Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In their study, Shen et al. examine how first- and second-order neurons of early olfactory circuits among invertebrates and vertebrates alike respond to and encode odor identity and concentration. Previously published electrophysiological and imaging data are re-analyzed and complemented with computational simulations. The authors explore multiple potential circuit computations by which odor concentration-dependent increases in first-order neuron responses transform into concentration-invariant responses on average across the second-order neuron population, and report that divisive normalization exceeds subtractive normalization and intraglomerular gain control in accounting for this transformation. The authors then explore how either rate- or timing-based schemes in third-order neurons may decode odor identity and concentration information from such concentration-invariant mean responses across the second-order neuron population. Finally, the results of their study of second-order neurons (invertebrate projection neurons and vertebrate mitral cells) are contrasted with the concentration-variant responses of second-order projection tufted cells in mammals. Overall, through a combination of neural data re-analysis, computational simulation, and conceptual theory, this study provides important new understanding of how aspects of sensory information are encoded through the actions of distinct components of early olfactory circuits.

Strengths:

Consideration of multiple evolutionarily disparate olfactory circuits, as well as re-analysis of previously published neural data sets combined with novel simulations guided by those sets, lends considerable robustness to some key findings of this study. In particular, the finding that divisive normalization - with direct inspiration from established circuit components in the form of glomerular layer short-axon cells - accounts more thoroughly for the average concentration invariance of second-order olfactory neurons at a population level than other forms of normalization is compelling. Likewise, demonstration of the required 'crossover' of first-order neuron concentration sensitivity for divisive normalization to achieve such flattening of concentration variance across the second-order population is notable, with simulations providing important insight into experimentally observed patterns of first-order neuron responses. Limited clarity in other aspects of the study, in particular related to the consideration of neural response latencies and enumerated below, temper the overall strength of the study.

Weaknesses:

(1) While the authors focus on concentration-dependent increases in first-order neuron activity, reflecting the majority of observed responses, recent work from the Imai group shows that odorants can also lead to direct first-order neuron inhibition (i.e., reduction in spontaneous activity), and within this subset, increasing odorant concentration tends to increase the degree of inhibition. Some discussion of these findings and how they may complement divisive normalization to contribute to the diverse second-order neuron concentration-dependence would be of interest and help expand the context of the current results.

(2) Related to the above point, odorant-evoked inhibition of second-order neurons is widespread in mammalian mitral cells and significantly contributes to the flattened concentration-dependence of mitral cells at the population level. Such responses are clearly seen in Figure 1D. Some discussion of how odorant-evoked mitral cell inhibition may complement divisive normalization, and likewise relate to comparatively lower levels of odorant-evoked inhibition among tufted cells, would further expand the context of the current results. Toward this end, replication of analyses in Figures 1D and E following exclusion of mitral cell inhibitory responses would provide insight into the contribution of such inhibition to the flattening of the mitral cell population concentration dependence.

(3) The idea of concentration-dependent crossover responses across the first-order population being required for divisive normalization to generate individually diverse concentration response functions across the second-order population is notable. The intuition of the crossover responses is that first-order neurons that respond most sensitively to any particular odorant (i.e., at the lowest concentration) respond with overall lower activity at higher concentrations than other first-order neurons less sensitively tuned to the odorant. Whether this is a consistent, generalizable property of odorant binding and first-order neuron responsiveness is not addressed by the authors, however. Biologically, one mechanism that may support such crossover events is intraglomerular presynaptic/feedback inhibition, which would be expected to increase with increasing first-order neuron activation such that the most-sensitively responding first-order neurons would also recruit the strongest inhibition as concentration increases, enabling other first-order neurons to begin to respond more strongly. Discussion of this and/or other biological mechanisms (e.g., first-order neuron depolarization block) supporting such crossover responses would strengthen these results.

(4) It is unclear to what degree the latency analysis considered in Figures 4D-H works with the overall framework of divisive normalization, which in Figure 3 we see depends on first-order neuron crossover in concentration response functions. Figure 4D suggests that all first-order neurons respond with the same response amplitude (R in eq. 3), even though this is supposed to be pulled from a distribution. It's possible that Figure 4D is plotting normalized response functions to highlight the difference in latency, but this is not clear from the plot or caption. If response amplitudes are all the same, and the response curves are, as plotted in Figure 4D, identical except for their time to half-max, then it seems somewhat trivial that the resulting second-order neuron activation will follow the same latency ranking, regardless of whether divisive normalization exists or not. However, there is some small jitter in these rankings across concentrations (Figure 4G), suggesting there is some randomness to the simulations. It would be helpful if this were clarified (e.g., by showing a non-normalized Figure 4D, with different response amplitudes), and more broadly, it would be extremely helpful in evaluating the latency coding within the broader framework proposed if the authors clarified whether the simulated first-order neuron response timecourses, when factoring in potentially different amplitudes (R) and averaging across the entire response window, reproduces the concentration response crossovers observed experimentally. In summary, in the present manuscript, it remains unclear if concentration crossovers are captured in the latency simulations, and if not, the authors do not clearly address what impact such variation in response amplitudes across concentrations may have on the latency results. It is further unclear to what degree divisive normalization is necessary for the second-order neurons to establish and maintain their latency ranks across concentrations, or to exhibit concentration-dependent changes in latency.

(5) How the authors get from Figure 4G to 4H is not clear. Figure 4G shows second-order neuron response latencies across all latencies, with ordering based on their sorted latency to low concentration. This shows that very few neurons appear to change latency ranks going from low to high concentration, with a change in rank appearing as any deviation in a monotonically increasing trend. Focusing on the high concentration points, there appear to be 2 latency ranks switched in the first 10 responding neurons (reflecting the 1 downward dip in the points around neuron 8), rather than the 7 stated in the text. Across the first 50 responding neurons, I see only ~14 potential switches (reflecting the ~7 downward dips in the points around neurons 8, 20, 32, 33, 41, 44, 50), rather than the 32 stated in the text. It is possible that the unaccounted rank changes reflect fairly minute differences in latencies that are not visible in the plot in Figure 4G. This may be clarified by plotting each neuron's latency at low concentration vs. high concentration (i.e., similar to Figure 4H, but plotting absolute latency, not latency rank) to allow assessment of the absolute changes. If such minute differences are not driving latency rank changes in Fig. 4G, then a trend much closer to the unity line would be expected in Figure 4H. Instead, however, there are many massive deviations from unity, even within the first 50 responding neurons plotted in Figure 4G. These deviations include a jump in latency rank from 2 at low concentration to ~48 at high concentration. Such a jump is simply not seen in Figure 4G.

(6) In the text, the authors state that "Odor identity can be encoded by the set of highest-affinity neurons (which remains invariant across concentrations)." Presumably, this is a restatement of the primacy model and refers to invariance in latency rank (since the authors have not shown that the highest-affinity neurons have invariant response amplitudes across concentration). To what degree this statement holds given the results in Figure 4H, however, which appear to show that some neurons with the earliest latency rank at low concentration jump to much later latency ranks at high concentration, remains unclear. Such changes in latency rank for only a few of the first responding neurons may be negligible for classifying odor identity among a small handful of odorants, but not among 1-2 orders of magnitude more odors, which may feasibly occur in a natural setting. Collectively, these issues with the execution and presentation of the latency analysis make it unclear how robust the latency results are.

(7) Analysis in Figures 4A-C shows that concentration can be decoded from first-order neurons, second-order neurons, or first-order neurons with divisive normalization imposed (i.e., simulating second-order responses). This does not say that divisive normalization is necessary to encode concentration, however. Therefore, for the authors to say that divisive normalization is "a potential mechanism for generating odor-specific subsets of second-order neurons whose combinatorial activity or whose response latencies represent concentration information" seems too strong a conclusion. Divisive normalization is not generating the concentration information, since that can be decoded just as well from the first-order neurons. Rather, divisive normalization can account for the different population patterns in concentration response functions between first- and second-order neurons without discarding concentration-dependent information.

(8) Performing the same polar histogram analysis of tufted vs. mitral cell concentration response functions (Figure 5B) provides a compelling new visualization of how these two cell types differ in their concentration variance. The projected importance of tufted cells to navigation, emerging directly through the inverse relationship between average concentration and distance (Figure 5C), is not surprising, and is largely a conceptual analysis rather than new quantitative analysis per se, but nevertheless, this is an important point to make. Another important consideration absent from this section, however, is whether and how divisive normalization may impact tufted cell activity. Previous work from the authors, as well as from Schoppa, Shipley, and Westbrook labs, has compellingly demonstrated that a major circuit mediating divisive normalization of mitral cells (GABA/DAergic short-axon cells) directly targets external tufted cells, and is thus very likely to also influence projection tufted cells. Such analysis would additionally provide substantially more justification for the Discussion statement "we analyzed an additional type of second-order neuron (tufted cells)", which at present instead reflects fairly minimal analysis.

DOI: 10.1016/j.devcel.2025.07.011

Resource: None

Curator: @areedewitt04

SciCrunch record: RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-130930-3

What is this?

DOI: 10.1016/j.devcel.2025.07.011

Resource: (ZFIN Cat# ZDB-ALT-110503-3,RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-110503-3)

Curator: @areedewitt04

SciCrunch record: RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-110503-3

What is this?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The paper "The 1000+ mouse project: large-scale spatiotemporal parametrization and modeling of preclinical cancer immunotherapies" is focused on developing a novel methodology for automatic processing of bioluminescence imaging data. It provides quantitative and statistically robust insights into preclinical experiments that will contribute to optimizing cell-based therapies. There is an enormous demand for such methods and approaches that enable the spatiotemporal evaluation of cell monitoring in large cohorts of experimental animals.

Strengths:

The manuscript is generally well written, and the experiments are scientifically sound. The conclusions reflect the soundness of experimental data. This approach seems to be quite innovative and promising to improve the statistical accuracy of BLI data quantification.

This methodology can be used as a universal quantification tool for BLI data for in vivo assessment of adoptively transferred cells due to the versatility of the technology.

Weaknesses:

No weaknesses were identified by this Reviewer.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors present a technically impressive data set showing that repeated excitation or restraint stress internalises somatodendritic α2A adrenergic autoreceptors (α2A ARs) in locus coeruleus (LC) neurons. Loss of these receptors weakens GIRK-dependent autoinhibition, raises neuronal excitability, and is accompanied by higher MAO A, DOPEGAL, AEP, and tau N368 levels. The work combines rigorous whole-cell electrophysiology with barbadin-based trafficking assays, qPCR, Western blotting and immunohistochemistry. The final schematic is appealing and in principle, could explain early LC hyperactivity followed by degeneration in ageing and Alzheimer's disease.

Strengths:

Multi-level approach - The study integrates electrophysiology, pharmacology, mRNA quantification, and protein-level analysis.

Use of barbadin to block β-arrestin/AP-2-dependent internalisation is both technically precise and mechanistically informative

Well-executed electrophysiology

translation relevance

converges to a model that peers discussed (scientists can only discuss models - not data!)

Weaknesses:

Nevertheless, the manuscript currently reads as a sequence of discrete experiments rather than a single causal chain

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Khanna et al. use a well-conceived and well-executed set of experiments and analyses primarily to document the interaction between neural oscillations in the beta range (here, 13-30 Hz) and recovery of function in an animal model of stroke. Specifically, they show that cortical "beta bursts", or short-term increases in beta power, correlate strikingly with the timeline of behavioral recovery as quantified with a reach-to-grasp task. A key distinction is made between global beta bursts (here, those that synchronize between cortical and subcortical areas) and local bursts (which appear on only a few electrodes). This distinction of global vs. local is shown to be relevant to task performance and movement speed, among other quantities of interest.

A secondary results section explores the relationship between beta bursts and neuronal firing during the grasp portion of the behavioral task. These results are valuable to include, though mostly unsurprising, with global beta in particular associated with lower mean and variance in spike rates.

Last, a partial recapitulation of the primary results is offered with a neurologically intact (uninjured) animal. No major contradictions are found with the primary results.

Highlights of the Discussion section include a thoughtful review of atypical movements executed by individuals with Parkinson's disease or stroke survivors, placing the current results in an appropriate clinical context. Potential physiological mechanisms that could account for the observed results are also discussed effectively.

Strengths:

Overall, this is a very interesting paper. The ultimate impact will be enhanced by the authors' choice to analyze beta bursts, which remain a relatively under-explored aspect of neural coding.

The reach-and-grasp task was also a well-considered choice; the combination of a relatively simple movement (reaching towards a target in the same location each time) and a more complex movement (a skilled object-manipulation grasp) provides an internal control of sorts for data analysis. In addition, the task's two sub-movements provide a differential in terms of their likelihood to be affected by the stroke-like injury: proximal muscles (controlling reach) are likely to be less affected by stroke, while distal muscles (controlling grasp) are highly likely to be affected. Lastly, the requirement of the task to execute an object lift maximizes its difficulty and also the potential translational impact of the results on human injury.

The above comments about the task exemplify a strength that is more generally evident: a welcome awareness of clinical relevance, which is in evidence several times throughout the Results and Discussion.

Weaknesses:

The study's weaknesses are mostly minor and, for the most part, correctable.

One concern that may not be correctable in this study: the results about the spatial extent of beta activity seem constrained by relatively poor-quality data. It seems half or more of the electrodes are marked as too noisy to provide useful data in Figure 3. If this reflects the wider reality for all analyses, as mentioned, it may not be correctable for the present study. In that case, perhaps some of the experiments or analyses can be revisited or expanded for a future study, when better electrode yields are available.

Other concerns:

In some places, there is a lack of clarity in the presentation of the results. This is not serious but should be addressed to aid readers' comprehension.

Lastly, given the central role of beta oscillations within the study, it would be better for completeness to include even a brief exploration of sustained beta power (rather than bursts), and the modulation of sustained beta (or lack thereof) in the study's areas of concern: behavioral recovery, task performance, etc.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study investigates how phasic and tonic pain modulate behaviour in a free-operant foraging paradigm. The authors apply a computational modeling approach to the behavioural data to quantify the decision value of phasic pain, as well as the degree to which tonic pain reduces motivational vigour. EEG assessments showed, e.g., reduced signal power at alpha and beta frequencies in tonic pain conditions compared to no-tonic-pain conditions, but no association between these neural measures and motivational vigour. The authors conclude that tonic and phasic pain serve different motivational functions, with phasic pain acting as a punishment signal promoting avoidance and tonic pain reducing motivational vigour.

Strengths:

The experimental paradigm is highly innovative. Assessing human behaviour in a naturalistic yet highly controlled setting represents a promising approach to pain research. Notably, assessing pain magnitude implicitly, via its motivational value, offers insights about the overall pain experience that are not usually accessible via common pain ratings.

Weaknesses:

Despite these strengths, the manuscript would benefit significantly from more precise definitions of key concepts and an overall clearer, more coherent presentation of its main arguments. The writing, in its current form, often presents claims that are too vague or insufficiently connected with the experimental findings. Moreover, certain aspects of the computational modeling and statistical analysis appear flawed or inadequately justified.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The authors present a revised version of their manuscript (Ragusa et al.) describing a hemogenic gastruloid (haemGx) model, used to investigate stages of blood production in vitro and for modeling a rare type of infant leukemia. The revisions address several major concerns raised during the initial round of review, and new data have been provided that overall improve the clarity and rigour of the study. In particular, the additional flow cytometry, single-cell RNA-seq analyses, and benchmarking against in vivo datasets help, to some extent, to substantiate the claims of developmental relevance of haemGx to yolk sac (YS)- and AGM-like hematopoietic waves. Nonetheless, some issues remain, particularly regarding the claims of short-term engraftment, novelty of the model, and the extent to which AGM-like HSPC are truly captured.

Major Points:

(1) The authors have clarified the novelty of their haemGx protocol relative to existing gastruloid models, including the importance of the Activin A pulse and protocol extension to 216h. Flow cytometry and scRNA-seq analyses support the emergence of endothelial and hematopoietic populations with dynamic marker expression. However, direct side-by-side comparisons with previously published protocols (e.g., Rossi et al., 2022) remain limited. The claim of "spatio-temporal accuracy" should be more cautiously phrased.

(2) The characterization of the identity of the hematopoietic waves generated in the haemGx system has been improved in the revised manuscript. Flow cytometry analysis now includes CD31/CD34 co-expression in CD41+ and CD45+ subsets, and scRNA-seq re-clustering supports two hematopoietic waves with distinct marker sets (e.g., Gata2/Myb vs. Hoxa9/Ikzf1). Projection onto multiple embryonic reference datasets (Hou et al., Zhu et al., Thambyrajah et al.) is a valuable addition. The case for YS-like EMP and AGM-like HSPC precursors is reasonably made, though further functional distinctions (e.g., lineage output differences) would strengthen the claims.

(3) The authors have now provided additional evidence for low-level engraftment following adrenal implantation of whole haemGx. Although technically demanding, this in vivo result remains marginal and should be interpreted with caution. Crucially, this still does not demonstrate HSC-level repopulation capacity. The revised manuscript has softened the claims accordingly, now referring to "progenitor" activity rather than "pre-HSC." We agree that this adjusted claim is more suitable, though the reproducibility of this experiment is still unclear.

(4) The MNX1 overexpression experiments are generally convincing in showing early expansion of a putative HE-to-EMP-like population and transcriptional resemblance to MNX1-r AML. However, the evidence for transformation is still solely based on in vitro data and lacks any evidence of in vivo leukaemia engraftment. The ability to perturb the system would add translational value to the haemGx platform, although future studies are needed to better define transformation dynamics and leukemogenic progression.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Natarajan and colleagues report on the role of a prophage, termed SfPat, in the regulation of motility and biofilm formation by the marine bacterium Shewanella fidelis. The authors investigate the in vivo relevance of prophage carriage by studying the gut occupation patterns of Shewanella fidelis wild-type and an isogenic SfPat- mutant derivative in a model organism, juveniles of the marine tunicate Ciona robusta. The role of bacterial prophages in regulating bacterial lifestyle adaptation and niche occupation is a relatively underexplored field, and efforts in this direction are appreciated.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed my main concerns. While some responses remain somewhat ambiguous or defer key clarifications to future studies, I appreciate that not everything can be resolved within a single manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Voigt et al. present a comprehensive study exploring the molecular mechanisms and evolution of biomineralization in the calcareous sponge Sycon ciliatum. Using a multi-omics approach, including comparative transcriptomics, proteomics, genomic analyses, and high-resolution in situ hybridization, the authors identify 829 candidate biomineralization genes, with a special focus on the calcarin gene family. These calarains, structurally analogous to galaxin in stony corals, show cell-type- and spicule-type-specific expression patterns, revealed through meticulous FISH imaging. Chromosomal analysis further uncovers that several calcarin genes are arranged in tandem arrays, suggesting diversification via gene duplication and neofunctionalization. Notably, the study finds striking parallels between the calcarins of S. ciliatum and galaxins of aragonitic corals in terms of gene arrangement, tertiary structure predictions, and expression dynamics, pointing to a remarkable case of parallel evolution during the emergence of biomineralized skeletons in early metazoans.

Strengths:

The study is methodologically robust, integrating transcriptomic, proteomic, and genomic data with detailed cell biological analysis.

High-quality, carefully annotated FISH images convincingly demonstrate the spatial expression patterns of calcarins.

Novel evidence of sponge cell trans-differentiation is presented through cell-type-specific gene expression.

The comparative perspective with coral galaxins is well-executed and biologically insightful, supported by structural predictions and chromosomal data.

Figures and supplementary materials are thoughtfully revised for clarity and accessibility, addressing reviewer feedback.

Weaknesses:

Direct functional validation of calcarin roles in biomineralization is lacking, a limitation acknowledged by the authors and inherent to sponge models.

The evolutionary history of calcarins and galaxins remains only partially resolved due to challenges in reconstructing phylogenies of fast-evolving gene families.

Some initial figure annotations and definitions (e.g., "radial tube") required clarification, although these were addressed in revision.

Overall, the work significantly advances our understanding of biomineralization´s molecular basis and its parallel evolution in early diverging metazoans.

Comments on revisions:

I would like to thank the authors for addressing all my comments/suggestions. I am OK with the revised version of the manuscript

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The migration of primordial germ cells (PGCs) to the developing gonad is a poorly understood yet essential step in reproductive development. Here, the authors examine whether there are differences in leading and lagging migratory PGCs using single-cell RNA sequencing of mouse embryos. Cleverly, the authors dissected embryonic trunks along the anterior-to-posterior axis prior to scRNAseq in order to distinguish leading and lagging migratory PGCs. After batch corrections, their analyses revealed several known and novel differences in gene expression within and around leading and lagging PGCs, intercellular signaling networks, as well as number of genes upregulated upon gonad colonization. The authors then compared their datasets with publicly available human datasets to identify common biological themes. Altogether, this rigorous study reveals several differences between leading and lagging migratory PGCs, hints at signatures for different fates among the population of migratory PGCs, and provides new potential markers for post-migratory PGCs in both humans and mice. While many of the interesting hypotheses that arise from this work are not extensively tested, these data provide a rich platform for future investigations.

Strengths:

The authors have successfully navigated significant technical challenges to obtain a substantial number of mouse migratory primordial germ cells for robust transcriptomic analysis. Here, the authors were able to collect quality data on ~13,000 PGCs and ~7,800 surrounding somatic cells, which is ten times more PGCs than previous studies.

The decision to physically separate leading and lagging primordial germ cells was clever and well-validated based on expected anterior-to-posterior transcriptional signatures.

Within the PGCs and surrounding tissues, the authors found many gene expression dynamics they would expect to see both along the PGC migratory path as well as across developmental time, increasing confidence in the new differentially expressed genes they found.

The comparison of their mouse-based migratory PGC datasets with existing human migratory PGC datasets is appreciated.

The quality control, ambient RNA contamination elimination, batch correction, cell identification and analysis of scRNAseq data were thorough and well-done such that the new hypotheses and markers found through this study are dependable.

The subsetting of cells in their trajectory analysis is appreciated, further strengthening their cell terminal state predictions.

Weaknesses:

There were a few validation experiments within this study. For one such experiment, whether there is a difference in pSMAD2/3 along the AP axis is unclear and not quantified, as was nicely done for Lefty1/2.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript presents a large common garden experiment across Sweden using solely local germplasm. Additionally, there is a collection of selection experiments that begin investigating the factors shaping fecundity in these populations. This provides an impressive amount of data and analysis investigating the underlying factors involved. Together, this helps support the data showing that fluctuations and interactions are key components determining Arabidopsis fitness and are more broadly applicable across plant and non-plant species.

Strengths:

The field trials are well conducted with extensive effort and sampling. Similarly while the genetic analysis is complex it is well conducted and reflects the complexity of dealing with population structure that may be intricately linked to adaptive structure. This has no real solution and the option of presenting results with and without correction is likely the only appropriate option.

Weaknesses:

A significant finding from this study was that fecundity is shaped more by yearly fluctuations and their interaction with genotype than it is by the main effect of location or genotype. Another significant finding is that the strength of selection can be quite strong, with nearly 5x ranges across accessions. It should be noted that there are a number of other studies using Arabidopsis in the wild with multiple years and locations that found similar observations beyond the Oakley citation. In general, the context of how these findings relate to existing knowledge in Arabidopsis is a bit underdeveloped.

The effects of the populations across the locations seem to rely on individual tests and PC analysis. It would seem to be possible to incorporate these tests more directly in the linear modeling analysis, and it isn't quite clear why this wasn't conducted.

I'm a bit puzzled by the discussion on how to find causative loci. This seems to focus solely on GWAS as the solution, with a goal to sequence vast individuals. But the loci that the manuscript discussed were found by a combination of structured mapping populations followed by molecular validation that then informed the GWAS. As such, I'm unsure if the proposed future approach of more sequencing is the best when a more balanced approach integrating diverse methods and population types will be more useful.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

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

Strengths:

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

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

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

Weaknesses:

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

Reviewer #5 (Public review):

Summary:

Hypothalamic hypocretin/orexin neurons are well-known to be involved in arousal, muscle tone and energy metabolism. Using a combination of fiber photometry, video-based movement assessments, and deep learning algorithms, the authors provide compelling evidence that the activity of these neurons correlates with net body movement over multiple behaviors and is independent of nutritional state. The authors also demonstrate that hypocretin/orexin release differs between two downstream projection sites, the locus coeruleus and substantia nigra, and are able to distinguish the activity in these sites that is due to inputs from these hypothalamic neurons vs. from other subcortical populations. The authors also convincingly show that the correlation between body movement and hypocretin/orexin neuron activity is much stronger compared to other subcortical regions. However, hypocretin/orexin neuron ablation does not affect the power spectra of movements, an observation that appears at odds with their overall conclusions.

Strengths:

The multidisciplinary approach using multiple state-of-the-art tools is supported by a rigorous experimental design and strong statistical analyses. The authors have been highly responsive to previous critiques. Concerns of another reviewer regarding the confound between arousal and movement have been addressed by new pupillometry data as a measure of arousal and multivariate analyses to distinguish between the contributions of arousal vs. movement to hypocretin/orexin neuron activity. The new data in Figure 2H added in response to a suggestion by Reviewer 3 particularly strengthens the paper.

Weaknesses:

Reviewer 2 mentioned that previous studies using orexin antagonists in rodents have largely found inconsistent effect of antagonizing orexin signaling on simple motor activity and points out that these studies are not referenced here. The authors respond that "orexin antagonism - or optogenetic silencing of HONs - evokes either reduced locomotion, or no effect on locomotor movements" and add references to paragraph 4 of the Discussion. Aside from the fact that 2 of the 3 references added are from the senior author, none address the fact that orexin antagonists induce sleep and that optogenetic silencing of these cells creates a condition where sleep can ensue with short latency - results that certainly affect body movement/locomotor activity.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this set of experiments, the authors describe a novel research tool for studying complex cognitive tasks in mice, the HABITS automated training apparatus, and a novel "machine teaching" approach they use to accelerate training by algorithmically providing trials to animals that provide the most information about the current rule state for a given task.

Strengths:

There is much to be celebrated in an inexpensively constructed, replicable training environment that can be used with mice, which have rapidly become the model species of choice for understanding the roles of distinct circuits and genetic factors in cognition. Lingering challenges in developing and testing cognitive tasks in mice remain, however, and these are often chalked up to cognitive limitations in the species. The authors' findings, however, suggest that instead we may need to work creatively to meet mice where they live. In some cases it may be that mice may require durations of training far longer than laboratories are able to invest with manual training (up to over 100k trials, over months of daily testing) but that the tasks are achievable. The "machine teaching" approach further suggests that this duration could be substantially reduced by algorithmically optimizing each trial presented during training to maximize learning.

