Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Light harvesting (LH) associated with photosynthesis, photoprotection, and the formation of useful pigment-protein complexes are all major functions of carotenoid (Car) pigments. However, the connections between quinone exchange, prokaryotic reaction center (RC)-LH complex formation, and Car depletion in the LH are not entirely understood. This article examined the native RC-LH (nRC-LH) and Car-depleted RC-LH (dRC-LH) complexes in the filamentous anoxygenic phototroph Roseiflexus castenholzii. The authors show with a high degree of detail using crystallography and Cryo-EM complemented with biophysical techniques important results of a new conformation of a LH. They could assigned the amino acid sequences of subunit X and two hypothetical proteins, Y and Z, that formed the quinone channel and maintained the RC-LH connections. This study identifies a new architectural basis for the regulation of bacterial RC-LH complex and quinone exchange by Cars assembly, which is distinct from the well known purple bacteria. These findings represent a significant advancement of diversity and development of bacterial photosynthetic machinery.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

A modelling study was conducted to estimate how disruption of a school-based HPV vaccination program due to COVID-19 restrictive measures might affect lifetime HPV-related cancers in women and men in Australia. The authors used the Policy 1-Cervix model, which has been validated and widely used for modelling and evaluation of interventions to prevent HPV- related disease. The study shows that a large part of the negative effect of disrupting the vaccination program (in terms of HPV-related cancers) can be overcome by a catch-up campaign, if this is undertaken rapidly. Delays in the catch-up campaign or no catch-up lead, according to the model, to a significant increase in the number of cases, of which a proportion could be prevented by cervical cancer screening, provided that this is carried out for cohorts that receive HPV 9 without alterations.

1. Strengths:<br /> Well-designed modelling study, comparing several scenarios: baseline (no interruption of vaccination), catch-up with two modalities, and no catch-up vaccination, with a comparator (no vaccination at all), aiming to predict the number of HPV-related cancers for the various scenarios. Indeed, the study investigates the potential impact of disruptions, broken down into types of cancers, in both men and women. However, as always in modelling studies, the strength of the findings depends on the appropriateness and completeness of the assumptions used.

2. Weaknesses:<br /> Although the authors claim to have considered sexual behaviour they fail to show how they exactly did this. It is very likely that restrictive measures have had an impact on sexual behaviour (i.e. transmission of HPV), but the authors did not consider this in the model. Furthermore, the baseline scenario uses a higher 2-dose vaccination uptake than the figures they present for 2020, which might have overestimated the impact of HPV vaccination in that year.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This is a modeled analysis of the impact of disruptions in school-based HPV vaccination due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Different catch-up scenarios were considered, ranging from a rapid catch-up period to no catch-up vaccination, and the impact of these on future HPV-related malignancies was approximated. The approach in this study could shed light on strategies for catch-up vaccination due to disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Strengths:<br /> - Using the context of Australia, which has led the world in vaccination, allows us to consider a best-case scenario for the impact of disruptions in a well-running HPV vaccination program with good population coverage.<br /> - The model accounts for multiple factors, including HPV transmission dynamics, mitigation of disease development by screening

Suggested clarifications:<br /> - It could benefit from fleshing out concepts instead of using parentheses, particularly in the abstract.<br /> - There is space to expand on the results presented in Table 1, including an explanation of Affected cohorts 2008 vs Affected cohorts 2008-2009. It may also be useful to explain this analysis in the methods section.<br /> - Given that Australia is a best-case scenario and other countries have not had the same success in HPV vaccination coverage, in the discussion would it be possible to give a comparison of how these three scenarios would look different in a population with school-based vaccination but lower coverage volume, such that readers could understand how much of the success / failures of each of the three catch-up scenarios? It would be particularly helpful for readers who are not familiar with the modeling tool used in this analysis.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Gosh and colleagues report on their multidisciplinary effort to improve cervical cancer screening attendance in the East Boston Neighborhood Health Center (March-August 2021). Specifically, the authors 1) identified using electronic medical records overdue follow-up visits, 2) scheduled screening appointments during regular clinic hours and weekends/evenings, and 3) surveyed patients on their experience. These objectives were clearly defined (although not consistently so throughout the manuscript) and data analyses/presentation were simple and straightforward, appropriate to the study design and methodology used.

Overall, it is unclear to what extent the overdue appointments were backlogs created by the COVID-19 pandemic or due to pre-pandemic factors that could have been exacerbated by the pandemic. In order to contextualize the current study and its findings, an elaboration is needed on whether the pandemic created the delays in cervical cancer screening or simply compounded the problem. For example, the authors report on page 8, lines 196-197 that in 30% of encounters (not clear how many of the 118 reviewed charts were overdue appointments) the healthcare provider did note the overdue appointments. A breakdown of the "time delays" (i.e., beyond x number of months) would also inform the analyses and study implications. In addition, a brief description of the cervical cancer screening program in place would be informative. Table 1 provides an effort versus value summary, however, these constructs are ill-defined, with few inconsistencies with what is reported in the text.

Comments specific to Aim 1:<br /> The methodology is missing information on key elements, mainly relating to the decision-making process of establishing and defining the "validated" patient chart list (1375 overdue patients out of 6126 reviewed charts). A chart of the 1375 approached study population is also warranted (459 patients were screened, 622 could not be reached, and 203 cancelled/missed their appointments, what about the remaining 91 patients). A description of the characteristics of the study population and a comparison of the different groups (screened, not reached, cancelled/missed appointment) along these characteristics are missing.

Comments specific to Aim 2:<br /> About 63% of the 459 scheduled screenings were done during the evening/weekend clinics, which represents a substantial gain and clearly indicates a window of opportunity to increase screening rates by pinpointing the importance of offering a convenient time to women attend screening visits. In general, and as expected, offering additional screening clinics was effective in addressing the backlog of patients, although with significant investment and resources as mentioned by the authors. How significant is significant?

Comments specific to Aim 3:<br /> A more structured and detailed presentation/description of the survey instrument, its administration, response rate, and significance of results are warranted in the manuscript, albeit the joint reporting of this in the appended material.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The purpose of this study is unclear from the introduction. Additionally, the methods are incomplete and did not describe how data was collected and analyzed. The results do not describe the sample. Once these are described more clearly, further comments can be made about what the authors were trying to achieve and the impact of the work on the field.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Tian et al impressively record from two motor areas at once in singing birds to test if a premotor cortical area, LMAN, covaries with activity in a primary one, RA, in a way that would support learning. They find that LMAN activity covaries with RA activity at a lag consistent with driving a premotor bias and, moreover, that this covariation is significantly increased in the specific time window of the song where bias is being most strongly driven. Disruptive microstimulation of LMAN in this window reduced learning-associated bias. Though the main results in this paper are consistent with dominant models of birdsong production and learning going back decades (e.g. Kao et al, 2005; Olveczky et al, 2005; Andalman et al, 2008; Charlesworth et al, 2009; Fee and Goldberg, 2011), these results provide methodologically impressive confirmation that LMAN drives RA activity to drive adaptive bias. It's also meaningful that these covariations were strong enough to be picked up by a pair of randomly targeted LMAN and RA sites. This feature of their dataset is not emphasized by the authors but invites more attention, consideration, and discussion, as detailed below.

(1) Song is complex with many varying acoustic parameters, such as amplitude, entropy, and pitch. It is thought that pitch is controlled by only a subset of the syringeal muscles, and also that there is topography in the LMAN-RA-MN-muscle pathway. Thus, one might expect only a small fraction of neurons/sites in the LMAN-RA pathway to be associated with pitch with enough strength that one would pick it up in single unit recordings from order ~100 syllables. Indeed a past study (Sober et al, ) found that activity in a small fraction of RA neurons was weakly correlated with pitch variation. So it's really surprising that a pitch-contingent learning paradigm produced significant co-variance changes in the LMAN-RA pathway that could be picked up in the present study. Three possible explanations are with consideration. First, one wonders if they were recording specifically from pitch-associated sites. Can the authors please elaborate on what fraction of LMAN and RA recording sites in the present study exhibited significant covariance with pitch? Second, if an LMAN-RA recording site pair does not exhibit a significant correlation with pitch but nonetheless exhibits enhanced co-variation in the pre-target window in a pitch shift paradigm, this would support a different interpretation of the results. For example, it's possible that the extent by which LMAN can drive RA is gated by cholinergic inputs from VP, which might signal predicted uncertainty in the song in the precise moment preceding the target time (e.g. Chen and Goldberg, 202; Chen et al, 2019; Puzerey et al, 2018). No new experiments are required here, but these possibilities (or other considerations of the mechanisms by which LMAN-RA covariance is temporally gated) could, in the discussion or elsewhere, motivate future studies. (For example, if Ach-mediated predicted uncertainty is the key to promoting LMAN-RA covariance, then photoactivation of Ach inputs to RA at a moment in song might increase LMAN drive and, secondly, non-pitch-contingent DAF that does not drive explicitly learning associated bias would also be sufficient to promote temporally precise increases in LMAN-RA covariance. Finally, related to these questions, can the authors please check if their recording sites exhibited correlations with pitch (e.g. as in Sober et al, 2008)?

2. Multiple recording sites in both RA and LMAN provide sensible internal controls for the cross-covariance and its increase in the window before bias production in pitch-shift experiments. Can the authors analyze at LMAN-LMAN co-variance in the same way to test for LMAN-RA co-variance to examine intra-LMAN activity co-flucutations? A negative result would support the specificity of the LMAN-RA covariance but a positive result would indicate that within-LMAN dynamics also exhibit interesting learning-related changes.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In studying the neural control of action generation there is a presumption that different nodes within a connected neural control circuit contribute differentially to the production of a given gesture. In many cases, these circuits also receive inputs that can bias ongoing motor commands to alter output and therefore the motor gesture itself. Showing the specific role that each of the different areas play in motor control and how inputs might bias motor output is challenging. Taking advantage of a precisely controlled error-correction learning task of adult birdsong, Tian et al. perform simultaneous neural recording in both the primary forebrain song motor output nucleus (RA) as well as in an input structure (LMAN) known to be necessary for biasing motor output during such learning tasks. By comparing the activity pattern and timing between recorded activity in both structures, they show that LMAN activity leads RA activity for each of the song syllables but that there is a preferential gain in activity level in LMAN after learning only during the precise time window (10 - 50 msec) associated with the specific syllable that is targeted during the error-correction paradigm. They then follow these recordings with short focal electrical stimulation in LMAN targeted to the precise time window that shows increased gain in the dual recording paradigm. This stimulation is intended to scramble the bias signal and they show that such manipulation, in a temporally specific manner, does indeed eliminate the acoustic bias imposed by LMAN.

The precise combination of dual recording and targeted stimulation, in my opinion, convincingly shows that LMAN provides a temporally precise command that can bias motor output in RA. It is assumed that LMAN inputs onto RA are mapped with some level of functional topography, especially given that RA is thought to have some degree of motor mapping. The more dorsal areas, for example, likely contribute more to respiratory control while the more ventral portion contributes to acoustic control with a possible acoustic motor map within that region. Unfortunately, the spatial precision of the recording electrodes in both RA as well as LMAN is rather coarse and a careful functional spatial mapping of spike timing correlation is not possible. Hopefully in future studies, more precise spatial mapping will provide correlations within these two structures that might be able to target subareas that encode the signal bias for subcomponents of the specific acoustic features that are being targeted in this error-correction learning paradigm.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The present paper uncovers evidence of the coordination of two brain areas involved in a two-step learning process in birdsong plasticity. Indeed, songbirds can modify their song based on an error-correction mechanism that involves a motor bias expressed by a basal ganglia-thalamo-cortical loop. After training (hundreds or a few thousands of renditions), the motor bias necessary to correct vocal errors becomes independent of the BG-thalamo-cortical loop and is transferred into the long-term motor program stored in a primary motor network. Current understanding claims that the output nucleus of the BG-thalamo-cortical loop, LMAN, trains the primary motor networks (in area RA) to drive the learning transfer. However, no clear evidence for such entrainment was available until now. In the present study, the authors elegantly show that correlations in trial-by-trial fluctuations in the premotor activity in LMAN and RA are present spontaneously (in multi-unit electrophysiological recordings) and are increased during a lab-induced plasticity protocol. The change in correlation is specific to the syllable that undergoes plasticity. Moreover, perturbing LMAN activity through low-intensity and spatially broad electrical stimulation of LMAN during the premotor window prevents behavioral adaptation. Altogether, their results convincingly show that the entrainment of RA neural populations by LMAN neurons is present during baseline, strengthened during plasticity in a syllable-specific manner, and necessary for song plasticity.

This study thus provides important validation of the current model for the 2-step learning process underlying song learning and plasticity, where a BG-thalamo-cortical network drive motor bias to correct vocal errors based on a reinforcement learning mechanism, while the song motor engram is updated slowly through the adjustment of song-related activity in the primary motor areas. Beyond the songbird field, these results will be of importance to all studying sensorimotor learning and adaptation, and more broadly the formation of memory through a two-step learning process.

The authors present the context for their hypothesis clearly, state their hypothesis precisely, and conduct a thorough investigation of the posed question. The conclusions are well supported by data.

In particular, the statistical evaluation of the covariance of LMAN and RA activity in the premotor window is adequate and the interpretation of the results is therefore well backed by their analysis. The methods used here to assess covariation between LMAN and RA activity during singing set the ground for future studies looking at the coordination between brain areas during behavior.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Pentz et al experimentally evolve yeast populations starting from two different strains that each differ in one locus compared to the wild-type. They show that these small differences - which result in one strain forming clonal groups, while the other forms multi-strain aggregates of different genotypes - can change the evolutionary fate of the strain under their selection regime. In their evolutionary experiment, they select for growth (an individual trait) and then sedimentation (a group trait) and show that the strain that makes clonal groups evolves a greater improvement in their group trait, while the strain that forms genetically diverse groups evolves a greater improvement in their individual trait. This provides experimental evidence for the hypothesis that clonality is key to the evolution of group traits, and potentially, multicellularity. They support their findings with genomic analysis of the mutants and use a mathematical model to explain some of the interesting observations from this analysis: that selection is stronger in genotypically mixed groups, while clonal groups suffer more from drift and bottlenecking effects. The study presents solid evidence for the findings, the methods are simple and clear, the scale of the experiment is impressive, the data analyses support the conclusions and are very complete and convincing, and the paper is very clearly written and a pleasure to read.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This study by Pentz et al. aims to understand how cellular attachments and/or development affect the fitness of the transition to undifferentiated multicellularity. This work has the potential to better understand why some types of multicellular development (e.g. clonal development) versus others (e.g. aggregative development) are more or less commonly observed in nature.

Presently, much of our understanding of these processes comes from observation and theoretical work. This work aims to bridge this gap by rewiring the evolutionary clock and testing if different selected undifferentiated multicellular developmental strategies are better or worse.

The authors compare the fitness of Snowflake and Floc yeast under settling-based selection. They find that Snowflake is fitter under these conditions than Floc. They augment these findings with a simplified mathematical model that supports these findings.

On their face, the findings seem interesting but have limitations in that the authors did not consider alternate selective conditions and may come to different conclusions, potentially supporting the null hypothesis. In addition, doing experiments in related multicellular model systems that the authors have previously worked in would substantially improve generalizability.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Yang et al. investigated the mechanisms by which a high-sugar diet induces transgenerational changes in sweet sensitivity and feeding behavior. The authors identified an epigenetic mechanism that involves H3K27me3 reprogramming. Moreover, the authors found that such transgenerational behavioural change was transmitted through maternal epigenetic mechanisms. Through sequencing, the authors identified the specific genetic target of such epigenetic modification and further revealed a key neural target that is influenced by such genetic change and is critical for sweet-sensing. Together, this manuscript provided a significant advance in understanding food-induced transgenerational changes in Drosophila. The experiments were carefully designed with proper controls and well executed. The data is convincing and the findings are novel.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This work attempts to connect the diet of a mother to the physiology and feeding behaviors of multiple generations of her offspring. Using genetic and molecular biology approaches in the fruit fly model, the authors argue that this Lamarckian inheritance is mediated by germline-inherited chromatin and is regulated by the general activity of a histone methylase. However, many of the measured effects are small and variable, the statistical tests to prove their significance are missing or poorly described, and some experiments are inadequately described and lack important controls.

1) The authors claim that the diet of a mother can influence the physiology of her progeny for several generations. However, the observed effects of maternal diet on later generations were small and variable for most assays (see Fig1C, S1.1A, B, D). Additionally, the effect size between F0 HSD to ND was often larger than the effect size between the progeny of F0 parents and ND. To put it another way, if the authors were to compare the F1, F2, etc. to the F0 HSD flies, they would conclude that the majority of the response to diet is not maternally transmitted, and is directly controlled by the diet of the individual being measured.<br /> 2) The authors chose to study PER, which had the largest average effect sizes between conditions. However, PER was highly variable in the averaged data, with some individuals showing large effects and others having no effects. A better characterization of transgenerational PER may increase the robustness of this assay and confidence in its results. For example, the authors could measure PER in lineages derived from individual flies to determine when transgenerational effects on PER decline or disappear. This form of data collection could help to explain the high variation in the averaged data presented in the paper.<br /> 3) What do the error bars represent on any figure? There are many examples where the data is highly variable and lies completely outside of the error bars. What is the statistical test for significance that is carried out in each figure? The brief comment about statistics in the methods section is inadequate. The authors should also supply the raw data used to generate the figures so that readers can perform their own statistical tests.<br /> 4) The model that global H3K27me3 is regulated by ancestral diet is unconvincing without further experimental validation and explanation. Points 4-10 address specific issues. The authors performed ChIP on cycle 11 embryos. This stage is extremely short (11 min) and contains roughly 10 times less chromatin than embryos only 30 minutes older. These features make it very difficult to collect large numbers of precisely staged embryos without significant contamination. It is also debatable whether early cell cycles (including and preceding cycle 11) are slow enough to deposit and propagate histone marks in the presence of new histone incorporation. See the opposing arguments in Zenk et al 2017 and Li et al 2014. The authors could perform ChIP on older embryos to avoid this controversy. Surely any maternally inherited information will also be present in cycle 14 or 15 embryos if it is to influence the development or physiology of the brain. The observed differences in global H3K27me3 levels in F1 vs ND flies could be explained by slightly different aged embryo collections or technical variations in the ChIP protocol. The authors could strengthen their conclusion by performing more ChIP replicates. Alternatively, the authors could use orthogonal approaches like antibody staining or western blots to measure global H3K27me3 levels in precisely staged embryos.<br /> 5) The authors measure PRC2 subunit mRNA levels in adult fly heads to attempt to explain the observed differences in inherited H3K27me3 levels in fly embryos. The authors should examine PRC2 components in germ cells and early embryos to understand how germ cells and early embryos generate H3K27me3 patterns.<br /> 6) The RNAi experiment targeting PRC2 components in embryos is uninterpretable without appropriate controls and an explanation of the genotypes used in the experimental paradigm. Are the authors crossing nosNGT mothers to UAS-RNAi fathers and assaying the progeny? What is the genotype of the F1 flies and how does it compare to the genotype of the ND flies? The authors should also note that the Gal4 drivers they use are not necessarily restricted to the ovary, and could directly affect other tissues controlling PER like neurons and muscle. Additionally, the authors should supply the appropriate controls to verify that their experimental paradigm has the intended effect. PRC2 proteins are presumably loaded into embryos and would be immune to zygotic-expressed RNAi. The authors could validate when PRC2 RNAi is effective by staining embryos for H3K27me3.<br /> 7) Although the authors do not note this, nosNGT>RNAi affects the PER of ND flies (compare Gal4>RNAi to just RNAi or just Gal4 in ND columns in Fig3A-D). This could be due to RNAi expression in neurons or muscles or some other indirect effect. Regardless of the mechanism, this result makes it difficult to interpret how RNAi treatments affect the transgenerational inheritance of PER if there is an equivalently strong non-transgenerational effect.<br /> 8) The matalpha gal4 experiment is inadequately explained in the text or methods. Are the authors expressing RNAi in the ovaries of the F0 flies that are fed an HSD? Does the ovary influence their PER somehow? Similar to point 8, there appears to be a non-transgenerational component to the RNAi phenotype that clouds the interpretation of the transgenerational effect (compare F0 in S3.1A-C).<br /> 9) For the EED inhibitor experiments (both PER and calcium imaging), it is unclear whether the authors fed the mothers or their adult progeny the EED inhibitor. If adult progeny were fed, what tissues were affected? The authors should stain various tissues with an H3K27me3 antibody to verify the effectiveness of their inhibitor. Finally, the effect of the EED inhibitor on calcium imaging was not convincing because the variation was so large.<br /> 10) In all of the PRC2 RNAi and inhibitor experiments, are there any other phenotypes that would suggest that the treatments are working? There are many published PRC2 loss-of-function phenotypes (molecular and developmental) in different tissues. The authors could assure the reader that their treatments are working as expected by doing these controls.<br /> 11) The authors propose that a transgenerationally inherited state of the caudal gene is responsible for the transgenerationally inherited PER. However, the experiments investigating the methylation state and expression level of caudal are unconvincing. Cad mRNA abundance varied immensely in the ND RNAseq samples. When the authors compared cad levels across generations, the effect size was small. A single outlier in the ND sample in both the RNAseq and the RTPCR experiments appears to drive up its mean and effect size. The H3K27me3 ChIP on cad is very similar in the F1 and ND samples and the acetylation peak on its promoter appears unchanged. The authors could vastly improve the caudal experiments in this paper by simply using cad antibodies to stain the relevant tissues that contribute to PER. For example, the authors could stain GR5a neurons for cad expression in different generations that inherit (or don't inherit) maternal PER to more accurately determine if cad levels are indeed transgenerationally regulated. The authors could also perform more ChIP experiments at a less variable stage to convincingly correlate epigenetic marks on cad with its expression level.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Jie Yang et al. investigated the transgenerational behavioral modification of a high-sugar diet (HSD) in Drosophila and revealed the underlying molecular and neural mechanisms. It has been reported that HSD exposure decreases sweet sensitivity in gustatory sensory neurons, resulting in reduced sugar response (Proboscis extension reflex, PER) in flies. The current study reports that this effect can be transmitted across generations through the maternal germline. Furthermore, the authors show that H3K27me3 modification is enhanced in the first-generation progenies of HSD-treated flies (F1), and genetical or pharmacological disruption of PCL-PRC2 complex blocks the behavioral change and restores the sweet sensitivity in the Gr5a+ sweet sensory neurons. The authors further analyze the differentially expressed genes in the F1 flies. Among H3K27me3 hypermethylated regions, they focus on homeobox genes and find a transcription factor Caudal (Cad), which shows decreased expression in the F1 flies. Knocking down Cad in Gr5a+ neurons results in decreased PER response to sucrose.

Transgenerational changes in physiology and metabolism have been broadly studied, while inherited changes at the behavioral level are much less investigated. This work provides convincing evidence for transgenerational modification of feeding behavior and digs out the underlying molecular and neural mechanisms. However, there still are several concerns that need to be clarified.

1) The epigenetic regulator PCR2 has been found to play an essential role in the 7d-HSD-induced modification of the PER response. In this study, it's important to clarify for the transgenerational change, whether epigenetic modification is required in the flies exposed to HSD (F0), the progenies (F1), or both. It would be very helpful for better interpretation if the procedures of HSD treatment in RNAi experiments and the drug treatments were stated in more detail. In addition, the F0 flies should be examined as the control.<br /> 2) The information on the drug treatment period is also missing for imaging experiments (Fig.4C). Moreover, the response curve is very different from those recorded in the same neurons in previous studies. What's the reason? Please also provide a representative image showing which part of the Gr5a neurons is recorded.<br /> 3) It's unclear whether the decreased Cad expression upon HSD treatment specifically occurred in Gr5a+ neurons or a lot of cells. If the change in gene expression is significant in the qPCR test, it should occur in a large number of cells, most likely including different types of gustatory sensory neurons. If lower cad expression led to lower neural response and thereby lower behavioral response, how to specifically decrease the PER response to sucrose but not to other tastes? --whether HSD-induced desensitization is specific to sucrose in the offspring?<br /> 4) In Fig.2D, data are sorted for genomic regions showing an up-regulated modification of H3K27me. It's unclear whether similar sorting was performed in panel C. This needs to be clarified.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This work describes the development of a new structure-based learning approach to predict transcription binding specificity and its application in the modeling of regulatory complexes in cis-regulatory modules. The development of accurate computer tools to model protein-DNA complexes and to predict DNA binding specificity is a very relevant research topic with significant impact in many areas.

This article highlights the importance of transcriptional regulatory elements in gene expression regulation and the challenges in understanding their mechanisms. Traditional definitions of activating regulatory elements, such as promoters and enhancers, are becoming unclear, suggesting an updated model based on DNA accessibility and enhancer/promoter potential. Experimental techniques can assess the sequence preferences of transcription factors (TFs) for binding sites. Recent models propose a cooperative model in which regulatory elements work together to increase the local concentrations of TFs, RNA polymerase II, and other co-factors. Co-operative binding can be mediated through protein-protein or DNA interactions. The authors developed a structure-based learning approach to predict TF binding features and model the regulatory complex(es) in cis-regulatory modules, integrating experimental knowledge of structures of TF-DNA complexes and high-throughput TF-DNA interactions. They developed a server to characterize and model the binding specificity of a TF sequence or its structure, which was applied to the examples of interferon-β enhanceosome and the complex of factors SOX11/SOX2 and OCT4 with the nucleosome. The models highlight the co-operativity of TFs and suggest a potential role for nucleosome opening.

The results presented by the authors have a large variability in performance upon the different TF families tested. Therefore, it would be ideal if the performance/accuracy of the method is tested in some simple predictions and validated with prospective experimental data before applying it to model difficult scenarios such as those described here: SOX11/SOX2/OCT4 and nucleosome or interferon beta and enhanceosome. This will give more support to the models generated and thus the validity of the conclusions and hypothesis derived from them.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This is an interesting paper that shows disruption of thalamocortical communication in anesthesia, and enhancement under 5-MeO-DMT in an animal model, combined with a model to establish that these changes can be understood as a displacement from a critical point of a neural mass model. Overall, these results are exciting as they constitute evidence that very different brain states can be understood as two different points of a continuum of states, with a critical transition point in the middle.

These are my main detailed comments about this manuscript:

1. Psychedelic drug dosage: 5 mg/kg is possibly a low dose of 5-MeO-DMT, which exhibits nonlinear pharmacokinetics presenting a transition in drug serum concentration between 2 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg. (Shen, H. W., Jiang, X. L., & Yu, A. M. (2011). Nonlinear pharmacokinetics of 5-methoxy-N, N-dimethyltryptamine in mice. Drug Metabolism and Disposition, 39(7), 1227-1234.)

2. Novelty of the neural mass approach to establish critical dynamics. The neural mass model is interesting but it is also well established that the features of LFPs during anesthesia can be captured using these kinds of models, including phenomenology such as burst suppression, emergence of high amplitude synchronized oscillations, etc.; see for instance Kuhlmann, L., Freestone, D. R., Manton, J. H., Heyse, B., Vereecke, H. E., Lipping, T., ... & Liley, D. T. (2016). Neural mass model-based tracking of anesthetic brain states. NeuroImage, 133, 438-456.). The same applies to the modeling of wakefulness LPF using neural masses to show that alpha oscillations emerge in thalamocortical systems at the edge of a dynamic phase transition, which can be reproduced by the dynamics of a Hopf bifurcation.

3. Is it possible that some of the results in the essential tremor group were influenced by the disease and its effects on the LPF dynamics, as it is known that tremors and seizures are associated by themselves with departures from critical dynamics?

4. Table 1 and other parts of the manuscript: multiple independent tests were conducted, does this require a correction for multiple comparisons to avoid the reporting of false positive results or its control by FDR or related approaches?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Toker et al. use a frequency-resolved analysis of cortico-thalamic and thalamo-cortical information transfer to determine at which combinations of frequencies a frequency-specific transfer of information exists, and how this transfer is modulated by anesthesia, spike-and-wave seizures, and psychedelic states. They find that anesthesia and seizures lower the transfer of information at a specific combination of frequencies (sending: 1.5-13Hz, receiving 50-100Hz), whereas psychedelic states induced by 5-MeO-DMT increase. The reductions were observed for both directions whereas significant increases were only observed from cortex to thalamus.

Neural mean-field modeling shows that these empirical observations may be linked to a deviation of neural dynamics from the critical point between ordered and chaotic dynamics.

The manuscript tackles an important question using innovative methods. Yet, the analysis of spectrally resolved information transfer at present suffers from an unfortunate choice of analysis parameters (especially a history length of 1, and a low number of surrogate data), that need to be changed to fully install trust in the presented results. The statistical analysis seems to suffer from so-called 'double-dipping', but there are several possible ways to fix this issue.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Davies et al. examined the role of the malaria parasite's FIKK4.1 protein kinase in trafficking and host membrane insertion of key proteins that are exported by the intracellular P. falciparum parasite. FIKK4.1 is one of 18 FIKK serine/threonine kinases exported into the host erythrocyte; these kinases phosphorylate both host proteins and exported parasite proteins. FIKK4.1 has previously been implicated in rigidification of the erythrocyte cytoskeleton. It is also known to affect trafficking and insertion of PfEMP1, the parasite's primary cytoadherence ligand, on the host cell surface. In the present studies, the authors perform sophisticated gene-editing experiments that combine conditional knockout of FIKK4.1 with tagging of two kinase targets with the TurboID proximity biotin-labeling enzyme to explore phosphorylation-dependent changes in target protein localization, structure, or protein-protein interactions. Using conditional knockout of each exported FIKK kinase, they determine that FIKK4.1 is the only kinase that regulates PfEMP1 surface exposure and that it does not appear to modulate surface translocation of RIFINs, a family of parasite antigens involved in immune evasion. The combination of gene-editing, proximity labeling and mass spectrometry, and biochemical studies in the paper is to be lauded. These findings identify key targets of exported kinases and will guide future studies of host cell remodeling.

Key limitations of the study:

1. TurboID tagging of FIKK4.1 followed by proximity labeling and mass spectrometry of biotinylated proteins revealed parasite-stage dependent labeling of 101 parasite proteins and 39 human proteins that come in contact with FIKK4.1. Although TurboID is a more efficient biotin ligase produced through directed evolution, nonspecific biotinylation of proteins that do not form biologically relevant interactions remains an issue. Biotin addition for 4 hours, as used here and in most studies using this ligase, allows for labeling of proteins that undergo random collisions with the TurboID-tagged protein. While there was clear enrichment of exported proteins in the FIKK4.1-tagged parasite at mature schizont stages when FIKK4.1 is in the host cytosol, only 66% of the proteins labeled were exported, consistent with labeling and recovery of irrelevant proteins. As the authors performed appropriate controls and interpreted their findings cautiously, this limitation results primarily from finite efficiency of TurboID, trace levels of endogenous biotin within cells, and other complexities associated with the technology.

2. The production of dual-edited parasites carrying conditional knockout of FIKK4.1 and TurboID tagging of either KAHRP or PTP4 permitted examination of changes in localization of exported proteins upon their phosphorylation by FIKK4.1. KAHRP and PTP4 are excellent choices for these experiments because they are established targets of the kinase and good candidates for effectors involved in PfEMP1 membrane insertion. Some 30-40 proteins exhibited significant changes in biotinylation by these TurboID-tagged proteins, suggesting altered localization or structure upon loss of FIKK4.1 kinase activity. PfEMP1 trafficking proteins (PTPs), Maurer's cleft proteins, exported heat shock proteins, and components of PSAC, a parasite-associated nutrient uptake channel, all exhibited changes. Although FIKK4.1 is not essential for in vitro parasite propagation, altered localization could result either directly from changes in phosphorylation status of the protein itself or could reflect indirect effects on the cell from loss of FIKK4.1.

3. As a consequence of these two limitations, these experiments could not conclusively implicate either KAHRP or a specific PTP in PfEMP1 surface translocation. Whether specific Maurer's cleft proteins or the nutrient channel components contribute to PfEMP1 surface translocation could also not be addressed. The authors' Discussion section is appropriately cautious in interpreting changes in biotinylation upon FIKK4.1 disruption. Although a large amount of data has been generated in this sophisticated study, the precise mechanism of PfEPM1 trafficking and membrane insertion remains elusive.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Davies et al combine TurboID with conditional mutagenesis to reveal how a perturbing event alters the accessibility of a sub-cellular proteome to proximity biotinylation. The approach builds on established techniques for antibody-mediated enrichment of biotinylated peptides (rather than purification of whole biotinylated proteins by avidin) to enable mapping of the specific lysines that are biotinylated by TurboID and how access to these sites changes between conditions. The insights gained have a range of potential implications touching on protein trafficking/localization, complex dynamics and membrane topology. The authors apply this strategy to study trafficking of the key P. falciparum adhesin PfEMP1 to the infected erythrocyte surface. This group has previously shown that the exported parasite kinase FIKK4.1 is important for this process but the specific mechanism is unknown. In the first part of the present study, the authors develop PerTurboID and analyze the altered biotinylation patterns upon FIKK4.1 deletion in parasite lines bearing TurboID tags on PTP4 or KAHRP, two proteins required for this pathway and likely direct substrates of FIKK4.1. Numerous changes in site-specific biotinylation are quantitatively assessed on hundreds of proteins and possible implications for these changes are discussed, including topology of parasite integral membrane proteins exported into the RBC compartment as well as how the conformation of the RhopH complex might be altered upon RBC membrane integration. In a final set of experiments, the authors show that among 18 exported FIKK kinases, FIKK4.1 is uniquely important to PfEMP1 surface display but not to the distinct RIFIN class of parasite proteins that are also trafficked to the RBC surface. On the whole, the data are compelling and provide an important new approach that advances the proximity labeling toolkit.

While the resolution of PerTurboID captures the site-specific changes in biotinylation abundance and position that occur upon loss of FIKK4.1, a limitation of the study is that these observations do not necessarily clarify the model for how FIKK4.1 is controlling the PfEMP1 trafficking pathway. The authors convincingly show that FIKK4.1 uniquely supports PfEMP1 surface presentation and cytoadhesion. However, this is not connected to the PerTurboID data in a way that provides a mechanism for how this is achieved by FIKK4.1 activity and in my opinion doesn't deliver on the title claim to "reveal the impact of kinase deletion on cytoadhesion". Certainly the changes in biotinylation suggest a range of interesting possibilities related to the accessibility and topology of proteins within and beyond the PfEMP1 trafficking pathway; however, it is hard to interpret the relationship of these changes to the process in view. For instance, deletion of FIKK4.1 increases biotinylation of several Maurer's clefts proteins in both the PTP4- and KAHRP-TurboID experiments but why this is or whether it is significant for PfEMP1 transport is unclear.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors aim to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the role of FIKK4.1 in parasite biology. To achieve this, they used a novel approach termed PerTurboID that allows them to map changes in the conformational and interaction environment of proteins that are in close proximity of the tagged gene of interest. Here the authors focus on two proteins KHARP and PTP4 who are known targets of FIKK4.1 and assessed the impact of the genetic disruption of the kinase on the interaction environment of these proteins. The experimental strategy identifies a range of changes that indicate that changes go beyond the direct targets of FIKK4.1 and therefore creates new insights of interaction networks that are regulated by this specific kinase.

The strength of this approach is not only that it can identify new interaction networks relating to FIKK4.1 but that serves as a proof of concept that can be used for a wide range of applications in parasite biology. At the same time as the authors have noted themselves the extent of the biotin pulse is important and most likely needs to be calibrated for every specific application. In addition, this approach is only suitable for proteins that can be tagged without impacting their function.

The authors present very convincing evidence that the PerTurboID is suitable to study FIKK kinases in parasites and have used this to shed new light on how FIKK4.1 is involved directly or indirectly in a wider range of biological activities in the parasite.

The main impact of this work is that it provides a wider understanding of the relationship between a specific kinase and structural as well as biological consequences. The methodology is also very powerful and will have a wide range of applications.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> The authors present a biophysically detailed model of the basolateral amygdala (BLA) that is capable of fear learning through a depression-dominated spike-timing dependent plasticity (STDP) mechanism. Furthermore, the model also replicates experimentally measured rhythmic signatures of baseline amygdala activity and changes of these signatures during and after fear learning. The authors furthermore carefully dissect the contributions of the three different types of interneurons (parvalbumin-positive (PV), somatostatin-positive (SOM), and vaso-active peptide-positive (VIP) interneurons) in regulating network activity to allow for the association between conditioned and unconditioned stimuli.

Strengths:<br /> The biophysical detail of the model allows the authors to go beyond a simple modelling of the fear learning process in terms of spiking activity of the principal cells and to link the associative learning to several oscillatory rhythms in the BLA, namely high and low theta and gamma rhythms. This provides an understanding of the generation and function of these rhythms in the baseline amygdala circuit as well as of the functional consequences of alterations of these rhythms during and after the fear learning process. This offers a new and uniquely detailed insight into the mechanistic level.

Weaknesses:<br /> The main weakness of the approach is the lack of experimental data from the BLA to constrain the biophysical models. This forces the authors to use models based on other brain regions and leaves open the question of whether the model really faithfully represents the basolateral amygdala circuitry. Furthermore, the authors chose to use model neurons without a representation of the morphology. However, given that PV and SOM cells are known to preferentially target different parts of pyramidal cells and given that the model relies on a strong inhibition form SOM to silence pyramidal cells, the question arises whether SOM inhibition at the apical dendrite in a model representing pyramidal cell morphology would still be sufficient to provide enough inhibition to silence pyramidal firing. Lastly, the fear learning relies on the presentation of the unconditioned stimulus over a long period of time (40 seconds). The authors justify this long-lasting input as reflecting not only the stimulus itself but as a memory of the US that is present over this extended time period. However, the experimental evidence for this presented in the paper is only very weak.

The authors achieved the aim of constructing a biophysically detailed model of the BLA not only capable of fear learning but also showing spectral signatures seen in vivo. The presented results support the conclusions with the exception of a potential alternative circuit mechanism demonstrating fear learning based on a classical Hebbian (i.e. non-depression-dominated) plasticity rule, which would not require the intricate interplay between the inhibitory interneurons. This alternative circuit is mentioned but a more detailed comparison between it and the proposed circuitry is warranted.

The presented model demonstrates how the complex interplay between different types of interneurons is able to precisely control neural activity to enable learning to happen. Furthermore, the presented work shows this interactive control of activity by the interneurons gives rise to specific oscillatory signatures. Since the three types of interneurons considered here are found throughout the brain, the findings will likely have a big impact on other studies of interneuron function and learning in general.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This study follows up on a previous study by the group (Sibille et al Nature Communications 2022) in which high density Neuropixel probes were inserted tangentially through the superficial layers of the superior colliculus (SC) to record the activity of retinocollicular axons and postsynaptic collicular neurons in anesthetized mice. By correlating spike patterns, connected pairs could be identified which allowed the authors to demonstrate that functionally similar retinal axon-SC neuron pairs were strongly connected.

In the current study, the authors use similar techniques in vGAT-ChR2 mice and add a fiber optic to identify light-activated GABAergic and non-light-activated nonGABAergic neurons. Using their previously verified techniques to identify connected pairs, within regions of optogenetic activation they identified 214 connected pairs of retinal axons and nonGABAergic neurons and 91 pairs of connected retinal axons and GABAergic neurons. The main conclusion is that retinal activity contributed more to the activity of postsynaptic nonGABAergic SC neurons than to the activity of postsynaptic GABAergic SC neurons.

The study is very well done. The figures are well laid out and clearly establish the conclusions. My main comments are related to the comparison to other circuits and further questions that might be addressed in the SC.

It is stated several times that the superior colliculus and the visual cortex are the two major brain areas for visual processing and these areas are compared throughout the manuscript. However, since both the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (dLGN) and SC include similar synaptic motifs, including triadic arrangements of retinal boutons with GABAergic and nonGABAergic neurons, it might be more relevant to compare and contrast retinal convergence and other features in these structures.

The GABAergic and nonGABAergic neurons showed a wide range of firing rates. It might be interesting to sort the cells by firing rates to see if they exhibit different properties. For example, since the SC contains both GABAergic interneurons and projection neurons it would be interesting to examine whether GABAergic neurons with higher firing rates exhibit narrower spikes, similar to cortical fast spiking interneurons. Similarly, it might be of interest to sort the neurons by their receptive field sizes since this is associated with different SC neuron types.

The recording techniques allowed for the identification of the distance between connected retinocollicular fibers and postsynaptic neurons. It might also be interesting to compare the properties of connected pairs recorded at dorsal versus ventral locations since neurons with different genetic identities and response properties are located in different dorsal/ventral locations (e.g. Liu et al. Neuron 2023). Also, regarding the strength of connections, previous electron microscopy studies have shown that the retinocollicular terminals differ in density and size in the dorsal/ventral dimension (e.g Carter et al JCN 1991).

Was optogenetic activation of GABAergic neurons ever paired with visual activation? It would be interesting to examine the receptive fields of the nonGABAergic neurons before and after activation of the GABAergic neurons (as in Gale and Murphy J Neurosci 2016).

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Gehr and colleagues used an elegant method, using neuropixels probes, to study retinal input integration by mouse superior collicular cells in vivo. Compared to a previous report of the same group, they opto-tagged inhibitory neurons and defined the differential integration onto each group. Through these experiments, the author concluded that overall, there is no clear difference between the retina connectivity to excitatory and inhibitory superior colliculus neurons. The exception to that rule is that excitatory neurons might be driven slightly stronger than inhibitory ones. Technically, this work is performed at a high level, and the plots are beautifully conceived, but I have doubts if the interpretation given by the authors is solid. I will elaborate below.

Some thoughts about the interpretation of the results.

My main concern is the "survivor bias" of this work, which can lead to skewed conclusions. From the data set acquired, 305 connections were measured, 1/3 inhibitory and 2/3 excitatory. These connections arise from 83 RGC onto 124 RGC (I'm interpreting the axis of Fig.2 C). Here it is worth mentioning that different RGC types have different axonal diameters (Perge et al., 2009). Here the diameter is also related to the way cells relay information (max frequencies, for example). It is possible that thicker axons are easier to measure, given the larger potential changes would likely occur, and thus, selectively being picked up by the neuropixels probe. If this is the case, we would have a clear case of "survival bias", which should be tested and discussed. One way to determine if the response properties of axonal termini are from an unbiased sample is to make a rough functional characterization as generally performed (see Baden et al. 2006). This is fundamental since all other conclusions are based on unbiased sampling.

One aspect that is not clear to me is to measure of connectivity strength in Figure 2. Here it seems that connectivity strength is directly correlated with the baseline firing rate of the SC neuron (see example plots). If this is a general case, the synaptic strength can be assumed but would only differ in strength due to the excitability of the postsynaptic cell. This should be tested by plotting the correlation coefficient analysis against the baseline firing rate.

My third concern is the assessment of functional similarity in Fig. 3. It is not clear to me why the similarity value was taken by the arithmetic mean. For example, even if the responses are identical for one connected pair that exclusively responds either to the ON or OFF sparse noise, the maximal value can only be 0.67. Perhaps I misunderstood something. Secondly, correlations in natural(istic) movies can differ dramatically depending on the frame rate that the movie was acquired and the way it is displayed to the animal. What looks natural to us will elicit several artifacts at a retinal level, e.g., due to big jumps between frames (no direction-selective response) or overall little modulation (large spatial correlations). I would rather opt for uniform stimuli, as suggested previously. Of course, these are also approximations but can be easily reproduced by different labs and are not subjected to the intricacies of the detailed naturalistic stimulus used.

Fourth. It is important to control the proportion of inhibitory cells activated optogenetically across the recording probe. Currently, it is not possible to assess if there are false negatives. One way of controlling for this would be to show that the number of inhibitory interneurons doesn't vary across the probe.

Fifth. In Fig. 4, the ISI had a minimal bound of 5 ms. Why? This would cap the firing rate at 200Hz, but we know that RGC in explants can fire at higher frequencies for evoked responses. I would set a lower bound since it should come naturally from the after-depolarization block. Another aspect that remains unclear is to what extent the paired-spike ratio depends on the baseline firing rate. This would change the interpretation from the particular synaptic connection to the intrinsic properties of the cell and is plausible since the bassline firing rate varies tremendously. One related analysis would be to plot the change of PSR depending on the ISI. It would be intuitive to make a scatter plot for all paired spikes of all recorded neurons (separated into inhibitory and excitatory) of ISI vs. PSR.

