Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript presents a compelling and innovative approach that combines Track2p neuronal tracking with advanced analytical methods to investigate early postnatal brain development. The work provides a powerful framework for exploring complex developmental processes such as the emergence of sensory representations, cognitive functions, and activity-dependent circuit formation. By enabling the tracking of the same neurons over extended developmental periods, this methodology sets the stage for mechanistic insights that were previously inaccessible.

Strengths:

(1) Innovative Methodology:

The integration of Track2p with longitudinal calcium imaging offers a unique capability to follow individual neurons across critical developmental windows.

(2) High Conceptual Impact:

The manuscript outlines a clear path for using this approach to study foundational developmental questions, such as how early neuronal activity shapes later functional properties and network assembly.

(3) Future Experimental Potential:

The authors convincingly argue for the feasibility of extending this tracking into adulthood and combining it with targeted manipulations, which could significantly advance our understanding of causality in developmental processes.

(4) Broad Applicability:

The proposed framework can be adapted to a wide range of experimental designs and questions, making it a valuable resource for the field.

Weaknesses:

None major. The manuscript is conceptually strong and methodologically sound. Future studies will need to address potential technical limitations of long-term tracking, but this does not detract from the current work's significance and clarity of vision

Comments on revisions:

I have no further requests. I think this is an excellent manuscript

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Majnik and colleagues introduces "Track2p", a new tool designed to track neurons across imaging sessions of two-photon calcium imaging in developing mice. The method addresses the challenge of tracking cells in the growing brain of developing mice. The authors showed that "Track2p" successfully tracks hundreds of neurons in the barrel cortex across multiple days during the second postnatal week. This enabled identification of the emergence of behavioral state modulation and desynchronization of spontaneous network activity around postnatal day 11.

Strengths

The authors have satisfactorily addressed the majority of our questions and comments, and the revisions substantially improve the manuscript. The expansion of Track2p to accept general NumPy array inputs makes the tool more accessible to researchers using different analysis pipelines. While the absence of benchmarking standards remains a limitation across the field, the release of the ground-truth dataset is an important step forward that will allow other researchers to evaluate and compare algorithms.

Minor point

(1) The authors tested the robustness of the algorithm across non-consecutive days. As expected, performance drops significantly under these conditions. We agree that this limitation reflects biological constraints due to brain growth rather than shortcomings of the algorithm itself. This is relevant for researchers planning to use Track2p for longitudinal imaging or benchmarking new algorithms, and we recommend including some of this information in the Supplementary Information along with a brief discussion.

Comments on revisions:

We acknowledge the extended documentation for using Track2p and converting between Suite2p outputs and NumPy arrays. This addition is of great utility. We would also suggest further expanding the documentation for the NumPy array implementation, as we ran into some errors when testing this feature using NumPy arrays generated from deltaF traces, TIFF FOVs, and Cellpose masks.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript Majnik et al. developed a computational algorithm to track individual developing interneurons in the rodent cortex at postnatal stages. Considerable development in cortical networks takes place during the first postnatal weeks, however, tools to study them longitudinally at a single cell level are scarce. This paper provides a valuable approach to study both single cell dynamics across days and state-drive network changes. The authors used Gad67Cre mice together with virally introduced TdTom to track interneurons based on their anatomical location in the FOV and AAVSynGCaMP8m to follow their activity across the second postnatal week, a period during which the cortex is known to undergo marked decorrelation in spontaneous activity. Using Track2P, the authors show feasibility to track populations of neurons in the same mice capturing with their analysis previously described developmental decorrelation and uncovering stable representations of neuronal activity, coincident with the onset of spontaneous active movement. The quality of the imaging data is compelling, and the computational analysis is thorough, providing a widely applicable tool for the analysis of emerging neuronal activity in the cortex. Below are some points for the authors to consider.

Major points

The authors use a viral approach to label cortical interneurons. It is unclear how Track2P will perform in dense networks of excitatory cells using GCaMP transgenic mice.

The authors used 20 neurons to generate a ground truth data set. The rational for this sample size is unclear. Figure 1 indicates capability to track ~728 neurons. A larger ground truth data set will increase the robustness of the conclusions.

It is unclear how movement was scored in the analysis shown in Fig 5A. Was the time that the mouse spent moving scored after visual inspection of the videos? Were whisker and muscle twitches scored as movement or was movement quantified as amount of time in which the treadmill was displaced?

The rational for binning the data analysis in early P11 is unclear. As the authors acknowledged, it is likely that the decoder captured active states from P11 onwards. Because active whisking begins around P14, it is unlikely to drive this change in network dynamics at P11. Does pupil dilation in the pups change during locomotor and resting states? Does the arousal state of the pups abruptly change at P11?

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed carefully all my comments. This is an interesting paper.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors explore the role of the conserved transcription factor POU4-2 in planarian maintenance and regeneration of mechanosensory neurons. The authors explore the role of this transcription factor and identify potential targets of this transcription factor. Importantly, many genes discovered in this work are deeply conserved, with roles in mechanosensation and hearing, indicating that planarians may be a useful model with which to study the roles of these key molecules. This work is important within the field of regenerative neurobiology, but also impactful for those studying evolution of the machinery that is important for human hearing.

Strengths:

The paper is rigorous and thorough, with convincing support for the conclusions of the work.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors investigate the role of the transcription factor Smed-pou4-2 in the maintenance, regeneration and function of mechanosensory neurons in the freshwater planarian Schmidtea mediterranea. First, they characterize the expression of pou4-2 in mechanosensory neurons during both homeostasis and regeneration, and examine how its expression is affected by the knockdown of soxB1, 2, a previously identified transcription factor essential for the maintenance and regeneration of these neurons. Second, the authors assess whether pou4-2 is functionally required for the maintenance and regeneration of mechanosensory neurons.

Strengths:

The study provides some new insights into the regulatory role of pou4-2 in the differentiation, maintenance, and regeneration of ciliated mechanosensory neurons in planarians.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This is an interesting and valuable paper by Gil-Lievana, Arroyo et al. that presents an open-source method (the "Crunchometer") for quantifying biting and chewing behavior in mice using audio detection. The work addresses an important and unmet need in the field: quantitative measures of feeding behavior with solid foods, since most prior approaches have been limited to liquids. The authors make a clear and compelling case for why this problem is important, and I fully agree with their motivation.

The system is carefully validated against human-scored video data and is shown to be at least as accurate, and in some cases more accurate, than human observers. This is a major strength of the study. I also particularly appreciate the demonstration of the technology in the context of LHA circuitry, which nicely illustrates its utility and importance for mechanistic studies of feeding. I also appreciate the ability to readily time-lock neural data to individual crunches. Overall, the manuscript is well-executed and represents a useful contribution to the field.

The comments I have are largely minor and should be straightforward to address:

(1) The authors should report sample sizes for all mouse cohorts, either alongside the statistics or in the figure legends for mean data.

(2) Clarification is needed as to whether crunch detection fidelity is influenced by the hardness or softness of the food. The focus here is on standard pellets, with some additional high-fat pellet data, but it would be useful to know how generalizable the method is across different textures.

(3) The authors should comment on how susceptible the Crunchometer is to background noise. For example, how well does it perform in the presence of white noise, experimenter movement, or other task-related sounds?

(4) Chemogenetic activation of LHA GABAergic neurons is used. DREADD-based activation may strongly drive these neurons in a way that is not directly comparable to optogenetic or more physiological manipulations. While I do not think additional experiments are required, it would strengthen the discussion to briefly acknowledge this limitation.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript introduces the Crunchometer, a low-cost, open-source acoustic platform for monitoring the microstructure of solid food intake in mice. The Crunchometer is designed to overcome the limitations of existing methods for studying feeding behavior in rodents. The goal was to provide a tool that could precisely capture the microstructure of solid food intake, something often overlooked in favor of liquid-based assays, while being affordable, scalable, and compatible with neural recording techniques. By doing so, the authors aimed to enable detailed analysis of how physiological states, drugs, and specific neural circuits shape naturalistic feeding behaviors.

Strengths:

The study's strengths lie in its clear innovation, methodological rigor in validation against human annotation, and demonstration of broad utility across behavioral and neuroscience paradigms. The approach addresses a significant methodological gap in the field by moving beyond liquid-based feeding assays and provides an accessible tool for precisely dissecting ingestive behavior. The system is validated across multiple contexts, including physiological state (fed vs. fasted), pharmacological manipulation (semaglutide), and circuit-level interventions (chemogenetic activation of LH neurons), and is further shown to integrate seamlessly with both electrophysiology and calcium imaging.

(1) Introduces a low-cost, open-source acoustic tool for measuring solid food intake, filling a critical gap left by expensive and proprietary systems.

(2) Makes the method easily adoptable across labs with detailed setup instructions and shared benchmark datasets.

(3) Provides high temporal precision for detecting bite events compared to human observers.

(4) Successfully distinguishes feeding microstructure (bites, bouts, IBIs, gnawing vs. consumption) with greater objectivity than manual annotation.

(5) Demonstrates compatibility with electrophysiology and calcium imaging, enabling fine-scale alignment of neural activity with feeding behavior.

(6) Effectively discriminates between fed vs. fasted states, validating physiological sensitivity.

(7) Captures the pharmacological effects of semaglutide, although this is really just reduced feeding and associated readouts (bouts, latency, etc).

(8) Has potential to distinguish consummatory vs. non-consummatory behaviors (e.g., food spillage, gnawing); however, the current SVM model struggles to separate biting from gnawing due to similar acoustic profiles, and manual validation is still required.

(9) Provides potential for closed-loop experiments.

Weaknesses:

Several limitations temper the strength of the conclusions: the supervised classifier still requires manual correction for gnawing, generalizability across different setups is limited, and the neuroscience findings, particularly calcium imaging of GABAergic and glutamatergic neurons, are based on small pilot samples. These issues do not undermine the value of the tool, but mean that the neural circuit findings should be interpreted as preliminary.

(1) Some neuroscience findings (calcium imaging of GABAergic vs. glutamatergic neurons) are based on small pilot samples (n=2 mice per condition), limiting generalizability.

(2) Chemogenetic and pharmacological experiments used small cohorts, raising statistical power concerns.

(3) Correlation with actual food intake is modest and sometimes less accurate than human observers.

(4) Sensitive to hoarding behavior, which can reduce detection accuracy and requires manual correction for misclassifications (e.g., tail movements, non-food noises). However, these limitations are discussed and not ignored.

Conclusion:

Overall, this is an exciting and impactful methodological advance that will likely be widely adopted in the field. I recommend minor revisions to clarify the limits of classifier generalizability, better contextualize the small-sample neuroscience findings as pilot data, and discuss future directions (e.g., real-time closed-loop applications).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript provides detailed information on the construction of open-source systems to monitor ingestive behavior with low-cost equipment. Overall, this is a welcome addition to the arsenal of equipment that could be used to make measurements. The authors show interesting applications with data that reveal important neurophysiological properties of neurons in the lateral hypothalamus. The identification of previously unknown "meal-related" neurons in the LH highlights the utility of the device and is a novel insight that should spark further investigation on the LH. This manuscript and videos provide a wealth of useful information that should be a must-read for anyone in the ingestive behavior or hypothalamus fields.

A scholarly introduction to the history and utility of various ways feeding is measured in rodents is provided. One point - the microstructure of eating solid food - has been studied extensively (for one of many studies, see https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246569 ). However, I agree that the crunchometer will allow for more people to access recordings during food intake and temporally lock consummatory behavior to neural activity.

Questions on results:

(1) It is unclear why 10% sucrose solution was used as a liquid instead of water, given that the study is focusing on the solid food source.

(2) It is unclear how essential the human verification is in the pipeline - results for Figure 1 keep referring to the verification as essential. Is that dispensable once the ML algorithms have been trained?

(3) The ability to extrapolate food quantity consumed is limited, with high variability. This limitation does not undercut the utility of the crunchometer, but should be highlighted as one of the parameters that are not suitable for this system. This limitation should be added to the limitations section.

(4) The ability to discriminate between gnawing and consummatory behavior is a strength (Figure 5), and these findings are important. However, it is unclear what can be made of mice that have 'gnawing' behavior in the fasted state (like in Figure 3). It seems they would need to be eliminated from the analysis with this tool?

(5) Why is there a post-semaglutide fed group and not a fasted group in Figure 4? It seems both would have been interesting, as one could expect an effect on feeding even 24h after semaglutide treatment. This would help parse the preference better because the animals eat such a small amount on semaglutide, that it is hard to compare to the fasted condition with saline treatment.

(6) The identification of 'meal-related' neurons in the LH is another strength of the manuscript. Although there is currently insufficient data, could similar recordings be used to give a neurophysiological definition of a 'meal' duration/size? Typically, these were somewhat arbitrarily defined behaviorally. Having a neural correlate to a 'meal' would be a powerful tool for understanding how meals are involved in overall caloric intake.

(7) The conclusion in the title of Figure 8 is premature, given the pilot nature and small number of neurons and mice sampled.

Conclusion:

Overall, this report on the Crunchometer is well done and provides a valuable tool for all who study food intake and the behaviors around food intake. Clarification or answers to the points above will only further the utility and understanding of the tool for the research community. I am excited to see the future utility of this tool in emerging research.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This paper is a relevant overview of the currently published literature on low-intensity focused ultrasound stimulation (TUS) in humans, with a meta-analysis of this literature that explores which stimulation parameters might predict the directionality of the physiological stimulation effects.

The pool of papers to draw from is small, which is not surprising given the nascent technology. It seems, nevertheless, relevant to summarise the current field in the way done here, not least to mitigate and prevent some of the mistakes that other non-invasive brain stimulation techniques have suffered from, most notably the theory- and data free permutation of the parameter space.

A database summarising the literature and allowing for quantitative assessment of these studies is a key contribution of the paper. If curated well, it can become a valuable community resource.

Comments on revisions:

The paper is much improved. There remain a few caveats the authors may want to address.

I'm not going to dwell on this if the authors don't agree, but remain critical about the inclusion of TPS in the discussion. It's comparing apples and oranges, and unless there's a personal interest the authors have in TPS, it remains puzzling why it is included in the first place. As per my previous review, the literature on TPS, and especially the main example cited, has been highly criticised, including national patient and medical associations. A mere disclaimer that more work is needed isn't enough, in this reviewer's opinion - I simply don't understand why the authors go out on a limb here when the rest of the paper is done so well and thoroughly.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript "Lifestyles shape genome size and gene content in fungal pathogens" by Fijarczyk et al. presents a comprehensive analyses of a large dataset of fungal genomes to investigate what genomic features correlate with pathogenicity and insect associations. The authors focus on a single class of fungi, due to the diversity of life styles and availability of genomes. They analyze a set of 12 genomic features for correlations with either pathogenicity or insect association and find that, contrary to previous assertions, repeat content does not associate with pathogenicity. They discover that the number of protein coding genes, including total size of non-repetitive DNA does correlate with pathogenicity. However, unique features are associated to insect associations. This work represents an important contribution to the attempts to understand what features of genomic architecture impact the evolution of pathogenicity in fungi.

Strengths:

The statistical methods appear to be properly employed and analyses thoroughly conducted. The size of the dataset is impressive and likely makes the conclusions robust. The manuscript is well written and the information, while dense, is generally presented in a clear manner.

Weaknesses:

My main concerns all involve the genomic data, how they were annotated, and the biases this could impart to the downstream analyses. The three main features I'm concerned with are sequencing technology, gene annotation, and repeat annotation. The authors have done an excellent investigation into these issues, but these show concerning trends, and my concerns are not as assuaged as the authors.

The collection of genomes is diverse and includes assemblies generated from multiple sequencing technologies including both short- and long-read technologies. From the number of scaffolds its clear that the quality of the assemblies varies dramatically, even within categories of long- and short-read. This is going to impact many of the values important for this study, as the authors show.

I have considerable worries that the gene annotation methods could impart biases that significantly effect the main conclusions. Only 5 reference training sets were used for the Sordariomycetes and these are unequally distributed across the phylogeny. Augusts obviously performed less than ideally, as the authors observe in their extended analysis. While the authors are not concerned about phylogenetic distance from the training species, due to prevailing trends, I am not as convinced. In figure S12, the Augustus features appear to have considerably more variation in values for the H2 set and possible the microascales. It is unclear how this would effect the conclusions in this study.

Unfortunately, the genomes available from NCBI will vary greatly in the quality of their repeat masking. While some will have been masked using custom libraries generated with software like Repeatmodeler, others will probably have been masked with public databases like repbase. As public databases are again biased towards certain species (Fusarium is well represented in repbase for example), this could have significant impacts on estimating repeat content. Additionally, even custom libraries can be problematic as some software (like RepeatModeler) will included multicopy host genes leading to bona fide genes being masked if proper filtering is not employed. A more consistent repeat masking pipeline would add to the robustness of the conclusions. The authors show that there is a significant bias in their set.

To a lesser degree I wonder what impact the use of representative genomes for a species has on the analyses. Some species vary greatly in genome size, repeat content and architecture among strains. I understand that it is difficult to address in this type of analysis, but it could be discussed.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper, the authors report on the genomic correlates of the transition to the pathogenic lifestyle in Sordariomycetes. The pathogenic lifestyle was found to be better explained by the number of genes, and in particular effectors and tRNAs, but this was modulated by the type of interacting host (insect or not insect) and the ability to be vectored by insects.

Strengths:

The main strengths of this study lie in (i) the size of the dataset, and the potentially high number of lifestyle transitions in Sordariomycetes, (ii) the quality of the analyses and the quality of the presentation of the results, (iii) the importance of the authors' findings.

Weaknesses:

The weakness is a common issue in most comparative genomics studies in fungi, but it remains important and valid to highlight it. Defining lifestyles is complex because many fungi go through different lifestyles during their life cycles (for instance, symbiotic phases interspersed with saprotrophic phases). In many fungi, the lifestyle referenced in the literature is merely the sampling substrate (such as wood or dung), which does not necessarily mean that this substrate is a key part of the life cycle. The authors discuss this issue, but they do not eliminate the underlying uncertainties.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Chaiyasitdhi et al. set out to investigate the detailed ultrastructure of the scolopidia in the locust Müller's organ, the geometry of the forces delivered to these scolopidia during natural stimulation, and the direction of forces that are most effective at eliciting transduction currents. To study the ultrastructure, they used the FIB-SEM technique, to study the geometry of natural stimulation, they used OCT vibrometry and high-speed light microscopy, and to study transduction currents, they used patch clamp physiology.

Strengths:

I believe that the ultrastructural description of the locust scolopidium is excellent and the first of its kind in any insect system. In particular, the finding of the bend in the dendritic cilium and the position of the ciliary dilation are interesting, and it would be interesting to see whether these are common features within the huge diversity of insect chordotonal organs.

I believe the use of OCT to measure organ movements is a significant strength of this paper; however, using ex vivo preparations undermines any conclusions drawn about the system's in vivo mechanics.

The choice of Group III scolopidia is also good. Research on the mechanics of locust tympana has shown that travelling waves are formed on the tympanum and waves of different frequencies show highest amplitudes at different positions on the tympanum, and therefore also on different groups of scolopidia within the Müller's organ (Windmill et al, 2005; 2008, and Malkin et al, 2013). The lowest frequency modal waves (F0) observed by Windmill et al 2008 were at about 4.4 kHz, which are slightly higher than the ~3 kHz frequencies studied in this paper but do show large deflections where these group III scolopidia attach at the styliform body (Windmill et al, 2005).

This should be mentioned in the paper since the electrophysiology justification to use group III neurons is less convincing, given that Jacobs et al 1999 clearly point out that group III neurons are very variable and some of them are tuned much higher to 10 kHz, and others even higher to 20-30 kHz.

Weaknesses:

Specifically, it is understandable that the authors decided to use excised ears for the light microscopy, where Müller's organ would not be accessible in situ. However, it is very likely that excision will change the system's mechanics, especially since any tension or support to Müller's organ will be ablated. OCT enables in vivo measurements in fully undissected systems (Mhatre et al, Biorxiv, 2021) or in systems with minimal dissection where the mechanics have not been compromised (Vavakou et al, 2021). The choice to entirely dissect out the membrane is difficult to understand here.

My main concern with this paper, however, is the use of light microscopy very close to the Nyquist limit to study scolopidial motion, and the fact that the OCT data contradict and do not match the light microscopy data.

The light microscopy data is collected at ~8 kHz, and hence the Nyquist limit is ~4 kHz. It is possible to measure frequencies reliably this close to the limit, but the amplitude of motion is quite likely to be underestimated, given that the technique only provides 2 sample points per cycle at 4 kHz and approximately 2.66 sample points at 3 kHz. At that temporal resolution, the samples are much more likely to miss the peak of the wave than not, and therefore, amplitudes will be misestimated. A much more reasonable sample rate for amplitude estimation is generally about 10 samples per cycle. I do not believe the data from the microscopy is reliable for what the authors wish to use them for.

Using the light microscopy data, the authors claim that the strains experienced by the group III scolopidia at 3 kHz are greater along the AP axis than the ML axis (Figure 4). However, this is contradicted by the OCT data, which show very low strain along the AP axis (black traces) at and around 3 kHz (Figure 3c and extended data Figure 2f) and show some movement along the ML axis (red traces, same figures). The phase at low amplitudes of motion cannot be considered very reliable either, and hence phase variations at these frequencies in the OCT cannot be considered reliable indicators of AP motion; hence, I'm unclear whether the vector difference in the OCT is a reliable indicator of movement.

The OCT data are significantly more reliable as they are acquired at an appropriate sampling rate of 90 kHz. The authors do not mention what microphone they use to monitor or calibrate their sound field and phase measurements in OCT, but I presume this was done since it is the norm. Thus, the OCT data show that the movement within the Müller's organ is complex, probably traces an ellipse at some frequencies as observed in bushcrickets (Vavkou et al, 2021) and also thought to be the case in tree crickets based on the known attachment points of the TO (Mhatre et al, 2021). The OCT data shows relatively low AP motion at frequencies near 3 kHz, and higher ML motion, which contradicts the less reliable light microscopy data. Given that the locust membrane shows peaks in motion at ~4.5 kHz, ~11 kHz, and also at ~20 kHz (Windmill et al, 2008), I am surprised that the authors limited their OCT experiments and analyses to 5 kHz.

In summary for this section, I am not convinced of the conclusion drawn by the authors that group III scolopidia receive significantly higher stimulation along the AP axis in their native configuration, if indeed they were studied in the appropriate force regime (altered due to excision).

In the scolopidial patch clamp data, the authors study transduction currents in response to steady state stimulation along the AP axis and the ML axis. The responses to steady state and periodic forces may well be different, and the authors do not offer us a way to clearly relate the two and therefore, to interpret the data.

In addition, both stimulation types, along the AP axis and the ML, elicit clear transduction responses. Stimulation along the AP axis might be slightly higher, but there is over 40% variation around the mean in one case (pull: 26.22 {plus minus} 10.99 pA) and close to 80% variation in the other (push: 10.96 {plus minus} 8.59 pA). These data are indeed from a very high displacement range (2000 nm), which is very high compared to the native displacement levels, which are in the 1-10 nm range.

The factor change from sample to sample is not reported, and is small even overall. The statistical analyses of these data are not clearly reported, and I don't see the results of the overall ANOVA in the results section. I also find the dip in the reported transduction currents between 10 and 100 nm quite odd (Figure 5 j-m) and would like to know what the authors' interpretation of this behaviour is. It seems to me that those currents increase continuously linearly after ~50-100 nm and that the data below that range are in the noise. Thus, the transduction currents observed at the relevant displacement range (1-10 nm) may not actually be reliable. How were these small displacements achieved, and how closely were the actual levels monitored? Is it possible to reliably deliver 1-10 nm displacements using a micromanipulator?

What is clear, despite the difficulty in interpreting this data, is that both AP and ML stimulation evoke transduction currents, and their relative differences are small. Additionally, in Müller's organ itself, in the excised organ, the scolopidia are stimulated along both axes. Thus, in my opinion, it is not possible to say that axial stretch along the cilium is 'the key mechanical input that activates mechano-electrical transduction'.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary of strengths and weaknesses:

Using several techniques-FIB-SEM, OCT, high-speed light microscopy, and electrophysiology-Chaiyasitdhi et al. provide evidence that chordotonal receptors in the locust ear (Müller's organ) sense the stretch of the scolapale cell, primarily of its cilium. Careful measurements certainly show cell stretch, albeit with some inconsistencies regarding best frequencies and amplitudes. The weakest argument concerns the electrophysiological recordings, because the authors do not show directly that the stimulus stretches the cells. If this latter point can be clarified, then our confidence that ciliary stretch is the proximal stimulus for mechanotransduction will be increased. This conclusion will not come as a surprise for workers in the field, as the chordotonal organ is known as a stretch-receptor organ (e.g., Wikipedia). But it is a useful contribution to the field and allows the authors to suggest transduction mechanisms whereby ciliary stretch is transduced into channel opening.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The paper 'A stretching mechanism evokes mechano-electrical transduction in auditory chordotonal neurons' by Chaiyasitdhi et al. presents a study that aims to address the mechanical model for scolopidia in Schistocerca gregaria Müller's organ, the basic mechanosensory units in insect chordotonal organs. The authors combine high-resolution ultrastructural analysis (FIB-SEM), sound-evoked motion tracking (OCT and high-speed light microscopy), and electrophysiological recordings of transduction currents during direct mechanical stimulation of individual scolopidia. They conclude that axial stretching along the ciliary axis is an adequate mechanical stimulus for activating mechanotransduction channels.

Strengths/Highlights:

(1) The 3D FIB-SEM reconstruction provides high resolution of scolopidial architecture, including the newly described "scolopale lid" and the full extent of the cilium.

(2) High-speed microscopy clearly demonstrates axial stretch as the dominant motion component in the auditory receptors, which confirms a long-standing question of what the actual motion of a stretch receptor is upon auditory stimulation.

(3) Patch-clamp recordings directly link mechanical stretch to transduction currents, a major advance over previous indirect models.

Weaknesses/Limitations:

(1) The text is conceptually unclear or written in an unclear manner in some places, for example, when using the proposed model to explain the sensitivity of Nanchung-Inactive in the discussion.

(2) The proposed mechanistic models (direct-stretch, stretch-compression, stretch-deformation, stretch-tilt) are compelling but remain speculative without direct molecular or biophysical validation. For example, examining whether the organ is pre-stretched and identifying the mechanical components of cells (tissues), such as the extracellular matrix and cytoskeleton, would help establish the mechanical model and strengthen the conclusion.

(3) To some extent, the weaknesses of the paper are part of its strengths and vice versa. For example, the direct push/pull and up/down stimulations are a great experimental advance to approach an answer to the question of how the underlying cellular components are deformed and how the underlying ion channels are forced. However, as the authors clearly state, neither of their stimulations can limit all forces to only one direction, and both orthogonal forces evoke responses in the neurons. The question of which of the two orthogonal forces 'causes' the response cannot be answered with these experiments and has not been answered by this manuscript. But the study has brought the field a considerable step closer to answering the question. The answer, however, might be that both longitudinal ('stretch') and perpendicular ('compression') forces act together to open the ion channels and that both dendritic extension via stretch and bending can provide forces for ion channel gating. The current paper has identified major components (longitudinal stretch components) for the neurons they analysed, but these will surely have been chosen according to their accessibility, and as such, the variety of mechanical responses in Müller's organ might be greater. In light of these considerations, the authors might acknowledge such uncertainties more clearly in their paper. The paper is an impressive methodological progress and breakthrough, but it simply does not "demonstrate that axial stretch along the cilium is the adequate stimulus or the key mechanical input that activates mechano-electrical transduction" as the authors write at the start of their discussion. They do show that axial stretch dominates for the neurons they looked at, which is important information. The same applies to the end of the discussion: The authors write, "This relative motion within the organ then drives an axial stretch of the scolopidium, which in turn evokes the mechano-electrical transduction current." Reading the manuscript, the certainty and display of confidence are not substantiated by the data provided. But they are also not necessary. The study has paved the road to answer these questions. Instead, the authors are encouraged to make suggestions on how the remaining uncertainties could be removed (and what experiments or model might be used).

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study shows a novel role for SCoR2 in regulating metabolic pathways in the heart to prevent injury following ischemia/reperfusion. It combines a new multi-omics method to determine SCoR2 mediated metabolic pathways in the heart. This paper would be of interest to cardiovascular researchers working on cardioprotective strategies following ischemic injury in the heart.

Strengths:

(1) Use of SCoR2KO mice subjected to I/R injury.

(2) Identification of multiple metabolic pathways in the heart by a novel multi-omics approach.

Comments on revisions:

Authors have addressed all concerns raised in the previous round of review. Substantial modifications have been made in response to those concerns. There are no further comments.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript addresses the gap in knowledge related to the cardiac function of the S-denitrosylase SNO-CoA Reductase 2 (SCoR2; product of the Akr1a1 gene). Genetic variants in SCoR2 have been linked to cardiovascular disease, yet its exact role in heart remains unclear. This paper demonstrates that mice deficient in SCoR2 show significant protection in a myocardial infarction (MI) model. SCoR2 influenced ketolytic energy production, antioxidant levels, and polyol balance through the S-nitrosylation of crucial metabolic regulators.

Strengths:

Addresses a well-defined gap in knowledge related to the cardiac function of SNO-CoA Reductase 2. Besides the in-depth case for this specific player, the manuscripts sheds more light on the links between S-nytrosylation and metabolic reprogramming in heart.

Rigorous proof of requirement through the combination of gene knockout and in vivo myocardial ischemia/reperfusion

Identification of precise Cys residue for SNO-modification of BDH1 as SCoR2 target in cardiac ketolysis

Weaknesses:

The experiments with BDH1 stability were performed in mutant 293 cells. Was there a difference in BDH1 stability in myocardial tissue or primary cardiomyocytes from SCoR2-null vs -WT mice? Same question extends to PKM2.

In the absence of tracing experiments, the cross-sectional changes in ketolysis, glycolysis or polyol intermediates presented in Figures 4 and 5 are suggestive at best. This needs to be stressed while describing and interpreting these results.

The findings from human samples with ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy do not seem immediately or linearly in line with each other and with the model proposed from the KO mice. While the correlation holds up in the non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (increased SNO-BDH1, SNO-PKM2 with decreased SCoR2 expression), how do the Authors explain the decreased SNO-BDH1 with preserved SCoR2 expression in ischemic cardiomyopathy? This seems counterintuitive as activation of ketolysis is a quite established myocardial response to the ischemic stress. It may help the overall message clarity to focus the human data part on only NICM patients.

(partially linked to the point above) an important proof that is lacking at present is the proof of sufficiency for SCoR2 in S-Nytrosylation of targets and cardiac remodeling. Does SCoR2 overexpression in heart or isolated cardiomyocytes reduce S-nitrosylation of BDH1 and other targets, undermining heart function at baseline or under stress?

Comments on revisions:

Some of my points have been addressed. However, the points related to 1) BDH1 stability effect in cardiomyocytes; 2) human relevance of SNO-BDH1; 3) SCoR2 sufficiency remain unclear. That said, this manuscript will provide useful information to the field as such.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript demonstrates that mice lacking the denitrosylase enzyme SCoR2/AKR1A1 demonstrate a robust cardioprotection resulting from reprogramming of multiple metabolic pathways, revealing<br /> widespread, coordinated metabolic regulation by SCoR2.

Strengths:

The extensive experimental evidence provided the use of the knockout model

Weaknesses:

No direct evidence for the underlying mechanism.

The mouse model used is not a tissue-specific knock-out.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors identify small-molecule compounds modulating the stability of the mitochondrial transcription factor A (TFAM) using a high-throughput CETSA screen and subsequent secondary assays. The identified compounds increased the protein levels of TFAM without affecting its RNA levels and led to an increase in mtDNA levels. As a read-out for dose-dependent action of the identified compounds, the authors investigated cGAS-STING and ISG activation in cellular inflammation models in the presence or absence of their compounds. The addition of TFAM modulators led to a decrease in cGAS-STING/ISG activation and decreased mtDNA release. Furthermore, beneficial effects could be determined in models of mtDNA disease (rescue of ATP rates), sclerotic fibroblasts (decreased fibrosis), and regulatory T cells (decreased activation of effector T cells). The study thus proposes novel first-in-class regulators of TFAM as a therapeutic option in conditions of mitochondrial dysfunction.

Strengths:

The authors identified TFAM as a promising target in conditions of mitochondrial dysfunction, as it is a key regulator of mitochondrial function, serving both as a transcription and packaging factor of mtDNA. Importantly, TFAM is a key regulator of mtDNA copy number, and a moderate increase in TFAM/mtDNA levels has been shown to be beneficial in a number of pathological conditions. Furthermore, mtDNA release leading to activation of inflammatory responses has been linked to a variety of pathological conditions in the last decade. Thus, the identification of small molecule modulators of TFAM that have the potential to increase mtDNA copy number and decrease inflammatory signaling is of great importance. Furthermore, the authors highlight potential applications in the field of mitochondrial disease, fibrosis, and autoimmune disease.

Weaknesses:

The central weakness of the study is the fact that the authors propose compounds as modulators or even activators of TFAM without sufficiently proving a direct effect on TFAM itself. There are no data indicating a direct effect on TFAM activity (e.g., mtDNA transcription, replication, packaging), and it is not sufficiently ruled out that other proteins (e.g., LONP1) mediate the effect. Additionally, important information on the performed screen is not provided. Thus, the data presented is currently incomplete to support the described findings. Furthermore, the introduction and discussion are lacking key references.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The present paper aims to identify small molecules that could possibly affect mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) stability, limiting cytosolic mtDNA abundance and activation of interferon signaling. The authors developed a high-throughput screen incorporating HiBiT technology to identify possible target compounds affecting mitochondrial transcription factor A (TFAM) content, a compound known to impact mtDNA stability. Cells were subsequently exposed to target compounds to investigate the impact on TNFα-stimulated interferon signaling, a process activated by cytosolic mtDNA abundance. Compound 2, an analog of arylsulfonamide, was highlighted as a possible mitochondrial transcription factor A (TFAM)-activator, and emphasized as a small molecule that could stabilize mtDNA and prevent stress-induced interferon signaling.

Strengths:

Identifying compounds that positively affect mitochondrial biology has diverse implications. The combination of high-throughput screening and assay development to connect identified compounds with cellular interferon signalling events is a strength of the current approach, and the authors should be commended for identifying compounds that broadly impact interferon signalling. The authors have incorporated diverse measurements, including TFAM content, mtDNA content, interferon signaling, and ATP content, as well as verified the necessity of TFAM in mediating the beneficial effects of the emphasized small molecule (Compound 2).

Weaknesses:

(1) While the identified compound clearly works through TFAM, Compound 2 was identified as an arylsulfonamide, which would be expected to affect voltage-gated sodium channels (e.g. PMID: 31316182). Alterations in cellular sodium content and membrane polarization could affect metabolism to indirectly influence mtDNA and TFAM content. It remains unclear if this compound directly or indirectly affects TFAM content, especially as the authors have utilized various cancer cell lines, which could have aberrant sodium channels.

(2) TFAM is nuclear encoded - if this compound directly functions to 'activate TFAM', why/how would TFAM content increase independent of nuclear transcription?

(3) While a listed strength is the incorporation of diverse readouts, this is also a weakness, as there is a lack of consistency between approaches. For instance, data is not provided to show compound 2 increases TFAM or mtDNA content following TNFα stimulation, and extrapolating between cell lines may not be appropriate. The authors are encouraged to directly report TFAM and mtDNA for target compounds 2 and 15 to support their data reported in Figure 2. Ideally, the authors would also report for compound 1 as a control.

(4) While the authors indicate compound 11 displayed the strongest effect on ISRE activity, this appears not to be identified in Figure 1B as a compound affecting TFAM content? Can the authors identify various Compounds in Figure 1B to better highlight the relationship between compounds and TFAM content?

(5) The authors suggest Compound 2 increases cellular ATP - but they are encouraged to normalize luminescence to cellular protein and OXPHOS content to better interpret this data. Additionally, the authors are encouraged to report cellular ATP content following TNFα stimulation/stress (the key emphasis of the present data) and test compound 11, which the authors have implicated as a more sensitive compound.

The discussion is really a perspective, theorizing the diverse implications of small molecule activation of TFAM. The authors are encouraged to provide a balanced discussion, including a critical evaluation of their own work, including an acknowledgement that evidence is not provided that Compound 2 directly activates TFAM or decreases mtDNA cytosolic leakage.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors aimed to clarify the transcriptional changes across murine postnatal small intestinal development (0 days to 1 month) in both the duodenum and ileum, a period that shows morphological similarity to 20-30 week old fetal humans. This is an especially critical stage in human intestinal development, as necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) usually manifests during these stages.

Strengths:

The authors assessed numerous timepoints between 0 days and 1 month in the postnatal mouse duodenum and ileum using bulk RNA transcriptomics of bulk-isolated tissues. Cellular deconvolution, based on relative marker expression, was used to clarify immune cell proportions in the bulk RNA sequencing data. They confirmed some transcriptional targets found in vivo primarily in mouse via qrtPCR and immunohistochemistry, but also in human fetal tissues and isolated organoids, and are of decent quality.

Weaknesses:

The overall weakness of this study, as mentioned by the authors themselves, is that the bulk transcriptomic data generated for the study were isolated from non-fractionated bulk intestinal tissue. This makes it difficult to interpret much of this data regarding cellular fractions found across developmental time. It is difficult to rationalize the approach here, as even isolation protocols of epithelial-only or mesenchyme-only tissues for bulk RNA sequencing are well established. The authors address some of these concerns using cellular deconvolution for immune cell populations, which I think might be helpful if they expanded this analysis to other cell types (mesenchyme, endothelium, glia). However, I would assume that bulk isolations across developmental time are going to be influenced primarily by the bulk of tissue-type found at each time point - primarily epithelium. But this is also confirmed by the immune transcripts becoming more apparent later in their time series, as this system becomes more established during weaning. This study might also be strengthened by comparison with data that is publicly available for early fetal stage development in humans. Comparisons between the duodenum and ileum could be strengthened by what we already know from adult data, from both epithelial- and mesenchyme-isolated fractions. The rationale of using the postnatal mouse as a comparison to NEC is also a little unclear- perhaps some of the developmental processes are similar, however, the environments are completely different. For example, even in early postnatal mouse development, you would find microbial activity and milk.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This work presents a valuable resource by generating a comprehensive bulk RNA sequencing catalogue of gene expression in the mouse duodenum and ileum during the first postnatal month. The central findings of this work are based on an analysis of this dataset. Specifically, the authors characterized molecular shifts that occur as the intestine matures from an immature to an adult-like state, investigating both temporal changes and regional differences between the proximal and distal small intestine. A key objective was to identify gene expression patterns relevant to understanding the region-specific susceptibility and resistance to necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) observed in humans during the postnatal period. They also sought to validate key findings through complementary methods and to provide comparative context with human intestinal samples. This study will provide a solid reference dataset for the community of researchers studying postnatal gastrointestinal development and diseases that arise during these stages. However, the study lacks functional validation of the interpretations.

Strengths:

(1) The inclusion of numerous time points (day 0 through 4 weeks) and comparative analyses throughout the first postnatal month.

(2) Validation of key interpretations of RNA-seq data by other methods.

(3) Linking mouse postnatal development to human premature infant development, enhancing its clinical relevance, particularly for NEC research. The inclusion of human intestinal biopsy and organoid data for comparison further strengthens this link.

(4) The investigation covers a wide array of developmental gene categories with known significance, including epithelial differentiation markers (e.g., Vil1, Muc2, Lyz1), intestinal stem cell markers (e.g., Lgr5, Olfm4, Ascl2), mesenchymal markers (e.g., Pdgfra, Vim), Wnt signaling components (e.g., Wnt3, Wnt5a, Ctnnb1), and various immune genes (e.g., defensins, T cell, B cell, ILC, macrophage markers).

Weaknesses:

(1) The primary limitation is that there is no functional validation. The study primarily focuses on the interpretation of RNA expression. This is a common limitation of transcriptomic "atlas" studies, but the functional and mechanistic relevance of these interpretations remains to be determined.

(2) The data are derived from bulk RNA-Seq of full-thickness intestinal tissue. While this approach helps capture rare cell types and both epithelial and mesenchymal components simultaneously, it does not provide cell-type-specific gene expression profiles, which might obscure important nuances. Future investigations using single-cell sequencing would be a logical follow-up.

(3) The day 4 samples were omitted due to quality issues, which might have led to missing some dynamic changes, especially given that some ISC genes show dynamic changes around day 6.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study uses bulk mRNA sequencing to profile transcriptional changes in intestinal cells during the early postnatal period in mice - a developmental window that has received relatively little attention despite its importance. This developmental stage is particularly significant because it parallels late gestation in humans, a time when premature infants are highly vulnerable to necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). By sampling closely spaced timepoints from birth through postnatal week four, the authors generate a resource that helps define transcriptional trajectories during this phase. Although the primary focus is on murine tissue, the authors also present limited data from human fetal intestinal biopsy samples and organoids. In addition, they discuss potential links between observed gene expression changes and factors that may contribute to NEC.

Strengths:

The close temporal sampling in mice offers a detailed view of dynamic transcriptional changes across the first four weeks after birth. The authors leverage these close timepoints to perform hierarchical clustering to define relationships between developmental stages. This is a useful approach, as it highlights when transcriptional states shift most dramatically and allows for functional predictions about classes of genes that vary over time. This high-level analysis provides an effective entry point into the dataset and will be useful for future investigations. The inclusion of human fetal intestinal samples, although limited, is especially notable given the scarcity of data from late fetal timepoints. The authors are generally careful in their presentation of results, acknowledging the limitations of their approach and avoiding over-interpretation. As they note, this dataset is intended as a foundation for their lab and others, with secondary approaches required to more fully explore the biological questions raised.

Weaknesses:

One limitation of the study is the use of bulk mRNA sequencing to draw conclusions about individual cell types. It has been documented that a few genes are exclusively expressed in single cell types. For instance, markers such as Lgr5 and Olfm4 are enriched in intestinal stem cells (ISCs), but they are also expressed at lower levels in other lineages and in differentiating cells. Using these markers as proxies for specific cell populations lowers confidence in the conclusions, particularly without complementary validation to confirm cell type-specific dynamics.

