The DBD-α4 helix of EWSR1::FLI1 is required for GGAA microsatellite binding that underlies genome regulation in Ewing sarcoma

Joint Public Review:

Ewing sarcoma is an aggressive pediatric cancer driven by the EWS-FLI oncogene. Ewing sarcoma cells are addicted to this chimeric transcription factor, which represents a strong therapeutic vulnerability. Unfortunately, targeting EWS-FLI has proven to be very difficult and better understanding how this chimeric transcription factor works is critical to achieving this goal. Towards this perspective, the group had previously identified a DBD-𝛼4 helix (DBD) in FLI that appears to be necessary to mediate EWS-FLI transcriptomic activity. Here, the authors used multi-omic approaches, including CUT&tag, RNAseq, and MicroC to investigate the impact of this DBD domain. Importantly, these experiments were performed in the A673 Ewing sarcoma model where endogenous EWS-FLI was silenced, and EWS-FLI-DBD proficient or deficient isoforms were re-expressed (isogenic context). The authors found that the DBD domain is key to mediate EWS-FLI cis activity (at msat) and to generate the formation of specific TADs. Furthermore, cells expressing DBD deficient EWS-FLI display very poor colony forming capacity, highlighting that targeting this domain may lead to therapeutic perspectives.

This new version of the study comprises as requested new data from an additional cell line. The new data has strengthened the manuscript. Nevertheless, some of the arguments of the authors pertaining to the limitations of immunoblots to assess stability of the DBD constructs or the poor reproducibility of the Micro C data remain problematic. While the effort to repeat MicroC in a different cell line is appreciated, the data are as heterogeneous as those in A673 and no real conclusion can be drawn. The authors should tone down their conclusions. If DBD has a strong effect on chromatin organization, it should be reproducible and detectable. The transcriptomic and cut and tag data are more consistent and provide robust evidence for their findings at these levels.

Concerning the issue of stability of the DBD and DBD+ constructs, a simple protein half-life assay (e.g. cycloheximide chase assay) could rule out any bias here and satisfactorily address the issue.

Suggestions:

The Reviewing Editor and a referee have considered the revised version and the responses of the referees. While the additional data included in the new version has consolidated many conclusions of the study, the MicroC data in the new cell line are also heterogeneous and as the authors argue, this may be an inherent limitation of the technique. In this situation, the best would be for the authors to avoid drawing robust conclusions from this data and to acknowledge its current limitations.

The referee and Reviewing Editor also felt that the arguments of the authors concerning a lack of firm conclusions on the stability of EWS-FLI1 under +/-DBD conditions could be better addressed. We would urge the authors to perform a cycloheximide chase type assay to assess protein half-life. These types of experiments are relatively simple to perform and should address this issue in a satisfactory manner.

Author response:

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Ewing sarcoma is an aggressive pediatric cancer driven by the EWS-FLI oncogene. Ewing sarcoma cells are addicted to this chimeric transcription factor, which represents a strong therapeutic vulnerability. Unfortunately, targeting EWS-FLI has proven to be very difficult, and a better understanding of how this chimeric transcription factor works is critical to achieving this goal. Towards this perspective, the group had previously identified a DBD-𝛼𝛼4 helix (DBD) in FLI that appears to be necessary to mediate EWS-FLI transcriptomic activity. Here, the authors used multi-omic approaches, including CUT&tag, RNAseq, and MicroC to investigate the impact of this DBD domain. Importantly, these experiments were performed in the A673 Ewing sarcoma model where endogenous EWS-FLI was silenced, and EWS-FLI-DBD proficient or deficient isoforms were re-expressed (isogenic context). They found that the DBD domain is key to mediating EWS-FLI cis activity (at msat) and to generating the formation of specific TADs. Furthermore, cells expressing DBD-deficient EWS-FLI display very poor colony-forming capacity, highlighting that targeting this domain may lead to therapeutic perspectives.

We thank Reviewer 1 for their strong summary of Ewing sarcoma background and accurate description of our experimental approaches and findings.