Weaknesses:

Cognitive training and testing in rodent models fill a number of roles. Sometimes, investigators are interested in within-subjects questions - querying a specific circuit, genetically defined neuron population, or molecule/drug candidate, by interrogating or manipulating its function in a highly trained animal. In this scenario, a cohort of highly trained animals which have been trained via a method that aims to make their behavior as similar as possible is a strength.

However, often investigators are interested in between-subjects questions - querying a source of individual differences that can have long term and/or developmental impacts, such as sex differences or gene variants. This is likely to often be the case in mouse models especially, because of their genetic tractability. In scenarios where investigators have examined cognitive processes between subjects in mice who vary across these sources of individual difference, the process of learning a task has been repeatedly shown to be different. The authors recognize that their approach is currently optimized for testing within-subjects questions, but begin to show how between-subjects questions might be addressed with this system.

The authors have perhaps shown that their main focus is highly-controlled within-subjects questions, as their dataset is almost exclusively made up of several hundred young adult male mice, with the exception of 6 females in a supplemental figure. It is notable that these female mice do appear to learn the two-alternative forced choice task somewhat more rapidly than the males in their cohort, and the authors suggest that future work with this system could be used to uncover strategies that differ across individuals.

Considering the implications for mice modeling relevant genetic variants, it is unclear to what extent the training protocols and especially the algorithmic machine teaching approach would be able to inform investigators about the differences between their groups during training. For investigators examining genetic models, it is unclear whether this extensive training experience would mitigate the ability to observe cognitive differences, or select for the animals best able to overcome them - eliminating the animals of interest. Likewise, the algorithmic approach aims to mitigate features of training such as side biases, but it is worth noting that the strategic uses of side biases in mice, as in primates, can benefit learning, rather than side biases solely being a problem. However, the investigators may be able to highlight variables selected by the algorithm that are associated with individual strategies in performing their tasks, and this would be a significant contribution.

A final, intriguing finding in this manuscript is that animal self-paced training led to much slower learning than "manual" training, by having the experimenter introduce the animal to the apparatus for a few hours each day. Manual training resulted in significantly faster learning, in almost half the number of trials on average, and with significantly fewer omitted trials. This finding does not necessarily argue that manual training is universally a better choice, because it led to more limited water consumption. However, it suggests that there is a distinct contribution of experimenter interactions and/or switching contexts in cognitive training, for example, by activating an "occasion setting" process to accelerate learning for a distinct period of time. Limiting experimenter interactions with mice may be a labor saving intervention, but may not necessarily improve performance. This could be an interesting topic of future investigation, of relevance to understanding how animals of all species learn.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Banse et al., demonstrate that combining computer prediction with genetic analysis in distinct Caenorhabditis species can streamline the discovery of aging interventions by taking advantage of the diverse pool of compounds that are currently available. They demonstrate that through careful prioritization of candidate compounds, they are able to accomplish a 30% positive hit rate for interventions that produce significant lifespan extensions. Within the positive hits, they focus on all-trans retinoic acid (atRA) and discover that it modulates lifespan through conserved longevity pathways such as AKT-1 and AKT-2 (and other conserved Akt-targets such as Nrf2/SKN-1 and HSF1/HSF-1) as well as through AAK-2, a conserved catalytic subunit of AMPK. To better understand the genetic mechanisms behind lifespan extension upon atRA treatment, the authors perform RNAseq experiments using a variety of genetic backgrounds for cross comparison and validation. Using this current state-of-the-art approach for studying gene expression, the authors determine that atRA treatment produces gene expression changes across a broad set of stress-response and longevity-related pathways. Overall, this study is important since it highlights the potential of combining traditional genetic analysis in the genetically tractable organism C. elegans with computational methods that will become even more powerful with the swift advancements being made in artificial intelligence. The study possesses both theoretical and practical implications not only in the field of aging, but also in related fields such as health and disease. Most of the claims in this study are supported by solid evidence, but the conclusions can be refined with a small set of additional experiments or re-analysis of data.

Strengths:

(1) The criteria for prioritizing compounds for screening are well-defined and is easy to replicate (Figure 1), even for scientists with limited experience in computational biology. The approach is also adaptable to other systems or model organisms.

(2) I commend the researchers for doing follow-up experiments with the compound propranolol to verify its effect of lifespan (Figure 2- figure supplement 2), given the observation that it affected the growth of OP50. To prevent false hits in the future, the reviewer recommends the use of inactivated OP50 for future experiments to remove this confounding variable.

(3) The sources of variation (Figure 3-figure supplement 2) are taken into account and demonstrates the need for advancing our understanding of the lifespan phenotype due to inter-individual variation.

(4) The addition of the C. elegans swim test in addition to the lifespan assays provides further evidence of atRA-induced improvement in longevity.

(5) The RNAseq approach was performed in a variety of genetic backgrounds, which allowed the authors to determine the relationship between AAK-2 and HSF-1 regulation of the retinoic acid pathway in C. elegans, specifically, that the former functions downstream of the latter.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors demonstrate that atRA extends lifespan in a species-specific manner (Figure 3). Specifically, this extension only occurs in the species C. elegans yet, the title implies that atRA-induced lifespan extension occurs in different Caenorhabditis species when it is clearly not the case. While the authors state that failure to observe phenotypes in C. briggsae and C. tropicalis is a common feature of CITP tests, they do not speculate as to why this phenomenon occurs.

(2) There are discrepancies between the lifespan curves by hand (Figure 3-Figure supplement 1) and using the automated lifespan machine (Figure 3-supplement 3). Specifically, in the automated lifespan assays, there are drastic changes in the slope of the survival curve which do not occur in the manual assays and may be suggestive that confounding factors may still operate or produce additional variation in ALM experiments despite relatively well-controlled environmental conditions.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this study, Chen L et al. systematically analyzed the mycobacterial nucleomodulins and identified MgdE as a key nucleomodulin in pathogenesis. They found that MgdE enters into host cell nucleus through two nuclear localization signals, KRIR108-111 and RLRRPR300-305, and then interacts with COMPASS complex subunits ASH2L and WDR5 to suppress H3K4 methylation-mediated transcription of pro-inflammatory cytokines, thereby promoting mycobacterial survival. This study is potentially interesting, but there are several critical issues that need to be addressed to support the conclusions of the manuscript.

(1) Figure 2: The study identified MgdE as a nucleomodulin in mycobacteria and demonstrated its nuclear translocation via dual NLS motifs. The authors examined MgdE nuclear translocation through ectopic expression in HEK293T cells, which may not reflect physiological conditions. Nuclear-cytoplasmic fractionation experiments under mycobacterial infection should be performed to determine MgdE localization.

(2) Figure 2F: The authors detected MgdE-EGFP using an anti-GFP antibody, but EGFP as a control was not detected in its lane. The authors should address this technical issue.

(3) Figure 3C-3H: The data showing that the expression of all detected genes in 24 h is comparable to that in 4 h (but not 0 h) during WT BCG infection is beyond comprehension. The issue is also present in Figure 7C, Figure 7D, and Figure S7. Moreover, since Il6, Il1β (pro-inflammatory), and Il10 (anti-inflammatory) were all upregulated upon MgdE deletion, how do the authors explain the phenomenon that MgdE deletion simultaneously enhanced these gene expressions?

(4) Figure 5: The authors confirmed the interactions between MgdE and WDR5/ASH2L. How does the interaction between MgdE and WDR5 inhibit COMPASS-dependent methyltransferase activity? Additionally, the precise MgdE-ASH2L binding interface and its functional impact on COMPASS assembly or activity require clarification.

(5) Figure 6: The authors proposed that the MgdE-regulated COMPASS complex-H3K4me3 axis suppresses pro-inflammatory responses, but the presented data do not sufficiently support this claim. H3K4me3 inhibitor should be employed to verify cytokine production during infection.

(6) There appears to be a discrepancy between the results shown in Figure S7 and its accompanying legend. The data related to inflammatory responses seem to be missing, and the data on bacterial colonization are confusing (bacterial DNA expression or CFU assay?).

(7) Line 112-116: Please provide the original experimental data demonstrating nuclear localization of the 56 proteins harboring putative NLS motifs.

https://www.typewriterfeet.com/<br /> Antony Valoppi

https://github.com/joshshapiro/Selectric_III_typeballs

via https://www.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1mgu936/3d_printable_ibm_selectriciii_96char_ball_support/

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Disclaimer:

My expertise is in live single-molecule imaging of RNA and transcription, as well as associated data analysis and modeling. While this aligns well with the technical aspects of the manuscript, my background in translation is more limited, and I am not best positioned to assess the novelty of the biological conclusions.

Summary:

This study combines live-cell imaging of nascent proteins on single mRNAs with time-series analysis to investigate the kinetics of mRNA translation.

The authors (i) used a calibration method for estimating absolute ribosome counts, and (ii) developed a new Bayesian approach to infer ribosome counts over time from run-off experiments, enabling estimation of elongation rates and ribosome density across conditions.

They report (i) translational bursting at the single-mRNA level, (ii) low ribosome density (~10% occupancy {plus minus} a few percents), (iii) that ribosome density is minimally affected by perturbations of elongation (using a drug and/or different coding sequences in the reporter), suggesting a homeostatic mechanism potentially involving a feedback of elongation onto initiation, although (iv) this coupling breaks down upon knockout of elongation factor eIF5A.

Strengths:

(1) The manuscript is well written, and the conclusions are, in general, appropriately cautious (besides the few improvements I suggest below).

(2) The time-series inference method is interesting and promising for broader applications.

(3) Simulations provide convincing support for the modeling (though some improvements are possible).

(4) The reported homeostatic effect on ribosome density is surprising and carefully validated with multiple perturbations.

(5) Imaging quality and corrections (e.g., flat-fielding, laser power measurements) are robust.

(6) Mathematical modeling is clearly described and precise; a few clarifications could improve it further.

Weaknesses:

(1) The absolute quantification of ribosome numbers (via the measurement of $i_{MP}$​) should be improved. This only affects the finding that ribosome density is low, not that it appears to be under homeostatic control. However, if $i_{MP}$​ turns out to be substantially overestimated (hence ribosome density underestimated), then "ribosomes queuing up to the initiation site and physically blocking initiation" could become a relevant hypothesis. In my detailed recommendations to the authors, I list points that need clarification in their quantifications and suggest an independent validation experiment (measuring the intensity of an object with a known number of GFP molecules, e.g., MS2-GFP MS2-GFP-labeled RNAs, or individual GEMs).

(2) The proposed initiation-elongation coupling is plausible, but alternative explanations, such as changes in abortive elongation frequency, should be considered more carefully. The authors mention this possibility, but should test or rule it out quantitatively.

(3) The observation of translational bursting is presented as novel, but similar findings were reported by Livingston et al. (2023) using a similar SunTag-MS2 system. This prior work should be acknowledged, and the added value of the current approach clarified.

(4) It is unclear what the single-mRNA nature of the inference method is bringing since it is only used here to report _average_ ribosome elongation rate and density (averaged across mRNAs and across time during the run-off experiments - although the method, in principle, has the power to resolve these two aspects).

(5) I did not find any statement about data availability. The data should be made available. Their absence limits the ability to fully assess and reproduce the findings.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In the revised manuscript, Long et al., showed that sul1∆ mutants have extended replicative lifespan in budding yeast. In comparison, other mutants that have sulfate transport deficiency did not show extended lifespan, suggesting SUL1 deletion extends lifespan independently of sulfate intake. The authors then explored the transcriptome of sul1∆ mutants by RNA-seq, which suggests that SUL1 deletion impacts common longevity pathways. Furthermore, the authors characterized how the PKA pathway is affected in sul1∆ mutants: SUL1 deletion promotes the nuclear localization of Msn2, as well as autophagy, indicating down-regulation of the PKA pathway.

Strengths:

This study raised an interesting point that inorganic transporters may impact cellular stress response pathways and affect lifespan. Some of the characterizations on the sul1∆ mutants, including the RNA-seq and MSN2 localization could provide valuable sources for people in related fields. Compared with the previous version, the writing is significantly improved, making the manuscript clearer.

Weaknesses:

Several critical flaws have not been revised. The claims are still not well supported by the data.

(1) The revised manuscript still uses Atg8-EGFP, in which GFP is likely tagging at the C-terminus of Atg8. No strain information was provided for this strain, so it is unclear whether it is N- or C- terminal tagged. As pointed by reviewers of the previous version, C-terminal tagged Atg8 is not functional. As a result, the conclusions on autophagy (Figure 4) is questionable.

(2) The nuclear localization of Msn2 is much more convincing after the authors updated Figure 3C. However, the rest of the microscopy images (e.g. Figure 3E, 4B, 4E) are still of low resolution. Again, I suggest to separate the DIC and GFP channels. It is really hard to tell where is the GFP signal from these figures.

(3) In the Kankipati et al. 2015 paper, which is cited by the authors, SUL1E427Q is incorporated on a pRS316 (URA3) plasmic and expressed in sul1∆sul2∆ mutants. In this manuscript, the authors used SUL1E427Q mutants but did not give detailed information on how this construct is expressed. Is it endogenously mutated, incorporated into somewhere in the genome, or expressed from an extrachromosomal plasmid?<br /> In Figure 1B, they simply used BY4741 as a control for the SUL1E427Q mutant. This makes me thinking they are using a SUL1E427Q endogenous point mutation mutant. If so, the authors may want to include the information about this strain in their Supplementary table. Or if it is expressed from an extra copy on chromosomes or extrachromosomal plasmids, the authors would need to express this construct in sul1∆ mutant. In this case, the authors may want to use sul1∆ and sul1∆+empty vector as controls, instead of BY4741. As the authors mentioned in their rebuttal letter, lifespan experiments vary between each individual trials and are not comparable between different trials. Thus proper controls are essential to make the results convincing.

(4) As suggested by reviewers of the previous version, the authors tested the sulfate uptake in different mutants within 10 minute of Na2SO4 addition (Figure 1B). The authors concluded from the data that wild type takes up sulfate faster than the mutants but they reach similar concentrations at the end point (as fast as 10 minutes). Are all these cells sulfate-starved before the experiment? If not, the experiment might be affected by the basal level of sulfate in each mutants.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Cardno et al. "test the hypothesis that DUBs could oppose PROTAC-mediated degradation of cellular targets, using AURKA as a model target". A screen with a panel of siRNA that depleted 97 DUBs in the presence and absence of AURKA targeted PROTAC-D identified DUBs that regulated AURKA and those that affected the sensitivity of PROTAC-D. Validation studies with DUBs, UCHL5, and OTU6A yielded mixed results. UCHL5 not only affected PROTAC-mediated AURKA degradation but also affected CRBN-associated substrates, OTUD6A, more specifically, affected PROTAC-mediated AURKA degradation, and the effects of OTUD6A were associated with the localisation of AURKA. The findings are interesting; the impact of the findings would be strengthened if the key results are validated in one or more cancer cell lines that have not been modified.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, authors Simone Rencken and co-authors present and investigate the genome of the common cuttlefish Sepia officinalis.

Strengths:

The authors explain in a detailed yet concise manner the main steps for a genome assembly, with very robust methods for validation, and according to current best practices. In addition to the chromosomal assembly, the authors confirmed the presence of 47 chromosomes using Hi-C data and multiple species synteny. They also generated a comprehensive gene annotation, with assessments of gene completeness, providing a useful resource for the community of researchers interested in cuttlefish biology and comparative genomics.

Weaknesses:

While the study touches upon the subjects of gene content, TE activity, or species-level comparisons, the study does not provide in-depth investigations of these.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors' research here was to understand the role of hypoxia and hypoxia-induced transcription factor Hif-1a in the epicardium. The authors noted that hypoxia was prevalent in the embryonic heart, and this persisted into neonatal stages until postnatal day 7 (P7). Hypoxic regions in the heart were noted in the outer layer of the heart, and expression of Hif-1a coincided with the epicardial gene WT1. It has been documented that at P7, the mouse heart cannot regenerate after myocardial infarction, and the authors speculated that the change in epicardial hypoxic conditions could play a role in regeneration. The authors then used genetic and pharmacological tools to increase the activity of Hif genes in the heart and noted that there was a significant improvement in cardiac function when Hif-1a was active in the epicardium. The authors speculated that the presence of Hif-1a improved cell survival.

Strengths:

A focus on hypoxia and its effects on the epicardium in development and after myocardial infarction. This study outlines the potential to extend the regenerative time window in neonatal mammalian hearts.

Weaknesses:

While the observations of improved cardiac function are clear, the exact mechanism of how increased Hif-1a activity causes these effects is not completely revealed. The authors mention improved myocardium survival, but do not include studies to demonstrate this.

There is an indication that fibrosis is decreased in hearts where Hif activity is prolonged, but there are no studies to link hypoxia and fibrosis.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The authors present an important approach to identify imported P. falciparum malaria cases, combining genetic and epidemiological/travel data. This tool has the potential to be expanded to other contexts. The data was analyzed using convincing methods, including a novel statistical model; although some recognized limitations can be improved. This study will be of interest to researchers in public health and infectious diseases.

Strengths:

The study has several strengths, mainly the development of a novel Bayesian model that integrates genomic, epidemiological, and travel data to estimate importation probabilities. The results showed insights into malaria transmission dynamics, particularly identifying importation sources and differences in importation rates in Mozambique. Finally, the relevance of the findings is to suggest interventions focusing on the traveler population to help efforts for malaria elimination.

Weaknesses:

The study also has some limitations. The sample collection was not representative of some provinces, and not all samples had sufficient metadata for risk factor analysis, which can also be affected by travel recall bias. Additionally, the authors used a proxy for transmission intensity and assumed some conditions for the genetic variable when calculating the importation probability for specific scenarios. The weaknesses were assessed by the authors.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this revised manuscript, Gao et al. presented a series of well-controlled behavioral data showing that tussling, a form of high-intensity fighting among male fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) is enhanced specifically among socially experienced and relatively old males. Moreover, results of behavioral assays led authors to suggest that increased tussling among socially experienced males may increase mating success. They also concluded that tussling is controlled by a class of olfactory sensory neurons and sexually dimorphic central neurons that are distinct from pathways known to control lunges, a common male-type attack behavior.

A major strength of this work is that it is the first attempt to characterize behavioral function and neural circuit associated with Drosophila tussling. Many animal species use both low-intensity and high-intensity tactics to resolve conflicts. High-intensity tactics are mostly reserved for escalated fights, which are relatively rare. Because of this, tussling in the flies, like high-intensity fights in other animal species, have not been systematically investigated. Previous studies on fly aggressive behavior have often used socially isolated, relatively young flies within a short observation duration. Their discovery that 1) older (14-days old) flies tend to tussle more often than younger (2 to 7-days-old) flies, 2) group-reared flies tend to tussle more often than socially isolated flies, and 3) flies tend to tussle at later stage (mostly ~15 minutes after the onset of fighting), are the result of their creativity to look outside of conventional experimental settings. These new findings are key for quantitatively characterizing this interesting yet under-studied behavior.

Newly presented data have made several conclusions convincing. Detailed descriptions of methods to quantify behaviors help understand the basis of their claims by improving transparency. However, I remain concerned about authors' persistent attempt to link the high intensity aggression to reproductive success. The authors' effort to "tone down" the link between the two phenomena remains insufficient. There are purely correlational. I reiterate this issue because the overall value of the manuscript would not change with or without this claim.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Use of reporter assays to understand the regulatory mechanisms controlling gene expression moves beyond simple correlations of cis-regulatory sequence accessibility, evolutionary sequence conservation, and epigenetic status with gene expression, instead quantifying regulatory sequence activity for individual elements. Tulloch et al., provide a systematic characterization of two new reporter assay techniques (LS-MPRA and d-MPRA) to comprehensively identify cis-regulatory sequences contained within genomic loci of interest during retinal development. The authors then apply LS-MPRA and d-MPRA to identify putative cis-regulatory sequences controlling Olig2 and Ngn2 expression, including potential regulatory motifs that known retinal transcription factors may bind. Transcription factor binding to regulatory sequences is then assessed via CUT&RUN. The broader utility of the techniques is then highlighted by performing the assays across development, across species, and across tissues.

Strengths:

(1) The authors validate the reporter assays on retinal loci for which the regulatory sequences are known (Rho, Vsx2, Grm6, Cabp5) mostly confirming known regulatory sequence activity but highlighting either limitations of the current technology or discrepancies of previous reporter assays and known biology. The techniques are then applied to loci of interest (Olig2 and Ngn2) to better understand the regulatory sequences driving expression of these transcription factors across retinal development within subsets of retinal progenitor cells, identifying novel regulatory sequences through comprehensive profiling of the region.

(2) LS-MPRA provides broad coverage of loci of interest.

(3) d-MPRA identifies sequence features that are important for cis-regulatory sequence activity.

(4) The authors take into account transcript and protein stability when determining the correlation of putative enhancer sequence activity with target gene expression.

Weaknesses:

(1) In its current form, the many important controls that are standard for other MPRA experiments are not shown or not performed, limiting the interpretations of the utility of the techniques. This includes limited controls for basal-promoter activity, limited information about sequence saturation and reproducibility of individual fragments across different barcode sequences, limitations in cloning and assay delivery, and sequencing requirements. Additional quantitative metrics, including locus coverage and number of barcodes/fragments, would be beneficial throughout the manuscript.

(2) There are no statistical metrics for calling a region/sequence 'active'. This is especially important given that NR3 for Olig2 seems to have a small 'peak' and has non-significant activity in Figure 4.

(3) The authors present correlational data for identified cis-regulatory sequences with target gene expression. Additionally, the significance of transcription factor binding to the putative regulatory sequences is not currently tested, only correlated based on previous single-cell RNA-sequencing data. While putative regulatory sequences with potential mechanisms of regulation are identified/proposed, the lack of validation (and discrepancies with previous literature) makes it hard to decipher the utility of the techniques.

(4) While the interpretations that Olig2 mRNA/protein expression is dynamically regulated improved the proportions of cells that co-expressed CRM-regulated GFP and Olig2, alternate explanations (some noted) are just as likely. First, the electroporation isn't specific to Olig2+ progenitors. Also, the tested, short CRM fragments may have activating signals outside of Olig2 neurogenic cells because chromatin conformation, histone modifications, and DNA methylation are not present on plasmids to precisely control plasmid activity. Alternatively, repressive elements that control Olig2 expression are not contained in the reporter vectors.

(5) It is unclear as to why the d-MPRA uses a different barcoding strategy, placing a second copy of the cis-regulatory sequence in the 3' UTR. As acknowledged by the author, this will change the transcript stability by changing the 3' UTR sequence. Because of this, comparisons of sequence activity between the LS-MPRA and d-MPRA should not be performed as the experiments are not equivalent.

(6) Furthermore, details of the mutational burden in d-MPRA experiments are not provided, limiting the interpretations of these results.

(7) Many figures are IGV screenshots that suffer from low resolution. Many figures could be consolidated.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Krwawicz et al., present evidence that expression of DNMTs in E. coli results in (1) introduction of alkylation damage that is repaired by AlkB; (2) confers hypersensitivity to alkylating agents such as MMS (and exacerbated by loss of AlkB); (3) confers hypersensitivity to oxidative stress (H2O2 exposure); (4) results in a modest increase in ROS in the absence of exogenous H2O2 exposure; and (5) results in the production of oxidation products of 5mC, namely 5hmC and 5fC, leading to cellular toxicity. The findings reported here have interesting implications for the concept that such genotoxic and potentially mutagenic consequences of DNMT expression (resulting in 5mC) could be selectively disadvantageous for certain organisms. The other aspect of this work which is important for understanding the biological endpoints of genotoxic stress is the notion that DNA damage per se somehow induces elevated levels of ROS.

Strengths:

The manuscript is well-written, and the experiments have been carefully executed providing data that support the authors' proposed model presented in Fig. 7 (Discussion, sources of DNA damage due to DNMT expression).

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors have established an informative system relying on expression of DNMTs to gauge the effects of such expression and subsequent induction of 3mC and 5mC on cell survival and sensitivity to an alkylating agent (MMS) and exogenous oxidative stress (H2O2 exposure). The authors state (p4) that Fig. 2 shows that "Cells expressing either M.SssI or M.MpeI showed increased sensitivity to MMS treatment compared to WT C2523, supporting the conclusion that the expression of DNMTs increased the levels of alkylation damage." This is a confusing statement and requires revision as Fig. 2 does ALL cells shown in Fig. 2 are expressing DNMTs and have been treated with MMS. It is the absence of AlkB and the expression of DNMTs that that causes the MMS sensitivity.

(2) It would be important to know whether the increased sensitivity (toxicity) to DNMT expression and MMS is also accompanied by substantial increases in mutagenicity. The authors should explain in the text why mutation frequencies were not also measured in these experiments.

(3) Materials and Methods. ROS production monitoring. The "Total Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) Assay Kit" has not been adequately described. Who is the Vendor? What is the nature of the ROS probes employed in this assay? Which specific ROS correspond to "total ROS"?

(4) The demonstration (Fig. 4) that DNMT expression results in elevated ROS and its further synergistic increase when cells are also exposed to H2O2 is the basis for the authors' discussion of DNA damage-induced increases in cellular ROS. S. cerevisiae does not possess DNMTs/5mC, yet exposure to MMS also results in substantial increases in intracellular ROS (Rowe et al, (2008) Free Rad. Biol. Med. 45:1167-1177. PMC2643028). The authors should be aware of previous studies that have linked DNA damage to intracellular increases in ROS in other organisms and should comment on this in the text.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Wójcik and colleagues investigated how the maintenance of task information in working memory influences the dimensionality of task representations. The task required an exclusive-or (XOR) mapping as the output by combining stimulus features separated by a delay period. The authors found that context information invariant to input features (i.e., color) is maintained and enhanced over the course of learning the task.

The significance of this study lies in its demonstration of how learning selectively changes the geometry of task representations. The clear-cut results emphasize that learning promotes the abstraction of task representations for context-dependent computations. It is also important to investigate how working memory mechanisms contribute to the geometry and optimization of task representations, as such studies in humans are scarce.

