Stem cell niches support the normal function of stem cells (Bjornsson et al., 2015; Lander et al., 2012). The mammalian NSC niche displays an intricate and compact architecture made up of diverse cell populations, including neurons, astrocytes, blood vessels forming part of the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and resident immune cells, the microglia (Bjornsson et al., 2015; Silva-Vargas et al., 2013). Both mechanical and diffusible signals pass between cell populations to influence NSCs (Bjornsson et al., 2015; Silva-Vargas et al., 2013). Local astrocytes are in close association with both NSCs and the vasculature. In addition, stem cells contact endothelial cells, receiving systemic inputs from the blood. Combinatorial and coordinated interactions between different niche cells are thought to provide the permissive environment for appropriate neurogenesis (Goldman and Chen, 2011). How niche cells respond to NSC inputs and how these interactions respond to external pressures remain to be determined.

To investigate how niche cells adapt to systemic and local changes to support neurogenesis, we turned to a simpler model, the post-embryonic central nervous system (CNS) of Drosophila melanogaster. The Drosophila larval CNS comprises the central brain (CB), the optic lobe (OL) and the ventral nerve cord (VNC). Larval NSCs are found in a microenvironment that includes neurons, a blood-brain barrier and a variety of different glia that structure the brain in layers (Figure 1—figure supplement 1A) (Ito et al., 1995; Stork et al., 2012). Several of these populations modulate NSC behaviour, thus acting as niche cells. Drosophila NSCs go through two distinct rounds of neurogenesis (Figure 1A) (Truman and Bate, 1988; Egger et al., 2008; Kang and Reichert, 2015). They proliferate actively during embryogenesis to generate primary neurons that form the functional larval nervous system. NSCs then become mitotically dormant, entering a quiescent phase. Post embryonically, in response to nutrition, NSCs awaken almost synchronously (Britton and Edgar, 1998) and enter a second neurogenic program. The reactivation and proliferation of these central brain and ventral nerve cord NSCs ultimately generate secondary neuronal lineages that form the adult nervous system.

Figure 1 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

The Drosophila BBB acts as a signalling interface between the hemolymph (the Drosophila equivalent of blood) and brain cells (Stork et al., 2008; DeSalvo et al., 2011). It is exclusively of glial nature, formed by a layer of perineurial glia and a layer of subperineurial glia, while the vertebrate BBB is a composite of endothelial cells and glial cells (astrocytes) (Stork et al., 2008). Both fulfill neuroprotective roles, relying on a physical paracellular barrier (tight junctions of the vertebrate endothelial cells and septate junctions of the Drosophila subperineurial glia). Importantly, the Drosophila BBB mediates the impact of nutrition on NSC reactivation (Chell and Brand, 2010; Spéder and Brand, 2014). Essential amino acids in the larval diet trigger the local production and secretion of insulin-like peptides (dILPs) by the subperineurial glial layer of the BBB (Chell and Brand, 2010; Spéder and Brand, 2014). dILPs bind to the Insulin/IGF receptor on NSCs, activating the conserved PI3K/Akt pathway (Chell and Brand, 2010; Sousa-Nunes et al., 2011). Consequently, NSCs enlarge and re-enter the cell cycle (Figure 1—figure supplement 1B). These reactivated, actively cycling NSCs are found in close association with the cortex glia (Hoyle, 1986; Hoyle et al., 1986; Pereanu et al., 2005). This association is known to protect NSCs from oxidative stress and nutritional restriction during late larval stages (Cheng et al., 2011; Bailey et al., 2015).

Cortex glia display a remarkable organisation around NSCs and neurons (Pereanu et al., 2005). Each NSC and its progeny is individually enwrapped in a chamber formed of cortex glial membrane, which separates the lineages from one another (Figure 1—figure supplement 1A and C–D“). The lineage is organised within the chamber, with the NSC at the top and the newly-born neurons being eventually pushed down (Figure 1—figure supplement 1E). Notably, younger neurons are enclosed in the same chamber as their mother NSC, whereas older neurons display their own individual chambers (Pereanu et al., 2005; Dumstrei et al., 2003). Primary neurons are also surrounded by cortex glia membrane (Pereanu et al., 2005).

An important question has been whether the cortex glial chamber is present throughout post-embryonic life, enclosing NSC lineages from quiescence to proliferation (Sousa-Nunes et al., 2011; Limmer and Klämbt, 2014), or whether the cortex glial niche evolves over time (Pereanu et al., 2005). To address this, we used a protein trap that labels cortex glial membranes (Nrv2::GFP) to follow the association between cortex glia and NSCs throughout larval life (Figure 1B–F’). At ALH0 (ALH, hours after larval hatching), quiescent NSCs were not separated from each other by cortex glial membranes. Cortex glial membranes then progressively underwent three developmental steps. First, membranes expanded. This expansion phase lasted for about a third of larval life. At this stage, NSCs were still not enclosed individually (Figure 1C–D’). Second, membranes fully encased each NSC lineage, forming a chequerboard of cortex glia chambers (Figure 1E–E’). We call this event “encasing". Finally, during an extension phase, cortex glial adapted to lineage expansion while maintaining chamber organisation (Figure 1F–F’ and data not shown for ALH96). The use of another cortex glial membrane marker confirmed these results (Figure 1—figure supplement 1F–G).

To gain further insight into the relationship between cortex glia, NSCs and the BBB, we analysed 3D reconstructions. Interestingly, at ALH0 NSCs were not covered by a sheet of cortex glial membrane, but directly abutted the BBB layer (Figure 1G). However, at ALH72 the cortex glial membrane fully encased NSCs, isolating NSCs from the BBB (Figure 1H). Importantly, the absence of cortex glial chambers at early stages enables BBB-secreted insulin-like peptides to reach NSCs, consequently triggering NSC reactivation. However, at late larval stages, when NSC reactivation is complete (Chell and Brand, 2010; Sousa-Nunes et al., 2011) and proliferation no longer depends on insulin signalling (Cheng et al., 2011), the cortex glial membranes generate a dense interface. These results indicate that cortex glial chambers evolve throughout larval life. Furthermore, the evolution of cortex glial membrane morphology strikingly parallels NSC reactivation, including an initial growth phase followed by a decisive switch: chamber formation on the one hand and mitotic entry on the other (Figure 1I).

