Phenotypic impact of individual conserved neuronal microexons and their master regulators in zebrafish

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript by Lopez-Blanch and colleagues, 21 microexons are selected for a deep analysis of their impacts on behavior, development, and gene expression. The authors begin with a systematic analysis of microexon inclusion and conservation in zebrafish and use these data to select 21 microexons for further study. The behavioral, transcriptomic, and morphological data presented are for the most part convincing. Furthermore, the discussion of the potential explanations for the subtle impacts of individual microexon deletions versus loss-of-function in srrm3 and/or srrm4 is quite comprehensive and thoughtful. One major weakness: data presentation, methods, and jargon at times affect readability / might lead to overstated conclusions. However, overall this manuscript is well-written, easy to follow, and the results are of broad interest.

Strengths:

(1) The study uses a wide variety of techniques to assess the impacts of microexon deletion, ranging from assays of protein function to regulation of behavior and development.

(2) The authors provide comprehensive analyses of the molecular impact of their microexon deletions, including examining how host-gene and paralog expression is affected.

Weaknesses / Major Points:

(1) According to the methods, it seems that srrm3 social behavior is tested by pairing a 3mpf srrm3 mutant with a 30dpf srrm3 het. Is this correct? The methods seem to indicate that this decision was made to account for a slower growth rate of homozygous srrm3 mutant fish. However, the difference in age is potentially a major confound that could impact the way that srrm3 mutants interact with hets and the way that srrm3 mutants interact with one another (lower spread for the ratio of neighbour in front value, higher distance to neighbour value). This reviewer suggests testing het-het behavior at 3 months to provide age-matched comparisons for del-del, testing age-matched rather than size-matched het-del behavior, and also suggests mentioning this in the main text / within the figure itself so that readers are aware of the potential confound.

(2) Referring to srrm3+/+; srrm4-/- controls for double mutant behavior as "WT for simplicity" is somewhat misleading. Why do the authors not refer to these as srrm4 single mutants?

(3) It's not completely clear how "neurally regulated" microexons are defined / how they are different from "neural microexons"? Are these terms interchangeable?

(4) Overexpression experiments driving srrm3 / srrm4 in HEK293 cells are not described in the methods.

(4) Suggest including more information on how neurite length was calculated. In representative images, it appears difficult to determine which neurites arise from which soma, as they cross extensively. How was this addressed in the quantification?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript explores in zebrafish the impact of genetic manipulation of individual microexons and two regulators of microexon inclusion (Srrm3 and Srrm4). The authors compare molecular, anatomical, and behavioral phenotypes in larvae and juvenile fish. The authors test the hypothesis that phenotypes resulting from Srrm3 and 4 mutations might in part be attributable to individual microexon deletions in target genes.

The authors uncover substantial alterations in in vitro neurite growth, locomotion, and social behavior in Srrm mutants but not any of the individual microexon deletion mutants. The individual mutations are accompanied by broader transcript level changes which may resemble compensatory changes. Ultimately, the authors conclude that the severe Srrm3/4 phenotypes result from additive and/or synergistic effects due to the de-regulation of multiple microexons.

Strengths:

The work is carefully planned, well-described, and beautifully displayed in clear, intuitive figures. The overall scope is extensive with a large number of individual mutant strains examined. The analysis bridges from molecular to anatomical and behavioral read-outs. Analysis appears rigorous and most conclusions are well-supported by the data.

Overall, addressing the function of microexons in an in vivo system is an important and timely question.

