Deconstruction of the Beaten Path-Sidestep interaction network provides insights into neuromuscular system development

  1. Hanqing Li
  2. Ash Watson
  3. Agnieszka Olechwier
  4. Michael Anaya
  5. Siamak K Sorooshyari
  6. Dermott P Harnett
  7. Hyung-Kook (Peter) Lee
  8. Jost Vielmetter
  9. Mario A Fares
  10. K Christopher Garcia
  11. Engin Özkan
  12. Juan-Pablo Labrador  Is a corresponding author
  13. Kai Zinn  Is a corresponding author
  1. California Institute of Technology, United States
  2. Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
  3. University of Chicago, United States
  4. Ellipsis Health, United States
  5. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, United States

Abstract

An "interactome" screen of all Drosophila cell-surface and secreted proteins containing immunoglobulin superfamily (IgSF) domains discovered a network formed by paralogs of Beaten Path (Beat) and Sidestep (Side), a ligand-receptor pair that is central to motor axon guidance. Here we describe a new method for interactome screening, the Bio-Plex Interactome Assay (BPIA), which allows identification of many interactions in a single sample. Using the BPIA, we "deorphanized" four more members of the Beat-Side network. We confirmed interactions using surface plasmon resonance. The expression patterns of beat and side genes suggest that Beats are neuronal receptors for Sides expressed on peripheral tissues. side-VI is expressed in muscle fibers targeted by the ISNb nerve, as well as at growth cone choice points and synaptic targets for the ISN and TN nerves. beat-V genes, encoding Side-VI receptors, are expressed in ISNb and ISN motor neurons.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Hanqing Li

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Ash Watson

    Smurfit Institute of Genetics, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Agnieszka Olechwier

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Michael Anaya

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Siamak K Sorooshyari

    Ellipsis Health, San Francisco, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1172-6291
  6. Dermott P Harnett

    Smurfit Institute of Genetics, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Hyung-Kook (Peter) Lee

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Jost Vielmetter

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Mario A Fares

    Smurfit Institute of Genetics, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. K Christopher Garcia

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9273-0278
  11. Engin Özkan

    Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0263-6729
  12. Juan-Pablo Labrador

    Smurfit Institute of Genetics, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
    For correspondence
    labradoj@tcd.ie
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Kai Zinn

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    For correspondence
    zinnk@caltech.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6706-5605

Funding

NIH (R37)

  • Kai Zinn

SFI

  • Juan-Pablo Labrador

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Graeme W Davis, University of California, San Francisco, United States

Version history

  1. Received: April 27, 2017
  2. Accepted: July 28, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 15, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: August 15, 2017 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: August 31, 2017 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2017, Li et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 3,537
    views
  • 593
    downloads
  • 38
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Hanqing Li
  2. Ash Watson
  3. Agnieszka Olechwier
  4. Michael Anaya
  5. Siamak K Sorooshyari
  6. Dermott P Harnett
  7. Hyung-Kook (Peter) Lee
  8. Jost Vielmetter
  9. Mario A Fares
  10. K Christopher Garcia
  11. Engin Özkan
  12. Juan-Pablo Labrador
  13. Kai Zinn
(2017)
Deconstruction of the Beaten Path-Sidestep interaction network provides insights into neuromuscular system development
eLife 6:e28111.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.28111

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.28111

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Vezha Boboeva, Alberto Pezzotta ... Athena Akrami
    Research Article

    The central tendency bias, or contraction bias, is a phenomenon where the judgment of the magnitude of items held in working memory appears to be biased toward the average of past observations. It is assumed to be an optimal strategy by the brain and commonly thought of as an expression of the brain’s ability to learn the statistical structure of sensory input. On the other hand, recency biases such as serial dependence are also commonly observed and are thought to reflect the content of working memory. Recent results from an auditory delayed comparison task in rats suggest that both biases may be more related than previously thought: when the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) was silenced, both short-term and contraction biases were reduced. By proposing a model of the circuit that may be involved in generating the behavior, we show that a volatile working memory content susceptible to shifting to the past sensory experience – producing short-term sensory history biases – naturally leads to contraction bias. The errors, occurring at the level of individual trials, are sampled from the full distribution of the stimuli and are not due to a gradual shift of the memory toward the sensory distribution’s mean. Our results are consistent with a broad set of behavioral findings and provide predictions of performance across different stimulus distributions and timings, delay intervals, as well as neuronal dynamics in putative working memory areas. Finally, we validate our model by performing a set of human psychophysics experiments of an auditory parametric working memory task.

    1. Neuroscience
    Michael Berger, Michèle Fraatz ... Henrike Scholz
    Research Article

    The brain regulates food intake in response to internal energy demands and food availability. However, can internal energy storage influence the type of memory that is formed? We show that the duration of starvation determines whether Drosophila melanogaster forms appetitive short-term or longer-lasting intermediate memories. The internal glycogen storage in the muscles and adipose tissue influences how intensely sucrose-associated information is stored. Insulin-like signaling in octopaminergic reward neurons integrates internal energy storage into memory formation. Octopamine, in turn, suppresses the formation of long-term memory. Octopamine is not required for short-term memory because octopamine-deficient mutants can form appetitive short-term memory for sucrose and to other nutrients depending on the internal energy status. The reduced positive reinforcing effect of sucrose at high internal glycogen levels, combined with the increased stability of food-related memories due to prolonged periods of starvation, could lead to increased food intake.