We assessed whether cortex glial chamber formation was also controlled by nutrition, the key trigger of NSC reactivation. We first asked whether removing the nutritional signal was sufficient to block cortex glial chamber formation. Unlike control fed larvae, larvae starved for 72 hr did not develop a sealed chequerboard structure around NSCs, (Figure 2A–B’). To better describe and quantify chamber organisation defects, we plotted normalised intensities of cortex glial membrane, NSCs and neuron signals against depth (see Materials and methods for details). Wild-type cortex glial chambers, from fed larvae, show a characteristic graph profile (Figure 2C). The cortex glial signal peaks first, as a readout of the dense membrane layer forming on top of NSCs, just under the BBB. Next the peak corresponding to NSCs appears, situated in the upper part of the chamber. Finally, the last peak corresponds to the newborn neurons under the NSCs. In contrast, in starved larvae cortex glia, NCSc and neurons all peak at the same depth, pinpointing a lack of chamber order (Figure 2D–E). We also calculated the ratio of cortex glial membrane to NSC number in both conditions. Starvation resulted in a loss of cortex glial membrane (Figure 2F). Altogether these results demonstrate that nutrition is critical for cortex glial chamber formation.

Figure 2 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

We tested whether nutrition acts on cortex glial chamber formation through insulin-like peptide secretion from the BBB. Insulin-like peptide secretion relies on gap junction-dependent coordinated calcium oscillations in the BBB (Spéder and Brand, 2014). First, we performed a gap junction knockdown in the BBB. This resulted in strong chamber defects (Figure 2—figure supplement 1A–A’), suggesting that BBB-secreted insulin-like peptides are indeed required for cortex glial chamber formation. To identify which dILPs are expressed by the BBB at the time of membrane growth, we determined RNA Pol II binding in the subperineurial glia of fed larvae (Jessie Van Buggenum, P.S. and A.H.B., unpublished). We found Pol II binding only at dilp6 (Figure 2—figure supplement 1B). Second, we asked if nutrition activates the insulin/PI3K/Akt pathway specifically in cortex glial cells. We identified a new driver, cyp4g15-GAL4, whose expression is highly restricted to cortex glial cells (Figure 2—figure supplement 1C–I). Impairing insulin signalling only in the cortex glia, by expressing Δp60 which has a dominant-negative effect on PI3K activity, resulted in incomplete NSC encasing (Figure 3A–B’). More precisely, formation of the top cortex membrane layer was incomplete and erratic, with NSCs touching one another (see arrowheads). Cellular organisation of the chamber was lost, as shown by the disordered plots and peak values between cortex glia, NSCs and neurons (Figure 3C–E). Furthermore, the ratio of cortex glial membranes to NSC number strongly decreased (Figure 3F). Notably, affecting insulin signalling directly at the level of the insulin receptor, by expressing a dominant negative form (2X InR^DN), also led to impaired chamber formation, with loss of cellular organisation and strongly decreased membrane signal (Figure 3—figure supplement 1). These data demonstrate that direct integration of dILP6 binding and insulin signalling are required in the cortex glia for NSC chamber building. In addition, they show that chamber loss results in NSC lineage disorganisation, as was suggested previously (Pereanu et al., 2005). Thus, formation of the cortex glial chamber relies on an external systemic stimulus, nutrition.

Figure 3 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Next we assessed whether activating insulin signalling in the cortex glia was sufficient to rescue chamber formation in starved larvae (Figure 3G–H’). Starvation maintains NSCs in a quiescent state. Expression of a constitutively active form of Akt (Akt^Act) specifically in the cortex glia neither rescued individual NSC enclosing, nor chamber organisation (Figure 3I–K). However, it led to an increase in cortex membrane ratio to NSC number, compared to the starved control (Figure 3L), indicating that insulin signalling autonomously promotes membrane expansion. Surprisingly, cortex glial membranes still wrapped around primary neurons, providing them with tailored chambers (Figure 3H–H’). This could explain the increase in cortex glial signal above NSCs (Figure 3K, column 2). These results indicate that PI3K/Akt pathway activation in the cortex glia alone is not sufficient to re-establish chamber formation under starvation.

Interestingly, cortex glia start to divide actively around the time chambers form (ALH48, see (Avet-Rochex et al., 2012) and our own observation). Moreover, cortex glial division is partially under the control of the insulin receptor (Avet-Rochex et al., 2012). Therefore, we checked that cortex glial division did not account for insulin-dependent chamber formation. Indeed, hampering cortex glial proliferation through knockdown of string (stg, the Drosophila cdc25) did not prevent NSC chamber formation (Figure 3—figure supplement 2). Similar results were obtained by expressing dacapo, an inhibitor of cell cycle progression (Figure 3—figure supplement 2). These results indicate that cortex glia have a certain plasticity, compensating for population loss to meet NSC demand.

Our data suggest that another signal is necessary to shift cortex glial membrane expansion towards chamber formation. Notably, NSC reactivation is triggered by nutrition and is fully complete around chamber closing time (ALH48, see Figure 1A and I). We thus decided to test whether NSC reactivation promotes chamber formation. First, we delayed NSC reactivation by blocking insulin signalling specifically in NSCs using the PI3K inhibitor, PTEN. Although phenotype expressivity was partial, we found that NSC chamber formation was strongly affected in parts of the VNC (Figure 4A–B’). Several NSCs were grouped together rather than individually enclosed and cortex glial chamber organisation was altered compared to controls (Figure 4C–E). Membrane growth was not significantly decreased (Figure 4F). This could be due to the autonomous effect of insulin signalling on cortex glial expansion or to the fact that reactivation was only delayed and not fully blocked. Similar results were obtained with overexpression of either Δp60 or 2X InR^DN (Figure 4—figure supplement 1A–B’). To confirm the requirement for NSC reactivation in cortex glial chamber organisation, we turned to intrinsic regulators of this process. Spindle matrix proteins have recently been shown to be required for the mitotic re-entry of quiescent NSCs (Li et al., 2017). Accordingly, RNAi knockdown of east in NSCs resulted in a dramatic loss of the mitotic marker phosphohistone H3 (PH3, Figure 4—figure supplement 1C). We found that this condition also led to impaired cortex glial chamber organisation (Figure 4—figure supplement 1D–H), whereas membrane growth was little affected (Figure 4—figure supplement 1I). These results show that NSC reactivation is crucial to chamber organisation, but is not the main driving force for cortex glial membrane growth under normal, fed conditions.