Panel 4E is confusing to me. Here what is plotted is efficacy 1st against PSR (which is efficacy 2nd/efficacy 1st). Given that you have a linear relation between efficacy 1st and efficacy 2nd (panel 4C), you are essentially re-plotting the same information, which should necessarily have a hyperbolic relationship: [ f(x) = y/x ]. Thus, fitting this with a linear function makes no sense and it has to be decaying if efficacy 2nd > efficacy1st as shown in 4C.

Finally, in Figure 5, the perspective is inverted, and the spike correlations are seen from the perspective of SC neurons. Here it would also be good to plot the cumulative histograms and not look at the averages. Regarding the similarity index and use of natural stats, please see my previous comments. Also, would it be possible to plot the contribution v/s the firing rate with the baseline firing rate with no stimulation or full-field stimulation? This is important since naturalistic movies have too many correlations and dependencies that make this plot difficult to interpret.

Overall, the paper only speaks from excitatory and inhibitory differences in the introduction and results. However, it is known that there are three clear morphologically distinct classes of excitatory neurons (wide-field, narrow-field, and stellate). This topic is touched in the discussion but not directly in the context of these results. Smaller cells might likely be driven much stronger. Wide-field cells would likely not be driven by one RGC input only and will probably integrate from many more cells than 6.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This study performs in vivo recordings of neurons in the mouse superior colliculus and their afferents from the retina, retinal ganglion cells (RGCs). Building on a preparation they previously published, this study adds the use of optogenetic identification of inhibitory neurons (aka optotagging) to compare RGC connectivity to excitatory and inhibitory neurons in SC. Using this approach, the authors characterize connection probability, strength, and response correlation between RGCs and their target neurons in SC, finding several differences from what is observed in the retina-thalamus-visual cortex pathway. As such, this may be a useful dataset for efforts to understand retinocollicular connectivity and computations.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors set out to develop an organoid model of the junction between early telecephalic and ocular tissues to model RGC development and pathfinding in a human model. The authors have succeeded in developing a robust model of optic stalk(OS) and optic disc(OD) tissue with innervating retinal ganglion cells. The OS and OD have a robust pattern with distinct developmental and functional borders that allow for a distinct pathway for pathfinding RGC neurites.

Future work targeting RGC neurite outgrowth mechanisms will be exciting.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors compare their single-cell data of the self-forming brain-eye centroids with the published single-cell data from human fetal retinas and brain/optic organoids. This analysis further supports the similarity of their centroids with the human fetal retinal cell clusters, including the detection of the VSX2+/PAX2+ cells. The new findings further support the presented centroids' applicability for future studies on human RGC development and axon guidance mechanisms.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary<br /> In this study, Xu et al. provide insights into the substrate divergence of CASP3 and CASP7 for GSDME cleavage and activation during vertebrate evolution vertebrates. Using biochemical assays, domain swapping, site-directed mutagenesis, and bioinformatics tools, the authors demonstrate that the human GSDME C-terminal region and the S234 residue of human CASP7 are the key determinants that impede the cleavage of human GSDME by human CASP7.

Strengths<br /> The authors made an important contribution to the field by demonstrating how human CASP7 has functionally diverged to lose the ability to cleave GSDME and showing that reverse-mutations in CASP7 can restore GSDME cleavage. The use of multiple methods to support their conclusions strengthens the authors' findings. The unbiased mutagenesis screen performed to identify S234 in huCASP7 as the determinant of its GSDME cleavability is also a strength.

Weaknesses<br /> While the authors utilized an in-depth experimental setup to understand the CASP7-mediated GSDME cleavage across evolution, the physiological relevance of their findings are not assessed in detail. Additional methodology information should also be provided.

Specific recommendations for the authors<br /> 1. The authors should expand their evaluation of the physiological relevance by assessing GSDME cleavage by the human CASP7 S234N mutant in response to triggers such as etoposide or VSV, which are known to induce CASP3 to cleave GSDME (PMID: 28045099). The authors could also test whether the human CASP7 S234N mutation affects substrate preference beyond human GSDME by testing cleavage of mouse GSDME and other CASP3 and CASP7 substrates in this mutant.<br /> 2. It would also be interesting to examine the GSDME structure in different species to gain insight into the nature of mouse GSDME, which cannot be cleaved by either mouse or human CASP7.<br /> 3. The evolutionary analysis does not explain why mammalian CASP7 evolved independently to acquire an amino acid change (N234 to S234) in the substrate-binding motif. Since it is difficult to experimentally identify why a functional divergence occurs, it would be beneficial for the authors to speculate on how CASP7 may have acquired functional divergence in mammals; potentially this occurred because of functional redundancies in cell death pathways, for example.<br /> 4. For the recombinant proteins produced for these analyses, it would be helpful to know whether size-exclusion chromatography was used to purify these proteins and whether these purified proteins are soluble. Additionally, the SDS-PAGE in Figure S1B and C show multiple bands for recombinant mutants of TrCASP7 and HsCASP7. Performing protein ID to confirm that the detected bands belong to the respective proteins would be beneficial.<br /> 5. For Figures 3C and 4A, it would be helpful to mention what parameters or PDB files were used to attribute these secondary structural features to the proteins. In particular, in Figure 3C, residues 261-266 are displayed as a β-strand; however, the well-known α-model represents this region as a loop. Providing the parameters used for these callouts could explain this difference.<br /> 6. Were divergent sequences selected for the sequence alignment analyses (particularly in Figure 6A)? The selection of sequences can directly influence the outcome of the amino acid residues in each position, and using diverse sequences can reduce the impact of the number of sequences on the LOGO in each phylogenetic group.<br /> 7. For clarity, it would help if the authors provided additional rationale for the selection of residues for mutagenesis, such as selecting Q276, D278, and H283 as exosite residues, when the CASP7 PDB structures (4jr2, 3ibf, and 1k86) suggest that these residues are enriched with loop elements rather than the β sheets expected to facilitate substrate recognition in exosites for caspases (PMID: 32109412). It is possible that the inability to form β-sheets around these positions might indicate the absence of an exosite in CASP7, which further supports the functional effect of the exosite mutations performed.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors wanted to address the differential processing of GSDME by caspase 3 and 7, finding that while in humans GSDME is only processed by CASP3, Takifugu GSDME, and other mammalian can be processed by CASP3 and 7. This is due to a change in a residue in the human CAPS7 active site that abrogates GSDME cleavage. This phenomenon is present in humans and other primates, but not in other mammals such as cats or rodents. This study sheds light on the evolutionary changes inside CASP7, using sequences from different species. Although the study is somehow interesting and elegantly provides strong evidence of this observation, it lacks the physiological relevance of this finding, i.e. on human side, mouse side, and fish what are the consequences of CASP3/7 vs CASP3 cleavage of GSDME.

Fish also present a duplication of GSDME gene and Takifugu present GSDMEa and GSDMEb. It is not clear in the whole study if when referring to TrGSDME is the a or b. This should be stated in the text and discussed in the differential function of both GSDME in fish physiology (i.e. PMIDs: 34252476, 32111733 or 36685536).

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In the present manuscript, Abele et al use Salmonella strains modified to robustly induce one of two different types of regulated cell death, pyroptosis or apoptosis in growth phases (when SPI2 T3SS is expressed) and cell types to assess the role of pyroptosis versus apoptosis in systemic versus intestinal epithelial pathogen clearance. They demonstrate that in systemic spread, which requires growth in macrophages, pyroptosis is required to eliminate Salmonella, while in intestinal epithelial cells (IEC), extrusion of the infected cell into the intestinal lumen induced by apoptosis or pyroptosis is sufficient for early pathogen restriction. The methods used in these studies are thorough and well-controlled and lead to robust results, that mostly support the conclusions. The impact on the field is considered minor as the observations are somewhat redundant with previous observations and not generalizable due to cited evidence of different outcomes in other models of infection and a relatively artificial study system that does not permit the assessment of later time points in infection due to rapid clearance. This excludes the study of later effects of differences between pyroptosis and apoptosis in IEC such as i.e. IL-18 and eicosanoid release, which are only observed in the former and can have effects later in infection.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, Abele et al. present evidence to suggest that two different forms of regulated cell death, pyroptosis and apoptosis, are not equivalent in their ability to clear infection with recombinant Salmonella strains engineered to express the pro-pyroptotic NLRC4 agonist, FliC ("FliC-ON"), or the pro-apoptotic protein, BID ("BID-ON"). In general, individual experiments are well-controlled, and most conclusions are justified. However, the cohesion between different types of experiments could be strengthened and the overall impact and significance of the study could be articulated better.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Induction of beta cell regeneration is a promising approach for the treatment of diabetes. In this study, Massoz et.al., identified calcineurin (CaN) as a new potential modulator of beta cell regeneration by using zebrafish as model. They also showed that calcineurin (CaN) works together with Notch signaling calcineurin (CaN) to promote the beta cell regeneration. Overall, the paper is well organized, and technically sound. However, some evidence seems weak to get the conclusion.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This work started with transcriptomic profiling of ductal cells to identify the upregulation of calcineurin in the zebrafish after beta-cell ablation. By suppressing calcineurin with its chemical inhibitor cyclosporin A and expressing a constitutively active form of calcineurin ubiquitously or specifically in ductal cells, the authors found that inhibited calcineurin activity promoted beta-cell regeneration transiently while ectopic calcineurin activity hindered beta-cell regeneration in the pancreatic tail. They also showed similar effects in the basal state but only when it was within a particular permissive window of Notch activity. To further investigate the roles of calcineurin in the ductal cells, the authors demonstrated that calcineurin inhibition additionally induced the proliferation of the ductal cells in the regenerative context or under a limited level of Notch activity. Interestingly, the enhanced proliferation was followed by a depletion of ductal cells, suggesting that calcineurin inhibition would exhaust the ductal cells. Based on the data, the authors proposed a very attractive and intriguing model of the role of calcineurin in maintaining the balance of the progenitor proliferation and the endocrine differentiation. However, the conclusions of this paper are only partially supported by the data as some evidence from the data remains suggestive.

1. In the transcriptomic profiling, genes differentially regulated in the ablated adults could be solely due to the chemical effects of metronidazole instead of the beta-cell ablation. A control group without ins:NTR-mCherry but treated with metronidazole is necessary to exclude the side effects of metronidazole.

2. Although it has been shown that the pancreatic duct is a major source of the secondary islets in the pancreatic tail in previous studies, there is no direct evidence showing the cyclosporin A-induced cells share the source in this manuscript. Without any proper lineage tracing work, the origin of those cyclosporin A-induced cells cannot be concluded.

3. It is interesting to see an increase of beta cells in the primary islet after cyclosporin A treatment (Supplemental Fig 2B). However, it remains unclear if their formation shares the same mechanism with the newly formed beta cells in the pancreatic tail.

4. The conclusion of the effect of cyclosporin A on the endocrine progenitors (Line 175) is not convincing because the data cannot distinguish the endocrine progenitors from the insulin-expressing cells. Indeed, Figure 2E shows that neurod1+ cells are fewer than ins+ cells (Figure 2D) in the pancreatic tail at 10 dpt, suggesting that all or at least the majority of neurod1+ cells are already ins+.

5. Figure 5D shows a significant loss of nkx6.1+ cells in the combined treatment group but there is no direct evidence showing this was a result of differentiation as the authors suggested. This cell loss also outnumbered the increase in ins+ cells (Figure 4D). The cell fates of these lost cells are still undetermined, and the authors did not demonstrate if apoptosis could be a reason of the cell loss.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Iversen et al. performed middle cerebral artery occlusion in rats to evaluate microscopic changes in the blood flow in the ischemic region. By using measures for global (laser speckle) and local capillary blood flow (two-photon imaging), their results show that the capillary transient time/directionality is affected in this model of ischemic stroke. There are several points that need to be addressed, including what vessels authors considered as capillaries and how they controlled/compensated for the capillary blood flow heterogeneity in their analysis. The authors also proposed that the pericytes are not contributing to these functional deficits by doing morphological analysis, more functional studies are needed to confirm this conclusion.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Novelty: The concept that capillary stalls occur in the ischemic penumbra is not new. However, there are several interesting findings in the current study.<br /> 1- Flow reversal, 2- the effect of flow disturbances on oxygenation, and 3- capillary pericytes do not affect the hemodynamics in the penumbra.<br /> However, more in-depth analysis is needed and the underlying mechanism of flow reversal and the link between flow reversal and pericytes is unclear.

Strengths:<br /> 1. The study employs a combination of techniques including Laser speckle imaging, two photon microscopy and biophysical modelling to specifically examine hemodynamic and metabolic changes in the penumbra following experimental stroke.<br /> 2. The importance of following microvascular flow changes during hours after stroke.<br /> 3. The authors used a rat model of stroke and confirmed previous work that has been performed in mice about capillary stalls and flow disturbance in the ischemic penumbra.

Weaknesses:<br /> 1- The reliance on laser speckle to define the ischemic core and penumbra is not convincing.<br /> 2- The mechanisms behind microvascular flow disturbance are poorly defined.<br /> 3- The inability to measure capillary flow simultaneously in the regions of interest: e.g, Bessel beam imaging or volumetric imaging.<br /> 4- Lack of baseline measurements.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In the present study, Iversen et al investigate the effect of middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAo) on penumbral capillary blood flow in rat brains. Using Laser Speckle Contrast imaging and two-photon microscopy, they found that during MCAo the red blood cell dynamics become chaotic in penumbral capillaries despite an apparent constant residual blood flow. They further conclude that these disturbances would cause decreases in steady-state cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen (CMRO2), and tissue oxygen tension (PtO2) using a post hoc biophysical model for oxygen extraction. Interestingly, the authors present data excluding a role for pericytes in altering capillary blood flow. From this observation, the study raises potentially interesting questions on the origin of the disturbance but fails to address them by not investigating the upstream arteriolar behavior. Increased vasomotion, palpability, or intermittent vasospasm may trigger capillary blood flow disturbances without necessarily impacting residual blood flow resting as measured by Laser Speckle Contrast imaging. Furthermore, the data are very poorly presented, here are some examples:<br /> Fig 1b is incorrectly labeled and, assuming this is the "first" 1f panel, the scale bar shows 500 µm while the legend says 200.<br /> Fig 1d is poorly convincing as pink or grey, as detailed in the legend, are not visible. It also looks like there is a second core and penumbra on the more rostral left part of the brain.<br /> Line 219 time is misspelled.<br /> Fig 2, what does "percent of alle capillaries" on the y axes mean? 2d is presented before 2c in the text.<br /> What is the rationale for presenting the statistics from Fig 3 in Fig 4? Panels 4e and 4f are not discussed. The reference in the Fig 4 legend is not formatted.<br /> Fig 6 is presented before Fig 5.<br /> The overall lack of a central hypothesis combined with the aforementioned weaknesses prevents the study from achieving its proposed goal "to characterize microvascular flow disturbances in penumbral tissue in a rat model of acute ischemic stroke".

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this study by Yaghmaeian Salmani et al., the authors performed single-nuclei RNA sequencing of a large number of cells (>70,000) in the ventral midbrain. The authors focused on cells in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and substantia nigra (SN), which contain heterogeneous cell populations comprising dopaminergic, GABAergic, and glutamatergic neurons. Dopamine neurons are known to consist of heterogeneous subtypes, and these cells have been implicated in various neuropsychiatric diseases. Thus, identifying specific marker genes across different dopamine subpopulations may allow researchers in future studies to develop dopamine subtype-specific targeting strategies that could have substantial translational implications for developing more specific therapies for neuropsychiatric diseases.

A strength of the authors' approach compared to previous work is that a large number of cells were sequenced, which was achieved using snRNA-seq, which the authors found to be superior compared to scRNA-seq for reducing sampling bias. A weakness of the study is that relatively little new information is provided as the results are largely consistent with previous studies (e.g., Poulin et al., 2014). Nevertheless, it should be noted that the authors found some more nuanced subdivisions in several genetically identified DA subtypes.

Lastly, the authors performed molecular analysis of ventral midbrain cells in response to 6-OHDA exposure, which leads to the degeneration of SN dopamine neurons, whereas VTA dopamine neurons are largely unaffected. Based on this analysis, the authors identified several candidate genes that may be linked to neuronal vulnerability or resilience.

Overall, the authors present a comprehensive mouse brain atlas detailing gene expression profiles of ventral midbrain cell populations, which will be important to guide future studies that focus on understanding dopamine heterogeneity in health and disease.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In the manuscript by Salmani et al., the authors explore the transcriptomic characterization of dopamine neurons in order to explore which neurons are particularly vulnerable to 6-OHDA-induced toxicity. To do this they perform single nucleus RNA sequencing of a large number of cells in the mouse midbrain in control animals and those exposed to 6-OHDA. This manuscript provides a detailed atlas of the transcriptome of various types of ventral midbrain cells - though the focus here is on dopaminergic cells, the data can be mined by other groups interested in other cell types as well. The results in terms of cell type classification are largely consistent with previous studies, though a more nuanced picture of cellular subtypes is portrayed here, a unique advantage of the large dataset obtained. The major advance here is exploring the transcriptional profile in the ventral midbrain of animals treated with 6-OHDA, highlighting potential candidate genes that may influence vulnerability. This approach could be generalizable to investigate how various experiences and insults alter unique cell subtypes in the midbrain, providing valuable information about how these stimuli impact DA cell biology and which cells may be the most strongly affected.

Overall, the manuscript is relatively heavy on characterization and comparatively light on functional interpretation of findings. This limits the impact of the proposed work. It also isn't clear what the vulnerability factors may be in the neurons that die. Beyond the characterization of which neurons die - what is the reason that these neurons are susceptible to lesion? Also, the interpretation of these findings is going to be limited by the fact that 6-OHDA is an injectable, and the effects depend on the accuracy of injection targeting and the equal access of the toxin to access all cell populations. Though the site of injection (MFB) should hit most/all of the forebrain-projecting DA cells, the injection sites for each animal were not characterized (and since the cells from animals were pooled, the effects of injection targeting on the group data would be hard to determine in any case).

I am also not clear why the authors don't explore more about what the genes/pathways are that differentiate these conditions and why some cells are particularly vulnerable or resilient. For example, one could run GO analyses, weighted gene co-expression network analysis, or any one of a number of analysis packages to highlight which genes/pathways may give rise to vulnerability or resilience. Since the manuscript is focused on identifying cells and gene expression profiles that define vulnerability and resilience, there is much more that could have been done with this based on the data that the authors collected.

Another limitation of this study as presented is the missed opportunity to integrate it with the rich literature on midbrain dopamine (and non-dopamine) neuron subtypes. Many subtypes have been explored, with divergent functions, and can usually be distinguished by either their projection site, neurotransmitter identity, or both. Unfortunately, the projection site does not seem to track particularly well with transcriptomic identities, aside from a few genes such as DAT or the DRD2 receptor. However, this could have been more thoroughly explored in this manuscript, either by introducing AAVretro barcodes through injection into downstream brain sites, or through existing evidence within their sequencing dataset. There are likely clear interpretations from some of that literature, some of which may be more exciting than others. For example, the authors note that vGluT2-expressing cells were part of the resilient territory. This might be because this is expressed in medially-located DA cells and not laterally-located ones, which tends to track which cells die and which don't.

It is not immediately clear why the authors used a relaxed gate for mCherry fluorescence in Figure 1. This makes it difficult to definitively isolate dopaminergic neurons - or at least, neurons with a DAT-Cre expression history. While the expression of TH/DAT should be able to give a fairly reliable identification of these cells, the reason for this decision is not made clear in the text.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript from Zaman et al., investigates the role of cKit and Kit ligand in inhibitory synapse function at molecular layer interneuron (MLI) synapses onto cerebellar Purkinje cells (PC). cKit is a receptor tyrosine kinase expressed in multiple tissues, including select populations of neurons in the CNS. cKIt is activated by Kit ligand, a transmembrane protein typically expressed at the membrane of connected cells. A strength of this paper is the use of cell-specific knockouts of cKit and Kit ligand, in MLIs and PCs, respectively. In both cases, the frequency of spontaneous or miniature (in the presence of TTX) IPSCs was reduced. This suggests either a reduction in the number of functional inhibitory release sites or reduced release probability. IPSCs evoked by electrical stimulation in the molecular layer showed no change in paired-pulse ratio, indicating release probability is not changed in the cKit KO, and favoring a reduction in the number of release sites. Changes in IPSC amplitude were more subtle, with some analyses showing a decrease and others not. These data suggest that disruption of the cKit-Kit ligand complex reduces the number of functional synapses with only minor changes in synapse strength. However, immunolabelling of inhibitory synapses in cKit KO mice using VGAT and Gephyrin antibodies revealed no change in the number of puncta, but reduced size of puncta. This result is more consistent with reduced synapse strength (size) without a change in synapse number. The apparent contradiction of these results is not resolved. It would be interesting to know if immunolabeling of inhibitory synapses in Kit ligand KO mice would produce similar results.

In separate experiments, the authors used viral expression of Cre (driven by the PC-specific L7 promotor) to sparsely KO Kit ligand in PCs. In recordings from neighboring Cre+ (Kit ligand KO) and Cre - (kit ligand intact) PCs, the spontaneous IPSC frequency and amplitude were reduced. Using a similar viral approach, they also overexpressed Kit ligand in wild-type PCs. Here the results are more difficult to interpret. The frequency and amplitude of spontaneous IPSCs were significantly greater in Cre+ PCs compared to Cre- cells. However, the effect appears to be primarily due to a drastic reduction in IPSC amplitude and frequency in the control Cre- cells rather than an increase in Cre+ cells. This puzzling result is interpreted as evidence that cKit influences the proportion of synapses that are functional for neurotransmission, but not the number of release sites. Though this interpretation is not described in detail.

Overall, this paper makes great use of genetic and viral approaches to examine the function of cKit and Kit ligand at MLI-PC synapses. Measurements are generally limited to immunolabeling and spontaneous IPSC recordings, a wider variety of approaches, such as EM imaging or recording from connected MLI-PC pairs would likely provide more detail on specific pre- or postsynaptic phenotypes and more clearly determine whether the number or strength of synapses is changing.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In their study, Zaman et al. demonstrate that deletion of either the receptor tyrosine kinase Kit from cerebellar interneurons or the kit ligand (KL) from Purkinje cells reduces the inhibition of Purkinje cells. They delete Kit or KL at different developmental time points, illustrating that Kit-KL interactions are not only required for developmental synapse formation but also for synapse maintenance in adult animals. The study is interesting as it highlights a molecular mechanism for the formation of inhibitory synapses in Purkinje cells.

The tools generated, such as the floxed Kit mouse line and the virus for Kit overexpression, may have broader applications in neuroscience and beyond.

However, to enhance the publication's impact and strengthen its hypotheses, conclusions, and scientific rigor, it would be beneficial to include additional experimental details, data analyses (particularly regarding the quantification of electrophysiology data), as well as methodological and textual clarifications.

One general weakness is that Kit expression is not limited to molecular layer interneurons but also extends to the Purkinje layer and Golgi interneurons. Although this expression may not conflict with the reported results, as Purkinje layer interneurons form few or no synapses onto Purkinje cells, it should be highlighted in the text (introduction and/or discussion).

In summary, the data support the hypothesis that the interaction between Kit and KL between cerebellar Molecular Layer Interneurons and Purkinje Cells plays a crucial role in promoting the formation and maintenance of inhibitory synapses onto PCs. This study provides valuable insights that could inform future investigations on how this mechanism contributes to the dynamic regulation of Purkinje cell inhibition across development and its impact on mouse behavior.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> Bidirectional transsynaptic signaling via cell adhesion molecules and cell surface receptors contributes to the remarkable specificity of synaptic connectivity in the brain. Zaman et al., investigate how the receptor tyrosine kinase Kit and its trans-cellular kit ligand regulate molecular layer interneuron (MLI)- Purkinje cell (PC) connectivity in the cerebellum. Presynaptic Kit is specific for MLIs, and forms a trans-synaptic complex with Kit ligand in postsynaptic PC cells. The authors begin by generating Kit cKOs via an EUCOMM allele to enable cell-type specific Kit deletion. They cross this Kit cKO to the MLI-specific driver Pax2-Cre and conduct validation via Kit IHC and immunoblotting. Using this system to examine the functional consequences of presynaptic MLI Kit deletion onto postsynaptic PC cells, they record spontaneous and miniature synaptic currents from PC cells and find a selective reduction in IPSC frequency. Deletion of Kit ligand from postsynaptic PC cells also results in reduced IPSC frequency, together supporting that this trans-synaptic complex regulates GABAergic synaptic formation or maturation. The authors then show that sparse Kit ligand overexpression in PCs decreases neighboring uninfected control sIPSCs in a potentially competitive manner.

Strengths:<br /> Overall, the study addresses an important open question, the data largely support the authors' conclusions, the experiments appear well-performed, and the manuscript is well-written. I just have a few suggestions to help shore up the author's interpretations and improve the study.

Weaknesses:<br /> The strong decrease in sIPSC frequency and amplitude in control uninfected cells in Figure 4 is surprising and puzzling. The competition model proposed is one possibility, and I think the authors need to do additional experiments to help support or refute this model. The authors can conduct similar synaptic staining experiments as in Fig S4 but in their sparse infection paradigm, comparing synapses on infected and uninfected cells. Additional electrophysiological parameters in the sparse injection paradigm, such as mIPSCs or evoked IPSCs, would also help support their conclusions.

The authors should validate KL overexpression and increased cell surface levels using their virus to support their overexpression conclusions.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors examine the fascinating question of how T lymphocytes regulate proteome expression during the dramatic cell state change that accompanies the transition from the resting quiescent state to the activated, dividing state. Orthogonal, complementary assays for translation (RPM/RTA, metabolic labeling) are combined with polyribosome profiling and quantitative, biochemical determinations of protein and ribosome content to explore this question, primarily in the OT-I T lymphocyte model system. The authors conclude that the ratio of protein levels to ribosomes/protein synthesis capacity is insufficient to support activation-coupled T cell division and cell size expansion. The authors hint at cellular mechanisms to explain this apparent paradox, focusing on protein acquisition strategies, including emperipolesis and entosis, though these remain topic areas for future study.

The strengths of the paper include the focus on a fundamental biological question - the transcriptional/translational control mechanisms that support the rapid, dramatic cell state change that accompanies lymphocyte activation from the quiescent to activated state, the use of orthogonal approaches to validate the primary findings, and the creative proposal for how this state change is achieved.

The weakness of the work is that several cellular regulatory processes that could explain the apparent paradox are not explored, though they are accessible for experimental analysis. In the accounting narrative that the authors highlight, a thorough accounting of the cellular process inventory that could support the cell state change should be further explored before committing to the proposal, provocative as it is, that protein acquisition provides a principal mechanism for supporting lymphocyte activation cell state change.

Appraisal and Discussion:<br /> 1) relating to the points raised above, two recent review articles explore this topic area and highlight important areas of study in RNA biology and translational control that likely contribute to the paradox noted by the authors: Choi et al. 2022,<br /> doi.org/10.4110/in.2022.22.e39 ("RNA metabolism in T lymphocytes") and Turner 2023, DOI: 10.1002/bies.202200236 ("Regulation and function of poised mRNAs in lymphocytes"). These should be cited, and the broader areas of RNA biology discussed by these authors integrated into the current manuscript.

2) The authors cite the Wolf et al. study from the Geiger lab (doi.org/10.1038/s41590-020-0714-5, ref. 41) though largely to compare determined values for ribosome number. Many other elements of the Wolf paper seem quite relevant, for example, the very high abundance of glycolytic enzymes (and whose mRNAs are quite abundant as well), where (and as others have reported) there is a dramatic activation of glycolytic flux upon T cell activation that is largely independent of transcription and translation, the evidence for "pre-existing, idle ribosomes", the changes in mRNA copy number and protein synthesis rate Spearman correlation that accompanies activation, and that the efficiencies of mRNA translation are heterogeneous. These data suggest that more accounting needs to be done to establish that there is a paradox.

As one example, what if glycolytic enzyme protein levels in the resting cell are in substantial excess of what's needed to support glycolysis (likely true) and so translational upregulation can be directed to other mRNAs whose products are necessary for function of the activated cell? In this scenario, the dilution of glycolytic enzyme concentration that would come with cell division would not necessarily have a functional consequence. And the idle ribosomes could be recruited to key subsets of mRNAs (transcriptionally or post-transcriptionally upregulated) and with that a substantial remodeling of the proteome (authors ref. 44). The study of Ricciardi et al. 2018 (The translational machinery of human CD4+ T cells is poised for activation and controls the switch from quiescence to metabolic remodeling (doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2018.08.009) is consistent with this possibility. That study, and the short reviews noted above, are useful in highlighting the contributions of selective translational remodeling and the signaling pathways that contribute to the cell state change of T cell activation. From this perspective, an alternative view can be posited, where the quiescent state is biologically poised to support activation, where subsets of proteins and mRNAs are present in far higher levels than that necessary to support basal function of the quiescent lymphocyte. In such a model, the early stages of lymphocyte activation and cell division are supported by this surplus inventory, with transcriptional activation, including ribosomal genes, primarily contributing at later stages of the activation process. An obvious analogy is the developing Drosophila embryo where maternal inheritance supports early-stage development and zygotic transcriptional contributions subsequently assuming primary control (e.g. DOI 10.1002/1873-3468.13183 , DOI: 10.1126/science.abq4835). To pursue that biological logic would require quantifying individual mRNAs and their ribosome loading states, mRNA-specific elongation rates, existing individual protein levels, turnover rates of both mRNAs and proteins, ribosome levels, mean ribosome occupancy state, and how each of these parameters is altered in response to activation. Such accounting could go far to unveil the paradox. This is a considerable undertaking, though, and outside the scope of the current paper.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This paper takes a novel look at the protein economy of primary human and mouse T-cells - in both resting and activated state. Their findings in primary human T-cells are that:

1. A large fraction of ribosomes are stalled in resting cultured primary human lymphocytes, and these stalled ribosomes are likely to be monosomes.<br /> 2. Elongation occurs at similar rates for HeLa cells and lymphocytes, with the active ribosomes in resting lymphocytes translating at a similar rate as fully activated lymphocytes.

They then turn their attention to mouse OT-1 lymphocytes, looking at translation rates both in vitro and in vivo. Day 1 resting T-cells also show stalling - which curiously wasn't seen on freshly purified cells - I didn't understand these differences.

In vivo, they show that it is possible to monitor accurate translation and measure rates. Perhaps most interestingly they note a paradoxically high ratio of cellular protein to ribosomes insufficient to support their rapid in vivo division, suggesting that the activated lymphocyte proteome in vivo may be generated in an unusual manner.

This was an interesting and provocative paper. Lots of interesting techniques and throwing down challenges to the community - it manages to address a number of important issues without necessarily providing answers.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This manuscript provides a more or less quantitative analysis of protein synthesis in lymphocytes. I have no issue with the data as presented, as I'm sure all measurements have been expertly done. I see no need for additional experimental work, although it would be helpful if the authors could comment on the possibility of measuring the rate of synthesis of a defined protein, say a histone, in cells prior to and after activation. The conclusion the authors leave us with is the idea that the rates of protein synthesis recorded here are incompatible with observed rates of T cell division in vivo. Indeed, in the final paragraph of the discussion, the authors note the mismatch between what they consider a requirement for cell division, and the observed rates of protein synthesis. They then invoke unconventional mechanisms to make up for the shortfall, without -in this reviewer's opinion- discussing in adequate detail the technical limitations of the methodology used.

A key question is the broad interest, novelty, and extension of current knowledge, in comparison with Argüello's (reference 27) 'SunRise' method. It would be helpful for the authors to stake out a clear position as to the similarities and differences with reference 27: what have we learned that is new? The authors could cite reference 27 in the introduction of their manuscript, given the similarity in approach. That said, the findings reported here will generate further discussion.

The manuscript would increase in impact if the authors were to clearly define why a particular measurement is important and then show the actual experiment/result. As an example, it would be helpful to explain to the non-expert why the distinction between monosomes, polysomes, and stalled versions of the same is important, and then explain the rationale of the actual experiment: how can these distinctions be made with confidence, and what are confounding variables? The initial use of human cells, later abandoned in favor of the OT-1 in vitro and in vivo models, requires contextualization. If the goal is to address the relationship between rates of translation and cell division of antigen-activated T cells in vivo, then a lot of the work on the human model and the in vitro experiments becomes more of a distraction, unless properly contextualized. Is there any reason to assume that antigen-specific activation in vivo will impact translation differently than the use of the PMA/ionomycin/IL2 cocktail? The way the work is presented leaves me with the impression that everything that was done is included, regardless of whether it goes to the core of the question(s) of interest.

It would be helpful if the authors made explicit some of the assumptions that underlie their quantitative comparisons. Likewise, the authors should discuss the limitations of their methods and provide alternative interpretations where possible, even if they consider them less/not plausible, with justification. As they themselves note, improvements in the RPM protocols raised the increase in translating ribosomes upon activation from 10-fold to 15-fold. Who's to say that is the best achievable result? What about the reliability/optimization of the other measurements?

The composition of the set of proteins produced upon activation will differ from cell to cell (CD4, CD8, B, resting vs. dividing). Even if analyses are performed on fixed cells, the ability of the monoclonal anti-puromycin antibody to penetrate the matrix of the various fixed cell types may not be equal for all of them, depending on protein composition, susceptibility to fixation etc. Is it possible for puromycin to occupy the ribosome's A site and terminate translation without forming a covalent bond with the nascent chain? This could affect the staining with anti-puromycin antibodies and also underestimate the number of nascent chains.

I believe that the concept of FACS-based quantitation also requires an explanation for the non-expert. For the FACS plots shown, the differences between the highest and lowest RPM scores for cells that divided and that have a similar CFSE score is at least 10-fold. Does that mean that divided cells can differ by that margin in terms of the number of nascent chains present? If I make the assumption that cells stimulated with PMA/ionomycin/IL2 respond more or less synchronously, why would there be a 10-fold difference in absolute fluorescence intensity (anti=puromycin) for randomly chosen cells with similar CFSE values? While the use of MFI values is standard practice in cytofluorimetry, the authors should devote some comments to such variation at the population level.

It is assumed that for cells to complete division, they must have produced a full and complete copy of their proteome and only then divide. What if cells can proceed to divide even when expressing a subset of the proteome of departure (=the threshold set required for initiation of division), only to complete synthesis of the 'missing ' portion once cell division is complete? Would this obviate the requirement for an unusual mechanism of protein acquisition (trogocytosis; other)?

Translation is estimated to proceed at a rate of ~6 amino acids per second, but surely there is variability in this number attributable to inaccuracies of the methods used, in addition to biological variability. Were these so-called standard values determined for a range of different tissues? It stands to reason that there might be variation depending on the availability of initiation/elongation factors, NTPs, aminoacyl tRNAs etc. What is the margin of error in calculating chain elongation rates based on the results shown here?

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Geurrero and colleagues introduces two new metrics that extend the concept of "druggability"- loosely speaking, the potential suitability of a particular drug, target, or drug-target interaction for pharmacological intervention-to collections of drugs and genetic variants. The study draws on previously measured growth rates across a combinatoriality complete mutational landscape involving 4 variants of the TEM-50 (beta lactamase) enzyme, which confers resistance to commonly used beta-lactam antibiotics. To quantify how growth rate - in this case, a proxy for evolutionary fitness - is distributed across allelic variants and drugs, they introduce two concepts: "variant vulnerability" and "drug applicability".

Variant vulnerability is the mean vulnerability (1-normalized growth rate) of a particular variant to a library of drugs, while drug applicability measures the mean across the collection of genetic variants for a given drug. The authors rank the drugs and variants according to these metrics. They show that the variant vulnerability of a particular mutant is uncorrelated with the vulnerability of its one-step neighbors, and analyze how higher-order combinations of single variants (SNPs) contribute to changes in growth rate in different drug environments.

The work addresses an interesting topic and underscores the need for evolution-based metrics to identify candidate pharmacological interventions for treating infections. The authors are clear about the limitations of their approach - they are not looking for immediate clinical applicability - and provide simple new measures of druggability that incorporate an evolutionary perspective, an important complement to the orthodoxy of aggressive, kill-now design principles. I think the ideas here will interest a wide range of readers, but I think the work could be improved with additional analysis - perhaps from evolutionary simulations on the measured landscapes - that tie the metrics to evolutionary outcomes.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors introduce the notions of "variant vulnerability" and "drug applicability" as metrics quantifying the sensitivity of a given target variant across a panel of drugs and the effectiveness of a drug across variants, respectively. Given a data set comprising a measure of drug effect (such as growth rate suppression) for pairs of variants and drugs, the vulnerability of a variant is obtained by averaging this measure across drugs, whereas the applicability of a drug is obtained by averaging the measure across variants.

The authors apply the methodology to a data set that was published by Mira et al. in 2015. The data consist of growth rate measurements for a combinatorially complete set of 16 genetic variants of the antibiotic resistance enzyme beta-lactamase across 10 drugs and drug combinations at 3 different drug concentrations, comprising a total of 30 different environmental conditions. For reasons that did not become clear to me, the present authors select only 7 out of 30 environments for their analysis. In particular, for each chosen drug or drug combination, they choose the data set corresponding to the highest drug concentration. As a consequence, they cannot assess to what extent their metrics depend on drug concentration. This is a major concern since Mira et al. concluded in their study that the differences between growth rate landscapes measured at different concentrations were comparable to the differences between drugs. If the new metrics display a significant dependence on drug concentration, this would considerably limit their usefulness.

As a consequence of the small number of variant-drug combinations that are used, the conclusions that the authors draw from their analysis are mostly tentative with weak statistical support. For example, the authors argue that drug combinations tend to have higher drug applicability than single drugs, because a drug combination ranks highest in their panel of 7. However, the effect profile of the single drug cefprozil is almost indistinguishable from that of the top-ranking combination, and the second drug combination in the data set ranks only 5th out of 7.

To assess the environment-dependent epistasis among the genetic mutations comprising the variants under study, the authors decompose the data of Mira et al. into epistatic interactions of different orders. This part of the analysis is incomplete in two ways. First, in their study, Mira et al. pointed out that a fairly large fraction of the fitness differences between variants that they measured were not statistically significant, which means that the resulting fitness landscapes have large statistical uncertainties. These uncertainties should be reflected in the results of the interaction analysis in Figure 4 of the present manuscript. Second, the interpretation of the coefficients obtained from the epistatic decomposition depends strongly on the formalism that is being used (in the jargon of the field, either a Fourier or a Taylor analysis can be applied to fitness landscape data). The authors need to specify which formalism they have employed and phrase their interpretations accordingly.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors introduce two new concepts for antimicrobial resistance borrowed from pharmacology, "variant vulnerability" (how susceptible a particular resistance gene variant is across a class of drugs) and "drug applicability" (how useful a particular drug is against multiple allelic variants). They group both terms under an umbrella term "drugability". They demonstrate these features for an important class of antibiotics, the beta-lactams, and allelic variants of TEM-1 beta-lactamase.

The strength of the result is in its conceptual advance and that the concepts seem to work for beta-lactam resistance. However, I do not necessarily see the advance of lumping both terms under "drugability", as this adds an extra layer of complication in my opinion.

I also think that the utility of the terms could be more comprehensively demonstrated by using examples across different antibiotic classes and/or resistance genes. For instance, another good model with published data might have been trimethoprim resistance, which arises through point mutations in the folA gene (although, clinical resistance tends to be instead conferred by a suite of horizontally acquired dihydrofolate reductase genes, which are not so closely related as the TEM variants explored here).

The impact of the work on the field depends on a more comprehensive demonstration of the applicability of these new concepts to other drugs.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Papazian et al. demonstrate that human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) can be successfully and stably grafted into immunodeficient mice. They demonstrate that the adoptive transfer of PBMCs from multiple sclerosis (MS) patients is capable of inducing damage to the central nervous system (CNS). Furthermore, they demonstrate that the CNS inflammatory properties of these transferred cells are more dependent on HLA restriction rather than the disease status of the donor. Specifically, T cells restricted by HLA-DR15 (from both an MS patient and a healthy control) showed a greater propensity to induce neuroinflammation than T cells transferred from an MS patient that are restricted by a different MHC haplotype. This observation suggests that the differences in the peptide repertoire presented by this MHC haplotype biases adaptive immune responses toward encephalitogenic T cell generation. The conclusions of this paper are partially supported by their data, but the lack of important considerations and various controls limits the overall impact of this study. Major weaknesses of this study include:

1) The extent to which various immune cell quantification is performed. Two of the reasons the authors cite for the use of this model rather than a traditional EAE model are: i) the lack of involvement of CD8 T cells in the pathogenesis of EAE and ii) the marginal importance of B cells in EAE pathogenesis. However, throughout their paper, the authors never quantify the difference in CD4 vs CD8 T cell infiltration into the CNS. While repeatedly claiming that there are fewer CD4 T cells present than CD8 T cells within the CNS, this data is not included. Further, spinal cord numbers of CD4 and CD8 are not provided in lieu of CD3 T cell characterization. Given that there are far more hCD4 T cells in the periphery in these mice than CD8 T cells as well as the fact that the lack of B2m expression in this mouse model biases cells towards a CD4 fate, the omission of these data is concerning. Additionally, B cells don't make up any significant component of the cells transferred from HLA-DR15 donors. While the cells transferred from the HLA-DR13 donor are composed of a considerable number of B cells, the mice that received these cells didn't develop any signs of neurologic disease.

2) Incomplete exploration of potential experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) modeling. The authors justify the use of an extremely high amount of myelin peptide when immunizing their mice by citing that another humanized mouse model had such a requirement to induce clinical EAE. However, a demonstration of this technical requirement in their own model is not provided. Rather, they show that C57BL/6 mice get milder disease when such large doses of peptides are administered, leading to speculation that this is due to a tolerizing immune response that occurs at such high doses. Comparison of the susceptibility of B2m-NOG mice to EAE dependent on various peptide doses would be highly informative. Given that the number of hCD45+ in the periphery of NOG mice decreases following this immunization it would be prudent for the authors to determine if such a high peptide dose is truly ideal for EAE development in this mouse model.

3) The degree of myelin injury is not presented. The statement is repeatedly made that "demyelination was not observed in the brain or spinal cord" but no quantification of myelin staining is shown. A central feature of multiple sclerosis and related diseases is demyelination of the CNS. Hence, while compartmentalized inflammatory responses are detailed in this report, the utility of the humanized model for the exploration of human CNS demyelinating diseases remains unclear and in doubt.

Minor points:

- Method of quantification (e.g. cells per brain slice in figures 2E; 4E) is not very quantitative and should be justified or more appropriately updated to be more rigorous in methodology.

- Fig. 4 data should be shown from un-immunized DR15 MS and DR15 HI mice.

The premise of this work carries great potential. Namely, developing a humanized mouse system in which features of adaptive immunity that contribute to inflammatory demyelination can be interrogated will allow for traction into therapeutics currently unavailable to the field. Immediate questions stemming from the current study include the potential effect of ex vivo activation of PBMCs (or individual T and B cells) in vitro prior to transfer as well as the TCR and BCR repertoire of CNS vs peripheral lymphocytes before and after immunization. This group has been thoughtful and clever about their approach (e.g. use of subjects treated with natalizumab), which gives hope that fundamental aspects of pathogenesis will be uncovered by this form of modeling MS disease. Overall, while the current study makes several unique observations, the data collection is incomplete and the impact of this study could be greatly improved by addressing the limitations noted.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Multiple sclerosis is an inflammatory and demyelinating disease of the central nervous system where immune cells play an important role in disease pathobiology. Increased incidence of disease in individuals carrying certain HLA class-II genes plus studies in animal models suggests that HLA-DRB1*15 restricted CD4 T cells might be responsible for disease initiation, and other immune cells such as B cells, CD8 T cells, monocytes/macrophages, and dendritic cells (DC) also contribute to disease pathology. However, a direct role of human immune cells in disease is lacking to a lag between immune activation and the first sign of clinical disease. Therefore, there is an emphasis on understanding whether immune cells from HLA-DR15+ MS patients differ from HLA-DR15+ healthy controls in their phenotype and pro-inflammatory capacity. To overcome this, authors have used severely immunodeficient B2m-NOG mice that lack B, T cells, and NK cells and have defective innate immune responses and engrafted PBMCs from 3 human donors (HLA-DR15+ MS and HI donors, HLA-DR13+ MS donor) in these B2m-NOG mice to determine whether they can induce CNS inflammation and demyelination like MS.<br /> The study's strength is the use of PBMCs from HLADRB1-typed MS subjects and healthy control, the use of NOG mice, the characterization of immune subsets (revealing some interesting observations), CNS pathology etc. The major weaknesses are i) lack of sufficient sample size (n=1 in each group) to make any conclusion, ii) lack of phenotype in mice, iii) no disease phenotype even in humanized mice immunized for disease using standard disease induction protocol employed in an animal model of MS, and iv) mechanistic data on why CD8 T cells are more enriched than CD4+ T cells. The last point is very important as postmortem human MS patients' brain tissue had been shown to have more CD8+ T cells than CD4+ T cells.