Strengths:

(1) The task design and analyses are clear.

(2) The theoretical motivation to study low-dimensional representations and temporal decomposition is strong. Understanding how learning changes these qualities is a novel and important question.

Weaknesses:

(1) The specific contribution of working memory maintenance to the dimensionality and abstraction of representations is unclear. While the task likely recruits working memory, there are no direct assessments linking the observed results to particular qualities or mechanisms of working memory. In other words, neural representations observed during the delay period are interpreted as working memory.

(2) The dissociation between XOR and motor representations is ambiguous, as they only become distinguishable during error trials. Additionally, they show similar time courses and learning-related changes.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The authors investigated SP-induced physiological and molecular changes in Djungarian hamsters and the endogenous recovery from it after circa half a year. The study aimed to elucidate the intrinsic mechanism and included nice experiments to distinguish between rheostatic effects on energy state and homeostatic cues driven by an interval timer. It also aimed to elucidate the role of Dio3 by introducing a targeted mutation in the MBH by ICV. The experiments and analyses are sound, and the amount of work is impressive. The impact of this study on the field of seasonal chronobiology is probably high.

Even though the general conclusions are well-founded, I have fundamental criticism concerning 3 points, which I recommend revising:

(1) The authors talk about a circannual interval timer, but this is no circannual timer. This is a circa-semiannual timer. It is important that the authors use precise wording throughout the manuscript.

(2) The authors put their results in the context of clocks. For example, line 180/181 seasonal clock. But they have described and investigated an interval timer. A clock must be able to complete a full cycle endogenously (and ideally repeatedly) and not only half of it. In contrast, a timer steers a duration. Thus, it is well possible that a circannual clock mechanism and this circa-semiannual timer of photoperiodic species are 2 completely different mechanisms. The argumentation should be changed accordingly.

(3) The authors chose as animal model the Djungarian hamster, which is a predominantly photoperiodic species and not a circannual species. A photoperiodic species has no circannual clock. That is another reason why it is difficult to draw conclusions from the experiment for circannual clocks. However, the Djungarian hamster is kind of "indifferent" concerning its seasonal timing, since a small fraction of them are indeed able to cycle (Anchordoquy HC, Lynch GR (2000), Evidence of an annual rhythm in a small proportion of Siberian hamsters exposed to chronic short days. J Biol Rhythms 15:122-125.). Nevertheless, the proportion is too small to suggest that the findings in the current study might reflect part of the circannual timing.

Therefore, the authors should make a clear distinction between timers and clocks, as well as between circa-annual and circa-semiannual durations/periods.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this work, Brown and colleagues report that the photosensor protein LITE-1 of the nematode C. elegans may also be a chemosensor that can be activated by high concentrations of the compound diacetyl. LITE-1 was described as a putative ion channel of the gustatory receptor family, which is mainly constituted by insect odorant receptors. These form tetrameric ion channels that can be activated by odorants. Specificity is achieved by forming heteromeric channels from three copies of the odorant receptor co-receptor (ORCO) and another subunit that resembles ORCO in the pore-forming C-terminus, but brings in a binding site for the respective odorant. LITE-1 has a very similar structure, according to Alphafold3 predictions, and also carries a binding pocket. In LITE-1, this was proposed to be occupied by a light-absorbing molecule that activates the channel when a photon is absorbed. Alternatively, compounds generated by absorption of high-energy photons may be formed in vivo and bound by the LITE-1 binding pocket. Koh et al. now demonstrate that another, non-light-activated compound, diacetyl, at high concentrations, can activate cells expressing LITE-1. Such (chemosensory) cells are also responsible for the avoidance of high concentrations of diacetyl. LITE-1 activation in excitable cells, i.e, muscles, causes strong body contraction and paralysis, and the authors show that this is also the case when diacetyl is presented. The authors further present molecular docking studies showing that diacetyl could occupy the binding pocket of LITE-1. Last, they show that another compound chemically resembling diacetyl, i.e., 2,3-pentanedione, can also induce avoidance in a LITE-1 dependent manner, though not as potently.

The data are intriguing, and the demonstration of LITE-1 being a diacetyl chemosensor is interesting. Yet, there are a few questions arising that the authors should address.

The authors identified mutants lacking diacetyl responses. In their chemotaxis assay (Figures 1A, B), they show that lite-1 mutants do not avoid high concentrations of diacetyl. However, the animals actually showed attraction, as the chemotaxis index was positive. If the lite-1 animals were insensitive, they should be indifferent, and the chemotaxis index should be close to zero. This means, other neurons contribute to the diacetyl response, and the result of these neurons being activated means/remains attraction? If so, the authors need to rule out any effects of these neurons on the effects they attribute to LITE-1 in the other assays.

The effect of diacetyl on muscle cells (Figure 3C) is pretty rapid, i.e., already during 1 minute after application, the animals are almost maximally contracted. How fast is it really? Can the authors provide a time course with more time points during the first minute? This is a relevant question, as the compound would have to either pass the worm cuticle or enter through the gut and diffuse through the body to reach the muscle cells. Can one expect this to occur within (less than) a minute?

In this context, the authors need to rule out that other mechanisms may be at play. E.g., diacetyl may be immediately sensed by ciliated chemosensory neurons that might release a signaling molecule that leads to activation of LITE-1 in muscles, or that sensitizes it somehow, responding to light used for filming animals. The authors should repeat this assay in a lite-1 mutant background. Furthermore, the authors tested unc-13 mutants to rule out indirect effects on the neurons recorded. Likewise, they should eliminate neuropeptide signaling via unc-31 mutants (a recent paper cited by the authors showed involvement of neuropeptide signaling in LITE-1-mediated light avoidance behavior). Last, to demonstrate that effects are not indirect in response to chemosensory neurons, the authors should repeat the contraction or swimming assay in a tax-4 mutant, which largely lacks chemosensation. This also applies to the chemotaxis assay. Animals should exhibit a chemotaxis index to diacetyl of zero, then.

Does diacetyl activate other neurons expressing LITE-1? A number of cells express LITE-1 at high levels, which the authors have not tested (they restricted their analyses to chemosensory neurons). This is important to address because it leaves the possibility that LITE-1 requires a specific partner only present in these chemosensory neurons to detect diacetyl. This partner would have to be present also in muscles, where diacetyl could activate ectopically expressed LITE-1. According to CeNGEN scRNAseq data, cells expressing LITE-1 can be identified. The ADL and ASH neurons actually come up only at the lowest threshold, so some of the other cells showing much higher levels of LITE-1 mRNAs, i.e., AVG, ALM, PLM, ASG, PHA, PHB, AVM, RIF, or some pharyngeal neurons, should be tested. ASG was among the cells the authors recorded from, but this neuron did not show a response.

The authors need to show that diacetyl responses of ADL and/or ASK can be rescued by expressing LITE-1 specifically in these neurons in a lite-1 mutant background.

Molecular docking studies are not described in detail. How was this done? Diacetyl is a very small molecule. How well can docking algorithms assess this at all? Did the authors preselect the binding pocket, or did the algorithm sample the entire molecular surface of the LITE-1 model and end up with the binding pocket? The latter would be very convincing. The authors should provide control docking experiments with other molecules that caused avoidance in their hands (i.e. benzaldehyde, 2,4,5,trimethlythiazole, isoamyl alcohol, nonanone, octanone), but did not activate LITE-1. Also, they should try docking molecules related to diacetyl, and if there are some that do not dock under the same conditions, such molecules should be used in a behavioral experiment. Ideally, they should also not activate LITE-1. Examples could be, e.g., diacetyl monoxime or 2,4-pentanedione.

Last, the authors should provide a PDB file with the docked diacetyl to allow readers to assess the binding for themselves. Since a large number of mutations of LITE-1 have been reported, it may be that amino acids shown to be essential for LITE-1 function are also required for diacetyl binding. If so, this could be backed up with an experiment.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Shivani Bodas et al. investigate the role of actin, actin-binding proteins, and microtubules in regulating the membrane-associated periodic skeleton (MPS) in neuronal axons. The MPS, first reported by Ke Xu et al. in 2013 (Science), has since been implicated in various neuronal functions, including mechanical support, axonal diameter control, axonal degeneration regulation, and spatial organization of signaling molecules. Given its biological importance, further elucidation of MPS assembly mechanisms is of considerable interest. However, I have concerns regarding the novelty and strength of the conclusions presented in this work. Many of the findings largely reiterate previously published observations, and the most novel conclusions are not fully substantiated by the data.

Strengths:

(1) The MPS represents a structurally and functionally important cytoskeletal system in neurons. Studies aimed at understanding its developmental mechanisms are biologically meaningful and potentially impactful.

(2) The authors attempt to dissect MPS assembly during early neuronal development, a process that could offer mechanistic insight into how the MPS is established and maintained.

Weaknesses:

(1) Limited Novelty Across Results Sections:

Of the seven Results sections, only one (Figure 6) and part of another (Figure 9) present data leading to relatively novel interpretations, specifically, the authors' claim that βII-spectrin is recruited to the axonal cortex via F-actin interactions as early as DIV1, followed by rearrangement into a periodic structure by DIV4. However, this conclusion is not fully supported (see below). The remaining results (Figures 1-5, 7, and 8) largely recapitulate findings reported in earlier studies and thus add limited new knowledge.

(2) Insufficient Evidence for Early Recruitment and Rearrangement of βII-spectrin:

The claim that βII-spectrin is recruited to the axonal cortex via F-actin interactions as early as at DIV 1 and subsequently reorganized into a periodic structure during DIV1-4 is central to the manuscript but lacks robust experimental support.

On Page 17, Line 526, the authors the authors state that " To exclude cytoplasmic spectrin resulting from overexpression, only axons with low expression of βII spectrin-GFP were selected for the analysis". However, selecting for low expression alone does not guarantee the absence of cytoplasmic signal. Without volumetric imaging (e.g., 3D super-resolution imaging to see the cross section of axons), it is difficult to definitively conclude that the FRAP data (Figures 6 and 9) reflect cortical rather than cytoplasmic localization.

Prior FRAP studies (Zhong et al., eLife 2014) observed minimal fluorescence recovery over 1800 seconds in axons expressing βII-spectrin-GFP at low levels, with faster recovery (~200-300 seconds) only evident under high expression conditions. The fast recovery kinetics (tens of seconds) reported in this manuscript could plausibly result from free diffusion of cytoplasmic βII-spectrin-GFP rather than cortical turnover.

Furthermore, on Page 10, Line 310, the authors assert that endogenous βII-spectrin "is recruited early to the axonal cortex, followed by progressive establishment of periodic order". However, the STED images shown in Figure 1 do not convincingly distinguish between cortical and cytoplasmic pools.

As such, the observed disordered βII-spectrin molecules, whether overexpressed or endogenous, could still represent a diffuse cytoplasmic population. An alternative and perhaps more parsimonious interpretation is that βII-spectrin is initially cytoplasmic and only later recruited and arranged into periodic structures at the cortex.

(3) Use of Pharmacological Perturbations:

Like many earlier studies, this manuscript relies heavily on pharmacological perturbation (e.g., cytoskeletal drugs) to assess the roles of actin, actin-binding proteins, and microtubules in MPS assembly. While this approach is widely used, it is important to acknowledge that such agents may have off-target effects. The manuscript would benefit from greater caution in interpreting these results, or better yet, the inclusion of genetic or optogenetic approaches to independently validate these findings.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Nishimura et al. examines the behavioural and neural mechanisms of stress-enhanced fear responding (SEFR) and stress-enhanced fear learning (SEFL). Groups of stressed (4 x shock exposure in a context) vs non-stressed (context exposure only) animals are compared for their fear of an unconditioned tone, and context, as well as their learning of new context fear associations. Shock of higher intensity led to higher levels of unlearned stress-enhanced fear expression. Immediate early gene analysis uncovered the PVT as a critical neural locus, and this was confirmed using fiber photometry, with stressed animals showing an elevated neural signal to an unconditioned tone. Using a gain and loss of function DREADDs methodology, the authors provide convincing evidence for a causal role of the PVT in SEFR.

Strengths:

(1) The manuscript uses critical behavioural controls (no stress vs stress) and behavioural parameters (0.25mA, 0.5mA, 1mA shock). Findings are replicated across experiments.

(2) Dissociating the SEFR and SEFL is a critical distinction that has not been made previously. Moreover, this dissociation is essential in understanding the behavioural (and neural) processes that can go awry in fear.

(3) Neural methods use a multifaceted approach to convincingly link the PVT to SEFR: from Fos, fiber photometry, gain and loss of function using DREADDs.

Weaknesses:

No weaknesses were identified by this reviewer; however, I have the following comments:

A closer examination of the Test data across time would help determine if differences may be present early or later in the session that could otherwise be washed out when the data are averaged across time. If none are seen, then it may be worth noting this in the manuscript.

Given the sex/gender differences in PTSD in the human population, having the male and female data points distinguished in the figures would be helpful. I assume sex was run as a variable in the statistics, and nothing came as significant. Noting this would also be of value to other readers who may wonder about the presence of sex differences in the data.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Male mice were tested in a classic behavioral "flee the looming stimulus" paradigm. This is a purely behavioral study; no neural analyses were done. Mice were housed socially, but faced the looming stimulus individually. Drift-diffusion modeling found that reward-level interacted with threat level such that at low-threat levels, reward contrasted with threat as classically expected (high reward overwhelms low threat, low threat overwhelms low reward), but that reward aligned with threat at higher threat levels.

Note that they define threat level by the darkness of the looming stimulus. I am not sure that darker stimuli are more threatening to mice. But maybe. Figure 3 shows that mice react more quickly to high contrast looming stimuli, but can the authors distinguish between the ability to detect the visual signal from considering it a more dangerous threat? (The fact that vigilance makes a difference in the high contrast condition, not the low contrast condition, actually supports the author's hypotheses here.)

The drift-diffusion model (DDM) is fine. I note that the authors included a "leakage rate", which is not a standard DDM parameter (although I like including it). I would have liked to see more about the parameters. What were the distributions? What did the parameters correlate with behaviorally? I would have liked to see distributions of the parameters under the different conditions and different animals. Figure 2C shows the progression of learning. How do the fit parameters change over time as mice shift from choice to choice? How do the parameters change over mice? How do the parameters change over distance to the threat/distance to safety (as per Fanselow and Lester 1988)? They did a supplemental experiment where the threat arrived halfway along the corridor - we could get a lot more detail about that experiment - how did it change the modeling?

Overall, this is a reasonable study showing mostly unsurprising results. I think the authors could do more to connect the vigilance question to their results (which seems somewhat new to me).

Although the data appear generally fine and the modeling reasonable, the authors do not do the necessary work to set themselves within the extensive literature on decision-making in mice retreating from threats.

First of all, this is not a new paradigm; variants of this paradigm have been used since at least the 1980s. There is an *extensive* literature on this, including extensive theoretical work on the relation of fear and other motivational factors. I recommend starting with the classic Fanselow and Lester 1988 paper (which they cite, but only in passing), and the reviews by Dean Mobbs and Jeansok Kim, and by Denis Paré and Greg Quirk, which have explicit theoretical proposals that the authors can compare their results to. I would also recommend that the authors look into the "active avoidance" literature. Moreover, to talk about a mouse running from a looming stimulus without addressing the other "flee the predator" tasks is to miss a huge space for understanding their results. Again, I would start with the reviews above, but also strongly urge the authors to look at the Robogator task (work by June-Seek Choi and Jeansok Kim, work by Denis Paré, and others).

Similarly, in their anatomical review, they do not mention the amygdala. Given the extensive literature on the role of the amygdala in retreating from danger, both in terms of active avoidance and in terms of encoding the danger itself, it would surprise me greatly if this behavior does not involve amygdala processing. (If there is evidence that the amygdala does not play a role here, but that the superior colliculus does, then that would be a *very* important result that needs to be folded into our understanding of decision-making systems and neural computational processing.)

Second, there is an extensive economic literature on non-human animals in general and on rodents in particular. Again, the authors seem unaware of this work, which would provide them with important data and theories to broaden the impact of their results (by placing them within the literature). First, there are explicit economic literatures in terms of positively-valenced conflicts (e.g., neuroeconomics within the primate literature, sequential foraging and delay-discounting tasks within the rodent literature), but also there is a long history within the rodent conditioning world, such as the classic work by Len Green and Peter Shizgal. I would strongly urge the authors to explore the motivational conflict literature by people like Gavin McNally, Greg Quirk, and Mark Andermann. Again, putting their results into this literature will increase the impact of their experiment and modeling.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary

This study investigates how task components can be learned and transferred across different task contexts. The authors designed two consecutive sequence learning tasks, in which complex image sequences were generated from the combination of two graph-based structural "building blocks". One of these components was shared between the prior and transfer task environments, allowing the authors to test compositional transfer. Behavioral analyses using generalized linear models (GLMs) assessed participants' sensitivity to the underlying structure. MEG data were recorded and analyzed using classifications and feature representational similarity analysis (RSA) to examine whether neural similarity increased for stimuli sharing the same relational structure. The paper aims to uncover the neural dynamics that support compositional transfer during learning.

Strengths and weaknesses

I found the methods and task design of this paper difficult to follow, particularly the way stimuli were constructed and how the experimental sequences were generated from the graph structures. These aspects would be hard to replicate without some clarification. I appreciate the integration of behavioral and neuroimaging data. The overall approach, especially the use of compositional graph structures in sequence learning, is interesting and could be used and revised in further studies in compositionality and transfer learning. I appreciated the authors' careful interpretation of their findings in the discussion. However, I would have liked a similar level of caution in the abstract, which currently overstates some claims.

Major Comments:

(1) While the introduction mentions brain areas implicated in the low-dimensional representation of task knowledge, the current study uses M/EEG and does not include source reconstruction. As a result, the focus is primarily on the temporal dynamics of the signal rather than its spatial origins. Although I am not suggesting that the authors should perform source reconstruction in this study, it would strengthen the paper to introduce the broader M/EEG literature on task-relevant representations and transfer. The same applies to behavioral studies looking at structural similarities and transfer learning. I encourage the authors to integrate relevant literature to better contextualize their results.

Duan, Y., Zhan, J., Gross, J., Ince, R. A. & Schyns, P. G. Pre-frontal cortex guides dimension-reducing transformations in the occipito-ventral pathway for categorization behaviors. Current Biology 34, 3392-3404 (2024).

Luyckx, F., Nili, H., Spitzer, B. & Summerfield, C. Neural structure mapping in human probabilistic reward learning. eLife 8, e42816 (2019). (This is in the references but not in the text).

Zhang, M. & Yu, Q. The representation of abstract goals in working memory is supported by task-congruent neural geometry. PLoS biology 22, e3002461 (2024).

L. Teichmann, T. Grootswagers, T. Carlson, A.N. Rich Decoding digits and dice with magnetoencephalography: evidence for a shared representation of magnitude Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 30 (7) (2018), pp. 999-1010

Garner, K., Lynch, C. R. & Dux, P. E. Transfer of training benefits requires rules we cannot see (or hear). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 42, 1148 (2016).

Holton, E., Braun, L., Thompson, J., Grohn, J. & Summerfield, C. Humans and neural networks show similar patterns of transfer and interference during continual learning (2025).

(2) I found it interesting that the authors chose to perform PCA for dimensionality reduction prior to conducting RSA; however, I haven't seen such an approach in the literature before. It would be helpful to either cite prior studies that have employed a similar method or to include a comparison with more standard approaches, such as sensor-level RSA or sensor-searchlight analysis.

(3) Connected to the previous point, the choice to use absolute distance as a dissimilarity measure is not justified. How does it compare to standard metrics such as correlation distance or Mahalanobis distance? The same applies to the use of Kendall's tau.

(4) The analysis described in the "Abstract representation of dynamical roles in subprocesses" does not appear to convincingly test the stated prediction of a structural scaffolding account. The authors hypothesize that if structure and dynamics from prior experiences are repurposed, then stimuli occupying the same "dynamical roles" across different sequences should exhibit enhanced neural similarity. However, the analysis seems to focus on decoding transitions rather than directly assessing representational similarity. Rather, this approach may reflect shared temporal representation in the sequences without necessarily indicating that the neural system generalizes the abstract function or position of a stimulus within the graph. To truly demonstrate that the brain captures the dynamical role across different stimuli, it would be more appropriate to directly assess whether neural patterns evoked by stimuli, in the same temporal part of the sequence, with shared roles (but different visual identities) are more similar to each other than to those from different roles.

(5) In the following section, the authors correlate decoding accuracy with participants' behavioral performance across different conditions. However, out of the four reported correlations and the additional comparison of differences between conditions, only one correlation and one correlation difference reach significance, and only marginally so. The interpretation of this finding should therefore be more cautious, especially if it is used to support a link between neural representations and behavior. Additionally, it is possible that correlation with a more clearly defined or targeted neural signature, more directly tied to the hypothesized representational content, could yield stronger or more interpretable correlations.

Minor Comments:

During preprocessing, sensors were excluded based on an identified noise level. However, the authors do not specify the threshold used to define this noise level, nor do they report how many sensors were excluded per participant. It would be helpful to have these details. Additionally, it is unclear why the authors opted to exclude sensors rather than removing noise with MaxFiltering or interpolating bad sensors. Finally, the authors should report how many trials were discarded on average (and standard deviation) per participant.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper the authors conduct two experiments an fMRI experiment and intracranial recordings of neurons in two patients P1 and P2. In both experiments, they employ a SSVEP paradigm in which they show images at a fast rate (e.g. 6Hz) and then they show face images at a slower rate (e.g. 1.2Hz), where the rest of the images are a variety of object images. In the first patient, they record from neurons over a region in the mid fusiform gyrus that is face-selective and in the second patient, they record neurons from a region more medially that is not face selective (it responds more strongly to objects than faces). Results find similar selectivity between the electrophysiology data and the fMRI data in that the location which shows higher fMRI to faces also finds face-selective neurons and the location which finds preference to non faces also shows non face preferring neurons.

Strengths:

The data is important in that it shows that there is a relationship between category selectivity measured from electrophysiology data and category-selective from fMRI. The data is unique as it contains a lot of single and multiunit recordings (245 units) from the human fusiform gyrus - which the authors point out - is a humanoid specific gyrus.

Weaknesses:

My major concerns are two-fold: (i) There is a paucity of data; Thus, more information (results and methods) is warranted; and in particular there is no comparison between the fMRI data and the SEEG data.

(ii) One main claim of the paper is that there is evidence for suppressed responses to faces in the non-face selective region. That is, the reduction in activation to faces in the non-face selective region is interpreted as a suppression in the neural response and consequently the reduction in fMRI signal is interpreted as suppression. However, the SSVEP paradigm has no baseline (it alternates between faces and objects) and therefore it cannot distinguish between lower firing rate to faces vs suppression of response to faces.

(1) Additional data: the paper has 2 figures: figure 1 which shows the experimental design and figure 2 which presents data, the latter shows one example neuron raster plot from each patient and group average neural data from each patient. In this reader's opinion this is insufficient data to support the conclusions of the paper. The paper will be more impactful if the researchers would report the data more comprehensively.

(a) There is no direct comparison between the fMRI data and the SEEG data, except for a comparison of the location of the electrodes relative to the statistical parametric map generated from a contrast (Fig 2a,d). It will be helpful to build a model linking between the neural responses to the voxel response in the same location - i.e., estimate from the electrophysiology data the fMRI data (e.g. Logothetis & Wandell, 2004)

(b) More comprehensive analyses of the SSVEP neural data: It will be helpful to show the results of the frequency analyses of the SSVEP data for all neurons to show that there are significant visual responses and significant face responses. It will be also useful to compare and quantify the magnitude of the face responses compared to the visual responses.

(c) The neuron shown in E shows cyclical responses tied to the onset of the stimuli, is this the visual response? If so, why is there an increase in the firing rate of the neuron before the face stimulus is shown in time 0? The neuron's data seems different than the average response across neurons; This raises a concern about interpreting the average response across neurons in panel F which seems different than the single neuron responses

(d) Related to (c) it would be useful to show raster plots of all neurons and quantify if the neural responses within a region are homogeneous or heterogeneous. This would add data relating the single neuron response to the population responses measured from fMRI. See also Nir 2009.

(e) When reporting group average data (e.g., Fig 2C,F) it is necessary to show standard deviation of the response across neurons.

(f) Is it possible to estimate the latency of the neural responses to face and object images from the phase data? If so, this will add important information on the timing of neural responses in the human fusiform gyrus to face and object images.

(g) Related to (e) In total the authors recorded data from 245 units (some single units and some multiunits) and they found that both in the face and nonface selective most of the recoded neurons exhibited face -selectivity, which this reader found confusing: They write " Among all visually responsive neurons, we 87 found a very high proportion of face-selective neurons (p < 0.05) in both activated 88 and deactivated MidFG regions (P1: 98.1%; N = 51/52; P2: 86.6%; N = 110/127)'. Is the face selectivity in P1 an increase in response to faces and P2 a reduction in response to faces or in both it's an increase in response to faces

(1) Additional methods (a) it is unclear if the SSVEP analyses of neural responses were done on the spikes or the raw electrical signal. If the former, how is the SSVEP frequency analysis done on discrete data like action potentials? (b) it is unclear why the onset time was shifted by 33ms; one can measure the phase of the response relative to the cycle onset and use that to estimate the delay between the onset of a stimulus and the onset of the response. Adding phase information will be useful.

(2) Interpretation of suppression:

The SSVEP paradigm alternates between 2 conditions: faces and objects and has no baseline; In other words, responses to faces are measured relative to the baseline response to objects so that any region that contains neurons that have a lower firing rate to faces than objects is bound to show a lower response in the SSVEP signal. Therefore, because the experiment does not have a true baseline (e.g. blank screen, with no visual stimulation) this experimental design cannot distinguish between lower firing rate to faces vs suppression of response to faces. The strongest evidence put forward for suppression is the response of non-visual neurons that was also reduced when patients looked at faces, but since these are non-visual neurons, it is unclear how to interpret the responses to faces.

Comments on revisions:

In the revision, the authors added information and answered several of the main questions. Several points remain unanswered because the authors would like to publish a short format paper here, and suggest that answering these questions is outside the scope of the paper. The authors would like to leave some of the more detailed analyses for a subsequent longer paper.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The authors want to prove that there is a redox potential between germline stem cells and somatic cyst stem cells in the Drosophila testis, with ROS being higher in the former compared to the latter. They also want to prove that ROS travels from CySCs to GSCs. Finally, they begin to characterize the phenotypes cause by loss of SOD (The function of SOD is to lower ROS levels, and depletion of SOD increases ROS levels) in the tj-Gal4 lineage and how this impacts the germline.

