Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

It is increasingly recognized that the cerebellum is involved in a wide range of cognitive and behavioral processes beyond motor coordination and motor learning. This work contributes to the recent body of work showing functional connections between the cerebellum and many other brain regions. This study uses a combination of in vivo electrophysiology, viral tracing, and optogenetics to identify pathways from the deep cerebellar nuclei (DCN) to the nucleus accumbens (NA) core and medial shell running through "nodes" in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and centromedial and parfascicular nuclei of the thalamus. The significance of this work is in providing function data and anatomical pathways that may underlie the role of the cerebellum in reward behavior.

This work makes two significant contributions to the field. First, the authors show that electrical stimulation in the DCN (the output of the cerebellar circuit) elicits (primarily excitatory) responses in neurons of the NA core and medial shell. Previous studies have shown that stimulation in the cerebellum increases dopamine in the NA, but this study is the first to use in vivo electrophysiology to measure changes in neuronal firing rates. Responses in NA neurons are primarily excitatory, with a small number of neurons showing inhibitory or mixed excitatory/inhibitory responses. The data here are clear and support the conclusions. The only caveat, acknowledged by the authors, is the use of ketamine/xylazine to anesthetize the mice may alter the firing properties of NA neurons and the balance of excitation and inhibition in neuronal responses. The specific mechanisms (neurotransmitters, synapses, or circuits) resulting in excitation or inhibition of NA neurons are not investigated here, though this may be an interesting avenue of future work.

The second significant contribution of this work is identifying anatomical pathways that connect DCN to the NA. The identification of these pathways is well supported by the viral injection data. The data using cre-expressing AAV in the DCN and floxed td-tomato AAV in the VTA or thalamus is particularly convincing. However, the inclusion of additional controls would strengthen the conclusions (see below).

In general, the conclusions are well-supported by the data. However, in a few places inadequate controls or description of the experiments weakens the conclusions.

1. In Figure 4, the authors injected a retrograde tracer in the NA and an anterograde tracer in DCN to find potential "nodes" of overlap. From this experiment, the authors identify the VTA and regions of the thalamus as potential areas of tracer overlap, but it is unclear how many other brain regions were examined. Did the authors jump straight to likely locations of overlap based on previous findings, or were large swaths of the brain examined systematically? If other brain regions were examined, which regions and how was this done? A table listing which brain regions were examined and the presence/intensity of ctb-Alexa568 and GFP fluorescence would be helpful.<br /> 2. In Figure 5, the authors inject AAV1-Cre in DCN and AAV-FLEX-tdTomato in VTA or thalamus. This is an interesting experiment, but controls are missing. An important control is to inject AAV-FLEX-tdTomato in the VTA or thalamus in the absence of AAV1-Cre injection in DCN. Cre-independent expression of tdTomato should be assessed in the VTA/thalamus and the NA.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, D'Ambra and colleagues report the effects of stimulating the deep cerebellar nuclei (DCN) on neurons in the core and the medial shell of the nucleus accumbens (NAc). Electrical stimulation results in both excitation and inhibition, with excitation preceding the inhibition. In general, neurons that underwent excitation had lower baseline activity than neurons that underwent inhibition. They observed no relationship between the location of the stimulation site within the DCN, and the type of response observed in the NAc. In order to identify disynaptic connections between the two areas, the authors combined the injection of a retrograde tracer in the NAc with an anterograde tracer in the DCN. These experiments led them to describe co-localization of the anterograde and retrograde signals within two regions, the intralaminar thalamus (IL), and the ventral tegmental area (VTA). In order to confirm these results, they then used an anterograde transsynaptic viral tracing strategy to mark neurons in the IL and the VTA that project to the NAc. In addition, by injecting an excitatory opsin into the DCN, and stimulating these axons within the VTA and the IL, the authors were able to demonstrate increased activity in the NAc and describe the latency of these responses. Thus, using a series of rigorous and complementary experiments, the authors provide evidence for a disynaptic connection between the DCN and the NAc, via the VTA and the IL.

Novelty and relationship to previous studies: The presence of a disynaptic connection between the DCN and the NAc has previously been shown, as has the projection from the DCN to the parafascicular nucleus of the intralaminar thalamus (Fujita et al. 2020); however, the intermediary nodes of the disynaptic connection between the DCN and NAc have not previously been mapped. Some other pieces of these results have also been shown previously: DCN to VTA: Watabe-Uchida et al. 2012, DCN-VTA-NAc Beier et al. 2015, Xiao and Schieffele 2018) Interestingly, the Beier et al. paper suggests that the connection from DCN-VTA-NAc is an extremely small proportion of the total inputs to the NAc. In contrast to the Fujita et al. paper, here the authors also stimulate or trace projections from the two other deep cerebellar nuclei, the lateral and the interposed (this is relevant for a comment below). In addition, previous studies have shown a projection from the DCN to the IL and, separately, from the IL to the NAc. Thus, the existence of the pathways described here is in line with previous work. Moreover, this study expands on previous ones through its electrophysiological measurement and description of neural responses to stimulation of DCN and DCN projections.

Strengths: The strengths of this paper include the authors' use of multiple techniques to confirm the presence of the connections that they describe. Any one of the experiments using electrical stimulation, combining anterograde and retrograde tracing, transsynaptic tracing, or optical stimulation of DCN axons in the IL and VTA has its own caveats. However, the combination of these techniques nullifies many of these caveats.

Weaknesses: While this is an interesting and exciting paper, there are a few weaknesses, listed below:

- The novelty of this paper lies in the mapping of projections from the interposed and the lateral nuclei of the cerebellum, as the authors themselves mention. However, in some of the experiments the medial nucleus is also clearly injected (Fig. 4B and 6B). In those experiments, it is impossible to distinguish which nucleus these projections come from, and they could be the ones from the medial nucleus that were previously described (see above).<br /> - A strength of the paper is the use of both electrical and optogenetic stimulation. However, the responses to the two in the NAc are very different - electrical stimulation results in both excitation and inhibition, whereas opto stimulation mostly results in only excitation.<br /> - The stimulation frequency at which the electrical stimulation in Fig 1 is done to identify responses in the NAc is 200 Hz for 25 ms. Is this physiological? In addition, responses in the NAc are measured for 500 ms after, which is a very long response time.<br /> - Previous studies have described how different cell types within the DCN have different downstream projections (Fujita et al. 2020). However, the experiments here bundle together all this known heterogeneity.<br /> - Previous studies have also highlighted the importance of different cell types within the NAc and how input streams are differentially targeted to them. Here, that heterogeneity is also obscured.<br /> - In Fig. 4C, E and F, the experiments on overlap between anterograde and retrograde tracers are not particularly convincing - it's hard to see the overlap.

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 manuscript has the potential to contribute to the way we interpret hippocampal temporal coding for navigation and memory. In its current form, however, there are some issues that affect the readability and intelligibility of the manuscript, that the authors may address in a revised version:

- The findings generally relate to network models of phase precession (reviewed in e.g., Maurer and McNaughton, 2007, Jaramillo and Kempter, 2017). An important drawback of these models with respect to explaining specific experimentally observed features of phase precession, is that they cannot straightforwardly explain phase precession upon first exposure onto a novel track. This is because, specific connectivity in network models may require experience-dependent plasticity, which would not be possible upon first exposure. This is essential, given that the manuscript addresses the possible origin of phase precession in terms of network models and at minimum, this weakness should be discussed.

- An important and perhaps essential component of the manuscript, is the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic models. However, the main concepts on which this hinges, namely extrinsic and intrinsic sequences (and the related extrinsicity and intrinsicity) could be better explained and illustrated. Along these lines, the result suggested by the title, namely, hippocampal theta correlations, may be important yet incidental in light of the new concepts (e.g., extrinsicity, intrinsicity) and computational models (e.g., DG-CA3 recurrent loop) that are put forward.

- The study seems to put forward novel computational ideas related to neural coding. However, assessing novelty is challenging as this manuscript builds on previous work from the authors, including published (Leibold, 2020, Yiu et al., 2022) and unpublished (Ahmedi et al., 2022. bioRxiv) work. For example, the interpretation of intrinsic sequences in terms of landmarks had been introduced in Leibold, 2020.

- The significance of the readout tempotron neuron could be expanded on. In particular, there is room for interpretation of the output signal of that neuron (e.g., what is the significance of other neurons downstream? Why is the rationale for this output to being theta-modulated?)

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 #1 (Public Review):

In this study the authors develop methods to interrogate cultured neuronal networks to learn about the contributions of multiple simultaneously active input neurons to postsynaptic activity. They then use these methods to ask how excitatory and inhibitory inputs combine to result in postsynaptic neuronal firing in a network context.

The study uses a compelling combination of high-density multi-electrode array recordings with patch recordings. They make ingenious use of physiology tricks such as shifting the reversal potential of inhibitory inputs, and identifying inhibitory vs. excitatory neurons through their influence on other neurons, to tease apart the key parameters of synaptic connections. The method doesn't have complete coverage of all neurons in the culture, and it appears to work on rather low-density cultures so the size of the networks in the current study is in the low tens.

1. It would be valuable to see the caveats associated with the small size of the networks examined here.<br /> 2. It would be also helpful if there were a section to discuss how this approach might scale up, and how better network coverage might be achieved.

The authors obtain a number of findings on the conditions in which the dynamics of excitatory and inhibitory inputs permit spiking, and the statistics of connectivity that result in this. This is of considerable interest, and clearly one would like to see how these findings map to larger networks, to non-cortical networks, and ideally to networks in-vivo. The suite of approaches discussed here could potentially serve as a basis for such further development.

3. It would be useful for the authors to suggest such approaches.<br /> 4. The authors report a range of synaptic conductance waveforms in time. Not surprisingly, E and I look broadly different. Could the authors comment on the implications of differences in time-course of conductance profiles even within E (or I) synapses? Is this functional or is it an outcome of analysis uncertainty?

One of the challenges in doing such studies in a dish is that the network is simply ticking away without any neural or sensory context to work on, nor any clear idea of what its outputs might mean. Nevertheless, at a single-neuron level one expects that this system might provide a reasonable subset of the kinds of activity an individual cell might have to work on.

5. Could the authors comment on what subsets of network activity is, and is not, likely to be seen in the culture?<br /> 6. Could they indicate what this would mean for the conclusions about E-I summation, if the in-vivo activity follows different dynamics?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors had two aims in this study. First, to develop a tool that lets them quantify the synaptic strength and sign of upstream neurons in a large network of cultured neurons. Second, they aimed at disentangling the contributions of excitatory and inhibitory inputs to spike generation.

For the quantification of synaptic currents, their methods allows them to quantify excitatory and inhibitory currents simultaneously, as the sign of the current is determined by the neuron identity in the high-density extracellular recording. They further made sure that their method works for nonstationary firing rates, and they did a simulation to characterize what kind of connections their analysis does not capture. They did not include the possibility of (dendritic) nonlinearities or gap junctions or any kind of homeostatic processes. I see a clear weakness in the way that they quantify their goodness of fit, as they only report the explained variance, while their data are quite nonstationary. It could help to partition the explained variance into frequency bands, to at least separate the effects of a bias in baseline, the (around 100 Hz) band of synaptic frequencies and whatever high-frequency observation noise there may be. Another weak point is their explanation of unexplained variance by potential activation of extrasynaptic receptors without providing evidence. Given that these cultures are not a tissue and diffusion should be really high, this idea could easily be tested by adding a tiny amount of glutamate to the culture media.

For the contributions of excitation and inhibition to neuronal spiking, the authors found a clear reduction of inhibitory inputs and increase of excitation associated with spiking when averaging across many spikes. And interestingly, the inhibition shows a reversal right after a spike and the timescale is faster during higher network activity. While these findings are great and provide further support that their method is working, they stop at this exciting point where I would really have liked to see more detail. A concern, of course is that the network bursts in cultures are quite stereotypical, and that might cause averages across many bursts to show strange behaviour. So what I am missing here is a reference or baseline or null hypothesis. How does it look when using inputs from neurons that are not connected? And then, it looks like the E/(E+I) curve has lots of peaks of similar amplitude (that could be quantified...), so why does the neuron spike where it does? If I would compare to the peak (of similar amplitude) right before or right after (as a reference) are there some systematic changes? Is maybe the inhibition merely defining some general scaffold where spikes can happen and the excitation causes the spike as spiking is more irregular?<br /> The averaged trace reveals a different timescale for high and low activity states. But does that reflect a superposition of EPSCs in a single trial or rather a different jittering of a single EPSC across trials? For answering this question, it would be good to know the variance (and whether/ how much it changes over time). Maybe not all spikes are preceded by a decrease in inhibition. Could you quantitify (correlate, scatterplot?) how exactly excitation and inhibition contributions relate for single postsynaptic spikes (or single postsynaptic non-spikes)? After all, this would be the kind of detail that requires the large amount of data that this study provides.

For the first part, the authors achieved their goal in developing a tool to study synaptic inputs driving subthreshold activity at the soma, and characterizing such connections. For the second part, they found an effect of EPSCs on firing, but they barely did any quantification of its relevance due to the lack of a reference.

With the availability of Neuropixels probes, there is certainly use for their tool in in vivo applications, and their statistical analysis provides a reference for future studies.<br /> The relevance of excitatory and inhibitory currents on spiking remains to be seen in an updated version of the manuscript.

I feel that specifically Figures 6 and 7 lack relevant detail and a consistent representation that would allow the reader to establish links between the different panels. The analysis shows very detailed examples, but then jumps into analyses that show population averages over averaged responses, losing or ignoring the variability across trials. In addition, while their results themselves pass a statistical test, it is crucial to establish some measure of how relevant these results are. For that, I would really want to know how much spiking would actually be restricted by the constraints that would be posed by these results, i.e. would this be reflected in tiny changes in spiking probabilities, or are there times when spiking probabilities are necessarily high, or do we see times when we would almost certainly get a spike, but neurons can fire during other times as well.<br /> I would agree that a detailed, quantitative analysis of this question is beyond the scope of this paper, but a qualitative analysis is feasible and should be done. In the following, I am detailing what I would consider necessary to be done about these two Figures:

Figure 6C is indeed great, though I don't see why the authors would characterize synchrony as low. When comparing with Figure 4B, I'd think that some of these values are quite high. And it wouldn't help me to imagine error bars in panel 6D.<br /> Figure 6B is useful, but could be done better: The autocovariance of a shotnoise process is a convolution of the autocovariance of underlying point process and the autocovariance of the EPSC kernel. So one would want to separate those to obtain a better temporal resolution. But a shotnoise process has well defined peaks, and the time of these local maxima can be estimated quite precisely. Now if I would do a peak triggered average instead of the full convolution, I would do half of the deconvolution and obtain a temporally asymmetric curve of what is expected to happen around an EPSC. Importantly, one could directly see expected excitation after inhibition or expected inhibition after excitation, and this visualization could be much better and more intuitively compared to panel 6E.<br /> Panel D needs some variability estimate (i.e. standard deviation or interquartile range or even a probability density) for those traces.<br /> Figure 6E: Please use more visible colors. A sensitivity analysis to see traces for 2E/(2E+I) and E/(E+2I) would be great.<br /> Figure 6F: with an updated panel B, we should be able to have a slope for average inhibition after excitation for each of these cells. A second panel / third column showing those slopes would be of interest. It would serve as a reference for what could be expected from E-I interactions alone.<br /> Figure 6G: Could the authors provide an interquartile range here?

Figure 7A: it may be hard to squeeze in variability estimates here, but the information on whether and how much variance might be explained is essential. Maybe add another panel to provide a variability estimate? The variability estimate in panel 7B and 7D only reflect variability across connections, and it would be useful to add panels for the timecourses of the variability of g (or E/(E+I) respectively).

As a suggestion for further analysis, though I am well aware that this is likely beyond the scope of this manuscript, I'd suggest the following analysis:<br /> I would split the data into the high and low activity states. Then I would compute the average of E/(E+I) values for spikes. Assuming that spikes tend to happen for local maxima of E/(E+I) I would find local maxima for periods without spike such that their average is equal to the value for actual spikes. Finally, I would test for a systematic difference in either excitation or inhibition.<br /> If there is no difference, you can make the claim that synaptic input does not guarantee a spike, and compare to a global average of E/(E+I).

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Using the colon transcriptomes of 52 BXD mouse strains fed either chow or a high-fat diet (HFD), Li et al. present their findings on gene-by-environment interactions underpinning inflammation and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). They discovered modules that are enriched for IBD-dysregulated genes using co-expression gene networks. They determined Muc4 and Epha6 to be the leading candidates causing variations in HFD-driven intestinal inflammation by using systems genetics in the mouse and integration with external human datasets. In their analysis, they concluded that their strategy "enabled the prioritization of modulators of IBD susceptibility that were generalizable to the human situation and may have clinical value." This dataset is intriguing and generates hypotheses that will be investigated in the future. However, there were no mechanistic or causation-focused investigations; the results were primarily observational and correlative.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this paper, the authors seek to identify genes that contribute to gut inflammation by capitalizing on deep phenotyping data in a mouse genetic reference population fed a high-fat or chow diet and then integrating it with human genetic data on gut inflammatory diseases, such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and Ulcerative Colitis (UC). To achieve this the authors performed genome-wide gene expression in the colon of 52 BXD strains of mice fed either a high-fat or chow diet. From this analysis, they observed significant variation in gene expression related to inflammation among the 52 BXD strains and differential gene expression of inflammatory genes fed a high-fat diet. Overlaying this data with existing mouse and human data of inflammatory gut disease identified a significant enrichment. Using the 52 BXD strains the authors were able to identify specific subsets of strains that were susceptible and resistant to gut inflammation and analysis of gene expression within the colon of these strains was enriched with mouse and human IBD. Furthermore, analysis of cytokine levels of IL-10 and IL-15 were analyzed and found to be increased in resistant BXD strains and increased in susceptible BXD strains.

Using the colon genome-wide gene expression data from the 52 BXD strains, the authors performed gene co-expression analysis and were able to find distinct modules (clusters) of genes that correlated with mouse UC and human IBD datasets. Using the two modules, termed HFD_M28 and HFD_M9 that correlated with mouse UC and human IBD, the authors performed biological interrogation along with transcription factor binding motif analysis to identify possible transcriptional regulators of the module. Next, they performed module QTL analysis to identify potential genetic regulators of the two modules and identified a genome-wide significant QTL for the HFD_M28 on mouse chromosome 16. This QTL contained 552 protein-coding genes and through a deduction method, 27 genes were prioritized. These 27 genes were then integrated with human genetic data on IBD and two candidate genes, EPHA6 and MUC4 were prioritized.

Overall, this paper provides a framework and elegant use of data from a mouse genetic reference population coupled with human data to identify two strong candidate genes that contribute to human IBD and UC diseases. In the future, it will be interesting to perform targeted studies with EPHA6 and MUC4 and understand their role in gut inflammatory diseases.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The goal of this study was to examine the nature of the relationship between a number of close friends and mental health, cognition and brain structure. In particular, the authors were interested in any potential non-linear relationships between a number of close friends and various measures (neurocognition, brain structure).

Strengths<br /> The sample sizes are very large (total size > 23,000) across two datasets.<br /> There are a wide range of measures in the ABCD dataset -- mental health, cognition and brain data.<br /> There were two independent datasets and the results were broadly similar across datasets.<br /> The longitudinal aspect (2-year follow up) to the data is also a strength, as is the use of cross-lagged panel models.<br /> The use of the two-lines test -- formally testing a non-linear relationship among variables -- is a notable strength (many studies only test using a quadratic equation, which does not necessarily mean that any relationship is significantly non-linear).

Weaknesses<br /> The study is associational and causal relations cannot be determined (the authors' themselves are clear on this point).<br /> The measures in the two datasets were not identical, precluding a direct out-of-sample validation test.<br /> The depth of the information about friend relationships in the ABCD study was limited. The number of close friends was recorded, but not the quality of those relationships.

To the extent that the authors were attempting to show relations among variables - and not causal associations - the authors have achieved their aims. An impact of these results lies in the link between 'Dunbar's number' of *close* relationships and neurocognitive measures, supporting the link between social relationships and brain and cognition in humans. The brain data in ABCD were very rich and notably allowed the authors to investigate neurotransmitter density. This is not a weakness of the study per se but it is notable that the effect sizes are quite small (although highly significant given the large sample sizes).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This is a novel and interesting study in which the authors aimed to gain a better understanding of whether there is an optimum number of close friends to gain good mental well-being/functioning and its underlying neural mechanisms. They thoroughly examined how the number of close friendships contributes to mental health, cognition, (social) brain structure, and neural molecular processes in adolescents. They conducted multiple analyses on two large datasets to answer their research question(s) and support the results with visually attractive figures. I believe this paper is of added value to the literature as the evidence presently robustly points to the optimum number of 5 close friends in relation to mental health and cognition and related neurobiological mechanisms. This greatly advances the knowledge in the field of social and neurocognitive psychology.

The authors use a variety of measures to assess mental health, cognition, and neural mechanisms, which is a strength of the study. However, the theoretical background of these constructs should be elaborated on or unpacked to a greater extent in the introduction. Relatedly, the discussion could benefit from clearer main messages conveyed by individual paragraphs. It is currently hard to follow how the authors interpret their results in the context of existing literature.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Transporters cycle between several conformational states; however, developing a unifying cycle for a single transporter is often difficult, as different homologs are often used to experimentally determine the structures of different conformations. The manuscript of Mitrovic et al. is a clever and inspiring combination of computational methods to reconstruct the transport cycle and free-energy landscape of a single sugar transporter. Using co-evolution and machine learning, the authors extracted state-specific residue contacts, many of which were previously unobserved, and potentially describe subtle yet important structural features. Using these contacts, they bias AlphaFold2 structure determination and MD simulations to accurately predict any conformation. These structures combined with enhanced sampling methods facilitate the inference of free-energy landscapes of the transport cycle. Notably, this work continues to push the limits of using and interpreting AlphaFold2 past static snapshots of highly dynamic proteins. This combination of techniques represents the forefront of structural biology, clearly demonstrating how static protein structures can be leveraged using bioinformatic and computational techniques to understand the biophysical mechanisms of proteins. Though the methodology is technically and theoretically exciting, it is as of yet unclear if this represents a substantial enough improvement over existing techniques for wider adoption. Nevertheless, this work represents an innovative combination of existing approaches to create a cohesive framework of the sugar transport cycle, and the authors provide detailed methods and supplementary information to recreate these approaches in other transporter families.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This work proposes a novel computational methodology that, using available structures of homologous proteins in different structural states, evolutionary couplings and machine-learning protocols, allows to predict structural states of a membrane transporter during the transport cycle. The core of the methodology is to use convolutional neural networks to distinguish state specific evolutionary contacts and drive alphafold2 models into a specific state based on the predicted contacts (using rosettaMP and short MD relaxation). The authors then derived the free energy landscape of the alternating access transition of GLUT5 (in absence of substrate) from enhanced sampling simulations biased along variables based on the previously mentioned contacts. The variables are constructed using a machine learning approach that allows distinguishing different structural states.

The advantage of this approach is that it uses a combination of advanced modeling and innovative computational techniques that might help the structural characterization of the alternating access cycle of membrane transporters. An important innovation is the use of machine learning methods that, based on previous structural information, allow to construct collective variables for free energy calculations in an objective, data-driven manner.

The results of the modellng part of the work are encouraging but could benefit from using more specific descriptors that better distinguish structural differences between states.

An important weakness of this work is that there are critical flaws in the simulation analysis. Another weakness is that the different free energy landscapes calculated do not appear strongly consistent to each other, which suggests the presence of significant errors in the calculations that are not discussed. An additional important point is that a quantitative assessment of the quality of the models used in the simulations is currently lacking and this could affect the reliability of the simulation results. In this regard, previous systematic studies (Proteins 2012; 80:2071-2079) have shown that small imperfections in the predicted models (such as in backbone and side chains conformations) could lead to simulations that drift away from the initial structure in the multi microseconds time domain.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript harnesses recent advances in co-evolution based modeling and computational approaches to provide molecular details about the transport cycles and mechanisms of an entire family of transporters, the sugar porters. The authors evaluate the validity of their approach in a number of ways, including comparison to structurally characterized proteins/states excluded from the training set, comparison to the GLUT5 transport free energy landscape determine through conventional enhanced MD methods in a companion paper, and a global evaluation of RMSDs between models. Based on these structural models, the authors are able to generate a number of interesting insights into the networks of co-evolving contacts that form in different conformational states, and different why certain sugar porters are or are not proton-coupled.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript confirms previous studies suggesting a great deal of heterogeneity of gene expression at the neural plate border in early vertebrate embryos, as neural, placodal, neural crest, and epidermal lineages gradually segregate. Using scRNA-seq, the study expands previous studies by using far larger numbers of genes as evidence of this heterogeneity. The evidence for this heterogeneity and the change in heterogeneity over time is compelling.

Many studies have suggested that there is considerable heterogeneity of gene expression in the developing neural plate border as the neural, neural crest, placodal and epidermal lineages segregate. Although the evidence for such heterogeneity was strong, until the advent of scRNA-seq, the extent of this heterogeneity was not appreciated. By using scRNA-seq at different stages of chick development, the authors sought to characterize how this heterogeneity develops and resolves over time.

The work is technically sound, and the level of analysis of gene expression, clustering, synexpression groups, and dynamic changes in gene modules over time is state-of-the-art. A weakness of the results as they stand now is that the conclusions of the analysis are not tested by the authors and thus, are over-interpreted. Such tests could be performed in future studies either by gain- and loss-of-function experiments or by using lineage tracing to demonstrate that the cell states the authors observe - especially the "unstable progenitors" they characterize - are biologically meaningful. The data will nevertheless be a useful resource to investigators interested in understanding the development of different cell lineages at the neural plate border.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The study of Thiery et al. aims to elucidate how cells undergo fate decisions between neural crest and (pan-) placodal cells at the neural plate border (NPB). While several previous single-cell RNA-Seq studies in vertebrates have included neural plate border cells (e.g. Briggs et al., 2018; Wagner et al., 2018; Williams et al., 2022), these previous studies did not provide conclusive insights on cell fate decisions between neural crest and placodes, due to either the limited number of genes recovered, the limited number of cells sampled or the limited numbers of stages included. The present study overcomes these limitations by analyzing almost 18,000 cells at six stages of development ranging from gastrulation until after neural tube closure (8 somite-stage), with an average depth of almost 4000 genes/cell. Using this extensive and high-quality data set, the study first describes the timing of segregation of neural crest and placodal lineages at the NPB suggesting that at late neural fold stages (somite stage 4) most cells have decided between placodal and neural crest fates. It then identifies gene modules specific for neural crest and placodal lineages and characterizes their temporal and spatial expression. Focusing on an NPB-specific subset of cells, the study then shows that initially most of these cells co-express neural crest and placodal gene modules suggesting that these are undecided cells, which they term "border-located unstable progenitors" (BLUPs). The proportion of BLUPs decreases over time, while cells classified as placodal or neural crest cells increases, with few BLUPs remaining at late neural fold stages (and a few scattered BLUPs even at somite stage 8). Based on these findings, the authors propose a new model of cell fate decisions at the NPB (termed the "gradient border model"), according to which the NPB is not defined by a specific transcriptional state but is rather a region of undecided cells, which diminishes in size between gastrulation and neural fold stages due to more and more cells committing to a placodal or neural crest fate based on their mediolateral position (with medial cells becoming specified as neural crest and lateral cells as placodal cells).

The study of Thiery et al. provides an unprecedentedly detailed, methodologically careful, and well-argued analysis of cell fate decisions at the NPB. It provides novel insights into this process by clearly demonstrating that the NPB is an area of indecision, in which cells initially co-express gene modules for ectodermal fates (neural crest and placodes), which subsequently become segregated into mutually exclusive cell populations. The paper is very well written and largely succeeds in presenting the very complex strategy of data analysis in a clear way. By addressing the earliest cell fate decisions in the ectoderm and one of the earliest cell fate decisions in the developing vertebrate embryo, this study will have a significant impact and be of interest to a wide audience of developmental biologists. There are, two conceptual issues raised in the paper that require further discussion.

First, the authors suggest that their data resolve a conflict between two previously proposed models, the "binary competence model" and the "neural plate border model". The authors correctly describe, that the binary competence model proposed by Ahrens and Schlosser (2005) and Schlosser (2006) suggests that the ectoderm is first divided into two territories (neural and non-neural), which differ in competence, with the neural territory subsequently giving rise to the neural plate and neural crest and the non-neural territory giving rise to placodes and epidermis (sequence of cell-fate decisions: ([neural or neural crest]-[epidermal or placodal]). This model was proposed as an alternative to a "neural plate border state model", which instead suggests that initially the NPB is induced as a territory characterized by a specific transcriptional state, from which then neural crest and placodes are induced by different signals (sequence of cell fate decisions: neural-[placodal or neural crest]-epidermal) (see Schlosser, 2006, 2014). Instead in this paper, the authors contrast the binary competence model with a model they call the "neural plate border" model according to which the NPB can give rise to all four ectodermal fates with equal probability. However, I think this misses the main point of contention since all previously proposed models are in agreement that initially the neural plate border region is unspecified and can give rise to all four fates and that lineage restrictions only appear over time. "Binary competence" and "Neural plate border state" model, differ, however, in their predictions about the sequence, in which these fate restrictions occur.

Second, the authors should be more careful when relating their data to the specification or commitment of cells. Questions of specification and commitment can only be tested by experimental manipulation and cannot be inferred from a transcriptome analysis of normal development. So the conclusion that the activation of placodal, neural and neural crest-specific modules in that sequence suggests a sequence of specification in the same temporal order (lines 706-709) is not justified. Studies from the authors' own lab previously showed that epiblast cells from pre-gastrula stages are specified to express a large number of NPB border markers including neural crest and panplacodal markers, when cultured in vitro (Trevers et al., 2018; see also Basch et al., 2006 for early specification of the neural crest), which is not easily reconciled with this interpretation. I am not aware of any experimental evidence that shows that a panplacodal regulatory state is specified prior to neural crest in the chick (although I may have missed this). In Xenopus, experimental studies have shown instead that neural crest is specified and committed during late gastrulation, while the panplacodal states are specified much later, at neural fold stages (Mancilla and Mayor, 2006; Ahrens and Schlosser, 2005). It may well be the case that the relative timing of neural crest and panplacodal specification is different between species (and such easy dissociability may even be expected from the perspective of the binary competence model).

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The goal of this work was to better understand how cell fate decisions at the neural plate border (NPB) occur. There are two prevailing models in the field for how neural, neural crest and placode fates emerge: (i) binary competence which suggests initial segregation of ectoderm into neural/neural crest versus placode/epidermis; (ii) neural plate border, where cells have mixed identity and retain the ability to generate all the ectodermal derivatives until after neurulation begins.

The authors use single-cell sequencing to define the development of the NPB at a transcriptional level and suggest that their cell classification identified increased ectodermal cell diversity over time and that as cells age their fate probabilities become transcriptionally similar to their terminal state. The observation of a placode module emerging before the neural and neural crest modules is somewhat consistent with the binary competence model but the observation of cells with potentially mixed identity at earlier stages is consistent with the neural plate border model.

Differences in the timing of analyses and techniques used can account for the generation of these two original models, and in essence, the authors have found some evidence for both models, possibly due to the period over which they performed their studies. However, the authors propose recognizing the neural plate border as an anatomical structure, containing transcriptionally unstable progenitors and that a gradient border model defines cell fate choice in concert with spatiotemporal positioning.

The idea that the neural plate border is an anatomical structure is not new to most embryologists as this has been well-recognized in lineage tracing and transplantation assays in many different species over many decades. The authors don't provide molecular evidence for transcriptional instability in any cells. It's a molecular term and phenomenon inaccurately applied to these cells that are simply bipotential progenitors. Lastly, there's no evidence of a gradient that fits the proper biochemical or molecular definition. Graded or sequential are more appropriate terms that reflect the lineage determination or segregation events the authors characterize, but there's no data provided to support a true role for a gradient such as that achieved by a concentration or time-dependent morphogen.

A limitation of the study is that much of it reads like a proof-of-principle because validation comes primarily from known genes, their expression patterns in vivo, and their subsequent in vivo functions. Thus, the authors need to qualify their interpretations and conclusions and provide caveats throughout the manuscript to reflect the fact that no functional testing was performed on any novel genes in the emerging modules classified as placode versus neural or neural crest.

Lastly, a limitation of gene expression studies is that it provides snapshots of cells in time, and while implying they have broad potential or are lineage fated, do not actually test and confirm their ultimate fate. Therefore, in parallel with their studies, the authors really need to consider, the wealth of lineage tracing data, especially single-cell lineage tracing, which has been performed using the embryos of the same stage as that sequenced in this study, and which has revealed critical data about the potential cells through when and where lineage segregation and cell fate determination occurs.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

There is a lack of consensus about the best way to isolate EVs from biofluids, mainly due to EVs being present at low levels in clinically relevant samples and difficult to quantify. As a following study of one previous eLife paper (https://elifesciences.org/articles/70725) from the same group, the authors have extended their Simoa assay to ApoB-100, the major protein component of several lipoproteins. Combining with previously developed Simoa assays, the authors developed a quick framework to quantify EVs, albumin, and lipoproteins on the same platform. Additionally, the authors developed a new EV isolation method that combines two additional resins (i.e., cation-exchange resin and Capto Core 700) as a bottom layer below the SEC layer. Although not greater than the density gradient centrifugation, EVs isolated using the newly developed method showed better purity than with SEC alone or dual-mode chromatography. A device automatically running columns in parallel for EV isolation was further developed to increase the throughput and reproducibility of column-based EV isolation. The development of Simoa assay to ApoB-100 and the Tri-Mode Chromatography would be of great relevance to EV studies.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The paper by Dr. Ter-Ovanesyan et. all discussing a very important topic in the field of extracellular vesicles: how to enrich EVs compare to more abundant other circulating particles like lipoproteins, especially VLDL and LDL, which overlap in size and density with EVs and make the purification process challenging. The authors discussed several approaches, including size exclusion chromatography, density-gradient centrifugation, and methods combining charge and size separation. They also proposed the Tri-Mode Chromatography (TMC) method as a good alternative to conventional SEC separation. However, the results provided for the TMC method do not fully support the claim. TEM images provided show the presence of lipoprotein particles at a higher rate than EVs. In addition, proteomics data suggest that lipoproteins and free proteins are still overrating ones associated with EVs.

The importance of this paper is the code available for an automated device for simultaneous fraction collection, which can be very useful for researchers with limited resources since commercial devices are quite expensive.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors of the current study set out to improve the purity of extracellular vesicles obtained from plasma. A well-described problem is that various means of separating extracellular vesicles from other plasma constituents tend to leave residual impurities such as lipoproteins and free proteins in the final extracellular vesicles preparation. Van Deun and colleagues had previously improved on the size exclusion chromatography approach by adding a second form of chromatography using separation based on charge. The current authors have evaluated that method and another gold standard approach, iodixanol gradient ultracentrifugation, and they have extended the work with the addition of a third form of chromatography. They are building on their prior work on separating albumin from plasma extracellular vesicles.

A major strength of the paper is that the authors have used complementary methods including a digital immunoassay method and transmission electron microscopy to demonstrate the purity of their sample preparation method. In addition, they have used mass spectrometry to show that they are able to profile hundreds of proteins in their plasma extracellular vesicle sample preparations.

Another major strength of the work is that the authors have taken pains to aid others in reproducing and extending the work. The authors used commercially available human pooled plasma, which is a good decision in terms of reproducibility, compared with a single person's plasma. The authors have explained exactly how to make their new chromatography columns, and they've also explained how to make a manual or an automated apparatus to improve the parallel processing of samples. They explained exactly how to fabricate each apparatus, with computer-aided design files and Raspberry Pi software. I anticipate many others will be able to implement what the authors have done because they shared these resources.

Moreover, the authors have shared the essential data needed to understand and vet their work.

Meanwhile, they shared simple and practical information about the preparation of Sepharose columns to improve the yield of chromatography. They showed that in-column washing with PBS yielded more extracellular vesicles compared with washing Sepharose prior to making the column. This finding should help anyone using size-exclusion chromatography or the more sophisticated combinations of chromatography studied herein.

The major weakness of the method is that it remains unclear to what extent the results of proteomic profiling of these purer plasma extracellular vesicles continue to be confounded by free proteins. This is a problem that will take sustained efforts to resolve, but the authors have built the next piece of the road heading in that direction.

The authors have succeeded in their main aims, albeit without being able to completely rid the sample preparations of lipoproteins, which may or may not be possible.

The results support the authors' conclusions.

This work is going to be useful to the increasing number of researchers who find that circulating extracellular vesicles hold promise for the diagnosis of diseases. In order to find the "signal" within the noise of the complex admixture constituting human plasma, a suitable process for separating vesicles from what I would call impurities is essential. The ability to automate that process while also scaling it up are additional essential components for the extracellular vesicle biomarker field to develop into a clinically useful source of biomarkers. The authors have made progress in each of these areas.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this study, the authors investigate the role of triglycerides in spermatogenesis. This work is based on their previous study (PMID: 31961851) on triglyceride sex differences in which they showed that somatic testicular cells play a role in whole body triglyceride homeostasis. In the current study, they show that lipid droplets (LDs) are significantly higher in the stem and progenitor cell (pre-meiotic) zone of the adult testis than in the meiotic spermatocyte stages. The distribution of LDs anti-correlates with the expression of the triglyceride lipase Brummer (Bmm), which has higher expression in spermatocytes than early germline stages. Analysis of a bmm mutant (bmm[1]) - a P-element insertion that is likely a hypomorphic - and its revertant (bmm[rev]) as a control shows that bmm acts autonomously in the germline to regulate LDs. In particular, the number of LDs is significantly higher in spermatocytes from bmm[1] mutants than from bmm[rev] controls. Testes from males with global loss of bmm (bmm[1]) are shorter than controls and have fewer differentiated spermatids. The zone of bam expression, typically close to the niche/hub in WT, is now many cell diameters away from the hub in bmm[1] mutants. There is an increase in the number of GSCs in bmm[1] homozygotes, but this phenotype is probably due to the enlarged hub. However, clonal analyses of GSCs lacking bmm indicate that a greater percentage of the GSC pool is composed of bmm[1]-mutant clones than of bmm[rev]-clones. This suggests that loss of bmm could impart a competitive advantage to GSCs, but this is not explored in greater detail. Despite the increase in number of GSCs that are bmm[1]-mutant clones, there is a significant reduction in the number of bmm[1]-mutant spermatocyte and post-meiotic clones. This suggests that fewer bmm[1]-mutant germ cells differentiate than controls. To gain insights into triglyceride homeostasis in the absence of bmm, they perform mass spec-based lipidomic profiling. Analyses of these data support their model that triglycerides are the class of lipid most affected by loss of bmm, supporting their model that excess triglycerides are the cause of spermatogenetic defects in bmm[1]. Consistent with their model, a double mutant of bmm[1] and a diacylglycerol O-acyltransferase 1 called midway (mdy) reverts the bmm-mutant germline phenotypes.

There are numerous strengths of this paper. First, the authors report rigorous measurements and statistical analyses throughout the study. Second, the authors utilize robust genetic analyses with loss-of-function mutants and lineage-specific knockdown. Third, they demonstrate the appropriate use of controls and markers. Fourth, they show rigorous lipidomic profiling. Lastly, their conclusions are appropriate for the results. In other words, they don't overstate the results.

There are a few weaknesses. Although the results support the germline autonomous role of bmm in spermatogenesis, one potential caveat that the mdy rescue was global, i.e., in both somatic and germline lineages. The authors did not recover somatic bmm clones, suggesting that bmm may be required for somatic stem self-renewal and/or niche residency. While this is beyond the scope of this paper, it is possible that somatic bmm does impact germline differentiation in a global bmm mutant. Regarding data presentation, I have a minor point about Fig. 3L: why aren't all data shown as box plots (only Day 14 bmm[rev] does). Finally, the authors provide a detailed pseudotime analysis of snRNA-seq of the testis in Fig. S2A-D, but this analysis is not sufficiently discussed in the text.

Overall, the many strengths of this paper outweigh the relatively minor weaknesses. The rigorously quantified results support the major aim that appropriate regulation of triglycerides are needed in a germline cell-autonomous manner for spermatogenesis.

This paper should have a positive impact on the field. First and foremost, there is limited knowledge about the role of lipid metabolism in spermatogenesis. The lipidomic data will be useful to researchers in the field who study various lipid species. Going forward, it will be very interesting to determine what triglycerides regulate in germline biology. In other words, what functions/pathways/processes in germ cells are negatively impacted by elevated triglycerides. And as the authors point out in the discussion, it will be important to determine what regulates bmm expression such that bmm is higher in later stages of germline differentiation.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Here, the authors show that neutral lipids play a role in spermatogenesis. Neutral lipids are components of lipid droplets, which are known to maintain lipid homeostasis, and to be involved in non-gonadal differentiation, survival, and energy. Lipid droplets are present in the testis in mice and Drosophila, but not much is known about the role of lipid droplets during spermatogenesis. The authors show that lipid droplets are present in early differentiating germ cells, and absent in spermatocytes. They further show a cell autonomous role for the lipase brummer in regulating lipid droplets and, in turn, spermatogenesis in the Drosophila testis. The data presented show that a relationship between lipid metabolism and spermatogenesis is congruous in mammals and flies, supporting Drosophila spermatogenesis as an effective model to uncover the role lipid droplets play in the testis.

Strengths and weaknesses:

The authors do a commendably thorough characterization of where lipid droplets are detected in normal testes: located in young somatic cells, and early differentiating germ cells. They use multiple control backgrounds in their analysis, including w[1118], Canton S, and Oregon R, which adds rigor to their interpretations. The authors employ markers that identify which lipid droplets are in somatic cells, and which are in germ cells. The authors use these markers to present measured distances of somatic and germ cell-derived lipid droplets from the hub. Because they can also measure the distance of somatic and germ cells with age-specific markers from the hub, these results allow the authors to correlate position of lipid droplets with the age of cells in which they are present. This analysis is clearly shown and well quantified.

The quantification of lipid droplet distance from the hub is applied well in comparing brummer mutant testes to wild type controls. The authors measure the number of lipid droplets of specific diameters, and the spatial distribution of lipid droplets as a function of distance from the hub. These measurements quantitatively support their findings that lipid droplets are present in an expanded population of cells further from the hub in brummer mutants. The authors further quantify lipid droplets in germline clones of specified ages; the quantitative analysis here is displayed clearly, and supports a cell autonomous role for brummer in regulating lipid droplets in spermatocytes.

Data examining testis size and number of spermatids in brummer mutants clearly indicates the importance of regulating lipid droplets to spermatogenesis. The authors show beautiful images supported by rigorous quantification supporting their findings that brummer mutants have both smaller testes with fewer spermatids at both 29 and 25C. There is also significant data supporting defects in testis size for 14-day-old brummer mutant animals compared to controls. The comparison of number of spermatids at this age is not significant, which does not detract from the the story but does not support sperm development defects specifically caused by brummer loss at 14 days. Their analysis clearly shows an expanded region beyond the testis apex that includes younger germ cells, supporting a role for lipid droplets influencing germ cell differentiation during spermatogenesis.

The authors present a series of data exploring a cell autonomous role for brummer in the germline, including clonal analysis and tissue specific manipulations. The clonal data indicating increased lipid droplets in spermatocyte clones, and a higher proportion of brummer mutant GSCs at the hub are convincing and supported by quantitation. The authors also show a tissue specific rescue of the brummer testis size phenotype by knocking down mdy specifically in germ cells, which is also supported by statistically significant quantitation. The authors present data examining the number of spermatocyte and post-meiotic clones 14 days after clonal induction. While data they present is significant with a 95% confidence interval and a p value of 0.0496, its significance is not as robust as other values reported in the study, and it is unclear how much information can be gained from that specific result.

The authors do a beautiful job of validating where they detect brummer-GFP by presenting their own pseudotime analysis of publicly available single cell RNA sequencing data. Their data is presented very clearly, and supports expression of brummer in older somatic and germline cells of the age when lipid droplets are normally not detected. The authors also present a thorough lipidomic analysis of animals lacking brummer to identify triglycerides as an important lipid droplet component regulating spermatogenesis.

Impact:

The authors present data supporting the broad significance of their findings across phyla. This data represents a key strength of this manuscript. The authors show that loss of a conserved triglyceride lipase impacts testis development and spermatogenesis, and that these impacts can be rescued by supplementing diet with medium-chain triglycerides. The authors point out that these findings represent a biological similarity between Drosophila and mice, supporting the relevance of the Drosophila testis as a model for understanding the role of lipid droplets in spermatogenesis. The connection buttresses the relevance of these findings and this model to a broad scientific community.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Chao et al seek to understand the role of brummer, a triglyceride lipase, in the Drosophila testis. They show that Brummer regulates lipid droplet degradation during differentiation of germ and somatic cells, and that this process is essential for normal development to progress. These findings are interesting and novel, and contribute to a growing realisation that lipid biology is important for differentiation.

Major comments:

1) The data in Figs 1 and 2, while helpful in setting the scene, do not add much to what was previously shown by the same group, namely that lipid droplets are present in both early germ cells and early somatic cells in the testis, and that Bmm regulates their degradation (PMID: 31961851). Measuring the distance of lipid droplets from the hub, while helpful in quantifying what is apparent, that only stem and early differentiated stages have lipid droplets, is not as informative as the way data are presented later (Fig. 2I), where droplets in specific stages are measured. Much of this could be condensed without much overall loss to the manuscript.

2) It would be important to show images of the clones from which the data in Fig. 2I are generated. The main argument is that Bmm regulates lipid droplets in a cell autonomous manner; these data are the strongest argument in support of this and should be emphasised at the expense of full animal mutants (which could be moved to supplementary data). Similarly, the title of Fig. S2 ("brummer regulates lipid droplets in a cell autonomous manner") should be changed as the figure has no experiments with cell (or cell-type)-specific knockdowns/mutants. This figure does show changes in lipid droplets in both lineages in bmm mutants, so an appropriate title could be "brummer regulates lipid droplets in both germ and soma".

3) Interestingly, the clonal data show that bmm is dispensable in germ cells until spermatocyte stages, as no increase in lipid droplet number is seen until then. This should be more clearly stated, as it indicates that the important function of Bmm is to degrade lipid droplets at the transition from spermatogonial to spermatocyte stages. This is consistent with the phenotypes observed in which late stage germ cells are reduced or missing. However, the effect on niche retention of the mutant GSCs at the expense of neighbouring wildtype GSCs is hard to explain. Are lipid droplets in mutant GSCs larger than in control? Is there any discernible effect of bmm mutation on lipids in GSCs? Additionally, bam expression is delayed, suggesting that bmm may have roles on cell fate in earlier stages than its roles that can be detected on lipid droplets.

4) The bmm loss-of-function phenotype could be better described. Some of the data is glossed over with little description in the text (see for example the reference to Fig. 3A-C). For instance, in the discussion, the text states "loss of bmm delays germline differentiation leading to an accumulation of early-stage germ cells" (p13, l.259-60). However, this accumulation has not been clearly shown, or at least described in the manuscript. Most of the data show a reduction (or almost complete absence) of differentiated cell types. This could indeed be due to delayed differentiation, or alternatively to a block in differentiation or to death of the differentiated cells. The clonal data presented show a decrease in the number of cells recovered, but do not allow inferences as to the timing of differentiation, making it hard to distinguish between the various possibilities for the lack of differentiated spermatids. Apart from data showing that GSCs are more likely to remain at the niche, no further data are shown to support the fact that mutant germ cells accumulate in early stages. While additional experiments could help resolve some of these issues, much of this could also be resolved by tempering the conclusions drawn in the text.

5) In the discussion (p.14, l-273 onwards), the authors suggest that products of triglyceride breakdown are important for spermatogenesis. However, an alternative interpretation of the results presented here (especially those using the midway mutant) could be that triglycerides impede normal differentiation directly. Indeed, preventing the cells' ability to produce triglycerides in the first place can rescue many of the defects observed. A better discussion of these results with a model for the function of triglycerides and their by-products would be a great improvement to this manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study aimed at the identification additional region of Cac1 involved in DNA binding. Previously, it has been shown that Cac1, the large subunit of chromatin assembly factor 1 (CAF-1), contains DNA binding other regions in addition to the known WHD domain. This study shows that the KER region of Cac1 form a single alpha helix based on CD and crystal structure analysis. Furthermore, unlike the SAH motif in other proteins, the Cac1 SAH motif binds DNA. Further, this motif, along with WHD motif, is important for the function of Cac1 in heterochromatin silencing and in response to DNA damage agents in cells, suggesting that these two regions are important for nucleosome assembly. The majority of experiments are well controlled and the results support the confusions. The major concern is that the human KER region cannot complement the yeast KER region, likely due to multiple possibilities, which needed to be tested.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript illuminates the biological function of the Cac-1 "KER" region within the CAF-1 chromatin assembly factor 1. (This region has a high density of lysine, glutamic acid and arginine residues). The authors present a comprehensive study including quantitative EMSA analyses, analysis of mutants in-vivo, CD, and X-ray crystallography to identify the KER domain as a single alpha-helix element (SAH) that is largely responsible for the ability of the yCAF-1 complex to selectively binding ~40 bp dsDNA fragments over shorter ds oligos, thought to be a 'measuring' function that determines there is sufficient space for assembling H3/H4 tetramers after passage of the DNA replication complex. Moreover, they find that deletions or modifications of the KER domain contribute to yeast phenotypes consistent with a deficiency in chromatin assembly. The data in the paper is compelling, supports the conclusions and adds critical new information regarding how CAF-1 functions accomplishes its 'spacing' function in cooperation with DNA replication machinery to deposit H3/H4 dimers onto replicated DNA.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study shows that activation of α1-adrenergic receptors in hippocampal neurons in culture increases nPo of single L-type calcium channels. This pathway is dissected using a large number of activating agents and blockers to involve PKC, Pyk2 and src. The pathway is further examined using PC12 cells, where it is activated by bradykinin. Finally, a form of LTP which is dependent on L-type calcium channels is augmented in young mice by use of the α1-AR agonist, phenylephrine.

