Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this study, the authors examined the role of IBTK, a substrate-binding adaptor of the CRL3 ubiquitin ligase complex, in modulating the activity of the eiF4F translation initiation complex. They find that IBTK mediates the non-degradative ubiquitination of eiF4A1, promotes cap-dependent translational initiation, nascent protein synthesis, oncogene expression, and tumor cell growth. Correspondingly, phosphorylation of  IBTK by mTORC1/ S6K1 increases eIF4A1 ubiquitination and sustains oncogenic translation.

Strengths:

This study utilizes multiple biochemical, proteomic, functional and cell biology assays to substantiate their results.  Importantly, the work nominates IBTK as a unique substrate of mTORC1, and further validates eiF4A1 ( a crucial subunit of the ei44F complex) as a promising therapeutic target in cancer. Since IBTK interacts broadly with multiple members of the translational initial complex- it will be interesting to examine its role in eiF2alpha-mediated ER stress as well as eiF3-mediated translation. Additionally, since IBTK exerts pro-survival effects in multiple cell types, it will be of relevance to characterize the role of IBTK in mediating increased mTORC1 mediated translation in other tumor types, thus potentially impacting their treatment with eiF4F inhibitors.

Limitations/Weaknesses:

The findings are mostly well supported by data, but some areas need clarification and could potentially be enhanced with further experiments:

(1) Since eiF4A1 appears to function downstream of IBTK1, can the effects of IBTK1 KO/KD in reducing puromycin incorporation ( in Fig 3A),  cap-dependent luciferase reporter activity (Fig 3G), reduced oncogene expression ( Fig 4A) or 2D growth/ invasion assays (Fig 4) be overcome or bypassed by overexpressing eiF4A1? These could potentially be tested in future studies. <br /> (2) The decrease in nascent protein synthesis in puromycin incorporation assays in Figure 3A suggests that the effects of IBTK KO are comparable to and additive with silvesterol. It would be of interest to examine whether silvesterol decreases nascent protein synthesis or increases stress granules in the IBTK KO cells stably expressing IBTK as well. <br /> (3) The data presented in Figure 5 regarding the role of mTORC1 in IBTK-mediated eiF4A1 ubiquitination needs further clarification on several points:<br /> - It is not clear if the experiments in Figure 5F with Phos-tag gels are using the FLAG-IBTK deletion mutant or the peptide containing the mTOR sites as it is mentioned on line 517, page 19 "To do so, we generated an IBTK deletion mutant (900-1150 aa) spanning the potential mTORC1-regulated phosphorylation sites" This needs further clarification.<br /> -It may be of benefit to repeat the Phos tag experiments with full length FLAG-IBTK and/or endogenous IBTK with molecular weight markers indicating size of migrated bands.<br /> -Additionally, torin or Lambda phosphatase treatment may be used to confirm the specificity of the band in separate experiments.<br /> -Phos-tag gels with the IBTK CRISPR KO line would also help confirm that the non-phosphorylated band is indeed IBTK. <br /> -It is unclear why the lower, phosphorylated bands seem to be increasing ( rather than decreasing) with AA starvation/ Rapa in Fig 5H.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This study by Sun et al. identifies a novel role for IBTK in promoting cancer protein translation, through regulation of the translational helicase eIF4A1. Using a multifaceted approach, the authors demonstrate that IBTK interacts with and ubiquitinates eIF4A1 in a non-degradative manner, enhancing its activation downstream of mTORC1/S6K1 signaling. This represents a significant advance in elucidating the complex layers of dysregulated translational control in cancer.

Strengths:

A major strength of this work is the convincing biochemical evidence for a direct regulatory relationship between IBTK and eIF4A1. The authors utilize affinity purification and proximity labeling methods to comprehensively map the IBTK interactome, identifying eIF4A1 as a top hit. Importantly, they validate this interaction and the specificity for eIF4A1 over other eIF4 isoforms by co-immunoprecipitation in multiple cell lines. Building on this, they demonstrate that IBTK catalyzes non-degradative ubiquitination of eIF4A1 both in cells and in vitro through the E3 ligase activity of the CRL3-IBTK complex. Mapping IBTK phosphorylation sites and showing mTORC1/S6K1-dependent regulation provides mechanistic insight. The reduction in global translation and eIF4A1-dependent oncoproteins upon IBTK loss, along with clinical data linking IBTK to poor prognosis, support the functional importance. Finally, the impact of IBTK on eIF4A1 target gene expression in colon and lung cancer cell lines, strengthens these findings.

Weaknesses:

While the effects of IBTK knockout/over-expression on bulk protein synthesis are shown, the expression of several eIF4A1 target oncogenes remains unchanged.

Summary:

Overall, this study significantly advances our understanding of how aberrant mTORC1/S6K1 signaling promotes cancer pathogenic translation via IBTK and eIF4A1. The proteomic, biochemical and phosphorylation mapping approaches established here provide a blueprint for interrogating IBTK function. These data should galvanize future efforts to target the mTORC1/S6K1-IBTK-eIF4A1 axis as an avenue for cancer therapy, particularly in combination with eIF4A inhibitors.

eLife assessment

This valuable study contributes to the understanding of phase separation in Dishevelled (DVL) proteins, by investigating the endogenous complexes of DVL2 using ultracentrifugation and contrasting them with DVL1 and DVL3 behavior and the functional validation of the DVL2 intrinsically disordered regions mediating the protein condensate. The study is, however, incomplete due to the lack of several controls and its focus on overexpression and mutants lacking key domains.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors aimed to identify which regions of DVL2 contribute to its endogenous/basal clustering, as well as the relevance of such domains to condensate/phase separation and WNT activation.

Strengths:

A strength of the study is the focus on endogenous DVL2 to set up the research questions, as well as the incorporation of various techniques to tackle it. I found also quite interesting that DVL2-CFR addition to DVL1 increased its MW in density gradients.

Weaknesses:

I think that several of the approaches of the manuscript are subpar to achieve the goals and/or support several of the conclusions. For example:

(1) Although endogenous DVL2 indeed seems to form complexes (Figure 1A), neither the number of proteins involved nor whether those are homo-complexes can be determined with a density gradient. Super-resolution imaging or structural analyses are needed to support these claims.

(2) Follow-up analyses of the relevance of the DVL2 domains solely rely on overexpressed proteins. However, there were previous questions arising from o/e studies that prompted the focus on endogenous, physiologically relevant DVL interactions, clustering, and condensate formation. Although the title, conclusions, and relevance all point to the importance of this study for understanding endogenous complexes, only Figures 1A and B deal with endogenous DVL2.

(3) Mutants lacking activity/complex formation, e.g. DVL2_1-418, may need further validation. For instance, DVL2_1-506 (same mutant but with DEP) seems to form condensates and it is functional in WNT signalling (King et al., 20223). These differences could be caused by the lack of DEP domain in this particular construct and/or folding differences.

(4) The key mutants, DeltaCFR and VV/FF only show mild phenotypes. The authors' results suggest that these regions contribute but are not necessary for 1) complex formation (Density gradient Figures 7A and B), condensate formation (Figures 7C and D), and WNT activity (Figure 7E). Of note Figure 7C shows examples for the mutants with no condensates while the qualification indicates that 50% of the cells do have condensates.

(5) Most of the o/e analyses (including all reporter assays) should be performed in DVL1-3 KO cells in order to explore specifically the behaviour of the investigated mutants.

(6) How comparable are condensates found in the cytoplasm (usually for wt DVL) with those located in the nucleus (DEP mutants)?

Several studies in the last two decades have analysed the relevance of DVL homo - and hetero-clustering by relying on overexpressed proteins. Recent studies also explored the possibility of DVL undergoing liquid-liquid phase separation following similar principles. As highlighted by the authors in the introduction, there is a need to understand DVL dynamics under endogenous/physiological conditions. Recent super-resolution studies aimed at that question by characterising endogenously edited DVL2. The authors seemed to aim in the same direction with their initial findings (Figure 1A) but quickly moved to o/e proteins without going back to the initial question. This reviewer thinks that to support their conclusions and advance in this important question, the authors should introduce the relevant mutations in the endogenous locus (e.g. by Cas9+ donor template encoding the required 3' exons, as done by others before for WNT components, including DVL2) and determine their impact in the above-indicated processes.

eLife assessment

This is a valuable manuscript describing the competitive binding between the RING2 and phosphorylated Ubl domains within Parkin involved in the regulation of Parkin activity. The evidence supporting this conclusion is incomplete, as it primarily relies on a single biochemical assay and does not utilize more stringent, quantitative biophysical approaches to probe this competitive binding. This work will be of interest to the research communities focused on the molecular basis of ubiquitin ligase regulation, PINK-PARKIN-regulated mitophagy, and mitochondrial quality control.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors used structural and biophysical methods to provide insight into Parkin regulation. The breadth of data supporting their findings was impressive and generally well-orchestrated. Still, the impact of their results builds on recent structural studies and the stated impact is based on these prior works.

Strengths:

(1) After reading through the paper, the major findings are:<br /> - RING2 and pUbl compete for binding to RING0.<br /> - Parkin can dimerize.<br /> - ACT plays an important role in enzyme kinetics.

(2) The use of molecular scissors in their construct represents a creative approach to examining inter-domain interactions.

(3) From my assessment, the experiments are well-conceived and executed.

Weaknesses:

(1) The manuscript, as written, is NOT for a general audience. Admittedly, I am not an expert on Parkin structure and function, but I had to do a lot of homework to try to understand the underlying rationale and impact. This reflects, I think, that the work generally represents an incremental advance on recent structural findings.

(2) To this point, it is hard to understand the impact of this work without more information highlighting the novelty. There are several structures of Parkin in various auto-inhibited states, and it was hard to delineate how this is different.

(3) As noted, I appreciated the use of protease sites in the fusion protein construct. It is unclear how the loop region might affect the protein structure and function. The authors worked to demonstrate that this did not introduce artifacts, but the biological context is missing.

(4) While it is likely that the binding is competitive between the Ubl and RING2 domains, the data is not quantitative. Is it known whether the folding of the distinct domains is independent? Or are there interactions that alter folding? It seems plausible that conformational rearrangements may invoke an orientation of domains that would be incompatible. The biological context for the importance of this interaction was not clear to me.

(5) What is the rationale for mutating Lys211 to Asn? Were other mutations tried? Glu? Ala? Just missing the rationale. I think this may have been identified previously in the field, but not clear what this mutation represents biologically.

(6) I was confused about how the phospho-proteins were generated. After looking through the methods, there appear to be phosphorylation experiments, but it is unclear what the efficiency was for each protein (i.e. what % gets modified). In the text, the authors refer to phospho-Parkin (T270R, C431A), but not clear how these mutations might influence this process. I gather that these are catalytically inactive, but it is unclear to me how this is catalyzing the ubiquitination in the assay.

(7) The authors note that "ACT can be complemented in trans; however, it is more efficient in cis", but it is unclear whether both would be important or if the favored interaction is dominant in a biological context.

(8) The authors repeatedly note that this study could aid in the development of small-molecule regulators against Parkin to treat PD, but this is a long way off. And it is not clear from their manuscript how this would be achieved. As stated, this is conjecture.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This manuscript uses biochemistry and X-ray crystallography to further probe the molecular mechanism of Parkin regulation and activation. Using a construct that incorporates cleavage sites between different Parkin domains to increase the local concentration of specific domains (i.e., molecular scissors), the authors suggest that competitive binding between the p-Ubl and RING2 domains for the RING0 domain regulates Parkin activity. Further, they demonstrate that this competition can occur in trans, with a p-Ubl domain of one Parkin molecule binding the RING0 domain of a second monomer, thus activating the catalytic RING1 domain. In addition, they suggest that the ACT domain can similarly bind and activate Parkin in trans, albeit at a lower efficiency than that observed for p-Ubl. The authors also suggest from crystal structure analysis and some biochemical experiments that the linker region between RING2 and repressor elements interacts with the donor ubiquitin to enhance Parkin activity.

Ultimately this manuscript challenges previous work suggesting that the p-Ubl domain does not bind to the Parkin core in the mechanism of Parkin activation. The use of the 'molecular scissors' approach to probe these effects is an interesting approach to probe this type of competitive binding. However, there are issues with the experimental approach manuscript that detract from the overall quality and potential impact of the work.

The competitive binding between p-Ubl and RING2 domains for the Parkin core could have been better defined using biophysical and biochemical approaches that explicitly define the relative affinities that dictate these interactions. A better understanding of these affinities could provide more insight into the relative bindings of these domains, especially as it relates to the in trans interactions.

I also have concerns about the results of using molecular scissors to 'increase local concentrations' and allow for binding to be observed. These experiments are done primarily using proteolytic cleavage of different domains followed by size exclusion chromatography. ITC experiments suggest that the binding constants for these interactions are in the µM range, although these experiments are problematic as the authors indicate in the text that protein precipitation was observed during these experiments. This type of binding could easily be measured in other assays. My issue relates to the ability of a protein complex (comprising the core and cleaved domains) with a Kd of 1 µM to be maintained in an SEC experiment. The off-rates for these complexes must be exceeding slow, which doesn't really correspond to the low µM binding constants discussed in the text. How do the authors explain this? What is driving the Koff to levels sufficiently slow to prevent dissociation by SEC? Considering that the authors are challenging previous work describing the lack of binding between the p-Ubl domain and the core, these issues should be better resolved in this current manuscript. Further, it's important to have a more detailed understanding of relative affinities when considering the functional implications of this competition in the context of full-length Parkin. Similar comments could be made about the ACT experiments described in the text.

Ultimately, this work does suggest additional insights into the mechanism of Parkin activation that could contribute to the field. There is a lot of information included in this manuscript, giving it breadth, albeit at the cost of depth for the study of specific interactions. Further, I felt that the authors oversold some of their data in the text, and I'd recommend being a bit more careful when claiming an experiment 'confirms' a specific model. In many cases, there are other models that could explain similar results. For example, in Figure 1C, the authors state that their crystal structure 'confirms' that "RING2 is transiently displaced from the RING0 domain and returns to its original position after washing off the p-Ubl linker". However, it isn't clear to me that RING2 ever dissociated when prepared this way. While there are issues with the work that I feel should be further addressed with additional experiments, there are interesting mechanistic details suggested by this work that could improve our understanding of Parkin activation. However, the full impact of this work won't be fully appreciated until there is a more thorough understanding of the regulation and competitive binding between p-Ubl and RIGN2 to RORB both in cis and in trans.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In their manuscript "Additional feedforward mechanism of Parkin activation via binding of phospho-UBL and RING0 in trans", Lenka et al present data that could suggest an "in trans" model of Parkin ubiquitination activity. Parkin is an intensely studied E3 ligase implicated in mitophagy, whereby missense mutations to the PARK2 gene are known to cause autosomal recessive juvenile parkinsonism. From a mechanistic point of view, Parkin is extremely complex. Its activity is tightly controlled by several modes of auto-inhibition that must be released by queues of mitochondrial damage. While the general overview of Parkin activation has been mapped out in recent years, several details have remained murky. In particular, whether Parkin dimerizes as part of its feed-forward signaling mechanism, and whether said dimerization can facilitate ligase activation, has remained unclear. Here, Lenka et al. use various truncation mutants of Parkin in an attempt to understand the likelihood of dimerization (in support of an "in trans" model for catalysis).

Strengths:

The results are bolstered by several distinct approaches including analytical SEC with cleavable Parkin constructs, ITC interaction studies, ubiquitination assays, protein crystallography, and cellular localization studies.

Weaknesses:

As presented, however, the storyline is very confusing to follow and several lines of experimentation felt like distractions from the primary message. Furthermore, many experiments could only indirectly support the author's conclusions, and therefore the final picture of what new features can be firmly added to the model of Parkin activation and function is unclear.

Major concerns:

(1) This manuscript solves numerous crystal structures of various Parkin components to help support their idea of in trans transfer. The way these structures are presented more resemble models and it is unclear from the figures that these are new complexes solved in this work, and what new insights can be gleaned from them.

(2) There are no experiments that definitively show the in trans activation of Parkin. The binding experiments and size exclusion chromatography are a good start, but the way these experiments are performed, they'd be better suited as support for a stronger experiment showing Parkin dimerization. In addition, the rationale for an in trans activation model is not convincingly explained until the concept of Parkin isoforms is introduced in the Discussion. The authors should consider expanding this concept into other parts of the manuscript.

2a. For the in trans activation experiment using wt Parkin and pParkin (T270R/C431A) (Figure 3D), there needs to be a large excess of pParkin to stimulate the catalytic activity of wt Parkin. This experiment has low cellular relevance as these point mutations are unlikely to occur together to create this nonfunctional pParkin protein. In the case of pParkin activating wt Parkin (regardless of artificial point mutations inserted to study specifically the in trans activation), if there needs to be much more pParkin around to fully activate wt Parkin, isn't it just more likely that the pParkin would activate in cis?

2ai. Another underlying issue with this experiment is that the authors do not consider the possibility that the increased activity observed is a result of increased "substrate" for auto-ubiquitination, as opposed to any role in catalytic activation. Have the authors considered looking at Miro as a substrate in order to control for this?

2b. The authors mention a "higher net concentration" of the "fused domains" with RING0, and use this to justify artificially cleaving the Ubl or RING2 domains from the Parkin core. This fact should be moot. In cells, it is expected there will only be a 1:1 ratio of the Parkin core with the Ubl or RING2 domains. To date, there is no evidence suggesting multiple pUbls or multiple RING2s can bind the RING0 binding site. In fact, the authors here even show that either the RING2 or pUbl needs to be displaced to permit the binding of the other domain. That being said, there would be no "higher net concentration" because there would always be the same molar equivalents of Ubl, RING2, and the Parkin core.

2c. A larger issue remaining in terms of Parkin activation is the lack of clarity surrounding the role of the linker (77-140); particularly whether its primary role is to tether the Ubl to the cis Parkin molecule versus a role in permitting distal interactions to a trans molecule. The way the authors have conducted the experiments presented in Figure 2 limits the possible interactions that the activated pUbl could have by (a) ablating the binding site in the cis molecule with the K211N mutation; (b) further blocking the binding site in the cis molecule by keeping the RING2 domain intact. These restrictions to the cis parkin molecule effectively force the pUbl to bind in trans. A competition experiment to demonstrate the likelihood of cis or trans activation in direct comparison with each other would provide stronger evidence for trans activation.

(3) A major limitation of this study is that the authors interpret structural flexibility from experiments that do not report directly on flexibility. The analytical SEC experiments report on binding affinity and more specifically off-rates. By removing the interdomain linkages, the accompanying on-rate would be drastically impacted, and thus the observations are disconnected from a native scenario. Likewise, observations from protein crystallography can be consistent with flexibility, but certainly should not be directly interpreted in this manner. Rigorous determination of linker and/or domain flexibility would require alternative methods that measure this directly.

(4) The analysis of the ACT element comes across as incomplete. The authors make a point of a competing interaction with Lys48 of the Ubl domain, but the significance of this is unclear. It is possible that this observation could be an overinterpretation of the crystal structures. Additionally, the rationale for why the ACT element should or shouldn't contribute to in trans activation of different Parkin constructs is not clear. Lastly, the conclusion that this work explains the evolutionary nature of this element in chordates is highly overstated.

(5) The analysis of the REP linker element also seems incomplete. The authors identify contacts to a neighboring pUb molecule in their crystal structure, but the connection between this interface (which could be a crystallization artifact) and their biochemical activity data is not straightforward. The analysis of flexibility within this region using crystallographic and AlphaFold modeling observations is very indirect. The authors also draw parallels with linker regions in other RBR ligases that are involved in recognizing the E2-loaded Ub. Firstly, it is not clear from the text or figures whether the "conserved" hydrophobic within the linker region is involved in these alternative Ub interfaces. And secondly, the authors appear to jump to the conclusion that the Parkin linker region also binds an E2-loaded Ub, even though their original observation from the crystal structure seems inconsistent with this. The entire analysis feels very preliminary and also comes across as tangential to the primary storyline of in trans Parkin activation.

eLife assessment

This study presents an important finding on the molecular mechanism for transduction of environmentally induced polyphenism. The evidence supporting the claims of the author is incomplete due to limited sample sizes and inadequate analysis. This paper would be of interest to those studying aphids wing dimorphism.

eLife assessment

This useful study reports an unexpected phenotype of atrophy of the male reproductive system and infertility upon combined knockout in adult mice of the genes encoding the two kinases CDK8 and CDK19. While the morphological evidence and single-cell transcriptomic data are solid, the proposed mechanism remains unconvincing as there is little evidence for causality, and some controls are missing. This work will be of interest to reproductive biologists, developmental biologists, and andrologists.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this paper, Bruter and colleagues report the effects of inducible deletion of the genes encoding the two paralogous kinases of the Mediator complex in adult mice. The physiological roles of these two kinases, CDK8 and CDK19, are currently rather poorly understood; although conserved in all eukaryotes, and among the most highly conserved kinases in vertebrates, individual knockouts of genes encoding CDK8 homologues in different species have revealed generally rather mild and specific effects, in contrast to Mediator itself. Here, the authors provide evidence that neither CDK8 nor CDK19 are required for adult homeostasis but they are functionally redundant for maintenance of reproductive tissue morphology and fertility in males.

Strengths:

The morphological data on the atrophy of the male reproductive system and the arrest of spermatocyte meiosis are solid and are reinforced by single-cell transcriptomics data, which is a challenging technique to implement in vivo. The main findings are important and will be of interest to scientists in the fields of transcription and developmental biology.

Weaknesses:

There are several major weaknesses.

The first is that data on the general health of mice with single and double knockouts is not shown, nor is there any data on effects in any other tissues. This gives the impression that the only phenotype is in the male reproductive system, which would be misleading if there were phenotypes in other tissues that are not reported. Furthermore, data for the genitourinary system in single knockouts are very sparse; data are described for fertility in Figure 1H, ploidy, and cell number in Figures 2B and C, plasma testosterone and luteinizing hormone levels in Figures 5C and 5D, and morphology of testis and prostate tissue for single Cdk8 knockout in Supplementary Figure 1C (although in this case the images do not appear very comparable between control and CDK8 KO, thus perhaps wider fields should be shown), but, for example, there is no analysis of different meiotic stages or of gene expression in single knockouts. It is worth mentioning that single knockouts seem to show a corresponding upregulation of the level of the paralogue kinase, indicating that any lack of phenotypes might be due to feedback compensation, which would be an interesting finding if confirmed; this has not been mentioned.

The second major weakness is that the correlation between double knockout and reduced expression of genes involved in steroid hormone biosynthesis is portrayed as a causal mechanism for the phenotypes observed. While this is a possibility, there are no experiments performed to provide evidence that this is the case. Furthermore, there is no evidence showing that CDK8 and/or CDK19 are directly responsible for the transcription of the genes concerned.

Finally, the authors propose that the phenotypes are independent of the kinase activity of CDK8 or CDK19 because treatment of mice for a month with an inhibitor does not recapitulate the effects of the knockout, and nor does expression of two steroidogenic genes change in cultured Leydig cells upon treatment with an inhibitor. However, there are no controls for effective target inhibition shown.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors tried to test the hypothesis that Cdk8 and Cdk19 stabilize the cytoplasmic CcNC protein, the partner protein of the Mediator complex including CDK8/19 and Mediator protein via a kinase-independent function by generating induced double knockout of Cdk8/19. However, the evidence presented suffers from a lack of focus and rigor and does not support their claims.

Strengths:

This is the first comprehensive report on the effect of a double knockout of CDK8 and CDK19 in mice on male fertility, hormones, and single-cell testicular cellular expression. The inducible knockout mice led to male sterility with severe spermatogenic defects, and the authors attempted to use this animal model to test the kinase-independent function of CDK8/19, previously reported for humans. Single-cell RNA-seq of knockout testis presented a high resolution of molecular defects of all the major cell types in the testes of the inducible double knockout mice. The authors also have several interesting findings such as reentry into cell cycles by Sertoli cells, and loss of Testosterone in induced dko that could be investigated further.

Weaknesses:

The claim of reproductive defects in the induced double knockout of CDK8/19 resulted from the loss of CCNC via a kinase-independent mechanism is interesting but was not supported by the data presented. While the construction and analysis of the systemic induced knockout model of Cdk8 in Cdk19KO mice is not trivial, the analysis and data are weakened by the systemic effect of Cdk8 loss, making it difficult to separate the systemic effect from the local testis effect.

The analysis of male sterile phenotype is also inadequate with poor image quality, especially testis HE sections. The male reproductive tract picture is also small and difficult to evaluate. The mice crossing scheme is unusual as you have three mice to cross to produce genotypes, while we could understand that it is possible to produce pups of desired genotypes with different mating schemes, such a vague crossing scheme is not desirable and of poor genetics practice. Also using TAM-treated wild type as control is ok, but a better control will be TAM-treated ERT2-cre; CDK8f/f or TAM-treated ERT2 Cre CDK19/19 KO, so as to minimize the impact from the well-recognized effect of TAM.

While the authors proposed that the inducible loss of CDK8 in the CDK19 knockout background is responsible for spermatogenic defects, it was not clear in which cells CDK8/19 genes are interested and which cell types might have a major role in spermatogenesis. The authors also put forward the evidence that reduction/loss of Testosterone might be the main cause of spermatogenic defects, which is consistent with the expression change in genes involved in steroigenesis pathway in Leydig cells of inducible double knockout. However it is not clear how the loss of Testosterone contributed to the loss of CcnC protein.

The authors should clarify or present the data on where CDK8 and CDK19 as well as CcnC are expressed so as to help the readers understand which tissues both CDK might be functioning in and cause the loss of CcnC. It should be easier to test the hypothesis of CDK8/19 stabilizing CcnC protein using double knock-out primary cells, instead of the whole testis.

Since CDK8KO and CDK19KO both have significantly reduced fertility in comparison with wildtype, it might be important to measure the sperm quantity and motility among CDK8 KO, CDK19KO, and induced DKO to evaluate spermatogenesis based on their sperm production.

Some data for the inducible knockout efficiency of Cdk8 were presented in Supplemental Figure 1, but there is no legend for the supplemental figures, it was not clear which band represented the deletion band, and which tissues were examined. Tail or testis? It seems that two months after the injection of Tam, all the Cdk8 were completely deleted, indicating extremely efficient deletion of Tam induction by two months post administration. Were the complete deletion of Cdk8 happening even earlier? An examination of time points of induced loss would be useful and instructional as to when is the best time to examine phenotypes.

The authors found that Sertoli cells re-entered the cell cycle in the inducible double knockout but stopped short of careful characterization other than increased expression of cell cycle genes.

Overall this work suffered from a lack of focus and rigor in the analysis and lack of sufficient evidence to support their main conclusions.

Minor:

Dko should be appropriately named iDKO (induced dKO).

"suppress spermatogenesis and male fertility" in the title does not fit the evidence presented.

"DKO males, had an understized and dedifferentiated reproductive system?" what is the evidence for "undifferentiated"?

We performed necropsy ? not the right wording here.

Colchicine-lke apoptotic bodies ? what does this mean? Not clear.

Images throughout the manuscript suffer from poor resolution and are often blurry and hard to evaluate.

To pinpoint the meiotic stage defect of iDKO, it is better to use the meiotic chromosome spread approach.

eLife assessment

This manuscript presents an important analysis of the role that the nucleosome acidic patch plays in SWR1-catalyzed histone exchange. This manuscript contains convincing data which significantly expands our understanding of the complex process of H2A.Z deposition by SWR1 and therefore would be of interest to a broad readership.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors presented here a novel 3D fibroblast culture and transdifferentiation approach for potential meat production with GelMA hydrogel.

Strengths:

(1) Reduced serum concentration for 3D chicken fibroblast culture and transdifferentiation is optimized.<br /> (2) Efficient myogenic transdifferentiation and lipogenesis as well as controlled fat deposition are achieved in the 3D GelMA.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Ma et al. tries to develop a protocol for cell-based meat production using chicken fibroblasts as three-dimensional (3D) muscle tissues with fat accumulation. The authors used genetically modified fibroblasts, which can be forced to differentiate into muscle cells, and formulated 3D tissues with these cells and a biphasic material (hydrogel). The degrees of muscle differentiation and lipid deposition in culture were determined by immunohistochemical, biochemical, and molecular biological evaluations. Notably, the protocol successfully achieved the process of myogenic and lipogenic stimulation in the 3D tissues.

As addressed after the initial review process, the manuscript is clearly written with well-supportive figures. The study design is reasonable with adequate analysis. In the revised manuscript, the authors further discussed the ideas in terms of the approach using genetic modification for cell-based meat production. However, more careful considerations may still be helpful when actually using the technology for cultivated meat production.

eLife assessment

The authors present an important theoretical framework that describes the interplay between liquid-liquid phase separation and protein aggregation within a mean-field model. This work will be of high interest to the biophysics and molecular biology communities, as it will understand and analyse assembly within biomolecular condensates in cells or in-vitro. Major strengths of this convincing work are the consideration of aggregates with various dimensionality and the possibility for protein gelation. A relative weakness is the lack of intuitive interpretation of some of the results and the work could be more accessible to non-experts.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors present a mean-field model that describes the interplay between (protein) aggregation and phase separation. Different classes of interaction complexity and aggregate dimensionality are considered, both in calculations concerning (equilibrium) phase behavior and kinetics of assembly formation.

Strengths:

The present work is, although purely theoretical, of high interest to understanding biological processes that occur as a result of a coupling between protein aggregation and phase separation. Of course, such processes are abundant, in the living cell as well as in in-vitro experiments. I appreciate the consideration of aggregates with various dimensionality, as well as the categorization into different "interaction classes", together with the mentioning of experimental observations from biology. The model is convincing and underlines the complexity associated with the distribution of proteins across phases and aggregates in the living cell.

Weaknesses:

There are a few minor weaknesses.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors combine classical theories of phase separation and self-assembly to establish a framework for explaining the coupling between the two phenomena in the context of protein assemblies and condensates. By starting from a mean-field free energy for monomers and assemblies immersed in solvent and imposing conditions of equilibrium, the authors derive phase diagrams indicating how assemblies partition into different condensed phases as temperature and the total volume fraction of proteins are varied. They find that phase separation can promote assembly within the protein-rich phase, providing a potential mechanism for spatial control of assembly. They extend their theory to account for the possibility of gelation. They also create a theory for the kinetics of self-assembly within phase separated systems, predicting how assembly size distributions change with time within the different phases as well as how the volumes of the different phases change with time.

Strengths:

The theoretical framework that the authors present is an interesting marriage of classic theories of phase separation and self-assembly. Its simplicity should make it a powerful general tool for understanding the thermodynamics of assembly coupled to phase separation, and it should provide a useful framework for analyzing experiments on assembly within biomolecular condensates.

The key advance over previous work is that the authors now account for how self-assembly can change the boundaries of the phase diagram.

A second interesting point is the explicit theoretical consideration for the possibility that gelation (i.e. self-assembly into a macroscopic aggregate) could account for widely observed solidification of condensates. While this concept has been broadly discussed, to date I have yet to see a rigorous theoretical analysis of the possibility.

The kinetic theory in sections 5 and 6 is also interesting as it extends on previous work by considering the kinetics of phase separation as well as those of self-assembly.

Weaknesses:

A key point the authors make about their theory is that it allows, as opposed to previous research, to study non-dilute limits. It is true that they consider gelation when the 3D assemblies become macroscopic. However, dilute solution theory assumptions seem to be embedded in many aspects of their theory, and it is not always clear where else the non-dilute limits are considered. Is it in the inter-species interaction \chi_{ij}? Why then do they never explore cases for which \chi_{ij} is nonzero in their analysis?

The connection between this theory and biological systems is described in the introduction but lost along the main text. It would be very helpful to point out, for instance, that the presence of phase separation might induce aggregation of proteins. This point is described formally at the end of Section 3, but a more qualitative connection to biological systems would be very useful here.

Building on the previous point, it would be helpful to give an intuitive sense of where the equations derived in the Appendices and presented in the main text come from and to spell out clear physical interpretations of the results. For example, it would be helpful to point out that Eq. 4 is a form of the law of mass action, familiar from introductory chemistry.

It would be useful to better explain how the current work extends on existing previous work from these authors as well as others. Along these lines, closely related work by W. Jacobs and B. Rogers [O. Hedge et al. 2023, https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.06134; T. Li et al. 2023, https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.13198] should be cited in the introduction.

The results discussed in the first paragraph of Section 3 on assembly size distributions in a homogeneous system are well-known from classic theories of self-assembly. This should be acknowledged and appropriate references should be added; see for instance Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025008 and Statistical Thermodynamics Of Surfaces, Interfaces, And Membranes by Sam Safran.

Equation 14 for the kinetic of volume fractions is given with a reference to Bauermann et al 2022, but it should be accompanied by a better intuitive interpretation of its terms in the main text. In particular, how should one understand the third term in this equation? Why does the change in volume impact the change of volume fraction in this way?

The discussion in the last paragraph of Section 6 should be clarified. How can the total amount of protein in both phases decrease? This would necessarily violate either mass or volume conservation. Also, the discussion of why the volume is non-monotonic in time is not clear.

eLife assessment

This important study describes how PhoP regulates cyclic-AMP production in the human pathogen Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The authors provide convincing evidence that PhoP acts as a repressor of the cyclic-AMP-specific phosphodiesterase, Rv0805, which can degrade cyclic-AMP. The revised manuscript has addressed all outstanding comments and the work will be of interest to bacteriologists.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This paper provides a straightforward mechanism of how mycobacterial cAMP level is increased under stressful conditions and shows that the increase is important for the survival of the bacterium in animal hosts. The cAMP level is increased by decreasing the expression of an enzyme that degrades cAMP.

Strengths:

The paper shows that under different stresses the response regulator PhoP represses a phosphodiesterase (PDE) that degrades cAMP specifically. Identification of PhoP as a regulator of cAMP is significant progress in understanding Mtb pathogenesis, as an increase in cAMP apparently increases bacterial survival upon infection. On the practical side, reduction of cAMP by increasing PDE can be a means to attenuate the growth of the bacilli. The results have wider implications since PhoP is implicated in controlling diverse mycobacterial stress responses and many bacterial pathogens modulate host cell cAMP levels. The results here are straightforward, internally consistent, and of both theoretical and applied interests. The results also open considerable future work, especially how increases in cAMP level help to increase survival of the pathogen.

Weaknesses:

It is not clear whether PhoP-PDE Rv0805 is the only pathway to regulate cAMP level under stress.

Comments on revised submission:

The authors have addressed my comments adequately, actually except for all but one. I have only one comment to do with the last line of the abstract. First, "genetic manipulation" usually means changing DNA. In Mtb pathogenesis I hope there is no DNA modification or change in the bacterial DNA. Also, the authors did not really inactivate the whole PhoP- rv0805-cAMP pathway. It would be best if the last line is made more fact based: Thus, inactivation of PhoP decreases cAMP level, thereby stress tolerance and intracellular survival of the bacillus.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In the manuscript, the authors have presented new mechanistic details to show how intracellular cAMP levels are maintained and linked to the phosphodiesterase enzyme which in turn is controlled by PhoP. Later, they showed the physiological relevance linked to altered cAMP concentrations.

Strengths:

Well-thought-out experiments. The authors carefully planned the experiments well to uncover the molecular aspects of it diligently.

Weaknesses:

None. The authors have meticulously responded to all my queries and concerns through multiple rounds of review.

eLife assessment

This valuable work presents the latest version of CTFFIND, which is the most popular software for determination of the contrast transfer function (CTF) in cryo-electron microscopy. CTFFIND5 estimates and considers acquisition geometry and sample thickness, which leads to improved CTF determination. The paper describes convincing evidence that CTFFIND5 finds better CTF parameters than previous methods, in particular for tilted samples (e.g. for cryo-electron tomography) or where thickness is an issue (e.g. cellular samples, or electron microscopy at low voltages).

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This work presents CTFFIND5, a new version of the software for determination of the Contrast Transfer Function (CTF) that models the distortions introduced by the microscope in cryoEM images. CTFFIND5 can take acquisition geometry and sample thickness into consideration to improve CTF estimation.

To estimate tilt (tilt angle and tilt axis), the input image is split into tiles and correlation coefficients are computed between their power spectra and a local CTF model that includes the defocus variation according to a tilted plane. As a final step, by applying a rescaling factor to the power spectra of the tiles, an average tilt-corrected power spectrum is obtained and used for diagnostic purposes and to estimate the goodness of fit. This global procedure and the rescaling factor resemble those used in Bsoft, Warp, etc, with determination of the tilt parameters being a feature specific of CTFFIND5 (and formerly CTFTILT). The performance of the algorithm is evaluated with tilted 2D crystals and tilt-series, demonstrating accurate tilt estimation in some cases and some limitations in others. Further analysis of CTF determination with tilt-series, particularly showing whether there is accurate or stable estimation at high tilts, might be helpful to show the robustness of CTFFIND5 in cryoET.

CTFFIND5 represents the first CTF determination tool that considers the thickness-related modulation envelope of the CTF firstly described by McMullan et al. (2015) and experimentally confirmed by Tichelaar et al. (2020). To this end, CTFFIND5 uses a new CTF model that takes the sample thickness into account. CTFFIND5 thus provides more accurate CTF estimation and, furthermore, gives an estimation of the sample thickness, which may be a valuable resource to judge the potential for high resolution. To evaluate the accuracy of thickness estimation in CTFFIND5, the authors use the Lambert-Beer law on energy-filtered data and also tomographic data, thus demonstrating that the estimates are reasonable for images with exposure around 30 e/A2. While consideration of sample thickness in CTF determination sounds ideally suited for cryoET, practical application under the standard acquisition protocols in cryoET (exposure of 3-5 e/A2 per image) is still limited. In this regard, the authors are honest in the conclusions and clearly identify the areas where thickness-aware CTF determination will be valuable at present: e.g. in situ single particle analysis and in vitro single particle cryoEM of purified samples at low voltages.

In conclusion, the manuscript introduces novel methods inside CTFFIND5 that improve CTF estimation, namely acquisition geometry and sample thickness. The evaluation demonstrates the performance of the new tool, with fairly accurate estimates of tilt axis, tilt angle and sample thickness and improved CTF estimation. The manuscript critically defines the current range of application of the new methods in cryoEM.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This paper describes the latest version of the most popular program for CTF estimation for cryo-EM images: CTFFIND5. New features in CTFFIND5 are the estimation of tilt geometry, including for samples, like FIB-milled lamellae, that are pre-tilted along a different axis than the tilt axis of the tomographic experiment, plus the estimation of sample thickness from the expanded CTF model described by McMullan et al (2015). The results convincingly show the added value of the program for thicker and tilted images, such as are common in modern cryo-ET experiments. The program will therefore have a considerable impact on the field.

I have only minor suggestions for improvement below:

Abstract: "[CTF estimation] has been one of the key aspects of the resolution revolution"-> This is a bit over the top. Not much changed in the actual algorithms for CTF estimation during the resolution revolution.<br /> L34: "These parameters" -> Cs is typically given, only defocus (and if relevant phase shift) are estimated.<br /> L110-116: The text is ambiguous: are rotations defined clockwise or counter-clockwise? It would be good to explicitly state what subsequent rotations, in which directions and around which axes this transformation matrix (and the input/output angles in CTFFIND5) correspond to.<br /> L129-130: As a suggestion: it would be relatively easy, and possibly beneficial to the user, to implement a high-resolution limit that varies with the accumulated dose on the sample. One example of this exists in the tomography pipeline of RELION-5.<br /> Substituting Eq (7) into Eq (6) yields ksi=pi, which cannot be true. If t is the sample thickness, then how can this be a function of the frequency g of the first node of the CTF function? The former is a feature of the sample, the latter is a parameter of the optical system. This needs correction.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

In this manuscript, the authors detail improvements in the core CTFFIND (CTFFIND5 as implemented in cisTEM) algorithm that better estimates CTF parameters from titled micrographs and those that exhibit signal attenuation due to ice thickness. These improvements typically yield more accurate CTF values that better represent the data. Although some of the improvements result in slower calculations per micrograph, these can be easily overcome through parallelization.

There are some concerns outlined below that would benefit from further evaluation by the authors.

For the examples shown in Figure 3b, given the small differences in estimated defocus1 and 2, what type of improvements would be expected in the reconstructed tomograms? Do such improvements in estimates manifest in better tilt-series reconstruction?

Similarly, the data shown in Figure 3C shows minimal improvements in the CTF resolution estimate (e.g., 4.3 versus 4.2 Å), but exhibited several hundred Å difference in defocus values. How do such differences impact downstream processing? Is such a difference overcame by per-particle (local) CTF refinements (like the authors mention in the discussion, see below)?

At which point does the thickness of the specimen preclude the ice thickness modulation to be included for "accurate" estimate? 500Å? 1000Å? 2000Å? Based on the data shown in Figure 3B, as high as 969 Å thick specimens benefit moderately (4.6 versus 3.4 Å fit estimate), but perhaps not significantly, from the ice thickness estimation. Considering the increased computational time for ice thickness estimation, such an estimate of when to incorporate for single-particle workflows would be beneficial.

It would seem that this statement could be evaluated herein: "the analysis of images of purified samples recorded at lower acceleration voltages, e.g., 100 keV (McMullan et al., 2023), may also benefit since thickness-dependent CTF modulations will appear at lower resolution with longer electron wavelengths". There are numerous examples of 300kV, 200kV, and 100kV EMPIAR datasets to be compared and recommendations would be welcomed.

Although logical, this statement is not supported by the data presented in this manuscript: "The improvements of CTFFIND5 will provide better starting values for this refinement, yielding better overall CTF estimation and recovery of high-resolution information during 3D reconstruction."

Moreso, the lack of single-particle data evaluation does present a concern. Naively, these improvements would benefit all cryoEM data, regardless of modality.

eLife assessment

This work is of fundamental significance and has a compelling level of evidence for a new population that protects against obesity-induced hypothalamic inflammation. This topic will attract attention from a broad base of readers, from hypothalamic neuroscientists to immunologists with an interest in metabolism.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The present work from Velloso and collaborators investigated the transcription profiles of resident and recruited hypothalamic microglia. They found sex-dependent differences between males and females and identified the protective role of chemokine receptor CXCR3 against diet-induced obesity.

Strengths:

(1) Novelty<br /> (2) Relevance, since this work provides evidence about a subset of recruited microglia that has a protective effect against DIO. This provides a new concept in hypothalamic inflammation and obesity.

Weaknesses:

(1) Lack of mechanistic insight into the sex-dependent effects.<br /> (2) Analysis of indirect calorimetry data requires more depth.<br /> (3) A deeper analysis of hypothalamic inflammation and ER stress pathways would strengthen the manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This study by Mendes et al provides novel key insights into the role of chemotaxis and immune cell recruitment into the hypothalamus in the development of diet-induced obesity. Specifically, the authors reveal that although transcriptional changes in hypothalamic resident microglia following exposure to high-fat feeding are minor, there are compelling transcriptomic differences between resident microglia and microglia recruited to the hypothalamus, and these are sexually dimorphic. Using independent loss-of-function studies, the authors also demonstrate an important role of CXCR3 and hypothalamic CXCL10 in the hypothalamic recruitment of CCR2+ positive cells on metabolism following exposure to high-fat diet-feeding in mice. This manuscript puts forth conceptually novel evidence that inhibition of chemotaxis-mediated immune cell recruitment accelerates body weight gain in high-fat diet-feeding, suggesting that a subset of microglia that express CXCR3 may confer protective, anti-obesogenic effects.

Strengths:

The work is exciting and relevant given the prevalence of obesity and the consequences of inflammation in the brain on perturbations of energy metabolism and ensuant metabolic diseases. Hypothalamic inflammation is associated with disrupted energy balance, and activated microglia within the hypothalamus resulting from excessive caloric intake and saturated fatty acids are often thought to be mediators of impairment of hypothalamic regulation of metabolism. The present work reports a novel notion in which immune cells recruited into the hypothalamus that express chemokine receptor CXCR3 may have a protective role against diet-induced obesity. In vivo studies reported herein demonstrate that inhibition of CXCR3 exacerbates high-fat diet-induced body weight gain, increases circulating triglycerides and fasting glucose levels, worsens glucose tolerance, and increases the expression of orexigenic neuropeptides, at least in female mice.

This work provides a highly interesting and needed overview of preclinical and clinical brain inflammation, which is relevant to readers with an interest in metabolism and immunometabolism in the context of obesity.

Using flow cytometry, cell sorting, and transcriptomics including RNA-sequencing, the manuscript provides novel insights into transcriptional landscapes of resident and recruited microglia in the hypothalamus. Importantly, sex differences are investigated.

Overall, the manuscript is perceived to be highly interesting, relevant, and timely. The discussion is thoughtful, well-articulated, and a pleasure to read and felt to be of interest to a broad audience.

Weaknesses:

There were no major weaknesses perceived. Some comments for potential textual additions to the results/discussion are listed in recommendations to authors.

eLife assessment

This fundamental study advances our understanding of the cell specific treatment of cone photoreceptor degeneration by Txnip. The evidence supporting the conclusions is compelling with rigorous genetic manipulation of Txnip mutations. The work will be of broad interest to vision researchers, cell biologists and biochemists.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This is a follow-up study to the authors' previous eLife report about the roles of an alpha-arrestin called protein thioredoxin interacting protein (Txnip) in cone photoreceptors and in the retinal pigment epithelium. The findings are important because they provide new information about the mechanism of glucose and lactate transport to cone photoreceptors and because they may become the basis for therapies for retinal degenerative diseases.

Strengths:

Overall, the study is carefully done and, although the analysis is fairly comprehensive with many different versions of the protein analyzed, it is clearly enough described to follow. Figure 4 greatly facilitated my ability to follow, understand and interpret the study. The authors have appropriately addressed a few concerns about statistical significance and the relationship between their findings and previous studies of the possible roles of Txnip on GLUT1 expression and localization on the surfaces of RPE cells.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The hard work of the authors is much appreciated. With overexpression of a-arrestin Txnip in RPE, cones and the combined respectively, the authors show a potential gene agnostic treatment that can be applied to retinitis pigmentosa. Furthermore, since Txnip is related to multiple intracellular signaling pathway, this study is of value for research in the mechanism of secondary cone dystrophy as well.

Strengths

- The follow-up study builds on innovative ground by exploring the impact of TxnipC247S and its combination with HSP90AB1 knockdown on cone survival, offering novel therapeutic pathways.<br /> - Testing of different Txnip deletion mutants provides a nuanced understanding of its functional domains, contributing valuable insights into the mechanism of action in RP treatment.<br /> - The findings regarding GLUT1 clearance and the differential effects of Txnip mutants on cone and RPE cells lay the groundwork for targeted gene therapy in RP.

Comments on revised version:

The researchers answered our questions and included additional discussion in the manuscript.

Author Response

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Through an unbiased genomewide KO screen, the authors identified loss of DBT to suppress MG132-mediated death of cultured RPE cells. Further analyses suggested that DBT reduces ubiquitinated proteins by promoting autophagy. Mechanistic studies indicated that DBT loss promotes autophagy via AMPK and its downstream ULK and mTOR signaling. Furthermore, loss of DBT suppresses polyglutamine- or TDP-43-mediated cytotoxicity and/or neurodegeneration in fly models. Finally, the authors showed that DBT proteins are increased in ALS patient tissues, compared to non-neurological controls.

Strengths:

The idea is novel, the evidence is mostly convincing, and the data are clean. The findings have implications for human diseases.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the supportive comments.

Weaknesses:

More experiments are needed to establish the connections between DBT and autophagy. The mechanistic studies are somewhat biased, and it's unclear whether the same mechanism (i.e., AMPK-->mTOR) can be applied to TDP-43-mediated neurodegeneration. Also, some data interpretation has to be more accurate.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for raising these questions, and we have provided additional evidence in the revised manuscript to support the model that DBTKO can enhance autophagy and induce resistance to TDP-43-associated toxicity. This is described in greater detail below.

(1) To provide further evidence for the connection between DBT and autophagy, we have introduced additional controls. For the additional controls, we have included the AMPK shRNA and drug treatment controls (Fig.4D, Fig.S4B), and these results suggest that reducing the AMPK level renders DBTKO cells sensitive to MG132 toxicity. We also added the TSC1 shRNA and mTOR agonist treatment controls (Fig.5E, Fig.S4G), and the results show that increasing mTOR levels also make the DBTKO cells sensitive to MG132.

(2) To further confirm the roles of AMPK and mTOR in DBTKO cells, we introduced the AMPK agonist (EX229) and mTOR inhibitors (RAD001 and AZD8055) in co-treatment experiments with MG132 and then measured cell survival (Fig.S4D, S4G). The results indicate that promoting AMPK activation or inhibiting mTOR can enhance cell resistance to MG132-induced toxicity.

(3) Additionally, we included the overexpression and rescue experiments for DBT and analyzed the AMPK-ULK1 signaling in WT RPE1 and DBTKO cells (Fig.S5D, S5E). The results indicate that the increase of DBT can significantly reduce the phosphorylation of AMPK/ULK1 and the levels of the autophagy marker LC3II. Together, these results suggest that DBT plays an important role in autophagy.

(4) We had shown in the original version of the manuscript that DBTKO renders cells more resistant to TDP-43-associated toxicity, similar to the tolerance of MG132-induced toxicity. Here we further show that expression of TDP-43M337V enhances the phosphorylation of AMPK in the DBTKO cells (Fig. S7A), similar to the effect of the MG132 treatment. These results suggest that the resistance of DBTKO cells to MG132 or TDP-43-assoicated toxicity shares a similar mechanism of activated the AMPK signaling.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Hwang, Ran-Der et al utilized a CRISPR-Cas9 knockout in human retinal pigment epithelium (RPE1) cells to evaluate for suppressors of toxicity by the proteasome inhibitor MG132 and identified that knockout of dihydrolipoamide branched chain transacylase E2 (DBT) suppressed cell death. They show that DBT knockout in RPE1 cells does not alter proteasome or autophagy function at baseline. However, with MG132 treatment, they show a reduction in ubiquitinated proteins but with no change in proteasome function. Instead, they show that DBT knockout cells treated with MG132 have improved autophagy flux compared to wildtype cells treated with MG132. They show that MG132 treatment decreases ATP/ADP ratios to a greater extent in DBT knockout cells, and in accordance causes activation of AMPK. They then show downstream altered autophagy signaling in DBT knockout cells treated with MG132 compared to wild-type cells treated with MG132. Then they express the ALS mutant TDP43 M337 or expanded polyglutamine repeats to model Huntington's disease and show that knockdown of DBT improves cell survival in RPE1 cells with improved autophagic flux. They also utilize a Drosophila model and show that utilizing either a RNAi or CRISPR-Cas9 knockout of DBT improves eye pigment in TDP43M337V and polyglutamine repeat-expressing transgenic flies. Finally, they show evidence for increased DBT in postmortem spinal cord tissue from patients with ALS via both immunoblotting and immunofluorescence.

Strengths:

This is a mechanistic and well-designed paper that identifies DBT as a novel regulator of proteotoxicity via activating autophagy in the setting of proteasome inhibition. Major strengths include careful delineation of a mechanistic pathway to define how DBT is protective. These conclusions are largely justified, but additional experiments and information would be useful to clarify and extend these conclusions.

Reply: We thank the reviewer for the supportive comments.

Weaknesses:

The large majority of the experiments are evaluating suppression of drug (MG132) toxicity in an in vitro epithelial cell line, so the generalizability to disease is unclear. Indeed, MG132 itself has been shown to modulate autophagy, and off-target effects of MG132 are not addressed. While this paper is strengthened by the inclusion of mouse-induced motor neurons, Drosophila models, and postmortem tissue, the putative mechanisms are minimally evaluated in these models.

Also, this effect is only seen with MG132 treatment, at a dose that causes markedly impaired cell survival. In this setting, it is certainly plausible that changes in autophagy could be the result of differences in cell survival, as opposed to an underlying mechanism for cell survival. Additional controls would be useful to increase confidence that DBT knockdown is protective via modulation of autophagy.

While the authors report increased DBT in postmortem ALS tissue as suggestive that DBT may modulate proteotoxicity in neurodegeneration, this point would be better supported with the evaluation of overexpression of DBT in their model.

Reply: We appreciate the reviewer for raising these questions, and we have provided further evidence in the revised manuscript to support the proposed mechanism that DBTKO confers resistance to MG132-induced toxicity through activation of autophagy. This is discussed in greater detail below.

(1) To provide further mechanistic analysis, we have included additional controls for the analysis of AMPK signaling in Fig. 4D and Fig. S4B. These results demonstrate that using drugs or shRNAs to reduce AMPK activity can decrease DBTKO survival. We have also shown that that an increasing the AMPK activity with an activator enhances the survival of both WT and DBTKO cells under MG132 treatment (Fig. S4D), suggesting that DBTKO cells resist MG132-induced toxicity through the activation of AMPK signaling.

(2) We have included additional controls for the analysis of mTOR signaling in Fig. 5E and Fig. S4F. The results in Fig. 5E show that reducing TSC1 using shRNAs can decrease DBTKO survival. We also added the experiments with mTOR agonist MHY1485 as a control in Fig. S4F. These results indicate that mTOR activation can promote DBTKO cells' sensitivity to MG132 toxicity. To further confirm the importance of mTOR in DBTKO-mediated resistance to MG132 toxicity, we included the mTOR inhibitors RAD001 and AZD8055 in the co-treatment experiments with MG132, and then measured cell survival (Fig. S4G). The results show that both mTOR inhibitors can enhance cell resistance to MG132-induced toxicity (Fig. S4G). These findings suggest that mTOR inhibition is required for DBTKO-mediated cell survival under MG132 treatment.

(3) To further test the hypothesis that DBT knockdown is protective via modulation of autophagy, we have introduced the overexpression of DBT and the rescue of DBT in DBTKO cells to analyze the AMPK signaling that regulates autophagy (Fig. S5E). The results demonstrate that overexpression of DBT significantly reduced the phosphorylation of AMPK and ULK1 (Fig. S5E). In the rescue experiment, the results mirror those of the overexpression experiment, showing a significant reduction in the phosphorylation of AMPK and ULK1 (Fig. S5E). We also analyzed the autophagy marker LC3II in both the overexpression and rescue experiments, and the results indicate that increasing the DBT level specifically reduces the LC3II level (Fig. S5D). These results support the model that loss of DBT promotes the activation of autophagy.

(4) To test the hypothesis that DBT may modulate proteotoxicity in neurodegeneration, we included the studies with TDP-43M337V and found that the expression of the mutant TDP43 enhanced the phosphorylation of AMPK in the DBTKO cells (Fig. S7A), consistent with the observations made with MG-132 treatment. Together with other findings in the manuscript, these results indicate that DBTKO can sensitize the activation of the AMPK signaling and confer the resistance to TDP-43-associated toxicity.

Author response:

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

Editor’s summary:

This paper by Castello-Serrano et al. addresses the role of lipid rafts in trafficking in the secretory pathway. By performing carefully controlled experiments with synthetic membrane proteins derived from the transmembrane region of LAT, the authors describe, model and quantify the importance of transmembrane domains in the kinetics of trafficking of a protein through the cell. Their data suggest affinity for ordered domains influences the kinetics of exit from the Golgi. Additional microscopy data suggest that lipid-driven partitioning might segregate Golgi membranes into domains. However, the relationship between the partitioning of the synthetic membrane proteins into ordered domains visualised ex vivo in GPMVs, and the domains in the TGN, remain at best correlative. Additional experiments that relate to the existence and nature of domains at the TGN are necessary to provide a direct connection between the phase partitioning capability of the transmembrane regions of membrane proteins and the sorting potential of this phenomenon.

The authors have used the RUSH system to study the traffic of model secretory proteins containing single-pass transmembrane domains that confer defined affinities for liquid ordered (lo) phases in Giant Plasma Membrane derived Vesicles (GPMVs), out of the ER and Golgi. A native protein termed LAT partitioned into these lo-domains, unlike a synthetic model protein termed LAT-allL, which had a substituted transmembrane domain. The authors experiments provide support for the idea that ER exit relies on motifs in the cytosolic tails, but that accelerated Golgi exit is correlated with lo domain partitioning.

Additional experiments provided evidence for segregation of Golgi membranes into coexisting lipid-driven domains that potentially concentrate different proteins. Their inference is that lipid rafts play an important role in Golgi exit. While this is an attractive idea, the experiments described in this manuscript do not provide a convincing argument one way or the other. It does however revive the discussion about the relationship between the potential for phase partitioning and its influence on membrane traffic.

We thank the editors and scientific reviewers for thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for positive feedback. While we agree that our experimental findings present a correlation between trafficking rates and raft affinity, in our view, the synthetic, minimal nature of the transmembrane protein constructs in question makes a strong argument for involvement of membrane domains in their trafficking. These constructs have no known sorting determinants and are unlikely to interact directly with trafficking proteins in cells, since they contain almost no extramembrane amino acids. Yet, the LATTMD traffics through Golgi similarly to the full-length LAT protein, but quite different from mutants with lower raft phase affinity. We suggest that these observations can be best rationalized by involvement of raft domains in the trafficking fates and rates of these constructs, providing strong evidence (beyond a simple correlation) for the existence and relevance of such domains.

We have substantially revised the manuscript to address all reviewer comments, including several new experiments and analyses. These revisions have substantially improved the manuscript without changing any of the core conclusions and we are pleased to have this version considered as the “version of record” in eLife.

Below is our point-by-point response to all reviewer comments.

ER exit:

The experiments conducted to identify an ER exit motif in the C-terminal domain of LAT are straightforward and convincing. This is also consistent with available literature. The authors should comment on whether the conservation of the putative COPII association motif (detailed in Fig. 2A) is significantly higher than that of other parts of the C-terminal domain.

Thank you for this suggestion, this information has now been included as Supp Fig 2B. While there are other wellconserved residues of the LAT C-terminus, many regions have relatively low conservation. In contrast, the essential residues of the COPII association motif (P148 and A150) are completely conserved across in LAT across all species analyzed.

One cause of concern is that addition of a short cytoplasmic domain from LAT is sufficient to drive ER exit, and in its absence the synthetic constructs are all very slow. However, the argument presented that specific lo phase partitioning behaviour of the TMDs do not have a significant effect on exit from the ER is a little confusing. This is related to the choice of the allL-TMD as the 'non-lo domain' partitioning comparator. Previous data has shown that longer TMDs (23+) promote ER export (eg. Munro 91, Munro 95, Sharpe 2005). The mechanism for this is not, to my knowledge, known. One could postulate that it has something to do with the very subject of this manuscript- lipid phase partitioning. If this is the case, then a TMD length of 22 might be a poor choice of comparison. A TMD 17 Ls' long would be a more appropriate 'non-raft' cargo. It would be interesting to see a couple of experiments with a cargo like this.

The basis for the claim that raft affinity has relatively minor influence on ER exit kinetics, especially in comparison to the effect of the putative COPII interaction motif, is in Fig 1G. We do observe some differences between constructs and they may be related to raft affinity, however we considered these relatively minor compared to the nearly 4-fold increase in ER efflux induced by COPII motifs.

We have modified the wording in the manuscript to avoid the impression that we have ruled out an effect of raft affinity of ER exit.

We believe that our observations are broadly consistent with those of Munro and colleagues. In both their work and ours, long TMDs were able to exit the ER. In our experiments, this was true for several proteins with long TMDs, either as fulllength or as TMD-only versions (see Fig 1G). We intentionally did not measure shorter synthetic TMDs because these would not have been comparable with the raft-preferring variants, which all require relatively long TMDs, as demonstrated in our previous work1,2. Thus, because our manuscript does not make any claims about the influence of TMD length on trafficking, we did not feel that experiments with shorter non-raft constructs would substantively influence our conclusions.

However, to address reviewer interest, we did complete one set of experiments to test the effect of shortening the TMD on ER exit. We truncated the native LAT TMD by removing 6 residues from the C-terminal end of the TMD (LAT-TMDd6aa). This construct exited the ER similarly to all others we measured, revealing that for this set of constructs, short TMDs did not accumulate in the ER. ER exit of the truncated variant was slightly slower than the full-length LAT-TMD, but somewhat faster than the allL-TMD. These effects are consistent with our previous measurements with showed that this shortened construct has slightly lower raft phase partitioning than the LAT-TMD but higher than allL2. While these are interesting observations, a more thorough exploration of the effect of TMD length would be required to make any strong conclusion, so we did not include these data in the final manuscript.

Author response image 1.

Golgi exit:

For the LAT constructs, the kinetics of Golgi exit as shown in Fig. 3B are surprisingly slow. About half of the protein Remains in the Golgi at 1 h after biotin addition. Most secretory cargo proteins would have almost completely exited the Golgi by that time, as illustrated by VSVG in Fig. S3. There is a concern that LAT may have some tendency to linger in the Golgi, presumably due to a factor independent of the transmembrane domain, and therefore cannot be viewed as a good model protein. For kinetic modeling in particular, the existence of such an additional factor would be far from ideal. A valuable control would be to examine the Golgi exit kinetics of at least one additional secretory cargo.

We disagree that LAT is an unusual protein with respect to Golgi efflux kinetics. In our experiments, Golgi efflux of VSVG was similar to full-length LAT (t1/2 ~ 45 min), and both of these were similar to previously reported values3. Especially for the truncated (i.e. TMD) constructs, it is very unlikely that some factor independent of their TMDs affects Golgi exit, as they contain almost no amino acids outside the membrane-embedded TMD.

Practically, it has proven somewhat challenging to produce functional RUSH-Golgi constructs. We attempted the experiment suggested by the reviewer by constructing SBP-tagged versions of several model cargo proteins, but all failed to trap in the Golgi. We speculate that the Golgin84 hook is much more sensitive to the location of the SBP on the cargo, being an integral membrane protein rather than the lumenal KDEL-streptavidin hook. This limitation can likely be overcome by engineering the cargo, but we did not feel that another control cargo protein was essential for the conclusions we presented, thus we did not pursue this direction further.

Comments about the trafficking model

(1) In Figure 1E, the export of LAT-TMD from the ER is fitted to a single-exponential fit that the authors say is "well described". This is unclear and there is perhaps something more complex going on. It appears that there is an initial lag phase and then similar kinetics after that - perhaps the authors can comment on this?

This is a good observation. This effect is explainable by the mechanics of the measurement: in Figs 1 and 2, we measure not ‘fraction of protein in ER’ but ‘fraction of cells positive for ER fluorescence’. This is because the very slow ER exit of the TMD-only constructs present a major challenge for live-cell imaging, so ER exit was quantified on a population level, by fixing cells at various time points after biotin addition and quantifying the fraction of cells with observable ER localization (rather than tracking a single cell over time).

For fitting to the kinetic model (which attempts to describe ‘fraction in ER/Golgi’) we re-measured all constructs by livecell imaging (see Supp Fig 5) to directly quantify relative construct abundance in the ER or Golgi. These data did not have the plateau in Fig 1E, suggesting that this is an artifact of counting “ER positive cells” which would be expected to have a longer lag than “fraction of protein in ER”. Notably however, t1/2 measured by both methods was similar, suggesting that the population measurement agrees well with single-cell live imaging.

We have included all these explanations and caveats in the manuscript. We have also changed the wording from “well described” to “reasonably approximated”.

(2) The model for Golgi sorting is also complicated and controversial, and while the authors' intention to not overinterpreting their data in this regard must be respected, this data is in support of the two-phase Golgi export model (Patterson et al PMID:18555781).

The reviewers are correct, our observations and model are consistent with Patterson et al and it was a major oversight that a reference to this foundational work was not included. We have now added a discussion regarding the “two phase model” of Patterson and Lippincott-Schwartz.

Furthermore contrary to the statement in lines 200-202, the kinetics of VSVG exit from the Golgi (Fig. S3) are roughly linear and so are NOT consistent with the previous report by Hirschberg et al.

Regarding kinetics of VSVG, our intention was to claim that the timescale of VSVG efflux from the Golgi was similar to previously reported in Hirschberg, i.e. t1/2 roughly between 30-60 minutes. We have clarified this in the text. Minor differences in the details between our observations and Hirschberg are likely attributable to temperature, as those measurements were done at 32°C for the tsVSVG mutant.

Moreover, the kinetics of LAT export from the Golgi (Fig. 3B) appear quite different, more closely approximating exponential decay of the signal. These points should be described accurately and discussed.

Regarding linear versus exponential fits, we agree that the reality of Golgi sorting and efflux is far more complicated than accounted for by either the phenomenological curve fitting in Figs 1-3 or the modeling in Fig 4. In addition to the possibility of lateral domains within Golgi stacks, there is transport between stacks, retrograde traffic, etc. The fits in Figs 1-3 are not intended to model specifics of transport, but rather to be phenomenological descriptors that allowed us to describe efflux kinetics with one parameter (i.e. t1/2). In contrast, the more refined kinetic modeling presented in Figure 4 is designed to test a mechanistic hypothesis (i.e. coexisting membrane domains in Golgi) and describes well the key features of the trafficking data.

Relationship between membrane traffic and domain partitioning:

(1) Phase segregation in the GPMV is dictated by thermodynamics given its composition and the measurement temperature (at low temperatures 4degC). However at physiological temperatures (32-37degC) at which membrane trafficking is taking place these GPMVs are not phase separated. Hence it is difficult to argue that a sorting mechanism based solely on the partitioning of the synthetic LAT-TMD constructs into lo domains detected at low temperatures in GPMVs provide a basis (or its lack) for the differential kinetics of traffic of out of the Golgi (or ER). The mechanism in a living cell to form any lipid based sorting platforms naturally requires further elaboration, and by definition cannot resemble the lo domains generated in GPMVs at low temperatures.

We thank the reviewers for bringing up this important point. GPMVs are a useful tool because they allow direct, quantitative measurements of protein partitioning between coexisting ordered and disordered phases in complex, cell-derived membranes. However, we entirely agree, that GPMVs do not fully represent the native organization of the living cell plasma membrane and we have previously discussed some of the relevant differences4,5. Despite these caveats, many studies have supported the cellular relevance of phase separation in GPMVs and the partitioning of proteins to raft domains therein 6-9. Most notably, elegant experiments from several independent labs have shown that fluorescent lipid analogs that partition to Lo domains in GPMVs also show distinct diffusive behaviors in live cells 6,7, strongly suggesting the presence of nanoscopic Lo domains in live cells. Similarly, our recent collaborative work with the lab of Sarah Veatch showed excellent agreement between raft preference in GPMVs and protein organization in living immune cells imaged by super-resolution microscopy10. Further, several labs6,7, including ours11, have reported nice correlations between raft partitioning in GPMVs and detergent resistance, which is a classical (though controversial) assay for raft association.