Thus, this work is an important step in the right direction as previous humanized studies have not used HLA-DRB1 typed PBMCs however the weaknesses as highlighted above make the findings incremental to the field.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In the manuscript entitled "A theory of hippocampal theta correlations", the authors propose a new mechanism for phase precession and theta-time scale generation, as well as their interpretation in terms of navigation and neural coding. The authors propose the existence of extrinsic and intrinsic sequences during exploration, which may have complementary functions. These two types of sequences depend on external input and network interactions, but differ on the extent to which they depend on movement direction. Moreover, the authors propose a novel interpretation for intrinsic sequences, namely to signal a landmark cue that is independent of direction of traversal. Finally, a readout neuron can be trained to distinguish extrinsic from intrinsic sequences.

The study puts forward novel computational ideas related to neural coding, partly based on previous work from the authors, including published (Leibold, 2020, Yiu et al., 2022) and unpublished (Ahmedi et al., 2022. bioRxiv) work. The manuscript will contribute to the understanding of the mechanisms behind phase precession, as well as to how we interpret hippocampal temporal coding for navigation and memory.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Place cells fire sequentially during hippocampal theta oscillations, forming a spatial representation of behavioral experiences in a temporally-compressed manner. The firing sequences during theta cycles are widely considered as essential assemblies for learning, memory, and planning. Many theoretical studies have investigated the mechanism of hippocampal theta firing sequences; however, they are either entirely extrinsic or intrinsic. In other words, they attribute the theta sequences to external sensorimotor drives or focus exclusively on the inherent firing patterns facilitated by the recurrent network architectures. Both types of theories are inadequate for explaining the complexity of the phenomena, particularly considering the observations in a previous paper by the authors: theta sequences independent of animal movement trajectories may occur simultaneously with sensorimotor inputs (Yiu et al., 2022).

In this manuscript, the authors concentrate on the CA3 area of the hippocampus and develop a model that accounts for both mechanisms. Specifically, the model generates extrinsic sequences through the short-term facilitation of CA3 cell activities, and intrinsic sequences via recurrent projections from the dentate gyrus. The model demonstrates how the phase precession of place cells in theta sequences is modulated by running direction and the recurrent DG-CA3 network architecture. To evaluate the extent to which firing sequences are induced by sensorimotor inputs and recurrent network architecture, the authors use the Pearson correlation coefficient to measure the "intrinsicity" and "extrinsicity" of spike pairs in their simulations.

I find this research topic to be both important and interesting, and I appreciate the clarity of the paper. The idea of combining intrinsic and extrinsic mechanisms for theta sequences is novel, and the model effectively incorporates two crucial phenomena: phase precession and directionality of theta sequences. I particularly commend the authors' efforts to integrate previous theories into their model and conduct a systematic comparison. This is exactly what our community needs: not only the development of new models, but also understanding the critical relationships between different models.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Elfstrom et al describes the impact of implementing self-sampling as the primary screening test in Sweden to address decreases in coverage following the COVID pandemic. The authors have a very rich dataset including all records of invitations to screen and screening results in the Stockholm area. A limitation is that there is no individual record linkage to allow investigation of the profile of the individuals who chose to screen using the self-sample.

The conclusions are generally well supported by the authors with the following exceptions:

1) There was not enough evidence presented in the manuscript to conclude that "The most likely explanation for the large increase in population coverage seen is that the sending of self-sampling kits resulted in improved attendance in particular among previously non-attending women."

2) The authors state there is no evidence that delays in screening have impacted cervical cancer rates however they present no data to this effect in the manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

During the Covid19 pandemic, most cervical cancer screening programs were temporarily put on hold. The authors describe how Swedish health authorities dealt with this situation by implementing primary self-sampling and by launching a campaign with concomitant vaccination and screening. Besides, they show that the coverage of the screening program was one year after the start of the pandemic at pre-pandemic levels.

Strengths of the paper are the clear presentation of the steps taken by the Swedish health authorities and the high quality of the presented screening coverage data which could be obtained directly from the screening registry. However, the paper would benefit from more in-depth analyses because the presented data raise questions. The number of invitations was >30 percent lower in the first year of the pandemic (Figure 1), but the screening coverage was only 4-5 percent lower. In the second year of the pandemic (year 2021), coverage was back at pre-pandemic levels, but the role of primary self-sampling in restoring screening coverage is a bit unclear. It is obvious that primary self-sampling made it possible to invite women again for screening during the pandemic, but there is no data on acceptance of primary self-sampling. Besides, the increase in coverage in year 2021 was only 4% and it is not clear whether such a modest increase could also have been achieved without primary self-sampling. In addition to self-sampling, the authors describe the launch of a concomitant vaccination and screening campaign. This is an interesting initiative but the authors do not show data on the coverage of this campaign in the target age range.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors report on the nature of interventions that were applied to aid and improve engagement in cervical screening, brought about by the SARS CoV Pandemic in Sweden.

I appreciate that the impact of these interventions, given that they are recent, will take some time to quantify but the description (and reach) of the policy changes that occurred in a short amount of time is of significant interest to the screening community. The piece on HPV Even Faster is particularly novel; I am not aware of another example of where this has been enacted within a routine programme.

The authors make reference to (15) where the reader can find greater details relating to the population who received the offer of self sampling (and the nature of the device). However I was a little confused (in this stand alone piece) as to who the self sampling group constituted exactly. Did this group not include pregnant women, women invited for first screen or women on non routine recall?

The authors state that "the most likely explanation for the large increase in population coverage seen is that the sending of self-sampling kits resulted in improved attendance in particular among previously non-attending women" - why is this written as speculation at this stage (?) is it not possible to attribute directly the contribution made by self sampling, or is this in hand?

While self sampling is certainly an option that can support uptake and enfranchisement in cervical screening - its overall performance is fundamentally contingent on the number of women who then comply with follow up should the HPV test be positive; it is not simply about who returns the sample. It would have been of interest to see the proportion of women who did comply with follow up.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this article, Moses and Harel present genetic knock-out and partial rescue of the phenotypes of neuropeptides gh1 and fshb, and tshb in a short-lived vertebrate African turquoise killifish Nothobranchius furzeri. Neuropeptides are among the key regulators of growth, reproduction, and metabolism. Understanding their mechanisms of action has important implications for vertebrate physiology.

The authors first characterize the loss of function phenotypes of gh1, fshb, and tshb in killifish, followed by attempts to rescue the loss of function phenotypes through ectopic expression of two of the neuropeptides. The primary strength and innovation of this work are partially rescuing the phenotypes by muscular injection of plasmids followed by electroporation, including a doxycycline-inducible system for tunable expression control. The techniques for tunable expression control and rescue of knock-out phenotypes have not been established for killifish and will be useful to expand the technical repertoire of this emerging model organism. Once established, these techniques can be extended to other categories of genes to rapidly evaluate their function and the impact of their loss or gain of function on killifish and other fish models.

However, the phenotypes discussed need further characterization, many technical details are unclear, and it seems that appropriate controls are missing for some of the experiments. The rescued phenotypes also need more validation.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This manuscript describes the development of CRISPR knockouts for gh, fsh and tsh in the fast-aging Nothobranchius furzeri grz strain. CRISPR knockouts have been published before, and the strength of the paper is that here, the authors include a novel, easy and fast way of rescuing the loss of function in the entire body by electroporation in muscle. This offers flexibility in timing and dosage, and leads to intriguing results regarding the role of these hormones in growth and fertility. Finally they also add a conditional doxycycline-dependent overexpression model that would allow even more control over the modalities of the rescue. The phenotypes of the knockouts were not the key message of the paper and remained at times only superficially described. The doxycycline-dependent overexpression was only minimally validated, and here it is not yet clear how robust this system is in terms of overexpression levels, timing, and reversibility.

Overall this study brings a new set of tools in the killifish toolbox that can have much wider applications and will be appreciated also in other teleost models.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Moises and Harel develop an impressive set of novel molecular tools in African turquoise killifish, which include hormone tagging by a self-cleavable fluorescent reporter, intramuscular electroporation for ectopic transgene expression and a doxycycline-inducible system. All these tools are per se fundamental technological innovations in killifish. The authors apply their advanced techniques to modulate growth and gonad development in killifish, showing that the methods work and that it is possible to modulate these fundamental developmental milestones through the use of their molecular tools.

Strengths:

The tools developed are effective, convincing and will likely be adopted as a reference for future work, beyond the field of peptide hormones. I congratulate the authors for their ingenuity and resourcefulness. The figures are clear and of high standard.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript does not obviously follow a question-driven flow and the authors do not make a compelling case about the necessity of developing such platform.<br /> The manuscript should be framed as a tool/resource, showcasing the interventions with gh and fshb to support the tool.

The manuscript is not thoroughly edited and the authors should check and review extensively for improvements to the use of English. Overall, I find a disconnect between the way in which the manuscript is written and the quality of the figures. While the figures have a very high quality standard, the Abstract, Introduction and Discussion are not doing justice to the work done.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This article focuses on drug resistance acquired by Plasmodium falciparum malaria parasites that have been pressured with different inhibitors of the essential enzyme DHODH (dihydroorotate dehydrogenase). The study focuses on collateral sensitivity between DSM265, which has been evaluated in a human clinical trial and found to select for resistance via the point mutation C276Y (C276F and G181S were also implicated; PMID 29909069), and the GSK compound TMCDC-125334, against which a panel of DHODH mutant parasites (including C276Y) were found to have increased sensitivity. The authors herein explore this case of "collateral sensitivity" by examining whether these two inhibitors, when used simultaneously, might preclude the selection of resistant parasites. The answer, in this case, is no; collateral sensitivity did not prevent parasites from acquiring a novel mutation (V532A) that mediated resistance to both. Culture competition assays provide evidence that this mutant retains normal fitness. The authors conclude that for this target the idea of combining these inhibitors is not a viable therapeutic strategy. The authors also illustrate how TMCDC-125334 can select for resistance via a separate mutation (I263S) or amplification of a chromosomal segment containing dhodh. They also present modeling data to examine binding poses and how mutations could impact drug binding, which is allosteric to the enzyme's substrates (orotate and FMN). The data are thorough and provide convincing evidence that in this case collateral sensitization by distinct chemotypes does not translate into a viable strategy to inhibit DHODH in a way that can preclude mutations that confer cross-resistance.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The usual strategy to combat antimicrobial drug resistance is to administer a combination of two drugs with distinct mechanisms. An alternative, however, would be to use two drugs that attack the same target, if resistance to one is incompatible with resistance to the other. The authors previously studied parasites resistant to the dihydroorotate dehydrogenase (DHODH) inhibitor DSM265 through an E182D mutation and found that resistance to another inhibitor, IDI-6273, resulted in a reversion to wild-type. Here, they screened various other inhibitors and found that TCMDC-125334 is more active on DSM265-resistant parasites than the wild-type. In this case, however, it was possible for the parasites to become resistant to both inhibitors, either by increasing the copy number of DSM-265-resistant DHODH genes (with a C276Y mutation) or by the emergence of a different mutation. The selection of wild-type parasites with both compounds resulted in resistance but this took considerably longer than for either compound alone. (The actual frequency of double resistance emergence was not measured.)

Overall the results suggest that for DHODH, when pre-existing resistant parasites are selected with another inhibitor, the results will depend on both the initial mutation and the new inhibitor. The data are solid and convincing and suggest that DHODH has considerable scope for resistance development. The observations do have relevance for other inhibitors and/or enzyme drug targets. However from the data so far, the sweeping statements that the authors make concerning double resistance, in general, are not supported.

The formatting of the Figures requires some improvement and in some cases, more details of the statistical analyses are needed.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

'Collateral sensitivity' occurs when drug-resistance mutations render a drug target more sensitive to inhibition by another drug, which has been previously described in some detail for malaria parasite dihydroorotate dehydrogenase (DHODH - see refs 36, 46, and 47, for example). Although it has been suggested that combinations of such drugs could potentially suppress the emergence of resistance, cross-resistance-associated mutation (or copy-number variation, CNV) could render such combination strategies ineffective. In the current study, the authors assess a new pairing of DHODH-targeting drugs. Cross-resistant parasites with DHODH mutation or CNV arise following either sequential or combined drug selection, suggesting that the drug combination described would likely fail to effectively suppress the emergence of resistance.

The strength of the study is that it describes, for a particular drug combination, different mutations associated either with collateral sensitivity or with cross-resistance, and the authors conclude that "combination treatment with DSM265 and TCMDC-125334 failed to suppress resistance". They go on to say that this "brings into question the usefulness of pursuing further DHODH inhibitors." More specific interpretations and implications of the study are as follows:<br /> a. Other combinations may also fail but there may be combinations that can effectively suppress resistance. A more exhaustive analysis of mutational space will likely be required to determine which combinations if any, would be predicted to succeed in a clinical setting.<br /> b. It was previously reported that "a combination of [DHODH] wild-type and mutant-type selective inhibitors led to resistance far less often than either drug alone. ... Comparative growth assays demonstrated that two mutant parasites grew less robustly than their wild-type parent, and the purified protein of those mutants showed a decrease in catalytic efficiency, thereby suggesting a reason for the diminished growth rate" (Ref 46). Also, "selection with a combination of Genz-669178, a wild-type PfDHODH inhibitor, and IDI-6273, a mutant-selective PfDHODH inhibitor, did not yield resistant parasites" (Ref 36). It is possible that these previously tested combinations would also yield cross-resistant mutants if selected further.<br /> c. Although increased DHODH copy number "confers only moderately reduced susceptibility" to the drug used for selection and although these clones were not assessed here for cross-resistance, it seems likely that CNV may represent a general mechanism that could undermine other collateral resistance strategies.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This well written and designed study by Broca-Brisson et al describes the generation of a new in vitro model for creatine transporter deficiency (CTD), making use of human brain organoid cultures derived from CTD patients. This new model will certainly prove itself very useful to better understand this genetic disease essentially affecting CNS. As CTD has no satisfactory treatment so far (despite more than 20 years of research), this new model will also be very useful to design and develop new treatments.

In particular, through the use of immunohistochemistry, real time PCR, and proteomics combined with integrative bioinformatic and statistical analysis, authors provide very interesting new information on the brain pathways affected in CTD (e.g. neurogenesis with down-regulation of SOX2 and PAX6 but up-regulation of GSK3b; and proteins involved in autistic spectrum, epilepsies or intellectual disabilities).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In their recent manuscript, Broca-Brisson et al. deliver a multidisciplinary approach to investigate creatine transporter deficiency (CTD) using human-derived brain organoids. The authors have provided a compelling CTD human brain organoid model using induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) derived from individuals with CTD. This model shows distinct differences in creatine uptake between organoids originating from CTD patients and their healthy counterparts. Furthermore, the researchers effectively restored creatine uptake by reintroducing the wild-type CRT in the iPSCs.

The team used advanced molecular biology techniques and sophisticated mass spectrometry to identify changes in protein regulation within these CTD brain organoids. They propose an intriguing theory linking reduced creatine uptake to abnormalities in the GSK3β kinase pathway and mitochondrial function, which might underlie intellectual disability seen in CTD patients.<br /> This study is well-structured and easy to follow, with clear and concise explanations of the experiments. The authors present an important idea: a dysfunction in just one protein transporter (CRT) can cause significant biochemical changes in the brain. Their findings are well-presented and backed by high-quality figures and comprehensive data analysis.

There are only minor suggestions for improvement in this manuscript. The authors strongly link creatine uptake, the GSK3β pathway, and intellectual disability. Enhancing this claim with data on phosphorylation differences between organoids derived from healthy individuals and those from CTD patients could solidify this foundation and facilitate a more holistic understanding of the disease. In addition, the in vitro model based on organoids might be closer than other experimental setups; however, proving that those differences are also present in vivo would greatly benefit the story.

There is also some uncertainty around the rescue experiment using the exogenous SLC6A8 gene. Could the difference in creatine uptake between the rescue iPSCs and the healthy control be due to CRT overexpression? Higher levels of the transporter may explain the elevated levels of intracellular creatine. Thus, a comparison using Western blotting experiments could be a valuable addition to evaluating the expression levels of this protein.

Overall, this study provides valuable insights into CTD and potential therapeutic targets. It enriches our understanding of CTD and opens up new avenues for future research in this field.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors were seeking to improve understanding of how wind and wave action affect the use of energetically demanding wing flapping and running by albatross engaged in takeoff flight. To accomplish this in the complex and challenging environment in which albatross live, the authors sought to use accelerometry and geographic positioning to infer patterns of locomotion, flight orientation relative to the prevailing wind, and wave height during takeoff.

The major strength of the methods and results is that the use of accelerometry and novel interpretations of data from a geographic positioning system provides new insight into the use of waves by albatross and how the effects of wave magnitude interact with the wind to modulate energy demands during takeoff. Weaknesses of the approach are due to the challenging environmental conditions in which albatross live. The interpretation of accelerometry data was not validated using a subset of the sample synchronized with video (prior validation was cited for shearwaters). The interpretation of wind direction relative to flight path is based on the behavior of the bird without concurrent measures of local wind velocity.

The authors achieved their aims, and their results support their conclusions.

Although it is generally understood that albatross and many other birds choose to takeoff into the wind to reduce energetic costs, the authors provide novel quantitative data on this behavior. Their results on the effects of wave height and the interactions between wave height and wind provide novel insight into how albatross harvest energy from their complicated and dynamic environment to reduce the energy they must output to get into the air. In particular, the new insight into the effects of wave height should revise understanding among ornithologists, ocean ecologists and those who study the mechanics of animal locomotion. The use of accelerometry and geographic positioning systems to measure flight behavior and ocean ecology should inspire other researchers to adopt similar methods.

Albatross live in a complex and poorly understood environment that is likely to be threatened by climate change. This research provides worthwhile new insight into how wind and wave action affect takeoff in albatross, and can therefore improve insight into how changes in these variables with climate change may affect the distribution of albatross populations.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors used cutting-edge bio-telemetry technology to decipher the roles of wind speed and wave height on the take-off of albatrosses from the water surface. They revealed that each of these factors contributes to take-off in a unique way with interesting interactions of the two factors. The authors achieved their objectives and their results support their conclusions. This work will set new standards in integrating information about bird movement and environmental conditions experienced by the bird in a comprehensive, integrative and hypothesis-driven framework. The approach of the authors is highly advanced, providing heuristic insights for many additional systems where organisms are influenced by, and respond to small-scale environmental conditions.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The present study used novel data logging devices to record the foraging behavior of wandering albatrosses. Specifically, the authors showed how localized winds and wave heights influence their ability to take off from the sea surface, which is the most expensive behavior they engage in while foraging. There is no better platform for this initial work because these birds are so large, the equipment they can carry without creating significant impact is tremendous.

The results were impressive, presented well, and the paper was generally written in an accessible way to readers with less knowledge. The authors provide a convincing set of results that support the aims and conclusions. The theory and application could be used to inform our understanding of flight behavior in other seabirds.

Although the idea of taking off from the sea surface may sound trivial, it is essential to understand that albatrosses and other soaring seabirds have wings that are adapted for soaring (i.e. long and narrow). The trade off, however, is that powered flight through wing flapping is energetically expensive because the wings have a shallow amplitude and generate less power compared to a shorter, wider wing. Thus, wind is everything and this study shows how wind facilitates the ability of the birds to gain flight using wind and waves. Awesome!

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Seah and Saranathan investigates the cell-based growth mechanism of so called honeycomb-structures in the upper lamina of papilionid wing scales by investigating a number of different species. The authors chose Parides eurimedes as a focus species with the developmental pathway of five other papilionid as a comparative backup. Through state-of-the-art microscopy images of different developmental steps, the author find that the intricate f-actin filaments reorganise, support cuticular discs that template the air holes that form the honeycomb lattice. The manuscript is well written and easy to follow, yet based on a somewhat limited sample size for their focus species, limiting attempts to suppress expression and alter structure shape.

The fact that the authors find a novel reorganisation mechanism is exciting and warrants further research, e.g. into the formation of other microscale features or smaller scale structures (e.g. the mentioned gyroid networks).<br /> The authors place their results in the discussion in the light of current literature (although the references could be expanded further to include the breadth of the field). However, the mechanistic explanation completely ignores the mechanical properties of the membranes as an origin of some of the observed phenomena (see McDougal's work for example) and places the occurence of some features into Turing patterns and Ostwald ripening, which I find somewhat unlikely and I suggest that the authors discover this aspects further in the discussion.

I have little concerns regarding the experimental approach beyond the somewhat limited sample size. One thing the authors should more clearly mention are the pupation periods for all investigated species as only the periods for two species are named.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This article is interested in how butterfly, or more precisely, butterfly wing scale precursor cells, each make precisely patterned ultrastructures made of chitin.

To do this, the authors sought to use the butterfly Parides eurimedes, a papilionid swallowtail, that carries interesting, unusual structures made of 1) vertical ridges, that lack a typical layered stacking arrangement; and 2) deep honeycomb-like pores. These two features make the organism chosen a good point of comparison with previous studies, including classic papers that relied on electronic microscopy (SEM/TEM), and more recent confocal microscopy studies.

The article shows good microscopy data, including detailed, dense developmental series of staining in the Parides eurimedes model. The mix of cell membrane staining, chitin precursor, and F-actin staining is well utilized and appropriately documented with the help of 3D-SIM, a microscopy technique considered to provide super-resolution (here needed to visualize sub-cellular processes).

The key message from this article is that F-actin filaments are later repurposed, in papilionid butterflies, to finish the patterning of the inter-ridge space, elaborating new structures (this was not observed so far in other studies and organisms). The model proposed in Figure 6 summarized these findings well, with F-actin reshaping it itself into a tulip that likely pulls down a chitin disk to form honeycombs. These interpretations of the microscopy data are interesting and novel.

There are two other points of interest, that deserve future investigation:<br /> 1) The authors performed immunolocalizations of Arp2 and pharmacological inhibitions of Arp2/3, and found some possible effect on honeycomb lattice development. The inter-ridge region of the butterfly Papilio polytes, which lacks these structures, did not seem to be affected by drug treatments. Effects where time-dependent, which makes sense. These data provide circumstantial evidence that Arp2/3 is involved in the late role of F-actin formation or re-organisation.<br /> 2) The authors perform a comparative study in additional papilionids (Fig. 6 in particular). I find these data to be quite limited without a dense sampling, but they are nonetheless interesting and support a second-phase role of F-actin re-organisation.

The article is dense, well produced and succinctly written. I believe this is an interesting and insightful study on a complex process of cell biology, that inspires us to look at basic phenomena in a broader set of organisms.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Sekulovski et al present an interesting and timely manuscript describing the temporal transition from epiblast to amnion. The manuscript builds on their previous work describing this process using stem cell models.

They suggest a multi-step process initiated by BMP induction of GATA3, followed by expression of TFAP2A, followed by ISL1/HAND1 in parallel with loss of pluripotency markers. This transition was reproduced through IF analysis of CS6/7 NHP embryo.

There are significant similarities in the expression of trophectoderm and the amnion. There are also ample manuscripts showing trophoblast induction following BMP stimulation of primed pluripotent stem cells. The authors should ensure that the amnion indeed is only amnion and not trophectoderm (or the amount of contribution to trophectoderm). As an extension, does the amnion character remain after the 48h BMP4 treatment, and is a trophectoderm-like state adopted as suggested by Ohgushi et al 2022?

The functional data does not support a direct function of GATA3 prior to TFAP2A and the authors suggest compensatory mechanisms from other GATAs. If so, which GATAs are expressed in this system, with and without GATA3 targeting? Would it not be equally likely that the other early genes could be the key drivers of amnion initiation, such as ID2?

The targeting of TFAP2A displays a very interesting phenotype which suggests that amnion and streak share an initial trajectory but where TFAP2A is necessary to adopt amnion fate. It would again be important to ensure that this alternative fate is indeed in streak and not misannotated alternative lineages, including trophoblast.

Is TBXT induced in this setting as well as in the wt situation during amnion induction? This should be displayed as in Figure 3D and would be nice to be complimented by NHP IF analysis.

The authors should address why they get different results from Castillo-Venzor et al 2023 DOI 10.26508/lsa.202201706

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, Sekulovski and colleagues report refinements to an in vitro model of human amnion formation. Working with 3D cultures and BMP4 to induce differentiation, the authors chart the time course of amnion induction in human pluripotent stem cells in their system using immunofluorescence and RNA-seq. They carry out validation through comparison of their data to existing embryo datasets, and through immunostaining of post-implantation marmoset embryos. Functional experiments show that the transcription factor TFAP2C drives the amnion differentiation program once it has been initiated.

There is currently great interest in the development of in vitro models of human embryonic development. While it is known that the amnion plays an important structural supporting role for the embryo, its other functions, such as morphogen production and differentiation potential, are not fully understood. Since a number of aspects of amnion development are specific to primates, models of amniogenesis will be valuable for the study of human development. Advantages of this model include its efficiency and the purity of the cell populations produced, a significant degree of synchrony in the differentiation process, benchmarking with single-cell data and immunocytochemistry from primate embryos, and identification of key markers of specific phases of differentiation. Weaknesses are the absence of other embryonic tissues in the model, and overinterpretation of certain findings, in particular relating bulk RNA-seq results to scRNA-seq data from published analyses of primate embryos and results from limited (though high quality) embryo immunostainings.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this work, the authors tried to profile time-dependent changes in gene and protein expression during BMP-induced amnion differentiation from hPSCs. The authors depicted a GATA3 - TFAP2A - ISL1/HAND1 order of amniotic gene activation, which provides a more detailed temporary trajectory of amnion differentiation compared to previous works. As a primary goal of this study, the above temporal gene/protein activation order is amply supported by experimental data. However, the mechanistic insights on amniotic fate decision, as well as the transcriptomic analysis comparing amnion-like cells from this work and other works remain limited. While this work allows us to see more details of amnion differentiation and understand how different transcription factors were turned on in a sequence and might be useful for benchmarking the identity of amnion in ex utero cultured human embryos/embryoids, it provides limited insights on how amnion cells might diverge from primitive streak / mesoderm-like cells, despite some transcriptional similarity they shared, during early development.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Kipfer et al describe a method for a fast and accurate SARS-CoV2 rescue and mutagenesis. This work is based on a published method termed ISA (infectious subgenomic amplicons), in which partially overlapping DNA fragments covering the entire viral genome and additional 5' and 3' sequences are transfected into mammalian cell lines. These DNA fragments recombine in the cells, express the full length viral genomic RNA and launch replication and rescue of infectious virus.

CLEVER, the method described here significantly improves on the ISA method to generate infectious SARS-CoV2, making it widely useful to the virology community.

Specifically, the strengths of this method are:<br /> 1) The successful use of various cell lines and transfection methods.<br /> 2) Generation of a four-fragment system, which significantly improves the method efficiency due to lower number of required recombination events.<br /> 3) Flexibility in choice of overlapping sequences, making this system more versatile.<br /> 4) The authors demonstrated how this system can be used to introduce point mutations as well as insertion of a tag and deletion of a viral gene.<br /> 5) Fast-tracking generation of infectious virus directly from RNA of clinical isolates by RT-PCR, without the need for cloning the fragments or using synthetic sequences.<br /> One weakness of the latter point, which is also pointed out by the authors, is that the direct rescue of clinical isolates was not tested for sequence fidelity.

The manuscript clearly presents the findings, and the proof-of-concept experiments are well designed.

Overall, this is a very useful method for SARS-CoV2 research. Importantly, it can be applicable to many other viruses, speeding up the response to newly emerging viruses than threaten the public health.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors of the manuscript have developed and used cloning-free method. It is not entirely novel (rather it is based on previously described ISA method) but it is clearly efficient and useful complementation to the already existing methods. One of strong points of the approach use by authors is that it is very versatile, i.e. can be used in combination with already existing methods and tools. I find it important as many laboratories have already established their favorite methods to manipulate SARS-CoV-2 genome and are probably unwilling to change their approach entirely. Though authors highlight the benefits of their method these are probably not absolute - other methods may be as efficient or as fast. Still, I find myself thinking that for certain purposes I would like to complement my current approach with elements from authors CLEVER method.

The work does not contain much novel biological data - which is expected for a paper dedicated to development of new method (or for improving the existing one). It may be kind of shortcoming as it is commonly expected that authors who have developed new methods apply it for discovery of something novel. The work stops on step of rescue the viruses and confirming their biological properties. This part is done very well and represents a strength of the study. The properties of rescued viruses were also studied using NSG methods that revealed high accuracy of the used method, which is very important as the method relies on use of PCR that is known to generate random mistakes and therefore not always method of choice.

What I found missing is a real head-to-head comparison of the developed system with an existing alternatives, preferably some PCR-free standard methods such as use of BAC clones. There are a lot of comparisons but they are not direct, just data from different studies has been compared. Authors could also be more opened to discuss limitations of the method. One of these seems to be rather low rescue efficiency - 1 rescue event per 11,000 transfected cells. This is much lower compared to infectious plasmid (about 1 event per 100 cells or so) and infectious RNAs (often 1 event per 10 cells, for smaller genomes most of transfected cells become infected). This makes the CLEVER method poorly suitable for generation of large infectious virus libraries and excludes its usage for studies of mutant viruses that harbor strongly attenuating mutations. Many of such mutations may reduce virus genome infectivity by 3-4 orders of magnitude; with current efficiencies the use of CLEVER approach may result in false conclusions (mutant viruses will be classified as non-viable while in reality they are just strongly attenuated).

Joint Public Review:

Using computational modeling, this manuscript explores the effect of growth feedback on the performance of gene networks capable of adaptation. The authors selected 425 hypothetical synthetic circuits that were shown to achieve nearly perfect adaptation in two earlier computational studies (see Ma et al. 2009, and Shi et al. 2017). They examined the effects of cell growth feedback by introducing additional terms to the ordinary differential equation-based models, and performed numerical simulations to check the retainment and the loss of the adaptation responses of the circuits in the presence of growth feedback. The authors show that growth feedback can disrupt the gene network adaptation dynamics in different ways, and report some exceptional core motifs which allow for robust performance in the presence of growth feedback. They also used a metric to establish a scaling law between a circuit robustness measure and the strength of growth feedback. These results have important implications in the field of synthetic biology, where unforeseen interactions between designed gene circuits and the host often disrupt the desired behavior. The paper's conclusions are supported by their simulation results, although these are presented in their summary formats and it would be useful for the community if the detailed results for each topology were available as a supplementary file or through the authors' GitHub repository.

Strengths<br /> - This work included a detailed investigation of the reasons for adaptation failure upon introducing cell growth to the systems. The comprehensiveness of the analysis makes the work stand out among studies of functional screening of network topologies of gene regulation.

- The authors' approaches for assessment of robustness, such as the survival ratio Q, can be useful for a wide range of topologies beyond adaptation. The scaling law obtained with those approaches is interesting.

Weaknesses<br /> - The title suggests that the work investigates the 'effects of growth feedback on gene circuits'. However, the performance of 'nearly perfect adaptation' was chosen for the majority of the work, leaving the question of whether the authors' conclusion regarding the effects of growth feedback is applicable to other functional networks.

- This work relies extensively on an earlier study, evaluating only a selected set of 425 topologies that were shown to give adaptive responses (Shi et al., 2017). This limited selection has two potential issues. First, as the authors mentioned in the introduction, growth feedback can also induce emerging dynamics even without existing function-enabling gene circuits, as an example of the "effects of growth feedback on gene circuits". Limiting the investigation to only successful circuits for adaptation makes it unclear whether growth feedback can turn the circuits that failed to produce adaptation by themselves into adaptation-enabling circuits. Secondly, as the Shi et al. (2017) study also used numerical experiments to achieve their conclusions about successful topologies, it is unclear whether the numerical experiments in the present study are compatible with the earlier work regarding the choice of equation forms and ranges of parameter values. The authors also assumed that all readers have sufficient understanding of the 425 topologies and their derivation before reading this paper.

- The authors' model does not describe the impact of growth via a biological mechanism: they model growth as an additional dilution rate and calculate growth rate based on a phenomenological description with growth rate occurring at a maximum (k_g) scaled by the circuit 'burden' b(t). Therefore, the authors' model does not capture potential growth rate changes in parameter values (e.g., synthetic protein production falls with increasing growth rate; see Scott & Hwa, 2023).

- The authors made several claims about the bifurcations (infinite-period, saddle-node, etc) underlying the abrupt changes leading to failures of adaptations. There is a lack of evidence supporting these claims. Both local and global bifurcations can be demonstrated with semi-analytic approaches such as numerical continuation along with investigations of eigenvalues of the Jacobian matrix. The claims based on ODE solutions alone are not sound.

- The impact of biochemical noise is not evaluated in this work; the author's analysis is only carried out in a deterministic regime.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This paper describes RNA-sensing guide RNAs for controlled activation of CRISPR modification. This works by having an extended guide RNA with a sequence that folds back onto the targeting sequence such that the guide RNA cannot hybridise to its genomic target. The CRISPR is "activated" by the introduction of another RNA, referred to as a trigger, that competes with this "back folding" to make the guide RNA available for genome targeting. The authors first confirm the efficacy of the approach using several RNA triggers and a GFP reporter that is activated by dCas9 fused to transcriptional activators. A major potential application of this technique is the activation of CRISPR in response to endogenous biomarkers. As these will typically be longer than the first generation triggers employed by the authors they test some extended triggers, which also work though not always to the same extent. They then introduce MODesign which may enable the design of bespoke or improved triggers. After that, they determine that the mode of activation by the RNA trigger involves cleavage of the RNA complexes. Finally, they test the potential for their system to work in a developmental setting - specifically zebrafish embryos. There is some encouraging evidence, though the effects appear more subtle than those originally obtained in cell culture.

Overall, the potential of a CRISPR system that can be activated upon sensing an RNA is high and there are a myriad of opportunities and applications for it. This paper represents a reasonable starting point having developed such a system in principle.

The weakness of the study is that it does not demonstrate that the system can be used in a completely natural setting. This would require an endogenous transcript as the RNA trigger with a clear readout. Such an experiment would clearly strengthen the paper and provide strong confidence that the method could be employed for one of the major applications discussed by the authors. The zebrafish data relied on exogenous RNA triggers whereas the major applications (as I understood them) would use endogenous triggers.

Related, most endogenous RNAs are longer than the various triggers tested and may require extensive modification of the system to be detected or utilised effectively.<br /> While additional data would clearly be beneficial, there should nevertheless be a more detailed discussion of these caveats and/or the strengths and applications of the system as it is presented (i.e. utility with synthetic triggers).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this work, the authors describe engineering of sgRNAs that render Cas9 DNA binding controllable by a second RNA trigger. The authors introduce several iterations of their engineered sgRNAs, as well as a computational pipeline to identify designs for user-specified RNA triggers which offers a helpful alternative to purely rational design. Also included is an investigation of the fate of the engineered sgRNAs when introduced into cells, and the use of this information to inform installation of modified nucleotides to improve engineered sgRNA stability. Engineered sgRNAs are demonstrated to be activated by trigger RNAs in both cultured mammalian cells and zebrafish.

The conclusions made by the authors in this work are predominantly supported by the data provided. However, some claims are not consistent with the data shown and some of the figures would benefit from revision or further clarification.

Strengths:<br /> - The sgRNA engineering in this paper is performed and presented in a systematic and logical fashion. Inclusion of a computational method to predict iSBH-sgRNAs adds to the strength of the engineering.<br /> - Investigation into the cellular fate of the engineered sgRNAs and the use of this information to guide inclusion of chemically modified nucleotides is also a strength.<br /> - Demonstration of activity in both cultured mammalian cells and in zebrafish embryos increases the impact and utility of the technology reported in this work.

Weaknesses:<br /> - While the methods here represent an important step forward in advancing the technology, they still fall short of the dynamic range and selectivity likely required for robust activation by endogenous RNA.<br /> - While the iSBH-sgRNAs where the RNA trigger overlaps with the spacer appear to function robustly, the modular iSBH-sgRNAs seem to perform quite a bit less well. The authors state that modular iSBH-sgRNAs show better activity without increasing background when the SAM system is added, but this is not supported by the data shown in Figure 3D, where in 3 out of 4 cases CRISPR activation in the absence of the RNA trigger is substantially increased.<br /> - There is very little discussion of how the performance of the technology reported in this work compares to previous iterations of RNA-triggered CRISPR systems, of which there are many examples.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, the authors investigate whether enhancers use a common regulatory paradigm to modulate transcriptional bursting in both endogenous and ectopic domains using cis-regulatory mutant reporters of the eve transcriptional locus in early Drosophila embryogenesis.

The authors create a series of cis-regulatory BAC mutants of the eve stripe 1 and 2 enhancers by mutating the binding sites for the transcriptional repressor Giant in the stripe 2 minimal response element (MRE) independently or in combination with deletion of the stripe 1 enhancer sequence. With these enhancer mutations, they are able to generate conditions in which eve is ectopically expressed. Next, the authors investigate if nuclei in these "ectopic" regions have similar transcriptional kinetics to the "endogenous"-expressing eve+ nuclei. They show that bursting parameters are unchanged when comparing endogenous and ectopic gene expression regions. Under a scheme of a 2-state model, the eveS1Δ-EveS2Gt- reporter modulates transcription by increasing the active state switching rate (kon) and the initiation rate (r) while maintaining a constant inactive state switching rate.

Based on these results, the authors support a model whereby kinetic regimes are encoded in the cis-regulatory sequences of a gene instead of imposed by an evolving trans-regulatory environment.

The question asked in this manuscript is important and the eve locus represents an ideal paradigm to address it in a quantitative manner. Most of the results are correctly interpreted and well-presented. However, the main conclusion pointing towards a potential "unified theory" of burst regulation during Drosophila embryogenesis should be nuanced or cross-validated.

In addition to the lack of novelty (some results concerning the fact that koff does not change along the A/P axis/the idea of a 'unified regime' were already obtained in Berrocal et al 2020), Note i) the limited manipulation of TF environment; ii) the simplicity with which bursting is analyzed (only a two-state model is considered, and not cross-validated with an alternative approach than cpHMM) and iii) the lack of comparisons with published work.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Berrocal et al. asks if shared bursting kinetics, as observed for various developmental genes in animals, hint towards a shared molecular mechanism or result from natural selection favoring such a strategy. Transcription happens in bursts. While transcriptional output can be modulated by altering various properties of bursting, certain strategies are observed more widely.  As the authors noted, recent experimental studies have found that even-skipped enhancers control transcriptional output by changing burst frequency and amplitude while burst duration remains largely constant. The authors compared the kinetics of transcriptional bursting between endogenous and ectopic gene expression patterns. It is argued that since enhancers act under different regulatory inputs in ectopically expressed genes, adaptation would lead to diverse bursting strategies as compared to endogenous gene expression patterns. To achieve this goal, the authors generated ectopic even-skipped transcription patterns in fruit fly embryos. The key finding is that bursting strategies are similar in endogenous and ectopic even-skipped expression. According to the authors, the findings favor the presence of a unified molecular mechanism shaping even-skipped bursting strategies.  This is an important piece of work. Everything has been carried out in a systematic fashion. However, the key argument of the paper is not entirely convincing.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript by Berrocal and coworkers, the authors do a deep dive into the transcriptional regulation of the eve gene in both an endogenous and ectopic background. The idea is that by looking at eve expression under non-native conditions, one might infer how enhancers control transcriptional bursting. The main conclusion is that eve enhancers have not evolved to have specific behaviors in the eve stripes, but rather the same rates in the telegraph model are utilized as control rates even under ectopic or 'de novo' conditions. For example, they achieve ectopic expression (outside of the canonical eve stripes) through a BAC construct where the binding sites for the TF Giant are disrupted along with one of the eve enhancers. Perhaps the most general conclusion is that burst duration is largely constant throughout at ~ 1 - 2 min. This conclusion is consistent with work in human cell lines that enhancers mostly control frequency and that burst duration is largely conserved across genes, pointing to an underlying mechanistic basis that has yet to be determined.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Strengths:

The innovative method is the biggest strength of this article. Moreover, the method can be implemented across fields and disciplines. I myself would like to see this method implemented in a grander scale. The author invested a lot of effort in data collection and I especially commend that ChatGPT assessed the reviews twice, to ensure greater objectivity.

Weaknesses:

I have several concerns regarding the methodology of the article. The first relates to the fact that the sample is not random. The selection of journal and inclusion and exclusion criteria do not contribute well to the strength of the evidence.

An important methodological fact is that the correlation between the two assessments of peer reviews was actually lower than we would expect (around 0.72 and 0.3 for the different linguistic characteristics). If the ChatGPT gave such different scores based on two assessments, should it not be sound to do even more assessments and then take the average?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Strengths include:

1) Given the variability in responses from ChatGPT, the author pooled two scores for each review and demonstrated significant correlation between these two iterations. He confirmed also reasonable scoring by manipulating reviews. Finally, he compared a small subset (7 papers) to human scorers and again demonstrated correlation with sentiment and politeness.

2) The figures are consistently well presented and informative. Figure 2C nicely plots the scores with example reviews. The supplementary data are also thoughtful and include combination of first/last author genders. It is interesting that first author female last author male has the lowest score.

3) A series of detailed analysis including breaking down reviews by subfield (interesting to see the wide range of reviewer sentiment/politeness scores in computational papers), institution, and author's name and inferred gender using Genderize. The author suggests that peer review to blind the reviewers to authors' gender may be helpful to mitigating the impoliteness seen.

Weaknesses include:

1) This study does not utilize any of the wide range of Natural Language Processing (NLP) sentiment analysis tools. While the author did have a small subset reviewed by human scorers, the paper would be strengthened by examining all the reviews systematically using some of the freely available tools (for example, many resources are available through Hugging Face [https://huggingface.co/blog/sentiment-analysis-python ]). These methods have been used in previous examinations of review text analysis (Luo et al. 2022. Quantitative Science Studies 2:1271-1295). Why use ChatGPT rather than these older validated methods? How does ChatGPT compare to these established methods? See also: colab.research.google.com/drive/1ZzEe1lqsZIwhiSv1IkMZdOtjPTSTlKwB?usp=sharing

2) The author's claim in the last paragraph that his study is proof of concept for NLP to analyze peer review fails to take into account the array of literature already done in this domain. The statement in the introduction that past reports (only three citations) have been limited to small dataset sizes is untrue (Ghosal et al. 2022. PLoS One 17:e0259238 contains over 1000 peer review documents, including sentiment analysis) and reflects a lack of review on the topic before examining this question.

3) The author acknowledges the limitation that only papers under neuroscience were evaluated. Why not scale this method up to other fields within Nature Communications? Cross-field analysis of the features of interest would examine if these biases are present in other domains.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Strengths:

On the positive side, I thought the use of ChatGPT to score the sentiment of text was novel and interesting, and I was largely convinced by the parts of the methods which illustrate that the AI provides broadly similar sentiment and politeness scores to humans who were asked to rank a sub-set of the reviews. The paper is mostly clear and well-written, and tackles a question of importance and broad interest (i.e. the potential for bias in the peer review process, and the objectivity of peer review).

Weaknesses:

The sample size and scope of the paper are a bit limited, and I have concerns covering diverse aspects including statistical/inferential issues, missing references, and suggestions for other material that could be included that would greatly increase the usefulness of the paper. A major limitation is that the paper focuses on published papers, and thus is a biased sample of all the reviews that were written, which prevents the paper properly answering the questions that it sets out to answer (e.g. is peer review repeatable, fair and objective).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this article, Bracey et al. provide insights into the factors contributing to the distinct arrangement observed in sub-membrane microtubules (MTs) within mouse β-cells of the pancreas. Specifically, they propose that in clonal mouse pancreatic β-cells (MIN6), the motor protein KIF5B plays a role in sliding existing MTs towards the cell periphery and aligning them with each other along the plasma membrane. Furthermore, similar to other physiological features of β-cells, this process of MTs sliding is enhanced by a high glucose stimulus. Because a precise alignment of MTs beneath the cell membrane in β-cells is crucial for the regulated secretion of pancreatic enzymes and hormones, KIF5B assumes a significant role in pancreatic activity, both in healthy conditions and during diseases.

