Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
This work investigated Fragile X Messenger Ribonucleoprotein (FMRP) protein impact on neuroblast tangential migration in the postnatal rostral migratory stream (RMS). Authors conducted series of live-imaging on organotypic brain slices from Fmr1-null mice. They continued their analysis silencing Fmr1 exclusively from migrating neuroblasts using electroporation-mediated RNA interference method (MiRFmr1 KD). These impressive approaches show that neuroblasts tangential migration is impaired in Fmr1-null mice RMS and these defects are mostly recapitulated in the MiRFmr1neuroblasts.This nicely supports the idea that FMRP have a cell autonomous function in tangentially migrating neuroblasts. It is an important part of this work as migrating neuroblasts are in contact with each other and surrounding glial cells while migrating towards the olfactory bulb. The authors also confirm that FMRP mRNA target Microtubule Associated Protein 1B (MAP1B) is overexpressed in the Fmr1-null mice RMS. They successfully use electroporation-mediated RNA interference method to silence Map1b in the Fmr1-null mice neuroblasts. This discreet and elaborate experiment rescues most of the migratory defects observed both in Fmr1-null and MiRFmr1neuroblasts. Altogether, these results strongly suggest that FMRP-MAP1B axis has an important role in regulation of the neuroblasts tangential migration in RMS. Neurons move forward in cyclic saltatory manner which includes repeated steps of leading process extension, migration of the cell organelles and nuclear translocation. Authors reveal by analyzing the live-imaging data that FMRP-MAP1B axis is affecting movement of centrosome and nucleus during saltatory migration. An important part of the centrosome and nucleus movement is forces mediated by microtubule dynamics. Authors propose that FMRP regulate tangential migration via microtubule dynamics regulator MAP1B. This work provides valuable new information on regulation of the neuroblasts tangential saltatory migration. These findings also increase and improve our understanding of the issues involved in Fragile X Syndrome (FXS) disorders. The conclusions of this work are mostly supported by the data. However, methods and data analysis would benefit from more careful and comprehensive scrutiny.
1.) It would be beneficial for the detail-oriented readers to have a more comprehensive section of neuronal migration analysis. It would help to understand better the details of the results and analysis. For example, percentage of pausing time. Is neuroblast migration speed and pausing time (%) separated from each other? Does this mean that migration speed is measured from time of the nucleus movement, and it excludes pausing time? Sometimes migration speed refers to the total distance that cells have moved divided by the time between images (e.g., Nam et al. 2007, J Comp Neurol 505: 190-208). This is also important as neuroblasts migration speed fluctuate during their migration in RMS (e.g., Belvindrah et al. 2017, J Cell Biol 216: 2443-2461). It could be useful, for example, to show a plot of total migration distance distribution between controls, Fmr1-null, MiRFmr1 KD and MiRMap1b KD neuroblasts.
2.) The author's claim that Fmr1 interfering RNA (MiFmr1 KD) model "recapitulates the entire migratory phenotype described in Fmr1-null mutants". This is evident from the data analysis for the migration speed, pausing time percentage and NK distance. Parallel, but slightly weaker effect is seen in, NK frequency, CK frequency and CK efficiency. However, interpretation of the directionality analysis causes some concerns.<br /> a) Sinuosity index<br /> Fmr1-null mice (ctr: 1.32{plus minus}0.04; Fmr1-null: 1.93{plus minus}0.16; Figure 2C) and MiFmr1 KD neurons (MiRNEG: 1.5{plus minus}0.12; MiRFmr1 KD 1.62 {plus minus}0.08; Figure S1C). The latter results are significant, but standard error of means (SEM) seems to overlap. In addition, there is only a minor difference between control and MiRFmr1 KD cells sinuosity index.<br /> b) Directionality radar<br /> Migration directionality radar seems to be considerably different between Fmr1-null (Figure 2D) and MiFmr1 KD results (Figure S1D).<br /> It would be beneficial for this article to fully disclose, how these analyses were performed. For example, how sinuosity index was calculated and what does it precisely measure. It would greatly help to understand better the directionality analysis. To make these results more solid authors could have used original migration trajectories in the rose and/or trajectory plots. These plots visualize better the migration directionality results and clarify the changes in the directionality during migration.
3.) Authors claim that "Overall, our results demonstrate that MAP1B is the main FMRP mRNA target involved in the regulation of neuronal migration". Results and analysis show that migration speed, pausing time percentage, NK distance and NK frequency migratory defects are all rescued in Fmr1-null mice when MiRMap1b KD was introduced to the neuroblasts (Figure 4). These results are very interesting, linking FMRP-MAP1B axis to the microtubule dynamics.
4.) Authors could refine in discussion what is known about FRMP in neuronal migration. For example, La Fata et al. 2014 found that N-cadherin protein levels were lower in Fmr1-null mice and reintroducing N-cadherin rescued embryonic radial migration defects. N-cadherin is also expressed in the RMS and its deficiency affects negatively to the neuroblast migration (e.g., Porlan et al. 2014, Nat Cell Biol (7):629-38). This relationship of FMRP and N-cadherin could be discussed and considered in the article more closely. Overall, the article will benefit from clearer writing and more comprehensive discussion.