Dorsal/NF-κB exhibits a dorsal-to-ventral mobility gradient in the Drosophila embryo

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Al Asafen and colleagues apply a set of scanning fluorescence correlation spectroscopic approaches (Raster Image Correlation Spectroscopy (RICS), cross-correlation RICS, and pair-correlation function spectroscopy) to address the nuclear-cytoplasmic kinetics of the Dorsal (Dl) transcription factor in early Drosophila embryos. The Toll/Dl system has long been appreciated to establish dorsal-ventral polarity of the embryo through Toll-dependent control of Dl nuclear localization, and provides an example of a morphogen gradient produced with high enough precision to yield robust biophysical measurements of general transcription factor activity and function. By measuring GFP-tagged Dl protein, either in wild-type embryos or in mutant embryos with low/medium/high levels of Toll signaling, the authors report diffusivity of Dl in nuclear and cytoplasmic compartments of the embryo, as well as the fraction of mobile and immobile Dl, which can be correlated with DNA binding through cross-correlation RICS. A model is presented where Cactus/IkB is implicated in preventing Dl from binding to DNA.

Strengths:

The experiments on wild-type GFP-tagged Dorsal are performed well, are mostly reported well, and are interpreted fairly.

Weaknesses:

The discrepancy between experiment and theory as pertains to Michaelis-Menten kinetics is not fully motivated in the text, and could benefit from a more clear presentation. The experiments performed to distinguish between the contribution of Toll-dependent phosphorylation and Cactus interaction models for limiting Dorsal DNA binding are possibly confounded by the presence of wild-type, GFP-tagged Dorsal protein.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Al Asafen, Clark et al., use fluorescence correlation spectroscopy (FCS) to quantitatively analyze the mobility of Dl along the DV axis of the early Drosophila embryo. Dl is essential for dorsal-ventral (DV) patterning and its gradient initiates the activation of several genes and thereby orchestrates the formation of the Drosophila body plan. While the mechanisms underlying the formation of the Dl gradient have been extensively studied by this group and others, there are some observations for which there is not yet a mechanistic explanation. For example, the peak of the Dl gradient grows continuously during nuclear cycles 10-14. This is likely due to Cact-dependent Dl diffusion and Dl binding to DNA. However, the biophysical parameters governing Dl nuclear dynamics that would support these claims have not been previously measured. In this work, the authors provide evidence that GFP-tagged Dl may be separated into a mobile pool and an immobile pool. Interestingly, the fraction of immobile Dl is position-dependent along the DV axis, revealing more binding to DNA in the ventral than in the dorsal nuclei. This is either due to higher binding affinity in ventral locations (due to Toll-dependent Dl phosphorylation) or to higher Dl-Cact binding in dorsal nuclei that would prevent Dl from binding to DNA. Using dl-mutant alleles, the authors support the latter hypothesis.

Strengths:

The manuscript is well written and their conclusions are convincingly supported by their methodology and analysis. As a quantitative study, the biophysical analysis seems rigorous, in general.

Although this is not the first study that employs FSC to investigate the dynamics of a morphogen, it further exemplifies how these quantitative tools can be used to uncover mechanistic aspects of morphogen dynamics during development. In particular, the manuscript reports novel biophysical parameters of Dl dynamics that will be helpful in future hypotheses-driven modeling studies.

Weaknesses:

In my opinion, the main weakness of the manuscript is that the main biological implication of the study, namely that the asymmetry in the fraction of immobile Dl is a result of nuclear Dl-Cact binding which prevents Dl from binding DNA (Figure 5), occurs in a region of the embryo where there is very little Dl anyways (Figure 1A, 5A). While it is interesting that the fraction of immobile Dl increases (just a little, but significantly) in dorsal nuclei in mutants expressing a form of Dl with reduced Cact binding it is unclear what is the biological impact of this effect in a location where Dl is nearly absent. As can be seen in Figure 3F, the fraction of immobile is unaffected in Dl-mutant forms with reduced DNA binding, because it is already very low. It is unlikely that Dl binding to Cact in dorsal nuclei would affect shuttling as well since the fraction is very low anyway.

While the authors have a very clear understanding of the biology of the Dl gradient, I feel that the manuscript is more written as a 'tools' paper (i.e., to exemplify how FSC methods and analysis can be used for biological discovery). This is ok, but I think that the authors should discuss further what are the biological implications of these findings other than the contribution to uncovering the biophysical parameters. For example, I think that the implications of the rejected hypothesis (i.e., that Toll-dependent Dl phosphorylation does not seem to have an impact on Dl binding affinities to DNA) are important and should be further discussed (even if no additional experiments are performed). What is then the role of Dl phosphorylation? Perhaps it could have an impact on patterning robustness in lateral regions. The authors should report in Figure 5 also what happens to the fraction of Dl bound to DNA in lateral regions in the reduced Cact binding and reduced Toll phosphorylation mutants.

The way that position along the DV axis is reported using the nuclear-cytoplasmic-ratio (NCR) in Figures 1-3 is not incorrect, but I wonder if it is the best way of doing it. The reason is that it spreads out a relatively small region of the embryo (the ventral-most locations) and shrinks a relatively large region of the embryo (lateral and dorsal regions), see Figure 1A. Perhaps reporting the NCR in log_2 units would be more appropriate.