Cell chirality reversal through tilted balance between polymerization of radial fibers and clockwise-swirling of transverse arcs

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
Kwong et al. present evidence that two actin-filament based cytoskeletal structures regulate the clockwise and anticlockwise rotation of the cytoplasm. These claims are based on experiments using cells plated on micropatterned substrates (circles). Previous reports have shown that the actomyosin network that forms on the dorsal surface of a cell plated on a circle drives a rotational or swirling pattern of movement in the cytoplasm. This actin network is composed of a combination of non-contractile radial stress fibers (AKA dorsal stress fibers) which are mechanically coupled to contractile transverse actin arcs (AKA actin arcs). The authors claim that directionality of the rotation of the cytoplasm (i.e., clockwise or anticlockwise) depends on either the actin arcs or radial fibers, respectively. While this would interesting, the authors are not able to remove either actin-based network without effecting the other. This is not surprising, as it is likely that the radial fibers require the arcs to elongate them, and the arcs require the radial fibers to stop them from collapsing. As such, it is difficult to make simple interpretations such as the clockwise bias is driven by the arcs and anticlockwise bias is driven by the radial fibers.

Weaknesses:
There are also multiple problems with how the data is displayed and interpreted. First, it is difficult to compare the experimental data with the controls as the authors do not include control images in several of the figures. For example, Figure 6 has images showing myosin IIA distribution, but Figure 5 has the control image. Each figure needs to show controls. Otherwise, it will be difficult for the reader to understand the differences in localization of the proteins shown. This could be accomplished by either adding different control examples or by combining figures.

It is important that the authors should label the range of gray values of the heat maps shown. It is difficult to know how these maps were created. I could not find a description in the methods, nor have previous papers laid out a standardized way of doing it. As such, the reader needs some indication as to whether the maps showing different cells were created the same and show the same range of gray levels. In general, heat maps showing the same protein should have identical gray levels. The authors already show color bars next to the heat maps indicating the range of colors used. It should be a simple fix to label the minimum (blue on the color bar) and the maximum (red on the color bar) gray levels on these color bars. The profiles of actin shown in Figure 3 and Figure 3- figure supplement 3 were useful for interpretating the distribution of actin filaments. Why did not the authors show the same for the myosin IIa distributions?
Line 189 "This absence of radial fibers is unexpected". The authors should clarify what they mean by this statement. The claim that the cell in Figure 3B has reduced radial stress fiber is not supported by the data shown. Every actin structure in this cell is reduced compared to the cell on the larger micropattern in Figure 3A. It is unclear if the radial stress fibers are reduced more than the arcs. Are the authors referring to radial fiber elongation?
The choice of the small molecule inhibitors used in this study is difficult to understand, and their results are also confusing. For example, sequestering G actin with Latrunculin A is a complicated experiment. The authors use a relatively low concentration (50 nM) and show that actin filament-based structures are reduced and there are more in the center of the cell than in controls (Figure 3E). What was the logic of choosing this concentration? Using a small molecule that binds the barbed end (e.g., cytochalasin) could conceivably be used to selectively remove longer actin filaments, which the radial fibers have compared to the lamellipodia and the transverse arcs. The authors should articulate how the actin cytoskeleton is being changed by latruculin treatment and the impact on chirality. Is it just that the radial stress fibers are not elongating? There seems to be more radial stress fibers than in controls, rather than an absence of radial stress fibers. Similar problems arise from the other small molecules as well. LPA has more effects than simply activating RhoA. Additionally, many of the quantifiable effects of LPA treatment are apparent only after the cells are serum starved, which does not seem to be the case here. Furthermore, inhibiting ROCK with, Y-27632, effects myosin light chain phosphorylation and is not specific to myosin IIA. Are the two other myosin II paralogs expressed in these cells (myosin IIB and myosin IIC)? If so, the authors' statements about this experiment should refer to myosin II not myosin IIa. None of the uses of the small molecules above have supporting data using a different experimental method. For example, backing up the LPA experiment by perturbing RhoA tho.
The use of SMIFH2 as a "formin inhibitor" is also problematic. SMIFH2 also inhibits myosin II contractility, making interpreting its effects on cells difficult to impossible. The authors present data of mDia2 knockdown, which would be a good control for this SMIFH2. However, the authors claim that mDia2 "typically nucleates tropomyosin-decorated actin filaments, which recruit myosin II and anneal endwise with α-actinin- crosslinked actin filaments." There is no reference to this statement and the authors own data shows that both arcs and radial fibers are reduced by mDia2 knockdown. Overall, the formin data does not support the conclusions the authors report.
The data in Figure 7 does not support the conclusion that myosin IIa is exclusively on top of the cell. There are clear ventral stress fibers in A (actin) that have myosin IIa localization. The authors simply chose to not draw a line over them to create a height profile.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
Chirality of cells, organs, and organisms can stem from the chiral asymmetry of proteins and polymers at a much smaller lengthscale. The intrinsic chirality of actin filaments (F-actin) is implicated in the chiral arrangement and movement of cellular structures including F-actin-based bundles and the nucleus. It is unknown how opposite chiralities can be observed when the chirality of F-actin is invariant. Kwong, Chen, and co-authors explored this problem by studying chiral cell-scale structures in adherent mammalian cultured cells. They controlled the size of adhesive patches, and examined chirality at different timepoints. They made various molecular perturbations and used several quantitative assays. They showed that forces exerted by antiparallel actomyosin bundles on parallel radial bundles are responsible for the chirality of the actomyosin network at the cell scale.

Strengths:
Whereas previously, most effort has been put into understanding radial bundles, this study makes an important distinction that transverse or circumferential bundles are made of antiparallel actomyosin arrays. A minor point that was nice for the paper to make is that between the co-existing chirality of nuclear rotation and radial bundle tilt, it is the F-actin driving nuclear rotation and not the other way around. The paper is clearly written.

Weaknesses:
The paper could benefit from grammatical editing.