation of CDR3's, in cases where this isn't already known. (In the benchmark dataset from the Electron Microscopy Data Bank, all the antibodies and Fabs are presumably known, as is the case for the monoclonal antibody CR3022). I am having difficulty envisioning how one would prepare samples from actual plasma samples that would be appropriate for single particle cryo-EM and MS data on dominant antibodies of interest. In my experience, most of these samples tend to be quite complex mixtures. So additional discussion of this point would be helpful.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors demonstrate that two human preproprotein human mutations in the BMP4 gene cause a defect in proprotein cleavage and BMP4 mature ligand formation, leading to hypomorphic phenotypes in mouse knock-in alleles and in Xenopus embryo assays.

Strengths:

They provide compelling biochemical and in vivo analyses supporting their conclusions, showing the reduced processing of the proprotein and concomitant reduced mature BMP4 ligand protein from impressively mouse embryonic lysates. They perform excellent analysis of the embryo and post-natal phenotypes demonstrating the hypomorphic nature of these alleles. Interesting phenotypic differences between the S91C and E93G mutants are shown with excellent hypotheses for the differences. Their results support that BMP4 heterodimers act predominantly throughout embryogenesis whereas BMP4 homodimers play essential roles at later developmental stages.

Weaknesses:

A control of BMP7 alone in the Xenopus assays seems important to exclude BMP7 homodimer activity in these assays.

The Discussion could be strengthened by more in-depth explanations of how BMP4 homodimer versus heterodimer signaling is supported by the results, so that readers do not have to think it all through themselves. Similarly, a discussion of why the S91C mutant has a stronger phenotype than E93G early in the Discussion would be helpful or least mention that it will be addressed later.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Kim et al. report that two disease mutations in proBMP4, Ser91Cys and Glu93Gly, which disrupt the Ser91 FAM20C phosphorylation site, block the activation of proBMP4 homodimers. Consequently, analysis of DMZ explants from Xenopus embryos expressing the proBMP4 S91C or E93G mutants showed reduced pSmad1 and tbxt1 expression. The block in BMP4 activity caused by the mutations could be overcome by co-expression of BMP7, suggesting that the missense mutations selectively affect the activity of BMP4 homodimers but not BMP4/7 heterodimers. The expert amphibian tissue transplant studies were extended to in vivo studies in Bmp4S91C/+ and Bmp4E93G/+ mice, demonstrating the impact of these mutations on embryonic development, particularly in female mice, in line with patient studies. Finally, studies in MEFs revealed that the mutations did not affect proBMP4 glycosylation or ER-to-Golgi transport but appeared to inhibit the furin-dependent cleavage of proBMP4 to BMP4. Based on these findings and AI (AlphaFold) modeling of proBMP4, the authors speculate that pSer91 influences access of furin to its cleavage site at Arg289AlaLysArg292.

Strengths:

The Xenopus and mouse studies are valuable and elegantly describe the impact of the S91C and E93G disease mutations on BMP signaling and embryonic development.

Weaknesses:

The interpretation of how the mutations may disturb the furin-mediated cleavage of proBMP4 is underdeveloped and does not consider all of their data. Understanding how pS91 influences the furin-dependent cleavage at Arg292 seems to be the crux of this work and thus warrants more consideration. Specifically:

(1) Figure S1 may be significantly more informative than implied. The authors report that BMP4S91D activates pSmad1 only incrementally better than S91C and much less than WT BMP4. However, Fig. S1B does not support the conclusion on page 7 (numbering beginning with title page); "these findings suggest that phosphorylation of S91 is required to generate fully active BMP4 homodimers". The authors rightly note that the S91C change likely has manifold effects beyond inhibiting furin cleavage. The E93G change may also affect proBMP4 beyond disturbing FAM20C phosphorylation. Additional mutation analyses would strengthen the work.

(2) These findings in Figure S1 are potentially significant because they may inform how proBMP4 is protected from cleavage during transit through the TGN and entry into peripheral cellular compartments. Intriguing modeling studies in Figure 6 suggest that pSer91 is proximal to the furin cleavage site. Based on their presentation, pSer91 may contact Arg289, the critical P4 residue at the furin site. If so, might that suggest how pS91 may prevent furin cleavage, thus explaining why the S91D mutation inhibits processing as presented, and possibly how proBMP4 processing is delayed until transit to distal compartments (perhaps activated by a change in the endosomal microenvironment or a Ser91 phosphatase)? Have the authors considered or ruled out these possibilities? In addition to additional mutation analyses of the FAM20C site, moving the discussion of this model to an "Ideas and Speculation" subsection may be warranted.

(3) The lack of an in vitro protease assay to test the effect of the S91 mutations on furin cleavage is problematic.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors describe important new biochemical elements in the synthesis of a class of critical developmental signaling molecules, BMP4. They also present a highly detailed description of developmental anomalies in mice bearing known human mutations at these specific elements.

Strengths:

Exceptionally detailed descriptions of pathologies occurring in mutant mice. Novel findings regarding the interaction of propeptide phosphorylation and convertase cleavage, both of which will move the field forward. Provocative hypothesis regarding furin access to cleavage sites, supported by Alphafold predictions.

Weaknesses:

Figure 6A presents two testable models for pre-release access of furin to cleavage sites since physical separation of enzyme from substrate only occurs in one model; could immunocytochemistry resolve?

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The idea is appealing, but the authors have not sufficiently demonstrated the utility of this approach.

Strengths:

Novelty of the approach, potential implications for discovering novel interactions

Weaknesses:

The Duong had introduced their highly elegant peptidisc approach several years ago. In this present work, they combine it with thermal proteome profiling (TPP) and attempt to demonstrate the utility of this combination for identifying novel membrane protein-ligand interactions.<br /> While I find this idea intriguing, and the approach potentially useful, I do not feel that the authors had sufficiently demonstrated the utility of this approach.<br /> My main concern is that no novel interactions are identified and validated. For the presentation of any new methodology, I think this is quite necessary.<br /> In addition, except for MsbA, no orthogonal methods are used to support the conclusions, and the authors rely entirely of quantifying rather small differences in abundances using either iBAQ or LFQ.<br /> Furthermore, the reported changes in abundances are solely based on iBAQ or LFQ analysis. This must be supported by a more quantitative approach such as SILAC or labeled peptides<br /> In summary, I think this story requires a stronger and broader demonstration of the ability of peptidisc-TPP to identify novel physiologically/pharmacologically relevant interactions.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The membrane mimetic thermal proteome profiling (MM-TPP) presented by Jandu et al. seems to be a useful way to minimize the interference of detergents in efficient mass spectrometry analysis of membrane proteins. Thermal proteome profiling is a mass spectrometric method that measures binding of a drug to different proteins in a cell lysate by monitoring thermal stabilization of the proteins because of the interaction with the ligands that are being studied. This method has been underexplored for membrane proteome because of the inefficient mass spectrometric detection of membrane proteins and because of the interference from detergents that are used often for membrane protein solubilization.

Strengths:

In this report the binding of ligands to membrane protein targets has been monitored in crude membrane lysates or tissue homogenates exalting the efficacy of the method to detect both intended and off-target binding events in a complex physiologically relevant sample setting.

The manuscript is lucidly written and the data presented seems clear. The only insignificant grammatical error I found was that the 'P' in the word peptidisc is not capitalized in the beginning of the methods section "MM-TPP profiling on membrane proteomes". The clear writing made it easy to understand and evaluate what has been presented. Kudos to the authors.

Weaknesses:

While this is a solid report and a promising tool for analyzing membrane protein drug interactions, addressing some of the minor caveats listed below could make it much more impactful.

The authors claim that MM-TPP is done by "completely circumventing structural perturbations invoked by detergents". This may not be entirely accurate, because before reconstitution of the membrane proteins in peptidisc, the membrane fractions are solubilized by 1% DDM. The solubilization and following centrifugation step lasts at least for 45 min. It is less likely that all the structural perturbations caused by DDM to various membrane proteins and their transient interactions become completely reversed or rescued by peptidisc reconstitution. In the introduction, the authors make statements such as "..it is widely acknowledged that even mild detergents can disrupt protein structures and activities, leading to challenges in accurately identifying drug targets.." and "[peptidisc] libraries are instrumental in capturing and stabilizing IMPs in their functional states while preserving their interactomes and lipid allosteric modulators...'. These need to be rephrased, as it has been shown by countless studies that even with membrane protein suspended in micelles robust ligand binding assays and binding kinetics have been performed leading to physiologically relevant conclusions and identification of protein-protein and protein-ligand interactions.

If the method involves detergent solubilization, for example using 1% DDM, it is a bit disingenuous to argue that 'interactomes and lipid allosteric modulators' characterized by low-affinity interactions will remain intact or can be rescued upon detergent removal. Authors should discuss this or at least highlight the primary caveat of the peptidisc method of membrane protein reconstitution - which is that it begins with detergent solubilization of the proteome and does not completely circumvent structural perturbations invoked by detergents.

It would also be important to test detergents that are even milder than 1% DDM and ones which are harsher than 1% DDM to show that this method of reconstitution can indeed rescue the perturbations to the structure and interactions of the membrane protein done by detergents during solubilization step. Based on the methods provided, it appears that the final amount of detergent in peptidisc membrane protein library was 0.008%, which is ~150 uM. The CMC of DDM depending on the amount of NaCl could be between 120-170 uM. Perhaps, to completely circumvent the perturbations from detergents other methods of detergent-free solubilization such as using SMA polymers and SMALP reconstitution could be explored for a comparison. Moreover, a comparison of the peptidisc reconstitution with detergent-free extraction strategies, such as SMA copolymers, could lend more strength to the presented method.

Cross-verification of the identified interactions, and subsequent stabilization or destabilizations, should be demonstrated by other in vitro methods of thermal stability and ligand binding analysis using purified protein to support the efficacy of the MM-TPP method. An example cross-verification using SDS-PAGE, of the well-studied MsbA, is shown in Figure 2. In a similar fashion, other discussed targets such as, BCS1L, P2RX4, DgkA, Mao-B, and some un-annotated IMPs shown in supplementary figure 3 that display substantial stabilization or destabilization should be cross-verified.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The authors conducted an fMRI study to investigate the neural effects of sustaining attention to areas of different sizes. Participants were instructed to attend to alphanumeric characters arranged in a circular array. The size of attention field was manipulated in four levels, ranging from small (18 deg) to large (162 deg). They used a model-based method to visualize attentional modulation in early visual cortex V1 to V3, and found spatially congruent modulations of the BOLD response, i.e., as the attended area increased in size, the neural modulation also increased in size in the visual cortex. They suggest that this result is a neural manifestation of the zoom-lens model of attention and that the model-based method can effectively reconstruct the neural modulation in the cortical space.

The study is well-designed with sophisticated and comprehensive data analysis. The results are robust and show strong support for a well-known model of spatial attention, the zoom-lens model. Overall, I find the results interesting and useful for the field of visual attention research. I have questions about some aspects of the results and analysis as well as the bigger picture.

(1) It appears that the modulation in V1 is weaker than V2 and V3 (Fig 2). In particular, the width modulation in V1 is not statistically significant (Fig 5). This result seems a bit unexpected. Given the known RF properties of neurons in these areas, in particular, smaller RF in V1, one might expect more spatially sensitive modulation in V1 than V2/V3. Some explanations and discussions would be helpful. Relatedly, one would also naturally wonder if this method can be applied to other extrastriate visual areas such as V4 and what the results look like.

(2) I'm a bit confused about the angular error result. Fig 4 shows that the mean angular error is close to zero, but Fig 5 reports these values to be about 30-40 deg. Why the big discrepancy? Is it due to the latter reporting absolute errors? It seems reporting the overall bias is more useful than absolute value.

(3) A significant effect is reported for amplitude in V3 (line 78), but the graph in Fig 5 shows hardly any difference. Please confirm the finding and also explain the directionality of the effect if there is indeed one.

(4) The purpose of the temporal interval analysis is rather unclear. I assume it has to do with how much data is needed to recover the cortical modulation and hence how dynamic a signal the method can capture. While the results make sense (i.e., more data is better), there is no obvious conclusion and/or interpretation of its meaning.

(5) I think it would be useful for the authors to make a more explicit connection to previous studies in this literature. In particular, two studies seem particularly relevant. First, how do the present results relate to those in Muller et al (2003, reference 37), which also found a zoom-lens type of neural effects. Second, how does the present method compare with spatial encoding model in Sprague & Serences (2013, reference 56), which also reconstructs the neural modulation of spatial attention. More discussions of these studies will help put the current study in the larger context.

(6) Fig 4b, referenced on line 123, does not exist.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The study in question utilizes functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to dynamically estimate the locus and extent of covert spatial attention from visuocortical activity. The authors aim to address an important gap in our understanding of how the size of the attentional field is represented within the visual cortex. They present a novel paradigm that allows for the estimation of the spatial tuning of the attentional field and demonstrate the ability to reliably recover both the location and width of the attentional field based on BOLD responses.

Strengths:

(1) Innovative Paradigm: The development of a new approach to estimate the spatial tuning of the attentional field is a significant strength of this study. It provides a fresh perspective on how spatial attention modulates visual perception.<br /> (2) Refined fMRI Analysis: The use of fMRI to track the spatial tuning of the attentional field across different visual regions is methodologically rigorous and provides valuable insights into the neural mechanisms underlying attentional modulation.<br /> (3) Clear Presentation: The manuscript is well-organized, and the results are presented clearly, which aids in the reader's comprehension of the complex data and analyses involved.

Weaknesses:

(1) Lack of Neutral Cue Condition: The study does not include a neutral cue condition where the cue width spans 360{degree sign}, which could serve as a valuable baseline for assessing the BOLD response enhancements and diminishments in both attended and non-attended areas.<br /> (2) Clarity on Task Difficulty Ratios: The explicit reasoning for the chosen letter-to-number ratios for various cue widths is not detailed. Ensuring clarity on these ratios is crucial, as it affects the task difficulty and the comparability of behavioral performance across different cue widths. It is essential that observed differences in behavior and BOLD signals are attributable solely to changes in cue width and not confounded by variations in task difficulty.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this report, the authors tested how manipulating the contiguous set of stimuli on the screen that should be used to guide behavior - that is, the scope of visual spatial attention - impacts the magnitude and profile of well-established attentional enhancements in visual retinotopic cortex. During fMRI scanning, participants attended to a cued section of the screen for blocks of trials and performed a letter vs digit discrimination task at each attended location (and judged whether the majority of characters were letters/digits). Importantly, the visual stimulus was identical across attention conditions, so any observed response modulations are due to top-down task demands rather than visual input. The authors employ population receptive field (pRF) models, which are used to sort voxel activation with respect to the location and scope of spatial attention and fit a Gaussian-like function to the profile of attentional enhancement from each region and condition. The authors find that attending to a broader region of space expands the profile of attentional enhancement across the cortex (with a larger effect in higher visual areas), but does not strongly impact the magnitude of this enhancement, such that each attended stimulus is enhanced to a similar degree. Interestingly, these modulations, overall, mimic changes in response properties caused by changes to the stimulus itself (increase in contrast matching the attended location in the primary experiment). The finding that attentional enhancement primarily broadens, but does not substantially weaken in most regions, is an important addition to our understanding of the impact of distributed attention on neural responses, and will provide meaningful constraints to neural models of attentional enhancement.

Strengths:

- Well-designed manipulations (changing location and scope of spatial attention), and careful retinotopic/pRF mapping, allow for a robust assay of the spatial profile of attentional enhancement, which has not been carefully measured in previous studies<br /> - Results are overall clear, especially concerning width of the spatial region of attentional enhancement, and lack of clear and consistent evidence for reduction in the amplitude of enhancement profile<br /> - Model-fitting to characterize spatial scope of enhancement improves interpretability of findings

Weaknesses:

- Task difficulty seems to vary as a function of spatial scope of attention, with varying ratios of letters/digits across spatial scope conditions, which may complicate interpretations of neural modulation results<br /> - Some aspects of analysis/data sorting are unclear (e.g., how are voxels selected for analyses?)<br /> - While the focus of this report is on modulations of visual cortex responses due to attention, the lack of inclusion of results from other retinotopic areas (e.g. V3AB, hV4, IPS regions like IPS0/1) is a weakness<br /> - Additional analyses comparing model fits across amounts of data analyzed suggest the model fitting procedure is biased, with some parameters (e.g., FWHM, error, gain) scaling with noise.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This a comprehensive study that sheds light on how Wag31 functions and localises in mycobacterial cells. A clear link to interactions with CL is shown using a combination of microscopy in combination with fusion fluorescent constructs, and lipid specific dyes. Furthermore, studies using mutant versions of Wag31 shed light on the functionalities of each domain in the protein. My concerns/suggestions for the manuscript are minor:

(1) Ln 130. A better clarification/discussion is required here. It is clear that both depletion and overexpression have an effect on levels of various lipids, but subsequent descriptions show that they affect different classes of lipids.<br /> (2) The pulldown assays results are interesting, but links are tentative.<br /> (3) The authors may perhaps like to rephrase claims of effects lipid homeostasis, as my understanding is that lipid localisation rather than catabolism/breakdown is affected.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Kapoor et. al. investigated the role of the mycobacterial protein Wag31 in lipid and peptidoglycan synthesis and sought to delineate the role of the N- and C- terminal domains of Wag31. They demonstrated that modulating Wag31 levels influences lipid homeostasis in M. smegmatis and cardiolipin (CL) localisation in cells. Wag31 was found to preferentially bind CL-containing liposomes, and deleting the N-terminus of the protein significantly decreased this interaction. Novel interactions between Wag31 and proteins involved in lipid metabolism and cell wall synthesis were identified, suggesting that Wag31 recruits proteins to the intracellular membrane domain by direct interaction.

Strengths:

(1) The importance of Wag31 in maintaining lipid homeostasis is supported by several lines of evidence.<br /> (2) The interaction between Wag31 and cardiolipin, and the role of the N-terminus in this interaction was convincingly demonstrated.

