Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
The manuscript by Sehring et al. is a continuation of notable contributions by the Weidinger lab towards understanding the cell biology underlying bone regeneration. Again, the authors elegantly apply the toolbox of drug treatments, transgene-mediated modulation of cell signaling and powerful in vivo imaging to dissect how key cellular events, including osteoblast dedifferentiation, proliferation, migration and blastema formation, are interrelated in a well-established injury model at the level of bony fin rays in the zebrafish tail.
Previous work from the Weidinger lab had already shown that, upon fin amputation, mature osteoblasts along the cut site dedifferentiate to re-adopt a kind of precursor cell status. Under non-injury conditions, this dedifferentiation is inhibited by a signaling cascade involving retinoic acid and NF-κB. The latter becomes inactivated when bone re-growth is required due to injuring events like amputation. The accordingly dedifferentiated osteoblasts migrate into the wound area where they contribute to blastema formation, and finally re-differentiate into active osteoblasts to form new bone structures. In the current manuscript, Sehring and colleagues set out to further elucidate the interdependence and regulation of the distinct underlying mechanisms, with particular focus on the dedifferentiation and pre-osteoblast migration towards the wound. By applying dedicated pharmaceutical interventions to amputated fins, in combination with in vivo imaging for cell tracking, as well as measuring cell shapes and their orientation, the authors provide evidence that the generic injury responses of dedifferentiation and migration are independent processes. While dedifferentiation is under the control of retinoic acid and NF-κB activity, migration is not. The latter rather requires stimuli from the complement system and further depends on actomyosin but not on microtubule dynamics.
Furthermore, Sehring et al. refer to a recent study by Cao et al. (2021) where a cavity injury model revealed polarity within the wound, with blastema formation occurring only on its distally facing side. Inhibition of calcineurin function could overcome this polarity, leading to blastema formation and wound closure from both sides as shown by Cao and colleagues. Now, by developing their fin ray model further via the removal of bone at two sites separated by an intact hemiray segment, Sehring et al. found that dedifferentiation, pre-osteoblast migration towards the wound, and even cell proliferation within the intact segment showed no proximo-distal polarity. However, blastema formation occurred only on the distal sides of the double-wound. Also under this injury condition, calcineurin inhibition could partly overcome the proximo-distal wound polarity as Sehring and colleagues found. Of note, this treatment enhanced blastema formation even at the distal-facing side of the wound suggesting that calcineurin displays a more general and not directed role for cellular mobility in the context of blastema formation. In sum, the authors conclude that osteoblast dedifferentiation, migration and proliferation of osteogenic cells close to the wound are generic injury responses that are independently regulated. However, the regionally restricted blastema formation depends on additional, so far not identified, regeneration-specific mechanisms.
These findings by Sehring and colleagues provide new and highly interesting insights into the complex cellular and molecular machinery controlling bone re-growth in a prominent non-mammalian model. Hence, this work will be well noticed by the scientific community.
The study by Sehring et al. depends on an extensive and thoroughly acquired collection of data points in combination with a robust and rigorous statistical analysis. I see that the authors have spent a lot of effort into this and I am overwhelmed by the number of analyzed data points that again depend on careful measurements at the cellular level in a more or less intact tissue. However, since just a fraction of cells has been chosen to be incorporated into the statistical analysis, there is a certain risk of a biased selection. I think the reader of the paper would appreciate a somewhat clearer picture of how the authors get to their final numbers, starting from the original image data. This appears of particular importance when it comes to determining the elongation of cells and the angular deviations from the proximo-distal axis. In many cases (e.g. Fig.2 A, B, D and E), the reader has to take those numbers without seeing any primary image data. A practicable solution to that issue would be to complement the accompanying Excel sheets of raw data with corresponding image material. This should show an overview of a representative sample for the dedicated experiment, together with some appropriate magnifications of analyzed cells including the axes along which those measurements have been performed. Also, it would be important to state within the methods section of the paper whether the measurements have been done manually using Fiji or whether a certain automated Fiji plug-in has been used for this part of the analysis.
Along the same line, it would strengthen the statement provided by the statistical diagram in Fig.3A if the authors could show images of cells from segment -1 and -2 for all three experimental conditions. In particular, since the depicted segment -1 osteoblasts look rather roundish than elongated (compare with Fig.1 C and D, images and width/length ratio).
In regards to the biology itself, Sehring and colleagues claim that the complement system is required for injury-induced directed osteoblast migration. To strengthen this point it would be beneficial if the authors could show that the central complement components C3 and C5 are indeed expressed at the amputation site where the dedifferentiated pre-osteoblasts migrate to. It would be interesting to learn about the localization of C3 and C5 expression in the conventional amputation as well as the double-injury condition. Apparently, the RNAscope-based in situ hybridization seems to work quite well in the Weidinger lab.
To judge whether this osteoblast's migratory response is cell-type specific and cell-autonomous it would be good to know if c5ar1 and c3ar are solely expressed in osteoblasts, or rather broadly within tissue lining the hemirays.
Despite these two more substantial but manageable criticisms, the manuscript by Sehring et al. is an outstanding piece of work that provides important new findings to the field.