The authors fall short of accomplished their goals in the revised manuscript. There are issues with the concept of the paper (ROS gradient between cells that causes a transfer of ROS across membranes for homeostasis) as this is not supported by the data. In Fig. 1N (tj-SODi), one can see that all of gst-GFP resides within the differentiating somatic cells and none is in the germ cells. Furthermore, the information provided in the materials and methods about quantification of gst-GFP is not sufficient. Focusing on Dlg staining is not sufficient. They need to quantify the overlap of Vasa (a cytoplasmic protein in GSCs) with GFP. I interpret their results as the following: (1) depletion of SOD from somatic support cells leads to autonomous increases in ROS activity; (2) the increase somatic ROS is not transferred to the germline. Instead increase somatic ROS perturbs homeostasis of the somatic linage. As such, the entire premise of the paper is greatly weakened. Additionally, since tj-gal4 is active in hub cells, it is not clear whether the effects of SOD depletion also arise from perturbation of niche cells. These weaknesses negatively impact the conclusions put forward by the authors. As I wrote in my first critique, their data is not compelling: there is no evidence provide by the authors that ROS diffuses from CySCs to GSCs as most of the claims about stem cells is founded on data about differentiating germ and somatic cells.

There are still many issues about the paper apart from the weak premise. First, the authors are studying a developmental affect, rather than an adult phenotype. Second, the characterization of the somatic lineage is incomplete. It appears that high ROS in the somatic lineage autonomously decreases MAP kinase signaling and increases Hh signaling. They assume that the MAPK signaling is due to changes in Egfr activity but there are other tyrosine kinases active in CySCs, including PVR/VEGFR (PMID: 36400422), that impinge on MAPK. In any event, their results are puzzling because lower Egfr should reduce CySC self-renewal and CySC number (Amoyel, 2016) and the ability of cyst cells to encapsulate gonialblasts (Lenhart Dev Cell 2015). The increased Hh should increase CySC number and the ability of CySCs to outcompete GSCs. The fact that the average total number of GSCs declines in tj>SODi testes suggests that high ROS CySCs are indeed outcompeting GSCs. However, as I wrote in my first critique, the characterization of the high ROS soma is incomplete. And the role of high ROS in the hub cells is acknowledged but not investigated.

(1) Concept: The authors still do not describe why would it be important to have a redox gradient across adjacent cells. The paragraph in the introduction (lines 62-76) mentions autonomous ROS levels in stem cells, not the transfer of ROS from one cell to another. And this paragraph is confusing because it starts with the (inaccurate) statement all stem cells have low ROS and then they discuss ISCs, which have high ROS.

(2) Issues with scholarship of the testis. While there has been an improvement in the scholarship of the testis, there are still places where the correct paper is not cited.

a. Lines 80-82 - cite Roach and Lenhart Dev 2024.

b. Lines 86-88. They is no real evidence for concerted division of GSCs and CySCs. In fact, the Dinardo has shown that these stem cells do not divide synchronously (Lenhart and Dinardo, Dev Cell 2015).

(3) Issues with the text;

a. Lines 194-196 - The authors need to cite Tan 2017 (PMID: 28669604) who have already published a paper about what excess ROS does to the GSC lineage.

b. Lines 210-211 - STAT drives expression of ECad. Socs36E and Ptp61F do not drive Ecad. Please correct.

c. Line 225 "uncontrolled proliferation" is an overstatement and should be toned down.

d. Line 237 - Hh-RNAi does not reduce gene dosage (as the authors have written) but it presumably depletes hh mRNAs levels in hub cells and CySCs.

e. Line 147 - C587-Gal4 on its own should not cause a reduction in GSCs. This sentence should be corrected.

f. Lines 177 - why would the authors predict that increasing ROS in GSCs using nos-Gal4 would non-autonomously affect CySCs? The logic is not clear. Please explain.

g. Line 291-293 - this sentence make no sense. Please revise.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

These investigators have previously shown important roles for either insulin receptor (IR) or insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGF1R) in glomerular podocyte function. They now have studied mice with deletion of both receptors and find significant podocyte dysfunction. They then made a podocyte cell line with inducible deletion of both receptors and find abnormalities in transcriptional efficiency with decreased expression of spliceosome proteins and increased transcripts with impaired splicing or premature termination.

The studies appear to be performed well and the manuscript is clearly written.

There are a number of potential issues and questions with these studies.

(1) For the in vivo studies, the only information given is for mice at 24 weeks of age. There needs to be a full time course of when the albuminuria was first seen and the rate of development. Also, GFR was not measured. Since the podocin-Cre utilized was not inducible, there should be a determination of whether there was a developmental defect in glomeruli or podocytes. Were there any differences in wither prenatal post natal development or number of glomeruli?

(2) Although the in vitro studies are of interest, there are no studies to determine if this is the underlying mechanism for the in vivo abnormalities seen in the mice. Cultured podocytes may not necessarily reflect what is occurring in podocytes in vivo.

(3) Given that both receptors are deleted in the podocyte cell line, it is not clear if the spliceosome defect requires deletion of both receptors or if there is redundancy in the effect. The studies need to be repeated in podocyte cell lines with either IR or IGFR single deletions.

(4) There are no studies investigating signaling mechanisms mediating the spliceosome abnormalities.

Comments on revision plan:

I do not have any changes from my prior review. I applaud the authors for developing a plan to address the questions and concerns raised in my prior review.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study by Gangadharan and colleagues seeks to establish a quantitative biochemical model for the microtubule polymerase activity of Stu2. Stu2 is the budding yeast member of the XMAP215 protein family, which is broadly conserved across eukaryotes. XMAP215 proteins play a wide variety of important roles in cells, and these are attributed to effects on microtubule dynamics. Many studies over the last ~20 years have shown that XMA215 proteins selectively associate with microtubule ends, where they increase rates of microtubule assembly and disassembly. More recently, structural biology and biochemical studies by the authors and other groups have shown that the multiple TOG domains on XMAP215 proteins are tubulin-binding domains that selectively bind to curved tubulin, which is present in solution and at microtubule ends, but not to straight tubulin which is present in the walls of the microtubule lattice. This has led to the general model that XMAP215 proteins promote polymerization by delivering soluble tubulin to the growing plus end, and two distinct models have been proposed to explain the mechanism. The 'concentrating reactants' model proposed previously by the authors suggests that TOG domains grab hold of tubulin in solution and concentrate at the microtubule end. The 'polarized unfurling' model proposed by the Al Bassam lab suggests that XMAP215 delivers multiple tubulins to the end, using a step-wise mechanism involving different roles for each TOG domain. The current study seeks to improve our understanding of the mechanism by developing a quantitative model to explain the binding and release of tubulins, the number of Stu2 molecules at the end, and the overall rate of tubulin addition. The authors accomplish this goal using new experimental data. The final model fills in new details of the mechanism. The authors draw a comparison between Stu2 and the actin polymerase, which bears similarity to Ena/VASP, and suggest a convergent strategy for cytoskeletal polymerases.

Strengths:

This is a focused and clearly written study that incorporates prior knowledge of XMAP215 and draws inspiration from the actin field. The data are clear and convincing, and the study accomplishes its goal of generating a new, quantitative model for Stu2. The model will be important for microtubule researchers to predict and test key points for altering XMAP215 activity across different organisms and potentially for different tubulin substrates. The comparison to Ena/VASP may also inspire similar comparisons across other microtubule and actin regulators, which could lead to new insights across the cytoskeletal fields.

Weaknesses:

The study is without major weaknesses, but there are several minor weaknesses worth noting. One is that the final model provides new details regarding the Stu2 mechanism, but does not provide a major new advance in our understanding of how the polymerase works. For example, the discussion does not clearly argue for whether the new results and model rule out either of the prior models. This appears consistent with the 'concentrating reactants' model, but does it clearly rule out the 'polarized unfurling' model? A second minor weakness is that the comparison to Ena/VASP is not developed at a deep level based on the final model. I found these ideas exciting and want more critical consideration here, but perhaps it is better suited for a commentary piece to follow.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

By expressing protein in a strain that is unable to phosphorylate KdpFABC, the authors achieve structures of the active wild-type protein, capturing a new intermediate state, in which the terminal phosphoryl group of ATP has been transferred to a nearby Asp, and ADP remains covalently bound. The manuscript examines the coupling of potassium transport and ATP hydrolysis by a comprehensive set of mutants. The most interesting proposal revolves around the proposed binding site for K+ as it exits the channel near T75. Nearby mutations to charged residues cause interesting phenotypes, such as constitutive uncoupled ATPase activity, leading to a model in which lysine residues can occupy/compete with K+ for binding sites along the transport pathway.

Strengths:

Although this structure is not so different from previous structures, its high resolution (2.1 Å) is impressive and allows the resolution of many new densities in the potassium transport pathway. The authors are judicious about assigning these as potassium ions or water molecules, and explain their structural interpretations clearly. In addition to the nice structural work, the mechanistic work is thorough. A series of thoughtful experiments involving ATP hydrolysis/transport coupling under various pH and potassium concentrations bolsters the structural interpretations and lends convincing support to the mechanistic proposal.

Weaknesses:

The structures are supported by solid membrane electrophysiology. These data exhibit some weaknesses, including a lack of information to assess the rigor and reproducibility (i.e., the number of replicates, the number of sensors used, controls to assess proteoliposome reconstitution efficiency, and the stability of proteoliposome absorption to the sensor).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study presents a useful computational tool, termed FLiSimBA. The MATLAB-based FLiSimBA simulations allow users to examine the effects of various noise factors (such as autofluorescence, afterpulse of the photomultiplier tube detector, and other background signals) and varying sensor expression levels. Under the conditions explored, the simulations unveiled how these factors affect the observed lifetime measurements, thereby providing useful guidelines for experimental designs. Further simulations with two distinct fluorophores uncovered conditions in which two different lifetime signals could be distinguished, indicating multiplexed dynamic imaging may be possible.

Strengths:

The simulations and their analyses were done systematically and rigorously. FliSimba can be useful for guiding and validating fluorescence lifetime imaging studies. The simulations could define useful parameters such as the minimum number of photons required to detect a specific lifetime, how sensor protein expression level may affect the lifetime data, the conditions under which the lifetime would be insensitive to the sensor expression levels, and whether certain multiplexing could be feasible.

Weaknesses:

The analyses have relied on a key premise that the fluorescence lifetime in the system can be described as a two-component discrete exponential decay. This means that the experimenter should ensure that this is the right model for their fluorophores a priori.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Mancl et al. report four Cryo-EM structures of glycosylated and soluble Angiotensin-I converting enzyme (sACE) dimer. This moves forward the structural understanding of ACE, as previous analysis yielded partially denatured or individual ACE domains. By performing a heterogeneity analysis, the authors identify three structural conformations (open, intermediate open, and closed) that define the openness of the catalytic chamber and structural features governing the dimerization interface. They show that the dimer interface of soluble ACE consists of an N-terminal glycan and protein-protein interaction regions, as well as C-terminal protein-protein interactions. Further heterogeneity mining and all-atom molecular dynamic simulations show structural rearrangements that lead to the opening and closing of the catalytic pocket, which could explain how ACE binds its substrate. These studies could contribute to future drug design targeting the active site or dimerization interface of ACE.

Strengths:

The authors make significant efforts to address ACE denaturation on cryo-EM grids, testing various buffers and grid preparation techniques. These strategies successfully reduce denaturation and greatly enhance the quality of the structural analysis. The integration of cryoDRGN, 3DVA, RECOVAR, and all-atom simulations for heterogeneity analysis proves to be a powerful approach, further strengthening the overall experimental methodology.

Weaknesses:

No weaknesses noted.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript "Mitochondrial 1 protein FgDML1 regulates DON toxin biosynthesis and cyazofamid sensitivity in Fusarium graminearum by affecting mitochondrial homeostasis" describes the construction of a null mutant for the FgDML1 gene in F. graminearum and assays characterising the effects of this mutation on the pathogen's infection process and lifecycle. While FgDML1 remains underexplored with an unclear role in the biology of filamentous fungi, and although the authors performed several experiments, there are fundamental issues with the experimental design and execution, and interpretation of the results.

Strengths:

FgDML1 is an interesting target, and there are novel aspects in this manuscript. Studies in other organisms have shown that this protein plays important roles in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) inheritance, mitochondrial compartmentalisation, chromosome segregation, mitochondrial distribution, mitochondrial fusion, and overall mitochondrial dynamics. Indeed, in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the mutation is lethal. The authors have carried out multi-faceted experiments to characterise the mutants.

Weaknesses:

However, I have concerns about how the study was conceived. Given the fundamental importance of mitochondrial function in eukaryotic cells and how the absence of this protein impacts these processes, it is unsurprising that deletion of this gene in F. graminearum profoundly affects fungal biology. Therefore, it is misleading to claim a direct link between FgDML1 and DON toxin biosynthesis (and virulence), as the observed effects are likely indirect consequences of compromised mitochondrial function. In fact, it is reasonable to assume that the production of all secondary metabolites is affected to some extent in the mutant strains and that such a strain would not be competitive at all under non-laboratory conditions. The order in which the authors present the results can be misleading, too. The results on vegetative growth rate appeared much later in the manuscript, which should have come first, as the FgDML1 mutant exhibited significant growth defects, and subsequent results should be discussed in that context. Moreover, the methodologies are not described properly, making the manuscript hard to follow and difficult to replicate.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Borghi and colleagues present results from 4 experiments aimed at investigating the effects of dual _γtACS and iTBS stimulation of the precuneus on behavioral and neural markers of memory formation. In their first experiment (n = 20), they find that a 3-minute offline (i.e., prior to task completion) stimulation that combines both techniques leads to superior memory recall performance in an associative memory task immediately after learning associations between pictures of faces, names, and occupation, as well as after a 15-minute delay, compared to iTBS alone (+ tACS sham) or no stimulation (sham for both iTBS and tACS). Performance in a second task probing short-term memory was unaffected by the stimulation condition. In a second experiment (n = 10), they show that these effects persist over 24 hours and up to a full week after initial stimulation. A third (n = 14) and fourth (n = 16) experiment were conducted to investigate neural effects of the stimulation protocol. The authors report that, once again, only combined iTBS and _γtACS increases gamma oscillatory activity and neural excitability (as measured by concurrent TMS-EEG) specific to the stimulated area at the precuneus compared to a control region, as well as precuneus-hippocampus functional connectivity (measured by resting state MRI), which seemed to be associated with structural white matter integrity of the bilateral middle longitudinal fasciculus (measured by DTI).

Strengths:

Combining non-invasive brain stimulation techniques is a novel, potentially very powerful method to maximize the effects of these kinds of interventions that are usually well-tolerated and thus accepted by patients and healthy participants. It is also very impressive that the stimulation-induced improvements in memory performance resulted from a short (3 min) intervention protocol. If the effects reported here turn out to be as clinically meaningful and generalizable across populations as implied, this approach could represent a promising avenue for treatment of impaired memory functions in many conditions.

Methodologically, this study is expertly done! I don't see any serious issues with the technical setup in any of the experiments. It is also very commendable that the authors conceptually replicated the behavioral effects of experiment 1 in experiment 2 and then conducted two additional experiments to probe the neural mechanisms associated with these effects. This certainly increases the value of the study and the confidence in the results considerably.

The authors used a within-subject approach in their experiments, which increases statistical power and allows for stronger inferences about the tested effects. They also used to individualize stimulation locations and intensities, which should further optimize the signal-to-noise ratio.

Weaknesses:

I think one of the major weaknesses of this study is the overall low sample size in all of the experiments (between n = 10 and n = 20). This is, as I mentioned when discussing the strengths of the study, partly mitigated by the within-subject design and individualized stimulation parameters. The authors mention that they performed a power analysis but this analysis seemed to be based on electrophysiological readouts similar to those obtained in experiment 3. It is thus unclear whether the other experiments were sufficiently powered to reliably detect the behavioral effects of interest. In the revised manuscript, the authors provide post-hoc sensitivity analyses that help contextualize the strength of the findings.

While the authors went to great lengths trying to probe the neural changes likely associated with the memory improvement after stimulation, it is impossible from their data to causally relate the findings from experiments 3 and 4 to the behavioral effects in experiments 1 and 2. This is acknowledged by the authors and there are good methodological reasons for why TMS-EEG and fMRI had to be collected in separate experiments, but readers should keep in mind that this limits inferences about how exactly dual iTBS and _γtACS of the precuneus modulate learning and memory.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript shows the mechanism of action of quinofumelin, a novel fungicide, against the fungus Fusarium graminearum. Through omics analysis, phenotypic analysis and in silico approaches, the role of quinofumelin in targeting DHODH is uncovered.

Strengths:

The phenotypic analysis and mutant generation are nice data and add to the role of metabolites in bypassing pyrimidine biosynthesis.

Weaknesses:

The role of DHODH in this class of fungicides has been known and this data does not add any further significance to the field.

IBM Wheelwriter keyboard height adjustment lever 3d printed replacement (Free download)

via https://www.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1m6c63h/ibm_wheelwriter_keyboard_height_adjustment_lever/

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In the study, the authors performed longitudinal 1P calcium imaging of mouse mPFC across 8 weeks during learning of an olfactory-guided task, including habituation, training, and sleep periods. The task had 3 arms. Odor was sampled at the end of the middle arm (named the "Sample" period). The animal then needed to run to one of the two other arms (R or L) based on the odor. The whole period until they reached the end of one of the choice arms was the "Outward" period. The time at the reward end was the "Reward" period. They noted several changes from the learning condition to the learned condition (there are some questions for the authors interspersed):

(1) They classified cells in a few ways. First, each cell was classified as SI (spatially informative) if it had significantly more spatial information than shuffled activity, and ~50% of cells ended up being SI cells. Then, among the SI cells, they classified a cell as a TC (task cell) if it had statistically similar activity maps for R versus L arms, and a GC (goal arm cell) otherwise. Note that there are 4 kinds of these cells: outer arm TCs and GCs, and middle arm TCs and GCs (with middle arm GCs essentially being like "splitter cells" since they are not similarly active in the middle arm for R versus L trials). There was an increase in TCs from the learning to the learned condition sessions.

(2) They analyze activity sequences across cells. They extracted 500 ms duration bursts (defined as periods of activity > 0.5 standard deviations over what I assume is the mean - if so, the authors can add "over the mean" to the burst definition in the methods). They first noted that the resulting "Burst rates were significantly larger during behavioral epochs than during sleep and during periods of habituation to the arena", and "Moreover, burst rates during correct trials were significantly lower than during error trials". For the sequence analysis, they only considered bursts consisting of at least 5 active cells. A cell's activity within the burst was set to the center of mass of calcium activity. Then they took all the sequences from all learned and learning sessions together and hierarchically clustered them based on Spearman's rank correlation between the order of activity in each pair of sequences (among the cells active in both). The iterative hierarchical clustering process produces groups (clusters) of sequences such that there are multiple repeats of sequences within a cluster. Different sequences are expressed across all the longitudinally recorded sessions. They noted "large differences of sequence activation between learning and learned condition, both in the spatial patterns (example animal in Figure 3D) and the distribution of the sequences (Figures 3D, E). Rastermap plots (Figure 3D) also reveal little similarity of sequence expression between task and habituation or sleep condition." They also note that the difference in the sequences between learning and learned conditions was larger than the difference between correct and error trials within each condition. They conclude that during task learning, new representations are established, as measured by the burst sequence content. They do additional analyses of the sequence clusters by assessing the spatial informativeness (SI) of each sequence cluster. Over learning, they find an increase in clusters that are spatially informative (clusters that tend to occur in specific locations). Finally, they analyzed the SI clusters in a similar manner to SI cells and classified them as task phase selective sequences (TSs) and goal arm selective sequences (GSs), and did some further analysis. However, they themselves conclude that the frequency of TSs and GSs is limited (I believe because most sequence clusters were non-SI - the authors can verify this and write it in the text?). In the discussion, they say, "In addition to GSs and TSs, we found that most of the recurring sequences are not related to behavior".

(3) As an alternative to analyzing individual cells and sequences of individual cells, they then look for trajectory replay using Bayesian population decoding of location during bursts. They analyze TS bursts, GS bursts, and non-SI bursts. They say "we found correlations of decoded position with time bin (within a 500 ms burst) strongly exceeding chance level only during outward and reward phase, for both GSs and TSs (Fig 4H)." Figure 4H shows distributions indicating statistically significant bias in the forward direction (using correlations of decoded location versus time bin across 10 bins of 50 ms each within each 500-ms burst). They find that the Outward trajectories appear to reflect the actual trajectory during running itself, so they are likely not replay. But the sequences at the Reward are replay as they do not reflect the current location. Furthermore, replay at the Reward is in the forward direction (unlike the reverse replay at Reward seen in the hippocampus), and this replay is only seen in the learned and not the learning condition. At the same time, they find that replay is not seen during odor Sampling, from which they conclude there is no evidence of replay used for planning. Instead, they say the replay at the Reward could possibly be for evaluation during the Reward phase, though this would only be for the learned condition. They conclude "Together with our finding of strong changes in sequence expression after learning (Figure 3E) these findings suggest that a representation of task develops during learning, however, it does not reflect previous network structure." I am not sure what is meant here by the second part of this sentence (after "however ..."). Is it the idea that the replay represents network structure, and the lack of Reward replay in the learning condition means that the network structure must have been changed to get to the learned condition? Please clarify.

This study provides valuable new information about the evolution of mPFC activity during the learning of an odor-based 2AFC T-maze-like task. They show convincing evidence of changes in single-cell tuning, population sequences, and replay events. They also find novel forward replay at the Reward, and find that this is present only after the animal has learned the task. In the discussion, the authors note "To our knowledge, this study identified for the first time fast recurring neural sequence activity from 1-p calcium data, based on correlation analysis."

(1) There are some statements that are not clear, such as at the end of the introduction, where the authors write, "Both findings suggest that the mPFC task code is locally established during learning." What is the reasoning behind the "locally established" statement? Couldn't the learning be happening in other areas and be inherited by the mPFC? Or are the authors assuming that newly appearing sequences within a 500-ms burst period must be due to local plasticity? I have also pointed out a question about the statement "however, it does not reflect previous network structure" in (3) above.

(2) The threshold for extracting burst events (0.5 standard deviations, presumably above the mean, but the authors should verify this) seems lower than what one usually sees as a threshold for population burst detection. What fraction of all data is covered by 500 ms periods around each such burst? However, it is potentially a strength of this work that their results are found by using this more permissive threshold.

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.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors present OpenSpliceAI, a PyTorch-based reimplementation of the well-known SpliceAI deep learning model for splicing prediction. The core architecture remains unchanged, but the reimplementation demonstrates convincing improvements in usability, runtime performance, and potential for cross-species application.

Strengths:

The improvements are well-supported by comparative benchmarks, and the work is valuable given its strong potential to broaden the adoption of splicing prediction tools across computational and experimental biology communities.

Major comments:

Can fine-tuning also be used to improve prediction for human splicing? Specifically, are models trained on other species and then fine-tuned with human data able to perform better on human splicing prediction? This would enhance the model's utility for more users, and ideally, such fine-tuned models should be made available.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Hawes et al. combined behavioral, optical imaging, and activity manipulation techniques to investigate the role of striatal patch SPNs in locomotion regulation. Using Sepw1-Cre transgenic mice, they found that patch SPNs encode locomotion deceleration in a light-dark box procedure through optical imaging techniques. Moreover, genetic ablation of patch SPNs increased locomotion speed, while chemogenetic activation of these neurons decreased it. The authors concluded that a subtype of patch striatonigral neurons modulates locomotion speed based on external environmental cues.

In the revision, the authors have largely addressed my concerns with additional explanation and discussion, although some of the key experiments to strengthen the authors' claim by identifying the function of specific cell populations remain to be conducted due to technical challenges. Nevertheless, the current results remain valuable and interesting to a wide audience in the field.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This work aims to understand the role of Echinoderm Microtubule-associated Protein-like 3 (EML3) in embryogenesis and neocortical development. Importantly, this work shows that depletion of EML3 causes focal neuronal ectopias by disrupting the structural integrity of the pial basement membrane, describing a new model of cobblestone brain malformation. Another member of the EML family, EML1, has already been shown to trigger neuronal migration disorders, particularly subcortical band heterotopia, by affecting cell polarity. The results presented here point to a different mechanism of action. The authors show that EML3 is expressed in radial glia cells and mesenchymal cells in the pial region, and upon EML3 depletion (i.e., Eml3 mutant mice), the pial basement membrane is structurally damaged, allowing migrating neuroblasts to ectopically migrate through. Answering, in this case, that the weakening of the pial basement membrane is a prerequisite for focal neuronal ectopias. The authors provide a meticulous characterization of the Eml3 mutant mice, strengthening the conclusions of the results.

Strengths:

The authors provide a very detailed analysis of the defects observed in Eml3 mutant mice, by providing not only results by inferred day of conception but also by classifying embryos by their number of somite pairs.

Weaknesses:

(1) Besides the data provided in the figures, the authors report a significant amount of experiments/results as "Data not shown". Negative data is still important data to report, and the authors may want to choose some crucial "not shown data" to report in the manuscript.

(2) Results in Figure 3A apparently contradict results in 3B. A better explanation of the results should improve understanding of the data. Even though the conclusion that the "onset and progression of neurogenesis is normal in Eml3 null mice" seems logical based on the data, the final numbers are not (Figure 3A) and this should be acknowledged, as well.

(3) The authors should define which cell types are identified by SOX1 and PAX6.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Fujita et al build on their earlier, 2017 eLife paper that showed the role of autophagy in the developmental remodeling of a group of muscles (DIOM) in the abdomen of Drosophila. Most larval muscles undergo histolysis during metamorphosis, while DIOMs are programmed to regrow after initial atrophy to give rise to temporary adult muscles, which survive for only 1 day after eclosion of the adult flies (J Neurosci. 1990;10:403-1. and BMC Dev Biol 16, 12, 2016). The authors carry out transcriptomics profiling of these muscles during metamorphosis, which are in agreement with the atrophy and regrowth phases of these muscles. Expression of the known mitophagy receptor BNIP3/NIX is high during atrophy, so the authors start to delve more into the role of this protein/mitophagy in their model. BNIP3 KO indeed impairs mitophagy and muscle atrophy, which they convincingly demonstrate via nice microscopy images. They also show that the already known Atg8a-binding LIR and Atg18a-binding MER motifs of human NIX are conserved in the Drosophila protein, although the LIR turned out to be less critical for in vivo protein function than the MER motif.