Based on these points, we feel that GPMVs are a useful tool for quantifying protein preference for ordered (raft) membrane domains and that this preference is a useful proxy for the raft-associated behavior of these probes in living cells. We propose that this approach allows us to overcome a major reason for the historical controversy surrounding the raft field: nonquantitative and unreliable methodologies that prevented consistent definition of which proteins are supposed to be present in lipid rafts and why. Our work directly addresses this limitation by relating quantitative raft affinity measurements in a biological membrane with a relevant and measurable cellular outcome, specifically inter-organelle trafficking rates.

Addressing the point about phase transition temperatures in GPMVs: this is the temperature at which macroscopic domains are observed. Based on physical models of phase separation, it has been proposed that macroscopic phase separation at lower temperatures is consistent sub-microscopic, nanoscale domains at higher temperatures8,12. These smaller domains can potentially be stabilized / functionalized by protein-protein interactions in cells13 that may not be present in GPMVs (e.g. because of lack of ATP).

(2) The lipid compositions of each of these membranes - PM, ER and Golgi are drastically different. Each is likely to phase separate at different phase transition temperatures (if at all). The transition temperature is probably even lower for Golgi and the ER membranes compared to the PM. Hence, if the reported compositions of these compartments are to be taken at face value, the propensity to form phase separated domains at a physiological temperature will be very low. Are ordered domains even formed at the Golgi at physiological temperatures?

It is a good point that the membrane compositions and the resulting physical properties (including any potential phase behavior) will be very different in the PM, ER, and Golgi. Whether ordered domains are present in any of these membranes in living cells remains difficult to directly visualize, especially for non-PM membranes which are not easily accessible by probes, are nanoscopic, and have complex morphologies. However, the fact that raft-preferring probes / proteins share some trafficking characteristics, while very similar non-raft mutants behave differently argues that raft affinity plays a role in subcellular traffic.

(3) The hypothesis of 'lipid rafts' is a very specific idea, related to functional segregation, and the underlying basis for domain formation has been also hotly debated. In this article the authors conflate thermodynamic phase separation mechanisms with the potential formation of functional sorting domains, further adding to the confusion in the literature. To conclude that this segregation is indeed based on lipid environments of varying degrees of lipid order, it would probably be best to look at the heterogeneity of the various membranes directly using probes designed to measure lipid packing, and then look for colocalization of domains of different cargo with these domains.

This is a very good suggestion, and a direction we are currently following. Unfortunately, due to the dynamic nature and small size of putative lateral membrane domains, combined with the interior of a cell being filled with lipophilic environments that overlay each other, directly imaging domains in organellar membranes with lipid packing probes remains extremely difficult with current technology (or at least available to us). We argue that the TMD probes used in this manuscript are a reasonable alternative, as they are fluorescent probes with validated selectivity for membrane compartments with different physical properties.

Ultimately, the features of membrane domains suggested by a variety of techniques – i.e. nanometric, dynamic, relatively similar in composition to the surrounding membrane, potentially diverse/heterogeneous – make them inherently difficult to microscopically visualize. This is one reason why we believe studies like ours, which use a natural model system to directly quantify raft-associated behaviors and relate them to cellular effects (in our case, protein sorting), are a useful direction for this field.

We believe we have been careful in our manuscript to avoid confusing language surrounding lipid rafts, phase separation, etc. Our experiments clearly show that mammalian membranes have the capacity to phase separate, that some proteins preferentially interact with more ordered domains, and that this preference is related to the subcellular trafficking fates and rates of these proteins. We have edited the manuscript to emphasize these claims and avoid the historical controversies and confusions.

(4) In the super-resolution experiments (by SIM- where the enhancement of resolution is around two fold or less compared to optical), the authors are able to discern a segregation of the two types of Golgi-resident cargo that have different preferences for the lo-domains in GPMVs. It should be noted that TMD-allL and the LATallL end up in the late endosome after exit of the Golgi. Previous work from the Bonafacino laboratory (PMID: 28978644) has shown that proteins (such as M6PR) destined to go to the late endosome bud from a different part of the Golgi in vesicular carriers, while those that are destined for the cell surface first (including TfR) bud with tubular vesicular carriers. Thus at the resolution depicted in Fig 5, the segregation seen by the authors could be due to an alternative explanation, that these molecules are present in different areas of the Golgi for reasons different from phase partitioning. The relatively high colocalization of TfR with the GPI probe in Fig 5E is consistent with this explanation. TfR and GPI prefer different domains in the GPMV assays yet they show a high degree of colocalization and also traffic to the cell surface.

This is a good point. Even at microscopic resolutions beyond the optical diffraction limit, we cannot make any strong claims that the segregation we observe is due to lateral lipid domains and not several reasonable alternatives, including separation between cisternae (rather than within), cargo vesicles moving between cisternae, or lateral domains that are mediated by protein assemblies rather than lipids. We have explicitly included this point in the Discussion: “Our SIM imaging suggests segregation of raft from nonraft cargo in the Golgi shortly (5 min) after RUSH release (Fig 5B), but at this level of resolution, we can only report reduced colocalization, not intra-Golgi protein distributions. Moreover, segregation within a Golgi cisterna would be very difficult to distinguish from cargo moving between cisternae at different rates or exiting via Golgi-proximal vesicles.”

We have also added a similar caveat in the Results section of the manuscript: “These observations support the hypothesis that proteins can segregate in Golgi based on their affinity for distinct membrane domains; however, it is important to emphasize that this segregation does not necessarily imply lateral lipid-driven domains within a Golgi cisterna. Reasonable alternative possibilities include separation between cisternae (rather than within), cargo vesicles moving between cisternae, or lateral domains that are mediated by protein assemblies rather than lipids.”

Finally, while probes with allL TMD do eventually end up in late endosomes (consistent with the Bonifacino lab’s findings which we include), they do so while initially transiting the PM2,11.

Minor concerns:

(1) Generally, the quantitation is high quality from difficult experimental data. Although a lot appears to be manual, it appears appropriately performed and interpreted. There are some claims that are made based on this quantitation, however, where there are no statistics performed. For example, figure 1B. Any quantitation with an accompanying conclusion should be subject to a statistical test. I think the quality of the model fits- this is particularly important.

We appreciate the thoughtful feedback, the quantifications and fits were not trivial, but we believe important. We have added statistical significance to Figure 1B and others where it was missing.

(2) Modulation of lipid levels in Fig 4E shows a significant change for the trafficking rate for the LAT-TMD construct and a not so significant change for all-TMD construct. However, these data are not convincing and appear to depend on a singular data point that appears to lower the mean value. In general, the experiment with the MZA inhibitor (Fig. 4D-F) is hard to interpret because cells will likely be sick after inhibition of sphingolipid and cholesterol synthesis. Moreover, the difference in effects for LAT-TMD and allL-TMD is marginal.

We disagree with this interpretation. Fig 4E shows the average of three experiments and demonstrates clearly that the inhibitors change the Golgi efflux rate of LAT-TMD but not allL-TMD. This is summarized in the t1/2 quantifications of Fig 4F, which show a statistically significant change for LAT-TMD but not allL-TMD. This is not an effect of a singular data point, but rather the trend across the dataset.

Further, the inhibitor conditions were tuned carefully to avoid cells becoming “sick”: at higher concentrations, cells did adopt unusual morphologies and began to detach from the plates. We pursued only lower concentrations, which cells survived for at least 48 hrs and without major morphological changes.

(3) Line 173: 146-AAPSA-152 should read either 146-AAPSA-150 or 146-AAPSAPA-152, depending on what the authors intended.

Thanks for the careful reading, we intended the former and it has been fixed.

(4) What is the actual statistical significance in Fig. 3C and Fig. 3E? There is a single asterisk in each panel of the figure but two asterisks in the legend.

Apologies, a single asterisk representing p<0.05 was intended. It has been fixed.

(5) The code used to calculate the model. is not accessible. It is standard practice to host well-annotated code on Github or similar, and it would be good to have this publicly available.

We have deposited the code on a public repository (doi: 10.5281/zenodo. 10478607) and added a note to the Methods.

(1) Lorent, J. H. et al. Structural determinants and func7onal consequences of protein affinity for membrane ra=s. Nature communica/ons 8, 1219 (2017).PMC5663905

(2) Diaz-Rohrer, B. B., Levental, K. R., Simons, K. & Levental, I. Membrane ra= associa7on is a determinant of plasma membrane localiza7on. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111, 8500-8505 (2014).PMC4060687

(3) Hirschberg, K. et al. Kine7c analysis of secretory protein traffic and characteriza7on of golgi to plasma membrane transport intermediates in living cells. J Cell Biol 143, 1485-1503 (1998).PMC2132993

(4) Levental, K. R. & Levental, I. Giant plasma membrane vesicles: models for understanding membrane organiza7on. Current topics in membranes 75, 25-57 (2015)

(5) Sezgin, E. et al. Elucida7ng membrane structure and protein behavior using giant plasma membrane vesicles. Nat Protoc 7, 1042-1051 (2012)

(6) Komura, N. et al. Ra=-based interac7ons of gangliosides with a GPI-anchored receptor. Nat Chem Biol 12, 402-410 (2016)

(7) Kinoshita, M. et al. Ra=-based sphingomyelin interac7ons revealed by new fluorescent sphingomyelin analogs. J Cell Biol 216, 1183-1204 (2017).PMC5379944

(8) Stone, M. B., Shelby, S. A., Nunez, M. F., Wisser, K. & Veatch, S. L. Protein sor7ng by lipid phase-like domains supports emergent signaling func7on in B lymphocyte plasma membranes. eLife 6 (2017).PMC5373823

(9) Machta, B. B. et al. Condi7ons that Stabilize Membrane Domains Also Antagonize n-Alcohol Anesthesia. Biophys J 111, 537-545 (2016)

(10) Shelby, S. A., Castello-Serrano, I., Wisser, I., Levental, I. & S., V. Membrane phase separa7on drives protein organiza7on at BCR clusters. Nat Chem Biol in press (2023)

(11) Diaz-Rohrer, B. et al. Rab3 mediates a pathway for endocy7c sor7ng and plasma membrane recycling of ordered microdomains Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 120, e2207461120 (2023)

(12) Veatch, S. L. et al. Cri7cal fluctua7ons in plasma membrane vesicles. ACS Chem Biol 3, 287-293 (2008)

(13) Wang, H. Y. et al. Coupling of protein condensates to ordered lipid domains determines func7onal membrane organiza7on. Science advances 9, eadf6205 (2023).PMC10132753

eLife assessment

In this important study, Castello-Serrano and colleagues describe, model and quantify the role of transmembrane domains in protein sorting in the secretory pathway, first at the ER and subsequently at the Golgi. Convincing data support the role of a cytoplasmic motif in ER exit, while further experiments are necessary to support a direct connection between the phase partitioning capability of the transmembrane regions and the sorting potential of domains at the Golgi/TGN.

Joint Public Review:

In their revised manuscript additional experiments have been conducted competently, and the interpretation of experiments regarding exit from the ER are convincing. They collectively indicate that the phase partitioning behaviour of the TMDs do not have a significant effect on exit from the ER; they all exit the ER very slowly unless they carry a short cytoplasmic domain from LAT which is sufficient to accelerate ER exit. This data is consistent with available literature supporting a role for a ER-exit signal. Along with new experiments in their revision, they have also toned down the assertion that their data rule out a phase partitioning mechanism at the ER.

The authors, however, continue to interpret their experiments regarding Golgi exit of the transmembrane peptides (with luminal and cytoplasmic domains) as conclusive evidence of the role of lipid rafts in exit from the Golgi. This is once again based on correlation of the phase partitioning behaviour of these proteins in GPMVs, phase separated at low temperatures. They argue that this represents very strong evidence that trafficking out of the Golgi is driven by phase separation. The reviewers consider that there are a number of potential issues with the final model that need to be addressed.

We reiterate that:

(1) the phase segregation in the GPMV at low temperatures is dictated by thermodynamics given its composition and the measurement temperature. However at physiological temperatures at which membrane trafficking is taking place these GPMVs will not exhibit phase separation. Hence it is difficult to argue that a sorting mechanism based solely on the partitioning of the synthetic TM constructs into liquid ordered domain detected at low temperatures in GPMVs provide an explanation of the explanation of the differential kinetics of traffic of the LAT TMD and the allL-TMD constructs, although there is a strong correlation with its phase partitioning behaviour.

(2) The fluctuations of lipid composition resembling lo-domains if persisting at higher temperatures and its conversion into a sorting domain will require a cellular mechanism, that may or may not retain similar properties of these lipidic environments. Additionally, TMDs from TfR/VsVG and GPI prefer different domains in the GPMV assays (Table S1) yet they traffic to the cell surface equally rapidly.

(3) The authors fail to discuss the point raised about the relatively high colocalization of TfR with the GPI probe (seen in Fig 5E) in the Golgi. This is inconsistent with their explanation of traffic correlating with partitioning into distinct domains in the Golgi, since TfR and GPI probes show an opposite preference for lo versus ld domains in cooled GPMVs. TMD-allL and the LAT-allL are segregated from TfR in the Golgi, and end up in a different final destination (ie lysosomes). This could represent yet another membrane specialisation in the Golgi for lysosomal traffic. The segregation that the authors report in the Golgi is therefore not a convincing argument for phase preferences in GPMVs dictating the trafficking behaviour of these molecules towards the plasma membrane.

(4) Despite the authors' claim in their rebuttal that 'we feel that GPMVs are a useful tool for quantifying protein preference for ordered (raft) membrane domains and that this preference is a useful proxy for the raft-associated behavior ... biological membrane with a relevant and measurable cellular outcome, specifically inter-organelle trafficking rates." -several caveats for these observations need to be addressed before they constitute strong evidence for the raft model of membrane trafficking proposed. Phase partitioning in GPMVs is just another operational definition and while more refined (ie the data is derived from the membrane of interest, ie, the plasma membrane) it is not very different conceptually from quantitative measurements of detergent-insolubility.

(5) Further work is necessary to establish that ordered domains are formed at the Golgi at physiological temperatures, into which these proteins may partition; subsequently, there must be a mechanism that selectively traffics these proteins towards the cell surface.

(6) The authors continue to conflate thermodynamic phase separation mechanisms with the real possibility of the formation of functional sorting domains by cellular mechanisms that likely involve lipidic interactions, adding to the confusion in the literature.

Author response:

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

Suggestions to the authors:

• Please re-analyze findings by omitting from all Tables and Figures all data of comparators who were not randomized (BAC). I understand the difficulties of running this trial but the results of excess reduction of mortality do not allow the publication of a trial where comparators do not come from the randomized patient population.

We wish to thank the editors and reviewers for their useful comments. Given that the study was designed with both randomised and CC participants we can’t easily exclude the CC analysis from the paper. However, we do provide graphs for both randomised only and randomised and CC participants for the primary and secondary endpoints. The fact that the primary endpoint (CRP) results are mirrored in both instances is also informative form a trial design perspective and indicative of the effect of dornase alfa therapy on inflammation being robust enough to yield the same results with small and larger cohorts.

We agree that there are potential drawbacks of using contemporary controls. To address these potential biases we used CC patients recruited at the same time period at single site using the same selection criteria as the randomised group, which minimised potential bias. However, the enrolment and comparison of CRP in CC-BAC participants to concurrent randomised control R-BAC patients indicated that the two groups responded to BAC treatment in the same manner (Table 2, LS means log(CRP) 3.78 vs 3.53, P=0.386), whereas the R-BAC+DA vs R-BAC group comparison yielded significant differences (Table 2, LS means log(CRP) 3.1 vs 3.59, P=0.041). These comparisons mitigate to a large degree these potential problems.

Still, to make easy to distinguish the groups we now use the following unique nomenclature throughout the manuscript which is clearly defined on ln. 111 and state that comparisons of treated participants were performed with both control groups separately and combined.

R-BAC: Randomised BAC CC-BAC: Contemporary control BAC R-BAC+DA : Randomised BAC+ dornase alfa T-BAC: R-BAC + CC-BAC

In fact, the most important bias in our study, might actually be the placebo effect, given that participants randomised to BAC did not receive a nebulized control substance. We now discuss these points in more detail in the manuscript and modified the title by removing the reference to a randomised trial and clinical outcomes.

• The presentation remains confusing and the manuscript should be critically revised for clarity. There is a repetition of methods (e.g. lines 176-187 repeat 160-175) and redundant results (e.g. Figure S2, Table 3).

We apologise for the repetition. We removed the repeated text in the Exclusion criteria (lines 176-187 in the old manuscript).

Figure S2 is not related to Table 3. Figure S2 depicts baseline characteristics, whereas Table 3 complements the graph in Figure 3A but lists the mean daily value of the primary endpoint as requested by Reviewer 1 in the first round of revision.

At Table 4: the authors should select one method of illustration for lab results, either Table or figure, without repetitions

We agree and have removed Table 4 leaving the graphs instead.

• Regarding inclusion criteria, it is unclear whether high radiological suspicion is sufficient for inclusion or whether PCR based confirmation is required in all instances (differences in wording between lines 153 and 191), and under which oxygen requirements (lines 155 and 192)

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. Indeed, radiological suspicion was not sufficient and all participants in this study had a positive PCR test as part of their diagnosis prior to inclusion in the study. The entire eligibility section was rewritten to reflect this important point.

• Table 1 should be merged with Table S2 and a better description of cohort baseline severity (P/F, SOFA, APACHE, organ support, number of patients in each point of the WHO severity score) and treatments should be made available.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have now merged Table 1 and S2 and included WHO ordinal severity information in Table 1, with median, average, SD, min and max values which reflect the participant distribution. Unfortunately, although the additional requested information was recorded, it was not systematically collected for the analysis of the trial and it was not straight forward to compile at this stage.

eLife assessment

This small-sized clinical trial comparing nebulized dornase-alfa to the best available care in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia is valuable, but in its present form the paper is incomplete.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This study by Porter et al reports on outcomes from a small, open-label, pilot randomized clinical trial comparing dornase-alfa to best available care in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. As the number of randomized participants is small, investigators describe also a contemporary cohort of controls and the study concludes with decrease of inflammation (reflected by CRP levels) after 7 days of treatment but no other statistically significant clinical benefit.

I read with interest this manuscript and I find the idea about treatment of COVID-19 patients with dornase-alfa novel and inspiring. I have some major concerns about the methodology the authors followed in this RCT.

My major concerns are:

(1) The authors have chosen a primary outcome that cannot be at least considered as clinically relevant or interesting. After 3 years of the pandemic with so much research, why investigate if a drug reduces CRP levels as we already have marketed drugs that provide beneficial clinical outcomes such as dexamethasone, anakinra, tocilizumab and baricitinib.

(2) ΙΤΤ analysis is not followed

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Interesting work with an original and appealing hypothesis. The authors performed an open-label trial comparing nebulized dornase alfa to best available care in COVID-19, reaching the primary outcome of CRP reduction over the first week of intervention. The main weaknesses of the study are the small sample size, the lack of randomization for the majority of the participants, and the lack of blinding. The authors have sufficiently addressed the issues raised, provided that these weaknesses are highlighted in the limitations section.

Author response:

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

We are pleased that Reviewer 3 has deemed our revisions satisfactory; below, we provide responses to the remaining Recommendations for the Authors from Reviewer 2.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Minor corrections:

• Line 91: GWT should be GNWT

Fixed, thank you.

• Figure 2: fix the label "Participationcoefficient rank" (no space between Participation and coefficient)

Fixed, thank you for spotting.

• Line 317: Figure 2 should be Figure 3

Fixed, thank you.

• Line 360: Figure 4D, right?

Fixed, thank you. We also confirm that Figure 4 and its caption are correct. Under anaesthesia, many regions have more Integrated Information than during Recovery (red regions), but the only changes that are consistently observed across all three contrasts are the decreases.

• Line 375: Should be Figure 5A

Fixed, thank you.

• The recovery period of the anesthesia data is not described in Methods.

We have now added the missing information:

“Propofol was discontinued following the deep anaesthesia scan, and participants reached level 2 of the Ramsey scale approximately 11 minutes afterwards, as indicated by clear and rapid responses to verbal commands. This corresponds to the “recovery” period 176.”

We have also expanded our discussion on the interaction between information decomposition and measures of directionality:

“Indeed, transfer entropy can itself be decomposed into information-dynamic atoms through Partial Information Decomposition and Integrated Information Decomposition 33,34,49,151; ΦID can further decompose the Normalised Directed Transfer Entropy measure used by Deco et al 5, as recently demonstrated 152. We look forward to a more refined conceptualization of the synergistic workspace architecture that takes into account both information types and the directionality of information flow – especially in datasets with higher temporal resolution.”

eLife assessment

This article presents important results describing how the gathering, integration, and broadcasting of information in the brain changes when consciousness is lost either through anesthesia or injury. They provide convincing evidence to support their conclusions, although the paper relies on a single analysis tool (partial information decomposition) and could benefit from a clearer explication of its conceptual basis, methodology, and results. The work will be of interest to both neuroscientists and clinicians interested in fundamental and clinical aspects of consciousness.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors analysed functional MRI recordings of brain activity at rest, using state-of-the-art methods that reveal the diverse ways in which information can be integrated in the brain. In this way, they found brain areas that act as (synergistic) gateways for the 'global workspace', where conscious access to information or cognition would occur, and brain areas that serve as (redundant) broadcasters from the global workspace to the rest of the brain. The results are compelling and are consistent with the already assumed role of several networks and areas within the Global Neuronal Workspace framework. Thus, in a way, this work comes to stress the role of synergy and redundancy as complementary information processing modes, which fulfill different roles in the bigger context of information integration.

In addition, to prove that the identified high-order interactions are relevant to the phenomenon of consciousness, the same analysis was performed in subjects under anesthesia or with disorders of consciousness (DOC), showing that indeed the loss of consciousness is associated with a deficient integration of information within the gateway regions.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The work proposes a model of neural information processing based on a 'synergistic global workspace,' which processes information in three principal steps: a gatekeeping step (information gathering), an information integration step, and finally, a broadcasting step. They provided an interpretation of the reduced human consciousness states in terms of the proposed model of brain information processing, which could be helpful to be implemented in other states of consciousness. The manuscript is well-organized, and the results are important and could be interesting for a broad range of literature, suggesting interesting new ideas for the field to explore.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Recommendation for the authors):

(1) On a few occasions, I found that the authors would introduce a concept, but provide evidence much later on. For example, in line 57, they introduced the idea that feedback timing modulates engagement of the hippocampus and striatum, but they provided the details much later on around line 99. There are a few instances like these, and the authors may want to go through the manuscript critically to bridge such gaps to improve the flow of reading.

First, we thank the reviewer for acknowledging the contribution of our study and the methodological choices. We acknowledge the concern raised about the flow of information in the introduction. We have critically reviewed the manuscript, especially on writing style and overall structure, to ensure a smoother transition between the introduction of concepts and the provision of supporting evidence. In the case of the concept of feedback timing and memory systems, lines 46-58 first introduce the concept enhanced with evidence regarding adults, and we then pick up the concept around line 103 again to relate it to children and their brain development to motivate our research question. To further improve readability, we have included an outline of what to expect in the introduction. Specifically, we added a sentence in line 66-68 that provides an overview of the different paragraphs: “We will introduce the key parameters in reinforcement learning and then we review the existing literature on developmental trajectories in reinforcement learning as well as on hippocampus and striatum, our two brain regions of interest.”

This should prepare the reader better when to expect more evidence regarding the concepts introduced. We included similar “road-marker” outline sentences in other occasions the reviewer commented on, to enhance consistency and readability.

(2) I am curious as to how they think the 5-second delay condition maps onto real-life examples, for example in a classroom setting feedback after 5 seconds could easily be framed as immediate feedback.

The authors may want to highlight a few illustrative examples.

Thank you for asking about the practical implications of a 5-second delay condition, which may be very relevant to the reader. We have modified the introduction example in line 39-41 towards the role of feedback timing in the classroom to point out its practical relevance early on: “For example, children must learn to raise their hand before speaking during class. The teacher may reinforce this behavior immediately or with a delay, which raises the question whether feedback timing modulates their learning”.

We have also expanded a respective discussion point in lines 720-728 to pick up the classroom example and to illustrate how we think timescale differences may apply: “In scenarios such as in the classroom, a teacher may comment on a child’s behavior immediately after the action or some moments later, in par with our experimental manipulation of 1 second versus 5 seconds. Within such short range of delay in teachers’ feedback, children’s learning ability during the first years of schooling may function equally well and depend on the striatal-dependent memory system. However, we anticipate that the reliance on the hippocampus will become even more pronounced when feedback is further delayed for longer time. Children’s capacity for learning over longer timescales relies on the hippocampal-dependent memory system, which is still under development. This knowledge could help to better structure learning according to their development.”

(3) In the methods section, there are a few instances of task description discrepancies which make things a little bit confusing, for example, line 173 reward versus punishment, or reward versus null elsewhere e.g. line 229. In the same section, line 175, there are a few instances of typos.

We appreciate your attention to detail in pointing out discrepancies in task descriptions and typos in the method section. We have revised the section, corrected typos, and now phrased the learning outcomes consistently as “reward” and “punishment”.

(4). I wasn't very clear as to why the authors did not compute choice switch probability directly from raw data but implemented this as a model that makes use of a weight parameter. Former would-be much easier and straightforward for data plotting especially for uninformed readers, i.e., people who do not have backgrounds in computational modelling.

Thank you for asking for clarification on the calculation of switching behavior. Indeed, in the behavioral results, switching behavior was directly calculated from the raw data. We now stressed this in the methods in lines 230-235, also by naming win-stay and lose-shift as “proportions” instead of as “probabilities”:“As a first step, we calculated learning outcomes diretly from the raw data, which where learning accuracy, win-stay and lose-shift behavior as well as reaction time.

Learning accuracy was defined as the proportion to choose the more rewarding option, while win-stay and lose-shift refer to the proportion of staying with the previously chosen option after a reward and switching to the alternative choice after receiving a punishment, respectively.”

In contrast to the raw data switching behavior, the computational heuristic strategy model indeed uses a weight for a relative tendency of switching behavior. We have also stressed the advantage of the computational measure and its difference to the raw data switching behavior in lines 248-252 and believe that the reader can now clearly distinguish between the raw data and the computational results: “Note that these model-based outcomes are not identical to the win-stay and lose-shift behavior that were calculated from the raw data. The use of such model-based measure offers the advantage in discerning the underlying hidden cognitive process with greather nuance, in contrast to classical approaches that directly use raw behavioral data.”

(5) I agree with the authors' assertion that both inverse temperature and outcome sensitivity parameters may lead to non-identifiability issues, but I was not 100% convinced about their modelling approach exclusively assessing a different family of models (inv temperature versus outcome sensitivity). Here, I would like to make one mid-way recommendation. They may want to redefine the inverse temperature term in terms of reaction time, i.e., B=exp^(s+g(RT-mean (RT)) where s and g are free parameters (see Webb, 2019), and keep the outcome sensitivity parameter in the model with bounds [0,2] so that the interpretation could be % increase or decrease in actual outcome. Personally, in tasks with binary outcomes i.e. [0,1: null vs reward] I do not think outcome sensitivity parameters higher than 2 are interpretable as these assign an inflated coefficient to outcomes.

We appreciate the mid-way recommendation regarding the modeling approach for inverse temperature and outcome sensitivity parameters. We have carefully revised our analysis approach by considering alternative modeling choices. Regarding the suggestion to redefine the inverse temperature in terms of reaction time by B=exp^(s+g(RT-mean (RT)), we unfortunately were not able to identify the reference Webb (2019), nor did we find references to the suggested modeling approach. Any further information that the reviewer could provide will be greatly appreciated. Regardless, we agree that including reaction times through the implementation of drift-diffusion modeling may be beneficial. However, changing the inverse temperature model in such a way would necessitate major changes in our modeling approach, which unfortunately would result in non-convergence issues in our MCMC pipeline using Rstan. Hence, this approach goes beyond the scope of the manuscript. Nonetheless, we have decided to mention the use of a drift-diffusion model, along with other methodological considerations, as future recommendation for disentangling outcome sensitivity from inverse temperature in lines 711-712: “Future studies might shed new light by examining neural activations at both task phases, by additionally modeling reaction times using a drift-diffusion approach, or by choosing a task design that allows independent manipulations of these phases and associated model parameters, e.g., by using different reward magnitudes during reinforcement learning, or by studying outcome sensitivity without decisionmaking.“

Regarding the upper bound of outcome sensitivity, we agree that traditionally, limiting the parameter values at 2 is the choice for the parameter to be best interpretable. During model fitting, we had experienced non-convergence issues and ceiling effects in the outcome sensitivity parameter when fixing the inverse temperature at 1. The non-convergence issue was not resolved when we fixed the inverse temperature at 15.47, which was the group mean of the winning inverse temperature family. Model convergence was only achieved after increasing the outcome sensitivity upper bound to 20, with inverse temperature again fixed at 1. Since this model also performed well during parameter and model recovery, we argue that the parameter is nevertheless meaningful, despite the more extreme trial-to-trial value fluctuations under higher outcome sensitivity. We described our choice for this model in the methods section in lines 282-288: “Even though outcome sensitivity is usually restricted to an upper bound of 2 to not inflate outcomes at value update, this configuration led to ceiling effects in outcome sensitivity and non-converging model results. Further, this issue was not resolved when we fixed the inverse temperature at the group mean of 15.47 of the winning inverse temperature family model. It may be that in children, individual differences in outcome sensitivity are more pronounced, leading to more extreme values. Therefore, we decided to extend the upper bound to 20, parallel to the inverse temperature, and all our models converged with Rhat < 1.1.”.

(6) I think the authors reporting optimal parameters for the model is very important (line 464), but the learning rate they report under stable contingencies is much higher than LRs reported by for example Behrens et al 2007, LRs around 0.08 for the optimal learning behaviour. The authors may want to discuss why their task design calls for higher learning rates.

Thank you for appreciating our optimal parameter analysis, and for the recommendation to discuss why optimal learning rates in our task design may call for higher learning rates compared to those reported in some other studies. As largely articulated in Zhang et al (2020; primer piece by one of our co-authors), the optimal parameter combination is determined by several factors, such as the reward schedule (e.g., 75:25, vs 80:20) and task design (e.g., no reversal, one reversal, vs multiple reversal) and number of trials (e.g., 80, vs 100, vs, 120). Notably, in these taskrelated regards, our task is different from Behrens et al. (2007), which hinders a quantitative comparison among the optimal parameters in the two tasks. We have now included more details in our discussion in lines 643-656: “However, the differences in learning rate across studies have to be interpreted with caution. The differences in the task and the analysis approach may limit their comparability. Task proporties such as the trial number per condition differed across studies. Our study included 32 trials per cue in each condition, while in adult studies, the trials per condition ranged from 28 to 100. Optimal learning rates in a stable learning environment were at around 0.25 for 10 to 30 trials, another study reported a lower optimal learning rate of around 0.08 for 120 trials. This may partly explain why in our case of 32 trials per condition and cue, optimal learning rates called for a relatively high optimal learning rate of 0.29, while in other studies, optimal learning rates may be lower. Regarding differences in the analysis approach, the hierarchical bayesian estimation approach used in our study produces more reliable results in comparison to maximum likelihood estimation, which had been used in some of the previous adult studies and may have led to biased results towards extreme values. Taken together, our study underscores the importance of using longitudinal data to examine developmental change as well as the importance of simulation-based optimal parameters to interpret the direction of developmental change.”

(7) The authors may want to report degrees of freedom in t-tests so that it would be possible to infer the final sample size for a specific analysis, for example, line 546.

We appreciate the recommendation to include degrees of freedom, which are now added in all t-test results, for example in line 579: “Episodic memory, as measured by individual corrected object recognition memory (hits - false alarms) of confident (“sure”) ratings, showed at trend better memory for items shown in the delayed feedback condition (𝛽!""#$%&’(#")%*"# = .009, SE =.005, t(df = 137) = 1.80, p = .074, see Figure 5A).”

(8) I'm not sure why reductions in lose shift behaviour are framed as an improvement between 2 assessment points, e.g. line 578. It all depends on the strength of the contingency so a discussion around this point should be expanded.

We acknowledge that a reduction in lose-shift behavior only reflect improvements under certain conditions where uncertainty is low and the learning contingencies are stable, which is the case in our task. We have added Supplementary Material 4 to illustrate the optimality of win-stay and lose-shift proportions from model simulation and to confirm that children’s longitudinal development was indeed towards more optimal switching behavior. In the manuscript, we refer to these results in lines 488-490: “We further found that the average longitudinal change in win-stay and lose-shift proportion also developed towards more optimal value-based learning (Supplementary Material 4).”

(9) If I'm not mistaken, the authors reframe a trend-level association as weak evidence. I do not think this is an accurate framing considering the association is strictly non-significant, therefore should be omitted line 585.

We thank for the point regarding the interpretation of a trend-level association as weak evidence. We changed our interpretation, corrected in lines 581-585: “The inclusion of poor learners in the complete dataset may have weakend this effect because their hippocampal function was worse and was not involved in learning (nor encoding), regardless of feedback timing. To summarize, there was inconclusive support for enhanced episodic memory during delayed compared to immediate feedback, calling for future study to test the postulation of a selective association between hippocampal volume and delayed feedback learning.” as well as lines 622-623: “Contrary to our expectations, episodic memory performance was not enhanced under delayed feedback compared to immediate feedback.”

Reviewer # 2 (Public Review):

We thank the reviewer for acknowledging the strength of our study and pointing out its weaknesses.

Weaknesses:

There were a few things that I thought would be helpful to clarify. First, what exactly are the anatomical regions included in the striatum here?

We appreciate the clarification question regarding the anatomical regions included in the striatum. The striatum included ventral and dorsal regions, i.e., accumbens, caudate and putamen. We have now specified the anatomical regions that were included in the striatum in lines 211-212: “We extracted the bilateral brain volumes for our regions of interest, which were striatum and hippocampus. The striatum regions included nucleus accumbens, caudate and putamen.”

Second, it was mentioned that for the reduced dataset, object recognition memory focused on "sure" ratings. This seems like the appropriate way to do it, but it was not clear whether this was also the case for the full analyses in the main text.

Thank you for pointing out that in the full dataset analysis, the use of “sure” ratings for object recognition memory was previously not mentioned. Including only “sure” ratings was used consistently across analyses. This detail is now described under methods in lines 332-333: “Only confident (“sure”) ratings were included in the analysis, which were 98.1 % of all given responses.”

Third, the children's fitted parameters were far from optimal; is it known whether adults would be closer to optimal on the task?

We thank for your question on whether adult learning rates in the task have been reported to be more optimal than those of the children in our study. This indeed seems to be the case, and we added this point in our discussion in line 639-643: “Adult studies that examined feedback timing during reinforcement learning reported average learning rates range from 0.12 to 0.34, which are much closer to the simulated optimal learning rates of 0.29 than children’s average learning rates of 0.02 and 0.05 at wave 1 and 2 in our study. Therefore, it is likely that individuals approach adult-like optimal learning rates later during adolescence.”

The main thing I would find helpful is to better integrate the differences between the main results reported and the many additional results reported in the supplement, for example from the reduced dataset when excluding non-learners. I found it a bit challenging to keep track of all the differences with all the analyses and parameters. It might be helpful to report some results in tables side-by-side in the two different samples. And if relevant, discuss the differences or their implication in the Discussion. For example, if the patterns change when excluding the poor learners, in particular for the associations between delayed feedback and hippocampal volume, and those participants were also those less well fit by the value-based model, is that something to be concerned about and does that affect any interpretations? What was not clear to me is whether excluding the poor learners at one extreme simply weakens the general pattern, or whether there is a more qualitative difference between learners and non-learners. The discussion points to the relevance of deficits in hippocampaldependent learning for psychopathology and understanding such a distinction may be relevant.

We appreciate the feedback that it might seem challenging to keep track of differences between the analyses of the full and the reduced dataset. We have now gathered all the analyses for the reduced dataset in Supplementary Material 6, with side-by-side tables for comparison to the full dataset results. Whenever there were differences between the results, they were pointed out in the results section, see lines 557-560: “In the results of the reduced dataset, the hippocampal association to the delayed learning score was no longer significant, suggesting a weakened pattern when excluding poor learners (Supplementary Material 6). It is likely that the exclusion reduced the group variance for hippocampal volume and delayed learning score in the model.” and lines 579-581: “Note that in the reduced dataset, delayed feedback predicted enhanced item memory significantly (Supplementary Material 6).”

The found differences were further included in our discussion in lines 737-740 in the context of deficits in hippocampal-dependent learning and psychopathology: “Interestingly, poor learners showed relatively less value-based learning in favor of stronger simple heuristic strategies, and excluding them modulated the hippocampal-dependent associations to learning and memory in our results. More studies are needed to further clarify the relationship between hippocampus and psychopathology during cognitive and brain development.”

eLife assessment

In this work, the authors make a valuable contribution based on convincing evidence that children 6-to-7-years-old improve in 2 years of development towards utilising more optimal value-based decision-making strategies while performing a reinforcement learning task. They found that delayed feedback learning was associated with volume in the hippocampus while immediate feedback learning was not. Striatal volume was associated with both forms of learning, in contrast to prior research funding in adults. Brain-behaviour correlations were stable across the 2-year period, despite the hippocampus increasing in volume and striatal volume remaining stable.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Existing literature suggests that brain structures implicated in memory such as the hippocampus, and reward/punishment processing such as the striatal regions are also engaged in learning and value-based decision-making. However, how the contributions of these regions to learning and value-based decision-making change over time, particularly in children where these neural systems show protracted maturation was not studied systematically. This is the question the authors are aiming to address in this work in which children 6-to-7-years-old were recruited for a neuroimaging study that involves taking structural scans from this cohort to investigate how they correlate with changes in the way children approach a reinforcement learning task in which they learn to identify the better shape between 2 options through trial-and-error.

Particular strengths of the paper are longitudinally following up a cohort of small children and engaging them in a value-based decision-making task so that the relationship between neural maturation and improvements in reinforcement learning can be studied reliably. Towards this end, the authors make use of well-established computational modelling approaches to extract key parameters such as learning rates (which designate the speed of learning from expected versus actual outcomes) or choice stochasticity (which designate the inherent variation in people's decisions and the tendency to explore between the options) from children's choices so that their structural neural correlates can be established. As a part of this endeavour, the authors rely on methodological choices which do not warrant much criticism. Their data visualization choices are particularly spot-on and highly informative about the details of the raw data.

Also considering the importance of the hippocampal system in human memory, the key contribution of the paper is that the volumetric increases in hippocampus size between 2 assessment points correlated selectively with the delayed, but not immediate, learning score which refers to the learning condition in which the outcome feedback is given to the children after a 5-seconds delay. Although the authors also demonstrate evidence to suggest that changes in the striatal volume are also implicated in learning performance, this was more general as associations were found for both immediate and delayed feedback conditions. Thus, the paper makes an important contribution to the fields of developmental and decision neuroscience. An important question arising from the authors' findings could be that, whether the hippocampus maintains this selective role in value-based learning during the course of neuronal development, for example, whether a similar association would be found in children 8-to-9 years old. A better understanding of how these developmental trajectories map onto changes in learning and decision-making can inform fields outside neuroscience, for example tailoring educational approaches onto neural development pathways to boost learning efficiency in young children.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This is an interesting and impressive study that provides a rare opportunity to learn about brain-behaviour links of learning systems at a relatively early stage of development.

The main strengths are that the authors followed a relatively large group of children over 2 years and used a reinforcement learning task aimed at assessing learning that depends on both the striatum and the hippocampus. The authors also included a thorough overview of the computational models and the choices they made. I think this paper would be of considerable interest and contributes to knowledge about how learning and memory systems change with development.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

(1) There appears to be a flaw in the exploration of cortical inputs. the authors never show that HFS of cortical inputs has no effect in the absence of thalamic stimulation. It appears that there is a citation showing this, but I think it would be important to show this in this study as well.

We understand that the reviewer would like us to induce an HFS protocol on cortical input and then test if there is any change in synaptic strength in thalamic input. We have done this experiment which shows that without a footshock, high-frequency stimulation (HFS) of the cortical inputs did not induce synaptic potentiation on the thalamic pathway (Extended Data Fig. 4d).

(2) t is somewhat confusing that the authors refer to the cortical input as driving heterosynaptic LTP, but this is not shown until Figure 4J, that after non-associative conditioning (unpaired shock and tone) HFS of the cortex can drive freezing and heterosynaptic LTP of thalamic inputs.

We agree with the reviewer that it is in figure 4j and figure 5,b,c which we show electrophysiological evidence for cortical input driving heterosynaptic LTP. It is only to be consistent with our terminology that initially we used behavioral evidence as the proxy for heteroLTP (figure 3c).

…, the authors are 'surprised' by this outcome, which appears to be what they predict.

We removed the phrase “To our surprise”.

(3) 'Cortex' as a stimulation site is vague. The authors have coordinates they used, it is unclear why they are not using standard anatomical nomenclature.

We replaced “cortex” with “auditory/associative cortex”.

(4) The authors' repeated use of homoLTP and heteroLTP to define the input that is being stimulated makes it challenging to understand the experimental detail. While I appreciate this is part of the goal, more descriptive words such as 'thalamic' and 'cortical' would make this much easier to understand.

We agree with the reviewer that a phrase such as “an LTP protocol on thalamic and cortical inputs” would be more descriptive. We chose the words “homoLTP” and “heteroLTP” only to clarify (for the readers) the physiological relevance of these protocols. We thought by using “thalamic” and “cortical” readers may miss this point. However, when for the first time we introduce the words “homoLTP” and “heteroLTP”, we describe which stimulated pathway each refers to.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

(1) …The experimental schemes in Figs. 1 and 3 (and Fig. 4e and extended data 4a,b) show that one group of animals was subjected to retrieval in the test context at 24 h, then received HFS, which was then followed by a second retrieval session. With this design, it remains unclear what the HFS impacts when it is delivered between these two 24 h memory retrieval sessions.

We understand that the reviewer has raised the concern that the increase in freezing we observed after the HFS protocol (ex. Fig. 1b, the bar labeled as Wth+24hHFSth) could be caused or modulated by the recall prior to the HFS (Fig. 1a, top branch). To address this concern, in a new group of mice, 24 hours after weak conditioning, we induced the HFS protocol, followed by testing (that is, no testing prior to the HFS protocol). We observed that homoLTP was as effective in mice that were tested prior to the induction protocol as those that were not (Fig. 1b, Extended Data Fig. 1d,e).

It would be nice to see these data parsed out in a clean experimental design for all experiments (in Figs 1, 3, and 4), that means 4 groups with different treatments that are all tested only once at 24 h, and the appropriate statistical tests (ANOVA). This would also avoid repeating data in different panels for different pairwise comparisons (Fig 1, Fig 3, Fig 4, and extended Fig 4).

While we understand the benefit of the reviewer’s suggestion, the current presentation of the data was done to match the flow of the text and the delivery of the information throughout the manuscript. We think it is unlikely that the retrieval test prior to the HFS impacts its effectiveness, as confirmed by homosynaptic HFS data (Extended Data Fig. 1d,e). It is beyond the scope of current manuscript to investigate the mechanisms and manipulations related to reconsolidation and retrieval effects.

(2) … It would be critical to know if LFPs change over 24 h in animals in which memory is not altered by HFS, and to see correlations between memory performance and LFP changes, as two animals displayed low freezing levels. … They would suggest that thalamo-LA potentiation occurs directly after learning+HFS (which could be tested) and is maintained over 24 h.

We have performed the experiment where we recorded the evoked LFP 2hrs and 24hrs following the weak conditioning protocol. We observed that a weak conditioning protocol that was not followed by an optical LTP protocol on the cortical inputs failed to produce synaptic potentiation of the thalamic inputs (tested 2hrs and 24hrs after the LTP protocol; Extended Data Fig. 5d,e).

(3) The statistical analyses need to be clarified. All statements should be supported with statistical testing (e.g. extended data 5c, pg 7 stats are missing). The specific tests should be clearly stated throughout. For ANOVAs, the post-hoc tests and their outcomes should be stated. In some cases, 2-way ANOVAs were performed, but it seems there is only one independent variable, calling for one-way ANOVA.

All the statistical analyses have been revised and the post-hoc tests performed after the ANOVAs are mentioned in the relevant figure legends.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

The wording "transient" and "persistent" used here in the context of memory seems a bit misleading, as only one timepoint was assessed for memory recall (24 h), at which the memory strength (freezing levels) seem to change.

As the reviewer mentioned, we have tested memory recall only at one time point. For this reason, throughout the text we used “transient” exclusively to refer to the experience (receiving footshock) and not to the memory. We replaced “persistence” with “stabilization” where it refers to a memory (“the induction of plasticity influences the stabilization of the memory”).

For the procedures in which the CS and US were not paired, the term "unpairing" is used (which is probably the more adequate one), but the term "non-associative conditioning" appears in the text, which seems a bit misleading, as this term may have another connotation. There is also literature that an unpairing of CS and US could lead to the formation of a safety memory to the CS, that may be disrupted by HFS stimulation.

We replaced "non-associative" with “unpaired”.

Validation of viral injection sites for all experiments: Only representative examples are shown, it would be nice to see all viral expression sites.

For this manuscript, we have used 155 mice. For this reason, including the injection sites for all the animals in the manuscript is not feasible. Except for the mice that have been excluded, (please see exclusion criteria added in the methods), the expression pattern we observed was consistent across animals and therefore the images shown are true representatives.

Extended Data 1b: Please explain what N, U, W, and S behavioral groups mean. To what groups mentioned in the text (pg 2,3) do these correspond?

The requested clarifications are implemented in the figure legend.

Please elaborate on the following aspects of your methods and approaches:

• Please explain if the protocol for HFS to manipulate behavior was the same as the one used for the LTP experiments (Fig 1d, Fig 4j) and was identical for homo/hetero inputs from thal and ctx?

We used the same HFS protocol for all the HFS inductions. We included this information in the methods section.

• Please state when the HFS was given in respect to the conditioning (what means immediately before and after?) and in which context it was given. Were animals subjected to HFS exposed to the context longer (either before or after the conditioning while receiving HFS) than the other groups? When the HFS was given in another context (for the 24 h group)- how was this controlled for?

Requested information has been added to the methods section. The control and intervention groups were treated in the same way.

• When were the footshocks given in the anesthesized recordings (Fig. 4j) and how was the temporal relationship to the HFS? Was the timing the same as for the HFS in the behavioral experiments?

Requested information has been added to the methods section.

• Please add information on how the LFP was stimulated and how the LFP- EPSP slope was determined in in vivo recordings, likewise for the whole cell recordings of EPSPs in Fig. 5d-f.

Requested information has been added to the methods section.

Here, the y-Axis in Fig. 5e should be corrected to EPSP slope rather than fEPSP slope if these are whole-cell recordings.

This has been corrected.

• Please include information if the viral injections and opto-manipulations were done bilateral or unilateral and if so in which hemisphere. Likewise, indicate where the LFP recordings were done.

Requested information has been added to the methods section.

• Were there any exclusion criteria for animals (e.g. insufficient viral targeting or placement of fibers and electrodes), other than the testing of the optical CS for adverse effects?

Requested information has been added to the methods section.

Statistics: In addition to clarifying analytical statistics, please clarify n-numbers for slice recordings (number of animals, number of slices, and number of cells if applicable).

Requested information has been added to the methods section.

It would be nice to scrutinize the results in extended data 4b. The freezing levels with U+24h HFS show a strong trend towards an increase, the effect size may be similar to immediate HFS Fig 4f and extended data 4a) if n was increased.

We agree with the reviewer. To address this point, we added “HomoLTP protocol when delivered 24hrs later, produced an increase in freezing; however, the value was not statistically significant.” To show this point, we used the same scale for freezing in Extended Data Fig. 4a and b.

In the final experiment (Fig. 5a-c), Fig. 5b seems to show results from only one animal, but behavioral results are from 4 animals (Fig 5c). It would be helpful to see the quantification of potentiation in each animal.

The results (now with error bar) include all mice.

Please spell out the abbreviation "STC".

Now, it is spelled out.

Page 8 last sentence of the discussion does not seem to fit there.

The sentence has been removed.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) The authors did not determine how WTh affects Th-LA synapses, as field EPSPs were recorded only after HFS. WTh was required for the effects of HFS, as HFS alone did not produce CR in naïve and/or unpaired controls. As such the effects of the WTh protocol on synaptic strength must be investigated.

We have performed the experiment where we recorded the evoked LFP 2hrs and 24hrs following the weak conditioning protocol. We observed that a weak conditioning protocol that was not followed by an optical LTP protocol on the cortical inputs failed to produce synaptic potentiation of the thalamic inputs (tested 2hrs and 24hrs after the LTP protocol; Extended Data Fig. 5d,e).

(2) The authors provide some evidence that their dual opsin approach is feasible, particularly the use of sustained yellow light to block the effects of blue light on ChrimsonR. However, this validation was done using single pulses making it difficult to assess the effect of this protocol on Th input when HFS was used. Without strong evidence that the optogenetic methods used here are fault-proof, the main conclusions of this study are compromised. Why did the authors not use a protocol in which fibers were placed directly in the Ctx and Th while using soma-restricted opsins to avoid cross-contamination?

We understand that the reviewer raises the possibility that our dual-opsin approach, although effective with single pulses, may fail in higher frequency stimulation protocols (10Hz and 85Hz). To address this concern, in a new group of mice we applied our approach to 10Hz and 85Hz stimulation protocols. We show that our approach is effective in single-pulse as well as in 10Hz and 85Hz stimulation protocols (Fig. 2d-h).

eLife assessment

This study presents important novel findings on how heterosynaptic plasticity can transform a weak associative memory into a stronger one, or produce a memory when stimuli were not paired. This work expands our views on the role of temporal- and input-specific plasticity in shaping learning and memory processes. The evidence, based on state-of-the-art in vivo manipulations, activity recordings, and behavioral analysis, is convincing. Findings will be of broad interest to neuroscience community, and especially those studying synaptic plasticity and associative memory.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors goal here was to explore how a non hebbian form of plasticity, heterosynaptic LTP, could shape neuronal responses and learning. They used several conceptually and technically innovative approaches to answer this. First, they identified a behavioral paradigm that was a subthreshold training paradigm (stimulation of thalamic inputs with a footshock), which could be 'converted' to a memory via homosynaptic LTP (HFS of thalamic inputs). They then find that stimulation of 'cortical' inputs could also convert the subthreshold stimulation to a lasting memory, and that this was associated with a change in neuronal response, akin to LTP. Finally, they provide some slice work which demonstrated that stimulation of cortical inputs could stabilize LTP at thalamic inputs.

Strengths:

(1) The approach was innovative and asked an important question in the field.

(2) The studies are, for the most part, quite rigorous, using a novel dual opsin approach to probe multiple inputs in vivo.

(3) The authors explore neural responses both in vivo and ex vivo, as well as leveraging a 'simple' behavior output of freezing.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary

Faress et al. address how synaptic plasticity (i.e. potentiation induced by high frequency stimulation, HFS) induced at different time points and pathways relative to those active during initial learning can transform memories. They adopt an experimental design developed by Nabavi et al, 2014 to optogenetically induce a weak fear memory by pairing an optical conditioned stimulus (CS) at thalamo-LA synapses with a footshock unconditioned stimulus (US) in male mice. Homosynaptic HFS delivered in the same pathway before or after conditioning transforms the weak memory into a stronger one. Leveraging a new dual wavelength optogenetic approach in vivo, they also show that heterosynaptic (cortico-LA) HFS directly following the opto-conditioning can transform the thalamo-LA induced fear memory, or create a memory when directly delivered after unpaired conditioning. Lastly, they demonstrate that heterosynaptic potentiation of the thalamo-LA pathway accompanies the strengthening of fear memory in freely moving mice. The authors conclude that a transient experience (i.e. weak memory) can be transformed into a stable one by non-Hebbian forms of plasticity.

Strengths

This study uses well-defined and elegant optogenetic manipulations of distinct neural pathways in awake behaving mice combined with in vivo recordings, which allows to directly manipulate and monitor synaptic strength and memory. It addresses an interesting, timely, and important question.

Weaknesses

A key experiment with in vivo monitoring of LFPs and behavior (Fig. 5a-c) seems a bit underpowered and input-output curves (extended data 5c) not entirely convincing.<br /> Ex vivo slice experiments (Fig. 5d-f) are not well aligned with in vivo experimental conditions. While they provide proof of principle, this is not entirely novel (see Fonseca et al, 2013).

Significance and impact

The conclusions are well supported by the data. The significance of the study lies in showing in vivo, that plasticity induced at different times or synaptic pathways than those engaged during learning can modify a memory and the synaptic strength in the neural pathway related to that memory. While heterosynaptic and timing-dependent effects in synaptic plasticity have been described largely ex vivo on shorter time scales, the discovery of lasting behavioral effects on memory is novel. The study was enabled by a combination of clever approaches: creation of a "synthetic" pathway-specific association and a novel dual opsin approach in vivo to probe the role of plasticity in a converging second pathway at the same time.<br /> This work broadens our understanding of how Hebbian and non-Hebbian forms of plasticity shape neural activity and associative memory and is of broad interest to the neuroscience community.

Author response:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Zhang et al. demonstrate that CD4+ single positive (SP) thymocytes, CD4+ recent thymic emigrants (RTE), and CD4+ T naive (Tn) cells from Cd11c-p28-flox mice, which lack IL-27p28 selectively in Cd11c+ cells, exhibit a hyper-Th1 phenotype instead of the expected hyper Th2 phenotype. Using IL-27R-deficient mice, the authors confirm that this hyper-Th1 phenotype is due to IL-27 signaling via IL-27R, rather than the effects of monomeric IL-27p28. They also crossed Cd11c-p28-flox mice with autoimmune-prone Aire-deficient mice and showed that both T cell responses and tissue pathology are enhanced, suggesting that SP, RTE, and Tn cells from Cd11c-p28-flox mice are poised to become Th1 cells in response to self-antigens. Regarding mechanism, the authors demonstrate that SP, RTE, and Tn cells from Cd11c-p28-flox mice have reduced DNA methylation at the IFN-g and Tbx21 loci, indicating 'de-repression', along with enhanced histone tri-methylation at H3K4, indicating a 'permissive' transcriptional state. They also find evidence for enhanced STAT1 activity, which is relevant given the well-established role of STAT1 in promoting Th1 responses, and surprising given IL-27 is a potent STAT1 activator. This latter finding suggests that the Th1-inhibiting property of thymic IL-27 may not be due to direct effects on the T cells themselves.

Strengths:

Overall the data presented are high quality and the manuscript is well-reasoned and composed. The basic finding - that thymic IL-27 production limits the Th1 potential of SP, RTE, and Tn cells - is both unexpected and well described.

Weaknesses:

A credible mechanistic explanation, cellular or molecular, is lacking. The authors convincingly affirm the hyper-Th1 phenotype at epigenetic level but it remains unclear whether the observed changes reflect the capacity of IL-27 to directly elicit epigenetic remodeling in developing thymocytes or knock-on effects from other cell types which, in turn, elicit the epigenetic changes (presumably via cytokines). The authors propose that increased STAT1 activity is a driving force for the epigenetic changes and resultant hyper-Th1 phenotype. That conclusion is logical given the data at hand but the alternative hypothesis - that the hyper-STAT1 response is just a downstream consequence of the hyper-Th1 phenotype - remains equally likely. Thus, while the discovery of a new anti-inflammatory function for IL-27 within the thymus is compelling, further mechanistic studies are needed to advance the finding beyond phenomenology.

Thanks for the comments. Following the suggestions of the reviewer, further studies will be performed to test whether developing thymocytes are the direct targets of IL-27 using Cd4-IL-27ra knockout mice or mixed bone marrow chimeras of wildtype and IL-27ra knockout cells.

To address the potential autocrine loop in the STAT1 hyperactivation, we added IFN-γ antibody into CD4+ T cell cultures and saw no obvious impact on STAT1 phosphorylation. If deemed necessary, we could further test this possibility in vivo using Cd4-Ifng and CD11c-p28 double knockout mice.

The detailed mechanisms underlying the hyperactivation of STAT1 remain to be determined. IL-27p28 has recently been shown to act as an antagonist of gp130-mediated signaling. In addition, structural studies have demonstrated that IL-27p28 has the interface with EBI3, as well as the two receptor subunits IL-27Rα and gp130. Taken into consideration of these findings and the fact that p28 and IL-27ra deficiency exhibits similar phenotype, we speculate that deficiency in either p28 or IL-27ra makes more gp130 available to transduce signals elicited by other cytokines. We will next focus on gp130 related cytokines to search for the candidate(s) which ultimately leads to enhanced STAT1 activation in the absence of p28. Alternatively, release of EBI3 in the absence of p28 may facilitate its coupling with other cytokine subunits. IL-35, which is composed of EBI3 and p35, is of particular interest as IL-27Rα is also involved in its signaling.

To narrow down the candidate cytokines, we will first examine the expression of IL-35 and gp130 related cytokines, including IL-6, IL-11, LIF, CT1, OSM, IL-31, CLCF1, CNTF in the thymus and thymocyte-depleted thymic stromal cells by mining public databases and by RT-PCR. Similarly, CD4+ thymocytes will be examined for the expression of receptor subunits which can couple with gp130, including IL-6R, IL-11R, LIFR, OSMRβ, IL-31Rα, CNTFRα, IL-23R, and IL-12Rβ2.

We next will select those cytokines expressed in the thymus or thymic stromal cells with cognate receptor expression in CD4+ thymocytes and test their effect on STAT1 phosphorylation of wildtype and p28-deficient CD4+ thymocytes. If deemed necessary, double knockout mice will be engaged to rescue the hyper-Th1 phenotype.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Naïve CD4 T cells in CD11c-Cre p28-floxed mice express highly elevated levels of proinflammatory IFNg and the transcription factor T-bet. This phenotype turned out to be imposed by thymic dendritic cells (DCs) during CD4SP T cell development in the thymus [PMID: 23175475]. The current study affirms these observations, first, by developmentally mapping the IFNg dysregulation to newly generated thymic CD4SP cells [PMID: 23175475], second, by demonstrating increased STAT1 activation being associated with increased T-bet expression in CD11c-Cre p28-floxed CD4 T cells [PMID: 36109504], and lastly, by confirming IL-27 as the key cytokine in this process [PMID: 27469302]. The authors further demonstrate that such dysregulated cytokine expression is specific to the Th1 cytokine IFNg, without affecting the expression of the Th2 cytokine IL-4, thus proposing a role for thymic DC-derived p28 in shaping the cytokine response of newly generated CD4 helper T cells. Mechanistically, CD4SP cells of CD11c-Cre p28-floxed mice were found to display epigenetic changes in the Ifng and Tbx21 gene loci that were consistent with increased transcriptional activities of IFNg and T-bet mRNA expression. Moreover, in autoimmune Aire-deficiency settings, CD11c-Cre p28-floxed CD4 T cells still expressed significantly increased amounts of IFNg, exacerbating the autoimmune response and disease severity. Based on these results, the investigators propose a model where thymic DC-derived IL-27 is necessary to suppress IFNg expression by CD4SP cells and thus would impose a Th2-skewed predisposition of newly generated CD4 T cells in the thymus, potentially relevant in autoimmunity.

Strengths:

Experiments are well-designed and executed. The conclusions are convincing and supported by the experimental results.

Weaknesses:

The premise of the current study is confusing as it tries to use the CD11c-p28 floxed mouse model to explain the Th2-prone immune profile of newly generated CD4SP thymocytes. Instead, it would be more helpful to (1) give full credit to the original study which already described the proinflammatory IFNg+ phenotype of CD4 T cells in CD11c-p28 floxed mice to be mediated by thymic dendritic cells [PMID: 23175475], and then, (2) build on that to explain that this study is aimed to understand the molecular basis of the original finding. In its essence, this study mostly rediscovers and reaffirms previously reported findings, but with different tools. While the mapping of epigenetic changes in the IFNg and T-bet gene loci and the STAT1 gene signature in CD4SP cells are interesting, these are expected results, and they only reaffirm what would be assumed from the literature. Thus, there is only incremental gain in new insights and information on the role of DC-derived IL-27 in driving the Th1 phenotype of CD4SP cells in CD11c-p28 floxed mice.

Indeed, the present study is based on the finding of enhanced IFN-γ production by CD4+ T cells from CD11c-p28 floxed mice, which was originally reported by Zhang et al. and repeatedly cited in the our manuscript. We revisited this phenomenon in the context of functional bias of newly generated CD4+ T cells and sought to reveal the mechanisms underlying the hyper-Th1 phenotype in the absence of thymic DC-derived IL-27. We showed that deletion of p28 resulted in an unexpected hyperactivation of STAT1, which was accompanied by epigenetic changes in favor of Th1 bias. However, the gap remains between p28 deficiency and STAT1 activation.

Altogether, the major issues of this study remain unresolved:

(1) It is still unclear why the p28-deficiency in thymic dendritic cells would result in increased STAT1 activation in CD4SP cells. Based on their in vitro experiments with blocking anti-IFNg antibodies, the authors conclude that it is unlikely that the constitutive activation of STAT1 would be a secondary effect due to autocrine IFNg production by CD4SP cells. However, this possibility should be further tested with in vivo models, such as Ifng-deficient CD11c-p28 floxed mice. Alternatively, is this an indirect effect by other IFNg producers in the thymus, such as iNKT cells? It is necessary to explain what drives the STAT1 activation in CD11c-p28 floxed CD4SP cells in the first place.

Thanks for the suggestions. Further studies will be performed to test the potential autocrine loop for IFN-γ production in vivo using Cd4-Ifng and CD11c-p28 double knockout mice. This model should also be helpful to exclude the possibility of indirect role of IFN- production by such cells as iNKT.

As pointed out by the reviewer, a critical unanswered question is what drives the STAT1 activation in CD11c-p28 floxed CD4SP cells. Several lines of evidence point to the possibility that p28 deficiency increases the responsiveness of developing thymocytes to STAT1-activating cytokines. Firstly, IL-27p28 has recently been shown to act as an antagonist of gp130-mediated signaling. Secondly, structural studies have demonstrated that IL-27p28 is centrally positioned in the complex formed with EBI3, as well as the two receptor subunits IL-27Rα and gp130. Thirdly, we observed similar hyper-Th1 phenotype in the absence of either p28 and IL-27ra. Therefore, it is speculated that more gp130 should be available to transduce signals elicited by other cytokines in such a scenario. We will next seek to determine the candidate cytokine(s) responsible for the enhanced STAT1 activation in the absence of p28 as outlined in the response to Reviewer 1.

(2) It is also unclear whether CD4SP cells are the direct targets of IL-27 p28. The cell-intrinsic effects of IL-27 p28 signaling in CD4SP cells should be assessed and demonstrated, ideally by CD4SP-specific deletion of IL-27Ra, or by establishing bone marrow chimeras of IL-27Ra germline KO mice.

Thanks for the suggestions. Further studies will be performed to test whether developing thymocytes are the direct targets of IL-27 using Cd4-IL-27ra knockout mice or mixed bone marrow chimeras of wildtype and IL-27ra knockout cells.

Author Response:

We thank the editors for their assessment of our manuscript. We appreciate the reviewers’ thoughtful comments and plan to incorporate their feedback into a revised manuscript. We agree that incorporating an additional, more common ablation tool would be highly complementary to our Kir2.1 ablation studies. We also agree that images across timepoints should be expanded for contact analyses, connectomics data can be better leveraged, additional quantifications can be performed as suggested by the reviewers to better support claims, and that the introduction and discussion can be revised to better position our work in the context of previous studies. We also strongly agree that providing data on receptor RNA and protein expression in the GF across timepoints would be extremely informative, however we have found acquiring these data, at the necessary resolution, would require new approaches and tools that may be outside the scope of the project.

eLife assessment

This study establishes a two distinct feature-encoding visual projection neurons in Drosophila as a model for the development of synaptic specificity. The comprehensive description of connectivity development in this system is valuable to a more general understanding of principles that underlie neural circuit development. The high-quality supporting evidence is convincing.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This is a strong paper that sets the foundation for future work that will explore the innervation of the giant fiber, allowing experiments that will link molecular/developmental mechanisms to circuit function at a level of resolution that has not previously been possible. In the course of this work the investigators discover an axon-axon competition that reflects the order of innervation of the target. In addition, a host of reagents are developed that will be of wide use in dissecting this system.

Strengths:

(1) The developmental, functional and connectomic characterization of the wiring pattern to be dissected is impressively thorough and quantitative.<br /> (2) The reagents that the authors establish will be foundational to subsequent effort.<br /> (3) The discovery that axon-axon competition is involved in patterning this system, and might combined with innervation order to give a deterministic outcome is an interesting one (and might be useful to address variation in cell number (see below)!

Weaknesses:

(1) In my opinion, the authors miss an opportunity to leverage their connectomics characterization somewhat more. That is, from characterization of the connectomes of two flies, the authors describe substantial variation in the number of pre-synaptic cells providing inputs (for example, in FAFB, there are 55 LC4 cells, while in the hemibrain, there are 71 - almost 30 percent more), yet the number of total synapses provided by each class of cell types is remarkably stereotyped 2442 synapses versus 2290 synapses). And the ratio of LC4 to LPLC2 synapses is even more stereotyped... As this kind of stereotypy would be consistent with the authors competition model, but inconsistent with a model in which each cell makes a similar number of synapses (which would be the model from the periphery of the visual system), the authors should comment a bit more on what they see. Perhaps the wiring model the authors advocate for compensates for what appears to be quite significant variation in the numbers of LC neurons?

