LAUSR

In her letter (1), Miglietta warns about the limitations in our knowledge of the biology of species in the Turritopsis genus and inquires about how those limitations affect our manuscript (2). First, we state precisely throughout the manuscript “no reported evidence of postreproductive rejuvenation” in Turritopsis rubra—we use the expression “incapable of rejuvenation” once, and only because of space restrictions. The literature Miglietta mentioned refers to “subadult” (not mature) medusae (3, 4) or to undefined Turritopsis species (5). We cited Li et al. (6) because it is the only source that mentions explicitly T. rubra and its rejuvenation rate in the discussion. In addition, we explored ontogeny reversal to T. rubra medusae, and rejuvenation capabilities of both species after reproduction are clearly different (Fig. 1). In view of these data, T. rubra is unlikely to retain a functioning genomic complement for postreproductive rejuvenation. Excluding any possibility of sporadic postreproductive reversion in T. rubra is beyond the aims of this manuscript and irrelevant to our conclusions. Our manuscript does not contain any claim that our transcriptomic experiment is novel, although we do state that underexpression of Polycomb repressive complex targets was previously undescribed in jellyfish. We appreciate all previous transcriptomic works, and we cite Matsumoto et al. (7) in supplementary material. However, the goal of our work was not to discuss the transcriptome in detail but to complement our genomic analysis. In addition, these