Figure 4 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Next, we forced NSC exit from quiescence by activating insulin/PI3K/Akt signalling in starved NSCs. Strikingly, overexpression of Akt^Act resulted in the formation of several individual NSC chambers throughout the VNC (Figure 4G–H’, see yellow arrows). Cellular organisation was restored and cortex glial membrane to NSC ratio increased significantly compared to starved control (Figure 4I–L). Thus, NSC reactivation is necessary and sufficient to restore chamber formation under starvation. These data show that PI3K/Akt signalling in NSCs is able to promote cortex glial membrane expansion and NSC encasing. In addition, PI3K/Akt activation in cortex glia leads to autonomous membrane growth (Figure 5A).

Figure 5 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Cortex glial remodelling, NSC cycle re-entry and the generation of progeny appear tightly coordinated. This led us to reflect on the importance of the timely formation of the cortex glial chamber for NSC lineages. We thus assessed NSC and neuronal behaviour when chamber formation is impaired. First, we investigated the effect of chamber formation on NSC survival and proliferation, knocking down the PI3K/Akt pathway in cortex glia (see Figures 3 and 5A). NSC numbers were unaffected, showing that NSC survival is not compromised when the chamber cannot be built (Figure 5—figure supplement 1A). We then determined the cell cycle profile of NSCs by staining for phosphohistone H3 (PH3) and assessing EdU incorporation. We observed a small, but significant increase in PH3⁺ and PH3^- EdU^- NSCs, at the expense of EdU⁺ NSCs (Figure 5—figure supplement 1B).

We then turned to NSC progeny, wondering if a primary function of cortex glia during late larval stages is to support newborn neurons. Using TUNEL staining, we determined the degree of neuronal cell death when chamber formation is impaired. Whereas control conditions showed few TUNEL⁺ neurons (Figure 5B), PI3K/Akt pathway knockdown in cortex glia induced pronounced TUNEL⁺ neuron staining (Figure 5C–D). In addition, VNC total neuronal volume decreased in this condition compared to controls (Figure 5—figure supplement 1C), suggesting that neuron number is decreased when chamber formation is impaired. We thus propose that preventing cortex glial chamber formation leads to increased neuronal apoptosis. In contrast, a condition where cortex glial behaviour is affected without chamber impairment (stg knockdown in cortex glia, see Figure 3—figure supplement 2) did not alter NSC division or the number of TUNEL⁺ neurons (Figure 5—figure supplement 1D–G). Altogether these results indicate that preventing cortex glial chamber formation has little impact on NSC survival and proliferation, but is crucial for newborn neuron survival.

Here, we demonstrate that the cortex glial niche cells are able to integrate both external, nutritional signals and local NSC behaviour, triggering remodelling of their architecture. The encasing of each NSC lineage is in turn essential for successful neurogenesis by ensuring the survival of newborn neurons (Figure 5E). Importantly, our work reveals a previously unidentified NSC lineage to cortex glial signal. NSC reactivation, sufficient for triggering lineage encasing, leads to the production of new neurons. NSC lineages are enclosed at about the time of the first NSC division, before any substantial production of neurons. Although we cannot completely rule out that neurons contribute to lineage encasing, we propose that NSCs are the signal-sending cells due to the timing of the event.

The instructive signals sent by NSCs to remodel the cortex glia could be either mechanical or secreted. Interestingly, blocking endocytosis and vesicle recycling in NSCs through dynamin inhibition (Figure 5—figure supplement 2) has a limited impact on chamber formation, mostly leading to a small reduction in cortex glial membranes. This suggests that dynamin-dependent signalling in NSCs is not a major player required to complete chambers around each NSC lineage. Further investigation will be required to identify the main molecular cues from the NSCs, and how they are transmitted to the cortex glia.

How the cortex glial chamber protects newborn neurons from apoptosis remains to be understood. In the adult mammalian brain, astrocytes are key players supporting the different stages of neurogenesis (Gengatharan et al., 2016). This includes neuronal survival, by providing ion buffering and neurotransmitter recycling (Sloan and Barres, 2014). However, to what extent astrocytes adapt to environmental changes while maintaining these protective roles is as yet unknown. We show that early in Drosophila larval development, cortex glia architecture allows BBB-derived insulin-like peptides to reach NSCs during reactivation. Only once NSC proliferation has become nutrition-independent (Cheng et al., 2011), is cortex glial chamber formation fully achieved. This illustrates the importance of cortex glial integration of both environmental and NSC signals. In mammals, BBB endothelial cells also constitute a source of diffusible and contact-dependent signals important for NSC maintenance, proliferation and differentiation (Goldman and Chen, 2011; Tavazoie et al., 2008; Ottone et al., 2014). Interestingly, mammalian NSCs and endothelial cells closely associate at specific sites lacking pericyte and astrocyte covering (Tavazoie et al., 2008). Thus, a remarkable coordination between niche architecture and signalling across the BBB exists in both mammals and Drosophila. In the light of our findings, it would be of great interest to see if and how the BBB, astrocyte and NSC cross talk adapts to external and internal changes whilst supporting neurogenesis in the mammalian brain.

