Transsynaptic interactions between IgSF proteins DIP-α and Dpr10 are required for motor neuron targeting specificity

  1. James Ashley
  2. Violet Sorrentino
  3. Meike Lobb-Rabe
  4. Sonal Nagarkar-Jaiswal
  5. Liming Tan
  6. Shuwa Xu
  7. Qi Xiao
  8. Kai Zinn  Is a corresponding author
  9. Robert A Carrillo  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Chicago, United States
  2. Baylor College of Medicine, United States
  3. University of California, Los Angeles, United States
  4. California Institute of Technology, United States

Abstract

The Drosophila larval neuromuscular system provides an ideal context in which to study synaptic partner choice, because it contains a small number of pre- and postsynaptic cells connected in an invariant pattern. The discovery of interactions between two subfamilies of IgSF cell surface proteins, the Dprs and the DIPs, provided new candidates for cellular labels controlling synaptic specificity. Here we show that DIP-α is expressed by two identified motor neurons, while its binding partner Dpr10 is expressed by postsynaptic muscle targets. Removal of either DIP-α or Dpr10 results in loss of specific axonal branches and NMJs formed by one motor neuron, MNISN-1s, while other branches of the MNISN-1s axon develop normally. The temporal and spatial expression pattern of dpr10 correlates with muscle innervation by MNISN-1s during embryonic development. We propose a model whereby DIP-α and Dpr10 on opposing synaptic partners interact with each other to generate proper motor neuron connectivity.

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. James Ashley

    Department of Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Violet Sorrentino

    Department of Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Meike Lobb-Rabe

    Department of Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Sonal Nagarkar-Jaiswal

    Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Liming Tan

    Department of Biological Chemistry, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Shuwa Xu

    Department of Biological Chemistry, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Qi Xiao

    Department of Biological Chemistry, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. 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
  9. Robert A Carrillo

    Department of Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology, University of Chicago, Chicago, United States
    For correspondence
    robertcarrillo@uchicago.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2067-9861

Funding

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (K01 NS102342)

  • Robert A Carrillo

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01 NS096509)

  • Kai Zinn

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

Copyright

© 2019, Ashley 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

  • 2,131
    views
  • 309
    downloads
  • 44
    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. James Ashley
  2. Violet Sorrentino
  3. Meike Lobb-Rabe
  4. Sonal Nagarkar-Jaiswal
  5. Liming Tan
  6. Shuwa Xu
  7. Qi Xiao
  8. Kai Zinn
  9. Robert A Carrillo
(2019)
Transsynaptic interactions between IgSF proteins DIP-α and Dpr10 are required for motor neuron targeting specificity
eLife 8:e42690.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.42690

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.42690

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Physics of Living Systems
    Deb Sankar Banerjee, Shiladitya Banerjee
    Research Article

    Accurate regulation of centrosome size is essential for ensuring error-free cell division, and dysregulation of centrosome size has been linked to various pathologies, including developmental defects and cancer. While a universally accepted model for centrosome size regulation is lacking, prior theoretical and experimental works suggest a centrosome growth model involving autocatalytic assembly of the pericentriolar material. Here, we show that the autocatalytic assembly model fails to explain the attainment of equal centrosome sizes, which is crucial for error-free cell division. Incorporating latest experimental findings into the molecular mechanisms governing centrosome assembly, we introduce a new quantitative theory for centrosome growth involving catalytic assembly within a shared pool of enzymes. Our model successfully achieves robust size equality between maturing centrosome pairs, mirroring cooperative growth dynamics observed in experiments. To validate our theoretical predictions, we compare them with available experimental data and demonstrate the broad applicability of the catalytic growth model across different organisms, which exhibit distinct growth dynamics and size scaling characteristics.

    1. Cell Biology
    Jingjing Li, Xinyue Wang ... Vincent Archambault
    Research Article

    In animals, mitosis involves the breakdown of the nucleus. The reassembly of a nucleus after mitosis requires the reformation of the nuclear envelope around a single mass of chromosomes. This process requires Ankle2 (also known as LEM4 in humans) which interacts with PP2A and promotes the function of the Barrier-to-Autointegration Factor (BAF). Upon dephosphorylation, BAF dimers cross-bridge chromosomes and bind lamins and transmembrane proteins of the reassembling nuclear envelope. How Ankle2 functions in mitosis is incompletely understood. Using a combination of approaches in Drosophila, along with structural modeling, we provide several lines of evidence that suggest that Ankle2 is a regulatory subunit of PP2A, explaining how it promotes BAF dephosphorylation. In addition, we discovered that Ankle2 interacts with the endoplasmic reticulum protein Vap33, which is required for Ankle2 localization at the reassembling nuclear envelope during telophase. We identified the interaction sites of PP2A and Vap33 on Ankle2. Through genetic rescue experiments, we show that the Ankle2/PP2A interaction is essential for the function of Ankle2 in nuclear reassembly and that the Ankle2/Vap33 interaction also promotes this process. Our study sheds light on the molecular mechanisms of post-mitotic nuclear reassembly and suggests that the endoplasmic reticulum is not merely a source of membranes in the process, but also provides localized enzymatic activity.