Weaknesses:

(1) MS experiments provide some evidence for novel protein-protein interactions, however, the pull-down experiments are lacking a valid negative control.<br /> (2) The role of the N-terminus in the protein-protein interaction has not been ruled out.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript describes the characterization of mycobacterial cytoskeleton protein Wag31, examining its role in orchestrating protein-lipid and protein-protein interactions essential for mycobacterial survival. The most significant finding is that Wag31, which directs polar elongation and maintains the intracellular membrane domain, was revealed to have membrane tethering capabilities.

Strengths:

The authors provided a detailed analysis of Wag31 domain architecture, revealing distinct functional roles: the N-terminal domain facilitates lipid binding and membrane tethering, while the C-terminal domain mediates protein-protein interactions. Overall, this study offers a robust and new understanding of Wag31 function.

Weaknesses:

The following major concerns should be addressed.

• Authors use 10-N-Nonyl-acridine orange (NAO) as a marker for cardiolipin localization. However, given that NAO is known to bind to various anionic phospholipids, how do the authors know that what they are seeing is specifically visualizing cardiolipin and not a different anionic phospholipid? For example, phosphatidylinositol is another abundant anionic phospholipid in mycobacterial plasma membrane.

• Authors' data show that the N-terminal region of Wag31 is important for membrane tethering. The authors' data also show that the N-terminal region is important for sustaining mycobacterial morphology. However, the authors' statement in Line 256 "These results highlight the importance of tethering for sustaining mycobacterial morphology and survival" requires additional proof. It remains possible that the N-terminal region has another unknown activity, and this yet-unknown activity rather than the membrane tethering activity drives the morphological maintenance. Similarly, the N-terminal region is important for lipid homeostasis, but the statement in Line 270, "the maintenance of lipid homeostasis by Wag31 is a consequence of its tethering activity" requires additional proof. The authors should tone down these overstatements, or provide additional data to support their claims.

• Authors suggest that Wag31 acts as a scaffold for the IMD (Fig. 8). However, Meniche et. al. has shown that MurG as well as GlfT2, two well-characterized IMD proteins, do not colocalize with Wag31 (DivIVA) (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1402158111). IMD proteins are always slightly subpolar while Wag31 is located to the tip of the cell. Therefore, the authors' biochemical data cannot be easily reconciled with microscopic observations in the literature. This raises a question regarding the validity of protein-protein interaction shown in Figure 7. Since this pull-down assay was conducted by mixing E. coli lysate expressing Wag31 and Msm lysate expression Wag31 interactors like MurG, it is possible that the interactions are not direct. Authors should interpret their data more cautiously. If authors cannot provide additional data and sufficient justifications, they should avoid proposing a confusing model like Figure 8 that contradicts published observations.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In the manuscript by Su et al., the authors present a massively parallel reporter assay (MPRA) measuring the stability of in vitro transcribed mRNAs carrying wild-type or mutant 5' or 3' UTRs transfected into two different human cell lines. The goal presented at the beginning of the manuscript was to screen for effects of disease-associated point mutations on the stability of the reporter RNAs carrying partial human 5' or 3' UTRs. However, the majority of the manuscript is dedicated to identifying sequence components underlying the differential stability of reporter constructs. This analysis showed that UA dinucleotides are the most predictive feature of RNA stability in both cell lines and both UTRs.

The effect of AU rich elements (AREs) on RNA stability is well established in multiple systems, and the present study confirms this general trend, but points out variability in the consequence of seemingly similar motifs on RNA stability. For example, the authors report that a long stretch of Us has extreme opposite effects on RNA stability depending on whether it is preceded by an A (strongly destabilizing) or followed by an A (strongly stabilizing). While the authors interpretation of a context-dependence of the effect is certainly well-founded, it seems counterintuitive that the preceding or following A would be the (only) determining factor. This points to a generally reductionist approach taken by the authors in the analysis of the data and in their attempt to dissect the contribution of "AU rich sequences" to RNA stability, with a general tendency to reduce the size and complexity of the features (e.g. to dinucleotides). While this certainly increases the statistical power of the analysis due to the number of occurrences of these motifs, it limits the interpretability of the results. How do UA dinucleotides per se contribute to destabilizing the RNA, both in 5' and 3' UTRs, but (according to limited data presented) not in coding sequences? What is the mechanism? RBPs binding to UA dinucleotide containing sequences are suggested to "mask" the destabilizing effect, thereby leading to a more stable RNA. Gain of UA dinucleotides is reported to have a destabilizing effect, but again no hypothesis is provided as to the underlying molecular mechanism. In addition to reducing the motif length to dinucleotides, the notion of "context dependence" is used in a very narrow sense.

The present MPRA measures the effect of UTR sequences in one specific reporter context and using one experimental approach (following the decay of in vitro transcribed and transfected RNAs). While this method certainly has its merits compared to other approaches, it also comes with some caveats: RNA is delivered naked, without bound RBPs and no nuclear history, e.g. of splicing (no EJCs), editing and modifications. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether UA dinucleotide frequency is a substantial factor in determining the half-lives of endogenous mRNAs.

The authors conclude their study with a meta-analysis of genes with increased UA dinucleotides in 5' and 3'UTRs, showing that specific functional groups are overrepresented among these genes. In addition, they provide evidence for an effect of disease-associated UTR mutations on endogenous RNA stability. While these elements link back to the original motivation of the study (screening for effects of point mutations in 5' and 3' UTRs), they provide only a limited amount of additional insights.

In summary, this manuscript presents an interesting addition to the long-standing attempts at dissecting the sequence basis of RNA stability in human cells. The analysis is in general comprehensive and sound; however, it remains unclear to what extent the findings can be generalized beyond the method and the experimental system used here.

Comments on revisions:

Parts of my original comments have been adequately addressed by the reviewers.<br /> After reading the revised manuscript and the rebuttal, my main concern is related to the figure comparing the half-lives as measured in the two different cell lines that was included in the response to reviewer 2, but not in the revised manuscript. The complete lack of correlation between the half-lives of the 3'UTR library measured in the two cell lines is concerning. While variability and cell type-specific effects can be expected, some principles should be the same (such as the effect of UA dinucleotides that the authors report), leading to at least some correlation.<br /> In addition, it is unclear to me why the half-lives measured for the two libraries in HEK cells are shifted (median ln(t 1/2)=6-7 for the 5'UTR library and ln(t 1/2)=4-4.5 for the 3'UTR library), but not in SH.

I feel that this figure contains important information that should be included in the final manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary of goals:

Untranslated regions are key cis-regulatory elements that control mRNA stability, translation, and translocation. Through interactions with small RNAs and RNA binding proteins, UTRs form complex transcriptional circuitry that allows cells to fine-tune gene expression. Functional annotation of UTR variants has been very limited, and improvements could offer insights into disease relevant regulatory mechanisms. The goals were to advance our understanding of the determinants of UTR regulatory elements and characterize the effects of a set of "disease-relevant" UTR variants.

Strengths:

The use of a massively parallel reporter assay allowed for analysis of a substantial set (6,555 pairs) of 5' and 3' UTR fragments compiled from known disease associated variants. Two cell types were used.

The findings confirm previous work about the importance of AREs, which helps show validity and adds some detailed comparisons of specific AU-rich motif effects in these two cell types.

Using a Lasso regression, TA-dinucleotide content is identified as a strong regulator of RNA stability in a context dependent manner based on GC content and presence of RNA binding protein binding motifs. The findings have potential importance, drawing attention to a UTR feature that is not well characterized.

The use of complementary datasets, including from half-life analyses of RNAs and from random sequence library MRPA's, is a useful addition and supports several important findings. The finding the TA dinucleotides have explanatory power separate from (and in some cases interacting with) GC content is valuable.

The functional enrichment analysis suggests some new ideas about how UTRs may contribute to regulation of certain classes of genes.

Weaknesses:

In this section, original reviewer comments about the initial submission and the responses of the authors are listed together with new reviewer responses to the authors:

Reviewer original comment 1: It is difficult to understand how the calculations for half-life were performed. The sequencing approach measures the relative frequency of each sequence at each time point (less stable sequences become relatively less frequent after time 0, whereas more stable sequences become relatively more frequent after time 0). Since there is no discussion of whether the abundance of the transfected RNA population is referenced to some external standard (e.g., housekeeping RNAs), it is not clear how absolute (rather than relative) half-lives were determined.

Author response: [The authors showed the equations used to calculate half lives based on read counts.] They stated that "The absolute abundance was not required for the half-life calculation."

Reviewer response to authors: The methods section states that DESeq2 was used to normalize read counts. DESeq2 normalization assumes that levels of most RNAs are not different between samples. That assumption is not valid here, since RNAs in the library are introduced into cells at time 0 and all RNAs decrease over time. If DESeq2 is applied without modification to normalize across timepoints, normalized reads from less stable RNAs will decrease over time (as expected) but normalized reads from more stable RNAs will increase. Can the authors please clarify in the methods how the read counts were normalized to account for this issue?

Reviewer original comment 2: Fig. S1A and B are used to assess reproducibility. They show that read counts at a given time point correlate well across replicate experiments. However, this is not a good way to assess reproducibility or accuracy of the measurements of t1/2 are. (The major source of variability in read counts in these plots - especially at early time points - is likely starting abundance of each RNA sequence, not stability.) This creates concerns about how well the method is measuring t1/2. Also creating concern is the observation that many RNAs are associated with half-lives that are much longer than the time points analyzed in the study. For example, based upon Figure S1 and Table S1 correctly, the median t1/2 for the 5' UTR library in HEK cells appears to be >700 minutes. Given that RNA was collected at 30, 75, and 120 minutes, accurate measurements of RNAs with such long half lives would seem to be very difficult.

Author response: ... The calculation of the half-life involves first determining the decay constant 𝜆, which represents a constant rate of decay. Since 𝜆 is a constant, it is possible to accurately calculate it without needing data over the entire decay range. Our experimental design considers this by selecting appropriate time points to ensure a reliable estimation of 𝜆, and thus, the half-life. To determine the most suitable time points, we conducted preliminary experiments using RT-PCR. These experiments indicated that 30, 75, and 120 minutes provided an effective range for capturing the decay dynamics of the transcripts.

Reviewer response to author comments: Based on Fig. S1D, for 3' UTRs in both cell types and for 5' UTRs in SH-SY5Y cells, median t1/2 is in the range of ~30 to 90 minutes (corresponding to ln t1/2 = 3.5 to 4.5). Measuring RNAs at 30, 75, and 120 minutes would therefore be a good choice for these cases, However, median t1/2 in HEK cells appears to be ~600 minutes (corresponding to ln t1/2 ~6.4) for HEK cells. For t1/2 of 600 minutes, RNA levels at the final time point (120 minutes) would be 90% of the those at the first time point (30 minutes), which illustrates why the method would need to be able to reliably capture very small changes in RNA abundance to accurately measure t1/2 for transcripts with half-lives much longer than 120 minutes. As suggested in our original review, this concern could be addressed by showing the correlation of half-lives across replicates for the 5' and 3' UTR libraries in both cell types. Alternatively, the authors could show other measures of reproducibility for the half-life measurements across replicates. This requires no additional experimentation and can be done using the data from replicate runs shown in Fig. S1A and B. We remain concerned that for sequences with very long half-lives, extrapolating the half-life from small changes between 30 and 120 minutes will lead to imprecise measurements.

Reviewer original comment 3: There is no direct comparison of t1/2 between the two cell types studied for the full set of sequences studied. This would be helpful in understanding whether the regulatory effects of UTRs are generally similar across cell lines (as has been shown in some previous studies) or whether there are fundamental differences. The distribution of t1/2's is clearly quite different in the two cell lines, but it is important to know if this reflects generally slow RNA turnover in HEK cells or whether there are a large number of sequence-specific effects on stability between cell lines. A related issue is that it is not clear whether the relatively small number of significant variant effects detected in HEK cells versus SH-SY5Y cells is attributable to real biological differences between cell types or to technical issues (many fewer read counts and much longer half lives in HEK cells).

Author response: For both cell lines, we selected oligonucleotides with R2 > 0.5 and mean squared error (MSE) < 1 for analysis when estimating half-life (λ) by linear regression. This selection criterion was implemented to minimize the effect of experimental noise. After quality control, we selected common UTRs and compared the RNA half-lives of the two cell lines using a scatter plot. The figure below shows that RNA half-lives are quite different between the cell lines, with a moderate similarity observed in the 5' UTRs (R = 0.21), while the correlation in the 3' UTRs is non-significant. Despite the low correlation of mRNA half-life between the two cell lines, UA-dinucleotide and UA-rich sequences consistently emerge as the most significant destabilizing features, suggesting a shared regulatory mechanism across diverse cellular environments.

Reviewer response to author comments: We appreciate that the authors shared this additional analysis of the data. We believe that this is an important finding and that the additional figure showing correlations of half-lives across cell types should be included in the manuscript or supplement. Discussion of this result in the manuscript would also be useful for readers. This result is surprising to us since we would have expected that widely expressed RNA-binding proteins would have led to more similar effects between the two cell types, as previously found using other approaches (e.g., studies of 3' UTR effects in MPRAs). It would also be appropriate to discuss that differences seen between the two cell types indicate that caution is warranted when trying to generalize the results of this study to other cell types.

Reviewer original comment 4 has been addressed adequately in the revised manuscript.

Appraisal and impact:

Reviewer original comment 1: The work adds to existing studies that previously identified sequence features, including AREs and other RNA binding protein motifs, that regulate stability and puts a new emphasis on the role of "TA" (better "UA") dinucleotides. It is not clear how potential problems with the RNA stability measurements discussed above might influence the overall conclusions, which may limit the impact unless these can be addressed.

It is difficult to understand whether the importance of TA dinucleotides is best explained by their occurrence in a related set of longer RBP binding motifs (see Fig 5J, these motifs may be encompassed by the "WWWWWW cluster") or whether some other explanation applies. Further discussion of this would be helpful. Does the LASSO method tend to collapse a more diverse set of longer motifs that are each relatively rare compared to the dinucleotide? It remains unclear whether TA dinucleotides are associated with less stability independent of the presence of the known larger WWWWWWW motif. As noted above, the importance of TA dinucleotides in the HEK experiments appears to be less than is implied in the text.

Author response: To ensure the representativeness of the features entered into the LASSO model, we pre-selected those with an occurrence greater than 10% among all UTRs. There is no evidence to support a preference for dinucleotides by LASSO. To address whether the destabilizing effect of UA dinucleotides is part of the broader WWWWWW motif, we divided UA dinucleotides into two groups: those within the WWWWWW motif and those outside of it. Specifically, we divided UTRs into two categories: 'at least one UA within a WWWWWW motif' and 'no UA within a WWWWWW motif,' and visualized the results using a boxplot. As shown in [figures provided to the reviewers], the destabilizing trend still remains for UA dinucleotides outside of the WWWWWW motif, although the effect appears to be more pronounced when UA is within the WWWWWW motif. This suggests that while UA dinucleotides have a destabilizing effect independently, their impact is amplified when they are part of the broader WWWWWW motif.

Reviewer response to authors: These are useful additional analyses, and we suggest that the additional figure and discussion should be included in the manuscript/supplement so that readers can benefit from them.

Reviewer original comment 2: The inclusion of more than a single cell type is an acknowledgement of the importance of evaluating cell type-specific effects. The work suggests a number of cell type-specific differences, but due to technical issues (especially with the HEK data, as outlined above) and the use of only two cell lines, it is difficult to understand cell type effects from the work.

The inclusion of both 3' and 5' UTR sequences distinguishes this work from most prior studies in the field. Contrasting the effects of these regions on stability is of interest, although the role of these UTRs (especially the 5' UTR) in translational regulation is not assessed here.

Author response: We examined the role of UTR and UTR variants in translation regulation using polysome profiling. By both univariate analysis and an elastic regression model, we identified motifs of short repeated sequences, including SRSF2 binding sites, as mutation hotspots that lead to aberrant translation. Furthermore, these polysome-shifting mutations had a considerable impact on RNA secondary structures, particularly in upstream AUG-containing 5' UTRs. Integrating these features, our model achieved high accuracy (AUROC > 0.8) in predicting polysome-shifting mutations in the test dataset. Additionally, metagene analysis indicated that pathogenic variants were enriched at the upstream open reading frame (uORF) translation start site, suggesting changes in uORF usage underlie the translation deficiencies caused by these mutations. Illustrating this, we demonstrated that a pathogenic mutation in the IRF6 5' UTR suppresses translation of the primary open reading frame by creating a uORF. Remarkably, site-directed ADAR editing of the mutant mRNA rescued this translation deficiency. Because the regulation of translation and stability does not converge, we illustrate these two mechanisms in two separate manuscripts (this one and doi.org/10.1101/2024.04.11.589132).

Reviewer response to authors: This is useful context. No further comment.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In their manuscript titled "Multiplexed Assays of Human Disease‐relevant Mutations Reveal UTR Dinucleotide Composition as a Major Determinant of RNA Stability" the authors aim to investigate the effect of sequence variations in 3'UTR and 5'UTRs on the stability of mRNAs in two different human cell lines.

To do so, the authors use a massively parallel reporter assay (MPRA). They transfect cells with a set of mRNA reporters that contain sequence variants in their 3' or 5' UTRs, which were previously reported in human diseases. They follow their clearance from cells over time relative to the matching non-variant sequence. To analyze their results, they define a set of factors (RBP and miRNA binding sites, sequence features, secondary structure etc.) and test their association with differences in mRNA stability. For features with a significant association, they use clustering to select a subset of factors for LASSO regression and identify factors that affect mRNA stability.<br /> They conclude that the TA dinucleotide content of UTRs is the strongest destabilizing sequence feature. Within that context, elevated GC content and protein binding can protect susceptible mRNAs from degradation. They also show that TA dinucleotide content of UTRs affects native mRNA stability and that it is associated with specific functional groups. Finally, they link disease associated sequence variants with differences in mRNA stability of reporters.

