Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, and public reviews.
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorJulien RocheIowa State University, Ames, United States of America
- Senior EditorAmy AndreottiIowa State University, Ames, United States of America
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Summary:
This paper presents a class of small molecule inhibitors of tau aggregation which was discovered through a computational screen. Analogs were generated and tested for their ability to inhibit fibril formation.
Strengths:
A few of the analogs were found to have sub-stoichiometric activity. A comparison of unseeded and seeded aggregation kinetics suggests that these compounds preferentially target early-stage aggregation.
Weaknesses:
The authors state their interest is in finding compounds that target monomeric states of tau, but their only detection method is late-stage fibril formation. In this respect, they have not really defined a mechanism of action. They state their plan to use hydrogen-exchange mass spectrometry, but there are other techniques, such as single-molecule FRET and measurement of intramolecular reconfiguration. Additionally, there is information that can be gleaned from detailed kinetic modeling of the ThT kinetics to include monomer dynamics, formation of oligomers, and secondary nucleation of fibrils.
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Summary:
James et al, in this study, build on their previous work investigating tau as a drug target. The authors identify tryptanthrin (TA) and its analogs as powerful inhibitors of tau4RD aggregation, even at low concentrations (nanomolar range). Interestingly, these analogs specifically target the initial stages of aggregation, where tau self-association first begins. This targeted approach effectively explains why such small amounts of tryptanthrin analogs are sufficient for inhibition. The study further shows that slight modifications to the structure of these molecules can significantly impact their effectiveness.
Strengths:
The experiments are well-designed and executed. The reviewer, in particular, appreciates the authors for the simple yet intelligent study design to understand the mechanism of aggregation inhibition by TA analogs.
Weaknesses:
Certain areas in the manuscript need clarifications, revisions, or additional supporting studies to strengthen the outcomes. For example, the authors mostly apply a single approach to assess tau aggregation or aggregation inhibition. Using additional techniques as suggested below will be helpful.