1. 1. Avet-Rochex A
   2. Kaul AK
   3. Gatt AP
   4. McNeill H
   5. Bateman JM

   (2012) Concerted control of gliogenesis by InR/TOR and FGF signalling in the Drosophila post-embryonic brain

   Development 139:2763–2772.

   https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.074179

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Awasaki T
   2. Lai SL
   3. Ito K
   4. Lee T

   (2008) Organization and postembryonic development of glial cells in the adult central brain of Drosophila

   Journal of Neuroscience 28:13742–13753.

   https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4844-08.2008

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Bailey AP
   2. Koster G
   3. Guillermier C
   4. Hirst EM
   5. MacRae JI
   6. Lechene CP
   7. Postle AD
   8. Gould AP

   (2015) Antioxidant role for lipid droplets in a stem cell niche of Drosophila

   Cell 163:340–353.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.09.020

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Bjornsson CS
   2. Apostolopoulou M
   3. Tian Y
   4. Temple S

   (2015) It takes a village: constructing the neurogenic niche

   Developmental Cell 32:435–446.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2015.01.010

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Britton JS
   2. Edgar BA

   (1998)

   Environmental control of the cell cycle in Drosophila: nutrition activates mitotic and endoreplicative cells by distinct mechanisms

   Development 125:2149–2158.

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Caygill EE
   2. Brand AH

   (2017) miR-7 buffers differentiation in the developing drosophila visual system

   Cell Reports 20:1255–1261.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2017.07.047

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Chell JM
   2. Brand AH

   (2010) Nutrition-responsive glia control exit of neural stem cells from quiescence

   Cell 143:1161–1173.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2010.12.007

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Cheng LY
   2. Bailey AP
   3. Leevers SJ
   4. Ragan TJ
   5. Driscoll PC
   6. Gould AP

   (2011) Anaplastic lymphoma kinase spares organ growth during nutrient restriction in Drosophila

   Cell 146:435–447.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.06.040

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. DeSalvo MK
   2. Mayer N
   3. Mayer F
   4. Bainton RJ

   (2011) Physiologic and anatomic characterization of the brain surface glia barrier of Drosophila

   Glia 59:1322–1340.

   https://doi.org/10.1002/glia.21147

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Dumstrei K
    2. Wang F
    3. Hartenstein V

    (2003)

    Role of DE-cadherin in neuroblast proliferation, neural morphogenesis, and axon tract formation in Drosophila larval brain development

    Journal of Neuroscience 23:3325–3335.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Egger B
    2. Chell JM
    3. Brand AH

    (2008) Insights into neural stem cell biology from flies

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 363:39–56.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.2011

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Gengatharan A
    2. Bammann RR
    3. Saghatelyan A

    (2016) The role of astrocytes in the generation, migration, and integration of new neurons in the adult olfactory Bulb

    Frontiers in Neuroscience 10:1–8.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2016.00149

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Goberdhan DC
    2. Paricio N
    3. Goodman EC
    4. Mlodzik M
    5. Wilson C

    (1999) Drosophila tumor suppressor PTEN controls cell size and number by antagonizing the Chico/PI3-kinase signaling pathway

    Genes & Development 13:3244–3258.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.13.24.3244

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Goldman SA
    2. Chen Z

    (2011) Perivascular instruction of cell genesis and fate in the adult brain

    Nature Neuroscience 14:1382–1389.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2963

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Gonzalez-Bellido PT
    2. Wardill TJ
    3. Kostyleva R
    4. Meinertzhagen IA
    5. Juusola M

    (2009) Overexpressing temperature-sensitive dynamin decelerates phototransduction and bundles microtubules in Drosophila photoreceptors

    Journal of Neuroscience 29:14199–14210.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2873-09.2009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Hayashi S
    2. Ito K
    3. Sado Y
    4. Taniguchi M
    5. Akimoto A
    6. Takeuchi H
    7. Aigaki T
    8. Matsuzaki F
    9. Nakagoshi H
    10. Tanimura T
    11. Ueda R
    12. Uemura T
    13. Yoshihara M
    14. Goto S

    (2002) GETDB, a database compiling expression patterns and molecular locations of a collection of Gal4 enhancer traps

    Genesis 34:58–61.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/gene.10137

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Hoyle G
    2. Williams M
    3. Phillips C

    (1986) Functional morphology of insect neuronal cell-surface/glial contacts: the trophospongium

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 246:113–128.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.902460108

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Hoyle G

    (1986) Glial cells of an insect ganglion

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 246:85–103.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.902460106

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Ito K
    2. Urban J
    3. Technau GM

    (1995) Distribution, classification, and development ofDrosophila glial cells in the late embryonic and early larval ventral nerve cord

    Roux's Archives of Developmental Biology 204:284–307.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02179499

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Kang KH
    2. Reichert H

    (2015) Control of neural stem cell self-renewal and differentiation in Drosophila

    Cell and Tissue Research 359:33–45.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00441-014-1914-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Lander AD
    2. Kimble J
    3. Clevers H
    4. Fuchs E
    5. Montarras D
    6. Buckingham M
    7. Calof AL
    8. Trumpp A
    9. Oskarsson T

    (2012) What does the concept of the stem cell niche really mean today?

    BMC Biology 10:19.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7007-10-19

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Lane ME
    2. Sauer K
    3. Wallace K
    4. Jan YN
    5. Lehner CF
    6. Vaessin H

    (1996) Dacapo, a cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, stops cell proliferation during Drosophila development

    Cell 87:1225–1235.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81818-8

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Li S
    2. Koe CT
    3. Tay ST
    4. Tan ALK
    5. Zhang S
    6. Zhang Y
    7. Tan P
    8. Sung W-K
    9. Wang H

    (2017) Erratum: An intrinsic mechanism controls reactivation of neural stem cells by spindle matrix proteins

    Nature Communications 8:1298.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01017-1

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Limmer S
    2. Klämbt C

    (2014) Closing the gap between glia and neuroblast proliferation

    Developmental Cell 30:249–250.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2014.07.025

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Marshall OJ
    2. Brand AH

    (2015) damidseq_pipeline: an automated pipeline for processing DamID sequencing datasets

    Bioinformatics 31:3371–3373.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btv386

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Marshall OJ
    2. Southall TD
    3. Cheetham SW
    4. Brand AH

    (2016) Cell-type-specific profiling of protein-DNA interactions without cell isolation using targeted DamID with next-generation sequencing

