Review written in collaboration with Maha Said (Orcid) and Frederique Bordignon (Orcid)

The title of the article makes a simple striking claim about the state of the scientific literature with a numerical estimate of the proportion of “fake” articles. Yet, by contrast to this title, in the text of the article, Heathers is highly critical of his own work.

James’ peer review of Heathers’ article

James Heathers often mentions the limitations of his research thus “peer-reviewing” his own article to the extent that he admits that this work is “incomplete”, “unsystematic” and “far flung”.

“This work is too incomplete to support responsible meta-analysis, and research that could more accurately define this figure does not exist yet. ~1 in 7 papers being fake represents an existential threat to the scientific enterprise.”

“While this is highly unsystematic, it produced a substantially higher figure. Correspondents reliably estimated 1-5% of all papers contain fabricated data, and 2-10% contain falsified results.”

“These values are too disparate to meta-analyze responsibly, and support only the briefest form of numerical summary: n=12 papers return n=16 individual estimates; these have a median of 13.95%, and 9 out of 16 of these estimates are between 13.4% and 16.9%. Given this, a rough approximation is that for any given corpus of papers, 1 in 7 (i.e. 14.3%) contain errors consistent with faking in at least one identifiable element.”

“The accumulation of papers collected here is, frankly, haphazard. It does not represent a mature body of literature. The papers use different methods of analyzing figures, data, or other features of scientific publications. They do not distinguish well between papers that have small problematic elements which are fake, or fake in their entirety. They analyze both small and large corpora of papers, which are in different areas of study and in journals of different scientific quality – and this greatly changes base rates;…”

“As a consequence, it would be prudent to immediately reproduce the result presented here as a formal systematic review. It is possible further figures are available after an exhaustive search, and also that pre registered analytical assumptions would modify the estimations presented.”

Heathers has also in an interview published in Retraction Watch (Chawla 2024) acknowledged pitfalls in this article such as:

“Heathers said he decided to conduct his study as a meta-analysis because his figures are “far flung.””

“They are a little bit from everywhere; it’s wildly nonsystematic as a piece of work,” he said.”

“Heathers acknowledged those limitations but argued that he had to conduct the analysis with the data that exist. “If we waited for the resources necessary to be able to do really big systematic treatments of a problem like this within a specific area, I think we’d be waiting far too long,” he said. “This is crucially underfunded.”

Built in opposition to Fanelli 2009, but it’s illogical

Heathers states in the abstract that his article is “in opposition” to Fanelli’s 2009 PloS One article (Fanelli 2009), yet that opposition is illogical and artificially constructed since there is no contradiction between 2% of scientists self-reporting having taking part in fabrication or falsification and an eventual much higher proportion of “fake scientific outputs”. Like most of what is wrong with Heather’s article, this is in fact acknowledged by the author who notes that the 2% figure “leaves us with no estimate of how much scientific output is fake” (bias in self-reporting, possibility of prolific authors, etc).

Fanelli 2009 is not cited in the way JH says it is cited

Whilst the opposition discussed above is illogical, it could be that the 2% figure is mis-cited by others as representing an estimate of fake scientific outputs thus probably underestimating the extent of fraud. Heathers suggests that this may indeed be the case, but also contradicts himself about how (Fanelli 2009), or the 2% figure coming from that publication, is typically used.

In one sentence, he writes that “the figure is overwhelmingly the salient cited fact in its 1513 citations” and that “this generally appears as some variant of “about 2% of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once” (Frank et al. 2023)

whilst and in another sentence, he writes that “the typical phraseology used to express it – e.g. “the most serious types of misconduct, fabrication and falsification (i.e., data fraud), are relatively rare” (George 2016).

Those two sentences cited by Heathers are fundamentally different, the first one accurately reports that the 2% figure relates to individuals self-reporting, whilst the second one appears to relate to the prevalence of misconducts in the literature itself. How Fanelli 2009 is cited in the literature is an empirical question that can be studied by looking at citation contexts beyond the two examples given by Heathers. Given that a central justification for Heathers’ piece appears to be the misuse of this 2% figure, we sought to test whether this was the case.

A first surprise was that whilst the sentence attributed to (George 2016) can indeed be found in that publication (in the abstract), first it is not in a sentence citing (Fanelli 2009) nor the 2% figure, and, second, it is quoted selectively omitting a part of the sentence that nuances it considerably: “The evidence on prevalence is unreliable and fraught with definitional problems and with study design issues. Nevertheless, the evidence taken as a whole seems to suggest that cases of the most serious types of misconduct, fabrication and falsification (i.e., data fraud), are relatively rare but that other types of questionable research practices are quite common.” (Fanelli 2009) is discussed extensively by (George 2016), and some of the caveats, e.g. on self-reporting, are highlighted.

To go beyond those two examples, we constructed a comprehensive corpus of citation contexts, defined as the textual environment surrounding a paper's citation, including several words or sentences before and after the citation (see Methods section below). 737 citation contexts could be analysed. Out of those, the vast majority (533, or 72%) did not cite the 2% figure. Instead, they often referred to this article as a general reference together with other articles to make a broad point, or, focused on other numbers in particular those related to questionable research practices (Bordignon, Said, and Levy 2024). The 28% (204) citation contexts that did mention the 2% figure did so accurately in the majority of cases: 83% (170) of those did mention that it was self-reporting by scientists whilst 17% (34) of those, or 5% of the total citation contexts analysed were either ambiguous or misleading in that they suggested or claimed that the 2% figure related to scientific outputs.

Although the analysis above does not include all citation contexts, it is possible to conclude unambiguously that the 2% figure is not overwhelmingly the salient cited fact in relation to Fanelli 2009, and that when it is cited it is often accurately, i.e. as representing self-reporting by scientists. Whilst an exhaustive analysis is beyond the scope of this peer review, it is not uncommon to find in this corpus citations contexts that have an alarming tone about the seriousness of the problem of FFPs, e.g. “…a meta-analysis (Fanelli 2009) suggest that the few cases that do surface represent only the tip of a large iceberg." [DOI: 10.1177/0022034510384627]

Thus, the rationale for Heathers’ study appears to be misguided. The supposed lack of attention for the very serious problem of FFPs is not due to a minimisation of the situation fueled by a misinterpretation of Fanelli 2009. Importantly, even if that was the case, an attempt to draw attention by claiming that 1 in 7 papers are fake, a claim which according to the author himself is not grounded in solid facts, is not how the scientific literature should be used.

Methods for the construction of the corpus of citation contexts

We used Semantic Scholar, an academic database encompassing over 200 million scholarly documents from diverse sources including publishers, data providers, and web crawlers. Using the specific paper identifier for Fanelli's 2009 publication (d9db67acc223c9bd9b8c1d4969dc105409c6dfef), we queried the Semantic Scholar API to retrieve available citation contexts. Citation contexts were extracted from the "contexts" field within the JSON response pages, (see technical specifications).

The query looks like this: semanticscholar.org

The broad coverage of Semantic Scholar does not imply that citation contexts are always retrieved. The Semantic Scholar API provided citation contexts for only 48% of the 1452 documents citing the paper. To get more, we identified open access papers among the remaining 52% citing papers, retrieved their PDF location and downloaded the files. We used Unpaywall API, which is a database to be queried with a DOI in order to get open access information about a document. The query looks like this.

We downloaded 266 PDF files and converted them to text format using an online bulk PDF-to-text converter. These files were then processed using TXM, a specialized textual analysis tool. We used its concordancer function to identify the term "Fanelli" as a pivot term and check the reference being the good one (the 2009 paper in PlosOne). We did manual cleaning and appended the citation contexts to the previous corpus.

Through this comprehensive methodology, we ultimately identified 824 citation contexts, representing 54% (784) of all documents citing Fanelli's 2009 paper. This corpus comprised 48% of contexts retrieved from Semantic Scholar and an additional 6% obtained through semi-manual extraction from open access documents. 87 of those contexts were excluded from the analysis for a range of reasons including: context too short to conclude, language neither English nor French (shared languages of the authors of this review), duplicate documents (e.g. preprints), etc, leaving us with 737 contexts. They were first classified manually in two categories, those mentioning the 2% figure and those which did not. Then, for the first category, they were further classified manually in two categories depending on whether the figure was appropriately assigned to self-reporting of researchers or rather misleadingly suggesting that the 2% applied to research outputs.

Contributions

Investigation: FB collected the citation contexts.<br /> Data curation and formal analysis: RL and MS<br /> Writing – review & editing: RL, MS and FB

References

Bordignon, Frederique, Maha Said, and Raphael Levy. 2024. “Citation Contexts of [How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data, DOI: 10.1371/Journal.Pone.0005738].” Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14417422.

Chawla, Dalmeet Singh. 2024. “1 in 7 Scientific Papers Is Fake, Suggests Study That Author Calls ‘Wildly Nonsystematic.’” Retraction Watch (blog). September 24, 2024. https://retractionwatch.com/2024/09/24/1-in-7-scientific-papers-is-fake-suggests-study-that-author-calls-wildly-nonsystematic/.

Fanelli, Daniele. 2009. “How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data.” PLOS ONE 4 (5): e5738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.

Frank, Fabrice, Nans Florens, Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, Jérôme Barriere, Éric Billy, Véronique Saada, Alexander Samuel, Jacques Robert, and Lonni Besançon. 2023. “Raising Concerns on Questionable Ethics Approvals - a Case Study of 456 Trials from the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection.” Research Integrity and Peer Review 8 (1): 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00134-4.

George, Stephen L. 2016. “Research Misconduct and Data Fraud in Clinical Trials: Prevalence and Causal Factors.” International Journal of Clinical Oncology 21 (1): 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-015-0887-3.

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

We thank all the reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments and for their time.

---

Reviewer #1 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):*

Summary: Dady et al have developed fluorescent reporters to enable live imaging of cell behaviour and morphology in human pluripotent stem cell lines (PSCs). These reporters target 3 main features, the plasma membrane, nucleus and cytoskeleton. Reporter PSCs have been generated using a piggyBac transposon-mediated stable integration strategy, using a hyperactive piggyBac transposase (HyPBase). The same constructs were also used for mosaic labelling of cells within 2D cultures using lipofectamine transfection.

The reporters used are tagged with either eGFP or mKate2 (far red) and tag the plasma membrane (pm) via the addition of a 20 amino-acid sequence from rat GAP-43 to the N-terminus of the fluorescent protein, the nucleus via Histone 2B with a laser-mediated photo-conversion option (H2B-mEos3.2), and the cytoskeleton via F-Tractin. In total, the authors produced lines with the following:

• pm-mKate2 (far red) • pm-eGFP (green) • H2B-mEos3.2 (green to red) • F-tractin-mKate2 (far red) • H2B-mEos3.2 and pm-mKate2 (green to red, plus far red)

The cell lines used to generate these were the human embryonic stem cell line H9 and human induced pluripotent cell line ChiPS4. The constructs were also used to label cells in a mosaic fashion, using lipofectamine transfection of the original cell lines once they had formed neural rosettes.

Using these cells, Dady et al then performed live imaging in vitro of human spinal cord rosettes and assessed cell behaviour. In particular they analysed mitotic cleavage planes and apical positioning of neural progenitor cells (NPCs), and assessed actin dynamics within these cells. They showed a slowing of the cell cycle length after the initial expansion phase, an increase in the rate of asymmetric division of these NPCs, and abscission of the apical membrane during these divisions. The F-tractin reporter showed enrichment at the basal nuclear membrane during these cell divisions, suggested to help prevent basal chromosome displacement during mitosis.

Major comments: The data presented are convincing and could be strengthened by the following additions and clarifications:*

2. How long do the fluorescent reports take to be visible when transfected via lipofectamine? How efficiently are they expressed? And what concentrations were tested to enable the mosaic expression presented? * We followed the manufacturer’s instructions for Lipofectamine 3000 transfection, using the protocol recommended for set up for a 6 wells plate. We detected fluorescence the following morning ~16h. We did not assess earlier time points or optimise efficiency as we observed the mosaic pattern of expression we set out to achieve, with small groups of labelled cells and single cells as shown in Figure 3 and movies 2 and 3. This information and the detailed protocol provided below are now included in the Methods section “Labelling individual cells in human spinal cord rosettes by lipofection”.

Manufacturer’s instructions for Lipofectamine 3000 transfection (6 well plate):

• 1 tube containing 125 ul of Opti-MEM and 7.5 ul of Lipofectamine 3000
• 1 tube containing 250 ul of Opti-MEM with 5 ug of DNA (total mix DNAs of 2 ug/ul) and P3000 Reagent
• Add diluted DNA to diluted Lipofectamine 3000 (Ratio 1:1) and incubate for 10 to 15 min at Room Temperature.
• 20 ul of DNA-Lipid complex was added to neural rosettes growing in 8 well IBIDI dishes (20 ul/well).
• The ratio of DNA (PiggyBac plasmid) and HypBase transposase was kept at 5:1 (for a final concentration of 2ug/ul).

• Cells in IBIDI dishes were left to develop in a sterile incubator overnight and mosaic fluorescence was observed the following morning (~16h post-lipofection).

• Will these cell lines and constructs be made publicly available after publication?*

The cell lines can be made available: for those reporters made in the H9 WiCell line an MTA will first have to be signed between the requesting PI and WiCell and permission for us to share the line(s) confirmed by WiCell; similarly, for reporters in ChiPS4 line an MTA will first need to be signed between the requesting PI and Cellartis/TakaraBio Europe. We will need to make a charge to cover costs. Constructs will be deposited with Addgene.

• Were the H9 and ChiPS4 lines characterised after the reporters were added to show they still proliferate/differentiate as they did prior to the reporter integration*?

In the Results we make clear that all lines created are polyclonal, with exception of a pm-eGFP ChiPS4 line, which is a monoclonal line (lines 145-150). We do not have direct data measuring cell proliferation but collected cell passaging data for all the reporter lines. This showed that they grow to similar densities at each passage compared to the parental line (this metadata is now provided as Supplementary data 1 and is cited in the Methods, line 348).

As a proof of principle for this approach, we created one monoclonal line from a polyclonal line ChIPS4-pm-eGFP. The latter was made by selecting an individual clone and this was then expanded and characterised for expression of pluripotency markers (immunocytochemistry data Figure S4), and the ability to differentiate into 3 germ layers (qPCR Supplementary data 1). This information is already cited in the Methods (Lines 358-362).

• Can the novel actin dynamics described be quantified? How many cells imaged show these novel dynamics?* Some of this quantification data was already reported in the paper (in figure 4 legend and in the Methods); we have now updated this and provide the detailed metadata in an Excel spread sheet, Supplementary data 4 (cited in the Methods, line 489)

Minor comments: 1. Some images in the figures and supplemental movies are low in resolution, for example the DAPI in Fig 4B, making it hard to distinguish individual cells. Please increase this.

We consider the DAPI labelling in Figure 4b to be clear, however, we wonder whether the reviewer was expecting to also see this combined with the other markers. We have therefore now provided these merged additional images in a revised Figure 4.

• Please show a merge of Phalloidin and F-Tractin in Fig4, this will help the colocalization to be fully appreciated.*

This has now been provided in revised Figure 4B.

• Some additional annotation on the supplemental movies would be useful to indicate to the **reader exactly what cell to follow. *

We have added indicative arrows to the movies, and note that more detailed labelling of the series of still images from these movies are provided in the main figures (Figures 3D and 4E & F).

*Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):

Human neurogenesis is currently poorly understood compared to many model systems used, yet key differences have already been identified between the human and the mouse, prompting the need for further investigation of human neural development. A major reason that human neurogenesis has been difficult to study is a lack of tools to enable cell morphology and behaviours to be analysed in real time.

The reporters and reporter PSC lines generated by Dady et al will allow many of these cell characteristics to be observed using live imaging. For example, the morphology of neural progenitors during and after cell divisions, how the apical and basal processes and membranes are divided, and how the actin cytoskeleton helps to regulate these processes.

*Importantly, PSC lines can be very heterogeneous, making generating reporter lines costly and time intensive. The use of these reporters with lipofectamine transfection, for a mosaic labelling, allows the visualisation of the plasma membrane, nucleus and cytoskeleton in any human PSC/NPC line, or even in human tissue cultures, without the need to generate each specific reporter line, making it a valuable tool for many labs in the field.

We strongly agree with this final point; this is a major reason for our study.

Reviewer #2 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):*

The manuscript describes the generation of novel lines of human pluripotent stem cells bearing fluorescent reporters, engineered through piggyBac transposon-mediated integration. The cells are differentiated into neuronal organoids, allowing to capture cellular behaviors associated to cell division. A replating protocol allows the observation of aging neurons by reducing the thickness of the tissue thereby facilitating live imaging. The authors also leverage the transposon technology to create mosaically-labelled organoids which allows visualizing aspects of neuronal delamination, notably cytoskeleton dynamics. They discover an undescribed pattern of F-actin enrichment at the basal nuclear membrane prior to nuclear envelope breakdown.

L104-109: "Moreover, the transposon system obviates drawbacks of directly engineering endogenous proteins...". Despite the risk of endogenous protein dysfunction, directly tagging allows the full regulation of gene expression (including the promoter, the enhancers and other regulatory regions rather than a strong constitutive promoter such as CAG). In addition, the number of copies integrated and the genomic regions are variable with PB, which does not reflect the endogenous expression. This could be rephrased by nuancing the advantages and drawbacks of each approach. The PiggyBac method is easier and faster, but it results in overexpression of a tagged protein that will be expressed since the hESC state and might not reflect the expression dynamics of the endogenous protein.* We agree and have now revised this in the Introduction L109-118.

*L124-126: "To monitor cell shape and dynamics we used a plasma membrane (pm) localized protein tagged with eGFP or mKate2 (pm-eGFP or pm-mKate2)." Could the authors provide more details and a reference on the palmitoylated rat peptide use to force membrane expression? *

This information, including the peptide sequence, is provided in the Methods (L330-331), we have now added a reference addressing its role in membrane localisation PMID: 2918027.

L132-133: " Finally, to observe actin cytoskeletal dynamics we selected F-tractin, for its minimal impact on cytoskeletal homeostasis".

A recent JCB paper (https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.202409192) suggests that "F-tractin alters actin organization and impairs cell migration when expressed at high levels". Whether the overexpression of F-tractin in hESC using a CAG promoter reflects the physiological F-actin dynamics and/or if the high levels could lead to an alteration of cell behavior should be addressed or at least discussed. The paper we cite in this sentence (Belin et al 2014) evaluates F-tractin expression against other approaches to labelling and monitoring the actin cytoskeleton and concludes that in comparison F-tractin has minimal impact.

We do appreciate that expression above the endogenous level has the potential to alter cell behaviour and have revised the paper to more explicitly acknowledge this: in the Introduction (L109-112), and in the Discussion/conclusion (L289-293) where we now note the recent advances reported in Shatskiy et al. 2025 PMID: 39928047.

“A further potential limitation of this approach is that over-expression driven by the CAG promoter might not reflect physiological protein dynamics and/or alter cell behaviour; for example, high levels of F-Tractin can impair cell migration and induce actin bundling, interestingly, this can now be minimised by removing the N-terminal region (Shatskiy et al 2025)”.

L146-147: "...to generate polyclonal cell lines selected for expression of easily detectable (medium level) fluorescence for live imaging studies". What are the criteria used to define medium level? Number of copies integrated into the genome? Or levels by FACS during clone selection?

To clarify, all the lines presented here are polyclonal, except for one clonal line, pm-eGFP in ChiPS4. The numbers of copies integrated may vary from cell to cell in polyclonal lines. In this study, we selected cells for all lines with a FACS gate and this data is presented in Figure S1 (see line 147).

L260-263: "Efficient stable integration and moderate expression levels were achieved by optimising, i) the quantity and ratio of piggyBac plasmids and transposase and ii) subsequent FACS to exclude high expressing cells, as well as iii) transfection methods, including temporally defined lipofection in hiPSC-derived tissues." The ration 5:1 is classically used for PB Transposase delivery, however there is still high variability in the number of copies integration. Lipofection in derived tissues has been shown to be challenging. Could the authors should provide quantitative data regarding the efficiency of their approaches, notably the level of mosaicism one could expect?

We provide quantitative data for the efficiency of transfection using nucleoporation assays (FACS data presented in Supplementary figure S1), which shows more than 80-90% efficiency for eGFP in 82.82% of cells, mKate2 in 92.74% of cells, and H2B-mEos3 22.75% of cells, while 13.79% of cells co-expressed pm-Kate and H2B-mEos3.2. No comparative data regarding the efficiency of the tissue Lipofection assay was collected: our goal was to label single/small numbers of cells in order to monitor individual cell behaviours, and this “inefficient labelling” was readily achieved following the manufacturer’s instructions (please see response to Review 1 point 1), further details are now provided in the Methods.

L191-194: "We further wished to monitor sub-cellular behaviour within the developing neuroepithelium. To achieve this, we devised a strategy to target a mosaic of cells in established neural rosettes using lipofection. PiggyBac constructs and HyPBase transposase were transfected into D8/D9 human spinal cord neural progenitors using lipofectamine (Felgner, et al., 1987)(Fig. 3A)." The mosaicism is not an all or nothing in this method but also leads to variations in expression levels among the positive cells. The protocol for lipofection could be better detailed to allow easy reproduction by other teams, and its expected efficiency should be discussed. It would be interesting to explore the relationship between individual cells phenotype and expression levels. Please see response to Reviewer 1 point 1 above for more detailed lipofection protocol which generated mosaic expression, this is now also included in the Methods. We agree that investigating the relationship between individual cell phenotypes and expression levels would be interesting, but we think this is beyond the scope of this paper.

Additional comments: -Did the authors perform karyotyping of the hPSCs prior to use in the differentiation protocol?

As these are polyclonal lines, we did not undertake karyotyping. This could be done for the one monoclonal line described here (pm-eGFP ChiPS4 line): we lack funds for commercial options, but we are exploring other possibilities.

-Were pluripotency assays performed after reporter lines generation?

These were carried out for the clonal pm-eGFP ChiPS4 line (lines 145-150). The latter was made by selecting an individual clone and this was then expanded and characterised for expression of pluripotency markers by IF (Figure S4), and the ability to differentiate into 3 germ layers by qPCR (Supplementary data 2). This information is provided in the Methods (Lines 358-362).

*-Did the authors measure the cell proliferation rate in H2B-overexpressing cells and controls? Since H2B plays an important role in cytokinesis, it could interfere in cell division when H2B is overexpressed (see doi: 10.3390/cells8111391). *

We did not directly measure cell division when H2B is over-expressed. However, we assessed cell -passaging time of all the transfected cell lines. This showed that they grow to similar densities at each passage compared to the parental line (this is now provided as Supplementary data 1 and is cited in the Methods, line 348). We also found no difference between apical visiting time of progenitors in spinal cord rosettes expressing pm-eGFP or H2B-mEoS3.2, further supporting the conclusion that levels of H2B-mEoS3.2 expression achieved in this line did not interfere with cell division (metadata provided in Supplementary data 3).

The authors should provide data concerning the efficiency of expression of the distinct markers after electroporation. This is provided in Supplementary Figure S1 (FACS data) and detailed above for this reviewer.

*At Fig 1C, the schematic representation describes clone selection, however in the methods it is stated (L348-349): "Sorted cells expressing medium levels of fluorescence were expanded and frozen then representative lots of each polyclonal cell line...". There is some confusion regarding which experiments were performed using polyclonal medium-level mixed populations or monoclonal populations. *

We apologise for any confusion and have revised the Figure 1C schematic to indicate that cells can be selected to either make polyclonal lines or clonal lines.

*Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):

The study provides novel tools, as well as elements regarding neuroepithelium biology. It is well conducted and written, and the quality of images is excellent. It reads more as a resource paper in its current version, since the observation regarding neural cell division and delamination are interesting but not deeply explored, so this review will focus on those technical aspects rather than the novelty of the biological findings.

This study would be of interests for researchers in stem cells and organoids, developmental biology, and neurosciences.

Reviewer #3 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

In the manuscript, "Engineering fluorescent reporters in human pluripotent cells and strategies for live imaging human neurogenesis" the authors Dady et al. describe the adaptation of a recent advancement in transposase technology (HyPBase) as a method to integrate live reporters in human pluripotent stem cells. They show that these florescent reporters paired with new imaging strategies can be used to confirm the existence cellular behaviour described in other species such as the interkinetic nuclear migration (IKNM) of dividing progenitors in neural tube development. Finally, they demonstrate that this live imaging system is also able to discover novel biology by identifying previously undescribed actin polymerization at the basal nuclear surface of cortical progenitors undergoing cell division. Overall, the study presents two examples in which this adapted tool will aid in live-imaging studies of cellular biology.

Major Concerns: 1. This work needs more controls to properly demonstrate claims that their engineering strategy provides an advancement to current Piggyback methods. Their HyPBase strategy needs to be compared and quantified in terms of efficiency with other methods to support their claims (increased detection and reduced phototoxicity).*

We do not make specific claims for our experiments with respect to the superiority of HyPBase strategy. Our comments on this approach referred to by the reviewer here are in the Introduction (L 94-103), are supported by the literature (e.g. more stable gene expression than native piggyBac or the Tc1/mariner transposase Sleeping Beauty (Doherty, et al., 2012, Yusa, et al., 2011) and serve to explain our selection of HyPBase for our experiments. We make a case for using HyPBase as opposed to another transposase and although it would be interesting to compare efficiencies, this comment does not specify what “other methods” might be informative.

2.Throughout the manuscript more quantification is needed of the results. How many rosettes were examined? Were all the reported cells within one rosette? Were there differences between rosettes? This should be done for both the spinal and cortical differentiations.

The reviewer appears to have missed this information – we placed detailed quantifications in the figure legends (numbers of independent experiments and rosettes) and in the Methods in a specific section on Quantification of cell behaviour (L465-486), rather than in the main text. These has since been further updated and we now also provide additional metadata in the form of Excel spreadsheets for quantifications and analyses made for both spinal cord and cortical rosettes (Supplementary data 3 and 4 respectively).

Minor Comments: 1. Line 246 needs quantification shown in figures of the statements made. Specifically, how many cells were measured to get this number?

This information was provided in the figure 4 legend and we have since added numbers to these data; we were able to monitor 169 divisions in 21 rosettes; 154/166 divisions had vertical cleavage planes (symmetric) and 12/166 had horizontal cleavage planes (asymmetric).

These detailed observations were made in two independent experiments, along with observations of basal nuclear membrane F-Tractin localisation. This is noted in figure 4 legend, Methods and detailed metadata is provided in Supplementary data 4.

2.How many cells in the cortical rosettes had the enriched actin at the basal nuclear surface?

We confidently observed basal nuclear membrane F-Tractin enrichment in 141/146 divisions, for the remaining 20 cases (166-146), we could not tell whether F-Tractin is enriched or not at the basal nuclear membrane either because of low expression levels or because the basal nuclear membrane was out of focus at NEB. In 5 cases, we did not see the basal nuclear enrichment despite sufficient F-Tractin expression levels and the nucleus being in focus. We have updated the Fig4 legend excluding the non-analysable cases and see detailed metadata is provided in Supplementary data 4.

*Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

General Assessment: This manuscript makes a very minor advancement in the field of stem cell engineering and developmental biology, but one that is worthy of publication with a few edits.

Advance: While PiggyBac reporters are widely used in stem cell engineering, Dady et al. demonstrate a new workflow using HyPBase which would be beneficial to the field. However, to increase this benefit, much more description and quantification of the methods would be needed. The biological advances of this manuscript are also very minor, but interesting as most of them confirm that human neural rosettes mimic many of the observed cell behaviours seen in animal models. Along these lines is the actin dynamics observation in cortical rosettes is interesting, but a preliminary observation and in need of follow up experiments.

Audience: Regardless, this technique would be of interest to the wider field of stem cell engineering.

My Expertise: Human Stem Cell Engineering, Neural Tube Development*

Note: This preprint has been reviewed by subject experts for Review Commons. Content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Referee #1

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

Summary:

Dady et al have developed fluorescent reporters to enable live imaging of cell behaviour and morphology in human pluripotent stem cell lines (PSCs). These reporters target 3 main features, the plasma membrane, nucleus and cytoskeleton. Reporter PSCs have been generated using a piggyBac transposon-mediated stable integration strategy, using a hyperactive piggyBac transposase (HyPBase). The same constructs were also used for mosaic labelling of cells within 2D cultures using lipofectamine transfection.

The reporters used are tagged with either eGFP or mKate2 (far red) and tag the plasma membrane (pm) via the addition of a 20 amino-acid sequence from rat GAP-43 to the N-terminus of the fluorescent protein, the nucleus via Histone 2B with a laser-mediated photo-conversion option (H2B-mEos3.2), and the cytoskeleton via F-Tractin. In total, the authors produced lines with the following:

• pm-mKate2 (far red)
• pm-eGFP (green)
• H2B-mEos3.2 (green to red)
• F-tractin-mKate2 (far red)
• H2B-mEos3.2 and pm-mKate2 (green to red, plus far red)

The cell lines used to generate these were the human embryonic stem cell line H9 and human induced pluripotent cell line ChiPS4. The constructs were also used to label cells in a mosaic fashion, using lipofectamine transfection of the original cell lines once they had formed neural rosettes.

Using these cells, Dady et al then performed live imaging in vitro of human spinal cord rosettes and assessed cell behaviour. In particular they analysed mitotic cleavage planes and apical positioning of neural progenitor cells (NPCs), and assessed actin dynamics within these cells. They showed a slowing of the cell cycle length after the initial expansion phase, an increase in the rate of asymmetric division of these NPCs, and abscission of the apical membrane during these divisions. The F-tractin reporter showed enrichment at the basal nuclear membrane during these cell divisions, suggested to help prevent basal chromosome displacement during mitosis.

Major comments:

The data presented are convincing and could be strengthened by the following additions and clarifications: 1. How long do the fluorescent reports take to be visible when transfected via lipofectamine? How efficiently are they expressed? And what concentrations were tested to enable the mosaic expression presented? 2. Will these cell lines and constructs be made publicly available after publication? 3. Were the H9 and ChiPS4 lines characterised after the reporters were added to show they still proliferate/differentiate as they did prior to the reporter integration? 4. Can the novel actin dynamics described be quantified? How many cells imaged show these novel dynamics?

Minor comments:

1. Some images in the figures and supplemental movies are low in resolution, for example the DAPI in Fig 4B, making it hard to distinguish individual cells. Please increase this.
2. Please show a merge of Phallodin and F-Tractin in Fig4, this will help the colocalization to be fully appreciated.
3. Some additional annotation on the supplemental movies would be useful to indicate to the reader exactly what cell to follow.

Significance

Human neurogenesis is currently poorly understood compared to many model systems used, yet key differences have already been identified between the human and the mouse, prompting the need for further investigation of human neural development. A major reason that human neurogenesis has been difficult to study is a lack of tools to enable cell morphology and behaviours to be analysed in real time.

The reporters and reporter PSC lines generated by Dady et al will allow many of these cell characteristics to be observed using live imaging. For example, the morphology of neural progenitors during and after cell divisions, how the apical and basal processes and membranes are divided, and how the actin cytoskeleton helps to regulate these processes.

Importantly, PSC lines can be very heterogeneous, making generating reporter lines costly and time intensive. The use of these reporters with lipofectamine transfection, for a mosaic labelling, allows the visualisation of the plasma membrane, nucleus and cytoskeleton in any human PSC/NPC line, or even in human tissue cultures, without the need to generate each specific reporter line, making it a valuable tool for many labs in the field.

Zwei Ex-Soldaten rechnen ab: So schlecht steht es um Deutschland wirklich

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOWDBy4fbqs

Der Kipp-Punkt kommt, wenn die Kassen leer sind‼️ Dann gehen uns unsere Fachkräfte an die Gurgel‼️

selbstjustiz und revolution, das ist das einzige was hilft, alles andere ist zeitverschwendung.

4:51 Die Polizisten haben Angst, die Bürger haben Angst und das ist ja auch das Problem. Machst du jetzt irgendwas? Die sind ja nicht blöd, die kriegen deine Daten raus über die Staatsanwaltschaft, und dann auf einmal kriegst du Hausbesuche. Dasselbe Problem haben die Richter, dasselbe haben die Anwälte. Massive Einschüchterung, zumindest wenn es um Clankriminalität geht. Keiner traut sich mehr, was, also Deutschland hat fertig. Wir sind im Kriegszustand. nur hat es bis jetzt uns nur keiner gesagt.

8:05 Das Problem ist auch mit diesen Einschüchterungen, das ist eine Form der Propaganda. Man weiß, man kann gegen die Leute nichts machen, also schüchtert man sie ein. Weil dann sozusagen, oh, eine Hausdurchsuchung links oder rechts von einen. Es wird juristisch nichts passieren, aber was passiert sozial? Was passiert mit den Job? Also, bestrafe einen und züchtige Hunderte. Das ist ein reines Abschreckungsmittel, was eigentlich in diktatorischen Gefilden normalerweise angewendet wird, aber anscheinend ist unsere Politik so weit, dass sie in die Enge getrieben ist, sich von der Realität verabschiedet haben, um jetzt sozusagen auf, ich nenn es mal "alte Methoden" zurückgreift, um dort einfach an der Macht zu bleiben.

8:42 Weil das wissen wir, sei es die NGO Geschichten, sei es die vielen Skandale, die Masse wahrscheinlich von vielen vielen Amsträgern, die müssten wahrscheinlich auch im Knast landen. Ja, nur das kann man natürlich schön verheimlichen, indem man die Medien auf seiner Seite hat, die Richter, die alle auch politisch irgendwo ihre Pässe haben, ihre Parteibücher, und auf der anderen Seite mit den Medien. Also alles so ein Schornstein-Effekt, alle nutzen sich gegenseitig, und geben sich auch gegenseitig Autorität.

11:04 Vorsorgen kann bis zu einem gewissen Grad ja wirklich jeder, ne? Ja, und es geht auch nicht immer um materielle Sachen. Körperlich, Geist, Netzwerk, Austauschen. Alleine bist du in der Krise nichts. Egal, was du für ein Background hast, egal wie gut du bewaffnet bist, egal wie viel Essen du hast, jeder ist Mal krank oder müde oder angeschlagen oder verletzt. Man braucht eine Schichtfähigkeit. Man braucht vor allem spezialisierte Leute, die verschiedene Fähigkeiten machen können, sich ergänzen können als Team. Ja, was ursprünglich eigentlich so die Volksseele war. Das ist ja durch die Atomisierung, ist auch wieder so eine so eine Technik, ist ja das ausgetrieben worden, ne? Oder Entwurzelungstechniken. Damit ist natürlich die Bevölkerung komplett sozusagen, jeder gegen jeden, und nur noch Ellenbogengesellschaft, und dass man eigentlich zusammen gehört, auch dieses links und rechts, grün gegen sonst was, oben gegen unten, das sind alles Techniken, nur um eigentlich "die da oben", sage ich mal, zu schützen, dass das Volk nicht ein irgendwo vorgeht. Und du hast gefragt, wie lange geht's noch? Es geht so lange, wie wir uns das gefallen lassen, und irgendwann, irgendwann stehen Leute auf und sagen, jetzt reicht's.

12:10 Aber dieser Kippppunkt muss noch kommen, das ist das Problem an der deutschen Seele, ja, bei den Südländern ist es eher so eine Art "Tauziehen", sagt man in der Psychologie. Also, wenn sozusagen eine Reaktion kommt, Druck von Regierung, neue Steuern, dann wird direkt reagiert. Bei den Deutschen oder den, ich nenn es mal den Norddeuropäern, das ist eher so ein "Kipppunkt", da passiert nichts, passiert nichts, irgendwann reicht's und dann schnappt das um, und dann ist natürlich gleich wieder Volleskalation. Aber dieser Punkt ist noch nicht da. Wir haben noch Trinken, es gibt noch Bier, es kommt noch Fußball im Fernsehen.

13:42 190.000 zusätzliche Arbeitslose mehr als im selben Zeitpunkt im Jahr davor, aber 6,2% Arbeitslosenquote. Aber sind wir mal ehrlich, das ist ja nicht die Wahrheit. Die Wahrheit ist ja, wie viele sind in Maßnahmen, wie viele gehen im vorzeitigen Ruhstand, wenn man ehrlich ist, kann man das ja mindestens verdoppeln. Und dann hast du natürlich von den zusätzlichen Beamten, die geschaffen werden, sei es in Berlin, sei es aber auf kommunaler Ebene, ich kriege das bei mir auf kommunale Ebene mit, wie viele Menschen dort verbeamtet werden, die in der Verwaltung sitzen. Ist für mich immer unbegreiflich, weiß du. Also Beamte brauchst du maximal Richter, Staatsanwälte, Polizisten. Brauchst du keine Lehrer als Beamter in meinen Augen. Ist völliger Nonsens.

14:23 Aber es bläht sich halt komplett auf, dieser Wasserkopf, und diejenigen, die hier tatsächlich produktiv noch sind, die werden immer weniger, die werden immer mehr zur Kasse gebeten. Was habe ich mich gestern und heute mit Unternehmen unterhalten, die einfach die Schnauze voll haben und sagen, ich mach nicht mehr, ich hau ab, ihr könnt mich alle mal, und dann stehen wir da. Dann hast du eine extrem linke Bewegung. Ich glaube, gestern waren es ernsthaft die Linken in den Umfragen bei 16%, wo ich mir denke, sag mal, seid ihr alle nicht mehr ganz dicht oder was? Du kannst ja ne linke Einstellung haben. Die linke Einstellung endet für mich da, wenn man irgendwie das, weiß du, "Deutschland verrecke", "Alerta Alerta", die ganze Nummer, die ich da von morgens bis abends von irgendwelchen wirklich dummen Menschen höre, die aber auf meine Kosten leben, die vom Sozialstaat leben. Was glauben die denn, wo das herkommt?

19:42 Die sind nicht alle blöd. Das Problem ist, vielen fehlen die Fakten, vielen fehlen sachliche neutrale Fakten. Alles was, sei es über öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunk ist, oder über Fernsehen, Radio, sonst was, durchläuft mindestens fünf Filter. Also fünf Filter von "hier ist die Explosion", hier ist die Primärquelle, und ehe wir das sehen, lesen oder sonst was, muss es mindestens durch fünf Filter durchgehen, teilweise auch sechs oder sieben Filter, und somit ist natürlich klar, die Leute können bloß auf der Datenlage, die die bekommen, eine eine Reaktion bzw. eine Lagefeststellung, eine Entscheidung treffen. Wenn aber die Rohdaten nur Lügen sind, und die das aber nicht wissen, dann können die einfach das nicht machen. Die denken wirklich vielleicht "aus bestem Wissen und Gewissen wähle ich jetzt das", oder mache ich jetzt das, oder "die sind böse und die sind gut". Aber woher ziehen die ihre Daten? Ja, und das sind so die Sachen. Einfach mehr hinterfragen, mehr selber nachdenken. Am Ende wird man selber drauf kommen, ne? Es ist es ist nicht so komplex, nur dadurch dass jeder arbeiten ist, keine Zeit hat. Ja, und wenn er dann abends kaputt nach 10 Stunden Arbeit, vor allem die Selbständigen, das ja dann eher Halbzeit, dann fällt man nur noch ins Bett oder auf Sofa, schaut Netflix, trinkt nen Wein und dann dann fängt der nächste Tag wieder vor los, also diese Narkotisierung durch viele Informationen und aber auch Überschwemmung mit 1000 Fake News und Desinformation, dadurch können die Leute leider, muss man sagen, gar nicht so richtig das urteilen. Das ist das Problem. Diese, beim NLP heißt das ja "unbewusste Inkompetenz". Ja, sie wissen gar nicht, dass die dumm sind bzw. wissen gar nicht, dass denen irgendwas fehlt. Dazu müssten die sozusagen erstmal die richtigen Fragen stellen, um eine "bewusste Inkompetenz". "Oh, hier habe ich eine Lücke." Ja, deswegen sage ich immer, vielfältig informieren. Es es reicht heutzutage nicht einfach nur um 19 Uhr die Glotze anzumachen.

23:59 Also ich kann bloß das wiederholen, was einige Polizeipräsidenten zu mir gesagt haben, und da ging's ja einmal hier um das Beispiel Frankfurt, was sie gesagt hatten, dass die komplette Polizei und auch Bundeswehr nicht in der Lage wäre, allein gegen die Frankfurter Gangster und die Kriminellen anzugehen. Also das Gegenüber hat viel mehr Waffen, Munition, viel mehr Manpower. Von allen Behörden, die ich jemals getroffen und gesehen habe, seit 2004, sagen alle dasselbe. Sobald es kracht, nehmen Sie ihre Dienstwaffe und gehen nach Hause. Also, es ist kaum einer da, und auch viele Dienststellen sind schon infiltriert [Graue Wölfe, Bozkurt]. Auch da sind schon viele, ich sag mal, aus den Clans aus den Gangbereichen mit drin, die gezielt reingebracht wurden.

26:42 Jeder, der sich mit dieser ganzen Situation mal intensiv befasst hat, weiß das. In Deutschland denken da kaum Menschen drüber nach. Die Naivität in diesem Land ist bemerkenswert. Ich habe in meinem letzten Video das von dem Delta Force Operator eingespielt, weil er, wie er gesagt hat, die Brutalität bei unseren Menschen, und die sind ja in diesem Land, das sind nicht alle, ja, aber es sind genügend mit eingesickert, die vom islamischen Staat kommen, und so weiter. Und wenn die dann die "Leutnante" sind, sage ich mal, auf der Straße, du hast das letztes mal gesagt, da werden viele folgen, da werden viele mitmachen.

27:23 Ich habe eine Rede von dem ehemaligen Chef der Kommando Spezialkräfte, General Günzel, gehört, der gesagt hat, der Mensch ist von Natur aus schlecht und brutal. Geht es aber um religiöse Gründe, ist die Brutalität in keinster Weise in Worte zu fassen. "Dieses Bemühen um eine humane Kriegführung, wenn dieses Wort erlaubt ist, fiel jedoch regelmäßig und ironischerweise immer dann sofort wieder in sich zusammen, wenn das Volk im Namen Gottes zu den Waffen gerufen wurde. Glaubenskriege und Kreuzzüge waren die mit Abstand grausamsten der Menschheitsgeschichte."

28:52 Die iranische Führung hat jetzt offiziell den heiligen Krieg erklärt gegen Israel und Amerika.

29:36 Wann geht's hier richtig los? Wenn sozusagen der Heilige Krieg, also zwischen Christen und Juden gegen Muslime bzw. Muslime gegen die Christen und Juden, dann wird es hier verdammt eng.

33:26 Lass uns den Menschen noch ein bisschen Hoffnung machen. Dass es knallen wird, das ist klar. Aber wahrscheinlich brauchen wir so ein "Reinigungsgewitter" wie Marc Friedrich, ich habe mit dem auch gestern noch so ein Interview gemacht, ganz interessant, der beschrieben. Es geht immer in Zyklen, alle 80 Jahre, und ich glaube er hat einfach recht. Ja und wir sind jetzt einfach dran. Die Frage ist, wie schlimm wird's? Die Frage ist, wie kommen wir da durch, und dann wie kommen wir auch schnell wieder nach oben? Weil wirtschaftlich ist ist hat Deutschland fertig. Hat Deutschland wirklich fertig. Das ist einfach wahr. Und das das kommt auch nicht zurück. Die Firmen, die weg sind, kommen kommen nicht wieder. Die Facharbeiter, die weg sind, kommen nicht wieder. Und ich glaube ja, da hat das, was Marc Friedrich wahrscheinlich gemeint hat, ist "das Prinzip der vier Generation" [good times create weak men…], was einfach wiederkehrend in der Geschichte der Menschheit immer wieder da ist. Und ja, ich glaube, wir brauchen es, und ich hoffe einfach noch, dass ein bisschen Restfunke, sage ich mal, unsere Ahnen irgendwie in uns drin ist, zwischen Dichtern, Denkern und auch Kämpfern. Ja, die German waren ist nicht unbedingt nur Leute, die da ganze Zeit Gedichte geschrieben haben. Ja, also auch das Wehrhafte, hoffe ich, dass das irgendwann mal wieder zurückkommt, und dann werden wir das sehen. Also, ich denke, wir zwei sehen uns dann irgendwann mal auf der Straße wieder, an der Seite von denjenigen, die Schutz brauchen. Ja, aber ich weiß nicht, wer sonst noch da ist. Das das ist genau der Punkt. Einige Kämpfer gibt es in diesem Land noch, und ich weiß, wenn wir uns auf der Straße treffen sollten, dass ich mich auf dich verlassen kann. Mein Lieber, grüß bitte alle deine Mitstreiter, weil es gibt noch genügend in diesem Land, die dieses Land lieben und nicht zum Kotzen finden ("Warum bist denn du heute hier? - Alerta Alerta!") und Deutschland nicht den Tod wünschen ("Deutschland verrecke") und von daher glaube ich schon, dass wir am Ende irgendwie wieder vernünftig vorgehen können, mein Lieber. Vielen Dank, Andre.

35:22 "Glaubenskriege und Kreuzzüge waren die mit Abstand grausamsten der Menschheitsgeschichte. Denn hier kämpfte man ja nicht mehr gegen einen, wenn auch feindlich gesonnenen, aber doch immerhin menschlichen Gegner. Hier kämpfte man gegen den Leibhaftigen mit seinem gesamten höllischen Anhang. Hier ging es nicht mehr um irdische Güter, um Land, Macht oder Interessen. Hier ging es um das Wort und die Werke des wahren Gottes. Nicht um Sieg oder Niederlage, sondern um die Ausrottung des Bösen schlechthin. Und da aber natürlich auch jedes Mittel recht, denn wer mit Gott im Bunde war, der konnte ja nichts Unrechtes tun."

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the previous reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Azlan et al. identified a novel maternal factor called Sakura that is required for proper oogenesis in Drosophila. They showed that Sakura is specifically expressed in the female germline cells. Consistent with its expression pattern, Sakura functioned autonomously in germline cells to ensure proper oogenesis. In sakura KO flies, germline cells were lost during early oogenesis and often became tumorous before degenerating by apoptosis. In these tumorous germ cells, piRNA production was defective and many transposons were derepressed. Interestingly, Smad signaling, a critical signaling pathway for the GSC maintenance, was abolished in sakura KO germline stem cells, resulting in ectopic expression of Bam in whole germline cells in the tumorous germline. A recent study reported that Bam acts together with the deubiquitinase Otu to stabilize Cyc A. In the absence of sakura, Cyc A was upregulated in tumorous germline cells in the germarium. Furthermore, the authors showed that Sakura co-immunoprecipitated Otu in ovarian extracts. A series of in vitro assays suggested that the Otu (1-339 aa) and Sakura (1-49 aa) are sufficient for their direct interaction. Finally, the authors demonstrated that the loss of otu phenocopies the loss of sakura, supporting their idea that Sakura plays a role in germ cell maintenance and differentiation through interaction with Otu during oogenesis.

Strengths:

To my knowledge, this is the first characterization of the role of CG14545 genes. Each experiment seems to be well-designed and adequately controlled

Weaknesses:

However, the conclusions from each experiment are somewhat separate, and the functional relationships between Sakura's functions are not well established. In other words, although the loss of Sakura in the germline causes pleiotropic effects, the cause-and-effect relationships between the individual defects remain unclear.

Comments on latest version:

The authors have attempted to address my initial concerns with additional experiments and refutations. Unfortunately, my concerns, especially my specific comments 1-3, remain unaddressed. The present manuscript is descriptive and fails to describe the molecular mechanism by which Sakura exerts its function in the germline. Nevertheless, this reviewer acknowledges that the observed defects in sakura mutant ovaries and the possible physiological significance of the Sakura-Out interaction are worth sharing with the research community, as they may lay the groundwork for future research in functional analysis.

We thank the reviewer for valuable comments. We would like to investigate the molecular mechanism by which Sakura exerts its function in the germline in near future studies. 

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this study, the authors identified CG14545 (named it sakura), as a key gene essential for Drosophila oogenesis. Genetic analyses revealed that Sakura is vital for both oogenesis progression and ultimate female fertility, playing a central role in the renewal and differentiation of germ stem cells (GSC).

The absence of Sakura disrupts the Dpp/BMP signaling pathway, resulting in abnormal bam gene expression, which impairs GSC differentiation and leads to GSC loss. Additionally, Sakura is critical for maintaining normal levels of piRNAs. Also, the authors convincingly demonstrate that Sakura physically interacts with Otu, identifying the specific domains necessary for this interaction, suggesting a cooperative role in germline regulation. Importantly, the loss of otu produces similar defects to those observed in sakura mutants, highlighting their functional collaboration.

The authors provide compelling evidence that Sakura is a critical regulator of germ cell fate, maintenance, and differentiation in Drosophila. This regulatory role is mediated through modulation of pMad and Bam expression. However, the phenotypes observed in the germarium appear to stem from reduced pMad levels, which subsequently trigger premature and ectopic expression of Bam. This aberrant Bam expression could lead to increased CycA levels and altered transcriptional regulation, impacting piRNA expression. In this revised manuscript, the authors further investigated whether Sakura affects the function of Orb, a binding partner they identified, in deubiquitinase activity when Orb interacts with Bam.

We appreciate the authors' efforts to address all our comments. While these revisions have greatly improved the clarity of certain sections, some of the concerns remain unclear, while details mentioned in the responses about these studies should be incorporated in the manuscript. Specifically, the manuscript still lacks the demonstration that Sakura co-localizes with Orb/Bam despite having the means for staining and visualization. This would bring insight into the selective binding of Orb with Bam vs. Sakura perhaps at different stages of oogenesis. Such analyses would allow for more specific conclusions, further alluding to the underlying mechanism, rather than the general observations currently presented.

This elaborate study will be embraced by both germline-focused scientists and the developmental biology community.

We thank the reviewer for valuable comments. We believe that the author meant Otu, not Orb, for the binding partner of Sakura that we identified. We would like to investigate the colocalization of Sakura with other proteins including Otu and the molecular mechanism by which Sakura exerts its function in the germline in near future studies. 

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this very thorough study, the authors characterize the function of a novel Drosophila gene, which they name Sakura. They start with the observation that sakura expression is predicted to be highly enriched in the ovary and they generate an anti-sakura antibody, a line with a GFP-tagged sakura transgene, and a sakura null allele to investigate sakura localization and function directly. They confirm the prediction that it is primarily expressed in the ovary and, specifically, that it is expressed in germ cells, and find that about 2/3 of the mutants lack germ cells completely and the remaining have tumorous ovaries. Further investigation reveals that Sakura is required for piRNA-mediated repression of transposons in germ cells. They also find evidence that sakura is important for germ cell specification during development and germline stem cell maintenance during adulthood. However, despite the role of sakura in maintaining germline stem cells, they find that sakura mutant germ cells also fail to differentiate properly such that mutant germline stem cell clones have an increased number of "GSC-like" cells. They attribute this phenotype to a failure in the repression of Bam by dpp signaling. Lastly, they demonstrate that sakura physically interacts with otu and that sakura and otu mutants have similar germ cell phenotypes. Overall, this study helps to advance the field by providing a characterization of a novel gene that is required for oogenesis. The data are generally high-quality and the new lines and reagents they generated will be useful for the field.

Comments on latest version:

With these revisions, the authors have addressed my main concerns.

We thank the reviewer for valuable comments.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

The manuscript is much improved based on the changes made upon recommendations from the reviewers.

Though most of our comments have been addressed, we have a few more we wish to recommend. For previous points we made, we replied with further clarification for the authors.

Figure 1

(1) B should be the supplemental figure.

We moved the former Fig 1B to Supplemental Figure 1.

• Previous Fig1B (sakura mRNA expression level) is now Fig S2, not S1. Please make this data as Fig S1.

We moved Fig S1 to main Fig7A and renumbered Fig S2-S16 to Fig S1-S15.

(2) C - How were the different egg chamber stages selected in the WB? Naming them 'oocytes' is deceiving. Recommend labeling them as 'egg chambers', since an oocyte is claimed to be just the one-cell of that cyst.

We changed the labeling to egg chambers.

• The labels on lanes for Stages 12-13 and Stage 14, still only say "chambers", not "egg chambers". Also there is no Stage 1-3 egg chamber. More accurately, the label should be "Germarium - Stage 11 egg chambers".

We updated the lables on lanes as suggested by the reviewer.

(3) Is the antibody not detecting Sakura in IF? There is no mention of this anywhere in the manuscript.

While our Sakura antibody detects Sakura in IF, it seems to detect some other proteins as well. Since we have Sakura-EGFP fly strain (which fully rescues sakuranull phenotypes) to examine Sakura expression and localization without such non-specific signal issues, we relied on Sakura-EGFP rather than anti-Sakura antibodies for IF.

• Please put this info into the Methods section.

We added this info into the Methods section.

(4) Expand on the reliance of the sakura-EGFP fly line. Does this overexpression cause any phenotypes?

sakura-EGFP does not cause any phenotypes in the background of sakura[+/+] and sakura[+/-].

• Please add this detail into the manuscript.

We added this info into the Methods section.

Figure 5

(1) D - It might make more sense if this graph showed % instead of the numbers.

We did not understand the reviewer's point. We think using numbers, not %, makes more sense.

• Having a different 'n' number for each experiment does not allow one to compare anything except numbers of the egg chambers. This must be normalized.

We still don’t agree with the reviewer. In Fig 5D, we are showing the numbers of stage 14 oocytes per fly (= per a pair of ovaries). ‘n’ is the number of flies (= number of a pair of ovaries) examined. We now clarified this in the figure legend. Different ‘n’ number does not prevent us from comparing the numbers of stage 14 oocytes per fly. Therefore, we would like to show as it is now.

(2) Line 213 - explain why RNAi 2 was chosen when RNAi 1 looks stronger.

Fly stock of RNAi line 2 is much healthier than RNAi line 1 (without being driven Gal4) for some reasons. We had a concern that the RNAi line 1 might contain an unwanted genetic background. We chose to use the RNAi 2 line to avoid such an issue.

• Please add this information to the manuscript.

We added this info into the Methods section.

Figure 7/8 - can go to Supplemental.

We moved Fig 8 to supplemental. However, we think Fig 7 data is important and therefore we would like to present them as a main figure.

• Current Fig S1 should go to Fig 7, to better understand the relationship between pMad and Bam expression.

We moved Fig S1 to main Fig7A and renumbered Fig S2-S16 to Fig S1-S15.

Figure 9C - Why the switch to S2 cells? Not able to use the Otu antibody in the IP of ovaries?

We can use the Otu antibody in the IP of ovaries. However, in anti-Sakura Western after anti Otu IP, antibody light chain bands of the Otu antibodies overlap with the Sakura band. Therefore, we switched to S2 cells to avoid this issue by using an epitope tag.

• Please add this info to the Methods section.

We added this info into the Methods section.

Figure 10- Some images would be nice here to show that the truncations no longer colocalize.

We did not understand the reviewer's points. In our study, even for the full-length proteins. We have not shown any colocalization of Sakura and Otu in S2 cells or in ovaries, except that they both are enriched in developing oocytes in egg chambers.

• Based on your binding studies, we would expect them to colocalize in the egg chamber, and since there are antibodies and a GFP-line available, it would be important to demonstrate that via visualization.

As we wrote in the response and now in the manuscript, our antibodies are not best for immunostaining. We will try to optimize the experimental conditions in the future studies.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Ross and Miscik et. al described the phenotypic discrepancies between F0 zebrafish mosaic mutant ("CRISPants") and morpholino knockdown (Morphant) embryos versus a set of 5 different loss-of-function (LOF) stable mutants in one particular gene involved in hepatic stellate cells development: podxl. While transient LOF and mosaic mutants induced a decrease of hepatic stellate cells number stable LOF zebrafish did not. The authors analyzed the molecular causes of these phenotypic differences and concluded that LOF mutants are genetically compensated through the upregulation of the expression of many genes. Additionally, they ruled out other better-known and described mechanisms such as the expression of redundant genes, protein feedback loops, or transcriptional adaptation.

While the manuscript is clearly written and conclusions are, in general, properly supported, there are some aspects that need to be further clarified and studied.

(1) It would be convenient to apply a method to better quantify potential loss-of-function mutations in the CRISPants. Doing this it can be known not only percentage of mutations in those embryos but also what fraction of them are actually generating an out-of-frame mutation likely driving gene loss of function (since deletions of 3-6 nucleotides removing 1-2 aminoacid/s will likely not have an impact in protein activity, unless that this/these 1-2 aminoacid/s is/are essential for the protein activity). With this, the authors can also correlate phenotype penetrance with the level of loss-of-function when quantifying embryo phenotypes that can help to support their conclusions.

(2) It is unclear that 4.93 ng of morpholino per embryo is totally safe. The amount of morpholino causing undesired effects can differ depending on the morpholino used. I would suggest performing some sanity check experiments to demonstrate that morpholino KD is not triggering other molecular outcomes, such as upregulation of p53 or innate immune response.

(3) Although the authors made a set of controls to demonstrate the specificity of the CRISPant phenotypes, I believe that a rescue experiment could be beneficial to support their conclusions. Injecting an mRNA with podxl ORF (ideally with a tag to follow protein levels up) together with the induction of CRISPants could be a robust manner to demonstrate the specificity of the approach. A rescue experiment with morphants would also be good to have, although these are a bit more complicated, to ultimately demonstrate the specificity of the approach.

(4) In lines 314-316, the authors speculate on a correlation between decreased HSC and Podxl levels. It would be interesting to actually test this hypothesis and perform RT-qPCR upon CRISPant induction or, even better and if antibodies are available, western blot analysis.

(5) Similarly, in lines 337-338 and 342-344, the authors discuss that it could be possible that genes near to podxl locus could be upregulated in the mutants. Since they already have a transcriptomic done, this seems an easy analysis to do that can address their own hypothesis.

(6) Figures 4 and 5 would be easier to follow if panels B-F included what mutants are (beyond having them in the figure legend). Moreover, would it be more accurate and appropriate if the authors group all three WT and mutant data per panel instead of showing individual fish? Representing technical replicates does not demonstrate in vivo variability, which is actually meaningful in this context. Then, statistical analysis can be done between WT and mutant per panel and per set of primers using these three independent 3-month-old zebrafish.

Author response:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Ross, Miscik, and others describes an intriguing series of observations made when investigating the requirement for podxl during hepatic development in zebrafish. Podxl morphants and CRISPants display a reduced number of hepatic stellate cells (HSCs), while mutants are either phenotypically wild type or display an increased number of HSCs.

The absence of observable phenotypes in genetic mutants could indeed be attributed to genetic compensation, as the authors postulate. However, in my opinion, the evidence provided in the manuscript at this point is insufficient to draw a firm conclusion. Furthermore, the opposite phenotype observed in the two deletion mutants is not readily explainable by genetic compensation and invokes additional mechanisms.

Major concerns:

(1) Considering discrepancies in phenotypes, the phenotypes observed in podxl morphants and CRISPants need to be more thoroughly validated. To generate morphants, authors use "well characterized and validated ATG Morpholino" (lines 373-374). However, published morphants, in addition to kidney malformations, display gross developmental defects including pericardial edema, yolk sack extension abnormalities, and body curvature at 2-3 dpf (reference 7 / PMID: 24224085). Were these gross developmental defects observed in the knockdown experiments performed in this paper? If yes, is it possible that the liver phenotype observed at 5 dpf is, to some extent, secondary to these preceding abnormalities? If not, why were they not observed? Did kidney malformations reproduce? On the CRISPant side, were these gross developmental defects also observed in sgRNA#1 and sgRNA#2 CRISPants? Considering that morphants and CRISPants show very similar effects on HSC development and assuming other phenotypes are specific as well, they would be expected to occur at similar frequencies. It would be helpful if full-size images of all relevant morphant and CRISPant embryos were displayed, as is done for tyr CRISPant in Figure S2. Finally, it is very important to thoroughly quantify the efficacy of podxl sgRNA#1 and sgRNA#2 in CRISPants. The HRMA data provided in Figure S1 is not quantitative in terms of the fraction of alleles with indels. Figure S3 indicates a very broad range of efficacies, averaging out at ~62% (line 100). Assuming random distribution of indels among cells and that even in-frame indels result in complete loss of function (possible for sgRNA#1 due to targeting the signal sequence), only ~38% (.62*.62) of all cells will be mutated bi-allelically. That does not seem sufficient to reliably induce loss-of-function phenotypes. My guess is that the capillary electrophoresis method used in Figure S3 underestimates the efficiency of mutagenesis, and that much higher mutagenesis rates would be observed if mutagenesis were assessed by amplicon sequencing (ideally NGS but Sanger followed by deconvolution analysis would suffice). This would strengthen the claim that CRISPant phenotypes are specific.

The reviewer points out some excellent caveats regarding the morphant experiments. We agree that at least some of the effects of the podxl morpholino may be related to its effects on kidney development and/or gross developmental defects that impede liver development. Because of these limitations, we focused our experiments on analysis of CRISPant and mutant phenotypes, including showing that podxl (Ex1(p)_Ex7Δ) mutants are resistant to CRISPant effects on HSC number when injected with sgRNA#1. We did not observe any gross morphologic defects in podxl CRISPants. Liver size was not significantly altered in podxl CRISPants (Figure 2A). We will add brightfield images of podxl CRISPant larvae to the supplemental data for the revised manuscript.

We agree with the reviewer that HRMA is not quantitative with respect to the fraction of alleles with indels and that capillary electrophoresis likely underestimates mutagenesis efficiency. Nonetheless, even with 100% mutation efficiency, podxl CRISPant knockdown, like most CRISPR knockdowns, would not represent complete loss of function:  ~1/3 of alleles will contain in-frame mutations and likely retain at least some gene function, so ~1/3*1/3 = 1/9 of cells will have no out-of-frame indels and contain two copies of at least partially functional podxl and ~2/3*2/3 = 4/9 of cells will have one out-of-frame indel and one copy of at least partially functional podxl. Thus, the decreased HSCs we observe with podxl CRISPant likely represents a partial loss-of-function phenotype in any case.

(2) In addition to confidence in morphant and CRISPant phenotypes, the authors' claim of genetic compensation rests on the observation that podxl (Ex1(p)_Ex7Δ) mutants are resistant to CRISPant effect when injected with sgRNA#1 (Figure 3L). Considering the issues raised in the paragraph above, this is insufficient. There is a very straightforward way to address both concerns, though. The described podxl(-194_Ex7Δ) and podxl(-319_ex1(p)Δ) deletions remove the binding site for the ATG morpholino. Therefore, deletion mutants should be refractive to the Morpholino (specificity assessment recommended in PMID: 29049395, see also PMID: 32958829). Furthermore, both deletion mutants should be refractive to sgRNA#1 CRISPant phenotypes, with the first being refractive to sgRNA#2 as well.

The reviewer proposes elegant experiments to address the specificity of the morpholino. For the revision, we plan to perform additional morpholino studies, including morpholino injections of podxl mutants and assessment of tp53 and other immune response/cellular stress pathway genes in podxl morphants.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Ross and Miscik et. al described the phenotypic discrepancies between F0 zebrafish mosaic mutant ("CRISPants") and morpholino knockdown (Morphant) embryos versus a set of 5 different loss-of-function (LOF) stable mutants in one particular gene involved in hepatic stellate cells development: podxl. While transient LOF and mosaic mutants induced a decrease of hepatic stellate cells number stable LOF zebrafish did not. The authors analyzed the molecular causes of these phenotypic differences and concluded that LOF mutants are genetically compensated through the upregulation of the expression of many genes. Additionally, they ruled out other better-known and described mechanisms such as the expression of redundant genes, protein feedback loops, or transcriptional adaptation.

While the manuscript is clearly written and conclusions are, in general, properly supported, there are some aspects that need to be further clarified and studied.

(1) It would be convenient to apply a method to better quantify potential loss-of-function mutations in the CRISPants. Doing this it can be known not only percentage of mutations in those embryos but also what fraction of them are actually generating an out-of-frame mutation likely driving gene loss of function (since deletions of 3-6 nucleotides removing 1-2 aminoacid/s will likely not have an impact in protein activity, unless that this/these 1-2 aminoacid/s is/are essential for the protein activity). With this, the authors can also correlate phenotype penetrance with the level of loss-of-function when quantifying embryo phenotypes that can help to support their conclusions.

Reviewer #2 raises an excellent point that is similar to Reviewer #1’s first concern. Please see our response above. In general, we agree that correlating phenotype penetrance with level of loss-of-function is a very good way to support conclusions regarding specificity in knockdown experiments. Unfortunately, because the phenotype we are examining (HSC number) has a relatively large standard deviation even in control/wildtype larvae (for example, 63 ± 19 (mean ± standard deviation) HSCs per liver in uninjected control siblings in Figure 1) it would be technically very difficult to do this experiment for podxl.

(2) It is unclear that 4.93 ng of morpholino per embryo is totally safe. The amount of morpholino causing undesired effects can differ depending on the morpholino used. I would suggest performing some sanity check experiments to demonstrate that morpholino KD is not triggering other molecular outcomes, such as upregulation of p53 or innate immune response.

Reviewer #2 raises an excellent point that is similar to Reviewer #1’s second concern. Please see our response above. We acknowledge that some of the effects of the podxl morpholino may be non-specific. To address this concern in the revised manuscript, we plan to perform additional morpholino studies, including morpholino injections of podxl mutants and assessment of tp53 and other immune response/cellular stress pathway genes in podxl morphants.

(3) Although the authors made a set of controls to demonstrate the specificity of the CRISPant phenotypes, I believe that a rescue experiment could be beneficial to support their conclusions. Injecting an mRNA with podxl ORF (ideally with a tag to follow protein levels up) together with the induction of CRISPants could be a robust manner to demonstrate the specificity of the approach. A rescue experiment with morphants would also be good to have, although these are a bit more complicated, to ultimately demonstrate the specificity of the approach.

(4) In lines 314-316, the authors speculate on a correlation between decreased HSC and Podxl levels. It would be interesting to actually test this hypothesis and perform RT-qPCR upon CRISPant induction or, even better and if antibodies are available, western blot analysis.

We appreciate the reviewer’s acknowledgement of the controls we performed to demonstrate the specificity of the CRISPant phenotypes. The proposed experiments (rescue, assessment of Podxl levels) would help bolster our conclusions but are technically difficult due to the relatively large standard deviation for the HSC number phenotype even in wildtype larvae and the lack of well-characterized zebrafish antibodies against Podxl.

(5) Similarly, in lines 337-338 and 342-344, the authors discuss that it could be possible that genes near to podxl locus could be upregulated in the mutants. Since they already have a transcriptomic done, this seems an easy analysis to do that can address their own hypothesis.

Thank you for this suggestion. We were referring in these sections to genes that are near the podxl locus with respect to three-dimensional chromatin structure; such genes would not necessarily be near the podxl locus on chromosome 4. We will clarify the text in this paragraph for the revised manuscript. At the same time, we will examine our transcriptomic data to check expression of mkln1, cyb5r3, and other nearby genes on chromosome 4 as suggested and include this analysis in the revised manuscript.

(6) Figures 4 and 5 would be easier to follow if panels B-F included what mutants are (beyond having them in the figure legend). Moreover, would it be more accurate and appropriate if the authors group all three WT and mutant data per panel instead of showing individual fish? Representing technical replicates does not demonstrate in vivo variability, which is actually meaningful in this context. Then, statistical analysis can be done between WT and mutant per panel and per set of primers using these three independent 3-month-old zebrafish.

Thank you for this suggestion. We will modify these figures to clarify our results.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Ross et al. show that knockdown of zebrafish podocalyxin-like (podxl) by CRISPR/Cas or morpholino injection decreased the number of hepatic stellate cells (HSC). The authors then generated 5 different mutant alleles representing a range of lesions, including premature stop codons, in-frame deletion of the transmembrane domain, and deletions of the promoter region encompassing the transcription start site. However, unlike their knockdown experiment, HSC numbers did not decrease in podxl mutants; in fact, for two of the mutant alleles, the number of HSCs increased compared to the control. Injection of podxl CRISPR/Cas constructs into these mutants had no effect on HSC number, suggesting that the knockdown phenotype is not due to off-target effects but instead that the mutants are somehow compensating for the loss of podxl. The authors then present multiple lines of evidence suggesting that compensation is not exclusively due to transcriptional adaptation - evidence of mRNA instability and nonsense-mediated decay was observed in some but all mutants; expression of the related gene endoglycan (endo) was unchanged in the mutants and endo knockdown had no effect on HSC numbers; and, expression profiling by RNA sequencing did not reveal changes in other genes that share sequence similarity with podxl. Instead, their RNA-seq data showed hundreds of differentially expressed genes, especially ECM-related genes, suggesting that compensation in podxl mutants is complex and multi-genic.

Strengths:

The data presented is impressively thorough, especially in its characterization of the 5 different podxl alleles and exploration of whether these mutants exhibit transcriptional adaptation.

Thank you very much for appreciating the hard work that went into this manuscript.

Weaknesses:

RNA sequencing expression profiling was done on adult livers. However, compensation of HSC numbers is apparent by 6 dpf, suggesting compensatory mechanisms would be active at larval or even embryonic stages. Although possible, it's not clear that any compensatory changes in gene expression would persist to adulthood.

This reviewer makes an excellent point. Our finding that the largest changes in gene expression were in extracellular matrix (ECM) genes and ECM modulation is a major function of HSCs supports the hypothesis that genetic compensation is occurring in adults. Nonetheless, we agree that compensatory changes in adults may not fully reflect the compensatory changes during development, so it would bolster the conclusions of the paper to perform the RNA sequencing and qPCR experiments on zebrafish larval livers.

We tried very hard to do this experiment proposed by Reviewer #3. In our hands, obtaining sufficient high-quality RNA for robust gene expression analysis typically requires pooling of ~10-15 larval livers. These larvae need to be obtained from a heterozygous in-cross in order to have matched wildtype sibling controls. Livers must be dissected from freshly euthanized (not fixed) zebrafish. Thus, this experiment requires genotyping live, individual larvae from a small amount of tissue (without sacrificing the larvae) before dissecting and pooling the livers. Unfortunately we were unable to confidently and reproducibly genotype individual live podxl larvae with these small amounts of tissue despite trying multiple approaches. Therefore we were not able to perform gene expression analysis on podxl mutant larval livers.

can we add a new tag called download disputes report?

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

Revision Plan

June 28, 2025

Manuscript number: RC-2025-02982

Corresponding author(s): Babita Madan, Nathan Harmston, David Virshup

General Statements In Wnt signaling, the relative contributions of ‘canonical (β-catenin dependent) and non- canonical (β-catenin independent) signaling remains unclear. Here, we exploited a unique and highly robust in vivo system to study this. Our study is therefore the first comprehensive analysis of the β-catenin independent arm of the Wnt signaling pathway in a cancer model and illustrates how a combination of cis-regulatory elements can determine Wnt-dependent gene regulation.

We are very pleased with the reviews; it appears we communicated our goal and our findings clearly, and in general the reviewers felt the study provided important information, was well planned and the results were “crystal clear”.

While more experiments could strengthen and extend the results, we feel our results are already very robust due to the use of multiple replicates in the in vivo system.

The Virshup lab in Singapore closed July 1, 2025 and so additional wet lab studies are not feasible.

1. Description of the planned revisions

Insert here a point-by-point reply that explains what revisions, additional experimentations and analyses are planned to address the points raised by the referees.

Below we address the points raised by the reviewers:

Reviewer #1 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

…

The article has the merit of addressing a yet-unsolved question in the field (if beta-catenin can also repress genes) that only a limited number of studies has tried to tackle, and provides useful datasets for the community. The system employed is elegant, and the PORCN-inhibition bypassed by a ____constitutively active beta-catenin is clean and ingenious. The manuscript is clearly written.

We thank the reviewers for their kind comments on the importance of the data. Our orthotopic model provides the opportunity to exploit robust Wnt regulated gene expression in a more responsive microenvironment than can be achieved in cell culture and simple flank xenograft models.

Here we propose a series of thoughts and comments that, if addressed, would in our opinion improve the study and its description.

1) We wonder why a xenograft model is necessary to induce a robust WNT response in these cells.

The authors describe this set-up as a strength, as it is supposed to provide physiological relevance, yet it is not clear to us why this is the case.

We welcome the opportunity to expand on our choice of an orthotopic xenograft model. It has been long established that cancer cells behave differently in different in vivo locations (Killion et al., 1998). Building on this, we confirmed this in our system that identical pancreatic cancer cells treated with the same PORCN inhibitor had very different responses in vitro, in the flank and in their orthotopic environment (Madan et al., 2018). To quote from our prior paper, “Looking only at genes decreasing more than 1.5-fold at 56 hours, we would have missed 817/1867 (44%) genes using a subcutaneous or 939/1867 (50%) using an in vitro model. Thus, the overall response to Wnt inhibition was reduced in the subcutaneous model and further blunted in vitro. An orthotopic model more accurately represents real biology.

The reason for this is presumably the very different orthotopic microenvironment, including tissue appropriate stroma-tumor, vascular-tumor, lymphatic-tumor, and humoral interactions.

Moreover, as the authors homogenize the tumour to perform bulk RNA-seq, we wonder whether they are not only sequencing mRNA from the cancer cells but also from infiltrating immune cells and/or from the surrounding connective tissue.

In experiments generating RNA-seq data from xenograft models, the resulting sequences can originate from either human (graft) or mouse (host). In order to account for this, following standard practice, we filtered reads prior to alignment using Xenome (Conway et al., 2012). We have added additional text to the methods to highlight this step in our pipeline.

2) If, as the established view implies, Wnt/beta-catenin only leads to gene activation, pathway

inhibition would free up the transcriptional machinery - there is evidence that some of its constituents are rate-limiting. The free machinery could now activate some other genes: the net effect observed would be their increased transcription upon Wnt inhibition, irrespective of beta-catenin's presence. Could this be considered as an alternative explanation for the genes that go up in both control and bcat4A lines upon ETC-159 administration? This, we think, is in part corroborated by the absence of enrichment of biological pathways in this group of genes. The genes that are beta-catenin-dependent and downregulated (D&R) are obviously not affected by this alternative explanation.

This is an interesting suggestion, and we will incorporate this thought into our discussion of potential mechanisms.

3) The authors mention that HPAF-II are Wnt addicted. Do they die upon ETC-159 administration, and is this effect rescued by exogenous WNT addition?

We and several others have previously reported that Wnt-addicted cells differentiate and/or senesce upon Wnt withdrawal in vivo but not in vitro. This is related to the broader changes in gene expression in the orthotopic tumors. The effect of PORCN inhibition has been demonstrated by us and others and is rescued by Wnt addition, downstream activation of Wnt signaling by e.g. APC mutation, and, as we show here, stabilized β-catenin.

4) Line 120: the authors write about Figure 1C: "This demonstrates that the growth of β-cat4A cells in vitro largely requires Wnts to activate β-catenin signaling." The opposite is true: control cells require WNT and form less colony with ETC159, while β-cat4A are independent from Wnt secretion.

We appreciate the reviewer pointing out our mis-statement. This error has now been corrected in the revised manuscript.

5) Lines 226-229: "The β-catenin independent repressed genes were notably enriched for motifs bound by homeobox factors including GSC2, POU6F2, and MSGN1. This finding aligns with the known role of non-canonical Wnt signaling in embryonic development" This statement assumes that target genes, or at least the beta-catenin independent ones, are conserved across tissues, including developing organs. This contrasts with the view that target genes in addition to the usual suspects (e.g., AXIN2, SP5 etc.) are modulated tissue-specifically - a view that the authors (and in fact, these reviewers) appear to support in their introduction.

We agree with the reviewer that a majority of Wnt-regulated genes are tissue specific. Indeed, the β-catenin independent Wnt-repressed genes may also be tissue specific. In other tissues, we speculate that other β-catenin independent Wnt-repressed genes may also have homeobox factor binding sites as well and so the general concept remains valid. We do not have sufficient data in other tissues to resolve this issue.

7) The luciferase and mutagenesis work presented in Figure 5 are crystal-clear. One important aspect that remains to be clarified is whether beta-catenin and/or TCF7L2 directly bind to the NRE sites. Or do the authors hypothesize that another factor binds here? We suggest the authors to show TCF7L2 binding tracks at the NRE/WRE motifs in the main figures.

A major question of the reviewers was, can we provide additional evidence that the NRE is bound by LEF/TCF family members. Our initial analysis of more datasets indicates TCF7L2 peaks are enriched on NREs in Wnt-β-catenin responsive cell lines like HCT116 and PANC1. These analyses appear to further support the model that the NRE binds TCF7L2, but we fully agree these analyses can neither prove nor disprove the model.

In our revision, we will analyze additional cut and run datasets as suggested and look at the HEPG2 datasets suggested by reviewer 1. We are concerned about tissue specificity as some of the genes are not expressed in e.g. HEPG2 or HEK293 cells where datasets are available. However, our data continues to support a functional role for the NRE in the modulation of β-catenin regulated genes. The best analysis would be more ChIP-Seq or Cut and Run assays on tissues, not cells, but these studies are beyond what we can do.

What about other TCF/LEFs and beta-catenin? Are there relevant datasets that could be explored to test whether all these bind here during Wnt activation?

As above, We will analyze additional ChIP and Cut & Run datasets to address this question looking at β-catenin and other LEF/TCF family members. We also reflect on the fact that ChIP-Seq does not necessarily imply that the targeted factor (e.g.,TCF7L2) is bound in the target site in all the cells.

The repression might be mediated by beta-catenin partnering with other factors that bind the NRE even by competing with TCF7L2.

We appreciate the insightful comments and now incorporate this into our discussion.

8) In general, while we greatly appreciate the github page to replicate the analysis, we feel that the methods' description is lacking, both concerning analytical details (e.g., the cutoff used for MACS2 peak calling) or basic experimental planning (e.g, how the luciferase assays were performed).

We thank reviewers for the suggestions and will add further details regarding the analysis

and experimental planning in the method sections.

9) The paper might benefit from the addition of quality metrics on the RNA-seq. Interesting for example would be to see a PCA analysis - as a more unbiased approach - rather than the kmeans clustering.

We have this data and will add it to the revised manuscript.

10) It seems that in Figure 3A the clusters are mislabelled as compared to Figure 3B and Figure 1. Here the repressor clusters are labelled DR5, DR6 and DN7 whereas in the rest of the paper they are labelled DR1, DR2 and DN1.

Thank you for pointing out this issue. This has now been corrected in Figure 3.

11) The siCTNNB1 in Figure 5E is described to be a significant effect in the text whereas in Figure 5E this has a p value of 0.075.

Thank you for pointing out the p value did not cross the 0.05 threshold. We have modified the text to remove the word ‘significant’.

12) Line 396: 'Here we confirm and extend the identification of a TCF-dependent negative regulatory element (NRE), where beta-catenin interacts with TCF to repress gene expression'. We suggest caution in stating that beta-catenin and TCF directly repress gene expression by binding to NRE. In the current state the authors do not show that TCF & beta-catenin bind to these elements. See our previous point 7.

We appreciate the suggestion of the reviewers. We will be more cautious in our interpretation.

Further suggestions - or food for thoughts:

13) A frequently asked question in the field concerns the off-target effects of CHIR treatment as opposed to exposure to WNT ligands. CHIR treatment - in parallel to bcat4A overexpression - would allow the authors to delineate WNT independent effects of CHIR treatment and settle this debate.

We thank the reviewers for suggesting this interesting experiment to sort out the non- Wnt effects of GSK3 inhibition. Such a study would require a new set of animal experiments and a different analysis; we think this is beyond the scope of this manuscript.

14) We think that Figure 4C could be strengthened by adding more public TCF-related datasets (e.g., from ENCODE) to confirm the observation across datasets from different laboratories. In particular, the HEPG2 could possibly be improved as there is an excellent TCF7L2 dataset available by ENCODE.

Many more datasets are easily searchable through: https://www.factorbook.org/.

As above, we will analyze the HEPG2 dataset. We plan on updating Fig 4 with data from analysis from different datasets such as (Blauwkamp et al., 2008; Zambanini et al., 2022).

15) The authors show that there is no specific spacing between NREs and WREs. This implies that it is not likely that TCF7L2 recognizes both at the same time through the C-clamp. Do the authors think that there might be a pattern discernible when comparing the location of WRE and NRE in relation to the TCF7L2 ChIP-seq peak summit? This would allow inferring whether TCF7L2 more likely directly binds the WRE (presumably) and if the NRE is bound by a cofactor.

This is an interesting suggestion and we will conduct this analysis as suggested on available datasets (as the result may be different in different tissue types with varying degrees of Wnt/β-catenin signaling).

Reviewer #2 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

Overall, the study provides a solid framework for understanding noncanonical transcriptional ____outputs of Wnt signaling in a cancer context. The majority of the conclusions are well supported by the data. However, there are a few substantive points that require clarification before the manuscript is ready for publication.

Major Comments

The authors' central claim-that their findings represent a comprehensive analysis of the β-catenin- independent arm of Wnt signaling and uncover a "cis-regulatory grammar" governing Wnt-dependent gene activation versus repression-is overstated based on the presented data.

We appreciate the reviewers concern and will temper our language.

Specifically:

• Figure 3B identifies TF-binding motifs enriched among different Wnt-responsive gene clusters, but the authors only functionally investigate the role of NRE in β-catenin-dependent repression, particularly in the context of TCF motif interaction.

• To support a broader claim regarding cis-regulatory grammar, additional analyses are required:

o What is the distribution of NREs across all clusters? Are they exclusive to β-catenin-dependent repressed clusters, or more broadly present?

The distribution of the NREs is a statistically significant enrichment; they are observed in the repressed clusters more frequently than expected by chance alone, but they are present elsewhere as well. We have tempered our language around the cis-regulatory grammar.

o Do NREs interact with other enriched motifs beyond TCF? Is this interaction specific to repression or also involved in activation?

This is an interesting question beyond the scope of this analysis. Our dataset uses multiple interventions; The NREs may interact with other motifs but we would need more transcriptional analysis data with biological intervention to assess this.

o A more comprehensive analysis of cis-element combinations is needed to draw conclusions about their collective influence on gene regulation across clusters.

We agree; This would be a great question if we had TCF binding data in our orthotopic xenograft model. It’s a dataset we do not have, nor do we have the resources to pursue this.

Other important clarifications:

• The use of the term "wild-type" to describe HPAF-II cells is potentially misleading. These cells are not genetically wild-type and harbor multiple oncogenic alterations.

Thank you for pointing this out. We will use the word “parental” in the text

• The manuscript does not clearly present the kinetics of Wnt target downregulation upon ETC-159 treatment of HPAF-II cells. Understanding whether repression mirrors activation dynamics (e.g., delay or persistence of Wnt effects) is essential to interpreting the system's temporal behavior.

We previously addressed the temporal dynamics of activation and repression in our more comprehensive time course papers (Harmston et al., 2020; Madan et al., 2018); there are differences in the dynamics that are difficult to tease out in this new dataset as the density of time points is less. Having said that, we will compare the time course and annotate the sets of genes identified in this current study with the data from our original study to provide more information on the temporal dynamics of this system.

Minor Comment

• The statement in Figure 1C (lines 119-120) that "growth of β-cat4A cells in vitro largely requires Wnts to activate β-catenin signaling" is inconsistent with the data. As the β-cat4A allele encodes a constitutively active form of β-catenin, Wnts should not be required. Please revise this conclusion for clarity.

We thank the reviewers for pointing out this mis-statement. We have corrected this.

Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):

This study offers a systematic classification of Wnt-responsive gene expression dynamics, differentiating between β-catenin-dependent and -independent mechanisms. The insights into temporal expression patterns and the potential role of the NRE element in transcriptional repression add depth to our understanding of Wnt signaling. These findings have relevance for developmental biology, stem cell biology, and cancer research-particularly in understanding how Wnt-mediated repression may influence tumor progression and therapeutic response.

Nice review; thank you.

Reviewer #3 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

… The work advances understanding of Wnt mediated repression via cis regulatory grammar.

Major Concerns

1) Statistical thresholds and clustering - The criteria for classifying β catenin-dependent versus - independent genes rely on FDR cutoffs above or below 0.1. If the more stringent cutoff of 0.05 was used, how many genes would still be considered Wnt regulated?

We can readily address this in a revised manuscript.

2) Validation of selected β catenin-dependent and -independent Wnt target genes - While the authors identify β catenin-dependent and -independent Wnt target genes (4 selected genes from different clusters in Fig.2), RT-qPCR based validation of Axin2 has been performed in Fig. S3. Authors should also validate other 3 genes as well.

We had considered performing qPCR to re-validate some of our gene-expression changes but qPCR analyses is intrinsically more error prone than RNAseq, and we believe the literature shows that qPCR from the same samples will not add any extra utility. Previous studies that have examined this question have reported excellent correlation between the RNAseq and pPCR (Asmann et al., 2009; Griffith et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2014).

3) NRE mechanistic insight - The most important contribution of this manuscript is the extension of the importance of the NRE motif in Wnt regulated enhancers. But the mutagenesis data provided is insufficient to conclusively nail down that the NREs are responsible for the repression. The effects in the synthetic reporters in Fig. 4D are small - it's not clear that there is much activity in the MimRep to be repressed by the NREs. The data in Fig. 5 is a better context to test the importance of the NREs, but the authors use deletion analysis which is too imprecise and settle for single nucleotide mutants in individual NREs in the ABHD11-AS1 reporter. In the Axin2 report, they mutate sequences outside of the NRE. It's too inconsistent. They should mutate 3 or 4 positions within the NRE in BOTH motifs in the context of the ABHD11-AS1 reporter. Same for the Axin2 reporter.

We feel our analysis, coupled with the Kim paper (Kim et al., 2017), support the role of the NRE. We agree that more data is always desirable, but in our current circumstances are we cannot add additional wetlab experiments.

Regarding Figure 4D, this is a synthetic system lacking the endogenous elements in the promoter. We agree with the reviewer that the effect is small but we would also like to point out that adding the well-established 2WRE in front of the MinRep increased the transcription activity to 1.5 fold, which is of similar magnitude change of the 2NRE deceasing the transcriptional activity 1/1.5 = 0.6.

In Kim et al, it was shown that mutating the 11st nucleotide of the NRE motif showed the strongest effect, so we followed their lead in only mutated the 11st nucleotide in ABHD11- AS1 NRE.

As for the putative NRE sequence present in AXIN2 promoter, its downstream sequence is polyT (__GTGTTTTTTTT__TTTTTTTTTT), if we only mutate 11st nucleotide to G/C, we could create similar sequence to NRE, so we mutated sequences outside of the NRE to fully disrupt it.

4) Even if the mutagenesis is done more completely, the results simply replicate that of the Goentoro group. In Kim et al 2017, they provide suggestive (not convincing) evidence that TCFs directly bind to the NRE. The authors of this manuscript should explore that in more detail, e.g., can purified TCF bind to the NRE sequence? Can the authors design experiments to directly test whether beta-catenin is acting through the NRE - their data currently only demonstrates that the NRE provide a negative input to the reporters - that's an important mechanistic difference.

We point out that our minimal reporter studies with the NRE showed a repressive effect in HCT116 (colorectal cancer cells with stabilized β-catenin) but not HT1080 (sarcoma cells with low Wnt) supporting the importance of β-catenin acting through the NRE (Figs. 4D, 4E).

We fully agree with the reviewers that additional study of TCF interaction with the NRE would be of value. While EMSA and culture-based ChIP assays would be of some value, the best study should be done in vivo where the system is most robust. We are not in a position to do these studies, but we will add in a discussion of this as a limitation of the current study.

5) In vertebrates, some TCFs are more repressive than others and TLEs have been implicated in repressive. Exploring these factors in the context of the NRE would increase the value of this story.

This is an interesting idea but beyond the scope of the current manuscript. It is likely this would be dependent on tissue specific expression, local expression levels, and local binding of co-factors. As we look at other TCF members in other datasets we may be able to address this. Further wetlab experiments are beyond the scope of this work.

**Referees cross-commenting**

I respectfully disagree that the luciferase assays are sufficient. Using deletion analysis to understand the function of specific binding sites is insufficient and the more specific mutations of NREs are incomplete. Regarding this paper extending our knowledge of direct transcriptional repression by Wnt/bcat signaling, I don't agree that it adds much - there are numerous datasets where Wnt signaling activates and represses genes - the trick is determining whether any of the repressed genes are the result and direct regulation by TCF/bcat. They don't explore that. The main finding is an extension of the work by Lea Goentoro on the importance of the NRE motif, but they don't address whether TCF directly associates with this sequence. Goentoro argued in the 2017 paper that it does, but that data is unconvincing to me. Can purified TCF bind the NRE? Without that information (done carefully) this manuscript is very limited.

We respectfully disagree with the reviewer regarding the contribution of this manuscript. There are certainly many datasets looking at Wnt-regulated genes in tissue culture, but these cell-based studies are underpowered to really understand Wnt biology. There are only two papers, ours and Cantú’s, that address Wnt repressed genes in any depth. No prior papers have differentiated β-catenin dependent from β-catenin independent genes before, and certainly not in an orthotopic animal model.

A major impact of our study is the finding that only 10% of Wnt regulated genes are independent of β-catenin, at least in pancreatic cancer. We feel this is a major contribution. We further add to this analysis by re-enforcing/extend the prior evidence on the NRE in humans (and correct the motif sequence!) for Wnt-repressed genes. Our data supports the fine-tuning of the Wnt/β-catenin regulated genes by a cis-regulatory grammar.

Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

Overall, this study advances our understanding of the dual roles of Wnt signaling in gene activation and repression, highlighting the role of the NRE motif. But this is an extension of the original NRE paper (Kim et al 2017) with no mechanistic advance beyond that original work. The transcriptomics in the first part of the manuscript have some value, but similar data sets already exist.

We respectfully but strongly disagree with the reviewer. First, our work examines the NRE in a large-scale in vivo transcriptome dataset, significantly extending the candidate gene approach of Kim et al. Secondly, we disagree with the comment that “similar data sets already exist.” Indeed, reviewer 1 (C. Cantú) specifically pointed out we had addressed an “yet-unsolved question in the field” on whether and how β-catenin repressed genes.

__3. __Description of the revisions that have already been incorporated in the transferred manuscript

To date we have only corrected several typographical errors.

1. Description of analyses that authors prefer not to carry out

We fully agree with the reviewers that additional study of TCF interaction with the NRE would be of value. While EMSA and cell culture-based ChIP assays would be of some modest value, they have already been done in vitro by Kim et al. (Kim et al., 2017) and the best next study should be done in vivo in Wnt-responsive cancers or tissues where the biology is most robust (Madan et al., 2018) . We are not in a position to do these studies, but we will add this into the discussion as a limitation of the current study. We also acknowledge that the NRE may interact with other currently unidentified factors.

Reviewer 1 asked about considering experiments to determine non-Wnt effects of GSK3 inhibitors like CHIR. Such a study, while interesting, would require a new set of animal experiments and a different analysis; we think this is beyond the scope of this manuscript.

Finally, we note that the Virshup lab at Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore, where these in vivo studies were performed, has closed as of July 1, 2025 and the various lab members have moved on to new adventures. Because of this, we are unable to undertake new wet-lab studies.

Thank you for your consideration,

For the authors,

David Virshup

References:

Asmann YW, Klee EW, Thompson EA, Perez EA, Middha S, Oberg AL, Therneau TM, Smith DI,

Poland GA, Wieben ED, Kocher J-PA. 2009. 3’ tag digital gene expression profiling of human

brain and universal reference RNA using Illumina Genome Analyzer. BMC Genom 10:531–

1. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-10-531

Blauwkamp TA, Chang MV, Cadigan KM. 2008. Novel TCF-binding sites specify transcriptional

repression by Wnt signalling. The EMBO Journal 27:1436–1446. doi:10.1038/emboj.2008.80

Conway T, Wazny J, Bromage A, Tymms M, Sooraj D, Williams ED, Beresford-Smith B. 2012.

Xenome—a tool for classifying reads from xenograft samples. Bioinformatics 28:i172–i178.

doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bts236

Griffith M, Griffith OL, Mwenifumbo J, Goya R, Morrissy AS, Morin RD, Corbett R, Tang MJ, Hou

Y-C, Pugh TJ, Robertson G, Chittaranjan S, Ally A, Asano JK, Chan SY, Li HI, McDonald H,

Teague K, Zhao Y, Zeng T, Delaney A, Hirst M, Morin GB, Jones SJM, Tai IT, Marra MA.

1. Alternative expression analysis by RNA sequencing. Nat Methods 7:843–847.

doi:10.1038/nmeth.1503

Harmston N, Lim JYS, Arqués O, Palmer HG, Petretto E, Virshup DM, Madan B. 2020.

Widespread Repression of Gene Expression in Cancer by a Wnt/β-Catenin/MAPK Pathway.

Cancer Res 81:464–475. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-20-2129

Killion JJ, Radinsky R, Fidler IJ. 1998. Orthotopic models are necessary to predict therapy of

transplantable tumors in mice. Cancer metastasis reviews 17:279–284.

Kim K, Cho J, Hilzinger TS, Nunns H, Liu A, Ryba BE, Goentoro L. 2017. Two-Element

Transcriptional Regulation in the Canonical Wnt Pathway. Current Biology 27:2357-2364.e5.

doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.06.037

Madan B, Harmston N, Nallan G, Montoya A, Faull P, Petretto E, Virshup DM. 2018. Temporal

dynamics of Wnt-dependent transcriptome reveals an oncogenic Wnt/MYC/ribosome axis. J

Clin Invest 128:5620–5633. doi:10.1172/jci122383

Wu AR, Neff NF, Kalisky T, Dalerba P, Treutlein B, Rothenberg ME, Mburu FM, Mantalas GL,

Sim S, Clarke MF, Quake SR. 2014. Quantitative assessment of single-cell RNA-sequencing

methods. Nat Methods 11:41–46. doi:10.1038/nmeth.2694

Zambanini G, Nordin A, Jonasson M, Pagella P, Cantù C. 2022. A new cut&run low volume-

urea (LoV-U) protocol optimized for transcriptional co-factors uncovers Wnt/b-catenin tissue-

specific genomic targets. Development 149. doi:10.1242/dev.201124

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

Reviewer #1 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

PAPS is required for all sulfotransferase reactions in which a sulfate group is covalently attached to amino acid residues of proteins or to side chains of proteoglycans. This sulfation is crucial for properly organizing the apical extracellular matrix (aECM) and expanding the lumen in the Drosophila salivary gland. Loss of Papss potentially leads to decreased sulfation, disorganizing the aECM, and defects in lumen formation. In addition, Papss loss destabilizes the Golgi structures.

In Papss mutants, several changes occur in the salivary gland lumen of Drosophila. The tube lumen is very thin and shows irregular apical protrusions. There is a disorganization of the apical membrane and a compaction of the apical extracellular matrix (aECM). The Golgi structures and intracellular transport are disturbed. In addition, the ZP domain proteins Piopio (Pio) and Dumpy (Dpy) lose their normal distribution in the lumen, which leads to condensation and dissociation of the Dpy-positive aECM structure from the apical membrane. This results in a thin and irregularly dilated lumen.

1. The authors describe various changes in the lumen in mutants, from thin lumen to irregular expansion. I would like to know the correct lumen diameter, and length, besides the total area, by which one can recognize thin and irregular.