1) My main critique would be that the study, while very well executed and rigorous, is fragmented, consisting of three parts that each feel incomplete: i, hippocampal neuron studies, mainly single channel recordings; ii, biochemical studies mainly in PC12 cells, using a different agonist bradykinin, and iii, the examination of LTP in young mice.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors demonstrated that noradrenaline regulates Cav1.2 through PKC, which phosphorylates and activates Pyk2. Pyk2, in turn, autophosphorylates itself at Y402, which serves as a binding site for Src SH2 domain. Src will then phosphorylate Pyk2 at Y579 for full activation. Src also autophosphorylates itself at Y416. In this way, these two proteins generate a self-activating complex where Pyk activate Src, which then activates Pyk. Overall, this leads to an an activation of Cav1.2 and mediates noradrenaline-mediated augmentation of LTCC-mediated LTP.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Man et al. describe a new signaling pathway for regulation of the voltage-gated calcium channel Cav1.2 and show that it can modulate synaptic plasticity in the hippocampus. Studies with specific inhibitors, phosphopecific antibodies, and gene knockdown show that activation of alpha-1 adrenergic receptors induces downstream activation of the serine/threonine protein kinase PKC and the tyrosine protein kinases Pyk2 and Src, which bind to the Cav1.2 channel through its large intracellular segment connecting domains II and III. This signaling complex leads to tyrosine phosphorylation of Cav1.2 and increased channel activity. Block of this novel signaling pathway in hippocampal slices with specific inhibitors of Pyk2 and Src reduced a specific component of long-term potentiation whose induction requires Cav1.2 channel activity.

This work is an important advance, as it presents a novel signaling pathway through which the ubiquitous neurotransmitter norepinephine and the neurohormone epinephrine can regulate synaptic plasticity, attention, learning, and memory. The experiments are comprehensive, carefully done, and clearly presented. The authors should consider revisions and responses to the points below.

1. Figure 2B, D. Inhibitors reduce Ica below control. Is there endogenous stimulation of this regulatory pathway under control conditions?

2. As noted by the authors, it would be interesting to know if peptides from the linker between domains II and III block this signaling pathway. This would be an important result because, without this information, it is not clear if this is the correct functional site of interaction for this regulatory complex.

3. Figure 4B. The Brain IP for Src has a weak signal. The authors should replace this panel with a more convincing immunoblot.

4. Scatter plots are provided for the electrophysiological results but not immunoblots. For immunoblots that are quanitified, it would be valuable to add a scatter plot of the replicates.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The paper addresses why and how odor discrimination ability achieved after learning occurs in select contexts. The finding is that two related odors trigger near identical Kenyon cell responses when tested in isolation, but trigger different responses to the second odor if these are experienced in sequence within a small temporal window. The authors argue that this template comparison requires some activity downstream of Kenyon cells, that is recruited by MBONs. Overall, the experiments provide very nice physiological evidence for a neural mechanism that underlies a contextual basis for the precision of memory recall.

The experiments were well designed and done. The findings are interesting, but the pitch (e.g. the last paragraph of the discussion and the title of the paper) seems to both ignore the main finding of the paper and overstate the novelty of the idea that memory recall can be flexibly regulated by context. There should be more space dedicated to clearly articulated statements/descriptions of hypotheses and candidate mechanisms to explain the interesting phenomenon described here. For instance, explaining "enhanced template mismatch detection" by potential " real-time and delay line summation" of MBON activity is not super useful for the reader as seems to use one abstraction to explain another. The authors cite Lin et al, 2014 from Miesenbock's lab which shows a key role for GABAergic APL neurons in discrimination. Is there increased activation of APL neurons when similar odourants are being compared and discrimination is required? This seems like a simple physically embodied mechanism that could/ should be examined.

Overall, I think the idea that memories are recalled with high precision (less generalisation) only when increased precision is demanded, is a fact that sure is well appreciated by behavioral biologists even beyond the two papers cited here (Campbell et al., J Neurosci 2013; Xu and Südhof, Science 2013). The new findings fill in a physiological gap in this phenomenology. I think the paper would be greatly improved if the authors highlighted what and focused on the physiological correlate uncovered, and tried to communicate (or test) possible mechanistic origins for this in more physically accessible terms.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

One of the key questions in circuit neuroscience is how learned information guides behavior. Modi et al. investigated this question in Drosophila's mushroom bodies (MBs), where olfactory memory traces are formed during pavlovian olfactory conditioning. They have used optogenetics to restrict the formation of memory traces in selective output compartments of the Kenyon cell (KC) axon terminals, the principal intrinsic neurons of the MB, and tested how flies use these 'minimal memories' during learned olfactory discrimination. They found that memory traces formed in some compartments support discrimination between similar odor pairs, whereas others do not. They then investigated the neural basis of this difference by comparing the responses of relevant output neurons (MBONs) to similar and dissimilar odor pairs. They discovered that MBONs' responses could predict behavioral outcomes if odor presentation profiles during calcium imaging mimic olfactory experience during behavior. This paper and previous works support the idea that flies use olfactory memory templates flexibly to suit their behavioral needs. However, one key difference between this paper and the previous works is the site of discrimination. While previous studies using intensity discrimination have pointed towards spike-latency and on and off responses of the KCs as the main mechanism behind discrimination, Modi et al. have not detected any response difference for similar odor pairs among the KCs. Therefore, they concluded that a hitherto unknown mechanism creates these context-specific responses at the MBONs. The findings will advance our understanding of how memories are recalled during behavior. However, the authors need to bolster their data by including some critical controls that are currently missing.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This manuscript by Modi et al represents a novel and significant advance in the neurobiology of memory retrieval. The authors employ a novel behavioral paradigm in order to investigate memory generalization and discrimination. They investigate the role of two different populations of dopamine neurons (DANs) targeting different compartments involved in aversion learning, i.e. α3 (MB630B) and γ2α'1 (MB296B).

The behavioral platform is clear and convincing but lacks natural reinforcement comparisons. The entire paper uses optogenetic reinforcement of said DAN populations.

The authors identify that the gamma DANs can enable both easy and hard odour discrimination, while the alphas DANs can only do easy.

The odours can be separated by calcium imaging analysis of Kenyon cells. Subsequent calcium imaging of the gamma DANs themselves showed that a single training event was insufficient to enable easy odor discrimination at the gamma DAN level, but strangely not for the hard discrimination that gamma DANs can mediate. Seemingly, this is due to the lack of the temporal contiguity of odors (present in behavioral experiments but not in the initial imaging experiments.

However, in gamma DANs, Odour transitions enabled discrimination of odours in hard discrimination, based on the depression of calcium activity in DANs after training that was odour-specific. The same was not true for alpha DANs, though the authors used natural electric shock pairings instead of optogenetic stimulation of DANs for the alpha experiment. However, statistical comparisons are done within group and need also be provided for between the groups for both pre and post-training. The authors persuasively show that hard discrimination can only happen in transitions. They also argue that the same engram can be read in two different ways. This is convincing overall, but they claim it is happening downstream of the Kenyon cells just because they do not see it in the Kenyon cells, and I cannot comment on the modelling in Figure 5 (expertise).

Experimental methods used are appropriate, as are data analysis strategies.

The manuscript itself is well written in parts, though at times paragraphs are quite patchy, especially in the discussion. There are also a visible number of typos. The figures are well constructed, and generally well organized. The overall document is concise and has sufficient detail.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study characterizes the localization of the lone voltage-gated Na channel in Drosophila Para in motor and sensory neurons. Like previous studies, the authors identify an enrichment of Na (and importantly the K+ channel Shal) in axon initial segment-like (AIS-) areas in motor neuron axons, and show that this structure is not apparent in axons of sensory neurons. Upon ablation of wrapping glia in the periphery, the authors find this AIS-like organization of Para is lost. Finally, compelling EM analyses of peripheral nerves suggest an intriguing area devoid of glia around AIS-like structures, and some evidence for myelin-like structures along the distal axon. The author propose several interesting ideas for how these structures might be involved in AP signaling and as evolutionary precursors to conventional myelination and saltatory conductance in vertebrates.

Clearly, the evolution of myelination, and how glia contribute to neuronal firing in systems without classically accepted myelination and saltatory conductance are important questions. Although much of the Para clustering in AIS-like domains and regular densities along motor axons have been described in previous studies, the ultrastructural analyses and dependence on wrapping glia might be important advances in the field. In particular, major strengths of this study are the detailed analysis of AIS-like Para clusters, spanning molecular genetic, confocal and super resolution imaging, and ultrastructural approaches and clear writing. However, these strengths are somewhat tempered by a lack of functional approaches to test the idea of a lacunar structure that promotes ion exchange at putative AIS regions as well as little mechanistic insight into how glia may specifically coordinate the formation of Para clusters in AIS-like regions.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In Rey et al., the authors goal was to characterize the development of a myelin-like (lacunar) expansion of glial membrane in Drosophila. Although myelin is largely considered a vertebrate innovation, there are a handful of invertebrate models that have been described with glial-derived "myelin," though these systems are not amenable to the same genetic control as Drosophila. To that end, the authors first newly-developed genetics and antibodies to characterize the presence of an axon initial segment (AIS) for adult Drosophila motor neurons that is present at the border between the central and peripheral nervous systems. They show that both sodium (Para) and potassium (Shal) channels, which are typically enriched at the AIS in mammalian neurons, are enriched at this border specifically on motor neurons. They then used multiple types of transmission electron microscopy to visualize this region and found that along with clustering of channels, there is an expansion of membranes from wrapping glia that is reminiscent of myelin. At times, this expansion spirally wraps around larger axons. Finally, they show that genetic ablation of wrapping glia results in an upregulation and redistribution of Para.

Major strengths of this manuscript include the creation of new genetic tools for visualization of subcellular features (e.g. channels) by both light microscopy and electron microscopy.

While this manuscript provides an interesting set of data, but suffers from a lack of quantification and annotation to allow the reader to judge whether this is a robust phenomenon. To increase the reader's confidence in these studies, substantially more quantification of the data is required.

Furthermore, to improve the accessibility of this manuscript, I have the following suggestions:

1. Please label the panels throughout the figures with an abbreviated genotype and what the fluorophores signify. Similarly, the presence of scale bars in uneven across the figures.

2. For panels where only one channel is shown, please show these in black and white, which is easier for the visually-impaired.

Overall, the description of "myelin" in Drosophila would open up the field of myelin biology to a new model system to study the molecular mechanisms that facilitated the evolution of this important glial structure. Thus, further analysis of the data would be advantageous.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Inhibition of translation has been found as a conserved intervention to extend lifespan across a number of species. In this work, the authors systematically investigate the similarities and differences between pharmacological inhibition of protein synthesis at the initiation or elongation steps on longevity and stress resistance. They find that translation elongation inhibition is beneficial during times when proteostasis collapse is the primary phenotype such as proteasome dysfunction, hsf-1 mutants, and heat shock, but this intervention does not extend the lifespan of wt worms. While translation initiation inhibition extends the lifespan of wt worms and heat shock, but in an HSF-1 dependent manner. This work shows that a simple explanation of just inhibiting total protein synthesis and reduced folding load cannot explain all of the phenotypes seen from protein synthesis inhibition, as initiation and elongation inhibition repress overall translation similarly, but have different effects depending on the experiment tested. Using multiple interventions that target both initiation and elongation lends further support to their findings. These experiments are important for conceptualizing how translation inhibition actually extends lifespan and promotes proteostasis.

Major Comment:

The authors acknowledge that lifespan extension must not necessarily arise just from reducing protein synthesis, as elongation inhibition reduced protein synthesis but did not extend lifespan. Yet for the converse effects from elongation inhibition they seem to suggest that it arises from reducing protein synthesis. For example, regarding how elongation inhibition extends lifespan in an hsf-1 mutant, the authors suggest that "inhibition of elongation lowers the production of newly synthesized proteins and thus reduces the folding load on the proteostasis machinery", even though initiation inhibitors do not extend lifespan in an hsf-1 background (while presumably lowering the production of newly synthesized proteins).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Clay et al. investigate the underlying effects of reduced mRNA translation beneficial on protein aggregation and aging. They aim to test two pre-existing hypotheses: The selective translation model proposes that downregulation of overall translation increases the capacity of ribosomes to translate selected factors that in turn increase stress resistance against toxicity. The reduced folding load model suggests that during high mRNA translation rates, newly synthesized peptides and proteins can overwhelm the protein folding capacity of the cell and therefore cause protein toxicity. By generally lowering mRNA translation, lower loads of newly synthesized proteins should cause less protein folding stress and hence protein toxicity.

To understand how reduced mRNA translation mediates its beneficial effects in the context of the proposed models, the authors use different drugs established previously in other in vitro and in vivo systems to inhibit selected steps of translation. The systemic effects of translation initiation versus elongation inhibition in C. elegans are compared during heat shock, specific protein aggregation stresses and aging. These phenotypes are further tested for dependence on hsf-1, as contradictory data on the effect of translation inhibition during thermal stress in the context of hsf-1 dependency exist.

The data show that inhibition of translation initiation protects from heat stress and age-associated protein aggregation but on the contrary further sensitizes animals to protein toxicity induced by a misfunctioning proteasome. Further, inhibition of translation initiation increases lifespan in WT animals. The survival phenotypes observed during heat shock and regular lifespan assays are dependent of HSF-1, supporting the selective translation model. As stated in the manuscript, these findings themselves are not new, given that similar observations were made before using genetic models. Interestingly, the inhibition of translation elongation protects from heat stress, but, unlike initiation inhibition, also proteasome-misfunction-induced protein toxicity. Both phenotypes were observed to be independent of hsf-1. The authors further find that inhibiting elongation does not reduce protein aggregation in aged worms and does not prolong lifespan in wildtype animals. It does increase lifespan in short-lived hsf-1 mutants, where protein homeostasis is compromised. To a degree, these findings support the reduced folding load model. Overall, from these observations the authors summarize that the systemic consequences of lowering translation depend on the step in which translation is inhibited as well as the environmental context. The authors conclude that different ways to inhibit translation can protect from different insults by independent mechanisms.

Impact, strengths and weaknesses:

mRNA translation and its regulation is one of the most studied mechanisms connected to lifespan extension. However, gaps behind the protective effects of translation inhibition are so far unresolved, as stated by the authors. Therefore, testing existing hypotheses explaining the beneficial effects of translation inhibition is of great interest, not only for C. elegans researchers but a broad community working on the effects of misregulated translation during aging and disease. Overall, the conclusions made by the authors are generally supported by the data shown in this manuscript. However, some major gaps remain and need to be clarified and extended.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Clay and colleagues investigate the proteostasis and longevity benefits derived from translation inhibition in C. elegans by examining the impacts of chemical translation initiation inhibitors (IIs) and translation elongation inhibitors (EIs) on thermotolerance, protein folding stress, aggregation and longevity. They observe somewhat distinct impacts by the two chemical groups. IIs increased longevity in wild-type animals in an hsf-1 dependent manner, whereas, EIs only extended hsf-1 mutants' lifespan. Only EIs protected against proteasome dysfunction. Both protected against heat stress but with differing hsf-1 dependence. The authors utilize these observations to derive conclusions regarding two dominant points of view on the mechanism by which translation inhibition improves lifespan and proteostasis.<br /> The study is based on interesting observations and several promising avenues of further investigation can be identified. However, the manuscript appears somewhat preliminary in nature, with many of the observations, while interesting, only explored superficially for mechanistic insights. The rationale behind some of the interpretations was also difficult to interpret. For example, the authors make conclusions about 'selective translation' being adopted upon IIs treatment without directly testing this. Protein aggregation, while possibly predictive, is not a reliable readout for selective translation of some mRNAs. Similarly, the evidence for a reduction in 'newly-synthesized protein load' by EIs is thin based on one reporter. Previous studies from the Blackwell lab have identified differential impacts of SKN-1 on select cytoprotective genes' expression and proteasomal gene expression based on inhibition of translation initiation or elongation. So there is precedence for both the differential impact of initiation vs. elongation inhibition as well as genetic background. There are several other such studies that reduce the impact of the observations presented here. With limited novelty and mechanistic insight, the impact of the study on the field is likely to be moderate.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The role of HCO3 (or possibly CO2) in regulating sACs is well established yet its physiological context is less clear. The heart is indeed an excellent choice of organ to study this. Isolated mitochondria offer a tractable model for studying the model, although are not without limitations. The quality of recordings is very high, as judged by the consistency of results (i.e. lack of clustering between biological repeats). My primary concern is about distinguishing the effect of pH and HCO3. A rise in HCO3 will also raise pH unless this had been compensated by CO2. It is unclear, from the legend or results, if the bicarbonate effect is due to HCO3 or pH. Was pH controlled by matching the rise in HCO3 with an appropriate level of CO2? The swings in pH are likely to be very large and, potentially, a confounding factor. Certainly, there will be an effect on the proton motive force. A more informative test would compare the effect of 0 CO2/0HCO3 at a pH set to say 7.2, 2.5% CO2/7.5 mM HCO3, and then 5% CO2/15 mM HCO3, etc. Control experiments would then repeat these observations over a range of pH (at zero CO2/HCO3) and over a range of CO2 (at constant HCO3). Data for zero bicarbonate are not informative, as this will never be a physiological setting (results claim 0-15 mM bicarb to represent physiology). Importantly, there seems to be no significant difference in 2A between 10 v 15 mM bicarb, i.e. the physiological range.

There is also a question on the validity of the model. A rise in respiratory rate will produce more CO2 in the matrix. This may raise matrix HCO3, and stimulate sACs therein, but the authors claim sACs are in the IMS, rather than the matrix. Since HCO3 is impermeable, it is unclear how sACs would detect HCO3 beyond the IMM. CO2 escaping the matrix will enter the continuum of the cytoplasmic space, which has finely controlled pH. Since membranes (including IMM) are highly permeable to CO2, the gradient between matrix and cytoplasm will be small (i.e. you only need a small gradient to drive a big flux, if the permeability is massive). Since CO2 can dissipate over a large volume, it is unlikely to accumulate to any degree. CO2 will be in equilibrium with HCO3 and pH (because there are carbonic anhydrases available). Since the cytoplasm has near-constant pH, [HCO3] must also be close to constancy. It is therefore difficult to imagine how HCO3 could change dramatically to meaningfully affect sACs and hence cAMP. Evidence for major changes in IMS pH in intact cells during swings of respiratory activity would be required to make this point. Indeed, for that reason, it would be more sensible to anchor sACS in the matrix, as there, HCO3 could rise to high levels, as it is impermeable, i.e. could be confined within the mitochondrion. I am therefore not convinced the numbers are favorable to the proposed mechanism to be meaningful physiologically.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors explore the role of bicarbonate-regulated soluble adenylate cyclase in modulating cardiac mitochondrial energy supply. In isolated rat mitochondria, they show that cyclic AMP (but not the permeable cAMP analog 8-Br-cAMP) increases ATP production via a Ca-independent mechanism at a location in the intermembrane space of the mitochondria, rather than in the matrix, as previously reported. Moreover, they show that inhibition of EPAC, but not PKA, inhibits the response. The effect required supplementing the mitochondria with GTP and GDP to facilitate activation of the EPAC effector GTPase Rap1. The study provides interesting new information about how the heart might adapt to changes in energy supply and demand through complementary regulatory processes involving both Ca and cyclic AMP.

The authors nicely demonstrate that soluble adenylate cyclase is localized to mitochondria. They argue, based on the effects of cyclic AMP, which is accessible to the mitochondrial intermembrane space (IMS) but not the matrix, that the signalling pathway is located in the IMS. They also find that EPAC/Rap1 is the likely downstream effector of cyclic AMP, through yet unknown targets regulating oxidative phosphorylation.

A weakness is that the components of signaling (sAC, EPAC, and rap1) are not definitively localized to a specific mitochondrial compartment using the superresolution imaging methods employed.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Jamge et al. sought to identify the relationships between histone variants and histone modifications in Arabidopsis by systematic genomic profiling of 13 histone variants and 12 histone modifications to define a set of "chromatin states". They find that H2A variants are key factors defining the major chromatin types (euchromatin, facultative heterochromatin, and constitutive heterochromatin) and that loss of the DDM1 chromatin remodeler leads to loss of typical constitutive heterochromatin and replacement of this state with features common to genes in euchromatin and facultative heterochromatin. This study deepens our understanding of how histone variants shape the Arabidopsis epigenome and provides a wealth of data for other researchers to explore.

Strengths:<br /> 1. The manuscript provides convincing evidence supporting the claims that: A) Arabidopsis nucleosomes are homotypic for H2A variants and heterotypic for H3 variants, B) that H3 variants are not associated with specific H2A variants, and C) H2A variants are strongly associated with specific histone post-translational modifications (PTMs) while H3 variants show no such strong associations with specific PTMs. These are important findings that contrast with previous observations in animal systems and suggest differences in plant and animal chromatin dynamics.

2. The authors also performed comprehensive epigenomic profiling of all H2A, H2B, and H3 variants and 12 histone PTMs to produce a Hidden Markov Model-based chromatin state map. These studies revealed that histone H2A variants are as important as histone PTMs in defining the various chromatin states, which is unexpected and of high significance.

3. The authors show that in ddm1 mutants, normally heterochromatic transposable element (TE) genes lose H2A.W and gain H2A.Z, along with the facultative heterochromatin and euchromatin signatures associated with H2A.Z at silent and expressed genes, respectively.

Weaknesses:<br /> 1. Following up on the finding that H2A.Z replaces H2A.W at TE genes in ddm1 mutants, the authors provide in vitro evidence that DDM1 binds to H2A.Z-H2B dimers. These results are taken together to conclude that DDM1 normally removes H2A.Z-H2B dimers from nucleosomes at TE genes and replaces them with H2A.W-H2B dimers. However, the evidence for this model is circumstantial and such a model raises a variety of other questions that are not addressed by the authors. For example: if DDM1 does remove H2A.Z from TE genes, how does H2A.Z normally come to occupy these sites, given that they are highly DNA methylated and that H2A.Z is known to anticorrelate with DNA methylation in plants and animals? Given that H2A.Z does not accumulate in TEs in h2a.w mutants, how would H2A.X and H2A instead become enriched at these sites if DDM1 cannot bind these forms of H2A? Given that there are no apparent regions with common sequence between H2A.Z and H2A.W variants that are not also shared with other H2A classes, how would DDM1 selectively bind to H2A.W-H2B and H2A.Z-H2B dimers to the exclusion of H2A(.X)-H2B dimers?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Jamge et al. set out to delineate the relationship between histone variants, histone modifications and chromatin states in Arabidopsis seedlings and leaves. A strength of the study is its use of multiple types of data: the authors present mass-spec, immunoblotting and ChIP-seq from histone variants and histone modifications. They confirm the association between certain marks and variants, in particular for H2A, and nicely describe the loss of constitutive heterochromatin in the ddm1 mutant.

The support for some of the conclusions is weak. The title of the discussion, "histone variants drive the overall organization of chromatin states" implies a causation which wasn't investigated, and overstates the finding that some broad chromatin states can be further subdivided when one considers histone variants (adding variables to the model).

Adding variables to a ChromHMM model naturally increases the complexity of the models that can be built, however it is difficult to objectively define which level of complexity is optimal. The differences between states may be subtle to the point that they may be considered redundant. The authors claim that the sub-states they define are biologically important, but provide little evidence to support this claim. It is not obvious whether the 26 states model is much more useful than a 9-states model. Removing variables naturally affects the definition of states that depend on these variables, but it is also hard to define the biological significance of that change. This sensitivity analysis is thus not very developed.

There are issues with the logical sequence of arguments in Fig1 and Fig3. Fig1A shows that nucleosomes often contain both H3.1 and H3.3. Therefore pulling-down H3.1-containing nucleosomes also pulls down H3.3 and whether specific H2A variants associated with H3.1 cannot be answered in this way (Fig1B). The same issue likely carries to the investigation of the association with H3 modifications if Fig1C and 1D, since the H3.1-HA pull-down also pulls down endogenous H3.1 (so presumably the rest of the nucleosome, with H3.3, as well).

In Fig3, the conclusion that it is the loss of H2A.Z -> H2A.W exchange in the ddm1 mutant that causes loss of constitutive heterochromatin is rushed. The fact that the h2a.w mutant does not recapitulate the loss of constitutive heterochromatin seen in ddm1 argues against this interpretation. It's also difficult to conclude about the importance of dynamic exchanges when the ddm1 mutation has been present for generations and the chromatin landscape has fully readapted. Further work is needed to support the authors' hypothesis.

The study also relies on a large number of custom (polyclonal) antibodies with no public validation data. Lack of specificity, a common issue with antibodies, would muddle the interpretation of the data.

Overall, this study nicely illustrates that, in Arabidopsis, histone variants (and H2A variants in particular) display specificity in modifications and genomic locations, and correlate with some chromatin sub-states. This encourages future work in epigenomics to consider histone variants with as much attention as histone modifications.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

How chromatin state is defined is an important question in the epigenetics field. Here, Jamge et al. proposed that the dynamics of histone variant exchange control the organization of histone modifications into chromatin states. They found 1) there is a tight association between H2A variants and histone modifications; 2) H2A variants are major factors that differentiate euchromatin, facultative heterochromatin, and constitutive heterochromatin; 3) the mutation in DDM1, a remodeler of H2A variants, causes the mis-assembly of chromatin states in TE region. The topic of this paper is of general interest and results are novel.

Overall, the paper is well-written and results are clearly presented. The biochemical analysis part is solid.

Reviewer #4 (Public Review):

This work aims at analyzing the impact of histone variants and histone modifications on chromatin states of the Arabidopsis genome. Authors claim that histone variants are as significant as histone modifications in determining chromatin states. They also study the effect of mutations in the DDM1 gene on the exchange of H2A.Z to H2A.W, which convert the silent state of transposons into a chromatin state normally found on protein coding genes.

This is an interesting and well done study on the organization of the Arabidopsis genome in different chromatin states, adding to the previous reports on this issue.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this manuscript the authors performed experiments and simulations which showed that substrate evaporation is the main driver of early construction in termites. Additionally, these experiments and simulations were designed taking into account several different works, with independent (and sometimes conflicting) hypotheses, so that the current results shine a light on how substrate evaporation is a sufficient descriptor of most of the results seen previously.

The authors managed through simulations and ingenious experiments to show how curvature is extremely correlated with evaporation, and therefore, how results coming from these 2 environmental factors can most of the time be explained through evaporation alone. The authors have continued to use their expertise of numerical simulations and a previously developed model for termite construction, to highlight and verify their findings. On my first pass of the manuscript I felt the authors were missing an experiment: an array of humidity probes to measure evaporation in the three spatial dimensions and over time. Technologically such an experiment is not out of reach, but the author's alternative (a substrate made with a saline solution and later measuring the salt deposits on the surface) was a very ingenious low tech solution to the problem.

One possible missing experiment (and possibly the explanation of the only inconsistency of their results to previous literature) is to perform similar topographical experiments in high humidity chambers, where no humidity, or very low humidity gradients are present. Previous experiments done by Calovi and collaborators in 2019 showed that termite construction activity (without distinguishing digging from deposition) was focused on high curvature (concave) regions, where here the authors have seen higher depositions on convex structures. Despite the difference of "activity" by Calovi 2019 (clearly acknowledged by the authors), another main difference is that the experiments of the 2019 manuscript were performed in a closed chamber with very high humidity, and smooth transitions between regions of positive and negative curvature. Therefore, it stands to reason that the only missing component of the current article, would have been to perform similar experiments with curvature (positive and negative) but under an environment where gradients are reduced to a minimum.

The results presented here are so far the best attempt on characterizing multiple cues that induce termite construction activity, and that also possibly unifies the different hypothesis presented in the last 8 years into a single factor. More importantly, even if these results come from different species of termites than some of the previous works, they are relatable and seem to be mostly consistent, improving the strength of the author's claims.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This study investigates the drivers behind termite construction, with a particular focus on the environmental factors that drive pellet deposition. The authors performed experiments and computations in an attempt to disentangle the role of surface curvature, feature elevation, substrate evaporation, and a possible "cement" pheromone on the deposition of soil pellets.

In three different types of experiments, the authors present termites with pre-made, unmarked (pheromone-free) pellets, and they vary pre-existing topographic building cues: some experiments have two pillars, others have a wall, and a third type had no cues. In experiments with topographic cues, the authors find that deposition seems to occur preferentially at the locations of highest curvature (i.e., peaks of pillars and corners of the walls). Complementary experiments and simulations show that locations of highest curvature correspond to locations with highest evaporation rates, at least for pillars. Evaporation rates seem inconclusive in the wall geometry, yet the termites still deposit material at the high-curvature wall corners. The authors conclude that: (1) no "cement" pheromone is needed for construction, (2) that depositions preferentially occur at locations of high curvature (all experiments for pillars, 7 out of 11 experiments for walls), and (3) that evaporation (which is fastest at places of highest curvature, at least for pillars) drives deposition. The experiments and results seem sound and interesting, but some of the interpretations need more justification. For instance, why conclude that evaporation drives construction when there is not a measurable difference in evaporation rate across the wall geometry?

The authors also perform simulations (developed in a previous publication) that agree with their experimental observation that deposition occurs preferentially at locations of high curvature. However, there is not enough detail provided about the simulation to understand the degree to which simulation and experiment agree (e.g., is the agreement qualitative or quantitative?) as well as the significance of the agreement. The authors should provide additional details about the setup and mechanics of the simulation, the outputs and how they connect to experiments, and potential limitations of results/connections to the experimental system. Finally, more background about this termite species would be helpful in putting these results into context. For instance, what is known about the natural habitat and conditions, and natural nest locations and structures? What are (or might be, depending on what is known) the potential abilities/benefits for these animals to sense humidity gradients, and why building at these locations could benefit the animals?

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript by Neininger-Castro and colleagues presents a novel automatic image analysis method for assessing sarcomeres, the basic units of myofibrils and validates this tool in a couple of experimental approaches that interfere with sarcomere assembly in iPSC-cardiomyocytes (iPSC-CM).

Automatic quantification of sarcomeres is definitely something that is useful to the field. I am surprised that there is no reference in the manuscript to SarcTrack, published by Toepfer and colleagues in 2019 (PMID 30700234), which has exactly the same purpose. The advantage of the image analysis software presented in the current manuscript appears to me to be that it can cover both mature sarcomeres and nascent sarcomeres in premyofibrils effectively.

When going through the manuscript there were a few issues that should be addressed in a revised version of the manuscript:

1. I am a bit puzzled that they took 1.4 um length as a cutoff length for a mature A-band in their quantifications, since the consensus in the field for thick filament length seems to be 1.6 um?

2. When doing the knockdown for alpha and beta-myosin heavy chain, respectively, why did they not also do a Western blot for the "other" isoform as well (Figure 7)? We know that iPSC-CM express a mixture, so the relatively mild phenotype that they observe in single knockdown experiments may well be due to concomitant upregulation of the expression of the other isoform. In my point of view this should be checked.

3. There seems to be a disconnect between the images for myomesin knockdown shown in Figure 8H and the quantification shown in Figure 8I, which makes me wonder whether the image shown in H middle (MYOM1 (1) KD), where the beta-myosin doublets do not seem to be much affected is really representative?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Neininger-Castro et al report on their original study entitled "Independent regulation of Z-lines and M-lines during sarcomere assembly in cardiac myocytes revealed by the automatic image analysis software sarcApp", In this study, the research team developed two software, yoU-Net and sarcApp, that provide new binarization and sarcomere quantification methods. The authors further utilized human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (hiCMs) as their model to verify their software by staining multiple sarcomeric components with and without the treatment of Blebbistatin, a known myosin II activity inhibitor. With the treatment of different Blebbistatin concentrations, the morphology of sarcomeric proteins was disturbed. These disrupted sarcomeric structures were further quantified using sarcApp and the quantification data supported the phenotype. The authors further investigated the roles of muscle myosins in sarcomere assembly by knocking down MYH6, MYH7, or MYOM in hiCMs. The knockdown of these genes did not affect Z-line assembly yet the knockdown of MYOM affected M-line assembly. The authors demonstrated that different muscle myosins participate in sarcomere assembly in different manners.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Neininger-Castro and colleagues developed software tools for the quantification of sarcomeres and sarcomere-precursor features in immunostained human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiac myocytes (hiCMs). In the first part they used a deep-learning- based model called a U-Net to construct and train a network for binarization of immunostained cardiomyocyte images. They also wrote graphical user interface (GUI) software that will assist other labs in using this approach and made it publicly available. They did not compare their approach to existing ones, but an example from one image suggests their binarization tool outperforms Otsu thresholding binarization.

In the second part they developed a software tool called sarcApp that classifies sarcomere structures in the binarized image as a Z-Line or Z-Body and assigns each to either a myofibril or to stress fibers. The tools can then automatically count and measure multiple features (33 per cell and 24 per myofibril) and report them on a per-cell, per-myofibril, and per- stress fiber basis.

To test the tools they used Blebbistatin to inhibit sarcomere assembly and showed that the sarcApp tool could capture changes in multiple features such as fewer myofibrils, fewer Z-Lines, decreased myofibril persistence, decreased Z-Line length and altered myofibril orientation in the Blebbistatin treated cells. With some changes the tool was also shown to quantify sarcomeres in titin and myomesin stained cardiomyocytes.

Finally they used sarcApp to quantify the changes in sarcomere assembly after siRNA mediated knockout of MYH7, MYH7, or MYOM. The analysis indicates that neither MYH6 nor MYH7 knockdown perturbed the assembly of Z- or M-lines, and that knockdown of MYOM perturbed the A-band/M-Line but not the Z-Line assembly according to features captured by the sarcApp tool.

Overall the authors developed and made publicly available an excellent software tool that will be very useful for labs that are interested in studying sarcomere assembly. Multiple features that are difficult to measure or count manually can be automatically measured by the software quickly and accurately.

There are however some remaining questions about these tools:<br /> 1. The binarization tool which is tailored to sarcomere image binarization appears promising but was not systematically compared with existing approaches.<br /> 2. How robust is the tool? The tool was tested on images from one type of cardiomyocytes (hiCMs) taken from one lab using Nikon Spinning Disk confocal microscope equipped with Apo TIRF Oil 100X 1.49 NA objective or instant Structured Illumination Microscopy (iSIM), using deconvolution (Microvolution software) and in a specific magnification. It remains to be seen whether the tool would be equally effective with images taken with other microscopy systems, with other cardiomyocytes (chick or neonatal rat), with different magnifications, live imaging, etc.<br /> 3. The tool was developed for evaluation of sarcomere assembly. The authors show that for this application it can detect the perturbation by Blebbistatin, or knockdown of sarcomeric genes. It remains to be seen if this tool is also useful for assessment of sarcomere structure for other questions beside sarcomere assembly and in other sarcomere pathologies.

Reviewer 1 (Public Review):

This is a reasonably good paper and the use of a commonality analysis is a nice contribution to understanding variance partitioning across different covariates. I have some comments that I believe the authors ought to address which mostly relate to clarity and interpretation.

First, from a conceptual point of view, the authors focus exclusively on cognition as a downstream outcome. I would suggest the authors nuance their discussion to provide broader considerations of the utility of their method and on the limits of interpretation of brain-age models more generally. Further, I think that since brain-age models by construction confound relevant biological variation with the accuracy of the regression models used to estimate them, there may be limits to the interpretation of (e.g.) the brain-age gap is as a dimensionless biomarker. This has also been discussed elsewhere (see e.g. https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/143/7/2312/5863667). I would suggest that the authors consider and comment on these issues.

Second, from a methods perspective, there is not a sufficient explanation of the methodological procedures in the current manuscript to fully understand how the stacked regression models were constructed. Stacked models can be prone to overfitting when combined with cross-validation. This is because the predictions from the first-level models (i.e. the features that are provided to the second level 'stacked' models) contain information about the training set *and* the test set. If cross-validation is not done very carefully (e.g. using multiple hold-out sets), information leakage can easily occur at the second level. Unfortunately, there is not a sufficient explanation of the methodological procedures in the current manuscript to fully understand what was actually done. Please provide more information to enable the reader to better understand the stacked regression models. If the authors are not using an approach that fully preserves training and test separability, they need to do so.

Please also provide an indication of the different regression strengths that were estimated across the different models and cross-validation splits. Also, how stable were the weights across splits?

Please provide more details about the task designs, MRI processing procedures that were employed on this sample in addition to the regression methods, and bias-correction methods used. For example, there are several different parameterisations of the elastic net, please provide equations to describe the method used here so that readers can easily determine how the regularisation parameters should be interpreted.

Reviewer 2 (Public Review):

In this study, the authors aimed to evaluate the contribution of brain-age indices in capturing variance in cognitive decline and proposed an alternative index, brain-cognition, for consideration. The study employs suitable data and methods, albeit with some limitations, to address the research questions. A more detailed discussion of methodological limitations in relation to the study's aims is required. For instance, the current commonality analysis may not sufficiently address potential multicollinearity issues, which could confound the findings. Importantly, given that the study did not provide external validation for the indices, it is unclear how well the models would perform and generalize to other samples. This is particularly relevant to their novel index, brain-cognition, given that brain-age has been validated extensively elsewhere. In addition, the paper's rationale for using elastic net, which references previous fMRI studies, seemed somewhat unclear. The discussion could be more nuanced and certain conclusions appear speculative.

The authors aimed to evaluate how brain-age and brain-cognition indices capture cognitive decline (as mentioned in their title) but did not employ longitudinal data, essential for calculating 'decline'. As a result, 'cognition-fluid' should not be used interchangeably with 'cognitive decline,' which is inappropriate in this context.

In their first aim, the authors compared the contributions of brain-age and chronological age in explaining variance in cognition-fluid. Results revealed much smaller effect sizes for brain-age indices compared to the large effects for chronological age. While this comparison is noteworthy, it highlights a well-known fact: chronological age is a strong predictor of disease and mortality. Has the brain-age literature systematically overlooked this effect? If so, please provide relevant examples. They conclude that due to the smaller effect size, brain-age may lack clinical significance, for instance, in associations with neurodegenerative disorders. However, caution is required when speculating on what brain-age may fail to predict in the absence of direct empirical testing. This conclusion also overlooks extant brain-age literature: although effect sizes vary across psychiatric and neurological disorders, brain-age has demonstrated significant effects beyond those driven by chronological age, supporting its utility.

The second aim's results reveal a discrepancy between the accuracy of their brain-age models in estimating age and the brain-age's capacity to explain variance in cognition-fluid. The authors suggest that if the ultimate goal is to capture cognitive variance, brain-age predictive models should be optimized to predict this target variable rather than age. While this finding is important and noteworthy, additional analyses are needed to eliminate potential confounding factors, such as correlated noise between the data and cognitive outcome, overfitting, or the inclusion of non-healthy participants in the sample. Optimizing brain-age models to predict the target variable instead of age could ultimately shift the focus away from the brain-age paradigm, as it might optimize for a factor differing from age.

While a primary goal in biomarker research is to obtain indices that effectively explain variance in the outcome variable of interest, thus favouring models optimized for this purpose, the authors' conclusion overlooks the potential value of 'generic/indirect' models, despite sacrificing some additional explained variance provided by ad-hoc or 'specific/direct' models. In this context, we could consider brain-age as a 'generic' index due to its robust out-of-sample validity and significant associations across various health outcome variables reported in the literature. In contrast, the brain-cognition index proposed in this study is presumed to be 'specific' as, without out-of-sample performance metrics and testing with different outcome variables (e.g., neurodegenerative disease), it remains uncertain whether the reported effect would generalize beyond predicting cognition-fluid, the same variable used to condition the brain-cognition model in this study. A 'generic' index like brain-age enables comparability across different applications based on a common benchmark (rather than numerous specific models) and can support explanatory hypotheses (e.g., "accelerated ageing") since it is grounded in its own biological hypothesis. Generic and specific indices are not mutually exclusive; instead, they may offer complementary information. Their respective utility may depend heavily on the context and research or clinical question.

The study's third aim was to evaluate the authors' new index, brain-cognition. The results and conclusions drawn appear similar: compared to brain-age, brain-cognition captures more variance in the outcome variable, cognition-fluid. However, greater context and discussion of limitations is required here. Given the nature of the input variables (a large proportion of models in the study were based on fMRI data using cognitive tasks), it is perhaps unsurprising that optimizing these features for cognition-fluid generates an index better at explaining variance in cognition-fluid than the same features used to predict age. In other words, it is expected that brain-cognition would outperform brain-age in explaining variance in cognition-fluid since the former was optimized for the same variable in the same sample, while brain-age was optimized for age. Consequently, it is unclear if potential overfitting issues may inflate the brain-cognition's performance. This may be more evident when the model's input features are the ones closely related to cognition, e.g., fMRI tasks. When features were less directly related to cognitive tasks, e.g., structural MRI, the effect sizes for brain-cognition were notably smaller (see 'Total Brain Volume' and 'Subcortical Volume' models in Figure 6). This observation raises an important feasibility issue that the authors do not consider. Given the low likelihood of having task-based fMRI data available in clinical settings (such as hospitals), estimating a brain-cognition index that yields the large effects discussed in the study may be challenged by data scarcity.

This study is valuable and likely to be useful in two main ways. First, it can spur further research aimed at disentangling the lack of correspondence reported between the accuracy of the brain-age model and the brain-age's capacity to explain variance in fluid cognitive ability. Second, the study may serve, at least in part, as an illustration of the potential pros and cons of using indices that are specific and directly related to the outcome variable versus those that are generic and only indirectly related.

Overall, the authors effectively present a clear design and well-structured procedure; however, their work could have been enhanced by providing more context for both the brain-age and brain-cognition indices, including a discussion of key concepts in the brain-age paradigm, which acknowledges that chronological age strongly predicts negative health outcomes, but crucially, recognizes that ageing does not affect everyone uniformly. Capturing this deviation from a healthy norm of ageing is the key brain-age index. This lack of context was mirrored in the presentation of the four brain-age indices provided, as it does not refer to how these indices are used in practice. In fact, there is no mention of a more common way in which brain-age is implemented in statistical analyses, which involves the use of brain-age delta as the variable of interest, along with linear and non-linear terms of age as covariates. The latter is used to account for the regression-to-the-mean effect. The 'corrected brain-age delta' the authors use does not include a non-linear term, which perhaps is an additional reason (besides the one provided by the authors) as to why there may be small, but non-zero, common effects of both age and brain-age in the 'corrected brain-age delta' index commonality analysis. The context for brain-cognition was even more limited, with no reference to any existing literature that has explored direct brain-cognitive markers, such as brain-cognition.

While this paper delivers intriguing and thought-provoking results, it would benefit from recognizing the value that both approaches--brain-age indices and more direct, specific markers like brain-cognition--can contribute to the field.

Reviewer 3 (Public Review):

The main question of this article is as follows: "To what extent does having information on brain-age improve our ability to capture declines in fluid cognition beyond knowing a person's chronological age?" While this question is worthwhile, considering that there is considerable confusion in the field about the nature of brain-age, the authors are currently missing an opportunity to convey the inevitability of their results, given how brain-age and the brain-age gap are calculated. They also argue that brain-cognition is somehow superior to brain-age, but insufficient evidence is provided in support of this claim.

Specific comments follow:

- "There are many adjustments proposed to correct for this estimation bias" (p3). Regression to the mean is not a sign of bias. Any decent loss function will result in over-predicting the age of younger individuals and under-predicting the age of older individuals. This is a direct result of minimizing an error term (e.g., mean squared error). Therefore, it is inappropriate to refer to regression to the mean as a sign of bias. This misconception has led to a great deal of inappropriate analyses, including "correcting" the brain age gap by regressing out age.

- "Corrected Brain Age Gap in particular is viewed as being able to control for both age dependency and estimation biases (Butler et al., 2021)" (p3). This summary is not accurate as Butler and colleagues did not use the words "corrected" and "biases" in this context. All that authors say in that paper is that regressing out age from the brain age gap - which is referred to as the modified brain age gap (MBAG) - makes it so that the modified brain age gap is not dependent on age, which is true. This metric is meaningless, though, because it is the variance left over after regressing out age from residuals from a model that was predicting age. If it were not for the fact that regression on residuals is not equivalent to multiple regression (and out of sample estimates), MBAG would be a vector of zeros. Upon reading the Methods, I noticed that the authors use a metric from Le et al. (2018) for the "Corrected Brain Age Gap". If they cite the Butler et al. (2021) paper, I highly recommend sticking with the same notation, metrics and terminology throughout. That would greatly help with the interpretability of the present manuscript, and cross-comparisons between the two.

- "However, the improvement in predicting chronological age may not necessarily make Brain Age to be better at capturing Cognitionfluid. If, for instance, the age-prediction model had the perfect performance, Brian Age Gap would be exactly zero and would have no utility in capturing Cognitionfluid beyond chronological age" (p3). I largely agree with this statement. I would be really careful to distinguish between brain-age and the brain-age gap here, as the former is a predicted value, and the latter is the residual times -1 (i.e., predicted age - age). Therefore, together they explain all of the variance in age. Changing the first sentence to refer to the brain-age gap would be more accurate in this context. The brain-age gap will never be exactly zero, though, even with perfect prediction on the training set, because subjects in the testing set are different from the subjects in the training set.

- "Can we further improve our ability to capture the decline in cognitionfluid by using, not only Brain Age and chronological age, but also another biomarker, Brain Cognition?". This question is fundamentally getting at whether a predicted value of cognition can predict cognition. Assuming the brain parameters can predict cognition decently, and the original cognitive measure that you were predicting is related to your measure of fluid cognition, the answer should be yes. Upon reading the Methods, it became clear that the cognitive variable in the model predicting cognition using brain features (to get predicted cognition, or as the authors refer to it, brain-cognition) is the same as the measure of fluid cognition that you are trying to assess how well brain-cognition can predict. Assuming the brain parameters can predict fluid cognition at all, it is then inevitable that brain-cognition will predict fluid cognition. Therefore, it is inappropriate to use predicted values of a variable to predict the same variable.

- "However, Brain Age Gap created from the lower-performing age-prediction models explained a higher amount of variation in Cognitionfluid. For instance, the top performing age-prediction model, "Stacked: All excluding Task Contrast", generated Brain Age and Corrected Brain Age that explained the highest amount of variation in Cognitionfluid, but, at the same time, produced Brian Age Gap that explained the least amount of variation in Cognitionfluid" (p7). This is an inevitable consequence of the following relationship between predicted values and residuals (or residuals times -1): y=(y-y ̂ )+y ̂. Let's say that age explains 60% of the variance in fluid cognition, and predicted age (y ̂) explains 40% of the variance in fluid cognition. Then the brain age gap (-(y-y ̂)) should explain 20% of the variance in fluid cognition. If by "Corrected Brain Age" you mean the modified predicted age from Butler et al (2021), the "Corrected Brain Age" result is inevitable because the modified predicted age is essentially just age with a tiny bit of noise added to it. From Figure 4, though, this does not seem to be the case, because the lower left quadrant in panel (a) should be flat and high (about as high as the predictive value of age for fluid cognition). So it is unclear how "Corrected Brain Age" is calculated. It looks like you might be regressing age out of brain-age, though from your description in the Methods section, it is not totally clear. Again, I highly recommend using the terminology and metrics of Butler et al (2021) throughout to reduce confusion. Please also clarify how you used the slope and intercept. In general, given how brain-age metrics tend to be calculated, the following conclusion is inevitable: "As before, the unique effects of Brain Age indices were all relatively small across the four Brain Age indices and across different prediction models" (p10).

"On the contrary, the unique effects of Brain Cognition appeared much larger" (p10). This is not a fair comparison if you do not look at the unique effects above and beyond the cognitive variable you predicted in your brain-cognition model. If your outcome measure had been another metric of cognition other than fluid cognition, you would see that brain-cognition does not explain any additional variance in this outcome when you include fluid cognition in the model, just as brain-age would not when including age in the model (minus small amounts due to penalization and out-of-sample estimates). This highlights the fact that using a predicted value to predict anything is worse than using the value itself.

"First, how much does Brain Age add to what is already captured by chronological age? The short answer is very little" (p12). This is a really important point, but the paper requires an in-depth discussion of the inevitability of this result, as discussed above.

"Third, do we have a solution that can improve our ability to capture Cognitionfluid from brain MRI? The answer is, fortunately, yes. Using Brain Cognition as a biomarker, along with chronological age, seemed to capture a higher amount of variation in Cognitionfluid than only using Brain Age" (p12). I suggest controlling for the cognitive measure you predicted in your brain-cognition model. This will show that brain-cognition is not useful above and beyond cognition, highlighting the fact that it is not a useful endeavor to be using predicted values.

"Accordingly, a race to improve the performance of age-prediction models (Baecker et al., 2021) does not necessarily enhance the utility of Brain Age indices as a biomarker for Cognitionfluid. This calls for a new paradigm. Future research should aim to build prediction models for Brian Age indices that are not necessarily good at predicting age, but at capturing phenotypes of interest, such as Cognitionfluid and beyond" (p13). I whole-heartedly agree with the first two sentences, but strongly disagree with the last. Certainly your results, and the underlying reason as to why you found these results, calls for a new paradigm (or, one might argue, a pre-brain-age paradigm). As of now, your results do not suggest that researchers should keep going down the brain-age path. While it is difficult to prove that there is no transformation of brain-age or the brain-age gap that will be useful, I am nearly sure this is true from the research I have done. If you would like to suggest that the field should continue down this path, I suggest presenting a very good case to support this view.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The study by Korona and colleagues presents a rigorous experimental strategy for generating and maintaining a nearly complete set of monosomic yeast lines, thereby establishing a new standard for studying monosomes. Their careful approach in generating and handling monosome yeast lines, coupled with their use of high-throughput DNA sequencing and RNA sequencing, addresses concerns related to genomic instability and is commendable. However, I would like to express my concerns regarding the second part of the study, particularly the calculation of epistasis and the conclusion that vast positive epistatic effects have been observed. I believe that the conclusion of positive epistasis for fitness might be premature due to potential errors in estimating the expected fitness.

The method used to calculate fitness expectation (1 + sum(di), where di = rDRi - 1) may be inappropriate. By reading Figure 2a, it appears that the authors defined rDR as log(mutant growth rate)/log(wild-type growth rate), but I am unsure about the biological meaning of 1 + sum(di) here. In other words, what does it exactly mean when a negative y-axis value is observed in Figure 2b if it is a relative doubling rate? I would assume that the log transformation should be performed after (rather than before) dividing the mutant growth rate by the wild-type growth rate (i.e., log(mutant growth rate/wild-type growth rate)). I believe the expected growth rate for a monosome should be calculated as exp(sum(log(mutant growth rate i/wild-type growth rate))), which can then be compared with the wild-type (with a value equal to 1). Based on this calculation method, if gene A exhibits a 20% reduction in fitness when halved (A/-) and gene B exhibits a 30% reduction (B/-), the expected fitness of A/- B/- should be 56%. Therefore, it is unclear how exactly the expected fitness without epistasis was calculated and how that would affect the estimation of the sign and quantity of epistasis.

