Seasonal and comparative evidence of adaptive gene expression in mammalian brain size plasticity

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper, Thomas et al. set out to study seasonal brain gene expression changes in the Eurasian common shrew. This mammalian species is unusual in that it does not hibernate or migrate but instead stays active all winter while shrinking and then regrowing its brain and other organs. The authors previously examined gene expression changes in two brain regions and the liver. Here, they added data from the hypothalamus, a brain region involved in the regulation of metabolism and homeostasis. The specific goals were to identify genes and gene groups that change expression with the seasons and to identify genes with unusual expression compared to other mammalian species. The reason for this second goal is that genes that change with the season could be due to plastic gene regulation, where the organism simply reacts to environmental change using processes available to all mammals. Such changes are not necessarily indicative of adaptation in the shrew. However, if the same genes are also expression outliers compared to other species that do not show this overwintering strategy, it is more likely that they reflect adaptive changes that contribute to the shrew's unique traits.

The authors succeeded in implementing their experimental design and identified significant genes in each of their specific goals. There was an overlap between these gene lists. The authors provide extensive discussion of the genes they found.

The scope of this paper is quite narrow, as it adds gene expression data for only one additional tissue compared to the authors' previous work in a 2023 preprint. The two papers even use the same animals, which had been collected for that earlier work. As a consequence, the current paper is limited in the results it can present. This is somewhat compensated by an expansive interpretation of the results in the discussion section, but I felt that much of this was too speculative. More importantly, there are several limitations to the design, making it hard to draw stronger conclusions from the data. The main contribution of this work lies in the generated data and the formulation of hypotheses to be tested by future work.

Strengths:

The unique biological model system under study is fascinating. The data were collected in a technically sound manner, and the analyses were done well. The paper is overall very clear, well-written, and easy to follow. It does a thorough job of exploring patterns and enrichments in the various gene sets that are identified.

I specifically applaud the authors for doing a functional follow-up experiment on one of the differentially expressed genes (BCL2L1), even if the results did not support the hypothesis. It is important to report experiments like this and it is terrific to see it done here.

Weaknesses:

While the paper successfully identifies differentially expressed seasonal genes, the real question is (as explained by the authors) whether these are evolved adaptations in the shrews or whether they reflect plastic changes that also exist in other species. This question was the motivation for the inter-species analyses in the paper, but in my view, these cannot rigorously address this question. Presumably, the data from the other species were not collected in comparable environments as those experienced by the shrews studied here. Instead, they likely (it is not specified, and might not be knowable for the public data) reflect baseline gene expression. To see why this is problematic, consider this analogy: if we were to compare gene expression in the immune system of an individual undergoing an acute infection to other, uninfected individuals, we would see many, strong expression differences. However, it would not be appropriate to claim that the infected individual has unique features - the relevant physiological changes are simply not triggered in the other individuals. The same applies here: it is hard to draw conclusions from seasonal expression data in the shrews to non-seasonal data in the other species, as shrew outlier genes might still reflect physiological changes that weren't active in the other species.

There is no solution for this design flaw given the public data available to the authors except for creating matched data in the other species, which is of course not feasible. The authors should acknowledge and discuss this shortcoming in the paper.

Related to the point above: in the section "Evolutionary Divergence in Expression" it is not clear which of the shrew samples were used. Was it all of them, or only those from winter, fall, etc? One might expect different results depending on this. E.g., there could be fewer genes with inferred adaptive change when using only summer samples. The authors should specify which samples were included in these analyses, and, if all samples were used, conduct a robustness analysis to see which of their detected genes survive the exclusion of certain time points.

In the same section, were there also genes with lower shrew expression? None are mentioned in the text, so did the authors not test for this direction, or did they test and there were no significant hits?

The Discussion is too long and detailed, given that it can ultimately only speculate about what the various expression changes might mean. Many of the specific points made (e.g. about the blood-brain-barrier being more permissive to sensing metabolic state, about cross-organ communication, the paragraphs on single, specific genes) are a stretch based on the available data. Illustrating this point, the one follow-up experiment the authors did (on BCL2L1) did not give the expected result. I really applaud the authors for having done this experiment, which goes beyond typical studies in this space. At the same time, its result highlights the dangers of reading too much into differential expression analyses.

There is no test of whether the five genes observed in both analyses (seasonal change and inter-species) exceed the number expected by chance. When two gene sets are drawn at random, some overlap is expected randomly. The expected overlap can be computed by repeated draws of pairs of random sets of the same size as seen in real data and by noting the overlap between the random pairs. If this random distribution often includes sets of five genes, this weakens the conclusions that can be drawn from the genes observed in the real data.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Shrews go through winter by shrinking their brain and most organs, then regrow them in the spring. The gene expression changes underlying this unusual brain size plasticity were unknown. Here, the authors looked for potential adaptations underlying this trait by looking at differential expression in the hypothalamus. They found enrichments for DE in genes related to the blood-brain barrier and calcium signaling, as well as used comparative data to look at gene expression differences that are unique in shrews. This study leverages a fascinating organismal trait to understand plasticity and what might be driving it at the level of gene expression. This manuscript also lays the groundwork for further developing this interesting system.