(2) I appreciate how the authors pivoted to interpreting their results using Kir2.1 to reflect the effects of cell ablation. However, I worry that since the mechanism behind Kir2.1 mediated ablation is unknown, there could be other effects associated with this perturbation, creating indirect effects that alter LPLC2 cells somehow. I would therefore ask that the authors repeat these experiments with a more standard cell ablation strategy (such as a light gated caspase, or ricin). More crucially, the author's model that arrival order is functionally important would be greatly strengthened if they did the reciprocal ablation of LPLC2 and asked what happens to LC4. One could easily imagine a model in which these two cell types mutually compete for real estate, after an initial bias is set by arrival order.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors investigate axonal and synapse development in two distinct visual feature-encoding neurons (VPN), LC4 and LPLC2. They first show that they occupy distinct regions on the GF dendrites, and likely arrive sequentially. Analysis of the VPNs' morphology throughout development, and synaptic gene and protein expression data reveals the temporal order of maturation. Functional analysis then shows that LPLC2 occupancy of the GF dendrites is constrained by LC4 presence.

Strengths:

The authors investigate an interesting and very timely topic, which will help to understand how neurons coordinate their development. The manuscript is very well written, and data are of high quality, that generally support the conclusions drawn (but see some comments for Fig. 2 below). A thorough descriptive analysis of the LC4/LPLC2 to GF connectivity is followed by some functional assessment showing that one neuron's occupancy of the GF dendrite depend on another.<br /> The manuscripts uses versatile methods to look at membrane contact, gene and protein expression (using scRNAseq data and state-of-the art genetic tools) and functional neuronal properties. I find it especially interesting and elegant how the authors combine their findings to highlight the temporal trajectory of development in this system.

Weaknesses:

After reading the summary, I was expecting a more comprehensive analysis of many VPNs, and their developmental relationships. For a better reflection of the data, the summary could state that the authors investigate *two* visual projection neurons (VPNs) and that ablation *of one cell type of VPNs* results in the expansion of the remaining VPN territory.

The manuscript is falling a bit short of putting the results into the context of what is known about synaptic partner choice/competition between different neurons during neuronal or even visual system development. Lots of work has been done in the peripheral the visual system, from the Hiesinger lab and others. Both the introduction and the discussion section should elaborate on this.

The one thing that the manuscript does not unambiguously show is when the connections between LC4 and LPLC2 become functional.

Figure 2:<br /> Figure 2A-C: I found the text related to that figure hard to follow, especially when talking about filopodia. Overall, life imaging would probably clarify at which time point there really are dynamic filopodia. For this study, high magnification images of what the authors define as filopodia would certainly help.<br /> L137ff: This section talks about filopodia between 24-48 hAPF, but only 36h APF is shown in A, where one could see filopodia. The other time points are shown in B and C, but number of filopodia is not quantified.<br /> L143: "filopodia were still present, but visibly shorter": This is hard to see, and again, not quantified.<br /> L144f: "from 72h APF to eclosion, the volume of GF dendrites significantly decreased": this is not actually quantified, comparisons are only done to 24, 36 and 48 h APF.<br /> Furthermore, 72h APF is not shown here, but in Figure 2D, so either show here, or call this figure panel already?

Figure 2D/E: to strengthen the point that LC4 and LPLC2 arrive sequentially, it would help to show all time points analyzed in Figure D/E.

L208: "significant increase ... from 60h APF to 72h APF": according to the figure caption, this comparison is marked by "+" but there is no + in the figure itself.

Figure 3:<br /> A key point of the manuscript is the sequential arrival of different VPN classes. So then why is the scRNAseq analysis in Figure 3 shown pooled across VPNs? Certainly, the reader at this point is interested in temporal differences in gene expression. The class-specific data are somewhat hidden in Supp. Fig. 9, and actually do not show temporal differences. This finding should be presented in the main data.

L438: "silencing LC4 by expressing Kir2.1... reduced the GF response": Is this claim backed by some quantification?

Figure 4K: Do the control data have error bars, which are just too small to see? And what is tested against what? Is blue vs. black quantified as well? What do red, blue, and black asterisks indicate? Please clarify in figure caption.

Optogenetics is mentioned in methods (in "fly rearing", in the genotypes, and there is an extra "Optogenetics" section in methods), but no such data are shown in the manuscripts. (If the authors have those data, it would be great to know when the VPN>GF connections become functional!)

Methods:

Antibody concentrations are not given anywhere and will be useful information for the reader

Could the authors please give more details on the re-analysis of the scRNAseq dataset? How did you identify cell type clusters in there, for example?

L785 and L794: I am curious. Why is it informative to mention what was *not* done?

Custom-written analysis code is mentioned in a few places. Is this code publicly available?

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this work, MacFarland et.al. show that difference in the time of contact between axons of LC4 and LPLC2 visual projection neurons (VPNs) in the optic glomeruli and dendrites of large descending neuron, the giant fiber (GF) shapes the differential connectivity between these neurons.

Strengths:

The authors analyzed the development of a well-known circuit between GF dendrites and LC4 andLPLC2 axons using different approaches. Additionally, they developed an ex-vivo patch clamping technique to show, together with correlative RNA-sequencing data, that contact site restriction is not dependent on neuronal activity. Based on this study, the connectivity pattern between GF and the adjacent different sets of VPNs now provides a very interesting model to investigate developmental programs that lead to synaptic specificity.

Weaknesses:

Following are the concerns that significantly impact the veracity of conclusions drawn based on the data provided.

(1) All the data related to the activity of VPNs and GF and how this activity is related to the connectivity and/or maintaining and stabilizing this connectivity is correlative. The expression profiles of synaptic molecules (only at RNA level) over time or the appearance of pre and post synaptic proteins or the spontaneous spike patterns in GF do not show the role of activity in synapse specificity program. Synaptic molecules have been previously shown to be present at presynaptic sites without being involved in activity (Chen et al., 2014, Jin et al., 2018). To show whether activity is indeed not required for connectivity for either of the cell types (LC4 and LPLC2), they should silence each and also both cell types as early as possible (with the LC4 driver that does not ablate them) and then quantify the contacts with GF. In the same vein, the authors should knock down components of the synaptic machinery as early as possible to show directly the effect on 1) contact formation and 2) contact stabilization. For example, authors state in the lines 267-269 "VPN cholinergic machinery arrives too late to contribute to the initial targeting and localization of VPN axons on GF dendrites. Cholinergic activity instead is likely to participate in VPN and GF synapse refinement and stabilization." This statement would only be valid if the authors knock down the cholinergic machinery and find the contact numbers unchanged in the early stages but significantly different in later stages in comparison to the controls. Furthermore, authors only show increase in the VAChT and ChAT in the presynaptic cells but do not show if the cholinergic receptor AChRs are even expressed in GF cells or at what point they are expressed. Without these receptor expression, cholinergic system might not even be involved in the process. Also, there might be other neurotransmitter systems involved. Authors should at least check if other neurotransmitter systems are expressed in these cells, both pre-and post-synaptic.<br /> Line 371-374: "In the later stages of development, the frequency of synaptic events increase as gap junction proteins are downregulated and cholinergic presynaptic machinery is upregulated to enhance and stabilize synapses with intended synaptic partners while refining unintended contacts". The authors did not show the activity they observed in GF is due to the contacts they make with LC4s and LPLC2s. The functionality of these contacts can be shown by silencing the LC4s and LPLC2s and then doing the patch clamping in GF to see a decrease in the activity. Further, the authors did not show that the reduction in contacts are only by refining "unintended" contacts. There is no evidence that can support this statement.

(2) In the LC4 ablation experiments, authors claim that LC4_4 split Gal4 line is expressed around 18APF, prior to GF LC4 initial contact (Line 387). However, authors do not show the time point of first contact between GF dendrites and LC4 cells. In Fig. 2 the first time point shown is at P36, where there is already significant overlap between GF dendrites and LC4 axons. Authors should show the very first time point where they see any, even if minimal, overlap and/or contact between GFs and LC4s. Once the LC4s are ablated, is the increase in the colocalization between GF and LPLC2 due to LPLC2s increasing their contact numbers or due to them not decreasing the maximum contact numbers that the authors observed at P72 (Fig 2G)? In other words, once the LC4s are ablated, what would the new graph for temporal contact numbers for LPLC2 look like and how it would compare to Fig2G?

(3) If the developmental stages for different lines match, that would be more helpful for comparison. Also, as the authors analyzed expression every 12 hours from 0APF, the panel should also contain earlier time points (e.g. P0, P12) for all lines. This is critical to understand at what point the axons of LC4, LPLC2 and LPLC1 reach their position. From the scale bar in Supp Fig.4, it seems LC4 axons have already reached final position at P24 and there is no extension between P24 and P60. Do the authors know at what point LC4 axons start extending and reach the final position? If the LC4 and LPLC2 arbors are already separated medio-laterally even before GF dendrites extend towards them, it would explain why GF dendrites extending from medial region of the brain would encounter LC4 axons first and LPLC2 axons later, just based on their localization in space.<br /> Further to this point, the authors show in the section two of the paper that it is the GF dendrites that extend, elaborate and refine during the phase the authors analyzed and the authors do not show any morphological change in the axons of the VPNs. Therefore, the title of the paper is 'axon arrival times and physical occupancy establish visual projection neuron integration on developing dendrites in the Drosophila optic glomeruli' is slightly misguided.

(4) In the absence of LC4s, does the LPLC1 and GF colocalization increase or do they still stay disconnected?

(5) Does the absence of LC4s have any effect on GF arbor complexity? Does the graph in Fig 2B and C change? Can the increase in colocalization between LPLC2 and GF be at least partially due to the expansion of GF dendritic volume?

(6) Why is there a segregation in the medial-lateral axis but not in the dorso-ventral axis? Wouldn't the same segregation mechanism be in play in both axes? Also, the authors should clarify if this reduction in dorsal-ventral distribution is because dorso-ventral expansion of GF dendrites beyond the LC4 and LPLC2 axons? Theoretically that would seem to make the LC4s move more ventrally and LPLC2 move more dorsally in comparison to the total arbor.

(7) Why the LPLC2 medial connections are regarded as "mistargeting" in the heading of Supplemental Figure 1? Both in EM data and in some of the confocal datasets, these connections are observed. What is the criteria to label a connection "mistargeting" if it is observed, albeit occasionally, both in EM and confocal datasets?

(8) In Line 126-127, authors state that "we sought to determine how the precise VPN localization along GF dendrites arises across development". However, based in EM and microscopic data, there is considerable variability in the contact numbers and distribution. With such variability present, how can the localization be termed "precise"? Authors should clarify.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Farhat-Younis and colleagues demonstrate tumor-specific IgM's capacity to induce tumor cell death in monocyte-derived dendritic cell cultures. They subsequently designed a chimeric receptor based on high-affinity FcRI. However, the authors found that the transfection process was more efficient when either the variable light or heavy chain was transfected individually rather than the entire scFv. This scFv construct led to an endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress response and scFv degradation. A considerable portion of the manuscript is dedicated to the negative scFv expression results. The authors pivoted to a modified FcgRI capable of transmitting IgM signals. This represents a tremendous amount of work in the development of this chimeric receptor, the critical experiment showing efficacy in vivo was not presented, and instead various in vitro assays are shown. Thus, this manuscript will markedly benefit from showing improved responses to tumors in vivo when macrophages express FcgRI-IgM.

We deeply thank the reviewer for his thoughtful comments and overall favorable review of our manuscript.

1) In a mouse tumor model, the authors demonstrated that monocyte-derived dendritic cells (MoDCs) treated with IgG immune complexes (ICs) were more effective at preventing tumor growth compared to those treated with IgM ICs (as shown in Figure 1B). In Figure 1C, their in vitro experiments revealed that IgM resulted in tumor cell death, as well as increased production of nitric oxide (NO) and granzyme B. How do the authors reconcile IgG IC-treated MoDCs performing better in preventing tumors in vivo than IgM IC-treated MoDCs, despite the in vitro results with IgM-ICs. The authors speculate that IgG IC-treated MoDCs might trigger T cell immunity but do not show T cell involvement.

We apologize for not making this point clearer. We have extensively studied this phenomenon and published two papers that detailed the underlying mechanism in two consecutive papers (PMID: 27812544, PMID: 25924063). Briefly, we showed that DC activated with IgM-IC DC undergo cell death concomitantly to their release of lytic granules and lysis of tumor cells. As a result, they do not migrate to the lymph nodes where they should induce reactive T cell clones. In contrast, DC activated with IgG-IC do not elicit in vitro cytotoxicity but rather process the IC to present its derived antigens of MHC-II. We addressed that issue in the revised version and cited the relevant paper to further clarify it.

(2) The authors report distinct functional consequences of MoDCs incubated with tumor-IgG complexes and tumor IgM complexes. Tumor growth was inhibited and T cell immunity induced with the former. The latter, however, elicited robust anti-tumor killing. What happens if MoDCs are incubated with both IgG and IgM complexes? If this combined treatment induces effective killing and T cell memory, would this impact the design of the chimeric receptor to include IgG responsiveness as well?

This is a very interesting point. As mentioned above, our previous publications strongly suggest that tumor binding IgG and IgM induce different processes in myeloid cells. Yet, since MoDC naturally express the high affinity receptors for IgG FcRI, we speculate that treating tumor-bearing mice modified monocyte, alone or in combination with tumor-binding IgG, would shed some light into that. Indeed, such treatment elicit a strong T cell immunity in these mice and the data was added to Supplementary Data Figure S4J. With that being said, a complete analysis of this question is very complicated and extent beyond the scope of this work. We would like to emphasize that the purpose of this work is to highlight some of the challenges unique to genetic manipulation in myeloid cells and to suggest one alternative scaffold for integrating signaling in these cells. We do not argue that the specific solution presented here is the most potent one and more work is required before promoting such treatment into the clinic. We have added a sentence to the Discussion section that stress that issue.

(3) In Figure 5H, the authors demonstrate the ability of the chimeric receptor construct to deplete tumor cells in vitro. The ms would improve if the authors could show the chimeric receptor construct results in tumor cell death and/or prevention in an in vivo model. Similarly, if combined stimulation with IgG and IgM complexes enhances tumor response, this should be incorporated into the therapeutic strategy.

This is a wonderful suggestion. To address that, we challenged C57Bl/6 mice with B16F10 melanoma and allowed them to grow until it reached a palpable size of approximately 25 mm2. Concomitantly, we cultured bone marrow dendritic cells from syngeneic mice and transfected them with a linear mRNA of the alpha/mu construct. Tumor bearing mice were then treated with alpha/mu and sham transduced BMDC alone, or in combination with antibody against the melanoma antigen Trp1 (TA99). The results were added as Figure 5K and to Supplementary Figure S4h-S4I.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

While a significant portion of immunotherapy research has focused on the pivotal role of T cells in tumor immunity, their effectiveness may be limited by the suppressive nature of the tumor environment. On the other hand, myeloid cells are commonly found within tumors and can withstand these adverse conditions. However, these cells often adopt an immunosuppressive phenotype when infiltrating tumors. Therefore, manipulating myeloid cells could potentially enhance the anti-tumor potential of immunotherapy.

In this manuscript, Farhat-Younes and colleagues have demonstrated that activating the IgM receptor signaling in myeloid cells induces an oxygen burst, the secretion of Granzyme B, and the lysis of adjacent tumor cells. Furthermore, they have outlined a strategy to utilize these features to generate CAR macrophages. However, they have identified a limitation: the expression of scFv in myeloid cells induces ER stress and the degradation of misfolded proteins. To address this issue, chimeric receptors were designed based on the high-affinity FcγRI for IgG. When macrophages transfected with these receptors were exposed to tumor-binding IgG, extensive tumor cell killing, and the release of reactive oxygen species and Granzyme B were observed.

Strengths:

In general, I consider this work to be significant, and the results are compelling. It emphasizes the specific considerations and requirements for successful manipulation in myeloid cells, which could further advance the field of cellular engineering for the benefit of immunotherapy

We thank the reviewer for his thoughtful comments and overall appreciation of our findings.

Weaknesses:

Nevertheless, there are several minor issues that should be addressed:

(1) TCR fragments are commonly used to induce ER stress in non-immune cells. Therefore, it would be interesting to investigate whether TCR fragments can be expressed in myeloid cells and if they induce ER stress. Addressing this issue would support the notion that these cells lack the ER chaperones required for folding immunoglobulin variable chains.

This is a wonderful suggestion. To assess that possibility, we cloned the alpha chain of anti-Trp1 TCR and transfected RAW 264.7 macrophages. Importantly, we could not detect expression on this construct in macrophages, further supporting our findings with scFv in these cells. We added this result to Figure 4J and Supplementary Figure S3C.

(2) It would be valuable to determine whether, after the degradation of scFv fragments by myeloid cells, they are presented on MHC-I and MHC-II.

This is a very interesting point. To address that, we generated a genetic construct where we fused the anti-CD19 scFv to a polypeptide composed from the MHCI and the MHCII fragments of Ova Albumin. Next, DC 2.4 were transfected with this construct and measured their capacity to stimulate the proliferation of CD8+ T cells from OT-I and CD4+ from OT-II mice. DC transfected with this construct efficiently stimulated the proliferation of both T cells, suggesting that both Ova fragments are indeed presented on MHCI and MHCII. Nonehteless, DC transfected with polypeptide of MHCI and MHCII fragments of Ova Albumin only (with no scFv), were almost equally effective in stimulating OT-I and OT-II T cell proliferation. We added that result to Supplementary Figure S3D-S3E.

(3) Some methodological details, such as the vaccination protocol and high-resolution microscopy procedures, are missing from the text.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out these issues. We added the missing details to the revised version of the manuscript.

eLife assessment

The findings are fundamental for understanding IgM signaling in myeloid cells. The work is compelling in its ability to manipulate and harness myeloid cells to further anti-tumor immunity.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

While a significant portion of immunotherapy research has focused on the pivotal role of T cells in tumor immunity, their effectiveness may be limited by the suppressive nature of the tumor environment. On the other hand, myeloid cells are commonly found within tumors and can withstand these adverse conditions. However, these cells often adopt an immunosuppressive phenotype when infiltrating tumors. Therefore, manipulating myeloid cells could potentially enhance the anti-tumor potential of immunotherapy.<br /> In this manuscript, Farhat-Younes and colleagues have demonstrated that activating the IgM receptor signaling in myeloid cells induces an oxygen burst, the secretion of Granzyme B, and the lysis of adjacent tumor cells. Furthermore, they have outlined a strategy to utilize these features to generate CAR macrophages. However, they have identified a limitation: the expression of scFv in myeloid cells induces ER stress and the degradation of misfolded proteins. To address this issue, chimeric receptors were designed based on the high-affinity FcγRI for IgG. When macrophages transfected with these receptors were exposed to tumor-binding IgG, extensive tumor cell killing, and the release of reactive oxygen species and Granzyme B were observed.

Strengths:

In general, I consider this work to be significant, and the results are compelling. It emphasizes the specific considerations and requirements for successful manipulation in myeloid cells, which could further advance the field of cellular engineering for the benefit of immunotherapy

Following the revision of the original manuscript, I can clearly state that my concerns have been addressed and the article has been improved.

Author response:

We thank both reviewers for their feedback and for underlying the potential of our new tool and experimental approach to identify signalling molecules that can improve the in vitro derivation of specific cell types from human pluripotent stem cells. To address the reviewers' points we plan to carry out further analysis that should solidify our conclusions. We will also edit the text to temper conclusions where appropriate.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

To enable robust production of hematopoietic progenitors in-vitro, Petazzi et al examined the role of transcription factors in the arterial hemogenic endothelium. They use IGFBP2 as a candidate gene to increase the directed differentiation of iPSCs into hematopoietic progenitors. They have established a novel induced-CRISPR mediated activation strategy to drive the expression of multiple endogenous transcription factors and show enhanced production of hematopoietic progenitors through expansion of the arterial endothelial cells. Further, upregulation of IGFBP2 in the arterial cells facilitates the metabolic switch from glycolysis to oxidative phosphorylation, inducing hematopoietic differentiation. While the overall study and resources generated are good, assertions in the manuscript are not entirely supported by the experimental data and some claims need further experimental validation.

eLife assessment

This study presents useful findings to inform and improve the in vitro differentiation of hematopoietic progenitor cells from human induced pluripotent stem cells. However, while relying on a well-characterized technical approach, the data analysis is overall incomplete and only partially supports the main conclusions.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The work from Petazzi et al. aimed at identifying novel factors supporting the differentiation of human hematopoietic progenitors from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). The authors developed an inducible CRISPR-mediated activation strategy (iCRISPRa) to test the impact of newly identified candidate factors on the generation of hematopoietic progenitors in vitro. They first compared previously published transcriptomic data of iPSC-derived hemato-endothelial populations with cells isolated ex vivo from the aorta-gonad-mesonephros (AGM) region of the human embryo and they identified 9 transcription factors expressed in the aortic hemogenic endothelium that were poorly expressed in the in vitro differentiated cells. They then tested the activation of these candidate factors in an iPSC-based culture system supporting the differentiation of hematopoietic progenitors in vitro. They found that the IGF binding protein 2 (IGFBP2) was the most upregulated gene in arterial endothelium after activation and they demonstrated that IGFBP2 promotes the generation of functional hematopoietic progenitors in vitro.

Strengths:

The authors developed an extremely useful doxycycline-inducible system to activate the expression of specific candidate genes in human iPSC. This approach allows us to simultaneously test the impact of 9 different transcription factors on in vitro differentiation of hematopoietic cells, and the system appears to be very versatile and applicable to a broad variety of studies.

The system was extensively validated for the expression of 1 transcription factor (RUNX1) in both HeLa cells and human iPSC, and a detailed characterization of this test experiment was provided.

The authors exhaustively demonstrated the role of IGFBP2 in promoting the generation of functional hematopoietic progenitors in vitro from iPSCs. Even though the use of IGFBP2-interacting proteins IGF1 and IGF2 have been previously reported in human iPSC-derived hematopoietic differentiation in vitro (Ditadi and Sturgeon, Methods 2016; Ng et al., Nature Biotechnology 2016), and IGFBP-2 itself has been shown to promote adult HSC expansion ex vivo (Zhang et al., Blood 2008), its role on supporting in vitro hematopoiesis was demonstrated here for the first time.

Weaknesses:

Although the authors performed a very thorough characterization of the system in proof-of-principle experiments activating a single transcription factor, the data provided when 9 independent factors were used is not sufficient to fully validate the experimental strategy. Indeed, in the current version of the manuscript, it is not clear whether the results presented in both the scRNAseq analysis and the functional assays are the consequence of the simultaneous activation of all 9 TF or just a subset of them. This is essential to establish whether all the proposed factors play a role during embryonic hematopoiesis, and a more complete analysis of the scRNAseq dataset could help clarify this aspect.

Similarly, the data presented in the manuscript are not sufficient to clarify at what stage of the endothelial-to-hematopoietic transition (EHT) the TF activation has an impact. Indeed, even though the overall increase of functional hematopoietic progenitors is fully demonstrated, the assays proposed in the manuscript do not clarify whether this is due to a specific effect at the endothelial level or to an increased proliferation rate of the generated hematopoietic progenitors. Similar conclusions can be applied to the functional validation of IGFBP2 in vitro.

The overall conclusions are sometimes vague and not always supported by the data. For instance, the authors state that the CRISPR activation strategy resulted in transcriptional remodeling and a steer in cell identity, but they do not specify which cell types are involved and at what level of the EHT process this is happening. In the discussion, the authors also claim that they provided evidence to support that RUNX1T1 could regulate IGFBP2 expression. However, this is exclusively based on the enrichment of RUNX1T1 gRNA in cells expressing higher levels of IGFBP2 and it does not demonstrate any direct or indirect association of the two factors.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In their manuscript entitled "BEND2 is a crucial player in oogenesis and reproductive aging", the authors present their findings that full-length BEND2 is important for repair of meiotic double strand break repair in spermatocytes, regulation of LINE-1 elements in spermatocytes, and proper oocyte meiosis and folliculogenesis in females. The manuscript utilizes an elegant system to specifically ablate the full-length form of BEND2 which has been historically difficult to study due to its location on the X chromosome and male sterility of global knockout animals.

While the manuscript is an overall excellent addition to the field, it would significantly benefit from a few additional experiments, as well as some additional clarification/elaboration.

The claim that BEND2 is required for ovarian reserve establishment is not supported, as the authors only look at folliculogenesis and oocyte abundance starting at one week of age, after the reserve is formed. Analysis of earlier time points would be much more convincing and would parse the role of BEND2 in the establishment vs. maintenance of this cell population. In spermatocytes, the authors demonstrate a loss of nuclear BEND2 in their mutant but do not comment on the change in localization (which is now cytoplasmic) of the remaining protein in these animals. This may have true biological significance and a discussion of this should be more thoroughly explored.

eLife assessment

This study provides valuable information on a novel gene that regulates meiotic progression in both male and female meiosis, but the evidence supporting the conclusions of the authors on the role of BEND2 in oogenesis and reproductive aging is incomplete. This study will be of interest to developmental and reproductive biologists.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors investigate the role of BEND2, a novel regulator of meiosis, in both male and female fertility. Huang et al have created a mouse model where the full-length BEND2 transcript is depleted but the truncated BEND2 version remains. This mouse model is fertile, and the authors used it to study the role of BEND2 on both male and female meiosis. Overall, the full-length BEND2 appears dispensable for male meiosis. The more interesting phenotype was observed in females. Females exhibit a lower ovarian reserve suggesting that full-length BEND2 is involved in the establishment of the primordial follicle pool.

Strengths:

The authors generated a mouse model that enabled them to study the role of BEND2 in meiosis. The role of BEND2 in female fertility is novel and enhances our knowledge of genes involved in the establishment of the primordial follicle pool.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript extensively explores the role of BEND2 in male meiosis; however, a more interesting result was obtained from the study of female mice. Only a few experiments were performed using female mice, therefore, more experiments should be performed to complete the story of the role of BEND2 on female fertility. In addition, the title and abstract of the manuscript do not align with the story, as female fertility is only a small portion of the data compared to the male fertility section.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Huang et al. investigated the phenotype of Bend2 mutant mice which expressed a truncated isoform. This mutant male showed increasing apoptosis due to unrepaired double-strand breaks. However, this mutant male has fertility, and this enabled them to analyze Bend2 function in females. They revealed that Bend2 mutation in females showed decreasing follicle numbers which leads to loss of ovarian reserve.

Strengths:

Since their Bend2 mutant males were fertile, they were able to analyze the function of Bend2 in females and they revealed that loss of Bend2 causes less follicle formation.

Weaknesses:

Why the phenotype of their mutant male is different from previous work (Ma et al.) is not clear enough although they discuss it.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors conducted a time-resolved EEG decoding study where they presented sequences of dot locations (4 locations onscreen) or single elements of those sequences, presented at the correct temporal epoch for if they had been presented in the full sequence. They were interested in examining whether presenting single items would activate representations of the anticipated following events that were never presented. Stimuli were presented for 100 ms and separated by 200 ms ISIs. They also had pattern estimation blocks with 600 ms ISIs. They found indeed, that anticipated events could be decoded at their correct moment in time, although future anticipated elements could not.

The decoding of presented dots was fairly confined to the diagonal of the decoding matrix (training time x testing time), suggesting little temporal generalisation. This was in contrast with successor representations which were temporally more diffuse. The subsequent successor could be decoded but not future successors.

Strengths:

I liked this paper. The design was simple and clean and the implications of the findings are clear. The authors achieved their aims with this design, with the results supporting the conclusions. The findings will be of interest to a range of researchers studying learning and perception mechanisms, as well as the more generic role of prediction in the brain.

Weaknesses:

The sample size is fairly low for an EEG study. The authors justify it according to a previous Hogendoorn study, but not according to effect sizes in that study and particular power values.

For understandable reasons, the long ISI blocks were presented before the main test blocks (I would have made the same decision) but there is the risk that participants then come to expect stimuli at larger temporal separations in the main blocks. I do wonder whether this is part of the reason for the greater temporal generalisation for anticipated event representations.

Additional context:

My memory of Ekman et al. 2017 is that single events (presented at position 1) elicited predictive activation of anticipated future events, but that there was a temporal compression. The present study appears to show no temporal compression but that the representations are activated at the correct moment in time. This seems like a potentially interesting difference and one with mechanistic implications for the field.

eLife assessment

This valuable study investigates how a predicted - but not presented - stimulus within a sequence is represented in the brain using time-resolved EEG decoding. The results demonstrate that when the predicted stimulus is omitted, it is still represented at the expected space and time, although at present they provide only incomplete support given some alternative explanations. The findings will have implications for researchers across domains who are interested in learning and perception.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Li and colleagues describe an experiment whereby sequences of dots in different locations were presented to participants while electroencephalography (EEG) was recorded. By presenting fixed sequences of dots in different locations repeatedly to participants, the authors assumed that participants had learned the sequences during the experiment. The authors also trained classifiers using event-related potential (ERP) data recorded from separate experimental blocks of dots presented in a random (i.e., unpredictable) order. Using these trained classifiers, the authors then assessed whether patterns of brain activity could be detected that resembled the neural response to a dot location that was expected, but not presented. They did this by presenting an additional set of sequences whereby only one of the dots in the learned sequence appeared, but not the other dots. They report that, in these sequences with omitted stimuli, patterns of EEG data resembled the visual response evoked by a dot location for stimuli that could be expected, but were not presented. Importantly, this only occurred for an omitted dot stimulus that would be expected to appear immediately after the dot that was presented in these partial sequences.

This exciting finding complements previous demonstrations of the ability to decode expected (but not presented) stimuli in Blom et al. (2020) and Robinson et al. (2020) that are cited in this manuscript. It suggests that the visual system is able to generate patterns of activity that resemble expected sensory events, approximately at times at which an observer would expect them.

Strengths:

The experiment was carefully designed and care was taken to rule out some confounding factors. For example, gaze location was tracked over time, and deviations from fixation were marked, in order to minimise the contributions of saccades to above-chance decoding of dot position. The use of a separate block of dots (with unpredictable locations) to train the classifiers was also useful in isolating visual responses evoked by each dot location independently of any expectations that might be formed during the experiment. A large amount of data was also collected from each participant, which is important when using classifiers to decode stimulus features from EEG data. This careful approach is commendable and draws on best practices from existing work.

Weaknesses:

While there was clear evidence of careful experiment design, there are some aspects of the data analysis and results that significantly limit the inferences that can be drawn from the data. Both issues raised here relate to the use of pre-stimulus baselines and associated problems. As these issues are somewhat technical and may not be familiar to many readers, I will try to unpack each line of reasoning below. Here, it should be noted that these problems are complex, and similar issues often go undetected even by highly experienced EEG researchers.

Relevant to both issues, the authors derived segments of EEG data relative to the time at which each dot was presented in the sequences (or would have appeared when the stimuli were omitted in the partial sequences). Segments were derived that spanned -100ms to 300ms relative to the actual or expected onset of the dot stimulus. The 300ms post-stimulus time period corresponds to the duration of each dot in the sequence (100ms) plus the inter-stimulus interval (ISI) that was 200ms in duration before the next dot appeared (or would be expected to appear in the partial sequences). Importantly, a pre-stimulus baseline was applied to each of these segments of data, meaning that the average amplitude at each electrode between -100ms and 0ms relative to (actual or expected) stimulus onset was subtracted from each segment of data (i.e., each epoch in common EEG terminology). While this type of baseline subtraction procedure is commonplace in EEG studies, in this study design it is likely to cause problematic effects that could plausibly lead to the patterns of results reported in this manuscript.

First of all, the authors compare event-related potentials (ERPs) evoked by dots in the full as compared to partial sequences, to test a hypothesis relating to attentional tuning. They reported ERP amplitude differences across these conditions, for epochs corresponding to when a dot was presented to a participant (i.e., excluding epochs time-locked to omitted dots). However, these ERP comparisons are complicated by the fact that, in the full sequences, dot presentations are preceded by the presentation of other dots in the sequence. This means that ERPs evoked by the preceding dots in the full sequences will overlap in time with the ERPs corresponding to the dots presented at the zero point in the derived epochs. Importantly, this overlap would not occur in the partial sequence conditions, where only one dot was presented in the sequence. This essentially makes any ERP comparisons between full and partial sequences very difficult to interpret, because it is unclear if ERP differences are simply a product of overlapping ERPs from previously presented dots in the full sequence conditions. For example, there are statistically significant differences observed even in the pre-stimulus baseline period for this ERP analysis, which likely reflects the contributions ERPs evoked by the preceding dots in the full sequences, which are absent in the partial sequences.

The problems with interpreting this data are also compounded by the use of pre-stimulus baselines as described above. Importantly, the use of pre-stimulus baselines relies on the assumption that the ERPs in the baseline period (here, the pre-stimulus period) do not systematically differ across the conditions that are compared (here, the full vs. partial sequences). This assumption is violated due to the overlapping ERPs issue described just above. Accordingly, the use of the pre-stimulus baseline subtraction can produce spurious effects in the time period after stimulus onset (for examples see Feuerriegel & Bode, 2022, Neuroimage). This also makes it very difficult to meaningfully compare the ERPs following dot stimulus onset in these analyses.

The second issue relates to the use of pre-stimulus baselines and concerns the key finding reported in the paper: that EEG patterns corresponding to expected but omitted events can be decoded in the partial sequences. In the partial sequences, there are two critical epochs that were derived: One time-locked to the presentation of the dot, and another that was time-locked to 300ms after the dot was presented (i.e. when the next dot would be expected to appear). The latter epoch was used to test for representations of expected, but omitted, stimulus locations.

For the epochs in which the dots were presented, above-chance decoding can be observed spanning a training time range from around 100-300ms and a testing time range of a similar duration (see the plot in Figure 4b). This plot indicates that, during the time window of around 200-300ms following dot stimulus onset, the position of the dot can be decoded not only from trained classifiers using the same time windows spanning 200-300ms, but also using classifiers trained using earlier time windows of around 100-200ms.

This is important because the 200-300ms time period after dot onset in the partial sequences is the window used for pre-stimulus baseline subtraction when deriving epochs corresponding to the first successor representation (i.e., the first stimulus that might be expected to follow from the presented dot, but did not actually appear). In other words, the 200-300ms time window from dot onset corresponds to the -100 to 0 ms time window in the first successor epochs. Accordingly, the pattern that is indicative of the preceding, actually presented dot position would be subtracted from the EEG data used to test for the successor representation. Notably, the first successor condition would always be in another visual field quadrant (90-degree rotated or the opposite quadrant) as stated in the methods. In other words, the omitted stimulus would be expected to appear in the opposite vertical and/or horizontal visual hemifield as compared to the previously presented dot in these partial sequences.

This is relevant because ERPs tend to show reversed polarity across hemifields. For example, a stimulus presented in the right hemifield will have reversed polarity patterns at the same electrode as compared to an equivalent stimulus presented in the left hemifield (e.g., Supplementary Figure 3 in the comparable study of Blom et al., 2020). By subtracting the ERP patterns evoked by the presented dot in the partial sequences during the time period of 200-300ms (corresponding to the -100 to 0ms baseline window), this would be expected to bias patterns of EEG data in the first successor epochs to resemble stimulus positions in opposite hemifields. This could plausibly produce above-chance decoding accuracy in the time windows identified in Figure 5a, where the training time windows broadly correspond to the periods of above-chance decoding during 200-300ms from dot stimulus onset in Figure 4b.

In other words, the above-chance decoding of the first successor representation may plausibly be an artefact of the pre-stimulus baseline subtraction procedure used when deriving the epochs. This casts some doubt as to whether genuine successor representations were actually detected in the study. Additional tests for successor representations using ERP baselines prior to the presented dot in the partial sequences may be able to get around this, but such analyses were not presented, and the code and data were not accessible at the time of this review.

Although the study is designed well and a great amount of care was taken during the analysis stage, these issues with ERP overlap and baseline subtraction raise some doubts regarding the interpretability of the findings in relation to the analyses currently presented.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors investigated how predicted stimuli are represented in posterior regions of the brain by recording electroencephalography during a visual sequence learning task. After learning the spatial order in which four stimuli were presented within a fixed sequence, participants were shown partial sequences - i.e., sequences in which only one element of the sequence was presented. By examining the decoding accuracy of the omitted stimuli, the authors aimed to investigate whether anticipated stimuli are (pro)actively represented in the expected spatial location at the expected time.

Strengths and Weaknesses:

The study successfully replicated previous findings on omitted stimuli within a predicted sequence (Ekman et al., 2023), while providing novel information regarding the temporal dynamics of predictive representation. Nevertheless, this outcome is not entirely surprising, as similar temporal dynamics were observed in a previous study employing a different task (Kok et al., 2017). The high level of scientific rigor is evident, as demonstrated by the numerous control analyses. Additionally, the results are particularly intriguing in terms of discerning the nature of the prepared representation, spanning from early perceptual to late attentional representations. Unfortunately, this distinction is not investigated in detail, thus allowing for alternative interpretations of the results.

The connection between the findings and the literature on priority maps could benefit from further clarification. There is room for a clearer delineation of how much of the representation can be ascribed to a perceptual prediction mechanism versus an attentional (post-perceptual) spatial cueing process. Although the latter can be readily connected to the concept of a priority map guiding spatial attention, the relationship between the priority map and perceptual prediction remains somewhat ambiguous. Noteworthy, an explanation of the results in terms of spatial cueing does not necessarily require a perceptual predictive mechanism. The significant decoding of the location of the omitted stimulus might be attributed to the preceding stimulus orienting attention towards the following location. While this potential explanation was not explicitly addressed in the study, it presents an intriguing avenue for further investigation.

The study provides valuable insight into how omitted, yet predicted stimuli are represented in the brain and its dynamics. While the research is commendable, addressing the outlined limitations would enhance its impact in the field. Specifically, the spatial location decoding results do not disentangle between perceptual prediction (i.e., the features of the expected stimulus) and attentional processes (i.e., the cueing of the to-be-attended location),

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Shah et al. explore the function of an understudied neural circuitry from the dLS -> LHA -> RVM in mediating stress-induced analgesia. They initially establish this neural circuitry through a series of intersectional tracings. Subsequently, they conduct behavioral tests, coupled with optogenetic or chemogenetic manipulations, to confirm the involvement of this pathway in promoting analgesia. Additionally, fiber photometry experiments are employed to investigate the activity of each brain region in response to stress and pain.

Strengths:

Overall, the study is comprehensive, and the findings are compelling.

Weaknesses:

One noteworthy concern arises regarding the overarching hypothesis that restrained-induced stress promotes analgesia. A more direct interpretation suggests that intense struggling, rather than stress per se, activates the dLS -> LHA -> RVM pathway that may drive analgesic responses.

eLife assessment

This important work explores the modulation of pain by intense stress. The authors employed a series of cutting-edge techniques and provided convincing evidence suggesting that the dorsal lateral septum-> lateral hypothalamus-> rostral ventromedial medulla circuit is responsible for mediating stress-induced analgesia. This work will be of interest to neuroscientists interested in the neural circuits of behavior, and scientists interested in stress or pain.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The manuscript entitled "A septo-hypothalamic-medullary circuit directs stress-induced analgesia" by Shah et al., showed that the dLS-to-LHA circuit is sufficient and necessary for stress-induced analgesia (SIA), which is mediated by the rostral ventromedial medulla (RVM) in a opioid-dependent manner. This study is interesting and important and the conclusions are largely supported by the data. I have a few concerns as follows:

(1) The present data show that activation of dLS neurons produces SIA, however, this manipulation is non-specific. It may be better to see the effect of specific manipulation of stress-activated c-Fos positive neurons in the dLS using a combination of the Tet-Off system and chemogenetic/optogenetic tools.

(2) Depending on its duration, and intensity, stress can exert potent and bidirectional modulatory effects on pain, either reducing pain (SIA) or exacerbating it (stress-induced hyperalgesia, SIH). Is the circuit in the manuscript involved in SIH?

(3) It is well-accepted that opioid and cannabinoid receptors participate in the SIA, and the evidence is especially strong for the RVM endocannabinoid system. Given this, why did the authors focus their study on the opioid system?

(4) Does silencing of the dLS neurons affect stress-induced anxiety-like behaviors? Alternatively, what is the relationship between SIA and the level of stress-induced anxiety?

(5) Direct electrophysiological evidence should be provided to confirm the efficacy of the MP-CNO.

(6) Is the LHA a specific downstream target for SIA, and is the LHA involved in stress-induced anxiety-like behaviors?

(7) Do LHA neurons have direct projections to the RVM? If yes, what is its role in the SIA?

Author response:

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

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s dedication to evaluating our manuscript and raising essential considerations regarding the classification of the migration behavior we described. While the reviewer suggests that this behavior aligns with the concept of itinerancy, we contend that it represents a distinct phenomenon, albeit with similarities, as both involve the non-breeding movements of birds. We acknowledge that our manuscript did not adequately address this distinction and have considered the reviewer’s feedback. In our response, we clarify the difference between the described phenomenon and itinerancy. Our revised manuscript will include a new section in the Discussion to address this issue comprehensively.

In the first part of the review, the reviewer emphasizes that the pattern we are describing is consistent with itinerancy. Regardless of the terminology used, we want to highlight the existence of two different types of migratory behavior, both of which involve movement in non-breeding areas.

The first type, called itinerancy, was first described by Moreau in 1972 in “The Palaearctic-African Bird Migration Systems.” As noted by the reviewer, this behavior involves an alternation of stopovers and movements between different short-term non-breeding residency areas. They usually occur in response to food scarcity in one part of the non-breeding range, causing birds to move to another part of the same range. These movements typically cover distances of 10 to 100 kilometers but are neither continuous nor directional. Moreau (1972) defined itinerancy as prolonged stopovers, normally lasting several months, primarily in tropical regions. He noted observations of certain species disappearing from his study areas in sub-Saharan Africa in December and others appearing, suggesting they may have multiple home ranges during the non-breeding season. Subsequent research, as mentioned by the reviewer, has confirmed itinerancy in many species, particularly among Palaearctic-African migrants in sub-Saharan Africa. In particular, the Montagu’s Harrier has been extensively studied in this regard. The reviewer rightly points out that our study does not include recent findings on this species. In our revised version, we will include references to recent studies, such as those by Trierweiler et al. (2013, Journal of Animal Ecology, 82:107-120) and Schlaich et al. (2023, Ardea, 111:321-342), which show that Montagu’s Harrier has an average of 3-4 home ranges separated by approximately 200 kilometers. These studies suggest that the species spends approximately 1.5 months at each site, with the most extended period typically observed at the last site before migrating to the breeding grounds.

In the second type, birds undertake a post-breeding migration, arrive in their non-breeding range, and then gradually move in a particular direction throughout the season. This continuous directional movement covers considerable distances and continues throughout the non-breeding period. In our study, this movement covered about 1000 km, comparable to the total migration distance of Rough-legged Buzzards of about 1500 km. As observed in our research, these movements are influenced by external factors such as snow cover. In such cases, the progression of snow cover in a south-westerly direction during winter can prevent birds from finding food, forcing them to continue migrating in the same direction. In essence, this movement represents a prolonged phase of the migration process but at a slower pace. Similar behavior has been documented in buzzards, as reported by Strandberg et al. (2009, Ibis 151:200-206). Although several transmitters in their study stopped working in mid-winter, the authors observed a phenomenon they termed ‘prolonged autumn migration.’

In the second part of the review, the reviewer questions the need to distinguish between the two behaviors we have discussed. However, we believe these behaviors differ in their structure (with the first being intermittent and often non-directional, whereas the second is continuous and directional) and in their causes (with the first being driven by seasonal food resource cycles and the second by advancing snow cover). We therefore argue that it is worth distinguishing between them. To differentiate these forms of non-breeding movement, we propose to use ‘itinerancy’ for the first type, as described initially by Moreau in 1972, and introduce a separate term for the second behavior. Although ‘slow directional itinerancy’ could be considered, we find it too cumbersome.

Moreover, ‘itinerancy’ in the literature refers not only to non-breeding movements but also to the use of different nesting sites, e.g., Lislevand et al. (2020, Journal of Avian Biology: e02595), reinforcing its association with movements between multiple sites within habitats. We, therefore, propose that the second behavior be given a distinct name. We acknowledge the reviewer’s point that we did not adequately address this distinction in the Discussion and plan to include a separate section in our paper’s revised version. In the third part of his review, the reviewer suggests an alternative title. Another reviewer, Dr Theunis Piersma, suggested the current title during the first round of reviewing, and we have chosen his version.

In the fourth part of the review, the reviewer questions whether it is appropriate to discuss the conservation aspect of this study. This type of non-breeding movement raises concerns about accurately determining non-breeding ranges and population dynamics for species that exhibit this behavior. We believe that accurate determination of range and population dynamics is critical to conservation efforts. While this may be less important for species breeding in Europe and migrating to Africa, for which monitoring breeding territories is more feasible, it’s essential for Arctic and sub-Arctic breeding species. Large-scale surveys in these regions have historically been challenging and have become even more so with the end of Arctic cooperation following Russia’s war with Ukraine (Koivurova, Shibata, 2023). For North America and Europe, non-breeding abundance is typically estimated once per season in mid-winter. In North America, these are the so-called Christmas counts (which take place once at the end of December), and in Europe, they are the IWC counts mentioned by the reviewer (as follows from their official website - “The IWC requires a single count at each site, which should be repeated each year. The exact dates vary slightly from region to region, but take place in January or February”). Because of such a single count in mid-winter, non-breeding habitats occupied in autumn and spring will be listed as ‘uncommon’ at best, while south-western habitats where birds are only present in mid-winter will be listed as ‘common.’ However, the situation will be reversed if we consider the time birds spend in these habitats.

The reviewer also highlights the introduction’s unconventional structure and information redundancy at the beginning. We have chosen this structure and provided basic explanations to improve readability for a wider audience, given eLife’s readership. At the same time, we will certainly take the reviewers’ feedback into account in the revised version. We plan to include the references to modern itinerancy research mentioned above and to add a section on itinerancy to the Discussion.

We appreciate the reviewer’s input and sincerely thank them for their time and effort in reviewing our paper. While we may not fully agree on the classification of the behavior we describe, we value the opportunity to engage in discussion and believe that presenting arguments and counterarguments to the reader is beneficial to scientific progress.

---

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

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

I much enjoyed reading this manuscript, that is, once I understood what it is about. Titles like "Conserving bird populations in the Anthropocene: the significance of non-breeding movements" are a claim to so-called relevance, they have NOTHING to do with the content of the paper, so once I understood that this paper was about the "Quick quick slow: the foxtrot migration of rough-legged buzzards is a response to habitat and snow" (an alternative title), it was becoming very interesting. So the start of the abstract as well as the introduction is very tedious, as clearly much trouble is taken here to establish reputability. In my eyes this is unnecessary: eLife should be interested in publishing such a wonderful description of such a wonderful migrant in a study that comes to grips with limiting factors on a continental scale!

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Thank you for your appreciation of our study.

We agree that the focus of the article should be changed from conservation to migration patterns. We have rewritten the Introduction and Discussion as suggested. We have added the application of this pattern including conservation at the end of the Discussion by completely changing Figure 5. We have also changed the title to the suggested one.

Not sure that the first paragraph statements that seek to downplay what we know about wintering vs breeding areas are valid (although I see what purpose they serve). Migratory shorebirds have extensively been studied in the nonbreeding areas, for example, including movement aspects (see, as just one example, Verhoeven, M.A., Loonstra, A.H.J., McBride, A.D., Both, C., Senner, N.R. & Piersma, T. (2020) Migration route, stopping sites, and non breeding destinations of adult Black tailed Godwits breeding in southwest Fryslân, The Netherlands. Journal of Ornithology 162, 61-76) and there are very impressive studies on the winter biology of migrants across large scale (for example in Zwarts' Living on the Edge book on the Sahel wetlands). Think also about geese and swans and about seabirds!

We have rewritten the first paragraph and it now talks about patterns of migratory behavior. We have also rewritten the second paragraph, now it is devoted to studies of movements in the non-breeding period. We explain how our pattern differs from those already studied and give references to the papers you mentioned.

Directional movements in nonbreeding areas as a function of food (in this case locusts) have really beautifully been described by Almut Schlaich et al in JAnimEcol for Montagu's harriers.

We have added Montagu's harrier example in the second paragraph of the Introduction and the Discussion. We have added a reference to Schlaich and to Garcia and Arroyo, who suggested that Montagu's harriers have long directional migrations during the non-breeding period.

Once the paper starts talking buzzards, and the analyses of the wonderful data, all is fine. It is a very competent analysis with a description of a cool pattern.

Thank you for your appreciation of our study. We hope the revised version is better and clearer.

However, i would say that it is all a question of spatial scale. The buzzards here respond to changes in food availability, but there is not an animal that doesn't. The question is how far they have to move for an adequate response: in some birds movements of 100s of meters may be enough, and then anything to the scale of rough-legged buzzards.

In the new version of the manuscript, we emphasize that this is a large distance (about 1000 km), comparable to the distance of the fall and spring migrations (about 1400 km) in lines 70-72 of the Introduction and 379-383 of the Discussion.

And actually, several of the shorebirds I know best also do a foxtrot, such as red knots and bar-tailed godwits moulting in the Wadden Sea, then spending a few months in the UK estuaries, before returning to the Wadden Sea before the long migrations to Arctic breeding grounds. The publication of the rough-legged buzzard story may help researchers to summarize patterns such as this too. Mu problem with this paper is the framing. A story on the how and why of these continental movements in response to snow and other habitat features would be a grand contribution. Drop Anthropocene, and rethink whether foxtrot should be introduced as a hypothesis or a summary of cool descriptions. I prefer the latter, and recommend eLife to go with that too, rather than encourage "disconnected frames that seek 'respectability'" Good luck, theunis piersma

We thank the reviewer again for his valuable comments and suggestions. We have changed the framing to the suggested one and removed the Anthropocene from the article.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have taken to review our manuscript. We have carefully considered all of your comments, including both public and author comments, and provided detailed responses to each of them below. In addition, we would like to address the most important public comments.

We agree with the suggestion to shift the focus of the article from conservation to migration patterns. Accordingly, we have rewritten both the Introduction and Discussion sections to focus on migration behavior rather than conservation.

However, we respectfully disagree with the suggestion that the migration patterns we describe are synonymous with itinerancy. We acknowledge that our original presentation may have been unclear and may have hindered full understanding. In the revised version, we provide a detailed analysis of migratory behavior in the Introduction that describes how our pattern differs from itinerancy. We also revisit this distinction in the Discussion section. We have also carefully revised Figure 1 to improve clarity and avoid potential misunderstandings.

Regarding the applicability of the described migration pattern, we acknowledge that the Rough-legged Buzzard is not listed as an endangered species. However, we believe that our findings have practical implications. We have moved our discussion of this issue to the end of the Discussion section and have completely revised Figure 5. While the overall population of Rough-legged Buzzards is not declining, certain regions within its range are experiencing declines. We show that this decline does not warrant listing the species as endangered. Instead, it may represent a redistribution within the non-breeding range - a shift in range dynamics. We use the example of the Rough-legged Buzzard to illustrate this concept and emphasize the importance of considering such dynamics when assessing the conservation status of species in the future.

We also acknowledge that the hypothesis of this form of behavior has been proposed previously for Montagu's Harrier, and we have included this information in the revised manuscript. In addition, we agree that the focus on the Anthropocene is unnecessary in this context and have therefore removed it.

We believe that these revisions significantly improve the clarity and robustness of the manuscript, and we are grateful for your insightful comments and suggestions.

As a general comment, please note that including line numbers (as it is the standard in any manuscript submission) would facilitate reviewers providing more detailed comments on the text.

We apologize for this oversight and have added line numbers to our revised manuscript.

Dataset: unclear what is the frequency of GPS transmissions. Furthermore, information on relative tag mass for the tracked individuals should be reported.

We have included this information in our manuscript (L 157-163). We also refer to the study in which this dataset was first used and described in detail (L 164).

Data pre-processing: more details are needed here. What data have been removed if the bird died? The entire track of the individual? Only the data classified in the last section of the track? The section also reports on an 'iterative procedure' for annotating tracks, which is only vaguely described. A piecewise regression is mentioned, but no details are provided, not even on what is the dependent variable (I assume it should be latitude?).

Regarding the deaths. We only removed the data when the bird was already dead. We have corrected the text to make this clear (L 170).

Regarding the iterative procedure. We have added a detailed description on lines 175-188.

Data analysis: several potential issues here:

(1) Unclear why sex was not included in all mixed models. I think it should be included.

Our dataset contains 35 females and eight males. This ratio does not allow us to include sex in all models and adequately assess the influence of this factor. At the same time, because adult females disperse farther than males in some raptor species, we conducted a separate analysis of the dependence of migration distance on sex (Table S8) and found no evidence for this in our species. We have written a separate paragraph about this. This paragraph can be found on lines 356-360 of the new manuscript.

(2) Unclear what is the rationale of describing habitat use during migration; is it only to show that it is a largely unsuitable habitat for the species? But is a formal analysis required then? Wouldn't be enough to simply describe this?

Habitat use and snow cover determine the two main phases (quick and slow) of the pattern we describe. We believe that habitat analysis is appropriate in this case and that a simple description would be uninformative and would not support our conclusions.

(3) Analysis of snow cover: such a 'what if' analysis is fine but it seems to be a rather indirect assessment of the effect of snow cover on movement patterns. Can a more direct test be envisaged relating e.g. daily movement patterns to concomitant snow cover? This should be rather straightforward. The effectiveness of this method rests on among-year differences in snow cover and timing of snowfall. A further possibility would be to demonstrate habitat selection within the entire non-breeding home range of an individual in relation snow cover. Such an analysis would imply associating presence-absence of snow to every location within the non-breeding range and testing whether the proportion of locations with snow is lower than the proportion of snow of random locations within the entire non-breeding home range (95% KDE) for every individual (e.g. by setting a 1/10 ratio presence to random locations).

The proposed analysis will provide an opportunity to assess whether the Rough-legged Buzzard selects areas with the lowest snow cover, but will not provide an opportunity to follow the dynamics and will therefore give a misleading overall picture. This is especially true in the spring months. In March-April, Rough-legged Buzzards move northeast and are in an area that is not the most open to snow. At this time, areas to the southwest are more open to snow (this can be seen in Figure 4b). If we perform the proposed analysis, the control points for this period would be both to the north (where there is more snow) and to the south (where there is less snow) from the real locations, and the result would be that there is no difference in snow cover.

A step-selection analysis could be used, as we did in our previous work (Curk et al 2020 Sci Rep) with the same Rough-legged Buzzard (but during migration, not winter). But this would only give us a qualitative idea, not a quantitative one - that Rough-legged Buzzards move from snow (in the fall) and follow snowmelt progression (in the spring).

At the same time, our analysis gives a complete picture of snow cover dynamics in different parts of the non-breeding range. This allows us to see that if Rough-legged Buzzards remained at their fall migration endpoint without moving southwest, they would encounter 14.4% more snow cover (99.5% vs. 85.1%). Although this difference may seem small (14.4%), it holds significance for rodent-hunting birds, distinguishing between complete and patchy snow cover. Simultaneously, if Rough-legged Buzzards immediately flew to the southwest and stayed there throughout winter, they would experience 25.7% less snow cover (57.3% vs. 31.6%). Despite a greater difference than in the first case, it doesn't compel them to adopt this strategy, as it represents the difference between various degrees of landscape openness from snow cover.

We write about this in the new manuscript on lines 385-394.

Results: it is unclear whether the reported dispersion measures are SDs or SEs. Please provide details.

For the date and coordinates of the start and end of the different phases of migration, we specified the mean, sd, and sample size. We wrote this in line 277. For the values of the parameters of the different phases of the migration (duration, distance, speed, and direction), we used the mean, the standard error of the mean, and the confidence interval (obtained using the ‘emmeans’ package). We have indicated this in lines 302-303 and the caption of Table 1 (L 315) and Figure 2 (L 293-294). For the values of habitat and snow cover experienced by the Rough-legged Buzzards, we used the mean and the error of the mean. We reported this on lines 322 and 337 and in Figures 3 (L 332-333) and 4 (L 355-356).

Discussion: in general, it should be reshaped taking into account the comments. It is overlong, speculative and quite naive in several passages. Entire sections can be safely removed (I think it can be reduced by half without any loss of information). I provide some examples of the issues I have spotted below. For instance, the entire paragraph starting with 'Understanding....' is not clear to me. What do you mean by 'prohibited management' options? Without examples, this seems a rather general text, based on unclear premises when related to the specific of this study. Some statements are vague, derive from unsubstantiated claims, and unclear. E.g. "Despite their scarcity in these habitats, forests appear to hold significant importance for Rough-legged buzzards for nocturnal safety". I could not find any day-night analysis showing that they actually roost in forests during nighttime. Being a tundra species, it may well be possible that rough-legged buzzards perceive forests as very dangerous habitats and that they prefer instead to roost in open habitats. Analysing habitat use during day and night during the non-breeding period may be of help to clarify this. Furthermore, considering the fast migration periods, what is the flight speed during day and night above forests? Do these birds also migrate at night or do they roost during the night? Perhaps a figure visualizing day and night track segments could be of help (or an analysis of day vs. night flight speed) (there are several R packages to annotate tracks in relation to day and night). This is an example of another problematic statement: "The progression of snow cover in the wintering range of Rough-legged buzzards plays a significant role in their winter migration pattern." The manuscript does not contain any clear demonstration of this, as I wrote in my previous comments. Without such evidence, you must considerably tone down such assertions. But since providing a direct link is certainly possible, I think that additional analyses would clearly strengthen your take-home message.

The paragraph starting with "The quantification of environmental changes that could prove fatal to bird species presents yet another challenge for conservation efforts in an era of rapid global change." is quite odd. Take the following statement "For instance, the presence of small patches of woodland in the winter range might appear crucial to the survival of the Rough-legged buzzard. Elimination of these seemingly minor elements of vegetation cover through management actions could have dire consequences for the species.". It is based on the assumption that minor vegetation elements play a key role in the ecology of the species, without any evidence supporting this. Does it have any sense? I could safely say exactly the opposite and I would believe it might even be more substantiated.

We agree with these comments.

We have completely rewritten this section. As suggested, we have shortened it by removing statements that were not supported by the research. We have completely removed the statements about "prohibited management". We have also removed the statement that "forests appear to be of significant importance to Rough-legged buzzards for nocturnal safety" and everything associated with that statement, e.g. the statement about "small elements of vegetation cover", etc. We do believe that this statement is true in substance, but we also agree that it is not supported by the results and requires separate analysis. At the same time, we believe that this is a topic for a separate study and would be redundant here. Therefore, we leave it for a separate publication.

Conclusion paragraph: I believe this severely overstates the conservation importance of this study. That the results have "crucial implications for conservation efforts in the Anthropocene, where rapidly changing environmental factors can severely impact bird migration" seems completely untenable to me. What is the evidence for such crucial implications? For instance, these results may suggest that climate change, because global warming is predicted to reduce snow cover in the non-breeding areas, might well be beneficial for populations of this species, by reducing non-breeding energy expenditure and improving non-breeding survival. I think statements like these are simply not necessary, and that the study should be more focused on the actual results and evidence provided.

We have completely rewritten this section. We removed the reference to the Anthropocene and focused on migratory behavior and migration patterns.

eLife assessment

This work presents a useful finding on non-breeding itinerant behavior of a migratory raptor. With its extensive dataset and analytical framework, this work is of interest to researchers investigating the ecological drivers of bird migration. However, the main claim on a novel migration pattern (so-called 'fox-trot migration') is incomplete in light of current knowledge on bird migratory behavior.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This preprint by Pokrovsky and coworkers is a descriptive study reporting on non-breeding itinerant behaviour of an intrapalearctic migratory raptor, the rough-legged buzzard, and relating such non-breeding movements to snow cover across the European non-breeding range. The article is based on long-term GPS tracking data from a relatively large (n=43) sample of individuals that were equipped with state-of-the-art tracking devices in the Russian Arctic during 2013-2019. The results show that, upon breeding, buzzards migrated rapidly to southern non-breeding areas, located in open areas north of the Black and Caspian seas, where they perform continuous directional movements at a slower pace, initially moving SW (Oct to Jan) and then progressively moving NE (Feb to Apr) before embarking on rapid spring migration. It is suggested that such itinerant behaviour follows variation (expansion and retreat) of snow cover across the non-breeding range.

The results are potentially useful for researchers investigating the ecological drivers of bird movement patterns. The analytical framework appears solid, although some details on the analyses (requested during the previous review round) are still unclear and have not been modified despite explicit requests. Significant weaknesses in the theoretical framework persist in the revised version, including unwarranted claiming of novelty, overselling of importance of the study, and overinterpretation of the data. Below are key points that the authors did not consider when revising their manuscript.

(1) The authors underemphasize the fact that what they term 'fox-trot' migration is actually a well-known patterns for many other migratory species, both in the Nearctic and in the Afro-Palearctic migration systems. Such behaviour has previously been identified as 'itinerant' or 'non-breeding itinerancy', involving an alternation of stopovers and movements between different short-term non-breeding residency areas, or even slow continuous movements, and it seems that the pattern the authors report for this particular species is perfectly in line with such previous evidence. For instance, this is well-documented among migratory raptors, such as the Montagu's harrier, lesser kestrels or black kites, that exploit Sahelian savannahs, where large spatio-temporal variation in greenness and hence resource availability occurs. And, besides the mentioned cuckoos and nightingales, there are studies of red-backed shrikes suggesting the same, as well as of tree swallows in the Nearctic. Therefore, the authors should avoid claiming novelty for this study and introducing unnecessary and confusing new terms in the literature (i.e. the 'fox-trot' migration patterns) when these are definitely not strictly needed as they have been previously observed and defined otherwise. Sentences such as 'We used the rough-legged buzzard as a model..." are also similarly unwarranted. This is simply a descriptive studies reporting on such behaviour in yet another migratory species. The whole introduction is pervaded by a faulty logic. The authors first introduce a new (unwarranted) term based on previous evidence from other studies (none of which felt any need to introduce and describe it); then they assume, for unclear reasons, that the species they are studying should behave in that way; even more worryingly, based on these assumptions, they make specific predictions on how this species should behave, without any sound biological reason for these predictions. I admit I hardly see any scientific logic in this approach.

(2) The species has a very standard migration for a short-distance migrant, by all means. It moves to non-breeding areas, and once there it slowly moves towards the south in autumn and back again in spring, until it departs for pre-breeding migration. This is no different from other trans-Saharan migratory raptor species that spend the non-breeding period in the Sahel. Whether the species perform any short/medium term stopover (frequenting the same are for some days) during the non-breeding stage (between end of autumn migration and onset of spring migration), as is the case of most species showing non-breeding itinerancy, is not reported. The authors only show a slower pace of movement during the non-breeding period compared to autumn and spring migration, without providing any further details. This hinders comparisons with other previous studies.

(3) The current title is unnecessarily general (it may recall rather a review or meta-analysis) and not adequately describing the content of the manuscript. In order to be informative, the title should more tightly reflect the content of the article. A valid alternative would be 'Itinerant non-breeding behaviour of an intra-Palaearctic migratory raptor', as it would be far more adequate and informative.

(4) The text, particularly the Introduction and the Discussion, would greatly benefit from profound reframing in light of the above comments. Upon reading the first sentence of the introduction, it looks surprising that the authors based their suggestion for 'fox-trot' migration based on a very outdated article on the migration of Montagu's harrier based on sparse ring recovery data which merely suggests the existence of 'movements' within the non-breeding areas (i.e. non-breeding itinerancy), while subsequent large scale satellite tracking studies of this species provided compelling evidence for non-breeding area itinerancy (and again, no mention of 'fox-trot' whatsoever). The discussion is entirely framed around potential issues related to accurate monitoring of population size and trends, which the author surprisingly refer to 'conservation implications'. As I already mentioned in my previous review, the 'conservation implications' of this study are nearly negligible. At best, it suggests that caution should be applied when interpreting population trends of migratory species based on non-breeding area counts only, a pattern that is already well known for decades (consider the long-running IWC coordinated by Wetlands International!). In addition, Christmas Bird Count, a long-term monitoring program of AOS, is mentioned without any accurate reference to what it actually is, assuming that any reader would be familiar with a very peculiar monitoring scheme of the Nearctic region.

The final paragraph epitomizes how authors are overstating the importance of this study, claiming for non-existent novelty and even 'discovery': "Our study has identified and characterized a new pattern of migratory behavior, the 'foxtrot migration', along with the associated concept of 'dynamic range'. This discovery has significant implications for conservation strategies and adequate representation of non-breeding habitats".

eLife assessment

This manuscript presents useful findings on several phage from deep sea isolates of Lentisphaerae strains WC36 and zth2 that further our understanding of deep sea microbial life. The manuscript's primary claim is that phage isolates augment polysaccharide use in Pseudomonas bacteria via auxiliary metabolic genes (AMGs). However, the strength of the evidence is incomplete and does not support the primary claims. Namely, there are not data presented to rule out phage contamination in the polysaccharide stock solution, AMGs are potentially misidentified, and there is missing evidence of successful infection.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript describes the identification and isolation of several phage from deep sea isolates of Lentisphaerae strains WC36 and zth2. The authors observe induction of several putative chronic phages with the introduction of additional polysaccharides to the media. The authors suggest that two of the recovered phage genomes encode AMGs associated with polysaccharide use. The authors also suggest that adding the purified phage to cultures of Pseudomonas stutzeri 273 increased the growth of this bacteria due to augmented polysaccharide use genes from the phage.

While the findings were of interest and relevance to the field, it is my opinion that several of the analysis fall short of supporting the key assertions presented.

Strengths:

Interesting isolate pf deep sea Lentisphaerae strains which will undoubtedly further our understanding of deep sea microbial life.

Weaknesses:

Many of the findings are consistent with a phage contamination in the polysaccharide stock solution.

The genes presented as AMGs are largely well known and studied phage genes which play a role in infection cycles.

The evidence that the isolated phage can infect Pseudomonas stutzeri 273 is lacking, putting into question the dependent results.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This paper investigates virus-host interactions in deep-sea bacteriophage systems which employ a seemingly mutualistic approach to viral replication in which the virus aids host cell polysaccharide import and utilization via metabolic reprogramming. The hypothesis being tested is supported with solid and convincing evidence and the findings are potentially generalizable with implications for our understanding of polysaccharide-mediated virus-host interactions and carbon cycles in marine ecosystems more broadly.

