Distinct states of nucleolar stress induced by anti-cancer drugs

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The study titled "Distinct states of nucleolar stress induced by anti-cancer drugs" by Potapova and colleagues demonstrates that different chemotherapeutic agents can induce nucleolar stress, which manifests with varying cellular and molecular characteristics. The study also proposes a mechanism for how a novel type of nucleolar stress driven by CDK inhibitors may be regulated. As a reviewer, I appreciate the unbiased screening approach and I am enthusiastic about the novel insights into cell biology and the implications for cancer research and treatment. The study has several significant strengths: i) it highlights the understudied role of nucleolar stress in the on- and off-target effects of chemotherapy; ii) it defines novel molecular and cellular characteristics of the different types of nucleolar stress phenotypes; iii) it proposes novel modes of action for well-known drugs.

However, there are several important points that should be addressed:
• The rationale behind choosing RPE cells for the screen is unclear. It might be more informative to use cancer cells to study the effects of chemotherapeutic agents. Alternatively, were RPE cells selected to evaluate the side effects of these agents on normal cells? Clarifying these points in the introduction and discussion would guide the reader.
• Figure 2F indicates that DLD1 and HCT116 cells are less sensitive to nucleolar changes induced by several inhibitors, including CDK inhibitors. It would be crucial to correlate these differences with cell viability. Are these differences due to cell-type sensitivity or variations in intracellular drug levels? Assessing cell viability and intracellular drug concentration for the same drugs and cells would provide valuable insights.
• Have the authors interpreted nucleolar stress as the primary cause of cell death induced by these drugs? When cells treated with CDK inhibitors exhibit the dissociated nucleoli phenotype, is this effect reversible? Is this phenotype indicative of cell death commitment? Conducting a washout experiment to measure the recovery of nucleolar function and cell viability would address these questions.
• The correlation between the loss of Treacle phosphorylation and nucleolar stress upon CDK inhibition is intriguing. However, it remains unclear how these two events are related. Would Treacle knockdown yield the same nucleolar phenotype as CDK inhibition? Moreover, would point mutations that abolish Treacle phosphorylation prevent its interaction with Pol-I? Experiments addressing these questions would enhance our understanding of the correlation/causation between Treacle phosphorylation and the effects of CDK inhibition on nucleolar stress.

Overall, this study is significant and novel as it sheds light on the importance of nucleolar stress in defining the on-target and off-target effects of chemotherapy in normal and cancer cells.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This is an interesting study with high-quality imaging and quantitative data. The authors devise a robust quantitative parameter that is easily applicable to any experimental system. The drug screen data can potentially be helpful to the wider community studying nucleolar architecture and the effects of chemotherapy drugs. Additionally, the authors find Treacle phosphorylation as a potential link between CDK9 inhibition, rDNA transcription, and nucleolar stress. Therefore I think this would be of broad interest to researchers studying transcription, CDKs, nucleolus, and chemotherapy drug mechanisms. However, the study has several weaknesses in its current form as outlined below.

1. Overall the study seems to suffer from a lack of focus. At first, it feels like a descriptive study aimed at characterizing the effect of chemotherapy drugs on the nucleolar state. But then the authors dive into the mechanism of CDK inhibition and then suddenly switch to studying biophysical properties of nucleolus using NPM1. Figure 6 does not enhance the story in any way; on the contrary, the findings from Fig. 6 are inconclusive and therefore could lead to some confusion.

2. The justification for pursuing CDK inhibitors is not clear. Some of the top hits in the screen were mTOR, PI3K, HSP90, Topoisomerases, but the authors fail to properly justify why they chose CDKi over other inhibitors.

3. In addition to poor justification, it seems like a very superficial attempt at deciphering the mechanism of CDK9i-mediated nucleolar stress. I think the most interesting part of the study is the link between CDK9, Pol I transcription, and nucleolar stress. But the data presented is not entirely convincing. There are several important controls missing as detailed below.

4. The authors did not test if inhibition of CDK7 and/or CDK12 also induces nucleolar stress. CDK7 and CDK12 are also major kinases of RNAPII CTD, just like CDK9. Importantly, there are well-established inhibitors against both these kinases. It is not clear from the text whether these inhibitors were included in the screen library.

5. In Figure 4E, the authors show that Pol I is reduced in nucleolus/on rDNA. The authors should include an orthogonal method like chromatin fractionation and/or ChIP

6. In Fig. 5D, in vitro kinase lacks important controls. The authors should include S to A mutants of Treacle S1299A/S1301A to demonstrate that CDK9 phosphorylates these two residues specifically.

7. To support their model, the authors should test if overexpression of Treacle mutants S1299A/S1301A can partially phenocopy the nucleolar stress seen upon CDK9 inhibition. This would considerably strengthen the author's claim that reduced Treacle phosphorylation leads to Pol I disassociation from rDNA and consequently leads to nucleolar stress.

8. Additionally, it would be interesting if S1299D/S1301D mutants could partially rescue CDK9 inhibition.