Mouse germline cysts contain a fusome that mediates oocyte development

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors attempt to study how oocyte incomplete cytokinesis occurs in the mouse ovary.

Strengths:

The finding that UPR components are highly expressed during zygotene is an interesting result that has broad implications for how germ cells navigate meiosis. The findings that proteasome activity increases in germ cells compared to somatic cells suggest that the germline might have a quantitatively different response for protein clearance.

Weaknesses:

(1) The microscopy images look saturated, for example, Figure 1a, b, etc? Is this a normal way to present fluorescent microscopy?

(2) The authors should ensure that all claims regarding enrichment/lower vs lower values have indicated statistical tests.

(a) In Figure 2f, the authors should indicate which comparison is made for this test. Is it comparing 2 vs 6 cyst numbers?

(b) Figures 4d and 4e do not have a statistical test indicated.

(3) Because the system is developmentally dynamic, the major conclusions of the work are somewhat unclear. Could the authors be more explicit about these and enumerate them more clearly in the abstract?

(4) The references for specific prior literature are mostly missing (lines 184-195, for example).

(5) The authors should define all acronyms when they are first used in the text (UPR, EGAD, etc).

(6) The jumping between topics (EMA, into microtubule fragmentation, polarization proteins, UPR/ERAD/EGAD, GCNA, ER, balbiani body, etc) makes the narrative of the paper very difficult to follow.

(7) The heading title "Visham participates in organelle rejuvenation during meiosis" in line 241 is speculative and/or not supported. Drawing upon the extensive, highly rigorous Drosophila literature, it is safe to extrapolate, but the claim about regeneration is not adequately supported.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This study identifies Visham, an asymmetric structure in developing mouse cysts resembling the Drosophila fusome, an organelle crucial for oocyte determination. Using immunofluorescence, electron microscopy, 3D reconstruction, and lineage labeling, the authors show that primordial germ cells (PGCs) and cysts, but not somatic cells, contain an EMA-rich, branching structure that they named Visham, which remains unbranched in male cysts. Visham accumulates in regions enriched in intercellular bridges, forming clusters reminiscent of fusome "rosettes." It is enriched in Golgi and endosomal vesicles and partially overlaps with the ER. During cell division, Visham localizes near centrosomes in interphase and early metaphase, disperses during metaphase, and reassembles at spindle poles during telophase before becoming asymmetric. Microtubule depolymerization disrupts its formation.

Cyst fragmentation is shown to be non-random, correlating with microtubule gaps. The authors propose that 8-cell (or larger) cysts fragment into 6-cell and 2-cell cysts. Analysis of Pard3 (the mouse ortholog of Par3/Baz) reveals its colocalization with Visham during cyst asymmetry, suggesting that mammalian oocyte polarization depends on a conserved system involving Par genes, cyst formation, and a fusome-like structure.

Transcriptomic profiling identifies genes linked to pluripotency and the unfolded protein response (UPR) during cyst formation and meiosis, supported by protein-level reporters monitoring Xbp1 splicing and 20S proteasome activity. Visham persists in meiotic germ cells at stage E17.5 and is later transferred to the oocyte at E18.5 along with mitochondria and Golgi vesicles, implicating it in organelle rejuvenation. In Dazl mutants, cysts form, but Visham dynamics, polarity, rejuvenation, and oocyte production are disrupted, highlighting its potential role in germ cell development.

Overall, this is an interesting and comprehensive study of a conserved structure in the germline cells of both invertebrate and vertebrate species. Investigating these early stages of germ cell development in mice is particularly challenging. Although primarily descriptive, the study represents a remarkable technical achievement. The images are generally convincing, with only a few exceptions.

Major comments:

(1) Some titles contain strong terms that do not fully match the conclusions of the corresponding sections.

(1a) Article title "Mouse germline cysts contain a fusome-like structure that mediates oocyte development":

The term "mediates" could be misleading, as the functional data on Visham (based on comparing its absence to wild-type) actually reflects either a microtubule defect or a Dazl mutant context. There is no specific loss-of-function of visham only.