Strengths:

This paper synthesizes sequencing and phylogenic analyses of two Lentisphaerae bacteria and three phage genomes; electron microscopy imaging of bacterial/phage particles; differential gene expression analyses; differential growth curve analyses, and differential phage proliferation assays to extract insights into whether laminarin and starch can induce both host growth and phage proliferation. The data presented convincingly demonstrate that both host culture density and phage proliferation increase as a result having host, phage, and polysaccharide carbon source together in culture.

Weaknesses (suggestions for improvement):

The article would be strengthened by the following additional experiment: providing the phage proteins hypothesized to be aiding host cell growth (red genes from Figure 5...TonB system energizer ExbB, glycosidases, etc) individually or in combination on plasmids rather than within the context of the actual phage itself to see if such additional genes are necessary and sufficient to realize the boosts in host cell growth/saturation levels observed in the presence of the phages tested.

The paper would also benefit from additional experiments focused on determining how the polysaccharide processing, transport, and metabolism genes are being used by the phages to either directly increase viral infection/replication or else to indirectly do so by supporting the growth of the host in a more mutualistic manner (i.e. by improving their ability to import, degrade, and metabolize polysaccharides).

The introduction would benefit from a discussion of what is known regarding phage and/or viral entry pathways that utilize carbohydrate anchors during host entry. The discussion could also be improved by linking the work presented to the concept of "selfishness" in bacterial systems (see for instance Giljan, G., Brown, S., Lloyd, C.C. et al. Selfish bacteria are active throughout the water column of the ocean. ISME COMMUN. 3, 11 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1038/s43705-023-00219-7). The bacteria under study are gram negative and it was recently demonstrated (https://www.nature.com/articles/ismej201726) that "selfish" bacteria sequester metabolizable polysaccharides in their periplasm to advantage. It is plausible that the phages may be hijacking this "selfishness" mechanism to improve infectivity and ENTRY rather than helping their hosts to grow and profilerate so they can reap the benefits of simply having more hosts to infect. The current work does not clearly distinguish between these two distinct mechanistic possibilities. The paper would be strengthened by at least a more detailed discussion of this possibility as well as the author's rationale for interpreting their data as they do to favor the "mutualistic" interpretation. In the same light, the paper would benefit from a more careful choice of words which can also help to make such a distinction more clear/evident/intentional. As currently written the authors seem to be actively avoiding giving insights wrt this question.

Finally, I would be interested to know if the author's sequencing datasets might be used to inform the question raised above by using bacterial immunity systems such as CRISPR/Cas9. For example, if the phage systems studied are truly beneficial/mutualistic for the bacteria then it's less likely that there would be evidence of targeted immunity against that particular phage that has the beneficial genes that support polysaccharide metabolism.

eLife assessment

In this small-scale study, Fawaz et al. report a significant prevalence of somatic mutations such as Clonal Hematopoiesis of Indeterminate Potential (CHIP) and mosaic loss of Y chromosome (mLOY), but lack of their association with a history of myocardial infarction (MI). The study utilized sensitive techniques, including targeted high-throughput sequencing and digital PCR. The valuable findings by the authors present a contrast to earlier reports, yet they align somewhat with some studies that have demonstrated little or no link between clonal hematopoiesis and atherothrombotic events. Although the study offers convincing results, its limited sample size and brief follow-up period preclude drawing definitive conclusions.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript examines the individual and dual effects of CHIP and LOY in MI employing a cohort of ~460 individuals. CHIP is assessed by NGS and LOY is assessed by PCR. The threshold for CHIP is set at 2% (an arbitrary cutoff that is often used) and LOY at 9% (according to the Discussion text - this reviewer may have missed the section that describes why this threshold was employed). The investigation assessed whether LOY could modulate inflammation, atherosclerotic burden, or MI risk associated with CHIP. Neither CHIP nor LOY independently affected hsCRP, atherosclerotic burden, or MI incidence, nor did LOY presence diminish these outcomes in CHIP+ male subjects.

This study represents the first dual analysis of CHIP and LOY on CVD outcomes. The results are largely negative, contradictory to other studies (many with much larger sample sizes). I would attribute the limitation of sample size as a major contributor to the negative data. While the negative data are suspect, the "positive" finding that LOY abolishes the prognostic significance of CHIP on MI is of interest (and consistent with what is understood from mechanistic studies).

Overall, I enjoyed reading the paper, and it is of interest to the research community. However, I disagree with some of the authors' interpretations of the data. Generally, many conclusions on CHIP interpretation are based on the comparison of findings from very large datasets that have been evaluated by shallow NGS DNA sequencing. These studies lack sensitivity and accuracy, but this is counterbalanced by their very large sample sizes. Thus, they draw conclusions from the sickest individuals (ICD codes) with the largest clones (explaining the 10% VAF threshold). Here, the study has a well-phenotyped cohort, but as far as this reviewer can tell, the DNA sequencing is "shallow" NGS. Typically, to assess smaller datasets, investigators employ an error-correction method (DNA barcodes, duplex sequencing, etc.) for the sensitivity and accuracy of calling variants. Thus, the current study appears to suffer from this limitation (small sample sizes combined with NGS).

While the "negative" data from this study are inconclusive, the positive data (i.e. CHIP being prognostic for MI in the absence but not presence of MI) is of interest. Thus, the investigators may want to consider a shorter report that largely focuses on this finding.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The preprint by Fawaz et al. presents the findings of a study that aimed to assess the relationship between somatic mutations associated with clonal hematopoiesis (CHIP) and the prevalence of myocardial infarction (MI). The authors conducted targeted DNA sequencing analyses on samples from 149 MI patients and 297 non-MI controls from a separate cohort. Additionally, they investigated the impact of the loss of the Y chromosome (LOY), another somatic mutation frequently observed in clonally expanded blood cells. The results of the study primarily demonstrate no significant associations, as neither CHIP nor LOY were found to be correlated with an increased prevalence of MI. Of note, the null findings regarding CHIP are in conflict with several larger studies in the literature.

Strengths:

Overall, this is a useful research work on an emerging risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). The use of a targeted sequencing approach is a strength, as it offers higher sensitivity than the whole exome sequencing approaches used in many previous studies.

Weaknesses:

Reporting null findings is definitely relevant in an emerging field such as the role of somatic mutations in cardiovascular disease. Nevertheless, the study suffers from severe limitations, which casts doubts on the authors' conclusions, as detailed below:

(1) The small sample size of the study population is a critical limitation, particularly when reporting null findings that conflict (partly) with positive findings in much larger studies, totaling hundreds of thousands of individuals (e.g. Zekavat et al, Nature CVR 2023, Vlasschaert et al, Circulation 2023; Zhao et al, JAMA Cardio 2024). The authors claim that they have 90% power to detect an effect size of CHIP on MI comparable to that in a previous report (Jaiswal et al, NEJM 2017). However, the methodology used to estimate statistical power is not described. Furthermore, the work by Jaiswal et al (NEJM 2017) showed a hazard ratio of approx. 2.0, but more recent work in much larger populations suggests that the overall effect of CHIP on atherosclerotic CVD is smaller, most likely due to the heterogeneity of effects of different mutated genes (e.g. Zekavat et al, Nature CVR 2023, Vlasschaert et al, Circulation 2023; Zhao et al, JAMA Cardio 2024). In addition, several analyses in the current manuscript are conducted separately in MI(+) (n= 149) and MI(-) (N=297) individuals, further limiting statistical power. Power is still lower in the investigation of the effects of LOY and its interaction with CHIP, as only men are included in these analyses. Overall, I believe the study is severely underpowered, which calls into question the validity of the reported null findings.

(2) Related to the above, it is widely accepted that the effects of CHIP on CVD are highly heterogeneous, as some mutated genes appear to have a strong impact on atherosclerosis, whereas the effect of others is negligible (e.g. Zekavat et al, Nature CVR 2023, Vlasschaert et al, Circulation 2023, among others). TET2 mutations are frequently considered a "positive control", given the multiple lines of evidence suggesting that these mutations confer a higher risk of atherosclerotic disease. However, no association with MI or related variables was found for TET2 mutations in the current work. Reporting the statistical power specifically for assessing the effect of TET2 mutations would enhance the interpretation of these results.

(3) One of the most essential features of CHIP is the tight correlation with age. In this study, the effect of age on CHIP (Supplementary Tables S5, S6) seems substantially milder than in previous studies. Given the relatively weak association with age here, it is not surprising that no association with MI or atherosclerotic disease was found, considering that this association would have a much smaller effect size. In addition, there are previous reports of sex-related differences in the prevalence of CHIP, is there an association between CHIP and age after adjusting for sex?

(4) The mutated genes included in the definition of "CHIP" here are markedly different than those in most previous studies, particularly when considering specifically the studies that demonstrated an association between CHIP and atherosclerotic CVD. For instance, the definition of CHIP in this manuscript includes genes such as ANKRD26, CALR, CCND2, and DDX41... that are not prototypical CHIP genes. This is unlikely to have a major impact on the main results, as the vast majority of mutations detected are indeed in bona fide CHIP genes, but it should be at least acknowledged. Furthermore, the strategy used here for the CHIP variant calling and curation seems substantially different than that used in previous studies, which precludes a direct comparison. This is important because such differences in the definition of CHIP and the curation of variants are the basis of most conflicting findings in the literature regarding the effects of this condition. Ideally, the authors should conduct sensitivity analyses restricted to prototypical CHIP genes, using the criteria that have been previously established in the field (e.g. Vlasschaert et al, Blood 2023).

(5) An important limitation of the current study is the cross-sectional design of most of the analyses. For instance, it is not surprising that no association is found between CHIP and prevalent atherosclerosis burden by ultrasound imaging, considering that many individuals may have developed atherosclerosis years or decades before the expansion of the mutant clones, limiting the possible effect of CHIP on atherosclerosis burden. Similarly, the analysis of the relationship between CHIP and a history of MI may be confounded by the potential effects of MI on the expansion of mutant clones. In this context, it is noteworthy that the only positive results here are found in the analysis of the relationship between CHIP at baseline and incident MI development over follow-up. Increasing the sample size for these longitudinal analyses would provide deeper insights into the relationship between CHIP and MI.

(6) The description of some analyses lacks detail, but it seems that statistical analyses were exclusively adjusted for age or age and sex. The lack of adjustment for conventional cardiovascular risk factors in statistical analyses may confound results, particularly given the marked differences in several variables observed between groups.

(7) The variant allele fraction (VAF) threshold for identifying clinically relevant clonal hematopoiesis is still a subject of debate. The authors state that subjects without any detectable mutation or with mutations with a VAF below 2% were considered non-CHIP carriers. While this approach is frequent in the field, it likely misses many impactful mutations with lower VAFs. Such false negatives could contribute to the null findings reported here. Ideally, the authors should determine the lower detection limit of their sequencing approach (either computationally or through serial dilution experiments) and identify the threshold of VAF that can be detected reliably with their sequencing assay. The association between CHIP and MI should then be evaluated considering all mutations above this VAF threshold, in addition to sensitivity analyses with other thresholds frequent in the literature, such as 1% VAF, 2% VAF, and 10% VAF.

(8) The authors should justify the use of 3D vascular ultrasound imaging exclusively in the supra-aortic trunk. I am not familiar with this technique, but it seems to be most typically used to evaluate atherosclerosis burden in superficial vascular beds such as carotids or femorals. I am concerned about the potential impact of tissue depth on the accurate quantification of atherosclerosis burden in the current study (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2016.03.002). It is unclear whether the carotids or femorals were imaged in the study population.

(9) The specific criteria used to define LOY need to be justified. LOY is stated to be defined based on a "A cut off of 9% of cells with mLOY defined the detection of a mLOY based on the study of 30 men of less than 40 years who had a normal karyotype as assessed by conventional cytogenetic study." As acknowledged by the authors, this definition of LOY is substantially different than that used in recent studies employing the same technique to detect LOY (Mas-Peiro et al, EHJ 2023). In addition, it seems essential to provide more detailed information on the ddPCR assay used to determine LOY, including the operating range and, more importantly, the lower limit of detection (%LOY) of the assay. A dilution series of a control DNA with no LOY would be helpful in this context.

(10) Our understanding of the relationship between CHIP and CVD is evolving fast, and the manuscript should be considered in the context of recent literature in the field. For instance, the recent work by Zhao et al (JAMA Cardio 2024, doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2023.5095) should be considered, as it used a similar targeted DNA sequencing approach as the one used here, but found a clear association between CHIP and coronary heart disease (in a population of 6181 individuals).

(11) The use of subjective terms like "comprehensive" or "thorough" in the title of the manuscript does not align with the objective nature of scientific reporting.

eLife assessment

The manuscript presents potentially valuable findings of bone remodeling by chronic unpredictable mild stress (CUMS). This is an interesting topic on mental stress on bone health and osteoporosis, and the authors offer solid evidence of decreased bone mass by micro-CT. However, to strengthen the work, the validation should be conducted in vivo, and the mechanism behind this should be investigated further.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

I have reviewed, with interest, the manuscript "Psychological stress disturbs bone metabolism via miR-335-3p/Fos signaling in osteoclast". The described findings are relevant and useful for daily practice in periodontology. The paper is concise, professionally written, and easy to read. In this study, Jiayao et al. revealed the role of miR-335-3p in psychological stress-induced osteoporosis. CUMS mice were constructed to observe the femur phenotype, osteoclasts were identified as the primary research object, and miRNA-seq was used to find the key miRNAs linking the brain and peripheral tissues. This study showed that the expression of miR-335-3p was simultaneously reduced in mice's NAC, serum, and bone under psychological stress. The miR-335-3p/Fos/NFATC1 signaling pathway was validated in osteoclasts to reveal the potential mechanism of enhanced osteoclast activity under psychological stress. From a new perspective of miRNAs, this study indicates a possible cause of disturbed bone metabolism due to psychological stress and may suggest a new approach to treating osteoporosis.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Zhang et al. established chronic unpredictable mild stress (CUMS) mouse model, which displayed osteoporosis phenotype, suggesting a potential correlation between psychological stress and bone metabolism. They found that miRNA candidate miR-335-3p is downregulated in the long bone of CUMS mice through microRNA sequencing and qRT-PCR experiments. They further demonstrated that miR-335-3p attenuates osteoclast activity via inhibiting Fos signaling, which can induce NFATC1 expression and regulate osteoclast activity.

Strengths:

The authors established CUMS mouse model and confirmed the osteoporosis phenotype through careful characterization of bone and analysis of osteoclast activity. They performed microRNA sequencing to identify the miRNA candidate regulating the bone loss in the CUMS mouse model. They also validated the expression of miR-335-3p and interfered with the function of miR-335-3p through an in vitro assay. Overall, the findings from this study provide important hints for the correlation between psychological stress and bone metabolism.

Weakness:

The data provided by the authors are preliminary, especially the mechanistic insight, which needs to be enhanced. The authors have shown that miR-335-3p expression was altered in the CUMS mouse model and the change of its expression regulated osteoclast activity. The validation should be conducted in vivo, and the mechanism behind this should be investigated further.

eLife assessment

This study provides valuable insights into our understanding of the development of the enteric nervous system. The authors use genetically engineered mice to study the behavior of stem cells in organizing the enteric nervous system and the secreted signals that regulate these cells. The study rests on a degree of incomplete evidence since the characterization of some of the mouse resources is not complete in the current version.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The manuscript by Poltavski and colleagues describes the discovery of previously unreported enteric neural crest-derived cells (ENCDC) which are marked by Pax2 and originating from the Placodes. By creating multiple conditional mouse mutants, the authors demonstrate these cells are a distinct population from the previously reported ENCDCs which originate from the Vagal neural crest cells and express Wnt1.

These Pax2-positive ENCDCs are affected due to the loss of both Ret and Ednrb highlighting that these cells are also ultimately part of the canonical processes governing ENCDC and enteric nervous system (ENS) development. The authors also make explant cultures from the mouse GI tract to detect how Ednrb signaling is important for Ret signaling pathways in these cells and rediscovers the interactions between these 2 pathways. One important observation the authors make is that CGRP-positive neurons in the adult distal colon seem to be primarily derived from these Pax2-positive ENCDCs, which are significantly reduced in the Ednrb mutants, thus highlighting the role of Ednrb in maintaining this neuronal type.

I appreciate the amount of work the authors have put into generating the mouse models to detect these cells, but there isn't any new insight on either the nature of ENCDC development or the role of Ret and Ednrb. Also, there are sophisticated single-cell genomics methods to detect rare cell type/states these days and the authors should either employ some of those themselves in these mouse models or look at extensively publicly available single-cell datasets of the developing wildtype and mutant mouse and human ENS to map out the global transcriptional profile of these cells. A more detailed analysis of these Pax2-positive cells would be really helpful to both the ENS community as well as researchers studying gut motility disorders.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript by Poltavski and colleagues explores the relative contributions of Pax2- and Wnt1- lineage-derived cells in the enteric nervous system (ENS) and how they are each affected by disruptions in Ret and Endrb signaling. The current understanding of ENS development in mice is that vagal neural crest progenitors derived from a Wnt1+ lineage migrate into and colonize the developing gut. The sacral neural crest was thought to make a small contribution to the hindgut in addition but recent work has questioned that contribution and shown that the ENS is entirely populated by the vagal crest (PMID: 38452824). GDNF-Ret and Endothelin3-Ednrb signaling are both known to be essential for normal ENS development and loss of function mutations are associated with a congenital disorder called Hirschsprung's disease. The transcription factor Pax2 has been studied in CNS and cranial placode development but has not been previously implicated in ENS development. In this work, the authors begin with the unexpected observation that conditional knockout of Ednrb in Pax2-expressing cells causes a similar aganglionosis, growth retardation, and obstructed defecation as conditional knockout of Ednrb in Wnt1-expressing cells. The investigators then use the Pax2 and Wnt1 Cre transgenic lines to lineage-trace ENS derivatives and assess the effects of loss of Ret or Ednrb during embryonic development in these lineages. Finally, they use explants from the corresponding embryos to examine the effects of GDNF on progenitor outgrowth and differentiation.

Strengths:

- The manuscript is overall very well illustrated with high-resolution images and figures. Extensive data are presented.

- The identification of Pax2 expression as a lineage marker that distinguishes a subset of cells in the ENS that may be distinct from cells derived from Wnt1+ progenitors is an interesting new observation that challenges the current understanding of ENS development.

- Pax2 has not been previously implicated in ENS development - this manuscript does not directly test that role but hints at the possibility.

- Interrogation of two distinct signaling pathways involved in ENS development and their relative effects on the two purported lineages.

Weaknesses:

- The major challenge with interpreting this work is the use of two transgenic lines, rather than knock-ins, Wnt1-Cre and Pax2-Cre, which are not well characterized in terms of fidelity to native gene expression and recombination efficiency in the ENS. If 100% of cells that express Wnt1 do not express this transgene or if the Pax2 transgene is expressed in cells that do not normally express Pax2, then these observations would have very different interpretations and not support the conclusions made. The two lineages are never compared in the same embryo, which also makes it difficult to assess relative contributions and renders the evidence more circumstantial than definitive.

- Visualization of the Pax2-Cre and Wnt-1Cre induced recombination in cross-sections at postnatal ages would help with data interpretation. If there is recombination induced in the mesenchyme, this would particularly alter the interpretation of Ednrb mutant experiments, since that pathway has been shown to alter gut mesenchyme and ECM, which could indirectly alter ENS colonization.

- No consideration of glia - are these derived from both lineages?

- No discussion of how these observations may fit in with recent work that suggests a mesenchymal contribution of enteric neurons (PMID: 38108810).

eLife assessment

This study presents valuable findings as it shows that sleep rhythm formation and memory capabilities depend on a balanced and rich diet in fly larvae. The evidence supporting the claims of the authors is convincing with rigorous behavioral assays and state-of-the-art genetic manipulations. The work will be of interest to researchers working on sleep and memory.

Joint Public Review:

Summary:

This manuscript investigates how energetic demands affect the sleep-wake cycle in Drosophila larvae. L2 stage larvae do not show sleep rhythm and long-term memory (LTM), however, L3 larvae do. The authors manipulate food content to provide insufficient nutrition, which leads to more feeding, no LTM, and no sleep even in older larvae. Similarly, activation of NPF neurons suppresses sleep rhythm. Furthermore, they try to induce a sleep-like state using pharmacology or genetic manipulations in L2 larvae, which can mimic some of the L3 behaviours. A key experimental finding is that activation of DN1a neurons activate the downstream DH44 neurons, as assayed by GCaMP calcium imaging. This occurs only in third instar and not in second instar, in keeping with the development of sleep-wake and feeding separation. The authors also show that glucose metabolic genes are required in Dh44 neurons to develop sleep rhythm and that DH44 neurons respond differently in malnutrition or younger larvae.

Strengths:

Previous studies from the same lab have shown the sleep is required for LTM formation in the larvae, and that this requires DN1a and DH44 neurons. The current work builds upon this observation and addresses in more detail when and how this might develop. The authors can show that low quality food exposure and enhanced feeding during larval stage of Drosophila affects the formation of sleep rhythm and long-term memory. This suggests that the development of sleep and LTM are only possible under well fed and balanced nutrition in fly larvae. Non-sleep larvae were fed in low sugar conditions and indeed, the authors also find glucose metabolic genes to be required for a proper sleep rhythm. The paper presents precise genetic manipulations of individual classes of neurons in fly larvae followed by careful behavioural analysis. The authors also combine thermogenetic or peptide bath application experiments with direct calcium imaging of specific neurons.

Weaknesses:

The authors tried to induce sleep in younger L2 larvae, however the behavioral results suggest that they were not able to induce proper sleep behaviour as in normal L3 larvae. Thus, they cannot show that sleep during L2 stage would be sufficient to form LTM.<br /> The authors suggest that larval Dh44 neurons may integrate "information about the nutritional environment through the direct sensing of glucose levels to modulate sleep-wake rhythm development". They identify glucose metabolism genes (e.g., Glut1) in the downstream DH44 neurons as being required for the organization of the sleep-wake-feeding rhythm, and that CCHa signaling in DN1a signaling to the DH44 cells via the receptor. However, how this is connected is not well explained. Do the authors think that the nutrient sensing is only occurring in the DH44 neurons and not in DN1a or other neurons? Would not knocking down glucose metabolism in any neuron lead to a functional defect? What is the evidence that Dh44 neurons are specific sensors of nutritional state? For example, do the authors think that e.g. the overexpression of Glut1 in Dh44 neurons, a manipulation that can increase transport of glucose into cells, would rescue the effects of low-sugar food?<br /> Some of the genetic controls seem to be inconsistent suggesting some genetic background effects. In Figure 2B, npf-gal4 flies without the UAS show no significant circadian change in sleep duration, whereas UAS-TrpA flies do. The genetic control data in Figure 2D are also inconsistent. Npf-Gal4 seems to have some effect by itself without the UAS. The same is not seen with R76G11-Gal4. Suppl Fig 2: Naïve OCT and AM preference in L3 expressing various combinations of the transgenes show significant differences. npf-Gal4 alone seems to influence preference.<br /> The sleep duration and bout number/length data are highly variable.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The manuscript gives a broad overview of how to write NeuroML, and a brief description of how to use it with different simulators and for different purposes - cells to networks, simulation, optimization, and analysis. From this perspective, it can be an extremely useful document to introduce new users to NeuroML.

However, the manuscript itself seems to lose sight of this goal in many places, and instead, the description at times seems to target software developers. For example, there is a long paragraph on the board and user community. The discussion on simulator tools seems more for developers, not users. All the information presented at the level of a developer is likely to be distracting to readers..

Strengths:

The modularity of NeuroML is indeed a great advantage. For example, the ability to specify the channel file allows different channels to be used with different morphologies without redundancy. The hierarchical nature of NeuroML also is commendable, and well illustrated in Figures 2a through c.

The number of tools available to work with NeuroML is impressive.

The abstract, beginning, and end of the manuscript present and discuss incorporating NeuroML into research workflows to support FAIR principles.

Having a Python API and providing examples using this API is fantastic. Exporting to NeuroML from Python is also a great feature.

Weaknesses:

Though modularity is a strength, it is unclear to me why the cell morphology isn't also treated similarly, i.e., specify the morphology of a multi-compartmental model in a separate file, and then allow the cell file to specify not only the files containing channels, but also the file containing the multi-compartmental morphology, and then specify the conductance for different segment groups. Also, after pynml_write_neuroml2_file, you would not have a super long neuroML file for each variation of conductances, since there would be no need to rewrite the multi-compartmental morphology for each conductance variation.

This would be especially important for optimizations, if each trial optimization wrote out the neuroML file, then including the full morphology of a realistic cell would take up excessive disk space, as opposed to just writing out the conductance densities. As long as cell morphology must be included in every cell file, then NeuroML is not sufficiently modular, and the authors should moderate their claim of modularity (line 419) and building blocks (551). In addition, this is very important for downloading NeuroML-compliant reconstructions from NeuroMorpho.org. If the cell morphology cannot be imported, then the user has to edit the file downloaded from NeuroMorpho.org, and provenance can be lost. Also, Figure 2d loses the hierarchical nature by showing ion channels, synapses, and networks as separate main branches of NeuroML.

In Figure 5, the difference between the core and native simulator is unclear. What is involved in helper scripts? I thought neurons could read NeuroML? If so, why do you need the export simulator-specific scripts? In addition, it seems strange to call something the "core" simulation engine, when it cannot support multi-compartmental models. It is unclear why "other simulators" that natively support NeuroML cannot be called the core. It might be more helpful to replace this sort of classification with a user-targeted description. The authors already state which simulators support NeuroML and which ones need code to be exported. In contrast, lines 369-370 mention that not all NeuroML models are supported by each simulator. I recommend expanding this to explain which features are supported in each simulator. Then, the unhelpful separation between core and native could be eliminated.

The body of the manuscript has so much other detail that I lose sight of how NeuroML supports FAIR. It is also unclear who is the intended audience. When I get to lines 336-344, it seems that this description is too much detail for the audience. The paragraph beginning on line 691 is a great example of being unclear about who is the audience. Does someone wanting to develop NeuroML models need to understand XSD schema? If so, the explanation is not clear. XSD schema is not defined and instead explains NeuroML-specific aspects of XSD. Lines 734-735 are another example of explaining to code developers (not model developers).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Developing neuronal models that are shareable, reproducible, and interoperable allows the neuroscience community to make better use of published models and to collaborate more effectively. In this manuscript, the authors present a consolidated overview of the NeuroML model description system along with its associated tools and workflows. They describe where different components of this ecosystem lay along the model development pathway and highlight resources, including documentation and tutorials, to help users employ this system.

Strengths:

The manuscript is well-organized and clearly written. It effectively uses the delineated model development life cycle steps, presented in Figure 1, to organize its descriptions of the different components and tools relating to NeuroML. It uses this framework to cover the breadth of the software ecosystem and categorize its various elements. The NeuroML format is clearly described, and the authors outline the different benefits of its particular construction. As primarily a means of describing models, NeuroML also depends on many other software components to be of high utility to computational neuroscientists; these include simulators (ones that both pre-date NeuroML and those developed afterwards), visualization tools, and model databases.

Overall, the rationale for the approach NeuroML has taken is convincing and well-described. The pointers to existing documentation, guides, and the example usages presented within the manuscript are useful starting points for potential new users. This manuscript can also serve to inform potential users of features or aspects of the ecosystem that they may have been unaware of, which could lower obstacles to adoption. While much of what is presented is not new to this manuscript, it still serves as a useful resource for the community looking for information about an established, but perhaps daunting, set of computational tools.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript in large part catalogs the different tools and functionalities that have been produced through the long development cycle of NeuroML. As discussed above, this is quite useful, but it can still be somewhat overwhelming for a potential new user of these tools. There are new user guides (e.g., Table 1) and example code (e.g. Box 1), but it is not clear if those resources employ elements of the ecosystem chosen primarily for their didactic advantages, rather than general-purpose utility. I feel like the manuscript would be strengthened by the addition of clearer recommendations for users (or a range of recommendations for users in different scenarios).

For example, is the intention that most users should primarily use the core NeuroML tools and expand into the wider ecosystem only under particular circumstances? What are the criteria to keep in mind when making that decision to use alternative tools (scale/complexity of model, prior familiarity with other tools, etc.)? The place where it seems most ambiguous is in the choice of simulator (in part because there seem to be the most options there) - are there particular scenarios where the authors may recommend using simulators other than the core jNeuroML software?

The interoperability of NeuroML is a major strength, but it does increase the complexity of choices facing users entering into the ecosystem. Some clearer guidance in this manuscript could enable computational neuroscientists with particular goals in mind to make better strategic decisions about which tools to employ at the outset of their work.

Author response:

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

Public Review:

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors set out to understand how different TLR4 agonists trigger Myddosome assembly and seek to examine how the potent LPS agonist induces a heightened TLR4 response. A strength of the study is that the authors employ a novel light sheet imaging modality coupled to nanopipette delivery of TLR4 ligands. The authors use this technological innovation to resolve the dynamics of Myddosome formation within the whole cell volume of macrophage cell lines expressing MyD88-YFP. The main finding is that the kinetics of Myddosome formation is slower for the weaker agonist Abeta than LPS. However, Abeta amyloids resulted in the formation of larger MyD88-YFP puncta that persisted for longer. The authors suggest the slower kinetics of formation and larger puncta size reflect how Abeta amyloids are a less efficient TLR4 agonist. Many Toll-like receptors are now known to recognize endogenous produced danger signals and microbially derived molecules. This work is the first to compare the signaling kinetics of endogenous versus microbially derived TLR agonists.

Strengths:

A key strength of this work is the technological achievement of imaging Myddosomes within the entire cell volume and using a nanopipette to administer ligands directly to single cells. The authors also combine this light sheet microscopy with STORM imaging to gain a super-resolved view of the assembly of Myddosomes. These findings suggest that Myddosomes formed in response to Abeta have a more irregular morphology. We conclude that these technological achievements are significant in improving our understanding of the dynamics of TLR4 signaling in response to diverse agonists. Given the limited literature on the molecular dynamics of innate immune signal transduction, this study is an important addition to the field.

Weaknesses:

One limitation of the paper is that a suitable explanation for how larger Myddosomes would contribute to an attenuated downstream signaling response. Do the larger clusters of nucleated MyD88 polymers reflect inefficiency in assembling fully formed Myddosomes that contain IRAK4/2? Could the MyD88-GFP puncta be stained with antibodies against IRAK4 (or IRAK2) to determine the frequency and probably of the two ligands to stimulate signal transduction beyond MyD88 assembly?

A second weakness is the discussion. The authors should explore other explanations for the observed differences in Myddosome formation between TLR4 agonists. For example, could the observed delay in Myddosome assembly in response to Abeta be due to different binding affinity or kinetics to TLR4? Can this be ruled out?

We thank the reviewer for these comments.

To address the first comment we have added a section on the limitations of the current study and suggested that future work could use IRAK4 or 2 staining to identify Myddosomes that are functional as well as working with cells where the Myddosome expression levels is at physiological levels, which may reduce the formation of larger Myddosomes.

The reviewer is correct that the difference in delay time for Myddosome formation could be due slow formation of a TLR4 dimer or binding to the TLR4 dimer, rather than the time take to assemble the Myddosome after TLR4 dimerisation and binding since we have only measured the delay time for Myddosome formation when triggered by LPS or Aβ aggregates. This delay times involves dimerization of TLR4, binding of LPS or Aβ aggregates to the TLR4 dimer followed by Myddosome formation. These other processes might contribute to the difference in delay time that we observed between LPS or Aβ aggregates. It is worth noting that in our experiments we deliver the LPS or Aβ aggregates directly onto the surface for 5 seconds and that we previously showed the presence of the preformed TLR4 dimers on the cell surface (Latty et al., 2018). The affinity of Aβ aggregates for TLR4 is not known but LPS has a high affinity for TLR4, estimated to ∼3 nM for lipid A–TLR4-MD-2 (Akashi et al., 2003). However, even with this high affinity which implies fast binding, direct delivery directly onto the surface and the presence of preformed TLR4 dimers on the cell surface we observed that it took 80 s to observe Myddosome formation. This indicates that Myddosome formation is the slow step for LPS triggering. This is likely to be the case Aβ aggregates, since pM concentrations of aggregates can trigger TLR4 signalling (Hughes et al., 2020) indicating high affinity. However, it is not possible to rule out a contribution of a difference in affinity to observed difference in delay time without measuring the affinity directly.

We have added both these points to a new paragraph on the limitations of the study in the Discussion.

eLife assessment

This important study uses a novel light sheet imaging technique to investigate how different TLR4 agonists regulate Myddosome formation. The data showing that LPS and A-beta can control the kinetics and size of Myddosome assembly are compelling. This paper should be of substantial interest to the innate immunity field.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Recognition of bacterial lipopolysaccharide by Toll-like Receptor 4 is an essential molecular event triggering inflammation and overcoming Recognition of bacterial lipopolysaccharide by Toll-like Receptor 4 is an essential molecular event in triggering inflammation and overcoming infection by gram-negative bacteria. However, TLR4 has recently been found to respond to other endogenously derived ligands. This has implicated TLR4 signaling in the development of disease pathology, for example, Alzheimer's disease, through the recognition of amyloid-beta. Intriguingly, the signaling response to these non-bacterial-derived ligands differs from that of bacterial-derived LPS, suggesting mechanistic differences between endogenous and bacterial-derived agonists. In this work, the authors set out to characterize these mechanistic differences. TLR4 signals through two large macromolecular complexes that assemble at activated receptors: the Myddosome and Triffosome. One hypothesis the authors aimed to test was that different ligands alter these signaling complexes' kinetics and nano-scale features. The authors focused on testing this hypothesis by examining the formation of the Myddosome in live cells. A significant strength of the paper is that the authors developed technological innovations to address this problem. Using a nanopipette delivery mechanism combined with light sheet microscopy, the authors could observe Myddosome signaling in the whole cell volume of live macrophages. This allowed them to accurately quantify the Myddosome number, size, and kinetics of complex formation and compare cells stimulated with amyloid-beta and LPS. The authors discovered differences in Myddosomes formed under LPS versus amyloid-beta stimulation. In general, amyloid-beta TLR4 stimulation resulted in slower Myddosome formation with altered morphology. One limitation of the work, which the authors point out in the discussion, is that they could not distinguish signaling-competent Myddosomes. Future work will be needed to understand whether these amyloid beta induced Myddosomes assembly have a similar or altered complement of downstream signaling proteins (such as the IRAK4/1 and TRAF6). Secondly, the structural basis for how TLR4 would distinguish between different radically agonists remains speculative, and will need further investigation. Nonetheless, this paper is important for the technological innovation to look at the molecular dynamics of signal transduction, a technology that could be adapted to study other receptor signaling pathways.

It is already known that the subcellular location of intracellular TLRs is important for limiting the recognition of self-derived ligands and maintaining tolerance. This work hints at another possible layer of regulation: that a cell surface TLR (TLR4) generates diverse signaling outcomes to extrinsic or intrinsically derived agonists by changing the dynamic behavior of signaling proteins. If correct (and much further work is required to understand endogenous TLR ligands better), it might suggest that the innate immune system employs the same molecular hardware but with altered kinetics to distinguish between exogenous and endogenous inflammatory signals. Thus, pathological aggregates or markers of sterile inflammation might be recognized and responded to by a specific signaling program that is defined kinetically. It will be an interesting direction for future studies to investigate whether and how diverse pathogen and endogenous inflammatory signals modulate the dynamics of signaling complexes.

Author response:

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

We are grateful for these balanced, nuanced evaluations of our work concerning the observed epistatic trends and our interpretations of their mechanistic origins. Overall, we think the reviewers have done an excellent job at recognizing the novel aspects of our findings while also discussing the caveats associated with our interpretations of the biophysical effects of these mutations. We believe it is important to consider both of these aspects of our work in order to appreciate these advances and what sorts of pertinent questions remain.

Notably, both reviewers are concerned that our lack of experimental approaches to compare the conformational properties of GnRHR variants weakens our claims. We would first humbly suggest that this constitutes a more general caveat that applies to nearly all investigations of the cellular misfolding of α-helical membrane proteins. Whether or not any current in vitro folding measurements report on conformational transitions that are relevant to cellular protein misfolding reactions remains an active area of debate (discussed further below). Nevertheless, while we concede that our structural and/ or computational evaluations of various mutagenic effects remain speculative, prevailing knowledge on the mechanisms of membrane protein folding suggest our mutations of interest (V276T and W107A) are highly unlikely to promote misfolding in precisely the same way. Thus, regardless of whether or not we were able experimentally compare the relevant folding energetics of GnRHR variants, we are confident that the distinct epistatic interactions formed by these mutations reflect variations in the misfolding mechanism and that they are distinct from the interactions that are observed in the context of stable proteins. In the following, we provide detailed considerations concerning these caveats in relation to the reviewers’ specific comments.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The paper carries out an impressive and exhaustive non-sense mutagenesis using deep mutational scanning (DMS) of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor for the WT protein and two single point mutations that I) influence TM insertion (V267T) and ii) influence protein stability (W107A), and then measures the effect of these mutants on correct plasma membrane expression (PME).

Overall, most mutations decreased mGnRHR PME levels in all three backgrounds, indicating poor mutational tolerance under these conditions. The W107A variant wasn't really recoverable with low levels of plasma membrane localisation. For the V267T variant, most additional mutations were more deleterious than WT based on correct trafficking, indicating a synergistic effect. As one might expect, there was a higher degree of positive correlation between V267T/W107A mutants and other mutants located in TM regions, confirming that improper trafficking was a likely consequence of membrane protein co-translational folding. Nevertheless, context is important, as positive synergistic mutants in the V27T could be negative in the W107A background and vice versa. Taken together, this important study highlights the complexity of membrane protein folding in dissecting the mechanism-dependent impact of disease-causing mutations related to improper trafficking.

Strengths

This is a novel and exhaustive approach to dissecting how receptor mutations under different mutational backgrounds related to co-translational folding, could influence membrane protein trafficking.

Weaknesses

The premise for the study requires an in-depth understanding of how the single-point mutations analysed affect membrane protein folding, but the single-point mutants used seem to lack proper validation.

Given our limited understanding of the structural properties of misfolded membrane proteins, it is unclear whether the relevant conformational effects of these mutations can be unambiguously validated using current biochemical and/ or biophysical folding assays. X-ray crystallography, cryo-EM, and NMR spectroscopy measurements have demonstrated that many purified GPCRs retain native-like structural ensembles within certain detergent micelles, bicelles, and/ or nanodiscs. However, helical membrane protein folding measurements typically require titration with denaturing detergents to promote the formation of a denatured state ensemble (DSE), which will invariably retain considerable secondary structure. Given that the solvation provided by mixed micelles is clearly distinct from that of native membranes, it remains unclear whether these DSEs represent a reasonable proxy for the misfolded conformations recognized by cellular quality control (QC, see https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00532). Thus, the use and interpretation of these systems for such purposes remains contentious in the membrane protein folding community. In addition to this theoretical issue, we are unaware of any instances in which GPCRs have been found to undergo reversible denaturation in vitro- a practical requirement for equilibrium folding measurements (https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biophys-051013-022926). We note that, while the resistance of GPCRs to aggregation, proteolysis, and/ or mechanical unfolding have also been probed in micelles, it is again unclear whether the associated thermal, kinetic, and/ or mechanical stability should necessarily correspond to their resistance to cotranslational and/ or posttranslational misfolding. Thus, even if we had attempted to validate the computational folding predictions employed herein, we suspect that any resulting correlations with cellular expression may have justifiably been viewed by many as circumstantial. Simply put, we know very little about the non-native conformations are generally involved in the cellular misfolding of α-helical membrane proteins, much less how to measure their relative abundance. From a philosophical standpoint, we prefer to let cells tell us what sorts of broken protein variants are degraded by their QC systems, then do our best to surmise what this tells us about the relevant properties of cellular DSEs.

Despite this fundamental caveat, we believe that the chosen mutations and our interpretation of their relevant conformational effects are reasonably well-informed by current modeling tools and by prevailing knowledge on the physicochemical drivers of membrane protein folding and misfolding. Specifically, the mechanistic constraints of translocon-mediated membrane integration provide an understanding of the types of mutations that are likely to disrupt cotranslational folding. Though we are still learning about the protein complexes that mediate membrane translocation (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05336-2), it is known that this underlying process is fundamentally driven by the membrane depth-dependent amino acid transfer free energies (https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.biophys.37.032807.125904). This energetic consideration suggests introducing polar side chains near the center of a nascent TMDs should almost invariably reduce the efficiency of topogenesis. To confirm this in the context of TMD6 specifically, we utilized a well-established biochemical reporter system to confirm that V276T attenuates its translocon-mediated membrane integration (Fig. S1)- at least in the context of a chimeric protein. We also constructed a glycosylation-based topology reporter for full-length GnRHR, but ultimately found its’ in vitro expression to be insufficient to detect changes in the nascent topological ensemble.

In contrast to V276T, the W107A mutation is predicted to preserve the native topological energetics of GnRHR due to its position within a soluble loop region. W107A is also unlike V276T in that it clearly disrupts tertiary interactions that stabilize the native structure. This mutation should preclude the formation of a structurally conserved hydrogen bonding network that has been observed in the context of at least 25 native GPCR structures (https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.5489). However, without a relevant folding assay, the extent to which this network stabilizes the native GnRHR fold in cellular membranes remains unclear. Overall, we admit that these limitations have prevented us from measuring how much V276T alters the efficiency of GnRHR topogenesis, how much the W107A destabilizes the native fold, or vice versa. Nevertheless, given these design principles and the fact that both reduce the plasma membrane expression of GnRHR, as expected, we are highly confident that the structural defects generated by these mutations do, in fact, promote misfolding in their own ways. We also concede that the degree to which these mutagenic perturbations are indeed selective for specific folding processes is somewhat uncertain. However, it seems exceedingly unlikely that these mutations should disrupt topogenesis and/ or the folding of the native topomer to the exact same extent. From our perspective, this is the most important consideration with respect to the validity of the conclusions we have made in this manuscript.

Furthermore, plasma membrane expression has been used as a proxy for incorrect membrane protein folding, but this not necessarily be the case, as even correctly folded membrane proteins may not be trafficked correctly, at least, under heterologous expression conditions. In addition, mutations can affect trafficking and potential post-translational modifications, like glycosylation.

While the reviewer is correct that the sorting of folded proteins within the secretory pathway is generally inefficient, it is also true that the maturation of nascent proteins within the ER generally bottlenecks the plasma membrane expression of most α-helical membrane proteins. Our group and several others have demonstrated that the efficiency of ER export generally appears to scale with the propensity of membrane proteins to achieve their correct topology and/ or to achieve their native fold (see https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.5b03743 and https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.8b08243). Notably, these investigations all involved proteins that contain native glycosylation and various other post-translational modification sites. While we cannot rule out that certain specific combinations of mutations may alter expression through their perturbation of post-translational GnRHR modifications, we feel confident that the general trends we have observed across hundreds of variants predominantly reflect changes in folding and cellular QC. This interpretation is supported by the relationship between observed trends in variant expression and Rosetta-based stability calculations, which we identified using unbiased unsupervised machine learning approaches (compare Figs. 6B & 6D).

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this paper, Chamness and colleagues make a pioneering effort to map epistatic interactions among mutations in a membrane protein. They introduce thousands of mutations to the mouse GnRH Receptor (GnRHR), either under wild-type background or two mutant backgrounds, representing mutations that destabilize GnRHR by distinct mechanisms. The first mutant background is W107A, destabilizing the tertiary fold, and the second, V276T, perturbing the efficiency of cotranslational insertion of TM6 to the membrane, which is essential for proper folding. They then measure the surface expression of these three mutant libraries, using it as a proxy for protein stability, since misfolded proteins do not typically make it to the plasma membrane. The resulting dataset is then used to shed light on how diverse mutations interact epistatically with the two genetic background mutations. Their main conclusion is that epistatic interactions vary depending on the degree of destabilization and the mechanism through which they perturb the protein. The mutation V276T forms primarily negative (aggravating) epistatic interactions with many mutations, as is common to destabilizing mutations in soluble proteins. Surprisingly, W107A forms many positive (alleviating) epistatic interactions with other mutations. They further show that the locations of secondary mutations correlate with the types of epistatic interactions they form with the above two mutants.

Strengths:

Such a high throughput study for epistasis in membrane proteins is pioneering, and the results are indeed illuminating. Examples of interesting findings are that: (1) No single mutation can dramatically rescue the destabilization introduced by W107A. (2) Epistasis with a secondary mutation is strongly influenced by the degree of destabilization introduced by the primary mutation. (3) Misfolding caused by mis-insertion tends to be aggravated by further mutations. The discussion of how protein folding energetics affects epistasis (Fig. 7) makes a lot of sense and lays out an interesting biophysical framework for the findings.

Weaknesses:

The major weakness comes from the potential limitations in the measurements of surface expression of severely misfolded mutants. This point is discussed quite fairly in the paper, in statements like "the W107A variant already exhibits marginal surface immunostaining" and many others. It seems that only about 5% of the W107A makes it to the plasma membrane compared to wild-type (Figures 2 and 3). This might be a low starting point from which to accurately measure the effects of secondary mutations.

The reviewer raises an excellent point that we considered at length during the analysis of these data and the preparation of the manuscript. Though we remain confident in the integrity of these measurements and the corresponding analyses, we now realize this aspect of the data required further discussion and documentation which we have provided in the revised version of the manuscript as is described in the following.

Still, the authors claim that measurements of W107A double mutants "still contain cellular subpopulations with surface immunostaining intensities that are well above or below that of the W107A single mutant, which suggests that this fluorescence signal is sensitive enough to detect subtle differences in the PME of these variants". I was not entirely convinced that this was true.

We made this statement based on the simple observation that the surface immunostaining intensities across the population of recombinant cells expressing the library of W107A double mutants was consistently broader than that of recombinant cells expressing W107A GnRHR alone (see Author response image 1 for reference). Given that the recombinant cellular library represents a mix of cells expressing ~1600 individual variants that are each present at low abundance, the pronounced tails within this distribution presumably represent the composite staining of many small cellular subpopulations that express collections of variants that deviate from the expression of W107A to an extent that is significant enough to be visible on a log intensity plot.

Author response image 1.

Firstly, I think it would be important to test how much noise these measurements have and how much surface immunostaining the W107A mutant displays above the background of cells that do not express the protein at all.

For reference, the average surface immunostaining intensity of HEK293T cells transiently expressing W107A GnRHR was 2.2-fold higher than that of the IRES-eGFP negative, untransfected cells within the same sample- the WT immunostaining intensity was 9.5-fold over background by comparison. Similarly, recombinant HEK293T cells expressing the W107A double mutant library had an average surface immunostaining intensity that was 2.6-fold over background across the two DMS trials. Thus, while the surface immunostaining of this variant is certainly diminished, we were still able to reliably detect W107A at the plasma membrane even under distinct expression regimes. We have included these and other signal-to-noise metrics for each experiment in the Results section of the revised manuscript.

Beyond considerations related to intensity, we also previously noticed the relative intensity values for W107A double mutants exhibited considerable precision across our two biological replicates. If signal were too poor to detect changes in variant expression, we would have expected a plot of the intensity values across these two replicates to form a scatter. Instead, we found DMS intensity values for individual variants to be highly correlated from one replicate to the next (Pearson’s R2 = 0.95, see Author response image 2 for reference). This observation empirically demonstrates that this assay consistently differentiated between variants that exhibit slightly enhanced immunostaining from those that have even lower immunostaining than W107A GnRHR. We have included these discussion points in the Results section as well as scatter plots for replicate variant intensities within all three genetic backgrounds in Figure S3 of the revised manuscript.

Author response image 2.

But more importantly, it is not clear if under this regimen surface expression still reports on stability/protein fitness. It is unknown if the W107A retains any function or folding at all. For example, it is possible that the low amount of surface protein represents misfolded receptors that escaped the ER quality control.

While we believe that such questions are outside the scope of this work, we certainly agree that it is entirely possible that some of these variants bypass QC without achieving their native fold. This topic is quite interesting to us but is quite challenging to assess in the context of GPCRs, which have complex fitness landscapes that involve their propensity to distinguish between different ligands, engage specific components associated with divergent downstream signaling pathways, and navigate between endocytic recycling/ degradation pathways following activation. In light of the inherent complexity of GPCR function, we humbly suggest our choice of a relatively simple property of an otherwise complex protein may be viewed as a virtue rather than a shortcoming. Protein fitness is typically cast as the product of abundance and activity. Rather than measuring an oversimplified, composite fitness metric, we focused on one variable (plasma membrane expression) and its dominant effector (folding). We believe restraining the scope in this manner was key for the elucidation of clear mechanistic insights.

The differential clustering of epistatic mutations (Fig. 6) provides some interesting insights as to the rules that dictate epistasis, but these too are dominated by the magnitude of destabilization caused by one of the mutations. In this case, the secondary mutations that had the most interesting epistasis were exceedingly destabilizing. With this in mind, it is hard to interpret the results that emerge regarding the epistatic interactions of W107A. Furthermore, the most significant positive epistasis is observed when W107A is combined with additional mutations that almost completely abolish surface expression. It is likely that either mutation destabilizes the protein beyond repair. Therefore, what we can learn from the fact that such mutations have positive epistasis is not clear to me. Based on this, I am not sure that another mutation that disrupts the tertiary folding more mildly would not yield different results. With that said, I believe that the results regarding the epistasis of V276T with other mutations are strong and very interesting on their own.

We agree with the reviewer. In light of our results we believe it is virtually certain that the secondary mutations characterized herein would be likely to form distinct epistatic interactions with mutations that are only mildly destabilizing. Indeed, this insight reflects one of the key takeaway messages from this work- stability-mediated epistasis is difficult to generalize because it should depend on the extent to which each mutation changes the stability (ΔΔG) as well as initial stability of the WT/ reference sequence (ΔG, see Figure 7). Frankly, we are not so sure we would have pieced this together as clearly had we not had the fortune (or misfortune?) of including such a destructive mutation like W107A as a point of reference.

Additionally, the study draws general conclusions from the characterization of only two mutations, W107A and V276T. At this point, it is hard to know if other mutations that perturb insertion or tertiary folding would behave similarly. This should be emphasized in the text.

We agree. Our findings suggest different mutations may not behave similarly, which we believe is a key finding of this work. We have emphasized this point in the Discussion section of the revised manuscript as follows:

“These findings suggest the folding-mediated epistasis is likely to vary among different classes of destabilizing mutations in a manner that should also depend on folding efficiency and/ or the mechanism(s) of misfolding in the cell.”

Some statistical aspects of the study could be improved:

(1) It would be nice to see the level of reproducibility of the biological replicates in a plot, such as scatter or similar, with correlation values that give a sense of the noise level of the measurements. This should be done before filtering out the inconsistent data.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and will include scatters for each genetic background like the one shown above in Figure S3 of the revised version of the manuscript.

(2) The statements "Variants bearing mutations within the C- terminal region (ICL3-TMD6-ECL3-TMD7) fare consistently worse in the V276T background relative to WT (Fig. 4 B & E)." and "In contrast, mutations that are 210 better tolerated in the context of W107A mGnRHR are located 211 throughout the structure but are particularly abundant among residues 212 in the middle of the primary structure that form TMD4, ICL2, and ECL2 213 (Fig. 4 C & F)." are both hard to judge. Inspecting Figures 4B and C does not immediately show these trends, and importantly, a solid statistical test is missing here. In Figures 4E and F the locations of the different loops and TMs are not indicated on the structure, making these statements hard to judge.

We apologize for this oversight and thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We utilized paired Wilcoxon-Signed Rank Tests to evaluate the statistical significance of these observations and modified the description of these findings in the revised version of the results section as follows:

“Variants bearing mutations within the C-terminal regions including ICL3, TMD6, and TMD7 fare consistently worse in the V276T background relative to WT (paired Wilcoxon-Signed Rank Test p-values of 0.0001, 0.02, and 0.005, respectively) (Fig. 4 B & E). Given that V276T perturbs the cotranslational membrane integration of TMD6 (Fig. S1, Table S1), this directional bias potentially suggests that the apparent interactions between these mutations manifest during the late stages of cotranslational folding. In contrast, mutations that are better tolerated in the context of W107A mGnRHR are located throughout the structure but are particularly abundant among residues in the middle of the primary structure that form ICL2, TMD4, and ECL2 (paired Wilcoxon-Signed Rank Test p-values of 0.0005, 0.0001, and 0.004, respectively) (Fig. 4 C & F).”

(3) The following statement lacks a statistical test: "Notably, these 98 variants are enriched with TMD variants (65% TMD) relative to the overall set of 251 variants (45% TMD)." Is this enrichment significant? Further in the same paragraph, the claim that "In contrast to the sparse epistasis that is generally observed between mutations within soluble proteins, these findings suggest a relatively large proportion of random mutations form epistatic interactions in the context of unstable mGnRHR variants". Needs to be backed by relevant data and statistics, or at least a reference.

We thank the reviewer for this reasonable suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we included the results of a paired Wilcoxon-Signed Rank Test that confirms the statistical significance of this observation and modified the Results section to reflect this as follows:

“Notably, these 98 variants are enriched with TMD variants (65% TMD) relative to the overall set of 251 variants (45% TMD, Fisher’s Exact Test p = 0.0019). These findings suggest random mutations form epistatic interactions in the context of unstable mGnRHR variants in a manner that depends on the specific folding defect (V276T vs. W107A) and topological context.”

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the Authors):

As far as this reviewer is aware, the effect of the V267T variant on MP insertion has not been measured directly; its position corresponds to T277 in TMD6 of human GnRHR that has been measured for TM insertion, but given the clear lack of conservation (threonine vs valine) the mutation in TM6 could potentially have a different impact on the mouse homologue. Please clarify what the predicted delta TM for insertion is between human and mouse GnRHR is? Moreover, I would argue that single TM insertion by tethering to Lep is insufficient to understand MP insertion/folding, as neighbouring TM helices could help to drive TM6 insertion. Has ER microsome experiments for mouse GnRHR also been carried out in the context of neighbouring helices?

We included measurements (and predictions) of the impact of the V276T substitution on the translocon-mediated membrane integration of the mouse TMD6 in the context of a chimeric Lep protein (see Fig. S1 & Table S1). Our results reveal that this substitution decreases the efficiency of TMD6 membrane integration by ~10%. Though imperfect, this prevailing biochemical assay remains popular for a variety of theoretical and technical reasons. Importantly, extensive experimental testing of this system has shown that these measurements report apparent equilibrium constants that are well-described by two-state equilibrium partitioning models (see DOIs 10.1038/nature03216 and 10.1038/nature06387). This observation provides a reasonable rationale to interpret these measurements using energetic models as we have in this work (see Table S1). From a technical perspective, the Lep system is also advantageous due to the fact that this protein is generally well expressed in the context of in vitro translation systems containing native membranes, which generally ensures a consistent signal to noise and dynamic range for membrane integration measurements. Nevertheless, the reviewers are correct that membrane integration efficiencies are likely distinct in the context of the native mGnRHR protein. For these reasons, we attempted to develop a glycosylation-based topology reporter prior to the posting and submission of this manuscript. However, all GnRHR reporters we tested were poorly expressed in vitro and the resulting 35S-labeled proteins only generated faint smears on our phosphorimaging screens that could not be interpreted. For these reasons, we chose to rely the Lep measurements for these investigations.

The lack of a more relevant topological reporter is one of many challenges we faced in our investigations of this unstable, poorly behaved protein. We share the reviewer’s frustrations concerning the speculative aspects of this work. Nevertheless, there is increasing appreciation for the fact that our perspectives on protein biophysics have been skewed by our continuing choice to focus on the relatively small set of model proteins that are compatible with our favored methodologies (doi: 10.1016/j.tibs.2013.05.001). We humbly suggest this work represents an example of how we can gain a deeper understanding of the limits of biochemical systems when we instead choose to study the unsavory bits of cellular proteomes. But this choice requires a willingness to make some reasonable assumptions and to lean on energetic/ structural modeling from time to time. Despite this limitation, we believe there is still tremendous value in this compromise.

What is the experimental evidence the W107A variant affects the protein structure? Has its melting temperature with and without inverse agonist binding for WT vs the W107A variant been measured, for example? Even heat-FSEC of detergent-solubilised membranes would be informative to know how unstable the W107A variant is. If is very unstable in detergent, then it could be that recovery mutants are going to be unlikely as you are already starting with a poor construct showing poor folding/localisation.

We again understand the rationale for this concern, but do not believe that thermal melting measurements are likely to report the same sorts of conformational transitions involved in cellular misfolding. Heating up a protein to the point in which membranes (or micelles) are disrupted and the proteins begin to form insoluble aggregates is a distinct physical process from those that occur during co- and post-translational folding within intact ER membranes at physiological temperatures (discussed further in the Response to the Reviews). Indeed, as the reviewer points out below, there seems to be little evidence that secretion is linked to thermal stability or various other metrics that others have attempted to optimize for the sake of purification and/ or structural characterization. Thus, we believe it would be just as speculative to suggest thermal aggregation represents a relevant metric for the propensity of membrane proteins to fold in the cell. The physical interpretation of membrane protein misfolding reaction remains contentious in our field due to the key fact that the denatured states of helical membrane proteins remain highly structured in a manner that is hard to generalize beyond the fact that the denatured states retain α-helical secondary structure (doi: 10.1146/annurev-biophys-051013-022926). This is in stark contrast to soluble proteins, where random coil reference states have proven to be generally useful for energetic interpretations of protein stability. For reference, our lab is currently working to leverage epistatic measurements like this to map the prevailing physiological denatured states of an integral membrane protein. Our current findings suggest that non-native electrostatic interactions form in the context of misfolded states. We hope that more information on the structural aspects of these states will help us to develop and interpret meaningful folding measurements within the membrane.

For reference, even in cases when quantitative folding measurements can be achieved, their relevance remains actively debated. As a point of reference, the corresponding author of this work previously worked on the stability and misfolding of another human α-helical membrane protein (PMP22). Like GnRHR, PMP22 is prone to misfolding in the secretory pathway and is associated with dozens of pathogenic mutations that cause protein misfolding. To understand how the thermodynamic stability of this protein is linked to secretion, the corresponding author purified PMP22, reconstituted it into n-Dodecyl-phosphocholine (DPC) micelles, and measured its resistance to denaturation by an anionic denaturing detergent (Lauryl Sarcosine, LS). The results were initially perplexing due to the fact that equilibrium unfolding curves manifested as an exponential decay (rather than a sigmoid) and relaxation kinetics appeared to be dominated by the rate constant for unfolding (doi: 10.1021/bi301635f). Unfortunately, these data could not be fit with existing folding models due to the lack of a folded protein baseline and the absence of a folding arm in the chevron plot. We eventually found that a full sigmoidal unfolding transition and refolding kinetics could be measured upon addition of 15% (v/v) glycerol. Our measurements revealed that the free energy of unfolding in DPC micelles was 0 kcal/ mol (without glycerol). This shocking lack of WT stability made it impossible to directly measure the effects of destabilizing mutations that enhance misfolding- you can’t measure the unfolding of a protein that is already unfolded. We ultimately had to instead infer the energetic effects of such mutations from the thermodynamic coupling between cofactor binding and folding (doi: 10.1021/jacs.5b03743). Finally, after demonstrating the resulting ΔΔGs correlated with both cellular trafficking and disease phenotype, we still faced justified scrutiny about the relevance of these measurements due to the fact that they were carried out in micelles. For these reasons, we do not feel that additional biophysical measurements will add much to this work until more is understood about the nature of misfolding reactions in the membrane and how to effectively recapitulate it in vitro. We also note that PMP22 is secreted with 20% efficiency in mammalian cell lines, which is 20-fold more efficient than human GnRHR under similar conditions (doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.110046). Thus, we suspect equilibrium unfolding measurements are likely out of reach using previously described measurements.

Our greatest evidence suggesting W107A destabilizes the protein has to do with the fact that it deletes a highly conserved structural contact and that this structural modification kills its secretion. The fact that this mutation clearly reduces the escape of GnRHR from ER quality control is a classic indicator of misfolding that represents the cell’s way of telling us that the mutation compromises the folding of the nascent protein in some way or another. Precisely how this mutation remodels the nascent conformational ensemble of nascent GnRHR and how this relates to the free energy difference between the native and non-native portions of its conformational ensemble under cellular conditions is a much more challenging question that lies beyond the scope of this investigation (and likely beyond the scope of what’s currently possible). Indeed, there is an entire field dedicated to understanding such. Nevertheless, the difference in the epistatic interactions formed by W107A and V276T is at the very least consistent with our speculative interpretation that these two mutations vary in their misfolding mechanism and/ or in the extent to which they destabilize the protein. For these reasons, we feel the main conclusions of this manuscript are well-justified.

Please clarify if the protein is glycosylated or not and, if it is, how would this requirement affect the conclusions of your analysis?

As we noted in the Response to the Reviewers, which also constitutes a published portion of the final manuscript, this protein is indeed glycosylated. We were well aware of this aspect of the protein since inception of this project and do not think this changes our interpretation at all. Most membrane proteins are glycosylated, and several groups have demonstrated in various ways that the secretion efficiency of glycoproteins is proportional to certain stability metrics for secreted soluble proteins and membrane proteins alike. Generally, mutations that enhance misfolding do not change the propensity of the nascent chain to undergo N-linked glycosylation, which occurs during translation before protein synthesis and/ or folding is complete. Misfolded proteins typically carry lower weight glycans, which reflects their failure to advance from the ER to the Golgi, where N-linked glycans are modified and O-linked glycans are added. From our perspective, glycosyl modifications just ensure that nascent proteins are engaged by calnexin and other lectin chaperones involved in QC. It does not decouple folding from secretion efficiency. In the case of PMP22 (described above), we found that removal of its glycosylation site allows the nascent protein to bypass the lectin chaperones in a manner that enhances its plasma membrane expression eight-fold (doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2021.100719). Similar to WT, the expression of several misfolded PMP22 variants also significantly increases upon removal of the glycosylation site. Nevertheless, their expression is still significantly lower than the un-glycosylated WT protein, and the expression patterns of the mutants relative to WT was quite similar across this panel of un-glycosylated proteins. Thus, while glycosylation certainly impacts secretion, it does not change its dependence on folding efficiency within the ER. There are many layers of partially redundant QC within the ER, and it seems that folding imposes a key bottleneck to secretion regardless of which QC proteins are involved. For these reasons, we do not think glycosylation (or other PTMs) should factor into our interpretation of these results.

One caveat with the study is that there is a poor understanding of the factors that decide if the protein should be trafficked to the PM or not. Even secretory proteins not going through the calnexin/reticulum cycle (as they have no N-linked glycans), might still get stuck in the ER, despite the fact they are functional. Could this be a technical issue of heterologous expression overloading the Sec system?

While we agree that there is much to be learned about this topic, we disagree with the notion that our understanding of folding and secretion is insufficient to generally interpret the molecular basis of the observed trends. In collaboration with various other groups, the corresponding author of this paper has shown for several other proteins that the stability of the native topology and the native tertiary structure can constrain secretion efficiency (see dois: 10.1021/jacs.8b08243, 10.1021/jacs.5b03743, and 10.1016/j.jbc.2021.100423). Moreover, the Balch and Kelly groups demonstrated many years ago that relatively simple models for the coupling between folding and chaperone binding can recapitulate the observed effects of mutations on the secretion efficiency of various proteins (doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.10.025). Given a wide body of prevailing knowledge in this area, we believe it is entirely reasonable to assume that the conformational effects of these mutation have a dominant effect on plasma membrane expression.

Whether or not some of the proteins retained in the ER are folded and/ or functional is an interesting question, but is outside the scope of this work. Various lines of evidence concerning approaches to rescue misfolded membrane proteins suggest many of these variants are likely to retain residual function once they escape the ER, which may suggest there are pockets of foldable/ folded proteins within the ER. But it seems generally clear that the efficiency of folding in the ER bottlenecks secretion regardless of whether or not the ER contains some fraction of folded/ functional protein. We note that it is certainly possible, if not likely, that secretion efficiency is likely to be higher at lower expression levels (doi: 10.1074/jbc.AC120.014940). However, the mutational scanning platform used in this work was designed such that all variants are expressed from an identical promoter at the same location within the genome. Thus, for the purposes of these investigations, we believe it is entirely fair to draw “apples-to-apples” comparisons of their relative effects on plasma membrane expression.

Please see Francis Arnold's paper on this point and their mutagenesis library of the channelrhodopsin (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1700269114), which further found that 20% of mutations improved WT trafficking. Some general comparisons to this paper might be informative.

We agree that it may be interesting to compare the results from this paper to those in our own. Indeed, we find that 20% of the point mutations characterized herein also enhance the expression of WT mGnRHR, as mentioned in the Results section. However, we think it might be a bit premature to suggest this is a more general trend in light of the fact that the channelrhodopsins engineered in those studies were not of eukaryotic origin and have likely resulted from distinct evolutionary constraints. We ultimately decided against adding more on this to our already lengthy discussion in order to maintain focus on the mechanisms of epistasis.

Chris Tate and others have shown that there is a high frequency of finding stabilising point mutations in GPCRs and this is the premise of the StAR technology used to thermostabilise GPCRs in the presence of different ligands, i.e. agonist vs inverse agonists. As far as I am aware, there is a poor correlation between expression levels and thermostability (measured by ligand binding to detergent-solubilised membranes). As such, it is possible that some of the mutants might be more stable than WT even though they have lower levels of PME.

We believe the disconnect between thermostability and expression precisely speaks to our main point about the suitability of current membrane protein folding assays for the questions we address herein. The degradative activity of ER quality control has not necessarily selected for proteins that are resistant to thermal degradation and/ or are suitable for macromolecular crystallography. For this reason, it is often not so difficult to engineer proteins with enhanced thermal stability. We do not believe this disconnect signals that quality control is insensitive to protein folding and stability, but rather that it is more likely to recognize conformational defects that are distinct from those involved in thermal degradation and/ or aggregation. Indeed, recent work from the Fluman group, which builds on a wider body of previous observations, has shown that the exposure of polar groups within the membrane is a key factor that recruits degradation machinery (doi: 0.1101/2023.12.12.571171). It is hard to imagine that these sorts of conformational defects are the same as those involved in thermal aggregation.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) I believe that by focusing more on the epistasis with V276T, and less on W107A, the paper could be strengthened significantly.

We appreciate this sentiment. But we believe the comparison of these two mutants really drive home the point that destabilizing mutations are not equivalent with respect to the epistatic interactions they form.