    Nature Protocols 11:1586–1598.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2016.084

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Ottone C
    2. Krusche B
    3. Whitby A
    4. Clements M
    5. Quadrato G
    6. Pitulescu ME
    7. Adams RH
    8. Parrinello S

    (2014) Direct cell-cell contact with the vascular niche maintains quiescent neural stem cells

    Nature Cell Biology 16:1045–1056.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb3045

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Pereanu W
    2. Shy D
    3. Hartenstein V

    (2005) Morphogenesis and proliferation of the larval brain glia in Drosophila

    Developmental Biology 283:191–203.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2005.04.024

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Silva-Vargas V
    2. Crouch EE
    3. Doetsch F

    (2013) Adult neural stem cells and their niche: a dynamic duo during homeostasis, regeneration, and aging

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 23:935–942.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2013.09.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Sloan SA
    2. Barres BA

    (2014) Mechanisms of astrocyte development and their contributions to neurodevelopmental disorders

    Current Opinion in Neurobiology 27:75–81.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2014.03.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Sousa-Nunes R
    2. Yee LL
    3. Gould AP

    (2011) Fat cells reactivate quiescent neuroblasts via TOR and glial insulin relays in Drosophila

    Nature 471:508–512.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09867

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Southall TD
    2. Gold KS
    3. Egger B
    4. Davidson CM
    5. Caygill EE
    6. Marshall OJ
    7. Brand AH

    (2013) Cell-type-specific profiling of gene expression and chromatin binding without cell isolation: assaying RNA Pol II occupancy in neural stem cells

    Developmental Cell 26:101–112.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2013.05.020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Spéder P
    2. Brand AH

    (2014) Gap junction proteins in the blood-brain barrier control nutrient-dependent reactivation of Drosophila neural stem cells

    Developmental Cell 30:309–321.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2014.05.021

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Stocker H
    2. Andjelkovic M
    3. Oldham S
    4. Laffargue M
    5. Wymann MP
    6. Hemmings BA
    7. Hafen E

    (2002) Living with lethal PIP3 levels: viability of flies lacking PTEN restored by a PH domain mutation in Akt/PKB

    Science 295:2088–2091.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1068094

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Stork T
    2. Bernardos R
    3. Freeman MR

    (2012) Analysis of glial cell development and function in Drosophila

    Cold Spring Harbor Protocols 2012:pdb.top067587.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/pdb.top067587

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Stork T
    2. Engelen D
    3. Krudewig A
    4. Silies M
    5. Bainton RJ
    6. Klämbt C

    (2008) Organization and function of the blood-brain barrier in Drosophila

    Journal of Neuroscience 28:587–597.

    https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4367-07.2008

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Tavazoie M
    2. Van der Veken L
    3. Silva-Vargas V
    4. Louissaint M
    5. Colonna L
    6. Zaidi B
    7. Garcia-Verdugo JM
    8. Doetsch F

    (2008) A specialized vascular niche for adult neural stem cells

    Cell Stem Cell 3:279–288.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2008.07.025

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Truman JW
    2. Bate M

    (1988) Spatial and temporal patterns of neurogenesis in the central nervous system of Drosophila melanogaster

    Developmental Biology 125:145–157.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-1606(88)90067-X

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Weinkove D
    2. Neufeld TP
    3. Twardzik T
    4. Waterfield MD
    5. Leevers SJ

    (1999) Regulation of imaginal disc cell size, cell number and organ size by Drosophila class I(A) phosphoinositide 3-kinase and its adaptor

    Current Biology 9:1019–1029.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(99)80450-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

The reviews for your manuscript are all generally very positive, and the reviewers and I agree that the manuscript is suitable for eLife subject to a number of specific changes that are suggested. Although the list of suggestions is long, it is my feeling that they can be addressed rather easily either by rewriting the text or by a few simple experiments. Before sending a formal acceptance, I wanted to confirm that you will be able to make these. Please send your responses so that we can consult with the reviewers if necessary and then move to the next step. I am attaching the verbatim reviews.

Reviewer #1:

In this study, Brand and Spéder identify that systemic nutritional as well as NSC-derived local signals modify the cortex glia, which in turn promotes survival of new-born neurons. Cortex glia evolve throughout larval development by undergoing 3 distinctive stages: membrane expansion, formation of NSC chamber and glial extension, which is closely co-related to reactivation and development of NSC. Authors have showed that starvation prevents proper formation of the cortex glial chamber, of which phenotype is recapitulated either by disrupting BBB or by expression of PI3K_DN in the cortex glia. However, constitutive activation of AKT in the cortex glia upon starvation is not sufficient to restore neither NSC nor the cortex glia organization. These results indicate that autonomous PI3K/AKT activity in the cortex glia is not enough to establish its own structure. Interestingly, blocking NSC reactivation strongly affects the cortex glia organization and forced NSC reactivation upon starvation is sufficient to restore the cortex glia, suggesting that NSC reactivation is necessary and sufficient for the cortex glia formation upon starvation. Finally, authors also have showed that cortex glia formation is particularly important for the survival of new-born neurons as lack of cortex glia induces neuronal cell death.

This work is straightforward and interesting in that it suggests dual modifications of the NSC niche development in association with the NSC development. However, I found the study requires further supports for mechanistic details underlying these phenomena, which are very central points for the paper.

1) Although previous studies have identified that Dilp6 originated from the surface glia is essential for the NSC reactivation via BBB, it is unclear whether cortex glia development is also controlled by the same insulin. Given that this study highlights dual (systemic and local) controls of the cortex glia, it is important to show the specific Dilp involved in this control.

2) Authors claimed that membrane expansion of the cortex glia is mainly regulated by systemic factors while organization is separable and controlled by NSC-derived local signal. If NSC-derived local signal only contributes to the organization of the cortex glia, timely control of NSC activity during development will differentially influence the cortex glial structure. Current version of study lacks detail developmental analysis on distinctive control of expansion or organization of the cortex glia, which would further strengthen the relevance of findings.