Weaknesses:

The main weakness of the work is the interpretation of the social behavior phenotypes in the Srrm mutants. It is difficult to conclude that the mutations indeed impact social behavior rather than sensory processing and/or vision which precipitates apparent social alterations as a secondary consequence. Interpreting the phenotypes as "autism-like" is not supported by the data presented.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Microexons are highly conserved alternative splice variants, the individual functions of which have thus far remained mostly elusive. The inclusion of microexons in mature mRNAs increases during development, specifically in neural tissues, and is regulated by SRRM proteins. Investigation of individual microexon function is a vital avenue of research since microexon inclusion is disrupted in diseases like autism. This study provides one of the first rigorous screens (using zebrafish larvae) of the functions of individual microexons in neurodevelopment and behavioural control. The authors precisely excise 21 microexons from the genome of zebrafish using CRISPR-Cas9 and assay the downstream impacts on neurite outgrowth, larvae motility, and sociality. A small number of mild phenotypes were observed, which contrasts with the more dramatic phenotypes observed when microexon master regulators SRRM3/4 are disrupted. Importantly, this study attempts to address the reasons why mild/few phenotypes are observed and identify transcriptomic changes in microexon mutants that suggest potential compensatory gene regulatory mechanisms.

Strengths:

(1) The manuscript is well written with excellent presentation of the data in the figures.

(2) The experimental design is rigorous and explained in sufficient detail.

(3) The identification of a potential microexon compensatory mechanism by transcriptional alterations represents a valued attempt to begin to explain complex genetic interactions.

(4) Overall this is a study with a robust experimental design that addresses a gap in knowledge of the role of microexons in neurodevelopment.

Author response:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript by Lopez-Blanch and colleagues, 21 microexons are selected for a deep analysis of their impacts on behavior, development, and gene expression. The authors begin with a systematic analysis of microexon inclusion and conservation in zebrafish and use these data to select 21 microexons for further study. The behavioral, transcriptomic, and morphological data presented are for the most part convincing. Furthermore, the discussion of the potential explanations for the subtle impacts of individual microexon deletions versus loss-of-function in srrm3 and/or srrm4 is quite comprehensive and thoughtful. One major weakness: data presentation, methods, and jargon at times affect readability / might lead to overstated conclusions. However, overall this manuscript is well-written, easy to follow, and the results are of broad interest.

We thank the Reviewer for their positive comments on our manuscript. In the revised version, we will try to improve readability, reduce jargon and avoid overstatements.

Strengths:

(1) The study uses a wide variety of techniques to assess the impacts of microexon deletion, ranging from assays of protein function to regulation of behavior and development.

(2) The authors provide comprehensive analyses of the molecular impact of their microexon deletions, including examining how host-gene and paralog expression is affected.

Weaknesses / Major Points:

(1) According to the methods, it seems that srrm3 social behavior is tested by pairing a 3mpf srrm3 mutant with a 30dpf srrm3 het. Is this correct? The methods seem to indicate that this decision was made to account for a slower growth rate of homozygous srrm3 mutant fish. However, the difference in age is potentially a major confound that could impact the way that srrm3 mutants interact with hets and the way that srrm3 mutants interact with one another (lower spread for the ratio of neighbour in front value, higher distance to neighbour value). This reviewer suggests testing het-het behavior at 3 months to provide age-matched comparisons for del-del, testing age-matched rather than size-matched het-del behavior, and also suggests mentioning this in the main text / within the figure itself so that readers are aware of the potential confound.

Thank you for bringing up this point. For the tests shown in Figure 5, we indeed decided to match the srrm3 pairs by fish size since we thought this would be more comparable to the other lines both biologically and methodologically (in terms of video tracking, etc.). However, we are confident the results would be very similar if matched by age, since the differences in social interactions between the srrm3 homozygous mutants and their control siblings are very dramatic at any age. For example, this can be appreciated, in line with the Reviewer's suggestion, in Videos S2 and S3, which show groups of five 5 mpf fish that are either srrm3 mutants or controls. It can be observed that the behavior of 5 mpf control fish is very similar to those of 1 mpf fish pairs, with very small interindividual distances. We will nonetheless agree that this decision on the experimental design should be clearly stated in the text and figure legend and we will do so in the revised version.

(2) Referring to srrm3+/+; srrm4-/- controls for double mutant behavior as "WT for simplicity" is somewhat misleading. Why do the authors not refer to these as srrm4 single mutants?

We thought it made the interpretation of plots easier, but we will change this in the revised version.