Strengths:

The group has strong expertise in Ewing sarcoma genetics and epigenetics and also in using and analyzing this model (Theisen et al., 2019; Boone et al., 2021; Showpnil et al., 2022).

We thank the reviewer.

They aim at better understanding how EWS-FLI mediated its oncogenic activity, which is critical to eventually identifying novel therapies against this aggressive cancer.

We are happy to see that our overall aim was also appreciated by Reviewer 1.

They use the most recent state-of-the-art omics methods to investigate transcriptome, epigenetics, and genome conformation methods. In particular, Micro-C enables achieving up to 1kb resolved 3D chromatin structures, making it possible to investigate a large number of TADs and sub-TADs structures where EWS-FLI1 mediates its oncogenic activity.

We thank Reviewer 1 for their acknowledgement of our approaches and the resolution achieved with our Micro-C experiments.

They performed all their experiments in an Ewing sarcoma genetic background (A673 cells) which circumvents bias from previously reported approaches when working in non-orthologous cell models using similar approaches.

We agree with the reviewer about the importance of using model systems that accurately capture features of the disease being studied. As we have added an additional cell line in the revision we should note that this second model also represents a Ewing sarcoma genetic background while representing tumors expressing another oncogenic fusion found in this disease.

Weaknesses:

The main weakness comes from the poor reproducibility of Micro-C data . Indeed, it appears that the distances/clustering observed between replicates are typically similar or even larger than between biological conditions. For instance, in Figure 1B, I do not see any clustering when considering DBD1, DBD2, DBD+1, DBD+2.

Lanes 80-83: "KD replicates clustered together with DBD replicate 1 on both axes and with DBD replicate 2 on the y-axis. DBD+ replicates, on the other hand, clustered away from both KD and DBD replicates. These observations suggest that the global chromatin structure of DBD replicates is more similar to KD than DBD+ replicates."

When replacing DBD replicate 1 with DBD replicate 2, their statement would not be true anymore.

Additional replicates to clarify this aspect seem absolutely necessary since those data are paving the way for the entire manuscript.

These are valid concerns and we thank the reviewers for highlighting this limitation of poor clustering of Micro-C replicates on MDS plot. We account for this variability between different replicates when identifying differentially interacting regions. By using an adjusted p-value < 0.05, we aim to ensure that repeating the experiments we will discover the same differentially interacting regions with a false discovery rate of 5%.

We also would like to note that the replicates cluster much closely on PCA plot of RNA-seq data (Supplementary Figure 1C) and as well as on PCA plot of H3K27ac CUT&Tag data (Figure 4A). Notably, the RNA-seq result has now reproduced when performed with different sets of hands across multiple studies (Boone, et. al., 2021 and this report), as well as in a second cell line (as reported in this manuscript revision). These observations suggest that the cells of these replicates are functionally similar to each other at a population level. Chromatin organization detected by Micro-C is a highly heterogenous within cells of a population (Misteli, et. al., 2020). Moreover, despite increased resolution with Micro-C over Hi-C, the conventional sequencing depth that Micro-C is performed at makes resolving finer scale 3D interactions, particularly between enhancers and promoters, challenging (Goel, et. al., 2023). Thus biologically relevant interactions driving EWSR1::ETS transcriptional regulation through de novo enhancers may have relatively weak signal in Micro-C. Both the strength of the signal and the heterogeneous chromatin state present in bulk samples could affect the average signal leading to poor clustering replicates (Hafner and Boettiger, 2022).

Importantly, rather than add an additional replicate of a single cell line, we repeated our study in an additional cell line, TTC466, and largely reproduced our high-level findings for transcription, enhancer formation, and 3D chromatin. Specific limitations of the TTC466 study are addressed in the Discussion section (392-420). The reproduction of weak/moderate clustering in the MDS plot in both A673 and TTC466 cell lines suggests the α4 helix of EWSR1::ETS fusions are important for reshaping 3D chromatin. However, higher resolution analyses focused on specific EWSR1::ETS-bound loci are likely an important area of future study required to fully understand the role of the α4 helix in chromatin regulation in Ewing sarcoma.

