1. Neuroscience
Download icon

Stepwise wiring of the Drosophila olfactory map requires specific Plexin B levels

  1. Jiefu Li
  2. Ricardo Guajardo
  3. Chuanyun Xu
  4. Bing Wu
  5. Hongjie Li
  6. Tongchao Li
  7. David J Luginbuhl
  8. Xiaojun Xie
  9. Liqun Luo  Is a corresponding author
  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, United States
  2. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 8
  • Views 1,897
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2018;7:e39088 doi: 10.7554/eLife.39088

Abstract

The precise assembly of a neural circuit involves many consecutive steps. The conflict between a limited number of wiring molecules and the complexity of the neural network impels each molecule to execute multiple functions at different steps. Here, we examined the cell-type specific distribution of endogenous levels of axon guidance receptor Plexin B (PlexB) in the developing antennal lobe, the first olfactory processing center in Drosophila. We found that different classes of olfactory receptor neurons (ORNs) express PlexB at different levels in two wiring steps - axonal trajectory choice and subsequent target selection. In line with its temporally distinct patterns, the proper levels of PlexB control both steps in succession. Genetic interactions further revealed that the effect of high-level PlexB is antagonized by its canonical partner Sema2b. Thus, PlexB plays a multifaceted role in instructing the assembly of the Drosophila olfactory circuit through temporally-regulated expression patterns and expression level-dependent effects.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jiefu Li

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Ricardo Guajardo

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Chuanyun Xu

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Bing Wu

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Hongjie Li

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Tongchao Li

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. David J Luginbuhl

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Xiaojun Xie

    The Solomon H Snyder Department of Neuroscience, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3459-6095
  9. Liqun Luo

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    For correspondence
    lluo@stanford.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5467-9264

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01-DC005982)

  • Liqun Luo

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Liqun Luo

Stanford University (Vanessa Kong Kerzner Graduate Fellowship)

  • Jiefu Li

Genentech Foundation (Genentech Foundation Predoctoral Fellowship)

  • Jiefu Li

Stanford University (Stanford Neuroscience Institute Interdisciplinary Scholar)

  • Hongjie Li

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Kristin Scott, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: June 10, 2018
  2. Accepted: August 22, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 23, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: August 31, 2018 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2018, 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

  • 1,897
    Page views
  • 323
    Downloads
  • 8
    Citations

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

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)

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

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

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Baruch Haimson et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Peripheral and intraspinal feedback is required to shape and update the output of spinal networks that execute motor behavior. We report that lumbar dI2 spinal interneurons in chicks receive synaptic input from afferents and premotor neurons. These interneurons innervate contralateral premotor networks in the lumbar and brachial spinal cord, and their ascending projections innervate the cerebellum. These findings suggest that dI2 neurons function as interneurons in local lumbar circuits, are involved in lumbo-brachial coupling, and that part of them deliver peripheral and intraspinal feedback to the cerebellum. Silencing of dI2 neurons leads to destabilized stepping in posthatching day 8 hatchlings, with occasional collapses, variable step profiles, and a wide-base walking gait, suggesting that dI2 neurons may contribute to the stabilization of the bipedal gait.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Rene Solano Fonseca et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Concussion is associated with a myriad of deleterious immediate and long-term consequences. Yet the molecular mechanisms and genetic targets promoting the selective vulnerability of different neural subtypes to dysfunction and degeneration remain unclear. Translating experimental models of blunt force trauma in C. elegans to concussion in mice, we identify a conserved neuroprotective mechanism in which reduction of mitochondrial electron flux through complex IV suppresses trauma-induced degeneration of the highly vulnerable dopaminergic neurons. Reducing cytochrome C oxidase function elevates mitochondrial-derived reactive oxygen species, which signal through the cytosolic hypoxia inducing transcription factor, Hif1a, to promote hyperphosphorylation and inactivation of the pyruvate dehydrogenase, PDHE1α. This critical enzyme initiates the Warburg shunt, which drives energetic reallocation from mitochondrial respiration to astrocyte-mediated glycolysis in a neuroprotective manner. These studies demonstrate a conserved process in which glycolytic preconditioning suppresses Parkinson-like hypersensitivity of dopaminergic neurons to trauma-induced degeneration via redox signaling and the Warburg effect.