We have included quantification of the length and diameter of the salivary gland lumen in the stage 16 salivary glands of control, Papss mutant, and salivary gland-specific rescue embryos (Figure 1J, K). As described, Papss mutant embryos have two distinct phenotypes, one group with a thin lumen along the entire lumen and the other group with irregular lumen shapes. Therefore, we separated the two groups for quantification of lumen diameter. Additionally, we have analyzed the degree of variability for the lumen diameter to better capture the range of phenotypes observed (Figure 1K'). These quantifications enable a more precise assessment of lumen morphology, allowing readers to distinguish between thin and irregular lumen phenotypes.

The rescue is about 30%, which is not as good as expected. Maybe the wrong isoform was taken. Is it possible to find out which isoform is expressed in the salivary glands, e.g., by RNA in situ Hyb? This could then be used to analyze a more focused rescue beyond the paper.

Thank you for this point, but we do not agree that the rescue is about 30%. In Papss mutants, about 50% of the embryos show the thin lumen phenotype whereas the other 50% show irregular lumen shapes. In the rescue embryos with a WT Papss, few embryos showed thin lumen phenotypes. About 40% of the rescue embryos showed "normal, fully expanded" lumen shapes, and the remaining 60% showed either irregular (thin+expanded) or slightly overexpanded lumen. It is not uncommon that rescue with the Gal4/UAS system results in a partial rescue because it is often not easy to achieve the balance of the proper amount of the protein with the overexpression system.

To address the possibility that the wrong isoform was used, we performed in situ hybridization to examine the expression of different Papss spice forms in the salivary gland. We used probes that detect subsets of splice forms: A/B/C/F/G, D/H, and E/F/H, and found that all probes showed expression in the salivary gland, with varying intensities. The original probe, which detects all splice forms, showed the strongest signals in the salivary gland compared to the new probes which detect only a subset. However, the difference in the signal intensity may be due to the longer length of the original probe (>800 bp) compared to other probes that were made with much smaller regions (~200 bp). Digoxigenin in the DIG labeling kit for mRNA detection labels the uridine nucleotide in the transcript, and the probes with weaker signals contain fewer uridines (all: 147; ABCFG, 29; D, 36; EFH, 66). We also used the Papss-PD isoform, for a salivary gland-specific rescue experiment and obtained similar results to those with Papss-PE (Figure 1I-L, Figure 4D and E).

Furthermore, we performed additional experiments to validate our findings. We performed a rescue experiment with a mutant form of Papss that has mutations in the critical rescues of the catalytic domains of the enzyme, which failed to rescue any phenotypes, including the thin lumen phenotype (Figure 1H, J-L), the number and intensity of WGA puncta (Figure 3I, I'), and cell death (Figure 4D, E). These results provide strong evidence that the defects observed in Papss mutants are due to the lack of sulfation.

Crb is a transmembrane protein on the apicolateral side of the membrane. Accordingly, the apicolateral distribution can be seen in the control and the mutant. I believe there are no apparent differences here, not even in the amount of expression. However, the view of the cells (frame) shows possible differences. To be sure, a more in-depth analysis of the images is required. Confocal Z-stack images, with 3D visualization and orthogonal projections to analyze the membranes showing Crb staining together with a suitable membrane marker (e.g. SAS or Uif). This is the only way to show whether Crb is incorrectly distributed. Statistics of several papas mutants would also be desirable and not just a single representative image. When do the observed changes in Crb distribution occur in the development of the tubes, only during stage 16? Is papss only involved in the maintenance of the apical membrane? This is particularly important when considering the SJ and AJ, because the latter show no change in the mutants.

We appreciate your suggestion to more thoroughly analyze Crb distribution. We adapted a method from a previous study (Olivares-Castiñeira and Llimargas, 2017) to quantify Crb signals in the subapical region and apical free region of salivary gland cells. Using E-Cad signals as a reference, we marked the apical cell boundaries of individual cells and calculated the intensity of Crb signals in the subapical region (along the cell membrane) and in the apical free region. We focused on the expanded region of the SG lumen in Papss mutants for quantification, as the thin lumen region was challenging to analyze. This quantification is included in Figure 2D. Statistical analysis shows that Crb signals were more dispersed in SG cells in Papss mutants compared to WT.

A change in the ECM is only inferred based on the WGA localization. This is too few to make a clear statement. WGA is only an indirect marker of the cell surface and glycosylated proteins, but it does not indicate whether the ECM is altered in its composition and expression. Other important factors are missing here. In addition, only a single observation is shown, and statistics are missing.

We understand your concern that WGA localization alone may not be sufficient to conclude changes in the ECM. However, we observed that luminal WGA signals colocalize with Dpy-YFP in the WT SG (Figure 5-figure supplement 2C), suggesting that WGA detects the aECM structure containing Dpy. The similar behavior of WGA and Dpy-YFP signals in multiple genotypes further supports this idea. In Papss mutants with a thin lumen phenotype, both WGA and Dpy-YFP signals are condensed (Figure 5E-H), and in pio mutants, both are absent from the lumen (Figure 6B, D). We analyzed WGA signals in over 25 samples of WT and Papss mutants, observing consistent phenotypes. We have included the number of samples in the text. While we acknowledge that WGA is an indirect marker, our data suggest that it is a reliable indicator of the aECM structure containing Dpy.

Reduced WGA staining is seen in papss mutants, but this could be due to other circumstances. To be sure, a statistic with the number of dots must be shown, as well as an intensity blot on several independent samples. The images are from single confocal sections. It could be that the dots appear in a different Z-plane. Therefore, a 3D visualization of the voxels must be shown to identify and, at best, quantify the dots in the organ.

We have quantified cytoplasmic punctate WGA signals. Using spinning disk microscopy with super-resolution technology (Olympus SpinSR10 Sora), we obtained high-resolution images of cytoplasmic punctate signals of WGA in WT, Papss mutant, and rescue SGs with the WT and mutant forms of Papss-PD. We then generated 3D reconstructed images of these signals using Imaris software (Figure 3E-H) and quantified the number and intensity of puncta. Statistical analysis of these data confirms the reduction of the number and intensity of WGA puncta in Papss mutants (Figure 3I, I'). The number of WGA puncta was restored by expressing WT Papss but not the mutant form. By using 3D visualization and quantification, we have ensured that our results are not limited to a single confocal section and account for potential variations in Z-plane localization of the dots.

A colocalization analysis (statistics) should be shown for the overlap of WGA with ManII-GFP.

Since WGA labels multiple structures, including the nuclear envelope and ECM structures, we focused on assessing the colocalization of the cytoplasmic WGA punctate signals and ManII-GFP signals. Standard colocalization analysis methods, such as Pearson's correlation coefficient or Mander's overlap coefficient, would be confounded by WGA signals in other tissues. Therefore, we used a fluorescent intensity line profile to examine the spatial relationship between WGA and ManII-GFP signals in WT and Papss mutants (Figure 3L, L').

I do not understand how the authors describe "statistics of secretory vesicles" as an axis in Figure 3p. The TEM images do not show labeled secretory vesicles but empty structures that could be vesicles.

Previous studies have analyzed "filled" electron-dense secretory vesicles in TEM images of SG cells (Myat and Andrew, 2002, Cell; Fox et al., 2010, J Cell Biol; Chung and Andrew, 2014, Development). Consistent with these studies, our WT TEM images show these vesicles. In contrast, Papss mutants show a mix of filled and empty structures. For quantification, we specifically counted the filled electron-dense vesicles (now Figure 3W). A clear description of our analysis is provided in the figure legend.

1. The quality of the presented TEM images is too low to judge any difference between control and mutants. Therefore, the supplement must present them in better detail (higher pixel number?).

We disagree that the quality of the presented TEM images is too low. Our TEM images have sufficient resolution to reveal details of many subcellular structures, such as mitochondrial cisternae. The pdf file of the original submission may not have been high resolution. To address this concern, we have provided several original high-quality TEM images of both WT and Papss mutants at various magnifications in Figure 2-figure supplement 2. Additionally, we have included low-magnification TEM images of WT and Papss mutants in Figure 2H and I to provide a clearer view of the overall SG lumen morphology.

Line 266: the conclusion that apical trafficking is "significantly impaired" does not hold. This implies that Papss is essential for apical trafficking, but the analyzed ECM proteins (Pio, Dumpy) are found apically enriched in the mutants, and Dumpy is even secreted. Moreover, they analyze only one marker, Sec15, and don't provide data about the quantification of the secretion of proteins.

We agree and have revised our statement to "defective sulfation affects Golgi structures and multiple routes of intracellular trafficking".

DCP-1 was used to detect apoptosis in the glands to analyze acellular regions. However, the authors compare ST16 control with ST15 mutant salivary glands, which is problematic. Further, it is not commented on how many embryos were analyzed and how often they detect the dying cells in control and mutant embryos. This part must be improved.

Thank you for the comment. We agree and have included quantification. We used stage 16 samples from WT and Papss mutants to quantify acellular regions. Since DCP-1 signals are only present at a specific stage of apoptosis, some acellular regions do not show DCP-1 signals. Therefore, we counted acellular regions regardless of DCP-1 signals. We also quantified this in rescue embryos with WT and mutant forms of Papss, which show complete rescue with WT and no rescue with the mutant form, respectively. The graph with a statistical analysis is included (Figure 4D, E).

WGA and Dumpy show similar condensed patterns within the tube lumen. The authors show that dumpy is enriched from stage 14 onwards. How is it with WGA? Does it show the same pattern from stage 14 to 16? Papss mutants can suffer from a developmental delay in organizing the ECM or lack of internalization of luminal proteins during/after tube expansion, which is the case in the trachea.

Dpy-YFP and WGA show overlapping signals in the SG lumen throughout morphogenesis. Dpy-YFP is SG enriched in the lumen from stage 11, not stage 14 (Figure 5-figure supplement 2). WGA is also detected in the lumen throughout SG morphogenesis, similar to Dpy. In the original supplemental figure, only a stage 16 SG image was shown for co-localization of Dpy-YFP and WGA signals in the SG lumen. We have now included images from stage 14 and 15 in Figure 5-figure supplement 2C.

Given that luminal Pio signals are lost at stage 16 only and that Dpy signals appear as condensed structures in the lumen of Papss mutants, it suggests that the internalization of luminal proteins is not impaired in Papss mutants. Rather, these proteins are secreted but fail to organize properly.

Line 366. Luminal morphology is characterized by bulging and constrictions. In the trachea, bulges indicate the deformation of the apical membrane and the detachment from the aECM. I can see constrictions and the collapsed tube lumen in Fig. 6C, but I don't find the bulges of the apical membrane in pio and Np mutants. Maybe showing it more clearly and with better quality will be helpful.

Since the bulging phenotype appears to vary from sample to sample, we have revised the description of the phenotype to "constrictions" to more accurately reflect the consistent observations. We quantified the number of constrictions along the entire lumen in pio and Np mutants and included the graph in Figure 6F.

The authors state that Papss controls luminal secretion of Pio and Dumpy, as they observe reduced luminal staining of both in papss mutants. However, the mCh-Pio and Dumpy-YFP are secreted towards the lumen. Does papss overexpression change Pio and Dumpy secretion towards the lumen, and could this be another explanation for the multiple phenotypes?

Thank you for the comment. To clarify, we did not observe reduced luminal staining of Pio and Dpy in Papss mutants, nor did we state that Papss controls luminal secretion of Pio and Dpy. In Papss mutants, Pio luminal signals are absent specifically at stage 16 (Figure 5H), whereas strong luminal Pio signals are present until stage 15 (Figure 5G). For Dpy-YFP, the signals are not reduced but condensed in Papss mutants from stages 14-16 (Figure 5D, H).

It remains unclear whether the apparent loss of Pio signals is due to a loss of Pio protein in the lumen or due to epitope masking resulting from protein aggregation or condensation. As noted in our response to Comment 11 internalization of luminal proteins seems unaffected in Papss mutants; proteins like Pio and Dpy are secreted into the lumen but fail to properly organize. Therefore, we have not tested whether Papss overexpression alters the secretion of Pio or Dpy.

In our original submission, we incorrectly stated that uniform luminal mCh-Pio signals were unchanged in Papss mutants. Upon closer examination, we found these signals are absent in the expanded luminal region in stage 16 SG (where Dpy-YFP is also absent), and weak mCh-Pio signals colocalize with the condensed Dpy-YFP signals (Figure 5C, D). We have revised the text accordingly.

Regulation of luminal ZP protein level is essential to modulate the tube expansion; therefore, Np releases Pio and Dumpy in a controlled manner during st15/16. Thus, the analysis of Pio and Dumpy in NP overexpression embryos will be critical to this manuscript to understand more about the control of luminal ZP matrix proteins.

Thanks for the insightful suggestion. We overexpressed both the WT and mutant form of Np using UAS-Np.WT and UAS-Np.S990A lines (Drees et al., 2019) and analyzed mCh-Pio, Pio antibody, and Dpy-YFP signals. It is important to note that these overexpression experiments were done in the presence of the endogenous WT Np.

Overexpression of Np.WT led to increased levels of mCh-Pio, Pio, and Dpy-YFP signals in the lumen and at the apical membrane. In contrast, overexpression of Np.S990A resulted in a near complete loss of luminal mCh-Pio signals. Pio antibody signals remained strong at the apical membrane but was weaker in the luminal filamentous structures compared to WT.

Due to the GFP tag present in the UAS-Np.S990A line, we could not reliably analyze Dpy-YFP signals because of overlapping fluorescent signals in the same channel. However, the filamentous Pio signals in the lumen co-localized with GFP signals, suggesting that these structures might also include Dpy-YFP, although this cannot be confirmed definitively.

These results suggest that overexpressed Np.S990A may act in a dominant-negative manner, competing with endogenous Np and impairing proper cleavage of Pio (and mCh-Pio). Nevertheless, some level of cleavage by endogenous Np still appears to occur, as indicated by the residual luminal filamentous Pio signals. These new findings have been incorporated into the revised manuscript and are shown in Figure 6H and 6I.

Minor: Fig. 5 C': mChe-Pio and Dumpy-YFP are mixed up at the top of the images.

Thanks for catching this error. It has been corrected.

Sup. Fig7. A shows Pio in purple but B in green. Please indicate it correctly.

It has been corrected.

Reviewer #1 (Significance (Required)):

In 2023, the functions of Pio, Dumpy, and Np in the tracheal tubes of Drosophila were published. The study here shows similar results, with the difference that the salivary glands do not possess chitin, but the two ZP proteins Pio and Dumpy take over its function. It is, therefore, a significant and exciting extension of the known function of the three proteins to another tube system. In addition, the authors identify papss as a new protein and show its essential function in forming the luminal matrix in the salivary glands. Considering the high degree of conservation of these proteins in other species, the results presented are crucial for future analyses and will have further implications for tubular development, including humans.

Reviewer #2 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

Summary: There is growing appreciation for the important of luminal (apical) ECM in tube development, but such matrices are much less well understood than basal ECMs. Here the authors provide insights into the aECM that shapes the Drosophila salivary gland (SG) tube and the importance of PAPSS-dependent sulfation in its organization and function.

The first part of the paper focuses on careful phenotypic characterization of papss mutants, using multiple markers and TEM. This revealed reduced markers of sulfation (Alcian Blue staining) and defects in both apical and basal ECM organization, Golgi (but not ER) morphology, number and localization of other endosomal compartments, plus increased cell death. The authors focus on the fact that papss mutants have an irregular SG lumen diameter, with both narrowed regions and bulged regions. They address the pleiotropy, showing that preventing the cell death and resultant gaps in the tube did not rescue the SG luminal shape defects and discussing similarities and differences between the papss mutant phenotype and those caused by more general trafficking defects. The analysis uses a papss nonsense mutant from an EMS screen - I appreciate the rigorous approach the authors took to analyze transheterozygotes (as well as homozygotes) plus rescued animals in order to rule out effects of linked mutations.

The 2nd part of the paper focuses on the SG aECM, showing that Dpy and Pio ZP protein fusions localize abnormally in papss mutants and that these ZP mutants (and Np protease mutants) have similar SG lumen shaping defects to the papss mutants. A key conclusion is that SG lumen defects correlate with loss of a Pio+Dpy-dependent filamentous structure in the lumen. These data suggest that ZP protein misregulation could explain this part of the papss phenotype.

Overall, the text is very well written and clear. Figures are clearly labeled. The methods involve rigorous genetic approaches, microscopy, and quantifications/statistics and are documented appropriately. The findings are convincing, with just a few things about the fusions needing clarification.

minor comments 1. Although the Dpy and Qsm fusions are published reagents, it would still be helpful to mention whether the tags are C-terminal as suggested by the nomenclature, and whether Westerns have been performed, since (as discussed for Pio) cleavage could also affect the appearance of these fusions.

Thanks for the comment. Dpy-YFP is a knock-in line in which YFP is inserted into the middle of the dpy locus (Lye et al., 2014; the insertion site is available on Flybase). mCh-Qsm is also a knock-in line, with mCh inserted near the N-terminus of the qsm gene using phi-mediated recombination using the qsmMI07716 line (Chu and Hayashi, 2021; insertion site available on Flybase). Based on this, we have updated the nomenclature from Qsm-mCh to mCh-Qsm throughout the manuscript to accurately reflect the tag position. To our knowledge, no western blot has been performed on Dpy-YFP or mCh-Qsm lines. We have mentioned this explicitly in the Discussion.

The Dpy-YFP reagent is a non-functional fusion and therefore may not be a wholly reliable reporter of Dpy localization. There is no antibody confirmation. As other reagents are not available to my knowledge, this issue can be addressed with text acknowledgement of possible caveats.

Thanks for raising this important point. We have added a caveat in the Discussion noting this limitation and the need for additional tools, such as an antibody or a functional fusion protein, to confirm the localization of Dpy.

TEM was done by standard chemical fixation, which is fine for viewing intracellular organelles, but high pressure freezing probably would do a better job of preserving aECM structure, which looks fairly bad in Fig. 2G WT, without evidence of the filamentous structures seen by light microscopy. Nevertheless, the images are sufficient for showing the extreme disorganization of aECM in papss mutants.

We agree that HPF is a better method and intent to use the HPF system in future studies. We acknowledge that chemical fixation contributes to the appearance of a gap between the apical membrane and the aECM, which we did not observe in the HPF/FS method (Chung and Andrew, 2014). Despite this, the TEM images still clearly reveal that Papss mutants show a much thinner and more electron-dense aECM compared to WT (Figure 2H, I), consistent to the condensed WGA, Dpy, and Pio signals in our confocal analyses. As the reviewer mentioned, we believe that the current TEM data are sufficient to support the conclusion of severe aECM disorganization and Golgi defects in Papss mutants.

The authors may consider citing some of the work that has been done on sulfation in nematodes, e.g. as reviewed here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35223994/ Sulfation has been tied to multiple aspects of nematode aECM organization, though not specifically to ZP proteins.

Thank you for the suggestion. Pioneering studies in C. elegans have highlighted the key role of sulfation in diverse developmental processes, including neuronal organization, reproductive tissue development, and phenotypic plasticity. We have now cited several works.

Reviewer #2 (Significance (Required)):

This study will be of interest to researchers studying developmental morphogenesis in general and specifically tube biology or the aECM. It should be particularly of interest to those studying sulfation or ZP proteins (which are broadly present in aECMs across organisms, including humans).

This study adds to the literature demonstrating the importance of luminal matrix in shaping tubular organs and greatly advances understanding of the luminal matrix in the Drosophila salivary gland, an important model of tubular organ development and one that has key matrix differences (such as no chitin) compared to other highly studied Drosophila tubes like the trachea.

The detailed description of the defects resulting from papss loss suggests that there are multiple different sulfated targets, with a subset specifically relevant to aECM biology. A limitation is that specific sulfated substrates are not identified here (e.g. are these the ZP proteins themselves or other matrix glycoproteins or lipids?); therefore it's not clear how direct or indirect the effects of papss are on ZP proteins. However, this is clearly a direction for future work and does not detract from the excellent beginning made here.

My expertise: I am a developmental geneticist with interests in apical ECM

Reviewer #3 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)):

In this work Woodward et al focus on the apical extracellular matrix (aECM) in the tubular salivary gland (SG) of Drosophila. They provide new insights into the composition of this aECM, formed by ZP proteins, in particular Pio and Dumpy. They also describe the functional requirements of PAPSS, a critical enzyme involved in sulfation, in regulating the expansion of the lumen of the SG. A detailed cellular analysis of Papss mutants indicate defects in the apical membrane, the aECM and in Golgi organization. They also find that Papss control the proper organization of the Pio-Dpy matrix in the lumen. The work is well presented and the results are consistent.

Main comments

• This work provides a detailed description of the defects produced by the absence of Papss. In addition, it provides many interesting observations at the cellular and tissular level. However, this work lacks a clear connection between these observations and the role of sulfation. Thus, the mechanisms underlying the phenotypes observed are elusive. Efforts directed to strengthen this connection (ideally experimentally) would greatly increase the interest and relevance of this work.

Thank you for this thoughtful comment. To directly test whether the phenotypes observed in Papss mutants are due to the loss of sulfation activity, we generated transgenic lines expressing catalytically inactive forms of Papss, UAS-PapssK193A, F593P, in which key residues in the APS kinase and ATP sulfurylase domains are mutated. Unlike WT UAS-Papss (both the Papss-PD or Papss-PE isoforms), the catalytically inactive UAS-Papssmut failed to rescue any of the phenotypes, including the thin lumen phenotype (Figure 1I-L), altered WGA signals (Figure I, I') and the cell death phenotype (Figure 4D, E). These findings strongly support the conclusion that the enzymatic sulfation activity of Papss is essential for the developmental processes described in this study.

• A main issue that arises from this work is the role of Papss at the cellular level. The results presented convincingly indicate defects in Golgi organization in Papss mutants. Therefore, the defects observed could stem from general defects in the secretion pathway rather than from specific defects on sulfation. This could even underly general/catastrophic cellular defects and lead to cell death (as observed). This observation has different implications. Is this effect observed in SGs also observed in other cells in the embryo? If Papss has a general role in Golgi organization this would be expected, as Papss encodes the only PAPs synthatase in Drosophila. Can the authors test any other mutant that specifically affect Golgi organization and investigate whether this produces a similar phenotype to that of Papss?

Thank you for the comment. To address whether the defects observed in Papss mutants stem from general disruption of the secretory pathway due to Golgi disorganization, we examined mutants of two key Golgi components: Grasp65 and GM130.

In Grasp65 mutants, we observed significant defects in SG lumen morpholgy, including highly irregular SG lumen shape and multiple constrictions (100%; n=10/10). However, the lumen was not uniformly thin as in Papss mutants. In contrast, GM130 mutants-although this line was very sick and difficult to grow-showed relatively normal salivary glands morphology in the few embryos that survived to stage 16 (n=5/5). It is possible that only embryos with mild phenotypes progressed to this stages, limiting interpretation. These data have now been included in Figure 3-figure supplement 2. Overall, while Golgi disruption can affect SG morphology, the specific phenotypes seen in Papss mutants are not fully recapitulated by Grasp65 or GM130 loss.

• A model that conveys the different observations and that proposes a function for Papss in sulfation and Golgi organization (independent or interdependent?) would help to better present the proposed conclusions. In particular, the paper would be more informative if it proposed a mechanism or hypothesis of how sulfation affects SG lumen expansion. Is sulfation regulating a factor that in turn regulates Pio-Dpy matrix? Is it regulating Pio-Dpy directly? Is it regulating a product recognized by WGA? For instance, investigating Alcian blue or sulfotyrosine staining in pio, dpy mutants could help to understand whether Pio, Dpy are targets of sulfation.

Thank you for the comment. We're also very interested in learning whether the regulation of the Pio-Dpy matrix is a direct or indirect consequence of the loss of sulfation on these proteins. One possible scenario is that sulfation directly regulates the Pio-Dpy matrix by regulating protein stability through the formation of disulfide bonds between the conserved Cys residues responsible for ZP module polymerization. Additionally, the Dpy protein contains hundreds of EGF modules that are highly susceptible to O-glycosylation. Sulfation of the glycan groups attached to Dpy may be critical for its ability to form a filamentous structure. Without sulfation, the glycan groups on Dpy may not interact properly with the surrounding materials in the lumen, resulting in an aggregated and condensed structure. These possibilities are discussed in the Discussion.

We have not analyzed sulfation levels in pio or dpy mutants because sulfation levels in mutants of single ZP domain proteins may not provide much information. A substantial number of proteoglycans, glycoproteins, and proteins (with up to 1% of all tyrosine residues in an organism's proteins estimated to be sulfated) are modified by sulfation, so changes in sulfation levels in a single mutant may be subtle. Especially, the existing dpy mutant line is an insertion mutant of a transposable element; therefore, the sulfation sites would still remain in this mutant.

• Interpretation of Papss effects on Pio and Dpy would be desired. The results presented indicate loss of Pio antibody staining but normal presence of cherry-Pio. This is difficult to interpret. How are these results of Pio antibody and cherry-Pio correlating with the results in the trachea described recently (Drees et al. 2023)?

In our original submission, we stated that the uniform luminal mCh-Pio signals were not changed in Papss mutants, but after re-analysis, we found that these signals were actually absent from the expanded luminal region in stage 16 SG (where Dpy-YFP is also absent), and weak mCh-Pio signals colocalize with the condensed Dpy-YFP signals (Figure 5C, D). We have revised the text accordingly.

After cleavages by Np and furin, the Pio protein should have three fragments. The N-terminal region contains the N-terminal half of the ZP domain, and mCh-Pio signals show this fragment. The very C-terminal region should localize to the membrane as it contains the transmembrane domain. We think the middle piece, the C-terminal ZP domain, is recognized by the Pio antibody. The mCh-Pio and Pio antibody signals in the WT trachea (Drees et al., 2023) are similar to those in the SG. mCh-Pio signals are detected in the tracheal lumen as uniform signals, at the apical membrane, and in cytoplasmic puncta. Pio antibody signals are exclusively in the tracheal lumen and show more heterogenous filamentous signals.

In Papss mutants, the middle fragment (the C-terminal ZP domain) seems to be most affected because the Pio antibody signals are absent from the lumen. The loss of Pio antibody signals could be due to protein degradation or epitope masking caused by aECM condensation and protein misfolding. This fragment seems to be key for interacting with Dpy, since Pio antibody signals always colocalize with Dpy-YFP. The N-terminal mCh-Pio fragment does not appear to play a significant role in forming a complex with Dpy in WT (but still aggregated together in Papss mutants), and this can be tested in future studies.

In response to Reviewer 1's comment, we performed an additional experiment to test the role of Np in cleaving Pio to help organize the SG aECM. In this experiment, we overexpressed the WT and mutant form of Np using UAS-Np.WT and UAS-Np.S990A lines (Drees et al., 2019) and analyzed mCh-Pio, Pio antibody, and Dpy-YFP signals. Np.WT overexpression resulted in increased levels of mCh-Pio, Pio, and Dpy-YFP signals in the lumen and at the apical membrane. However, overexpression of Np.S990A resulted in the absence of luminal mCh-Pio signals. Pio antibody signals were strong at the apical membrane but rather weak in the luminal filamentous structures. Since the UAS-Np.S990A line has the GFP tag, we could not reliably analyze Dpy-YFP signals due to overlapping Np.S990A.GFP signals in the same channel. However, the luminal filamentous Pio signals co-localized with GFP signals, and we assume that these overlapping signals could be Dpy-YFP signals.

These results suggest that overexpressed Np.S990A may act in a dominant-negative manner, competing with endogenous Np and impairing proper cleavage of Pio (and mCh-Pio). Nevertheless, some level of cleavage by endogenous Np still appears to occur, as indicated by the residual luminal filamentous Pio signals. These new findings have been incorporated into the revised manuscript and are shown in Figure 6H and 6I.

A proposed model of the Pio-Dpy aECM in WT, Papss, pio, and Np mutants has now been included in Figure 7.

• What does the WGA staining in the lumen reveal? This staining seems to be affected differently in pio and dpy mutants: in pio mutants it disappears from the lumen (as dpy-YFP does), but in dpy mutants it seems to be maintained. How do the authors interpret these findings? How does the WGA matrix relate to sulfated products (using Alcian blue or sulfotyrosine)?

WGA binds to sialic acid and N-acetylglucosamine (GlcNAc) residues on glycoproteins and glycolipids. GlcNAc is a key component of the glycosaminoglycan (GAG) chains that are covalently attached to the core protein of a proteoglycan, which is abundant in the ECM. We think WGA detects GlcNAc residues in the components of the aECM, including Dpy as a core component, based on the following data. 1) WGA and Dpy colocalize in the lumen, both in WT (as thin filamentous structures) and Papss mutant background (as condensed rod-like structures), and 2) are absent in pio mutants. WGA signals are still present in a highly condensed form in dpy mutants. That's probably because the dpy mutant allele (dpyov1) has an insertion of a transposable element (blood element) into intron 11 and this insertion may have caused the Dpy protein to misfold and condense. We added the information about the dpy allele to the Results section and discussed it in the Discussion.

Minor points:

• The morphological phenotypic analysis of Papss mutants (homozygous and transheterozygous) is a bit confusing. The general defects are higher in Papss homozygous than in transheterozygotes over a deficiency. Maybe quantifying the defects in the heterozygote embryos in the Papss mutant collection could help to figure out whether these defects relate to Papss mutation.

We analyzed the morphology of heterozygous Papss mutant embryos. They were all normal. The data and quantifications have now been added to Figure 1-figure supplement 3.

• The conclusion that the apical membrane is affected in Papss mutants is not strongly supported by the results presented with the pattern of Crb (Fig 2). Further evidences should be provided. Maybe the TEM analysis could help to support this conclusion

We quantified Crb levels in the sub-apical and medial regions of the cell and included this new quantification in Figure 2D. TEM images showed variation in the irregularity of the apical membrane, even in WT, and we could not draw a solid conclusion from these images.

• It is difficult to understand why in Papss mutants the levels of WGA increase. Can the authors elaborate on this?

We think that when Dpy (and many other aECM components) are condensed and aggregated into the thin, rod-like structure in Papss mutants, the sugar residues attached to them must also be concentrated and shown as increased WGA signals.

• The explanation about why Pio antibody and mcherry-Pio show different patterns is not clear. If the antibody recognizes the C-t region, shouldn't it be clearly found at the membrane rather than the lumen?

The Pio protein is also cleaved by furin protease (Figure 5B). We think the Pio fragment recognized by the antibody should be a "C-terminal ZP domain", which is a middle piece after furin + Np cleavages.

• The qsm information does not seem to provide any relevant information to the aECM, or sulfation.

Since Qsm has been shown to bind to Dpy and remodel Dpy filaments in the muscle tendon (Chu and Hayashi, 2021), we believe that the different behavior of Qsm in the SG is still informative. As mentioned briefly in the Discussion, the cleaved Qsm fragment may localize differently, like Pio, and future work will need to test this. We have shortened the description of the Qsm localization in the manuscript and moved the details to the figure legend of Figure 5-figure supplement 3.

Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)):

Previous reports already indicated a role for Papss in sulfation in SG (Zhu et al 2005). Now this work provides a more detailed description of the defects produced by the absence of Papss. In addition, it provides relevant data related to the nature and requirements of the aECM in the SG. Understanding the composition and requirements of aECM during organ formation is an important question. Therefore, this work may be relevant in the fields of cell biology and morphogenesis.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In the manuscript by Walter-McNeill, Kruglyak, and team, the authors provide solid evidence of another toxin-antidote (TA) system in C. elegans. Generally, TA systems involve selfish and linked genetic elements, one encoding a toxin that kills progeny inheriting it, unless an antidote (the second element) is also present. Currently, only two TA systems have been characterized in this species, pointing to the importance of identifying new instances of such systems to understand their transmission dynamics, prevalence, and functions in shaping worm populations.

Strengths:

This novel TA system (mll-1/smll-1) was identified on LGV in wild C. elegans isolates from the Hawaiian islands, by crossing divergent strains and observing allele frequency distortions by high-throughput genome sequencing after 10 generations. These allele frequency distortions were subsequently confirmed in another set of crosses with a separate divergent strain, and crosses of heterozygous males or hermaphrodites resulted in a pattern of L1 lethality in progeny (with a rod arrest phenotype) that suggested the maternal transmission of this TA system from the XZ1516 genetic background. By elegantly combining the use of near-isogenic lines, CRISPR editing to generate knock-outs, and a transgene rescue of the antidote gene, the authors identified the genes encoding the toxin and the antidote, which they refer to as mll-1 and smll-1. Moreover, the specific mll-1 isoform responsible for the production of the toxin was identified and mll-1 transcripts were observed by FISH in early and late embryos, as well as in larvae. Inducible expression of the toxin in various strains resulted in larval arrest and rod phenotypes. The authors then characterized the genetic variation of 550 wild isolates at the toxin/antidote region on LGV and distinguished three clades: (1) one with the conserved TA system, (2) one having lost the toxin and retaining a mostly functional antidote, and (3) one having lost the antidote and retaining a divergent yet coding toxin (this includes the reference strain Bristol N2, in which the homologous toxin gene has acquired mutations and is known as B0250.8). Further, the authors show that this region is under positive selection. These data are compelling and provide very strong evidence of a new TA system in this species.

Weaknesses:

The question remained as to how one clade, including N2, could retain the toxin gene but not possess a functional antidote. In the second part of the manuscript, the authors hypothesized that small RNA targeting (RNAi) of the toxin transcript could provide the necessary repression to allow worms to survive without the antidote. Through a meta-analysis of multiple small RNA datasets from the literature, the authors found evidence to support this idea, in which the toxin transcript is targeted by 22G siRNAs whose biogenesis is dependent on the Mutator foci protein, MUT-16. They note that from previous studies, mut-16 null mutants displayed a varied penetrance of larval arrest. In their own hands, mut-16 mutants displayed 15% varied larval arrest and 2% rod phenotypes. In an attempt to link B0250.8 to mut-16/siRNAs, they made a double mutant and examined body length as a proxy for developmental stage. Here, they observed a partial rescue of the mut-16 size defect by B0250.8 mutation. Finally, the authors also highlight data from further meta-analysis, which predicts the recognition of B0250.8 by several piRNAs. Also based on existing data from the literature, the authors link loss of Piwi (PRG-1), which binds piRNAs, to a depletion of 22G-RNAs targeting B0250.8 and an upregulation of B0250.8 expression in gonads, suggesting that piRNAs are the primary small RNAs that target B0250.8 for downregulation. The data in this portion of the manuscript are intriguing, but somewhat preliminary and incomplete, as they are based on little primary experimentation and a collection of different datasets (which have been acquired by slightly different methods in most cases). This portion of the study would require subsequent experimentation to firmly establish this mechanistic link. For example, to be able to claim that "the N2 toxin allele has acquired mutations that enable piRNA binding to initiate MUT-16-dependent 22G small RNA amplification that targets the transcript for degradation" the identified piRNA sites should be mutated and protein and transcript levels analysed in wild-type and in the strain with mutated piRNA sites. At a minimum, the protein levels in wild-type and mut-16, prg-1, and/or wago-1 mutants should be measured by western blot and/or by live imaging (introducing a GFP or some other tag to the endogenous protein via CRISPR editing) to show that the toxin is not accumulated as a protein in wt, but increases in levels in these mutants. mRNA levels in Figure S5A suggest there is still some expression of the B0250.8 transcript in a wild-type situation.

Hi Colleagues!

Highlight any part of the text to leave a comment, question, or insight. You can also reply to others’ annotations.

Tag your comments if needed, e.g., #question, #suggestion to help us filter key themes later.

Let’s use this space to: Clarify content Share reflections and experiences Suggest collaboration opportunities

for - example - importance of multiscale hierarchical intelligence and control - Michael Levin - high level instruction is issued and the multiscale structure ensures that all the lower level details are executed - like a software function call

new plexmark - person assigned to each comment in multiplayer conversational environment - have a way to - detect then - discriminate and finally - tag - each sequentially different conversant' s comments in the conversation - This will help with Indyweb provenance by attributing the person with each sentence

Random idea: it could be neat if we added tooltips to the sample code so that the user sees an explanation of a tag when they move the mouse over it.

Author response:

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In their manuscript entitled 'The domesticated transposon protein L1TD1 associates with its ancestor L1 ORF1p to promote LINE-1 retrotransposition', Kavaklıoğlu and colleagues delve into the role of L1TD1, an RNA binding protein (RBP) derived from a LINE1 transposon. L1TD1 proves crucial for maintaining pluripotency in embryonic stem cells and is linked to cancer progression in germ cell tumors, yet its precise molecular function remains elusive. Here, the authors uncover an intriguing interaction between L1TD1 and its ancestral LINE-1 retrotransposon.

The authors delete the DNA methyltransferase DNMT1 in a haploid human cell line (HAP1), inducing widespread DNA hypo-methylation. This hypomethylation prompts abnormal expression of L1TD1. To scrutinize L1TD1's function in a DNMT1 knock-out setting, the authors create DNMT1/L1TD1 double knock-out cell lines (DKO). Curiously, while the loss of global DNA methylation doesn't impede proliferation, additional depletion of L1TD1 leads to DNA damage and apoptosis.

To unravel the molecular mechanism underpinning L1TD1's protective role in the absence of DNA methylation, the authors dissect L1TD1 complexes in terms of protein and RNA composition. They unveil an association with the LINE-1 transposon protein L1-ORF1 and LINE-1 transcripts, among others.

Surprisingly, the authors note fewer LINE-1 retro-transposition events in DKO cells than in DNMT1 KO alone.

Strengths:

The authors present compelling data suggesting the interplay of a transposon-derived human RNA binding protein with its ancestral transposable element. Their findings spur interesting questions for cancer types, where LINE1 and L1TD1 are aberrantly expressed.

Weaknesses:

Suggestions for refinement:

The initial experiment, inducing global hypo-methylation by eliminating DNMT1 in HAP1 cells, is intriguing and warrants a more detailed description. How many genes experience misregulation or aberrant expression? What phenotypic changes occur in these cells?

The transcriptome analysis of DNMT1 KO cells showed hundreds of deregulated genes upon DNMT1 ablation. As expected, the majority were up-regulated and gene ontology analysis revealed that among the strongest up-regulated genes were gene clusters with functions in “regulation of transcription from RNA polymerase II promoter” and “cell differentiation” and genes encoding proteins with KRAB domains. In addition, the de novo methyltransferases DNMT3A and DNMT3B were up-regulated in DNMT1 KO cells suggesting the set-up of compensatory mechanisms in these cells. We will include this data set in the revised version of the manuscript.

Why did the authors focus on L1TD1? Providing some of this data would be helpful to understand the rationale behind the thorough analysis of L1TD1.

We have previously discovered that conditional deletion of the maintenance DNA methyltransferase DNMT1 in the murine epidermis results not only in the up-regulation of mobile elements, such as IAPs but also the induced expression of L1TD1 ((Beck et al, 2021), Suppl. Table 1 and Author response image 1). Similary, L1TD1 expression was induced by treatment of primary human keratinocytes or squamous cell carcinoma cells with the DNMT inhibitor aza-deoxycytidine (Author response image 2 and 3). These finding are in accordance with the observation that inhibition of DNA methyltransferase activity by azadeoxycytidine in human non-small cell lung cancer cells (NSCLCs) results in upregulation of L1TD1 (Altenberger et al, 2017). Our interest in L1TD1 was further fueled by reports on a potential function of L1TD1 as prognostic tumor marker. We will include this information in the revised manuscript.

Author response image 1.

RT-qPCR of L1TD1 expression in cultured murine control and Dnmt1 Δ/Δker keratinocytes. mRNA levels of L1td1 were analyzed in keratinocytes isolated at P5 from conditional Dnmt1 knockout mice (Beck et al., 2021). Hprt expression was used for normalization of mRNA levels and wildtype control was set to 1. Data represent means ±s.d. with n=4. **P < 0.01 (paired t-test).

Author response image 2.

RT-qPCR analysis of L1TD1 expression in primary human keratinocytes. Cells were treated with 5-aza-2-deoxycidine for 24 hours or 48 hours, with PBS for 48 hours or were left untreated. 18S rRNA expression was used for normalization of mRNA levels and PBS control was set to 1. Data represent means ±s.d. with n=3. **P < 0.01 (paired t-test).

Author response image 3.

Induced L1TD1 expression upon DNMT inhibition in squamous cell carcinoma cell lines SCC9 and SCCO12. Cells were treated with 5-aza-2-deoxycidine for 24 hours, 48 hours or 6 days. (A) Western blot analysis of L1TD1 protein levels using beta-actin as loading control. (B) Indirect immunofluorescence microscopy analysis of L1TD1 expression in SCC9 cells. Nuclear DNA was stained with DAPI. Scale bar: 10 µm. (C) RT-qPCR analysis of L1TD1 expression in primary human keratinocytes. Cells were treated with 5-aza-2deoxycidine for 24 hours or 48 hours, with PBS for 48 hours or were left untreated. 18S rRNA expression was used for normalization of mRNA levels and PBS control was set to 1. Data represent means ±s.d. with n=3. P < 0.05, *P < 0.01 (paired t-test).

The finding that L1TD1/DNMT1 DKO cells exhibit increased apoptosis and DNA damage but decreased L1 retro-transposition is unexpected. Considering the DNA damage associated with retro-transposition and the DNA damage and apoptosis observed in L1TD1/DNMT1 DKO cells, one would anticipate the opposite outcome. Could it be that the observation of fewer transposition-positive colonies stems from the demise of the most transposition-positive colonies? Further exploration of this phenomenon would be intriguing.

This is an important point and we were aware of this potential problem. Therefore, we calibrated the retrotransposition assay by transfection with a blasticidin resistance gene vector to take into account potential differences in cell viability and blasticidin sensitivity. Thus, the observed reduction in L1 retrotransposition efficiency is not an indirect effect of reduced cell viability.

Based on previous studies with hESCs, it is likely that, in addition to its role in retrotransposition, L1TD1 has additional functions in the regulation of cell proliferation and differentiation. L1TD1 might therefore attenuate the effect of DNMT1 loss in KO cells generating an intermediate phenotype (as pointed out by Reviewer 2) and simultaneous loss of both L1TD1 and DNMT1 results in more pronounced effects on cell viability.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this study, Kavaklıoğlu et al. investigated and presented evidence for the role of domesticated transposon protein L1TD1 in enabling its ancestral relative, L1 ORF1p, to retrotranspose in HAP1 human tumor cells. The authors provided insight into the molecular function of L1TD1 and shed some clarifying light on previous studies that showed somewhat contradictory outcomes surrounding L1TD1 expression. Here, L1TD1 expression was correlated with L1 activation in a hypomethylation-dependent manner, due to DNMT1 deletion in the HAP1 cell line. The authors then identified L1TD1-associated RNAs using RIP-Seq, which displays a disconnect between transcript and protein abundance (via Tandem Mass Tag multiplex mass spectrometry analysis). The one exception was for L1TD1 itself, which is consistent with a model in which the RNA transcripts associated with L1TD1 are not directly regulated at the translation level. Instead, the authors found the L1TD1 protein associated with L1-RNPs, and this interaction is associated with increased L1 retrotransposition, at least in the contexts of HAP1 cells. Overall, these results support a model in which L1TD1 is restrained by DNA methylation, but in the absence of this repressive mark, L1TD1 is expressed and collaborates with L1 ORF1p (either directly or through interaction with L1 RNA, which remains unclear based on current results), leads to enhances L1 retrotransposition. These results establish the feasibility of this relationship existing in vivo in either development, disease, or both.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

Public Reviews:  

Reviewer #1 (Public Review): 

Summary: 

In their manuscript entitled 'The domesticated transposon protein L1TD1 associates with its ancestor L1 ORF1p to promote LINE-1 retrotransposition', Kavaklıoğlu and colleagues delve into the role of L1TD1, an RNA binding protein (RBP) derived from a LINE1 transposon. L1TD1 proves crucial for maintaining pluripotency in embryonic stem cells and is linked to cancer progression in germ cell tumors, yet its precise molecular function remains elusive. Here, the authors uncover an intriguing interaction between L1TD1 and its ancestral LINE-1 retrotransposon. 

The authors delete the DNA methyltransferase DNMT1 in a haploid human cell line (HAP1), inducing widespread DNA hypo-methylation. This hypomethylation prompts abnormal expression of L1TD1. To scrutinize L1TD1's function in a DNMT1 knock-out setting, the authors create DNMT1/L1TD1 double knock-out cell lines (DKO). Curiously, while the loss of global DNA methylation doesn't impede proliferation, additional depletion of L1TD1 leads to DNA damage and apoptosis.  

To unravel the molecular mechanism underpinning L1TD1's protective role in the absence of DNA methylation, the authors dissect L1TD1 complexes in terms of protein and RNA composition. They unveil an association with the LINE-1 transposon protein L1-ORF1 and LINE-1 transcripts, among others.  

Surprisingly, the authors note fewer LINE-1 retro-transposition events in DKO cells than in DNMT1 KO alone.  

Strengths: 

The authors present compelling data suggesting the interplay of a transposon-derived human RNA binding protein with its ancestral transposable element. Their findings spur interesting questions for cancer types, where LINE1 and L1TD1 are aberrantly expressed.  

Weaknesses: 

Suggestions for refinement:  

The initial experiment, inducing global hypo-methylation by eliminating DNMT1 in HAP1 cells, is intriguing and warrants a more detailed description. How many genes experience misregulation or aberrant expression? What phenotypic changes occur in these cells? 

This is an excellent suggestion. We have gene expression data on WT versus DNMT1 KO HAP1 cells and have included them now as Suppl. Figure S1. The  transcriptome analysis of DNMT1 KO cells showed hundreds of deregulated genes upon DNMT1 ablation. As expected, the majority were up-regulated and gene ontology analysis revealed that among the strongest up-regulated genes were gene clusters with functions in “regulation of transcription from RNA polymerase II promoter” and “cell differentiation” and genes encoding proteins with KRAB domains. In addition, the de novo methyltransferases DNMT3A and DNMT3B were up-regulated in DNMT1 KO cells suggesting the set-up of compensatory mechanisms in these cells. 

Why did the authors focus on L1TD1? Providing some of this data would be helpful to understand the rationale behind the thorough analysis of L1TD1. 

We have previously discovered that conditional deletion of the maintenance DNA methyltransferase DNMT1 in the murine epidermis results not only in the up-regulation of mobile elements, such as IAPs but also the induced expression of L1TD1 ([1], Suppl. Table 1 and Author response image 1). Similary, L1TD1 expression was induced by treatment of primary human keratinocytes or squamous cell carcinoma cells with the DNMT inhibitor azadeoxycytidine (Author response images 2 and 3). These findings are in accordance with the observation  that inhibition of DNA methyltransferase activity by aza-deoxycytidine in human non-small cell lung cancer cells (NSCLCs) results in up-regulation of L1TD1 [2]. Our interest in L1TD1 was further fueled by reports on a potential function of L1TD1 as prognostic tumor marker. We have included this information in the last paragraph of the Introduction in the revised manuscript.

Author response image 1. RT-qPCR of L1TD1 expression in cultured murine control and Dnmt1 Δ/Δker keratinocytes. mRNA levels of L1td1 were analyzed in keratinocytes isolated at P5 from conditional Dnmt1 knockout mice [1]. Hprt expression was used for normalization of mRNA levels and wildtype control was set to 1. Data represent means ±s.d. with n=4. **P < 0.01 (paired t-test). 

Author response image 2. RT-qPCR analysis of L1TD1 expression in primary human keratinocytes. Cells were treated with 5-aza-2-deoxycidine for 24 hours or 48 hours, with PBS for 48 hours or were left untreated. 18S rRNA expression was used for normalization of mRNA levels and PBS control was set to 1. Data represent means ±s.d. with n=3. **P < 0.01 (paired t-test).

Author response image 3. Induced L1TD1 expression upon DNMT inhibition in squamous cell carcinoma cell lines SCC9 and SCCO12. Cells were treated with 5-aza-2-deoxycidine for 24 hours, 48 hours or 6 days. (A) Western blot analysis of L1TD1 protein levels using beta-actin as loading control. (B) Indirect immunofluorescence microscopy analysis of L1TD1 expression in SCC9 cells. Nuclear DNA was stained with DAPI. Scale bar: 10 µm. (C)  RT-qPCR analysis of L1TD1 expression in primary human keratinocytes. Cells were treated with 5-aza-2deoxycidine for 24 hours or 48 hours, with PBS for 48 hours or were left untreated. 18S rRNA expression was used for normalization of mRNA levels and PBS control was set to 1. Data represent means ±s.d. with n=3. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 (paired t-test).

The finding that L1TD1/DNMT1 DKO cells exhibit increased apoptosis and DNA damage but decreased L1 retro-transposition is unexpected. Considering the DNA damage associated with retro-transposition and the DNA damage and apoptosis observed in L1TD1/DNMT1 DKO cells, one would anticipate the opposite outcome. Could it be that the observation of fewer transposition-positive colonies stems from the demise of the most transposition-positive colonies? Further exploration of this phenomenon would be intriguing. 

This is an important point and we were aware of this potential problem. Therefore, we calibrated the retrotransposition assay by transfection with a blasticidin resistance gene vector to take into account potential differences in cell viability and blasticidin sensitivity. Thus, the observed reduction in L1 retrotransposition efficiency is not an indirect effect of reduced cell viability. We have added a corresponding clarification in the Results section on page 8, last paragraph. 

Based on previous studies with hESCs and germ cell tumors [3], it is likely that, in addition to its role in retrotransposition, L1TD1 has further functions in the regulation of cell proliferation and differentiation. L1TD1 might therefore attenuate the effect of DNMT1 loss in KO cells generating an intermediate phenotype (as pointed out by Reviewer 2) and simultaneous loss of both L1TD1 and DNMT1 results in more pronounced effects on cell viability. This is in agreement with the observation that a subset of L1TD1 associated transcripts encode proteins involved in the control of cell division and cell cycle. It is possible that subtle changes in the expression of these protein that were not detected in our mass spectrometry approach contribute to the antiproliferative effect of L1TD1 depletion as discussed in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript. 

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):           

In this study, Kavaklıoğlu et al. investigated and presented evidence for the role of domesticated transposon protein L1TD1 in enabling its ancestral relative, L1 ORF1p, to retrotranspose in HAP1 human tumor cells. The authors provided insight into the molecular function of L1TD1 and shed some clarifying light on previous studies that showed somewhat contradictory outcomes surrounding L1TD1 expression. Here, L1TD1 expression was correlated with L1 activation in a hypomethylation-dependent manner, due to DNMT1 deletion in the HAP1 cell line. The authors then identified L1TD1-associated RNAs using RIP-Seq, which displays a disconnect between transcript and protein abundance (via Tandem Mass Tag multiplex mass spectrometry analysis). The one exception was for L1TD1 itself, which is consistent with a model in which the RNA transcripts associated with L1TD1 are not directly regulated at the translation level. Instead, the authors found the L1TD1 protein associated with L1-RNPs, and this interaction is associated with increased L1 retrotransposition, at least in the contexts of HAP1 cells. Overall, these results support a model in which L1TD1 is restrained by DNA methylation, but in the absence of this repressive mark, L1TD1 is expressed and collaborates with L1 ORF1p (either directly or through interaction with L1 RNA, which remains unclear based on current results), leads to enhances L1 retrotransposition. These results establish the feasibility of this relationship existing in vivo in either development, disease, or both.   

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):        

Major 

(1) The study only used one knockout (KO) cell line generated by CRISPR/Cas9. Considering the possibility of an off-target effect, I suggest the authors attempt one or both of these suggestions. 

A) Generate or acquire a similar DMNT1 deletion that uses distinct sgRNAs, so that the likelihood of off-targets is negligible. A few simple experiments such as qRT-PCR would be sufficient to suggest the same phenotype.  

B) Confirm the DNMT1 depletion also by siRNA/ASO KD to phenocopy the KO effect.  (2) In addition to the strategies to demonstrate reproducibility, a rescue experiment restoring DNMT1 to the KO or KD cells would be more convincing. (Partial rescue would suffice in this case, as exact endogenous expression levels may be hard to replicate). 

We have undertook several approaches to study the effect of DNMT1 loss or inactivation: As described above, we have generated a conditional KO mouse with ablation of DNMT1 in the epidermis. DNMT1-deficient keratinocytes isolated from these mice show a significant increase in L1TD1 expression.  In addition, treatment of primary human keratinocytes and two squamous cell carcinoma cell lines with the DNMT inhibitor aza-deoxycytidine led to upregulation of L1TD1 expression. Thus, the derepression of L1TD1 upon loss of DNMT1 expression or activity is not a clonal effect. Also, the spectrum of RNAs identified in RIP experiments as L1TD1-associated transcripts in HAP1 DNMT1 KO cells showed a strong overlap with the RNAs isolated by a related yet different method in human embryonic stem cells. When it comes to the effect of L1TD1 on L1-1 retrotranspostion, a recent study has reported a similar effect of L1TD1 upon overexpression in HeLa cells [4].  

All of these points together help to convince us that our findings with HAP1 DNMT KO are in agreement with results obtained in various other cell systems and are therefore not due to off-target effects. With that in mind, we would pursue the suggestion of Reviewer 1 to analyze the effects of DNA hypomethylation upon DNMT1 ablation.

(3) As stated in the introduction, L1TD1 and ORF1p share "sequence resemblance" (Martin 2006). Is the L1TD1 antibody specific or do we see L1 ORF1p if Fig 1C were uncropped?  (6) Is it possible the L1TD1 antibody binds L1 ORF1p? This could make Figure 2D somewhat difficult to interpret. Some validation of the specificity of the L1TD1 antibody would remove this concern (see minor concern below).  

This is a relevant question. We are convinced that the L1TD1 antibody does not crossreact with L1 ORF1p for the following reasons: Firstly, the antibody does not recognize L1 ORF1p (40 kDa) in the  uncropped Western blot for Figure 1C (Author response image 4A). Secondly, the L1TD1 antibody gives only background signals in DKO cells in the  indirect immunofluorescence experiment shown in Figure 1E of the manuscript. 

Thirdly, the immunogene sequence of L1TD1 that determines the specificity of the antibody was checked in the antibody data sheet from Sigma Aldrich. The corresponding epitope is not present in the L1 ORF1p sequence. Finally, we have shown that the ORF1p antibody does not cross-react with L1TD1 (Author response image 4B).

Author response image 4. (A) Uncropped L1TD1 Western blot shown in Figure 1C. An unspecific band is indicated by an asterisk. (B) Westernblot analysis of WT, KO and DKO cells with L1 ORF1p antibody.

(4) In abstract (P2), the authors mentioned that L1TD1 works as an RNA chaperone, but in the result section (P13), they showed that L1TD1 associates with L1 ORF1p in an RNAindependent manner. Those conclusions appear contradictory. Clarification or revision is required. 

Our findings that both proteins bind L1 RNA, and that L1TD1 interacts with ORF1p are compatible with a scenario where L1TD1/ORF1p heteromultimers bind to L1 RNA. The additional presence of L1TD1 might thereby enhance the RNA chaperone function of ORF1p. This model is visualized now in Suppl. Figure S7C. 

(5) Figure 2C fold enrichment for L1TD1 and ARMC1 is a bit difficult to fully appreciate. A 100 to 200-fold enrichment does not seem physiological. This appears to be a "divide by zero" type of result, as the CT for these genes was likely near 40 or undetectable. Another qRT-PCRbased approach (absolute quantification) would be a more revealing experiment. 

This is the validation of the RIP experiments and the presentation mode is specifically developed for quantification of RIP assays (Sigma Aldrich RIP-qRT-PCR: Data Analysis Calculation Shell). The unspecific binding of the transcript in the absence of L1TD1 in DNMT1/L1TD1 DKO cells is set to 1 and the value in KO cells represents the specific binding relative the unspecific binding. The calculation also corrects for potential differences in the abundance of the respective transcript in the two cell lines. This is not a physiological value but the quantification of specific binding of transcripts to L1TD1. GAPDH as negative control shows no enrichment, whereas specifically associated transcripts show strong enrichement. We have explained the details of RIPqRT-PCR evaluation in Materials and Methods (page 14) and the legend of Figure 2C in the revised manuscript.       

(6) Is it possible the L1TD1 antibody binds L1 ORF1p? This could make Figure 2D somewhat difficult to interpret. Some validation of the specificity of the L1TD1 antibody would remove this concern (see minor concern below).            

See response to (3).  

(7) Figure S4A and S4B: There appear to be a few unusual aspects of these figures that should be pointed out and addressed. First, there doesn't seem to be any ORF1p in the Input (if there is, the exposure is too low). Second, there might be some L1TD1 in the DKO (lane 2) and lane 3. This could be non-specific, but the size is concerning. Overexposure would help see this.

The ORF1p IP gives rise to strong ORF1p signals in the immunoprecipitated complexes even after short exposure. Under these contions ORF1p is hardly detectable in the input. Regarding the faint band in DKO HAP1 cells, this might be due to a technical problem during Western blot loading. Therefore, the input samples were loaded again on a Western blot and analyzed for the presence of ORF1p, L1TD1 and beta-actin (as loading control) and shown as separate panel in Suppl. Figure S4A. 

(8) Figure S4C: This is related to our previous concerns involving antibody cross-reactivity. Figure 3E partially addresses this, where it looks like the L1TD1 "speckles" outnumber the ORF1p puncta, but overlap with all of them. This might be consistent with the antibody crossreacting. The western blot (Figure 3C) suggests an upregulation of ORF1p by at least 2-3x in the DKO, but the IF image in 3E is hard to tell if this is the case (slightly more signal, but fewer foci). Can you return to the images and confirm the contrast are comparable? Can you massively overexpose the red channel in 3E to see if there is residual overlap? 

In Figure 3E the L1TD1 antibody gives no signal in DNMT1/L1TD1 DKO cells confirming that it does not recognize ORF1p. In agreement with the Western blot in Figure 3C the L1 ORF1p signal in Figure 3E is stronger in DKO cells. In DNMT1 KO cells the L1 ORF1p antibody does not recognize all L1TD1 speckles. This result is in agreement with the Western blot shown above in Figure R4B and indicates that the L1 ORF1p antibody does not recognize the L1TD1 protein. The contrast is comparable and after overexposure there are still L1TD1 specific speckles. This might be due to differences in abundance of the two proteins.

(9) The choice of ARMC1 and YY2 is unclear. What are the criteria for the selection?

ARMC1 was one of the top hits in a pilot RIP-seq experiment (IP versus input and IP versus  IgG IP). In the actual RIP-seq experiment with DKO HAP1 cells instead of IgG IP as a negative control, we found ARMC1 as an enriched hit, although it was not among the top 5 hits. The results from the 2nd RIP-seq further confirmed the validity of ARMC1 as an L1TD1-interacting transcript. YY2 was of potential biological relevance as an L1TD1 target due to the fact that it is a processed pseudogene originating from YY1 mRNA as a result of retrotransposition. This is mentioned on page 6 of the revised manuscript.

(10) (P16) L1 is the only protein-coding transposon that is active in humans. This is perhaps too generalized of a statement as written. Other examples are readily found in the literature. Please clarify.  

We will tone down this statement in the revised manuscript. 

(11) In both the abstract and last sentence in the discussion section (P17), embryogenesis is mentioned, but this is not addressed at all in the manuscript. Please refrain from implying normal biological functions based on the results of this study unless appropriate samples are used to support them.

Much of the published data on L1TD1 function are related to embryonic stem cells [3-7]. Therefore, it is important to discuss our findings in the context of previous reports.

(12) Figure 3E: The format of Figures 1A and 3E are internally inconsistent. Please present similar data/images in a cohesive way throughout the manuscript.  

We show now consistent IF Figures in the revised manuscript.

Minor: 

(1) Intro:           

- Is L1Td1 in mice and Humans? How "conserved" is it and does this suggest function?  

Murine and human L1TD1 proteins share 44% identity on the amino acid level and it was suggested that the corresponding genes were under positive selection during evolution with functions in transposon control and maintenance of pluripotency [8].  

- Why HAP1? (Haploid?) The importance of this cell line is not clear.          

HAP1 is a nearly haploid human cancer cell line derived from the KBM-7 chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML) cell line [9, 10]. Due to its haploidy is perfectly suited and widely used for loss-of-function screens and gene editing. After gene editing  cells can be used in the nearly haploid or in the diploid state. We usually perform all experiments with diploid HAP1 cell lines.  Importantly, in contrast to other human tumor cell lines, this cell line tolerates ablation of DNMT1. We have included a corresponding explanation in the revised manuscript on page 5, first paragraph.

- Global methylation status in DNMT1 KO? (Methylations near L1 insertions, for example?) 

The HAP1 DNMT1 KO cell line with a 20 bp deletion in exon 4 used in our study was validated in the study by Smits et al. [11]. The authors report a significant reduction in overall DNA methylation. However, we are not aware of a DNA methylome study on this cell line. We show now data on the methylation of L1 elements in HAP1 cells and upon DNMT1 deletion in the revised manuscript in Suppl. Figure S1B.

(2) Figure 1:  

- Figure 1C. Why is LMNB used instead of Actin (Fig1D)?  

We show now beta-actin as loading control in the revised manuscript.  

- Figure 1G shows increased Caspase 3 in KO, while the matching sentence in the result section skips over this. It might be more accurate to mention this and suggest that the single KO has perhaps an intermediate phenotype (Figure 1F shows a slight but not significant trend). 

We fully agree with the reviewer and have changed the sentence on page 6, 2nd paragraph accordingly.  

- Would 96 hrs trend closer to significance? An interpretation is that L1TD1 loss could speed up this negative consequence. 

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have performed a time course experiment with 6 biological replicas for each time point up to 96 hours and found significant changes in the viability upon loss of DNMT1 and again significant reduction in viability upon additional loss of L1TD1 (shown in Figure 1F). These data suggest that as expexted loss of DNMT1 leads to significant reduction viability and that additional ablation of L1TD1 further enhances this effect.

- What are the "stringent conditions" used to remove non-specific binders and artifacts (negative control subtraction?) 

Yes, we considered only hits from both analyses, L1TD1 IP in KO versus input and L1TD1 IP in KO versus L1TD1 IP in DKO. This is now explained in more detail in the revised manuscript on page 6, 3rd paragraph.  

(3) Figure 2:  

- Figure 2A is a bit too small to read when printed. 

We have changed this in the revised manuscript.

- Since WT and DKO lack detectable L1TD1, would you expect any difference in RIP-Seq results between these two?

Due to the lack of DNMT1 and the resulting DNA hypomethylation, DKO cells are more similar to KO cells than WT cells with respect to the expressed transcripts.

- Legend says selected dots are in green (it appears blue to me). 

We have changed this in the revised manuscript.           

- Would you recover L1 ORF1p and its binding partners in the KO? (Is the antibody specific in the absence of L1TD1 or can it recognize L1?) I noticed an increase in ORF1p in the KO in Figure 3C.  

Thank you for the suggestion. Yes, L1 ORF1p shows slightly increased expression in the proteome analysis and we have marked the corresponding dot in the Volcano plot (Figure 3A).

- Should the figure panel reference near the (Rosspopoff & Trono) reference instead be Sup S1C as well? Otherwise, I don't think S1C is mentioned at all. 

- What are the red vs. green dots in 2D? Can you highlight ERV and ALU with different colors? 

We added the reference to Suppl. Figure S1C (now S3C) in the revised manuscript. In Figure 2D L1 elements are highlighted in green, ERV elements in yellow, and other associated transposon transcripts in red.     

- Which L1 subfamily from Figure 2D is represented in the qRT-PCR in 2E "LINE-1"? Do the primers match a specific L1 subfamily? If so, which? 

We used primers specific for the human L1.2 subfamily. 

- Pulling down SINE element transcripts makes some sense, as many insertions "borrow" L1 sequences for non-autonomous retro transposition, but can you speculate as to why ERVs are recovered? There should be essentially no overlap in sequence. 

In the L1TD1 evolution paper [8], a potential link between L1TD1 and ERV elements was discussed: 

"Alternatively, L1TD1 in sigmodonts could play a role in genome defense against another element active in these genomes. Indeed, the sigmodontine rodents have a highly active family of ERVs, the mysTR elements [46]. Expansion of this family preceded the death of L1s, but these elements are very active, with 3500 to 7000 species-specific insertions in the L1-extinct species examined [47]. This recent ERV amplification in Sigmodontinae contrasts with the megabats (where L1TD1 has been lost in many species); there are apparently no highly active DNA or RNA elements in megabats [48]. If L1TD1 can suppress retroelements other than L1s, this could explain why the gene is retained in sigmodontine rodents but not in megabats." 

Furthermore, Jin et al. report the binding of L1TD1 to repetitive sequences in transcripts [12]. It is possible that some of these sequences are also present in ERV RNAs.

- Is S2B a screenshot? (the red underline). 

No, it is a Powerpoint figure, and we have removed the red underline.

(4) Figure 3: 

- Text refers to Figure 3B as a western blot. Figure 3B shows a volcano plot. This is likely 3C but would still be out of order (3A>3C>3B referencing). I think this error is repeated in the last result section. 

- Figure and legends fail to mention what gene was used for ddCT method (actin, gapdh, etc.). 

- In general, the supplemental legends feel underwritten and could benefit from additional explanations. (Main figures are appropriate but please double-check that all statistical tests have been mentioned correctly).

Thank you for pointing this out. We have corrected these errors in the revised manuscript.

(5) Discussion: 

-Aluy connection is interesting. Is there an "Alu retrotransposition reporter assay" to test whether L1TD1 enhances this as well? 

Thank you for the suggestion. There is indeed an Alu retrotransposition reporter assay reported be Dewannieux et al. [13]. The assay is based on a Neo selection marker. We have previously tested a Neo selection-based L1 retrotransposition reporter assay, but this system failed to properly work in HAP1 cells, therefore we switched to a blasticidinbased L1 retrotransposition reporter assay. A corresponding blasticidin-based Alu retrotransposition reporter assay might be interesting for future studies (mentioned in the Discussion, page 11 paragraph 4 of the revised manuscript.

(6) Material and Methods       : 

- The number of typos in the materials and methods is too numerous to list. Instead, please refer to the next section that broadly describes the issues seen throughout the manuscript. 

Writing style  

(1) Keep a consistent style throughout the manuscript: for example, L1 or LINE-1 (also L1 ORF1p or LINE-1 ORF1p); per or "/"; knockout or knock-out; min or minute; 3 times or three times; media or medium. Additionally, as TE naming conventions are not uniform, it is important to maintain internal consistency so as to not accidentally establish an imprecise version. 

(2) There's a period between "et al" and the comma, and "et al." should be italic. 

(3) The authors should explain what the key jargon is when it is first used in the manuscript, such as "retrotransposon" and "retrotransposition".    

(4) The authors should show the full spelling of some acronyms when they use it for the first time, such as RNA Immunoprecipitation (RIP).  

(5) Use a space between numbers and alphabets, such as 5 µg.  

(6) 2.0 × 105 cells, that's not an "x".  

(7) Numbers in the reference section are lacking (hard to parse).  

(8) In general, there are a significant number of typos in this draft which at times becomes distracting. For example, (P3) Introduction: Yet, co-option of TEs thorough (not thorough, it should be through) evolution has created so-called domesticated genes beneficial to the gene network in a wide range of organisms. Please carefully revise the entire manuscript for these minor issues that collectively erode the quality of this submission.  

Thank you for pointing out these mistakes. We have corrected them in the revised manuscript. A native speaker from our research group has carefully checked the paper. In summary, we have added Supplementary Figure S7C and have changed Figures 1C, 1E, 1F, 2A, 2D, 3A, 4B, S3A-D, S4B and S6A based on these comments. 

REFERENCES

(1) Beck, M.A., et al., DNA hypomethylation leads to cGAS-induced autoinflammation in the epidermis. EMBO J, 2021. 40(22): p. e108234.

(2) Altenberger, C., et al., SPAG6 and L1TD1 are transcriptionally regulated by DNA methylation in non-small cell lung cancers. Mol Cancer, 2017. 16(1): p. 1.

(3) Narva, E., et al., RNA-binding protein L1TD1 interacts with LIN28 via RNA and is required for human embryonic stem cell self-renewal and cancer cell proliferation. Stem Cells, 2012. 30(3): p. 452-60.

(4) Jin, S.W., et al., Dissolution of ribonucleoprotein condensates by the embryonic stem cell protein L1TD1. Nucleic Acids Res, 2024. 52(6): p. 3310-3326.

(5) Emani, M.R., et al., The L1TD1 protein interactome reveals the importance of posttranscriptional regulation in human pluripotency. Stem Cell Reports, 2015. 4(3): p. 519-28.

(6) Santos, M.C., et al., Embryonic Stem Cell-Related Protein L1TD1 Is Required for Cell Viability, Neurosphere Formation, and Chemoresistance in Medulloblastoma. Stem Cells Dev, 2015. 24(22): p. 2700-8.

(7) Wong, R.C., et al., L1TD1 is a marker for undifferentiated human embryonic stem cells. PLoS One, 2011. 6(4): p. e19355.

(8) McLaughlin, R.N., Jr., et al., Positive selection and multiple losses of the LINE-1-derived L1TD1 gene in mammals suggest a dual role in genome defense and pluripotency. PLoS Genet, 2014. 10(9): p. e1004531.

(9) Andersson, B.S., et al., Ph-positive chronic myeloid leukemia with near-haploid conversion in vivo and establishment of a continuously growing cell line with similar cytogenetic pattern. Cancer Genet Cytogenet, 1987. 24(2): p. 335-43.

(10) Carette, J.E., et al., Ebola virus entry requires the cholesterol transporter Niemann-Pick C1. Nature, 2011. 477(7364): p. 340-3.

(11) Smits, A.H., et al., Biological plasticity rescues target activity in CRISPR knock outs. Nat Methods, 2019. 16(11): p. 1087-1093.

(12) Jin, S.W., et al., Dissolution of ribonucleoprotein condensates by the embryonic stem cell protein L1TD1. Nucleic Acids Res, 2024.

(13) Dewannieux, M., C. Esnault, and T. Heidmann, LINE-mediated retrotransposition of marked Alu sequences. Nat Genet, 2003. 35(1): p. 41-8.

目的和上面的不一样

自带的标记，按比例，数据清洗的标记 数据处理和数据集管理逻辑明确

Author Response:

The following is the authors' response to the original reviews.

Reply to Public Reviews:

Reply to Reviewer #1:

This is a carefully performed and well-documented study to indicate that the FUS protein interacts with the GGGGCC repeat sequence in Drosophila fly models, and the mechanism appears to include modulating the repeat structure and mitigating RAN translation. They suggest FUS, as well as a number of other G-quadruplex binding RNA proteins, are RNA chaperones, meaning they can alter the structure of the expanded repeat sequence to modulate its biological activities.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for her/his time for evaluating our manuscript. We are very happy to see the reviewer for highly appreciating our manuscript.

1. Overall this is a nicely done study with nice quantitation. It remains somewhat unclear from the data and discussions in exactly what way the authors mean that FUS is an RNA chaperone: is FUS changing the structure of the repeat or does FUS binding prevent it from folding into alternative in vivo structure?

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive comments. Indeed, we showed that FUS changes the higher-order structures of GGGGCC [G4C2] repeat RNA in vitro, and that FUS suppresses G4C2 RNA foci formation in vivo. According to the established definition of RNA chaperone, RNA chaperones are proteins changing the structures of misfolded RNAs without ATP use, resulting in the maintenance of proper RNAs folding (Rajkowitsich et al., 2007). Thus, we consider that FUS is classified into RNA chaperone. To clarify these interpretations, we revised the manuscript as follows.

(1) On page 10, line 215-219, the sentence “These results were in good agreement with our previous study on SCA31 showing the suppressive effects of FUS and other RBPs on RNA foci formation of UGGAA repeat RNA as RNA chaperones …” was changed to “These results were in good agreement with … RNA foci formation of UGGAA repeat RNA through altering RNA structures and preventing aggregation of misfolded repeat RNA as RNA chaperones …”.

(2) On page 17, line 363-366, the sentence “FUS directly binds to G4C2 repeat RNA and modulates its G-quadruplex structure, as evident by CD and NMR analyses (Figure 5), suggesting its functional role as an RNA chaperone.” was changed to “FUS directly binds to G4C2 repeat RNA and modulates its G-quadruplex structure as evident by CD and NMR analyses (Figure 5, Figure 5—figure supplement 2), and suppresses RNA foci formation in vivo (Figures 3A and 3B), suggesting its functional role as an RNA chaperone.”

Reply to Reviewer #2:

Fuijino et al. provide interesting data describing the RNA-binding protein, FUS, for its ability to bind the RNA produced from the hexanucleotide repeat expansion of GGGGCC (G4C2). This binding correlates with reductions in the production of toxic dipeptides and reductions in toxic phenotypes seen in (G4C2)30+ expressing Drosophila. Both FUS and G4C2 repeats of >25 are associated with ALS/FTD spectrum disorders. Thus, these data are important for increasing our understanding of potential interactions between multiple disease genes. However, further validation of some aspects of the provided data is needed, especially the expression data.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for her/his time for evaluating our manuscript and also for her/his important comments that helped to strengthen our manuscript.

Some points to consider when reading the work:

1. The broadly expressed GMR-GAL4 driver leads to variable tissue loss in different genotypes, potentially confounding downstream analyses dependent on viable tissue/mRNA levels.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this constructive comment. In the RT-qPCR experiments (Figures 1E, 3C, 4G, 6D and Figure 1—figure supplement 1C), the amounts of G4C2 repeat transcripts were normalized to those of gal4 transcripts expressed in the same tissue, to avoid potential confounding derived from the difference in tissue viability between genotypes, as the reviewer pointed out. To clarify this process, we have made the following change to the revised manuscript.

(1) On page 30, line 548-550, the sentence “The amounts of G4C2 repeat transcripts were normalized to those of gal4 transcripts in the same sample” was changed to “The amounts of G4C2 repeat transcripts were normalized to those of gal4 transcripts expressed in the same tissue to avoid potential confounding derived from the difference in tissue viability between genotypes”.

2. The relationship between FUS and foci formation is unclear and should be interpreted carefully.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s important comment. We apologize for the lack of clarity. We showed the relationship between FUS and RNA foci formation in our C9-ALS/FTD fly, that is, FUS suppresses RNA foci formation (Figures 3A and 3B), and knockdown of endogenous caz, a Drosophila homologue of FUS, enhanced it conversely (Figures 4E and 4F). We consider that FUS suppresses RNA foci formation through altering RNA structures and preventing aggregation of misfolded G4C2 repeat RNA as an RNA chaperone. To clarify these interpretations, we revised the manuscript as follows.

(1) On page 10, line 215-219, the sentence “These results were in good agreement with our previous study on SCA31 showing the suppressive effects of FUS and other RBPs on RNA foci formation of UGGAA repeat RNA as RNA chaperones …” was changed to “These results were in good agreement with … RNA foci formation of UGGAA repeat RNA through altering RNA structures and preventing aggregation of misfolded repeat RNA as RNA chaperones …”.

(2) On page 17, line 363-366, the sentence “FUS directly binds to G4C2 repeat RNA and modulates its G-quadruplex structure, as evident by CD and NMR analyses (Figure 5), suggesting its functional role as an RNA chaperone.” was changed to “FUS directly binds to G4C2 repeat RNA and modulates its G-quadruplex structure as evident by CD and NMR analyses (Figure 5, Figure 5—figure supplement 2), and suppresses RNA foci formation in vivo (Figures 3A and 3B), suggesting its functional role as an RNA chaperone.”

Reply to Reviewer #3:

In this manuscript Fujino and colleagues used C9-ALS/FTD fly models to demonstrate that FUS modulates the structure of (G4C2) repeat RNA as an RNA chaperone, and regulates RAN translation, resulting in the suppression of neurodegeneration in C9-ALS/FTD. They also confirmed that FUS preferentially binds to and modulates the G-quadruplex structure of (G4C2) repeat RNA, followed by the suppression of RAN translation. The potential significance of these findings is high since C9ORF72 repeat expansion is the most common genetic cause of ALS/FTD, especially in Caucasian populations and the DPR proteins have been considered the major cause of the neurodegenerations.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for her/his time for evaluating our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewer for the insightful comments, which were very helpful for us to improve the manuscript.

1. While the effect of RBP as an RNA chaperone on (G4C2) repeat expansion is supposed to be dose-dependent according to (G4C2)n RNA expression, the first experiment of the screening for RBPs in C9-ALS/FTD flies lacks this concept. It is uncertain if the RBPs of the groups "suppression (weak)" and "no effect" were less or no ability of RNA chaperone or if the expression of the RBP was not sufficient, and if the RBPs of the group "enhancement" exacerbated the toxicity derived from (G4C2)89 RNA or the expression of the RBP was excessive. The optimal dose of any RBPs that bind to (G4C2) repeats may be able to neutralize the toxicity without the reduction of (G4C2)n RNA.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive comments. We employed the site-directed transgenesis for the establishment of RBP fly lines, to ensure the equivalent expression levels of the inserted transgenes. We also evaluated the toxic effects of overexpressed RBPs themselves by crossbreeding with control EGFP flies, showing in Figure 1A. To clarify them, we have made the following changes to the revised manuscript.

(1) On page 8, line 166-168, the sentence “The variation in the effects of these G4C2 repeat-binding RBPs on G4C2 repeat-induced toxicity may be due to their different binding affinities to G4C2 repeat RNA, and their different roles in RNA metabolism.” was changed to “The variation in the effects of these G4C2 repeat-binding RBPs on G4C2 repeat-induced toxicity may be due to their different binding affinities to G4C2 repeat RNA, and the different toxicity of overexpressed RBPs themselves.”.

(2) On page 29, line 519-522, the sentence “By employing site-specific transgenesis using the pUASTattB vector, each transgene was inserted into the same locus of the genome, and was expected to be expressed at the equivalent levels.” was added.

2. In relation to issue 1, the rescue effect of FUS on the fly expressing (G4C2)89 (FUS-4) in Figure 4-figure supplement 1 seems weaker than the other flies expressing both FUS and (G4C2)89 in Figure 1 and Figure 1-figure supplement 2. The expression level of both FUS protein and (G4C2)89 RNA in each line is important from the viewpoint of therapeutic strategy for C9-ALS/FTD.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s important comment. The FUS-4 transgene is expected to be expressed at the equivalent level to the FUS-3 transgene, since they are inserted into the same locus of the genome by the site-directed transgenesis. Thus, we suppose that the weaker suppressive effect of FUS-4 coexpression on G4C2 repeat-induced eye degeneration can be attributed to the C-terminal FLAG tag that is fused to FUS protein expressed in FUS-4 fly line. Since the caz fly expresses caz protein also fused to FLAG tag at the C-terminus, we used this FUS-4 fly line to directly compare the effect of caz on G4C2 repeat-induced toxicity to that of FUS.

3. While hallmarks of C9ORF72 are the presence of DPRs and the repeat-containing RNA foci, the loss of function of C9ORF72 is also considered to somehow contribute to neurodegeneration. It is unclear if FUS reduces not only the DPRs but also the protein expression of C9ORF72 itself.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We agree that not only DPRs, but also toxic repeat RNA and the loss-of-function of C9ORF72 jointly contribute to the pathomechanisms of C9-ALS/FTD. Since Drosophila has no homolog corresponding to the human C9orf72 gene, the effect of FUS on C9orf72 expression cannot be assessed. Our fly models are useful for evaluating gain-of-toxic pathomechanisms such as RNA foci formation and RAN translation, and the association between FUS and loss-of function of C9ORF72 is beyond the scope of this study.

4. In Figure 5E-F, it cannot be distinguished whether FUS binds to GGGGCC repeats or the 5' flanking region. The same experiment should be done by using FUS-RRMmut to elucidate whether FUS binding is the major mechanism for this translational control. Authors should show that FUS binding to long GGGGCC repeats is important for RAN translation.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for these insightful comments. Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we perform in vitro translation assay again using FUS-RRMmut, which loses the binding ability to G4C2 repeat RNA as evident by the filter binding assay (Figure 5A), instead of BSA. The results are shown in the figures of Western blot analysis below. The addition of FUS to the translation system suppressed the expression levels of GA-Myc efficiently, whereas that of FUS-RRMmut did not. FUS decreased the expression level of GA-Myc at as low as 10nM, and nearly eliminated RAN translation activity at 100nM. At 400nM, FUS-RRMmut weakly suppressed the GA-Myc expression levels probably because of the residual RNA-binding activity. These results suggest that FUS suppresses RAN translation in vitro through direct interactions with G4C2 repeat RNA.

Unfortunately, RAN translation from short G4C2 repeat RNA was not investigated in our translation system, although the previous study reported the low efficacy of RAN translation from short G4C2 repeat RNA (Green et al., 2017).

Author response image 1.

(A) Western blot analysis of the GA-Myc protein in the samples from in vitro translation. (B) Quantification of the GA-Myc protein levels.

We have made the following changes to the revised manuscript.

(1) Figure 5F was replaced to new Figures 5F and 5G.

(2) On page 14-15, line 326-330, the sentence “Notably, the addition of FUS to this system decreased the expression level of GA-Myc in a dose-dependent manner, whereas the addition of the control bovine serum albumin (BSA) did not (Figure 5F).” was changed to “Notably, upon the addition to this translation system, FUS suppressed RAN translation efficiently, whereas FUS-RRMmut did not. FUS decreased the expression levels of GA-Myc at as low as 10nM, and nearly eliminated RAN translation activity at 100nM. At 400nM, FUS-RRMmut weakly suppressed the GA-Myc expression levels probably because of the residual RNA-binding activity (Figure 5F and 5G).”.

(3) On page 15, line 330-332, the sentence “Taken together, these results indicate that FUS suppresses RAN translation from G4C2 repeat RNA in vitro as an RNA chaperone.” was changed to “Taken together, these results indicate that FUS suppresses RAN translation in vitro through direct interactions with G4C2 repeat RNA as an RNA chaperone.”.

(4) On page 37, line 720-723, the sentence “For preparation of the FUS protein, the human FUS (WT) gene flanked at the 5¢ end with an Nde_I recognition site and at the 3¢ end with a _Xho_I recognition site was amplified by PCR from pUAST-_FUS.” was changed to “For preparation of the FUS proteins, the human FUS (WT) and FUS-RRMmut genes flanked at the 5¢ end with an Nde_I recognition site and at the 3¢ end with a _Xho_I recognition site was amplified by PCR from pUAST-_FUS and pUAST- FUS-RRMmut, respectively.”.

(5) On page 41, line 816-819, the sentence “FUS or BSA at each concentration (10, 100, and 1,000 nM) was added for translation in the lysate.” was changed to “FUS or FUS-RRMmut at each concentration (10, 100, 200, 400, and 1,000 nM) was preincubated with mRNA for 10 min to facilitate the interaction between FUS protein and G4C2 repeat RNA, and added for translation in the lysate.”.

5. It is not possible to conclude, as the authors have, that G-quadruplex-targeting RBPs are generally important for RAN translation (Figure 6), without showing whether RBPs that do not affect (G4C2)89 RNA levels lead to decreased DPR protein level or RNA foci.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s critical comment. Following the suggestion by the reviewer, we evaluate the effect of these G-quadruplex-targeting RBPs on RAN translation. We additionally performed immunohistochemistry of the eye imaginal discs of fly larvae expressing (G4C2)89 and these G-quadruplex-targeting RBPs. As shown in the figures of immunohistochemistry below, we found that coexpression of EWSR1, DDX3X, DDX5, and DDX17 significantly decreased the number of poly(GA) aggregates. The results suggest that these G-quadruplex-targeting RBPs regulate RAN translation as well as FUS.

Author response image 2.

(A) Immunohistochemistry of poly(GA) in the eye imaginal discs of fly larvae expressing (G4C2)89 and the indicated G-quadruplex-targeting RBPs. (B) Quantification of the number of poly(GA) aggregates.

We have made the following changes to the revised manuscript.

(1) Figures 6E and 6F were added.

(2) On page 6-7, line 135-137, the sentence “In addition, other G-quadruplex-targeting RBPs also suppressed G4C2 repeat-induced toxicity in our C9-ALS/FTD flies.” was changed to “In addition, other G-quadruplex-targeting RBPs also suppressed RAN translation and G4C2 repeat-induced toxicity in our C9-ALS/FTD flies.”.

(3) On page 15, line 344-346, the sentence “As expected, these RBPs also decreased the number of poly(GA) aggregates in the eye imaginal discs (Figures 6E and 6F).” was added.

(4) On page 15, line 346-347, the sentence “Their effects on G4C2 repeat-induced toxicity and repeat RNA expression were consistent with those of FUS.” was changed to “Their effects on G4C2 repeat-induced toxicity, repeat RNA expression, and RAN translation were consistent with those of FUS.”

(5) On page 16, line 355-357, the sentence “Thus, some G-quadruplex-targeting RBPs regulate G4C2 repeat-induced toxicity by binding to and possibly by modulating the G-quadruplex structure of G4C2 repeat RNA.” was changed to “Thus, some G-quadruplex-targeting RBPs regulate RAN translation and G4C2 repeat-induced toxicity by binding to and possibly by modulating the G-quadruplex structure of G4C2 repeat RNA.”

(6) On page 19, line 417-421, the sentence “We further found that G-quadruplex-targeting RNA helicases, including DDX3X, DDX5, and DDX17, which are known to bind to G4C2 repeat RNA (Cooper-Knock et al., 2014; Haeusler et al., 2014; Mori et al., 2013a; Xu et al., 2013), also alleviate G4C2 repeat-induced toxicity without altering the expression levels of G4C2 repeat RNA in our Drosophila models.” was changed to “We further found that G-quadruplex-targeting RNA helicases, … ,also suppress RAN translation and G4C2 repeat-induced toxicity without altering the expression levels of G4C2 repeat RNA in our Drosophila models.”.

Reply to Recommendations For The Authors:

1) It is not clear from the start that the flies they generated with the repeat have an artificial vs human intronic sequence ahead of the repeat. It would be nice if they presented somewhere the entire sequence of the insert. The reason being that it seems they also tested flies with the human intronic sequence, and the effect may not be as strong (line 234). In any case, in the future, with a new understanding of RAN translation, it would be nice to compare different transgenes, and so as much transparency as possible would be helpful regarding sequences. Can they include these data?

Response: We thank the editors and reviewers for this comment. We apologize for the lack of clarity. We used artificially synthesized G4C2 repeat sequences when generating constructs for (G4C2)n transgenic flies, so these constructs do not contain human intronic sequence ahead of the G4C2 repeat in the C9orf72 gene, as explained in the Materials and Methods section. To clarify the difference between our C9-ALS/FTD fly models and LDS-(G4C2)44GR-GFP fly model (Goodman et al., 2019), we have made the following change to the revised manuscript.

(1) Schema of the LDS-(G4C2)44GR-GFP construct was presented in Figure 3—figure supplement 1.

Furthermore, to maintain transparency of the study, we have provided the entire sequence of the insert as the following source file.

(2) The artificial sequences inserted in the pUAST vector for generation of the (G4C2)n flies were presented in Figure 1—figure supplement 1—source data 1.

2) It is really nice how they quantitated everything and showed individual data points.

Response: We thank the editors and reviewers for appreciating our data analysis method. All individual data points and statistical analyses are summarized in source data files.

3) So when they call FUS an RNA chaperone, are they simply meaning it is changing the structure of the repeat, or could it just be interacting with the repeat to coat the repeat and prevent it from folding into whatever in vivo structures? Can they speculate on why some RNA chaperones lead to presumed decay of the repeat and others do not? Can they discuss these points in the discussion? Detailed mechanistic understanding of RNA chaperones that ultimately promote decay of the repeat might be of highly significant therapeutic benefit.

Response: We appreciate these critical comments. Indeed, we showed that FUS changes the higher-order structures of G4C2 repeat RNA in vitro, and that FUS suppresses G4C2 RNA foci formation. According to the established definition of RNA chaperone, RNA chaperones are proteins changing the structures of misfolded RNAs without ATP use, resulting in the maintenance of proper RNAs folding (Rajkowitsich et al., 2007). Thus, we consider that FUS is classified into RNA chaperone. To clarify these interpretations, we revised the manuscript as follows.

(1) On page 10, line 215-219, the sentence “These results were in good agreement with our previous study on SCA31 showing the suppressive effects of FUS and other RBPs on RNA foci formation of UGGAA repeat RNA as RNA chaperones …” was changed to “These results were in good agreement with … RNA foci formation of UGGAA repeat RNA through altering RNA structures and preventing aggregation of misfolded repeat RNA as RNA chaperones …”.

(2) On page 17, line 363-366, the sentence “FUS directly binds to G4C2 repeat RNA and modulates its G-quadruplex structure, as evident by CD and NMR analyses (Figure 5), suggesting its functional role as an RNA chaperone.” was changed to “FUS directly binds to G4C2 repeat RNA and modulates its G-quadruplex structure as evident by CD and NMR analyses (Figure 5, Figure 5—figure supplement 2), and suppresses RNA foci formation in vivo (Figures 3A and 3B), suggesting its functional role as an RNA chaperone.”

Besides these RNA chaperones, we observed the expression of IGF2BP1, hnRNPA2B1, DHX9, and DHX36 decreased G4C2 repeat RNA expression levels. In addition, we recently reported that hnRNPA3 reduces G4C2 repeat RNA expression levels, leading to the suppression of neurodegeneration in C9-ALS/FTD fly models (Taminato et al., 2023). We speculate these RBPs could be involved in RNA decay pathways as components of the P-body or interactors with the RNA deadenylation machinery (Tran et al., 2004; Katahira et al., 2008; Geissler et al., 2016; Hubstenberger et al., 2017), possibly contributing to the reduced expression levels of G4C2 repeat RNA. To clarify these interpretations, we revised the manuscript as follows.

(3) On page 18, line 392-398, the sentences “Similarly, we recently reported that hnRNPA3 reduces G4C2 repeat RNA expression levels, leading to the suppression of neurodegeneration in C9-ALS/FTD fly models (Taminato et al., 2023). Interestingly, these RBPs have been reported to be involved in RNA decay pathways as components of the P-body or interactors with the RNA deadenylation machinery (Tran et al., 2004; Katahira et al., 2008; Geissler et al., 2016; Hubstenberger et al., 2017), possibly contributing to the reduced expression levels of G4C2 repeat RNA.” was added.

4) What is the level of the G4C2 repeat when they knock down caz? Is it possible that knockdown impacts the expression level of the repeat? Can they show this (or did they and I miss it)?

Response: We thank the editors and reviewers for this comment. The expression levels of G4C2 repeat RNA in (G4C2)89 flies were not altered by the knockdown of caz, as shown in Figure 4G.

5) A puzzling point is that FUS is supposed to be nuclear, so where is FUS in the brain in their lines? They suggest it modulates RAN translation, and presumably, that is in the cytoplasm. Is FUS when overexpressed now in part in the cytoplasm? Is the repeat dragging it into the cytoplasm? Can they address this in the discussion? If FUS is never found in vivo in the cytoplasm, then it raises the point that the impact they find of FUS on RAN translation might not reflect an in vivo situation with normal levels of FUS.

Response: We appreciate these important comments. We agree with the editors and reviewers that FUS is mainly localized in the nucleus. However, FUS is known as a nucleocytoplasmic shuttling RBP that can transport RNA into the cytoplasm. Indeed, FUS is reported to facilitate transport of actin-stabilizing protein mRNAs to function in the cytoplasm (Fujii et al., 2005). Thus, we consider that FUS binds to G4C2 repeat RNA in the cytoplasm and suppresses RAN translation in this study.

6) When they are using 2 copies of the driver and repeat, are they also using 2 copies of FUS? These are quite high levels of transgenes.

Response: We thank the editors and reviewers for this comment. We used only 1 copy of FUS when using 2 copies of GMR-Gal4 driver. Full genotypes of the fly lines used in all experiments are described in Supplementary file 1.

7) In Figure5-S1, FUS colocalizing with (G4C2)RNA is not clear. High-magnification images are recommended.

Response: We appreciate this constructive comment on the figure. Following the suggestion, high-magnification images are added in Figure 5—figure supplement 1.

8) I also suggest that the last sentence of the Discussion be revised as follows: Thus, our findings contribute not only to the elucidation of C9-ALS/FTD, but also to the elucidation of the repeat-associated pathogenic mechanisms underlying a broader range of neurodegenerative and neuropsychiatric disorders than previously thought, and it will advance the development of potential therapies for these diseases.

Response: We appreciate this recommendation. We have made the following change based on the suggested sentence.

(1) On page 20-21, line 455-459, “Thus, our findings contribute not only towards the elucidation of repeat-associated pathogenic mechanisms underlying a wider range of neuropsychiatric diseases than previously thought, but also towards the development of potential therapies for these diseases.” was changed to “Thus, our findings contribute to the elucidation of the repeat-associated pathogenic mechanisms underlying not only C9-ALS/FTD, but also a broader range of neuromuscular and neuropsychiatric diseases than previously thought, and will advance the development of potential therapies for these diseases.”.

Authors’ comment on previous eLife assessment:

We thank the editors and reviewers for appreciating our study. We mainly evaluated the function of human FUS protein on RAN translation and G4C2 repeat-induced toxicity using Drosophila expressing human FUS in vivo, and the recombinant human FUS protein in vitro. To validate that FUS functions as an endogenous regulator of RAN translation, we additionally evaluated the function of Drosophila caz protein as well. We are afraid that the first sentence of the eLife assessment, that is, “This important study demonstrates that the Drosophila FUS protein, the human homolog of which is implicated in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and related conditions, …” is somewhat misleading. We would be happy if you modify this sentence like “This important study demonstrates that the human FUS protein, which is implicated in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and related conditions, …”.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

eLife Assessment

This valuable study investigates how the neural representation of individual finger movements changes during the early period of sequence learning. By combining a new method for extracting features from human magnetoencephalography data and decoding analyses, the authors provide incomplete evidence of an early, swift change in the brain regions correlated with sequence learning, including a set of previously unreported frontal cortical regions. The addition of more control analyses to rule out that head movement artefacts influence the findings, and to further explain the proposal of offline contextualization during short rest periods as the basis for improvement performance would strengthen the manuscript.

We appreciate the Editorial assessment on our paper’s strengths and novelty. We have implemented additional control analyses to show that neither task-related eye movements nor increasing overlap of finger movements during learning account for our findings, which are that contextualized neural representations in a network of bilateral frontoparietal brain regions actively contribute to skill learning. Importantly, we carried out additional analyses showing that contextualization develops predominantly during rest intervals.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study addresses the issue of rapid skill learning and whether individual sequence elements (here: finger presses) are differentially represented in human MEG data. The authors use a decoding approach to classify individual finger elements and accomplish an accuracy of around 94%. A relevant finding is that the neural representations of individual finger elements dynamically change over the course of learning. This would be highly relevant for any attempts to develop better brain machine interfaces - one now can decode individual elements within a sequence with high precision, but these representations are not static but develop over the course of learning.

Strengths:

The work follows a large body of work from the same group on the behavioural and neural foundations of sequence learning. The behavioural task is well established and neatly designed to allow for tracking learning and how individual sequence elements contribute. The inclusion of short offline rest periods between learning epochs has been influential because it has revealed that a lot, if not most of the gains in behaviour (ie speed of finger movements) occur in these socalled micro-offline rest periods. The authors use a range of new decoding techniques, and exhaustively interrogate their data in different ways, using different decoding approaches. Regardless of the approach, impressively high decoding accuracies are observed, but when using a hybrid approach that combines the MEG data in different ways, the authors observe decoding accuracies of individual sequence elements from the MEG data of up to 94%.

