Dynamic modes of Notch transcription hubs conferring memory and stochastic activation revealed by live imaging the co-activator Mastermind

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

In this manuscript by DeHaro-Arbona et al., the authors wish to understand how a signaling pathway (Notch) is dynamically decoded to elicit a specific transcriptional output. In particular, they investigate the kinetic properties of Notch-responsive nuclear complexes (the DNA binding factor CSL and its co-activator Mastermind (mam) along with several candidate interacting partners). Their experimental model is the polytene chromosome of the Drosophila salivary gland, in which the naturally inactive Notch can be artificially induced through the expression of a constitutively active form of Notch.

The authors develop a series of CRISPR and transgenic lines enabling the live imaging of these complexes at a specific locus and in various backgrounds (genetic perturbations/drug treatments). This quantitative live imaging data suggests that Notch nuclear complexes form hubs and the authors characterize their binding dynamics. Interestingly, they elegantly demonstrate that the content of these hubs and their kinetic properties can evolve, even within Notch ON cells. Hence, they propose the existence of distinct hubs, distinguishing an open (CSL), engaged (CSK-Mam), or active (CSL-Mam-Med-PolII) configuration in Notch ON cells and an inactive hub (in Notch OFF having previously been exposed to Notch) state, that would explain the surprising transcriptional memory that the authors observe hours after Notch withdrawal.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript from deHaro-Arbona et al, entitled "Dynamic modes of Notch transcription hubs conferring memory and stochastic activation revealed by live imaging the co-activator Mastermind", uses single molecule microscopy imaging in live tissues to understand the dynamics and molecular determinants of transcription factor recruitment to the E(spl)-C locus in Drosophila salivary gland cells under Notch-ON and -OFF conditions. Previous studies have identified the major players that are involved in transcription regulation in the Notch pathway, as well as the importance of general transcriptional coregulators, such as CBP/P300 and the Mediator CDK module, but the detailed steps and dynamics involved in these processes are poorly defined. The authors present a wealth of single molecule data that provides significant insights into Notch pathway activation, including:

1. Activation complexes, containing CSL and Mam, have slower dynamics than the repressor complexes, containing CSL and Hairless.

2. Contribution of CSL, NICD, and Mam IDRs to recruitment.

3. CSL-Mam slow-diffusing complexes are recruited and form a hub of high protein concentrations around the target locus in Notch-ON conditions.

4. Mam recruitment is not dependent on transcription initiation or RNA production.

5. CBP/P300 or its associated HAT activity is not required for Mam recruitment.

6. Mediator CDK module and CDK8 activity are required for Mam recruitment, and vice-versa, but not CSL recruitment.

7. Mam is not required for chromatin accessibility but is dependent on CSL and NICD.

8. CSL recruitment and increased chromatin accessibility persist after NICD removal and loss of Mam, which confers a memory state that enables rapid re-activation in response to subsequent Notch activation.

9. Differences in the proportions of nuclei with both Pol II and with Mam enrichment, which results in transcription being probabilistic/stochastic. These data demonstrate that the presence of Mam-complexes is not sufficient to drive all the steps required for transcription in every Notch-ON nucleus.

10. The switch from more stochastic to robust transcription initiation was elicited when ecdysone was added.

Overall, the manuscript is well written, concise, and clear, and makes significant contributions to the Notch field, which are also important for a general understanding of transcription factor regulation and behavior in the nucleus. I recommend that the authors address my relatively minor criticisms detailed below.

Page 7, bottom. The authors speculate, "It is possible therefore that, once recruited, Mam can be retained at target loci independently of CSL by interactions with other factors so that it resides for longer." Is it possible that another interpretation of that data is that Mam is a limiting factor?

Page 9. The authors write, "A very low level of enrichment was evident for... for the CSL C-terminus..". The recruitment of CSL ct IDR does not appear to be statistically significant or there is no apparent difference (Figure S2C), suggesting the CSL ct IDR does not play a role in enrichment.

Page 9. The authors write, "Notably, MamnIDR::GFP fusion was present in droplets, suggesting it can self-associate when present in a high local concentration (Figure S2B)." Is this result only valid for Mam nIDR or does full-length Mam also localize into droplets, as has been previously observed for full-length mammalian Maml1 in transfected cells?

Previous studies in mammalian cells suggest that Maml1 is a high-confidence target for phosphorylation by CDK8, see Poss et al 2016 Cell Reports https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.03.030. By sequence comparison, does fly Mam have similar potential phosphorylation sites, and might these be critical for Mam/CDK module recruitment?

Page 11: The authors write, "The differences in the effects on Mam and CSL imply that the CDK module is specifically involved in retaining Mam in the hub, and that in its absence other CSL complexes "win-out", either because the altered conditions favour them and/or because they are the more abundant." Are the "other" complexes the authors are referring to Hairless-containing complexes? With the reagents the authors have in hand couldn't this be explicitly shown for CSL-complexes rather than speculated upon?

Page 12/13: The authors write, "Based on these results we propose that, after Notch activity decays, the locus remains accessible because when Mam-containing complexes are lost they are replaced by other CSL complexes (e.g. co-repressor complexes)." Again, why not actually test this hypothesis rather than speculate? The dynamics of Hairless complexes following the removal of Notch would be very interesting and build upon previously published results from the Bray lab.

Page 13: The authors write, "As Notch removal leads to a loss of Mam, but not CSL, from the hub, it should recapitulate the effects of MamDN." While the data in Figure 5B seem to support this hypothesis, it's not clear to me that the loss of Mam and MamDN should phenocopy each other, bc in the case of MamDN, NICD would still be present.

The temporal dynamics for Mam recruitment using the temperature- and optogenetic-paradigms are quite different. For example, in the optogenetic time course experiments, the preactivated cells are in the dark for 4 hours, while in the temperature-controlled experiments, there is still considerable enrichment of Mam at 4 hours. For the preactivated optogenetic experiments, how sure are the authors that Mam is completely gone from the locus, and alternatively, can the optogenetic experimental results be replicated in the temperature-controlled assays? My concern is whether the putative "memory" observation is just due to incomplete Mam removal from the previous activation event.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:
DeHaro-Arbona and colleagues investigate the in vivo dynamics of Notch-dependent transcriptional activation with a focus on the role of the Mastermind (MAM) transcriptional co-activator. They use GFP and HALO-tagged versions of the CSL DNA-binding protein and MAM to visualize the complex, and Int/ParB to visualize the site of Notch-dependent E(Spl)-C transcription. They make several conclusions. First, MAM accumulates at E(Spl)-C when Notch signaling is active, just like CSL. Second, MAM recruits the CDK module of Mediator but does not initiate chromatin accessibility. Third, after signaling is turned off, MAM leaves the site quickly but CSL and chromatin accessibility are retained. Fourth, RNA pol II recruitment, Mediator recruitment, and active transcription were similar and stochastic. Fifth, ecdysone enhances the probability of transcriptional initiation.

Strengths:
The conclusions are well supported by multiple lines of extensive data that are carefully executed and controlled. A major strength is the strategic combination of Drosophila genetics, imaging, and quantitative analyses to conduct compelling and easily interpretable experiments. A second major strength is the focus on MAM to gain insights into the dynamics of transcriptional activation specifically.

Weaknesses:
Weaknesses are minor. There were no p-values reported for data presented in Figure S1D and no indication of how variable measurements were. In addition, the discussion of stochasticity was not integrated optimally with relevant literature.