(1b) Result title, "Visham overlaps centrosomes and moves on microtubules":

The term "moves" implies dynamic behavior, which would require live imaging data that are not described in the article.

(1c) Result title, "Visham associates with Golgi genes involved in UPR beginning at the onset of cyst formation":

The presented data show that the presence of Visham in the cyst coincides temporally with the expression and activity of the UPR response; the term "associates" is unclear in this context.

(1d) Result title, "Visham participates in organelle rejuvenation during meiosis":

The term "participates" suggests that Visham is required for this process, whereas the conclusion is actually drawn from the Dazl mutant context, not a specific loss-of-function of visham only.

(2) The authors aim to demonstrate that Visham is a fusome-like structure. I would suggest simply referring to it as a "fusome-like structure" rather than introducing a new term, which may confuse readers and does not necessarily help the authors' goal of showing the conservation of this structure in Drosophila and Xenopus germ cells. Interestingly, in a preprint from the same laboratory describing a similar structure in Xenopus germ cells, the authors refer to it as a "fusome-like structure (FLS)" (Davidian and Spradling, BioRxiv, 2025).

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

This manuscript provides evidence that mice have a fusome, a conserved structure most well studied in Drosophila that is important for oocyte specification. Overall, a myriad of evidence is presented demonstrating the existence of a mouse fusome that the authors term visham. This work is important as it addresses a long-standing question in the field of whether mice have fusomes and sheds light on how oocytes are specified in mammals. Concerns that need to be addressed revolve around several conclusions that are overstated or unclear and are listed below.

(1) Line 86 - the heading for this section is "PGCs contain a Golgi-rich structure known as the EMA granule" but there is nothing in this section that shows it is Golgi-rich. It does show that the structure is asymmetric and has branches.

(2) Line 105-106, how do we know if what's seen by EM corresponds to the EMA1 granule?

(3) Line 106-107-states "Visham co-stained with the Golgi protein Gm130 and the recycling endosomal protein Rab11a1". This is not convincing as there is only one example of each image, and both appear to be distorted.

(4) Line 132-133---while visham formation is disrupted when microtubules are disrupted, I am not convinced that visham moves on microtubules as stated in the heading of this section.

(5) Line 156 - the heading for this section states that Visham associates with polarity and microtubule genes, including pard3, but only evidence for pard3 is presented.

(6) Lines 196-210 - it's strange to say that UPR genes depend on DAZ, as they are upregulated in the mutants. I think there are important observations here, but it's unclear what is being concluded.

(7) Line 257-259---wave 1 and 2 follicles need to be explained in the introduction, and how this fits with the observations here clarified.

Author response:

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary

We thank the reviewer for the constructive and thoughtful evaluation of our work. We appreciate the recognition of the novelty and potential implications of our findings regarding UPR activation and proteasome activity in germ cells.

(1) The microscopy images look saturated, for example, Figure 1a, b, etc. Is this a normal way to present fluorescent microscopy?

The apparent saturation was not present in the original images, but likely arose from image compression during PDF generation. While the EMA granule was still apparent, in the revised submission, we will provide high-resolution TIFF files to ensure accurate representation of fluorescence intensity and will carefully optimize image display settings to avoid any saturation artifacts.

(2) The authors should ensure that all claims regarding enrichment/lower vs. lower values have indicated statistical tests.

We fully agree. In the revised version, we will correct any quantitative comparisons where statistical tests were not already indicated, with a clear statement of the statistical tests used, including p-values in figure legends and text.

(a) In Figure 2f, the authors should indicate which comparison is made for this test. Is it comparing 2 vs. 6 cyst numbers?