(2) In the abstract - please define the term epistasis in a simple way, to make it accessible to a general audience. For example - negative epistasis means that... this should be explicitly explained.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. To meet eLife formatting, we had to cut down the abstract significantly. We simplified this as best we could in the following statement:

“Though protein stability is known to shape evolution, it is unclear how cotranslational folding constraints modulate the synergistic, epistatic interactions between mutations.”

We also define positive and negative epistasis in the results section as follows:

“Positive Ɛ values denote double mutants that have greater PME than would be expected based on the effects of single mutants. Negative Ɛ values denote double mutants that have lower PME than would be expected based on the effects of single mutants. Pairs of mutations with Ɛ values near zero have additive effects on PME.”

(3) The title is quite complex and might deter readers from outside the protein evolution field. Consider simplifying it.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have simplified the title to the following:

“Divergent Folding-Mediated Epistasis Among Unstable Membrane Protein Variants”

(4) The paper could benefit from a simple figure explaining the different stages of membrane protein folding (stages 1+2) to make it more accessible to readers from outside the membrane protein field.

This is a great suggestion. We incorporated a new schematic in the revised manuscript that outlines the nature of these processes (see Fig. 1A in the revised manuscript).

(5) For the FACS-Seq experiment - it was not clear to me if and when all cells are pulled together. For example - are the 3 libraries mixed together already at the point of transfection, or are the transfected cells pulled together at any point before sorting? This could have some implications on batch effects and should, therefore, be explicitly mentioned in the main text.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We modified the description of the DNA library assembly to emphasize that the mutations were generated in the context of three mixed plasmid pools, which were then transfected into the cells and sorted independently:

“We then generated a mixed array of mutagenic oligonucleotides that collectively encode this series of substitutions (Table S3) and used nicking mutagenesis to introduce these mutations into the V276T, W107A, and WT mGnRHR cDNAs (Medina-Cucurella et al., 2019), which produced three mixed plasmid pools.”

(6) The following description in the text is quite confusing. It would be better to simplify it considerably or remove it: "scores (Ɛ) were then determined by taking the log of the double mutant fitness value divided by the difference between the single mutant fitness values (see Methods)."

We thank the reviewer for this valuable feedback and have simplified the text as follows:

“To compare epistatic trends in these libraries, we calculated epistasis scores (Ɛ) for the interactions that these 251 mutations form with V276T and W107A by comparing their relative effects on PME of the WT, V276T, and W107A variants using a previously described epistasis model (product model, see Methods) (Olson et al. 2014).”

eLife assessment

This important study describes exhaustive deep mutational scanning (DMS) of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone wild-type receptor and for two single point mutations that impact its folding and structure, monitoring how plasma membrane expression levels are influenced by the introduced mutations. With solid evidence, the authors have pioneered an exploration of the interaction between mutations (epistasis) in a membrane protein, with a potential for explaining membrane protein evolution and genetic diseases.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The paper carries out an impressive and exhaustive non-sense mutagenesis using deep mutational scanning (DMS) of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor for the WT protein and two single point mutations that I) influences TM insertion (V267T) and ii) influences protein stability (W107A) and then measures the effect of these mutants on correct plasma membrane expression (PME).

Overall, most mutations decreased mGnRHR PME levels in all three backgrounds, indicating poor mutational tolerance under these conditions. The W107A variant wasn't really recoverable with low levels of plasma membrane localisation. For the V267T variant, most additional mutations were more deleterious than WT based on correct trafficking, indicating a synergistic effect. As one might expect, there was a higher degree of positive correlation between V267T/W107A mutants and other mutants located in TM regions, confirming that improper trafficking was a likely consequence of membrane protein co-translational folding. Nevertheless, context is important, as positive synergistic mutants in the V27T could be negative in the W107A background and vice versa. Taken together, this important study highlights the complexity of membrane protein folding in dissecting the mechanism-dependent impact of disease-causing mutations related to improper trafficking.

Strengths:

This is a novel and exhaustive approach to dissect how receptor mutations under different mutational backgrounds related to co-translational folding, could influence membrane protein trafficking.

Weaknesses:

The premise for the study requires an in-depth understanding of how the single point mutations analysed effect membrane protein folding in context of DMS, but the single point mutants used could do with further validation. The V267T mutant only reduced MP insertion by 10% and the effect of W107A on protein stability was not assessed. Furthermore, plasma membrane expression has been used as a proxy for incorrect membrane protein folding, but this not necessarily be the case, as even correctly folded membrane proteins may not be trafficked correctly, at least, under heterologous expression conditions. In addition, mutations can effect trafficking and potential post-translational modifications, like glycosylation.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this paper, Chamness and colleagues make a pioneering effort to map epistatic interactions among mutations in a membrane protein. They introduce thousands of mutations to the mouse GnRH Receptor (GnRHR), either under wild-type background or two mutant backgrounds, representing mutations that destabilize GnRHR by distinct mechanisms. The first mutant background is W107A, destabilizing the tertiary fold, and the second, V276T, perturbing the efficiency of cotranslational insertion of TM6 to the membrane, which is essential for proper folding. They then measure surface expression of these three mutant libraries, using it as a proxy for protein stability, since misfolded proteins do not typically make it to the plasma membrane. The resulting dataset is then used to shed light on how diverse mutations interact epistatically with the two genetic background mutations. Their main conclusion is that epistatic interactions vary depending on the degree of destabilization and the mechanism through which they perturb the protein. The mutation V276T forms primarily negative (aggravating) epistatic interactions with many mutations, as is common to destabilizing mutations in soluble proteins. Surprisingly, W107A forms many positive (alleviating) epistatic interactions with other mutations. They further show that the locations of secondary mutations correlate with the types of epistatic interactions they form with the above two mutants.

Strengths:

Such a high throughput study for epistasis in membrane proteins is pioneering, and the results are indeed illuminating. Examples of interesting findings are that: (1) No single mutation can dramatically rescue the destabilization introduced by W107A. (2) Epistasis with a secondary mutation is strongly influenced by the degree of destabilization introduced by the primary mutation. (3) Misfolding caused by mis-insertion tends to be aggravated by further mutations. The discussion of how protein folding energetics affects epistasis (Fig. 7) makes a lot of sense and lays out an interesting biophysical framework for the findings.

Weaknesses:

The major weakness comes from the potential limitations in the measurements of surface expression of severely misfolded mutants. It seems that only about 5% of the W107A makes it to the plasma membrane compared to wild-type. This point is discussed quite fairly in the paper. (Figures 2 and 3). This might be a low starting point from which to accurately measure the effects of secondary mutations. I am concerned about the extent to which surface expression can report on protein stability, especially when it comes to double mutants where each mutation alone severely decreases surface expression. It is possible that in these cases, both the single and double mutants are completely misfolded, beyond repair. The surface-expressed proteins in such mutants may not be stable, folded or active at all, and the authors do not provide any indication that the combined effects of the mutations are derived from effects on folding stability or misfolding. Therefore, the reason for the epistatic effects of these mutations is hard to interpret, leaving a notable gap in our understanding. However, I find that this point is discussed much more fairly in the current manuscript.

With that said, I believe that the results regarding the epistasis of V276T with other mutations are strong and very interesting on their own.

Another concern relates to the measurements of the epistatic effects of mutations in the background of the V107A mutation. I am concerned about their measurement accuracy. Firstly, the authors note that the surface immunostaining measurements of these mutants are on average only 2-fold above background, which is quite a low signal-to-noise regimen. Secondly, I believe that the authors still haven't demonstrated the reproducibility of their surface expression measurements. To showcase the reproducibility, the authors show the correlation of two biological replicates in Figure S3. However, these are shown only for the 251 mutations that passed a reproducibility filter, after the authors "discarded variant scores for which the difference in percentile rank across the two replicates was greater than 25%. " . this means that all mutations that showed irreproducible results were filtered out before the analysis in Figure S3. It is, therefore, no surprise that the remaining mutations are highly reproducible, and such an analysis cannot serve as an indication of the reproducibility. It remains possible that a large fraction of the surface immunostaining scores of the V107A variants are dominated by noise and that their correlation in these two replicates might be random and may not necessarily be reproduced in a third replicate, for example.

Author response:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

For many years, there has been extensive electrophysiological research investigating the relationship between local field potential patterns and individual cell spike patterns in the hippocampus. In this study, using state-of-the-art imaging techniques, they examined spike synchrony of hippocampal cells during locomotion and immobility states. In contrast to conventional understanding of the hippocampus, the authors demonstrated that hippocampal place cells exhibit prominent synchronous spikes locked to theta oscillations.

Strengths:

The voltage imaging used in this study is a highly novel method that allows recording not only suprathreshold-level spikes but also subthreshold-level activity. With its high frame rate, it offers time resolution comparable to electrophysiological recordings. Moreover, it enables the visualization of actual cell locations, allowing for the examination of spatial properties (e.g., Figure 4G).

We thank the reviewer for pointing out the technical novelty of this work.

Weaknesses:

There is a notable deviation from several observations obtained through conventional electrophysiological recordings. Particularly, as mentioned below in detail, the considerable differences in baseline firing rates and no observations of ripple-triggered firing patterns raise some concerns about potential artifacts from imaging and analysis, such as cell toxicity, abnormal excitability, and false detection of spikes. While these findings are intriguing if the validity of these methods is properly proven, accepting the current results as new insights is challenging.

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments regarding the intriguing aspect of our findings. Indeed, the emergence of a novel form of CA1 population synchrony presents exciting implications for hippocampal memory research and beyond.

While we acknowledge the deviations from conventional electrophysiological recordings, we respectfully contend that these differences do not necessarily imply methodological flaws. All experiments and analyses were conducted with meticulous adherence to established standards in the field.

Regarding the observed variations in averaging firing rates, it is important to note the well-documented heterogeneity in CA1 pyramidal neuron firing rates, spanning from 0.01 to 10 Hz, with a skewed distribution toward lower frequencies (Mizuseki et al., 2013). Our exclusion criteria for neurons with low estimated firing rates may have inadvertently biased the selection towards more active neurons. Moreover, prior research has indicated that averaging firing rates tend to increase during exposure to novel environments (Karlsson et al., 2008), and among deep-layer CA1 pyramidal neurons (Mizuseki et al., 2011). Given our recording setup in a highly novel environment and the predominance of deep CA1 pyramidal neurons in our sample, the observed higher averaging firing rates could be influenced by these factors. Considering these points, our mean firing rates (3.2 Hz) are reasonable estimations compared to previously reported values obtained from electrophysiological recordings (2.1 Hz in McHugh et al., 1996 and 2.4-2.6 Hz in Buzsaki et al., 2003).

Regarding concerns about potential cell toxicity, previous studies have shown that Voltron expression and illumination do not significantly alter membrane resistance, membrane capacitance, resting membrane potentials, spike amplitudes, and spike width (see Abdelfattah 2019, Science, Supplementary Figure 11 and 12). In our recordings, imaged neurons exhibit preserved membrane and dendritic morphology during and after experiments (Author response image 1), supporting the absence of significant toxicity.

Author response image 1.

Voltron-expressing neurons exhibit preserved membrane and dendritic morphology. (A) Images of two-photon z-stack maximum intensity projection showing Voltron-expressing neurons taken after voltage image experiments in vivo. (B) Post-hoc histological images of neurons being voltage-imaged.

Regarding spike detection, we use validated algorithms (Abdelfattah et al., 2019 and 2023) to ensure robust and reliable detection of spikes. Spiking activity was first separated from slower subthreshold potentials using high-pass filtering. This way, a slow fluorescence increase will not be detected as a spike, even if its amplitude is large. We benchmarked the detection algorithm in computer simulation. The sensitivity and specificity of the algorithm exceed 98% at the level of signal-to-noise ratio of our recordings. While we acknowledge that a small number of spikes, particularly those occurring later in a burst, might be missed due to their smaller amplitudes (as illustrated in Figure 1 and 2 of the manuscript), we anticipate that any missed spikes would lead to a decrease rather than an increase in synchrony between neurons. Overall, we are confident that spike detection is performed in a rigorous and robust manner.

To further strengthen these points, we will include the following in the revision:

(1) Histological images of recorded neurons during and after experiments.

(2) Further details regarding the validation of spike detection algorithms.

(3) Analysis of publicly available electrophysiological datasets.

(4) Discussion regarding the reasons behind the novelty of some of our findings compared to previous observations.

In conclusion, we assert that our experimental and analysis approach upholds rigorous standards. We remain committed to reconciling our findings with previous observations and welcome further scrutiny and engagement from the scientific community to explore the intriguing implications of our findings.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This study employed voltage imaging in the CA1 region of the mouse hippocampus during the exploration of a novel environment. The authors report synchronous activity, involving almost half of the imaged neurons, occurred during periods of immobility. These events did not correlate with SWRs, but instead, occurred during theta oscillations and were phased-locked to the trough of theta. Moreover, pairs of neurons with high synchronization tended to display non-overlapping place fields, leading the authors to suggest these events may play a role in binding a distributed representation of the context.

We thank the reviewer for a thorough and thoughtful review of our paper.

Strengths:

Technically this is an impressive study, using an emerging approach that allows single-cell resolution voltage imaging in animals, that while head-fixed, can move through a real environment. The paper is written clearly and suggests novel observations about population-level activity in CA1.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out the technical strength and the novelty of our observations.

Weaknesses:

The evidence provided is weak, with the authors making surprising population-level claims based on a very sparse data set (5 data sets, each with less than 20 neurons simultaneously recorded) acquired with exciting, but less tested technology. Further, while the authors link these observations to the novelty of the context, both in the title and text, they do not include data from subsequent visits to support this. Detailed comments are below:

We understand the reviewer’s concerns regarding the size of the dataset. Despite this limitation, it is important to note that synchronous ensembles beyond what could be expected from chance (jittering) were detected in all examined data. In the revision, we plan to add more data, including data from subsequent visits, to further strengthen our findings.

(1) My first question for the authors, which is not addressed in the discussion, is why these events have not been observed in the countless extracellular recording experiments conducted in rodent CA1 during the exploration of novel environments. Those data sets often have 10x the neurons simultaneously recording compared to these present data, thus the highly synchronous firing should be very hard to miss. Ideally, the authors could confirm their claims via the analysis of publicly available electrophysiology data sets. Further, the claim of high extra-SWR synchrony is complicated by the observation that their recorded neurons fail to spike during the limited number of SWRs recorded during behavior- again, not agreeing with much of the previous electrophysiological recordings.

We understand the reviewer’s concern. We will examine publicly available electrophysiology datasets to gain further insights into any similarities and differences to our findings. Based on these results, we will discuss why these events have not been previously observed/reported.

(2) The authors posit that these events are linked to the novelty of the context, both in the text, as well as in the title and abstract. However, they do not include any imaging data from subsequent days to demonstrate the failure to see this synchrony in a familiar environment. If these data are available it would strengthen the proposed link to novelty if they were included.

We thank the reviewer’s constructive suggestion. We will acquire more datasets from subsequent visits to gain further insights into these synchronous events.

3) In the discussion the authors begin by speculating the theta present during these synchronous events may be slower type II or attentional theta. This can be supported by demonstrating a frequency shift in the theta recording during these events/immobility versus the theta recording during movement.

We thank the reviewer’s constructive suggestion. We did demonstrate a frequency shift to a lower frequency in the synchrony-associated theta during immobility than during locomotion (see Fig. 4B, the red vs. blue curves). We will enlarge this panel and specifically refer to it in the corresponding discussion paragraph.

(4) The authors mention in the discussion that they image deep-layer PCs in CA1, however, this is not mentioned in the text or methods. They should include data, such as imaging of a slice of a brain post-recording with immunohistochemistry for a layer-specific gene to support this.

We thank the reviewer’s constructive suggestion. We do have images of brain slices post-recordings (Author response image 2). Imaged neurons are clearly located in the deep CA1 pyramidal layer. We will add these images and quantification in the revised manuscript.

Author response image 2.

Imaged neurons are located in the deep pyramidal layer of the dorsal hippocampal CA1 region.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In the present manuscript, the authors use a few minutes of voltage imaging of CA1 pyramidal cells in head-fixed mice running on a track while local field potentials (LFPs) are recorded. The authors suggest that synchronous ensembles of neurons are differentially associated with different types of LFP patterns, theta and ripples. The experiments are flawed in that the LFP is not "local" but rather collected in the other side of the brain, and the investigation is flawed due to multiple problems with the point process analyses. The synchrony terminology refers to dozens of milliseconds as opposed to the millisecond timescale referred to in prior work, and the interpretations do not take into account theta phase locking as a simple alternative explanation.

We genuinely appreciate the reviewer’s feedback and acknowledge the concerns raised. However, we believe these concerns can be effectively addressed without undermining the validity of our conclusions. With this in mind, we respectfully disagree with the assessment that our experiments and investigation are flawed. Please allow us to address these concerns and offer additional context to support the validity of our study.

Weaknesses:

The two main messages of the manuscript indicated in the title are not supported by the data. The title gives two messages that relate to CA1 pyramidal neurons in behaving head-fixed mice: (1) synchronous ensembles are associated with theta (2) synchronous ensembles are not associated with ripples.

There are two main methodological problems with the work:

(1) Experimentally, the theta and ripple signals were recorded using electrophysiology from the opposite hemisphere to the one in which the spiking was monitored. However, both signals exhibit profound differences as a function of location: theta phase changes with the precise location along the proximo-distal and dorso-ventral axes, and importantly, even reverses with depth. And ripples are often a local phenomenon - independent ripples occur within a fraction of a millimeter within the same hemisphere, let alone different hemispheres. Ripples are very sensitive to the precise depth - 100 micrometers up or down, and only a positive deflection/sharp wave is evident.

We appreciate the reviewer’s consideration regarding the collection of LFP from the contralateral hemisphere. While we acknowledge the limitation of this design, we believe that our findings still offer valuable insights into the dynamics of synchronous ensembles. Despite potential variations in theta phases with recording locations and depth, we find that the occurrence and amplitudes of theta oscillations are generally coordinated across hemispheres (Buzsaki et al., Neurosci., 2003). Therefore, the presence of prominent contralateral LFP theta around the times of synchronous ensembles in our study (see Figure 4A of the manuscript) strongly supports our conclusion regarding their association with theta oscillations, despite the collection of LFP from the opposite hemisphere.

In addition, in our manuscript, we specifically mentioned that the “preferred phases” varied from session to session, likely due to the variability of recording locations (see Line 254-256). Therefore, we think that the reviewer’s concern regarding theta phase variability has already been addressed in the present manuscript.

Regarding ripple oscillations, while we recognize that they can sometimes occur locally, the majority of ripples occur synchronously in both hemispheres (up to 70%, see Szabo et al., Neuron, 2022; Buzsaki et al., Neurosci., 2003). Therefore, using contralateral LFP to infer ripple occurrence on the ipsilateral side has been a common practice in the field, employed by many studies published in respectable journals (Szabo et al., Neuron, 2022; Terada et al., Nature, 2021; Dudok et al., Neuron, 2021; Geiller et al., Neuron, 2020). Furthermore, our observation that 446 synchronous ensembles during immobility do not co-occur with contralateral ripples, and the remaining 313 ensembles during locomotion are not associated with ripples, as ripples rarely occur during locomotion. Therefore, our conclusion that synchronous ensembles are not associated with ripple oscillations is supported by data.

(2) The analysis of the point process data (spike trains) is entirely flawed. There are many technical issues: complex spikes ("bursts") are not accounted for; differences in spike counts between the various conditions ("locomotion" and "immobility") are not accounted for; the pooling of multiple CCGs assumes independence, whereas even conditional independence cannot be assumed; etc.

We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding spike train analysis. Indeed, complex bursts or different behavioral conditions can lead to differences in spike counts that could potentially affect the detection of synchronous ensembles. However, our jittering procedure (see Line 121-132) is designed to control for the variation of spike counts. Importantly, while the jittered spike trains also contain the same spike count variations, we found 7.8-fold more synchronous events in our data compared to jitter controls (see Figure 1G of the manuscript), indicating that these factors cannot account for the observed synchrony.

To explicitly demonstrate that complex bursts cannot account for the observed synchrony, we have performed additional analysis to remove all latter spikes in bursts and only count the single and the first spikes of bursts. Importantly, we found that this procedure did not change the rate and size of synchronous ensembles, nor did it significantly alter the grand-average CCG (see Author response image 3). The results of this analysis explicitly rule out a significant effect of complex spikes on the analysis of synchronous ensembles.

Author response image 3.

Population synchrony remains after the removal of spikes in bursts. (A) The grand-average cross correlogram (CCG) was calculated using spike trains without latter spikes in bursts. The gray line represents the mean grand average CCG between reference cells and randomly selected cells from different sessions. (B) Pairwise comparison of the event rates of population synchrony between spike trains containing all spikes and spike trains without latter spikes in bursts. Bar heights indicate group means (n=10 segments, p=0.036, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). (C) Histogram of the ensemble sizes as percentages of cells participating in the synchronous ensembles.

Beyond those methodological issues, there are two main interpretational problems: (1) the "synchronous ensembles" may be completely consistent with phase locking to the intracellular theta (as even shown by the authors themselves in some of the supplementary figures).

We agree with the reviewer that the synchronous ensembles are indeed consistent with theta phase locking. However, it is important to note that theta phase locking alone does not necessarily imply population synchrony. In fact, theta phase locking has been shown to “reduce” population synchrony in a previous study (Mizuseki et al., 2014, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B.). Thus, the presence of theta phase locking cannot be taken as a simple alternative explanation of the synchronous ensembles.

To directly assess the contribution of theta phase locking to synchronous ensembles, we have performed a new analysis to randomize the specific theta cycles in which neurons spike, while keeping the spike phases constant. This manipulation disrupts spike co-occurrence while preserving theta phase locking, allowing us to test whether theta phase locking alone can explain the population synchrony, or whether spike co-occurrence in specific cycles is required. The grand-average CCG shows a much smaller peak compared to the original peak (Author response image 4A). Moreover, synchronous event rates show a 4.5-fold decrease in the randomized data compared to the original event rates (Author response image 4B). Thus, the new analysis reveals theta phase locking alone cannot account for the population synchrony.

Author response image 4.

Drastic reduction of population synchrony by randomizing spikes to other theta cycles while preserving the phases. (A) The grand-average cross correlogram (CCG) was calculated using original spike trains (black) and randomized spike trains where theta phases of the spikes are kept the same but spike timings were randomly moved to other theta cycles (red). (B) Pairwise comparison of the event rates of population synchrony between the original spike trains and randomized spike trains (n=10 segments, p=0.002, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Bar heights indicate group means. ** p<0.01

(2) The definition of "synchrony" in the present work is very loose and refers to timescales of 20-30 ms. In previous literature that relates to synchrony of point processes, the timescales discussed are 1-2 ms, and longer timescales are referred to as the "baseline" which is actually removed (using smoothing, jittering, etc.).

Regarding the timescale of synchronous ensembles, we acknowledge that it varies considerably across studies and cell types. However, it is important to note that a timescale of dozens, or even hundreds of milliseconds is common for synchrony terminology in CA1 pyramidal neurons (see Csicsvari et al., Neuron, 2000; Harris et al., Science, 2003; Malvache et al., Science, 2016; Yagi et al., Cell Reports, 2023). In fact, a timescale of 20-30 ms is considered particularly important for information transmission and storage in CA1, as it matches the membrane time constant of pyramidal neurons, the period of hippocampal gamma oscillations, and the time window for synaptic plasticity. Therefore, we believe that this timescale is relevant and in line with established practices in the field.

eLife assessment

The authors perform voltage imaging of CA1 pyramidal cells in head-fixed mice running on a track while local field potentials (LFPs) are recorded. They suggest that synchronous ensembles of neurons are differentially associated with different types of LFP patterns, namely theta and ripples. However, evidence for the potentially useful findings is currently incomplete due to major weaknesses in the experimental and analytical approach.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

For many years, there has been extensive electrophysiological research investigating the relationship between local field potential patterns and individual cell spike patterns in the hippocampus. In this study, using state-of-the-art imaging techniques, they examined spike synchrony of hippocampal cells during locomotion and immobility states. In contrast to conventional understanding of the hippocampus, the authors demonstrated that hippocampal place cells exhibit prominent synchronous spikes locked to theta oscillations.

Strengths:

The voltage imaging used in this study is a highly novel method that allows recording not only suprathreshold-level spikes but also subthreshold-level activity. With its high frame rate, it offers time resolution comparable to electrophysiological recordings. Moreover, it enables the visualization of actual cell locations, allowing for the examination of spatial properties (e.g., Figure 4G).

Weaknesses:

There is a notable deviation from several observations obtained through conventional electrophysiological recordings. Particularly, as mentioned below in detail, the considerable differences in baseline firing rates and no observations of ripple-triggered firing patterns raise some concerns about potential artifacts from imaging and analsyis, such as cell toxicity, abnormal excitability, and false detection of spikes. While these findings are intriguing if the validity of these methods is properly proven, accepting the current results as new insights is challenging.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This study employed voltage imaging in the CA1 region of the mouse hippocampus during the exploration of a novel environment. The authors report synchronous activity, involving almost half of the imaged neurons, occurred during periods of immobility. These events did not correlate with SWRs, but instead, occurred during theta oscillations and were phased-locked to the trough of theta. Moreover, pairs of neurons with high synchronization tended to display non-overlapping place fields, leading the authors to suggest these events may play a role in binding a distributed representation of the context.

Strengths:

Technically this is an impressive study, using an emerging approach that allows single-cell resolution voltage imaging in animals, that while head-fixed, can move through a real environment. The paper is written clearly and suggests novel observations about population-level activity in CA1.

Weaknesses:

The evidence provided is weak, with the authors making surprising population-level claims based on a very sparse data set (5 data sets, each with less than 20 neurons simultaneously recorded) acquired with exciting, but less tested technology. Further, while the authors link these observations to the novelty of the context, both in the title and text, they do not include data from subsequent visits to support this. Detailed comments are below:

(1) My first question for the authors, which is not addressed in the discussion, is why these events have not been observed in the countless extracellular recording experiments conducted in rodent CA1 during the exploration of novel environments. Those data sets often have 10x the neurons simultaneously recording compared to these present data, thus the highly synchronous firing should be very hard to miss. Ideally, the authors could confirm their claims via the analysis of publicly available electrophysiology data sets. Further, the claim of high extra-SWR synchrony is complicated by the observation that their recorded neurons fail to spike during the limited number of SWRs recorded during behavior- again, not agreeing with much of the previous electrophysiological recordings.

(2) The authors posit that these events are linked to the novelty of the context, both in the text, as well as in the title and abstract. However, they do not include any imaging data from subsequent days to demonstrate the failure to see this synchrony in a familiar environment. If these data are available it would strengthen the proposed link to novelty if they were included.

(3) In the discussion the authors begin by speculating the theta present during these synchronous events may be slower type II or attentional theta. This can be supported by demonstrating a frequency shift in the theta recording during these events/immobility versus the theta recording during movement.

(4) The authors mention in the discussion that they image deep-layer PCs in CA1, however, this is not mentioned in the text or methods. They should include data, such as imaging of a slice of a brain post-recording with immunohistochemistry for a layer-specific gene to support this.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In the present manuscript, the authors use a few minutes of voltage imaging of CA1 pyramidal cells in head-fixed mice running on a track while local field potentials (LFPs) are recorded. The authors suggest that synchronous ensembles of neurons are differentially associated with different types of LFP patterns, theta and ripples. The experiments are flawed in that the LFP is not "local" but rather collected in the other side of the brain, and the investigation is flawed due to multiple problems with the point process analyses. The synchrony terminology refers to dozens of milliseconds as opposed to the millisecond timescale referred to in prior work, and the interpretations do not take into account theta phase locking as a simple alternative explanation.

Weaknesses:

The two main messages of the manuscript indicated in the title are not supported by the data. The title gives two messages that relate to CA1 pyramidal neurons in behaving head-fixed mice: (1) synchronous ensembles are associated with theta (2) synchronous ensembles are not associated with ripples.

There are two main methodological problems with the work: (1) experimentally, the theta and ripple signals were recorded using electrophysiology from the opposite hemisphere to the one in which the spiking was monitored. However, both signals exhibit profound differences as a function of location: theta phase changes with the precise location along the proximo-distal and dorso-ventral axes, and importantly, even reverses with depth. And ripples are often a local phenomenon - independent ripples occur within a fraction of a millimeter within the same hemisphere, let alone different hemispheres. Ripples are very sensitive to the precise depth - 100 micrometers up or down, and only a positive deflection/sharp wave is evident. (2) The analysis of the point process data (spike trains) is entirely flawed. There are many technical issues: complex spikes ("bursts") are not accounted for; differences in spike counts between the various conditions ("locomotion" and "immobility") are not accounted for; the pooling of multiple CCGs assumes independence, whereas even conditional independence cannot be assumed; etc.

Beyond those methodological issues, there are two main interpretational problems: (1) the "synchronous ensembles" may be completely consistent with phase locking to the intracellular theta (as even shown by the authors themselves in some of the supplementary figures). (2) The definition of "synchrony" in the present work is very loose and refers to timescales of 20-30 ms. In previous literature that relates to synchrony of point processes, the timescales discussed are 1-2 ms, and longer timescales are referred to as the "baseline" which is actually removed (using smoothing, jittering, etc.).

Author response:

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

eLife assessment

Connelly and colleagues provide convincing genetic evidence that importation from mainland Tanzania is a major source of Plasmodium falciparum lineages currently circulating in Zanzibar. This study also reveals ongoing local malaria transmission and occasional near-clonal outbreaks in Zanzibar. Overall, this research highlights the role of human movements in maintaining residual malaria transmission in an area targeted for intensive control interventions over the past decades and provides valuable information for epidemiologists and public health professionals.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Zanzibar archipelago is close to achieving malaria elimination, but despite the implementation of effective control measures, there is still a low-level seasonal malaria transmission. This could be due to the frequent importation of malaria from mainland Tanzania and Kenya, reservoirs of asymptomatic infections, and competent vectors. To investigate population structure and gene flow of P. falciparum in Zanzibar and mainland Tanzania, they used 178 samples from mainland Tanzania and 213 from Zanzibar that were previously sequenced using molecular inversion probes (MIPs) panels targeting single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). They performed Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and identity by descent (IBD) analysis to assess genetic relatedness between isolates. Parasites from coastal mainland Tanzania contribute to the genetic diversity in the parasite population in Zanzibar. Despite this, there is a pattern of isolation by distance and microstructure within the archipelago, and evidence of local sharing of highly related strains sustaining malaria transmission in Zanzibar that are important targets for interventions such as mass drug administration and vector control, in addition to measures against imported malaria.

Strengths:

This study presents important samples to understand population structure and gene flow between mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar, especially from the rural Bagamoyo District, where malaria transmission persists and there is a major port of entry to Zanzibar. In addition, this study includes a larger set of SNPs, providing more robustness for analyses such as PCA and IBD. Therefore, the conclusions of this paper are well supported by data.

Weaknesses:

Some points need to be clarified:

(1) SNPs in linkage disequilibrium (LD) can introduce bias in PCA and IBD analysis. Were SNPs in LD filtered out prior to these analyses?

Thank you for this point. We did not filter SNPs in LD prior to this analysis. In the PCA analysis in Figure 1, we did restrict to a single isolate among those that were clonal (high IBD values) to prevent bias in the PCA. In general, disequilibrium is minimal only over small distances <5-10kb without selective forces at play. This is much less than the average spacing of the markers in the panel. If there is minimal LD, the conclusions drawn on relative levels and connections at high IBD are unlikely to be confounded by any effects of disequilibrium.

( 2) Many IBD algorithms do not handle polyclonal infections well, despite an increasing number of algorithms that are able to handle polyclonal infections and multiallelic SNPs. How polyclonal samples were handled for IBD analysis?

Thank you for this point. We added lines 157-161 to clarify. This section now reads:

“To investigate genetic relatedness of parasites across regions, identity by descent (IBD) estimates were assessed using the within sample major alleles (coercing samples to monoclonal by calling the dominant allele at each locus) and estimated utilizing a maximum likelihood approach using the inbreeding_mle function from the MIPanalyzer package (Verity et al., 2020). This approach has previously been validated as a conservative estimate of IBD (Verity et al., 2020).”

Please see the supplement in (Verity et al., 2020) for an extensive simulation study that validates this approach.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(3) I think Supplementary Figures 8 and 9 are more visually informative than Figure 2.

Thank you for your response. We performed the analysis in Figure 2 to show how IBD varies between different regions and is higher within a region than between.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This manuscript describes P. falciparum population structure in Zanzibar and mainland Tanzania. 282 samples were typed using molecular inversion probes. The manuscript is overall well-written and shows a clear population structure. It follows a similar manuscript published earlier this year, which typed a similar number of samples collected mostly in the same sites around the same time. The current manuscript extends this work by including a large number of samples from coastal Tanzania, and by including clinical samples, allowing for a comparison with asymptomatic samples.

The two studies made overall very similar findings, including strong small-scale population structure, related infections on Zanzibar and the mainland, near-clonal expansion on Pemba, and frequency of markers of drug resistance. Despite these similarities, the previous study is mentioned a single time in the discussion (in contrast, the previous research from the authors of the current study is more thoroughly discussed). The authors missed an opportunity here to highlight the similar findings of the two studies.

Thank you for your insights. We appreciated the level of detail of your review and it strengthened our work. We have input additional sentences on lines 292-295, which now reads:

“A recent study investigating population structure in Zanzibar also found local population microstructure in Pemba (Holzschuh et al., 2023). Further, both studies found near-clonal parasites within the same district, Micheweni, and found population microstructure over Zanzibar.”

Strengths:

The overall results show a clear pattern of population structure. The finding of highly related infections detected in close proximity shows local transmission and can possibly be leveraged for targeted control.

Weaknesses:

A number of points need clarification:

(1) It is overall quite challenging to keep track of the number of samples analyzed. I believe the number of samples used to study population structure was 282 (line 141), thus this number should be included in the abstract rather than 391. It is unclear where the number 232 on line 205 comes from, I failed to deduct this number from supplementary table 1.

Thank you for this point. We have included 282 instead of 391 in the abstract. We added a statement in the results at lines 203-205 to clarify this point, which now reads:

“PCA analysis of 232 coastal Tanzanian and Zanzibari isolates, after pruning 51 samples with an IBD of greater than 0.9 to one representative sample, demonstrates little population differentiation (Figure 1A).”

(2) Also, Table 1 and Supplementary Table 1 should be swapped. It is more important for the reader to know the number of samples included in the analysis (as given in Supplementary Table 1) than the number collected. Possibly, the two tables could be combined in a clever way.

Thank you for this advice. Rather than switch to another table altogether, we appended two columns to the original table to better portray the information (see Table 1).

Methods

(3) The authors took the somewhat unusual decision to apply K-means clustering to GPS coordinates to determine how to combine their data into a cluster. There is an obvious cluster on Pemba islands and three clusters on Unguja. Based on the map, I assume that one of these three clusters is mostly urban, while the other two are more rural. It would be helpful to have a bit more information about that in the methods. See also comments on maps in Figures 1 and 2 below.

Cluster 3 is a mix of rural/urban while the clusters 2, 4 and 5 are mostly rural. This analysis was performed to see how IBD changes in relation to local context within different regions in Zanzibar, showing that there is higher IBD within locale than between locale.

(4) Following this point, in Supplemental Figure 5 I fail to see an inflection point at K=4. If there is one, it will be so weak that it is hardly informative. I think selecting 4 clusters in Zanzibar is fine, but the justification based on this figure is unclear.

The K-means clustering experiment was used to cluster a continuous space of geographic coordinates in order to compare genetic relatedness in different regions. We selected this inflection point based on the elbow plot and based the number to obtain sufficient subsections of Zanzibar to compare genetic relatedness. This point is added to the methods at lines 174-178, which now reads:

“The K-means clustering experiment was used to cluster a continuous space of geographic coordinates in order to compare genetic relatedness in different regions. We selected K = 4 as the inflection point based on the elbow plot (Supplemental Figure 5) and based the number to obtain sufficient subsections of Zanzibar to compare genetic relatedness.”

(5) For the drug resistance loci, it is stated that "we further removed SNPs with less than 0.005 population frequency." Was the denominator for this analysis the entire population, or were Zanzibar and mainland samples assessed separately? If the latter, as for all markers <200 samples were typed per site, there could not be a meaningful way of applying this threshold. Given data were available for 200-300 samples for each marker, does this simply mean that each SNP needed to be present twice?

Population frequency is calculated based on the average within sample allele frequency of each individual in the population, which is an unbiased estimator. Within sample allele frequency can range from 0 to 1. Thus, if only one sample has an allele and it is at 0.1 within sample frequency, the population allele frequency would be 0.1/100 = 0.001. This allele is removed even though this would have resulted in a prevalence of 0.01. This filtering is prior to any final summary frequency or prevalence calculations (see MIP variant Calling and Filtering section in the methods). This protects against errors occurring only at low frequency.

Discussion:

(6) I was a bit surprised to read the following statement, given Zanzibar is one of the few places that has an effective reactive case detection program in place: "Thus, directly targeting local malaria transmission, including the asymptomatic reservoir which contributes to sustained transmission (Barry et al., 2021; Sumner et al., 2021), may be an important focus for ultimately achieving malaria control in the archipelago (Björkman & Morris, 2020)." I think the current RACD program should be mentioned and referenced. A number of studies have investigated this program.

Thank you for this point. We have added additional context and clarification on lines 275-280, which now reads:

“Thus, directly targeting local malaria transmission, including the asymptomatic reservoir which contributes to sustained transmission (Barry et al., 2021; Sumner et al., 2021), may be an important focus for ultimately achieving malaria control in the archipelago (Björkman & Morris, 2020). Currently, a reactive case detection program within index case households is being implemented, but local transmission continues and further investigation into how best to control this is warranted (Mkali et al. 2023).”

(7) The discussion states that "In Zanzibar, we see this both within and between shehias, suggesting that parasite gene flow occurs over both short and long distances." I think the term 'long distances' should be better defined. Figure 4 shows that highly related infections rarely span beyond 20-30 km. In many epidemiological studies, this would still be considered short distances.

Thank you for this point. We have edited the text at lines 287-288 to indicate that highly related parasites mainly occur at the range of 20-30km, which now reads:

“In Zanzibar, highly related parasites mainly occur at the range of 20-30km.”

(8) Lines 330-331: "Polymorphisms associated with artemisinin resistance did not appear in this population." Do you refer to background mutations here? Otherwise, the sentence seems to repeat lines 324. Please clarify.

We are referring to the list of Pfk13 polymorphisms stated in the Methods from lines 146-148. We added clarifying text on lines 326-329:

“Although polymorphisms associated with artemisinin resistance did not appear in this population, continued surveillance is warranted given emergence of these mutations in East Africa and reports of rare resistance mutations on the coast consistent with spread of emerging Pfk13 mutations (Moser et al., 2021). “

(9) Line 344: The opinion paper by Bousema et al. in 2012 was followed by a field trial in Kenya (Bousema et al, 2016) that found that targeting hotspots did NOT have an impact beyond the actual hotspot. This (and other) more recent finding needs to be considered when arguing for hotspot-targeted interventions in Zanzibar.

We added a clarification on this point on lines 335-345, which now reads:

“A recent study identified “hotspot” shehias, defined as areas with comparatively higher malaria transmission than other shehias, near the port of Zanzibar town and in northern Pemba (Bisanzio et al., 2023). These regions overlapped with shehias in this study with high levels of IBD, especially in northern Pemba (Figure 4). These areas of substructure represent parasites that differentiated in relative isolation and are thus important locales to target intervention to interrupt local transmission (Bousema et al., 2012). While a field cluster-randomized control trial in Kenya targeting these hotspots did not confer much reduction of malaria outside of the hotspot (Bousema et al. 2016), if areas are isolated pockets, which genetic differentiation can help determine, targeted interventions in these areas are likely needed, potentially through both mass drug administration and vector control (Morris et al., 2018; Okell et al., 2011). Such strategies and measures preventing imported malaria could accelerate progress towards zero malaria in Zanzibar.”

Figures and Tables:

(10) Table 2: Why not enter '0' if a mutation was not detected? 'ND' is somewhat confusing, as the prevalence is indeed 0%.

Thank you for this point. We have put zero and also given CI to provide better detail.

(11) Figure 1: Panel A is very hard to read. I don't think there is a meaningful way to display a 3D-panel in 2D. Two panels showing PC1 vs. PC2 and PC1 vs. PC3 would be better. I also believe the legend 'PC2' is placed in the wrong position (along the Y-axis of panel 2).

Supplementary Figure 2B suffers from the same issue.

Thank you for your comment. A revised Figure 1 and Supplemental Figure 2 are included, where there are separate plots for PC1 vs. PC2 and PC1 vs. PC3.

(12) The maps for Figures 1 and 2 don't correspond. Assuming Kati represents cluster 4 in Figure 2, the name is put in the wrong position. If the grouping of shehias is different between the Figures, please add an explanation of why this is.

Thank you for this point. The districts with at least 5 samples present are plotted in the map in Figure 1B. In Figure 2, a totally separate analysis was performed, where all shehias were clustered into separate groups with k-means and the IBD values were compared between these clusters. These maps are not supposed to match, as they are separate analyses. Figure 1B is at the district level and Figure 2 is clustering shehias throughout Zanzibar.

The figure legend of Figure 1B on lines 410-414 now reads:

“B) A Discriminant Analysis of Principal Components (DAPC) was performed utilizing isolates with unique pseudohaplotypes, pruning highly related isolates to a single representative infection. Districts were included with at least 5 isolates remaining to have sufficient samples for the DAPC. For plotting the inset map, the district coordinates (e.g. Mainland, Kati, etc.) are calculated from the averages of the shehia centroids within each district.”

The figure legend of Figure 2 on lines 417-425 now reads:

“Figure 2. Coastal Tanzania and Zanzibari parasites have more highly related pairs within their given region than between regions. K-means clustering of shehia coordinates was performed using geographic coordinates all shehias present from the sample population to generate 5 clusters (colored boxes). All shehias were included to assay pairwise IBD between differences throughout Zanzibar. Pairwise comparisons of within cluster IBD (column 1 of IBD distribution plots) and between cluster IBD (column 2-5 of IBD distribution plots) was done for all clusters. In general, within cluster IBD had more pairwise comparisons containing high IBD identity.”

(13) Figure 2: In the main panel, please clarify what the lines indicate (median and quartiles?). It is very difficult to see anything except the outliers. I wonder whether another way of displaying these data would be clearer. Maybe a table with medians and confidence intervals would be better (or that data could be added to the plots). The current plots might be misleading as they are dominated by outliers.

Thank you for this point and it greatly improved this figure. We changed the plotting mechanisms through using a beeswarm plot, which plots all pairwise IBD values within each comparison group.

(14) In the insert, the cluster number should not only be given as a color code but also added to the map. The current version will be impossible to read for people with color vision impairment, and it is confusing for any reader as the numbers don't appear to follow any logic (e.g. north to south).

Thank you very much for these considerations. We changed the color coding to a color blind friendly palette and renamed the clusters to more informative names; Pemba, Unguja North (Unguja_N), Unguja Central (Unguja_C), Unguja South (Unguja_S) and mainland Tanzania (Mainland).

(15) The legend for Figure 3 is difficult to follow. I do not understand what the difference in binning was in panels A and B compared to C.

Thank you for this point. We have edited the legend to reflect these changes. The legend for Figure 3 on lines 427-433 now reads:

“Figure 3. Isolation by distance is shown between all Zanzibari parasites (A), only Unguja parasites (B) and only Pemba parasites (C). Samples were analyzed based on geographic location, Zanzibar (N=136) (A), Unguja (N=105) (B) or Pemba (N=31) (C) and greater circle (GC) distances between pairs of parasite isolates were calculated based on shehia centroid coordinates. These distances were binned at 4km increments out to 12 km. IBD beyond 12km is shown in Supplemental Figure 8. The maximum GC distance for all of Zanzibar was 135km, 58km on Unguja and 12km on Pemba. The mean IBD and 95% CI is plotted for each bin.”

(16) Font sizes for panel C differ, and it is not aligned with the other panels.

Thank you for pointing this out. Figure 3 and Supplemental Figure 10 are adjusted with matching formatting for each plot.

(17) Why is Kusini included in Supplemental Figure 4, but not in Figure 1?

In Supplemental Figure 4, all isolates were used in this analysis and isolates with unique pseudohaplotypes were not pruned to a single representative infection. That is why there are additional isolates in Kusini. The legend for Supplemental Figure 4 now reads:

“Supplemental Figure 4. PCA with highly related samples shows population stratification radiating from coastal Mainland to Zanzibar. PCA of 282 total samples was performed using whole sample allele frequency (A) and DAPC was performed after retaining samples with unique pseudohaplotypes in districts that had 5 or more samples present (B). As opposed to Figure 1, all isolates were used in this analysis and isolates with unique pseudohaplotypes were not pruned to a single representative infection.”

(18) Supplemental Figures 6 and 7: What does the width of the line indicate?

The sentence below was added to the figure legends of Supplemental Figures 6 and 7 and the legends of each network plot were increased in size:

“The width of each line represents higher magnitudes of IBD between pairs.”

(19) What was the motivation not to put these lines on the map, as in Figure 4A? This might make it easier to interpret the data.

Thank you for this comment. For Supplemental Figure 8 and 9, we did not put these lines that represent lower pairwise IBD to draw the reader's attention to the highly related pairs between and within shehias.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

(1) There is a rather long paragraph (lines 300-323) on COI of asymptomatic infections and their genetic structure. Given that the current study did not investigate most of the hypotheses raised there (e.g. immunity, expression of variant genes), and the overall limited number of asymptomatic samples typed, this part of the discussion feels long and often speculative.

Thank you for your perspective. The key sections highlighted in this comment, regarding immunity and expression of variant genes, were shortened. This section on lines 300-303 now reads:

“Asymptomatic parasitemia has been shown to be common in falciparum malaria around the globe and has been shown to have increasing importance in Zanzibar (Lindblade et al., 2013; Morris et al., 2015). What underlies the biology and prevalence of asymptomatic parasitemia in very low transmission settings where anti-parasite immunity is not expected to be prevalent remains unclear (Björkman & Morris, 2020).”

(2) As a detail, line 304 mentions "few previous studies" but only one is cited. Are there studies that investigated this and found opposite results?

Thank you for this comment. We added additional studies that did not find an association between clinical disease and COI. These changes are on lines 303-308, which now reads:

“Similar to a few previous studies, we found that asymptomatic infections had a higher COI than symptomatic infections across both the coastal mainland and Zanzibar parasite populations (Collins et al., 2022; Kimenyi et al., 2022; Sarah-Matio et al., 2022). Other studies have found lower COI in severe vs. mild malaria cases (Robert et al., 1996) or no significant difference between COI based on clinical status (Earland et al. 2019; Lagnika et al. 2022; Conway et al. 1991; Kun et al. 1998; Tanabe et al. 2015)”

(3) Table 2: Percentages need to be checked. To take one of several examples, for Pfk13-K189N a frequency of 0.019 for the mutant allele is given among 137 samples. 2/137 equals to 0.015, and 3/137 to 0.022. 0.019 cannot be achieved. The same is true for several other markers. Possibly, it can be explained by the presence of polyclonal infections. If so, it should be clarified what the total of clones sequenced was, and whether the prevalence is calculated with the number of samples or number of clones as the denominator.

Thank you for this point. We mistakenly reported allele frequency instead of prevalence. An updated Table 2 is now in the manuscript. The method for calculating the prevalence is now at lines 148-151:

“Prevalence was calculated separately in Zanzibar or mainland Tanzania for each polymorphism by the number of samples with alternative genotype calls for this polymorphism over the total number of samples genotyped and an exact 95% confidence interval was calculated using the Pearson-Klopper method for each prevalence.”

eLife assessment

Connelly and colleagues provide convincing genetic evidence that importation from mainland Tanzania is a major source of Plasmodium falciparum lineages currently circulating in Zanzibar. This study also reveals ongoing local malaria transmission and occasional near-clonal outbreaks in Zanzibar. Overall, the manuscript effectively highlights the role of human movements in maintaining residual malaria transmission in an area targeted for intensive control interventions over the past decades and provides clear and valuable information for epidemiologists and public health professionals.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This manuscript describes P. falciparum population structure in Zanzibar and mainland Tanzania. 282 samples were typed using molecular inversion probes. The manuscript is overall well written and shows clear population structure. It follows a similar manuscript published earlier this year, which typed a similar number of samples collected mostly in the same sites around the same time. The current manuscript extends this work by including a large number of samples from coastal Tanzania, and by including clinical samples, allowing for a comparison with asymptomatic samples.

The two studies made overall very similar findings, including strong small-scale population structure, related infections on Zanzibar and the mainland, near-clonal expansion on Pemba, and frequency of markers of drug resistance.

Strengths:

The overall results show a clear pattern of population structure. The finding of highly related infections detected in close proximity shows local transmission and can possibly be leveraged for targeted control.

Comments on revised version:

The authors have addressed my comments.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Zanzibar archipelago is close to achieve malaria elimination, but despite the implementation of effective control measures there is still low level seasonal malaria transmission. This could be due to the frequent importation of malaria from the mainland Tanzania and Kenya, reservoir of asymptomatic infections and competent vectors. To investigate population structure and gene flow of P. falciparum in Zanzibar and mainland Tanzania, they used 178 samples from mainland Tanzania and 213 from Zanzibar that were previously sequenced using molecular inversion probes (MIPs) panels targeting single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). They performed Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and identity by descent (IBD) analysis to assess genetic reladness between isolates. Parasites from coastal mainland Tanzania contribute for the genetic diversity in parasite population in Zanzibar. Despite this, there is a pattern of isolation by distance and microstructure within the achipelago, and evidence of local sharing of highly related strains sustaining malaria transmission in Zanzibar that are important targets for interventions such as mass drug administration and vector control, in addition to measures against imported malaria.

Strengths:

This study presents important samples to understand population structure and gene flow between mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar, especially from rural Bagamoyo District, where malaria transmission persists and there is a major port of entry to Zanzibar. In addition, this study includes a larger set of SNPs, providing more robustness for analyzes such as PCA and IBD. Therefore, the conclusions of this paper are well supported by data.

Comments on revised version:

The authors answered all my questions.

Author response:

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

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Granados-Aparici et al., investigate somatic-germline interactions in female mice. Mammalian oocytes are nurtured in multi-cellular ovarian follicles and communication with surrounding somatic cells is critical for oocyte development. This study focused on transzonal projections (TZP) extending from granulosa cells to the surface of oocytes and documented the importance of SMAD4, a TGF- β mediator, in regulating the TZPs. They propose a model in which individual TZPs contact the surface of the oocyte and stably attach if there is sufficient N-cadherin. In SMAD4-depleted cells, there is insufficient N-cadherin to stabilize the attachment. The TZP continues to elongate but eventually retracts. Their model is well supported by their experimental evidence and the manuscript is both well-formulated and written.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This study proposed a new mechanism by which the TGF-beta signaling pathway promotes contacts between oocytes and the surrounding somatic cells in mice, by regulating the numbers of transzonal projections (TZPs).

Strengths:

The conditional Smad4 knockout and three-dimensional observation of transzonal projections are solid and sufficiently support the major conclusions.

Weaknesses:

The physiological significance of SMAD4-dependent formation of transzonal projection networks is not assessed in this study.

Previous studies have shown that physical contact and gap junctional communication with the granulosa cells is essential for normal oocyte development. A recent study has also shown that depleting Myo10 in granulosa cells reduces the number of TZPs and leads to abnormalities in oocyte and embryo development. Thus, the importance of TZPs is well-established. These findings, which were insufficiently brought out in the Introduction of the original manuscript, have now been made more clearly (Introduction, 2nd paragraph). We recognize that these reports do not directly test a role for SMAD4-dependent TZPs. Unfortunately, it is beyond our technical capacity to obtain embryos following meiotic maturation and fertilization of oocytes that have grown in vitro, which wold be necessary for us to fully test the physiological role of SMAD4-dependent TZPs.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) The authors switch from Amhr2-cre to ER-cre to increase the number of GFP-positive granulosa cells in 12 d/o ovaries. To avoid disruption of FSH secretion by SMAD4, they use an in vitro model that requires 6 days in GEO culture (1 d tamoxifen + 5 d). Could it be that Amhr2-cre didn't work because most follicles would not have reached the atretic preantral stage in 12 d/o ovaries? Did the authors consider 6 days in vitro GEO culture to determine if Amhr2-cre would be efficient and avoid exposure to tamoxifen?

Please see below.

When is Amhr2 expressed?

Previous studies (Jorgez et al, 2004; Pangas et al, 2006) report that Amhr2 is expressed in growing follicles that have progressed beyond a single layer of granulosa cells (often defined as secondary and primary follicles, respectively). As shown in Fig. 1C, we did not observe evidence of widespread Cre activity in multilayer follicles. At least two factors may contribute why we observed relatively weak Cre activity. One possibility is that, on the genetic background our mice, Amhr2 is expressed relatively late during follicular growth. Thus, we might have observed more GFP-positive granulosa cells in antral or pre-ovulatory follicles. Because the granulosa cells of these late-stage follicles would already have produced many TZPs, the number of new TZPs generated in wild-type but not SMAD4-depleted cells after Amhr2 activation would be a relatively small proportion of the total population. This would make it more difficult to detect a reduction in TZP number in the absence of SMAD4.

A second point is that we used pre-puberal mice whereas Jorgez et al examined Amhr2 expression in ovaries of adult mice. Pangas et al evaluated both prepuberal and adult females. It may be that Amhr2 is expressed earlier or more strongly in granulosa cells of adult mice. Regarding the suggestion to culture complexes obtained from mice on the Amhr2-Cre background, as this might allow widespread expression of Cre without the need for tamoxifen, this is an excellent idea. If there is considerable heterogeneity among cells in the timing of Amhr2-Cre activity, though, this may further cloud efforts to uncover the role of SMAD4 in the production or stability of TZPs, as noted above.

(2) Did most of the GEO cultured in vitro reach the antral follicle stage after 6 days?

Since GOCs were treated with collagenase, the thecal layer was removed. Therefore, development of an antrum does not occur. We observed that, in some cases, the oocyte was extruded from the granulosa cell mass. These abnormal complexes were discarded.

(3). Was the development/diameter of the oocyte in the GEO comparable to the oocyte growing in vivo?

We did not compare the diameter of the oocytes grown in vitro to those grown in vivo. Thus, we cannot say whether the oocytes grown in vitro reached the same size as those grown in vivo. We did, however, compare the diameter of the oocytes in the wt and ko groups and observed no difference (Figure 2). This indicates that depletion of SMAD4 in the granulosa cells does not impair oocyte growth. Importantly for our studies, it excludes the possibility that the reduction in TZP-number is simply due to a smaller surface area of the oocyte.

(4) SMAD4 depletion in granulosa cells disrupts steroidogenesis leading to increased progesterone levels and precocious luteinization of granulosa cells (Pangas et al., 2006). Did the authors determine the expression level of luteal markers of granulosa cells in the in vitro GEO culture Smad4 knockout model? Are their observations direct effects of the absence of SMAD4?

This is an excellent point. We checked our previously performed RNA-seq analysis of the wild-type and knockout granulosa cells, but found no difference in the quantities of Cyp11a1, Sfrp4, Star or Ptgfr. This is now described in the Discussion (4th paragraph). One potentially important difference between our study and that of Pangas et al (2006) is that they observed premature luteinization when prepuberal (3-week old) mice were injected with the FSH analogue, equine serum gonadotropin, whereas we studied granulosa-oocyte complexes cultured in vitro. This could underlie the apparent differences with respect to luteinization.

(5) Could the reduced number of TZPs in ER-cre+; Smad4fl/fl GOCs be explained by luteinization?

This interesting and logical possibility is related to the previous point. In other words, luteinization could be considered as a default pathway of differentiation that is suppressed by SMAD signaling. It is possible that luteinized cells are unable to generate or maintain TZPs. This model offers a potential mechanistic basis for our observation, and we now raise it in the Discussion (3rd paragraph).

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations For The Authors):

The expression and localization of N-cadherin should be observed in Smad4 and control granulosa cell-oocyte complexes.

We agree that this would be an excellent approach to confirm the decreased expression of N-cadherin in the granulosa cells that was observed by immunoblotting. We were confronted by two challenges, however. First, we were unable to consistently obtain strong staining of granulosa cell membranes in the inner layers of multilayer granulosa-oocyte complexes. Other antibodies are able to stain structures at the oocyte surface, indicating that antibodies are not physically blocked from penetrating the complex. More likely, the anti-N-cadherin does not bind its target strongly enough to generate a robust signal that can be detected through multiple overlying layers of cells. Second, whereas for immunoblotting we collect all granulosa cells from culture complexes, for immunofluorescence we are only able to examine those that remain in the complex. This means that, for immunofluorescence, we essentially but unavoidably select against cells that are only loosely attached – as would be expected for N-cadherin-deficient cells – to their neighbours. Given these challenges, we believe that the immunoblotting approach, which produced highly reproducible results over six biological replicates (Fig. 6), is the most reliable.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Granados-Aparici et al., investigate somatic-germline interactions in female mice. Mammalian oocytes are nurtured in multi-cellular ovarian follicles and communication with surrounding somatic cells is critical for oocyte development. This study focused on transzonal projections (TZP) extending from granulosa cells to the surface of oocytes and document the importance of SMAD4, a TGF- β mediator, in regulating the TZPs. They propose a model in which individual TZPs contact the surface of the oocyte and stably attaches if there is sufficient N-cadherin. In SMAD4-depleted cells, there is insufficient N-cadherin to stabilize the attachment. The TZP continues to elongate but eventually retracts. Their model is well supported by their experimental evidence and the manuscript is both well-formulated and written.

Comments on revised version:

The authors have addressed the issues raised in the original review.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This study proposed a new mechanism by which TGF-beta signaling pathway promotes contacts between oocyte and the surrounding somatic cells in mouse, by regulating the numbers of transzonal projections (TZPs).

Strengths:

The conditional Smad4 knockout and three-dimensional observation of transzonal projections are solid and sufficiently support the major conclusions.

Comments on revised version:

The authors have adequately addressed the reviewers' questions and comments.

eLife assessment

This study reports an important mechanism through which the TGF-beta signaling pathway promotes contacts between oocytes and their surrounding somatic cells by regulating the number of transzonal projections (TZPs) in mice. Convincing data support the conclusions. The work will be of interest to biomedical researchers who work on ovarian biology and female fertility.

Author response:

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

eLife assessment

This study presents useful findings regarding the role of formin-like 2 in mouse oocyte meiosis. The submitted data are supported by incomplete analyses, and in some cases, the conclusions are overstated. If these concerns are addressed, this paper would be of interest to reproductive biologists.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The presented study focuses on the role of formin-like 2 (FMNL2) in oocyte meiosis. The authors assessed FMNL2 expression and localization in different meiotic stages and subsequently, by using siRNA, investigated the role of FMNL2 in spindle migration, polar body extrusion, and distribution of mitochondria and endoplasmic reticulum (ER) in mouse oocytes.

Strengths:

Novelty in assessing the role of formin-like 2 in oocyte meiosis.

Weaknesses:

Methods are not properly described.

Overstating presented data.

It is not clear what statistical tests were used.

My main concern is that there are missing important details of how particular experiments and analyses were done. The material and methods section are not written in the way that presented experiments could be repeated - it is missing basic information (e.g., used mouse strain, timepoints of oocytes harvest for particular experiments, used culture media, image acquisition parameters, etc.). Some of the presented data are overstated and incorrectly interpreted. It is not clear to me how the analysis of ER and mitochondria distribution was done, which is an important part of the presented data interpretation. I'm also missing important information about the timing of particular stages of assessed oocytes because the localization of both ER and mitochondria differs at different stages of oocyte meiosis. The data interpretation needs to be justified by proper analysis based on valid parameters, as there is considerable variability in the ER and mitochondria structure and localization across oocytes based on their overall quality and stage.

Thank you for your comment. We regret the oversight of omitting critical information in the manuscript. In the revised manuscript, we have included essential details such as mouse strains, culture media, stages of oocyte and statistical methods in the materials and methods section. Please find our details responses in the “Recommendations for the authors” part.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This research involves conducting experiments to determine the role of Fmnl2 during oocyte meiosis I.

Strengths:

Identifying the role of Fmnl2 during oocyte meiosis I is significant.

Weaknesses:

The quantitative analysis and the used approach to perturb FMNL2 function are currently incomplete and would benefit from more confirmatory approaches and rigorous analysis.

(1) Most of the results are expected. The new finding here is that FMNL2 regulates cytoplasmic F-actin in mouse oocytes, which is also expected given the role of FMNL2 in other cell types. Given that FMNL2 regulates cytoplasmic F-actin, it is very expected to see all the observed phenotypes. It is already established that F-actin is required for spindle migration to the oocyte cortex, extruding a small polar body and normal organelle distribution and functions.

Thank you for your comment. In the recent decade, Arp2/3 complex (Nat Cell Biol 2011), Formin2 (Nat Cell Biol 2002, Nat Commun 2020), and Spire (Curr Biol 2011) were reported to be 3 key factors to involve into this process. These factors regulate actin filaments in different ways. However, how they cross with each other for the subcellular events were still fully clear. Our current study identified that FMNL2 played a critical role in coordinating these molecules for actin assembly in oocytes. Our findings demonstrate that FMNL2 interacts with both the Arp2/3 complex and Formin2 to facilitate actin-based meiotic spindle migration. Additionally, we discovered a novel role for FMNL2 in determining the distribution and function of the endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondria, which may in turn influence meiotic spindle migration in oocytes. Our results not only uncover the novel functions of FMNL2-mediated actin for organelle distribution, but also extend our understanding of the molecular basis for the unique meiotic spindle migration in oocyte meiosis.

(2) The authors used Fmnl2 cRNA to rescue the effect of siRNA-mediated knockdown of Fmnl2. It is not clear how this works. It is expected that the siRNA will also target the exogenous cRNA construct (which should have the same sequence as endogenous Fmnl2) especially when both of them were injected at the same time. Is this construct mutated to be resistant to the siRNA?

Thank you for your question. We regret any misunderstanding that may have been caused by the inappropriate description in our manuscript. In the rescue experiments, we initially injected FMNL2 siRNA into oocytes, followed by the microinjection of FMNL2 mRNA 18-20 hours later. After conducting our previous experiments, we have verified through Western blotting that endogenous FMNL2 is effectively suppressed 18-20 hours following the microinjection of FMNL2 siRNA. Additionally, we observed a significant increase in exogenous FMNL2 protein expression 2 hours after the injection of FMNL2 mRNA. We believe that the exogenous FMNL2 could compensate the decrease by FMNL2 knockdown, and this approach was adopted in many oocyte studies.

(3) The authors used only one approach to knockdown FMNL2 which is by siRNA. Using an additional approach to inhibit FMNL2 would be beneficial to confirm that the effect of siRNA-mediated knockdown of FMNL2 is specific.

Thank you for your question. Yes, the specificity is always the concern for siRNA or morpholino microinjection due to the off-target issue. Due to the limitation we could not generate the knock out model, and there are no known inhibitors with specific targeting capabilities for FMNL2. To solve this, we performed the rescue study with exogenous mRNA to confirm the effective knock down of FMNL2. These measures provide reassurance regarding the credibility of the experimental outcomes, and this is also the general way to avoid the off-target of siRNA or morpholino.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors focus on the role of formin-like protein 2 in the mouse oocyte, which could play an important role in actin filament dynamics. The cytoskeleton is known to influence a number of cellular processes from transcription to cytokinesis. The results show that downregulation of FMNL2 affects spindle migration with resulting abnormalities in cytokinesis in oocyte meiosis I.

Weaknesses:

The overall description of methods and figures is overall dismissively poor. The description of the sample types and number of replicate experiments is impossible to interpret throughout, and the quantitative analysis methods are not adequately described. The number of data points presented is unconvincing and unlikely to support the conclusions. On the basis of the data presented, the conclusions appear to be preliminary, overstated, and therefore unconvincing.

Thank you for your comment. We regret the oversight of omitting critical information in the manuscript. In the revised manuscript, we have incorporated your suggestions for modification, particularly regarding the Materials and Methods section. Please see the detailed revision and responses in the “Recommendations for the authors” part.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for The Authors):

My main concern is that there are missing important details of how particular experiments and analyses were done. The material and methods section is not written in the way that presented experiments could be repeated - it is missing basic information (e.g., used mouse strain, timepoints of oocytes harvest for particular experiments, used culture media, image acquisition parameters, etc.). Some of the presented data are overstated and incorrectly interpreted. It is not clear to me how the analysis of ER and mitochondria distribution was done, which is an important part of the presented data interpretation. I'm also missing important information about the timing of particular stages of assessed oocytes because the localization of both ER and mitochondria differs at different stages of oocyte meiosis. The data interpretation needs to be justified by proper analysis based on valid parameters, as there is considerable variability in the ER and mitochondria structure and localization across oocytes based on their overall quality and stage. My specific comments are listed below.

(1) Information about statistical tests that were used needs to be provided for all quantification experiments.

Thank you for your suggestion. Based on your suggestions, we revised the statistical analysis description in the Materials and Methods section. Additionally, we also included a description of the statistical methods in the legends of the relevant result figures.

(2) I recommend replacing the plunger plots, used in most quantification data, with alternatives allowing evaluation of the distribution of the data (dot plots, box plots, whisker plots).

Thank you for your suggestion. Following your suggestion, we replaced the plunger plots in Fig 2C, D, H, I and Fig3 B, C with dot plots.

(3) Can the authors provide information about particular time points when were individual oocyte stages (GVBD, meiosis I, and meiosis II) harvested/used for immunofluorescence protein detection, western blotting, microinjection, and ER and mitochondria staining? Were the time points always the same in all presented experiments and experimental vs control group? If not, this needs to be clarified.

Thank you for your suggestion. We used oocytes in the metaphase I (MI) stage for the statistical analysis of spindle migration, actin filament aggregation, endoplasmic reticulum localization, and mitochondrial localization. In the Western blot analysis, GV stage oocytes were utilized to evaluate the efficiency of knockdown and rescue experiments. The protein expression levels of Arp2, Formin2, INF2, Cofilin, Grp78, and Chop in different treatment groups were detected using MI-stage oocytes. In the revised version, we provided all the detailed information about the stages.