Validation of the sequencing data was itself limited, relying primarily on qPCR, which measures expression at the same modality rather than providing orthogonal support. It is unclear how the authors selected the subset of genes for validation; many key genes highlighted in the sequencing data were not assessed. Moreover, the regional differences reported in Lgr5, Olfm4, and Ascl2, appearing much higher in proximal samples than in distal ones, were not recapitulated by qPCR validation of Olfm4, and this discrepancy was not addressed. Resolving such inconsistencies will be important for interpreting the dataset.

The basis for linking particular gene sets to NEC susceptibility rests largely on their spatial restriction to the distal intestine and their temporal regulation between early (day 0-14) and later (weeks 3-4) developmental stages. While this is a reasonable approach for generating hypotheses, the correlations have limited interpretive power without experimental validation, which is not provided here. Many factors beyond NEC may drive regional and temporal differences in intestinal development.

Finally, the contribution of human fetal biopsy samples is minimal. The central figure presenting these data (Figure 4A) shows immunofluorescence for LGR5, a single stem cell marker. The staining at day 35 is not convincing, and the conclusions that can be drawn are limited to confirming the localization of LGR5-positive cells to crypts as early as 26 weeks.

Joint Public Review:

In this study, the authors sought to characterize the relationship between the timescales of evidence integration in an auditory change detection task and neural activity dynamics in the rat posterior parietal cortex (PPC), an area that has been implicated in the accumulation of sensory evidence. Using the state-of-the-art Neuropixel recording techniques, they identified two subpopulations of neurons whose firing rates were positively and negatively modulated by auditory clicks. The timescale of click-related response was similar to the behaviorally measured timescale for evidence evaluation. The click-related response of positively modulated neurons also depended on when the clicks were presented, which the authors hypothesized to reflect a time-dependent gain change to implement an urgency signal. Using muscimol injections to inactivate the PPC, they showed that PPC inactivation affected the rats' choices and reaction times.

There are several strengths of this study, including:

(1) Compelling evidence for short temporal integration in behavioral and neural data for this task.

(2) Well-executed and interpretable comparisons of psychophysical reverse correlation with single-trial, click-triggered neuronal analyses to relate behavior and neural activity.

(3) Inactivation experiments to test for causality.

(4) Characterization of neural subpopulations that allows for complex relationships between a brain region and behavior.

(5) Experimental evidence for an interesting way to use sensory gain change to implement urgency signals.

There are also some concerns, including:

(1) The work could be better contextualized. From a normative Bayesian perspective, the observed adaptation of timescales and gain aligns closely with optimal strategies for change detection in noisy streams: placing greater weight on recent sensory samples and lowering evidence requirements as decision urgency grows. However, the manuscript could go further in explicitly connecting the experimental findings to normative models, such as leaky accumulator or dynamic belief-updating frameworks. This would strengthen the broader impact of the work by making clear how the observed PPC dynamics instantiate computationally optimal strategies.

(2) It is unclear how the rats are performing the task, both in terms of the quality of performance (they only show hit rates, but the rats also seem to have high false alarm rates), and in terms of the underlying strategy that they seem to be using.

(3) A major conceptual weakness lies in the claim that PPC "dynamically modulates evidence evaluation in a time-adaptive manner to suit the behavioral demands of a free-response change detection task." To support this claim, it would require direct comparison of neural activity between two task demands, either in two tasks or in one task with manipulations that promote the adoption of different timescales.

(4) Some analyses of neural data are lacking or seem incomplete, without considering alternative interpretations.

(5) The muscimol inactivation results did not provide a clear interpretation about the link between PPC activity and decision performance.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

(1) Introduction Hybridogenesis involves one genome being clonally transmitted while the other is replaced by backcrossing. It results in high heterozygosity and balanced ancestry proportions in hybrids. Distinguishing it from other hybrid systems requires a combination of nuclear, mitochondrial, and population-genetic evidence. Hybridogenesis has been identified in only a few taxa (e.g., some fish, frogs, and stick insects), but no new cases have been reported in over a decade. Advancements in high-throughput sequencing now allow for the detection of high individual heterozygosity, which can indicate hybridization, but it is difficult to distinguish hybridogenesis from other similar asexual systems based solely on genome-wide data. To differentiate these systems, researchers look at several key indicators: Presence of pure-species offspring from hybrids (possible only in hybridogenesis); sex ratio (male presence in hybridogenetic systems); nuclear and mitochondrial haplotype sharing with co-distributed parental species; geographic distribution patterns, especially the lack of both parental species in hybrid populations.

(2) What the authors were trying to achieve The paper studies Quasipaa Frogs. Q. robertingeri (narrowly endemic) and Q. boulengeri (widespread), which are morphologically similar and found sympatrically in parts of China. Preliminary RAD-seq data revealed bimodal heterozygosity in Q. boulengeri samples. Some individuals had extremely high heterozygosity, consistent across loci and suggestive of F1 hybrids. These high-heterozygosity individuals had one haplotype from each species. The study investigates the high heterozygosity observed in Quasipaa frogs, particularly in individuals morphologically resembling Q. boulengeri but genetically appearing to be F1 hybrids with Q. robertingeri. The goal is to determine whether these patterns are consistent with hybridogenesis, rather than other atypical reproductive modes. The authors also suggest the hypothesis that hybridogenesis could enable range expansion of an endemic species through hybridization with a widespread relative.

(3) Methods A total of 107 individuals from 53 localities were collected for the study. This sample included 58 sexed adults-27 males and 31 females-as well as a majority of tadpoles. Of these individuals, 31 had previously determined karyotypes. DNA was extracted and sequenced. Individual heterozygosity and ancestry were estimated using bioinformatics tools. F1 hybrids were compared to one of the parental species to examine patterns of fixed heterozygous loci. Mitochondrial DNA was also extracted from sequencing data, and phylogenetic trees were constructed

(4) Results Two groups of individuals were detected based on heterozygosity: one group exhibited high heterozygosity and consisted of F1 hybrids, while the other group showed low heterozygosity, representing pure-species types. The F1 hybrids demonstrated approximately equal ancestry from Q. robertingeri and Q. boulengeri, consistently maintaining a high proportion of heterozygous loci at around 16.7%. In contrast, pure individuals had much lower heterozygosity, approximately 2.9%. F1 hybrids were found across 21 different sites, including both male and female individuals. The presence of numerous fixed heterozygous loci in F1 hybrids confirmed their hybrid origin, and these loci were absent in pure Q. boulengeri samples. F1 individuals typically carried one haplotype from each parental species. There was minimal haplotype sharing between the two pure species, but extensive sharing was observed between F1 hybrids and co-occurring pure-species individuals. In fact, F1 types shared haplotypes with local Q. boulengeri in over 90% of cases, which supports the occurrence of local backcrossing and parental contribution. In terms of mitochondrial DNA, F1 hybrids possessed mitochondrial haplotypes that clustered with Q. boulengeri and often shared these haplotypes directly. Genetic structure and phylogenetic analyses, revealed three distinct genetic clusters corresponding to F1 hybrids, Q. boulengeri, and Q. robertingeri. The F1 hybrids positioned themselves intermediate between the two pure species. Neighbor-joining trees and TreeMix analyses confirmed a strong separation between pure-species types, with F1 hybrids clustering alongside local Q. boulengeri subpopulations, indicating local formation of hybrids.

(5) Discussion In summary, the study reveals hybridogenesis (a reproductive system where hybrids clonally transmit one parental genome) in Quasipaa boulengeri and Q. robertingeri. Hybrids show high genetic heterozygosity and coexist with parental species, ruling out other reproductive modes like parthenogenesis or kleptogenesis. Evidence suggests hybridogenesis enables Q. robertingeri genomes to appear far outside their normal range, possibly aiding range expansion. Chromosomal abnormalities are linked to hybrid hybrids, supporting clonal genome transmission. The genetic divergence between parental species fits patterns seen in other hybridogenetic systems, highlighting a unique, understudied case in East Asia.

Strengths:

Overall, the authors carefully interpret their genetic data to support hybridogenesis as the reproductive mode in this system and propose that this mechanism may aid range expansion. They also appropriately acknowledge the need for further cytogenetic and ecological studies, demonstrating scientific caution. In summary, the discussion reasonably follows from the results, offering cautious interpretation where necessary.

Weaknesses:

Direct reproductive or cytological evidence is still lacking. While alternative reproductive modes are discussed and mostly ruled out logically, some require further empirical testing. The authors maintain a cautious interpretation, appropriately suggesting further research. Some outstanding questions remain.

(1) The elevated heterozygosity and presence of fixed heterozygous loci in hybrids compared to parental species strongly indicate hybridogenesis. However, alternative explanations such as repeated F1 hybridization or some form of balanced polymorphism, while less likely, are not fully excluded.

(2) The coexistence of hybrids and parental species, along with high nuclear and mitochondrial haplotype sharing between hybrids and Q. boulengeri, argues against reproductive modes like parthenogenesis, gynogenesis, or kleptogenesis. However, the assumption that hybrid sterility or multiple local hybrid origins are unlikely could be challenged if undetected local variation or cryptic reproductive strategies exist.

(3) The presence of Q. robertingeri nuclear genomes far outside their known geographic range, genetically linked to nearby populations, fits a hybridogenetic-mediated dispersal model. Although the authors dismiss human-mediated or accidental transport as explanations, these scenarios are not necessarily unlikley.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This study describes F1 hybrid frog lineages that use an "unusual" form of reproduction, perhaps hybridogenesis. Identifying such species is important for understanding the biodiversity of reproduction in animals, and animals that do not reproduce via "canonical" sex can be useful model systems in ecology and evolution. The conclusion of the study are based on reduced representation sequencing (RAD-seq with a de-novo assembly of loci) of 107 wild-caught individuals from 53 localities (plus 4 outgroup individuals), including 27 males, 31 females, and 49 juveniles of unknown sex. Conclusive inferences of unusual forms of reproduction typically require breeding studies and parent-offspring genotype comparisons but such information is not available (and perhaps impossible to generate) for the focal frog lineages.

(1) Conclusion 1: there are two pure species and F1 hybrids

The authors infer that there are two lineages RR and BB (corresponding to two named species), and F1 interspecific hybrids RB. This inference is based on the results presented in Figure 1 (PCA, admixture, and heterozygosity analyses) as well as analyses of fixed SNP differences between R and B. I think that this conclusion is well supported; my only comment on this part is that it would be useful to have the admixture plots & cross-validation for the 107 samples with other k values (not only k=2) as a supplemental figure. The plots in the supplemental file S1 are for the subset of 55 inds inferred to be BB only.

(2) Conclusion 2: F1 hybrids most likely reproduce via hybridogenesis

This conclusion is based on the sex ratio of hybrids and haplotype sharing between species and lineages at different, ~150 bp long loci. Parthenogenesis (including sperm-dependent parthenogenesis) is unlikely to generate males, yet sexed F1 hybrid individuals include 18 females and 10 males which prompts the exclusion of parthenogenesis in the present paper. Specific haplotype-sharing patterns are also discussed in the study and used as further support, but these arguments (and the related main and supplementary figures) are difficult to read/interpret. To clarify the arguments related to haplotype sharing and haplotype diversities, I suggest that the authors phase the R and B haplotypes from all their hybrids by using their pure (RR and BB individuals) as references. The concatenated lineage-specific haplotypes can then be used to reconstruct a single phylogenetic tree for all loci (easier to visualize and interpret that the separate haplotype networks for the loci). The authors can then draw cartoon phylogenies for what would be the expected pattern for haplotype clustering and diversity for different reproductive modes, and discuss their observed phylogenies in this regard. Similarly, the migration weights (represented in Figure 4) can then also be computed for separate haplotypes in the hybrids.

However, independently of the outcome of the phasing, it is important to note that there is no a priori reason why all F1 hybrid individuals would reproduce via the same reproductive mode. Notably, work by Barbara Mantovani and Valerio Scali on stick insects has shown that different F1 hybrid lineages involving the same parental species reproduce via hybridogenesis or parthenogenesis. I don't see how the presented data can allow excluding that some F1 hybrid frogs are parthenogenetic while others are hybridogenetic for example.

(3) Conclusion 3: Crosses between hybridogenetic RB males and hybridogenetic RB females gave rise to a new population of RR individuals outside of the RR species range (this new population would correspond to location 30 from Figure 1).

It is not entirely clear to me which data this conclusion is based on, I believe it is the combination of known species ranges for the species R (location 30 being outside of this) and the relatively low heterozygosity of RR individuals at location 30.

However, as the authors point out, the study focuses on an understudied geographic range. Isolated or rare populations of the R species may easily have been overlooked in the past, especially since the R and B species are morphologically difficult to distinguish. Furthermore, an isolated, perhaps vestigial population may also likely be inbred/feature low diversity. It seems most appropriate to discuss different (equally likely) scenarios for the RR population at location 30 rather than implying a hybridogenetic origin of RR individuals. I would also choose a title that does not directly imply this scenario but reflects the solid (not speculative) findings of the study.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This work reports a new case of hybridogenetic reproduction in the frog genus Quasipaa. Only one other example of this peculiar reproductive mode is known in amphibians, and fewer than a dozen across the tree of life. Interestingly, a population of one of the parental species (Q. robertingeri) was found away from the core of its distribution, within the distribution of the hybridogens. This range expansion might have been mediated by hybridogenesis, whereby two copies of the same parental genome came together again after many generations of hybridogenesis.

Strengths:

Evidence for hybridogenesis is solid. The state of the art would be to genotype parents and offspring, but other known alternative scenarios have been considered carefully and can be ruled out convincingly. In addition, the authors are very careful in their phrasing and made sure to never overinterpret their data.

The explicit predictions under different reproductive modes (and Table 1) are a useful resource for future studies and could inspire new findings of unusual reproductive modes in other taxa.

The sampling is very impressive, with over 50 populations sampled across a very large area.

The comparison of p-distances between pairs of species involved in hybridogenesis is interesting.

Weaknesses:

The current phylogenetic reconstruction with the F1s does not enable to infer the number of origins of hybridogenesis, nor whether the population of Q. robertingeri that was found far from the core of the species' distribution indeed derives from hybridogenesis. This is because some of the signal is driven by the Q. boulengeri haplome, which is replaced every generation and therefore does not reflect the evolutionary history of the lineage.

All known reproductive modes except hybridogenesis can be excluded, but without genotyping parents and offspring, it is impossible to rule out another, yet undescribed reproductive mode.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Liver cancer shows a high incidence in males than females with incompletely understood causes. This study utilized a mouse model that lacks the bile acid feedback mechanisms (FXR/SHP DKO mice) to study how dysregulation of bile acid homeostasis and a high circulating bile acid may underlie the gender-dependent prevalence and prognosis of HCC. By transcriptomics analysis comparing male and female mice, unique sets of gene signatures were identified and correlated with HCC outcomes in human patients. The study showed that ovariectomy procedure increased HCC incidence in female FXR/SHP DKO mice that were otherwise resistant to age-dependent HCC development, and that removing bile acids by blocking intestine bile acid absorption reduced HCC progression in FXR/SHP DKO mice. Based on these findings, the authors suggest that gender-dependent bile acid metabolism may play a role in the male-dominant HCC incidence, and that reducing bile acid level and signaling may be beneficial in HCC treatment. This study include many strengths: 1. Chronic liver diseases often proceed the development of liver and bile duct cancer. Advanced chronic liver diseases are often associated with dysregulation of bile acid homeostasis and cholestasis. This study takes advantage of a unique FXR/SHP DKO model that develop high organ bile acid exposure and spontaneous age-dependent HCC development in males but not females to identify unique HCC-associated gene signatures. The study showed that the unique gene signature in female DKO mice that had lower HCC incidence also correlated with lower grade HCC and better survival in human HCC patients. 2. The study also suggests that differentially regulated bile acid signaling or gender-dependent response to altered bile acids may contribute to gender-dependent susceptibility to HCC development and/or progression. 3. The sex-dependent differences in bile acid-mediated pathology clearly exist but are still not fully understood at the mechanistic level. Female mice have been shown to be more sensitive to bile acid toxicity in a few cholestasis models, while this study showed a male dominance of bile acid promotion of HCC. This study used ovariectomy to demonstrate that female hormones are possible underlying factors. Future studies are needed to understand the interaction of sex hormones, bile acids, and chronic liver diseases and cancer.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors examine the impact of heat stress during an embryonic CP in Drosophila, focusing on the larval locomotor network. They show that elevated temperature increases neuronal activity and, when applied during the CP, results in long-term instability of the network, which manifests in prolonged seizure recovery times. At the neuromuscular junction, substantial structural changes occur, including terminal overgrowth and altered receptor composition, yet synaptic transmission remains preserved due to homeostatic regulation. Motoneurons display reduced excitability but receive increased synaptic input from premotor interneurons. These findings suggest that maladaptive instability originates within the central circuitry rather than at the neuromuscular junction, where changes seem to be homeostatically compensated. The study concludes that different network components exhibit distinct and hierarchical responses to CP perturbations, with premotor interneurons setting the tone for downstream adjustments in motoneurons.

Strengths:

The work takes advantage of the unique accessibility of the Drosophila system. A major strength of the study is the integration of structural, physiological, and behavioral analyses, which allows the authors to draw a comprehensive picture of how CP perturbations shape the locomotor network. The choice of an ecologically relevant stimulus (heat stress) is particularly convincing, as it links experimental manipulations more closely to natural environmental conditions. The experiments are carefully designed, and the results are robust and consistent with previous findings in the field, while also extending them in new directions.

Weaknesses:

The study leaves some uncertainty regarding the experimental design and interpretation. The change from short to prolonged heat shock manipulations raises the possibility that the effects observed may not be confined to the critical period alone - this could be experimentally addressed or simply rephrased in the text. In addition, the maladaptive (seizure recovery) and adaptive/homeostatic phenotypes are not always clearly distinguished or highlighted, which makes it harder to appreciate how the different levels of the network plasticity fit together into a single mechanistic framework.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript presents a thoughtful and well-executed study of critical period plasticity in the Drosophila larval motor circuit. The authors examined how transient heat, 32 {degree sign}C, during the embryonic stage, altered network properties, showing that premotor interneurons A27h increase excitatory drive onto motoneurons, which respond with a reduction in excitability. At the NMJ, synaptic terminals expand and GluRIIA distribution shifts, yet synaptic transmission remains largely unaffected. Despite these local compensations, the treated larvae display slower crawling and prolonged recovery from seizures, indicating that the network is functionally compromised.

Strengths:

(1) One of the major strengths of this study is the elegant dissection of a defined circuit, tracking changes from premotor interneurons through motoneurons to the NMJ. The multimodal approach provides a comprehensive view of how connected elements respond to CP perturbations.

(2) An interesting finding is that NMJ morphology changes dramatically without corresponding deficits in synaptic transmission, challenging the common assumption that larger boutons necessarily indicate stronger synapses.

(3) Another intriguing result is that even with two layers of homeostatic compensation, locomotor behavior is still impaired, highlighting the limits of compensation and underscoring the critical role of CP timing.

(4) Beyond these scientific insights, the study benefits from a well-defined, tractable system and simple experimental manipulations, which together make the results highly interpretable and reproducible.

Weaknesses:

There are a few areas where the manuscript could be strengthened.

(1) Although A27h premotor neurons are well characterized, the claim that they are the causal driver of downstream changes would be strengthened by additional experiments or a clearer discussion of the temporal hierarchy.

(2) While 32 {degree sign}C heat stress is presented as ecologically relevant, it produces maladaptive behavioral outcomes, raising questions about the ecological and mechanistic interpretation of the model. In particular, most experiments, with the exception of Figure 1, used prolonged (24h) heat treatments, which could introduce developmental effects beyond the CP itself. Comparing shorter and longer heat exposures would help clarify the specificity of the CP response.

(3) While there are schematics for experimental procedures, a circuit diagram tracing information flow and indicating where structural and functional changes occur would help readers better understand the findings.

(4) Finally, the main paradox of the study, that robust homeostatic compensations occur yet behavior remains impaired, could be explored in more depth in the Discussion.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

During development, neural circuits undergo brief windows of heightened neuronal plasticity (e.g., critical periods) that are thought to set the lifelong functional properties of underlying circuits. These authors, in addition to others within the Drosophila community, previously characterized a critical period in late fly embryonic development, during which alterations to neuronal activity impact late-stage larval crawling behavior. In the current study, the authors use an ethologically-relevant activation paradigm (increased temperature) to boost motor activity during embryogenesis, followed by a series of electrophysiology and imaging-based experiments to explore how 3 distinct levels of the circuit remodel in response to increases in embryonic motor activity. Specifically, they find that each level of the circuit responds differently, with increased excitatory drive from excitatory pre-motor neurons, reduced excitability in motor neurons, and no physiological changes at the NMJ despite dramatic morphological differences. Together, these data suggest that early life experience in the motor neuron drives compensatory changes at each level of the circuit to stabilize overall network output.

Strengths:

The study was well-written, and the data presented were clear and an important contribution to the field.

Weaknesses:

The sample sizes and what they referred to throughout the distinct studies were unclear. In the legends, the authors should clearly state for each experiment N=X, and if N refers to an NMJ, for example, instead of an individual animal, they should state N=X NMJs per N=X animals. This will help readers better understand the statistical impact of the study.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In the current article, Octavia Soegyono and colleagues study "The influence of nucleus accumbens shell D1 and D2 neurons on outcome-specific Pavlovian instrumental transfer", building on extensive findings from the same lab. While there is a consensus about the specific involvement of the Shell part of the Nucleus Accumbens (NAc) in specific stimulus-based actions in choice settings (and not in General Pavlovian instrumental transfer - gPIT, as opposed to the Core part of the NAc), mechanisms at the cellular and circuitry levels remain to be explored. In the present work, using sophisticated methods (rat Cre-transgenic lines from both sexes, optogenetics and the well-established behavioral paradigm outcome-specific PIT - sPIT), Octavia Soegyono and colleagues decipher the differential contribution of dopamine receptors D1 and D2 expressing-spiny projection neurons (SPNs).

After validating the viral strategy and the specificity of the targeting (immunochemistry and electrophysiology), the authors demonstrate that while both NAc Shell D1- and D2-SPNs participate in mediating sPIT, NAc Shell D1-SPNs projections to the Ventral Pallidum (VP, previously demonstrated as crucial for sPIT), but not D2-SPNs, mediates sPIT. They also show that these effects were specific to stimulus-based actions, as value-based choices were left intact in all manipulations.

This is a well-designed study and the results are well supported by the experimental evidence. The paper is extremely pleasant to read and add to the current literature.

Comments on revisions:

We thank the authors for their detailed responses and for addressing our comments and concerns.

To further improve consistency and transparency, we kindly request that the authors provide, for Supplemental Figures S1-S4, panels E (raw data for lever presses during the PIT test), the individual data points together with the corresponding statistical analyses in the figure legends.

In addition, regarding Supplemental Figure S3, panel E, we note the absence of a PIT effect in the eYFP group under the ON condition, which appears to differ from the net response reported in the main Figure 5, panel B. Could the authors clarify this apparent discrepancy?

We also note a discrepancy between the authors' statement in their response ("40 rats excluded based on post-mortem analyses") and the number of excluded animals reported in the Materials and Methods section, which adds up to 47. We kindly ask the authors to clarify this point for consistency.

Finally, as a minor point, we suggest indicating the total number of animals used in the study in the Materials and Methods section.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Soegyono et a. describes a series of experiments designed to probe the involvement of dopamine D1 and D2 neurons within the nucleus accumbens shell in outcome-specific Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (osPIT), a well-controlled assay of cue-guided action selection based on congruent outcome associations. They used an optogenetic approach to phasically silence NAc shell D1 (D1-Cre mice) or D2 (A2a-Cre mice) neurons during a subset of osPIT trials. Both manipulations disrupted cue-guided action selection but had no effects on negative control measures/tasks (concomitant approach behavior, separate valued guided choice task), nor were any osPIT impairments found in reporter only control groups. Separate experiments revealed that selective inhibition of NAc shell D1 but not D2 inputs to ventral pallidum were required for osPIT expression, thereby advancing understanding of the basal ganglia circuitry underpinning this important aspect of decision making.

Strengths:

The combinatorial viral and optogenetic approaches used here were convincingly validated through anatomical tract-tracing and ex vivo electrophysiology. The behavioral assays are sophisticated and well-controlled to parse cue and value guided action selection. The inclusion of reporter only control groups is rigorous and rules out nonspecific effects of the light manipulation. The findings are novel and address a critical question in the literature. Prior work using less decisive methods had implicated NAc shell D1 neurons in osPIT but suggested that D2 neurons may not be involved. The optogenetic manipulations used in the current study provides a more direct test of their involvement and convincingly demonstrate that both populations play an important role. Prior work had also implicated NAc shell connections to ventral pallidum in osPIT, but the current study reveals the selective involvement of D1 but not D2 neurons in this circuit. The authors do a good job of discussing their findings, including their nuanced interpretation that NAc shell D2 neurons may contribute to osPIT through their local regulation of NAc shell microcircuitry.

Weaknesses:

The current study exclusively used an optogenetic approach to probe the function of D1 and D2 NAc shell neurons. Providing a complementary assessment with chemogenetics or other appropriate methods would strengthen conclusions, particularly the novel demonstration for D2 NAc shell involvement. Likewise, the null result of optically inhibiting D2 inputs to ventral pallidum leaves open the possibility that a more complete or sustained disruption of this pathway may have impaired osPIT.

Conclusions:

The research described here was successful in providing critical new insights into the contributions of NAc D1 and D2 neurons in cue-guided action selection. The authors' data interpretation and conclusions are well reasoned and appropriate. They also provide a thoughtful discussion of study limitations and implications for future research. This research is therefore likely to have a significant impact on the field.

Comments on revisions:

I have reviewed the rebuttal and revised manuscript and have no remaining concerns.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

A study researching the relationship between affective shifts and cognitive performance in a daily life setting.

Strengths:

The evidence provided is compelling: the findings are conceptually replicated in three samples of adequate size and statistical rigor in analyzing the data, with methods beyond the current state of the art in applied research. For example, using two-step multilevel vector autoregressive models that were adopted to allow the inclusion of covariates, and contemporaneous effects corrected for temporal relations and background covariates. In addition, the authors use beautiful visualizations to convey the different samples used (Figure 1) and intuitive and rich figures to convey their obtained results.

In summary, the authors were able to convincingly show that higher negative affect is linked to slower cognitive processing speed, with results supporting their conclusions.

Weaknesses:

I have one major concern. Although a check for careless responding has been conducted on the basis of long reaction times, I wonder whether, beyond long response times, any other sanity checks with respect to, e.g., careless responding were done? For example, a lack of variability of EMA items over subsequent occasions, e.g., say 15, is often seen as an indicator of careless responding, especially when using VAS items. In line 693, it is stated, "We added a small amount of random noise, ranging from -0.1 to +0.1, to each EMA time series to allow models to converge when EMA time series showed minimal variance over time", which I understand, but this lack of variability could also be caused by participants stopping to take the study seriously. For datasets 1 and 2, this might be more difficult to assess (due to the limited response values), but maybe the authors can get an indication of this in dataset 3?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper, Fittipaldi et al. assessed whether cognitive processing speed - as operationalized by the Digital Questionnaire Response Time (DQRT) - and affect (both positive and negative) are related in contemporaneous and temporaneous ways, both between and within-subject. At the between-person level, they found positive relationships with DQRT and negative affect, and the opposite for positive affect. This was similar at the within-subject contemporaneous level.

The authors further test Granger-causality in the dynamics, for both Affect -> DQRT and DQRT -> Affect. They find that affect and t-1 is associated with DQRT in the same manner as in the other models (positively for negative affect, and negatively for positive affect). Interestingly, DQRT -> Affect was largely non-significant for most affect items.

This study adds important information on the associations between affect and cognitive measures outside the lab, showcasing a methodological approach to translate laboratory research to new contexts.

Strengths

Overall, this study has a strong methodological approach, which is commendable. The use of three independent samples with different affective measures is a good way to showcase the validity of the findings. The multi-level modelling approach is also done thoroughly and appropriately within the context of MLVAR modelling. The findings are also well visualized, making it easy to follow along with the interconnected and potentially confusing analyses.

Weaknesses

The authors use the DQRT as a measure of cognitive processing, which isn't fully validated or substantiated as such. The authors do address this as a limitation, but I believe it warrants a much broader discussion, as the construct being assessed may not be the construct intended by the authors. This makes it difficult to ascertain whether the conclusion drawn (that affect impacts cognitive function) is valid. I would rather frame it that there are associations between affect and response times, which can indicate many different things, be it potentially careless responding or other mechanisms at play.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This report demonstrates that the gene expression output of the Wnt pathway, when controlled precisely by a synthetic light-based input, depends substantially on the frequency of stimulation. The particular frequency-dependent trend that is observed - anti-resonance, a suppression of target gene expression at intermediate frequencies given a constant duty cycle - is a novel aspect that has not been clearly shown before for this or other signaling pathways. The paper provides both clear experimental evidence of the phenomenon with engineered cellular systems and a model-based analysis of how the pairing of rate constants in pathway activation/deactivation could result in such a trend.

Strengths:

This report couples in vitro experimental data with an abstracted mathematical model. Both of these approaches appear to be technically sound and to provide consistent and strong support for the main conclusion. The experimental data are particularly clear, and the demonstration that Brachyury expression is subject to anti-resonance in ESCs is particularly compelling. The modeling approach is reasonably scaled for the system at the level of detail that is needed in this case, and the hidden variable analysis provides some insight into how the anti-resonance works.

Weaknesses:

(1) The anti-resonance phenomenon has not been demonstrated using physiological Wnt ligands; however, I view this as only a minor weakness for an initial report of the phenomenon. The potential significance of the phenomenon for Wnt outweighs the amount of effort it would take to carry the demonstration further - testing different frequencies/duty cycles at the level of ligand stimulus using microfluidics could get quite involved, and would likely take quite some time. Adding some more discussion about how the time scales of ligand-receptor binding could play into the reduced model would further ameliorate this issue.

(2) While the model is fully consistent with the data, it has not been validated using experimental manipulations to establish that the mechanisms of the cell system and the model are the same. There may be some ways to make such modifications, for example, using a proteasome inhibitor. An alternative would be to more explicitly mention the need to validate the model's mechanism with experiments.

(3) I think the manuscript misses an opportunity to discuss the potential of the phenomenon in other pathways. The hedgehog pathway, for example, involves GSK3-mediated partial proteolysis of a transcription factor, which could conceivably be subject to similar behaviors, and there are certainly other examples as well.

(4) Some aspects of the modeling and hidden variable analysis are not optimally presented in the main text, although when considered together with the Supplemental Data, there are no significant deficiencies.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

By combining optogenetics with theoretical modelling, the authors identify an anti-resonance behavior in the WnT signaling pathway. This behavior is manifested as a minimal response at a certain stimulation frequency. Using an abstracted hidden variable model, the authors explain their findings by a competition of timescales. Furthermore, they experimentally show that this anti-resonance influences the cell fate decision involved in human gastrulation.

Strengths:

(1) This interdisciplinary study combines precise optogenetic manipulation with advanced modelling.

(2) The results are directly tested in two different systems: HEK293T cells and H9 human embryonic stem cells.

(3) The model is implemented based on previous literature and has two levels of detail: i) a detailed biochemical model and ii) an abstract model with a hidden parameter.

Weaknesses:

(1) While the experiments provide both single-cell data and population data, the model only considers population data.

(2) Although the model captures the experimental data for TopFlash very well, the beta-Cat curves (Figure 2B) are only described qualitatively. This discrepancy is not discussed.

Overall Assessment:

The authors convincingly identified an anti-resonance behavior in a signaling pathway that is involved in cell fate decisions. The focus on a dynamic signal and the identification of such a behavior is important. I believe that the model approach of abstracting a complicated pathway with a hidden variable is an important tool to obtain an intuitive understanding of complicated dependencies in biology. Such a combination of precise ontogenetic manipulation with effective models will provide a new perspective on causal dependencies in signaling pathways and should not be limited only to the system that the authors study.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Millet et al. show that C. elegans systematically prefers easy-to-eat bacteria but will switch its choice when harder-to-eat bacteria are offered at higher densities, producing indifference points that fit standard economic discounting models. Detailed kinetic analysis reveals that this bias arises from unchanged patch-entry rates but significantly elevated exit rates on effortful food, and dop-3 mutants lose the preference altogether, implicating dopamine in effort sensitivity. These findings extend effort-discounting behavior to a simple nematode, pushing the phylogenetic boundary of economic cost-benefit decision-making.

Strengths:

Extends the well-characterized concept of effort discounting into C. elegans, setting a new phylogenetic boundary and opening invertebrate genetics to economic-behavior studies.

Elegant use of cephalexin-elongated bacteria to manipulate "effort" without altering nutritional or olfactory cues, yielding clear preference reversals and reproducible indifference points.

Application of standard discounting models to predict novel indifference points is both rigorous and quantitatively satisfying, reinforcing the interpretation of worm behavior in economic terms.

The three-state patch-model cleanly separates entry and exit dynamics, showing that increased leaving rates-rather than altered re-entry-drive choice biases.

Demonstrates that _dop-3_ mutants lose normal effort discounting, firmly tying monoaminergic signaling to this behavior and paralleling vertebrate findings.

Demonstration of discounting in wild strain (solid evidence).

Weaknesses:

Only _dop-3_ shows an effect, whereas _cat-2_/_dat-1_ do not, leaving the broader role of dopamine synthesis and reuptake ambiguous.

With only five wild isolates tested, and only one clearly showing clear evidence of preference for the easy to eat bacteria, it's hard to conclude that effort discounting isn't a lab-strain artifact or how broadly it varies in natural populations.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Here Millet et al. adapted a t-maze paradigm for use in C. elegans to understand whether nematodes exhibit effort discounting behaviors comparable to other species. C. elegans worms were reliably sensitive to how effortful the food was to consume, allowing for the application of standard economic models of decision-making to be applied to their behavior. The authors then demonstrated the necessity of dopamine signaling for this behavior, identifying dop-3 mutants in particular as insensitive to effort. Together, this work establishes a new model system for the study of discounting behavior in cost-benefit decision-making.

Strengths:

The question is well-motivated and the approach taken here is novel; it is uncommon for worms to undergo such behavioural procedures (although this lab has previously been integral to pushing the extent of the complexity of behaviours studied in C. elegans). The authors are careful in their approach to altering and testing the properties of the elongated bacteria. Similarly, they go to some effort to understand what exactly is driving behavioural choices in this context, both through application of simple standard models of effort discounting and a kinetic analysis of patch leaving. The comparisons to various dopamine mutants further extends the translational potential of their findings. I also appreciate the comparison to natural isolate strains as the question of whether this behaviour may be driven by some sort of strain-specific adaptation to the environment is not regularly addressed in mammalian counterparts to this work.

Weaknesses:

The authors have now addressed concerns about whether the mechanisms underlying the choice behavior here are generalizable to other organisms. Specifically, their work speaks to foraging-inspired effort discounting paradigms in rodents and humans in which the decision is whether to stay or leave a given resource, rather than to simultaneous decision-making across two options in a T-maze.

The dopamine results are interesting but still difficult to interpret. As the authors discuss, the lack of an effect in the cat-2 and dat-1 mutants is surprising given the effect in the dop-3 mutants. Understanding what exactly the role of dop-3 is here therefore requires further study.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors establish a behavioral task to explore effort discounting in C. elegans. By using bacterial food that takes longer to consume, the authors show that for equivalent effort, as measured by pumping rate, animals obtain less food, as measured by fat deposition.

The authors formalize the task by applying a neuroeconomic decision making model that includes, value, effort, and discounting. They use this to estimate the discounting C. elegans apply based on ingestion effort by using a population level 2-choice T-maze.

They then analyze the behavioral dynamics of individual animals transitioning between on-food and off-food states. Harder to ingest bacteria led to increased food patch leaving.

Finally, they examined a set of mutants defective in different aspects of dopamine signaling, as dopamine plays a key role in discounting in vertebrates and regulates certain aspects of C. elegans foraging.

In their response to the first set of reviews, the authors take care to ensure their task is analogous to at least some of those used in mammals and make changes to the text to better clarify some of their conclusions. My view is the same--that this is an interesting paper for methodological and scientific reasons that brings an important theoretical framework to bear on C. elegans foraging behavior. While I think the mutant results are somewhat unsatisfying, this is not the principal contribution of the work.

Strengths:

The behavioral experiments and neuroeconomic analysis framework are compelling and interesting and make a significant contribution to the field. While these foraging behaviors have been extensively studied, few include clearly articulated theoretical models to be tested.

Demonstrating that C. elegans effort discounting fits model predictions and has stable indifference points is important for establishing these tasks as a model for decision making.

Weaknesses:

The dopamine experiments are harder to interpret. The authors point out the perplexing lack of an effect of dat-1 and cat-2. dop-3 leads to general indifference. I am not sure this is the expected result if the argument is a parallel functional role to discounting in vertebrates. dop-3 causes a range of locomotor phenotypes and may affect feeding (reduced fat storage), and thus there may be a general defect in the ability to perform the task rather than anything specific to discounting.

That said, some of the other DA mutants also have locomotor defects and do not differ from N2. But there is no clear result here-my concern is that global mutants in such a critical pathway exhibit such pleiotropy that it's difficult to conclude there is a clear and specific role for DA in effort discounting. This would require more targeted or cell-specific approaches. The authors state these experiments are outside the scope of the current study, and that at minimum their results implicate dopamine signaling in some form. I tend to agree but still think locomotion defects of DA mutants complicate this question.

Meanwhile, there are other pathways known to affect responses to food and patch leaving decisions-5HT, PDF, tyramine, etc. in their response the authors state they focus on dopamine because of its role in discounting behavior in mammals.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors describe the results of a single study designed to investigate the extent to which horizontal orientation energy plays a key role in supporting view-invariant face recognition. The authors collected behavioral data from adult observers who were asked to complete an old/new face matching task by learning broad-spectrum faces (not orientation filtered) during a familiarization phase and subsequently trying to label filtered faces as previously seen or novel at test. This data revealed a clear bias favoring the use of horizontal orientation energy across viewpoint changes in the target images. The authors then compared different ideal observer models (cross-correlations between target and probe stimuli) to examine how this profile might be reflected in the image-level appearance of their filtered images. This revealed that a model looking for the best matching face within a viewpoint differed substantially from human data, exhibiting a vertical orientation bias for extreme profiles. However, a model forced to match targets to probes at different viewing angles exhibited a consistent horizontal bias in much the same manner as human observers.

Strengths:

I think the question is an important one: The horizontal orientation bias is a great example of a low-level image property being linked to high-level recognition outcomes, and understanding the nature of that connection is important. I found the old/new task to be a straightforward task that was implemented ably and that has the benefit of being simple for participants to carry out and simple to analyze. I particularly appreciated that the authors chose to describe human data via a lower-dimensional model (their Gaussian fits to individual data) for further analysis. This was a nice way to express the nature of the tuning function, favoring horizontal orientation bias in a way that makes key parameters explicit. Broadly speaking, I also thought that the model comparison they include between the view-selective and view-tolerant models was a great next step. This analysis has the potential to reveal some good insights into how this bias emerges and ask fine-grained questions about the parameters in their model fits to the behavioral data.

Weaknesses:

I will start with what I think is the biggest difficulty I had with the paper. Much as I liked the model comparison analysis, I also don't quite know what to make of the view-tolerant model. As I understand the authors' description, the key feature of this model is that it does not get to compare the target and probe at the same yaw angle, but must instead pick a best match from candidates that are at different yaws. While it is interesting to see that this leads to a very different orientation profile, it also isn't obvious to me why such a comparison would be reflective of what the visual system is probably doing. I can see that the view-specific model is more or less assuming something like an exemplar representation of each face: You have the opportunity to compare a new image to a whole library of viewpoints, and presumably it isn't hard to start with some kind of first pass that identifies the best matching view first before trying to identify/match the individual in question. What I don't get about the view-tolerant model is that it seems almost like an anti-exemplar model: You specifically lack the best viewpoint in the library but have to make do with the other options. Again, this is sort of interesting and the very different behavior of the model is neat to discuss, but it doesn't seem easy to align with any theoretical perspective on face recognition. My thinking here is that it might be useful to consider an additional alternate model that doesn't specifically exclude the best-matching viewpoint, but perhaps condenses appearance across views into something like a prototype. I could even see an argument for something like the yaw-averages presented earlier in the manuscript as the basis for such a model, but this might be too much of a stretch. Overall, what I'd like to see is some kind of alternate model that incorporates the existence of the best-match viewpoint somehow, but without the explicit exemplar structure of the view-specific model.

Besides this larger issue, I would also like to see some more details about the nature of the cross-correlation that is the basis for this model comparison. I mostly think I get what is happening, but I think the authors could expand more on the nature of their noise model to make more explicit what is happening before these cross-correlations are taken. I infer that there is a noise-addition step to get them off the ceiling, but I felt that I had to read between the lines a bit to determine this.

Another thing that I think is worth considering and commenting on is the stimuli themselves and the extent to which this may limit the outcomes of their behavioral task. The use of the 3D laser-scanned faces has some obvious advantages, but also (I think) removes the possibility for pigmentation to contribute to recognition, removes the contribution of varying illumination and expression to appearance variability, and perhaps presents observers with more homogeneous faces than one typically has to worry about. I don't think these negate the current results, but I'd like the authors to expand on their discussion of these factors, particularly pigmentation. Naively, surface color and texture seem like they could offer diagnostic cues to identity that don't rely so critically on horizontal orientations, so removing these may mean that horizontal bias is particularly evident when face shape is the critical cue for recognition.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This study investigates the visual information that is used for the recognition of faces. This is an important question in vision research and is critical for social interactions more generally. The authors ask whether our ability to recognise faces, across different viewpoints, varies as a function of the orientation information available in the image. Consistent with previous findings from this group and others, they find that horizontally filtered faces were recognised better than vertically filtered faces. Next, they probe the mechanism underlying this pattern of data by designing two model observers. The first was optimised for faces at a specific viewpoint (view-selective). The second was generalised across viewpoints (view-tolerant). In contrast to the human data, the view-specific model shows that the information that is useful for identity judgements varies according to viewpoint. For example, frontal face identities are again optimally discriminated with horizontal orientation information, but profiles are optimally discriminated with more vertical orientation information. These findings show human face recognition is biased toward horizontal orientation information, even though this may be suboptimal for the recognition of profile views of the face.