Strengths:

(1) This work introduces a different MPRA approach to analyze the effect of genetic variants. While previous works in tissue culture use DNA transfections that require normalization for transcription efficiency, here the mRNA is directly introduced into cells at fixed amounts, allowing a more direct view of the mRNA regulation.

(2) The authors also introduce a unique analysis approach, which takes into account multiple factors that might affect mRNA stability. This approach allows them to identify general sequence features that affect mRNA stability beyond specific genetic variants, and reach important insights on mRNA stability regulation. Indeed, while the conclusions to genetic variants identified in this work are interesting, the main strength of the work involves general effect of sequence features rather than specific variants.

(3) The authors provide adequate support for their claims and validate their analysis using both their reporter data and native genes. For the main feature identified, TA di-nucleotides, they perform follow-up experiments with modified reporters that further strengthen their claims, and also validate the effect on native cellular transcripts (beyond reporters), demonstrating its validity also within native scenarios.

(4) The work provides a broad analysis of mRNA stability, across two mRNA regulatory segments (3'UTR and 5'UTR) and is performed in two separate cell-types. Comparison between two different cell-types is adequate, and the results demonstrate, as expected, the dependence of mRNA stability on the cellular context. Analysis of 3'UTR and 5'UTR regulatory effects also shows interesting differences and similarities between these two regulatory regions.

Weaknesses:

In their revised manuscripts, the authors successfully address many of the weaknesses raised in the original review, including the effect of possible confounding effects, and additional methodology details. Notably, two of the issues raised in the original report, have only been partially addressed in the revision.

(1) The analysis and regression models built in this work are not thoroughly investigated relative to native genes within cells.<br /> While using MPRAs indeed allows to isolate regulatory effects that are less influential in-vivo, the resulting effects still provide some regulatory function in-vivo. The goal of such an analysis would not be to demonstrate the predictive power of the models, or to make any claims regarding using these models to fully explain or predict the stability of native transcripts. Clearly, additional more prominent factors could function in controlling endogenous RNA stability.<br /> Instead, the goal of such an investigation is to simply assess the fraction of in-vivo regulation that the factors identified in this work contribute in native contexts, and what is the relative contribution of the phenomena captured by the well-controlled MPRA study.<br /> This reviewer believes that even if the effects identified by the current MPRA study only contribute a small fraction of in-vivo variation, an analysis that aim to estimate what this fraction is, will be very relevant to this study for several reasons. First, in order to appreciate the results of this study within their in-vivo context. Second, in light of the questions raised as motivation for this study, and particularly the need to identify the effect of disease-associated 3'UTR variants, which clearly have an in-vivo effect.

(2) Methodology validation can be performed with simulated data (generated in-silico by the authors) to provide an independent support for the ability of the current methodology to correctly extract regulatory effects from the data.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This study tests whether Little Swifts exhibit optimal foraging, which the data seem to indicate is the case. This is unsurprising as most animals would be expected to optimize the energy income : expenditure ratio, however it hasn't been explicitly quantified before the way it was in this manuscript.

The major strength of this work is the sheer volume of tracking data and the accuracy of those data. The ATLAS tracking system really enhanced this study and allowed for pinpoint monitoring of the tracked birds. These data could be used to ask and answer many questions beyond just the one tested here.

The major weakness of this work lies in the sampling of insect prey abundance at a single point on the landscape, 6.5 km from the colony. This sampling then requires the authors to work under the assumption that prey abundance is simultaneously even across the study region. It may be fair to say that prey populations might be correlated over space but are not equal. It is uncertain whether other aspects of the prey data are problematic. For example, the radar only samples insects at 50m or higher from the ground - how often do Little Swifts forage under 50m high?

The finding that Little Swifts forage optimally is indeed supported by the data, notwithstanding some of the shortcomings in the prey abundance data. The authors achieved their aims and the results support their conclusions.

At its centre, this work adds to our understanding of Little Swift foraging and extends to a greater understanding of aerial insectivores in general. While unsurprising that Little Swifts act as optimal foragers, it is good to have quantified this and show that the population declines observed in so many aerial insectivores are not necessarily a function of inflexible foraging habits. Further, the methods used in this research have great potential for other work. For example, the ATLAS system poses some real advantages and an exciting challenge to existing systems, like MOTUS. The radar that was used to quantify prey abundance also presents exciting possibilities if multiple units could be deployed to get a more spatially-explicit view.

To improve the context of this work, it is worth noting that this research goes into much further depth than any previous studies on a similar topic in several flycatcher and swallow species. A further justification is posited that this research is needed due to dramatic insect population declines, however, the magnitude and extent of such declines are fiercely debated in the literature.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Bloch et al. studied the relationships between aerial foragers (lesser swifts) tracked using an automated radio telemetry system (Atlas) and their prey (flying insects) monitored using a small vertical-looking radar (BirdScan MR1). The aim of the study was to check whether swifts optimise their foraging according to the abundance of their prey. The results provide evidence that small swifts can increase their foraging rate when aerial insect abundance is high, but found no correlation between insect abundance and flight energy expenditure.

Key points:

This study fills gaps in fundamental knowledge of prey-predator dynamics in the air. It describes the coincidence between the abundance of flying insects and the characteristics derived from monitoring individual swifts.

Weaknesses:

The paper uses assumptions largely derived from optimal foraging theory, but mixes up the form of natural selection: parental energy, parental survival (predation risk), nestling foraging and reproductive success. The results are partly inconsistent, and confounding factors (e.g., the brooding phase versus the nestling phase) remained ignored. In conclusion, the analyses performed are insufficient to rigorously assess whether lesser swifts are optimising their foraging beyond making shorter foraging trips.

The filters applied to the monitoring data are necessary but may strongly influence the characteristics derived based on maximum or mean values. Sensitivity tests or the use of characteristics that are less dependent on extreme values could provide more robust results.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This study asks whether the phenomenon of crossmodal temporal recalibration, i.e. the adjustment of time perception by consistent temporal mismatches across the senses, can be explained by the concept of multisensory causal inference. In particular they ask whether the explanation offered by causal inference better explains temporal recalibration better than a model assuming that crossmodal stimuli are always integrated, regardless of how discrepant they are.

The study is motivated by previous work in the spatial domain, where it has been shown consistently across studies that the use of crossmodal spatial information is explained by the concept of multisensory causal inference. It is also motivated by the observation that the behavioral data showcasing temporal recalibration feature nonlinearities that, by their nature, cannot be explained by a fixed integration model (sometimes also called mandatory fusion).

To probe this the authors implemented a sophisticated experiment that probed temporal recalibration in several sessions. They then fit the data using the two classes of candidate models and rely model criteria to provide evidence for their conclusion. The study is sophisticated, conceptually and technically state-of-the-art and theoretically grounded. The data clearly support the authors conclusions.

I find the conceptual advance somewhat limited. First, by design the fixed integration model cannot explain data with a nonlinear dependency on multisensory discrepancy, as already explained in many studies on spatial multisensory perception. Hence, it is not surprising that the causal inference model better fits the data. Second, and again similar to studies on spatial paradigms, the causal inference model fails to predict the behavioral data for large discrepancies. The model predictions in Figure 5 show the (expected) vanishing recalibration for large delta, while the behavioral data don't' decay to zero. Either the range of tested SOAs is too small to show that both the model and data converge to the same vanishing effect at large SOAs, or the model's formula is not the best for explaining the data. Again, the studies using spatial paradigms have the same problem, but in my view this poses the most interesting question here.

In my view there is nothing generally wrong with the study, it does extend the 'known' to another type of paradigm. However, it covers little new ground on the conceptual side.<br /> On that note, the small sample size of n=10 is likely not an issue, but still it is on the very low end for this type of study.

Comments on revision:

The revision has addressed most of these points and makes for a much stronger contribution. The issue of sample size remains.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Li et al.'s goal is to understand the mechanisms of audiovisual temporal recalibration. This is an interesting challenge that the brain readily solves in order to compensate for real-world latency differences in the time of arrival of audio/visual signals. To do this they perform a 3-phase recalibration experiment on 9 observers that involves a temporal order judgment (TOJ) pretest and posttest (in which observers are required to judge whether an auditory and visual stimulus were coincident, auditory leading or visual leading) and a conditioning phase in which participants are exposed to a sequence of AV stimuli with a particular temporal disparity. Participants are required to monitor both streams of information for infrequent oddballs, before being tested again in the TOJ, although this time there are 3 conditioning trials for every 1 TOJ trial. Like many previous studies, they demonstrate that conditioning stimuli shift the point of subjective simultaneity (pss) in the direction of the exposure sequence.

These shifts are modest - maxing out at around -50 ms for auditory leading sequences and slightly less than that for visual leading sequences. Similar effects are observed even for the longest offsets where it seems unlikely listeners would perceive the stimuli as synchronous (and therefore under a causal inference model you might intuitively expect no recalibration, and indeed simulations in Figure 5 seem to predict exactly that which isn't what most of their human observers did). Overall I think their data contribute evidence that a causal inference step is likely included within the process of recalibration.

Strengths:

The manuscript performs comprehensive testing over 9 days and 100s of trials and accompanies this with mathematical models to explain the data. The paper is reasonably clearly written and the data appear to support the conclusions.

Comments on revision:

In the revised manuscript the authors incorporate an alternative model (the asynchrony contingent model), and demonstrate that the causal inference model still out performs this. They provide additional analysis with Bayes factors to perform model comparisons, and provide significant individual subject data in the supplementary materials. Overall they have addressed most of the key points that my original review raised, including a demonstration of the conditions under which recalibration effects do not delay to zero over long delays. The number of subjects remains rather low, but at least we can now appreciate the heterogeneity within them. I still have some reservations about the magnitude of the conceptual advance that this study makes.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Li et al. describe an audiovisual temporal recalibration experiment in which participants perform baseline sessions of ternary order judgments about audiovisual stimulus pairs with various stimulus-onset asynchronies (SOAs). These are followed by adaptation at several adapting SOAs (each on a different day), followed by post-adaptation sessions to assess changes in psychometric functions. The key novelty is the formal specification and application/fit of a causal-inference model for the perception of relative timing, providing simulated predictions for the complete set of psychometric functions both pre and post adaptation.

Strengths:

(1) Formal models are preferable to vague theoretical statements about a process, and prior to this work, certain accounts of temporal recalibration (specifically those that do not rely on a population code) had only qualitative theoretical statements to explain how/why the magnitude of recalibration changes non-linearly with the stimulus-onset asynchrony of the adaptor.<br /> (2) The experiment is appropriate, the methods are well described, and the average model prediction is a good match to the average data (Figure 4). Conclusions are supported by the data and modelling.<br /> (3) The work should be impactful. There seems a good chance that this will become the go-to modelling framework for those exploring non population-code accounts of temporal recalibration (or comparing them with population-code accounts).<br /> (4) Key issues for the generality of the model, such as recalibration asymmetries reported by other authors that are inconsistent with those reported here, are thoughtfully discussed.

Weaknesses:

(1) Models are not compared using a gold-standard measure such as leave-one-out cross validation. However, this is legitimate given lengthy model fitting times, and a sensible approximation is presented.<br /> (2) The model misses in a systematic way for the psychometric functions of some participants/conditions. In addition to misses relating to occasional failures to estimate the magnitude of recalibration, some of the misses are because all functions are only permitted to shift in central tendency (whereas some participants show changes better characterized at one or both decision criteria). Given the fact that the modelling in general embraces individual differences, it might have been worth allowing different kinds of change for different participants. However, this is not really critical for the central concern (changes in the magnitude of recalibration for different adaptors) and there is a limit to how much can be done along these lines without making the model too flexible to test.<br /> (3) As a minor point, the model relies on simulation, which may limit its take-up/application by others in the field (although open access code will be provided).

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript by Bimbard et al., a new method to perform stable recordings over long periods of time with neuropixels as well as the technical details on how the electrodes can be explanted for a follow up reuse is provided. I think the description of all parts of the method are very clear, and the validation analyses (n of units per day over time, RMS over recording days...) are very convincing. I however missed a stronger emphasis on why this could provide a big impact on the ephys community, by enabling new analyses, new behavior correlation studies or neurophysiological mechanisms across temporal scales that were previously inaccessible with high temporal resolution (i.e. not with imaging).

Strengths:

Open source method. Validation across laboratories. Across species (mice and rats) demonstration of its use and in different behavioral conditions (head-fixed and freely moving). The implant offers a major advance compared to previous methods and that will help the community generate richer datasets.

Weaknesses:

None noted.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This work by Bimbard et al., introduces a new implant for Neuropixels probes. While Neuropixels probes have critically improved and extended our ability to record the activity of a large number of neurons with high temporal resolution, the use of these expensive devices in chronic experiments has so far been hampered by the difficulty of safely implanting them and, importantly, to explant and reuse them after conclusion of the experiment. The authors present a newly designed two-part implant, consisting of a docking and a payload module, that allows for secure implantation and straightforward recovery of the probes. The implant is lightweight, making it amenable for use in mice and rats, and customizable. The authors provide schematics and files for printing of the implants, which can be easily modified and adapted to custom experiments by researchers with little to no design experience. Importantly, the authors demonstrate the successful use of this implant across multiple use cases, in head-fixed and freely moving experiments, in mice and rats, with different versions of Neuropixels probes and across 8 different labs. Taken together, the presented implants promise to make chronic Neuropixels recordings and long-term studies of neuronal activity significantly easier and attainable for both current and future Neuropixels users.

Strengths:<br /> - The implants have been successfully tested across 8 different laboratories, in mice and rats, in head-fixed and freely moving conditions and have been adapted in multiple ways for a number of distinct experiments.<br /> - Implants are easily customizable and authors provide a straightforward approach for customization across multiple design dimensions even for researchers not experienced in design.<br /> - The authors provide clear and straightforward descriptions of the construction, implantation and explant of the described implants.<br /> - The split of the implant into a docking and payload module makes reuse even in different experiments (using different docking modules) easy.<br /> - The authors demonstrate that implants can be re-used multiple times and still allow for high-quality recordings.<br /> - The authors show that the chronic implantations allow for the tracking of individual neurons across days and weeks (using additional software tracking solutions), which is critical for a large number of experiments requiring the description of neuronal activity, e.g. throughout learning processes.<br /> - The authors show that implanted animals can even perform complex behavioral tasks, with no apparent reduction in their performance.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Bimbard and colleagues describe a new implant apparatus called "Apollo Implant", which should facilitate recording in freely moving rodents (both mice and rats) using Neuropixels probes. The authors collected data from both mice and rats, they used 3 different versions of Neuropixels, multiple labs have already adopted this method, which is impressive. They openly share their CAD designs and surgery protocol to further facilitate the adaptation of their method.

Strengths:

Overall, the "Apollo Implant" is easy to use and adapt, as it has been used in other laboratories successfully and custom modifications are already available. The device is reproducible using common 3D printing services and can be easily modified thanks to its CAD design (the video explaining this is extremely helpful). The weight and price are amazing compared to other systems for rigid silicon probes allowing a wide range of use of the "Apollo Implant".

Weaknesses:

The "Apollo Implant" can only handle Neuropixels probes. It cannot hold other widely used and commercially available silicon probes. Certain angles and distances may be better served by 2 implants.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Parsing speech into meaningful linguistic units is a fundamental yet challenging task that infants face while acquiring the native language. Computing transitional probabilities (TPs) between syllables is a segmentation cue well-attested since birth. In this research, the authors examine whether newborns compute TPs over any available speech feature (linguistic and non-linguistic), or whether by contrast newborns favor computation of TPs over linguistic content over non-linguistic speech features such as speaker voice. Using EEG and the artificial language learning paradigm, they record the neural responses of two groups of newborns presented with speech streams in which either phonetic content or speaker voice are structured to provide TPs informative of word boundaries, while the other dimension provides uninformative information. They compare newborns' neural responses to these structured streams to their processing of a stream in which both dimensions vary randomly. After the random and structured familiarization streams, the newborns are presented with (pseudo)words as defined by their informative TPs, as well as partwords (that is, sequences that straddle a word boundary), extracted from the same streams. Analysis of the neural responses show that while newborns neural activity entrained to the syllabic rate (2 Hz) when listening to the random and structured streams, it additionally entrained at the word rate (4 Hz) only when listening to the structured streams, finding no differential response between the streams structured around voice or phonetic information. Newborns showed also different neural activity in response to the words and part words. In sum, the study reveals that newborns compute TPs over linguistic and non-linguistic features of speech, these are calculated independently, and linguistic features do not lead to a processing advantage.

Strengths:

This interesting research furthers our knowledge of the scope of the statistical learning mechanism, which is confirmed to be a general-purpose powerful tool that allows humans to extract patterns of co-occurring events while revealing no apparent preferential processing for linguistic features. To answer its question, the study combines a highly replicated and well-established paradigm, i.e. the use of an artificial language in which pseudowords are concatenated to yield informative TPs to word boundaries, with a state-of-the-art EEG analysis, i.e. neural entrainment. The sample size of the groups is sufficient to ensure power, and the design and analysis are solid and have been successfully employed before.

Weaknesses:

There are no significant weaknesses to signal in the manuscript. However, in order to fully conclude that there is no obvious advantage for the linguistic dimension in neonates, future studies should pit both dimensions against each other, to determine whether statistical learning weighs linguistic and non-linguistic features equally, or whether phonetic content is preferentially processed.

To sum up, the authors achieved their central aim of determining whether TPs are computed over both linguistic and non-linguistic features, and their conclusions are supported by the results. This research is important for researchers working on language and cognitive development, and language processing, as well as for those working on cross-species comparative approaches.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed my suggestions. I have no further comments.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript investigates to what degree neonates show evidence for statistical learning from regularities in streams of syllables, either with respect to phonemes or with respect to speaker identity. Using EEG, the authors found evidence for both, stronger entrainment to regularities as well as ERP differences in response to violations of previously introduced regularities. In addition, violations of phoneme regularities elicited an ERP pattern which the authors argue might index a precursor of the N400 response in older children and adults.