3) Correlated to point 1 and 2; Figure 4H, J,K and L, expression of Akt_act in the NSC upon starvation at 96 ALH shows almost complete restoration of cortex glia formation compare to fed control. Moreover, impaired PI3K/AKT in the NSC is sufficient to hinder the cortex glia formation, suggesting that local signal from NSC is dominant over the systemic signal in cortex glia development. Or it is possible that systemic information is mainly delivered to the NSC that in turn activate the cortex glia development. Figure 3B-B' is the only experiment that shows the systemic contribution; therefore, it requires additional analysis including modulation of InR directly to support the systemic control.

4) Figure 5B-C can be improved by showing cortex glia structure, neuron and TUNEL+ cells in detail to highlight that it is impaired cortex glia that alters survival of new-born neuron.

5) Supplemental Figure 5 shows the chamber disruption phenotype of Trol_null mutant to indicate that Trol could be a local activator of glial chamber formation originated from the NSC. However, to claim this, it requires further extensive analysis including expression profile of Trol, NSC-specific knock-down of Trol and rescue, and so on.

Reviewer #2:

This paper investigated the interactions between cells in the neuronal stem cell (NSC) niche of the ventral nerve cord (VNC) in larval Drosophila, and also the role of systemic inputs to this niche. Neuronal stem cells when re-activated in the larva start proliferation and give rise to a progeny of neurons. During this process niche cells are enclosed in a microenvironment consisting of NCS, cortex glia and neurons. The encasement formed by cortex glia is vital for proper differentiation and survival of the newborn neurons and the cellular interactions giving rise to this tailored niche was not known in detail prior to the present study. The authors first describe the sequence of morphological events in the formation of the encasement, then move on to show how nutritional signals, cells of the blood brain barrier (BBB), NSCs and cortex glia interact in a sequence to ensure proper differentiation of the niche cells. Signals include nutrients, insulin-IGF signaling (IIS) and some unknown factor (matrix protein?). The study takes us a small step forwards in understanding how the niche develops and its importance for survival of newborn neurons, but does not impress me as a huge conceptual leap. However, the paper seems to be written as a short communication, and as such it may be alright that the story is not complete. The schematic figures (in Figure 1, Figure 5 and Supplemental Figure 1) are really instructive.

I have some rather minor queries and suggestions for improvement of the paper.

1) The paper is apparently some form of short communication and the authors have only one header: Introduction and Results. What about Discussion/Conclusions? Usually Results and Discussion are merged (with a separate Introduction) or there are no headers at all (e. g. as in Nature letters).

2. In the Introduction: the authors say "… a simpler model, the postembryonic larval brain of…". However, they study the simpler VNC, not the brain (which is far more complex, and probably not equally suitable for this kind of study).

3. In the Introduction the authors mention that the BBB mediates the impact of nutrition on the NCS reactivation and that one BBB derived signal is insulin like peptides (DILPs) that bind to the receptor (InR) on NCSs. However, the authors do not really define what constitutes the BBB. What cells are forming this tissue and which of them produce DILPs? Presumably the same cells are nutrient sensing. Is it known what the sensor is? Is it slimfast or some similar transporter? I ask this because in mammals the BBB is formed by several cell types and structures. Only in the Supplemental Figure 1B there is an indication that the BBB is composed of specific cells (glial cells) – but no mention in the text. Would be useful to have some more detailed information on the BBB in Drosophila in the Introduction.

4. A minor detail: the authors use dilp and dilps for the peptide(s) – usually the peptide is written DILP (DILPs) or dILP (in contrast to the gene or transcript, dilp).

5. In the Introduction: "BBB secreted insulin-like peptides" is it known which peptides? DILP6? DILP2? Other?

6. The text referring to Figure 4 is a bit confusing. The authors say that they do not show deltap60 data, but they do in Figure 4B, conversely they say they show PTEN expression in the Figure 4A-B', but they do not. Seems like the two were mixed here?

7. The experiment to show the role of NCS mitotic entry, rather than enlargement (growth), promotes chamber completion, by testing Perlecan mutants seems rather weak and preliminary as evidence.

Reviewer #3:

In their manuscript, Spéder and Brand address a largely unconsidered but important question of how cells that constitute stem cell niches (in this case cortex glia) adapt and remodel over time to meet the needs of the stem cells and stem cell progeny they harbor.

The authors focus on neural stem cells and neurons in the Drosophila ventral nerve cord. They are enveloped in discreet chambers by cortex glia. These glia respond to systemic nutritional status to reactivate quiescent neural stem cells through the secretion of insulin-like peptides. They characterize the changes in cortex glial membrane remodeling in relation to the quiescence and reactivation of the neural stem cells. They find that cortex glia undergo striking membrane remodeling in parallel with stem cell reactivation to form chambers around them and their neuronal progeny. The authors go on to show that PI3K activity in cortex glia leads to membrane expansion but not encapsulation or chamber formation. Instead they show that stem cell reactivation (by PI3K activity) is required for encapsulation. Finally, the authors show that while glial chamber formation or encapsulation is dispensable for stem cell proliferation and survival, it is required for the survival of newly formed neurons. Overall, this work nicely addresses an interesting aspect of niche cell dynamics in relation to changing stem cell needs and shows that two-way communication between niche cells and stem cells and/or their progeny is required to coordinate the process.

Nonetheless, the manuscript would be improved by addressing the following points:

1) The authors clearly showed that stem cell reactivation is required for chamber formation. A major focus of the manuscript is the argument that NSCglial signals promote chamber formation. However, the experiments in the manuscript cannot distinguish whether the relevant encapsulation-promoting signals arise from the stem cells (as the authors assert) or from the neuronal progeny born when these cells become reactivated. This is an important point to clarify as it is strongly emphasized in the text. For example, how does encapsulation proceed when neuronal progeny are killed off? How does Shibirets expression in stem cells or neurons affect chamber formation?

2) If the relevant signals do indeed arise from stem cells, they could be either mechanical, or secreted as suggested by the authors. They note chamber formation defects in perlecan mutants and suggest that "NSC mitotic entry, rather than enlargement, promotes chamber completion around each NSC lineage". The link between defects in perlecan mutants and stem cell mitotic entry is not clear. What is the source of perlecan (systemic or local)? Whole animal perlecan mutants are very disrupted. How does overexpression of matrix metalloproteinases in either stem cells or neurons affect chamber formation?