Similarly:

- In Figure 1C, how would the result look when comparing DBD2/KD2/DBD+2? Same when comparing DBD 1 with KD1 and DBD+1. Would the difference go in the same direction?

This is a great point. We added distance decay plots of individual replicates in Supplementary Figure 2 and added discussion of these results in lines 88-89 of the text.

- Figure 1D-E. How would these plots look like when comparing each replicate to each other's? How much difference would be observed when comparing, for instance, DBD1/DBD2 ? or DBD1/DBD+1?

Unfortunately, separate replicates are required to conduct Differentially Interacting Region analysis as it determines statistically significant interactions. Therefore, we are unable to plot these analyses with individual replicates.

- Figure 2: again, how would these analyses look like when performing the analysis with only DBD1/DBD+1/KD1 or DBD2/DBD+2/KD?

This is a good suggestion. It is possible to do such analysis. However, we will lose resolution as such that we may not accurately detect TADs, especially smaller TADs. Therefore, we decided to combine the biological replicates.

Another major question is the stability of EWS-FLI DBD vs EWS-FLI DBD+ proteins. In the WB, FLAG intensities seem also higher (2/3 replicates) in DBD+ condition compared to the DBD condition (Figure S1B).

This is a valid concern with shRNA knock-down/rescue system and we regularly validate new constructs to ensure that they have similar expression levels as rescue with the wildtype fusion before proceeding to more exhaustive experimental workups. We would note that while we have not tested for differences in protein stability, for these constructs we largely see similar expression levels across multiple experiments, multiple cell lines, and multiple sets of hands. There may be some variations in expression level from experiment to experiment, but western blotting is a semiquantitative assay and it is also not possible to rule out that slight differences in band intensity may be a result of error in gel loading. For this reason, alongside western blotting for construct expression, we also validate construct function using RNA-seq and colony formation assays (as reported in this manuscript) and these show good agreement across biological replicates.

Indeed, it seems that they have more FLAG (i.e., EWS-FLI) peaks in the DBD+ condition compared to the DBD condition (Figure 2B).

We appreciate the comment since the legend of Figure 2B led to a misunderstanding. Figure 2B depicts the number of TADs detected in DBD and DBD+ conditions (height of the bar graphs) and the proportion of those TADs overlapped with FLAG, CTCF, both or neither peaks on y-axis. The number of FLAG peaks is actually lower in DBD+ as compared to DBD as shown in Figure 5A-B. We clarified our Figure 2 legend to accurately describe the various proportions (color coded section) of TADs bound by DBD/DBD+ FLAG and CTCF.

Would it be possible that DBD+ is just more expressed or more stable than DBD? The higher stability of the re-expressed DBD+ could also partially explain their results independently of the 3D conformational change. In other words, can they exclude that DBD+ and DBD binding are not related to their respective protein stability or their global re-expression levels?

It is possible that DBD+ protein is overexpressed or more stable than DBD. With our current set of data, we cannot conclusively exclude if binding by DBD and DBD+ are not related to their expression level or stability. We would note, as above, that western blots, RNA-seq, and agar assays have largely reproduced across experiments, hands, and cell lines and that western blot is an imperfect assay for assessing protein stability.

Surprisingly, WB FLI bands in DBD+ conditions are systematically (3/3 replicates) fainter than in DBD conditions (Figure S1B). How do the authors explain these opposite results between FLI and FALG in the WB?

This is an excellent observation that highlights one of the intricacies of studying EWSR1::FLI1 in our KD/rescue system. Often the limiting factor for an experiment is whether or not the KD condition maintains KD through a second viral transduction for rescue and selection. We have observed over many years of working with this system that rescue conditions which are fully functional (i.e. wildtype EWSR1::FLI1, DBD+, etc.) tend to maintain better KD of endogenous EWSR1::FLI1. Constructs that don’t rescue EWSR1::FLI1 function sometimes maintain KD to a lesser degree, though frequently to a functional degree (i.e. cells are not transformed and EWSR1::FLI1 transcriptional regulation is not rescued). We suspect this observation, also raised by Reviewer 1 is resulted from a potential selection of cells with more endogenous EWSR1::FLI1 escaping KD in in DBD conditions due to selective pressures during expansion in tissue culture.

