Heterogeneity of Sonic Hedgehog response dynamics and fate specification in single neural progenitors

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Throughout the paper, the authors do a fantastic job of highlighting caveats in their approach, from image acquisition to analysis. Despite this, some conclusions and viewpoints portrayed in this study do not appear well-supported by the provided data. Furthermore, there are a few technical points regarding the analysis that should be addressed.

(1) Analysis of signaling traces

- Relevance of "modeled signaling level": It is not clear whether this added complexity and potential for error (below) provides benefits over a more simple analysis such as taking the derivative (shown in Figure 3C). Could the authors provide evidence for the benefits? For example, does the "maximal response" given a simpler metric correlate less well with cell fate than that calculated from the fitted response?

- Assumptions for "modeled signaling level": According to equation (1) Kaede levels are monotonically increasing. This is assumed given the stability of the fluorescent protein. However, this only holds for the "totally produced Kaede/fluorescence". Other metrics such as mean fluorescence can very well decrease over time due to growth and division. Does "intensity" mean total fluorescence? Visual inspection of the traces shown in Figure 2 suggests that "fluorescence intensity" can decrease. What does this mean for the inferred traces?

- Estimation of Kaede reporter half-live: It is not clear how the mRNA stability of Kaede is estimated. It sounds like it was just assessed visually, which seems not entirely appropriate given the quantitative aspects of the rest of the study. Also, given that Shh signaling was inhibited on the level of Smoothened, it is not obvious how the dynamics of signaling shutdown affect the estimate. Most results in Figure 7 seem to be quite robust to the estimate of the half-live. That they are, might suggest that the whole analysis is unnecessary in the first place. However, not all are. Thus, it would be important to make this estimate more quantitative.

(2) Assignment of fates and correlations

- Error estimate for cell-type assignment: Trying to correlate signaling traces to cell fate decisions requires accurate cell fate assignment post-tracking. The provided protocol suggests a rather manual, expert-directed process of making those decisions. Can the authors provide any error-bound on those decisions, for example comparing the results obtained by two experts or something comparable? I am particularly concerned about the results regarding the higher degree of variability in the correlation between signaling dynamics and cell fate in the posterior neural tube. Here, the expression of Olig2 does not seem to segregate between different assigned fates, while it does so nicely in the anterior neural tube. This would suggest to me that cells in the posterior neural tube might not yet be fully committed to a fate or that there could be a relatively high error rate in assigning fates. Thus, the results could emerge from technical errors or differences in pure timing. Could the authors please comment on these possibilities?

- Clustering and fates: One approach the authors use to analyze the correlation between signaling and fate is clustering of cell traces and comparison of the fate distributions in those clusters. There is a large number of clusters with only single traces, suggesting that the data (number of traces) might not be sufficient for this analysis. Furthermore, I am skeptical about clustering cells of different anterior-posterior identities together, given potential differences in the timing of signal reception and signaling. I am not convinced that this analysis reveals enough about how signaling maps to fate given the heterogeneity in traces in large clusters and the prevalence of extremely small clusters.

- Signaling vector and hand-picked metrics: As an alternative approach, that might be better suited for their data, the authors then pick three metrics (based on their model-predicted signaling dynamics) and show that the maximal response is a very good predictor of fate for different anterior-posterior identities. Previous information-theoretic analysis of signaling dynamics has found that a whole time-vector of signaling can carry much more information than individual metrics (Selimkhanov et al, 2014, PMID: 25504722). Have the authors tried to use approaches that make use of the whole trace (such as simple classifiers (Granados et al, 2018, PMID: 29784812), or can comment on why this is not feasible for their data? The authors should at least make clear that their results present a lower bound to how accurately cells can make cell-fate decisions based on signaling dynamics.

(3) Consequences of signaling heterogeneity

The authors focus heavily on portraying that signaling dynamics are highly variable, which seems visually true at first glance. However, there is no metric used or a description given of what this actually means. Mainly, the variability seems to relate to the correlation between signaling and fate. However, given the data and analysis, I would argue that the decoding of signaling dynamics into fate is surprisingly accurate. So signaling dynamics that seem quite noisy and variable by visual inspection can actually be very well discriminated by cells, which to me appears very exciting.

Indeed, simple features of signaling traces can predict cell fate as well as position (for anterior progenitors). Given that signaling should be a function of position, it naively seems as if signaling read-out could be almost perfect. It might be interesting to plot dorsal-ventral position vs the signaling metrics, to also investigate how Shh concentration/position maps to signaling dynamics, this would give an even more comprehensive view of signal transmission.

There remains the discrepancy between signaling traces and fate in the posterior neural tube. The authors point towards differences in tissue architecture and difficulties in interpreting a "small" Shh gradient. However, the data seems consistent with differences in timing of cell-fate decisions between anterior and posterior cells. The authors show that fate does initially not correlate well with position in the posterior neural tube. So, signaling dynamics should likely also not, as they should rather be a function of position, given they are downstream of the Shh gradient. As mentioned above, not even Olig2 expression does segregate the assigned fates well. All this points towards a difference in the time of fate assignment between the anterior and posterior. Given likely delays in reporter protein production and maturation, it can thus not be expected that signaling dynamics correlate better with cell fate than the reporter "83%". Can the authors please discuss this possibility in the paper?

Thus, while this paper represents an example of what the community needs to do to gain a better understanding of robust patterning under variability, the provided data is not always sufficient to make clear conclusions regarding the functional consequences of signaling dynamics.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this work, Xiong and colleagues examine the relationship between the profile of the morphogen Shh and the resulting cell fate decisions in the zebrafish neural tube. For this, the authors combine high-resolution live imaging of an established Shh reporter with reporter lines for the different progenitor types arising in the forming neural tube. One of the key observations in this manuscript is that, while, on average, cells respond to differences in Shh activity to adopt distinct progenitor fates, at the single cell level there is strong heterogeneity between Shh response and fate choices. Further, the authors showed that this heterogeneity was particularly prominent for the pMN fate, with similar Shh response dynamics to those observed in neighboring LFP progenitors.

Strengths:

It is important to directly correlate Shh activity with the downstream TFs marking distinct progenitor types in vivo and with single cell resolution. This additional analysis is in line with previous observations from these authors, namely in Xiong, 2013. Further, the authors show that cells in different anterior-posterior positions within the neural tube show distinct levels of heterogeneity in their response to Shh, which is a very interesting observation and merits further investigation.

Weaknesses:

This is a convincing work, however, adding a few more analyses and clarifications would, in my view, strengthen the key finding of heterogeneity between Shh response and the resulting cell fate choices.