3)The authors show that glial chamber formation is dispensable for stem cell proliferation and survival, thus in this context once reactivated by glial insulins, stem cells carry on independently of the niche. On the other hand neuronal progeny survival depends on glial chamber formation. Thus, rather than providing a niche for supporting stem cells, cortex glia may be providing a differentiation niche for neurons. Do these neurons differentiate appropriately if neuronal death is prevented by overexpression of P35 when chamber formation is impaired?

Reviewer #1:

1) Although previous studies have identified that Dilp6 originated from the surface glia is essential for the NSC reactivation via BBB, it is unclear whether cortex glia development is also controlled by the same insulin. Given that this study highlights dual (systemic and local) controls of the cortex glia, it is important to show the specific Dilp involved in this control.

We previously profiled gene expression in subperineurial glia from ALH0 to ALH22 at 29°C (thus encompassing most of the expansion phase of the cortex glia) using our Targeted DamID technique (Southall et al., 2013). We found that only dilp6 was expressed. We have added the relevant data to Figure 2—figure supplement 1B and modified the text in the Results section to read:

“To identify which dILPs are expressed by the BBB at the time of membrane growth, we determined RNA Pol II binding in the subperineurial glia of fed larvae (Jessie Van Buggenum, P.S. and A.H.B., unpublished). We found Pol II binding only at dilp6 (Figure 2—figure supplement 1B).”

2) Authors claimed that membrane expansion of the cortex glia is mainly regulated by systemic factors while organization is separable and controlled by NSC-derived local signal. If NSC-derived local signal only contributes to the organization of the cortex glia, timely control of NSC activity during development will differentially influence the cortex glial structure. Current version of study lacks detail developmental analysis on distinctive control of expansion or organization of the cortex glia, which would further strengthen the relevance of findings.

Whereas cortex glial membrane growth can be influenced by internal or external inputs, we propose that cortex glial organisation is mostly, if not only, directed by signals from NSC lineages. Manipulation of the PI3K/Akt pathway in the cortex glia shows that it is necessary for membrane growth but not sufficient for chamber organisation. This suggests that membrane growth does not lead per se to NSC encapsulation and that the two elements are indeed separable. It also suggests that an additional input is needed to convert this growth into a tailored architecture, anchoring it to NSC lineages. In addition, our analysis of the developmental timing of chamber formation (Figure 1 B-F) shows that substantial membrane growth occurs before complete NSC reactivation. Delaying NSC reactivation affects glial architecture more than membrane growth, whilst forcing NSC reactivation is able to lead to NSC encapsulation (Figure 4). This shows that reactivated NSCs are crucial to direct cortex glial architecture.

To strengthen the idea that impairing NSC reactivation mainly affects cortex glial organization, we added the following text to the Results section:

“To confirm the requirement for NSC reactivation in cortex glial chamber organisation, we turned to intrinsic regulators of this process. Spindle matrix proteins have recently been shown to be required for the mitotic re-entry of quiescent NSCs²⁷. Accordingly, RNAi knockdown of east in NSCs resulted in a dramatic loss of the mitotic marker phosphohistone H3 (PH3, Figure 4—figure supplement 1C). We found that this condition also led to impaired cortex glial chamber organisation (Figure 4—figure supplement 1D-H), whereas membrane growth was little affected (Figure 4—figure supplement 1I). These results show that NSC reactivation is crucial to chamber organisation, but is not the main driving force for cortex glial membrane growth under normal, fed conditions.”

3) Correlated to point 1 and 2; Figure 4H, J,K and L, expression of Akt_act in the NSC upon starvation at 96 ALH shows almost complete restoration of cortex glia formation compare to fed control. Moreover, impaired PI3K/AKT in the NSC is sufficient to hinder the cortex glia formation, suggesting that local signal from NSC is dominant over the systemic signal in cortex glia development. Or it is possible that systemic information is mainly delivered to the NSC that in turn activate the cortex glia development. Figure 3B-B' is the only experiment that shows the systemic contribution; therefore, it requires additional analysis including modulation of InR directly to support the systemic control.

To show that direct activation of PI3K/AKT through dILP binding to InR is required for proper chamber formation, we expressed two copies of a dominant negative form of the insulin receptor (2X InR DN) in the cortex glia. This heavily impaired chamber formation. These data have been added as Figure 3—figure supplement 1 and the text in the Results section now reads:

“Notably, affecting insulin signalling directly at the level of the insulin receptor, by expressing a dominant negative form (2X InR^DN), also led to impaired chamber formation, with loss of cellular organisation and strongly decreased membrane signal (Figure 3—figure supplement 1). These data demonstrate that direct integration of dILP6 binding and insulin signalling are required in the cortex glia for NSC chamber building.”

4) Figure 5B-C can be improved by showing cortex glia structure, neuron and TUNEL+ cells in detail to highlight that it is impaired cortex glia that alters survival of new-born neuron.

The extent of cortex glial disruption after Δp60 expression is too severe to be able to correlate localised chamber defects with increased TUNEL staining in the ventral nerve cord.

5) Supplemental Figure 5 shows the chamber disruption phenotype of Trol_null mutant to indicate that Trol could be a local activator of glial chamber formation originated from the NSC. However, to claim this, it requires further extensive analysis including expression profile of Trol, NSC-specific knock-down of Trol and rescue, and so on.

These data were mainly intended to support discussion, and we agree that they are too preliminary. We have removed them.

Reviewer #2:

1) The paper is apparently some form of short communication and the authors have only one header: Introduction and Results. What about Discussion/Conclusions? Usually Results and Discussion are merged (with a separate Introduction) or there are no headers at all (e. g. as in Nature letters).

We have now three headings: Introduction, Results and Discussion sections.

2. In the Introduction: the authors say "… a simpler model, the postembryonic larval brain of…". However, they study the simpler VNC, not the brain (which is far more complex, and probably not equally suitable for this kind of study).