(3) It's not completely clear how "neurally regulated" microexons are defined / how they are different from "neural microexons"? Are these terms interchangeable?

Yes, they are interchangeable. We will double check the wording to avoid confusion.

(4) Overexpression experiments driving srrm3 / srrm4 in HEK293 cells are not described in the methods.

Apologies for this omission. We will briefly described the methods; however, please note that the data was obtained from a previous publication (Torres-Mendez et al, 2019), where the detailed methodology is reported.

(5) Suggest including more information on how neurite length was calculated. In representative images, it appears difficult to determine which neurites arise from which soma, as they cross extensively. How was this addressed in the quantification?

We will add further details to the revised version. With regards to the specific question, we would like to mention that this has not been a very common problem for the time points used in the manuscript (10 hap and 24 hap). At those stages, it was nearly always evident how to track each individual neurite. Dubious cases were simply discarded. Of course, such cases become much more common at later time points (48 and 72 hap), not sure in this study.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This manuscript explores in zebrafish the impact of genetic manipulation of individual microexons and two regulators of microexon inclusion (Srrm3 and Srrm4). The authors compare molecular, anatomical, and behavioral phenotypes in larvae and juvenile fish. The authors test the hypothesis that phenotypes resulting from Srrm3 and 4 mutations might in part be attributable to individual microexon deletions in target genes.

The authors uncover substantial alterations in in vitro neurite growth, locomotion, and social behavior in Srrm mutants but not any of the individual microexon deletion mutants. The individual mutations are accompanied by broader transcript level changes which may resemble compensatory changes. Ultimately, the authors conclude that the severe Srrm3/4 phenotypes result from additive and/or synergistic effects due to the de-regulation of multiple microexons.

Strengths:

The work is carefully planned, well-described, and beautifully displayed in clear, intuitive figures. The overall scope is extensive with a large number of individual mutant strains examined. The analysis bridges from molecular to anatomical and behavioral read-outs. Analysis appears rigorous and most conclusions are well-supported by the data.

Overall, addressing the function of microexons in an in vivo system is an important and timely question.

Weaknesses:

The main weakness of the work is the interpretation of the social behavior phenotypes in the Srrm mutants. It is difficult to conclude that the mutations indeed impact social behavior rather than sensory processing and/or vision which precipitates apparent social alterations as a secondary consequence. Interpreting the phenotypes as "autism-like" is not supported by the data presented.

The Reviewer is absolutely right and we apologize for this omission, since it was not our intention to imply that these social defects should be interpreted simply as autistic-like. It is indeed very likely that the main reason for the social alterations displayed by the srrm3's mutants are due to their impaired vision. We will add this discussion explicitly in the revised version.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Microexons are highly conserved alternative splice variants, the individual functions of which have thus far remained mostly elusive. The inclusion of microexons in mature mRNAs increases during development, specifically in neural tissues, and is regulated by SRRM proteins. Investigation of individual microexon function is a vital avenue of research since microexon inclusion is disrupted in diseases like autism. This study provides one of the first rigorous screens (using zebrafish larvae) of the functions of individual microexons in neurodevelopment and behavioural control. The authors precisely excise 21 microexons from the genome of zebrafish using CRISPR-Cas9 and assay the downstream impacts on neurite outgrowth, larvae motility, and sociality. A small number of mild phenotypes were observed, which contrasts with the more dramatic phenotypes observed when microexon master regulators SRRM3/4 are disrupted. Importantly, this study attempts to address the reasons why mild/few phenotypes are observed and identify transcriptomic changes in microexon mutants that suggest potential compensatory gene regulatory mechanisms.

Strengths:

(1) The manuscript is well written with excellent presentation of the data in the figures.

(2) The experimental design is rigorous and explained in sufficient detail.

(3) The identification of a potential microexon compensatory mechanism by transcriptional alterations represents a valued attempt to begin to explain complex genetic interactions.

(4) Overall this is a study with a robust experimental design that addresses a gap in knowledge of the role of microexons in neurodevelopment.

Thank you very much for your positive comments to our manuscript.