We acknowledge that the description was not sufficiently detailed. Indeed, the test was not between 2 vs 6 cyst numbers, but between all possible ways 8-cell cysts or the larger cysts studied could fragment randomly into two pieces, and produce by chance 6-cell cysts in 13 of 15 observed examples. We will expand the legend and main text to clarify that a binomial test was used to determine that the proportion of cysts producing 6-cell fragments differed very significantly from chance.

Revised text:

“A binomial test was used to assess whether the observed frequency of 6-cell cyst products differed from random cyst breakage. Production of 6-cell cysts was strongly preferred (13/15 cysts; ****p < 0.0001).”

(b) Figures 4d and 4e do not have a statistical test indicated.

We will include the specific statistical test used and report the corresponding p-values directly in the figure legends.

(3) Because the system is developmentally dynamic, the major conclusions of the work are somewhat unclear. Could the authors be more explicit about these and enumerate them more clearly in the abstract?

We will revise the abstract to better clarify the findings of this study. We will also replace the term Visham with mouse fusome to reflect its functional and structural analogy to the Drosophila and Xenopus fusomes, making the narrative more coherent and conclusive.

(4) The references for specific prior literature are mostly missing (lines 184-195, for example).

We appreciate this observation of a problem that occurred inadvertently when shortening an earlier version. We will add 3–4 relevant references to appropriately support this section.

(5) The authors should define all acronyms when they are first used in the text (UPR, EGAD, etc).

We will ensure that all acronyms are spelled out at first mention (e.g., Unfolded Protein Response (UPR), Endosome and Golgi-Associated Degradation (EGAD)).

(6) The jumping between topics (EMA, into microtubule fragmentation, polarization proteins, UPR/ERAD/EGAD, GCNA, ER, balbiani body, etc) makes the narrative of the paper very difficult to follow.

We are not jumping between topics, but following a narrative relevant to the central question of whether female mouse germ cells develop using a fusome. EMA, microtubule fragmentation, polarization proteins, ER, and balbiani body are all topics with a known connection to fusomes. This is explained in the general introduction and in relevant subsections. We appreciate this feedback that further explanations of these connections would be helpful. In the revised manuscript, use of the unified term mouse fusome will also help connect the narrative across sections. UPR/ERAD/EGAD are processes that have been studied in repair and maintenance of somatic cells and in yeast meiosis. We show that the major regulator XbpI is found in the fusome, and that the fusome and these rejuvenation pathway genes are expressed and maintained throughout oogenesis, rather than only during limited late stages as suggested in previous literature.

(7) The heading title "Visham participates in organelle rejuvenation during meiosis" in line 241 is speculative and/or not supported. Drawing upon the extensive, highly rigorous Drosophila literature, it is safe to extrapolate, but the claim about regeneration is not adequately supported.

We believe this statement is accurate given the broad scope of the term "participates." It is supported by localization of the UPR regulator XbpI to the fusome. XbpI is the ortholog of HacI a key gene mediating UPR-mediated rejuvenation during yeast meiosis. We also showed that rejuvenation pathway genes are expressed throughout most of meiosis (not previously known) and expanded cytological evidence of stage-specific organelle rejuvenation later in meiosis, such as mitochondrial-ER docking, in regions enriched in fusome antigens. However, we recognize the current limitations of this evidence in the mouse, and want to appropriately convey this, without going to what we believe would be an unjustified extreme of saying there is no evidence.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

We thank the reviewer for the comprehensive summary and for highlighting both the technical achievement and biological relevance of our study. We greatly appreciate the thoughtful suggestions that have helped us refine our presentation and terminology.

(1) Some titles contain strong terms that do not fully match the conclusions of the corresponding sections.

(1a) Article title “Mouse germline cysts contain a fusome-like structure that mediates oocyte development”

We will change the statement to: “Mouse germline cysts contain a fusome that supports germline cyst polarity and rejuvenation.”

(1b) Result title “Visham overlaps centrosomes and moves on microtubules” We acknowledge that “moves” implies dynamics. We will include additional supplementary images showing small vesicular components of the mouse fusome on spindle-derived microtubule tracks.