Strengths:

Established methodology, convincing data, in vivo model

Weaknesses:

Significance for Drosophila physiology and for human muscles remains to be established

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study by Haley et al, the authors investigated explore-exploit foraging using C. elegans as a model system. Through an elegant set of patchy environment assays, the authors built a GLM based on past experience that predicts whether an animal will decide to stay on a patch to feed and exploit that resource, instead of choosing to leave and explore other patches.

Strengths:

I really enjoyed reading this paper. The experiments are simple and elegant, and address fundamental questions of foraging theory in a well-defined system. The experimental design is thoroughly vetted, and the authors provide a considerable volume of data to prove their points.

Weakness:

History-dependence of the GLM. The logistic GLM seems like a logical way to model a binary choice, and I think the parameters you chose are certainly important. However, the framing of them seem odd to me. I do not doubt the animals are assessing the current state of the patch with an assessment of past experience; that makes perfect logical sense. However, it seems odd to reduce past experience to the categories of recently exploited patch, recently encountered patch, and time since last exploitation. This implies the animals have some way of discriminating these past patch experiences and committing them to memory. Also, it seems logical that the time on these patches, not just their density, should also matter, just as the time without food matters. Time is inherent to memory. This model also imposes a prior categorization in trying to distinguish between sensed vs. not-sensed patches, which I criticized earlier. Only "sensed" patches are used in the model, but it is questionable whether worms genuinely do not "sense" these patches.

It seems more likely the worm simply has some memory of chemosensation and relative satiety, both of which increase on patches, and decrease while off of patches. The magnitudes are likely a function of patch density. That being said, I leave it up to the reader to decide how best to interpret the data.

Impact:

I think this work will have a solid impact on the field, as it provides tangible variables to test how animals assess their environment and decide to exploit resources. I think the strength of this research could be strengthened by a reassessment of their model that would both simplify it and provide testable timescales of satiety/starvation memory.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a proposal for a new theory for the geometry of insect eyes. The novel cost-benefit function combines the cost of the optical portion with the photoreceptor portion of the eye. These quantities are put on the same footing using a specific (normalized) volume measure, plus an energy factor for the photoreceptor compartment. An optimal information transmission rate then specifies each parameter and resource allocation ratio for a variable total cost. The elegant treatment allows for comparison across a wide range of species and eye types. Simple eyes are found to be several times more efficient across a range of eye parameters than neural superposition eyes. Some trends in eye parameters can be explained by optimal allocation of resources between the optics and photoreceptors compartments of the eye.

Strengths:

Data from a variety of species roughly align with rough trends in the cost analysis, e.g. as a function of expanding the length of the photoreceptor compartment.

New data could be added to the framework once collected, and many species can be compared.

Eyes of different shapes are compared.

Weaknesses:

Detailed quantitative conclusions are not possible given the approximations and simplifying assumptions in the models and weak accounting for trends in the data across eye types.

Comments on revisions:

I have no additional comments for the authors and appreciate the revisions and corrections implemented - I think those changes have improved the clarity of the manuscript and expanded the potential readership for the paper.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Qiu and co-workers describes the single-particle cryo-electron microscopy structures of various oligomeric states of the orphan GPCR, GPR3. It describes the monomeric and dimeric structure of a mutant of GPR3 with a modified G-protein complex (miniGs) and then builds on this work to attempt an inactive 'apo' dimer and an allosteric modulator (AF bound dimer structure, by using an ICL3 insertion and stabilizing FAB fragments.

In general, I'm supportive of the work done in this study, and it does indeed provide valuable insight into GPR3 function. It may be that dimerization of certain class A GPCRs may be a means of signalling regulation or perhaps even amplification. However, some of the interpretation of the single particle data needs some extra attention to strengthen the hypothesis presented in the manuscript.

Firstly, I want to thank the authors for providing the unfiltered half-maps and PDB models for careful assessment. During this review, I did my own post-processing of the half-maps and used the resultant maps for careful analysis of models.

So to begin, I understand that the authors didn't model any lipid in the binding orthosteric binding site in any of the maps, but it may be worthwhile to model something in there, as many readers only download coordinates and not the maps.

A more general point about all the maps. In no case were any focussed refinements carried out. As the point of this paper are some of the finer details between active and intermediate states and the effect of an allosteric modulator, masking out hypervariable portions of the structure and doing local Euler searches would most certainly provide richer insights of the details in GPR3 (especially as the BRIL:Fab structures are not of interest). And also, generally, no 3D-variability studies were performed to see if minor differences in, say, TM4/5/6 positions were due to large variation in the single particles or were a stable consensus position.

As for the PFK dimeric structure. It appears to be refined with C2 point group symmetry (which is not mentioned anywhere except in a tiny bit of text in a supplemental figure). Was this also calculated in C1 to assess if there is any difference in either GPR3 protomer? Also, how certain are the authors of the cholesterol positions at the bottom of TM4/5? At lower map thresholds in the PFK dimer structure, one of them appears to be continuous with the orthosteric lipid. It also appears that there are many unmodelled lipids in this structure, and only two were assigned as cholesterol. It appears that many of the unmodelled lipids are forming bridging connections between the GPR3 protomers. Also, it may be worthwhile to provide a table of the key interactions between the protomers (although I note that there was a figure highlighting them).

With the PFK monomer structure, there was weak density for the same cholesterol, which was not modelled in this one; perhaps some commentary on the authors' approach for deciding how to assign density would be helpful. It also appears that the refinement mask was probably a bit tight in this one (something that cryoSPARC is notorious for), and rerefining with a much looser mask around the TM domain may be helpful in resolving the inner lipid leaflet positions.

The Apo structure, I think, I have the most issues with. Firstly, it is not 'apo'. There is definitely unaccounted for density in the orthosteric site. Also, the structure definitely needs a bit more attention. Firstly, masking out the BRIL and FABs would be a good start in helping better resolve the TMD regions, and then even focussing on a single monomer to increase the map interpretability. My major problem here is that, if this is being called 'apo' and inactive, the map doesn't reflect this; also, the TM5/6 does not look to be in a fully inactive position. The map density (at least around one of the protomers) in this region looks to be poorly resolved, most likely due to averaging due to internal motion. I think some 3DVA is certainly warranted here to strengthen the hypothesis that they have solved an 'apo' inactive.

The AF (allosteric modulator) bound structure is of significantly better quality. But again, only AF is modelled, and no lipids are. How are the authors sure? Perhaps some focussed refinements (and changing the Euler Origin to centre it on the AF molecule could be a good start). To this reviewer, at least in one of the protomers, adjacent to the AF position, there is a density that looks very much like the allosteric modulator, so it could even be forming a bridging dimer. Also, some potential assignments of the lipids may enlighten some of the structure-activity relationship of this modulator, as it seems to make as many contacts with surrounding lipids as it does with TM4/5. Also, it may be worthwhile exploring carefully the 3DVA of this data. In our studies (Russel et al.), we noted that the orthosteric lipid appears to ratchet back-and-forth in concert with TM4/5 twisting. Perhaps in the AF bound structure, as it binds at the 'exit' site of the lipid, perhaps it is locking in a specific conformation.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The manuscript by Fuller et al describes a crosstalk between ARTG2A with components of the early secretory pathway, namely RAB1A and ARFGAP1. They show that ATG2A is recruited to membranes positive for RAB1A, which they also show to interact with ATG2A. In agreement with earlier findings by other groups, silencing RAB1A negatively affects autophagy. While ARFGAP1 was also found on ATG2A-positive membranes, silencing ARFGAP1 had no impact on autophagy. Notably, these ARFGAP1-positive membranes are not Golgi membranes.

The findings are interesting, and in general, the data are of good quality; however, I have outstanding questions. An answer to any of these questions might strengthen the manuscript:

(1) Are the membranes to which ATG2A is recruited a form of ERGIC?

(2) Figure 3A/B: Is it possible to show a better example? The difference is barely detectable by eye. Since immunoblotting is not really a quantitative method, I think that such a weak effect is prone to be wrong. Is there another tool/assay to validate this result?

(3) Is the curvature-sensitive region of ARFGAP1 required for its co-localization with ATG2A?

(4) What does Rab1A do? What is its effector? Or does the GTPase itself remodel the membrane?

(5) What about Arf1? It appears that the role of ARFGAP1 is unrelated to Arf1 and COPI? Thus, one would predict that Arf1 does not localize to these structures and does not affect ATG2A function.

(6) Does ARFGAP1 promote fission of the membrane from its donor compartment?

(7) What are ARFGAP1 and Rab1A recruited to? What is the lipid composition or protein that recruits these two players to regulate autophagy?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In their study McDermott et al. investigate the neurocomputational mechanism underlying sensory prediction errors. They contrast two accounts: representational sharpening and dampening. Representational sharpening suggests that predictions increase the fidelity of the neural representations of expected inputs, while representational dampening suggests the opposite (decreased fidelity for expected stimuli). The authors performed decoding analyses on EEG data, showing that first expected stimuli could be better decoded (sharpening), followed by a reversal during later response windows where unexpected inputs could be better decoded (dampening). These results are interpreted in the context of opposing process theory (OPT), which suggests that such a reversal would support perception to be both veridical (i.e., initial sharpening to increase the accuracy of perception) and informative (i.e., later dampening to highlight surprising, but informative inputs).

Strengths:

The topic of the present study is of significant relevance for the field of predictive processing. The experimental paradigm used by McDermott et al. is well designed, allowing the authors to avoid several common confounds in investigating predictions, such as stimulus familiarity and adaptation. The introduction of the manuscript provides a well written summery of the main arguments for the two accounts of interest (sharpening and dampening), as well as OPT. Overall, the manuscript serves as a good overview of the current state of the field.

Weaknesses:

In my opinion some details of the methods, results and manuscript raise some doubts about the reliability of the reported findings. Key concerns are:

(1) In the previous round of comments, I noted that: "I am not fully convinced that Figures 3A/B and the associated results support the idea that early learning stages result in dampening and later stages in sharpening. The inference made requires, in my opinion, not only a significant effect in one-time bin and the absence of an effect in other bins. Instead to reliably make this inference one would need a contrast showing a difference in decoding accuracy between bins, or ideally an analysis not contingent on seemingly arbitrary binning of data, but a decrease (or increase) in the slope of the decoding accuracy across trials. Moreover, the decoding analyses seem to be at the edge of SNR, hence making any interpretation that depends on the absence of an effect in some bins yet more problematic and implausible". The authors responded: "we fitted a logarithmic model to quantify the change of the decoding benefit over trials, then found the trial index for which the change of the logarithmic fit was < 0.1%. Given the results of this analysis and to ensure a sufficient number of trials, we focused our further analyses on bins 1-2". However, I do not see how this new analysis addresses the concern that the conclusion highlights differences in decoding performance between bins 1 and 2, yet no contrast between these bins are performed. While I appreciate the addition of the new model, in my current understanding it does not solve the problem I raised. I still believe that if the authors wish to conclude that an effect differs between two bins they must contrast these directly and/or use a different appropriate analysis approach.

Relatedly, the logarithmic model fitting and how it justifies the focus on analysis bin 1-2 needs to be explained better, especially the rationale of the analysis, the choice of parameters (e.g., why logarithmic, why change of logarithmic fit < 0.1% as criterion, etc), and why certain inferences follow from this analysis. Also, the reporting of the associated results seems rather sparse in the current iteration of the manuscript.

(2) A critical point the authors raise is that they investigate the buildup of expectations during training. They go on to show that the dampening effect disappears quickly, concluding: "the decoding benefit of invalid predictions [...] disappeared after approximately 15 minutes (or 50 trials per condition)". Maybe the authors can correct me, but my best understanding is as follows: Each bin has 50 trials per condition. The 2:1 condition has 4 leading images, this would mean ~12 trials per leading stimulus, 25% of which are unexpected, so ~9 expected trials per pair. Bin 1 represents the first time the participants see the associations. Therefore, the conclusion is that participants learn the associations so rapidly that ~9 expected trials per pair suffice to not only learn the expectations (in a probabilistic context) but learn them sufficiently well such that they result in a significant decoding difference in that same bin. If so, this would seem surprisingly fast, given that participants learn by means of incidental statistical learning (i.e. they were not informed about the statistical regularities). I acknowledge that we do not know how quickly the dampening/sharpening effects develop, however surprising results should be accompanied with a critical evaluation and exceptionally strong evidence (see point 1). Consider for example the following alternative account to explain these results. Category pairs were fixed across and within participants, i.e. the same leading image categories always predicted the same trailing image categories for all participants. Some category pairings will necessarily result in a larger representational overlap (i.e., visual similarity, etc.) and hence differences in decoding accuracy due to adaptation and related effects. For example, house  barn will result in a different decoding performance compared to coffee cup  barn, simply due to the larger visual and semantic similarity between house and barn compared to coffee cup and barn. These effects should occur upon first stimulus presentation, independent of statistical learning, and may attenuate over time e.g., due to increasing familiarity with the categories (i.e., an overall attenuation leading to smaller between condition differences) or pairs.

(3) In response to my previous comment, why the authors think their study may have found different results compared to multiple previous studies (e.g. Han et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2017; Meyer and Olson, 2011), particularly the sharpening to dampening switch, the authors emphasize the use of non-repeated stimuli (no repetition suppression and no familiarity confound) in their design. However, I fail to see how familiarity or RS could account for the absence of sharpening/dampening inversion in previous studies.

First, if the authors argument is about stimulus novelty and familiarity as described by Feuerriegel et al., 2021, I believe this point does not apply to the cited studies. Feuerriegel et al., 2021 note: "Relative stimulus novelty can be an important confound in situations where expected stimulus identities are presented often within an experiment, but neutral or surprising stimuli are presented only rarely", which indeed is a critical confound. However, none of the studies (Han et al., 2019; Richter et al., 2018; Kumar et al., 2017; Meyer and Olson, 2011) contained this confound, because all stimuli served as expected and unexpected stimuli, with the expectation status solely determined by the preceding cue. Thus, participants were equally familiar with the images across expectation conditions.

Second, for a similar reason the authors argument for RS accounting for the different results does not hold either in my opinion. Again, as Feuerriegel et al. 2021 correctly point out: "Adaptation-related effects can mimic ES when the expected stimuli are a repetition of the last-seen stimulus or have been encountered more recently than stimuli in neutral expectation conditions." However, it is critical to consider the precise design of previous studies. Taking again the example of Han et al., 2019; Kumar et al., 2017; Meyer and Olson, 2011. To my knowledge none of these studies contained manipulations that would result in a more frequent or recent repetition of any specific stimulus in the expected compared to unexpected condition. The crucial manipulation in all these previous studies is not that a single stimulus or stimulus feature (which could be subject to familiarity or RS) determines the expectation status, but rather the transitional probability (i.e. cue-stimulus pairing) of a particular stimulus given the cue. Therefore, unless I am missing something critical, simple RS seems unlikely to differ between expectation condition in the previous studies and hence seems implausible to account for differences in results compared to the current study.

Moreover, studies cited by the authors (e.g. Todorovic & de Lange, 2012) showed that RS and ES are separable in time, again making me wonder how avoiding stimulus repetition should account for the difference in the present study compared to previous ones. I am happy to be corrected in my understanding, but with the currently provided arguments by the authors I do not see how RS and familiarity can account for the discrepancy in results.

I agree with the authors that stimulus familiarity is a clear difference compared to previous designs, but without a valid explanation why this should affect results I find this account rather unsatisfying. I see the key difference in that the authors manipulated category predictability, instead of exemplar prediction - i.e. searching for a car instead of your car. However, if results in support of OPT would indeed depend on using novel images (i.e. without stimulus repetition), would this not severely limit the scope of the account and hence also its relevance? Certainly, the account provided by the authors casts the net wider and tries to explain visual prediction. Relatedly, if OPT only applies during training, as the authors seem to argue, would this again not significantly narrow the scope of the theory? Combined these two caveats would seem to demote the account from a general account of prediction and perception to one about perception during very specific circumstances. In my understanding the appeal of OPT is that it accounts for multiple challenges faced by the perceptual system, elegantly integrating them into a cohesive framework. Most of this would be lost by claiming that OPT's primary prediction would only apply to specific circumstances - novel stimuli during learning of predictions. Moreover, in the original formulation of the account, as outlined by Press et al., I do not see any particular reason why it should be limited to these specific circumstances. This does of course not mean that the present results are incorrect, however it does require an adequate discussion and acknowledgement in the manuscript.

Impact:

McDermott et al. present an interesting study with potentially impactful results. However, given my concerns raised in this and the previous round of comments, I am not entirely convinced of the reliability of the results. Moreover, the difficulty of reconciling some of the present results with previous studies highlights the need for more convincing explanations of these discrepancies and a stronger discussion of the present results in the context of the literature.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This work shows experimentally and computationally that single CA1 neurons can perform mismatch detection on patterned CA3 inputs and that STP and EI balance underlie this detection.

Strengths:

It has been known that STP can enhance the EPSP when the corresponding presynaptic input exhibits abrupt changes in firing rate. This work provides experimental evidence and further computational support for the hypothesis that the basic computation through STP is useful for detecting abrupt changes in the spatial pattern of synaptic inputs at the Schaffer collaterals. Further, their results indicate the novel view that mismatch detection is most efficient when gamma-frequency bursting inputs exhibit mismatches between theta cycles.

Weaknesses:

Their model assumes that patterned activities in CA3 do not have overlaps. However, overlaps between memory engrams have been shown. Therefore, this assumption may not hold, and whether the proposed mechanism is valid for overlapping CA3 inputs needs further clarification.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Using an approach developed by the authors (FluidFM) combined with FLIM, they discover that a mechanical force applied over the cell nucleus triggers mechanical responses dependent on the Lamina composition.

Strengths:

The authors present a new approach to study mechano-transduction in living cells, with which they uncover lamin-dependent properties of the nucleus.

Weaknesses:

(1) The transfer of the mechanical response from the Lamina to the ER is not fully covered.

(2) In Figure 4D, WT dots are the same for each compartment. Why do the authors not make one graph for each compartment with WT, A-KO, B-KD, and A-KO/B-KD together?

(2) In Figure 1E, the authors showed well how the probe deforms the nucleus. It is not indicated in the material and methods section or in the figure legend, where, in Z, the acquisition of FLIM images was made or if it is a maximum projection. I assume it was made at a plane in the middle of the nucleus to see the nuclear envelope border and the ER at the same time. Did the authors look at the nuclear membrane facing upward, where most of the deformation should occur? Are there more lifetime changes? In Figure D, before injection of CytoD, we can clearly see a difference at the pyramidal indentation site with two different lifetime colors.

(3) A great result of this article regards the importance of Lamins, A and B, in triggering the response to a mechanical force applied to the nucleus. Could 3D imaging for LaminA and LaminB be performed at the different time points of indentation to see how the lamins meshworks are deformed and how they return to basal state? This could be correlated with the FLIM results described in the article.

(4) Lamins form a meshwork underneath the nuclear membrane. They are connected to the cytoskeletons mainly by the LINC complex. Results presented here show that the cytoskeletons are implicated in transferring the stimulus from the nuclear envelope to the ER. Could the author perform the same experiments using Nesprin-2 or/and Nesprin-1 or/and SUN1/2 knockdowns to determine if this transmission is occurring through the LINC complex or rather in a passive way by modifying the nuclear close surroundings?

(5) The authors used cytoskeleton drugs, CytoD and Nocodazole, with their FluidFM probe, but did not show if the drugs actually worked and to what extent by performing actin or microtubule stainings. In the original paper describing FluidFM, 15s were enough to obtain a full FITC-positive cell after injection. Here, the experiments are around 5 minutes long. I therefore interrogate the rationale behind the injection of the drugs compared to direct incubation, besides affecting only the cell currently under indentation.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This manuscript presents a meta-analysis of 23 studies, which report 297 effect sizes, on the effect of SO-spindle coupling on memory performance. The analysis has been done with great care, and the results are described in great detail. In particular, there are separate analyses for coupling phase, spindle amplitude, coupling strength (e.g., measured by vector length or modulation index), and coupling percentage (i.e., the percentage of SPs coupled with SOs). The authors conclude that the precision and strength of coupling showed significant correlations with memory retention.

There are two main points where I do not agree with the authors.

First, the authors conclude that "SO-SP coupling should be considered as a general physiological mechanism for memory consolidation". However, the reported effect sizes are smaller than what is typically considered a "small effect" (0.10<br /> Second, the study implements state-of-the-art Bayesian statistics. While some might see this as a strength, I would argue that it is not. A classical meta-analysis is relatively easy to understand, even for readers with only a limited background in statistics. A Bayesian analysis, on the other hand, introduces a number of subjective choices that render it much less transparent. This becomes obvious in the forest plots. It is not immediately apparent to the reader how the distributions for each study represent the reported effect sizes (gray dots), which makes the analyses unnecessarily opaque. It is commendable that the authors now provide classical forest plots as Figs. S10.1-4.

However, analyses that require a "Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method, [..] with the no-U-turn Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) samplers, [..] with each chain undergoing 12,000 iterations (including 2,000 warm-ups)" for calculating accurate Bayes Factors (BF), and checking its convergence "through graphical posterior predictive checks, [..] trace plots, and [..] Gelman and Rubin Diagnostic", which should then result in something resembling "a uniformly undulating wave with high overlap between chains" still seems overly complex. It follows a recent trend in using more and more opaque methods. Where we had to trust published results a decade ago because the data were not openly available, today we must trust the results because methods (including open source software toolboxes) can no longer be checked with reasonable effort.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This is a well-designed study examining an important, surprisingly understudied question: how does adaptation affect spatial frequency processing in human visual cortex? Using a combination of psychophysics and neuroimaging, the authors test the hypothesis that spatial frequency tuning is shifted to higher or lower frequencies, depending on preadapted state (low or high s.f. adaptation). They do so by first validating the phenomenon psychophysically, showing that adapting to 0.5 cpd stimuli causes an increase perceived s.f., and 3.5 cpd causes a relative decrease in perceived s.f. Using the same stimuli, they then port these stimuli to a neuroimaging study, in which population receptive fields are measured under high and low spatial frequency adaptation states. They find that adaptation changes pRF size, depending on adaptation state: adapting to high s.f. led to broader overall pRF sizes across early visual cortex, whereas adapting to low s.f. led to smaller overall pRF sizes. Finally the authors carry out a control experiment to psychophysically rule out the possibility that the perceived contrast change w/ adaptation may have given rise to these imaging results (doesn't appear to be the case). All in all, I found this to be a good manuscript: the writing is taut, and the study is well designed.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Borghi and colleagues present results from 4 experiments aimed at investigating the effects of dual γtACS and iTBS stimulation of the precuneus on behavioral and neural markers of memory formation. In their first experiment (n = 20), they found that a 3-minute offline (i.e., prior to task completion) stimulation that combines both techniques leads to superior memory recall performance in an associative memory task immediately after learning associations between pictures of faces, names, and occupation, as well as after a 15-minute delay, compared to iTBS alone (+ tACS sham) or no stimulation (sham for both iTBS and tACS). Performance in a second task probing short-term memory was unaffected by the stimulation condition. In a second experiment (n = 10), they show that these effects persist over 24 hours and up to a full week after initial stimulation. A third (n = 14) and fourth (n = 16) experiment were conducted to investigate the neural effects of the stimulation protocol. The authors report that, once again, only combined iTBS and γtACS increase gamma oscillatory activity and neural excitability (as measured by concurrent TMS-EEG) specific to the stimulated area at the precuneus compared to a control region, as well as precuneus-hippocampus functional connectivity (measured by resting-state MRI), which seemed to be associated with structural white matter integrity of the bilateral middle longitudinal fasciculus (measured by DTI).

Strengths:

Combining non-invasive brain stimulation techniques is a novel, potentially very powerful method to maximize the effects of these kinds of interventions that are usually well-tolerated and thus accepted by patients and healthy participants. It is also very impressive that the stimulation-induced improvements in memory performance resulted from a short (3 min) intervention protocol. If the effects reported here turn out to be as clinically meaningful and generalizable across populations as implied, this approach could represent a promising avenue for the treatment of impaired memory functions in many conditions.

Methodologically, this study is expertly done! I don't see any serious issues with the technical setup in any of the experiments (with the only caveat that I am not an expert in fMRI functional connectivity measures and DTI). It is also very commendable that the authors conceptually replicated the behavioral effects of experiment 1 in experiment 2 and then conducted two additional experiments to probe the neural mechanisms associated with these effects. This certainly increases the value of the study and the confidence in the results considerably.

The authors used a within-subject approach in their experiments, which increases statistical power and allows for stronger inferences about the tested effects. They are also used to individualize stimulation locations and intensities, which should further optimize the signal-to-noise ratio.

Weaknesses:

I want to state clearly that I think the strengths of this study far outweigh the concerns I have. I still list some points that I think should be clarified by the authors or taken into account by readers when interpreting the presented findings.

I think one of the major weaknesses of this study is the overall low sample size in all of the experiments (between n = 10 and n = 20). This is, as I mentioned when discussing the strengths of the study, partly mitigated by the within-subject design and individualized stimulation parameters. The authors mention that they performed a power analysis but this analysis seemed to be based on electrophysiological readouts similar to those obtained in experiment 3. It is thus unclear whether the other experiments were sufficiently powered to reliably detect the behavioral effects of interest. That being said, the authors do report significant effects, so they were per definition powered to find those. However, the effect sizes reported for their main findings are all relatively large and it is known that significant findings from small samples may represent inflated effect sizes, which may hamper the generalizability of the current results. Ideally, the authors would replicate their main findings in a larger sample. Alternatively, I think running a sensitivity analysis to estimate the smallest effect the authors could have detected with a power of 80% could be very informative for readers to contextualize the findings. At the very least, however, I think it would be necessary to address this point as a potential limitation in the discussion of the paper.