Strengths:

All in all, this is a very convincing paper, which uses a clever manipulation of syllable streams to target the processing of different features. The combination of neural entrainment and ERP analysis allows for the assessment of different processing stages, and implementing this paradigm in a comparably large sample of neonates is impressive.

Weaknesses

The authors addressed all the concerns I previously raised well and I have no further comments.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study is focused on testing whether statistical learning (a mechanism for parsing the speech signal into smaller chunks) preferentially operates over certain features of the speech at birth in humans. The features under investigation are phonetic content and speaker identity. Newborns are tested in an EEG paradigm in which they are exposed to a long stream of syllables. In Experiment 1, newborns are familiarized with a sound stream that comprises regularities (transitional probabilities) over syllables (e.g., "pe" followed by "tu" in "petu" with 1.0 probability) while the voices uttering the syllables remain random. In Experiment 2, newborns are familiarized with the same sound stream but, this time, the regularities are built over voices (e.g., "green voice" followed by "red voice" with 1.0 probability) while the concatenation of syllables stays random. At the test, all newborns listened to duplets (individual chunks) that either matched or violated the structure of the familiarization. In both experiments, newborns showed neural entrainment to the regularities implemented in the stream, but only the duplets defined by transitional probabilities over syllables (aka word forms) elicited a N400 ERP component. These results suggest that statistical learning operates in parallel and independently on different dimensions of the speech already at birth and that there seems to be an advantage for processing statistics defining word forms rather than voice patterns.

Strengths:

This paper presents an original experimental design that combines two types of statistical regularities in a speech input. The design is robust and appropriate for EEG with newborns. I appreciated the clarity of the Methods section. There is also a behavioral experiment with adults that acts like a control study for newborns. The research question is interesting, and the results add new information about how statistical learning works at the beginning of postnatal life, and on which features of the speech. The figures are clear and helpful in understanding the methods, especially the stimuli and how the regularities were implemented.

Weaknesses:

I appreciated how the authors addressed my previous comments and concerns. I am satisfied with the changes made by the authors. I believe the paper reads much better. Also, the adjustment to the theoretical framework suits well.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Numerous mechanism and structural studies reported the cooperative role of Oct4 and Sox2 during the establishment of pluripotency during reprogramming. Due to the difficulty in sample collection and RNA-seq with low-number cells, the precise mechanisms remain in early embryos. This manuscript reported the role of OCT4 and SOX2 in mouse early embryos using knockout models with low-input ATAC-seq and RNA-seq. Compared to the control, chromatin accessibility and transcriptome were affected when Oct4 and Sox2 were deleted in early ICM. Specifically, decreased ATAC-seq peaks showed enrichment of Motifs of TF such as OCT, SOX, and OCT-SOX, indicating their importance during early development. Moreover, by deep analysis of ATAC-seq and RNA-seq data, they found Oct4 and Sox2 target enhancer to activate their downstream genes. In addition, they also uncovered the role of OS during development from the morula to ICM, which provided the scientific community with a more comprehensive understanding.

Strengths:

On the whole, the manuscript is innovative, and the conclusions of this paper are mostly well supported by data.

Weaknesses:

Major Points:<br /> (1) In Figure 1, a more detailed description of the knockout strategy should be provided to clarify itself. The knockout strategy in Fig1 is somewhat obscure, such as how is OCT4 inactivated in Oct4mKO2 heterozygotes. As shown in Figure 1, the exon of OCT4 is not deleted, and its promoter is not destroyed. Therefore, how does OCT4 inactivate to form heterozygotes?<br /> (2) Is ZP 3-Cre expressed in the zygotes? Is there any residual protein?<br /> (3) What motifs are enriched in the rising ATAC-seq peaks after knocking out of OCT4 and SOX2?<br /> (4) The ordinate of Fig4c is lost.<br /> (5) Signals of H3K4me1, H3K27ac, and so on are usually used to define enhancers, and the loci of enhancers vary greatly in different cells. In the manuscript, the authors defined ATAC-seq peaks far from the TSS as enhancers. The definition in this manuscript is not strictly an enhancer.<br /> (6) If Oct4 and Sox2 truly activate sap 30 and Uhrf 1, what effect does interfering with both genes have on gene expression and chromatin accessibility？

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed my concerns so I am fine with revision in principle.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Hou et al. investigate the interplay between OCT4 and SOX2 in driving the pluripotent state during early embryonic lineage development. Using knockout (KO) embryos, the authors specifically analyze the transcriptome and chromatin state within the ICM-to-EPI developmental trajectory. They emphasize the critical role of OCT4 and the supportive function of SOX2, along with other factors, in promoting embryonic fate. Although the paper presents high-quality data, several key claims are not well-supported, and direct evidence is generally lacking.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed many of the concerns raised in the initial review and provided alternative analytical approaches to address the relevant questions in this revision. Some of these are useful; however, they have not fully addressed one critical point.<br /> In my original critique, I noted that the maternal KO might not be suitable as a control, given that there is no significant phenotypic difference between the maternal-only KO and the maternal-zygotic KO. While we did not dispute the molecular differences presented in Figure 2, so how the authors conclude in the Response "embryos with a maternal KO or zygotic heterozygous KO of Oct4 or Sox2 show no noticeable ... molecular difference (Figure 2-figure supplement 4A)"? The authors should recheck whether this is a typographical error or a valid statement.

Additionally, I recommend the removal of phrases such as "absolutely priority" and "pivotal" throughout the manuscript, as these terms are overly assertive without sufficient supporting evidence.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This noteworthy paper examines the role of planar cell polarity and Wnt signalling in the body axis formation of the hydrozoan Clytia. In contrast to the freshwater polyp Hydra or the sea anemone Nematostella, Clytia represents a cnidarian model system with a complete life cycle (planula-polyp-medusa). In this species, classical experiments have demonstrated that a global polarity is established from the oral end of the embryos (Freeman, 1981). Prior research has demonstrated that Wnt3 plays a role in the formation of the oral organiser in Clytia and other cnidarians, acting in an autocatalytic feedback loop with β-catenin. However, the question of whether and to what extent an oral-aboral gradient of Wnt activity is established remained unanswered. This gradient is thought to control both tissue differentiation and tissue polarity. The planar cell polarity (PCP) pathway has been linked to this polarity, although it is generally considered to be β-catenin independent.

The authors have conducted a series of sophisticated experiments utilising morpholinos, mRNA microinjection, and immunofluorescent visualisation of PCP. The objective of these experiments was to address the function of Wnt3, β-catenin, and PCP core proteins in the coordination of the global polarity of Clytia embryos. The authors conclude that PCP plays a role in regulating polarity along the oral-aboral axis of embryos and larvae. This offers a conceivable explanation for how polarity information is established and distributed globally during Clytia embryogenesis, with implications for our understanding of axis formation in cnidarians and the evolution of Wnt signalling in general. While the experiments are well-designed and executed, there are some criticisms, questions, or suggestions that should be addressed.

Comments:

Beautiful and solid experiments to clarify the role of canonical Wnt signalling and PCP core factors in coordinating planar cell polarity. However, there are also several points that should be addressed.

(1) Wnt3 cue and global PCP. PCP has been described in detail in a previous paper on Clytia (Momose et al, 2012): its orientation along the oral-aboral body axis (ciliary basal body positioning studies), and its function in directional polarity during gastrulation (Stbm-, Fz1-, and Dsh-MO experiments). I wonder if this part could be shortened. What is new, however, are the knockdown and Wnt3-mRNA rescue experiments, which provide a deeper insight into the link between Wnt3 function in the blastopore organiser as a source or cue for axis formation. These experiments demonstrate that the Wnt3 knockdown induces defects equivalent to PCP factor knockdown, but can be rescued by Wnt3-mRNA injection, even at a distance of 200 µm away from the Wnt-positive area. The experimental set-up of these new molecular experiments follows in important aspects those of Freeman's experiments of 1981 (who in turn was motivated to re-examine Teissier's work of 1931/1933 ...). Freeman did not use the term "global polarity" but the concept of an axis-inducing source and a long-range tissue polarity can be traced back to both researchers.

(2) PCP propagation and β-catenin. The central but unanswered question in this study focuses on the interaction between Wnt3 and PCP and the propagation of PCP. Wnt3 has been described in cnidarians but also in vertebrates and insects as a canonical Wnt interacting with β-catenin in an autocatalytic loop. The surprising result of this study is that the action of Wnt3 on PCP orientation is not inhibited in the presence of a dominant-negative form of CheTCF (dnTCF) ruling out a potential function of β-catenin in PCP. This was supported by studies with constitutively active β-catenin (CA-β-cat) mRNA which was unable to restore PCP coordination nor elongation of Wnt3-depleted embryos but did restore β-catenin-dependent gastrulation. Based on these data, the authors conclude that Wnt3 has two independent roles: Wnt/β-catenin activation and initial PCP orientation (two-step model for PCP formation). However, the molecular basis for the interaction of Wnt3 with the PCP machinery and how the specificity of Wnt3 for both pathways is regulated at the level of Wnt-receiving cells (Fz-Dsh) remain unresolved. Also, with respect to PCP propagation, there is no answer with respect to the underlying mechanisms. The authors found that PCP components are expressed in the mid-blastula stage, but without any further indication of how the signal might be propagated, e.g., by a wavefront of local cell alignment. Here, it is necessary to address the underlying possible cellular interactions more explicitly.

(3) The proposed two-step model for PCP formation has important evolutionary implications in that it excludes the current alternate model according to which a long-range Wnt3-gradient orients PCP ("Wnt/β-catenin-first"). Nevertheless, the initial PCP orientation by Wnt3 - as proposed in the two-step model - is not explained at all on the molecular level. Another possible, but less well-discussed and studied option for linking Wnt3 with PCP action could be the role of other Wnt pathways. The authors present compelling evidence that Wnt3 is the most highly expressed Wnt in Clytia at all stages of development. The authors convincingly show that Wnt3 is the most highly expressed Wnt in Clytia at all stages of development (Figure S1). However, Wnt7 is also more highly expressed, which makes it a candidate for signal transduction from canonical Wnts to PCP Wnts. An involvement of Wnt7 in PCP regulation has been described in vertebrates (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2013.12.026). This would challenge the entire discussion and speculation on the evolutionary implications according to which PCP Wnt signaling comes first (PCP-first scenario") and canonical Wnt signaling later in metazoan evolution.

(4) The discussion, including Figure 6, is strongly biased towards the traditional evolutionary scenario postulating a choanzoan-sponge ancestry of metazoans. Chromosome-linkage data of pre-metazoans and metazoans (Schulz et al., 2023; https://doi.org/10 (1038/s41586-023-05936-6) now indicate a radically different scenario according to which ctenophores represent the ancestral form and are sister to sponges, cnidarians and bilaterians (the Ctenophora-sister hypothesis). This has also implications for the evolution of Wnt signalling, as discussed in the recent Nature Genetics Review by Holzem et al. (2024) (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-024-00699-w). Furthermore, it calls into question the hypothesis of a filter-feeding multicellular gastrula-like ancestor as proposed by Haeckel (Maegele et al., 2023). These papers have not yet been referenced, but they would provide a more robust discussion.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Canonical Wnt signaling has previously been shown to be responsible for correct patterning of the oral-aboral axis as well as germ layer formation in several cnidarians. In the post-gastrula stage, the planula larvae are not only elongated, they have a specific swimming direction due to the decentralized cellular positioning and slanted anchoring of the cilia. This in turn is in most other animals the result of a Wnt-Planar-cell polarity pathway. This paper by Uveira et al investigates the role of Wnt3 signaling in serving as a local cue for the PCP pathway which then is responsible for the orientation of the cilia and elongation of the planula larva of the hydrozoan Clytia hemisphaerica. Wnt3 was shown before to activate the canonical pathway via ß-catenin and to act as an axial organizer. The authors provide compelling evidence for this somewhat unusual direct link between the pathways through the same signaling molecule, Wnt3. In conclusion, they propose a two-step model: (1) local orientation by Wnt3 secretion and (2) global propagation by the PCP pathway over the whole embryo.

Strengths:

In a series of elegant and also seemingly sophisticated experiments, they show that Wnt3 activates the PCP pathway directly, as it happens in the absence of canonical Wnt signaling (e.g. through co-expression of dnTCF). Conversely, constitutive active ß-catenin was not able to rescue PCP coordination upon Wnt3 depletion, yet restored gastrulation. This uncouples the effect of Wnt3 on axis specification and morphogenetic movements from the elongation via PCP. Through transplantation of single blastomeres providing a local source of Wnt3, they also demonstrate the reorganization of cellular polarity immediately adjacent to the Wnt3-expressing cell patch. These transplantation experiments also uncover that mechanical cues can also trigger polarization, suggesting a mechanotransduction or direct influence on subcellular structures, e.g. actin fiber orientation.

This is a beautiful and elegant study addressing an important question. The results have significant implications also for our understanding of the evolutionary origin of axis formation and the link of these two ancient pathways, which in most animals are controlled by distinct Wnt ligands and Frizzled receptors. The quality of the data is stunning and the paper is written in a clear and succinct manner. This paper has the potential to become a widely cited milestone paper.

Weaknesses:

I can not detect any major weaknesses. The work only raises a few more follow-up questions, which the authors are invited to comment on.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this work, Kanie and colleagues explored the composition, structure, and assembly hierarchy of distal appendage proteins. The microscopy was well executed and appropriately quantified. Importantly, the quality of individual antibodies was documented with a discussion of how this might complicate results. The hierarchy of assembly was established by careful quantification of assembly in an extensive set of knockout cell lines. This work will be of interest to cell biologists exploring organelle assembly as well as human geneticists trying to understand the clinical implications of mutations.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Kanie et all have carried out a tour-de-force effort to further understand the hierarchy and function of centriole distal appendages in ciliogenesis. They made a thorough effort to understand the localization of all the known distal appendage proteins. To examine the distal appendage hierarchy, they used an automated analysis of centrosomal localization. It is not clear how this was quantified and pictures are not shown. They used CEP170, a marker for subdistal appendages, to define a mask around centrioles. It is not clear how the experiment was analyzed and normalized. The techniques used in this study cannot be compared with those commonly used in the field which normally include storm and other super-resolution techniques (which are less prone to artifacts) and correlated electron microscopy. Thus, it is not possible to make a head-to-head comparison. The lack of rescue experiments further weakens the conclusions of this paper.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Distal appendages are multiprotein complexes that are only present on the mother centriole as a 9-fold symmetric structure that functions in ciliogenesis. How distal appendage proteins are organized and assembled still remains poorly understood. In this manuscript, Kanie et al. comprehensively analyzed the localizations of known and newly described distal appendage proteins using super-resolution microscopy. They investigated mechanisms associated with distal appendage assembly and their roles in the early stages of ciliogenesis in CRISPR-Cas9 knockout cells, which enabled a clearer investigation of these structures compared to previous RNAi depletion studies. These studies confirm previous findings for distal appendage protein ciliogenesis function and demonstrate the CEP83-SCLT1-CEP164-TTBK2 module is critical for both distal appendage assembly and the initiation of ciliogenesis. Notably, they find that CEP89 is dispensable for distal appendage assembly, but is needed for the recruitment of RAB34-positive ciliary vesicles to the mother centriole for ciliogenesis. Finally, this work introduces the application of single-molecule 3D super-resolution microscopy as a tool for interrogating the relationship between membranes and distal appendages. Overall this work extends our fundamental understanding of distal appendage structure/function in ciliogenesis.

An interesting observation from this work is that CEP83 is found localized both at the innermost region and the outermost region of the distal appendages when detected by antibodies that recognize a different epitope of CEP83 (Figure 1A), suggesting a helical structure that could serve as a platform for distal appendage assembly. A previous study using STORM imaging also showed that another distal appendage protein CEP164 occupies a wider region of the distal appendages when using an antibody recognizing the N-terminal residues of Cep164 (M Bowler et al. 2019). Together these studies show the importance of evaluating the structure of distal appendage proteins and the challenges of using antibody detection to reveal distal appendage hierarchy.

This work also highlights the potential differences in functional conclusions that can be drawn when comparing RNAi and CRISPR knockout depletion approaches. The latter which expectedly can lead to a more precise functional analysis of these small distal appendage structures, albeit with the potential for knockout cells to display compensatory regulation. Although not directly addressed in the text, the authors find that RPE-1 MYO5A knockout cells could ciliate which differs from a report by Wu et al. (2018). Furthermore, in the case of RAB34 knockout cells, the authors find CP110 removal from the mother centriole, while in previously published RAB34 KO studies this was not observed. In the case of the. RAB34 data a plausible explanation for the results given by the authors is that different assay conditions were used as was noted by the authors.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript asks the question of whether astrocytes contribute to behavioral deficits triggered by early life stress. This question is tested by experiments that monitor the effects of early life stress on anxiety-like behaviors, long-term potentiation in the lateral amygdala, and immunohistochemistry of astrocyte-specific (GFAP, Cx43, GLT-1) and general activity (c-Fos ) markers. Secondarily, astrocyte activity in the lateral amygdala is impaired by viruses that suppress gap-junction coupling or reduce astrocyte Ca2+ followed by behavioral, synaptic plasticity, and c-Fos staining. Early life stress is found to reduce expression of GFAP, Cx43 and induce translocation of the glucocorticoid receptor to astrocytic nuclei. Both early life stress and astrocyte manipulations are found to result in generalization of fear to neutral auditory cues. All of the experiments are done well with appropriate statistics and control groups. The manuscript is very well-written and the data are presented clearly. The authors' conclusion that lateral amygdala astrocytes regulate amygdala-dependent behaviors is strongly supported by the data as is the conclusion that cellular and behavioral outcomes provoked by early life stress are similar to the outcomes provoked by astrocyte dysfunction. However, the extent to which early life stress requires astrocytes to generate these outcomes remains open to debate.