(1c) Result title “Visham associates with Golgi genes involved in UPR beginning at the onset of cyst formation”

We will revise this title to: “The mouse fusome associates with the UPR regulatory protein Xbp1 beginning at the onset of cyst formation” to reflect the specific UPR protein that was immunolocalized.

(1d) Result title “Visham participates in organelle rejuvenation during meiosis”

We will revise this to: “The mouse fusome persists during organelle rejuvenation in meiosis.”

(2) The authors aim to demonstrate that Visham is a fusome-like structure. I would suggest simply referring to it as a "fusome-like structure" rather than introducing a new term, which may confuse readers and does not necessarily help the authors' goal of showing the conservation of this structure in Drosophila and Xenopus germ cells. Interestingly, in a preprint from the same laboratory describing a similar structure in Xenopus germ cells, the authors refer to it as a "fusome-like structure (FLS)" (Davidian and Spradling, BioRxiv, 2025).

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment. To maintain conceptual clarity and align with existing literature, we will refer to the structure as the mouse fusome throughout the manuscript, avoiding introduction of a new term.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

We thank the reviewer for emphasizing the importance of our study and for providing constructive feedback that will help us clarify and strengthen our conclusions.

(1) Line 86 - the heading for this section is "PGCs contain a Golgi-rich structure known as the EMA granule"

We agree that the enrichment of Golgi within the EMA PGCs was not shown until the next section. We will revise this heading to:

“PGCs contain an asymmetric EMA granule.”

(2) Line 105-106, how do we know if what's seen by EM corresponds to the EMA1 granule?

We will clarify that this identification is based on co-localization with Golgi markers (GM130 and GS28) and response to Brefeldin A treatment, which will be included as supplementary data. These findings support that the mouse fusome is Golgi-derived and can therefore be visualized by EM. The Golgi regions in E13.5 cyst cells move close together and associate with ring canals as visualized by EM (Figure 1E), the same as the mouse fusomes identified by EMA.

(3) Line 106-107-states "Visham co-stained with the Golgi protein Gm130 and the recycling endosomal protein Rab11a1". This is not convincing as there is only one example of each image, and both appear to be distorted.

Space is at a premium in these figures, but we have no limitation on data documenting this absolutely clear co-localization. We will replace the existing images with high-resolution, non-compressed versions for the final figures to clearly illustrate the co-staining patterns for GM130 and Rab11a1.

(4) Line 132-133---while visham formation is disrupted when microtubules are disrupted, I am not convinced that visham moves on microtubules as stated in the heading of this section.

We will include additional supplementary data showing small mouse fusome vesicles aligned along microtubules.

(5) Line 156 - the heading for this section states that Visham associates with polarity and microtubule genes, including pard3, but only evidence for pard3 is presented.

We agree and will revise the heading to: “Mouse fusome associates with the polarity protein Pard3.” We are adding data showing association of small fusome vesicles on microtubules.

(6) Lines 196-210 - it's strange to say that UPR genes depend on DAZ, as they are upregulated in the mutants. I think there are important observations here, but it's unclear what is being concluded.

UPR genes are not upregulated in DAZ in the sense we have never documented them increasing. We show that UPR genes during this time behave like pleuripotency genes and normally decline, but in DAZ mutants their decline is slowed. We will rephrase the paragraph to clarify that Dazl mutation partially decouples developmental processes that are normally linked, which alters UPR gene expression relative to cyst development.

(7) Line 257-259-wave 1 and 2 follicles need to be explained in the introduction, and how these fits with the observations here clarified.

Follicle waves are too small a focus of the current study to explain in the introduction, but we will request readers to refer to the cited relevant literature (Yin and Spradling, 2025) for further details.

We sincerely thank all reviewers for their insightful and constructive feedback. We believe that the planned revisions—particularly the refined terminology, improved image quality, clarified statistics, and restructured abstract—will substantially strengthen the manuscript and enhance clarity for readers.