We should note that the antibody used for detecting FLI recognizes residues that are deleted in

DBD and DBD+ constructs, such that the FLI1 blot in Supplementary Figure 1B does not detect either construct. It only detects endogenous EWSR1::FLI1 and the 3X-FLAG-EWSR1::FLI1 construct in the middle lane that runs at a slightly higher molecular weight. The FLAG antibody is the only antibody that detects all three rescue constructs.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Bayanjargal et al. entitled "The DBD-alpha4 helix of EWS::FLI is required for GGAA microsatellite binding that underlies genome regulation in Ewing sarcoma" reports on the critical role of a small alpha helix in the DNA binding domain (DBD) of the FLI1 portion of EWS::FLI1 that is critical for binding to repetitive stretches of GGAA-motifs, i.e. GGAA microsatellites, which serve as potent neoenhancers in Ewing sarcoma.

We thank Reviewer 2 for their succinct and accurate summary of our manuscript.

Strengths:

The paper is generally well-written, and easy to follow and the data presented are of high quality, welldescribed and underpin the conclusions of the authors. The report sheds new light on how EWS::FLI1 mechanistically binds to and activates GGAA microsatellite enhancers, which is of importance to the field.

We appreciate the reviewer’s assessment of our work.

Weaknesses:

While there are no major weaknesses in this paper, there are a few minor issues that the authors may wish to address before publication:

(1) While the official protein symbol for the gene EWSR1 is indeed EWS, the protein symbol for the gene FLI1 is identical, i.e. FLI1. The authors nominate the fusion oncoprotein EWS::FLI1 (even in the title) but it appears more adequate to use EWS::FLI1.

We appreciate the reviewer for bringing this to our attention. Indeed, the most recent guideline for fusion proteins nomenclature is to use the full gene symbols separated by double colons. Therefore, the accurate nomenclature is EWSR1::FLI1. We replaced instances of EWS::FLI with EWSR1::FLI1 and have used the EWSR1::ERG nomenclature in our revised manuscript.

(2) The used cell lines should be spelled according to their official nomenclature (e.g. A-673 instead of A673).

Corrected, thanks!

(3) It appears as if the vast majority of results were generated in a single Ewing sarcoma cell line (A-673) which is an atypical Ewing sarcoma cell line harboring an activating BRAF mutation and may be genomically quite unstable as compared to other Ewing sarcoma cell lines (Kasan et al. 2023 preprint at bioRxiv https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.11.20.567802v1). Hence, it may be supportive for the paper to recapitulate/cross-validate a few key results in other Ewing sarcoma cell lines, e.g. by using EWS::ERG-positive cell lines. Perhaps the authors could make use of available published data.

We thank Reviewer 2 for this helpful comment. We replicated the experiments in TTC-466 cells containing EWSR1::ERG fusion and found that as for A-673 cells the DBD-α4 helix is important for transcriptional, enhancer, and 3D chromatin regulation (Supplementary Figures 9-18).

(4) Figure 6 and Supplementary Figure 5 are very interesting but focus on two selected target genes of the fusion (FCGRT and CCND1). It would be interesting to see whether these findings also extend to common EWS::ETS transcriptional signatures that have been reported. The authors could explore their data and map established consensus EWS::ETS signatures to investigate which other hubs might be affected at relevant target genes.

We expanded our analysis to other genes demonstrated to be regulated by EWSR1::FLI1 nucleated transcriptional hubs (Chong, et. al., 2018) and included NKX2-2 and GSTM4 gene regions in

Supplementary Figure 7-8 in A-673 cells. We also investigated the same gene regions of FCGRT, CCND1, NKX2-2, GSTM4 in TTC466 cells and report them in Supplementary Figures 14-17. For the purpose brevity, we decided to include the above examples. We may need to develop different tools to conduct further analysis to understand the gene regulatory networks driven by DBD and DBD+ in relation to hub formation. Although it is a great suggestion to map such network, this may be outside the scope of this manuscript. We thank the reviewer for bringing such a good point to our attention.