Strengths:

A strong combination of behavioral, electrophysiology, and immunostaining approaches is utilized and possible sex-differences in behavioral data are considered. The experiments clearly demonstrate that disruption of astrocyte networks or reduction of astrocyte Ca2+ provoke generalization of fear and impair long-term potentiation in lateral amygdala. The provocative finding that astrocyte dysfunction accounts for a subset of behavioral effects of early life stress (e.g. not elevated plus or distance traveled observations) is also perceived as a strength.

Weaknesses:

The main weakness is absence of direct evidence that behavioral and neuronal plasticity after early life stress can be attributed to astrocytes. It remains unknown what would happen if astrocyte activity were disrupted concurrently with early life stress or if changes in astrocyte Ca2+ could attenuate early life stress outcomes. As is, the only presented evidence that early life stress involves astrocytes is nuclear translocation of GR and downregulation of GFAP and Cx43 in Figure 3 which may or may not cause the reported astrocyte activity changes.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Guayasamin et al. show that early-life stress (ELS) can induce a shift in fear generalisation in mice. They took advantage of a fear conditioning paradigm followed by a discrimination test and complement learning and memory findings with measurements for anxiety-like behaviors. Next, astrocytic dysfunction in the lateral amygdala was investigated at the cellular level by combining staining for c-Fos with astrocyte-related proteins. Changes in excitatory neurotransmission were observed in acute brains slices after ELS suggesting impaired communication between neurons and astrocytes. To confirm causality of astrocytic-neuronal dysfunction in behavioral changes, viral manipulations were performed in unstressed mice. Occlusion of functional coupling with a dominant negative construct for gap junction connexin 43 or reduction in astrocytic calcium with CalEx mimicked the behavioral changes observed after ELS suggesting that dysfunction of the astrocytic network underlies ELS-induced memory impairments.

Strengths:

Overall, this well written manuscript highlights a key role for astrocytes in regulating stress-induced behavioral and synaptic deficits in the lateral amygdala in the context of ELS. Results are innovative, and methodological approaches relevant to decipher the role of astrocytes in behaviors. As mentioned by the authors, non-neuronal cells are receiving increasing attention in the neuroscience, stress and psychiatry fields.

Weaknesses:

I did have several suggestions and comments that were addressed during the review process. I believe that it improved clarity and will increase the impact of the work.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors show that ELS induces a number of brain and behavioral changes in the adult lateral amygdala. These changes include enduring astrocytic dysfunction, and inducing astrocytic dysfunction via genetic interventions is sufficient to phenocopy the behavioral and neural phenotypes suggesting astrocyte dysfunction may play a causal role in ELS-associated pathologies.

Strengths:

A strength is the shift in focus to astrocytes to understand how ELS alters adult behavior.

Weaknesses:

The mechanistic links between some of the correlates - altered astrocytic function, changes in neural excitability and synaptic plasticity in the lateral amygdala and behavior - are underdeveloped.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have significantly improved the paper with the addition of new experimental data, analyses, and textual changes.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors attempt to validate Fisher Kernels on the top of HMM as a way to better describe human brain dynamics at resting-state. The objective criterion was the better prediction of the proposed pipeline of the individual traits.

Comments on revisions:

The authors addressed adequately all my comments.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this work, the authors use a Hidden Markov Model (HMM) to describe dynamic connectivity and amplitude patterns in fMRI data, and propose to integrate these features with the Fisher kernel to improve the prediction of individual traits. The approach is tested using a large sample of healthy young adults from the Human Connectome Project. The HMM-Fisher Kernel approach was shown to achieve higher prediction accuracy with lower variance on many individual traits compared to alternate kernels and measures of static connectivity. As an additional finding, the authors demonstrate that parameters of the HMM state matrix may be more informative in predicting behavioral/cognitive variables in this data compared to state-transition probabilities.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have now addressed my comments, and I believe this work will be an interesting contribution to the literature.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study adapts a previously published model of the cat spinal locomotor network to make predictions of how phase durations of swing and stance at different treadmill speeds in tied-belt and split-belt conditions would be altered following a lateral hemisection. The simulations make several predictions that are replicated in experimental settings. This updated manuscript addressed well many of the reviewer comments made to the first version.

Strengths:

-Despite only altering the connections in the model, the model is able to replicate very well several experimental findings. This provides strong validation for the model and highlights its utility as a tool to investigate the operations of mammalian spinal locomotor networks.

-The study provides insights about interactions between the left and right side of the spinal locomotor networks, and how these interactions depend on the mode of operation, as determined by speed and state of the nervous system.

-The writing is logical, clear and easy to follow.

Comments on revisions:

My concerns were well addressed by the authors. I have no additional concerns

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This is a nice article that presents interesting findings. The model's predictions match the data, which is good. The discussion points to modeling plasticity after SCI, which will be important.

The manuscript is well-written and interesting, and the putative neural circuit mechanisms that the model uncovers are super cool if they can be tested in an animal.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a high-quality, well-thought through analysis of STEC transmission in Alberta, Canada.

Strengths:

* The combined human and animal sampling is a great foundation for this kind of study.<br /> * Phylogenetic analyses seem to have been carried out in a high quality fashion.

Comments on the revised version:

I'd like to thank the authors for the diligence with which they addressed my comments. I agree with their points and am happy for the manuscript to proceed.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Can a plastic RNN serve as a basis function for learning to estimate value. In previous work this was shown to be the case, with a similar architecture to that proposed here. The learning rule in previous work was back-prop with an objective function that was the TD error function (delta) squared. Such a learning rule is non-local as the changes in weights within the RNN, and from inputs to the RNN depends on the weights from the RNN to the output, which estimates value. This is non-local, and in addition, these weights themselves change over learning. The main idea in this paper is to examine if replacing the values of these non-local changing weights, used for credit assignment, with random fixed weights can still produce similar results to those obtained with complete bp. This random feedback approach is motivated by a similar approach used for deep feed-forward neural networks.

This work shows that this random feedback in credit assignment performs well but is not as well as the precise gradient-based approach. When more constraints due to biological plausibility are imposed performance degrades. These results are not surprising given previous results on random feedback. This work is incomplete because the delay times used were only a few time steps, and it is not clear how well random feedback would operate with longer delays. Additionally, the examples simulated with a single cue and a single reward are overly simplistic and the field should move beyond these exceptionally simple examples.

Strengths:

• The authors show that random feedback can approximate well a model trained with detailed credit assignment.<br /> • The authors simulate several experiments including some with probabilistic reward schedules and show results similar to those obtained with detailed credit assignments as well as in experiments.<br /> • The paper examines the impact of more biologically realistic learning rules and the results are still quite similar to the detailed back-prop model.

Weaknesses:

• The authors also show that an untrained RNN does not perform as well as the trained RNN. However, they never explain what they mean by an untrained RNN. It should be clearly explained. These results are actually surprising. An untrained RNN with enough units and sufficiently large variance of recurrent weights can have a high-dimensionality and generate a complete or nearly complete basis, though not orthonormal (e.g: Rajan&Abbott 2006). It should be possible to use such a basis to learn this simple classical conditioning paradigm. It would be useful to measure the dimensionality of network dynamics, in both trained and untrained RNN's.

• The impact of the article is limited by using a network with discrete time-steps, and only a small number of time steps from stimulus to reward. What is the length of each time step? If it's on the order of the membrane time constant, then a few time steps are only tens of ms. In the classical conditioning experiments typical delays are of the order to hundreds of milliseconds to seconds. Authors should test if random feedback weights work as well for larger time spans. This can be done by simply using a much larger number of time steps.

• In the section with more biologically constrained learning rules, while the output weights are restricted to only be positive (as well as the random feedback weights), the recurrent weights and weights from input to RNN are still bi-polar and can change signs during learning. Why is the constraint imposed only on the output weights? It seems reasonable that the whole setup will fail if the recurrent weights were only positive as in such a case most neurons will have very similar dynamics, and the network dimensionality would be very low. However, it is possible that only negative weights might work. It is unclear to me how to justify that bipolar weights that change sign are appropriate for the recurrent connections and inappropriate for the output connections. On the other hand, an RNN with excitatory and inhibitory neurons in which weight signs do not change could possibly work.

• Like most papers in the field this work assumes a world composed of a single cue. In the real world there many more cues than rewards, some cues are not associated with any rewards, and some are associated with other rewards or even punishments. In the simplest case, it would be useful to show that this network could actually work if there are additional distractor cues that appear at random either before the CS, or between the CS and US. There are good reasons to believe such distractor cues will be fatal for an untrained RNN, but might work with a trained RNN, either using BPPT or random feedback. Although this assumption is a common flaw in most work in the field, we should no longer ignore these slightly more realistic scenarios.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Tsurumi et al. show that recurrent neural networks can learn state and value representations in simple reinforcement learning tasks when trained with random feedback weights. The traditional method of learning for recurrent network in such tasks (backpropagation through time) requires feedback weights which are a transposed copy of the feed-forward weights, a biologically implausible assumption. This manuscript builds on previous work regarding "random feedback alignment" and "value-RNNs", and extends them to a reinforcement learning context. The authors also demonstrate that certain non-negative constraints can enforce a "loose alignment" of feedback weights. The author's results suggest that random feedback may be a powerful tool of learning in biological networks, even in reinforcement learning tasks.

Strengths:

The authors describe well the issues regarding biologically plausible learning in recurrent networks and in reinforcement learning tasks. They take care to propose networks which might be implemented in biological systems and compare their proposed learning rules to those already existing in literature. Further, they use small networks on relatively simple tasks, which allows for easier intuition into the learning dynamics.

Weaknesses:

The principles discovered by the authors in these smaller networks are not applied to deeper networks or more complicated tasks, so it remains unclear to what degree these methods can scale up, or can be used more generally.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The paper studies learning rules in a simple sigmoidal recurrent neural network setting. The recurrent network has a single layer of 10 to 40 units. It is first confirmed that feedback alignment (FA) can learn a value function in this setting. Then so-called bio-plausible constraints are added: (1) when value weights (readout) is non-negative, (2) when the activity is non-negative (normal sigmoid rather than downscaled between -0.5 and 0.5), (3) when the feedback weights are non-negative, (4) when the learning rule is revised to be monotic: the weights are not downregulated. In the simple task considered all four biological features do not appear to impair totally the learning.

Strengths:

(1) The learning rules are implemented in a low-level fashion of the form: (pre-synaptic-activity) x (post-synaptic-activity) x feedback x RPE. Which is therefore interpretable in terms of measurable quantities in the wet-lab.

(2) I find that non-negative FA (FA with non negative c and w) is the most valuable theoretical insight of this paper: I understand why the alignment between w and c is automatically better at initialization.

(3) The task choice is relevant since it connects with experimental settings of reward conditioning with possible plasticity measurements.

Weaknesses:

(4) The task is rather easy, so it's not clear that it really captures the computational gap that exists with FA (gradient-like learning) and simpler learning rule like a delta rule: RPE x (pre-synpatic) x (post-synaptic). To control if the task is not too trivial, I suggest adding a control where the vector c is constant c_i=1.

(5) Related to point 3), the main strength of this paper is to draw potential connection with experimental data. It would be good to highlight more concretely the prediction of the theory for experimental findings. (Ideally, what should be observed with non-negative FA that is not expected with FA or a delta rule (constant global feedback) ?).

(6a) Random feedback with RNN in RL have been studied in the past, so it is maybe worth giving some insights how the results and the analyzes compare to this previous line of work (for instance in this paper [1]). For instance, I am not very surprised that FA also works for value prediction with TD error. It is also expected from the literature that the RL + RNN + FA setting would scale to tasks that are more complex than the conditioning problem proposed here, so is there a more specific take-home message about non-negative FA? or benefits from this simpler toy task?<br /> (6b) Related to task complexity, it is not clear to me if non-negative value and feedback weights would generally scale to harder tasks. If the task in so simple that a global RPE signal is sufficient to learn (see 4 and 5), then it could be good to extend the task to find a substantial gap between: global RPE, non-negative FA, FA, BP. For a well chosen task, I expect to see a performance gap between any pair of these four learning rules. In the context of the present paper, this would be particularly interesting to study the failure mode of non-negative FA and the cases where it does perform as well as FA.

(7) I find that the writing could be improved, it mostly feels more technical and difficult than it should. Here are some recommendations:<br /> (7a) for instance the technical description of the task (CSC) is not fully described and requires background knowledge from other paper which is not desirable.<br /> (7b) Also the rationale for the added difficulty with the stochastic reward and new state is not well explained.<br /> (7c) In the technical description of the results I find that the text dives into descriptive comments of the figures but high-level take home messages would be helpful to guide the reader. I got a bit lost, although I feel that there is probably a lot of depth in these paragraphs.

(8) Related to the writing issue and 5), I wished that "bio-plausibility" was not the only reason to study positive feedback and value weights. Is it possible to develop a bit more specifically what and why this positivity is interesting? Is there an expected finding with non-negative FA both in the model capability? or maybe there is a simpler and crisp take-home message to communicate the experimental predictions to the community would be useful?

(1) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17236-y

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This is an interesting manuscript where the authors systematically measure rG4 levels in brain samples at different ages of patients affected by AD. To the best of my knowledge this is the first time that BG4 staining is used in this context and the authors provide compelling evidence to show an association with BG4 staining and age or AD progression, which interestingly indicates that such RNA structure might play a role in regulating protein homeostasis as previously speculated. The methods used and the results reported seems robust and reproducible. There were two main things that needed addressing:

(1) Usually in BG4 staining experiments to ensure that the signal detected is genuinely due to rG4 an RNase treatment experiment is performed. This does not have to be extended to all the samples presented but having a couple of controls where the authors observe loss of staining upon RNase treatment will be key to ensure with confidence that rG4s are detected under the experimental conditions. This is particularly relevant for this brain tissue samples where BG4 staining has never been performed before.

(2) The authors have an association between rG4-formation and age/disease progression. They also observe distribution dependency of this, which is great. However, this is still an association which does not allow the model to be supported. This is not something that can be fixed with an easy experiment and it is what it is, but my point is that the narrative of the manuscript should be more fair and reflect the fact that, although interesting, what the authors are observing is a simple correlation. They should still go ahead and propose a model for it, but they should be more balanced in the conclusion and do not imply that this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate the proposed model. It is absolutely fine to refer to the literature and comment on the fact that similar observations have been reported and this is in line with those, but still this is not an ultimate demonstration.

Comments on current version:

The authors have now addressed my concerns.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

RNA guanine-rich G-quadruplexes (rG4s) are non-canonical higher order nucleic acid structures that can form under physiological conditions. Interestingly, cellular stress is positively correlated with rG4 induction.

In this study, the authors examined human hippocampal postmortem tissue for the formation ofrG4s in aging and Alzheimer Disease (AD). rG4 immunostaining strongly increased in the hippocampus with both age and with AD severity. 21 cases were used in this study (age range 30-92).

This immunostaining co-localized with hyper-phosphorylated tau immunostaining in neurons. The BG4 staining levels were also impacted by APOE status. rG4 structure was previously found to drive tau aggregation. Based on these observations, the authors propose a model of neurodegeneration in which chronic rG4 formation drives proteostasis collapse.

This model is interesting, and would explain different observations (e.g., RNA is present in AD aggregates and rG4s can enhance protein oligomerization and tau aggregation).

Main issue from the previous round of review:

There is indeed a positive correlation between Braak stage severity and BG4 staining, but this correlation is relatively weak and borderline significant ((R = 0.52, p value = 0.028). This is probably the main limitation of this study, which should be clearly acknowledged (together with a reminder that "correlation is not causality"). Related to this, here is no clear justification to exclude the four individuals in Fig 1d (without them R increases to 0.78). Please remove this statement. On the other hand, the difference based on APOE status is more striking.

Comments on current version:

The authors have made laudable efforts to address the criticisms I made in my evaluation of the original manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper by Olah et al., uncovers a previously unknown role of HCN channels in shaping synaptic inputs to L2/3 cortical neurons. The authors demonstrate using slice electrophysiology and computational modeling that unlike layer 5 pyramidal neurons, L2/3 neurons have an enrichment of HCN channels in the proximal dendrites. This location provides a locus of neuromodulation for inputs onto the proximal dendrites from L4 without an influence on distal inputs from L1. the authors use pharmacology to demonstrate the effect of HCN channels on NMDA-mediated synaptic inputs from L4. The authors further demonstrate the developmental time course of HCN function in L2/3 pyramidal neurons. Taken together, this a well constructed investigation of HCN channel function and the consequences of these channels on synaptic integration in L2/3 pyramidal neurons.

Strengths:

The authors use careful, well-constrained experiments using multiple pharmacological agents to asses HCN channel contributions to synaptic integrations. The authors also use voltage-clamp to directly measure the current through HCN channels across developmental ages. The authors also provide supplemental data showing that their observation is consistent across multiple areas of the cerebral cortex.

Weaknesses:

The gradient of HCN channel function is based almost exclusively on changes in EPSP width measured at the soma. While providing strong evidence for the presence of HCN current in L2/3 neurons, there are space clamp issues related to the use of somatic whole-cell voltage clamp that should be considered in the discussion. One omission by the authors is related to cell morphology. They make a point of normalizing the current injections to cell capacitance to account for variability in neuronal morphology. It is not clear however, how, if at all, this variability would affect EPSP propagation and modulation by proximal HCN channels. This should at least be discussed. Also, if there is high variability in cell morphology, was this considered in the modeling experiments?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors study the function of HCN channels in L2/3 pyramidal neurons, employing somatic whole-cell recordings in acute slices of visual cortex in adult mice and a bevy of technically challenging techniques. Their primary claim is a non-uniform HCN distribution across the dendritic arbor with greater density closer to the soma (roughly opposite of the gradient found in L5 PT-type neurons). The second major claim is that multiple sources of long-range excitatory input (cortical and thalamic) are differentially affected by the HCN distribution. They further describe an interesting interplay of NMDAR and HCN, serotonergic modulation of HCN, and compare HCN-related properties at 1-, 2- and 6-weeks of age. Several results are accompanied by biophysical simulations.