One issue in the design of this study was the lowering of the signal-to-noise ratio in the view-selective observer. This decision was taken to avoid ceiling effects. However, it is not clear how this affects the similarity with the human observers.

Another issue is the decision to normalise image energy across orientations and viewpoints. I can see the logic in wanting to control for these effects, but this does reflect natural variation in image properties. So, again, I wonder what the results would look like without this step.

Despite the bias toward horizontal orientations in human observers, there were some differences in the orientation preference at each viewpoint. For example, frontal faces were biased to horizontal (90 degrees), but other viewpoints had biases that were slightly off horizontal (e.g., right profile: 80 degrees, left profile: 100 degrees). This does seem to show that differences in statistical information at different viewpoints (more horizontal information for frontal and more vertical information for profile) do influence human perception. It would be good to reflect on this nuance in the data.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Bansal et al. present a study on the fundamental blood and nectar feeding behaviors of the critical disease vector, Anopheles stephensi. The study encompasses not just the fundamental changes in blood feeding behaviors of the crucially understudied vector, but then uses a transcriptomic approach to identify candidate neuromodulation pathways which influence blood feeding behavior in this mosquito species. The authors then provide evidence through RNAi knockdown of candidate pathways that the neuromodulators sNPF and Rya modulate feeding either via their physiological activity in the brain alone or through joint physiological activity along the brain-gut axis (but critically not the gut alone). Overall, I found this study to be built on tractable, well-designed behavioral experiments.

Their study begins with a well-structured experiment to assess how the feeding behaviors of A. stephensi change over the course of its life history and in response to its age, mating, and oviposition status. The authors are careful and validate their experimental paradigm in the more well-studied Ae. aegypti, and are able to recapitulate the results of prior studies, which show that mating is a prerequisite for blood feeding behaviors in Ae. aegypt. Here they find A. Stephensi, like other Anopheline mosquitoes, has a more nuanced regulation of its blood and nectar feeding behaviors.

The authors then go on to show in a Y-maze olfactometer that ,to some degree, changes in blood feeding status depend on behavioral modulation to host cues, and this is not likely to be a simple change to the biting behaviors alone. I was especially struck by the swap in valence of the host cues for the blood-fed and mated individuals, which had not yet oviposited. This indicates that there is a change in behavior that is not simply desensitization to host cues while navigating in flight, but something much more exciting is happening.

The authors then use a transcriptomic approach to identify candidate genes in the blood-feeding stages of the mosquito's life cycle to identify a list of 9 candidates that have a role in regulating the host-seeking status of A. stephensi. Then, through investigations of gene knockdown of candidates, they identify the dual action of RYa and sNPF and candidate neuromodulators of host-seeking in this species. Overall, I found the experiments to be well-designed. I found the molecular approach to be sound. While I do not think the molecular approach is necessarily an all-encompassing mechanism identification (owing mostly to the fact that genetic resources are not yet available in A. stephensi as they are in other dipteran models), I think it sets up a rich line of research questions for the neurobiology of mosquito behavioral plasticity and comparative evolution of neuromodulator action.

Strengths:

I am especially impressed by the authors' attention to small details in the course of this article. As I read and evaluated this article, I continued to think about how many crucial details could potentially have been missed if this had not been the approach. The attention to detail paid off in spades and allowed the authors to carefully tease apart molecular candidates of blood-seeking stages. The authors' top-down approach to identifying RYamide and sNPF starting from first principles behavioral experiments is especially comprehensive. The results from both the behavioral and molecular target studies will have broad implications for the vectorial capacity of this species and comparative evolution of neural circuit modulation.

Weaknesses:

There are a few elements of data visualizations and methodological reporting that I found confusing on a first few read-throughs. Figure 1F, for example, was initially confusing as it made it seem as though there were multiple 2-choice assays for each of the conditions. I would recommend removing the "X" marker from the x-axis to indicate the mosquitoes did not feed from either nectar, blood, or neither in order to make it clear that there was one assay in which mosquitoes had access to both food sources, and the data quantify if they took both meals, one meal, or no meals.

I would also like to know more about how the authors achieved tissue-specific knockdown for RNAi experiments. I think this is an intriguing methodology, but I could not figure out from the methods why injections either had whole-body or abdomen-specific knockdown.

I also found some interpretations of the transcriptomic to be overly broad for what transcriptomes can actually tell us about the organism's state. For example, the authors mention, "Interestingly, we found that after a blood meal, glucose is neither spent nor stored, and that the female brain goes into a state of metabolic 'sugar rest', while actively processing proteins (Figure S2B, S3)".

This would require a physiological measurement to actually know. It certainly suggests that there are changes in carbohydrate metabolism, but there are too many alternative interpretations to make this broad claim from transcriptomic data alone.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Bansal et al examine and characterize feeding behaviour in Anopheles stephensi mosquitoes. While sharing some similarities to the well-studied Aedes aegypti mosquito, the authors demonstrate that mated females, but not unmated (virgin) females, exhibit suppression in their blood-feeding behaviour. Using brain transcriptomic analysis comparing sugar-fed, blood-fed, and starved mosquitoes, several candidate genes potentially responsible for influencing blood-feeding behaviour were identified, including two neuropeptides (short NPF and RYamide) that are known to modulate feeding behaviour in other mosquito species. Using molecular tools, including in situ hybridization, the authors map the distribution of cells producing these neuropeptides in the nervous system and in the gut. Further, by implementing systemic RNA interference (RNAi), the study suggests that both neuropeptides appear to promote blood-feeding (but do not impact sugar feeding), although the impact was observed only after both neuropeptide genes underwent knockdown.

Strengths and/or weaknesses:

Overall, the manuscript was well-written; however, the authors should review carefully, as some sections would benefit from restructuring to improve clarity. Some statements need to be rectified as they are factually inaccurate.

Below are specific concerns and clarifications needed in the opinion of this reviewer:

(1) What does "central brains" refer to in abstract and in other sections of the manuscript (including methods and results)? This term is ambiguous, and the authors should more clearly define what specific components of the central nervous system was/were used in their study.

(2) The abstract states that two neuropeptides, sNPF and RYamide are working together, but no evidence is summarized for the latter in this section.

(3) Figure 1<br /> Panel A: This should include mating events in the reproductive cycle to demonstrate differences in the feeding behavior of Ae. aegypti.<br /> Panel F: In treatments where insects were not provided either blood or sugar, how is it that some females and males had fed? Also, it is unclear why the y-axis label is % fed when the caption indicates this is a choice assay. Also, it is interesting that sugar-starved females did not increase sugar intake. Is there any explanation for this (was it expected)?

(4) Figure 3<br /> In the neurotranscriptome analysis of the (central) brain involving the two types of comparisons, can the authors clarify what "excluded in males" refers to? Does this imply that only genes not expressed in males were considered in the analysis? If so, what about co-expressed genes that have a specific function in female feeding behaviour?

(5) Figure 4<br /> The authors state that there is more efficient knockdown in the head of unfed females; however, this is not accurate since they only get knockdown in unfed animals, and no evidence of any knockdown in fed animals (panel D). This point should be revised in the results test as well. Relatedly, blood-feeding is decreased when both neuropeptide transcripts are targeted compared to uninjected (panel C) but not compared to dsGFP injected (panel E). Why is this the case if authors showed earlier in this figure (panel B) that dsGFP does not impact blood feeding? In addition, do the uninjected and dsGFP-injected relative mRNA expression data reflect combined RYa and sNPF levels? Why is there no variation in these data, and how do transcript levels of RYa and sNPF compare in the brain versus the abdomen (the presentation of data doesn't make this relationship clear).

(6) As an overall comment, the figure captions are far too long and include redundant text presented in the methods and results sections.

(7) Criteria used for identifying neuropeptides promoting blood-feeding: statement that reads "all neuropeptides, since these are known to regulate feeding behaviours". This is not accurate since not all neuropeptides govern feeding behaviors, while certainly a subset do play a role.

(8) In the section beginning with "Two neuropeptides - sNPF and RYa - showed about 25% and 40% reduced mRNA levels...", the authors state that there was no change in blood-feeding and later state the opposite. The wording should be clarified as it is unclear.

(9) Just before the conclusions section, the statement that "neuropeptide receptors are often ligand-promiscuous" is unjustified. Indeed, many studies have shown in heterologous systems that high concentrations of structurally related peptides, which are not physiologically relevant, might cross-react and activate a receptor belonging to a different peptide family; however, the natural ligand is often many times more potent (in most cases, orders of magnitude) than structurally related peptides. This is certainly the case for various RYamide and sNPF receptors characterized in various insect species.

(10) Methods<br /> In the dsRNA-mediated gene knockdown section, the authors could more clearly describe how much dsRNA was injected per target. At the moment, the reader must carry out calculations based on the concentrations provided and the injected volume range provided later in this section.

It is also unclear how tissue-specific knockdown was achieved by performing injection on different days/times. The authors need to explain/support, and justify how temporal differences in injection lead to changes in tissue-specific expression. Does the blood-brain barrier limit knockdown in the brain instead, while leaving expression in the peripheral organs susceptible? For example, in Figure 4, the data support that knockdown in the head/brain is only effective in unfed animals compared to uninjected animals, while there is no evidence of knockdown in the brain relative to dsGFP-injected animals. Comparatively, evidence appears to show stronger evidence of abdominal knockdown mostly for the RYa transcript (>90%) while still significantly for the sNPF transcript (>60%).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript investigates the regulation of host-seeking behavior in Anopheles stephensi females across different life stages and mating states. Through transcriptomic profiling, the authors identify differential gene expression between "blood-hungry" and "blood-sated" states. Two neuropeptides, sNPF and RYamide, are highlighted as potential mediators of host-seeking behavior. RNAi knockdown of these peptides alters host-seeking activity, and their expression is anatomically mapped in the mosquito brain (sNPF and RYamide) and midgut (sNPF only).

Strengths:

(1) The study addresses an important question in mosquito biology, with relevance to vector control and disease transmission.

(2) Transcriptomic profiling is used to uncover gene expression changes linked to behavioral states.

(3) The identification of sNPF and RYamide as candidate regulators provides a clear focus for downstream mechanistic work.

(3) RNAi experiments demonstrate that these neuropeptides are necessary for normal host-seeking behavior.

(4) Anatomical localization of neuropeptide expression adds depth to the functional findings.

Weaknesses:

(1) The title implies that the neuropeptides promote host-seeking, but sufficiency is not demonstrated (for example, with peptide injection or overexpression experiments).

(2) The proposed model regarding central versus peripheral (gut) peptide action is inconsistently presented and lacks strong experimental support.

(3) Some conclusions appear premature based on the current data and would benefit from additional functional validation.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this study, the authors investigate LFP responses to methionine in the olfactory system of the Xenopus tadpole. They show that this response is local to the glomerular layer, arises ipsilaterally, and is blocked by pharmacological blockade of AMPA and NMDA receptors, with little modulation during blockade of GABA-A receptors. They then show that this response is translently enlarged following transection of the contralateral olfactory nerve, but not the optic lobe nerve. Measurement of ROS- a marker of inflammation- was not affected by contralateral nerve transection, and LFP expansion was not affected by pharmacological blockade of ROS production. Imaging biased towards presynaptic terminals suggests that the enlargement of the LFP has a presynaptic component. A D2 antagonist increases the LFP size and variability in intact tadpoles, while a GABA-B antagonist does not. On this basis, the authors conclude that the increase driven by contralateral nerve transection is due to DA signaling.

Overall, I found the array of techniques and approaches applied in this study to be creatively and effectively employed. However, several of the conclusions made in the Discussion are too strong, given the evidence presented. For example, the authors state that "The observed potentiation was not related to inflammatory mediators associated to inury, because it was caused by a release of the inhibition made by D2 dopamine receptor present in OSN axon terminals." This statement is too strong - the authors have shown that D2 receptors are sufficient to cause an increase in LFP, but not that they are required for the potentiation evoked by nerve transection. The right experiment here would be to get rid of the D2 receptors prior to transection and show that the potentiation is now abolished. In addition, the authors have not shown any data localizing D2 receptors to OSN axon terminals.

Similarly, the authors state, "the onset of LFP changes detected in glomeruli is determined by glutamate release from OSNs." Again, the authors have shown that blockade of AMPA/NMDA receptors decreases the LFP, and that uncaging of glutamate can evoke small negative deflections, but not that the intact signal arises from glutamate release from OSNs. The conclusions about the in vivo contribution of this contralateral pathway are also rather speculative. Acute silencing of one hemisphere would likely provide more insight into the moment-to-moment contributions of bilateral signals to those recorded in one hemisphere.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this study, the authors aim to elucidate both how Pavlovian biases affect instrumental learning from childhood to adulthood, as well as how reward outcomes during learning influence incidental memory. While prior work has investigated both of these questions, findings have been mixed. The authors aim to contribute additional evidence to clarify the nature of developmental changes in these processes. Through a well-validated affective learning task and a large age-continuous sample of participants, the authors reveal that adolescents outperform children and adults when Pavlovian biases and instrumental learning are aligned, but that learning performance does not vary by age when they are misaligned. They also show that younger participants show greater memory sensitivity for images presented alongside rewards.

The manuscript has notable strengths. The task was carefully designed and modified with a clever, developmentally appropriate cover story, and the large sample size (N = 174) means their study was better powered than many comparable developmental learning studies. The addition of the memory measure adds a novel component to the design. The authors transparently report their somewhat confusing findings.

The manuscript also has weaknesses, which I describe in detail below.

It was not entirely clear to me what central question the researchers aimed to address. They note that prior studies using a very similar learning task design have reported inconsistent findings, but they do not propose a reason for why these inconsistent findings may emerge nor do they test a plausible cause of them (in contrast, for example, Raab et al. 2024 explicitly tested the idea that developmental changes in inferences about controllability may explain age-related change in Pavlovian influences on learning). While the authors test a sample of participants that is very large compared to many developmental studies of reinforcement learning, this sample is much smaller than two prior developmental studies that have used the same learning task (and which the authors cite - Betts et al., 2020; Moutoussis et al., 2018). Thus, the overall goal seems to be to add an additional ~170 subjects of data to the existing literature, which isn't problematic per se, but doesn't do much to advance our theoretical understanding of learning across development. They happen to find a pattern of results that differs from all three prior studies, and it is not clear how to interpret this.

Along those lines, the authors extend prior work by adding a memory manipulation to the task, in which trial-unique images were presented alongside reward outcomes. It was not clear to me whether the authors see the learning and memory questions as fundamentally connected or as two separate research questions that this paradigm allows them to address. The manuscript would potentially be more impactful if the authors integrated their discussion of these two ideas more. Did they have any a priori hypotheses about how Pavlovian biases may affect the encoding of incidentally presented images? Could heightened reward sensitivity explain both changes in learning and changes in memory? It was also not clear to me why the authors hypothesized that younger participants would demonstrate the greatest effects of reward on memory, when most of the introduction seems to suggest they might hypothesize an adolescent peak in both learning and memory.

As stated above, while the task methods seemed sound, some of the analytic decisions are potentially problematic and/or require greater justification for the results of the study to be interpretable.

Firstly, it is problematic not to include random participant slopes in the regression models. Not accounting for individual variation in the effects of interest may inflate Type I errors. I would suggest that the authors start with the maximal model, or follow the same model selection procedure they did to select the fixed effects to include for the random effects as well.

Secondly, the central learning finding - that adolescents demonstrate enhanced learning in Pavlovian-congruent conditions only - is interesting, but it is unclear why this is the case or how much should be made of this finding. The authors show that adolescents outperform others in the Pavlovian-congruent conditions but not the Pavlovian-incongruent conditions. However, this conclusion is made by analyzing the two conditions separately; they do not directly compare the strength of the adolescent peak across these conditions, which would be needed to draw this strong conclusion. Given that no prior study using the same learning design has found this, the authors should ensure that their evidence for it is strong before drawing firm conclusions.

It was also not clear to me whether any of the RL models that the authors fit could potentially explain this pattern. Presumably, they need an algorithmic mechanism in which the Pavlovian bias is enhanced when it is rewarded. This seems potentially feasible to implement and could help explain the condition-specific performance boosts.

I also have major concerns about the computational model-fitting results. While the authors seemingly follow a sound approach, the majority of the fitted lapse rates (Figure S10) are near 1. This suggests that for most participants, the best-fitting model is one in which choices are random. This may be why the authors do not observe age-related change in model parameters: for these subjects, the other parameter values are essentially meaningless since they contribute to the learned value estimate, which gets multiplied by a near-0 weight in the choice function. It is important that the authors clarify what is going on here. Is it the case that most of these subjects truly choose at random? It does seem from Figure 2A that there is extensive variability in performance. It might be helpful if the authors re-analyze their data, excluding participants who show no evidence of learning or of reward-seeking behavior. Alternatively, are there other biases that are not being accounted for (e.g., choice perseveration) that may contribute to the high lapse rates?

Parameter recovery also looks poor, particularly for gain & loss sensitivity, the lapse rate, and the Pavlovian bias - several parameters of interest. As noted above, this may be due to the fact that many of the simulations were conducted with lapse rates sampled from the empirical distribution. It would be helpful for the authors to a.) plot separately parameter recoverability for high and low lapse rates and b.) report the recoverability correlation for each parameter separately.

Finally, many of the analytic decisions made regarding the memory analyses were confusing and merit further justification.

(1) First, it seems as though the authors only analyze memory data from trials where participants "could gain a reward". Does this mean only half of the memory trials were included in the analyses? What about memory as a function of whether participants made a "correct" response? Or a correct x reward interaction effect?

(2) The RPE analysis overcomes this issue by including all trials, but the trial-wise RPEs are potentially not informative given the lapse rate issue described above.

(3) The authors exclude correct guesses but include incorrect guesses. Is this common practice in the memory literature? It seems like this could introduce some bias into the results, especially if there are age-related changes in meta-memory.

(4) Participants provided a continuum of confidence ratings, but the authors computed d' by discretizing memory into 'correct' or 'incorrect'. A more sensitive approach could compute memory ROC curves taking into account the full confidence data (e.g., Brady et al., 2020).

(5) The learning and memory tradeoff idea is interesting, but it was not clear to me what variables went into that regression model.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The authors of this study set out to investigate whether adolescents demonstrate enhanced instrumental learning compared to children and adults, particularly when their natural instincts align with the actions required in a learning task, using the Affective Go/No-Go Task. Their aim was to explore how motivational drives, such as sensitivity to rewards versus avoiding losses, and the congruence between automatic responses to cues and deliberate actions (termed Pavlovian-congruency) influence learning across development, while also examining incidental memory enhancements tied to positive outcomes. Additionally, they sought to uncover the cognitive mechanisms underlying these age-related differences through behavioral analyses and reinforcement learning models.

The study's major strengths lie in its rigorous methodological approach and comprehensive analysis. The use of mixed-effects logistic regression and beta-binomial regression models, with careful comparison of nested models to identify the best fit (e.g., a significant ΔBIC of 19), provides a robust framework for assessing age-related effects on learning accuracy. The task design, which separates action (pressing a key or holding back) from outcome type (earning money or avoiding a loss) across four door cues, effectively isolates these factors, allowing the authors to highlight adolescent-specific advantages in Pavlovian-congruent conditions (e.g., Go to Win and No-Go to Avoid Loss), supported by significant quadratic age interactions (p < .001). The inclusion of reaction time data and a behavioral metric of Pavlovian bias further strengthens the evidence, showing adolescents' faster responses and greater reliance on instinctual cues in congruent scenarios. The exploration of incidental memory, with a clear reward memory bias in younger participants (p < .001), adds a valuable dimension, suggesting a learning-memory trade-off that enriches the study's scope. However, weaknesses include minor inconsistencies, such as the reinforcement learning model's Pavlovian bias parameter not reflecting an adolescent enhancement despite behavioral evidence, and a weak correlation between learning and memory accuracy (r = -.17), which may indicate incomplete integration of these processes.

The authors largely achieved their aims, with the results providing convincing support for their conclusion that Pavlovian-congruency boosts instrumental learning in adolescence. The significant quadratic age effects on overall learning accuracy (p = .001) and in congruent conditions (e.g., p = .01 for Go to Win), alongside faster reaction times in these scenarios, convincingly demonstrate an adolescent peak in performance. While the reinforcement learning model's lack of an adolescent-specific Pavlovian bias parameter introduces a slight caveat, the behavioral and statistical evidence collectively align with the hypothesis, suggesting that adolescents leverage their natural instincts more effectively when these align with task demands. The incidental memory findings, showing younger participants' enhanced recall for reward-paired images, partially support the secondary aim, though the trade-off with learning accuracy warrants further exploration.

This work is likely to have an important impact on the field, offering valuable insights into developmental differences in learning and memory that could influence educational practices and psychological interventions tailored to adolescents. The methods, particularly the task's orthogonal design and probabilistic feedback, are useful to the community for studying motivation and cognition across ages, while the detailed regression analyses and reinforcement learning approach provide a solid foundation for future replication and extension. The data, including trial-by-trial accuracy and memory performance, are openly shareable, enhancing their utility for researchers exploring similar questions, though refining the model-parameter alignment could strengthen its broader applicability.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study examines how different parts of the brain's reward system regulate eating behavior. The authors focus on the medial shell of the nucleus accumbens, a region known to influence pleasure and motivation. They find that nerve cells in the front (rostral) portion of this region are inhibited during eating, and when artificially activated, they reduce food intake. In contrast, similar cells at the back (caudal) are excited during eating but do not suppress feeding. The team also identifies a molecular marker, Stard5, that selectively labels the rostral hotspot and enables new genetic tools to study it. These findings clarify how specific circuits in the brain control hedonic feeding, providing new entry points to understand and potentially treat conditions such as overeating and obesity.

Strengths:

(1) Conceptual advance: The work convincingly establishes a rostro-caudal gradient within the medNAcSh, clarifying earlier pharmacological studies with modern circuit-level and genetic approaches.

(2) Methodological rigor: The combination of fiber photometry, optogenetics, CRISPR-Cas9 genetic engineering, histology, FISH, scRNA-seq, and novel mouse genetics adds robustness, with complementary approaches converging on the central claim.

(3) Innovation: The generation of a Stard5-Flp line is a valuable resource that will enable precise interrogation of the rostral hotspot in future studies.

(4) Specificity of findings: The dissociation between appetitive and aversive conditions strengthens the interpretation that the observed gradient is restricted to feeding.

Weaknesses and points for clarification

(1) Role of D2-SPNs: Since D1 and D2 pathways often show opposing roles in feeding, testing, or discussing D2-SPN contributions would provide an important control and context. Since the claim is that Stard5 is expressed in both D1- and D2MSNs, it seems to contradict the exclusive role of D1R MSNs in authorizing food intake.

(2) Behavioral analyses:

a) In Figure 2, group differences in consumption appear uneven; additional analyses (e.g., lick counts across blocks and session totals) would strengthen interpretation.

b) The design and contribution of aversive assays to the main conclusions remain somewhat unclear and could be better justified.

c) The scope of behavior is mainly limited to consumption; testing related domains (motivation, reward valuation, and extinction) could broaden the significance.

(3) Molecular profiling:

a) Stard5 expression is present in both D1- and D2-SPNs; comparisons to bulk calcium signals and quantification of percentages across rostral and caudal cells would be helpful. The authors should establish whether these cells also express SerpinB2, an established marker of LH projecting neurons.

b) Verification of the Stard5-2A-Flp line (specificity, overlap with immunomarkers) should be documented more thoroughly.

c) The molecular analysis is restricted to a small set of genes; broader spatial transcriptomics could uncover additional candidate markers. See also above.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Marinescu et al. combine in vivo imaging with circuit-specific optogenetic manipulation to characterize the anatomic heterogeneity of the medial nucleus accumbens shell in the control of food intake. They demonstrate that the inhibitory influence of dopamine D1 receptor-expressing neurons of the medial shell on food intake decreases along a rostro-caudal gradient, while both rostral and caudal subpopulations similarly control aversion. They then identify Stard5 and Peg10 as molecular markers of the rostral and caudal subregions, respectively. Through the development of a new mouse line expressing the flippase under the promoter of Stard5, they demonstrate that Stard5-positive neurons recapitulate the activity of D1-positive neurons of the rostral shell in response to food consumption and aversive stimuli.

Strengths:

This study brings important findings for the anatomical and functional characterization of the brain reward system and its implications in physiological and pathological feeding behavior. It is a well-designed study, technically sound, with clear and reliable effects. The generation of the new Stard5-Flp line will be a valuable tool for further investigations. The paper is very well written, the discussion is very interesting, addresses limitations of the findings, and proposes relevant future directions

Weaknesses:

At this stage, identification and characterization of the activity of Stard5-positive neurons is a bit disconnected from the rest of the paper, as this population encompasses both D1- and D2-positive neurons as well as interneurons. While they display a similar response pattern as D1-neurons, it remains to be determined whether their manipulation would result in comparable behavioral outcomes.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript investigates methods for the analysis of time series data, in particular ecological time series. Such data can be analyzed using a myriad of approaches, with choices being made in both the statistical test performed and the generation of artificial datasets for comparison. The simulated data is for a two-species ecosystem. The main finding is that the rates of false positives and negatives strongly depend on the choices made during analysis, and that no one methodology is an optimal choice for all contexts. A few different scenarios were analyzed, including analysis with a time lag and communities with different species ratios.

Strengths:

The paper sets up a clear problem to motivate the study. The writing is easy to follow, given the dense subject matter. A broad range of approaches was compared for both statistical tests and surrogate data generation. The appendix will be helpful for readers, especially those readers hoping to implement these findings into their own work. The topic of the manuscript should be of interest to many readers, and the authors have put in extra effort to make the writing as clear as possible.

Weaknesses:<br /> The main conclusions are rather unsatisfying: "use more than one method of analysis", "be more transparent in how testing is done", and there is a "need for humility when drawing scientific conclusions". In fact, the findings are not instructions for how to analyze data, but instead highlight the extreme dependence of the interpretation of results on choices made during analysis. The conclusions reached in this study would be of interest to a specialized subset of researchers focused on the biostatistics of ecological data. Ending the article with a few specific recommendations for how to apply these conclusions to a broad range of datasets would increase the impact of the work.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript tackles an important and often neglected aspect of time-series analysis in ecology - the multitude of "small" methodological choices that can alter outcomes. The findings are solid, though they may be limited in terms of generalizability, due to the simple use case tested.

Strengths:

(1) Comprehensive Methodological Benchmarking:

The study systematically evaluates 30 test variants (5 correlation statistics × 6 surrogate methods), which is commendable and provides a broad view of methodological behavior.

(2) Important Practical Recommendations:

The manuscript provides valuable real-world guidance, such as the superiority of tailored lags over fixed lags, the risks of using shuffling-based nulls, and the importance of selecting appropriate surrogate templates for directional tests.

(3) Novel Insights into System Dependence:

A key contribution is the demonstration that test results can vary dramatically with system state (e.g., initial conditions or abundance asymmetries), even when interaction parameters remain constant. This highlights a real-world issue for ecological inference.

(4) Clarification of Surrogate Template Effects:

The study uncovers a rarely discussed but critical issue: that the choice of which variable to surrogate in directional tests (e.g., convergent cross mapping) can drastically affect false-positive rates.

(5) Lag Selection Analysis:

The comparison of lag selection methods is a valuable addition, offering a clear takeaway that fixed-lag strategies can severely inflate false positives and that tailored-lag approaches are preferred.

(6) Transparency and Reproducibility Focus:

The authors advocate for full methodological transparency, encouraging researchers to report all analytical choices and test multiple methods.

Weaknesses / Areas for Improvement:

(1) Limited Model Generality:

The study relies solely on two-species systems and two types of competitive dynamics. This limits the ecological realism and generalizability of the findings. It's unclear how well the results would transfer to more complex ecosystems or interaction types (e.g., predator-prey, mutualism, or chaotic systems).

(2) Method Description Clarity:

Some method descriptions are too terse, and table references are mislabeled (e.g., Table 1 vs. Table 2 confusion). This reduces reproducibility and clarity for readers unfamiliar with the specific tests.

(3) Insufficient Discussion of Broader Applicability:

While the pairwise test setup justifies two-species models, the authors should more explicitly address whether the observed test sensitivities (e.g., effect of system state, template choice) are expected to hold in multi-species or networked settings.

(4) Lack of Practical Summary:

The paper offers great insights, but currently spreads recommendations throughout the text. A dedicated section or table summarizing "Best Practices" would increase accessibility and application by practitioners.

(5) No Real-World Validation:

The work is based entirely on simulation. Including or referencing an empirical case study would help illustrate how these methodological choices play out in actual ecological datasets.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study addresses an important clinical challenge by proposing muscle network analysis as a tool to evaluate rehabilitation outcomes. The research direction is relevant, and the findings suggest further research. The strength of evidence supporting the claims is, however, limited: the improvements in function are not directly demonstrated, the robustness of the method is not benchmarked against already published approaches, and key terminology is not clearly defined, which reduces the clarity and impact of the work.

Comments:

There are several aspects of the current work that require clarification and improvement, both from a methodological and a conceptual standpoint.

First, the actual improvements associated with the rehabilitation protocol remain unclear. While the authors report certain quantitative metrics, the study lacks more direct evidence of functional gains. Typically, rehabilitation interventions are strengthened by complementary material (e.g., videos or case examples) that clearly demonstrate improvements in activities of daily living. Including such evidence would make the findings more compelling.

Second, the claim that the proposed muscle network analysis is robust is not sufficiently substantiated. The method is introduced without adequate reference to, or comparison with, the extensive literature that has proposed alternative metrics. It is also not evident whether a simpler analysis (e.g., EMG amplitude) might produce similar results. To highlight the added value of the proposed method, it would be important to benchmark it against established approaches. This would help clarify its specific advantages and potential applications. Moreover, several studies have shown very good outcomes when using AI and latent manifold analyses in patients with neural lesions. Interpreting the latent space appears even easier than interpreting muscle networks, as the manifolds provide a simple encoding-decoding representation of what the patient can still perform and what they can no longer do.

Third, the terminology used throughout the manuscript is sometimes ambiguous. A key example is the distinction made between "functional" and "redundant" synergies. The abstract states: "Notably, we identified a shift from redundancy to synergy in muscle coordination as a hallmark of effective rehabilitation-a transformation supported by a more precise quantification of treatment outcomes."

However, in motor control research, redundancy is not typically seen as maladaptive. Rather, it is a fundamental property of the CNS, allowing the same motor task to be achieved through different patterns of muscle activity (e.g., alternative motor unit recruitment strategies). This redundancy provides flexibility and robustness, particularly under fatiguing conditions, where new synergies often emerge. Several studies have emphasized this adaptive role of redundancy. Thus, if the authors intend to use "redundancy" differently, it is essential to define the term explicitly and justify its use to avoid misinterpretation.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study analyzes muscle interactions in post-stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation, using information-theoretic and network analysis tools applied to sEMG signals with task performance measurements. The authors identified patterns of muscle interaction that correlate well with therapeutic measures and could potentially be used to stratify patients and better evaluate the effectiveness of rehabilitation.

However, I found that the Methods and Materials section, as it stands, lacks sufficient detail and clarity for me to fully understand and evaluate the quality of the method. Below, I outline my main points of concern, which I hope the authors will address in a revision to improve the quality of the Methods section. I would also like to note that the methods appear to be largely based on a previous paper by the authors (O'Reilly & Delis, 2024), but I was unable to resolve my questions after consulting that work.

I understand the general procedure of the method to be: (1) defining a connectivity matrix, (2) refining that matrix using network analysis methods, and (3) applying a lower-dimensional decomposition to the refined matrix, which defines the sub-component of muscle interaction. However, there are a few steps not fully explained in the text.

(1) The muscle network is defined as the connectivity matrix A. Is each entry in A defined by the co-information? Is this quantity estimated for each time point of the sEMG signal and task variable? Given that there are only 10 repetitions of the measurement for each task, I do not fully understand how this is sufficient for estimating a quantity involving mutual information.

In the previous paper (O'Reilly & Delis, 2024), the authors initially defined the co-information (Equation 1.3) but then referred to mutual information (MI) in the subsequent text, which I found confusing. In addition, while the matrix A is symmetrical, it should not be orthogonal (the authors wrote AᵀA = I) unless some additional constraint was imposed?

(2) The authors should clarify what the following statement means: "Where a muscle interaction was determined to be net redundant/synergistic, their corresponding network edge in the other muscle network was set to zero."

(3) It should be clarified what the 'm' values are in Equation 1.1. Are these the co-information values after the sparsification and applying the Louvain algorithm to the matrix 'A'? Furthermore, since each task will yield a different co-information value, how is the information from different tasks (r) being combined here?

(4) In general, I recommend improving the clarity of the Methods section, particularly by being more precise in defining the quantities that are being calculated. For example, the adjacency matrix should be defined clearly using co-information at the beginning, and explain how it is changed/used throughout the rest of the section.

(5) In the previous paper (O'Reilly & Delis, 2024), the authors applied a tensor decomposition to the interaction matrix and extracted both the spatial and temporal factors. In the current work, the authors simply concatenated the temporal signals and only chose to extract the spatial mode instead. The authors should clarify this choice.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This study investigates how seasonal environments shape the evolution of gene expression by analyzing two-year time-series transcriptomes from leaves and buds of four Fagaceae tree species. The revised manuscript incorporates additional data and analyses that directly address earlier concerns about sampling design and environmental variation, thereby strengthening the robustness of the conclusions.

The major strengths of this work are the scale and quality of the dataset, the integration of genome assemblies with time-series transcriptomics, and the careful analyses showing that winter bud expression is strongly conserved across species. The additional samples and re-analyses demonstrate convincingly that these results are not artifacts of sampling period or site differences. The study also links gene expression dynamics to phenological observations and frames its findings in relation to broader evolutionary concepts such as phenological synchrony and the developmental hourglass model.

Remaining limitations include the absence of direct mechanistic analyses of cis-regulatory and chromatin-level processes, the relatively coarse resolution of phenological trait measurements, and the weak association between seasonal expression divergence and sequence divergence. Importantly, these limitations are now explicitly acknowledged in the revised Discussion and framed as directions for future research.

Overall, the authors have substantially achieved their aims. This revised version represents a robust and convincing contribution that provides valuable data resources and conceptual insights into how seasonal environments constrain and shape gene expression. It will be of interest not only to evolutionary biologists and plant scientists, but also to researchers considering the broader role of environmental cycles in gene regulatory evolution.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In Drosophila melanogaster, ITP has functions in feeding, drinking, metabolism, excretion, and circadian rhythm. In the current study, the authors characterized and compared the expression of all three ITP isoforms (ITPa and ITPL1&2) in the CNS and peripheral tissues of Drosophila. An important finding is that they functionally characterized and identified Gyc76C as an ITPa receptor in Drosophila using both in vitro and in vivo approaches. In vitro, the authors nicely confirmed that the inhibitory function of recombinant Drosophila ITPa on MT secretion is Gyc76C-dependent (knockdown of Gyc76C specifically in two types of cells abolished the anti-diuretic action of Drosophila ITPa on renal tubules). They also confirmed that ITPa activates Gyc76C in a heterologous system. The authors used a combination of multiple approaches to investigate the roles of ITPa and Gyc76C on osmotic and metabolic homeostasis modulation in vivo. They revealed that ITPa signaling to renal tubules and fat body modulates osmotic and metabolic homeostasis via Gyc76C.

Furthermore, they tried to identify the upstream and downstream of ITP neurons in the nervous system by using connectomics and single-cell transcriptomic analysis. I found this interesting manuscript to be well-written and described. The findings in this study are valuable to help understand how ITP signals work on systemic homeostasis regulation. Both anatomical and single-cell transcriptome analysis here should be useful to many in the field.

Strengths:

The question (what receptors of ITPa in Drosophila) that this study tries to address is important. The authors ruled out the Bombyx ITPa receptor orthologs as potential candidates. They identified a novel ITP receptor by using phylogenetic, anatomical analysis, and both in vitro and in vivo approaches.

The authors exhibited detailed anatomical data of both ITP isoforms and Gyc76C (in the main and supplementary figures), which helped audiences understand the expression of the neurons studied in the manuscript.

They also performed connectomes and single-cell transcriptomics analyses to study the synaptic and peptidergic connectivity of ITP-expressing neurons. This provided more information for better understanding and further study of systemic homeostasis modulation.

Comments on revisions:

In the revised manuscript, the authors addressed all my concerns.

There is one more suggestion: The scale bar for fly and ovary images should be included in Figures 9, 10, and 12.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The physiology and behaviour of animals are regulated by a huge variety of neuropeptide signalling systems. In this paper, the authors focus on the neuropeptide ion transport peptide (ITP), which was first identified and named on account of its effects on the locust hindgut (Audsley et al. 1992). Using Drosophila as an experimental model, the authors have mapped the expression of three different isoforms of ITP, all of which are encoded by the same gene.

The authors then investigated candidate receptors for isoforms of ITP. Firstly, Drosophila orthologs of G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) that have been reported to act as receptors for ITPa or ITPL in the insect Bombyx mori were investigated. Importantly, the authors report that ITPa does not act as a ligand for the GPCRs TkR99D and PK2-R1. Therefore, the authors investigated other putative receptors for ITPs. Informed by a previously reported finding that ITP-type peptides cause an increase in cGMP levels in cells/tissues (Dircksen, 2009, Nagai et al., 2014), the authors investigated guanylyl cyclases as candidate receptors for ITPs. In particular, the authors suggest that Gyc76C may act as an ITP receptor in Drosophila. Evidence that Gyc76C may be involved in mediating effects of ITP in Bombyx was first reported by Nagai et al. (2014) and here the authors present further evidence, based on a proposed concordance in the phylogenetic distribution ITP-type neuropeptides and Gyc76C and experimental demonstration that ITPa causes dose-dependent stimulation of cGMP production in HEK cells expressing Gyc76C. Having performed detailed mapping of the expression of Gyc76C in Drosophila, the authors then investigated if Gyc76C knockdown affects the bioactivity of ITPa in Drosophila. The inhibitory effect of ITPa on leucokinin- and diuretic hormone-31-stimulated fluid secretion from Malpighian tubules was found to be abolished when expression of Gyc76C was knocked down in stellate cells and principal cells, respectively.

Having investigated the proposed mechanism of ITPa signalling in Drosophila, the authors then investigate its physiological roles at a systemic level. The authors present evidence that ITPa is released during desiccation and accordingly overexpression of ITPa increases survival when animals are subjected to desiccation. Furthermore, knockdown of Gyc76C in stellate or principal cells of Malphigian tubules decreases survival when animals are subject to desiccation. Furthermore, the relevance of the phenotypes observed to potential in vivo actions of ITPa is also explored and publicly available connectomic data and single-cell transcriptomic data are analysed to identify putative inputs and outputs of ITPa expressing neurons.

Strengths of this paper.

(1) The main strengths of this paper are:

i) the detailed analysis of the expression and actions of ITP and the phenotypic consequences of over-expression of ITPa in Drosophila.

ii). the detailed analysis of the expression of Gyc76C and the phenotypic consequences of knockdown of Gyc76C expression in Drosophila.

iii). the experimental demonstration that ITPa causes dose-dependent stimulation of cGMP production in HEK cells expressing Gyc76C, providing biochemical evidence that the effects of ITPa in Drosophila are, at least in part, mediated by Gyc76C.

(2) Furthermore, the paper is generally well written and the figures are of good quality.

Weaknesses of this paper.

A weakness of this paper is the phylogenetic analysis to investigate if there is correspondence in the phylogenetic distribution of ITP-type and Gyc76C-type genes/proteins. Unfortunately, the evidence presented is rather limited in scope. Essentially, the authors report that they only found ITP-type and Gyc76C-type genes/proteins in protostomes, but not in deuterostomes. What is needed is a more fine-grained analysis at the species level within the protostomes. However, I recognise that such a detailed analysis may extend beyond the scope of this paper, which is already rich in data.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The goal of this paper is to characterize an anti-diuretic signaling system in insects using Drosophila melanogaster as a model. Specifically, the authors wished to characterize a role for ion transport peptide (ITP) and its isoforms in regulating diverse aspects of physiology and metabolism. The authors combined genetic and comparative genomic approaches with classical physiological techniques and biochemical assays to provide a comprehensive analysis of ITP and its role in regulating fluid balance and metabolic homeostasis in Drosophila. The authors further characterized a previously unrecognized role for Gyc76C as a receptor for ITPa, an amidated isoform of ITP, and in mediating the effects of ITPa on fluid balance and metabolism. The evidence presented in favor of this model is very strong as it combines multiple approaches and employs ideal controls. Taken together, these findings represent an important contribution to the field of insect neuropeptides and neurohormones and has strong relevance for other animals. The authors have addressed all weaknesses raised in my previous review.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary

The cohesin complex is essential for maintaining sister chromatid cohesion from S phase until anaphase. Beyond this canonical role, it is also recruited to double-strand breaks (DSBs), supporting both local and global post-replicative cohesion, a phenomenon first reported in 2004. In a previous study, Ayra-Plasencia et al. demonstrated that in telophase, DSBs can be repaired by homologous recombination (HR) through re-coalescence of sister chromatids (Ayra-Plasencia & Machín, 2019). In the present work, the authors provide further insights into DSB repair in late mitosis, showing that:

Scc1 is reloaded and reconstituted on chromatin together with Smc1.

HR occurs with high efficiency.

HR-driven MAT switching can occur in an Smc3-independent manner.

Strengths

The authors take full advantage of the yeast model system, employing the HO endonuclease to generate a single, site-specific DSB at the MAT locus on chromosome III. Combined with careful cell synchronization, this setup allows them to monitor HR-mediated repair events specifically in G2/M and late mitosis. Their demonstration that full-length Scc1 can be recovered upon DSB induction is compelling. Most importantly, the finding that efficient HR can take place during M phase is significant, as HR has long been thought to be largely inhibited at this stage of the cell cycle.

Weaknesses

While the authors provide evidence for Scc1 recovery and efficient HR in late mitosis, some critical points need to be clarified to improve the impact and interpretability of the study.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Cohesin drive inter-sister repair of DNA breaks by homologous recombination (HR) in G2/M. Cohesion is lost at the metaphase to anaphase transition upon digestion of the Scc1 subunit of cohesin by Esp1, raising the question as to whether and how break repair by HR could occur in late mitosis (late-M).

Here the author investigate the behavior of cohesin in cells arrested in telophase and experiencing a DNA break at the mating-type locus on chr. III (a specialized recombination process required for mating-type switching) or upon random DNA break formation with the drug phleomycin.