It seems that the statistical analysis approach differed slightly between studies. In experiment 1, the authors followed up significant effects of their ANOVAs by Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc tests whereas it seems that in experiment 2, those post-hoc tests where "exploratory", which may suggest those were uncorrected. In experiment 3, the authors use one-tailed t-tests to follow up their ANOVAs. Given some of the reported p-values, these choices suggest that some of the comparisons might have failed to reach significance if properly corrected. This is not a critical issue per se, as the important test in all these cases is the initial ANOVA but non-significant (corrected) post-hoc tests might be another indicator of an underpowered experiment. My assumptions here might be wrong, but even then, I would ask the authors to be more transparent about the reasons for their choices or provide additional justification. Finally, the authors sometimes report exact p-values whereas other times they simply say p < .05. I would ask them to be consistent and recommend using exact p-values for every result where p >= .001.

While the authors went to great lengths trying to probe the neural changes likely associated with the memory improvement after stimulation, it is impossible from their data to causally relate the findings from experiments 3 and 4 to the behavioral effects in experiments 1 and 2. This is acknowledged by the authors and there are good methodological reasons for why TMS-EEG and fMRI had to be collected in sperate experiments, but it is still worth pointing out to readers that this limits inferences about how exactly dual iTBS and γtACS of the precuneus modulate learning and memory.

There were no stimulation-related performance differences in the short-term memory task used in experiments 1 and 2. The authors argue that this demonstrates that the intervention specifically targeted long-term associative memory formation. While this is certainly possible, the STM task was a spatial memory task, whereas the LTM task relied (primarily) on verbal material. It is thus also possible that the stimulation effects were specific to a stimulus domain instead of memory type. In other words, could it be possible that the stimulation might have affected STM performance if the task taxed verbal STM instead? This is of course impossible to know without an additional experiment, but the authors could mention this possibility when discussing their findings regarding the lack of change in the STM task.

While the authors discuss the potential neural mechanisms by which the combined stimulation conditions might have helped memory formation, the psychological processes are somewhat neglected. For example, do the authors think the stimulation primarily improves the encoding of new information or does it also improve consolidation processes? Interestingly, the beneficial effect of dual iTBS and γtACS on recall performance was very stable across all time points tested in experiments 1 and 2, as was the performance in the other conditions. Do the authors have any explanation as to why there seems to be no further forgetting of information over time in either condition when even at immediate recall, accuracy is below 50%? Further, participants started learning the associations of the FNAT immediately after the stimulation protocol was administered. What would happen if learning started with a delay? In other words, do the authors think there is an ideal time window post-stimulation in which memory formation is enhanced? If so, this might limit the usability of this procedure in real-life applications.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The authors suggest that the small release of DA may be due to a release of glutamate from DRN 5-HT neurons to the VTA that stimulates weakly and in a transient fashion the VTA DA neurons, which in the end, produce a transient and small release of DA in the NAc.

Their findings give more information on the previously reported complex and partial known crosstalk between 5-HT and DA in the NAc.

I only have some minor concerns about the manuscript:

(1) In Figure 2F, there is a missing curve for 5-HT in NAc. Besides, the legend shows n=2, making it difficult to perform statistical analysis with that data.

(2) In Figure 3, the use of NBQX/AP5 is shown, but it is not mentioned either in the methodology or in the discussion. What is the meaning of those results?

(3) Line 98 compares results from two different places of stimulation. The results are related to stimulation in the VTA, but the comparison indicates that the stimulation was made in the DRN.

(4) If the release of 5-HT in Nac does not occur, it needs to be precise in the abstract that 5-HT is released in the dorsal striatum (DS) but not in the NAc (line 19).

(5) Be consistent with the way you mention the 5-HT neurons. For example, in lines from 106 to 119, SERT neurons are used. Previously, 5-HT neurons were used.

(6) There are several points of confusion when referring to the figures, making the text difficult to follow because the text explains something that is not shown in the figure cited.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Burroughs et al. uses informatic sequence analysis and structural modeling to define a very large, new superfamily which they dub the Lipocone superfamily, based on its function on lipid components and cone-shaped structure. The family includes known enzymatic domains as well as previously uncharacterized proteins (30 families in total). Support for the superfamily designation includes conserved residues located on the homologous helical structures within the fold. The findings include analyses that shed light on important evolutionary relationships including a model in which the superfamily originated as membrane proteins where one branch evolved into a soluble version. Their mechanistic proposals suggest possible functions for enzymes currently unassigned. There is also support for the evolutionary connection of this family with the human immune system. The work will be of interest to those in the broad areas of bioinformatics, enzyme mechanisms, and evolution. The work is technically well performed and presented.

The Molle! Disassembling, Cleaning, and Aligning a Rare 106 Year Old Molle No. 3 Typewriter by [[Dynamically Typed]]

Rust removal and polishing of some of the brights on a Molle typewriter.

Molle only lasted for a few years as a brand in the early 1900s, but as a typewriter repairman, he was interested in easy access for repair for the mechanic in the overall typewriter design.

for - argument for finding another home for humanity - single atmosphere - 3 threats - Eric Weinstein

for - top 3 Kompromat countries - US - UK - Israel

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The study explores the cellular and circuit features that distinguish dentate gyrus semilunar granule cells and granule cells activated during contextual memory formation. The authors tag memory and enriched environment-activated dentate granule cells and semilunar granule cells and show their reactivation in an appropriate context a week later. They perform patch clamp recordings from activated and surrounding neurons to understand the cellular driving of the selective activation of semilunar granule cells and granule cells. Authors perform dual patch clamp recordings from various pairs of labeled semilunar granule cells, labeled granule cells, unlabeled granule cells, and unlabeled semilunar granule cells. The sustained firing of semilunar granule cells explained their preferential activation. In addition, activated neurons received correlated inputs.

Strengths:

The authors confirmed the engram cell properties of activated semilunar granule cells and granule cells in two different paradigms, validating these findings using an enriched environment paradigm.

The authors carefully separate semilunar granule cells from granule cells, using electrophysiology and morphology. Cell filling to confirm morphology further strengthens confidence.

The dual patch recordings, which are technically challenging, are carefully performed, and the presence of synaptic activity is confirmed.

The authors report that sEPSCs recorded from labelled sGCS are more frequent, higher in amplitude, and temporally correlated than their counterparts.

The authors provide evidence that lateral inhibition is not playing a role in the selective activation of sGCs during contextual learning.

Exclusive use of slice physiology limits some of these conclusions due to the shearing of connections during the slicing process.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Using a specparam (1/f) analysis of task-evoked activity, the authors propose that "substantial changes traditionally attributed to theta oscillations in working memory tasks are, in fact, due to shifts in the spectral slope of aperiodic activity." This is a very bold and ambitious statement, and the field of event-related EEG would benefit from more critical assessments of the role of aperiodic changes during task events. Unfortunately, the data shown here does not support the main conclusion advanced by the authors.

Strengths:

The field of event-related EEG would benefit from more critical assessments of the role of aperiodic changes during task events. The authors perform a number of additional control analyses, including different types of baseline correction, ERP subtraction, as well as replication of the experiment with two additional datasets.

Weaknesses:

The authors did not first show that their first task successfully evoked theta power, nor that specparam is capable of quantifying the background around a short theta burst, nor that theta effects are different between baseline corrected vs. spectral parameterized quantification.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have completed a substantial revision based on the comments from all of the reviewers. Overall, the major claims of the initial report have been profoundly tempered, but more of the conclusions are supported by the data.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Yamauchi and colleagues combine all-atom and coarse-grained MD simulations to investigate the mechanism of DNA translocation by prokaryotic SMC complexes. Their multiscale approach is well-justified and supports a segment-capture model in which ATP-dependent conformational changes lead to the unidirectional translocation of DNA. A key insight from the study is that asymmetry in the kleisin path enforces directionality. The work introduces an innovative computational framework that captures key features of SMC motor action, including DNA binding, conformational switching, and translocation.

This work is well executed and timely, and the methodology offers a promising route for probing other large molecular machines where ATP activity is essential.

Strengths:

This manuscript introduces an innovative yet simple method that merges all-atom and coarse-grained, purely equilibrium, MD simulations to investigate DNA translocation by SMC complexes, which is triggered by activated ATP processes. Investigating the impact of ATP on large molecular motors like SMC complexes is extremely challenging, as ATP catalyses a series of chemical reactions that take and keep the system out of equilibrium. The authors simulate the ATP cycle by cycling through distinct equilibrium simulations where the force field changes according to whether the system is assumed to be in the disengaged, engaged, and V-shaped states; this is very clever as it avoids attempting to model the non-equilibrium process of ATP hydrolysis explicitly. This equilibrium switching approach is shown to be an effective way to probe the mechanistic consequences of ATP binding and hydrolysis in the SMC complex system.

The simulations reveal several important features of the translocation mechanism. These include identifying that a DNA segment of ~200 bp is captured in the engaged state and pumped forward via coordinated conformational transitions, yielding a translocation step size in good agreement with experimental estimates. Hydrogen bonding between DNA and the top of the ATPase heads is shown to be critical for segment capturtrans, as without it, translocation is shown to fail. Finally, asymmetry in the kleisin subunit path is shown to be responsible for unidirectionally.

This work highlights how molecular simulations are an excellent complement to experiments, as they can exploit experimental findings to provide high-resolution mechanistic views currently inaccessible to experiments. The findings of these simulations are plausible and expand our understanding of how ATP hydrolysis induces directional motion of the SMC complex.

Weaknesses:

There are aspects of the methodology and modelling assumptions that are not clear and could be better justified. The major ones are listed below:

(1) The all-atom MD simulations involve a 47-bp DNA duplex interacting with the ATPase heads, from which key residues involved in hydrogen bonding are identified. However, DNA mechanics-including flexibility and hydrogen bond formation-are known to be sequence-dependent. The manuscript uses a single arbitrary sequence but does not discuss potential biases. Could the authors comment on how sequence variability might affect binding geometry or the number of hydrogen bonds observed?

(2) A key feature of the coarse-grained model is the inclusion of a specific hydrogen-bonding potential between DNA and residues on the ATPase heads. The authors select the top 15 hydrogen-bond-forming residues from the all-atom simulations (with contact probability > 0.05), but the rationale for this cutoff is not explained. Also, the strength of hydrogen bonds in coarse-grained models can be sensitive to context. How did the authors calibrate the strength of this interaction relative to electrostatics, and did they test its robustness (e.g., by varying epsilon or residue set)? Could this interaction be too strong or too weak under certain ionic conditions? What happens when salt is changed?

(3) To enhance sampling, the translocation simulations are run at 300 mM monovalent salt. While this is argued to be physiological for Pyrococcus yayanosii, such a concentration also significantly screens electrostatics, possibly altering the interaction landscape between DNA and protein or among protein domains. This may significantly impact the results of the simulations. Why did the authors not use enhanced sampling methods to sample rare events instead of relying on a high-salt regime to accelerate dynamics?

(4) Only a small fraction of the simulated trajectories complete successful translocation (e.g., 45 of 770 in one set), and this is attributed to insufficient simulation time. While the authors are transparent about this, it raises questions about the reliability of inferred success rates and about possible artefacts (e.g., DNA trapping in coiled-coil arms). Could the authors explore or at least discuss whether alternative sampling strategies (e.g., Markov State Models, transition path sampling) might address this limitation more systematically?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Liu et al investigate the impact of G1 and G2 variants of the gene encoding Apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) on macrophage inflammation. The authors have used bone marrow-derived macrophages and human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived macrophages as their model to identify altered immune signaling caused by G1 and G2 APOL1. The unbiased metabolite analysis indicates the possible involvement of altered polyamine metabolism in the regulation of inflammatory response in G1 and G2 macrophages. This study shows that targeting polyamine metabolism can limit macrophage inflammation and lipid accumulation in vitro conditions.

Strengths:

This study shows the importance of polyamine metabolism in the regulation of macrophage inflammatory response. The authors showed that spermidine synthesis is closely associated with altered macrophage functions with two risk-variant forms of APOL1 (G1 and G2). The altered macrophage lipid metabolism is known to be associated with macrophage dysfunction in G1 and G2 APOL1. However, the involvement of polyamine in the regulation of lipid accumulation and inflammation in macrophages in G1 and G2 variants is interesting and could be explored as a novel therapeutic approach for chronic inflammation.

Weaknesses:

The novelty of this study lies in the association of polyamine metabolism with lipid metabolism dysregulation in macrophages. The weakness of the manuscript is that insufficient experiments to support the claim of involvement of polyamine metabolism in the regulation of macrophage inflammation, which undermines the novelty of this study. The authors performed in vitro experiments targeting spermidine synthesis to show reduced inflammation and lipid accumulation, but have not performed any in vivo analysis of chronic kidney inflammation progression in G1 and G2 mice, which they have used to generate bone-marrow-derived macrophages. They have not shown any data that supports the specificity of DFMO in targeting spermidine synthesis.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study addressed the TCR pairing types and CDR3 characteristics of Treg cells. By analyzing scRNA and TCR-seq data, it claims that 10-20% of dual TCR Treg cells exist in mouse lymphoid and non-lymphoid tissues and suggests that dual TCR Treg cells in different tissues may play complex biological functions.

Strengths:

The study addresses an interesting question of how dual-TCR-expressing Treg cells play roles in tissues.

Weaknesses:

This study is inadequate, particularly regarding data interpretation, statistical rigor, and the discussion of the functional significance of Dual TCR Tregs.

Comments on revisions:

Although the authors have provided brief explanations in response to the reviewers' comments, they do not present any additional analyses that would address the fundamental concerns in a convincing manner.<br /> Moreover, the in silico analyses presented in the manuscript alone are insufficient to support the conclusions, and the functional experiments requested by the reviewers have not been conducted.

In the current rebuttal, while some textual additions have been made to the manuscript, the only substantial revision to the figures appears to be the inclusion of statistical significance annotations (e.g., Fig. 1G, Fig. 3G). These changes do not adequately strengthen the overall data or address the core issues raised.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

A subset of cancer cells attain replicative immortality by activating the ALT mechanism of telomere maintenance, which is currently the subject of intense research due to its potential for novel targeted therapies. Key questions remain in the field, such as whether ALT telomeres adhere to the same end-protection rules as telomeres in telomerase-expressing cells, or if ALT telomeres possess unique properties that could be targeted with new, less toxic cancer therapies. Both questions, along with the approaches developed by the authors to address them, are highly relevant.

Strengths:

Since chromosome ends resemble one-ended DSBs, the authors hypothesized that the previously described END-SEQ protocol could be used to accurately sequence the 5' end of telomeres on the C-rich strand. As expected, most reads corresponded to the C-rich strand and, confirming previous observation by the de Lange's group, most chromosomes end with the ATC-5' sequence, a feature that was found to be dependent on POT1 and to be conserved in both human ALT cells and mouse cells. Through a complementary method, S1-END-SEQ, the authors further explored ssDNA regions at telomeres, providing new insights into the characteristics of ALT telomeres. The study is original, the experiments were well-controlled and excellently executed.

Weaknesses:

A few additional experiments would have strengthened the results such as combining error-free long-read sequencing with END-SEQ to compare the abundance of VTRs within telomeres versus at their distal ends.<br /> Along this line, are VTRs increased at ssDNA regions of ALT telomeres? What is the frequency of VTRs in the END-SEQ analysis of TRF1-FokI-expressing ALT cells? Is it also increased? Has TRF1-FokI been applied to telomerase-expressing cells to compare VTR frequencies at internal sites between ALT and telomerase-expressing cells?<br /> To what extent do ECTRs contribute to telomeric ssDNA?<br /> Future experiments may help shed light on this

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Webster et al. sought to understand if phenotypic variation in the absence of genetic variation can be predicted by variation in gene expression. To this end they quantified two reproductive traits, the onset of egg laying and early brood size in cohorts of genetically identical nematodes exposed to alternative ancestral (two maternal ages) and same generation life histories (either constant 20 ºC temperature or 8-hour temperature shift to 25 ºC upon hatching) in a two-factor design; then, they profiled genome-wide gene expression in each individual.

Using multiple statistical and machine learning approaches, they showed that, at least for early brood size, phenotypic variation can be quite well predicted by molecular variation, beyond what can be predicted by life history alone.<br /> Moreover, they provide some evidence that expression variation in some genes might be causally linked to phenotypic variation.

Strengths:

Cleverly designed and carefully performed experiments that provide high-quality datasets useful for the community.

Good evidence that phenotypic variation can be predicted by molecular variation.

Weaknesses:

What drives the molecular variation that impacts phenotypic variation remains unknown. While the authors show that variation in expression of some genes might indeed be causal, it is still not clear how much of the molecular variation is a cause rather than a consequence of phenotypic variation.

Comments on revisions: I have no more comments for the authors

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This is an interesting paper by Lechler and colleagues describing the transcriptomic signature and fate of intermediate cells (ICs), a transient and poorly defined embryonic cell type in the skin. ICs are the first suprabasal cells in the stratifying skin and unlike later-developing suprabasal cells, ICs continue to divide. Using bulk RNA seq to compare ICs to spinous and granular transcriptomes, the authors find that IC-specific gene signatures include hallmarks of granular cells, such as genes involved in lipid metabolism and skin barrier function that are not expressed in spinous cells. ICs were assumed to differentiate into spinous cells, but lineage tracing convincingly shows ICs differentiate directly into granular cells without passing through a spinous intermediate. Rather, basal cells give rise to the first spinous cells. They further show that transcripts associated with contractility are also shared signatures of ICs and granular cells, and overexpression of two contractility inducers (Spastin and ArhGEF-CA) can induce granular and repress spinous gene expression. This contractility-induced granular gene expression does not appear to be mediated by the mechanosensitive transcription factor, Yap. The paper also identifies new markers that distinguish IC and spinous layers, and shows the spinous signature gene, MafB, is sufficient to repress proliferation when prematurely expressed in ICs.

Strengths:

Overall this is a well-executed study, and the data are clearly presented and the findings convincing. It provides an important contribution to the skin field by characterizing the features and fate of ICs, a much understudied cell type, at a high levels of spatial and transcriptomic detail. The conclusions challenge the assumption that ICs are spinous precursors through compelling lineage tracing data. The demonstration that differentiation can be induced by cell contractility is an intriguing finding, and adds a growing list of examples where cell mechanics influence gene expression and differentiation.

Weaknesses:

A weakness of the study is an over-reliance on overexpression and sufficiency experiments to test the contributions of MafB, Yap, and contractility in differentiation. The inclusion of loss-of-function approaches would enable one to determine if, for example, contractility is required for the transition of ICs to granular fate, and whether MafB is required for spinous fate. Second, whether the induction of contractility-associated genes is accompanied by measurable changes in the physical properties or mechanics of the IC and granular layers is not directly shown. Inclusion of physical measurements would bolster the conclusion that mechanics lies upstream of differentiation.

Finally, the role of ICs in epidermal development remains unclear. Although not essential to support the conclusions of this study, insights into the function of this transient cell layer would strengthen the overall impact.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

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

Strengths:

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

Weaknesses:

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

Major points:

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

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

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

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

Minor points:

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

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors report three novel ifc alleles: ifc[js1], ifc[js2], and ifc[js3]. ifc[js1] and ifc[js2] encode missense mutations, V276D and G257S, respectively. ifc[js3] encodes a nonsense mutation, W162*. These alleles exhibit multiple phenotypes, including delayed progression to the late-third larval instar stage, reduced brain size, elongation of the ventral nerve cord, axonal swelling, and lethality during late larval or early pupal stages.

Further characterization of these alleles the authors reveals that ifc is predominantly expressed in glia and localizes to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). The expression of ifc gene governs glial morphology and survival. Expression of fly ifc cDNA or human DEGS1 cDNA specifically in glia, but not neurons, rescues the CNS phenotypes of ifc mutants, indicating a crucial role for ifc in glial cells and its evolutionary conservation. Loss of ifc results in ER expansion and loss of lipid droplets in cortex glia. Additionally, loss of ifc leads to ceramide depletion and accumulation of dihydroceramide. Moreover, it increases the saturation levels of triacylglycerols and membrane phospholipids. Finally, the reduction of dihydroceramide synthesis suppresses the CNS phenotypes associated with ifc mutations, indicating the key role of dihydroceramide in causing ifc LOF defects.

Strengths:

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

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study aims to understand the molecular underpinnings of the complex process of periodic deposition of the neuromast organs of the embryonic posterior lateral line (PLL) sensory system in zebrafish. It was previously established that Fgf signaling in the trailing zone of the migrating PLL primordium is key to protoneuromast establishment, while Wnt signaling in the leading zone must be downregulated to allow new Fgf signaling-dependent protoneuromasts to form. Here, the authors evaluate the role of three SoxB transcription factors (Sox1a, Sox2, and Sox3) in this complex process, generating two novel CRISPR mutants as part of their study. They interrogate the interplay of the SoxB genes with the Fgf and Wnt signaling pathways during PLL primordium migration, using a combination of genetics, knockdown, and imaging approaches, including live time-lapse studies. They report a key role for the SoxB genes in regulating the pace of protoneuromast maturation as the primordium migrates, thus ensuring appropriate deposition and spacing of the neuromast organs.

Strengths:

Strengths of the study are the careful quantitative analysis. based on imaging approaches, of the impact of mutation or knockdown of SoxB genes, coupled with the use of heat shock inducible dominant negative strategies to address how SoxB genes interact with Wnt and Fgf signaling. Functional analyses convincingly uncover a SoxB regulatory network that serves to limit Wnt activity, as directly read out with a live Wnt reporter. The finding that Wnt inhibition (achieved using pharmacological reagents) rescues the SoxB deficiency phenotype provides compelling evidence of the centrality of the Wnt pathway in mediating SoxB function. Use of atoh1 markers to track the stages of development of the neuromasts provides an effective approach to following their maturation, and allows the authors to explore how SoxB/Wnt interplay ultimately translates into the establishment of functional neuromasts. Finally, loss of Sox2 function, together with loss of either Sox1a or Sox3, blocks maturation of the neuromasts, clearly establishing redundancy between these SoxB family genes.

The concepts introduced and explored in this study - of complex gene networks that work within a dynamic cellular environment to enable self-organization and ultimately stabilization of cell fate choices-provide a useful conceptual framework for future studies. This study is therefore of relevance to understanding the morphogenesis of self-organizing tissues more broadly.

Weaknesses:

A minor weakness is the use of SoxB morpholino (MO) knockdown reagents, which are interspersed with mutant analyses. Although the stable mutants are available, they would be challenging to couple with the reporter transgenes used for some of the experiments, providing a reasonable rationale for the use of MO reagents (although the authors don't overtly provide this rationale). Moreover, reduced penetrance of the Sox2 mutants over multiple generations is noted, but no detailed explanation for this finding is offered.

Given that the expression patterns of Sox1a and Sox3 are not merely different but are largely reciprocal, the mechanistic basis of their very similar double mutant phenotypes with Sox2 remains opaque. Related to this, the authors discuss that Sox1a/Sox2 double knockdown produces a more severe phenotype than Sox2/Sox3 double knockdown, yet this difference is not obviously reflected in the data, some of which is not shown.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Modeling and estimating sequence context biases during B cell somatic hypermutation is important for accurately modeling B cell evolution to better understand responses to infection and vaccination. Sung et al. introduce new statistical models that capture a wider sequence context of somatic hypermutation with a comparatively small number of additional parameters. They demonstrate their model's performance with rigorous testing across multiple subjects and datasets. Prior work has captured the mutation biases of fixed 3-, 5-, and 7-mers, but each of these expansions has significantly more parameters. The authors developed a machine-learning-based approach to learn these biases using wider contexts with comparatively few parameters.

Strengths:

Well motivated and defined problem. Clever solution to expand nucleotide context. Complete separation of training and test data by using different subjects for training vs testing. Release of open-source tools and scripts for reproducibility.

The authors have addressed my prior comments.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Mancl et al. report four Cryo-EM structures of glycosylated and soluble Angiotensin-I converting enzyme (sACE) dimer. This moves forward the structural understanding of ACE, as previous analysis yielded partially denatured or individual ACE domains. By performing a heterogeneity analysis, the authors identify three structural conformations (open, intermediate open, and closed) that define the openness of the catalytic chamber and structural features governing the dimerization interface. They show that the dimer interface of soluble ACE consists of an N-terminal glycan and protein-protein interaction regions, as well as C-terminal protein-protein interactions. Further heterogeneity mining and all-atom molecular dynamic simulations show structural rearrangements that lead to the opening and closing of the catalytic pocket, which could explain how ACE binds its substrate. These studies could contribute to future drug design targeting the active site or dimerization interface of ACE.

Strengths:

The authors make significant efforts to address ACE denaturation on cryo-EM grids, testing various buffers and grid preparation techniques. These strategies successfully reduce denaturation and greatly enhance the quality of the structural analysis. The integration of cryoDRGN, 3DVA, RECOVAR, and all-atom simulations for heterogeneity analysis proves to be a powerful approach, further strengthening the overall experimental methodology.

Weaknesses:

No weaknesses noted. The revised manuscript adequately addresses the points I suggested in the review of the first submission.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a very interesting paper extending the use of SHG to the study of relaxed muscle and its use to assess the order-disorder (and on /off) states of myosin heads in the thick filament. The work convincingly shows that SHG and the parameter gamma provide a reliable measure of the state of the myosin heads in a range of different relaxed muscle fibres, both intact and skinned, and in myofibrils. In mini pig cardiac fibres, the use of dATP and mavacamten increased or decreased the number of heads in the disordered state, respectively. On the assumption that these treatments push myosins fully into the disordered or ordered state, then this allows the fraction of ordered heads to be assessed under a wide variety of conditions. It is unfortunate that dATP treatment was not used (as mavacmten was) on rabbit psoas and mouse samples to further test this hypothesis.

The results with the myosin mutant R403Q support the idea that this mutation reduces the fraction of myosin heads in the ordered state and that mavacamten can recover the WT situation.

The results from SHG were compared with parallel studies using X-rays to validate the conclusions. Independent fibre ATPase data further support the conclusions.

The work is solid and provides a novel approach to assessing the activity state of muscle thick filaments. The authors point out some of the potential uses of this approach in the future, including time-resolved SHG measurements. Indeed, jumps in mavacamten or dATP concentration with time-resolved SHG could measure the rates of entry and exit from the ordered, off state of the filament. A measurement is urgently needed in the field.