Strengths:

The authors collected data from both male and female mice, at an age (6-10 weeks) that permits comparison with in vivo studies, in sufficient numbers for each condition, and they collected a good number of data points for almost all figure panels. This is all the more positive, considering the demanding nature of multi-electrode recording configurations and pipette-perfusion. The main strength of the study is the question and focus.

Weaknesses:

Unfortunately, in its present form, the main claims are not adequately supported by the experimental evidence: primarily because the evidence is indirect and circumstantial, but also because multiple unusual experimental choices (along with poor presentation of results) undermine the reader's confidence. Additionally, the authors overstate the novelty of certain results and fail to cite important related publications. Some of these weaknesses can be addressed by improved analysis, statistics, resolving inconsistent data across figures, reorganizing/improving figure panels, more complete methods, improved citations, and proofreading. In particular, given the emphasis on EPSPs, the primary data (example EPSPs, overlaid conditions) should be shown much more.

However on the experimental side, addressing the reviewer's concerns would require a very substantial additional effort: direct measurement of HCN density at different points in the dendritic arbor and soma; the internal solution chosen here (K-gluconate) is reported to inhibit HCN; bath-applied cesium at the concentrations used blocks multiple potassium channels, i.e. is not selective for HCN (the authors have concerns about using the more selective blocker ZD7288, but did use it in a subset of experiments, some of which show quantitatively different results). In response to initial review, the authors performed pathway-specific synaptic stimulation, via optogenetic activation of specific long-range inputs - this approach is valuable and interesting, however the results are presented very minimally and only partially match those obtained by layer-specific electrical stimulation.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The use of antalarmin, a selective CRF1 receptor antagonist, prevents the deficits in sociability in (acutely) morphine-treated males, but not in females. In addition, cell attached experiments show a rescue to control levels of the morphine-induced increased firing in PVN neurons from morphine-treated males. Similar results are obtained in CRF receptor 1-/- male mice, confirming the involvement of CRF receptor 1-mediated signaling in both sociability deficits and neuronal firing changes in morphine-treated male mice.

Strengths:

In the revised version of the paper the authors respond to some reviewers's points with a new statistical analysis of behavioral data and a new discussion of previous literature.

Weaknesses:

Following reviewers' comments, the authors provided mechanistic insights of their findings with new experiments.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript from Clayton and co-authors aims to clarify the molecular mechanism of BRAF dimer selectivity. Indeed, first generation BRAF inhibitors, targeting monomeric BRAFV600E, are ineffective in treating resistant dimeric BRAF isoforms. Here, the authors employed molecular dynamics simulations to study the conformational dynamics of monomeric and dimeric BRAF, in the presence and absence of inhibitors. Multi-microseconds MD simulations showed an inward shift of the αC helix in the BRAFV600E mutant dimer. This helped identify a hydrogen bond between the inhibitors and the BRAF residue Glu501 as critical for dimer compatibility. The stability of the aforementioned interaction seems to be important to distinguish between dimer-selective and equipotent inhibitors.

Strengths:

The study is overall valuable and robust. The authors used the recently developed particle mesh Ewald constant pH molecular dynamics, a state-of-the-art method, to investigate the correct histidines protonation considering the dynamics of the protein. Then, multi-microsecond simulations showed differences in the flexibility of the αC helix and DFG motif. The dimerization restricts the αC position in the inward conformation, in agreement with the result that dimer-compatible inhibitors are able to stabilize the αC-in state. Noteworthy, the MD simulations were used to study the interactions between the inhibitors and the protein, suggesting a critical role for a hydrogen bond with Glu501. Finally, simulations of a mixed state of BRAF (one protomer bound to the inhibitor and the other apo) indicate that the ability to stabilize the inward αC state of the apo protomer could be at the basis of the positive cooperativity of PHI1.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors employ molecular dynamics simulations to understand the selectivity of FDA approved inhibitors within dimeric and monomeric BRAF species. Through these comprehensive simulations, they shed light on the selectivity of BRAF inhibitors by delineating the main structural changes occurring during dimerization and inhibitor action. Notably, they identify the two pivotal elements in this process: the movement and conformational changes involving the alpha-C helix and the formation of a hydrogen bond involving the Glu-501 residue. These findings find support in the analyses of various structures crystallized from dimers and co-crystallized monomers in the presence of inhibitors. The elucidation of this mechanism holds significant potential for advancing our understanding of kinase signalling and the development of future BRAF inhibitor drugs.

Strengths:

The authors employ a diverse array of computational techniques to characterize the binding sites and interactions between inhibitors and the active site of BRAF in both dimeric and monomeric forms. They combine traditional and advanced molecular dynamics simulation techniques such as CpHMD (All-atom continuous constant pH molecular dynamics) to provide mechanistic explanations. Additionally, the paper introduces methods for identifying and characterizing the formation of the hydrogen bond involving the Glu501 residue without the need for extensive molecular dynamics simulations. This approach facilitates the rapid identification of future BRAF inhibitor candidates.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors test the "OHC-fluid-pump" hypothesis by assaying the rates of kainic acid dispersal both in quiet and in cochleae stimulated by sounds of different levels and spectral content. The main result is that sound (and thus, presumably, OHC contractions and expansions) result in faster transport along the duct. OHC involvement is corroborated using salicylate, which yielded results similar to silence. Especially interesting is the fact that some stimuli (e.g., tones) seem to provide better/faster pumping than others (e.g., noise), ostensibly due to the phase profile of the resulting cochlear traveling-wave response.

Strengths:

The experiments appear well controlled and the results are novel and interesting. Some elegant cochlear modeling that includes coupling between the organ of Corti and the surrounding fluid as well as advective flow supports the proposed mechanism.

The current limitations and future directions of the study, including possible experimental tests, extensions of the modeling work, and practical applications to drug delivery, are thoughtfully discussed.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Although recent cochlear micromechanical measurements in living animals have shown that outer hair cells drive broadband vibration of the reticular lamina, the role of this vibration in cochlear fluid circulation remains unclear. The authors hypothesized that motile outer hair cells facilitate cochlear fluid circulation. To test this, they investigated the effects of acoustic stimuli and salicylate on kainic acid-induced changes in the cochlear nucleus activities. The results reveal that low-frequency tones accelerate the effect of kainic acid, while salicylate reduces the impact of acoustic stimuli, indicating that outer hair cells actively drive cochlear fluid circulation.

The major strengths of this study lie in its high significance and the synergistic use of both electrophysiological recording and computational modeling. Recent in vivo observations of the broadband reticular lamina vibration challenge the traditional view of frequency-specific cochlear amplification. Furthermore, there is currently no effective noninvasive method to deliver the drugs or genes to the cochlea. This study addresses these important questions by observing outer hair cells' roles in the cochlear transport of kainic acid. The author utilized a well-established electrophysiological method to produce valuable new data and a custom-developed computational model to enhanced the interpretation of their experimental results.

The authors successfully validated their hypothesis, showing through the experimental and modeling results that active outer hair cells enhance cochlear fluid circulation in the living cochlea.

These findings have significant implications for advancing our understanding of cochlear amplification and offer promising clinical applications for treating hearing loss by accelerating cochlear drug delivery.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study reveals that sound exposure enhances drug delivery to the cochlea through the non-selective action of outer hair cells. The efficiency of sound-facilitated drug delivery is reduced when outer hair cell motility is inhibited. Additionally, low-frequency tones were found to be more effective than broadband noise for targeting substances to the cochlear apex. Computational model simulations support these findings.

Strengths:

The study provides compelling evidence that the broad action of outer hair cells is crucial for cochlear fluid circulation, offering a novel perspective on their function beyond frequency-selective amplification. Furthermore, these results could offer potential strategies for targeting and optimizing drug delivery throughout the cochlear spiral.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) region is a collection of numerous genes involved in both innate and adaptive immunity. MHC genes are famed for their role in rapid evolution and extensive polymorphism in a variety of vertebrates. This paper presents a summary of gene-level gain and loss of orthologs and paralogs within MHC across the diversity of primates, using publicly available data.

Strengths:

This paper provides a strong case that MHC genes are rapidly gained (by paralog duplication) and lost over millions of years of macroevolution. The authors are able to identify MHC loci by homology across species, and from this infer gene duplications and losses using phylogenetic analyses. There is a remarkable amount of genic turnover, summarized in Figure 6 and Figure 7, either of which might be a future textbook figure of immune gene family evolution. The authors draw on state-of-the-art phylogenetic methods, and their inferences are robust insofar as the data might be complete enough to draw such conclusions.

Weaknesses:

One concern about the present work is that it relies on public databases to draw inferences about gene loss, which is potentially risky if the publicly available sequence data are incomplete. To say, for example, that a particular MHC gene copy is absent in a taxon (e.g., Class I locus F absent in Guenons according to Figure 1), we need to trust that its absence from the available databases is an accurate reflection of its absence in the genome of the actual organisms. This may be a safe assumption, but it rests on the completeness of genome assembly (and gene annotations?) or people uploading relevant data. This reviewer would have been far more comfortable had the authors engaged in some active spot-checking, doing the lab work to try to confirm absences at least for some loci and some species. Without this, a reader is left to wonder whether gene loss is simply reflecting imperfect databases, which then undercuts confidence in estimates of rates of gene loss.

Some context is useful for comparing rates of gene turnover in MHC, to other loci. Changing gene copy numbers, duplications, and loss of duplicates, are common it seems across many loci and many organisms; is MHC exceptional in this regard, or merely behaving like any moderately large gene family? I would very much have liked to see comparable analyses done for other gene families (immune, like TLRs, or non-immune), and quantitative comparisons of evolutionary rates between MHC versus other genes. Does MHC gene composition evolve any faster than a random gene family? At present readers may be tempted to infer this, but evidence is not provided.

While on the topic of making comparisons, the authors make a few statements about relative rates. For instance, lines 447-8 compare gene topology of classical versus non-classical genes; and line 450 states that classical genes experience more turnover. But there are no quantitative values given to these rates to provide numerical comparisons, nor confidence intervals provided (these are needed, given that they are estimates), nor formal statistical comparisons to confirm our confidence that rates differ between types of genes.

More broadly, the paper uses sophisticated phylogenetic methods, but without taking advantage of macroevolutionary comparative methods that allow model-based estimation of macroevolutionary rates. I found the lack of quantitative measurements of rates of gene gain/loss to be a weakness of the present version of the paper, and something that should be readily remedied. When claiming that MHC Class I genes "turn over rapidly" (line 476) - what does rapidly mean? How rapidly? How does that compare to rates of genetic turnover at other families? Quantitative statements should be supported by quantitative estimates (and their confidence intervals).

The authors refer to 'shared function of the MHC across species' (e.g. line 22); while this is likely true, they are not here presenting any functional data to confirm this, nor can they rule out neofunctionalization or subfunctionalization of gene duplicates. There is evidence in other vertebrates (e.g., cod) of MHC evolving appreciably altered functions, so one may not safely assume the function of a locus is static over long macroevolutionary periods, although that would be a plausible assumption at first glance.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the evolutionary history of the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) gene family across primate species. Specifically, they sought to:

(1) Analyze the evolutionary patterns of MHC genes and pseudogenes across the entire primate order, spanning 60 million years of evolution.

(2) Build gene and allele trees to compare the evolutionary rates of MHC Class I and Class II genes, with a focus on identifying which genes have evolved rapidly and which have remained stable.

(3) Investigate the role of often-overlooked pseudogenes in reconstructing evolutionary events, especially within the Class I region.

(4) Highlight how different primate species use varied MHC genes, haplotypes, and genetic variation to mount successful immune responses, despite the shared function of the MHC across species.

(5) Fill gaps in the current understanding of MHC evolution by taking a broader, multi-species perspective using (a) phylogenomic analytical computing methods such as Beast2, Geneconv, BLAST, and the much larger computing capacities that have been developed and made available to researchers over the past few decades, (b) literature review for gene content and arrangement, and genomic rearrangements via haplotype comparisons.

(6) The authors overall conclusions based on their analyses and results are that 'different species employ different genes, haplotypes, and patterns of variation to achieve a successful immune response'.

Strengths:

Essentially, much of the information presented in this paper is already well-known in the MHC field of genomic and genetic research, with few new conclusions and with insufficient respect to past studies. Nevertheless, while MHC evolution is a well-studied area, this paper potentially adds some originality through its comprehensive, cross-species evolutionary analysis of primates, focus on pseudogenes and the modern, large-scale methods employed. Its originality lies in its broad evolutionary scope of the primate order among mammals with solid methodological and phylogenetic analyses.

The main strengths of this study are the use of large publicly available databases for primate MHC sequences, the intensive computing involved, the phylogenetic tool Beast2 to create multigene Bayesian phylogenetic trees using sequences from all genes and species, separated into Class I and Class II groups to provide a backbone of broad relationships to investigate subtrees, and the presentation of various subtrees as species and gene trees in an attempt to elucidate the unique gene duplications within the different species. The study provides some additional insights with summaries of MHC reference genomes and haplotypes in the context of a literature review to identify the gene content and haplotypes known to be present in different primate species. The phylogenetic overlays or ideograms (Figures 6 and 7) in part show the complexity of the evolution and organisation of the primate MHC genes via the orthologous and paralogous gene and species pathways progressively from the poorly-studied NWM, across a few moderately studied ape species, to the better-studied human MHC genes and haplotypes.

Weaknesses:

The title 'The Primate Major Histocompatibility Complex: An Illustrative Example of Gene Family Evolution' suggests that the paper will explore how the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) in primates serves as a model for understanding gene family evolution. The term 'Illustrative Example' in the title would be appropriate if the paper aimed to use the primate Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) as a clear and representative case to demonstrate broader principles of gene family evolution. That is, the MHC gene family is not just one instance of gene family evolution but serves as a well-studied, insightful example that can highlight key mechanisms and concepts applicable to other gene families. However, this is not the case, this paper only covers specific details of primate MHC evolution without drawing broader lessons to any other gene families. So, the term 'Illustrative Example' is too broad or generalizing. In this case, a term like 'Case Study' or simply 'Example' would be more suitable. Perhaps, 'An Example of Gene Family Diversity' would be more precise. Also, an explanation or 'reminder' is suggested that this study is not about the origins of the MHC genes from the earliest jawed vertebrates per se (~600 mya), but it is an extension within a subspecies set that has emerged relatively late (~60 mya) in the evolutionary divergent pathways of the MHC genes, systems, and various vertebrate species.

Phylogenomics. Particular weaknesses in this study are the limitations and problems associated with providing phylogenetic gene and species trees to try and solve the complex issue of the molecular mechanisms involved with imperfect gene duplications, losses, and rearrangements in a complex genomic region such as the MHC that is involved in various effects on the response and regulation of the immune system. A particular deficiency is drawing conclusions based on a single exon of the genes. Different exons present different trees. Which are the more reliable? Why were introns not included in the analyses? The authors attempt to overcome these limitations by including genomic haplotype analysis, duplication models, and the supporting or contradictory information available in previous publications. They succeed in part with this multidiscipline approach, but much is missed because of biased literature selection. The authors should include a paragraph about the benefits and limitations of the software that they have chosen for their analysis, and perhaps suggest some alternative tools that they might have tried comparatively. How were problems with Bayesian phylogeny such as computational intensity, choosing probabilities, choosing particular exons for analysis, assumptions of evolutionary models, rates of evolution, systemic bias, and absence of structural and functional information addressed and controlled for in this study?

Gene families as haplotypes. In the Introduction, the MHC is referred to as a 'gene family', and in paragraph 2, it is described as being united by the 'MHC fold', despite exhibiting 'very diverse functions'. However, the MHC region is more accurately described as a multigene region containing diverse, haplotype-specific Conserved Polymorphic Sequences, many of which are likely to be regulatory rather than protein-coding. These regulatory elements are essential for controlling the expression of multiple MHC-related products, such as TNF and complement proteins, a relationship demonstrated over 30 years ago. Non-MHC fold loci such as TNF, complement, POU5F1, lncRNA, TRIM genes, LTA, LTB, NFkBIL1, etc, are present across all MHC haplotypes and play significant roles in regulation. Evolutionary selection must act on genotypes, considering both paternal and maternal haplotypes, rather than on individual genes alone. While it is valuable to compile databases for public use, their utility is diminished if they perpetuate outdated theories like the 'birth-and-death model'. The inclusion of prior information or assumptions used in a statistical or computational model, typically in Bayesian analysis, is commendable, but they should be based on genotypic data rather than older models. A more robust approach would consider the imperfect duplication of segments, the history of their conservation, and the functional differences in inheritance patterns. Additionally, the MHC should be examined as a genomic region, with ancestral haplotypes and sequence changes or rearrangements serving as key indicators of human evolution after the 'Out of Africa' migration, and with disease susceptibility providing a measurable outcome. There are more than 7000 different HLA-B and -C alleles at each locus, which suggests that there are many thousands of human HLA haplotypes to study. In this regard, the studies by Dawkins et al (1999 Immunol Rev 167,275), Shiina et al. (2006 Genetics 173,1555) on human MHC gene diversity and disease hitchhiking (haplotypes), and Sznarkowska et al. (2020 Cancers 12,1155) on the complex regulatory networks governing MHC expression, both in terms of immune transcription factor binding sites and regulatory non-coding RNAs, should be examined in greater detail, particularly in the context of MHC gene allelic diversity and locus organization in humans and other primates.