The revised version of the manuscript now convincingly establishes three facts:

- The cohesin subunit Scc1 can re-associate with chromatin and the other Smc1-3 subunits upon formation of an unrepairable DSB at MAT in telophase.<br /> - HR can occur in telophase-arrested cells<br /> - Cohesin (an a fortiori cohesin that reassociated with chromatin) plays no role in non-allelic HR in telophase in the specific context of MAT switching.

Unfortunately, the role of cohesin re-association with chromatin for the allelic inter-sister repair by HR is not addressed. In the absence of such evidence, the main claims of the paper making up the title (cohesin re-association and HR repair) appear disconnected. Even if the very last sentence of the abstract corrects the false sense from the title and the rest of the abstract that cohesin reconstitution has somehow something to do with efficient HR in late mitosis, I think a general rewriting of the abstract and a different title would better lift any ambiguity about the conclusions of the paper.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The manuscript by Zeng et al. describes the discovery of an F-actin-binding Legionella pneumophila effector, which they term Lfat1. Lfat1 contains a putative fatty acyltransferase domain that structurally resembles the Rho-GTPase Inactivation (RID) domain toxin from Vibrio vulnificus, which targets small G-proteins. Additionally, Lfat1 contains a coiled-coil (CC) domain.

The authors identified Lfat1 as an actin-associated protein by screening more than 300 Legionella effectors, expressed as GFP-fusion proteins, for their co-localization with actin in HeLa cells. Actin binding is mediated by the CC domain, which specifically binds to F-actin in a 1:1 stoichiometry. Using cryo-EM, the authors determined a high-quality structure of F-actin filaments bound to the actin-binding domain (ABD) of Lfat1. The structure reveals that actin binding is mediated through a hydrophobic helical hairpin within the ABD (residues 213-279). A Y240A mutation within this region increases the apparent dissociation constant by two orders of magnitude, indicating a critical role for this residue in actin interaction.

The ABD alone was also shown to strongly associate with F-actin upon overexpression in cells. The authors used a truncated version of the Lfat1 ABD to engineer an F-actin-binding probe, which can be used in a split form. Finally, they demonstrate that full-length Lfat1, when overexpressed in cells, fatty acylates host small G-proteins, likely on lysine residues.

Comments on revisions:

Since LFAT1 cannot be produced in E. coli, it may be worth considering immunoprecipitating the protein from mammalian cells to see if it has activity in vitro. Presumably, actin will co-IP but the actin binding mutant can also be used. These are just suggestions to improve an already solid manuscript. Otherwise, I am happy with the paper.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Zheng et al reports the structural and biochemical study of a novel effectors from the bacterial pathogen Legionella pneumophila. The authors continued from results from their earlier screening for L. pneumophila proteins that that affect host F-actin dynamics to show that Llfat1 (Lpg1387) interacts with actin via a novel actin-binding domain (ABD). The authors also determined the structure of the Lfat1 ABD-F-actin complex, which allowed them to develop this ABD as probe for F-actin. Finally, the authors demonstrated that Llfat1 is a lysine fatty acyltransferase that targets several small GTPases in host cells. Overall, this is a very exciting study and should be of great interest to scientists in both bacterial pathogenesis and actin cytoskeleton of eukaryotic cells.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

What are the overarching principles by which prokaryotic genomes evolve? This fundamental question motivates the investigations in this excellent piece of work. While it is still very common in this field to simply assume that prokaryotic genome evolution can be described by a standard model from mathematical population genetics, and fit the genomic data to such a model, a smaller group of researchers rightly insists that we should not have such preconceived ideas and instead try to carefully look at what the genomic data tell us about how prokaryotic genomes evolve. This is the approach taken by the authors of this work. Lacking a tight theoretical framework, the challenge of such approaches is to device analysis methods that are robust to all our uncertainties about what the underlying evolutionary dynamics might be.

The authors here focus on a collection of ~300 single-cell genomes from a relatively well-isolated habitat with a relatively simple species composition, i.e. cyanobacteria living in hot springs in Yellowstone National Park. They convincingly demonstrate that the relative simplicity of this habitat increases our ability to interpret what the genomic data tells us about the evolutionary dynamics.

Using a very thorough and multi-faceted analysis of these data, the authors convincingly show that there are three main species of Synechococcus cyanobacteria living in this habitat, and that apart from very frequent recombination within each species (which is in line with insights from other recent studies) there is also a remarkably frequent occurrence of hybridization events between the different species, and with as of yet unindentified other genomes. Moreover, these hybridization events drive much of the diversity within each species. The authors also show convincing evidence that many of these hybridization events are not neutral but are driven by natural selection.

Strengths:

The great strength of this paper is that, by not making any preconceived assumptions about what the evolutionary dynamics is expected to look like, but instead devicing careful analysis methods to tease apart what the data tells us about what has happened in the evolution in these genomes, highly novel and unexpected results are obtained, i.e. the major role of hybridization across the 3 main species living in this habitat.

The analysis is very thorough and reading the detailed descriptions in the appendices it is clear that these authors took a lot of care in using these methods and avoiding the pitfalls that unfortunately affect many other studies in this research area.

The picture of the evolutionary dynamics of these three Synechococcus species that emerges from this analysis is quite novel and surprising. I think this study is a major stepping stone toward development of more realistic quantitative theories of genome evolution in prokaryotes.

The analysis methods that the authors employ are also partially quite novel and will no doubt by very valuable for analysis of many other datasets.

Weaknesses:

The main text is tight and concise, but this sort of hides the very large amount of careful complementary analyses that went into the conclusions presented in the main text. The appendices are quite well written but they are substantial, so that really understanding the paper is not an easy read. However, I do not really think the authors can be faulted for this. The topic is complex and a lot of care is required to make sure conclusions are valid.

A very interesting observation is that a lot of hybridization events (i.e. about half) originate from species other than the alpha, beta, and gamma Synechococcus species from which the genomes that are analyzed here derive. For this to occur, these other species must presumably also be living in the same habitat and must be relatively abundant. But if they are, why are they not being captured by the sampling? I did not see a clear explanation for this very common occurrence of hybridization events from outside of these Synechococcus species. The authors raise the possibility that these other species used to live in these hot springs but are now extinct or that the occur in other pools. I guess this is possible but I still find it puzzling and wonder if these donors could have been filtered out at some step of the experimental and/or analysis procedures.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary.

Birzu et al. describe two sympatric hotspring cyanobacterial species ("alpha" and "beta") and infer recombination across the genome, including inter-species recombination events (hybridization) based on single-cell genome sequencing. The evidence for hybridization is strong and the authors took care to control for artefacts such as contamination during sequencing library preparation. Despite hybridization, the species remain genetically distinct from each other. The authors also present evidence for selective sweeps of genes across both species - a phenomenon which is widely observed for antibiotic resistance genes in pathogens, but rarely documented in environmental bacteria.

Strengths.

This manuscript describes some of the most thorough and convincing evidence to date of recombination happening within and between co-habitating bacteria in nature. Their single-cell sequencing approach allows them to sample the genetic diversity from two dominant species. Although single-cell genome sequences are incomplete, they contain much more information about genetic linkage than typical short-read shotgun metagenomes, enabling a reliable analysis of recombination. The authors also go to great lengths to quality-filter the single-cell sequencing data and to exclude contamination and read mismapping as major drivers of the signal of recombination. This is a fascinating dataset with intricate analyses showing the great extent of between-species hybridization that is possible in nature.

Weaknesses.

This revised version is much improved, with a much clearer flow and organisation within both the main text and supplement. The remaining weaknesses that I note below are certainly not critical, but are simply useful context for the reader to keep in mind.

My main concern is that the evidence for selection on the hybridized genes is incomplete and statements about the 'overwhelming evidence for the crucial role played by selection' (lines 334-5) are a bit overstated. What fraction of the hybridization events were driven by positive selection? The breakdown of hard (15%) vs soft (85%) sweeps is given, out of 153 (as sidenote, it is not clear if this is 153 genes or events, troughs, etc.). But how many of the hybridization events (or genes) have evidence for a selective sweep relative to those that do not? I recognize that this may be a hard question to answer, because it may be statistically easier to identify a hybridization event that rises to high frequency due to positive selection from a neutral event that remains rare. Even a rough estimate would be useful; would it be something like 153 out of the number of core genes tested (~700)?

Regardless, I think that Figure 6 (A and B) could benefit from comparison to a neutral model, including hybridization but no selection to see if a similar pattern (notably, higher synonymous diversity in alpha troughs compared to the backbone) could arise due to hybridization alone without selection.

An implicit assumption in microbiology is often that cross-species recombination events are driven by selection. The authors recognize that "diversity troughs resulted from selective sweeps [...] likely overcame mechanistic barriers to recombination, genetic incompatibilities, and ecological differences" (lines 335-7) and thus would not be retained unless they had some strong adaptive value to offset these costs. There are surprisingly few tests of the hypothesis that cross-species recombination events tend to be driven by selection. An analysis of Streptococcus spp. genomes showed that between-species recombination events tended to be accompanied by positive selection, whereas most within-species events were not (Shapiro et al. Trends in Microbiology 2009; reanalysis of data from Lefebure & Stanhope, Genome Biology 2007). There are probably other examples out there, but the authors could highlight that they provide rare data to support a common expectation.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this valuable manuscript, Lin et al attempt to examine the role of long non coding RNAs (lncRNAs) in human evolution, through a set of population genetics and functional genomics analyses that leverage existing datasets and tools. Although the methods are incomplete and at times inadequate, the results nonetheless point towards a possible contribution of long non coding RNAs to shaping humans, and suggest clear directions for future, more rigorous study.

Comments on revisions:

I thank the authors for their revision and changes in response to previous rounds of comments. As before, I appreciate the changes made in response to my comments, and I think everyone is approaching this in the spirit of arriving at the best possible manuscript, but we still have some deep disagreements on the nature of the relevant statistical approach and defining adequate controls. I highlight a couple of places that I think are particularly relevant, but note that given the authors disagree with my interpretation, they should feel free to not respond!

(1) On the subject of the 0.034 threshold, I had previously stated:<br /> "I do not agree with the rationale for this claim, and do not agree that it supports the cutoff of 0.034 used below."

In their reply to me, the authors state:<br /> "What we need is a gene number, which (a) indicates genes that effectively differentiate humans from chimpanzees, (b) can be used to set a DBS sequence distance cutoff. Since this study is the first to systematically examine DBSs in humans and chimpanzees, we must estimate this gene number based on studies that identify differentially expressed genes in humans and chimpanzees. We choose Song et al. 2021 (Song et al. Genetic studies of human-chimpanzee divergence using stem cell fusions. PNAS 2021), which identified 5984 differentially expressed genes, including 4377 genes whose differential expression is due to trans-acting differences between humans and chimpanzeees. To the best of our knowledge, this is the only published data on trans-acting differences between humans and chimpanzeees, and most HS lncRNAs and their DBSs/targets have trans-acting relationships (see Supplementary Table 2). Based on these numbers, we chose a DBS sequence distance cutoff of 0.034, which corresponds to 4248 genes (the top 20%), slightly fewer than 4377."

I have some notes here. First, Agoglia et al, Nature, 2021, also examined the nature of cis vs trans regulatory differences between human and chimps using a very similar set up to Song et al; their Supplementary Table 4 enables the discovery of genes with cis vs trans effects although admittedly this is less straightforward than the Song et al data. Second, I can't actually tell how the 4377 number is arrived at. From Song et al, "Of 4,671 genes with regulatory changes between human-only and chimpanzee-only iPSC lines, 44.4% (2,073 genes) were regulated primarily in cis, 31.4% (1,465 genes) were regulated primarily in trans, and the remaining 1,133 genes were regulated both in cis and in trans (Fig. 2C). This final category was further broken down into a cis+trans category (cis- and trans-regulatory changes acting in the same direction) and a cis-trans category (cis- and trans-regulatory changes acting in opposite directions)." Even when combining trans-only and cis&trans genes that gives 2,598 genes with evidence for some trans regulation. I cannot find 4,377 in the main text of the Song et al paper.

Elsewhere in their response, the authors respond to my comment that 0.034 is an arbitrary threshold by repeating the analyses using a cutoff of 0.035. I appreciate the sentiment here, but I would not expect this to make any great difference, given how similar those numbers are! A better approach, and what I had in mind when I mentioned this, would be to test multiple thresholds, ranging from, eg, 0.05 to 0.01 at some well-defined step size.

(2) The authors have introduced a new TFBS section, as a control for their lncRNAs - this is welcome, though again I would ask for caution when interpreting results. For instance, in their reply to me the authors state:<br /> "The number of HS TFs and HS lncRNAs (5 vs 66) alone lends strong evidence suggesting that HS lncRNAs have contributed more significantly to human evolution than HS TFs (note that 5 is the union of three intersections between and the three )."

But this assumes the denominator is the same! There are 35899 lncRNAs according to the current GENCOVE build; 66/35899 = 0.0018, so, 0.18% of lncRNAs are HS. The authors compare this to 5 TFs. There are 19433 protein coding genes in the current GENCOVE build, which naively (5/19433) gives a big depletion (0.026%) relative to the lnc number. However, this assumes all protein coding genes are TFs, which is not the case. A quick search suggests that ~2000 protein coding genes are TFs (see, eg, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34755879/); which gives an enrichment (although I doubt it is a statistically significant one!) of HS TFs over HS lncRNAs (5/2000 = 0.0025). Hence my emphasis on needing to be sure the controls are robust and valid throughout!

(3) In my original review I said:<br /> line 187: "Notably, 97.81% of the 105141 strong DBSs have counterparts in chimpanzees, suggesting that these DBSs are similar to HARs in evolution and have undergone human-specific evolution." I do not see any support for the inference here. Identifying HARs and acceleration relies on a far more thorough methodology than what's being presented here. Even generously, pairwise comparison between two taxa only cannot polarise the direction of differences; inferring human-specific change requires outgroups beyond chimpanzee.

In their reply to me, the authors state:<br /> Here, we actually made an analogy but not an inference; therefore, we used such words as "suggesting" and "similar" instead of using more confirmatory words. We have revised the latter half sentence, saying "raising the possibility that these sequences have evolved considerably during human evolution".

Is the aim here to draw attention to the ~2.2% of DBS that do not have a counterpart? In that case, it would be better to rewrite the sentence to emphasise those, not the ones that are shared between the two species? I do appreciate the revised wording, though.

(4) Finally, Line 408: "Ensembl-annotated transcripts (release 79)" Release 79 is dated to March 2015, which is quite a few releases and genome builds ago. Is this a typo? Both the human and the chimpanzee genome have been significantly improved since then!

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This valuable study explores the regulatory mechanisms underlying the regional distribution of enteroendocrine cell subtypes in the Drosophila midgut. The regional distribution of EE cell subtypes is carefully documented, and the data convincingly show that each EE cell subtype has a unique spatial pattern. The study aims at determining how the spatial distribution of EE cell subtypes is established and maintained, and explores the roles of three pathways: Notch, WNT, and BMP. The data show evidence that Notch signaling regulates the subtype specificity, being necessary for the specification of Type II, but not Type I and III EE cell subtype specification. The immunofluorescence data in Figure 3 are convincing, but the analysis is incomplete due to a lack of quantification. How Notch signaling activity relates to the emergence of the regional EE cell patterns remains unclear.

As WNT and BMP are known as morphogens, the study explores their expression patterns and their roles in establishing and maintaining the subtype identities. The observed patterns of WNT and BMP are consistent with earlier studies. Manipulation of WNT and BMP pathway activities in intestinal stem cells is shown to have some region-specific effects on specific EE cell subtypes. The overall conclusion that both WNT and BMP have local effects on EE cell subtypes is based on solid evidence. However, the study falls short in achieving its main objective, i.e., to explain the regional subtype patterns by the action of WNT and BMP gradients. Despite displaying a large volume of phenotypic data in Figures 4-7, the study remains incomplete in providing sufficient evidence to support the models shown in Figures 7 M and N. The main challenge is that the reader is provided with a large volume of individual data fragments of selected regions (e.g., Figures 4 and 5) or images of whole midgut without proper quantification (Figure 7). There is not sufficient effort made to display the data in a way that allows observing changes in the global patterns of EE cell subtypes throughout the midgut and compare these patterns with the observed WNT and BMP gradients.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

By labeling the three major enteroendocrine cell markers - AstC, Tk, and CCHa2-the authors systematically investigated the distribution of distinct EE subtypes along the Drosophila midgut, as well as their emergence via symmetric and asymmetric divisions of enteroendocrine progenitor cells. Moreover, they dissected the molecular mechanisms underlying regional patterning by modulating Wnt and BMP signaling pathways, revealing that these compartment boundary signals play key roles in regulating EE subtype diversity.

Strengths:

This work establishes a solid methodological and conceptual foundation for future studies on how stem cells acquire positional identity and modulate region-specific behaviors.

Weaknesses:

Given that the transcriptional profiles of intestinal stem cells across different regions are highly similar, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the behavior of ISCs and enteroendocrine precursor cells may be regulated non-autonomously, potentially through interactions with enterocytes, which exhibit more distinct region-specific characteristics.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aimed to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the regional patterning of enteroendocrine cell (EE) subtypes along the Drosophila midgut. Through detailed immunohistochemical mapping and genetic perturbation of Notch, WNT, and BMP signaling pathways, they sought to determine how extrinsic morphogen gradients and intrinsic stem cell identity contribute to EE diversity.

Strengths:

A major strength of this work is the meticulous regional analysis of EE pairs and the use of multiple genetic tools to manipulate signaling pathways in a spatiotemporally controlled manner. The data robustly demonstrate that WNT and BMP signaling gradients play key roles in specifying EE subtypes and division modes across different gut regions.

Weaknesses:

However, the study does not fully explore the mechanistic basis for the region-specific dependence on Notch signaling. Additionally, while the authors propose that symmetric divisions occur in R1a and R4b, the observed heterogeneity in CCHa2 expression within AstC+ pairs in R4b suggests that asymmetric mechanisms may still be at play, possibly involving apical-basal polarity as previously reported.

Appraisal of achievements:

The authors successfully achieve their aims by providing a compelling model in which intercalated WNT and BMP gradients regulate EE subtype specification and EEP division modes. The genetic data strongly support the conclusion that these pathways are central to establishing regional EE diversity during pupal development.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study asks how selection for male aggressiveness affects life-history and reproductive fitness traits in Drosophila melanogaster males.

Strengths:

Multiple comprehensive assays are used to address the question.

Weaknesses:

(1) The flies used for comparisons are inadequate. Behavioral assays compare Bully males mated to non-coevolved Cs females with Cs males mated to coevolved Cs females.

(2) Lifespan analysis is done on male progeny of Cs females mated to either genetically more distant Bully or co-evolved Cs males; the longer lifespan and performance on the former is interpreted as a trade-off with aggressiveness, rather than a simple explanation of hybrid vigor.

(3) Differences in CHCs between Bully and Cs males and Cs females mated to those males are not shown to cause differences in measured behavioral outcomes.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors compare "Bully" lines, selected for male aggression, to Canton-S controls and find that Bully males have lower mating success, shorter mating durations, and remate sooner. Chemical analyses show Bully males have distinct cuticular hydrocarbons (CHC) signatures and transfer markedly less cVA to females, offering a plausible mechanistic link to weaker mate-guarding.

Paradoxically, Bully males live longer and remain fertile at older ages when CS males no longer mate, indicating a shift in the reproduction-survival trade-off in aggression-selected populations.

Importantly, the work sheds light on proximate mechanisms, demonstrating that shifts in CHCs and pheromone transfer co-occur with changes in fitness traits, thus offering new entry points for understanding life-history evolution.

Strengths:

The manuscript's strengths lie in its comprehensive and integrative approach framed within an evolutionary context. By combining behavioral assays, chemical profiling, and lifespan measurements, the authors reveal a coherent pattern linking aggression selection to life-history trade-offs. The direct quantification of cVA in female reproductive tracts after mating provides a particularly compelling mechanistic correlate, strengthening the link between behavior and chemical signaling. Findings on altered 5-T and 5-P levels further highlight how chemical communication shapes mating and mate-guarding strategies. Analytical approaches are largely rigorous, and the results provide valuable insights into the pleiotropic effects of selection on socially relevant traits. The study will be of interest to Drosophila biologists working on sexual selection, behavioral evolution, and aging.

Weaknesses:

The weaknesses are primarily conceptual rather than procedural. The generality of the findings is uncertain, as selection appears to be represented by only one (and a second closely related) Bully line, limiting conclusions about selection responses versus line-specific drift or founder effects. The causal link between aggression selection and increased longevity is not established: the data show a correlated shift but do not identify mechanisms underlying lifespan extension. In several places, the manuscript uses causal language (e.g., that selection 'influences' longevity or mating strategy) where association would be more accurate; this should be toned down to avoid overstatement. Ecological relevance is also not addressed, since laboratory conditions may bias the balance between costs and benefits of aggression compared with variable natural environments. Addressing these points would strengthen both the impact and clarity of the study.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This unique study reports original and extensive behavioral data collected by the authors on 21 living mammal taxa in zoo conditions (primates, tree shrew, rodents, carnivorans, and marsupials) on how descent along a vertical substrate can be done effectively and securely using gait variables. Ten morphological variables reflecting head size and limb proportions are examined in relationship to vertical descent strategies and then applied to reconstruct modes of vertical descent in fossil mammals.

Strengths:

This is a broad and data-rich comparative study, which requires a good understanding of the mammal groups being compared and how they are interrelated, the kinematic variables that underlie the locomotion used by the animals during vertical descent, and the morphological variables that are associated with vertical descent styles. Thankfully, the study presents data in a cogent way with clear hypotheses at the beginning, followed by results and a discussion that addresses each of those hypotheses using the relevant behavioral and morphological variables, always keeping in mind the relationships of the mammal groups under investigation. As pointed out in the study, there is a clear phylogenetic signal associated with vertical descent style. Strepsirrhine primates much prefer descending tail first, platyrrhine primates descend sideways when given a choice, whereas all other mammals (with the exception of the raccoon) descend head first. Not surprisingly, all mammals descending a vertical substrate do so in a more deliberate way, by reducing speed, and by keeping the limbs in contact for a longer period (i.e., higher duty factors).

Weaknesses:

The different gait patterns used by mammals during vertical descent are a bit more difficult to interpret. It is somewhat paradoxical that asymmetrical gaits such as bounds, half bounds, and gallops are more common during descent since they are associated with higher speeds and lower duty factors. Also, the arguments about the limb support polygons provided by DSDC vs. LSDC gaits apply for horizontal substrates, but perhaps not as much for vertical substrates.

The importance of body mass cannot be overemphasized as it affects all aspects of an animal's biology. In this case, larger mammals with larger heads avoid descending head-first. Variation in trunk/tail and limb proportions also covaries with different vertical descent strategies. For example, a lower intermembral index is associated with tail-first descent. That said, the authors are quick to acknowledge that the five lemur species of their sample are driving this correlation. There is a wide range of intermembral indices among primates, and this simple measure of forelimb over hindlimb has vital functional implications for locomotion: primates with relatively long hindlimbs tend to emphasize leaping, primates with more even limb proportions are typically pronograde quadrupeds, and primates with relatively long forelimbs tend to emphasize suspensory locomotion and brachiation. Equally important is the fact that the intermembral index has been shown to increase with body mass in many primate families as a way to keep functional equivalence for (ascending) climbing behavior (see Jungers, 1985). Therefore, the manner in which a primate descends a vertical substrate may just be a by-product of limb proportions that evolved for different locomotor purposes. Clearly, more vertical descent data within a wider array of primate intermembral indices would clarify these relationships. Similarly, vertical descent data for other primate groups with longer tails, such as arboreal cercopithecoids, and particularly atelines with very long and prehensile tails, should provide more insights into the relationship between longer tail length and tail-first descent observed in the five lemurs. The relatively longer hallux of lemurs correlates with tail-first descent, whereas the more evenly grasping autopods of platyrrhines allow for all four limbs to be used for sideways descent. In that context, the pygmy loris offers a striking contrast. Here is a small primate equipped with four pincer-like, highly grasping autopods and a tail reduced to a short stub. Interestingly, this primate is unique within the sample in showing the strongest preference for head-first descent, just like other non-primate mammals. Again, a wider sample of primates should go a long way in clarifying the morphological and behavioral relationships reported in this study.

Reconstruction of the ancient lifestyles, including preferred locomotor behaviors, is a formidable task that requires careful documentation of strong form-function relationships from extant species that can be used as analogs to infer behavior in extinct species. The fossil record offers challenges of its own, as complete and undistorted skulls and postcranial skeletons are rare occurrences. When more complete remains are available, the entire evidence should be considered to reconstruct the adaptive profile of a fossil species rather than a single ("magic") trait.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper contains kinematic analyses of a large comparative sample of small to medium-sized arboreal mammals (n = 21 species) traveling on near-vertical arboreal supports of varying diameter. This data is paired with morphological measures from the extant sample to reconstruct potential behaviors in a selection of fossil euarchontaglires. This research is valuable to anyone working in mammal locomotion and primate evolution.

Strengths:

The experimental data collection methods align with best research practices in this field and are presented with enough detail to allow for reproducibility of the study as well as comparison with similar datasets. The four predictions in the introduction are well aligned with the design of the study to allow for hypothesis testing. Behaviors are well described and documented, and Figure 1 does an excellent job in conveying the variety of locomotor behaviors observed in this sample. I think the authors took an interesting and unique angle by considering the influence of encephalization quotient on descent and the experience of forward pitch in animals with very large heads.

Weaknesses:

The authors acknowledge the challenges that are inherent with working with captive animals in enclosures and how that might influence observed behaviors compared to these species' wild counterparts. The number of individuals per species in this sample is low; however, this is consistent with the majority of experimental papers in this area of research because of the difficulties in attaining larger sample sizes.

Figure 2 is difficult to interpret because of the large amount of information it is trying to convey.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study presents a systematic investigation of parent-of-origin effects on gene expression using trio-based data from the Framingham Heart Study, which is notable for its relatively large number of trios. By combining whole-genome and RNA sequencing data, the authors examined the extent to which gene expression is influenced by whether genetic variants are inherited maternally or paternally.

The authors report that parent-of-origin eQTLs are widespread, identifying 15,893 eQTLs from 14,733 variants and 1,824 genes that were significant in paternal, maternal, or joint tests but not detected by traditional eQTL approaches. They further classified these associations based on the relative strength and direction of paternal and maternal effects, highlighting a subset with opposing directions. The study also highlighted eGenes linked to known imprinted genes as well as those with opposing parent-specific effects, and observed that paternal eGenes are enriched for drug targets. Finally, the work revisits previous findings in which eQTL studies were used to interpret disease-associated loci, emphasizing that conventional eQTL analyses without testing the parent-of-origin may mislead gene prioritization efforts. The study recommends that future downstream analyses, such as Mendelian randomization, take into account the provided lists of SNPs and eGenes and exclude those with strong parent-of-origin effects when linking genetic regulation to disease risk.

Strengths:

The major strength of the study lies in the scale and quality of the dataset, the trio-based design, and the systematic application of statistical tests for parent-of-origin effects. The strengths thoughtfully employed Bayes factors rather than p-values to provide stronger evidence of association, which adds rigor to their analyses. These design choices provide compelling evidence that parent-of-origin effects are widespread and that conventional eQTL analyses miss a substantial fraction of regulatory variation. The results are clearly presented and supported by robust analyses, including the identification of opposing parental effects and the enrichment of paternal eGenes for drug targets. Notably, the two examples demonstrating how these findings can reshape disease gene prioritization highlight the broader impact of the study and encourage further work in the community to incorporate parent-of-origin effects.

Weaknesses:

The main limitations of the study are threefold. First, there is a lack of replication in independent cohorts, which is understandable given the difficulty of identifying datasets with a comparable number of trios, but replication would help establish the generalizability of the findings. Second, while Bayes factors are thoughtfully used to assess evidence of association, the paper does not fully explore how the chosen thresholds translate to the expected rate of false positives. For example, a minor allele frequency cutoff of 1% was applied, which seems somewhat arbitrary, and without reporting the allele frequency distribution of the identified eQTLs, it is unclear whether rare variants disproportionately contribute to the signals, potentially affecting the reliability of discoveries. Third, the ancestry background of the study samples is not reported, which could be a confounding factor in the genetic analyses.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have used 1477 sequenced trios with available gene expression data in the offspring to discover eQTLs that act in a parent-of-origin specific manner. The classified associated SNPs are tested for enrichment for GWAS hits, drug target genes, etc.

Strengths:

The manuscript presents an impressive analysis of a very rich data set of parent-of-origin eQTLs. To my knowledge, it is one of the largest studies of its kind, most analyses are sound, and the results are of interest to many in the field and potentially beyond. The different ideas of follow-up analyses are useful and make sense.

Weaknesses:

While in general the analyses are well-conducted, I noticed a major issue with the POE eQTL classification, which puts into question most of the downstream analysis. In light of this problem, most of the analysis would need to be rerun, which represents a major revision of the paper, but is straightforward to repair.

The major problem with the classification of POEs is that simply having significant maternal, but insignificant paternal effect is not an indicator of POE, this happens widely for SNPs with no POE whatsoever (it can happen by chance even when both maternal and paternal effects are the same and non-zero - the authors can see it via simulations under the null [maternal=paternal effect]). In order to be able to talk about POE, first, a significant difference between maternal and paternal effects needs to be claimed. Therefore, none of the 4 sets of POE eQTLs are justified. To me, the only relevant criterion to pick POE SNPs is the P-value when comparing the maternal and paternal effects. The definitions of the 4 groups are based on somewhat ad hoc priors, BF thresholds, etc. Also, in Section 4.6, the value of theta is arbitrarily chosen (along with the threshold of 4 to declare POE). In my opinion, the clean treatment of the 4 groups would start with a significant P-value (beta_maternal vs beta_paternal). Within this set, you can then use the original criteria presented in the paper, but only among these associations where there is solid evidence of different parental effects.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In the retina, parallel processing of cone photoreceptor output under bright light conditions dissects critical features of our visual environment, and fundamental to visual function. Cone photoreceptor signals are sampled by several types of bipolar cells and passed onto the ganglion cells. At the output of retinal processing, retinal ganglion cells send about 40 different codes of the visual scene to the brain for further processing. In this study, the authors focus on whether subtype-specific differences in the size of synaptic ribbon-associated vesicle pools of bipolar cells contribute to different retinal ganglion cell (RGC) responses.

Specifically, inputs to ON alpha RGCs producing transient versus sustained kinetics (ON-S vs. ON-T, respectively) are compared. The authors first demonstrate that ON-S vs. ON-T RGCs are readily identifiable in a whole mount preparation and respond differently to both static and to a spatially uniform, randomly fluctuating (Gaussian noise) light stimulus. Liner-nonlinear (LN) models were used to estimate the transformation between visual input and excitatory synaptic input for each RGCs; these models suggested the presence of transient versus sustained kinetics already in the excitatory inputs to ON-T and ON-S RGCs.

Indeed, the authors show that (glutamatergic) excitatory inputs to ON-S vs. ON-T RGCs are of distinct kinetics. The subtypes of bipolar cells providing input to ON-S are known (i.e., type 6 and 7), but the source of excitatory bipolar inputs to ON-T RGCs needed to be determined. In a tedious process, it is elegantly shown here that ON-T RGCs receive most of their excitatory inputs from type 5 and 6 bipolars. Interestingly, the temporal properties of light-evoked responses of type 5, 6 and 7 bipolars recorded from the somas were indistinguishable and rather sustained, suggesting that the origin of transient kinetics of excitatory inputs to ON-T RGCs suggested by the LN model might be found in the processing of visual signals at the bipolar cell axon terminal. Blocking GABA- or glycinergic inhibitory inputs did not alter the light-evoked excitatory input kinetics to ON-T and ON-S RGCs. Two-photon glutamate sensor imaging revealed significantly faster kinetics of light-evoked glutamate signals at ON-T versus ON-S RGCs, and that differences in glutamate release from presynaptic bipolar cells are retained without amacrine feedback to bipolar cells. Detailed EM analysis of bipolar cell ribbon synapses onto ON-T and ON-S RGCs revealed fewer ribbon-associated vesicles at ON-T synapses, that is consistent with stronger paired-flash depression of light-evoked excitatory currents in ON-T RGCS versus ON-S RGCs. This study suggests that bipolar subtype-specific differences in the size of synaptic ribbon-associated vesicle pools contributes to transient versus sustained kinetics in RGCs.

Strengths:

The use of multiple, state-of-the-art tools and approaches to address the kinetics of bipolar to ganglion cell synapse in an identified circuit.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Goal of the study. The authors tried to pinpoint the origins of transient and sustained responses measured at retinal ganglion cells (rgcs), which is the output layer of the retina. Response characteristics of rgcs are used to group them into different types. The diversity of rgc types represents the ability of the retina to transform visual inputs into distinct output channels. They find that the physical dimensions of bipolar cell's synaptic ribbons (specialized release sites/active zones) vary across the different types of cone on-bpcs, in ways that they argue could facilitate transient or sustained release. This diversity of release output is what they argue underlies the differences in on-rgcs response characteristics, and ultimately represents a mechanism for creating parallel cone-driven channels.

Strengths:

The major strengths of the study are the anatomical approaches employed and the use of the "glutamate sniffer" to assay synaptic glutamate levels. The outline of the study is elegant and reflects the strengths of the authors.

Comments on revised version:

The authors have addressed my comments either through new experiments and/or with additional citations.

Explanation of the studies significance. I think the study provides a solid set of data, acquired through exceptional methodologies, and delivers a compelling hypothesis. This is an exceptionally talented group of systems level thinkers and experimentalists, who are now pointing to smaller scale biophysical principles of synaptic transmission.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Different types of retinal ganglion cell (RGC) have different temporal properties - most prominently a distinction between sustained vs. transient responses to contrast. This has been well established in multiple species, including mouse. In general, RGCs with dendrites that stratify close to the ganglion cell layer (GCL) are sustained; whereas those that stratify near the middle of the inner plexiform layer (IPL) are transient. This difference in RGC spiking responses aligns with similar differences in excitatory synaptic currents as well as with differences in glutamate release in the respective layers - shown previously and here, with a glutamate sensor (iGluSnFR) expressed in the RGCs of interest. Differences in glutamate release were not explained by differences in the distinct presynaptic bipolar cells' voltage responses, which were quite similar to one another. Rather, the difference in transient vs. sustained responses seems to emerge at the bipolar cell axon terminals in the form of glutamate release. This difference in the temporal pattern of glutamate release was correlated with differences in the size of synaptic ribbons (larger in the bipolar cells with more sustained responses), which also correlated with a greater number of vesicles in the vicinity of the larger ribbons.

The main conclusion of the study relates to a correlation (because it is difficult to manipulate ribbon size or vesicle density experimentally): the bipolar cells with increased ribbon size/vesicle number would have a greater possibility of sustained release, which would be reflected in the postsynaptic RGC synaptic currents and RGC firing rates. This model proposes a mechanism for temporal channels that is independent of synaptic inhibition. Indeed, some experiments in the paper suggest that inhibition cannot explain the transient nature of glutamate release onto one of the RGC types. Still, it is surprising that such a diverse set of inhibitory interneurons in the retina would not play some role in diversifying the temporal properties of RGC responses.

Strengths:

(1) The study uses a systematic approach to evaluating temporal properties of retinal ganglion cell (RGC) spiking outputs, excitatory synaptic inputs, presynaptic voltage responses, and presynaptic glutamate release. The combination of these experiments demonstrates an important step in the conversion from voltage to glutamate release in shaping response dynamics in RGCs.

(2) The study uses a combination of electrophysiology, two-photon imaging and scanning block face EM to build a quantitative and coherent story about specific retinal circuits and their functional properties.

Weaknesses:

(1) There were some interesting aspects of the study that were not completely resolved, and resolving some of these issues may go beyond the current study. For example, it was interesting that different extracellular media (Ames medium vs. ACSF) generated different degrees of transient vs. sustained responses in RGCs, but it was unclear how these media might have impacted ion channels at different levels of the circuit that could explain the effects on temporal tuning.

(2) It was surprising that inhibition played such a small role in generating temporal tuning. The authors explored this further in the revision, which supported the original claim that inhibition plays a minor role in glutamate release dynamics from the bipolar cells under study.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript "Adapting Clinical Chemistry Plasma as a Source for Liquid Biopsies" addresses a timely and practical question: whether residual plasma from heparin separator tubes can serve as a source of cfDNA for molecular profiling. This idea is attractive, since such samples are routinely generated in clinical chemistry labs and would represent a vast and accessible resource for liquid biopsy applications. The preliminary results are encouraging, but in its current form, the study feels incomplete and requires additional work.

My major concerns/suggestions are as follows:

(1) Context and literature

The introduction provides only limited background on prior attempts to use heparinized plasma for cfDNA work. It is well known that heparin can inhibit PCR and sequencing library preparation, which has historically discouraged its use. The authors should summarize the relevant literature more comprehensively and explain clearly why this approach has not been widely adopted until now, and how their work differs from or overcomes these earlier challenges.

(2) Genome-wide coverage

The analyses focus on correlations in methylation patterns and fragmentation metrics, but there is no evaluation of sequencing coverage across the genome. For both WGS and WMS, it would be important to demonstrate whether cfDNA from heparin plasma provides unbiased coverage, or whether certain genomic regions are systematically under-represented. A comparison against coverage profiles from cell-derived DNA (e.g., PBMC genomic DNA) would help to put the results in context and assess whether the material is suitable for whole-genome applications.

(3) Viral detection sensitivity

The study shows strong concordance in viral detection between EDTA and heparin samples, but the sensitivity analysis is lacking. For clinical relevance, it is critical to demonstrate how well heparin-derived plasma performs in low viral load cases. A quantitative comparison of viral read counts and genome coverage across tube types would strengthen the conclusions.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors propose that leftover heparin plasma can serve as a source for cfDNA extraction, which could then be used for downstream genomic analyses such as methylation profiling, CNV detection, metagenomics, and fragmentomics. While the study is potentially of interest, several major limitations reduce its impact; for example, the study does not adequately address key methodological concerns, particularly cfDNA degradation, sequencing depth limitations, statistical rigor, and the breadth of relevant applications.

Strengths:

The paper provides a cheap method to extract cfDNA, which has broad application if the method is solid.

Weaknesses:

(1) The introduction lacks a sufficient review of prior work. The authors do not adequately summarize existing studies on cfDNA extraction, particularly those comparing heparin plasma and EDTA plasma. This omission weakens the rationale for their study and overlooks important context.

(2) The evaluation of cfDNA degradation from heparin plasma is incomplete. The authors did not compare cfDNA integrity with that extracted from EDTA plasma under realistic sample handling conditions. Their analysis (lines 90-93) focuses only on immediate extraction, which is not representative of clinical workflows where delays are common. This is in direct conflict with findings from Barra et al. (2025, LabMed), who showed that cfDNA from heparin plasma is substantially more degraded than that from EDTA plasma. A systematic comparison of cfDNA yields and fragment sizes under delayed extraction conditions would be necessary to validate the feasibility of their proposed approach.

(3) The comparison of methylation profiles suffers from the same limitation. The authors do not account for cfDNA degradation and the resulting reduced input material, which in turn affects sequencing depth and data quality. As shown by Barra et al., quantifying cfDNA yield and displaying these data in a figure would strengthen the analysis. Moreover, the statistical method applied is inappropriate: the authors use Pearson correlation when Spearman correlation would be more robust to outliers and thus more suitable for methylation and other genomic comparisons.

(4) The CNV analysis also raises concerns. With low-coverage WGS (~5X) from heparin-derived cfDNA, only large CNVs (>100 kb) are reliably detectable. The authors used a 500 kb bin size for CNV calling, but they did not acknowledge this as a limitation. Evaluating CNV detection at multiple bin sizes (e.g., 1 kb, 10 kb, 50 kb, 100 kb, 250 kb) would provide a more complete picture. In addition, Figure 3 presents CNV results from only one sample, which risks bias. Similar bias would exist for illustrations of CNVs from other samples in the supplementary figures provided by the authors. Again, Spearman correlation should be applied in Figure 3c, where clear outliers are visible.

(5) It is important to point out that depth-based CNV calling is just one of the CNV calling methods. Other CNV calling software using SNVs, pair-reads, split-reads, and coverage depth for calling CNV, such as the software Conserting, would be severely affected by the low-quality WGS data. The authors need to evaluate at least two different software with specific algorithms for CNV calling based on current WGS data.

(6) The authors omit an important application of cfDNA: somatic mutation detection. Degraded cfDNA and reduced sequencing depth could substantially impact SNV calling accuracy in terms of both recall and precision. Assessing this aspect with their current dataset would provide a more comprehensive evaluation of heparin plasma-derived cfDNA for genomic analyses.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Characterization of a dissociable Mediator subunit implicated in cellular pathways, particularly lung alveolar function, and HIV latency is conceptually interesting.

Strengths:

The strengths of this study are:

(1) Demonstration of MED16 dissociation from the core Mediator complex and formation of a subcomplex containing MED16, upstream-binding protein 1 (UBP1), and transcription factor cellular promoter 2 (TFCP2) by elegant biochemical fractionation and immunoblotting analysis.

(2) Defining nine N-terminal WD-40 repeats (WDRs) of MED16 as a Mediator-incorporating module and the C-terminal ⍺β-domain (157 amino acids) important for interaction with the UBP1-TFCP2 heterodimeric complex.

(3) Illustration of a weak hydrophobic interaction between MED16 and the Mediator core that could be disrupted by 1,6-hexanediol, but not by its 2,5-hexanediol isomer nor by high salt (500 mM NaCl) disruption.

(4) Classification of UBP1-upregulated cellular genes typically containing binding sites flanking the transcription start site (TSS) in contrast to UBP1-downregulated genes often containing a TSS-overlapping UBP1-binding site

(5) Presenting evidence for Mediator complex-dissociated free MED16-repressed HIV promoter activity through functional association with UBP1 and showing bromodomain-containing protein 4 (BRD4) inhibitor JQ1 that potentially disrupts BRD4-inhibited HIV-1 transcription elongation could lead to reversal of HIV-1 latency.

Weaknesses:

Nevertheless, foreseeable weaknesses include:

(1) No clear demonstration of MED16-UBP1-TFCP2 indeed forming a trimeric core subcomplex in regulating cellular gene transcription and HIV-1 promoter inhibition

(2) No validation of transcriptomic datasets and pathways identified.