Strengths:

(1) The SHG signal is convincingly shown to assess the fraction of ordered/disordered myosin heads in the thick filament of a variety of muscle fibres.

(2) The results are similar for rabbit psoas, mouse, and minipig cardiac fibres. Skinning the fibres and production of myofibrils do not change the SHG signal.

(3) Use of myosin R403Q mutant in mini pig confirms a loss of ordered myosin heads, and the ordered heads can be recovered by mavacamten.

(4) Parallel X-ray scattering and ATPase data support the conclusions.

(5) Assuming that dATP and mavacamten generate 100% disordered vs ordered myosin heads respectively, then the percentage of ordered heads can be calculated for a variety of conditions.

Weaknesses:

(1) Issues like the effect of fibre disarray and lattice spacing on the SHG signal are not well defined.

(2) The, now well-defined heterogeneity of thick filament structure is not acknowledged.

(3) dATP was only used on minipig cardiac fibres. The effect of dATP on rabbit psoas and mouse cardiac fibres would be a useful comparison and would help validate the calculation of % ordered heads.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study aims to develop and characterize phenylhydrazone-based small molecules that selectively activate the ATF6 arm of the unfolded protein response by covalently modifying a subset of ER-resident PDIs. The authors identify AA263 as a lead scaffold and optimize its structure to generate analogs with improved potency and ATF6 selectivity, notably AA263-20. These compounds are shown to restore proteostasis and functional expression of disease-associated misfolded proteins in cellular models involving both secretory (AAT-Z) and membrane (GABAA receptor) proteins. The findings provide valuable chemical tools for modulating ER proteostasis and may serve as promising leads for therapeutic development targeting protein misfolding diseases.

Strengths:

(1) The study presents a well-defined chemical biology framework integrating proteomics, transcriptomics, and disease-relevant functional assays.

(2) Identification and optimization of a new electrophilic scaffold (AA263) that selectively activates ATF6 represents a valuable advance in UPR-targeted pharmacology.

(3) SAR studies are comprehensive and logically drive the development of more potent and selective analogs such as AA263-20.

(4) Functional rescue is demonstrated in two mechanistically distinct disease models of protein misfolding-one involving a secretory protein and the other a membrane protein-underscoring the translational relevance of the approach.

Weaknesses:

(1) ATF6 activation is primarily inferred from reporter assays and transcriptional profiling; however, direct evidence of ATF6 cleavage is lacking.

(2) While the mechanism involving PDI modification and ATF6 activation is plausible, it remains incompletely characterized.

(3) No in vivo data are provided, leaving the pharmacological feasibility and bioavailability of these compounds in physiological systems unaddressed.

DOI: 10.1038/s44319-025-00511-8

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-ALT-090424-3

What is this?

DOI: 10.1038/s44319-025-00511-8

Resource: None

Curator: @scibot

SciCrunch record: RRID:ZFIN_ZDB-GENO-140806-3

What is this?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Built on their previous pioneer expertise in studying RAD51 biology, in this paper, the authors aim to capture and investigate the structural mechanism of human RAD51 filament bound with a displacement loop (D-loop), which occurs during the dynamic synaptic state of the homologous recombination (HR) strand-exchange step. As the structures of both pre- and post-synaptic RAD51 filaments were previously determined, a complex structure of RAD51 filament during strand exchange is one of the key missing pieces of information for a complete understanding of how RAD51 functions in HR pathway. This paper aims to determine the high-resolution cryo-EM structure of RAD51 filament bound with D-loop. Combined with mutagenesis analysis and biophysical assays, the authors aim to investigate the D-loop DNA structure, RAD51 mediated strand separation and polarity, and a working model of RAD51 during HR strand invasion in comparison with RecA.

Strengths:

(1) The structural work and associated biophysical assays in this paper are solid, elegantly designed and interpreted.  These results provide novel insights into RAD51's function in HR.

(2) The DNA substrate used was well designed, taking into consideration of the nucleotide number requirement of RAD51 for stable capture of donor DNA. This DNA substrate choice lays the foundation for successfully determining the structure of the RAD51 filament on D-loop DNA using single-partial cryo-EM.

(3) The authors utilised their previous expertise in capping DNA ends using monometric streptavidin and combined their careful data collection and processing to determine the cryo-EM structure of full-length human RAD51 bound at D-loop in high resolution. This interesting structure forms the core part of this work and allows detailed mapping of DNA-DNA and DNA-protein interaction among RAD51, invading strands, and donor DNA arms (Figures 1, 2, 3, 4). The geometric analysis of D-loop DNA bound with RAD51 and EM density for homologous DNA pairing are also impressive (Figure S5). The previously disordered RAD51's L2-loop is now ordered and traceable in the density map and functions as a physical spacer when bound with D-loop DNA. Interestingly, the authors identified that the side chain position of F279 in the L2_loop of RAD51_H differs from other F279 residues in L2-loops of E, F and G protomers. This asymmetric binding of L2 loops and RAD51_NTD binding with donor DNA arms forms the basis of the proposed working model about the polarity on csDNA during RAD51-mediated strand exchange.

(4) This work also includes mutagenesis analysis and biophysical experiments, especially EMSA, single-molecule fluorescence imaging using an optical tweezer, and DNA strand exchange assay, which are all suitable methods to study the key residues of RAD51 for strand exchange and D-loop formation (Figure 5).

Weaknesses:

(1) The proposed model for the 3'-5' polarity of RAD51-mediated strand invasion is based on the structural observations in the cryo-EM structure. This study lacks follow-up biochemical/biophysical experiments to validate the proposed model compared to RecA or developing methods to capture structures of any intermediate states with different polarity models.

(2) The functional impact of key mutants designed based on structure has not been tested in cells to evaluate how these mutants impact the HR pathway.

The significance of the work for the DNA repair field and beyond:

Homologous recombination (HR) is a key pathway for repairing DNA double-strand breaks and involves multiple steps. RAD51 forms nucleoprotein filaments first with 3' overhang single-strand DNA (ssDNA), followed by a search and exchange with a homology strand. This function serves as the basis of an accurate template-based DNA repair during HR. This research addressed a long-standing challenge of capturing RAD51 bound with the dynamic synaptic DNA and provided the first structural insight into how RAD51 performs this function. The significance of this work extends beyond the discovery biology for the DNA repair field, into its medical relevance. RAD51 is a potential drug target for inhibiting DNA repair in cancer cells to overcome drug resistance. This work offers a structural understanding of RAD51's function with D-loop and provides new strategies for targeting RAD51 to improve cancer therapies.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors develop a tool for marking presynaptic active zones in Drosophila brains, dependent on the GAL4 construct used to express a fragment of GFP, which will incorporate with a genome-engineered partial GFP attached to the active zone protein bruchpilot - signal will be specific to the GAL4-expressing neuronal compartment. They then use various GAL4s to examine innervation onto the mushroom bodies to dissect compartment-specific differences in the size and intensity of active zones. After a description of these differences, they induce learning in flies with classic odour/electric shock pairing and observe changes after conditioning that are specific to the paired conditioning/learning paradigm.

Strengths:

The imaging and analysis appear strong. The tool is novel and exciting.

Weaknesses:

I feel that the tool could do with a little more characterisation. It is assumed that the puncta observed are AZs with no further definition or characterisation.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Wang et al. reported a new role of LRRK2-GS mutant in astrocyte morphology and synapse maintenance and a potential mechanism that acts through phosphorylation of ERM, which binds to ATG7. In both human LRRK2-GS patients and LRRK2-GS KI mouse brain cortex, they found increased ERM phosphorylation levels. LRRK2-GS alters excitatory and inhibitory synapse densities and functions in the cortex, which can be restored by p-ERM-dead mutant. They further demonstrated that LRRK2 regulates astrocyte morphological complexity in vivo through ERM phosphorylation. Proteomic and biochemistry approaches found that ATG7 interacts with Ezrin, which is inhibited by Ezrin phosphorylation. This provides a potential mechanism by which LRRK2-GS impairs the astrocyte morphology.

Strengths:

(1) Data in human PD patients (Figure 1B, C) is impressive, showing a clear increase of p-ERM in LRRK2-GS samples.

(2) Both LRRK2-GS and siLRRK2 show similar phenotypes, supporting both GOF and LOF decrease astrocyte complexity and size.

(3) Using p-ERM-dead and mimic mutants is elegant. The data is striking that the p-ERM-dead mutant can restore LRRK2-GS-induced excitatory synapse density in the ACC and astrocyte territory volume and complexity, while the p-ERM-mimic mutant can restore the siLRRK2 phenotype.

(4) ATG7 binding to Ezrin provides a potential mechanism. It is compelling that siATG7 shows a similar decrease in astrocyte territory volume and complexity, and siATG7 in LRRK2-GS does not enhance the astrocyte phenotype.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors claim that p-ERM colocalizes with astrocyte marker ALDH1L1, e.g., Figure 1E, F, G, H, J, K. It is hard to tell from the representative images. Given that this is critical for this paper, it would be appreciated if the authors could improve the images and show clear colocalization. The same concern for Figures S1, 2, 3. Validation of the p-ERM antibody is critical. Figure S4, using λ-PPase to eliminate the phosphorylation signal in general, is very helpful. Additional validation of the p-ERM antibody specific to ERM would be appreciated.

(2) Does the total ERM level change /increase in LRRK2-GS samples? The increased p-ERM levels could be because the total ERM level increases. Then, the follow-up question is whether the total ERM level matters to the astrocyte phenotypes seen in the paper.

(3) WT mice carry WT-LRRK2, which also has kinase activity to phosphorylate ERM. So, what are the effects of overexpression of the p-ERM mutants (dead or mimic) on the excitatory and inhibitory synapse densities and functions in WT mouse samples? In Figure 4, statistics should be done comparing WT+Ezrin O/E vs WT+phosphor-dead Ezrin O/E. From what is shown in the graphs, it looks like phosphor-dead Ezrin worsens the phenotype in WT mice, which is opposite to the GS mice. How to explain? The same question for the graphs in Figure 5.

(4) Rab10 is not a robust substrate for the LRRK2-G2019S mutant, and p-Rab10 is very difficult to detect in mouse brains. The specificity of the pRab10 immunostaining signal in Fig. S8 is not certain.

(5) Would ATG7, Ezrin, and LRRK2 form a complex?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study provides a detailed investigation of neural auditory responses and spontaneous movements in infants listening to music. Analyses of EEG data (event-related potentials and steady-state responses) first highlighted that infants at 3, 6, and 12 months of age and adults showed enhanced auditory responses to music than shuffled music. 6-month-olds also exhibited enhanced P1 response to high-pitch vs low-pitch stimuli, but not the other groups. Besides, whole body spontaneous movements of infants were decomposed into 10 principal components. Kinematic analyses revealed that the quantity of movement was higher in response to music than shuffled music only at 12 months of age. Although Granger causality analysis suggested that infants' movement was related to the music intensity changes, particularly in the high-pitch condition, infants did not exhibit phase-locked movement responses to musical events, and the low movement periodicity was not coordinated with music.

Strengths:

This study investigates an important topic on the development of music perception and translation to action and dance. It targets a crucial developmental period that is difficult to explore. It evaluates two modalities by measuring neural auditory responses and kinematics, while cross-modal development is rarely evaluated. Overall, the study fills a clear gap in the literature.

Besides, the study uses state-of-the-art analyses. All steps are clearly detailed. The manuscript is very clear, well-written, and pleasant to read. Figures are well-designed and informative.

Weaknesses:

(1) Differences in neural responses to high-pitch vs low-pitch stimuli between 6-month-olds and other infants are difficult to interpret.

(2) Making some links between the neural and movement responses that are described in this manuscript could be expected, given the study goal. Although kinematic analyses suggested that movement responses are not phase-locked to the music stimuli, analyses of Granger causality between motion velocity and neural responses could be relevant.

(3) The study considers groups of infants at different ages, but infants within each group might be at different stages of motor development. Was this assessed behaviorally? Would it be possible to explore or take into account this possible inter-individual variability?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors describe an interesting study of arm movements carried out in weightlessness after a prolonged exposure to the so-called microgravity conditions of orbital spaceflight. Subjects performed radial point-to-point motions of the fingertip on a touch pad. The authors note a reduction in movement speed in weightlessness, which they hypothesize could be due to either an overall strategy of lowering movement speed to better accommodate the instability of the body in weightlessness or an underestimation of body mass. They conclude for the latter, mainly based on two effects. One, slowing in weightlessness is greater for movement directions with higher effective mass at the end effector of the arm. Two, they present evidence for an increased number of corrective submovements in weightlessness. They contend that this provides conclusive evidence to accept the hypothesis of an underestimation of body mass.

Strengths:

In my opinion, the study provides a valuable contribution, the theoretical aspects are well presented through simulations, the statistical analyses are meticulous, the applicable literature is comprehensively considered and cited, and the manuscript is well written.

Weaknesses:

Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that the interpretation of the observations leaves room for other possible explanations of the observed phenomenon, thus weakening the strength of the arguments.

First, I would like to point out an apparent (at least to me) divergence between the predictions and the observed data. Figures 1 and S1 show that the difference between predicted values for the 3 movement directions is almost linear, with predictions for 90º midway between predictions for 45º and 135º. The effective mass at 90º appears to be much closer to that of 45º than to that of 135º (Figure S1A). But the data shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 indicate that movements at 90º and 135º are grouped together in terms of reaction time, movement duration, and peak acceleration, while both differ significantly from those values for movements at 45º.

Furthermore, in Figure 4, the change in peak acceleration time and relative time to peak acceleration between 1g and 0g appears to be greater for 90º than for 135º, which appears to me to be at least superficially in contradiction with the predictions from Figure S1. If the effective mass is the key parameter, wouldn't one expect as much difference between 90º and 135º as between 90º and 45º? It is true that peak speed (Figure 3B) and peak speed time (Figure 4B) appear to follow the ordering according to effective mass, but is there a mathematical explanation as to why the ordering is respected for velocity but not acceleration? These inconsistencies weaken the author's conclusions and should be addressed.

Then, to strengthen the conclusions, I feel that the following points would need to be addressed:

(1) The authors model the movement control through equations that derive the input control variable in terms of the force acting on the hand and treat the arm as a second-order low-pass filter (Equation 13). Underestimation of the mass in the computation of a feedforward command would lead to a lower-than-expected displacement to that command. But it is not clear if and how the authors account for a potential modification of the time constants of the 2nd order system. The CNS does not effectuate movements with pure torque generators. Muscles have elastic properties that depend on their tonic excitation level, reflex feedback, and other parameters. Indeed, Fisk et al.* showed variations of movement characteristics consistent with lower muscle tone, lower bandwidth, and lower damping ratio in 0g compared to 1g. Could the variations in the response to the initial feedforward command be explained by a misrepresentation of the limbs' damping and natural frequency, leading to greater uncertainty about the consequences of the initial command? This would still be an argument for unadapted feedforward control of the movement, leading to the need for more corrective movements. But it would not necessarily reflect an underestimation of body mass.

*Fisk, J. O. H. N., Lackner, J. R., & DiZio, P. A. U. L. (1993). Gravitoinertial force level influences arm movement control. Journal of neurophysiology, 69(2), 504-511.

(2) The movements were measured by having the subjects slide their finger on the surface of a touch screen. In weightlessness, the implications of this contact are expected to be quite different than those on the ground. In weightlessness, the taikonauts would need to actively press downward to maintain contact with the screen, while on Earth, gravity will do the work. The tangential forces that resist movement due to friction might therefore be different in 0g. This could be particularly relevant given that the effect of friction would interact with the limb in a direction-dependent fashion, given the anisotropy of the equivalent mass at the fingertip evoked by the authors. Is there some way to discount or control for these potential effects?

(3) The carefully crafted modelling of the limb neglects, nevertheless, the potential instability of the base of the arm. While the taikonauts were able to use their left arm to stabilize their bodies, it is not clear to what extent active stabilization with the contralateral limb can reproduce the stability of the human body seated in a chair in Earth gravity. Unintended motion of the shoulder could account for a smaller-than-expected displacement of the hand in response to the initial feedforward command and/or greater propensity for errors (with a greater need for corrective submovements) in 0g. The direction of movement with respect to the anchoring point could lead to the dependence of the observed effects on movement direction. Could this be tested in some way, e.g., by testing subjects on the ground while standing on an unstable base of support or sitting on a swing, with the same requirement to stabilize the torso using the contralateral arm?

The arguments for an underestimation of body mass would be strengthened if the authors could address these points in some way.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study aimed to elucidate the intricate mechanisms underlying cognitive decline induced by chronic METH abuse, focusing on the hippocampus at a single-cell resolution. The authors established a robust mouse model of chronic METH exposure. They observed significant impairments in working memory, spatial cognition, learning, and cognitive memory through Y-maze and novel object recognition tests. To gain deeper insights into the cellular and molecular changes, they utilized single-cell RNA sequencing to profile hippocampal cells. They performed extensive bioinformatics analyses, including cell clustering, differential gene expression, cellular communication, pseudotemporal trajectory, and transcription factor regulation.

Strengths:

(1) The authors performed a comprehensive suite of bioinformatics analyses, including differential gene expression, cellular cross-talk, pseudotime trajectory, and SCENIC analysis, which enable a multifaceted exploration of METH-induced changes at both the cellular and molecular levels.

(2) The study demonstrates an awareness of the potential influence of circadian rhythms, dedicating a specific section in the discussion to the disruption of circadian rhythms, which has rarely been mentioned in previous studies on METH. They highlight the frequent occurrence of circadian regulation in their analysis across several cell types.

(3) The pseudotime analysis provides valuable insights into hindered neurogenesis, showing a shift in NSC differentiation toward astrocytes rather than neuroblasts in METH-treated mice. The detailed analysis of BBB components (endothelial cells, mural cells, SMCs) and their heterogeneous responses to METH is also a significant contribution.

Weaknesses:

(1) While the bioinformatics analyses are extensive, the study is primarily descriptive at the molecular level. The absence of experimental validation, such as targeted mRNA/protein quantification and gene knockdown/overexpression to confirm the causal relationship between these identified genes and METH-induced cognitive deficits, is a notable limitation.

(2) While the discussion extensively covers the functional implications of specific molecular pathways and cell types, it would greatly benefit from a comparison of these findings with existing RNA sequencing data from other METH models in hippocampal tissue.

(3) The conclusion that "prolonged METH use may progressively impair cognitive function" may not be uniformly supported by the behavioral data: Figures 1C and F (discrimination and preference indexes) exhibited that the 4-week test further declined in the METH group compared to the 2-week. In contrast, Figure 1E and H present a contradictory pattern.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Hall and colleagues investigate how the coupling of activity from ACC to CA1is altered by fear learning, showing that during sleep immediately before learning, there is evidence for increased coupling of ACC activity with neurons that will subsequently be inhibited during the learning process. They go on to show that this effect seems to be mediated most by a subpopulation of neurons in the superficial layer of CA1. This fits with previous reports suggesting that these superficial neurons are key for the flexible updating of memory. The authors then go on to show that artificial activation of ACC using optogenetics results in varied effects in CA1, including a subtle decrease in activity of superficial neurons that lasts longer than the stimulus itself. Finally, the authors present some preliminary data suggesting that different interneurons may be recruited by this optogenetic stimulation in different ways and at different times.

Overall, this is an interesting paper, but much of the analysis is very preliminary, and much of the crucial data about the learning effects and alterations to cell firing are not presented clearly and fully. This is further confounded by a rather opaque description of the results and analysis in the text. Overall, there is something very interesting here, but there needs to be a substantial series of extra analyses to clearly say what this is. In many cases, more robust analysis may render the results underpowered, which could dramatically change the conclusions of the paper.

Strengths:

The authors performed difficult, dual-location recordings across a multi-day learning paradigm, which seems like it could be a really nice dataset. They delve into the circuit basis of an interesting finding regarding ACC to CA1 connectivity and how this changes before and after fear conditioning. They provide data to suggest this connectivity may be through specific and distinct subcircuits in CA1.

Weaknesses:

(1) There is essentially no information in the text or figures about what the actual learning was, how it was done, how individual animals performed, and how any of these metrics related to learning. Looking at the methods, the authors did a number of things never mentioned anywhere in the text or figures, including novel arena exposure, contextual reexposure in extinction after learning, etc. It seems that this is a very rich dataset that has not been presented at all. I would recommend at the very least:<br /> a) Plot all of the behavioural training data, and how each mouse relates to one another - did the mice learn? At this stage, we don't know!<br /> b) Explain in the text in detail exactly what was done and why, and what this tells us about the neuronal activity.<br /> c) If there is variance in learning and or conditioning, does this relate to features in the analysis, such as the GLM result.

(2) Along similar lines, a key metric for most of the paper is that neurons most coupled with ACC are more likely to be inhibited during training. However, there is nothing anywhere in the paper showing these data. How do neurons in general respond to contextual shocks? The methods describe this as the average firing rate during training, normalised to pre-sleep activity. This metric seems a bit coarse and may obscure really important task-relevant dynamics. Are the neurons active at specific times, are they tuned to relevant parts of the task, and do any of these features of the cell activity also relate to the coupling with ACC? Similarly, how did the authors mitigate the influence of electrical artefacts caused by the foot shock in their recordings? Again, there is a huge amount of data here that is not being described, and likely holds very valuable information about what is actually happening. The paper would really benefit from the inclusion of these data in an accessible form, such as heatmaps of spiking, how these patterns change over time, and around e.g., foot shock, etc. Also key is how these features are altered by the variability of learning across subjects.

(3) A number of the effects are presented by comparing a statistically significant effect to a non-statistically significant effect (e.g. in Figure 2b, Figure 2d, Figure 4 b,c, and others). This isn't really valid - the key test that the two groups are different is either with a direct test of the difference or an interaction term in an e.g., ANOVA test. In some places, I am not sure the same conclusions will be drawn from the data with these tests.

(4) To what extent is defining superficial and deep CA1 neurons solely by ripple waveform an accepted method? Of the two papers referenced for this approach, one is a 2-photon calcium imaging paper that does not do electrical recordings (as far as I am aware), and the second uses this as a descriptor after defining the positions of units on an array. It would be good to clarify how accepted this is, and also how robust this is. At the very least, some kind of metric or walkthrough in the supplement as to how this was done, and how well each cell was classified and with what confidence, or some metric of how distinct and separate the two populations were (or was it just a smudge).

(5) In the optogenetic experiment in Figure 5, the effect on the CA1 sup neurons seems to be driven by changes in a small subpopulation of this group, with no change in the others. Related to point 2, is there anything else in the data that can pull out what these cells are? More detailed analysis of the firing of these neurons might pull out something really interesting.

(6) Related to this - a number of comparisons simply pool neurons across mice and analyse them as if independent. This is done a lot in the past, but it would be better if an approach that included the interdependence of neurons recorded from the same mouse at the same time were used (such as a hierarchical model). While this is complex, a simpler approach would just be to plot the summary data also per mouse. For example, in Figure 5, how do the neurons inhibited by ACC activation spread across the different mice? Is the level of inhibition related to how well the mice learned the CS-US association?

(7) Figure 6 is interesting, but very preliminary. None of the effects are quantified, and one of the cell types is not identified. I think some proper analysis needs to be done, again across mice, to be able to draw conclusions from these data.

(8) Finally, in general, I felt that the way the paper was written was very hard to follow, often relying on very processed levels of analysis that were hard to relate back to the raw traces and their biological meaning. In general taking more words to really simply and fully explain each analysis, and taking the words and figures to walk through how each analysis was done and what it tells us about the neuronal data/biology would be really beneficial, especially to someone who is not an extracellular electrophysiologist or immersed in the immediate field.

In summary, while this manuscript explores an intriguing hypothesis about pre-learning circuit dynamics, it is currently held back by insufficient clarity in behavioural analysis, data presentation, and statistical quantification. Addressing these core issues would greatly improve interpretability and confidence in the findings.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors aimed to index individual variation in decision-making when decisions pit the interests of the self (gains in money, potential for electric shock) against the interests of an unknown stranger in another room (potential for unknown shock). In addition, the authors conducted an additional study in which male participants were either administered intranasal oxytocin or placebo before completing the task to identify the role of oxytocin in moderating task responses. Participants' choice data was analyzed using a harm aversion model in which choices were driven by the subjective value difference between the less and more painful options.

Strengths:

Overall, I think this is a well-conducted, interesting, and novel set of research studies exploring decision-making that balances outcomes for the self versus a stranger, and the potential role of the hormone oxytocin (OT) in shaping these decisions. The pain component of the paradigm is well designed, as is the decision-making task, and overall the analyses were well suited to evaluating and interpreting the data. Advantages of the task design include the absence of deception, e.g., the use of a real study partner and real stakes, as a trial from the task was selected at random after the study and the choice the participant made were actually executed. 

Weaknesses:

The primary weakness of the paper concerns its framing. Although it purports to be measuring "hyper-altruism," which is the same term used in prior similar (although not identical) designs, I do not believe the task constitutes altruism, but rather the decision to engage, or not engage, in instrumental aggression.

I continue to believe that when in the "other" trials the only outcome possible for the study partner is pain, and the only outcome possible for the participant is monetary gain, these trials measure decisions about instrumental aggression. That is the exact definition of instrumental aggression is: causing others harm for personal gain. Altruism is not equivalent to refraining from engaging in instrumental aggression, although some similar mechanisms may support both. True altruism would be to accept shocks to the self for the other's benefit (e.g., money).  The interpretation of this task as assessing instrumental aggression is supported by the fact that only the Instrumental Harm subscale of the OUS was associated with outcomes in the task, but not the Impartial Benevolence subscale. By contrast, the IB subscale is the one more consistently associated with altruism (e.g,. Kahane et al 2018; Amormino at al, 2022) I believe it is important for scientific accuracy for the paper, including the title, to be rewritten to reflect what it is testing.

Although I recognize similar tasks have been previously characterized as "hyper-altruism" I do not believe that is sufficient justification for continuing to promulgate this descriptor without any caveats. I hope the authors will engage more seriously with the idea that this is what the task is measuring.

Relatedly, in the introduction, I believe it would be important to discuss the non-symmetry of moral obligations related to help/harm--we have obligations not to harm strangers but no obligation to help strangers. This is another reason I do not think the term "hyper altruism" is a good description for this task--given it is typically viewed as morally obligatory not to harm strangers, choosing not to harm them is not "hyper" altruistic (and again, I do not view it as obviously altruism at all).