Diversifying and/or concerted evolution. Both this and past studies highlight diversifying selection or balancing selection model is the dominant force in MHC evolution. This is primarily because the extreme polymorphism observed in MHC genes is advantageous for populations in terms of pathogen defence. Diversification increases the range of peptides that can be presented to T cells, enhancing the immune response. The peptide-binding regions of MHC genes are highly variable, and this variability is maintained through selection for immune function, especially in the face of rapidly evolving pathogens. In contrast, concerted evolution, which typically involves the homogenization of gene duplicates through processes like gene conversion or unequal crossing-over, seems to play a minimal role in MHC evolution. Although gene duplication events have occurred in the MHC region leading to the expansion of gene families, the resulting paralogs often undergo divergent evolution rather than being kept similar or homozygous by concerted evolution. Therefore, unlike gene families such as ribosomal RNA genes or histone genes, where concerted evolution leads to highly similar copies, MHC genes display much higher levels of allelic and functional diversification. Each MHC gene copy tends to evolve independently after duplication, acquiring unique polymorphisms that enhance the repertoire of antigen presentation, rather than undergoing homogenization through gene conversion. Also, in some populations with high polymorphism or genetic drift, allele frequencies may become similar over time without the influence of gene conversion. This similarity can be mistaken for gene conversion when it is simply due to neutral evolution or drift, particularly in small populations or bottlenecked species. Moreover, gene conversion might contribute to greater diversity by creating hybrids or mosaics between different MHC genes. In this regard, can the authors indicate what percentage of the gene numbers in their study have been homogenised by gene conversion compared to those that have been diversified by gene conversion?

Duplication models. The phylogenetic overlays or ideograms (Figures 6 and 7) show considerable imperfect multigene duplications, losses, and rearrangements, but the paper's Discussion provides no in-depth consideration of the various multigenic models or mechanisms that can be used to explain the occurrence of such events. How do their duplication models compare to those proposed by others? For example, their text simply says on line 292, 'the proposed series of events is not always consistent with phylogenetic data'. How, why, when? Duplication models for the generation and extension of the human MHC class I genes as duplicons (extended gene or segmental genomic structures) by parsimonious imperfect tandem duplications with deletions and rearrangements in the alpha, beta, and kappa blocks were already formulated in the late 1990s and extended to the rhesus macaque in 2004 based on genomic haplotypic sequences. These studies were based on genomic sequences (genes, pseudogenes, retroelements), dot plot matrix comparisons, and phylogenetic analyses of gene and retroelement sequences using computer programs. It already was noted or proposed in these earlier 1999 studies that (1) the ancestor of HLA-P(90)/-T(16)/W(80) represented an old lineage separate from the other HLA class I genes in the alpha block, (2) HLA-U(21) is a duplicated fragment of HLA-A, (3) HLA-F and HLA-V(75) are among the earliest (progenitor) genes or outgroups within the alpha block, (4) distinct Alu and L1 retroelement sequences adjoining HLA-L(30), and HLA-N genomic segments (duplicons) in the kappa block are closely related to those in the HLA-B and HLA-C in the beta block; suggesting an inverted duplication and transposition of the HLA genes and retroelements between the beta and kappa regions. None of these prior human studies were referenced by Fortier and Pritchard in their paper. How does their human MHC class I gene duplication model (Fig. 6) such as gene duplication numbers and turnovers differ from those previously proposed and described by Kulski et al (1997 JME 45,599), (1999 JME 49,84), (2000 JME 50,510), Dawkins et al (1999 Immunol Rev 167,275), and Gaudieri et al (1999 GR 9,541)? Is this a case of reinventing the wheel?

Results. The results are presented as new findings, whereas most if not all of the results' significance and importance already have been discussed in various other publications. Therefore, the authors might do better to combine the results and discussion into a single section with appropriate citations to previously published findings presented among their results for comparison. Do the trees and subsets differ from previous publications, albeit that they might have fewer comparative examples and samples than the present preprint? Alternatively, the results and discussion could be combined and presented as a review of the field, which would make more sense and be more honest than the current format of essentially rehashing old data.

Minor corrections:

(1) Abstract, line 19: 'modern methods'. Too general. What modern methods?

(2) Abstract, line 25: 'look into [primate] MHC evolution.' The analysis is on the primate MHC genes, not on the entire vertebrate MHC evolution with a gene collection from sharks to humans. The non-primate MHC genes are often differently organised and structurally evolved in comparison to primate MHC.

(3) Introduction, line 113. 'In a companion paper (Fortier and Pritchard, 2024)' This paper appears to be unpublished. If it's unpublished, it should not be referenced.

(4) Figures 1 and 2. Use the term 'gene symbols' (circle, square, triangle, inverted triangle, diamond) or 'gene markers' instead of 'points'. 'Asterisks "within symbols" indicate new information.

(5) Figures. A variety of colours have been applied for visualisation. However, some coloured texts are so light in colour that they are difficult to read against a white background. Could darker colours or black be used for all or most texts?

(6) Results, line 135. '(Fortier and Pritchard, 2024)' This paper appears to be unpublished. If it's unpublished, it should not be referenced.

(7) Results, lines 152 to 153, 164, 165, etc. 'Points with an asterisk'. Use the term 'gene symbols' (circle, square, triangle, inverted triangle, diamond) or 'gene markers' instead of 'points'. A point is a small dot such as those used in data points for plotting graphs .... The figures are so small that the asterisks in the circles, squares, triangles, etc, look like points (dots) and the points/asterisks terminology that is used is very confusing visually.

(8) Line 178 (BEA, 2024) is not listed alphabetically in the References.

(9) Lines 188-190. 'NWM MHC-G does not group with ape/OWM MHC-G, instead falling outside of the clade containing ape/OWM MHC-A, -G, -J and -K.' This is not surprising given that MHC-A, -G, -J, and -K are paralogs of each other and that some of them, especially in NWM have diverged over time from the paralogs and/or orthologs and might be closer to one paralog than another and not be an actual ortholog of OWM, apes or humans.

(10) Line 249. Gene conversion: This is recombination between two different genes where a portion of the genes are exchanged with one another so that different portions of the gene can group within one or other of the two gene clades. Alternatively, the gene has been annotated incorrectly if the gene does not group within either of the two alternative clades. Another possibility is that one or two nucleotide mutations have occurred without a recombination resulting in a mistaken interpretation or conclusion of a recombination event. What measures are taken to avoid false-positive conclusions? How many MHC gene conversion (recombination) events have occurred according to the authors' estimates? What measures are taken to avoid false-positive conclusions?

(11) Lines 284-286. 'The Class I MHC region is further divided into three polymorphic blocks-alpha, beta, and kappa blocks-that each contains MHC genes but are separated by well-conserved non-MHC genes.' The MHC class I region was first designated into conserved polymorphic duplication blocks, alpha and beta by Dawkins et al (1999 Immunol Rev 167,275), and kappa by Kulski et al (2002 Immunol Rev 190,95), and should be acknowledged (cited) accordingly.

(12) Lines 285-286. 'The majority of the Class I genes are located in the alpha-block, which in humans includes 12 MHC genes and pseudogenes.' This is not strictly correct for many other species, because the majority of class I genes might be in the beta block of new and old-world monkeys, and the authors haven't provided respective counts of duplication numbers to show otherwise. The alpha block in some non-primate mammalian species such as pigs, rats, and mice has no MHC class I genes or only a few. Most MHC class I genes in non-primate mammalian species are found in other regions. For example, see Ando et al (2005 Immunogenetics 57,864) for the pig alpha, beta, and kappa regions in the MHC class I region. There are no pig MHC genes in the alpha block.

(13) Line 297 to 299. 'The alpha-block also contains a large number of repetitive elements and gene fragments belonging to other gene families, and their specific repeating pattern in humans led to the conclusion that the region was formed by successive block duplications (Shiina et al., 1999).' There are different models for successive block duplications in the alpha block and some are more parsimonious based on imperfect multigenic segmental duplications (Kulski et al 1999, 2000) than others (Shiina et al., 1999). In this regard, Kulski et al (1999, 2000) also used duplicated repetitive elements neighbouring MHC genes to support their phylogenetic analyses and multigenic segmental duplication models. For comparison, can the authors indicate how many duplications and deletions they have in their models for each species?

(14) Lines 315-315. 'Ours is the first work to show that MHC-U is actually an MHC-A-related gene fragment.' This sentence should be deleted. Other researchers had already inferred that MHC-U is actually an MHC-A-related gene fragment more than 25 years ago (Kulski et al 1999, 2000) when the MHC-U was originally named MHC-21.

(15) Lines 361-362. 'Notably, our work has revealed that MHC-V is an old fragment.' This is not a new finding or hypothesis. Previous phylogenetic analysis and gene duplication modelling had already inferred HLA-V (formerly HLA-75) to be an old fragment (Kulski et al 1999, 2000).

(16) Line 431-433. 'the Class II genes have been largely stable across the mammals, although we do see some lineage-specific expansions and contractions (Figure 2 and Figure 2-gure Supplement 2).' Please provide one or two references to support this statement. Is 'gure' a typo?

(17) Line 437. 'We discovered far more "specific" events in Class I, while "broad-scale" events were predominant in Class II.' Please define the difference between 'specific' and 'broad-scale'.<br /> 450-451. 'This shows that classical genes experience more turnover and are more often affected by long-term balancing selection or convergent evolution.' Is balancing selection a form of divergent evolution that is different from convergent evolution? Please explain in more detail how and why balancing selection or convergent evolution affects classical and nonclassical genes differently.

References. Some references in the supplementary materials such as Alvarez (1997), Daza-Vamenta (2004), Rojo (2005), Aarnink (2014), Kulski (2022), and others are missing from the Reference list. Please check that all the references in the text and the supplementary materials are listed correctly and alphabetically.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The article provides the most comprehensive overview of primate MHC class I and class II genes to date, combining published data with an exploration of the available genome assemblies in a coherent phylogenetic framework and formulating new hypotheses about the evolution of the primate MHC genomic region.

Strengths:

I think this is a solid piece of work that will be the reference for years to come, at least until population-scale haplotype-resolved whole-genome resequencing of any mammalian species becomes standard. The work is timely because there is an obvious need to move beyond short amplicon-based polymorphism surveys and classical comparative genomic studies. The paper is data-rich and the approach taken by the authors, i.e. an integrative phylogeny of all MHC genes within a given class across species and the inclusion of often ignored pseudogenes, makes a lot of sense. The focus on primates is a good idea because of the wealth of genomic and, in some cases, functional data, and the relatively densely populated phylogenetic tree facilitates the reconstruction of rapid evolutionary events, providing insights into the mechanisms of MHC evolution. Appendices 1-2 may seem unusual at first glance, but I found them helpful in distilling the information that the authors consider essential, thus reducing the need for the reader to wade through a vast amount of literature. Appendix 3 is an extremely valuable companion in navigating the maze of primate MHC genes and associated terminology.

Weaknesses:

I have not identified major weaknesses and my comments are mostly requests for clarification and justification of some methodological choices.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The authors present their new bioinformatic tool called TEKRABber, and use it to correlate expression between KRAB ZNFs and TEs across different brain tissues, and across species. While the aims of the authors are clear and there would be significant interest from other researchers in the field for a program that can do such correlative gene expression analysis across individual genomes and species, the presented approach and work display significant shortcomings. In the current state of the analysis pipeline, the biases and shortcomings mentioned below, for which I have seen no proof that they are accounted for by the authors, are severely impacting the presented results and conclusions. It is therefore essential that the points below are addressed, involving significant changes in the TEKRABber program as well as the analysis pipeline, to prevent the identification of false positive and negative signals, that would severely affect the conclusions one can raise about the analysis.

My main concerns are provided below:

One important shortcoming of the biocomputational approach is that most TEs are not actually expressed, and others (Alus) are not a proxy of the activity of the TE class at all. I will explain: While specific TE classes can act as (species-specific) promoters for genes (such as LTRs) or are expressed as TE derived transcripts (LINEs, SVAs), the majority of other older TE classes do not have such behavior and are either neutral to the genome or may have some enhancer activity (as mapped in the program they refer to 'TEffectR'. A big focus is on Alus, but Alus contribute to a transcriptome in a different way too: They often become part of transcripts due to alternative splicing. As such, the presence of Alu derived transcripts is not a proxy for the expression/activity of the Alu class, but rather a result of some Alus being part of gene transcripts (see also next point). The bottom line is that the TEKRABber software/approach is heavily prone to picking up both false positives (TEs being part of transcribed loci) and false negatives (TEs not producing any transcripts at all), which has a big implication for how reads from TEs as done in this study should be interpreted: The TE expression used to correlate the KRAB ZNF expression is simply not representing the species-specific influences of TEs where the authors are after.

With the strategy as described, a lot of TE expression is misinterpreted: TEs can be part of gene-derived transcripts due to alternative splicing (often happens for Alus) or as a result of the TE being present in an inefficiently spliced out intron (happens a lot) which leads to TE-derived reads as a result of that TE being part of that intron, rather than that TE being actively expressed. As a result, the data as analysed is not reliably indicating the expression of TEs (as the authors intend to) and should be filtered for any reads that are coming from the above scenarios: These reads have nothing to do with KRAB ZNF control, and are not representing actively expressed TEs and therefore should be removed. Given that from my lab's experience in the brain (and other) tissues, the proportion of RNA sequencing reads that are actually derived from active TEs is a stark minority compared to reads derived from TEs that happen to be in any of the many transcribed loci, applying this filtering is expected to have a huge impact on the results and conclusions of this study.

Another potential problem that I don't see addressed is that due to the high level of similarity of the many hundreds of KRAB ZNF genes in primates and the reads derived from them, and the inaccurate annotations of many KZNFs in non-human genomes, the expression data derived from RNA-seq datasets cannot be simply used to plot KZNF expression values, without significant work and manual curation to safeguard proper cross species ortholog-annotation: The work of Thomas and Schneider (2011) has studied this in great detail but genome-assemblies of non-human primates tend to be highly inaccurate in appointing the right ortholog of human ZNF genes. The problem becomes even bigger when RNA-sequencing reads are analyzed: RNA-sequencing reads from a human ZNF that emerged in great apes by duplication from an older parental gene (we have a decent number of those in the human genome) may be mapped to that older parental gene in Macaque genome: So, the expression of human-specific ZNF-B, that derived from the parental ZNF-A, is likely to be compared in their DESeq to the expression of ZNF-A in Macaque RNA-seq data. In other words, without a significant amount of manual curation, the DE-seq analysis is prone to lead to false comparisons which make the strategy and KRABber software approach described highly biased and unreliable.

There is no doubt that there are differences in expression and activity of KRAB-ZNFs and TEs respectively that may have had important evolutionary consequences. However, because all of the network analyses in this paper rely on the analyses of RNA-seq data and the processing through the TE-KRABber software with the shortcomings and potential biases that I mentioned above, I need to emphasize that the results and conclusions are likely to be significantly different if the appropriate measures are taken to get more accurate and curated TE and KRAB ZNF expression data.

Finally, there are some minor but important notes I want to share:

The association with certain variations in ZNF genes with neurological disorders such as AD, as reported in the introduction is not entirely convincing without further functional support. Such associations could merely happen by chance, given the high number of ZNF genes in the human genome and the high chance that variations in these loci happen to associate with certain disease-associated traits. So using these associations as an argument that changes in TEs and KRAB ZNF networks are important for diseases like AD should be used with much more caution.

There are a number of papers where KRAB ZNF and TE expression are analysed in parallel in human brain tissues. So the novelty of that aspect of the presented study may be limited.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The aim was to decipher the regulatory networks of KRAB-ZNFs and TEs that have changed during human brain evolution and in Alzheimer's disease.

Strengths:

This solid study presents a valuable analysis and successfully confirms previous assumptions, but also goes beyond the current state of the art.

Weaknesses:

The design of the analysis needs to be slightly modified and a more in-depth analysis of the positive correlation cases would be beneficial. Some of the conclusions need to be reinterpreted.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors present an interesting study using RL and Bayesian modelling to examine differences in learning rate adaptation in conditions of high and low volatility and noise respectively. Through "lesioning" an optimal Bayesian model, they reveal that apparently a suboptimal adaptation of learning rates results from incorrectly detecting volatility in the environment when it is not in fact present.

Strengths:

The experimental task used is cleverly designed and does a good job of manipulating both volatility and noise. The modelling approach takes an interesting and creative approach to understanding the source of apparently suboptimal adaptation of learning rates to noise, through carefully "lesioning" and optimal Bayesian model to determine which components are responsible for this behaviour.

Weaknesses:

The study has a few substantial weaknesses; the data and modelling both appear robust and informative, and it tackles an interesting question. The model space could potentially have been expanded, particularly with regard to the inclusion of alternative strategies such as those that estimate latent states and adapt learning accordingly.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors aimed to investigate how humans learn and adapt their behavior in dynamic environments characterized by two distinct types of uncertainty: volatility (systematic changes in outcomes) and noise (random variability in outcomes). Specifically, they sought to understand how participants adjust their learning rates in response to changes in these forms of uncertainty.

To achieve this, the authors employed a two-step approach:

(1) Reinforcement Learning (RL) Model: They first used an RL model to fit participants' behavior, revealing that the learning rate was context-dependent. In other words, it varied based on the levels of volatility and noise. However, the RL model showed that participants misattributed noise as volatility, leading to higher learning rates in noisy conditions, where the optimal strategy would be to be less sensitive to random fluctuations.

(2) Bayesian Observer Model (BOM): To better account for this context dependency, they introduced a Bayesian Observer Model (BOM), which models how an ideal Bayesian learner would update their beliefs about environmental uncertainty. They found that a degraded version of the BOM, where the agent had a coarser representation of noise compared to volatility, best fit the participants' behavior. This suggested that participants were not fully distinguishing between noise and volatility, instead treating noise as volatility and adjusting their learning rates accordingly.

