Non-linear transcriptional responses to gradual modulation of transcription factor dosage

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

In this manuscript, Domingo et al. present a novel perturbation-based approach to experimentally modulate the dosage of genes in cell lines. Their approach is capable of gradually increasing and decreasing gene expression. The authors then use their approach to perturb three key transcription factors and measure the downstream effects on gene expression. Their analysis of the dosage response curve of downstream genes reveals marked non-linearity.

One of the strengths of this study is that many of the perturbations fall within the physiological range for each cis gene. This range is presumably between a single-copy state of heterozygous loss-of-function (log fold change of -1) and a three-copy state (log fold change of ~0.6). This is in contrast with CRISPRi or CRISPRa studies that attempt to maximize the effect of the perturbation, which may result in downstream effects that are not representative of physiological responses.

Another strength of the study is that various points along the dosage-response curve were assayed for each perturbed gene. This allowed the authors to effectively characterize the degree of linearity and monotonicity of each dosage-response relationship. Ultimately, the study revealed that many of these relationships are non-linear, and that the response to activation can be dramatically different than the response to inhibition.

To test their ability to gradually modulate dosage, the authors chose to measure three transcription factors and around 80 known downstream targets. As the authors themselves point out in their discussion about MYB, this biased sample of genes makes it unclear how this approach would generalize genome-wide. In addition, the data generated from this small sample of genes may not represent genome-wide patterns of dosage response. Nevertheless, this unique data set and approach represents a first step in understanding dosage-response relationships between genes.

Another point of general concern in such screens is the use of the immortalized K562 cell line. It is unclear how the biology of these cell lines translates to the in vivo biology of primary cells. However, the authors do follow up with cell-type-specific analyses (Figures 4B, 4C, and 5A) to draw a correspondence between their perturbation results and the relevant biology in primary cells and complex diseases.

The conclusions of the study are generally well supported with statistical analysis throughout the manuscript. As an example, the authors utilize well-known model selection methods to identify when there was evidence for non-linear dosage response relationships.

Gradual modulation of gene dosage is a useful approach to model physiological variation in dosage. Experimental perturbation screens that use CRISPR inhibition or activation often use guide RNAs targeting the transcription start site to maximize their effect on gene expression. Generating a physiological range of variation will allow others to better model physiological conditions.

There is broad interest in the field to identify gene regulatory networks using experimental perturbation approaches. The data from this study provides a good resource for such analytical approaches, especially since both inhibition and activation were tested. In addition, these data provide a nuanced, continuous representation of the relationship between effectors and downstream targets, which may play a role in the development of more rigorous regulatory networks.

Human geneticists often focus on loss-of-function variants, which represent natural knock-down experiments, to determine the role of a gene in the biology of a trait. This study demonstrates that dosage response relationships are often non-linear, meaning that the effect of a loss-of-function variant may not necessarily carry information about increases in gene dosage. For the field, this implies that others should continue to focus on both inhibition and activation to fully characterize the relationship between gene and trait.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This work investigates transcriptional responses to varying levels of transcription factors (TFs). The authors aim for gradual up- and down-regulation of three transcription factors GFI1B, NFE2, and MYB in K562 cells, by using a CRISPRa- and a CRISPRi line, together with sgRNAs of varying potency. Targeted single-cell RNA sequencing is then used to measure gene expression of a set of 90 genes, which were previously shown to be downstream of GFI1B and NFE2 regulation. This is followed by an extensive computational analysis of the scRNA-seq dataset. By grouping cells with the same perturbations, the authors can obtain groups of cells with varying average TF expression levels. The achieved perturbations are generally subtle, not reaching half or double doses for most samples, and up-regulation is generally weak below 1.5-fold in most cases. Even in this small range, many target genes exhibit a non-linear response. Since this is rather unexpected, it is crucial to rule out technical reasons for these observations.

Strengths:

The work showcases how a single dataset of CRISPRi/a perturbations with scRNA-seq readout and an extended computational analysis can be used to estimate transcriptome dose responses, a general approach that likely can be built upon in the future.

Weaknesses:

(1) The experiment was only performed in a single replicate. In the absence of an independent validation of the main findings, the robustness of the observations remains unclear.

(2) The analysis is based on the calculation of log-fold changes between groups of single cells with non-targeting controls and those carrying a guide RNA driving a specific knockdown. How the fold changes were calculated exactly remains unclear, since it is only stated that the FindMarkers function from the Seurat package was used, which is likely not optimal for quantitative estimates. Furthermore, differential gene expression analysis of scRNA-seq data can suffer from data distortion and mis-estimations (Heumos et al. 2023 (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-023-00586-w), Nguyen et al. 2023 (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-37126-3)). In general, the pseudo-bulk approach used is suitable, but the correct treatment of drop-outs in the scRNA-seq analysis is essential.

(3) Two different cell lines are used to construct dose-response curves, where a CRISPRi line allows gene down-regulation and the CRISPRa line allows gene upregulation. Although both lines are derived from the same parental line (K562) the expression analysis of Tet2, which is absent in the CRISPRi line, but expressed in the CRISPRa line (Figure S3A) suggests substantial clonal differences between the two lines. Similarly, the PCA in S4A suggests strong batch effects between the two lines. These might confound this analysis.

(4) The study uses pseudo-bulk analysis to estimate the relationship between TF dose and target gene expression. This requires a system that allows quantitative changes in TF expression. The data provided does not convincingly show that this condition is met, which however is an essential prerequisite for the presented conclusions. Specifically, the data shown in Figure S3A shows that upon stronger knock-down, a subpopulation of cells appears, where the targeted TF is not detected anymore (drop-outs). Also Figure 3B (top) suggests that the knock-down is either subtle (similar to NTCs) or strong, but intermediate knock-down (log2-FC of 0.5-1) does not occur. Although the authors argue that this is a technical effect of the scRNA-seq protocol, it is also possible that this represents a binary behavior of the CRISPRi system. Previous work has shown that CRISPRi systems with the KRAB domain largely result in binary repression and not in gradual down-regulation as suggested in this study (Bintu et al. 2016 (https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2956), Noviello et al. 2023 (https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38909-4)).

(5) One of the major conclusions of the study is that non-linear behavior is common. This is not surprising for gene up-regulation, since gene expression will reach a plateau at some point, but it is surprising to be observed for many genes upon TF down-regulation. Specifically, here the target gene responds to a small reduction of TF dose but shows the same response to a stronger knock-down. It would be essential to show that his observation does not arise from the technical concerns described in the previous point and it would require independent experimental validations.

(6) One of the conclusions of the study is that guide tiling is superior to other methods such as sgRNA mismatches. However, the comparison is unfair, since different numbers of guides are used in the different approaches. Relatedly, the authors point out that tiling sometimes surpassed the effects of TSS-targeting sgRNAs, however, this was the least fair comparison (2 TSS vs 10 tiling guides) and additionally depends on the accurate annotation of TSS in the relevant cell line.

(7) Did the authors achieve their aims? Do the results support the conclusions?: Some of the most important conclusions are not well supported because they rely on accurately determining the quantitative responses of trans genes, which suffers from the previously mentioned concerns.

(8) Discussion of the likely impact of the work on the field, and the utility of the methods and data to the community:
Together with other recent publications, this work emphasizes the need to study transcription factor function with quantitative perturbations. Missing documentation of the computational code repository reduces the utility of the methods and data significantly.