(4) Figure 1B: Can the authors comment on why there is a missing representative image of MII oocyte FMBL2-Ab? I recommend including this in the figure to have a complete view of comparing overexpressed and endogenous FMNL2 localization in oocyte meiosis.

Thank you for your suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we added immunostaining images of FMNL2 antibody in MII stage oocytes.

(5) Figure 1C: The figure legend says, "FMNL2 and actin overlapped in cortex and spindle surrounding". In MI oocytes, there is usually no accumulated actin signal around the spindle, which is also true in the presented images, so there cannot be overlapping with the FMNL2 signal. The interpretation should be changed.

We apologize for this inappropriate description that was used, and we deleted this sentence.

(6) Figure 2B: What were the parameters of the "large" and "normal" polar bodies for performing the analysis?

Thank you for your question. In order to assess the size of the polar body, we conducted a comparison between the diameter of the polar body and that of the oocyte. If the diameter of the polar body was found to be less than 1/3 of the oocyte's diameter, we categorized it as normal-sized polar body. Conversely, if the polar body's diameter exceeded 1/3 of the oocyte's diameter, we categorized it as a large polar body. We have included these details in the Results section of the manuscript.

(7) Figure 2F: Can the authors comment on what can be the second band in the rescue group?

Thank you for your question. In the rescue experiment, we microinjected exogenous FMNL2-EGFP mRNA into the oocytes. As a result, compared to endogenous FMNL2, the protein size increased due to the addition of the EGFP tag, approximately 27 kDa. Hence, in the Western blot bands of the rescue group, the upper band represents the expression of exogenous FMNL2-EGFP, while the lower band corresponds to the expression of endogenous FMNL2. We have provided annotations in the revised Figure 2F to clarify this.

(8) Can the authors comment on the variability of PBE between 2C and 2H in the FMNL2-KD groups? In panel C, the PBE in the KD group was 59.5 {plus minus} 2.82%; in panel H, the PBE in the KD group was 48.34 {plus minus} 4.2%, and in the rescue group, the PBE was 62.62 {plus minus} 3.6%. The rescue group has a similar PBE rate as the KD group in panel C. How consistent was the FMNL2 knockdown across individual replicates? Can the authors provide more details on how the rescue experiment was performed?

Thank you for your question. We believe that the difference in PBE observed in Figure 2C and 2H of the FMNL2-KD group was due to the microinjection times and the duration of in vitro arrest. The results shown in Figure 2C depict the outcome of a single injection of FMNL2 siRNA into GV stage oocytes, followed by 18 hours of in vitro arrest; the results shown in Figure 2H contain a subsequent additional injection of FMNL2-EGFP mRNA with another 2 hours of arrest. The two rounds of microinjection and the extended period of in vitro arrest both affect oocyte maturation rates.

(9). Figure 2J and K: What groups were compared together? The used statistic needs to be properly described.

Thank you for your question. The FMNL2-KD, FMNL3-KD, and FMNL2+3-KD groups were all compared to the Control group, therefore, t-test was used for analysis. We have provided explanations in the revised manuscript.

(10) Figure 4B and C: Can the authors provide representative images without oversaturated actine signal?

Thank you for your question. For the analysis of oocyte F-actin, the F-actin are divided into cortex actin and cytoplasmic actin. Due to the contrast during imaging, the strong cortex actin signals affected the detection of cytoplasmic actin, therefore, it is necessary to increase the scanning index, which will cause the overexpose the cortex actin signal. This is for the better observation of the cytoplasmic signals.

(11) Figure 4G + 5H: Can the authors comment on why they used as a housekeeping gene actin instead of tubulin, which was used in the rest of the WB experiments?

Thank you for your question. In most of the western blot experiments conducted in this study, we used tubulin as a housekeeping gene. However, due to the supply of antibodies by delivery period, we had GAPDH and actin as well for some experiments. These housekeeping genes were all valid for the study.

(12) Based on what parameters was ER considered normally or abnormally distributed, and what stages of oocytes were assessed?

Thank you for your question. In this study, we employed oocytes at the MI stage for the analysis of ER localization. In the MI stage, the ER localized around the spindle, which is regarded as the typical localization pattern. The ER displayed a dispersed distribution throughout the cytoplasm or clustered were categorized as aberrant positioning. We included relevant descriptions in the revised version of the manuscript.

(13) Figure 5H: As a housekeeping gene was used actin - the quantification is labeled as a Grp78 to tubulin ratio.

Thank you for pointing out the error. This is a label mistake and we corrected it.

(14) Information about how JC-1 staining was done needs to be provided.

Thank you for your carefully reading. We included a description of JC1 staining in the Materials and Methods section.

(15). Line 231-232: "As shown in Figure 4A" - the text doesn't correspond to the figure.

Thank you for pointing out the error. We revised this mistake in the revised manuscript by correcting "Fig3A" to "Fig4A."

(16) Line 265: there is probably a missing word "Formin2".

Thank you and we corrected the error and made the necessary changes in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for The Authors):

(1) Quantification and analysis:

• Fig. 3B: The rate of spindle migration should be quantified based on the distance from the spindle to the cortex. Also, the orientation of the spindle (Z-position) needs to be taken into consideration.

• Fig. 5C, D: It is unclear how the rate of ER distribution was calculated.

• Western blot: In many experiments (such as Fig. 5H), the bands are saturated which will prevent accurate intensity measurements and quantifications.

For spindle migration, we specifically focused on spindles exhibiting a distinctive spindle-like shape with clear bipolarity to eliminate any statistical discrepancies potentially caused by variations in Z-axis alignment. Our criterion for determining successful migration was based on the contact between the spindle pole and the cortical region of the oocyte. Therefore, we think that the rate is better to reflect the phenotype than the distance.

For the examination of ER localization, Reviewer 1 also raised this issue. We utilized oocytes at the MI stage in this study. The ER localized around the spindle in MI stage. The ER displayed a dispersed distribution throughout the cytoplasm or clustered were categorized as aberrant positioning. We included relevant descriptions in the revised version of the manuscript.

For the bands of the western blot results, during the experimental procedure we typically capture multiple images at different exposure levels (3-5 images). In the revised manuscript, we have replaced the inappropriate images with more suitable ones.

(2) Given that all Immunoprecipitation experiments in this manuscript were performed on the whole ovary which contains more somatic cells than oocytes, the results do not necessarily reflect meiotic oocytes. Please consider this possibility during the interpretation.

Thank you for your suggestion. Yes, we agree with you. In the revised manuscript, we made appropriate modifications to the relevant descriptions.

(3) 351-365: The conclusion that Arp2/3 compensates for the decreased formin 2 in FMNL2 knockdown oocytes is a bit unconvincing. 1- In mouse oocytes, it is already known that Arp2/3 and formin 2 regulate different pools of F-actin nucleation. 2- The authors found an increase in Arp2/3 in FMNL2 knockdown oocytes compared to control oocytes without any change in cortical F-actin. Given that Arp2/3 is primarily promoting cortical F-actin, it is expected to see an increase in cortical F-actin in FMNL2 knockdown oocytes, which was not the case.

Thank you for your question. Yes, previous studies showed that formin2 localizes to the cytoplasm of oocytes and accumulates around the spindle, which facilitate cytoplasmic actin assembly. While Arp2/3 is primarily responsible for actin assembly at the cortex region of oocytes. In invasive cells, FMNL2 is mainly localized in the leading edge of the cell, lamellipodia and filopodia tips, to improve cell migration ability by actin-based manner (Curr Biol 2012). We showed that FMNL2 localized both at spindle periphery and cortex, but depletion of FMNL2 did not affect cortex actin intensity. We think that FMNL2 and Arp2/3 both contribute to the cortex actin dynamics, when FMNL2 decreased, ARP2 increased to compensate for this, which maintained the cortex actin level. In the revised manuscript, we have made modifications to avoid excessive extrapolation from our results, ensuring that our conclusions are presented in a more objective manner.

(4) Lines 195-197: The spindle is initially formed soon after the GVBD, so there is no spindle during GVBD. Also, I can't see oocytes at anaphase I or telophase I in this figure. Please revise.

Thank you for your suggestion. We apologize for the inappropriate descriptions that were used. In the revised manuscript, we have made modifications to the respective descriptions in the Results part.

(5) Fig. 2E: It seems that the control oocyte is abnormal with mild cytokinesis defects. Please replace or delete it since this information is already included in Fig. 3A.

Thank you for your suggestion. Based on our observations, during the extrusion of the first polar body in oocytes, there is a temporary occurrence of cellular morphological fragmentation due to cortical reorganization (11h in control oocyte from Fig 2E). However, after the extrusion of the first polar body, the oocyte morphology returns to normal. Figure 2E illustrates the meiotic division process of oocytes, while Figure 3A primarily focuses on the process of oocyte spindle migration. We think that it is better to retain both to present our results.

Reviewer #3 (Recommendations for The Authors):

In the case of the observed phenotype, the stage of GV is important. The phenotypes presented also occur in meiotic or developmentally incompetent oocytes. In addition, the images of GV oocytes appear as NSN, which also show the KD phenotype in Figs. 2 and 3.

Thank you for your concern. As the oocyte grows, the proportion of SN-type oocytes gradually increases. When the oocyte diameter reaches 70-80 μm, the proportion of SN oocytes is approximately 52.7% (Mol Reprod Dev. 1995). In our study, both the control and knockdown groups collected oocytes with a diameter of around 80 μm, which is considered as fully-grown oocytes, predominantly in the SN phase. Since the collection period and size of the oocytes were consistent, we can sure that the observed differences between the control and knockdown groups in phenotype analysis could be solid and reliable.

MII is absent in Fig. 1B.

In the revised manuscript, we added immunostaining images of FMNL2 in MII stage oocytes.

The result of KD is not convincing. Also, discuss whether the heterozygous effect of Fmnl2 deletion affects reproductive fitness.

Thank you for your concern. In our investigation, limited to the setup of knock out model, we employed siRNA to knockdown FMNL2 expression, to avoid the risk of off-target, we performed rescue experiment with exogenous mRNA, which we believe that it could solve this issue. When designing siRNA sequences, we ensured their specificity for binding to FMNL2 mRNA only, and we assessed the levels of FMNL2 and FMNL3 mRNA in oocytes after injection of FMNL2 siRNA. The results showed that, compared to the control group, the expression of FMNL2 mRNA decreased by approximately 70% after 18 hours of FMNL2 siRNA injection, while the level of FMNL3 mRNA was not decreased.

Fig. 2F rescue experiment with double bands. What bands are seen here? Did the authors inject tagged or untagged FMNL2? Or does endogenous FMNL2 appear higher in the sample after KD?

Thank you for your question. In the rescue experiment, we microinjected exogenous FMNL2-EGFP mRNA into the oocytes. As a result, compared to endogenous FMNL2, the protein size increased due to the addition of the EGFP tag, approximately 27 kDa. Hence, in the Western blot bands of the rescue group, the upper band represents the expression of exogenous FMNL2-EGFP, while the lower band corresponds to the expression of endogenous FMNL2. We provided annotations in the revised Figure 2F to clarify this.

Variability in mitochondria and ER distribution patterns is also known in healthy and developing oocytes, although the authors described only a single phenotype.

Thank you for your concern. Yes, mitochondria and ER show dynamic localization in different stage of oocyte maturation. However, in this study we employed oocyte MI stage for the analysis of ER and mitochondria localization, and in MI stage, both the ER and mitochondria localize around the spindle. This pattern is considered as the normal localization. Several studies showed that dispersed or clustered localization contributed to maturation defects. We included relevant descriptions in the revised manuscript.

What exactly is meant by input in the IP experiments? Why is the target missing in the input sample?

Thank you for your question. We subjected the input samples to electrophoresis on a single channel, all the analyzed proteins demonstrated normal expression, thereby confirming the viability of the input sample. However, upon simultaneous exposure with the IP samples, we observed a lack of clear signal for certain proteins in the input group. This phenomenon is due to the excessive signal intensity resulting from protein enrichment in the IP group, which caused the low exposure of proteins in input group.

Explain the rationale for using, actin or tubulin as loading or normalization controls in the study focusing on the cytoskeleton.

Thank you for your question. Actin and tubulin are both widely used as the control due to their stable expression. For actin, there are α-actin and β-actin isoforms. Formins and Arp2/3 complex regulate the polymerization of α-actin and β-actin to form F-actin, not isoform expression. In our study F-actin (the functional type) was examined. While α-tubulin and β-tubulin are two subtypes of tubulin, and they interact with each other to form stable α/β-tubulin heterodimers. The changes of cytoskeleton dynamics could not change the expression of α/β-tubulin. Therefore, β-actin and α-tubulin could be used as normalization controls.

Fig. 6E shows only , but the legend says *.

Thank you for pointing out the error. We correct the mistake in the revised manuscript.

Spindle positioning appears to differ between control and KD. Does this affect the quantification of Fig. 6F? Adequate nomenclature should be used here.

Thank you for your question. Yes, spindle positioning was affected by FMNL2 depletion. However, central spindle or cortex spindle all belong to MI stage, and JC1 is not related with the stage difference. To avoid misunderstanding we replaced the representative images and corresponding description in Figure 6F.

The description of the methods and legends should be significantly improved.

Thank you for your suggestion. Reviewer 1 and 2 also raised the similar concern. We enriched the description of methods and legends in the revised manuscript.

eLife assessment

This study presents useful findings regarding the role of formin-like 2 in mouse oocyte meiosis. Some of the data are supported by incomplete methodological details and analyses, and several conclusions are overstated. This paper would be of interest to reproductive biologists.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The presented study focuses on the role of formin-like 2 (FMNL2) in oocyte meiosis. The authors assessed FMNL2 expression and localization in different meiotic stages and subsequently, by using siRNA, investigated the role of FMNL2 in spindle migration, polar body extrusion, and distribution of mitochondria and endoplasmic reticulum (ER) in mouse oocytes.

Strengths:

Novelty in assessing the role of formin-like 2 in oocyte meiosis

Weaknesses:

Overstating some of the presented data

Unconvincing analysis of the endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondria distribution

The authors addressed all my comments. The section materials and methods was improved. However, some statements still need to be clarified, as they seem to be overstated. I'm still not convinced about the main findings. For example, the analysis of ER and mitochondria distribution was based on a subjective assessment of clustering in meiosis I oocytes, and it's missing objective parameters and timing of the analysis.

Comments on revised version:

The authors addressed all my comments. The section materials and methods was improved. However, some statements still need to be clarified, as they seem to be overstated.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This research involves conducting experiments to determine the role of Fmnl2 during oocyte meiosis I.

Strengths:

Identifying the role of Fmnl2 during oocyte meiosis I is significant.

Weaknesses:

The quantitative analysis and the used approach to perturb FMNL2 function would benefit from more confirmatory approaches and rigorous analysis.

Comments on revised version:

The authors addressed most of my comments. However, some comments were not addressed convincingly.

My concern is still valid. The authors used only one approach to knockdown FMNL2 which is "siRNA-mediated knockdown". Using an additional approach to inhibit FMNL2 (Trim-Away or morpholino,..) would be beneficial to confirm that the effect of siRNA-mediated knockdown of FMNL2 is specific.

Response 1: In the author's response, they mentioned that successful migration was quantified based on the contact between the spindle pole and the oocyte cortex.<br /> After spindle migration, it is very common for the spindle to be close to (but not in contact with) the cortex for a considerable time. The spindle pole comes in contact with the cortex later (just before anaphase onset and polar body extrusion). Fig. 3A shows an example where at 9 h, the spindle is already migrated but did not come in contact with the cortex until 9:30 h. Based on Fig. 3B,C, the authors assessed spindle migration in fixed oocytes, making it impossible to fix all oocytes at the time of spindle contact with the cortex. Also,<br /> the representative images in Fig. 3C do not show spindle staining to assess the contact between the spindle and the cortex.<br /> Overall, I still believe that the distance between the spindle and the cortex is more accurate for quantifying spindle migration.

Response 2: The authors mentioned, "we made appropriate modifications to the relevant descriptions of immunoprecipitation experiments". I can't find these modifications in the manuscript. The authors need to state clearly that the immunoprecipitation results do not necessarily reflect meiotic oocytes specifically because these experiments were done using the whole ovary which contains both somatic cells and oocytes.

Response 5: The authors mentioned that "Based on our observations, during the extrusion of the first polar body in oocytes, there is a temporary occurrence of cellular morphological fragmentation due to cortical reorganization". Unfortunately, this means that the live imaging system in the authors' laboratory is not ideal for oocyte maturation. Several publications show normal oocyte morphology during cytokinesis. Please delete or replace Fig. 2E.

Author response:

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

eLife assessment

This study presents valuable new insights into HIV-associated nephropathy (HIVAN) kidney phenotype in the Tg26 transgenic mouse model and delineates the kidney cell types that express HIV genes and are injured in these HIV-transgenic mice. A series of compelling experiments demonstrated that PKR inhibition can ameliorate HIVAN with reversal of mitochondrial dysfunction (mainly confined to endothelial cells), a prominent feature shared in other kidney diseases. Although there are concerns regarding the specificity of C16 to PKR inhibition, as well as with the in situ hybridization studies, the data suggests that inhibition of PKR and mitochondrial dysfunction has potential clinical significance for HIVAN.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

HIV-associated nephropathy (HIVAN) is a rapidly progressing form of kidney disease that manifests secondary to untreated HIV infection, and is predominantly seen in individuals of African descent. Tg26 mice carrying an HIV transgene lacking gag and pol exhibit high levels of albuminuria and rapid decline in renal function that recapitulates many features of HIVAN in humans. HIVAN is seen predominantly in individuals carrying two copies of missense variants in the APOL1 gene, and the authors have previously shown that APOL1 risk variant mRNA induces activity of the double-strand RNA sensor kinase PKR. Because of the tight association between the APOL1 risk genotype and HIVAN, the authors hypothesized that PKR activation may mediate renal injury in Tg26 mice and tested this hypothesis by treating mice with a commonly used PKR inhibitory compound called C16. Treatment with C16 substantially attenuated renal damage in the Tg26 model as measured by urinary albumin/creatinine ratio, urinary NGAL/creatinine ratio, and improvement in histology. The authors then performed bulk and single-nucleus RNAseq on kidneys from mice from different treatment groups to identify pathways and patterns of cell injury associated with HIV transgene expression as well as to determine the mechanistic basis for the effect of C16 treatment. They show that proximal tubule nuclei from Tg26 mice appear to have more mitochondrial transcripts which was reversed by C16 treatment and suggest that this may provide evidence of mitochondrial dysfunction in this model. They explore this hypothesis by showing there is a decrease in the expression of nuclear-encoded genes and proteins involved in oxidative phosphorylation as well as a decrease in respiratory capacity via functional assessment of respiration in tubule and glomerular preparations from these mouse kidneys. All of these changes were reversed by C16 treatment. The authors propose the existence of a novel injured proximal tubule cell-type characterized by the leak of mitochondrial transcripts into the nucleus (PT-Mito). Analysis of HIV transgene expression showed high level expression in podocytes, consistent with the pronounced albuminuria that characterizes this model and HIVAN, but transcripts were also detected in tubular and endothelial cells. Because of the absence of mitochondrial transcripts in the podocytes, the authors speculate that glomerular mitochondrial dysfunction in this model is driven by damage to glomerular endothelial cells.

Strengths:

The strengths of this study include the comprehensive transcriptional analysis of the Tg26 model, including an evaluation of HIV transgene expression, which has not been previously reported. This data highlights that HIV transcripts are expressed in a subset of podocytes, consistent with the highly proteinuric disease seen in mice and humans. However, transcripts were also seen in other tubular cells, notably intercalated cells, principal cells and injured proximal tubule cells. Though the podocyte expression makes sense, the relevance of the tubular expression to human disease is still an open question.

The data in support of mitochondrial dysfunction are also robust and rely on combined evidence from downregulation of transcripts involved in oxidative phosphorylation, decreases in complex I and II as determined by immunoblot, and assessments of respiratory capacity in tubular and glomerular preparations. These data are largely consistent with other preclinical renal injury models reported in the literature as well as previous, less thorough assessments in the Tg26 model.

Weaknesses:

The key weakness of the study lies in the use of a PKR inhibitor with questionable specificity. C16 has been reported to inhibit numerous other kinases including cyclin CDKs and GSK3α and -β, and this means that the conclusions of this study with respect to the role of PKR are highly questionable. The rationale for the dose used was not provided (and is lower than used in other publications with C16), and in the absence of drug exposure data and assessment of target engagement, it is difficult to ascertain whether substantial inhibition of PKR was achieved.

A second key weakness lies in the identification of the PT-Mito cell cluster. Though the authors provide some rationale for the identification of this specific cell type, it seems equally plausible the cells merely reflect a high background capture of mitochondria in a subset of droplets. The IHC analysis that was provided is not convincing enough to support the claim and more careful high resolution imaging and in situ hybridization (with appropriate quantitation) will be needed to provide substantive support for the presence of a proximal tubule cell type with mitochondrial transcript that are trafficked to the nucleus.

We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful summary.

With regard to non-specificity of C16, we added to the Discussion a description and references that describe non-specificity of C16. as suggested by the reviewer. Of note, the C16 doses that we used were also used previously (Okamoto, CommBiol, 2018). Importantly, newly-added immunofluorescence images using a phospho-PKR specific antibody showed PKR inhibition (Supplemental Figure 1).

Identification of the PT-Mito cluster in tissues was challenging, mainly due to the absence of existence of know marker genes for newly-identified cluster. Finally, We added in situ hybridization images, with a negative control probe, to show specificity of target probes.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Numerous studies by the authors and other groups have demonstrated an important role for HIV gene expression kidney cells in promoting progressive chronic kidney disease, especially HIV-associated nephropathy. The authors had previously demonstrated a role for protein kinase R (PKR) in a non-HIV transgenic model of kidney disease (Okamoto, Commun Bio, 2021). In this study, the authors used innovative techniques including bulk and single nuclear RNAseq to demonstrate that mice expressing a replication-incompetent HIV transgene have prominent dysregulation of mitochondrial gene expression and activation of PKR and that treatment of these mice with a small molecule PKR inhibitor ameliorated the kidney disease phenotype in HIV-transgenic mice. They also identified STAT3 as a key upstream regulator of kidney injury in this model, which is consistent with previously published studies. Other important advances include identifying the kidney cell types that express the HIV transgene and have dysregulation of cellular pathways.

Strengths:

Major strengths of the study include the use of a wide variety of state-of-the-art molecular techniques to generate important new data on the pathogenesis of kidney injury in this commonly used model of kidney disease and the identification of PKR as a potential druggable target for the treatment of HIV-induced kidney disease. The authors also identify a potential novel cell type within the kidney characterized by high expression of mitochondrial genes.

Weaknesses:

Though the HIV-transgenic model used in these studies results in a phenotype that is very similar to HIV-associated nephropathy in humans, the model has several limitations that may prevent direct translation to human disease, including the fact that mice lack several genetic factors that are important contributors to HIV and kidney pathogenesis in humans. Additional studies are therefore needed to confirm these findings in human kidney disease.

We appreciate the succinct summary of the present work. We agree that the findings from the HIV Tg26 mouse model warrant additional investigation in human kidney disease samples. Further studies will be needed to confirm whether the mechanisms presented here are operative in human HIVAN or other RNA virus-associated kidney diseases.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors)

The specificity of the C16 tool has been called into question in 3 publications - Chen et al, 2008, PMID: 19046382; Lopez-Grancha et al, 2021, PMID: 34531308; and Cusak et al, 2023, PMID: 36400288. Lopez-Grancha et al have reported a novel, more selective PKR inhibitor with good pharmacological properties that might enable a more robust test of the PKR hypothesis. Regardless, compound exposures and target engagement (i.e. by monitoring phosphorylation of PKR targets such eIF2α) should accompany these studies. Alternatively, it may be easier to probe the role of PKR in Tg26 pathogenicity by crossing the Tg26 line to a PKR knockout mouse.

In response, we have added a description and references about the the possibility of non-specificity of C16 in the Discussion as a limitation as suggested. (Page 21).

“Third, we acknowledge possibility of a non-specific effect of C16 as an inhibitor of PKR.66-68”

Further, we added immunohistochemistry images of pPKR on kidney tissue as shown in Supplemental Figure 1A-D. Images showed PKR activation in Tg26 tubular cells, which was inhibited by C16 treatment.

Author response image 1.

Immunofluorescent images showing pPKR. (A-D) Immunofluorescent images showed PKR activation by detecting pPKR in Tg26 mouse kidney. pPKR was inhibited by C16 treatments.

The suggested PKR knockout mice experiment is an excellent idea for future work but we believe Is outside the scope of the current manuscript.

To enhance the evidentiary base for the PT-Mito cell type, it would be interesting to know whether these cells can also be found in human datasets like KPMP, though this might require reprocessing the original snRNAseq data. Further in situ hybridization in both mouse and human samples using fluorescent rather than colorimetric approaches should yield a more compelling dataset to provide evidence for this cell type. These approaches would also allow for more precise quantification of the PT-Mito cells compared to the population of proximal tubule cells. Again, the default assumption here should be that the mitochondrial transcripts represent a contamination, and the purpose of these additional experiments is to definitively rule out that explanation.

Authors: First, as suggested, we carried out additional analyses. We examined a publiclyavailable human kidney snRNA-seq dataset (GSE131882) and found in it the same PT-Mito cluster as shown in Supplemental Figure 6. The PT-Mito cluster was located in close proximity to the PT cluster in a UMAP plot. We added this finding in the Results as follows (Page 12):

“We also confirmed the existence of similar PT-Mito cluster in published human kidney single-nuclear RNA-seq data47 by the re-analysis of the original data. (Supplemental Figure 6A-C).”

Author response image 2.

PT-Mito cluster detection of publicly available human kidney single-nuclear RNA-seq data (GSE131882) (A) UMAP plot of human kidney single-nuclear RNA-seq data shows 16 clusters. Cluster 1, 4 are proximal tubule (PT) clusters, and cluster 7 is PT-Mito cluster. (B) Dot plot shows expression of PT marker genes and PT-Mito marker genes obtained from current manuscript data. PTMito markers including MT-CO1 and MT-CO2 had high expression in cluster 7. (C) UMAP plot shows all six samples are contributing to all cell clusters.

Second, as suggested, we also included negative control data from in situ hybridization studies (Supplementary Figure 5A, 5B), which shows that the signals in Figure 4B, 4C are true signals.

Author response image 3.

Additional in situ hybridization images. (A) In situ hybridization images probing dapB (negative control probe) showed no signals. (B) In situ hybridization images probing Ppib (positive control probe) showed strong signals.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors)

(1) The supplementary data file seems to have been uploaded twice but the supplementary methods were not available which would have been helpful when assessing some methods such as using PodoCount to count podocytes.

We acknowledge that we inadvertently failed to upload the Supplementary Methods section-thank you for pointing this out. The supplementary methods are now provided in the revised submission, including detailed methods about PodoCount. Corresponding descriptions are as follows:

“Estimation of glomerular podocyte count

PodoCount5, a computational tool for whole slide podocyte estimation from digitized histologic sections, was used to detect, enumerate, and characterize podocyte nuclear profiles in the glomeruli of immunohistochemically labeled (IHC-labeled) murine kidney sections. Formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded tissues (2 µm thickness) were IHC-labeled for p57kip2, a marker of podocyte terminal differentiation (ab75974, Abcam, Cambridge, UK), and detected with horse radish peroxidase (RU-HRP1000, Diagnostic BioSystems, Pleasanton, CA) and diaminobenzidine chromogen substrate (BSB0018A, Bio SB, Santa Barbara, CA). A periodic acid-Schiff post-stain was applied without hematoxylin counterstain. The tool uses a combination of stain deconvolution, digital image processing, and feature engineering to compute histologic podometrics6 with correction for section thickness7. In this study, PodoCount was used to assess mean glomerular podocyte count per mouse.“

(2) In the abstract, the authors give the impression that they know definitively the sequence of HIV gene expression, cytoskeletal dysregulation, dedifferentiation, then loss from glomeruli. Since they could only examine cells that were present in glomeruli, they can't definitively say much about the cells that were lost from glomeruli.

As suggested, deleted the following text: “and were lost from glomeruli tuft”

(3) The authors state that 56,976 cells were used for snRNAseq studies. Was the number of cells similar for each of the 8 mice (from 4 different groups)?

In response, we have created a new table summarizing numbers of nuclei from each sample (i.e. each mouse) added to the Supplemental Figure 2D as follows:

Author response table 1.

Pre-processing of single-nuclear RNA-seq data, Breakdown of nuclei numbers from each sample showed comparable numbers of nuclei analyzed.

(4) Please provide information on the assay that was used to measure creatinine since some methods can be unreliable in mice

This is now provided in the revised submission, including creatinine measurement methods (LC-MS/MS) on page 3 of Supplementary Material:

“Mouse chemistry measurements

Plasma creatinine was measured by isotope dilution LC-MS/MS at The University of Alabama at Birmingham O’Brien Center Core C (Birmingham, AL).”

(5) The authors state that expression of PKR (Eif2ak2) was expressed in all nephron segments. However, it appears on visual inspection of the UMAP in Fig S2B that the percentage of cells expressing Eif2ak2 was low. What percent of cells expressed Eif2ak2 and if it was a low percentage, what is the authors hypothesis for how expression in a small percentage of cells led to the kidney phenotype?

Supplemental Figure 2B (now 3B) does show modest expression of Eif2ak2, approximately 10%. The technique may lack sensitivity to detect low gene expression and even low gene expression may be sufficient to cause phenotypic change.

(6a) In figure 4B and C, it is not clear what genotype/treatment group is shown.

The legend for figure 4B, 4C has been modified to state that the group was wildtype mice

(B, C) In situ hybridization of mt-Co1 and mt-Atp6 genes showed signals inside nuclei of WT mice

(6b) Also, if these ISH images are from Tg26 mice, it would be helpful to do ISH in mice with/without C16 treatment.

These images of ISH for these two genes are from wild-type mice, as now stated in the revised legend. Our purpose was to show that these mitochondrial-encoded gene transcripts (mt-Co1 and mt-Atp6) are transported to nuclei from the cytoplasm. We believe it is not necessary to do ISH in Tg26 mice because these genes are not disease-specific.

(6c) Also, only 3-6% of cells express these "PT-mito" markers by snRNAseq, but it appears that far more are expressed by ISH, raising concerns for nonspecific binding of the ISH probe.

(6d) Also, nonsense controls should be included to demonstrate the specificity of the ISH data.

First (comment 6c), the PT-mito cluster does not have specific markers, to our knowledge. Second (comment 6d) , to address the concern for non-specific binding of the ISH probes, we have now added additional ISH images, together with a negative control probe (C. elegans gene dapB) and a positive control probe (mouse Ppib), as shown in Supplementary Figure 5A and 5B, respectively.

Author response image 4.

Additional in situ hybridization images. (A) In situ hybridization images probing dapB (negative control probe) showed no signals. (B) In situ hybridization images probing Ppib (positive control probe) showed strong signals.

(7) The authors state that "mitochondrial dysfunction was most pronounced in the PT-Mito cluster" but in Figure 4D, the oxidative phosphorylation activation Z score was most down in the PT-inj (injured PT cells) and the PT-Mito cells were the 4-most downregulated cell type.

We appreciate the careful reading and agree with reviewer’s comment. In the revision, we have deleted “most” from this description.

(8) In Fig 4F, please state what "Cp expression" means.

We have spelled out ceruloplasmin (Cp).

(9) It is not clear in immunohistochemistry images in Fig 5F where the p-stat3 was detected due to the hematoxylin counterstain which may have obscured subtle nuclear staining. Also, some of the strongest staining appears to be in peritubular capillaries, instead of tubular and glomerular epithelial cells.

We have added arrows to help readers see where we show that p-Stat3 was detected as faintly-brown and distinct cytoplasmic granules in injured tubular cells in Tg26 mice (panel F), as opposed to diffuse in tubular cytoplasmic color in wild-type mice (panel E).

Author response image 5.

(10) For the studies of mitochondrial oxygen consumption (Fig 6), it would be helpful to also provide data on the effect of C16 in wild-type kidneys, in case C16 somehow causes a primary increase in mitochondrial oxygen consumption rather than preventing HIV-induced loss in kidney cells from HIV-transgenic mice.

We did not include Seahorse data regarding oxygen consumption from WT mice treated with C16, as C16 did not affect either renal function or transcriptomes in WT mice, in contrast to the Tg26 mice (Figure 1A-G).

(11) The authors emphasize that podocytes had the highest expression of HIV genes (Fig 7). However, it appears that <2% of podocytes expressed HIV genes. How do the authors explain the severe renal phenotype given the relatively small number of cells expressing the HIV transgene? Also, did the same cells express all/most of the HIV transcripts, or did some cells express some HIV transcripts? For instance, since the authors state that vpr and nef have the most important role in kidney injury, were the same cells that expressed nef also expressing Vpr?

We know that snRNA-seq cannot detect the whole transcriptome in each cell, due to the well-known drop-out effect characteristic of the method. Several factors may contribute to this drop-out effect, including stochastic patterns of gene expression, low RNA amounts and inefficient mRNA capture (Qiu, Nature Comm, 2020; Ran, Bioinformatics, 2020).

Our interpretation is that HIV gene expressing-podocytes had higher expression of HIV genes, but it does not mean that other kidney cells entirely lack HIV gene expression. With regard to co-expression of other HIV transcripts, nef and vpr were more often coexpressed as shown in Figure 7J. Vpr was expressed in nef-positive podocytes and not detected in nef-negative podocytes.

(12) In figure 8, the authors emphasize the dysregulation of genes involved in cell-cell interaction, particularly PDGF-D. They show some data for the effect of C16 in this system in Fig 8 but it would be helpful if they can state the effect in the text of the Results section.

We have added text in the Results describing activating interactions in Tg26 mice, that were reduced by C16 exposure, as follows: (page 18)

“For example, platelet derived growth factor D (PDGF-D) was upregulated in PT-Inj in Tg26 mice and was downregulated by C16 treatment (Figure 8D). Further, PDGF-D may interact with PDGFR-B in fibroblasts.”

eLife assessment

This study presents valuable new insights into a HIV-associated nephropathy (HIVAN) kidney phenotype in the Tg26 transgenic mouse model, and delineates the kidney cell types that express HIV genes and are injured in these HIV-transgenic mice. A series of compelling experiments demonstrated that PKR inhibition can ameliorate HIVAN with reversal of mitochondrial dysfunction (mainly confined to endothelial cells), a prominent feature shared in other kidney diseases. The data support that inhibition of PKR and mitochondrial dysfunction has potential clinical significance for HIVAN.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

HIV associated nephropathy (HIVAN) is a rapidly progressing form of kidney disease that manifests secondary to untreated HIV infection, and is predominantly seen in individuals of African descent. Tg26 mice carrying an HIV transgene lacking gag and pol exhibit high levels of albuminuria and rapid decline in renal function that recapitulates many features of HIVAN in humans. HIVAN is seen predominantly in individuals carrying two copies of missense variants in the APOL1 gene, and the authors have previously shown that APOL1 risk variant mRNA induces activity of the double strand RNA sensor kinase PKR. Because of the tight association between the APOL1 risk genotype and HIVAN, the authors hypothesized that PKR activation may mediate the renal injury in Tg26 mice, and tested this hypothesis by treating mice with a commonly used PKR inhibitory compound called C16. Treatment with C16 substantially attenuated renal damage in the Tg26 model as measured by urinary albumin/creatinine ratio, urinary NGAL/creatinine ratio and improvement in histology. The authors then performed bulk and single-nucleus RNAseq on kidneys from mice from different treatment groups to identify pathways and patterns of cell injury associated with HIV transgene expression as well as to determine the mechanistic basis for the effect of C16 treatment. They show that proximal tubule nuclei from Tg26 mice appear to have more mitochondrial transcripts which was reversed by C16 treatment and suggest that this may provide evidence of mitochondrial dysfunction in this model. They explore this hypothesis by showing there is a decrease in the expression of nuclear encoded genes and proteins involved in oxidative phosphorylation as well as a decrease in respiratory capacity via functional assessment of respiration in tubule and glomerular preparations from these mouse kidneys. All of these changes were reversed by C16 treatment. The authors propose the existence of a novel injured proximal tubule cell-type characterized by the leak of mitochondrial transcripts into the nucleus (PT-Mito). Analysis of HIV transgene expression showed high level expression in podocytes, consistent with the pronounced albuminuria that characterizes this model and HIVAN, but transcripts were also detected in tubular and endothelial cells. Because of the absence of mitochondrial transcripts in the podocytes, the authors speculate that glomerular mitochondrial dysfunction in this model is driven by damage to glomerular endothelial cells.

Strengths:

The strengths of this study include the comprehensive transcriptional analysis of the Tg26 model, including an evaluation of HIV transgene expression, which has not been previously reported. This data highlights that HIV transcripts are expressed in a subset of podocytes, consistent with the highly proteinuric disease seen in mouse and humans. However, transcripts were also seen in other tubular cells, notably intercalated cells, principal cells and injured proximal tubule cells. Though the podocyte expression makes sense, the relevance of the tubular expression to human disease is still an open question.

The data in support of mitochondrial dysfunction are also robust and rely on combined evidence from downregulation of transcripts involved in oxidative phosphorylation, decreases in complex I and II as determined by immunoblot, and assessments of respiratory capacity in tubular and glomerular preparations. These data are largely consistent with other preclinical renal injury model reported in the literature as well as previous, less thorough assessments in the Tg26 model.

Weaknesses:

The key weakness of the study lies in the use of a PKR inhibitor with questionable specificity. C16 has been reported to inhibit numerous other kinases including cyclin CDKs and GSK3α and -β, and this means that the conclusions of this study with respect to the role of PKR are highly questionable. The rationale for the dose used was not provided (and is lower than used in other publications with C16), and in the absence of drug exposure data and assessment of target engagement, it is difficult to ascertain whether substantial inhibition of PKR was achieved.

A second key weakness lies in the identification of the PT-Mito cell cluster. Though the authors provide some rationale for the identification of this specific cell type, it seems equally plausible the cells merely reflect a high background capture of mitochondria in a subset of droplets. The IHC analysis that was provided is not convincing enough to support the claim and more careful high resolution imaging and in situ hybridization (with appropriate quantitation) will be needed to provide substantive support for the presence of a proximal tubule cell type with mitochondrial transcript that are trafficked to the nucleus.

Revision summary:

The authors have revised the manuscript to acknowledge the potential limitations of the C16 tool compound used and have performed some additional analyses that suggest the PT-Mito population can be identified in samples from KPMP. The authors added some control images for the in situ hybridizations, which are helpful, though they don't get to the core issue of limited resolution to determine whether mitochondrial RNA is present in the nuclei of injured PT cells. Some additional work has been done to show that C16 treatment results in a decrease in phospho-PKR, a readout of PKR inhibition. These changes strengthen the manuscript by providing some evidence for the translatability of the PT-mito cluster to humans and some evidence for on-target activity for C16. It would be helpful if the authors could quantify the numbers of cells in IHC with nuclear transcripts as well as pointing out some specific examples in the images provided, as comparator data for the snRNAseq studies in which 3-6% of cortex cells had evidence of nuclear mitochondrial transcripts.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Numerous studies by the authors and other groups have demonstrated an important role for HIV gene expression kidney cells in promoting progressive chronic kidney disease, especially HIV associated nephropathy. The authors had previously demonstrated a role for protein kinase R (PKR) in a non-HIV transgenic model of kidney disease (Okamoto, Commun Bio, 2021). In this study, the authors used innovative techniques including bulk and single nuclear RNAseq to demonstrate that mice expressing a replication-incompetent HIV transgene have prominent dysregulation of mitochondrial gene expression and activation of PKR and that treatment of these mice with a small molecule PKR inhibitor ameliorated the kidney disease phenotype in HIV-transgenic mice. They also identified STAT3 as a key upstream regulator of kidney injury in this model, which is consistent with previously published studies. Other important advances include identifying the kidney cell types that express the HIV transgene and have dysregulation of cellular pathways.

Strengths:

Major strengths of the study include the use of a wide variety of state-of-the-art molecular techniques to generate important new data on the pathogenesis of kidney injury in this commonly used model of kidney disease and the identification of PKR as a potential druggable target for the treatment of HIV-induced kidney disease. The authors also identify a potential novel cell type within the kidney characterized by high expression of mitochondrial genes.

Weaknesses:

Though the HIV-transgenic model used in these studies results in a phenotype that is very similar to HIV-associated nephropathy in humans, the model has several limitations that may prevent direct translation to human disease, including the fact that mice lack several genetic factors that are important contributors to HIV and kidney pathogenesis in humans. Additional studies are therefore needed to confirm these findings in human kidney disease.

Author response:

We extend our sincere gratitude to the editor and three reviewers for their invaluable feedback, which not only included positive comments but also provided constructive suggestions for enhancing the quality of our manuscript.

Of potential interest to you is our forthcoming investigation into vaccine efficacy, where we will compare the effectiveness of our live-attenuated vaccine with an mRNA-based alternative.

Moreover, we acknowledge and fully endorse the recommendation to elucidate why immunization with our live-attenuated vaccine confers protection against viral challenge, even in the absence of sufficient neutralizing antibodies. As pointed out by the reviewers, this phenomenon may be attributed to mucosal immunity. Consequently, we have outlined plans to investigate whether the attenuated live vaccine elicits mucosal immunity as part of our ongoing research.

We are currently working to gather the necessary data to address these inquiries comprehensively, and are aiming to resubmit our manuscript at the earliest opportunity.

Reviewer #1: We sincerely appreciate the insightful comments provided by Reviewer #1. In response to this feedback, we will conduct a comparative analysis of efficacy between our live-attenuated vaccine and an mRNA-based alternative. Furthermore, we will thoroughly examine and delineate the advantages and limitations of this/our live-attenuated vaccine in our discussion.

Reviewer #2: We express our sincere appreciation to Reviewer #2 for invaluable suggestions. In light of the insightful observation concerning the weakness of our study, related to the poor assessment/evaluation of the induction of mucosal immunity by our vaccine candidate, we have resolved to undertake a comprehensive analysis in this regard.

Furthermore, we will take into account this reviewer's recommendation to compare BK2102 results with those of an mRNA vaccine. We are currently in the process of planning additional experiments to thoroughly address this aspect.

Reviewer #3: We are very grateful to Reviewer #3 for the positive feedback and invaluable suggestions. In order to further explore the immune mechanisms underlying the protection against the Omicron variant in the absence of detectable neutralizing antibodies, we are currently devising plans for experiments focused on evaluating mucosal immunity.

Moreover, in accordance with Reviewer #3's suggestion, we are considering the incorporation of an ELISPOT assay experiment. However, we acknowledge uncertainties regarding the feasibility of establishing an experimental system for this purpose.

eLife assessment

This is a valuable study on the efficacy of a live attenuated vaccine that was tested in different animal models. The evidence is convincing, but it could be further strengthened by comparing the efficacy of their platform with an mRNA vaccine and further investigating mucosal protection.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors constructed a live-attenuated vaccine candidate, BK2102, combining naturally occurring virulence-attenuating mutations in the key coding regions. They showed that intranasal inoculation with the candidate vaccine-induced humoral and cellular immune responses in Syrian hamsters without apparent tissue damage in the lungs and protected against a wild-type SARS-CoV-2 strain with D614G mutation and the latest Omicron subvariant (BA.5) strain. The neutralizing antibodies induced by BK2102 persisted for the long term (up to 364 days). Furthermore, they confirmed the safety of the proposed vaccine using transgenic (Tg) mice expressing human ACE2 (hACE2).

Strengths:

The authors followed a robust methodology to establish the proposed vaccine's protective effect and safety profile in the hamsters and transgenic mice expressing human ACE2.

Weaknesses:

(1) A comparative safety assessment of the available m-RNA and live attenuated vaccines will be necessary. The comparison should include details of the doses, neutralizing antibody titers with duration of protection, tissue damage in the various organs, and other risks, including virulence reversal.

(2) The vaccine's effect on primates is doubtful. The study fails to explain why only two of four monkeys developed neutralizing antibodies. Information about the vaccine's testing in monkeys is also missing: What was the level of protection and duration of the persistence of neutralizing antibodies in monkeys? Were the tissue damages and other risks assessed?

(3) The vaccine's safety in immunosuppressed individuals or individuals with chronic diseases should be assessed. Authors should make specific comments on this aspect.

(4) The candidate vaccine has been tested with a limited number of SARS-CoV-2 strains. Of note, the latest Omicron variants have lesser virulence than many early variants, such as the alfa, beta, and delta strains.

(5) Limitations of the study have not been discussed.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript "Immunogenicity and safety of a live-attenuated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate based on multiple attenuation mechanisms" by Suzuki-Okutani et al., the authors evaluate the attenuation, immunogenicity, and protection efficacy of a live-attenuated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine candidate (BK2102) against SARS-CoV-2.

Strengths:

The authors demonstrate that intranasal inoculation of BK2102 is safe and able to induce humoral and cellular immune responses in hamsters, without apparent signs of damage in the lungs, that protects against homologous SARS-CoV-2 and Omicron BA.5 challenge. Safety of BK2102 was further confirmed in a new hACE2 transgenic mouse model generated by the authors.

Weaknesses:

No major weaknesses were identified, however, this reviewer notes the following:

The authors missed the opportunity to include a mRNA vaccine to demonstrate that the immunity and protection efficacy of their live attenuated vaccine BK2102 is better than a mRNA vaccine.

One of the potential advantages of live-attenuated vaccines is their ability to induce mucosal immunity. It would be great if the authors included experiments to assess the mucosal immunity of their live-attenuated vaccine BK2102.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Suzuki-Okutani and collogues reported a new live-attenuated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (BK2102) containing multiple deletion/substitution mutations. They show that the vaccine candidate is highly attenuated and demonstrates a great safety profile in multiple animal models (hamsters and Tg-Mice). Importantly, their data show that single intranasal immunization with BK2102 leads to strong protection of hamsters against D614G and BA.5 challenge in both lungs and URT (nasal wash). Both humoral and cellular responses were induced, and neutralization activity remained for >360 after a single inoculation.

Strengths:

The manuscript describes a comprehensive study that evaluates the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of a new live-attenuated vaccine. Strengths of the study include (1) strong protection against immune evasive variant BA.5 in both lungs and NW; (2) durability of immunity for >360 days; (3) confirmation of URT protection through a transmission experiment.

While first-generation COVID-19 vaccines have achieved much success, new vaccines that provide mucosal and durable protection remain needed. Thus, the study is significant.

Weaknesses:

Lack of a more detailed discussion of this new vaccine approach in the context of reported live-attenuated SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in terms of its advantages and/or weaknesses.

Antibody endpoint titers could be presented.

Lack of elaboration on immune mechanisms of protection at the upper respiratory tract (URT) against an immune evasive variant in the absence of detectable neutralizing antibodies.

Author response:

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors collected genomic information from public sources covering 423 eukaryote genomes and around 650 prokaryote genomes. Based on pre-computed CDS annotation, they estimated the frequency of alternative splicing (AS) as a single average measure for each genome and computed correlations with this measure and other genomic properties such as genome size, percentage of coding DNA, gene and intergenic span, etc. They conclude that AS frequency increases with genome complexity in a somewhat directional trend from "lower" organisms to "higher" organisms.

Strengths:

The study covers a wide range of taxonomic groups, both in prokaryotes and eukaryotes.

Weaknesses:

The study is weak both methodologically and conceptually. Current high throughput sequencing technologies, coupled with highly heterogeneous annotation methods, can observe cases of AS with great sensitivity, and one should be extremely cautious of the biases and rates of false positives associated with these methods. These issues are not addressed in the manuscript.

We are aware of the bias that may exist in annotation files. Since the source of noise can be highly variable, we have assumed that most of the data has a similar bias. However, we agree with the reviewer that we could perform some analysis to test for these biases and their association to different methodologies. Thus, we will measure the uncertainty present in the data. From one side, we will be more explicit about the data limitations and the biases it can generate in the results. On the other side, while analyzing the false positives in the data is out of our scope, we will perform a statistical test to detect possible biases regarding different methods of sequencing and annotation, and types of organisms (model or non-model organisms). If positive, we will proceed, as far as possible, to normalize the data or to estimate a confidence interval.

Here, AS measures seem to be derived directly from CDS annotations downloaded from public databases, and do not account for differing annotation methods or RNA sequencing depth and tissue sample diversity.

Beyond taking into account the differential bias that may exist in the data, we do not consider that our AS measure is problematic. The NCBI database is one of the most reliable databases that we have to date and is continuously updated from all scientific community. So, the use of this data and the corresponding procedures for deriving the AS measure are perfectly acceptable for a comparative analysis on such a huge global scale. Furthermore, the proposal of a new genome-level measure of AS that allows to compare species spanning the whole tree of life is part of the novelty of the study. We understand that small-scale studies require a high specificity about the molecular processes involved in the study. However, this is not the case, where we are dealing with a large-scale problem. On the other side, as we have previously mention, we agree with the reviewer to analyze the degree of uncertainty in the data to better interpret the results.

There is no mention of the possibility that AS could be largely caused by random splicing errors, a possibility that could very well fit with the manuscript's data. Instead, the authors adopt early on the view that AS is regulated and functional, generally citing outdated literature.

There is no question that some AS events are functional, as evidenced by strongly supported studies. However, whether all AS events are functional is questionable, and the relative fractions of functional and non-functional AS are unknown. With this in mind, the authors should be more cautious in interpreting their data.

Many studies suggest that most of the AS events observed are the result of splicing errors and are therefore neither functional nor conserved. However, we still have limited knowledge about the functionality of AS. Just because we don’t have a complete understanding of its functionality, doesn’t mean there isn’t a fundamental cause behind these events. AS is a highly dynamic process that can be associated with processes of a stochastic nature that are fundamental for phenotypic diversity and innovation. This is one of the reasons why we do not get into a discussion about the functionality of AS and consider it as a potential measure of biological innovation. Nevertheless, we agree with the reviewer’s comments, so we will add a discussion about this issue with updated literature and look at any possible misinterpretation of the results.

The "complexity" of organisms also correlates well (negatively) with effective population size. The power of selection to eliminate (slightly) deleterious mutations or errors decreases with effective population size. The correlation observed by the authors could thus easily be explained by a non-adaptive interpretation based on simple population genetics principles.

We appreciate the observation of the reviewer. We know well the M. Lynch’s theory on the role of the effective population size and its eventual correlation with genomic parameters, but we want to emphasize that our objective is not to find an adaptive or non-adaptive explanation of the evolution of AS, but rather to reveal it. Nevertheless, as the reviewer suggests, we will look at the correlation between the AS and the effective population size and discuss about a possible non-adaptive interpretation.

The manuscript contains evidence that the authors might benefit from adopting a more modern view of how evolution proceeds. Sentences such as "... suggests that only sophisticated organisms optimize alternative splicing by increasing..." (L113), or "especially in highly evolved groups such as mammals" (L130), or the repeated use of "higher" and "lower" organisms need revising.

As the reviewer suggests, we will proceed with the corresponding linguistic corrections.

Because of the lack of controls mentioned above, and because of the absence of discussion regarding an alternative non-adaptive interpretation, the analyses presented in the manuscript are of very limited use to other researchers in the field. In conclusion, the study does not present solid conclusions.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this contribution, the authors investigate the degree of alternative splicing across the evolutionary tree and identify a trend of increasing alternative splicing as you move from the base of the tree (here, only prokaryotes are considered) towards the tips of the tree. In particular, the authors investigate how the degree of alternative splicing (roughly speaking, the number of different proteins made from a single ORF (open reading frame) via alternative splicing) relates to three genomic variables: the genome size, the gene content (meaning the fraction of the genome composed of ORFs), and finally, the coding percentage of ORFs, meaning the ratio between exons and total DNA in the ORF. When correlating the degree of alternative splicing with these three variables, they find that the different taxonomic groups have a different correlation coefficient, and identify a "progressive pattern" among metazoan groups, namely that the correlation coefficient mostly increases when moving from flowering plants to arthropods, fish, birds, and finally mammals. They conclude that therefore the amount of splicing that is performed by an organismal group could be used as a measure of its complexity.

Weaknesses:

While I find the analysis of alternative splicing interesting, I also find that it is a very imperfect measure of organismal complexity and that the manuscript as a whole is filled with unsupported statements. First, I think it is clear to anyone studying evolution over the tree of life that it is the complexity of gene regulation that is at the origin of much of organismal structural and behavioral complexity. Arguably, creating different isoforms out of a single ORF is just one example of complex gene regulation. However, the complexity of gene regulation is barely mentioned by the authors.

We disagree with the reviewer with that our measure of AS is imperfect. Just as we responded to the first reviewer, we will quantify the uncertainty in the data and correct for differential biases caused by annotation and sequencing methods. Thus, beyond correcting relevant biases in the data, we consider that our measure is adequate for a comparative analysis at a global scale. A novelty of our study is the proposal of a genome-level measure of AS that takes into account data from the entire scientific community.

We want also to emphasize that we assume from the beginning that AS may reflect some kind of biological complexity, it is not a conclusion from the results. An argument in favor of such an assumption is that AS is associated with stochastic processes that are fundamental for phenotypic diversity and innovation. Of course, we agree with the reviewer that it is not the only mechanism behind biological complexity, so we will emphasize it in the manuscript. On the other side, we will be more explicit about the assumptions and objectives, and will correct any unsupported statement.

Further, it is clear that none of their correlation coefficients actually show a simple trend (see Table 3). According to these coefficients, birds are more complex than mammals for 3 out of 4 measures.

An evolutionary trend is broadly defined as the gradual change in some characteristic of organisms as they evolve or adapt to a specific environment. Under our context, we define an evolutionary trend as the gradual change in genome composition and its association with AS across the main taxonomic groups. If we look at Figure 4 and Table 3 we can conclude that there is a progressive trend. We will be more precise about how we define an evolutionary trend and correct any possible misinterpretation of the results. On the other side, we do not assume that mammals should be more complex than birds. First, we will emphasize that our results show that birds have the highest values of such a trend. Second, after reading the reviewer’s comments, we have decided that we will perform an additional analysis to correct for differences in the taxonomic group sizes, which will allow us to have more confidence in the results.

It is also not clear why the correlation coefficient between alternative splicing ratio and genome length, gene content, and coding percentage should display such a trend, rather than the absolute value. There are only vague mechanistic arguments.

The study analyzes the relationship of AS with genomic composition for the large taxonomic groups. We assume that significant differences in these relationships are indicators of the presence of different mechanisms of genome evolution. However, we agree with the reviewer that a correlation does not imply a causal relation, so we will be more cautious when interpreting the results.

To quantify the relationships we use correlation coefficients, the slopes of such correlations, and the relation of variability. Although the absolute values of AS are also illustrated in Table 4, we consider that they are less informative than if we include how it relates to the genomic composition. For example, we observe that plants have a different genome composition and relation with AS if compared to animals, which suggest that they follow different mechanisms of genome evolution. On the other hand, we observe a trend in animals, where high values of AS are associated to a large percentage of introns and a percentage of intergenic DNA of about the 50% of genomes.

Much more troubling, however, is the statement that the data supports "lineage-specific trends" (lines 299-300). Either this is just an ambiguous formulation, or the authors claim that you can see trends within lineages.

We agree with the reviewer that this statement is not correct, so we will proceed to correct it.

The latter is clearly not the case. In fact, within each lineage, there is a tremendous amount of variation, to such an extent that many of the coefficients given in Table 3 are close to meaningless. Note that no error bars or p-values are presented for the values shown in Table 3. Figure 2 shows the actual correlation, and the coefficient for flowering plants there is given as 0.151, with a p-value of 0.193. Table 3 seems to quote r=0.174 instead. It should be clear that a correlation within a lineage or species is not a sign of a trend.

The reviewer is not understanding correctly the results in Table 3. It is precisely the variation of the genome variables what we are measuring. Given the standardization of these values by the mean values, we have proceeded to compare the variability between groups, which is the result shown in Table 3. In this case there are no error bars or p-values associated. On the other hand, we agree that a correlation is not a sign of a trend. But the relations of variability, together with the results obtained in Figure 3, are indicators of a trend. As we mentioned before, we will proceed to analyze whether the variation in the group sizes is causing a bias in the results.

There are several wrong or unsupported statements in the manuscript. Early on, the authors state that the alternative splicing ratio (a number greater or equal to one that can be roughly understood as the number of different isoforms per ORF) "quantifies the number of different isoforms that can be transcribed using the same amount of information" (lines 51-52). But in many cases, this is incorrect, because the same sequence can represent different amounts of information depending on the context. So, if a changed context gives rise to a different alternative splice, it is because the genetic sequence has a different meaning in the changed context: the information has changed.

We agree that there are not well supported statements, so we will proceed to revise them.

In line 149, the authors state that "the energetic cost of having large genomes is high". No citation is given, and while such a statement seems logical, it does not have very solid support.

We will also revise the bibliography and support our statements with updated references.

If there was indeed a strong selective force to reduce genome size, we would not see the stunning diversity of genome sizes even within lineages. This statement is repeated (without support) several times in the manuscript, apparently in support of the idea that mammals had "no choice" to increase complexity via alternative splicing because they can't increase it by having longer genomes. I don't think this reasoning can be supported.

We agree with the reviewer in this issue, so we will carefully revise the statements that indirectly (or directly) assume the action of selective forces on the genome composition.

Even more problematic is the statement that "the amount of protein-coding DNA seems to be limited to a size of about 10MB" (line 219). There is no evidence whatsoever for this statement.

In Figure 1A we observe a one-to-one relationship between the genome size and the amount of coding. However, in multicellular organisms, although the genome size increases we observe that the amount of coding does not increase by more than 10Mb, which suggest the presence of some genomic limitation. Of course, this is not an absolute or general statement, but rather a suggestion. We are only describing our results.

The reference that is cited (Choi et al 2020) suggests that there is a maximum of 150GB in total genome size due to physiological constraints. In lines 257-258, the authors write that "plants are less restricted in terms of storing DNA sequences compared to animals" (without providing evidence or a citation).

We will revise the bibliography and add updated references.

I believe this statement is made due to the observation that plants tend to have large intergenic regions. But without examining the functionality of these interagency regions (they might host long non-coding RNA stretches that are used to regulate the expression of other genes, for example) it is quite adventurous to use such a simple measure as being evidence that plants "are less restricted in terms of storing DNA sequences", whatever that even means. I do not think the authors mean that plants have better access to -80 freezers. The authors conclude that "plant's primary mechanism of genome evolution is by expanding their genome". This statement itself is empty: we know that plants are prone to whole genome duplication, but this duplication is not, as far as we understand, contributing to complexity. It is not a "primary mechanism of genome evolution".

We will revise these statements.

In lines 293-294, the authors claim that "alternative splicing is maximized in mammalian genomes". There is no evidence that this ratio cannot be increased. So, to conclude (on lines 302-303) that alternative splicing ratios are "a potential candidate to quantify organismal complexity" seems, based on this evidence, both far-fetched and weak at the same time.

Our results show the highest values of AS in mammals, but we understand that the results are limited to the availability and accuracy of data, which we will emphasize in the manuscript. As we previously mention, we will also proceed to analyze the uncertainty in data and carry out the appropriate corrections.

I am also not very comfortable with the data analysis. The authors, for example, say that they have eliminated from their analysis a number of "outlier species". They mention one: Emmer wheat because it has a genome size of 900 Mb (line 367). Since 900MB does not appear to be extreme, perhaps the authors meant to write 900 Gb. When I consulted the paper that sequenced Triticum dicoccoides, they noted that 14 chromosomes are about 10GB. Even a tetraploid species would then not be near 900Gb. But more importantly, such a study needs to state precisely which species were left out, and what the criteria are for leaving out data, lest they be accused of selecting data to fit their hypothesis.

The reviewer is right, we wanted to say 900Mb, which is approximately 7.2Gb. We had a mistake of nomenclature. This value is extreme compared to the typical values, so it generates large deviations when applying measures of central tendency and dispersion. We want to obtain mean values that are representative of the most species composing the taxonomic groups, so we find appropriate to exclude all outlier values in the study. Nevertheless, we will specify the criteria that we have used to select the data in a rigorous way.

I understand that Methods are often put at the end of a manuscript, but the measures discussed here are so fundamental to the analysis that a brief description of what the different measures are (in particular, the "alternative splicing ratio") should be in the main text, even when the mathematical definition can remain in the Methods.

We agree with the reviewer, so we will add a brief description of the genomic variables at the beginning of the Results section.

Finally, a few words on presentation. I understand that the following comments might read differently after the authors change their presentation. This manuscript was at the border of being comprehensible. In many cases, I could discern the meaning of words and sentences in contexts but sometimes even that failed (as an example above, about "species-specific trends", illustrates). The authors introduced jargon that does not have any meaning in the English language, and they do this over and over again.

Note that I completely agree with all the comments by the other reviewer, who alerted me to problems I did not catch, including the possible correlation with effective population size: a possible non-adaptive explanation for the results.

eLife assessment

This important study indicates a significant role for individual let-7 miRNA clusters in regulating generation of Tc17 CD8 cells and emphysema severity in a mouse model. The authors provide convincing evidence for let-7-mediated repression of the transcription factor RORgt and consequent modulation of IL-17-producing CD8 T cells, with correlated data from human emphysema material, though some of the effective let-7 clusters remain to be tested for the ability to modulate disease. The findings, which substantially advance the understanding of roles that let-7 miRNA clusters play in modulating both T cell responses and emphysematous lung disease, will be of interest to T cell and lung disease researchers.

eLife assessment

This important study reports on the genome evolution of a poorly studied fungal group. By combining long-read sequencing and different bioinformatic analyses, the authors show that the giant genome of Entomophthora muscae expanded due to extensive transposable element activity. The strength of evidence is compelling and the authors are to be commended for their multiple comparative analyses of gene content along with transparently written and visualized techniques, data curation, and methods. This paper will be of relevance to fungal biologists as well as to evolutionary biologists interested in the study of genome size dynamics.

Author response:

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

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors present a detailed study of a nearly complete Entomophthora muscae genome assembly and annotation, along with comparative analyses among related and non-related entomopathogenic fungi. The genome is one of the largest fungal genomes sequenced, and the authors document the proliferation and evolution of transposons and the presence/absence of related genetic machinery to explore how this may have occurred. There has also been an expansion in gene number, which appears to contain many "novel" genes unique to E. muscae. Functionally, the authors were interested in CAZymes, proteases, circadian clock related genes (due to entomopathogenicity/ host manipulation), other insect pathogenspecific genes, and secondary metabolites. There are many interesting findings including expansions in trahalases, unique insulinase, and another peptidase, and some evidence for RIP in Entomophthoralean fungi. The authors performed a separate study examining E. muscae species complex and related strains. Specifically, morphological traits were measured for strains and then compared to the 28S+ITSbased phylogeny, showing little informativeness of these morpho characters with high levels of overlap.

This work represents a big leap forward in the genomics of non-Dikarya fungi and large fungal genomes. Most of the gene homologs have been studied in species that diverged hundreds of millions of years ago, and therefore using standard comparative genomic approaches is not trivial and still relatively little is known. This paper provides many new hypotheses and potential avenues of research about fungal genome size expansion, entomopathogenesis in zygomycetes, and cellular functions like RIP and circadian mechanisms.

Strengths:

There are many strengths to this study. It represents a massive amount of work and a very thorough functional analysis of the gene content in these fungi (which are largely unsequenced and definitely understudied). Too often comparative genomic work will focus on one aspect and leave the reader wondering about all the other ways genome(s) are unique or different from others. This study really dove in and explored the relevant aspects of the E. muscae genome.

The authors used both a priori and emergent properties to shape their analyses (by searching for specific genes of interest and by analyzing genes underrepresented, expanded, or unique to their chosen taxa), enabling a detailed review of the genomic architecture and content. Specifically, I'm impressed by the analysis of missing genes (pFAMs) in E. muscae, none of which are enriched in relatives, suggesting this fungus is really different not by gene loss, but by its gene expansions.

Analyzing species-level boundaries and the data underlying those (genetic or morphological) is not something frequently presented in comparative genomic studies, however, here it is a welcome addition as the target species of the study is part of a species complex where morphology can be misleading and genetic data is infrequently collected in conjunction with the morphological data.

Thank you for your careful reading of our work. We’re glad that you identified these areas as strengths.

Weaknesses:

The conclusions of this paper are mostly well supported by data, but a few points should be clarified.

In the analysis of Orthogroups (OGs), the claim in the text is that E. muscae "has genes in multi-species OGs no more frequently than Enotomophaga maimaiga. (Fig. 3F)" I don't see that in 3F. But maybe I'm really missing something.

Thank you for catching this. You were, in fact, not missing anything at all. There was a mismatch between the data plotted in F and G and how the caption described these data. We very much apologize for the confusion that this must have caused. We have corrected these plots and also made changes to improve interpretability (see below).

Also related, based on what is written in the text of the OG section, I think portions of Figure 3G are incorrect/ duplicated. First, a general question, related to the first two portions of the graph. How do "Genes assigned to an OG" and "Genes not assigned to an OG" not equal 100% for each species? The graph as currently visualized does not show that. Then I think the bars in portion 3 "Genes in speciesspecific OG" are wrong (because in the text it says "N. thromboides had just 16.3%" species-specific OGs, but the graph clearly shows that bar at around 50%. I think portion 3 is just a duplicate of the bars in portion 4 - they look exactly the same - and in addition, as stated in the text portion 4 "Potentially speciesspecific genes" should be the simple addition of the bars in portion 2 and portion 3 for each species.

As mentioned above, we sincerely regret the error made in the plot and for the confusion that this caused. F now reflects the percentage of orthogroups (OGs) that possess at least one representative from the indicated species (left) and the percentage of OGs that are species-specific (only possess genes from one species; right). The latter is a subset of the former. G now reflects the percentage of annotated genes that were assigned an OG, per species, as well as the inverse of this - genes that were not assigned to any OG. These should, and now do, sum to 100%. The “Within species-specific OG” data summed with the “Not assigned OG” data yields the “Potentially species-specific data” in the rightmost column.