While widespread positive epistasis in yeast has been reported by other studies (e.g., doi: 10.1038/ng.524, but not to the extent reported in this study), the conclusion of the current study might not be sufficiently supported. I recommend that the authors revisit their calculation methods to provide a more convincing conclusion on the presence of positive epistasis for fitness in their dataset. Overall, I appreciate the authors' efforts in this study, but believe that addressing these concerns is essential for strengthening the validity of their findings.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This study examines most monosomies in yeast in comparison to synthetic lethals resulting from combinations of heterozygous gene deletions that individually have a detrimental effect. The survival of monosomies, albeit with detrimental growth defects, is interpreted as positive epistasis for fitness. Gene expression was examined in monosomies in an attempt to gain insight into why monosomies can survive when multiple heterozygous deletions on the respective chromosome do not. In the RNAseq experiments, many genes were interpreted to be increased in expression and some were interpreted as reduced. Those with the apparent strongest increase were the subunits of the ribosome and those with the apparent strongest decreases were subunits of the proteasome.

The initiation and interpretation of the results were apparently performed in a vacuum of a century of work on genomic balance. Classical work in the flowering plant Datura and in Drosophila found that changes in chromosomal dosage would modulate phenotypes in a dosage sensitive manner (for references see Birchler and Veitia, 2021, Cytogenetics and Genome Research 161: 529-550). In terms of molecular studies, the most common modulation across the genome for monosomies is an upregulation (Guo and Birchler, Science 266: 1999-2002; Shi et al. 2021, The Plant Cell 33: 917-939).

In the present yeast study, not only are there apparent increases for ribosomal subunits but also for many genes in the GAAC pathway, the NCR pathway, and Msn2p. The word "apparent" is used because RNAseq studies can only determine relative changes in gene expression (Loven et al., 2012, Cell 151: 476-482). Because aneuploidy can change the transcriptome size in general (Yang et al., 2021, The Plant Cell 33: 1016-1041), it is possible and maybe probable that this occurs in yeast monosomies as well. If there is an increase in the general transcriptome size, then there might not be much reduction of the proteosome subunits as claimed and the increases might be somewhat less than indicated.

It should be noted that contrary to the claims of the cited paper of Torres et al 2007 (Science 317: 916-924), a reanalysis of the data indicated that yeast disomies have many modulated genes in trans with downregulated genes being more common (Hou et al, 2018, PNAS 115: E11321-E11330). The claim of Torres et al that there are no global modulations in trans is counter to the knowledge that transcription factors are typically dosage sensitive and have multiple targets across the genome. The inverse effect trend is also true of maize disomies (Yang et al., 2021, The Plant Cell 33: 1016-1041), maize trisomies (Shi et al., 2021), Arabidopsis trisomies (Hou et al. 2018) and Drosophila trisomies (Sun et al. 2013, PNAS 110: 7383-7388; Sun et al., 2013, PNAS 110: 16514-16519; Zhang et al., 2021, Scientific Reports 11: 19679; Zhang et al., genes 12: 1606). Taken as a whole it would seem to suggest that there are many inverse relationships of global gene expression with chromosomal dosage in both yeast disomies and monosomies.

To clarify the claims of this study, it would be informative to produce distributions of the various ratios of individual gene expression in monosomy versus diploid as performed by Hou et al. 2018. This will better express the trends of up and down regulation across the genome and whether there are any genes on the varied chromosome that are dosage compensated. The authors claim there are no genes that are compensated on the varied chromosome but considering how many genes are upregulated across the genome, it would seem that a subset are probably upregulated on the cis chromosome as well and approach the diploid level, i.e. are dosage compensated. A second experiment that would clarify the results would be to perform estimates of the general transcriptome size. If the general transcriptome size is actually increased, the claims of reduced expression of the proteosome might need to be revised (See Loven et al., 2012 for an explanation).

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The current study examined 13 monosomic yeast strains that lost different individual chromosomes. By comparing the fitness of monosomic strains and several heterozygous deletion strains, the authors observed strong positive epistasis for fitness. The transcriptomes of monosomic strains indicated that general gene-dose compensation is not the reason for fitness gains. On the other hand, gene expression of ribosomal proteins was up-regulated and proteasome subunit expression was down-regulated in all tested monosomic strains. The authors speculated that overexpression in combination with decreased degradation of the insufficient proteins might explain the positive epistasis observed in monosomic strains. This study investigates an important biological question and has some interesting results. However, I have some reservations about the data interpretations listed below.

1) In Figure 3b (and line 179), the authors stated that those haploinsufficient genes were not transcribed at elevated rates, but almost half of them are in reddish colors (indicating that the expression is higher than 1-fold). Obviously, many haploinsufficient genes are up-regulated in monosomic strains. What the data really show is that the level of overexpression is not correlated with the fitness effect of the deletion (since all the p values are not significant). The authors need to correct their conclusions.

2) Why are some monosomic strains removed from the transcriptomics analysis, especially when the chromosome IV and XV strains show very strong positive epistasis? The authors need to provide an explanation here.

3) The authors stated that diploidy observed in chromosome VII and XIII strains were due to endoreplication after losing the marked chromosomes (lines 97 and 117). Isn't chromosome missegregation an equally possible explanation? Since monosomic cells are generated by chromosome missegregation during mitosis, another chromosome missegregation event may occur to rescue the fitness (or viability) of monosomic cells in these strains.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript is interesting because of the exploration of a novel model organisms utilizing next-generation sequencing approaches, such as single-cell-RNA-seq. Despite the authors' efforts the manuscript lacks a cohesive narrative and suffers from being extremely preliminary in nature. For example, most of the figures are cut and pasted directly from the computational programs with very little formatting or thought to creating new knowledge from the data generated. Essentially the manuscript consists of 2-3 experiments where the authors performed single-cell-RNA-seq on different anatomical locations in the pig and also on a couple of different pig types (The Chenghua and Large White). The authors used standard computational pipelines consisting of Seurat, Monocle, Cell Chat, and others to characterize differences in their data.

There is potential in this manuscript but the authors should improve upon the manuscript by mining the data better and generating a better understanding of anatomical positions of pig skin by evaluating the Hox genes.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors aimed to analyze different dermal compositions of various skin regions, focusing on fibroblast, endothelium and smooth muscle cells. They collect skin samples from six different skin regions of adult pig skin including the head, ear, shoulder, back, abdomen, and leg skins. After dissociating the tissues into single cells, they perform single-cell RNA analyses. A total of 215 thousand cells were analyzed. The authors identified distinct cell clusters, enriched molecules within each cell cluster, and the dynamic of cell cluster transition and interactions. Based on their findings, they conclude that tenascin N, collagen 11A1, and inhibin A are candidate genes for facilitating extracellular matrix accumulation.

Strength:

The methodology they used to prepare scRNA data is appropriate. Bioinformatic analyses are solid. The authors emphasize the heterogeneous phenotypes and composition ratios of smooth muscle cells, endothelial cells and fibroblasts in each skin region. They identify potential cell communication pathways among cell clusters. Expression of selective molecules on tissue sections were done.

Weakness:

While tenascin, collagen and inhibin are highlighted as genes important for ECM accumulation, there is no functional evaluation data. The discussion section is a compilation of comparisons, and is somewhat fragmentary. More significance from this dataset could have been extracted.

Summary:

The manuscript has the potential to be a useful cellular atlas. The direct impact of this paper on skin biology is limited because of the lack of evaluation data. But the database can be useful to many future studies using the pig skin model.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Wu et al. provide a powerful cross-species approach to better understand brain cell-type specific responses to mutant tau and aging. Therefore, they use scRNAseq of established Drosophila models that they had previously used for bulk RNAseq (Mangleburg et al., 2020) at 1, 10 and 20 days of age, which thus allows them to study the contribution of pathogenic tau (R406W-mutant) in isolation in an experimentally highly controllable manner. They find a large overlap between tau-induced and aging-induced deregulated genes, however different cell-types were primarily affected, suggesting that expression of tau does not simply induce accelerated aging. When assessing cell number abundance in response to tau expression the authors noted that certain excitatory neurons were preferentially lost. They then examined innate immune pathways downstream of NFkB, which they had already uncovered in their previous bulk studies to be associated with tau expression. Also at the scRNAseq level, they find these pathways to be deregulated after expression of tau. In addition, in control cell types that are lost when tau is expressed, they find an inverse correlation of the expression of these pathways and cellular loss, suggesting they might be predictors of neurodegeneration severity. Finally, they use this finding uncovered in Drosophila and reexamined human Alzheimer's disease snRNAseq datasets, were they also find the NFkB pathway to be deregulated.

This study has several strengths. It demonstrates the power of studying tau-effects in a tractable model and then using the obtained knowledge to pin-point relevant pathways in cross-sectional studies of human tauopathy, which are otherwise not easy to interpret given the overlayed effects of other disease triggers. By examining the single-cell level they uncover cell type specific effects, which would otherwise be hidden. This study also represents a valuable resource. Given that the authors have included multiple time points the dataset provides an opportunity to understand the evolution of cell-type specific tau effects over time. The authors have also included a replication dataset, which confirms the results of the primary analysis of neuronal loss. I also appreciate the efforts to understand the apparent increase in glia cell number after expression of tau. By combining computational and experimental methods the authors reach the well supported conclusion that in fact glial cell numbers remain constant but only appear increased due to the proportional nature of the scRNAseq data and profound loss of some neurons. Overall, it is interesting that the authors nominate the innate immunity and NFkB pathways in tauopathy, based on deregulated genes and also based on vulnerable neurons. Nevertheless, this is a correlative finding and as such does not proof that it is causal.

The authors correctly point out the importance of aging as a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease. However, it is unclear whether their models actually capture age-dependent neurodegeneration. Alternatively, they might represent neurodevelopmental tau toxicity. In Figure 1B it can be seen that all vulnerable cell types are already lost at day 1, most notably a'/b'-KC, a/b-KC and G-KC with a >4-fold decrease. This raises the question whether the lost cells might developmentally have not correctly formed, as suggested by a study that the authors cite (Kosmidis et al., 2010). This distinction is important in order to strengthen the translational value of the study to human tauopathies.

The analysis of tau expression levels relative to its impact across cell types in Figure S8 is interesting, however has caveats. The profound neuronal loss makes the interpretation of the correlation analysis of tau levels vs. neuronal vulnerability difficult - since it might be that the individual surviving a'/b'-KC, a/b-KC and G-KC cells are the ones that expressed little amounts of tau, while those that are missing used to express high tau. In addition, it is unclear from the methods whether the 3' UTR from the transformation vector to generate the models was included in the counting. The majority of reads would be expected to be there.

It would be relevant to know whether the animals were in the same genetic background. I.e. is UAS-TauR406W in the same background of the fly that was crossed to elav-Gal4 to serve as the control. This is not mentioned in the paper and also not in Mangleburg et al., 2020 which the authors refer to. There is a lot of tau-induced DEGs (~1/3 of the detected genes) and it would be relevant to know whether some of them might be due to genetic background.

The finding of the authors that NFkB pathways are higher in cell types that degenerate more is interesting. However, in Figure 4D it is also apparent that multiple cell types that do not degenerate have comparably high expression. Therefore, it is not a sufficient factor to explain why some neurons are vulnerable vs. others are not, but rather predicts amongst the vulnerable neurons how much they will be lost. It would be helpful to make this distinction clear in the text.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Understanding the changes in the brain during the progression of neurodegenerative diseases may provide a critical entry point towards medical treatments. Many genes have been directly or indirectly implemented in an array of neurodegenerative diseases, including the microtubule associated protein tau (MAPT). Various studies have shown that misexpression of tau can cause behavioral, genetic as well as molecular phenotypes that display properties of human neurodegenerative diseases connected to tauopathies. Here the authors use the fruit fly as model to assess phenotypic defects at single-cell resolution. Pan-neuronal misexpression of a mutant form of tau (R406W) and single-cell RNAseq at different time points provides the basis for the investigation.

The authors assess which cell-types are affected (by comparing it with previously described brain cell atlas identities) and find that certain cell types are missing (or less abundant) while other appear unaffected. They do this comparison in relative abundance; both neurons and glia cells are affected.

As next step they compare this with the cell-cluster changes during aging and compare both types of analysis; the investigation here includes the analysis of differentially expressed genes in defined cell clusters. One particularly affected pathway in response to tau is the NFκB signaling pathway. The authors investigate the gene expression changes of the NFκB signaling pathway in the current dataset in more detail. In the last section the authors compare single-cell transcriptomic analyses between fly and human postmortem tissue, showing that the NFκB signaling pathway might be a conserved aspect of neurodegeneration.

The manuscript is overall an elegant example of how single-cell RNAseq can be employed as tool to study the impact of genetic modulators of neurodegeneration (in this case tau) and that it allows direct comparison with human tissues. The results are clean, logically presented and accordingly discussed. It shows that such approaches are indeed powerful for genetic dissection of mechanisms at a descriptive level and opening doors for functional studies.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The goal of the authors was to understand how the kinase, hpk-1, could regulate and interrogate different aspects of cellular stress resilience. To this end, the authors uncovered that hpk-1 is co-expressed with several transcription factors known to regulate different stress responses and this co-regulation only appears to occur in the nervous system. Taking a deeper dive, they convincingly find that hpk-1 overexpression in either serotonergic of GABAergic neurons can protect animals from heat stress or toxic protein aggregates. Interesting, it appears that hpk1 functions in serotonergic neurons differently from GABAergic neurons in the induction of the heat shock response and autophagy.

Overall, the experiments and results are solid and the conclusions drawn reflect the result. The model suggests that the receiving cell deciphers that either heat shock response or autophagy can be induced in the same cell, but the data suggest otherwise. perhaps the model should be reworked to reflect this point.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Lazaro-Pena et al. investigated how a conserved kinase called homeodomain interacting protein kinase (HPK-1), helps to preserve neuronal function, motlity and stress resilience during aging in the metazoan, C. elegans. HPK-1 is a member of the HIPK kinases that, in mammalian systems, regulate the activity of transcription factors (TFs), chromatin modifiers, signaling molecules and scaffolding proteins in response to cellular stress. The group finds that in C. elegans, HPK-1 depletion causes a premature shortening of lifespan and decreases motility and stress resilience in the whole animal. Conversely, increasing active, but not enzymatically dead, HPK-1 levels in the nervous system alone is sufficient to extend lifespan and mitigate the accumulation of aging-associated protein aggregates. The authors then identify a subset of neurons and cell stress response pathways that could be responsible for the contribution of HPK-1 to lifespan and neuronal health. This leads the authors to propose a hypothesis whereby HPK-1 activity in specific neurons preserves protein homeostasis and neuronal integrity, and thus limits the aging-induced decline in organismal function.<br /> Overall, the authors test several functional readouts for neuronal activity to support their claim that HPK-1 activity limits functional decline during aging. These experiments are solid, and the use of a kinase dead HPK-1 in these experiments adds strong support to their claim that HPK-1 activity preserves organismal health. However, weaknesses in the experimental layout and rigor, and the statistical analyses of the publicly available data, limit the inferences that can be made, and further experimental evidence would be required to confirm the working model proposed by the authors.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Understanding how predators alter the behavior of their prey, a central question in neuroethology, has the potential to provide important insight into the neurobiological basis for behavioral flexibility. In this creative and intriguing work, the authors demonstrate that the predatory nematodes Pacificus pristionchus and P. uniformus can induce long-lasting changes in the behavioral patterns of C. elegans hermaphrodites. Exposure to these predators, probably sensed by the physical damaged caused by a bite, leads C. elegans to spend more time in food-poor environments and to increase their preference for laying eggs in these regions. Interestingly, this behavioral change appears to last for at least 24 hours, indicating that predator exposure induces a longer-term modulation of neural circuit function. The authors convincingly demonstrate that both dopamine and serotonin are required for this behavioral change. They identify specific neurons and receptors important for the effects of dopamine in this process, though whether dopamine signaling is itself modulated by predator exposure remains unclear. Some specific conclusions are not fully supported by the results, including the proposal that the CEM neurons are the key source of dopamine and that injury, rather than chemical cues, triggers the observed behavioral changes. Nevertheless, this paper reports a fascinating and robust behavioral finding, and provides some initial progress toward understanding its underlying neurobiological basis. As such, it will be of interest to those studying neuroethology, behavioral neurogenetics, and the modulation of behavior by monoamines.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors have investigated the effect of the toxin mycolactone produced by mycobacterium ulcerans on the endothelium. Mycobacterium ulcerans is involved in Buruli ulcer classified as a neglected disease by WHO. This disease has dramatic consequences on the microcirculation causing important cutaneous lesions. The authors have previously demonstrated that endothelial cells are especially sensitive to mycolactone. The present study brings more insight into the mechanism involved in mycolactone-induced endothelial cells defect and thus in microcirculatory dysfunction. The authors showed that mycolactone directly affected the synthesis of proteoglycans at the level of the golgi with a major consequence on the quality of the glycocalyx and thus on the endothelial function and structure. Importantly, the authors show that blockade of the enzyme involve in this synthesis (galactosyltransferase II) phenocopied the effects of mycolactone. The effect of mycolactone on the endothelium was confirmed in vivo. Finally, the authors showed that exogenous laminin-511 reversed the effects of mycolactone, thus opening an important therapeutic perspective for the treatment of wound healing in patients suffering Buruli ulcer and presenting lesions.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors dissected the effects of mycolacton on endothelial cell biology and vessel integrity. The study follows up on previous work by the same group, which highlighted alterations in vascular permeability and coagulation in patients with Buruli ulcer. It provides a mechanistic explanation for these clinical observations, and suggests that blockade of Sec61 in endothelial cells contributes to tissue necrosis and slow wound healing.

Overall, the generated data support their conclusions and I only have two major criticisms:

- Replicating the effects of mycolactone on endothelial parameters with Ipomoeassin F (or its derivative ZIF-80) does not demonstrate that these effects are due to Sec61 blockade. This would require genetic proof, using for example endothelial cells expressing Sec61A mutants that confer resistance to mycolactone blockade. The authors claimed in the Discussion that they could not express such mutants in primary endothelial cells, but did they try expressing mutants in HUVEC cell lines? Without such genetic evidence all statements claiming a causative link between the observed effects on endothelial parameters and Sec61 blockade should be removed or rephrased. The same applies to speculations on the role of Sec61 in epithelial migration defects in discussion. Data corresponding to Ipomoeassin F and ZIF-80 do not add important information, and may be removed or shown as supplemental information.<br /> - While statistical analysis is done and P values are provided, no information is given on the statistical tests used, neither in methods nor results. This must be corrected, to evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of their data.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Buruli ulcer is a severe skin infection in humans that is caused by a bacterium, Mycobacterium ulcerans. The main clinical sign is a massive tissue necrosis subsequent to an edema stage. The main virulence factor called mycolactone is a polyketide with a lactone core and a long alkyl chain that is released within vesicles by the bacterium. Mycolactone was already shown to account for several disease phenotypes characteristic of Buruli ulcer, for instance tissue necrosis, host immune response modulation and local analgesia. A large number of cellular pathways in various cell types was reported to be impacted by mycolactone. Among those, the Sec61 translocon involved in the transport of certain proteins to the endoplasmic reticulum was first identified by the authors of the study and is currently the most consensual target. Mycolactone disruption of Sec61 function was then shown to directly impact on cell apoptosis in macrophages, limited immune responses by T-cells and increased autophagy in dermal endothelial cells and fibroblasts. In their manuscript, Tzung-Harn Hsieh and their collaborators investigated the Sec61- dependent role of mycolactone on morphology, adhesion and migration of primary human dermal microvascular endothelial cells (HDMEC). They used a combination of sugar and proteomic studies on a live image-based phenotypic assay on HDMEC to characterize the effect of mycolactone. First, they showed that upon incubation of monolayer of HDMEC with mycolactone at low dose (10 ng/mL) for 24h, the cells become elongated before rounding and eventually detached from the culture dish at 48h. Next, mycolactone was probed on a scratch assay and migration of the cells ceased upon a 24h incubation. The same effect as mycolactone on these two assays was observed for two other Sec61 inhibitors Ipomoeassin F and ZIF-80. Then, the authors resorted to the widely established mouse footpad model of M. ulcerans infection to evidence fibrinogen accumulation outside the blood vessel within the endothelium at 28 days post-infection, correlating with severe endothelial cell morphology changes.

To dissect the molecular pathways involved in these phenotypes, the authors performed an HDMEC membrane protein analysis and showed a decrease in the numbers of proteins involved in glycosylation and adhesion. As protein glycosylation mainly occurs in the Golgi apparatus, a deeper analysis revealed that enzymes involved in glycosaminoglycan (GAG) synthesis were lost in mycolactone treated HDMEC. A combination of immunofluorescence and flow cytometry approaches confirmed the impact of mycolactone on the ability of endothelial cells to synthesize GAG chains. The mycolactone effect on cell elongation was phenocopied by knock-down of galactosyltransferase II (B3Galt6) involved in GAG biosynthesis. A second extensive analysis of the endothelial basement membrane component and their ligands identified multiple laminins affected by mycolactone. Using similar functional studies as for GAG, the impact of mycolactone on cell rounding and migration could be reversed by the addition of laminin α5.

The major strengths of the study relies on a combination of cleverly designed phenotypic assays and in-depth cleverly designed membrane proteomic studies and follow-up analysis.<br /> The results really support the conclusions. Congratulations!<br /> The discussion takes into account the current state of the art, which has mostly been established by the authors of the present manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Testosterone modulates a range of adult behaviors, and its signaling contributes to behavioral plasticity. One of the more remarkable examples of this influence can be found in female canaries, who do not normally sing or have elevated levels of testosterone. However, introducing testosterone experimentally causes female canaries to begin singing within days and results in an enlargement of the neural circuitry responsible for song production. This work seeks to characterize the transcriptional responses in a key song brain region, HVC, to testosterone treatment in female canaries. They assay gene expression at a number of time points following testosterone administration and perform analyses characterizing patterns of differential expression using a broad range of approaches. This analysis in particular has a focus on understanding the putative gene regulatory networks that drive the observed testosterone-driven transcriptional responses, with the ultimate aim of understanding how these networks influence neural and behavioral properties.

Strengths

This work is well-focused on a specific question and has a number of excellent qualities. The experimental design of this study is strong, and the fine temporal resolution analysis of testosterone effects on gene expression in female songbirds is a novel and compelling approach to understanding the molecular basis of sex hormone-regulated neural plasticity. The authors have carefully assessed the influence of testosterone on a range of female song features, providing an excellent behavioral reference point for their transcriptional analysis. The gene expression analysis, from differential expression to correlation-based network analysis, appears generally sound and provides a good overview of the effects of testosterone on gene expression in HVC. Combined, the expression, neural, and behavioral data provide a rich resource to better understand the molecular mechanisms underlying testosterone-modulate neural and behavioral plasticity.

Weaknesses

However, I do have several concerns about this work, and these concerns fall into three main areas:

1) At several points, the authors make claims that I believe extend beyond the data presented here. For instance, in the Abstract (line 27), the authors state "the development of adult songs requires restructuring the entire HVC, including most HVC cell types, rather than altering only neuronal subpopulations or cellular components." The gene ontology analyses performed do suggest that there is a progression from cellular transcriptional changes to organ-level changes, however caution should be taken in claiming that "most HVC cell types" exhibit transcriptional changes. In fact, according to Fig. 3D most of the transcriptional changes appear restricted to neurons. As the authors themselves note elsewhere, claims at this resolution are difficult without support from single-cell approaches. I do not suggest that the authors need to perform single-cell RNA-seq for this work, but strong claims like this should be avoided.

2) Similarly the Abstract states that parallel regulation "directly" by androgen and estrogen receptors, as well as the transcription factor SP8, "lead" to the transcriptional and neural changes observed after testosterone treatment of females. However, experiments that demonstrate such a causal role have not been performed. The authors do perform a set of bioinformatic analyses that point in this direction - enrichment of androgen and estrogen receptor binding sites in the promoters of differentially expressed genes, high coexpression of SP8 with other genes, and the enrichment of predicted SP8 binding sites in coexpressed genes. However, further support for direct regulation, at the level that the authors claim, would require some form of transcription factor binding assay, e.g. ChIP-seq or CUT&RUN. I am fully aware that these assays are enormously challenging to perform in this system (and again I don't suggest that these experiments need to be done for this work); however, statements of direct regulation should be tempered. This is especially true for the role of SP8. This does appear to be a compelling target, but without some manipulation of the activity of SP8 (e.g. through knockdowns) and subsequent analysis of gene expression, it is too much to claim that this transcription factor is a regulatory link in the testosterone-driven responses. SP8 does appear to be a highly connected hub gene in correlation network analysis, but this alone does not indicate that it acts as a hub transcription factor in a gene regulatory network.

Along these lines, the in situ hybridizations of ESR2 and SP8 presented in Figure 5 need significant improvement. The signals in the red and green channels, SP8 and ESR2, look suspiciously similar, showing almost identical subcellular colocalization. This signal pattern usually suggests bleed-through during image acquisition, as it's highly unlikely that the mRNA of both genes would show this degree of overlap. I would suggest that control ISHs be run with one probe left out, either SP8 or ESR2, and compare these ISHs with the dual label ISHs to determine if signal intensity and cellular distribution look similar. Furthermore, on lines 354-356 the authors write, "The fact that the two genes were expressed nearby in the same cell may indicate physical interactions between the gene pair and warrant further investigation into the nature of their relationship.". Yet, even if the overlap between ESR2 and SP8 shown in Figure 5 is confirmed, close localization of transcripts does not imply that the protein products physically interact. The STRING bioinformatic analysis is more convincing that there is a putative regulatory interaction between ESR2 and the SP8 locus, and this suggestion of protein-protein interaction is weak and should be omitted. In addition, the authors note that ESR2 has not been detected in the songbird HVC in a previous study. To further demonstrate the expression of ESR2 (and SP8) in HVC, it would be useful to plot their expression from the microarray data across the different testosterone conditions.

3) My final concern lies in the interpretation of these results as generalizable to other sex hormone-modualated behaviors. On lines 452-455, the authors write, "This suggests that the testosterone (or estrogen)-triggered induction of adult behaviors, such as parental behavior and courtship, requires a much more extensive reorganization of the transcriptome and the associated biological functions of the brain areas involved than previously thought.". The experiments and argument likely apply to other neural systems to undergo large seasonal fluctuations in sex hormones and similar morphological changes. However, the authors argue that the large number of transcriptional changes seen here may generalize broadly to sex hormone modulated adult behaviors. I think there are a couple of problems with this argument. First, as described here and in past work, testosterone drives major morphological changes the song system of adult canaries; such dramatic changes are not seen for instance in sex hormone-receptive areas underlying mating behavior in adult mammals. Similarly, the study introduced testosterone into female birds which drives a greater morphological change in HVC relative to similar manipulations in males, which again may account for the large number of differentially expressed genes. I would temper the generality of these results and note how the experimental and biological differences between this system and other sex hormone-responsive systems and behaviors may contribute to the observed transcriptional differences.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

During the breeding season, testosterone (T) levels rise in males, leading to seasonal song production. This behavioral plasticity is accompanied by changes in the size of brain nuclei that control song production, particularly the HVC, which expresses both androgen and estrogen receptors. To determine how testosterone controls song production, Ko et al performed a six point timecourse in female birds implanted with T capsules. The authors carefully document the onset of song production around day 4, and the subsequent progression from sub-songs to plastic songs with more complex syllables. They demonstrate a corresponding increase in HVC volume by 14 days. To identify the genes that direct these events, the authors compared gene expression in the HVC at each timepoint, ranging from 1 hr to 14 days. They report strong induction of gene expression at only 1 hr after T treatment. At subsequent time points, the number of induced genes varies markedly, with the greatest number of differential genes detected at day 14, when the HVC has increased in volume. Overall, a relatively small number of genes show consistent changes in expression across the duration of treatment, while the majority fall into a "transient" category of showing up- or -downregulation at one or a subset of timepoints. The authors put forward a model whereby T can rapidly induce the expression of transcription factors within the first 1-3 hours, followed by additional gene expression cascades directed by the induced TFs. These downstream pathways would then permit changes in HVC structure and connectivity to facilitate singing.

The bulk of the manuscript details WGCNA, GO terms, and promoter ARE/ERE motif abundance, using the initial pairwise comparisons for each timepoint as input lists. However, there are no p/adjp values provided for these pair-wise comparisons that form the basis of all subsequent analyses. Nor are there supplementary tables to indicate how consistent the replicates are within each group or how abundantly the genes-of-interest are expressed. With the statistical tests used here, and the lack of relevant information in the supplementary tables, I cannot determine if the data support the authors' conclusions. These omissions mar what is otherwise a conceptually intriguing line of investigation.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

I found this paper fascinating. It is a study that needed to be done in the field of behavioral endocrinology, as it addresses our understanding of exactly how steroid hormone action might regulate behavioral output like few other published studies. For decades, researchers have been implanting animals with steroids and observing corresponding changes in behavior, noting that some behavioral traits are immediately expressed, while others take time to be expressed. Why would this be? The answer lies in the temporal dynamics of steroid action, but few have ever addressed this. Having said this, I do have several issues with the manuscript that I think need to be addressed.

1) My biggest concern is the sample size. Most of the time points only have 5 or 6 individuals represented, and I question whether these numbers provide sufficient statistical power to uncover the effects the authors are trying to explore. This is a particular problem when it comes to evaluating the supposed "transient" of testosterone on gene expression. There is currently little basis for distinguishing such effects from noise that accrues because of low power. This can be a major problem with studies of gene expression in non-model species, like canaries, where among-individual variability in transcript abundance is quite high. Thus, it is possible that one or two outliers at a given time point cause the effect testosterone at this time point to become indistinguishable from the controls; if so, then a gene may get put into the transient category, when in fact its regulation was not likely transient.

2) More on the transient categorization. Would a gene whose expression is not immediately upregulated (within 1 hour), but is upregulated later on (say in the 14d group) be considered transient? If so, this seems problematic. Aren't the authors setting the null expectation of "non-transient" as a gene that does not increase immediately after 1 hour of treatment? The authors even recognize that it is quite surprising that gene expression changes after an hour. It may be that some genes whose regulation is classified as transient are simply slower to upregulate; but, really, would we say their expression in transient per se? Maybe I'm misunderstanding the categorizations?

3) The authors don't fully explain the logic for using females in this study to measure a "male-typical" behavior (singing). My understanding is that females have underlying circuitry to sign, and T administration triggers it; thus, this situation that creates a natural experiment in which we can explore T's on brain and behavior, unlike in males which have fluctuating T. First, it might be good to clarify this logic for readers, unless perhaps I'm misunderstanding something. Second, I found myself questioning this logic a little. Our understanding of basic sex differences and the role that steroid hormones play in generating them has changed over the last few decades. There are, for example, a variety of genetic factors that underlie the development of sex differences in the brain (I'm especially thinking about the incredible work from Art Arnold and many others that harness the experimental power of the four core genotype mice). Might some of these factors influence female development, such that T's effects on the female brain and subsequent ability to increase HVC size and sing is not the same as males.

4) I was surprised by the authors assertion that testosterone would only influence several tens or hundreds of genes. My read of the literature says that this is low, and I would have expected 100s, if not 1,000s, of genes to be influenced. I think that the total number of genes influenced by T is therefore quite consistent with the literature.

5) I found the GO analyses presented herein uncompelling. As the authors likely know, not all GO terms are created equally. Some GO terms are enriched by hundreds of genes and thus reflect broad functional categories, whereas other GO terms are much more specific and thus are enriched by only a few genes. The authors report broad GO terms that don't tell us much about what is happening in the HVC functionally. This is particularly the case when a good 50% of the genome is being differentially regulated.

6) The Genomatix analyses are similarly uncompelling. This approach to finding putative response elements can uncover many false positives, and these should always be validated thoroughly. Don't get me wrong-I appreciate that these validations are not trivial, and I value the authors response element analysis.

7) I'm sceptical about the section of the paper that speculates about modification of steroid sensitivity in the HVC. These conclusions are based on analyses of mRNA expression of AKR1D1, SRD5A2, and the like. However, this does not reflect a different in the capacity to metabolize steroids, or at least there is little evidence to suggest this. Note that many of these transcripts have different isoforms, which could also influence steroidal metabolism.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The study by Meyer and collaborators is tackling the question of cell type evolution between sea urchins and sea stars. To address this question, they generated single nuclei RNA sequencing libraries originating from early developmental time points of the sea star Patiria miniata. The resulting cell type atlas recapitulated the cell types previously known to exist as indicated by traditional methods in the past and revealed hidden cell type complexity. The authors provide evidence for the existence of previously not described sea star neuronal types and provide a thorough characterization of their molecular signature. Once validating the sea star cell type atlas through means of WMISH they computationally compared the sea star cell types to the sea urchin ones by taking advantage of already available single-cell RNA sequencing data, carried out at equivalent stages of Strongylocentrotus purpuratus development. Using 1-1 orthologs they integrated the sea star and sea urchin datasets and provided evidence for the presence of novel cell types that are not shared between the two animals (at least novel for the specific developmental window analyzed) such as the left coelomic pouch in sea urchin. Moreover, their analysis suggests that sea urchin skeletal cells, a population known to not exist in sea stars, correlate transcriptionally to other mesodermal cell types of the sea star, while sea urchin pigment cells appear to be very similar to sea star immune cells and neurons. Overall, the data of this study demonstrate how single-cell RNA sequencing can be used as a tool to study cell type evolution and provide complete molecular evidence of cell type diversification between the two echinoderm species. Lastly, their P. miniata cell type atlas will be of great importance for the evo-devo field and contribute to a better understanding of the development and evolution of novelties.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

A comparison of sea stars and sea urchins has been shown in the past to be a very fertile ground to understand the evolution of cell types. Among other reasons, this is due to the rich amount of information on the gene regulatory networks that control the establishment of cell types in the sea urchin embryo, the experimental amenability of both the sea urchin and sea star embryos, and the fact that embryos of these two animal groups show homologous cell types as well as morphological innovations. The study by Meyer et. al. takes full advantage of these features and takes the comparison of the sea urchin and the sea star to a new technological level by implementing single-cell technologies in the sea star embryo for the first time. The authors employ a single-nuclei RNA-sequencing protocol to profile the transcriptomes of all cell types in the sea star embryo at three stages of development and very convincingly show that the generated dataset is able to capture known cell types as well as previously undescribed cell types. In this context, the study significantly advances the molecular characterization of the previously known cell types and draws convincing conclusions about the biological significance of the newly discovered cell types. By using the newly generated sea star dataset, and a previously published sea urchin single-cell RNA-sequencing dataset at equivalent developmental stages, Meyer et. al. compare cell types between the two animals. Three important claims arise from this comparison: 1. The unanticipated discovery of a cell cluster in each species that has no counterpart in the clusters of the other species. 2. That the primary mesenchyme cells (PMCs) of the sea urchin, thought to be a novel cell type in the sea urchin, share significant transcriptomic profiles with the cells of the right coelom of the sea star; 3. That pigment cells of the sea urchin also thought to be a novelty in the sea urchin, shares transcriptomic signatures with immune and neural cells of the sea star.

The strength of the study by Meyer et. al. is the robustness of the newly generated sea star single-nuclei RNA-sequencing dataset, as well as the rigorous validation and biologically meaningful interpretation of the data. As a result, the conclusions of Meyer et. al. concerning the description of sea star cell types are convincing, robust, and biologically important. A potential weakness of the study is the method used for integrating this data with that of the sea urchin. The integration method employed is based on generating a list of genes with 1:1 orthology between the two species and then computing a common cell type atlas by using only the genes with 1:1 orthology. Given the relatively large evolutionary distance between sea urchins and sea stars, and the growing evidence suggesting that paralogs may be more functionally similar than orthologs across species, the method employed for integrating the two datasets might limit the depth and robustness of the comparison.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Overall, the data quality and analyses are solid. The authors have extracted a lot of detailed information about gene expression in specific cell types of the sea star embryo, and this descriptive narrative forms much of the Results section. However, the most interesting analyses will be the between-species comparisons. The authors identify several striking differences in the apparent presence or absence of specific cell types between seastar and sea urchins. Some confirm well-known differences, such as the absence of pigmented and skeletogenic mesenchyme cells in seastar embryos based on morphological comparisons. Other findings are novel, such as transcriptionally distinct left and right coelomic pouches as early as late gastrula and the apparent absence of germ cells in seastar embryos. These findings are based on solid evidence, highly informative regarding molecular details, and will no doubt inspire many future studies, both into developmental mechanisms per se and into the evolution of development. While the descriptive part of this study is solid and highly informative, the evolutionary interpretations are more problematic. The Abstract and Introduction emphasize the promise of sc/snRNAseq to shed light on the evolution of cell types and novelty, but the data themselves tell a less clear-cut story. Indeed, for me, the biggest takeaway from reading this manuscript is that it is quite difficult to identify when a novel cell type has evolved based solely on analysis of embryonic stages. The last stage examined is late gastrula, which means that some cell types may appear to be missing simply because they have not yet begun to differentiate transcriptionally. An example would be germ cells since adults make gametes. Another limitation is that just two species are compared. This means that for any given difference in cell type composition, it is not possible to distinguish whether this represents a novel cell type in one species or the loss (or delay in differentiation) of a cell type in the other species. The authors are generally careful to identify these limitations when presenting results, but it does lead me to wonder why they did not choose to examine later stages of development when more cells are clearly differentiated.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors have compiled and analysed a unique dataset of patients with treatment-resistant aggressive behaviours who received deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the posterior hypothalamic region. They used established analysis pipelines to identify local predictors of clinical outcomes and performed normative structural and functional connectivity analyses to derive networks associated with treatment response. Finally, Gouveia et al. perform spatial transcriptomics to determine the molecular substrates subserving the identified circuits. The inclusion of data from multiple centres is a notable strength of this retrospective study, but there are current limitations in the methodology and interpretation of findings that need to be addressed.

1) The validation of findings is heterogeneous and inconsistent across analysis pipelines. While the authors performed non-parametric permutation testing during sweet-spot mapping, structural and functional connectivity were validated using a 'four-fold consistency analysis'. The latter consists of a visual representation of streamlines and peak intensities after randomly dividing data into four groups, the findings were not validated quantitatively. If possible, the authors should apply permutation analysis in alignment with sweet-spot mapping and demonstrate the predictive ability of their identified networks in a LOO or k-fold cross-validation paradigm as carried out by similar studies. Given that the data has been derived from multiple centers, the prediction of left-out cohorts based on models generated by the remaining cohorts could be another means of validation. If validation is not possible, the authors should clearly state the limitations of their approach.

2) In addition to a 'four-fold consistency analysis', functional connectivity was evaluated using LOOCV in a priori identified ROIs. Their network analysis, however, revealed a far more extensive network encompassing cortical, subcortical, and cerebellar structures. To avoid selection bias the authors should incorporate identified structures into their analysis and apply appropriate means of validation.

3) Functional connectivity mapping: how were R-maps generated? The authors mention that patient-specific R-maps were p-thresholded and corrected for multiple comparisons, but it is not clear how group-level maps were generated. How did the authors perform regression on these maps? Were voxels that did not survive thresholding excluded?

4) The authors determined that age was a significant prédictor of the outcome, but it is unclear whether certain age groups presented with distinct etiologies underlying their aggressiveness. For example, aggression in epilepsy may show a better response to DBS as opposed to schizophrenia. How does patient outcome change when stratifying according to etiology? How does model performance change when controlling for etiology? The authors should include the etiology of aggressiveness in Table 1.

5) Stimulation parameters. The authors report average pulse widths of 219 µs and 142µs respectively, which is up to 4-fold higher as compared to DBS settings used conventionally in movement disorders and will significantly alter the volume of activated tissue. Did the authors account for the drastic increases in pulse width during VAT modeling?

6) Imaging transcriptomics. The methods described lack detail: How did the authors account for differences in expression across donors, samples, and regions during preprocessing of the Allen Human Brain Atlas? How was expression data collapsed into regions of interest? Did the authors apply any normalization? Recent publications have introduced reproducible workflows for processing and preparing the AHBA expression data for analysis that is publicly available.

7) 'genes with similar patterns of spatial distribution to the TFCE map were compiled in an extensive list'. It is unclear why authors used TFCE maps for spatial transcriptomics as opposed to the functional connectivity map featured in Figure 5. How was similarity measured between the TFCE map and the AHBA? How were candidate genes identified? Please provide a more comprehensive description of the analysis pipeline.

8) What do the bar plots in Figure 7 (left) represent? P-values? The authors should label the axes to make this clear to the reader.

9) Interprétation of imaging transcriptomics: The authors identify a therapeutic circuit associated with deep brain stimulation of the posterior hypothalamic area, however, it is unclear how to reconcile genes associated with hormones, inflammation, and plasticity in this context. The authors mention and discuss genes implicated in hormonal processing, specifically oxytocin. The results provided in Figure 7, however, do not support this finding and it is unclear how the authors identified genes linked to oxytocin. In addition, the authors identified reductions in the number of microglia and astrocytes, while oligodendrocytes were overexpressed relative to the expected distribution of genes per cell type. These findings were attributed to DBS effects, however, both connectomic and transcriptomic data are acquired from healthy subjects, which suggests a physiological deficit/enrichment in a therapeutic circuit. How do the authors interpret findings given that no electrode implantation and stimulation were performed?

10) Data availability. Code used for data processing should be made openly available or shared as source data along with the Figures that were generated using the code. Sweet-spot, structural, and functional connectivity maps should be shared openly.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an important, relatively new approach for treating refractory psychiatric illnesses including depression, addiction, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. This study examines the structural and functional connections associated with symptom improvement following DBS in the posterior hypothalamus (pHyp-DBS) for severe and refractory aggressive behavior. Behavioral assessments, outcome data, electrode placements, and structural and functional (resting-state) imaging data were collected from 33 patients from 5 sites. The results show structural connections of the effective electrodes (91% of patients responded positively) were with sensorimotor regions, emotional regulation areas, and monoamine pathways. Functional connectivity between the target, periaqueductal gray, and amygdala was highly predictive of treatment outcome.

Strengths.<br /> This dataset is interesting and potentially valuable.

Weaknesses.<br /> The figures seem to indicate that electrodes and symptom improvement is located lateral to the hypothalamus, perhaps in the subthalamic nucleus (STN). This is might explain why the streamlines from the tractography are strongest in motor regions. The inclusion of the monoaminergic based on the tractography is not warranted, as the resolution is not sufficient to demonstrate the distinction between the MFB (a relatively small bundle) and others flowing through this region to the brainstem.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The strength of the manuscript is highlighted by the application of fractal formalism, which is commonly used in colloidal systems, in conjunction with MD simulation to study the phase separation of an IDP. The weakness lies in the fact that this study does not provide any discussion on how our understanding of the network structure and dynamical behavior of biomolecular condensates and their biological significance improves through this study. The experimental part remains weak, without any measurements of the dynamics of the condensates. Whether and how the formalism can distinguish between phase-separated condensates (WT) and classical protein aggregates (Y to A variant) remains unclear.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

A key aspect of the work is to use the simulations to explain differences between (i) dilute and dense phases and (ii) wild-type and mutant variants. Here, it would be important with a clearer analysis of convergence and errors to quantify which differences are significant.

It would also be useful with a clearer description of how the analytical model is predictive, of which properties, and how they have been/can be validated. Which measurable quantities does the model predict?

In addition to these overall questions, a number of more specific suggestions follow below.

Major:

p. 7, line 120 (Fig. S1B)<br /> The proteins do not appear particularly pure based on the presented SDS PAGE analysis. How pure is the protein estimated to be, and is the presence of the other bands expected to affect e.g. the data presented in Fig. 1?

p. 7 & 8, lines 138-159:<br /> Has the method and energy function used to calculate the interact potential been validated by comparison to experiments, including studying the effect of varying the solvent? I see the computed error bars are very small, but am more interested in the average error when comparing to experiments. The numbers in water appear different from those e.g. reported by Krainer et al (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21181-9), though the latter are also not immediately compared to experiments. Thus, it would be useful to know how much to trust these numbers.

p. 8, lines 149-154:<br /> Following up on the above, the authors also write "Importantly, only in the latter case are the R-Y interactions slightly more favorable than the K-Y ones (Figure S1C). While this can potentially contribute to increasing of Csat for the R>K mutant as compared to WT, the estimated thermodynamic effect is not too strong, especially if one considers that these interactions take place in an environment with largely water-like polarity. Therefore, the effect of R>K substitution on LLPS should be further explored in the context of protein-protein interactions."<br /> In the absence of estimates of the accuracy of the predictions, these sentences are somewhat unclear. Also, it is unclear what the authors mean by that the effect of R>K should be studied; there are already several examples of this (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.06.006 [already cited], https://doi.org/10.1038/s41557-021-00840-w & https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2000223117 come to mind, but there are likely more).

p. 8, lines 161-162:<br /> The authors perform MD simulations of Lge1 and variants using 24 copies and a box that gives them protein concentrations "in the mM concentration range". I realize that there's a concern about what is computationally feasible, but it would be important with an argument for this choice. Why is 24 expected to be enough to represent a condensate (I expect that there could be substantial finite-size effects)? What is the exact protein concentration in the simulations of the 24 chains [and of the 1-chain simulations]? How does this protein concentration compare to that in the condensates? The authors performed simulations in the NPT ensemble; how stable were the box dimensions?

Also, did the authors include the Strep- and His-tags in the simulations? If not, why not?

Throughout:<br /> One of my major concerns about this work is the general lack of analysis of convergence of the simulations. The authors must present some solid analysis of which results are robust given the relatively short simulations and potential for bias from the chosen starting structures.

As an example, on p. 8 the authors discuss a potential asymmetry between the interactions found in the dilute (single-copy) and dense (24-mer) phases. These observations are somewhat in contrast to other observations in the field, namely that it is the same interactions that drive compaction of monomers as those that drive condensate formation.

Obviously, both the results in the literature and those presented here could be true. But in order to substantiate the statements made here, the authors should show some substantial statistical analyses to make it clear which differences are robust.

The above holds for all parts of the computational/simulation work (e.g. other aspects of Fig. 2)

Similarly, how were the errors of the radius of gyration for WT, R>K and Y>A mutants calculated? Is the Rg for WT significantly smaller than the values for the two mutants? And are the differences in Rg between single-copy and multi-copy simulations statistically significant? I am asking since converging the Rg of IDPs of this length in all-atom MD is not easy.

p. 12, line 251:<br /> Has the MIST formalism been validated for IDPs; if so please provide a reference.

p. 5, line 105, p. 16 line 334 and p. 18 line 283:<br /> It is not completely clear what the predictions are and what/which experiments they are compared to. On p. 16, exactly what does the analytical model predict? As far as I understand, the results from the MD simulations are input to the model, but I am probably missing something.<br /> Which concrete and testable predictions does the model enable?

p. 19, lines 408-411:<br /> The authors find that when building clusters of Y>A from the simulations they find filamentous structures that they suggest explain the aggregation of the Y>A variant at high concentrations. While that sounds like an intriguing suggestion, it would be useful with a bit more detail about the robustness of this observation. For example, the simulations of Y>A appear similar to that of R>K; are the differences in topology really significantly different?

Finally, I would suggest that the authors make their code and data available in electronic format.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This article describes the application of a computational model, previously published in 2021 in Neuron, to an empirical dataset from monkeys, previously published in 2018 in eLife. The 2021 modeling paper argued that the model can be used to determine whether a particular task depends on the perirhinal cortex as opposed to being soluble using ventral visual stream structures alone. The 2018 empirical paper used a series of visual discrimination tasks in monkeys that were designed to contain high levels of 'feature ambiguity' (in which the stimuli that must be discriminated share a large proportion of overlapping features), and yet animals with rhinal cortex lesions were unimpaired, leading the authors to conclude that perirhinal cortex is not involved in the visual perception of objects. The present article revisits and revises that conclusion: when the 2018 tasks are run through the 2021 computational model, the model suggests that they should not depend on perirhinal cortex function after all, because the model of VVS function achieves the same levels of performance as both controls and PRC-lesioned animals from the 2018 paper. This leads the authors of the present study to conclude that the 2018 data are simply "non-diagnostic" in terms of the involvement of the perirhinal cortex in object perception.

The authors have successfully applied the computational tool from 2021 to empirical data, in exactly the way the tool was designed to be used. To the extent that the model can be accepted as a veridical proxy for primate VVS function, its conclusions can be trusted and this study provides a useful piece of information in the interpretation of often contradictory literature. However, I found the contribution to be rather modest. The results of this computational study pertain to only a single empirical study from the literature on perirhinal function (Eldridge et al, 2018). Thus, it cannot be argued that by reinterpreting this study, the current contribution resolves all controversy or even most of the controversy in the foregoing literature. The Bonnen et al. 2021 paper provided a potentially useful computational tool for evaluating the empirical literature, but using that tool to evaluate (and ultimately rule out as non-diagnostic) a single study does not seem to warrant an entire manuscript: I would expect to see a reevaluation of a much larger sample of data in order to make a significant contribution to the literature, above and beyond the paper already published in 2021. In addition, the manuscript in its current form leaves the motivations for some analyses under-specified and the methods occasionally obscure.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The goal of this paper is to use a model-based approach, developed by one of the authors and colleagues in 2021, to critically re-evaluate the claims made in a prior paper from 2018, written by the other author of this paper (and colleagues), concerning the role of perirhinal cortex in visual perception. The prior paper compared monkeys with and without lesions to the perirhinal cortex and found that their performance was indistinguishable on a difficult perceptual task (categorizing dog-cat morphs as dogs or cats). Because the performance was the same, the conclusion was that the perirhinal cortex is not needed for this task, and probably not needed for perception in general, since this task was chosen specifically to be a task that the perirhinal cortex *might* be important for. Well, the current work argues that in fact the task and stimuli were poorly chosen since the task can be accomplished by a model of the ventral visual cortex. More generally, the authors start with the logic that the perirhinal cortex gets input from the ventral visual processing stream and that if a task can be performed by the ventral visual processing stream alone, then the perirhinal cortex will add no benefit to that task. Hence to determine whether the perirhinal cortex plays a role in perception, one needs a task (and stimulus set) that cannot be done by the ventral visual cortex alone (or cannot be done at the level of monkeys or humans).

There are two important questions the authors then address. First, can their model of the ventral visual cortex perform as well as macaques (with no lesion) on this task? The answer is yes, based on the analysis of this paper. The second question is, are there any tasks that humans or monkeys can perform better than their ventral visual model? If not, then maybe the ventral visual model (and biological ventral visual processing stream) is sufficient for all recognition. The answer here too is yes, there are some tasks humans can perform better than the model. These then would be good tasks to test with a lesion approach to the perirhinal cortex. It is worth noting, though, that none of the analyses showing that humans can outperform the ventral visual model are included in this paper - the papers which showed this are cited but not discussed in detail.