(3) Use of mostly artificial reporter gene constructs and non-HIV host cells (e.g., human 293T embryonic kidney cells, human HeLa cervical cancer cells, and mouse HT pancreatic cancer cells) for examining MED16/UBP1-regulated HIV transcription.

(4) Inconsistent use of 293T and HeLa cells in the characterization of dissociated MED16 interaction with UBP1 and TFCP2.

(5) In vitro transcription using immobilized DNA templates was not performed to a high standard, thus failing to convincingly show MED16/UBP1-inhibited HIV-1 transcription preinitiation complex formation.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The article from Zheng et al. proposes an interesting hypothesis that the Med16 subunit of Mediator detaches from the complex, associates with transcription factor UBP1, and this complex activates or represses specific sets of genes in human cells. Despite my excitement upon reading the abstract, I was concerned by the lack of rigor in the experimental design. The only statement in the abstract that has some experimental support is the finding that Med16 dissociates from the Mediator and forms a subcomplex, but the data shown remain incomplete.

Strengths:

The authors have preliminary evidence that a stable Med16 complex may exist and that it may regulate specific sets of genes.

Weaknesses:

The experiments are poorly designed and can only infer possible roles for Med16 or UBP1 at this point. Furthermore, the data are often of poor quality and lack replication and quantitation. In other cases, key data such as MS results aren't even shown. Instead, we are given a curated list of only about 6 proteins (Figure S1), a subset of which the authors chose to pursue with follow-up experiments. This is not the expected level of scientific process.

(1) The data supporting the Med16 dissociation and co-association with UBP1 are incomplete and not convincing at this stage. According to the Methods and text, the gel filtration column was run with "un-dialyzed HeLa cell nuclear extract" and eluted in 300mM KCl buffer. The extracts were generated with the Dignam/Roeder method according to the text. Undialyzed, that means the extract would be between 0.4 - 0.5M NaCl. Under these high salt conditions (not physiological), it's possible and even plausible that Mediator subunits could separate over time. This caveat is not mentioned or controlled for by the authors. Because a putative Med16 subcomplex is a foundational point of the article, this is concerning.

The data are incomplete because a potential Med16 complex is not defined biochemically. The current state suggests a smaller Med16-containing complex that may also contain UBP1 and other factors, but its composition is not determined. This is important because if you're going to conclude a new and biologically relevant Med16 complex, which is a point of the article, then readers will expect you to do that.

Equally concerning are the IP-western results shown in Figure 1. In my opinion, these experiments do nothing to support the claims of the authors. The authors use hexanediols at 5% or 10% in an effort to disrupt the Mediator complex. Assuming this was weight/volume, that means ~400 to 800mM hexanediol solution, which is fairly high and can be expected to disrupt protein complexes, but the effects haven't been carefully assessed as far as I'm aware. The 2,5 HD (Figure 1B) experiments appear to simply contain greater protein loading, and this may contribute to the apparent differential results. In fact, in looking at the data, it seems that all MED subunits probed show the same trend as Med16. They are all reduced in the 1,6HD experiment relative to the 2,5 HD experiment. But it's hard to know, because replicates weren't completed and quantitation was not done. There aren't even loading controls. Other concerns about the IP-Western experiments are outlined in point 2.

(2) At no point do the authors apply rigorous methods to test their hypothesis. Instead, methods are applied that have been largely discredited over time and can only serve as preliminary data for pilot studies, and cannot be used to draw definitive conclusions about protein function.

a) IP-westerns are fraught with caveats, especially the way they were performed here, in which the beads were washed at relatively low salt and then eluted by boiling the beads in loading buffer. This will "elute" bound proteins, but also proteins that non-specifically interact with or precipitate on the beads. And because Westerns are so sensitive, it is easy to generate positive results. It's just not a rigorous experiment.

b) Many conclusions relied on transient transfection experiments, which are problematic because they require long timeframes, during which secondary/indirect effects from expression/overexpression will result. This is especially true if the proteins being artificially expressed/overexpressed are major transcription regulators, which is the case here. It is simply impossible to separate direct from indirect effects with these types of experiments. Another concern is that there was no effort to assess whether the induced protein levels were near physiological levels. Protein overexpression, especially if the protein is a known regulator of pol2 transcription (e.g., UBP1 or Med16), will create many unintended consequences.

c) Many conclusions were made based upon shRNA knockdown experiments, which are problematic because they require long timeframes (see above point), which makes it nearly impossible to identify effects that are direct vs. indirect/secondary/tertiary effects. Also, shRNA experiments will have off-target effects, which have been widely reported for well over a decade. An advantage of shRNA knockdowns is that they prevent genetic adaptation (a caveat with KO cell lines). A minimal test would be to show phenotypic rescue of the knockdown by expressing a knockdown-resistant Med16 (for example), but these types of experiments were not done.

d) Many experiments used reporter assays, which involved artificial, non-native promoters. Reporters are good for pilot studies, but they aren't a rigorous test of direct regulatory roles for Med16 or other proteins. Reporters don't even measure transcription directly. In fact, no experiment in this study directly measures transcription. An RNA-seq experiment was done with overexpressed or Med16 knockdown cells, but these required long timeframes and RNA-seq measures steady-state mRNA, which doesn't test the potential direct effects of these proteins on nascent transcription.

e) The MS experiments show promise, but the data were not shown, so it's hard to judge. The reader cannot compare/contrast the experiments, and we have no indication of the statistical confidence of the proteins identified. How many biological replicate MS experiments were performed?

(3) The data are over-interpreted, and alternative (and more plausible) hypotheses are ignored. Many examples of this, some of which are alluded to in the points above. For example, Med16 loss or overexpression will cause compensatory responses in cells. An expected result is that Mediator composition will be disrupted, since Med16 directly interacts with several other subunits. Also in yeast, the Robert, Gross, and Morse labs showed that loss of Med16/Sin4 causes loss of other tail module subunits, and this would be expected to cause major changes in the transcriptome. The authors also mention that yeast Med16/Sin4 "alters chromatin accessibility globally" and this would be expected to cause major changes in the transcriptome, leading to unintended consequences that will make data analysis and identification of direct Med16 effects impossible. The unintended consequences will be magnified with prolonged disruption of MED16 levels in cells (e.g., longer than 4h). These unintended consequences are hard to predict or define, and are likely to be widespread given the pivotal role of Mediator in gene expression. One unintended consequence appears to be loss of pol2 upon Med16 over-expression, as suggested by the western blot in Figure 8B. I point this out as just one example of the caveats/pitfalls associated with long-term knockdowns or over-expression.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

There are two major flaws that fundamentally undermine the value of the study. First, nearly all the central conclusions drawn here rely on the unfounded assumption that the effects observed are direct. No rigorous cause-and-effect relationships are established to support the claims. Second, the quality of the experimental data is substandard. Collectively, these concerns significantly limit any advances that might be gained in our understanding of the UBP1 pathway or Mediator function.

Weaknesses:

(1) The decrease in 1,6-hexanediol-treated cells of MED16 is modest, variable, not quantified, and internally inconsistent. For example, in Figure 1A, 1,6-hexanediol treatment should not have an impact on the level of the protein being directly IP. For MED12 (and CDK8 and MED1 to a lesser extent), 1,6-hexanediol treatment alters the level of the target protein in the IP. Along these lines, Figure 1A shows a no 1,6H-D dependent decrease in MED1 or MED12 levels in the CDK8 IP, whereas Figure 1B does show a decrease. Figure 1A shows no 1,6H-D dependent decrease in CDK8 levels in the MED1 IP, whereas Figure 1B shows a dramatic decrease. MED24 levels in the MED12 IP increase upon 1,6H-D in Figure 1A, but decrease in Figure 1B. Internal inconsistencies of this nature persist in the other Figures.

(2) Undermining the value of Figure 1E/F, UBP1 and TFCP2 may also associate with the small amount of MED16 in the 2MDa fractions. This is not tested, and therefore, the conclusion that they just associate with the dissociable form of MED16 is not supported.

(3) Domain mapping studies in Figure 2 are overinterpreted. Since the interactions could be indirect, it is not accurate to conclude "Therefore, the N-terminal WDR domain of MED16 is crucial for its integration into the Mediator complex, while the C-terminal αβ-domain is essential for interacting with UBP1-TFCP2. "

(4) A close examination of Figure 2C undermines confidence in the association studies. The bait protein in lanes 5-8 should be equal. Also, there is significant binding of GST to UBP1 and TFCP2, in roughly the same patterns as they bind to GST-MED16 αβ. The absence of input samples makes the results even more difficult to interpret.

(5) The domain deletion mutants are utilized throughout the manuscript as evidence of the importance of the UBP1-MED16 interaction. However, in Figure 2F lanes 7 and 8, the delta-S mutant binds MED16 as well as full-length UBP1. This undermines much of the subsequent data and conclusions about specificity.

(6) Even if the delta-S mutant were defective for MED16 binding, the result in Figure 3B does not "confirm that MED16 is required for the transcriptional activity of UBP1,". Removal of that domain may have other effects.

(7) As Mediator is critical for the activation of many genes, it is not accurate to assume that the impact of its deletion in Figure 3E/F demonstrates a direct requirement in UBP1-driven transcription. This could easily be an indirect effect.

(8) Without documenting the relative protein expression levels in Figure 3G/H, conclusions cannot be drawn about the titration experiments, nor the co-expression experiments. These findings are likely the result of squelching or some form of competition that is not directly related to the UBP1-mediated transcription. A great deal of validation would be required in order to support the model that these effects are a result of MED16 overexpression sequestering UBP1 away from holo-Mediator.

(9) The lack of any documentation of expression levels for the various ectopic proteins in the majority of Figures, renders mechanistic claims meaningless (Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, S2, S3). This is particularly relevant since the model presented for many of the results invokes concentration-dependent competition.

Joint Public Review:

In this study, the authors introduce CellCover, a gene panel selection algorithm that leverages a minimal covering approach to identify compact sets of genes with high combinatorial specificity for defining cell identities and states. This framework addresses a key limitation in existing marker selection strategies, which often emphasize individually strong markers while neglecting the informative power of gene combinations. The authors demonstrate the utility of CellCover through benchmarking analyses and biological applications, particularly in uncovering previously unresolved cell states and lineage transitions during neocorticogenesis.

The major strengths of the work include the conceptual shift toward combinatorial marker selection, a clear mathematical formulation of the minimal covering strategy, and biologically relevant applications that underscore the method's power to resolve subtle cell-type differences. The authors' analysis of the Telley et al. dataset highlights intriguing cases of ribosomal, mitochondrial, and tRNA gene usage in specific cortical cell types, suggesting previously underappreciated molecular signatures in neurodevelopment. Additionally, the observation that outer radial glia markers emerge prior to gliogenic progenitors in primates offers novel insights into the temporal dynamics of cortical lineage specification.

However, several aspects of the study would benefit from further elaboration. First, the interpretability of gene panels containing individually lowly expressed genes but high combinatorial specificity could be improved by providing clearer guidelines or illustrative examples. Second, the utility of CellCover in identifying rare or transient cell states should be more thoroughly quantified, especially under noisy conditions typical of single-cell datasets. Third, while the findings on unexpected gene categories are provocative, they require further validation - either through independent transcriptomic datasets or orthogonal methods such as immunostaining or single-molecule FISH-to confirm their cell-type-specific expression patterns.

Specifically, the manuscript would benefit from further clarification and additional validation in the following areas:

• A more in-depth explanation of marker panel applications is needed. Specifically, how should users interpret gene panels where individual genes show only moderate or low expression levels, but the combination provides high specificity? Providing a concrete example, along with guidelines for interpreting such combinatorial signatures, would enhance the practical utility of the method.

• Further quantification of CellCover's sensitivity in detecting rare cell subtypes or states would strengthen the evaluation of its performance. Additionally, it would be helpful to assess how CellCover performs under noisy conditions, such as low cell numbers or read depths, which are common challenges in scRNA-seq datasets.

• It is intriguing and novel that CellCover analysis of the dataset from Telley et al. suggests cell-type-specific expression of ribosomal, mitochondrial, or tRNA genes. These findings would be significantly strengthened by additional validation. For example, the reported radial glia-specific expression of Rps18-ps3 and Rps10-ps1, as well as the postmitotic neuron-specific expression of mt-Tv and mt-Nd4l, should be corroborated using independent scRNA-seq or spatial transcriptomic datasets of the developing neocortex. Alternatively, these expression patterns could be directly examined through immunostaining or single-molecule FISH analysis.

• The observation that outer radial glia (oRG) markers are expressed in neural progenitors before the emergence of gliogenic progenitors in primates and humans is compelling. This could be further supported by examining the temporal and spatial expression patterns of early oRG-specific markers versus gliogenic progenitor markers in recent human spatial transcriptomic datasets - such as the one published by Xuyu et al. (PMID: 40369074) or Wang et al. (PMID: 39779846).

Summary:

Overall, this work provides a conceptually innovative and practically useful method for cell type classification that will be valuable to the single-cell and developmental biology communities. Its impact will likely grow as more researchers seek scalable, interpretable, and biologically informed gene panels for multimodal assays, diagnostics, and perturbation studies.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Overall, this study is an excellent and systematic investigation of the expansion of repeat sequences in Arabidopsis thaliana, and the genetic mechanisms underlying these expansions. Many of the key findings here confirm smaller studies of both repeat sequence variation and the individual genes associated with the expansion of various repeat classes. The authors present a highly effective and practical approach that requires datasets that are far more readily available than the multiple reference genomes used to annotate repeat variation in recent works. Therefore, they provide an approach that shows significant promise in non-model systems in which far less is known of repeat variation and its underlying drivers.

Strengths:

This is a very methodologically sound study that extends the relatively well-studied Arabidopsis thaliana repeat landscape with more systematic sampling, highlights the loci associated with repeat expansions (many of which were previously identified in a piecemeal manner), and provides some evolutionary inference on these.

Weaknesses:

Regarding cis-QTLs: I foresee at least two causes of these associations: non-repetitive cis-acting sequences that promote or permit the expansion of local repeats, and variation in repeat sequences themselves that directly tag the expanding sequence itself. It's arguable whether these are truly two distinct classes, but an attempt to discriminate between them may provide some insight as to the local factors that allow for repeat expansion, beyond the mere presence of a repeat sequence. One way to discriminate these could be to map the ~1300 12-mer frequency profiles on the reference genome, and filter any SNPs with elevated 12-mer frequency from the GWAS (or to categorize them independently).

I also have a question regarding the choice of k=12 in kmer profile analyses. Did the authors perform any GWAS with other values of K? If so, how did the results change? I would expect that as K is increased, the associations would become more specific to individual repeat families, possibly to the point where only cis-acting loci are detected. The authors show convincing evidence that k=12 is appropriate; however, I would be interested to see if/how GWAS results vary among e.g. k=10, 12, 15, 18.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors introduce a K-mer-based method for profiling repeat content within a species, applied here to 1,142 A. thaliana genomes sequenced with short reads. This approach allowed them to bypass the challenges of genome assembly, particularly for repetitive regions, while still quantifying copy number variation. Their analysis identified >50 trans-acting loci regulating repeat abundance, enriched for genes involved in DNA repair, replication, and methylation. They also speculate on the role of selection in shaping genome repeat content, arguing that purifying selection tends to suppress alleles that promote repeat expansion.

The work presents a scalable way to extract meaningful insights from the large quantities of short-read datasets available. However, I have several concerns regarding the methodology, scope of claims, and interpretation of results.

Strengths:

The authors leverage a large dataset, >1100 samples, of A. thaliana. The scale of the study is impressive and clearly bolsters their findings. Additionally, this provides a framework for future, large-scale studies and offers a solid foundation for hypothesis generation. The k-mer-based method is generally practical for large-scale analysis and should be transferable to other datasets. Finally, the authors are commendably upfront about many of the project's limitations.

Weaknesses:

The decision to use k=12 is loosely justified. While the authors performed a sweep of k-mer lengths (from 5-20) and noted computational constraints, the choice is highly dataset-specific. Benchmarking across different k values with additional datasets (especially including other species) would strengthen confidence in the robustness of the method.

All analyses rely exclusively on the TAIR10 reference genome, which is incomplete and known to collapse certain repetitive regions. This dependence raises concerns that some repeats (especially recently expanded or highly variable ones) are systematically undercounted. With improved A. thaliana assemblies now available, testing the method against a more complete reference would alleviate these concerns.

The manuscript's conclusions are framed in very broad terms (e.g., "shaping genome evolution in plants"). However, the study is restricted to a single species, A. thaliana, which may not represent other plants. While the findings may suggest general principles, the claims in the abstract and conclusion should be moderated to reflect the study system more accurately.

The identification of >50 trans-acting loci enriched for DNA repair and replication genes is compelling, but the conclusions remain correlational.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this work, the authors aim to improve upon their previous iterations of frameworks and models that try to decouple variant effects of protein stability from direct effects on function. This is motivated by the utility of understanding the specific molecular mechanisms underlying loss-of-function disease to assist in developing potential treatment approaches, which differ based on the causal mechanisms. The authors demonstrably achieve this goal, with FunC-ESMs presenting an elegant approach, utilizing pre-trained ESM-1b and ESM-IF models, which freed them from model training or running computationally intensive Rosetta predictions. While the performance improvements over their previous model are not unambiguous, in some of the examples, FunC-ESMs allowed them to scale up their analysis to the proteome level, deriving variant classifications of stable-but-inactive and total-loss across 20,144 human proteins, and further allowing them to identify functionally and structurally critical sites. However, the strength of the manuscript could be improved by clarifying or rewording some terminology concerning the molecular effects and what other underlying molecular mechanisms could also reside in the stable-but-inactive group, given the stated motivation of setting up a mechanistic starting point for therapeutic development and clinical applications.

Strengths:

Overall, the manuscript is very well framed and written, with clear motivations and objectives. The previous works are explained well and set up a clear methodological comparison with the new framework. FunC-ESMs is solidly designed to minimize data circularity, and the methodology to derive optimal thresholds is well reasoned. The authors make an effort to provide all the data and code very accessible.

Weaknesses:

(1) Considering how loss-of-function mechanisms dominate the known missense disease variant landscape, it is understandable that the scope of the work focuses on loss of function. However, variants exceeding the established ESM-1b threshold in the manuscript are often generalized as loss-of-function variants (e.g., lines 176, 304; line 285, for instance, uses much more neutral language), which can be misleading due to the guaranteed presence of deleterious variants that manifest through other mechanisms, such as gain-of-function.

While relatively not as well predicted, gain-of-function variants would still likely demonstrate inflated ESM-1b scores and end up in the SBI class. Given the emphasis on the potential utility of the framework for tailoring therapeutic approaches, it seems pertinent to highlight gain-of-function and dominant-negative mechanisms in the manuscript, as they would require considerably different therapeutics than loss-of-function variants.

A short disclaimer explaining the other mechanisms and the potential limitations of the framework in picking them out would improve the clarity of the manuscript. As an additional step, it would be interesting to explore where clinically validated gain-of-function and dominant-negative variant examples fall within the framework's classification.

(2) Given the clinical angle, it would be useful to see the predicted label distribution in population datasets like gnomAD, for instance, focusing on dominant Mendelian disease genes to minimize the impact of non-penetrant or heterozygous disease variants. The performance demonstration using (likely) benign ClinVar variants is not as informative of the real-world utility cases that the method would be used in by clinicians or researchers.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The paper by Cagiada et al builds on their previously published work, but now uses two independent and complementary machine learning models to predict the deleteriousness of every missense change in the human proteome. The authors were able to separate all missense variants into three classes - wild-type like, total loss (important for stability), or stable-but-inactive (important for function), showing that the predictions correlated well with intuition in terms of clustering and location in folded versus intrinsically disordered regions. Evaluation of known pathogenic and benign variants from ClinVar suggested that around half of all pathogenic missense variants cause disease by disrupting protein stability. These results could be valuable for researchers and genomic diagnostics laboratories performing variant interpretation.

Strengths:

The method uses data from two independent state-of-the-art ML models, which were developed and published by other groups. The predictions were provided for every missense variant in the entire human proteome, and have been validated against a small previously published experimental dataset, as well as using known pathogenic and benign variants from ClinVar. Results are clearly stated and well illustrated with useful figures.

Weaknesses:

Both the description and the analysis could benefit from some additional work around the thresholds used for both ML models (ESM-1b and ESM-IF). The thresholds were selected based on an ROC analysis using published MAVE data, which has various limitations, including the small number of proteins for which MAVE data are available. Moreover, the correlation between the predictions from the two ML models was not evaluated, and there was no discussion of the limitations of the models or where they might predict different things, which was avoided by using two independent thresholds. The threshold approach needs further explanation, and a sensitivity analysis of how the results would change using different thresholds or by defining thresholds in an alternative way would be informative. In addition, the ClinVar pathogenic variants are all treated equally, when in fact it is known that some act via a gain versus a loss of function mechanism. It would be useful to know if these known patho-mechanisms correlate with predictions of variants that affect stability versus function.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

The work presented by Cheung et al. used a quantitative proteomics method to capture molecular changes in B cells exposed to LPS and IL-4, a combination of stimuli activating naive B cells. Amino acid transporters, cholesterol biosynthetic enzymes, ribosomal components, and other proteins involved in cell proliferation were found to increase in stimulated B cells. Experiments involving genetic loss-of-function (SLC7A5), pharmacological inhibition (HMGCR, SQLE, prenylation), and functional rescue by metabolites (mevalonate, GGPP) validated the proteomics data and revealed that amino acid uptake, cholesterol/mevalonate biosynthesis, and cholesterol uptake played a crucial role in B cell proliferation, survival, biogenesis, and immunoglobulin class switching. Experiments involving cholesterol-free medium showed that both biosynthesis and LDLR-mediated uptake catered to the cholesterol demand of LPS/IL-4-stimulated B cells. A role for protein prenylation in LDLR-mediated cholesterol uptake was postulated and backed by divergent effects of GGPP rescue in the presence and absence of cholesterol in culture medium.

Strengths:

The discovery was made by proteome-wide profiling and unbiased computational analysis. The discovered proteins were functionally validated using appropriate tools and approaches. The metabolic processes identified and prioritized from this comprehensive survey and systematic validation are highly likely to represent mechanisms of high importance and influence. Analysis of immune cell metabolism at the protein level is relatively compared to transcriptomic and metabolomic analysis.

The conclusions from functional validation experiments were supported by clear data and based on rational interpretations. This was enabled by well-established readouts/analytical methods used to analyze cell proliferation, viability, size, cholesterol content, and transporter/enzyme function. The data generated from these experiments strongly support the conclusions.

This work reveals a complex, yet intriguing, relationship between cholesterol metabolism and protein prenylation as they serve to promote B cell activation. The effects of pharmacological inhibition and metabolite replenishment on the cholesterol content and activation of B cells were precisely determined and logically interpreted.

Weaknesses:

The findings of this study were obtained almost exclusively from ex vivo B cell stimulation experiments. Their contribution to B cell state and B-cell-mediated immune responses in vivo was not explored. Without in vivo data, the study still provides valuable mechanistic information and insights, but it remains unknown, and there is no discussion about how the identified mechanisms may play out in B cell immunity.

The role of HMGCR, SQLE, and prenylation in B cell activation was assessed using pharmacological inhibitors. Evidence from other loss-of-function approaches, which could strengthen the conclusions, does not exist. This is a moderate weakness.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This study uses mass spectrometry to quantify how LPS and IL-4 modify the mouse B cell proteome as naïve cells undergo blastogenesis and enter the cell cycle. This analysis revealed changes in key proteins involved in amino acid transport and cholesterol biosynthesis. Genetic and pharmacological experiments indicated important roles for these metabolic processes in B cell proliferation.

This work provides new information about the regulation of TI B cell responses by changes in cell metabolism and also a comprehensive mass spectrometry dataset, which will be an important general resource for future studies. The experiments are thorough and carefully carried out. The majority of conclusions are backed up by data that is shown to be highly significant statistically.

The study would be strengthened by additional experiments to determine whether the detected changes are unique to stimulation with LPS + IL-4 or more generic responses of resting B cells to mitogenic agonists.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This research investigates how the cellular protein quality control machinery influences the effectiveness of cystic fibrosis (CF) treatments across different genetic variants. CF is caused by mutations in the CFTR gene, with over 1,700 known disease-causing variants that primarily work through protein misfolding mechanisms. While corrector drugs like those in Trikafta therapy can stabilize some misfolded CFTR proteins, the reasons why certain variants respond to treatment while others don't remain unclear. The authors hypothesized that the cellular proteostasis network-the machinery that manages protein folding and quality control-plays a crucial role in determining drug responsiveness across different CFTR variants. The researchers focused on calnexin (CANX), a key chaperone protein that recognizes misfolded glycosylated proteins. Using CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing combined with deep mutational scanning, they systematically analyzed how CANX affects the expression and corrector drug response of 234 clinically relevant CF variants in HEK293 cells.

In terms of findings, this study revealed that CANX is generally required for robust plasma membrane expression of CFTR proteins, and CANX disproportionately affects variants with mutations in the C-terminal domains of CFTR and modulates later stages of protein assembly. Without CANX, many variants that would normally respond to corrector drugs lose their therapeutic responsiveness. Furthermore, loss of CANX caused broad changes in how CF variants interact with other cellular proteins, though these effects were largely separate from changes in CFTR channel activity.

This study has some limitations: the research was conducted in HEK293 cells rather than lung epithelial cells, which may not fully reflect the physiological context of CF. Additionally, the study only examined known disease-causing variants and used methodological approaches that could potentially introduce bias in the data analysis.

How cellular quality control mechanisms influence the therapeutic landscape of genetic diseases is an emerging field. Overall, this work provides important cellular context for understanding CF mutation severity and suggests that the proteostasis network significantly shapes how different CFTR variants respond to corrector therapies. The findings could pave the way for more personalized CF treatments tailored to patients' specific genetic variants and cellular contexts.

Strengths:

(1) This work makes an important contribution to the field of variant effect prediction by advancing our understanding of how genetic variants impact protein function.

(2) The study provides valuable cellular context for CFTR mutation severity, which may pave the way for improved CFTR therapies that are customized to patient-specific cellular contexts.

(3) The research provides further insight into the biological mechanisms underlying approved CFTR therapies, enhancing our understanding of how these treatments work.

(4) The authors conducted a comprehensive and quantitative analysis, and they made their raw and processed data as well as analysis scripts publicly available, enabling closer examination and validation by the broader scientific community.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed my concerns. If Document S1 is part of the final published version, this will address one of my previous concerns about potential skew and bias in the read data (Weakness 3, Methodological Choices).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this work, the authors use deep mutational scanning (DMS) to examine the effect of the endogenous chaperone calnexin (CANX) on the plasma membrane expression (PME) and potential pharmacological stabilization cystic fibrosis disease variants. This is important because there are over 1,700 loss-of-function mutations that can lead to the disease Cystic Fibrosis (CF), and some of these variants can be pharmacologically rescued by small-molecule "correctors," which stabilize the CFTR protein and prevent its degradation. This study expands on previous work to specifically identify which mutations affect sensitivity to CFTR modulators, and further develops the work by examining the effect of a known CFTR interactor-CANX-on PME and corrector response.

Overall, this approach provides a useful atlas of CF variants and their downstream effects, both at a basal level as well as in the context of a perturbed proteostasis. Knockout of CANX leads to an overall reduced plasma membrane expression of CFTR with CF variants located at the C-terminal domains of CFTR, which seem to be more affected than the others. This study then repeats their DMS approach, using PME as a readout, to probe the effect of either VX-445 or VX-455 + VX-661-which are two clinically relevant CFTR pharmacological modulators. I found this section particularly interesting for the community because the exact molecular features that confer drug resistance/sensitivity are not clear. When CANX is knocked out, cells that normally respond to VX-445 are no longer able to be rescued, and the DMS data show that these non-responders are CF variants that lie in the VX-445 binding site. Based on computational data, the authors speculate that NBD2 assembly is compromised, but that remains to be experimentally examined. Cells lacking CANX were also resistant to combinatorial treatment of VX-445 + VX-661, showing that these two correctors were unable to compensate for the lack of this critical chaperone.

One major strength of this manuscript is the mass spectrometry data, in which 4 CF variants were profiled in parental and CANX KO cells. This analysis provides some explanatory power to the observation that the delF508 variant is resistant to correctors in CANX KO cells, which is because correctors were found not to affect protein degradation interactions in this context. Findings such as this provide potential insights into intriguing new hypothesis, such as whether addition of an additional proteostasis regulators, such as a proteosome inhibitor, would facilitate a successful rescue. Taken together, the data provided can be generative to researchers in the field and may be useful in rationalizing some of the observed phenotypes conferred by the various CF variants, as well as the impact of CANX on those effects.

To complete their analysis of CF variants in CANX KO cells, the research also attempted to relate their data, primarily based on PME, to functional relevance. They observed that, although CANX KO results in a large reduction in PME (~30% reduction), changes in the actual activation of CFTR (and resultant quenching of their hYFP sensor) were "quite modest." This is an important experiment and caveat to the PME data presented above since changes in CFTR activity does not strictly require changes in PME. In addition, small molecule correctors also do not drastically alter CFTR function in the context of CANX KO. The authors reason that this difference is due to a sort of compensatory mechanism in which the functionally active CFTR molecules that are successfully assembled in an unbalanced proteostasis system (CANX KO) are more active than those that are assembled with the assistance of CANX. While I generally agree with this statement, it is not directly tested and would be challenging to actually test.

The selected model for all the above experiments was HEK293T cells. The authors then demonstrate some of their major findings in Fischer rat thyroid cell monolayers. Specifically, cells lacking CANX are less sensitive to rescue by CFTR modulators than the WT. This highlights the importance of CANX in supporting the maturation of CFTR and the dependence of chemical correctors on the chaperone. Although this is demonstrated specifically for CANX in this manuscript, I imagine a more general claim can be made that chemical correctors depend on a functional/balanced proteostasis system, which is supported by the manuscript data. I am surprised by the discordance between HEK293T PME levels compared to the CTFR activity. The authors offer a reasonable explanation about the increase in specific activity of the mature CFTR protein following CANX loss.

For the conclusions and claims relevant to CANX and CF variant surveying of PME/function, I find the manuscript to provide solid evidence to achieve this aim. The manuscript generates a rich portrait of the influence of CF mutations both in WT and CANX KO cells. While the focus of this study is a specific chaperone, CANX, this manuscript has the potential to impact many researchers in the broad field of proteostasis.

Comments on revisions:

The authors address my concerns. I appreciate seeing that the UPR probably isn't activated, ruling out that less PME is simply due to less CF protein.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

(1) Summary

The authors aim to explore how interdisciplinarity and internationalization-two increasingly prominent characteristics of scientific publishing-have evolved over the past century. By constructing entropy-based indices from a large-scale bibliometric dataset (OpenAlex), they examine both long-term trends and recent dynamics in these two dimensions across a selection of leading disciplinary and multidisciplinary journals. Their goal is to identify field-specific patterns and structural shifts that can inform our understanding of how science has become more globally collaborative and intellectually integrated.

(2) Strengths

The primary strengths of the paper remain its comprehensive temporal scope and use of a rich, openly available dataset covering over 56 million articles. The interdisciplinary and internationalization indices are well-founded and allow meaningful comparisons across fields and time. The revised manuscript has substantially improved in several aspects. In particular, the authors have clarified the methodology of trend estimation with a concrete example and justification of the 5-year window, making their approach much more transparent. They have also expanded the discussion of potential disparities in data coverage across disciplines and time, acknowledging limitations and implementing safeguards in their analysis. Furthermore, the manuscript has been carefully revised for grammar, clarity, and style, which improves its overall polish. While a sensitivity analysis might still further strengthen the robustness of findings, the revisions satisfactorily address the main methodological concerns raised in the initial review.

(3) Evaluation of Findings

The findings, such as the sharp rise in internationalization in fields like Physics and Biology, and the divergence in interdisciplinarity trends across disciplines, are clearly presented and better substantiated in the revised version. The authors now provide more discipline-specific discussion (e.g., medicine, biology, social sciences), which adds valuable nuance to the interpretation of internationalization dynamics. The improved methodological clarity and acknowledgment of data limitations enhance the credibility of the results and their generalizability.

(4) Impact and Relevance

This study continues to make a timely and meaningful contribution to scientometrics, sociology of science, and science policy. Its combination of scale, historical depth, and field-level comparison offers a useful framework for understanding changes in scientific publishing practices. The entropy-based indicators remain a simple yet flexible tool, and the expanded discussion of their appropriateness strengthens the methodological foundation. The use of open bibliometric data enhances reproducibility and accessibility for future research. Policymakers, journal editors, and researchers interested in publication dynamics will likely find this work informative, and its methods could be applied or extended to other structural dimensions of scholarly communication.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper uses large-scale publication data to examine the dynamics of interdisciplinarity and international collaborations in research journals. The main finding is that interdisciplinarity and internationalism have been increasing over the past decades, especially in prestigious general science journals.

Strengths:

The paper uses a state-of-the-art large-scale publication database to examine the dynamics of interdisciplinarity and internationalism. The analyses span over a century and in major scientific fields in natural sciences, engineering, and social sciences. The study is well designed and has provided a range of robustness tests to enhance the main findings. The writing is clear and well organized.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors investigated the potential role of IgG N-glycosylation in Haemorrhagic Fever with Renal Syndrome (HFRS), which may offer significant insights for understanding molecular mechanisms and for the development of therapeutic strategies for this infectious disease.

Comments on revisions:

While the majority of the issues have been addressed, a few minor points still remain unresolved.

Quality control should be conducted prior to the analysis of clinical samples. However, the coefficient of variation (CV) value was not provided for the paired acute and convalescent-phase samples from 65 confirmed HFRS patients, which were analyzed to assess inter-individual biological variability. It is important to note that biological replication should be evaluated using general samples, such as standard serum.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This work sought to explore antibody responses in the context of hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS) - a severe disease caused by Hantaan virus infection. Little is known about the characteristics or functional relevance of IgG Fc glycosylation in HFRS. To address this gap, the authors analyzed samples from 65 patients with HFRS spanning the acute and convalescent phases of disease via IgG Fc glycan analysis, scRNAseq, and flow cytometry. The authors observed changes in Fc glycosylation (increased fucosylation and decreased bisection) coinciding with a 4-fold or greater increased in Haantan virus-specific antibody titer. The study also includes exploratory analyses linking IgG glycan profiles to glycosylation-related gene expression in distinct B cell subsets, using single-cell transcriptomics. Overall, this is an interesting study that combines serological profiling with transcriptomic data to shed light on humoral immune responses in an underexplored infectious disease. The integration of Fc glycosylation data with single-cell transcriptomic data is a strength.

The authors have addressed the major concerns from the initial review. However, one point to emphasize is that the data are correlative. While the associations between Fc glycosylation changes and recovery are intriguing, the evidence does not establish causation. This is not a weakness, as correlative studies can still be highly valuable and informative. However, the manuscript would be strengthened by making this distinction clear, particularly in the title.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors present evidence that during acetaminophen (APAP)-induced liver injury, mid-zone hepatocytes activate an integrated stress response (ISR) program via Atf4 and Chop, leading to induction of Btg2. This program suppresses proliferation in the early phase of injury, prioritizing hepatocyte survival before regeneration begins. The study uses spatial transcriptomics, immunohistochemistry, CUT&RUN, and AAV overexpression to support this model.

Strengths:

(1) Innovative use of spatial transcriptomics to capture zonal differences in hepatocyte stress responses.

(2) Identification of a mid-zone specific ISR signature and candidate downstream regulator Btg2.

(3) Functional experiments with Atf4-Chop-Btg2 modulation provide causal evidence linking ISR activation to proliferation inhibition.

(4) Conceptually significant model that hepatocytes actively balance survival and regeneration dynamically in a zone-specific manner.

Weaknesses:

(1) Zonation definition under injury has been shown to be sustained broadly, but is not sufficiently validated and quantified, especially considering the resolution of the 10x Visium system and the potential variation of outcomes based on how to define zones.

(2) The model is built entirely in APAP injury, which specifically targets pericentral hepatocytes. It remains unclear whether the proposed mechanism applies to other liver injuries (e.g., partial hepatectomy, CCl4).

(3) Baseline proliferation appears higher than expected in homeostasis (Figure 1B), and fold change analysis (not absolute counts) may be needed to assess zonal proliferation suppression (Figure 1D).

(4) AAV-based overexpression raises potential confounds (altered CYP activity before injury) and shows incomplete penetrance that is not quantified. (Figure 5 - Figure 6).

(5) The functional link between proliferation suppression and improved survival is inferred, but direct survival /injury readouts are limited.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The manuscript reports protection of midlobular hepatocytes from APAP toxicity by activation of Atf4-CHOP (Ddit3)-mediated cell cycle arrest and stress response. The authors acknowledge that their finding is unexpected because CHOP typically induces cell death. Therefore, they functionally validate several aspects of the proposed Atf4-CHOP mechanism. Along these lines, the mitigation of APAP toxicity by AAV expression of Atf4 or Btg2, the latter identified as CHOP effector, is impressive. Whether Atf4 indeed acts through CHOP and whether midlobular hepatocytes are protected because of cell cycle arrest is less clear. These and other criticisms are described in the following.

Major points:

(1) Starting with the basics, one wonders why midlobular hepatocytes manage to mount a defensive response to APAP but pericentral hepatocytes don't. Is this because midlobular hepatocytes express the relevant Cyps (2e1, but also 1a2 and 3a11) at lower levels, which mitigates toxicity and buys them time? This would be supported by F2A but not by F3B, at least not for the most important Cyp2e1. A moderate difference is shown for Cyp1a2 expression in F3D, but is that enough to explain the different fates? Or are additional post-transcriptional effects on these Cyps at work?

(2) The evidence presented in support of cell cycle arrest of midlobular hepatocytes is not fully convincing: there is no overt difference in S and G2/M gene scores in F2F; the marker genes used for S phase and G1 to S progression in F2G are unusual. Along these lines, one wonders if spatial transcriptomics confirmed the Ki67 immunostaining results in F1 also for specific zones, not only overall, as shown in F2E?

(3) The authors conclude in line 364 that halting of proliferation by Btg2 favors survival, which raises the question of whether Btg2 knockout causes death in midlobular hepatocytes in F6K. Data addressing this question, that is, the localization and extent of tissue necrosis and ALT levels after APAP, are missing. The efficiency of the knockout of Btg2 is also not given.

(4) Related to the previous question, the BTG2 immunostaining in F6F is not convincing when compared to F6D. One also wonders if it is necessary to apply APAP to find induction of BTG2 by AAV-Ddit3?

(5) Related to the previous question, the proposed Atf4-Ddit3 axis is challenged by the lack of midlobular induction of Atf4 in the APAP scRNA-seq data published by another group, presented in S4F and G. Further analysis of AAV-Atf4 samples generated for F5 could address whether it is really Atf4 that acts on Ddit3 in APAP toxicity.

(6) Related to the previous question, the ATF4 immunostaining in F5A doesn't look convincing, with many brown pigments appearing to be outside of the nucleus.

(7) It is not ruled out that AAV expression of Atf4 or Btg2 reduces hepatocyte sensitivity to APAP by affecting the expression of the Cyps needed for activation. In other words, does AAV-Atf4 or AAV-Btg2 change the expression of any of the Cyps relevant to APAP in the 3 weeks before APAP application (F5B)?

(8) It is laudable that the authors tried to extend their findings to humans by using snRNA-seq data from a published study (line 391), but it is unclear why they didn't analyze all 10 patients in that study but instead focused on 2 and stated that this small sample number prevented drawing definitive conclusions and could therefore only be mentioned in the discussion.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper by Zhu et al explores zonal gene expression changes and stress responses in the liver after APAP injury. 3-6 hours after APAP, zone 2 hepatocytes demonstrate important gene expression changes. There is an increase in stress response/cell survival genes such as Hmox1, Hspa8, Atf3, and protein degradation/autophagy genes such as Ubb, Ubc, and Sqstm1. This is hypothesized to be a "stress adaption" which happens during the initial phases of acute liver injury. Furthermore, there is a spatial redistribution of Cyp450 expression that then establishes the Mid-zone as the primary site of APAP metabolism during early AILI. This particular finding was identified previously by other groups in several single-cell papers. Ddit3 (Chop) expression also increases in zone 2. The authors focused mostly on the Atf4-Ddit3 axis in stress adaptation. Importantly, they probe the functionality of this axis by overexpressing either ATF4 or DDIT3 using AAV tools, and they show that these manipulations block APAP-induced injury and necrosis. This is somewhat convincing evidence that these stress response proteins are probably important during injury and regeneration.

Strengths:

Overall, I think this is a useful study, showing that the Mid-lobular zone 2 hepatocytes turn on a stress-responsive gene program that suppresses proliferation, and that this is functionally important for efficient, long-term regeneration and homeostasis. This adds to the body of literature showing the importance of zone 2 cells in hepatic regeneration, and also provides an additional mechanism that tells us how they are better at surviving chemical injuries.

Weaknesses:

The main concern is that the overexpression of ATF4 and DDIT3 is causing reduced cell death and damage by APAP. This makes it harder to understand if these genes are truly increasing survival or if they are just reducing the injury caused by APAP. It may be better to perform overexpression immediately after, or at the same time as APAP delivery. Alternatively, loss-of-function experiments using AAV-shRNAs against these targets could be useful.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Wang et al. present a compelling study investigating a novel immunosuppressive mechanism within the tumor microenvironment (TME) mediated by a subset of cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs)-specifically, inflammatory CAFs (iCAFs) that secrete osteoprotegerin (OPG). Utilizing both genetic and antibody-mediated OPG inhibition in murine breast and pancreatic cancer models, the authors demonstrate that blocking OPG enhances infiltration and effector function of cytotoxic T cells, which leads to significant tumor regression. Their data further show that OPG blockade induces a population of IFN-licensed CAFs characterized by increased expression of antigen presentation genes and immunomodulatory properties that favour T cell infiltration. The manuscript proposes that OPG functions as a "stromal immune checkpoint" and could represent a promising therapeutic target to convert "cold" tumors into "hot," immunotherapy-responsive tumours.

Strengths:

(1) Novel role for OPG+ CAF as T-cell immune suppressors:<br /> This study introduces a novel role for OPG+ iCAFs as active suppressors of T cell function and highlights stromal OPG as a critical negative regulator of antitumor immunity.

