Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, and public reviews.
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorValerie HorsleyYale University, New Haven, United States of America
- Senior EditorSonia SenTata Institute for Genetics and Society, Bangalore, India
Reviewer #1 (Public review):
Summary:
This is a wonderful and landmark study in the field of human embryo modeling. It uses patterned human gastruloids and conducts a functional screen on neural tube closure, and identifies positive and negative regulators, and defines the epistasis among them.
Strengths:
The above was achieved following optimization of the micro-pattern-based gastruloid protocol to achieve high efficiency, and then optimized to conduct and deliver CRISPRi without disrupting the protocol. This is a technical tour de force as well as one of the first studies to reveal new knowledge on human development through embryo models, which has not been done before.
The manuscript is very solid and well-written. The figures are clear, elegant, and meaningful. The conclusions are fully supported by the data shown. The methods are well-detailed, which is very important for such a study.
Weaknesses:
This reviewer did not identify any meaningful, major, or minor caveats that need addressing or correcting.
A minor weakness is that one can never find out if the findings in human embryo models can be in vitro revalidated in humans in vivo. This is for obvious and justified ethical reasons. However, the authors acknowledge this point in the section of the manuscript detailing the limitations of their study.
Reviewer #2 (Public review):
Summary:
This manuscript is a technical report on a new model of early neurogenesis, coupled to a novel platform for genetic screens. The model is more faithful than others published to date, and the screening platform is an advance over existing ones in terms of speed and throughput.
Strengths:
It is novel and useful.
Weaknesses:
The novelty of the results is limited in terms of biology, mainly a proof of concept of the platform and a very good demonstration of the hierarchical interactions of the top regulators of GRNs.
The value of the manuscript could be enhanced in two ways:
(1) by showing its versatility and transforming the level of neural tube to midbrain and hindbrain, and looking at the transcriptional hierarchies there.
(2) by relating the patterning of the organoids to the situation in vivo, in particular with the information in reference 49. The authors make a statement "To compare our findings with in vivo gene expression patterns, we applied the same approach to published scRNA-seq data from 4-week-old human embryos at the neurula stage" but it would be good to have a more nuanced reference: what stage, what genes are missing, what do they add to the information in that reference?