The authors also aimed to use pupillometry data (measuring pupil dilation) as a physiological marker to arbitrate between models and understand how participants' internal representations of uncertainty influenced both their behavior and physiological responses. Their objective was to explore whether the BOM could explain not just behavioral choices but also these physiological responses, thereby providing stronger evidence for the model's validity.

Overall, the study sought to reconcile approximate rationality in human learning by showing that participants still follow a Bayesian-like learning process, but with simplified internal models that lead to suboptimal decisions in noisy environments.

Strengths:

The generative model presented in the study is both innovative and insightful. The authors first employ a Reinforcement Learning (RL) model to fit participants' behavior, revealing that the learning rate is context-dependent-specifically, it varies based on the levels of volatility and noise in the task. They then introduce a Bayesian Observer Model (BOM) to account for this context dependency, ultimately finding that a degraded BOM - in which the agent has a coarser representation of noise compared to volatility - provides the best fit for the participants' behavior. This suggests that participants do not fully distinguish between noise and volatility, leading to the misattribution of noise as volatility. Consequently, participants adopt higher learning rates even in noisy contexts, where an optimal strategy would involve being less sensitive to new information (i.e., using lower learning rates). This finding highlights a rational but approximate learning process, as described in the paper.

Weaknesses:

While the RL and Bayesian models both successfully predict behavior, it remains unclear how to fully reconcile the two approaches. The RL model captures behavior in terms of a fixed or context-dependent learning rate, while the BOM provides a more nuanced account with dynamic updates based on volatility and noise. Both models can predict actions when fit appropriately, but the pupillometry data offers a promising avenue to arbitrate between the models. However, the current study does not provide a direct comparison between the RL framework and the Bayesian model in terms of how well they explain the pupillometry data. It would be valuable to see whether the RL model can also account for physiological markers of learning, such as pupil responses, or if the BOM offers a unique advantage in this regard. A comparison of the two models using pupillometry data could strengthen the argument for the BOM's superiority, as currently, the possibility that RL models could explain the physiological data remains unexplored.

The model comparison between the Bayesian Observer Model and the self-defined degraded internal model could be further enhanced. Since different assumptions about the internal model's structure lead to varying levels of model complexity, using a formal criterion such as Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) or Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) would allow for a more rigorous comparison of model fit. Including such comparisons would ensure that the degraded BOM is not simply favored due to its flexibility or higher complexity, but rather because it genuinely captures the participants' behavioral and physiological data better than alternative models. This would also help address concerns about overfitting and provide a clearer justification for using the degraded BOM over other potential models.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors advance our understanding of neurodevelopmental changes in the brain's structural and functional connectivity, as well as their coupling. The paper presents evidence of alterations in and stability of the principal organizational gradients of structure and function across development (age) and contrasts them between neurotypical and neurodivergent individuals. The authors further extend their findings by exploring links with graph theory measures of brain connectivity and indices of nodal structure-function coupling. Finally, the developmental shifts in structural and functional brain organization are examined for potential associations with cognitive and psychopathological markers. The results suggest that structure-function coupling, both brain-wide and within specific functional networks, is associated with certain cognitive dimensions but not with measures of psychopathology.

Strengths:

This manuscript makes a significant contribution to the field by synthesizing previous research while offering novel insights into the developmental trajectories of brain organization. A key strength of this study lies in its integration of both structural and functional connectivity data, providing a comprehensive view of brain changes throughout development. The authors present findings that challenge earlier reports of shifts in principal gradients during late childhood and early adolescence (e.g., Dong et al., 2021; Xia et al., 2022), underscoring an important inconsistency that could have broader implications for our understanding of developmental brain reorganization. The introduction and discussion sections are well-crafted, offering a thorough review of relevant prior studies and effectively situating the current findings within the broader context of the literature. Additionally, the study design and methodology are detailed and adhere to recommended best practices, demonstrating a commendable level of rigor in the formulation of the study and its various assessments.

Weaknesses:

Despite these strengths, I think there are aspects of the manuscript that would benefit from further refinement. Below is detailed feedback and suggestions provided point-by-point.

Lack of Sensitivity Analyses for some Key Methodological Decisions:<br /> Certain methodological choices in this manuscript diverge from approaches used in previous works. In these cases, I recommend the following: (i) The authors could provide a clear and detailed justification for these deviations from established methods, and (ii) supplementary sensitivity analyses could be included to ensure the robustness of the findings, demonstrating that the results are not driven primarily by these methodological changes. Below, I outline the main areas where such evaluations are needed:<br /> - Use of Communicability Matrices for Structural Connectivity Gradients: The authors chose to construct structural connectivity gradients using communicability matrices, arguing that diffusion map embedding "requires a smooth, fully connected matrix." However, by definition, the creation of the affinity matrix already involves smoothing and ensures full connectedness. I recommend that the authors include an analysis of what happens when the communicability matrix step is omitted. This sensitivity test is crucial, as it would help determine whether the main findings hold under a simpler construction of the affinity matrix. If the results significantly change, it could indicate that the observations are sensitive to this design choice, thereby raising concerns about the robustness of the conclusions. Additionally, if the concern is related to the large range of weights in the raw structural connectivity (SC) matrix, a more conventional approach is to apply a log-transformation to the SC weights (e.g., log(1+𝑆𝐶𝑖𝑗)), which may yield a more reliable affinity matrix without the need for communicability measures.<br /> - Individual-Level Gradients vs. Group-Level Gradients: Unlike previous studies that examined alterations in principal gradients (e.g., Xia et al., 2022; Dong et al., 2021), this manuscript focuses on gradients derived directly from individual-level data. In contrast, earlier works have typically computed gradients based on grouped data, such as using a moving window of individuals based on age (Xia et al.) or evaluating two distinct age groups (Dong et al.). I believe it is essential to assess the sensitivity of the findings to this methodological choice. Such an evaluation could clarify whether the observed discrepancies with previous reports are due to true biological differences or simply a result of different analytical strategies.<br /> - Procrustes Transformation: It is unclear why the authors opted to include a Procrustes transformation in this analysis, especially given that previous related studies (e.g., Dong et al.) did not apply this step. I believe it is crucial to evaluate whether this methodological choice influences the results, particularly in the context of developmental changes in organizational gradients. Specifically, the Procrustes transformation may maximize alignment to the group-level gradients, potentially masking individual-level differences. This could result in a reordering of the gradients (e.g., swapping the first and second gradients), which might obscure true developmental alterations. It would be informative to include an analysis showing the impact of performing vs. omitting the Procrustes transformation, as this could help clarify whether the observed effects are robust or an artifact of the alignment procedure. (Please also refer to my comment on adding a subplot to Figure 1)<br /> - SC-FC Coupling Metric: The approach used to quantify nodal SC-FC coupling in this study appears to deviate from previously established methods in the field. The manuscript describes coupling as the "Spearman-rank correlation between Euclidean distances between each node and all others within structural and functional manifolds," but this description is unclear and lacks sufficient detail. Furthermore, this differs from what is typically referred to as SC-FC coupling in the literature. For instance, the cited study by Park et al. (2022) utilizes a multiple linear regression framework, where communicability, Euclidean distance, and shortest path length are independent variables predicting functional connectivity (FC), with the adjusted R-squared score serving as the coupling index for each node. On the other hand, the Baum et al. (2020) study, also cited, uses Spearman correlation, but between raw structural connectivity (SC) and FC values. If the authors opt to introduce a novel coupling metric, it is essential to demonstrate its similarity to these previous indices. I recommend providing an analysis (supplementary) showing the correlation between their chosen metric and those used in previous studies (e.g., the adjusted R-squared scores from Park et al. or the SC-FC correlation from Baum et al.). Furthermore, if the metrics are not similar and results are sensitive to this alternative metric, it raises concerns about the robustness of the findings. A sensitivity analysis would therefore be helpful (in case the novel coupling metric is not similar to previous ones) to determine whether the reported effects hold true across different coupling indices.

Methodological ambiguity/lack of clarity in the description of certain evaluation steps:<br /> Some aspects of the manuscript's methodological descriptions are ambiguous, making it challenging for future readers to fully reproduce the analyses based on the information provided. I believe the following sections would benefit from additional detail and clarification:<br /> - Computation of Manifold Eccentricity: The description of how eccentricity was computed (both in the results and methods sections) is unclear and may be problematic. The main ambiguity lies in how the group manifold origin was defined or computed. Specifically:<br /> (1) In the results section, it appears that separate manifold origins were calculated for the NKI and CALM groups, suggesting a dataset-specific approach.<br /> (2) Conversely, the methods section implies that a single manifold origin was obtained by somehow combining the group origins across the three datasets, which seems contradictory.<br /> Moreover, including neurodivergent individuals in defining the central group manifold origin is conceptually problematic. Given that neurodivergent participants might exhibit atypical brain organization (as suggested by Fig. 1), this inclusion could skew the definition of what should represent a typical or normative brain manifold. A more appropriate approach might involve constructing the group manifold origin using only the neurotypical participants from both the NKI and CALM datasets. Given the reported similarity between group-level manifolds of neurotypical individuals in CALM and NKI, it would be reasonable to expect that this combined origin should be close to the origin computed within neurotypical samples of either NKI or CALM. As a sanity check, I recommend reporting the distance of the combined neurotypical manifold origin to the centers of the neurotypical manifolds in each dataset. Moreover, if the manifold origin was constructed while utilizing all samples (including neurodivergent samples) I think this needs to be reconsidered.<br /> - Computation of SC-FC coupling: As noted in a previous comment, the explanation of this procedure is vague. The description lacks detail on the specific steps taken and differs from previous standard approaches in the field. I suggest clarifying the methodology and comparing with previous SC-FC coupling metrics.<br /> - Performing Procrustes transformation: The brief explanation in the first paragraph of page 30 does not provide enough information about the procedure or its justification. Since the Procrustes transformation alters the shape of individual gradients, it could artificially inflate consistency across development. I recommend including a rationale for using the Procrustes transformation and conducting a sensitivity analysis to assess its impact on the findings. Additionally, clarifying how exactly the transformation was applied to align gradients across hemispheres, individuals, and or datasets would help resolve ambiguity.

Insufficient Supporting Evaluations for Certain Claims:<br /> There are instances where additional analyses are necessary to substantiate the claims made in the manuscript. Without these evaluations, some conclusions may be premature or potentially misleading. I believe the following points need further analysis or, alternatively, adjustments to the claims:<br /> - Evaluating the Consistency of Gradients Across Development: The results shown in Fig. 1.e are used as evidence suggesting that gradients are consistent across ages. However, I believe additional analyses are required to identify potential sources of the observed inconsistency compared to previous works. The claim that the principal gradient explains a similar degree of variance across ages does not necessarily imply that the spatial structure of the gradient remains stable. The observed variance explanation is hence not enough to ascertain inconsistency with findings from Dong et al., as the spatial configuration of gradients may still change over time. Moreover, the introduction of the Procrustes transformation (not used by Dong et al.) further ambiguates the cause of this inconsistency. I suggest the following additional analyses to strengthen this claim: (1) Alignment to Group-Level Gradients: Assess how much of the variance in individual FC matrices is explained by each of the group-level gradients (G1, G2, and G3, for both FC and SC). This analysis could be visualized similarly to Fig. 1.e, with age on the x-axis and variance explained on the y-axis. If the explained variance varies as a function of age, it may indicate that the gradients are not as consistent as currently suggested. (2) For each individual's gradients (G1, G2, and G3, separately for FC and SC, without Procrustes transformation), evaluate their spatial similarity to the corresponding group-level gradients using a similarity metric (e.g., correlation coefficient). High spatial similarity, without a Procrustes transformation, would support the claim of stable gradient structures across development. On the other hand, if the similarities alter during development (e.g. such that at a certain age, individual G1 is less similar to group G1) this would contradict the stability of gradients during development. These additional analyses could potentially be included as additional panels in Fig. 1. In case significant deviations are observed, it might help refine the interpretation of the results and provide a more nuanced understanding of developmental changes in gradient organization.<br /> - Prediction vs. Association Analysis: The term "prediction" is used throughout the manuscript to describe what appear to be in-sample association tests. This terminology may be misleading, as prediction generally implies an out-of-sample evaluation where models trained on a subset of data are tested on a separate, unseen dataset. If the goal of the analyses is to assess associations rather than make true predictions, I recommend refraining from using the term "prediction" and instead clarifying the nature of the analysis. Alternatively, if prediction is indeed the intended aim (which would be more compelling), I suggest conducting the evaluations using a k-fold cross-validation framework. This would involve training the Generalized Additive Mixed Models (GAMMs) on a portion of the data and testing their predictive accuracy on a held-out sample (i.e., different individuals). Additionally, the current design appears to focus on predicting SC-FC coupling using cognitive or pathological dimensions. This is contrary to the more conventional approach of predicting behavioral or pathological outcomes from brain markers like coupling. Could the authors clarify why this reverse direction of analysis was chosen? Understanding this choice is crucial, as it impacts the interpretation and potential implications of the findings.

Methodological considerations<br /> - In typical applications of diffusion map embedding, sparsification (e.g., retaining only the top 10% of the strongest connections) is often employed at the vertex-level resolution to ensure computational feasibility. However, since the present study performs the embedding at the level of 200 brain regions (a considerably coarser resolution), this step may not be necessary or justifiable. Specifically, for FC, it might be more appropriate to retain all positive connections rather than applying sparsification, which could inadvertently eliminate valuable information about lower-strength connections. Whereas for SC, as the values are strictly non-negative, retaining all connections should be feasible and would provide a more complete representation of the structural connectivity patterns. Given this, it would be helpful if the authors could clarify why they chose to include sparsification despite the coarser regional resolution, and whether they considered this alternative approach (using all available positive connections for FC and all non-zero values for SC). It would be interesting if the authors could provide their thoughts on whether the decision to run evaluations at the resolution of brain regions could itself impact the functional and structural manifolds, their alteration with age, and or their stability (in contrast to Dong et al. which tested alterations in high-resolution gradients).

The Issue of Abstraction and Benefits of the Gradient-Based View:<br /> - The manuscript interprets the eccentricity findings as reflecting changes along the segregation-integration spectrum. Given this, it is unclear why a more straightforward analysis using established graph-theory measures of segregation-integration was not pursued instead. Mapping gradients and computing eccentricity adds layers of abstraction and complexity. If similar interpretations can be derived directly from simpler graph metrics, what additional insights does the gradient-based framework offer? While the manuscript argues that this approach provides "a more unifying account of cortical reorganization," it is not evident why this abstraction is necessary or advantageous over traditional graph metrics. Clarifying these benefits would strengthen the rationale for using this method.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study aims to show how structural and functional brain organization develops during childhood and adolescence using two large neuroimaging datasets. It addresses whether core principles of brain organization are stable across development, how they change over time, and how these changes relate to cognition and psychopathology. The study finds that brain organization is established early and remains stable but undergoes gradual refinement, particularly in higher-order networks. Structural-functional coupling is linked to better working memory but shows no clear relationship with psychopathology.

Strengths:

This study effectively integrates two different modalities (structural and functional) to identify shared patterns. It is supported by a relatively large dataset, which enhances its value and robustness.

Weaknesses:

General Comments:<br /> - The introduction is overly long and includes numerous examples that can distract readers unfamiliar with the topic from the main research questions.

- While the methods are thorough, it is not always clear whether the optimal approaches were chosen for each step, considering the available data.<br /> Detailed Comments:<br /> - The use of COMBAT may have excluded extreme participants from both datasets, which could explain the lack of correlations found with psychopathology.<br /> - Some differences in developmental trajectories between CALM and NKI (e.g., Figure 4d) are not explained. Are these differences expected, or do they suggest underlying factors that require further investigation?<br /> - There is no discussion of whether the stable patterns of brain organization could result from preprocessing choices or summarizing data to the mean. This should be addressed to rule out methodological artifacts.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study dissects distinct pools of diacylglycerol (DAG), continuing a line of research on the central concept that there is a major lipid metabolism DAG pool in cells, but also a smaller signaling DAG pool. It tests the hypothesis that the second pool is regulated by Dip2, which influences Pkc1 signaling. The group shows that stressed yeast increase specific DAG species C36:0 and 36:1, and propose this promotes Pkc1 activation via Pck1 binding 36:0. The study also examines how perturbing the lipid metabolism DAG pool via various deletions such as lro1, dga1, and pah1 deletion impacts DAG and stress signaling. Overall this is an interesting study that adds new data to how different DAG pools influence cellular signaling.

Strengths:

The study nicely combined lipidomic profiling with stress signaling biochemistry and yeast growth assays.

Weaknesses:

One suggestion to improve the study is to examine the spatial organization of Dip2 within cells, and how this impacts its ability to modulate DAG pools. Dip2 has previously been proposed to function at mitochondria-vacuole contacts (Mondal 2022). Examining how Dip2 localization is impacted when different DAG pools are manipulated such as by deletion Pah1 (also suggested to work at yeast contact sites such as the nucleus-vacuole junction), or with Lro1 or Dga1 deletion would broaden the scope of the study.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors use yeast genetics, lipidomic and biochemical approaches to demonstrate the DAG isoforms (36:0 and 36:1) can specifically activate PKC. Further, these DAG isoforms originate from PI and PI(4,5)P2. The authors propose that the Psi1-Plc1-Dip2 functions to maintain a normal level of specific DAG species to modulate PKC signalling.

Strengths:

Data from yeast genetics are clear and strong. The concept is potentially interesting and novel.

Weaknesses:

More evidence is needed to support the central hypothesis. The authors may consider the following:

(1) Figure 2: the authors should show/examine C36:1 DAG. Also, some structural evidence would be highly useful here. What is the structural basis for the assertion that the PKC C1 domain can only be activated by C36:0/1 DAG but not other DAGs? This is a critical conclusion of this work and clear evidence is needed.

(2) Does Dip2 colocalize with Plc1 or Pkc1? Does Dip2 reach the plasma membrane upon Plc activation?