(5) Table 1 is a bit hard to read. In my opinion, it is not necessary to display P-values with up to 8 decimal positions. The gene symbols should be displayed in italic font.

Suggestions are adapted, thanks!

Reviewing Editor (Recommendations For The Authors):

We would draw the authors' attention to the following issues that would best benefit from additional revision.

As indicated by Referee 1, an important issue concerns the apparent poor reproducibility of Micro-C data. In Figure 1B, the clustering of the DBD1, DBD2, DBD+1, and DBD+2 is poor.

It appears that the distances/clustering observed between replicates are typically similar or even larger than between biological conditions. Lines 80-83: "KD replicates clustered together with DBD replicate 1 on both axes and with DBD replicate 2 on the y-axis. DBD+ replicates, on the other hand, clustered away from both KD and DBD replicates. If one replaced DBD replicate 1 with DBD replicate 2, this statement would no longer be true. The referees believe that it is important to fully account for these potential discrepancies. Most of the study is based on analyses of these data sets, so if there are issues with them it has repercussions on the entire study. We note however that in Figure 4A the clustering of the H3K27ac data is much more convincing. The referees also feel that it is important to show immunoblots of the expression of DBD and DBD+ levels in the experiments performed here. While this was previously shown in the Boone et al publication in 2021, it could be illustrated again here.

We thank the editors for concisely summarizing the main weaknesses of the paper and underscoring the importance of the Micro-C data in the rest of the paper. While the Editors note tighter clustering of the H3K27ac (Figure 4A), we would like to note that the replicates cluster much closely on PCA plot of RNA-seq data (Supplementary Figure 1C). Notably, the RNA-seq result has now reproduced when performed with different sets of hands across multiple studies (Boone, et. al., 2021 and this report), as well as in a second cell line (as reported in this manuscript revision). Though not as tight, the H3K27ac CUT&Tag also reproduces in TTC466 cells. Thus, we interpret these findings to indicate that our replicates are functionally similar to each other. As discussed above in the response to Reviewer 1 in more detail, there are several factors that could affect how these functional similarities are represented in Micro-C data. Micro-C is ultimately a readout of the chromatin organization in a heterogeneous population of cells (Misteli et al., 2020). Additionally, sequencing depth limitations in conventional Micro-C experiments limit the ability to faithfully assess the enhancer-promoter interactions that may be relevant for our model system (Goel, et. al., 2023). Thus, both the strength of the biologically relevant signal and the heterogeneous chromatin state present in bulk samples could affect the average signal and lead to poorly clustering replicates (Hafner and Boettiger, 2022).

To address these important concerns about rigor and reproducibility of the analyses, we repeated our study in an additional cell line, TTC466, and largely reproduced our high-level findings for transcription, enhancer formation, and 3D chromatin. These additional studies were not without their own limitations and these are addressed in the Discussion section (392-420). The reproduction of weak/moderate clustering in the MDS plot in both A673 and TTC466 cell lines suggests the α4 helix of EWSR1::ETS fusions are important for reshaping 3D chromatin. However, additional genomic analyses geared toward higher resolution at specific EWSR1::ETS-bound loci are likely an important area of future study required to fully understand the role of the α4 helix in chromatin regulation in Ewing sarcoma. Live cell imaging, as performed by Chong, et. al., 2018 and additional biochemical techniques may also be informative and are beyond the scope of this report.

With regards to concerns about construct expression, we have included immunoblots of the rescue constructs in both cell lines (Supplementary Figure 1B and 9A) and discussed Reviewer 1’s specific concerns in detail above.

The referees also raise the issue of using an additional cell line to make a more general message. Although it would perhaps be asking too much to repeat the MicroC experiments, consolidation of the observations could be performed by focusing on specific loci such as FCGRT and CCND1 that were analyzed in this study. Could the authors use 4C-type experiments to reproduce the conclusions in an additional cell line? It would also be pertinent to consolidate the findings at these loci by 4C-type approaches even in the cell line used here. For the moment, all conclusions are based on the same set of data and a single technical approach.

