A Toll-receptor map underlies structural brain plasticity

  1. Guiyi Li
  2. Manuel G Forero
  3. Jill S Wentzell
  4. Ilgim Durmus
  5. Reinhard Wolf
  6. Niki C Anthoney
  7. Mieczyslaw Parker
  8. Ruiying Jiang
  9. Jacob Hasenauer
  10. Nicholas James Strausfeld
  11. Martin Heisenberg
  12. Alicia Hidalgo  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Birmingham, United Kingdom
  2. Universidad de Ibagué, Colombia
  3. University of Würzburg, Germany
  4. University of Arizona, United States

Abstract

Experience alters brain structure, but the underlying mechanism remained unknown. Structural plasticity reveals that brain function is encoded in generative changes to cells that compete with destructive processes driving neurodegeneration. At an adult critical period, experience increases fiber number and brain size in Drosophila. Here, we asked if Toll receptors are involved. Tolls demarcate a map of brain anatomical domains. Focusing on Toll-2, loss of function caused apoptosis, neurite atrophy and impaired behaviour. Toll-2 gain of function and neuronal activity at the critical period increased cell number. Toll-2 induced cycling of adult progenitor cells via a novel pathway, that antagonized MyD88-dependent quiescence, and engaged Weckle and Yorkie downstream. Constant knock-down of multiple Tolls synergistically reduced brain size. Conditional over-expression of Toll-2 and wek at the adult critical period increased brain size. Through their topographic distribution, Toll receptors regulate neuronal number and brain size, modulating structural plasticity in the adult brain.

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. Guiyi Li

    School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Manuel G Forero

    Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de Ibagué, Ibagué, Colombia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Jill S Wentzell

    School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Ilgim Durmus

    School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Reinhard Wolf

    Rudolf-Virchow-Center for Experimental Biomedicine, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Niki C Anthoney

    Institute of Cancer and Genomic Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3311-6328
  7. Mieczyslaw Parker

    School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Ruiying Jiang

    School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Jacob Hasenauer

    School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Nicholas James Strausfeld

    Department of Neuroscience, University of Arizona, Tucson, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1115-1774
  11. Martin Heisenberg

    Rudolf-Virchow-Center for Experimental Biomedicine, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4462-8655
  12. Alicia Hidalgo

    School of Biosciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    a.hidalgo@bham.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8041-5764

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/P004997/1)

  • Alicia Hidalgo

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/R017034/1)

  • Alicia Hidalgo

EU Marie Curie-Sklodowska Fellowship (NPN)

  • Jill S Wentzell

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

Copyright

© 2020, 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

  • 4,585
    views
  • 720
    downloads
  • 35
    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. Guiyi Li
  2. Manuel G Forero
  3. Jill S Wentzell
  4. Ilgim Durmus
  5. Reinhard Wolf
  6. Niki C Anthoney
  7. Mieczyslaw Parker
  8. Ruiying Jiang
  9. Jacob Hasenauer
  10. Nicholas James Strausfeld
  11. Martin Heisenberg
  12. Alicia Hidalgo
(2020)
A Toll-receptor map underlies structural brain plasticity
eLife 9:e52743.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52743

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52743

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Mohsen Alavash
    Insight

    Combining electrophysiological, anatomical and functional brain maps reveals networks of beta neural activity that align with dopamine uptake.

    1. Neuroscience
    Masahiro Takigawa, Marta Huelin Gorriz ... Daniel Bendor
    Research Article

    During rest and sleep, memory traces replay in the brain. The dialogue between brain regions during replay is thought to stabilize labile memory traces for long-term storage. However, because replay is an internally-driven, spontaneous phenomenon, it does not have a ground truth - an external reference that can validate whether a memory has truly been replayed. Instead, replay detection is based on the similarity between the sequential neural activity comprising the replay event and the corresponding template of neural activity generated during active locomotion. If the statistical likelihood of observing such a match by chance is sufficiently low, the candidate replay event is inferred to be replaying that specific memory. However, without the ability to evaluate whether replay detection methods are successfully detecting true events and correctly rejecting non-events, the evaluation and comparison of different replay methods is challenging. To circumvent this problem, we present a new framework for evaluating replay, tested using hippocampal neural recordings from rats exploring two novel linear tracks. Using this two-track paradigm, our framework selects replay events based on their temporal fidelity (sequence-based detection), and evaluates the detection performance using each event's track discriminability, where sequenceless decoding across both tracks is used to quantify whether the track replaying is also the most likely track being reactivated.