The authors provide evidence in support of their model by demonstrating that the levels of KIF5B mRNA in MIN6 cells are higher compared to other known KIFs. They further show that when KIF5B is genetically silenced using two different shRNAs, the MT sliding becomes less efficient. Additionally, silencing of KIF5A in the same cells leads to a general reorganization of MTs throughout the cell. Specifically, while control cells exhibit a convoluted and non-radial arrangement of MTs near the cell membrane, KIF5B-depleted cells display a sparse and less dense sub-membrane array of MTs. Based on these findings, the Authors conclude that the loss of KIF5B strongly affects the localization of MTs to the periphery of the cell. Using a dominant-negative approach, the authors also demonstrate that KIF5B facilitates the sliding of MTs by binding to cargo MTs through the kinesin-1 tail binding domain. Additionally, they present evidence suggesting that KIF5B-mediated MT sliding is dependent on glucose, similar to the activity levels of kinesin-1, which increase in the presence of glucose. Notably, when the glucose concentrations in the culturing media of MIN6 cells are reduced from 20 mM to 5 mM, a significant decrease in MT sliding is observed.

Strengths: This study unveils a previously unexplained mechanism that regulates the specific rearrangement of MTs beneath the cell membrane in pancreatic β-cells. The findings of this research have implications and are of significant interest because the precise regulation of the MT array at the secretion zone plays a critical role in controlling pancreatic function in both healthy and diseased states. In general, the author's conclusions are substantiated by the provided data, and the study demonstrates the utilization of state-of-the-art methodologies including quantification techniques, and elegant dominant-negative experiments.

Weaknesses: A few relatively minor issues are present and related to data interpretation and the conclusions drawn in the study. Namely, some inconsistencies between what appears to be the overall and sub-membrane MT array in scramble vs. KIF5B-depleted cells, the lack of details about the sub-cellular localization of KIF5B in these cells and the physiological significance of the effect of glucose levels in beta-cells of the pancreas.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study investigates the role of microtubules in regulating insulin secretion from pancreatic islet beta cells. This is of great importance considering that controlled secretion of insulin is essential to prevent diabetes. Previously, it has been shown that KIF5B plays an essential role in insulin secretion by transporting insulin granules to the plasma membrane. High glucose activates KIF5B to increase insulin secretion resulting in the cellular uptake of glucose. In order to prevent hypoglycemia, insulin secretion needs to be tightly controlled. Notably, it is known that KIF5B plays a role in microtubule sliding. This is important, as the authors described previously that beta cells establish a peripheral sub-membrane microtubule array, which is critical for the withdrawal of excessive insulin granules from the secretion sites. At high glucose, the sub-membrane microtubule array is destabilized to allow for robust insulin secretion. Here the authors aim to answer the question of how the peripheral array is formed. Based on the previously published data the authors hypothesize that KIF5B organizes the sub-membrane microtubule array via microtubule sliding.

General comment:<br /> This manuscript provides data that indicate that KIF5B, like in many other cells, mediates microtubule sliding in beta cells. This study is limited to in vitro assays and one cell line. Furthermore, the authors provide no link to insulin secretion and glucose uptake and the overall effects described are moderate. Finally, the overall effect of microtubule sliding upon glucose stimulation is surprisingly low considering the tight regulation of insulin secretion. Moreover, the authors state "the amount of MT polymer on every glucose stimulation changes only slightly, often undetectable.....In fact, we observe a prominent effect of peripheral MT loss only after a long-term kinesin depletion (three-four days)". This challenges the view that a KIF5B-dependent mechanism regulating microtubule sliding plays a major role in controlling insulin secretion.

Specific comments:<br /> 1) Notably, the authors have previously reported that high glucose-induced remodeling of microtubule networks facilitates robust glucose-stimulated insulin secretion. This remodeling involves the disassembly of old microtubules and the nucleation of new microtubules. Using real-time imaging of photoconverted microtubules, they report that high levels of glucose induce rapid microtubule disassembly preferentially in the periphery of individual β-cells, and this process is mediated by the phosphorylation of microtubule-associated protein tau. Here, they state that the sub-membrane microtubule array is destabilized via microtubule sliding. What is the relevance of the different processes?

2) On one hand the authors describe how KIF5B depletion prevents sliding and the transport of microtubules to the plasma membrane to form the sub-membrane microtubule array. This indicates KIF5B is required to form this structure. On the other hand, they describe that at high glucose concentration, KIF5B promotes microtubule sliding to destabilize the sub-membrane microtubule array to allow robust insulin secretion. This appears contradictory.

3) Previously, it has been shown that KIF5B induces tubulin incorporation along the microtubule shaft in a concentration-dependent manner. Moreover, running KIF5B increases microtubule rescue frequency and unlimited growth of microtubules. Notably, KIF5B regulates microtubule network mass and organization in cells (PMID: 34883065). Consequently, it appears possible that the here observed phenomena of changes in the microtubule network might be due to alterations in these processes.

4) The authors provide data that indicate that microtubule sliding is enhanced upon glucose stimulation. They conclude that these data indicate that microtubule sliding is an integral part of glucose-triggered microtubule remodeling. Yet, the authors fail to provide any evidence that this process plays a role in insulin secretion or glucose uptake.

5) The authors speculate that the sub-membrane microtubule array prevents the over-secretion of insulin. Would one not expect in this case a change in the distribution of insulin granules at the plasma membrane when this array is affected? Or after glucose stimulation? Notably, it has been reported that "the defects of β-cell function in KIF5B mutant mice were not coupled with observable changes in islet morphology, islet cell composition, or β-cell size" and "the subcellular localization of insulin vesicles was found to not be affected significantly by the decreased Kif5b level. The cytoplasm of both wild-type and mutant β-cells was filled with insulin vesicles. Insulin vesicle numbers per square μm were determined by counting all insulin vesicles in randomly photographed β-cells. More insulin granules were found in Kif5b knockout β-cells compared with control cells. This phenomenon is consistent with the observation that insulin secretion by β-cells is affected" whereby "Insulin vesicles (arrowheads) were distributed evenly in both mutant and control cells" (PMID: 20870970).

6) Does the sub-membrane microtubule array exist in primary beta cells (in vitro and/or in vivo) and how it is affected in KIF5B knockout mice?

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Prior work from the Kaverina lab and others had determined that beta-cells build a microtubule network that differs from the canonical radial organization typical in most mammalian cell types and that this organization facilitates the regulated secretion of insulin-containing secretory granules (IGs). In this manuscript, the authors tested the hypothesis that kinesin-driven microtubule sliding is an underlying mechanism that establishes a sub-membranous microtubule array that regulates IG secretion. They employed knock-down and dominant-negative strategies to convincingly show microtubule sliding does, in fact, drive the assembly of the sub-membranous microtubule band. They also used live cell imaging assays to demonstrate that kinesin-mediated microtubule sliding in beta-cells is triggered by extracellular high glucose. Overall, this is an interesting and important study that relates microtubule dynamics to an important physiological process. The experiments were rigorous and well-controlled.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Yao et al. present a series of experiments aiming at generating a cellular atlas of the human hippocampus across aging, and how it may be affected by injury, in particular, stroke. Although the aim of the study is interesting and relevant for a larger audience, due to the ongoing controversy around the existence of adult hippocampal neurogenesis in humans, a number or technical weaknesses result in poor support for many of the conclusions made from the results of these experiments.

In particular, a recent meta-analysis of five previous studies applying similar techniques to human samples has identified different aspects of sample size as main determinants of the statistical power needed to make significant conclusions. Some of these aspects are the number of nuclei sequenced and subject stratification. These two aspects are of concern in Yao's study. First, the number of sequenced nuclei is lower than the calculated number of nuclei required for detecting rare cell types. However, Yao et al. report succeeding in detecting rare populations, including several types of neural stem cells in different proliferation states, which have been demonstrated to be extremely scarce by previous studies. It would be very interesting to read how the authors interpret these differences. Secondly, the number of donors included in some of the groups is extremely low (n=1) and the miscellaneous information provided about the donors is practically inexistent. As individual factors such as chronic conditions, medication, lifestyle parameters, etc... are considered determinant for the variability of adult hippocampal neurogenesis levels across individuals, this represents a series limitation of the current study. Overall, several technical weaknesses severely limit the relevance of this study and the ability of the authors to achieve their experimental aims.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Yao et al. explored the transcriptomic characteristics of neural stem cells (NSCs) in the human hippocampus and their changes under different conditions using single-nucleus RNA sequencing (snRNA-seq). They generated single-nucleus transcriptomic profiles of human hippocampal cells from neonatal, adult, and aging individuals, as well as from stroke patients. They focused on the cell groups related to neurogenesis, such as neural stem cells and their progeny. They revealed genes enriched in different NSC states and performed trajectory analysis to trace the transitions among NSC states and towards astroglial and neuronal lineages in silico. They also examined how NSCs are affected by aging and injury using their datasets and found differences in NSC numbers and gene expression patterns across age groups and injury conditions. One major issue of the manuscript is questionable cell type identification. For example, in Figure 2C, more than 50% of the cells in the astroglial lineage clusters are NSCs, which is extremely high and inconsistent with classic histology studies.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary<br /> This manuscript reports preliminary evidence of successful optogenetic activation of single retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) through the eye of a living monkey using adaptive optics (AO).

Strengths<br /> The eventual goals of this line of research have enormous potential impact in that they will probe the perceptual impact of activating single RGCs. While I think more data should be included, the four examples shown look quite convincing.

Weaknesses<br /> While this is undoubtedly a technical achievement and an important step along this group's stated goal to measure the perceptual consequences of single-RGC activations, the presentation lacks the rigor that I would expect from what is really a methods paper. In my view, it is perfectly reasonable to publish the details of a method before it has yielded any new biological insights, but in those publications, there is a higher burden to report the methodological details, full data sets, calibrations, and limitations of the method. There is considerable room for improvement in reporting those aspects. Specifically, more raw data should be shown for activations of neighboring RGCs to pinpoint the actual resolution of the technique, and more than two cells (one from each field of view) should be tested. Some information about the density of labeled RGCs in these animals would also be helpful to provide context for how many well-isolated target cells exist per animal.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This proof-of-principle study lays important groundwork for future studies. Murphy et al. expressed ChrimsonR and GCaMP6s in retinal ganglion cells of a living macaque. They recorded calcium responses and stimulated individual cells, optically. Neurons targeted for stimulation were activated strongly whereas neighboring neurons were not.

The ability to record from neuronal populations while simultaneously stimulating a subset in a controlled way is a high priority for systems neuroscience, and this has been particularly challenging in primates. This study marks an important milestone in the journey towards this goal.

The ability to detect stimulation of single RGCs was presumably due to the smallness of the light spot and the sparsity of transduction. Can the authors comment on the importance of the latter factor for their results? Is it possible that the stimulation protocol activated neurons nearby the targeted neuron that did not express GCaMP? Is it possible that off-target neurons near the targeted neuron expressed GCaMP, and were activated, but too weakly to produce a detectable GCaMP signal? In general, simply knowing that off-target signals were undetectable is not enough; knowing something about the threshold for the detection of off-target signals under the conditions of this experiment is critical.

Minor comments:<br /> Did the lights used to stimulate and record from the retina excite RGCs via the normal light-sensing pathway? Were any such responses recorded? What was their magnitude?

The data presented attest to a lack of crosstalk between targeted and neighboring cells. It is therefore surprising that lines 69-72 are dedicated to methods for "reducing the crosstalk problem". More information should be provided regarding the magnitude of this problem under the current protocol/instrumentation and the techniques that were used to circumvent it to obtain the data presented.

Optical crosstalk could be spatial or spectral. Laying out this distinction plainly could help the reader understand the issues quickly. The Methods indicate that cells were chosen on the basis that they were > 20 µm from their nearest (well-labeled) neighbor to mitigate optical crosstalk, but the following sentence is about spectral overlap.

Figure 2 legend: "...even the nearby cell somas do not show significantly elevated response (p >> 0.05, unpaired t-test) than other cells at more distant locations." This sentence does not indicate how some cells were classified as "nearby" whereas others were classified as being "at more distant locations". Perhaps a linear regression would be more appropriate than an unpaired t-test here.

Line 56: "These recordings were... acquired earlier in the session where no stimulus was present." More information should be provided regarding the conditions under which this baseline was obtained. I assume that the ChrimsonR-activating light was off and the 488 nm-GCaMP excitation light was on, but this was not stated explicitly. Were any other lights on (e.g. room lights or cone-imaging lights)? If there was no spatial component to the baseline measurement, "where" should be "when".

Please add a scalebar to Figure 1a to facilitate comparison with Figure 2.

Lines 165-173: Was the 488 nm light static or 10 Hz-modulated? The text indicates that GCaMP was excited with a 488 nm light and data were acquired using a scanning light ophthalmoscope, but line 198 says that "the 488 nm imaging light provides a static stimulus".

A potential application of this technology is for the study of visually guided behavior in awake macaques. This is an exciting prospect. With that in mind, a useful contribution of this report would be a frank discussion of the hurdles that remain for such application (in addition to eye movements, which are already discussed).

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This paper reports a considerable technical achievement: the optogenetic activation of single retinal ganglion cells in vivo in monkeys. As clearly specified in the paper, this is an important step towards causal tests of the role of specific ganglion cell types in visual perception. Yet this methodological advance is not described currently in sufficient detail to replicate or evaluate. The paper could be improved substantially by including additional methodological details. Some specific suggestions follow.

The start of the results needs a paragraph or more to outline how you got to Figure 1. Figure 1 itself lacks scale bars, and it is unclear, for example, that the ganglion cells targeted are in the foveal slope.

The text mentions the potential difficulties targeting ganglion cells at larger eccentricities where the soma density increases. If this is something that you have tried it would be nice to include some of that data (whether or not selective activation was possible). Related to this point, it would be helpful to include a summary of the ganglion cell density in monkey retina.

Related to the point in the previous paragraph - do you have any experiments in which you systematically moved the stimulation spot away from the target ganglion cell to directly test the dependence of stimulation on distance? This would be a valuable addition to the paper.

The activity in Figure 1 recovers from activation very slowly - much more slowly than the light response of these cells, and much more slowly than the activity elicited in most optogenetic studies. Can you quantify this time course and comment on why it might be so slow?

Traces from non-targeted cells should be shown in Figure 1 along with those of targeted cells.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> Ahn and Amrein characterize the expression of members of the Gr28 family of gustatory receptors in taste neurons in the Drosophila melanogaster larva, define the behaviorally-relevant ligands for these receptors, and use chemogenetic experiments to show, strikingly, that different neurons have opposite behavioral responses to the chemogenetic ligand. They go on to show what neurons need to be silenced to lose responses to bitters, and very nicely show what subunits of the Gr28 bitter receptors are necessary and sufficient for responses to bitters. This is a nice piece of work, rigorously carried out, that tackles the neurons and receptors that drive innate responses to tastants in Drosophila larvae.

Strengths:<br /> 1. The chemogenetic experiments in Figure 2 are cleanly done with very clear results, and the subsetting in Figure 2B further clarifies the cellular requirements for the behavior.<br /> 2. The rescue experiments with different Gr28 subunits in the Gr28 mutant are creative and clear.

Weaknesses:<br /> 1. The authors should define early and clearly that expression of Gr28 genes studied in this paper relies not on looking at the endogenous gene but at the expression of Gal4 under the control of enhancers from these loci. The Gal4 drivers are useful and important tools, but the possibility exists that their expression is not 100% congruent with the endogenous expression of these receptors. I would not require a comprehensive validation of the lines by RNA in situ hybridization compared to the Gal4 driver lines but would recommend the disclaimer be made and that the authors are more precise in talking about the expression of the marker rather than the expression of the specific receptor gene.

2. The important chemogenetic behavioral data would benefit from a clearer presentation including a cartoon to explain what the behavior is and how it is scored. Figure 2 is the key figure in this paper and it would be helpful if the figure were re-organized to guide the non-expert reader to the key result. I recommend labeling the positive controls Gr43a as "sweet" and Gr66a as "bitter" and perhaps organize the presentation to have the negative control at the left, then Gr28ba that had no effect, then group Gr28a with Gr43a for positive valence and Gr28bc with Gr66a for negative valence. I'm not sure what the value is of showing both 0.1 mM and 0.5 mM capsaicin, the text does not explain. The experiment in Figure 2B is important but non-experts will not understand what is being done here - can the authors please provide a cartoon like those in Figure 1 showing what cells are being subjected to chemogenetics and how this differs from Figure 2A?

3. The AlphaFold ligand docking in Figure 8 is conducted with Gr28bc monomers, which are unlikely to be the in vivo relevant structure, given that the related OR/ORCO ancestor structures are tetramers. I recommend that this component of the paper either be removed entirely or that the authors redo the in silico work using the AlphaFold-Multimer package reported by Hassabis and Jumper in 2022 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.04.463034v2. It will be interesting to see what a tetramer structure looks like with the ligand.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This study investigates how genes in the Gr28 family of gustatory receptors function in the taste system of Drosophila larvae. Gr28 genes are intriguing because they have been implicated in taste as well as other functions, such as sensing temperature and ultraviolet light. This study makes several new findings. First, the authors show that four Gr28 genes are expressed in putative taste neurons, and these neurons can be largely divided into subsets that express Gr28a versus Gr28bc. The authors then demonstrate that these two neuronal subsets drive opposing behaviors (attraction versus avoidance) when activated. The avoidance-promoting neurons respond to bitter compounds and are required for bitter avoidance, and Gr28bc and Gr28ba were specifically implicated in bitter detection in these cells. Together, these findings provide insight into the complexity of taste receptor expression and function in Drosophila, even within a single receptor subfamily.

The conclusions are well-supported by the experimental data. Strengths of the paper include the use of precise genetic tools, thorough analyses of expression patterns, carefully validated behavioral assays, and well-controlled functional imaging experiments. The role of Gr28bc neurons is more thoroughly explored than that of Gr28a neurons. However, a previous study from the same lab (Mishra et al., 2018) showed that Gr28a neurons detect RNA and ribose, which are attractive to larvae. Presumably, this is the attractive response that is being recapitulated upon artificial activation of Gr28a neurons.

I only have one technical concern: In Figure 2B, the authors do not show confirmation that using Gr66a-lexA driving lexAop-Gal80 eliminates Gal4-driven gene expression in the desired cells (cells co-expressing Gr66a and Gr28a). This is important for interpreting the behavioral experiment in order to demonstrate that the Gr28a cells mediating attraction are distinct from Gr66a/Gr28bc cells.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

a) Important findings<br /> - This study confirms that Gr28 subfamily members are expressed in distinct sets of taste neurons in Drosophila larvae, supporting previous findings (e.g., Kwon et al., 2011).<br /> - Neurons expressing different members of the Gr28 family exhibit distinct behavioral responses when chemically activated with capsaicin.<br /> - Silencing experiments reveal that neurons expressing Gr28bc are necessary for larval avoidance of four bitter compounds, whereas neurons expressing Gr28be are necessary for avoiding lobeline and caffeine.<br /> - Inserting either Gr28ba or Gr28bc into the GR28 mutant line restored larval avoidance of denatonium.<br /> - Calcium imaging experiments show that Gr28ba and Gr28bc are involved in sensing denatonium, while none of the GR28 family members are involved in detecting quinine.

b) Caveats<br /> - The authors did not acknowledge that neurons expressing members of the GR28 family also express other Gr family members, which could potentially contribute to the detection and behavioral responses to the tested bitter compounds.<br /> - Gal4 lines from various studies exhibit varying expression patterns, highlighting the necessity for improved reagents. These findings also suggest the importance of employing different Gal4 lines for each receptor to validate the results of the current study.<br /> - Activating or silencing neurons pertains to the function of the neurons rather than the receptors.<br /> - Inconsistency is observed in the use of different reagents across the experiments. Specifically, all six Gal4 lines were utilized in the Chemical Activation experiments, while only two lines were employed in the silencing experiments.<br /> - The Alphafold structure prediction is exciting but lacks conclusive evidence.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This remarkable and creative study from the Asbury lab examines the extent to which mechanical coupling can coordinate the growth of two microtubules attached to isolated kinetochores. The concept of mechanical coupling in kinetochores was proposed in the mid-1990s and makes sense intuitively (as shown in Fig. 1B). But intuitive concepts still need experimental validation, which this study at long last provides. The experiments described in this paper will serve as a foundation for the transition of an intuitive concept into a robust, quantitative, and validated model.

The introduction cites at least 5 papers that proposed mechanical coupling in kinetochores, as well as 5 theoretical studies on mechanical coupling within microtubule bundles, so it's clear that this manuscript will be of considerable interest to the field. The intro is very well written (as is the manuscript in general), but I recommend that the authors include a brief review of the variable size of k-fibers across species, to help the reader contextualize the problem. For example, budding yeast kinetochores are built around a single microtubule (Winey 1995), so mechanical coupling is not relevant for this species.

Indeed, the use of yeast kinetochores to study mechanical coupling is an odd fit, because these structures did not evolve to support such coupling. There is no doubt that yeast kinetochores are useful for demonstrating mechanical coupling and for measuring the stiffnesses necessary to achieve coupling, but I recommend that the authors include a caveat somewhere in the manuscript, perhaps in the place where they discuss their use of simple elastic coupling as compared to viscoelastic coupling or strain-stiffening. It's easy to imagine that kinetochores with large k-fibers might require complex coupling mechanisms, for example. And is mechanical coupling relevant for holocentric kinetochores like those found in C. elegans?

The paper shows considerable rigour in terms of experimental design, statistical analysis, and presentation of results. My only comment on this topic relates to the bandwidth of the dual-trap assay, which I recommend describing in the main text in addition to the methods. For example, the authors note that the stage position is updated at 50 Hz. The authors should clearly explain that this bandwidth is sufficiently fast relative to microtubule growth speeds.

After describing their measurements, the authors use Monte Carlo simulations to show that pauses are essential to a quantitative explanation of their coupling data. Apparently, there is a history of theoretical approaches to coupling, as the introduction cites 5 theoretical studies. I would have appreciated it if the authors had engaged with this literature in the Results section, e.g. by describing which previous study most closely resembles their own and/or comparing and contrasting their approach with the previous work.

Overall, this paper is rigorous, creative, and thought-provoking. The unique experimental approach developed by the Asbury lab shows great promise, and I very much look forward to future iterations.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Leeds et al. investigated the role of mechanical coupling in coordinating the growth kinetics of microtubules in kinetochore-fibers (k-fibers). The authors developed a dual optical-trap system to explore how constant load redistributed between a pair of microtubules depending on their growth state coordinates their growth.

• The main finding of the paper is that the duration and frequency of pausing events during individual microtubule growth are decreased when tension is applied at their tips via kinetochore particles coupled to optically trapped beads. However, the study does not offer any insight into the possible mechanism behind this dependency. For example, it is not clear whether this is a specific property of the kinetochore particles that were used in this experiment, whether it could be attributed to specific proteins in these particles, or if this could potentially be an inherent property of the microtubules themselves.

• The authors simulate the coordination between two microtubules and show that by using the parameters of pausing and variability in growth rates both measured experimentally they can explain coordination between two microtubules measured in their experiments. This is a convincing result, but k-fibers typically have many more microtubules, and it seems important to understand how the ability to coordinate growth by this mechanism scales with the number of microtubules. It is not obvious whether this mechanism could explain the coordination of more than two microtubules.

• The range of stiffnesses chosen to simulate the microtubule coupling allows linkers to stretch hundreds of nanometers linearly. However, most proteins including those at kinetochore must have finite size and therefore should behave more like worm-like chains rather than linear springs. This means they may appear soft for small elongations, but the force would increase rapidly once the length gets close to the contour length. How this more realistic description of mechanics might affect the conclusions of the work is not clear.

• The novel dual-bead assay is interesting. However, it only provides virtual coupling between two otherwise independently growing microtubules. Since the growth of one affects the growth of the other only via software, it is unclear whether the same insight can be gained from the single-bead setup, for example, by moving the bead at a constant speed and monitoring how microtubule growth adjusts to the fixed speed. The advantages of the double-bead setup could have been demonstrated better.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Leeds et al. employ elegant in vitro experiments and sophisticated numerical modeling to investigate the ability of mechanical coupling to coordinate the growth of individual microtubules within microtubule bundles, specifically k-fibers. While individual microtubules naturally polymerize at varying rates, their growth must be tightly regulated to function as a cohesive unit during chromosome segregation. Although this coordination could potentially be achieved biochemically through selective binding of polymerases and depolymerases, the authors demonstrate, using a novel dual laser trap assay, that mechanical coupling alone can also coordinate the growth of in vitro microtubule pairs.

By reanalyzing recordings of single microtubules growing under constant force (data from their own previous work), the authors investigate the stochastic kinetics of pausing and show that pausing is suppressed by tension. Using a constant shared load, the authors then show that filament growth is tightly coordinated when pairs of microtubules are mechanically coupled by a material with sufficient stiffness. In addition, the authors develop a theoretical model to describe both the natural variability and force dependence of growth, using no freely adjustable parameters. Simulations based on this model, which accounts for stochastic force-dependent pausing and intrinsic variability in microtubule growth rate, fit the dual-trap data well.

Overall, this study illuminates the potential of mechanical coupling in coordinating microtubule growth and offers a framework for modeling k-fibers under shared loads. The research exhibits meticulous technical rigor and is presented with exceptional clarity. It provides compelling evidence that a minimal, reconstituted biological system can exhibit complex behavior. As it currently stands, the paper is highly informative and valuable to the field.

To provide further clarity regarding the implications of their study, the authors may wish to address the following points in more detail:

- Considering the authors' understanding of the quantitative relationship between forces, microtubule growth, and coordination, is the dual trap assay necessary to demonstrate this coordination? What advantages does the (semi)experimental system offer compared to a purely in silico treatment?

- What are the limitations of studying a system comprising only two individual microtubules? How might the presence of crosslinkers, which are typically present in vivo between microtubules, influence their behavior in this context?

- How dependent are the results on the chosen segmentation algorithm? Can the distributions of pause and run durations truly be fitted by "simple" Gaussians, as indicated in Figure S5-2? Given the inherent limitations in accurately measuring short durations and the application of threshold durations, it is likely that the first bins in the histograms underestimate events. Cumulative plots could potentially address this issue.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors succeeded in establishing experimental and mathematical models for the formation of new blood vessels. The experimental model relies on temporal imaging of multilcellular projections and lumen formation from a single blood vessel embedded in an engineered extracellular matrix. The mathematical model combines both discrete and continuum elements. It would be helpful to understand how the authors came up with phenotypic classes for analyzing their live imaging data. On the modeling side, it would be useful to see whether the claims about Turing patterns could be supported by either a mean-field model or a more thorough parametric analysis of the discreet continuum model. The authors did a good job in comparing their VEGF/Notch mechanism to the EGF/Notch vulval patterning mechanism in C. elegans. The authors might want to look into the literature from studies of the tracheal patterning system in Drosophila when the combined actions of the FGF and Notch signaling specify tip and stalk cells. The similarities are quite striking and are worth noting.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> In this manuscript, the goal of the authors is to understand the process of mature sprout formation from mini-sprouts to develop new blood vessels during angiogenesis. For this, they use their earlier experimental setup of engineered blood vessels in combination with a modified spatio-temporal model for Notch signalling. The authors first study the role of VEGF on Tip (Delta-rich) and Stalk (Notch-rich) patterning. The Tip cells are further examined for their space-time dynamics as Mini-sprouts and mature Sprouts. The Notch signalling model is later supplemented with a phenomenological _random uniform model_ for Sprout selection as a plausible mechanism for Sprout formation from Mini-Sprouts. Finally, the authors look into the role of fibronectin in the Sprout formation process. Overall, the authors propose that VEGF interacts with Notch signalling in blood vessels to generate spatially disordered and co-localized Tip cells. VEGF and fibronectin then provide external cues to dynamically modulate mature Sprout formation from Mini-Sprouts that could control the location and density of developing blood vessels with a process that is consistent with a Turing-like mechanism.

Strengths and Weaknesses:<br /> In this manuscript, work motivation, problem definition, experimental procedures, analysis techniques, mathematical methods (including the parameters), and findings are all presented quite clearly. Moreover, the authors carefully indicate whenever they make any assumptions and do not mix unproven hypothesis with deduced or known facts. The experimental techniques and most of the mathematical methods used in this paper are borrowed from the earlier works of the corresponding authors and thus are not completely novel. However, the use of these ideas to provide a simple elucidation of the role of VEGF and fibronectin in Sprout formation, in an otherwise complex system, is very interesting and useful. Some of the data analysis methods presented in the paper - (i) quantification of Tip spatial patterns (Fig. 3) and (ii) Sprout temporal dynamics using Sankey diagram (Fig. 4) - seem quite novel to me in the context of Notch signalling literature. Similarly, the authors also provide a new mechanism (VEGF) to obtain disordered Delta-Notch patterning without explicitly including _noise_ in the system (Fig. 2 and Fig. S1). The authors also systematically quantify the statistics of spacing between the Sprouts and show that the Sprouts have a tendency to be away from each other, something that they could also partially recapitulate by additionally including a novel _random uniform model_ for Sprout selection (Fig. 5). Although the association between fibronectin and angiogenesis is known in the literature, in this manuscript, the authors could clearly demonstrate that fibronectin is present in high and low levels, respectively, around Sprouts and Mini-sprouts (Fig. 6). A combination of these findings could then motivate the authors to hypothesize, as mentioned above, a Turing-like mechanism for Sprout formation, something that I find interesting.

Although I find the relative simplicity of the experimental system and theoretical model and the clear findings they generate appealing, some aspects raise a few questions. The authors experimentally find 20 +- 0.08 percent of Tip cells in the model blood-vessels that is consistent with the salt-and-pepper pattern seen in Notch signalling model (~25 %). However, it is not clear to me if the reverse is true, i.e., 25% of Tip cells automatically imply a salt-and-pepper pattern - the authors do not seem to provide direct experimental evidence. Furthermore, the authors use their Notch signalling model on a regular hexagonal lattice, but there is a large variability in the cell sizes (Fig. 3) in the experimental system. Since it is observed in the literature that signalling depends on the contact area between the neighbouring cells, it is not clear how that would affect the findings presented in this paper. Similarly, since some of the cells are quite small compared to the others, I worry about how appropriate it is to express the distance between the Tip cells in terms of _cell numbers_ (Fig. 3). Regarding Sprout classification, as per Table 1, a bridge of two cells is formed as per early-stage-I mechanism for Sprout. On the other hand, the entire data interpretation of experiments seems to be based on early Stage II and matured stage in that same table (also Figs. 3 and 4) in which only one Tip cell seems to be counted per mature Sprout. However, if some Sprouts are formed via early stage-I mechanism, a projection in 2D for analysis would give a count of __two__ adjacent Tip cells, but corresponding to a __single__ Sprout. It could be possible that the presence of such two-cell Sprouts affects the statistics of inter-Sprout distances (Fig. 5). Finally, I find the proposed mechanism of Sprout formation dynamics to be somewhat unsatisfactory. Other than the experimental evidence regarding the spacing of Sprouts and the fibronectin levels around Sprouts and Mini-sprouts (Figs. 4 and 5), there is very little evidence to support the hypothesis about a Turing-like mechanism for Sprouting. Moreover, it seems to me that Turing patterns can appear in a wide variety of settings and could be applied to the current problem in an abstract manner without making any meaningful connections with the system variables. Also, from a modeling point of view, cell migration and mechanics, are expected to take a major part in Sprout formation, while cell division and inclusion would most likely influence Tip-Stalk cell formation. However, it seems that in the present work, these effects are coarse-grained into Notch signalling parameters and the Sprout selection model, thus making any experimental connection quite vague.

Overall Assessment

I feel that the authors, on the whole, do achieve their main goals. Although I have a few concerns that I have raised above, overall, I find the work presented in this manuscript to be a solid addition to the broad field of collective cell dynamics. The authors use well established experimental and mathematical methods while adding a few novel analysis techniques and modeling ideas to provide a compelling, albeit incomplete, picture of Sprout formation during angiogenesis. While the direct application of this work in the context of angiogenesis is obvious, the broad set of ideas and techniques (discussed above) in this work would also be useful to researchers who work on Notch signalling in morphogenesis, collective cell migration, and epithelial-mesenchymal-transition.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors investigated the initial steps involved in angiogenesis. Using appropriate experimental tools they associated engineered vasculature models with a strong mathematical analysis. The study provides a dynamic view of the early steps involved in angiogenesis. It shows significant fluctuations in the onset of angiogenesis that suggest transitions between order and disorder in cell organization. The data obtained strongly support the hypothesis and support the conclusion of the study. This work brings new insights into the comprehension of the complex processes involved in the onset of angiogenesis and it provides a strong model to predict how VEGF will activate the delta-NOTCH signaling. Nevertheless, it would be important to describe in more detail how the current study can be used for a better understanding of the angiogenesis process in physiological and in pathological situations.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

It is well known that human and simian immunodeficiency viruses (HIV and SIV, respectively) evolved numerous mechanisms to compromise effective immune responses but the underlying mechanisms remain incompletely understood. Here, Yamamoto and Matano examined the humoral immune response in a large number of rhesus macaques infected with the difficult-to-neutralize SIVmac239 strain. They identified a subgroup of animals that showed significant neutralizing Ab responses. Sequence analyses revealed that in most of these animals (7/9) but only a minority in the control group (2/19) SIVmac variants containing a CD8+ T-cell escape mutation of G63E/R in the viral Nef gene emerged. They further show that this change attenuates the ability of Nef to stimulate PI3K/Akt/mTORC2 signaling. The authors propose that this induction of SIVmac239 nAb induction is reciprocal to antibody dysregulation caused by a previously identified human PI3K gain-of-function (Ref). Altogether, the results suggest that PI3K signaling plays a key role in B-cell maturation and generation of effective nAb responses.

Strengths of the study are that the authors analyzed a large number of SIVmac-infected macaques to unravel the biological significance of the known effect of the interaction of Nef with PI3K/Akt/mTORC2 signaling. This is interesting and may provide a novel means to improve humoral immune responses to HIV. Weaknesses are that only G63E and not G63R that also emerged in most animals was examined in most functional assays. Some effects of the G63E mutation seem modest and comparison to a grossly nef-defective SIVmac construct would be desirable to better assess to impact of the mutation of Nef-mediated stimulation of PI3K. While the impact of this Nef mutations on PI3K and the association with improved nAb responses is largely convincing, the results on the potential impact of soluble Nef on neighboring B cells is much less clear. SIVmac239 infects and manipulates helper CD4 T cells and these are essential for the activation and differentiation of B cells into antibody-producing plasma cells and effective humoral immune responses. Without additional functional evidence that Nef indeed specifically targets and manipulated B cells these results and conclusions should be made with much greater caution. Finally, the presentation of the results and conclusions is partly very convoluted and difficult to comprehend. Editing to improve clarity is highly recommended.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This work describes the induction of SIV-specific NAb responses in rhesus macaques infected with SIVmac239, a neutralization-resistant virus. Typically, host NAb responses are not detected in animals infected with SIVmac239. In this work, seventy SIVmac239-infected macaques were retrospectively screened for NAb responses and a subset of nine animals were identified as NAb-inducers. The viral genomes from 7/9 animals that induced NAb responses were found to encode nonsynonymous mutation in the Nef gene (amino acid G63E). In contrast, Nef G63E mutation was found only in 2/19 NAb non-inducers - implicating that the Nef G63E mutation is selected in NAb inducers. Measurement of Nef G63E frequencies in plasma viruses suggested that Nef G63E selection preceded NAb induction. Nef G63E mutation was found to mediate escape from Nef-specific CD8+ T-cell responses. To examine the functional phenotype of Nef G63E mutant, its effect on downmodulation of Nef-interacting host proteins was examined. Infection of rhesus and cynomolgus macaque CD4+ T cell lines with WT or Nef G63E mutant SIV suggested that Nef mutant reduces S473 phosphorylation of AKT. Using flow cytometry-based proximity ligation assay, it was shown that Nef G63E mutation reduced binding of Nef to PI3K p85/p110 and mTORC2 GβL/mLST8 and MTOR components - kinase complex responsible AKT-S473 phosphorylation. In vitro B-cell Nef invasion and in vivo imaging/flow cytometry-based assays were employed to suggest that Nef from infected cells can target Env-specific B cells. Lastly, it was determined that NAb inducers have significantly higher Env-specific B-cells responses after Nef G63E selection when compared to NAb non-inducers. Finally, a corollary was drawn between the Nef G63E-associated B-cell/NAb induction phenotype and activated PI3K delta syndrome (APDS), which is caused by activating GOF mutations in PI3K, to suggest that Nef G63E-meidated induction of NAb response is reciprocal to APDS.

Strengths:<br /> This study aims to understand the viral-host interaction that governs NAb induction in SIVmac239-infected macaques - this could enable identification of determinants important for induction of NAb responses against hard-to-neutralize tier-2/3 HIV variants. The finding that SIV-specific B-cell responses are induced following Nef G63E CD8+ T-cell escape mutant selection argue for an evolutionary trade-off between CTL escape and NAb induction. Exploitation of such a cellular-humoral immune axis could be important for HIV/AIDS vaccine efforts.

Although more validation and mechanistic basis are needed, the corollary between PI3K hyperactive signaling during autoimmune disorders and Nef-mediated abrogated PI3K signaling could help identify novel targets and modalities for targeting immune disorders and viral infections.

Weaknesses:<br /> Although the paper does have strengths in principle, the weaknesses of the paper are that the mechanistic basis of Nef-mediated induction of NAb responses are not directly examined. For example, it remains unclear whether SIVmac239 with engineered G63E mutation in Nef would induce faster and potent NAb responses. A macaque challenge study is needed to address this point.

As presented, the central premise of the paper involves infected cell-generated Nef (WT or G63E mutant) being targeted to adjacent Env-specific B cells. However, it remains unclear how this is transfer takes place. A direct evidence demonstrating CD4+ T cell-associated and/or cell-free Nef being transferred to B-cell is needed to address this concern.

The interaction between Nef and PI3K signaling components (p85, p110, GβL/mLST8, and MTOR) has been explored using PLA assay, however, this requires validation using additional biochemical and/or immunoprecipitation-based approaches. For example, is Nef (WT or mutant form) sufficient to affect PI3K-induced phosphorylation of Akt in an in vitro kinase assay? Moreover, the details regarding the binding events of WT vs mutant Nef with PI3K signaling components is lacking in this study. Lastly, it is unclear whether the interaction of Nef with PI3K signaling components is a conserved function of all primate lentiviruses or is this SIV-specific phenotype.

It has been previously reported that the region of Nef encoding glycine at position 63 is not conserved in HIV-1 (Schindler et al, Journal of Virology 2004). Thus, does HIV-1 Nef also function in induction of NAb responses in humans? or the observed phenotype specific to SIV?

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Recently discovered extrachromosomal DNA (ecDNA) provides an alternative non-chromosomal means for oncogene amplification and a potent substrate for selective evolution of tumors. The current work aims to identify key genes whose expression distinguishes ecDNA+ and ecDNA- tumors and the associated processes to shed light on the biological mechanisms underlying ecDNA genesis and their oncogenic effects. While this is clearly an important question, the analysis and the evidence supporting the claims are weak. The specific machine learning approach seems unnecessarily convoluted, insufficiently justified and explained, and the language used by the authors conflates correlation with causality. This work points to specific GO processes associated (up and down) with ecDNA+ tumors, many of which are expected but some seem intriguing, such as association with DSB pathways. My specific comments are listed below.

A. The claim of identifying genes required to 'maintain' ecDNA+ status is not justified - predictive features are not necessarily causal.<br /> B. The methods and procedures to identify the key genes is hyperparameterized and convoluted and casts doubt on the robustness of the findings given the size and heterogeneity of the data.<br /> a. In the first two paragraphs of Boruta Analysis Methods section, authors describe an iterative procedure where in each iteration, a binomial p-value is computed for each gene based on number of iterations thus far in which the gene was selected (higher GINI index than max of shadow features). But then in the third paragraph they simply perform Random Forest in 200 random 80% of samples and pick a gene if it is selected in at least 10/200. It is ultimately not clear what was done. Why 10/200? Also "the probability that a gene is a "hit" or "non-hit" in each iteration is 0.5" is unclear. That probability is of a gene achieving GINI index higher than the max of shadow features. How can it be 0.5?<br /> b. The approach of combining genes with clusters is arbitrary. Why not start with clusters and evaluate each cluster (using some gene set summary score) for their ability to discriminate? Ultimately, one needs additional information to disambiguate correlated genes (i.e. in a co-expression cluster) in terms of causality.<br /> c. The cross-validation procedure is not clear at all. There is a mention of 80-20 split but exactly how/if the evaluation is done on the 20% is muddled. The way precision-recall procedure is also a bit convoluted - why not simply use the area under the PR curve?<br /> d. The claim is that Boruta genes are different from differentially expressed genes but the differential expression seems to be estimated without regards to cancer type, which would certainly be highly biased and misleading. Why not do a simple regression of gene expression by ecDNA status, cancer type and select the genes that show significant coefficient for ecDNA status?<br /> C. After identifying key features (which the authors inappropriate imply to be causal) they perform a series of enrichment/correlative analysis.<br /> a. It is known that ecDNA status associates with poor survival, and so are cell cycle related signal. Then the association between Boruta genes and those processes is entirely expected. Is it not? The same goes for downregulation of immune processes.<br /> b. The association with DSB specifically is interesting. Further analysis or discussion of why this should be would strengthen the work.<br /> c. On page 15, second paragraph, when providing the up versus down CorEx genes, please also provide up versus down for non-CorEx genes as well to get a sense of magnitude.<br /> d. The finding that Boruta genes are associated with high mutation burden is intriguing because in general mutation burden is associated with better survival and immunotherapy response. This counter-intuitive result should be scrutinized more to strengthen the work.<br /> e. On page 17 "12 of the 47 genes not specifically enriching any known GO biological Process" is confusing. How can individual gene enrich for a GO process?

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> Using a combination of approaches, including automated feature selection and hierarchical clustering, the author identified a set of genes persistently associated with extrachromosomal DNA (ecDNA) presence across cancer types. The authors further validated the gene set identified using gene ontology enrichment analysis and identified that upregulated genes in extrachromosomal DNA-containing tumors are enriched in biological processes like DNA damage and cell proliferation, whereas downregulated genes are enriched in immune response processes.

Major comments:<br /> 1. The authors presented a solid comparative analysis of ecDNA-containing and ecDNA-free tumors. An established automated feature selection approach, Boruta, was used to select differentially expressed genes (DEG) in ecDNA(+) and ecDNA(-) TCGA tumor samples, and the iterative selection process and two-tier multiple hypothesis testing ensured the selection of reliable DEGs. The author showed that the DEG selected using Boruta has stronger predictive power than genes with top log-fold changes.

2. The author performed a thorough interpretation of the findings with GO enrichment analysis of biological processes enriched in the identified DEG set, and presented interesting findings, including the enrichment in DNA damage process among the genes upregulated in ecDNA(+) tumors.

3. Overall, the authors achieved their aims with solid data mining and analysis approaches applied to public data tumor data sets.

4. While it may not be the scope of this study, it will be interesting to at least have some justification for choosing Boruta over other feature selection methods, such as Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE) and backward stepwise selection.

5. The authors showed that DESEQ-selected DEGs with top log-fold changes have less strong predictive power and speculated that this may be due to the fact that genes with top log-fold changes (LFC) are confined only to a small subset of samples. It will be interesting to select DEGs with top log-fold changes after first partitioning the tumor samples. For example, randomly partition the tumor samples, identify the DEGs with top LFC, combine the DEGs identified from each partition, then evaluate the predictive power of these DEGs against the Boruta-selected DEGs.

6. While the authors showed that the presence of mutations was not able to classify ecDNA(+) and (-) tumor samples, it will be interesting to see if variant allele frequencies of the genes containing these mutations have predictive power.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In their manuscript entitled "Transcriptional immune suppression and upregulation of double stranded DNA damage and repair repertoires in ecDNA-containing tumors" Lin et al. describe an important study on the transcriptional programs associated with the presence of extrachromosomal DNA in a cohort of 870 cancers of different origin. The authors find that compared to cancers lacking such amplifications, ecDNA+ cancers express higher levels of DNA damage repair-associated genes, but lower levels of immune-related gene programs.

This work is very timely and its findings have the potential to be very impactful, as the transcriptional context differences between ecDNA+ and ecDNA- cancers are currently largely unknown. The observation that immune programs are downregulated in ecDNA+ cancers may initiate new preclinical and translational studies that impact the way ecDNA+ cancers are treated in the future. Thus, this study has important theoretical implications that have the potential to substantially advance our understanding of ecDNA+ cancers.

Strengths<br /> The authors provide compelling evidence for their conclusions based on large patient datasets. The methods they used and analyses are rigorous.