We repeated the experiments in TTC466 cells and analyzed the data using same cut-offs used in A-673 cells. This allows us to compare between the two cell lines. We hope this new set of experiments and analyses address the reviewers’ concerns.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations For The Authors):

All the data are performed in A673 cells. Knowing the transcriptomic and epigenetic heterogeneity of Ewing sarcoma cells, some of the experiments supporting their findings should be replicated in at least another Ewing sarcoma model.

Per our discussion above, we have replicated our experiments in an additional cell line model of Ewing sarcoma. Importantly, the TTC466 cell line used expresses the EWSR1::ERG fusion found in 10-15% of Ewing sarcoma cases.

Supplementary Figure 2B. Proportion of TAD boundaries bound by FLAG (i.e., EWS-FLI1) and CTCF. The number/proportion of FLAG (i.e., EWS-FLI) peaks observed at CTCF peak/TAD boundaries seems unexpectedly high. How do they explain this result since EWS-FLI peaks are rather intra-TAD to mediate their enhancer function?

In our previous study, we showed that EWSR1::FLI1 binding can be detected at boundaries of TADs (Showpnil, et. al., 2022). We think therefore it is likely that EWSR1::FLI1 binding is able to mediate enhancer function both inside TADs as well as at the borders of TADs and may, in some cases, function as an insulator between TADs.

For the >50kb loop analysis, what was the low-range threshold? Up to 15-20 kp, contact frequency interactions may be caused by PFA crosslink (did they use a 5kb threshold ?). Were those excluded from that analysis?

We acknowledge that we did not use a lower threshold to exclude those short-range loop interactions. In our previous study, we observed that EWSR1::FLI1 binding reduces long-range interactions in favor of short-range interactions (Showpnil, et. al., 2022) and wanted to be able to capture short-range loops in our analysis.

In Figure 2D, they observed that within TADs containing FLAG peaks at GGAA microsatellites, the intensity of the DBD+ FLAG peaks was higher compared to DBD FLAG peaks. How would this analysis look when considering the ETS FLAG peaks (i.e., EWS-FLI rather repressive peaks)? Could they compare TAD with GGAA msat vs TAD with ETS peaks?

We agree that this is an interesting observation. In our prior analyses we found no discernible relationship between EWSR1::FLI1 binding and changes in 3D chromatin associated with repression (Showpnil, et. al., Nucleic Acids Research, 2022). In contrast, EWSR1::FLI1-bound superenhancers had greater H3K27ac deposition when overlapping both a bound GGAA repeat and a non-microsatellite site. While there have been several additional reports about the relevance of EWSR1::FLI1 binding at nonmicrosatellite peaks, motifs at these loci have not yet been rigorously defined as GGAA repeats were by Johnson, et. al. in PLoS One, 2017. Each ETS factor binds different motifs containing the core 5’-GGAA-3’ with varying affinities depending on the flanking residues. There may be >100-fold difference in sequence-specific binding affinity for “high” vs. “low” affinity motifs. Better defining the types of ETS motifs bound by EWSR1::FLI1 and the functional changes associated with them thus represents an interesting area of future study.

Figure 1F: What is the biological meaning of these results (29.7, 39.5, and 54Mbp)? These distances are typically the size of a chromosome arm and clearly beyond classical chromatin loop/TAD structures in which EWS-FLI mediates its cis-activity.

We agree with referee here. This panel is now removed in our revised manuscript.

How do DBD, KD, and DBD+ conditions compare with WT parental cells in the omics data? (Figures 1B, 4A). Do DBD+ conditions overlap with WT conditions? It would be nice to have these analyses also for Micro-C and Cut&Tag data. To be acknowledged here, the transcriptome data showing this aspect in Figure S1C are very convincing.

This is a fair point. We were not able to obtain similar sequencing depth of wtEF Micro-C libraries to that of KD, DBD and DBD+ due to disproportional use of wtEF libraries in troubleshooting. Therefore, we decided to exclude wtEF condition from these analysis.

