Mapping HIV-1 RNA Structure, Homodimers, Long-Range Interactions and persistent domains by HiCapR

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This paper focuses on secondary structure and homodimers in the HIV genome. The authors introduce a new method called HiCapR which reveals secondary structure, homodimer, and long-range interactions in the HIV genome. The experimental design and data analysis are well-documented and statistically sound. However, the manuscript could be further improved in the following aspects.

Major comments:

(1) Please give the full name of an abbreviation the first time it appears in the paper, for example, in L37, "5' UTR" "RRE".

(2) The introduction could be strengthened by discussing the limitations of existing methods for studying HIV RNA structures and interactions and highlighting the specific advantages of the HiCapR method.

(3) Please reorganize Results Part 1.

(4) Is there any reason that the authors mention "genome structure of SARS-CoV-2" in L95?

(5) L102: Please clarify the purpose of comparing "NL4-3" and "GX2005002." Additionally, could you explain what NL4-3 and GX2005002 are? The connection between NL4-3, GX2005002, and HIV appears to be missing.

(6) Figure 1A is not able to clearly present the innovation point of HiCapR.

(7) Please compare the contact metrics detected by HiCapR and current techniques like SHAPE on the local interactions to assess the accuracy of HiCapR in capturing local RNA interactions relative to established methods.

(8) The paper needs further language editing.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In the manuscript "Mapping HIV-1 RNA Structure, Homodimers, Long-Range Interactions and 1 persistent domains by HiCapR" Zhang et al report results from an omics-type approach to mapping RNA crosslinks within the HIV RNA genome under different conditions i.e. in infected cells and in virions. Reportedly, they used a previously published method which, in the present case, was improved for application to RNAs of low abundance.

Their claims include the detection of numerous long-range interactions, some of which differ between cellular and virion RNA. Further claims concern the detection and analysis of homodimers.

Strengths:

(1) The method developed here works with extremely little viral RNA input and allows for the comparison of RNA from infected cells versus virions.

(2) The findings, if validated properly, are certainly interesting to the community.

Weaknesses:

(1) On the communication level, the present version of the manuscript suffers from a number of shortcomings. I may be insufficiently familiar with habits in this community, but for RNA afficionados just a little bit outside of the viral-RNA-X-link community, the original method (reference 22) and the presumed improvement here are far too little explained, namely in something like three lines (98-100). This is not at all conducive to further reading.

(2) Experimentally, the manuscript seems to be based on a single biological replicate, so there is strong concern about reproducibility.

(3) The authors perform an extensive computational analysis from a limited number of datasets, which are in thorough need of experimental validation.