Nitric oxide feedback to ciliary photoreceptor cells gates a UV avoidance circuit

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary: The ciliary photoreceptor cells and its downstream neurons of larval annelid must be orchestrated in a specific pattern to promote downward swimming in response to long duration of UV exposure. The authors first conducted neuroanatomical examination of the circuit to identify NOS-expression neurons (INNOS) that are immediately downstream to the ciliary photoreceptor cells. The INNOS is activated by UV and produces NO. The NOS is required for UV avoidance by Platynereis larvae and neural dynamics of the photoreceptor cells and their downstream circuit. Following up the RNA-seq data with in situ hybridization experiments, the authors found that two unconventional guanylate cyclases, NIT-GC1 and NIT-GC2, are expressed and localized in different subcellular domain of the photoreceptor cells. Experiments using the culture cells and genetically encoded sensors demonstrated that NIT-GC1 can generate cGMP in response to nitric oxide. Finally, authors build a mathematical model that fit the live imaging data and used it to predict how the magnitude of the photoreceptor activation varied by intensity and duration of UV light.

Strengths: The authors conducted comprehensive interrogations of the UV avoidance pathway at the molecular and circuit levels, and constructed a mathematical model. The main conclusions are supported by layers of evidence from different assays.

Weaknesses: Statistics are missing in both figure legends and methods. The perturbations of genes and molecules were not cell-type-specific and therefore the observed behavioral defect could be attributed to the malfunction of the circuit elsewhere not examined in this study. I suggest adding more explanation about the functions of other NOS-expressing cells and conducting a control experiment to test behavioral response to a non-visual stimulus.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
This study is quite thorough, tackling this NO-dependent UV avoidance circuit with both breadth and depth. There are several novel discoveries throughout, but the whole package represents perhaps even more than the sum of these parts.

Strengths:
The presentation of the work is compelling. The introduction sets up the question and the state of the field very nicely. The discovery of the non-canonical NO receptor pathway in the ciliary photoreceptors is fascinating and will likely open up new avenues for future research into NO-pathways in different species. The use of genetic and pharmacological manipulations of circuit components was well thought-out. The authors applied different experimental techniques expertly throughout the study so that they could develop a comprehensive view from the molecular to the behavioral levels.

Weaknesses:
While I appreciate the intent of bringing together a large set of measurements from connectomics and calcium imaging in the framework of a model, the model seemed rather poorly constrained. How many parameters are in the model shown in Figure 6A? How many of them are well constrained by experimental measurements? The authors also don't perform sensitivity analysis on the parameters of the model. And ultimately, the conclusion over the model in Figure 7 is somewhat trivial within the unitless construction: larger amplitude and longer duration stimuli lead to increased activation of the downstream neuron thought to lead to the downward swim behavior. I could imagine that a large family of models would arrive at this same result, and without units, there is no way to really test it with new behavioral experiments.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

The transition from planktonic to benthic depends upon several physical and chemical cues. Nitric oxide (NO) is known as a critical player in the induction of larval metamorphosis in several invertebrates. Although NO is a widespread signalling molecule in a broad range of organisms regulating key physiological processes, internal regulatory mechanisms studies are scarce. While the UV sensing in larvae of the annelid Platynereis dumerilii using ciliary photoreceptors has been studied, the neuronal signalling mechanism remains unknown. In this study, Kei Jokura et al. investigated how annelid Platynereis dumerilii larvae detect UV sensing and modulate swimming behaviour through nitric oxide feedback. Using existing resources of Platynereis larval connectome/volume EM data, they identified NOS-expressing interneurons within the ciliary photoreceptors circuit (cPRCs). They demonstrated that NO is produced in cPRCs during UV/violet stimulation by using a fluorescent NO-reporter line. Further, they demonstrated that Nitric oxide signalling mediates UV-avoidance behaviour by using NOS-mutant larvae. Finally, they mapped out the signalled mechanisms of the cPRC circuit using published spatially mapped single-cell transcriptome data of Platynereis larvae, the Ca sensor lines, in situ HCR, and immunostaining. Additionally, by using their findings from Ca imagining data of cPRC, INNOS and INRGWa cells collected in wild-type, NOS knockout and NIT-GC2 morphant larvae, Kei Jokura et al. developed a mixed cellular-circuit-level mathematical model. However, my expertise in mathematical modelling is limited, so I cannot comment on this section.

No doubt, the study has been conducted extensively. However, I have a few comments, please see below.

Page 4: "In contrast, both two- and three-day-old homozygous NOS-mutant larvae showed a strongly diminished UV avoidance response (Figure 3A, B and Figure 3-figure supplement 1B, C)." Instead of using subjective terms like "strongly," it would be more relevant to provide statistical values. However, I could not locate any means of statistical analysis on larval behaviour. Can the authors indicate the statistical values for all behaviour studies?

Page 5: "(D) Vertical displacement in 30 sec bins of wild type and mutant (NOSΔ11/Δ11 and NOSΔ23/Δ23) three-day-old larvae stimulated with 395 nm light from the side, 488 nm light from the top and 395 nm light from the top." The error bars for WT are too long at the end of the experiment. It is not clear how the authors decided to use this time frame. Did the authors try carrying this out for an extended time period? How did the authors decide on 120 seconds as the time frame for exposure? Authors should provide data on larval behaviour for an extended time.

Page 13: "During the UV response, prototroch cilia beat slower than trunk cilia, resulting in a head-down stable state ('rear-wheel drive'). In contrast, during the pressure response prototroch cilia beat faster than trunk cilia, leading to a head-up orientation ('front-wheel drive'). Testing this hypothesis will require biophysical experiments and mathematical modelling." Authors should carry out ciliary beating analysis under UV light in the current study with NOS mutant larvae. Since the pressure and UV detection systems are closely related, comparing the difference in ciliary beating is important to demonstrate this hypothesis. Further, did the authors check the Ca sensor GCaMP6s under pressure conditions?

Page 18: "strips. One strip contained UV (395 nm) LEDs (SMB1W-395, Roithner Lasertechnik) and the other infrared (810 nm) LEDs (SMB1W-810NR-I, Roithner Lasertechnik)." Authors should test larval swimming behaviour at different wavelengths. Even though they are performed in previous work, the experiment with different wavelengths is necessary to be conducted in NOS mutant larvae in parallel with a control. This will confirm that NOS is principally associated with UV. Further, to demonstrate that this mechanism is associated with ciliary movement, authors need to provide this evidence.