In the introduction, there is a name for the phenomenon of "clinging to or biting the tops of plants," it's called summit disease. And just for some context for the readers, summit disease is well-documented in many of these taxa in the older literature, but it is often ignored in modern studies - even though it is a fascinating effect seen in many insect hosts, caused by many, many fungi, nematodes (!), etc. This phenomenon has evolved many times. Nice discussions of this in Evans 1989 and Roy et al. 2006 (both of whom cite much of the older literature).

You’re right. We have now clarified that this behavior is called “summit disease” and referenced the suggested articles, along with a more recent review.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In their study, Stajich and co-authors present a new 1.03 Gb genome assembly for an isolate of the fungal insect parasite Entomophthora muscae (Entomophthoromycota phylum, isolated from Drosophila hydei). Many species of the Entomophthoromycota phylum are specialised insect pathogens with relatively large genomes for fungi, with interesting yet largely unexplored biology. The authors compare their new E. muscae assembly to those of other species in the Entomophthorales order and also more generally to other fungi. For that, they first focus on repetitive DNA (transposons) and show that Ty3 LTRs are highly abundant in the E. muscae genome and contribute to ~40% of the species' genome, a feature that is shared by closely related species in the Entomophthorales. Next, the authors describe the major differences in protein content between species in the genus, focusing on functional domains, namely protein families (pfam), carbohydrate-active enzymes, and peptidases. They highlight several protein families that are overrepresented/underrepresented in the E. muscae genome and other

Entomophthorales genomes. The authors also highlight differences in components of the circadian rhythm, which might be relevant to the biology of these insect-infecting fungi. To gain further insights into E. muscae specificities, the authors identify orthologous proteins among four Entomophthorales species. Consistently with a larger genome and protein set in E. muscae, they find that 21% of the 17,111 orthogroups are specific to the species. To finish, the authors examine the consistency between methods for species delineation in the genus using molecular (ITS + 28S) or morphological data (# of nuclei per conidia + conidia size) and highlight major incongruences between the two.

Although most of the methods applied in the frame of this study are appropriate with the scripts made available, I believe there are some major discrepancies in the datasets that are compared which could undermine most of the results/conclusions. More precisely, most of the results are based on the comparison of protein family content between four Entomophthorales species. As the authors mention on page 5, genome (transcriptome) assembly and further annotation procedures can strongly influence gene discovery. Here, the authors re-annotated two assemblies using their own methods and recovered between 30 and 60% more genes than in the original dataset, but if I understand it correctly, they perform all downstream comparative analyses using the original annotations. Given the focus on E. muscae and the small sample size (four genomes compared), I believe performing the comparisons on the newly annotated assemblies would be more rigorous for making any claim on gene family variation.

Thank you for this comment. While we did compare gene model predictions for two of these assemblies to assess if this difference could account for discrepancies in gene counts, completely reannotating all non-E. muscae datasets was outside of the scope of this study. In our opinion, the total number of predicted genes in a genome is not a best representation of differences since splitting or fusing gene models can inflate seeming differences; the orthology and domain counts are a more accurate assessment of the content. It’s possible that annotation differences may have inflated some gene family counts, however we will note that similar domain trends were observed between the closest species to E. muscae, Entomophaga maimaiga, suggesting that these differences were not sufficient to prevent us from detecting real biological signals. We look forward to continued improvement of our genome through additional sequencing and more clarity on total gene content of E. muscae.

The authors also investigate the putative impact of repeat-induced point mutation on the architecture of the large Entomophthorales genomes (for three of the eight species in Figure 1) and report low RIP-like dinucleotide signatures despite the presence of RID1 (a gene involved in the RIP process in Neurospora crassa) and RNAi machinery. They base their analysis on the presence of specific PFAM domains across the proteome of the three Entomophthorales species. In the case of RID1, the authors searched for a DNA methyltransferase domain (PF00145), however other proteins than RID1 bear such functional domain (DNMT family) so that in the current analysis it is impossible to say if the authors are actually looking at RID1 homologs (probably not, RID1 is monophyletic to the Ascomycota I believe). Similar comments apply to the analysis of components of the RNAi machinery. A more reliable alternative to the PFAM analysis would be to work with full protein sequences in addition to the functional domains.

While we understand this concern regarding domain vs. full length protein, the advantage of the domain search is that HMM-based searches are sensitive to detecting more distantly related homologs. Entomophthoralean fungi are distantly related from the ascomycetes in which these mechanisms have been characterized, so we chose a broader search approach that may identify proteins with similar domain structure, but are not necessarily homologs. These searches are presented in the manuscript as preliminary, but worth further investigation. However, our RID-based analysis did not identify convincing homologs for RID1 in entomophthoralean fungi included in our investigation, and we reported low homology (i.e., 12-14%) among our orthogroup of interest and RID1. We have further edited this section to clarify our understanding that these candidates are not RID1 homologs. We had hoped to avoid this implication, but we felt this investigation and null result were worth reporting.

Recommendations for the authors:

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Specific points:

Results:

"1.03 Gb genome consisting of 7,810 contigs (N50 = 301.1 kb). Additional... resulted in a final contig count of 7,810 (N50 = 329.6 kb)" So you started and ended with the same contig count but a different N50? Is this a typo?

Yes, this was a typo. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Figure 1D.

The colors of Complete1x and Complete2x are too similar to tell them apart.

The colors have been made more distinct.

Figure 4B.

I know C. rosea has been found from insects before, but it's mostly a mycoparasite and occasionally an endophyte, and has bioactivity against a lot of things. I just saw that it's listed as an entomopathogen, and I was surprised. Anyway, leave it as is if you want to, but it's definitely better studied and better known (Google Scholar) as a mycoparasite.

Thanks for this comment. For the sake of including a more diverse representation of entomopathogenic fungi, we have opted to leave this as is.

Full references (from the public comment)

Evans, H.C., 1989. Mycopathogens of insects of epigeal and aerial habitats. Insect-fungus interactions, pp.205-238.

Roy, H.E., Steinkraus, D.C., Eilenberg, J., Hajek, A.E. and Pell, J.K., 2006. Bizarre interactions and endgames: entomopathogenic fungi and their arthropod hosts. Annu. Rev. Entomol., 51, pp.331-357.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

I believe the manuscript could largely benefit from restructuring the results section to enhance clarity. The results section reads like a lot of descriptive back and forth, so that the reader lacks a clear rationale. The absence of a consistent dataset used for the different comparisons made all along the manuscript makes it hard to follow.

Minor comments:

(No line numbers were available so I refer to page numbers).

p1

• not sure about the use of "allied" to describe other fungal species in the title and after (sister species?).

We didn’t want to use the word sister because not all of these species could be considered sister.

• Genomic defence against transposable elements rather than "anti"?

We have rephrased to genomic defense.

p3

• Extra parenthesis at Bronski et al.

This is now corrected.

• What does newly-available mean here?

We mean recent. A lot of the datasets we used were very new, and we wanted to emphasize that point.

• The back and forth between genomes and transcriptomes makes it hard to follow, would clarify from the beginning (in addition to the sequencing method - short vs long-read assemblies as in Figure 1B) or perhaps use a consistent dataset for all subsequent comparative analysis in the Entomophthorales.

We have denoted our transcriptomic datasets in Fig 1C using parentheses.

p5

• Perhaps clarify that class II DNA transposons can also "copy" (single-strand excisions can be repaired by the host machinery).

We have now included mention of “copy” as well as “jump” mechanisms of Class II transposons per your suggestion.

p6

• "beginning roughly concurrently", not clear what "began".

This is now corrected.

• "control" rather than "protect against"?

We’ve changed “protect against” to “counter”.

• I believe RIP has only been observed (experimentally) in a handful of fungal species, all from the Ascomycota phylum.

Hood et al, 2005 found signatures of RIP in anther-smut fungus and Horns et al, 2012, found evidence of hypermutability across repeat elements within several Pucciniales species.

• "RID1 contains two DNA_methylase domains", RID1 has one methyltransferase domain according to the reference Freitag et al, 2002.

Thank you for drawing this to our attention. It is true RID1 has one methyltransferase region; however, the sequence deposited by Freitag et al, 2002 (AAM27408) is predicted by HMMer to have two adjacent Pfam DNA_methylase domains (i.e., PF00145). In this exploratory analysis, we tried to leverage this characteristic to identify candidate proteins of interest. We have reworded this section to clarify this.

p8

• Here and after I would use more informative titles for each paragraph.

With the exception of the headings for Pfam, CAZy and MEROPs analyses, we believe the other headings are informative. We appreciate this comment, but opt to leave the heading titles as is.

• I believe presenting the orthology analysis before the more in-depth protein family domain search.

We leveraged the OG analysis mostly as a way to identify potentially unique genes in E. muscae, so we think the current order makes the most sense.

p10

• Figures 3F and G are confusing. The legend for Figure 3F mentions "OGs with >= 2 species" while the figure shows "multi-species OGs", and reads as redundant with the "species-specific" OGs. For the "OGs within species" do I understand it correctly that it represents the number of genes assigned to OGs for each species? If yes, the numbers are in contradiction with Figure 3G. And in Figure 3G shouldn't the sum of "genes assigned in OGs" and "genes nor assigned in OGs" add up to 100? I'm probably missing something here, but I would clarify what the different sets of orthogroups are in the figure and in the text (perhaps adopting a pangenome-like nomenclature).

Thanks for this comment. This legend, unfortunately, reflected an earlier version of the figure and was overlooked prior to submission. We have since amended this and sincerely apologize for the error on our part.

p12

• The whole first paragraph reads more like it should be part of an introduction/discussion.

We’ve moved some of this paragraph to the discussion but left the background information necessary for the reader to understand why we were looking for homologs of wc and frq.

p13

• The last paragraph reads like discussion.

We have revised this paragraph so it now reads: “Because E. muscae is an obligate insect-pathogen only living inside live flies, we investigate the presence of canonical entomopathogenic enzymes in the genome. We find that E. muscae appear to have an expanded group of acid-trehalases compared to other entomopathogenic and non-entomopathogenic Entomophthorales (Fig. 4A), which correlates with the primary sugar in insect blood (hemolymph) being trehalose (Thompson, 2003). The obligate insectpathogenic lifestyle is also evident when comparing the repertoire of lipases, subtilisin-like serine proteases, trypsins, and chitinases in our focal species versus Zoopagomycota and Ascomycota fungi that are not obligate insect pathogens (Fig. 4B). Sordariomycetes within Ascomycota contains the other major transition to insect-pathogenicity within the kingdom Fungi (Araújo and Hughes, 2016). Based on our comparison of gene numbers, Entomophthorales possess more enzymes suitable for cuticle penetration than Sordariomycetes (Fig. 4B). In contrast, insect-pathogenic fungi within Hypocreales possess a more diverse secondary metabolite biosynthesis machinery as evidenced by the absence of polyketide synthase (PKS) and indole pathways in Entomophthorales (Fig. 4C).”

p15 and 16

• This all reads as redundant with the previous protein family domain analysis. I would try to merge them.

Thank you for this comment, however we have opted to maintain the current structure.

p18

• In the first sentence, I'm not sure about what was performed here.

This has been reworded to clarify.

p20

• Regarding the assembly, do I understand it correctly that a nuclear genome can be partially haploid / diploid?

Thanks for your comment. The genome itself is, of course, some integer multiple of n, but based on BUSCO scores our assembly doesn’t appear to have completely collapsed into a haploid genome. We think it makes more sense here to say “partially haploid” than “partially diploid” so have altered this.

p21

• RIP has only been observed in a couple of Ascomycetes. RIP-like genomic signatures (GC bias) have been observed elsewhere.

Hood et al, 2005 found signatures of RIP in anther-smut fungus and Horns et al, 2012, found evidence of hypermutability across repeat elements within several Pucciniales species.

p23

• Interesting that the peptidase A2B domain is found uniquely in E. muscae genome and is associated with Ty3 activity. Does the domain often overlap with annotated Ty3 in E. muscae genome? Or how come the domain is not present in other sister species with large genomes full of Ty3 transposons? Could it relate to a new active transposon in E. muscae specifically?

Thanks for this comment. The domain-based analysis was only performed on the predicted transcriptome of the genome assembly, which does not include the repeat elements (e.g., Ty3). It could be that this peptidase reflects a new active transposon that’s specific to E. muscae, which would certainly be very interesting. We’ve now included this idea in the discussion.

p26

• In the case of fungal genomes, I would not advise masking the assembly for repeated sequences prior to gene annotation (in particular given the current focus on protein family variation).

Thank you for this comment, however we disagree with this assertion as a typical approach for genome annotation in fungi and eukaryotic genomes is to use soft masking of transposable elements before performing gene prediction to avoid over-prediction. While there could be alternative approaches that compare masked or unmasked. This is a recommended protocol for underlying tools like Augustus (10.1002/cpbi.57) and in general descriptions of genome annotation (10.1002/0471250953.bi0401s52). The false positive rate of genes predicted through TE regions is likely to be more a problem than false negatives of missed genes in our experience. Further it seems appropriate to use consistent approach to annotation throughout when including genomes from other sources (e.g., Joint Genome Institute annotated genomes) which also use a repeat masking approach first before annotation. It seems most appropriate to use consistent methods when generating datasets to be used for comparative analyses. It is outside the scope of this project to reannotate all genomes with and without repeat masking.

p27

• Interrupted sentence at "Classification of DNA and LTR .. by similarity The".

This was an unnecessary partial phrase as the information on classification of elements via RepBase was made a few sentences above this.

p28

• Enriched/depleted rather than "significantly different"?

Thank you for this comment, however we have opted to maintain the current phrasing.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors present a detailed study of a nearly complete Entomophthora muscae genome assembly and annotation, along with comparative analyses among related and non-related entomopathogenic fungi. The genome is one of the largest fungal genomes sequenced, and the authors document the proliferation and evolution of transposons and presence/absence of related genetic machinery to explore how this may have occurred. There has also been an expansion in gene number, which appears to contain many "novel" genes unique to E. muscae. Functionally, the authors were interested in CAZymes, proteases, circadian clock related genes (due to entomopathogenicity/ host manipulation), other insect pathogen specific genes, and secondary metabolites. There are many interesting findings including expansions in trahalases, unique insulinase and another peptidase, and some evidence for RIP in Entomophthoralean fungi. The authors performed a separate study examining E. muscae species complex and related strains. Specifically, morphological traits were measured for strains and then compared to the 28S+ITS-based phylogeny, showing little informativeness of these morpho characters with high levels of overlap.

This work represents a big leap forward in genomics of non-Dikarya fungi and large fungal genomes. Most of the gene homologs have been studied in species that diverged hundreds of millions of years ago, and therefore using standard comparative genomic approaches are not trivial and still relatively little is known. This paper provides many new hypotheses and potential avenues of research about fungal genome size expansion, entomopathogenesis in zygomycetes, and cellular functions like RIP and circadian mechanisms.

Strengths:

There are many strengths to this study. It represents a massive amount of work and a very thorough functional analysis of the gene content in these fungi (which are largely unsequenced and definitely understudied). Too often comparative genomic work will focus on one aspect and leave the reader wondering about all the other ways genome(s) are unique or different from others. This study really dove in and explored the relevant aspects of the E. muscae genome.

The authors used both a priori and emergent properties to shape their analyses (by searching for specific genes of interest and by analyzing genes underrepresented, expanded, or unique to their chosen taxa), enabling a detailed review of the genomic architecture and content. Specifically, I'm impressed by the analysis of missing genes (pFAMs) in E. muscae, none of which are enriched in relatives, suggesting this fungus is really different not by gene loss, but by its gene expansions.

Analyzing species-level boundaries and the data underlying those (genetic or morphological) is not something frequently presented in comparative genomic studies, however, here it is a welcome addition as the target species of the study is part of a species complex where morphology can be misleading and genetic data is infrequently collected in conjunction with the morphological data.

Weaknesses:

The conclusions of this paper are well supported, and I think the clarifications and improvements made to the manuscript in the revision process have greatly improved the paper.

eLife assessment

This important study provides solid evidence, both from biochemical analyses and in vivo mouse models, that soluble uric acid serves as an enzymatic inhibitor of the NADase CD38, thereby impacting inflammatory responses. By shedding light onto the intricate interplay between uric acid and CD38, the authors highlight potential therapeutic avenues for inflammatory and age-related conditions, which may be of interest to medical biologists, biochemists, and cell biologists. Further in vivo and in vitro validation suggested would be helpful to cement the significance and implications of these findings.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

This manuscript describes soluble Uric Acid (sUA) as an endogenous inhibitor of CD38, affecting CD38 activity and NAD+ levels both in vitro and in vivo. Importantly, the inhibition constants calculated support the claim that sUA inhibits CD38 under physiological conditions. These findings are of extreme importance to understanding the regulation of an enzyme that has been shown to be the main NAD+/NMN-degrading enzyme in mammals, which impacts several metabolic processes and has major implications for understanding aging diseases. The manuscript is well written, the figures are self-explanatory, and in the experiments presented, the data is very solid. The authors discuss the main limitations of the study, especially in regard to the in vivo results. As a whole, I believe that this is a very interesting manuscript that will be appreciated by the scientific community and that opens a lot of new questions in the field of metabolism and aging. I found some issues that I believe constitute a weakness in the manuscript, and although they do not require new experiments, they may be considered by the authors for discussion in the final version of the manuscript.

The authors acknowledge the existence of several previous papers involving pharmacological inhibition of CD38 and their impact on several models of metabolism and aging. However, they only cite reviews. Given the focus of the manuscript, I believe that the seminal original papers should be cited.

Related to the previous comment, the authors show that they have identified the functional group on sUA that inhibits CD38, 1,3-dihydroimidazol-2-one. How does this group relate with previous structures that were shown to inhibit CD38 and do not have this chemical structure? Is sUA inhibiting CD38 in a different site? A crystallographic structure of CD38-78c is available in PDB that could be used to study or model these interactions.

Although the mouse model used to manipulate sUA levels is not ideal, the authors discuss its limitations, and importantly, they have CD38 KO mice as control. However, all the experiments were performed in very young mice, where CD38 expression is low in most tissues (10.1016/j.cmet.2016.05.006). This point should be mentioned in the discussion and maybe put in the context of variations of sUA levels during aging.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

This is an interesting work where Wen et al. aimed to shed light on the mechanisms driving the protective role of soluble uric acid (sUA) toward avoiding excessive inflammation. They present biochemical data to support that sUA inhibits the enzymatic activity of CD38 (Figures 1 and 2). In a mouse model of acute response to sUA and using mice deficient in CD38, they find evidence that sUA increases the plasma levels of nicotinamide nucleotides (NAD+ and NMN) (Figure 3) and that sUA reduces the plasma levels of inflammasome-driven cytokines IL-1b and IL-18 in response to endotoxin, both dependent on CD38 (Figure 4). Their work is an important advance in the understanding of the physiological role of sUA, with mechanistic insight that can have important clinical implications.

Strengths:

The authors present evidence from different approaches to support that sUA inhibits CD38, impacts NAD+ levels, and regulates inflammatory responses through CD38.

Weaknesses:

The authors investigate macrophages as the cells impacted by sUA to promote immunoregulation, proposing that inflammasome inhibition occurs through NAD+ accumulation and sirtuin activity due to sUA inhibition of CD38. Unfortunately, the study still lacks data to support this model, as they could not replicate their in vivo findings using murine bone marrow-derived macrophages, a standard model to assess inflammasome activation. Without an alternative approach, the study lacks data to establish in vitro that sUA inhibition of CD38 reduces inflammasome activation in macrophages - consequently, they cannot determine yet if both NAD+ accumulation and sirtuin activity in macrophages is a mechanism leading to sUA role in vivo.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In the present manuscript, the authors propose that soluble Uric acid (sUA) is an enzymatic inhibitor of the NADase CD38 and that it controls levels of NAD modulating inflammatory response. Although interesting the studies are at this stage preliminary and validation is needed.

Strengths:

The study characterizes the potential relevance of sUA in NAD metabolism.

Weaknesses:

(1) A full characterization of the effect of sUA in other NAD-consuming and synthesizing enzymes is needed to validate the statement that the mechanism of regulation of NAD by sUA is mediated by CD38, The CD38 KO may not serve as the ideal control since it may saturate NAD levels already. Analysis of multiple tissues is needed.

(2) The physiological role of sUA as an endogenous inhibitor of CD38 needs stronger validation (sUA deficient model?).

(3) Flux studies would also be necessary to make the conclusion stronger.

eLife assessment

The authors analyze the relationship between human mobility and genomic data of SARS-CoV-2 using mobile phone mobility data and sequence data and present a solid proof of concept. This useful work was conducted on a fine spatial scale and provides suggestions on how mobility-derived surveillance could be conducted, although these results are mixed. The primary significance of this work is the strong use of large datasets that were highly granular. The authors provide a rigorous study, but with less clear predictive power of mobility to inform transmission patterns.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In "1 Exploring the Spatial Distribution of Persistent SARS-CoV-2 Mutations -Leveraging mobility data for targeted sampling" Spott et al. combine SARS-CoV-2 genomic data alongside granular mobility data to retrospectively evaluate the spread of SARS-CoV-2 alpha lineages throughout Germany and specifically Thuringia. They further prospectively identified districts with strong mobility links to the first district in which BQ.1.1 was observed to direct additional surveillance efforts to these districts. The additional surveillance effort resulted in the earlier identification of BQ.1.1 in districts with strong links to the district in which BQ.1.1 was first observed.

Strengths:

There are two important strengths of this work. The first is the scale and detail in the data that has been generated and analyzed as part of this study. Specifically, the authors use 6,500 SARS-CoV-2 sequences and district-level mobility data within Thuringia. I applaud the authors for making a subset of their analyses public e.g. on the associated micro react page.

Further, the main focus of the article is on the potential utility of mobility-directed surveillance sequences. While I may certainly be mistaken, I have not seen this proposed elsewhere, at least in the context of SARS-CoV-2. The authors were further able to test this concept in a real-world setting during the emergence of BQ.1.1. This is a unique real-world evaluation of a novel surveillance sequencing strategy and there is considerable value in publishing this analysis.

Weaknesses:

The article is quite strong and I find the analyses to generally be rigorous. However, there are places where I believe the text should be modified to slightly weaken the conclusions drawn from the presented analyses. Specific examples include:

- It seems the mobility-guided increased surveillance included only districts with significant mobility links to the origin district and did not include any "control" districts (those without strong mobility links). As such, you can only conclude that increasing sampling depth increased the rate of detection for BQ.1.1., not necessarily that doing so in a mobility-guided fashion provided an additional benefit. I absolutely understand the challenges of doing this in a real-world setting and think that the work remains valuable even with this limitation, but I would like the lack of control districts to be more explicitly discussed.

- Line 313: While this work has reliably shown that the spread of Alpha was slower in Thuringia, I don't think there have been sufficient analyses to conclude that this is due to the lack of transportation hubs. My understanding is that only mobility within Thuringia has been evaluated here and not between Thuringia and other parts of Germany.

- Line 333 (and elsewhere): I'm not convinced, based on the results presented in Figure 2, that the authors have reliably identified a sampling bias here. This is only true if you assume (as in line 235) that the variant was in these districts, but that hasn't actually been demonstrated here. While I recognize that for high-prevalence variants there is a strong correlation between inflow and variant prevalence, low-prevalence variants by definition spread less and may genuinely be missing from some districts. To support this conclusion that they identified a bias, I'd like to see some type of statistical model that is based e.g. on the number of sequences, prevalence of a given variant in other districts, etc. Alternatively, the language can be softened ("putative sampling bias").

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In the manuscript, the authors combine SARS-CoV-2 sequence data from a state in Germany and mobility data to help in understanding the movement of the virus and the potential to help decide where to focus sequencing. The global expansion in sequencing capability is a key outcome of the public health response. However, there remains uncertainty about how to maximise the insights the sequence data can give. Improved ability to predict the movement of emergent variants would be a useful public health outcome. Also knowing where to focus sequencing to maximising insights is also key. The presented case study from one State in Germany is therefore a useful addition to the literature. Nevertheless, I have a few comments.

One of the key goals of the paper is to explore whether mobile phone data can help predict the spread of lineages. However, it appears unclear whether this was actually addressed in the analyses. To do this, the authors could hold out data from a period of time, and see whether they can predict where the variants end up being found.

The abstract presents the mobility-guided sampling as a success, however, the results provide a much more mixed result. Ultimately, it's unclear what having this strategy really achieved. In a quickly moving pandemic, it is unclear what hunting for extra sequences of a specific, already identified, variant really does. I'm not sure what public health action would result, especially given the variant has already been identified.

Relatedly, it is unclear to me whether simply relying on spatial distance would not be an alternative simpler approach than mobile phone data. From Figure 2, it seems clear that a simple proximity matrix would work well at reconstructing viral flow. The authors could compare the correlation of spatial, spatial proximity, and CDR data.

eLife assessment

This fundamental study uses a creative experimental system to directly test Ohno's hypothesis, which describes how and why new genes might evolve by duplication of existing ones. In agreement with existing criticism of Ohno's original idea, the authors present compelling evidence that having two gene copies does not speed up the evolution of a new function as posited by Ohno, but instead leads to the rapid inactivation of one of the copies through the accumulation of mostly deleterious mutations. These findings will be of broad interest to evolutionary biologists and geneticists.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Overview:

The authors construct a pair of E. coli populations that differ by a single gene duplication in a selectable fluorescent protein. They then evolve the two populations under differing selective regimes to assess whether the end result of the selective process is a "better" phenotype when starting with duplicated copies. Importantly, their starting duplicated population is structured to avoid the duplication-amplification process often seen in bacterial artificial evolution experiments. They find that while duplication increases robustness and speed of adaptation, it does not result in more highly adapted final states, in contrast to Ohno's hypothesis.

Major comments:

This is an excellent study with a very elegant experimental setup that allows a precise examination of the role of duplication in functional evolution, exclusive of other potential mechanisms. My main concern is to clarify some of the arguments relating to Ohno's hypothesis.

I think my main confusion on first reading the manuscript was in the precise definition of Ohno's hypothesis. I think this confusion was mine and not the authors, but it is likely common and could be addressed.

Most evolutionary biologists think of gene duplication as making neofunctionalization "easier" by providing functional redundancy and a larger mutational target, such that the evolutionary process of neofunctionalization is faster (as the authors observed). In this framework, the final evolved state might not differ when selection is applied to duplicated copies or a single-copy gene. Ohno's hypothesis, by contrast, argues that there generally exist adaptive conflicts between the ancestral function and the "desired" novel function, such that strong selection on a single-copy gene cannot produce the evolutionary optima that selection on two copies would. This idea is hinted at in the quotation from Ohno in paragraph 2 of the introduction. However, the sentences that follow I don't think reinforce this concept well enough and lead to some confusion.

With that definition in mind, I agree with the authors' conclusion that these data do not support Ohno's hypothesis. My quibble would be that what is actually shown here is that adaptive conflict in function is not universal: there are cases where a single gene can be optimized for multiple functions just as well as duplicated copies. I do not think the authors have, however, refuted the possibility that such adaptive conflicts are nonetheless a significant barrier to evolutionary innovation in the absence of gene duplication generally. Perhaps just a sentence or two to this effect might be appropriate.

I also think the authors need to clarify their approach to normalizing fluorescence between the two populations to control for the higher relative protein expression of the population with a duplicated gene. Since each population was independently selected with the highest fluorescing 60% (or less) of the cells selected, I think this normalization is appropriate. Of course, if the two populations were to compete against each other, this dosage advantage of the duplicates would itself be a selective benefit. Even as it is, the dosage advantage should be a source of purifying selection on the duplication, and perhaps this should be noted.

Finally, I am slightly curious about the nature of the adaptations that are evolving. The authors primarily discuss a few amino-acid changing mutations that seem to fix early in the experiment. Looking at Figure 3, it however, appears that the populations are still evolving late in the experiment, and so presumably other changes are occurring later on. Do the authors believe that perhaps expression changes to increase protein levels are driving these later changes?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Drawing from tools of synthetic biology, Mihajlovic et al. use a cleverly designed experimental system to dissect Ohno's hypothesis, which describes the evolution of functional novelty on the gene-level through the process of duplication & divergence.

Ohno's original idea posits that the redundancy gained from having two copies of the same gene allows one of them to freely evolve a new function. To directly test this, the authors make use of a fluorescent protein with two emission maxima, which allows them to apply different selection regimes (e.g. selection for green AND blue, or, for green NOT blue). To achieve this feat without being distracted by more complex evolutionary dynamics caused by the frequent recombination between duplicates, the authors employ a well-controlled synthetic system to prevent recombination: Duplicates are placed on a plasmid as indirect repeats in a recombination-deficient strain of E.coli. The authors implement their directed evolution approach through in vitro mutagenesis and selection using fluorescent-activated cell sorting. Their in-depth analysis of evolved mutants in single-copy versus double-copy genotypes provides clear evidence for Ohno's postulate that redundant copies experience relaxed purifying selection. In contrast to Ohno's original postulate, however, the authors go on to show that this does not in fact lead to more rapid phenotypic evolution, but rather, the rapid inactivation of one of the copies.

Strengths:

This paper contributes with great experimental detail to an area where the literature predominantly leans on genomics data. Through the use of a carefully designed, well-controlled synthetic system the authors are able to directly determine the phenotype & genotype of all individuals in their evolving populations and compare differences between genotypes with a single or double copy of coGFP. With it they find clear evidence for what critics of Ohno's original model have termed "Ohno's dilemma", the rapid non-functionalization by predominantly deleterious mutations.

Including an expressed but non-functional coGFP in (phenotypically) single copy genotypes provides an especially thoughtful control that allows determining a baseline dN/dS ratio in the absence of selection. All in all the study is an exciting example of how the clever use of synthetic biology can lead to new insights.

Weaknesses:

The major weakness of the study is tied to its biggest strength (as often in experimental biology there is a trade-off between 'resolution' and 'realism').

The paper ignores an important component of the evolutionary process in favour of an in-depth characterization of how two vs one copy evolve. Specifically, by employing a recombination-deficient strain and constructing their duplicates as inverted repeats their experimental design completely abolishes recombination between the two copies.

This is problematic for two reasons:

i) In nature, new duplicates do not arise as inverted, but rather as direct (tandem) repeats and - as the authors correctly point out - these are very unstable, due to the fact that repeated DNA is prone to recA-dependent homologous recombination (which arise orders of magnitude more frequently than point mutations).

ii) This instability often leads to further amplification of the duplicates under dosage selection both in the lab and in the wild (e.g. Andersson & Hughes, Annu. Rev. Genet. 2009), and would presumably also be an outcome under the current experimental set-up if it was not prevented from happening?

So in sum, recombination between duplicate genes is not merely a nuisance in experiments, but occurring at extremely high frequencies in nature (such that the authors needed to devise a clever engineering solution to abolish it), and is often observed in evolving populations, be it in the laboratory or the wild.

The manuscript sells controlling of copy number as a strength. And clearly, without it, the same insights could not be gained. However, if the basis for the very process of what Ohno's model describes is prevented from happening for the process to be studied, then, for reasons of clarity and context this needs pointing out, especially, to readers less familiar with the principles of molecular evolution.

Connected to this, there are several places in the introduction and the discussion where I feel that the existing literature, in particular models put forward since Ohno that invoke dosage selection (such as IAD) end up being slightly misrepresented.

My point is best exemplified in line 1 of Discussion: "To test Ohno's hypothesis and to distinguish its predictions from those of competing hypotheses, it is necessary to maintain a constant and stable copy number of duplicated genes during experimental evolution."

I think this statement is simply not true and might be misleading. To take the exaggerated position of a devil's advocate, the goal of evolutionary biology should be to find out how evolution actually proceeds in nature most of the time, rather than creating laboratory systems that manage to recapitulate influential ideas.

While fixing copy number may be a necessary step to understand how one copy evolves if a second one is present, it seems that if Ohno's hypothesis only works out in recA-deficient bacterial strains and on engineered inverted repeats, that Ohno might have missed one crucial aspect of how paralogs evolve. The mentioned competing hypotheses have been put forward to (a) address Ohno's dilemma (which the present study beautifully demonstrates exists under their experimental conditions) and (b) to reflect a commonly observed evolutionary process in bacteria (dosage gain in response to selection, e.g. a classic way of gaining antibiotic resistance). Fixing the copy number allowed the authors to show which predictions of Ohno's model hold up and which don't (under these specific conditions). But they do so without even preventing the processes described by alternative models from happening, so the experimental system is hardly appropriate to distinguish between Ohno & alternatives. Therefore, I think it could be made clearer that the experimental system is great to look at certain aspects Ohno's hypothesis in detail, but it can only inform us about a universe without recombination.

(1) Citing the works by ref 8, 26, 27 to merely state that "in some copies were gained and some were lost (ref 6, ref 25)" makes it seem as if fixing at 2 copies is some sort of sensible average. Yet ref 6 (Dhar et al.) specifically states that dosage is the most important response. Moreover, in this study gene copies are lost, but plasmid copies are gained instead. In Holloway et al. 2007 (ref 25), the 2 copies resided on different plasmids, so entirely different underlying molecular genetics might be at work (high cost of plasmid maintenance, and competitive binding on both proteins onto the respective (off)-target, where either way selection favored a single copy, so a different situation altogether). In both cited studies, fixing the copy would have prohibited learning something about the process of duplication & divergence.

Hence this statement seems to distract the readers from the main message, which seems that preventing recombination experimentally allows to follow the divergence of each copy and studying a response that does not involve dosage-increase.

(2) "These studies highlighted the importance of gene duplication in providing fast adaptation under changing environmental conditions but they focused on the importance of gene dosage." I think this constructs a false dichotomy. Instead, these studies pointed out that dosage (and with it, selection for dosage) is an important part of the equation that might have been missed by Ohno.

(3) "Such models are also easier to test experimentally, because they do not require precise control of gene copy number. The necessary tests can even benefit from massive gene amplifications8. Although Ohno's hypothesis is more difficult to test experimentally (...)" - again, I feel the wording is slightly misleading. The point is not that IAD is easier to test and Ohno's model is harder to test in laboratory experiments, rather, experiments (and some more limited observations of naturally evolving populations) seem to suggest that in reality evolution proceeds (more often?) according to IAD rather than Ohno's neofunctionalization hypothesis. However, as the authors point out, it will be exciting to see their clever experimental system used to test other genes and conditions to get a more comprehensive understanding of what gene- and selection- parameter values would overcome Ohno's dilemma.

Author response:

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Day et al. present a high-throughput version of expansion microscopy to increase the throughput of this well-established super-resolution imaging technique. Through technical innovations in liquid handling with custom-fabricated tools and modifications to how the expandable hydrogels are polymerized, the authors show robust ~4-fold expansion of cultured cells in 96-well plates. They go on to show that HiExM can be used for applications such as drug screens by testing the effect of doxorubicin on human cardiomyocytes. Interestingly, the effects of this drug on changing DNA organization were only detectable by ExM, demonstrating the utility of HiExM for such studies.

Overall, this is a very well-written manuscript presenting an important technical advance that overcomes a major limitation of ExM - throughput. As a method, HiExM appears extremely useful, and the data generally support the conclusions.

Strengths:

Hi-ExM overcomes a major limitation of ExM by increasing the throughput and reducing the need for manual handling of gels. The authors do an excellent job of explaining each variation introduced to HiExM to make this work and thoroughly characterize the impressive expansion isotropy. The dox experiments are generally well-controlled and the comparison to an alternative stressor (H2O2) significantly strengthens the conclusions.

Weaknesses:

(1) Based on the exceedingly small volume of solution used to form the hydrogel in the well, there may be many unexpanded cells in the well and possibly underneath the expanded hydrogel at the end of this. How would this affect the image acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of HiExM data?

The hydrogel footprint covers approximately 5% of the surface within an individual well and only cells within this area are embedded in the polymerized hydrogel for subsequent processing steps. Cells that are outside of this footprint are not incorporated into the gel, meaning that these cells are digested by Proteinase K and subsequently washed away by the excess water exchange in the gel swelling step. Note that different cell types may require higher or lower concentrations of Proteinase K to adequately digest cells for expansion while maintaining fluorescence signal. Given the compatibility of HiExM with 96-well plates, this titration can be performed rapidly in a single experiment. Although cells outside of the hydrogel footprint are removed prior to imaging, we do occasionally observe Hoechst signal that appears to be underneath the gels. We believe this signal is likely from excess DNA from digested cells that was not fully washed out in the gel swelling step. This signal is both spatially and morphologically distinct from the nuclear signal of intact cells and it does not affect image acquisition, analysis, or data interpretation.

(2) It is unclear why the expansion factor is so variable between plates (e.g., Figure 2H). This should be discussed in more detail.

The variability in expansion factor across plates can likely be attributed to the small volume (~250 nL) deposited by the device posts. Small variations in gel volume could impact gel polymerization compared to standard ExM gels. For example, gels in HiExM are more sensitive to evaporation because they are ~1000x smaller than standard expansion gel preparations due to an increased air-liquid-interface. Evaporation in HiExM gels increases monomer and cross linker concentrations, leading to variation in expansion factor across plates. We note that expansion factor is robust within well plates and that variance is slightly increased between plates. These differences will be discussed in the revised manuscript.

(3) The authors claim that CF dyes are more resistant to bleaching than other dyes. However, in Figure. S3, it appears that half of the CF dyes tested still show bleaching, and no data is shown supporting the claim that Alexa dyes bleach. It would be helpful to include data supporting the claim that Alexa dyes bleach more than CF dyes and the claim that CF dyes in general are resistant to bleaching should be modified to more accurately reflect the data shown.

We did not show data using Alexa dyes because these fluorophores are highly sensitive to photobleaching using Irgacure and thus we could not obtain images. In contrast, some CF dyes are more robust to bleaching in HiExM including CF488A, CF568, and CF633 dyes. We have recently adapted our protocol to PhotoExM chemistry which is compatible with a wider range of fluorophores as described by Günay et al. (2023) and as shown in current Fig. S11.

(4) Related to the above point, it appears that Figure S11 may be missing the figure legend. This makes it hard to understand how HiExM can use other photo-inducible polymerization methods and dyes other than CF dyes.

The following figure legend will be included in the revised manuscript. Fig. S11: Example of a cell expanded in HiExM using Photo-ExM gel chemistry. Photo-ExM does not require an anoxic environment for gel deposition and polymerization, improving ease of use of HiExM. Mitochondria were stained with an Alexa 647 conjugated secondary antibody, indicating that HiExM is compatible with additional fluorophores when combined with Photo-ExM.

(5) The use of automated high-content imaging is impressive. However, it is unclear to me how the increased search space across the extended planar area and focal depths in expanded samples is overcome. It would be helpful to explain this automated imaging strategy in more detail.

We imaged plates on the Opera Phenix using the PreciScan Acquisition Software in Harmony. In brief, each well is imaged at 5x magnification in the Hoechst channel to capture the full well at low resolution. Hoechst is used for this step given its signal brightness, ubiquity across established staining protocols, and spectral independence from most fluorophores commonly conjugated to secondary antibodies. Using this information, the microscope detects regions of interest (nuclei) based on criteria including size, brightness, circularity, etc. Finally, the positional information for each region is stored, and the microscope automatically images those regions at 63x magnification. The working distance for the objective used in this study is 600 µm which is sufficient to capture the entirety of expanded cells in the Z direction. This strategy allows minimizes off-target imaging and allows robust image acquisition even in cultures with lower seeding density. A detailed description of the automated imaging strategy will be included in the revised manuscript.

(6) The general method of imaging pre- and post-expansion is not entirely clear to me. For example, on page 5 the authors state that pre-expansion imaging was done at the center of each gel. Is pre-expansion imaging done after the initial gel polymerization? If so, this would assume that the gelation itself has no effect on cell size and shape if these gelled but not yet expanded cells are used as the reference for calculating expansion factor and isotropy.

Pre-expansion imaging is performed after staining is complete, but prior to the application of AcX, which is the first step of the HiExM protocol. Following staining and imaging, plates can be sealed with paraffin and stored at 4˚C for up to a week prior to starting the expansion protocol. We typically image 61 fields of view at the center of the well plate (where the gel will be deposited) to obtain sufficient pre-expansion images as shown in Figure 2b (left). After pre-expansion imaging, we perform the HiExM protocol followed by image acquisition. We then tile all the images, as shown in Figure 2b, and compare tiled images from the same well pre- and post-expansion to manually identify the same cells. Comparisons of the pre- and post-expansion images of the same cell are then used to calculate expansion factor and isotropy measurements as described. This detailed description will be included in the revised manuscript.

(7) In the dox experiments, are only 4 expanded nuclei analyzed? It is unclear in the Figure 3 legend what the replicates are because for the unexpanded cells, it says the number of nuclei but for expanded it only says n=4. If only 4 nuclei are analyzed, this does not play to the strengths of HiExM by having high throughput.

We performed the DOX titration assay across four different well plates (i.e. n=4). For each condition, the total number of nuclei measured was 56, 71, 64, 92, and 62 for DMSO, 1nM, 10nM, 100nM, and 1µM, respectively. For SEM calculations, we included the number of technical replicates to avoid underestimating error. We have revised the Figure 3 legend to better reflect the experimental details.

(8) I am not sure if the analysis of dox-treated cells is accurate for the overall phenotype because only a single slice at the midplane is analyzed. It would be helpful to show, at least in one or two example cases, that this trend of changing edge intensity occurs across the whole 3D nucleus.

We will repeat our analysis on a subset of images using multiple optical sections for each nucleus reported. These new data will be included in the revised manuscript.

(9) It would be helpful to provide an actual benchmark of imaging speed or throughput to support the claims on page 8 that HiExM can be combined with autonomous imaging to capture thousands of cells a day. What is the highest throughput you have achieved so far?

The parameters that dictate imaging speed in HiExM include exposure time, z-stack height, and number of channels. Depending on the signal intensity for a given channel, exposure times vary from 200ms to 1000ms. For z-stack height, we found that imaging 65 sections with 1µm spacing allowed for robust identification of each region of interest in the 5x pre-scan. As an example, collecting images for a full well plate (e.g., 20 images per well with 4 channels) requires approximately 24 hours of autonomous image acquisition using the Opera Phenix. Depending on cell size, this yields imaging data for between 1200 cells (1 cell per field of view) to 6000 cells (5 cells per field of view). Different autonomous imagers as well as improving staining techniques that increase signal:noise can be expected to significantly decrease the exposure time as it will reduce the number of z-stacks needed for each region.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In the present work, the authors present an engineering solution to sample preparation in 96-well plates for high-throughput super-resolution microscopy via Expansion Microscopy. This is not a trivial problem, as the well cannot be filled with the gel, which would prohibit the expansion of the gel. A device was engineered that can spot a small droplet of hydrogel solution and keep it in place as it polymerizes. It occupies only a small portion of space at the center of each well, the gel can expand into all directions, and imaging and staining can proceed by liquid handling robots and an automated microscope.

Strengths:

In contrast to Reference 8, the authors' system is compatible with standard 96 well imaging plates for high-throughput automated microscopy and automated liquid handling for most parts of the protocol. They thus provide a clear path towards high-throughput ExM and high-throughput super-resolution microscopy, which is a timely and important goal.

Weaknesses:

The assay they chose to demonstrate what high-throughput ExM could be useful for, is not very convincing. But for this reviewer that is not important.

We appreciate this reviewer’s point. We believe the data provide an example of the power of HiExM for collecting thousands of nanoscale images that would benefit experiments that require many samples (e.g., conditions, replicates, timepoints, etc.). The ability to generate large data sets also enables quantitative analysis of images with appropriate statistical power. The intention of this experiment was to provide a proof-of-concept example of the robustness, accessibility, and experimental design flexibility of HiExM.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Day et al. introduced high-throughput expansion microscopy (HiExM), a method facilitating the simultaneous adaptation of expansion microscopy for cells cultured in a 96-well plate format. The distinctive features of this method include 1) the use of a specialized device for delivering a minimal amount (~230 nL) of gel solution to each well of a conventional 96-well plate, and 2) the application of the photochemical initiator, Irgacure 2959, to successfully form and expand the toroidal gel within each well.

Strengths:

This configuration eliminates the need for transferring gels to other dishes or wells, thereby enhancing the throughput and reproducibility of parallel expansion microscopy. This methodological uniqueness indicates the applicability of HiExM in detecting subtle cellular changes on a large scale.

Weaknesses:

To demonstrate the potential utility of HiExM in cell phenotyping, drug studies, and toxicology investigations, the authors treated hiPS-derived cardiomyocytes with a low dose of doxycycline (dox) and quantitatively assessed changes in nuclear morphology. However, this reviewer is not fully convinced of the validity of this specific application. Furthermore, some data about the effect of expansion require reconsideration.

The application we chose was intended as a proof of concept. We believe the data provide an example of the power of HiExM for collecting thousands of nanoscale images that would benefit experiments that require many samples (e.g., conditions, replicates, timepoints, etc.). The ability to generate large data sets also enables quantitative analysis of images with appropriate statistical power. The intention of this experiment was to provide a proof-of-concept example of the robustness, accessibility, and experimental design flexibility of HiExM.

The variability in expansion factor across plates can likely be attributed to the small volume (~250 nL) deposited by the device posts. Small variations in gel volume could impact gel polymerization compared to standard ExM gels. For example, gels in HiExM are more sensitive to evaporation because they are ~1000x smaller than standard expansion gel preparations due to an increased air-liquid-interface. Evaporation in HiExM gels increases monomer and cross linker concentrations, leading to variation in expansion factor across plates. We note that expansion factor is robust within well plates and that variance is slightly increased between plates. These differences will be discussed in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Day et al. introduced high-throughput expansion microscopy (HiExM), a method facilitating the simultaneous adaptation of expansion microscopy for cells cultured in a 96-well plate format. The distinctive features of this method include 1) the use of a specialized device for delivering a minimal amount (~230 nL) of gel solution to each well of a conventional 96-well plate, and 2) the application of the photochemical initiator, Irgacure 2959, to successfully form and expand the toroidal gel within each well.

Strengths:

This configuration eliminates the need for transferring gels to other dishes or wells, thereby enhancing the throughput and reproducibility of parallel expansion microscopy. This methodological uniqueness indicates the applicability of HiExM in detecting subtle cellular changes on a large scale.

Weaknesses:

To demonstrate the potential utility of HiExM in cell phenotyping, drug studies, and toxicology investigations, the authors treated hiPS-derived cardiomyocytes with a low dose of doxycycline (dox) and quantitatively assessed changes in nuclear morphology. However, this reviewer is not fully convinced of the validity of this specific application. Furthermore, some data about the effect of expansion require reconsideration.

eLife assessment

This important study develops a high throughput version of expansion microscopy that can be performed in 96-well plates. The engineered technology is convincing and compatible with standard microplates and automated microscopes and thus will be of broad interest. However, the application is incomplete and would benefit from additional experiments.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Day et al. present a high-throughput version of expansion microscopy to increase the throughput of this well-established super-resolution imaging technique. Through technical innovations in liquid handling with custom-fabricated tools and modifications to how the expandable hydrogels are polymerized, the authors show robust ~4-fold expansion of cultured cells in 96-well plates. They go on to show that HiExM can be used for applications such as drug screens by testing the effect of doxorubicin on human cardiomyocytes. Interestingly, the effects of this drug on changing DNA organization were only detectable by ExM, demonstrating the utility of HiExM for such studies.

Overall, this is a very well-written manuscript presenting an important technical advance that overcomes a major limitation of ExM - throughput. As a method, HiExM appears extremely useful, and the data generally support the conclusions.

Strengths:

Hi-ExM overcomes a major limitation of ExM by increasing the throughput and reducing the need for manual handling of gels. The authors do an excellent job of explaining each variation introduced to HiExM to make this work and thoroughly characterize the impressive expansion isotropy. The dox experiments are generally well-controlled and the comparison to an alternative stressor (H2O2) significantly strengthens the conclusions.

Weaknesses:

(1) Based on the exceedingly small volume of solution used to form the hydrogel in the well, there may be many unexpanded cells in the well and possibly underneath the expanded hydrogel at the end of this. How would this affect the image acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of HiExM data?

(2) It is unclear why the expansion factor is so variable between plates (e.g., Figure 2H). This should be discussed in more detail.

(3) The authors claim that CF dyes are more resistant to bleaching than other dyes. However, in Figure. S3, it appears that half of the CF dyes tested still show bleaching, and no data is shown supporting the claim that Alexa dyes bleach. It would be helpful to include data supporting the claim that Alexa dyes bleach more than CF dyes and the claim that CF dyes in general are resistant to bleaching should be modified to more accurately reflect the data shown.

(4) Related to the above point, it appears that Figure S11 may be missing the figure legend. This makes it hard to understand how HiExM can use other photo-inducible polymerization methods and dyes other than CF dyes.

(5) The use of automated high-content imaging is impressive. However, it is unclear to me how the increased search space across the extended planar area and focal depths in expanded samples is overcome. It would be helpful to explain this automated imaging strategy in more detail.

(6) The general method of imaging pre- and post-expansion is not entirely clear to me. For example, on page 5 the authors state that pre-expansion imaging was done at the center of each gel. Is pre-expansion imaging done after the initial gel polymerization? If so, this would assume that the gelation itself has no effect on cell size and shape if these gelled but not yet expanded cells are used as the reference for calculating expansion factor and isotropy.

(7) In the dox experiments, are only 4 expanded nuclei analyzed? It is unclear in the Figure 3 legend what the replicates are because for the unexpanded cells, it says the number of nuclei but for expanded it only says n=4. If only 4 nuclei are analyzed, this does not play to the strengths of HiExM by having high throughput.

(8) I am not sure if the analysis of dox-treated cells is accurate for the overall phenotype because only a single slice at the midplane is analyzed. It would be helpful to show, at least in one or two example cases, that this trend of changing edge intensity occurs across the whole 3D nucleus.

(9) It would be helpful to provide an actual benchmark of imaging speed or throughput to support the claims on page 8 that HiExM can be combined with autonomous imaging to capture thousands of cells a day. What is the highest throughput you have achieved so far?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In the present work, the authors present an engineering solution to sample preparation in 96-well plates for high-throughput super-resolution microscopy via Expansion Microscopy. This is not a trivial problem, as the well cannot be filled with the gel, which would prohibit the expansion of the gel. A device was engineered that can spot a small droplet of hydrogel solution and keep it in place as it polymerizes. It occupies only a small portion of space at the center of each well, the gel can expand into all directions, and imaging and staining can proceed by liquid handling robots and an automated microscope.

Strengths:

In contrast to Reference 8, the authors' system is compatible with standard 96 well imaging plates for high-throughput automated microscopy and automated liquid handling for most parts of the protocol. They thus provide a clear path towards high-throughput exM and high-throughout super-resolution microscopy, which is a timely and important goal.

Weaknesses:

The assay they chose to demonstrate what high-throughput ExM could be useful for, is not very convincing. But for this reviewer that is not important.

Author response:

eLife assessment

This study presents valuable information on the mechanism of how birnavirus VP3 protein interacts with PI3P in early endosomes. Evidence supporting the proposed two-stage mechanism is incomplete and would benefit from additional supporting experiments, and additional experimentation would also address concerns about data consistency.

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Zanetti et al. use biophysical and cellular assays to investigate the interaction of the birnavirus VP3 protein with the early endosome lipid PI3P. The major novel finding is that the association of the VP3 protein with an anionic lipid (PI3P) appears to be important for viral replication, as evidenced through a cellular assay on FFUs.

Strengths:

Supports previously published claims that VP3 may associate with early endosomes and bind to PI3P-containing membranes. The claim that mutating a single residue (R200) critically affects early endosome binding and that the same mutation also inhibits viral replication suggests a very important role for this binding in the viral life cycle.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript is relatively narrowly focused: one bimolecular interaction between a host cell lipid and one protein of an unusual avian virus (VP3-PI3P). Aspects of this interaction have been described previously. Additional data would strengthen claims about the specificity and some technical issues should be addressed. Many of the core claims would benefit from additional experimental support to improve consistency.

We focused our efforts on the characterization of the molecular interaction between the birnaviral protein VP3 and the anionic lipid PI3P, which is found in the host cell. This decision was motivated by our previous research, which made use of cell biology and virology techniques to demonstrate that VP3 facilitates the formation of the viral replication machinery on the cytosolic leaflet of early endosomes due to its inherent endosome-targeting capability (J Virol. 2018 May 14;92(11):e01964-17). Additionally, our previous findings indicated that PI3P, present in early endosomal membranes, is a critical host factor enabling VP3's association with these membranes, thereby promoting viral replication (J Virol. 2021 Feb 24;95(6):e02313-20). Consequently, an in-depth characterization of the VP3/PI3P interaction was necessary and motivated the present work. We plan to incorporate specific recommendations to further substantiate our assertions in the revised version of our manuscript.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Birnavirus replication factories form alongside early endosomes (EEs) in the host cell cytoplasm. Previous work from the Delgui lab has shown that the VP3 protein of the birnavirus strain infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) interacts with phosphatidylinositol-3-phosphate (PI3P) within the EE membrane (Gimenez et al., 2018, 2020). Here, Zanetti et al. extend this previous work by biochemically mapping the specific determinants within IBDV VP3 that are required for PI3P binding in vitro, and they employ in silico simulations to propose a biophysical model for VP3-PI3P interactions.

Strengths:

The manuscript is generally well-written, and much of the data is rigorous and solid. The results provide deep knowledge into how birnaviruses might nucleate factories in association with EEs. The combination of approaches (biochemical, imaging, and computational) employed to investigate VP3-PI3P interactions is deemed a strength.

Weaknesses:

(1) Concerns about the sources, sizes, and amounts of recombinant proteins used for co-flotation: Figures 1A, 1B, 1G, and 4A show the results of co-flotation experiments in which recombinant proteins (control His-FYVE v. either full length or mutant His VP3) were either found to be associated with membranes (top) or non-associated (bottom). However, in some experiments, the total amounts of protein in the top + bottom fractions do not appear to be consistent in control v. experimental conditions. For instance, the Figure 4A western blot of His-2xFYVE following co-flotation with PI3P+ membranes shows almost no detectable protein in either top or bottom fractions.

Liposome-based methods, such as the co-flotation assay, are well-known and preferred to study protein-phosphoinositide interaction because the phosphoinositides are incorporated in a membrane, the composition of which can mimic cellular membranes. Additionally, by modifying the phosphoinositide incorporated in the liposomes, this technique allows for determining the specificity of the protein binding. However, this approach is rather qualitative, meaning that, after density gradient separation, the protein is found in the top fractions (bound to liposomes) or in the bottom fractions (not bound to liposomes), and our quantifications have the aim of showing the difference in the bound fraction between liposome populations with or without PI3P. Given the setting of the co-flotation assays, each protein-liposome system [2xFYVE-PI3P(-), 2xFYVE-PI3P(+), VP3-PI3P(-), or VP3-PI3P(+)] is assessed separately, and even if the conditions are homogeneous, it’s not surprising to observe differences in the protein level between each one. Indeed, our revised version of the manuscript will include membranes with more similar band intensities.

Reading the paper, it was difficult to understand which source of protein was used for each experiment (i.e., E. coli or baculovirus-expressed), and this information is contradicted in several places (see lines 358-359 v. 383-384). Also, both the control protein and the His-VP3-FL proteins show up as several bands in the western blots, but they don't appear to be consistent with the sizes of the proteins stated on lines 383-384. For example, line 383 states that His-VP3-FL is ~43 kDa, but the blots show triplet bands that are all below the 35 kDa marker (Figures 1B and 1G). Mass spectrometry information is shown in the supplemental data (describing the different bands for His-VP3-FL) but this is not mentioned in the actual manuscript, causing confusion. Finally, the results appear to differ throughout the paper (see Figures 1B v. 1G and 1A v. 4A).

We used two sources of recombinant VP3: baculovirus and Escherichia coli. Initially, we opted for the baculovirus system based on evidence from previous studies that it was suitable for ectopic expression of VP3. Subsequently, we successfully produced VP3 using Escherichia coli and chose to transition to this system due to several technical advantages. Moreover, mass spectrometry analysis did not reveal any post-translational modifications that may have favored retaining the baculoviral system. We confirmed that VP3, produced in either system, exhibited similar behavior in our co-flotation assays. We will clarify all this in the revised version of our manuscript.

(2) Possible "other" effects of the R200D mutation on the VP3 protein. The authors performed mutagenesis to identify which residues within patch 2 on VP3 are important for association with PI3P. They found that a VP3 mutant with an engineered R200D change (i) did not associate with PI3P membranes in co-floatation assays, and (ii) did not co-localize with EE markers in transfected cells. Moreover, this mutation resulted in the loss of IBDV viability in reverse genetics studies. The authors interpret these results to indicate that this residue is important for "mediating VP3-PI3P interaction" (line 211) and that this interaction is essential for viral replication. However, it seems possible that this mutation abrogated other aspects of VP3 function (e.g., dimerization or other protein/RNA interactions) aside from or in addition to PI3P binding. Such possibilities are not mentioned by the authors.

The arginine amino acid at position 200 of VP3 is not located in any of the protein regions associated with its other known functions. VP3 has a dimerization domain located in the second helical domain, where different amino acids across the three helices form a total of 81 interprotomeric close contacts; however, R200 is not involved in these contacts (Structure. 2008 Jan;16(1):29-37). VP3 also has an oligomerization domain mapped within the 42 C-terminal residues of the polypeptide, i.e., the segment of the protein composed by the residues at positions 216-257 (J Virol. 2003 Jun;77(11):6438–6449). Regarding VP3’s ability to bind RNA, it is facilitated by a region of positively charged amino acids, identified as P1, which includes K99, R102, K105, and K106 (PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e45957). Furthermore, our findings indicate that the R200D mutant retains a folding pattern similar to the wild-type protein, as shown in Figure 4B. All these lead us to conclude that the loss of replication capacity of R200D viruses results from impaired, or even lost, VP3-PI3P interaction.

(3) Interpretations from computational simulations. The authors performed computational simulations on the VP3 structure to infer how the protein might interact with membranes. Such computational approaches are powerful hypothesis-generating tools. However, additional biochemical evidence beyond what is presented would be required to support the authors' claims that they "unveiled a two-stage modular mechanism" for VP3-PI3P interactions (see lines 55-59). Moreover, given the biochemical data presented for R200D VP3, it was surprising that the authors did not perform computational simulations on this mutant. The inclusion of such an experiment would help tie together the in vitro and in silico data and strengthen the manuscript.

We acknowledge that the language used may have overstated the "unveiling" of the two-stage binding mechanism for VP3 on membranes containing PI3P. We intended to propose, rather than confirm, this mechanism, largely based on our coarse-grained simulations. Accordingly, we will revise the manuscript to temper our claims and frame them more appropriately. Regarding the absence of computer simulations for the R200D VP3 mutant, these were indeed conducted, and the results are detailed in Figure 14 of the supplementary material. We realize this was not adequately emphasized in the main manuscript, an oversight we will correct in the revised version.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

Infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) is a birnavirus and an important avian pathogen. Interestingly, IBDV appears to be a unique dsRNA virus that uses early endosomes for RNA replication that is more common for +ssRNA viruses such as for example SARS-CoV-2.

This work builds on previous studies showing that IBDV VP3 interacts with PIP3 during virus replication. The authors provide further biophysical evidence for the interaction and map the interacting domain on VP3.

Strengths: Detailed characterization of the interaction between VP3 and PIP3 identified R200D mutation as critical for the interaction. Cryo-EM data show that VP3 leads to membrane deformation.

Weaknesses:

The work does not directly show that the identified R200 residues are directly involved in VP3-early endosome recruitment during infection. The majority of work is done with transfected VP3 protein (or in vitro) and not in virus-infected cells. Additional controls such as the use of PIP3 antagonizing drugs in infected cells together with a colocalization study of VP3 with early endosomes would strengthen the study. In addition, it would be advisable to include a control for cryo-EM using liposomes that do not contain PIP3 but are incubated with HIS-VP3-FL. This would allow ruling out any unspecific binding that might not be detected on WB.

The authors also do not propose how their findings could be translated into drug development that could be applied to protect poultry during an outbreak. The title of the manuscript is broad and would improve with rewording so that it captures what the authors achieved.

In previous works from our group, we demonstrated the crucial role of the VP3 P2 region in targeting the early endosomal membranes and for viral replication, including the use of PI3K inhibitors to deplete PI3P, showing that both the control RFP-2xFYVE and VP3 lost their ability to associate with the early endosomal membranes (J Virol. 2018 May 14;92(11):e01964-17; J Virol. 2021 Feb 24;95(6):e02313-20). In the present work, to further characterize the role of R200 in binding to early endosomes and for viral replication, we show that: i) the transfected VP3 R200D protein loses the ability to bind to early endosomes in immunofluorescence assays (Figure 2E and Figure 3); ii) the recombinant VP3 R200D protein loses the ability to bind to liposomes PI3P(+) in co-flotation assays (Figure 4A); and, iii) the mutant virus R200D loses replication capacity (Figure 4C).

Regarding the cryo-EM comment: we will include images where we used liposomes PIP3(-) in the revised version of our manuscript.

We will also modify the title of the manuscript.

Regarding the question of how our findings could be translated into drug development, indeed, VP3-PI3P binding constitutes a good target for drugs that counteract infectious bursal disease. However, we did not mention this idea in the manuscript, first because it is somewhat speculative and second because infected farms do not implement any specific treatment. The control is based on vaccination. We will mention these aspects of the infection in the revised version of our manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Zanetti et al. use biophysical and cellular assays to investigate the interaction of the birnavirus VP3 protein with the early endosome lipid PI3P. The major novel finding is that the association of the VP3 protein with an anionic lipid (PI3P) appears to be important for viral replication, as evidenced through a cellular assay on FFUs.

Strengths:

Supports previously published claims that VP3 may associate with early endosomes and bind to PI3P-containing membranes. The claim that mutating a single residue (R200) critically affects early endosome binding and that the same mutation also inhibits viral replication suggests a very important role for this binding in the viral life cycle.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript is relatively narrowly focused: one bimolecular interaction between a host cell lipid and one protein of an unusual avian virus (VP3-PI3P). Aspects of this interaction have been described previously. Additional data would strengthen claims about the specificity and some technical issues should be addressed. Many of the core claims would benefit from additional experimental support to improve consistency.

eLife assessment

This study presents valuable information on the mechanism of how birnavirus VP3 protein interacts with PI3P in early endosomes. Evidence supporting the proposed two-stage mechanism is incomplete and would benefit from additional supporting experiments, and additional experimentation would also address concerns about data consistency.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Birnavirus replication factories form alongside early endosomes (EEs) in the host cell cytoplasm. Previous work from the Delgui lab has shown that the VP3 protein of the birnavirus strain infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) interacts with phosphatidylinositol-3-phosphate (PI3P) within the EE membrane (Gimenez et al., 2018, 2020). Here, Zanetti et al. extend this previous work by biochemically mapping the specific determinants within IBDV VP3 that are required for PI3P binding in vitro, and they employ in silico simulations to propose a biophysical model for VP3-PI3P interactions.

Strengths:

The manuscript is generally well-written, and much of the data is rigorous and solid. The results provide deep knowledge into how birnaviruses might nucleate factories in association with EEs. The combination of approaches (biochemical, imaging, and computational) employed to investigate VP3-PI3P interactions is deemed a strength.

Weaknesses:

(1) Concerns about the sources, sizes, and amounts of recombinant proteins used for co-flotation: Figures 1A, 1B, 1G, and 4A show the results of co-flotation experiments in which recombinant proteins (control His-FYVE v. either full length or mutant His VP3) were either found to be associated with membranes (top) or non-associated (bottom). However, in some experiments, the total amounts of protein in the top + bottom fractions do not appear to be consistent in control v. experimental conditions. For instance, the Figure 4A western blot of His-2xFYVE following co-flotation with PI3P+ membranes shows almost no detectable protein in either top or bottom fractions. Reading the paper, it was difficult to understand which source of protein was used for each experiment (i.e., E. coli or baculovirus-expressed), and this information is contradicted in several places (see lines 358-359 v. 383-384). Also, both the control protein and the His-VP3-FL proteins show up as several bands in the western blots, but they don't appear to be consistent with the sizes of the proteins stated on lines 383-384. For example, line 383 states that His-VP3-FL is ~43 kDa, but the blots show triplet bands that are all below the 35 kDa marker (Figures 1B and 1G). Mass spectrometry information is shown in the supplemental data (describing the different bands for His-VP3-FL) but this is not mentioned in the actual manuscript, causing confusion. Finally, the results appear to differ throughout the paper (see Figures 1B v. 1G and 1A v. 4A).

(2) Possible "other" effects of the R200D mutation on the VP3 protein. The authors performed mutagenesis to identify which residues within patch 2 on VP3 are important for association with PI3P. They found that a VP3 mutant with an engineered R200D change (i) did not associate with PI3P membranes in co-floatation assays, and (ii) did not co-localize with EE markers in transfected cells. Moreover, this mutation resulted in the loss of IBDV viability in reverse genetics studies. The authors interpret these results to indicate that this residue is important for "mediating VP3-PI3P interaction" (line 211) and that this interaction is essential for viral replication. However, it seems possible that this mutation abrogated other aspects of VP3 function (e.g., dimerization or other protein/RNA interactions) aside from or in addition to PI3P binding. Such possibilities are not mentioned by the authors.

(3) Interpretations from computational simulations. The authors performed computational simulations on the VP3 structure to infer how the protein might interact with membranes. Such computational approaches are powerful hypothesis-generating tools. However, additional biochemical evidence beyond what is presented would be required to support the authors' claims that they "unveiled a two-stage modular mechanism" for VP3-PI3P interactions (see lines 55-59). Moreover, given the biochemical data presented for R200D VP3, it was surprising that the authors did not perform computational simulations on this mutant. The inclusion of such an experiment would help tie together the in vitro and in silico data and strengthen the manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) is a birnavirus and an important avian pathogen. Interestingly, IBDV appears to be a unique dsRNA virus that uses early endosomes for RNA replication that is more common for +ssRNA viruses such as for example SARS-CoV-2.

This work builds on previous studies showing that IBDV VP3 interacts with PIP3 during virus replication. The authors provide further biophysical evidence for the interaction and map the interacting domain on VP3.

Strengths:

Detailed characterization of the interaction between VP3 and PIP3 identified R200D mutation as critical for the interaction. Cryo-EM data show that VP3 leads to membrane deformation.