EWS-FLI cis-regulation at CCND1 also occurs through a much closer EWS-FLI peak (~-20kb msat upstream of CCND1 TSS) which was not taken into consideration. EWS-FLI peak intensity in both DBD and DBD+ at this msta seems similar. How would this fit into their model?

The referee is correct. The closest peak upstream of CCND1 TSS is about ~19kb away. We highlighted this peak with the dashed boxes near the CCND1 TSS (Supplementary Figure 6). Peak intensity of DBD+ FLAG is slightly higher compared to DBD. Nonetheless, we acknowledge that the difference is small. We suspect that the DBD-α4 helix is affecting binding dynamics at GGAA repeats, but these genomics approaches are not well suited to detect small, but significant, changes in binding affinity or dynamics. In this case a more biochemical approach may be needed. Even though, both protein can still bind the same microsatellites, it is possible that they might differ in their stability of binding or in the recruitment of additional proteins. These possibilities are discussed in the Discussion section (444-463).

For the Micro-C, they sequenced only 7 to 8 million reads per condition. This coverage seems particularly low, especially for their analyses using 1-5kb bins. How does this compare with other published Micro-C data? Can this explain the variability observed between replicates?

We apologize for the inconsistent verbiage of sequencing coverage that may have caused confusion. 7 to 8 million reads were used for shallow sequencing and QC analysis. Once a sample passed QC, we then sequenced 300 million reads per sample. 300M is now changed to 300 million to prevent a misunderstanding at line 598.

They mention:

"In our recent studies of EWS::FLI, we found a small alpha helix in the DNA binding domain DBD-𝛼𝛼4, to

be required for transcription and regulation by the fusion protein (Boone et al., 2021). Interestingly, this study did not find any change in chromatin accessibility (ATAC-Seq) and genome localization of EWS::FLI constructs (CUT&RUN) when DBD-𝛼𝛼4 helix was deleted leaving the mechanistic basis for the requirement of DBD-𝛼𝛼4 in transcription regulation unclear. "

And

"To assay the enhancer landscape, we collected H3K27ac CUT&Tag data from KD, DBD, and DBD+ cells. Principal component analysis of H3K27ac localization shows that the DBD replicates were clustered closer to the KD replicates while being in between the KD and the DBD+ replicates (Figure 4A), suggesting that DBD-𝛼𝛼4 helix is required to reshape the enhancer landscape."

But now H3K27ac CUT&Tag show strong differences which were not observed in ATAC seq. How to explain this discrepancy?

Though both H3K27ac and ATAC signal are associated with enhancers and promoters in euchromatin, they are not exactly measurements of the same thing. H3K4me2 is a mark more closely associated with ATAC signal than H3K27ac (Henikoff, et. al., 2020). Nonetheless, there are clear differences between the prior publication (Boone, et. al., 2021) and this work with regards to similar ATAC signal for each replicate and differences in H3K27ac. We suspect this may be related to a tighter association between H3K27ac and EWSR1::FLI1-mediated genome regulation and ATAC. Notably, there were very few differentially accessible regions between EWSR1::FLI1-depleted cells and conditions with EWSR1::FLI1 expression (either endogenous or wildtype rescue) using the A673 KD/Rescue system in Boone, et. al., 2021. In contrast, other A673 KD-rescue studies have reported differences in H3K27ac in EWSR1::FLI1 expressing conditions relative to EWSR1::FLI1-depleted conditions (Theisen, et. al., 2021). .

The authors mention:

"Our study thus uncovered a surprising role for FLI DBD in the process of hub formation which is usually attributed to the EWS low complexity domain."

Not sure this can be claimed, hubs are composed of many other factors that are not investigated here. Furthermore, promoter enhancer hubs/loops often include combined ETS and mSat chains to generate transcriptional hubs which have not been considered here. None of these points were discussed here.

We replaced “uncovered” with “suggest” in our revised manuscript at line 476.

What are the barcode patterns in Supp 5, are those frequently observed in their Micro-C data, likely mapping artifacts, do they have any impact on their analyses?

The barcode patterns in now Supplementary Figure 6 are blind spots in the hg19 genome assembly. Since they are few in numbers, we don’t expect these blind spots to impact our analysis.