Modular transcriptional programs separately define axon and dendrite connectivity
Abstract
Patterns of synaptic connectivity are remarkably precise and complex. Single-cell RNA sequencing has revealed a vast transcriptional diversity of neurons. Nevertheless, a clear logic underlying the transcriptional control of neuronal connectivity has yet to emerge. Here, we focused on Drosophila T4/T5 neurons, a class of closely related neuronal subtypes with different wiring patterns. Eight subtypes of T4/T5 neurons are defined by combinations of two patterns of dendritic inputs and four patterns of axonal outputs. Single-cell profiling during development revealed distinct transcriptional programs defining each dendrite and axon wiring pattern. These programs were defined by the expression of a few transcription factors and different combinations of cell surface proteins. Gain and loss of function studies provide evidence for independent control of different wiring features. We propose that modular transcriptional programs for distinct wiring features are assembled in different combinations to generate diverse patterns of neuronal connectivity.
Data availability
Raw sequencing data, single-cell expression matrix and cell clustering results were deposited to NCBI GEO under accession: GSE126139.
-
Modular transcriptional programs separately define axon and dendrite connectivityNCBI Gene Expression Omnibus, GSE126139.
Article and author information
Author details
Funding
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
- Lawrence Zipursky
G Harold and Leila Y. Mathers Foundation
- Lawrence Zipursky
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (T32NS048004)
- Samuel A LoCascio
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.
Copyright
© 2019, Kurmangaliyev 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
-
- 3,827
- views
-
- 538
- downloads
-
- 62
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
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)
Further reading
-
- Genetics and Genomics
- Immunology and Inflammation
PIK3R1 encodes three regulatory subunits of class IA phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K), each associating with any of three catalytic subunits, namely p110α, p110β, or p110δ. Constitutional PIK3R1 mutations cause diseases with a genotype-phenotype relationship not yet fully explained: heterozygous loss-of-function mutations cause SHORT syndrome, featuring insulin resistance and short stature attributed to reduced p110α function, while heterozygous activating mutations cause immunodeficiency, attributed to p110δ activation and known as APDS2. Surprisingly, APDS2 patients do not show features of p110α hyperactivation, but do commonly have SHORT syndrome-like features, suggesting p110α hypofunction. We sought to investigate this. In dermal fibroblasts from an APDS2 patient, we found no increased PI3K signalling, with p110δ expression markedly reduced. In preadipocytes, the APDS2 variant was potently dominant negative, associating with Irs1 and Irs2 but failing to heterodimerise with p110α. This attenuation of p110α signalling by a p110δ-activating PIK3R1 variant potentially explains co-incidence of gain-of-function and loss-of-function PIK3R1 phenotypes.
-
- Developmental Biology
- Genetics and Genomics
The establishment and growth of the arterial endothelium requires the coordinated expression of numerous genes. However, regulation of this process is not yet fully understood. Here, we combined in silico analysis with transgenic mice and zebrafish models to characterize arterial-specific enhancers associated with eight key arterial identity genes (Acvrl1/Alk1, Cxcr4, Cxcl12, Efnb2, Gja4/Cx37, Gja5/Cx40, Nrp1 and Unc5b). Next, to elucidate the regulatory pathways upstream of arterial gene transcription, we investigated the transcription factors binding each arterial enhancer compared to a similar assessment of non-arterial endothelial enhancers. These results found that binding of SOXF and ETS factors was a common occurrence at both arterial and pan-endothelial enhancers, suggesting neither are sufficient to direct arterial specificity. Conversely, FOX motifs independent of ETS motifs were over-represented at arterial enhancers. Further, MEF2 and RBPJ binding was enriched but not ubiquitous at arterial enhancers, potentially linked to specific patterns of behaviour within the arterial endothelium. Lastly, there was no shared or arterial-specific signature for WNT-associated TCF/LEF, TGFβ/BMP-associated SMAD1/5 and SMAD2/3, shear stress-associated KLF4 or venous-enriched NR2F2. This cohort of well characterized and in vivo-verified enhancers can now provide a platform for future studies into the interaction of different transcriptional and signalling pathways with arterial gene expression.