Major strength:<br /> The computational and conceptual frameworks are very valuable. The authors make a compelling case that when patients (or animals) with perirhinal lesions perform equally to those without lesions, the interpretation is ambiguous: it could be that the perirhinal cortex doesn't matter for perception in general, or it could be that it doesn't matter for this stimulus set. They now have a way to distinguish these two possibilities, at least insofar as one trusts their ventral visual model (a standard convolutional neural network). While of course, the model cannot be perfectly accurate, it is nonetheless helpful to have a concrete tool to make a first-pass reasonable guess at how to disambiguate results. Here, the authors offer a potential way forward by trying to identify the kinds of stimuli that will vs won't rely on processing beyond the ventral visual stream. The re-interpretation of the 2018 paper is pretty compelling.

Major weakness:<br /> It is not clear that an off-the-shelf convolution neural network really is a great model of the ventral visual stream. Among other things, it lacks eccentricity-dependent scaling. It also lacks recurrence (as far as I could tell). To the authors' credit, they show detailed analysis on an image-by-image basis showing that in fine detail the model is not a good approximation of monkey choice behavior. This imposes limits on how much trust one should put in model performance as a predictor of whether the ventral visual cortex is sufficient to do a task or not. For example, suppose the authors had found that their model did more poorly than the monkeys (lesioned or not lesioned). According to their own logic, they would have, it seems, been led to the interpretation that some area outside of the ventral visual cortex (but not the perirhinal cortex) contributes to perception, when in fact it could have simply been that their model missed important aspects of ventral visual processing. That didn't happen in this paper, but it is a possible limitation of the method if one wanted to generalize it. There is work suggesting that recurrence in neural networks is essential for capturing the pattern of human behavior on some difficult perceptual judgments (e.g., Kietzmann et al 2019, PNAS). In other words, if the ventral model does not match human (or macaque) performance on some recognition task, it does not imply that an area outside the ventral stream is needed - it could just be that a better ventral model (eg with recurrence, or some other property not included in the model) is needed. This weakness pertains to the generalizability of the approach, not to the specific claims made in this paper, which appear sound.

A second issue is that the title of the paper, "Inconsistencies between human and macaque lesion data can be resolved with a stimulus-computable model of the ventral visual stream" does not seem to be supported by the paper. The paper challenges a conclusion about macaque lesion data. What inconsistency is reconciled, and how?

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Yong and colleagues link perturbations in lysosomal lipid metabolism with the generation of protein aggregates resulting from proteosome inhibition. The main tool used is the ProteoStat stain to assess protein aggregate burden in native cells (i.e. cells under no exogenous or endogenous stress). They initially use CRISPR-based genome-wide screens to identify several genes that affect this aggregate burden. Interestingly, knockdown of genes involved in lysosomal acidification was a major signature which led to identification of other culprit lysosome-associated genes that included ones involved in lipid metabolism. Subsequent CRISPR screen focused on lipidomic analysis led to identification of sphingolipid and cholesterol esters as lipid classes with effects on proteostasis. Despite using various tools of lysosomal function, acidity, permeability, etc, the authors couldn't identify the link between lysosomal lipid metabolism and protein aggregate formation. Nevertheless, the interrelationship of these two processes was the overall conclusion of this manuscript.

Although this work is interesting and thought-provoking, their approach to identify novel pathways involved in proteostasis is limited and this weakens the contribution of the paper in its current form.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

It is certainly an interesting observation that lipid homeostasis influences proteostasis, although this need not be considered so surprising given that many fundamental cellular processes are interconnected. The paper is deserves to be read, but the level of general interest would be greatly enhanced if the authors were able to take the story further mechanistically. This might be too much of an ask, but they should go further in excluding one very attractive alternative model: effects on proteasome activity. This explanation should be addressed definitively because the transcription factor that regulates proteasome subunit gene expression (Nrf1/NFE2L1) is processed in the ER and is therefore well placed to be influenced by membrane conditions, and because it is shown here that proteasome inhibition increase ProteoStat puncta. Indeed, some years ago it was published that Nrf1/NFE2L1 is inhibited within the ER membrane by cholesterol, and a more recent paper showed that in C. elegans it is activated by oleic acid through effects on ER membrane homeostasis and lipid droplet formation. The authors address proteasome activity only by using a dye that is not referenced. Here a much more solid answer is needed. In general, most conclusions in the paper rely essentially solely on ProteoStat assays. The entire study would be greatly strengthened if the authors incorporated biochemical or other modalities to substantiate their results.

The presentation would be improved greatly if the authors provided diagrams illustrating the pathways implicated in their results, as well as their models. As it is the paper falls flat at the end of the results in the absence of a mechanism to explain their findings. Diagrams would be helpful for focusing the reader on what IS learned from the work, which is important.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

A typical path from preprocessed data to findings in systems neuroscience often includes a set of analyses that often share common components. For example, an investigator might want to generate plots that relate one time series (e.g., a set of spike times) to another (measurements of a behavioral parameter such as pupil diameter or running speed). In most cases, each individual scientist writes their own code to carry out these analyses, and thus the same basic analysis is coded repeatedly. This is problematic for several reasons, including the waste of time, the potential for errors, and the greater difficulty inherent in sharing highly customized code.

This paper presents Pynapple, a python package that aims to address those problems.

Strengths:

The authors have identified a key need in the community - well-written analysis routines that carry out a core set of functions and can import data from multiple formats. In addition, they recognized that there are some common elements of many analyses, particularly those involving timeseries, and their object-oriented architecture takes advantage of those commonalities to simplify the overall analysis process.

The package is separated into a core set of applications and another with more advanced applications, with the goal of both providing a streamlined base for analyses and allowing for implementations/inclusion of more experimental approaches.

Weaknesses:

There are two main weaknesses of the paper in its present form.

First, the claims relating to the value of the library in everyday use are not demonstrated clearly. There are no comparisons of, for example, the number of lines of code required to carry out a specific analysis with and without Pynapple or Pynacollada. Similarly, the paper does not give the reader a good sense of how analyses are carried out and how the object-oriented architecture provides a simplified user interaction experience. This contrasts with their GitHub page and associated notebooks which do a better job of showing the package in action.

Second, the paper makes several claims about the values of object-oriented programming and the overall design strategy that are not entirely accurate. For example, object-oriented programming does not inherently reduce coding errors, although it can be part of good software engineering. Similarly, there is a claim that the design strategy "ensures stability" when it would be much more accurate to say that these strategies make it easier to maintain the stability of the code. And the authors state that the package has no dependencies, which is not true in the codebase. These and other claims are made without a clear definition of the properties that good scientific analysis software should have (e.g., stability, extensibility, testing infrastructure, etc.).

There is also a minor issue - these packages address an important need for high-level analysis tools but do not provide associated tools for preprocessing (e.g., spike sorting) or for creating reproducible pipelines for these analyses. This is entirely reasonable, in that no one package can be expected to do everything, but a bit deeper account of the process that takes raw data and produces scientific results would be helpful. In addition, some discussion of how this package could be combined with other tools (e.g., DataJoint, Code Ocean) would help provide context for where Pynapple and Pynacollada could fit into a robust and reliable data analysis ecosystem.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Pynapple and Pynacollada have the potential to become very valuable and foundational tools for the analysis of neurophysiological data. NWB still has a steep learning curve and Pynapple offers a user-friendly toolset that can also serve as a wrapper for NWB.

The scope of the manuscript is not clear to me, and the authors could help clarify if Pynacollada and other toolsets in the making become a future aspect of this paper (and Pynapple), or are the authors planning on building these as separate publications.

The author writes that Pynapple can be used without the I/O layer, but the author should clarify how or if Pynapple may work outside NWB.

This brings us to an important fundamental question. What are the advantages of the current approach, where data is imported into the Ts objects, compared to doing the data import into NWB files directly, and then making Pynapple secondary objects loaded from the NWB file? Does NWB natively have the ability to store the 5 object types or are they initialized on every load call?

Many of these functions and objects have a long history in MATLAB - which documents their usefulness, and I believe it would be fitting to put further stress on this aspect - what aspects already existed in MATLAB and what is completely novel. A widely used MATLAB toolset, the FMA toolbox (the Freely moving animal toolbox) has not been cited, which I believe is a mistake.

A limitation in using NWB files is its standardization with limited built-in options for derived data and additional metadata. How are derived data stored in the NWB files?

How is Pynapple handling an existing NWB dataset, where spikes, behavioral traces, and other data types have already been imported?

Public Review:

This paper presents two new tools for investigating GLP-1 signaling. The genetically encoded sensor GLPLight1 follows the plan for other GPCR-based fluorescent sensors, inserting a circularly permuted GFP into an intracellular loop of the GPCR. The light-uncaged agonist peptide, photo-GLP1, has no detectable agonist activity (as judged by the GLPLight1 sensor) until it is activated by light. However, based on the current characterization, it is unclear how useful either of these tools will be for investigating native GLP-1 signaling.

The GLPLight1 sensor has a strong fluorescent response to GLP-1 with an EC50 of ~10 nM, and its specificity is high, as shown by lack of response to ligands of related class B GPCRs. However, the native GLP1R enables biological responses to concentrations that are ~1000-fold lower than this (as shown, for instance, in a supplemental figure of this paper). This makes it difficult to see how the sensor will be useful for in vivo detection of GLP-1 release, as claimed; although there may be biological situations where the concentration is adequate to stimulate the sensor, this is not established. Data using a GLP-1 secreting cell line suggest that the sensor has bound some of the released GLP-1, but it is difficult to have confidence without seeing an actual fluorescence response to stimulated release.

Alternatively, the sensor might be used for drug screening, but it is unclear that this would be an improvement over existing high-throughput methods using the cAMP response to GLP1R activation (since those are much more sensitive and also allow detection of signaling through different downstream pathways).

The utility of the caged agonist PhotoGLP1 is similarly unclear. The data demonstrate a substantial antagonism of GLP-1 binding by the still-caged compound, and it is therefore unclear whether the kinetics of the response to PhotoGLP1 itself would mimic the normal activation by GLP-1 in the absence of the caged compound. A further concern is that the light-dependence of the agonist effect of PhotoGLP1 was evaluated only with the GLPLight1 sensor and not with GLP1R signaling itself, which is 1000x more sensitive and which would be the presumed target of the tool. In addition, PhotoGLP1 is based upon native GLP-1, which is rapidly truncated and inactivated by the peptidase DPPIV, expressed in most cell types, and expressed at very high levels in the plasma. The utility of PhotoGLP1 is therefore limited to acute (minutes) in vitro experiments.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Mature mammalian olfactory sensory neurons (OSN) express only one of the hundreds of possible odor receptors (ORs) encoded in the genome. The process of selecting this OR in each OSN is the consequence of both deterministic developmental processes involving transcription factors, and more stochastic processes. How this balance is implemented is a major problem in molecular neuroscience, one whose solution has significant systems-level implications for odor coding. In Bashkirova et al the authors substantially revise the canonical view of how this process works. By querying single cell transcriptomes and genetic architecture across OSN development, the authors demonstrate that OSN progenitors express ORs for their zone and for more dortsal zones, and that the degree of heterochromatinization of non-expressed ORs varies as a function of which zone a given OSN resides in. Through additional genetic experiments (including knockouts of transcription factors that seem to be associated with zonal identity, and the clever use of OR transgenes) they synthesize these findings into a model in which progenitors co-express many ORs - both ORs that are appropriate for their zone and ORs that are dorsal to their zone - and that this expression both facilitates heterochromatinzation of non-selected and extra-zonal ORs, and enables singular OR selection. The experiments are careful and the data are novel, and definitely revise our simplistic current view of how this process works; as such this work will have significant impact on the field. As presented the model requires additional experiments to fully flesh it out, and to definitively demonstrate that i.e., precocious expression leads to gene silencing, but with some additional clarifications in the discussion this paper both breaks new ground and sets the stage for future work exploring mechanisms of OSN development and OR selection.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, Bashkirova et al. analyzed how the gene choice of olfactory receptors (ORs) is regulated in olfactory sensory neurons (OSNs) during development. In the mouse olfactory system, there are more than 1000 functional OR genes and several hundred pseudogenes. It is well-established that each individual OSN expresses only one functional OR gene in a mono-allelic manner. This is referred to as the one neuron - one receptor rule. It is also known that OR gene choice is not entirely stochastic but restricted to a particular area or zone in the olfactory epithelium (OE) along the dorsoventral axis. It is interesting to study how this stochastic but biased gene-choice is regulated during OSN development, narrowing down the number of OR genes to be chosen to eventually achieve the monogenic OR expression in OSNs.

In the present study, the authors cell-sorted OSNs into three groups; immediate neuronal precursors (INPs), immature OSNs (iOSNs), and mature OSNs (mOSNs). They found that OR gene choice is differentially regulated positively by transcription factors in INPs and negatively by heterochromatin-mediated OR gene silencing in iOSNs. The authors propose that by the combination of two opposing forces of polygenic transcription (positive) and genomic silencing (negative), each OSN finally expresses only one OR gene out of over 2000 alleles in a stochastic but stereotypic manner.

The authors' model of OR gene choice is supported by well-designed experiments and by large amounts of data. In general, the paper is clearly written and easy to follow. It will attract a wide variety of readers in the fields of neuroscience, developmental biology, and immunology. The present finding will give new insight into our understanding of gene choice in the multigene family in the mammalian brain and shed light on the long-standing question of monogenic expression of OR genes.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This manuscript investigates how a seemingly random choice of odourant receptor (OR) gene expression is organised into sterotypic zones of OR expression along the olfactory epithelium. Using a varietty of functional genomics methods, the authors find that along the differentiation axis (progenitor to mature olfactory sensory neuron, OSN) multiple ORs are initally transcribed and from among these, only one OR is selected for expression. The rest are suppressed through chromatin silencing. In addition to this, the authors report a dorso-ventral gradient in OR expression at the immature stage - dorsally expressed ORs are also expressed ventrally and these then get silenced. The expression of the ventrally expressed ORs, on the other hand, are restricted to the ventral region. They suggest a role for the transcription factor NF1 in this dorsoventral process.

This is a valuable study. The data are compelling and generally well presented.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The initial goal of this work was to study how the activity of the C. trachomatis effector Cdu1 impacts on the number and nature of ubiquitinated proteins in infected host cells, and how this is related to a previously described function of Cdu1 in promoting Golgi distribution around the Chlamydia vacuole, known as inclusion.

The authors generated a cdu1-null mutant in C. trachomatis and used proteomics to analyse ubiquitinated proteins in cells infected with Cdu1-producing and Cdu1-deficient chlamydiae, by comparison to mock-infected cells. It was found that among the four proteins specifically ubiquitinated after infection with Cdu1-deficient chlamydiae there were three other C. trachomatis effectors (InaC, IpaM and CTL0480). These three proteins are part of a large family of Chlamydia effectors, known as Incs, that insert in the inclusion membrane.

Based on these observations, the authors then focused in understanding how Cdu1 protects InaC, IpaM and CTL0480 from ubiquitination, and what are the consequences of this protection for the protein levels of these Incs and for their functions during infection. It is shown that Cdu1 can bind InaC, IpaM and CTL0480, and protects these Incs and itself from ubiquitination and proteasomal degradation. This protective function of Cdu1 depends on its acetylation, but not on its deubiquitinating activity, and host cells infected by the cdu1 null mutant show defects that phenocopy those of cells infected by inaC, ipaM or ctl0480 null-mutants.

Finally, it was previously shown that CLT0480 controls/inhibits a pathway of chlamydial egress from host cells involving extrusion of the entire inclusion. The authors show that InaC and IpaM also control/promote extrusion of C. trachomatis inclusion and that the cdu1 null mutant also shows a defect in this process. This leads to the conclusion stated in the title that Cdu1 regulates chlamydial exit from host cells by protecting specific C. trachomatis effectors from degradation.

This is an excellent and impressive work, both from technical and conceptual perspectives, which accomplishes the goal of providing mechanistic insights on the mode of action of Cdu1. Overall, the data provides solid evidence for the proposed model by which the acetylation activity of Cdu1 protects itself and three Incs (InaC, IpaM and CTL0480) from degradation.

I agree that (all together) the data provides a solid support for the idea that the multiple phenotypes displayed by cells infected with the cdu1 null mutant are related to the decreased levels of InaC, IpaM and CTL0480. However, to some extent, these Incs can still be detected in cells infected with the cdu1 null mutant and it cannot be formally excluded that Cdu1 directly promotes assembly of F-actin and Golgi repositioning around the inclusion, MYPT1 recruitment to the inclusion, and extrusion of the inclusion.

Still, I think the major significance of this work comes from the combined use of proteomics and chlamydial genetics to disclose a unique a mechanism by which one effector controls the levels of other effectors. This further emphasizes that for a single bacterium injecting dozens of effectors into host cells, the function of one bacterial effector can control, and be controlled by other effectors.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript describes the detailed characterization of the C. trachomatis protein Cdu1. Previous work that laid the foundation identified two enzymatic activities associated with Cdu1 - deubiquitinase and transacetylase. This work advances current knowledge by identifying Cdu1 targets for stabilization, and establishing the relationship between the two activities of Cdu1. Furthermore, the authors determined that Cdu1 is subject to autostabilization. In addition to the novelty of the findings, the strength of this report is its scientific rigor, with several experimental evidence independently confirmed using a variety of approaches, including the creation of mutants that decoupled deubiquitination from transacetylase activity. Another strength is the direct demonstration of transacetylation of the targets, which increased the relevance of the reported colocalization and interaction of Cdu1 with the targets.

The authors also made a convincing case for the basis of Cdu1 modification of each of the effector targets by linking loss of acetylation with decreased stability. An unexpected result, at least to this reviewer is the requirement for the three effectors in chlamydial egress by extrusion of the inclusion. Cdu1 regulating all three effectors underscores the importance of the timing and efficiency of inclusion extrusion. Additional insights into how the three effectors interact functionally could be obtained by specifically monitoring the timing of extrusion. Data for CTL0480 points to a negative regulator of extrusion, which could be at the level of timing, in addition to efficiency.

Overall, the work is rigorous, and makes important contribution to our understanding of the significance of Cdu1 function in in vitro infection.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this article by Bastidas et al. the authors examine the functions of the Chlamydia deubiquitinating enzyme 1 (Cdu1) during infections of human cells. First, a mutant lacking Cdu1 but not Cdu2 was constructed using targetron and quantitative proteomics was used to identify differences in ubiquitinated proteins (both host and bacterial) during infection. While they found minimal changes in host protein ubiquitination, they identified three Chlamydia effector proteins, IpaM, InaC and CTL0480 were all ubiquitinated in the absence of Cdu1. Microscopy and immunoprecipitations found Cdu1 directly interacts with these Chlamydia effectors and confirmed that Cdu1 mediates the stabilization of these effectors at the inclusion membrane during late infection time points. Surprisingly rather than deubiquitination driving this stabilization, the acetylation function of Cdu1 was required, and acetylation on lysine residues prevented degradative ubiquitination of Cdu1, IpaM, InaC and CTL0480. In line with this observation the authors show that loss of Cdu1 phenocopies the loss of single effector mutants of InaC, IpaM and CTL0480, including golgi stack formation and the recruitment of MYPT1 to the inclusion. The aggregation of changes to the Chlamydia inclusion does not alter growth but controls extrusion of chlamydia from cells with reduced extrusion in Cdu1 mutant Chlamydia infections. The strengths of the manuscript are the range of assays used to convincingly examine the biochemical and cellular biology underlying Cdu1 functions. The finding that acetylation of lysine residues is a mechanisms for bacterial effectors to block degradative ubiqutination is impactful and will open new investigations into this mechanism for many intracellular pathogens. There are a few weaknesses that temper enthusiasm for the manuscript in its current form. These include caveats related to the timing of proteomics, the lack of an effect of Cdu1 directly on bacterial growth, and discussion of previous studies. Altogether this is an important series of findings that help to understand the mechanisms underpinning Chlamydia pathogenesis using orthologous methods with a few caveats that lower the overall impact.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In the manuscript titled "Vangl2 suppresses NF-κB signaling and ameliorates sepsis by targeting p65 for NDP52-mediated autophagic degradation" by Lu et al, the authors show that Vangl2, a planner cell polarity component, plays a direct role in autophagic degradation of NFkB-p65 by facilitating its ubiquitination via PDLIM2 and subsequent recognition and autophagic targeting via the autophagy adaptor protein NDP52. Conceptually it is a wonderful study with excellent execution of experiments and controls. The concerns with the manuscript are mainly on two counts - First issue is the kinetics of p65 regulation reported here, which does not fit into the kinetics of the mechanism proposed here, i.e., Vangl2-mediated ubiquitination followed by autophagic degradation of p65. The second issue is more technical- an absolute lack of quantitative analyses. The authors rely mostly on visual qualitative interpretation to assess an increase or decrease in associations between partner molecules throughout the study. While the overall mechanism is interesting, the authors should address these concerns as highlighted below:

Major points:

1) Kinetics of p65 regulation by Vangl2: As mentioned above, authors report that LPS stimulation leads to higher IKK and p65 activation in the absence of Vangl2. The mechanism of action authors subsequently work out is that- Vangl2 helps recruit E3 ligase PDLIM to p65, which causes K63 ubiquitination, which is recognised by NDP52 for autophagic targeting. Curiously, peak p65 activation is achieved within 30 minutes of LPS stimulation. The time scale of all other assays is way longer. It is not clear that in WT cells, p65 could be targeted to autophagic degradation in Vangl2 dependent manner within 30 minutes. The HA-Myc-Flag-based overexpression and Co-IP studies do confirm the interactions as proposed. However, they do not prove that this mechanism was responsible for the Vangl2-mediated modulation of p65 activation upon LPS stimulation. Moreover, the Vangl2 KO line also shows increased IKK activation. The authors do not show the cause behind increased IKK activation, which in itself can trigger increased p65 phosphorylation.<br /> 2) The other major concern is regarding the lack of quantitative assessments. For Co-IP experiments, I can understand it is qualitative observation. However, when the authors infer that there is an increase or decrease in the association through co-IP immunoblots, it should also be quantified, especially since the differences are quite marginal and could be easily misinterpreted.<br /> 3) Figure 4E and F: It is evident that inhibiting Autolysosome (CQ or BafA1) or autophagy (3MA) led to the recovery of p65 levels and inducing autophagy by Rapamycin led to faster decay in p65 levels. Did the authors also note/explore the possibility that Vangl2 itself may be degraded via the autophagy pathway? IB of WCL upon CQ/BAF/3MA or upon Rapa treatment does indicate the same. If true, how would that impact the dynamics of p65 activation?<br /> 4) Autophagic targeting of p65 should also be shown through alternate evidence, like microscopy etc., in the LPS-stimulated WT cells.

Limitation: The mechanism behind enhanced activation of IKK in the absence of Vangl2 remains unclear. It is possible there is an autophagy-independent mechanism also involved in this regulation.

Summary: The study shows a new mechanism of NFkB-p65 regulation mediated by Vangl2-dependent autophagic targeting. Autophagic regulation of p65 has been reported earlier; this study brings an additional set of molecular players involved in this important regulatory event, which may have implications for chronic and acute inflammatory conditions.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Vangl2, a core planar cell polarity protein involved in Wnt/PCP signaling, mediates cell proliferation, differentiation, homeostasis, and cell migration. Vangl2 malfunctioning has been linked to various human ailments, including autoimmune and neoplastic disorders. Interestingly, Vangl2 was shown to interact with the autophagy regulator p62, and indeed, autophagic degradation limits the activity of inflammatory mediators such as p65/NF-κB. However, if Vangl2, per se, contributes to restraining aberrant p65/NF-kB activity remains unclear.

In this manuscript, Lu et al. describe that Vangl2 expression is upregulated in human sepsis-associated PBMCs and that Vangl2 mitigates experimental sepsis in mice by negatively regulating p65/NF-κB signaling in myeloid cells. Vangl2 recruits the E3 ubiquitin ligase PDLIM2 to promote K63-linked poly-ubiquitination of p65. Vangl2 also facilitates the recognition of ubiquitinated p65 by the cargo receptor NDP52. These molecular processes cause selective autophagic degradation of p65. Indeed, abrogation of PDLIM2 or NDP52 functions rescued p65 from autophagic degradation, leading to extended p65/NF-κB activity.

As such, the manuscript presents a substantial body of interesting work and a novel mechanism of NF-κB control. If found true, the proposed mechanism may expand therapeutic opportunities for inflammatory diseases. However, the current draft has significant weaknesses that need to be addressed.

Specific comments<br /> 1. Vangl2 deficiency did not cause a discernible increase in the cellular level of total endogenous p65 (Fig 2A and Fig 2B) but accumulated also phosphorylated IKK.<br /> Even Fig 4D reveals that Vangl2 exerts a rather modest effect on the total p65 level and the figure does not provide any standard error for the quantified data. Therefore, these results do not fully support the proposed model (Figure 7) - this is a significant draw back. Instead, these data provoke an alternate hypothesis that Vangl2 could be specifically mediating autophagic removal of phosphorylated IKK and phosphorylated IKK, leading to exacerbated inflammatory NF-κB response in Vangl2-deficient cells. One may need to use phosphorylation-defective mutants of p65, at least in the over-expression experiments, to dissect between these possibilities.<br /> 2. Fig 1A: The data indicates the presence of two subgroups within the sepsis cohort - one with high Vangl2 expressions and the other with relatively normal Vangle2 expression. Was there any difference with respect to NF-κB target inflammatory gene expressions between these subgroups?<br /> 3. The effect of Vangl2 deficiency was rather modest in the neutrophil. Could it be that Vangl2 mediates its effect mostly in macrophages?<br /> 4. Fig 1D and Figure 1E: Data for unstimulated Vangl2 cells should be provided. Also, the source of the IL-1β primary antibody has not been mentioned.<br /> 5. The relevance and the requirement of RNA-seq analysis are not clear in the present draft. Figure 1E already reveals upregulation of the signature NF-κB target inflammatory genes upon Vangl2 deficiency.<br /> 6. Fig 2A reveals an increased accumulation of phosphorylated p65 and IKK in Vangl2-deficient macrophages upon LPS stimulation within 30 minutes. However, Vangl2 accumulates at around 60 minutes post-stimulation in WT cells. Similar results were obtained for neutrophils (Fig 2B). There appears to be a temporal disconnect between Vangl2 and phosphorylated p65 accumulation - this must be clarified.<br /> 7. Figure 2E and 2F do not have untreated controls. Presentations in Fig 2E may be improved to more clearly depict IL6 and TNF data, preferably with separate Y-axes.<br /> 8. Line 219: "strongly with IKKα, p65 and MyD88, and weak" - should be revised.<br /> 9. It is not clear why IKKβ was excluded from interaction studies in Fig S3G.<br /> 10. Fig 3F- In the text, authors mentioned that Vangl2 strongly associates with p65 upon LPS stimulation in BMDM. However, no controls, including input or another p65-interacting protein, were used.<br /> 11. Figure 4D - Authors claim that Vangl2-deficient BMDMs stabilized the expression of endogenous p65 after LPS treatment. However, p65 levels were particularly constitutively elevated in knockout cells, and LPS signaling did not cause any further upregulation. This again indicates the role of Vangl2 in the basal state. The authors need to explain this and revise the test accordingly.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Lu et al. describe Vangl2 as a negative regulator of inflammation in myeloid cells. The primary mechanism appears to be through binding p65 and promoting its degradation, albeit in an unusual autolysosome/autophagy dependent manner. Overall, the findings are novel and the crosstalk of PCP pathway protein Vangl2 with NF-kappaB is of interest. Whether PCP is anyway relevant or if this is a PCP-independent function of Vangl2 is not directly explored (the later appears more likely from the manuscript/discussion). PCP pathways intersect often with developmentally important pathways such as WNT, HH/GLI, Fat-Dachsous and even mechanical tension. It might be of importance to investigate whether Vangl2-dependent NF-kappaB is influenced by developmental pathways. Are Vangl2 phosphorylations (S5, S82 and S84) in anyway necessary for the observed effects on NF-kappaB or would a phospho-mutant (alanine substitution mutant) Vangl2 phenocopy WT Vangl2 for regulation of NF-kappaB? Another area to strengthen might be with regards to specificity of cell types where this phenomenon may be observed. LPS treatment in mice resulted in Vangl2 upregulation in spleen and lymph nodes, but not in lung and liver. What explains the specificity of organ/cell-type Vangl2 upregulation and its consequences observed here? Why is NF-kappaB signaling not more broadly or even ubiquitously affected in all cell types in a Vangl2-dependent manner, rather than being restricted to macrophages, neutrophils and peritoneal macrophages, or, for that matter, in spleen and LN and not liver and lung? After all, one may think that the PCP proteins, as well as NF-kappaB, are ubiquitous. Regardless, Vangl2 as a negative regulator of NF-kappaB is an important finding. There are, however, some concerns about methodology and statistics that need to be addressed.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript features a key technical advance in single-molecular force spectroscopy. The critical advance is to employ a click chemistry (DBCO-cycloaddition) for making a stable covalent connection between a target biomacromolecule and solid support in place of conventional antigen-antibody binding. This tweak dramatically improves the mechanical stability of the pulling system such that the pulling/relaxation can be repeated up to a thousand times (the previous limit was a few hundred cycles at best). This improvement is broadly applicable to various molecular interactions and other types of single-molecule force spectroscopy allowing for more statistically reliable force measurements. Another strength of this method is that all conjugation steps are chemically orthogonal (except for Spy-catcher conjugation to the termini of a target molecule) such that the probability of side reactions could be reduced.

The reliability of kinetic and thermodynamic parameters obtained from single-molecule force spectroscopy depends on statistics, that is, the number of pulling measurements and their distribution. By extending the number of measurements, this robust method enables fundamental/critical statistical assessment of those parameters. That is, it is an important and interesting lesson from this study that ~200 repeats can yield statistically reasonable parameters.

The authors carried out carefully designed optimization steps and inform readers of the critical aspects of each. The merit, quality, and rigor as a method-oriented manuscript are impressive. Overall, this is an excellent study.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, the authors have developed methods that allow for repeatedly unfolding and refolding a membrane protein using a magnetic tweezers setup. The goal is to extend the lifespan of the single-molecule construct and gather more data from the same tether under force. This is achieved through the use of a metal-free DBCO-azide click reaction that covalently attaches a DNA handle to a superparamagnetic bead, a traptavdin-dual biotin linkage that provides a strong connection between another DNA handle and the coverslip surface, and SpyTag-SpyCatcher association for covalent connection of the membrane protein to the two DNA handles.

The method may offer a long lifetime for single-molecule linkage; however, it does not represent a significant technological advancement. These reactions are commonly used in the field of single-molecule manipulation studies. The use of multiple tags including biotin and digoxygenin to enhance the connection's mechanical stability has already been explored in previous DNA mechanics studies by multiple research labs. Additionally, conducting single-molecule manipulation experiments on a single DNA or protein tether for an extended period of time (hours or even days) has been documented by several research groups.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors describe a method to tether proteins via DNA linkers in magnetic tweezers and apply it to a model membrane protein. The main novelty appears to be the use of DBCO click chemistry to covalently couple to the magnetic bead, which creates stable tethers for which the authors report up to >1000 force-extension cycles. Novel and stable attachment strategies are indeed important for force spectroscopy measurements, in particular for membrane proteins that are harder and therefore less studied in this regard than soluble proteins, and recording >1000 stretch and release cycles is an impressive achievement. Unfortunately, I feel that the current work falls short in some regards to exploring the full potential of the method, or at least does not provide sufficient information to fully assess the performance of the new method. Specific questions and points of attention are included below.

- The main improvement appears to be the more stable and robust tethering approach, compared to previous methods. However, the stability is hard to evaluate from the data provided. The much more common way to test stability in the tweezers is to report lifetimes at constant force(s). Also, there are actually previous methods that report on covalent attachment, even working using DBCO. These papers should be compared.

- The authors use the attachment to the surface via two biotin-traptavidin linkages. How does the stability of this (double) bond compare to using a single biotin? Engineered streptavidin versions have been studied previously in the magnetic tweezers, again reporting lifetimes under constant force, which appears to be a relevant point of comparison.

- Very long measurements of protein unfolding and refolding have been reported previously. Here, too, a comparison would be relevant. In light of this previous work, the statement in the abstract "However, the weak molecular tethers used in the tweezers limit a long time, repetitive mechanical manipulation because of their force-induced bond breakage" seems a little dubious. I do not doubt that there is a need for new and better attachment chemistries, but I think it is important to be clear about what has been done already.

- Page 5, line 99: If the PEG layer prevents any sticking of beads, how do the authors attach reference beads, which are typically used in magnetic tweezers to subtract drift?

- Figure 3 left me somewhat puzzled. It appears to suggest that the "no detergent/lipid" condition actually works best, since it provides functional "single-molecule conjugation" for two different DBCO concentrations and two different DNA handles, unlike any other condition. But how can you have a membrane protein without any detergent or lipid? This seems hard to believe.<br /> Figure 3 also seems to imply that the bicelle conditions never work. The schematic in Figure 1 is then fairly misleading since it implies that bicelles also work.

- When it comes to investigating the unfolding and refolding of scTMHC2, it would be nice to see some traces also at a constant force. As the authors state themselves: magnetic tweezers have the advantage that they "enable constant low-force measurements" (page 8, line 189). Why not use this advantage?<br /> In particular, I would be curious to see constant force traces in the "helix coil transition zone". Can steps in the unfolding landscape be identified? Are there intermediates?

- Speaking of loading rates and forces: How were the forces calibrated? This seems to not be discussed. And how were constant loading rates achieved? In Figure 4 it is stated that experiments are performed at "different pulling speeds". How is this possible? In AFM (and OT) one controls position and measures force. In MT, however, you set the force and the bead position is not directly controlled, so how is a given pulling speed ensured?<br /> It appears to me that the numbers indicated in Figures 4A and B are actually the speeds at which the magnets are moved. This is not "pulling speed" as it is usually defined in the AFM and OT literature. Even more confusing, moving the magnets at a constant speed, would NOT correspond to a constant loading rate (which seems to be suggested in Figure 4A), given that the relationship between magnet positions and force is non-linear (in fact, it is approximately exponential in the configuration shown schematically in Figure 1).

- Finally, when it comes to the analysis of errors, I am again puzzled. For the M270 beads used in this work, the bead-to-bead variation in force is about 10%. However, it will be constant for a given bead throughout the experiment. I would expect the apparent unfolding force to exhibit fluctuations from cycle to cycle for a given bead (due to its intrinsically stochastic nature), but also some systematic trends in a bead-to-bead comparison since the actual force will be different (by 10% standard deviation) for different beads. Unfortunately, the authors average this effect away, by averaging over beads for each cycle (Figure 4). To me, it makes much more sense to average over the 1000 cycles for each bead and then compare. Not surprisingly, they find a larger error "with bead size error" than without it (Figure 5A). However, this information could likely be used (and the error corrected), if they would only first analyze the beads separately.<br /> What is the physical explanation of the first fast and then slow decay of the error (Figure 5B)? I would have expected the error for a given bead after N pulling cycles to decrease as 1/sqrt(N) since each cycle gives an independent measurement. Has this been tested?

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In the manuscript " Cell Rearrangement Generates Pattern Emergence as a Function of Temporal Morphogen Exposure" by Fulton et al., the authors set out to link cell dynamics and single-cell gene expression states, in order to understand the dynamics of cell differentiation. This important challenge is tackled by studying somitogenesis in the zebrafish embryo and combining reverse-engineering gene regulatory networks (GRNs) with cell tracking data. The differentiation of the presomitic cells is evaluated by the differential tbx marker expression through in situ HCR and antibody staining, and live imaging of reporters. Through mathematical modelling taking into consideration the HCR tbx data, live reporter data of the morphogen activity, and the 3D tracking data at different stages, the authors find a candidate model of a gene regulatory network that recapitulates both in vivo and in vitro patterns of the dynamics of cell differentiation. Using this live-modelling approach, the authors move on to question the impact of cell movement on gene expression and conclude that pattern emerges as a function of cell rearrangements tuning the temporal exposure of the cells to the morphogen gradients.

The major strength of the manuscript is the development of a unique method for addressing cell differentiation dynamics by combining static gene expression data with live cell dynamics. Bridging spatiotemporal information is key to understanding tissue and embryo development and this work provides a great basis for it. A potential weakness is how one selects which of the GRNs predicted from the live-modelling is physiologically relevant to the system of interest, since it requires fitting techniques.

The major goal of the paper is mostly achieved. This is evident by the proposed model predicting well the dynamics of differentiation both in vivo and in vitro. To fully support the conclusion that cell rearrangements are necessary for patterning, the addition of functional experiments targeted in this direction might be beneficial.

Overall, this live-modelling approach has the potential of being relevant to various model systems where gene expression and migration are changing simultaneously (e.g. organoids and embryos) and it is thus important to a wide audience including the fields of developmental, stem cell, and quantitative biology.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Fulton et al. seek to understand the interplay between "morphogen exposure, intrinsic timers of differentiation, and cell rearrangement" that together regulate the differentiation process within the presomitic mesoderm tissue (PSM) in developing Zebrafish embryos. A combination of live-cell microscopy to measure cell movements, static measurements of gene expression, and computational and mathematical methods was used to develop a model that captures the observed differentiation profile in the PSM as a function of cell rearrangements and morphogen signaling.

The authors motivate their investigation into the link between cell rearrangements and differentiation by first comparing differentiation timing in vitro and in vivo. The authors report that a subset of cells differentiating in vitro do so synchronously while cells differentiating in vivo do so with a wide range of differentiation trajectories. By following a small group of photo-labeled cells, it is suggested that the variation of differentiation timing in vivo is related to variation in cell movements in the tissue. To explain these observations in terms of gene expression within single cells, a novel method to combine cell tracks with fixed measurements of gene expression is first used to estimate gene expression dynamics (AGET) in live cells within a tissue. A final ODE-based gene regulatory network (GRN) model is selected based on a combination of data fitting to AGETs and tissue level measurements, further in vitro experiments, and literature criteria. Importantly this model incorporates information from diverse experimental sources to generate a single unified model that can be potentially used in other contexts such as predicting how differentiation is perturbed by genetic mutations affecting cell rearrangement. The authors then use this GRN model to explain how cells starting from the same position in the PSM can have different fates due to differential movement along the A-P axis. Lastly, the model predicts and, the authors experimentally validate, that the expression of differentiation markers can be heterogeneously expressed between neighboring PSM cells.

The presented research addresses the important topic of patterning regulation accounting for individual cell motion. contributes to larger tissue patterns, this work may directly contribute to our understanding of how regulation across biological scales. Additionally, the methodology to estimate AGET is especially intriguing because of its potential applicability to a wide variety of developmental processes.

However several issues weigh down the strengths of this paper. First, some conclusions and interpretations in the paper do not obviously follow the data and require further clarification. Second, the authors should consider alternative explanations and models and include some discussion about instances where the final GRN model may not fit as well. Finally, the current manuscript lacks clarity in its presentation and this makes it difficult to follow and understand.

Major concerns:

1. A key conclusion made in this paper is that differentiation times show a high variability even when neighboring PSM cells are compared. This is based on the photoconversion experiment shown in Figure 2A-C, where a group of cells is labeled and over time, a trail of labeled cells is visible. It is crucial to understand which compartment is labeled, i.e. progenitor vs. maturation zone vs. PSM. If cells in the progenitor/marginal zone are labeled, the underlying reason for the trailing effect is not a difference in differentiation time, but rather, a difference in the timing of when cells exit the progenitor zone. This needs to be distinguished in my view. In other words, while the timing of progenitor zone exit varies (needs to), once cells are within the PSM, do they still show a difference in differentiation timing? From previous experimental evidence I would expect that in fact, PSM cells differ only very little in differentiation timing. My statement is based on previously published labeling experiments done in posterior PSM cells, not tail bud cells (in chick embryos), which showed that labeled neighboring PSM cells were incorporated into the same adjacent somites, without evidence of a 'trail' (see figure 4H in Dubrulle et al. 2001). In the case of single cell labeling, it was found that these are actually incorporated into the same somite (or adjacent one), even if labeled in the posterior PSM (Stern et al. 1988). The situation in zebrafish appears similar (see Griffin & Kimelman 2002 and Müller et al. 1996). Additionally, the scheme in Figure 2K suggests that the trailing effect reflects a sequential exit from the progenitor zone that is controlled and timed.

2. The data on cell movement needs to be presented more clearly. Currently, this data is mainly presented in Figure 3D, which does not provide a good description of the cell movements. Visualization of the single cell tracks and the different patterns that are in the tissue along with the characterization of the movement/timescales is needed to better communicate the data and to tie it to the main conclusions.

3. The conclusion "As a result of their different patterns of movement, and therefore different Wnt and FGF dynamics, the simulated T-box gene expression dynamics differ in both cells." (Line 249) is not convincing: what part of the data shows that it is not the other way around, i.e. the signaling activities control the movement? The way I understand the rationale of this analysis: the authors take the cell movement tracks as a given input into the problem, and then ask, what signaling environment is the cell exposed to? The challenge with this view is two-fold: first, the authors seem to assume that a cell moves into a new environment and is hence exposed to a different level of signal, while in reality, these signaling gradients act short-range and maybe even at a cellular scale and hence a moving cell would carry Wnt-ligands with it, essentially contributing to the signaling environment. This aspect of 'niche construction' seems to be missing. Second, it has been shown (in chick embryos) that cell movement is, in turn, controlled by signaling levels, how would this factor into this model?

4. On the comparison with the in vitro model:<br /> A. The interpretation of cells differentiating synchronously or coherently in vitro seems inconsistent with the data presented in figure 1. To me figure 1F/G does not seem compatible with the previous figure 1D/E since 1F seems to describe cells that upregulate tbx6 over a range of times, in a manner analogous to what is reported in vivo, i.e. figure 2.

B. The authors conclude that in vitro, single PSM cells differentiate 'synchronously' and hence differently to what is seen in vivo, where the authors conclude that there is a "range of time scales". As noted above, the situation in vivo can be explained by a timed exit from the progenitor zone, while PSM differentiation is proceeding similarly in all PSM cells. In this view, what is seen in vitro is that all those cells that undergo PSM differentiation, initiate this process in culture more synchronously but it is the exit from the progenitor state, not the dynamics of differentiation, that might be regulated differently in vivo vs. in vitro.

C. Another important point to clarify is that the overall timing of differentiation is entirely different in the in vitro experiment: as has been shown previously (Rohde et al. 2021, Figure S12) both the period of the clock and the overall time it takes to differentiate is very substantially increased, in fact, more than doubled. This aspect needs to be taken into account and hence the conclusion: "Our analysis revealed that cells undergo a range of temporal trajectories in gene expression, with the fastest cells transiting through to a newly formed somite in 3 hours; half the time taken for cells to fully upregulate tbx6 in vitro (Figure 2K-L).)" (line 142) appears misleading, as it seems to emphasize how fast some cells in vivo differentiate. However, given the overall slowing down seen in vitro, which more than doubles the time it takes for differentiation (see Rohde et al. 2021, Figure S12), this statement needs to be refined.

5. The GRN proposed in this work includes inhibition of ntl/brachyury by Fgf (Figure 3f). However, it has been shown that Fgf signaling activates, not inhibits, ntl (see for instance dnFgfr1 experiments in Griffin et al., 1995). This does not seem compatible with the presented GRN, can the authors clarify?

6. The authors use static mRNA in situ hybridization and antibody stainings to characterize Wnt and Fgf signaling activities. First, it should be clarified in Figure 3A that this is not based on any dynamic measurement (it now states Tcf::GFP, as if GFP is the readout, so the label should be GFP mRNA). Second, and more importantly, it is not clear how this quantification has been done. Figure 3C shows a single line, while the legend says n=6 and "all data plotted"..can this be clarified? Without seeing the data it is not possible to judge if the profiles shown (the mean) are convincing. As this experimental result is used to inform the model and the remainder of the paper, it is of critical importance to provide convincing evidence, in this case, based on static snapshots.

7. Although the AGET analysis and this specific GRN model development are of interest and warrant the explanation the authors have provided, I would be careful not to overstate the findings. In particular, I believe the word "predicted" is used too loosely throughout the manuscript to describe the agreement between model and experiments. For example, my understanding of Figure 4, and what is described in the supplemental diagram, is that the in vitro experiments are used to further refine the model selection process. Therefore, it should not be stated as a prediction of the selected model. This is not to say the final model is not predictive, but it's difficult to assess the predictive power of this model since it hasn't been tested in independent experimental conditions (e.g. by perturbing cell movement and using the model to predict the expected differentiation boundary).

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Fulton et al. look to apply approaches for tackling the readout of gene regulatory networks (GRNs) to a system where cell position itself is continually changing. The objective is highly laudable. GRN analysis has proven to be a powerful approach for understanding how cell fates are determined by morphogenetic inputs, but it has thus far been applied in a limited number of systems. Here, the authors look to substantially extend the application of GRNs to more dynamic systems. The theoretical and experimental approaches are integrated to achieve the analysis of the GRN. In principle, this has wide potential impact and applicability to other systems.

Unfortunately, in its current form, the manuscript does not do justice to the central aims of the authors. The manuscript is unclear in nearly all sections, and figures and analysis can be substantially improved. The quantifications are not shown in a fitting manner. The modelling itself stands as the strongest part of the manuscript, but improvements are needed. Currently, the main claims of the authors cannot be evaluated based on the quality of the presented data.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This study by Wang et al. investigates the role of the focal adhesion protein vinculin in osteocytes and its effect on bone mass. First, they showed decreased levels of vinculin in osteocytes in trabecular bone from aged individuals compared to young, suggesting a potential role for vinculin in regulating bone mass with aging. Next, they deleted vinculin in late osteoblasts and osteocytes in young and older mice and found decreased bone mineral density and trabecular bone mass. This was due to impaired bone formation, which the authors attributed to increased sclerostin levels. Further in vitro experiments showed that vinculin regulates sclerostin via the transcription factor Mefc2. Conditional knockout of vinculin in late osteoblasts and osteocytes had no effect on the bone of mice lacking Sost, further implicating an essential role for sclerostin in mediating the effects of vinculin in osteocytes. Interestingly, the vinculin conditional knockout mice had an impaired response to mechanical loading, suggesting an important role for vinculin in the osteocyte mechanoresponse. Finally, the authors showed that while ovariectomy increased osteoclast formation and bone resorption in control mice, it had no effect on the bone of the vinculin conditional knockout mice.

Overall, the authors show convincing data for the important role of vinculin in osteocytes in regulating the anabolic effects of bone formation under physiological conditions. They also show that osteocyte vinculin may be a regulator of bone resorption under conditions mimicking postmenopausal osteoporosis. However, not all of the conclusions are fully supported by the data.

Strengths:

The use of both in vivo and in vitro approaches to determine the role of vinculin in osteocytes provides compelling evidence for its importance under basal conditions and in regulating the anabolic effects of mechanical loading. The in vitro assays nicely demonstrate a potential mechanism through Mef2c/ECR5.

The creation of the vinculin and Sost double conditional knockout mouse model provides further convincing evidence for the causative role of sclerostin in the effects of vinculin knockout in osteocytes.

The use of both young and older male mice links nicely with the human samples where vinculin expression appears to be reduced in osteocytes with aging. The authors need to be careful in describing 14-month-old mice as aged though, as these mice would not be typically thought of as old.

Weaknesses:

The methods section is lacking in basic details (e.g., there is no information on the CRISPR deletion of Vcl in the MLO-Y4 cells). While referencing their previous papers is fine, a brief description of the methods should be included in this paper.

While much of the data linking vinculin to sclerostin is convincing, it is surprising that the authors show decreased trabecular bone volume in the vinculin cKO mice, yet show increased sclerostin levels in the cortical bone. If increased sclerostin is responsible for impaired bone formation in the vinculin cKO mice, why is there no cortical bone phenotype? It would be important for the authors to also show the sclerostin immunostaining in the trabecular bone of these animals.

The authors do not provide any potential explanation for the effects of vinculin cKO in the ovariectomized mice. Under physiological conditions, osteocyte vinculin has no effect on osteoclast number or bone resorption. How is osteocyte vinculin affecting osteoclasts after ovariectomy? Are there differences in the osteocyte expression of Rankl or Opg in response to the loss of estrogen in the vinculin cKO and control mice?

From their in vitro experiments, the authors deduce that loss of vinculin affects osteocyte attachment. However, their images would suggest that it is the formation of dendrites that is strongly inhibited in the cells lacking vinculin. It is surprising that no investigation of osteocyte dendrite number or connectivity was performed in the vinculin cKO mice. This is particularly important as a decrease in osteocyte dendrites and connectivity has been observed in the bones of aged mice (see Tiede-Lewis et al., Aging. 2017) and osteocyte dendrites are important for mechanosensation.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The study by Yang et al. reports a new mechanistic role of vinculin in inhibiting the Mef2c nuclear translation and sclerostin expression in osteocytes and promoting bone formation. The authors showed the reduction of vinculin in aged bone human bone samples. A 10kb DMP-1-Cre mouse model was generated that deleted vinculin in osteocytes. They found that vinculin deletion caused bone loss and decreased bone formation associated with increased sclerostin expression. This increase does not affect the protein level of transcription factor Met2c but interestingly enhances nuclear translocation. Vinculin is interested in Mef2c and appears to retain Mef2c in the cytosol. As expected, as a component of the mechanosensory focal adhesion complex, bone formation via tibial loading was decreased in vinculin deletion. Intriguingly, the bone loss associated with estrogen deficiency through ovariectomy was attenuated. Overall, the study unveiled an important role concerning a key player of focal adhesion and the study was well designed and executed. The paper would be strengthened by including a more thorough discussion including variables such as male vs. female, and cortical vs. trabecular bone as the vinculin deletion appeared to primarily affect trabecular bone while mechanical loading exerts anabolic effects on both bone types. The effect of estrogen deficiency effect is interesting and is worth some discussion.

Strengths:<br /> The paper shows a novel mechanism that vinculin retains Mef2c in the cytosol via protein interaction to prevent it from migrating to the nucleus and increases transcription of sclerostin, an inhibitory factor for Wnt/β-catenin signaling, a critical pathway for osteoblast activity and bone formation.<br /> They employed various in vivo and in vitro models as well as human tissue samples including generating conditional knockout of vinculin in osteocytes in vivo and vinculin gene knockdown in MLO-Y4 cells. They also used physiological/pathological relevant models, tibial loading, and ovariectomy to study the role of vinculin under mechanical loading and estrogen deficiency. The adopted standard techniques to study bone properties include microCT, bone formation, bone histomorphometry, histochemistry as well as biochemical assays such as immunoprecipitation, ChIP assays, etc.

The study is comprehensive and thorough and the noticeable uniqueness is that after observing the phenotypes from in vivo data, they further explored the underlying mechanisms using cell models. The experiments in general are well-designed and presented with adequate repeats and statistical analysis. The paper is also logically written and the figures were clearly labeled.

