1. Neuroscience
Download icon

A muscle-epidermis-glia signaling axis sustains synaptic specificity during allometric growth in C. elegans

  1. Jiale Fan
  2. Tingting Ji
  3. Kai Wang
  4. Jichang Huang
  5. Mengqing Wang
  6. Laura Manning
  7. Xiaohua Dong
  8. Yanjun Shi
  9. Xumin Zhang
  10. Zhiyong Shao  Is a corresponding author
  11. Daniel A Colón-Ramos  Is a corresponding author
  1. Fudan University, China
  2. Yale University School of Medicine, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 2
  • Views 1,069
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2020;9:e55890 doi: 10.7554/eLife.55890

Abstract

Synaptic positions underlie precise circuit connectivity. Synaptic positions can be established during embryogenesis and sustained during growth. The mechanisms that sustain synaptic specificity during allometric growth are largely unknown. We performed forward genetic screens in C. elegans for regulators of this process and identified mig-17, a conserved ADAMTS metalloprotease. Proteomic mass spectrometry, cell biological and genetic studies demonstrate that MIG-17 is secreted from cells like muscles to regulate basement membrane proteins. In the nematode brain, the basement membrane does not directly contact synapses. Instead, muscle-derived basement membrane coats one side of the glia, while glia contact synapses on their other side. MIG-17 modifies the muscle-derived basement membrane to modulate epidermal-glial crosstalk and sustain glia location and morphology during growth. Glia position in turn sustains the synaptic pattern established during embryogenesis. Our findings uncover a muscle-epidermis-glia signaling axis that sustains synaptic specificity during the organism’s allometric growth.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jiale Fan

    Department of Neurosurgery, State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology, Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science and the Institutes of Brain Science, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Tingting Ji

    Department of Neurosurgery, State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology, Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science and the Institutes of Brain Science, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Kai Wang

    Department of Neurosurgery, State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology, Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science and the Institutes of Brain Science, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Jichang Huang

    State Key Laboratory of Genetic Engineering, Department of Biochemistry, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Mengqing Wang

    Department of Neurosurgery, State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology, Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science and the Institutes of Brain Science, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Laura Manning

    Program in Cellular Neuroscience, Neurodegeneration and Repair, Department of Neuroscience and Department of Cell Biology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Xiaohua Dong

    Department of Neurosurgery, State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology, Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science and the Institutes of Brain Science, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Yanjun Shi

    Department of Neurosurgery, State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology, Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science and the Institutes of Brain Science, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Xumin Zhang

    State Key Laboratory of Genetic Engineering, Department of Biochemistry, School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Zhiyong Shao

    Department of Neurosurgery, State Key Laboratory of Medical Neurobiology, Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science and the Institutes of Brain Science, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
    For correspondence
    shaozy@fudan.edu.cn
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Daniel A Colón-Ramos

    Program in Cellular Neuroscience, Neurodegeneration and Repair, Department of Neuroscience and Department of Cell Biology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    For correspondence
    daniel.colon-ramos@yale.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0223-7717

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China (31471026,31872762)

  • Jiale Fan
  • Tingting Ji
  • Kai Wang
  • Jichang Huang
  • Mengqing Wang
  • Xiaohua Dong
  • Yanjun Shi
  • Xumin Zhang
  • Zhiyong Shao

NIH Office of the Director (DP1NS111778)

  • Laura Manning
  • Daniel A Colón-Ramos

National Institutes of Health (R01NS076558)

  • Laura Manning
  • Daniel A Colón-Ramos

Howard Hughes Medical Institute (Faculty Scholar)

  • Daniel A Colón-Ramos

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Oliver Hobert, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Columbia University, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: February 10, 2020
  2. Accepted: April 5, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: April 7, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: April 17, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Fan 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

  • 1,069
    Page views
  • 243
    Downloads
  • 2
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: PubMed Central, Crossref, 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. Neuroscience
    Daniela Saderi et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Both generalized arousal and engagement in a specific task influence sensory neural processing. To isolate effects of these state variables in the auditory system, we recorded single-unit activity from primary auditory cortex (A1) and inferior colliculus (IC) of ferrets during a tone detection task, while monitoring arousal via changes in pupil size. We used a generalized linear model to assess the influence of task engagement and pupil size on sound-evoked activity. In both areas, these two variables affected independent neural populations. Pupil size effects were more prominent in IC, while pupil and task engagement effects were equally likely in A1. Task engagement was correlated with larger pupil; thus, some apparent effects of task engagement should in fact be attributed to fluctuations in pupil size. These results indicate a hierarchy of auditory processing, where generalized arousal enhances activity in midbrain, and effects specific to task engagement become more prominent in cortex.

    1. Neuroscience
    Pratish Thakore et al.
    Research Article

    Cerebral blood flow is dynamically regulated by neurovascular coupling to meet the dynamic metabolic demands of the brain. We hypothesized that TRPA1 channels in capillary endothelial cells are stimulated by neuronal activity and instigate a propagating retrograde signal that dilates upstream parenchymal arterioles to initiate functional hyperemia. We find that activation of TRPA1 in capillary beds and post-arteriole transitional segments with mural cell coverage initiates retrograde signals that dilate upstream arterioles. These signals exhibit a unique mode of biphasic propagation. Slow, short-range intercellular Ca2+ signals in the capillary network are converted to rapid electrical signals in transitional segments that propagate to and dilate upstream arterioles. We further demonstrate that TRPA1 is necessary for functional hyperemia and neurovascular coupling within the somatosensory cortex of mice in vivo. These data establish endothelial cell TRPA1 channels as neuronal activity sensors that initiate microvascular vasodilatory responses to redirect blood to regions of metabolic demand.