We have previously showed that neural replay of MEG activity representing the practiced skill was prominent during rest intervals of early learning, and that the replay density correlated with micro-offline gains (Buch et al., 2021). These findings are consistent with recent reports (from two different research groups) that hippocampal ripple density increases during these inter-practice rest periods, and predict offline learning gains (Chen et al., 2024; Sjøgård et al., 2024). However, decoder performance in our earlier work (Buch et al., 2021) left room for improvement. Here, we reported a strategy to improve decoding accuracy that could benefit future studies of neural replay or BCI using MEG.

Weaknesses:

There are a few concerns which the authors may well be able to resolve. These are not weaknesses as such, but factors that would be helpful to address as these concern potential contributions to the results that one would like to rule out. Regarding the decoding results shown in Figure 2 etc, a concern is that within individual frequency bands, the highest accuracy seems to be within frequencies that match the rate of keypresses. This is a general concern when relating movement to brain activity, so is not specific to decoding as done here. As far as reported, there was no specific restraint to the arm or shoulder, and even then it is conceivable that small head movements would correlate highly with the vigor of individual finger movements. This concern is supported by the highest contribution in decoding accuracy being in middle frontal regions - midline structures that would be specifically sensitive to movement artefacts and don't seem to come to mind as key structures for very simple sequential keypress tasks such as this - and the overall pattern is remarkably symmetrical (despite being a unimanual finger task) and spatially broad. This issue may well be matching the time course of learning, as the vigor and speed of finger presses will also influence the degree to which the arm/shoulder and head move. This is not to say that useful information is contained within either of the frequencies or broadband data. But it raises the question of whether a lot is dominated by movement "artefacts" and one may get a more specific answer if removing any such contributions.

Reviewer #1 expresses concern that the combination of the low-frequency narrow-band decoder results, and the bilateral middle frontal regions displaying the highest average intra-parcel decoding performance across subjects is suggestive that the decoding results could be driven by head movement or other artefacts.

Head movement artefacts are highly unlikely to contribute meaningfully to our results for the following reasons. First, in addition to ICA denoising, all “recordings were visually inspected and marked to denoise segments containing other large amplitude artifacts due to movements” (see Methods). Second, the response pad was positioned in a manner that minimized wrist, arm or more proximal body movements during the task. Third, while online monitoring of head position was not performed for this study, it was assessed at the beginning and at the end of each recording. The head was restrained with an inflatable air bladder, and head movement between the beginning and end of each scan did not exceed 5mm for all participants included in the study.

The Reviewer states a concern that “it is conceivable that small head movements would correlate highly with the vigor of individual finger movements”. We agree that despite the steps taken above, it is possible that minor head movements could still contribute to some remaining variance in the MEG data in our study. However, such correlations between small head movements and finger movements could only meaningfully contribute to decoding performance if: (A) they were consistent and pervasive throughout the recording (which might not be the case if the head movements were related to movement vigor and vigor changed over time); and (B) they systematically varied between different finger movements, and also between the same finger movement performed at different sequence locations (see 5-class decoding performance in Figure 4B). The possibility of any head movement artefacts meeting all these conditions is unlikely. Alternatively, for this task design a much more likely confound could be the contribution of eye movement artefacts to the decoder performance (an issue raised by Reviewer #3 in the comments below).

Remember from Figure 1A in the manuscript that an asterisk marks the current position in the sequence and is updated at each keypress. Since participants make very few performance errors, the position of the asterisk on the display is highly correlated with the keypress being made in the sequence. Thus, it is possible that if participants are attending to the visual feedback provided on the display, they may generate eye movements that are systematically related to the task. Since we did record eye movements simultaneously with the MEG recordings (EyeLink 1000 Plus; Fs = 600 Hz), we were able to perform a control analysis to address this question. For each keypress event during trials in which no errors occurred (which is the same time-point that the asterisk position is updated), we extracted three features related to eye movements: 1) the gaze position at the time of asterisk position update (triggered by a KeyDown event), 2) the gaze position 150ms later, and 3) the peak velocity of the eye movement between the two positions. We then constructed a classifier from these features with the aim of predicting the location of the asterisk (ordinal positions 1-5) on the display. As shown in the confusion matrix below (Author response image 1), the classifier failed to perform above chance levels (overall cross-validated accuracy = 0.21817):

Author response image 1.

Confusion matrix showing that three eye movement features fail to predict asterisk position on the task display above chance levels (Fold 1 test accuracy = 0.21718; Fold 2 test accuracy = 0.22023; Fold 3 test accuracy = 0.21859; Fold 4 test accuracy = 0.22113; Fold 5 test accuracy = 0.21373; Overall cross-validated accuracy = 0.2181). Since the ordinal position of the asterisk on the display is highly correlated with the ordinal position of individual keypresses in the sequence, this analysis provides strong evidence that keypress decoding performance from MEG features is not explained by systematic relationships between finger movement behavior and eye movements (i.e. – behavioral artefacts) (end of figure legend).

Remember that the task display does not provide explicit feedback related to performance, only information about the present position in the sequence. Thus, it is possible that participants did not actively attend to the feedback. In fact, inspection of the eye position data revealed that on majority of trials, participants displayed random-walk-like gaze patterns around a central fixation point located near the center of the screen. Thus, participants did not attend to the asterisk position on the display, but instead intrinsically generated the action sequence. A similar realworld example would be manually inputting a long password into a secure online application. In this case, one intrinsically generates the sequence from memory and receives similar feedback about the password sequence position (also provided as asterisks) as provided in the study task – feedback which is typically ignored by the user.

The minimal participant engagement with the visual task display observed in this study highlights another important point – that the behavior in explicit sequence learning motor tasks is highly generative in nature rather than reactive to stimulus cues as in the serial reaction time task (SRTT). This is a crucial difference that must be carefully considered when designing investigations and comparing findings across studies.

We observed that initial keypress decoding accuracy was predominantly driven by contralateral primary sensorimotor cortex in the initial practice trials before transitioning to bilateral frontoparietal regions by trials 11 or 12 as performance gains plateaued. The contribution of contralateral primary sensorimotor areas to early skill learning has been extensively reported in humans and non-human animals.(Buch et al., 2021; Classen et al., 1998; Karni et al., 1995; Kleim et al., 1998) Similarly, the increased involvement of bilateral frontal and parietal regions to decoding during early skill learning in the non-dominant hand is well known. Enhanced bilateral activation in both frontal and parietal cortex during skill learning has been extensively reported (Doyon et al., 2002; Grafton et al., 1992; Hardwick et al., 2013; Kennerley et al., 2004; Shadmehr & Holcomb, 1997; Toni, Ramnani, et al., 2001), and appears to be even more prominent during early fine motor skill learning in the non-dominant hand (Lee et al., 2019; Sawamura et al., 2019). The frontal regions identified in these studies are known to play crucial roles in executive control (Battaglia-Mayer & Caminiti, 2019), motor planning (Toni, Thoenissen, et al., 2001), and working memory (Andersen & Buneo, 2002; Buneo & Andersen, 2006; Shadmehr & Holcomb, 1997; Toni, Ramnani, et al., 2001; Wolpert et al., 1998) processes, while the same parietal regions are known to integrate multimodal sensory feedback and support visuomotor transformations (Andersen & Buneo, 2002; Buneo & Andersen, 2006; Shadmehr & Holcomb, 1997; Toni, Ramnani, et al., 2001; Wolpert et al., 1998), in addition to working memory (Grover et al., 2022). Thus, it is not surprising that these regions increasingly contribute to decoding as subjects internalize the sequential task. We now include a statement reflecting these considerations in the revised Discussion.

A somewhat related point is this: when combining voxel and parcel space, a concern is whether a degree of circularity may have contributed to the improved accuracy of the combined data, because it seems to use the same MEG signals twice - the voxels most contributing are also those contributing most to a parcel being identified as relevant, as parcels reflect the average of voxels within a boundary. In this context, I struggled to understand the explanation given, ie that the improved accuracy of the hybrid model may be due to "lower spatially resolved whole-brain and higher spatially resolved regional activity patterns".

We disagree with the Reviewer’s assertion that the construction of the hybrid-space decoder is circular for the following reasons. First, the base feature set for the hybrid-space decoder constructed for all participants includes whole-brain spatial patterns of MEG source activity averaged within parcels. As stated in the manuscript, these 148 inter-parcel features reflect “lower spatially resolved whole-brain activity patterns” or global brain dynamics. We then independently test how well spatial patterns of MEG source activity for all voxels distributed within individual parcels can decode keypress actions. Again, the testing of these intra-parcel spatial patterns, intended to capture “higher spatially resolved regional brain activity patterns”, is completely independent from one another and independent from the weighting of individual inter-parcel features. These intra-parcel features could, for example, provide additional information about muscle activation patterns or the task environment. These approximately 1150 intra-parcel voxels (on average, within the total number varying between subjects) are then combined with the 148 inter-parcel features to construct the final hybrid-space decoder. In fact, this varied spatial filter approach shares some similarities to the construction of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) used to perform object recognition in image classification applications (Srinivas et al., 2016). One could also view this hybrid-space decoding approach as a spatial analogue to common timefrequency based analyses such as theta-gamma phase amplitude coupling (θ/γ PAC), which assess interactions between two or more narrow-band spectral features derived from the same time-series data (Lisman & Jensen, 2013).

We directly tested this hypothesis – that spatially overlapping intra- and inter-parcel features portray different information – by constructing an alternative hybrid-space decoder (Hybrid_Alt) that excluded average inter-parcel features which spatially overlapped with intra-parcel voxel features, and comparing the performance to the decoder used in the manuscript (Hybrid_Orig). The prediction was that if the overlapping parcel contained similar information to the more spatially resolved voxel patterns, then removing the parcel features (n=8) from the decoding analysis should not impact performance. In fact, despite making up less than 1% of the overall input feature space, removing those parcels resulted in a significant drop in overall performance greater than 2% (78.15% ± 7.03% SD for Hybrid_Orig vs. 75.49% ± 7.17% for Hybrid_Alt; Wilcoxon signed rank test, z = 3.7410, p = 1.8326e-04; Author response image 2).

Author response image 2.

Comparison of decoding performances with two different hybrid approaches. Hybrid_Alt: Intra-parcel voxel-space features of top ranked parcels and inter-parcel features of remaining parcels. Hybrid_Orig: Voxel-space features of top ranked parcels and whole-brain parcel-space features (i.e. – the version used in the manuscript). Dots represent decoding accuracy for individual subjects. Dashed lines indicate the trend in performance change across participants. Note, that Hybrid_Orig (the approach used in our manuscript) significantly outperforms the Hybrid_Alt approach, indicating that the excluded parcel features provide unique information compared to the spatially overlapping intra-parcel voxel patterns (end of figure legend).

Firstly, there will be a relatively high degree of spatial contiguity among voxels because of the nature of the signal measured, i.e. nearby individual voxels are unlikely to be independent. Secondly, the voxel data gives a somewhat misleading sense of precision; the inversion can be set up to give an estimate for each voxel, but there will not just be dependence among adjacent voxels, but also substantial variation in the sensitivity and confidence with which activity can be projected to different parts of the brain. Midline and deeper structures come to mind, where the inversion will be more problematic than for regions along the dorsal convexity of the brain, and a concern is that in those midline structures, the highest decoding accuracy is seen.

We agree with the Reviewer that some inter-parcel features representing neighboring (or spatially contiguous) voxels are likely to be correlated, an important confound in connectivity analyses (Colclough et al., 2015; Colclough et al., 2016), not performed in our investigation.

In our study, correlations between adjacent voxels effectively reduce the dimensionality of the input feature space. However, as long as there are multiple groups of correlated voxels within each parcel (i.e. – the rank is greater than 1), the intra-parcel spatial patterns could meaningfully contribute to the decoder performance, as shown by the following results:

First, we obtained higher decoding accuracy with voxel-space features (74.51% ± 7.34% SD) compared to parcel space features (68.77% ± 7.6%; Figure 3B), indicating individual voxels carry more information in decoding the keypresses than the averaged voxel-space features or parcel space features. Second, individual voxels within a parcel showed varying feature importance scores in decoding keypresses (Author response image 3). This finding shows that correlated voxels form mini subclusters that are much smaller spatially than the parcel they reside within.

Author response image 3.:

Feature importance score of individual voxels in decoding keypresses: MRMR was used to rank the individual voxel space features in decoding keypresses and the min-max normalized MRMR score was mapped to a structural brain surface. Note that individual voxels within a parcel showed different contribution to decoding (end of figure legend).

Some of these concerns could be addressed by recording head movement (with enough precision) to regress out these contributions. The authors state that head movement was monitored with 3 fiducials, and their time courses ought to provide a way to deal with this issue. The ICA procedure may not have sufficiently dealt with removing movement-related problems, but one could eg relate individual components that were identified to the keypresses as another means for checking. An alternative could be to focus on frequency ranges above the movement frequencies. The accuracy for those still seems impressive and may provide a slightly more biologically plausible assessment.

We have already addressed the issue of movement related artefacts in the first response above. With respect to a focus on frequency ranges above movement frequencies, the Reviewer states the “accuracy for those still seems impressive and may provide a slightly more biologically plausible assessment”. First, it is important to note that cortical delta-band oscillations measured with local field potentials (LFPs) in macaques is known to contain important information related to end-effector kinematics (Bansal et al., 2011; Mollazadeh et al., 2011) muscle activation patterns (Flint et al., 2012) and temporal sequencing (Churchland et al., 2012) during skilled reaching and grasping actions. Thus, there is a substantial body of evidence that low-frequency neural oscillatory activity in this range contains important information about the skill learning behavior investigated in the present study. Second, our own data shows (which the Reviewer also points out) that significant information related to the skill learning behavior is also present in higher frequency bands (see Figure 2A and Figure 3—figure supplement 1). As we pointed out in our earlier response to questions about the hybrid space decoder architecture (see above), it is likely that different, yet complimentary, information is encoded across different temporal frequencies (just as it is encoded across different spatial frequencies) (Heusser et al., 2016). Again, this interpretation is supported by our data as the highest performing classifiers in all cases (when holding all parameters constant) were always constructed from broadband input MEG data (Figure 2A and Figure 3—figure supplement 1).

One question concerns the interpretation of the results shown in Figure 4. They imply that during the course of learning, entirely different brain networks underpin the behaviour. Not only that, but they also include regions that would seem rather unexpected to be key nodes for learning and expressing relatively simple finger sequences, such as here. What then is the biological plausibility of these results? The authors seem to circumnavigate this issue by moving into a distance metric that captures the (neural network) changes over the course of learning, but the discussion seems detached from which regions are actually involved; or they offer a rather broad discussion of the anatomical regions identified here, eg in the context of LFOs, where they merely refer to "frontoparietal regions".

The Reviewer notes the shift in brain networks driving keypress decoding performance between trials 1, 11 and 36 as shown in Figure 4A. The Reviewer questions whether these shifts in brain network states underpinning the skill are biologically plausible, as well as the likelihood that bilateral superior and middle frontal and parietal cortex are important nodes within these networks.

First, previous fMRI work in humans assessed changes in functional connectivity patterns while participants performed a similar sequence learning task to our present study (Bassett et al., 2011). Using a dynamic network analysis approach, Bassett et al. showed that flexibility in the composition of individual network modules (i.e. – changes in functional brain region membership of orthogonal brain networks) is up-regulated in novel learning environments and explains differences in learning rates across individuals. Thus, consistent with our findings, it is likely that functional brain networks rapidly reconfigure during early learning of novel sequential motor skills.

Second, frontoparietal network activity is known to support motor memory encoding during early learning (Albouy et al., 2013; Albouy et al., 2012). For example, reactivation events in the posterior parietal (Qin et al., 1997) and medial prefrontal (Euston et al., 2007; Molle & Born, 2009) cortex (MPFC) have been temporally linked to hippocampal replay, and are posited to support memory consolidation across several memory domains (Frankland & Bontempi, 2005), including motor sequence learning (Albouy et al., 2015; Buch et al., 2021; F. Jacobacci et al., 2020). Further, synchronized interactions between MPFC and hippocampus are more prominent during early as opposed to later learning stages (Albouy et al., 2013; Gais et al., 2007; Sterpenich et al., 2009), perhaps reflecting “redistribution of hippocampal memories to MPFC” (Albouy et al., 2013). MPFC contributes to very early memory formation by learning association between contexts, locations, events and adaptive responses during rapid learning (Euston et al., 2012). Consistently, coupling between hippocampus and MPFC has been shown during initial memory encoding and during subsequent rest (van Kesteren et al., 2010; van Kesteren et al., 2012). Importantly, MPFC activity during initial memory encoding predicts subsequent recall (Wagner et al., 1998). Thus, the spatial map required to encode a motor sequence memory may be “built under the supervision of the prefrontal cortex” (Albouy et al., 2012), also engaged in the development of an abstract representation of the sequence (Ashe et al., 2006). In more abstract terms, the prefrontal, premotor and parietal cortices support novice performance “by deploying attentional and control processes” (Doyon et al., 2009; Hikosaka et al., 2002; Penhune & Steele, 2012) required during early learning (Doyon et al., 2009; Hikosaka et al., 2002; Penhune & Steele, 2012). The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex DLPFC specifically is thought to engage in goal selection and sequence monitoring during early skill practice (Schendan et al., 2003), all consistent with the schema model of declarative memory in which prefrontal cortices play an important role in encoding (Morris, 2006; Tse et al., 2007). Thus, several prefrontal and frontoparietal regions contributing to long term learning (Berlot et al., 2020) are also engaged in early stages of encoding. Altogether, there is strong biological support for the involvement of bilateral prefrontal and frontoparietal regions to decoding during early skill learning. We now address this issue in the revised manuscript.

If I understand correctly, the offline neural representation analysis is in essence the comparison of the last keypress vs the first keypress of the next sequence. In that sense, the activity during offline rest periods is actually not considered. This makes the nomenclature somewhat confusing. While it matches the behavioural analysis, having only key presses one can't do it in any other way, but here the authors actually do have recordings of brain activity during offline rest. So at the very least calling it offline neural representation is misleading to this reviewer because what is compared is activity during the last and during the next keypress, not activity during offline periods. But it also seems a missed opportunity - the authors argue that most of the relevant learning occurs during offline rest periods, yet there is no attempt to actually test whether activity during this period can be useful for the questions at hand here.

We agree with the Reviewer that our previous “offline neural representation” nomenclature could be misinterpreted. In the revised manuscript we refer to this difference as the “offline neural representational change”. Please, note that our previous work did link offline neural activity (i.e. – 16-22 Hz beta power (Bonstrup et al., 2019) and neural replay density (Buch et al., 2021) during inter-practice rest periods) to observed micro-offline gains.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary

Dash et al. asked whether and how the neural representation of individual finger movements is "contextualized" within a trained sequence during the very early period of sequential skill learning by using decoding of MEG signal. Specifically, they assessed whether/how the same finger presses (pressing index finger) embedded in the different ordinal positions of a practiced sequence (4-1-3-2-4; here, the numbers 1 through 4 correspond to the little through the index fingers of the non-dominant left hand) change their representation (MEG feature). They did this by computing either the decoding accuracy of the index finger at the ordinal positions 1 vs. 5 (index_OP1 vs index_OP5) or pattern distance between index_OP1 vs. index_OP5 at each training trial and found that both the decoding accuracy and the pattern distance progressively increase over the course of learning trials. More interestingly, they also computed the pattern distance for index_OP5 for the last execution of a practice trial vs. index_OP1 for the first execution in the next practice trial (i.e., across the rest period). This "off-line" distance was significantly larger than the "on-line" distance, which was computed within practice trials and predicted micro-offline skill gain. Based on these results, the authors conclude that the differentiation of representation for the identical movement embedded in different positions of a sequential skill ("contextualization") primarily occurs during early skill learning, especially during rest, consistent with the recent theory of the "micro-offline learning" proposed by the authors' group. I think this is an important and timely topic for the field of motor learning and beyond.

Strengths

The specific strengths of the current work are as follows. First, the use of temporally rich neural information (MEG signal) has a large advantage over previous studies testing sequential representations using fMRI. This allowed the authors to examine the earliest period (= the first few minutes of training) of skill learning with finer temporal resolution. Second, through the optimization of MEG feature extraction, the current study achieved extremely high decoding accuracy (approx. 94%) compared to previous works. As claimed by the authors, this is one of the strengths of the paper (but see my comments). Third, although some potential refinement might be needed, comparing "online" and "offline" pattern distance is a neat idea.

Weaknesses

Along with the strengths I raised above, the paper has some weaknesses. First, the pursuit of high decoding accuracy, especially the choice of time points and window length (i.e., 200 msec window starting from 0 msec from key press onset), casts a shadow on the interpretation of the main result. Currently, it is unclear whether the decoding results simply reflect behavioral change or true underlying neural change. As shown in the behavioral data, the key press speed reached 3~4 presses per second already at around the end of the early learning period (11th trial), which means inter-press intervals become as short as 250-330 msec. Thus, in almost more than 60% of training period data, the time window for MEG feature extraction (200 msec) spans around 60% of the inter-press intervals. Considering that the preparation/cueing of subsequent presses starts ahead of the actual press (e.g., Kornysheva et al., 2019) and/or potential online planning (e.g., Ariani and Diedrichsen, 2019), the decoder likely has captured these future press information as well as the signal related to the current key press, independent of the formation of genuine sequential representation (e.g., "contextualization" of individual press). This may also explain the gradual increase in decoding accuracy or pattern distance between index_OP1 vs. index_OP5 (Figure 4C and 5A), which co-occurred with performance improvement, as shorter inter-press intervals are more favorable for the dissociating the two index finger presses followed by different finger presses. The compromised decoding accuracies for the control sequences can be explained in similar logic. Therefore, more careful consideration and elaborated discussion seem necessary when trying to both achieve high-performance decoding and assess early skill learning, as it can impact all the subsequent analyses.

The Reviewer raises the possibility that (given the windowing parameters used in the present study) an increase in “contextualization” with learning could simply reflect faster typing speeds as opposed to an actual change in the underlying neural representation.

We now include a new control analysis that addresses this issue as well as additional re-examination of previously reported results with respect to this issue – all of which are inconsistent with this alternative explanation that “contextualization” reflects a change in mixing of keypress related MEG features as opposed to a change in the underlying representations themselves. As correct sequences are generated at higher and higher speeds over training, MEG activity patterns related to the planning, execution, evaluation and memory of individual keypresses overlap more in time. Thus, increased overlap between the “4” and “1” keypresses (at the start of the sequence) and “2” and “4” keypresses (at the end of the sequence) could artefactually increase contextualization distances even if the underlying neural representations for the individual keypresses remain unchanged. One must also keep in mind that since participants repeat the sequence multiple times within the same trial, a majority of the index finger keypresses are performed adjacent to one another (i.e. - the “4-4” transition marking the end of one sequence and the beginning of the next). Thus, increased overlap between consecutive index finger keypresses as typing speed increased should increase their similarity and mask contextualization related changes to the underlying neural representations.

We addressed this question by conducting a new multivariate regression analysis to directly assess whether the neural representation distance score could be predicted by the 4-1, 2-4 and 4-4 keypress transition times observed for each complete correct sequence (both predictor and response variables were z-score normalized within-subject). The results of this analysis also affirmed that the possible alternative explanation that contextualization effects are simple reflections of increased mixing is not supported by the data (Adjusted R² = 0.00431; F = 5.62). We now include this new negative control analysis in the revised manuscript.

We also re-examined our previously reported classification results with respect to this issue. We reasoned that if mixing effects reflecting the ordinal sequence structure is an important driver of the contextualization finding, these effects should be observable in the distribution of decoder misclassifications. For example, “4” keypresses would be more likely to be misclassified as “1” or “2” keypresses (or vice versa) than as “3” keypresses. The confusion matrices presented in Figures 3C and 4B and Figure 3—figure supplement 3A display a distribution of misclassifications that is inconsistent with an alternative mixing effect explanation of contextualization.

Based upon the increased overlap between adjacent index finger keypresses (i.e. – “4-4” transition), we also reasoned that the decoder tasked with separating individual index finger keypresses into two distinct classes based upon sequence position, should show decreased performance as typing speed increases. However, Figure 4C in our manuscript shows that this is not the case. The 2-class hybrid classifier actually displays improved classification performance over early practice trials despite greater temporal overlap. Again, this is inconsistent with the idea that the contextualization effect simply reflects increased mixing of individual keypress features.

In summary, both re-examination of previously reported data and new control analyses all converged on the idea that the proximity between keypresses does not explain contextualization.

We do agree with the Reviewer that the naturalistic, generative, self-paced task employed in the present study results in overlapping brain processes related to planning, execution, evaluation and memory of the action sequence. We also agree that there are several tradeoffs to consider in the construction of the classifiers depending on the study aim. Given our aim of optimizing keypress decoder accuracy in the present study, the set of trade-offs resulted in representations reflecting more the latter three processes, and less so the planning component. Whether separate decoders can be constructed to tease apart the representations or networks supporting these overlapping processes is an important future direction of research in this area. For example, work presently underway in our lab constrains the selection of windowing parameters in a manner that allows individual classifiers to be temporally linked to specific planning, execution, evaluation or memory-related processes to discern which brain networks are involved and how they adaptively reorganize with learning. Results from the present study (Figure 4—figure supplement 2) showing hybrid-space decoder prediction accuracies exceeding 74% for temporal windows spanning as little as 25ms and located up to 100ms prior to the KeyDown event strongly support the feasibility of such an approach.

Related to the above point, testing only one particular sequence (4-1-3-2-4), aside from the control ones, limits the generalizability of the finding. This also may have contributed to the extremely high decoding accuracy reported in the current study.

The Reviewer raises a question about the generalizability of the decoder accuracy reported in our study. Fortunately, a comparison between decoder performances on Day 1 and Day 2 datasets does provide insight into this issue. As the Reviewer points out, the classifiers in this study were trained and tested on keypresses performed while practicing a specific sequence (4-1-3-2-4). The study was designed this way as to avoid the impact of interference effects on learning dynamics. The cross-validated performance of classifiers on MEG data collected within the same session was 90.47% overall accuracy (4-class; Figure 3C). We then tested classifier performance on data collected during a separate MEG session conducted approximately 24 hours later (Day 2; see Figure 3 — figure supplement 3). We observed a reduction in overall accuracy rate to 87.11% when tested on MEG data recorded while participants performed the same learned sequence, and 79.44% when they performed several previously unpracticed sequences. Both changes in accuracy are important with regards to the generalizability of our findings. First, 87.11% performance accuracy for the trained sequence data on Day 2 (a reduction of only 3.36%) indicates that the hybrid-space decoder performance is robust over multiple MEG sessions, and thus, robust to variations in SNR across the MEG sensor array caused by small differences in head position between scans. This indicates a substantial advantage over sensor-space decoding approaches. Furthermore, when tested on data from unpracticed sequences, overall performance dropped an additional 7.67%. This difference reflects the performance bias of the classifier for the trained sequence, possibly caused by high-order sequence structure being incorporated into the feature weights. In the future, it will be important to understand in more detail how random or repeated keypress sequence training data impacts overall decoder performance and generalization. We strongly agree with the Reviewer that the issue of generalizability is extremely important and have added a new paragraph to the Discussion in the revised manuscript highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of our study with respect to this issue.

In terms of clinical BCI, one of the potential relevance of the study, as claimed by the authors, it is not clear that the specific time window chosen in the current study (up to 200 msec since key press onset) is really useful. In most cases, clinical BCI would target neural signals with no overt movement execution due to patients' inability to move (e.g., Hochberg et al., 2012). Given the time window, the surprisingly high performance of the current decoder may result from sensory feedback and/or planning of subsequent movement, which may not always be available in the clinical BCI context. Of course, the decoding accuracy is still much higher than chance even when using signal before the key press (as shown in Figure 4 Supplement 2), but it is not immediately clear to me that the authors relate their high decoding accuracy based on post-movement signal to clinical BCI settings.

The Reviewer questions the relevance of the specific window parameters used in the present study for clinical BCI applications, particularly for paretic patients who are unable to produce finger movements or for whom afferent sensory feedback is no longer intact. We strongly agree with the Reviewer that any intended clinical application must carefully consider the specific input feature constraints dictated by the clinical cohort, and in turn impose appropriate and complimentary constraints on classifier parameters that may differ from the ones used in the present study. We now highlight this issue in the Discussion of the revised manuscript and relate our present findings to published clinical BCI work within this context.

One of the important and fascinating claims of the current study is that the "contextualization" of individual finger movements in a trained sequence specifically occurs during short rest periods in very early skill learning, echoing the recent theory of micro-offline learning proposed by the authors' group. Here, I think two points need to be clarified. First, the concept of "contextualization" is kept somewhat blurry throughout the text. It is only at the later part of the Discussion (around line #330 on page 13) that some potential mechanism for the "contextualization" is provided as "what-and-where" binding. Still, it is unclear what "contextualization" actually is in the current data, as the MEG signal analyzed is extracted from 0-200 msec after the keypress. If one thinks something is contextualizing an action, that contextualization should come earlier than the action itself.

The Reviewer requests that we: 1) more clearly define our use of the term “contextualization” and 2) provide the rationale for assessing it over a 200ms window aligned to the KeyDown event. This choice of window parameters means that the MEG activity used in our analysis was coincident with, rather than preceding, the actual keypresses. We define contextualization as the differentiation of representation for the identical movement embedded in different positions of a sequential skill. That is, representations of individual action elements progressively incorporate information about their relationship to the overall sequence structure as the skill is learned. We agree with the Reviewer that this can be appropriately interpreted as “what-and-where” binding. We now incorporate this definition in the Introduction of the revised manuscript as requested.

The window parameters for optimizing accurate decoding individual finger movements were determined using a grid search of the parameter space (a sliding window of variable width between 25-350 ms with 25 ms increments variably aligned from 0 to +100ms with 10ms increments relative to the KeyDown event). This approach generated 140 different temporal windows for each keypress for each participant, with the final parameter selection determined through comparison of the resulting performance between each decoder. Importantly, the decision to optimize for decoding accuracy placed an emphasis on keypress representations characterized by the most consistent and robust features shared across subjects, which in turn maximize statistical power in detecting common learning-related changes. In this case, the optimal window encompassed a 200ms epoch aligned to the KeyDown event (t₀ = 0 ms). We then asked if the representations (i.e. – spatial patterns of combined parcel- and voxel-space activity) of the same digit at two different sequence positions changed with practice within this optimal decoding window. Of course, our findings do not rule out the possibility that contextualization can also be found before or even after this time window, as we did not directly address this issue in the present study. Future work in our lab, as pointed out above, are investigating contextualization within different time windows tailored specifically for assessing sequence skill action planning, execution, evaluation and memory processes.

The second point is that the result provided by the authors is not yet convincing enough to support the claim that "contextualization" occurs during rest. In the original analysis, the authors presented the statistical significance regarding the correlation between the "offline" pattern differentiation and micro-offline skill gain (Figure 5. Supplement 1), as well as the larger "offline" distance than "online" distance (Figure 5B). However, this analysis looks like regressing two variables (monotonically) increasing as a function of the trial. Although some information in this analysis, such as what the independent/dependent variables were or how individual subjects were treated, was missing in the Methods, getting a statistically significant slope seems unsurprising in such a situation. Also, curiously, the same quantitative evidence was not provided for its "online" counterpart, and the authors only briefly mentioned in the text that there was no significant correlation between them. It may be true looking at the data in Figure 5A as the online representation distance looks less monotonically changing, but the classification accuracy presented in Figure 4C, which should reflect similar representational distance, shows a more monotonic increase up to the 11th trial. Further, the ways the "online" and "offline" representation distance was estimated seem to make them not directly comparable. While the "online" distance was computed using all the correct press data within each 10 sec of execution, the "offline" distance is basically computed by only two presses (i.e., the last index_OP5 vs. the first index_OP1 separated by 10 sec of rest). Theoretically, the distance between the neural activity patterns for temporally closer events tends to be closer than that between the patterns for temporally far-apart events. It would be fairer to use the distance between the first index_OP1 vs. the last index_OP5 within an execution period for "online" distance, as well.

The Reviewer suggests that the current data is not enough to show that contextualization occurs during rest and raises two important concerns: 1) the relationship between online contextualization and micro-online gains is not shown, and 2) the online distance was calculated differently from its offline counterpart (i.e. - instead of calculating the distance between last Index_OP5 and first Index_OP1 from a single trial, the distance was calculated for each sequence within a trial and then averaged).

We addressed the first concern by performing individual subject correlations between 1) contextualization changes during rest intervals and micro-offline gains; 2) contextualization changes during practice trials and micro-online gains, and 3) contextualization changes during practice trials and micro-offline gains (Figure 5 – figure supplement 4). We then statistically compared the resulting correlation coefficient distributions and found that within-subject correlations for contextualization changes during rest intervals and micro-offline gains were significantly higher than online contextualization and micro-online gains (t = 3.2827, p = 0.0015) and online contextualization and micro-offline gains (t = 3.7021, p = 5.3013e-04). These results are consistent with our interpretation that micro-offline gains are supported by contextualization changes during the inter-practice rest periods.

With respect to the second concern, we agree with the Reviewer that one limitation of the analysis comparing online versus offline changes in contextualization as presented in the original manuscript, is that it does not eliminate the possibility that any differences could simply be explained by the passage of time (which is smaller for the online analysis compared to the offline analysis). The Reviewer suggests an approach that addresses this issue, which we have now carried out. When quantifying online changes in contextualization from the first Index_OP1 the last Index_OP5 keypress in the same trial we observed no learning-related trend (Figure 5 – figure supplement 5, right panel). Importantly, offline distances were significantly larger than online distances regardless of the measurement approach and neither predicted online learning (Figure 5 – figure supplement 6).

A related concern regarding the control analysis, where individual values for max speed and the degree of online contextualization were compared (Figure 5 Supplement 3), is whether the individual difference is meaningful. If I understood correctly, the optimization of the decoding process (temporal window, feature inclusion/reduction, decoder, etc.) was performed for individual participants, and the same feature extraction was also employed for the analysis of representation distance (i.e., contextualization). If this is the case, the distances are individually differently calculated and they may need to be normalized relative to some stable reference (e.g., 1 vs. 4 or average distance within the control sequence presses) before comparison across the individuals.

The Reviewer makes a good point here. We have now implemented the suggested normalization procedure in the analysis provided in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

One goal of this paper is to introduce a new approach for highly accurate decoding of finger movements from human magnetoencephalography data via dimension reduction of a "multiscale, hybrid" feature space. Following this decoding approach, the authors aim to show that early skill learning involves "contextualization" of the neural coding of individual movements, relative to their position in a sequence of consecutive movements. Furthermore, they aim to show that this "contextualization" develops primarily during short rest periods interspersed with skill training and correlates with a performance metric which the authors interpret as an indicator of offline learning.

Strengths:

A clear strength of the paper is the innovative decoding approach, which achieves impressive decoding accuracies via dimension reduction of a "multi-scale, hybrid space". This hybrid-space approach follows the neurobiologically plausible idea of the concurrent distribution of neural coding across local circuits as well as large-scale networks. A further strength of the study is the large number of tested dimension reduction techniques and classifiers (though the manuscript reveals little about the comparison of the latter).

We appreciate the Reviewer’s comments regarding the paper’s strengths.

A simple control analysis based on shuffled class labels could lend further support to this complex decoding approach. As a control analysis that completely rules out any source of overfitting, the authors could test the decoder after shuffling class labels. Following such shuffling, decoding accuracies should drop to chance level for all decoding approaches, including the optimized decoder. This would also provide an estimate of actual chance-level performance (which is informative over and beyond the theoretical chance level). Furthermore, currently, the manuscript does not explain the huge drop in decoding accuracies for the voxel-space decoding (Figure 3B). Finally, the authors' approach to cortical parcellation raises questions regarding the information carried by varying dipole orientations within a parcel (which currently seems to be ignored?) and the implementation of the mean-flipping method (given that there are two dimensions - space and time - what do the authors refer to when they talk about the sign of the "average source", line 477?).

The Reviewer recommends that we: 1) conduct an additional control analysis on classifier performance using shuffled class labels, 2) provide a more detailed explanation regarding the drop in decoding accuracies for the voxel-space decoding following LDA dimensionality reduction (see Fig 3B), and 3) provide additional details on how problems related to dipole solution orientations were addressed in the present study.

In relation to the first point, we have now implemented a random shuffling approach as a control for the classification analyses. The results of this analysis indicated that the chance level accuracy was 22.12% (± SD 9.1%) for individual keypress decoding (4-class classification), and 18.41% (± SD 7.4%) for individual sequence item decoding (5-class classification), irrespective of the input feature set or the type of decoder used. Thus, the decoding accuracy observed with the final model was substantially higher than these chance levels.

Second, please note that the dimensionality of the voxel-space feature set is very high (i.e. – 15684). LDA attempts to map the input features onto a much smaller dimensional space (number of classes – 1; e.g. – 3 dimensions, for 4-class keypress decoding). Given the very high dimension of the voxel-space input features in this case, the resulting mapping exhibits reduced accuracy. Despite this general consideration, please refer to Figure 3—figure supplement 3, where we observe improvement in voxel-space decoder performance when utilizing alternative dimensionality reduction techniques.

The decoders constructed in the present study assess the average spatial patterns across time (as defined by the windowing procedure) in the input feature space. We now provide additional details in the Methods of the revised manuscript pertaining to the parcellation procedure and how the sign ambiguity problem was addressed in our analysis.

Weaknesses:

A clear weakness of the paper lies in the authors' conclusions regarding "contextualization". Several potential confounds, described below, question the neurobiological implications proposed by the authors and provide a simpler explanation of the results. Furthermore, the paper follows the assumption that short breaks result in offline skill learning, while recent evidence, described below, casts doubt on this assumption.

We thank the Reviewer for giving us the opportunity to address these issues in detail (see below).

The authors interpret the ordinal position information captured by their decoding approach as a reflection of neural coding dedicated to the local context of a movement (Figure 4). One way to dissociate ordinal position information from information about the moving effectors is to train a classifier on one sequence and test the classifier on other sequences that require the same movements, but in different positions (Kornysheva et al., 2019). In the present study, however, participants trained to repeat a single sequence (4-1-3-2-4). As a result, ordinal position information is potentially confounded by the fixed finger transitions around each of the two critical positions (first and fifth press). Across consecutive correct sequences, the first keypress in a given sequence was always preceded by a movement of the index finger (=last movement of the preceding sequence), and followed by a little finger movement. The last keypress, on the other hand, was always preceded by a ring finger movement, and followed by an index finger movement (=first movement of the next sequence). Figure 4 - Supplement 2 shows that finger identity can be decoded with high accuracy (>70%) across a large time window around the time of the key press, up to at least +/-100 ms (and likely beyond, given that decoding accuracy is still high at the boundaries of the window depicted in that figure). This time window approaches the keypress transition times in this study. Given that distinct finger transitions characterized the first and fifth keypress, the classifier could thus rely on persistent (or "lingering") information from the preceding finger movement, and/or "preparatory" information about the subsequent finger movement, in order to dissociate the first and fifth keypress. Currently, the manuscript provides no evidence that the context information captured by the decoding approach is more than a by-product of temporally extended, and therefore overlapping, but independent neural representations of consecutive keypresses that are executed in close temporal proximity - rather than a neural representation dedicated to context.

Such temporal overlap of consecutive, independent finger representations may also account for the dynamics of "ordinal coding"/"contextualization", i.e., the increase in 2-class decoding accuracy, across Day 1 (Figure 4C). As learning progresses, both tapping speed and the consistency of keypress transition times increase (Figure 1), i.e., consecutive keypresses are closer in time, and more consistently so. As a result, information related to a given keypress is increasingly overlapping in time with information related to the preceding and subsequent keypresses. The authors seem to argue that their regression analysis in Figure 5 - Figure Supplement 3 speaks against any influence of tapping speed on "ordinal coding" (even though that argument is not made explicitly in the manuscript). However, Figure 5 - Figure Supplement 3 shows inter-individual differences in a between-subject analysis (across trials, as in panel A, or separately for each trial, as in panel B), and, therefore, says little about the within-subject dynamics of "ordinal coding" across the experiment. A regression of trial-by-trial "ordinal coding" on trial-by-trial tapping speed (either within-subject or at a group-level, after averaging across subjects) could address this issue. Given the highly similar dynamics of "ordinal coding" on the one hand (Figure 4C), and tapping speed on the other hand (Figure 1B), I would expect a strong relationship between the two in the suggested within-subject (or group-level) regression. Furthermore, learning should increase the number of (consecutively) correct sequences, and, thus, the consistency of finger transitions. Therefore, the increase in 2-class decoding accuracy may simply reflect an increasing overlap in time of increasingly consistent information from consecutive keypresses, which allows the classifier to dissociate the first and fifth keypress more reliably as learning progresses, simply based on the characteristic finger transitions associated with each. In other words, given that the physical context of a given keypress changes as learning progresses - keypresses move closer together in time and are more consistently correct - it seems problematic to conclude that the mental representation of that context changes. To draw that conclusion, the physical context should remain stable (or any changes to the physical context should be controlled for).

The issues raised by Reviewer #3 here are similar to two issues raised by Reviewer #2 above. We agree they must both be carefully considered in any evaluation of our findings.

As both Reviewers pointed out, the classifiers in this study were trained and tested on keypresses performed while practicing a specific sequence (4-1-3-2-4). The study was designed this way as to avoid the impact of interference effects on learning dynamics. The cross-validated performance of classifiers on MEG data collected within the same session was 90.47% overall accuracy (4class; Figure 3C). We then tested classifier performance on data collected during a separate MEG session conducted approximately 24 hours later (Day 2; see Figure 3—supplement 3). We observed a reduction in overall accuracy rate to 87.11% when tested on MEG data recorded while participants performed the same learned sequence, and 79.44% when they performed several previously unpracticed sequences. This classification performance difference of 7.67% when tested on the Day 2 data could reflect the performance bias of the classifier for the trained sequence, possibly caused by mixed information from temporally close keypresses being incorporated into the feature weights.

Along these same lines, both Reviewers also raise the possibility that an increase in “ordinal coding/contextualization” with learning could simply reflect an increase in this mixing effect caused by faster typing speeds as opposed to an actual change in the underlying neural representation. The basic idea is that as correct sequences are generated at higher and higher speeds over training, MEG activity patterns related to the planning, execution, evaluation and memory of individual keypresses overlap more in time. Thus, increased overlap between the “4” and “1” keypresses (at the start of the sequence) and “2” and “4” keypresses (at the end of the sequence) could artefactually increase contextualization distances even if the underlying neural representations for the individual keypresses remain unchanged (assuming this mixing of representations is used by the classifier to differentially tag each index finger press). If this were the case, it follows that such mixing effects reflecting the ordinal sequence structure would also be observable in the distribution of decoder misclassifications. For example, “4” keypresses would be more likely to be misclassified as “1” or “2” keypresses (or vice versa) than as “3” keypresses. The confusion matrices presented in Figures 3C and 4B and Figure 3—figure supplement 3A in the previously submitted manuscript do not show this trend in the distribution of misclassifications across the four fingers.

Following this logic, it’s also possible that if the ordinal coding is largely driven by this mixing effect, the increased overlap between consecutive index finger keypresses during the 4-4 transition marking the end of one sequence and the beginning of the next one could actually mask contextualization-related changes to the underlying neural representations and make them harder to detect. In this case, a decoder tasked with separating individual index finger keypresses into two distinct classes based upon sequence position might show decreased performance with learning as adjacent keypresses overlapped in time with each other to an increasing extent. However, Figure 4C in our previously submitted manuscript does not support this possibility, as the 2-class hybrid classifier displays improved classification performance over early practice trials despite greater temporal overlap.

As noted in the above reply to Reviewer #2, we also conducted a new multivariate regression analysis to directly assess whether the neural representation distance score could be predicted by the 4-1, 2-4 and 4-4 keypress transition times observed for each complete correct sequence (both predictor and response variables were z-score normalized within-subject). The results of this analysis affirmed that the possible alternative explanation put forward by the Reviewer is not supported by our data (Adjusted R² = 0.00431; F = 5.62). We now include this new negative control analysis result in the revised manuscript.

Finally, the Reviewer hints that one way to address this issue would be to compare MEG responses before and after learning for sequences typed at a fixed speed. However, given that the speed-accuracy trade-off should improve with learning, a comparison between unlearned and learned skill states would dictate that the skill be evaluated at a very low fixed speed. Essentially, such a design presents the problem that the post-training test is evaluating the representation in the unlearned behavioral state that is not representative of the acquired skill. Thus, this approach would miss most learning effects on a task in which speed is the main learning metrics.

A similar difference in physical context may explain why neural representation distances ("differentiation") differ between rest and practice (Figure 5). The authors define "offline differentiation" by comparing the hybrid space features of the last index finger movement of a trial (ordinal position 5) and the first index finger movement of the next trial (ordinal position 1). However, the latter is not only the first movement in the sequence but also the very first movement in that trial (at least in trials that started with a correct sequence), i.e., not preceded by any recent movement. In contrast, the last index finger of the last correct sequence in the preceding trial includes the characteristic finger transition from the fourth to the fifth movement. Thus, there is more overlapping information arising from the consistent, neighbouring keypresses for the last index finger movement, compared to the first index finger movement of the next trial. A strong difference (larger neural representation distance) between these two movements is, therefore, not surprising, given the task design, and this difference is also expected to increase with learning, given the increase in tapping speed, and the consequent stronger overlap in representations for consecutive keypresses. Furthermore, initiating a new sequence involves pre-planning, while ongoing practice relies on online planning (Ariani et al., eNeuro 2021), i.e., two mental operations that are dissociable at the level of neural representation (Ariani et al., bioRxiv 2023).

The Reviewer argues that the comparison of last finger movement of a trial and the first in the next trial are performed in different circumstances and contexts. This is an important point and one we tend to agree with. For this task, the first sequence in a practice trial is pre-planned before the first keypress is performed. This occurs in a somewhat different context from the sequence iterations that follow, which involve temporally overlapping planning, execution and evaluation processes. The Reviewer is concerned about a difference in the temporal mixing effect issue raised above between the first and last keypresses performed in a trial. Please, note that since neural representations of individual actions are competitively queued during the pre-planning period in a manner that reflects the ordinal structure of the learned sequence (Kornysheva et al., 2019), mixing effects are most likely present also for the first keypress in a trial.

Separately, the Reviewer suggests that contextualization during early learning may reflect preplanning or online planning. This is an interesting proposal. Given the decoding time-window used in this investigation, we cannot dissect separate contributions of planning, memory and sensory feedback to contextualization. Taking advantage of the superior temporal resolution of MEG relative to fMRI tools, work under way in our lab is investigating decoding time-windows more appropriate to address each of these questions.

Given these differences in the physical context and associated mental processes, it is not surprising that "offline differentiation", as defined here, is more pronounced than "online differentiation". For the latter, the authors compared movements that were better matched regarding the presence of consistent preceding and subsequent keypresses (online differentiation was defined as the mean difference between all first vs. last index finger movements during practice). It is unclear why the authors did not follow a similar definition for "online differentiation" as for "micro-online gains" (and, indeed, a definition that is more consistent with their definition of "offline differentiation"), i.e., the difference between the first index finger movement of the first correct sequence during practice, and the last index finger of the last correct sequence. While these two movements are, again, not matched for the presence of neighbouring keypresses (see the argument above), this mismatch would at least be the same across "offline differentiation" and "online differentiation", so they would be more comparable.

This is the same point made earlier by Reviewer #2, and we agree with this assessment. As stated in the response to Reviewer #2 above, we have now carried out quantification of online contextualization using this approach and included it in the revised manuscript. We thank the Reviewer for this suggestion.

A further complication in interpreting the results regarding "contextualization" stems from the visual feedback that participants received during the task. Each keypress generated an asterisk shown above the string on the screen, irrespective of whether the keypress was correct or incorrect. As a result, incorrect (e.g., additional, or missing) keypresses could shift the phase of the visual feedback string (of asterisks) relative to the ordinal position of the current movement in the sequence (e.g., the fifth movement in the sequence could coincide with the presentation of any asterisk in the string, from the first to the fifth). Given that more incorrect keypresses are expected at the start of the experiment, compared to later stages, the consistency in visual feedback position, relative to the ordinal position of the movement in the sequence, increased across the experiment. A better differentiation between the first and the fifth movement with learning could, therefore, simply reflect better decoding of the more consistent visual feedback, based either on the feedback-induced brain response, or feedback-induced eye movements (the study did not include eye tracking). It is not clear why the authors introduced this complicated visual feedback in their task, besides consistency with their previous studies.

We strongly agree with the Reviewer that eye movements related to task engagement are important to rule out as a potential driver of the decoding accuracy or contextualizaton effect. We address this issue above in response to a question raised by Reviewer #1 about the impact of movement related artefacts on our findings.

First, the assumption the Reviewer makes here about the distribution of errors in this task is incorrect. On average across subjects, 2.32% ± 1.48% (mean ± SD) of all keypresses performed were errors, which were evenly distributed across the four possible keypress responses. While errors increased progressively over practice trials, they did so in proportion to the increase in correct keypresses, so that the overall ratio of correct-to-incorrect keypresses remained stable over the training session. Thus, the Reviewer’s assumptions that there is a higher relative frequency of errors in early trials, and a resulting systematic trend phase shift differences between the visual display updates (i.e. – a change in asterisk position above the displayed sequence) and the keypress performed is not substantiated by the data. To the contrary, the asterisk position on the display and the keypress being executed remained highly correlated over the entire training session. We now include a statement about the frequency and distribution of errors in the revised manuscript.

Given this high correlation, we firmly agree with the Reviewer that the issue of eye movement related artefacts is still an important one to address. Fortunately, we did collect eye movement data during the MEG recordings so were able to investigate this. As detailed in the response to Reviewer #1 above, we found that gaze positions and eye-movement velocity time-locked to visual display updates (i.e. – a change in asterisk position above the displayed sequence) did not reflect the asterisk location above chance levels (Overall cross-validated accuracy = 0.21817; see Author response image 1). Furthermore, an inspection of the eye position data revealed that most participants on most trials displayed random walk gaze patterns around a center fixation point, indicating that participants did not attend to the asterisk position on the display. This is consistent with intrinsic generation of the action sequence, and congruent with the fact that the display does not provide explicit feedback related to performance. As pointed out above, a similar real-world example would be manually inputting a long password into a secure online application. In this case, one intrinsically generates the sequence from memory and receives similar feedback about the password sequence position (also provided as asterisks), which is typically ignored by the user.

The minimal participant engagement with the visual display in this explicit sequence learning motor task (which is highly generative in nature) contrasts markedly with behavior observed when reactive responses to stimulus cues are needed in the serial reaction time task (SRTT). This is a crucial difference that must be carefully considered when comparing findings across studies using the two sequence learning tasks.

The authors report a significant correlation between "offline differentiation" and cumulative microoffline gains. However, it would be more informative to correlate trial-by-trial changes in each of the two variables. This would address the question of whether there is a trial-by-trial relation between the degree of "contextualization" and the amount of micro-offline gains - are performance changes (micro-offline gains) less pronounced across rest periods for which the change in "contextualization" is relatively low? Furthermore, is the relationship between micro-offline gains and "offline differentiation" significantly stronger than the relationship between micro-offline gains and "online differentiation"?

In response to a similar issue raised above by Reviewer #2, we now include new analyses comparing correlation magnitudes between (1) “online differentiation” vs micro-online gains, (2) “online differentiation” vs micro-offline gains and (3) “offline differentiation” and micro-offline gains (see Figure 5 – figure supplement  4, 5 and 6). These new analyses and results have been added to the revised manuscript. Once again, we thank both Reviewers for this suggestion.

The authors follow the assumption that micro-offline gains reflect offline learning.

We disagree with this statement. The original (Bonstrup et al., 2019) paper clearly states that micro-offline gains do not necessarily reflect offline learning in some cases and must be carefully interpreted based upon the behavioral context within which they are observed. Further, the paper lays out the conditions under which one can have confidence that micro-offline gains reflect offline learning. In fact, the excellent meta-analysis of (Pan & Rickard, 2015), which re-interprets the benefits of sleep in overnight skill consolidation from a “reactive inhibition” perspective, was a crucial resource in the experimental design of our initial study (Bonstrup et al., 2019), as well as in all our subsequent work. Pan & Rickard state:

“Empirically, reactive inhibition refers to performance worsening that can accumulate during a period of continuous training (Hull, 1943 . It tends to dissipate, at least in part, when brief breaks are inserted between blocks of training. If there are multiple performance-break cycles over a training session, as in the motor sequence literature, performance can exhibit a scalloped effect, worsening during each uninterrupted performance block but improving across blocks(Brawn et al., 2010; Rickard et al., 2008 . Rickard, Cai, Rieth, Jones, and Ard (2008 and Brawn, Fenn, Nusbaum, and Margoliash (2010 (Brawn et al., 2010; Rickard et al., 2008 demonstrated highly robust scalloped reactive inhibition effects using the commonly employed 30 s–30 s performance break cycle, as shown for Rickard et al.’s (2008 massed practice sleep group in Figure 2. The scalloped effect is evident for that group after the first few 30 s blocks of each session. The absence of the scalloped effect during the first few blocks of training in the massed group suggests that rapid learning during that period masks any reactive inhibition effect.”

Crucially, Pan & Rickard make several concrete recommendations for reducing the impact of the reactive inhibition confound on offline learning studies. One of these recommendations was to reduce practice times to 10s (most prior sequence learning studies up until that point had employed 30s long practice trials). They state:

“The traditional design involving 30 s-30 s performance break cycles should be abandoned given the evidence that it results in a reactive inhibition confound, and alternative designs with reduced performance duration per block used instead (Pan & Rickard, 2015 . One promising possibility is to switch to 10 s performance durations for each performance-break cycle Instead (Pan & Rickard, 2015 . That design appears sufficient to eliminate at least the majority of the reactive inhibition effect (Brawn et al., 2010; Rickard et al., 2008 .”

We mindfully incorporated recommendations from (Pan & Rickard, 2015) into our own study designs including 1) utilizing 10s practice trials and 2) constraining our analysis of micro-offline gains to early learning trials (where performance monotonically increases and 95% of overall performance gains occur), which are prior to the emergence of the “scalloped” performance dynamics that are strongly linked to reactive inhibition effects.

However, there is no direct evidence in the literature that micro-offline gains really result from offline learning, i.e., an improvement in skill level.

We strongly disagree with the Reviewer’s assertion that “there is no direct evidence in the literature that micro-offline gains really result from offline learning, i.e., an improvement in skill level.” The initial (Bonstrup et al., 2019) report was followed up by a large online crowd-sourcing study (Bonstrup et al., 2020). This second (and much larger) study provided several additional important findings supporting our interpretation of micro-offline gains in cases where the important behavioral conditions clarified above were met (see Author response image 4 below for further details on these conditions).

Author response image 4.

This Figure shows that micro-offline gains o ser ed in learning and nonlearning contexts are attri uted to different underl ing causes. Micro-offline and online changes relative to overall trial-by-trial learning. This figure is based on data from (Bonstrup et al., 2019). During early learning, micro-offline gains (red bars) closely track trial-by-trial performance gains (green line with open circle markers), with minimal contribution from micro-online gains (blue bars). The stated conclusion in Bönstrup et al. (2019) is that micro-offline gains only during this Early Learning stage reflect rapid memory consolidation (see also (Bonstrup et al., 2020)). After early learning, about practice trial 11, skill plateaus. This plateau skill period is characterized by a striking emergence of coupled (and relatively stable) micro-online drops and micro-offline increases. Bönstrup et al. (2019) as well as others in the literature (Brooks et al., 2024; Gupta & Rickard, 2022; Florencia Jacobacci et al., 2020), argue that micro-offline gains during the plateau period likely reflect recovery from inhibitory performance factors such as reactive inhibition or fatigue, and thus must be excluded from analyses relating micro-offline gains to skill learning. The Non-repeating groups in Experiments 3 and 4 from Das et al. (2024) suffer from a lack of consideration of these known confounds (end of Fig legend).

Evidence documented in that paper (Bonstrup et al., 2020) showed that micro-offline gains during early skill learning were: 1) replicable and generalized to subjects learning the task in their daily living environment (n=389); 2) equivalent when significantly shortening practice period duration, thus confirming that they are not a result of recovery from performance fatigue (n=118); 3) reduced (along with learning rates) by retroactive interference applied immediately after each practice period relative to interference applied after passage of time (n=373), indicating stabilization of the motor memory at a microscale of several seconds consistent with rapid consolidation; and 4) not modified by random termination of the practice periods, ruling out a contribution of predictive motor slowing (N = 71) (Bonstrup et al., 2020). Altogether, our findings were strongly consistent with the interpretation that micro-offline gains reflect memory consolidation supporting early skill learning. This is precisely the portion of the learning curve (Pan & Rickard, 2015) refer to when they state “…rapid learning during that period masks any reactive inhibition effect”.

This interpretation is further supported by brain imaging evidence linking known memory-related networks and consolidation mechanisms to micro-offline gains. First, we reported that the density of fast hippocampo-neocortical skill memory replay events increases approximately three-fold during early learning inter-practice rest periods with the density explaining differences in the magnitude of micro-offline gains across subjects (Buch et al., 2021). Second, Jacobacci et al. (2020) independently reproduced our original behavioral findings and reported BOLD fMRI changes in the hippocampus and precuneus (regions also identified in our MEG study (Buch et al., 2021)) linked to micro-offline gains during early skill learning. These functional changes were coupled with rapid alterations in brain microstructure in the order of minutes, suggesting that the same network that operates during rest periods of early learning undergoes structural plasticity over several minutes following practice (Deleglise et al., 2023). Crucial to this point, Chen et al. (2024) and Sjøgård et al (2024) provided direct evidence from intracranial EEG in humans linking sharp-wave ripple density during rest periods (which are known markers for neural replay (Buzsaki, 2015)) in the human hippocampus (80-120 Hz) to micro-offline gains during early skill learning.

Thus, there is now substantial converging evidence in humans across different indirect noninvasive and direct invasive recording techniques linking hippocampal activity, neural replay dynamics and offline performance gains in skill learning.

On the contrary, recent evidence questions this interpretation (Gupta & Rickard, npj Sci Learn 2022; Gupta & Rickard, Sci Rep 2024; Das et al., bioRxiv 2024). Instead, there is evidence that micro-offline gains are transient performance benefits that emerge when participants train with breaks, compared to participants who train without breaks, however, these benefits vanish within seconds after training if both groups of participants perform under comparable conditions (Das et al., bioRxiv 2024).

The recent work of (Gupta & Rickard, 2022, 2024) does not present any data that directly opposes our finding that early skill learning (Bonstrup et al., 2019) is expressed as micro-offline gains during rest breaks. These studies are an extension of the Rickard et al (2008) paper that employed a massed (30s practice followed by 30s breaks) vs spaced (10s practice followed by 10s breaks) experimental design to assess if recovery from reactive inhibition effects could account for performance gains measured after several minutes or hours. Gupta & Rickard (2022) added two additional groups (30s practice/10s break and 10s practice/10s break as used in the work from our group). The primary aim of the study was to assess whether it was more likely that changes in performance when retested 5 minutes after skill training (consisting of 12 practice trials for the massed groups and 36 practice trials for the spaced groups) had ended reflected memory consolidation effects or recovery from reactive inhibition effects. The Gupta & Rickard (2024) follow-up paper employed a similar design with the primary difference being that participants performed a fixed number of sequences on each trial as opposed to trials lasting a fixed duration. This was done to facilitate the fitting of a quantitative statistical model to the data.

To reiterate, neither study included any analysis of micro-online or micro-offline gains and did not include any comparison focused on skill gains during early learning trials (only at retest 5 min later). Instead, Gupta & Rickard (2022), reported evidence for reactive inhibition effects for all groups over much longer training periods than early learning. In fact, we reported the same findings for trials following the early learning period in our original 2019 paper (Bonstrup et al., 2019) (Author response image 4). Please, note that we also reported that cumulative microoffline gains over early learning did not correlate with overnight offline consolidation measured 24 hours later (Bonstrup et al., 2019) (see the Results section and further elaboration in the Discussion). We interpreted these findings as indicative that the mechanisms underlying offline gains over the micro-scale of seconds during early skill learning versus over minutes or hours very likely differ.

In the recent preprint from (Das et al., 2024), the authors make the strong claim that “micro-offline gains during early learning do not reflect offline learning” which is not supported by their own data. The authors hypothesize that if “micro-offline gains represent offline learning, participants should reach higher skill levels when training with breaks, compared to training without breaks”. The study utilizes a spaced vs. massed practice groups between-subjects design inspired by the reactive inhibition work from Rickard and others to test this hypothesis.

Crucially, their design incorporates only a small fraction of the training used in other investigations to evaluate early skill learning (Bonstrup et al., 2020; Bonstrup et al., 2019; Brooks et al., 2024; Buch et al., 2021; Deleglise et al., 2023; F. Jacobacci et al., 2020; Mylonas et al., 2024). A direct comparison between the practice schedule designs for the spaced and massed groups in Das et al., and the training schedule all participants experienced in the original Bönstrup et al. (2019) paper highlights this issue as well as several others (Author response image 5):

Author response image 5.

This figure shows (A) Comparison of Das et al. Spaced & Massed group training session designs, and the training session design from the original (Bonstrup et al., 2019) paper. Similar to the approach taken by Das et al., all practice is visualized as 10-second practice trials with a variable number (either 0, 1 or 30) of 10-second-long inter-practice rest intervals to allow for direct comparisons between designs. The two key takeaways from this comparison are that (1) the intervention differences (i.e. – practice schedules) between the Massed and Spaced groups from the Das et al. report are extremely small (less than 12% of the overall session schedule) (gaps in the red shaded area) and (2) the overall amount of practice is much less than compared to the design from the original Bönstrup report (Bonstrup et al., 2019) (which has been utilized in several subsequent studies). (B) Group-level learning curve data from Bönstrup et al. (2019) (Bonstrup et al., 2019) is used to estimate the performance range accounted for by the equivalent periods covering Test 1, Training 1 and Test 2 from Das et al (2024). Note that the intervention in the Das et al. study is limited to a period covering less than 50% of the overall learning range (end of figure legend).

Participants in the original (Bonstrup et al., 2019) experienced 157.14% more practice time and 46.97% less inter-practice rest time than the Spaced group in the Das et al. study (Author response image 5). Thus, the overall amount of practice and rest differ substantially between studies, with much more limited training occurring for participants in Das et al.

In addition, the training interventions (i.e. – the practice schedule differences between the Spaced and Massed groups) were designed in a manner that minimized any chance of effectively testing their hypothesis. First, the interventions were applied over an extremely short period relative to the length of the total training session (5% and 12% of the total training session for Massed and Spaced groups, respectively; see gaps in the red shaded area in Author response image 5). Second, the intervention was applied during a period in which only half of the known total learning occurs. Specifically, we know from Bönstrup et al. (2019) that only 46.57% of the total performance gains occur in the practice interval covered by Das et al Training 1 intervention. Thus, early skill learning as evaluated by multiple groups (Bonstrup et al., 2020; Bonstrup et al., 2019; Brooks et al., 2024; Buch et al., 2021; Deleglise et al., 2023; F. Jacobacci et al., 2020; Mylonas et al., 2024), is in the Das et al experiment amputated to about half.

Furthermore, a substantial amount of learning takes place during Das et al’s Test 1 and Test 2 periods (32.49% of total gains combined). The fact that substantial learning is known to occur over both the Test 1 (18.06%) and Test 2 (14.43%) intervals presents a fundamental problem described by Pan and Rickard (Pan & Rickard, 2015). They reported that averaging over intervals where substantial performance gains occur (i.e. – performance is not stable) inject crucial artefacts into analyses of skill learning:

“A large amount of averaging has the advantage of yielding more precise estimates of each subject’s pretest and posttest scores and hence more statistical power to detect a performance gain. However, calculation of gain scores using that strategy runs the risk that learning that occurs during the pretest and (or posttest periods (i.e., online learning is incorporated into the gain score (Rickard et al., 2008; Robertson et al., 2004 .”

The above statement indicates that the Test 1 and Test 2 performance scores from Das et al. (2024) are substantially contaminated by the learning rate within these intervals. This is particularly problematic if the intervention design results in different Test 2 learning rates between the two groups. This in fact, is apparent in their data (Figure 1C,E of the Das et al., 2024 preprint) as the Test 2 learning rate for the Spaced group is negative (indicating a unique interference effect observable only for this group). Specifically, the Massed group continues to show an increase in performance during Test 2 and 4 relative to the last 10 seconds of practice during Training 1 and 2, respectively, while the Spaced group displays a marked decrease. This post-training performance decrease for the Spaced group is in stark contrast to the monotonic performance increases observed for both groups at all other time-points. One possible cause could be related to the structure of the Test intervals, which include 20 seconds of uninterrupted practice. For the Spaced group, this effectively is a switch to a Massed practice environment (i.e., two 10-secondlong practice trials merged into one long trial), which interferes with greater Training 1 interval gains observed for the Space group. Interestingly, when statistical comparisons between the groups are made at the time-points when the intervention is present (Figure 1E) then the stated hypothesis, “If micro-offline gains represent offline learning, participants should reach higher skill levels when training with breaks, compared to training without breaks”, is confirmed.

In summary, the experimental design and analyses used by Das et al does not contradict the view that early skill learning is expressed as micro-offline gains during rest breaks. The data presented by Gupta and Rickard (2022, 2024) and Das et al. (2024) is in many ways more confirmatory of the constraints employed by our group and others with respect to experimental design, analysis and interpretation of study findings, rather than contradictory. Still, it does highlight a limitation of the current micro-online/offline framework, which was originally only intended to be applied to early skill learning over spaced practice schedules when reactive inhibition effects are minimized (Bonstrup et al., 2019; Pan & Rickard, 2015). Extrapolation of this current framework to postplateau performance periods, longer timespans, or non-learning situations (e.g. – the Nonrepeating groups from Das et al. (2024)), when reactive inhibition plays a more substantive role, is not warranted. Ultimately, it will be important to develop new paradigms allowing one to independently estimate the different coincident or antagonistic features (e.g. - memory consolidation, planning, working memory and reactive inhibition) contributing to micro-online and micro-offline gains during and after early skill learning within a unifying framework.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) I found Figure 2B too small to be useful, as the actual elements of the cells are very hard to read.

We have removed the grid colormap panel (top-right) from Figure 2B. All of this colormap data is actually a subset of data presented in Figure 2 – figure supplement 1, so can still be found there.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Related to the first point in my concerns, I would suggest the authors compare decoding accuracy between correct presses followed by correct vs. incorrect presses. This would clarify if the decoder is actually taking the MEG signal for subsequent press into account. I would also suggest the authors use pre-movement MEG features and post-movement features with shorter windows and compare each result with the results for the original post-movement MEG feature with a longer window.

The present study does not contain enough errors to perform the analysis proposed by the Reviewer. As noted above, we did re-examine our data and now report a new control regression analysis, all of which indicate that the proximity between keypresses does not explain contextualization effects.

(2) I was several times confused by the author's use of "neural representation of an action" or "sequence action representations" in understanding whether these terms refer to representation on the level of whole-brain, region (as defined by the specific parcellation used), or voxels. In fact, what is submitted to the decoder is some complicated whole-brain MEG feature (i.e., the "neural representation"), which is a hybrid of voxel and parcel features that is further dimension-reduced and not immediately interpretable. Clarifying this point early in the text and possibly using some more sensible terms, such as adding "brain-wise" before the "sequence action representation", would be the most helpful for the readers.

We now clarified this terminology in the revised manuscript.

(3) Although comparing many different ways in feature selection/reduction, time window selection, and decoder types is undoubtedly a meticulous work, the current version of the manuscript seems still lacking some explanation about the details of these methodological choices, like which decoding method was actually used to report the accuracy, whether or not different decoding methods were chosen for individual participants' data, how training data was selected (is it all of the correct presses in Day 1 data?), whether the frequency power or signal amplitude was used, and so on. I would highly appreciate these additional details in the Methods section.

The reported accuracies were based on linear discriminant analysis classifier. A comparison of different decoders (Figure 3 – figure supplement 4) shows LDA was the optimal choice.

Whether or not different decoding methods were chosen for individual participants' data

We selected the same decoder (LDA) performance to report the final accuracy.

How training data was selected (is it all of the correct presses in Day 1 data?),

Decoder training was conducted as a randomized split of the data (all correct keypresses of Day 1) into training (90%) and test (10%) samples for 8 iterations.

Whether the frequency power or signal amplitude was used

Signal amplitude was used for feature calculation.

(4) In terms of the Methods, please consider adding some references about the 'F1 score', the 'feature importance score,' and the 'MRMR-based feature ranking,' as the main readers of the current paper would not be from the machine learning community. Also, why did the LDA dimensionality reduction reduce accuracy specifically for the voxel feature?

We have now added the following statements to the Methods section that provide more detailed descriptions and references for these metrics:

“The F1 score, defined as the harmonic mean of the precision (percentage of true predictions that are actually true positive) and recall (percentage of true positives that were correctly predicted as true) scores, was used as a comprehensive metric for all one-versus-all keypress state decoders to assess class-wise performance that accounts for both false-positive and false-negative prediction tendencies [REF]. A weighted mean F1 score was then computed across all classes to assess the overall prediction performance of the multi-class model.”

and

“Feature Importance Scores

The relative contribution of source-space voxels and parcels to decoding performance (i.e. – feature importance score) was calculated using minimum redundant maximum relevance (MRMR) and highlighted in topography plots. MRMR, an approach that combines both relevance and redundancy metrics, ranked individual features based upon their significance to the target variable (i.e. – keypress state identity) prediction accuracy and their non-redundancy with other features.”

As stated in the Reviewer responses above, the dimensionality of the voxel-space feature set is very high (i.e. – 15684). LDA attempts to map the input features onto a much smaller dimensional space (number of classes-1; e.g. – 3 dimensions for 4-class keypress decoding). It is likely that the reduction in accuracy observed only for the voxel-space feature was due to the loss of relevant information during the mapping process that resulted in reduced accuracy. This reduction in accuracy for voxel-space decoding was specific to LDA. Figure 3—figure supplement 3 shows that voxel-space decoder performance actually improved when utilizing alternative dimensionality reduction techniques.

(5) Paragraph 9, lines #139-142: "Notably, decoding associated with index finger keypresses (executed at two different ordinal positions in the sequence) exhibited the highest number of misclassifications of all digits (N = 141 or 47.5% of all decoding errors; Figure 3C), raising the hypothesis that the same action could be differentially represented when executed at different learning state or sequence context locations."

This does not seem to be a fair comparison, as the index finger appears twice as many as the other fingers do in the sequence. To claim this, proper statistical analysis needs to be done taking this difference into account.

We thank the Reviewer for bringing this issue to our attention. We have now corrected this comparison to evaluate relative false negative and false positive rates between individual keypress state decoders, and have revised this statement in the manuscript as follows:

“Notably, decoding of index finger keypresses (executed at two different ordinal positions in the sequence) exhibited the highest false negative (0.116 per keypress) and false positive (0.043 per keypress) misclassification rates compared with all other digits (false negative rate range = [0.067 0.114]; false positive rate range = [0.020 0.037]; Figure 3C), raising the hypothesis that the same action could be differentially represented when executed within different contexts (i.e. - different learning states or sequence locations).”

(6) Finally, the authors could consider acknowledging in the Discussion that the contribution of micro-offline learning to genuine skill learning is still under debate (e.g., Gupta and Rickard, 2023; 2024; Das et al., bioRxiv, 2024).

We have added a paragraph in the Discussion that addresses this point.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

In addition to the additional analyses suggested in the public review, I have the following suggestions/questions:

(1) Given that the authors introduce a new decoding approach, it would be very helpful for readers to see a distribution of window sizes and window onsets eventually used across individuals, at least for the optimized decoder.

We have now included a new supplemental figure (Figure 4 – figure Supplement 2) that provides this information.

(2) Please explain in detail how you arrived at the (interpolated?) group-level plot shown in Figure 1B, starting from the discrete single-trial keypress transition times. Also, please specify what the shading shows.

Instantaneous correct sequence speed (skill measure) was quantified as the inverse of time (in seconds) required to complete a single iteration of a correctly generated full 5-item sequence. Individual keypress responses were labeled as members of correct sequences if they occurred within a 5-item response pattern matching any possible circular shifts of the 5-item sequence displayed on the monitor (41324). This approach allowed us to quantify a measure of skill within each practice trial at the resolution of individual keypresses. The dark line indicates the group mean performance dynamics for each trial. The shaded region indicates the 95% confidence limit of the mean (see Methods).

(3) Similarly, please explain how you arrived at the group-level plot shown in Figure 1C. What are the different colored lines (rows) within each trial? How exactly did the authors reach the conclusion that KTT variability stabilizes by trial 6?

Figure 1C provides additional information to the correct sequence speed measure above, as it also tracks individual transition speed composition over learning. Figure 1C, thus, represents both changes in overall correct sequence speed dynamics (indicated by the overall narrowing of the horizontal speed lines moving from top to bottom) and the underlying composition of the individual transition patterns within and across trials. The coloring of the lines is a shading convention used to discriminate between different keypress transitions. These curves were sampled with 1ms resolution, as in Figure 1B. Addressing the underlying keypress transition patterns requires within-subject normalization before averaging across subjects. The distribution of KTTs was normalized to the median correct sequence time for each participant and centered on the mid-point for each full sequence iteration during early learning.

(4) Maybe I missed it, but it was not clear to me which of the tested classifiers was eventually used. Or was that individualized as well? More generally, a comparison of the different classifiers would be helpful, similar to the comparison of dimension reduction techniques.

We have now included a new supplemental figure that provides this information.

(5) Please add df and effect sizes to all statistics.

Done.

(6) Please explain in more detail your power calculation.

The study was powered to determine the minimum sample size needed to detect a significant change in skill performance following training using a one-sample t-test (two-sided; alpha = 0.05; 95% statistical power; Cohen’s D effect size = 0.8115 calculated from previously acquired data in our lab). The calculated minimum sample size was 22. The included study sample size (n = 27) exceeded this minimum.

This information is now included in the revised manuscript.

(7) The cut-off for the high-pass filter is unusually high and seems risky in terms of potential signal distortions (de Cheveigne, Neuron 2019). Why did the authors choose such a high cut-off?

The 1Hz high-pass cut-off frequency for the 1-150Hz band-pass filter applied to the continuous raw MEG data during preprocessing has been used in multiple previous MEG publications (Barratt et al., 2018; Brookes et al., 2012; Higgins et al., 2021; Seedat et al., 2020; Vidaurre et al., 2018).

(8) "Furthermore, the magnitude of offline contextualization predicted skill gains while online contextualization did not", lines 336/337 - where is that analysis?

Additional details pertaining to this analysis are now provided in the Results section (Figure 5 – figure supplement 4).

(9) How were feature importance scores computed?

We have now added a new subheading in the Methods section with a more detailed description of how feature importance scores were computed.

(10)  Please add x and y ticks plus tick labels to Figure 5 - Figure Supplement 3, panel A

Done

(11) Line 369, what does "comparable" mean in this context?

The sentence in the “Study Participants” part of the Methods section referred to here has now been revised for clarity.

(12) In lines 496/497, please specify what t=0 means (KeyDown event, I guess?).

Yes, the KeyDown event occurs at t = 0. This has now been clarified in the revised manuscript.

(13) Please specify consistent boundaries between alpha- and beta-bands (they are currently not consistent in the Results vs. Methods (14/15 Hz or 15/16 Hz)).

We thank the Reviewer for alerting us to this discrepancy caused by a typographic error in the Methods. We have now corrected this so that the alpha (8-14 Hz) and beta-band (15-24 Hz) frequency limits are described consistently throughout the revised manuscript.

References

Albouy, G., Fogel, S., King, B. R., Laventure, S., Benali, H., Karni, A., Carrier, J., Robertson, E. M., & Doyon, J. (2015). Maintaining vs. enhancing motor sequence memories: respective roles of striatal and hippocampal systems. Neuroimage, 108, 423-434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.12.049

Albouy, G., King, B. R., Maquet, P., & Doyon, J. (2013). Hippocampus and striatum: dynamics and interaction during acquisition and sleep-related motor sequence memory consolidation. Hippocampus, 23(11), 985-1004. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22183 Albouy, G., Sterpenich, V., Vandewalle, G., Darsaud, A., Gais, S., Rauchs, G., Desseilles, M., Boly, M., Dang-Vu, T., Balteau, E., Degueldre, C., Phillips, C., Luxen, A., & Maquet, P. (2012). Neural correlates of performance variability during motor sequence acquisition. NeuroImage, 60(1), 324-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.12.049

Andersen, R. A., & Buneo, C. A. (2002). Intentional maps in posterior parietal cortex. Annu Rev Neurosci, 25, 189-220. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.25.112701.142922 112701.142922 [pii]

Ashe, J., Lungu, O. V., Basford, A. T., & Lu, X. (2006). Cortical control of motor sequences. Curr Opin Neurobiol, 16(2), 213-221. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citati on&list_uids=16563734

Bansal, A. K., Vargas-Irwin, C. E., Truccolo, W., & Donoghue, J. P. (2011). Relationships among low-frequency local field potentials, spiking activity, and three-dimensional reach and grasp kinematics in primary motor and ventral premotor cortices. J Neurophysiol, 105(4), 1603-1619. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00532.2010

Barratt, E. L., Francis, S. T., Morris, P. G., & Brookes, M. J. (2018). Mapping the topological organisation of beta oscillations in motor cortex using MEG. NeuroImage, 181, 831-844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.06.041

Bassett, D. S., Wymbs, N. F., Porter, M. A., Mucha, P. J., Carlson, J. M., & Grafton, S. T. (2011). Dynamic reconfiguration of human brain networks during learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 108(18), 7641-7646. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018985108

Battaglia-Mayer, A., & Caminiti, R. (2019). Corticocortical Systems Underlying High-Order Motor Control. J Neurosci, 39(23), 4404-4421. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2094-18.2019

Berlot, E., Popp, N. J., & Diedrichsen, J. (2020). A critical re-evaluation of fMRI signatures of motor sequence learning. Elife, 9. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.55241

Bonstrup, M., Iturrate, I., Hebart, M. N., Censor, N., & Cohen, L. G. (2020). Mechanisms of offline motor learning at a microscale of seconds in large-scale crowdsourced data. NPJ Sci Learn, 5, 7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-0066-9

Bonstrup, M., Iturrate, I., Thompson, R., Cruciani, G., Censor, N., & Cohen, L. G. (2019). A Rapid Form of Offline Consolidation in Skill Learning. Curr Biol, 29(8), 1346-1351 e1344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.02.049

Brawn, T. P., Fenn, K. M., Nusbaum, H. C., & Margoliash, D. (2010). Consolidating the effects of waking and sleep on motor-sequence learning. J Neurosci, 30(42), 13977-13982. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3295-10.2010

Brookes, M. J., Woolrich, M. W., & Barnes, G. R. (2012). Measuring functional connectivity in MEG: a multivariate approach insensitive to linear source leakage. NeuroImage, 63(2), 910-920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.03.048

Brooks, E., Wallis, S., Hendrikse, J., & Coxon, J. (2024). Micro-consolidation occurs when learning an implicit motor sequence, but is not influenced by HIIT exercise. NPJ Sci Learn, 9(1), 23. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-024-00238-6

Buch, E. R., Claudino, L., Quentin, R., Bonstrup, M., & Cohen, L. G. (2021). Consolidation of human skill linked to waking hippocampo-neocortical replay. Cell Rep, 35(10), 109193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109193

Buneo, C. A., & Andersen, R. A. (2006). The posterior parietal cortex: sensorimotor interface for the planning and online control of visually guided movements. Neuropsychologia, 44(13), 2594-2606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2005.10.011

Buzsaki, G. (2015). Hippocampal sharp wave-ripple: A cognitive biomarker for episodic memory and planning. Hippocampus, 25(10), 1073-1188. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.22488

Chen, P.-C., Stritzelberger, J., Walther, K., Hamer, H., & Staresina, B. P. (2024). Hippocampal ripples during offline periods predict human motor sequence learning. bioRxiv, 2024.2010.2006.614680. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.10.06.614680

Churchland, M. M., Cunningham, J. P., Kaufman, M. T., Foster, J. D., Nuyujukian, P., Ryu, S. I., & Shenoy, K. V. (2012). Neural population dynamics during reaching. Nature, 487(7405), 51-56. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11129

Classen, J., Liepert, J., Wise, S. P., Hallett, M., & Cohen, L. G. (1998). Rapid plasticity of human cortical movement representation induced by practice. J Neurophysiol, 79(2), 1117-1123. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citati on&list_uids=9463469

Colclough, G. L., Brookes, M. J., Smith, S. M., & Woolrich, M. W. (2015). A symmetric multivariate leakage correction for MEG connectomes. NeuroImage, 117, 439-448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.03.071

Colclough, G. L., Woolrich, M. W., Tewarie, P. K., Brookes, M. J., Quinn, A. J., & Smith, S. M. (2016). How reliable are MEG resting-state connectivity metrics? NeuroImage, 138, 284-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.05.070

Das, A., Karagiorgis, A., Diedrichsen, J., Stenner, M.-P., & Azanon, E. (2024). “Micro-offline gains” convey no benefit for motor skill learning. bioRxiv, 2024.2007.2011.602795. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.07.11.602795

Deleglise, A., Donnelly-Kehoe, P. A., Yeffal, A., Jacobacci, F., Jovicich, J., Amaro, E., Jr., Armony, J. L., Doyon, J., & Della-Maggiore, V. (2023). Human motor sequence learning drives transient changes in network topology and hippocampal connectivity early during memory consolidation. Cereb Cortex, 33(10), 6120-6131. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhac489

Doyon, J., Bellec, P., Amsel, R., Penhune, V., Monchi, O., Carrier, J., Lehéricy, S., & Benali, H. (2009). Contributions of the basal ganglia and functionally related brain structures to motor learning. [Review]. Behavioural brain research, 199(1), 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2008.11.012

Doyon, J., Song, A. W., Karni, A., Lalonde, F., Adams, M. M., & Ungerleider, L. G. (2002). Experience-dependent changes in cerebellar contributions to motor sequence learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 99(2), 1017-1022. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citati on&list_uids=11805340

Euston, D. R., Gruber, A. J., & McNaughton, B. L. (2012). The role of medial prefrontal cortex in memory and decision making. Neuron, 76(6), 1057-1070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.12.002

Euston, D. R., Tatsuno, M., & McNaughton, B. L. (2007). Fast-forward playback of recent memory sequences in prefrontal cortex during sleep. Science, 318(5853), 1147-1150. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1148979

Flint, R. D., Ethier, C., Oby, E. R., Miller, L. E., & Slutzky, M. W. (2012). Local field potentials allow accurate decoding of muscle activity. J Neurophysiol, 108(1), 18-24. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00832.2011

Frankland, P. W., & Bontempi, B. (2005). The organization of recent and remote memories. Nat Rev Neurosci, 6(2), 119-130. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1607

Gais, S., Albouy, G., Boly, M., Dang-Vu, T. T., Darsaud, A., Desseilles, M., Rauchs, G., Schabus, M., Sterpenich, V., Vandewalle, G., Maquet, P., & Peigneux, P. (2007). Sleep transforms the cerebral trace of declarative memories. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 104(47), 1877818783. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705454104

Grafton, S. T., Mazziotta, J. C., Presty, S., Friston, K. J., Frackowiak, R. S., & Phelps, M. E. (1992). Functional anatomy of human procedural learning determined with regional cerebral blood flow and PET. J Neurosci, 12(7), 2542-2548.

Grover, S., Wen, W., Viswanathan, V., Gill, C. T., & Reinhart, R. M. G. (2022). Long-lasting, dissociable improvements in working memory and long-term memory in older adults with repetitive neuromodulation. Nat Neurosci, 25(9), 1237-1246. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-022-01132-3

Gupta, M. W., & Rickard, T. C. (2022). Dissipation of reactive inhibition is sufficient to explain post-rest improvements in motor sequence learning. NPJ Sci Learn, 7(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-022-00140-z

Gupta, M. W., & Rickard, T. C. (2024). Comparison of online, offline, and hybrid hypotheses of motor sequence learning using a quantitative model that incorporate reactive inhibition. Sci Rep, 14(1), 4661. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-52726-9

Hardwick, R. M., Rottschy, C., Miall, R. C., & Eickhoff, S. B. (2013). A quantitative metaanalysis and review of motor learning in the human brain. NeuroImage, 67, 283-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.11.020

Heusser, A. C., Poeppel, D., Ezzyat, Y., & Davachi, L. (2016). Episodic sequence memory is supported by a theta-gamma phase code. Nat Neurosci, 19(10), 1374-1380. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4374

Higgins, C., Liu, Y., Vidaurre, D., Kurth-Nelson, Z., Dolan, R., Behrens, T., & Woolrich, M. (2021). Replay bursts in humans coincide with activation of the default mode and parietal alpha networks. Neuron, 109(5), 882-893 e887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2020.12.007

Hikosaka, O., Nakamura, K., Sakai, K., & Nakahara, H. (2002). Central mechanisms of motor skill learning. Curr Opin Neurobiol, 12(2), 217-222. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citati on&list_uids=12015240

Jacobacci, F., Armony, J. L., Yeffal, A., Lerner, G., Amaro, E., Jr., Jovicich, J., Doyon, J., & Della-Maggiore, V. (2020). Rapid hippocampal plasticity supports motor sequence learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 117(38), 23898-23903. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2009576117

Jacobacci, F., Armony, J. L., Yeffal, A., Lerner, G., Amaro Jr, E., Jovicich, J., Doyon, J., & DellaMaggiore, V. (2020). Rapid hippocampal plasticity supports motor sequence learning.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(38), 23898-23903. Karni, A., Meyer, G., Jezzard, P., Adams, M. M., Turner, R., & Ungerleider, L. G. (1995). Functional MRI evidence for adult motor cortex plasticity during motor skill learning. Nature, 377(6545), 155-158. https://doi.org/10.1038/377155a0

Kennerley, S. W., Sakai, K., & Rushworth, M. F. (2004). Organization of action sequences and the role of the pre-SMA. J Neurophysiol, 91(2), 978-993. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00651.2003 00651.2003 [pii]

Kleim, J. A., Barbay, S., & Nudo, R. J. (1998). Functional reorganization of the rat motor cortex following motor skill learning. J Neurophysiol, 80, 3321-3325.

Kornysheva, K., Bush, D., Meyer, S. S., Sadnicka, A., Barnes, G., & Burgess, N. (2019). Neural Competitive Queuing of Ordinal Structure Underlies Skilled Sequential Action. Neuron, 101(6), 1166-1180 e1163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2019.01.018

Lee, S. H., Jin, S. H., & An, J. (2019). The difference in cortical activation pattern for complex motor skills: A functional near- infrared spectroscopy study. Sci Rep, 9(1), 14066. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-50644-9

Lisman, J. E., & Jensen, O. (2013). The theta-gamma neural code. Neuron, 77(6), 1002-1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2013.03.007

Mollazadeh, M., Aggarwal, V., Davidson, A. G., Law, A. J., Thakor, N. V., & Schieber, M. H. (2011). Spatiotemporal variation of multiple neurophysiological signals in the primary motor cortex during dexterous reach-to-grasp movements. J Neurosci, 31(43), 15531-15543. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2999-11.2011

Molle, M., & Born, J. (2009). Hippocampus whispering in deep sleep to prefrontal cortex--for good memories? Neuron, 61(4), 496-498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2009.02.002

Morris, R. G. M. (2006). Elements of a neurobiological theory of hippocampal function: the role of synaptic plasticity, synaptic tagging and schemas. [Review]. The European journal of neuroscience, 23(11), 2829-2846. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2006.04888.x

Mylonas, D., Schapiro, A. C., Verfaellie, M., Baxter, B., Vangel, M., Stickgold, R., & Manoach, D. S. (2024). Maintenance of Procedural Motor Memory across Brief Rest Periods Requires the Hippocampus. J Neurosci, 44(14). https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1839-23.2024

Pan, S. C., & Rickard, T. C. (2015). Sleep and motor learning: Is there room for consolidation? Psychol Bull, 141(4), 812-834. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000009

Penhune, V. B., & Steele, C. J. (2012). Parallel contributions of cerebellar, striatal and M1 mechanisms to motor sequence learning. Behav. Brain Res., 226(2), 579-591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2011.09.044

Qin, Y. L., McNaughton, B. L., Skaggs, W. E., & Barnes, C. A. (1997). Memory reprocessing in corticocortical and hippocampocortical neuronal ensembles. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 352(1360), 1525-1533. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1997.0139

Rickard, T. C., Cai, D. J., Rieth, C. A., Jones, J., & Ard, M. C. (2008). Sleep does not enhance motor sequence learning. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 34(4), 834-842. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.4.834

Robertson, E. M., Pascual-Leone, A., & Miall, R. C. (2004). Current concepts in procedural consolidation. Nat Rev Neurosci, 5(7), 576-582. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citati on&list_uids=15208699

Sawamura, D., Sakuraba, S., Suzuki, Y., Asano, M., Yoshida, S., Honke, T., Kimura, M., Iwase, Y., Horimoto, Y., Yoshida, K., & Sakai, S. (2019). Acquisition of chopstick-operation skills with the non-dominant hand and concomitant changes in brain activity. Sci Rep, 9(1), 20397. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56956-0

Schendan, H. E., Searl, M. M., Melrose, R. J., & Stern, C. E. (2003). An FMRI study of the role of the medial temporal lobe in implicit and explicit sequence learning. Neuron, 37(6), 1013-1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(03)00123-5

Seedat, Z. A., Quinn, A. J., Vidaurre, D., Liuzzi, L., Gascoyne, L. E., Hunt, B. A. E., O'Neill, G. C., Pakenham, D. O., Mullinger, K. J., Morris, P. G., Woolrich, M. W., & Brookes, M. J. (2020). The role of transient spectral 'bursts' in functional connectivity: A magnetoencephalography study. NeuroImage, 209, 116537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.116537

Shadmehr, R., & Holcomb, H. H. (1997). Neural correlates of motor memory consolidation. Science, 277, 821-824.

Sjøgård, M., Baxter, B., Mylonas, D., Driscoll, B., Kwok, K., Tolosa, A., Thompson, M., Stickgold, R., Vangel, M., Chu, C., & Manoach, D. S. (2024). Hippocampal ripples mediate motor learning during brief rest breaks in humans. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.02.592200

Srinivas, S., Sarvadevabhatla, R. K., Mopuri, K. R., Prabhu, N., Kruthiventi, S. S. S., & Babu, R. V. (2016). A Taxonomy of Deep Convolutional Neural Nets for Computer Vision [Technology Report]. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2015.00036

Sterpenich, V., Albouy, G., Darsaud, A., Schmidt, C., Vandewalle, G., Dang Vu, T. T., Desseilles, M., Phillips, C., Degueldre, C., Balteau, E., Collette, F., Luxen, A., & Maquet, P. (2009). Sleep promotes the neural reorganization of remote emotional memory. J Neurosci, 29(16), 5143-5152. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0561-09.2009

Toni, I., Ramnani, N., Josephs, O., Ashburner, J., & Passingham, R. E. (2001). Learning arbitrary visuomotor associations: temporal dynamic of brain activity. Neuroimage, 14(5), 10481057. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citati on&list_uids=11697936

Toni, I., Thoenissen, D., & Zilles, K. (2001). Movement preparation and motor intention. NeuroImage, 14(1 Pt 2), S110-117. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0841

Tse, D., Langston, R. F., Kakeyama, M., Bethus, I., Spooner, P. A., Wood, E. R., Witter, M. P., & Morris, R. G. (2007). Schemas and memory consolidation. Science, 316(5821), 76-82. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1135935

van Kesteren, M. T., Fernandez, G., Norris, D. G., & Hermans, E. J. (2010). Persistent schemadependent hippocampal-neocortical connectivity during memory encoding and postencoding rest in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 107(16), 7550-7555. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914892107

van Kesteren, M. T., Ruiter, D. J., Fernandez, G., & Henson, R. N. (2012). How schema and novelty augment memory formation. Trends Neurosci, 35(4), 211-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2012.02.001

Vidaurre, D., Hunt, L. T., Quinn, A. J., Hunt, B. A. E., Brookes, M. J., Nobre, A. C., & Woolrich, M. W. (2018). Spontaneous cortical activity transiently organises into frequency specific phase-coupling networks. Nat Commun, 9(1), 2987. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-01805316-z

Wagner, A. D., Schacter, D. L., Rotte, M., Koutstaal, W., Maril, A., Dale, A. M., Rosen, B. R., & Buckner, R. L. (1998). Building memories: remembering and forgetting of verbal experiences as predicted by brain activity. [Comment]. Science (New York, N.Y.), 281(5380), 1188-1191. http://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=9712582 &retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks

Wolpert, D. M., Goodbody, S. J., & Husain, M. (1998). Maintaining internal representations: the role of the human superior parietal lobe. Nat Neurosci, 1(6), 529-533. https://doi.org/10.1038/2245

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors present a novel CRISPR/Cas9-based genetic tool for the dopamine receptor dop1R2. Based on the known function of the receptor in learning and memory, they tested the efficacy of the genetic tool by knocking out the receptor specifically in mushroom body neurons. The data suggest that dop1R2 is necessary for longer-lasting memories through its action on ⍺/ß and ⍺'/ß' neurons but is dispensable for short-term memory and thus in ɣ neurons. The experiments impressively demonstrate the value of such a genetic tool and illustrate the specific function of the receptor in subpopulations of KCs for longer-term memories. The data presented in this manuscript are significant.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript examines the role of the dopamine receptor, Dop1R2, in memory formation. This receptor has complex roles in supporting different stages of memory, and the neural mechanisms for these functions are poorly understood. The authors are able to localize Dop1R2 function to the vertical lobes of the mushroom body, revealing a role in later (presumably middle-term) aversive and appetitive memory. In general, the experimental design is rigorous, and statistics are appropriately applied. While the manuscript provides a useful tool, it would be strengthened further by additional mechanistic studies that build on the rich literature examining the roles of dopamine signaling in memory formation. The claim that Dop1R2 is involved in memory formation is strongly supported by the data presented, and this manuscript adds to a growing literature revealing that dopamine is a critical regulator of olfactory memory. However, the manuscript does not necessarily extend much beyond our understanding of Dop1R2 in memory formation, and future work will be needed to fully characterize this reagent and define the role of Dop1R2 in memory.

Strengths:

(1) The FRT lines generated provide a novel tool for temporal and spatially precise manipulation of Dop1R2 function. This tool will be valuable to study the role of Dop1R2 in memory and other behaviors potentially regulated by this gene.

(2) Given the highly conserved role of Dop1R2 in memory and other processes, these findings have a high potential to translate to vertebrate species.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors state Dop1R2 associates with two different G-proteins. It would be useful to know which one is mediating the loss of aversive and appetitive memory in Dop1R2 knockout flies.