Minor weaknesses:<br /> More discussion is necessary concerning the potential difference in responses between male and female. Most of the studies were conducted in male mice except ovariectomy mice.<br /> It is interesting that the cKO of vinculin in osteocytes primarily affects trabecular bones with limited effect on cortical bones. However, sclerostin is increased in cortical bones. The promotion of bone formation by mechanical loading appears to affect both cortical and trabecular bones. If focal adhesion is a key mechanosensory complex, how to reconcile the different responses in the cKO model?<br /> The OVX response is interesting and it is worthwhile to elaborate more regarding the potential underlying mechanism and what's the relationship between estrogen and mechanical loading and if the action of estrogen on vinculin shares any similar mechanisms with mechanical loading, etc.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this interesting study, Wang et al. demonstrated a critical role of the key focal adhesion protein vinculin in the control of bone mass in mice. Specifically, the authors deleted vinculin expression by using the mouse 10-kb Dmp1-Cre transgenic mice that were reported to primarily target osteocytes and mature osteoblasts. The authors found that vinculin loss in these cells caused severe osteopenia in mice due to impairment of osteoblast and bone formation with minimal impact on osteoclast formation and bone resorption. Interestingly, the vinculin loss also reduced the mechanical loading induction of bone formation in mice. Mechanically, the authors found that vinculin knockdown increased, while vinculin overexpression decreased, sclerostin expression in osteocytes without affecting that of Mef2c, a major transcriptional regulator of the Sost gene, which encodes sclerostin. Mechanistically, the authors found that vinculin protein bound to Mef2c and vinculin loss increased Mef2c nuclear translocation and binding to the Sost enhancer ECR5. Deleting Sost expression largely reversed the osteopenic phenotypes caused by vinculin deletion. Finally, the authors demonstrated that estrogen promoted vinculin expression in osteocytes and that vinculin loss abolished the estrogen deficiency induction of bone loss in mice. In this study, with a tremendous amount of convincing in vitro and in vivo data, the authors have established a critical role of vinculin in bone and defined a novel mechanism that regulates bone mass. The findings from this study are important and interesting.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this study, authors examine immune signatures from patients that experienced mild, moderate, or severe COVID-19 symptoms and followed them for months to evaluate whether there was a correlation between their immune activation phenotypes, disease severity, and long COVID. Authors observed higher T cell activation/proliferation marker expression in blood samples of patients with severe disease whereas other cell types were more or less unchanged. The authors also examined the cytokine profile of the patient's serum samples to determine the potential drivers of T cell activation phenotypes. Authors then perform T-cell responses to viral peptides to determine the differences in activation phenotypes with disease severity.

The major strengths of the paper appear in the evaluation of the appropriate cohort of human samples and following them over a period of months. Additionally, the authors perform detailed T-cell analysis in an unbiased way to determine any possible activation correlations with disease severity. The authors also perform antigen-specific T-cell analysis via peptide stimulation which adds to the overall findings. However, there are a number of drawbacks that need to be mentioned. Firstly, the phenotypes of T cells prior to the 3-month time-point are not known. Hence, there is no information on baseline or during the early phase of infection. Secondly, the response is largely obtained from blood. How much information about T cells in blood correlate with lung disease is a matter of concern. Analysis of lungs, where actual disease manifestation is ideal, however close to impossible in the human cohort. Alternatively, analysis of local lymph node aspirate or nasal swabs could be useful. Thirdly, the claim that bystander T cell activation plays a role seems loose, specifically the IL-15 in vitro data. Moreover, the analysis of T cells seems very focused on activation/proliferation phenotypes. Alternative T cell phenotypes such as regulatory, IL-10 producing, or FoxP3 expression are not extensively analyzed.

Major points

1) In Figure 1, the CD4 T cell activation phenotypes do not seem consistent across the groups. Why does moderate vs. severe show increases in CXCR3 expression but not mild vs. severe? The same goes for other markers. Performing T cell stimulation with class II peptides specific for CoV-2 and looking at IFN etc. to determine antigen-specific T cells and then gating on these activation/proliferation markers may be a better way to observe differences.

2) One major drawback is the control patients. It would have helped to include a batch of samples from uninfected patients. Or to have the plasma/blood from patients before COVID-19 symptoms. This way there is a baseline for each group that could be compared. It is difficult to draw broad conclusions across the group at 3 months if we do not know their baseline phenotypes.

3) Although the authors focused on activating/proliferating markers to correlate with disease severity, this analysis does not consider alternate T cell phenotypes such as the ones with regulatory or anti-inflammatory phenotypes. Did authors detect differences in T cells with regulatory profiles such as expression of IL-10, FoxP3, etc. in their unsupervised UMAP analysis or otherwise flow experiments?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript is well written, the data are based on well-performed experiments, and the conclusions are supported by the data. The authors study thoroughly the global phenotype of T and NK cells and also analyze antigen-specific T cell frequencies. The data confirm that individuals who had severe COVID-19 disease (required ventilation and/or ITU admission) have slightly more activated CD4 and CD8 T cells at 3 months post-infection and report more frequently long COVID symptoms, yet the novelty of this manuscript is to show that these two are not linked to each other. Moreover, the manuscript confirms that patients across all disease severities mount and maintain memory T cell and antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2.

In the introduction, the authors want to highlight the extent of patients who suffer from long COVID symptoms, yet it should be noted that these high frequencies (8-21%) are coming from unvaccinated and hospitalized patients (like those included in this study), while a large group of individuals experience asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, and these individuals are not integrated into these studies.

The authors find that patients who recovered from severe COVID-19 3 months ago have more activated CD4+ and CD8+ T cells than patients who recovered from the mild disease. Although the difference is significant, the frequency of CD4+ T cells with an activated phenotype is increased only by about 2-fold (~2% vs ~1%), while the frequency of activated CD8+ T cells is about 6% vs 4%, which should be added to the results to better describe the extent of the activation.

As the authors mention in the discussion, it cannot be excluded that the more activated T cell phenotype in patients who recovered from severe COVID-19 is not rather a consequence of the increased comorbidities associated with this group. However, their Luminex analysis of the serum shows that the levels of cytokines TNF-a, IL-4, IL-12, IL-15, and IL-17A decline by 8 and 12 months, suggesting that the immune activation by 3 months is most likely a consequence of the previous severe viral infection.<br /> To strengthen this point, PBMC is probably not available at a later time point, to see if the increased T cell activation decreases in line with the serum cytokines. Yet, the authors should at least try to repeat the experiments of coculturing CD3+ T cells from healthy volunteers with the serum of mild/severe patients at 8-12 months post-recovery (Fig. 3 D-E).

The authors tried to find if the activated T cell phenotype or increased serum cytokines at 3 months post-infection is linked with increased long COVID symptoms. The study does not find any direct association when the data are adjusted for age, sex, and severity. This is the only novelty of this study, yet it is an important piece of information in the attempt to broaden our understanding of the underlying causes of long COVID symptoms.

Overall, it would be important to understand if increased frequencies of T cell activation (~2-fold) and increased levels of serum cytokines at 3 months following severe COVID-19 that resulted in ventilation and/or ITU admission is specific to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection, or if similar consequences are resulting also from other severe acute viral infections. Addressing this question is beyond the scope of the manuscript, yet it should be discussed.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this paper, the authors used a cohort study to link immune signatures in blood 30 days after COVID-19 infection as possible predictors of prolonged symptomatology. The paper partially achieves its aims. While the selected analyses are comprehensive, the cohort design is appropriate and the mechanistic ex vivo work is clever and convincing, the strength of conclusions is somewhat limited by the selection of imprecise clinical endpoints, and the lack of analyses examining T regulatory signatures.

Strengths of the paper are:<br /> • The paper includes a comprehensive and structured immune analysis.<br /> • The paper is extremely clearly written.<br /> • The use of manual gating and unsupervised analysis in Fig 1 is complementary and helpful.<br /> • Bystander T cell experiments with IL-15 are useful and attempt to explore mechanisms from human samples which are traditionally very challenging.<br /> • The experiments shown in Figure 4 documenting equal Cov2 T cell responses in all 3 cohorts are an extremely important result.

Major concerns are:<br /> • The significance of the study is somewhat limited by the small sample size.<br /> • The symptomatic outcome scale for PASC is blunt and poorly captures severity. More state-of-the-start scales of symptomatic severity and heterogeneity exist for PASC. I suggest this and other papers as an example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36454631/<br /> • The omission of analyses examining T regulatory functions is a missed opportunity and these may be impaired in this population.<br /> • This is a challenging question that can be applied to many exploratory studies of this nature: how can we rule out the possibility that statistically significant differences in Figs 1, 2 & 3 are statistically significant but biologically meaningless? All cellular and cytokine measures of immune responses shown in these figures are not routinely measured in the clinic. Are there studies that can be cited to show that these differences are sufficient to have a causal impact on prolonged symptoms and tissue damage rather than just correlations with these outcomes?

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors introduce a computational model that simulates the dendrites of developing neurons in a 2D plane, subject to constraints inspired by known biological mechanisms such as diffusing trophic factors, trafficked resources, and an activity-dependent pruning rule. The resulting arbors are analyzed in terms of their structure, dynamics, and responses to certain manipulations. The authors conclude that 1) their model recapitulates a stereotyped timecourse of neuronal development: outgrowth, overshoot, and pruning 2) Neurons achieve near-optimal wiring lengths, and Such models can be useful to test proposed biological mechanisms- for example, to ask whether a given set of growth rules can explain a given observed phenomenon - as developmental neuroscientists are working to understand the factors that give rise to the intricate structures and functions of the many cell types of our nervous system.

Overall, my reaction to this work is that this is just one instantiation of many models that the author could have built, given their stated goals. Would other models behave similarly? This question is not well explored, and as a result, claims about interpreting these models and using them to make experimental predictions should be taken warily. I give more detailed and specific comments below.

Line 109. After reading the rest of the manuscript, I worry about the conclusion voiced here, which implies that the model will extrapolate well to manipulations of all the model components. How were the values of model parameters selected? The text implies that these were selected to be biologically plausible, but many seem far off. The density of potential synapses, for example, seems very low in the simulations compared to the density of axons/boutons in the cortex; what constitutes a potential synapse? The perfect correlations between synapses in the activity groups is flawed, even for synapses belonging to the same presynaptic cell. The density of postsynaptic cells is also orders of magnitude of, etc. Ideally, every claim made about the model's output should be supported by a parameter sensitivity study. The authors performed few explorations of parameter sensitivity and many of the choices made seem ad hoc.

Many potentially important phenomena seem to be excluded. I realize that no model can be complete, but the choice of which phenomena to include or exclude from this model could bias studies that make use of it and is worth serious discussion. The development of axons is concurrent with dendrite outgrowth, is highly dynamic, and perhaps better understood mechanistically. In this model, the inputs are essentially static. Growing dendrites acquire and lose growth cones that are associated with rapid extension, but these do not seem to be modeled. Postsynaptic firing does not appear to be modeled, which may be critical to activity-dependent plasticity. For example, changes in firing are a potential explanation for the global changes in dendritic pruning that occur following the outgrowth phase.

Line 167. There are many ways to include activity -independent and -dependent components into a model and not every such model shows stability. A key feature seems to be that larger arbors result in reduced growth and/or increased retraction, but this could be achieved in many ways (whether activity dependent or not). It's not clear that this result is due to the combination of activity-dependent and independent components in the model, or conceptually why that should be the case.

Line 183. The explanation of overshoot in terms of the different timescales of synaptic additions versus activity-dependent retractions was not something I had previously encountered and is an interesting proposal. Have these timescales been measured experimentally? To what extent is this a result of fine-tuning of simulation parameters?

Line 203. This result seems at odds with results that show only a very weak bias in the tuning distribution of inputs to strongly tuned cortical neurons (e.g. work by Arthur Konnerth's group). This discrepancy should be discussed.

Line 268. How does the large variability in the size of the simulated arbors relate to the relatively consistent size of arbors of cortical cells of a given cell type? This variability suggests to me that these simulations could be sensitive to small changes in parameters (e.g. to the density or layout of presynapses).

The modeling of dendrites as two-dimensional will likely limit the usefulness of this model. Many phenomena- such as diffusion, random walks, topological properties, etc - fundamentally differ between two and three dimensions.

The description of wiring lengths as 'approximately optimal' in this text is problematic. The plotted data show that the wiring lengths are several deviations away from optimal, and the random model is not a valid instantiation of the 2D non-overlapping constraints the authors imposed. A more appropriate null should be considered.

It's not clear to me what the authors are trying to convey by repeatedly labeling this model as 'mechanistic'. The mechanisms implemented in the model are inspired by biological phenomena, but the implementations have little resemblance to the underlying biophysical mechanisms. Overall my impression is that this is a phenomenological model intended to show under what conditions particular patterns are possible. Line 363, describing another model as computational but not mechanistic, was especially unclear to me in this context.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This work combines a model of two-dimensional dendritic growth with attraction and stabilisation by synaptic activity. The authors find that constraining growth models with competition for synaptic inputs produces artificial dendrites that match some key features of real neurons both over development and in terms of final structure. In particular, incorporating distance-dependent competition between synapses of the same dendrite naturally produces distinct phases of dendritic growth (overshoot, pruning, and stabilisation) that are observed biologically and leads to local synaptic organisation with functional relevance. The approach is elegant and well-explained, but makes some significant modelling assumptions that might impact the biological relevance of the results.

Strengths:<br /> The main strength of the work is the general concept of combining morphological models of growth with synaptic plasticity and stabilisation. This is an interesting way to bridge two distinct areas of neuroscience in a manner that leads to findings that could be significant for both. The modelling of both dendritic growth and distance-dependent synaptic competition is carefully done, constrained by reasonable biological mechanisms, and well-described in the text. The paper also links its findings, for example in terms of phases of dendritic growth or final morphological structure, to known data well.

Weaknesses:<br /> The major weaknesses of the paper are the simplifying modelling assumptions that are likely to have an impact on the results. These assumptions are not discussed in enough detail in the current version of the paper.

1) Axonal dynamics.<br /> A major, and lightly acknowledged, assumption of this paper is that potential synapses, which must come from axons, are fixed in space. This is not realistic for many neural systems, as multiple undifferentiated neurites typically grow from the soma before an axon is specified (Polleux & Snider, 2010). Further, axons are also dynamic structures in early development and, at least in some systems, undergo activity-dependent morphological changes too (O'Leary, 1987; Hall 2000). This paper does not consider the implications of joint pre- and post-synaptic growth and stabilisation.

2) Activity correlations<br /> On a related note, the synapses in the manuscript display correlated activity, but there is no relationship between the distance between synapses and their correlation. In reality, nearby synapses are far more likely to share the same axon and so display correlated activity. If the input activity is spatially correlated and synaptic plasticity displays distance-dependent competition in the dendrites, there is likely to be a non-trivial interaction between these two features with a major impact on the organisation of synaptic contacts onto each neuron.

3) BDNF dynamics<br /> The models are quite sensitive to the ratio of BDNF to proBDNF (eg Figure 5c). This ratio is also activity-dependent as synaptic activation converts proBDNF into BDNF. The models assume a fixed ratio that is not affected by synaptic activity. There should at least be more justification for this assumption, as there is likely to be a positive feedback relationship between levels of BDNF and synaptic activation.

A further weakness is in the discussion of how the final morphologies conform to principles of optimal wiring, which is quite imprecise. 'Optimal wiring' in the sense of dendrites and axons (Cajal, 1895; Chklovskii, 2004; Cuntz et al, 2007, Budd et al, 2010) is not usually synonymous with 'shortest wiring' as implied here. Instead, there is assumed to be a balance between minimising total dendritic length and minimising the tree distance (ie Figure 4c here) between synapses and the site of input integration, typically the soma. The level of this balance gives the deviation from the theoretical minimum length as direct paths to synapses typically require longer dendrites. In the model this is generated by the guidance of dendritic growth directly towards the synaptic targets. The interpretation of the deviation in this results section discussing optimal wiring, with hampered diffusion of signalling molecules, does not seem to be correct.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors propose a mechanistic model of how the interplay between activity-independent growth and an activity-dependent synaptic strengthening/weaken model influences the dendrite shape, complexity and distribution of synapses. The authors focus on a model for stellate cells, which have multiple dendrites emerging from a soma. The activity independent component is provided by a random pool of presynaptic sites that represent potential synapses and that release a diffusible signal that promotes dendritic growth. Then a spontaneous activity pattern with some correlation structure is imposed at those presynaptic sites. The strength of these synapses follow a learning rule previously proposed by the lab: synapses strengthen when there is correlated firing across multiple sites, and synapses weaken if there is uncorrelated firing with the relative strength of these processes controlled by available levels of BDNF/proBDNF. Once a synapse is weakened below a threshold, the dendrite branch at that site retracts and loses its sensitivity to the growth signal

The authors run the simulation and map out how dendrites and synapses evolve and stabilize. They show that dendritic trees growing rapidly and then stabilize by balancing growth and retraction (Figure 2). They also that there is an initial bout of synaptogenesis followed by loss of synapses, reflecting the longer amount of time it takes to weaken a synapse (Figure 3). They analyze how this evolution of dendrites and synapses depends on the correlated firing of synapses (i.e. defined as being in the same "activity group"). They show that in the stabilized phase, synapses that remain connected to a given dendritic branch are likely to be from same activity group (Figure 4). The authors systemically alter the learning rule by changing the available concentration of BDNF, which alters the relative amount of synaptic strengthening, which in turn affects stabilization, density of synapses and interestingly how selective for an activity group one dendrite is (Figure 5). In addition the authors look at how altering the activity-independent factors influences outgrowth (Figure 6). Finally, one of the interesting outcomes is that the resulting dendritic trees represent "optimal wiring" solutions in the sense that dendrites use the shortest distance given the distribution of synapses. They compare this distribute to one published data to see how the model compared to what has been observed experimentally.

There are many strengths to this study. The consequence of adding the activity-dependent contribution to models of synapto- and dendritogenesis is novel. There is some exploration of parameters space with the motivation of keeping the parameters as well as the generated outcomes close to anatomical data of real dendrites. The paper is also scholarly in its comparison of this approach to previous generative models. This work represented an important advance to our understanding of how learning rules can contribute to dendrite morphogenesis

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

MCM8 and MCM9 are paralogues of the eukaryotic MCM2-7 proteins. MCM2-7 form a heterohexameric complex to function as a replicative helicase while MCM8-9 form another hexameric helicase complex that may function in homologous recombination-mediated long-tract gene conversion and/or break-induced replication. MCM2-7 complex is loaded during the low Cdk period by ORC, CDC6, and Cdt1, when the origin DNA may intrude into the central channel via the MCM2-MCM5 entry "gate". In the S phase, MCM2-7 complex is activated as CMG helicase with the help of CDC45 and GINS complex. On the other hand, it still remains unclear how MCM8-9 complex is loaded onto DNA and then activated.

In this study, the authors first investigated the cryo-EM structure of chicken MCM8-9 (gMCM8-9) complex. Based on the data obtained, they suggest that the observed gMCM8-9 structure might represent the structure of a loading state with possible DNA entry "gate". The authors further investigated the cryo-EM structure of human MCM8-9 (hMCM8-9) complex in the presence of the activator protein, HROB, and compared the structure with that obtained without HROB1, which the authors published previously. As a result, they suggest that MCM8-9 complex may change the conformation upon HROB binding, leading to helicase activation. Furthermore, based on the structural analyses, they identified some important residues and motifs in MCM8-9 complex, mutations of which actually impaired the MCM8-9 activity in vitro and in vivo.

Overall, the data presented would support the authors' conclusions and would be of wide interest for those working in the fields of DNA replication and repair. One caveat is that most of the structural data are shown only as ribbon model without showing the density map data obtained by cryo-EM, which makes accurate evaluation of the data somewhat difficult.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

MCM8 and MCM9 together form a hexameric DNA helicase that is involved in homologous recombination (HR) for repairing DNA double-strand breaks. The authors have previously reported on the winged-helix structure of the MCM8 (Zeng et al. BBRC, 2020) and the N-terminal structure of MCM8/9 hexametric complex (MCM8/9-NTD) (Li et al. Structure, 2021). This manuscript reports the structure of a near-complete MCM8/9 complex and the conformational change of MCM8/9-NTD in the presence of its binding protein, HROB, as well as the residues important for its helicase activity.

The presented data might potentially explain how MCM8/9 works as a helicase. However, additional studies are required to conclude this point because the presented MCM8/9 structure is not a DNA-bound form and HROB is not visible in the presented structural data. Taking into these accounts, this work will be of interest to biologists studying DNA transactions.

A strength of this paper is that the authors revealed the near-complete MCM8/9 structure with 3.66A and 5.21A for the NTD and CTD, respectively (Figure 1). Additionally, the authors discovered a conformational change in the MCM8/9-NTD when HROB was included (Figure 4) and a flexible nature of MCM8/9-CTD (Figure S6 and Movie 1).

The biochemical data that demonstrate the significance of the Ob-hp motif and the N-C linker for DNA helicase activity require careful interpretation (Figures 5 and 6). To support the conclusion, the authors should show that the mutant proteins form the hexamer without problems. Otherwise, it is conceivable that the mutant proteins are flawed in complex formation. If that is the case, the authors cannot conclude that these motifs are vital for the helicase function.

A weakness of this paper is that the authors have already reported the structure of MCM8/9-NTD utilizing human proteins (Li et al. Structure, 2021). Although they succeeded in revealing the high-resolution structure of MCM8/9-NTD with the chicken proteins in this study, the two structures are extremely comparable (Figure S2), and the interaction surfaces seem to be the same (Figure 2).

Another weakness of this paper is that the presented data cannot fully elucidate the mechanistic insights into how MCM8/9 functions as a helicase for two reasons. 1) The presented structures solely depict DNA unbound forms. It is critical to reveal the structure of a DNA-bound form. 2) The MCM8/9 activator, HROB, is not visible in the structural data. Even though HROB caused a conformational change in MCM8/9-NTD, it is critical to visualize the structure of an MCM8/9-HROB complex.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript presents a model in which combined action of the transporter-like protein DISP and the sheddases ADAM10/17 promote shedding of a mono-cholesteroylated Sonic Hedgehog (SHH) species following cleavage of palmitate from the dually lipidated precursor ligand. The authors propose that this leads to transfer of the cholesterol-modified SHH to HDL for solubilization. The minimal requirement for SHH release by this mechanism is proposed to be the covalently linked cholesterol modification because DISP could promote transfer of a cholesteroylated mCherry reporter protein to serum HDL. The authors used an in vitro system to demonstrate dependency on DISP/SCUBE2 for release of the cholesterol modified ligand. These results confirm previously published results from other groups (PMC3387659 and PMC3682496). In vivo support for these activities is provided by data from previously published studies from this group. It is unclear whether new in vivo experiments were conducted for this study.

A strength of the work is the use of a bicistronic SHH-Hhat system to consistently generate dually-lipidated ligands to determine the quantity and lipidation status of SHH released into cell culture media.

A critical shortcoming of the study is that the experiments showing SHH secretion/export by western blot of media fractions do not include a SHH(-) control condition. This is an essential control because SHH media blots can be dirty. Without demonstration that the bands being analyzed are specific for SHH(+) conditions, these experiments cannot be appropriately evaluated. Further, it appears that SHH is transiently transfected/expressed for each experimental condition. A stably expressing SHH/HHAT cell line would reduce condition to condition and experiment to experiment variability. Unusual normalization strategies are used for many experiments, and quantification/statistical analyses are missing for several experiments. Due to these shortcomings, the data do not justify the conclusions. The significance of the data provided is overstated because many of the presented experiments confirm/support previously published work. The study provides a modest advance in the understanding of the complex issue of SHH membrane extraction.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Ehring et al. analyze contributions of Dispatched, Scube2, serum lipoproteins and Sonic Hedgehog lipid modifications to the generation of different Shh release forms. Hedgehog proteins are anchored in cellular membranes by N-terminal palmitate and C-terminal cholesterol modifications, yet spread through tissues and are released into the circulation. How Hedgehog proteins can be released, and in which form, remains unclear. The authors systematically dissect contributions of several previously identified factors, and present evidence that Disp, Scube2 and lipoproteins concertedly act to release a novel Shh variant that is cholesterol-modified but not palmitoylated. The systematic analysis of key factors that control Shh release is a commendable effort and helps to reconcile apparently disparate models. However, the results concerning the roles of lipoproteins and Shh lipid modifications are largely confirmatory of previous results, and molecular identity/physiological relevance of the newly identified Shh variant remain unclear.

The authors conclude that an important result of the study is the identification of HDL as a previously overlooked serum factor for secretion of lipid-linked Shh (p15, l24-25). This statement should be removed. A detailed analysis of Shh release on human lipoproteins was reported previously, including contributions of the major lipoprotein classes, in cells that endogenously express Shh, in human plasma and for Shh variants lacking palmitate and/or cholesterol modifications (PMID 23554573). The involvement of Disp is also not unexpected: the importance of Dips for release of cholesterol-modified Shh is well established, as is the essential function of Drosophila Disp for formation of lipoprotein-associated hemolymph Hh. A similar argument can be made for the sufficiency of sterol modification for lipoprotein association. The authors point out that GFP insertion at the C-terminus of the N-terminal Shh domain does not abrogate function. Perhaps more relevant, an mCherry-sterol that was generated using a similar strategy as in the present study associates with Drosophila lipoproteins (PMID 20685986).

A novel and surprising finding of the present study is the differential removal of Shh N- or C-terminal lipid anchors depending on the presence of HDL and/or Disp. In particular, the identification of a non-palmitoylated but cholesterol-modified Shh variant that associates with lipoproteins is potentially important. However, the significance of this result could be substantially improved in two ways: 1) The molecular properties of the processed Shh variants are unclear - incorporation of palmitate/cholesterol and removal of peptides were not directly demonstrated. This is particularly relevant for the N-terminus, as the signaling activity of non-palmitoylated Hedgehog proteins is controversial. A decrease in hydrophobicity is no proof for cleavage of palmitate, this could also be due to addition of a shorter acyl group. 2) All experiments rely on over-expression of Shh in a single cell line. The authors point out that co-overexpression of Hhat is important to ensure Shh palmitoylation, but the same argument could be made for any other protein that acts in Shh release, such as Disp or a plasma membrane sheddase. The authors detect Shh variants that are released independently of Disp and Scube2 in secretion assays, which however are excluded from interpretation as experimental artifacts. Thus, it would be important to demonstrate key findings in cells that secrete Shh endogenously.

The co-fractionation of Shh and ApoA1 in serum-containing media is not convincing (Fig. 4C), as the two proteins peak at different molecular weights. To support their conclusion, the authors could use an orthogonal approach, optimally a demonstration of physical interaction, or at least fractionation by a different parameter (density). On a technical note, all chromatography results are presented as stylized graphs. Please include individual data points.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Park et al demonstrate that cells on either side of a BM-BM linkage strengthen their adhesion to that matrix using a positive feedback mechanism involving a discoidin domain receptor (DDR-2) and integrin (INA-1 + PAT-3). In response to its extracellular ligand (Collagen IV/EMB-9), DDR-2 is endocytosed and initiates signaling that in turn stabilizes integrin at the membrane. DDR-2 signaling operates via Ras/LET-60. This work's strength lies in its excellent in vivo imaging, especially of endogenously tagged proteins. For example, tagged DDR-2:mNG could be seen relocating from seam cell membranes to endosomes. I also think a second strength of this system is the ability to chart the development of BM-BM linkage over time based on the stages of worm larval development. This allows the authors to show DDR signaling is needed to establish linkage, rather than maintain it. It likely is relevant to many types of cells that use integrin to adhere to BM and left me pondering a number of interesting questions. For example: (1) Does DDR-2 activation require integrin? Perhaps integrin gets the process started and DDR-2 positively reinforces that (conversely is DDR-2 at the top of a linear pathway)? (2) In ddr-2(qy64) mutants, projections seem to form from the central portion of the utse cell. Does this reveal a second function for DDR-2, regulating perhaps the cytoskeleton? And (3) can you use the forward genetic tools available in C. elegans to find new genes connecting DDR-2 and integrin?

I do see two areas where the manuscript could be improved. First, the authors rely on imprecise genetic methods to reach their conclusions (i.e. systemic RNAi, or expression of dominant negative constructs.) I think their conclusion would be stronger if they used tissue specific degradation to block ddr-2 function specifically in the utse or seam cells. Methods to do this are now regularly used in C. elegans and the authors have already developed the necessary tissue-specific promoters. Second, the manuscript is presented in the introduction as a study on formation and function of BM-BM linkage. The authors start the discussion in a similar manner. But their results are about adhesion between cells and BM. In fact they show the BM-BM linkage forms normally in ddr-2 mutants. Thus it seems like what they have really uncovered is an adhesion mechanism that works in parallel to the BM-BM linkage. Since ddr-2 appears to function equally in both utse + seam cells (based on their dominant negative data), there are likely three layers of adhesion (utse-BM, BM-BM, BM-seam) and if any of those break down, you get a partially penetrant rupture phenotype.

These concerns do not undercut the significance of this work, which identifies an interesting mechanism cells use to strengthen adhesion during BM linkage formation. In fact, I am excited to read future papers detailing the connection between DDR-2 and integrin. But before undertaking those experiments the authors should be certain which cells require DDR-2 activity, and that should not be determined based solely on mis expression of a dominant negative.

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 well support the conclusion of this paper. The manuscript is 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.

The conclusions of this paper are mostly well-supported, but some aspects should be clarified and extended.

1. The authors claim the beiging of WAT of ADGAT DKO mice is partially through the SNS; however, housing these mice at thermoneutrality did not block the beiging, which seems to negate that claim. Is there evidence of increased cAMP/PKA activation in the adipose tissues of ADGAT DKO to support the premise that the beiging is activated by the SNS, even at thermoneutrality? Alternatively, if the authors block beta-adrenergic receptors with antagonists, such as propranolol, does this block the beiging?

2. It's been shown that autocrine FGF21 signaling is sufficient to promote beiging of iWAT (PMID 34192547). The authors show Fgf21 mRNA is increased in iWAT of chow-fed ADGAT DKO mice. Is Fgf21 also increased in iWAT of HFD-fed mice? This and measurement of local FGF21 secretion by adipocytes would strengthen this study.

3. The primary adipocytes in Figure S6A do not appear to have any depletion in TG stores, suggesting this may not be an appropriate model to study the cell autonomous effects of ADGAT DKO on beiging. The authors should use DGAT inhibitors instead to corroborate or investigate this question.

4. Multiple studies have shown the importance of lipolysis for the activation of brown and beige thermogenic programs (PMID 35803907, 34048700) and can be potentiated by HFD feeding (PMID 34048700). In the absence of DGAT activity in ADGAT DKO mice, it seems plausible that free fatty acids could be elevated, especially in the context of HFD. Are free fatty acids elevated in the adipose tissues, which could promote thermogenic gene expression?

5. The lack of ectopic lipid deposition in the ADGAT DKO mice is striking, especially under HFD conditions. Can the increased energy expenditure fully account for the difference in whole body fat accumulation between Control and DKO mice or have the mice activated other energy disposal mechanisms? Please discuss or include measurement of fat excretion in the feces to strengthen this study.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study uses single-cell genomics and gene pathway analysis to characterize the transcriptional effects of influenza H1N1 infection on cell types of the lateral hypothalamus and dorsomedial hypothalamus. The authors use droplet-based single-nuclei RNA-seq to profile single-cell gene expression at 3, 7, and 23 days post intranasal infection with H1N1 influenza virus. Through state-of-the-art and rigorous computational methods, the authors find that many hypothalamic cell types, including glia and neurons, are transcriptionally altered by respiratory infection with a non-neurotropic influenza virus, and that these alterations can persist for weeks and potentially affect cell type interactions that disrupt function. Their thorough discussion of the findings raises interesting questions and hypotheses about the functional implications of the molecular changes they observed, including the physiological changes that can persist long after acute viral infection. Given the role of the hypothalamus in homeostasis, this work sheds light on potential mechanisms by which the H1N1 virus can disrupt cell function and organismal homeostasis beyond the cells that it directly infects.

Despite its strengths, there are several points in the manuscript lacking sufficient evidence or clarity, which need to be addressed through revision. For instance, the conclusion that neurons but not non-neurons show persistent changes in gene expression may be alternatively explained by differences in the number of neuron and non-neuronal cells and transcripts. Also, the authors highlight the connection between influenza infection and loss of appetite and sleepiness but do not explore whether the influenza infection affected the cell types in their dataset previously associated with appetite and sleepiness, or whether differences in weight loss among the influenza-infected subjects correspond to any differences in gene expression.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The new work from Lemcke et al suggests that the infection with Influenza A virus causes such flu symptoms as sleepiness and loss of appetite through the direct action on the responsible brain region, the hypothalamus. To test this idea, the authors performed single-nucleus RNA sequencing of the mouse hypothalamus in controlled experimental conditions (0, 3, 7, and 23 days after intranasal infection) and analyzed changes in the gene expression in the specific cell populations. The key results are promising.

However, the analysis (cell type annotation, integration, group comparison) is not optimal and incomplete and, therefore should be significantly improved.

More specifically:

1) The current annotation of cell types (especially neuronal but also applicable to the group of heterogeneous "Unassigned cells") did not make a good link to existing cell heterogeneity in the hypothalamus identified with scRNA seq in about 20 recently published works. All information about different peptidergic groups can not be extracted from the current version (except for a few). There are also some mistakes or wrong interpretations (eg, authors assigned hypothalamic dopamine cells to the glutamatergic group, which is not true). This state is feasible to improve (and should be improved) with already existing data.

2) I am confused with the results shown in the label transfer (suppl fig 3 and 4; note, they do not have the references in the text) applied to some published datasets (authors used the Seurat functions 'FindTransferAnchors' and 'TransferData'). The final results don't make sense: while the dataset for the arcuate nucleus (Campbel et al) well covered the GABAergic neurons it is not the case for the whole hypothalamus datasets (Chen et al; Zeisel et al). Similarly, for glutamatergic neurons. Additionally, I could not see that the label transfer works well for PMCH cells which should be present in the dataset for the lateral hypothalamus (Mickelsen et al,2019).

3) There are newly developed approaches to check the shifts in the cell compositions and specific differential gene expression in the cell groups (e.g. Cacoa from Kharchenko lab, scCoda from Büttner et al; etc). Therefore, I did not fully understand why here the authors used the pseudo-bulk approaches for the data analysis (having such a valuable dataset with multiple hashed samples for each timepoint). Therefore it would be great to use at least one of those approaches, which were developed specifically for the scRNAseq data analysis. Or, if there are some reasons - the authors should argue why their approach is optimal

4) When the authors describe the DGE changes upon experimental conditions (Figures 5 and 6), my first comment is again relevant: it is difficult to use the current annotation and cell type description as the reference for testing virus effects and shifts in the DGE in distinct neuronal subtypes.

I have to note that the experimental design is well done and logical. Therefore I believe that to strengthen the conclusions, the already obtained datasets can be used for improved analysis.

Joint Public Review:

In the current paper, Jones et al. describe a new framework, named coccinella, for real-time high-throughput behavioral analysis aimed at reducing the cost of analyzing behavior. In the setup used here each fly is confined to a small circular arena and able to walk around on an agar bed spiked with nutrients or pharmacological agent. The new framework, built on the researchers' previously developed platform Ethoscope, relies on relatively low-cost Raspberry Pi video cameras to acquire images at ~0.5 Hz and pull out, in real time, the maximal velocity (parameter extraction) during 10 second windows from each video. Thus, the program produces a text file, and not voluminous videos requiring storage facilities for large amounts of video data, a prohibitive step for many behavioral analyses. The maximal velocity time-series is then fed to an algorithm called Highly Comparative Time-Series Classification (HCTSA)(which itself is based on a large number of feature extraction algorithms) developed by other researchers. HCTSA identifies statistically salient features in the time-series which are then passed on to a type of linear classifier algorithm called support vector machines (SVM). In cases where such analyses are sufficient for characterizing the behaviors of interest this system performs as well as other state-of-the-art systems used in behavioral analysis (e.g., DeepLabCut).

In a pharmacobehavior paradigm testing different chemicals, the authors show that coccinella can identify specific compounds as effectively as other more time-consuming and resource-consuming systems.<br /> The new paradigm should be of interest to researchers involved in drug screens, and more generally, in high-throughput analysis focused on gross locomotor defects in fruit flies such as identification of sleep phenotypes. By extracting/saving only the maximal velocity from video clips, the method is fast. However, the rapidity of the platform comes at a cost--loss of information on subtle but important behavioral alterations. When seeking subtle modifications in animal behavior, solutions like DeepLabCut, which are admittedly slower but far superior in terms of the level of details they yield, would be more appropriate.

The manuscript reads well, and it is scientifically solid.

1- The fact that Coccinella runs on Ethoscopes, an open source hardware platform described by the same group, is very useful because the relevant publication describes Ethoscope in detail. However, the current version of the paper does not offer details or alternatives for users that would like to test the framework, but do not have an Ethoscope. Would it be possible to overcome this barrier and have coccinella run with any video data (and, thus, potentially be used to analyze data obtained from other animal models)?

2- Readers who want background on the analytical approaches that the platform relies on following maximal velocity extraction, will have to consult the original publications. In particular, the current manuscript does not provide much information on Highly Comparative Time-Series Classification (HCTSA) or SVM; this may be reasonable because the methods were developed earlier by others. While some readers may find that the lack of details increases the manuscript's readability, others may be left wanting to see more discussion on these not-so-trivial approaches. In addition, it is worth noting that the same authors who published the HCTSA method also described a shorter version named catch22, that runs faster with a similar output. Thus, explaining in more detail how HCTSA operates, considering that it is a relatively new method, will make the method more convincing.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This paper aims to study the effects of choice history on action-selective beta band signals in human MEG data during a sensory evidence accumulation task. It does so by placing participants in three different stochastic environments, where the outcome of each trial is either random, likely to repeat, or likely to alternate across trials. The authors provide good behavioural evidence that subjects have learnt these statistics (even though they are not explicitly told about them) and that they influence their decision-making, especially on the most difficult trials (low motion coherence). They then show that the primary effect of choice history on lateralised beta-band activity, which is well-established to be linked to evidence accumulation processes in decision-making, is on the slope of evidence accumulation rather than on the baseline level of lateralised beta.

The strengths of the paper are that it is: (i) very well analysed, with compelling evidence in support of its primary conclusions; (ii) a well-designed study, allowing the authors to investigate the effects of choice history in different stochastic environments.

There are no major weaknesses to the study. On the other hand, investigating the effects of choice/outcome history on evidence integration is a fairly well-established problem in the field. As such, I think that this provides a valuable contribution to the field, rather than being a landmark study that will transform our understanding of the problem.

The authors have achieved their primary aims and I think that the results support their main conclusions. One outstanding question in the analysis is the extent to which the source-reconstructed patches in Figure 2 are truly independent of one another (as often there is 'leakage' from one source location into another, and many of the different ROIs have quite similar overall patterns of synchronisation/desynchronisation.). A possible way to investigate this further would be to explore the correlation structure of the LCMV beamformer weights for these different patches, to ask how similar/dissimilar the spatial filters are for the different reconstructed patches.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this work, the authors use computational modeling and human neurophysiology (MEG) to uncover behavioral and neural signatures of choice history biases during sequential perceptual decision-making. In line with previous work, they see neural signatures reflecting choice planning during perceptual evidence accumulation in motor-related regions, and further show that the rate of accumulation responds to structured, predictable environments suggesting that statistical learning of environment structure in decision-making can adaptively bias the rate of perceptual evidence accumulation via neural signatures of action planning. The data and evidence show subtle but clear effects, and are consistent with a large body of work on decision-making and action planning.

Overall, the authors achieved what they set out to do in this nice study, and the results, while somewhat subtle in places, support the main conclusions. This work will have impact within the fields of decision-making and motor planning, linking statistical learning of structured sequential effects in sense data to evidence accumulation and action planning.

Strengths:<br /> - The study is elegantly designed, and the methods are clear and generally state-of-the-art<br /> - The background leading up to the study is well described, and the study itself conjoins two bodies of work - the dynamics of action-planning processes during perceptual evidence accumulation, and the statistical learning of sequential structure in incoming sense data<br /> - Careful analyses effectively deal with potential confounds (e.g., baseline beta biases)

Weaknesses:<br /> - Much of the study is primarily a verification of what was expected based on previous behavioral work, with the main difference (if I'm not mistaken) being that subjects learn actual latent structure rather than expressing sequential biases in uniform random environments. Whether this difference - between learning true structure or superstitiously applying it when it's not there - is significant at the behavioral or neural level is unclear. Did the authors have a hypothesis about this distinction? If the distinction is not relevant, is the main contribution here the neural effect?<br /> - The key effects (Figure 4) are among the more statistically on-the-cusp effects in the paper, and the Alternating group in 4C did not reliably go in the expected direction. This is not a huge problem per se, but does make the key result seem less reliable given the clear reliability of the behavioral results<br /> - The treatment of "awareness" of task structure in the study (via informal interviews in only a sub-sample of subjects) is wanting

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This study examines how the correlation structure of a perceptual decision making task influences history biases in responding. By manipulating whether stimuli were more likely to be repetitive or alternating, they found evidence from both behavior and a neural signal of decision formation that history biases are flexibly adapted to the environment. On the whole, these findings are supported across an impressive range of detailed behavioral and neural analyses. The methods and data from this study will likely be of interest to cognitive neuroscience and psychology researchers. The results provide new insights into the mechanisms of perceptual decision making.

The behavioral analyses are thorough and convincing, supported by a large number of experimental trials (~600 in each of 3 environmental contexts) in 38 participants. The psychometric curves provide clear evidence of adaptive history biases. The paper then goes on to model the effect of history biases at the single trial level, using an elegant cross-validation approach to perform model selection and fitting. The results support the idea that, with trial-by-trial accuracy feedback, the participants adjusted their history biases due to the previous stimulus category, depending on the task structure in a way that contributed to performance.

The paper then examines MEG signatures of decision formation, to try to identify neural signatures of these adaptive biases. Looking specifically at motor beta lateralization, they found no evidence that starting-level bias due to the previous trial differed depending on the task context. This suggests that the adaptive bias unfolds in the dynamic part of the decision process, rather than reflecting a starting level bias. The paper goes on to look at lateralization relative to the chosen hand as a proxy for a decision variable (DV), whose slope is shown to be influenced by these adaptive biases.

This analysis of the buildup of action-selective motor cortical activity would be easier to interpret if its connection with the DV was more explicitly stated. The motor beta is lateralized relative to the chosen hand, as opposed to the correct response which might often be the case. It is therefore not obvious how the DV behaves in correct and error trials, which are combined together here for many of the analyses.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study presents an important finding on human m6A methyltransferase complex (including METTL3, METTL14 and WTAP). The evidence supporting the claims of the authors is convincing, although the model and assays need to be further modified. The work will be of interest to biologists working on RNA epigenetics and cancer biology.

In mammals, a large methyltransferase complex (including METTL3, METTL14 and WTAP) deposits m6A across the transcriptome, and METTL3 serves as its catalytic core component. In this manuscript, the authors identified two cleaved forms of METTL3 and described the function of METTL3a (residues 239-580) in breast tumorigenesis. METTL3a mediates the assembly of METTL3-METTL14-WTAP complex, the global m6A deposition and breast cancer progression. Furthermore, the METTL3a-mTOR axis was uncovered to mediate the METTL3 cleavage, providing potential therapeutic target for breast cancer. This study is properly performed and the findings are very interesting; however, some problems with the model and assays need to be modified. It is widely known that METTL3 and METTL14 form a stable heterodimer with the stoichiometric ratio of 1:1 (Wang X et al. Nature 534, 575-578 (2016), Su S et al. Cell Res 32(11), 982-994 (2022), Yan X et al. Cell Res 32(12), 1124-1127 (2022)), the numbers of METTL3 and METTL14 in the model of Fig 7P are not equivalent and need to be modified.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, Yan et al. report that a cleaved form of METTL3 (termed METTL3a) plays an essential role in regulating the assembly of the METTL3-METTL14-WTAP complex. Depletion of METTL3a leads to reduced m6A level on TMEM127, an mTOR repressor, and subsequently decreased breast cancer cell proliferation. Mechanistically, METTL3a is generated via 26S proteasome in an mTOR-dependent manner.

The manuscript follows a smooth, logical flow from one result to the next, and most of the results are clearly presented. Specifically, the molecular interaction assays are well-designed. If true, this model represents a significant addition to the current understanding of m6A-methyltransferase complex formation.

A few minor issues detailed below should be addressed to make the paper even more robust. The specific comments are contained below.

1. The existence of METTL3a and METTL3b.<br /> In this study, the author found the cleaved form of METTL3 in breast cancer patient tissues and breast cancer cell lines. Is it a specific event that only occurs in breast cancer? The author may examine the METTL3a in other cell lines if it is a common rule.<br /> 2. Generation of METTL3a and METTL3b.<br /> 1) Figure 1 shows that METTL3a and METTL3b were generated from the C-terminal of full-length METTL3. Because the sequence of METTL3a is involved in the sequences of METTL3b, can METTL3b be further cleaved to produce METTL3a?<br /> 2) Based on current data, the generation of METTL3a and METTL3b are separated. Are there any factors that affect the cleavage ratio between METTL3a and METTL3b?<br /> 3. In Figure 2G, the author shows the result that incubation of the Δ198+Δ238 METTL3 protein with T47D cell lysates cannot produce the METTL3a and METTL3b variants. The author may also show the results that Δ198 METTL3 protein or Δ238 METTL3 protein incubates with T47D cell lysates, respectively.<br /> 4. As well as many results published in previous studies, the in vitro methylation assay shows that WT METTL3 is capable of methylating RNA probe (figure 2H). The main point of this study is that METTL3a is required for the METTL3-METTL14 assembly. However, the absence of METTL3a in the in vitro system did not inhibit METTL3-METTL14 methylation activity. Moreover, the presence of METTL3a even resulted in a weak m6A level.<br /> 5. In Figure 4A, the author suggests that WTAP cannot be immunoprecipitated with METTL3a and 3b because WTAP interacted with the N-terminal of METTL3. If this assay is performed in WT cells, the endogenous full-length METTL3 may help to form the complex. In this case, WTAP is supposed to be co-immunoprecipitated.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Masson et al. leveraged the natural genetic diversity presented in a large cohort of the Diversity Outbred in Australia (DOz) mice (n=215) to determine skeletal muscle proteins that were associated with insulin sensitivity. The hits were further filtered by pQTL analysis to construct a proteome fingerprint for insulin resistance. These proteins were then searched against Connectivity Map (CMAP) to identify compounds that could modulate insulin sensitivity. In parallel, many of these compounds were screened experimentally alongside other compounds in the Prestwick library to independently validate some of the compound hits. These two analyses were combined to score for compounds that would potentially reverse insulin resistance. Thiostrepton was identified as the top candidate, and its ability to reverse insulin resistance was validated using assays in L6 myotubes. The mechanism of action was also partially investigated. The concept of this work is certainly interesting, and the reviewer appreciates the amount of work the authors put into this study.

(1) What's the rationale of trypsinizing the tissue prior to mitochondrial isolation? This is not standard for subsequent proteomics analysis. This step will inevitably cause protein loss, especially for the post mitochondrial fractions (PMF). Treating samples with 0.01ug/uL trypsin for 37oC 30 min is sufficient to partially digest a substantial portion of the proteome. If samples from different subjects were not of the same weight, then this partial digestion step may introduce artificial variability as variable proportions of proteins from different subjects would be lost during this step. In addition, the mitochondrial protein enrichment in the mito fraction, despite statistically significant, does not look striking (Figure 1E, ~30% mitochondrial proteins in the mito fraction). As a comparison, Williams et al., MCP 2018 seem to have obtained high mitochondrial protein content in the mito fraction without trpsinizing the frozen quadriceps using a similar SWATH-MS-based approach.

(2) The authors mentioned that the proteomics data were Log2 transformed and median-normalized. Would it be possible to provide a bit more details on this? Were the subjects randomized?

(3) In Figure 1D, what were the numbers of mice the authors used for the CV comparisons in each group? Were they of similar age and sex? Were the differences in CV values statistically significant?

(4) The authors stated in lines 155-157 that proteins negatively associated with the Matsuda index were further filtered by presence of their cis-pQTLs. Perhaps more explanations would be needed to justify this filtering criterion? Having a cis-pQTL would mean the protein abundance variation is explained by the variation in its coding gene, this however conceptually would not be relevant to its association with the Matsuda index. With the data that the authors have in hand, would it not be natural to align the Matsuda index QTL with the pQTLs (cis and trans if available), and/or to perform mediation analysis to examine causal relationships with statistical significance?

(5) It seems a bit odd that the first half of the paper focused extensively on the authors' discoveries in the mitochondrial proteome, and how proteins involved in mitochondrial processes (such as complex I) were associated with Matsuda Index, but the final fingerprint list of insulin resistance, which contained 76 proteins, only had 7 mitochondrial proteins. Was this because many mitochondrial proteins were filtered out due to no cis-pQTL presenting?

(6) The authors found that thiostrepton-induced insulin resistance reversal effects were not through insulin signalling. It activated glycolysis but the mechanism of action was not clear. What are the proteins in the fingerprint list that led to identification of thiostrepton on CMAP? Is thiostrepton able to bind or change the expression of these proteins? Since thiostrepton was identified by searching the insulin resistance fingerprint protein list against CMAP, it would be rational to think that it exerts the biological effects by directly or indirectly acting on these protein targets.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In the present study, Masson et al. provide an elegant and profound demonstration of utilization of systems genetics data to fuel discovery of actionable therapeutics. The strengths of the study are many: generation of a novel skeletal muscle genetics proteomic dataset which is paired with measures of glucose metabolism in mice, systematic utilization of these data to yield potential therapeutic molecules which target insulin resistance, cross-referencing library screens from connectivity map with an independent validation platform for muscle glucose uptake and preclinical data supporting a new mechanism for thiostrepton in alleviating muscle insulin resistance. Future studies evaluating similar integrations of omics data from genetic diversity with compound screens, as well as detailed characterization of mechanisms such as thiostrepton on muscle fibers will further inform some remaining questions. In general, the thorough nature of this study not only provides strong support for the conclusions made, but additionally offers a new framework for analysis of systems-based data. As a result, my questions/comments below are mostly derived from interest and curiosity.

Line 105: The observation that variance in respiratory proteins is stable while lipid pathways is variable is quite interesting. Is this due to lower overall levels of lipid metabolism enzymes (ex. do these differ substantially from similar pathways ranked from high-low abundance?).