Strengths:

One strength is that the authors used OU models to look for adaptation in gene expression. The authors also added cell culture work to bolster their findings.

Weaknesses:

I think that there should be a bit more of an introduction to Dehnel's phenomenon, given how much it is used throughout.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In their study, the authors combine developmental and comparative transcriptomics to identify candidate genes with plastic, canalized, or lineage-specific (i.e., divergent) expression patterns associated with an unusual overwintering phenomenon (Dehnel's phenomenon - seasonal size plasticity) in the Eurasian shrew. Their focus is on the shrinkage and regrowth of the hypothalamus, a brain region that undergoes significant seasonal size changes in shrews and plays a key role in regulating metabolic homeostasis. Through combined transcriptomic analysis, they identify genes showing derived (lineage-specific), plastic (seasonally regulated), and canalized (both lineage-specific and plastic) expression patterns. The authors hypothesize that genes involved in pathways such as the blood-brain barrier, metabolic state sensing, and ion-dependent signaling will be enriched among those with notable transcriptomic patterns. They complement their transcriptomic findings with a cell culture-based functional assessment of a candidate gene believed to reduce apoptosis.

Strengths:

The study's rationale and its integration of developmental and comparative transcriptomics are well-articulated and represent an advancement in the field. The transcriptome, known for its dynamic and plastic nature, is also influenced by evolutionary history. The authors effectively demonstrate how multiple signals-evolutionary, constitutive, and plastic-can be extracted, quantified, and interpreted. The chosen phenotype and study system are particularly compelling, as it not only exemplifies an extreme case of Dehnel's phenotype, but the metabolic requirements of the shrew suggest that genes regulating metabolic homeostasis are under strong selection.

Weaknesses:

(1) In a number of places (described in detail below), the motivation for the experimental, analytical, or visualization approach is unclear and may obscure or prevent discoveries.

(2) Temporal Expression - Figure 1 and Supplemental Figure 2 and associated text:
- It is unclear whether quantitative criteria were used to distinguish "developmental shift" clusters from "season shift" clusters. A visual inspection of Supplemental Figure 2 suggests that some clusters (e.g., clusters 2, 8, and to a lesser extent 12) show seasonal variation, not just developmental differences between stages 1 and 2. While clustering helps to visualize expression patterns, it may not be the most appropriate filter in this case, particularly since all "season shift" clusters are later combined in KEGG pathway and GO analyses (Figure 1B).
- The authors do not indicate whether they perform cluster-specific GO or KEGG pathway enrichment analyses. The current analysis picks up relevant pathways for hypothalamic control of homeostasis, which is a useful validation, but this approach might not fully address the study's key hypotheses.

(3) Differential expression between shrinkage (stage 2) and regrowth (stage 4) and cell culture targets
- The rationale for selecting BCL2L1 for cell culture experiments should be clarified. While it is part of the apoptosis pathway, several other apoptosis-related genes were identified in the differential gene expression (DGE) analysis, some showing stronger differential expression or shrew-specific branch shifts. Why was BCL2L1 prioritized over these other candidates?
- The authors mention maintaining (or at least attempting to maintain) a 1:1 sex ratio for the comparative analysis, but it is unclear if this was also done for the S. araneus analysis. If not, why? If so, was sex included as a covariate (e.g., a random effect) in the differential expression analysis? Sex-specific expression elevates with group variation and could impact the discovery of differentially expressed genes.

(4) Discussion: The term "adaptive" is used frequently and liberally throughout the discussion. The interpretation of seasonal changes in gene expression as indicators of adaptive evolution should be done cautiously as such changes do not necessarily imply causal or adaptive associations.

Author response:

In response to your comments, we will revise our manuscript to address the limitations raised, including our ability to rigorously test how observed changes in gene expression in shrews are adaptive. The phylogenetic ANOVA we use (EVE), tests for a separate RNA expression optimum specific to the shrew lineage for each gene, and is consistent with expectations for adaptive evolution of gene expression. However, as you noted, while this analysis highlights many candidate genes potentially under positive selection, further functional validation is required to confirm if and how these genes contribute to Dehnel’s phenomenon. We will emphasize that inferred adaptive expression of these genes is putative in our discussion and outline that future studies are needed to test the function of proposed adaptations. For example, cell line validations of BCL2L1 on apoptosis is a case study that tests the function of a putatively adaptive change in gene expression, and it illuminates this limitation. We will also refine our discussion to focus more on pathway-level analyses rather than on individual genes.

We recognize that our methodological choices may not have been fully transparent, such as our selection of gene expression clusters for the pathway enrichment analysis and our focus on BCL2L1 for functional validation in cell lines. We will expand on these decisions in the methods section to provide greater clarity for our readers.

Regarding the use of sex as a covariate, we acknowledge the concerns raised. In our evolutionary analyses, we maintained a balanced sex ratio when possible. EVE models handle the effect of sex on gene expression as intraspecific variation, reflective of plasticity. In shrews, however, we used males exclusively. Females were only found among juvenile individuals and including them would have introduced developmental variation with larger, negative impacts on these results. For the seasonal data, we will now include sex as a covariate in differential expression analyses, however, our design is imbalanced in relation to sex. We will account for this limitation and discuss it further in the revised manuscript.