We thank you for the insightful comment. We agree that it would be very useful to know which G-proteins are transmitting Dop1R2 signaling. To that extent, we examined single-cell transcriptomics data to check the level of co-expression of Dop1R2 with G-proteins that are of interest to us. (Figure 1 S1)

Lines 312-325

“Some RNA binding proteins and Immediate early genes help maintain identities of Mushroom body cells and are regulators of local transcription and translation (de Queiroz et al., 2025; Raun et al., 2025). So, the availability of different G-proteins may change in different lobes and during different phases of memory. The G-protein via which GPCRs signal, may depend on the pool of available G-proteins in the cell/sub-cellular region (Hermans, 2003)., Therefore, Dop1R2 may signal via different G-proteins in different compartments of the Mushroom body and also different compartments of the neuron. We looked at Gαo and Gαq as they are known to have roles in learning and forgetting (Ferris et al., 2006; Himmelreich et al., 2017). We found that Dop1R2 co-expresses more frequently with Gαo than with Gαq (Figure 1 S1). While there is evidence for Dop1R2 to act via Gαq (Himmelreich et al., 2017). It is difficult to determine whether this interaction is exclusive, or if Dop1R2 can also be coupled to other G-proteins. It will be interesting to determine the breadth of G-proteins that are involved in Dop1R2 signaling.”

(2) It would be interesting to examine 24hr aversive memory, in addition to 24hr appetitive memory.

This is indeed an important point and we agree that it will complete the assessment of temporally distinct memory traces. We therefore performed the Aversive LTM experiments and include them in the results.

Lines 208-228

“24h memory is impaired by loss of Dop1R2

Next, we wanted to see if later memory forms are also affected. One cycle of reward training is sufficient to create LTM (Krashes & Waddell, 2008), while for aversive memory, 5-6 cycles of electroshock-trainings are required to obtain robust long-term memory scores (Tully et al., 1994). So, we looked at both, 24h aversive and appetitive memory. For aversive LTM, the flies were tested on the Y-Maze apparatus as described in (Mohandasan et al., (2022).

Flipping out Dop1R2 in the whole MB causes a reduced 24h memory performance (Figure 4A, E). No phenotype was observed when Ddop1R2 was flipped out in the γ-lobe (Figure 4B, F). However, similar to 2h memory, loss of Ddop1R2 in the α/β-lobes (Figure 4C, G) or the α’/β’-lobes (Figure 4D, H) causes a reduction in memory performance. Thus, Dop1R2 seems to be involved in aversive and appetitive LTM in the α/β-lobes and the α’/β’-lobes.

Previous studies have shown mutation in the Dop1R2 receptor leads to improvement in LTM when a single shock training paradigm is used (Berry et al., 2012). As we found that it disrupts LTM, we wanted to verify if the absence of Dop1R2 outside the MB is what leads to an improvement in memory. To that extent, we tested panneuronal flip-out of Dop1R2 flies for 6hr and 24hr memory upon single shock using the elav-Gal4 driver. We found that it did not improve memory at both time points (Figure 4 S1). Confirming that flipping out Dop1R2 panneuronally does not improve LTM (Figure 4 S1C) and highlighting its irrelevance in memory outside the MB.”

(3) The manuscript would be strengthened by added functional analysis. What are the DANs that signal through Dop1R. How do these knockouts impact MBONs?

We thank you for this question. We indeed agree that it is a highly relevand and open question, how distinct DANs signal via distinct Dopamine receptors. Our work here uniquely focusses on Dop1R2 within the MB. We aim to investigate other DopRs and the connection between DANs in the future using similar approaches.

(4) Also in Figure 2, the lobe-specific knockouts might be moved to supplemental since there is no effect. Instead, consider moving the control sensory tests into the main figure.

We thank you for this suggestion and understand that in Figure 2 no significant difference is seen. However, we have emphasized in the text that the results from the supplementary figures are just to confirm that the modifications made at the Dop1R2 locus did not alter its normal function.

Lines 156-162

“We wanted to see if flipping out Dop1R2 in the MB affects memory acquisition and STM by using classical olfactory conditioning. In short, a group of flies is presented with an odor coupled to an electric shock (aversive) or sugar (appetitive) followed by a second odor without stimulus. For assessing their memory, flies can freely choose between the odors either directly after training (STM) or at a later timepoint.

To ensure that the introduced genetic changes to the Dop1R2 locus do not interfere with behavior we first checked the sensory responses of that line”

(5) Can the single-cell atlas data be used to narrow down the cell types in the vertical lobes that express Dop1R2? Is it all or just a subset?

This is indeed an interesting question, and we thank you for mentioning it. To address this as best as we could, we analyzed the single cell transcriptomic data from (Davie et al., 2018) and presented it in Figure 1 S1.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Kaldun et al. investigated the role of Dopamine Receptor Dop1R2 in different types and stages of olfactory associative memory in Drosophila melanogaster. Dop1R2 is a type 1 Dopamine receptor that can act both through Gs-cAMP and Gq-ERCa2+ pathways. The authors first developed a very useful tool, where tissue-specific knock-out mutants can be generated, using Crispr/Cas9 technology in combination with the powerful Gal4/UAS gene-expression toolkit, very common in fruit flies.

They direct the K.O. mutation to intrinsic neurons of the main associative memory centre fly brain-the mushroom body (MB). There are three main types of MB-neurons, or Kenyon cells, according to their axonal projections: a/b; a'/b', and g neurons.

Kaldun et al. found that flies lacking dop1R2 all over the MB displayed impaired appetitive middle-term (2h) and long-term (24h) memory, whereas appetitive short-term memory remained intact. Knocking-out dop1R2 in the three MB neuron subtypes also impaired middle-term, but not short-term, aversive memory.

These memory defects were recapitulated when the loss of the dop1R2 gene was restricted to either a/b or a'/b', but not when the loss of the gene was restricted to g neurons, showcasing a compartmentalized role of Dop1R2 in specific neuronal subtypes of the main memory centre of the fly brain for the expression of middle and long-term memories.

Strengths:

(1) The conclusions of this paper are very well supported by the data, and the authors systematically addressed the requirement of a very interesting type of dopamine receptor in both appetitive and aversive memories. These findings are important for the fields of learning and memory and dopaminergic neuromodulation among others. The evidence in the literature so far was generated in different labs, each using different tools (mutants, RNAi knockdowns driven in different developmental stages...), different time points (short, middle, and long-term memory), different types of memories (Anesthesia resistant, which is a type of protein synthesis independent consolidated memory; anesthesia sensitive, which is a type of protein synthesis-dependent consolidated memory; aversive memory; appetitive memory...) and different behavioral paradigms. A study like this one allows for direct comparison of the results, and generalized observations.

(2) Additionally, Kaldun and collaborators addressed the requirement of different types of Kenyon cells, that have been classically involved in different memory stages: g KCs for memory acquisition and a/b or a'/b' for later memory phases. This systematical approach has not been performed before.

(3) Importantly, the authors of this paper produced a tool to generate tissue-specific knock-out mutants of dop1R2. Although this is not the first time that the requirement of this gene in different memory phases has been studied, the tools used here represent the most sophisticated genetic approach to induce a loss of function phenotypes exclusively in MB neurons.

Weaknesses:

(1) Although the paper does have important strengths, the main weakness of this work is that the advancement in the field could be considered incremental: the main findings of the manuscript had been reported before by several groups, using tissue-specific conditional knockdowns through interference RNAi. The requirement of Dop1R2 in MB for middle-term and long-term memories has been shown both for appetitive (Musso et al 2015, Sun et al 2020) and aversive associations (Plaçais et al 2017).

Thank you for this comment. We believe that the main takeaway from the paper is the elegant tool we developed, to study the role of Dop1R2 in fruit flies by effectively flipping it out spatio-temporally. Additionally, we studied its role in all types of olfactory associative memory to establish it as a robust tool that can be used for further research in place of RNAi knockouts which are shown to be less efficient in insects as mentioned in the texts in line 394-398.

“The genetic tool we generated here to study the role of the Dop1R2 dopamine receptor in cells of interest, is not only a good substitute for RNAi knockouts, which are known to be less efficient in insects (Joga et al., 2016), but also provides versatile possibilities as it can be used in combination with the powerful genetic tools of Drosophila.”

(2) The approach used here to genetically modify memory neurons is not temporally restricted. Considering the role of dopamine in the correct development of the nervous system, one must consider the possible effects that this manipulation can have in the establishment of memory circuits. However, previous studies addressing this question restricted the manipulation of Dop1R2 expression to adulthood, leading to the same findings than the ones reported in this paper for both aversive and appetitive memories, which solidifies the findings of this paper.

We thank you for this comment and we agree that it would be important to show a temporally restricted effect of Dop1R2 knockout. To assess this and rule out potential developmental defects we decided to restrict the knockout to the post-eclosion stage and to include these results.

Lines 230-250

“Developmental defects are ruled out in a temporally restricted Dop1R2 conditional knockout.

To exclude developmental defects in the MB caused by flip-out of Dop1R2, we stained fly brains with a FasII antibody. Compared to genetic controls, flies lacking Dop1R2 in the mushroom body had unaltered lobes (Figure 4 S2C).

Regardless, we wanted to control for developmental defects leading to memory loss in flip-out flies. So, we generated a Gal80ts-containing line, enabling the temporal control of Dop1R2 knockout in the entire mushroom body (MB). Given that the half-life of the receptor remains unknown, we assessed both aversive short-term memory (STM) and long-term memory (LTM) to determine whether post-eclosion ablation of Dop1R2 in the MB produced differences compared to our previously tested line, in which Dop1R2 was constitutively knocked out from fertilization. To achieve this, flies were maintained at 18°C until eclosion and subsequently shifted to 30°C for five to seven days. On the fifth day, training was conducted, followed by memory testing. Our results indicate that aversive STM was not significantly impaired in Dop1R2-deficient MBs compared to control flies (Figure 4 S3), consistent with our previous findings (Figure 2). However, aversive LTM was significantly impaired relative to control lines (Figure 4 S3), which also aligned with prior observations. These findings strongly indicate that memory loss caused by Dop1R2 flip-out is not due to developmental defects.”

(3) The authors state that they aim to resolve disparities of findings in the field regarding the specific role of Dop1R2 in memory, offering a potent tool to generate mutants and addressing systematically their effects on different types of memory. Their results support the role of this receptor in the expression of long-term memories, however in the experiments performed here do not address temporal resolution of the genetic manipulations that could bring light into the mechanisms of action of Dop1R2 in memory. Several hypotheses have been proposed, from stabilization of memory, effects on forgetting, or integration of sequences of events (sensory experiences and dopamine release).

We thank you for this comment. We agree that it would be interesting to dissect the memory stages by knocking out the receptor selectively in some of them (encoding, consolidation, retrieval). However, our tool irreversibly flips out Dop1R2 preventing us from investigating the receptor’s role in retrieval. Our results show that the receptor is dispensable for STM formation (Figure 2, Figure 4 Supplement 3), suggesting that it is not involved in encoding new information. On the other hand, it is instead involved in consolidation and/or retrieval of long-term and middle-term memories (Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5B).

Overall, the authors generated a very useful tool to study dopamine neuromodulation in any given circuit when used in combination with the powerful genetic toolkit available in Drosophila. The reports in this paper confirmed a previously described role of Dop1R2 in the expression of aversive and appetitive LTM and mapped these effects to two specific types of memory neurons in the fly brain, previously implicated in the expression and consolidation of long-term associative memories.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) On the first view, the results shown here are different from studies published earlier, while in the same line with others (e.g. Sun et al, for appetitive 24h memories). For example, Berry et al showed that the loss of dop1R2 impairs immediate memory, while memory scores are enhanced 3h, 6h, and 24h after training. Further, they showed data that shock avoidance, at least for higher shock intensities, is reduced in mutant (damb) flies. All in all, this favors how important it is to improve the genetic tools for tissue-specific manipulation. Despite the authors nicely discussing their data with respect to the previous studies, I wondered whether it would be suitable to use the new tool and knock out dop1R2 panneuronally to see whether the obtained data match the results published by Berry et al.. Further, as stated in line 105ff: "As these studies used different learning assays - aversive and appetitive respectively as well as different methods, it is unclear if Dop1R2 has different functions for the different reinforcement stimulus" I wondered why the authors tested aversive and appetitive learning for STM and 2h memory, but only appetitive memory for 24h.

Thank you for this comment. To that extent, as mentioned above in response to reviewer #2, we included in the results the aversive LTM experiment (Figure 4). Moreover, we performed experiments along the line of Berry et al. using our tool as shown in Figure 4 S1. Our results support that Dop1R2 is required for LTM, rather than to promote forgetting.

(2) Line 165ff: I can´t find any of the supplementary data mentioned here. Please add the corresponding figures.

Thank you for pointing this out. In that line we don’t refer to any supplementary data, but to the Figure 1F, showing the absence of the HA-tag in our MB knock-out line. We have clarified this in the text (lines 151-153)

(3) I can't imagine that the scale bar in Figure 1D-F is correct. I would also like to suggest to show a more detailed analysis of the expression pattern. For example, both anterior and posterior views would be appropriate, perhaps including the VNC. This would allow the expression pattern obtained with this novel tool to be better compared with previously published results. Also, in relation to my comment above (1), it may help to understand the functional differences with previous studies, especially as the authors themselves state that the receptor is "mainly" expressed in the mushroom body (line 99). It would be interesting to see where else it is expressed (if so). This would also be interesting for the panneuronal knockdown experiment suggested under (1). If the receptor is indeed expressed outside the mushroom body, this may explain the differences to Berry et al.

Thank you for noting this, there was indeed a mistake in the scale bar which we now fixed. Since with our HA-tag immunostaining we could not detect any noticeable signal outside of the MB, we decided to analyze previously existing single cell transcriptomics data that showed expression of the receptor in 7.99% of cells in the VNC and in 13.8% of cells outside the MB (lines 98-100) confirming its sparse expression in the nervous system. The lack of detection of these cells is likely due to the sparse and low expression of the protein. The HA-tag allows to detect the endogenous level of the locus (it is possible that a Gal4/UAS amplification of the signal might allow to detect these cells).

Regarding the panneuronal knockout, we decided to try to replicate the experiment shown in Berry et al. in Figure 4 S1 and found that Dop1R2 is required for LTM.

(4) Related to learning data shown in Figures 2-4, the authors should show statistical differences between all groups obtained in the ANOVA + PostHoc tests. Currently, only an asterisk is placed above the experimental group, which does not adequately reflect the statistical differences between the groups. In addition, I would like to suggest adding statistical tests to the chance level as it may be interesting to know whether, for example, scores of knockout flies in 3C and 3D are different from the chance level.

Many thanks for this correction, we agree with the fact that the way significance scores were shown was not informative enough. We fixed the point by now showing significance between all the control groups and the experimental ones. We also inserted the chance level results in the figure legends.

(5) Unfortunately, the manuscript has some typing errors, so I would like to ask the authors to check the manuscript again carefully.

Some Examples:

Line 31: the the

Line 56: G-Protein

Line 64: c-AMP

Line 68: Dopamine

Line 70: G-Protein (It alternates between G-protein and G-Protein)

Line 76: References are formatted incorrectly

Line 126: Ha-Tag (It alternates between Ha and HA)

Line 248: missing space before the bracket...is often found

Thank you for noticing these errors, we have now corrected the spelling throughout the manuscript.

(6) In the figures the axes are labelled Preference Index (Pref"I"). In the methods, however, the calculation formula is defined as "PREF".

We thank you for drawing attention to this. To avoid confusion, we changed the definition in the methods section so that it could be clear and coherent (“Memory tests” paragraph in the methods section).

“PREF = ((N_arm1 - N_arm2) 100) / N_total the two preference indices were calculated from the two reciprocal experiments. The average of these two PREFs gives a learning index (LI). LI = (PREF₁ + PREF₂) / 2.

In case of all Long-term Aversive memory experiments, Y-Maze protocol was adapted to test flies 24 hours post training. Testing using the Y-Maze was done following the protocol as described in (Mohandasan et al., 2022) where flies were loaded at the bottom of 20-minutes odorized 3D-printed Y-Mazes from where they would climb up to a choice point and choose between the two odors. The learning index was then calculated after counting the flies in each odorized vial as follows: LI = ((N_CS- - N_CS+) 100) / N_total. Where NCS- and NCS+ are the number of flies that were found trapped in the untrained and trained odor tube respectively.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) In Figures 2 and 3, the legends running two different subfigures is confusing. Would be helpful to find a different way to present.

Thank you for your suggestion. We modified how we present legends, placing them vertically so that it is clearer.

(2) Use additional drivers to verify middle and long-term memory phenotypes.

We agree that it would be interesting to see the role of Dop1R2 in other neurons. To that extent, we looked at long term aversive memory in flies where the receptor was panneuronaly flipped out, and did not find evidence that suggested involvement of Dop1R2 in memory processes outside the MB. (Figure 4 S1)

(3) Additional discussion of genetic background for fly lines would be helpful.

Thank you for your advice. We have mentioned the genetic background of flies in the key resources table of the methods sections. Additionally, we also included further explanation on how the lines were created and their genetic background (see “Fly Husbandry” paragraph in the methods section).

“UAS-flp;;Dop1R2 cko flies and Gal4;Dop1R2^cko flies were crossed back with ;;Dop^cko flies to obtain appropriate genetic controls which were heterozygous for UAS and Gal4 but not Dop1R2^cko.”

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Line 109 states that to resolve the problem a tool is developed to knock down Dop1R2 in s spatial and temporal specific manner- while I agree that this is within the potential of the tool, there is no temporal control of the flipase action in this study; at least I cannot find references to the use of target/gene switch to control stages of development or different memory phases. However the version available for download is missing supplementary information, so I did not have access to supplementary figures and tables.

Thank you for the comment, as mentioned before it would be great to be able to dissect the memory phases. We show in lines 232 – 250 and Figure 4 S3 that the temporally restricted flip-out to the post-eclosion life stage gave us coherent results with the previous findings, ruling out potential developmental defects.

In relation to my comment on the possible developmental effects of the loss of the gene, Figure 1F could showcase an underdeveloped g lobe when looking at the lobe profiles. I understand this is not within the scope of the figure, but maybe a different z projection can be provided to confirm there are no obvious anatomical alterations due to the loss of the receptor.

We understand the doubt about the correct development of the MB and we thank you for your insightful comment. To that extent we decided to perform a FasII immunostaining that could show us the MB in the different lines (Figure 4 S2) and it appears that there are no notable differences in the lobes development in our knockout line.

It seems that the obvious missing piece of the puzzle would be to address the effects of knocking out Dop1R2 in aversive LTM. The idea of systematically addressing different types of memory at different time points and in different KCs is the most attractive aspect of this study beyond the technical sophistication, and it feels that the aim of the study is not delivered without that component.

We agree and we thank you for the clarification. As mentioned above in response to Reviewer #2, we decided to test aversive LTM as described in lines –208-228, Figure 4, Figure 4 S1.

Some statements of the discussion seem too vague, and I think could benefit from editing:

Line 284 "however other receptors could use Gq and mediate forgetting"- does this refer to other dopamine receptors? Other neuromodulators? Examples?

Thank you for pointing this out. We Agree and therefore decided to omit this line.

Line 289 "using a space training protocol and a Dop1R2 line" - this refers to RNAi lines, but it should be stated clearly.

That is correct, we thank you for bringing attention to this and clarified it in the manuscript.

–Lines 329-330

“Interestingly, using a spaced training protocol and a Dop1R2 RNAi knockout line another study showed impaired LTM (Placais et al., 2017).”

The paragraph starting in line 305 could be re-written to improve clarity and flow. Some statements seem disconnected and require specific citations. For example "In aversive memory formation, loss of Dop1R2 could lead to enhanced or impaired memory, depending on the activated signaling pathways and the internal state of the animal...". This is not accurate. Berry et al 2012 report enhanced LTM performance in dop1R2 mutants whereas Plaçais et al 2017 report LTM defects in Dop1R2 knock-downs, but these different findings do not seem to rely on different internal states or signaling pathways. Maybe further elaboration can help the reader understand this speculation.

We agree and we thank you for this advice. We decided to add additional details and citations to validate our speculation

Lines 350-353

“In aversive memory formation, loss of Dop1R2 could lead to enhanced or impaired memory, depending on the activated signaling pathways. The signaling pathway that is activated further depends on the available pool of secondary messengers in the cell (Hermans, 2003) which may be regulated by the internal state of the animal.”

"...for reward memory formation, loss of Dop1R2 seems to impair memory", this seems redundant at this point, as it has been discussed in detail, however, citations should be provided in any case (Musso 2015, Sun 2020)

Thank you for noting this. We recognize the redundancy and decided to exclude the line.

Finally, it would be useful to additionally refer to the anatomical terminology when introducing neuron names; for example MBON MVP2 (MBON-g1pedc>a/b), etc.

Thank you for this suggestion. We understand the importance of anatomical terminologies for the neurons. Therefore, we included them when we introduce neurons in the paper.

We thank you for your observations. We recognize their value, so we have made appropriate changes in the discussion to sound less vague and more comprehensive.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:<br /> This manuscript describes the role of PRDM16 in modulating BMP response during choroid plexus (ChP) development. The authors combine PRDM16 knockout mice and cultured PRDM16 KO primary neural stem cells (NSCs) to determine the interactions between BMP signaling and PRDM16 in ChP differentiation.<br /> They show PRDM16 KO affects ChP development in vivo and BMP4 response in vitro. They determine genes regulated by BMP and PRDM16 by ChIP-seq or CUT&TAG for PRDM16, pSMAD1/5/8, and SMAD4. They then measure gene activity in primary NSCs through H3K4me3 and find more genes are corepressed than coactivated by BMP signaling and PRDM16 and focus on the 31 genes found to be co-repressed by BMP and PRDM16. Wnt7b is in this set and the authors then provide evidence that PRDM16 and BMP signaling together repress Wnt activity in the developing choroid plexus.

Strengths:<br /> Understanding context-dependent response to cell signals during development is an important problem. The authors use a powerful combination of in vivo and in vitro systems to dissect how PRDM16 may modulate BMP response in early brain development.

Main weakness of the experimental setup:<br /> (1) Because the authors state that primary NSCs cultured in vitro lose endogenous Prdm16 expression, they drive expression by a constitutive promoter. However, this means the expression levels is very different from endogenous levels (as explicitly shown in Supp. Fig. 2B) and the effect of many transcription factors is strongly dose-dependent, likely creating differences between the PRDM16-dependent transcriptional response in the in vitro system and in vivo. Although the authors combine in vitro and in vivo evidence on the role of PRDM16 as a co-factor for MBP signaling and verified that BMP induces quiescence in their NSC model in a PRDM16-dependent manner, this experimental setup remains a weakness and likely affects the results of the various genomics experiments.

Other experimental weaknesses that make the evidence less convincing:

(1) It seems that the authors compare Prdm16_KO cells to Prdm16 WT cells overexpressing flag_Prdm16. Aside from the possible expression of endogenous Prdm16, other cell differences may have arisen between these cell lines. A properly controlled experiment would compare Prdm16_KO ctrl (possibly infected with a control vector without Prdm16) to Prdm16_KO_E (i.e. the Prdm16_KO cells with and without Prdm16 overexpression.) The authors acknowledged this problem in their rebuttal, stating that they were unable to overexpress PRDM16 in KO cells.

(2) The authors show in Fig.2E that Ttr is not upregulated by BMP4 in PRDM16_KO NSCs. This appears inconsistent with the presence of Ttr expression in the PRDM16_KO brain in Fig.1C. The authors explained in their rebuttal that the Ttr protein levels are not detectable in the NSCs with antibodies but the effect is still visible at the level of mRNA. The dramatic difference in protein expression is curious.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript describes the role of PRDM16 in modulating BMP response during choroid plexus (ChP) development. The authors combine PRDM16 knockout mice and cultured PRDM16 KO primary neural stem cells (NSCs) to determine the interactions between BMP signaling and PRDM16 in ChP differentiation.

They show PRDM16 KO affects ChP development in vivo and BMP4 response in vitro. They determine genes regulated by BMP and PRDM16 by ChIP-seq or CUT&TAG for PRDM16, pSMAD1/5/8, and SMAD4. They then measure gene activity in primary NSCs through H3K4me3 and find more genes are co-repressed than co-activated by BMP signaling and PRDM16. They focus on the 31 genes found to be co-repressed by BMP and PRDM16. Wnt7b is in this set and the authors then provide evidence that PRDM16 and BMP signaling together repress Wnt activity in the developing choroid plexus.

Strengths:

Understanding context-dependent responses to cell signals during development is an important problem. The authors use a powerful combination of in vivo and in vitro systems to dissect how PRDM16 may modulate BMP response in early brain development.

We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful summary and positive feedback. We appreciate the recognition of our integrative in vivo and in vitro approach. We're glad the reviewer found our findings on context-dependent gene regulation and developmental signaling valuable.

Main weaknesses of the experimental setup:

(1) Because the authors state that primary NSCs cultured in vitro lose endogenous Prdm16 expression, they drive expression by a constitutive promoter. However, this means the expression levels are very different from endogenous levels (as explicitly shown in Supplementary Figure 2B) and the effect of many transcription factors is strongly dose-dependent, likely creating differences between the PRDM16-dependent transcriptional response in the in vitro system and in vivo.

We acknowledge that our in vitro experiments may not ideally replicate the in vivo situation, a common limitation of such experiments, our primary aim was to explore the molecular relationship between PRDM16 and BMP signaling in gene regulation. Such molecular investigations are challenging to conduct using in vivo tissues. In vitro NSCs treated with BMP4 has been used a model to investigate NSC proliferation and quiescence, drawing on previous studies (e.g., Helena Mira, 2010; Marlen Knobloch, 2017). Crucially, to ensure the relevance of our in vitro findings to the in vivo context, we confirmed that cultured cells could indeed be induced into quiescence by BMP4, and this induction necessitated the presence of PRDM16. Furthermore, upon identifying target genes co-regulated by PRDM16 and SMADs, we validated PRDM16's regulatory role on a subset of these genes in the developing Choroid Plexus (ChP) (Fig. 7 and Suppl.Fig7-8). Only by combining evidence from both in vitro and in vivo experiments could we confidently conclude that PRDM16 serves as an essential co-factor for BMP signaling in restricting NSC proliferation.

(2) It seems that the authors compare Prdm16_KO cells to Prdm16 WT cells overexpressing flag_Prdm16. Aside from the possible expression of endogenous Prdm16, other cell differences may have arisen between these cell lines. A properly controlled experiment would compare Prdm16_KO ctrl (possibly infected with a control vector without Prdm16) to Prdm16_KO_E (i.e. the Prdm16_KO cells with and without Prdm16 overexpression.)

We agree that Prdm16 KO cells carrying the Prdm16-expressing vector would be a good comparison with those with KO_vector. However, despite more than 10 attempts with various optimization conditions, we were unable to establish a viable cell line after infecting Prdm16 KO cells with the Prdm16-expressing vector. The overall survival rate for primary NSCs after viral infection is low, and we observed that KO cells were particularly sensitive to infection treatment when the viral vector was large (the Prdm16 ORF is more than 3kb).

As an alternative oo assess vector effects, we instead included two other control cell lines, wt and KO cells infected with the 3xNLS_Flag-tag viral vector, and presented the results in supplementary Fig 2.  When we compared the responses of the four lines — wt, KO, wt infected with the Flag vector, KO infected with the Flag vector — to the addition and removal of BMP4, we confirmed that the viral infection itself has no significant impacts on the responses of these cells to these treatments regarding changes in cell proliferation and Ttr induction.

Given that wt cells and the KO cells, with or without viral backbone infection behave quite similarly in terms of cell proliferation, we speculate that even if we were successful in obtaining a cell line with Prdm16-expressing vector in the KO cells, it may not exhibit substantial differences compared to wt cells infected with Prdm16-expressing vector.

Other experimental weaknesses that make the evidence less convincing:

(1) The authors show in Figure 2E that Ttr is not upregulated by BMP4 in PRDM16_KO NSCs. Does this appear inconsistent with the presence of Ttr expression in the PRDM16_KO brain in Figure1C?

The reviwer’s point is that there was no significant increase in Ttr expression in Prdm16_KO cells after BMP4 treatment (Fig. 2E), but there remained residule Ttr mRNA signals in the Prdm16 mutant ChP (Fig. 1C). We think the difference lies in the measuable level of Ttr expression between that induced by BMP4 in NSC culture and that in the ChP. This is based on our immunostaining expreriment in which we tried to detect Ttr using a Ttr antibody. This antibody could not detect the Ttr protein in BMP4-treated Prdm16_expressing NSCs but clearly showed Ttr signal in the wt ChP. This means that although Ttr expression can be significantly increased by BMP4 in vitro to a level measurable by RT-qPCR, its absolute quantity even in the Prdm16_expressing condition is much lower compared to that in vivo. Our results in Fig 1C and Fig 2E, as well as Fig 7B, all consistently showed that Prdm16 depletion significantly reduced Ttr expression in in vitro and in vivo.

(2) Figure 3: The authors use H3K4me3 to measure gene activity. This is however, very indirect, with bulk RNA-seq providing the most direct readout and polymerase binding (ChIP-seq) another more direct readout. Transcription can be regulated without expected changes in histone methylation, see e.g. papers from Josh Brickman. They verify their H3K4me3 predictions with qPCR for a select number of genes, all related to the kinetochore, but it is not clear why these genes were picked, and one could worry whether these are representative.

H3K4me3 has widely been used as an indicator of active transcription and is a mark for cell identity genes. And it has been demonstrated that H3K4me3 has a direct function in regulating transciption at the step of RNApolII pausing release. As stated in the text, there are advantages and disadvantages of using H3K4me3 compared to using RNA-seq. RNA-seq profiles all gene products, which are affected by transcription and RNA stability and turnover. In contrast, H3K4me3 levels at gene promoter reflects transcriptional activity. In our case, we aimed to identify differential gene expression between proliferation and quiescence states. The transition between these two states is fast and dynamic. RNA-seq may not be able to identify functionally relevant genes but more likely produces false positive and negative results. Therefore, we chose H3K4me3 profiling.

We agree that transcription may change without histone methylation changes. This may cause an under-estimation of the number of changed genes between the conditions. 

We validated 7 out of 31 genes (Wnt7b, Id3, Mybl2, Spc24, Spc25, Ndc80 and Nuf2). We chose these genes based on two critira: 1) their function is implicated in cell proliferation and cell-cycle regulation based on gene ontology analysis; 2) their gene products are detectable in the developing ChP based on the scRNA-seq data. Three of these genes (Wnt7b, Id3, Mybl2) are not related to the kinetochore. We now clarify this description in the revised text.

(3) Line 256: The overlap of 31 genes between 184 BMP-repressed genes and 240 PRDM16-repressed genes seems quite small.

This result indicates that in addition to co-repressing cell-cycle genes, BMP and PRDM16 have independent fucntions. For example, it was reported that BMP regulates neuronal and astrocyte differentiation (Katada, S. 2021), while our previous work demonstrated that Prdm16 controls temporal identity of NSCs (He, L. 2021).

(4) The Wnt7b H3K4me3 track in Fig. 3G is not discussed in the text but it shows H3K4me3 high in _KO and low in _E regardless of BMP4. This seems to contradict the heatmap of H3K4me3 in Figure 3E which shows H3K4me3 high in _E no BMP4 and low in _E BMP4 while omitting _KO no BMP4. Meanwhile CDKN1A, the other gene shown in 3G, is missing from 3E.

The track in Fig 3G shows the absolute signal of H3K4me3 after mapping the sequencing reads to the genome and normaliz them to library size. Compare the signal in Prdm16_E with BMP4 and that in Prdm16_E without BMP4, the one with BMP4 has a lower peak. The same trend can be seen for the pair of Prdm16_KO cells with or without BMP4.  The heatmap in Fig. 3E shows the relative level of H3K4me3 in three conditions. The Prdm16_E cells with BMP4 has the lowest level, while the other two conditions (Prdm16_KO with BMP4 and Prdm16_E without BMP4) display higher levels. These two graphs show a consistent trend of H3K4me3 changes at the Wnt7b promoter across these conditions. Figure 3E only includes genes that are co-repressed by PRDM16 and BMP. CDKN1A’s H3K4me3 signals are consistent between the conditions, and thus it is not a PRDM16- or BMP-regulated gene. We use it as a negative control. 

(5) The authors use PRDM16 CUT&TAG on dissected dorsal midline tissues to determine if their 31 identified PRDM16-BMP4 co-repressed genes are regulated directly by PRDM16 in vivo. By manual inspection, they find that "most" of these show a PRDM16 peak. How many is most? If using the same parameters for determining peaks, how many genes in an appropriately chosen negative control set of genes would show peaks? Can the authors rigorously establish the statistical significance of this observation? And why wasn't the same experiment performed on the NSCs in which the other experiments are done so one can directly compare the results? Instead, as far as I could tell, there is only ChIP-qPCR for two genes in NSCs in Supplementary Figure 4D.

In our text, we indicated the genes containing PRDM16 binding peaks in the figures and described them as “Text in black in Fig. 6A and Supplementary Fig. 5A”. We will add the precise number “25 of these genes” in the main text to clarify it. We used BMP-only repressed 184-31 =153 genes (excluding PRDM16-BMP4 co-repressed) as a negative control set of genes. By computationally determine the nearest TSS to a PRDM16 peak, we identified 24/31 co-repressed genes and 84/153 BMP-only-repressed genes, containing PRDM16 peaks in the E12.5 ChP data. Fisher’s Exact Test comparing the proportions yields the P-value = 0.015.

We are confused with the second part of the comment “And why wasn't the same experiment performed on the NSCs in which the other experiments are done so one can directly compare the results? Instead, as far as I could tell, there is only ChIP-qPCR for two genes in NSCs in Supplementary Figure 4D.” If the reviewer meant why we didn’t sequence the material from sequential-ChIP or validate more taget genes, the reason is the limitation of the material. Sequential ChIP requires a large quantity of the antibodies, and yields little material barely sufficient for a few qPCR after the second round of IP. This yielded amount was far below the minimum required for library construction. The PRDM16 antibody was a gift, and the quantity we have was very limited. We made a lot of efforts to optimize all available commercial antibodies in ChIP and Cut&Tag, but none of them worked in these assays.

(6) In comparing RNA in situ between WT and PRDM16 KO in Figure 7, the authors state they use the Wnt2b signal to identify the border between CH and neocortex. However, the Wnt2b signal is shown in grey and it is impossible for this reviewer to see clear Wnt2b expression or where the boundaries are in Figure 7A. The authors also do not show where they placed the boundaries in their analysis. Furthermore, Figure 7B only shows insets for one of the regions being compared making it difficult to see differences from the other region. Finally, the authors do not show an example of their spot segmentation to judge whether their spot counting is reliable. Overall, this makes it difficult to judge whether the quantification in Figure 7C can be trusted.

In the revised manuscript we have included an individal channel of Wnt2b and mark the boundaries. We also provide full-view images and examples of spot segmentation in the new supplementary figure 8. 

(7) The correlation between mKi67 and Axin2 in Figure 7 is interesting but does not convincingly show that Wnt downstream of PRDM16 and BMP is responsible for the increased proliferation in PRDM16 mutants.

We agree that this result (the correlation between mKi67 and Axin2) alone only suggests that Wnt signaling is related to the proliferation defect in the Prdm16 mutant, and does not necessarily mean that Wnt is downstream of PRDM16 and BMP. Our concolusion is backed up by two additional lines of evidences:  the Cut&Tag data in which PRDM16 binds to regulatory regions of Wnt7b and Wnt3a; BMP and PRDM16 co-repress Wnt7b in vitro.

An ideal result is that down-regulating Wnt signaling in Prdm16 mutant can rescue Prdm16 mutant phenotype. Such an experiment is technically challenging. Wnt plays diverse and essential roles in NSC regulation, and one would need to use a celltype-and stage-specific tool to down-regulate Wnt in the background of Prdm16 mutation. Moreover, Wnt genes are not the only targets regulated by PRDM16 in these cells, and downregulating Wnt may not be sufficient to rescue the phenotype. 

Weaknesses of the presentation:

Overall, the manuscript is not easy to read. This can cause confusion.

We have revised the text to improve clarity.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Overall, the manuscript is not easy to read. Here are some causes of confusion for which the presentation could be cleaned up:

We are grateful for the reviewer’s suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have made efforts to improve the clarity of the text.

(a) Part of the first section is confusing in that some statements seem contradictory, in particular:

"there is no overall patterning defect of ChP and CH in the Prdm16 mutant" (line 125)

"Prdm16 depletion disrupted the transition from neural progenitors into ChP epithelia" (line 144)

It would be helpful if the authors could reformulate this more clearly.

We modified the text to clarify that while the BMP-patterned domain is not affected, the transition of NSCs into ChP epithelial cells is compromised in the Prdm16 mutant.

(b) Flag_PRDM16, PRDM16_expressing, PRDM16_E, PRDM16 OE all seem to refer to the same PRDM16 overexpressing cells, which is very confusing. The authors should use consistent naming. Moreover, it would be good if they renamed these all to PRDM16_OE to indicate expression is not endogenous but driven by a constitutive promoter.

We appreciate the comment and agree that the use of multiple terms to refer to the same PRDM16-overexpressing condition was confusing. Our original intention in using Prdm16_E was to distinguish cells expressing PRDM16 from the two other groups: wild-type cells and Prdm16_KO cells, which both lack PRDM16 protein expression. However, we acknowledge that Prdm16_E could be misinterpreted as indicating expression from the endogenous Prdm16 promoter. To avoid this confusion and ensure consistency, we have now standardized the terminology and refer to this condition as Prdm16_OE, indicating Flag-tagged PRDM16 expression driven by a constitutive promoter.

(c) Line 179 states "generated a cell line by infecting Prdm16_KO cells with the same viral vector, expressing 3xNSL_Flag". Do the authors mean 3xNLS_Flag_Prdm16, so these are the Prdm16_KO_E cells by the notation suggested above? Or is this a control vector with Flag only? The following paragraph refers to Supplementary Figure 2C-F where the same construct is called KO_CDH, suggesting this was an empty CDH vector, without Flag, or Prdm16. This is confusing.

We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading and helpful comment. We acknowledge the confusion caused by the inconsistent terminology. To clarify: in line 179, we intended to describe an attempt to generate a Prdm16_KO cell line expressing 3xNLS_Flag_Prdm16, not a control vector with Flag only. However, despite repeated attempts, we were unable to establish this line due to low viral efficiency and the vulnerability of Prdm16_KO cells to infection with the large construct. Therefore, these cells were not included in the subsequent analyses.

The term KO_CDH refers to Prdm16_KO cells infected with the empty CDH control vector, which lacks both Flag and Prdm16. This is the line used in the experiments shown in Supplementary Fig. 2C–F. We have revised the text throughout the manuscript to ensure consistent use of terminology and to avoid this confusion.

(2) The introductory statements on lines 53-54 could use more references.

Thanks for the suggestion. We have now included more references.

(3) It would be helpful if all structures described in the introduction and first section were annotated in Figure 1, or otherwise, if a cartoon were included. For example, the cortical hem, and fourth ventricle.

Thanks for the suggestion. We have now indicated the structures, ChP, CH and the fourth ventricle, in the images in Figure 1 and Supplementary Figure 1.

(4) In line 115, "as previously shown.." - to keep the paper self-contained a figure illustrating the genetics of the KO allele would be helpful.

Thanks for the suggestion. We have now included an illustration of the Prdm16 cGT allele in Figure 1B.

(5) In Figure 1D as costain for a ChP marker would be helpful because it is hard to identify morphologically in the Prdm16 KO.

Appoligize for the unclarity. The KO allele contains a b-geo reporter driven by Prdm16 endogenous promoter. The samples were co-stained for EdU, b-Gal and DAPI. To distingquish the ChP domain from the CH, we used the presence of b b-Gal as a marker. We indicated this in the figure legend, but now have also clarified this in the revised text.

(6) The details in Figure 1E are hard to see, a zoomed-in inset would help.

A zoomed-in inset is now included in the figure.

(7) Supplementary Figure 2A does not convincingly show that PRDM16 protein is undetectable since endogenous expression may be very low compared to the overexpression PRDM16_E cells so if the contrast is scaled together it could appear black like the KO.

We appreciate the reviewer’s point and have carefully considered this concern. We concluded that PRDM16 protein is effectively undetectable in cultured wild-type NSCs based on direct comparison with brain tissue. Both cultured NSCs and brain sections were processed under similar immunostaining and imaging conditions. While PRDM16 showed robust and specific nuclear localization in embryonic brain sections (Fig. 1B and Supplementary Fig. 1A), only a small subset of cultured NSCs exhibited PRDM16 signal, primarily in the cytoplasm (middle panel of Fig. 2A). This stark contrast supports our conclusion that endogenous PRDM16 protein is either absent or significantly downregulated in vitro. Because of this limitation, we turned to over-expressing Prdm16 in NSC culture using a constitutive promoter. 

(9) Line 182 "Following the washout step" - no such step had been described, maybe replace by "After washout of BMP".

Yes, we have revised the text.

(8) Line 214: "indicating a modest level" - what defines modest? Compared to what? Why is a few thousand moderate rather than low? Does it go to zero with inhibitors for pathways?

Here a modest level means a lower level than to that after adding BMP4. To clarify this, we revised the description to “indicating endogenous levels of …”

(9) The way qPCR data are displayed makes it difficult to appreciate the magnitude of changes, e.g. in Supplementary Figure 2B where a gap is introduced on the scale. Displaying log fold change / relative CT values would be more informative.

We used a segmented Y-axis in Supplementary Figure 2B because the Prdm16 overexpression samples exhibited much higher experssion levels compared to other conditions. In response to this suggestion, we explored alternative ways to present the result, including ploting log-transformed values and log fold changes. However, these methods did not enhance the clarity of the differences – in fact, log scaling made the magnitude of change appear less apparent. To address this, we now present the overexpression samples in a separate graph, thereby eliminating the need for a broken Y-axis and improving the overall readability of the data.

(10) Writing out "3 days" instead of 3D in Figure 2A would improve clarity. It would be good if the used time interval is repeated in other figures throughout the paper so it is still clear the comparison is between 0 and 3 days.

We have changed “3D” to “3 days”. All BMP4 treatments in this study were 3 days.

(11) Line 290: "we found that over 50% of SMAD4 and pSMAD1/5/8 binding peaks were consistent in Prdm16_E and Prdm16_KO cells, indicating that deletion of Prdm16 does not affect the general genomic binding ability of these proteins" - this only makes sense to state with appropriate controls because 50% seems like a big difference, what is the sample to sample variability for the same condition? Moreover, the next paragraph seems to contradict this, ending with "This result suggests that SMAD binding to these sites depends on PRDM16". The authors should probably clarify the writing.

We appreciate the reviwer’s comment and agree that clarification was needed. Our point was that SMAD4 and pSMAD1/5/8 retain the ability to bind DNA broadly in the Prdm16 KO cells, with more than half of the original binding sites still occupied. This suggests that deletion of Prdm16 does not globally impair SMAD genomic binding. Howerever, our primary interest lies in the subset of sites that show differential by SMAD binding between wt and Prdm16 KO conditions, as thse are likely to be PRDM16-dependent. 

In the following paragraph, we focused specifically on describing SMAD and PRDM16 co-bound sites. At these loci, SMAD4 and pSMAD1/5/8 showed reduced enrichment in the absence of PRDM16, suggesting PRDM16 facilitates SMAD binding at these particular regions. We have revised the text in the manuscript to more clearly distinguish between global SMAD binding and PRDM16-dependent sites.

(12) Much more convincing than ChIP-qPCR for c-FOS for two loci in Figures 5F-G would be a global analysis of c-FOS ChIP-seq data.

We agree that a global c-FOS ChIP-seq analysis would provide a more comprehensive view of c-FOS binding patterns. However, the primary focus of this study is the interaction between BMP signaling and PRDM16. The enrichment of AP-1 motifs at ectopic SMAD4 binding sites was an unexpected finding, which we validated using c-FOS ChIP-qPCR at selected loci. While a genome-wide analysis would be valuable, it falls beyond the current scope. We agree that future studies exploring the interplay among SMAD4/pSMAD, PRDM16, and AP-1 will be important and informative.

(13) Figure 6A is hard to read. A heatmap would make it much easier to see differences in expression. Furthermore, if the point is to see the difference between ChP and CH, why not combine the different subclusters belonging to those structures? Finally, why are there 28 genes total when it is said the authors are evaluating a list of 31 genes and also displaying 6 genes that are not expressed (so the difference isn't that unexpressed genes are omitted)?

For the scRNA-seq data, we chose violin plots because they display both gene expression levels and the number of cells that express each gene. However, we agree that the labels in Figure 6A were too small and difficult to read. We have revised the figure by increasing the font size and moved genes with low expression to  Supplementary Figure 5A. Figure 6A includes 17 more highly expressed genes together with three markers, and  Supplementary Figure 5A contains 13 lowly expressed genes. One gene Mrtfb is missing in the scRNA-seq data and thus not included. We have revised the description of the result in the main text and figure legends.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This article investigates the role of PRDM16 in regulating cell proliferation and differentiation during choroid plexus (ChP) development in mice. The study finds that PRDM16 acts as a corepressor in the BMP signaling pathway, which is crucial for ChP formation.

The key findings of the study are:

(1) PRDM16 promotes cell cycle exit in neural epithelial cells at the ChP primordium.

(2) PRDM16 and BMP signaling work together to induce neural stem cell (NSC) quiescence in vitro.

(3) BMP signaling and PRDM16 cooperatively repress proliferation genes.

(4) PRDM16 assists genomic binding of SMAD4 and pSMAD1/5/8.

(5) Genes co-regulated by SMADs and PRDM16 in NSCs are repressed in the developing ChP.

(6) PRDM16 represses Wnt7b and Wnt activity in the developing ChP.

(7) Levels of Wnt activity correlate with cell proliferation in the developing ChP and CH.

In summary, this study identifies PRDM16 as a key regulator of the balance between BMP and Wnt signaling during ChP development. PRDM16 facilitates the repressive function of BMP signaling on cell proliferation while simultaneously suppressing Wnt signaling. This interplay between signaling pathways and PRDM16 is essential for the proper specification and differentiation of ChP epithelial cells. This study provides new insights into the molecular mechanisms governing ChP development and may have implications for understanding the pathogenesis of ChP tumors and other related diseases.

Strengths:

(1) Combining in vitro and in vivo experiments to provide a comprehensive understanding of PRDM16 function in ChP development.

(2) Uses of a variety of techniques, including immunostaining, RNA in situ hybridization, RT-qPCR, CUT&Tag, ChIP-seq, and SCRINSHOT.

(3) Identifying a novel role for PRDM16 in regulating the balance between BMP and Wnt signaling.

(4) Providing a mechanistic explanation for how PRDM16 enhances the repressive function of BMP signaling. The identification of SMAD palindromic motifs as preferred binding sites for the SMAD/PRDM16 complex suggests a specific mechanism for PRDM16-mediated gene repression.

(5) Highlighting the potential clinical relevance of PRDM16 in the context of ChP tumors and other related diseases. By demonstrating the crucial role of PRDM16 in controlling ChP development, the study suggests that dysregulation of PRDM16 may contribute to the pathogenesis of these conditions.

We thank the reviewer for the thorough and thoughtful summary of our study. We’re glad the key findings and significance of our work were clearly conveyed, particularly regarding the role of PRDM16 in coordinating BMP and Wnt signaling during ChP development. We also appreciate the recognition of our integrated approach and the potential implications for understanding ChP-related diseases.

Weaknesses:

(1) Limited investigation of the mechanism controlling PRDM16 protein stability and nuclear localization in vivo. The study observed that PRDM16 protein became nearly undetectable in NSCs cultured in vitro, despite high mRNA levels. While the authors speculate that post-translational modifications might regulate PRDM16 in NSCs similar to brown adipocytes, further investigation is needed to confirm this and understand the precise mechanism controlling PRDM16 protein levels in vivo.

While mechansims controlling PRDM16 protein stability and nuclear localization in the developing brain are interesting, the scope of this paper is revealing the function of PRDM16 in the choroid plexus and its interaction with BMP signaling. We will be happy to pursuit this direction in our next study.

(2) Reliance on overexpression of PRDM16 in NSC cultures. To study PRDM16 function in vitro, the authors used a lentiviral construct to constitutively express PRDM16 in NSCs. While this approach allowed them to overcome the issue of low PRDM16 protein levels in vitro, it is important to consider that overexpressing PRDM16 may not fully recapitulate its physiological role in regulating gene expression and cell behavior.

As stated above, we acknowledge that findings from cultured NSCs may not directly apply to ChP cells in vivo. We are cautious with our statements. The cell culture work was aimed to identify potential mechanisms by which PRDM16 and SMADs interact to regulate gene expression and target genes co-regulated by these factors. We expect that not all targets from cell culture are regulated by PRDM16 and SMADs in the ChP, so we validated expression changes of several target genes in the developing ChP and now included the new data in Fig. 7 and Supplementary Fig. 7. Out of the 31 genes identified from cultured cells, four cell cycle regulators including Wnt7b, Id3, Spc24/25/nuf2 and Mybl2, showed de-repression in Prdm16 mutant ChP. These genes can be relevant downstream genes in the ChP, and other target genes may be cortical NSC-specific or less dependent on Prdm16 in vivo.

(3) Lack of direct evidence for AP1 as the co-factor responsible for SMAD relocation in the absence of PRDM16. While the study identified the AP1 motif as enriched in SMAD binding sites in Prdm16 knockout cells, they only provided ChIP-qPCR validation for c-FOS binding at two specific loci (Wnt7b and Id3). Further investigation is needed to confirm the direct interaction between AP1 and SMAD proteins in the absence of PRDM16 and to rule out other potential co-factors.

We agree that the finding of the AP1 motif enriched at the PRDM16 and SMAD co-binding regions in Prdm16 KO cells can only indirectly suggest AP1 as a co-factor for SMAD relocation. That’s why we used ChIP-qPCR to examine the presence of C-fos at these sites. Although we only validated two targets, the result confirms that C-fos binds to the sites only in the Prdm16 KO cells but not Prdm16_expressing cells, suggesting AP1 is a co-factor.  Our results cannot rule out the presence of other co-factors.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Minor typo: [7, page 3] "sicne" should be "since".

We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading. We have now corrected the typo and revised some part of the text to improve clarity.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) signaling instructs multiple processes during development including cell proliferation and differentiation. The authors set out to understand the role of PRDM16 in these various functions of BMP signaling. They find that PRDM16 and BMP co-operate to repress stem cell proliferation by regulating the genomic distribution of BMP pathway transcription factors. They additionally show that PRDM16 impacts choroid plexus epithelial cell specification. The authors provide evidence for a regulatory circuit (constituting of BMP, PRDM16, and Wnt) that influences stem cell proliferation/differentiation.

Strengths:

I find the topics studied by the authors in this study of general interest to the field, the experiments well-controlled and the analysis in the paper sound.

We thank the reviewer for their positive feedback and thoughtful summary. We appreciate the recognition of our efforts to define the role of PRDM16 in BMP signaling and stem cell regulation, as well as the soundness of our experimental design and analysis.

Weaknesses:

I have no major scientific concerns. I have some minor recommendations that will help improve the paper (regarding the discussion).

We have revised the discussion according to the suggestions.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

Specific minor recommendations:

Page 18. Line 526: In a footnote, the authors point out a recent report which in parallel was investigating the link between PRDM16 and SMAD4. There is substantial non-overlap between these two papers. To aid the reader, I would encourage the authors to discuss that paper in the discussion section of the manuscript itself, highlighting any similarities/differences in the topic/results.

Thanks for the suggestion. We now included the comparison in the discussion. One conclusion between our study and this publication is consistent, that PRDM16 functions as a co-repressor of SMAD4. However, the mechanims are different. Our data suggests a model in which PRDM16 facilitates SMAD4/pSMAD binding to repress proliferation genes under high BMP conditions. However, the other report suggests that SMAD4 steadily binds to Prdm16 promoter and switches regulatory functions depending on the co-factors. Together with PRDM16, SMAD4 represses gene expression, while with SMAD3 in response to high levels of TGF-b1, it activates gene expression. These differences could be due to different signaling (BMP versus TGF-b), contexts (NSCs versus Pancreatic cancers) etc.

Page 3. Line 65: typo 'since'

We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading. We have now corrected the typo and revised the text to improve clarity.

① Perform oral prophylaxis procedure using nonfluoridated and oil less prophylaxis pastes. ① Florürsüz ve yağsız profilaksi patları kullanarak ağız hijyen uygulaması yapın.

② Clean and wash the teeth with water. Isolate to prevent any contamination from saliva or gingival crevicular fluid ② Dişleri suyla temizleyip yıkayın. Tükürük veya diş eti oluğu sıvısından gelebilecek bulaşmaları önlemek için izolasyon sağlayın.

③ Apply acid etchant in the form of gel for 15 to 30 seconds. Deciduous teeth require longer time for etching than permanent teeth because of the presence of aprismatic enamel in deciduous teeth ③ Asit ajanı jel formunda 15 ila 30 saniye süreyle uygulayın. Süt dişlerinde aprismatik mine bulunduğu için, daimi dişlere göre daha uzun süre asitlenmeleri gerekir.

④ Wash the etchant continuously for 10 to 15 seconds ④ Asit ajanı sürekli şekilde 10 ila 15 saniye boyunca yıkayın.

⑤ Note the appearance of a properly etched surface. It should give a frosty white appearance on drying ⑤ Uygun şekilde asitlenmiş yüzeyin görünümüne dikkat edin. Kuruduğunda buzlu beyaz bir görünüm vermelidir.

⑥ If any sort of contamination occurs, repeat the procedure ⑥ Herhangi bir kontaminasyon meydana gelirse işlemi tekrarlayın.

⑦ Now apply bonding agent and low viscosity monomers over the etched enamel surface. ⑦ Şimdi, asitlenmiş mine yüzeyine bağlayıcı ajan ve düşük viskoziteli monomerleri uygulayın.

⑧ Generally, bonding agents contain Bis-GMA or UDMA with TEGDMA added to lower the viscosity of the bonding agent. ⑧ Genellikle bağlayıcı ajanlar, viskoziteyi azaltmak için TEGDMA ile birlikte Bis-GMA veya UDMA içerir.

⑨ The bonding agents due to their low viscosity, rapidly wet and penetrate the clean, dried, conditioned enamel into the microspaces forming resin tags. ⑨ Bağlayıcı ajanlar düşük viskoziteleri nedeniyle temizlenmiş, kurutulmuş ve hazırlanmış mineyi hızla ıslatır ve mikro boşluklara nüfuz ederek rezin çıkıntılar (resin tag) oluştururlar.

⑩ The resin tags which form between enamel prisms are known as Macrotags. ⑩ Mine prizmaları arasında oluşan rezin çıkıntılara makrotag (macrotag) adı verilir.

Author response:

Our response aims to address the following:

The lack of pleiotropy is an unconfirmable assumption of MR, and the addition of those models is therefore quite important, as this is a primary weakness of the MR approach. Given that concern, I read the sensitivity analyses using pleiotropy-robust models as the main result, and in that case, they can't test their hypotheses as these models do not show a BMI instrumental variable association. The other weakness, which might be remedied, is that the power of the tests here is not described. When a hypothesis is tested with an under-powered model, the apparent lack of association could be due to inadequate sample size rather than a true null. Typically, when a statistically significant association is reported, power concerns are discounted as long as the study is not so small as to create spurious findings. That is the case with their primary BMI instrumental variable model - they find an association so we can presume it was adequately powered. But the primary models they share are not the pleiotropy-robust methods MR-Egger, weighted median, and weighted mode. The tests for these models are null, and that could mean a couple of things: (1) the original primary significant association between the BMI genetic instrument was due to pleiotropy, and they therefore don't have a robust model to explore the effects of the tobacco genetic instrument. (2) The power for the sensitivity analysis models (the pleiotropy-robust methods) is inadequate, and the authors share no discussion about the relative power of the different MR approaches. If they do have adequate power, then again, there is no need to explore the tobacco instrument.

We would like to highlight that post-hoc power calculations are often considered redundant since the statistical power estimated for an observed association is directly related to its p-value[1]. In other words, the uncertainty of the association is already reflected in its 95% confidence interval. However, we understand power calculations may still be of interest to the reader, so we will incorporate them in the revised manuscript.

The reason we use inverse variance weighted (IVW) Mendelian randomization (MR) to obtain our main results rather than the pleiotropy-robust methods mentioned by the reviewer/editors (i.e., MR-Egger, weighted median and weighted mode) is that the former has greater statistical power than the latter[2]. Hence, instead of focussing on the statistical significance of the pleiotropy-robust analyses, we consider it is of more value to compare the consistency of the effect sizes and direction of the effect estimates across methods. Any evidence of such consistency increases our confidence in our main findings, since each method relies on different assumptions. As we cannot be sure about the presence and nature of horizontal pleiotropy, it is useful to compare results across methods even though they are not equally powered. It is true that our results for the genetically predicted effects of body mass index (BMI) on the risk of head and neck cancer (HNC) differ across methods. This is precisely what led us to question the validity of our main finding (suggesting a positive effect of BMI on HNC risk). We will clarify this in the discussion section of the revised manuscript as advised.

We understand that the reviewer/editors are concerned that we do not have a robust model to explore the role of tobacco consumption in the link between BMI and HNC. However, we have a different perspective on the matter. If indeed, the main IVW finding for BMI and HNC is due to pleiotropy (since some of the pleiotropy-robust methods suggest conflicting results), then the IVW multivariable MR method is a way to explore the potential source of this bias[3]. We were particularly interested in exploring the role of smoking in the observed association because smoking and adiposity are known to influence each other [4-9] and share a genetic basis[10, 11].

References:

(1) Heinsberg LW, Weeks DE: Post hoc power is not informative. Genet Epidemiol 2022, 46(7):390-394.

(2) Burgess S, Butterworth A, Thompson SG: Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants using summarized data. Genet Epidemiol 2013, 37(7):658-665.

(3) Burgess S, Davey Smith G, Davies NM, Dudbridge F, Gill D, Glymour MM, Hartwig FP, Kutalik Z, Holmes MV, Minelli C et al: Guidelines for performing Mendelian randomization investigations: update for summer 2023. Wellcome Open Res 2019, 4:186.

(4) Morris RW, Taylor AE, Fluharty ME, Bjorngaard JH, Asvold BO, Elvestad Gabrielsen M, Campbell A, Marioni R, Kumari M, Korhonen T et al: Heavier smoking may lead to a relative increase in waist circumference: evidence for a causal relationship from a Mendelian randomisation meta-analysis. The CARTA consortium. BMJ Open 2015, 5(8):e008808.

(5) Taylor AE, Morris RW, Fluharty ME, Bjorngaard JH, Asvold BO, Gabrielsen ME, Campbell A, Marioni R, Kumari M, Hallfors J et al: Stratification by smoking status reveals an association of CHRNA5-A3-B4 genotype with body mass index in never smokers. PLoS Genet 2014, 10(12):e1004799.

(6) Taylor AE, Richmond RC, Palviainen T, Loukola A, Wootton RE, Kaprio J, Relton CL, Davey Smith G, Munafo MR: The effect of body mass index on smoking behaviour and nicotine metabolism: a Mendelian randomization study. Hum Mol Genet 2019, 28(8):1322-1330.

(7) Asvold BO, Bjorngaard JH, Carslake D, Gabrielsen ME, Skorpen F, Smith GD, Romundstad PR: Causal associations of tobacco smoking with cardiovascular risk factors: a Mendelian randomization analysis of the HUNT Study in Norway. Int J Epidemiol 2014, 43(5):1458-1470.

(8) Carreras-Torres R, Johansson M, Haycock PC, Relton CL, Davey Smith G, Brennan P, Martin RM: Role of obesity in smoking behaviour: Mendelian randomisation study in UK Biobank. BMJ 2018, 361:k1767.

(9) Freathy RM, Kazeem GR, Morris RW, Johnson PC, Paternoster L, Ebrahim S, Hattersley AT, Hill A, Hingorani AD, Holst C et al: Genetic variation at CHRNA5-CHRNA3-CHRNB4 interacts with smoking status to influence body mass index. Int J Epidemiol 2011, 40(6):1617-1628.

(10) Thorgeirsson TE, Gudbjartsson DF, Sulem P, Besenbacher S, Styrkarsdottir U, Thorleifsson G, Walters GB, Consortium TAG, Oxford GSKC, consortium E et al: A common biological basis of obesity and nicotine addiction. Transl Psychiatry 2013, 3(10):e308.

(11) Wills AG, Hopfer C: Phenotypic and genetic relationship between BMI and cigarette smoking in a sample of UK adults. Addict Behav 2019, 89:98-103.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Azlan et al. identified a novel maternal factor called Sakura that is required for proper oogenesis in Drosophila. They showed that Sakura is specifically expressed in the female germline cells. Consistent with its expression pattern, Sakura functioned autonomously in germline cells to ensure proper oogenesis. In Sakura KO flies, germline cells were lost during early oogenesis and often became tumorous before degenerating by apoptosis. In these tumorous germ cells, piRNA production was defective and many transposons were derepressed. Interestingly, Smad signaling, a critical signaling pathway for GSC maintenance, was abolished in sakura KO germline stem cells, resulting in ectopic expression of Bam in whole germline cells in the tumorous germline. A recent study reported that Bam acts together with the deubiquitinase Otu to stabilize Cyc A. In the absence of sakura, Cyc A was upregulated in tumorous germline cells in the germarium. Furthermore, the authors showed that Sakura co-immunoprecipitated Otu in ovarian extracts. A series of in vitro assays suggested that the Otu (1-339 aa) and Sakura (1-49 aa) are sufficient for their direct interaction. Finally, the authors demonstrated that the loss of otu phenocopies the loss of sakura, supporting their idea that Sakura plays a role in germ cell maintenance and differentiation through interaction with Otu during oogenesis.

Strengths:

To my knowledge, this is the first characterization of the role of CG14545 genes. Each experiment seems to be well-designed and adequately controlled.

Weaknesses:

However, the conclusions from each experiment are somewhat separate, and the functional relationships between Sakura's functions are not well established. In other words, although the loss of Sakura in the germline causes pleiotropic effects, the cause-and-effect relationships between the individual defects remain unclear.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this study, the authors identified CG14545 (and named it Sakura), as a key gene essential for Drosophila oogenesis. Genetic analyses revealed that Sakura is vital for both oogenesis progression and ultimate female fertility, playing a central role in the renewal and differentiation of germ stem cells (GSC).

The absence of Sakura disrupts the Dpp/BMP signaling pathway, resulting in abnormal bam gene expression, which impairs GSC differentiation and leads to GSC loss. Additionally, Sakura is critical for maintaining normal levels of piRNAs. Also, the authors convincingly demonstrate that Sakura physically interacts with Otu, identifying the specific domains necessary for this interaction, suggesting a cooperative role in germline regulation. Importantly, the loss of otu produces similar defects to those observed in Sakura mutants, highlighting their functional collaboration.

The authors provide compelling evidence that Sakura is a critical regulator of germ cell fate, maintenance, and differentiation in Drosophila. This regulatory role is mediated through the modulation of pMad and Bam expression. However, the phenotypes observed in the germarium appear to stem from reduced pMad levels, which subsequently trigger premature and ectopic expression of Bam. This aberrant Bam expression could lead to increased CycA levels and altered transcriptional regulation, impacting piRNA expression. Given Sakura's role in pMad expression, it would be insightful to investigate whether overexpression of Mad or pMad could mitigate these phenotypic defects (UAS-Mad line is available at Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center).

As suggested reviewer 1, we tested whether overexpression of Mad could rescue or mitigate the loss of sakura phenotypic defects, by using nos-Gal4-VP16 > UASp-Mad-GFP in the background of sakura^null. As shown in Fig S11, we did not observe any mitigation of defects.

Then, we also tested whether expressing a constitutive active form of Tkv, by using UAS-Dcr2, NGT-Gal4 > UASp-tkv.Q235D in the background of sakura^RNAi. As shown in Fig S12, we did not observe any mitigation of defects by this approach either.

A major concern is the overstated role of Sakura in regulating Orb. The data does not reveal mislocalized Orb; rather, a mislocalized oocyte and cytoskeletal breakdown, which may be secondary consequences of defects in oocyte polarity and structure rather than direct misregulation of Orb. The conclusion that Sakura is necessary for Orb localization is not supported by the data. Orb still localizes to the oocyte until about stage 6. In the later stage, it looks like the cytoskeleton is broken down and the oocyte is not positioned properly, however, there is still Orb localization in the ~8-stage egg chamber in the oocyte. This phenotype points towards a defect in the transport of Orb and possibly all other factors that need to localize to the oocyte due to cytoskeletal breakdown, not Orb regulation directly. While this result is very interesting it needs further evaluation on the underlying mechanism. For example, the decrease in E-cadherin levels leads to a similar phenotype and Bam is known to regulate E-cadherin expression. Is Bam expressed in these later knockdowns?

We examined Bam and DE-Cadherin expression in later RNAi knockdowns driven by ToskGal4. As shown in Fig S9, Bam was not expressed in these later knockdowns compared with controls. DE-Cadherin staining suggested a disorganized structure in late-stage egg chambers.

We agree that we overstated a role of Sakura in regulating Orb in the initial manuscript. We changed the text to avoid overstating.

The manuscript would benefit from a more balanced interpretation of the data concerning Sakura's role in Orb regulation. Furthermore, a more expanded discussion on Sakura's potential role in pMad regulation is needed. For example, since Otu and Bam are involved in translational regulation, do the authors think that Mad is not translated and therefore it is the reason for less pMad? Currently the discussion presents just a summary of the results and not an extension of possible interpretation discussed in context of present literature.

We changed the text to avoid overstating a role of Sakura in regulating Orb localization.

Based on our newly added results showing that transgenic overexpression of Mad could not rescue or mitigate the phenotypic defects of sakura^null mutant (Fig S11), we do not think the reason for less pMad is less translation of Mad.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this very thorough study, the authors characterize the function of a novel Drosophila gene, which they name Sakura. They start with the observation that sakura expression is predicted to be highly enriched in the ovary and they generate an anti-sakura antibody, a line with a GFP-tagged sakura transgene, and a sakura null allele to investigate sakura localization and function directly. They confirm the prediction that it is primarily expressed in the ovary and, specifically, that it is expressed in germ cells, and find that about 2/3 of the mutants lack germ cells completely and the remaining have tumorous ovaries. Further investigation reveals that Sakura is required for piRNA-mediated repression of transposons in germ cells. They also find evidence that sakura is important for germ cell specification during development and germline stem cell maintenance during adulthood. However, despite the role of sakura in maintaining germline stem cells, they find that sakura mutant germ cells also fail to differentiate properly such that mutant germline stem cell clones have an increased number of "GSC-like" cells. They attribute this phenotype to a failure in the repression of Bam by dpp signaling. Lastly, they demonstrate that sakura physically interacts with otu and that sakura and otu mutants have similar germ cell phenotypes. Overall, this study helps to advance the field by providing a characterization of a novel gene that is required for oogenesis. The data are generally high-quality and the new lines and reagents they generated will be useful for the field. However, there are some weaknesses and I would recommend that they address the comments in the Recommendations for the authors section below.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

General Comments:

(1) The gene nomenclature: As mentioned in the text, Sakura means cherry blossom and is one of the national flowers of Japan. I am not sure whether the phenotype of the CG14545 mutant is related to Sakura or not. I would like to suggest the authors reconsider the naming.

The striking phenotype of sakura mutant­ is tumorous and germless ovarioles. The tumorous phenotype, exhibiting lots of round fusome in germarium visualized by anti-Hts staining, looks like cherry blossom blooming to us. Also, the germless phenotype reminds us falling of the cherry blossom, especially considering that the ratio of tumorous phenotype decreases and that of germless decreases over fly age. Furthermore, “Sakura” symbolizes birth and renewal in Japanese culture (the last author of this manuscript is Japanese). Our findings indicated that the gene sakura is involved in regulation of renewal and differentiation of GSCs (which leads to birth). These are the reasons for the naming, which we would like to keep.

(2) In many of the microscopic photographs in the figures, especially for the merged confocal images, the resolution looks low, and the images appear blurred, making it difficult to judge the authors' claims. Also, the Alpha Fold structure in Figure 10A requires higher contrast images. The magnification of the images is often inadequate (e.g. Figures 3A, 3B, 5E, 7A, etc). The authors should take high-magnification images separately for the germarium and several different stages of the egg chambers and lay out the figures.

We are very sorry for the low-resolution images. This was caused when the original PDF file with high-resolution images was compressed in order to meet the small file size limit in the eLife submission portal. In the revised submission, we used high-resolution images.

Specific Comments

(1) How Sakura can cooperate with Otu remains unanswered. Sakura does not regulate deubiquitinase activity in vitro. Both sakura and otu appear to be involved in the Dpp-Smad signaling pathway and in the spatial control of Bam expression in the germarium, whereas Otu has been reported to act in concert with Bam to deubiquitinate and stabilize Cyc A for proper cystoblast differentiation. Therefore, it is plausible that the stabilization of Cyc A in the Sakura mutant is an indirect consequence of Bam misexpression and independent of the Sakura-Otu interaction. The authors may need to provide much deeper insight into the mechanism by which Sakura plays roles in these seemingly separable steps to orchestrate germ cell maintenance and differentiation during early oogenesis.

Yes, it is possible that the stabilization of CycA in the sakura mutant is an indirect consequence of Bam misexpression and independent of the Sakura-Otu interaction. To test the significance and role of the Sakura-Otu interaction, we have attempted to identify Sakura point mutants that lose interaction with Otu. If such point mutants were successfully obtained, we were planning to test if their transgene expression could rescue the phenotypes of sakura mutant as the wild-type transgene did. However, after designing and testing the interaction of over 30 point mutants with Otu, we could not obtain such mutant version of Sakura yet. We will continue making efforts, but it is beyond the scope of the current study. We hope to address this important point in future studies.

(2) Figure 3A and Figure 4: The authors show that piRNA production is abolished in Sakura KO ovaries. It is known that piRNA amplification (the ping-pong cycle) occurs in the Vasa-positive perinuclear nuage in nurse cells. Is the nuage normally formed in the absence of Sakura? The authors provide high-magnification images in the germarium expressing Vas-GFP. How does Sakura, and possibly Out, contribute to piRNA production? Are the defects a direct or indirect consequence of the loss of Sakura?

We provided higher magnification images of germarium expressing Vasa-EGFP in sakura mutant background (Fig 3A and 3B). The nuage formation does not seem to be dysregulated in sakura mutant. Currently, we do not know if the piRNA defects are direct or indirect consequence of the loss of Sakura. This question cannot be answered easily. We hope to address this in future studies.

(3) Figure 7 and Figure 12: The authors showed that Dpp-Smad signaling was abolished in Sakura KO germline cells. The same defects were also observed in otu mutant ovaries (Figure 12B). How does the Sakura-Otu axis contribute to the Dpp-Smad pathway in the germline?

As we mentioned in the response to comment (1), we attempted to test the significance and role of the Sakura-Otu interaction, including in the Dpp-Smad pathway in the germline, but we have not yet been able to obtain loss-of-interaction mutant(s) of Sakura. We hope to address this in future studies.

(4) Figure 9 and Fig 10: The authors raised antibodies against both Sakura and Otu, but their specificities were not provided. For Western blot data, the authors should provide whole gel images as source data files. Also, the authors argue that the Otu band they observed corresponds to the 98-kDa isoform (lines 302-304). The molecular weight on the Western blot alone would be insufficient to support this argument.

When we submitted the initial manuscript, we also submitted original, uncropped, and unmodified whole Western blot images for all gel images to the eLife journal, as requested. We did the same for this revised submission. I believe eLife makes all those files available for downloading to readers.

In the newly added Fig S13B, we used very young 2-5 hours ovaries and 3-7 days ovaries. 2-5 days ovaries contain only mostly pre-differentiated germ cells. Older ovaries (3-7 days in our case here) contain all 14 stages of oogenesis and later stages predominate in whole ovary lysates.

As reported in previous literature (Sass et al. 1995), we detected a higher abundance of the 104 kDa Otu isoform than the 98 kDa isoform in from 2-5 hours ovaries and predominantly the 98 kDa isoform in 3-7 days ovaries (Fig S13B). These results confirmed that the major Otu isoform we detected in Western blot, all of which uses old ovaries except for the 2-5 hours ovaries in Fig S13B, is the 98 kDa isoform.

(5) Otu has been reported to regulate ovo and Sxl in the female germline. Is Sakura involved in their regulation?

We examined sxl alternative splicing pattern in sakura mutant ovaries. As shown in Fig S6, we detected the male-specific isoform of sxl RNA and a reduced level of the female-specific sxl isoform in sakura mutant ovaries. Thus Sakura seems to be involved in sxl splicing in the female germline, while further studies will be needed to understand whether Sakura has a direct or indirect role here.

(6) Lines 443-447: The GSC loss phenotype in piwi mutant ovaries is thought to occur in a somatic cell-autonomous manner: both piwi-mutant germline clones and germline-specific piwi knockdown do not show the GSC-loss phenotype. In contrast, the authors provide compelling evidence that Sakura functions in the germline. Therefore, the Piwi-mediated GSC maintenance pathway is likely to be independent of the Sakura-Otu axis.

We changed the text accordingly.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

Overall, this is a cleanly written manuscript, with some sentences/sections that are confusing the way they are constructed (i.e. Line 37-38, 334, section on Flp/FRT experiments).

We rewrote those sections to avoid confusion.

Comment for all merged image data: the quality of the merged images is very poor - the individual channels are better but should also be reprocessed for more resolved image data sets. Also, it would be helpful to have boundaries drawn in an individual panel to identify the regions of the germarium, as cartooned in Figure S1A (which should be brought into Figure 1) F-actin or Vsg staining would have helped throughout the manuscript to enhance the visualization of described phenotypes.

We are very sorry for the low-resolution images. This was caused when the original PDF file with high-resolution images was compressed in order to meet the small file size limit in the eLife submission portal. In the revised submission, we used high-resolution images.

We outlined the germarium in Fig 1E.

We brought the former FigS1 into Fig 1A.

We provided Phalloidin (F-Actin) staining images in Fig S7.

All p-values seem off. I recommend running the data through the student t-test again.

We used the student t-test to calculate p-values and confirmed that they are correct. We don’t understand why the reviewer thinks all p-values seem off.

In the original manuscript, as we mentioned in each figure legends, we used asterisk (*) to indicate p-value <0.05, without distinguishing whether it’s <0.001, <0.01< or <0.05.

Probably reviewer 2 is suggesting us to use ***, **, and *, to indicate p-value of <0.001, <0.01, and <0.05, respectively? If so, we now followed reviewer2’s suggestions.

Figure 1

(1) Within the text, C is mentioned before A.

We updated the text and now we mentioned Fig 1A before Fig 1C.

(2) B should be the supplemental figure.

We moved the former Fig 1B to Supplemental Figure 1.

(3) C - How were the different egg chamber stages selected in the WB? Naming them 'oocytes' is deceiving. Recommend labeling them as 'egg chambers', since an oocyte is claimed to be just the one-cell of that cyst.

We changed the labeling to egg chambers.

(4) Is the antibody not detecting Sakura in IF? There is no mention of this anywhere in the manuscript.

While our Sakura antibody detects Sakura in IF, it seems to detect some other proteins as well. Since we have Sakura-EGFP fly strain (which fully rescues sakura^null phenotypes) to examine Sakura expression and localization without such non-specific signal issues, we relied on Sakura-EGFP rather than anti-Sakura antibodies for IF.

(5) Expand on the reliance of the sakura-EGFP fly line. Does this overexpression cause any phenotypes?

sakura-EGFP does not cause any phenotypes in the background of sakura[+/+] and sakura[+/-].

(6) Line 95 "as shown below" is not clear that it's referencing panel D.

We now referenced Fig 1D.

(7) Re: Figures 1 E and F. There is no mention of Hts or Vasa proteins in the text.<br /> "Sakura-EGFP was not expressed in somatic cells such as terminal filament, cap cells, escort cells, or follicle cells (Figure 1E). In the egg chamber, Sakura-EGFP was detected in the cytoplasm of nurse cells and was enriched in developing oocytes (Figure 1F)". Outline these areas or label these structures/sites in the images. The color of Merge labels is confusing as the blue is not easily seen.

We mentioned Hts and Vasa in the text. We labeled the structures/sites in the images and updated the color labeling.

Figure 2

(1) Entire figure is not essential to be a main figure, but rather supplemental.

We don’t agree with the reviewer. We think that the female fertility assay data, where sakura null mutant exhibits strikingly strong phenotype, which was completely rescued by our Sakura-EGFP transgene, is very important data and we would like to present them in a main figure.

(2) 2A- one star (*) significance does not seem correct for the presented values between 0 and 100+.

In the original manuscript, as we mentioned in each figure legends, we used asterisk (*) to indicate p-value <0.05, without distinguishing whether it’s <0.001, <0.01< or <0.05.

Probably reviewer 2 is suggesting us to use ***, **, and *, to indicate p-value of <0.001, <0.01, and <0.05, respectively? If so, we now followed reviewer2’s suggestions.

(3) 2C images are extremely low quality. Should be presented as bigger panels.

We are very sorry for the low-resolution images. This was caused when the original PDF file with high-resolution images was compressed in order to meet the small file size limit in the eLife submission portal. In the revised submission, we used high-resolution images. We also presented as bigger panels.

Figure 3

(1) "We observed that some sakura^null /null ovarioles were devoid of germ cells ("germless"), while others retained germ cells (Fig 3A)" What is described is, that it is hard to see. Must have a zoomed-in panel.

We provided zoomed-in panels in Fig 3B

(2) C - The control doesn't seem to match. Must zoom in.

We provided matched control and also zoomed in.

(3) For clarity, separate the tumorous and germless images.

In the new image, only one tumorous and one germless ovarioles are shown with clear labeling and outline, for clarity.

(4) Use arrows to help clearly indicate the changes that occur. As they are presented, they are difficult to see.

We updated all the panels to enhance clarity.

(5) Line 158 seems like a strong statement since it could be indirect.

We softened the statement.

Figure 4

(1) Line 188-189 - Conclusion is an overstatement.

We softened the statement.

(2) Is the piRNA reduction due to a change in transcription? Or a direct effect by Sakura?

We do not know the answers to these questions. We hope to address these in future studies.

Figure 5

(1) D - It might make more sense if this graph showed % instead of the numbers.

We did not understand the reviewer’s point. We think using numbers, not %, makes more sense.

(2) Line 213 - explain why RNAi 2 was chosen when RNAi 1 looks stronger.

Fly stock of RNAi line 2 is much healthier than RNAi line 1 (without being driven Gal4) for some reasons. We had a concern that the RNAi line 1 might contain an unwanted genetic background. We chose to use the RNAi 2 line to avoid such an issue.

(3) In Line 218 there's an extra parenthesis after the PGC acronym.

We corrected the error.

(4) TOsk-Gal4 fly is not in the Methods section.

We mentioned TOsk-Gal4 in the Methods.

Figure 6:

(1) The FLP-FRT section must be rewritten.

We rewrote the FLP-FRT section.

(2) A - include statistics.

We included statistics using the chi-square test.

(3) B - is not recalled in the Results text.

We referred Fig 6B in the text.

(4) Line 232 references Figure 3, but not a specific panel.

We referred Fig 3A, 3C, 3D, and 3E, in the text.

Figure 7/8 - can go to Supplemental.

We moved Fig 8 to supplemental. However, we think Fig 7 data is important and therefore we would like to present them as a main figure.

(1) There should be CycA expression in the control during the first 4 divisions.

Yes, there is CycA expression observed in the control during the first 4 divisions, while it’s much weaker than in sakura^null clone.

(2) Helpful to add the dotted lines to delineate (A) as well.

We added a dotted outline for germarium in Fig 7A.

(3) Line 263 CycA is miswritten as CyA.

We corrected the typo.

Figure 9

(1) Otu antibody control?

We validated Otu antibody in newly added Fig 10C and Fig S13A.

(2) Which Sakura-EGFP line was used? sakura het. or null background? This isn't mentioned in the text, nor legend.

We used Sakura-EGFP in the background of sakura[+/+]. We added this information in the methods and figure legend.

(3) C - Why the switch to S2 cells? Not able to use the Otu antibody in the IP of ovaries?

We can use the Otu antibody in the IP of ovaries. However, in anti-Sakura Western after anti-Otu IP, antibody light chain bands of the Otu antibodies overlap with the Sakura band. Therefore, we switched to S2 cells to avoid this issue by using an epitope tag.

Figure 10

(1) A- The resolution of images of the ribbon protein structure is poor.

We are very sorry for the low-resolution images. This was caused when the original PDF file with high-resolution images was compressed in order to meet the small file size limit in the eLife submission portal. In the revised submission, we used high-resolution images.

(2) A table summarizing the interactions between domains would help bring clarity to the data presented.

We added a table summarizing the fragment interaction results.

(3) Some images would be nice here to show that the truncations no longer colocalize.

We did not understand the reviewer’s points. In our study, even for the full-length proteins.

We have not shown any colocalization of Sakura and Otu in S2 cells or in ovaries, except that they both are enriched in developing oocytes in egg chambers.

Figure 12

(1) A - control and RNAi lines do not match.

We provided matched images.

(2) In general, since for Sakura, only its binding to Otu was identified and since they phenocopy each other, doesn't most of the characterization of Sakura just look at Otu phenotypes? Does Sakura knockdown affect Otu localization or expression level (and vice versa)?

We tested this by Western (Fig S15) and IF (Fig 12). Sakura knockdown did not decrease Otu protein level, and Otu knockdown did not decrease Sakura protein level (Fig S15). In sakura^null clone, Otu level was not notably affected (Fig 12). In sakura^null clone, Otu lost its localization to the posterior position within egg chambers.

Figure S6

(1) It is Luciferase, not Lucifarase.

We corrected the typo.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) It is interesting that germless and tumorous phenotypes coexist in the same population of flies. Additional consideration of these essentially opposite phenotypes would significantly strengthen the study. For example, do they co-exist within the same fly and are the tumorous ovarioles present in newly eclosed flies or do they develop with age? The data in Figure 8 show that bam knockdown partially suppresses the germless phenotype. What effect does it have on the tumorous phenotype? Is transposon expression involved in either phenotype? Do Sakura mutant germline stem cell clones overgrow relative to wild-type cells in the same ovariole? Does sakura RNAi driven by NGT-Gal4 only cause germless ovaries or does it also cause tumorous phenotypes? What happens if the knockdown of Sakura is restricted to adulthood with a Gal80ts? It may not be necessary to answer all of these questions, but more insight into how these two phenotypes can be caused by loss of sakura would be helpful.

We performed new experiments to answer these questions.

do they co-exist within the same fly and are the tumorous ovarioles present in newly eclosed flies or do they develop with age?

Tumorous and germless ovarioles coexist in the same fly (in the same ovary). Tumorous ovarioles are present in very young (0-1 day old) flies, including newly eclosed (Fig S5). The ratio of germless ovarioles increases and that of tumorous ovarioles decreases with age (Fig S5).

The data in Figure 8 show that bam knockdown partially suppresses the germless phenotype. What effect does it have on the tumorous phenotype?

bam knockdown effect on tumorous phenotype is shown in Fig S10. bam knockdown increased the ratio of tumorous ovarioles and the number of GSC-like cells.

Is transposon expression involved in either phenotype?

Since our transposon-piRNA reporter uses germline-specific nos promoter, it is expressed only in germ line cells, so we cannot examine in germless ovarioles.

Do Sakura mutant germline stem cell clones overgrow relative to wild-type cells in the same ovariole?

Yes, Sakura mutant GSC clones overgrow. Please compare Fig 6C and Fig S8.

Does sakura RNAi driven by NGT-Gal4 only cause germless ovaries or does it also cause tumorous phenotypes?

Fig S10 and Fig S12 show the ovariole phenotypes of sakura RNAi driven by NGT-Gal4. It causes both germless and tumorous phenotypes.

What happens if the knockdown of Sakura is restricted to adulthood with a Gal80ts?

Our mosaic clone was induced at the adult stage, so we already have data of adulthood-specific loss of function. Gal80ts does not work well with nos-Gal4.

(2) The idea that the excessive bam expression in tumorous ovaries is due to a failure of bam repression by dpp signaling is not well-supported by the data. Dpp signaling is activated in a very narrow region immediately adjacent to the niche but the images in Figure 7A show bam expression in cells that are very far away from the niche. Thus, it seems more likely to be due to a failure to turn bam expression off at the 16-cell stage than to a failure to keep it off in the niche region. To determine whether bam repression in the niche region is impaired, it would be important to examine cells adjacent to the niche directly at a higher magnification than is shown in Figure 7A.

We provided higher magnification images of cells adjacent to the niche in new Fig 7A.

We found that cells adjacent to the niche also express Bam-GFP.

That said, we agree with the reviewer. A failure to turn bam expression off at the 16-cell stage may be an additional or even a main cause of bam misexpression in sakura mutant. We added this in the Discussion.

(3) In addition, several minor comments should be addressed:

a. Does anti-Sakura work for immunofluorescence?

While our Sakura antibody detects Sakura in IF, it seems to detect some other proteins as well. Since we have Sakura-EGFP fly strain to examine Sakura expression and localization without such non-specific signal issues, we relied on Sakura-EGFP rather than anti-Sakura antibodies.

b. Please provide insets to show the phenotypes indicated by the different color stars in Figure 3C more clearly.

We provided new, higher-magnification images to show the phenotypes more clearly.

c. Please indicate the frequency of the expression patterns shown in Figure 4D (do all ovarioles in each genotype show those patterns or is there variable penetrance?).

We indicated the frequency.

d. An image showing TOskGal4 driving a fluorophore should be provided so that readers can see which cells express Gal4 with this driver combination.

It has been already done in the paper ElMaghraby et al, GENETICS, 2022, 220(1), iyab179, so we did not repeat the same experiment.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Contractile Injection Systems (CIS) are versatile machines that can form pores in membranes or deliver effectors. They can act extra or intracellularly. When intracellular they are positioned to face the exterior of the cell and hence should be anchored to the cell envelope. The authors previously reported the characterization of a CIS in Streptomyces coelicolor, including significant information on the architecture of the apparatus. However, how the tubular structure is attached to the envelope was not investigated. Here they provide a wealth of evidence to demonstrate that a specific gene within the CIS gene cluster, cisA, encodes a membrane protein that anchors the CIS to the envelope. More specifically, they show that:

- CisA is not required for assembly of the structure but is important for proper contraction and CIS-mediated cell death

- CisA is associated to the membrane (fluorescence microscopy, cell fractionation) through a transmembrane segment (lacZ-phoA topology fusions in E. coli)

- Structural prediction of interaction between CisA and a CIS baseplate component<br /> - In addition they provide a high-resolution model structure of the >750-polypeptide Streptomyces CIS in its extended conformation, revealing new details of this fascinating machine, notably in the baseplate and cap complexes.

All the experiments are well controlled including trans-complemented of all tested phenotypes.

One important information we miss is the oligomeric state of CisA.

Thank you for this suggestion. We now provide information on the potential oligomeric state of CisA. We performed further AlphaFold3 modelling of CisA using an increasing number of CisA protomers (1 to 8). We ran predictions for the configuration using the sequence of the well-folded C-terminal CisA domain (amino acids 285-468), which includes the transmembrane domain and the conserved domain that shares similarities to carbohydrate-degrading domains. The obtained confidence scores (mean values for pTM=0.73, ipTM=0.7, n=5) indicate that CisA can assemble into a pentamer and that this oligomerization is mediated through the interaction of the C-terminal solute-binding like superfamily domain.

We have added this information to the revised manuscript (Fig. 3b/c) and further discuss the possible implications of CisA oligomerization for its proposed mode of action.

While it would have been great to test the interaction between CisA and Cis11, to perform cryo-electron microscopy assays of detergent-extracted CIS structures to maintain the interaction with CisA, I believe that the toxicity of CisA upon overexpression or upon expression in E. coli render these studies difficult and will require a significant amount of time and optimization to be performed. It is worth mentioning that this study is of significant novelty in the CIS field because, except for Type VI secretion systems, very few membrane proteins or complexes responsible for CIS attachment have been identified and studied.

We thank this reviewer for their highly supportive and positive comments on our manuscript and we are grateful for their recognition of the novelty of our study, particularly in the context of membrane proteins and complexes involved in CIS attachment.

We agree that further experimental evidence on direct interaction between CisA and Cis11 would have strengthened our model on CisA function. However, as noted by this reviewer, this additional work is technically challenging and currently beyond the scope of this study.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The overall question that is addressed in this study is how the S. coelicolor contractile injection system (CISSc) works and affects both cell viability and differentiation, which it has been implicated to do in previous work from this group and others. The CISSc system has been enigmatic in the sense that it is free-floating in the cytoplasm in an extended form and is seen in contracted conformation (i.e. after having been triggered) mainly in dead and partially lysed cells, suggesting involvement in some kind of regulated cell death. So, how do the structure and function of the CISSc system compare to those of related CIS from other bacteria, does it interact with the cytoplasmic membrane, how does it do that, and is the membrane interaction involved in the suggested role in stress-induced, regulated cell death? The authors address these questions by investigating the role of a membrane protein, CisA, that is encoded by a gene in the CIS gene cluster in S. coelicolor. Further, they analyse the structure of the assembled CISSc, purified from the cytoplasm of S. coelicolor, using single-particle cryo-electron microscopy.

Strengths:

The beautiful visualisation of the CIS system both by cryo-electron tomography of intact bacterial cells and by single-particle electron microscopy of purified CIS assemblies are clearly the strengths of the paper, both in terms of methods and results. Further, the paper provides genetic evidence that the membrane protein CisA is required for the contraction of the CISSc assemblies that are seen in partially lysed or ghost cells of the wild type. The conclusion that CisA is a transmembrane protein and the inferred membrane topology are well supported by experimental data. The cryo-EM data suggest that CisA is not a stable part of the extended form of the CISSc assemblies. These findings raise the question of what CisA does.

We thank Reviewer #2 for the overall positive evaluation of our manuscript and the constructive criticism.

Weaknesses:

The investigations of the role of CisA in function, membrane interaction, and triggering of contraction of CIS assemblies, are important parts of the paper and are highlighted in the title. However, the experimental data provided to answer these questions appear partially incomplete and not as conclusive as one would expect.

We acknowledge that some aspects of our work remain unanswered. We are currently unable to conduct additional experiments because the two leading postdoctoral researchers on this project have moved on to new positions. We currently don’t have the extra manpower with a similar skill set to pick up the project.

The stress-induced loss of viability is only monitored with one method: an in vivo assay where cytoplasmic sfGFP signal is compared to FM5-95 membrane stain. Addition of a sublethal level of nisin lead to loss of sfGFP signal in individual hyphae in the WT, but not in the cisA mutant (similarly to what was previously reported for a CIS-negative mutant). Technically, this experiment and the example images that are shown give rise to some concern. Only individual hyphal fragments are shown that do not look like healthy and growing S. coelicolor hyphae. Under the stated growth conditions, S. coelicolor strains would normally have grown as dense hyphal pellets. It is therefore surprising that only these unbranched hyphal fragments are shown in Fig. 4ab.

We thank this Reviewer for their thoughtful criticism regarding the viability assays and the data presented in Figure 4. We acknowledge the importance of ensuring that the presented images reflect the physiological state of S. coelicolor under the stated growth conditions and recognize that hyphal fragments shown in Figure 4 do not fully capture the typical morphology of S. coelicolor. As pointed out by this reviewer, S. coelicolor grows in large hyphal clumps when cultured in liquid media, making the quantification of fluorescence intensities in hyphae expressing cytoplasmic GFP or stained with the membrane dye FM5-95 particularly challenging. To improve the image analysis and quantification of GFP and FM5-95-fluorescent intensities across the three S. coelicolor strains (wildtype, cisA deletion mutant and the complemented cisA mutant), we vortexed the cell samples before imaging to break up hyphal clumps, increasing hyphal fragments. The hyphae shown in our images were selected as representative examples across three biological replicates.

Further, S. coelicolor would likely be in a stationary phase when grown 48 h in the rich medium that is stated, giving rise to concern about the physiological state of the hyphae that were used for the viability assay. It would be valuable to know whether actively growing mycelium is affected in the same way by the nisin treatment, and also whether the cell death effect could be detected by other methods.

The reasoning behind growing S. coelicolor for 48 h before performing the fluorescence-based viability assay was that we (DOI: 10.1038/s41564-023-01341-x ) and others (e.g.: DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-37087-7 ) previously showed that the levels of CIS particles peak at the transition from vegetative to reproductive/stationary growth, thus indicating that CIS activity is highest during this growth stage. The obtained results in this manuscript are consistent with previous results, in which we showed a similar effect on the viability of wildtype versus cis-deficient S. coelicolor strains (DOI: 10.1038/s41564-023-01341-x ) using nisin, the protonophore CCCP and UV radiation. The results presented in this study and our previous study are based on biological triplicate experiments and appropriate controls. Furthermore, our results are in agreement with the findings reported in a complementary study by Vladimirov et al. (DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-37087-7 ) that used a different approach (SYTO9/PI staining of hyphal pellets) to demonstrate that CIS-deficient mutants exhibit decreased hyphal death.

Taken together, we believe that the results obtained from our fluorescence-based viability assay provide strong experimental evidence that functional CIS mediate hyphal cell death in response to exogenous stress.

The model presented in Fig. 5 suggests that stress leads to a CisA-dependent attachment of CIS assemblies to the cytoplasmic membrane, and then triggering of contraction, leading to cell death. This model makes testable predictions that have not been challenged experimentally. Given that sublethal doses of nisin seem to trigger cell death, there appear to be possibilities to monitor whether activation of the system (via CisA?) indeed leads to at least temporally increased interaction of CIS with the membrane.

We thank this reviewer for their suggestions on how to test our model further. This is a challenging experiment because we do not know the exact dynamics of how nisin stress is perceived and transmitted to CisA and CIS particles.

In an attempt to address this point, we have performed co-immunoprecipitation experiments using S. coelicolor cells that produced CisA-FLAG as bait, and which were treated with a sub-lethal nisin concentration for 0/15/45 min.  Mass spectrometry analysis of co-eluted peptides did not show the presence of CIS-associated peptides at the analyzed timepoints. While we cannot exclude the possibility that our experimental assay requires further optimization to successfully demonstrate a CisA-CIS interaction (e.g. optimization of the use of detergents to improve the solubilization of CisA from Streptomyces membrane, which is currently not an established method), an alternative and equally valid hypothesis is that the interaction between CIS particles and CisA is transient and therefore difficult to capture. We would like to mention, however, that we did detect CisA peptides in crude purifications of CIS particles from nisin-stressed cells (Supplementary Table 2, manuscript: line 301/302), supporting our proposed model that CisA can associate with CIS particles in vivo.

Further, would not the model predict that stress leads to an increased number of contracted CIS assemblies in the cytoplasm? No clear difference in length of the isolated assemblies if Fig. S7 is seen between untreated and nisin-exposed cells, and also no difference between assemblies from WT and cisA mutant hyphae.

The reviewer is correct that there is no clear difference in length in the isolated CIS particles shown in Figure S7. This is in line with our results, which show that CisA is not required for the correct assembly of CIS particles and their ability to contract in the presence and absence of nisin treatment. The purpose of Figure S7 was to support this statement. We would like to note that the particles shown in Figure S7 were purified from cell lysates using a crude sheath preparation protocol, during which CIS particles generally contract irrespective of the presence or absence of CisA. Thus, we cannot comment on whether there is an increased number of contracted CIS assemblies in the cytoplasm of nisin-exposed cells. To answer this point, we would need to acquire additional cryo-electron tomograms (cyroET) of the different strains treated with nisin. CryoET is an extremely time and labor-intensive task and given that we currently don’t know the exact dynamics of the CIS-CisA interaction following exogenous stress, we believe this experiment is beyond the scope of this work.