Line 154: the 664 associations are impressive and potentially informative. It would be valuable to know which of these co-map to the same locus - either to distinguish linkage in a 2mb window or identify any cis-proteins which directly exert effects in trans-

Line 194: Cross-platform validation of the CMAP fingerprint results is an admirable set of validations. It might be good to know general parameters like how many compounds were shared/unique for each platform. Also the concordance between ranking scores for significant and shared compounds.

Line 319: Another consideration in the molecular fingerprint is how unique these are for muscle. While studies evaluating gene expression have shown that many cis-eQTLs are shred across tissues, to my knowledge, this hasn't been performed systematically for pQTLs. Therefore, consider adding a point to the discussion pointing out that some of the proteins might be conserved pQTLs whereas others which would be more relevant here present unique druggable targets in muscle.

Line 332: These are fascinating observations. 1, that in general insulin signaling and ampk were not themselves shown as top-ranked enrichments with matsuda and that this was sufficient to alter glucose metabolism without changes in these pathways. While further characterization of this signaling emchanism is beyond the scope of this study, it would be good to speculate as to additional signaling pathways that are relevant beyond ROS (ex. CNYP2 and others)

Line: 314: Remove the statement: "While this approach is less powerful than QTL co-localisation for identifying causal drivers,", as I don't believe that this has been demonstrated. Clearly, the authors provide a sufficient framework to pinpoint causality and produce an actionable set of proteins.

Line 346: I would highlight one more appeal of the approach adopted by the authors. Given that these compound libraries were prioritized from patterns of diverse genetics, these observations are inherently more-likely to operate robustly across target backgrounds.

Line 434: I might have missed but can't seem to find where the muscle data are available to researchers. Given the importance and novelty of these studies, it will be important to provide some way to access the proteomic data.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The hippocampus is a structure in the cerebral cortex known to be compartmentalised into regions with different functions. Dorsal hippocampus is involved in cognitive functions such as declarative memory and spatial navigation and interconnects chiefly with the neocortex. Ventral hippocampus interconnects with limbic structures such as amygdala and hypothalamus and is involved in affective states and anxiety. What specifies this functional regionalisation during development is not well understood. The present study focuses on the role of transcription factors COUPTFI and COUPTFII, confirming a previously observed dorsal to ventral gradient of expression of COUPTFI in both embryonic and adult mouse hippocampus, and reporting that expression of COUPTFII is strongest in ventral hippocampus. The aim of the authors was then to probe the role of these transcription factors with the use of conditional knockout of one or both factors using RxCre+ mice (sometimes Emx1Cre+ for comparison). As predicted, COUPTFI insufficiency resulted in failure of the CA1 subregion of the dorsal hippocampus to develop properly (with concomitant loss of performance in a spatial memory task) COUPTFII knockdown had even more marked effects upon the ventral hippocampus with ectopic CA1/CA3 domains forming, while a double knockout lead to a drastic reduction in size of the hippocampus with subsequent effects upon the appearance of hippocampal synaptic circuitry and the capacity for adult neurogenesis (a feature of rodent hippocampus). In order to help explain the role of COUPTFI/II a role in regulating expression of two transcription factors LHX2 and LHX5, known to be crucial to hippocampal development, was tested by examining gene and protein expression. Changes in LHX2 and LHX5 was observed and a role for COUPTFI/II in regulating expression of these genes was postulated.

I believe the authors have largely achieved their aims and the results mostly support the conclusions, but, as discussed further below, there are some weaknesses in the data and some areas that could be expanded upon and improved. The methods are mostly appropriate. The use of the transgenic mice and the application of histological methods, especially tyramide amplified immunohistochemistry, is exemplary. However, I'm not sure a wide enough range of tests to explore the phenotype of the transgenic mice was employed to back the conclusions drawn by the authors. The introduction and discussion are nicely written and explain the general concepts and conclusions well. The work makes an important contribution to our understanding of brain development in general and hippocampal development in particular.

Turning to more specific comments, I must first point out that specification of the ventral hippocampus by expression of COUPTFII is not an entirely original finding, as it was suggested for the developing human hippocampus following immunohistochemical experiments illustrating COUPTFII expression to be confined to the ventral hippocampal structures of the medial temporal cortex (doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhx185). Of course, this study, unlike the present study, was restricted to fetal cortex, not adult, and also reported expression of COUP-TFI throughout dorsal and ventral hippocampal structures but without observing any dorsal to ventral gradient, however I feel its contribution to the field has been overlooked by the present study, and should be incorporated into the introduction and/or discussion.

More information about Rx-cre mice would be informative and could help explain the different phenotype observed when EMX1-cre mice were used to conditionally knock down COUPTFI/II expression.

The demonstration of antagonistic gradients of COUP-TFI and -TFII across the hippocampus is more convincing in the immunohistochemical preparations than in the western blots. The qualitative data presented in Fig.1p does not convincingly represent the quantitative data presented in Fig.1q. There seem to be multiple bands for COUP-TFII and I wonder exactly how quantifying this was approached?

Behavioural testing is limited to one test of dorsal hippocampus function. other tests for non-spatial memory, e.g. novel object recognition, or ventral hippocampus function, e.g. step through passive avoidance, might have lead to some interesting discriminations between the various knock down animals (see doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2018.00091).

Abnormalities in the trisynaptic circuit. No studies of actual synapses, either physiological or morphological, were carried out. I wonder to what extent these immunohistochemical studies just further reflect the abnormalities in hippocampal morphology presented earlier in the manuscript without specifically telling us about synaptic circuits? Although the immunohistochemical preparations are beautiful, they are inadequate on their own in telling us much about what sort of synaptic circuitry exists in the transgenic animals.

LHX2/LHX5 interaction. The immunohistochemical study, which shows clear differences in LHX5 and LHX2 protein expression at E14.5 in double knockdown mice is more convincing than the qPCR study at E11.5, which show surprisingly small differences in mRNA expression. Could the authors expand upon whether this is due to stage of development, or differences between mRNA and protein expression? Why hasn't both mRNA and protein expression data at both time points been presented?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors Yang et al., examine the role of NR2F1/COUPTFI and NR2F2/COUPTF2 genes in hippocampus (HP) development, using two Cre lines, RxCre, and Emx1Cre. They report that loss of COUPTFI leads to a defective specification of dorsal CA1; loss of COUPTF2 leads to defects in the morphogenesis of the ventral HP with some ectopic CA field domains; loss of both results in a greatly shrunken hippocampus.

While the phenotypes are indeed interesting and important to examine carefully, there are major lacunae in (A) the authors' interpretation of the literature that sets up the problem (B) the data itself and the experimental design (C) the interpretation of the data. These are detailed below.

[A] Interpretation of the literature<br /> A1: The author's interpretation of the Lhx5 mutant phenotype (line 74-76) missed the fact that the hem appears to be missing or greatly reduced (Zhao et al., 1999; Figure 4D,I; Miquelajáuregui et al., 2010 Figure 5). If the hem is deficient, shrinkage/ agenesis of hippocampus is not surprising. It is incorrect to conclude that Lhx5 has a role in the hippocampal primordium, not only because of the above, but also because Lhx5 expression has been well characterized to be limited to the early hem and CR cells, but is not known to be expressed in the hippocampal primordium. The immunohistochemistry data in Figure 5B showing Lhx5 presence in the vz of the hippocampal and neocortical primordium is perplexing and not what other studies in the literature show for this gene. This is a major point because "regulation of the Lhx2-Lhx5 axis" is one of the main conclusions of the study.

A2: The Lhx2<->Lhx5 inhibition is pitched as a mechanism, but there's no evidence in the literature for this nor in this study. Lines 78-79 "Intriguingly, deficiency of either Lhx5 or Lhx2 results in agenesis of the hippocampus, and more particularly, these genes inhibit each other" are an incorrect interpretation of the literature. The "agenesis" of the hippocampus in the Lhx5 mutant (Zhao et al., 1999) is likely to be because the hem is deficient (point A1 above). The Lhx2 mutant lacks a hippocampus (and neocortex) because the entire dorsal telencephalon has transformed into hem and antihem (Mangale et al., 2008). To cite this as "agenesis of the hippocampus" as originally described by Porter et al (1997) misinterprets a complex stepwise process that was elucidated subsequently in the literature.

Finally, it has not been shown that Lhx2 and Lhx5 inhibit each other- the literature cited does not contain this information. The phenotype reported by the authors may actually have a basis in the effect of loss of COUPTFI/ II on the hem, and a rostro-caudal variation in this effect (or in the timing of action of the Cre lines used) may explain the phenotype.

Problems in the experimental design:<br /> B1: What is the expression domain and timing of RxCre? If it has a dorso-ventral bias in the early embryo, it could explain the regional difference in the COUPTF phenotypes. The authors must show the domain of Cre activation using an Ai9 reporter at E10.5-E11.5 and also at later embryonic stages to be able to interpret whether the shrunken hippocampal phenotype in the single and double mutants is a due to a defect in induction (from the hem), specification (in the early hippocampal primordium), or growth and maintenance (at later embryonic/ postnatal stages). A related point is whether COUPTFI expressed in the hem at E10.5-E11.5, since the earliest age shown is E14.5 which does show expression in the hem; likewise COUPTFII is shown to be expressed in the hem at E12.5. Emx1Cre acts in the hem and therefore the phenotypes could be partially explained by a deficit in the hem itself. Where RxCre acts is not shown and nor is it cited and the logic of shifting between RxCre and Emx1Cre is not clear. A comparison of the expression domains of these lines at relevant early and late embryonic ages is important.

B2:<br /> Line 187: "We would like to investigate the correlation of the CH and/or amygdala anlage with the duplicated ventral hippocampal domains in the COUP-TFII mutant in detail in our future study."<br /> This is inadequate, the effect of the mutation on the cortical hem may be central to the hippocampal phenotype and therefore is central to this study. Ectopic CA fields arising in unexpected places is a finding that needs an explanation, this is not a mere morphogenesis issue as implied in line 190.

B3: Questionable immunofluoresence data: Figure 5B panel h shows that Lhx2 expression extends into the region of the hem at E14.5, suggesting that the hem may in fact not have been specified in the first place. However, the choroid plexus appears to be LHX2 positive in the same image, which it isn't supposed to be, and this calls into question the quality and specificity of the immunofluoresence data. LHX5 staining in Figure 5B panel has been mentioned in point A1- it does not reflect the known expression pattern of this gene (Allen Brain atlas, Zhao et al., 2009). SOX2 also shouldn't be seen in the choroid plexus.

[C] Interpretation of the data<br /> C1: In the COUPTFII mutant, the ectopic presence of HuB+ve cells is intriguing, however it is a stretch to conclude that these cells are born at the expense of CTIP2+ve cells (line 179) without experiments that examine this point.

C2: Line 251: "Unexpectedly, an ectopic nucleus was observed in the region of the prospected temporal hippocampus, indicated by the arrowhead, in the double-mutant mice (Figure 3Ag, h)"<br /> These data are unclear and difficult to appreciate.

C3: The hippocampus is shrunken in the double mutants but the underlying cause has not been examined from the perspective of early cell cycle exit or cell death. How does the reduction of Tbr2+ and NeuroD1+ cells speak to the hippocampal defect? (Figure 5)

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Yang et al. showed that two nuclear receptor genes, COUP-TFI and -TFII, displayed distinct expression patterns and functions during the development of the dorsal and ventral hippocampus. The phenotypes in the presented single and double conditional knockout mice are striking and intriguing, which expands our knowledge of hippocampus development, especially the ventral part. Nevertheless, the manuscript is a bit descriptive without in-depth molecular mechanisms.

My major concerns as follows:

1. Quantification and statistical analysis to support their conclusions are almost absent throughout the whole manuscript, especially in relation to the numbers of DG, CA1, and CA3 neurons.<br /> 2. Only TFI conditional knockout mice, not TFII knockout mice, were used to test for behavioral abnormalities. It is important to determine whether the abnormal ventral hippocampus in TFII loss leads to any psychiatric illness.<br /> 3. Behavior defects were only tested on TFI conditional knockout mice but not on TFII knockout mice. TFII loss predominantly affects the ventral hippocampus which is involved in psychiatric disorders, and this should be tested.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this paper, the interocular/binocular combination of temporal luminance modulations is studied. Binocular combination is of broad interest because it provides a remarkable case study of how the brain combines information from different sources. In addition, the mechanisms of binocular combination are of interest to vision scientists because they provide insight into when/where/how information from two eyes is combined.

This study focuses on how luminance flicker is combined across two eyes, extending previous work that focused mainly on spatial modulations. The results appear to show that temporal modulations are combined in different ways, with additional differences between subcortical and cortical pathways.

1. Main concern: subcortical and cortical pathways are assessed in quite different ways. On the one hand, this is a strength of the study (as it relies on unique ways of interrogating each pathway). However, this is also a problem when the results from two approaches are combined - leading to a sort of attribution problem: Are the differences due to actual differences between the cortical and subcortical binocular combinations, or are they perhaps differences due to different methods. For example, the results suggest that the subcortical binocular combination is nonlinear, but it is not clear where this nonlinearity occurs. If this occurs in the final phase that controls pupillary responses, it has quite different implications.

At the very least, this work should clearly discuss the limitations of using different methods to assess subcortical and cortical pathways.

2. Adding to the previous point, the paper needs to be a better job of justifying not only the specific methods but also other details of the study (e.g., why certain parameters were chosen). To illustrate, a semi-positive example: Only page 7 explains why 2Hz modulation was used, while the methods for 2Hz modulation are described in detail on page 3. No justifications are provided for most of the other experimental choices. The paper should be expanded to better explain this area of research to non-experts. A notable strength of this paper is that it should be of interest to those not working in this particular field, but this goal is not achieved if the paper is written for a specialist audience. In particular, the introduction should be expanded to better explain this area of research, the methods should include justifications for important empirical decisions, and the discussion should make the work more accessible again (in addition to addressing the issues raised in point 1 above). The results also need more context. For example, why EEG data have overtones but pupillometry does not?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Previous studies have extensively explored the rules by which patterned inputs from the two eyes are combined in the visual cortex. Here the authors explore these rules for un-patterned inputs (luminance flicker) at both the level of the cortex, using Steady-State Visual Evoked Potentials (SSVEPs) and at the sub-cortical level using pupillary responses. They find that the pattern of binocular combination differs between cortical and sub-cortical levels with the cortex showing less dichoptic masking and somewhat more binocular facilitation.

Importantly, the present results with flicker differ markedly from those with gratings (Hou et al., 2020, J Neurosci, Baker and Wade 2017 cerebral cortex, Norcia et al, 2000 Nuroreport, Brown et al., 1999, IOVS). When SSVEP responses are measured under dichoptic conditions where each eye is driven with a unique temporal frequency, in the case of grating stimuli, the magnitude of the response in the fixed contrast eye decreases as a function of contrast in the variable contrast eye. Here the response increases by varying (small) magnitudes. The authors favor a view that cortex and perception pool binocular flicker inputs approximately linearly using cells that are largely monocular. The lack of a decrease below the monocular level when modulation strength increase is taken to indicate that previously observed normalization mechanism in pattern vision does not play a substantial role in the processing of flicker. The authors present a computational model of binocular combination that captures features of the data when fit separately to each data set. Because the model has no frequency dependence and is based on scalar quantities, it cannot make joint predictions for the multiple experimental conditions which is one of its limitations.

A strength of the current work is the use of frequency-tagging of both pupil and EEG responses to measure responses for flicker stimuli at two anatomical levels of processing. Flicker responses are interesting but have been relatively neglected. The tagging approach allows one to access responses driven by each eye, even when the other eye is stimulated which is a great strength. The tagging approach can be applied at both levels of processing at the same time when stimulus frequencies are low, which is an advantage as they can be directly compared. The authors demonstrate the versatility of frequency tagging in a novel experimental design which may inspire other uses, both within the present context and others. A disadvantage of the tagging approach for studying sub-cortical dynamics via pupil responses is that it is restricted to low temporal frequencies given the temporal bandwidth of the pupil. The inclusion of a behavioral measure and a model is also a strength, but there are some limitations in the modeling (see below).

The authors suggest in the discussion that luminance flicker may preferentially drive cortical mechanisms that are largely monocular and in the results that they are approximately linear in the dichoptic cross condition (no effect of the fixed contrast stimulus in the other eye). By contrast, prior research using dichoptic dual frequency flickering stimuli has found robust intermodulation (IM) components in the VEP response spectrum (Baitch and Levi, 1988, Vision Res; Stevens et al., 1994 J Ped Ophthal Strab; France and Ver Hoeve, 1994, J Ped Ophthal Strab; Suter et al., 1996 Vis Neurosci). The presence of IM is a direct signature of binocular interaction and suggests that at least under some measurement conditions, binocular luminance combination is "essentially" non-linear, where essential implies a point-like non-linearity such as squaring of excitatory inputs. The two views are in striking contrast. It would thus be useful for the authors could show spectra for the dichoptic, two-frequency conditions to see if non-linear binocular IM components are present.

If the IM components are indeed absent, then there is a question of the generality of the conclusions, given that several previous studies have found them with dichoptic flicker. The previous studies differ from the authors' in terms of larger stimuli and in their use of higher temporal frequencies (e.g. 18/20 Hz, 17/21 Hz, 6/8 Hz). Either retinal area stimulated (periphery vs central field) or stimulus frequency (high vs low) could affect the results and thus the conclusions about the nature of dichoptic flicker processing in cortex. It would be interesting to sort this out as it may point the research in new directions.

Whether these components are present or absent is of interest in terms of the authors' computational model of binocular combination. It appears that the present model is based on scalar magnitudes, rather than vectors as in Baker and Wade (2017), so it would be silent on this point. The final summation of the separate eye inputs is linear in the model. In the first stage of the model, each eye's input is divided by a weighted input from the other eye. If we take this input as inhibitory, then IM would not emerge from this stage either.

Related to the model: One of the more striking results is the substantial difference between the dichoptic and dichoptic-cross conditions. They differ in that the latter has two different frequencies in the two eyes while the former has the same frequency in each eye. As it stands, if fit jointly on the two conditions, the model would make the same prediction for the dichoptic and dichoptic-cross conditions. It would also make the same prediction whether the two eyes were in-phase temporally or in anti-phase temporally. There is no frequency/phase-dependence in the model to explain differences in these cases or to potentially explain different patterns at the different VEP response harmonics. The model also fits independently to each data set which weakens its generality. An interpretation outside of the model framework would thus be helpful for the specific case of differences between the dichoptic and dichoptic-cross conditions.

Prior work has defined several regimes of binocular summation in the VEP (Apkarian et al.,1981 EEG Journal). It would be useful for the authors to relate the use of their terms "facilitation" and "suppression" to these regimes and to justify/clarify differences in usage, when present. Experiment 1, Fig. 3 shows cases where the binocular response is more than twice the monocular response. Here the interpretation is clear: the responses are super-additive and would be classed as involving facilitation in the Apkarian et al framework.

In the Apkarian et al framework, a ratio of 2 indicates independence/linearity. Ratios between 1 and 2 indicate sub-additivity and are diagnostic of the presence of binocular interaction but are noted by them to be difficult to interpret mechanistically. This should be discussed. A ratio of <1 indicates frank suppression which is not observed here with flicker.

Can the model explore the full range of binocular/monocular ratios in the Apkarian et al framework? I believe much of the data lies in the "partial summation" regime of Apkarian et al and that the model is mainly exploring this regime and is a way of quantifying varying degrees of partial summation.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This manuscript describes interesting experiments on how information from the two eyes is combined in cortical areas, sub-cortical areas, and perception. The experimental techniques are strong and the results are potentially quite interesting. But the manuscript is poorly written and tries to do too much in too little space. I had a lot of difficulty understanding the various experimental conditions, the complicated results, and the interpretations of those results. I think this is an interesting and useful project so I hope the authors will put in the time to revise the manuscript so that regular readers like myself can better understand what it all means.

Now for my concerns and suggestions:

The experimental conditions are novel and complicated, so readers will not readily grasp what the various conditions are and why they were chosen. For example, in one condition different flicker frequencies were presented to the two eyes (2Hz to one and 1.6Hz to the other) with the flicker amplitude fixed in the eye presented to the lower frequency and the flicker amplitude varied in the eye presented to the higher frequency. This is just one of several conditions that the reader has to understand in order to follow the experimental design. I have a few suggestions to make it easier to follow. First, create a figure showing graphically the various conditions. Second, come up with better names for the various conditions and use those names in clear labels in the data figures and in the appropriate captions. Third, combine the specific methods and results sections for each experiment so that one will have just gone through the relevant methods before moving forward into the results. The authors can keep a general methods section separate, but only for the methods that are general to the whole set of experiments.

I wondered why the authors chose the temporal frequencies they did. Barrionuevo et al (2014) showed that the human pupil response is greatest at 1Hz and is nearly a log unit lower at 2Hz (i.e., the change in diameter is nearly a log unit lower; the change in area is nearly 2 log units lower). So why did the authors choose 2Hz for their primary frequency? And why did the authors choose 1.6Hz which is quite close to 2Hz for their off frequency? The rationale behind these important decisions should be made explicit.

By the way, I wondered if we know what happens when you present the same flicker frequencies to the two eyes but in counter-phase. The average luminance seen binocularly would always be the same, so if the pupil system is linear, there should be no pupil response to this stimulus. An experiment like this has been done by Flitcroft et al (1992) on accommodation where the two eyes are presented stimuli moving oppositely in optical distance and indeed there was no accommodative response, which strongly suggests linearity.

Figures 1 and 2 are important figures because they show the pupil and EEG results, respectively. But it's really hard to get your head around what's being shown in the lower row of each figure. The labeling for the conditions is one problem. You have to remember how "binocular" in panel c differs from "binocular cross" in panel d. And how "monocular" in panel d is different than "monocular 1.6Hz" in panel e. Additionally, the colors of the data symbols are not very distinct so it makes it hard to determine which one is which condition. These results are interesting. But they are difficult to digest.

The authors make a strong claim that they have found substantial differences in binocular interaction between cortical and sub-cortical circuits. But when I look at Figures 1 and 2, which are meant to convey this conclusion, I'm struck by how similar the results are. If the authors want to continue to make their claim, they need to spend more time making the case.

Figure 5 is thankfully easy to understand and shows a very clear result. These perceptual results deviate dramatically from the essentially winner-take-all results for spatial sinewaves shown by Legge & Rubin (1981); whom they should cite by the way. Thus, very interestingly the binocular combination of temporal variation is quite different than the binocular combination of spatial variation. Can the pupil and EEG results also be plotted in the fashion of Figure 5? You'd pick a criterion pupil (or EEG) change and use it to make such plots.

My main suggestion is that the authors need to devote more space to explaining what they've done, what they've found, and how they interpret the data. I suggest therefore that they drop the computational model altogether so that they can concentrate on the experiments. The model could be presented in a future paper.

Joint Public Review:

Barlow et al performed a viral insertion screen in larval zebrafish for sleep mutants. They identify a mutant named dreammist (dmist) that displayed defects in sleep, namely, decreased sleep both day and night, accompanied by increased activity. They find that dmist encodes a previously uncharacterized single-pass transmembrane protein that shows structural similarity to Fxyd1, a Na+K+-ATPase regulator. They go on to show that genetic manipulations of either FXYD1 or the Na/K pump also reduce sleep. They use pharmacology and sleep deprivation experiments to provide further evidence that the NA/K pump regulates intracellular sodium and rebound sleep.

This study provides additional evidence for the important role of membrane excitability in sleep regulation. The conclusions of this paper are mostly well supported by data, with the following strengths and weaknesses as described below.

Strengths:<br /> Elegant use of CRISPR knockout methods to disrupt multiple genes that help establish the importance of regulating Na+K+-ATPase function in sleep.<br /> Data are mostly clearly presented.<br /> Double mutant analysis of dmist and atp1a3a help establish an epistatic relationship between these proteins.

Weaknesses:<br /> The authors emphasize the role of increased cellular sodium. It will be interesting to also see the consequences of perturbating potassium. The potassium channel shaker has been previously identified as a critical sleep regulator in Drosophila.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors used a meta-mask based on previous LC structural studies to delineate the LC on functional scans within two large public datasets (3T CamCAN and 7T HCP).

The rostral part of the LC was characterized by connections to the posterior and anterior cingulate cortices, medial temporal lobe, hippocampus, amygdala and striatum, while the caudal part projected to the parietal cortex, occipital cortex, precentral and postcentral regions, and thalamus. Older ages were associated with less rostral-like connectivity and increased asymmetry. The gradient explained variance above the effects of age, sex and education on some emotional and cognitive measures. In particular, the old-like functional gradient (loss of rostral-like connectivity and more clustered functional organization) was associated with worse performance on emotional memory and emotion regulation tasks but not to executive functioning or self-rated sleep quality.

Participants with higher anxiety and depression also showed less rostral-like connectivity and more asymmetry. Both the aging and the anxiety/depression asymmetry manifested as less rostral-like connectivity in the left LC than the right LC.

A strength of this study is that it is the first to attempt a voxel-based approach to quantifying functional connectivity in the LC. The results finding differences between rostral and caudal LC connectivity patterns are broadly consistent with prior work indicating differences between rostral/caudal LC and should help advance understanding of the LC's connectivity patterns with cortical regions.

A limitation of the study is the challenge of assessing activity not only from the small LC brainstem nucleus but also within it. Given the current spatial limitations of whole-brain functional imaging, the current findings are bolstered by including the 7T 1.6mm isotropic data. Spatial smoothing was applied with a 3mm FWHM isotropic kernel which may have reduced precision.

Another limitation was that the authors made conclusions about clustered functional organization but it was not clear how clustering was quantified.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

One of the major strengths in the current study is the implementation of the fully data-driven, gradient-based method for mapping connectopies of the LC. This approach is especially suited for brain structures that are difficult to localise because the resulted connectopic mapping is relatively robust to ROI definition (Fig. 7 in Haak et al., 2018). However, as a very inclusive definition of the LC (the "meta atlas") was adopted in the study, to what extent the gradient approach can tolerate changes of accuracy and specificity for LC ROI definition is unknown. Some comparative analyses would be helpful to provide assessments on the specificity and stability of the reported gradient pattern.

Haak et al. showed distinct reproducibility within and between subjects when comparing connectopic mappings between M1 and V1. M1 connectopic mapping showed very high consistency across subjects (ICCs > 0.9) compared with V1. This is very reasonable because the functional organisation within M1 is relatively homogeneous. Regarding the reliability of the LC rostro-caudal gradient, the authors only stated that "individual gradient estimation is often not consistent", but direct measurement on the consistency across subjects for the LC gradient was missing. This is important for future LC fMRI studies as more consistent pattern might warrant the application of an atlas-based method otherwise a more individualised pipeline is needed for investigating functional dissociation in LC subregions.

It puzzles me that why a dichotomous rostral vs caudal comparison was used to demonstrate the difference in connectivity patterns along the rostro-caudal gradient which might be an oversimplistic approach as described by the authors themselves? In fact, it might be more interesting to include the central "core" LC which is structurally organized in high density (Fernandes et al., 2012) and functionally distinguishable to the peri-LC "shell" region (Totah et al., 2018; Poe et al., 2022).

The composition of rostral vs caudal connectivity pattern changes over ageing, where the loss of rostral-like connectivity was consistent in bilateral LC whereas the gain of caudal-like connectivity in older subjects was only evident in the left LC. Do authors have any explanations on this left-lateralised ageing effect which is interestingly coincided with a lot of observations such as increased left LC contrast ratios was found during ageing (Betts et al., 2017) and in PD patients (Ye et al., 2022), reduced left LC-parahippocampal gyrus connectivity was reported in aMCI patients (Jacobs et al., 2015).

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

People can perform a wide variety of different tasks, and a long-standing question in cognitive neuroscience is how the properties of different tasks are represented in the brain. The authors develop an interesting task that mixes two different sources of difficulty, and find that the brain appears to represent this mixture on a continuum, in the prefrontal areas involved in resolving task difficulty. While these results are interesting and in several ways compelling, they overlap with previous findings and rely on novel statistical analyses that may require further validation.

Strengths<br /> 1. The authors present an interesting and novel task for combining the contributions of stimulus-stimulus and stimulus-response conflict. While this mixture has been measured in the multi-source interference task (MSIT), this task provides a more graded mixture between these two sources of difficulty

2. The authors do a good job triangulating regions that encoding conflict similarity, looking for the conjunction across several different measures of conflict encoding

3. The authors quantify several salient alternative hypothesis and systematically distinguish their core results from these alternatives

4. The question that the authors tackle is of central theoretical importance to cognitive control, and they make an interesting an interesting contribution to this question

Concerns<br /> 1. It's not entirely clear what the current task can measure that is not known from the MSIT, such as the additive influence of conflict sources in Fu et al. (2022), Science. More could be done to distinguish the benefits of this task from MSIT.

2. The evidence from this previous work for mixtures between different conflict sources make the framing of 'infinite possible types of conflict' feel like a strawman. The authors cite classic work (e.g., Kornblum et al., 1990) that develops a typology for conflict which is far from infinite, and I think few people would argue that every possible source of difficulty will have to be learned separately. Such an issue is addressed in theories like 'Expected Value of Control', where optimization of control policies can address unique combinations of task demands.

3. Wouldn't a region that represented each conflict source separately still show the same pattern of results? The degree of Stroop vs Simon conflict is perfectly negatively correlated across conditions, so wouldn't a region that *just* tracks Stoop conflict show these RSA patterns? The authors show that overall congruency is not represented in DLPFC (which is surprising), but they don't break it down by whether this is due to Stroop or Simon congruency (I'm not sure their task allows for this).

4. The authors use a novel form of RSA that concatenates patterns across conditions, runs and subjects into a giant RSA matrix, which is then used for linear mixed effects analysis. This appears to be necessary because conflict type and visual orientation are perfectly confounded within the subject (although, if I understand, the conflict type x congruence interaction wouldn't have the same concern about visual confounds, which shouldn't depend on congruence). This is an interesting approach but should be better justified, preferably with simulations validating the sensitivity and specificity of this method and comparing it to more standard methods.

A chief concern is that the same pattern contributes to many entries in the DV, which has been addressed in previous work using row-wise and column-wise random effects (Chen et al., 2017, Neuroimage). It would also be informative to know whether the results hold up to removing within-run similarity, which can bias similarity measures (Walther et al., 2016, Neuroimage).

Another concern is the extent to which across-subject similarity will only capture consistent patterns across people, making this analysis very similar to a traditional univariate analysis (and unlike the traditional use of RSA to capture subject-specific patterns).

5. Finally, the authors should confirm all their results are robust to less liberal methods of multiplicity correction. For univariate analysis, they should report the effects from the standard p < .001 cluster forming threshold for univariate analysis (or TFCE). For multivariate analyses, FDR can be quite liberal. The authors should consider whether their mixed-effects analyses allow for group-level randomization, and consider (relatively powerful) Max-Stat randomization tests (Nichols & Holmes, 2002, Hum Brain Mapp).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary, general appraisal

This study examines the construct of "cognitive spaces" as they relate to neural coding schemes present in response conflict tasks. The authors utilize a novel paradigm, in which subjects must map the direction of a vertically oriented arrow to either a left or right response. Different types of conflict (spatial Stroop, Simon) are parametrically manipulated by varying the spatial location of the arrow (a task-irrelevant feature). The vertical eccentricity of the arrow either agrees or conflicts with the arrow's direction (spatial Stroop), while the horizontal eccentricity of the arrow agrees or conflicts with the side of the response (Simon). A neural coding model is postulated in which the stimuli are embedded in a cognitive space, organized by distances that depend only on the similarity of congruency types (i.e., where conditions with similar relative proportions of spatial-Stroop versus Simon congruency are represented with similar activity patterns). The authors conduct a behavioral and fMRI study to provide evidence for such a representational coding scheme. The behavioral findings replicate the authors' prior work in demonstrating that conflict-related cognitive control adjustments (the congruency sequence effect) shows strong modulation as a function of the similarity between conflict types. With the fMRI neural activity data, the authors report univariate analyses that identified activation in left prefrontal and dorsomedial frontal cortex modulated by the amount of Stroop or Simon conflict present, and multivariate representational similarity analyses (RSA) that identified right lateral prefrontal activity encoding conflict similarity and correlated with the behavioral effects of conflict similarity.<br /> This study tackles an important question regarding how distinct types of conflict, which have been previously shown to elicit independent forms of cognitive control adjustments, might be encoded in the brain within a computationally efficient representational format. The ideas postulated by the authors are interesting ones and the utilized methods are rigorous. However, the study has critical limitations that are due to a lack of clarity regarding theoretical hypotheses, serious confounds in the experimental design, and a highly non-standard (and problematic) approach to RSA. Without addressing these issues it is hard to evaluate the contribution of the authors findings to the computational cognitive neuroscience literature.

The primary theoretical question and its implications are unclear.

The paper would greatly benefit from more clearly specifying potential alternative hypotheses and discussing their implications. Consider, for example, the case of parallel conflict monitors. Say that these conflict monitors are separately tuned for Stroop and Simon conflict, and are located within adjacent patches of cortex that are both contained within a single cortical parcel (e.g., as defined by the Glasser atlas used by the authors for analyses). If RSA was conducted on the responses of such a parcel to this task, it seems highly likely that an activation similarity matrix would be observed that is quite similar (if not identical) to the hypothesized one displayed in Figure 1. Yet it would seem like the authors are arguing that the "cognitive space" representation is qualitatively and conceptually distinct from the "parallel monitor" coding scheme. Thus, it seems that the task and analytic approach is not sufficient to disambiguate these different types of coding schemes or neural architectures.

The authors also discuss a fully domain-general conflict monitor, in which different forms of conflict are encoded within a single dimension. Yet this alternative hypothesis is also not explicitly tested nor discussed in detail. It seems that the experiment was designed to orthogonalize the "domain-general" model from the "cognitive space" model, by attempting to keep the overall conflict uniform across the different stimuli (i.e., in the design, the level of Stroop congruency parametrically trades off with the level of Simon congruency). But in the behavioral results (Fig. S1), the interference effects were found to peak when both Stroop and Simon congruency are present (i.e., Conf 3 and 4), suggesting that the "domain-general" model may not be orthogonal to the "cognitive space" model. One of the key advantages of RSA is that it provides the ability to explicitly formulate, test and compare different coding models to determine which best accounts for the pattern of data. Thus, it would seem critical for the authors to set up the design and analyses so that an explicit model comparison analysis could be conducted, contrasting the domain-general, domain-specific, and cognitive space accounts.<br /> Relatedly, the reasoning for the use of the term "cognitive space" is unclear. The mere presence of graded coding for two types of conflict seems to be a low bar for referring to neural activity patterns as encoding a "cognitive space". It is discussed that cognitive spaces/maps allow for flexibility through inference and generalization. But no links were made between these cognitive abilities and the observed representational structure. Additionally, no explicit tests of generality (e.g., via cross-condition generalization) were provided. Finally, although the design elicits strong CSE effects, it seems somewhat awkward to consider CSE behavioral patterns as a reflection of the kind of abilities supported by a cognitive map (if this is indeed the implication that was intended). In fact, CSE effects are well-modeled by simpler "model-free" associative learning processes, that do not require elaborate representations of abstract structures.

More generally, it seems problematic that Stroop and Simon conflict in the paradigm parametrically trade-off against each other. A more powerful design would have de-confounded Stroop and Simon conflict so that each could be separately estimation via (potentially orthogonal) conflict axes. Additionally, incorporating more varied stimulus sets, locations, or responses might have enabled various tests of generality, as implied by a cognitive space account.

Serious confounds in the design render the results difficult to interpret.

As much prior neuroimaging and behavioral work has established, "conflict" per se is perniciously correlated with many conceptually different variables. Consequently, it is very difficult to distinguish these confounding variables within aggregate measures of neural activity like fMRI. For example, conflict is confounded with increased time-on-task with longer RT, as well as conflict-driven increases in coding of other task variables (e.g., task-set related coding; e.g., Ebitz et al. 2020 bioRxiv). Even when using much higher resolution invasive measures than fMRI (i.e., eCoG), researchers have rightly been wary of making strong conclusions about explicit encoding of conflict (Tang et al, 2019; eLife). As such, the researchers would do well to be quite cautious and conservative in their analytic approach and interpretation of results.

This issue is most critical in the interpretation of the fMRI results as reflecting encoding of conflict types. A key limitation of the design, that is acknowledged by the authors is that conflict is fully confounded within-subject by spatial orientation. Indeed, the limited set of stimulus-response mappings also cast doubt on the underlying factors that give rise to the CSE modulations observed by the authors in their behavioral results. The CSE modulations are so strong - going from a complete absence of current x previous trial-type interaction in the cos(90) case all the way to a complete elimination of any current trial conflict when the prior trial was incongruent in the cos(0) case - that they cause suspicion that they are actually driven by conflict-related control adjustments rather than sequential dependencies in the stimulus-response mappings that can be associatively learned.

To their credit, the authors recognize this confound, and attempt to address it analytically through the use of a between-subject RSA approach. Yet the solution is itself problematic, because it doesn't actually deconfound conflict from orientation. In particular, the RSA model assumes that whatever components of neural activity encode orientation produce this encoding within the same voxel-level patterns of activity in each subject. If they are not (which is of course likely), then orthogonalization of these variables will be incomplete. Similar issues underlie the interpretation target/response and distractor coding. Given these issues, perhaps zooming out to a larger spatial scale for the between-subject RSA might be warranted. Perhaps whole-brain at the voxel level with a high degree of smoothing, or even whole-brain at the parcel level (averaging per parcel). For this purpose, Schaefer atlas parcels might be more useful than Glasser, as they more strongly reflect functional divisions (e.g., motor strip is split into mouth/hand divisions; visual cortex is split into central/peripheral visual field divisions). Similarly, given the lateralization of stimuli, if a within-parcel RSA is going to be used, it seems quite sensible to pool voxels across hemispheres (so effectively using 180 parcels instead of 360).

The strength of the results is difficult to interpret due to the non-standard analysis method.

The use of a mixed-level modeling approach to summarize the empirical similarity matrix is an interesting idea, but nevertheless is highly non-standard within RSA neuroimaging methods. More importantly, the way in which it was implemented makes it potentially vulnerable to a high degree of inaccuracy or bias. In this case, this bias is likely to be overly optimistic (high false positive rate).

A key source of potential bias comes from the fact that the off-diagonal cells are not independent (e.g., the correlation between subject A and B is strongly dependent on the correlation between subject A and C). For appropriate degrees of freedom calculation, the model must take this into account somehow. As fitted, the current models do not seem to handle this appropriately. That being said, it may be possible to devise an appropriate test via mixed-level models. In fact, Chen et al. have a series of three recent Neuroimage articles that extensively explore this question (all entitled "Untangling the relatedness among correlations") - adopting one of the methods described in the papers, seems much safer, if possible.

Another potential source of bias is in treating the subject-level random effect coefficients (as predicted by the mixed-level model) as independent samples from a random variable (in the t-tests). The more standard method for inference would be to use test statistics derived from the mixed-model fixed effects, as those have degrees of freedom calculations that are calibrated based on statistical theory.

No numerical or formal defense was provided for this mixed-level model approach. As a result, the use of this method seems quite problematic, as it renders the strength of the observed results difficult to interpret. Instead, the authors are encouraged using a previously published method of conducting inference with between-subject RSA, such as the bootstrapping methods illustrated in Kragel et al. (2018; Nat Neurosci), or in potentially adopting one of the Chen et al. methods mentioned above, that have been extensively explored in terms of statistical properties.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Yang and colleagues investigated whether information on two task-irrelevant features that induce response conflict is represented in a common cognitive space. To test this, the authors used a task that combines the spatial Stroop conflict and the Simon effect. This task reliably produces a beautiful graded congruency sequence effect (CSE), where the cost of congruency is reduced after incongruent trials. The authors measured fMRI to identify brain regions that represent the graded similarity of conflict types, the congruency of responses, and the visual features that induce conflicts.

Using several theory-driven exclusion criteria, the authors identified the right dlPFC (right 8C), which shows 1) stronger encoding of graded similarity of conflicts in incongruent trials and 2) a positive correlation between the strength of conflict similarity type and the CSE on behavior. The dlPFC has been shown to be important for cognitive control tasks. As the dlPFC did not show a univariate parametric modulation based on the higher or lower component of one type of conflict (e.g., having more spatial Stroop conflict or less Simon conflict), it implies that dissimilarity of conflicts is represented by a linear increase or decrease of neural responses. Therefore, the similarity of conflict is represented in multivariate neural responses that combine two sources of conflict.

The strength of the current approach lies in the clear effect of parametric modulation of conflict similarity across different conflict types. The authors employed a clever cross-subject RSA that counterbalanced and isolated the targeted effect of conflict similarity, decorrelating orientation similarity of stimulus positions that would otherwise be correlated with conflict similarity. A pattern of neural response seems to exist that maps different types of conflict, where each type is defined by the parametric gradation of the yoked spatial Stroop conflict and the Simon conflict on a similarity scale. The similarity of patterns increases in incongruent trials and is correlated with CSE modulation of behavior. However, several potential caveats need to be considered.

One caveat to consider is that the main claim of recruitment of an organized "cognitive space" for conflict representation is solely supported by the exclusion criteria mentioned earlier. To further support the involvement of organized space in conflict representation, other pieces of evidence need to be considered. One approach could be to test the accuracy of out-of-sample predictions to examine the continuity of the space, as commonly done in studies on representational spaces of sensory information. Another possible approach could involve rigorously testing the geometric properties of space, rather than fitting RSM to all conflict types. For instance, in Fig 6, both the organized and domain-specific cognitive maps would similarly represent the similarity of conflict types expressed in Fig1c (as evident from the preserved order of conflict types). The RSM suggests a low-dimensional embedding of conflict similarity, but the underlying dimension remains unclear.

Another important factor to consider is how learning within the confined task space, which always negatively correlates the two types of conflicts within each subject, may have influenced the current results. Is statistical dependence of conflict information necessary to use the organized cognitive space to represent conflicts from multiple sources? Answering this question would require a paradigm that can adjust multiple sources of conflicts parametrically and independently. Investigating such dependencies is crucial in order to better understand the adaptive utility of the observed cognitive space of conflict similarity.

Taken together, this study presents an exciting possibility that information requiring high levels of cognitive control could be flexibly mapped into cognitive map-like representations that both benefit and bias our behavior. Further characterization of the representational geometry and generalization of the current results look promising ways to understand representations for cognitive control.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Microglia are increasingly recognized as playing an important role in shaping the synaptic circuit and regulating neural dynamics in response to changes in their surrounding environment and in brain states. While numerous studies have suggested that microglia contribute to sleep regulation and are modulated by sleep, there has been little direct evidence that the morphological dynamics of microglia are modulated by the sleep/wake cycle. In this work, Gu et al. applied a recently developed miniature two-photon microscope in conjunction with EEG and EMG recording to monitor microglia surveillance in freely-moving mice over extended period of time. They found that microglia surveillance depends on the brain state in the sleep/wake cycle (wake, non-REM, or REM sleep). Furthermore, they subjected the mouse to acute sleep deprivation, and found that microglia gradually assume an active state in response. Finally, they showed that the state-dependent morphological changes depend on norepinephrine (NE), as chemically ablating noradrenergic inputs from locus coeruleus abolished such changes; this is in agreement with previous publications. The authors also showed that the effect of NE is partially mediated by β2-adrenergic receptors, as shown with β2-adrenergic receptor knock-out mice. Overall, this study is a technical tour de force, and its data add valuable direct evidence to the ongoing investigations of microglial morphological dynamics and its relationship with sleep. However, there are a number of details that need to be clarified, and some conclusions need to be corroborated by more control experiments or more rigorous statistical analysis. Specifically:

1. The number of branch points per microglia shown here (e.g., Fig. 2g) is much lower than the values of branch points in the literature, e.g., Liu T et al., Neurobiol. Stress 15: 100342, 2021 (mouse dmPFC, IHC); Liu YU et al., Nat. Neurosci. 22: 1771-81, 2019 (mouse S1, in vivo 2P imaging). The authors need to discuss the possible source of such discrepancy.<br /> 2. Microglia process end-point speed (Fig. 2h, o): here the authors show that the speed is highest in the wake state and lowest in NREM, which agrees with the measurement on microglia motility during wakefulness vs NREM in a recent publication (Hristovska I et al., Nat. Commun. 13: 6273, 2022). However, Hristovska et al. also reported lower microglia complexity in NREM vs wake state, which seems to be the opposite of the finding in this paper. The authors need to discuss the possible source of such differences.<br /> 3. Fig. 3: the authors used single-plane images to analyze the morphological changes over 3 or 6 hours of SD, which raises the concern that the processes imaged at the baseline may drift out of focus, leading to the dramatic reduction in process lengths, surveillance area, and number of branch points. In fact, a previous study (Bellesi M et al., J. Neurosci. 37(21): 5263-73, 2017) shows that after 8 h SD, the number of microglia process endpoints per cell and the summed process length per cell do not change significantly (although there is a trend to decline). The authors may confirm their findings by either 3D imaging in vivo, or 3D imaging in fixed tissue.<br /> 4. Fig. 4b: the EEG and EMG signals look significantly different from the example given in Fig. 2a. In particular, the EMG signal appears completely flat except for the first segment of wake state; the EEG power spectrum for REM appears dark; and the wake state corresponds to stronger low frequency components (below ~ 4 Hz) compared to NREM, which is the opposite of Fig. 2a. This raises the concern whether the classification of sleep stage is correct here.<br /> 5. Fig. 4 NE dynamics. How long is a single continuous imaging session for NE? When monitoring microglia surveillance, the authors were able to identify wake or NREM states longer than 15 min, and REM states longer than 5 min. Here the authors selected wake/NREM states longer than 1 min and REM states longer than 30 s. What makes such a big difference in the time duration selected for analysis? Also, the definition of F0 is a bit unclear. Is the same F0 used throughout the entire imaging session, or is it defined with a moving window?<br /> 6. Fig. 5b: how does the microglia morphology in LC axon ablation mice compare with wild type mice under the wake state? The text mentioned "more contracted" morphology but didn't give any quantification. Also, the morphology of microglia in the wake state (Fig. 5b) appears very different from that shown in Fig. S3C1 (baseline). What is the reason?<br /> 7. The relationship between NE level and microglia dynamics. Fig. 4C shows that the extracellular NE level is the highest in the wake state and the lowest in REM. Previous studies (Liu YU et al., Nat. Neurosci. 22(11):1771-1781, 2019; Stowell RD et al., Nat. Neurosci. 22(11): 1782-1792, 2019) suggest that high NE tone corresponds to reduced microglia complexity and surveillance. Hence, it would be expected that microglia process length, branch point number, and area/volume are higher in REM than in NREM. However, Fig. 2l-n show the opposite. How should we understand this?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript describes an approach to monitor microglial structural dynamics and correlate it to ongoing changes in brain state during sleep-wake cycles. The main novelty here is the use of miniaturized 2p microscopy, which allows tracking microglia surveillance over long periods of hours, while the mice are allowed to freely behave. Accordingly, this experimental setup would permit to explore long-lasting changes in microglia in a more naturalistic environment, which were previously not possible to identify otherwise. The findings could provide key advances to the research of microglia during natural sleep and wakefulness, as opposed to anesthesia. The main findings of the paper are that microglia increase their process motility and surveillance during REM and NREM sleep as compared to the awake state. The authors further show that sleep deprivation induces opposite changes in microglia dynamics- limiting their surveillance and size. The authors then demonstrate potential causal role for norepinephrine secretion from the locus coeruleus (LC) which is driven by beta 2 adrenergic receptors (b2AR) on microglia. However, there are several methodological and experimental concerns which should be addressed.

The major comments are summarized below:

1. The main technological advantage of the 2p miniaturized microscope is the ability to track single cells over sleep cycles. A main question that is unclear from the analysis and the way the data is presented is: are the structural changes in microglia reversible? Meaning, could the authors provide evidence that the same cell can dynamically change in sleep state and then return to similar size in wakefulness? The same question arises again with the data which is presented for anesthesia, is this change reversible?<br /> 2. The binary comparison between brain states is misleading, shouldn't the changes in structural dynamics compared to the baseline of the state onset? The authors method describes analysis of the last 5 minutes in each sleep/wake state. However, these transitions are directional- for instance, REM usually follows NREM, so the description of a decrease in length during REM sleep could be inaccurate.<br /> 3. Sleep deprivation- again, it is unclear whether these structural changes are reversible. This point is straightforward to address using this methodology by measuring sleep following SD. In addition, the authors chose a method to induce sleep deprivation that is rather harsh. It is unclear if the effect shown is the result of stress or perhaps an excess of motor activity.<br /> 4. The authors perform measurements of norepinephrine with a recently developed GRAB sensor. These experiments are performed to causally link microglia surveillance during sleep to norepinephrine secretion. They perform 2p imaging and collect data points which are single neurons, and it is unclear why the normalization and analysis is performed for bulk fluorescence similar to data obtained with photometry.<br /> 5. The experiments involving b2AR KO mice are difficult to interpret and do not provide substantial mechanistic insight. Since b2AR are expressed throughout numerous cell types in the brain and in the periphery, it is entirely not clear whether the effects on microglia dynamics are direct. The conclusion and the statement regarding the expression of b2AR in microglia is not supported by the references the authors present, which simply demonstrate the existence and function of b2AR in microglia. In addition, these mice show significant changes in sleep pattern and increased REM sleep. This could account for reasons for the changes in microglia structure rather than the interpretation that these are direct effects.<br /> To summarize, the main conclusions of the paper require further support with analysis of existing data and experimental validation.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study demonstrates that vitamin D-bound VDR increased the expression of SIRT1 and that vitamin D-bound VDR interacts with SIRT1 to cause auto-deacetylation on Lys610 and activation of SIRT1 catalytic activity. This is an important finding that is relevant to the actions of VDR on colorectal cancer. The data presented to support the presented conclusion is convincing.

A strength of the study is that it is focused on a narrow group of conclusions.

The major weakness of the study is that the site of SIRT1 regulatory lysine acetylation is defined by mutational analysis rather than by direct biochemical analysis. This issue is partially mitigated by previous reports of K610 acetylation using mass spec (https://www.phosphosite.org/proteinAction.action?id=5946&showAllSites=true). However, Fig. 4E is reassuring because it shows that the apparent acetylation of the K610 mutant SIRT1 appears to be lower than WT SIRT1

A second weakness of the study relates to the use of shRNA-mediated knockdown of VDR for some studies in which a previously reported cell line was employed. The analysis presented would be more compelling if similar data was obtained using more than one shRNA. Similarly, only a single siRNA for SIRT1 is presented in Table 1.

A third weakness of the study is that the conclusion that the VDR interaction with SIRT1 is the cause of auto-deacetylation rather than an associated event mediated by another mechanism would be more strongly supported by mutational analysis of SIRT1 and VDR residues required for the binding interaction. Will VDR increase SIRT1 activity when mutations are introduced to block the interaction? While the finding that catalytically inactive SIRT1 does not interact with VDR is helpful, this does not address the role of the binding surface.