(2) Methodological Rigor:<br /> The manuscript is underpinned by a thorough and systematic experimental design, combining genetic mouse models, antibody interventions, in vitro functional assays, single-cell RNA-seq, and human RAN-seq datasets analyses.

(3) Translational Relevance:<br /> By identifying OPG as a stromal immune checkpoint, the study opens exciting opportunities for developing new immunotherapeutic strategies in stromatogenic tumors.

(4) Clear and Comprehensive Data Presentation:<br /> The use of high-dimensional single-cell technologies and logical, detailed data presentation supports the study's reproducibility and transparency.

Weaknesses:

(1) The manuscript lacks definitive data identifying the cellular origin of OPG, particularly establishing iCAFs as the exclusive functional source.

(2) There is a paucity of translational evidence directly correlating OPG+ iCAFs with T cell exclusion in human tumors.

(3) The scope is limited by the reliance on two murine models, including a subcutaneous pancreatic cancer model, which may not fully recapitulate native tumor microenvironments.

(4) Long-term outcomes and durability of response following OPG blockade, including possible effects on bone homeostasis, are not addressed.

(5) Mechanistic experiments related to the blockade of TRAIL and RANKL remain incomplete, and alternative pathways are not thoroughly explored.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The work identified a protein called OPD secreted by a particular subtype of cancer-associated fibroblasts and found that it regulated T cell function in the tumor microenvironment. They showed that an antibody that targeted this protein could induce infiltration of immune cells into the tumour and could convert a cold tumor lacking tumour infiltration to a hot tumour with an immune-rich tumour microenvironment. They have supported the conclusion with the data in animal work as well as human tissue data. The authors also stated that it remains unclear whether the IFN-stimulated CAF subset after antibody treatment of OPG is due to reprogramming of existing iCAFs or arises de novo from progenitor populations. Despite their preclinical data suggesting the latter, they rightly suggested that in vivo lineage tracing is needed to further prove the origin and fate of these CAF populations. Overall, this is a well-designed and important study that would benefit from further mechanistic clarification and minor revision.

Strengths:

The strength of their data is that they utilized an immunocompetent orthotopic breast cancer model using the GFP-labelled tumor cell line EO771 in C57BL/6J mice, a well-established model for interrogating the role of stromal-immune interactions in carcinogenesis and tumor growth. They also performed scRNA-seq of the sorted stromal cells of the implanted EO771 cells as well as stromal cells from human esophageal carcinoma using tumor samples and matched adjacent non-malignant tissues from patients.

Weaknesses:

The key mechanistic aspects remain unclear, in particular the relative contributions of the TRAIL versus RANKL pathways to immunosuppression. The dual inhibition of TRAIL and RANKL by OPG is proposed, but the contribution of each axis to immune suppression was not clearly dissected. It would strengthen the paper to evaluate the effects of TRAIL versus RANKL signalling (e.g., with selective ligands or antagonists), which warrants deeper mechanistic exploration. Moreover, while CD4⁺ T cell cytotoxicity was observed, its functional role was underexplored.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, authors describe a good quality ancient maize genome from 15th century Boliva and try to link the genome characteristics to Inca influence. Overall, the revised manuscript is still below the standard in the field. While dating of the sample and the authentication of ancient DNA has been evidenced robustly, the downstream genetic analyses do not support the conclusion that genomic changes can be attributed to Inca influence. There is more story telling than story testing in this manuscript, analyses are not robust and possibly of very narrow interest.

Strengths:

Technical data related to the maize sample are robust. Radiocarbon dating strongly evidenced sample age, estimated to around 1474 AD. Authentication of ancient DNA has been done robustly. Spontaneous C-to-T substations which are present in all ancient DNA are visible in reported sample with the expected pattern. Despite low fraction of C-to-T at the 1st base, this number could be consistent with cool and dry climate in which the sample was preserved. The distribution of DNA fragment sizes is consistent with expectations for sample of this age.

Weaknesses:

(1) The geographic placement of the sample based on genetic data is not robust. To make use of the method correctly, it would be necessary to validate that genetic samples in this region follow the assumption of the 'isolation-by-distance' with dense sampling, which has not been done. Without this important information, we do not know if genetic similarity is influenced by demographic events and/or selection. The analysis is not a robust evidence of sample connectivity.

(2) The conclusion that Ancient Andean maize is genetically similar to European varieties and hence share similar evolutionary history is not well supported. PCA plot in Fig. 4 merely represents sample similarity based on two components (jointly responsible for about 20% of variation explained). Contrary to authors' conclusion, the direct test of similarity using outgroup f3 statistic does not support that European varieties are particularly closely related to ancient Andean maize. These levels of shared drift could be due ancient Andean maize relationship with other related groups, such as ancient or modern Brazil. A relationship test between multiple populations would be necessary to show significant direct relationship between ancient Andean maize and European maize.

(3) The conclusion that selection detected in aBM sample is due to Inca influence has no support. Firstly, selection signature can be due to environmental or any other factors. To disentangle those, authors would need to generate the data for a large number of samples from similar cultural context and from a wide-ranging environmental context followed by a formal statistical test. Secondly, allele frequency increase can be attributed to selection or demographic processes, and alone is not a sufficient evidence for selection. Presented XP-EHH method seems unsuitable for single individual. Overall, methods used in this paper raise some concerns: i) how accurate are allele-frequency tests of selection when only single individual is used as a proxy for a whole population, ii) the significance threshold has been arbitrary fixed to an absolute number based on other studies, but the standard is to use, for example, top fifth percentile.

In sum, this manuscript presents new data that seem to be of high quality, but the analyses are frequently inappropriate and/or over-interpreted.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

I am glad to see a revised version of the manuscript. The authors have successfully handled some of my comments, but others require additional attention. In particular, the dataset seems quite robust and valuable to publish, and the descriptive analysis of its position relative to other modern and ancient genomes is generally sound. The selection analyses remain unsupported, and should be removed from the paper. In addition, I agree with the other reviewers and reiterate my comment that the Locator analysis is not robust.

As I said in my original review, the XP-EHH method is not applicable to pseudohaploid variant calls in a single individual. This method is simply not appropriate to apply to the data at hand, as the method relies on knowledge of diploid genotypes, usually phased, and the results from this test are not robust. It is possible that the XP-EHH method could be extended to this data type or genotype likelihoods with extensive validation and conditioning on a large reference panel, but in general haplotype-based approaches have not been extensible to low-coverage pseudohaplotype datasets. At any rate, any off-the-shelf implementation is inappropriate and unsupported. I am sorry to be this negative about this analysis, but it cannot be used as presented, the results from using it in this way would be spurious by definition.

In addition, identifying GO terms without statistical assessment of enrichment is not a robust analysis, nor is selecting genes with a high proportion of rare alleles without extensive additional contextualization based on the expectations of neutrality and deviations potentially tied to selection. For this reason, the two genes linked with height traits have no support here as genuinely being targets of selection. It is a frustrating reality for us in the ancient DNA field that small numbers of highly degraded genomes offer extremely limited scope for selection analyses, but that's the unfortunate state of play, and is the situation here.

My other major critique remains the application of the Locator method. As Reviewer 1 notes, this method must be built on a densely sampled dataset with strong isolation by distance, which is not done here. The authors explained their approach with more detail in their response, but it is fundamentally inappropriate for this dataset. It does not add anything more than the f3 analysis, and creates a falsely precise inference of genetic-geographic origins that is not supported.

Per authors' response to my previous recommendation 6, it is not advisable to re-map the reads after damage masking, and doing this with a conservative hard-masking approach will lead to a high mismatch rate and significant loss of reads in BWA. This could also exacerbate reference sequence bias which is already a major challenge for ancient DNA (see Gunther et al 2019 PLoS Genet). The correct approach is to map reads, mask or rescale for damage, and then proceed with the modified alignment file. In response to Reviewer 3's comment 3, the authors also refer to a "0 mismatch alignment" strategy. This is not concordant with the damage analysis, and if they truly do not allow mismatches this would be very inadvisable, as it would allow an extreme reference sequence bias.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In Causal associations between plasma proteins and prostate cancer: a Proteome-Wide Mendelian Randomization the authors present a manuscript which seeks to identify novel markers for prostate cancer through analysis of large biobank-based datasets, and to extend this analysis to potential therapeutic targets for drugs. This is an area which is already extensively researched, but remains important, due to the high burden and mortality of prostate cancer globally.

Strengths:

The main strengths of the manuscript are the identification and use of large biobank data assets, which provide large numbers of cases and controls, essential for achieving statistical power. The databases used (deCODE, FinnGen and the UK Biobank) allow for robust numbers of cases and controls. The analytical method chosen, Mendelian Randomization, however, may not be appropriate to the problem (without extensive validation, MR can be prone to false or misleading discoveries). The manuscript also integrates multi-omic datasets, here using protein data as well as GWAS sources to integrate genomic and proteomic data.

Weaknesses:

The main weaknesses of the manuscript relate to the following areas:

(1) The failure of the study to analyse the data in the context of other closely related conditions such as benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) or lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), which have some pathways and biomarkers in common, such as inflammatory pathways (including complement) and specific markers such as KLK3. As a consequence, it is not possible for readers to know whether the findings are specific to prostate cancer, or whether they are generic to prostate dysfunction. Given the prevalence of prostate dysfunction (half of men reaching their sixth decade), the potential for false positives and overtreatment from non-specific biomarkers is a major problem, resulting in the evidence presented in this manuscript being weak. Other researchers have addressed this issue using the same data sources as presented here, for example in this paper looking at BPH in the UK Biobank population.<br /> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06920-9

(2) There is no discussion of Gleason scores with regard to either biomarkers or therapies, and a general lack of discussion around indolent disease as compared with more aggressive variants. These are crucial issues with regard to the triage and identification of genomically aggressive localized prostate cancers. See for example the work set out in: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20788. In the revised version of the manuscript the authors set this out as a limitation, but this does not solve the core problem, which is that without this important biological context, the findings are unlikely to be robust.

(3) An additional issue is that the field of PCa research is fast-moving. The manuscript cites ~80 references, but too few of these are from recent studies and many important and relevant papers are not included. The manuscript would be much stronger if it compared and contrasted its findings with more recent studies of PCa biomarkers and targets, especially those concerned with multi-omics and those including BPH. In the latest revised version of the manuscript, some changes have been made, but the source data are still too limited for in-depth analysis.

(4) The Methods section provides no information on how the Controls were selected. There is no Table providing cohort data to allow the reader to know whether there were differences in age, BMI, ethnic grouping, social status or deprivation, or smoking status, between the Cases and Controls. These types of data are generally recorded in Biobank data; in the latest version of the manuscript the authors state that they don't have any ability to derive matched data, which again prevents deep analysis of the data.

Assessing impact:

Because of the weaknesses of the approach identified above, without further additions to the manuscript, the likely impact of the work on the field is minimal. There is no significant utility of the methods and data to the community, because the data are pre-existing and are not newly introduced to the community in this work, and mendelian randomization is a well-described approach in common use, and therefore the assets and methods described in the manuscript are not novel. In addition, Mendelian randomization is not always appropriate, especially when analysing publicly available data, see:

Stender et al. Lipids in Health and Disease (2024) 23:286<br /> https://doi.org/10.1186/s12944-024-02284-w

With regard to the authors achieving their aims, without assessing specificity and without setting their findings in the context of the latest literature, the authors (and readers) cannot know or assess whether the biomarkers identified or the druggable targets will be useful in the clinic.

In conclusion, adding additional context and analysis to the manuscript would both help readers interpret and understand the work, and would also greatly enhance its significance. For example, the UK Biobank includes data on men with BPH / LUTS, as analysed in this paper, for example, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-06920-9. In the latest version of the manuscript and through the responses to earlier review comments, the authors explain why this has not been possible, but this naturally limits the value of the research.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This is potentially interesting work, but the analyses are attempted in a rather scattergun way, with little evident critical thought. The structure of the work (Results before Methods) can work in some manuscripts, but it is not ideal here. The authors discuss results before we know anything about the underlying data that the results come from. It gives the impression that the authors regard data as a resource to be exploited, without really caring where the data comes from. The methods can provide meaningful insights if correctly used, but while I don't have reasons to doubt that the analyses were conducted correctly, findings are presented with little discussion or interpretation. No follow-up analyses are performed.

This is much improved but there remain some small concerns and one large concern:

Using numbering from the previous review:

(1) This looks better, but I still don't understand the claim in the text: "We found 5 genetic risk loci contained at least one SNP passing the genome-wide significance threshold of P {less than or equal to} 5×10−8". Far more gene regions appear to cross 10^-8 in Figure 1. What am I missing?

(6) I don't understand the authors' response here. Early detection is important, but MR is not the right tool to investigate biomarkers for early detection. Biomarkers for early detection do not have to be causal biomarkers. The authors replied to this point, but the manuscript was unchanged.

(7) Again, the authors still state "193 proteins were associated with PCa risk" even though they acknowledge that their analysis does not test whether proteins associate with PCa risk or not. When an error is pointed out, and you acknowledge it, please change the manuscript to correct the text. Otherwise, what is the peer review process for?

The large concern is that these analyses, while now better explained, are still the product of a semi-automated procedure. It is a good procedure, but the manuscript essentially takes public data from different sources and uses this to create a manuscript. Overall, I think there is enough novel synthesis to justify publication, but it is not automatic.

Strengths:

The data and methods used are state-of-the-art.

Weaknesses:

The reader will have to provide their own translational insight.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary of concerns about the revised submission from the Reviewing Editor:

With respect to Originality of the work, in the last 18 months, there have been 38 publications on combined topics of: (i) UK Biobank data, (ii) Mendelian randomization, (iii) and prostate cancer. The authors should consider the literature addressing prostate cancer via Mendelian randomization--specifically those using the UK Biobank data--published from 2024 onwards. A proper and comprehensive synthesis of recent findings should be made, to allow readers to compare and contrast how the work supports (or differs) from the findings presented in these other published studies.

With respect to the significance of the findings, we feel the study data are incomplete for the strength of evidence. Given the deluge of manuscripts and publications on similar topics, the study offers incremental evidence and lacks a synthesis of all currently published findings.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aim to predict ecological suitability for transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) using ecological niche models. This class of models identify correlations between the locations of species or disease detections and the environment. These correlations are then used to predict habitat suitability (in this work, ecological suitability for disease transmission) in locations where surveillance of the species or disease has not been conducted. The authors fit separate models for HPAI detections in wild birds and farmed birds, for two strains of HPAI (H5N1 and H5Nx) and for two time periods, pre- and post-2020. The authors also validate models fitted to disease occurrence data from pre-2020 using post-2020 occurrence data. I thank the authors for taking the time to respond to my initial review and I provide some follow-up below.

Detailed comments:

In my review, I asked the authors to clarify the meaning of "spillover" within the HPAI transmission cycle. This term is still not entirely clear: at lines 409-410, the authors use the term with reference to transmission between wild birds and farmed birds, as distinct to transmission between farmed birds. It is implied but not explicitly stated that "spillover" is relevant to the transmission cycle in farmed birds only. The sentence, "we developed separate ecological niche models for wild and domestic bird HPAI occurrences ..." could have been supported by a clear sentence describing the transmission cycle, to prime the reader for why two separate models were necessary.

I also queried the importance of (dead-end) mammalian infections to a model of the HPAI transmission risk, to which the authors responded: "While spillover events of HPAI into mammals have been documented, these detections are generally considered dead-end infections and do not currently represent sustained transmission chains. As such, they fall outside the scope of our study, which focuses on avian hosts and models ecological suitability for outbreaks in wild and domestic birds." I would argue that any infections, whether they are in dead-end or competent hosts, represent the presence of environmental conditions to support transmission so are certainly relevant to a niche model and therefore within scope. It is certainly understandable if the authors have not been able to access data of mammalian infections, but it is an oversight to dismiss these infections as irrelevant.

Correlative ecological niche models, including BRTs, learn relationships between occurrence data and covariate data to make predictions, irrespective of correlations between covariates. I am not convinced that the authors can make any "interpretation" (line 298) that the covariates that are most informative to their models have any "influence" (line 282) on their response variable. Indeed, the observation that "land-use and climatic predictors do not play an important role in the niche ecological models" (line 286), while "intensive chicken population density emerges as a significant predictor" (line 282) begs the question: from an operational perspective, is the best (e.g., most interpretable and quickest to generate) model of HPAI risk a map of poultry farming intensity?

I have more significant concerns about the authors' treatment of sampling bias: "We agree with the Reviewer's comment that poultry density could have potentially been considered to guide the sampling effort of the pseudo-absences to consider when training domestic bird models. We however prefer to keep using a human population density layer as a proxy for surveillance bias to define the relative probability to sample pseudo-absence points in the different pixels of the background area considered when training our ecological niche models. Indeed, given that poultry density is precisely one of the predictors that we aim to test, considering this environmental layer for defining the relative probability to sample pseudo-absences would introduce a certain level of circularity in our analytical procedure, e.g. by artificially increasing to influence of that particular variable in our models." The authors have elected to ignore a fundamental feature of distribution modelling with occurrence-only data: if we include a source of sampling bias as a covariate and do not include it when we sample background data, then that covariate would appear to be correlated with presence. They acknowledge this later in their response to my review: "...assuming a sampling bias correlated with poultry density would result in reducing its effect as a risk factor." In other words, the apparent predictive capacity of poultry density is a function of how the authors have constructed the sampling bias for their models. A reader of the manuscript can reasonably ask the question: to what degree are is the model a model of HPAI transmission risk, and to what degree is the model a model of the observation process? The sentence at lines 474-477 is a helpful addition, however the preceding sentence, "Another approach to sampling pseudo-absences would have been to distribute them according to the density of domestic poultry," (line 474) is included without acknowledgement of the flow-on consequence to one of the key findings of the manuscript, that "...intensive chicken population density emerges as a significant predictor..." (line 282). The additional context on the EMPRES-i dataset at line 475-476 ("the locations of outbreaks ... are often georeferenced using place name nomenclatures") is in conflict with the description of the dataset at line 407 ("precise location coordinates"). Ultimately, the choices that the authors have made are entirely defensible through a clear, concise description of model features and assumptions, and precise language to guide the reader through interpretation of results. I am not satisfied that this is provided in the revised manuscript.

The authors have slightly misunderstood my comment on "extrapolation": I referred to "environmental extrapolation" in my review without being particularly explicit about my meaning. By "environmental extrapolation", I meant to ask whether the models were predicting to environments that are outside the extent of environments included in the occurrence data used in the manuscript. The authors appear to have understood this to be a comment on geographic extrapolation, or predicting to areas outside the geographic extent included in occurrence data, e.g.: "For H5Nx post-2020, areas of high predicted ecological suitability, such as Brazil, Bolivia, the Caribbean islands, and Jilin province in China, likely result from extrapolations, as these regions reported few or no outbreaks in the training data" (lines 195-197). Is the model extrapolating in environmental space in these regions? This is unclear. I do not suggest that the authors should carry out further analysis, but the multivariate environmental similarly surface (MESS; see Elith et al., 2010: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210X.2010.00036.x) is a useful tool to visualise environmental extrapolation and aid model interpretation.

On the subject of "extrapolation", I am also concerned by the additions at lines 362-370: "...our models extrapolate environmental suitability for H5Nx in wild birds in areas where few or no outbreaks have been reported. This discrepancy may be explained by limited surveillance or underreporting in those regions." The "discrepancy" cited here is a feature of the input dataset, a function of the observation distribution that should be captured in pseudo-absence data. The authors state that Kazakhstan and Central Asia are areas of interest, and that the environments in this region are outside the extent of environments captured in the occurrence dataset, although it is unclear whether "extrapolation" is informed by a quantitative tool like a MESS or judged by some other qualitative test. The authors then cite Australia as an example of a region with some predicted suitability but no HPAI outbreaks to date, however this discussion point is not linked to the idea that the presence of environmental conditions to support transmission need not imply the occurrence of transmission (as in the addition, "...spatial isolation may imply a lower risk of actual occurrences..." at line 214). Ultimately, the authors have not added any clear comment on model uncertainty (e.g., variation between replicated BRTs) as I suggested might be helpful to support their description of model predictions.

All of my criticisms are, of course, applied with the understanding that niche modelling is imperfect for a disease like HPAI, and that data may be biased/incomplete, etc.: these caveats are common across the niche modelling literature. However, if language around the transmission cycle, the niche, and the interpretation of any of the models is imprecise, which I find it to be in the revised manuscript, it undermines all of the science that is presented in this work.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The geographic range of highly pathogenic avian influenza cases changed substantially around the period 2020, and there is much interest in understanding why. Since 2020 the pathogen irrupted in the Americas and the distribution in Asia changed dramatically. This study aimed to determine which spatial factors (environmental, agronomic and socio-economic) explain the change in numbers and locations of cases reported since 2020 (2020--2023). That's a causal question which they address by applying correlative environmental niche modelling (ENM) approach to the avian influenza case data before (2015--2020) and after 2020 (2020--2023) and separately for confirmed cases in wild and domestic birds. To address their questions they compare the outputs of the respective models, and those of the first global model of the HPAI niche published by Dhingra et al 2016.

ENM is a correlative approach useful for extrapolating understandings based on sparse geographically referenced observational data over un- or under-sampled areas with similar environmental characteristics in the form of a continuous map. In this case, because the selected covariates about land cover, use, population and environment are broadly available over the entire world, modelled associations between the response and those covariates can be projected (predicted) back to space in the form of a continuous map of the HPAI niche for the entire world.

Strengths:

The authors are clear about expected bias in the detection of cases, such geographic variation in surveillance effort (testing of symptomatic or dead wildlife, testing domestic flocks) and in general more detections near areas of higher human population density (because if a tree falls in a forest and there is no-one there, etc), and take steps to ameliorate those. The authors use boosted regression trees to implement the ENM, which typically feature among the best performing models for this application (also known as habitat suitability models). They ran replicate sets of the analysis for each of their model targets (wild/domestic x pathogen variant), which can help produce stable predictions. Their code and data is provided, though I did not verify that the work was reproducible.

The paper can be read as a partial update to the first global model of H5Nx transmission by Dhingra and others published in 2016 and explicitly follows many methodological elements. Because they use the same covariate sets as used by Dhingra et al 2016 (including the comparisons of the performance of the sets in spatial cross-validation) and for both time periods of interest in the current work, comparison of model outputs is possible. The authors further facilitate those comparisons with clear graphics and supplementary analyses and presentation. The models can also be explored interactively at a weblink provided in text, though it would be good to see the model training data there too.

The authors' comparison of ENM model outputs generated from the distinct HPAI case datasets is interesting and worthwhile, though for me, only as a response to differently framed research questions.

Weaknesses:

This well-presented and technically well-executed paper has one major weakness to my mind. I don't believe that ENM models were an appropriate tool to address their stated goal, which was to identify the factors that "explain" changing HPAI epidemiology.

Here is how I understand and unpack that weakness:

(1) Because of their fundamentally correlative nature, ENMs are not a strong candidate for exploring or inferring causal relationships.

(2) Generating ENMs for a species whose distribution is undergoing broad scale range change is complicated and requires particular caution and nuance in interpretation (e.g., Elith et al, 2010, an important general assumption of environmental niche models is that the target species is at some kind of distributional equilibrium (at time scales relevant to the model application). In practice that means the species has had an opportunity to reach all suitable habitats and therefore its absence from some can be interpreted as either unfavourable environment or interactions with other species). Here data sets for the response (N5H1 or N5Hx case data in domestic or wild birds ) were divided into two periods; 2015--2020, and 2020--2023 based on the rationale that the geographic locations and host-species profile of cases detected in the latter period was suggestive of changed epidemiology. In comparing outputs from multiple ENMs for the same target from distinct time periods the authors are expertly working in, or even dancing around, what is a known grey area, and they need to make the necessary assumptions and caveats obvious to readers.

(3) To generate global prediction maps via ENM, only variables that exist at appropriate resolution over the desired area can be supplied as covariates. What processes could influence changing epidemiology of a pathogen and are their covariates that represent them? Introduction to a new geographic area (continent) with naive population, immunity in previously exposed populations, control measures to limit spread such as vaccination or destruction of vulnerable populations or flocks? Might those control measures be more or less likely depending on the country as a function of its resources and governance? There aren't globally available datasets that speak to those factors, so the question is not why were they omitted but rather was the authors decision to choose ENMs given their question justified? How valuable are insights based on patterns of correlation change when considering different temporal sets of HPAI cases in relation to a common and somewhat anachronistic set of covariates?

(4) In general the study is somewhat incoherent with respect to time. Though the case data come from different time periods, each response dataset was modelled separately using exactly the same covariate dataset that predated both sets. That decision should be understood as a strong assumption on the part of the authors that conditions the interpretation: the world (as represented by the covariate set) is immutable, so the model has to return different correlative associations between the case data and the covariates to explain the new data. While the world represented by the selected covariates *may* be relatively stable (could be statistically confirmed), what about the world not represented by the covariates (see point 3)?

References:

Dhingra et al, 2016, Global mapping of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 and H5Nx clade 2.3.4.4 viruses with spatial cross-validation, eLife 5, https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.19571

Elith, J., Kearney, M., & Phillips, S. (2010). The art of modelling range‐shifting species. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1(4), 330-342.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Tran et al. investigate the interaction between BICC1 and ADPKD genes in renal cystogenesis. Using biochemical approaches, they reveal a physical association between Bicc1 and PC1 or PC2 and identify the motifs in each protein required for binding. Through genetic analyses, they demonstrate that Bicc1 inactivation synergizes with Pkd1 or Pkd2 inactivation to exacerbate PKD-associated phenotypes in Xenopus embryos and potentially in mouse models. Furthermore, by analyzing a large cohort of PKD patients, the authors identify compound BICC1 variants alongside PKD1 or PKD2 variants in trans, as well as homozygous BICC1 variants in patients with early-onset and severe disease presentation. They also show that these BICC1 variants repress PC2 expression in cultured cells.

Overall, the concept that BICC1 variants modify PKD severity is plausible, the data are robust, and the conclusions are largely supported.

Comments on revision:

My comments have been mostly addressed.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Tran and colleagues report evidence supporting the expected yet undemonstrated interaction between the Pkd1 and Pkd2 gene products Pc1 and Pc2 and the Bicc1 protein in vitro, in mice, and collaterally, in Xenopus and HEK293T cells. The authors go on to convincingly identify two large and non-overlapping regions of the Bicc1 protein important for each interaction and to perform gene dosage experiments in mice that suggest that Bicc1 loss of function may compound with Pkd1 and Pkd2 decreased function, resulting in PKD-like renal phenotypes of different severity. These results led to examining a cohort of very early onset PKD patients to find three instances of co-existing mutations in PKD1 (or PKD2) and BICC1. Finally, preliminary transcriptomics of edited lines gave variable and subtle differences that align with the theme that Bicc1 may contribute to the PKD defects, yet are mechanistically inconclusive.

These results are potentially interesting, despite the limitation, also recognized by the authors, that BICC1 mutations seem exceedingly rare in PKD patients and may not "significantly contribute to the mutational load in ADPKD or ARPKD". The manuscript has several intrinsic limitations that must be addressed.

The manuscript contains factual errors, imprecisions, and language ambiguities. This has the effect of making this reviewer wonder how thorough the research reported and analyses have been.

Comments on revision:

My comments have been addressed.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This study investigates the role of BICC1 in the regulation of PKD1 and PKD2 and its impact on cytogenesis in ADPKD. By utilizing co-IP and functional assays, the authors demonstrate physical, functional, and regulatory interactions between these three proteins.

Strengths:

(1) The scientific principles and methodology adopted in this study are excellent, logical, and reveal important insights into the molecular basis of cystogenesis.

(2) The functional studies in animal models provide tantalizing data that may lead to a further understanding and may consequently lead to the ultimate goal of finding a molecular therapy for this incurable condition.

(3) In describing the patients from the Arab cohort, the authors have provided excellent human data for further investigation in large ADPKD cohorts. Even though there was no patient material available, such as HUREC, the authors have studied the effects of BICC1 mutations and demonstrated its functional importance in a Xenopus model.

Weaknesses:

This is a well-conducted study and could have been even more impactful if primary patient material was available to the authors. A further study in HUREC cells investigating the critical regulatory role of BICC1 and potential interaction with mir-17 may yet lead to a modifiable therapeutic target.

Conclusion:<br /> The authors achieve their aims. The results reliably demonstrate the physical and functional interaction between BICC1 and PKD1/PKD2 genes and their products.

The impact is hopefully going to be manifold:

(1) Progressing the understanding of the regulation of the expression of PKD1/PKD2 genes.

Comments on revision:

My comments have been addressed and sorted.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors identified and described the transcriptional trajectories leading to CMs during early mouse development, and characterized the epigenetic landscapes that underlie early mesodermal lineage specification.

The authors identified two transcriptomic trajectories from a mesodermal population to cardiomyocytes, the MJH and PSH trajectories. These trajectories are relevant to the current model for the First Heart Field (FHF) and the Second Heart Field (SHF) differentiation. Then, the authors characterized both gene expression and enhancer activity of the MJH and PSH trajectories, using a multiomics analysis. They highlighted the role of Gata4, Hand1, Foxf1, and Tead4 in the specification of the MJH trajectory. Finally, they performed a focused analysis of the role of Hand1 and Foxf1 in the MJH trajectory, showing their mutual regulation and their requirement for cardiac lineage specification.

Strengths:

The authors performed an extensive transcriptional and epigenetic analysis of early cardiac lineage specification and differentiation which will be of interest to investigators in the field of cardiac development and congenital heart disease. The authors considered the impact of the loss of Hand1 and Foxf1 in-vitro and Hand1 in-vivo.

Weaknesses:

The authors used previously published scRNA-seq data to generate two described transcriptomic trajectories.

(1) Details of the re-analysis step should be added, including a careful characterization of the different clusters and maker genes, more details on the WOT analysis, and details on the time stamp distribution along the different pseudotimes. These details would be important to allow readers to gain confidence that the two major trajectories identified are realistic interpretations of the input data.

The authors have also renamed the cardiac trajectories/lineages, departing from the convention applied in hundreds of papers, making the interpretation of their results challenging.

(2) The concept of "reverse reasoning" applied to the Waddington-OT package for directional mass transfer is not adequately explained. While the authors correctly acknowledged Waddington-OT's ability to model cell transitions from ancestors to descendants (using optimal transport theory), the justification for using a "reverse reasoning" approach is missing. Clarifying the rationale behind this strategy would be beneficial.

(3) As the authors used the EEM cell cluster as a starting point to build the MJH trajectory, it's unclear whether this trajectory truly represents the cardiac differentiation trajectory of the FHF progenitors:<br /> - This strategy infers that the FHF progenitors are mixed in the same cluster as the extra-embryonic mesoderm, but no specific characterization of potential different cell populations included in this cluster was performed to confirm this.

- The authors identified the EEM cluster as a Juxta-cardiac field, without showing the expression of the principal marker Mab21l2 per cluster and/or on UMAPs.

- As the FHF progenitors arise earlier than the Juxta-cardiac field cells, it must be possible to identify an early FHF progenitor population (Nkx2-5+; Mab21l2-) using the time stamp. It would be more accurate to use this FHF cluster as a starting point than the EEM cluster to infer the FHF cardiac differentiation trajectory.

These concerns call into question the overall veracity of the trajectory analysis, and in fact, the discrepancies with prior published heart field trajectories are noted but the authors fail to validate their new interpretation. Because their trajectories are followed for the remainder of the paper, many of the interpretations and claims in the paper may be misleading. For example, these trajectories are used subsequently for annotation of the multiomic data, but any errors in the initial trajectories could result in errors in multiomic annotation, etc, etc.

(4) As mentioned in the discussion, the authors identified the MJH and PSH trajectories as non-overlapping. But, the authors did not discuss major previously published data showing that both FHF and SHF arise from a common transcriptomic progenitor state in the primitive streak (DOI: 10.1126/science.aao4174; DOI: 10.1007/s11886-022-01681-w). The authors should consider and discuss the specifics of why they obtained two completely separate trajectories from the beginning, how these observations conflict with prior published work, and what efforts they have made at validation.

(5) Figures 1D and E are confusing, as it's unclear why the authors selected only cells at E7.0. Also, panels 1D 'Trajectory' and 'Pseudotime' suggest that the CM trajectory moves from the PSH cells to the MJH. This result is confusing, and the authors should explain this observation.

(6) Regarding the PSH trajectory, it's unclear how the authors can obtain a full cardiac differentiation trajectory from the SHF progenitors as the SHF-derived cardiomyocytes are just starting to invade the heart tube at E8.5 (DOI: 10.7554/eLife.30668).

The above notes some of the discrepancies between the author's trajectory analysis and the historical cardiac development literature. Overall, the discrepancies between the author's trajectory analysis and the historical cardiac development literature are glossed over and not adequately validated.

(7) The authors mention analyzing "activated/inhibited genes" from Peng et al. 2019 but didn't specify when Peng's data was collected. Is it temporally relevant to the current study? How can "later stage" pathway enrichment be interpreted in the context of early-stage gene expression?

(8) Motif enrichment: cluster-specific DAEs were analyzed for motifs, but the authors list specific TFs rather than TF families, which is all that motif enrichment can provide. The authors should either list TF families or state clearly that the specific TFs they list were not validated beyond motifs.

(9) The core regulatory network is purely predictive. The authors again should refrain from language implying that the TFs in the CRN have any validated role.

Regarding the in vivo analysis of Hand1 CKO embryos, Figures 6 and 7:

(10) How can the authors explain the presence of a heart tube in the E9.5 Hand1 CKO embryos (Figure 6B) if, following the authors' model, the FHF/Juxta-cardiac field trajectory is disrupted by Hand1 CKO? A more detailed analysis of the cardiac phenotype of Hand1 CKO embryos would help to assess this question.

(11) The cell proportion differences observed between Ctrl and Hand1 CKO in Figure 6D need to be replicated and an appropriate statistical analysis must be performed to definitely conclude the impact of Hand1 CKO on cell proportions.

(12) The in-vitro cell differentiations are unlikely to recapitulate the complexity of the heart fields in-vivo, but they are analyzed and interpreted as if they do.

(13) The schematic summary of Figure 7F is confusing and should be adjusted based on the following considerations:<br /> (a) the 'Wild-type' side presents 3 main trajectories (SHF, Early HT and JCF), but uses a 2-color code and the authors described only two trajectories everywhere else in the article (aka MJH and PSH). It's unclear how the SHF trajectory (blue line) can contribute to the Early HT, when the Early HT is supposed to be FHF-associated only (DOI: 10.7554/eLife.30668). As mentioned previously in Major comment 3., this model suggests a distinction between FHF and JCF trajectories, which is not investigated in the article.<br /> (b) the color code suggests that the MJH (FHF-related) trajectory will give rise to the right ventricle and outflow tract (green line), which is contrary to current knowledge.

Minor comments:

(1) How genes were selected to generate Figure 1F? Is this a list of top differentially expressed genes over each pseudotime and/or between pseudotimes?

(2) Regarding Figure 1G, it's unclear how inhibited signaling can have an increased expression of underlying genes over pseudotimes. Can the authors give more details about this analysis and results?

(3) How do the authors explain the visible Hand1 expression in Hand1 CKO in Figure S7C 'EEM markers'? Is this an expected expression in terms of RNA which is not converted into proteins?

(4) The authors do not address the potential presence of doublets (merged cells) within their newly generated dataset. While they mention using "SCTransform" for normalization and artifact removal, it's unclear if doublet removal was explicitly performed.

Comments on revised version:

Summary:

The authors have not addressed the major philosophical problems with the initial submission. They interpret their data without care to conform to years of prior publications in the field. This causes the authors to draw fanciful conclusions that are highly likely to be inaccurate (at best).

Q1R1: The authors gave more details about the characterization of cell types and the two identified trajectories.

a) It remains unclear how the authors generated this list. Are they manually selected genes based on relevant literature or an unbiased marker gene identification analysis? Either references should be added, or the bioinformatics explanation should be included in the method section.<br /> b) Revised text satisfies the comment.<br /> c) Revised text satisfies the comment.

Other comments:

Figure 1F: left annotation needs to be corrected (two "JCF specific").

Q2R1: Revised text satisfies the comment.

Q3R1 (1): Revised text satisfies the comment.

Q3R1 (2): a) The explanation of how the authors built the JCF trajectory makes sense and the renaming from "MJH" to "JCF" is correct and better represents the identification that was made using time points from E7.5 to E8.5. However, the explanation given does not answer our original question. Our original comment asked about the FHF differentiation trajectory. The authors built the "MJH" trajectory as the combined "FHF/JCF" trajectory, however, it is not directly established whether the FHF and JCF progenitor differentiation trajectories are the same. The authors did not directly try to identify the FHF and JCF trajectories separately using appropriate real time windows but only assumed that they were the same. Every link between JCF and FHF trajectories assuming that they are shared without prior identification of the FHF progenitor differentiation trajectory should be removed from the manuscript (e.g. page 4: "namely the JCF trajectory (the Hand1-expressing early extraembryonic mesoderm - JCF and FHF - CM)").

b) Adding the Mab21l2 ICA plot satisfies the comment.

c) The explanation given by the authors regarding the FHF trajectory analysis is missing important details. The authors started the reverse trajectory analysis from E7.75 cardiomyocytes as being the FHF.

- The authors should be mindful with the distinction between FHF progenitors and FHF-derived cardiomyocytes.<br /> - It is unclear whether cells called after the starting point (E7.75 CMs) in the reverse FHF trajectory, were collected prior E7.75. Can the authors add more details, and a real time point distribution along the FHF pseudotime to their analysis? Also, what cells belong to the FHF trajectory after the E7.75 CMs in the reverse direction? These cells should be shown as in Figure 1A and 1B for the JCF and SHF trajectories.<br /> - As the FHF arises first and differentiates into the cardiac crescent prior to or at the same time the JCF and SHF emerge, it is impossible for late progenitors (JCF and SHF) to contribute to the early FHF progenitor pool. Therefore, the observation that "both JCF and SHF lineages contribute to the early FHF progenitor population" can not be correct. It is also not what Dominguez et al showed. This misinterpretation goes against the current literature (e.g. DOI: 10.1038/ncb3024) and will leads to confusion.

Q4R1: Revised text and figure satisfy the comment.

Q5R1: The answer satisfies the comment.

Q6R1: a) The authors did not address the question and did not change their language in the manuscript. As SHF-derived cardiomyocytes are missing (because they are generated after E8.5), the part of the SHF trajectory going from SHF progenitors to the E8.5 heart tube must be inaccurate.

b) The authors correctly mentioned, both JCF and SHF will contribute to the four-chamber heart. However, as the dataset used by the authors spans only to E8.5 (which is days before the completion of the four-chamber heart), and all SHF and the vast majority of JCF contributions don't reach the heart until after E8.5, any claims about trajectories from JCF/SHF progenitor pools to cardiomyocytes should be removed because they do not correspond to prior published and accepted work.

Q7R1: Especially because gene expression levels change over time, the authors might have considered genes as specific and restricted to a pathway based on their expression at a given time (e.g. later time), but at another time (e.g. earlier time), the same genes could have another expression pattern and not be pathway-specific anymore.

Q8R1: Revised text satisfies the comment.

Q9R1: Revised text satisfies the comment.

Q10R1: Thank you for analyzing deeper the cardiac phenotype of the Hand1 cKO embryos.

Regarding the presence of a heart tube, while, following the authors' model the FHF/JCF trajectory is disrupted:

- Renaming the "MSH" to "JCF" is more accurate to the data shown by the authors as mainly the EEM is altered after Hand1 cKO.<br /> - The presence of the heart tube suggests that even if the JCF is altered, the FHF can still produce a cardiac crescent and a heart tube (as observed in Hand1-null embryos DOI: 10.1038/ng0398-266). The schematic Figure 7F suggests that only the SHF contribution will allow the formation of the heart tube. This unorthodox idea would need to be assessed by an alternate approach. More likely is that the model simply ignores the FHF contribution (the most important up to E8.5). The schematic is therefore incomplete and inaccurate and should be removed or edited to correspond to the prior literature.

Q11R1: It is unclear what "replicates" mean in the authors' answer, as if they have been pooled without replicate-specific barcodes they are no longer replicates and should be considered as a single sample. This should be explicitly written in the method section.<br /> Thank you for your IF staining/quantification. If DAPI was used, it should be written in the figure caption.

Q12R1: Revised text satisfies the comment.

Q13R1: The answer given by the authors did not satisfy the comment because of the following:

- The authors investigated two differentiation trajectories (JCF and SHF) in the article but Figure 7F presents three trajectories (JCF, SHF, and Early HT). The "Early HT" is neither mentioned, nor discussed in the manuscript.<br /> - Figure 7F suggests that the "Early HT" trajectory corresponds to a combination of the SHF and JCF trajectories but does not mention the early FHF trajectory. This is going against the current literature. This relates to the comments of Q10R1.<br /> - As the authors rightly point out, the SHF will be contributing to the heart tube, but through a cell invasion of the already differentiated heart tube (10.1016/j.devcel.2023.01.010). Our prior comments did not question the implication of the SHF to the looping and ballooning process but mentioned that the heart tube arises before the invasion from SHF and is FHF-derived. Figure 7F in the context of Hand1-null suggest that the heart tube will form from the SHF lineage, which is confusing as the SHF is known to contribute by invasion of the (already-formed) FHF-derived heart tube. The FHF lineage is missing from the authors' model.<br /> - In the revised manuscript, the FHF trajectory analysis is still unclear and suggests that the JCF and SHF progenitors contribute to the FHF progenitor which is going against current literature. This relates to the comments of Q3R1 (2).

Overall, the schematic Figure 7F is very confusing as it does not follow already published data without being fully validated and therefore is inaccurate and misleading.

Minor comments:

The answers satisfy the minor comments.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary of goals:

The aims of the study were to identify new lineage trajectories for the cardiac lineages of the heart, and to use computational and cell and animal studies to identify and validate new gene regulatory mechanisms involved in these trajectories.

Strengths:

Overall: the study addresses the long standing yet still not fully answered questions of what drives the earliest specification mechanisms of the heart lineages. The introduction demonstrates a good understanding of the relevant lineage trajectories that have been previously established, and the significance of the work is well described. The study takes advantage of several recently published data sets and attempts t use these in combination to uncover any new mechanisms underlying early mesoderm/cardiac specification mechanisms. A strength of the study is the use of an in vitro model system (mESCs) to assess the functional relevance of the key players identified in the computational analysis, including innovative technology such as CRISPR-guided enhancer modulations. Lastly, the study generates mesoderm-specific Hand1 LOF embryos and assesses the differentiation trajectories in these animals, which represents a strong complementary approach to the in vitro and computational analysis earlier in the paper. The manuscript is clearly written and the methods section is detailed and comprehensive.