The interaction of CisA with the CIS assembly is critical for the model but is only supported by Alphafold modelling, predicting interaction between cytoplasmic parts of CisA and Cis11 protein in the baseplate wedge. An experimental demonstration of this interaction would have strengthened the conclusions.

We agree that direct experimental evidence of this interaction would have further strengthened the conclusions of our study, and we have extensively tried to provide additional experimental evidence. Unfortunately, because of the toxicity of cisA expression in E. coli and the possibly transient nature of the interaction under the experimental conditions used, we were unable to confirm this interaction by biochemical or biophysical techniques, such as co-purification or bacterial two-hybrid assays. Despite these technical challenges, we believe that the AlphaFold predictions provided a valuable hypothesis about the role of CisA in firing and the function of CIS particles in S. coelicolor.

The cisA mutant showed a similarly accelerated sporulation as was previously reported for CIS-negative strains, which supports the conclusion that CisA is required for function of CISSc. But the results do not add any new insights into how CIS/CisA affects the progression of the developmental life cycle and whether this effect has anything to do with the regulated cell death that is caused by CIS. The same applies to the effect on secondary metabolite production, with no further mechanistic insights added, except reporting similar effects of CIS and CisA inactivations.

Thank you for your feedback on this aspect of the manuscript. We would like to note that the main focus of this study was to provide further insight into how CIS contraction and firing are mediated in Streptomyces. We used the analysis of accelerated sporulation and secondary metabolite production as a readout to directly assess the functionality of CIS in the presence or absence of CisA and to complement the in situ cryoET data. In summary, our data significantly expand our knowledge of CIS function and firing in Streptomyces and suggest a model in which CisA plays an essential role in mediating the interaction of CIS particles with the membrane, which is required for CIS-mediated cell death. We discuss this model in more detail in the revised manuscript (Line 274-283).

We agree that we still don’t fully understand the full nature of the signals that trigger CIS contraction, but we do know that the production of CIS is an integral part of the Streptomyces multicellular life cycle as demonstrated by two independent previous studies by us and others (DOI: 10.1038/s41564-023-01341-x and DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-37087-7 ).

We further speculate that the assembly and CisA-dependent firing of Streptomyces CIS particles could present a molecular mechanism to dismantle part of the vegetative mycelium. This form of “regulated cell death” could provide two key benefits: (1) to prevent the spread of local cellular damage to the rest of mycelium and (2) to provide additional nutrients for the rest of the mycelium to delay the terminal differentiation into spores, which in turn also affects the production of secondary metabolites.

Concluding remarks:

The work will be of interest to anyone interested in contractile injection systems, T6SS, or similar machineries, as well for people working on the biology of streptomycetes. There is also a potential impact of the work in the understanding of how such molecular machineries could have been co-opted during evolution to become a mechanism for regulated cell death. However, this latter aspect remains still poorly understood. Even though this paper adds excellent new structural insights and identifies a putative membrane anchor, it remains elusive how the Streptomyces CIS may lead to cell death. It is also unclear what the advantage would be to trigger death of hyphal compartments in response to stress, as well as how such cell death may impact (or accelerate) the developmental progression. Finally, it is inescapable to wonder whether the Streptomyces CIS could have any role in protection against phage infection.

We thank Reviewer #2 for the overall supportive assessment of our work. We will briefly discuss functional CIS's impact on Streptomyces development in the revised manuscript. We previously tested if Streptomyces could defend against phages but have not found any experimental evidence to support this idea (unpublished data). The analysis of phage defense mechanisms is an underdeveloped area in Streptomyces research, partly due to the currently limited availability of a diverse phage panel.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this work, Casu et al. have reported the characterization of a previously uncharacterized membrane protein CisA encoded in a non-canonical contractile injection system of Streptomyces coelicolor, CISSc, which is a cytosolic CISs significantly distinct from both intracellular membrane-anchored T6SSs and extracellular CISs. The authors have presented the first high-resolution structure of extended CISSc structure. It revealed important structural insights in this conformational state. To further explore how CISSc interacted with cytoplasmic membrane, they further set out to investigate CisA that was previously hypothesized to be the membrane adaptor. However, the structure revealed that it was not associated with CISSc. Using fluorescence microscope and cell fractionation assay, the authors verified that CisA is indeed a membrane-associated protein. They further determined experimentally that CisA had a cytosolic N-terminal domain and a periplasmic C-terminus. The functional analysis of cisA mutant revealed that it is not required for CISSc assembly but is essential for the contraction, as a result, the deletion significantly affects CISSc-mediated cell death upon stress, timely differentiation, as well as secondary metabolite production. Although the work did not resolve the mechanistic detail how CisA interacts with CISSc structure, it provides solid data and a strong foundation for future investigation toward understanding the mechanism of CISSc contraction, and potentially, the relation between the membrane association of CISSc, the sheath contraction and the cell death.

Strengths:

The paper is well-structured, and the conclusion of the study is supported by solid data and careful data interpretation was presented. The authors provided strong evidence on (1) the high-resolution structure of extended CISSc determined by cryo-EM, and the subsequent comparison with known eCIS structures, which sheds light on both its similarity and different features from other subtypes of eCISs in detail; (2) the topological features of CisA using fluorescence microscopic analysis, cell fractionation and PhoA-LacZα reporter assays, (3) functions of CisA in CISSc-mediated cell death and secondary metabolite production, likely via the regulation of sheath contraction.

Weaknesses:

(1) The data presented are not sufficient to provide mechanistic details of CisA-mediated CISSc contraction, as authors are not able to experimentally demonstrate the direct interaction between CisA with baseplate complex of CISSc (hypothesized to be via Cis11 by structural modeling), since they could not express cisA in E. coli due to its potential toxicity. Therefore, there is a lack of biochemical analysis of direct interaction between CisA and baseplate wedge. In addition, there is no direct evidence showing that CisA is responsible for tethering CISSc to the membrane upon stress, and the spatial and temporal relation between membrane association and contraction remains unclear. Further investigation will be needed to address these questions in future.

We thank Reviewer #3 for the supportive evaluation and constructive feedback of our study in the non-public review. We appreciate the recognition of the technical limitations of experimentally demonstrating a direct interaction between CisA and CIS baseplate complex, and we agree that further investigations in the future will hopefully provide a full mechanistic understanding of the spatiotemporal interaction of CisA and CIS particular and the subsequent CIS firing.

To further improve the manuscript, we will revise the text and clarify figures and figure legends as suggested in the non-public review.

Discussion:

Overall, the work provides a valuable contribution to our understanding on the structure of a much less understood subtype of CISs, which is unique compared to both membrane-anchored T6SSs and host-membrane targeting eCISs. Importantly, the work serves as a good foundation to further investigate how the sheath contraction works here. The work contributes to expanding our understanding of the diverse CIS superfamilies.

Thank you.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

- Magnification of the potential CisA-Cis11 model, with side chains at the interface, should be shown in Supplementary Figures 9/10 to help the reader appreciates the intercation between the two subunits.

Done. A zoomed-in view of the relevant side chains at the CisA-Cis11 interface has been added to Supplementary Figure 9e. For clarity, we decided not to highlight these residues in Supplementary Figure 10 because they are identical to those in Figure 9e.

- A model where CisA is positionned onto the baseplate (by merging the CisA-Cis11 model and the baseplate structure) will also be informative for the reader.

We agree that such a presentation would be helpful to visualize the proposed CisA-Cis11 interaction. However, the Cis11 residues predicted to bind CisA are buried in our cryoEM single-particle structure of the elongated Streptomyces CIS. This is not surprising, as the structure is based on a previously established non-contractile CIS mutant variant (PMCID: PMC10066040), which means we were only able to capture one specific configuration of the baseplate complex in the current work. This baseplate configuration is most likely structurally distinct from the baseplate configuration in contracted CIS particles. A similar observation was also reported for the baseplate complex of eCIS particles from Algoriphagus machipongonesis (PMCID: PMC8894135 ).  

We speculate that in Streptomyces, initial non-specific contacts between CisA and cytoplasmic CIS particles induce a rearrangement of baseplate components, resulting in the exposure of the relevant Cis11 residues, which in turn facilitates a transient interaction between CisA and Cis11. This interaction then leads to additional conformational changes within the baseplate complex, triggering sheath contraction and CIS firing.

We believe that a transient binding step is a crucial part of the activation process, contributing to the dynamic nature of the system.

- Providing information on the oligomeric state of CisA will strenghten the manuscript. Authors may consider having blue-native gel analysis of CisA-3xFLAG extracted from Streptomyces or E. coli membranes, or in vivo chemical cross-linking coupled to SDS-PAGE analyses. In case these quite straightforward experiments are not possible, the authors may consider providing AF3 models of various CisA multimers.

Thank you for these suggestions. Unfortunately, we currently don’t have the capability to conduct additional experiments. However, we have performed additional AF3 modelling to explore potential different configurations of CisA. The results of these analyses suggest that CisA can assemble into a pentamer (see also Response to reviewer 1). We speculate that CisA may exist in different oligomeric states and that membrane-localized CisA monomers oligomerize into a larger protein complex in response to a cellular or extracellular (e.g. nisin) signal, which could then directly or indirectly interact with CIS particles in the cytoplasm to facilitate their recruitment to the membrane and CIS firing. Such a stress-dependent conformational change of CisA could also be a safety mechanism to prevent accidental interaction of CisA with CIS particles and CIS firing.

We now show the AF model for the predicted CisA pentamer in Figure 3b/c and discuss the potential implications of the different CisA configurations in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

- The quantification of contracted versus extended CIS assemblies in the cytoplasm is only presented for the tomograms from the cisA mutant (graph in Fig. S2d). However, there are no data for the WT and complemented mutant to compare with. It would help to add such data, or at least refer to the previous quantification done for the WT in the previous paper. Further, would it be possible to illustrate the difference by measuring lengths of CIS assemblies and plot length distributions (assuming the extended ones are long and contracted are short)?

Thank you for your suggestions. We have included the results from our previous quantification of CIS assembly states observed in the WT in the revised manuscript (lines 106–110).

In the acquired tomograms of CIS particles observed in intact and dead hyphae, we consistently observed only two CIS conformations: the fully extended state (average length of 233 nm, diameter of 18 nm) and the fully contracted state (average length of 124 nm, diameter of 23 nm). We have added this information to the revised manuscript (lines 112-114).

- The Western blot in Fig. 3d, top panel, contains additional bands that are not mentioned. Are they non-specific bands? Absent in disA mutant? It would help if it was clarified in the legend what they are.

Correct, these additional bands are unspecific bands, which are also visible in the lysate and soluble fraction of wild-type sample (negative control, no FLAG-tagged protein). We have now labelled these bands in the figure and clarified the figure legend.

- Fig. S8a needs improvement. It was not possible to clearly see the stated effect of disA deletion on secondary metabolite production in these photos.

We agree and have removed figure panel S8a from the manuscript. The quantification of total actinorhodin production shown in Figure S8b convincingly shows a significantly reduction of actinorhodin production in the cisA deletion mutant compared to the wildtype and the complement mutant.

- It is not an important point, but the paragraph in lines 109-116 appears more like a re-iteration of the Introduction than Results.

We agree. We have removed the highlighted text from the Results section and added some of the information to the introduction.

- Line 206 appears to have a typo. Should it not be WT instead of WT cisA?

Correct. This is a typo which has been fixed. Thank you.

- At the end of the Discussion, it is suggested that a stepwise mechanism of recruiting CIS to the membrane and then triggering firing would prevent unwanted activation and self-inflicted death. Since both steps appear to be dependent in DisA, it would be good to more clearly spell out how such a stepwise mechanism would work and how it could prevent spontaneous and erroneous firing of the system.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised the text to clarify the proposed stepwise mechanism. Based on additional structural modeling, we propose that the conserved extra-cytoplasmic domain of CisA may play a role in sensing stress signals. Binding of a ‘stress-associated molecule’ could induce a conformational change in CisA, a hypothesis supported by: (1) Foldseek protein structure searches, which suggest that the conserved C-terminal CisA domain resembles substrate/solute-binding proteins, and (2) AlphaFold3 models predicting that CisA can form a pentamer via its putative substrate-binding domain. This suggests that a transition from CisA monomers to pentamers in response to stress may serve as a key checkpoint, activating CisA and facilitating the recruitment of CIS assemblies to the membrane, either directly or indirectly. Conversely, in the absence of a stress signal, CisA is likely to remain in its monomeric (resting) form, incapable of triggering CIS firing. We have revised the discussion to explain the proposed model in more detail.

We recognize that this model poses many testable hypotheses that we currently cannot test but aim to address in the future.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

There are a few concerns potentially worth addressing to strengthen the study or for future investigation.

(1) It would be worth considering moving the first part of the result ('CisA is required for CISSc contraction in situ') after presenting the structure of extended CISSc, and combining it with the last part of the result section ('CisA is essential for the cellular function of CISSc'), as both parts describe the functional characterization of CisA.

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion but have chosen to retain the current order of the results. As this manuscript focuses on the role of CisA, we believe that first establishing a functional link between CisA and CIS contraction provides essential context and motivation for the study.

(2) Line 169: it is not clear to me if the fusion of CisA with mCherry is functional (if it complements the native CisA). Moreover, it was not shown if its localization changes under nisin stress or in the strain with non-contractile CISSc.

We have not tested if the CisA-mCherry fusion is fully functional. While we cannot exclude the possibility that the activity of this protein fusion is compromised in vivo, we believe that the described accumulation of CisA-mCherry at the membrane is accurate. This conclusion is further supported by the results obtained from protein fractionation experiments and the membrane topology assay (Figure 3).

We did not examine if the localization of CisA-mCherry changes in CIS mutant strains under nisin-stress, but this is something we will follow up on in the future.

(3) In ref 18, the previous work from the same team presented a functional fluorescent fusion of Cis2 (sheath), thus, it will be interesting to see if (i) Cis2 localization and dynamics is affected by the absence of CisA under normal and stressed conditions; (ii) if Cis2 shows any co-localization with CisA under normal and especially stressed conditions, and potentially, its timing correlation to ghost cell formation by time-lapse imaging of both fusions.

We thank this reviewer for the suggestions, and we plan to address these questions in the future.

(4) Line 261: it was hypothesized by authors that the cytosolic portion of CisA was required for interacting with Cis11. While it was not possible to verify the direct interaction at current state, a S. coelicolor mutant lacking this cytosolic domain may be of help to indirectly test the hypothesis. Moreover, it would be interesting to see if the cytosolic region alone is enough to induce the contraction upon stress (by removing the TM-C region). If so, whether it leads to cell death, or if it is insufficient to cause cell death without membrane association despite the sheath contraction. If not, it would suggest that membrane association occurs before contraction.

These are really great suggestions and if we had the manpower and resources, we would have performed these experiments. We plan to follow up on these questions in the future.

However, additional structural modelling of CisA indicates that CisA may exist in different configurations (see response to Reviewer #1 and #2), a monomeric and/or a pentameric configuration. In these structural models (revised Figure 3), CisA oligomerization is mediated by the annotated periplasmic solute-binding domain. It is conceivable that CisA oligomerization (e.g. in response to a stress signal) presents a critical checkpoint that results in a conformational change within CisA monomers that subsequently drives CisA oligomerization into a configuration primed to interact with CIS particles. We would therefore speculate that the expression of just the cytoplasmic CisA domain may not be sufficient for CIS contraction and cell death.

(5) Line 263: as it was not possible to express full-length cisA in E. coli, making it difficult to assess the interaction between CisA and Cis11, it may be worth considering expressing the cytosolic portion of CisA (ΔTM-C) instead of full-length CisA, or alternatively performing a co-immunoprecipitation assay of CisA (i.e., with an affinity tag) from S. coelicolor cultures under stressed conditions. However, I am aware that these may be beyond the scope of this work but can be considered for future investigation in general.

Thank you for your suggestions and your understanding that some of this work is beyond the scope of this work. We have performed CisA-FLAG co-immunoprecipitation experiments from S. coelicolor cultures that were treated with nisin for 0/15/45 min. However, mass spectrometry analysis of co-eluted peptides did not show the presence of CIS-associated peptides at the analysed timepoints. While we cannot exclude technical issues with our assays that resulted in an inefficient solubilization of CisA from Streptomyces membranes, an alternative hypothesis is that the interaction between CIS particles and CisA is very transient and therefore difficult to capture. We would like to mention, however, that we did detect CisA peptides in crude purifications of CIS particles from nisin-stressed cells (Supplementary Table 2, manuscript: line 301/302), supporting our proposed model that CisA can associate with CIS particles in vivo.

Minor points:

(1) I will suggest moving Supplementary Fig 2d with control quantification of WT strain and complementation strain (similar to Fig 3g from ref 18) to the main Fig 1, as the quantitative representation with better comparison without going back and forth to ref 18.

Thank you for your suggestion. Instead of moving Supplementary Fig. 2d to the main figure, we have added additional information in lines 106–110 to discuss the previous quantification of CIS assembly states in the WT, as described in our earlier work. We believe this approach allows readers to easily reference our established quantification without compromising the flow of the main figures.

(2) Line 52/785: as work of Ref 12 has recently been published DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adp7088, the reference should be updated accordingly.

This reference has been updated. Thank you.

(3) A brief description of key differences between contracted (ref 18) and extended sheath structure will be a good addition for a broader audience.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have added more information on lines 178–180.

(4) Fig 3d: it is not clear how well the samples from different fractions were normalized in amount (volume and cell density), but there was an inconsistency in the amount of CisA-Flag in lysate, vs. soluble and membrane fractions (total protein amount combined from soluble fraction and membrane fraction together seemed to be more than in the lysate, while in theory it should be more or less equal; and the amount of WhiA from WT seemed to be less than from the CisA-Flag strain). In the method section, it was mentioned that 'The final pellet was dissolved in 1/10 of the initial volume with wash buffer (no urea). Equi-volume amounts of fractions were mixed with 2x SDS sample buffer and analyzed by immunoblotting.' But it is still not clear whether equivalent amounts (normalized to the same OD for example) were used and if we could directly compare. A brief clarification in the legend of how samples were prepared is needed.

The samples were normalized by first using the same volume of starting material (similar culture density and incubation period for each strain) and by loading equal volumes of each fraction for analysis. After fractionation, equi-volume amounts of the soluble and membrane protein fractions were mixed with 2× SDS sample buffer and subjected to immunoblotting, ensuring a consistent basis for comparison between samples. We have revised the figure legend and Material and Method sections to make this clear.

We agree that the amount of CisA-3xFLAG appears slightly lower in the “Lysate” fraction compared to the “Membrane” fraction in Figure 3d (now Fig. 3f). However, this does not affect the overall conclusion of this experiment, showing that CisA-3xFLAG is clearly enriched in the membrane fraction.

For reference, please find below the uncropped version of this Western blot image. Based on the signal of the unspecific bands, we would like to argue that equal amounts of samples obtained from the WT control strain (no FLAG epitope present) and a strain producing CisA-3xFLAG were loaded for each of the fractions. When we revisited this data, we noted that the protein size marker was wrong. This has been fixed.

Author response image 1.

(5) Fig. 4f: statistical analysis is missing.

The missing statistical analysis has been added to this figure and figure legend.

Author response:

(1) General Statements

As you will see in our attached rebuttal to the reviewers, we have added several new experiments and revised manuscript to fully address their concerns.

(2) Point-by-point description of the revisions

Reviewer #1:

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

Summary:

The manuscript by Yang et al. describes a new CME accessory protein. CCDC32 has been previously suggested to interact with AP2 and in the present work the authors confirm this interaction and show that it is a bona fide CME regulator. In agreement with its interaction with AP2, CCDC32 recruitment to CCPs mirrors the accumulation of clathrin. Knockdown of CCDC32 reduces the amount of productive CCPs, suggestive of a stabilisation role in early clathrin assemblies. Immunoprecipitation experiments mapped the interaction of CCDC42 to the α-appendage of the AP2 complex α-subunit. Finally, the authors show that the CCDC32 nonsense mutations found in patients with cardio-facial-neuro-developmental syndrome disrupt the interaction of this protein to the AP2 complex. The manuscript is well written and the conclusions regarding the role of CCDC32 in CME are supported by good quality data. As detailed below, a few improvements/clarifications are needed to reinforce some of the conclusions, especially the ones regarding CFNDS.

We thank the referee for their positive comments. In light of a recently published paper describing CCDC32 as a co-chaperone required for AP2 assembly (Wan et al., PNAS, 2024, see reviewer 2), we have added several additional experiments to address all concerns and consequently gained further insight into CCDC32-AP2 interactions and the important dual role of CCDC32 in regulating CME. 

Major comments:

(1) Why did the protein could just be visualized at CCPs after knockdown of the endogenous protein? This is highly unusual, especially on stable cell lines. Could this be that the tag is interfering with the expressed protein function rendering it incapable of outcompeting the endogenous? Does this points to a regulated recruitment?

The reviewer is correct, this would be unusual; however, it is not the case. We misspoke in the text (although the figure legend was correct) these experiments were performed without siRNA knockdown and we can indeed detect eGFP-CCDC32 being recruited to CCPs in the presence of endogenous protein. Nonetheless, we repeated the experiment to be certain (see Author response image 1).  

Author response image 1.

Cohort-averaged fluorescence intensity traces of CCPs (marked with mRuby-CLCa) and CCP-enriched eGFPCCDC32(FL).

(2) The disease mutation used in the paper does not correspond to the truncation found in patients. The authors use an 1-54 truncation, but the patients described in Harel et al. have frame shifts at the positions 19 (Thr19Tyrfs*12) and 64 (Glu64Glyfs*12), while the patient described in Abdalla et al. have the deletion of two introns, leading to a frameshift around amino acid 90. Moreover, to be precisely test the function of these disease mutations, one would need to add the extra amino acids generated by the frame shift. For example, as denoted in the mutation description in Harel et al., the frameshift at position 19 changes the Threonine 19 to a Tyrosine and ads a run of 12 extra amino acids (Thr19Tyrfs*12).

The label of the disease mutant p.(Thr19Tyrfs12) and p.(Glu64Glyfs12) is based on a 194aa polypeptide version of CCDC32 initiated at a nonconventional start site that contains a 9 aa peptide (VRGSCLRFQ) upstream of the N-terminus we show. Thus, we are indeed using the appropriate mutation site (see: https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/Q9BV29/entry). The reviewer is correct that we have not included the extra 12 aa in our construct; however as these residues are not present in the other CFNDS mutants, we think it unlikely that they contribute to the disease phenotype.  Rather, as neither of the clinically observed mutations contain the 78-98 aa sequence required for AP2 binding and CME function, we are confident that this defect contributed to the disease. Thus, we are including the data on the CCDC32(1-54) mutant, as we believe these results provide a valuable physiological context to our studies. 

(3) The frameshift caused by the CFNDS mutations (especially the one studied) will likely lead to nonsense mediated RNA decay (NMD). The frameshift is well within the rules where NMD generally kicks in. Therefore, I am unsure about the functional insights of expressing a diseaserelated protein which is likely not present in patients.

We thank the reviewer for bringing up this concern. However, as shown in new Figure S1, the mutant protein is expressed at comparable levels as the WT, suggesting that NMD is not occurring.

(4) Coiled coils generally form stable dimers. The typically hydrophobic core of these structures is not suitable for transient interactions. This complicates the interpretation of the results regarding the role of this region as the place where the interaction to AP2 occurs. If the coiled coil holds a stable CCDC32 dimer, disrupting this dimer could reduce the affinity to AP2 (by reduced avidity) to the actual binding site. A construct with an orthogonal dimeriser or a pulldown of the delta78-98 protein with of the GST AP2a-AD could be a good way to sort this issue.

We were unable to model a stable dimer (or other oligomer) of this protein with high confidence using Alphafold 3.0. Moreover, we were unable to detect endogenous CCDC32 coimmunoprecipitating with eGFP-CCDC32 (Fig. S6C). Thus, we believe that the moniker, based solely on the alpha-helical content of the protein is a misnomer.  We have explained this in the main text.

Minor comments:

(1) The authors interchangeably use the term "flat CCPs" and "flat clathrin lattices". While these are indeed related, flat clathrin lattices have been also used to refer to "clathrin plaques". To avoid confusion, I suggest sticking to the term "flat CCPs" to refer to the CCPs which are in their early stages of maturation.

Agreed. Thank you for the suggestion. We have renamed these structures flat clathrin assemblies, as they do not acquire the curvature needed to classify them as pits, and do not grow to the size that would classify then as plaques. 

Significance

General assessment:

CME drives the internalisation of hundreds of receptors and surface proteins in practically all tissues, making it an essential process for various physiological processes. This versatility comes at the cost of a large number of molecular players and regulators. To understand this complexity, unravelling all the components of this process is vital. The manuscript by Yang et al. gives an important contribution to this effort as it describes a new CME regulator, CCDC32, which acts directly at the main CME adaptor AP2. The link to disease is interesting, but the authors need to refine their experiments. The requirement for endogenous knockdown for recruitment of the tagged CCDC32 is unusual and requires further exploration.

Advance:

The increased frequency of abortive events presented by CCDC32 knockdown cells is very interesting, as it hints to an active mechanism that regulates the stabilisation and growth of clathrin coated pits. The exact way clathrin coated pits are stabilised is still an open question in the field.

Audience:

This is a basic research manuscript. However, given the essential role of CME in physiology and the growing number of CME players involved in disease, this manuscript can reach broader audiences.

We thank the referee for recognizing the ‘interesting’ advances our studies have made and for considering these studies as ‘an important contribution’ to ‘an essential process for various physiological processes’ and able ‘to reach broader audiences’. We have addressed and reconciled the reviewer’s concerns in our revised manuscript. 

Field of expertise of the reviewer:

Clathrin mediated endocytosis, cell biology, microscopy, biochemistry.

Reviewer #2:

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

In this manuscript, the authors demonstrate that CCDC32 regulates clathrin-mediated endocytosis (CME). Some of the findings are consistent with a recent report by Wan et al. (2024 PNAS), such as the observation that CCDC32 depletion reduces transferrin uptake and diminishes the formation of clathrin-coated pits. The primary function of CCDC32 is to regulate AP2 assembly, and its depletion leads to AP2 degradation. However, this study did not examine AP2 expression levels. CCDC32 may bind to the appendage domain of AP2 alpha, but it also binds to the core domain of AP2 alpha.

We thank the reviewer for drawing our attention to the Wan et al. paper, that appeared while this work was under review.  However, our in vivo data are not fully consistent with the report from Wan et al. The discrepancies reveal a dual function of CCDC32 in CME that was masked by complete knockout vs siRNA knockdown of the protein, and also likely affected by the position of the GFP-tag (C- vs N-terminal) on this small protein. Thus:

-  Contrary to Wan et al., we do not detect any loss of AP2 expression (see new Figure S3A-B) upon siRNA knockdown. Most likely the ~40% residual CCDC32 present after siRNA knockdown is sufficient to fulfill its catalytic chaperone function but not its structural role in regulating CME beyond the AP2 assembly step.  

- Contrary to Wan et al., we have shown that CCDC32 indeed interacts with intact AP2 complex (Figure S3C and 6B,C) showing that all 4 subunits of the AP2 complex co-IP with full length eGFP-CCDC32. Interestingly, whereas the full length CCDC32 pulls down the intact AP2 complex, co-IP of the ∆78-98 mutant retains its ability to pull down the β2-µ2 hemicomplex, its interactions with α:σ2 are severely reduced.  While this result is consistent with the report of Wan et al that CCDC32 binds to the α:σ2 hemi-complex, it also suggests that the interactions between CCDC32 and AP2 are more complex and will require further studies.

- Contrary to Wan et al., we provide strong evidence that CCDC32 is recruited to CCPs. Interestingly, modeling with AlphaFold 3.0 identifies a highly probably interaction between alpha helices encoded by residues 66-91 on CCDC32 and residues 418-438 on α. The latter are masked by µ2-C in the closed confirmation of the AP2 core, but exposed in the open confirmation triggered by cargo binding, suggesting that CCDC32 might only bind to membrane-bound AP2.

Thus, our findings are indeed novel and indicate striking multifunctional roles for CCDC32 in CME, making the protein well worth further study. 

(1) Besides its role in AP2 assembly, CCDC32 may potentially have another function on the membrane. However, there is no direct evidence showing that CCDC32 associates with the plasma membrane.

We disagree, our data clearly shows that CCDC32 is recruited to CCPs (Fig. 1B) and that CCPs that fail to recruit CCDC32 are short-lived and likely abortive (Fig. 1C). Wan et al. did not observe any colocalization of C-terminally tagged CCDC32 to CCPs, whereas we detect recruitment of our N-terminally tagged construct, which we also show is functional (Fig. 6F).  Further, we have demonstrated the importance of the C-terminal region of CCDC32 in membrane association (see new Fig. S7).  Thus, we speculate that a C-terminally tagged CCDC32 might not be fully functional. Indeed, SIM images of the C-terminally-tagged CCDC32 in Wan et al., show large (~100 nm) structures in the cytosol, which may reflect aggregation. 

(2) CCDC32 binds to multiple regions on AP2, including the core domain. It is important to distinguish the functional roles of these different binding sites.

We have localized the AP2-ear binding region to residues 78-99 and shown these to be critical for the functions we have identified. As described above we now include data that are complementary to those of Wan et al. However, our data also clearly points to additional binding modalities. We agree that it will be important and map these additional interactions and identify their functional roles, but this is beyond the scope of this paper.  

(3) AP2 expression levels should be examined in CCDC32 depleted cells. If AP2 is gone, it is not surprising that clathrin-coated pits are defective.

Agreed and we have confirmed this by western blotting (Figure S3A-B) and detect no reduction in levels of any of the AP2 subunits in CCDC32 siRNA knockdown cells. As stated above this could be due to residual CCDC32 present in the siRNA KD vs the CRISPR-mediated gene KO.

(4) If the authors aim to establish a secondary function for CCDC32, they need to thoroughly discuss the known chaperone function of CCDC32 and consider whether and how CCDC32 regulates a downstream step in CME.

Agreed. We have described the Wan et al paper, which came out while our manuscript was in review, in our Introduction.  As described above, there are areas of agreement and of discrepancies, which are thoroughly documented and discussed throughout the revised manuscript.  

(5) The quality of Figure 1A is very low, making it difficult to assess the localization and quantify the data.

The low signal:noise in Fig. 1A the reviewer is concerned about is due to a diffuse distribution of CCDC32 on the inner surface of the plasma membrane. We now, more explicitly describe this binding, which we believe reflects a specific interaction mediated by the C-terminus of CCDC32; thus the degree of diffuse membrane binding we observe follows: eGFP-CCDC32(FL)> eGFPCCDC32(∆78-98)>eGFP-CCDC32(1-54)~eGFP/background (see new Fig. S7). Importantly, the colocalization of CCDC32 at CCPs is confirmed by the dynamic imaging of CCPs (Fig 1B).

(6) In Figure 6, why aren't AP2 mu and sigma subunits shown?

Agreed. Not being aware of CCDC32’s possible dual role as a chaperone, we had assumed that the AP2 complex was intact.  We have now added this data in Figure 6 B,C and Fig. S3C, as discussed above. 

Page 5, top, this sentence is confusing: "their surface area (~17 x 10 nm²) remains significantly less than that required for the average 100 nm diameter CCV (~3.2 x 103 nm²)."

Thank you for the criticism. We have clarified the sentence and corrected a typo, which would definitely be confusing.  The section now reads,  “While the flat CCSs we detected in CCDC32 knockdown cells were significantly larger than in control cells (Fig. 4D, mean diameter of 147 nm vs. 127 nm, respectively), they are much smaller than typical long-lived flat clathrin lattices (d≥300 nm)(Grove et al., 2014). Indeed, the surface area of the flat CCSs that accumulate in CCDC32 KD cells (mean ~1.69 x 10⁴ nm²) remains significantly less than the surface area of an average 100 nm diameter CCV (~3.14 x 10⁴ nm²). Thus, we refer to these structures as ‘flat clathrin assemblies’ because they are neither curved ‘pits’ nor large ‘lattices’. Rather, the flat clathrin assemblies represent early, likely defective, intermediates in CCP formation.” 

Significance

Overall, while this work presents some interesting ideas, it remains unclear whether CCDC32 regulates AP2 beyond the assembly step.

Our responses above argue that we have indeed established that CCDC32 regulates AP2 beyond the assembly step. We have also identified several discrepancies between our findings and those reported by Wan et al., most notably binding between CCDC32 and mature AP2 complexes and the AP2-dependent recruitment of CCDC32 to CCPs.  It is possible that these discrepancies may be due to the position of the GFP tag (ours is N-terminal, theirs is C-terminal; we show that the N-terminal tagged CCDC32 rescues the knockdown phenotype, while Wan et al., do not provide evidence for functionality of the C-terminal construct). 

Reviewer #3: 

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required): 

In this manuscript, Yang et al. characterize the endocytic accessory protein CCDC32, which has implications in cardio-facio-neuro-developmental syndrome (CFNDS). The authors clearly demonstrate that the protein CCDC32 has a role in the early stages of endocytosis, mainly through the interaction with the major endocytic adaptor protein AP2, and they identify regions taking part in this recognition. Through live cell fluorescence imaging and electron microscopy of endocytic pits, the authors characterize the lifetimes of endocytic sites, the formation rate of endocytic sites and pits and the invagination depth, in addition to transferrin receptor (TfnR) uptake experiments. Binding between CCDC32 and CCDC32 mutants to the AP2 alpha appendage domain is assessed by pull down experiments. Together, these experiments allow deriving a phenotype of CCDC32 knock-down and CCDC32 mutants within endocytosis, which is a very robust system, in which defects are not so easily detected. A mutation of CCDC32, known to play a role in CFNDS, is also addressed in this study and shown to have endocytic defects.

We thank the reviewer for their positive remarks regarding the quality of our data and the strength of our conclusions.  

In summary, the authors present a strong combination of techniques, assessing the impact of CCDC32 in clathrin mediated endocytosis and its binding to AP2, whereby the following major and minor points remain to be addressed: 

- The authors show that CCDC32 depletion leads to the formation of brighter and static clathrin coated structures (Figure 2), but that these were only prevalent to 7.8% and masked the 'normal' dynamic CCPs. At the same time, the authors show that the absence of CCDC32 induces pits with shorter life times (Figure 1 and Figure 2), the 'majority' of the pits.

Clarification is needed as to how the authors arrive at these conclusions and these numbers. The authors should also provide (and visualize) the corresponding statistics. The same statement is made again later on in the manuscript, where the authors explain their electron microscopy data. Was the number derived from there? 

These points are critical to understanding CCDC32's role in endocytosis and is key to understanding the model presented in Figure 8. The numbers of how many pits accumulate in flat lattices versus normal endocytosis progression and the actual time scales could be included in this model and would make the figure much stronger. 

Thank you for these comments.  We understand the paradox between the visual impression and the reality of our dynamic measurements. We have been visually misled by this in previous work (Chen et al., 2020), which emphasizes the importance of unbiased image analysis afforded to us through the well-documented cmeAnalysis pipeline, developed by us (Aguet et al., 2013) and now used by many others (e.g. (He et al., 2020)). 

The % of static structures was not derived from electron microscopy data, but quantified using cmeAnalysis, which automatedly provides the lifetime distribution of CCPs. We have now clarified this in the manuscript and added a histogram (Fig. S4) quantifying the fraction of CCPs in lifetime cohorts  <20s, 21-60s, 61-100s, 101-150s and >150s (static). 

- In relation to the above point, the statistics of Figure 2E-G and the analysis leading there should also be explained in more detail: For example, what are the individual points in the plot (also in Figures 6G and 7G)? The authors should also use a few phrases to explain software they use, for example DASC, in the main text. 

Each point in these bar graphs represents a movie, where n≥12. These details have been added to the respective figure legend. We have also added a brief description of DASC analysis in the text. 

-  There are several questions related to the knock-down experiments that need to be addressed:

Firstly, knock-down of CCDC32 does not seem to be very strong (Figure S2B). Can the level of knock-down be quantified? 

We have now quantified the KD efficiency. It is ~60%. This turns out to be fortuitous (see responses to reviewer 2), as a recent publication, which came out after we completed our study, has shown by CRISPR-mediated knockout, that CCD32 also plays an essential chaperone function required for AP2 assembly.  We do not see any reduction in AP2 levels or its complex formation under our conditions (see new Supplemental Figure S3), which suggests that the effects of CCDC32 on CCP dynamics are more sensitive to CCDC32 concentration than its roles as a chaperone. Our phenotypes would have been masked by more efficient depletion of CCDC32.  

In page 6 it is indicated that the eGFP-CCDC32(1-54) and eGFP-CCDC32(∆78-98) constructs are siRNA-resistant. However in Fig S2B, these proteins do not show any signal in the western blot, so it is not clear if they are expressed or simply not detected by the antibody. The presence of these proteins after silencing endogenous CCDC32 needs to be confirmed to support Figures 6 and Figures 7, which critically rely on the presence of the CCDC32 mutants. 

Unfortunately, the C-terminally truncated CCDC32 proteins are not detected because they lack the antibody epitope, indeed even the ∆78-98 deletion is poorly detected (compare the GFP blot in new S1A with the anti-CCDC32 blot in S1B).  However, these constructs contain the same siRNA-resistance mutation as the full length protein. That they are expressed and siRNA resistant can be seen in Fig. S2A (now Fig. S1A) blotting for GFP.

In Figures 6 and 7, siRNA knock-down of CCDC32 is only indicated for sub-figures F to G. Is this really the case? If not, the authors should clarify. The siRNA knock-down in Figure 1 is also only mentioned in the text, not in the figure legend. The authors should pay attention to make their figure legends easy to understand and unambiguous. 

No, it is not the case.  Thank you for pointing out the uncertainty. We have added these details to the Figure legends and checked all Figure legends to ensure that they clearly describe the data shown.  

- It is not exactly clear how the curves in Figure 3C (lower panel) on the invagination depth were obtained. Can the authors clarify this a bit more? For example, what are kT and kE in Figure 3A? What is I0? And how did the authors derive the logarithmic function used to quantify the invagination depth? In the main text, the authors say that the traces were 'logarithmically transformed'. This is not a technical term. The authors should refer to the actual equation used in the figure. 

This analysis was developed by the Kirchhausen lab (Saffarian and Kirchhausen, 2008). We have added these details and reference them in the Figure legend and in the text. We also now use the more accurate descriptor ‘log-transformed’.

- In the discussion, the claim 'The resulting dysregulation of AP2 inhibits CME, which further results in the development of CFNDS.' is maybe a bit too strong of a statement. Firstly, because the authors show themselves that CME is perturbed, but by no means inhibited. Secondly, the molecular link to CFNDS remains unclear. Even though CCDC32 mutants seem to be responsible for CFNDS and one of the mutant has been shown in this study to have a defect in endocytosis and AP2 binding, a direct link between CCDC32's function in endocytosis and CFNDS remains elusive. The authors should thus provide a more balanced discussion on this topic. 

We have modified and softened our conclusions, which now read that the phenotypes we see likely “contribute to” rather than “cause” the disease.

- In Figure S1, the authors annotate the presence of a coiled-coil domain, which they also use later on in the manuscript to generate mutations. Could the authors specify (and cite) where and how this coiled-coil domain has been identified? Is this predicted helix indeed a coiled-coil domain, or just a helix, as indicated by the authors in the discussion?

See response to Reviewer 1, point 4.  We have changed this wording to alpha-helix. The ‘coiled-coil’ reference is historical and unlikely a true reflection of CCDC32 structure. AlphaFold 3.0 predictions were unable to identify with certainly any coiled-coil structures, even if we modelled potential dimers or trimers; and we find no evidence of dimerization of CCDC32 in vivo. We have clarified this in the text.

Minor comments

- In general, a more detailed explanation of the microscopy techniques used and the information they report would be beneficial to provide access to the article also to non-expert readers in the field. This concerns particularly the analysis methods used, for example: 

How were the cohort-averaged fluorescence intensity and lifetime traces obtained? 

How do the tools cmeAnalysis and DASC work? A brief explanation would be helpful. 

We have expanded Methods to add these details, and also described them in the main text. 

- The axis label of Figure 2B is not quite clear. What does 'TfnR uptake % of surface bound' mean? Maybe the authors could explain this in more detail in the figure legend? Is the drop in uptake efficiency also accessible by visual inspection of the images? It would be interesting to see that. 

This is a standard measure of CME efficiency. 'TfnR uptake % of surface bound' = Internalized TfnR/Surface bound TfnR. Again, images may be misleading as defects in CME lead to increased levels of TfnR on the cell surface, which in turn would result in more Tfn uptake even if the rate of CME is decreased.

- Figure 4: How is the occupancy of CCPs in the plasma membrane measured? What are the criteria used to divide CCSs into Flat, Dome or Sphere categories? 

We have expanded Methods to add these details. Based on the degree of invagination, the shapes of CCSs were classified as either: flat CCSs with no obvious invagination; dome-shaped CCSs that had a hemispherical or less invaginated shape with visible edges of the clathrin lattice; and spherical CCSs that had a round shape with the invisible edges of clathrin lattice in 2D projection images. In most cases, the shapes were obvious in 2D PREM images. In uncertain cases, the degree of CCS invagination was determined using images tilted at ±10–20 degrees. The area of CCSs were measured using ImageJ and used for the calculation of the CCS occupancy on the plasma membrane.

- Figure 5B: Can the authors explain, where exactly the GFP was engineered into AP2 alpha? This construct does not seem to be explained in the methods section. 

We have added this information. The construct, which corresponds to an insertion of GFP into the flexible hinge region of AP2, at aa649, was first described by (Mino et al., 2020) and shown to be fully functional.  This information has been added to the Methods section.

- Figure S1B: The authors should indicate the colour code used for the structural model.

We have expanded our structural modeling using AlphaFold 3.0 in light of the recent publication suggesting the CCDC32 interacts with the µ2 subunit and does not bind full length AP2. These results are described in the text. The color coding now reflects certainty values given by AlphaFold 3.0 (Fig. S6B, D). 

- The list of primers referred to in the materials and methods section does not exist. There is a Table S1, but this contains different data. The actual Table S1 is not referenced in the main text. This should be done. 

We apologize for this error. We have now added this information in Table S2.

Significance (Required):

In this study, the authors analyse a so-far poorly understood endocytic accessory protein, CCDC32, and its implication for endocytosis. The experimental tool set used, allowing to quantify CCP dynamics and invagination is clearly a strength of the article that allows assessing the impact of an accessory protein towards the endocytic uptake mechanism, which is normally very robust towards mutations. Only through this detailed analysis of endocytosis progression could the authors detect clear differences in the presence and absence of CCDC32 and its mutants. If the above points are successfully addressed, the study will provide very interesting and highly relevant work allowing a better understanding of the early phases in CME with implication for disease. 

The study is thus of potential interest to an audience interested in CME, in disease and its molecular reasons, as well as for readers interested in intrinsically disordered proteins to a certain extent, claiming thus a relatively broad audience. The presented results may initiate further studies of the so-far poorly understood and less well known accessory protein CCDC32.

We thank the reviewer for their positive comments on the significance of our findings and the importance of our detailed phenotypic analysis made possible by quantitative live cell microscopy. We also believe that our new structural modeling of CCDC32 and our findings of complex and extensive interactions with AP2 make the reviewers point regarding intrinsically disordered proteins even more interesting and relevant to a broad audience.  We trust that our revisions indeed address the reviewer’s concerns. 

The field of expertise of the reviewer is structural biology, biochemistry and clathrin mediated endocytosis. Expertise in cell biology is rather superficial.

References:

Aguet, F., Costin N. Antonescu, M. Mettlen, Sandra L. Schmid, and G. Danuser. 2013. Advances in Analysis of Low Signal-to-Noise Images Link Dynamin and AP2 to the Functions of an Endocytic Checkpoint. Developmental Cell. 26:279-291.

Chen, Z., R.E. Mino, M. Mettlen, P. Michaely, M. Bhave, D.K. Reed, and S.L. Schmid. 2020. Wbox2: A clathrin terminal domain–derived peptide inhibitor of clathrin-mediated endocytosis. Journal of Cell Biology. 219.

Grove, J., D.J. Metcalf, A.E. Knight, S.T. Wavre-Shapton, T. Sun, E.D. Protonotarios, L.D. Griffin, J. Lippincott-Schwartz, and M. Marsh. 2014. Flat clathrin lattices: stable features of the plasma membrane. Mol Biol Cell. 25:3581-3594.

He, K., E. Song, S. Upadhyayula, S. Dang, R. Gaudin, W. Skillern, K. Bu, B.R. Capraro, I. Rapoport, I. Kusters, M. Ma, and T. Kirchhausen. 2020. Dynamics of Auxilin 1 and GAK in clathrinmediated traffic. J Cell Biol. 219.

Mino, R.E., Z. Chen, M. Mettlen, and S.L. Schmid. 2020. An internally eGFP-tagged α-adaptin is a fully functional and improved fiduciary marker for clathrin-coated pit dynamics. Traffic. 21:603-616.

Saffarian, S., and T. Kirchhausen. 2008. Differential evanescence nanometry: live-cell fluorescence measurements with 10-nm axial resolution on the plasma membrane. Biophys J. 94:23332342.

Note: This response was posted by the corresponding author to Review Commons. The content has not been altered except for formatting.

Learn more at Review Commons

---

Reply to the reviewers

Reviewer #1

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

In their manuscript de las Mercedes Carro et al investigated the role of Ago proteins during spermatogenesis by producing a triple knockout of Ago 1, 3 and 4. They first describe the pattern of expression of each protein and of Ago2 during the differentiation of male germ cells, then they describe the spermatogenesis phenotype of triple knockout males, study gene deregulation by scRNA seq and identify novel interacting proteins by co-IP mass spectrometry, in particular BRG1/SMARCA4, a chromatin remodeling factor and ATF2 a transcription factor. The main message is that Ago3 and 4 are involved in the regulation of XY gene silencing during meiosis, and also in the control of autosomal gene expression during meiosis. Overall the manuscript is well written, the topic, very interesting and the experiments, well-executed. However, there are some parts of the methodology and data interpretation that are unclear (see below).

Major comments

1= Please clarify how the triple KO was obtained, and if it is constitutive or specific to the male germline. In the result section a Cre (which cre?) is mentioned but it is not mentioned in the M&M. On Figure S1, a MICER VECTOR is shown instead of a deletion, but nothing is explained in the text nor legend. Could the authors provide more details in the results section as well as in the M&M ? This is essential to fully interpret the results obtained for this KO line, and to compare its phenotype to other lines (such as lines 184-9 Comparison of triple KO phenotype with that of Ago4 KO). Also, if it is a constitutive KO, the authors should mention if they observed other phenotypes in triple KO mice since AGO proteins are not only expressed in the male germline.

Response: We apologize for omitting this vital information. We have now incorporated a more detailed description of how the Ago413 mutant was created in the results and M&M sections (line 120 and 686 respectively).

As mentioned in the manuscript, Ago4, Ago1 and Ago3 are widely expressed in mammalian somatic tissues. Mutations or deletions of these genes does not disrupt development; however, there is limited research on the impact of these mutations in mammalian models in vivo. In humans, mutations in Ago1 and Ago3 genes are associated with neurological disorders, autism and intellectual disability (Tokita, M.J.,et al. 2015- doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2014.202., Sakaguchi et al. 2019- doi: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2018.09.004, Schalk et al 2021- doi: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2021-107751). In mouse, global deletion of Ago1 and Ago3 simultaneously was shown to increase mice susceptibility to influenza virus through impaired inflammation responses (Van Stry et al 2012- doi.org/10.1128/jvi.05303-11). Studies performed in female Ago413 mutants (the same mutant line used herein) have shown that knockout mice present postnatal growth retardation with elevated circulating leukocytes (Guidi et al 2023- doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2023.113515). Other studies of double conditional knockout of Ago1 and Ago3 in the skin associated the loss of these Argonautes with decreased weight of the offspring and severe skin morphogenesis defects (Wang et al 2012- doi: 10.1101/gad.182758.111). In our study, we did not observe major somatic or overt behavioral phenotypes, and we did not observe statistical differences in body weights of null males compared to WT as shown in figure below.

2= The paragraph corresponding to G2/M analysis is unclear to me. Why was this analysis performed? What does the heatmap show in Figure S4? What is G2/M score? (Fig 2D). Lines 219-220, do the authors mean that Pachytene cells are in a cell phase equivalent to G2/M? All this paragraph and associated figures require more explanation to clarify the method and interpretation.

__Response: __We have modified the methods to include more information about how the cell cycle scoring used in Figures 2D and S4 were calculated and will add more information regarding the interpretation of these figures.

3= I have concerns regarding Fig2G: to be convincing the analysis needs to be performed on several replicates, and, it is essential to compare tubules of the same stage - which does not seem to be the case. This does not appear to be the case. Besides, co (immunofluorescent) staining with markers of different cell types should be shown to demonstrate the earlier expression of some markers and their colocalization with markers of the earlier stages.

__Response: __We agree with the Reviewer. New images with staged tubules will be added to the analysis of Figure 2G.

4= one important question that I think the authors should discuss regarding their scRNAseq: clusters are defined using well characterized markers. But Ago triple KO appears to alter the timing of expression of genes... could this deregulation affects the interperetation of scRNAseq clusters and results?

__Response: __We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and agree that including this information is important. We expect that, at most, this dysregulation impacts the edges of these clusters slightly. Given that marker genes that have been used to define cell types in these data are consistently expressed between the knockout and wildtype mice (see Figure S4A), we do not think that the cells in these clusters have different identities, just dysregulated expression programs. We have added the relevant sentence to the discussion, and will include additional supplemental figure panels to document this point more comprehensively.

5= XY gene deregulation is mentioned throughout the result section but only X chromosome genes seem to have been investigated.... Even the gene content of the Y is highly repetitive, it would be very interesting to show the level of expression of Y single copy and Y multicopy genes in a figure 3 panel.

__Response: __We agree with the reviewer that including analysis of Y-linked genes is important. We will add a supplemental figure which includes the Y:Autosome ratio and differential expression analysis.

6= Can the authors elaborate on the observation that X gene upregulation is visible in the KO before MSCI; that is in lept/zygotene clusters (and in spermatogonia, if the difference visible in 3A is significant?)

Response: We do see that X gene expression is upregulated before pachynema. Previous scRNA-seq studies that have looked at MCSI have seen that silencing of genes on the X and Y chromosomes starts before the cell clusters that are defined as pachynema, though silencing is not fully completed until pachynema. We have clarified this point in the manuscript.

7 = miRNA analysis: could the authors indicate if X encoded miRNA were identified and found deregulated? Because Ago4 has been shown to lead to a downregulation of miRNA, among which many X encoded. It is therefore puzzling to see that the triple KO does not recapitulate this observation. Were the analyses performed differently in the present study and in Ago4 KO study?

__Response: __The analysis identifying downregulation of miRNA in the original Ago4 mutant analysis was conducted relative to total small RNA expression. Amongst those altered miRNA families in the Ago4 mutants, we demonstrated both upregulation and downregulation of miRNA. We agree that confirming a similar global downregulation of miRNA counts compared to other small RNAs is important. Therefore, in a revised manuscript, we will add this information to the miRNA analysis section, especially highlighting the X chromosome-associated miRNAs, as well as whether the ratios between other small RNA classes change.

8 = The last results paragraph would also benefit from some additional information. It is not clear why the authors focused on enhancers and did not investigate promoters (or maybe they were but it's unclear). Which regions (size and location from TSS) were investigated for motif enrichment analyses? To what correspond the "transcriptional regulatory regions previously identified using dREG" mentioned in the M&M? I understand it's based on a previous article, but more info in the present manuscript would be useful.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The regions that were used for motif enrichment will be included as a supplementary information in the fully revised manuscript. We have also clarified in the methods that these transcriptional regulatory regions were downloaded from GEO and obtained from previous ChRO-seq data (from GEO) analysis. These data are run through the dREG pipeline that identifies regions predicted to contain transcription start sites, which include promoters and enhancers.

Minor comments

1) In the introduction: The sentence "Ago1 is not expressed in the germline from the spermatogonia stage onwards allowing us to use this model to study the roles of Ago4 and Ago3 in spermatogenesis." is misleading because Ago1 is expressed at least in spermatogonia; It would be more precise to write "after spermatogonia stage" and rephrase the sentence. Otherwise it is surprising to see AGO1 protein in testis lysate and it is not in line with the scRNA seq shown in figure 2.

__Response: __We agree with the Reviewers suggestion and have edited the sentence on line 100. This sentence now reads "Ago1 is not expressed in the germline after the spermatogonia stage allowing us to use this model to study the roles of Ago4 and Ago3 in spermatogenesis".

2) Could the authors precise if AGO proteins are expressed in other tissues? In somatic testicular cells?

__Response: __Expression patterns of mammalian AGOs have been described in somatic and testicular tissues for the mouse by Gonzales-Gonzales et al (2008) by qPCR. They found that Ago2 is expressed in all the somatic tissues analyzed (brain, spleen, heart, muscle and lung) as well as the testis, with the highest expression in brain and lowest in heart. Ago1 is highly expressed in spleen compared to all the tissues analyzed, while Ago3 and Ago4 showed highest expression in testis and brain. Within somatic tissues of the testis, the four argonautes are expressed in Sertoli cells, however, Ago1,3 and 4 expression is very low compared to Ago2, with the latter showing a 10-fold higher transcript level. We have included a sentence with this information in the introduction in line 89.

3) Pattern of expression: How do the authors explain that AGO3 disappears at the diplotene stage and reappears in spermatids?

__Response: __ Single cell RNAseq data in the germline shows reduced transcript for Ago3 from the Pachytene stage onwards, suggesting minimal if any new transcription in round spermatids. We hypothesize that the AGO3 protein present in the round spermatid stage is cytoplasmic, presumably coming from the pool of AGO3 in the chromatoid body, a cytoplasmic structure with functional association with the nucleus in round spermatids (Kotaja et al, 2003 doi: 10.1073/pnas.05093331).

4) It would be useful to show the timing of expression of AGO 1 to 4 throughout spermatogenesis in the first paragraph of the article. Maybe the authors could present data from fig2B earlier?

Response: We understand the Reviewers concern, however, given that Ago expression throughout spermatogenesis was obtained from scRNA seq, we consider that this data should be presented after introducing the Ago413 knockout and the scRNA seq experiment. As Ago1-4 expression was also described in an earlier manuscript by Gonzales-Gonzales et al in the mouse male germline, and our data aligns with this report, we included a sentence about these previous findings in the earlier results section.

5) Line 190: please modify the sentence "reveal no differences in cellular architecture of the seminiferous tubules when compared to wild-type males" to " reveal no gross differences..." since even without quantification of the different cell types it is visible that KO seminiferous tubules are different from WT tubules.

__Response: __We agree with the reviewer, and we modified line 190 (now 173) as suggested. Grossly, seminiferous tubules from Ago413 null males contain the same cell types as in wild type tubules, including spermatozoa. However, our studies show that the number and quality of germ cells is compromised in knockouts, as shown by sperm counts and TUNEL staining.

6) TUNEL analysis: please stage the tubules to determine the stage(s) at which apoptosis is the most predominant.

__Response: __We have complied with the reviewer suggestion. Figure 1G now shows staged seminiferous tubules, and we have replaced the wild type image for one where the staged tubules match the knockout image.

7) Figure S4B does not show an increase of cells at Pachytene stage but at Lepto/zygotene stage (as well as an increase of spermatogonia). Please comment this discrepancy with results shown in Fig2.

__Response: __Figures 2 and S4 show distribution of cells in different substages of spermatogenesis and prophase I measured with very different methods: a cytological approach using chromosome spreads cells vs a transcriptomic approach that involves clustering of cells. We attribute the differences in cell type distribution to differences in the sensitivity of the methods to identify each cell type and therefore identify differences between the number of cells for each group. Moreover, our scRNA-seq data groups the leptotene and zygotene stages together, while the cytological approach allows for separation of these two sub-stages. Importantly, both results show that Ago413 spermatocytes are progressing slower from pachynema into diplonema and/or are dying after pachynema, as stated in line 194 in our manuscript.

8) Fig5H and 5I are not mentioned in the result section. Also, it would be useful to label them with "all chromosomes" and "XY" to differentiate them easily

__Response: __We apologize for the omission and have now cited Figures 5H and 5I in the manuscript (line 453). We have added the suggested labels.

9) Line 530 "data provide further evidence for a functional association between AGO-dependent small RNAs and heterochromatin formation, maintenance and/or silencing." Please rephrase, the present article does not really show that AGO nuclear role depends on small RNAs.

__Response____: __We agree with the reviewer that these data do not directly show a dependence on small RNAs. As our identified localization of AGO proteins to the pericentric heterochromatin coincides with localization of DICER shown previously by Yadav and collaborators (2020, doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa460), we do believe that our data further implicates small RNAs in the silencing of heterochromatin. Yadav et al shows that DICER localizes to pericentromeric heterochromatin and processes major satellite transcripts into small RNAs in mouse spermatocytes, and cKO germ cells have reduced localization of SUV39H2 and H3K9me3 to the pericentromeric heterochromatin. Given the colocalization of both small RNA producing machinery and AGOs at pericentromeric heterochromatin, the AGOs may bind these small RNAs, and the statement in line 530 refers to how our results provide evidence for the involvement of other RNAi machinery in the silencing of pericentromeric heterochromatin investigated by Yadav et al which likely includes small RNAs.

To clarify this point, we have modified the text accordingly.

10) Line 1256: replace "cite here " by appropriate reference

__Response: __The reference was added to line 1256.

11) Please use SMARCA4 instead of BRG1 name as it is its official name.

__Response: __We have replaced BRG1 with SMARCA4 in the text and figures.

Figures:

Figure 1: Are the pictures shown for Ago3-tagged and floxed from the same stages ? The leptotene stage in 1A looks like a zygotene, while some pachytene/diplotene stage pictures do not look alike.

__Response: __New representative images have been added to figure 1 to match the same substages across the figure.

Figure 1D, please label the Y scale properly (testis weight related to body weight)

__Response: __We have fixed this.

FigS1: Please comment the presence of non-specific bands in the figure legend

__Response: __We have added a sentence in Figure S1 Legend.

Fig 2E and F, please indicate on the figure (in addition to its legend), what are the X and Y axes respectively to facilitate its reading.

__Response: __X and Y axes are now labelled in Figure 2E and F.

2F: please use an easier abbreviation for Spermatocyte than Sp (which could spermatogonia, sperm etc..) such as Scyte I ? (same comment for Fig 3C)

Response: The abbreviation for spermatocyte was changed from Sp to Scyte I in Figures 2 and 3.

Overall, for all figures showing GSEA analyses, could the authors explain what a High positive NES and a High negative NES mean in the results section?

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added this information where the GSEA score of the cell markers is initially introduced.

Significance

Ago proteins are known for their roles in post transcriptional gene regulation via small RNA mediated cleavage of mRNA, which takes places in the cytoplasm. Some Ago proteins have been shown to be also located in the nucleus suggesting other non-canonical roles. It is the case of Ago4 which has been shown to localize to the transcriptionally silenced sex chromosomes (called sex body) of the spermatocyte nucleus, where it contributes to regulate their silencing (Modzelewski et al 2012). Interestingly, Ago4 knockout leads to Ago3 upregulation, including on the sex body indicating that Ago3 and Ago4 are involved in the same nuclear process. In their manuscript, de las Mercedes Carro et al., investigate the consequences of loss of both Ago3 and Ago4 in the male germline by the production of a triple knockout of Ago1, 3 and 4 in the mouse. With this model, the authors describe the role of Ago3 and Ago4 during spermatogenesis and show that they are involved in sex chromosome gene repression in spermatocytes and in round spermatids, as well as in the control of autosomal meiotic gene expression. Triple KO males have impaired meiosis and spermiogenesis, with fewer and abnormal spermatozoa resulting in reduced fertility. Since Ago1 male germline expression is restricted to pre-meiotic germ cells, it is not expected to contribute to the meiotic and postmeiotic phenotypes observed in the triple KO. The strengths of the study are i) the thorough analyses of mRNA expression at the single cell level, and in purified spermatocytes and spermatids (bulk RNAseq), ii) the identification of novel nuclear partners of AGO3/4 relevant for their described nuclear role: ATF2, which they show to also co-localize with the sex body, and BRG1/SMARCA4, a SWI/SNF chromatin remodeler. The main limitation of the study is the lack of information in the method regarding the production of the triple KO, as well as some aspects of the transcriptome and motif analyses. It is also surprising to see that the triple KO does not recapitulate the miRNA deregulation observed in Ago4 KO. The characterization of a non-canonical role of AGO3/4 in male germ cells will certainly influence researchers of the field, and also interest a broader audience studying Argonaute proteins and gene regulation at transcriptional and posttranscriptional levels.

Reviewer #2

Evidence, reproducibility and clarity

In the manuscript titled "Argonaute proteins regulate the timing of the spermatogenic transcriptional program" by Carro et al., the authors present their findings on how Argonaute proteins regulate spermatogenic development. They utilize a mouse model featuring a deletion of the gene cluster on chromosome 4 that contains Ago1, Ago3, and Ago4 to investigate the cumulative roles of AGO3 and AGO4 in spermatogenic cells. The authors characterize the distribution of AGO proteins and their effects on key meiotic milestones such as synapsis, recombination, meiotic transcriptional regulation, and meiotic sex chromosome inactivation (MSCI). They analyze stage-specific transcriptomes in spermatogenic cells using single-cell and bulk RNA sequencing and determine the interactome of AGO3 and AGO4 through mass spectrometry to examine how AGO proteins may regulate gene expression in these cells during meiotic and post-meiotic development. The authors conclude that both AGO3 and AGO4 are essential for regulating the overall gene expression program in spermatogenic cells and specifically modulate MSCI to repress sex-linked genes in pachytene spermatocytes, which may be partially mediated by the proper distribution of DNA damage repair factors. Additionally, AGO3 is suggested to interact with the chromatin remodeler SWI/SNF factor BRG1, facilitating its removal from the sex-chromatin to enable the repression of sex-linked genes during MSCI.

Major Comments: 1. The study utilized a triple knockout mouse model to determine the effect of AGO3 on spermatogenesis, following up on their previous report about the role of AGO4 in spermatogenesis, which resulted from an upregulation of AGO3 in Ago4-/- spermatocytes. However, the results are more difficult to interpret and ascertain the role of AGO3 in these cells, given the absence of any observable phenotype from Ago3 interruption. AGO4 regulates sex body formation, meiotic sex chromosome inactivation (MSCI), and miRNA production in spermatocytes, all of which were noted in the absence of both AGO3 and AGO4, with only an increased incidence of cells containing abnormal RNAPII at the sex chromosomes. It will be necessary to characterize how AGO3 regulates spermatogenic development, including meiotic progression and the regulation of the meiotic transcriptome, and compare these findings with the current observations to determine if the proposed mechanism involving AGO3, BRG1, and possibly AP2 is relevant in this context.

__Response: __While we agree with Reviewer that a single Ago3 knockout will help understand distinct roles of AGO3 and AGO4 in spermatogenesis, the time and resources required to generate a new mouse model are substantial. The analysis included in this current manuscript has already taken over seven years, and with the lengthy production of a new single mutant mouse, validation of the new mouse, and then final analysis, we would be looking at another 3-5 years of analysis. In the current funding climate, and with strong concerns over ensuring reduction in utilization of laboratory mice, we consider this request to be far in excess of what is required to move this important story forward.

The Ago413-/- mouse model has allowed us to associate a nuclear role of Argonaute proteins with a strong reproductive phenotype in the mouse germline. Given the redundancy between Ago3 and Ago4, it is likely that a single Ago3 knockout would have a mild phenotype just like the Ago4 KO. All this said, we agree with the reviewer that analysis of an Ago3 knockout mouse is a valuable next step, just not within this chapter of the story.

1. Does Ago413-/- mice recapitulate the early meiotic entry phenotype observed in Ago4-/- mice? If not, could it be possible that AGO3 promotes meiotic entry, given its strong mRNA expression in spermatogonia according to the scRNAseq data (Fig. 2B)

Response: Our scRNA-seq data shows strong expression of Ago3 in spermatogonia, as mentioned by the Reviewer. Analysis of cell cycle marker expression also shows that the transcriptomic profile of spermatogonia is altered, with higher levels of transcripts corresponding to the later G2/M stages (Figure 2D). Moreover, Ago413 knockouts present an increase in the number of spermatogonial stem cells (Supplementary Figure S4B). However, this cluster represents a pool of quiescent and mitotically active cells entering meiosis, therefore interpretation of these data might be challenging. While specific experiments could be conducted to answer this question, this is outside of the scope of our manuscript. The manuscript as it stands is already rather large, and a full analysis of meiotic entry dynamics would dilute the core message relating to chromatin regulation in the sex body.

1. The authors suggested that the removal of BRG1 by AGO3 is necessary during sex body formation and the eventual establishment of MSCI. However, the BAF complex subunit ARID1A has been shown to facilitate MSCI by regulating promoter accessibility. It will be interesting to determine how BRG1 distribution changes across the genome in the absence of AGO proteins and how that correlates with alterations in sex-linked gene expression.

__Response: __We agree that changes in BRG1 distribution across the genome would be very interesting to identify. However, in this work we show that BRG1/SMARCA4 protein changes its localization in the sex body very rapidly between early to late pachynema. These two substages are only discernable by immunofluorescence using synaptonemal complex markers, as there are currently no available techniques to enrich for these subfractions. Therefore, study of genome occupancy of BRG1 in these specific substages by techniques such as CUT&Tag are not currently possible. However, we are currently working on new methods to distinguish these cell populations and hope eventually to use these purification strategies to perform the studies suggested by this reviewer. Alternatively, the hope is that single cell CUT&Tag methods will become more reliable, and will enable us to address these questions. Both of these options are not currently available to us. The studies by Menon et al (2024-doi:10.7554/eLife.88024.5) provide strong evidence to support that ARID1A is needed to reduce promoter accessibility of XY silenced genes in prophase I through modulation of H3.3 distribution. However, this mechanism and our identification of the removal of BRG1 between early and late pachytema are not inconsistent with one another, as either SMARCA4 or SMARCA2 can associate with ARID1A as part of the cBAF complex, and ARID1A is also not in all forms of the BAF complex which BRG1 are in. The difference between our results and those seen in Menon et al likely indicate that there are multiple forms of the BAF complex which are differentially regulated during MSCI and play different roles in silencing transcription. Further studies of specific BAF subunits are needed to elucidate how different flavors of the BAF complex act at specific genomic locations and meiotic time points.

1. The observations presented in this manuscript (Fig. 1D, 2C, 3D, and 4) suggest a haploinsufficiency of the deleted locus in spermatogenic development. How does this compare with the ablation of either Ago3 or Ago4? Please explain.

Response: Our previous studies in single Ago4 knockouts did not present a heterozygous phenotype (Modzelewski et al 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2012.07.003, data not shown). Triple Ago413 knockouts show a much stronger fertility phenotype than single Ago4 knockout. Testis weight of Ago413 homozygous null present a 30% reduction while heterozygous mice show a 15% reduction (Figure 1D), comparable to the 13% reduction previously observed in Ago4-/- males. Sperm counts of Ago413 null and heterozygous males are reduced by 60% and 39% compared to wild type (Figure 1E), respectively, whereas Ago4 null mice have a milder phenotype, with only a 22% reduction in sperm counts. At the MSCI level, both homozygous and heterozygous Ago413 mutant spermatocytes show a similar increase in pachytene spermatocytes with increased RNA pol II ingression into the sex body with respect to wild-type of 35% and 30%, respectively. Ago4 single knockouts show an almost 18% increase in Pol II ingression when compared to wild type. These comparisons are now included in our manuscript in lines 170, 172 and 288. A milder phenotype of the Ago4 knockout and haploinsufficiency in triple Ago413 knockouts but not in Ago4 single knockouts is likely a consequence of the overlapping functions of Ago3 and Ago4 in mammals (and/or overexpression of Ago3 in Ago4 knockouts). In the context of their role in RISC, Wang et al (doi: 10.1101/gad.182758.111) studied the effects of single and double conditional knockouts for Ago1 and Ago2 in miRNA-mediated silencing. They discovered that the interaction between miRNAs and AGOs is highly correlated with the abundance of each AGO protein, and only double knockouts presented an observable phenotype.

Minor Comments: Based on the interactome analysis, it was argued that AGO3 and AGO4 may function separately. Please discuss how AGO3 might compensate for AGO4 (Line 109).

Response: We hypothesize that the combined function of AGO3 and AGO4 is needed for proper sex chromosome inactivation during meiosis. We base this hypothesis on the facts that (i) both proteins localize to the sex body in pachytene spermatocytes, (ii) loss of Ago4 leads to upregulation of Ago3, and (iii) the MSCI phenotype of Ago413 knockout mice is much stronger than the single Ago4 knockout (see above). However, AGO3 and AGO4 might not induce silencing through the same mechanism or pathway. In this work, we observed that their temporal expression in prophase I is different; while AGO3 protein seems to disappear by the diplotene stage, AGO4 is present in the sex body of these cells. Moreover, the proteomic analysis revealed a very low number of common interactors, an observation which could support the idea of AGO3 and AGO4 acting by different (albeit perhaps related) mechanisms to achieve MSCI. It is also possible that common interactors were not identified in our proteomic analysis due to the low abundance of AGO3 and AGO4 in the germ cells, limiting the resolution of the proteomics analysis (note that in order to visualize AGO proteins in WB experiments, at least 60 μg of enriched germ cell lysate must be loaded per lane). Moreover, given the difficulty in obtaining enough isolated pachytene and diplotene spermatocytes to perform immunoprecipitation experiments, we performed IP experiments in whole germ cell lysates, which limits the interpretation of our analysis. If AGO3 and AGO4 protein interactors overlap, then AGO3 would directly substitute for AGO4 leading to silencing in single Ago4 knockouts. However, if AGO3 and AGO4 work together through different, complementary mechanisms, then Ago4 mutant mice likely compensates loss of Ago4 by upregulation of Ago3along with specific interactors of the given pathway. We have added a sentence addressing this matter in line 411 of the results section and lines 506 and 513 of the discussion in the revised manuscript.

In Line 221, it is unclear what is meant by 'cell cycle transcripts'. Does this refer to meiotic transcripts? It is also important to discuss the relevance of the G2/M cell cycle marker genes at later stages of meiotic prophase.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have changed the relevant text to remove redundancies and include more information. We agree that considering the importance of these genes across meiotic prophase is needed, as cells which are in the dividing stage will already have produced the proteins necessary for division. These cells likely correspond to the diplotene/M cluster cells that have a lower G2/M score, potentially causing the bimodal distribution seen in Figure 2D. We have added a sentence addressing this to the manuscript.

While identified as a common interactor of both AGO3 and AGO4 in lines 440-445, HNRNPD is not listed among AGO4 interactors in Table S6. Please correct or explain this discrepancy.

Response: HNRPD was originally identified as an AGO4 interactor using a less strict criteria than the one used in our manuscript: we required consistent enrichment in at least two rounds of IP MS experiments. This reference to HNRNPD was a mistake, given that HNRPD was only enriched in one of our three replicates. Thus, we apologize and have removed the sentence in lines 440-445.

It is unclear whether wild-type cell lysate or lysate containing FLAG-tagged AGO3 was used for BRG1 immunoprecipitation, and which antibody was used to detect AGO3 in the BRG1 IP sample. A co-IP experiment demonstrating interaction between BRG1 and wild-type AGO3 would be ideal in this context. Furthermore, co-localization by IF would be beneficial to determine the subcellular localization and the cell stages the interaction may be occurring. Additionally, co-IP and Western blot methodologies should be included in the methods section.

__Response: __MYC-FLAG tagged AGO3 protein lysates were used for BRG1 Co-Immunoprecipitation, along with an anti MYC antibody to detect AGO3. This is now detailed in the Methods section of our revised manuscript (line 1133).

Regarding BRG1 and AGO3 colocalization by IF, we can confidently show that both AGO3 and BRG1 localize to the sex chromosomes in early pachynema by comparing BRG1/SYCP3 and FLAG-AGO3/SYCP3 stained spreads. We were not able to show colocalization simultaneously on the same cells, given the lack of appropriate antibodies. Our anti FLAG antibody is raised in mouse, while anti BRG1 is raised in rabbit, therefore a non-rabbit, non-mouse anti SYCP3 would be needed to identify prophase I substages, and our lab does not possess such a validated antibody. However, we now have access to a multiplexing kit that allows to use same-species antibodies for immunofluorescence and we can perform these experiments for a revised manuscript.

__Response: __The methods section now includes description of co-IP methodologies (line 1132). Western Blot methodologies are explained in lane 718, under the "Immunoblotting" title.

In line 599, it is unclear what is meant by 'persistence of sex chromosome de-repression'. Please correct or clarify this.

Response: This sentence has been changed and reads: "The persistence of sex chromosome gene expression".

If possible, please add an illustration to summarize the findings together.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion, and have now added this in Figure 6

Significance

Overall, this study enhances the understanding of gene expression regulation by AGO proteins during spermatogenesis. Several approaches, including functional, histological, and molecular characterization of the triple knockout phenotype, were instrumental in elucidating the role of AGO proteins in MSCI and meiotic as well as postmeiotic gene regulation. The main limitation of the study is that it is challenging to appreciate the role of AGO3 in addition to the previously published role of AGO4 without the inclusion of necessary control groups. Furthermore, the mechanism of action for AGO proteins in meiotic gene regulation was left relatively unexplored. This study presents new findings that will be significant for the research community interested in gene regulation, chromatin biology, and reproductive biology with the above suggestions considered.

__Reviewer #3 (Evidence, reproducibility and clarity (Required)): __

The authors characterize a CRISPR-Cas9 mouse mutant that targets 3 genes that encode AGO family proteins, 2 of which are expressed during spermatogenesis (AGO3 and AGO4) and one that is said is not expressed, AGO1. This mouse mutant showed that AGO3 and AGO4 both contribute to spermatogenesis success as the "Ago413" mutation gave rise to an additive reduction in testis weight, due to spermatocyte apoptosis, and reduction in sperm count. Furthermore, they use insertion mouse mutants for Ago3 and Ago2 that express tagged versions of their corresponding proteins, which they use in combination with pan-AGO antibodies and Ago mutants to show differential expression and localization properties of AGO2, AGO3, and AGO4 (and the absence of AGO1) during spermatogenesis with a particular focus on meiotic prophase. They perform single-cell RNAseq and intricate analyses to demonstrate a change in distribution of meiotic stages in Ago413 mutants, and the overall cell cycle in spermatogonia and spermatocytes is altered. This analysis shows that the mutation leads to an inability to downregulate prior spermatogonia/spermatocyte stage transcripts in a timely manner. On the other hand, later-stage spermatocytes are abnormally expressing spermiogenesis genes. Similar to the Ago4 mutant previously characterized MSCI is disrupted. The authors also show that AGO3 has different interaction partners compared to AGO4 and focus their final assessment on a novel interaction partner of AGO3, BRG1. They show that this factor, which is involved in chromatin remodeling, is aberrantly localized to the sex body during meiotic prophase and diplonema. As BRG1 is involved in open chromatin, it is proposed that AGO3 restricts BRG1 (and related proteins) from the XY chromosome to ensure MSCI. Overall, this paper is very well constructed with mechanistic insights that make this a very impactful contribution to the research community. Major Comments:

1. The abstract contains "Ago413-/- mouse" without any explanation of what that is. The abstract needs to be a stand-alone document that does not require any referencing for context.

Response: We have included a sentence describing Ago413 in line 27

Figure 2C. - The significance bars are confusing as they appear to overlap strangely.

Response: We have modified this figure and now present the significance bars are on top of the data points.

On line 235, the authors state that "we first identified the top non-overlapping upregulated genes for Ago413+/+ germ cells in each cluster. Why did the authors not also select down-regulated genes in each cluster to perform a similar analysis?

__Response: __Thank you for this question. As our goal was to identify genes that are markers of the transcriptional program in each cell type, we used only uniquely upregulated genes for each cluster. Genes that are downregulated for a cluster may be indicative of the transcription in several other cell types, which is not easily interpretable. For a revised manuscript, we will perform this analysis to determine if there is any specific alterations in these downregulated genes.

Their Ago413 mutant characterization does a good job of assessing meiotic prophase and spermatozoa. However, their assessment of the stages in between these is lacking (meiotic divisions and spermiogenesis).

Response: We understand the reviewer's concern, however, it is not usual to study stages between the first meiotic division and spermiogenesis because meiosis II is so rapid and thus we lack tools to dissect it. In general, any defect that impacts meiosis I (and particularly prophase I) leads to cell death during prophase I or at metaphase I due to strictly adhered checkpoints that eradicate defective cells. Thus, the increased TUNEL staining in prophase I indicates to us that defective cells are cleared before exit from meiosis I, and those cells progressing to the spermatid stage are "normal" for meiosis II progression. For these cells that did complete meiosis I and progressed normally through meiosis II, we analyzed their spermiogenic outcome extensively (see section entitled "Post-meiotic spermatids from Ago413-/- males exhibit defective spermiogenesis and poor spermatozoa function"). This section included extensive sperm morphology, sperm motility and sperm fertility through in vitro fertilization assays. That said, we have added a sentence on line 268 to explain the transit through meiosis II.

The discovery of the interaction between BRG1 and AGO3 is exciting. They should assess BRG1 localization in later sub-stages, including late diplonema and diakinesis.

__Response: __BRG1(SMARCA4) was analyzed throughout prophase I, as shown in image 5G, including quantification of fluorescence intensity included the analysis of diplonema (5H-I). However, diakinesis was not included here since there was no observable signal of BRG1 in these cells. We have explained this in lines 459.

ATF2 should have been assessed in more detail, as was done for BRG1 in Figure 5.

__Response: __We agree with the Reviewer, however, staining of chromosome spreads with the anti ATF2 antibody was not possible in our hands after several attempts and changes in staining conditions. However, as staining of sections was successful, we showed localization of ATF2 on spermatocytes by co staining sections with SYCP3 and ATF2.

Reviewer #3 (Significance (Required)): Overall, this paper is very well constructed with mechanistic insights, as described in my reviewer comments, that make this a very impactful contribution to the research community.

This isn't a sentence. Is it supposed to be?

what a mess!

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have used full-length single-cell sequencing on a sorted population of human fetal retina to delineate expression patterns associated with the progression of progenitors to rod and cone photoreceptors. They find that rod and cone precursors contain a mix of rod/cone determinants, with a bias in both amounts and isoform balance likely deciding the ultimate cell fate. Markers of early rod/cone hybrids are clarified, and a gradient of lncRNAs is uncovered in maturing cones. Comparison of early rods and cones exposes an enriched MYCN regulon, as well as expression of SYK, which may contribute to tumor initiation in RB1 deficient cone precursors.

Strengths:

(1) The insight into how cone and rod transcripts are mixed together at first is important and clarifies a long-standing notion in the field.

(2) The discovery of distinct active vs inactive mRNA isoforms for rod and cone determinants is crucial to understanding how cells make the decision to form one or the other cell type. This is only really possible with full-length scRNAseq analysis.

(3) New markers of subpopulations are also uncovered, such as CHRNA1 in rod/cone hybrids that seem to give rise to either rods or cones.

(4) Regulon analyses provide insight into key transcription factor programs linked to rod or cone fates.

(5) The gradient of lncRNAs in maturing cones is novel, and while the functional significance is unclear, it opens up a new line of questioning around photoreceptor maturation.

(6) The finding that SYK mRNA is naturally expressed in cone precursors is novel, as previously it was assumed that SYK expression required epigenetic rewiring in tumors.

We thank the reviewer for describing the study’s strengths, reflecting the major conclusions of the initially submitted manuscript.  However, based on new analyses – including the requested analyses of other scRNA-seq datasets, our revision clarifies that:

-  related to point (1), cone and rod transcripts do not appear to be mixed together at first (i.e., in immediately post-mitotic immature cone and rod precursors) but appear to be coexpressed in subsequent cone and rod precursor stages; and 

- related to point (3), CHRNA1 appears to mark immature cone precursors that are distinct from the maturing cone and rod precursors that co-express cone- and rod-related RNAs (despite the similar UMAP positions of the two populations in our dataset). 

Weaknesses:

(1) The writing is very difficult to follow. The nomenclature is confusing and there are contradictory statements that need to be clarified.

(2) The drug data is not enough to conclude that SYK inhibition is sufficient to prevent the division of RB1 null cone precursors. Drugs are never completely specific so validation is critical to make the conclusion drawn in the paper.

We thank the reviewer for noting these important issues. Accordingly, in the revised manuscript:

(1) We improve the writing and clarify the nomenclature and contradictory statements, particularly those noted in the Reviewer’s Recommendations for Authors. 

(2) We scale back claims related to the role of SYK in the cone precursor response to RB1 loss, with wording changes in the Abstract, Results, and Discussion, which now recognize that the inhibitor studies only support the possibility that cone-intrinsic SYK expression contributes to retinoblastoma initiation, as detailed in our responses to Reviewer’s Recommendations for Authors. We agree and now mention that genetic perturbation of SYK is required to prove its role.  

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors used deep full-length single-cell sequencing to study human photoreceptor development, with a particular emphasis on the characteristics of photoreceptors that may contribute to retinoblastoma.

Strengths:

This single-cell study captures gene regulation in photoreceptors across different developmental stages, defining post-mitotic cone and rod populations by highlighting their unique gene expression profiles through analyses such as RNA velocity and SCENIC. By leveraging fulllength sequencing data, the study identifies differentially expressed isoforms of NRL and THRB in L/M cone and rod precursors, illustrating the dynamic gene regulation involved in photoreceptor fate commitment. Additionally, the authors performed high-resolution clustering to explore markers defining developing photoreceptors across the fovea and peripheral retina, particularly characterizing SYK's role in the proliferative response of cones in the RB loss background. The study provides an in-depth analysis of developing human photoreceptors, with the authors conducting thorough analyses using full-length single-cell RNA sequencing. The strength of the study lies in its design, which integrates single-cell full-length RNA-seq, longread RNA-seq, and follow-up histological and functional experiments to provide compelling evidence supporting their conclusions. The model of cell type-dependent splicing for NRL and THRB is particularly intriguing. Moreover, the potential involvement of the SYK and MYC pathways with RB in cone progenitor cells aligns with previous literature, offering additional insights into RB development.

We thank the reviewer for summarizing the main findings and noting the compelling support for the conclusions, the intriguing cell type-dependent splicing of rod and cone lineage factors, and the insights into retinoblastoma development.  

Weaknesses:

The manuscript feels somewhat unfocused, with a lack of a strong connection between the analysis of developing photoreceptors, which constitutes the bulk of the manuscript, and the discussion on retinoblastoma. Additionally, given the recent publication of several single-cell studies on the developing human retina, it is important for the authors to cross-validate their findings and adjust their statements where appropriate.

We agree that the manuscript covers a range of topics resulting from the full-length scRNAseq analyses and concur that some studies of developing photoreceptors were not well connected to retinoblastoma. However, we also note that the connection to retinoblastoma is emphasized in several places in the Introduction and throughout the manuscript and was a significant motivation for pursuing the analyses. We suggest that it was valuable to highlight how deep, fulllength scRNA-seq of developing retina provides insights into retinoblastoma, including i) the similar biased expression of NRL transcript isoforms in cone precursors and RB tumors, ii) the cone precursors’ co-expression of rod- and cone-related genes such as NR2E3 and GNAT2, which may explain similar co-expression in RB cells, and iii) the expression of  SYK in early cones and RB cells.  While the earlier version had mainly highlighted point (iii), the revised Discussion further refers to points (i) and (ii) as described further in the response to the Reviewer’s Recommendations for Authors. 

We address the Reviewer’s request to cross-validate our findings with those of other single-cell studies of developing human retina by relating the different photoreceptor-related cell populations identified in our study to those characterized by Zuo et al (PMID 39117640), which was specifically highlighted by the reviewer and is especially useful for such cross-validation given the extraordinarily large ~ 220,000 cell dataset covering a wide range of retinal ages (pcw 8–23) and spatiotemporally stratified by macular or peripheral retina location. Relevant analyses of the Zuo et al dataset are shown in Supplementary Figures S3G-H, S10B, S11A-F, and S13A,B. 

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors use high-depth, full-length scRNA-Seq analysis of fetal human retina to identify novel regulators of photoreceptor specification and retinoblastoma progression.

Strengths:

The use of high-depth, full-length scRNA-Seq to identify functionally important alternatively spliced variants of transcription factors controlling photoreceptor subtype specification, and identification of SYK as a potential mediator of RB1-dependent cell cycle reentry in immature cone photoreceptors.

Human developing fetal retinal tissue samples were collected between 13-19 gestational weeks and this provides a substantially higher depth of sequencing coverage, thereby identifying both rare transcripts and alternative splice forms, and thereby representing an important advance over previous droplet-based scRNA-Seq studies of human retinal development.

Weaknesses:

The weaknesses identified are relatively minor. This is a technically strong and thorough study, that is broadly useful to investigators studying retinal development and retinoblastoma.

We thank the reviewer for describing the strengths of the study. Our revision addresses the concerns raised separately in the Reviewer’s Recommendations for Authors, as detailed in the responses below.  

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewing Editor Comments:

The reviewers have completed their reviews. Generally, they note that your work is important and that the evidence is generally convincing. The reviewers are in general agreement that the paper adds to the field. The findings of rod/cone fate determination at a very early stage are intriguing. Generally, the paper would benefit from clarifications in the writing and figures. Experimentally, the paper would benefit from validation of the drug data, for example using RNAi or another assay. Alternatively, the authors could note the caveats of the drug experiments and describe how they could be improved. In terms of analysis, the paper would be improved by additional comparisons of the authors' data to previously published datasets.

We thank the reviewing editor for this summary. As described in the individual reviewer responses, we clarify the writing and figures and provide comparisons to previously published datasets (in particular, the large snRNA-seq dataset of Zuo et al., 2024 (PMID 39117640).  With regard to the drug (i.e., SYK inhibitor) studies, we opted to provide caveats and describe the need for genetic approaches to validate the role of SYK, owing to the infeasibility of completing genetic perturbation experiments in the appropriate timeframe.  We are grateful for the opportunity to present our findings with appropriate caveats. 

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

Shayler cell sort human progenitor/rod/cone populations then full-length single cell RNAseq to expose features that distinguish paths towards rods or cones. They initially distinguish progenitors (RPCs), immature photoreceptor precursors (iPRPs), long/medium wavelength (LM) cones, late-LM cones, short wavelength (S) cones, early rods (ER) and late rods (LR), which exhibit distinct transcription factor regulons (Figures 1, 2). These data expose expected and novel enriched genes, and support the notion that S cones are a default state lacking expression of rod (NRL) or cone (THRB) determinants but retaining expression of generic photoreceptor drivers (CRX/OTX2/NEUROD1 regulons). They identify changes in regulon activity, such as increasing NRL activity from iPRP to ER to LR, but decreasing from iPRP to cones, or increasing RAX/ISL2/THRB regulon activity from iPRP to LM cones, but decreasing from iPRP to S cones or rods.

They report co-expression of rod/cone determinants in LM and ER clusters, and the ratios are in the expected directions (NRLTHRB or RXRG in ER). A novel insight from the FL seq is that there are differing variants generated in each cell population. Full-length NRL (FL-NRL) predominates in the rod path, whereas truncated NRL (Tr-NRL) does so in the cone path, then similar (but opposite) findings are presented for THRB (Fig 3, 4), whereas isoforms are not a feature of RXRG expression, just the higher expression in cones.

The authors then further subcluster and perform RNA velocity to uncover decision points in the tree (Figure 5). They identify two photoreceptor precursor streams, the Transitional Rods (TRs) that provide one source for rod maturation and (reusing the name from the initial clustering) iPRPs that form cones, but also provide a second route to rods. TR cells closest to RPCs (immediately post-mitotic) have higher levels of the rod determinant NR2E3 and NRL, whereas the higher resolution iPRPs near RPCs lack NR2E3 and have higher levels of ONECUT1, THRB, and GNAT2, a cone bias. These distinct rod-biased TR and cone-biased high-resolution iPRPs were not evident in published scRNAseq with 3′ end-counting (i.e. not FL seq). Regulon analysis confirmed higher NRL activity in TR cells, with higher THRB activity in highresolution iPRP cells.

Many of the more mature high-resolution iPRPs show combinations of rod (GNAT1, NR2E3) and cone (GNAT2, THRB) paths as well as both NRL and THRB regulons, but with a bias towards cone-ness (Figure 6). Combined FISH/immunofluorescence in fetal retina uncovers cone-biased RXRG-protein-high/NR2E3-protein-absent cone-fated cells that nevertheless expressed NR2E3 mRNA. Thus early cone-biased iPRP cells express rod gene mRNA, implying a rod-cone hybrid in early photoreceptor development. The authors refer to these as "bridge region iPRP cells".

In Figure 7, they identify CHRNA1 as the most specific marker of these bridge cells (overlapping with ATOH7 and DLL3, previously linked to cone-biased precursors), and FISH shows it is expressed in rod-biased NRL protein-positive and cone-biased RXRG proteinpositive cones at fetal week 12.

Figure 8 outlines the graded expression of various lncRNAs during cone maturation, a novel pattern.

Finally (Figure 9), the authors identify differential genes expressed in early rods (ER cluster from Figure 1) vs early cones (LM cluster, excluding the most mature opsin+ cells), revealing high levels of MYCN targets in cones. They also find SYK expression in cones. SYK was previously linked to retinoblastoma, so intrinsic expression may predispose cone precursors to transformation upon RB loss. They finish by showing that a SYK inhibitor blocks the proliferation of dividing RB1 knockdown cone precursors in the human fetal retina.

Overall, the authors have uncovered interesting patterns of biased expression in cone/rod developmental paths, especially relating to the isoform differences for NRL and THRB which add a new layer to our understanding of this fate choice. The analyses also imply that very soon after RPCs exit the cell cycle, they generate post-mitotic precursors biased towards a rod or cone fate, that carry varying proportions of mixed rod/cone determinants and other rod/cone marker genes. They also introduce new markers that may tag key populations of cells that precede the final rod/cone choice (e.g. CHRNA1), catalogue a new lncRNA gradient in cone maturation, and provide insight into potential genes that may contribute to retinoblastoma initiation, like SYK, due to intrinsic expression in cone precursors. However, as detailed below, the text needs to be improved considerably, and overinterpretations need to be moderated, removed, or tested more rigorously with extra data.

Major Comments

The manuscript is very difficult to follow. The nomenclature is at times torturous, and the description of hybrid rod/cone hybrid cells is confusing in many aspects.

(1) A single term, iPRP, is used to refer to an initial low-resolution cluster, and then to a subset of that cluster later in the paper.

We agree that using immature photoreceptor precursor (iPRP) for both high-resolution and lowresolution clusters was confusing. We kept this name for the low-resolution cluster (which includes both immature cone and immature rod precursors), renamed the high-resolution iPRP cluster immature cone precursors (iCPs). and renamed their transitional rod (TR) counterparts immature rod precursors (iRPs). These designations are based on 

- the biased expression of THRB, ONECUT1, and the THRB regulon in iCPs (Fig. 5D,E);

- the biased expression of NRL, NR2E3, and NRL regulon iRPs (Fig. 5D,E);

- the partially distinct iCP and iRP UMAP positions (Figure 5C); and 

- the evidence of similar immature cone versus rod precursor populations in the Zuo et al 3’ snRNA-seq dataset, as noted below and described in two new paragraphs starting at the bottom of p. 12.

(2) To complicate matters further, the reader needs to understand the subset within the iPRP referred to as bridge cells, and we are told at one point that the earliest iPRPs lack NR2E3, then that they later co-express NR2E3, and while the authors may be referring to protein and RNA, it serves to further confuse an already difficult to follow distinction. I had to read and re-read the iPRP data many times, but it never really became totally clear.

We agree that the description of the high-resolution iPRP (now “iCP”) subsets was unclear, although our further analyses of a large 3’ snRNA-seq dataset in Figure S11 support the impression given in the original manuscript that the earliest iCPs lack NR2E3 and then later coexpress NR2E3 while the earliest iRPs lack THRB and then later express THRB. As described in new text in the Two post-mitotic immature photoreceptor precursor populations section (starting on line 7 of p. 13): 

When considering only the main cone and rod precursor UMAP regions, early (pcw 8 – 13) cone precursors expressed THRB and lacked NR2E3 (Figure S11D,E, blue arrows), while early (pcw 10 – 15) rod precursors expressed NR2E3 and lacked THRB (Figure S11D,E, red arrows), similar to RPC-localized iCPs and iRPs in our study (Figure 5D).

Next, as summarized in new text in the Early cone and rod precursors with rod- and conerelated RNA co-expression section (new paragraph at top of p. 16): 

Thus, a 3’ snRNA-seq analysis confirmed the initial production of immature photoreceptor precursors with either L/M cone-precursor-specific THRB or rod-precursor-specific NR2E3 expression, followed by lower-level co-expression of their counterparts, NR2E3 in cone precursors and THRB in rod precursors. However, in the Zuo et al. analyses, the co-expression was first observed in well-separated UMAP regions, as opposed to a region that bridges the early cone and early rod populations in our UMAP plots. These findings are consistent with the notion that cone- and rod-related RNA co-expression begins in already fate-determined cone and rod precursors, and that such precursors aberrantly intermixed in our UMAP bridge region due to their insufficient representation in our dataset.  

Importantly, and as noted in our ‘Public response’ to Reviewer 1, “CHRNA1 appears to mark immature cone precursors that are distinct from the maturing cone and rod precursors that coexpress cone- and rod-related RNAs (despite the similar UMAP positions of the two populations in our dataset).” In support of this notion, the immature cone precursors expressing CHRNA1  and other  populations did not overlap in UMAP space in the Zuo et al dataset. We hope the new text cited above along with other changes will significantly clarify the observations.

(3) The term "cone/rod precursor" shows up late in the paper (page 12), but it was clear (was it not?) much earlier in this manuscript that cone and rod genes are co-expressed because of the coexpressed NRL and THRB isoforms in Figures 3/4.

We thank the reviewer for noting that the differential NRL and THRB isoform expression already implies that cone and rod genes are co-expressed. However, as we now state, the co-expression of RNAs encoding an additional cone marker (GNAT2) and rod markers (GNAT1, NR2E3) was 

“suggestive of a proposed hybrid cone/rod precursor state more extensive than implied by the coexpression of different THRB and NRL isoforms” (first paragraph of “Early cone and rod …” section on p. 14; new text underlined). 

(4) The (incorrect) impression given later in the manuscript is that the rod/cone transcript mixture applies to just a subset of the iPRP cells, or maybe just the bridge cells (writing is not clear), but actually, neither of those is correct as the more abundant and more mature LM and ER populations analyzed earlier coexpress NRL and THRB mRNAs (Figures 2, 3). Overall, the authors need to vastly improve the writing, simplify/clarify the nomenclature, and better label figures to match the text and help the reader follow more easily and clearly. As it stands, it is, at best, obtuse, and at worst, totally confusing.