A fourth weakness of the study is that it would be improved by testing the proposed hypothesis through in vitro reconstitution with purified proteins. Does VDR cause auto-deacetylation and activation of Sirt1 in vitro?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors decipher the signaling between vitamin D and proteins that are downstream of SIRT1. The importance of vitamin D in physiology is clear. However, the link between vitamin D and cancer is less clear. This study provides very interesting and solid information on the link between vitamin D and colorectal cancer. It is likely that this study will provide insight into the importance of vitamin D in other types of cancer. It may also lead to new therapeutic strategies for specific cases.

The authors focus on vitamin D-mediated signaling through VDR, SIRT1 and Ace H3K9. They highlight the importance of K610 in SIRT1 in this process. This article is convincing, although the authors can improve their study as outlined below:

* The authors should specify which cell line was used to perform the experiment in Figure 1E,F. What would be the result in the presence/absence of 1,25(OH)2D3? In Figure 1G, what is the meaning of # and ###?

* Figure 2C, it would have been ideal to show the VDR-SIRT1 interaction after a Sirt1 IP.

* I understand the authors' overall message for this figure, but it is far from clear. This section needs to be improved. For example, in Figure 3G, does this mean that the level of AceH3K9 is independent of the level of SIRT1? Is there a contradiction? The authors should indicate the color of the different stainings for Figure 3D. Do the authors mean that the secondary antibody marks in brown/red? If so, these results are inconsistent with the text considering that hematoxylin was used for non-tumor tissue. This part needs to be clarified. What about the level of FOXO3A in these tissues/tumors? What is the level of 1,25(OH)2D3 in these patients? In Figure 3D, the following information is missing: "A detailed amplification is shown in the lower left of each micrograph." In Figure 3E, it says p=0.325, in the legend p<0.01, and in the text there is a trend. Which is the correct version?

* Figure 4F. The quality of the presented blots is not optimal. It needs to be improved. In addition, the number of independent biological experiments is not indicated. In general, the authors should better indicate the number of independent biological experiments performed, at least for some of them. For example, see Figure 1G. Regarding Figure 2C, we understand that the WB was performed 3 times. Is this the case for the PI? etc...

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this study, Jiamin Lin et al. investigated the potential positive feedback loop between ZEB2 and ACSL4, which regulates lipid metabolism and breast cancer metastasis. They reported a correlation between high expression of ZEB2 and ACSL4 and poor survival of breast cancer patients, and showed that depletion of ZEB2 or ACSL4 significantly reduced lipid droplets abundance and cell migration in vitro. The authors also claimed that ZEB2 activated ACSL4 expression by directly binding to its promoter, while ACSL4 in turn stabilized ZEB2 by blocking its ubiquitination. While the topic is interesting, there are several major concerns with the study and its conclusions are not convincing.

1. Figure 1A, the clinical relevance or biological significance of drug-resistant luminal breast cancer cell lines with metastatic cancer is questionable. Additionally, the RNA-seq analysis lacked multiple test correction for differential gene expression analysis, and no fold-change cut-off was used, leading to incorrect thresholds and wrongly identified significant signals.

2. Figure 1D-E, the clinical associations between ACSL4 and ZEB2 overexpression and poor patient survival are not justified. The authors used an old web tool, the Kaplan-Meier plotter database, based on microarray data, to perform the analysis. The reviewer repeated the analysis and found that multiple microarray probes for ZEB2 were available, leading to opposite results when different probes were selected. The reviewer also repeated the analysis using more reliable TCGA RNA-seq data and found no correlation between ASCL4 or ZEB2 expression and post-progression survival.

3. Figure 1I relied on IHC to support the negative correlation between ACSL4 and Erα expression, but the small sample size limits the power to establish the relationship and the results are not definitive without further replication or biological investigation. The authors should provide more detailed and comprehensive analysis, including appropriate statistical tests, to ensure the findings are robust and reliable.

4. Figure 3B-C lacks justification of the differences by showing only one field without any internal control for exposure. The reviewer suggests to show additional fields where cells with both efficiently and inefficiently knocked-down are present, to justify the robustness of the results. This can also be achieved by mixing control and knockdown cells.

5. Figure 4A-D, oleate-induced cell migration is a well-documented feature across different cancer types. To make it more relevant to the current study, the authors should examine multiple cell lines with high and low ZEB2/ACSL4 expression to determine the underlying relevance.

6. Figure 4E, it is difficulty to conclude that cancer cells utilize stored lipids during migration to fuel metastasis based on current data. Do you see any evidence of lipid signal decreasing in the leading edge of the scratch wound-healing migration assay? The authors should also compare signals between unmigrated and migrated cells in the transwell assay.

7. Figure 6 warrants a genome-wide ChIP-seq to justify direct regulation of ASCL4 promoter by ZEB2. The reviewer's analysis of publicly available ZEB2 ChIP-seq in multiple cell types detected no ZEB2 binding signaling within {plus minus} 5 kb of ASCL4 promoter.

8. Figure 7 presents a series of self-contradictory results. Figure 7C, why no significant change in ZEB2-MYC expression was observed in the presence of ACSL4 and/or HA-Ubi? In Figure 7 E&G, why robust ACSL4 expression is present in the control group in (E) but not in (G)? Additionally, why there is no degradation in ZEB2 baseline level over time in the shACSL4 group in (E)? These raise severe concerns about the data quality.

9. Figure 7D, the IP result of ACSL4 is not justified as there is no enrichment of ACSL4 in the IP compared to input. With the current data, it is hard to justify that there is any direct interaction. Moreover, based on IF data in Figure 3B-C, ACSL4 is exclusively localized in the cytoplasm, while ZEB2 is exclusively localized in the nucleus. It is hard to believe there is any direct interaction and mutual regulation.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, the authors validated a positive feedback loop between ZEB2 and ACSL4 in breast cancer, which regulates lipid metabolism to promote metastasis.

Overall, the study is original, well structured, and easy to read. Despite the reliability of the data discussed in this article, there are still some deficiencies that need to be addressed through further explanation.

Major issues:

1. The authors demonstrated that ACSL4 regulates ZEB2 not only via a post-transcriptional mechanism but also via a transcriptional mechanism. The authors have not provided a comprehensive explanation of the specific mechanism in this paper. Therefore, it is recommended that the author delve into the potential mechanisms in the discussion section. For example, related mechanisms affecting ZEB2 ubiquitination degradation, as well as factors affecting ZEB2 upstream transcriptional regulation, etc.

2. To further clarify the interaction of ZEB2 and ACSL4, it is best to perform in vitro glutathione-S-transferase (GST) pulldown assay and immunofluorescence assay.

3. In Figure 7B, the protein level of ZEB2 seems not to be altered in BT549 BCSC cell line after the depletion of ACSL4.

4. EMT is characterized by changes in cell morphology, so the staining of cytoskeletons with Phalloidin is needed.

5. Additional breast cancer cases or cohorts (such as TMA) should be used to validate the positive correlation between ACSL4 and ZEB2 expression through IHC analysis.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Lin et al. reveals a novel positive regulatory loop between ZEB2 and ACSL4, which promotes lipid droplets storage to meet the energy needs of breast cancer metastasis. It is of interest, however, some concerns should be addressed to strengthen the finding.

Major concerns:

1. The effect of ZEB2 overexpression is not fully demonstrated in the whole study. This point should be addressed.

2. Does the addition of oleate restore the ability of migration or invasion in ACSL4 knockdown cells?

3. Which cellular compartment does ACSL4 localize in and interact with ZEB2 to stabilize ZEB2?

4. The ubiquitination assay and Co-IP assay are just performed in HEK293T cells. This result should be confirmed in MDA-MB-231 cells or Taxol-resistant MCF-7 cells.

5. How does ACSL4 regulate ZEB2 at the mRNA level？Please verify.

6. In Fig. 2F, the silencing efficiency for ACSL4 and ZEB2 should be shown. In addition, the protein level of ZEB2 or ACSL4 in shZEB2 and shZEB2+ACSL4 groups should also be addressed.

7. What is the survival status of patients with both high expression of ACSL4 and ZEB2 in TCGA. In addition, more survival data from databases especially patients with both high expression of ACSL4 and ZEB2 are needed to analyze to support the finding.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors present a study of visuo-motor coupling primarily using wide-field calcium imaging to measure activity across the dorsal visual cortex. They used different mouse lines or systemically injected viral vectors to allow imaging of calcium activity from specific cell-types with a particular focus on a mouse-line that expresses GCaMP in layer 5 IT (intratelencephalic) neurons. They examined the question of how the neural response to predictable visual input, as a consequence of self-motion, differed from responses to unpredictable input. They identify layer 5 IT cells as having a different response pattern to other cell-types/layers in that they show differences in their response to closed-loop (i.e. predictable) vs open-loop (i.e. unpredictable) stimulation whereas other cell-types showed similar activity patterns between these two conditions. They analyze the latencies of responses to visuomotor prediction errors obtained by briefly pausing the display while the mouse is running, causing a negative prediction error, or by presenting an unpredicted visual input causing a positive prediction error. They suggest that neural responses related to these prediction errors originate in V1, however, I would caution against over-interpretation of this finding as judging the latency of slow calcium responses in wide-field signals is very challenging and this result was not statistically compared between areas. Surprisingly, they find that presentation of a visual grating actually decreases the responses of L5 IT cells in V1. They interpret their results within a predictive coding framework that the last author has previously proposed. The response pattern of the L5 IT cells leads them to propose that these cells may act as 'internal representation' neurons that carry a representation of the brain's model of its environment. Though this is rather speculative. They subsequently examine the responses of these cells to anti-psychotic drugs (e.g. clozapine) with the reasoning that a leading theory of schizophrenia is a disturbance of the brain's internal model and/or a failure to correctly predict the sensory consequences of self-movement. They find that anti-psychotic drugs strongly enhance responses of L5 IT cells to locomotion while having little effect on other cell-types. Finally, they suggest that anti-psychotics reduce long-range correlations between (predominantly) L5 cells and reduce the propagation of prediction errors to higher visual areas and suggest this may be a mechanism by which these drugs reduce hallucinations/psychosis.

This is a large study containing a screening of many mouse-lines/expression profiles using wide-field calcium imaging. Wide-field imaging has its caveats, including a broad point-spread function of the signal and susceptibility to hemodynamic artifacts, which can make interpretation of results difficult. The authors acknowledge these problems and directly address the hemodynamic occlusion problem. It was reassuring to see supplementary 2-photon imaging of soma to complement this data-set, even though this is rather briefly described in the paper. Overall the paper's strengths are its identification of a very different response profile in the L5 IT cells compared other layers/cell-types which suggests an important role for these cells in handling integration of self-motion generated sensory predictions with sensory input. The interpretation of the responses to anti-psychotic drugs is more speculative but the result appears robust and provides an interesting basis for further studies of this effect with more specific recording techniques and possibly behavioral measures.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This work investigates the effects of various antipsychotic drugs on cortical responses during visuomotor integration. Using wide-field calcium imaging in a virtual reality setup, the researchers compare neuronal responses to self-generated movement during locomotion-congruent (closed loop) or locomotion-incongruent (open loop) visual stimulation. Moreover, they probe responses to unexpected visual events (halt of visual flow, sudden-onset drifting grating). The researchers find that, in contrast to a variety of excitatory and inhibitory cell types, genetically defined layer 5 excitatory neurons distinguish between the closed and the open loop condition and exhibit activity patterns in visual cortex in response to unexpected events, consistent with unsigned prediction error coding. Motivated by the idea that prediction error coding is aberrant in psychosis, the authors then inject the antipsychotic drug clozapine, and observe that this intervention specifically affects closed loop responses of layer 5 excitatory neurons, blunting the distinction between the open and closed loop conditions. Clozapine also leads to a decrease in long-range correlations between L5 activity in different brain regions, and similar effects are observed for two other antipsychotics, aripripazole and haloperidol, but not for the stimulant amphetamine. The authors suggest that altered prediction error coding in layer 5 excitatory neurons due to reduced long-range correlations in L5 neurons might be a major effect of antipsychotic drugs and speculate that this might serve as a new biomarker for drug development.

Strengths:

- Relevant and interesting research question:

The distinction between expected and unexpected stimuli is blunted in psychosis but the neural mechanisms remain unclear. Therefore, it is critical to understand whether and how antipsychotic drugs used to treat psychosis affect cortical responses to expected and unexpected stimuli. This study provides important insights into this question by identifying a specific cortical cell type and long-range interactions as potential targets. The authors identify layer 5 excitatory neurons as a site where functional effects of antipsychotic drugs manifest. This is particularly interesting as these deep layer neurons have been proposed to play a crucial role in computing the integration of predictions, which is thought to be disrupted in psychosis. This work therefore has the potential to guide future investigations on psychosis and predictive coding towards these layer 5 neurons, and ultimately improve our understanding of the neural basis of psychotic symptoms.

- Broad investigation of different cell types and cortical regions:

One of the major strengths of this study is quasi-systematic approach towards cell types and cortical regions. By analysing a wide range of genetically defined excitatory and inhibitory cell types, the authors were able to identify layer 5 excitatory neurons as exhibiting the strongest responses to unexpected vs. expected stimuli and being the most affected by antipsychotic drugs. Hence, this quasi-systematic approach provides valuable insights into the functional effects of antipsychotic drugs on the brain, and can guide future investigations towards the mechanisms by which these medications affect cortical neurons.

- Bridging theory with experiments:

Another strength of this study is its theoretical framework, which is grounded in the predictive coding theory. The authors use this theory as a guiding principle to motivate their experimental approach connecting visual responses in different layers with psychosis and antipsychotic drugs. This integration of theory and experimentation is a powerful approach to tie together the various findings the authors present and to contribute to the development of a coherent model of how the brain processes visual information both in health and in disease.

Weaknesses:

- Unclear relevance for psychosis research:

From the study, it remains unclear whether the findings might indeed be able to normalise altered predictive coding in psychosis. Psychosis is characterised by a blunted distinction between predicted and unpredicted stimuli. The results of this study indicate that antipsychotic drugs further blunt the distinction between predicted and unpredicted stimuli, which would suggest that antipsychotic drugs would deteriorate rather than ameliorate the predictive coding deficit found in psychosis. However, these findings were based on observations in wild-type mice at baseline. Given that antipsychotics are thought to have little effects in health but potent antipsychotic effects in psychosis, it seems possible that the presented results might be different in a condition modelling a psychotic state, for example after a dopamine-agonistic or a NMDA-antagonistic challenge. Therefore, future work in models of psychotic states is needed to further investigate the translational relevance of these findings.

- Incomplete testing of predictive coding interpretation:

While the investigation of neuronal responses to different visual flow stimuli Is interesting, it remains open whether these responses indeed reflect internal representations in the framework of predictive coding. While the responses are consistent with internal representation as defined by the researchers, i.e., unsigned prediction error signals, an alternative interpretation might be that responses simply reflect sensory bottom-up signals that are more related to some low-level stimulus characteristics than to prediction errors. Moreover, This interpretational uncertainty is compounded by the fact that the used experimental paradigms were not suited to test whether behaviour is impacted as a function of the visual stimulation which makes it difficult to assess what the internal representation of the animal actual was. For these reasons, the observed effects might reflect simple bottom-up sensory processing alterations and not necessarily have any functional consequences. While this potential alternative explanation does not detract from the value of the study, future work would be needed to explain the effect of antipsychotic drugs on responses to visual flow. For example, experimental designs that systematically vary the predictive strength of coupled events or that include a behavioural readout might be more suited to draw from conclusions about whether antipsychotic drugs indeed alter internal representations.

- Methodological constraints of experimental design:

While the study findings provide valuable insights into the potential effects of antipsychotic drugs, it is important to acknowledge that there may be some methodological constraints that could impact the interpretation of the results. More specifically, the experimental design does not include a negative control condition or different doses. These conditions would help to ensure that the observed effects are not due to unspecific effects related to injection-induced stress or time, and not confined to a narrow dose range that might or might not reflect therapeutic doses used in humans. Hence, future work is needed to confirm that the observed effects indeed represent specific drug effects that are relevant to antipsychotic action.

Conclusion:

Overall, the results support the idea that antipsychotic drugs affect neural responses to predicted and unpredicted stimuli in deep layers of cortex. Although some future work is required to establish whether this observation can indeed be explained by a drug-specific effect on predictive coding, the study provides important insights into the neural underpinnings of visual processing and antipsychotic drugs, which is expected to guide future investigations on the predictive coding hypothesis of psychosis. This will be of broad interest to neuroscientists working on predictive coding in health and in disease.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The study examines how different cell types in various regions of the mouse dorsal cortex respond to visuomotor integration and how antipsychotic drugs impacts these responses. Specifically, in contrast to most cell types, the authors found that activity in Layer 5 intratelencephalic neurons (Tlx3+) and Layer 6 neurons (Ntsr1+) differentiated between open loop and closed loop visuomotor conditions. Focussing on Layer 5 neurons, they found that the activity of these neurons also differentiated between negative and positive prediction errors during visuomotor integration. The authors further demonstrated that the antipsychotic drugs reduced the correlation of Layer 5 neuronal activity across regions of the cortex, and impaired the propagation of visuomotor mismatch responses (specifically, negative prediction errors) across Layer 5 neurons of the cortex, suggesting a decoupling of long-range cortical interactions.

The data when taken as a whole demonstrate that visuomotor integration in deeper cortical layers is different than in superficial layers and is more susceptible to disruption by antipsychotics. Whilst it is already known that deep layers integrate information differently from superficial layers, this study provides more specific insight into these differences. Moreover, this study provides a first step into understanding the potential mechanism by which antipsychotics may exert their effect.

Whilst the paper has several strengths, the robustness of its conclusions is limited by its questionable statistical analyses. A summary of the paper's strengths and weaknesses follow.

Strengths:

The authors perform an extensive investigation of how different cortical cell types (including Layer 2/3, 4 , 5, and 6 excitatory neurons, as well as PV, VIP, and SST inhibitory interneurons) in different cortical areas (including primary and secondary visual areas as well as motor and premotor areas), respond to visuomotor integration. This investigation provides strong support to the idea that deep layer neurons are indeed unique in their computational properties. This large data set will be of considerable interest to neuroscientists interested in cortical processing.

The authors also provide several lines of evidence that visuomotor information is differentially integrated in deep vs. superficial layers. They show that this is true across experimental paradigms of visuomotor processing (open loop, closed loop, mismatch, drifting grating conditions) and experimental manipulations, with the demonstration that Layer 5 visuomotor integration is more sensitive to disruption by the antipsychotic drug clozapine, compared with cortex as a whole.

The study further uses multiple drugs (clozapine, aripiprazole and haloperidol) to bolster its conclusion that antipsychotic drugs disrupt correlated cortical activity in Layer 5 neurons, and further demonstrates that this disruption is specific to antipsychotics, as the psychostimulant amphetamine shows no such effect.

In widefield calcium imaging experiments, the authors effectively control for the impact of hemodynamic occlusions in their results, and try to minimize this impact using a crystal skull preparation, which performs better than traditional glass windows. Moreover, they examine key findings in widefield calcium imaging experiments with two-photon imaging.

Weaknesses:

A critical weakness of the paper is its statistical analysis. The study does not use mice as its independent unit for statistical comparisons but rather relies on other definitions, without appropriate justification, which results in an inflation of sample sizes. For example, in Figure 1, independent samples are defined as locomotion onsets, leading to sample sizes of approx. 400-2000 despite only using 6 mice for the experiment. This is only justified if the data from locomotion onsets within a mouse is actually statistically independent, which the authors do not test for, and which seems unlikely. With such inflated sample sizes, it becomes more likely to find spurious differences between groups as significant. It also remains unclear how many locomotion onsets come from each mouse; the results could be dominated by a small subset of mice with the most locomotion onsets. The more disciplined approach to statistical analysis of the dataset is to average the data associated with locomotion onsets within a mouse, and then use the mouse as an independent unit for statistical comparison. A second example, for instance, is in Figure 2L, where the independent statistical unit is defined as cortical regions instead of mice, with the left and right hemispheres counting as independent samples; again this is not justified. Is the activity of cortical regions within a mouse and across cortical hemispheres really statistically independent? The problem is apparent throughout the manuscript and for each data set collected.

An additional statistical issue is that it is unclear if the authors are correcting for the use of multiple statistical tests (as in for example Figure 1L and Figure 2B,D). In general, the use of statistics by the authors is not justified in the text.

Finally, it is important to note that whilst the study demonstrates that antipsychotics may selectively impact visuomotor integration in L5 neurons, it does not show that this effect is necessary or sufficient for the action of antipsychotics; though this is likely beyond the scope of the study it is something for readers to keep in mind.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, the authors use purified human proteins to assess the factors required for the reglucosylation of MHC-I and describe an elegant, mass-spectrometry-based assay to assess reglucosylation. This process is an essential quality-control step for peptide-MHC-I complexes before they are trafficked to the cell surface. Earlier studies have established TAPBPR as a tapasin-like peptide editor of MHC-I outside the peptide loading complex. The ER chaperone UGGT1 has also been shown to interact with MHC-I loaded with a low-affinity peptide, reglucosylating it to allow re-interaction with the peptide loading complex via calreticulin. That TAPBPR facilitates the interaction of UGGT1 with MHC-I was described by Boyle and co-workers in 2017. In that study, a free cysteine on TAPBPR was shown to be essential for the interaction between TAPBPR and UGGT1, although there was no inter-molecular disulfide linkage formed. The data in the current in vitro study suggests that while TAPBPR is an essential facilitator of reglucosylation of the HLA-A*68:02 allele, the free Cys on TAPBPR is not required to bridge the interaction between MHC-I and UGGT1.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, authors had to circumvent some challenges in protein design that included the generation of peptide-receptive MHCI and a defined Man9GlcNAc2 glycan tree on the MHC I recognizable by UGGT1. Production of peptide-receptive MHCI was achieved by forming a fos/jun dimerized single-chain MHC1-fos with TAPBPR-jun in the presence of the α-mannosidase I inhibitor kifunensine. Glucozylation of MHCI by UGGT1 was monitored on protease-cleaved MHCI/TAPBPR, and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry was used to monitor reglucosylation. Authors have provided convincing evidence that TAPBPR is sufficient and necessary for glucosylation of MHC 1, hence TAPBPR in addition to serving as an accessory protein in regulating peptide selection has a second function in quality control and fitness of newly synthesized MHC I during maturation.

The strength of the study lies in the generation of a complete in vitro system where different steps and direct interactions between different components of MHCI maturation can be monitored, hence leading to a better mechanistic understanding of MHC I maturation. However, some potential weakness might be that the major finding of the manuscript describing the critical role of TAPBPR as a chaperon in optimizing peptide selection and regulation of MHC I glucosylation and reglucosylation has been previously reported. Nonetheless, the current study further establishes and better defines some prior findings, thus quite valuable.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, the authors investigated the role of Elg1 in the regulation of telomere length. The main role of the Elg1/RLC complex is to unload the processivity factor PCNA, mainly after completion of synthesis of the Okazaki fragment in the lagging strand. They found that Elg1 physically interacts with the CST (Cdc13-Stn1-Ten1) and propose that Elg1 negatively regulates telomere length by mediating the interaction between Cdc13 and Stn1 in a pathway involving SUMOylation of both PCNA and Cdc13. Accumulation of SUMOylated PCNA upon deletion of ELG1 or overexpression of RAD30 leads to elongated telomeres. On the other hand, the interaction of Elg1 with Sten1 is SIM-dependent and occurs concurrently with telomere replication in late S phase. In contrast Elg1-Cdc13 interaction is mediated by PCNA-SUMO, is independent on the SIM of Elg1 but still dependent on Cdc13 SUMOylation. The authors present a model containing two main messages 1) PCNA-SUMO acts as a positive signal for telomerase activation 2) Elg1 promotes Cdc13/Stn1 interaction at the expense of Cdc13/Est1 interaction thus terminating telomerase action.

The manuscript contains a large amount of data that make a major inroad on a new type of link between telomere replication and regulation of the telomerase. Nevertheless, the detailed choreography of the events as well as the role of PCNA-SUMO remain elusive and the data do not fully explain the role of the Stn1/Elg1 interaction. The data presented do not sufficiently support the claim that SUMO-PCNA is a positive signal for telomerase activation.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This paper purports to unveil a mechanism controlling telomere length through SUMO modifications controlling interactions between PCNA unloader Elg1 and the CST complex that functions at telomeres. This is an extremely interesting mechanism to understand, and this paper indeed reveals some interesting genetic results, leading to a compelling model, with potential impact on the field. The conclusions are largely supported by experiments examining protein-protein interactions at low resolution and ambiguous regarding directness of interactions like co-IP and yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) combined with genetics. However, some results appear contradictory and there's a lack of rigor in the experimental data needed to support claims. There is significant room for improvement and this work could certainly attain the quality needed to support the claims. The current version needs substantial revision and lacks the necessary experimental detail. Stronger support for the claims would add detail to help distinguish competing models.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This paper reveals interesting physical connections between Elg1 and CST proteins that suggest a model where Elg1-mediated PCNA unloading is linked to regulation of telomere length extension via Stn1, Cdc13, and presumably Ten1 proteins. Some of these interactions appear to be modulated by sumolyation and connected with Elg1's PCNA unloading activity. The strength of the paper is in the observations of new interactions between CST, Elg1, and PCNA. These interactions should be of interest to a broad audience interested in telomeres and DNA replication.

What is not well demonstrated from the paper is the functional significance of the interactions described. The model presented by the authors is one interpretation of the data shown, and proposes that the role of sumolyation is temporally regulate the Elg1, PCNA and CST interactions at telomeres. This model makes some assumptions that are not demonstrated by this work (such as Stn1 sumolyation, as noted) and are left for future testing. Alternative models that envision sumolyation as a key in promoting spatial localization could also be proposed based on the data here (as mentioned in the discussion), in addition to or instead of a role for sumolyation in enforcing a series of switches governing a tightly sequenced series of interactions and events at telomeres. Critically, the telomere length data from the paper indicates that the proposed model depicts interactions that are not necessary for telomerase activation or inhibition, as telomeres in pol30-RR strains are normal length and telomeres in elg1∆ strains are not nearly as elongated as in stn1 strains. One possibility mentioned in the paper is the PCNAS and Elg1 interactions are contributing to the negative regulation of telomerase under certain conditions that are not defined in this work. Could it also be possible that the role of these interactions is not primarily directed toward modulating telomerase activity? It will be of interest to learn more about how these interactions and regulation by Sumo function intersect with regulation of telomere extension.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript describes the identification of influential organisms on rice growth and an attempt of validation. The analysis of eDNA on rice pot and mimic field provides rice growth promoting organisms. This approach is novel for plant ecology field. However current results did not fully support whether eDNA analysis-based detection of influencing organism.

The strength of this manuscript is to attempt application of eDNA analysis-based plant growth differentiation. The weakness is too preliminary data and experimental set-up to make any conclusion. The trials of authors experiments are ideal. However, the process of data analysis did not meet certain levels. For example, eDNA analysis of different time points on rice growth stages resulted in two influential organisms for rice growth. Then they cultivate two species and applied rice seedlings. Without understanding of fitness and robustness, how we can know the effect of the two species on rice growth.

The authors did not check the fate of two species after introducing into rice. If this is true, it is difficult to link between the rice gene expression after treatments and the effectiveness of two species. I think the validation experiment in 2019 needs to be re-conducted.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript "Detecting and validating influential organisms for rice growth: An ecological network approach" explores the influence of biotic and abiotic entities that are often neglected on rice growth. The study has a straightforward experimental design, and well thought hypothesis for explorations. Monitoring data is collected to infer relationships between species and the environment empirically. It is analyzed with an up-to-date statistical method. This allowed the manuscript to hypothesize and test the effects most influential entities in a controlled experiment.

The manuscript is interesting and sets up a nice framework for future studies. In general, the manuscript can be improved significantly, when this workflow is smoothly connected and communicated how they follow each other more than the sequence and dates provided. It is valuable philosophical thinking, and the research community can benefit from this framework.

I understand the length and format of the manuscript make it difficult to add more details, but I am sure it can refer to/clear some concepts/methods that might be new for the audience. How/why variables are selected as important parts of the system, a tiny bit of information about the nonlinear time series analysis in the early manuscript, and the biological reasoning behind these statistically driven decisions are some examples.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Most farming is done by subtracting or adding what people want based in nature. However, in nature, crops interact with various objects, and mostly we are unaware of their effects. In order to increase agricultural productivity, finding useful objects is very important. However, in an uncontrolled environment, it coexists with so many biological objects that it is very inefficient to verify them all experimentally. It is therefore necessary to develop an effective screening method to identify external environmental factors that can increase crop productivity. This study identified factors presumed to be important to crop growth based on metabarcoding analysis, field sampling, and non-linear analysis/information theory, and conducted a mesocosm experiment to verify them experimentally. In conclusion, the object proposed by the author did not increase rice yield, but rather rice growth rate.

Strength<br /> In actual field data, since many variables are involved in a specific phenomenon, it is necessary to effectively eliminate false positives. Based on the metabarcoding technique, various variables that may affect rice growth were quantitatively measured, although not perfectly, and the causal relationship between these variables and rice growth was analyzed by using information transfer analysis. Using this method, two new players capable of manipulating rice growth were verified, despite their unknown functions until now. I found this process to be very logical, and I think it will be valuable in subsequent ecological studies.

Weaknesses<br /> CK treatment's effectiveness remains questionable. Rice's growth was clearly altered by CK treatment. The validation of the CK treatment itself is not clear compared to the GN treatment, and the transcriptome data analysis results do not show that DEG is not present. The possibility of a side effect caused by a variable that the author cannot control remains a possibility in this case. Even though this part is mentioned in Discussion, it is necessary to discuss various possibilities in more detail.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study investigates the context-specificity of facial expressions in three species of macaques to test predictions for the 'social complexity hypothesis for communicative complexity'. This hypothesis has garnered much attention in recent years. A proper test of this hypothesis requires clear definitions of 'communicative complexity' and 'social complexity'. Importantly, these two facets of a society must not be derived from the same data because otherwise, any link between the two would be trivial. For instance, if social complexity is derived from the types of interactions individuals have, and different types of signals accompany these interactions, we would not learn anything from a correlation between social and communicative complexity, as both stem from the same data.

The authors of the present paper make a big step forward in operationalising communicative complexity. They used the Facial Action Coding System to code a large number of facial expressions in macaques. This system allows decomposing facial expressions into different action units, such as 'upper lid raiser', 'upper lip raiser' etc.; these units are closely linked to activating specific muscles or muscle groups. Based on these data, the authors calculated three measures derived from information theory: entropy, specificity and prediction error. These parts of the analysis will be useful for future studies.

The three species of macaque varied in these three dimensions. In terms of entropy, there were differences with regard to context (and if there are these context-specific differences, then why pool the data?). Barbary and Tonkean macaques showed lower specificity than rhesus macaques. Regarding predicting context from the facial signals, a random forest classifier yielded the highest prediction values for rhesus monkeys. These results align with an earlier study by Preuschoft and van Schaik (2000), who found that less despotic species have greater variability in facial expressions and usage.

Crucially, the three species under study are also known to vary in terms of their social tolerance. According to the highly influential framework proposed by Bernard Thierry, the members of the genus Macaca fall along a graded continuum from despotic (grade 1) to highly tolerant (grade 4). The three species chosen for the present study represent grade 1 (rhesus monkeys), grade 3 (Barbary macaques), and grade 4 (Tonkean macaques).

The authors of the present paper define social complexity as equivalent to social tolerance - but how is social tolerance defined? Thierry used aggression and conflict resolution patterns to classify the different macaque species, with the steepness of the rank hierarchy and the degree of nepotism (kin bias) being essential. However, aggression and conflict resolution are accompanied by facial gestures. Thus, the authors are looking at two sides of the same coin when investigating the link between social complexity (as defined by the authors) and communicative complexity. Therefore, I am not convinced that this study makes a significant advance in testing the social complexity for communicative complexity hypothesis. A further weakness is that - despite the careful analysis - only three species were considered; thus, the effective sample size is very small.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This is a well-written manuscript about a strong comparative study of diversity of facial movements in three macaque species to test arguments about social complexity influencing communicative complexity. My major criticism has to do with the lack of any reporting of inter-observer reliability statistics - see comment below. Reporting high levels of inter-observer reliability is crucial for making clear the authors have minimized chances of possible observer biases in a study like this, where it is not possible to code the data blind with regard to comparison group. My other comments and questions follow by line number:

38-40. Whereas I am an advocate of this hypothesis and have tested it myself, the authors should probably comment here, or later in the discussion, about the reverse argument - greater communicative complexity (driven by other selection pressures) could make more complicated social structures possible. This latter view was the one advocated by McComb & Semple in their foundational 2005 Biology Letters comparative study of relationships between vocal repertoire size and typical group size in non-human primate species.

72-84 and 95-96. In the paragraph here, the authors outline an argument about increasing uncertainty / entropy mapping on to increasing complexity in a system (social or communicative). In lines 95-96, though, they fall back on the standard argument about complex systems having intermediate levels of uncertainty (complete uncertainty roughly = random and complete certainty roughly = simple). Various authors have put forward what I think are useful ways of thinking about complexity in groups - from the perspective of an insider (i.e., a group member, where greater randomness is, in fact, greater complexity) vs from the perspective of an outside (i.e., a researcher trying to quantify the complexity of the system where is it relatively easy to explain a completely predictable or completely random system but harder to do so for an intermediately ordered or random system). This sort of argument (Andrew Whiten had an early paper that made this argument) might be worth raising here or later in the discussion? (I'm also curious where the authors sentiments lie for this question - they seem to touch on it in lines 285-287, but I think it's worth unpacking a little more here!)

115-129. See also:<br /> Maestripieri, D. (2005). "Gestural communication in three species of macaques (Macaca mulatta, M. nemestrina, M. arctoides): use of signals in relation to dominance and social context." Gesture 5: 57-73.<br /> Maestripieri, D. and K. Wallen (1997). "Affiliative and submissive communication in rhesus macaques." Primates 38(2): 127-138.<br /> On that note, it is probably worth discussing in this paragraph and probably later in the discussion exactly how this study differs from these earlier studies of Maestripieri. I think the fact that machine learning approaches had the most difficulty assigning crested data to context is an important methodological advance for addressing these sorts of questions - there are probably other important differences between the authors' study here and these older publications that are worth bringing up.

220-222. What is known about visual perception in these species? Recent arguments suggest that more socially complex species should have more sensitive perceptual processing abilities for other individuals' signals and cues (see Freeberg et al. 2019 Animal Behaviour). Are there any published empirical data to this effect, ideally from the visual domain but perhaps from any domain?

274-277. I am not sure I follow this - could not different social and non-social contexts produce variation in different affective states such that "emotion"-based signals could be as flexible / uncertain as seemingly volitional / information-based / referential-like signals? This issue is probably too far away from the main points of this paper, but I suspect the authors' argument in this sentence is too simplified or overstated with regard to more affect-based signals.

288 on. Given there are only three species in this study, the chances of one of the species being the 'most complex' in any measure is 0.33. Although I do not believe this argument I am making here, can the authors rule out the possibility that their findings related to crested macaques are all related to chance, statistically speaking?

329-330. The fact that only one male rhesus macaque was assessed here seems problematic, given the balance of sexes in the other two species. Can the authors comment more on this - are the gestures they are studying here identical across the sexes?

354-371. Inter-observer reliability statistics are required here - one of the authors who did not code the original data set, or a trained observer who is not an author, could easily code a subset of the video files to obtain inter-observer reliability data. This is important for ruling out potential unconscious observer biases in coding the data.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study aims to address the mechanism of eccDNA generation during spermatogenesis in mice. Previous efforts for cataloging eccDNA in mammalian germ cells have provided inconclusive results, particularly in the correlation between meiotic recombination and the generation of eccDNA. The authors employed an established approach (Circle-seq) to enrich and amplify eccDNA for sequencing analyses and reported that sperm eccDNA is not associated with miotic recombination hotspots. Rather, the authors reported that eccDNAs are widespread, and oligonucleosomal DNA fragments from sperm undergoing apoptosis, with the ligation of DNA ends by microhomology-mediated end-joining, would be a major source of eccDNA.

The strength of the study includes evaluating the eccDNA contents not only in sperm but also from earlier stages of cells in spermatogenesis. The differences in eccDNA size peaks between sperm and other progenitors, in particular, the unique peak in sperm around 360 bp, are intriguing. Results from sequencing data analysis were presented elegantly.

I also have critiques. First, the lack of eccDNA quality control step is a concern. Previous studies employed electron microscopy to ensure that DNA species are mostly circular before rolling-circle amplification. Phi29 polymerase is widely used for DNA amplification, including whole genome amplification of linear chromosomal DNA. Phi29 polymerase has a high processivity and strand displacement activity. When those activities occur within a molecule, it creates circular DNA from linear DNA in vitro. In vitro-created eccDNA from linear DNA would be randomly distributed in the genome, which may explain the low incidence of common eccDNA between replicates. Therefore, it will be crucial to show that DNA prior to amplification is dominantly circular. Electron microscopy would be challenging for the study because the relatively small number of cells were processed to enrich eccDNA. An alternative method for quality controls includes spiking samples with linear and circular exogenous DNA and measuring the ratios of circular/linear control DNA before and after column purification/exonuclease digestion. eccDNA isolation procedures can be validated by a very high circular/linear control DNA ratio.

Another critique is regarding the limitation of the study. It is important to remind the readers of the limitations of the study. As the authors mentioned, rolling circle amplification preferentially increases the copy numbers of smaller eccDNA. Therefore, the native composition of eccDNA is skewed. In addition, the candidate eccDNAs are identified by split reads or discordant read pairs. The details of the mapping process are unclear from the methods, but such a method would require reads with high mapping quality; the identification of eccDNA is expected to require sequencing reads that are mapped to genomic locations uniquely with high confidence, and reads mapped to more than one genomic location, such as highly similar repeat sequences or duplications, are eliminated. Such identification criteria would favor eccDNA formed by little or no homology at the junction sequences, and eliminate eccDNA formed by long homologies at the ends, such as eccDNA formed exclusively by satellite DNA. Therefore, it is not surprising that the authors found the dominance of microhomology-mediated eccDNA. It remains to be determined whether small eccDNA with microhomologies are the dominant species of eccDNA in the native composition. In this regard, it is noted that similar procedures of eccDNA enrichment (column purification, exonuclease digestion, and rolling circle amplification ) revealed variable sizes and characteristics of eccDNA in sperm (human from Henriksen et al. or mice from this study), dependent on the methods of sequencing (long-read or short-read sequencing). Considering these limitations, the last sentence of the introduction, "We conclude that germline eccDNAs are formed largely by microhomology mediated ligation of nucleosome protected fragments, and barely contribute to de novo genomic deletions at meiotic recombination hotspots" needs to be revised.

Small eccDNA (microDNA) data from various mouse tissues are available from the study by Dillion et al., (Cell Reports 2015). Authors are encouraged to examine whether the notable findings in this study (oligonucleosomal-sized eccDNA peaks and the association with apoptotic cell death) are unique to sperm or common in the eccDNA from other tissues.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This study presents a useful investigation of eccDNAs in spermatogenesis of mouse. It provides evidence about the biogenesis of eccDNAs and suggests that eccDNAs are derived from oligonucleosmal DNA fragmentation during apoptosis by MMEJ and may not be the direct products of germline deletions. However, the method of data analyses were not fully described and data analysis is incomplete. It provides additional observations about the eccDNA biogenesis and can be used as a starting point for functional studies of eccDNA in sperms. However, many aspects about data analyses and data interpretations need to be improved.

• Most of the conclusions made by the work are only based on the bioinformatics analyses, the validation of these foundlings using other method (biochemistry/molecular biology method) are missing. For example, no QC results presented for the eccDNA purification, which may show whether contaminates such as linear DNA or mitochondria DNA have been fully removed. Additionally, it is also helpful to use simple PCR to test the existence of identified eccDNAs in sperm or other samples to validate the specificity of the Circle-seq method.

• The reliability of the data analysis methods is uncertain, as the authors constructed and utilized their own pipeline to identify eccDNAs, despite the availability of established bioinformatics tools such as ECCsplorer, eccFinder, and Amplicon Architect. Moreover, the lack of validation of the pipeline using either ground truth datasets or simulation data raises concerns about its accuracy. Additionally, the methodology employed for identifying eccDNA that encompasses multiple gene loci remains unclear.

• Although the author stated that previous studies utilizing short-read sequencing technologies may have incorrectly annotated eccDNA breakpoints, this claim requires careful scrutiny and supporting evidence, which was not provided in the manuscript.

• The similarity between the eccDNA profiles of human and mouse sperm remains uncertain, and therefore, analyses of human eccDNA data and comparisons between the two are necessary if the authors claim that their findings of widespread eccDNA formation in mouse spermatogenesis extend to human sperms.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In their manuscript "Spindle assembly checkpoint-dependent mitotic delay is required for cell division in absence of centrosomes," Farrell and colleagues employ carefully chosen approaches to assay mitotic timeliness in the absence of centrosomes in mammalian culture cells, namely the mechanism behind it and its function. The authors acknowledge prior work well and present their data succinctly, clearly, and with a clear logical flow of experiments. The experiments are thoughtfully designed and presented, with appropriate controls in place.

The authors' model whereby centrosome separation and its early definition of poles mediates timely mitosis without relying on a SAC-dependent delay is compelling, and the authors' data are consistent with it. They show using two different MPS1 inhibitors that acentrosomal cell division fails, supporting their claims that a SAC-dependent delay is required in these instances. Furthermore, they show that reintroducing a time delay is sufficient to restore cell division, but inhibiting a different aspect of SAC function does not restore cell division. Next, the authors rule out polyploidy as a potential confounding factor for requiring a SAC-dependent delay, and instead demonstrate that inhibiting centrosome separation by Eg5 inhibition is sufficient to require this delay for mitotic progression. The authors' findings overall support their proposed model.

Probing what aspects of centrosomes protect against a requirement for SAC-dependent delays would strengthen the work and specifically the conclusion that centrosomes provide "two-ness". For example, the authors could examine division in a population of cells with only one centrosome. Seeing some restoration of mitotic progression in the absence of SAC-dependent delays would suggest that even one centrosome with uninhibited Eg5 is sufficient to negate SAC-dependent delays, and would limit models for what exactly centrosomes contribute. This would help disentangle the roles of actual centrosomes and their biochemical cues, Eg5-driven centrosome separation, and early definition of poles on mitotic progression in the absence of SAC-dependent delays. Making a high fraction of cells with one centrosome could be achieved by using centrinone for a shorter time.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Centrosomes are an integral part of cell division in most animal cells. There are notable exceptions, however, such as oocytes and plants. In addition, some animal cells can be engineered to lack centrosomes yet they can still manage to complete mitosis. This paper uses a couple methods (PLK4 inhibition and deletion of SASS6) to remove centrosomes from an immortalized cell line. Indeed, a strength of the paper is that similar results are obtained using both protocols to generate acentrosomal cells. The authors find acentrosomal cells take longer to divide, mostly due to a longer metaphase. The paper is based on the finding that inhibition of MPS1 results in a failure to divide, and the hypothesis that a SAC - dependent delay is required for these acentrosomal cells to divide.

The finding that MPS1 inhibition results in a failure to division is interesting. This is investigated by analyzing cells where AurB, APC or Eg5 (to generate monastral spindles) have been inhibited. My concerns are that the results are not conclusive that the effect of MPS1 is on cell cycle regulation. There is not enough data to make a conclusion as to why inhibition of MPS1 results in cell division failure.

1) An example is how to interpret the effect of Aurora B inhibition, which does not block acentrosomal cell division. If Aurora B is required for SAC activity, it suggests this effect of MPS1 may be a function other than SAC. Given the complexity of the SAC, it would be informative to test other SAC components. Instead, the authors conclude that the mitotic delay caused by MPS is required for acentrosomal cell division. I don't think they have ruled out, or even addressed other functions of MPS1.

2) The authors find that when both the APC and MPS1 are inhibited, the cells eventually divide. These results are intriguing, but hard to interpret. The authors suggest that the failure to divide in MPS1-inhibited cells is because they enter anaphase, and then must back out. This is hard to understand and there is not data supporting some kind of aborted anaphase. Is the division observed with double inhibition some sort of bypass of the block caused by MPS1 inhibition alone? It is not clear why inhibition of APC causes increased cell division when MPS1 is inhibited.

3) The authors characterize MTOC formation in these cells, which is also interesting. MTOCs are established after NEB in acentrosomal cells. Indeed, forming these MTOCs is probably a key mechanism for how these cells complete a division, like mouse oocytes.

Following this, the results with inhibiting Eg5 are interesting. The double inhibition of MPS1 and Eg5 results in division failure, like MPS1 inhibition in acentrosomal cells. Thus, there is a cell division block when the centrioles fail to divide. This result raises the possibility that failure to make a bipolar spindle, or the presence of a monopolar spindle, is the problem. In the absence of a bipolar spindle, a SAC induced delay is required for spindle assembly. This is a possibility but there are multiple interpretations of these results. Primarily, these results do not show the MPS1 effect on acentrosomal cells is SAC related. That a SAC mediated delay is required for acentrosmomal spindle assembly is not the only conclusion.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Based on a recent report of spontaneous and reversible remapping of spatial representations in the enthorhinal cortex (Low et al 2021), this study sets out to examine possible mechanisms by which a network can simultaneously represent a positional variable and an uncorrelated binary internal state. To this end, the authors analyse the geometry of activity in recurrent neural networks trained to simultaneously encode an estimate of position in a one-dimensional track and a transiently-cued binary variable. They find that network activity is organised along two separate ring manifolds. The key result is that these two manifolds are significantly more aligned than expected by chance, as previously found in neural recordings. Importantly, the authors show that this is not a direct consequence of the design of the model, and clarify scenarios by which weaker alignment could be achieved. The model is then extended to a two-dimensional track, and to more than two internal variables. The latter case is compared with experimental data that had not been previously analysed.

Strengths:<br /> - rigorous and careful analysis of activity in trained recurrent neural networks<br /> - particular care is taken to show that the obtained results are not a necessary consequence of the design of the model<br /> - the writing is very clear and pleasant to read<br /> - close comparison with experimental data<br /> - extensions beyond the situations studied in experiments (two-dimensional track, more than two internal states)

Weaknesses:<br /> - no major weaknesses<br /> - (minor) the comparison with previous models of remapping could be expanded

Altogether the conclusions claimed by the authors seem to be strongly supported and convincing.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This important work presents an example of a contextual computation in a navigation task through a comparison of task driven RNNs and mouse neuronal data. Authors perform convincing state of the art analyses demonstrating compositional computation with valuable properties for shared and distinct readouts. This work will be of interest to those studying contextual computation and navigation in biological and artificial systems.

This work advances intuitions about recent remapping results. Authors trained RNNs to output spatial position and context given velocity and 1-bit flip-flops. Both of these tasks have been trained separately, but this is the first time to my knowledge that one network was trained to output both context and spatial position. This work is also somewhat similar to previous work where RNNs were trained to perform a contextual variation on the Ready-Set-Go with various input configurations (Remington et al. 2018). Additionally findings in the context of recent motor and brain machine interface tasks are consistent with these findings (Marino et al in prep). In all cases contextual input shifts neural dynamics linearly in state space. This shift results in a compositional organization where spatial position can be consistently decoded across contexts. This organization allows for generalization in new contexts. These findings in conjunction with the present study make a consistent argument that remapping events are the result of some input (contextual or otherwise) that moves the neural state along the remapping dimension.

The strength of this paper is that it tightly links theoretical insights with experimental data, demonstrating the value of running simulations in artificial systems for interpreting emergent properties of biological neuronal networks. For those familiar with RNNs and previous work in this area, these findings may not significantly advance intuitions beyond those developed in previous work. It's still valuable to see this implementation and satisfying demonstration of state of the art methods. The analysis of fixed points in these networks should provide a model for how to reverse engineer and mechanistically understand computation in RNNs.

I'm curious how the results might change or look the same if the network doesn't need to output context information. One prediction might be that the two rings would collapse resulting in completely overlapping maps in either context. I think this has interesting implications about the outputs of the biological system. What information should be maintained for potential readout and what information should be discarded? This is relevant for considering the number of maps in the network. Additionally, I could imagine the authors might reproduce their current findings in another interesting scenario: Train a network on the spatial navigation task without a context output. Fix the weights. Then provide a new contextual input for the network. I'm curious whether the geometric organization would be similar in this case. This would be an interesting scenario because it would show that any random input could translate the ring attractor that maintains spatial position information without degradation. It might not work, but it could be interesting to try!

I was curious and interested in the authors choice to not use activity or weight regularization in their networks. My expectation is that regularization might smooth the ring attractor to remove coding irrelevant fluctuations in neural activity. This might make Supplementary Figure 1 look more similar across model and biological remapping events (Line 74). I think this might also change the way authors describe potential complex and high dimensional remapping events described in Figure 2A.

Overall this is a nice demonstration of state-of-the-art methods to reverse engineer artificial systems to develop insights about biological systems. This work brings together concepts for various tasks and model organisms to provide a satisfying analysis of this remapping data.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This important work provides convincing evidence that artificial recurrent neural networks can be used to model neural activity during remapping events while an animal is moving along a one-dimensional circular track. This will be of interest to neuroscientists studying the neural dynamics of navigation and memory, as well as the community of researchers seeking to make links between artificial neural networks and the brain.

Low et al. trained artificial recurrent neural networks (RNNs) to keep track of their location during a navigation task and then compared the activity of these model neurons to the firing rates of real neurons recorded while mice performed a similar task. This study shows that a simple set of ingredients, namely, keeping track of spatial location along a one-dimensional circular track, along with storing the memory of a binary variable (representing which of the two spatial maps are currently being used), are enough to obtain model firing rates that reproduce features of real neural recordings during remapping events. This offers both a normative explanation for these neural activity patterns as well as a potential biological implementation.

One advantage of this modeling approach using RNNs is that this gives the authors a complete set of firing rates that can be used to solve the task. This makes analyzing these RNNs easier, and opens the door for analyses that are not always practical with limited neural data. The authors leverage this to study the stable and unstable fixed points of the model. However, in this paper there appear to be a few places where analyses that were performed on the RNNs were not performed on the neural data, missing out on an opportunity to appreciate the similarity, or identify differences and pose challenges for future modeling efforts. For example, in the neural data, what is the distribution of the differences between the true remapping vectors for all position bins and the average remapping vector? What is the dimensionality of the remapping vectors? Do the remapping vectors vary smoothly over position? Do the results based on neural data look similar to the results shown for the RNN models (Figures 2C-E)?

