Drosophila PSI controls circadian period and the phase of circadian behavior under temperature cycle via tim splicing

  1. Lauren Foley
  2. Jinli Ling
  3. Radhika Joshi
  4. Naveh Evantal
  5. Sebastian Kadener
  6. Patrick Emery  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Massachusetts Medical School, United States
  2. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
  3. Brandeis University, United States

Abstract

The Drosophila circadian pacemaker consists of transcriptional feedback loops subjected to post-transcriptional and post-translational regulation. While post-translational regulatory mechanisms have been studied in detail, much less is known about circadian post-transcriptional control. Thus, we targeted 364 RNA binding and RNA associated proteins with RNA interference. Among the 43 hits we identified was the alternative splicing regulator P-element somatic inhibitor (PSI). PSI regulates the thermosensitive alternative splicing of timeless (tim), promoting splicing events favored at warm temperature over those increased at cold temperature. Psi downregulation shortens the period of circadian rhythms and advances the phase of circadian behavior under temperature cycle. Interestingly, both phenotypes were suppressed in flies that could produce TIM proteins only from a transgene that cannot form the thermosensitive splicing isoforms. Therefore, we conclude that PSI regulates the period of Drosophila circadian rhythms and circadian behavior phase during temperature cycling through its modulation of the tim splicing pattern.

Data availability

All source data are included in this submission

The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Lauren Foley

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Jinli Ling

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Radhika Joshi

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Naveh Evantal

    Silberman Institute of Life Sciences, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Sebastian Kadener

    Biology Department, Brandeis University, Waltham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0080-5987
  6. Patrick Emery

    Department of Neurobiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    For correspondence
    Patrick.Emery@umassmed.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5176-6565

Funding

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (1R35GM118087)

  • Patrick Emery

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (1R01GM125859)

  • Sebastian Kadener

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Mani Ramaswami, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

Publication history

  1. Received: July 10, 2019
  2. Accepted: November 7, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: November 8, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: December 3, 2019 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Foley 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

  • 1,306
    Page views
  • 222
    Downloads
  • 10
    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)

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. Lauren Foley
  2. Jinli Ling
  3. Radhika Joshi
  4. Naveh Evantal
  5. Sebastian Kadener
  6. Patrick Emery
(2019)
Drosophila PSI controls circadian period and the phase of circadian behavior under temperature cycle via tim splicing
eLife 8:e50063.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.50063

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Ling Bai et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Animals must learn through experience which foods are nutritious and should be consumed, and which are toxic and should be avoided. Enteroendocrine cells (EECs) are the principal chemosensors in the GI tract, but investigation of their role in behavior has been limited by the difficulty of selectively targeting these cells in vivo. Here, we describe an intersectional genetic approach for manipulating EEC subtypes in behaving mice. We show that multiple EEC subtypes inhibit food intake but have different effects on learning. Conditioned flavor preference is driven by release of cholecystokinin whereas conditioned taste aversion is mediated by serotonin and substance P. These positive and negative valence signals are transmitted by vagal and spinal afferents, respectively. These findings establish a cellular basis for how chemosensing in the gut drives learning about food.

    1. Neuroscience
    Kelly M Martyniuk et al.
    Research Article Updated

    In the striatum, acetylcholine (ACh) neuron activity is modulated co-incident with dopamine (DA) release in response to unpredicted rewards and reward-predicting cues and both neuromodulators are thought to regulate each other. While this co-regulation has been studied using stimulation studies, the existence of this mutual regulation in vivo during natural behavior is still largely unexplored. One long-standing controversy has been whether striatal DA is responsible for the induction of the cholinergic pause or whether DA D2 receptors (D2Rs) modulate a pause that is induced by other mechanisms. Here, we used genetically encoded sensors in combination with pharmacological and genetic inactivation of D2Rs from cholinergic interneurons (CINs) to simultaneously measure ACh and DA levels after CIN D2R inactivation in mice. We found that CIN D2Rs are not necessary for the initiation of cue-induced decrease in ACh levels. Rather, they prolong the duration of the decrease and inhibit ACh rebound levels. Notably, the change in cue-evoked ACh levels is not associated with altered cue-evoked DA release. Moreover, D2R inactivation strongly decreased the temporal correlation between DA and ACh signals not only at cue presentation but also during the intertrial interval pointing to a general mechanism by which D2Rs coordinate both signals. At the behavioral level D2R antagonism increased the latency to lever press, which was not observed in CIN-selective D2R knock out mice. Press latency correlated with the cue-evoked decrease in ACh levels and artificial inhibition of CINs revealed that longer inhibition shortens the latency to press compared to shorter inhibition. This supports a role of the ACh signal and it’s regulation by D2Rs in the motivation to initiate actions.