Weaknesses:

The work does not directly show that the identified R200 residues are directly involved in VP3-early endosome recruitment during infection. The majority of work is done with transfected VP3 protein (or in vitro) and not in virus-infected cells.

Additional controls such as the use of PIP3 antagonizing drugs in infected cells together with a colocalization study of VP3 with early endosomes would strengthen the study.

In addition, it would be advisable to include a control for cryo-EM using liposomes that do not contain PIP3 but are incubated with HIS-VP3-FL. This would allow ruling out any unspecific binding that might not be detected on WB.

The authors also do not propose how their findings could be translated into drug development that could be applied to protect poultry during an outbreak. The title of the manuscript is broad and would improve with rewording so that it captures what the authors achieved.

Author Response

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

Thank you once again for your patience and guidance through this revision process. I would like to add an important aspect to our previous discussion regarding the identification and impact of potential contaminants in our study.

In recent years, advanced tools such as SCRuB (recently published in Nature Biotechnology, DOI:10.1038/s41587-023-01696-w) and the widely-used tool decontam have been developed to address the issue of contaminants in metagenomic studies. These tools primarily operate based on sequence similarity, identifying potential contaminants by marking and removing those found in only a minority of samples or those that display patterns indicative of laboratory contamination.

As the reviewer rightly pointed out, contaminants are often rare species that appear in very few samples. Our study, focusing on high-abundance species in the vaginal microbiome, is less susceptible to the influences of such rare contaminants. This approach aligns with the methodology employed by leading research groups in the field, such as Professor Jacques Ravel's lab. Their decision not to use blank controls in several of their studies on the female reproductive tract microbiome likely stems from a similar understanding — that the impact of rare contaminants is minimal on the study's conclusions, especially when high-abundance species are the main focus.

We believe that the methodologies and tools currently available for contaminant identification and removal, while highly effective for their intended purpose, reinforce our decision to focus on high-abundance species. This focus minimizes the potential impact of rare contaminants on our study's conclusions. In light of this, our study's methodology remains robust and well-suited for achieving our research objectives.

In our revised manuscript, we will include a discussion of these points, further clarifying our approach and the rationale behind our methodological choices. We hope that this additional information will address the concerns raised and provide a clearer understanding of the context and reliability of our findings.

Thank you for considering these additional points. We look forward to your feedback on our revised manuscript.

Author response:

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

We thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments. We were pleased that they thought our study was "well crafted and written", "important", and that it provides a "valuable resource for researchers studying color vision". They also expressed several constructive criticisms, concerning – among other things – the lack of details regarding experimental procedures and analysis, the challenge in relating retinal data to cortical recordings, and consistency of results across animals. In response to the reviewers’ comments and following their suggestions, we performed additional analyses, and substantially revised the paper:

We added a section in the Discussion about "Limitations of the stimulus paradigm". In addition, we added a new Suppl. Figure that illustrates the effect of deconvolution of calcium traces on our results and clarified in the text why we use deconvolved signals for all analyses. The new Suppl. Figure also shows an additional analysis with a more conservative threshold of neuron exclusion.

We now clarify how retinal signaling relates to our cortical results and rewrote the text to be more conservative regarding our conclusions.

In addition, we added a new Suppl. Figure showing the key analyses from Figures 2 and 4 separately for each animal. We now mention consistency across animals in the Results section and clearly state which analyses were performed an data pooled across animals.

We are positive that these additions address the issues raised by the reviewers. Please find our point-by-point replies to all comments below.

eLife assessment

Franke et al. explore and characterize the color response properties in the mouse primary visual cortex, revealing specific color opponent encoding strategies across the visual field. The data is solid; however, the evidence supporting some conclusions and details about some procedures are incomplete. In its current form, the paper makes a useful contribution to how color is coded in mouse V1. Significance would be enhanced with some additional analyses and resolution of some technical issues.

We thank the reviewers for appreciating our manuscript and their thoughtful comments.

Referee 1 (Remarks to the Author):

Summary:

In this study, Franke et al. explore and characterize the color response properties across the primary visual cortex, revealing specific color opponent encoding strategies across the visual field. The authors use awake-behaving 2P imaging to define the spectral response properties of visual interneurons in Layer 2/3. They find that opponent responses are more prominent at photopic light levels, and diversity in color opponent responses exists across the visual science, with green ON/ UV OFF responses being stronger represented in the upper visual field. This is argued to be relevant for detecting certain features that are more salient when the chromatic space is used, possibly due to noise reductions.

Strengths:

The work is well crafted and written and provides a thorough characterization that reveals an uncharacterized diversity of visual properties in V1. I find this characterization important because it reveals how strongly chromatic information can modulate the response properties in V1. In the upper visual field, 25% of the cells differentially relay chromatic information, and one may wonder how this information will be integrated and subsequently used to aid vision beyond the detection of color per see. I personally like the last paragraph of the discussion that highlights this fact.

We thank the reviewer for appreciating our manuscript.

Weaknesses: One major point highlighted in this paper is the fact that Green ON/UV OFF responses are not generated in the retina. But glancing through the literature, I saw this is not necessarily true. Fig 1. of Joesch and Meister, a paper cited, shows this can be the case. Thus, I would not emphasize that this wasn’t present in the retina. This is a minor point, but even if the retina could not generate these signals, I would be surprised if the diversity of responses would only arise through feed-forward excitation, given the intricacies of cortical connectivity. Thus, I would argue that the argument holds for most of the responses seen in V1; they need to be further processed by cortical circuitries.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. When analyzing available data from the retina using a similar center-surround color flicker stimulus (Szatko et al. 2020), we found that Green On/UV Off color opponency is very rare in the RF center of retinal ganglion cells (Suppl. Fig. 5). This suggests that center Green On/UV Off color opponency in V1 neurons is not inherited by the RF center of retinal neurons. However, we agree with the reviewer that retinal neurons might still contribute to V1 color opponency, for example by being center-surround color opponent (e.g. Joesch et al. 2016 and Szatko et al. 2020). We rephrased the text to acknowledge this fact.

This takes me to my second point, defining center and surround. The center spot is 37.5 deg of visual angle, more than 1 mm of the retinal surface. That means that all retinal cells, at least half and most likely all of their surrounds will also be activated. Although 37.5 deg is roughly the receptive field size previously determined for V1 neurons, the one-to-one comparison with retinal recording, particularly with their center/surround properties, is difficult. This should be discussed. I assume that the authors tried a similar approach with sparse or dense checker white noise stimuli. If so, it would be interesting if there were better ways of defining the properties of V1 neurons on their complex/simple receptive field properties to define how much of their responses are due to an activation of the true "center" or a coactivation of the surround. Interestingly, at least some of the cells (Fig. 1d, cells 2 and 5) don’t have a surround. Could it be that in these cases, the "center" and "surround" are being excited together? How different would the overall statistics change if one used a full-filed flicker stimulus instead of a center/surround stimulus? How stable are the results if the center/surround flicker stimulus is shifted? These results won’t change the fact that chromatic coding is present in the VC and that there are clear differences depending on their position, but it might change the interpretation. Thus, I would encourage you to test these differences and discuss them.

Thanks for this comment. We agree with the reviewer that a one-to-one comparison of retina and V1 data is challenging, due to differences in both RF and stimulus size. We rephrased the Results text to clarify this point and now also mention it in the Discussion.

To be able to record from many V1 neurons simultaneously, we used a stimulus size of 37.5 degree visual angle in diameter, which is slightly larger than center RFs of single V1 neurons. As the reviewer mentions, the disadvantage of this approach is that the stimulus is only roughly centered on the neurons’ center RFs. To reduce the impact of potential stimulus misalignment on our results, we used the following steps:

For each recording, we positioned the monitor such that the mean RF across all neurons lies within the center of the stimulus field of view.

We confirmed that this procedure results in good stimulus alignment for the large majority of recorded neurons within individual recording fields by using a sparse noise stimulus (Suppl. Fig. 1a-c). Specifically, we found that for 83% of tested neurons, more than two thirds of their center RF, determined by the sparse noise stimulus, overlapped with the center spot of the color noise stimulus.

For analysis, we excluded neurons without a significant center STA, which may be caused by misalignment of the stimulus.

Together, we believe these points strongly suggest that the center spot and the surround annulus of the noise stimulus predominantly drive center (i.e. classical RF) and surround (i.e. extraclassical RF), respectively, of the recorded V1 neurons. This is further supported by the fact that color response types identified using an automated clustering method were robust across mice (Suppl. Fig. 6c), indicating consistent stimulus centering.

Nevertheless, we cannot exclude that the stimulus was misaligned for a subset of the recorded neurons used for analysis. We agree with the reviewer that such misalignment might have contributed to cells not having surround STAs, due to simultaneous activation of antagonistic center and surround RF components by the surround stimulus. While a full-field stimulus would get rid of the misalignment problem, it would not allow to study color tuning in center and surround RF components separately. Instead, one could compare the results of our approach with an approach that centers the stimulus on individual neurons. However, we believe that performing these additional experiments is out of the scope of the current study.

To acknowledge the experimental limitations of our study and the concerns brought up by the reviewer, we now explicitly mention the steps we perform to reduce the effects of stimulus misalignment in the Results section and discuss the problem of stimulus alignment in the Discussion. We believe these changes will help the reader to interpret our results.

Referee 2 (Remarks to the Author):

Summary:

Franke et al. characterize the representation of color in the primary visual cortex of mice and how it changes across the visual field, with a particular focus on how this may influence the ability to detect aerial predators. Using calcium imaging in awake, head-fixed mice, they characterize the properties of V1 neurons (layer 2/3) using a large center-surround stimulation where green and ultra-violet were presented in random combinations. Using a clustering approach, a set of functional cell-types were identified based on their preference to different combinations of green and UV in their center and surround. These functional types were demonstrated to have varying spatial distributions in V1, including one neuronal type (Green-ON/UV-OFF) that was much more prominent in the posterior V1 (i.e. upper visual field). Modelling work suggests that these neurons likely support the detection of predator-like objects in the sky.

Strengths:

The large-scale single-cell resolution imaging used in this work allows the authors to map the responses of individual neurons across large regions of the visual cortex. Combining this large dataset with clustering analysis enabled the authors to group V1 neurons into distinct functional cell types and demonstrate their relative distribution in the upper and lower visual fields. Modelling work demonstrated the different capacity of each functional type to detect objects in the sky, providing insight into the ethological relevance of color opponent neurons in V1.

We thank the reviewer for appreciating our manuscript.

Weaknesses:

While the study presents solid evidence a few weaknesses exist, including the size of the dataset, clarity regarding details of data included in each step of the analysis and discussion of caveats of the work. The results presented here are based on recordings of 3 mice. While the number of neurons recorded is reasonably large (n > 3000) an analysis that tests for consistency across animals is missing. Related to this, it is unclear how many neurons at each stage of the analysis come from the 3 different mice (except for Suppl. Fig 4).

Thank you for this comment. We apologize that the original manuscript did not clearly indicate the consistency of our results across animals. We have revised the manuscript in the following ways:

We have added an additional Suppl. Figure, which shows the variability of the data within and across animals (Suppl. Fig. 4). Specifically, we show the distribution of color and luminance selectivity for (i) center and surround components of V1 RFs and (ii) for upper and lower visual field. This data is used for all analyses shown in Figures 2-4. The figure legend of this figure also states the number of neurons per animal.

We now clearly state in the Results section that all analyses in the main figures were performed by pooling data across animals, and refer to the Suppl. Figures for consistency across animals.

We believe these changes help the reader to interpret our results.

Finally, the paper would greatly benefit from a more in depth discussion of the caveats related to the conclusion drawn at each stage of the analysis. This is particularly relevant regarding the caveats related to using spike triggered averages to assess the response preferences of ON-OFF neurons, and the conclusions drawn about the contribution of retinal color opponency.

Thanks. We substantially revised the text to discuss caveats and limitations of the approach. For example, we added a section into the Discussion called "Limitations of the stimulus paradigm". In addition, we clarified how retinal signals relate to cortical ones and phrased our conclusions more conservatively.

The authors provide solid evidence to support an asymmetric distribution of color opponent cells in V1 and a reduced color contrast representation in lower light levels. Some statements would benefit from more direct evidence such as the integration of upstream visual signals for color opponency in V1.

Based on the comments from Reviewer 1, we have rephrased the statements regarding the integration of upstream visual signals for color opponency in V1. We think these revisions increase the clarity of the results and help the reader with interpretation.

Overall, this study will be a valuable resource for researchers studying color vision, cortical processing, and the processing of ethologically relevant information. It provides a useful basis for future work on the origin of color opponency in V1 and its ethological relevance.

Thanks! We thank the reviewer again for the helpful comments.

Referee 3 (Remarks to the Author):

This paper studies chromatic coding in mouse primary visual cortex. Calcium responses of a large collection of cells are measured in response to a simple spot stimulus. These responses are used to estimate chromatic tuning properties - specifically sensitivity to UV and green stimuli presented in a large central spot or a larger still surrounding region. Cells are divided based on their responses to these stimuli into luminance or chromatic sensitive groups. Several technical concerns limit how clearly the data support the conclusions. If these issues can be fixed, the paper would make a valuable contribution to how color is coded in mouse V1.

We thank the reviewer for the helpful comments.

Analysis: The central tool used to analyze the data is a "spike triggered average" of the responses to randomly varying stimuli. There are several steps in this analysis that are not documented, and hence evaluating how well it works is difficult. Central to this is that the paper does not measure spikes. Instead, measured calcium traces are converted to estimated spike rates, which are then used to estimate STAs. There are no raw calcium traces shown, and the approach to estimate spike rates is not described in any detail. Confirming the accuracy of these steps is essential for a reader to be able to evaluate the paper. Further, it is not clear why the linear filters connecting the recorded calcium traces and the stimulus cannot be estimated directly, without the intermediate step of estimating spike rates.

Thank you for this comment. We have used the genetically encoded calcium sensor GCaMP6s in our recordings. This sensor is a very sensitive GCaMP6 variant, but also one with slow kinetics. To remove the effect of the slow sensor kinetics from recorded calcium responses, the recorded traces are commonly deconvolved with the impulse function of the sensor to obtain the deconvolved calcium traces. We now include this reasoning in the Results section. To illustrate the effect of the deconvolution, we added a new Suppl. Figure (Suppl. Fig. 2) showing raw calcium and deconvolved traces, and the STAs estimated from both types of traces. This illustrates that the results regarding neuronal color preferences are consistent across raw and deconvolved calcium traces.

We agree with the reviewer that the term STA might be confusing. We have replaced it with the term "even-triggered-average" (ETA). In addition, we have replaced the phrase "estimated spike rate" with "deconvolved calcium trace" throughout the manuscript because the unit of the deconvolved traces is not interpretable, like spike rate would be (spikes per second). In the revised version, we now clarify in the Methods section that we estimate the ETAs based on deconvolved calcium traces, which is correlated with and an approximation for spike rate.

A further issue about the STAs is that the inclusion criterion (correlation of predicted vs measured responses of 0.25) is pretty forgiving. It would be helpful to see a distribution of those correlation values, and some control analyses to check whether the STA is providing a sufficiently accurate measure to support the results (e.g. do the central results hold for the cells with the highest correlations).

We thank the reviewer for this comment. To exclude noisy neurons from analysis, we used the following procedure:

For each of the four stimulus conditions (center and surround for green and UV stimuli), kernel quality was measured by comparing the variance of the STA with the variance of the baseline, defined as the first 500 ms of the STA. Only cells with at least 10-times more variance of the kernel compared to baseline for UV or green center STA were considered for further analysis.

We have added the distribution of quality values to a new Suppl. Figure (Suppl. Fig. 2d,e). We now also show the percentage of neurons above threshold, given different quality thresholds. Finally, we have repeated the analysis shown in Figure 2 for a much more conservative threshold, including only the top 25% of neurons (Suppl. Fig. 2e,f). We now mention this new analysis in the Methods and Results section.

Limitations of stimulus choice: The paper relies on responses to a large (37.5 degree diameter) modulated spot and surrounding region. This spot is considerably larger than the receptive fields of both V1 cells and retinal ganglion cells. As a result, the spot itself is very likely to strongly activate both center and surround mechanisms, and responses of cells are likely to depend on where the receptive fields are located within the spot (and, e.g., how much of the true neural surround samples the center spot vs the surround region). The impact of these issues on the conclusions is considered briefly at the start of the results but needs to be evaluated in considerably more detail. This is particularly true for retinal ganglion cells given the size of their receptive fields (see also next point).

We agree with the reviewer that the centering of the stimulus is critical and apologize if this point was not discussed sufficiently. To be able to record from many V1 neurons simultaneously, we used a stimulus size of 37.5 degree visual angle in diameter, which is slightly larger than center RFs of single V1 neurons. As the reviewer mentions, the disadvantage of this approach is that the stimulus is only roughly centered on the neurons’ center RFs. To reduce the impact of potential stimulus misalignment on our results, we have used different experimental and analysis steps and controls (see also second comment of Reviewer 1):

For each recording, we positioned the monitor such that the mean RF across all neurons lies within the center of the stimulus field of view.

We confirmed that this procedure results in good stimulus alignment for the large majority of recorded neurons within individual recording fields by using a sparse noise stimulus (Suppl. Fig. 1a-c). Specifically, we found that for 83% of tested neurons, more than two thirds of their center RF, determined by the sparse noise stimulus, overlapped with the center spot of the color noise stimulus.

For analysis, we excluded neurons without a significant center STA, which may be caused by misalignment of the stimulus.

We now mention those clearly in the Results section and added the limitations of our approach to the Discussion section.

Comparison with retina: A key conclusion of the paper is that the chromatic tuning in V1 is not inherited from retinal ganglion cells. This conclusion comes from comparing chromatic tuning in a previously-collected data set from retina with the present results. But the retina recordings were made using a considerably smaller spot, and hence it is not clear that the comparison made in the paper is accurate. This issue may be handled by the analysis presented in the paper, but if so it needs to be described more clearly. The paper from which the retina data is taken argues that rod-cone chromatic opponency originates largely in the outer retina. This mechanism would be expected to be shared across retinal outputs. Thus it is not clear how the Green-On/UV-Off vs Green-Off/UV-On asymmetry could originate. This should be discussed.

We agree with the reviewer that a one-to-one comparison of retina and V1 data is challenging, due to differences in both RF and stimulus size. We rephrased the Results text to clarify this point and now also mention it in the Discussion.

When analyzing available data from the retina using a similar center-surround color flicker stimulus (Szatko et al. 2020), we found that Green On/UV Off color opponency is very rare in the RF center of retinal ganglion cells (Suppl. Fig. 5). This suggests that center Green On/UV Off color opponency in V1 neurons is not inherited by the RF center of retinal neurons. However, we agree with the reviewer that retinal neurons might still contribute to V1 color opponency, for example by being center-surround color opponent (e.g. Joesch et al. 2016 and Szatko et al. 2020). We rephrased the text to acknowledge this fact.

Residual chromatic cells at low mesopic light levels The presence of chromatically tuned cells at the lowest light level probed is surprising. The authors describe these conditions as rod-dominated, in which case chromatic tuning should not be possible. This again is discussed only briefly. It either reflects the presence of an unexpected pathway that amplifies weak cone signals under low mesopic conditions such that they can create spectral opponency or something amiss in the calibrations or analysis. Data collected at still lower light levels would help resolve this.

Thank you for this comment. We call the lowest light level "low mesopic" and "rod-dominated" because the spectral contrast of V1 center responses in posterior recording fields is green-shifted for this light level (Fig. 3a). This is only expected if responses in the UV-cone dominant ventral retina are predominantly driven by rod photoreceptors. We now explain this rationale in the Results section. In addition, we mention in the Discussion that future studies are required to test whether cone signals need to be amplified for low light levels. While we agree with the reviewer that it would be exciting to use even lower light levels during recordings, we believe this is out of the scope of the current study due to the technical challenges involved in achieving scotopic stimulation.

eLife assessment

Franke et al. explore and characterize the color response properties in the mouse primary visual cortex, revealing specific color opponent encoding strategies across the visual field. The data is solid; however, the evidence supporting some conclusions is incomplete. In its current form, the paper makes a useful contribution to how color is coded in mouse V1. Significance would be enhanced with some additional analyses and a clearer discussion of the limitations of the data presented.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this study, Franke et al. explore and characterize color response properties across primary visual cortex, revealing specific color opponent encoding strategies across the visual field. The authors use awake 2P imaging to define the spectral response properties of visual interneurons in layer 2/3. They find that opponent responses are more pronounced at photopic light levels, and that diversity in color opponent responses exists across the visual field, with green ON/ UV OFF responses more strongly represented in the upper visual field. This is argued to be relevant for the detection of certain features that are more salient when using chromatic space, possibly due to noise reduction. In the revised version, Franke et al. have addressed the potential pitfalls in the discussion, which is an important point for the non-expert reader. Thus, this study provides a solid characterization of the color properties of V1 and is a valuable addition to visual neuroscience research.

My remaining concerns are based more on the interpretation. I'm still not convinced by the statement "This type of color-opponency in the receptive field center of V1 neurons was not present in the receptive field center of retinal ganglion cells and, therefore, is likely computed by integrating center and surround information downstream of the retina." and I would suggest rewording it in the abstract.

As discussed previously and now nicely added to the discussion, it is difficult to make a direct comparison given the different stimulus types used to characterize the retina and V1 recordings and the different levels of adaptation in both tissues. I will leave this point to the discussion, which allows for a more nuanced description of the phenomenon. Why do I think this is important? In the introduction, the authors argue that "the discrepancy [of previous studies] may be due to differences in stimulus design or light levels." However, while different light levels can be tested in V1, this cannot be done properly in the retina with 2P experiments. To address this, one would have to examine color-opponency in RGC terminals in vivo, which is beyond the scope of this study. Addressing these latter points directly in the discussion would, in my opinion, only strengthen the study.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

Franke et al. characterize the representation of color in the primary visual cortex of mice, highlighting how this changes across the visual field. Using calcium imaging in awake, head-fixed mice, they characterize the properties of V1 neurons (layer 2/3) using a large center-surround stimulation where green and ultra-violet colors were presented in random combinations. Clustering of responses revealed a set of functional cell-types based on their preference to different combinations of green and UV in their center and surround. These functional types were demonstrated to have different spatial distributions across V1, including one neuronal type (Green-ON/UV-OFF) that was much more prominent in the posterior V1 (i.e. upper visual field). Modelling work suggests that these neurons likely support the detection of predator-like objects in the sky.

Strengths:

The large-scale single-cell resolution imaging used in this work allows the authors to map the responses of individual neurons across large regions of the visual cortex. Combining this large dataset with clustering analysis enabled the authors to group V1 neurons into distinct functional cell types and demonstrate their relative distribution in the upper and lower visual fields. Modelling work demonstrated the different capacity of each functional type to detect objects in the sky, providing insight into the ethological relevance of color opponent neurons in V1.

Weaknesses:

While the study presents convincing evidence about the asymmetric distribution of color-opponent neurons in V1, the paper would greatly benefit from a more in-depth discussion of the caveats related to the conclusions drawn about their origin. This is particularly relevant regarding the conclusion drawn about the contribution of color opponent neurons in the retina. The mismatch between retinal color opponency and V1 color opponency could imply that this feature is not solely inherited from the retina, however, there are other plausible explanations that are not discussed here. Direct evidence for this statement remains weak.

In addition, the paper would benefit from adding explicit neuron counts or percentages to the quadrants of each of the density plots in Figures 2-5. The variance explained by the principal components does not capture the percentage of color opponent cells. Additionally, there appear to be some remaining errors in the figure legend and labels that have not been addressed (e.g. '??' in Fig 2 legend).

Overall, this study will be a valuable resource for researchers studying color vision, cortical processing, and the processing of ethologically relevant information. It provides a useful basis for future work on the origin of color opponency in V1 and its ethological relevance.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This paper studies chromatic coding in mouse primary visual cortex. Calcium responses of a large collection of cells are measured in response to a simple spot stimulus. These responses are used to estimate chromatic tuning properties - specifically sensitivity to UV and green stimuli presented in a large central spot or a larger still surrounding region. Cells are divided based on their responses to these stimuli into luminance or chromatic sensitive groups. The results are interesting and many aspects of the experiments and conclusions are well done; several technical concerns, however, limit the support for several main conclusions,

Limitations of stimulus choice<br /> The paper relies on responses to a large (37.5 degree diameter) modulated spot and surround region. This spot is considerably larger than the receptive fields of both V1 cells and retinal ganglion cells (it is twice the area of the average V1 receptive field). As a result, the spot itself is very likely to strongly activate both center and surround mechanisms, and responses of cells are likely to depend on where the receptive fields are located within the spot (and, e.g., how much of the true neural surround samples the center spot vs the surround region). Most importantly, the surrounds of most of the recorded cells will be strongly activated by the central spot. This brings into question statements in the paper about selective activation of center and surround (e.g. page 2, right column). This in turn raises questions about several subsequent analyses that rely on selective center and surround activation.

Comparison with retina<br /> A key conclusion of the paper is that the chromatic tuning in V1 is not inherited from retinal ganglion cells. This conclusion comes from comparing chromatic tuning in a previously-collected data set from retina with the present results. But the retina recordings were made using a considerably smaller spot, and hence it is not clear that the comparison made in the paper is accurate. For example, the stimulus used for the V1 experiments almost certainly strongly stimulates both center and surround of retinal ganglion cells. The text focuses on color opponency in the receptive field centers of retinal ganglion cells, but center-surround opponency seems at least as relevant for such large spots. This issue needs to be described more clearly and earlier in the paper.

Limitations associated with ETA analysis<br /> One of the reviewers in the previous round of reviews raised the concern that the ETA analysis may not accurately capture responses of cells with nonlinear receptive field properties such as On/Off cells. This possibility and whether it is a concern should be discussed.

Discrimination performance poor<br /> Discriminability of color or luminance is used as a measure of population coding. The discrimination performance appears to be quite poor - with 500-1000 neurons needed to reliably distinguish light from dark or green from UV. Intuitively I would expect that a single cell would provide such discrimination. Is this intuition wrong? If not, how do we interpret the discrimination analyses?

Author response:

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

As you will see, the main changes in the revised manuscript pertain to the structure and content of the introduction. Specifically, we have tried to more clearly introduce our paradigm, the rationale behind the paradigm, why it is different from learning paradigms, and why we study “relief”.

In this rebuttal letter, we will go over the reviewers’ comments one-by-one and highlight how we have adapted our manuscript accordingly. However, because one concern was raised by all reviewers, we will start with an in-depth discussion of this concern.

The shared concern pertained to the validity of the EVA task as a model to study threat omission responses. Specifically, all reviewers questioned the effectivity of our so-called “inaccurate”, “false” or “ruse” instructions in triggering an equivalent level of shock expectancy, and relatedly, how this effectivity was affected by dynamic learning over the course of the task.

We want to thank the reviewers for raising this important issue. Indeed, it is a vital part of our design and it therefore deserves considerable attention. It is now clear to us that in the previous version of the manuscript we may have focused too little on why we moved away from a learning paradigm, and how we made sure that the instructions were successful at raising the necessary expectations; and how the instructions were affected by learning. We believe this has resulted in some misunderstandings, which consequently may have cast doubts on our results. In the following sections, we will go into these issues.

The rationale behind our instructed design

The main aim of our study was to investigate brain responses to unexpected omissions of threat in greater detail by examining their similarity to the reward prediction error axioms (Caplin & Dean, 2008), and exploring the link with subjective relief. Specifically, we hypothesized that omission-related responses should be dependent on the probability and the intensity of the expected-but-omitted aversive event (i.e., electrical stimulation), meaning that the response should be larger when the expected stimulation was stronger and more expected, and that fully predicted outcomes should not trigger a difference in responding.

To this end, we required that participants had varying levels of threat probability and intensity predictions, and that these predictions would most of the time be violated. Although we fully agree with the reviewers that fear conditioning and extinction paradigms can provide an excellent way to track the teaching properties of prediction error responses (i.e., how they are used to update expectancies on future trials), we argued that they are less suited to create the varying probability and intensity-related conditions we required (see Willems & Vervliet, 2021). Specifically, in a standard conditioning task participants generally learn fast, rendering relatively few trials on which the prediction is violated. As a result, there is generally little intraindividual variability in the prediction error responses. This precludes an in-depth analysis of the probability-related effects. Furthermore, conditioning paradigms generally only include one level of aversive outcome: the electrical stimulation is either delivered or omitted. As a result, intensity-related effects cannot be tested. Finally, because CS-US contingencies change over the course of a fear conditioning and extinction study (e.g. from acquisition to extinction), there is never complete certainty about when the US will (not) follow. This precludes a direct comparison of fully predicted outcomes.

Another added value of studying responses to the prediction error at threat omission outside a learning context is that it can offer a way to disentangle responses to the violation of threat expectancy, with those of subsequent expectancy updating.

Also note that Rutledge and colleagues (2010), who were the first to show that human fMRI responses in the Nucleus Accumbens comply to the reward prediction error axioms also did not use learning experiences to induce expectancy. In that sense, we argued it was not necessary to adopt a learning paradigm to study threat omission responses.

Adaptations in the revised manuscript: We included two new paragraphs in the introduction of the revised manuscript to elaborate on why we opted not to use a learning paradigm in the present study (lines 90-112).

“However, is a correlation with the theoretical PE over time sufficient for neural activations/relief to be classified as a PE-signal? In the context of reward, Caplin and colleagues proposed three necessary and sufficient criteria all PE-signals should comply to, independent of the exact operationalizations of expectancy and reward (the socalled axiomatic approach24,25; which has also been applied to aversive PE26–28). Specifically, the magnitude of a PE signal should: (1) be positively related to the magnitude of the reward (larger rewards trigger larger PEs); (2) be negatively related to likelihood of the reward (more probable rewards trigger smaller PEs); and (3) not differentiate between fully predicted outcomes of different magnitudes (if there is no error in prediction, there should be no difference in the PE signal).”

“It is evident that fear conditioning and extinction paradigms have been invaluable for studying the role of the threat omission PE within a learning context. However, these paradigms are not tailored to create the varying intensity and probability-related conditions that are required to evaluate the threat omission PE in the light of the PE axioms. First, conditioning paradigms generally only include one level of aversive outcome: the electrical stimulation is either delivered or omitted. As a result, the magnitude-related axiom cannot be tested. Second, in conditioning tasks people generally learn fast, rendering relatively few trials on which the prediction is violated. As a result, there is generally little intra-individual variability in the PE responses. Moreover, because of the relatively low signal to noise ratio in fMRI measures, fear extinction studies often pool across trials to compare omission-related activity between early and late extinction16, which further reduces the necessary variability to properly evaluate the probability axiom. Third, because CS-US contingencies change over the course of the task (e.g. from acquisition to extinction), there is never complete certainty about whether the US will (not) follow. This precludes a direct comparison of fully predicted outcomes. Finally, within a learning context, it remains unclear whether PErelated responses are in fact responses to the violation of expectancy itself, or whether they are the result of subsequent expectancy updating.”

Can verbal instructions be used to raise the expectancy of shock?

The most straightforward way to obtain sufficient variability in both probability and intensityrelated predictions is by directly providing participants with instructions on the probability and intensity of the electrical stimulation. In a previous behavioral study, we have shown that omission responses (self-reported relief and omission SCR) indeed varied with these instructions (Willems & Vervliet, 2021). In addition, the manipulation checks that are reported in the supplemental material provided further support that the verbal instructions were effective at raising the associated expectancy of stimulation. Specifically, participants recollected having received more stimulations after higher probability instructions (see Supplemental Figure 2). Furthermore, we found that anticipatory SCR, which we used as a proxy of fearful expectation, increased with increasing probability and intensity (see Supplemental Figure 3). This suggests that it is not necessary to have expectation based on previous experience if we want to evaluate threat omission responses in the light of the prediction error axioms.

Adaptations in the revised manuscript: We more clearly referred to the manipulation checks that are presented in the supplementary material in the results section of the main paper (lines 135-141).

“The verbal instructions were effective at raising the expectation of receiving the electrical stimulation in line with the provided probability and intensity levels. Anticipatory SCR, which we used as a proxy of fearful expectation, increased as a function of the probability and intensity instructions (see Supplementary Figure 3). Accordingly, post-experimental questions revealed that by the end of the experiment participants recollected having received more stimulations after higher probability instructions, and were willing to exert more effort to prevent stronger hypothetical stimulations (see Supplementary Figure 2).”

How did the inconsistency between the instructed and experienced probability impact our results?

All reviewers questioned how the inconsistency between the instructed and experienced probability might have impacted the probability-related results. However, judging from the way the comments were framed, it seems that part of the concern was based on a misunderstanding of the design we employed. Specifically, reviewer 1 mentions that “To ensure that the number of omissions is similar across conditions, the task employs inaccurate verbal instructions; I.e., 25% of shocks are omitted regardless of whether subjects are told that the probability is 100%, 75%, 50%, 25%, 0%.”, and reviewer 3 states that “... the fact remains that they do not get shocks outside of the 100% probability shock. So learning is occurring, at least for subjects who realize the probability cue is actually a ruse.” We want to emphasize that this was not what we did, and if it were true, we fully agree with the reviewers that it would have caused serious trust- and learning related issues, given that it would be immediately evident to participants that probability instructions were false. It is clear that under such circumstances, dynamic learning would be a big issue.

However, in our task 0% and 100% instructions were always accurate. This means that participants never received a stimulus following 0% instructions and always received the stimulation of the given intensity on the 100% instructions (see Supplemental Figure 1 for an overview of the trial types). Only for the 25%, 50% and 75% trials an equal reinforcement rate (25%) was maintained, meaning that the stimulation followed in 25% of the trials, irrespective of whether a 25%, 50% or 75% instruction was given. The reason for this was that we wanted to maximize and balance the number of omission trials across the different probability levels, while also keeping the total number of presentations per probability instruction constant. We reasoned that equating the reinforcement rate across the 25%, 50% and 75% instructions should not be detrimental, because (1) in these trials there was always the possibility that a stimulation would follow; and (2) we instructed the participants that each trial is independent of the previous ones, which should have discouraged them to actively count the number of shocks in order to predict future shocks.

Adaptations in the revised manuscript: We have tried to further clarify the design in several sections of the manuscript, including the introduction (lines 121-125), results (line 220) and methods (lines 478-484) sections:

Adaptation in the Introduction section: “Specifically, participants received trial-by-trial instructions about the probability (0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%) and intensity (weak, moderate, strong) of a potentially painful upcoming electrical stimulation, time-locked by a countdown clock (see Fig.1A). While stimulations were always delivered on 100% trials and never on 0% trials, most of the other trials (25%-75%) did not contain the expected stimulation and hence provoked an omission PE.”

Adaptation in the Results section: “Indeed, the provided instructions did not map exactly onto the actually experienced probabilities, but were all followed by stimulation in 25% on the trials (except for the 0% trials and the 100% trials).”

Adaptation in the Methods section: “Since we were mainly interested in how omissions of threat are processed, we wanted to maximize and balance the number of omission trials across the different probability and intensity levels, while also keeping the total number of presentations per probability and intensity instruction constant. Therefore, we crossed all non-0% probability levels (25, 50, 75, 100) with all intensity levels (weak, moderate, strong) (12 trials). The three 100% trials were always followed by the stimulation of the instructed intensity, while stimulations were omitted in the remaining nine trials. Six additional trials were intermixed in each run: Three 0% omission trials with the information that no electrical stimulation would follow (akin to 0% Probability information, but without any Intensity information as it does not apply); and three trials from the Probability x Intensity matrix that were followed by electrical stimulation (across the four runs, each Probability x Intensity combination was paired at least once, and at most twice with the electrical stimulation).”

Could the incongruence between the instructed and experienced reinforcement rate have detrimental effects on the probability effect? We agree with reviewer 2 that it is possible that the inconsistency between instructed and experienced reinforcement rates could have rendered the exact probability information less informative to participants, which might have resulted in them paying less attention to the probability information whenever the probability was not 0% or 100%. This might to some extent explain the relatively larger difference in responding between 0% and 25% to 75% trials, but the relatively smaller differences between the 25% to 75% trials.

However, there are good reasons to believe that the relatively smaller difference between 25% to 75% trials was not caused by the “inaccurate” nature of our instructions, but is inherent to “uncertain” probabilities.

We added a description of these reasons to the supplementary materials in a supplementary note (supplementary note 4; lines 97-129 in supplementary materials), and added a reference to this note in the methods section (lines 488-490).

“Supplementary Note 4: “Accurate” probability instructions do not alter the Probability-effect

A question that was raised by the reviewers was whether the inconsistency between the probability instruction and the experienced reinforcement rate could have detrimental effects on the Probability-related results; especially because the effect of Probability was smaller when only including non-0% trials.

However, there are good reasons to believe that the relatively smaller difference between 25% to 75% trials was not caused by the “inaccurate” nature of our instructions, but that they are inherent to “uncertain” probabilities.

First, in a previously unpublished pilot study, we provided participants with “accurate” probability instructions, meaning that the instruction corresponded to the actual reinforcement rate (e.g., 75% instructions were followed by a stimulation in 75% of the trials etc.). In line with the present results and our previous behavioral study (Willems & Vervliet, 2021), the results of this pilot (N = 20) showed that the difference in the reported relief between the different probability levels was largest when comparing 0% and the rest (25%, 50% and 75%). Furthermore the overall effect size of Probability (excluding 0%) matched the one of our previous behavioral study (Willems & Vervliet, 2021): ηp2 = +/- 0.50.”

Author response image 1.

Main effect of Probability including 0% : F(1.74,31.23) = 53.94, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.75

Main effect of Probability excluding 0%: F(1.50, 28.43) = 21.03, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.53

Second, also in other published studies that used CSs with varying reinforcement rates (which either included explicit written instructions of the reinforcement rates or not) showed that the difference in expectations, anticipatory SCR or omission SCR was largest when comparing the CS0% to the other CSs of varying reinforcement rates (Grings & Sukoneck, 1971; Öhman et al., 1973; Ojala et al., 2022).

Together, this suggests that when there is a possibility of stimulation, any additional difference in probability will have a smaller effect on the omission responses, irrespective of whether the underlying reinforcement rate is accurate or not.

Adaptation to methods section: “Note that, based on previous research, we did not expect the inconsistency between the instructed and perceived reinforcement rate to have a negative effect on the Probability manipulation (see Supplementary Note 4).”

Did dynamic learning impact the believability of the instructions?

Although we tried to minimize learning in our paradigm by providing instructions that trials are independent from one another, we agree with the reviewers that this cannot preclude all learning. Any remaining learning effects should present themselves by downweighing the effect of the probability instructions over time. We controlled for this time-effect by including a “run” regressor in our analyses. Results of the Run regressor for subjective relief and omission-related SCR are presented in Supplemental Figure 5. These figures show that although there was a general drop in reported relief pleasantness and omission SCR over time, the effects of probability and intensity remained present until the last run. This indicates that even though some learning might have taken place, the main manipulations of probability and intensity were still present until the end of the task.

Adaptations in the revised manuscript: We more clearly referred to the results of the Blockregressor which were presented in the supplementary material in the results section of the main paper (lines 159-162).

Note that while there was a general drop in reported relief pleasantness and omission SCR over time, the effects of Probability and Intensity remained present until the last run (see Supplementary Figure 5). This further confirms that probability and intensity manipulations were effective until the end of the task.

In the following sections of the rebuttal letter, we will go over the rest of the comments and our responses one by one.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Willems and colleagues test whether unexpected shock omissions are associated with reward-related prediction errors by using an axiomatic approach to investigate brain activation in response to unexpected shock omission. Using an elegant design that parametrically varies shock expectancy through verbal instructions, they see a variety of responses in reward-related networks, only some of which adhere to the axioms necessary for prediction error. In addition, there were associations between omission-related responses and subjective relief. They also use machine learning to predict relief-related pleasantness, and find that none of the a priori "reward" regions were predictive of relief, which is an interesting finding that can be validated and pursued in future work.

Strengths:

The authors pre-registered their approach and the analyses are sound. In particular, the axiomatic approach tests whether a given region can truly be called a reward prediction error. Although several a priori regions of interest satisfied a subset of axioms, no ROI satisfied all three axioms, and the authors were candid about this. A second strength was their use of machine learning to identify a relief-related classifier. Interestingly, none of the ROIs that have been traditionally implicated in reward prediction error reliably predicted relief, which opens important questions for future research.

Weaknesses:

To ensure that the number of omissions is similar across conditions, the task employs inaccurate verbal instructions; i.e. 25% of shocks are omitted, regardless of whether subjects are told that the probability is 100%, 75%, 50%, 25%, or 0%. Given previous findings on interactions between verbal instruction and experiential learning (Doll et al., 2009; Li et al., 2011; Atlas et al., 2016), it seems problematic a) to treat the instructions as veridical and b) average responses over time. Based on this prior work, it seems reasonable to assume that participants would learn to downweight the instructions over time through learning (particularly in the 100% and 0% cases); this would be the purpose of prediction errors as a teaching signal. The authors do recognize this and perform a subset analysis in the 21 participants who showed parametric increases in anticipatory SCR as a function of instructed shock probability, which strengthened findings in the VTA/SN; however given that one-third of participants (n=10) did not show parametric SCR in response to instructions, it seems like some learning did occur. As prediction error is so important to such learning, a weakness of the paper is that conclusions about prediction error might differ if dynamic learning were taken into account.

We thank the reviewer for raising this important concern. We believe we replied to all the issues raised in the general reply above.

Lastly, I think that findings in threat-sensitive regions such as the anterior insula and amygdala may not be adequately captured in the title or abstract which strictly refers to the "human reward system"; more nuance would also be warranted.

We fully agree with this comment and have changed the title and abstract accordingly.

Adaptations in the revised manuscript: We adapted the title of the manuscript.

“Omissions of Threat Trigger Subjective Relief and Prediction Error-Like Signaling in the Human Reward and Salience Systems”

Adaptations in the revised manuscript: We adapted the abstract (lines 27-29).

“In line with recent animal data, we showed that the unexpected omission of (painful) electrical stimulation triggers activations within key regions of the reward and salience pathways and that these activations correlate with the pleasantness of the reported relief.”

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The question of whether the neural mechanisms for reward and punishment learning are similar has been a constant debate over the last two decades. Numerous studies have shown that the midbrain dopamine neurons respond to both negative and salient stimuli, some of which can't be well accounted for by the classic RL theory (Delgado et al., 2007). Other research even proposed that aversive learning can be viewed as reward learning, by treating the omission of aversive stimuli as a negative PE (Seymour et al., 2004).

Although the current study took an axiomatic approach to search for the PE encoding brain regions, which I like, I have major concerns regarding their experimental design and hence the results they obtained. My biggest concern comes from the false description of their task to the participants. To increase the number of "valid" trials for data analysis, the instructed and actual probabilities were different. Under such a circumstance, testing axiom 2 seems completely artificial. How does the experimenter know that the participants truly believe that the 75% is more probable than, say, the 25% stimulation? The potential confusion of the subjects may explain why the SCR and relief report were rather flat across the instructed probability range, and some of the canonical PE encoding regions showed a rather mixed activity pattern across different probabilities. Also for the post-hoc selection criteria, why pick the larger SCR in the 75% compared to the 25% instructions? How would the results change if other criteria were used?

We thank the reviewer for raising this important concern. We believe the general reply above covers most of the issues raised in this comment. Concerning the post-hoc selection criteria, we took 25% < 75% as criterium because this was a quite “lenient” criterium in the sense that it looked only at the effects of interest (i.e., did anticipatory SCR increase with increasing instructed probability?). However, also when the criterium was more strict (e.g., selecting participants only if their anticipatory SCR monotonically increased with each increase in instructed probability 0% < 25% < 50% < 75% < 100%, N = 11 participants), the probability effect (ωp2 = 0.08), but not the intensity effect, for the VTA/SN remained.

To test axiom 3, which was to compare the 100% stimulation to the 0% stimulation conditions, how did the actual shock delivery affect the fMRI contrast result? It would be more reasonable if this analysis could control for the shock delivery, which itself could contaminate the fMRI signal, with extra confound that subjects may engage certain behavioral strategies to "prepare for" the aversive outcome in the 100% stimulation condition. Therefore, I agree with the authors that this contrast may not be a good way to test axiom 3, not only because of the arguments made in the discussion but also the technical complexities involved in the contrast.

We thank the reviewer for addressing this additional confound. It was indeed impossible to control for the delivery of shock since the delivery of the shock was always present on the 100% trials (and thus completely overlapped with the contrast of interest). We added this limitation to our discussion in the manuscript. In addition, we have also added a suggestion for a contrast that can test the “no surprise equivalence” criterium.

Adaptations in the revised manuscript: We adapted lines 358-364.

“Thus, given that we could not control for the delivery of the stimulation in the 100% > 0% contrast (the delivery of the stimulation completely overlapped with the contrast of interest), it is impossible to disentangle responses to the salience of the stimulation from those to the predictability of the outcome. A fairer evaluation of the third axiom would require outcomes that are roughly similar in terms of salience. When evaluating threat omission PE, this implies comparing fully expected threat omissions following 0% instructions to fully expected absence of stimulation at another point in the task (e.g. during a safe intertrial interval).”

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

We thank the reviewer for their comments. Overall, based on the reviewer’s comments, we noticed that there was an imbalance between a focus on “relief” in the introduction and the rest of the manuscript and preregistration. We believe this focus raised the expectation that all outcome measures were interpreted in terms of the relief emotion. However, this was not what we did nor what we preregistered. We therefore restructured the introduction to reduce the focus on relief.

Adaptations in the revised manuscript: We restructured the introduction of the manuscript. Specifically, after our opening sentence: “We experience a pleasurable relief when an expected threat stays away1” we only introduce the role of relief for our research in lines 79-89.

“Interestingly, unexpected omissions of threat not only trigger neural activations that resemble a reward PE, they are also accompanied by a pleasurable emotional experience: relief. Because these feelings of relief coincide with the PE at threat omission, relief has been proposed to be an emotional correlate of the threat omission PE. Indeed, emerging evidence has shown that subjective experiences of relief follow the same time-course as theoretical PE during fear extinction. Participants in fear extinction experiments report high levels of relief pleasantness during early US omissions (when the omission was unexpected and the theoretical PE was high) and decreasing relief pleasantness over later omissions (when the omission was expected and the theoretical PE was low)22,23. Accordingly, preliminary fMRI evidence has shown that the pleasantness of this relief is correlated to activations in the NAC at the time of threat omission. In that sense, studying relief may offer important insights in the mechanism driving safety learning.”

Summary:

The authors conducted a human fMRI study investigating the omission of expected electrical shocks with varying probabilities. Participants were informed of the probability of shock and shock intensity trial-by-trial. The time point corresponding to the absence of the expected shock (with varying probability) was framed as a prediction error producing the cognitive state of relief/pleasure for the participant. fMRI activity in the VTA/SN and ventral putamen corresponded to the surprising omission of a high probability shock. Participants' subjective relief at having not been shocked correlated with activity in brain regions typically associated with reward-prediction errors. The overall conclusion of the manuscript was that the absence of an expected aversive outcome in human fMRI looks like a reward-prediction error seen in other studies that use positive outcomes.

Strengths:

Overall, I found this to be a well-written human neuroimaging study investigating an often overlooked question on the role of aversive prediction errors, and how they may differ from reward-related prediction errors. The paper is well-written and the fMRI methods seem mostly rigorous and solid.

Weaknesses:

I did have some confusion over the use of the term "prediction-error" however as it is being used in this task. There is certainly an expectancy violation when participants are told there is a high probability of shock, and it doesn't occur. Yet, there is no relevant learning or updating, and participants are explicitly told that each trial is independent and the outcome (or lack thereof) does not affect the chances of getting the shock on another trial with the same instructed outcome probability. Prediction errors are primarily used in the context of a learning model (reinforcement learning, etc.), but without a need to learn, the utility of that signal is unclear.

We operationalized “prediction error” as the response to the error in prediction or the violation of expectancy at the time of threat omission. In that sense, prediction error and expectancy violation (which is more commonly used in clinical research and psychotherapy; Craske et al., 2014) are synonymous. While prediction errors (or expectancy violations) are predominantly studied in learning situations, the definition in itself does not specify how the “expectancy” or “prediction” arises: whether it was through learning based on previous experience or through mere instruction. The rationale why we moved away from a conditioning study in the present manuscript is discussed in our general reply above.

We agree with the reviewer that studying prediction errors outside a learning context limits the ecological validity of the task. However, we do believe there is also a strength to this approach. Specifically, the omission-related responses we measure are less confounded by subsequent learning (or updating of the wrongful expectation). Any difference between our results and prediction error responses in learning situation can therefore point to this exact difference in paradigm, and can thus identify responses that are specific to learning situations.

An overarching question posed by the researchers is whether relief from not receiving a shock is a reward. They take as neural evidence activity in regions usually associated with reward prediction errors, like the VTA/SN . This seems to be a strong case of reverse inference. The evidence may have been stronger had the authors compared activity to a reward prediction error, for example using a similar task but with reward outcomes. As it stands, the neural evidence that the absence of shock is actually "pleasurable" is limited-albeit there is a subjective report asking subjects if they felt relief.

We thank the reviewer for cautioning us and letting us critically reflect on our interpretation. We agree that it is important not to be overly enthusiastic when interpreting fMRI results and to attribute carelessly psychological functions to mere activations. Therefore, we will elaborate on the precautions we took not to minimize detrimental reverse inference.

First, prior to analyzing our results, we preregistered clear hypotheses that were based on previous research, in addition to clear predictions, regions of interest and a testing approach on OSF. With our study, we wanted to investigate whether unexpected omissions of threat: (1) triggered activations in the VTA/SN, putamen, NAc and vmPFC (as has previously been shown in animal and human studies); (2) represent PE signals; and (3) were related to self-reported relief, which has also been shown to follow a PE time-curve in fear extinction (Vervliet et al., 2017). Based on previous research, we selected three criteria all PE signals should comply to. This means that if omission-related activations were to represent true PE signals, they should comply to these criteria. However, we agree that it would go too far to conclude based on our research that relief is a reward, or even that the omission-related activations represent only PE signals. While we found support for most of our hypotheses, this does not preclude alternative explanations. In fact, in the discussion, we acknowledge this and also discuss alternative explanations, such as responding to the salience (lines 395-397; “One potential explanation is therefore that the deactivation resulted from a switch from default mode to salience network, triggered by the salience of the unexpected threat omission or by the salience of the experienced stimulation.”), or anticipation (line 425-426; “... we cannot conclusively dismiss the alternative interpretation that we assessed (part of) expectancy instead”).

Second, we have deliberately opted to only use descriptive labels such as omission-related activations when we are discussing fMRI results. Only when we are talking about how the activations were related to self-reported relief, we talk about relief-related activations.

I have some other comments, and I elaborate on those above comments, below:

(1) A major assumption in the paper is that the unexpected absence of danger constitutes a pleasurable event, as stated in the opening sentence of the abstract. This may sometimes be the case, but it is not universal across contexts or people. For instance, for pathological fears, any relief derived from exposure may be short-lived (the dog didn't bite me this time, but that doesn't mean it won't next time or that all dogs are safe). And even if the subjective feeling one gets is temporary relief at that moment when the expected aversive event is not delivered, I believe there is an overall conflation between the concepts of relief and pleasure throughout the manuscript. Overall, the manuscript seems to be framed on the assumption that "aversive expectations can transform neutral outcomes into pleasurable events," but this is situationally dependent and is not a common psychological construct as far as I am aware.

We thank the reviewer for their comment. We have restructured the introduction because we agree with the reviewer that the introduction might have set false expectations concerning our interpretation of the results. The statements related to relief have been toned down in the revised manuscript.

Still, we want to note that the initial opening statement “unexpected absence of danger constitutes the pleasurable emotion relief” was based on a commonly used definition of relief that states that relief refers to “the emotion that is triggered by the absence of expected or previously experienced negative stimulation ” (Deutsch, 2015). Both aspects that it is elicited by the absence of an otherwise expected aversive event and that it is pleasurable in nature has received considerable empirical support in emotion and fear conditioning research (Deutsch et al., 2015; Leknes et al., 2011; Papalini et al., 2021; Vervliet et al., 2017; Willems & Vervliet, 2021).

That said, the notion that the feeling of relief is linked to the (reward) prediction error underlying the learning of safety is included in several theoretical papers in order to explain the commonly observed dopaminergic response at the time of threat omission (both in animals and humans; Bouton et al., 2020; Kalisch et al., 2019; Pittig et al., 2020).

Together, these studies indicate that the definition of relief, and its potential role in threat omission-driven learning is – at least in our research field – established. Still, we felt that more direct research linking feelings of relief to omission-related brain responses was warranted.

One of the main reasons why we specifically focus on the “pleasantness” of the relief is to assess the hedonic impact of the threat omission, as has been done in previous studies by our lab and others (Leknes et al., 2011; Leng et al., 2022; Papalini et al., 2021; Vervliet et al., 2017; Willems & Vervliet, 2021). Nevertheless, we agree with the reviewer that the relief we measure is a short-lived emotional state that is subjected to individual differences (as are all emotions).

(2) The authors allude to this limitation, but I think it is critical. Specifically, the study takes a rather simplistic approach to prediction errors. It treats the instructed probability as the subjects' expectancy level and treats the prediction error as omission related activity to this instructed probability. There is no modeling, and any dynamic parameters affected by learning are unaccounted for in this design . That is subjects are informed that each trial is independently determined and so there is no learning "the presence/absence of stimulations on previous trials could not predict the presence/absence of stimulation on future trials." Prediction errors are central to learning. It is unclear if the "relief" subjects feel on not getting a shock on a high-probability trial is in any way analogous to a prediction error, because there is no reason to update your representation on future trials if they are all truly independent. The construct validity of the design is in question.

(3) Related to the above point, even if subjects veered away from learning by the instruction that each trial is independent, the fact remains that they do not get shocks outside of the 100% probability shock. So learning is occurring, at least for subjects who realize the probability cue is actually a ruse.

We thank the reviewer for raising these concerns. We believe that the general reply above covers the issues raised in points 2 and 3.

(4) Bouton has described very well how the absence of expected threat during extinction can create a feeling of ambiguity and uncertainty regarding the signal value of the CS. This in large part explains the contextual dependence of extinction and the "return of fear" that is so prominent even in psychologically healthy participants. The relief people feel when not receiving an expected shock would seem to have little bearing on changing the long-term value of the CS. In any event, the authors do talk about conditioning (CS-US) in the paper, but this is not a typical conditioning study, as there is no learning.

We fully agree with the reviewer that our study is no typical conditioning study. Nevertheless, because our research mostly builds on recent advances in the fear extinction domain, we felt it was necessary to introduce the fear extinction procedure and related findings. In the context of fear extinction learning, we have previously shown that relief is an emotional correlate of the prediction error driving acquisition of the novel safety memory (CSnoUS; Papalini et al., 2021; Vervliet et al., 2017). The ambiguity Bouton describes is the result of extinguished CS holding multiple meanings once the safety memory is acquired. Does it signal danger or safety? We agree with Bouton that the meaning of the CS for any new encounter will depend on the context, and the passage of time, but also on the initial strength of the safety acquisition (which is dependent on the size of the prediction error, and hence the amount of relief; Craske et al., 2014). However, it was not our objective to directly study the relation of relief to subsequent CS value, and our design is not tailored to do so post hoc.

(5) In Figure 2 A-D, the omission responses are plotted on trials with varying levels of probability. However, it seems to be missing omission responses in 0% trials in these brain regions. As depicted, it is an incomplete view of activity across the different trial types of increasing threat probability.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this unclarity. The betas that are presented in the figures represent the ROI averages from each non-0% vs 0% contrasts (i.e., 25%>0%; 50%>0%; and 75%>0% for the weak, moderate and strong intensity levels). Any positive beta therefore indicates a stronger activation in the given region compared to a fully predicted omission. Any negative beta indicates a weaker activation.

Adaptations in the revised manuscript: We have adapted the figure captions of figures 2 and 3.

“The extracted beta-estimates in figures A-D represent the ROI averages from each non0% > 0% contrast (i.e., 25%>0%; 50%>0%; and 75%>0% for the weak, moderate and strong intensity levels). Any positive beta therefore indicates a stronger activation in the given region compared to a fully predicted omission. Any negative beta indicates a weaker activation.”

(6) If I understand Figure 2 panels E-H, these are plotting responses to the shock versus no-shock (when no-shock was expected). It is unclear why this would be especially informative, as it would just be showing activity associated with shocks versus no-shocks. If the goal was to use this as a way to compare positive and negative prediction errors, the shock would induce widespread activity that is not necessarily reflective of a prediction error. It is simply a response to a shock. Comparing activity to shocks delivered after varying levels of probability (e.g., a shock delivered at 25% expectancy, versus 75%, versus 100%) would seem to be a much better test of a prediction error signal than shock versus no-shock.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. The purpose of this preregistered contrast was to test whether fully predicted outcomes elicited equivalent activations in our ROIs (corresponding to the third prediction error axiom). Specifically, if a region represents a pure prediction error signal, the 100% (fully predicted shocks) > 0% (fully predicted shock omissions) contrast should be nonsignificant, and follow-up Bayes Factors would further provide evidence in favor of this null-hypothesis.

We agree with the reviewer that the delivery of the stimulation triggers widespread activations in our regions of interest that confounded this contrast. However, given that it was a preregistered test for the prediction error axioms, we cannot remove it from the manuscript. Instead, we have argued in the discussion that future studies who want to take an axiomatic stance should consider alternative tests to examine this axiom.

Adaptations in the revised manuscript: We adapted lines 358-364.

“Thus, given that we could not control for the delivery of the stimulation in the 100% > 0% contrast (the delivery of the stimulation completely overlapped with the contrast of interest), it is impossible to disentangle responses to the salience of the stimulation from those to the predictability of the outcome. A fairer evaluation of the third axiom would require outcomes that are roughly similar in terms of salience. When evaluating threat omission PE, this implies comparing fully expected threat omissions following 0% instructions to fully expected absence of stimulation at another point in the task (e.g. during a safe intertrial interval).”

Also note that our task did not lend itself for an in-depth analysis of aversive (worse-thanexpected) prediction error signals, given that there was only one stimulation trial for each probability x intensity level (see Supplemental Figure 1). The most informative contrast that can inform us about aversive prediction error signals contrasts all non-100% stimulation trials with all 100% stimulation trials. The results of this contrast are presented in Supplemental Figure 16 and Supplemental Table 11 for completeness.

(7) I was unclear what the results in Figure 3 E-H were showing that was unique from panels A-D, or where it was described. The images looked redundant from the images in A-D. I see that they come from different contrasts (non0% > 0%; 100% > 0%), but I was unclear why that was included.

We thank the reviewer for this comment. Our answer is related to that of the previous comment. Figure 3 presents the results of the axiomatic tests within the secondary ROIs we extracted from a wider secondary mask based on the non0%>0% contrast.

(8) As mentioned earlier, there is a tendency to imply that subjects felt relief because there was activity in "the reward pathway ."

We thank the reviewer for their comment, but we respectfully disagree. Subjective relief was explicitly probed when the instructed stimulations stayed away. In the manuscript we only talk about “relief” when discussing these subjective reports. We found that participants reported higher levels of relief-pleasantness following omissions of stronger and more probable threat. This was an observation that matches our predictions and replicates our previous behavioral study (Willems & Vervliet, 2021).

The fMRI evidence is treated separately from the “pleasantness” of the relief. Specifically, we refrain from calling the threat omission-related neural responses “relief-activity” as this would indeed imply that the activation would only be attributed to this psychological function. Instead, we talked about omission-related activity, and we assessed whether it complied to the prediction error criteria as specified by the axiomatic approach.

Only afterwards, because we hypothesized that omission-related fMRI activation and selfreported relief-pleasantness were related, and because we found a similar response pattern for both measures, we examined how relief and omission-related fMRI activations within our ROIs were related on a trial-by-trial basis. To this end, we entered relief-pleasantness ratings as a parametric modulator to the omission regressor.

By no means do we want to reduce an emotional experience (relief) to fMRI activations in isolated regions in the brain. We agree with the reviewer that this would be far too reductionist. We therefore also ran a pre-registered LASSO-PCR analysis in order to identify whether a whole-brain pattern of activations can predict subjective relief (independent from the exact instructions we gave, and independent of our a priori ROIs). This analysis used trialby-trial patterns of activation across all voxels in the brain as the predictor and self-reported relief as the outcome variable. It is therefore completely data-driven and can be seen as a preregistered exploratory analysis that is intended to inform future studies.

(9) From the methods, it wasn't entirely clear where there is jitter in the course of a trial. This centers on the question of possible collinearity in the task design between the cue and the outcome. The authors note there is "no multicollinearity between anticipation and omission regressors in the firstlevel GLMs," but how was this quantified? b The issue is of course that the activity coded as omission may be from the anticipation of the expected outcome.

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this unclarity. Jitter was introduced in all parts of the trial: i.e., the duration of the inter-trial interval (4-7s), countdown clock (3-7s), and omission window (4-8s) were all jittered (see fig. 1A and methods section, lines 499-507). We added an additional line to the method section.

Adaptations in the revised manuscript: We added an additional line of to the methods section to further clarify the jittering (lines 498-500).

“The scale remained on the screen for 8 seconds or until the participant responded, followed by an intertrial interval between 4 and 7 seconds during which only a fixation cross was shown. Note that all phases in the trial were jittered (i.e., duration countdown clock, duration outcome window, duration intertrial interval).”

Multicollinearity between the omission and anticipation regressors was assessed by calculating the variance inflation factor (VIF) of omission and anticipation regressors in the first level GLM models that were used for the parametric modulation analyses.

Adaptations in the revised manuscript: We replaced the VIF abbreviation with “variance inflation factor” (line 423-424).

“Nevertheless, there was no multicollinearity between anticipation and omission regressors in the first-level GLMs (VIFs Variance Inflation Factor, VIF < 4), making it unlikely that the omission responses purely represented anticipation.”

(10) I did not fully understand what the LASSO-PCR model using relief ratings added. This result was not discussed in much depth, and seems to show a host of clusters throughout the brain contributing positively or negatively to the model. Altogether, I would recommend highlighting what this analysis is uniquely contributing to the interpretation of the findings.

The main added value of this analyses is that it uses a different approach altogether. Where the (mass univariate) parametric modulation analysis estimated in each voxel (and each ROI) whether the activity in this voxel/ROI covaried with the reported relief, a significant activation only indicated that this voxel was related to relief. However, given that each voxel/ROI is treated independently in this analysis, it remains unclear how the activations were embedded in a wider network across the brain, and which regions contributed most to the prediction of relief. The multivariate LASSO-PCR analysis approach we took attempts to overcome this limitation by examining if a more whole-brain pattern can predict relief. Because we use the whole-brain pattern (and not only our a priori ROIs), this analysis is completely data-driven and is intended to inform future studies. In addition, the LASSO-PCR model was cross-validated using five-fold cross-validation, which is also a difference (and a strength) compared to the mass univariate GLM approach.

One interesting finding that only became evident when we combined univariate and multivariate approaches is that despite that the parametric modulation analysis showed that omission-related fMRI responses in the ROIs were modulated by the reported relief, none of these ROIs contributed significantly to the prediction of relief based on the identified signature. Instead, some of the contributing clusters fell within other valuation and errorprocessing regions (e.g. lateral OFC, mid cingulate, caudate nucleus). This suggests that other regions than our a priori ROIs may have been especially important for the subjective experience of relief, at least in this task. However, all these clusters were small and require further validation in out of sample participants. More research is necessary to test the generalizability and validity of the relief signature to new individuals and tasks, and to compare the signature with other existing signature models (e.g., signature of pain, fear, reward, pleasure). However, this was beyond the scope of the present study.

Adaptations in the revised manuscript: We altered the explanation of the LASSO-PCR approach in the results section (lines 286-295) and the discussion (lines 399-402)

Adaptations in the Results section: “The (mass univariate) parametric modulation analysis showed that omission-related fMRI activity in our primary and secondary ROIs correlated with the pleasantness of the relief. However, given that each voxel/ROI is treated independently in this analysis, it remains unclear how the activations were embedded in a wider network of activation across the brain, and which regions contributed most to the prediction of relief. To overcome these limitations, we trained a (multivariate) LASSO-PCR model (Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator-Regularized Principle Component Regression) in order to identify whether a spatially distributed pattern of brain responses can predict the perceived pleasantness of the relief (or “neural signature” of relief)31. Because we used the whole-brain pattern (and not only our a priori ROIs), this analysis is completely data driven and can thus identify which clusters contribute most to the relief prediction.”

Adaptations in the Discussion section: “In addition to examining the PE-properties of neural omission responses in our a priori ROIs, we trained a LASSO-PCR model to establish a signature pattern of relief. One interesting finding that only became evident when we compared the univariate and multivariate approach was that none of our a priori ROIs appeared to be an important contributor to the multivariate neural signature, even though all of them (except NAc) were significantly modulated by relief in the univariate analysis.”

In addition to the public peer review, the reviewers provided some recommendation on how to further improve our manuscript. We will reply to the recommendations below.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

Given that you do have trial-level estimates from the classifier analysis, it would be very informative to use learning models and examine responses trial-by-trial to test whether there are prediction errors that vary over time as a function of learning.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. However, based on the results of the run-regressor, we do not anticipate large learning effects in our paradigm. As we mentioned in our responses above, we controlled for time-related drops in omission-responding by including a “run” regressor in our analyses. Results of this regressor for subjective relief and omission-related SCR showed that although there was a general drop in reported relief pleasantness and omission SCR over time, the effects of probability and intensity remained present until the last run. This suggests that even though some learning might have taken place, its effect was likely small and did not abolish our manipulations of probability and intensity. In any case, we cannot use the LASSO-PCR signature model to investigate learning, as this model uses the trial-level brain pattern at the time of US omission to estimate the associated level of relief. These estimates can therefore not be used to examine learning effects.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations For The Authors):

The LASSO-PCR model feels rather disconnected from the rest of the paper and does not add much to the main theme. I would suggest to remove this part from the paper.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. However, the LASSO-PCR analysis was a preregistered. We therefore cannot remove it from the manuscript. We hope to have clarified its added value in the revised version of the manuscript.