Transcriptomic profiling of tissue environments critical for post-embryonic patterning and morphogenesis of zebrafish skin

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In their study, Aman et al. utilized single cell transcriptome analysis to investigate wild-type and mutant zebrafish skin tissues during the post-embryonic growth period. They identified new epidermal cell types, such as ameloblasts, and shed light on the effects of TH on skin morphogenesis. Additionally, they revealed the important role of the hypodermis in supporting pigment cells and adult stripe formation. Overall, I find their figures to be of high quality, their analyses to be appropriate and compelling, and their major claims to be well-supported by additional experiments. Therefore, this study will be an important contribution to the field of vertebrate skin research. Although I have no major concerns, I would like to offer a few minor comments for the authors to consider.

1. The discovery of ameloblasts in the zebrafish skin is a fascinating finding that could potentially provide a new research model for understanding the development and regeneration of vertebrate teeth. It would be beneficial if the authors could provide further elaboration on this aspect and discuss how the zebrafish scale model could be utilized by researchers to better understand the morphogenesis of vertebrate teeth and/or hair.

2. While the overexpression-rescue experiments (i.e., fgf20a and pdafaa) provide crucial evidence to support the author's conclusions, it is important to note that overexpression driven by the heat-shock promoter is not spatially regulated. Therefore, it should be acknowledged that the rescue effects may not be cell-autonomous, as suggested in the current version.

3. Figure 7D. The authors used the ET37:EGFP lines to visualize hypodermis. Based on the absence of EGFP signal in the deep dermis of bnc2 mutants, the authors concluded that the hypodermis may be missing, suggesting the importance of the hypodermis in pigment cell formation. However, since the EGFP evidence is indirect, it is crucial to confirm the absence of the hypodermis structure with histology.

4. As the dataset is expected to be a valuable asset to the field, please provide Excel tables summarizing the key genes and their corresponding expression levels for each major cluster that has been identified.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The authors used single cell transcriptome analysis of zebrafish skin cells and characterized various types of cells that are involved in scale formation and stripe patterning. The methods employed in this study is highly powerful to provide mechanistic explanation of these fundamental biological issues and will be a good example for many researchers studying other biological issues. Furthermore, the results characterizing differences in gene expression patterns among various types of cells will be informative for other researchers in the field.

For scale formation, it is known that mineralized tissues may significantly differ in rayfins and lobefins since sox9, col2a1, and col10a1 are all expressed in osteoblasts, in addition to chondrocytes, in zebrafish and gar (Eames et al., 2012, BMC Evol. Biol.). Furthermore, in mammals, Col10 is expressed in chondrocytes in mature cartilage that undergoes ossification. Thus, unlike the authors argue, col10a1 expression is not apparently relevant to the elasticity of scales.

The authors also state that the expression of dlx4a, msx2a, and runx2b characterize cells homologous to mammalian ameloblasts. However, dlx4, runx2, and msx2 are all duplicated in zebrafish, and the function of duplicated genes in teleost fishes may differ from that of single ancestral gene. Moreover, none of Dlx4, Msx2, and Runx2 is expressed specifically by ameloblasts in mammals. Indeed, both Msx2 and Runx2 are expressed in osteoblasts, while the expression of Dlx4 in ameloblasts is not reported. These results, together with the expression of an enamel gene, enam, in dermal cells (SFC), do not appear to support the homology of the surface tissue of mammalian teeth and zebrafish scales.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This work describes transcriptome profiling of dissected skin of zebrafish at post-embryonic stages, at a time when adult structures and patterns are forming. The authors have used the state-of-the-art combinatorial indexing RNA-seq approach to generate single cell (nucleus) resolution. The data appears robust and is coherent across the four different genotypes used by the authors.

The authors present the data in a logical and accessible manner, with appropriate reference to the anatomy. They include helpful images of the biology and schematics to illustrate their interpretations.

The datasets are then interrogated to define cell and signalling relationships between skin compartments in six diverse contexts. The hypotheses generated from the datasets are then tested experimentally. Overall, the experiments are appropriate and rigorously performed. They ask very interesting questions of interactions in the skin and identify novel and specific mechanisms. They validate these well.

The authors use their datasets to define lineage relationships in the dermal scales and also in the epidermis. They show that circumferential pre-scale forming cells are precursors of focal scale forming cells while there appeared a more discontinuous relationship between lineages in the epidermis.

The authors present transcriptome evidence for enamel deposition function in epidermal subdomains. This is convincingly confirmed with an ameloblastin in situ. They further demonstrate distinct expression of SCPP and collagen genes in the SFC regions.

The authors then demonstrate that Eda and TH signalling to the basal epidermal cells generates FGF and PDGF ligands to signal to surrounding mesenchyme, regulating SFC differentiation and dermal stratification respectively.

Finally they exploit RNA-seq data performed in parallel in the bnc2 mutants to identify the hypodermal cells as critical regulators of pigment patterning and define the signalling systems used.

Whilst these six interactions in the skin are disparate, the stories are unified by use of the sci-RNA-seq data to define interactions. Overall, it's an assembly of work which identifies novel and interesting cell interactions and cross-talk mechanisms. There are some aspects that require clarification:

With respect to the discontinuous relationship noted in Figure 2I in the epidermis, the authors did not make mention of the fact that there are in fact two independent sources of periderm in the zebrafish. The first periderm derives from the EVL, is segregated a gastrulation, and gradually replaced from the basal epidermis during post-embryonic stages. Could this residual EVL-derived periderm have reduced sensitivity of the trajectory mapping from basal to periderm? The authors should comment whether their transcriptome dataset likely had residual EVL-derived periderm and if this might have impacted their trajectory continuity interpretation.

The authors ask if dermal SFCs express proteins associated with cartilage formation and use Col10a1 orthologues as markers (Fig 3B, I). I wonder if these are the best transcripts to answer this question as this has also been described to label osteoblasts in certain contexts in the fish and the authors might want to refer to Li et al 2009 or Avaron et al 2005. Were other markers of cartilage formation present such as collagen2 genes? These may be more definitive. The authors might want to reinterrogate their datasets for true cartilage markers or reframe their question.

Finally, of interest, were there any clear clusters on the UMAP plots (Fig 1 Supp3A) of unassigned identity? Even comment on these and how they were dealt with would be of significant interest to the field, as it is highly unlikely all cell types in the skin have been defined. This dataset promises to be a critical reference for defining these in the future.

Minor clarification:

Fig 2E top. The authors interpret that fate-mapped SFCs at the posterior margin are progressively displaced towards the scale focus. This is confusing as the margin SFC in Fig 2E seems to show them staying largely at the margin. Please clarify if this is what you meant.