Enhanced insulin signalling ameliorates C9orf72 hexanucleotide repeat expansion toxicity in Drosophila

Abstract

G4C2 repeat expansions within the C9orf72 gene are the most common genetic cause of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). The repeats undergo repeat-associated non-ATG translation to generate toxic dipeptide repeat proteins. Here, we show that insulin/Igf signalling is reduced in fly models of C9orf72 repeat expansion using RNA-sequencing of adult brain. We further demonstrate that activation of insulin/Igf signalling can mitigate multiple neurodegenerative phenotypes in flies expressing either expanded G4C2 repeats or the toxic dipeptide repeat protein poly-GR. Levels of poly-GR are reduced when components of the insulin/Igf signalling pathway are genetically activated in the diseased flies, suggesting a mechanism of rescue. Modulating insulin signalling in mammalian cells also lowers poly-GR levels. Remarkably, systemic injection of insulin improves the survival of flies expressing G4C2 repeats. Overall, our data suggest that modulation of insulin/Igf signalling could be an effective therapeutic approach against C9orf72 ALS/FTD.

Data availability

Sequencing data have been deposited in GEO under accession codes GSE151826. All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Magda Luciana Atilano

    Genetics, Evolution & Environment, Institute of Healthy Ageing, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3819-2023
  2. Sebastian Grönke

    Max Planck Institute for Biology of Ageing, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1539-5346
  3. Teresa Niccoli

    Genetics, Evolution & Environment, Institute of Healthy Ageing, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Liam Kempthorne

    UK Dementia Research Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Oliver Hahn

    Max Planck Institute for Biology of Ageing, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Javier Morón-Oset

    Max Planck Institute for Biology of Ageing, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Oliver Hendrich

    Max Planck Institute for Biology of Ageing, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Miranda Dyson

    Genetics, Evolution & Environment, Institute of Healthy Ageing, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Mirjam Lisette Adams

    UK Dementia Research Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Alexander Hull

    Genetics, Evolution & Environment, Institute of Healthy Ageing, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Marie-Therese Salcher-Konrad

    UK Dementia Research Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Amy Monaghan

    Alzheimer's Research UK UCL Drug Discovery Institute, University College of London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Magda Bictash

    Alzheimer's Research UK UCL Drug Discovery Institute, University College of London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Idoia Glaria

    UK Dementia Research Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4556-489X
  15. Adrian M Isaacs

    UK Dementia Research Institute, University College London, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    a.isaacs@ucl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Linda Partridge

    Max Planck Institute for Biology of Ageing, Cologne, Germany
    For correspondence
    Linda.Partridge@age.mpg.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9615-0094

Funding

Alzheimer's Research UK (ARUK-PG2016A-6)

  • Adrian M Isaacs

Wellcome Trust

  • Linda Partridge

Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Open-access funding)

  • Linda Partridge

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

Copyright

© 2021, Atilano 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

  • 2,795
    views
  • 357
    downloads
  • 24
    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. Magda Luciana Atilano
  2. Sebastian Grönke
  3. Teresa Niccoli
  4. Liam Kempthorne
  5. Oliver Hahn
  6. Javier Morón-Oset
  7. Oliver Hendrich
  8. Miranda Dyson
  9. Mirjam Lisette Adams
  10. Alexander Hull
  11. Marie-Therese Salcher-Konrad
  12. Amy Monaghan
  13. Magda Bictash
  14. Idoia Glaria
  15. Adrian M Isaacs
  16. Linda Partridge
(2021)
Enhanced insulin signalling ameliorates C9orf72 hexanucleotide repeat expansion toxicity in Drosophila
eLife 10:e58565.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58565

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58565

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Paul I Jaffe, Gustavo X Santiago-Reyes ... Russell A Poldrack
    Research Article

    Evidence accumulation models (EAMs) are the dominant framework for modeling response time (RT) data from speeded decision-making tasks. While providing a good quantitative description of RT data in terms of abstract perceptual representations, EAMs do not explain how the visual system extracts these representations in the first place. To address this limitation, we introduce the visual accumulator model (VAM), in which convolutional neural network models of visual processing and traditional EAMs are jointly fitted to trial-level RTs and raw (pixel-space) visual stimuli from individual subjects in a unified Bayesian framework. Models fitted to large-scale cognitive training data from a stylized flanker task captured individual differences in congruency effects, RTs, and accuracy. We find evidence that the selection of task-relevant information occurs through the orthogonalization of relevant and irrelevant representations, demonstrating how our framework can be used to relate visual representations to behavioral outputs. Together, our work provides a probabilistic framework for both constraining neural network models of vision with behavioral data and studying how the visual system extracts representations that guide decisions.

    1. Neuroscience
    Aneri Soni, Michael J Frank
    Research Article

    How and why is working memory (WM) capacity limited? Traditional cognitive accounts focus either on limitations on the number or items that can be stored (slots models), or loss of precision with increasing load (resource models). Here, we show that a neural network model of prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia can learn to reuse the same prefrontal populations to store multiple items, leading to resource-like constraints within a slot-like system, and inducing a trade-off between quantity and precision of information. Such ‘chunking’ strategies are adapted as a function of reinforcement learning and WM task demands, mimicking human performance and normative models. Moreover, adaptive performance requires a dynamic range of dopaminergic signals to adjust striatal gating policies, providing a new interpretation of WM difficulties in patient populations such as Parkinson’s disease, ADHD, and schizophrenia. These simulations also suggest a computational rather than anatomical limit to WM capacity.