Weaknesses<br /> The biological interpretation of the data remains observational. The direct implication of these genes in ecDNA(+) tumors is not tested experimentally.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary<br /> The authors seek to characterize the role of splicing factor SRSF1 during spermatogenesis. Using a conditional deletion of Srsf1 in germ cells, they find that SRSF1 is required for male fertility. Via immunostaining and RNA-seq analysis of the Srsf1 conditional knockout (cKO) testes, combined with SRSF1 CLIP-seq and IP-MS data from the testis, they ultimately conclude that Srsf1 is required for spermatogonial stem cell (SSC) homing and self-renewal due to alternative splicing of Tial1.

Strengths<br /> The overall methods and results are robust. The histological analysis of the Srsf1 cKO traces the origins of the fertility defect to the postnatal testis, and the authors have generated interesting datasets characterizing SRSF1's RNA targets and interacting proteins specifically in the testis.

Ultimately, the authors have shown that SRSF1's effects on alternative splicing are required to establish spermatogenesis. In the absence of Srsf1, the postnatal gonocytes/nascent spermatogonia do not properly relocate from the seminiferous tubules' lumen to basement membrane, and consequently, never initiate spermatogenesis. I believe this relocation event is what the authors are referring to as "SSC homing".

Weaknesses<br /> I do not think there is enough evidence to support two major conclusions. First, the authors conclude that SRSF1 is required for "SSC self-renewal." Given the defect in nascent spermatogonial development, it is not evident to me that SSCs actually form in the Srsf1 cKO. Second, the authors conclude that SRSF1 controls alternative splicing of Tial1 to "implement SSC homing and self-renewal." I'm unsure as to the basis for TIAL1's role in "SSC homing and self-renewal," particularly as the only reference provided about Tial1's effects on the germ line shows that germ cells are completely lost during embryonic gestation. As a result, it's ultimately unclear to me how SRSF1 mechanistically regulates the relocation of gonocytes/nascent spermatogonia to the basement membrane.

Alternative splicing is quite pronounced in the testis relative to other tissues. The authors have presented interesting work that shows that alternative splicing is required in the testicular germ line for the establishment of spermatogenesis.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors revealed that spermatogonia-related genes (e.g., Plzf, Id4, Setdb1, Stra8, Tial1/Tiar, Bcas2, Ddx5, Srsf10, Uhrf1, and Bud31) were bound by SRSF1 in the mouse testes by Crosslinking immunoprecipitation and sequencing (CLIP-seq). Using Vasa-cre mouse line, the authors successfully evidenced that SRSF1 in the testis is essential for homing and self-renewal in mouse spermatogonial stem cells. Further evidence showed that SRSF1 directly binds and regulates the expression of Tial1/Tiar via AS to implement SSC homing and self-renewal. Immunoprecipitation mass spectrometry (IP-MS) data showed that the AS of SSC is regulated by SRSF1 coordinated with other RNA splicing-related proteins (e.g., SRSF10, SART1, RBM15, SRRM2, SF3B6, and SF3A2). The authors revealed the critical role of SRSF1-mediated AS in SSC homing and self-renewal, which may provide a framework to elucidate the molecular mechanisms of the posttranscriptional network underlying the formation of SSC pools and the establishment of niches. The experiments are well-designed and conducted, the overall conclusions are convincing. This work will be of interest to stem cell and reproductive biologists.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this study, Sun et al examine the role of the splicing factor SRSF1 in spermatogenesis in mice. Alternative splicing is important for spermatogenic development, but its regulation and major developmental roles during spermatogenesis are not well understood. The authors set out to better define both SRSF1 function in testes and the contribution of alternative splicing. They collect several large 'omics datasets to define SRSF1 targets in testis, including RNA interactions by CLIP-seq in whole testis, protein interactions by IP-mass spec in whole testis, and RNA sequencing to detect expression levels and splice variants. They also examine the phenotype of germline conditional knockouts (cKO) for Srsf1, using the early-acting Vasa-Cre, and find a severe depletion of germ cells starting at 7 days post partum (dpp) and culminating with a lack of germ cells (Sertoli Cell Only Syndrome) by adulthood. They detect differences in gene expression as well as differences in splicing between control and knockout, including 9 genes that are downregulated, experience alternative splicing, and whose transcripts are also bound by SRSF1, and identify the Tial1/Tiar transcript as one of these targets. They conclude that SRSF1 is required for homing and self-renewal of spermatogonial stem cells, at least in part through its regulation of Tial1/Tiar splicing.

Strengths of the paper include detailed phenotyping of the Srsf1 cKO, which convincingly supports the Sertoli Cell Only phenotype, establishes the timing of the first appearance of the spermatogonial defect, and provides new insight into the role of splicing factors and SRSF1 specifically in spermatogenesis. Another strength is the generation of CLIP-seq, IP-MS, and RNA-seq datasets which will be a useful resource for the field of germ cell development. Major weaknesses include a lack of robust support for two major claims: first, there is inadequate support for the claim of defects in either "homing" or "self-renewal" of spermatogonia in the cKO, and second, there is inadequate support for the claim that altered splicing of the Tial1 transcript mediates the effect of SRSF1 loss. A moderate weakness is the superficial discussion of the CLIP, RNA-seq, and IP-MS datasets, limiting their otherwise high utility for other researchers. Overall, the paper as it stands will have a moderate impact on the field of male reproductive biology. Specific points that should be addressed to improve support for the claims are below.

Major comments

1) In Fig 1D, it appears that SRSF1 is expressed most strongly in spermatogonia by immunofluorescence, but this is inconsistent with the sharp rise in expression detected by RT-qPCR at 20 days post partum (dpp) (Fig. 1B), which is when round spermatids are first added; this discrepancy should be explained or addressed.

2) It is important to provide a more comprehensive basic description of the CLIP-seq datasets beyond what is shown in the tracks shown in Fig. 2B. This would allow a better assessment of the data quality and would also provide information about the transcriptome-wide patterns of SRSF1 binding. No information or quality metrics are provided about the libraries, and it is not stated how replicates are handled to maximize the robustness of the analysis. The distribution of peaks across exons, introns, and other genomic elements should also be shown.

3) The claim that SRSF1 is required for "homing and self-renewal" of SSCs is made in multiple places in the manuscript. However, neither homing nor self-renewal is ever directly tested. A single image is shown in Fig. 5E of a spermatogonium at 5dpp that does not appropriately sit on the basal membrane, potentially indicating a homing defect, but this is not quantified or followed up. There is good evidence for depletion of spermatogonia starting at 7 dpp, but no further explanation of how homing and/or self-renewal fit into the phenotype.

4) In Fig. 6A (lines 258-260) very few genes downregulated in the cKO are bound by SRSF1 and undergo abnormal splicing. The small handful that falls into this overlap could simply be noise. A much larger fraction of differentially spliced genes are CLIP-seq targets (~33%), which is potentially interesting, but this set of genes is not explored.

5) The background gene set for Gene Ontology analyses is not specified. If these were done with the whole transcriptome as background, one would expect enrichment of spermatogenesis genes simply because they are expressed in testes. The more appropriate set of genes to use as background in these analyses is the total set of genes that are expressed in testis.

6) In general, the model is over-claimed: aside from interactions by IP-MS, little is demonstrated in this study about how SRSF1 affects alternative splicing in spermatogenesis, or how alternative splicing of TIAL1 specifically would result in the phenotype shown. It is not clear why Tial1/Tiar is selected as a candidate mediator of SRSF1 function from among the nine genes that are downregulated in the cKO, are bound by SRSF1, and undergo abnormal splicing. Although TIAL1 levels are reduced in cKO testes by Western blot (Fig. 7J), this could be due just be due to a depletion of germ cells from whole testis. The reported splicing difference for Tial1 seems very subtle and the ratio of isoforms does not look different in the Western blot image.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> In this study, the authors generate a Drosophila model to assess disease-linked allelic variants in the UBA5 gene. In humans, variants in UBA5 have been associated with DEE44, characterized by developmental delay, seizures, and encephalopathy. Here, the authors set out to characterize the relationship between 12 disease-linked variants in UBA5 using a variety of assays in their Drosophila Uba5 model. They first show that human UBA5 can substitute all essential functions of the Drosophila Uba5 ortholog, and then assess phenotypes in flies expressing the various disease variants. Using these assays, the authors classify the alleles into mild, intermediate, and severe loss-of-function alleles. Further, the authors establish several important in vitro assays to determine the impacts of the disease alleles on Uba5 stability and function. Together, they find a relatively close correlation between in vivo and in vitro relationships between Uba5 alleles and establish a new Drosophila model to probe the etiology of Uba5-related disorders.

Strengths:<br /> Overall, this is a convincing and well-executed study. There is clearly a need to assess disease-associated allelic variants to better understand human disorders, particularly for rare diseases, and this humanized fly model of Uba5 is a powerful system to rapidly evaluate variants and relationships to various phenotypes. The manuscript is well written, and the experiments are appropriately controlled.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Relative simplicity and genetic accessibility of the fly brain make it a premier model system for studying the function of genes linked to various diseases in humans. Here, Pan et al. show that human UBA5, whose mutations cause developmental and epileptic encephalopathy, can functionally replace the fly homolog Uba5. The authors then systematically express in flies the different versions of the gene carrying clinically relevant SNPs and perform extensive phenotypic characterization such as survival rate, developmental timing, lifespan, locomotor and seizure activity, as well as in vitro biochemical characterization (stability, ATP binding, UFM-1 activation) of the corresponding recombinant proteins. The biochemical effects are well predicted by (or at least consistent with) the location of affected amino acids in the previously described Uba5 protein structure. Most strikingly, the severity of biochemical defects appears to closely track the severity of phenotypic defects observed in vivo in flies. While the paper does not provide many novel insights into the function of Uba5, it convincingly establishes the fly nervous system as a powerful model for future mechanistic studies.

One potential limitation is the design of the expression system in this work. Even though the authors state that "human cDNA is expressed under the control of the endogenous Uba5 enhancer and promoter", it is in fact the Gal4 gene that is expressed from the endogenous locus, meaning that the cDNA expression level would inevitably be amplified in comparison. The fact that different effects were observed when some experiments were performed at different temperatures (18 vs. 25) is also consistent with this. While I do not think this caveat weakens the conclusions of this paper, it may impact the interpretation of future experiments that use these tools, and thus should be clearly discussed in the paper. Especially considering the authors argue that most disease variants of UBA5 are partial loss-of-functions, the amplification effect could potentially mask the phenotypes of milder hypomorphic alleles. If the authors could also show that the T2A-Gal4 expression pattern in the brain matches well with that of endogenous RNA or protein (e.g. using HCR-FISH or antibody), it would help to alleviate this concern.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> Variants in the UBA5 gene are associated with rare developmental and epileptic encephalopathy, DEE44. This research developed a system to assess in vivo and in vitro genotype-phenotype relationships between UBA5 allele series by humanized UBA5 fly models and biochemical activity assays. This study provides a basis for evaluating current and future individuals afflicted with this rare disease.

Strengths:<br /> The authors developed a method to measure the enzymatic reaction activity of UBA5 mutants over time by applying the UbiReal method, which can monitor each reaction step of ubiquitination in real time using fluorescence polarization. They also classified fruit fly carrying humanized UBA5 variants into groups based on phenotype. They found a correlation between biochemical UBA5 activity and phenotype severity.

Weaknesses:<br /> In the case of human DEE44, compound heterozygotes with both loss-of-function and hypomorphic forms (e.g., p.Ala371Thr, p.Asp389Gly, p.Asp389Tyr) may cause disease states. The presented models have failed to evaluate such cases.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This study provides an unbiased characterization of the cardiac proteome in the setting of intermittent fasting. The findings constitute a resource of quantitative proteomic data that sheds light on changes in cardiac function due to diet and that may be used in the future by other investigators. There are a number of key missing details that limit interpretation or present opportunities to strengthen the study. For example, the authors find that apolipoproteins are altered with fasting but it is not clear whether this is a contribution of myocardial tissue changes or systemic effects spilling into blood in cardiac tissues. Some statements in the text like "Approximately one-third of the differentially expressed proteins in IF groups compared to AL were enzymes with catalytic activity involved in energy homeostasis pathways" do not appear to be supported by data. It is not clear how the list of Kinases were generated for Figure 1B. Changes in chromatin or gene expression are not measured so the conclusion that EOD led to 'epigenetic changes' relative to IF16 is not well supported. There are also a number of areas where the text is vague. For example, it is not clear what is meant by 'trend shift' when discussing EOD results and Figure 3 generally could use additional information to better understands the figures. An interesting finding is that the IF16 groups showed cardiac hypertrophy (SFig 11b). This is potentially a novel finding and the text should elaborate more on this phenomenon.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The work presented in the manuscript tries to identify tRNA modifications present in Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) using reverse transcription-derived error signatures with tRNA-seq. The study identified enzyme homologs and correlates them with presence of respective tRNA modifications in Mtb. The study used several chemical treatments (IAA and alkali treatment) to further enhance the reverse transcription signals and confirms the presence of modifications in the bases. tRNA modifications by two enzymes TruB and MnmA were established by doing tRNA-seq of respective deletion mutants. Ultimately, authors show that MnmA-dependent tRNA modification is important for intracellular growth of Mtb. Overall, this report identifies multiple tRNA modifications and discuss their implication in Mtb infection.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Tomasi et al. performed a combination of bioinformatic, next-generation tRNA sequencing experiments to predict the set of tRNA modifications and their corresponding genes in the tRNAs of the pathogenic bacteria Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Long known to be important for translation accuracy and efficiency, tRNA modifications are now emerging as having regulatory roles. However, the basic knowledge of the position and nature of the modifications present in a given organism is very sparse beyond a handful of model organisms. Studies that can generate the tRNA modification maps in different organisms along the tree of life are good starting points for further studies. The focus here on a major human pathogen that is studied by a large community raises the general interest of the study. Finally, deletion of the gene mnmA responsible for the insertion of s2U at position 34 revealed defects in growth in macrophage but in test tubes suggesting regulatory roles that will warrant further studies. The conclusions of the paper are mostly supported by the data but the partial nature of the bioinformatic analysis and absence of Mass-Spectrometry data make it incomplete. The authors do not take advantage of the Mass spec data that is published for Mycobacterium bovis (PMID: 27834374) to discuss what they find.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, Tomasi et al identify a series of tRNA modifying enzymes from Mtb, show their function in the relevant tRNA modifications and by using at least one deleted strain for MnmA, they show the relevance of tRNA modification in intra-host survival and postulate their potential role in pathogenesis.

Conceptually it is a wonderful study, given that tRNA modifications are so fundamental to all life forms, showing their role in Mtb growth in the host is significant. However, the authors have not thoroughly analyzed the phenotype. The growth defect aspect or impact on pathogenesis needs to be adequately addressed.

- The authors show that ΔmnmA grows equally well in the in vitro cultures as the WT. However, they show attenuated growth in the macrophages. Is it because Glu1_TTC and Gln1-TTG tRNAs are not the preferred tRNAs for incorporation of Glu and Gln, respectively? And for some reason, they get preferred over the alternate tRNAs during infection? What dictates this selectivity?

- As such the growth defect shown in macrophages would be more convincing if the authors also show the phenotype of complementation with WT mnmA.

An important consideration here is the universal nature of these modifications across the life forms. Any strategy to utilize these enzymes as the potential therapeutic candidate would have to factor in this important aspect.

Joint Public Review

In this manuscript, Karl et al. explore mechanisms underlying the activation of the receptor tyrosine kinase FGFR1 and stimulation of intracellular signaling pathways in response to FGF4, FGF8, or FGF9 binding to the extracellular domain of FGFR1. Quantitative binding experiments presented in the manuscript demonstrate that FGF4, FGF8, and FGF9 exhibit distinct binding affinities towards FGFRs. It is also proposed that FGF8 exhibits "biased ligand" characteristics that is manifested via binding and activation FGFR1 mediated by "structural differences in the FGF- FGFR1 dimers, which impact the interactions of the FGFR1 trans membrane helices, leading to differential recruitment and activation of the downstream signaling adapter FRS2".

In the absence of any structural experimental data of different forms of FGFR dimers stimulated by FGF ligands the model presents in the manuscript is speculative and misleading.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The present study examined the physiological mechanisms through which impaired TG storage capacity in adipose tissues affects systemic energy homeostasis in mice. To accomplish this, the authors deleted DGAT1 and DGAT2, crucial enzymes for TG synthesis, in an adipocyte-specific manner. The authors found that ADGAT DKO mice substantially lost the adipose tissues and developed hypothermia when fasted; however, surprisingly, ADGAT KO mice were metabolically healthy on a high-fat diet. The authors found that it was accompanied by elevated energy expenditure, enhanced glucose uptake by the BAT, and enhanced browning of white adipose tissues. This unique animal model provided exciting opportunities to identify new mechanisms to maintain systemic energy homeostasis even in a compromised energy storage capacity. Overall, the data are compelling and support the conclusions of the paper. The manuscript is also clearly written.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Here, Chitraju et al have studied the phenotype of mice with an adipocyte-specific deletion of the diglycerol acyltransferases DGAT1 and DGAT2, the two enzymes catalyzing the last step in triglyceride biosynthesis. These mice display reduced WAT TG stores but contrary to their expectations, the TG loss in WAT is not complete and the mice are resistant to a high-fat diet intervention and display a metabolically healthier profile compared to control littermates. The mechanisms underlying this are not entirely clear, but the double knockout (DKO) animals have increased EE and a lower RQ suggesting that enhanced FA oxidation and WAT "browning" may be involved. Moreover, both adiponectin and leptin are expressed in WAT and are detectable in circulation. The authors propose that "the capacity to store energy in adipocytes is somehow sensed and triggers thermogenesis in adipose tissue. This phenotype likely requires an intact adipocyte endocrine system...." Overall, I find this to be an interesting notion.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this study, the authors sought to test the hypothesis that blocking triglyceride storage in adipose tissue by knockout of DGAT1 and DGAT2 in adipocytes would lead to ectopic lipid deposition, lipodystrophy, and impaired glucose homeostasis. Surprisingly, the authors found the opposite result, with DGAT1/2 DKO in adipocytes leading to increased energy expenditure, minimal ectopic lipid deposition, and improved glucose homeostasis with HFD feeding. These metabolic improvements were largely attributed to increased beiging of the white fat and increased brown adipose tissue activity. This study provides an interesting new paradigm whereby impairing fat storage, the major function of adipose tissue, does not lead to severe metabolic disease, but rather improves it. The authors provide a comprehensive assessment of the metabolism of these DKO mice under chow and HFD conditions, which support their claims. The study lacks in mechanistic insight, which would strengthen the study, but does not detract from the authors' major conclusions.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The manuscript presents a framework for studying biomechanical principles and their links to morphology and provides interesting insights into a particular question regarding terrestrial locomotion and speed. The goal of the paper is to derive general principles of directed terrestrial locomotion, speed, and symmetry.

Major strengths:<br /> The manuscript is a unique and creative work that explores performance spaces of a complicated question through computational modeling. Overall, the paper is well written and well crafted and was a pleasure to read.

The methods presented here (variable agents used to represent ultra-simplified body configurations that are not inherently constrained) are interesting and there's significant potential in them for a properly constrained question. For the data that is present here their hypotheses (while they can be anticipated from first principles) are very well validated and serve as a robust validation of these expectations and can help.

Of particular interest was the discussion of the transferability of morphologies designed under one system and moving to another. From a deep-time perspective, of particular interest is the transition from subaqueous to terrestrial locomotion which we know was a major earth life transition. The results of this study show that the best-suited morphologies for subaqueous movement are ill-suited (from a locomotor speed standpoint at least) to fully terrestrial locomotion which begs the question of if there are a suite of forms that have balanced performance in both and how that would differ from aquatic morphologies.

Major weaknesses:<br /> 1. There is a major disagreement between the target and parameters.

From a biomechanics perspective the target of this study, Directed Locomotion, is a fairly broad behavioral mode. However, what the authors are ultimately evaluating their model organisms on is a single performance parameter (speed, or distance traveled after 30s). Statements such as "bilateral symmetry showed to be a law-like pattern in animal evolution for efficient directed locomotion purposes" (p 12 line 365-366) are problematic for this reason.

Attaining the highest possible speed is a relevant but limited subset of ways one might interpret performance for directed locomotion. Efficiency, power generation, and limb loading/strain are equally relevant components.

The focus on speed coupled with selection for only the highest performing morphologies, rather than setting a minimum performance threshold, fundamentally restricts the dynamics of the system in a way that is not representative of their specified target and pulls the simulations toward a specific, anticipatable, result.

Locomotor efficiency is alluded to later in the manuscript as one of the observed outcomes, but speed is not equivalent to locomotor efficiency (in much the same way that it is not the sole metric for describing performance with respect to directed locomotion). Energy/work/power have not been accounted for in the manuscript so this is not a parameter this study weighs in on.

The data and analyses the others present do show an interesting validation of these methods in assessing first-order questions relating the shape of a single performance surface to a theoretical morphology, which has significant potential value.

2. There is a significant population and/or sample size and biasing.

Thirty simulations of a population of 101 morphologies seems small for a study of this kind, particularly looking to investigate such a broad question at an abstract level. Particularly when the top 50% of morphologies are chosen to mutate. It would be very easy for artificial biases to rapidly propagate through this system depending on the parameters bounding the formation of the initial generation.

This strong selection choosing the best 50 morphologies and mutating them enforces an aggressive effect that simulates an even more potent phylogenetic inertia than one might anticipate for an actual evolutionary history (it's no surprise then that all of the simulations were able to successfully retrieve a suite of morphotypes that recovered the performance peak for this system within 1500 generations).

Similarly, why is it that a 4^3 voxel limit was chosen? One can imagine that an increase in this voxel limit would allow for the development of more extreme geometries, which might be successful. It is likely that there might be computational resource constraints involved in this, it would be useful for the authors to add additional context here.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Acknowledging practical difficulties in teasing out the principles behind animal locomotion from the body's functions and survival needs, the authors embark on a computational experiment to replay the "tape of life." Specifically, the chief objective of the study was to explore the necessity of symmetry and modularity for better-directed locomotion on the ground.

Towards this important goal, the authors put forward a comprehensive computational study using physics-based simulations of 3D voxel-based robots. Such a simulation environment allows one to capture salient dynamics behind locomotion, including interactions with the environment. The authors undertake simulations for three different gravitational environments, water, Earth, and Mars. The work has several methodological strengths, with respect to the ingenuity of the approach and the elegance of the analysis; I was particularly intrigued by the use of graph theory in the context of modularity. Results point to a complex, rich role of modularity and symmetry in locomotion, modulated by the gravitational environment.

The association between "locomotion ability" and average speed is, in my view, tenuous, whereby locomotion is a complex phenomenon that should be assessed across a range of intertwined dynamic metrics that include, for example, stability with respect to external perturbations and energy efficiency. I also am not fully convinced of i) the adequacy of the spatial resolution, whereby I failed to see a compelling argument regarding the completeness of 64 voxels; ii) the realism of the oscillatory patterns, whereby all the voxels are set to oscillate at the same, constant, frequency of 2Hz; and iii) the accuracy of simulations in water where added mass effects seem to be neglected. Overall, dynamics and control aspects could be improved in both the methods and the interpretation of the results. Finally, I believe that a stronger connection between the hypotheses of the study and the literature (in animal or robot locomotion) would help frame the narrative better. I would be particularly curious to see some tie with human bipedal locomotion.

The work bears important implications in the study of locomotion, shedding light on the role of modularity and symmetry, beyond what one could gather from mere observations. Not only do I expect these new insights to stimulate further research in the area of locomotion, but also I envision other communities embracing a similar computational approach to address related questions in life sciences and robotics.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript represents an elegant bioinformatics approach to addressing causal pathways in vascular and liver tissue related to atherosclerosis/coronary artery disease, including those shared by humans and mice and those that are specific to only one of these species. The authors constructed co-expression networks using bulk transcriptome data from human (aorta, coronary) and mouse (aorta) vascular and liver tissue. They mapped human CAD GWAS data onto these modules, mapped GWAS SNPs to putatively causal genes, identified pathways and modules enriched in CAD GWAS hits, assessed those shared between vascular and liver tissues and between humans and mice, determined key driver genes in CAD-associated supersets, and used mouse single-cell transcriptome data to infer the roles of specific vascular and liver cell types. The overall approach used by the authors is rigorous and provides new insights into potentially causal pathways in vascular tissue and liver involved in atherosclerosis/CAD that are shared between humans and mice as well as those that are species-specific. This approach could be applied to a variety of other common complex conditions.

The conclusions are largely supported by the analyses. Some specific comments:

1. It appears that GWAS SNPs were mapped to genes solely through the use of eQTLs. Current methods involve a number of other complementary approaches to map GWAS SNPs to effector genes/transcripts and there is the thought that eQTLs may not necessarily be the best way to map causal genes.<br /> 2. Given the critical causal role of circulating apoB lipoproteins in atherosclerosis in both mice and humans and the central role of the liver in regulating their levels, perhaps the authors could use the 'metabolism of lipids and lipoproteins' network in Fig 3B as a kind of 'positive control' to illustrate the overlap between mice and humans and the driver genes for this network.<br /> 3. Is it possible to infer the directionality of effect of key driver genes and pathways from these analyses? For example, ACADM was found to be a KD gene for a human-specific liver CAD superset pathway involving BCAA degradation. Are the authors able to determine or predict the effect of genetically increased expression of ACADM on BCAA metabolism and on CAD? Or the directionality of the effect of the hepatic KD gene OIT3 on hepatic and plasma lipids and atherosclerosis.<br /> 4. While likely beyond the scope of this manuscript, the substantial amount of publicly available plasma proteomic and metabolomic data could be incorporated into this multiomic bioinformatic analysis. Many of the pathways involve secreted proteins or metabolites that would further inform the biology and the understanding of how these pathways relate to atherosclerosis.

The findings here will motivate the community of atherosclerosis investigators to pursue additional potential causal genes and pathways through computational and experimental approaches. It will also influence the approach around the use of the mouse model to test specific pathways and therapeutic approaches in atherosclerosis. In addition, the computational approach is robust and could (and likely will) be applied to a variety of other common complex conditions.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> Mouse models are widely used to determine key molecular mechanisms of atherosclerosis, the underlying pathology that leads to coronary artery disease. The authors use various systems biology approaches, namely co-expression and Bayesian Network analysis, as well as key driver analysis, to identify co-regulated genes and pathways involved in human and mouse atherosclerosis in artery and liver tissues. They identify species-specific and tissue-specific pathways enriched for the genetic association signals obtained in genome-wide association studies of human and mouse cohorts.

Strengths:<br /> The manuscript is well executed with appropriate analysis methods. It also provides a compelling series of results regarding mouse and human atherosclerosis.

Weaknesses:<br /> The manuscript has several weaknesses that should be acknowledged in the discussion. First, there are numerous models of mouse atherosclerosis; however, the HMDP atherosclerosis study uses only one model of mouse atherosclerosis, namely hyperlipidemic mice, due to the transgenic expression of human apolipoprotein E-Leiden (APOE-Leiden) and human cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP). Therefore, when drawing general conclusions about mouse pathways not being identified in humans, caution is warranted. Other models of mouse atherosclerosis may be able to capture different aspects of human atherosclerosis. Second, the mouse aorta tissue is atherosclerotic, whereas the atherosclerosis status of the GTEX aorta tissues is not known. Therefore, it is possible that some of the human or mouse-specific gene modules/pathways may be due to the difference in the disease status of the tissues from which the gene expression is obtained. Third, it is unclear how the sex of the mice (all female in the HMDP atherosclerosis study and all male in the baseline HMDP study) and the sex of the human donors affected the results. Did the authors regress out the influence of sex on gene expression in the human data before performing the co-expression and preservation studies? If not, this should be acknowledged. Fourth, some of the results are unexpected, and these should be discussed. For example, the authors identify that the leukocyte transendothelial migration pathway and PDGF signaling pathway are human-specific in their vascular tissue analysis. These pathways have been extensively described in mouse studies. Why do the authors think they identified these pathways as human-specific? Similarly, the authors identified gluconeogenesis and branched-chain amino acid catabolism as human and mouse-shared modules in the vascular tissue. Is there evidence of the involvement of these pathways in atherosclerosis in vascular cells?

Overall, acknowledging these drawbacks and adding points to the discussion will strengthen the manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

First, I agree with the authors of this manuscript that conformational changes in the XFEL structures with 2.8 A resolution are not reliable enough for demonstrating the subtle changes in the electron transfer events in this bacterial photosynthesis system. Actually, the data statistics in the paper by Dods et al. showed that the high-resolution range of some of the XFEL datasets may include pretty high noise (low CC1/2 and high Rsplit) so the comparison of the subtle conformational changes of the structures is problematic.

The manuscript by Gai Nishikawa investigated time-dependent changes in the energetics of the electron transfer pathway based on the structures by Dods et al. by calculating redox potential of the active and inactive branches in the structures and found no clear link between the time-dependent structural changes and the electron transfer events in the XFEL structures published by Dods, R.et al. (2021). This study provided validation for the interpretation of the structures of those electron-transferring proteins.

The paper was well prepared.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Nishikawa et al. addresses time-dependent changes in the electron transfer energetics in the photosynthetic reaction center from Blastochloris viridis, whose time-dependent structural changes upon light illumination were recently demonstrated by time-resolved serial femtosecond crystallography (SFX) using X-ray free-electron laser (XFEL) (Dods et al., Nature, 2021). Based on the redox potential Em values of bacteriopheophytin in the electron transfer active branch (BL) by solving the linear Poisson-Boltzmann equation, the authors found that Em(HL) values in the charge-separated 5-ps structure obtained by XFEL are not clearly changed, suggesting that the P+HL- state is not stabilized owing to protein reorganization. Furthermore, chlorin ring deformation upon HL- formation, which was expected from their QM/MM calculation, is not recognized in the 5-ps XFEL structure. Then the authors concluded that the structural changes in the XFEL structures are not related to the actual time course of charge separation. They argued that their calculated changes in Em and chlorin ring deformations using the XEFL structures may reflect the experimental errors rather than the real structural changes; they mentioned this problem is due to the fact that the XFEL structures were obtained at not high resolutions (mostly at 2.8 Å). I consider that their systematic calculations may suggest a useful theoretical interpretation of the XFEL study. However, the present manuscript insists as a whole negatively that the experimental errors may hamper to provide the actual structural changes relevant to the electron transfer events.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Kubori and colleagues characterized the manipulation of the host cell GTPase Rab10 by several Legionella effector proteins, specifically members of the SidE and SidC family. They show that Rab10 undergoes both conventional ubiquitination and noncanonical phosphoribose-ubiquitination, and that this posttranslational modification contributes to the retention of Rab10 around Legionella vacuoles.

Strengths<br /> Legionella is an emerging pathogen of increasing importance, and dissecting its virulence mechanisms allows us to better prevent and treat infections with this organism. How Legionella and related pathogens exploit the function of host cell vesicle transport GTPases of the Rab family is a topic of great interest to the microbial pathogenesis field. This manuscript investigates the molecular processes underlying Rab10 GTPase manipulation by several Legionella effector proteins, most notably members of the SidE and SidC families. The finding that MavC conjugates ubiquitin to SdcB to regulate its function is novel, and sheds further light into the complex network of ubiquitin-related effectors from Lp. The manuscript is well written, and the experiments were performed carefully and examined meticulously.

Weaknesses<br /> Unfortunately, in its current form this manuscript offers only little additional insight into the role of effector-mediated ubiquitination during Lp infection beyond what has already been published. The enzymatic activities of the SidC and SidE family members were already known prior to this study, as was the importance of Rab10 for optimal Lp virulence. Likewise, it had previously been shown that SidE and SidC family members ubiquitinate various host Rab GTPases, like Rab33 and Rab1. The main contribution of this study is to show that Rab10 is also a substrate of the SidE and SidC family of effectors. What remains unclear is if Rab10 is indeed the main biological target of SdcB (not just 'a' target), and how exactly Rab10 modification with ubiquitin benefits Lp infection.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This manuscript explores the interplay between Legionella Dot/Icm effectors that modulate ubiquitination of the host GTPase Rab10. Rab10 undergoes phosphoribosyl-ubiquitination (PR-Ub) by the SidE family of effectors which is required for its recruitment to the Legionella containing vacuole (LCV). Through a series of elegant experiments using effector gene knockouts, co-transfection studies and careful biochemistry, Kubori et al further demonstrate that:

1. The SidC family member SdcB contributes to the polyubiquitination (poly-Ub) of Rab10 and its retention at the LCV membrane.<br /> 2. The transglutaminase effector, MavC acts as an inhibitor of SdcB by crosslinking ubiquitin at Gln41 to lysine residues in SdcB.

Some further comments and questions are provided below.

1. From the data in Figure 1, it appears that the PR-Ub of Rab10 precedes and in fact is a prerequisite for poly-Ub of Rab10. The authors imply this but there's no explicit statement but isn't this the case?<br /> 2. The complex interplay of Legionella effectors and their meta-effectors targeting a single host protein (as shown previously for Rab1) suggests the timing and duration of Rab10 activity on the LCV is tightly regulated. How does the association of Rab10 with the LCV early during infection and then its loss from the LCV at later time points impact LCV biogenesis or stability? This could be clearer in the manuscript and the summary figure does not illustrate this aspect.<br /> 3. How do the activities of the SidE and SidC effectors influence the amount of active Rab10 on the LCV (not just its localisation and ubiquitination)<br /> 4. What is the fate of PR-Ub and then poly-Ub Rab10? How does poly-Ub of Rab10 result in its persistence at the LCV membrane rather than its degradation by the proteosome?<br /> 5. Mutation of Lys518, the amino acid in SdcB identified by mass spec as modified by MavC, did not abrogate SdcB Ub-crosslinking, which leaves open the question of how MavC does inhibit SdcB. Is there any evidence of MavC mediated modification to the active site of SdcB?<br /> 6. I found it difficult to understand the role of the ubiquitin glycine residues and the transglutaminase activity of MavC on the inhibition of SdcB function. Is structural modelling using Alphafold for example helpful to explain this?<br /> 7. Are the lys mutants of SdbB still active in poly-Ub of Rab10?

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript describes the transient proteolysis of several Nups during myogenesis due to activation of caspase 3, and how this "trimming" leads to defects in nuclear export. The authors show the NPC-related course of events during cellular differentiation and suggest mechanistic insights into exactly why this limited proteolysis is needed for myogenesis. In addition, the authors introduce a novel concept for caspase cellular function that might be worth investigating in the future. Overall, the authors present an elegant and interesting piece of work, performed at the usual superb quality of this group, and indeed the figures throughout the manuscript clearly show a very high level of experimental expertise.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Cho and Hetzer provide evidence that nuclear pore complexes (NPCs) are "trimmed" by caspases as a key element of muscle (and other) differentiation programs. Overall, the data are of high quality and are well presented. There is an interesting mechanism demonstrated whereby nuclear and cytosolically-oriented nups are specifically degraded from the NPC (fragments are sometimes associated with the NPCs), which leads to a specific inhibition of nuclear export. A highlight is a quantitative proteomic analysis of nuclear fractions that nicely demonstrates the change in the nuclear proteome upon NPC trimming, which includes elevated levels of many NES-containing factors. An important control is that these nuclear proteome changes don't occur when caspases are inhibited. These data are valuable although they fall short in demonstrating that NPC trimming is actually required for the execution of the differentiation program. It is recognized, however, that editing several nup genes at several sites to prevent caspase recognition would be extremely challenging and unfeasible, thus ultimately this does not detract from the significance of the findings. Indeed, there is a new broadly impactful concept being introduced - that caspases need not be destructive but they can be productively utilized to contribute to cell fate decisions.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors assess the accuracy of AlphaFold2 (AF2) structures for small molecule ligand pose prediction versus the accuracy with traditional template-based homology models and experimental crystal structures (with a different ligand). They take a careful, rigorous approach leveraging the wealth of structural data around the GPCR protein family and using state-of-the-art docking methods. They find that binding sites are significantly more accurately modeled by AF2 compared to traditional template-based approaches, but this does not translate to greater accuracy in small-molecule docking pose prediction. The important findings around this conclusion have broad implications for the use of AF2 models in ligand binding pose prediction for proteins and drug design.

Strengths:<br /> The strength of the work is the rigor and careful, thoughtful comparison that cleverly leverages the cut-off date of April 30th, 2018 used in the training of AF2. While the authors list their limited number of docking methods as a caveat, the fact that they use three state-of-the-art ligand docking methods is a strength of the work; many studies use just one. The rigorous analysis of the binding site RMSD and docked ligand pose RMSD is novel to my knowledge and is particularly insightful.

Weaknesses:<br /> The authors are rigorous in their approach by using state-of-the-art workflows that are high-throughput in nature. However, human expert-refined models and expert selection from multiple models could improve the results of ligand pose prediction when using protein models. The authors alluded to this for traditional models but this can also be true when starting from AF2 models. This is difficult to test systematically and rigorously, however. One possible experiment is to explore whether using multiple AF2 models (there are five by default) would have an effect on pose accuracy, perhaps for selected examples such as NK1R, 5HT2A, and DRD1 to help build out the discussion further. Another possible weakness is that the authors focus only on GPCRs for reasons they state but make a good argument as to why the conclusions are likely to extend to other protein classes.

Context:<br /> One of the most common and impactful uses of protein structures is in small molecule therapeutic chemical tool design. When no experimental structure is available, models are frequently used and such models include traditional template-based homology models and, more recently, AF2 models. AF2 is widely recognized as an inflection point in protein structure prediction due to the unprecedented accuracy of the protein structure models produced automatically. However, understanding whether this unprecedented accuracy translates to better small molecule ligand pose prediction has been an open question, and this study directly addresses the question in a systematic, rigorous approach.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

While the question of 'are AlphaFold-predicted structures useful for drug design' has largely seen comparisons of AF versus experimental protein structures, this paper takes a less explored (but perhaps more practically important) angle of 'are AlphaFold-predicted structures any better than the previous generation of homology modeling tools' to the protein-ligand (rigid) docking problem. The conclusions of this work will be of largest interest to the audience less familiar with the precision required for successful rigid docking, while the expert crowd might find them obvious, yet a good summary of results previously shown in the literature. Further work, understanding the structural objectives/metrics that should be placed on future AlphaFold-like models for better pose prediction performance, would greatly expand the practicality of the observations made here.

The main conclusion of the paper, that structural accuracy (expressed as RMSD) of the protein model is not a good predictor of the accuracy the model will show in rigid docking protein-ligand pose prediction, is a good reminder of the well-appreciated need for high-quality side chain placements in docking. The expected phenomenon of AlphaFold predicting 'more apo-like structures' is often discussed in the field, and readers should be cautious about drawing conclusions from the rigid (rather than flexible, as in some previous works) docking done here.

The authors have very clearly communicated that the use of AlphaFold-generated structures in traditional docking might not be a good idea, and motivated that the time of a molecular designer might be better spent preparing a high-quality homology model. The visual presentation of the conclusions is very clear but might leave the reader wanting a more in-depth discussion of which structural elements of the AF models lead to bad docking outcomes. For example, Fig. 3 presents an example of a very accurate AlphaFold prediction leading to the ligand being docked completely outside of the binding pocket. Close inspection of the Figure suggests a clash of the ligand with the slightly displaced tryptophan residue in the AF model that might be to blame, as can be confirmed by comparison of the model and PDB structure by the reader themselves but has not been discussed by the authors. Only a few examples of the systems used are shown even visually, leaving the reader unable to study more interesting cases in depth without re-doing the work themselves.

The authors acknowledged that several recent studies exist in this space. They point out two advancements made in their work, worthy of further review. Similarly, it's important to evaluate the novelty of this work's claims vs previously available results, and the diversity of information made available to the reader.

"First, we use structural models generated without any use of known structures of the target protein. For machine learning methods, this requires ensuring that no structure of the target protein was used to train the method." This is done by limiting the scope of the work to GPCRs whose structures became available only after the training date of AlphaFold (April 30, 2018), as well as not using templates available after that date during prediction. The use of a time limit seems less preferable than the approach taken in Ref. 1 of discarding templates above a sequence identity cutoff. On the other hand, the 'ablation test' performed in Ref. 2 showed no loss in accuracy when no templates were used at all. Authors should discuss in more detail whether these modeling choices could change anything in their conclusions and why they made their choices compared to those in previous work.

"Second, we perform a systematic comparison that takes into account the variation between experimentally determined structures of the same protein when bound to different ligands." Cross-docking is indeed a more appropriate comparison than self-docking (as done in previous works), and the observation that the accuracy of AF models is similar to that between different holo structures of the same protein is interesting. Previous literature on cross-docking should however be discussed, and the well-known conclusions from it that small variations in side-chain positions, in otherwise highly similar structures, can lead to large changes in docked poses. It is important to realize that AlphaFold models are 'just another structure' - if previous literature is sufficient to show the sensitivity of rigid docking, doing it again on AF structures does not add to our understanding. Further, Ref. 3 might have already addressed the question of correlation between binding site RMSD and docking pose prediction accuracy - see e.g. Supplementary Figure 3 there (also Figure S15 in Ref. 2).

Further, the authors should discuss the commonly brought up problem of AlphaFold generating 'more apo-like structures' - are the models used here actually 'holo-like' because of the low RMSDs? (what RMSD differences are to be expected between apo and holo structures of these systems?) How are the volumes of the pockets affected? The position on this problem taken by previous works is worth mentioning - "much higher rmsd values are found when using the AF2 models (...), which reflect the difficulties in performing docking into apo-like structures" in Ref. 1 and "computational model structures were predicted without consideration of binding ligands and resulted in apo structures" in Ref. 2.

Because of this 'apo problem', Ref. 2 assumed that rigid docking (as done here) would not succeed and used flexible docking where "two sidechains at the binding site were set to be flexible". In fact, the reader of this new paper will be left to wonder if it is not simply presenting a subset of the results already seen in Ref. 2, where "the success ratios dropped significantly for them because misoriented sidechains prevented a ligand from docking (Figure S14)". While this conclusion is not made as clear in Ref. 2 as it is here, a comparison of Figures 4 and S14 there will lead the reader to the same conclusion, and more -- that flexible docking meaningfully improves the performance of AF models, and more so than homology models.

Finally, certain data analyses present in previous works but not here should be necessary to make this work more informative to the readers:<br /> a) Consideration of multiple top poses, e.g., in Ref. 2, Figures 4 and S14 mentioned before, comparison of success rates in top 1 and top 3 docked poses add much context.<br /> b) Notes on the structural features preventing successful docking, see e.g., in Ref. 1, Table 2 or in Ref. 4, Tables 2 and 4.

This work has the potential to become an important piece of the puzzle, if deeper insights into the reasons for AF model failures are drawn by the authors. These could include a discussion of the problematic structural elements (clashes of side chain with ligands, missing interactions/waters, etc.), potential solutions with some preliminary data (flexible docking, softening interactions, etc.), or proposals for metrics better than RMSD to score the soundness of pockets generated by AF for docking.

References:<br /> 1. Díaz-Rovira, A. M., Martín, H., Beuming, T., Díaz, L., Guallar, V., & Ray, S. S. (2023). Are Deep Learning Structural Models Sufficiently Accurate for Virtual Screening? Application of Docking Algorithms to AlphaFold2 Predicted Structures. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 63(6), 1668-1674. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.2c01270<br /> 2. Heo, L., & Feig, M. (2022). Multi-state modeling of G-protein coupled receptors at experimental accuracy. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics, 90(11), 1873-1885. https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.26382<br /> 3. Beuming, T., & Sherman, W. (2012). Current assessment of docking into GPCR crystal structures and homology models: Successes, challenges, and guidelines. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 52(12), 3263-3277. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci300411b<br /> 4. Scardino, V., Di Filippo, J. I., & Cavasotto, C. (2022). How good are AlphaFold models for docking-based virtual screening? [Preprint]. Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.26434/chemrxiv-2022-sgj8c

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this work, the authors set out to ask whether the MYRF family of transcription factors, represented by myrf-1 and myrf-2 in C. elegans, have a role in the temporally controlled expression of the miRNA lin-4. The precisely timed onset of lin-4 expression in the late L1 stage is known to be a critical step in the developmental timing ("heterochronic") pathway, allowing worms to move from the L1 to the L2 stage of development. Despite the importance of this step of the pathway, the mechanisms that control the onset of lin-4 expression are not well understood.

Overall, the paper provides convincing evidence that MYRF factors have a role in the regulation of lin-4 expression. However, some of the details of this role remain speculative, and some of the authors' conclusions are not fully supported by the studies shown. These limitations arise from three concerns. First, the authors rely heavily on a transcriptional reporter (maIs134) that is known not to contain all of the regulatory elements relevant for lin-4 expression. Second, the authors use mutant alleles with unusual properties that have not been completely characterized, making a definitive interpretation of the results difficult. Third, some conclusions are drawn from circumstantial or indirect evidence that does not use field-standard methods.