I enjoyed that the authors leveraged the RNNs to model remapping in a 2D navigation task that is harder to understand from data alone, at least with current experimental capabilities. I would recommend clarifying that you're studying a 2D environment that consists of two circular variables. Currently, this is not clear from the text, and it is more natural to interpret the task schematic in Figure 4A as depicting an arena without periodic boundary conditions. Figure 4F depicts neural activity for this task as a standard torus, however, I suspect the neural activity might actually lie along the surface of a Clifford torus as Cueva, Ardalan et al. 2021 found when they trained a RNN to store two circular variables. As a disclaimer, I am one of the authors of that study.

There are many choices that must be made when simulating RNNs and there is a growing awareness that these choices can influence the kinds of solutions RNNs develop. For example, how are the parameters of the RNN initialized? How long is the RNN trained on the task? Are the firing rates encouraged to be small or smoothly varying during training? For the most part these choices are not explored in this paper so I would interpret the authors' results as highlighting a single slice of the solution space while keeping in mind that other potential RNN solutions may exist. For example, the authors note that the RNN and biological data do not appear to solve the 1D navigation and remapping task with the simplest 3-dimensional solution. However, it seems likely that an RNN could also be trained such that it only encodes the task relevant dynamics of this 3-dimensional solution, by training longer or with some regularization on the firing rates. Similarly, a higher-dimensional RNN solution may also be possible and this would likely be necessary to explain the more variable manifold misalignment reported in the experimental data of Low et al. 2021 as opposed to the more tightly aligned distribution for the RNNs in this paper. However, thanks to the modeling work done in this paper, the door has now been opened to these and many other interesting research directions.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Meta-cognition, and difficulty judgments specifically, is an important part of daily decision-making. When facing two competing tasks, individuals often need to make quick judgments on which task they should approach (whether their goal is to complete an easy or a difficult task).

In the study, subjects face two perceptual tasks on the same screen. Each task is a cloud of dots with a dominating color (yellow or blue), with a varying degree of domination - so each cloud (as a representation of a task where the subject has to judge which color is dominant) can be seen an easy or a difficult task. Observing both, the subject has to decide which one is easier.

It is well-known that choices and response times in each separate task can be described by a drift-diffusion model, where the decision maker accumulates evidence toward one of the decisions ("blue" or "yellow") over time, making a choice when the accumulated evidence reaches a predetermined bound. However, we do not know what happens when an individual has to make two such judgments at the same time, without actually making a choice, but simply deciding which task would have stronger evidence toward one of the options (so would be easier to solve).

It is clear that the degree of color dominance ("color strength" in the study's terms) of both clouds should affect the decision on which task is easier, as well as the total decision time. Experiment 1 clearly shows that color strength has a simple cumulative effect on choice: cloud 1 is more likely to be chosen if it is easier and cloud 2 is harder. Response times, however, show a more complex interactive pattern: when cloud 2 is hard, easier cloud 1 produces faster decisions. When cloud 2 is easy, easier cloud 1 produces slower decisions.

The study explores several models that explain this effect. The best-fitting model (the Difference model is the paper's terminology) assumes that the decision-maker accumulates evidence in both clouds simultaneously and makes a difficulty judgment as soon as the difference between the values of these decision variables reaches a certain threshold. Another potential model that provides a slightly worse fit to the data is a two-step model. First, the decision maker evaluates the dominant color of each cloud, then judges the difficulty based on this information.

Importantly, the study explores an optimal model based on the Markov decision processes approach. This model shows a very similar qualitative pattern in RT predictions but is too complex to fit to the real data. It is hard to judge from the results of the study how the models identified above are specifically related to the optimal model - possibly, the fact that simple approaches such as the Difference model fit the data best could suggest the existence of some cognitive constraints that play a role in difficulty judgments.

The Difference model produces a well-defined qualitative prediction: if the dominant color of both clouds is known to the decision maker, the overall RT effect (hard-hard trials are slower than easy-easy trials) should disappear. Essentially, that turns the model into the second stage of the two-stage model, where the decision maker learns the dominant colors first. The data from Experiment 2 impressively confirms that prediction and provides a good demonstration of how the model can explain the data out-of-sample with a predicted change in context.

Overall, the study provides a very coherent and clean set of predictions and analyses that advance our understanding of meta-cognition. The field would benefit from further exploration of differences between the models presented and new competing predictions (for instance, exploring how the sequential presentation of stimuli or attentional behavior can impact such judgments). Finally, the study provides a solid foundation for future neuroimaging investigations.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Starting from the observation that difficulty estimation lies at the core of human cognition, the authors acknowledge that despite extensive work focusing on the computational mechanisms of decision-making, little is known about how subjective judgments of task difficulty are made. Instantiating the question with a perceptual decision-making task, the authors found that how humans pick the easiest of two stimuli, and how quickly these difficulty judgments are made, are best described by a simple evidence accumulation model. In this model, perceptual evidence of concurrent stimuli is accumulated and difficulty is determined by the difference between the absolute values of decision variables corresponding to each stimulus, combined with a threshold crossing mechanism. Altogether, these results strengthen the success of evidence accumulation models, and more broadly sequential sampling models, in describing human decision-making, now extending it to judgments of difficulty.

The manuscript addresses a timely question and is very well written, with its goals, methods and findings clearly explained and directly relating to each other. The authors are specialists in evidence accumulation tasks and models. Their modelling of human behaviour within this framework is state-of-the-art. In particular, their model comparison is guided by qualitative signatures which are diagnostic to tease apart the different models (e.g., the RT criss-cross pattern). Human behaviour is then inspected for these signatures, instead of relying exclusively on quantitative comparison of goodness-of-fit metrics. This work will likely have a wide impact in the field of decision-making, and this across species. It will echo in particular with many other studies relying on the similar theoretical account of behaviour (evidence accumulation).

A few points nevertheless came to my attention while reading the manuscript, which the authors might find useful to answer or address in a new version of their manuscript.

1. The authors acknowledge that difficulty estimation occurs notably before exploration (e.g., attempting a new recipe) or learning (e.g., learning a new musical piece) situations. Motivated by the fact that naturalistic tasks make difficult the identification of the inference process underlying difficulty judgments, the authors instead chose a simple perceptual decision-making task to address their question. While I generally agree with the authors's general diagnostic, I am nevertheless concerned so as to whether the task really captures the cognitive process of interest as described in the introduction. As coined by the authors themselves, the main function of prospective difficulty judgment is to select a task which will then ultimately be performed, or reject one which won't. However, in the task presented here, participants are asked to produce difficulty judgments without those judgements actually impacting the future in the task. A feature thus key to difficulty judgments thus seems lacking from the task. Furthermore, the trial-by-trial feedback provided to participants also likely differ from difficulty judgments made in real world. This comment is probably difficult to address but it might generally be useful to discuss the limitations of the task, in particular in probing the desired cognitive process as described in introduction. Currently, no limitations are discussed.

2. The authors take their findings as the general indication that humans rely on accumulation evidence mechanisms to probe the difficulty of perceptual decisions. I would probably have been slightly more cautious in excluding alternative explanations. First, only accumulation models are compared. It is thus simply not possible to reach a different conclusion. Second, even though it is particularly compelling to see untested predictions from the winning model in experiment #1 to be directly tested, and validated in a second experiment, that second experiment presents data from only 3 participants (1 of which has slightly different behaviour than the 2 others), thereby limiting the generality of the findings. Third, the winning model in experiment #1 (difference model) is the preferred model on 12 participants, out of the 20 tested ones. Fourth, the raw BIC values are compared against each other in absolute terms without relying on significance testing of the differences in model frequency within the sample of participants (e.g., using exceedance probabilities; see Stephan et al., 2009 and Rigoux et al., 2014). Based on these different observations, I would thus have interpreted the results of the study with a bit more caution and avoided concluding too widely about the generality of the findings.

3. Deriving and describing the optimal model of the task was particularly appreciated. It was however a bit disappointing not to see how well the optimal model explains participants behaviour and whether it does so better than the other considered models. Also, it would have been helpful to see how close each of the 4 models compared in Figures 2 & 3 get to the optimal solution. Note however that neither of these comments are needed to support the authors' claims.

4. The authors compared the difficulty vs. color judgment conditions to conclude that the accumulation process subtending difficulty judgements is partly distinct from the accumulation process leading to perceptual decisions themselves. To do so, they directly compared reaction times obtained in these two conditions (e.g. "in other cases, the two perceptual decisions are almost certainly completed before the difficulty decision"). However, I find it difficult to directly compare the 'color' and 'difficulty' conditions as the latter entails a single stimulus while the former comprises two stimuli. Any reaction-time difference between conditions could thus I believe only follow from asymmetric perceptual/cognitive load between conditions (at least in the sense RT_color < RT_difficulty). One alternative could have been to present two stimuli in the 'color' condition as well, and asking participants to judge both (or probe which to judge later in the trial). Implementing this now would however require to run a whole new experiment which is likely too demanding. Perhaps the authors could instead also acknowledge that this a critical difference between their conditions, which makes direct comparison difficult.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The manuscript presents novel findings regarding the metacognitive judgment of difficulty of perceptual decisions. In the main task, subjects accumulated evidence over time about two patches of random dot motion, and were asked to report for which patch it would be easier to make a decision about its dominant color, while not explicitly making such decision(s). Using 4 models of difficulty decisions, the authors demonstrate that the reaction time of these decisions are not solely governed by the difference in difficulties between patches (i.e., difference in stimulus strength), but (also) by the difference in absolute accumulated evidence for color judgment of the two stimuli. In an additional experiment, the authors eliminated part of the uncertainty by informing participants about the dominant color of the two stimuli. In this case, reaction times were faster compared to the original task, and only depended on the difference between stimulus strength.

Overall, the paper is very well written, figures and illustrations clearly and adequately accompanied the text, and the method and modeling are rigor.

The weakness of the paper is that it does not provide sufficient evidence to rule out the possibility that judging the difficulty of a decision may actually be comparing between levels of confidence about the dominant color of each stimulus. One may claim that an observer makes an implicit color decision about each stimulus, and then compares the confidence levels about the correctness of the decisions. This concern is reflected in the paper in several ways:

1. It is not clear what were the actual instructors to the participants, as two different phrasings appear in the methods: one instructs participants to indicate which stimulus is the easier one and the other instructs them to indicate the patch with the stronger color dominance. If both instructions are the same, it can be assumed that knowing the dominant color of each patch is in fact solving the task, and no judgment of difficulty needs to be made (perhaps a confidence estimation). Since this is not a classical perceptual task where subjects need to address a certain feature of the stimuli, but rather to judge their difficulties, it is important to make it clear.

2. Two step model: two issues are a bit puzzling in this model. First, if an observer reaches a decision about the dominant color of each patch, does it mean one has made a color decision about the patches? If so, why should more evidence be accumulated? This may also support the possibility that this is a "post decision" confidence judgment rather than a "pre decision" difficulty judgment. Second, the authors assume the time it takes to reach a decision about the dominant color for both patches are equal, i.e., the boundaries for the "mini decision" are symmetrical. However, it would make sense to assume that patches with lower strength would require a longer time to reach the boundaries.

3. Experiment 2: the modification of the Difference model to fit the known condition (Figure 5b), can also be conceptualized as the two-step model, excluding the "mini" color decision time. These two models (Difference model with known color; two-step model) only differ from each other in a way that in the former the color is known in advance, and in the second, the subject has to infer it. One may wonder if the difference in patterns between the two (Figure 3C vs. Figure 6B) is only due to the inaccuracies of inferring the dominant color in the two-step model.

An additional concern is about the controlled duration task: Why were these specific durations chosen (0.1-1.65 sec; only a single duration was larger than 1sec), given the much longer reaction times in the main task (Experiment 1), which were all larger on average than 1sec? This seems a bit like an odd choice. Additionally, difficulty decision accuracies in this version of the task differ between known and unknown conditions (Figure 7), while in the reaction time version of the same task there were no detectable differences in performance between known and unknown conditions (Figure 6C), just in the reaction times. This discrepancy is not sufficiently explained in the manuscript. Could this be explained by the short trial durations?

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This paper performed a functional analysis of the poorly characterized pseudo-phosphatase Styxl2, one of the targets of the Jak/Stat pathway in muscle cells. The authors propose that Styxl2 is essential for de novo sarcomere assembly by regulating autophagic degradation of non-muscle myosin IIs (NM IIs). Although a previous study by Fero et al. (2014) has already reported that Styxl2 is essential for the integrity of sarcomeres, this study provides new mechanistic insights into the phenomenon. In vivo studies in this manuscript are compelling; however, I feel the contribution of autophagy in the degradation of NM IIs is still unclear.

Major concerns:

1) The contribution of autophagy in the degradation of Myh9 is still unclear to this reviewer. It has been reported that autophagy is dispensable for sarcomere assembly in mice (Cell Metab, 2009, PMID; 1994508). In Fig. 7A, the authors showed that overexpressed Styxl2 downregulated the amount of ectopically expressed Myh9 in an ATG5-dependent manner in C2C12 cells; however, the experiment is far from a physiological condition. Therefore, the authors should test ATG5 knockdown and the genetic interaction between Styxl2 and ATG5 in vivo. That is, 1) loss of ATG5 on sarcomere assembly in zebrafish, and 2) the genetic interaction between Styxl2 and ATG5; co-injection of Styxl2 mRNA and ATG5-MO into the zebrafish embryos.

2) As referenced, Yamamoto et al. reported that Myh9 is degraded by autophagy. Mechanistically, Nek9 acts as an autophagic adaptor that bridges Atg8 and Myh9 through interactions with both. Inconsistent with the model, the authors mentioned on page 12, lines 365-367, "A recent report showed that Myh9 could also undergo Nek9-mediated selective autophagy (Yamamoto et al., 2021), suggesting that Myh9 is ubiquitinated". I think it is not yet explored whether autophagic degradation of Myh9 requires its ubiquitination. Moreover, I cannot judge whether Myh9 is ubiquitinated in a Styxl2-dependent manner from the data in Fig. 7C. The author should test whether Nek9 is required for Myh9 degradation in muscles. If Nek plays a role in the Myh9 degradation, it would be better to remove Fig. 7C.

3) In Fig. 5F, the protein level of Styxl2 and Myh10 should be checked because the efficiency of Myh10-MO was not shown anywhere in this manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors investigated the role of the Jak1-Stat1 signaling pathway in myogenic differentiation by screening the transcriptional targets of Jak1-Stat1 and identified Styxl2, a pseudophosphatase, as one of them. Styxl2 expression was induced in differentiating muscles. The authors used a zebrafish knockdown model and conditional knockout mouse models to show that Styxl2 is required for de novo sarcomere assembly but is dispensable for the maintenance of existing sarcomeres. Styxl2 interacts with the non-muscle myosin IIs, Myh9 and Myh10, and promotes the replacement of these non-muscle myosin IIs by muscle myosin IIs through inducing autophagic degradation of Myh9 and Myh10. This function is independent of its phosphatase domain.

A previous study using zebrafish found that Styxl2 (previously known as DUSP27) is expressed during embryonic muscle development and is crucial for sarcomere assembly, but its mechanism remains unknown. This paper provides important information on how Styxl2 mediates the replacement of non-muscle myosin with muscle myosin during differentiation. This study may also explain why autophagy deficiency in muscles and the heart causes sarcomere assembly defects in previous mouse models.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Wu and colleagues are characterising the function of Styxl2 during muscle development, a pseudo-phosphatase that was already described to have some function in sarcomere morphogenesis or maintenance (Fero et al. 2014). The authors verify a role for Styxl2 in sarcomere assembly/maintenance using zebrafish embryonic muscles by morpholino knock-down and by a conditional Styxl2 allele in mice (knocked-out in satellite cells with Pax7 Cre).

Experiments using a tamoxifen inducible Cre suggest that Styxl2 is dispensable for sarcomere maintenance and only needed for sarcomere assembly.

BioID experiments with Styxl2 in C2C 12 myoblasts suggest binding of nonmuscle myosins (NMs) to Styxl2. Interestingly, both NMs are downregulated when muscles differentiate after birth or during regeneration in mice. This down-regulation is reduced in the Styxl2 mutant mice, suggesting that Styxl2 is required for the degradation of these NMs.

Impressively, reducing one NM (zMyh10) by double morpholino injection in a Styxl2 morphant zebrafish, does improve zebrafish mobility and sarcomere structure. Degradation of Mhy9 is also stimulated in cell culture if Styxl2 is co-expressed. Surprisingly, the phosphatase domain is not needed for these degradation and sarcomere structure rescue effects. Inhibitor experiments suggest that Styxl2 does promote the degradation of NMs by promoting the selective autophagy pathway.

Strengths:

A major strength of the paper is the combination of various systems, mouse and fish muscles in vivo to test Styxl2 function, and cell culture including a C2C12 muscle cell line to assay protein binding or protein degradation as well as inhibitor studies that can suggest biochemical pathways.

Weakness:

The weakness of this manuscript is that the sarcomere phenotypes and also the western blots are not quantified. Hence, we rely on judging the results from a single image or blot.<br /> Also, Styxl2 role in sarcomere biology was not entirely novel.

Few high resolution sarcomere images are shown, myosins have not been stained for.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

C. elegans is a pre-eminent model for developmental genetics, and its invariant lineage makes it possible in theory to define molecular features such as gene expression comprehensively and at single cell resolution across the organism.

Previously published single-cell RNA-seq studies have mapped gene expression across the lineage through the 16-cell stage (Tintori et al 2017, Hashimshony et al 2016), and at later stages (Packer et al 2019, with good coverage starting at the 100-cell stage and some coverage at the ~50-cell stage). This left the critical period around gastrulation (~28-cell and ~50-cell) without comprehensive transcriptome data. This study covers this gap with a heroic effort involving the manual isolation and analysis of over 800 cells from embryos of known stage, combined with painstaking curation using known markers from small scale studies and larger imaging-based expression atlases. Importantly, the dataset overlaps at early and late stages with data from prior studies.

The data quality and overlap with Tintori and Packer datasets both appear high, but to make this inference required additional analysis from Supplemental Table 6 by this reviewer as it is not explored or described in the manuscript. Analyses demonstrating continuity with these datasets would greatly increase the value of the resource.

The authors show that specific lineages and stages preferentially express TFs with different classes of DNA binding domains. This extends previous work implicating homeodomains as preferentially involved in nervous system patterning and as enriched in neural and muscle progenitors in mid-stage embryos.

They also show that C. elegans homologs of Drosophila early embryonic regulators (which function based on spatial position in that system) tend to also be patterned in early C. elegans embryos, but with lineage-specific patterns. This conserved use of regulators would be fairly remarkable given the dramatically different developmental modes in these two species, although this observation is not backed up by quantitative analyses.

Finally, there is an argument that combinations of TFs expressed in lineage-specific patterns give rise to "stripe" patterns. This section is also not based on statistical analyses but suggests the possibility that lineage and positional regulation may be more convoluted than was previously thought.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The C. elegans embryo has been model system of study for more than 30 years because of the ease of doing forward and reverse genetics, coupled with its nearly invariant lineage which allows a description of development at high resolution. 4D time lapse imaging coupled with spatially resolved gene expression has enabled identification of transcriptional signatures of cells in space and time, and in the past decade this has been advanced with single-cell transcriptomics methods, using individually isolated embryonic cells (which can retain their identity) or by deconvolving complex mixtures of early cells. Recent work using these methods has resolved spatiotemporal expression patterns for many genes, defining cells up to gastrulation stage, but then changing to more tissue-specific patterns during morphogenesis. A key paradigm of specification in C. elegans and other systems is that early maternal factors initiate or restrict patterns of transcription factor expression from the zygotic genome. Combinatorial expression patterns and some symmetries broken by autonomous or extrinsic cell inductions ultimately program lineages towards their fates. To date, only simple networks have been elucidated, as the increasing complexity of these networks and the high level of redundancy has made functional dissection of such pathways difficult. Hence, almost all of the work in recent years has been descriptive.

In this work the authors fill a knowledge gap from the early embryo (~16 cells) to the ~100-cell stage and describe new patterns of gene expression. They reconcile their findings with that of others who have defined expression patterns using other methods, such as scRNA-Seq from complex mixtures of cells, and from transcription factor expression analyses. The resulting description of embryonic develop is the most precise to date, and offers a potentially useful resource for other researchers.<br /> The authors attempt to use their results to find patterns of gene expression that could hint at phylogenetic conservation of specification mechanisms. They find some supporting evidence that expression of homeobox genes occurs in anterior-posterior stripes, which recalls the elaborate A/P patterning system elucidated in the Drosophila embryo, which belongs to the sister phylum Arthropoda in the Ecdysozoan clade of molting animals. It felt as if the authors chose the Hox genes they need to support this conclusion.

Some caveats exist to the work. The expression patterns seem to be well-validated, and following prior work from the Yanai group are likely to be strongly correlated with expression in living embryos. When cells are separated, they could lose some expression patterns that require cell-cell interactions, so it is expected that there might be a small minority of expression patterns that are more complex than what has been documented here.

A major caveat is the idea of the stripes of Hox expression. I just did not find these arguments to be compelling. Seeing these 'stripes' requires organizing the data in a way that maximizes their appearance, for one. Since there is not a lot of movement of cells away from their birth in the early embryo, the AB descendants are anterior to those of MS, anterior to those of E, anterior to those of C, D, and P4. Lineage-specific expression will just naturally fall into 'stripes'. Second, the conservation of Hox expression patterns typically comes with collinearity of the genes along the length of a chromosome (i.e. the so-called Hox clusters) with expression along the body axis, as well as posterior-to-anterior fate transformations when Hox specification is disrupted.

A minor note is the detection of an enrichment of GATA factors in the early E lineage. This has now been found to be a derived condition even within the genus (see Broitman-Maduro et al. Development 149 (21): dev200984, as other species like C. angaria show only a simpler network of elt-3 -> elt-2. This suggests that many of the other patterns of gene expression, particularly in the early embryo, could be highly derived as well; some caution is warranted in generalizing the results as being conserved with arthropods as some of this could be convergent.

Given what the authors are proposing about Hox stripes, some omissions of prior work were surprising (or maybe I missed them). For example, a comprehensive study of Hox genes in C. elegans by Hench et al. (2015) (PLoS One 10(5): e0126947) evaluated all the homeobox genes and examined their genomic locations and expression patterns in the embryo at high spatiotemporal resolution. Work from the Hobert lab (Nature 2020, 584(7822):595-601) showed how homeobox codes specify classes of C. elegans neurons, and the Murray lab (PLoS Genet. 18(5):e1010187) examined Hox control of posterior lineage specification at high resolution, with functional assays.

The Discussion section of the paper is brief, consistent with the descriptive nature of the work overall, but it would have been nice to see the findings related to other published studies as indicated above.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The authors claim that this dataset covers a timepoint of embryogenesis that is not well covered in the other published single cell datasets (Tintori et al 2016 and Packer et al 2019). The Tintori data indeed do not cover the 28-102-cell stages sufficiently, but it is unclear how the data presented here compare to the Packer et al data. It is true that the Packer et al data have fewer cells at earlier timepoints than at later ones, but given that they sequenced tens of thousands of cells, they report that they still have ~10,000 cells <210 min of embryogenesis. If the authors want to make any claims about how their data enables exploration of a stage that was previously not accessible, this would require a better comparison to the available data.

The authors provide thorough support for how they assigned cell identities in their data. It is surprising though that at the 102-cell stage they only identify 37 unique cell identities. They suggest that this is because there are many equivalence groups at this stage. However, I would strongly encourage the authors to perform a similar analysis or otherwise compare their obtained identities with the data from Packer et al. 2019. It seems possible that given the low number of cells in this dataset, the authors are missing certain identities and it would be important to know this.

The main analysis the authors perform is to look at expression patterns of various classes of TFs and ask whether they are enriched in particular lineages or at specific timepoints. This analysis is interesting but would be more informative if the authors provided in Figure 3d the numbers of each class of TFs. The authors then focus on the homeodomain class of TFs as they display interesting lineage-specific expression patterns, which when mapped on the embryo form stripes. The stripe pattern however is not that obvious, at least not as shown in Figure 4b (for example all three darker shades of blue looks indistinguishable). Perhaps separate embryo schematics showing the different TF expression patterns would show this more clearly. Moreover, given the relatively small number of cell identities found in this dataset (particularly at the 102-cell stage), a similar analysis using the Packer data would provide further support to these patterns. The localization of cells with shared expression patterns does show a stripe pattern at the 28-cell stage, but also not so clearly beyond this timepoint.

I am also unsure about the validity/value of the comparison of the stripes to Drosophila and the centrality of homeodomain TFs to anterior-posterior positional identity. First, it would be important to map other TFs, very likely there are several other TFs that correlate with positional identity. Also, even if the expression of the homeodomain TFs in C. elegans form stripes, there are still several cells within that stripe that do not express these TFs, it is thus unclear whether these TFs encode positional information or the identity of cells with different positions in the embryo.

Reviewer #4 (Public Review):

This is an admirable piece of work. The authors build on a previous dataset they assembled, but expand it to include all stages of early development in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Cell collection was done manually, which is very impressive, and is clearly far better than pooled unidentified cells. I will not comment on the specific sequencing and analysis, since this is not my expertise, but will comment on the general conclusions and comparative framework in which the authors place their results.

While the Introduction and Discussion sections are actually fairly short, much of the presentation of the results is based on a certain comparative framework, which is explicitly a comparison between C. elegans and Drosophila melanogaster. This is an important perspective, but I feel the authors' interpretation is in some places exaggerated and in other places almost trivial.

Drosophila and C. elegans are two of the main models for developmental biology. However, it has been clear for over two decades that both species are highly derived and specialized and therefore, treating them as representative for their taxa is problematic. Much of the authors' discussion hinges on the question of comparing syncytial and lineage-dependent development. The syncytial early development of Drosophila is very specific and is clearly a recent innovation within a restricted group of flies. The canonical Drosophila segmentation cascade is mostly a novelty and most elements within the cascade are recent (the authors are invited to browse my 2020 review in Curr. Top. Dev. Biol.) Specifically, the expression of gap genes in regional stripes is not found very broadly. Conversely, the polarizing role of Caudal is very ancient and is probably found in all Bilateria. When making comparisons with a distantly related species, it is important to keep this in mind. Not as much is known about development of other nematodes, but the little that is known indicates that C. elegans is also unusual, and specifically, the eutelic development (conserved cell lineages in development) is not found in all nematodes.

The authors suggest that regional expression of transcription factors in stripes is a conserved characteristic of development. This is true for Hox genes and has been known for decades. The regional expression they show for other genes is not convincing as "stripes". It is no surprise that developmental transcription factors are regionalized, but linking this to the stripes of Drosophila gap genes and even more so to Drosophila pair-rule and segment-polarity genes is a bit far-fetched. Yes, many genes are expressed in restricted domains along the A-P axis, but that is all that can be said based on the data. Calling them "Drosophila-like" is unfounded.

Beyond these broad homology statements, the rest of the presentation is fine and I have no major comments.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors of this well-described publication provided strong evidence that current DNA-based microbial genomics methodologies have an inherent constraint. These approaches cannot detect the source of sequenced DNA, and they fail to demonstrate the origin of sequenced DNA from live or non-viable bacteria. Moreover, scientists proved in people and mice that live bacteria for the most part remained within hair follicles rather than on the skin's surface. Overall, this study is of excellent quality and has broad implications beyond a particular subject.

Strengths:

The study is well-designed, and the experimental methods are well-described.<br /> The results are presented clearly and are supported by statistical analyses.<br /> The study's findings are novel and have important implications for understanding the skin microbiome and the biology of the skin.

Weakness:

RNA-based NGS could parallelly study the results of this DNA-based microbiome study. The bulk RNA-Seq can sequence thousands of transcripts from each viable bacterium and match them with the bacterial genome and transcriptome references. It is one of the best confirmatory methods for showing the diversity of viable cutaneous bacteria.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The study by Acosta et al. is very interesting as it presents a simple and easy method for identifying live and dead bacteria DNA in the skin - PMA labeling, verified by FISH. This study provides several meaningful conclusions that could inform future skin microbiome studies:

Firstly, the 16s rRNA gene sequencing of skin microbial samples collected by cotton swabs may include DNA from a large number of dead bacteria, leading to an over-representation of skin bacteria in the analysis.

Secondly, the study found that there were fewer live bacteria on the skin surface than the detected bacterial DNA predicted, with most skin bacteria harboring in the hair follicles. This conclusion aligns with the physiological properties of the skin, as the hair follicle epithelium creates a moist, nutrient-rich, low-UV, and immune-privileged environment, which is conducive to the growth, colonization, and development of microorganisms.

Finally, the authors propose that the bacteria on the skin surface originate from the proliferation and replenishment of hair follicle resident bacteria, which could be one reason for the short-term instability and long-term stability of the skin microbiome.

Overall, this study provides valuable insights into the composition and distribution of skin bacteria and highlights the importance of using appropriate methods to identify live bacteria in skin microbiome studies.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Previous reports suggested an association between ceramide accumulation in skeletal muscle and disruption of insulin signaling and metabolic dysregulation. Mechanistically, however, how intracellular ceramide attenuates insulin action and reduces metabolism is not fully understood. It was suggested that insulin receptor (IR) signaling to PI3-K/AKT is inhibited by elevated intracellular ceramide. However, other studies failed to demonstrate an inhibitory effect of ceramide on PI3K/AKT. More recently, a study was published describing that intracellular localization of diacylglycerols and sphingolipids influences insulin sensitivity and mitochondrial function in human skeletal muscle (PMID: 29415895). In the present study, Diaz-Vegas and colleagues used an in vitro system to investigate this topic further and better understand how intracellular ceramide accumulation causes cellular insulin resistance and metabolic dysregulations in cultured myocytes.

The authors applied multiple methods to achieve this goal. Among these procedures are:

1) The overexpression of enzymes involved in mitochondrial ceramide synthesis and degradation;

2) Treatments of myocytes with different pharmacological tools to validate their findings;

3) Mitochondrial proteomics and lipidomics analyses.

The effects of these experimental conditions and treatment on intracellular lipids contents, mitochondrial functions, and insulin signaling in myocytes were then evaluated.

Findings:

The authors' findings indicate that incubation of myocytes with palmitate increases mitochondrial ceramide and reduces the insulin-stimulated GLUT4-HA translocation to the myocyte surface without affecting AKT activation. The elevation in mitochondrial ceramide lowers the coenzyme Q levels e depletes the electron transport chain (ETC) components, impairing mitochondrial respiration. Such mitochondrial dysfunction appears to attenuate the translocation of GLUT4-HA to the plasma membrane of the L6-myotubule. Also, mitochondrial proteomic analysis revealed an association of insulin sensitivity with mitochondrial ceramide and ETC expression levels in human muscle.

Based on these findings, the authors propose a mechanism whereby the building up of ceramide inside mitochondria depletes CoQ and compromise mitochondrial respiratory complexes, raising ROS. The resulting mitochondrial dysfunction causes insulin resistance in cultured myocytes. They postulate that CoQ depletion links ceramides with insulin resistance and define the respirasome as a critical connection between ceramides and mitochondrial dysfunction.

Relevance and critiques:

This original study provides direct evidence that mitochondrial ceramide accumulation depletes CoQ and downregulates multiple ETC components in myocytes. Consequently, elevation in the levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and mitochondrial dysfunctions occur. The authors proposed that such mitochondrial dysregulation attenuates insulin-stimulated GLUT4 translocation to the plasma membrane of L6-myotubules. Moreover, mitochondrial ceramide accumulation does not affect insulin action on AKT activation.

Overall, this is a well-done study, showing that in obesity, elevated mitochondrial ceramide suppresses mitochondrial function and attenuates insulin action on glucose transporter GLUT4 translocation into the myocyte surface. The main conclusion is supported by the results presented. The study also applied multiple methods and described several experiments designed to test the author's central hypothesis.

Importantly, these new findings shed light on possible cellular mechanisms whereby ectopic fat deposition in skeletal muscle drives insulin resistance and metabolism dysregulation. The results demonstrating that alterations in mitochondrial ceramide are sufficient to attenuate insulin-stimulated GLUT4 trafficking in cultured myocytes are very interesting. Well-done.

Comments for further discussion and suggestions:

Although the authors' results suggest that higher mitochondrial ceramide levels suppress cellular insulin sensitivity, they rely solely on a partial inhibition (i.e., 30%) of insulin-stimulated GLUT4-HA translocation in L6 myocytes. It would be critical to examine how much the increased mitochondrial ceramide would inhibit insulin-induced glucose uptake in myocytes using radiolabel deoxy-glucose.

Another important question to be addressed is whether glycogen synthesis is affected in myocytes under these experimental conditions. Results demonstrating reductions in insulin-stimulated glucose transport and glycogen synthesis in myocytes with dysfunctional mitochondria due to ceramide accumulation would further support the authors' claim.

In addition, it would be critical to assess whether the increased mitochondrial ceramide and consequent lowering of energy levels affect all exocytic pathways in L6 myoblasts or just the GLUT4 trafficking. Is the secretory pathway also disrupted under these conditions?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The findings reported by Diaz-Vegas et al. extend those described in a previous paper from the same group establishing a role for mitochondrial CoQ depletion in the development of insulin resistance in muscle and adipose tissue (Fazakerley, 2018). In this new report, investigators sought to determine whether CoQ depletion contributes to insulin resistance caused by palmitate exposure and/or intracellular ceramide accumulation. To this end, researchers employed a widely used in vitro model of insulin resistance wherein L6 myocytes develop impaired Glut4 translocation upon exposure to palmitate (in this case, 150 uM for 16 hours). This model was combined with a variety of pharmacologic and genetic manipulations aimed at augmenting or inhibiting CoQ biosynthesis and/or ceramide biosynthesis, specifically in mitochondria. This series of experiments produced a valuable and provocative body of evidence positioning CoQ depletion downstream of mitochondrial ceramide accumulation and necessary for both palmitate- and ceramide-induced insulin resistance in L6 myocytes. Investigators concluded that mitochondrial ceramides, CoQ depletion and respiratory dysfunction are part of a core pathway leading to insulin resistance.

Strengths:

The study provides exciting, first-time evidence linking palmitate-induced insulin resistance to ceramide accumulation within the mitochondria and subsequent depletion of CoQ. Ceramide accumulation specifically in mitochondria was found to be necessary and sufficient to cause insulin resistance in cultured L6 myocytes.

The in vitro experiments featured a set of mitochondrial-targeted genetic manipulations that permitted up/down-regulation of ceramide levels specifically in the mitochondrial compartment. Genetically induced mitochondrial ceramide accumulation led to CoQ depletion, which was accompanied by increased ROS production and diminution of ETC proteins and OXPHOS capacity and impaired insulin action, thereby establishing cause/effect.

Analysis of mitochondria isolated from human muscle biopsies obtained from individuals with disparate metabolic phenotypes revealed a positive correlation between complex I proteins and insulin sensitivity and a negative correlation with mitochondrial ceramide content. While it is likely that many factors contribute to these correlations, the results support the possibility that the ceramide/CoQ mechanism might be relevant to glucose control in humans.

These important findings offer valuable new insights into mechanisms that connect ceramides to insulin resistance and mitochondrial dysfunction, and could inform new therapeutic approaches towards improved glucose control.

Weaknesses:

The mechanistic aspect of the work and conclusions put forth rely heavily on studies performed in cultured myocytes, which are highly glycolytic and generally viewed as a poor model for studying muscle metabolism and insulin action. Nonetheless, the findings provide a strong rationale for moving this line of investigation into mouse gain/loss of function models.

One caveat of the approach taken is that exposure of cells to palmitate alone is not reflective of in vivo physiology. It would be interesting to know if similar effects on CoQ are observed when cells are exposed to a more physiological mixture of fatty acids that includes a high ratio of palmitate, but better mimics in vivo nutrition.

While the utility of targeting SMPD5 to the mitochondria is appreciated, the results in Figure 5 suggest that this manoeuvre caused a rather severe form of mitochondrial dysfunction. This could be more representative of toxicity rather than pathophysiology. It would be helpful to know if these same effects are observed with other manipulations that lower CoQ to a similar degree. If not, the discrepancies should be discussed.

The conclusions could be strengthened by more extensive studies in mice to assess the interplay between mitochondrial ceramides, CoQ depletion and ETC/mitochondrial dysfunction in the context of a standard diet versus HF diet-induced insulin resistance. Does P053 affect mitochondrial ceramide, ETC protein abundance, mitochondrial function, and muscle insulin sensitivity in the predicted directions?

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Elkind et al. use a deep learning segmentation algorithm trained on detecting putative cell nuclei in mouse brains to count cells in the Allen Mouse Brain Connectivity Atlas. The Allen Mouse Brain Connectivity Atlas is a dataset compromising hundreds of mice brains. The authors use this increased statistical power for detecting differences in volume, cell count, and cell density between strains (C57BL/6J and FVB.CD1) as well as sex differences.

Both volume, cell count, and cell density are regularly used in neuroanatomy to normalize or benchmark results so having a large available dataset for others to compare their data would be a useful resource. The trained segmentation algorithm might also find utility in assays where investigators for one reason or another can't dedicate an entire labeled channel to count cell nuclei.

Nevertheless, because of technical reasons, I find the current work problematic.

Major:

The authors make use of the "red" channel from the Allen Mouse Brain Connectivity Project (AMBCP). The AMBCP was acquired using two-photon tomography with the TissueCyte 1000 system (http://help.brain-map.org/download/attachments/2818171/Connectivity_Overview.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1489022310670&api=v2). The sample is illuminated at 925 nm wavelength and the channel the authors describe as autofluorescence is collected through a 593/40 nm bandpass filter. The authors go on to describe their rationale for using this channel for quantifying cell nuclei:<br /> "We noticed that the red (background) channel of STPT images, taken for the purpose of atlas alignment, typically features dark, round-like objects resembling cell nuclei. We had observed this phenomenon in our own imaging of mouse brains but found little more than anecdotal mentions of it in the literature8,9,10,11".<br /> The authors here cite a Scientific Reports paper from 2021 with 11 citations, a Journal of Clinical Pathology paper from 2005 with 87 citations, and lastly a paper in Laboratory Investigation from 2016 with 41 citations. The authors completely fail to cite the work from Watt Webb's group (co-inventor of 2p microscopy) in PNAS from 2003 that entirely described the phenomena of native fluorescence by multiphoton-excitation (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0832308100 ), citations so far: 1959 citations. This is either indicative of poor scholarship or an attempt to describe something as novel. Either way, the native fluorescence and second harmonic generation from multiphoton illumination are perfectly characterized by Webb and colleagues and they clearly show the differential effect on nucleosides, retinol, indoleamines, and collagen. This is also where the authors should have paid more attention to discrepancies in their own data when correlated to well-established cell nuclei markers (Murakami et al). The authors will note "black large spots" in the data at specific anatomical regions and structures, like the fornix and stria medullaris:<br /> https://connectivity.brain-map.org/projection/experiment/siv/263780729?imageId=263780960&imageType=TWO_PHOTON,SEGMENTATION&initImage=TWO_PHOTON&x=15702&y=18833&z=5

which is not reproduced in for example the Allen Reference Atlas H&E staining:<br /> http://atlas.brain-map.org/atlas?atlas=1&plate=100960284#atlas=1&plate=100960284&resolution=4.19&x=5507.4000244140625&y=5903.39990234375&zoom=-2

In connection here notice the poor signal in the 2p "autofluorescence" within the paraventricular nucleus:<br /> https://connectivity.brain-map.org/projection/experiment/siv/263780729?imageId=263780960&imageType=TWO_PHOTON,SEGMENTATION&initImage=TWO_PHOTON&x=15702&y=17833&z=6

and then compare it to the H&E staining:<br /> http://atlas.brain-map.org/atlas?atlas=1&plate=100960280#atlas=1&plate=100960276&resolution=1.50&x=5342.476283482143&y=5368.023856026786&zoom=0

These multiphoton-specific signals are especially pronounced in the pons and medulla which makes quantification especially dubious, which is even apparent simply from looking at Figure 1c in the manuscript. The authors here use the correlation on log-log coordinates between their data and that of Murakami et al to argue that the method has validity. However, the variance explained here is R^2 = 0.74 which is very poor given the log-log coordinates. A more valid metric would use linear coordinates and computing the ICC and interpret it according to established guidelines (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4913118/).

In addition to the above concern, the authors argue that the large sample size of the AMBCP is what would enable them to find statistically significant small effect sizes that might have gone undetected in the literature. However, this argument falls flat once we examine some of the main findings the authors report. Although the authors do not directly report measures of dispersion we can estimate it from the figures and then arrive at the sample size needed to find the reported effect size. For example, the effect that describes ORBvl2/3 volume is larger in female mice compared to males would only require n=13 mice at the desired power of 0.8. Likewise, the sample size needed to detect the increased BST volume in male mice looks to be roughly n=16 mice at the desired power of 0.8. Both of these estimates are well within what is a reasonable sample size to expect in an ordinary study. This begs the question: why did the authors simply not verify some of their main findings in an independent sample obtained through traditional ways to quantify volume and cell density since it is well within reach? Such validation would strengthen the arguments of the paper.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This report describes a large-scale analysis of cell counts in mouse brains. The authors found that the Allen Mouse Connectivity project has a rich dataset for cell counting that is yet to be analyzed, and they developed methods to quantify cells in different nuclei. They go on to compare males vs females and two different strains. From this analysis, they found specific differences between male versus female brains, left versus right hemispheres, and C57BL/6 versus FVB.CD1 mice, especially with regard to cell counts and density.

Overall, the methodology is sound and the quality of the data seems high. In fact, this study uses >100 brains for the statistics, and this is one of the major strengths of this study. For researchers who are interested in interrogating the differences at the macroscopic level in brain structures, this study will be a great resource. For example, the manuscript contains an interesting finding that for most brain areas, females have larger volumes but fewer cell numbers.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Elkind et al. have devised a strategy to detect cells in whole brain samples of the large, publicly accessible Allen Mouse Brain Connectivity database. They put together an analysis pipeline to quantify cell numbers and -density as well as volumes for all annotated brain areas in these samples. This allowed them to make several important discoveries such as (1) strain-, sex- and hemisphere-specific differences in cell densities, (2) a large interindividual variability in cell numbers, and (3) an absence of linear scaling of cell count with volume, among others. The key strength of this work lies in its comprehensive analysis, the large sample size that the authors have drawn from (making their conclusions particularly robust), and the fact that they have made their analysis tools accessible. A weakness of the current manuscript is the dense layout and overplotting of several of the figures, and the lack of necessary information to understand them more easily. Another, conceptual weakness of using the autofluorescence channel for cell detection is that the identity (neuronal vs non-neuronal) of the underlying cells remains unresolved. Overall, however, I believe that this study has the potential to serve as a valuable reference point, and I would expect this work to have a lasting impact on quantitative studies of mouse brain cytoarchitecture.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Alignment between high dimensional data which express their dynamics in a subspace is a challenge which has recently been addressed both with analytic-based solutions like the Procrustes transformation, and, most interestingly, via deep learning approaches based on adversarial networks. The authors have previously proposed an adversarial network approach for alignment which relied on first dimensionally-reducing the binned neural spikes using an autoencoder. Here, they use an alternative approach to align data without use of an initial dimensional-reduction step.

The results are fairly clear - the Cycle-GAN approach works better than their previous ADAN approach and one based on dimensionality reduction followed by the Procrustes transform. In general, a criticism of this entire field is to understand what alignment teaches us about the brain or how it specifically will be used in a BCI context.

There are a few issues with the paper.

1.) To increase the impact of their work, the investigators have now used it to align data in multiple types of tasks. There was an unanswered question about this related to neuroscience - does alignment in one task predict alignment for another?

2) Investigators use decoding as a way of comparing alignment performance. The description of the cycle GAN was not super detailed, and it wasn't clear whether there was any dynamic information stored in the network that might create questions of causality in actual use. It seems that input is simply the neural activity at a current time point rather than neural activity across the trial, which would alleviate this concern. However, they mention temporal alignment but never describe in detail whether all periods of spikes are properly modeled by the system or if only subsets of data (specific portions of task or non-task time) will work. Perhaps this is more a question of the Wiener filter, for which precise details are missing.

3) In general, precise details of the algorithms should have been provided.

4) Cross validation for day-0 alignment is not explained.

5) Details of statistical tests is not provided.

6) (minor) The idea that for neurons that have disappeared that the CycleGAN can "infer their response properties", seems an incorrect description. A proper description should be that it "hallucinates" their response properties?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, the authors use generative adversarial networks (GANs) to manipulate neural data recorded from intracortical arrays in the context of intracortical BCIs so that these decoders are robust. Specifically, the authors deal with the hard problem where signals from an intracortical array change over time and decoders that are trained on day 0 do not work on day K. Either the decoder or the neural data needs to be updated to achieve the same performance as initially. GANs try to alter the neural data from day K to make it indistinguishable to day 0 and thus in principle the decoder should perform better. The authors compare their GAN approach to an older GAN approach (by an overlapping group of authors) and suggest that this new GAN approach is somewhat better.

Major Strengths are multiple datasets from behaving monkeys performing various tasks that involve motor function. Comparison between two different GAN approaches and a classical approach that uses factor analysis. The weakness is insufficient comparison to another state-of-the-art approach that has been applied on the same dataset (NoMAD, Karpowicz et al. BioRxiv 2022).

The results are very reasonable and they show their approach, Cycle GANs, does slightly better than the traditional GAN approach. However, the Cycle GANs have many more modules and also as I understand it performs a forward backward mapping of the day - 0 and day - k and thus theoretically better. But, it seems quite slow.

I think the results are interesting but as such, I am not sure this is such a fundamental advance compared to the Farashcian et al. paper, which introduced GANs to improve decoding in the face of changing neural data. There are other approaches that also use GANs and I think they all need to be compared against each other. Finally, these are all offline results and what happens online is anyone's real guess. Of course, this is not just a weakness of this study but many such studies of its ilk.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study represents in exciting collaboration between two young independent scientists in Uruguay and Japan. Trigo and Kawaguchi provide evidence for the presynaptic modulation of the opening-probability of calcium channels as a major mechanism of digital-analog coupling in immature cerebellar molecular layer interneurons (MLI). Applying a combination of electrophysiological methods including direct axonal whole-cell patch-clamp recordings and glutamate photolysis in acute brain slices and dissociated cultured neurons, the authors provide the following empirical findings: 1) Spontaneous and evoked EPSPs are reliably transmitted into the presynaptic compartment. The amplitude of the spontaneous EPSPs decayed with a length constant of 180 µm in the axon. 2) Physiologically relevant short and subthreshold (< 10 mV) depolarizations before action potentials ('pre-AP') increase the release probability and subsequently short-term depression at the MLI-Purkinje cell synapse without changing the duration of APs and just a minor reduction in amplitude of APs (< 10%). 3) The pre-AP subthreshold depolarizations subsequently increase the amplitude of AP-induced presynaptic calcium currents and GABAergic postsynaptic currents. 4) A short interval of only 3 ms duration between the pre-AP depolarization and the AP blocks the analog coupling. 5) A biophysical model of presynaptic calcium channel gating is proposed, which involves depolarization-induced intermediate gating steps that increase the probability of activating the channels during the AP.

A particular strength of this study is the large data set of technically very challenging direct recordings from small presynaptic terminals. The proposed mechanism provides an innovative explanation for the experimental findings. The most innovative experiments might be those with a 3-ms-gap between the pre-APs and APs. At this synapse, elevated residual intracellular calcium concentration was previously shown to mediate analog coding (https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5127-10.2011). However, the elevated residual calcium cannot explain the surprising block of analog coding by a 3-ms-gap in the depolarization, because intracellular calcium signals decay with kinetics in the range of 100 ms. Both mechanisms (residual calcium and priming of calcium channels) are probably operating in parallel and future studies should resolve the exact interplay of both mechanisms. A potential weakness of the study is that the proposed priming of calcium channels is not shown explicitly to be able to explain the experimental data. Quantitive simulations of calcium channel gating states were only performed in steady-state but not in a time-dependent manner during pre-APs and APs.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This study used direct recording from the soma, the terminal and the postsynaptic cell in cerebellar inter-neuron- Purkinje cell synapses. The authors nicely showed that action potentials travel reliably from the soma to the axon. In addition, they showed that the postsynaptic responses elicited at the dendrites reliably traveled along the axon. Such sub-threshold potential could potentiate transmitter release in short-term (for tens of ms at most), by "priming" Ca channels and accelerating activation kinetics of Ca channels. Results are based on the technically demanding electrophysiological technique and are in general. The study directly solves the mechanism of short-term facilitation induced by sub-threshold depolarization.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Trigo & Kawaguchi study how small somatic subthreshold depolarizations that do not trigger full blown APs can propagate to presynaptic endings and modulate transmitter release. To this end they directly recorded from small cerebellar MLI boutons. In paired somatic and presynaptic recordings, they demonstrate that small synaptic potentials can travel within 2 to 3 ms to the bouton and arrive there with an amplitude attenuated by 20 to 70% with respect to the somatically recorded potential. As expected, this amplitude attenuation depends on axon length. In recordings of MLI-Purkinje cell pairs the authors further demonstrate that small somatic subthreshold depolarizations of about 20 mV size can enhance AP-triggered IPSCs recorded in the Purkinje cells and change synaptic plasticity during AP trains. In order to address mechanisms of such presynaptic modulation, the authors measure presynaptic AP waveforms via cell attached recordings and found these very stable. On the other hand, presynaptic ICa(V) directly recorded in voltage-clamped MLI boutons facilitated in response to small pre-depolarizations and such facilitated ICa(V) produced larger IPSCs in paired recordings of MLI boutons and coupled Purkinje cells. The authors propose that an accumulation of partially gated channels during small presynaptic depolarizations is able to produce more rapid gating of VGCCs during the AP waveform on arrival of an invading presynaptic AP.

Electrotonic coupling between soma and presynaptic endings to the extent that small subthreshold depolarizations such as synaptic potentials can travel to the bouton has been demonstrated before. However direct quantification of such coupling is difficult because of the small size of presynaptic compartments. Trigo & Kawaguchi have now pioneered such very challenging direct presynaptic recordings in the form of recordings of MLI soma and bouton pairs or paired pre- and postsynaptic recordings.

The data is convincing and I do not see a need for additional experiments. But the manuscript in its present form falls short with respect to the presentation and discussion of the data. The authors conclusion about the mechanism of presynaptic ICa(V) facilitation should be verified with proper kinetic simulations using a kinetic scheme such as that proposed by Li, Bischofberger & Jonas (2007) J.Neurosci. which should be adapted to the presynaptic ICa(V) in MLI boutons. This would strengthen the manuscript which otherwise, regarding mechanisms, remains somewhat speculative.