We thank the reviewer for bringing the extent of the confusing terminology and wording to our attention. We revised the terminology (as in our response to point 1) and extensively revised the text.  We also performed similar analyses of the Zuo et al. data (as described in more detail in our response to Reviewer 2), which clarifies the distinct status of cells with the “rod/cone transcript mixture” and cells co-expressing early cone and rod precursor markers.  

To more clearly describe data related to cells with rod- and cone-related RNA co-expression, we divided the former Figure 6 into two figures, with Figure 6 now showing the cone- and rodrelated RNA co-expression inferred from scRNA-seq and Figure 7 showing GNAT2 and NR2E3 co-expression in FISH analyses of human retina plus a new schematic in the new panel 7E.

To separate the conceptually distinct analyses of cone and rod related RNA co-expression and the expression of early photoreceptor precursor markers (which were both found in the so-called bridge region – yet now recognized to be different subpopulations), we separated the analyses of the early photoreceptor precursor markers to form a new section, “Developmental expression of photoreceptor precursor markers and fate determinants,” starting on p. 16. 

Additionally, we further review the findings and their implications in four revised Discussion paragraphs starting at the bottom of p. 23).

(5) The data showing that overexpressing Tr-NRL in murine NIH3T3 fibroblasts blocks FL-NRL function is presented at the end of page 7 and in Figure 3G. Subsequent analysis two paragraphs and two figures later (end page 8, Figure 5C + supp figs) reveal that Tr-NRL protein is not detectable in retinoblastoma cells which derive from cone precursors cells and express Tr-NRL mRNA, and the protein is also not detected upon lentiviral expression of Tr-NRL in human fetal retinal explants, suggesting it is unstable or not translated. It would be preferable to have the 3T3 data and retinoblastoma/explant data juxtaposed. E.g. they could present the latter, then show the 3T3 that even if it were expressed (e.g. briefly) it would interfere with FL-NRL. The current order and spacing are somewhat confusing.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and moved the description of the luciferase assays to follow the retinoblastoma and explant data and switched the order of Figure panels 3G and 3H.  

(6) On page 15, regarding early rod vs early cone gene expression, the authors state: "although MYCN mRNA was not detected....", yet on the volcano plot in Figure S14A MYCN is one of the marked genes that is higher in cones than rods, meaning it was detected, and a couple of sentences later: "Concordantly, the LM cluster had increased MYCN RNA". The text is thus confusing.

With respect, we note that the original text read, “although MYC RNA was not detected,” which related to a statement in the previous sentence that the gene ontology analysis identified “MYC targets.” However, given that this distinction is subtle and may be difficult for readers to recognize, we revised the text (now on p. 19) to more clearly describe expression of MYCN (but not MYC) as follows:

“The upregulation of MYC target genes was of interest given that many MYC target genes are also targets of MYCN, that MYCN protein is highly expressed in maturing (ARR3+) cone precursors but not in NRL+ rods (Figure 10A), and that MYCN is critical to the cone precursor proliferative response to pRB loss8–10.  Indeed, whereas MYC RNA was not detected, the LM cone cluster had increased MYCN RNA …”

(7) The authors state that the SYK drug is "highly specific". They provide no evidence, but no drug is 100% specific, and it is possible that off-target hits are important for the drug phenotype. This data should be removed or validated by co-targeting the SYK gene along with RB1.

We agree that our data only show the potential for SYK to contribute to the cone proliferative response; however, we believe the inhibitor study retains value in that a negative result (no effect of the SYK inhibitor) would disprove its potential involvement. To reflect this, we changed wording related to this experiment as follows:

In the Abstract, we changed:

(1) “SYK, which contributed to the early cone precursors’ proliferative response to RB1 loss” To: “SYK, which was implicated in the early cone precursors’ proliferative response to RB1 loss.”  

(2) “These findings reveal … and a role for early cone-precursor-intrinsic SYK expression.” To:  “These findings reveal … and suggest a role for early cone-precursor-intrinsic SYK expression.”

In the last paragraph of the Results, we changed:

(1) “To determine if SYK contributes…” To:  “To determine if SYK might contribute…”

(2) “the highly specific SYK inhibitor” To:  “the selective SYK inhibitor”  

(3)  “indicating that cone precursor intrinsic SYK activity is critical to the proliferative response” To: “consistent with the notion that cone precursor intrinsic SYK activity contributes to the proliferative response.”

In the Results, we added a final sentence: 

“However, given potential SYK inhibitor off-target effects, validation of the role of SYK in retinoblastoma initiation will require genetic ablation studies.”

In the Discussion (2nd-to-last paragraph), we changed: 

“SYK inhibition impaired pRB-depleted cone precursor cell cycle entry, implying that native SYK expression rather than de novo induction contributes to the cone precursors’ initial proliferation.” To: “…the pRB-depleted cone precursors’ sensitivity to a SYK inhibitor suggests that native SYK expression rather than de novo induction contributes to the cone precursors’ initial proliferation, although genetic ablation of SYK is needed to confirm this notion.” In the Discussion last sentence, we changed:

“enabled the identification of developmental stage-specific cone precursor features that underlie retinoblastoma predisposition.” To: “enabled the identification of developmental stage-specific cone precursor features that are associated with the cone precursors’ predisposition to form retinoblastoma tumors.”

Minor/Typos

Figure 7 legend, H should be D.

We corrected the figure legend (now related to Figure 8).

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) The author should take advantage of recently published human fetal retina data, such as PMID:39117640, which includes a larger dataset of cells that could help validate the findings. Consequently, statements like "To our knowledge, this is the first indication of two immediately post-mitotic photoreceptor precursor populations with cone versus rod-biased gene expression" may need to be revised.

We thank the reviewer for noting the evidence of distinct immediately post-mitotic rod and cone populations published by others after we submitted our manuscript. In response, we omitted the sentence mentioned and extensively cross-checked our results including:

- comparison of our early versus late cone and rod maturation states to the cone and rod precursor versus cone and rod states identified by Zuo et al (new paragraph on the top half of p. 6 and new figure panels S3G,H);

- detection of distinct immediately post-mitotic versus later cone and rod precursor populations (two new paragraphs on pp. 12-13 and new Figures S10B and S11A-E); 

- identification of cone and rod precursor populations that co-express cone and rod marker genes (two new paragraphs starting at the bottom of p. 15 and new Figures S11D-F);

- comparison of expression patterns of immature cone precursor (iCP) marker genes in our and the Zuo et al dataset (new paragraph on top half of p. 17 and new Figure S13).

We also compare the cell states discerned in our study and the Zuo et al. study in a new Discussion paragraph (bottom of p. 23) and new Figure S17.

(2) The data generated comes from dissociated cells, which inherently lack spatial context. Additionally, it is unclear whether the dataset represents a pool of retinas from multiple developmental stages, and if so, whether the developmental stage is known for each cell profiled. If this information is available, the authors should examine the distribution of developmental stages on the UMAP and trajectory analysis as part of the quality control process. 

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the importance of spatial context and developmental stage. 

Related to whether the dataset represents a pool of retinae from multiple developmental stages, the different cell numbers examined at each time point are indicated in Figure S1A. To draw the readers’ attention to this detail, Figure S1A is now cited in the first sentence of the Results. 

Related to the age-related cell distributions in UMAP plots, the distribution of cells from each retina and age was (and is) shown in Fig. S1F. In addition, we now highlight the age distributions by segregating the FW13, FW15-17, and FW17-18-19 UMAP positions in the new Figure 1C. We describe the rod temporal changes in a new sentence at the top of  p. 5:

“Few rods were detected at FW13, whereas both early and late rods were detected from FW15-19 (Figure 1C), corroborating prior reports [15,20].”  

We describe the cone temporal changes and note the likely greater discrimination of cell state changes that would be afforded by separately analyzing macula versus peripheral retina at each age in a new sentence at the bottom of p. 5:

“L/M cone precursors from different age retinae occupied different UMAP regions, suggesting age-related differences in L/M cone precursor maturation (Figure 1C).”

Moreover, they should assess whether different developmental stages impact gene expression and isoform ratios. It is well established that cone and rod progenitors typically emerge at different developmental times and in distinct regions of the retina, with minimal physical overlap. Grouping progenitor cells based solely on their UMAP positioning may lead to an oversimplified interpretation of the data.

(2a) We agree that different developmental stages may impact gene expression and isoform ratios, and evaluated stages primarily based on established Louvain clustering rather than UMAP position. However, we also used UMAP position to segregate so-called RPC-localized and nonRPC-localized iCPs and iRPs, as well as to characterize the bridge region iCP sub-populations. In the revision, we examine whether cell groups defined by UMAP positions helped to identify transcriptomically distinct populations and further examine the spatiotemporal gene expression patterns of the same genes in the Zuo et al. 3’ snRNA-seq dataset. 

(2b) Related to analyses of immediately post-mitotic iRPs and iCPs, the new Figure S10A expanded the violin plots first shown in Figure 5D to compare gene expression in RPC-localized versus non-RPC-localized iCPs and iRPs and subsequent cone and rod precursor clusters (also presented in response to Reviewer 3). The new Figure S10C, shows a similar analysis of UMAP region-specific regulon activities. These figures support the idea that there are only subtle UMAP region-related differences in the expression of the selected gene and regulons. 

To further evaluate early cone and rod precursors, we compared expression patterns in our cluster- and UMAP-defined cell groups to those of the spatiotemporally defined cell groups in the Zuo et al. 3’ snRNA-seq study. The results revealed similar expression timing of the genes examined, although the cluster assignments of a subset of cells were brought into question, especially the assigned rod precursors at pcw 10 and 13, as shown in new Figures S10B (grey columns) and S11, and as described in two new paragraphs starting near the bottom of p.12. 

(2c) Related to analyses of iCPs in the so-called bridge region, our analyses of the Zuo et al dataset helped distinguish early cone and rod precursor populations (expressing early markers such as ATOH7 and CHRNA1) from the later stages exhibiting rod- and cone-related gene coexpression, which had intermixed in the UMAP bridge region in our dataset. Further parsing of early cone precursor marker spatiotemporal expression revealed intriguing differences as now described in the second half of a new paragraph at the top of p. 17, as follows:

“Also, different iCP markers had different spatiotemporal expression: CHRNA1 and ATOH7 were most prominent in peripheral retina with ATOH7 strongest at pcw 10 and CHRNA1 strongest at pcw 13; CTC-378H22.2 was prominently expressed from pcw 10-13 in both the macula and the periphery; and DLL3 and ONECUT1 showed the earliest, strongest, and broadest expression (Figure S13B). The distinct patterns suggest spatiotemporally distinct roles for these factors in cone precursor differentiation.”

(3) I would commend the authors for performing a validation experiment via RNA in situ to validate some of the findings. However, drawing conclusions from analyzing a small number of cells can still be dangerous. Furthermore, it is not entirely clear how the subclustering is done. Some cells change cell type identities in the high-resolution plot. For example, some iPRP cells from the low-resolution plots in Figure 1 are assigned as TR in high-resolution plots in Figure 5.

The authors should provide justification on the identifies of RPC localized iPRP and TR.

Comparison of their data with other publicly available data should strengthen their annotation

We agree that drawing conclusions from scRNA-seq or in situ hybridization analysis of a small number of cells can be dangerous and have followed the reviewer’s suggestion to compare our data with other publicly available data, focusing on the 3’ snRNA-seq of Zuo et al. given its large size and extensive annotation. Our analysis of  the Zuo et al. dataset helped clarify cell identities by segregating cone and rod precursors with similar gene expression properties in distinct UMAP regions. However, we noted that the clustering of early cone and rod precursors likely gave numerous mis-assigned cells (as noted in response 2b above and shown in the new Figure S11). It would appear that insights may be derived from the combination of relatively shallow sequencing of a high number of cells and deep sequencing of substantially fewer cells. 

Related to how subclustering was done, the Methods state, “A nearest-neighbors graph was constructed from the PCA embedding and clusters were identified using a Louvain algorithm at low and high resolutions (0.4 and 1.6)[70],” citing the Blondel et al reference for the Louvain clustering algorithm used in the Seurat package.  To clarify this, the results text was revised such that it now indicates the levels used to cluster at low resolution (0.4, p. 4, 2nd paragraph) and at high resolution (1.6, top of p. 11) .

Related to the assignment of some iPRP cells from the low-resolution plots in Figure 1 to the TR cluster (now called the ‘iRP’ ‘cluster) in the high-resolution plots in Figure 5, we suggest that this is consistent with Louvain clustering, which does not follow a single dendrogram hierarchy. 

The justification for referring to these groups as RPC-localized iCPs and iRPs relates to their biased gene and regulon expression in Fig. 5D and 5E, as stated on p. 12: 

“In the RPC-localized region, iCPs had higher ONECUT1, THRB, and GNAT2, whereas iRPs trended towards higher NRL and NR2E3 (p= 0.19, p=0.054, respectively).”

(4) Late-stage LM5 cluster Figure 9 is not defined anywhere in previous figures, in which LM clusters only range from 1 to 4. The inconsistency in cluster identification should be addressed.

We revised the text related to this as follows: 

“Indeed, our scRNA-seq analyses revealed that SYK RNA expression increased from the iCP stage through cluster LM4, in contrast to its minimal expression in rods (Figure 10E).  Moreover, SYK expression was abolished in the five-cell group with properties of late maturing cones (characterized in Figure 1E), here displayed separately from the other LM4 cells and designated LM5 (Figure 10E).”  (p. 19-20)

(5) Syk inhibitor has been shown to be involved in RB cell survival in previous studies. The manuscript seems to abruptly make the connection between the single-cell data to RB in the last figure. The title and abstract should not distract from the bulk of the manuscript focusing on the rod and cone development, or the manuscript should make more connection to retinoblastoma.

We appreciate the reviewer’s concern that the title may seem to over-emphasize the connection to retinoblastoma based solely on the SYK inhibitor studies. However, we suggest the title also emphasizes the identification and characterization of early human photoreceptor states, per se, and that there are a number of important connections beyond the SYK studies that could warrant the mention of cell-state-specific retinoblastoma-related features in the title.

Most importantly, a prior concern with the cone cell-of-origin theory was that retinoblastoma cells express RNAs thought to mark retinal cell types other than cones, especially rods. The evidence presented here, that cone precursors also express the rod-related genes helps resolve this issue. The issue is noted numerous times in the manuscript, as follows:  

In the Introduction, we write:

“However, retinoblastoma cells also express rod lineage factor NRL RNAs, which – along with other evidence – suggested a heretofore unexplained connection between rod gene expression and retinoblastoma development[12,13]. Improved discrimination of early photoreceptor states is needed to determine if co-expression of rod- and cone-related genes is adopted during tumorigenesis or reflects the co-expression of such genes in the retinoblastoma cell of origin.” (bottom, p. 2) And: 

“In this study, we sought to further define the transcriptomic underpinnings of human  photoreceptor development and their relationship to retinoblastoma tumorigenesis.” (last paragraph, p. 3)

The Discussion also alluded to this issue and in the revised Discussion, we aimed to make the connection clearer.  We previously ended the 3rd-to-last paragraph with,  

“iPRP [now iCP] and early LM cone precursors’ expression of NR2E3 and NRL RNAs suggest that their presence in retinoblastomas[12,13] reflects their normal expression in the L/M cone precursor cells of origin.” 

We now separate and elaborate on this point in a new paragraph as follows: 

“Our characterization of cone and rod-related RNA co-expression may help resolve questions about the retinoblastoma cell of origin. Past studies suggested that retinoblastoma cells co-express RNAs associated with rods, cones, or other retinal cells due to a loss of lineage fidelity[12]. However, the early L/M cone precursors’ expression of NR2E3 and NRL RNAs suggest that their presence in retinoblastomas[12,13] reflects their normal expression in the L/M cone precursor cells of origin. This idea is further supported by the retinoblastoma cells’ preferential expression of cone-enriched NRL transcript isoforms (Figure S5B).” (middle of p. 24) Based on the above, we elected to retain the title.  

Minor comments:

(1) It is difficult to see the orange and magenta colors in the Fig 3E RNA-FISH image. The colors should be changed, or the contrast threshold needs to be adjusted to make the puncta stand out more.

We re-assigned colors, with red for FL-NRL puncta and green for Tr-NRL puncta. 

(2) Figure 5C on page 8 should be corrected to Supplementary Figure 5C.

We thank the reviewer for noting this error and changed the figure citation.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Minor concerns

a. Abbreviation of some words needs to be included, example: FW. 

We now provide abbreviation definitions for FW and others throughout the manuscript.  

b. Cat # does not matches with the 'key resource table' for many reagents/kits. Some examples are: CD133-PE mentioned on Page # 22 on # 71, SMART-Seq V4 Ultra Low Input RNA Kit and SMARTer Ultra Low RNA Kit for the Fluidigm C1 Sytem on Page # 22 on # 77, Nextera XT DNA Library preparation kit on Page # 23 on # 77.

We thank the reviewer for noting these discrepancies. We have now checked all catalog numbers and made corrections as needed.

c. Cat # and brand name of few reagents & kits is missing and not mentioned either in methods or in key resource table or both. Eg: FBS, Insulin, Glutamine, Penicillin, Streptomycin, HBSS, Quant-iT PicoGreen dsDNA assay, Nextera XT DNA LibraryPreparation Kit, 5' PCR Primer II A with CloneAmp HiFi PCR Premix. 

Catalog numbers and brand names are now provided for the tissue culture and related reagents within the methods text and for kits in the Key Resources Table. Additional descriptions of the primers used for re-amplification and RACE were added to the Methods (p. 28-29).

d. Spell and grammar check is needed throughout the manuscript is needed. Example. In Page # 46 RXRγlo is misspelled as RXRlo.

Spelling and grammar checks were reviewed.

(2) Methods & Key Resource table.

a. In Page # 21, IRB# needs to be stated.      

The IRB protocols have been added, now at top of p. 26.

b. In Page # 21, Did the authors dissociate retinae in ice-cold phosphate-buffered saline or papain?   

The relevant sentence was corrected to “dissected while submerged in ice-cold phosphatebuffered saline (PBS) and dissociated as described10.” ( p. 26)

c. In Page # 21, How did the authors count or enumerate the cell count? Provide the details.

We now state, “… a 10 µl volume was combined with 10 µl trypan blue and counted using a hemocytometer” (top of p. 27)

d. Why did the authors choose to specifically use only 8 cells for cDNA preparation in Page # 22? State the reason and provide the details.

The reasons for using 8 cells (to prevent evaporation and to manually transfer one slide-worth of droplets to one strip of PCR tubes) and additional single cell collection details are now provided as follows (new text underlined): 

“Single cells were sorted on a BD FACSAria I at 4°C using 100 µm nozzle in single-cell mode into each of eight 1.2 µl lysis buffer droplets on parafilm-covered glass slides, with droplets positioned over pre-defined marks … .  Upon collection of eight cells per slide, droplets were transferred to individual low-retention PCR tubes (eight tubes per strip) (Bioplastics K69901, B57801) pre-cooled on ice to minimize evaporation. The process was repeated with a fresh piece of parafilm for up to 12 rounds to collect 96 cells). (p. 27, new text underlined)

e. Key resource table does not include several resources used in this study. Example - NR2E3 antibody.

We added the NR2E3 antibody and checked for other omissions.

(3) Results & Figures & Figure Legends

a. Regulon-defined RPC and photoreceptor precursor states

i. On page # 4, 1 paragraph - Clarify the sentence 'Exclusion of all cells with <100,000 cells read and 18 cells.........Emsembl transcripts inferred'. Did the authors use 18 cells or 18FW retinae? 

The sentence was changed to:

“After sequencing, we excluded all cells with <100,000 read counts and 18 cells expressing one or more markers of retinal ganglion, amacrine, and/or horizontal cells (POU4F1, POU4F2, POU4F3, TFAP2A, TFAP2B, ISL1) and concurrently lacking photoreceptor lineage marker OTX2. This yielded 794 single cells with averages of 3,750,417 uniquely aligned reads, 8,278 genes detected, and 20,343 Ensembl transcripts inferred (Figure S1A-C).” (p. 4, new words underlined)

To clarify that 18 retinae were used, the first sentence of the Results was revised as follows:

“To interrogate transcriptomic changes during human photoreceptor development, dissociated RPCs and photoreceptor precursors were FACS-enriched from 18 retinae, ages FW13-19 …” (p. 4).

Why did the authors 'exclude cells lacking photoreceptor lineage marker OTX2' from analysis especially when the purpose here was to choose photoreceptor precursor states & further results in the next paragraph clearly state that 5 clusters were comprised of cells with OTX2 and CRX expression. This is confusing.

We apologize for the imprecise diction. We divided the evidently confusing sentence into two sentences to more clearly indicate that we removed cells that did not express OTX2, as in the first response to the previous question.

ii. In Page # 5, the authors reported the number of cell populations (363 large and 5 distal) identified in the THRB+ L/M-cone cluster. What were the # of cell populations identified in the remaining 5 clusters of the UMAP space?

We added the cell numbers in each group to Fig. 1B. We corrected the large LM group to 366 cells (p. 5) and note 371 LM cells , which includes the five distal cells, in Figure 1B.

b. Differential expression of NRL and THRB isoforms in rod and cone precursors

i. In Figure 3B, the authors compare and show the presence of 5 different NRL isoforms for all the 6 clusters that were defined in 3A. However, in the results, the ENST# of just 2 highly assigned transcript isoforms is given. What are the annotated names of the three other isoforms which are shown in 3B? Please explain in the Results.

As requested, we now annotate the remaining isoforms as encoding full-length or truncated NRL in Fig. 3B and show isoform structures in new Supplementary Figure S4B.  We also refer to each transcript isoform in the Results (p. 7, last paragraph) and similarly evaluate all isoforms in RB31 cells (Fig. S5B).

ii. What does the Mean FPM in the y-axis of Fig 3C refer to?

Mean FPM represents mean read counts (fragments per million, FPM) for each position across Ensembl NRL exons for each cluster, as now stated in the 6th line of the Fig. 3 legend.

iii. A clear explanation of the results for Figures 3E-3F is missing.

We revised the text to more clearly describe the experiment as follows:

“The cone cells’ higher proportional expression of Tr-NRL first exon sequences was validated by RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) of FW16 fetal retina in which NRL immunofluorescence was used to identify rod precursors, RXRg immunofluorescence was used to identify cone precursors, and FISH probes specific to truncated Tr-NRL exon 1T or FL-NRL exons 1 and 2 were used to assess Tr-NRL and FL-NRL expression (Figure 3E,F).” (p. 8, new text underlined).

c. Two post-mitotic photoreceptor precursor populations

i. Although deep-sequencing and SCENIC analysis clarified the identities of four RPC-localized clusters as MG, RPC, and iPRP indicative of cone-bias and TR indicative of rod-bias. It would be interesting to see the discriminating determinant between the TR and ER by SCENIC and deep-sequencing gene expression violin/box plots.

We agree it is of interest to see the discriminating determinant between the TR [now termed iRP] and ER clusters by SCENIC and deep-sequencing gene expression violin/box plots. We now provide this information for selected genes and regulons of interest in the new Supplementary Figures S10A and S10C, along with a similar comparison between the prior high-resolution iPRP (now termed iCP) cluster and the first high-resolution LM cluster, LM1, as described for gene expression on p. 12:

“Notably, THRB and GNAT2 expression did not significantly change while ONECUT1 declined in the subsequent non-RPC-localized iCP and LM1 stages, whereas NR2E3 and NRL dramatically increased on transitioning to the ER state (Figure S10A).”

And as described for regulon activities on pp. 13-14:

“Finally, activities of the cone-specific THRB and ISL2 regulons, the rod-specific NRL regulon, and the pan-photoreceptor LHX3, OTX2, CRX, and NEUROD1 regulons increased to varying extents on transitioning from the immature iCP or iRP states to the early-maturing LM1 or ER states (Figure 10C).”

We also show expression of the same genes for spatiotemporally grouped cells from the Zuo et al. dataset in the new Figure S10B, which displays a similar pattern (apart from the possibly mixed pcw 10 and pcw13 designated rod precursors).

d. Early cone precursors with cone- and rod-related RNA expression

i. On page #12, the last paragraph where the authors explain the multiplex RNA FISH results of RXRγ and NR2E3 by citing Figure S8E. However, in Fig S8E, the authors used NRL to identify the rods. Please clarify which one of the rod markers was used to perform RNA FISH?

Figure S8E (where NRL was used as a rod marker) was cited to remind readers that RXRg has low expression in rods and high expression in cones, rather than to describe the results of this multiplex FISH section. To avoid confusion on this point, Figure S8E is now cited using “(as earlier shown in Figure S8E).” With this issue clarified, we expect the markers used in the FISH + IF analysis will be clear from the revised explanation, 

“… we examined GNAT2 and NR2E3 RNA co-expression in RXRg+ cone precursors in the outermost NBL and in RXRg+ rod precursors in the middle NBL … .” (p. 14-15).

To provide further clarity, we provide a diagram of the FISH probes, protein markers, and expression patterns in the new Figure 7E.

ii. The Y-axis of Fig 6G-6H needs to be labelled.

The axes have been re-labeled from “Nb of cells” to “Number of RXRg+ outermost NBL cells in each region” (original Fig. 6G, now Fig. 7C) and “Number of RXRg+ middle NBL cells in each region” (original Fig. 6H, now Fig. 7D).

iii. The legends of Figures 6G and 6H are unclear. In the Figure 6G legend, the authors indicate 'all cells are NR2E3 protein-'. Does that imply the yellow and green bars alone? Similarly, clarify the Figure 6H legend, what does the dark and light magenta refer to? What does the light magenta color referring to NR2E3+/ NR2E3- and the dark magenta color referring to NR2E3+/ NR2E3+ indicate? 

We regret the insufficient clarity. We revised the Fig. 6G (now Fig. 7C) key, which now reads

“All outermost NBL cells are NR2E3 protein-negative.”  We added to the figure legend for panel 7C,D “(n.b., italics are used for RNAs, non-italics for proteins).”  The new scheme in Figure 7E shows the RNAs in italics proteins in non-italics. We hope these changes will clarify when RNA or protein are represented in each histogram category.

Overall, the results (on page # 13) reflecting Figures 6E-6H & Figure S11 are confusing and difficult to understand. Clear descriptions and explanations are needed.

We revised this results section described in the paragraph now spanning p. 14:

-  We now refer to the bar colors in Figures 7C and 7D that support each statement. 

-  We provide an illustration of the findings in Figure 7E.

iv. Previously published literature has shown that cells of the inner NBL are RXRγ+ ganglion cells. So, how were these RXRγ+ ganglion cells in the inner NBL discriminated during multiplex RNA FISH (in Fig 6E-6H and in Fig S11)?

We thank the reviewer for requesting this clarification. We agree that “inner NBL” is the incorrect term for the region in which we examined RXRg+ photoreceptor precursors, as this could include RXRγ+ nascent RGCs. We now clarify that 

“we examined GNAT2 and NR2E3 RNA co-expression in RXRg+ cone precursors in the outermost NBL and in RXRg+ rod precursors in the middle NBL … .”  (p. 14-15) We further state, 

“Limiting our analysis to the outer and middle NBL allowed us to disregard RXRγ+ retinal ganglion cells in the retinal ganglion cell layer or inner NBL (top of p. 15)”

Figure 7E is provided to further aid the reader in understanding the positions examined, and the legend states “RXRg+ retinal ganglion cells in the inner NBL and ganglion cell layer not shown. 

v. In Figure 6E, what marker does each color cell correspond to?

In this figure (now panel 7A), we declined to provide the color key since the image is not sufficiently enlarged to visualize the IF and FISH signals. The figure is provided solely to document the regions analyzed and readers are now referred to “see Figure S12 for IF + FISH images” (2nd line, p. 15), where the marker colors are indicated.

vi. In Figure S11 & 6E, Protein and RNA transcript color of NR2E3, GNAT2 are hard to distinguish. Usage of other colors is recommended.  

We appreciate the reviewer’s concern related to the colors (in the now redesignated Figure S12 and 7A); however, we feel this issue is largely mitigated by our use of arrows to point to the cells needed to illustrate the proposed concepts in Figure S12B. All quantitation was performed by examining each color channel separately to ensure correct attribution, which is now mentioned in the Methods (2nd-to-last line of Quantitation of FISH section, p. 35).

vii. 

With due respect, we suggest that labeling each box (now in Figure 8B) makes the figure rather busy and difficult to infer the main point, which is that boxed regions were examined at various distanced from the center (denoted by the “C” and “0 mm”) with distances periodically indicated. We suggest the addition of such markers would not improve and might worsen the figure for most readers.    

e. An early L/M cone trajectory marked by successive lncRNA expression

i. In Figure 8C - color-coded labelling of LM1-4 clusters is recommended.

We note Fig. 8C (now 9C) is intended to use color to display the pseudotemporal positions of each cell. We recognize that an additional plot with the pseudotime line imposed on LM subcluster colors could provide some insights, yet we are unaware of available software for this and are unable to develop such software at present. To enable readers to obtain a visual impression of the pseudotime vs subcluster positions, we now refer the reader to Figure 5A in the revised figure legend, as follows:  (“The pseudotime trajectory may be related to LM1-LM4 subcluster distributions in Figure 5A.”).

ii. In Figure 8G - what does the horizontal color-coded bar below the lncRNAs name refer to? These bars are similar in all four graphs of the 8G figure.

As stated in the Fig. 8G (now 9G) legend, “Colored bars mark lncRNA expression regions as described in the text.”  We revised the text to more clearly identify the color code. (p. 18-19)   

f. Cone intrinsic SYK contributions to the proliferative response to pRB loss

i. In Fig 9F - The expression of ARR3+ cells (indicated by the green arrow in FW18) is poorly or rarely seen in the peripheral retina.

We thank the reviewer for finding this oversight. In panel 9F (now 10F), we removed the green arrows from the cells in the periphery, which are ARR3- due to the immaturity of cones in this region. 

ii. In Figure 9F - Did the authors stain the FW16 retina with ARR3?

Unfortunately, we did not stain the FW16 retina for ARR3 in this instance.

iii. Inclusion of DAPI staining for Fig 9F is recommended to justify the ONL & INL in the images.

We regret that we are unable to merge the DAPI in this instance due to the way in which the original staining was imaged.  A more detailed analysis corroborating and extending the current results is in progress. 

iv. Immunostaining images for Figure 9G are missing & are required to be included. What does shSCR in Fig 9G refer to?

We now provide representative immunostaining images below the panel (now 10G). The legend was updated: “Bottom: Example of Ki67, YFP, and RXRg co-immunostaining with DAPI+ nuclei (yellow outlines). Arrows: Ki67+, YFP+, RXRg+ nuclei.”  The revised legend now notes that shSCR refers to the scrambled control shRNA.

v. For Figure 9H - Is the presence and loss of SYK activity consistent with all the subpopulations (S & LM) of early maturing and matured cones?

We appreciate the reviewer’s question and interest (relating to the redesignated Figure 10H); however, we have not yet completed a comprehensive evaluation of SYK expression in all the subpopulations (S & LM) of early maturing and matured cones and will reserve such data for a subsequent study. We suggest that this information is not critical to the study’s major conclusions.

vi. Figure 9A is not explained in the results. Why were MYCN proteins assessed along with ARR3 and NRL? What does this imply?

We thank the reviewer for noting that this figure (now Figure 10A) was not clearly described. 

As per the response to Reviewer 1, point 6 , the text now states,  

“The upregulation of MYC target genes was of interest given that many MYC target genes are also MYCN targets, that MYCN protein is highly expressed in maturing (ARR3+) cone precursors but not in NRL+ rods (Figure 10A), and that MYCN is critical to the cone precursor proliferative response to pRB loss [8–10].” (middle, p. 19, new text underlined).

Hence, the figure demonstrates the cone cell specificity of high MYCN protein.  This is further noted in the Fig. 10a legend: “A. Immunofluorescent staining shows high MYCN in ARR3+ cones but not in NRL+ rods in FW18 retina.”

Author Response

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

First, the authors would like to thank the reviewers and editors for their thoughtful comments. The comments were used to guide our revision, which is substantially improved over our initial submission. We have addressed all comments in our responses below, through a combination of clarification, new analyses and new experimental data.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, the authors identified and characterized the five C-terminus repeats and a 14aa acidic tail of the mouse Dux protein. They found that repeat 3&5, but not other repeats, contribute to transcriptional activation when combined with the 14aa tail. Importantly, they were able to narrow done to a 6 aa region that can distinguish "active" repeats from "inactive" repeats. Using proximal labeling proteomics, the authors identified candidate proteins that are implicated in Dux-mediated gene activation. They were able to showcase that the C-terminal repeat 3 binds to some proteins, including Smarcc1, a component of SWI/SNF (BAF) complex. In addition, by overexpressing different Dux variants, the authors characterized how repeats in different combinations, with or without the 14aa tail, contribute to Dux binding, H3K9ac, chromatin accessibility, and transcription. In general, the data is of high quality and convincing. The identification of the functionally important two C-terminal repeats and the 6 aa tail is enlightening. The work shined light on the mechanism of DUX function.

A few major comments that the authors may want to address to further improve the work:

We thank the reviewer for their efforts and constructive comments, which have guided our revisions.

1) The summary table for the Dux domain construct characteristics in Fig. 6a could be more accurate. For example, C3+14 clearly showed moderate weaker Dux binding and H3K9ac enrichment in Fig 3c and 3e. However, this is not illustrated in Fig. 6a. The authors may consider applying statistical tests to more precisely determine how the different Dux constructs contribute to DNA binding (Fig. 3c), H3K9ac enrichment (Fig. 3e), Smarcc1 binding (Fig. 5e), and ATAC-seq signal (Fig. 5f).

We thank the reviewer for this comment, and agree that there were some modest differences in construct characteristics that were not captured in the Summary Table (6a). To better reflect the differences between constructs, we added additional dynamic range to our depiction/scoring, and believe that the new scoring system provides sufficient qualitative range to capture the difference without imposing a statistical approach.

2) Another concern is that exogenous overexpressed Dux was used throughout the experiments. The authors may consider validating some of the protein-protein interactions using spontaneous or induced 2CLCs (where Dux is expressed).

We agree that it would be helpful to determine endogenous DUX interaction with our BioID candidates. Here, we attempted co-IPs for endogenous DUX protein with the DUX antibody and were unsuccessful, which indicated that the DUX antibody is useful for detection but not efficient in the primary IP. This is why we utilized the mCherry tag for DUX IP experiments, which worked exceptionally well.

3) It could be technically challenging, but the authors may consider to validate Dux and Smarcc1 interaction in a biologically more relevant context such as mouse 2-cell embryos where both proteins are expressed. Whether Smarcc1 binding will be dramatically reduced at 4-cell embryos due to loss of Dux expression?

While we agree that it would be interesting to validate the in vivo interaction of DUX and SMARCC1 in the early embryo, it is not technically feasible for us to conduct the experiment, as the IP would require thousands of two-cell embryos, and we have the issue of poor co-IP quality with the DUX antibody.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, Smith et al. delineated novel mechanistic insights into the structure-function relationships of the C-terminal repeat domains within the mouse DUX protein. Specifically, they identified and characterised the transcriptionally active repeat domains, and narrowed down to a critical 6aa region that is required for interacting with key transcription and chromatin regulators. The authors further showed how the DUX active repeats collaborate with the C-terminal acidic tail to facilitate chromatin opening and transcriptional activation at DUX genomic targets.

Although this study attempts to provide mechanistic insights into how DUX4 works, the authors will need to perform a number of additional experiments and controls to bolster their claims, as well as provide detailed analyses and clarifications.

We thank this reviewer for their constructive comments, and have conducted several new analyses, additional experiments and clarifications – which have strengthened the manuscript in several locations. Highlights include a statistical approach to the similarity of mouse repeats to themselves and to orthologs (Figure S1d) and clarified interpretations, a wider dynamic range to better reflect changes in DUX construct behaviors (Figure 6a), and additional data on construct behavior, including ‘inactive’ constructs (e.g C1+14aa in Figure 1a,d, new ATAC-seq in Figure S1g), and active constructs such as C3+C5+14aa and C3+C514aa (in Figure S1b).

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Dux (or DUX4 in human) is a master transcription factor regulating early embryonic gene activation and has garnered much attention also for its involvement in reprogramming pluripotent embryonic stem cells to totipotent "2C-like" cells. The presented work starts with the recognition that DUX contains five conserved c. 100-amino acid carboxy-terminal repeats (called C1-C5) in the murine protein but not in that of other mammals (e.g. human DUX4). Using state-of-the-art techniques and cell models (BioID, Cut&Tag; rescue experiments and functional reporter assays in ESCs), the authors dissect the activity of each repeat, concluding that repeats C3 and C5 possess the strongest transactivation potential in synergy with a short C-terminal 14 AA acidic motif. In agreement with these findings, the authors find that full-length and active (C3) repeat containing Dux leads to increased chromatin accessibility and active histone mark (H3K9Ac) signals at genomic Dux binding sites. A further significant conclusion of this mutational analysis is the proposal that the weakly activating repeats C2 and C4 may function as attenuators of C3+C5-driven activity.

By next pulling down and identifying proteins bound to Dux (or its repeat-deleted derivatives) using BioID-LC/MS/MS, the authors find a significant number of interactors, notably chromatin remodellers (SMARCC1), a histone chaperone (CHAF1A/p150) and transcription factors previously (ZSCAN4D) implicated in embryonic gene activation.

The experiments are of high quality, with appropriate controls, thus providing a rich compendium of Dux interactors for future study. Indeed, a number of these (SMARCC1, SMCHD1, ZSCAN4) make biological sense, both for embryonic genome activation and for FSHD (SMCHD1).

A critical question raised by this study, however, concerns the function of the Dux repeats, apparently unique to mice. While it is possible, as the authors propose, that the weak activating C1, C2 C4 repeats may exert an attenuating function on activation (and thus may have been selected for under an "adaptationist" paradigm), it is also possible that they are simply the result of Jacobian evolutionary bricolage (tinkering) that happens to work in mice. The finding that Dux itself is not essential, in fact appears to be redundant (or cooperates with) the OBOX4 factor, in addition to the absence of these repeats in the DUX protein of all other mammals (as pointed out by the authors), might indeed argue for the second, perhaps less attractive possibility.

In summary, while the present work provides a valuable resource for future study of Dux and its interactors, it fails, however, to tell a compelling story that could link the obtained data together.

We appreciated the reviewer’s views regarding the high quality of the work and our generation of an important dataset of DUX interactors. We also appreciate the comments provided to improve the work, and have performed and included in the revised version a set of clarifications, additional analyses and additional experiments that have served to reinforce our main points and provide additional mechanistic links. We also agree that more remains to be done to understand the function and evolution of repeats C1, C2 and C4.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

1) For immuno-blots, authors may indicate the expected bands to help readers better understand the results.

Agreed, and we have included the predicted molecular weight of proteins in the Figure Legends. We note that our work shows that the C-terminal domains confer anomalous migration in SDS-PAGE.

2) Fig. 5b, a blot missing for the mCherry group?

Figure 5b is a volcano blot, so we believe the reviewer is referring to Figure 5d, which is a coimmunoprecipitation experiment between SMARCC1 and mCherry-tagged DUX constructs. However, we are unsure of the comment as an anti mCherry sample is present in that panel.

3) Line 99-100, Fig. S1d, it seems that repeat2, but not repeat3, is more similar to human DUX4 C-terminal region.

This comment and one by another reviewer have prompted us to re-examine the similarities of the DUX repeats, and we have new analyses (Figure S1d) and an alternative framing in the manuscript as a result. We have expanded on this in our response to Reviewer #2, point #1 – and direct the reviewer there for our expanded treatment.

4) There are a few references are misplaced. For example, line 48, the studies that reported the role of Dux in inducing 2CLCs should be from Hendrickson et al., 2017, De Iaco et al., 2017, and Whiddon et al., 2017. The authors may want to double check all references.

Thanks for pointing these out. These issues have been corrected in the manuscript.

5) In the materials & methods section, a few potential errors are noticed. For example, concentrations of PD0325901 and CHIR99021 in mESC medium appear ~1000-fold higher than standards.

Thanks – corrected.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Major Points

1) Line 99 - The authors claimed that the "human DUX4 C-terminal region is most similar to the 3rd repeat of mouse DUX", but based on Supp. Fig. 1d, the human DUX4 C-term should be most similar to the 2nd repeat of mouse DUX. If this is indeed the case, it will undermine the rest of this study, since the authors claim that the 3rd repeat is transcriptionally active, whereas the 2nd repeat is transcriptionally inactive, and the bulk of this study largely focused on how the active repeats, not the inactive repeats, are critical in recruiting key transcriptional and chromatin regulators to induce the embryonic gene expression program.

We thank the reviewer for their comments here. Since submission,and as mentioned above for reviewer #1 we have revisited the issue of similarity of the DUX4 C-terminal region to the mouse C-terminal repeats, with a BLAST-based approach that is more rigorous and informed by statistics – which is in Author response table 1 and now in the manuscript as Figure S1d, and has affected our interpretation. Our prior work involved a simple % identity comparison table and we now appreciate that some of the similarity analyses did not meet statistical significance, and therefore we are unable to draw certain conclusions. We make the appropriate modifications in the text. For example, we no longer state that the DUX4 C-terminus appears to be most similar to mouse repeats 3 and 5. This does not affect the main conclusions of the paper regarding interactions of the C-terminus with chromatin-related proteins, only our speculation on which repeat might have represented the original single repeat in the mouse – an issue we think of some interest, but did not rise to the level of mentioning in the original or current abstract.

Author response table 1.

Parameters: PAM250 matrix. Gap costs of existence: 15 and extension: 3. Numbers represent e-value of each pairwise comparison

*No significant similarities found (>0.05).

2) In Supp Fig 1d, it seems that the rat DUX4 C-terminal region is most similar to the 4th repeat of mouse DUX, which according to the author is supposedly transcriptionally inactive. This weakens the authors justification that the 3rd or 5th repeat is likely the "parental repeat for the other four", and further echoes my concern in point 1 where the human DUX4 C-term is most similar to the 2nd (inactive) repeat of mouse DUX.

The reviewer’s point is well taken and is addressed in point #1 above.

3) In Fig. 1d, the authors showed that DUX4-containing C3 and C5, but lacking acidic tail, can promote MERVL::GFP expression, albeit to a slightly lower extent compared to FL. However, in Fig. 2b, C3 or C5 alone (lacking acidic tail) completely failed to promote MERVL::GFP expression. However, in the presence of the acidic tail, both versions were able to promote MERVL::GFP expression, similar to that of FL. The latter would suggest that it is the acidic tail that is crucial for MERVL::GFP expression, and this does not quite agree with Fig 1b, where C12345 (lacking acidic tail) was able to promote MERVL::GFP expression. Although C12345 did not activate MERVL to a similar level as FL, it is clearly proficient, compared to C3 or C5 alone (lacking acidic tail) where there is no increase in MERVL at all. Additional constructs will be helpful to clarify these points. For example, 'C3+C5 minus acidic tail' and 'HD1+HD2+acidic tail only' constructs.

We agree that constructs such as those mentioned would add to the work. First, we have done the additional construct HD1+HD2+14aa tail, which is presented as ΔC12345+14aa in Figure 2a and in S2a. Additionally, we performed experiments on the requested C3+C5+14aa and C3+C5Δ14aa (see samples 6 and 7 in Author response image 1, which are now included in Supplemental Figure 2b). The results reinforce our hypothesis of an additive effect toward DUX target gene activation by increasing C-terminal repeats and including the 14aa tail.

Author response image 1.

4) Related to the above, the flow cytometry data for the MERVL::GFP reporter as presented in Figures 1 and 2, as well as in Supp. Fig. 2, show a considerably large difference in the %GFP|mCherry for the FL construct, ranging from ~6-26%. This makes it difficult to convince the reader which of the different DUX domain constructs cannot or can partially induce GFP|mCherry signal when compared to FL, and hence it is tough to definitively ascertain the exact contribution of each of the 5 C-terminal repeats with high confidence, as it appears that there exists a significant amount of variability in this MERVL::GFP reporter system. The authors need to address this issue since this is their primary method to elucidate the transcriptional activity of each of the mouse DUX repeat domains.

We note that with the Dux-/- cell lines we used throughout the timeline of the study, the percent of %GFP|mCherry expression progressively and slowly decreased – possibly due to slow/modest epigenetic silencing of the reporter. However, we always used the full-length DUX construct to establish the dynamic range. We emphasize that the relative differences between constructs over multiple cell line replicates remained relatively consistent. However, we elected to show absolute values in each experiment, rather than simply normalizing the full-length to 100% and showing relative.

5) Lines 140-142 - The authors claimed that the functional difference between the transcriptionally active and inactive repeats could be narrowed down to a "6aa region which is conserved between repeats C3 and C5, but not conserved in C1, C2 and C4". Assuming the 6aa sequence is DPLELF, why does C1C3a elicit almost twice the intensity of GFP|mCherry signal compared to C3C1c, despite both constructs having the exact same 6aa sequence?

Indeed, C1C3a and C3C1c both containing the ‘active’ DPL sequence but having different relative levels of %GFP|mCherry. This is consistent with these sequences having a positive role in DUX target gene regulation – but likely in combination with other other regions which potentiate its affect, possibly through interacting proteins or post-translational modifications.

Why does DPLEPL (the intermediate C3C1b construct) induce a similar extent of GFP|mCherry signal as the FL construct, even though the former includes 3aa from a transcriptionally inactive repeat? In contrast, GSLELF (the other intermediate C1C3b construct) that also includes 3aa from a transcriptionally inactive repeat is almost completely deficient in inducing any GFP|mCherry signal. Why is that so? Is DPL the most crucial sequence? It will be important to mutate these 3 (or the above 6) residues on FL DUX4 to examine if its transcriptional activity is abolished.

These are interesting points. DPL does appear to be the most important region in the mouse DUX repeats. However, DPL is not shared in the C-terminus of human DUX4. Notably, the DUX4 C-terminus is sufficient to activate the mouse MERVL::GFP reporter when cloned to mouse homeodomains (see Author response image 2, second sample) and other DUX target genes (initially published in Whiddon et al. 2017). One clear possibility is that the DPL region is helping to coordinate the additive effects of multiple DUX repeats, which only exist in the mouse protein.

Author response image 2.

6) Line 154 - The intermediate DUX domain construct C1C3b occupied a different position on the PCA plot from the C1C3c construct that does not contain any of the critical 6aa sequence, as shown in Fig. 2e. However, both these constructs appear to be similarly deficient in inducing any GFP|mCherry signal, as seen in Fig. 2c. Why is that so?

The PCA plot assesses the impact on the whole transcriptome and not just the MERVL::GFP reporter, suggesting the 3aa region has transcriptional effects on the genome beyond what is detected in the MERVL::GFP reporter.

7) To strengthen the claim that "Chromatin alterations at DUX bindings sites require a transcriptionally active DUX repeat", the authors should also perform CUT&Tag for constructs containing transcriptionally inactive DUX repeats (e.g. C1+14aa), and show that such constructs fail to occupy DUX binding sites, as well as are deficient in H3K9ac accumulation.

This is a good comment. We elected to control this with constructs containing or lacking an active repeat. Although we have not pursued this by CUT&TAG, we have examined the impact of DUX constructs with inactive repeats (including the requested C1+14aa, new Figure S1g) by ATAC-seq (see #12, ATAC-seq section, below), and observe no chromatin opening, suggesting that the lack of transcriptional activity is rooted in the inability to open chromatin.

8) It would be good if the authors could also include CUT&Tag data for some of the C1C3 chimeric constructs that were used in Fig. 2, since the authors argued that the minimal 6aa region is sufficient to activate many of the DUX target genes. This would also strengthen the authors’ case that the transcriptionally active, not inactive, repeats are critical for binding at DUX binding sites and ensuring H3K9ac occupancy.

We agree that these would be helpful, and have examined the inactive repeats in transcription and ATAC-seq formats during revision (new data in Figures 1d and S1g), but not yet the CUT&TAG format.

9) Line 213 - "SMARCA4" should have been "SMARCA5"? Based on Fig. 4d, SMARCA5 is picked up in the BirA*-DUX interactome, not SMARCA4.

Thanks – corrected.

10) Lines 250-252 - The authors compared the active BirA-C3 against the inactive BirA-C1 to elucidate the interactome of the transcriptionally active C3 repeat, as illustrated in Fig. 5c. They found 12 proteins more enriched in C1 and 154 proteins in C3. This information should be presented clearly as a separate tab in Supp Table 2. What are the proteins common to both constructs, i.e. enriched to a similar extent? Do they include chromatin remodellers too? Although the authors sought to identify differential interactors between the 2 constructs, it is also meaningful to perform 2 separate comparisons - active BirA-C3 against BirA alone control, and inactive BirA-C1 against BirA alone control - like in Fig. 4d, so as to more accurately define whether the active C3 repeat, and not the inactive C1 repeat, interacts with proteins involved in chromatin remodeling.

We thank the reviewer for this comment, and we have modified the manuscript by adding a second sheet in Supplementary Table 2 including the results for enriched proteins in BirA-C1 vs. C3. Additionally, due to limitations of annotation between BirA alone and BirA*-C3 being sequenced in different mass spectrometry experiments, it is difficult to quantitatively compare the two datasets with pairwise comparisons.

11) Fig 5d: The authors mentioned in the legend that endogenous IP was performed for SMARCC1. However, in line 266, they stated Flag-tagged SMARCC1. Is SMARCC1 overexpressed? The reciprocal IP should also be presented. More importantly, C1 constructs (e.g. C1+14aa and C1Δ14aa) should also be included.

To clarify, Figure 4e used exogenously overexpressed FLAG-SMARCC1 in HEK-293T cells to confirm the results of the full-length DUX BioID experiment. Figure 5d was performed with overexpressed DUX construct, but involved endogenous SMARCC1 in mESCs. This has now been made clearer in the revised manuscript.

12) For both the SMARCC1 CUT&Tag and ATAC-seq experiments shown in Figures 5e and 5f respectively, the authors need to include DUX derivatives that contain transcriptionally inactive repeats with and without the 14aa acidic tail, i.e. C1+14aa and C1Δ14aa, and show that these constructs prevent the binding/recruitment of SMARCC1 to DUX genomic targets, and correspondingly display a decrease in chromatin accessibility. Only then can they assert the requirement of the transcriptionally active repeat domains for proper DUX protein interaction, occupancy and target activation.

We agree that examination of an inactive repeat in certain approaches would improve the manuscript. Importantly, we have now included C1+14 in our ATAC-seq experiments, and in Author response image 3 two individual replicates, which constitute a new Figure S1g. Compared to the transcriptionally active DUX constructs, which see opening at DUX binding sites, we do not see chromatin opening at DUX binding sites with transcriptionally inactive C1+14.

Author response image 3.

13) To prove that DUX-interactors are important for embryonic gene expression, it will be important to perform loss of function studies. For instance, will the knockdown/knockout of SMARCC1 in cells expressing the active DUX repeat(s) lead to a loss of DUX target gene occupancy and activation?

We agree that it would be interesting to better understand SMARCC1 cooperation with DUX function in the embryo, but we believe this is beyond the scope of this paper.

Minor Points

1) Lines 124-126 - What is the reason/rationale for why the authors used one linker (GGGGS2) for constructs with a single internal deletion, but 2 different linkers (GGGGS2 and GAGAS2) for constructs with 2 internal deletions?

With Gibson cloning, there are homology overhang arms for each PCR amplicon that are required to be specific for each overlap. Additionally, each PCR amplicon needs to be specific enough from one another so that all inserts (up to 5 in this manuscript) are included and oriented in the right order. The linker sequences were included in the homology arm overlaps, so the nucleotide sequences for each linker needed to be specific enough to include all inserts. This is a general rule to Gibson cloning. Additionally, both GGGGS2 and GAGAS2 are common linker sequences used in molecular biology and the amino acids structures are similar to one another, suggesting there is no functional difference between linkers.

2) Line 704 - 705: In the figure legend, the authors stated that 'Constructs with a single black line have the linker GGGGS2 and constructs with two black lines have linkers with GGGGS2 and GAGAS2, respectively.'. This was not obvious in the figures.

Constructs used for flow and genomics experiments that are depicted in Figure 2, Supplementary Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5 have depicted black lines where deletions are present. Where these deletions are present, there are linkers in order to preserve spacing and mobility for the protein.

3) Line 160 - Clusters #1 and #2 are likely written in the wrong order. It should have been "activating the majority of DUX targets in cluster #2, not cluster #1" and "failed to activate those in cluster #1, not cluster #2", based on the RNA-seq heatmap in Fig. 2f.

We thank the reviewer for this comment, and the error has been corrected in the manuscript.

4) Line 188 - Delete the word "of" in the following sentence fragment: "DUX binding sites correlating with the of transcriptional".

Thanks – corrected.

5) Line 191 - Delete the word "aids" in the following sentence fragment: "important for conferring H3K9ac aids at bound".

Thanks – corrected.

6) Line 711 - "C1-C3 a,b,d" should be "C1-C3 a,b,c".

Thanks – corrected.

7) Lines 711-712 - The colors "pink to blue" and "blue to pink" are likely written in the wrong order. Based on Fig. 2c, the blue to pink bar graphs should represent C1-C3 a,b,c in that order, and likewise the pink to blue bar graphs should represent C3-C1 a,b,c in that order.

Thanks – corrected.

8) There is an overload of data presented in Fig. 2c, such that it is difficult to follow which part of the figure represents each data segment as written in the figure legend. It is recommended that the data presented here is split into 2 sub-figures.

Figure 2c has a supporting figure in Supplementary Figure 2b. While there is both a graphical depiction of the constructions and the data both in the main panel of Figure 2C, we have depicted it as so to be as clear as possible for the reader to interpret the complexity and presentence of amino acids in each of the constructs.

9) Line 717 - "following" is misspelt.

Thanks – corrected.

10) Lines 720-721 - "(Top)" and "(Bottom)" should be replaced with "(Left)" and "(Right)", as the 2 bar graphs presented in Fig. 2d are placed side by side to each other, not on the top and bottom.

Thanks – corrected.

11) Lines 725 and 839 - "Principle" is misspelt. It should be "Principal".

Thanks – corrected.

12) In Figures 3d and 3e, the sample labeled "C3+14_1" should be re-labeled to "C3+14", in accordance with the other sub-figures. Additionally, for the sake of consistency, "aa" should be appended to the relevant constructs, e.g. "C3+14aa" and "C3Δ14aa".

Thanks – corrected.

13) Line 773 - Were the DUX domain constructs over-expressed for 12hr (as written in the figure legend) or 18hr (as labeled in Fig. 5d)?

Thanks – corrected.

14) Related to minor point 19 above, is there a reason/rationale for why some of the experiments used 12hr over-expression of DUX domain constructs (e.g. for CUT&TAG in Fig. 3), whereas in other experiments 18hr over-expression was chosen instead (e.g. flow cytometry for MERVL::GFP reporter in Figures 1 and 2, and co-IP validations of BirA*-DUX interactions in Fig. 4)?

Thanks for the opportunity to explain. In this work, experiments that reported on proteins that are translated following DUX gene activation (e.g. MERVL:GFP via flow) were done at 18hr to allow for enough time for transcription and translation of GFP (or other DUX target genes). For experiments that report on the impact of DUX on chromatin and transcription, such as RNA-seq, CUT&Tag, and ATAC-seq, we induced DUX domain constructs for 12 hours.

15) Line 804 - "ΔHDs" is missing between "C2345+14aa" and "ΔHD1".

Thanks – corrected.

16) In Fig. 5c, "Chromatin remodelers" is misspelt.

Thanks – corrected.

17) There is no reference in the manuscript to the proposed model that is presented in Fig. 6b.

Thanks – corrected.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Given the uncertainty of the function of the Dux peptide repeats in mice, could it not also be possible that the underlying repeated nature of the (coding) DNA? That is, could these DNA repeats exert a regulatory function on Dux transcription itself (also given the dire consequences of misregulated DUX4 expression as seen in FSHD, for example).

Yes, it remains possible that the internal coding repeats within Dux are playing a role in locus regulation, and might be interesting to examine. However, we consider this question as being outside the scope of the current paper.

Finally, it would be interesting to know whether these repeats are, in fact, present in all mouse species. Already no longer present in rat, do they exist, or not, in more "distant" mice, e.g. M. caroli?

Determining whether all mouse strains contain C-terminal repeats in DUX is a question we also considered. However, Dux and its orthologs are present in long and very complex repeat arrays that are not present in the sequencing data or annotation in other mouse strains. Therefore, we are not unable to answer this question from existing sequencing data. Answering would require a considerable genome sequencing and bioinformatics effort, or alternatively a considerable effort aimed at cloning ortholog cDNAs from 2-cell embryos.

Minor points:

line 169: here it seems, in fact, that the 'inactive' C2, C4 repeats are more similar to each other (my calculation: 91 and 96% identity at the protein and DNA level, respectively) than the active C3 and C5 repeats (82 and 89% identity, resp.), the outlier being C1.

Thanks for this comment, which was mentioned by other reviewers as well and has been addressed through new statistical analyses and interpretation (see new Figure S1d).

line 191: I'm not sure this sentence parses correctly ("...14AA tail is important for conferring H3K9Ac aids at bound sites...")

We thank the reviewer for this comment, and we have corrected the sentence in the manuscript.

This is a very intriguing idea linking TRPV1-mediated calpain activation to downregulation of TRPV1! While your engineered HEK and CHO cell systems work well, can you perform this assay in more biologically relevant cells, such as DRGs, or cells more closely related to neurons, like keratinocytes, and examine endogenous proteins?

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Reviewer #1:

While very positive towards our manuscript, this reviewer also points out three suggestions for improvement.

Overall, there are not many weaknesses. The main one I noticed is with the lipidomic analysis shown in Figs 3C, 7C, S1 and S3. While these data are an essential part of the analysis and provide strong evidence for the conclusions of the study, it is unfortunate that the methods used did not enable the distinction between two 18:1 isomers. These two isomers of 18:1 are important in C. elegans biology, because one is a substrate for FAT-2 (18:1n-9, oleic acid) and the other is not (18:1n-7, cis vaccenic acid). Although rarer in mammals, cisvaccenic acid is the most abundant fatty acid in C. elegans and is likely the most important structural MUFA. The measurement of these two isomers is not essential for the conclusions of the study, but the manuscript should include a comment about the abundance of oleic vs vaccenic acid in C. elegans (authors can find this information, even in the fat-2 mutant, in other publications of C. elegans fatty acid composition). Otherwise, readers who are not familiar with C. elegans might assume the 18:1 that is reported is likely to be mainly oleic acid, as is common in mammals.

Excellent point. As suggested by the reviewer, we now include a clarification of this in the text: "Consistent with previous publications [10], the levels of 18:1 fatty acids were greatly increased in the fat-2(wa17) mutant. It is important to note that the majority of these 18:1 fatty acids is likely 18:1n7 (vaccenic acid) and not 18:1n9 (OA) [10,23], which is the substrate of FAT-2; the lipid analysis methods used here are not able to distinguish between the two 18:1 species."

The title could be less specific; it might be confusing to readers to include the allele name in the title.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion, and we have now modified the title:

"Forward Genetics In C. elegans Reveals Genetic Adaptations To Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid Deficiency"

There are two errors in the pathway depicted in Figure 1A. The16:0-16:1 desaturation can be performed by FAT-5, FAT-6, and FAT-7. The 18:0-18:1 desaturation can only be performed by FAT-6 and FAT-7.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this mistake. The pathway in Fig. 1A has been corrected.

Reviewer #2:

This reviewer was also very positive towards our manuscript but also pointed out several suggestions for additional experiments or changes to the manuscript.

Major recommendations

(1) To conclude that membrane rigidification is not the major cause of defects associated with fat-2 mutations, the authors need to show that fluidity is rescued by their treatments (oleic acid or NP-40). I honestly doubt that it is the case, as oleic acid is already abundant in fat-2 mutants. It is possible that the treatments, which are effective in rescuing fluidity in paqr-2 mutants, do not have the same effects in fat-2 mutants.

The reviewer raises an important point. In an effort to address this, we have now performed a FRAP study on fat-2(wa17) mutants with/without NP40 as a fluidizing agent (with wild-type and paqr-2 mutants as controls). The new data, now included as Fig. 2J, shows that NP40 did improve the fluidity of the intestinal cell membrane in the fat-2(wa17) mutant, though not to the same degree as in the paqr-2 mutant. This is now cited in the text as follows:

"However, cultivating the fat-2(wa17) mutant in the presence of the non-ionic detergent NP40, which improves the growth of the paqr-2(tm3410) mutant [17], did not suppress the poor growth phenotype of the fat-2(wa17) mutant even though it did improve membrane fluidity as measured using FRAP (Fig. 2I-J). Similarly, supplementing the fat-2(wa17) mutant with the MUFA oleic acid (OA, 18:1), which also suppresses paqr-2(tm3410) phenotypes [17], did not suppress the poor growth phenotype of the fat-2(wa17) mutant (Fig 2K)."

(2) It is not validated experimentally that the mutations converge into FTN-2 repression. This can be verified by analyzing mRNA or protein expression of FTN-2 in the egl-9 and hif-1 mutants obtained in the screening.

Our manuscript does lean on several publications that previously established the HIF-1 pathway in C. elegans. Additionally, we now added a qPCR experiment showing that the newly isolated hif-1(et69) allele indeed suppresses the expression of ftn-2. This was an especially valuable experiment since the hif-1(et69) is proposed to act as a gain-of-function allele that would constitutively suppress ftn-2 expression. This new result is included as Fig. 6C and mentioned in the text:

"Inhibition of egl-9 promotes HIF-1 activity [41], which we here verified for the egl-9(et60) allele using western blots (Fig 6A). Additionally, we found by qPCR that ftn-2 mRNA levels are as expected reduced by the proposed gain-of-function hif-1(et69) allele (Fig 6C). We conclude that the egl-9 and hif-1 suppressor mutations likely converge on inhibiting ftn-2 and thus act similarly to the ftn-2 loss-of-function alleles."

(3) In the hif-1(et69) and ftn-2(et68) mutants, the rescues in lipid composition seem to be minor, with eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) levels remaining low. The ftn-2 mutant data is especially concerning, as it suggests that egl-9 mutants rescue lipid composition via distinct mechanisms not including ftn-2 suppression. I suggest that the authors test the minimal doses of linoleic acid or EPA required to rescue fat-2 mutants and perform lipidomics to test which is the degree of EPA restoration that is needed. If a low level of restoration is sufficient, the hif-1 and ftn-2 mutants might indeed rescue phenotypes via a restoration of EPA levels. Otherwise, other mechanisms have to be considered.

In line with the above issue, the low level or EPA restoration in hif-1 and ftn-2 mutants raise the possibility that the mutations rescue fat-2 mutants downstream of lipid changes. The reduction in HIF-1 levels in fat-2 mutants also suggest that lipid changes affect HIF-1 expression. Thus, the "impossibility to genetically compensate PUFA deficiency" might be wrong. The above experiment would answer to this point too.

The reviewer is entirely correct to consider alternative explanations. In the lipidomics in Fig 3, we see that fat-2(wa17) worms on NGM have only ~1.5-2%mol EPA in phosphatidylcholines. When treated with 2 mM LA, the levels of EPA rise to ~10%mol, still below the ~ 25% observed in N2 but perhaps this is sufficient cause for restoring fat-2(wa17) health. Similarly, the hif-1(et69) and ftn-2(et68) mutant alleles elevate EPA levels to 5- 7% in fat-2(wa17). Thus, we have a correlation where a significant increase in EPA, obtained either through LA supplementation or through suppressor mutations (e.g. egl-9 (et60), hif-1(et69) or ftn-2(et68)), is associated with improved growth and health of the fat-2(wa17) mutant. However, correlation is of course not proof. The suggested experiment to titrate EPA to its lowest fat-2(wa17) rescuing levels and then perform lipidomics analysis was not possible in a reasonable time frame during this revision. However, preliminary experiments showed that even 25 μM LA (most of which will be converted to EPA by the worms) is enough to rescue the fat-2(wa17) or null mutant (Author response image 1), suggesting that even tiny amounts (much below the >250 μM used in our article) bring great benefits.

Author response image 1.

Nevertheless, we now acknowledge in the discussion that alternative explanations exist:

"Other mechanisms are also possible. For example, mutations in the HIF-1 pathway could somehow reduce EPA turnover rates in the fat-2(wa17) mutant and allow its levels to rise above an essential threshold. This hypothesis is consistent with the observation that the suppressors can rescue both the fat-2(wa17) mutant and fat-2 RNAi-treated worms but not the fat-2 null mutant. It is even possible, though deemed unlikely, that the fat-2(wa17) suppressors act by compensating for the PUFA shortage via some undefined separate process downstream of the lipid changes and that they only indirectly result in elevated EPA levels."

Additionally, another possible mechanism of action of the fat-2(wa17) suppressors could have been that they all cause upregulation of the FAT-2 protein. We have now explored this possibility using Western blots and found that this is an unlikely mechanism. This is presented in Fig. 6D-E and S3C-D, mentioned in the text as follows:

"We also used Western blots to evaluate the abundance of the FAT-2 protein expressed from endogenous wild-type or mutant loci but to which a HA tag was fused using CRISPR/Cas9. We found that the FAT-2::HA levels are severely reduced when the locus contains the S101F substitution present in the wa17 allele, but restored close to wild-type levels by the fat2(et65) suppressor mutation (Fig 6D-E, S3C-D Fig). The levels of FAT-2 in the HIF-1 pathway suppressors varied between experiments, with the suppressors sometimes restoring FAT-2 levels and sometimes not even when the worms were growing well (Fig 6D-E, S3C-D Fig). The fat-2(wa17) suppressors, except for the intragenic fat-2 alleles, likely do not act by increasing FAT-2 protein levels."

(4) It should be tested how Fe2+ levels are changed in the mutants, and how effective the ferric ammonium citrate treatment is. The authors might use a ftn-1::GFP reporter for this purpose.

We did obtain a strain carrying the ftn-1::GFP reporter but could not generate conclusive data with it. In particular, we saw no increase in fluorescence in fat-2(wa17) worms carrying suppressor mutations. However, we also found that even FAC treatment that rescue the fat2(wa17) mutant did not result in a measurable increased GFP levels suggesting that the reporter is not sensitive enough.

Minor comments

(1) I think that putting Figure 6A in Figure 5 would be helpful for the readers, so that they understand that the mutations converge in the same pathway.

This is now done.

(2) Page 3: While it is clear that paqr-2 regulates lipid composition, I believe that it remains unclear if it "promote the production and incorporation of PUFAs into phospholipids to restore membrane homeostasis".

A reference was missing to support that statement. Ruiz et al. (2023) is now cited for this (ref. 7).

(3) C. elegans is extremely rich in EPA (see for example DOI: 10.3390/jcm5020019), but the lipidomics data in this study rather suggest that oleic acid is predominant. I recommend to check why this discrepancy occurs.

OA (18:1n9) makes up only ~2%, but vaccenic acid (18:1n7) is ~21% in WT worms, EPA is slightly less at ~19% (Watts et al. 2002). These match with our lipidomics results although we cannot distinguish between 18:1n9 and n7. See also answer to Reviewer #1, comment 1.

(4) Abstract: The authors write that mammals do not synthesize PUFAs, which is almost correct, but they still produce the PUFA mead acid. Thus, the statement is not completely right.

Didn't know that! From literature, it is our understanding that mammals synthesize mead acid during FA deficiency but not in normal conditions, so they are not regularly producing mead acid. We have now updated the introduction:

"An exception to this exists during severe essential fatty acid deficiency when mammals can synthesize mead acid (20:3n9), though this is not a common occurrence [11]"

(5) Page 10: Eicosanoids are C20 lipid mediators, thus those produced from docosahexaenoic acid are not eicosanoids. Correct the statement.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We now write:

" EPA and DHA, being long chain PUFAs should have similar fluidizing effects on membrane properties (though in vitro experiments challenge this view [78]), and both can serve as precursors of eicosanoids or docosanoids, particularly inflammatory ones [79]."

(6) Page 7: "hif-1(et69) is similarly able to suppress fat-2(wa17) when ftn-2 is knocked out" I am not sure that the data agrees with this statement, and it is unclear what we can conclude from such observation.

Fig. 2D shows that ftn-2(et68) suppresses fat-2(wa17) even in the presence of a hif-1(ok2654) null allele, showing that no HIF-1 function is required once ftn-2 is mutated. Conversely, Fig S2E shows that combining both the hif-1(et69) and the ftn-2(ok404) null allele also suppresses fat-2(wa17) (the worms do not fully reach N2 length, but they are significantly longer and were fertile adults); this is merely the expected outcome if the pathway converges on loss of ftn-2 function, though other interpretations could be possible from this experiment alone.

(7) S3 Fig: in panel B, is the last column ftn-2;egl-9 mutant? I would imagine that it is ftn2;fat-2.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. This has been corrected.

(8) Fig 6B, how many times has been this experiment done?

With these exact conditions (6h and 20h hypoxia) and order of strains the blot was done once, but the blot overall was done 5 times. We now added another replicate in Fig. S3A.

Note also that a few minor modifications have been made throughout the text, which can be seen in the Word file with tracked changes.

The SBD program works!

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Hussain and collaborators aims at deciphering the microtubule-dependent ribbon formation in zebrafish hair cells. By using confocal imaging, pharmacology tools, and zebrafish mutants, the group of Katie Kindt convincingly demonstrated that ribbon, the organelle that concentrates glutamate-filled vesicles at the hair cell synapse, originates from the fusion of precursors that move along the microtubule network. This study goes hand in hand with a complementary paper (Voorn et al.) showing similar results in mouse hair cells.

Strengths:

This study clearly tracked the dynamics of the microtubules, and those of the microtubule-associated ribbons and demonstrated fusion ribbon events. In addition, the authors have identified the critical role of kinesin Kif1aa in the fusion events. The results are compelling and the images and movies are magnificent.

Weaknesses:

The lack of functional data regarding the role of Kif1aa. Although it is difficult to probe and interpret the behavior of zebrafish after nocodazole treatment, I wonder whether deletion of kif1aa in hair cells may result in a functional deficit that could be easily tested in zebrafish?

We have examined functional deficits in kif1aa mutants in another paper that was recently accepted: David et al. 2024. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39373584/

In David et al., we found that in addition to a subtle role in ribbon fusion during development, Kif1aa plays a major role in enriching glutamate-filled synaptic vesicles at the presynaptic active zone of mature hair cells. In kif1aa mutants, synaptic vesicles are no longer enriched at the hair cell base, and there is a reduction in the number of synaptic vesicles associated with presynaptic ribbons. Further, we demonstrated that kif1aa mutants also have functional defects including reductions in spontaneous vesicle release (from hair cells) and evoked postsynaptic calcium responses. Behaviorally, kif1aa mutants exhibit impaired rheotaxis, indicating defects in the lateral-line system and an inability to accurately detect water flow. Because our current paper focuses on microtubule-associated ribbon movement and dynamics early in hair-cell development, we have only discussed the effects of Kif1aa directly related to ribbon dynamics during this time window. In our revision, we have referenced this recent work. Currently it is challenging to disentangle how the subtle defects in ribbon formation in kif1aa mutants contribute to the defects we observe in ribbon-synapse function.

Added to results:

“Recent work in our lab using this mutant has shown that Kif1aa is responsible for enriching glutamate-filled vesicles at the base of hair cells. In addition this work demonstrated that loss of Kif1aa results in functional defects in mature hair cells including a reduction in evoked post-synaptic calcium responses (David et al., 2024). We hypothesized that Kif1aa may also be playing an earlier role in ribbon formation.”

Impact:

The synaptogenesis in the auditory sensory cell remains still elusive. Here, this study indicates that the formation of the synaptic organelle is a dynamic process involving the fusion of presynaptic elements. This study will undoubtedly boost a new line of research aimed at identifying the specific molecular determinants that target ribbon precursors to the synapse and govern the fusion process.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors set out to resolve a long-standing mystery in the field of sensory biology - how large, presynaptic bodies called "ribbon synapses" migrate to the basolateral end of hair cells. The ribbon synapse is found in sensory hair cells and photoreceptors, and is a critical structural feature of a readily-releasable pool of glutamate that excites postsynaptic afferent neurons. For decades, we have known these structures exist, but the mechanisms that control how ribbon synapses coalesce at the bottom of hair cells are not well understood. The authors addressed this question by leveraging the highly-tractable zebrafish lateral line neuromast, which exhibits a small number of visible hair cells, easily observed in time-lapse imaging. The approach combined genetics, pharmacological manipulations, high-resolution imaging, and careful quantifications. The manuscript commences with a developmental time course of ribbon synapse development, characterizing both immature and mature ribbon bodies (defined by position in the hair cell, apical vs. basal). Next, the authors show convincing (and frankly mesmerizing) imaging data of plus end-directed microtubule trafficking toward the basal end of the hair cells, and data highlighting the directed motion of ribbon bodies. The authors then use a series of pharmacological and genetic manipulations showing the role of microtubule stability and one particular kinesin (Kif1aa) in the transport and fusion of ribbon bodies, which is presumably a prerequisite for hair cell synaptic transmission. The data suggest that microtubules and their stability are necessary for normal numbers of mature ribbons and that Kif1aa is likely required for fusion events associated with ribbon maturation. Overall, the data provide a new and interesting story on ribbon synapse dynamics.

Strengths:

(1) The manuscript offers a comprehensive Introduction and Discussion sections that will inform generalists and specialists.

(2) The use of Airyscan imaging in living samples to view and measure microtubule and ribbon dynamics in vivo represents a strength. With rigorous quantification and thoughtful analyses, the authors generate datasets often only obtained in cultured cells or more diminutive animal models (e.g., C. elegans).

(3) The number of biological replicates and the statistical analyses are strong. The combination of pharmacology and genetic manipulations also represents strong rigor.

(4) One of the most important strengths is that the manuscript and data spur on other questions - namely, do (or how do) ribbon bodies attach to Kinesin proteins? Also, and as noted in the Discussion, do hair cell activity and subsequent intracellular calcium rises facilitate ribbon transport/fusion?

These are important strengths and as stated we are currently investigating what other kinesins and adaptors and adaptor’s transport ribbons. We have ongoing work examining how hair-cell activity impacts ribbon fusion and transport!

Weaknesses:

(1) Neither the data or the Discussion address a direct or indirect link between Kinesins and ribbon bodies. Showing Kif1aa protein in proximity to the ribbon bodies would add strength.

This is a great point. Previous immunohistochemistry work in mice demonstrated that ribbons and Kif1a colocalize in mouse hair cells (Michanski et al, 2019). Unfortunately, the antibody used in study work did not work in zebrafish. To further investigate this interaction, we also attempted to create a transgenic line expressing a fluorescently tagged Kif1aa to directly visualize its association with ribbons in vivo. At present, we were unable to detect transient expression of Kif1aa-GFP or establish a transgenic line using this approach. While we will continue to work towards understanding whether Kif1aa and ribbons colocalize in live hair cells, currently this goal is beyond the scope of this paper. In our revision we discuss this caveat.

Added to discussion:

“In addition, it will be useful to visualize these kinesins by fluorescently tagging them in live hair cells to observe whether they associate with ribbons.”

(2) Neither the data or Discussion address the functional consequences of loss of Kif1aa or ribbon transport. Presumably, both manipulations would reduce afferent excitation.

Excellent point. Please see the response above to Reviewer #1 public response weaknesses.

(3) It is unknown whether the drug treatments or genetic manipulations are specific to hair cells, so we can't know for certain whether any phenotypic defects are secondary.

This is correct and a caveat of our Kif1aa and drug experiments. In our recently published work, we confirmed that Kif1aa is expressed in hair cells and neurons, while kif1ab is present just is neurons. Therefore, it is likely that the ribbon formation defects in kif1aa mutants are restricted to hair cells. We added this expression information to our results:

“ScRNA-seq in zebrafish has demonstrated widespread co-expression of kif1ab and kif1aa mRNA in the nervous system. Additionally, both scRNA-seq and fluorescent in situ hybridization have revealed that pLL hair cells exclusively express kif1aa mRNA (David et al., 2024; Lush et al., 2019; Sur et al., 2023).”

Non-hair cell effects are a real concern in our pharmacology experiments. To mitigate this in our pharmacological experiments, we have performed drug treatments at 3 different timescales: long-term (overnight), short-term (4 hr) and fast (30 min) treatments. The fast experiments were done after 30 min nocodazole drug treatment, and after this treatment we observed reduced directional motion and fusions. This fast drug treatment should not incur any long-term changes or developmental defects as hair-cell development occurs over 12-16 hrs. However, we acknowledge that drug treatments could have secondary phenotypic effects or effects that are not hair-cell specific. In our revision, we discuss these issues.

Added to discussion:

“Another important consideration is the potential off-target effects of nocodazole. Even at non-cytotoxic doses, nocodazole toxicity may impact ribbons and synapses independently of its effects on microtubules. While this is less of a concern in the short- and medium-term experiments (30-70 min and 4 hr), long-term treatments (16 hrs) could introduce confounding effects. Additionally, nocodazole treatment is not hair cell-specific and could disrupt microtubule organization within afferent terminals as well. Thus, the reduction in ribbon-synapse formation following prolonged nocodazole treatment may result from microtubule disruption in hair cells, afferent terminals, or a combination of the two.”

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The manuscript uses live imaging to study the role of microtubules in the movement of ribeye aggregates in neuromast hair cells in zebrafish. The main findings are that

(1) Ribeye aggregates, assumed to be ribbon precursors, move in a directed motion toward the active zone;

(2) Disruption of microtubules and kif1aa increases the number of ribeye aggregates and decreases the number of mature synapses.

The evidence for point 2 is compelling, while the evidence for point 1 is less convincing. In particular, the directed motion conclusion is dependent upon fitting of mean squared displacement that can be prone to error and variance to do stochasticity, which is not accounted for in the analysis. Only a small subset of the aggregates meet this criteria and one wonders whether the focus on this subset misses the bigger picture of what is happening with the majority of spots.

Strengths:

(1) The effects of Kif1aa removal and nocodozole on ribbon precursor number and size are convincing and novel.

(2) The live imaging of Ribeye aggregate dynamics provides interesting insight into ribbon formation. The movies showing the fusion of ribeye spots are convincing and the demonstrated effects of nocodozole and kif1aa removal on the frequency of these events is novel.

(3) The effect of nocodozole and kif1aa removal on precursor fusion is novel and interesting.

(4) The quality of the data is extremely high and the results are interesting.

Weaknesses:

(1) To image ribeye aggregates, the investigators overexpressed Ribeye-a TAGRFP under the control of a MyoVI promoter. While it is understandable why they chose to do the experiments this way, expression is not under the same transcriptional regulation as the native protein, and some caution is warranted in drawing some conclusions. For example, the reduction in the number of puncta with maturity may partially reflect the regulation of the MyoVI promoter with hair cell maturity. Similarly, it is unknown whether overexpression has the potential to saturate binding sites (for example motors), which could influence mobility.

We agree that overexpression of transgenes under using a non-endogenous promoter in transgenic lines is an important consideration. Ideally, we would do these experiments with endogenously expressed fluorescent proteins under a native promoter. However, this was not technically possible for us. The decrease in precursors is likely not due to regulation by the myo6a promoter. Although the myo6a promoter comes on early in hair cell development, the promoter only gets stronger as the hair cells mature. This would lead to a continued increase rather than a decrease in puncta numbers with development.

Protein tags such as tagRFP always have the caveat of impacting protein function. This is in partly why we complemented our live imaging with analyses in fixed tissue without transgenes (kif1aa mutants and nocodazole/taxol treatments).

In our revision, we did perform an immunolabel on myo6b:riba-tagRFP transgenic fish and found that Riba-tagRFP expression did not impact ribbon synapse numbers or ribbon size. This analysis argues that the transgene is expressed at a level that does not impact ribbon synapses. This data is summarized in Figure 1-S1.

Added to the results:

“Although this latter transgene expresses Riba-TagRFP under a non-endogenous promoter, neither the tag nor the promoter ultimately impacts cell numbers, synapse counts, or ribbon size (Figure 1-S1A-E).”

Added to methods:

“Tg(myo6b:ctbp2a-TagRFP)^idc11Tg reliably labels mature ribbons, similar to a pan-CTBP immunolabel at 5 dpf (Figure 1-S1B). This transgenic line does not alter the number of hair cells or complete synapses per hair cell (Figure 1-S1A-D). In addition, myo6b:ctbp2a-TagRFP does not alter the size of ribbons (Figure 1-S1E).”

(2) The examples of punctae colocalizing with microtubules look clear (Figures 1 F-G), but the presentation is anecdotal. It would be better and more informative, if quantified.

We did attempt a co-localization analysis between microtubules and ribbons but did not move forward with it due to several issues:

(1) Hair cells have an extremely crowded environment, especially since the nucleus occupies the majority of the cell. All proteins are pushed together in the small space surrounding the nucleus and ultimately, we found that co-localization analyses were not meaningful because the distances were too small.

(2) We also attempted to segment microtubules in these images and quantify how many ribbons were associated with microtubules, but 3D microtubule segmentation was not accurate in hair cells due to highly varying filament intensities, filament dynamics and the presence of diffuse cytoplasmic tubulin signal.

Because of these challenges we concluded the best evidence of ribbon-microtubule association is through visualization of ribbons and their association with microtubules over time (in our timelapses). We see that ribbons localize to microtubules in all our timelapses, including the examples shown (Movies S2-S10). The only instance of ribbon dissociation it when ribbons switch from one filament to another. We did not observe free-floating ribbons in our study.

(3) It appears that any directed transport may be rare. Simply having an alpha >1 is not sufficient to declare movement to be directed (motor-driven transport typically has an alpha approaching 2). Due to the randomness of a random walk and errors in fits in imperfect data will yield some spread in movement driven by Brownian motion. Many of the tracks in Figure 3H look as though they might be reasonably fit by a straight line (i.e. alpha = 1).

(4) The "directed motion" shown here does not really resemble motor-driven transport observed in other systems (axonal transport, for example) even in the subset that has been picked out as examples here. While the role of microtubules and kif1aa in synapse maturation is strong, it seems likely that this role may be something non-canonical (which would be interesting).

Yes, it is true, that directed transport of ribbon precursors is relatively rare. Only a small subset of the ribbon precursors moves directionally (α > 1, 20 %) or have a displacement distance > 1 µm (36 %) during the time windows we are imaging. The majority of the ribbons are stationary. To emphasize this result we have added bar graphs to Figure 3I,K to illustrate this result and state the numbers behind this result more clearly.

“Upon quantification, 20.2 % of ribbon tracks show α > 1, indicative of directional motion, but the majority of ribbon tracks (79.8 %) show α < 1, indicating confinement on microtubules (Figure 3I, n = 10 neuromasts, 40 hair cells, and 203 tracks).

To provide a more comprehensive analysis of precursor movement, we also examined displacement distance (Figure 3J). Here, as an additional measure of directed motion, we calculated the percent of tracks with a cumulative displacement > 1 µm. We found 35.6 % of tracks had a displacement > 1 µm (Figure 3K; n = 10 neuromasts, 40 hair cells, and 203 tracks).”

We cannot say for certain what is happening with the stationary ribbons, but our hypothesis is that these ribbons eventually exhibit directed motion sufficient to reach the active zone. This idea is supported by the fact that we see ribbons that are stationary begin movement, and ribbons that are moving come to a stop during the acquisition of our timelapses (Movies S4 and S5). It is possible that ribbons that are stationary may not have enough motors attached, or there may be a ‘seeding’ phase where Ribeye aggregates are condensing on the ribbon.

We also reexamined our MSD a values as the a values we observed in hair cells were lower than those seen canonical motor-driven transport (where a approaches 2). One reason for this difference may arise from the dynamic microtubule network in developing hair cells, which could affect directional ribbon movement. In our revision we plotted the distribution of a values which confirmed that in control hair cells, the majority of the a values we see are typically less than 2 (Figure 7-S1A). Interestingly we also compared the distribution a values between control and taxol-treated hair cells, where the microtubule network is more stable, and found that the distribution shifted towards higher a values (Figure 7-S1A). We also plotted only ‘directional’ tracks (with a > 1) and observed significantly higher a values in taxol-treated hair cells (Figure 7-S1B). This is an interesting result which indicates that although the proportion of directional tracks (with a > 1) is not significantly different between control and taxol-treated hair cells (which could be limited by the number of motor/adapter proteins), the ribbons that move directionally do so with greater velocities when the microtubules are more stable. This supports our idea that the stability of the microtubule network could be why ribbon movement does not resemble canonical motor transport. This analysis is presented as a new figure (Figure 7-S1A-B) and is referred to in the text in the results and the discussion.

Results:

“Interestingly, when we examined the distribution of α values, we observed that taxol treatment shifted the overall distribution towards higher α a values (Figure 7-S1A). In addition, when we plotted only tracks with directional motion (α > 1), we found significantly higher α values in hair cells treated with taxol compared to controls (Figure 7-S1B). This indicates that in taxol-treated hair cells, where the microtubule network is stabilized, ribbons with directional motion have higher velocities.”

Discussion:

“Our findings indicate that ribbons and precursors show directed motion indicative of motor-mediated transport (Figure 3 and 7). While a subset of ribbons moves directionally with α values > 1, canonical motor-driven transport in other systems, such as axonal transport, can achieve even higher α values approaching 2 (Bellotti et al., 2021; Corradi et al., 2020). We suggest that relatively lower α values arise from the highly dynamic nature of microtubules in hair cells. In axons, microtubules form stable, linear tracks that allow kinesins to transport cargo with high velocity. In contrast, the microtubule network in hair cells is highly dynamic, particularly near the cell base. Within a single time frame (50-100 s), we observe continuous movement and branching of these networks. This dynamic behavior adds complexity to ribbon motion, leading to frequent stalling, filament switching, and reversals in direction. As a result, ribbon transport appears less directional than the movement of traditional motor cargoes along stable axonal filaments, resulting in lower α values compared to canonical motor-mediated transport. Notably, treatment with taxol, which stabilizes microtubules, increased α values to levels closer to those observed in canonical motor-driven transport (Figure 7-S1). This finding supports the idea that the relatively lower α values in hair cells are a consequence of a more dynamic microtubule network. Overall, this dynamic network gives rise to a slower, non-canonical mode of transport.”

(5) The effect of acute treatment with nocodozole on microtubules in movie 7 and Figure 6 is not obvious to me and it is clear that whatever effect it has on microtubules is incomplete.

When using nocodazole, we worked to optimize the concentration of the drug to minimize cytotoxicity, while still being effective. While the more stable filaments at the cell apex remain largely intact after nocodazole treatment, there are almost no filaments at the hair cell base, which is different from the wild-type hair cells. In addition, nocodazole-treated hair cells have more cytoplasmic YFP-tubulin signal compared to wild type. We have clarified this in our results. To better illustrate the effect of nocodazole and taxol we have also added additional side-view images of hair cells expressing YFP-tubulin (Figure 4-S1F-G), that highlight cytoplasmic YFP-tubulin and long, stabilized microtubules after 3-4 hr treatment with nocodazole and taxol respectively. In these images we also point out microtubules at the apical region of hair cells that are very stable and do not completely destabilize with nocodazole treatment at concentrations that are tolerable to hair cells.

“We verified the effectiveness of our in vivo pharmacological treatments using either 500 nM nocodazole or 25 µM taxol by imaging microtubule dynamics in pLL hair cells (myo6b:YFP-tubulin). After a 30-min pharmacological treatment, we used Airyscan confocal microscopy to acquire timelapses of YFP-tubulin (3 µm z-stacks, every 50-100 s for 30-70 min, Movie S8). Compared to controls, 500 nM nocodazole destabilized microtubules (presence of depolymerized YFP-tubulin in the cytosol, see arrows in Figure 4-S1F-G) and 25 µM taxol dramatically stabilized microtubules (indicated by long, rigid microtubules, see arrowheads in Figure 4-S1F,H) in pLL hair cells. We did still observe a subset of apical microtubules after nocodazole treatment, indicating that this population is particularly stable (see asterisks in Figure 4-S1F-H).”

To further address concerns about verifying the efficacy of nocodazole and taxol treatment on microtubules, we added a quantification of our immunostaining data comparing the mean acetylated-a-tubulin intensities between control, nocodazole and taxol-treated hair cells. Our results show that nocodazole treatment reduces the mean acetylated-a-tubulin intensity in hair cells. This is included as a new figure (Figure 4-S1D-E) and this result is referred to in the text. To better illustrate the effect of nocodazole and taxol we have also added additional side-view images of hair cells after overnight treatment with nocodazole and taxol (Figure 4-S1A-C).

“After a 16-hr treatment with 250 nM nocodazole we observed a decrease in acetylated-a-tubulin label (qualitative examples: Figure 4A,C, Figure 4-S1A-B). Quantification revealed significantly less mean acetylated-a-tubulin label in hair cells after nocodazole treatment (Figure 4-S1D). Less acetylated-a-tubulin label indicates that our nocodazole treatment successfully destabilized microtubules.”

“Qualitatively more acetylated-a-tubulin label was observed after treatment, indicating that our taxol treatment successfully stabilized microtubules (qualitative examples: Figure 4-S1A,C). Quantification revealed an overall increase in mean acetylated-a-tubulin label in hair cells after taxol treatment, but this increase did not reach significance (Figure 4-S1E).”

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) The manuscript is fairly dense. For instance, some information is repeated (page 3 ribbon synapses form along a condensed timeline in zebrafish hair cells: 12-18 hrs, and on .page 5. These hair cells form 3-4 ribbon synapses in just 12-18 hrs). Perhaps, the authors could condense some of the ideas? The introduction could be shortened.

We have eliminated this repeated text in our revision. We have shortened the introduction 1275 to 1038 words (with references)

(2) The mechanosensory structure on page 5 is not defined for readers outside the field.

Great point, we have added addition information to define this structure in the results:

“We staged hair cells based on the development of the apical, mechanosensory hair bundle. The hair bundle is composed of actin-based stereocilia and a tubulin-based kinocilium. We used the height of the kinocilium (see schematic in Figure 1B), the tallest part of the hair bundle, to estimate the developmental stage of hair cells as described previously…”

(3) Figure 1E is quite interesting but I'd rather show Figure S1 B/C as they provide statistics. In addition, the authors define 4 stages : early, intermediate, late, and mature for counting but provide only 3 panels for representative examples by mixing late/mature.

We were torn about which ribbon quantification graph to show. Ultimately, we decided to keep the summary data in Figure 1E. This is primarily because the supplementary Figure will be adjacent to the main Figure in the Elife format, and the statistics will be easy to find and view.

Figure 1 now provides a representative image for both late and mature hair cells.

(4.) The ribbon that jumps from one microtubule to another one is eye-catching. Can the authors provide any statistics on this (e.g. percentage)?

Good point. In our revision, we have added quantification for these events. We observe 2.8 switching events per neuromast during our fast timelapses. This information is now in the text and is also shown in a graph in Figure 3-S1D.

“Third, we often observed that precursors switched association between neighboring microtubules (2.8 switching events per neuromast, n= 10 neuromasts; Figure 3-S1C-D, Movie S7).”

(5) With regard to acetyl-a-tub immunocytochemistry, I would suggest obtaining a profile of the fluorescence intensity on a horizontal plane (at the apical part and at the base).

(6) Same issue with microtubule destruction by nocodazole. Can the authors provide fluorescence intensity measurements to convince readers of microtubule disruption for long and short-term application.

Regarding quantification of microtubule disruption using nocodazole and taxol. We did attempt to create profiles of the acetylated tubulin or YFP-tubulin label along horizontal planes at the apex and base, but the amount variability among cells and the angle of the cell in the images made this type of display and quantification challenging. In our revision we as stated above in our response to Reviewer #1’s public comment, we have added representative side-view images to show the disruptions to microtubules more clearly after short and long-term drug experiments (Figure 4-S1A-C, F-H). In addition, we quantified the reduction in acetylated tubulin label after overnight treatment with nocodazole and found the signal was significantly reduced (Figure 3-S1D-E). Unfortunately, we were unable to do a similar quantification due to the variability in YFP-tubulin intensity due to variations in mounting. The following text has been added to the results:

“Quantification revealed significantly less mean acetylated-a-tubulin label in hair cells after nocodazole treatment (Figure 4-S1D).”

“Quantification revealed an overall increase in mean acetylated-a-tubulin label in hair cells after taxol treatment, but this increase did not reach significance (Figure 4-S1A,C,E).”

(7) It is a bit difficult to understand that the long-term (overnight) microtubule destabilization leads to a reduction in the number of synapses (Figure 4F) whereas short-term (30 min) microtubule destabilization leads to the opposite phenotype with an increased number of ribbons (Figure 6G). Are these ribbons still synaptic in short-term experiments? What is the size of the ribbons in the short-term experiments? Alternatively, could the reduction in synapse number upon long-term application of nocodazole be a side-effect of the toxicity within the hair cell?

Agreed-this is a bit confusing. In our revision, we have changed our analyses, so the comparisons are more similar between the short- and long-term experiments–we examined the number of ribbons and precursor per cells (apical and basal) in both experiments (Changed the panel in Figure 4G, Figure 4-S2G and Figure 5G). In our live experiments we cannot be sure that ribbons are synaptic as we do not have a postsynaptic co-label. Also, we are unable to reliably quantify ribbon and precursor size in our live images due to variability in mounting. We have changed the text to clarify as follows:

Results:

“In each developing cell, we quantified the total number of Riba-TagRFP puncta (apical and basal) before and after each treatment. In our control samples we observed on average no change in the number of Riba-TagRFP puncta per cell (Figure 6G). Interestingly, we observed that nocodazole treatment led to a significant increase in the total number of Riba-TagRFP puncta after 3-4 hrs (Figure 6G). This result is similar to our overnight nocodazole experiments in fixed samples, where we also observed an increase in the number of ribbons and precursors per hair cell. In contrast to our 3-4 hr nocodazole treatment, similar to controls, taxol treatment did not alter the total number of Riba-TagRFP puncta over 3-4 hrs (Figure 6G). Overall, our overnight and 3-4 hr pharmacology experiments demonstrate that microtubule destabilization has a more significant impact on ribbon numbers compared to microtubule stabilization.”

Discussion:

“Ribbons and microtubules may interact during development to promote fusion, to form larger ribbons. Disrupting microtubules could interfere with this process, preventing ribbon maturation. Consistent with this, short-term (3-4 hr) and long-term (overnight) nocodazole increased ribbon and precursor numbers (Figure 6AG; Figure 4G), suggesting reduced fusion. Long-term treatment (overnight) resulted in a shift toward smaller ribbons (Figure 4H-I), and ultimately fewer complete synapses (Figure 4F).”

Nocodazole toxicity: in response to Reviewer # 2’s public comment we have added the following text in our discussion:

Discussion:

“Another important consideration is the potential off-target effects of nocodazole. Even at non-cytotoxic doses, nocodazole toxicity may impact ribbons and synapses independently of its effects on microtubules. While this is less of a concern in the short- and medium-term experiments (30 min to 4 hr), long-term treatments (16 hrs) could introduce confounding effects. Additionally, nocodazole treatment is not hair cell-specific and could disrupt microtubule organization within afferent terminals as well. Thus, the reduction in ribbon-synapse formation following prolonged nocodazole treatment may result from microtubule disruption in hair cells, afferent terminals, or a combination of the two.”

(8) Does ribbon motion depend on size or location?