The authors convincingly demonstrate that the cytoplasmic-to-nuclear translocation of MYRF-1 coincides with the activation of lin-4 expression, making MYRF-1 a good candidate for mediating this activation. However, the evidence that MYRF-1 is required for the activation of lin-4 is somewhat incomplete. The authors provide convincing evidence that lin-4 activation fails in animals carrying the unusual mutation myrf-1(ju1121), which the authors describe as disrupting both myrf-1 and myrf-2 activity. The concern here is that it is difficult to rule out that ju1121 is not also disrupting the activity of other factors, and it does not disentangle the roles of myrf-1 and myrf-2. Partially alleviating this issue, they also find that expression from the maIs134 reporter is disrupted in putative myrf-1 null alleles, but making inferences from maIs134 about the regulation of endogenous lin-4 is problematic. Helpfully, an endogenous Crispr-generated lin-4 reporter allele is used in some studies, but only using the ju1121 allele. Together, these findings provide solid evidence that MYRF factors probably do have a role in lin-4 activation, but the exact roles of myrf-1 and myrf-2 remain unclear because of limitations of the unusual ju1121 allele and the use of the maIs134 reporter. The creative use of a conditional myrf-1 alleles (floxed and using the AID system) partially overcomes these concerns, providing strong evidence that myrf-1 acts cell-autonomously to regulate lin-4, though again, these key experiments are only carried out with the maIs134 transgene.

A second important question asked by the authors is whether MYRF activity is sufficient to activate lin-4 expression. The authors provide evidence that supports this idea, but this support is somewhat incomplete, because the authors rely partially on the maIs104 array and, more importantly, on mutant alleles of MYRF-1 that they propose are constitutively active but are not completely characterized here.

The authors also approach the question of whether MYRF-1 regulates lin-4 via direct interaction with its promoter. The evidence presented here is consistent with this idea, but it relies on indirect evidence involving genetic interactions between myrf-1 and the presence of multiple copies of the lin-4 promoter, as well as the detection of nuclear foci of MYRF-1::GFP in the presence of multiple copies of the lin-4 promoter. This is not the field-standard approach for testing this kind of hypothesis, and the positive control presented (using the TetR/TetO interaction) is unconvincing. Thus, the evidence here is consistent with the authors' hypothesis, but the studies shown are incomplete and do not represent a rigorous test of this possibility.

Finally, the authors ask whether MYRF factors have a role in the regulation of other miRNAs. The evidence provided (RNAseq experiments, validated by several reporter transgenes) solidly supports this idea, with the provision that it is not completely clear that ju1121 is disrupting only the activity of myrf-1 and myrf-2.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, the authors attempt to examine how the temporal expression of the lin-4 microRNA is transcriptionally regulated. However, the experimental support for some claims is incomplete. The authors repeatedly use the ju1121(G247R) mutation of myrf-1, but more information is required to evaluate their claim that this mutation "abolishes its DNA binding capability but also negatively interferes with its close paralogue MYRF-2". Additionally, in the lin-4 scarlet endogenous transcriptional reporter, the lin-4 sequence is removed. Since lin-4 has been reported to autoregulate, it seems possible that the removal of lin-4 coding sequence could influence reporter expression. Further, concrete evidence for direct lin-4 regulation by MYRF-1 is lacking, as the approaches used are indirect and not standard in the field. Overall, while the aims of the work are mostly achieved, data regarding the direct regulation of lin-4 by MYRF-1 and placing the work into the context of previous related reports is lacking. Because of its very specific focus, this paper reports useful findings on how a single transcription factor family might control the expression of a microRNA.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this paper, the authors investigated the localization and function of the protein Kelch 13 (K13) in Plasmodium falciparum. Mutations of K13 confer parasite resistance to artemisinin derivatives, the first-line treatment for malaria. Previous studies have shown that K13 is located at the cytostome - a structure that the parasite uses to take up hemoglobin - and that K13 mutations confer artemisinin resistance by dampening hemoglobin endocytosis. Digestion of host hemoglobin is thought to be essential for artemisinin activation through the production of haem. However, the exact function of K13 is currently unknown, and direct evidence for a role of K13 in the production of haem (and artemisinin activation) is missing.

The authors used fluorescent dextran to visualize endocytosis, and show an accumulation of dextran-positive structures colocalizing with GFP-tagged K13. They confirm the localization of K13 to cytostomes by immune-electron microscopy, showing that the protein is localized to the cytostomal collar. Using a genetic knock-sideways strategy, the authors show that mislocalization of K13 results in defects in cytostome formation and morphology, with the disappearance of the electron-dense cytostomal collar, as evidenced by serial block face scanning electron microscopy and transmission electron tomography. Finally, they provide direct evidence that K13 mislocalization leads to a decrease in haemoglobin digestion products, haem and hemozoin.

The paper is very well written and the work is very well performed, relying on a validated genetic approach and high-quality imaging. While conceptually the study does not bring many novel insights, the confirmation of K13 localization and, most importantly, the demonstration that K13 is required for cytostome formation and function constitute important pieces that consolidate the current model of artemisinin resistance. However, the exact role of K13 at the cytostomal collar remains undefined. Whether other proteins of the K13 compartments also play a role in cytostome formation remains to be determined. In addition, the study does not address whether the formation of abnormal cytostomes is also seen in artemisinin-resistant K13 mutant field isolates and is a general mechanism underlying resistance to artemisinin.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary of major findings:<br /> The manuscript "The Plasmodium falciparum artemisinin resistance-associated protein Kelch 13 is required for formation of normal cytostomes" authored by Tutor et al. provides evidence that Kelch13 is necessary for the formation and maintenance of cytostomes. The group provides compelling evidence using multiple state-of-the-art microscopy imaging techniques to demonstrate that when Kelch13 is mislocalized to the nucleus, cytostomes are decreased, cytostome morphology is aberrant, and there are decreased levels of heme within the parasite.

Impact of the study:<br /> Mutations in Kelch13 have been associated with artemisinin resistance. The biological function of Kelch13 has been a question of great interest. Kelch13 was shown to associate with proteins in the endocytic machinery although not with clathrin. It was previously shown that Kelch13 mutants have decreased levels of hemoglobin digestion-derived peptides, decreased Kelch13 protein (although levels are not decreased at all asexual stages), and decreased heme. Here, the authors show that when Kelch13 is mislocalized, there are decreased numbers of properly-formed cytostomes that lead to decreased heme within parasites. Although not formally demonstrated, it is thus possible that there is decreased subsequent heme-mediated activation of artemisinin, which would explain the connection between Kelch13 and artemisinin resistance.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):<br /> <br /> Tutor et al. present their work on Kelch13/K13 from Plasmodium falciparum, the causative agent of malaria. This protein is involved in resistance against artemisinin (ART), one of the most commonly used drugs to treat malaria. Despite having identified the mutation in K13 that leads to resistance to ART, the exact molecular mechanism, function of K13, and impact of the K13 mutations still need to be elucidated. This is where the authors step in to investigate the relationship between endocytosis and K13, as well as the impact of depleting the protein using knock-sideway (KS). Using light microscopy, the authors demonstrate how K13-YFP forms a pore associated with fluorescently labeled dextran, which is taken up into tubules that move toward the digestive vacuole. This tubule formation is not sensitive to jasplakinolide (JAS) treatment. Using electron microscopy, they show that K13 is localized at the dark contrast border of the cytostome, and knocking down K13 leads to the disruption of the cytostome structure. Upon removal of K13, the structure changes, and the opening enlarges. The impact of KS induction on the cytostome was quantified using TEM and tomography. The authors also provide reconstructions of the cytostome in both induced and non-induced parasites. Finally, they measure the impact of KS on haem degradation. These data provide clear information on the function of K13 in cytostome formation and the implication of this structure in endocytosis for Plasmodium falciparum.

The conclusions of this paper are well supported by the data, but some data analysis should be clarified and extended, and some complementary experiments would further strengthen the authors' claims.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This is a clear and rigorous study of intracranial EEG signals in the prefrontal cortex during a visual awareness task. The results are convincing and worthwhile, and strengths include the use of several complementary analysis methods and clear results. The only methodological weakness is the relatively small sample size of only 6 participants compared to other studies in the field. Interpretation weaknesses that can easily be addressed are claims that their task removes the confound of report (it does not), and claims of primacy in showing early prefrontal cortical involvement in visual perception using intracranial EEG (several studies already have shown this). Also the shorter reaction times for perceived vs not perceived stimuli (confident vs not confident responses) has been described many times previously and is not a new result.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors attempt to address a long-standing controversy in the study of the neural correlates of visual awareness, namely whether neurons in prefrontal cortex are necessarily involved in conscious perception. Several leading theories of consciousness propose a necessary role for (at least some sub-regions of) PFC in basic perceptual awareness (e.g., global neuronal workspace theory, higher order theories), while several other leading theories posit that much of the previously reported PFC contributions to perceptual awareness may have been confounded by task-based cognition that co-varied between the aware and unaware reports (e.g., recurrent processing theory, integrated information theory). By employing intracranial EEG in human patients and a threshold detection task on low-contrast visual stimuli, the authors assessed the timing and location of neural populations in PFC that are differentially activated by stimuli that are consciously perceived vs. not perceived. Overall, the reported results support the view that certain regions of PFC do contribute to visual awareness, but at time-points earlier than traditionally predicted by GNWT and HOTs.

Major strengths of this paper include the straightforward visual threshold detection task including the careful calibration of the stimuli and the separate set of healthy control subjects used for validation of the behavioral and eye tracking results, the high quality of the neural data in six epilepsy patients, the clear patterns of differential high gamma activity and temporal generalization of decoding for seen versus unseen stimuli, and the authors' interpretation of these results within the larger research literature on this topic. This study appears to have been carefully conducted, the data were analyzed appropriately, and the overall conclusions seem warranted given the main patterns of results.

Weaknesses include the saccadic reaction time results and the potential flaws in the design of the reporting task. This is not a "no report" paradigm, rather, it's a paradigm aimed at balancing the post-perceptual cognitive and motor requirements between the seen and unseen trials. On each trial, subjects/patients either perceived the stimulus or not, and had to briefly maintain this "yes/no" judgment until a fixation cross changed color, and the color change indicated how to respond (saccade to the left or right). Differences in saccadic RTs (measured from the time of the fixation color change to moving the eyes to the left or right response square) were evident between the seen and unseen trials (faster for seen). If the authors' design achieved what they claim on page 3, "the report behaviors were matched between the two awareness states ", then shouldn't we expect no differences in saccadic RTs between the aware and unaware conditions? The fact that there were such differences may indicate differences in post-perceptual cognition during the time between the stimulus and the response cue. Alternatively, the RT difference could reflect task-strategies used by subjects/patients to remember the response mapping rules between the perception and the color cue (e.g., if the YES+GREEN=RIGHT and YES+RED=LEFT rules were held in memory, while the NO mappings were inferred secondarily rather than being actively held in memory). This saccadic RT result should be better explained in the context of the goals of this particular reporting-task.

Nevertheless, the current results do help advance our understanding of the contribution of PFC to visual awareness. These results, when situated within the larger context of the rapidly developing literature on this topic (using "no report" paradigms), e.g., the recent studies by Vishne et al. (2023) Cell Reports and the Cogitate consortium (2023) bioRxiv, provide converging evidence that some sub-regions of PFC contribute to visual awareness, but at latencies earlier than originally predicted by proponents of, especially, global neuronal workspace theory.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors report a study in which they use intracranial recordings to dissociate subjectively aware and subjectively unaware stimuli, focusing mainly on prefrontal cortex. Although this paper reports some interesting findings (the videos are very nice and informative!) the interpretation of the data is unfortunately problematic for several reasons. I will detail my main comments below. If the authors address these comments well, I believe the paper may provide an interesting contribution to further specifying the neural mechanisms important for conscious access (in line with Gaillard et al., Plos Biology 2009).

The main problem with the interpretation of the data is that the authors have NOT used a so-called "no-report paradigm". The idea of no report paradigms is that subjects passively view a certain stimulus without the instruction to "do something with it", e.g., detect the stimulus, immediately or later in time. Because of the confusion of this term, specifically being related to the "act of reporting", some have argued we should use the term no-cognition paradigm instead (Block, TiCS, 2019, see also Pitts et al., Phil Trans B 2018). The crucial aspect is that, in these types of paradigms, the critical stimulus should be task-irrelevant and thus not be associated with any task (immediately or later). Because in this experiment subjects were instructed to detect the gratings when cued 600 ms later in time, the stimuli are task relevant, they have to be reported about later and therefore trigger all kinds of (known and potentially unknown) cognitive processes at the moment the stimuli are detected in real-time (so stimulus-locked). You could argue that the setup of this delayed response task excludes some very specific report related processes (e.g., the preparation of an eye-movement), which is good, however this is usually not considered the main issue. For example when comparing masked versus unmasked stimuli (Gaillard et al., 2009 Plos Biology), these conditions usually also both contain responses but these response related processes are "averaged out" in the specific contrasts (unmasked > masked). In this paper, RT differences between conditions (that are present in this dataset) are taken care of by using this delayed response in this paper, which is a nice feature for that and is not the case for the above example set-up.

Given the task instructions, and this being merely a delayed-response task, it is to be expected that prefrontal cortex shows stronger activity for subjectively aware versus subjectively unaware stimuli. Unfortunately, given the nature of this task, the novelty of the findings is severely reduced. The authors cannot claim that prefrontal cortex is associated with "visual awareness", or what people have called phenomenal consciousness (this is the goal of using no-cognition paradigms). The only conclusion that can be drawn is that prefrontal cortex activity is associated with accessing sensory input: and hence conscious access. This less novel observation has been shown many times before and there is also little disagreement about this issue between different theories of consciousness (e.g., global workspace theory and local recurrency theories both agree on this).

The best solution at this point seems to rewrite the paper entirely in light of this. My advice would be to state in the introduction that the authors investigate conscious access using iEEG and then not refer too much to no-cognition paradigm or maybe highlight some different strategies about using task-irrelevant stimuli (see Canales-Johnson et al., Plos Biology 2023; Hesse et al., eLife 2020; Hatamimajoumerd et al Curr Bio 2022; Alilovic et al., Plos Biology 2023; Pitts et al., Frontiers 2014; Dwarakanth et al., Neuron 2023 and more). Obviously, the authors should then also not claim that their results solve debates about theories regarding visual awareness (in the "no-cognition" sense, or phenomenal consciousness), for example in relation to the debate about the "front or the back of the brain", because the data do not inform that discussion. Basically, the authors can just discuss their results in detail (related to timing, frequency, synchronization etc) and relate the different signatures that they have observed to conscious access.

I think the authors have to discuss the Gaillard et al PLOS Biology 2009 paper in much more detail. Gaillard et al also report a study related to conscious access contrasting unmasked and masked stimuli using iEEG. In this paper they also report ERP, time frequency and phase synchronization results (and even Granger causality). Because of the similarities in approach, I think it would be important to directly compare the results presented in that paper with results presented here and highlight the commonalities and discrepancies in the Discussion.

In the Gaillard paper they report a figure plotting the percentage of significant frontal electrodes across time (figure 4A) in which it can be seen that significant electrodes emerge after approximately 250 ms in PFC as well. It would be great if the authors could make a similar figure to compare results. In the current paper there are much more frontal electrode contacts than in the Gaillard paper, so that is interesting in itself.

In my opinion, some of the most interesting results are not highlighted: the findings that subjectively unaware stimuli show increased activations in the prefrontal cortex as compared to stimulus absent trials (e.g., Figure 4D). Previous work has shown PFC activations to masked stimuli (e.g., van Gaal et al., J Neuroscience 2008, 2010; Lau and Passigngham J Neurosci 2007) as well as PFC activations to subjectively unaware stimuli (e.g., King, Pescetelli, and Dehaene, Neuron 2016) and this is a very nice illustration of that with methods having more detailed spatial precision. Although potentially interesting, I wonder about the objective detection performance of the stimuli in this task. So please report objective detection performance for the patients and the healthy subjects, using signal detection theoretic d'. This gives the reader an idea of how good subjects were in detecting the presence/absence of the gratings. Likely, this reveals far above chance detection performance and in that case I would interpret these findings as "PFC activation to stimuli indicated as subjectively unaware" and not unconscious stimuli. See Stein et al., Plos Biology 2021 for a direct comparison of subjectively and objectively unaware stimuli.

In Figure 7 of the paper the authors want to make the case that the contrast does not differ between subjectively aware stimuli and subjectively unaware stimuli. However so far they've done the majority of their analyses across subjects, and for this analysis the authors only performed within-subject tests, which is not a fair comparison imo. Because several P values are very close to significance I anticipate that a test across subjects will clearly show that the contrast level of the subjectively aware stimuli is higher than of the subjectively unaware stimuli, at the group level. A solution to this would be to subselect trials from one condition (NA) to match the contrast of the other condition (NU), and thereby create two conditions that are matched in contrast levels of the stimuli included. Then do all the analyses on the matched conditions.

Related, Figure 7B is confusing and the results are puzzling. Why is there such a strong below chance decoding on the diagonal? (also even before stimulus onset) Please clarify the goal and approach of this analysis and also discuss/explain better what they mean.

I was somewhat surprised by several statements in the paper and it felt that the authors may not be aware of several intricacies in the field of consciousness. For example a statement like the following "Consciousness, as a high-level cognitive function of the brain, should have some similar effects as other cognitive functions on behavior (for example, saccadic reaction time). With this question in mind, we carefully searched the literature about the relationship between consciousness and behavior; surprisingly, we failed to find any relevant literature." This is rather problematic for at least two reasons. First, not everyone would agree that consciousness is a high-level cognitive function and second there are many papers arguing for a certain relationship between consciousness and behavior (Dehaene and Naccache, 2001 Cognition; van Gaal et al., 2012, Frontiers in Neuroscience; Block 1995, BBS; Lamme, Frontiers in Psychology, 2020; Seth, 2008 and many more). Further, the explanation for the reaction time differences in this specific case is likely related to the fact that subjects' confidence in that decision is much higher in the aware trials than in the unaware trials, hence the speeded response for the first. This is a phenomenon that is often observed if one explores the "confidence literature". Although the authors have not measured confidence I would not make too much out of this RT difference.

I would be interested in a lateralized analysis, in which the authors compare the PFC responses and connectivity profiles using PLV as a factor of stimulus location (thus comparing electrodes contralateral to the presented stimulus and electrodes ipsilateral to the presented stimulus). If possible this may give interesting insights in the mechanism of global ignition (global broadcasting), supposing that for contralateral electrodes information does not have to cross from one hemisphere to another, whereas for ipsilateral electrodes that is the case (which may take time). Gaillard et al refer to this issue as well in their paper, and this issue is sometimes discussed regarding to Global workspace theory. This would add novelty to the findings of the paper in my opinion.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The study by Ramesh et al identifies key components that support presynaptic plasticity (PHP) at Drosophila glutamatergic synapses: an accepted model for their mammalian equivalents. Specifically, they identify that PHP relies on the antagonism between Spinophilin (Spn) and Syd-1 (a Rho GTPase activating protein) to dynamically alter F-actin (de)polymerisation to facilitate increased synaptic vesicle release, thus supporting PHP. A pull-down of Spn identifies additional proteins including Mical, the over-expression of which is sufficient to rescue the excessive actin stabilisation present in an Spn loss-of-function mutant. The studies relate the mechanistic understanding of Spn to aversive mid-term olfactory memory formation formed in the mushroom bodies.

Collectively, this study represents an important addition to the understanding of PHP and its involvement in the formation of memory. The experiments presented are carefully done and the conclusions drawn are appropriate. A potential criticism is that the study spans two big areas (PHP and memory) and that each may have been better considered as separate studies. However, this is a stylistic concern and not one that influences the insights presented by this study.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Ramesh et al builds upon prior studies from the Sigrist group to examine synergistic interactions between the Spinophilin (Spn) and Syd-1 synaptic proteins and their role in regulating presynaptic homeostatic plasticity at Drosophila larval NMJs and adult olfactory memory in the Mushroom Body (MB). The authors show synergistic interactions between the two proteins in these processes, where late PHP and long-term memory are abolished in Spn mutants, but restored upon reduction of Syd-1 function in the mutants. The authors go on to show that Spn appears to act in PHP by regulating a late stage in AZ remodeling and longer-term increases in the readily releasable SV pool by controlling actin polymerization/dynamics through the Mical protein. Although key aspects of the overall bigger picture have been published before (Mical's role in PHP, antagonism between Spn and Syd-1 in AZ development, AZ remodeling in MB-dependent memory), the current paper ties together many of these observations into a bigger picture of how PHP plasticity at the NMJ is established and provides support for a role for PHP-required proteins in promoting long-term memory in the adult MB through effects on AZ structure and AZ protein content/amount. The study also provides new links to the role of Spn in regulating local synaptic actin dynamics and how this alters the readily releasable pool and SV release. Some points of note are provided below.

1. I'm a bit confused about the time course experiments the authors describe that seem to be contradictory in Figures 1 and 2. The authors indicate control animals transiently increase BRP AZ levels during PHP at 10 mins, but by 30 minutes this increase is gone, even though PHP remains. As such, the data in these early figures suggests increases in BRP AZ levels may support an early aspect of the PHP effect (though I note this appears controversial, as other data indicate blocking the rapid AZ remodeling by several manipulations such as Arl8 transport disruption, permits early PHP, but disrupts late PHP). In contrast, the authors show that Spn mutants do not display AZ BRP increase at 10 mins, and still show early PHP, but lack late PHP. I assume the early PHP does not require AZ remodeling or an increase in the RRP at this early time point?

2. In relation to point 1 above, the time course seems different in MB neurons, where the AZ remodeling (noted by increases in AZ BRP) seems to take 2-3 hours. Do the authors have any ideas into why the time course of PHP AZ remodeling at larval NMJs can occur in 10 minutes, but MB neuron remodeling seems to take hours?

3. Could the lack of rapid BRP accumulation during early PHP in Spn mutants be secondary to the larger # of AZs in those mutants and a known rate-limiting amount of BRP available that might not be enough to go to the extra AZs?

4. There isn't any validation of the Spn co-IP results shown in Figure 3 through other assays, and a lot of proteins are being pulled down. I can't see some of these being real (mitochondrial translation proteins? - how could Spn gain access to the inside of the mitochondria since it's a cytosolic protein?). As such, I don't know how to value that huge group of pull-down interactions without further validation, making it difficult to sort out how relevant these really are. The genetic validation of similar phenotypes in the Mical mutant, together with rescues, supports that interaction. Not sure about the rest of that list.

5. Are the authors worried about the fact that the Actin-GFP line they use to look at synaptic actin dynamics is driven by a GAL4, and the 2nd top hit of their Spn IP pull downs are translation regulators? Could the changes in actin-GFP they see between control and Spn mutants have anything to do with a different translation of the exogenous UAS-actin-GFP? Would have been helpful to do an endogenous stain for actin levels with an anti-actin antibody so no transcription/translation issues of a transgene would be at play. This would be easy to do for the quantification of total actin levels at the synapse.

6. Are Mical levels normalized in the Spn, Syd1 double mutants, given PHP is recovered?

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study applies state-of-the-art single-cell transcriptome analysis to investigate the nature of drug tolerance, a phenomenon distinct from drug resistance, and a problem of considerable importance in the treatment of C. albicans infections. The authors first show that their transcriptomics platform can reveal sub-populations of untreated cells that display distinct transcription profiles related to metabolic and stress responses that are coupled with cell cycle regulation. They note the consistency of these findings with previous work indicating connections between cell cycle phase and expression of genes related to stress responses and metabolism and argue that this validates their experimental approach, which relies on a complex statistical analysis of sparse data from a relatively small number of single cells. They then proceed to analyze drug-treated cells, mostly focusing on fluconazole (FCZ; which targets ERG11, thus disrupting sphingolipid biosynthesis and membrane integrity) and examining individual cells at 2-, 3-, and 6-days following treatment. Their primary finding is the identification of two major classes of cells, one of which they call the α response, characterized by high ribosomal protein (RP) gene expression and the absence of either heat shock or hyperosmotic stress gene expression as well as low expression of glycolytic, carbohydrate reserve pathway, and histone genes. The second survival state on day 2 (called the β response) instead displays low RP gene expression and high heat-shock stress response. Interestingly, the proportion of β cells clearly increases on day 3. In addition, responses to caspofungin (CSP) and rapamycin (RAPA) are examined and compared to FCZ or untreated cells. The main conclusion that the authors draw from their data is that the initial α response transitions to the β response, which is similar to a recently characterized ribosome assembly stress response (RASTR) in the budding yeast S. cerevisiae. They argue that the transcriptional state in α cells provokes the transition to the β state.

This manuscript presents an enormous amount of complex data whose significance will be difficult to evaluate for those (e.g., this reviewer) not immersed in the specialized analytical techniques used here. Taken at face value, however, the experimental findings are consistent with the authors' main conclusions. Nevertheless, and consistent with the complexity of the responses observed, there are many findings that remain to be explored in mechanistic detail and for which conclusions are less precise.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Dumeaux et al. assess the heterogeneous cellular response of the fungal pathogen Candida albicans to antifungal agents, using single-cell RNA sequencing. The researchers develop and optimized single-cell transcriptomics platform for C. albicans, and exploit this technique to monitor the cellular response to treatment with three distinct antifungal agents. Through this analysis, they identify two distinct subpopulations of cells that undergo differential transcriptomic responses to antifungal treatment: one involving upregulation of translation and respiration, and the other involving stress responses. This work monitors how different and prolonged antifungal exposure alters and shifts fungal cell populations between these responses. This is an innovative study that exploits novel single-cell transcriptomic techniques to address a very interesting question regarding the heterogeneous nature of the fungal response to antifungal drug treatment. This work optimizes a protocol for single-cell RNA sequencing, which is a significant contribution to the fungal research community and will bolster future research efforts in this area. The identification of two distinct subpopulations of fungal cells with differential responses to antifungal treatment is an exciting and novel finding. While there are aspects of this manuscript that are of significant interest, there are also limitations to this work. The research is framed as a method to study antifungal drug tolerance, but it is not clear how it does so, based on the methods. This work also compares very different populations of cells (rapidly growing untreated cells compared with cells grown in antifungal for several days), making it difficult to assess the role of antifungal treatment specifically in this analysis. This manuscript is also written with a great deal of highly technical language that makes it difficult to dissect the major findings and outcomes from the study.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors described their extensive single-cell analysis of Candida undergoing (sub-inhibitory) antibiotic treatment versus no treatment. To do so, the authors used a microfluidics platform they had previously developed, and they optimized, characterized, and validated it for this particular application. Their findings included: (a) the transcription of untreated cells is driven mostly by cell cycle phase, (b) treated cells can be clustered into several major groups and a few outlier groups that the authors termed comets, (c) cells undergoing FCZ treatment can adopt one of two different states (possibly bistability). I found the results interesting and the approach to be sound, and much of the results confirmed my prior expectations. The authors provide a detailed depiction of what is going on in the transcriptome during sub-inhibitory treatment, although this did not always lead to a mechanistic explanation. The clinical relevance was unclear to me beyond a proof of concept application for single-cell transcriptomics. In my opinion, an interesting follow-up would be to follow the transcriptional trajectory of lineages undergoing antimicrobial switching (on and off). The main issues I identified were the author's use of the term tolerance versus resistance, interpretation of "comets", clustering approach, description of fitness, and comparison between time points.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors first show in simulated data that differences in the speed of the HRF are reflected in the power spectra of the BOLD signal obtained during oscillatory stimulation at different frequencies. They then identified voxels that were fast or slow responders in data obtained from the primary visual cortex and LGN during visual stimulation and found that the fast and slow groups exhibited the same differences in power spectra observed in the simulations. Moreover, resting state data obtained separately from the same areas also exhibited these spectral differences. In contrast, the onset time of a response to a breath hold was less able to differentiate between fast and slow voxels.

The combination of simulations and experiments in this work provides evidence that power spectra from rs-fMRI can provide information about the HRF in different locations across the brain. However, the simulated HRFs differ in amplitude and duration as well as latency, and all of these features can affect the power spectrum. The authors show that differences remain in the power spectra for amplitude-normalized HRFs, which strengthens their work. However, the entire premise of the work is that the actual HRFs in the brain can be modeled using the range of shapes that were simulated. As the authors point out, we know little about the actual HRF in much of the brain, and it may be that this model does not adequately represent HRFs in other regions. At a minimum, it would be useful to disentangle the effects of latency and duration of the response, in addition to amplitude, because with the current model early onset voxels also have shorter response durations. It is not hard to imagine that a brain area might have a rapid onset but a long duration of HRF, and the power spectrum in this case may look more like that of a slow responder. The current approach was validated in the visual system, which has been the basis for much of what we know about HRFs, and it may not be as accurate in other areas of the brain. This is admittedly a difficult issue to address, but merits consideration as a limitation.

Despite my skepticism of the general applicability of the technique, it remains a significant advance in understanding the variability of HRFs in the brain. The authors make a strong case that cerebrovascular reactivity as measured in response to a breath hold does not accurately capture all of the aspects of neurovascular coupling, an important finding. The work also clearly shows that differences in fALFF or other power-based metrics can reflect differences in neurovascular coupling rather than neural activity, something that is widely suspected but commonly ignored in the interpretation of fALFF data. We still have far to go to fully understand neurovascular coupling throughout the brain and under various conditions, and this manuscript contributes to our knowledge of how two investigative tools perform at the task.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This study highlights a connection between the power spectra of fMRI signals and the temporal dynamics of the hemodynamic response function (HRF). Using visual stimulation experiments and resting-state scans, the spectral features of resting-state fMRI signals in V1 and LGN are found to have a significant relationship to the relative timing of HRF responses during the task.

Overall, I found this to be an interesting and clearly written study, with high-quality data. The connection between BOLD signal spectra and vascular responses is not discussed in much of the resting-state fMRI literature, and represents an important message and consideration. While the connection between the amplitude of resting-state BOLD fluctuations and the amplitude of task HRFs has been investigated in the past, I am not aware of prior work that had considered the timing aspect. The present comparison between resting-state spectra and breath-holding task responses also provides useful data about the hemodynamic information carried by these two conditions.

The present experiments were conducted at 7T with high temporal resolution and focused on a visual experiment. The generalization of the findings to other task conditions, brain regions, and acquisition parameters would be a valuable future step. Understanding the translation to other datasets would be a practical consideration for researchers who are considering applying this method. Regarding the evaluation of the classification models, it currently appears possible that the train/test sets might contain closely spaced and thus correlated voxels. Accounting for this effect could help to better support the conclusions of this analysis. More discussion about the neural or vascular basis of the slow- versus fast-HRF voxels could also bring further insights to the work (for instance, the location of the fast and slow V1 voxels with respect to functional boundaries and vascular anatomy).

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This careful study reports the importance of Rab12 for Parkinson's disease associated LRRK2 kinase activity in cells. The authors carried out a targeted siRNA screen of Rab substrates and found lower pRab10 levels in cells depleted of Rab12. It has previously been reported that LLOME treatment of cells breaks lysosomes and with time, leads to major activation of LRRK2 kinase. Here they show that LLOME-induced kinase activation requires Rab12 and does not require Rab12 phosphorylation to show the effect.

1. Throughout the text, the authors claim that "Rab12 is required for LRRK2 dependent phosphorylation" (Page 4 line 78; Page 9 line 153; Page 22 line 421). This is not correct according to Figure 1 Figure Supp 1B - there is still pRab10. It is correct only in relation to the LLOME activation. Please correct this error.

2. The authors conclude that Rab12 recruitment precedes that of LRRK2 but the rate of recruitment (slopes of curves in 3F and G) is actually faster for LRRK2 than for Rab12 with no proof that Rab12 is faster-please modify the text-it looks more like coordinated recruitment.

3. The title is misleading because the authors do not show that Rab12 promotes LRRK2 membrane association. This would require Rab12 to be sufficient to localize LRRK2 to a mislocalized Rab12. The authors DO show that Rab12 is needed for the massive LLOME activation at lysosomes. Please re-word the title.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This study shows that rab12 has a role in the phosphorylation of rab10 by LRRK2. Many publications have previously focused on the phosphorylation targets of LRRK2 and the significance of many remains unclear, but the study of LRRK2 activation has mostly focused on the role of disease-associated mutations (in LRRK2 and VPS35) and rab29. The work is performed entirely in an alveolar lung cell line, limiting relevance for the nervous system. Nonetheless, the authors take advantage of this simplified system to explore the mechanism by which rab12 activates LRRK2. In general, the work is performed very carefully with appropriate controls, excluding trivial explanations for the results, but there are several serious problems with the experiments and in particular the interpretation.

First, the authors note that rab29 appears to have a smaller or no effect when knocked down in these cells. However, the quantitation (Fig1-S1A) shows a much less significant knockdown of rab29 than rab12, so it would be important to repeat this with better knockdown or preferably a KO (by CRISPR) before making this conclusion. And the relationship to rab29 is important, so if a better KD or KO shows an effect, it would be important to assess by knocking down rab12 in the rab29 KO background.

Secondly, the knockdown of rab12 generally has a strong effect on the phosphorylation of the LRRK2 substrate rab10 but I could not find an experiment that shows whether rab12 has any effect on the residual phosphorylation of rab10 in the LRRK2 KO. There is not much phosphorylation left in the absence of LRRK2 but maybe this depends on rab12 just as much as in cells with LRRK2 and rab12 is operating independently of LRRK2, either through a different kinase or simply by making rab10 more available for phosphorylation. The epistasis experiment is crucial to address this possibility. To establish the connection to LRRK2, it would also help to compare the effect of rab12 KD on the phosphorylation of selected rabs that do or do not depend on LRRK2.

A strength of the work is the demonstration of p-rab10 recruitment to lysosomes by biochemistry and imaging. The demonstration that LRRK2 is required for this by biochemistry (Fig 4A) is very important but it would also be good to determine whether the requirement for LRRK2 extends to imaging. In support of a causal relationship, the authors also state that lysosomal accumulation of rab12 precedes LRRK2 but the data do not show this. Imaging with and without LRRK2 would provide more compelling evidence for a causative role.

The authors also touch base with PD mutations, showing that loss of rab12 reduces the phosphorylation of rab10. However, it is interesting that loss of rab12 has the same effect with R1441G LRRK2 and D620N VPS35 as it does in controls. This suggests that the effect of rab12 does not depend on the extent of LRRK2 activation. It is also surprising that R1441G LRRK2 does not increase p-rab10 phosphorylation (Fig 2G) as suggested in the literature and stated in the text.

Most important, the final figure suggests that PD-associated mutations in LRRK2 and VPS35 occlude the effect of lysosomal disruption on lysosomal recruitment of LRRK2 (Fig 4D) but do not impair the phosphorylation of rab10 also triggered by lysosomal disruption (4A-C). Phosphorylation of this target thus appears to be regulated independently of LRRK2 recruitment to the lysosome, suggesting another level of control (perhaps of kinase activity rather than localization) that has not been considered.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Increased LRRK2 kinase activity is known to confer Parkinson's disease risk. While much is known about disease-causing LRRK2 mutations that increase LRRK2 kinase activity, the normal cellular mechanisms of LRRK2 activation are less well understood. Rab GTPases are known to play a role in LRRK2 activation and to be substrates for the kinase activity of LRRK2. However, much of the data on Rabs in LRRK2 activation comes from over-expression studies and the contributions of endogenously expressed Rabs to LRRK2 activation are less clear. To address this problem, Bondar and colleagues tested the impact of systematically depleting candidate Rab GTPases on LRRK2 activity as measured by its ability to phosphorylate Rab10 in the human A549 type 2 pneumocyte cell line. This resulted in the identification of a major role for Rab12 in controlling LRRK2 activity towards Rab10 in this model system. Follow-up studies show that this role for Rab12 is of particular importance for the phosphorylation of Rab10 by LRRK2 at damaged lysosomes. Increases in LRRK2 activity in cells harboring disease-causing mutants of LRRK2 and VPS35 also depend (at least partially) on Rab12. Confidence in the role of Rab12 in supporting LRRK2 activity is strengthened by parallel experiments showing that either siRNA-mediated depletion of Rab12 or CRISPR-mediated Rab12 KO both have similar effects on LRRK2 activity. Collectively, these results demonstrate a novel role for Rab12 in supporting LRRK2 activation in A549 cells. It is likely that this effect is generalizable to other cell types. However, this remains to be established. It is also likely that lysosomes are the subcellular site where Rab12-dependent activation of LRRK2 occurs. Independent validation of these conclusions with additional experiments would strengthen this conclusion and help to address some concerns that much of the data supporting a lysosome localization for Rab12-dependent activation of LRRK2 comes from a single method (LysoIP). Furthermore, there is a discrepancy between panel 4A versus 4D in the effect of LLoMe-induced lysosome damage on LRRK2 recruitment to lysosomes that will need to be addressed to strengthen confidence in conclusions about lysosomes as sites of LRRK2 activation by Rab12.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript provides novel and intriguing experiments that aim to elucidate the mechanical properties of the Reissner fiber (RF) and to probe its interactions with the motile cilia in the central canal of the spinal cord. Using in vivo imaging in larval zebrafish, the authors show that the RF is under tension and oscillates dorsoventrally. Importantly, ablation of the RF triggered retraction and relaxation of the fiber cut ends. The retraction speed depends on where the fiber was ablated, with fastest retraction in the rostral side, indicating that tension in the RF builds up rostrally. The authors, based on observations from live imaging of intact and ablated RF and central canal, conjecture that numerous ependymal motile monocilia, that are tilted caudally and interact frequently with the RF, contribute to RF heterogenous tension via weak interactions.

The work is important. The experiments are thorough and intricate. The findings are fascinating and open up the prospect for future investigations and models. I'm particularly curious as to what future experiments can be used to test the hypothesis put forward by the authors about the role of cilia-fiber interactions in the RF mechanical properties and function.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The present manuscript by the Claire Wyart group analyses the behaviour of Reissner's fibre (RF) when it is cut, as well as the behaviour of cells touching RF when contact is interrupted. They show that RF is under tension that is higher in the rostral than in the caudal spinal cord. One of the proposed mechanisms is a caudally oriented movement of the cilia of ependymal radial glials cells (ERG) that is inherent rather than caused by the contact with RF. Kolmer Agduhr neurons that are also CSF contacting (CSF-cN), alter their activity when contact is lost through laser ablation of RF.

This is an interesting paper - RF has long been proposed to be a source of signalling molecules in the development and physiological function of neural cells in the spinal cord. Cilia are the main centre of signalling activity in ciliated cells (e.g. for sonic hedgehog signalling) and the fact that ERG cilia are in direct contact with RF is intriguing. Presumably, signalling molecules could be directly transferred from RF to ERG at the contact points.

Functionally, CSF-cN are augmenting spinal cord intrinsic sensory feedback on body curvature. This had been shown in vitro/ex vivo, but not clearly evaluated in the living animal. The data shown here demonstrate a possible mechanism for how the feedback can be mediated through contact with RF. This is of fundamental interest to understand the functioning of a locomotor network that is under evolutionary pressure to function early, since fish hatch at 3 days post fertilisation.

Interestingly, the authors propose (and discuss against the relevant literature) that the presence of RF in the central canal can influence the flow of the CSF, which should be investigated in further work.

Overall, the results are clearly presented, and methods are thoroughly given, including some indication on the reduction of bias (by blinding movies before analysis). The authors also clearly state the limitations of their work, mostly derived from optical limitation (size of the RF in the larval fish, and speed of the recording in the laser-equipped microscope). This doesn't affect the fundamental statements.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This manuscript by Bellegarda et al. examined the in vivo dynamic behavior of the Reissner fiber and its interactions with cilia and sensory neurons in the central canal of zebrafish larvae. The authors accomplished this by performing live imaging with a transgenic reporter zebrafish line in which the fiber is GFP-tagged and by finely tracking the movement of the fiber. Interestingly, they discovered that the fiber undergoes a dynamic vibratory-like movement along the dorsoventral axis. The authors then utilized a pulsed laser to precisely cut the fiber, which frequently resulted in a fast retraction behavior and a loss of calcium activity in sensory neurons in the central canal called CSF-CNs. Mechanical modeling of the elastic properties of the fiber indicated that the fiber is a soft elastic rod with graded tension along the rostrocaudal axis. Finally, by performing live imaging of motile cilia and the fiber in the central canal, they found that the two interact in close proximity and that cilia motility is affected when the fiber was cut. The authors concluded that the Reissner fiber is a dynamic structure under tension that interacts with sensory neurons and cilia in the central canal.

Strengths:<br /> 1. The study utilizes state-of-the-art microscopy techniques and beautiful transgenic zebrafish tools to characterize the in vivo behavior of the Reissner fiber and found that it exhibits surprising dynamic movements along the dorsal-ventral axis. This observation has important implications for the physiology and function of the Reissner fiber.

2. By performing a series of clever laser cutting experiments, the authors reveal that the Reissner fiber is under tension in the central canal of zebrafish. This finding provides direct experimental evidence to support the hypothesis that the Reissner fiber functions in a biomechanical manner during spinal cord development and body axis straightening.

3. By developing a mechanical model of the Reissner fiber and its retraction behavior, the authors estimate the elastic properties of the fiber and found that it is more akin to an elastic polymer rather than a stiff rod. This is a useful finding that illuminates the biophysical properties of the fiber.

4. Through calcium and cilia imaging studies, the authors demonstrate that the Reissner fiber likely interacts with motile cilia and regulates the activity of ciliated sensory neurons (CSF-CNs). The authors propose a model in which fiber-cilia interactions may occur via weak interactions or frictional forces. This model is plausible and opens several new doors for additional investigation.

Weaknesses:<br /> 1. All the live imaging experiments appear to be performed with animals paralyzed via the injection of a chemical agent (bungarotoxin). Does paralysis and/or bungarotoxin negatively impact the behavior of the Reissner fiber? Some data from non-paralyzed animals would ameliorate this concern.

2. Although the authors convincingly demonstrate that the Reissner fiber is under graded tension, it remains unclear what is the relevance and function of tension on this structure. The photoablation data presented do not delineate between the relevance of the fiber being intact or tension on the fiber as cutting the fiber impacts both. Is fiber tension required for body straightening? At the site of fiber photoablation, does a spinal curvature develop? If cultured, do the ablated animals exhibit a scoliotic phenotype?

3. One of the most potentially impactful conclusions of the paper is that the Reissner fiber interacts with cilia, but the evidence is insufficient to support this. Although some motile cilia are near the fiber (Figure 3A), many cilia are not near the fiber. The provided images and videos do not clearly demonstrate that cilia physically contact or influence the behavior of the Reissner fiber. Further, the data is lacking to conclude that the Reissner fiber directly impacts cilia motility as they did not observe an overall statistically significant difference before and after ablation (Supplemental Figure 1A). Higher magnification, higher resolution, higher acquisition rate and/or colocalization analyses of fiber-cilia interactions could alleviate this concern.

4. Similarly, how does the Reissner fiber interact with CSF-CN sensory neurons? The authors suggest that the fiber interacts with CSF-CN sensory neurons by modulating their spontaneous calcium activity via weak interactions or frictional forces from motile ciliated ependymal radial glial cells. While the calcium imaging data of the CSF-CNs is convincing and sound, the exact nature of the fiber-neuron interaction is unclear. Do cilia or apical extensions on CSF-CN sensory neurons sense the fiber or forces through a mechanosensing or chemosensing mechanism? There is some additional confusion as the authors appear to focus their cilia experiments on ependymal radial glial cells in section 4, rather than CSF-CNs. The addition of an illustrative cartoon would add clarity.

Overall, the conclusions of the study are well supported by the data presented. However, the strength of the conclusions could be enhanced by additional controls, alternative experimental approaches and clarifications.

This manuscript is an important contribution to the fields of spinal cord development and body axis development, which are fundamental questions in neurobiology, developmental biology, and musculoskeletal biology. In recent years, the Reissner fiber and motile cilia function have been linked to cerebrospinal fluid flow signaling and body straightening, but the precise form and function of the fiber remain unclear. This study provides new insight into the dynamic and biophysical properties of the Reissner fiber in vivo in zebrafish and proposes a model in which the fiber interacts with cilia and sensory neurons. This study provides novel insight into the cellular mechanisms that underlie the pathogenesis of disorders such as idiopathic scoliosis.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The potential role of the CaMKII holoenzyme in synaptic information processing, storage, and spread has fascinated neuroscientists ever since it has been described that self-phosphorylation of CaMKII at T286 (pT286) can maintain the kinase in an activated state beyond the initial Ca2+ stimulus that induced kinase activation and pT286. The current study by Lučić et al utilizes biochemical and biophysical methods to re-examine two pT286 mechanisms and finds:<br /> (1) that a previously proposed activation-induced subunit exchange within the holoenzyme can not provide pT286 maintenance or propagation; and<br /> (2) that pT286 can occur not only within a holoenzyme but also between two holoenzymes, at least at sufficiently high concentrations.

