A low affinity cis-regulatory BMP response element restricts target gene activation to subsets of Drosophila neurons

Abstract

Retrograde BMP signaling and canonical pMad/Medea-mediated transcription regulates diverse target genes across subsets of Drosophila efferent neurons, to differentiate neuropeptidergic neurons and promote motor neuron terminal maturation. How a common BMP signal regulates diverse target genes across neuronal subsets remains largely unresolved, although available evidence implicates subset-specific transcription factor codes rather than differences in BMP signaling. Here, we examine the cis-regulatory mechanisms restricting BMP-induced FMRFa neuropeptide expression to Tv4 neurons. We find that pMad/Medea bind at an atypical, low affinity motif in the FMRFa enhancer. Converting this motif to high affinity caused ectopic enhancer activity and eliminated Tv4 neuron expression. In silico searches identified additional motif instances functional in other efferent neurons, implicating broader functions for this motif in BMP-dependent enhancer activity. Thus, differential interpretation of a common BMP signal, conferred by low affinity pMad/Medea binding motifs, can contribute to the specification of BMP target genes in efferent neuron subsets.

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. Anthony JE Berndt

    Department of Food & Fuel for the 21st Century, University of California San, Diego, San Diego, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0132-7393
  2. Katerina M Othonos

    Cellular and Physiological Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Tianshun Lian

    Cellular and Physiological Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Stephane Flibotte

    UBC/LSI Bioinformatics Facility, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Mo Miao

    Cellular and Physiological Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Shamsuddin Buiyan

    Psychiatry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Raymond Y Cho

    Cellular and Physiological Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Justin S Fong

    Cellular and Physiological Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Seo Am Hur

    Cellular and Physiological Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4163-7182
  10. Paul Pavlidis

    Psychiatry/Michael Smith Laboratories, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0426-5028
  11. Douglas W Allan

    Cellular and Physiological Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
    For correspondence
    doug.allan@ubc.ca
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3488-8365

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP-98011)

  • Douglas W Allan

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP-130517)

  • Douglas W Allan

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

Version history

  1. Received: June 3, 2020
  2. Accepted: October 29, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: October 30, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: November 16, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Berndt 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

  • 1,040
    views
  • 142
    downloads
  • 3
    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. Anthony JE Berndt
  2. Katerina M Othonos
  3. Tianshun Lian
  4. Stephane Flibotte
  5. Mo Miao
  6. Shamsuddin Buiyan
  7. Raymond Y Cho
  8. Justin S Fong
  9. Seo Am Hur
  10. Paul Pavlidis
  11. Douglas W Allan
(2020)
A low affinity cis-regulatory BMP response element restricts target gene activation to subsets of Drosophila neurons
eLife 9:e59650.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59650

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59650

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Sanggeon Park, Yeowool Huh ... Jeiwon Cho
    Research Article

    The brain’s ability to appraise threats and execute appropriate defensive responses is essential for survival in a dynamic environment. Humans studies have implicated the anterior insular cortex (aIC) in subjective fear regulation and its abnormal activity in fear/anxiety disorders. However, the complex aIC connectivity patterns involved in regulating fear remain under investigated. To address this, we recorded single units in the aIC of freely moving male mice that had previously undergone auditory fear conditioning, assessed the effect of optogenetically activating specific aIC output structures in fear, and examined the organization of aIC neurons projecting to the specific structures with retrograde tracing. Single-unit recordings revealed that a balanced number of aIC pyramidal neurons’ activity either positively or negatively correlated with a conditioned tone-induced freezing (fear) response. Optogenetic manipulations of aIC pyramidal neuronal activity during conditioned tone presentation altered the expression of conditioned freezing. Neural tracing showed that non-overlapping populations of aIC neurons project to the amygdala or the medial thalamus, and the pathway bidirectionally modulated conditioned fear. Specifically, optogenetic stimulation of the aIC-amygdala pathway increased conditioned freezing, while optogenetic stimulation of the aIC-medial thalamus pathway decreased it. Our findings suggest that the balance of freezing-excited and freezing-inhibited neuronal activity in the aIC and the distinct efferent circuits interact collectively to modulate fear behavior.

    1. Neuroscience
    Jonathan S Tsay, Hyosub E Kim ... Richard B Ivry
    Review Article

    Motor learning is often viewed as a unitary process that operates outside of conscious awareness. This perspective has led to the development of sophisticated models designed to elucidate the mechanisms of implicit sensorimotor learning. In this review, we argue for a broader perspective, emphasizing the contribution of explicit strategies to sensorimotor learning tasks. Furthermore, we propose a theoretical framework for motor learning that consists of three fundamental processes: reasoning, the process of understanding action–outcome relationships; refinement, the process of optimizing sensorimotor and cognitive parameters to achieve motor goals; and retrieval, the process of inferring the context and recalling a control policy. We anticipate that this ‘3R’ framework for understanding how complex movements are learned will open exciting avenues for future research at the intersection between cognition and action.