Comments and Weaknesses:

I unfortunately still have the same concerns I had for the original submission. There are many strong claims about lineage trajectories and population relationships that are based purely on the analysis of a number of datasets, some published and a few new datasets.

The methods used involve significant input bias, and some of the less user-biased approaches, such as the new RNA velocity analysis on the JCF/SHF trajectories, are included only in the response to reviewers but not in the manuscript (R1R2), as far as I can tell. This analysis does not seem to suggest that CMs are generated from both trajectories, but it is difficult to know as they provide so little information on what exactly they did.<br /> The conclusions are particularly concerning not only because they are largely based on computational analysis, but also because they contradict well-described concepts (which are supported by in vivo lineage tracing).<br /> I want to give them credit for having done some additional experiments. That said, the new data added for the validation of some of their concepts (mESC Fig 5F and embryos Fig S8C) do not strengthen their conclusions in my opinion. The mESC data were not quantified, and the embryo data looks like quantifications were done in different planes of a single embryo, but it's hard to tell as little information is provided. Even with accurate quantification, I believe the IF analysis for VIM in Hand1 cKO embryos is not sufficient to back up their claims on the role of Hand1 in driving the JCF lineage.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this manuscript, the Xie et al. delineate two cardiac lineage trajectories using pseudo-time and epigenetic analyses, tracing development from E6.5 to E8.5, culminating in cardiomyocytes (CMs). The authors propose that mutual regulation between the transcription factors Hand1 and Foxf1 plays a role in specifying a first cardiac lineage.

Following the first round of revision, the authors have renamed their EEM-JCF/FHF (MJH) and PM-SHF (PSH) trajectories JCF and SHF. However, their use of this terminology is confusing. The so-called JCF trajectory appears to represent a mixture of JCF and FHF, as Hand1-expressing early extraembryonic mesoderm contributes to FHF-derived cardiomyocytes (e.g., HCN4+, Tbx5+). The authors then argue that JCF arises from Hand1+ cells and is therefore distinct from FHF, yet elsewhere suggest that both JCF and SHF contribute to FHF. This introduces conceptual inconsistencies.

Furthermore, the expression of Hand1, Foxf1, and Bmp4 in the lateral plate mesoderm complicates the assertion that JCF is distinct from FHF (Development 2015; 142: 3307-3320; Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol, https://www.nature.com/articles/nrm2618; Circ Res 2021, https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.121.318943). Mab21l2 expression also overlaps with the cardiac crescent. The designation of Tbx20 as a "key JCF-specific gene" is problematic, why should it not equally be considered an FHF-specific marker (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10629681)? Perhaps the JCF trajectory represent a subset of FHF. A designation such as "JCF/FHF" may therefore be more appropriate.

In Figure 1A, the decision to define a single CM state as the endpoint of both trajectories is also problematic. FHF and SHF are known to give rise to distinct CM subtypes, yet in the authors' reconstruction both lineages converge on one CM population. This was the point raised in Question 1 of my initial review. If both trajectories converge on the same CM state, are they truly independent lineages? This interpretation remains unclear and potentially misleading.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

I am afraid that the manuscript has not improved much. The authors have barely addressed my specific comments, and the manuscript remains descriptive with little logic in the analyses, and no coherence between the RNA-seq work and the telomere dynamics analysis. The revised title still suggests more causality/mechanism than is demonstrated in the results.

Of my three main technical concerns, two critical ones were not properly addressed, and for the third concern the answer is not entirely clear. So on balance, in my view the revised manuscript still does not meet the scientific standards of the field.

(1) Knockdowns should be verified at the protein level:

Authors state that they are working on this, but the results are not included in the revised manuscript.

(2) Multiple shRNAs for each protein, or and alternative method such as CRISPR deletion or degron technology, must be tested to rule out such off-target effects:

Authors state that they are working on this, but have not included the results in the revised manuscript.

(3) It was not clear whether the replicate experiments are true biological replicates (i.e. done on different days).

Authors give a somewhat ambiguous answer in the rebuttal: "samples [...] were derived from independently prepared cultures in separate experimental setups". A simple answer would have been "yes they were done on different days", but this is not what is stated, so I still wonder about the experimental design. The Methods text only states "Each experiment was performed with a minimum of three biological replicates" without clarifying how this was implemented.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This study focused on the roles of the nuclear envelope proteins lamin A and C, as well as nesprin-2, encoded by the LMNA and SYNE2 genes, respectively, on gene expression and chromatin mobility. It is motivated by the established role of lamins in tethering heterochromatin to the nuclear periphery in lamina-associated domains (LADs) and modulating chromatin organization. The authors show that depletion of lamin A, lamin A and C, or nesprin-2 results in differential effects of mRNA and lnRNA expression, primarily affecting genes outside established LADs. In addition, the authors used fluorescent dCas9 labeling of telomeric genomic regions combined with live-cell imaging to demonstrate that depletion of either lamin A, lamin A/C, or nesprin-2 increased the mobility of chromatin, suggesting an important role of lamins and nesprin-2 on chromatin dynamics.

Strengths:

The major strength of this study is the detailed characterization of changes in transcript levels and isoforms resulting from depletion of either lamin A, lamin A/C, or nesprin-2 in human osteosarcoma (U2OS) cells. The authors use a variety of advanced tools to demonstrate the effect of protein depletion on specific gene isoforms and to compare the effects on mRNA and lncRNA levels.

The TIRF imaging of dCas9 labeled telomeres allows for high resolution tracking of multiple telomeres per cell, thus enabling the authors to obtain detailed measurements of the mobility of telomeres within living cells and the effect of lamin A/C or nesprin-2 depletion.

Weaknesses:

Although the findings presented by the authors overall confirm existing knowledge about the ability of lamins A/C and nesprin to broadly affect gene expression, chromatin organization, and chromatin dynamics, the specific interpretation and the conclusions drawn from the data presented in this manuscript are limited by several technical and conceptual challenges.

One major limitation is that the authors only assess the knockdown of their target genes on the mRNA level, where they observe reductions of around 70%. Given that lamins A and C have long half-lives, the effect at the protein level might be even lower. This incomplete and poorly characterized depletion on the protein level makes interpretation of the results difficult. Assessing the effect of the knockdown on the protein level would provide more detailed information both on the extent of the actual protein depletion and the effect on specific lamin isoforms. Similarly, given that nesprin-2 has numerous isoforms resulting from alternative splicing and transcription initiation. In the current form of the manuscript, it remains unclear which specific nesprin-2 isoforms where depleted, and by what extent (on the protein level).

Another substantial limitation of the manuscript is that the current analysis, with exception of the chromatin mobility measurements, is exclusively based on transcriptomic measurements by RNA-seq and qRT-PCR, without any experimental validation of the predicted protein levels or proposed functional consequences. As such, conclusions about the importance of lamin A/C on RNA synthesis and other functions are derived entirely from gene ontology terms and are not sufficiently supported by experimental data. Thus, the true functional consequences of lamin A/C or nesprin depletion remain unclear.

Another substantial weakness is that the data and analysis presented in the manuscript raise some concerns about the robustness of the findings. Given that the 'shLMNA' construct is expected to deplete both lamin A and C, i.e., its effect encompasses the depletion of lamin A, which is achieved by the 'shLaminA' construct, one would expect a substantial overlap between the DEGs in the shLMNA and shLaminA conditions, with the shLMNA depletion producing a broader effect as it targets both lamin A and C. However, the Venn Diagram in Figure 4a, the genomic loci distribution in Figure 4b, and the correlation analysis in Suppl. Fig. S2 show little overlap between the shLMNA and shLaminA conditions, which is quite surprising. In the mapping of the DEGs shown in Fig. 4b, it is also surprising not to see the gene targeted by the shRNA, LMNA, found on chromosome 1, in the results for the shLMNA and shLamin A depletion.

The correlation analysis in Suppl. Figure S2 raises further questions. The authors use dox-inducible shRNA constructs to target lamin A (shLaminA), lamin A/C (shLMNA), or nesprin-2 (shSYNE2). Thus, the no-dox control (Ctr) for each of these constructs would be expected to be very similar to the non-target scrambled controls (Ctrl.shScramble and Dox.shScramble). However, in the correlation matrix, each of the no-dox controls clusters more closely with the corresponding dox-induced shRNA condition than with the Ctrl.shScramble or Dox.shScramble conditions, suggesting either a very leaky dox-inducible system, effects from clonal selection (although less likely, giving the pooling of three clones), or substantial batch effects in the processing. Either of these scenarios could substantially affect the interpretation of the findings.

The premise of the authors that lamins would only affect peripheral chromatin and genes at LADs neglects the fact that lamins A and C are also found in the nuclear interior, where they form stable structure and influence chromatin organization, and the fact that lamins A and C and nesprins additionally interact with numerous transcriptional regulators such as Rb, c-Fos, and beta-catenins, which could further modulate gene expression when lamins or nesprins are depleted.

The comparison of the identified DEGs to genes contained in LADs might be confounded by the fact that the authors relied on the identification of LADs from a previous study, which used a different human cell type (human skin fibroblasts) instead of the U2OS osteosarcoma cells used in the present study. As LADs are often highly cell type specific, the use of the fibroblast data set could lead to substantial differences in LADs.

Overall appraisal and context:

Despite its limitations, the present study further illustrates the important roles the nuclear envelope proteins lamin A, lamin C, and nesprin-2 have in chromatin organization, dynamics, and gene expression. It thus confirms results from previous studies previously reported for lamin A/C depletion. For example, the effect of lamin A/C depletion on increasing mobility of chromatin, had already been demonstrated by several other groups, such as Bronshtein et al. Nature Comm 2015 (PMID: 26299252) and Ranade et al. BMC Mol Cel Biol 2019 (PMID: 31117946). Additionally, the effect of lamin A/C depletion on gene and protein expression has already been extensively studied in a variety of other cell lines and model systems, including detailed proteomic studies (PMIDs 23990565 and 35896617).

The finding that that lamin A/C or nesprin depletion not only affects genes at the nuclear periphery but also the nuclear interior is not particularly surprising giving the previous studies and the fact that lamins A and C are also founding within the nuclear interior, where they affect chromatin organization and dynamics, and that lamins A/C and nesprins directly interact with numerous transcriptional regulators that could further affect gene expression independent from their role in chromatin organization.

The isoform specific effects of LMNA depletion on chromatin mobility and gene expression are not entirely surprising, as recent work by the Medalia group identified a lamin A-specific chromatin binding site not present in lamin C (PMID: 40750945). This work should be cited in the manuscript.

The authors provide a detailed analysis of isoform switching in response to lamin A/C or nesprin-depletion, but the underlying mechanism remains unclear. Similarly, their analysis of the genomic location of the observed DEGs shows the wide-ranging effects of lamin A/C or nesprin depletion, but lets the reader wonder how these effects are mediated. A more in-depth analysis of predicted regulator factors and their potential interaction with lamins A/C or nesprin would be beneficial in gaining more mechanistic insights.

Additional note regarding the revised manuscript:

The authors have made several revisions to the manuscript, including the title and abstract. The above comments have been updated to reflect the latest manuscript version.

These text revisions made by the authors provide some more detailed discussion of context and interpretation of the work, improving the clarity of the manuscript. However, they do not fundamentally alleviate many of the concerns previously expressed regarding the lack of mechanistic insights and various technical aspects of the study, i.e., use of a single shRNA for knockdown, lack of knockdown validation on the protein level, potential off-target effects of the shRNA, batch-effects of the transcriptomic analysis, cell-type specific differences in LADs, etc. Without further experimental data, the manuscript offers a mostly descriptive analysis on the effect of LMNA and SYNE2 depletion on gene expression and telomere mobility. The manuscript might be useful as a reference data sets for comparison with other LMNA or SYNE2 depletion studies, albeit with various caveats regarding its interpretation due to the technical concerns raised by the reviewers.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Using several zebrafish reporter lines, the authors characterized immune cells in the adult zebrafish brain, identifying a population of DC-like cells with distinct regional distribution and transcriptional profiles. These cells were distinct from microglia and other macrophages, closely resembling murine cDC1s. Analysis of different mutants revealed that this DC population depends on Irf8, Batf3 and Csf1rb, but not Csf1ra.

This elegantly designed study provides compelling evidence for additional heterogeneity among brain mononuclear phagocytes in zebrafish, encompassing microglia, macrophages, and DC-like cells. It advances our understanding of the immune landscape in the zebrafish brain and facilitates better distinction of these cell types from microglia.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

The authors made an atlas of single-cell transcriptome of on a pure population of leukocytes isolated from the brain of adult Tg(cd45:DsRed) transgenic animals by flow cytometry. Seven major leukocyte populations were identified, comprising microglia, macrophages, dendritic-like cells, T cells, natural killer cells, innate lymphoid-like cells and neutrophils. Each cluster was analyzed to characterize subclusters. Among lymphocytes, in addition to 2 subclusters expressing typical T cell markers, a group of il4+ il13+ gata3+ cells was identified as possible ILC2. This hypothesis is supported by the presence of this population in rag2KO fish, in which the frequency of lck and zap70+ cells is strongly reduced. The use of KO lines for such validations is a strength of this work (and the zebrafish model).

The subcluster analysis of mpeg1.1 + myeloid cells identified 4 groups of microglial cells, one novel group of macrophage like cells (expressing s100a10b, sftpbb, icn, fthl27, anxa5b, f13a1b and spi1b), and several groups of DC like cells expressing the markers siglec15l, ccl19a.1, ccr7, id2a, xcr1a.1, batf3, flt3, chl1a and hepacam2.Combining these new markers and transgenic reporter fish lines, the authors then clarified the location of leukocyte subsets within the brain, showing for example that DC-like cells stand as a parenchymal population along with microglia. Reporter lines were also used to perform detailed analysis of cell subsets, and cross with a batf3 mutant demonstrated that DC like cells are batf3 dependent, which was similar to mouse and human cDC1. Finally, analysis of classical mononuclear phagocyte deficient zebrafish lines showed they have reduced numbers of microglia but exhibit distinct DC-like cell phenotypes. A weakness of this study is that it is mainly based on FACS sorting, which might modify the proportion of different subtypes.

This atlas of zebrafish brain leukocytes is an important new resource to scientists using the zebrafish models for neurology, immunology and infectiology, and for those interested in the evolution of brain and immune system.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Rovira, et al., aim to characterize immune cells in the brain parenchyma and identify a novel macrophage population referred to as "dendritic-like cells". They use a combination of single-cell transcriptomics, immunohistochemistry, and genetic mutants to conclude the presence of this "dendritic-like cell" population in the brain. The strength of this manuscript is the identification of dendritic cells in the brain, which are typically found in the meningeal layers and choroid plexus. In addition, Rovira, et al., findings are supported by the findings of the Wen lab and a recent Cell Reports paper. Congratulations on the nice work!

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study by Li and coworkers addresses the important and fundamental question of replication initiation in Escherichia coli, which remains open despite of many classic and recent works. It leverages single-cell mRNA-FISH experiments in strains with titratable DnaA and novel DnaA activity reporters to monitor DNA activity peaks versus size. The authors find oscillations in DnaA activity and show that their peaks correlate well with the estimated population-average replication initiation volume across conditions and imposed dnaA transcription levels. The study also proposes a novel and interesting extrusion model where DNA-binding proteins regulate free DnaA availability in response to biomass-DNA imbalance. Experimental perturbations of H-NS support the model validity, addressing key gaps in current replication control frameworks.

Strengths:

I find the study interesting and well conducted, and I think its main strong points are (i) the novel reporters obtained with systematic synthetic biology methods, and combined with a titratable dnaA strain, (ii) the interesting perturbations (titration, production arrest and H-NS) and (iii) the use of single-cell mRNA FISH to monitor transcripts directly. The proposed extrusion model is also interesting, though not fully validated, and I think it will contribute positively to the future debate.

Weaknesses and Limitations

A relevant limitation in novelty is that DnaA activity and concentration oscillations have been reported by the cited Iuliani and coworkers previously by dynamic microscopy, and to a smaller extent by the other cited study by Pountain and coworkers using mRNA FISH.

An important limitation is that the study is not dynamic. While monitoring mRNA is interesting and relevant, the current study is based on concentrations and not time variations (or nascent mRNA). Conversely, the study by Iuliani and coworkers, while having the drawback of monitoring proteins it can access directly production rates. It would be interesting for future studies to monitor the strains and reporters dynamically, as well as using (as a control) the technique of this study on the chromosomal reporters used by Iuliani et al.

While the implemented code is made available and the parameter values are given in the text, important details are missing regarding the mathematical models (mathematical definitions, clear discussions of ingredients and main assumptions, and choices made in the deployment of such models, which are presented briefly in the Methods section). The reader is not given sufficient tools to understand the predictions of different models and no analytical estimates are used and the falsification procedures are not clear. More transparency and depth in the analysis would be needed to use the models as more than a heuristic tool for qualitative arguments. The Berger model for example has many parameters and many regimes and behaviors. When models are compared to data (e.g. in fig. 2G) it is not clear how parameters were fixed, and whether and how the model prediction depends on adjustable parameters.

Importantly, the statement about tight correlations of peak volumes and average estimated initiation volume does not establish coincidence. Crucially, the data rely on average initiation volumes, and the estimate procedure relies on assumptions that could lead to systematic biases and uncertainties added to the population variability (in any case error bars are not provided).

The delays observed by the authors (in both directions) between the peaks of DnaA-activity conditional averages with respect to volume and the average estimated initiation volumes are not incompatible with those observed dynamically by Iuliani and coworkers. The direct experiment to prove the authors' point would be to use a direct proxy of replication initiation such as SeqA or DnaN and monitor initiations and quantify DnaA activity peaks jointly, with dynamic measurements.

While not being an expert I had the doubt that the fact that the reporters are on plasmid (despite a normalization control that seems very sensible) might affect the measurements. The approach is different from the aforementioned previous study, which used a chromosomal reporter placed symmetrically, at the same distance from the origin of replication as the original dnaA promoter.

Overall Appraisal:

In summary, this appears to me as a very interesting study providing valuable high-precision data and a novel testable hypothesis, the extrusion model, supported by relevant perturbation experiments and open to future explorations.

Comments on revisions:

I am happy with the replies and the revisions.

The main outstanding point remains that reconstructing the mathematical model details from the text (and having to rely on the code) is not optimal for a reader. However, I do understand that the authors intend to use the models as a heuristic tool only and possibly plan a theoretical study where they explore the models more systematically.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors show that in E. coli the initiator protein DnaA oscillates post-translationally: its activity rises and peaks exactly when DNA replication begins, even if dnaA transcription is held constant. To explain this, they propose an "extrusion" mechanism in which nucleoid-associated proteins such as H-NS, whose amount grows with cell volume, dislodge DnaA from chromosomal binding sites; modelling and H-NS perturbations reproduce the observed drop in initiation mass and extra initiations seen after dnaA shut-down. Together, the data and model link biomass growth to replication timing through chromosome-driven, post-translational control of DnaA, filling gaps left by classic titration and ATP/ADP-switch models.

Strengths:

(1) Introduces an "extrusion" model that adds a new post-translational layer to replication control and explains data unexplained by classic titration or ATP/ADP-switch frameworks.

(2) A major asset of the study is that it bridges the longstanding gap between DnaA oscillations and DNA-replication initiation, providing direct single-cell evidence that pulses of DnaA activity peak exactly at the moment of initiation across multiple growth conditions and genetic perturbations.

(3) A tunable dnaA strain and targeted H-NS manipulations shift initiation mass exactly as the model predicts, giving model-driven validation across growth conditions.

(4) A purpose-built Psyn66 reporter combined with mRNA-FISH captures DnaA-activity pulses with cell-cycle resolution, providing direct, compelling data.

Weaknesses:

(1) What happens to the (C+D) period and initiation time as the dnaA mRNA level changes? This is not discussed in the text or figure and should be addressed.

(2) It is unclear what is meant by "relative dnaA mRNA level." Relative to what? Wild-type expression? Maximum expression? This should be explicitly defined.

(3) It would be helpful to provide some intuition for why an increase in dnaA mRNA level leads to a decrease in initiation mass per ori and an increase in oriC copy number.

(4) The titration and switch models do not explicitly include dnaA mRNA in the dynamics of DnaA protein. Yet, in Figure 2G, initiation mass is shown to decrease linearly with dnaA mRNA level in these models. How was dnaA mRNA level represented or approximated in these simulations?

(5) Is Schaechter's law (i.e., exponential scaling of average cell size with growth rate) still valid under the different dnaA mRNA expression conditions tested?

(6) The manuscript should explain more explicitly how the extrusion model implements post-translational control of DnaA and, in particular, how this yields the nonlinear drop in relative initiation mass versus dnaA mRNA seen in Fig. 6E. Please provide the governing equation that links total DnaA, the volume-dependent "extruder" pool, and the threshold of free DnaA at initiation, and show-briefly but quantitatively-how this equation produces the observed concave curve.

(7) Does this Extrusion model give well well-known adder per origin, i.e., initiation to initiation is an adder.

(8) DnaA protein or activity is never measured; mRNA is treated as a linear proxy. Yet the authors' own narrative stresses post-translational (not transcriptional) control of DnaA. Without parallel immunoblots or activity readouts, it is impossible to know whether a six-fold mRNA increase truly yields a proportional rise in active DnaA.

(9) Figure 2 infers both initiation mass and oriC copy number from bulk measurements (OD₆₀₀ per cell and rifampicin-cephalexin run-out) instead of measuring them directly in single cells. Any DnaA-dependent changes in cell size, shape, or antibiotic permeability could skew these bulk proxies, so the plotted relationships may not accurately reflect true initiation events.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed all of my previous concerns, questions, and suggestions sufficiently.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Although consanguinity is a rare clinical occurrence, it results in essentially a failure state for pedigree analysis algorithms by introducing loops that prevent accurate risk estimation. Therefore, Kubista et al. developed the graph-based "breakloops" function to allow their PanelPRO risk estimator (PMID 34406119) to successfully process consanguineous pedigrees.

Strengths:

This function allows them to first identify a loop in a pedigree, then decide which of two separate algorithms to best apply, Prim's or greedy, to optimize the introduction of clones to break these loops. As this function is automatic, it represents an improvement over previous similar algorithms, and also allows for the optimal algorithm to be chosen. The inclusion of pseudocode in the manuscripts provides a succinct summary of the logic behind the above: it greatly enhances the understanding of the function for those not necessarily computationally inclined.

After simulating a variety of consanguineous possibilities, the authors leveraged clinical pedigree data to validate their function. Integration of clinical pedigrees was extremely helpful in demonstrating the real-life applicability of this update. The successful inclusion of these clinical data justifies the claims they make regarding the ability to assess cancer risk in a wider range of family structures.

Weaknesses:

As consanguinity is inextricably linked with autosomal recessive disease, the discussion on the clinical implications of this new function is lacking.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper introduces a new function within the Fam3Pro package that addresses the problem of breaking loops in family structures. When a loop is present, standard genotype peeling algorithms fail, as they cannot update genotypes correctly. The solution is to break these loops, but until now, this could not be done automatically and optimally.

The manuscript provides useful background on constructing graphs and trees from family data, detecting loops, and determining how to break them optimally for the case of no loops with multiple matings. For this situation, the algorithm switches between Prim's algorithm and a simple greedy approach and provides a solution. However, here, an optimal solution is not guaranteed.

The theoretical foundations-such as the representation of families as graphs or trees and the identification of loops-are clearly explained and well-illustrated with example pedigrees. The practical utility of the new function is demonstrated by applying it to a dataset containing families with loops.

This work has the potential for considerable impact, especially for medical researchers and individuals from families with loops. These families could previously not be analysed automatically and optimally. The new function changes that, enabling risk assessments and genetic calculations that were previously infeasible.

Strengths:

(1) The theoretical explanation of graphs, trees, and loop detection is clear and well-structured.

(2) The idea of switching between algorithms is original and appears effective.

(3) The function is well implemented, with minimal additional computational cost.

Weaknesses:

(1) In cases with multiple matings, the notion of a "close-to-optimal" solution is not clearly defined. It would be helpful to explain what this means-whether it refers to empirical performance, theoretical bounds, or something else.

(2) In the example pedigree discussed, multiple options exist for breaking loops, but it is unclear which is optimal.

(3) No example is provided where the optimal solution is demonstrably not reached.

(4) It is also unclear whether the software provides a warning when the solution might not be optimal.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper reports an interesting and clever task which allows the joint measurement of both perceptual judgments and confidence (or subjective motion strength) in real / continuous time. The task is used together with a social condition to identify the (incidental, task-irrelevant) impact of another player on decision-making and confidence. The paper is well-written and clear.

Strengths:

The innovation on the task alone is likely to be impactful for the field, extending recent continuous report (CPR) tasks to examine other aspects of perceptual decision-making and allowing more naturalistic readouts. One interesting and novel finding is the observation of dyadic convergence of confidence estimates even when the partner is incidental to the task performance, and that dyads tend to be more risk-seeking (indicating greater confidence) than when playing solo.

One concern with the novel task is whether confidence is disambiguated from a tracking of stimulus strength or coherence. The subjects' task is to track motion direction and use the eccentricity of the joystick to control the arc of a catcher - thus implementing a real-time sensitivity to risk (peri-decision wagering). The variable-width catcher has been used to good effect in other confidence/uncertainty tasks involving learning of the spread of targets (the Nassar papers). But in the context of an RDK task, one simple strategy here is to map eccentricity directly to (subjective) motion coherence - such that the joystick position at any moment in time is a vector with motion direction and strength. The revised version of the paper now includes a comprehensive analysis of the extent to which the metacognitive aspect of the task (the joystick eccentricity) tracks stimulus features such as motion coherence. The finding of a lagged relationship between task accuracy and eccentricity in conjunction with a relative lack of instantaneous relationships with coherence fluctuations, convincingly strengthens the inference that this component of the joystick response is metacognitive in nature, and dynamically tracking changes in performance. This importantly rebuts a more deflationary framing of the metacognitive judgment, in which what the subjects might be doing is tracking two features of the world - instantaneous motion strength and direction.

The claim that the novel task is tracking confidence is also supported by new analyses showing classic statistical features of explicit confidence judgments (scaling with aggregate accuracy, and tracking psychometric function slope) are obtained with the joystick eccentricity measure.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Schneider et al examine perceptual decision-making in a continuous task setup when social information is also provided to another human (or algorithmic) partner. The authors track behaviour in a visual motion discrimination task and report accuracy, hit rate, wager, and reaction times, demonstrating that choice wager is affected by social information from the partner.

Strengths:

There are many things to like about this paper. The visual psychophysics has been undertaken with much expertise and care to detail. The reporting is meticulous and the coverage of the recent previous literature is reasonable. The research question is novel.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed my suggestions adequately

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This work provides a new Python toolkit for combining generative modeling of neural dynamics and inversion methods to infer likely model parameters that explain empirical neuroimaging data. The authors provided tests to show the toolkit's broad applicability, accuracy, and robustness; hence, it will be very useful for people interested in using computational approaches to better understand the brain.

Strengths:

The work's primary strength is the tool's integrative nature, which seamlessly combines forward modelling with backward inference. This is important as available tools in the literature can only do one and not the other, which limits their accessibility to neuroscientists with limited computational expertise. Another strength of the paper is the demonstration of how the tool can be applied to a broad range of computational models popularly used in the field to interrogate diverse neuroimaging data, ensuring that the methodology is not optimal to only one model. Moreover, through extensive in-silico testing, the work provided evidence that the tool can accurately infer ground-truth parameters even in the presence of noise, which is important to ensure results from future hypothesis testing are meaningful.

Weaknesses

The paper still lacks appropriate quantitative benchmarking relative to other inference tools, especially with respect to performance accuracy and computational complexity and efficiency. Without this benchmarking, it is difficult to fully comprehend the power of the software or its ability to be extended to contexts beyond large-scale computational brain modelling.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Whole-brain network modeling is a common type of dynamical systems-based method to create individualized models of brain activity incorporating subject-specific structural connectome inferred from diffusion imaging data. This type of model has often been used to infer biophysical parameters of the individual brain that cannot be directly measured using neuroimaging but may be relevant to specific cognitive functions or diseases. Here, Ziaeemehr et al introduce a new toolkit, named "Virtual Brain Inference" (VBI), offering a new computational approach for estimating these parameters using Bayesian inference powered by artificial neural networks. The basic idea is to use simulated data, given known parameters, to train artificial neural networks to solve the inverse problem, namely, to infer the posterior distribution over the parameter space given data-derived features. The authors have demonstrated the utility of the toolkit using simulated data from several commonly used whole-brain network models in case studies.

Strength:

Model inversion is an important problem in whole-brain network modeling. The toolkit presents a significant methodological step up from common practices, with the potential to broadly impact how the community infers model parameters.

Notably, the method allows the estimation of the posterior distribution of parameters instead of a point estimation, which provides information about the uncertainty of the estimation, which is generally lacking in existing methods.

The case studies were able to demonstrate the detection of degeneracy in the parameters, which is important. Degeneracy is quite common in this type of models. If not handled mindfully, they may lead to spurious or stable parameter estimation. Thus, the toolkit can potentially be used to improve feature selection or to simply indicate the uncertainty.

In principle, the posterior distribution can be directly computed given new data without doing any additional simulation, which could improve the efficiency of parameter inference on the artificial neural network is well-trained.

Weaknesses:

The z-scores used to measure prediction error are generally between 1-3, which seems quite large to me. It would give readers a better sense of the utility of the method if comparisons to simpler methods, such as k-nearest neighbor methods, are provided in terms of accuracy.

A lot of simulations are required to train the posterior estimator, which is computationally more expensive than existing approaches. Inferring from Figure S1, at the required order of magnitudes of the number of simulations, the simulation time could range from days to years, depending on the hardware. The payoff is that once the estimator is well-trained, the parameter inversion will be very fast given new data. However, it is not clear to me how often such use cases would be encountered. It would be very helpful if the authors could provide a few more concrete examples of using trained models for hypothesis testing, e.g., in various disease conditions.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In recent years, our understanding of the nuclear steps of the HIV-1 life cycle has made significant advances. It has emerged that HIV-1 completes reverse transcription in the nucleus and that the host factor CPSF6 forms condensates around the viral capsid. The precise function of these CPSF6 condensates is under investigation, but it is clear that the HIV-1 capsid protein is required for their formation. This study by Tomasini et al. investigates the genesis of the CPSF6 condensates induced by HIV-1 capsid, what other co-factors may be required and their relationship with nuclear speckels (NS). The authors show that disruption of the condensates by the drug PF74, added post-nuclear entry, blocks HIV-1 infection, which supports their functional role. They generated CPSF6 KO THP-1 cell lines, in which they expressed exogenous CPSF6 constructs to map by microscopy and pull down assays the regions critical for the formation of condensates. This approach revealed that the LCR region of CPSF6 is required for capsid binding but not for condensates whereas the FG region is essential for both. Using SON and SRRM2 as markers of NS, the authors show that CPSF6 condensates precede their merging with NS but that depletion of SRRM2, or SRRM2 lacking the IDR domain, delays the genesis of condensates, which are also smaller.

The study is interesting and well conducted and defines some characteristics of the CPSF6-HIV-1 condensates. Their results on the NS are valuable. The data presented are convincing.

I have two main concerns.

Firstly, the functional outcome of the various protein mutants and KOs is not evaluated. Although Figure 1 shows that disruption of the CPSF6 puncta by PF74 impairs HIV-1 infection, it is not clear if HIV-1 infection is at all affected by expression of the mutant CPSF6 forms (and SRRM2 mutants), or KO/KD of the various host factors. The cell lines are available, and so it should be possible to measure HIV-1 infection and reverse transcription. Secondly, the authors have not assessed if the effects observed on the NS impact HIV-1 gene expression, which would be interesting to know given that NS are sites of highly active gene transcription. With the reagents at hand, it should be possible to investigate this too.

Comments on revisions:

The revised version of this paper addresses my concerns.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

HIV-1 infection induces CPSF6 aggregates in the nucleus that contain the viral protein CA. The study of the functions and composition of these nuclear aggregates have raised considerable interest in the field, and they have emerged as sites in which reverse transcription is completed and in the proximity of which viral DNA becomes integrated. In this work, the authors have mutated several regions of the CPSF6 protein to identify the domains important for nuclear aggregation, in addition to the already-known FG-region; they have characterized the kinetics of fusion between CPSF6 aggregates and SC35 nuclear speckles and have determined the role of two nuclear speckle components in this process (SRRM2, SUN2).

Strengths:

The work examines systematically the domains of CPSF6 of importance for nuclear aggregate formation in an elegant manner in which these mutants complement an otherwise CPSF6-KO cell line. In addition, this work evidences a novel role for the protein SRRM2 in HIV-induced aggregate formation, overall advancing our comprehension of the components required for their formation and regulation.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

In this study, the authors investigate the requirements for the formation of CPSF6 puncta induced by HIV-1 under a high multiplicity of infection conditions. Not surprisingly, they observe that mutation of the Phe-Gly (FG) repeat responsible for CPSF6 binding to the incoming HIV-1 capsid abrogates CPSF6 punctum formation. Perhaps more interestingly, they show that the removal of other domains of CPSF6, including the mixed-charge domain (MCD), does not affect the formation of HIV-1-induced CPSF6 puncta. The authors also present data suggesting that CPSF6 puncta form individual before fusing with nuclear speckles (NSs) and that the fusion of CPSF6 puncta to NSs requires the intrinsically disordered region (IDR) of the NS component SRRM2. While the study presents some interesting findings, there are some technical issues that need to be addressed and the amount of new information is somewhat limited. Also, the authors' finding that deletion of the CPSF6 MCD does not affect the formation of HIV-1-induced CPSF6 puncta contradicts recent findings of Jang et al. (https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkae769).

Comments on revisions:

The authors have generally addressed my comments.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Zhu and colleagues used high-density Neuropixel probes to perform laminar recordings in V1 while presenting either small stimuli that stimulated the classical receptive field (CRF) or large stimuli whose border straddled the RF to provide nonclassical RF (nCRF) stimulation. Their main question was to understand the relative contribution of feedforward (FF), feedback (FB), and horizontal circuits to border ownership (B_own ), which they addressed by measuring cross-correlation across layers. They found differences in cross-correlation between feedback/horizontal (FH) and input layers during CRF and nCRF stimulation.

Comments on revisions:

In the revision, the authors have added a paragraph in the Discussion to address the question of layers 2/3 neurons leading layer 4 neurons, and have provided answers to the questions in the public review without making substantial changes in the paper. However, there were several other recommendations, which I am not sure why were not considered. I am adding those again below.

* For CRF stimulation, the zero lag between 4C and 4A/B with layer 5/6 (Figure 3D last two columns on the right) was surprising to me. I just felt that this could be because layer 6 may also be getting FF inputs. Perhaps better not to club layer 5 with 6, as mentioned earlier also.

* Interpreting the nCRF delays, with often negative delays, was very challenging for me. For example, 4C -> 5/6 (third column in Figure 3) has a significantly negative peak (although that does not show up in statistical analysis because it seems to be a signed test to just test if the median was greater than zero, not if the median was different from zero; line 285). What is the interpretation here? Are spikes in 5/6 causing spikes in 4C (which, as mentioned earlier, would require anatomical projections from 5/6 to 4C)? On the other hand, if FB inputs arrive in 5/6 but there are no inputs going to 4C, then why should there even be a significant cross-correlation?

The only explanation I could think of is somehow an alignment of inputs in these two layers such that FH inputs come in Layer 5/6 just before FF inputs arrive in 4C, each causing a spike in a neuron in each layer which are otherwise not anatomically interconnected. But this would require both a very precise temporal coupling between FF and FH inputs arriving in these areas AND neurons in layer 5/6 which very strongly respond to FH stimulation (I thought that FH inputs are mainly modulatory and not as strong). Anyway, it would be good to see some cross correlation functions which have a negative lag (all examples in Fig 3B has positive or zero lag).

* I think cross-correlation analysis would have been useful if there was data from a feedback area (say V2). In its absence, perhaps latency analysis (by just comparing the PSTH) could have revealed something interesting, given that the hypothesis is about differences in the timings in FH versus FF inputs. Do PSTHs across layers show the type of differences that are being claimed (e.g. in line 295-297)?

* Line 262-63: "Notably, the rates were nearly identical under the two stimulus conditions" - I would have thought CRF stimulation would produce higher rates. Can the authors explain this?

* Line 174-175: Isn't the proportion of border ownership cells in layer 4C higher than one would expect under the assumption that nCRF effects are mediated by horizontal and feedback connections which layer 4C does not receive? Can authors explain?

* Figure 3D: it would also be good to show the heatmaps stacked up in the increasing order of the interelectrode distance of the pairs so that it will be easy to see how the peak lag changes with distance as well.

* It will be good to show the shift in peak lag and CCG asymmetry between CRF and nCRF conditions for the same pairs, using a violin or bar plot with lines connecting each pair in Figure 3.

* Line 594, 603, 628 and 630: What procedure was used to determine the size, location of the CRF, and optimal orientation manually online?

* Line 733-734: Although a reference is cited, please explicitly mention the rationale for keeping the peak lag cutoff at 10 ms.

* It is unclear why a grating was used for the CRF condition, instead of just having the portion of the stimulus within the RF for the nCRF condition, as the comparisons for FHi with FF are with different FF drives in each case.

* Figure 5 - the scatter is enormous, can you please provide the R2 values?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors present a study of how modulatory activity from outside the classical receptive field (cRF) differs from cRF stimulation. They study neural activity across the different layers of V1 in two anesthetized monkeys using Neuropixels probes. The monkeys are presented with drifting gratings and border-ownership tuning stimuli. They find that border-ownership tuning is organized into columns within V1, which is unexpected and exciting, and that the flow of activity from cell-to-cell (as judged by cross-correlograms between single units) is influenced by the type of visual stimulus: border-ownership tuning stimuli vs. drifting-grating stimuli.

Strengths:

The questions addressed by the study are of high interest, and the use of Neuropixels probes yields extremely high numbers of single-units and cross-correlation histograms (CCHs) which makes the results robust. The study is well-described.

Comments on revisions:

The results are interesting and seem robust. However, several of my main points were not addressed. The authors do not analyze or discuss the problem the border ownership stimuli do uniquely isolate feedback from feedforward influences. Here are my remaining points/recommendations:

(1) In my previous review I indicated that the border-ownership signal also provides a strong feedforward drive, a black-white edge, in addition to the border ownership signal. Calling this a "nCRF stimulus" is a misnomer. Please correct this terminology and replace it by something that is appropriate, e.g. changing it into "grating stimulation" (instead of CRF stimulation) and BO-stimulation (instead of nCRF stimulation).

(2) In my previous review I asked if the initial response for the border ownership stimulus show the feedforward signature. It is unclear to me why this suggestions did not lead to an analysis of the feedforward response. I repeat the text from my previous review: "The authors state that they did not look at cross-correlations during the initial response, but if they do, do they see the feedforward-dominated pattern? The jitter CCH analysis might suffice in correcting for the response transient." Can the authors address this point?

(3) In my previous review I asked the authors show the average time course of the response elicited by preferred and nonpreferred border ownership stimuli across all significant neurons. It remains unclear why this plot was not provided.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The paper by Zhu et al is on an important topic in visual neuroscience, the emergence in the visual cortex of signals about figure and ground. This topic also goes by the name border ownership. The paper utilizes modern recording techniques very skillfully to extend what is known about border ownership. It offers new evidence about the prevalence of border ownership signals across different cortical layers in V1 cortex. Also, it uses pairwise cross correlation to study signal flow under different conditions of visual stimulation that include the border ownership paradigm.

Strengths: The paper's strengths are results of its use of multi-electrode probes to study border ownership in many neurons simultaneously across the cortical layers in V1. Also it provides new useful data about the dynamics of interaction of signals from the non-classical receptive field (NCRF) and the Classical receptive field (CRF).

Weaknesses:

The paper's weakness is that it does not challenge consensus beliefs about mechanisms. Also, the paper combines data about border ownership with data about the NCRF without making it clear how they are similar or different.

Critique:

The border ownership data on V1 offered in the paper replicate experimental results obtained by Zhou and von der Heydt (2000) and confirm the earlier results. The incremental addition is that the authors found border ownership in all cortical layers of V1, extending Zhou and von der Heydt's results that were only about layer 2/3 in V2 cortex. This is an interesting new result using the same stimuli but new measurement techniques.

The cross-correlation results show that the pattern of the cross correlogram (CCG) is influenced by the visual pattern being presented. However, in the initial submitted ms. the results were not analyzed mechanistically, and the interpretation was unclear. For instance, the authors show in Figure 3 (and in Figure S2) that the peak of the CCG can indicate layer 2/3 excites layer 4C when the visual stimulus is the border ownership test pattern, a large square 8 deg on a side. More than one reviewer asked, " how can layer 2/3 excite layer 4C"? . In the revised ms. the authors added a paragraph to the Discussion to respond to the reviewers about this point. The authors could provide an even better response to the reviewers by emphasizing that, consistently, layer 5/6 neurons lead neurons in layer 4, and for the CRF pattern and even more when the NCRF patterns are used.

The problems in understanding the CCG data are indirectly caused by the lack of a critical analysis of what is happening in the responses that reveal the border ownership signals, as in Fig.2. Let's put it bluntly--are border ownership signals excitatory or inhibitory? As the authors pointed out in their rebuttal, Zhang and von der Heydt (2010, JNS) did experiments to answer this question but I do not agree with the authors rebuttal letter about what Zhang and von der Heydt (2010) reported. If you examine Zhang and von der Heydt's Figure 6, you see that the major effect of stimulating border ownership neurons is suppression from the non-preferred side. That result is consistent with many papers on the NCRF (many cited by the authors) that indicate that it is mostly suppressive. That experimental fact about border ownership should be mentioned in the present paper.