For the observation regarding the subunit exchange, the authors go above and beyond to demonstrate that a previously proposed activation-induced subunit exchange does not actually occur in their hands and that the previous appearance of such a subunit exchange may instead be due to activation-induced interactions between the kinase domains of separate holoenzymes. This provides important clarification, as the imagination about the possible functions of this subunit exchange has been running wild in the literature.

By contrast, pT286 between holoenzymes at sufficiently high concentrations was largely predicted by the previously reported concentration-dependence of pT286 between monomeric truncated CaMKII (although these previous experiments did not rule out that such pT286 could have been excluded for intact full-length holoenzymes). Notably, the reaction rate reported here for pT286 between two holoenzymes is more than two orders of magnitude slower compared to the previously described rate of the pT286 reaction within a holoenzyme.

In summary, this study contains two somewhat disparate parts: (1) one technical tour-de-force to provide evidence that argues against activation-induced subunit exchange, which was a tremendous effort that provides influential novel information, and (2) another set of experiments showing the somewhat predictable potential for pT286 between holoenzymes, but without indication for the functional relevance of this rather slow reaction. Unfortunately, in the current/initial title of the manuscript, the authors chose to emphasize the weaker part of their findings.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This well-written manuscript provides a technical tour-de-force to provide a novel mechanism for sustaining CaMKII autophosphorylation through an interholoenzyme reaction mechanism the authors term inter-holoenzyme phosphorylation (IHP). The authors use molecular engineering to create designer molecules that permit detailed testing of the proposed interholoenzyme reaction mechanism. By catalytically inactivating one population of enzymes, they show using standard assays that the inactive enzyme can be phosphorylated by active holoenzymes. They go on to show that in cells, the inactive enzyme is phosphorylated only in the presence of co-expressed active CaMKII and that this does not appear to be due to active and inactive subunits mixing within the same holoenzyme. The authors suggest reasons for why previous experiments failed to expose IHP and in some experiments provide evidence that reproduces and then extends earlier studies. Some noted differences from earlier experiments are the reaction temperature, the time course of the reactions, and that significantly higher concentrations of the inactive (substrate) kinase in the present study amplify the IHP. These are plausible reasons for earlier studies not finding significant evidence for IHP and the presented data is well-controlled and of high quality.

The authors then take on the idea of subunit exchange employing multiple strategies. Using genetic expansion, they engineer an unnatural amino acid into the hub domain of the kinase (residue 384). In the presence of the photoactivatable crosslinker BZF and UV illumination, a ladder of subunits was generated indicating intraholoenzyme crosslinks were established. Using this cross-linked enzyme, presumably incapable of subunit exchange, the authors show significant phosphorylation of the kinase-dead mutant. This further supports that IHP is the cause of phosphorylation and not subunit exchange. Extending these experiments, they could not find evidence when CaMKIIF394BZF was mixed with the kinase-dead mutant and exposed to UV light, that there was evidence of the kinase-dead subunits exchanged into CaMKIIF394 (active) enzymes.

With an entirely different approach, the authors use isotopic labeling of different pools of wt CaMKII (N14 or N15) followed by bifunctional cross-linking and mass spec to assess potential intra- and inter-holoenzyme contacts. Several interesting findings came of these studies detailed in Figure 4, mapped in detail in Figure 5, and extensively documented in supplementary tables. Critically, numerous cross-links were found between different domains of the enzyme (catalytic, regulatory, hub) that are themselves a nice database of proximity measurements, but critical to the hypothesis, no heterotypic cross-links were found in the hub domains at any activated state or time point of incubation. This data supports two findings, that catalytic domains come into close proximity between holoenzymes when activated, supporting the potential for IHP, but that no subunit exchange occurs.

The authors then pursue the approach used originally to provide evidence of subunit mixing, single molecule-based fluorescence imaging. Using pools of CaMKII labeled with spectrally separable dyes, the authors reproduce the earlier findings (Stratton et al, 2016) showing that under activating conditions, but not basal conditions, colocalized spots were detected. Numerous controls were done that confirm the need for full activation (Ca2+/CaM + Mg2+/ATP) to visualize co-localized CaMKII holoenzymes. Extending these studies, the authors mix holoenzymes, fully activate them, and after sufficient time for subunit exchange (if it occurs), the reactions were quenched, and then samples were analyzed. The result was that no evidence of dual-colored holoenzymes was present; if subunits had mixed between holoenzymes, dual-colored spots should have been evident after quenching the reactions. This was not the case. Further, experiments repeated with pools of differentially labeled kinase dead enzymes produced no colocalization, as predicted, if activation of the catalytic domains is necessary to establish IHP.

Finally, the authors employ mass photometry to investigate the potential for interholoenzyme interactions. At basal conditions, only a mass peak consistent with CaMKII dodecamers was evident. Upon activation, a small fraction of dimeric complexes was evident (with Ca2+/CaM bound) but the majority of the peak was a dodecamer with 12 associated CaM molecules, and importantly, a significant fraction of a mass population was found consistent with a pair of holoenzymes with associated CaM. As an aside, the holoenzyme population appeared to be modestly destabilized as evidence of a minor fraction of dimers appeared as the authors diluted the enzyme, but the pools of holoenzyme and pairs of holoenzymes (with CaM) remained the dominant species when activated under all three enzyme concentrations assessed. Supporting the importance of activation for interactions between holoenzymes, the catalytically dead kinase even under activating conditions, shows no evidence of dimers of holoenzymes.

Each of the approaches is well-controlled, the data is of uniformly high quality, and the authors' interpretations are generally well-supported.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

CaMKII is a multimeric kinase of great biologic interest due to its crucial roles in long-term memory, cardiac pacemaking, and fertilization. CaMKII subunits organize into holoenzymes comprised of 12-14 subunits, adopting a donut-like, double-ringed structure. In this manuscript, Lucic et al challenge two models in the CaMKII field, which are somewhat related. The first is a longstanding topic in the field about whether the autophosphorylation of a crucial residue, Thr286, can be phosphorylated between intact holoenzymes (inter-holoenzyme phosphorylation). The second is a more recent biochemical finding, which tested the long-running theory that CaMKII exchanges subunits between holoenzymes to create mixed oligomers. These two models are connected by the idea that subunit exchange could facilitate phosphorylation between subunits of different holoenzymes by allowing subunits to integrate into a different holoenzyme and driving transphosphorylation within the CaMKII ring. Here, the authors attempt to show that one intact holoenzyme phosphorylates another intact holoenzyme at Thr286. The authors also provide evidence suggesting that subunit exchange is not occurring under their conditions, and therefore not driving this phosphorylation event. The authors propose a model where instead of exchanging subunits, two holoenzymes interact via their kinase domains to enable transphosphorylation at Thr286 without integrating into the holoenzyme structure. In order for the authors to successfully convince readers of all three facets of this new model, they need to provide evidence that 1) transphosphorylation at Thr286 happens when subunit exchange is blocked, 2) subunit exchange does not occur under their conditions, and 3) there are interactions between kinases of different holoenzymes that lead to productive autophosphorylation at Thr286.

Strengths:<br /> The authors have designed and performed a battery of cleverly designed and orthogonal experiments to test these models. Using mutagenesis, they mixed a kinase-dead mutant with an active kinase to ask whether transphosphorylation occurs. They observe phosphorylation of the kinase-dead variant in this experiment, which indicates that the active kinase must have phosphorylated it. A few key questions arise here: 1) whether this phosphorylation occurred within a single CaMKII holoenzyme ring (which is the canonical mechanism for Thr286 phosphorylation), 2) whether the phosphorylation occurred between two separate holoenzyme rings, and 3) why was this not observed in previous literature? To address questions 1 and 2, the authors implemented an innovative strategy introducing a genetically-encoded photocrosslinker in the oligomerization domain, which when crosslinked using UV light, should lock the holoenzyme in place. The rate of phosphorylation was the same when comparing uncrosslinked and crosslinked CaMKII variants, indicating that phosphorylation is occurring between holoenzymes, rather than through a subunit exchange mechanism that would require some type of disassembly and reassembly (presumably blocked by crosslinking). The 3rd question remains as to why this has not been previously observed, as it has not been for lack of effort. The authors mention low temperature and low concentration as culprits, however, Bradshaw et al, JBC v. 277, 2002 carry out a series of careful experiments that indicated that autophosphorylation at T286 is not concentration-dependent (meaning that the majority of phosphorylation occurs via intra-holoenzyme), and this is done over a concentration and temperature range. It is possible that due to the mutants used in the current manuscript, it allows for the different behavior of the kinase-dead domains, which will have an empty nucleotide-binding pocket. Further studies will need to elucidate these details, and importantly, understand what physiological conditions facilitate this mechanism.

The most convincing data that subunit exchange does not occur is from the crosslinking mass spectrometry experiment. The authors created mixtures of 'light' and 'heavy' CaMKII holoenzymes, either activated or not and then used a Lys-Lys crosslinker (DSS) to trap the enzyme in its final state. The results of this experiment indicate that subunit exchange is not occurring under their conditions. A caveat here is that there are not many lysines at hub-hub interfaces, which is the crux of this experiment. If there is no subunit exchange under their conditions, how does transphosphorylation occur between holoenzymes? The authors show very nice mass photometry data indicating that there are populations of 24-mers, which corresponds to a double-holoenzyme. Paired with the data from their crosslinking mass spectrometry which shows crosslinks between kinase domains of different holoenzymes, this indicates that perhaps kinases between holoenzymes do interact, and they do so in a competent manner to allow transphosphorylation to occur.

Weaknesses:<br /> The authors should be commended for performing three orthogonal experiments to test whether CaMKII holoenzymes exchange subunits to form heterooligomers. However, there are technical issues that dampen the strength of the results shown here. For simplicity, let's consider that CaMKII holoenzymes are comprised of two stacked hexameric rings. It has been proposed that the stable unit of CaMKII assembly and perhaps also disassembly and subunit exchange is a vertical dimer unit (comprised of one subunit from each hexameric ring). In the UV crosslinking data shown in this paper, the authors have a significant number of monomers, some crosslinked dimers (of which there are two populations), and fewer higher-order oligomers. To effectively block subunit exchange, robust crosslinking into hexamers is necessary, which the authors have not done. Incomplete crosslinking results in smaller species that can still exchange (and/or dissociate), confounding the results of this experiment. In addition, Figure 3 shows a trapping experiment, where if the exchange was occurring, there would be an oligomeric band in Lane 8, which is visible and highlighted with a blue arrow by the authors. This result is explained by nonspecific UV effects, however by eye it is not clear if there is an equivalent band in lane 10. The overall issue here is inefficient crosslinking.

The authors also employ a single-molecule TIRF experiment to further interrogate subunit exchange. Upon inspection of the TIRF images, it is not clear that the authors are achieving single molecule resolution (there are evident overlapping and distorted particles). The analysis employed here is Pearson's correlation coefficient, which is not sufficient for single molecule analysis and would not account for particle overlap, particles that are too bright, and/or particles that are too dim. For example, an alternative explanation for the authors' results is that activation results in aggregation (high correlation), and subsequent EGTA treatment leads to dissociation at these low concentrations (low correlation). However, further experimentation and analysis are necessary.

Taken together, the authors have provided important food for thought regarding inter-holoenzyme phosphorylation and subunit exchange. However, given the shortcomings discussed here, it remains unclear exactly what mechanisms are at play within and between CaMKII holoenzymes once activated.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

During NonREM sleep, two major oscillations, the slow oscillation (SO) and the sleep spindle, have been shown to interact, putatively to support memory consolidation. These oscillations and their interrelation have been shown to change during development. The authors reanalyse two datasets in children and adolescents. One is longitudinal, assessed at 8-11 years and 14-18 years, the other is cross-sectional, assessed at 5-6 years. The manuscript reports several interesting findings. They identify three types of spindles, canonical slow and fast spindles as well as "age adjusted" fast spindles. They show that fast spindles are modulated by the slow oscillation more in the older children and relate this improved modulation to a sleep-spindle maturation index. The authors use many highly complex data analysis tools and apply them to different transformations of the data, which they explain in great detail. The manuscript is written clearly although it is at times very technical. The findings could be highly interesting to the field of sleep research, as they nicely examine the developmental trajectory of spindles and their coupling to the SO. Although the manuscript makes use of two adequate samples of children and adolescents, they do not compare their findings to adults. In addition, the maturation index is not well justified and the authors could do more to show that the "age adjusted" fast spindles actually develop into fast spindles. The analysis also does not take sex into account, which could be affecting findings in puberty. In general, there are some analyses that could be added to make the findings clearer. For example, it would be great to show averages of the detected spindles to show how they may or may not differ. More descriptive data in form of figures would also help readers understand the complex analyses that are reported (i.e., spectrogram and SO phase locked activity in the spindle bands). Finally, children have been reported to have superior declarative memory consolidation, which itself has been closely linked to spindle-SO coupling. It would be great to have a more broad discussion, how the current findings are related to other developmental changes in the field of sleep (and memory).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The article by Joechner et al is a reanalysis of a large cohort data-set on sleep oscillation development. By combining an analysis with fixed frequencies derived from adults with adaptive frequency ranges, they highlight that initially spindle oscillations are slower and it takes until mid adolescence for spindles to be more adult like. Further, those spindles that already have adult-like frequency ranges also show the other properties known from adults. These results are intriguing and the analysis is well-done and thorough. I only have minor comments on how the article could be improved.

Some additional analysis that would complement the current findings: in Fig 1 it would be good to include the adult-like slow frontal spindles for comparison (similar as the inclusion for the centro parietal ones). Further, providing distributions could let the readers have some valuable insight into the events. Could the authors combine all events and show 3D scatter plots with frequency X amplitude X duration of each spindle event? And then either color code the events from different age groups or have them in separate plots. Additionally, the frequency cut-off for adult-events could be added to the plot. This would likely show nicely how the events shift in their properties over age and thus slowly reach adult-like characteristics.

On page 2. Line 17 the authors state that spindles align ripples. While this is the case, the interaction between these oscillations are more complex. Ripples will also occur before the spindle and the ripples before spindles have been shown to be causally related to memory consolidation. Please cite Maingret et al Nat Neurosci 2016. Further, the authors should also discuss other rodent work for example Garcia et al Frontiers 2022, which also investigates the development of spindles.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Joechner and their co-authors performed an extensive analysis of two existing datasets from sleeping children aged between 5 to 18 years. By identifying discrete events of slow oscillations (SOs) and (fast) sleep spindles they examined not only the developmental changes of these distinct sleep grapho-elements. They also took a closer look at their interplay, e.g., to what extend sleep spindles are co-occurring with slow oscillation up-states, as this coupling is thought to underlie sleep-dependent memory consolidation.

The authors found that both sleep spindles and slow oscillation undergo a change across the young age, e.g., while sleep spindles increased in frequency approaching the typical 12-16 Hz range found in adults, slow oscillation showed a shift in occurrence patterns from posterior to anterior sites. Likewise, the coupling of fast spindles within slow oscillation up-states manifested with age, which is almost non-existing in 5- to 6-year-old children. However, and most intriguingly, a coupling analysis based on the adult-like 12-16 Hz range revealed an already existing SO-spindle phase-relation across all age ranges. Altogether, this data nicely demonstrates the trajectory of sleep spindles and SOs in children and highlights the almost inherent coupling between SOs and "adult" sleep spindles. In my view, these results not only provide a good overview of a healthy development but also interesting food for thought regarding the function of SO-spindle coupling in healthy or clinical development.

Overall, this work is well-written, and the performed analyses are well conceptualized. Hence, there are one general and a few minor aspects that could be addressed to hopefully strengthen this manuscript a bit further.

The biggest aspect that was striking is the shear amount of data reported, e.g., a supplement with 28 tables is too extensive. The authors should consider reducing a few aspects.<br /> For example, the authors employ a linear mixed effects model and report coefficient etc. in the supplement. However, in the main text, the authors mainly report ANOVA-based results. Obviously, a LMM and an ANOVA are equivalent, however, focusing on one approach could streamline everything.<br /> Another example is the assessment of spindle frequency via the discrete events: First spindle peak frequency is derived via power spectra. Using the then individually identified peaks, discrete events are detected. Shouldn't it be obvious that these events show the same behavior with regard to their frequency?<br /> As a final example, the authors first report changes in fast spindle properties across age and, e.g., find an increase in frequency towards 12-16 Hz adult range. They then repeat the whole analysis in the 12-16 Hz range and examine the "distance" to the individualized results. It should again be obvious that this approach comes to the same conclusion, a smaller distance in older children. Even more obvious is the conclusion "Hence, it appears as if fast centro-parietal SPs become more dominant and adult-like in their frequency and amplitude characteristics in older children" because it describes a normal development of a healthy child. Altogether, the authors could streamline a few aspects by removing hidden redundancies and focus on the - in my view - central aspect of an inherent 12-16 Hz coupling across all ages.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors used pan-cancer Standardized Incidence Ratio analyses and Mendelian Randomization analysis to reach the causal relationships between first primary cancers and second primary cancers, proving that a primary cancer may cause another type of primary cancer. The results supported that pharynx cancer, ovary cancer, kidney cancer may cause non-Hodgkin lymphoma, soft tissue cancer, lung cancer and myeloma, respectively. This research provides a useful direction for further elucidation of profound mechanisms of secondary primary tumors, and guide the community to attach importance to the prevention of secondary primary tumors. According to previous researches, the number of patients with multiple primary cancers is growing rapidly and second solid tumors are a leading cause of mortality among several populations of long-term survivors, which shed light on the significance of this work.

The methods of the work are logically rigorous, which revealed the incidence relationship among numerous types of cancers using SEER database analyses and further confirmed the causal relationship between first primary cancers and second primary cancers through MR analysis utilizing GWAS as an exposure database and UK Biobank as an outcome database. Then, 2 outlier-detected methods were used and validate the harmonization between SIR and MR analyses, making the results more solid.

Nonetheless, SEER SIR analyses might be affected by confounding factors of screening and did not represent the whole population. In addition, too few SNPs were included in part of cancer types mentioned in the research, such as larynx, stomach and male breast cancer.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This study investigates the associations and causal relationship between second primary cancers and the initial diagnosis of a primary cancer, utilizing a large-scale database. The study's unique contribution lies in its combination of pan-cancer analysis and the incorporation of Mendelian randomization, which adds novelty and enhances the value of the research.

Furthermore, the findings of this study have the potential to provide valuable insights into important clinical considerations, such as patients' prognosis, treatment decisions, and survivorship care.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

For a gaseous therapeutic agent such as NO, delivery to the site and release to the injured area are both required for efficacy. Previous work has focused on hydrogels for delivery. The authors engineered a combined gene/cell therapy plus a pharmaceutical approach to NO delivery. Engineered MSC produced a mutant beta-galactosidase (B-GALH363A) that when a prodrug is administered, will release NO locally.

One can imagine applications involving such a novel concept for gaseous signaling molecule delivery to include other kinds of cells, other prodrugs, other gaseous agents, and other injury types. In this elegant study, the concept has been explored deeply in one potential application, making it a landmark contribution to the field of regenerative medicine.

Limitations of the current study are that the mice utilized were C57/Bl6 females, the most resistant sex and strain to kidney injury. Another limitation is the use of human placental MSCs only; as such we do not know if other MSCs will perform equally well.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this Manuscript, Huang et al generated engineered MSC (eMSC) to produce mutant b-GALH363A, and when stimulated with a pro-drug (MGP) they can release NO. These cells were tested in vivo in a mouse model of AKI. When MGP is systemically administrated in AKI mice, it can induce eMSC to release NO in a precise and spatiotemporal manner, possibly enhancing the therapeutic efficacy of these stem cells.

The authors have conducted a very interesting study. The results are likely of interest to the renal scientific community, especially in the context of acute kidney injury.

Weaknesses are present. Methods (animals, groups, time points, cell lines, bulk RNA-seq, etc.) are not clearly described and details are missing. Legends are not clear, and some Figures do not clearly represent the results discussed.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Mesenchymal stem cells have been shown to have potent immunomodulatory and regenerative properties and have been tested and tried in kidney transplantation. In a previous paper, the authors of this paper reviewed the beneficial actions of nitric oxide (NO) on the beneficial action of MSC. In this manuscript, they describe a method to generate NO in the therapeutic MSC. While NO donors like the short-acting nitrates have been used for angina pectoris patients few therapeutic approaches have been published aiming at the local delivery of NO to specific tissues or organs like the kidney. Gene therapy with adenoviral vectors, overexpressing the eNOS gene itself failed due to the fact that the eNOS enzyme, when overexpressed quickly runs out of sufficient co-factors like BH4. As a consequence, the enzyme uncouples and becomes cytotoxic due to the generation of peroxynitrate. Hence, the current strategy to generate NO in the MSC itself is novel and interesting.

The authors first describe the cryoprotective effects and antioxidant effects of NO generation in MSC in vitro and subsequently in vivo in a mouse model of ischemia-reperfusion injury that may reflect acute kidney injury (or ischemia associated with kidney transplantation) in patients. While the MSC are transplanted intracortical on a local position in the kidneys, the manuscript describes surprising effectivity on serum creatinine, ureum, casts, and protection of brush border. Also, upon immunohistochemical analyses, fibrosis, and kidney injury markers decrease. Most likely there is a strong paracrine effect. It is unfortunate that the control "PBS + MGP" is lacking to exclude some low-grade background conversion of the compound with subsequent release of NO. MGP only is tested however, studies in kidney sections with state-of-the-art EPR, give the authors the wanted control.

The paper provides an interesting proof of concept for a novel therapeutic approach. However, in the clinical arena, some questions remain involving the survival of the MSC after transplantation and the introduction of novel antigens associated with the engineered cells

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The Authors of this study have investigated the consequence of knocking out protein 4.1B on hippocampal interneurons. They observed that in 4.1B KO mice, the myelinization of axons of PV and SST interneurons was altered. In addition, the molecular organization of the nodal, heminodal, and juxtaparanodal parts of the interneuron axons was disrupted in 4.1B KO mice. Further, the authors found some changes in spiking features of SST, but not PV interneurons as well as synaptic inhibition recorded in CA1 pyramidal cells. Lastly, 4.1B KO mice showed some impairment in spatial memory.

Strengths<br /> One of the strengths of this MS is the multilevel approach to the question of how myelinization of interneuron axons can contribute to hippocampal functions. Further, the cell biological results support the claim of the reorganization of channel distributions at axonal nodes.

Weaknesses<br /> 1. Although the authors acknowledge that SST is expressed in different GABAergic cell types in the hippocampus, they claim that OLM cells, which express SST are subject to changes in 4.1B KO mice. However, this claim is not supported by data. Both OLM cells and GABAergic projection cells expressing SST have many long-running axons in the stratum radiatum, where the investigations have been conducted (e.g. Gulyas et al., 2003; Jinno et al., 2007). Thus, the SST axons can originate from any of these cell types. In addition, both these GABAergic cells have a sag in their voltage responses upon negative current injections (e.g. Zemankovics et al., 2010), making it hard to separate these two SST inhibitory cell types based on the single-cell features. In summary, it would be more appropriate to name the sampled interneurons as SST interneurons. Alternatively, the authors may want to label intracellularly individual interneurons to visualize their dendrites and axons, which would allow them to verify that the de-myelinization occurs along the axons of OLM cells, but not SST GABAergic projection neurons.

2. Although both the cellular part and the behavioral part are interesting, there is no link between them at present. The changes observed in spatial memory tests may not be caused by the changes in the axonal de-myelinization of hippocampal interneurons. Such a claim can be made only using rescue experiments, since changes in 4.1B KO mice leading to behavioral alterations may occur i) in other cell types and ii) in other regions, which have not been investigated.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, Pinatel et al. address the role of interneuron myelination in the hippocampus using a 4.1B protein mouse knockout model. They show that deficiency in 4.1B significantly reduces myelin in CA1 stratum radiatum, specifically myelin along axons of parvalbumin and somatostatin hippocampal interneurons. In addition, there are striking defects in the distribution of ion channels along myelinated axons, with misplacement of Na channel clusters along the nodes of Ranvier and the heminodes, and a pronounced decrease in potassium channels (Kv1) at juxtaparanodes. The axon initial segments of SST are also shorter. Because the majority of myelinated axons in the stratum radiatum of the hippocampus belong to PV and SST interneurons such profound changes in myelination are expected to affect interneuronal function. Interestingly, the authors show that PV basket cells' properties appear largely unaffected, while there are substantial changes in stratum oriens O-LM cells. Inhibitory inputs to pyramidal neurons are also changed. Behaviorally, the 4.1B KO mice exhibit deficits in spatial working memory, supporting the role of interneuronal myelination in hippocampal function. This study provides important insights into the role of myelination for the function of inhibitory interneurons, as well as in the mechanisms of axonal node development and ion channel clustering, and thus will be of interest to a broad audience of circuit and cellular neuroscientists. However, the claims of the specificity of the reported changes in myelination need to be better supported by evidence.

Strengths:<br /> The authors combine a wide array of genetic, immunolabeling, optical, electrophysiological, and behavioral tools to address a still unresolved complex problem of the role of myelination of locally projecting inhibitory interneurons in the hippocampus. They convincingly show that changing myelination and ion channel distribution along nodes and heminodes significantly impairs the function of at least some interneuron types in the hippocampus and that this is accompanied by behavioral deficits in spatial memory.

Regarding the organization of myelinated axons, the lack of 4.1B causes striking changes at the nodes of Ranvier that are convincingly and beautifully presented in the Figures. While the reduction in Kv1 in 4.1B KO mice has been previously reported, the mislocalization of sodium channels at the nodes and heminodes had only been observed in developing but not adult spinal cords. This difference in the dependence of the sodium channel distribution on 4.1B in adult hippocampus vs spinal cord may hold important clues for the varying role of myelin along axons of different neuronal types.

The manuscript is very well written, the discussion is comprehensive, and provides detailed background and analysis of the current findings and their implications.

Weaknesses:<br /> Because of the wide diversity of interneuron types in the hippocampus, and also the presence of myelinated axons from other neuron types as well, including pyramidal neurons, it is very difficult to disentangle the effects of the observed changes in the 4.1 B KO mouse model. While the authors have been careful to explore different possibilities, some of the claims of the specificity of the reported changes in myelination are not completely founded. For example, there is no compelling evidence that the myelination of axons other than the local interneurons is unchanged. The evidence strongly supports the claims of changes in interneuronal myelination, but it leaves open the question of whether 4.1B lack affects the myelination of hippocampal pyramidal neurons or of long-range projections.

To be able to better interpret the changes in the 4.1B KO mice, knowledge of the distribution of 4.1B in the hippocampus of control mice will be very helpful. The authors state that 4.1B is observed in PV neurons but not in pyramidal neurons, however, the evidence is not convincing. Thus, the lack of immunolabeling at the pyramidal neuron cell bodies does not indicate that 4.1B is missing at the axonal level. The analysis also leaves out the question of whether 4.1 B is seen in the axons of somatostatin neurons.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Pinatel and colleagues addressed a currently understudied topic in neurobiology, namely, the architecture and function of myelination in subsets of Parvalbumin (PV)- and Somatostatin (SST)-positive GABAergic hippocampal interneurons and its dependence on juxtaparanodal organizer proteins. In order to elucidate the structural and functional implications of interneuron myelination, the authors visualized inhibitory neurons by utilizing a Lhx2-tdTomato reporter line in combination with crucial cytoskeletal linker proteins such as Contactin2/TAG-1, Caspr2, and Protein 4.1B. They then applied a comprehensive set of histological, electrophysiological, and behavioral experiments to dissect the role these proteins play in proper myelination and function of PV- and SST-interneurons.

The bulk of the study's data is based on immunofluorescence, which is presented in a number of figures comprised of high-quality images. As much as this is a strength of the study, the underlying image analysis as described in the methods falls short. All structural data rely on the measurements of physical parameters such as length of internodes, the distance between (juxta)paranode and node, the distance between node and myelin sheath, length of the axon initial segment (AIS), etc. In light of this, and considering the small physical dimensions of the nodal region in general, the methods remain unclear about the depth of 3D reconstruction/deconvolution applied to the samples. Measurements presented in the results show significant differences in sub-micrometer dimension, which at least according to the stated methods, are unlikely to be precise given that the confocal imaging parameters do not seem to reach Nyquist conditions. For a study in which a third of all data is aimed at elucidating (sub)micrometer changes, this is crucial and the study would benefit from a more rigorous method description by the authors.

Another methodological weakness is the somewhat small n, and its incoherence across the experiments and therefore, the statistics performed in some of the experiments. Statistics are based on either n for animals, or n for individual data points from several animals. Why is not all data represented as mean/animal? Also, the sampling in general with n = 3 animals is borderline acceptable; in some cases, it seems that only 2 animals were used, and in others, no number is given at all (please refer to author comments for details). This needs to be addressed, either by explaining why so few animals were used, or by adding more data from individual animals. Assigning structures (AIS, nodes) as n results in overstating effects, since especially for AIS, there is significant heterogeneity in the length across neurons from the same type, and this is masked when 100 AIS are considered as individual n instead 100 AIS per animal, and the animal is (correctly) the n. Since the study seems to switch back and forth between these assignments, it would be helpful to level these data across all experiments unless there are specific reasons not to do so, which then need to be explained. As outlined in the methods, all values are given as means {plus minus} SEM; this needs to be corrected for those cases where the standard deviation is the appropriate choice (e.g. all graphs showing n = individual structure, and not the mean of an animal).

As far as the analysis of geometrical AIS changes is concerned, the method section should be extended to address how, if at all, AIS length and position were analyzed in 3D, also considering the somewhat "spotty" immunosignal outlined in Fig. 8D. The observed AIS length change is then discussed in the context of a study conducted in a pharmacological model of myelin loss, however, that particular study (Hamada & Kole, 2015) found not only a length change but a position change after cuprizone-induced AIS plasticity. The authors should therefore discuss this finding in a bit more detail than simply stating "Adaptation of the AIS has been reported in the cuprizone chemical model of demyelination" (p. 14, ll. 512).

Similarly to the points made about structural data above, the data from electrophysiological recordings should be presented in such a way that e.g. the number of cells and/or animals is readily accessible from the graph or legend. In its current form, this information - while available - needs to be pieced together from in-text information supplemented by figure legends. Sometimes, the authors do not include the number of animals behind individual cell data (for details please see author comments). Please carefully review all figures and edit accordingly.

The behavioral data presented in the study is interesting, but the conclusions drawn are not supported by the data presented, as many unknown factors remain in place that could contribute to the observed phenotype.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:<br /> In this manuscript, the authors use ATAC-seq to find regions of the genome of rat embryonic striatal neurons in culture that show changes in regulatory element accessibility following stimulation by KCl-mediated membrane depolarization. The authors compare 1hr and 4hr transcriptomes to see both rapid and late response genes. When they look at ATAC-seq data they see no changes in accessibility at 1hr but strong changes at 4hr. The differentially accessible sites were enriched for the AP-1 site, suggesting regulation by Fos-Jun family members, and consistent with the requirement for IEG expression, anisomycin blocked the increase in accessibility. To test the functional importance of this regulation the authors focus on a putative enhancer 45kb upstream of the activity-induced gene encoding the neuromodulator dynorphin (Pdyn). To test the function of this region, the authors recruited CRISPRi to the site, which blocked KCL-dependent Pdyn induction, or CRISPRa, which selectively increased Pdyn expression in the absence of KCl. Finally, the authors reanalyze other human and rat datasets to show cell-type specific function of this enhancer correlated to Pdyn expression.

Strengths:<br /> The idea that stimuli that induce expression of Fos in neurons can change the accessibility of regulatory elements bound from Fos has been shown before, but almost all the data are from hippocampal neurons so it is nice to see the different cell type used here. The most interesting part of the study is the identification of the Pdyn enhancer because of the importance of this gene product in the function of striatal neurons. Overall the conclusions appear to be well supported by the data.

Weaknesses:<br /> The timing and the location of the accessibility changes are meaningfully different from other similar studies, which should be discussed. The authors provide good data for the function of a single enhancer near Pdyn, but could contextualize this with respect to other regulatory elements nearby.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, the authors characterize activity-dependent transcriptional and epigenetic changes at two different time points (1h and 4hrs) after neuronal activation using rat striatal primary cultures. They show that while at 1h post-stimulation mostly a selective set of IEGs are up-regulated, at 4hrs a wider set of genes, identified as late-response genes (LRGs), are upregulated, with distinct functional signatures. By using ATAC-seq, the authors show how chromatin accessibility is mostly spared at 1h post-stimulation, while a prominent set of differentially accessible regions (DARs) could be identified at 4hrs post-stimulation, enriched in motifs for TFs upregulated at their initial time-point. These chromatin changes appear to be dependent on the earlier translation of proteins, as they are avoided when neuronal cultures are pre-treated with the protein synthesis inhibitor Anisomycin. Afterwards, the authors characterized a set of regulatory regions of a particular LRG, Pdyn, associated with neuropsychiatric disorders, by using CRISRPR to activate or inactivate an enhancer that increases its accessibility at 4hrs post-stimulation, showing that the expression of Pdyn is highly dependent on this regulatory region both, at basal level and for its proper activity-dependent stimulation and that it is enriched in motifs for IEGs upregulated at 1h post-stimulation. Using publicly available data from human GABAergic and glutamatergic neurons similarly stimulated with KCl, the authors show that this enhancer is conserved in humans and that it is mostly modified in GABAergic neurons in response to neuronal stimulation, but not in glutamatergic neurons. Finally, the authors suggest that the regulatory role of the Pdyn enhancer they focus on it might be cell-type specific, as single-nuclei ATAC-seq data generated in rat Nucleus Accumbens (NAc) shows that its coaccessibility score together with Pdyn promoter is more prominent in Drd1- and Grm8-MSNs.

Among the major strengths of the article, there is the generation of neuronal RNA-seq and ATAC-seq data in a model system, rat striatal neuronal cells, that hasn't been so broadly characterized as other more common ones such as mouse hippocampal neuronal cells and the functional characterization of an enhancer of the Pdyn gene that might be of interest for translational applications in which alterations of this gene might be occurring in neurological disorders.

On the other hand, the manuscript presents several weaknesses to consider. First of all, at a conceptual level, most of the findings related to the induction of particular transcriptional programs upon neuronal activation the changes in chromatin state, and the need for protein translation for proper induction of LRGs have been broadly characterized previously in the literature (Tyssowski et al., Neuron, 2018; Ibarra et al., Mol. Syst. Biol., 2022; and also reviewed by Yap and Greenberg, Neuron, 2018). In addition, it is not so obvious why to focus on Pdyn gene regulatory regions among the thousands of genes upregulated and with modified chromatin landscape after neuronal activation. The authors highlight three particular traits of this gene as the reason to choose it, but those traits are probably shared by most of the genes that are part of the LRGs set.

At the methodological level, some attention should be put into the timings chosen for generating the data. The authors claim that these time points (1h and 4hrs) identify the first (i.e IEGs) and second (i.e LRGs) waves of transcription. However, at 4hrs the highest over-expressed genes are still IEGs, as shown in the volcano plots of Figure 1B and 1C, showing a high overlap with up-regulated genes found at 1h (Figure 1D). This might suggest that the 4hrs time point is somewhere in between the first and second wave of transcription, probably missing some of the still-to-be-induced LRGs of the latest one.

Finally, while only prosed as a suggestion, the assumption that from the data generated in this article, we can envision a mechanism by which AP-1 family of transcription factors interacts with the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex is going too far, as no evidence is provided implicated SWI/SNF in the data presented in the manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This work contributes to the literature characterizing early and late waves of transcription and associated chromatin remodeling following neuronal depolarization, here in cultured embryonic striatum. While they find IEG transcription 1h after depolarization, they find chromatin remodeling is slower (opening at the 4h time point). This may be due to chromatin at IEG regulatory regions already being open (in embryonic striatum), although previous work has found remodeling occurring at the 1h time point (in adult dentate gyrus). The authors next show that the chromatin remodeling that occurs at the late (4h) stage is largely in putative regulatory regions of the genome (rather than gene bodies), and is dependent on translation, which validates and extends the prior literature. The authors then transition from genome-wide basic neuroscience to focus on a specific gene of interest, prodynorphin (Pdyn), and a putative enhancer they identify from their chromatin analysis. They target CRISPR-activating and -inhibiting complexes to the putative enhancer and demonstrate that accessibility of this locus is necessary and sufficient for Pdyn transcription. They then show that at least one PDYN enhancer is conserved from rodents to humans, and is only activity-regulated in human GABAergic but not glutamatergic neurons. Finally, the authors generate snATAC-seq and show Pdyn gene and enhancer activity are also cell-type-specific in the rat striatum. The Pdyn work in particular is thorough and novel.

Strengths:<br /> This work integrates multiple cutting-edge methods (multiple forms of genome-wide sequencing, combining new and published data across species, applying new forms of bioinformatic analysis, and targeted epigenome editing) to repeatedly and convincingly demonstrate these waves of chromatin remodeling and transcription. The figures and visual representations of data in particular set a new standard for the field. Although several findings within this paper are not novel, this paper ties previous findings all together in one place and goes on to show potential relevance for neuropsychiatric disorders beyond basic cellular neuroscience. The conclusions are mostly supported by the data.

Results and conclusions that would benefit from clarification/extension.<br /> 1. Throughout the paper, the authors emphasize a "temporal decoupling" of transcriptional and chromatin response to depolarization, based on a lack of significant chromatin changes at 1h, despite IEG transcription. However, previous publications show significant chromatin remodeling at 1h (e.g. Su et al., NN 2017 in adult dentate gyrus) or 2h (Kim et al., Nature 2010; Malik et al., NN 2014 in cultured embryonic cortical neurons). The discussion briefly mentions this contrast, but it remains difficult to conclude decisively whether there is temporal decoupling when such decoupling is not found consistently. If one is to make broad conclusions about basic neural chromatin response to depolarization, it would be ideal to know under which conditions there is temporal decoupling, or if this is a region-specific phenomenon.

2. The UMAP analysis is a novel way to probe transcription factor enrichment, but it's unclear what this is actually showing. The authors sought to ask whether "DARs could be separated based on transcription factor motifs in these regions." However, the motifs present in any genomic stretch are fixed based on genomic sequence, so it seems like this analysis might be asking whether certain motifs are more likely to be physically clustered together in the genome, in activity-regulated regions (rather than certain transcription factors acting in concert, as is implied in discussion). While still potentially interesting, this analysis does not seem to give much additional insight into activity-dependent chromatin remodeling beyond the motif enrichment analysis already performed. Nevertheless, to draw stronger conclusions, it would be necessary to compare clustering to a random set of genomic regions of the same length/size to interpret the clustering here. It would also be useful to know whether the ISL1 motif is also enriched in ubiquitously accessible genomic regions in the striatum (and not just DARs).

3. The authors identify late-response gene enhancers by 3 criteria. However, only Pdyn was highlighted thereafter. How many putative DARs met these three criteria in striatum? Only Pdyn?

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Midbrain dopamine neurons have attracted attention as a part of the brain's reward system. A different line of research, on the other hand, has shown that these neurons are also involved in higher cognitive functions such as short-term memory. However, these neurons are thought not to encode short-term memory itself because they just exhibit a phasic response in short-term memory tasks, which cannot seem to maintain information during the memory period. To understand the role of dopamine neurons in short-term memory, the present study investigated the electrophysiological property of these neurons in rodents performing a T-maze version of short-term memory task, in which a visual cue indicated which arm (left or right) of the T-maze was associated with a reward. The animal needed to maintain this information while they were located between the cue presentation position and the selection position of the T-maze. The authors found that the activity of some dopamine neurons changed depending on the information while the animals were located in the memory position. This dopamine neuron modulation was unable to explain the motivation or motor component of the task. The authors concluded that this modulation reflected the information stored as short-term memory.

I was simply surprised by their finding because these dopamine neurons are similar to neurons in the prefrontal cortex that store memory information with a sustained activity. Dopamine neurons are an evolutionally conserved structure, which is seen even in insects, whereas the prefrontal cortex is developed mainly in the primate. I feel that their findings are novel and would attract much attention from readers in the field. But the authors need to conduct additional analyses to consolidate their conclusion.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors phototag DA and GABA neurons in the VTA in mice performing a t-maze task, and report choice-specific responses in the delay period of a memory-guided task, more so than in a variant task w/o a memory component. Overall, I found the results convincing. While showing responses that are choice selective in DA neurons is not entirely novel (e.g. Morris et al NN 2006, Parker et al NN 2016), the fact that this feature is stronger when there is a memory requirement is an interesting and novel observation.

I found the plots in 3B misleading because it looks like the main result is the sequential firing of DA neurons during the Tmaze. However, many of the neurons aren't significant by their permutation test. Often people either only plot the neurons that are significant, or plot with cross-validation (ie sort by half of the trials, and plot the other half).

Relatedly, the cross-task comparisons of sequences (Fig, 4,5) are hampered by the fact that they sort in one task, then plot in the other, which will make the sequences look less robust even if they were equally strong. What happens if they swap which task's sequences they use to order the neurons? I do realize they also show statistical comparisons of modulated units across tasks, which is helpful.

Overall, the introduction was scholarly and did a good job covering a vast literature. But the explanation of t-maze data towards the end of the introduction was confusing. In Line 87, I would not say "in the same task" but "in a similar task" because there are many differences between the tasks in question. And not clear what is meant by "by averaging neuronal population activities, none of these computational schemes would have been revealed. " There was trial averaging, at least in Harvey et al. I thought the main result of that paper related to coding schemes was that neural activity was sequential, not persistent. I think it would help the paper to say that clearly. Also, I'm not aware it was shown that choice selectivity diminishes when the memory demand of the task is removed - please clarify if that is true in both referenced papers. If so, an interpretation of this present data could be found in Lee et al biorxiv 2022, which presents a computational model that implies that the heterogeneity in the VTA DA system is a reflection of the heterogeneity found in upstream regions (the state representation), based on the idea that different subsets of DA neurons calculate prediction errors with respect to different subsets of the state representation.

I am surprised only 28% of DA neurons responded to reward - the reward is not completely certain in this task. This seems lower than other papers in mice (even Pavlovian conditioning, when the reward is entirely certain). It would be helpful if the authors comment on how this number compares to other papers.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Main contributions / strengths

The authors propose a process to improve the ground truth segmentation of fetal brain MRI via a semi-supervised approach based on several iterations of manual refinement of atlas label propagations. This procedure represents an impressive amount of work, likely resulting in a very high-quality ground truth dataset. The corrected labels (obtained from multiple different datasets) are then used to train the final model which performs the brain extraction and tissue segmentation tasks. We also acknowledge the caution paid by the authors regarding the future application of their pipeline to unseen datasets.

The conclusions of this paper are mostly well supported by data, but some aspects of the analysis and validation procedure need to be clarified and extended. In addition, the article would greatly benefit from providing further descriptions of crucial aspects of the study.

Main limitations and potential improvements

1) New nomenclature/atlas not sufficiently described/justified.

The proposed nomenclature and atlas are one of the main contributions of this work. We clearly acknowledge the importance for the community of such a contribution. The definition of any nomenclature implies that decisions were taken regarding the acceptable level of ambiguity in the identification of the boundary between neighboring anatomical structures with respect to the gradient in the intensities in the MRI. It is acceptable (and probably inevitable) to set relatively arbitrary criteria in ambiguous regions, providing that these criteria are explicitly stated. The explicit statement of the decisions taken is essential in particular for better interpretation of residual segmentation inaccuracies in application studies.

As a matter of comparison, the postnatal atlas and nomenclature were based on the Albert protocol, which is described in extensive detail. While such a complete description might fall beyond the scope of this work, we believe that an additional description of the nomenclature and protocol, allowing reproduction the manual segmentation on external datasets is required, at least for most ambiguous junctions between structures. For instance, the boundaries across substructures within the DGM are difficult to visualize on the exemplar subjects shown in Fig. 5 and Fig. 6.

Please provide additional precision on how the following were defined: boundaries between lateral ventricles and cavum; between cavum and CSF; the delineation of 3rd and 4th ventricles; the definition of the vermis, especially its junctions with the cerebellum and the brainstem.<br /> How are these boundaries impacted by the changes in the image intensities related to tissue maturation?

We would also greatly appreciate an extension of the qualitative comparison with the two most commonly used protocols (Albert and FETA), for instance, why didn't the authors isolate the hippocampus/amygdala structure? And then how is the boundary between gray and white matter defined in this region?