Restoration: A 100 Year Old Adding Machine by [[]Bill Ooms]]

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Floeder and colleagues measure dopamine signaling in the nucleus accumbens core using fiber photometry of the dLight sensor, in Pavlovian and instrumental tasks in mice. They test some predictions from a recently proposed model (ANCCR) regarding the existence of "ramps" in dopamine that have been seen in some previous research, the characteristics of which remain poorly understood.

They find that cues signaling a progression toward rewards (akin to a countdown) specifically promote ramping dopamine signaling in the nucleus accumbens core, but only when the intertrial interval just experienced was short. This work is discussed in the context of ongoing theoretical conceptions of dopamine's role in learning.

This work is the clearest demonstration to date of concrete training factors that seem to directly impact whether or not dopamine ramps occur. The existence of ramping signals has long been a feature of debates in the dopamine literature and this work adds important context to that. Further, as a practical assessment of the impact of a relatively simple trial structure manipulation on dopamine patterns, this work will be important for guiding future studies. These studies are well done and thoughtfully presented. The additional data, analyses, and discussion in the revised version of the paper add strength and clarity to the conclusions.

The current results raise interesting questions regarding what, if any potential function cue-reward interval dopamine ramps serve. In the current data, licking behavior was similar on different trial types and was not related to ramping activity.

Reviewer #4 (Public review):

Main strengths

The topic of the MS is very relevant given that across the sciences/academia, genders are unevenly represented, which has a range of potential negative consequences. To change this, we need to have the evidence on what mechanisms cause this pattern. Given that promotion and merit in academia are still largely based on the number of publications and the impact factor, one part of the gap likely originates from differences in publication rates of women compared to men.

Women are underrepresented compared to men in journals with a high impact factor. While previous work has detected this gap and identified some potential mechanisms, the current MS provides strong evidence that this gap might be due to a lower submission rate of women compared to men, rather than the rejection rates. These results are based on a survey of close to 5000 authors. The survey seems to be conducted well (though I am not an expert in surveys), and data analysis is appropriate to address the main research aims. It was impossible to check the original data because of the privacy concerns.

Interestingly, the results show no gender bias in rejection rates (desk rejection or overall) in three high-impact journals (Science, Nature, PNAS). However, submission rates are lower for women compared to men, indicating that gender biases might act through this pathway. The survey also showed that women are more likely to rate their work as not groundbreaking and are advised not to submit to prestigious journals, indicating that both intrinsic and extrinsic factors shape women's submission behaviour.

With these results, the MS has the potential to inform actions to reduce gender bias in publishing, but also to inform assessment reform at a larger scale.

I do not find any major weaknesses in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In the current manuscript entitled "Population-level morphological analysis of paired CO2- and odor-sensing olfactory neurons in D. melanogaster via volume electron microscopy", Choy, Charara et al. use volume electron microscopy and neuron reconstruction to compare the dendritic morphology of ab1C and ab1D neurons of the Drosophila basiconic ab1 sensillum. They aim to investigate the degree of dendritic heterogenity within a functional class of neurons using ab1C and ab1D, which they can identify due to the unique feature of ab1 sensilla to house four neurons and the stereotypic location on the third antennal segment. This is a great use of volumetric electron imaging and neuron reconstruction to sample a population of neurons of the same type. Their data convincingly shows that there is dendritic heterogenity in both investigated populations and their sample size is sufficient to strongly support this observation. This data proposes that the phenomenon of dendritic heterogenity is common in the Drosophila olfactory system and will stimulate future investigations into the developmental origin, functional implications and potential adaptive advantage of this feature.

Moreover, the authors discovered that there is a difference between CO2- and odour sensing neurons of which the first show a characteristic flattened and sheet-like structure not observed in other sensory neurons sampled in this and previous studies. They hypothesize that this unique dendritic organization which increases the surface area to volume ratio, might allow more efficient Co2 sensing by housing higher numbers of Co2 receptors. This is supported by previous attempts to express Co2 sensors in olfactory sensory neurons which lack this dendritic morphology, resulting in lower Co2 sensitivity compared to endogenous neurons.

Overall, this detailed morphological description of olfactory sensory neurons' dendrites convincingly shows heterogeneity in two neuron classes with potential functional impacts for odour sensing.

Strength:

The volumetric EM imaging and reconstruction approach offers unpreceeded details in single cell morphology and compares dendrite heterogenity across a great fraction of ab1 sensilla.<br /> The authors identify specific shapes for ab1C sensilla potentially linked to their unique function in CO2 sensing.

Weaknesses:

While the morphological description is highly detailed, current methods prevent linking morphology to odour sensitivity or other properties of the neurons. Therefore, this study remains mainly descriptive and will require future work to link neuron structure and function.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors establish a behavioral task to explore effort discounting in C. elegans. By using bacterial food that takes longer to consume, the authors show that, for equivalent effort, as measured by pumping rate, they obtain less food, as measured by fat deposition.

The authors formalize the task by applying a formal neuroeconomic decision-making model that includes value, effort, and discounting. They use this to estimate the discounting that C. elegans applies based on ingestion effort by using a population-level 2-choice T-maze.

They then analyze the behavioral dynamics of individual animals transitioning between on-food and off-food states. Harder to ingest bacteria led to increased food patch leaving.

Finally, they examined a set of mutants defective in different aspects of dopamine signaling, as dopamine plays a key role in discounting in vertebrates and regulates certain aspects of C. elegans foraging.

Strengths:

The behavioral experiments and neuroeconomic analysis framework are compelling and interesting, and make a significant contribution to the field. While these foraging behaviors have been extensively studied, few include clearly articulated theoretical models to be tested.

Demonstrating that C. elegans effort discounting fits model predictions and has stable indifference points is important for establishing these tasks as a model for decision making.

Weaknesses:

The dopamine experiments are harder to interpret. The authors point out the perplexing lack of an effect of dat-1 and cat-2. dop-3 leads to general indifference. I am not sure this is the expected result if the argument is a parallel functional role to discounting in vertebrates. dop-3 causes a range of locomotor phenotypes and may affect feeding (reduced fat storage), and thus, there may be a general defect in the ability to perform the task rather than anything specific to discounting.

That said, some of the other DA mutants also have locomotor defects and do not differ from N2. But there is no clear result here - my concern is that global mutants in such a critical pathway exhibit such pleiotropy that it's difficult to conclude there is a clear and specific role for DA in effort discounting. This would require more targeted or cell-specific approaches.

Meanwhile, there are other pathways known to affect responses to food and patch leaving decisions: serotonin, pigment-dispersing factor, tyramine, etc. The paper would have benefited from a clarification about why these were not considered as promising candidates to test (in addition to or instead of dopamine).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript "Unreliable homeostatic action potential broadening in cultured dissociated neurons" by Ritzau-Jost et al. investigates action potential (AP) broadening as a mechanism underlying homeostatic synaptic plasticity. Given the existing variability in the literature concerning AP broadening, the authors address an important and timely research question of considerable interest to the field.

The study systematically demonstrates cell-type- and model-specific AP broadening in hippocampal neurons after chronic treatment with either tetrodotoxin (TTX) or glutamatergic transmission blockers. The findings indicate AP broadening in CA3 pyramidal neurons in organotypic cultures after TTX treatment, but notably not in dissociated hippocampal neurons under identical conditions. However, blocking glutamatergic neurotransmission caused AP broadening in dissociated hippocampal neurons. Moreover, extensive evaluations in neocortical dissociated cultures robustly challenge previous findings by revealing a lack of AP broadening following TTX treatment. Additionally, the proposed role of BK-type potassium channels in mediating AP broadening is convincingly questioned through complementary electrophysiological and voltage-imaging experiments.

Strengths:

The manuscript exhibits an outstanding experimental design, employing state-of-the-art techniques and a rigorous multi-lab validation approach that greatly enhances scientific reliability. The experimental results are meticulously illustrated, and the conclusions drawn are justified and supported by the presented data. Furthermore, the manuscript is comprehensively and clearly written.

Weaknesses:

Concerning the statistical analyses employed, it is advisable to consider the Kruskal-Wallis test with corrections for multiple comparisons when evaluating more than two experimental groups.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Wu and colleagues find that in a repeated Prisoner's Dilemma, adolescents, compared to adults, are less likely to increase their cooperation behavior in response to repeated cooperation from a simulated partner. In contrast, after repeated defection by the partner, both age groups show comparable behavior.

To uncover the mechanisms underlying these patterns, the authors compare eight different models. They report that a social reward learning model, which includes separate learning rates for positive and negative prediction errors, best fits the behavior of both groups. Key parameters in this winning model vary with age: notably, the intrinsic value of cooperating is lower in adolescents. Adults and adolescents also differ in learning rates for positive and negative prediction errors, as well as in the inverse temperature parameter.

Strengths:

The modeling results are compelling in their ability to distinguish between learned expectations and the intrinsic value of cooperation. The authors skillfully compare relevant models to demonstrate which mechanisms drive cooperation behavior in the two age groups.

Weaknesses:

Some of the claims made are not fully supported by the data:

The central parameter reflecting preference for cooperation is positive in both groups. Thus, framing the results as self-interest versus other-interest may be misleading.

It is unclear why the authors assume adolescents and adults have the same expectations about the partner's cooperation, yet simultaneously demonstrate age-related differences in learning about the partner. To support their claim mechanistically, simulations showing that differences in cooperation preference (i.e., the w parameter), rather than differences in learning, drive behavioral differences would be helpful.

Two different schedules of 120 trials were used: one with stable partner behavior and one with behavior changing after 20 trials. While results for order effects are reported, the results for the stable vs. changing phases within each schedule are not. Since learning is influenced by reward structure, it is important to test whether key findings hold across both phases.

The division of participants at the legal threshold of 18 years should be more explicitly justified. The age distribution appears continuous rather than clearly split. Providing rationale and including continuous analyses would clarify how groupings were determined.

Claims of null effects (e.g., in the abstract: "adults increased their intrinsic reward for reciprocating... a pattern absent in adolescents") should be supported with appropriate statistics, such as Bayesian regression.

Once claims are more closely aligned with the data, the study will offer a valuable contribution to the field, given its use of relevant models and a well-established paradigm.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary

The paper presents an imaging and analysis pipeline for whole-mount gastruloid imaging with two-photon microscopy. The presented pipeline includes spectral unmixing, registration, segmentation, and a wavelength-dependent intensity normalization step, followed by quantitative analysis of spatial gene expression patterns and nuclear morphometry on a tissue level. The utility of the approach is demonstrated by several experimental findings, such as establishing spatial correlations between local nuclear deformation and tissue density changes, as well as the radial distribution pattern of mesoderm markers. The pipeline is distributed as a Python package, notebooks, and multiple napari plugins.

Strengths

The paper is well-written with detailed methodological descriptions, which I think would make it a valuable reference for researchers performing similar volumetric tissue imaging experiments (gastruloids/organoids). The pipeline itself addresses many practical challenges, including resolution loss within tissue, registration of large volumes, nuclear segmentation, and intensity normalization. Especially the intensity decay measurements and wavelength-dependent intensity normalization approach using nuclear (Hoechst) signal as reference are very interesting and should be applicable to other imaging contexts. The morphometric analysis is equally well done, with the correlation between nuclear shape deformation and tissue density changes being an interesting finding. The paper is quite thorough in its technical description of the methods (which are a lot), and their experimental validation is appropriate. Finally, the provided code and napari plugins seem to be well done (I installed a selected list of the plugins and they ran without issues) and should be very helpful for the community.

Weaknesses

I don't see any major weaknesses, and I would only have two issues that I think should be addressed in a revision:

(1) The demonstration notebooks lack accompanying sample datasets, preventing users from running them immediately and limiting the pipeline's accessibility. I would suggest to include (selective) demo data set that can be used to run the notebooks (e.g. for spectral unmixing) and or provide easily accessible demo input sample data for the napari plugins (I saw that there is some sample data for the processing plugin, so this maybe could already be used for the notebooks?).

(2) The results for the morphometric analysis (Figure 4) seem to be only shown in lateral (xy) views without the corresponding axial (z) views. I would suggest adding this to the figure and showing the density/strain/angle distributions for those axial views as well.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Robert N. Rainey et. al. reported a new approach to induce hair cell-like cells from a human induced pluripotent stem cell line. Based on the previously identified key transcription factors SIX1, ATOH1, POU4F3, and GFI1 (SAPG), which are essential for the conversion into induced hair cell-like cells in mice. The manuscript represents an advance over the authors' previous published work, which used the same transcription factors but viral gene delivery.

Strengths:

The manuscript is clear and well-written. The background is easy to follow for people outside of the field. The data are well-organized and well-described. The evidence is strong.

Weaknesses:

General comments:

(1) The manuscript generated multiple valuable datasets for the field. However, the data are not deposited in the hearing field central resource for gene expression (umgear.org), and links are not provided in the figure legends to datasets or dataset collections in the gEAR. This is a major comment as it significantly decreases the utility of the datasets generated in the manuscript and decreases the ease of reuse of the data. This is a flaw that could be easily addressed by uploading the data and generating links to datasets in the body of the manuscript.

(2) If a pulse of Dox induces the SAPG and starts the conversion process, it is not clear why the analyzed cells were treated for 21 days - a duration that can negatively affect the fate of converting hair cells.

(3) Foxj1 is listed as a supporting cell-specific gene; however, it is expressed in the cochlear hair cells until the end of the first postnatal week.

(4) It is not clear why cells were sorted for analysis of the retrovirally induced cells but not in the stable cell line, which also expressed tdTomato.

(5) Figure 1D and Supplementary Figure 2: the authors state that the endogenous ATOH1 and POU4F3 expressions decrease after 7d. Should the authors have stats on the graphs?

(6) Supplementary Figure 4: OCT4 should be replaced by POU5F1 (or vice versa) for consistency.

(7) The authors show the induction or decrease of the exogenous transcription factor expressions by RT-qPCR. It would be nice, if possible, to also see either WB or immuno with antibodies directed against the tags.

Bioinformatic comments:

(1) In the previous study (Menendez et al. 2020), ATAC-seq and regulatory elements are employed in the analysis, while a similar analysis is missing in this study. It will be informative to show the motif enrichment analysis at promoter regions of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in the most hair cell-like cluster 3 (RV-R3).

(2) In the previous study (Menendez et al. 2020), it was stated that SAPG can convert supporting cells to hair cells, while in this study, the authors stated that "reprogramming with SAPG does not activate supporting cell networks in the stable cell line". Can the authors provide more analysis/comments on this difference?

(3) The approach in this study tends to generate a very similar level of expression for the SAPG factors, while the real levels of expression might be different for actual transcriptional regulation, eg, Figure 1C. How will this very close expression level of SAPG affect the features of the induced hair cell?

(4) Figure 5B, missing color bar to show the DEG strength in the heatmap. Why are Six1 and Gfi1 not shown in this heatmap?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The laboratory mouse is an ideal animal to study the neural and psychological underpinnings of social dominance behavior because of its economic cost and the animals' readiness to display dominant and subordinate behaviors in simple and testable environments. Here, a new and novel method for measuring dominance and the individual social status of mice is presented using a food competition assay. Historically, food competition assays have been avoided because they occur in an open arena or the home cage, and it can be difficult to assess who gets priority access to the resource and to avoid aggressive interactions such as bite wounding. Now, the authors have designed a narrow rectangular arena separated in half by a sliding floor-to-ceiling obstacle, where the mice placed at opposite sides of the obstacle compete by pushing the obstacle to gain priority access to a food pellet resting on the arena floor under the obstacle. One can also place the food pellet within the obstacle to restrict priority access to the food and measure the time or effort spent pushing the obstacle back and forth. As hypothesized, the outcomes in the food competition test were significantly consistent with those of the more common tube test (space competition) and warm spot competition test. This suggests that these animals have a stereotypic dominance organization that exists across multiple resource domains (i.e., food, space, and temperature). Only male and female C57 mice in same-sex pairs or triads were tested.

Strengths:

The design of the apparatus and the inclusion of females are significant strengths within the study.

Weaknesses:

There are at least two major weaknesses of the study: the test with unfamiliar non-cagemates and not providing the mice time to recognize who they are competing with.

The authors conclude in the first section of the results that they "did not detect significant difference in winning/losing results between unfamiliar non-cagemate male mice." Given the data and analysis provided, I believe this statement is false. My understanding is that the authors would like to show that the establishment of social relationships (i.e., familiarity) is necessary for FPCT to distinguish social ranks of mice. There are many ways to test this. The simplest would be to randomly pair unfamiliar non-cagemates that are housed in isolation with one another and see if they perform at chance, individually. The more involved empirical way would be to measure the ranks of mice in a social group, then test them with unfamiliar non-cagemate mice to see if they maintain their outcomes regardless of social familiarity, or return to chance outcomes when paired with non-cagemates. Figure 1I clearly shows that they did not perform at chance. Since the outcome is win or lose, then the probability of getting all of one outcome 4 times in a row would be 1 in 16. The data shows that this occured twice, so 2 mice of 8 had the same outcome 4 times in a row (i.e., Mouse B3 and A1). So, they did not perform at chance. I am not even sure if there are enough animals here to test this question. One may need to consult a mathematician. Moreover, the original tube-test study by Lindzey et al. 1961 (https://www.nature.com/articles/191474a0) used unfamiliar non-cagemate male mice, and showed that 100% of the A/alb strain won more than half of their oppositions against C3H and DBA/8 mice. Thus, A/alb mice were more "dominant" mice relative to C3H or DBA/8. Taking into consideration the results, is mouse A1 naturally dominant? So maybe it doesn't matter what mouse you pair with it, it will always win? If this is true, is "individual identification of the partner" actually necessary to get this outcome? All they have to do is push to get the food reward, does it matter who is on the other side? If one wants to measure social dominance relationships, then it should matter who is on the other side. If one would like to measure attributes of dominant behavior (e.g., pushing), then one may do so and not insinuate a social link. Studying dominance relationships (i.e., social ranking) of animals is an extremely difficult task. We must ensure that we are not assigning something about a relationship that does not exist. Please read "Dominance: The baby and the bathwater" but Irwin Bernstein, https://annas-archive.org/scidb/10.1017/s0140525x00009614/

Unlike the tube test and warm spot test, the food competition test presented here provides no opportunity for the animals to identify their opponent. That is, they cannot sniff their opponent's fur or anogenital region, which would allow them an opportunity to identify them individually. Thus, as the authors state, the test only measures a psychological motivation to get a food reward. Notably, the outcome in the direct and indirect testing of food competition is in agreement, leaving many to wonder whether they are measuring the social relationship or the effort an individual puts forth in attaining a food reward regardless of the social opponent. Specifically, in the direct test, an individual can retrieve the food reward by pushing the obstacle out of the way first. In the indirect test, the animals cannot retrieve the reward and can only push the obstacle back and forth, which contains the reward inside. In Figure 2F, you can see that winners spent more time pushing the block in the indirect test--albeit not significantly. Thus, whether the test measures a social relationship or just the likelihood to gain priority access to food is unclear. To rectify this issue, the authors could provide an opportunity for the animals to interact before lowering the obstacle and raising(?) a food reward. They may also create a very long one-sided apparatus to measure the amount of effort an individual mouse puts forth in the indirect test with only one individual-or any situation with just one mouse where the moving obstacle is not pushed back, and the animal can just keep pushing until they stop. This would require another experiment. It also may not tell us much more since it remains unclear whether inbred mice can individually identify one another (see https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2000.1057 for more details).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors use cryo-electron tomography to thoroughly investigate the complexity of purified, excitatory synapses. They make several major interesting discoveries: polyhedral vesicles that have not been observed before in neurons; analysis of the intermembrane distance, and a link to potentiation, essentially updating distances reported from plastic-embedded specimen; and find that the postsynaptic density does not appear as a dense accumulation of proteins in all vitrified samples (less than half), a feature which served as a hallmark feature to identify excitatory plastic-embedded synapses.

Strengths:

(1) The presented work is thorough: the authors compare purified, endogenously labeled synapses to wild-type synapses to exclude artifacts that could arise through the homogenation step, and, in addition, analyse plastic embedded, stained synapses prepared using the same quick workflow, to ensure their findings have not been caused by way of purification of the synapses. Interestingly, the 'thick lines of PSD' are evident in most of their stained synapses.

(2) I commend the authors on the exceptional technical achievement of preparing frozen specimens from a mouse within two minutes.

(3) The approaches highlighted here can be used in other fields studying cell-cell junctions.

(4) The tomograms will be deposited upon publication which will enable neurobiologists and researchers from other fields to carry on data evaluation in their field of expertise since tomography is still a specialized skill and they collected and reconstructed over 100 excellent tomograms of synapses, which generates a wealth of information to be also used in future studies.

(5) The authors have identified ionotropic receptor positions and that they are linked to actin filaments, and appear to be associated with membrane and other cytosolic scaffolds, which is highly exciting.

(6) The authors achieved their aims to study neuronal excitatory synapses in great detail, were thorough in their experiments, and made multiple fascinating discoveries. They challenge dogmas that have been in place for decades and highlight the benefit of implementing and developing new methods to carefully understand the underlying molecular machines of synapses.

Impact on community:

The findings presented by Peukes et al. pertaining to synapse biology change dogmas about the fundamental understanding of synaptic ultrastructure. The work presented by the authors, particularly the associated change of intermembrane distance with potentiation and the distinct appearance of the PSD as an irregular amorphous 'cloud' will provide food for thought and an incentive for more analysis and additional studies, as will the discovery of large membranous and cytosolic protein complexes linked to ionotropic receptors within and outside of the synaptic cleft, which are ripe for investigation. The findings and tomograms available will carry far in the synapse fields and the approach and methods will move other fields outside of neurobiology forward. The method and impactful results of preparing cryogenic, unlabeled, unstained, near-native synapses may enable the study of how synapses function at high resolution in the future.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Majnik et al. developed a computational algorithm to track individual developing interneurons in the rodent cortex at postnatal stages. Considerable development in cortical networks takes place during the first postnatal weeks; however, tools to study them longitudinally at a single-cell level are scarce. This paper provides a valuable approach to study both single-cell dynamics across days and state-driven network changes. The authors used Gad67Cre mice together with virally introduced TdTom to track interneurons based on their anatomical location in the FOV and AAVSynGCaMP8m to follow their activity across the second postnatal week, a period during which the cortex is known to undergo marked decorrelation in spontaneous activity. Using Track2P, the authors show the feasibility of tracking populations of neurons in the same mice, capturing with their analysis previously described developmental decorrelation and uncovering stable representations of neuronal activity, coincident with the onset of spontaneous active movement. The quality of the imaging data is compelling, and the computational analysis is thorough, providing a widely applicable tool for the analysis of emerging neuronal activity in the cortex. Below are some points for the authors to consider.

Major points:

(1) The authors used 20 neurons to generate a ground truth dataset. The rationale for this sample size is unclear. Figure 1 indicates the capability to track ~728 neurons. A larger ground truth data set will increase the robustness of the conclusions.

(2) It is unclear how movement was scored in the analysis shown in Figure 5A. Was the time that the mouse spent moving scored after visual inspection of the videos? Were whisker and muscle twitches scored as movement, or was movement quantified as the amount of time during which the treadmill was displaced?

(3) The rationale for binning the data analysis in early P11 is unclear. As the authors acknowledged, it is likely that the decoder captured active states from P11 onwards. Because active whisking begins around P14, it is unlikely to drive this change in network dynamics at P11. Does pupil dilation in the pups change during locomotor and resting states? Does the arousal state of the pups abruptly change at P11?

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This is a fundamentally important study presenting cryo-EM structures of a human small conductance calcium-activated potassium (SK2) channel in the absence and presence of calcium, or with interesting pharmacological probes bound, including the bee toxin apamin, a small molecule inhibitor, and a small molecule activator. As efforts to solve structures of the wild-type hSK2 channel were unsuccessful, the authors engineered a chimera containing the intracellular domain of the SK4 channel, the subtype of SK channel that was successfully solved in a previous study (reference 13). The authors present many new and exciting findings, including opening of an internal gate (similar to SK4), for the first time resolving the S3-S4 linker sitting atop the outer vestibule of the pore and unanticipated plasticity of the ion selectivity filter, and the binding sites for apamin, one new small molecule inhibitor and another small molecule activator. Appropriate functional data are provided to frame interpretations arising from the structures of the chimeric protein; the data are compelling, the interpretations are sound, and the writing is clear. This high-quality study will be of interest to membrane protein structural biologists, ion channel biophysicists, and chemical biologists, and will be valuable for future drug development targeting SK channels.

The following are suggestions for strengthening an already very strong and solid manuscript:

(1) It would be good to include some information in the text of the results section about the method and configuration used to obtain electrophysiological data and the limitations. It is not until later in the text that the Qube instrument is mentioned in the results section, and it is not until the methods section that the reader learns it was used to obtain all the electrophysiological data. Even there, it is not explicitly mentioned that a series of different internal solutions were used in each cell where the free calcium concentration was varied to obtain the data in Figure1C. Also, please state the concentration of free calcium for the data in Figure 1B.

(2) The authors do a nice job of discussing the conformations of the selectivity filter they observed here in SK as they relate to previous work on NaK and HCN, but from my perspective the authors are missing an opportunity to point out even more striking relationships with slow C-type inactivation of the selectivity filter in Shaker and Kv1 channels. C-type inactivation of the filter in Shaker was seen in 150 mM K using the W434F mutant (PMC8932672) or in 4 mM K for the WT channel (PMC8932672), and similar results have been reported for Kv1.2 (PMC9032944; PMC11825129) and for Kv1.3 (PMC9253088; PMC8812516) channels. For Kv1.3, C-type inactivation occurs even in 150 mM K (PMC9253088; PMC8812516). Not unlike what is seen here with apamin, binding of the sea anemone toxin (ShK) with a Fab attached (or the related dalazatide) inserts a Lys into the selectivity filter and stabilizes the conducting conformation of Kv1.3 even though the Lys depletes occupancy of S1 by potassium (PMC9253088; PMC8812516). What is known about how the functional properties of SK2 channels (where the filter changes conformation) differ from SK4, where the filter remains conducting (reference 13)? Is there any evidence that SK2 channels inactivate? Or might the conformation of the filter be controlled by regulatory processes in SK2 channels? I think connecting the dots here would enhance the impact of this study, even if it remains relatively speculative.