Branched actin polymerization drives invasive protrusion formation to promote myoblast fusion during skeletal muscle regeneration

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Overall, the manuscript reveals the role of actin polymerization to drive the fusion of myoblasts during adult muscle regeneration. This pathway regulates fusion in many contexts, but whether it was conserved in adult muscle regeneration remained unknown. Robust genetic tools and histological analyses were used to support the claims convincingly.

There are a few interpretations that could be adjusted.

The beginning of the results about macrophages traversing ghost fibers after regeneration was a surprise given the context in the abstract and introduction. These results also lead to new questions about this biology that would need to be answered to substantiate the claims in this section. Also, it is unclear the precise new information learned here because it seems obvious that macrophages would need to extravasate the basement membrane to enter ghost fibers and macrophages are known to have this ability. Moreover, the model in Figure 4D has macrophages and BM but there is not even mention of this in the legend. The authors may wish to consider removing this topic from the manuscript.

Which Pax7CreER line was used? In the methods, the Jax number provided is the Gaka line but in the results, Lepper et al 2009 are cited, which is not the citation for the Gaka line.

Did the authors assess regeneration in the floxed mice that do not contain Cre as a control? Or is it known these alleles do not perturb the function of the targeted gene?

The authors comment: 'Interestingly, expression of the fusogenic proteins, MymK and MymX, was up-regulated in the TA muscle of these mice (Fig. S4F), suggesting that fusogen overexpression is not able to rescue the SCM fusion defect resulted from defective branched actin polymerization.' It is unclear if fusogens are truly overexpressed because the analysis is performed at dpi 4 when the expression of fusogens may be decreased in control mice because they have already fused. Also, only two animals were analyzed and it is unclear if MymX is definitively increased. The authors should consider adjusting the interpretation to SCM fusion defect resulting from defective branched actin polymerization is unlikely to be caused by a lack of fusogen expression.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

To fuse, differentiated muscle cells must rearrange their cytoskeletaon and assemble actin-enriched cytoskeletal structures. These actin foci are proposed to generate mechanical forces necessary to drive close membrane apposition and fusion pore formation.

While the study of these actin-rich structures has been conducted mainly in drosophila, the present manuscript presents clear evidence this mechanism is necessary for the fusion of adult muscle stem cells in vivo, in mice.

However, the authors need to tone down their interpretation of their findings and remember that genetic proof for cytoskeletal actin remodeling to allow muscle fusion in mice has already been provided by different labs (Vasyutina E, et al. 2009 PMID: 19443691; Gruenbaum-Cohen Y, et al., 2012 PMID: 22736793; Hamoud et al., 2014 PMID: 24567399). In the same line of thought, the authors write they "demonstrated a critical function of branched actin-propelled invasive protrusions in skeletal muscle regeneration". I believe this is not a premiere, since Randrianarison-Huetz V, et al., previously reported the existence of finger-like actin-based protrusions at fusion sites in mice myoblasts (PMID: 2926942) and Eigler T, et al., live-recorded said "fusogenic synapse" in mice myoblasts (PMID: 34932950).

Hence, while the data presented here clearly demonstrate that ARP2/3 and SCAR/WAVE complexes are required for differentiating satellite cell fusion into multinucleated myotubes, this is an incremental story, and the authors should put their results in the context of previous literature.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

The manuscript by Lu et al. explores the role of the Arp2/3 complex and the actin nucleators N-WASP and WAVE in myoblast fusion during muscle regeneration. The results are clear and compelling, effectively supporting the main claims of the study. However, the manuscript could benefit from a more detailed molecular and cellular analysis of the fusion synapse. Additionally, while the description of macrophage extravasation from ghost fibers is intriguing, it seems somewhat disconnected from the primary focus of the work.

Despite this, the data are robust, and the major conclusions are well supported. Understanding muscle fusion mechanism is still a widely unexplored topic in the field and the authors make important progress in this domain.

I have a few suggestions that might strengthen the manuscript as outlined below.

(1) Could the authors provide more detail on how they defined cells with "invasive protrusions" in Figure 4C? Membrane blebs are commonly observed in contacting cells, so it would be important to clarify the criteria used for counting this specific event.

(2) Along the same line, please clarify what each individual dot represents in Figure 4C. The authors mention quantifying approximately 83 SCMs from 20 fibers. I assume each dot corresponds to data from individual fibers, but if that's the case, does this imply that only around four SCMs were quantified per fiber? A more detailed explanation would be helpful.

(3) Localizing ArpC2 at the invasive protrusions would be a strong addition to this study. Furthermore, have the authors examined the localization of Myomaker and Myomixer in ArpC2 mutant cells? This could provide insights into potential disruptions in the fusion machinery.

(4) As a minor curiosity, can ArpC2 WT and mutant cells fuse with each other?

(5) The authors report a strong reduction in CSA at 14 dpi and 28 dpi, attributing this defect primarily to failed myoblast fusion. Although this claim is supported by observations at early time points, I wonder whether the Arp2/3 complex might also play roles in myofibers after fusion. For instance, Arp2/3 could be required for the growth or maintenance of healthy myofibers, which could also contribute to the reduced CSA observed, since regenerated myofibers inherit the ArpC2 knockout from the stem cells. Could the authors address or exclude this possibility? This is rather a broader criticism of how things are being interpreted in general beyond this paper.