We have changed brain for central nervous system (CNS) or ventral nerve cord (VNC) throughout the text.

3. In the Introduction the authors mention that the BBB mediates the impact of nutrition on the NCS reactivation and that one BBB derived signal is insulin like peptides (DILPs) that bind to the receptor (InR) on NCSs. However, the authors do not really define what constitutes the BBB. What cells are forming this tissue and which of them produce DILPs? Presumably the same cells are nutrient sensing. Is it known what the sensor is? Is it slimfast or some similar transporter? I ask this because in mammals the BBB is formed by several cell types and structures. Only in the Supplemental Figure 1 B there is an indication that the BBB is composed of specific cells (glial cells) – but no mention in the text. Would be useful to have some more detailed information on the BBB in Drosophila in the Introduction.

The Results section now reads:

“The Drosophila BBB acts as a signalling interface between the hemolymph (the Drosophila equivalent of blood) and brain cells^11,12. It is exclusively of glial nature, formed by a layer of perineurial glia and a layer of subperineurial glia, while the vertebrate BBB is a composite of endothelial cells and glial cells (astrocytes) ¹¹. Both fulfill neuroprotective roles, relying on a physical paracellular barrier (tight junctions of the vertebrate endothelial cells and septate junctions of the Drosophila subperineurial glia). Importantly, the Drosophila BBB mediates the impact of nutrition on NSC reactivation^13,14. Essential amino acids in the larval diet trigger the local production and secretion of insulin-like peptides (dILPs) by the subperineurial glial layer of the BBB^13,14.”

4. A minor detail: the authors use dilp and dilps for the peptide(s) – usually the peptide is written DILP (DILPs) or dILP (in contrast to the gene or transcript, dilp).

We have now spelled the peptide “dILP”.

5. In the Introduction: "BBB secreted insulin-like peptides" is it known which peptides? DILP6? DILP2? Other?

We have now added data showing that only dilp6 is expressed in the BBB (Figure 2—figure supplement 1B).

6. The text referring to Figure 4 is a bit confusing. The authors say that they do not show deltap60 data, but they do in Figure 4B, conversely they say they show PTEN expression in the Figure 4A-B', but they do not. Seems like the two were mixed here?

We have rectified this.

7. The experiment to show the role of NCS mitotic entry, rather than enlargement (growth), promotes chamber completion, by testing Perlecan mutants seems rather weak and preliminary as evidence.

These data were mainly intended to support discussion and we agree that they are too preliminary. We have removed them.

Reviewer #3:

1) The authors clearly showed that stem cell reactivation is required for chamber formation. A major focus of the manuscript is the argument that NSCglial signals promote chamber formation. However, the experiments in the manuscript cannot distinguish whether the relevant encapsulation-promoting signals arise from the stem cells (as the authors assert) or from the neuronal progeny born when these cells become reactivated. This is an important point to clarify as it is strongly emphasized in the text. For example, how does encapsulation proceed when neuronal progeny are killed off? How does Shibirets expression in stem cells or neurons affect chamber formation?

We agree that the impact of NSC reactivation on chamber formation could be indirect, and the result of producing progeny that will subsequently signal to the cortex glia. Our main reason to propose NSCs as the major signalling cells is the timing of encapsulation with respect to neuronal production. NSCs are encapsulated between ALH24 and ALH48, prior to any substantial neuronal production. Furthermore, forcing PI3K/AKT activation in starved NSCs leads to their encapsulation whereas neuronal production is minimal, as the larvae do not survive.

The text in the Results section now reads:

“Importantly, our work reveals a previously unidentified NSC lineage to cortex glial signal. NSC reactivation, sufficient for triggering lineage encasing, leads to the production of new neurons. NSC lineages are enclosed at about the time of the first NSC division, before any substantial production of neurons. Although we cannot completely rule out that neurons contribute to lineage encasing, we propose that NSCs are the signal-sending cells due to the timing of the event.

The instructive signals sent by NSCs to remodel the cortex glia could be either mechanical or secreted. Interestingly, blocking endocytosis and vesicle recycling in NSCs through dynamin inhibition (Figure 5—figure supplement 2) has a limited impact on chamber formation, mostly leading to a small reduction in cortex glial membranes. This suggests that dynamin-dependent signalling in NSCs is not a major player required to complete chambers around each NSC lineage. Further investigation will be required to identify the main molecular cues from the NSCs and how they are transmitted to the cortex glia.”

2) If the relevant signals do indeed arise from stem cells, they could be either mechanical, or secreted as suggested by the authors. They note chamber formation defects in perlecan mutants and suggest that "NSC mitotic entry, rather than enlargement, promotes chamber completion around each NSC lineage". The link between defects in perlecan mutants and stem cell mitotic entry is not clear. What is the source of perlecan (systemic or local)? Whole animal perlecan mutants are very disrupted. How does overexpression of matrix metalloproteinases in either stem cells or neurons affect chamber formation?

The Perlecan data were mainly intended to support discussion and we agree that they are too preliminary. We have removed them.

3)The authors show that glial chamber formation is dispensable for stem cell proliferation and survival, thus in this context once reactivated by glial insulins, stem cells carry on independently of the niche. On the other hand neuronal progeny survival depends on glial chamber formation. Thus, rather than providing a niche for supporting stem cells, cortex glia may be providing a differentiation niche for neurons. Do these neurons differentiate appropriately if neuronal death is prevented by overexpression of P35 when chamber formation is impaired?

We agree that this is an interesting point but believe it is beyond the scope of this paper. It would require setting up two different binary systems in order to impair chamber formation while driving p35 in the neurons.

Author details

1. Pauline Spéder

   1. Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
   2. The Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

   Present address

   Department of Developmental and Stem Cell Biology, InstitutPasteur, CNRS UMR3738, Paris, France

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing—review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2934-5841

2. Andrea H Brand

   1. Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
   2. The Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Project administration, Writing—review and editing

   For correspondence

   a.brand@gurdon.cam.ac.uk

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2089-6954

• 3,816

  Page views

• 544

  Downloads

• 38

  Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.