What I should have pointed out in the first round, but didn't understand it then, is that there is a disconnect between the the border ownership laminar analysis (Figure 2) and the laminar correlations with CCGs (Figures 3-5) because the CCGs are not limited to border ownership neurons (or at least we are not told they were limited to them). So the CCG results are not mostly about border ownership--they are about the difference between signal flow in responses to small drifting Gabor patterns vs big flashed squares. Since only 21% of all recorded neurons were border ownership neurons, it is likely that most of the CCG statistics is based on neurons that do not show border ownership. Nevertheless, Figures 3 and 4 are very useful for the study of signal flow in the NCRF. It wasn't clear to me and I think the authors could make it clearer what those figures are about.<br /> And I wonder if it might be possible to make a stronger link with border ownership by restricting the CCG analysis to pairs of neurons in which one neuron is a border ownership neuron. Are there enough data?

My critique of the CCG analysis applies to Figure 5 also. That figure shows a weak correlation of CCG asymmetry with Border Ownership Index. Perhaps a stronger correlation might be present if the population were restricted to the much smaller population of neuron pairs that had at least one border ownership neuron.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors describe a new computational method (SegPore), which segments the raw signal from nanopore direct RNA-Seq data to improve the identification of RNA modifications. In addition to signal segmentation, SegPore includes a Gaussian Mixture Model approach to differentiate modified and unmodified bases. SegPore uses Nanopolish to define a first segmentation, which is then refined into base and transition blocks. SegPore also includes a modification prediction model that is included in the output. The authors evaluate the segmentation in comparison to Nanopolish and Tombo (RNA002) as well as f5c and Uncalled 4 (RNA004), and they evaluate the impact on m6A RNA modification detection using data with known m6A sites. In comparison to existing methods, SegPore appears to improve the ability to detect m6A, suggesting that this approach could be used to improve the analysis of direct RNA-Seq data.

Strengths:

SegPore address an important problem (signal data segmentation). By refining the signal into transition and base blocks, noise appears to be reduced, leading to improved m6A identification at the site level as well as for single read predictions. The authors provide a fully documented implementation, including a GPU version that reduces run time. The authors provide a detailed methods description, and the approach to refine segments appears to be new.

Weaknesses:

The authors show that SegPore reduces noise compared to other methods, however the improvement in accuracy appears to be relatively small for the task of identifying m6A. To run SegPore, the GPU version is essential, which could limit the application of this method in practice.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The work seeks to improve detection of RNA m6A modifications using Nanopore sequencing through improvements in raw data analysis. These improvements are said to be in the segmentation of the raw data, although the work appears to position the alignment of raw data to the reference sequence and some further processing as part of the segmentation, and result statistics are mostly shown on the 'data-assigned-to-kmer' level.<br /> As such, the title, abstract and introduction stating the improvement of just the 'segmentation' does not seem to match the work the manuscript actually presents, as the wording seems a bit too limited for the work involved.<br /> The work itself shows minor improvements in m6Anet when replacing Nanopolish' eventalign with this new approach, but clear improvements in the distributions of data assigned per kmer. However, these assignments were improved well enough to enable m6A calling from them directly, both at site-level and at read-level.

A large part of the improvements shown appear to stem from the addition of extra, non-base/kmer specific, states in the segmentation/assignment of the raw data, removing a significant portion of what can be considered technical noise for further analysis. Previous methods enforced assignment of (almost) all raw data, forcing a technically optimal alignment that may lead to suboptimal results in downstream processing as datapoints could be assigned to neighbouring kmers instead, while random noise that is assigned to the correct kmer may also lead to errors in modification detection.

For an optimal alignment between the raw signal and the reference sequence, this approach may yield improvements for downstream processing using other tools.<br /> Additionally, the GMM used for calling the m6A modifications provides a useful, simple and understandable logic to explain the reason a modification was called, as opposed to the black models that are nowadays often employed for these types of tasks.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript suggests the eventalign results are improved compared to Nanopolish. While this is believably shown to be true (Table 1), the effect on the use case presented, downstream differentiation between modified and unmodified status on a base/kmer, is likely limited for during downstream modification calling the noisy distributions are often 'good enough'. E.g. Nanopolish uses the main segmentation+alignment for a first alignment and follows up with a form of targeted local realignment/HMM test for modification calling (and for training too), decreasing the need for the near-perfect segmentation+alignment this work attempts to provide. Any tool applying a similar strategy probably largely negates the problems this manuscript aims to improve upon. Should a use-case come up where this downstream optimisation is not an option, SegPore might provide the necessary improvements in raw data alignment.

Appraisal:

The authors have shown their methods ability to identify noise in the raw signal and remove their values from the segmentation and alignment, reducing its influences for further analyses. Figures directly comparing the values per kmer do show a visibly improved assignment of raw data per kmer. As a replacement for Nanopolish' eventalign it seems to have a rather limited, but improved effect, on m6Anet results. At the single read level modification modification calling this work does appear to improve upon CHEUI.

Impact:

With the current developments for Nanopore based modification calling largely focusing on Artificial Intelligence, Neural Networks and the likes, improvements made in interpretable approaches provide an important alternative that enables deeper understanding of the data rather than providing a tool that plainly answers the question of wether a base is modified or not, without further explanation. The work presented is best viewed in context of a workflow where one aims to get an optimal alignment between raw signal data and the reference base sequence for further processing. For example, as presented, as a possible replacement for Nanopolish' eventalign. Here it might enable data exploration and downstream modification calling without the need for local realignments or other approaches that re-consider the distribution of raw data around the target motif, such as a 'local' Hidden Markov Model or Neural Networks. These possibilities are useful for a deeper understanding of the data and further tool development for modification detection works beyond m6A calling.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Nucleotide modifications are important regulators of biological function, however, until recently, their study has been limited by the availability of appropriate analytical methods. Oxford Nanopore direct RNA sequencing preserves nucleotide modifications, permitting their study, however many different nucleotide modifications lack an available base-caller to accurately identify them. Furthermore, existing tools are computationally intensive, and their results can be difficult to interpret.

Cheng et al. present SegPore, a method designed to improve the segmentation of direct RNA sequencing data and boost the accuracy of modified base detection.

Strengths:

This method is well described and has been benchmarked against a range of publicly available base callers that have been designed to detect modified nucleotides.

Weaknesses:

However, the manuscript has a significant drawback in its current version. The most recent nanopore RNA base callers can distinguish between different ribonucleotide modifications, however, SegPore has not been benchmarked against these models.

The manuscript would be strengthened by benchmarking against the rna004_130bps_hac@v5.1.0 and rna004_130bps_sup@v5.1.0 dorado models, which are reported to detect m5C, m6A_DRACH, inosine_m6A and PseU.

A clear demonstration that SegPore also outperforms the newer RNA base caller models will confirm the utility of this method.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors attempted to clarify the impact of N protein mutations on ribonucleoprotein (RNP) assembly and stability using analytical ultracentrifugation (AUC) and mass photometry (MP). These complementary approaches provide a more comprehensive understanding of the underlying processes. Both SV-AUC and MP results consistently showed enhanced RNP assembly and stability due to N protein mutations.

The overall research design appears well planned, and the experiments were carefully executed.

Strengths:

SV-AUC, performed at higher concentrations (3 µM), captured the hydrodynamic properties of bulk assembled complexes, while MP provided crucial information on dissociation rates and complex lifetimes at nanomolar concentrations. Together, the methods offered detailed insights into association states and dissociation kinetics across a broad concentration range. This represents a thorough application of solution physicochemistry.

Weaknesses:

Unlike AUC, MP observes only a part of the solution. In MP, bound molecules are accumulated on the glass surface (not dissociated), thus the concentration in solution should change as time develops. How does such concentration change impact the result shown here?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors apply a variety of biophysical and computational techniques to characterize the effects of mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 N protein on the formation of ribonucleoprotein particles (RNPs). They find convergent evolution in multiple repeated independent mutations strengthening binding interfaces, compensating for other mutations that reduce RNP stability but which enhance viral replication.

Strengths:

The authors assay the effects of a variety of mutations found in SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern using a variety of approaches, including biophysical characterization of assembly properties of RNPs, combined with computational prediction of the effects of mutations on molecular structures and interactions. The findings of the paper contribute to our increasing understanding of the principles driving viral self-assembly, and increase the foundation for potential future design of therapeutics such as assembly inhibitors.

Weaknesses:

For the most part, the paper is well-written, the data presented support the claims made, and the arguments are easy to follow. However, I believe that parts of the presentation could be substantially improved. I found portions of the text to be overly long and verbose and likely could be substantially edited; the use of acronyms and initialisms is pervasive, making parts of the exposition laborious to follow; and portions of the figures are too small and difficult to read/understand.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript investigates how mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein (N) alter ribonucleoprotein (RNP) assembly, stability, and viral fitness. The authors focus on mutations such as P13L, G214C, and G215C, combining biophysical assays (SV-AUC, mass photometry, CD spectroscopy, EM), VLP formation, and reverse genetics. They propose that SARS-CoV-2 exploits "fuzzy complex" principles, where distributed weak interfaces in disordered regions allow both stability and plasticity, with measurable consequences for viral replication.

Strengths:

(1) The paper demonstrates a comprehensive integration of structural biophysics, peptide/protein assays, VLP systems, and reverse genetics.

(2) Identification of both de novo (P13L) and stabilizing (G214C/G215C) interfaces provides a mechanistic insight into RNP formation.

(3) Strong application of the "fuzzy complex" framework to viral assembly, showing how weak/disordered interactions support evolvability, is a significant conceptual advance in viral capsid assembly.

(4) Overall, the study provides a mechanistic context for mutations that have arisen in major SARS-CoV-2 variants (Omicron, Delta, Lambda) and a mechanistic basis for how mutations influence phenotype via altered biomolecular interactions.

Weaknesses:

(1) The arrangement of N dimers around LRS helices is presented in Figure 1C, but the text concedes that "the arrangement sketched in Figure 1C is not unique" (lines 144-146) and that AF3 modeling attempts yielded "only inconsistent results" (line 149).<br /> The authors should therefore present the models more cautiously as hypotheses instead. Additional alternative arrangements should be included in the Supplementary Information, so the readers do not over-interpret a single schematic model.

(2) Negative-stained EM fibrils (Figure 2A) and CD spectra (Figure 2B) are presented to argue that P13L promotes β-sheet self-association. However, the claim could benefit from more orthogonal validation of β-sheet self-association. Additional confirmation via FTIR spectra or ThT fluorescence could be used to further distinguish structured β-sheets from amorphous aggregation.

(3) In the main text, the authors alternate between emphasizing non-covalent effects ("a major effect of the cysteines already arises in reduced conditions without any covalent bonds," line 576) and highlighting "oxidized tetrameric N-proteins of N:G214C and N:G215C can be incorporated into RNPs". Therefore, the biological relevance of disulfide redox chemistry in viral assembly in vivo remains unclear. Discussing cellular redox plausibility and whether the authors' oxidizing conditions are meant as a mechanistic stress test rather than physiological mimicry could improve the interpretation of these results.

The paper could benefit if the authors provide a summary figure or table contrasting reduced vs. oxidized conditions for G214C/G215C mutants (self-association, oligomerization state, RNP stability). Explicitly discuss whether disulfides are likely to form in infected cells.

(4) VLP assays (Figure 7) show little enhancement for P13L or G215C alone, whereas Figure 8 shows that P13L provides clear fitness advantages. This discrepancy is acknowledged but not reconciled with any mechanistic or systematic rationale. The authors should consider emphasizing the limitations of VLP assays and the sources of the discrepancy with respect to Figure 8.

(5) Figures 5 and 6 are dense, and the several overlays make it hard to read. The authors should consider picking the most extreme results to make a point in the main Figure 5 and move the other overlays to the Supplementary. Additionally, annotating MP peaks directly with "2×, 4×, 6× subunits" can help non-experts.

(6) The paper has several names and shorthand notations for the mutants, making it hard to keep up. The authors could include a table that contains mutation keys, with each shorthand (Ancestral, Nο/No, Nλ, etc.) mapped onto exact N mutations (P13L, Δ31-33, R203K/G204R, G214C/G215C, etc.). They could then use the same glyphs (Latin vs Greek) consistently in text and figure labels.

(7) The EM fibrils (Figure 2A) and CD spectra (Figure 2B) were collected at mM peptide concentrations. These are far above physiological levels and may encourage non-specific aggregation. Similarly, the authors mention" ultra-weak binding energies that require mM concentrations to significantly populate oligomers". On the other hand, the experiments with full-length protein were performed at concentrations closer to biologically relevant concentrations in the micromolar range. While I appreciate the need to work at high concentrations to detect weak interactions, this raises questions about physiological relevance. Specifically:

a) Could some of the fibril/β-sheet features attributed to P13L (Figure 2A-C) reflect non-specific aggregation at high concentrations rather than bona fide self-association motifs that could play out in biologically relevant scenarios?

b) How do the authors justify extrapolating from the mM-range peptide behaviors to the crowded but far lower effective concentrations in cells?

The authors should consider adding a dedicated section (either in Methods or Discussion) justifying the use of high concentrations, with estimation of local concentrations in RNPs and how they compare to the in vitro ranges used here. For concentration-dependent phenomena discussed here, it is vital to ensure that the findings are not artefacts of non-physiological peptide aggregation..

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

As presented in this short report, the focus is to only establish that acetohydroxyacid synthase II can have underground activity to generate 2-ketobutyrate (from glyoxylate and pyruvate). Additionally, the gene that encodes this protein has an inactivating point mutation in the lab strain of E. coli. In strains lacking the conventional Ile biosynthesis pathway, this enzyme gets reactivated (after short-term laboratory evolution) and putatively can contribute to producing sufficient 2-ketobutyrate, which can feed into Ile production. This is clearly a very interesting observation and finding, and the paper focuses on this single point.

However, the manuscript as it currently stands is 'minimal', and just barely shows that this reaction/pathway is feasible. There is no characterization of the restored enzyme's activity, rate, or specificity. Additionally, there is no data presented on how much isoleucine can be produced, even at saturating concentrations of glyoxylate or pyruvate. This would greatly benefit from more rigorous characterization of this enzyme's activity and function, as well as better demonstration of how effective this pathway is in generating 2-ketobutyrate (and then its subsequent condensation with pyruvate).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Rainaldi et al. reports a new sub-pathway for isoleucine biosynthesis by demonstrating the promiscuous activity of the native enzyme acetohydroxyacid synthase II (AHAS II). AHAS-II is primarily known to catalyze the condensation of 2-ketobutyrate (2KB) with pyruvate to form a further downstream intermediate, AHB, in the isoleucine biosynthesis pathway. However, the catalysis of pyruvate and glyoxylate condensation to produce 2KB via the ilvG encoded AHAS II is reported in this manuscript for the first time.

Using an isoleucine/2KB auxotrophic E. coli strain, the authors report (i) repair of the inactivating frameshift mutation in the ilvG gene, which encodes AHAS-II, supports growth in glyoxylate-supplemented media, (ii) the promiscuity of AHAS-II in glyoxylate and pyruvate condensation, resulting in the formation of isoleucin precursors (2-KB), aiding the biosynthesis of isoleucine, and (iii) comparable efficiency of the recursive AHAS-II route to the canonical routes of isoleucin biosynthesis via computational Flux-based analysis.

Strengths:

The authors have used laboratory evolution to uncover a non-canonical metabolic route. The metabolomics and FBA have been used to strengthen the claim.

Weaknesses:

While the manuscript proposes an interesting metabolic route for the isoleucine biosynthesis, the data lack key controls, biological replicates, and consistency. The figures and methods are presented inadequately. In the current state, the data fails to support the claims made in the manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study explored the biomechanics of kangaroo hopping across both speed and animal size to try and explain the unique and remarkable energetics of kangaroo locomotion.

Strengths:

Brings kangaroo locomotion biomechanics into the 21st century. Remarkably difficult project to accomplish. Excellent attention to detail. Clear writing and figures.

General Comments

This is a very impressive tour de force by an all-star collaborative team of researchers. The study represents a tremendous leap forward (pun intended) in terms of our understanding of kangaroo locomotion. Some might wonder why such an unusual species is of much interest. But, in my opinion, the classic study by Dawson and Taylor in 1973 of kangaroos launched the modern era of running biomechanics/energetics and applies to varying degrees to all animals that use bouncing gaits (running, trotting, galloping and of course hopping). The puzzling metabolic energetics findings of Dawson & Taylor (little if any increase in metabolic power despite increasing forward speed) remain a giant unsolved problem in comparative locomotor biomechanics and energetics. It is our "dark matter problem".

This study is certainly a hop towards solving the problem. The study clearly shows that the ankle and to a lesser extent the mtp joint are where the action is. They show in great detail by how much and by what means the ankle joint tendons experience increased stress at faster forward speeds. Since these were zoo animals, direct measures were not feasible, but the conclusion that the tendons are storing and returning more elastic energy per hop at faster speeds is solid. The conclusion that net muscle work per hop changes little from slow to fast forward speeds is also solid. Doing less muscle work can only be good if one is trying to minimize metabolic energy consumption. However, to achieve the greater tendon stresses, there must be greater muscle forces. Unless one is willing to reject the premise of the cost of generating force hypothesis, that is an important issue to confront. Further, the present data support the Kram & Dawson finding of decreased contact times at faster forward speeds. Kram & Taylor and subsequent applications of (and challenges to) their approach support the idea that shorter contact times (tc) require recruiting more expensive muscle fibers and hence greater metabolic costs. The present authors have clarified that this study has still not tied up the metabolic energetics across speed problem and they now point out how the group is now uniquely and enviably poised to explore the problem more using a dynamic SIMM model that incorporates muscle energetics.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This is a contribution to the field of developmental bioelectricity. How do changes of resting potential at the cell membrane affect downstream processes? Zhou et al. reported in 2015 that phosphatidylserine and K-Ras cluster upon plasma membrane depolarization and that voltage-dependent ERK activation occurs when constitutively active K-RasG12V mutants are overexpressed. In this paper, the authors advance the knowledge of this phenomenon by showing that membrane depolarization up-regulates mitosis and that this process is dependent on voltage-dependent activation of ERK. ERK activity's voltage-dependence is derived from changes in the dynamics of phosphatidylserine in the plasma membrane and not by extracellular calcium dynamics. This paper reports an interesting and important finding. It is somewhat derivative of Zhou et al., 2015 (https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aaa5619). The main novelty seems to be that they find quantitatively different conclusions upon conducting similar experiments, albeit with a different cell line (U2OS) than those used by Zhou et al. Sasaki et al. do show that increased K+ levels increase proliferation, which Zhou et al. did not look at. The data presented in this paper are a useful contribution to a field often lacking such data.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Sasaki et al. use a combination of live-cell biosensors and patch-clamp electrophysiology to investigate the effect of membrane potential on the ERK MAPK signaling pathway, and probe associated effects on proliferation. This is an effect that has long been proposed, but a convincing demonstration has remained elusive, because it is difficult to perturb membrane potential without disturbing other aspects of cell physiology in complex ways. The time-resolved measurements here are a nice contribution to this question, and the perforated patch clamp experiments with an ERK biosensor are fantastic - they come closer to addressing the above difficulty of perturbing voltage than any prior work. It would have been difficult to obtain these observations with any other combination of tools.

Comments on previous revisions:

The authors have done a good job addressing the comments on the previous submission.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper demonstrates that membrane depolarization induces a small increase in cell entry into mitosis. Based on previous work from another lab, the authors propose that ERK activation might be involved. They show convincingly using a combination of assays that ERK is activated by membrane depolarization. They show this is Ca2+ independent and is a result of activation of the whole K-Ras/ERK cascade which results from changed dynamics of phosphatidylserine in the plasma membrane that activates K-Ras. Although the activation of the Ras/ERK pathway by membrane depolarization is not new, linking it to an increase in cell proliferation is novel.

Strengths:

A major strength of the study is the use of different techniques - live imaging with ERK reporters, as well as Western blotting to demonstrate ERK activation as well as different methods for inducing membrane depolarization. They also use a number of different cell lines. Via Western blotting the authors are also able to show that the whole MAPK cascade is activated.

Weaknesses:

In the previous round of revisions, the authors addressed the issues with Figure 1, and the data presented are much clearer. The authors did also attempt to pinpoint when in the cell cycle ERK is having its activity, but unfortunately, this was not conclusive.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper presents results from four independent experiments, each of them testing for rhythmicity in auditory perception. The authors report rhythmic fluctuations in discrimination performance at frequencies between 2 and 6 Hz. The exact frequency depends on the ear and experimental paradigm, although some frequencies seem to be more common than others.

Strengths:

The first sentence in the abstract describes the state of the art perfectly: "Numerous studies advocate for a rhythmic mode of perception; however, the evidence in the context of auditory perception remains inconsistent". This is precisely why the data from the present study is so valuable. This is probably the study with the highest sample size (total of > 100 in 4 experiments) in the field. The analysis is very thorough and transparent, due to the comparison of several statistical approaches and simulations of their sensitivity. Each of the experiments differs from the others in a clearly defined experimental parameter, and the authors test how this impacts auditory rhythmicity, measured in pitch discrimination performance (accuracy, sensitivity, bias) of a target presented at various delays after noise onset.

Weaknesses:

The authors find that the frequency in auditory perception changes between experiments. Possible reasons for such differences are described, but they remain difficult to interpret, as it is unclear whether they merely reflect some natural variability (independent of experimental parameters) or are indeed driven by the specific experimental paradigm (and therefore replicable).

Therefore, it remains to be shown whether there is any systematic pattern in the results that allows conclusions about the roles of different frequencies.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The current study aims to shed light on why previous work on perceptual rhythmicity has led to inconsistent results. They propose that the differences may stem from conceptual and methodological issues. In a series of experiments, the current study reports perceptual rhythmicity in different frequency bands that differ between different ear stimulations and behavioral measures. The study suggests challenges regarding the idea of universal perceptual rhythmicity in hearing.

Strengths:

The study aims to address differences observed in previous studies about perceptual rhythmicity. This is important and timely because the existing literature provides quite inconsistent findings. Several experiments were conducted to assess perceptual rhythmicity in hearing from different angles. The authors use sophisticated approaches to address the research questions. The manuscript has greatly improved after the revision.

Weaknesses:

Additional variance: In several experiments, a fixation cross preceded - at a variable interval - the onset of the background noise that aimed to reset the phase of an ongoing oscillation. There is the chance that the fixation cross also resets the phase, potentially adding variance to the data. In addition, the authors used an adaptive procedure during the experimental blocks such that the stimulus intensity was adjusted throughout. There is good reason for doing so, but it means that correctly identified/discriminated targets will on average have a greater stimulus intensity. This may add variance to the data. These two aspects may potentially contribute to the observation of weak perceptual rhythmicity.

Figures: The text in Figures 4 and 6 is small. I think readers would benefit from a larger font size. Moreover, Figure 1A is not very intuitive. Perhaps it could be made clearer. The new Figure 5 was not discussed in the text. I wonder whether analyses with traditional t-tests could be placed in the supplements.

50% significant samples: The authors consider 50% of significant bootstrapped samples robust. For example: "This revealed that the above‐mentioned effects prevail for at least 50% of the simulated experiments, corroborating their robustness within the participant sample". Many of the effects have even lower than 50% of significant samples. It is a matter of opinion of what is robust or not, but I think combined with the overall variable nature of the effects in different frequency bands and ears etc. leaves more the impression that the effects are not very robust. I think the authors state it correctly in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the discussion: "At the same time the prevalence of significant effects in random samples of participants were mostly below 50%, raising questions as to the ubiquity of such effects." I think the authors should update the abstract in this regard to avoid that readers who only read the abstract get the wrong impression about the robustness of the effects. It is not clear to me if the same study (using the same conditions) was done in a different lab that the results would come out similarly to the results reported here.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The finding of rhythmic activity in the brain has for a long time engendered the theory of rhythmic modes of perception, that humans might oscillate between improved and worse perception depending on states of our internal systems. However, experiments looking for such modes have resulted in conflicting findings, particularly in those where the stimulus itself is not rhythmic. This paper seeks to take a comprehensive look at the effect and various experimental parameters which might generate these competing findings: in particular, the presentation of the stimulus to one ear or the other, the relevance of motor involvement, attentional demands, and memory: each of which are revealed to effect the consistency of this rhythmicity.

The need the paper attempts to resolve is a critical one for the field. However, as presented, I remain unconvinced that the data would not be better interpreted as showing no consistent rhythmic mode effect.

Strengths:

The paper is strong in its experimental protocol and its comprehensive analysis which seeks to compare effects across several analysis types and slight experiment changes to investigate which parameters could effect the presence or absence of an effect of rhythmicity. The prescribed nature of its hypotheses and its manner to set out to test them is very clear which allows for a straightforward assessment of its results

Weaknesses:

The papers cited to justify a rhythmic mode are largely based on the processing of rhythmic stimuli. The authors assume the rhythmic mode to be the general default but its not so clear to me why this would be so. The task design seems better suited to a continuous vigilance mode task.

Secondly, the analysis to detect a "rhythmic mode", assumes a total phase rest at noise onset which is highly implausible given standard nonlinear dynamical analysis of oscillator performance. It's not clear that a rhythmic mode (should it be applied in this task) would indeed generate a consistent phase as the analysis searches for.

Thirdly, the number of statistical tests used here make trusting any single effect quite difficult and very few of the effects replicate more than once. I think the better would be interpreted as not confirming evidence for rhythmic mode processing in the ears.

Comments on revised version:

No further comments. The paper has much of the same issues that I expressed in the initial review but I don't think they can be addressed without a replication study which I appreciate is not always plausible.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors investigate the role of H3K115ac in mouse embryonic stem cells. They report that H3K115ac localizes to regions enriched for fragile nucleosomes, CpG islands, and enhancers, and that it correlates with transcriptional activity. These findings suggest a potential role for this globular domain modification in nucleosome dynamics and gene regulation. If robust, these observations would expand our understanding of how non-tail histone modifications contribute to chromatin accessibility and transcriptional control.

Strengths:

(1) The study addresses a histone PTM in the globular domain, which is relatively unexplored compared to tail modifications.

(2) The implication of a histone PTM in fragile nucleosome localization is novel and, if substantiated, could represent a significant advance for the field.

Weaknesses:

(1) The absence of replicate paired-end datasets limits confidence in peak localization.

(2) The analyses are primarily correlative, making it difficult to fully assess robustness or to support strong mechanistic conclusions.

(3) Some claims (e.g., specificity for CpG islands, "dynamic" regulation during differentiation) are not fully supported by the analyses as presented.

(4) Overall, the study introduces an intriguing new angle on globular PTMs, but additional rigor and mechanistic evidence are needed to substantiate the conclusions.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Kumar et al. aimed to assess the role of the understudied H3K115 acetylation mark, which is located in the nucleosomal core. To this end, the authors performed ChIP-seq experiments of H3K115ac in mouse embryonic stem cells as well as during differentiation into neuronal progenitor cells. Subsequent bioinformatic analyses revealed an association of H3K115ac with fragile nucleosomes at CpG island promoters, as well as with enhancers and CTCF binding sites. This is an interesting study, which provides important novel insights into the potential function of H3K115ac. However, the study is mainly descriptive, and functional experiments are missing.

Strengths:

(1) The authors present the first genome-wide profiling of H3K115ac and link this poorly characterized modification to fragile nucleosomes, CpG island promoters, enhancers, and CTCF binding sites.

(2) The study provides a valuable descriptive resource and raises intriguing hypotheses about the role of H3K115ac in chromatin regulation.

(3) The breadth of the bioinformatic analyses adds to the value of the dataset

Weaknesses:

(1) I am not fully convinced about the specificity of the antibody. Although the experiment in Figure S1A shows a specific binding to H3K115ac-modified peptides compared to unmodified peptides, the authors do not show any experiment that shows that the antibody does not bind to unrelated proteins. Thus, a Western of a nuclear extract or the chromatin fraction would be critical to show. Also, peptide competition using the H3K115ac peptide to block the antibody may be good to further support the specificity of the antibody. Also, I don't understand the experiment in Figure S1B. What does it tell us when the H3K115ac histone mark itself is missing? The KLF4 promoter does not appear to be a suitable positive control, given that hundreds of proteins/histone modifications are likely present at this region.

It is important to clearly demonstrate that the antibody exclusively recognizes H3K115ac, given that the conclusion of the manuscript strongly depends on the reliability of the obtained ChIP-Seq data.

(2) The association of H3K115ac with fragile nucleosomes based on MNase-Sensitivity and fragment length, which are indirect methods and can have technical bias. Experiments that support that the H3K115ac modified nucleosomes are indeed more fragile are missing.

(3) The comparison of H3K115ac with H3K122ac and H3K64ac relies on publicly available datasets. Since the authors argue that these marks are distinct, data generated under identical experimental conditions would be more convincing. At a minimum, the limitations of using external datasets should be discussed.

(4) The enrichment of H3K115ac at enhancers and CTCF binding sites is notable but remains descriptive. It would be interesting to clarify whether H3K115ac actively influences transcription factor/CTCF binding or is a downstream correlate.

(5) No information is provided about how H3K115ac may be deposited/removed. Without this information, it is difficult to place this modification into established chromatin regulatory pathways.

At the very least, the authors should acknowledge these limitations and provide additional validation of antibody specificity.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Kumar et al. examine the H3K115 epigenetic mark located on the lateral surface of the histone core domain and present evidence that it may serve as a marker enriched at transcription start sites (TSSs) of active CpG island promoters and at polycomb-repressed promoters. They also note enrichment of the H3K115ac mark is found on fragile nucleosomes within nucleosome-depleted regions, on active enhancers, and CTCF-bound sites. They propose that these observations suggest that H3K115ac contributes to nucleosome destabilization and so may serve as a marker of functionally important regulatory elements in mammalian genomes.

Strengths:

The authors present novel observations suggesting that acetylation of a histone residue in a core (versus on a histone tail) domain may serve a functional role in promoting transcription, in CPG islands and polycomb-repressed promoters. They present a solid amount of confirmatory in silico data using appropriate methodology that supports the idea that the H3K115ac mark may function to destabilize nucleosomes and contribute to regulating ESC differentiation.

Weaknesses:

Additional experiments to confirm antibody specificity are needed. The authors use synthetic peptides for other markers (e.g., H3K122) to support the claim that the antibody is specific, but ChIP-ChIP assays are performed under cross-linked, non-denatured conditions, which preserve structure and epitope accessibility differently than synthetic peptides used for dot blots. Does the antibody give a single band in western blots of histones, and can the H3K115ac peptide block western and immunofluorescence signals of the antibody? Given that the antibody is a rabbit polyclonal, specificity is not a trivial consideration.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This is an interesting study characterizing and engineering so-called bathy phytochromes, i.e. those that respond to near infrared (NIR) light in the ground state, for optogenetic control of bacterial gene expression. Previously, the authors have developed a structure-guided approach to functionally link several light responsive protein domains to the signaling domain of the histidine kinase FixL, which ultimately controls gene expression. Here, the authors use the same strategy to link bathy phytochrome light responsive domains to FixL, resulting in sensors of NIR light. Interestingly, they also link these bathy phytochrome light sensing domains to signaling domains from the tetrathionate-sensing SHK TtrS and the toluene-sensing SHK TodS, demonstrating generality of their protein engineering approach more broadly across bacterial two-component systems.

This is an exciting result that should inspire future bacterial sensor design. The authors go on to leverage this result to develop what is, to my knowledge, the first system for orthogonally controlling the expression of two separate genes in the same cell with NIR and Red light, a valuable contribution to the field.

Finally, the authors reveal new details of the pH-dependent photocycle of bathy phytochromes and demonstrate their sensors work in the gut- and plant-relevant strains E. coli Nissle 1917 and A. tumefaciens.

Strengths:

The experiments are well founded, well executed, and rigorous.

The manuscript is clearly written.

The sensors developed exhibit large responses to light, making them valuable tools for ontogenetic applications.

This study is a valuable contribution to photobiology and optogenetics.

Weaknesses:

As the authors note, the sensors are relatively insensitive to NIR light due to the rapid dark reversion process in bathy phytochromes. Though NIR light is generally non-phototoxic, one would expect this characteristic to be a limitation in some downstream applications where light intensities are not high (e.g. in vivo).

Though they can be multiplexed with Red light sensors, these bathy phytochrome NIR sensors are more difficult to multiplex with other commonly used light sensors (e.g. blue) due to the broad light responsivity of the Pfr state. This challenge may be overcome by careful dosing of blue light, as the authors discuss, but other bacterial NIR sensing systems with less cross-talk may be preferred in some applications.

Comments on revisions:

My concerns have been addressed.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Meier et al. engineer a new class of light-regulated two-component systems. These systems are built using bathy-bacteriophytochromes that respond to near-infrared (NIR) light. Through a combination of genetic engineering and systematic linker optimization, the authors generate bacterial strains capable of selective and tunable gene expression in response to NIR stimulation. Overall, these results are an interesting expansion of the optogenetic toolkit into the NIR range. The cross-species functionality of the system, modularity, and orthogonality have the potential to make these tools useful for a range of applications.

Strengths:

(1) The authors introduce a novel class of near-infrared light-responsive two-component systems in bacteria, expanding the optogenetic toolbox into this spectral range.

(2) Through engineering and linker optimization, the authors achieve specific and tunable gene expression, with minimal cross-activation from red light in some cases.

(3) The authors show that the engineered systems function robustly in multiple bacterial strains, including laboratory E. coli, the probiotic E. coli Nissle 1917, and Agrobacterium tumefaciens.

(4) The combination of orthogonal two-component systems can allow for simultaneous and independent control of multiple gene expression pathways using different wavelengths of light.

(5) The authors explore the photophysical properties of the photosensors, investigating how environmental factors such as pH influence light sensitivity.

Comments on revisions:

The authors have addressed all my prior concerns.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper by Meier et al introduces a new optogenetic module for regulation of bacterial gene expression based on "bathy-BphP" proteins. Their paper begins with a careful characterization of kinetics and pH dependence of a few family members, followed by extensive engineering to produce infrared-regulated transcriptional systems based on the authors' previous design of the pDusk and pDERusk systems, and closing with characterization of the systems in bacterial species relevant for biotechnology.

Strengths:

The paper is important from the perspective of fundamental protein characterization, since bathy-BphPs are relatively poorly characterized compared to their phytochrome and cyanobacteriochrome cousins. It is also important from a technology development perspective: the optogenetic toolbox currently lacks infrared-stimulated transcriptional systems. Infrared light offers two major advantages: it can be multiplexed with additional tools, and it can penetrate into deep tissues with ease relative to the more widely used blue light activated systems. The experiments are performed carefully and the manuscript is well written.

Weaknesses:

Some of the light-inducible responses described in this compelling paper are complex and difficult to rationalize, such as the dependence of light responses on linker length and differences in responses observed from the bathy-BphPs in isolation versus strains in which they are multiplexed. Nevertheless, the authors should be commended for carrying out rigorous experiments and reporting these results accurately. These are minor weaknesses in an overall very strong paper.

Joint Public Review:

Summary:

The Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) region is a collection of numerous genes involved in both innate and adaptive immunity. MHC genes are famed for their role in rapid evolution and extensive polymorphism in a variety of vertebrates. This paper presents a summary of gene-level gain and loss of orthologs and paralogs within MHC across the diversity of primates, using publicly available data.

Strengths:

This paper provides a strong case that MHC genes are rapidly gained (by paralog duplication) and lost over millions of years of macroevolution. The authors are able to identify MHC loci by homology across species, and from this infer gene duplications and losses using phylogenetic analyses. There is a remarkable amount of genic turnover, summarized in Figure 6 and Figure 7, either of which might be a future textbook figure of immune gene family evolution. The authors draw on state-of-the-art phylogenetic methods, and their inferences are robust.

Editorial note:

The authors have responded to the previous reviews and the Assessment was updated without involving the reviewers again.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This is an interesting study on the nature of representations across the visual field. The question of how peripheral vision differs from foveal vision is a fascinating and important one. The majority of our visual field is extra-foveal yet our sensory and perceptual capabilities decline in pronounced and well-documented ways away from the fovea. Part of the decline is thought to be due to spatial averaging ('pooling') of features. Here, the authors contrast two models of such feature pooling with human judgments of image content. They use much larger visual stimuli than in most previous studies, and some sophisticated image synthesis methods to tease apart the prediction of the distinct models.

More importantly, in so doing, the researchers thoroughly explore the general approach of probing visual representations through metamers-stimuli that are physically distinct but perceptually indistinguishable. The work is embedded within a rigorous and general mathematical framework for expressing equivalence classes of images and how visual representations influence these. They describe how image-computable models can be used to make predictions about metamers, which can then be compared to make inferences about the underlying sensory representations. The main merit of the work lies in providing a formal framework for reasoning about metamers and their implications, for comparing models of sensory processing in terms of the metamers that they predict, and for mapping such models onto physiology. Importantly, they also consider the limits of what can be inferred about sensory processing from metamers derived from different models.

Overall, the work is of a very high standard and represents a significant advance over our current understanding of perceptual representations of image structure at different locations across the visual field. The authors do a good job of capturing the limits of their approach I particularly appreciated the detailed and thoughtful Discussion section and the suggestion to extend the metamer-based approach described in the MS with observer models. The work will have an impact on researchers studying many different aspects of visual function including texture perception, crowding, natural image statistics and the physiology of low- and mid-level vision.

The main weaknesses of the original submission relate to the writing. A clearer motivation could have been provided for the specific models that they consider, and the text could have been written in a more didactic and easy to follow manner. The authors could also have been more explicit about the assumptions that they make.

Comments following re-submission:

Overall, I think the authors have done a satisfactory job of addressing most of the points I raised.

There's one final issue which I think still needs better discussion.

I think reviewer 2 articulated better than I have the point I was concerned about: the relationship between JNDs and metamers as depicted in the schematics and indeed in the whole conceptualization.

I think the issue here is that there seems to be a conflating of two concepts- 'subthreshold' and 'metamer'-and I'm not convinced it is entirely unproblematic. It's true that two stimuli that cannot be discriminated from one another due to the physical differences being too small to detect reliably by the visual system are a form of metamer in the strict definition 'physically different, but perceptually the same'.<br /> However, I don't think this is the scientifically substantial notion of metamer that enabled insights into trichromacy. That form of metamerism is due to the principle of univariance in feature encoding, and involves conditions in which physically very different stimuli are mapped to one and the same point in sensory encoding space whether or not there is any noise in the system. When I say 'physically very different' I mean different by a large enough amount that they would be far above threshold, potentially orders of magnitude larger than a JND if the system's noise properties were identical but the system used a different sensory basis set to measure them. This seems to be a very different kind of 'physically different, but perceptually the same'.

I do think the notion of metamerism can obviously be very usefully extended beyond photoreceptors and photon absorptions. In the interesting case of texture metamers, what I think is meant is that stimuli would be discriminable if scrutinised in the fovea, but because they have the same statistics they are treated as equivalent. I think the discussion of this could still be clearly articulated in the manuscript. It would benefit from a more thorough discussion of the difference between metamerism and subthreshold, especially in the context of the Voronoi diagrams at the beginning.

It needs to be made clear to the reader why it is that two stimuli that are physically similar (e.g., just spanning one of the edges in the diagram) can be discriminable, while at the same time, two stimuli that are very different (e.g., at opposite ends of a cell) can't.

Do the cells include BOTH those sets of stimuli that cannot be discriminated just because of internal noise AND those that can't be discriminated because they are projected to literally the same point in the sensory encoding space? What are the strengths and limits of models that involve the strict binarization of sensory representations, and how can they be integrated with models dealing with continuous differences? These seem like important background concepts that ought to be included in either the introduction of discussion sections. In this context it might also be helpful to refer to the notion of 'visual equivalence' as described by:

Ramanarayanan, G., Ferwerda, J., Walter, B., & Bala, K. (2007). Visual equivalence: towards a new standard for image fidelity. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 26(3), 76-es.

Other than that, I congratulate the authors on a very interesting study, and look forward to reading the final version.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors have improved clarity overall and have spoken to most of the issues raised by the reviewers. There are still two outstanding problems however, where issues raised during the review were inappropriately dismissed in the manuscript. These should be explicitly addressed as limitations to the results presented (no eye tracking), and early pilot experiments that informed the experiments as presented (pink noise) rather than brushed off as 'unnecessary' and 'would be uninformative'.

Eye tracking:

It is generally accepted that experiments testing stimuli presented at specific locations in peripheral vision require eye tracking to ensure that the stimulus is presented as expected, in particular, in the correct location. As I stated in the previous round of review, while a stimulus presentation time of 200ms does help eliminate some saccades, it does not eliminate the possibility that subjects were not fixating well during stimulus onset. I am also unclear what the authors mean by 'trained observer' in this context, though the authors state that an author subject in a different portion of the paper is an 'expert observer'. Does this mean the 'trained observers' are non-expert recruited subjects? Given the conditions tested differ from previous work (Freeman & Simoncelli, 2011) *these differences are a main contribution of the paper!* which DID include eye tracking in a subset of subjects, it is entirely possible to get similar results to this work in the context of non eye-tracking controlled stimulus presentation. The reasons now in the manuscript are not reasons that make eye tracking 'considered unnecessary'.

I appreciate that the authors now state the lack of eye tracking explicitly, but believe the paper needs to at least state that this is a limitation of the results reported, and eyetracking being 'considered unnecessary' is unreasonable, nor a norm in this subfield.

N=1: The authors now state clearly the limitations of a single subject in the manuscript, and state the expertise level of this subject.

Large number of trials: The authors now address this and include an enumeration of the large number of trials.

Simple Models / Physiology comparison: I support the choice to reduce claims regarding tight connections to physiology, and appreciate the explanation of the luminance model.

Previous Work: I appreciate the author's changes to the introduction, both in discussing previous work and citation fixes.

Blurred White, Pink Noise: While the authors now address pink noise, the explanation for such stimuli being expected to be uninformative is confusing to me. The manuscript now first states that pink noise is a natural choice, then claims it would be uninformative, while also stating in the rebuttal (not the manuscript) that they tried it and it indeed reduced the artifacts they note. The logic of the experiments indeed relies on finding the smallest critical scaling value, which is measured by subjects determining if a synthesis is similar or different to a target or second synth. A synthesis free from artifacts would surely affect the subjects responses and the smallest critical scaling measured.

The statement that the authors experimented with pink noise early on and found this able to address the artifacts should be stated in the manuscript itself, not just in the rebuttal, and the blanket statement that this experiment would be 'uninformative' is incorrect. Surely this early pilot the authors mention in the rebuttal was informative to designing the experiments that appear in the final paper, and would be an informative experiment to include.