It is challenging to reliability quantify the actual area of precursors in our live samples, as there is variability in mounting and precursors are quite small. But we did examine the location of ribbon precursors (using tracks > 1 µm as these tracks can easily be linked to cell location in Imaris) with motion in the cell. We found evidence of ribbons with tracks > 1 µm throughout the cell, both above and below the nucleus. This is now plotted in Figure 3M. We have also added the following test to the results:

“In addition, we examined the location of precursors within the cell that exhibited displacements > 1 µm. We found that 38.9 % of these tracks were located above the nucleus, while 61.1 % were located below the nucleus (Figure 3M).”

Although this is not an area or size measurement, this result suggests that both smaller precursors that are more apical, and larger precursors/ribbons that are more basal all show motion.

(9) The fusion event needs to be analyzed in further detail: when one ribbon precursor fuses with another one, is there an increase in size or intensity (this should follow the law of mass conservation)? This is important to support the abstract sentence "ribbon precursors can fuse together on microtubules to form larger ribbons".

As mentioned above it is challenging accurately estimate the absolute size or intensity of ribbon precursors in our live preparation. But we did examine whether there is a relative increase in area after ribbon fuse. We have plotted the change in area (within the same samples) for the two fusion events in shown in Figure 8-S1A-B. In these examples, the area of the puncta after fusion is larger than either of the two precursors that fuse. Although the areas are not additive, these plots do provide some evidence that fusion does act to form larger ribbons. To accompany these plots, we have added the following text to the results:

“Although we could not accurately measure the areas of precursors before and after fusion, we observed that the relative area resulting from the fusion of two smaller precursors was greater than that of either precursor alone. This increase in area suggests that precursor fusion may serve as a mechanism for generating larger ribbons (see examples: Figure 8-S1A-B).”

Because we were unable to provide more accurate evidence of precursor fusion resulting in larger ribbons, we have removed this statement from our abstract and lessened our claims elsewhere in the manuscript.

(10) The title in Figure 8 is a bit confusing. If fusion events reflect ribbon precursors fusion, it is obvious it depends on ribbon precursors. I'd like to replace this title with something like "microtubules and kif1aa are required for fusion events"

We have changed the figure title as suggested, good idea.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) Figure 1C. The purple/magenta colors are hard to distinguish.

We have made the magenta color much lighter in the Figure 1C to make it easier to distinguish purple and magenta.

(2) There are places where some words are unnecessarily hyphenated. Examples: live-imaging and hair-cell in the abstract, time-course in the results.

In our revision, we have done our best to remove unnecessary hyphens, including the ones pointed out here.

(3) Figure 4H and elsewhere - what is "area of Ribeye puncta?" Related, I think, in the Discussion the authors refer to "ribbon volume" on line 484. But they never measured ribbon volume so this needs to be clarified.

We have done best to clarify what is meant by area of Ribeye puncta in the results and the methods:

Results:

“We also observed that the average of individual Ribeyeb puncta (from 2D max-projected images) was significantly reduced compared to controls (Figure 4H). Further, the relative frequency of individual Ribeyeb puncta with smaller areas was higher in nocodazole treated hair cells compared to controls (Figure 4I).”

Methods:

“To quantify the area of each ribbon and precursor, images were processed in a FIJI ‘IJMacro_AIRYSCAN_simple3dSeg_ribbons only.ijm’ as previously described (Wong et al., 2019). Here each Airyscan z-stack was max-projected. A threshold was applied to each image, followed by segmentation to delineate individual Ribeyeb/CTBP puncta. The watershed function was used to separate adjacent puncta. A list of 2D objects of individual ROIs (minimum size filter of 0.002 μm2) was created to measure the 2D areas of each Ribeyeb/CTBP puncta.”

We did refer to ribbon volume once in the discussion, but volume is not reflected in our analyses, so we have removed this mention of volume.

(4) More validation data showing gene/protein removal for the crispants would be helpful.

Great suggestion. As this is a relatively new method, we have created a figure that outlines how we genotype each individual crispant animal analyzed in our study Figure 6-S1. In the methods we have also added the following information:

“fPCR fragments were run on a genetic analyzer (Applied Biosystems, 3500XL) using LIZ500 (Applied Biosystems, 4322682) as a dye standard. Analysis of this fPCR revealed an average peak height of 4740 a.u. in wild type, and an average peak height of 126 a.u. in kif1aa F0 crispants (Figure 6-S1). Any kif1aa F0 crispant without robust genomic cutting or a peak height > 500 a.u. was not included in our analyses.”

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Lines 208-209--should refer to the movie in the text.

Movie S1 is now referenced here.

It would be helpful if the authors could analyze and quantify the effect of nocodozole and taxol on microtubules (movie 7).

See responses above to Reviewer #1’s similar request.

Figure 7 caption says "500 mM" nocodozole.

Thank you, we have changed the caption to 500 nM.

One problem with the MSD analysis is that it is dependent upon fits of individual tracks that lead to inaccuracies in assigning diffusive, restricted, and directed motion. The authors might be able to get around these problems by looking at the ensemble averages of all the tracks and seeing how they change with the various treatments. Even if the effect is on a subset of ribeye spots, it would be reassuring to see significant effects that did not rely upon fitting.

We are hesitant to average the MSD tracks as not all tracks have the same number of time steps (ribbon moving in and out of the z-stack during the timelapse). This makes it challenging for us to look at the ensembles of all averages accurately, especially for the duration of the timelapse. This is the main reason why added another analysis, displacements > 1µm as another readout of directional motion, a measure that does not rely upon fitting.

The abstract states that directed movement is toward the synapse. The only real evidence for this is a statement in the results: "Of the tracks that showed directional motion, while the majority move to the cell base, we found that 21.2 % of ribbon tracks moved apically." A clearer demonstration of this would be to do the analysis of Figure 2G for the ribeye aggregates.

If was not possible to do the same analysis to ribbon tracks that we did for the EB3-GFP analysis in Figure 2. In Figure 2 we did a 2D tracking analysis and measured the relative angles in 2D. In contrast, the ribbon tracking was done in 3D in Imaris not possible to get angles in the same way. Further the MSD analysis was outside of Imaris, making it extremely difficult to link ribbon trajectories to the 3D cellular landscape in Imaris. Instead, we examined the direction of the 3D vectors in Imaris with tracks > 1µm and determined the direction of the motion (apical, basal or undetermined). For clarity, this data is now included as a bar graph in Figure 3L. In our results, we have clarified the results of this analysis:

“To provide a more comprehensive analysis of precursor movement, we also examined displacement distance (Figure 3J). Here, as an additional measure of directed motion, we calculated the percent of tracks with a cumulative displacement > 1 µm. We found 35.6 % of tracks had a displacement > 1 µm (Figure 3K; n = 10 neuromasts, 40 hair cells and 203 tracks). Of the tracks with displacement > 1 µm, the majority of ribbon tracks (45.8 %) moved to the cell base, but we also found a subset of ribbon tracks (20.8 %) that moved apically (33.4 % moved in an undetermined direction) (Figure 3L).”

Some more detail about the F0 crispants should be provided. In particular, what degree of cutting was observed and what was the criteria for robust cutting?

See our response to Reviewer 2 and the newly created Figure 6-S1.

Author Response

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Several concerns are raised from the current study.

1) Previous studies showed that iTregs generated in vitro from culturing naïve T cells with TGF-b are intrinsically unstable and prone to losing Foxp3 expression due to lack of DNA demethylation in the enhancer region of the Foxp3 locus (Polansky JK et al, Eur J Immunol., 2008, PMID: 18493985). It is known that removing TGF-b from the culture media leads to rapid loss of Foxp3 expression. In the current study, TGF-b was not added to the media during iTreg restimulation, therefore, the primary cause for iTreg instability should be the lack of the positive signal provided by TGF-b. NFAT signal is secondary at best in this culturing condition.

In restimulation, void of TGFb is necessary to cause iTreg instability. Otherwise, the setup is similar to the iTreg-inducing environment (Author response image 1). On the other hand, the ultimate goal of this study is to provide a scenario that bears some resemblance of clinical treatment, where TGFb may not be available. The reviewer is correct in stating that TGFb is essential for iTreg stability, we are studying the role played by NFAT in iTreg instability in vitro, and possibly in potential clinical use of iTreg .

Author response image 1.

Restimulation with TGFb will persist iTreg inducing environment, resulting in less pronounced instability. Sorted Foxp3-GFP+ iTregs were rested for 1d, and then rested or restimulated in the presence of TGF-β for 2 d. Percentages of Foxp3+ cells were analyzed by intracellular staining of Foxp3 after 2 d.

2) It is not clear whether the NFAT pathway is unique in accelerating the loss of Foxp3 expression upon iTreg restimulation. It is also possible that enhancing T cell activation in general could promote iTreg instability. The authors could explore blocking T cell activation by inhibiting other critical pathways, such as NF-kb and c-Jun/c-Fos, to see if a similar effect could be achieved compared to CsA treatment.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We performed this experiment according to see extent of the role that NFAT plays, or whether other major pathways are involved. As Author response image 2 shows, solely inhibiting NFAT effectively rescued the instability of iTreg. The inhibition of NFkB (BAY 11-7082), c-Jun (SP600125), or a c-Jun/c-Fos complex (T5224) had no discernable effect, or in one case, possibly further reduction in stability. These results may indicate that NFAT plays a crucial and special role in TCR activation, which leads to iTreg instability. Other pathways, as far as how this experiment is designed, do not appear to be significantly involved.

Author response image 2.

Comparing effects of NFAT, NF-kB and c-Jun/c-Fos inhibitors on iTreg instability. Sorted Foxp3-GFP+ iTregs were rested for 1d, then restimulated by anti-CD3 and CD28 in the presence of listed inhibitors. Percentages of Foxp3+ cells were analyzed by intracellular staining after 2d restimulation.

3) The authors linked chromatin accessibility and increased expression of T helper cell genes to the loss of Foxp3 expression and iTreg instability. However, it is not clear how the former can lead to the latter. It is also not clear whether NFAT binds directly to the Foxp3 locus in the restimulated iTregs and inhibits Foxp3 expression.

T helper gene activation is likely to cause instability in iTregs by secreting more inflammatory cytokines, as shown in Figure Q9, for example, IL-21 secretion. Further investigation is needed to understand how these genes contribute to Foxp3 gene instability exactly. With our limited insight, there may be two possibilities. 1. IL-21 directly affects Foxp3 through its impact on certain inflammation-related transcription factors (TFs). 2. There could be an indirect relationship where NFAT has a greater tendency to bind to those inflammatory TFs when iTreg instability appears, promoting the upregulation of these Th genes like in activated T cells, while being less likely to bind to SMAD and Foxp3, representing a competitive behavior. We at the moment cannot comprehend the intricacies that lead to the differential effects on T helper genes and Treg related genes.

With that said, we have previously attempted to explore the direct effect of NFAT on Foxp3 gene locus. Foxp3 transcription in iTregs primarily relies on histone modifications such as H3K4me3 (Tone et al., 2008; Lu et al., 2011) rather than DNA demethylation (Ohkura et al., 2012; Hilbrands et al., 2016). Previous studies have reported that NFAT and SMAD3 can together promote the histone acetylation of Foxp3 genes (Tone et al., 2008). In our previous set of experiments, we simultaneously obtained information of NFAT binding sites and H3K4me3. In Foxp3 locus, we observed a decreasing trend in NFAT binding to the CNS3 region of Foxp3 in restimulated iTregs compared to resting iTregs (Author response image 3). Additionally, the H3K4me3 modification in the CNS3 region of Foxp3 decreased upon iTreg restimulation, but inhibiting NFAT nuclear translocation with CsA could maintain this modification at its original level (Author response image 3).

Author response image 3.

The NFAT binding and histone modification on Foxp3 gene locus. Genome track visualization of NFAT binding profiles and H3K4me3 profiles in Foxp3 CNS3 locus in two batches of dataset.

Based on these preliminary explorations, it is concluded that NFAT can directly bind to the Foxp3 locus, and it appears that NFAT decreases upon restimulation, resulting in a decrease in H3K4me3, ultimately leading to the close association of NFAT and Foxp3 instability. However, due to limited sample replicates, these data need to be verified for more solid conclusions. We speculate that during the induction of iTregs, NFAT may recruit histone-modifying enzymes to open the Foxp3 CNS3 region, and this effect is synergistic with SMAD. When instability occurs upon restimulation, NFAT binding to Foxp3 weakens due to the absence of SMAD's assistance, subsequently reducing the recruitment of histone modifications enzyme and ultimately inhibiting Foxp3 transcription.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

(1) Some concerns about data processing and statistic analysis.

The authors did not provide sufficient information on statistical data analysis; e.g. lack of detailed descriptions about

-the precise numbers of technical/biological replicates of each experiment

-the method of how the authors analyze data of multiple comparisons... Student t-test alone is generally insufficient to compare multiple groups; e.g. figure 1.

These inappropriate data handlings are ruining the evidence level of the precious findings.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this important aspect. In the figure legend, numbers of independently-performed experiment repeats are shown as N, biological replicates of each experiment as n. Student’s t test was used for comparing statistical significance between two groups. In this manuscript, all calculations of significant differences were based on comparisons between two groups. There were no multiple conditions compared simultaneously within a single group, and thus, no other calculation methods were used.

(2) Untransparent data production; e.g. the method of Motif enrichment analysis was not provided. Thus, we should wait for the author's correction to fully evaluate the significance and reliability of the present study.

Per this reviewer’s request, we have provided detailed descriptions of the data analysis for Fig 5, including both the method section and the Figure legend, as presented below:

“The peaks annotations were performed with the “annotatePeak” function in the R package ChIPseeker (Yu et al, 2015).

The plot of Cut&Tag signals over a set of genomic regions were calculated by using “computeMatrix” function in deepTools and plotted by using “plotHeatmap” and “plotProfile” functions in deepTools. The motif enrichment analysis was performed by using the "findMotifsGenome.pl" command in HOMER with default parameters.

The motif occurrences in each peak were identified by using FIMO (MEME suite v5.0.4) with the following settings: a first-order Markov background model, a P value cutoff of 10-4, and PWMs from the mouse HOCOMOCO motif database (v11).”

Additionally, we have also supplemented the method section with further details on the analysis of RNA-seq and ATAC-seq data.

(3) Lack of evidence in human cells. I wonder whether human PBMC-derived iTreg cells are similarly regulated.

This is a rather complicated issue, human T cells express FoxP3 upon TCR stimulation (PNAS, 103(17): 6659–6664), whose function is likely to protect T cells from activation induced cell death, and does not offer Treg like properties. In contrast in mice, FoxP3 can be used as an indicator of Treg. Currently, this is not a definitive marker for Treg in human, our FoxP3 based readouts do not apply. Nevertheless, we have now investigated whether inhibiting calcium signaling or NFAT could enhance the stability of human iTreg. As shown in Author response image 4, we found that the proportion of Foxp3-expressing cells did not show significant changes across the different conditions, while the MFI analysis revealed that CsA-treated iTreg exhibited higher Foxp3 expression levels compared to both restimulated iTreg and rest iTreg. However, CM4620 had no significant effect on Foxp3 stability, consistent with the observation of its limited efficacy in suppressing human iTreg long term activation. In summary, our results suggest that inhibiting NFAT signaling through CsA treatment can help maintain higher levels of Foxp3 expression in human iTreg.

Author response image 4.

Effect of inhibiting NFAT and calcium on human iTreg stability. Human naïve CD4 cells from PBMC were subjected to a two-week induction process to generate human iTreg. Subsequently, human iTreg were restimulated for 2 days with dynabeads followed by 2 days of rest in the prescence of CsA and CM-4620. Four days later, percentages of Foxp3+ cells and Foxp3 mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) were analyzed by intracellular staining.

(4) NFAT regulation did not explain all of the differences between iTregs and nTregs, as the authors mentioned as a limitation. Also, it is still an open question whether NFAT can directly modulate the chromatin configuration on the effector-type gene loci, or whether NFAT exploits pre-existing open chromatin due to the incomplete conversion of Treg-type chromatin landscape in iTreg cells. The authors did not fully demonstrate that the distinct pattern of chromatin regional accessibility found in iTreg cells is the direct cause of an effector-type gene expression.

To our surprise, the inhibition of NFkB (BAY 11-7082), c-Jun (SP600125), and the c-Jun/c-Fos complex (T5224) resulted in minimal alterations, as shown in Fig Q1. This seems to argue that NFAT may play a more special role in events leading iTreg instability.

We hypothesize that NFAT takes advantage of pre-existing open chromatin state due to the incomplete conversion of chromatin landscape in iTreg cells. Because iTreg cells, after induction, already exhibit inherent chromatin instability, with highly-open inflammatory genes. Furthermore, when iTreg cells were restimulated, the subsequent change in chromatin accessibility was relatively limited and not rescued by NFAT inhibitor treatment (Author response image 5). Therefore, in the case of iTreg cells, we propose that NFAT exploits the easy access of those inflammatory genes, leading to rapid destabilization of iTreg cells in the short term.

In contrast, tTreg cells possess a relatively stable chromatin structure in the beginning, it would be interesting to investigate whether NFAT or calcium signaling could disrupt chromatin accessibility during the activation or expansion of tTreg cells. It is possible that NFAT might cause the loss of the originally established demethylation map and open up inflammatory loci, thereby inducing a shift in gene transcriptional profiles, equally leading to instability.

Author response image 5.

Chromatin accessibility of Rest, Retimulated, CsA/ORAIinh treated restimulated iTreg. PCA visualization of chromatin accessibility profiles of different cell types. Color indicates cell type.

To establish a direct relationship between gene locus accessibility and its overexpression, a controlled experimental approach can be employed. One such method involves precise manipulation of the accessibility of a specific genomic locus using CRISPR-mediated epigenetic modifications at targeted loci. Subsequently, the impact of this manipulation on the expression level of the target gene can be precisely examined. By conducting these experiments, it will be possible to determine whether the augmented gene accessibility directly causes the observed gene overexpression.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

1) It might be helpful to add TGF-b to the iTreg restimulation culture to remove the influence of the lack of TGF-b from the equation, and measure the influence of SOCE/NFAT on iTreg instability.

Please refer to Author response image 1.

2) Alternatively, authors can also culture iTreg cells with TGF-b for 2 weeks when they undergo epigenetic changes and become more stabilized (Polansky JK et al, Eur J Immunol., 2008, PMID: 18493985). At this point, the stabilized iTregs can be used to measure the influence of SOCE/NFAT on iTreg instability.

In the study conducted by Polansky, it was observed in Figure 1 that prolonged exposure to TGF-β fails to induce stable Foxp3 expression and demethylation of the Treg-specific demethylated region (TSDR). Based on this finding, we could consider exploring alternative approaches to obtain a more stabilized iTreg population. One such approach could be isolating Foxp3+helios-Nrp1- iTreg cells directly from the peripheral in vivo, which are also known as pTregs. Generally, pTreg cells generated in vivo tend to be more stable compared to iTreg cells induced in vitro, and they already exhibit partial demethylation of the Treg signature, as shown in Fig 6C (Polansky JK et al, Eur J Immunol., 2008, PMID: 18493985). Investigating the role of NFAT and calcium signaling in pTreg cells would provide further insights into the additional roles of NFAT in Treg phenotypical transitions, particularly its role in chromatin accessibility.

3) In Figure 3, NFAT binding to the inflammatory genes in iTreg cells was even stronger than in activated T conventional cells. This is possibly due to Tconv cells being stimulated only once while iTregs were restimulated. A fair comparison should be conducted with restimulated activated conventional T cells.

Figure 3 demonstrates the accessibility of inflammatory gene loci, rather than NFAT binding. Comparing restimulated Tconvs with restimulated iTreg cells is indeed a valuable suggestion, as their activation state and polarization in iTreg directions could lead to distinct chromatin accessibility. Although one is activated long term regularly and the other is activated long term under iTreg polarization, it is highly likely that the chromatin state of both activated Tconvs and iTreg cells is highly open, especially in terms of the accessibility of inflammatory genes. This may provide us with a new perspective to understand iTreg cells, but will unlikely affect our central conclusion.

4) In the in vivo experiment in Figure 6, a control condition without OVA immunization should be included as a baseline.

We have performed this experiment in the absence of OVA, as depicted in Author response image 6. In the absence of OVA immunization, both WT-ORAI and DN-ORAI iTreg exhibited substantial stability, although DN-ORAI demonstrated a slightly less stable trend. Upon activation with 40ug and 100ug of OVA, DN-ORAI iTreg demonstrated enhanced stability than WT-ORAI iTreg, maintaining a higher proportion of Foxp3 expression.

Author response image 6.

Stability of DN-ORAI iTreg in vivo with or without OVA immunization. WT-ORAI/DN-ORAI-GFP+-transfected CD45.2+ Foxp3-RFP+ OT-II iTregs were transferred i.v. into CD45.1 mice. Recipients were left or immunized with OVA323-339 in Alum adjuvant. On day 5, mLN were harvested and analyzed for Foxp3 expression by intracellular staining.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Major

Some concerns about the data processing and statistic analysis, as mentioned in the public review. In the figure legend, what does it mean e.g. n=3, N=3? Technical triplicate experiments? Three mice? Independently-performed three experiments? The authors should define it at least in the "Statistical analysis" in the method section otherwise the readers cannot determine the reason why they mainly use SEM for the data description.

Moreover, in some cases, the number of experiments was not sure; e.g., Fig.1B, Fig. 5.

How did the authors analyze data including multiple comparisons? Student t-test alone is generally insufficient to compare multiple groups; e.g. figure 1.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this omission. Now, in the figure legend, numbers of independently-performed experiment repeats are shown as N, biological replicates of each experiment as n. For Fig. 1B, N=2, and for Fig 5, we have acquired NFAT Cut&Tag data for 2 times, N=2. Student’s t test was used for comparing statistical significance between two groups. In this manuscript, all calculations of significant differences were based on comparisons between two groups. There were no multiple conditions compared simultaneously within a single group, and thus, no other calculation methods were involved apart from the Student's t-test.

In Figure 1A, the difference in suppressiveness seemed subtle. Data collection of multiple doses of Tconv:Treg ratio will enhance the reliability of such kind of analysis.

We have now attempted the suppression assay with varying Treg:Tconv ratios and observed that the suppressive effect of iTreg was more obvious than that of tTreg when co-cultured at a 1:1 ratio with Tconv cells. However, as the cell number of tTreg and iTreg decreased, the inhibitory effects converged.

Author response image 7.

Compare multiple dose of Tconv:Treg ratio in suppression function CFSE-labelled OT-II T cells were stimulated with OVA-pulsed DC, then different number of Foxp3-GFP+ iTregs and tTregs were added to the culture to suppress the OT-II proliferation. After 4 days, CFSE dilution were analyzed. Left, Representative histograms of CFSE in divided Tconvs. Right, graph for the percentage of divided Tconvs.

In Figure 3F, to which group did the shaded peaks belong? In this context, the authors should focus on "Activation Region" peaks (open chromatin signature in both TcAct & iTreg defined in Fig. 4D) but I did not find the peak in the focusing DNA regions in TcAct (e.g. the shaded regions in IL-4 loci). The clear attribution of the peaks to the heatmap will enhance the visibility and understanding of readers.

We have selected some typical peaks that belong to Fig 3D. These genes encompass some T-cell activation-associated transcription factors, such as Irf4, Atf3, as well as multiple members of the Tnf family including Lta, Tnfsf4, Tnfsf8, and Tnfsf14. Additionally, genes related to inflammation such as Il12rb2, Il9, and Gzmc are included. These genes show elevated accessibility upon T-cell activation, partially open in activated nTreg cells, referred to as the "Activation Region." They collectively exhibit high accessibility in iTreg cells, which may contribute to their instability.

Author response image 8.

Chromatin accessibility of some “Activation Region”. Genomic track showing chromatin accessibility of Irf4, Atf3, Lta, Tnfsf8, Tnfsf4, Tnsfsf14, Il12rb2, Il9, Gzmc in activated Tconv and iTreg.

In Figure 4A/S4A, the information on cell death will help the understanding of readers because the sustained SOCE is associated with cell survival as shown in Fig. S2. The authors can discuss the relationships between cell death and Foxp3 retention, which potentially leads to a further interesting question; e.g. the selective/resistance to activation-induced cell death as the identity of Treg cells.

As shown in Author response image 9, activated iTreg cells indeed exhibit a certain degree of cell death compared to resting iTreg cells. The inhibition of NFAT by CsA enhances the survival rate of iTreg cells, but the inhibition of ORAI by CM-4620 leads to more severe cell death. The cell death induced by CsA and CM-4620 is not consistent, indicating that there may not be a direct proportional relationship between cell death and the expression of Foxp3 and Treg identity.

Author response image 9.

Relationship of cell death and Foxp3 stability in restimulated iTregs. Sorted Foxp3-GFP+ iTregs were rested for 1d, then restimulated by anti-CD3 and CD28 in the presence of CsA or CM-4620. After 2d restimulation, live cell percentage were analyzed by staining of Live/Dead fixable Aqua, and percentages of Foxp3+ cells were analyzed by intracellular staining of Foxp3. Upper, live cell percentage of iTregs. Lower, percentages of Foxp3 in iTregs.

In Figure 5, the information for the data interpretation was insufficient.

We have provided detailed descriptions of the data analysis for Fig 5, including both the method section and the Figure legend, as presented below:

“The peaks annotations were performed with the “annotatePeak” function in the R package ChIPseeker (Yu et al, 2015). The plot of Cut&Tag signals over a set of genomic regions were calculated by using “computeMatrix” function in deepTools and plotted by using “plotHeatmap” and “plotProfile” functions in deepTools. The motif enrichment analysis was performed by using the "findMotifsGenome.pl" command in HOMER with default parameters. The motif occurrences in each peak were identified by using FIMO (MEME suite v5.0.4) with the following settings: a first-order Markov background model, a P value cutoff of 10-4, and PWMs from the mouse HOCOMOCO motif database (v11).”

Additionally, we have also supplemented the method section with further details on the analysis of RNA-seq and ATAC-seq data.

The correlation between the open chromatin status of the gene loci described in Fig.5E and the expression at mRNA level? e.g.; Do iTreg-Act cells produce a higher level of IL-21 than nTreg-act? The analysis in Fig.5F-G should be performed in parallel with nTreg cells to emphasize the distinct NFAT-chromatin regulation in iTreg cells.

We have now compared the secretion levels of IL-21 in tTreg and iTreg upon activation and treated with CsA by ELISA. As shown in Author response image 10, tTreg did not secrete IL-21 regardless of activation status (undetectable), while iTreg did not secrete IL-21 at resting state but exhibited IL-21 secretion after 48 h of activation. Moreover, the secretion of IL-21 was inhibited by CsA and CM-4620 treatment. This observation aligns with our earlier findings where we observed nuclear binding of NFAT to gene loci of these cytokines, enhancing their expression and pushing iTreg unstable under inflammatory conditions. These findings further underscore the likelihood that the inhibition of calcium and NFAT signaling might contribute to the stabilization of iTreg by suppressing the secretion of inflammatory cytokines.

Author response image 10.

IL-21 secretion in tTreg and iTreg upon activation. iTregs and tTregs were sorted and restimulated with anti-CD3 and anti-CD28 antibodies, in the presence of CsA and CM-4620. Cell culture supernatant were harvested after 2 d restimulation and IL-21 secretion was analyzed by ELISA.

Performing a parallel comparison of NFAT activity between tTreg and iTreg cells was initially part of our experimental plan. However, it proved challenging in practice, as we encountered difficulties in efficiently infecting tTreg cells with NFAT-flag. Consequently, we could not obtain a sufficient number of tTreg cells for conducting Cut&Tag experiments.

Based on our observations, we speculate that there might be substantial differences in the accessibility of genes in tTreg cells, leading to considerable variations in the repertoire of genes available for NFAT to regulate. As a result, we expect significant differences in the nuclear localization and activity of NFAT between iTreg and tTreg cells.

In Figure 6C, what does the FCM plot between Foxp3-CFSE look like?

The authors can discuss the mechanism of ORAI-DN-mediated through such analysis; e.g. the possibility that selective proliferation defect by ORAI-DN in Foxp3- cells led to an increased percentage of Foxp3, not only just unstable transcription of Foxp3.

This is an in vitro experiment to assess the suppressive effect of iTreg on Tconv proliferation. Therefore, CFSE is used to stain Tconv cells, but not iTreg cells, so we did not detect proliferation feature of iTreg.

Minor

Confusing terminology of "tTreg" at line 47, etc. "natural Treg" contains both thymic-derived Treg and periphery-derived Treg cells. (A Abbas et al. Nat Immunol. 2013)

We have now changed the designation to tTreg at line 47. tTreg refers to thymus-derived regulatory T cells, while nTreg includes both tTreg and pTreg. However, it is important to note that the Treg cells used in our study were isolated from the spleen of 2-4-month-old Foxp3-GFP or Foxp3-RFP mice. The CD4+ T cells were first enriched using the CD4 Isolation kit, and the FACSAriaII was utilized to collect CD4+ Foxp3-GFP/RFP+ Treg cells. Subsequently, Helios and Nrp-1 staining revealed that the majority of these cells were nTreg, with only approximately 6% being pTreg. Overall, we consider the cells we used as tTreg.

In all FCM analyses, the authors should clarify how to detect Foxp3 expression; Foxp3-GFP/Foxp3-RFP/Intracellular staining like Figure S5A (but not specified in the other FCM plots)

All Foxp3 expressions in the article were assessed using intracellular staining, as described in the methods section, and we have added specific descriptions to each figure legend. The reason for employing intracellular staining is that we used Foxp3-IRES-GFP mice, where GFP and Foxp3 are not fused into a single protein, existing as separate proteins after expression. Therefore, during induction, the appearance of GFP protein might potentially represent the presence of Foxp3. However, in cases of Foxp3 instability, the degradation of GFP protein may not be entirely synchronized with that of Foxp3 protein, making GFP an unreliable indicator of Foxp3 expression levels. As a result, for the purification of pure iTreg cells, we used Foxp3-GFP/RFP fluorescence, while for observing instability, we employed intranuclear staining of Foxp3.

In Figure 6B, the captions were lacking in the two graphs on the right side

The two restimulation conditions, 0.125+0.25 and 0.25+0.5, have been added into Fig 6B right side.

In Figure S2, the annotation of the x-y axis was missing.

Added.

Lack of reference at line 292.

Reference 42-46 were added.

In the method section, the authors should note the further product information of antibodies and reagents to enhance reproducibility and transparency. Making a list that clarifies the suppliers, Ab clone, product IDs, etc. is encouraged. The authors did not specify the supplier of recombinant proteins and which type of TGF-beta (TGF-beta 1, 2, or 3?).

A detailed description of the mice, antibodies, Peptide recombinant protein, commercial kit, and software has been provided and incorporated into the methods section.

In the method section, the authors should clarify which Foxp3-reporter strain. There are many strains of Foxp3-reporter mice in the world. In line 373, is the "FoxP3-IRES-GFP transgenic mice" true? Knock-in strain or BAC-transgene?

This mouse is a gift from Hai Qi Lab in Tsinghua University. They acquired this mouse strain from Jackson Laboratory, and the strain name is B6.Cg-Foxp3tm2Tch/J, Strain #:006772. An IRES-EGFP-SV40 poly A sequence was inserted immediately downstream of the endogenous Foxp3 translational stop codon, but upstream of the endogenous polyA signal, generating a bicistronic locus encoding both Foxp3 and EGFP.

The age of mice used in the experiments should be specified, and confusing words such as "young" should not be used in any method descriptions; e.g. line 405.

The detailed mouse age has been added in the methods section. “To prepare Tconv, tTreg and iTreg for experiments, spleen was isolated from 2-4-month-old Foxp3-GFP mice for Tconv and tTreg sorting, and 6-week-old mice for iTreg induction.”

The method of how the original ATAC-seq/Cut & Tag data were generated was not described in the method section.

Added in method section.

The reference section was incomplete, and the style was not unified. e.g.; ref 7, 24, 25, 26 ... I gave up checking all.

The style of ref 7, 22, 24, 26, 28, 31, 33, 35 were modified.

Changes in manuscript:

Author Name: “Huiyun Lv” to “Huiyun Lyu”.

Fig 1A was updated according to Reviwer 2’s suggestion.

Fig S3E and associated description was added according to Reviwer 2’s suggestion.

Fig S4C and associated description was added according to Reviwer 1’s suggestion.

Fig 5H and associated description was added according to Reviwer 2’s suggestion.

Fig 6D were updated according to Reviwer 1’s suggestion.

Fig 2D was corrected, the labels for gapdh and actin in the iTreg panel were inadvertently switched. The mistake has been rectified, and the original gel image will be provided.

Fig 2A and Fig 4A was updated.

The style of Fig 6B and Fig S2A was modified.

Method:

Mice: FoxP3-IRES-GFP with more description.

Flow Cytometry sorting and FACS: the detailed mouse age has been added. RNA-seq analysis, ATAC-sequencing, ATAC-seq analysis, Cut&Tag assay, Cut&Tag data analysis: more description was added.

Statistical analysis: “Numbers of independently-performed experiment repeats are shown as N, biological replicates of each experiment as n.” were added.

Reference: Ref 42-46 and 49-52 were added. The style of ref 7, 22, 24, 26, 28, 31, 33, 35 were corrected.

A detailed description of the mice, antibodies, Peptide recombinant protein, commercial kit, and software has been provided.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In their manuscript, Yu et al. describe the chemotactic gradient formation for CCL5 bound to - i.e. released from - glycosaminoglycans. The authors provide evidence for phase separation as the driving mechanism behind chemotactic gradient formation. A conclusion towards a general principle behind the finding cannot be drawn since the work focuses on one chemokine only, which is particularly prone to glycan-induced oligomerisation.

Strengths:

The principle of phase separation as a driving force behind and thus as an analytical tool for investigating protein interactions with strongly charged biomolecules was originally introduced for protein-nucleic acid interactions. Yu et al. have applied this in their work for the first time for chemokine-heparan sulfate interactions. This opens a novel way to investigate chemokine-glycosaminoglycan interactions in general.

Response: Thanks for the encouragement of the reviewer.

Weaknesses:

As mentioned above, one of the weaknesses of the current work is the exemplification of the phase separation principle by applying it only to CCL5-heparan sulfate interactions. CCL5 is known to form higher oligomers/aggregates in the presence of glycosaminoglycans, much more than other chemokines. It would therefore have been very interesting to see, if similar results in vitro, in situ, and in vivo could have been obtained by other chemokines of the same class (e.g. CCL2) or another class (like CXCL8).

Response: We share the reviewer’s opinion that to investigate more molecules/cytokines that interact with heparan sulfate in the system should be of interesting. We expect that researchers in the field will adapt the concept to continue the studies on additional molecules. Nevertheless, our earlier study has demonstrated that bFGF was enriched to its receptor and triggered signaling transduction through phase separation with heparan sulfate (PMID: 35236856; doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-28765-z), which supports the concept that phase separation with heparan sulfate on the cell surface may be a common mechanism for heparan sulfate binding proteins. The comment of the reviewer that phase separation is related to oligomerization is demonstrated in (Figure 1—figure supplement 2C and D), showing that the more easily aggregated mutant, A22K-CCL5, does not undergo phase separation.

In addition, the authors have used variously labelled CCL5 (like with the organic dye Cy3 or with EGFP) for various reasons (detection and immobilisation). In the view of this reviewer, it would have been necessary to show that all the labelled chemokines yield identical/similar molecular characteristics as the unlabelled wildtype chemokine (such as heparan sulfate binding and chemotaxis). It is well known that labelling proteins either by chemical tags or by fusion to GFPs can lead to manifestly different molecular and functional characteristics.

Response: We agree with the reviewer that labeling may lead to altered property of a protein, thus, we have compared chemotactic activity of CCL5 and CCL5-EGFP (Figure 2—figure supplement 1). To further verify this, we performed additional experiment to compare chemotactic activity between CCL5 and Cy3-CCL5 (see Author response image 1). For the convenience of readers, we have combined the original Figure 2—figure supplement 1 with the new data (Figure R1), which replaced original Figure 2—figure supplement 1.

Author response image 1.

Chemotactic function of CCL5-EGFP and CCL5-Cy3. Cy3-Labeled CCL5 has similar activity as CCL5, 50 nM CCL5 or CCL5-Cy3 were added to the lower chamber of the Transwell. THP-1 cells were added to upper chambers. Data are mean ± s.d. n=3. P values were determined by unpaired two-tailed t-tests. NS, Not Significant.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Although the study by Xiaolin Yu et al is largely limited to in vitro data, the results of this study convincingly improve our current understanding of leukocyte migration.

(1) The conclusions of the paper are mostly supported by the data although some clarification is warranted concerning the exact CCL5 forms (without or with a fluorescent label or His-tag) and amounts/concentrations that were used in the individual experiments. This is important since it is known that modification of CCL5 at the N-terminus affects the interactions of CCL5 with the GPCRs CCR1, CCR3, and CCR5 and random labeling using monosuccinimidyl esters (as done by the authors with Cy-3) is targeting lysines. Since lysines are important for the GAG-binding properties of CCL5, knowledge of the number and location of the Cy-3 labels on CCL5 is important information for the interpretation of the experimental results with the fluorescently labeled CCL5. Was the His-tag attached to the N- or C-terminus of CCL5? Indicate this for each individual experiment and consider/discuss also potential effects of the modifications on CCL5 in the results and discussion sections.

Response: We agree with the reviewer that labeling may lead to altered property of a protein, thus, we have compared chemotactic activity of CCL5 and CCL5-EGFP (Figure 2—figure supplement 1). To further verify this, we performed additional experiment to compare chemotactic activity between CCL5 and Cy3-CCL5 (see Author response image 1). For the convenience of readers, we have combined the original Figure 2—figure supplement 1 with the new data (Author response image 1), which replaced original Figure 2—figure supplement 1.

The His-tag is attached to the C-terminus of CCL5, in consideration of the potential impact on the N-terminus.

(2) In general, the authors appear to use high concentrations of CCL5 in their experiments. The reason for this is not clear. Is it because of the effects of the labels on the activity of the protein? In most biological tests (e.g. chemotaxis assays), unmodified CCL5 is active already at low nM concentrations.

Response: We agree with the reviewer that the CCL5 concentrations used in our experiments were higher than reported chemotaxis assays and also higher than physiological levels in normal human plasma. In fact, we have performed experiments with lower concentration of CCL5, where the effect of LLPS was not seen though the chemotactic activity of the cytokine was detected. Thus, LLPS-associated chemotactic activity may represent a scenario of acute inflammatory condition when the inflammatory cytokines can increase significantly.

(3) For the statistical analyses of the results, the authors use t-tests. Was it confirmed that data follow a normal distribution prior to using the t-test? If not a non-parametric test should be used and it may affect the conclusions of some experiments.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this issue. As shown in Author response table 1, The Shapiro-Wilk normality test showed that only two control groups (CCL5 and 44AANA47-CCL5+CHO K1) in Figure 3 did not conform to the normal distribution. The error was caused by using microculture to count and calculate when there were very few cells in the microculture. For these two groups, we re-counted 100 μL culture medium to calculate the number of cells. The results were consistent with the positive distribution and significantly different from the experimental group (Author response image 3). The original data for the number of cells chemoattractant by 500 nM CCL5 was revised from 0, 247, 247 to 247, 123, 370 and 500 nM 44AANA47 +CHO-K1 was revised from 1111, 1111, 98 to 740, 494, 617. The revised data does not affect the conclusion.

Author response table 1.

Table R1 Shapiro-Wilk test results of statistical data in the manuscript

Author response image 3.

Quantification of THP-1collected from the lower chamber. Data are mean ± s.d. n=3. P values were determined by unpaired two-tailed t-tests.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1:

See the weaknesses section of the Public Review. In addition, the authors should discuss the X-ray structure of CCL5 in complex with a heparin disaccharide in comparison with their docked structure of CCL5 and a heparin tetrasaccharide.

Response: Our study, in fact, is strongly influenced by the report (Shaw, Johnson et al., 2004) that heparin disaccharide interaction with CCL5, which is highlighted in the text (page5, line100-102).

Reviewer #2:

(1) Clearly indicate in the results section and figure legends (also for the supplementary figures) which form and concentration of CCL5 is used.

Response: The relevant missing information is indicated across the manuscript.

(2) Clearly indicate which GAG was used. Was it heparin or heparan sulfate and what was the length (e.g. average molecular mass if known) or source (company?)?

Response: Relevant information is added in the section “Materials and Methods.

(3) Line 181: What do you mean exactly with "tiny amounts"?

Response: “tiny amounts” means 400 transfected cells. This is described in the section of Materials and Methods. It is now also indicated in the text and legend to the figure.

(4) Lines 216-217: This is a very general statement without a link to the presented data. No combination of chemokines is used, in vivo testing is limited (and I agree very difficult). You may consider deleting this sentence (certainly as an opening sentence for the Discussion).

Response: We appreciate very much for the thoughtful suggestion of the reviewer. This sentence is deleted in the revised manuscript.

(5) Why was 5h used for the in vitro chemotaxis assay? This is extremely long for an assay with THP-1 cells.

Response: We apologize for the unclear description. The 5 hr includes 1 hr pre- incubation of CCL5 with the cells enable to form phase separation. After transferring the cells into the upper chamber, the actual chemotactic assay was 4 hr. This is clarified in the Materials and Methods section and the legend to each figure.

(6) Define "Sec" in Sec-CCL5-EGFP and "Dil" in the legend of Figure 4.

Response: The Sec-CCL5-EGFP should be “CCL5-EGFP’’, which has now been corrected. Dil is a cell membrane red fluorescent probe, which is now defined.

(7) Why are different cell concentrations used in the experiment described in Figure 5?

Response: The samples were from three volunteers who exhibited substantially different concentrations of cells in the blood. The experiment was designed using same amount of blood, so we did not normalize the number of the cell used for the experiment. Regardless of the difference in cell numbers, all three samples showed the same trend.

(8) Check the text for some typos: examples are on line 83 "ratio of CCL5"; line 142 "established cell lines"; line 196 "peripheral blood mononuclear cells"; line 224 "to mediate"; line 226 "bind"; line 247 "to form a gradient"; line 248 "of the glycocalyx"; line 343 and 346 "tetrasaccharide"; line 409-410 "wild-type"; line 543 "on the surface of CHO-K1 and CHO-677"; line 568 "white".

Response: Thanks for the careful reading. The typo errors are corrected and Manuscript was carefully read by colleagues.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary

This work investigated the immune response in the murine retina after focal laser lesions. These lesions are made with close to 2 orders of magnitude lower laser power than the more prevalent choroidal neovascularization model of laser ablation. Histology and OCT together show that the laser insult is localized to the photoreceptors and spares the inner retina, the vasculature and the pigment epithelium. As early as 1-day after injury, a loss of cell bodies in the outer nuclear layer is observed. This is accompanied by strong microglial proliferation to the site of injury in the outer retina where microglia do not typically reside. The injury did not seem to result in the extravasation of neutrophils from the capillary network, constituting one of the main findings of the paper. The demonstrated paradigm of studying the immune response and potentially retinal remodeling in the future in vivo is valuable and would appeal to a broad audience in visual neuroscience.

Strengths

Adaptive optics imaging of murine retina is cutting edge and enables non-destructive visualization of fluorescently labeled cells in the milieu of retinal injury. As may be obvious, this in vivo approach is a benefit for studying fast and dynamic immune processes on a local time scale - minutes and hours, and also for the longer days-to-months follow-up of retinal remodeling as demonstrated in the article. In certain cases, the in vivo findings are corroborated with histology.

The analysis is sound and accompanied by stunning video and static imagery. A few different sets of mouse models are used: a) two different mouse lines, each with a fluorescent tag for neutrophils and microglia, b) two different models of inflammation - endotoxin-induced uveitis (EAU) and laser ablation are used to study differences in the immune interaction.

One of the major advances in this article is the development of the laser ablation model for 'mild' retinal damage as an alternative to the more severe neovascularization models. This model would potentially allow for controlling the size, depth and severity of the laser injury opening interesting avenues for future study.

The time-course, 2D and 3D spatial activation pattern of microglial activation are striking and provide an unprecedented view of the retinal response to mild injury.

Editor's note: The authors have addressed all the previous concerns raised by the reviewers.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the previous reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study uses in vivo multimodal high-resolution imaging to track how microglia and neutrophils respond to light-induced retinal injury from soon after injury to 2 months post-injury. The in vivo imaging finding was subsequently verified by ex vivo study. The results suggest that despite the highly active microglia at the injury site, neutrophils were not recruited in response to acute light-induced retinal injury.

Strengths:

An extremely thorough examination of the cellular-level immune activity at the injury site. In vivo imaging observations being verified using ex vivo techniques is a strong plus.

Thank you!

Weaknesses:

This paper is extremely long, and in the perspective of this reviewer, needs to be better organized. Update: Modifications have been made throughout, which has made the manuscript easier to follow.

Thank you!

Study weakness: though the finding prompts more questions and future studies, the findings discussed in this paper is potentially important for us to understand how the immune cells respond differently to different severity level of injury. The study also demonstrated an imaging technology which may help us better understand cellular activity in living tissue during earlier time points.

We agree that AOSLO has much to offer and this represents some of the earliest reports of its kind.  

Comments on revisions:

I appreciate the thorough clarification and re-organization by the authors, and the messages in the manuscript are now more apparent. I recommend also briefly discussing limitations/future improvements in the discussion or conclusion.

We have added a section to the discussion entitled “Limitations and future improvements”, please see lines 665 – 677.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary

This work investigated the immune response in the murine retina after focal laser lesions. These lesions are made with close to 2 orders of magnitude lower laser power than the more prevalent choroidal neovascularization model of laser ablation. Histology and OCT together show that the laser insult is localized to the photoreceptors and spares the inner retina, the vasculature and the pigment epithelium. As early as 1-day after injury, a loss of cell bodies in the outer nuclear layer is observed. This is accompanied by strong microglial proliferation to the site of injury in the outer retina where microglia do not typically reside. The injury did not seem to result in the extravasation of neutrophils from the capillary network, constituting one of the main findings of the paper. The demonstrated paradigm of studying the immune response and potentially retinal remodeling in the future in vivo is valuable and would appeal to a broad audience in visual neuroscience.

Strengths

Adaptive optics imaging of murine retina is cutting edge and enables non-destructive visualization of fluorescently labeled cells in the milieu of retinal injury. As may be obvious, this in vivo approach is a benefit for studying fast and dynamic immune processes on a local time scale - minutes and hours, and also for the longer days-to-months follow-up of retinal remodeling as demonstrated in the article. In certain cases, the in vivo findings are corroborated with histology.

Thank you!

The analysis is sound and accompanied by stunning video and static imagery. A few different sets of mouse models are used, a) two different mouse lines, each with a fluorescent tag for neutrophils and microglia, b) two different models of inflammation - endotoxin-induced uveitis (EAU) and laser ablation are used to study differences in the immune interaction.

Thank you!

One of the major advances in this article is the development of the laser ablation model for 'mild' retinal damage as an alternative to the more severe neovascularization models. This model would potentially allow for controlling the size, depth and severity of the laser injury opening interesting avenues for future study.

Thank you!

The time-course, 2D and 3D spatial activation pattern of microglial activation are striking and provide an unprecedented view of the retinal response to mild injury.

We agree that this more complete spatial and temporal evaluation made possible by in vivo imaging is novel.

Weaknesses

Generalization of the (lack of) neutrophil response to photoreceptor loss - there is ample evidence in literature that neutrophils are heavily recruited in response to severe retinal damage that includes photoreceptor loss. Why the same was not observed here in this article remains an open question. One could hypothesize that neutrophil recruitment might indeed occur under conditions that are more in line with the more extreme damage models, for example, with a stronger and global ablation (substantially more photoreceptor loss over a larger area). This parameter space is unwieldy and sufficiently large to address the question conclusively in the current article, i.e. how much photoreceptor loss leads to neutrophil recruitment? By the same token, the strong and general conclusion in the title - Photoreceptor loss does not recruit neutrophils - cannot be made until an exhaustive exploration be made of the same parameter space. A scaling back may help here, to reflect the specific, mild form of laser damage explored here, for instance - Mild photoreceptor loss does not recruit neutrophils despite...

We are striving for clarity and accuracy in our title without adding too many qualifiers.  At present, we feel that the title as submitted is consistent and aligned with the central finding of our manuscript.  The nuance that the reviewer points to is elaborated in the body of the manuscript and we hope the general readership appreciates the same level of detail as appreciated by reviewer #3.

EIU model - The EIU model was used as a positive control for neutrophil extravasation. Prior work with flow cytometry has shown a substantial increase in neutrophil counts in the EIU model. Yet, in all, the entire article shows exactly 2 examples in vivo and 3 ex vivo (Figure 7) of extravasated neutrophils from the EIU model (n = 2 mice). The general conclusion made about neutrophil recruitment (or lack thereof) is built partly upon this positive control experiment. But these limited examples, especially in the case where literature reports a preponderance of extravasated neutrophils, raise a question on the paradigm(s) used to evaluate this effect in the mild laser damage model.

This is a helpful suggestion. We agree that readers should see more evidence of the positive control. Therefore we have now included two more supplementary files that show that there is a strong neutrophil response to EIU.  In Figure 7 – supplementary figure 1, we show many Ly-6G-positive neutrophils in the retina seen with histology at the 24 hour time point. In Figure 7 – video 3, we show massive Catchup-positive neutrophil presence in vivo at 24hrs as well.  This aligns with our positive control and also the literature.

Overall, the strengths outweigh the weaknesses, provided the conclusions/interpretations are reconsidered.

With the added clarification about the magnitude of the neutrophil response in EIU, we feel that the conclusions presented in the manuscript as-is are valid and appropriate.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for the authors):

The authors are applauded for embracing the reviewers' feedback and making substantial revisions. Some minor comments below:

The weakness noted in the public review encourages the authors to reconsider the interpretations drawn based on the results. One would have expected to see far more examples of extravasated neutrophils from the EIU model. That this was not seen weakens the neutrophil recruitment claim substantially. Even without this claim, the methods, laser damage model, time-course and spatial activation pattern of microglial activation are all striking and unprecedented. So, as stated in the public review, the strengths do indeed outweigh the weaknesses once the neutrophil claim is softened.

We address this in the response above. A strong neutrophil response was observed to EIU. This was confirmed with both histology and in vivo imaging.

This was alluded to by Reviewer 1 in the prior review - at times, there is an overemphasis on imaging technology that distracts from the scientific questions. The imaging is undoubtedly cutting-edge but also documented in prior work by the authors. Any efforts to reduce or balance the emphasis would help with the general flow.

Given that these discoveries are made possible partly through new technology, we prefer to keep the details of the innovation in the current manuscript. Given the exceptionally large readership of eLife, we feel some description of the AOSLO imaging is warranted in the manuscript.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Reviewer 1 (Public review):

Summary:

Gene transfer agent (GTA) from Bartonella is a fascinating chimeric GTA that evolved from the domestication of two phages. Not much is known about how the expression of the BaGTA is regulated. In this manuscript, Korotaev et al noted the structural similarity between BrrG (a protein encoded by the ror locus of BaGTA) to a well-known transcriptional anti-termination factor, 21Q, from phage P21. This sparked the investigation into the possibility that BaGTA cluster is also regulated by anti-termination. Using a suite of cell biology, genetics, and genome-wide techniques (ChIP-seq), Korotaev et al convincingly showed that this is most likely the case. The findings offer the first insight into the regulation of GTA cluster (and GTA-mediated gene transfer) particularly in this pathogen Bartonella. Note that anti-termination is a well-known/studied mechanism of transcriptional control. Anti-termination is a very common mechanism for gene expression control of prophages, phages, bacterial gene clusters, and other GTAs, so in this sense, the impact of the findings in this study here is limited to Bartonella.

Strengths:

Convincing results that overall support the main claim of the manuscript.

Weaknesses:

A few important controls are missing.

We sincerely appreciate reviewer #1's positive assessment of our manuscript. In response to the concern regarding control samples/experiments, we have addressed this issue in our revision, by providing data of the replicates of our experiments. We acknowledge that antitermination is a well-established mechanism of expression control in bacteria, including bacterial gene clusters, phages, prophages, and at least one other GTA. As reviewer #2 also noted, our study presents a unique example of phage co-domestication, where antitermination integrates both phage remnants at the regulatory level. We have emphasized this original aspect more clearly in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Provide Rsmd and DALI scores to show how similar the AlphaFold-predicted structures of BrrG are to other anti-termination factors. This should be done for Fig1B and also for Suppl. Fig 1 to support the claim that BrrG, GafA, GafZ, Q21 share structural features.

In the revised manuscript we provide Rsmd and DALI scores in the supplementary Fig. 1A (Suppl. Fig. 1A). In Suppl. Fig. 1B we further include a heatmap of similiarity values.

(2) Throughout the manuscript, flow cytometry data of gfp expression was used and shown as single replicate. Korotaev et al wrote in the legends that error bars are shown (that is not true for e.g. Figs. 3, 4, and 5). It is difficult for reviewers/readers to gauge how reliable are their experiments.

In the revised manuscript we show all replicates for the flow cytometry histograms.

For Fig. 2C, all replicates are provided in Suppl. Fig. 3.

For Fig. 3B, all replicates are provided in Suppl. Fig. 4.

For Fig. 4B, all replicates are provided in Suppl. Fig. 5.

For Fig. 5B, all replicates are provided in Suppl. Fig. 6.

(3) I am unsure how ChIP-seq in Fig. 2A was performed (with anti-FLAG or anti-HA antibodies? I cannot tell from the Materials & Methods). More importantly, I did not see the control for this ChIP-seq experiment. If a FLAG-tagged BrrG was used for ChIP-seq, then a WT non-tagged version should be used as a negative control (not sequencing INPUT DNA), this is especially important for anti-terminator that can co-travel with RNA polymerase. Please also report the number of replicates for ChIP-seq experiments.

Fig. 2A presents the coverage plot from the ChIP-Seq of ∆brrG +pPtet:3xFLAG-brrG (N’ in green). As anticipated by the referee, we had used ∆brrG +pTet:brrG (untagged) as control (grey). Each strain was tested in a single replicate. The C-terminal tag produced results similar to the untagged version, suggesting it is non-functional. All tested tags are shown in Supplementary Figure 2.

(4) Korotaev et al mentioned that BrrG binds to DNA (as well as to RNA polymerase). With the availability of existing ChIP-seq data, the authors should be able to locate the DNA-binding element of BrrG, this additional information will be useful to the community.

We identified a putative binding site of BrrG using our ChIP-Seq data. The putative binding site is indicated in Fig. 2D of the revised manuscript.

(5) Mutational experiments to break the potential hairpin structure are required to strengthen the claim that this putative hairpin is the potential transcriptional terminator.

We did not claim the identified hairpin is a confirmed terminator, but proposed it as a candidate. We agree with the referee that the suggested experiment would be necessary to definitively establish its function. However, our main objective was to show that BrrG acts as a processive terminator, which we demonstrated by replacing the putative terminator with a well-characterized synthetic one that BrrG successfully bypassed. Therefore, we chose not to perform the proposed experiment and have accordingly softened our conclusions regarding the hairpin’s potential terminator function.

Reviewer 2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors identified and characterized a regulatory mechanism based on transcriptional anti-termination that connects the two gene clusters, capsid and run-off replication (ROR) locus, of the bipartite Bartonella gene transfer agent (GTA). Among genes essential for GTA functionality identified in a previous transposon sequencing project, they found a potential antiterminatior of phage origin within the ROR locus. They employed fluorescence reporter and gene transfer assays of overexpression and knockout strains in combination with ChiPSeq and promoter-fusions to convincingly show that this protein indeed acts as an antiterminator counteracting attenuation of the capsid gene cluster expression.

Impact on the field:

The results provide valuable insights into the evolution of the chimeric BaGTA, a unique example of phage co-domestication by bacteria. A similar system found in the other broadly studied Rhodobacterales/Caulobacterales GTA family suggests that antitermination could be a general mechanism for GTA control.

Strengths:

Results of the selected and carefully designed experiments support the main conclusions.

Weaknesses:

It remains open why overexpression of the antiterminator does not increase the gene transfer frequency.

We are grateful for reviewer #2's thoughtful and encouraging feedback on our manuscript. The reviewer raises an important question about why overexpression of the antiterminator does not increase gene transfer frequency. While we acknowledge this point, we consider it beyond the scope of the current study. Our findings clearly demonstrate that the antiterminator induces capsid component expression in a large proportion of cells. However, the fact that this expression plateaus at high levels rather than exhibiting a transient peak, as seen in the wild type, suggests that antiterminators do not regulate GTA particle release via lysis. We are actively investigating this further through additional experiments, which we plan to publish separately from this study.

Reviewer 2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) The authors wrote "GTAs are not self-transmitting because the DNA packaging capacity of a GTA particle is too small to package the entire gene cluster encoding it" (page 3). I thought that at least the Bartonella capsid gene cluster should be self-transmissible within the 14 kb packaged DNA (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003393, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000546). This was also concluded by Lang et al (https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-virology-101416-041624). In this case the presented results would have important implications. As the gene cluster and the anti-terminator required for its expression are separated on the chromosome, it would not be possible to transfer an active GTA gene cluster, although the DNA coding for the genes required for making the packaging agent itself, theoretically fits into a BaGTA particle. Could the authors comment on that? I think it would be helpful to add the sizes of the different gene clusters and the distance between them in Fig. 2A. The ROR amplified region spans 500kb, is the capsid gene cluster within this region?

We thank the reviewer for bringing up this interesting point. The ror gene cluster, which encodes the antiterminator BrrG, is approximately 9.2 kb in size and could feasibly be packaged in its entirety into a GTA particle. In contrast, the bgt cluster (capsid cluster) is approximately 20 kb in size —exceeding the packaging limit of GTA particles—and is separated from the bgt cluster by approximately 35 kb. Consequently, if the ror cluster is transferred via a GTA particle into a recipient host that does not encode the bgt gene cluster, the ror cluster would not be expressed.

We added the sizes of the gene clusters to Fig. 1A.

(2) Another side-note regarding the introduction: On page three the authors write: "GTAs encode bacteriophage-like particles and in contrast to phages transfer random pieces of host bacterial DNA". While packaging is not specific, certain biases in the packaging frequency are observed in both studied GTA families. For Bartonella this is ROR. In the two GTA-producing strains D. shibae and C. crescentus origin and terminus of replication are not packaged and certain regions are overrepresented (https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evy005, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001790). Furthermore, D. shibae plasmids are not packaged but chromids are. I think the term "random" does not properly describe these observations. I would suggest using "not specific" instead.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and adjusted the wording on p. 3 accordingly.

(3) Page 5: Remove "To address this". It is not needed as you already state "To test this hypothesis" in the previous sentence.

We adjusted the working on p.5 accordingly.

(4) I think the manuscript would greatly benefit from a summary figure to visualize the Q-like antiterminator-dependent regulatory circuit for GTA control and its four components described on pages 15 and 16.

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We included a summary figure (Fig. 6) in the discussion section of the revised manuscript.

(5) Page 17: It might be worth noting that GafA is highly conserved along GTAs in Rhodobacterales (https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.662907) and so is probably regulatory integration into the ctrA network (https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.00803). It's an old mechanism. It would be also interesting to know if it is a common feature of the two archetypical GTAs that the regulator is not part of the cluster itself.

We agree with the reviewer’s comments and have revised the wording to state that GafA is highly conserved.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this study, the authors aim to understand why decision formation during behavioural tasks is distributed across multiple brain areas. They hypothesize that multiple areas are used in order to implement an information bottleneck (IB). Using neural activity recorded from monkey DLPFC and PMd performing a 2-AFC task, they show that DLPFC represents various task variables (decision, color, target configuration), while downstream PMd primarily represents decision information. Since decision information is the only information needed to make a decision, the authors point out that PMd has a minimal sufficient representation (as expected from an IB). They then train 3-area RNNs on the same task and show that activity in the first and third areas resemble the neural representations of DLPFC and PMd, respectively. In order to propose a mechanism, they analyse the RNN and find that area 3 ends up with primarily decision information because feedforward connections between areas primarily propagate decision information.

The paper addresses a deep, normative question, namely why task information is distributed across several areas.

Overall, it reads well and the analysis is well done and mostly correct (see below for some comments). My major problem with the paper is that I do not see that it actually provides an answer to the question posed (why is information distributed across areas?). I find that the core problem is that the information bottleneck method, which is evoked throughout the paper, is simply a generic compression method.

Being a generic compressor, the IB does not make any statements about how a particular compression should be distributed across brain areas - see major points (1) and (2).

If I ignore the reference to the information bottleneck and the question of why pieces of information are distributed, I still see a more mechanistic study that proposes a neural mechanism of how decisions are formed, in the tradition of RNN-modelling of neural activity as in Mante et al 2013. Seen through this more limited sense, the present study succeeds at pointing out a good model-data match, and I could support a publication along those lines. I point out some suggestions for improvement below.

We thank the reviewer for their comments, feedback and suggestions. We are glad to hear you support the good model-data match for this manuscript.  With your helpful comments, we have clarified the connections to the information bottleneck principle and also contrasted it against the information maximization principle (the InfoMax principle), an alternative hypothesis. We elaborate on these issues in response to your points below, particularly major points (1) and (2). We also address all your other comments below.

Major points

(1) It seems to me that the author's use of the IB is based on the reasoning that deep neural networks form decisions by passing task information through a series of transformations/layers/areas and that these deep nets have been shown to implement an IB. Furthermore, these transformations are also loosely motivated by the data processing inequality.

On Major Point 1 and these following subpoints, we first want to make a high-level statement before delving into a detailed response to your points as it relates to the information bottleneck (IB). We hope this high-level statement will provide helpful context for the rest of our point-by-point responses. 

We want to be clear that we draw on the information bottleneck (IB) principle as a general principle to explain why cortical representations differ by brain area. The IB principle, as applied to cortex, is only stating that a minimal sufficient representation to perform the task is formed in cortex, not how it is formed. The alternative hypothesis to the IB is that brain areas do not form minimal sufficient representations. For example, the InfoMax principle states that each brain area stores information about all inputs (even if they’re not necessary to perform the task). InfoMax isn’t unreasonable: it’s possible that storing as much information about the inputs, even in downstream areas, can support flexible computation and InfoMax also supports redundancy in cortical areas. Indeed, many studies claim that action choice related signals are in many cortical areas, which may reflect evidence of an InfoMax principle in action for areas upstream of PMd.

While we observe an IB in deep neural networks and cortex in our perceptual decision-making task, we stress that its emergence across multiple areas is an empirical result. At the same time, multiple areas producing an IB makes intuitive sense: due to the data processing inequality, successive transformations typically decrease the information in a representation (especially when, e.g., in neural networks, every activation passes through the Relu function, which is not bijective). Multiple areas are therefore a sufficient and even ‘natural’ way to implement an IB, but multiple areas are not necessary for an IB. That we observe an IB in deep neural networks and cortex emerge through multi-area computation is empirical, and, contrasting InfoMax, we believe it is an important result of this paper. 

Nevertheless, your incisive comments have helped us to update the manuscript that when we talk about the IB, we should be clear that the alternative hypothesis is non-minimal representations, a prominent example of which is the InfoMax principle. We have now significantly revised our introduction to avoid this confusion. We hope this provides helpful context for our point-by-point replies, below.

However, assuming as a given that deep neural networks implement an IB does not mean that an IB can only be implemented through a deep neural network. In fact, IBs could be performed with a single transformation just as well. More formally, a task associates stimuli (X) with required responses (Y), and the IB principle states that X should be mapped to a representation Z, such that I(X;Z) is minimal and I(Y,Z) is maximal. Importantly, the form of the map Z=f(X) is not constrained by the IB. In other words, the IB does not impose that there needs to be a series of transformations. I therefore do not see how the IB by itself makes any statement about the distribution of information across various brain areas.

We agree with you that an IB can be implemented in a single transformation. We wish to be clear that we do not intend to argue necessity: that multiple areas are the only way to form minimal sufficient representations. Rather, multiple areas are sufficient to induce minimal sufficient representations, and moreover, they are a natural and reasonably simple way to do so. By ‘natural,’ we mean that minimal sufficient representations empirically arise in systems with multiple areas (more than 2), including deep neural networks and the cortex at least for our task and simulations. For example, we did not see minimal sufficient representations in 1- or 2-area RNNs, but we did see them emerge in RNNs with 3 areas or more. One potential reason for this result is that sequential transformations through multiple areas can never increase information about the input; it can only maintain or reduce information due to the data processing inequality.

Our finding that multiple areas facilitate IBs in the brain is therefore an empirical result: like in deep neural networks, we observe the brain has minimal sufficient representations that emerge in output areas (PMd), even as an area upstream (DLPFC) is not minimal. While the IB makes a statement that this minimal sufficient representation emerges, to your point, the fact that it emerges over multiple areas is not a part of the IB – as you have pointed out, the IB doesn’t state where or how the information is discarded, only that it is discarded. Our RNN modeling later proposes one potential mechanism for how it is discarded. We updated the manuscript introduction to make these points:

“An empirical observation from Machine Learning is that deep neural networks tend to form minimal sufficient representations in the last layers. Although multi-layer computation is not necessary for an IB, they provide a sufficient and even “natural” way to form an IB. A representation z = f(x) cannot contain more information than the input x itself due to the data processing inequality[19]. Thus, adding additional layers typically results in representations that contain less information about the input.”

And later in the introduction:

“Consistent with these predictions of the IB principle, we found that DLPFC has information about the color, target configuration, and direction. In contrast, PMd had a minimal sufficient representation of the direction choice. Our recordings therefore identified a cortical IB. However, we emphasize the IB does not tell us where or how the minimal sufficient representation is formed. Instead, only our empirical results implicate DLPFC-PMd in an IB computation. Further, to propose a mechanism for how this IB is formed, we trained a multi-area RNN to perform this task. We found that the RNN faithfully reproduced DLPFC and PMd activity, enabling us to propose a mechanism for how cortex uses multiple areas to compute a minimal sufficient representation.”

In the context of our work, we want to be clear the IB makes these predictions:

Prediction 1: There exists a downstream area of cortex that has a minimal and sufficient representation to perform a task (i.e.,. I(X;Z) is minimal while preserving task information so that I(Z;Y) is approximately equal to  I(X;Y)). We identify PMd as an area with a minimal sufficient representation in our perceptual-decision-making task. 

Prediction 2 (corollary if Prediction 1 is true): There exists an upstream brain area that contains more input information than the minimal sufficient area. We identify DLPFC as an upstream area relative to PMd, which indeed has more input information than downstream PMd in our perceptual decision-making task. 

Note: as you raise in other points, it could have been possible that the IB is implemented early on, e.g., in either the parietal cortex (dorsal stream) or inferotemporal cortex (ventral stream), so that DLPFC and PMd both contained minimal sufficient representations. The fact that it doesn’t is entirely an empirical result from our data. If DLPFC had minimal sufficient representations for the perceptual decision making task, we would have needed to record in other regions to identify brain areas that are consistent with Prediction 2. But, empirically, we found that DLPFC has more input information relative to PMd, and therefore the DLPFC-PMd connection is implicated in the IB process.

What is the alternative hypothesis to the IB? We want to emphasize: it isn’t single-area computation. It’s that the cortex does not form minimal sufficient representations. For example, an alternative hypothesis (“InfoMax”) would be for all engaged brain areas to form representations that retain all input information. One reason this could be beneficial is because each brain area could support a variety of downstream tasks. In this scenario, PMd would not be minimal, invalidating Prediction 1. However, this is not supported by our empirical observations of the representations in PMd, which has a minimal sufficient representation of the task. We updated our introduction to make this clear:

“But cortex may not necessarily implement an IB. The alternative hypothesis to IB is that the cortex does not form minimal sufficient representations. One manifestation of this alternative hypothesis is the “InfoMax” principle, where downstream representations are not minimal but rather contain maximal input information22. This means information about task inputs not required to perform the task are present in downstream output areas. Two potential benefits of an InfoMax principle are (1) to increase redundancy in cortical areas and thereby provide fault tolerance, and (2) for each area to support a wide variety of tasks and thereby improve the ability of brain areas to guide many different behaviors. In contrast to InfoMax, the IB principle makes two testable predictions about cortical representations. Prediction 1: there exists a downstream area of cortex that has a minimal and sufficient representation to perform a task (i.e., I(X; Z) is minimal while preserving task information so that I(Z; Y) ≈ I(X; Y)). Prediction 2 (corollary if Prediction 1 is true): there exists an upstream area of cortex that has more task information than the minimal sufficient area.”

Your review helped us realize we should have been clearer in explaining that these are the key predictions of the IB principle tested in our paper. We also realized we should be much clearer that these predictions aren’t trivial or expected, and there is an alternative hypothesis. We have re-written the introduction of our paper to highlight that the key prediction of the IB is minimal sufficient representations for the task, in contrast to the alternative hypothesis of InfoMax.

A related problem is that the authors really only evoke the IB to explain the representation in PMd: Fig 2 shows that PMd is almost only showing decision information, and thus one can call this a minimal sufficient representation of the decision (although ignoring substantial condition independent activity).

However, there is no IB prediction about what the representation of DLPFC should look like.

Consequently, there is no IB prediction about how information should be distributed across DLPFC and PMd.

We agree: the IB doesn’t tell us how information is distributed, only that there is a transformation that eventually makes PMd minimal. The fact that we find input information in DLPFC reflects that this computation occurs across areas, and is an empirical characterization of this IB in that DLPFC has direction, color and context information while PMd has primarily direction information. To be clear: only our empirical recordings verified that the DLPFC-PMd circuit is involved in the IB. As described above, if not, we would have recorded even further upstream to identify an inter-areal connection implicated in the IB.

We updated the text to clearly state that the IB predicts that an upstream area’s activity should contain more information about the task inputs. We now explicitly describe this in the introduction, copy and pasted again here for convenience.

“In contrast to InfoMax, the IB principle makes two testable predictions about cortical representations. Prediction 1: there exists a downstream area of cortex that has a minimal and sufficient representation to perform a task (i.e., I(X; Z) is minimal while preserving task information so that I(Z; Y) ≈ I(X; Y)). Prediction 2 (corollary if Prediction 1 is true): there exists an upstream area of cortex that has more task information than the minimal sufficient area.

Consistent with the predictions of the IB principle, we found that DLPFC has information about the color, target configuration, and direction. In contrast, PMd had a minimal sufficient representation of the direction choice. Our recordings therefore identified a cortical IB. However, we emphasize the IB does not tell us where or how the minimal sufficient representation is formed. Instead, only our empirical results implicate DLPFC-PMd in an IB computation Further, to propose a mechanism for how this IB is formed, we trained a multi-area RNN to perform this task.”  

The only way we knew DLPFC was not minimal was through our experiments. Please also note that the IB principle does not describe how information could be lost between areas or layers, whereas our RNN simulations show that this may occur through preferential propagation of task-relevant information with respect to the inter-area connections.  

(2) Now the authors could change their argument and state that what is really needed is an IB with the additional assumption that transformations go through a feedforward network. However, even in this case, I am not sure I understand the need for distributing information in this task. In fact, in both the data and the network model, there is a nice linear readout of the decision information in dPFC (data) or area 1 (network model). Accordingly, the decision readout could occur at this stage already, and there is absolutely no need to tag on another area (PMd, area 2+3).

Similarly, I noticed that the authors consider 2,3, and 4-area models, but they do not consider a 1-area model. It is not clear why the 1-area model is not considered. Given that e.g. Mante et al, 2013, manage to fit a 1-area model to a task of similar complexity, I would a priori assume that a 1-area RNN would do just as well in solving this task.

While decision information could indeed be read out in Area 1 in our multi-area model, we were interested in understanding how the network converged to a PMd-like representation (minimal sufficient) for solving this task. Empirically, we only observed a match between our model representations and animal cortical representations during this task when considering multiple areas. Given that we empirically observed that our downstream area had a minimal sufficient representation, our multi-area model allowed how this minimal sufficient representation emerged (through preferential propagation of task-relevant information).

We also analyzed single-area networks in our initial manuscript, though we could have highlighted these analyses more clearly to be sure they were not overlooked. We are clearer in this revision that we did consider a 1-area network (results in our Fig 5). While a single-area RNN can indeed solve this task, the single area model had all task information present in the representation, and did not match the representations in DLPFC or PMd. It would therefore not allow us to understand how the network converged to a PMd-like representation (minimal sufficient) for solving this task. We updated the schematic in Fig 5 to add in the single-area network (which may have caused the confusion).

We have added an additional paragraph commenting on this in the discussion. We also added an additional supplementary figure with the PCs of the single area RNN (Fig S15). We highlight that single area RNNs do not resemble PMd activity because they contain strong color and context information. 

In the discussion:

“We also found it was possible to solve this task with single area RNNs, although they did not resemble PMd (Figure S15) since it did not form a minimal sufficient representation. Rather, for our RNN simulations, we found that the following components were sufficient to induce minimal sufficient representations: (1) RNNs with at least 3 areas, following Dale’s law (independent of the ratio of feedforward to feedback connections).”

I think there are two more general problems with the author's approach. First, transformations or hierarchical representations are usually evoked to get information into the right format in a pure feedforward network. An RNN can be seen as an infinitely deep feedforward network, so even a single RNN has, at least in theory, and in contrast to feedforward layers, the power to do arbitrarily complex transformations. Second, the information coming into the network here (color + target) is a classical xor-task. While this task cannot be solved by a perceptron (=single neuron), it also is not that complex either, at least compared to, e.g., the task of distinguishing cats from dogs based on an incoming image in pixel format.

An RNN can be viewed as an infinitely deep feedforward network in time. However, we wish to clarify two things. First, our task runs for a fixed amount of time, and therefore this RNN in practice is not infinitely deep in time. Second, if it were to perform an IB operation in time, we would expect to see color discriminability decrease as a function of time. Indeed, we considered this as a mechanism (recurrent attenuation, Figure 4a), but as we show in Supplementary Figure S9, we do not observe it to be the case that discriminability decreases through time. This is equivalent to a dynamical mechanism that removes color through successive transformations in time, which our analyses reject (Fig 4). We therefore rule out that an IB is implemented through time via an RNN’s recurrent computation (viewed as feedforward in time). Rather, as we show, the IB comes primarily through inter-areal connections between RNN areas. We clarified that our dynamical hypothesis is equivalent to rejecting the feedforward-in-time filtering hypothesis in the Results: 

“We first tested the hypothesis that the RNN IB is implemented primarily by recurrent dynamics (left side of Fig. 4a). These recurrent dynamics can be equivalently interpreted as the RNN implementing a feedforward neural network in time.”  

The reviewer is correct that the task is a classical XOR task and not as complex as e.g., computer vision classification. That said, our related work has looked at IBs for computer vision tasks and found them in deep feedforward networks (Kleinman et al., ICLR 2021). Even though the task is relatively straightforward, we believe it is appropriate for our conclusions because it does not have a trivial minimal sufficient representation: a minimal sufficient representation for XOR must contain only target, but not color or target configuration information. This can only be solved via a nonlinear computation. In this manner, we favor this task because it is relatively simple, and the minimal sufficient representations are interpretable, while at the same time not being so trivially simple (the minimal sufficient representations require nonlinearity to compute).  

Finally, we want to note that this decision-making task is a logical and straightforward way to add complexity to classical animal decision-making tasks, where stimulus evidence and the behavioral report are frequently correlated. In tasks such as these, it may be challenging to untangle stimulus and behavioral variables, making it impossible to determine if an area like premotor cortex represents only behavior rather than stimulus. However, our task decorrelates both the stimulus and the behaviors. 

(3) I am convinced of the author's argument that the RNN reproduces key features of the neural data. However, there are some points where the analysis should be improved.

(a) It seems that dPCA was applied without regularization. Since dPCA can overfit the data, proper regularization is important, so that one can judge, e.g., whether the components of Fig.2g,h are significant, or whether the differences between DLPFC and PMd are significant.

We note that the dPCA codebase optimizes the regularization hyperparameter through cross-validation and requires single-trial firing rates for all neurons, i.e., data matrices of the form (n_Neurons x Color x Choice x Time x n_Trials), which are unavailable for our data. We recognized that you are fundamentally asking whether differences are significant or not. We therefore believe it is possible to address this through a statistical test, described further below. 

In order to test whether the differences of variance explained by task variables between DLPFC and PMd are significant, we performed a shuffle test. For this test, we randomly sampled 500 units from the DLPFC dataset and 500 units from the PMd dataset. We then used dPCA to measure the variance explained by target configuration, color choice, and reach direction (e.g., Var^True_DLPFC,Color, Var^True_PMd,Color).

To test if this variance was significant, we performed the following shuffle test. We combined the PMd and DLPFC dataset into a pool of 1000 units and then randomly selected 500 units from this pool to create a surrogate PMd dataset and used the remaining 500 units as a surrogate DLPFC dataset. We then again performed dPCA on these surrogate datasets and estimated the variance for the various task variables (e.g., Var_{ShuffledDLPFC,Color}  ,Var_{ShuffledPMd,Color}).

We repeated this process for 100 times and estimated a sampling distribution for the true difference in variance between DLPFC and PMd for various task variables (e.g., Var^True_DLPFC,Color - Var^True_PMd,Color). At the same time, we estimated the distribution of the variance difference between surrogate PMd and DLPFC dataset for various task variables (e.g., Var_{ShuffleDLPFC,Color} - Var_{ShufflePMd,Color}). 

We defined a p-value as the number of shuffles in which the difference in variance was higher than the median of the true difference and divided it by 100. Note, for resampling and shuffle tests with n shuffles/bootstraps, the lowest theoretical p-value is given as 2/n, even in the case that no shuffle was higher than the median of the true distribution. Thus, the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.02) for color and target configuration but not for direction (p=0.72). These results are reported in Figure S6 and show both the true sampling distribution and the shuffled sampling distributions.

(b) I would have assumed that the analyses performed on the neural data were identical to the ones performed on the RNN data. However, it looked to me like that was not the case. For instance, dPCA of the neural data is done by restretching randomly timed trials to a median trial. It seemed that this restretching was not performed on the RNN. Maybe that is just an oversight, but it should be clarified. Moreover, the decoding analyses used SVC for the neural data, but a neural-net-based approach for the RNN data. Why the differences?

Thanks for bringing up these points. We want to clarify that we did include SVM decoding for the multi-area network in the appendix (Fig. S4), and the conclusions are the same. Moreover, in previous work, we also found that training with a linear decoder led to analogous conclusions (Fig. 11 of Kleinman et al, NeurIPS 2021).  As we had a larger amount of trials for the RNN than the monkey, we wanted to allow a more expressive decoder for the RNN, though this choice does not affect our conclusions. We clarified the text to reflect that we did use an SVM decoder.

“We also found analogous conclusions when using an SVM decoder (Fig. S4).”

dPCA analysis requires trials of equal length. For the RNN, this is straightforward to generate because we can set the delay lengths to be equal during inference (although the RNN was trained on various length trials and can perform various length trials). Animals must have varying delay periods, or else they will learn the timing of the task and anticipate epoch changes. Because animal trial lengths were therefore different, their trials had to be restretched. We clarified this in the Methods.

“For analyses of the RNN, we fixed the timing of trials, obviating the need to to restretch trial lengths. Note that while at inference, we generated RNN trials with equal length, the RNN was trained with varying delay periods.” 

(4) The RNN seems to fit the data quite nicely, so that is interesting. At the same time, the fit seems somewhat serendipitous, or at least, I did not get a good sense of what was needed to make the RNN fit the data. The authors did go to great lengths to fit various network models and turn several knobs on the fit. However, at least to me, there are a few (obvious) knobs that were not tested.

First, as already mentioned above, why not try to fit a single-area model? I would expect that a single area model could also learn the task - after all, that is what Mante et al did in their 2013 paper and the author's task does not seem any more complex than the task by Mante and colleagues.

Thank you for bringing up this point. As mentioned in response to your prior point, we did analyze a single-area RNN (Fig. 5d). We updated the schematic to clarify that we analyzed a single area network. Moreover, we also added a supplementary figure to qualitatively visualize the PCs of the single area network (Fig. S15). While a single area network can solve the task, it does not allow us to study how representations change across areas, nor did it empirically resemble our neural recordings. Single-area networks contain significant color, context, and direction information. They therefore do not form minimal representations and do not resemble PMd activity.

Second, I noticed that the networks fitted are always feedforward-dominated. What happens when feedforward and feedback connections are on an equal footing? Do we still find that only the decision information propagates to the next area? Quite generally, when it comes to attenuating information that is fed into the network (e.g. color), then that is much easier done through feedforward connections (where it can be done in a single pass, through proper alignment or misalignment of the feedforward synapses) than through recurrent connections (where you need to actively cancel the incoming information). So it seems to me that the reason the attenuation occurs in the inter-area connections could simply be because the odds are a priori stacked against recurrent connections. In the real brain, of course, there is no clear evidence that feedforward connections dominate over feedback connections anatomically.

We want to clarify that we did pick feedforward and feedback connections based on the following macaque atlas, reference 27 in our manuscript: 

Markov, N. T., Ercsey-Ravasz, M. M., Ribeiro Gomes, A. R., Lamy, C., Magrou, L., Vezoli, J., Misery, P., Falchier, A., Quilodran, R., Gariel, M. A., Sallet, J., Gamanut, R., Huissoud, C., Clavagnier, S., Giroud, P., Sappey-Marinier, D., Barone, P., Dehay, C., Toroczkai, Z., … Kennedy, H. (2014). A weighted and directed interareal connectivity matrix for macaque cerebral cortex. Cerebral Cortex , 24(1), 17–36.

We therefore believe there is evidence for more feedforward than feedback connections. Nevertheless, as stated in response to your next point below, we ran a simulation where feedback and feedforward connectivity were matched.

More generally, it would be useful to clarify what exactly is sufficient:

(a) the information distribution occurs in any RNN, i.e., also in one-area RNNs

(b) the information distribution occurs when there are several, sparsely connected areas

(c) the information distribution occurs when there are feedforward-dominated connections between areas

We better clarify what exactly is sufficient. 

- We trained single-area RNNs and found that these RNNs contained color information; additionally two area RNNs also contained color information in the last area (Fig 5d). 

- We indeed found that the minimal sufficient representations emerged when we had several areas, with Dale’s law constraint on the connectivity. When we had even sparser connections, without Dale’s law, there was significantly more color information, even at 1% feedforward connections; Fig 5a.

- When we matched the percentage of feedforward and feedback connections with Dale’s law constraint on the connectivity (10% feedforward and 10% feedback), we also observed minimal sufficient representations (Fig S9). 

Together, we found that minimal sufficient representations emerged when we had several areas (3 or greater), with Dale’s law constraint on the connectivity, independent of the ratio of feedforward/feedback connections. We thank the reviewer for raising this point about the space of constraints leading to minimal sufficient representations in the late area. We clarified this in the Discussion.

“We also found it was possible to solve this task with single area RNNs, although they did not resemble PMd (Figure S15) since it did not form a minimal sufficient representation. Rather, for our RNN simulations, we found that the following components were sufficient to induce minimal sufficient representations: RNNs with at least 3 areas, following Dale’s law (independent of the ratio of feedforward to feedback connections).”

Thank you for your helpful and constructive comments!

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Kleinman and colleagues conducted an analysis of two datasets, one recorded from DLPFC in one monkey and the other from PMD in two monkeys. They also performed similar analyses on trained RNNs with various architectures.

The study revealed four main findings. (1) All task variables (color coherence, target configuration, and choice direction) were found to be encoded in DLPFC. (2) PMD, an area downstream of PFC, only encoded choice direction. (3) These empirical findings align with the celebrated 'information bottleneck principle,' which suggests that FF networks progressively filter out task-irrelevant information. (4) Moreover, similar results were observed in RNNs with three modules.

We thank the reviewer for their comments, feedback and suggestions, which we address below.

While the analyses supporting results 1 and 2 were convincing and robust, I have some concerns and recommendations regarding findings 3 and 4, which I will elaborate on below. It is important to note that findings 2 and 4 had already been reported in a previous publication by the same authors (ref. 43).

Note the NeurIPS paper only had PMd data and did not contain any DLPFC data. That manuscript made predictions about representations and dynamics upstream of PMd, and subsequent experiments reported in this manuscript validated these predictions. Importantly, this manuscript observes an information bottleneck between DLPFC and PMd.

Major recommendation/comments:

The interpretation of the empirical findings regarding the communication subspace in relation to the information bottleneck theory is very interesting and novel. However, it may be a stretch to apply this interpretation directly to PFC-PMd, as was done with early vs. late areas of a FF neural network.

In the RNN simulations, the main finding indicates that a network with three or more modules lacks information about the stimulus in the third or subsequent modules. The authors draw a direct analogy between monkey PFC and PMd and Modules 1 and 3 of the RNNs, respectively. However, considering the model's architecture, it seems more appropriate to map Area 1 to regions upstream of PFC, such as the visual cortex, since Area 1 receives visual stimuli. Moreover, both PFC and PMd are deep within the brain hierarchy, suggesting a more natural mapping to later areas. This contradicts the CCA analysis in Figure 3e. It is recommended to either remap the areas or provide further support for the current mapping choice.

We updated the Introduction to better clarify the predictions of the information bottleneck (IB) principle. In particular, the IB principle predicts that later areas should have minimal sufficient representations of task information, whereas upstream areas should have more information. In PMd, we observed a minimal sufficient representation of task information during the decision-making task. In DLPFC, we observed more task information, particularly more information about the target colors and the target configuration.

In terms of the exact map between areas, we do not believe or intend to claim the DLPFC is the first area implicated in the sensorimotor transformation during our perceptual decision-making task. Rather, DLPFC best matches Area 1 of our model. It is important to note that we abstracted our task so that the first area of our model received checkerboard coherence and target configuration as input (and hence did not need to transform task visual inputs). Indeed, in Figure 1d we hypothesize that the early visual areas should contain additional information, which we do not model directly in this work. Future work could model RNNs to take in an image or video input of the task stimulus. In this case, it would be interesting to assess if earlier areas resemble visual cortical areas. We updated the results, where we first present the RNN, to state the inputs explicitly and be clear the inputs are not images or videos of the checkerboard task.

“The RNN input was 4D representing the target configuration and checkerboard signed coherence, while the RNN output was 2D, representing decision variables for a left and right reach (see Methods).”

Another reason that we mapped Area 1 to DLPFC is because anatomical, physiological and lesion studies suggest that DLPFC receives inputs from both the dorsal and ventral stream (Romanski, et, al, 2007; Hoshi, et al, 2006; Wilson, at al, 1993). The dorsal stream originates from the occipital lobe, passes through the posterior parietal cortex, to DLPFC, which carries visuospatial information of the object. The ventral stream originates from the occipital lobe, passes through the inferior temporal cortex, ventrolateral prefrontal cortex to DLPFC, which encodes the identity of the object, including color and texture. In our RNN simulation, Area 1 receives processed inputs of the task: target configuration and the evidence for each color in the checkerboard. Target configuration contains information of the spatial location of the targets, which represents the inputs from the dorsal stream, while evidence for each color by analogy is the input from the ventral stream. Purely visual areas would not fit this dual input from both the dorsal and ventral stream. A potential alternative candidate would be the parietal cortex which is largely part of the dorsal stream and is thought to have modest color inputs (although there is some shape and color selectivity in areas such as LIP, e.g., work from Sereno et al.). On balance given the strong inputs from both the dorsal and ventral stream, we believe Area 1 maps better on to DLPFC than earlier visual areas.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) Line 35/36: Please specify the type of nuisance that the representation is robust to. I guess this refers to small changes in the inputs, not to changes in the representation itself.

Indeed it refers to input variability unrelated to the task. We clarified the text.

(2) For reference, it would be nice to have a tick for the event "Targets on" in Fig.2c.

In this plot, the PSTHs are aligned to the checkerboard onset. Because there is a variable time between target and checkerboard onset, there is a trial-by-trial difference of when the target was turned on, so there is no single place on the x-axis where we could place a “Targets on” tick. In response to this point, we generated a plot with both targets on and check on alignment, with a break in the middle, shown in Supplementary Figure S5. 

(3) It would strengthen the comparison between neural data and RNN if the DPCA components of the RNN areas were shown, as they are shown in Fig.2g,h for the neural data.

We include the PSTHs plotted onto the dPCA components here for Area 1 of the exemplar network. Dashed lines indicate a left reach, while solid lines indicate a right reach, and the color corresponds to the color of the selected target. As expected, we find that the dPCA components capture the separation between components. We emphasize that the trajectory paths along the decoder axes are not particularly meaningful to interpret, except to demonstrate whether variables can be decoded or not (as in Fig 2g,h, comparing DLPFC and PMd). The decoder axes of dPCA are not constrained in any way, in contrast to the readout (encoder) axis (see Methods). This is why our manuscript focuses on analyzing the readout axes. However, if the reviewer strongly prefers these plots to be put in the manuscript, we will add them.   

Author response image 1.

(4) The session-by-session decode analysis presented in Fig.2i suggests that DLPFC has mostly direction information while in Area 1 target information is on top, as suggested by Fig.3g. An additional decoding analysis on trial averaged neural data, i.e. a figure for neural data analogous to Fig.3g,h, would allow for a more straightforward and direct comparison between RNN and neural data. 

We first clarify that we did not decode trial-averaged neural data for either recorded neural data or RNNs. In Fig 3g, h (for the RNN) all decoding was performed on single trial data and then averaged. We have revised the main manuscript to make this clear. Because of this, the mean accuracies we reported for DLPFC and PMd in the text are therefore computed in the same way as the mean accuracies presented in Fig 3g, h. We believe this likely addresses your concern: i.e., the mean decode accuracies presented for both neural data and the RNN were computed the same way. 

If the above paragraph did not address your concern, we also wish to be clear that we presented the neural data as histograms, rather than a mean with standard error, because we found that accuracies were highly variable depending on electrode insertion location. For example, some insertions in DLPFC achieved chance-levels of decoding performance for color and target configuration. For this reason, we prefer to keep the histogram as it shows more information than reporting the mean, which we report in the main text. However, if the reviewer strongly prefers us to make a bar plot of these means, we will add them.

(5) Line 129 mentions an analysis of single trials. But in Fig.2i,j sessions are analyzed. Please clarify.

For each session, we decode from single trials and then average these decoding accuracies, leading to a per-session average decoding accuracy. Note that for each session, we record from different neurons. In the text, we also report the average over the sessions. We clarified this in the text and Methods.

(6) Fig.4c,f show how color and direction axes align with the potent subspaces. We assume that the target axis was omitted here because it highly aligns with the color axis, yet we note that this was not pointed out explicitly.

You are correct, and we revised the text to point this out explicitly.

“We quantified how the color and direction axis were aligned with these potent and null spaces of the intra-areal recurrent dynamics matrix of Area 1 ($\W^1_{rec}$). We did not include the target configuration axis for simplicity, since it highly aligns with the color axis for this network.”

(7) The caption of Fig.4c reads: "Projections onto the potent space of the intra-areal dynamics for each area." Yet, they only show area 1 in Fig.4c, and the rest in a supplement figure. Please refer properly.

Thank you for pointing this out. We updated the text to reference the supplementary figure.

(8) Line 300: "We found the direction axis was more aligned with the potent space and the color axis was more aligned with the null space." They rather show that the color axis is as aligned to the potent space as a random vector, but nothing about the alignments with the null space. Contrarily, on line 379 they write "...with the important difference that color information isn't preferentially projected to a nullspace...". Please clarify.

Thank you for pointing this out. We clarified the text to read: “We found the direction axis was more aligned with the potent space”. The text then describes that the color axis is aligned like a random vector: “In contrast, the color axis was aligned to a random vector.”

(9) Line 313: 'unconstrained' networks are mentioned. What constraints are implied there, Dale's law? Please define and clarify.

Indeed, the constraint refers to Dale’s law constraints. We clarified the text: “Further, we found that W₂₁ in unconstrained 3 area networks (i.e., without Dale's law constraints) had significantly reduced…”

(10) Line 355 mentions a 'feedforward bottleneck'. What does this exactly mean? No E-I feedforward connections, or...? Please define and clarify.

This refers to sparser connections between areas than within an area, as well as a smaller fraction of E-I connections. We clarified the text to read:

“Together, these results suggest  that a connection bottleneck in the form of neurophysiological architecture constraints (i.e., sparser connections between areas than within an area, as well as a smaller fraction of E-I connections) was the key design choice leading to RNNs with minimal color representations and consistent with the information bottleneck principle.”

(11) Fig.5c is supposedly without feedforward connections, but it looks like the plot depicts these connections (i.e. identical to Fig.5b).

In Figure 5, we are varying the E to I connectivity in panel B, and the E-E connectivity in panel C. We vary the feedback connections in Supp Fig. S12. We updated the caption accordingly. 

(12) For reference, it would be nice to have the parameters of the exemplar network indicated in the panels of Fig.5.

We updated the caption to reference the parameter configuration in Table 1 of the Appendix.

(13) Line 659: incomplete sentence

Thank you for pointing this out. We removed this incomplete sentence.

(14) In the methods section "Decoding and Mutual information for RNNs" a linear neural net decoder as well as a nonlinear neural net decoder are described, yet it was unclear which one was used in the end.

We used the nonlinear network, and clarified the text accordingly. We obtained consistent conclusions using a linear network, but did not include these results in the text. (These are reported in Fig. 11 of Kleinman et al, 2021). Moreover, we also obtain consistent results by using an SVM decoder in Fig. S4 for our exemplar parameter configuration.

(15) In the discussion, the paragraph starting from line 410 introduces a new set of results along with the benefits of minimal representations. This should go to the results section.

We prefer to leave this as a discussion, since the task was potentially too simplistic to generate a clear conclusion on this matter. We believe this remains a discussion point for further investigation.

(16) Fig S5: hard to parse. Show some arrows for trajectories (a) (d) is pretty mysterious: where do I see the slow dynamics?

Slow points are denoted by crosses, which forms an approximate line attractor. We clarified this in the caption.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Minor recommendations (not ordered by importance)

(1) Be more explicit that the recordings come from different monkeys and are not simultaneously recorded. For instance, say 'recordings from PFC or PMD'. Say early on that PMD recordings come from two monkeys and that PFC recordings come from 1 of those monkeys. Furthermore, I would highlight which datasets are novel and which are not. For instance, I believe the PFC dataset is a previously unpublished dataset and should be highlighted as such.

We added: “The PMd data was previously described in a study by Chandrasekaran and colleagues” to the main text which clarifies that the PMd data was previously recorded and has been analyzed in other studies.

(2) I personally feel that talking about 'optimal', as is done in the abstract, is a bit of a stretch for this simple task.

In using the terminology “optimal,” we are following the convention of IB literature that optimal representations are sufficient and minimal. The term “optimal” therefore is task-specific; every task will have its own optimal representation. We clarify in the text that this definition comes from Machine Learning and Information Theory, stating:

“The IB principle defines an optimal representation as a representation that is minimal and sufficient for a task or set of tasks.”

In this way, we take an information-theoretic view for describing multi-area representations. This view was satisfactory for explaining and reconciling the multi-area recordings and simulations for this task, and we think it is helpful to provide a normative perspective for explaining the differences in cortical representations by brain area. Even though the task is simple, it still allows us to study how sensory/perceptual information is represented, and well as how choice-related information is being represented.

