Proteome dynamics reveal Leiomodin 1 as a key regulator of myogenic differentiation

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

This manuscript by Ori and colleagues investigates the role of Lmod1 in muscle stem cell activation and differentiation. The study begins with a time-course mass spectrometry analysis of primary muscle stem cells, identifying Lmod1 as a pro-myogenic candidate (Figure 1). While the initial approach is robust, the subsequent characterization lacks depth and clarity. Although the data suggest that Lmod1 promotes myogenesis, the underlying mechanisms remain vague, and key experiments are missing. Please find my comments below.

(1) The authors mainly rely on coarse and less-established readouts such as myotube length and spherical Myh-positive cells. More comprehensive and standard analyses, such as co-staining for Pax7, MyoD, and Myogenin, would allow quantification of quiescent, activated, and differentiating stem cells in knockdown and overexpression experiments. The exact stage at which Lmod1 functions (stem cell, progenitor, or post-fusion) is unclear due to the limited depth of the analysis. Performing similar experiments on cultured single EDL fibers would add valuable insights.

(2) In supplementary Figure 2E, the distinction between Hoechst-positive cells and total cell counts is unclear. The authors should clarify why Hoechst-positive cells increase and relabel "reserve cells," as the term is confusing without reading the legend.

(3) The specificity of Lmod1 and Sirt1 immunostaining needs validation using siRNA-treated samples, especially as these data form the basis of the mechanistic conclusions.

(4) The authors must test the effect of Lmod1 siRNA on Sirt1 localization, as only overexpression experiments are shown.

(5) In Figure S3, the biotin signal in LMOD2 samples appears weak. The authors need to address whether comparing LMOD1 and LMOD2 is valid given the apparent difference in reaction efficiency. It would also help to highlight where Sirt1 falls on the volcano plot in S3B.

(6) The immunostaining data suggest that Lmod1 remains cytoplasmic throughout differentiation, whereas Sirt1 shows transient cytoplasmic localization at day 1 of differentiation. The authors should explain why Sirt1 is not constantly sequestered if Lmod1's cytoplasmic localization is consistent. It is also unclear whether day 1 is the key time point for Lmod1 function, as its precise role during myogenesis remains ambiguous.

(7) The introduction does not sufficiently establish the motivation or knowledge gap this work aims to address. Instead, it reads like a narration of disparate topics in a single paragraph. The authors should clarify the statement in line 150, "since this protein has been...,".

Overall, while the identification of Lmod1 as a pro-myogenic factor is convincing, the mechanistic insights are insufficient, and the manuscript would benefit from addressing these concerns.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the authors identify Leiomodin-1 (LMOD1) as a key regulator of early myogenic differentiation, demonstrating its interaction with SIRT1 to influence SIRT1's cellular localization and gene expression. The authors propose that LMOD1 translocates SIRT1 from the nucleus to the cytoplasm to permit the expression of myogenic differentiating genes such as MYOD or Myogenin.

Strengths:

A major strength of this work lies in the robust temporal resolution achieved through a time-course mass spectrometry analysis of in vitro muscle differentiation. This provides novel insights into the dynamic process of myogenic differentiation, often under-explored in terms of temporal progression. The authors provide a strong mechanistic case for how LMOD1 exerts its role in muscle differentiation which opens avenues to modulate.

Weaknesses:

One limitation of the study is the in vivo data. Although the authors do translate their findings in vivo for LMOD1 localization and expression, the cross-sectional imaging is not highly convincing. Longitudinal cuts or isolated fibers could have been more useful specimens to answer these questions. Moreover, the authors do not assess their in vitro SIRT1 findings in vivo. A few key experiments in regenerating or aged mice would strengthen the mechanistic insight of the findings.

Discussion:

Overall, the study emphasizes the importance of understanding the temporal dynamics of molecular players during myogenic differentiation and provides valuable proteomic data that will benefit the field. Future studies should explore whether LMOD1 modulates the nuclear-cytoplasmic shuttling of other transcription factors during muscle development and how these processes are mechanistically achieved. Investigating whether LMOD1 can be therapeutically targeted to enhance muscle regeneration in contexts such as exercise, aging, and disease will be critical for translational applications. Additionally, elucidating the interplay among LMOD1, LMOD2, and LMOD3 could uncover broader implications for actin cytoskeletal regulation in muscle biology.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, the investigators identified LMOD1 as one of a subset of cytoskeletal proteins whose levels increase in the early stages of myogenic differentiation. Lmod1 is understudied in striated muscle and in particular in myogenic differentiation. Thus, this is an important study. It is also a very thorough study - with perhaps even too much data presented. Importantly, the investigators observed that LMOD1 appears to be important for skeletal regeneration, and myogenic differentiation and that it interacts with SIRT1. Both primary myoblast differentiation and skeletal muscle regeneration were studied. Rescue experiments confirmed these observations: SIRT1 can rescue perturbations of myogenic differentiation as a result of LMOD1 knockdown.

Strengths:

Particular strengths include: important topic, the use of primary skeletal cultures, the use of both cell culture and in vivo approaches, careful biomarker analysis of primary mouse myoblast differentiation, the use of two methods to probe the function of the Lmod1/SIRT1 pathway via using depletion approaches and inhibitors, and generation of six independent myoblast cultures. Results support their conclusions.

Weaknesses:

(1) Figure 1. Images of cells in Figure 1A are too small to be meaningful (especially in comparison to the other data presented in this figure). Perhaps the authors could make graphs smaller?

(2) Line 148 "We found LMOD2 to be the most abundant Lmod in whole skeletal muscle." This is confusing since most if not all prior studies have shown that Lmod3 is the predominant isoform in skeletal muscle. The two papers that are cited are incorrectly cited. Clarification to resolve this discrepancy is needed.

(3) Figure 2. Immunoflorescence (IF) panels are too small to be meaningful. Perhaps the graphs could be made smaller and more space allocated for the IF panels? This issue is apparent for just about all IF panels - they are simply too small to be meaningful. Additionally, in many of the immunofluorescence figures, the colors that were used make it difficult to discern the stained cellular structures. For example in Figure S1, orange and purple are used - they do not stand out as well as other colors that are more commonly used.

(4) There is huge variability in many experiments presented - as such, more samples appear to be required to allow for meaningful data to be obtained. For example, Figure S2. Many experimental groups, only have 3 samples - this is highly problematic - I would estimate that 5-6 would be the minimum.

(5) Ponceau S staining is often used as a loading control in this manuscript for western blots. The area/molecular weight range actually used should be specified. Not clear why in some experiments GAPDH staining is used, in other experiments Ponceau S staining is used, and in some, both are used. In some experiments, the variability of total protein loaded from lane to lane is disconcerting. For example, in Figure S4C there appears to be more than normal variability. Can the protein assay be redone and samples run again?

(6) Figure S3 - Lmod3 is included in the figure but no mention of it occurs in the title of the figure and/or legend.

(7) Abstract, line 25. "overexpression accelerates and improves the formation of myotubes". This is a confusing sentence. How is it improving the formation? A little more information about how they are different than developing myotubes in normal/healthy muscles would be helpful.

(8) It is impossible from the IF figures presented to determine where Lmod1 localizes in the myocytes. Information on its subcellular localization is important. Does it localize with Lmod2 and Lmod3 at thin filament pointed ends?