2) More detailed comparison with FETA for some structures would be informative despite obvious limitations.

More specifically, the GM should have a very similar definition. In the "Impact of anomalies' section (page 7) the authors compare their results with the dice score from the FETA challenge and conclude that the difference "highlights the advantages of using high-quality consistent ground truth labels for training". The better performances (from ~0.78 to ~0.88) might be mostly due to the improvement of the ground truth (of the test set). This could be confirmed by observing the ground truth from FETA of the GM for a few cases for which the dice shows a strong increase in performance with respect to FETA. Note that the gain in performance is appreciable even if it is due to a better ground truth.

3) Improvement of the ground truth labels is an important contribution of this work, thus we would appreciate a more quantitative description of the impact of the manual correction, such as reporting the change in the dice score induced by the correction.

Quantification of the refinement process would help to better evaluate the relevance of the proposed approach in future studies e.g. introducing a different nomenclature. More specifically, a marked change would be expected after the first training when there is a switch (and refinement) from the registration-propagated labels to the ones predicted by the DL model (as shown in Fig. 5, the changes are quite strong). Again a dice score indicating quantitatively how much improvement results from each iteration would be informative. In the same line, is the last iteration of this process needed or did the authors observe a 'stabilization' (i.e. less manual editing needing to be performed)?

4) The testing / training data-splitting strategy is not sufficiently detailed and difficult to follow. The following points deserve clarification:

a) Why did the authors select only four sites for the test set (out of six studies presented in the 3.1 section)?

b) Data used for training: in the first step the authors selected 200 for label propagation and selected only the best 100. In the second stage, the predictions are computed for all training/validation sets (380) and only 200 are selected. When the process was iterated, why did the authors select only 200 out of the 380? Are the same subjects selected across iterations?<br /> Were the acquisition parameters / gestational age controlled for each selection? If yes please specify the distributions precisely.

Did the authors control the potential imbalanced proportion that is present in the dataset (more subjects from dHCP for instance)? (line 316, 100 subjects were selected from only three centers. Why only three? Did the authors keep the same sub-site for other stages?)

c) "The testing dataset includes 40 randomly selected images from four different acquisition protocols" which shows that attention was paid to variations in the scanning parameters, which is of crucial importance. However, no precision is provided regarding the gestational age of this dataset, which impedes the interpretation since a potential influence of age on the accuracy of the segmentation would be problematic. Indeed, the authors mention that the manual correction deserved special attention for late GA (>34 weeks). Please specify precisely the age distribution across the 10 subjects of each of the four acquisition protocols. In addition, the qualitative results shown in Fig.6 and subsection "Impact of GA at scan" are not sufficient and an additional result table reporting the same population and metrics as in Table 2, but dissociating younger versus older fetuses, would be much more informative to rule out potential bias related to gestational age.

d) The definition of the ground truth labels for the test set is not described.

We understand (from the result) that the ground truth for the test set is defined by manual refinement of the atlas label propagated. This should be explicitly described on page 5 after the "Preparation of training datasets" section.

5) The validation of segmentation accuracy based on the volumetry growth chart is invalid.

In Section "4.3. Growth charts of normal fetal brain development", since manual corrections were involved, the reported results cannot be considered as a validation of the segmentation pipeline. Regarding the validation of the segmentation pipeline, the quantitative and qualitative results provided in Table 2 and the corresponding text and figures seem sufficient to us (providing our concerns above are addressed, especially regarding the impact of the gestational age).

The growth charts are still valuable to support the validity of the nomenclature and segmentation protocol, but then why are the growth charts computed only for some structures? Reporting the growth chart and statistical evaluation of the impact of acquisition settings using ANCOVA for all the substructures from the proposed protocol would be expected here, in particular for the structures for which the delineation might be ambiguous such as the cavum, the vermis, and DGM substructures such as the thalamus.

Finally, please provide further details on the type and amount of manual correction needed for computing the growth charts.

6) MRI data was acquired only on Phillips scanners.

We acknowledge the efforts to maximize heterogeneity in the MRIs,e.g. with both 1.5T and 3T scanners, variations in TE and image resolution, but still, all MRIs included in this study were acquired using the SSTSE sequence on Phillips scanners. The study does not include any MRI acquired on Siemens nor GE scanners, and no image was acquired using the balance-FFE/TRUFISP/FIESTA type sequence. This might limit generalizability.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This work presents a new, automated, deep learning-based segmentation pipeline for fetal cerebral MRI based on the anatomical definitions of the new fetal atlas of the Developing Human Connectome Project. The authors' new software pipeline demonstrated robust performance across different acquisition protocols and gestational age ranges, reducing the need for manual refinement. To provide ground truth data for training their deep learning network, the authors employed a semi-supervised approach, in which atlas labels were propagated to the datasets, and they were corrected manually.

This work stands out for its extensive training on a large number of datasets, it achieves precise anatomical definition through a refined brain tissue parcellation protocol, and it evaluates the segmentation results against growth curves, allowing for a comprehensive assessment of fetal brain development. Due to the fact that abnormal anatomy was largely unobserved by the segmentation network, it is highly likely, however, that the BOUNTI pipeline would lead to some incorrect segmentations in subjects with moderate to large ventriculomegaly, as well as in cases of malformations of the corpus callosum, brainstem or neural tube defects. Further work is required for BOUNTI to generalize its application to pathological brains, as the vast majority of fetal cerebral MRI cases in clinical practice involve such abnormalities rather than normal brain development. This step is crucial for facilitating the clinical translation of BOUNTI. The algorithm is publicly available and works without limitations on datasets acquired in other centers.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This work provides a novel framework for semi-automatic segmentation and parcellation of brain tissues from fetal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by fusing an advanced deep learning technique and manual correction by experts. Over the broad age spectrum spanning newborns to adults, several fully-automatic segmentation/parcellation techniques have been proposed, showing robust, reliable performance across MR images with varying imaging quality. Unlike other age groups, however, scanning of the fetal brain is conducted in the womb; thus, there are additional and unique challenges, such as ambiguous positioning of the fetal brain, the surrounding maternal tissue in the fetal MRI, and fetal and maternal motion. These challenges in fetal MRI have collectively served as important bottlenecks in developing robust, reliable automatic segmentation/parcellation frameworks to date. This paper proposes a methodological framework for the segmentation and parcellation of fetal MRI scans using a two-step deep learning model, each for segmentation and parcellation. It is also noteworthy that the validity of the proposed framework has been extensively tested over different datasets with different image quality and different recording parameters, so the robust generalizability of the framework over other fetal MRI datasets is clearly suggested.

Strengths:

In general, a novel design framework, with separation of segmentation and parcellation schemes under each deep learning model, provides ample room for improving the model performance, as suggested by the results of this study. In addition, thanks to the flexibility in the model design (e.g., the choice of deep learning model) and parameters (e.g., manual correction step during training), an identical or similar framework can be easily extended to other datasets for different age groups or diagnostic groups/brain disorders. Another strength is the minimal requirement of human interaction after the training stage as significant time and effort of manual correction is often required following the automatic segmentation of fetal MR images. Lastly, thorough investigation of the inter-dataset generalizability of the proposed segmentation/parcellation framework will be well-received by the fetal neuroscience community.

Weakness:

The main weakness of this paper is the vague definition of the scientific novelty. By design, this paper is a technical study. The technical advancement claimed by the authors is a novel design of deep learning and a two-step deep-learning framework; each for segmentation and parcellation. There have been, however, other deep learning studies, and some share nearly identical model architecture to the one published by Asis-Cruz et al. (Frontiers in Neuroscience, 2022). As such the conceptual improvement in terms of deep learning model architecture is overstated. Regarding the separate framework for segmentation and parcellation, the conventional preprocessing protocol (e.g., Draw-EM; Makropoulos et al. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 2014) already presented a similar concept. Overall, it is unclear what unique technical advances have been made in the current paper.

A second weakness of the work is the insufficient comparison to other conventional published methods. While the authors' claim that there is no "universally accepted" protocol for fetal brain segmentation/parcellation is at least partially true, Draw-EM, which was originally designed for neonatal brain segmentation, has been widely and successfully utilized in many fetal MRI studies, as discussed by the authors. Instead of a direct comparison to Draw-EM, the authors only performed a descriptive comparison using two exemplar MRI scans. It is unclear whether the superior performance of the proposed framework in these selected scans would be generalizable to others. Similarly, the authors claim that the proposed deep-learning-based segmentation/parcellation framework required minimal time for manual post-preprocessing refinement (1-3 mins), compared to 1-3 hours in another study using Draw-EM (Story et al. Neuroimage: Clinical, 2021). Again, this may not represent a fair comparison considering that the intensity/precision of manual refinement may differ depending on the different goals/objectives of other studies.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

While there are many models for sequence retrieval, it has been difficult to find models that vary the speed of sequence retrieval dynamically via simple external inputs. While recent works [1,2] have proposed some mechanisms, the authors here propose a different one based on heterogeneous plasticity rules. Temporally symmetric plasticity kernels (that do not distinguish between the order of pre and post spikes, but only their time difference) are expected to give rise to attractor states, asymmetric ones to sequence transitions. The authors incorporate a rate-based, discrete-time analog of these spike-based plasticity rules to learn the connections between neurons (leading to connections similar to Hopfield networks for attractors and sequences). They use either a parametric combination of symmetric and asymmetric learning rules for connections into each neuron, or separate subpopulations having only symmetric or asymmetric learning rules on incoming connections. They find that the latter is conducive to enabling external inputs to control the speed of sequence retrieval.

Strengths:<br /> The authors have expertly characterised the system dynamics using both simulations and theory. How the speed and quality of retrieval varies across phases space has been well-studied. The authors are also able to vary the external inputs to reproduce a preparatory followed by an execution phase of sequence retrieval as seen experimentally in motor control. They also propose a simple reinforcement learning scheme for learning to map the two external inputs to the desired retrieval speed.

Weaknesses:<br /> 1. The authors translate spike-based synaptic plasticity rules to a way to learn/set connections for rate units operating in discrete time, similar to their earlier work in [5]. The bio-plausibility issues of learning in [5] carry over here, for e.g. the authors ignore any input due to the recurrent connectivity during learning and effectively fix the pre and post rates to the desired ones. While the learning itself is not fully bio-plausible, it does lend itself to writing the final connectivity matrix in a manner that is easier to analyze theoretically.

2. While the authors learn to map the set of two external input strengths to speed of retrieval, they still hand-wire one external input to the subpopulation of neurons with temporally symmetric plasticity and the other external input to the other subpopulation with temporally asymmetric plasticity. The authors suggest that these subpopulations might arise due to differences in the parameters of Ca dynamics as in their earlier work [29]. How these two external inputs would connect to neurons differentially based on the plasticity kernel / Ca dynamics parameters of the recurrent connections is still an open question which the authors have not touched upon.

3. The authors require that temporally symmetric and asymmetric learning rules be present in the recurrent connections between subpopulations of neurons in the same brain region, i.e. some neurons in the same brain region should have temporally symmetric kernels, while others should have temporally asymmetric ones. The evidence for this seems thin. Though, in the discussion, the authors clarify 'While this heterogeneity has been found so far across structures or across different regions in the same structure, this heterogeneity could also be present within local networks, as current experimental methods for probing plasticity only have access to a single delay between pre and post-synaptic spikes in each recorded neuron, and would therefore miss this heterogeneity'.

4. An aspect which the authors have not connected to is one of the author's earlier work:<br /> Brunel, N. (2016). Is cortical connectivity optimized for storing information? Nature Neuroscience, 19(5), 749-755. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4286<br /> which suggests that the experimentally observed over-representation of symmetric synapses suggests that cortical networks are optimized for attractors rather than sequences.

Despite the above weaknesses, the work is a solid advance in proposing an alternate model for modulating speed of sequence retrieval and extends the use of well-established theoretical tools. This work is expected to spawn further works like extending to a spiking neural network with Dale's law, more realistic learning taking into account recurrent connections during learning, and experimental follow-ups. Thus, I expect this to be an important contribution to the field.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Sequences of neural activity underlie most of our behavior. And as experience suggests we are (in most cases) able to flexibly change the speed for our learned behavior which essentially means that brains are able to change the speed at which the sequence is retrieved from the memory. The authors here propose a mechanism by which networks in the brain can learn a sequence of spike patterns and retrieve them at variable speed. At a conceptual level I think the authors have a very nice idea: use of symmetric and asymmetric learning rules to learn the sequences and then use different inputs to neurons with symmetric or asymmetric plasticity to control the retrieval speed. The authors have demonstrated the feasibility of the idea in a rather idealized network model. I think it is important that the idea is demonstrated in more biologically plausible settings (e.g. spiking neurons, a network with exc. and inh. neurons with ongoing activity).

Summary

In this manuscript authors have addressed the problem of learning and retrieval sequential activity in neuronal networks. In particular, they have focussed on the problem of how sequence retrieval speed can be controlled?<br /> They have considered a model with excitatory rate-based neurons. Authors show that when sequences are learned with both temporally symmetric and asymmetric Hebbian plasticity, by modulating the external inputs to the network the sequence retrieval speed can be modulated. With the two types of Hebbian plasticity in the network, sequence learning essentially means that the network has both feedforward and recurrent connections related to the sequence. By giving different amounts of input to the feed-forward and recurrent components of the sequence, authors are able to adjust the speed.

Strengths<br /> - Authors solve the problem of sequence retrieval speed control by learning the sequence in both feedforward and recurrent connectivity within a network. It is a very interesting idea for two main reasons: 1. It does not rely on delays or short-term dynamics in neurons/synapses 2. It does not require that the animal is presented with the same sequences multiple times at different speeds. Different inputs to the feedforward and recurrent populations are sufficient to alter the speed. However, the work leaves several issues unaddressed as explained below.

Weaknesses<br /> - The main weakness of the paper is that it is mostly driven by a motivation to find a computational solution to the problem of sequence retrieval speed. In most cases they have not provided any arguments about the biological plausibility of the solution they have proposed e.g.:

-- Is there any experimental evidence that some neurons in the network have symmetric Hebbian plasticity and some temporally asymmetric? In the references authors have cited some references to support this. But usually the switch between temporally symmetric and asymmetric rules is dependent on spike patterns used for pairing (e.g. bursts vs single spikes). In the context of this manuscript, it would mean that in the same pattern, some neurons burst and some don't and this is the same for all the patterns in the sequence. As far as I see here authors have assumed a binary pattern of activity which is the same for all neurons that participate in the pattern.

-- How would external inputs know that they are impinging on a symmetric or asymmetric neuron? Authors have proposed a mechanism to learn these inputs. But that makes the sequence learning problem a two stage problem -- first an animal has to learn the sequence and then it has to learn to modulate the speed of retrieval. It should be possible to find experimental evidence to support this?

-- Authors have only considered homogeneous DC input for sequence retrieval. This kind of input is highly unnatural. It would be more plausible if the authors considered fluctuating input which is different from each neuron.

-- All the work is demonstrated using a firing rate based model of only excitatory neurons. I think it is important that some of the key results are demonstrated in a network of both excitatory and inhibitory spiking neurons. As the authors very well know it is not always trivial to extend rate-based models to spiking neurons.

I think at a conceptual level authors have a very nice idea but it needs to be demonstrated in a more biologically plausible setting (and by that I do not mean biophysical neurons etc.).

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Kulkarni et al proposes a new cellular origin of ENS, which is increased with age and therefore may be associated with the gradual decline of gut function. The study is based on an initial observation that many enteric neurons do not seem to retain tdTomato expression in Wnt1Cre-R26-Tom mice, suggesting a loss of neurons that are replaced by a non-neural crest source. Further detection of reporter expression within the ENS of Tek and Mesp Cre-lines indicated a mesodermal origin of the new enteric neurons. Mesodermally derived neurons (MENS) were associated with Met, while neural crest derived neurons (NENS) expressed Ret. GDNF could decrease occurrence of MENS (defined as tdTomato-negative cells), while HGF had the opposite effect. Age-associated decline in gut transit was alleviated with GDNF treatment, while Ret heterozygote mutants had an increase of MENS. Overall, the study suggests that neural crest derived neurons are replaced by mesodermal-derived neurons that lead to an overall reduction in GI-physiology and that manipulation of the balance between the two types of neurons could have beneficial effects of age-associated gut malfunction. Generation of neurons from non-ectodermal sources would be a paradigm shift not only in the ENS, but in the Neuroscience field as a whole. The presence of mesenchymal marker genes in subsets of cells of the ENS in native gut tissue is convincing and the lack of retained fluorescent reporter expression in ENS from the many neural and Cre drivers used is indeed clear.

The current state of the manuscript is though not conceivable as it has unsound interpretation of data at many places, most importantly there is no firm connection between the MENs identified in tissue and the scRNA cluster annotated as MENs. "scRNA-seq-MENs" show very little expression of the bona fide neuron markers used to detect "tissue-MENs" including Elavl4 and the overall proportions of "scRNA-seq-MENs" in the tissue is very far from that of "tissue-MENs". Hence, the claims that "tissue-MENs" equals "scRNA-seq MENs" could be excluded or their interpretation discussed in an unbiased manner. Marker expression of "scRNA-seq MENs" are suggestive of mesothelial cell identities, not ENS cells. Even the annotation of scRNA-seq profiles denoted as neural-crest derived enteric neurons (NENs) is highly questionable as 25% of the cells display bona fide lympathic epithelial cell markers and no neuronal markers.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, the authors propose the possibility that some neurons in the enteric nervous system (ENS) originate postnatally from a non-ectodermal source. This possibility is investigated using a combination of transgenic lines, single cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq), and immunofluorescence. Initially the authors identify a subset of neurons within myenteric enteric ganglia that are not lineage-labeled by canonical neural-crest derived cre-LoxP strategies. In their analysis, the group seeks to show that these neurons have an origin distinct from neural crest-derived progenitors that are known to initially colonize the developing gut. The team uses multiple cre lines (both Wnt1-cre and Pax3-cre) as well as several distinct reporter lines (ROSA-tdTomato, ROSA-EGFP, Hprt-tdTomato) to demonstrate that the lack of labeling by neural crest cre transgenes is consistent across several tools and not due to any transgene or reporter line artifact. Based on prior analysis that suggests some neurons in the ENS might be arising from a mesodermal lineage, the authors evaluate the possibility that mesoderm could contribute neurons to the ENS by evaluating expression of Tek-cre and Mesp1-cre tagged cell types in myenteric ganglia. The work with transgenic lines is convincing that some ENS neurons originate from an alternative source in the postnatal intestine and that this population increases in aging mice.

The authors apply single cell RNA-sequencing to identify additional markers of these non-neural crest enteric neurons. They rely on dissociation of laminar gut muscle preparations, stripped from the outside of the adult intestine, that contain many cell types including smooth muscle, vasculature, and enteric ganglia. In the analysis of this scRNA-seq data, the authors focus on a cluster of cells in the resulting UMAP plots as being the MENs cluster based on labeling of this cluster with three genes (Calcb (CGRP), Met, and Cdh3). Based on expression of these marker genes there are a very large number of MENs and very few neural crest-derived enteric neurons (NENs) seen in the UMAPs. It is not clear why this difference in cell numbers has occurred. The early lineage tracing data shown with cre transgenes (Figures 1 and 2) shows relatively equal numbers of NENs and MENs in confocal imaging studies, yet in the RNA-seq UMAPs thousands of MENs are displayed while very few NENs are present. There is the possibility that the authors have identified a cell cluster as MENs that does not coincide with the Mesp1-cre or Tek-cre lineage labeled neurons observed within enteric ganglia of the laminar gut muscle preparations. The authors state that they have "used the single cell transcriptomics to both confirm the presence of MENs and identify more MEN-specific markers", however there is not a direct relationship made in this study between the MENs imaged and the cells profiled by single cell RNA-sequencing.

In their analysis the authors note a difference in the percentage of enteric neurons labeled by the neural crest lineage tracer line, Wnt1-cre, relative to the total neurons labeled by the pan-neuronal marker HuC/D with age of the mice studied. They undertake a temporal analysis of the percentage of Wnt1-cre labeled neurons over total HuC/D neurons over the lifespan and note a decrease of Wnt1-cre labeled neurons with age. Further, the team assessed levels of growth factors that are known to promote proliferation and survival of NENs (GDNF-Ret signaling) versus factors known to promote growth of mesoderm (HGF) with age and document a decrease in GDNF-Ret signaling while HGF levels increase with age. The authors propose that the balance between these two signaling pathways is responsible for the shift in proportions of NENs versus MENs in aging animals.

Some of the conclusions of this paper are supported, but several additional analyses are needed to reach the outcomes that the authors infer:

1) Because the scRNA-seq data generated in this study derives from mixed cell populations present in laminar gut muscle preparations, there is a gap between the image data shown for the mesodermal cre lineage tracing and the MENs clusters the authors have selected in their single cell RNA-seq analysis. The absence of direct transcriptional profiling of cells labeled by Mesp1-cre or Tek1-cre expression prevents the authors from definitively connecting their in situ lineage labeling with specific clusters in the single cell RNA-seq analysis.

2) Differential gene expression is the standard approach for identifying markers of a particular cluster and yet this is lacking in this study, and the rationale for why some genes were prioritized as markers of MENs is missing from the manuscript. Reanalysis of the authors posted single cell RNA-seq data found that genes integral to calling MENs (marker genes) were detectable in the data. Met, Cdh3, Calcb, Elavl2, Hand2, Pde10a, Vsnl1, Tubb2b, Stmn2, Stx3, and Gpr88 were all expressed in very few cells and at low levels. Given this, how were these genes chosen to be marker genes for MENs, especially given the low sequencing depth utilized?

3) The authors rely on Phox2b as a marker for all ENS cells, including MENs. However, reprocessing of the authors posted single cell RNA-seq data finds that Phox2b is not detected in any of the cells in the MENs cluster and it's only expressed in very few cells of the neuroglia cluster. This discrepancy between the data the authors have generated and what is widely known about Phox2b expression in the ENS field must be explained as the absence of Phox2b message suggests there is an issue with reliance on low-depth scRNA-seq data for reaching the stated conclusions.

4) The authors have not considered potential similarities between their MENs and other developing ENS lineages, like enteric mesothelial fibroblasts reported by Zeisel et al. 2018, and further analysis is needed to show that MENs are indeed a distinct cell type. Top marker genes of the author's MENs clusters were expressed more often in the clusters that were left out of Morarach et al 2021's E15.5 and E18.5 datasets because those clusters were mostly Phox2b-negative on UMAPs. This lack of Phox2b expression matches the characteristic of the MENs clusters' Phox2b-negative status in the authors single cell dataset. It is important to note that the Morarach dataset consists of Wnt1-cre lineage labeled (originating from neural crest) flow sorted cells. This is of import as it implies that Phox2b-negative cells ARE present within the Wnt1-cre lineage labeled population, an aspect that is relevant to this study's data analysis.

5) Upon reprocessing of the authors MENs-genesis dataset with integration by sample as the authors describe, Met expression is evident within the cluster of NENs on the resulting UMAP plot and yet the authors rely on this gene as a marker of MENs. Whether Met expression is restricted to MENs should be resolved because the authors state it is exclusive to MENs and they subsequently investigate this gene across lifespan. Because it is not clear that Met is absent from neural crest derived enteric neurons this caveat complicates the interpretations of the present study.

6) The authors apply MHCst immunofluorescence to mark MENs, but do not show any RNA expression for the MHCst transcripts in their single cell data. How did the authors come to the conclusion that MHCst IHC would be an appropriate marker for MENs? This rationale is missing from the text.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, the authors challenge the fundamental concept that all neurons are derived from ectoderm. Specifically, they aim to show that while the early ENS arises embryologically from neural crest (NENs), with age it is slowly replaced by mesoderm-derived neurons (MENs). This claim is based on an array of transgenic reporter mice, immunofluorescence, and transcriptomics. They further propose that the transition from NENs to MENs is regulated by a changing balance in GDNF-RET versus HGF-MET signaling, respectively.

This is a provocative and potentially paradigm-changing proposal, but the data presented and the interpretation of that data fall short of establishing it.

1) MENs share more common characteristics with fibroblasts. The authors interpret this as representing neurons with fibroblast characteristics. Why not fibroblasts with neuronal characteristics? The ability to express neurotransmitter receptors and calcium channels is common in fibroblasts, but that isn't sufficient to characterize a neuron. For example, many cell types express neurotransmitters (CGRP in ILCs, Penk in fibroblasts). Expressing one of the Hu proteins (Elavl2) probably isn't enough to call these "neurons," especially when neurons usually express Elavl3-4 (HuC/D). Including calcium imaging and showing presence of action potentials would strengthen the argument that these are in fact neurons.

2) The scRNA-seq is unconvincing. There are several technical issues and the analysis omits important information required to make an unbiased assessment.

a. One issue in the interpretation is that MENs are shown by IHC to constitute half the neuronal population, with NENs making up the other half. The authors state that they performed an unbiased approach, sequencing all cells in the muscularis. If it were truly unbiased, then why do they detect a 28-fold increase in MENs in the single cell data? This does not reflect the IHC findings and points to an issue in technique that needs to be addressed.

b. Cell populations annotated by the author are confusing. The "unknown" population expresses many genes that are epithelial markers. This is puzzling because the authors state that they only sequenced the muscularis. This leads to questions regarding the initial samples and whether they were dissected appropriately or contaminated by another population.

c. The authors report a population of ICCs at P21 which is not identified at 6-months. Closer inspection of their data shows bona fide ICC markers, Ano1 and Kit, in their SMC cluster at 6-months, with failure to identify ICC clusters, raising questions about whether they have identified a new cell type.

d. While the authors critically examine other scRNA-seq datasets and claim that those groups mislabeled their populations, the above does not instill confidence in their ability to counter the unified literature.

3) MENs are identified based on genes that could be related to neurons, including calcium channels, neurotransmitter receptors, etc. It is worth noting that mesenchymal cells, ICCs, and smooth muscle also possess these characteristics. Therefore, it hard to justify why these MENs are considered "neurons." The authors should perform an analysis to examine homology between clusters in order to show which clusters the MENs are more similar to, neurons or otherwise.

4) Several issues raise questions about the quality of the scRNA-seq data, making interpretations very difficult:

a. MENs are identified to have higher UMI counts than other cells, which the authors interpret as the cells being bigger than others. If this is the case, why is this only observed in the P21 dataset and not at 6 months. Notably, high UMIs are also a sign of doublet contamination.

b. Authors include data from RBCs. As they do not have a nucleus, RNA abundance is low as expected. However, markers for RBCs include smooth muscle specific markers, MYH11 (an MEN marker) and Acta2. The presence of these markers can indicate high levels of "ambient RNA" which enters droplets from other cells lysed during digestion. Interestingly, MENs appear to cluster close to RBCs.

c. In light of the above possible evidence of doublet contamination and high levels of ambient RNA, the markers of MENs need to be reconsidered. MENs are stated to express markers that were previously (up until this manuscript) accepted markers of intestinal mesothelium (Ukp3b Krt19, WT1), smooth muscle cells (Myh11), and fibroblasts (Dcn, C3, Col6a1), raising the possibility that MENs are an erroneous cluster containing RNA from all these cell types.

5) The MEN population appears to be the largest cell population in the gut, which is unprecedented. The authors compare their scRNA-seq data to several other studies that have not made similar observations. Such analysis of other datasets is used to inform on the new data being generated. In the current manuscript, however, this takes the reverse approach and the authors analyze other data based on the assumption that they all mislabeled the MEN population.

a. In their assessment of Drokhlyansky et al., the authors claim that their mesothelium annotation is wrong despite expressing known mesothelial markers. This includes the gene Upk3b which is a bona fide mesothelial marker in the gut but is also expressed by "MENs." They proceed to analyze the Elmentaite et al. dataset and state that their "transitional fibroblast" population are actually MENs. That paper also has a population of Upk3b+ mesothelial cells and it is unclear why those are not actually MENs like in the Drokhlyansky et al. study.

b. The authors often refer to the study of May-Zhang et al. and their cluster annotated as "mesenchymal neurons" in the gut. It should be known that the original authors never made this claim. Rather, they acknowledge that the clusters in their study with poor correlation to neuronal profiles exhibit strong predictions for mesenchymal and vascular/immune cell types. They state: "We considered the possibility that these clusters might be non-neuronal." If these are "mesenchymal neurons" then the same logic would indicate that there are vascular neurons and immune cell neurons, and therefore this does not make a very compelling case.

6) A weakness of this study is that a lot of the data relies on reporter gene expression. The authors need to acknowledge several weaknesses of this approach. First, Wnt1-tdT recombination may be incomplete or one can have "Cre mosaicism" and therefore the lack of tdT is not sufficient evidence to say that those neurons are not neural crest-derived. Second, one can have off-target or leaky Cre expression, leading to low-level tdT expression, as seen in many of the images in this study. Third, Cre can exhibit toxicity and this may be more problematic in older mice given the long-term continuous expression of Cre (He et al, Am J Pathology, 2014;184:1660; Loonstra et al, PNAS, 2001;98:9209; Forni et al, J Neurosci, 2006;26:9593; Rehmani et al, Molecules, 2019;24:1189; Gillet et al, Sci Rep, 2019;9:19422; Stifter and Greter, Eur J Immunol, 2020;50:338).

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study explores whether the extreme polygenicity of common traits can be explained in part by competition among genes for limiting molecular resources (such as RNA polymerases) involved in gene regulation. The authors hypothesise that such competition would cause the expression levels of all genes that utilise the same molecular resource to be correlated and could thus, in principle, partly explain weak trans-regulatory effects and the observation of highly polygenic architectures of gene expression. They study this hypothesis under a very simple model where the same molecule binds to regulatory elements of a large number m of genes, and conclude that this gives rise to trans-regulatory effects that scale as 1/m, and which may thus be negligible for large m.

The main limitation of this study lies in the details of the mathematical analysis, which does not adequately account for various small effects, whose magnitude scales inversely with the number m of genes that compete for the limiting molecular resource. In particular, the fraction of "free" molecule (which is unbound to any of the genes) also scales as 1/m, but is not accounted for in the analysis, making it difficult to assess whether the quantitative conclusions are indeed correct. Second, the questions raised in this study are better analysed in the framework of a sensitivity or perturbation analysis, i.e., by asking how *changes* in expression level or binding affinity at one gene (rather than the total expression level or total binding affinity) affect expression level at other genes.

Thus, while the qualitative conclusion that resource competition in itself is unlikely to mediate trans-regulatory effects and explain highly polygenic architectures of gene expression traits probably holds, the mathematical reasoning used to arrive at this conclusion requires more care.

In my opinion, the potential impact of this kind of analysis rests at least partly on the plausibility of the initial hypothesis- namely whether most molecular resources involved in gene regulation are indeed "limiting resources". This is not obvious, and may require a careful assessment of existing evidence, e..g., what is the concentration of bound vs. unbound molecular species (such as RNA polymerases) in various cell types?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The question the authors pose is very simple and yet very important. Does the fact that many genes compete for Pol II to be transcribed explain why so many trans-eQTL contribute to the heritability of complex traits? That is, if a gene uses up a proportion of Pol II, does that in turn affect the transcriptional output of other genes relevant or even irrelevant for the trait in a way that their effect will be captured in a genome-wide association study? If yes, then the large number of genetic effects associated with variation in complex traits can be explained but such trans-propagating has effects on the transcriptional output of many genes.

This is a very timely question given that we still don't understand how, mechanistically, so many genes can be involved in complex traits variation. Their approach to this question is very simple and it is framed in classic enzyme-substrate equations. The authors show that the trans-propagating effect is too small to explain the ~70% of heritability of complex traits that are associated with trans-effects. Their conclusion relies on the comparison of the order of magnitude of a) the quantifiable transcriptional effects due to Pol II competition, and b) the observed percentage of variance explained by trans effects (data coming from Liu et al 2019, from the same lab).

The results shown in this manuscript rule out that competition for limited resources in the cell (not restricted to Pol II, but applicable to any other cellular resource like ribosomes, etc) could explain the heritability of complex traits.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Human complex traits including common diseases are highly polygenic (influenced by thousands of loci). This observation is in need of an explanation. The authors of this manuscript propose a model that competition for a single global resource (such as RNA polymerase II) may lead to a highly polygenic architecture of traits. Following an analytical examination, the authors reject their hypothesis. This work is of clear interest to the field. It remains to be seen if the model covers the variety of possible competition models.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study presents a genetic and molecular analysis of the role of the cytoplasmic ub ligase Deltex (Dx) in regulating the Drosophila Wingless (Wg) pathway in the larval wing disc. The study exploits the strength of the fly system to uncover a series of genetic interactions between dx and wg and fz allele that support a role for Dx upstream of the Wg pathway. These are paired with molecular evidence that dx lof alleles lower Wg protein in 'source' cells at the DV margin, and that Dx associates with Arm and lowers its levels in a manner that can be rescued by pharmacological inhibition of the proteasome. The genetic data are solid but subject to alternative explanations based on the authors' model that Dx both inhibits and activates the pathway, and the published link between Dx and its target Notch, which regulates wg transcription. The molecular data are suggestive but need follow-up tests of the model to prove that Dx mediates poly-ub of Arm, and the degree to which Dx shares this role with the validated Arm E3 ligase Slmb. Overall, the story is very interesting but has mechanistic gaps that lead to speculative models that require more rigorous study to clarify the mechanism. Dx sharing a role in Arm degradation with the Slmb/APC destruction would have important implications for the many Wg/Wnt regulated processes in development and disease.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript investigates the connections between the ubiquitin ligase protein deltex and the wingless pathway. Two different connections are proposed, one is the function of deltex to modulate the gradient of wingless diffusion and hence modulate the spatial pattern of wingless pathway targets, which regulate at different thresholds of wingless concentration. The second is a direct interaction between deltex and armadillo, a downstream component of the wingless pathway. Deltex is proposed to cause the degradation of armadillo resulting in suppression of wingless pathway activity. The results and conclusions of the manuscript are interesting and for the most part, novel, although previously published work linking Notch and deltex to wingless signal regulation, and endocytosis to wingless gradient formation could be more extensively discussed. However neither of the two parts of the manuscript seem in themselves sufficiently complete, and combining both parts together therefore seems to lack focus.

The main issue with the manuscript is that many of the conclusions are inferred from genetic interactions in vivo between loss of function mutants and overexpression. While providing useful in vivo physiological context, this type of approach struggles to be able to make definitive conclusions on whether an interaction is due to a direct or indirect mechanism, as the authors themselves conclude at the end of section 2.3. The problem is confounded by the fact that there is already documented much cross-talk between the Notch signaling pathway and wingless at the transcriptional level, and deltex is already a Notch modulator that can alter wingless mRNA expression (See Hori et al 2004). Deltex in addition to promoting a ligand-independent Notch signal can also induce expression of Notch ligand, allowing further non-autonomous Notch activation and subsequent cell autonomous cis-inhibition of the initial deltex-induced signal. The dynamics and outcomes of the Notch signal response to deltex in vivo are therefore already very complicated to interpret before even considering unraveling indirect (via Notch) and direct interactions with wingless, although the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Wang et al have constructed a comprehensive single nucleus atlas for the gills of the deep sea Bathymodioline mussels, which possess intracellular symbionts that provide a key source of carbon and allow them to live in these extreme environments. They provide annotations of the different cell states within the gills, shedding light on how multiple cell types cooperate to give rise to the emergent functions of the composite tissues and the gills as a whole. They pay special attention to characterizing the bacteriocyte cell populations and identifying sets of genes that may play a role in their interaction with the symbiotes.

Wang et al sample mussels from 3 different environments: animals from their native methane-rich environment, animals transplanted to a methane-poor environment to induce starvation, and animals that have been starved in the methane-poor environment and then moved back to the methane-rich environment. They demonstrated that starvation had the biggest impact on bacteriocyte transcriptomes. They hypothesize that the upregulation of genes associated with lysosomal digestion leads to the digestion of the intracellular symbiont during starvation, while the non-starved and reacclimated groups more readily harvest the nutrients from symbiotes without destroying them.

Strengths:<br /> This paper makes available a high-quality dataset that is of interest to many disciplines of biology. The unique qualities of this non-model organism and the collection of conditions sampled make it of special interest to those studying deep sea adaptation, the impact of environmental perturbation on Bathymodioline mussels populations, and intracellular symbiotes. The authors do an excellent job of making all their data and analysis available, making this not only an important dataset but a readily accessible and understandable one.

The authors also use a diverse array of tools to explore their data. For example, the quality of the data is augmented by the use of in situ hybridizations to validate cluster identity and KEGG analysis provides key insights into how the transcriptomes of bacteriocytes change.

The authors also do a great job of providing diagrams and schematics to help orient non-mussel experts, thereby widening the audience of the paper.

Weaknesses:<br /> One of the main weaknesses of this paper is the lack of coherence between the images and the text, with some parts of the figures never being referenced in the body of the text. This makes it difficult for the reader to interpret how they fit in with the author's discussion and assess confidence in their analysis and interpretation of data. This is especially apparent in the cluster annotation section of the paper.

Another concern is the linking of the transcriptomic shifts associated with starvation with changes in interactions with the symbiotes. Without examining and comparing the symbiote population between the different samples, it cannot be concluded that the transcriptomic shifts correlate with a shift to the 'milking' pathway and not other environmental factors. Without comparing the symbiote abundance between samples, it is difficult to disentangle changes in cell state that are due to their changing interactions with the symbiotes from other environmental factors.

Additionally, conclusions in this area are further complicated by using only snRNA-seq to study intracellular processes. This is limiting since cytoplasmic mRNA is excluded and only nuclear reads are sequenced after the organisms have had several days to acclimate to their environment and major transcriptomic shifts have occurred.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Wang, He et al. shed insight into the molecular mechanisms of deep-sea chemosymbiosis at the single-cell level. They do so by producing a comprehensive cell atlas of the gill of Gigantidas platifrons, a chemosymbiotic mussel that dominates the deep-sea ecosystem. They uncover novel cell types and find that the gene expression of bacteriocytes, the symbiont-hosting cells, supports two hypotheses of host-symbiont interactions: the "farming" pathway, where symbionts are directly digested, and the "milking" pathway, where nutrients released by the symbionts are used by the host. They perform an in situ transplantation experiment in the deep sea and reveal transitional changes in gene expression that support a model where starvation stress induces bacteriocytes to "farm" their symbionts, while recovery leads to the restoration of the "farming" and "milking" pathways.

A major strength of this study includes the successful application of advanced single-nucleus techniques to a non-model, deep-sea organism that remains challenging to sample. I also applaud the authors for performing an in situ transplantation experiment in a deep-sea environment. From gene expression profiles, the authors deftly provide a rich functional description of G. platifrons cell types that is well-contextualized within the unique biology of chemosymbiosis. These findings offer significant insight into the molecular mechanisms of deep-sea host-symbiont ecology, and will serve as a valuable resource for future studies into the striking biology of G. platifrons.

The authors' conclusions are generally well-supported by their results. However, I recognize that the difficulty of obtaining deep-sea specimens may have impacted experimental design. In this area, I would appreciate more in-depth discussion of these impacts when interpreting the data.

Because cells from multiple individuals were combined before sequencing, the in situ transplantation experiment lacks clear biological replicates. This may potentially result in technical variation (ie. batch effects) confounding biological variation, directly impacting the interpretation of observed changes between the Fanmao, Reconstitution, and Starvation conditions. It is notable that Fanmao cells were much more sparsely sampled. It appears that fewer cells were sequenced, resulting in the Starvation and Reconstitution conditions having 2-3x more cells after doublet filtering. It is not clear whether this is due to a technical factor impacting sequencing or whether these numbers are the result of the unique biology of Fanmao cells. Furthermore, from Table S19 it appears that while 98% of Fanmao cells survived doublet filtering, only ~40% and ~70% survived for the Starvation and Reconstitution conditions respectively, suggesting some kind of distinction in quality or approach.

There is a pronounced divergence in the relative proportions of cells per cell type cluster in Fanmao compared to Reconstitution and Starvation (Fig. S11). This is potentially a very interesting finding, but it is difficult to know if these differences are the expected biological outcome of the experiment or the fact that Fanmao cells are much more sparsely sampled. The study also finds notable differences in gene expression between Fanmao and the other two conditions- a key finding is that bacteriocytes had the largest Fanmao-vs-starvation distance (Fig. 6B). But it is also notable that for every cell type, one or both comparisons against Fanmao produced greater distances than comparisons between Starvation and Reconstitution (Fig. 6B). Again, it is difficult to interpret whether Fanmao's distinctiveness from the other two conditions is underlain by fascinating biology or technical batch effects. Without biological replicates, it remains challenging to disentangle the two.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Wang et al. explored the unique biology of the deep-sea mussel Gigantidas platifrons to understand the fundamental principles of animal-symbiont relationships. They used single-nucleus RNA sequencing and validation and visualization of many of the important cellular and molecular players that allow these organisms to survive in the deep sea. They demonstrate that a diversity of cell types that support the structure and function of the gill including bacteriocytes, specialized epithelial cells that host sulfur-oxidizing or methane-oxidizing symbionts as well as a suite of other cell types including supportive cells, ciliary, and smooth muscle cells. By performing experiments of transplanting mussels from one habitat which is rich in methane to methane-limited environments, the authors showed that starved mussels may consume endosymbionts versus in methane-rich environments upregulated genes involved in glutamate synthesis. These data add to the growing body of literature that organisms control their endosymbionts in response to environmental change.

The conclusions of the data are well supported. The authors adapted a technique that would have been technically impossible in their field environment by preserving the tissue and then performing nuclear isolation after the fact. The use of single-nucleus sequencing opens the possibility of new cellular and molecular biology that is not possible to study in the field. Additionally, the in-situ data (both WISH and FISH) are high-quality and easy to interpret. The use of cell-type-specific markers along with a symbiont-specific probe was effective. Finally, the SEM and TEM were used convincingly for specific purposes in the case of showing the cilia that may support water movement.

The one particular area for clarification and improvement surrounds the concept of a proliferative progenitor population within the gill. The authors imply that three types of proliferative cells within gills have long been known, but their study may be the first to recover molecular markers for these putative populations. The markers the authors present for gill posterior end budding zone cells (PEBZCs) and dorsal end proliferation cells (DEPCs) are not intuitively associated with cell proliferation and some additional exploration of the data could be performed to strengthen the argument that these are indeed proliferative cells. The authors do utilize a trajectory analysis tool called Slingshot which they claim may suggest that PEBZCs could be the origin of all gill epithelial cells, however, one of the assumptions of this analysis is that differentiated cells are developed from the same precursor PEBZC population.

However, these conclusions do not detract from the overall significance of the work of identifying the relationship between symbionts and bacteriocytes and how these host bacteriocytes modulate their gene expression in response to environmental change. It will be interesting to see how similar or different these data are across animal phyla. For instance, the work of symbiosis in cnidarians may converge on similar principles or there may be independent ways in which organisms have been able to solve these problems.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This paper looks at nutrient-responsive Ca++ flux in islet cells of eight genetically diverse mouse strains. The investigators correlate Ca++ flux with insulin secretory capacity, demonstrating that calcium parameters in response to different nutrients are a better predictor of insulin secretory capacity than average calcium. They also correlate Ca++ flux with previously collected islet protein abundance followed by integration with human genome-wide association studies. This integration allows them to identify a sub-set of proteins that are both relevant to human islet function and that may play a causal role in regulating islet Ca++ oscillations. All data have been deposited in a searchable public database. There are many strengths to this paper. To my knowledge, this is the first work to assess the genetics of nutrient-responsive Ca++ flux in islets. Given the importance of Ca++ for beta cell insulin secretion, this work is of high importance. Investigators also use the founders of two powerful genetic mouse models: the diversity outbred and collaborative cross, opening up several avenues of future research into the genetics of Ca++ flux. By looking at multiple parameters of Ca++ flux, investigators are able to start to understand which parameters may be driving low or high insulin secretion. Integration with protein abundance and human GWAS has allowed identification of proteins with known roles in insulin secretory capacity, as well as several novel regulators, again opening up several avenues of future research. Finally, the public database is likely to be useful to multiple investigators interested in following up specific protein targets or in conducting future genetic studies.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This is an interesting paper from a reputable group in the field of islet physiology. The authors have provided the results from extensive studies, which will contribute to the knowledge of islet dysfunction and diabetes pathophysiology. The authors studied "the human orthologues of the correlated mouse proteins that are proximal to the glycemia-associated SNPs in human GWAS". This implies two assumptions - (1) human and mouse proteins do not differ in terms of islet physiology and calcium signaling; (2) the proteins proximal to the SNPs are the causal factors for functional differences, though the SNPs could affect protein/gene function distant from the SNPs.