(3) It is mentioned (and even highlighted) in the abstract that we don't know why the brain distributes computations. I agree with that statement, but I don't think this manuscript answers that question. Relatedly, the introduction mentions robustness as one reason why the brain would distribute computations, but then raises the question of whether there is 'also a computational benefit for distributing computations across multiple areas'. Isn't the latter (robustness) a clear 'computational benefit'?

We decided to keep the word “why” in the abstract, because this is a generally true statement (it is unclear why the brain distributes computation) that we wish to convey succinctly, pointing to the importance of studying this relatively grand question (which could only be fully answered by many studies over decades). We consider this the setting of our work. However, to avoid confusion that we are trying to give a full answer to this question, we are now more precise in the first paragraph of our introduction as to the particular questions we ask that will take a step towards this question. In particular, the first paragraph now asks these questions, which we answer in our study.

“For example, is all stimuli and decision-related information present in all brain areas, or do the cortical representations differ depending on their processing stage? If the representations differ, are there general principles that can explain why the cortical representations differ by brain area?”

We also removed the language on robustness, as we agree it was confusing. Thank you for these suggestions. 

(4) Figure 2e and Fig. 3d, left, do not look very similar. I suggest zooming in or rotating Figure 2 to highlight the similarities. Consider generating a baseline CCA correlation using some sort of data shuffle to highlight the differences.

The main point of the trajectories is to demonstrate that both Area 1 and DLPFC represent both color and direction. We now clarify this in the manuscript. However, we do not intend for these two plots to be a rigorous comparison of similarity. Rather, we quantify similarity using CCA and our decoding analysis. We also better emphasize the relative values of the CCA, rather than the absolute values.

(5) Line 152: 'For this analysis, we restricted it to sessions with significant decode accuracy with a session considered to have a significant decodability for a variable if the true accuracy was above the 99th percentile of the shuffled accuracy for a session.' Why? Sounds fishy, especially if one is building a case on 'non-decodability'. I would either not do it or better justify it.

The reason to choose only sessions with significant decoding accuracy is that we consider those sessions to be the sessions containing information of task variables. In response to this comment, we also now generate a plot with all recording sessions in Supplementary Figure S7. We modified the manuscript accordingly.

“For this analysis, we restricted it to sessions with significant decode accuracy with a session considered to have a significant decodability for a variable if the true accuracy was above the 99th percentile of the shuffled accuracy for a session. This is because these sessions contain information about task variables. However, we also present the same analyses using all sessions in Fig. S7.”

(6) Line 232: 'The RNN therefore models many aspects of our physiological data and is therefore'. Many seems a stretch?

We changed “many” to “key.”

(7) The illustration in Fig. 4B is very hard to understand, I recommend removing it.

We are unsure what this refers to, as Figure 4B represents data of axis overlaps and is not an illustration. 

(8) At some point the authors use IB instead of information bottleneck (eg line 288), I would not do it.

We now clearly write that IB is an abbreviation of Information Bottleneck the first time it is introduced.  

(9) Fig. 5 caption is insufficient to understand it. Text in the main document does not help. I would move most part of this figure, or at least F, to supplementary. Instead, I would move the results in S11 and S10 to the main document.

We clarified the caption to summarize the key points. It now reads: 

“Overall, neurophysiological architecture constraints in the form of multiple areas, sparser connections between areas than within an area, as well as a smaller fraction of E-I connections lead to a minimal color representation in the last area.”

(10) Line 355: 'Together, these results suggest that a connection bottleneck in the form of neurophysiological architecture constraints was the key design choice leading to RNNs with minimal color representations and consistent with the information bottleneck principle.' The authors show convincingly that increased sparsity leads to the removal of irrelevant information. There is an alternative model of the communication subspace hypothesis that uses low-rank matrices, instead of sparse, to implement said bottlenecks (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.21.500962v2)

We thank the reviewer for pointing us to this very nice paper. Indeed, a low-rank connectivity matrix is another mechanism to limit the amount of information that is passed to subsequent areas. In fact, the low-rank matrix forms a hard-version of our observations as we found that task-relevant information was preferentially propagated along the top singular mode of the inter-areal connectivity matrix. In our paper we observed this tendency naturally emerges through training with neurophysiological architecture constraints. In the paper, for the multi-area RNN, they hand-engineered the multi-area network, whereas our network is trained. We added this reference to our discussion. 

Thank you for your helpful and constructive comments.

This seems mostly due to the methylcellulose, correct? I'm wondering if there is a way to determine the actual number of anchor points in the liposome? Perhaps some staining against the His tag? It might be interesting to see where deformations lie in relation to clusters of anchor points.

Do you also have the Kd of untagged actinin for F-actin? It could be nice to know if the tag has any impact on binding. I'm also curious if the membrane tethered actinin has a different affinity for actin filaments compared to free-floating actinin.

Peergos Sync

This image lacks a descriptive alt tag. According to the WCAG guidelines and our course, this makes the content inaccessible to users relying on screen readers, a violation of the Perceivable principle.

Consequences

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Kito et al follow up on previous work that identified Drosophila GCL as a mitotic substrate recognition subunit of a CUL3-RING ubiquitin ligase (CRL3) complex.

Here they characterize mutants of the human ortholog of GCL, GMCL1, that disrupt the interaction with CUL3 (GMCL1E142K) and that lack the substrate interaction domain (GMCL1 BBO). Immunoprecipitation followed by mass spectrometry identified 9 proteins that interacted with wild-type FLAG-GMCL1 and GMCL1 EK but not GMCL1 BBO. These proteins included 53BP1, which plays a well-characterized role in double-strand break repair but also functions in a USP28-p53-53BP1 "mitotic stopwatch" complex that arrests the cell cycle after a substantially prolonged mitosis. Consistent with the IP-MS results, FLAG-GMCL1 immunoprecipitated 53BP1. Depletion of GMCL1 during mitotic arrest increased protein levels of 53BP1, and this could be rescued by wild-type GMCL1 but not the E142K mutant or a R433A mutant that failed to immunoprecipitate 53BP1.

Using a publicly available dataset, the authors identified a relatively small subset of cell lines with high levels of GMCL1 mRNA that were resistant to the taxanes paclitaxel, cabazitaxel, and docetaxel. This type of analysis is confounded by the fact that paclitaxel and other microtubule poisons accumulate to substantially different levels in various cell lines (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.90.20.9552 , DOI: 10.1091/mbc.10.4.947 ), so careful follow-up experiments are required to validate results. The correlation between increased GMCL1 mRNA and taxane resistance was not observed in lung cancer cell lines. The authors propose this was because nearly half of lung cancers harbor p53 mutations, and lung cancer cell lines with wild-type but not mutant p53 showed the correlation between increased GMCL1 mRNA and taxane resistance. However, the other cancer cell types in which they report increased GMCL1 expression correlates with taxane sensitivity also have high rates of p53 mutation. Furthermore, p53 status does not predict taxane response in patients (DOI: 10.1002/1097-0142(20000815)89:4<769::aid-cncr8>3.0.co;2-6 , DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19960915)78:6<1203::AID-CNCR6>3.0.CO;2-A , PMID: 10955790).

The authors then depleted GMCL1 and reported that it increased apoptosis in two cell lines with wild-type p53 (MCF7 and U2OS) due to activation of the mitotic stopwatch. This is surprising because the mitotic stopwatch paper they cite (DOI: 10.1126/science.add9528 ) reported that U2OS cells have an inactive stopwatch and that activation of the stopwatch results in cell cycle arrest rather than apoptosis in most cell types, including MCF7. Beyond this, it has recently been shown that the level of taxanes and other microtubule poisons achieved in patient tumors is too low to induce mitotic arrest (DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3007965 , DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.abd4811 , DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002339 ), raising concerns about the relevance of prolonged mitosis to paclitaxel response in cancer. The findings here demonstrating that GMCL1 mediates degradation of 53BP1 during mitotic arrest are solid and of interest to cell biologists, but it is unclear that these findings are relevant to paclitaxel response in patients.

Strengths:

This study identified 53BP1 as a target of CRL3GMCL1-mediated degradation during mitotic arrest. AlphaFold3 predictions of the binding interface, followed by mutational analysis, identified mutants of each protein (GMCL1 R433A and 53BP1 IEDI1422-1425AAAA) that disrupted their interaction. Knock-in of a FLAG tag into the C-terminus of GMCL1 in HCT116 cells, followed by FLAG immunoprecipitation, confirmed that endogenous GMCL1 interacts with endogenous CUL3 and 53BP1 during mitotic arrest.

Weaknesses:

The clinical relevance of the study is overinterpreted. The authors have not taken relevant data about the clinical mechanism of taxanes into account. Supraphysiologic doses of microtubule poisons cause mitotic arrest and can activate the mitotic stopwatch. However, in physiologic concentrations of clinically useful microtubule poisons, cells proceed through mitosis and divide their chromosomes on mitotic spindles that are at least transiently multipolar. Though these low concentrations may result in a brief mitotic delay, it is substantially shorter than the arrest caused by high concentrations of microtubule poisons, and the one mimicked here by 16 hours of 0.4 mg/mL nocodazole, which is not used clinically and does not induce multipolar spindles. Resistance to mitotic arrest occurs through different mechanisms than resistance to multipolar spindles. No evidence is presented in the current version of the manuscript that GMCL1 affects cellular response to clinically relevant doses of paclitaxel.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Mackie and colleagues compare chemosensory preferences between C. elegans and P. pacificus, and the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying them. The nematodes have overlapping and distinct preferences for different salts. Although P. pacificus lacks the lsy-6 miRNA important for establishing asymmetry of the left/right ASE salt-sensing neurons in C. elegans, the authors find that P. pacificus ASE homologs achieve molecular (receptor expression) and functional (calcium response) asymmetry by alternative means. This work contributes an important comparison of how these two nematodes sense salts and highlights that evolution can find different ways to establish asymmetry in small nervous systems to optimize the processing of chemosensory cues in the environment.

Strengths:

The authors use clear and established methods to record the response of neurons to chemosensory cues. They were able to show clearly that ASEL/R are functionally asymmetric in P. pacificus, and combined with genetic perturbation establish a role for che-1-dependent gcy-22.3 in in the asymmetric response to NH₄Cl.

Weaknesses:

The mechanism of lsy-6-independent establishment of ASEL/R asymmetry in P. pacificus remains uncharacterized.

We thank the reviewer for recognizing the novel contributions of our work in revealing the existence of alternative pathways for establishing neuronal lateral asymmetry without the lsy-6 miRNA in a divergent nematode species. We are certainly encouraged now to search for genetic factors that alter the exclusive asymmetric expression of gcy-22.3.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Mackie et al. investigate gustatory behavior and the neural basis of gustation in the predatory nematode Pristionchus pacificus. First, they show that the behavioral preferences of P. pacificus for gustatory cues differ from those reported for C. elegans. Next, they investigate the molecular mechanisms of salt sensing in P. pacificus. They show that although the C. elegans transcription factor gene che-1 is expressed specifically in the ASE neurons, the P. pacificus che-1 gene is expressed in the Ppa-ASE and Ppa-AFD neurons. Moreover, che-1 plays a less critical role in salt chemotaxis in P. pacificus than C. elegans. Chemogenetic silencing of Ppa-ASE and Ppa-AFD neurons results in more severe chemotaxis defects. The authors then use calcium imaging to show that both Ppa-ASE and Ppa-AFD neurons respond to salt stimuli. Calcium imaging experiments also reveal that the left and right Ppa-ASE neurons respond differently to salts, despite the fact that P. pacificus lacks lsy-6, a microRNA that is important for ASE left/right asymmetry in C. elegans. Finally, the authors show that the receptor guanylate cyclase gene Ppa-gcy-23.3 is expressed in the right Ppa-ASE neuron (Ppa-ASER) but not the left Ppa-ASE neuron (Ppa-ASEL) and is required for some of the gustatory responses of Ppa-ASER, further confirming that the Ppa-ASE neurons are asymmetric and suggesting that Ppa-GCY-23.3 is a gustatory receptor. Overall, this work provides insight into the evolution of gustation across nematode species. It illustrates how sensory neuron response properties and molecular mechanisms of cell fate determination can evolve to mediate species-specific behaviors. However, the paper would be greatly strengthened by a direct comparison of calcium responses to gustatory cues in C. elegans and P. pacificus, since the comparison currently relies entirely on published data for C. elegans, where the imaging parameters likely differ. In addition, the conclusions regarding Ppa-AFD neuron function would benefit from additional confirmation of AFD neuron identity. Finally, how prior salt exposure influences gustatory behavior and neural activity in P. pacificus is not discussed.

Strengths:

(1) This study provides exciting new insights into how gustatory behaviors and mechanisms differ in nematode species with different lifestyles and ecological niches. The results from salt chemotaxis experiments suggest that P. pacificus shows distinct gustatory preferences from C. elegans. Calcium imaging from Ppa-ASE neurons suggests that the response properties of the ASE neurons differ between the two species. In addition, an analysis of the expression and function of the transcription factor Ppa-che-1 reveals that mechanisms of ASE cell fate determination differ in C. elegans and P. pacificus, although the ASE neurons play a critical role in salt sensing in both species. Thus, the authors identify several differences in gustatory system development and function across nematode species.

(2) This is the first calcium imaging study of P. pacificus, and it offers some of the first insights into the evolution of gustatory neuron function across nematode species.

(3) This study addresses the mechanisms that lead to left/right asymmetry in nematodes. It reveals that the ASER and ASEL neurons differ in their response properties, but this asymmetry is achieved by molecular mechanisms that are at least partly distinct from those that operate in C. elegans. Notably, ASEL/R asymmetry in P. pacificus is achieved despite the lack of a P. pacificus lsy-6 homolog.

Weaknesses:

(1) The authors observe only weak attraction of C. elegans to NaCl. These results raise the question of whether the weak attraction observed is the result of the prior salt environment experienced by the worms. More generally, this study does not address how prior exposure to gustatory cues shapes gustatory responses in P. pacificus. Is salt sensing in P. pacificus subject to the same type of experience-dependent modulation as salt sensing in C. elegans?

We tested if starving animals in the presence of a certain salt will result in those animals avoiding it. However, under our experimental conditions we were unable to detect experiencedependent modulation either in P. pacificus or in C. elegans.

Author response image 1.

(2) A key finding of this paper is that the Ppa-CHE-1 transcription factor is expressed in the PpaAFD neurons as well as the Ppa-ASE neurons, despite the fact that Ce-CHE-1 is expressed specifically in Ce-ASE. However, additional verification of Ppa-AFD neuron identity is required. Based on the image shown in the manuscript, it is difficult to unequivocally identify the second pair of CHE-1-positive head neurons as the Ppa-AFD neurons. Ppa-AFD neuron identity could be verified by confocal imaging of the CHE-1-positive neurons, co-expression of Ppa-che1p::GFP with a likely AFD reporter, thermotaxis assays with Ppa-che-1 mutants, and/or calcium imaging from the putative Ppa-AFD neurons.

In the revised manuscript, we provide additional and, we believe, conclusive evidence for our correct identification of Ppa-AFD neuron being another CHE-1 expressing neuron. Specifically, we have constructed and characterized 2 independent reporter strains of Ppa-ttx-1, a putative homolog of the AFD terminal selector in C. elegans. There are two pairs of ttx-1p::rfp expressing amphid neurons. The anterior neuronal pair have finger-like endings that are unique for AFD neurons compared to the dendritic endings of the 11 other amphid neuron pairs (no neuron type has a wing morphology in P. pacificus). Their cell bodies are detected in the newly tagged TTX-1::ALFA strain that co-localize with the anterior pair of che-1::gfp-expressing amphid neurons (n=15, J2-Adult).

We note that the identity of the posterior pair of amphid neurons differs between the ttx-1p::rfp promoter fusion reporter and TTX-1::ALFA strains– the ttx-1p::rfp posterior amphid pair overlaps with the gcy-22.3p::gfp reporter (ASER) but the TTX-1::ALFA posterior amphid pair do not overlap with the posterior pair of che-1::gfp-expressing amphid neurons (n=15). Given that there are 4 splice forms detected by RNAseq (Transcriptome Assembly Trinity, 2016; www.pristionchus.org), this discrepancy between the Ppa-ttx-1 promoter fusion reporter and the endogenous expression of the Ppa-TTX-1 C-terminally tagged to the only splice form containing Exon 18 (ppa_stranded_DN30925_c0_g1_i5, the most 3’ exon) may be due to differential expression of different splice variants in AFD, ASE, and another unidentified amphid neuron types.  

Although we also made reporter strains of two putative AFD markers, Ppa-gcy-8.1 (PPA24212)p::gfp; csuEx101 and Ppa-gcy-8.2 (PPA41407)p::gfp; csuEx100, neither reporter showed neuronal expression.

(3) Loss of Ppa-che-1 causes a less severe phenotype than loss of Ce-che-1. However, the loss of Ppa-che-1::RFP expression in ASE but not AFD raises the question of whether there might be additional start sites in the Ppa-che-1 gene downstream of the mutation sites. It would be helpful to know whether there are multiple isoforms of Ppa-che-1, and if so, whether the exon with the introduced frameshift is present in all isoforms and results in complete loss of Ppa-CHE-1 protein.

According to www.pristionchus.org (Transcriptome Assembly Trinity), there is only a single detectable splice form by RNAseq. Once we have a Ppa-AFD-specific marker, we would be able to determine how much of the AFD terminal effector identify (e.g. expression of gcy-8 paralogs) is effected by the loss of Ppa-che-1 function.

(4) The authors show that silencing Ppa-ASE has a dramatic effect on salt chemotaxis behavior. However, these data lack control with histamine-treated wild-type animals, with the result that the phenotype of Ppa-ASE-silenced animals could result from exposure to histamine dihydrochloride. This is an especially important control in the context of salt sensing, where histamine dihydrochloride could alter behavioral responses to other salts.

We have inadvertently left out this important control. Because the HisCl1 transgene is on a randomly segregating transgene array, we have scored worms with and without the transgene expressing the co-injection marker (Ppa-egl-20p::rfp, a marker in the tail) to show that the presence of the transgene is necessary for the histamine-dependent knockdown of NH₄Br attraction. This control is added as Figure S2.

(5) The calcium imaging data in the paper suggest that the Ppa-ASE and Ce-ASE neurons respond differently to salt solutions. However, to make this point, a direct comparison of calcium responses in C. elegans and P. pacificus using the same calcium indicator is required. By relying on previously published C. elegans data, it is difficult to know how differences in growth conditions or imaging conditions affect ASE responses. In addition, the paper would be strengthened by additional quantitative analysis of the calcium imaging data. For example, the paper states that 25 mM NH₄Cl evokes a greater response in ASEL than 250 mM NH₄Cl, but a quantitative comparison of the maximum responses to the two stimuli is not shown.

We understand that side-by-side comparisons with C. elegans using the same calcium indicator would lend more credence to the differences we observed in P. pacificus versus published findings in C. elegans from the past decades, but are not currently in a position to conduct these experiments in parallel.

(6) It would be helpful to examine, or at least discuss, the other P. pacificus paralogs of Ce-gcy22. Are they expressed in Ppa-ASER? How similar are the different paralogs? Additional discussion of the Ppa-gcy-22 gene expansion in P. pacificus would be especially helpful with respect to understanding the relatively minor phenotype of the Ppa-gcy-22.3 mutants.

In P. pacificus, there are 5 gcy-22-like paralogs and 3 gcy-7-like paralogs, which together form a subclade that is clearly distinct from the 1-1 Cel-gcy-22, Cel-gcy-5, and Cel-gcy-7 orthologs in a phylogenetic tree containing all rGCs in P. pacificus, C. elegans, and C. briggssae (Hong et al, eLife, 2019). In Ortiz et al (2006 and 2009), Cel-gcy-22 stands out from other ASER-type gcy genes (gcy-1, gcy-4, gcy-5) in being located on a separate chromosome (Chr. V) as well as in having a wider range of defects in chemoattraction towards salt ions. Given that the 5 P. pacificus gcy-22-like paralogs are located on 3 separate chromosomes without clear synteny to their C. elegans counterparts, it is likely that the gcy-22 paralogs emerged from independent and repeated gene duplication events after the separation of these Caenorhabditis and Pristionchus lineages. Our reporter strains for two other P. pacificus gcy-22-like paralogs either did not exhibit expression in amphid neurons (Ppa-gcy-22.1p::GFP, ) or exhibited expression in multiple neuron types in addition to a putative ASE neuron (Ppa-gcy-22.4p::GFP). We have expanded the discussion on the other P. pacificus gcy-22 paralogs.

(7) The calcium imaging data from Ppa-ASE is quite variable. It would be helpful to discuss this variability. It would also be helpful to clarify how the ASEL and ASER neurons are being conclusively identified during calcium imaging.

For each animal, the orientation of the nose and vulva were recorded and used as a guide to determine the ventral and dorsal sides of the worm, and subsequently, the left and right sides of the worm. Accounting for the plane of focus of the neuron pairs as viewed through the microscope, it was then determined whether the imaged neuron was the worm’s left or right neuron of each pair. We added this explanation to the Methods.

(8) More information about how the animals were treated prior to calcium imaging would be helpful. In particular, were they exposed to salt solutions prior to imaging? In addition, the animals are in an M9 buffer during imaging - does this affect calcium responses in Ppa-ASE and Ppa-AFD? More information about salt exposure, and how this affects neuron responses, would be very helpful.

Prior to calcium imaging, animals were picked from their cultivation plates (using an eyelash pick to minimize bacteria transfer) and placed in loading solution (M9 buffer with 0.1% Tween20 and 1.5 mM tetramisole hydrochloride, as indicated in the Method) to immobilize the animals until they were visibly completely immobilized.

(9) In Figure 6, the authors say that Ppa-gcy-22.3::GFP expression is absent in the Ppa-che1(ot5012) mutant. However, based on the figure, it looks like there is some expression remaining. Is there a residual expression of Ppa-gcy-22.3::GFP in ASE or possibly ectopic expression in AFD? Does Ppa-che-1 regulate rGC expression in AFD? It would be helpful to address the role of Ppa-che-1 in AFD neuron differentiation.

In Figure 6C, the green signal is autofluorescence in the gut, and there is no GFP expression detected in any of the 55 che-1(-) animals we examined. We are currently developing AFDspecific rGC markers (gcy-8 homologs) to be able to examine the role of Ppa-CHE-1 in regulating AFD identity.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Abstract: 'how does sensory diversity prevail within this neuronal constraint?' - could be clearer as 'numerical constraint' or 'neuron number constraint'.

We have clarified this passage as ‘…constraint in neuron number’.

(2) 'Sensory neurons in the Pristionchus pacificus' - should get rid of the 'the'.

We have removed the ‘the’.

(3) Figure 2: We have had some good results with the ALFA tag using a similar approach (tagging endogenous loci using CRISPR). I'm not sure if it is a Pristionchus thing, or if it is a result of our different protocols, but our staining appears stronger with less background. We use an adaptation of the Finney-Ruvkin protocol, which includes MeOH in the primary fixation with PFA, and overcomes the cuticle barrier with some LN2 cracking, DTT, then H2O2. No collagenase. If you haven't tested it already it might be worth comparing the next time you have a need for immunostaining.

We appreciate this suggestion. Our staining protocol uses paraformaldehyde fixation. We observed consistent and clear staining in only 4 neurons in CHE-1::ALFA animals but more background signals from TTX-1::ALFA in Figure 2I-J in that could benefit from improved immunostaining protocol.

(4) Page 6: 'By crossing the che-1 reporter transgene into a che-1 mutant background (see below), we also found that che-1 autoregulates its own expression (Figure 2F), as it does in C. elegans' - it took me some effort to understand this. It might make it easier for future readers if this is explained more clearly.

We understand this confusion and have changed the wording along with a supporting table with a more detailed account of che-1p::RFP expression in both ASE and AFD neurons in wildtype and che-1(-) backgrounds in the Results.

(5) Line numbers would make it easier for reviewers to reference the text.

We have added line numbers.

(6) Page 7: is 250mM NH₄Cl an ecologically relevant concentration? When does off-target/nonspecific activation of odorant receptors become an issue? Some discussion of this could help readers assess the relevance of the salt concentrations used.

This is a great question but one that is difficult to reconcile between experimental conditions that often use 2.5M salt as point-source to establish salt gradients versus ecologically relevant concentrations that are very heterogenous in salinity. Efforts to show C. elegans can tolerate similar levels of salinity between 0.20-0.30 M without adverse effects have been recorded previously (Hu et al., Analytica Chimica Acta 2015; Mah et al. Expedition 2017).

(7) It would be nice for readers to have a short orientation to the ecological relevance of the different salts - e.g. why Pristionchus has a particular taste for ammonium salts.

Pristionchus species are entomophilic and most frequently found to be associated with beetles in a necromenic manner. Insect cadavers could thus represent sources of ammonium in the soil. Additionally, ammonium salts could represent a biological signature of other nematodes that the predatory morphs of P. pacificus could interpret as prey. We have added the possible ecological relevance of ammonium salts into the Discussion.

(8) Page 11: 'multiple P. pacificus che-1p::GCaMP strains did not exhibit sufficient basal fluorescence to allow for image tracking and direct comparison'. 500ms exposure to get enough signal from RCaMP is slow, but based on the figures it still seems enough to capture things. If image tracking was the issue, then using GCaMP6s with SL2-RFP or similar in conjunction with a beam splitter enables tracking when the GCaMP signal is low. Might be an option for the future.

These are very helpful suggestions and we hope to eventually develop an improved che1p::GCaMP strain for future studies.

(9) Sometimes C. elegans genes are referred to as 'C. elegans [gene name]' and sometimes 'Cel [gene name]'. Should be consistent. Same with Pristionchus.

We have now combed through and corrected the inconsistencies in nomenclature.

(10) Pg 12 - '...supports the likelihood that AFD receives inputs, possibly neuropeptidergic, from other amphid neurons' - the neuropeptidergic part could do with some justification.

Because the AFD neurons are not exposed directly to the environment through the amphid channel like the ASE and other amphid neurons, the calcium responses to salts detected in the AFD likely originate from sensory neurons connected to the AFD. However, because there is no synaptic connection from other amphid neurons to the AFD neurons in P. pacificus (unlike in C. elegans; Hong et al, eLife, 2019), it is likely that neuropeptides connect other sensory neurons to the AFDs. To avoid unnecessary confusion, we have removed “possibly neuropeptidergic.”

(11) Pg16: the link to the Hallam lab codon adaptor has a space in the middle. Also, the paper should be cited along with the web address (Bryant and Hallam, 2021).

We have now added the proper link, plus in-text citation. https://hallemlab.shinyapps.io/Wild_Worm_Codon_Adapter/ (Bryant and Hallem, 2021)

Full citation:

Astra S Bryant, Elissa A Hallem, The Wild Worm Codon Adapter: a web tool for automated codon adaptation of transgenes for expression in non-Caenorhabditis nematodes, G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics, Volume 11, Issue 7, July 2021, jkab146, https://doi.org/10.1093/g3journal/jkab146

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) In Figure 1, the legend states that the population tested was "J4/L4 larvae and young adult hermaphrodites," whereas in the main text, the population was described as "adult hermaphrodites." Please clarify which ages were tested.

We have tested J4-Adult stage hermaphrodites and have made the appropriate corrections in the text.

(2) The authors state that "in contrast to C. elegans, we find that P. pacificus is only moderately and weakly attracted to NaCl and LiCl, respectively." However, this statement does not reflect the data shown in Figure 1, where there is no significant difference between C. elegans and P. pacificus - both species show at most weak attraction to NaCl.

Although there is no statistically significant difference in NaCl attraction between P. pacificus and C. elegans, NaCl attraction in P. pacificus is significantly lower than its attraction to all 3 ammonium salts when compared to C. elegans. We have rephrased this statement as relative differences in the Results and updated the Figure legend.

(3) In Figure 1, the comparisons between C. elegans and P. pacificus should be made using a two-way ANOVA rather than multiple t-tests. Also, the sample sizes should be stated (so the reader does not need to count the circles) and the error bars should be defined.

We performed the 2-way ANOVA to detect differences between C. elegans and P. pacificus for the same salt and between salts within each species. We also indicated the sample size on the figure and defined the error bars.

Significance:

For comparisons of different salt responses within the same species:

- For C. elegans, NH₄Br vs NH₄Cl (**p<0.01), NH₄Cl vs NH₄I (* p<0.05), and NH₄Cl vs NaCl (* p<0.05). All other comparisons are not significant.

- For P. pacificus, all salts showed (****p<0.0001) when compared to NaAc and to NH₄Ac, except for NH₄Ac and NaAc compared to each other (ns). Also, NH₄Cl showed (*p<0.05) and NH₄I showed (***p<0.001) when compared with LiCl and NaCl. All other comparisons are not significant.

For comparisons of salt responses between different species (N2 vs PS312):

- NH₄I and LiCl (*p<0.05); NaAc and NH₄Ac (****p<0.0001)

(4) It might be worth doing a power analysis on the data in Figure 3B. If the data are underpowered, this might explain why there is a difference in NH₄Br response with one of the null mutants but not the other.

For responses to NH₄Cl, since both che-1 mutants (rather than just one) showed significant difference compared to wildtype, we conducted a power analysis based on the effect size of that difference (~1.2; large). Given this effect size, the sample size for future experiments should be 12 (ANOVA).

For responses to NH₄Br and given the effect size of the difference seen between wildtype (PS312) and ot5012 (~0.8; large), the sample size for future experiments should be 18 (ANOVA) for a power value of 0.8. Therefore, it is possible that the sample size of 12 for the current experiment was too small to detect a possible difference between the ot5013 alleles and wildtype.

(5) It would be helpful to discuss why silencing Ppa-ASE might result in a switch from attractive to repulsive responses to some of the tested gustatory cues.

For similar assays using Ppa-odr-3p::HisCl1, increasing histamine concentration led to decreasing C.I. for a given odorant (myristate, a P. pacificus-specific attractant). It is likely that the amount of histamine treatment for knockdown to zero (i.e. without a valence change) will differ depending on the attractant.

(6) The statistical tests used in Figure 3 are not stated.

Figure 3 used Two-way ANOVA with Dunnett’s post hoc test. We have now added the test in the figure legend.

(7) It would be helpful to examine the responses of ASER to the full salt panel in the Ppa-gcy-22.3 vs. wild-type backgrounds.

We understand that future experiments examining neuron responses to the full salt panel for wildtype and gcy-22.3 mutants would provide further information about the salts and specific ions associated with the GCY-22.3 receptor. However, we have tested a broader range of salts (although not yet the full panel) for behavioral assays in wildtype vs gcy-22.3 mutants, which we have included as part of an added Figure 8.

(8) The controls shown in Figure S1 may not be adequate. Ideally, the same sample size would be used for the control, allowing differences between control worms and experimental worms to be quantified.

Although we had not conducted an equal number of negative controls using green light without salt stimuli due to resource constraints (6 control vs ~10-19 test), we provided individual recordings with stimuli to show that conditions we interpreted as having responses rarely showed responses resembling the negative controls. Similarly, those we interpreted as having no responses to stimuli mostly resembled the no-stimuli controls (e.g. WT to 25 mM NH₄Cl, gcy22.3 mutant to 250 mM NH₄Cl).

(9) An osmolarity control would be helpful for the calcium imaging experiments.

We acknowledge that future calcium imaging experiments featuring different salt concentrations could benefit from osmolarity controls.

(10) In Figure S7, more information about the microfluidic chip design is needed.

The chip design features a U-shaped worm trap to facilitate loading the worm head-first, with a tapered opening to ensure the worm fits snugly and will not slide too far forward during recording. The outer two chip channels hold buffer solution and can be switched open (ON) or closed (OFF) by the Valvebank. The inner two chip channels hold experimental solutions. The inner channel closer to the worm trap holds the control solution, and the inner channel farther from the worm trap holds the stimulant solution.

We have added an image of the chip in Figure S7 and further description in the legend.

(11) Throughout the manuscript, the discussion of the salt stimuli focuses on the salts more than the ions. More discussion of which ions are eliciting responses (both behavioral and neuronal responses) would be helpful.

In Figure 7, the gcy-22.3 defect resulted in a statistically significant reduction in response only towards NH₄Cl but not towards NaCl, which suggests ASER is the primary neuron detecting NH₄⁺ ions. To extend the description of the gcy-22.3 mutant defects to other ions, we have added a Figure 8: chemotaxis on various salt backgrounds. We found only a mild increase in attraction towards NH₄⁺ by both gcy-22.3 mutant alleles, but wild-type in their responses toward Cl^-, Na⁺, or I^-. The switch in the direction of change between the behavioral (enhanced) and calcium imaging result (reduced) suggests the behavioral response to ammonium ions likely involves additional receptors and neurons.

Minor comments:

(1) The full species name of "C. elegans" should be written out upon first use.

We have added ‘Caenorhabditis elegans’ to its first mention.

(2) In the legend of Figure 1, "N2" should not be in italics.

We have made the correction.

(3) The "che-1" gene should be in lowercase, even when it is at the start of the sentence.

We have made the correction.

(4) Throughout the manuscript, "HisCl" should be "HisCl1."

We have made these corrections to ‘HisCl1’.

(5) Figure 3A would benefit from more context, such as the format seen in Figure 7A. It would also help to have more information in the legend (e.g., blue boxes are exons, etc.).

(6) "Since NH₄I sensation is affected by silencing of che-1(+) neurons but is unaffected in che-1 mutants, ASE differentiation may be more greatly impacted by the silencing of ASE than by the loss of che-1": I don't think this is exactly what the authors mean. I would say, "ASE function may be more greatly impacted...".

We have changed ‘differentiation’ to ‘function’ in this passage.

(7) In Figure 7F-G, the AFD neurons are referred to as AFD in the figure title but AM12 in the graph. This is confusing.

Thank you for noticing this oversight. We have corrected “AM12” to “AFD”.

(8) In Figure 7, the legend suggests that comparisons within the same genotype were analyzed. I do not see these comparisons in the figure. In which cases were comparisons within the same genotype made?

Correct, we performed additional tests between ON and OFF states within the same genotypes (WT and mutant) but did not find significant differences. To avoid unnecessary confusion, we have removed this sentence.

(9) The nomenclature used for the transgenic animals is unconventional. For example, normally the calcium imaging line would be listed as csuEx93[Ppa-che-1p::optRCaMP] instead of Ppache-1p::optRCaMP(csuEx93).

We have made these corrections to the nomenclature.

(10) Figure S6 appears to come out of order. Also, it would be nice to have more of a legend for this figure. The format of the figure could also be improved for clarity.

We have corrected Figure S6 (now S8) and added more information to the legend.

(11) Methods section, Chemotaxis assays: "Most assays lasted ~3.5 hours at room temperature in line with the speed of P. pacificus without food..." It's not clear what this means. Does it take the worms 3.5 hours to crawl across the surface of the plate?

Correct, P. pacificus requires 3-4 hours to crawl across the surface of the plate, which is the standard time for chemotaxis assays for some odors and all salts. We have added this clarification to the Methods.

3:43 wir haben jetzt den Beginn der Massenarbeitlosigkeit, und das war in jeder einzelnen Revolution immer die allerwichtigste Komponente, weil wenn die Leute nichts mehr zu essen haben und sich auch nicht mehr ihr Netflix Abo leisten können, dann gehen sie auf die Straße. diese Rekordsarbeitslosigkeit, das wird das Todesurteil der neuen Regierung sein, und ab jetzt geht es Berg ab, vor allem es ist ja auch kein Ende in Sicht, jeden Tag haben wir neue Schocknachrichten.

7:29 und deswegen könnte man jetzt sagen, naja die werden schon nicht auf die Straße gehen, die bekommen ja schließlich Bürgergeld und Sozialhilfe, aber nichts da, wie vorher gesagt implodiert jetzt ja gerade alles gleichzeitig, also auch der ganze Staatshaushalt, weil immer mehr Arbeitslose bedeutet auch weniger Steuereinnahmen und immer mehr Sozialkosten, und mit der Geschwindigkeit wie es gerade ansteigt ist das irgendwann nicht mehr zu bezahlen. und wenn unsere "Goldstücke" dann irgendwann kein Geld mehr bekommen dann geht's richtig Ramba Zamba.

Author Response

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

Public Comments

Reviewer 1

(1) Despite the well-established role of Netrin-1 and UNC5C axon guidance during embryonic commissural axons, it remains unclear which cell type(s) express Netrin-1 or UNC5C in the dopaminergic axons and their targets. For instance, the data in Figure 1F-G and Figure 2 are quite confusing. Does Netrin-1 or UNC5C express in all cell types or only dopamine-positive neurons in these two mouse models? It will also be important to provide quantitative assessments of UNC5C expression in dopaminergic axons at different ages.

Netrin-1 is a secreted protein and in this manuscript we did not examine what cell types express Netrin-1. This question is not the focus of the study and we consider it irrelevant to the main issue we are addressing, which is where in the forebrain regions we examined Netrin-1+ cells are present. As per the reviewer’s request we include below images showing Netrin-1 protein and Netrin-1 mRNA expression in the forebrain. In Figure 1 below, we show a high magnification immunofluorescent image of a coronal forebrain section showing Netrin-1 protein expression.

Author response image 1.

This confocal microscope image shows immunofluorescent staining for Netrin-1 (green) localized around cell nuclei (stained by DAPI in blue). This image was taken from a coronal section of the lateral septum of an adult male mouse. Scale bar = 20µm

In Figures 2 and 3 below we show low and high magnification images from an RNAscope experiment confirming that cells in the forebrain regions examined express Netrin-1 mRNA.

Author response image 2.

This confocal microscope image of a coronal brain section of the medial prefrontal cortex of an adult male mouse shows Netrin-1 mRNA expression (green) and cell nuclei (DAPI, blue). Brain regions are as follows: Cg1: Anterior cingulate cortex 1, DP: dorsopeduncular cortex, fmi: forceps minor of the corpus callosum, IL: Infralimbic Cortex, PrL: Prelimbic Cortex

Author response image 3.

A higher resolution image from the same sample as in Figure 2 shows Netrin-1 mRNA (green) and cell nuclei (DAPI; blue). DP = dorsopeduncular cortex

Regarding UNC5c, this receptor homologue is expressed by dopamine neurons in the rodent ventral tegmental area (Daubaras et al., 2014; Manitt et al., 2010; Phillips et al., 2022). This does not preclude UNC5c expression in other cell types. UNC5c receptors are ubiquitously expressed in the brain throughout development, performing many different developmental functions (Kim and Ackerman, 2011; Murcia-Belmonte et al., 2019; Srivatsa et al., 2014). In this study we are interested in UNC5c expression by dopamine neurons, and particularly by their axons projecting to the nucleus accumbens. We therefore used immunofluorescent staining in the nucleus accumbens, showing UNC5 expression in TH+ axons. This work adds to the study by Manitt et al., 2010, which examined UNC5 expression in the VTA. Manitt et al. used Western blotting to demonstrate that UNC5 expression in VTA dopamine neurons increases during adolescence, as can be seen in the following figure:

References:

Daubaras M, Bo GD, Flores C. 2014. Target-dependent expression of the netrin-1 receptor, UNC5C, in projection neurons of the ventral tegmental area. Neuroscience 260:36–46. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.12.007

Kim D, Ackerman SL. 2011. The UNC5C Netrin Receptor Regulates Dorsal Guidance of Mouse Hindbrain Axons. J Neurosci 31:2167–2179. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5254-10.20110.2011

Manitt C, Labelle-Dumais C, Eng C, Grant A, Mimee A, Stroh T, Flores C. 2010. Peri-Pubertal Emergence of UNC-5 Homologue Expression by Dopamine Neurons in Rodents. PLoS ONE 5:e11463-14. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011463

Murcia-Belmonte V, Coca Y, Vegar C, Negueruela S, Romero C de J, Valiño AJ, Sala S, DaSilva R, Kania A, Borrell V, Martinez LM, Erskine L, Herrera E. 2019. A Retino-retinal Projection Guided by Unc5c Emerged in Species with Retinal Waves. Current Biology 29:1149-1160.e4. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2019.02.052

Phillips RA, Tuscher JJ, Black SL, Andraka E, Fitzgerald ND, Ianov L, Day JJ. 2022. An atlas of transcriptionally defined cell populations in the rat ventral tegmental area. Cell Reports 39:110616. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2022.110616

Srivatsa S, Parthasarathy S, Britanova O, Bormuth I, Donahoo A-L, Ackerman SL, Richards LJ, Tarabykin V. 2014. Unc5C and DCC act downstream of Ctip2 and Satb2 and contribute to corpus callosum formation. Nat Commun 5:3708. doi:10.1038/ncomms4708

(2) Figure 1 used shRNA to knockdown Netrin-1 in the Septum and these mice were subjected to behavioral testing. These results, again, are not supported by any valid data that the knockdown approach actually worked in dopaminergic axons. It is also unclear whether knocking down Netrin-1 in the septum will re-route dopaminergic axons or lead to cell death in the dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra pars compacta?

First we want to clarify and emphasize, that our knockdown approach was not designed to knock down Netrin-1 in dopamine neurons or their axons. Our goal was to knock down Netrin-1 expression in cells expressing this guidance cue gene in the dorsal peduncular cortex.

We have previously established the efficacy of the shRNA Netrin-1 knockdown virus used in this experiment for reducing the expression of Netrin-1 (Cuesta et al., 2020). The shRNA reduces Netrin-1 levels in vitro and in vivo.

We agree that our experiments do not address the fate of the dopamine axons that are misrouted away from the medial prefrontal cortex. This research is ongoing, and we have now added a note regarding this to our manuscript.

Our current hypothesis, based on experiments being conducted as part of another line of research in the lab, is that these axons are rerouted to a different brain region which they then ectopically innervate. In these experiments we are finding that male mice exposed to tetrahydrocannabinol in adolescence show reduced dopamine innervation in the medial prefrontal cortex in adulthood but increased dopamine input in the orbitofrontal cortex. In addition, these mice show increased action impulsivity in the Go/No-Go task in adulthood (Capolicchio et al., Society for Neuroscience 2023 Abstracts)

References:

Capolicchio T., Hernandez, G., Dube, E., Estrada, K., Giroux, M., Flores, C. (2023) Divergent outcomes of delta 9 - tetrahydrocannabinol in adolescence on dopamine and cognitive development in male and female mice. Society for Neuroscience, Washington, DC, United States [abstract].

Cuesta S, Nouel D, Reynolds LM, Morgunova A, Torres-Berrío A, White A, Hernandez G, Cooper HM, Flores C. 2020. Dopamine Axon Targeting in the Nucleus Accumbens in Adolescence Requires Netrin-1. Frontiers Cell Dev Biology 8:487. doi:10.3389/fcell.2020.00487

(3) Another issue with Figure1J. It is unclear whether the viruses were injected into a WT mouse model or into a Cre-mouse model driven by a promoter specifically expresses in dorsal peduncular cortex? The authors should provide evidence that Netrin-1 mRNA and proteins are indeed significantly reduced. The authors should address the anatomic results of the area of virus diffusion to confirm the virus specifically infected the cells in dorsal peduncular cortex.

All the virus knockdown experiments were conducted in wild type mice, we added this information to Figure 1k.

The efficacy of the shRNA in knocking down Netrin-1 was demonstrated by Cuesta et al. (2020) both in vitro and in vivo, as we show in our response to the reviewer’s previous comment above.

We also now provide anatomical images demonstrating the localization of the injection and area of virus diffusion in the mouse forebrain. In Author response image 4 below the area of virus diffusion is visible as green fluorescent signal.

Author response image 4.

Fluorescent microscopy image of a mouse forebrain demonstrating the localization of the injection of a virus to knock down Netrin-1. The location of the virus is in green, while cell nuclei are in blue (DAPI). Abbreviations: DP: dorsopeduncular cortex IL: infralimbic cortex

References:

Cuesta S, Nouel D, Reynolds LM, Morgunova A, Torres-Berrío A, White A, Hernandez G, Cooper HM, Flores C. 2020. Dopamine Axon Targeting in the Nucleus Accumbens in Adolescence Requires Netrin-1. Frontiers Cell Dev Biology 8:487. doi:10.3389/fcell.2020.00487

(4) The authors need to provide information regarding the efficiency and duration of knocking down. For instance, in Figure 1K, the mice were tested after 53 days post injection, can the virus activity in the brain last for such a long time?

In our study we are interested in the role of Netrin-1 expression in the guidance of dopamine axons from the nucleus accumbens to the medial prefrontal cortex. The critical window for these axons leaving the nucleus accumbens and growing to the cortex is early adolescence (Reynolds et al., 2018b). This is why we injected the virus at the onset of adolescence, at postnatal day 21. As dopamine axons grow from the nucleus accumbens to the prefrontal cortex, they pass through the dorsal peduncular cortex. We disrupted Netrin-1 expression at this point along their route to determine whether it is the Netrin-1 present along their route that guides these axons to the prefrontal cortex. We hypothesized that the shRNA Netrin-1 virus would disrupt the growth of the dopamine axons, reducing the number of axons that reach the prefrontal cortex and therefore the number of axons that innervate this region in adulthood.

We conducted our behavioural tests during adulthood, after the critical window during which dopamine axon growth occurs, so as to observe the enduring behavioral consequences of this misrouting. This experimental approach is designed for the shRNa Netrin-1 virus to be expressed in cells in the dorsopeduncular cortex when the dopamine axons are growing, during adolescence.

References:

Capolicchio T., Hernandez, G., Dube, E., Estrada, K., Giroux, M., Flores, C. (2023) Divergent outcomes of delta 9 - tetrahydrocannabinol in adolescence on dopamine and cognitive development in male and female mice. Society for Neuroscience, Washington, DC, United States [abstract].

Reynolds LM, Yetnikoff L, Pokinko M, Wodzinski M, Epelbaum JG, Lambert LC, Cossette M-P, Arvanitogiannis A, Flores C. 2018b. Early Adolescence is a Critical Period for the Maturation of Inhibitory Behavior. Cerebral cortex 29:3676–3686. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhy247

(5) In Figure 1N-Q, silencing Netrin-1 results in less DA axons targeting to infralimbic cortex, but why the Netrin-1 knocking down mice revealed the improved behavior?

This is indeed an intriguing finding, and we have now added a mention of it to our manuscript. We have demonstrated that misrouting dopamine axons away from the medial prefrontal cortex during adolescence alters behaviour, but why this improves their action impulsivity ability is something currently unknown to us. One potential answer is that the dopamine axons are misrouted to a different brain region that is also involved in controlling impulsive behaviour, perhaps the dorsal striatum (Kim and Im, 2019) or the orbital prefrontal cortex (Jonker et al., 2015).

We would also like to note that we are finding that other manipulations that appear to reroute dopamine axons to unintended targets can lead to reduced action impulsivity as measured using the Go No Go task. As we mentioned above, current experiments in the lab, which are part of a different line of research, are showing that male mice exposed to tetrahydrocannabinol in adolescence show reduced dopamine innervation in the medial prefrontal cortex in adulthood, but increased dopamine input in the orbitofrontal cortex. In addition, these mice show increased action impulsivity in the Go/No-Go task in adulthood (Capolicchio et al., Society for Neuroscience 2023 Abstracts)

References

Capolicchio T., Hernandez, G., Dube, E., Estrada, K., Giroux, M., Flores, C. (2023) Divergent outcomes of delta 9 - tetrahydrocannabinol in adolescence on dopamine and cognitive development in male and female mice. Society for Neuroscience, Washington, DC, United States [abstract].

Jonker FA, Jonker C, Scheltens P, Scherder EJA. 2015. The role of the orbitofrontal cortex in cognition and behavior. Rev Neurosci 26:1–11. doi:10.1515/revneuro2014-0043 Kim B, Im H. 2019. The role of the dorsal striatum in choice impulsivity. Ann N York Acad Sci 1451:92–111. doi:10.1111/nyas.13961

(6) What is the effect of knocking down UNC5C on dopamine axons guidance to the cortex?

We have found that mice that are heterozygous for a nonsense Unc5c mutation, and as a result have reduced levels of UNC5c protein, show reduced amphetamine-induced locomotion and stereotypy (Auger et al., 2013). In the same manuscript we show that this effect only emerges during adolescence, in concert with the growth of dopamine axons to the prefrontal cortex. This is indirect but strong evidence that UNC5c receptors are necessary for correct adolescent dopamine axon development.

References

Auger ML, Schmidt ERE, Manitt C, Dal-Bo G, Pasterkamp RJ, Flores C. 2013. unc5c haploinsufficient phenotype: striking similarities with the dcc haploinsufficiency model. European Journal of Neuroscience 38:2853–2863. doi:10.1111/ejn.12270

(7) In Figures 2-4, the authors only showed the amount of DA axons and UNC5C in NAcc. However, it remains unclear whether these experiments also impact the projections of dopaminergic axons to other brain regions, critical for the behavioral phenotypes. What about other brain regions such as prefrontal cortex? Do the projection of DA axons and UNC5c level in cortex have similar pattern to those in NAcc?

UNC5c receptors are expressed throughout development and are involved in many developmental processes (Kim and Ackerman, 2011; Murcia-Belmonte et al., 2019; Srivatsa et al., 2014). We cannot say whether the pattern we observe here is unique to the nucleus accumbens, but it is certainly not universal throughout the brain.

The brain region we focus on in our manuscript, in addition to the nucleus accumbens, is the medial prefrontal cortex. Close and thorough examination of the prefrontal cortices of adult mice revealed practically no UNC5c expression by dopamine axons. However, we did observe very rare cases of dopamine axons expressing UNC5c. It is not clear whether these rare cases are present before or during adolescence.

Below is a representative set of images of this observation, which is now also included as Supplementary Figure 4:

Author response image 5.

Expression of UNC5c protein in the medial prefrontal cortex of an adult male mouse. Low (A) and high (B) magnification images demonstrate that there is little UNC5c expression in dopamine axons in the medial prefrontal cortex. Here we identify dopamine axons by immunofluorescent staining for tyrosine hydroxylase (TH, see our response to comment #9 regarding the specificity of the TH antibody for dopamine axons in the prefrontal cortex). This figure is also included as Supplementary Figure 4 in the manuscript. Abbreviations: fmi: forceps minor of the corpus callosum, mPFC: medial prefrontal cortex.

References:

Kim D, Ackerman SL. 2011. The UNC5C Netrin Receptor Regulates Dorsal Guidance of Mouse Hindbrain Axons. J Neurosci 31:2167–2179. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5254- 10.20110.2011

Murcia-Belmonte V, Coca Y, Vegar C, Negueruela S, Romero C de J, Valiño AJ, Sala S, DaSilva R, Kania A, Borrell V, Martinez LM, Erskine L, Herrera E. 2019. A Retino-retinal Projection Guided by Unc5c Emerged in Species with Retinal Waves. Current Biology 29:1149-1160.e4. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2019.02.052

Srivatsa S, Parthasarathy S, Britanova O, Bormuth I, Donahoo A-L, Ackerman SL, Richards LJ, Tarabykin V. 2014. Unc5C and DCC act downstream of Ctip2 and Satb2 and contribute to corpus callosum formation. Nat Commun 5:3708. doi:10.1038/ncomms4708

(8) Can overexpression of UNC5c or Netrin-1 in male winter hamsters mimic the observations in summer hamsters? Or overexpression of UNC5c in female summer hamsters to mimic the winter hamster? This would be helpful to confirm the causal role of UNC5C in guiding DA axons during adolescence.

This is an excellent question. We are very interested in both increasing and decreasing UNC5c expression in hamster dopamine axons to see if we can directly manipulate summer hamsters into winter hamsters and vice versa. We are currently exploring virus-based approaches to design these experiments and are excited for results in this area.

(9) The entire study relied on using tyrosine hydroxylase (TH) as a marker for dopaminergic axons. However, the expression of TH (either by IHC or IF) can be influenced by other environmental factors, that could alter the expression of TH at the cellular level.

This is an excellent point that we now carefully address in our methods by adding the following:

In this study we pay great attention to the morphology and localization of the fibres from which we quantify varicosities to avoid counting any fibres stained with TH antibodies that are not dopamine fibres. The fibres that we examine and that are labelled by the TH antibody show features indistinguishable from the classic features of cortical dopamine axons in rodents (Berger et al., 1974; 1983; Van Eden et al., 1987; Manitt et al., 2011), namely they are thin fibres with irregularly-spaced varicosities, are densely packed in the nucleus accumbens, sparsely present only in the deep layers of the prefrontal cortex, and are not regularly oriented in relation to the pial surface. This is in contrast to rodent norepinephrine fibres, which are smooth or beaded in appearance, relatively thick with regularly spaced varicosities, increase in density towards the shallow cortical layers, and are in large part oriented either parallel or perpendicular to the pial surface (Berger et al., 1974; Levitt and Moore, 1979; Berger et al., 1983; Miner et al., 2003). Furthermore, previous studies in rodents have noted that only norepinephrine cell bodies are detectable using immunofluorescence for TH, not norepinephrine processes (Pickel et al., 1975; Verney et al., 1982; Miner et al., 2003), and we did not observe any norepinephrine-like fibres.

Furthermore, we are not aware of any other processes in the forebrain that are known to be immunopositive for TH under any environmental conditions.

To reduce confusion, we have replaced the abbreviation for dopamine – DA – with TH in the relevant panels in Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 to clarify exactly what is represented in these images. As can be seen in these images, fluorescent green labelling is present only in axons, which is to be expected of dopamine labelling in these forebrain regions.

References:

Berger B, Tassin JP, Blanc G, Moyne MA, Thierry AM (1974) Histochemical confirmation for dopaminergic innervation of the rat cerebral cortex after destruction of the noradrenergic ascending pathways. Brain Res 81:332–337.

Berger B, Verney C, Gay M, Vigny A (1983) Immunocytochemical Characterization of the Dopaminergic and Noradrenergic Innervation of the Rat Neocortex During Early Ontogeny. In: Proceedings of the 9th Meeting of the International Neurobiology Society, pp 263–267 Progress in Brain Research. Elsevier.

Levitt P, Moore RY (1979) Development of the noradrenergic innervation of neocortex. Brain Res 162:243–259.

Manitt C, Mimee A, Eng C, Pokinko M, Stroh T, Cooper HM, Kolb B, Flores C (2011) The Netrin Receptor DCC Is Required in the Pubertal Organization of Mesocortical Dopamine Circuitry. J Neurosci 31:8381–8394.

Miner LH, Schroeter S, Blakely RD, Sesack SR (2003) Ultrastructural localization of the norepinephrine transporter in superficial and deep layers of the rat prelimbic prefrontal cortex and its spatial relationship to probable dopamine terminals. J Comp Neurol 466:478–494.

Pickel VM, Joh TH, Field PM, Becker CG, Reis DJ (1975) Cellular localization of tyrosine hydroxylase by immunohistochemistry. J Histochem Cytochem 23:1–12.

Van Eden CG, Hoorneman EM, Buijs RM, Matthijssen MA, Geffard M, Uylings HBM (1987) Immunocytochemical localization of dopamine in the prefrontal cortex of the rat at the light and electron microscopical level. Neurosci 22:849–862.

Verney C, Berger B, Adrien J, Vigny A, Gay M (1982) Development of the dopaminergic innervation of the rat cerebral cortex. A light microscopic immunocytochemical study using anti-tyrosine hydroxylase antibodies. Dev Brain Res 5:41–52.

(10) Are Netrin-1/UNC5C the only signal guiding dopamine axon during adolescence? Are there other neuronal circuits involved in this process?

Our intention for this study was to examine the role of Netrin-1 and its receptor UNC5C specifically, but we do not suggest that they are the only molecules to play a role. The process of guiding growing dopamine axons during adolescence is likely complex and we expect other guidance mechanisms to also be involved. From our previous work we know that the Netrin-1 receptor DCC is critical in this process (Hoops and Flores, 2017; Reynolds et al., 2023). Several other molecules have been identified in Netrin-1/DCC signaling processes that control corpus callosum development and there is every possibility that the same or similar molecules may be important in guiding dopamine axons (Schlienger et al., 2023).

References:

Hoops D, Flores C. 2017. Making Dopamine Connections in Adolescence. Trends in Neurosciences 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.tins.2017.09.004

Reynolds LM, Hernandez G, MacGowan D, Popescu C, Nouel D, Cuesta S, Burke S, Savell KE, Zhao J, Restrepo-Lozano JM, Giroux M, Israel S, Orsini T, He S, Wodzinski M, Avramescu RG, Pokinko M, Epelbaum JG, Niu Z, Pantoja-Urbán AH, Trudeau L-É, Kolb B, Day JJ, Flores C. 2023. Amphetamine disrupts dopamine axon growth in adolescence by a sex-specific mechanism in mice. Nat Commun 14:4035. doi:10.1038/s41467-023-39665-1

Schlienger S, Yam PT, Balekoglu N, Ducuing H, Michaud J-F, Makihara S, Kramer DK, Chen B, Fasano A, Berardelli A, Hamdan FF, Rouleau GA, Srour M, Charron F. 2023. Genetics of mirror movements identifies a multifunctional complex required for Netrin-1 guidance and lateralization of motor control. Sci Adv 9:eadd5501. doi:10.1126/sciadv.add5501

(11) Finally, despite the authors' claim that the dopaminergic axon project is sensitive to the duration of daylight in the hamster, they never provided definitive evidence to support this hypothesis.

By “definitive evidence” we think that the reviewer is requesting a single statistical model including measures from both the summer and winter groups. Such a model would provide a probability estimate of whether dopamine axon growth is sensitive to daylight duration. Therefore, we ran these models, one for male hamsters and one for female hamsters.

In both sexes we find a significant effect of daylength on dopamine innervation, interacting with age. Male age by daylength interaction: F = 6.383, p = 0.00242. Female age by daylength interaction: F = 21.872, p = 1.97 x 10-9. The full statistical analysis is available as a supplement to this letter (Response_Letter_Stats_Details.docx).

Reviewer 3

(1) Fig 1 A and B don't appear to be the same section level.

The reviewer is correct that Fig 1B is anterior to Fig 1A. We have changed Figure 1A to match the section level of Figure 1B.

(2) Fig 1C. It is not clear that these axons are crossing from the shell of the NAC.

We have added a dashed line to Figure 1C to highlight the boundary of the nucleus accumbens, which hopefully emphasizes that there are fibres crossing the boundary. We also include here an enlarged image of this panel:

Author response image 6.

An enlarged image of Figure1c in the manuscript. The nucleus accumbens (left of the dotted line) is densely packed with TH+ axons (in green). Some of these TH+ axons can be observed extending from the nucleus accumbens medially towards a region containing dorsally oriented TH+ fibres (white arrows).

(3) Fig 1. Measuring width of the bundle is an odd way to measure DA axon numbers. First the width could be changing during adult for various reasons including change in brain size. Second, I wouldn't consider these axons in a traditional bundle. Third, could DA axon counts be provided, rather than these proxy measures.

With regards to potential changes in brain size, we agree that this could have potentially explained the increased width of the dopamine axon pathway. That is why it was important for us to use stereology to measure the density of dopamine axons within the pathway. If the width increased but no new axons grew along the pathway, we would have seen a decrease in axon density from adolescence to adulthood. Instead, our results show that the density of axons remained constant.

We agree with the reviewer that the dopamine axons do not form a traditional “bundle”. Therefore, throughout the manuscript we now avoid using the term bundle.

Although we cannot count every single axon, an accurate estimate of this number can be obtained using stereology, an unbiassed method for efficiently quantifying large, irregularly distributed objects. We used stereology to count TH+ axons in an unbiased subset of the total area occupied by these axons. Unbiased stereology is the gold-standard technique for estimating populations of anatomical objects, such as axons, that are so numerous that it would be impractical or impossible to measure every single one. Here and elsewhere we generally provide results as densities and areas of occupancy (Reynolds et al., 2022). To avoid confusion, we now clarify that we are counting the width of the area that dopamine axons occupy (rather than the dopamine axon “bundle”).

References:

Reynolds LM, Pantoja-Urbán AH, MacGowan D, Manitt C, Nouel D, Flores C. 2022. Dopaminergic System Function and Dysfunction: Experimental Approaches. Neuromethods 31–63. doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-2799-0_2

(4) TH in the cortex could also be of noradrenergic origin. This needs to be ruled out to score DA axons

This is the same comment as Reviewer 1 #9. Please see our response below, which we have also added to our methods:

In this study we pay great attention to the morphology and localization of the fibres from which we quantify varicosities to avoid counting any fibres stained with TH antibodies that are not dopamine fibres. The fibres that we examine and that are labelled by the TH antibody show features indistinguishable from the classic features of cortical dopamine axons in rodents (Berger et al., 1974; 1983; Van Eden et al., 1987; Manitt et al., 2011), namely they are thin fibres with irregularly-spaced varicosities, are densely packed in the nucleus accumbens, sparsely present only in the deep layers of the prefrontal cortex, and are not regularly oriented in relation to the pial surface. This is in contrast to rodent norepinephrine fibres, which are smooth or beaded in appearance, relatively thick with regularly spaced varicosities, increase in density towards the shallow cortical layers, and are in large part oriented either parallel or perpendicular to the pial surface (Berger et al., 1974; Levitt and Moore, 1979; Berger et al., 1983; Miner et al., 2003). Furthermore, previous studies in rodents have noted that only norepinephrine cell bodies are detectable using immunofluorescence for TH, not norepinephrine processes (Pickel et al., 1975; Verney et al., 1982; Miner et al., 2003), and we did not observe any norepinephrine-like fibres.

References:

Berger B, Tassin JP, Blanc G, Moyne MA, Thierry AM (1974) Histochemical confirmation for dopaminergic innervation of the rat cerebral cortex after destruction of the noradrenergic ascending pathways. Brain Res 81:332–337.

Berger B, Verney C, Gay M, Vigny A (1983) Immunocytochemical Characterization of the Dopaminergic and Noradrenergic Innervation of the Rat Neocortex During Early Ontogeny. In: Proceedings of the 9th Meeting of the International Neurobiology Society, pp 263–267 Progress in Brain Research. Elsevier.

Levitt P, Moore RY (1979) Development of the noradrenergic innervation of neocortex. Brain Res 162:243–259.

Manitt C, Mimee A, Eng C, Pokinko M, Stroh T, Cooper HM, Kolb B, Flores C (2011) The Netrin Receptor DCC Is Required in the Pubertal Organization of Mesocortical Dopamine Circuitry. J Neurosci 31:8381–8394.

Miner LH, Schroeter S, Blakely RD, Sesack SR (2003) Ultrastructural localization of the norepinephrine transporter in superficial and deep layers of the rat prelimbic prefrontal cortex and its spatial relationship to probable dopamine terminals. J Comp Neurol 466:478–494.

Pickel VM, Joh TH, Field PM, Becker CG, Reis DJ (1975) Cellular localization of tyrosine hydroxylase by immunohistochemistry. J Histochem Cytochem 23:1–12.

Van Eden CG, Hoorneman EM, Buijs RM, Matthijssen MA, Geffard M, Uylings HBM (1987) Immunocytochemical localization of dopamine in the prefrontal cortex of the rat at the light and electron microscopical level. Neurosci 22:849–862.

Verney C, Berger B, Adrien J, Vigny A, Gay M (1982) Development of the dopaminergic innervation of the rat cerebral cortex. A light microscopic immunocytochemical study using anti-tyrosine hydroxylase antibodies. Dev Brain Res 5:41–52.

(5) Netrin staining should be provided with NeuN + DAPI; its not clear these are all cell bodies. An in situ of Netrin would help as well.

A similar comment was raised by Reviewer 1 in point #1. Please see below the immunofluorescent and RNA scope images showing expression of Netrin-1 protein and mRNA in the forebrain.

Author response image 7.

This confocal microscope image shows immunofluorescent staining for Netrin-1 (green) localized around cell nuclei (stained by DAPI in blue). This image was taken from a coronal section of the lateral septum of an adult male mouse. Scale bar = 20µm

Author response image 8.

This confocal microscope image of a coronal brain section of the medial prefrontal cortex of an adult male mouse shows Netrin-1 mRNA expression (green) and cell nuclei (DAPI, blue). RNAscope was used to generate this image. Brain regions are as follows: Cg1: Anterior cingulate cortex 1, DP: dorsopeduncular cortex, IL: Infralimbic Cortex, PrL: Prelimbic Cortex, fmi: forceps minor of the corpus callosum

Author response image 9.

A higher resolution image from the same sample as in Figure 2 shows Netrin-1 mRNA (green) and cell nuclei (DAPI; blue). DP = dorsopeduncular cortex

(6) The Netrin knockdown needs validation. How strong was the knockdown etc?

This comment was also raised by Reviewer 1 #1.

We have previously established the efficacy of the shRNA Netrin-1 knockdown virus used in this experiment for reducing the expression of Netrin-1 (Cuesta et al., 2020). The shRNA reduces Netrin-1 levels in vitro and in vivo.

References:

Cuesta S, Nouel D, Reynolds LM, Morgunova A, Torres-Berrío A, White A, Hernandez G, Cooper HM, Flores C. 2020. Dopamine Axon Targeting in the Nucleus Accumbens in Adolescence Requires Netrin-1. Frontiers Cell Dev Biology 8:487. doi:10.3389/fcell.2020.00487

(7) If the conclusion that knocking down Netrin in cortex decreases DA innervation of the IL, how can that be reconciled with Netrin-Unc repulsion.

This is an intriguing question and one that we are in the planning stages of addressing with new experiments.

Although we do not have a mechanistic answered for how a repulsive receptor helps guide these axons, we would like to note that previous indirect evidence from a study by our group also suggests that reducing UNC5c signaling in dopamine axons in adolescence increases dopamine innervation to the prefrontal cortex (Auger et al, 2013).

References

Auger ML, Schmidt ERE, Manitt C, Dal-Bo G, Pasterkamp RJ, Flores C. 2013. unc5c haploinsufficient phenotype: striking similarities with the dcc haploinsufficiency model. European Journal of Neuroscience 38:2853–2863. doi:10.1111/ejn.12270

(8) The behavioral phenotype in Fig 1 is interesting, but its not clear if its related to DA axons/signaling. IN general, no evidence in this paper is provided for the role of DA in the adolescent behaviors described.

We agree with the reviewer that the behaviours we describe in adult mice are complex and are likely to involve several neurotransmitter systems. However, there is ample evidence for the role of dopamine signaling in cognitive control behaviours (Bari and Robbins, 2013; Eagle et al., 2008; Ott et al., 2023) and our published work has shown that alterations in the growth of dopamine axons to the prefrontal cortex leads to changes in impulse control as measured via the Go/No-Go task in adulthood (Reynolds et al., 2023, 2018a; Vassilev et al., 2021).

The other adolescent behaviour we examined was risk-like taking behaviour in male and female hamsters (Figures 4 and 5), as a means of characterizing maturation in this behavior over time. We decided not to use the Go/No-Go task because as far as we know, this has never been employed in Siberian Hamsters and it will be difficult to implement. Instead, we chose the light/dark box paradigm, which requires no training and is ideal for charting behavioural changes over short time periods. Indeed, risk-like taking behavior in rodents and in humans changes from adolescence to adulthood paralleling changes in prefrontal cortex development, including the gradual input of dopamine axons to this region.

References:

Bari A, Robbins TW. 2013. Inhibition and impulsivity: Behavioral and neural basis of response control. Progress in neurobiology 108:44–79. doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2013.06.005

Eagle DM, Bari A, Robbins TW. 2008. The neuropsychopharmacology of action inhibition: cross-species translation of the stop-signal and go/no-go tasks. Psychopharmacology 199:439–456. doi:10.1007/s00213-008-1127-6

Ott T, Stein AM, Nieder A. 2023. Dopamine receptor activation regulates reward expectancy signals during cognitive control in primate prefrontal neurons. Nat Commun 14:7537. doi:10.1038/s41467-023-43271-6

Reynolds LM, Hernandez G, MacGowan D, Popescu C, Nouel D, Cuesta S, Burke S, Savell KE, Zhao J, Restrepo-Lozano JM, Giroux M, Israel S, Orsini T, He S, Wodzinski M, Avramescu RG, Pokinko M, Epelbaum JG, Niu Z, Pantoja-Urbán AH, Trudeau L-É, Kolb B, Day JJ, Flores C. 2023. Amphetamine disrupts dopamine axon growth in adolescence by a sex-specific mechanism in mice. Nat Commun 14:4035. doi:10.1038/s41467-023-39665-1

Reynolds LM, Pokinko M, Torres-Berrío A, Cuesta S, Lambert LC, Pellitero EDC, Wodzinski M, Manitt C, Krimpenfort P, Kolb B, Flores C. 2018a. DCC Receptors Drive Prefrontal Cortex Maturation by Determining Dopamine Axon Targeting in Adolescence. Biological psychiatry 83:181–192. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.06.009

Vassilev P, Pantoja-Urban AH, Giroux M, Nouel D, Hernandez G, Orsini T, Flores C. 2021. Unique effects of social defeat stress in adolescent male mice on the Netrin-1/DCC pathway, prefrontal cortex dopamine and cognition (Social stress in adolescent vs. adult male mice). Eneuro ENEURO.0045-21.2021. doi:10.1523/eneuro.0045-21.2021

(9) Fig2 - boxes should be drawn on the NAc diagram to indicate sampled regions. Some quantification of Unc5c would be useful. Also, some validation of the Unc5c antibody would be nice.

The images presented were taken medial to the anterior commissure and we have edited Figure 2 to show this. However, we did not notice any intra-accumbens variation, including between the core and the shell. Therefore, the images are representative of what was observed throughout the entire nucleus accumbens.

To quantify UNC5c in the accumbens we conducted a Western blot experiment in male mice at different ages. A one-way ANOVA analyzing band intensity (relative to the 15-day-old average band intensity) as the response variable and age as the predictor variable showed a significant effect of age (F=5.615, p=0.01). Posthoc analysis revealed that 15-day-old mice have less UNC5c in the nucleus accumbens compared to 21- and 35-day-old mice.

Author response image 10.

The graph depicts the results of a Western blot experiment of UNC5c protein levels in the nucleus accumbens of male mice at postnatal days 15, 21 or 35 and reveals a significant increase in protein levels at the onset adolescence.

Our methods for this Western blot were as follows: Samples were prepared as previously (Torres-Berrío et al., 2017). Briefly, mice were sacrificed by live decapitation and brains were flash frozen in heptane on dry ice for 10 seconds. Frozen brains were mounted in a cryomicrotome and two 500um sections were collected for the nucleus accumbens, corresponding to plates 14 and 18 of the Paxinos mouse brain atlas. Two tissue core samples were collected per section, one for each side of the brain, using a 15-gauge tissue corer (Fine surgical tools Cat no. NC9128328) and ejected in a microtube on dry ice. The tissue samples were homogenized in 100ul of standard radioimmunoprecipitation assay buffer using a handheld electric tissue homogenizer. The samples were clarified by centrifugation at 4C at a speed of 15000g for 30 minutes. Protein concentration was quantified using a bicinchoninic acid assay kit (Pierce BCA protein assay kit, Cat no.PI23225) and denatured with standard Laemmli buffer for 5 minutes at 70C. 10ug of protein per sample was loaded and run by SDS-PAGE gel electrophoresis in a Mini-PROTEAN system (Bio-Rad) on an 8% acrylamide gel by stacking for 30 minutes at 60V and resolving for 1.5 hours at 130V. The proteins were transferred to a nitrocellulose membrane for 1 hour at 100V in standard transfer buffer on ice. The membranes were blocked using 5% bovine serum albumin dissolved in tris-buffered saline with Tween 20 and probed with primary (UNC5c, Abcam Cat. no ab302924) and HRP-conjugated secondary antibodies for 1 hour. a-tubulin was probed and used as loading control. The probed membranes were resolved using SuperSignal West Pico PLUS chemiluminescent substrate (ThermoFisher Cat no.34579) in a ChemiDoc MP Imaging system (Bio-Rad). Band intensity was quantified using the ChemiDoc software and all ages were normalized to the P15 age group average.

Validation of the UNC5c antibody was performed in the lab of Dr. Liu, from whom it was kindly provided. Briefly, in the validation study the authors showed that the anti-UNC5C antibody can detect endogenous UNC5C expression and the level of UNC5C is dramatically reduced after UNC5C knockdown. The antibody can also detect the tagged-UNC5C protein in several cell lines, which was confirmed by a tag antibody (Purohit et al., 2012; Shao et al., 2017).

References:

Purohit AA, Li W, Qu C, Dwyer T, Shao Q, Guan K-L, Liu G. 2012. Down Syndrome Cell Adhesion Molecule (DSCAM) Associates with Uncoordinated-5C (UNC5C) in Netrin-1mediated Growth Cone Collapse. The Journal of biological chemistry 287:27126–27138. doi:10.1074/jbc.m112.340174

Shao Q, Yang T, Huang H, Alarmanazi F, Liu G. 2017. Uncoupling of UNC5C with Polymerized TUBB3 in Microtubules Mediates Netrin-1 Repulsion. J Neurosci 37:5620–5633. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2617-16.2017

(10) "In adolescence, dopamine neurons begin to express the repulsive Netrin-1 receptor UNC5C, and reduction in UNC5C expression appears to cause growth of mesolimbic dopamine axons to the prefrontal cortex".....This is confusing. Figure 2 shows a developmental increase in UNc5c not a decrease. So when is the "reduction in Unc5c expression" occurring?

We apologize for the mistake in this sentence. We have corrected the relevant passage in our manuscript as follows:

In adolescence, dopamine neurons begin to express the repulsive Netrin-1 receptor UNC5C, particularly when mesolimbic and mesocortical dopamine projections segregate in the nucleus accumbens (Manitt et al., 2010; Reynolds et al., 2018a). In contrast, dopamine axons in the prefrontal cortex do not express UNC5c except in very rare cases (Supplementary Figure 4). In adult male mice with Unc5c haploinsufficiency, there appears to be ectopic growth of mesolimbic dopamine axons to the prefrontal cortex (Auger et al., 2013). This miswiring is associated with alterations in prefrontal cortex-dependent behaviours (Auger et al., 2013).

References:

Auger ML, Schmidt ERE, Manitt C, Dal-Bo G, Pasterkamp RJ, Flores C. 2013. unc5c haploinsufficient phenotype: striking similarities with the dcc haploinsufficiency model. European Journal of Neuroscience 38:2853–2863. doi:10.1111/ejn.12270

Manitt C, Labelle-Dumais C, Eng C, Grant A, Mimee A, Stroh T, Flores C. 2010. Peri-Pubertal Emergence of UNC-5 Homologue Expression by Dopamine Neurons in Rodents. PLoS ONE 5:e11463-14. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011463

Reynolds LM, Pokinko M, Torres-Berrío A, Cuesta S, Lambert LC, Pellitero EDC, Wodzinski M, Manitt C, Krimpenfort P, Kolb B, Flores C. 2018a. DCC Receptors Drive Prefrontal Cortex Maturation by Determining Dopamine Axon Targeting in Adolescence. Biological psychiatry 83:181–192. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.06.009

(11) In Fig 3, a statistical comparison should be made between summer male and winter male, to justify the conclusions that the winter males have delayed DA innervation.

This analysis was also suggested by Reviewer 1, #11. Here is our response:

We analyzed the summer and winter data together in ANOVAs separately for males and females. In both sexes we find a significant effect of daylength on dopamine innervation, interacting with age. Male age by daylength interaction: F = 6.383, p = 0.00242. Female age by daylength interaction: F = 21.872, p = 1.97 x 10-9. The full statistical analysis is available as a supplement to this letter (Response_Letter_Stats_Details.docx).

(12) Should axon length also be measured here (Fig 3)? It is not clear why the authors have switched to varicosity density. Also, a box should be drawn in the NAC cartoon to indicate the region that was sampled.

It is untenable to quantify axon length in the prefrontal cortex as we cannot distinguish independent axons. Rather, they are “tangled”; they twist and turn in a multitude of directions as they make contact with various dendrites. Furthermore, they branch extensively. It would therefore be impossible to accurately quantify the number of axons. Using unbiased stereology to quantify varicosities is a valid, well-characterized and straightforward alternative (Reynolds et al., 2022).

References:

Reynolds LM, Pantoja-Urbán AH, MacGowan D, Manitt C, Nouel D, Flores C. 2022. Dopaminergic System Function and Dysfunction: Experimental Approaches. Neuromethods 31–63. doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-2799-0_2

(13) In Fig 3, Unc5c should be quantified to bolster the interesting finding that Unc5c expression dynamics are different between summer and winter hamsters. Unc5c mRNA experiments would also be important to see if similar changes are observed at the transcript level.

We agree that it would be very interesting to see how UNC5c mRNA and protein levels change over time in summer and winter hamsters, both in males, as the reviewer suggests here, and in females. We are working on conducting these experiments in hamsters as part of a broader expansion of our research in this area. These experiments will require a lengthy amount of time and at this point we feel that they are beyond the scope of this manuscript.

(14) Fig 4. The peak in exploratory behavior in winter females is counterintuitive and needs to be better discussed. IN general, the light dark behavior seems quite variable.

This is indeed a very interesting finding, which we have expanded upon in our manuscript as follows:

When raised under a winter-mimicking daylength, hamsters of either sex show a protracted peak in risk taking. In males, it is delayed beyond 80 days old, but the delay is substantially less in females. This is a counterintuitive finding considering that dopamine development in winter females appears to be accelerated. Our interpretation of this finding is that the timing of the risk-taking peak in females may reflect a balance between different adolescent developmental processes. The fact that dopamine axon growth is accelerated does not imply that all adolescent maturational processes are accelerated. Some may be delayed, for example those that induce axon pruning in the cortex. The timing of the risk-taking peak in winter female hamsters may therefore reflect the amalgamation of developmental processes that are advanced with those that are delayed – producing a behavioural effect that is timed somewhere in the middle. Disentangling the effects of different developmental processes on behaviour will require further experiments in hamsters, including the direct manipulation of dopamine activity in the nucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex.

Full Reference List

Auger ML, Schmidt ERE, Manitt C, Dal-Bo G, Pasterkamp RJ, Flores C. 2013. unc5c haploinsufficient phenotype: striking similarities with the dcc haploinsufficiency model. European Journal of Neuroscience 38:2853–2863. doi:10.1111/ejn.12270

Bari A, Robbins TW. 2013. Inhibition and impulsivity: Behavioral and neural basis of response control. Progress in neurobiology 108:44–79. doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2013.06.005

Cuesta S, Nouel D, Reynolds LM, Morgunova A, Torres-Berrío A, White A, Hernandez G, Cooper HM, Flores C. 2020. Dopamine Axon Targeting in the Nucleus Accumbens in Adolescence Requires Netrin-1. Frontiers Cell Dev Biology 8:487. doi:10.3389/fcell.2020.00487

Daubaras M, Bo GD, Flores C. 2014. Target-dependent expression of the netrin-1 receptor, UNC5C, in projection neurons of the ventral tegmental area. Neuroscience 260:36–46. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.12.007

Eagle DM, Bari A, Robbins TW. 2008. The neuropsychopharmacology of action inhibition: crossspecies translation of the stop-signal and go/no-go tasks. Psychopharmacology 199:439– 456. doi:10.1007/s00213-008-1127-6

Hoops D, Flores C. 2017. Making Dopamine Connections in Adolescence. Trends in Neurosciences 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.tins.2017.09.004

Jonker FA, Jonker C, Scheltens P, Scherder EJA. 2015. The role of the orbitofrontal cortex in cognition and behavior. Rev Neurosci 26:1–11. doi:10.1515/revneuro-2014-0043

Kim B, Im H. 2019. The role of the dorsal striatum in choice impulsivity. Ann N York Acad Sci 1451:92–111. doi:10.1111/nyas.13961

Kim D, Ackerman SL. 2011. The UNC5C Netrin Receptor Regulates Dorsal Guidance of Mouse Hindbrain Axons. J Neurosci 31:2167–2179. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.5254-10.2011

Manitt C, Labelle-Dumais C, Eng C, Grant A, Mimee A, Stroh T, Flores C. 2010. Peri-Pubertal Emergence of UNC-5 Homologue Expression by Dopamine Neurons in Rodents. PLoS ONE 5:e11463-14. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011463

Murcia-Belmonte V, Coca Y, Vegar C, Negueruela S, Romero C de J, Valiño AJ, Sala S, DaSilva R, Kania A, Borrell V, Martinez LM, Erskine L, Herrera E. 2019. A Retino-retinal Projection Guided by Unc5c Emerged in Species with Retinal Waves. Current Biology 29:1149-1160.e4. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2019.02.052

Ott T, Stein AM, Nieder A. 2023. Dopamine receptor activation regulates reward expectancy signals during cognitive control in primate prefrontal neurons. Nat Commun 14:7537. doi:10.1038/s41467-023-43271-6

Phillips RA, Tuscher JJ, Black SL, Andraka E, Fitzgerald ND, Ianov L, Day JJ. 2022. An atlas of transcriptionally defined cell populations in the rat ventral tegmental area. Cell Reports 39:110616. doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2022.110616

Purohit AA, Li W, Qu C, Dwyer T, Shao Q, Guan K-L, Liu G. 2012. Down Syndrome Cell Adhesion Molecule (DSCAM) Associates with Uncoordinated-5C (UNC5C) in Netrin-1-mediated Growth Cone Collapse. The Journal of biological chemistry 287:27126–27138. doi:10.1074/jbc.m112.340174

Reynolds LM, Hernandez G, MacGowan D, Popescu C, Nouel D, Cuesta S, Burke S, Savell KE, Zhao J, Restrepo-Lozano JM, Giroux M, Israel S, Orsini T, He S, Wodzinski M, Avramescu RG, Pokinko M, Epelbaum JG, Niu Z, Pantoja-Urbán AH, Trudeau L-É, Kolb B, Day JJ, Flores C. 2023. Amphetamine disrupts dopamine axon growth in adolescence by a sex-specific mechanism in mice. Nat Commun 14:4035. doi:10.1038/s41467-023-39665-1

Reynolds LM, Pantoja-Urbán AH, MacGowan D, Manitt C, Nouel D, Flores C. 2022. Dopaminergic System Function and Dysfunction: Experimental Approaches. Neuromethods 31–63. doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-2799-0_2

Reynolds LM, Pokinko M, Torres-Berrío A, Cuesta S, Lambert LC, Pellitero EDC, Wodzinski M, Manitt C, Krimpenfort P, Kolb B, Flores C. 2018a. DCC Receptors Drive Prefrontal Cortex Maturation by Determining Dopamine Axon Targeting in Adolescence. Biological psychiatry 83:181–192. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.06.009

Reynolds LM, Yetnikoff L, Pokinko M, Wodzinski M, Epelbaum JG, Lambert LC, Cossette M-P, Arvanitogiannis A, Flores C. 2018b. Early Adolescence is a Critical Period for the Maturation of Inhibitory Behavior. Cerebral cortex 29:3676–3686. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhy247

Schlienger S, Yam PT, Balekoglu N, Ducuing H, Michaud J-F, Makihara S, Kramer DK, Chen B, Fasano A, Berardelli A, Hamdan FF, Rouleau GA, Srour M, Charron F. 2023. Genetics of mirror movements identifies a multifunctional complex required for Netrin-1 guidance and lateralization of motor control. Sci Adv 9:eadd5501. doi:10.1126/sciadv.add5501

Shao Q, Yang T, Huang H, Alarmanazi F, Liu G. 2017. Uncoupling of UNC5C with Polymerized TUBB3 in Microtubules Mediates Netrin-1 Repulsion. J Neurosci 37:5620–5633. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2617-16.2017

Srivatsa S, Parthasarathy S, Britanova O, Bormuth I, Donahoo A-L, Ackerman SL, Richards LJ, Tarabykin V. 2014. Unc5C and DCC act downstream of Ctip2 and Satb2 and contribute to corpus callosum formation. Nat Commun 5:3708. doi:10.1038/ncomms4708

Torres-Berrío A, Lopez JP, Bagot RC, Nouel D, Dal-Bo G, Cuesta S, Zhu L, Manitt C, Eng C, Cooper HM, Storch K-F, Turecki G, Nestler EJ, Flores C. 2017. DCC Confers Susceptibility to Depression-like Behaviors in Humans and Mice and Is Regulated by miR-218. Biological psychiatry 81:306–315. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2016.08.017

Vassilev P, Pantoja-Urban AH, Giroux M, Nouel D, Hernandez G, Orsini T, Flores C. 2021. Unique effects of social defeat stress in adolescent male mice on the Netrin-1/DCC pathway, prefrontal cortex dopamine and cognition (Social stress in adolescent vs. adult male mice). Eneuro ENEURO.0045-21.2021. doi:10.1523/eneuro.0045-21.2021

Private Comments

Reviewer #1

(12) The language should be improved. Some expression is confusing (line178-179). Also some spelling errors (eg. Figure 1M).

We have removed the word “Already” to make the sentence in lines 178-179 clearer, however we cannot find a spelling error in Figure 1M or its caption. We have further edited the manuscript for clarity and flow.

Reviewer #2

(1) The authors claim to have revealed how the 'timing of adolescence is programmed in the brain'. While their findings certainly shed light on molecular, circuit and behavioral processes that are unique to adolescence, their claim may be an overstatement. I suggest they refine this statement to discuss more specifically the processes they observed in the brain and animal behavior, rather than adolescence itself.

We agree with the reviewer and have revised the manuscript to specify that we are referring to the timing of specific developmental processes that occur in the adolescent brain, not adolescence overall.

(2) Along the same lines, the authors should also include a more substantiative discussion of how they selected their ages for investigation (for both mice and hamsters), For mice, their definition of adolescence (P21) is earlier than some (e.g. Spear L.P., Neurosci. and Beh. Reviews, 2000).

There are certainly differences of opinion between researchers as to the precise definition of adolescence and the period it encompasses. Spear, 2000, provides one excellent discussion of the challenges related to identifying adolescence across species. This work gives specific ages only for rats, not mice (as we use here), and characterizes post-natal days 28-42 as being the conservative age range of “peak” adolescence (page 419, paragraph 1). Immediately thereafter the review states that the full adolescent period is longer than this, and it could encompass post-natal days 20-55 (page 419, paragraph 2).

We have added the following statement to our methods:

There is no universally accepted way to define the precise onset of adolescence. Therefore, there is no clear-cut boundary to define adolescent onset in rodents (Spear, 2000). Puberty can be more sharply defined, and puberty and adolescence overlap in time, but the terms are not interchangeable. Puberty is the onset of sexual maturation, while adolescence is a more diffuse period marked by the gradual transition from a juvenile state to independence. We, and others, suggest that adolescence in rodents spans from weaning (postnatal day 21) until adulthood, which we take to start on postnatal day 60 (Reynolds and Flores, 2021). We refer to “early adolescence” as the first two weeks postweaning (postnatal days 21-34). These ranges encompass discrete DA developmental periods (Kalsbeek et al., 1988; Manitt et al., 2011; Reynolds et al., 2018a), vulnerability to drug effects on DA circuitry (Hammerslag and Gulley, 2014; Reynolds et al., 2018a), and distinct behavioral characteristics (Adriani and Laviola, 2004; Makinodan et al., 2012; Schneider, 2013; Wheeler et al., 2013).

References:

Adriani W, Laviola G. 2004. Windows of vulnerability to psychopathology and therapeutic strategy in the adolescent rodent model. Behav Pharmacol 15:341–352. doi:10.1097/00008877-200409000-00005

Hammerslag LR, Gulley JM. 2014. Age and sex differences in reward behavior in adolescent and adult rats. Dev Psychobiol 56:611–621. doi:10.1002/dev.21127

Hoops D, Flores C. 2017. Making Dopamine Connections in Adolescence. Trends in Neurosciences 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.tins.2017.09.004

Kalsbeek A, Voorn P, Buijs RM, Pool CW, Uylings HBM. 1988. Development of the Dopaminergic Innervation in the Prefrontal Cortex of the Rat. The Journal of Comparative Neurology 269:58–72. doi:10.1002/cne.902690105

Makinodan M, Rosen KM, Ito S, Corfas G. 2012. A critical period for social experiencedependent oligodendrocyte maturation and myelination. Science 337:1357–1360. doi:10.1126/science.1220845

Manitt C, Mimee A, Eng C, Pokinko M, Stroh T, Cooper HM, Kolb B, Flores C. 2011. The Netrin Receptor DCC Is Required in the Pubertal Organization of Mesocortical Dopamine Circuitry. J Neurosci 31:8381–8394. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0606-11.2011

Reynolds LM, Flores C. 2021. Mesocorticolimbic Dopamine Pathways Across Adolescence: Diversity in Development. Front Neural Circuit 15:735625. doi:10.3389/fncir.2021.735625

Reynolds LM, Yetnikoff L, Pokinko M, Wodzinski M, Epelbaum JG, Lambert LC, Cossette MP, Arvanitogiannis A, Flores C. 2018. Early Adolescence is a Critical Period for the Maturation of Inhibitory Behavior. Cerebral cortex 29:3676–3686. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhy247

Schneider M. 2013. Adolescence as a vulnerable period to alter rodent behavior. Cell and tissue research 354:99–106. Doi:10.1007/s00441-013-1581-2

Spear LP. 2000. Neurobehavioral Changes in Adolescence. Current directions in psychological science 9:111–114. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00072

Wheeler AL, Lerch JP, Chakravarty MM, Friedel M, Sled JG, Fletcher PJ, Josselyn SA, Frankland PW. 2013. Adolescent Cocaine Exposure Causes Enduring Macroscale Changes in Mouse Brain Structure. J Neurosci 33:1797–1803. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3830-12.2013

(3) Figure 1 - the conclusions hinge on the Netrin-1 staining, as shown in panel G, but the cells are difficult to see. It would be helpful to provide clearer, more zoomed images so readers can better assess the staining. Since Netrin-1 expression reduces dramatically after P4 and they had to use antigen retrieval to see signal, it would be helpful to show some images from additional brain regions and ages to see if expression levels follow predicted patterns. For instance, based on the allen brain atlas, it seems that around P21, there should be high levels of Netrin-1 in the cerebellum, but low levels in the cortex. These would be nice controls to demonstrate the specificity and sensitivity of the antibody in older tissue.

We do not study the cerebellum and have never stained this region; doing so now would require generating additional tissue and we’re not sure it would add enough to the information provided to be worthwhile. Note that we have stained the forebrain for Netrin-1 previously, providing broad staining of many brain regions (Manitt et al., 2011)

References:

Manitt C, Mimee A, Eng C, Pokinko M, Stroh T, Cooper HM, Kolb B, Flores C. 2011. The Netrin Receptor DCC Is Required in the Pubertal Organization of Mesocortical Dopamine Circuitry. J Neurosci 31:8381–8394. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0606-11.2011

(4) Figure 3 - Because mice tend to avoid brightly-lit spaces, the light/dark box is more commonly used as a measure of anxiety-like behavior than purely exploratory behavior (including in the paper they cited). It is important to address this possibility in their discussion of their findings. To bolster their conclusions about the coincidence of circuit and behavioral changes in adolescent hamsters, it would be useful to add an additional measure of exploratory behaviors (e.g. hole board).

Regarding the light/dark box test, this is an excellent point. We prefer the term “risk taking” to “anxiety-like” and now use the former term in our manuscript. Furthermore, our interest in the behaviour is purely to chart the development of adolescent behaviour across our treatment groups, not to study a particular emotional state. Regardless of the specific emotion or emotions governing the light/dark box behaviour, it is an ideal test for charting adolescent shifts in behaviour as it is well-characterized in this respect, as we discuss in our manuscript.

(5) Supplementary Figure 4,5 The authors defined puberty onset using uterine and testes weights in hamsters. While the weights appear to be different for summer and winter hamsters, there were no statistical comparison. Please add statistical analyses to bolster claims about puberty start times. Also, as many studies use vaginal opening to define puberty onset, it would be helpful to discuss how these measurements typically align and cite relevant literature that described use of uterine weights. Also, Supplementary Figures 4 and 5 were mis-cited as Supp. Fig. 2 in the text (e.g. line 317 and others).

These are great suggestions. We have added statistical analyses to Supplementary Figures 5 and 6 and provided Vaginal Opening data as Supplementary Figure 7. The statistical analyses confirm that all three characters are delayed in winter hamsters compared to summer hamsters.

We have also added the following references to the manuscript:

Darrow JM, Davis FC, Elliott JA, Stetson MH, Turek FW, Menaker M. 1980. Influence of Photoperiod on Reproductive Development in the Golden Hamster. Biol Reprod 22:443–450. doi:10.1095/biolreprod22.3.443

Ebling FJP. 1994. Photoperiodic Differences during Development in the Dwarf Hamsters Phodopus sungorus and Phodopus campbelli. Gen Comp Endocrinol 95:475–482. doi:10.1006/gcen.1994.1147

Timonin ME, Place NJ, Wanderi E, Wynne-Edwards KE. 2006. Phodopus campbelli detect reduced photoperiod during development but, unlike Phodopus sungorus, retain functional reproductive physiology. Reproduction 132:661–670. doi:10.1530/rep.1.00019

(6) The font in many figure panels is small and hard to read (e.g. 1A,D,E,H,I,L...). Please increase the size for legibility.

We have increased the font size of our figure text throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer #3

(15) Fig 1 C,D. Clarify the units of the y axis

We have now fixed this.

Full Reference List

Adriani W, Laviola G. 2004. Windows of vulnerability to psychopathology and therapeutic strategy in the adolescent rodent model. Behav Pharmacol 15:341–352. doi:10.1097/00008877-200409000-00005

Hammerslag LR, Gulley JM. 2014. Age and sex differences in reward behavior in adolescent and adult rats. Dev Psychobiol 56:611–621. doi:10.1002/dev.21127

Hoops D, Flores C. 2017. Making Dopamine Connections in Adolescence. Trends in Neurosciences 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.tins.2017.09.004

Kalsbeek A, Voorn P, Buijs RM, Pool CW, Uylings HBM. 1988. Development of the Dopaminergic Innervation in the Prefrontal Cortex of the Rat. The Journal of Comparative Neurology 269:58–72. doi:10.1002/cne.902690105

Makinodan M, Rosen KM, Ito S, Corfas G. 2012. A critical period for social experiencedependent oligodendrocyte maturation and myelination. Science 337:1357–1360. doi:10.1126/science.1220845

Manitt C, Mimee A, Eng C, Pokinko M, Stroh T, Cooper HM, Kolb B, Flores C. 2011. The Netrin Receptor DCC Is Required in the Pubertal Organization of Mesocortical Dopamine Circuitry. J Neurosci 31:8381–8394. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0606-11.2011

Reynolds LM, Flores C. 2021. Mesocorticolimbic Dopamine Pathways Across Adolescence: Diversity in Development. Front Neural Circuit 15:735625. doi:10.3389/fncir.2021.735625 Reynolds LM, Yetnikoff L, Pokinko M, Wodzinski M, Epelbaum JG, Lambert LC, Cossette M-P, Arvanitogiannis A, Flores C. 2018. Early Adolescence is a Critical Period for the Maturation of Inhibitory Behavior. Cerebral cortex 29:3676–3686. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhy247

Schneider M. 2013. Adolescence as a vulnerable period to alter rodent behavior. Cell and tissue research 354:99–106. doi:10.1007/s00441-013-1581-2

Spear LP. 2000. Neurobehavioral Changes in Adolescence. Current directions in psychological science 9:111–114. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00072

Wheeler AL, Lerch JP, Chakravarty MM, Friedel M, Sled JG, Fletcher PJ, Josselyn SA, Frankland PW. 2013. Adolescent Cocaine Exposure Causes Enduring Macroscale Changes in Mouse Brain Structure. J Neurosci 33:1797–1803. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3830-12.2013