Enhanced insulin signalling ameliorates C9orf72 hexanucleotide repeat expansion toxicity in Drosophila

  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  Is a corresponding author
  16. Linda Partridge  Is a corresponding author
  1. University College London, United Kingdom
  2. Max Planck Institute for Biology of Ageing, Germany
  3. University College of London, United Kingdom

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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Mani Ramaswami, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

Publication history

  1. Received: May 4, 2020
  2. Accepted: March 9, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 19, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 29, 2021 (version 2)

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

  • 1,866
    Page views
  • 253
    Downloads
  • 6
    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. 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

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Arefeh Sherafati et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Cochlear implants are neuroprosthetic devices that can restore hearing in people with severe to profound hearing loss by electrically stimulating the auditory nerve. Because of physical limitations on the precision of this stimulation, the acoustic information delivered by a cochlear implant does not convey the same level of acoustic detail as that conveyed by normal hearing. As a result, speech understanding in listeners with cochlear implants is typically poorer and more effortful than in listeners with normal hearing. The brain networks supporting speech understanding in listeners with cochlear implants are not well understood, partly due to difficulties obtaining functional neuroimaging data in this population. In the current study, we assessed the brain regions supporting spoken word understanding in adult listeners with right unilateral cochlear implants (n=20) and matched controls (n=18) using high-density diffuse optical tomography (HD-DOT), a quiet and non-invasive imaging modality with spatial resolution comparable to that of functional MRI. We found that while listening to spoken words in quiet, listeners with cochlear implants showed greater activity in the left prefrontal cortex than listeners with normal hearing, specifically in a region engaged in a separate spatial working memory task. These results suggest that listeners with cochlear implants require greater cognitive processing during speech understanding than listeners with normal hearing, supported by compensatory recruitment of the left prefrontal cortex.

    1. Neuroscience
    Mohammad Ali Salehinejad et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Sleep strongly affects synaptic strength, making it critical for cognition, especially learning and memory formation. Whether and how sleep deprivation modulates human brain physiology and cognition is not well understood. Here we examined how overnight sleep deprivation vs overnight sufficient sleep affects (a) cortical excitability, measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation, (b) inducibility of long-term potentiation (LTP)- and long-term depression (LTD)-like plasticity via transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), and (c) learning, memory, and attention. The results suggest that sleep deprivation upscales cortical excitability due to enhanced glutamate-related cortical facilitation and decreases and/or reverses GABAergic cortical inhibition. Furthermore, tDCS-induced LTP-like plasticity (anodal) abolishes while the inhibitory LTD-like plasticity (cathodal) converts to excitatory LTP-like plasticity under sleep deprivation. This is associated with increased EEG theta oscillations due to sleep pressure. Finally, we show that learning and memory formation, behavioral counterparts of plasticity, and working memory and attention, which rely on cortical excitability, are impaired during sleep deprivation. Our data indicate that upscaled brain excitability and altered plasticity, due to sleep deprivation, are associated with impaired cognitive performance. Besides showing how brain physiology and cognition undergo changes (from neurophysiology to higher-order cognition) under sleep pressure, the findings have implications for variability and optimal application of noninvasive brain stimulation.