Convergence, plasticity, and tissue residence of regulatory T cell response via TCR repertoire prism

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors investigate the alpha chain TCR landscape in conventional vs regulatory CD4 T cells. Overall I think it is a very well thought out and executed study with interesting conclusions. The authors have investigated CDR3 alpha repertoires coupled with a transgenic fixed CDR3beta in a mouse system.

Strengths:
- One of a kind evidence and dataset.

- State-of-the-art analyses using tools that are well-accepted in the literature.

- Interesting conclusions on the breadth of immune response to challenges across different types of challenges (tumor, viral and parasitic).

Weaknesses:
- Some conclusions regarding the eCD4->eTreg transition are not so strong using only the data.

- Some formatting issues.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This study investigates T-cell repertoire responses in a mouse model with a transgenic beta chain, such that all T-cells in all mice share a fixed beta chain, and repertoire diversity is determined solely by alpha chain rearrangements. Each mouse is exposed to one of a few distinct immune challenges, sacrificed, and T-cells are sampled from multiple tissues. FACS is used to sort CD4 and Treg cell populations from each sample, and TCR repertoire sequencing from UMI-tagged cDNA is done.

Various analyses using repertoire diversity, overlap, and clustering are presented to support several principal findings: 1) TCR repertoires in this fixed beta system have highly distinct clonal compositions for each immune challenge and each cell type, 2) these are highly consistent across mice, so that mice with shared challenges have shared clones, and 3) induction of CD4-to-Treg cell type transitions is challenge-specific.

The beta chain used for this mouse model was previously isolated based on specificity for Ovalbumin. Because the beta chain is essential for determining TCR antigen specificity, and is highly diverse in wildtype mice, I found it surprising that these mice are reported to have robust and consistently focused clonal responses to very diverse immune challenges, for which a fixed OVA-specific beta chain is unlikely to be useful. The authors don't comment on this aspect of their findings, but I would think it is not expected *a priori* that this would work. If this does work as reported, it is a valuable model system: due to massively reduced diversity, the TCR repertoire response is much more stereotyped across individual samples, and it is much easier to detect challenge-specific TCRs via the statistics of convergent responses.

While the data and analyses present interesting signals, they are flawed in several ways that undermine the reported findings. I summarize below what I think are the most substantive data and analysis issues.

1. There may be systematic inconsistencies in repertoire sampling depth that are not described in the manuscript. Looking at the supplementary tables (and making some plots), I found that the control samples (mice with mock challenge) have consistently much shallower sampling-in terms of both read count and UMI count-compared with the other challenge samples. There is also a strong pattern of lower counts for Treg vs CD4 cell samples within each challenge.

2. FACS data are not reported. Although the graphical abstract shows a schematic FACS plot, there are no such plots in the manuscript. Related to the issue above, it would be important to know the FACS cell counts for each sample.

3. For diversity estimation, UMI-wise downsampling was performed to normalize samples to 1000 random UMIs, but this procedure is not validated (the optimal normalization would require downsampling cells). What is the influence of possible sampling depth discrepancies mentioned above on diversity estimation? All of the Treg control samples have fewer than 1000 total UMIs-doesn't that pose a problem for sampling 1000 random UMIs? Indeed, I simulated this procedure and found systematic effects on diversity estimates when taking samples of different numbers of cells (each with a simulated UMI count) from the same underlying repertoire, even after normalizing to 1000 random UMIs. I don't think UMI downsampling corrects for cell sampling depth differences in diversity estimation, so it's not clear that the trends in Fig 1A are not artifactual-they would seem to show higher diversity for control samples, but these are the very same samples with an apparent systematic sampling depth bias.

4. The Figures may be inconsistent with the data. I downloaded the Supplementary Table corresponding to Fig 1 and made my own version of panels A-C. This looked quite different from the diversity estimations depicted in the manuscript. The data does not match the scale or trends shown in the manuscript figure.

5. For the overlap analysis, a different kind of normalization was performed, but also not validated. Instead of sampling 1000 UMIs, the repertoires were reduced to their top 1000 most frequent clones. It is not made clear why a different normalization would be needed here. There are several samples (including all Treg control samples) with only a couple hundred clones. It's also likely that the noted systematic sampling depth differences may drive the separation seen in MDS1 between Treg and CD4 cell types. I also simulated this alternative downsampling procedure and found strong effects on MDS clustering due to sampling effects alone.

It is not made clear how the overlap scores were converted to distances for MDS. It's hard to interpret this without seeing the overlap matrix.

6. The cluster analysis is superficial, and appears to have been cherry-picked. The clusters reported in the main text have illegibly small logo plots, and no information about V/J gene enrichments. More importantly, as the caption states they were chosen from the columns of a large (and messier-looking) cluster matrix in the supplementary figure based on association with each specific challenge. There's no detail about how this association was calculated, or how it controlled for multiple tests. I don't think it is legitimate to simply display a set of clusters that visually correlate; in a sufficiently wide random matrix you will find columns that seem to correlate with any given pattern across rows.

7. The findings on differential plasticity and CD4 to Treg conversion are not supported. If CD4 cells are converting to Tregs, we expect more nucleotide-level overlap of clones. This intuition makes sense. But it seems that this section affirms the consequent: variation in nucleotide-level clone overlap is a readout of variation in CD4 to Treg conversion. It is claimed, based on elevated nucleotide-level overlap, that the LLC and PYMT challenges induce conversion more readily than the other challenges. It is not noted in the textual interpretations, but Fig 4 also shows that the control samples had a substantially elevated nucleotide-level overlap. There is no mention of a null hypothesis for what we'd expect if there was no induced conversion going on at all. This is a reduced-diversity mouse model, so convergent recombination is more likely than usual, and the challenges could be expected to differ in the parts of TCR sequence space they induce focus on. They use the top 100 clones for normalization in this case, but don't say why (this is the 3rd distinct normalization procedure).

Although interpretations of the reported findings are limited due to the issues above, this is an interesting model system in which to explore convergent responses. Follow-up experimental work could validate some of the reported signals, and the data set may also be useful for other specific questions.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Nakonechnaya et al present a valuable and comprehensive exploration of CD4+ T cell response in mice across stimuli and tissues through the analysis of their TCR-alpha repertoires.

The authors compare repertoires by looking at the relative overlap of shared clonotypes and observe that they sometimes cluster by tissue and sometimes by stimulus. They also compare different CD4+ subsets (conventional and Tregs) and find distinct yet convergent responses with occasional plasticity across subsets for some stimuli.

The observed lack of a general behaviour highlights the need for careful comparison of immune repertoires across cell subsets and tissues in order to better understand their role in the adaptive immune response.

In conclusion, this is an important paper to the community as it suggests several future directions of exploration.

Unfortunately, the lack of code and data availability does not allow the reproducibility of the results.