Selective dendritic localization of mRNA in Drosophila mushroom body output neurons

  1. Jessica Mitchell
  2. Carlas S Smith
  3. Josh Titlow
  4. Nils Otto
  5. Pieter van Velde
  6. Martin J Booth
  7. Ilan Davis
  8. Scott Waddell  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
  2. Delft University of Technology, Netherlands

Abstract

Memory-relevant neuronal plasticity is believed to require local translation of new proteins at synapses. Understanding this process requires the visualization of the relevant mRNAs within these neuronal compartments. Here we used single-molecule fluorescence in situ hybridization (smFISH) to localize mRNAs at subcellular resolution in the adult Drosophila brain. mRNAs for subunits of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors and kinases could be detected within the dendrites of co-labelled Mushroom Body Output Neurons (MBONs) and their relative abundance showed cell-specificity. Moreover, aversive olfactory learning produced a transient increase in the level of CaMKII mRNA within the dendritic compartments of the 52a MBONs. Localization of specific mRNAs in MBONs before and after learning represents a critical step towards deciphering the role of dendritic translation in the neuronal plasticity underlying behavioural change in Drosophila.

Data availability

Pipeline code and the User Manual are available in the GitHub repository at [https://github.com/qnano/smFISHlearning].An example dataset of raw and processed images is available at [https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Example_data/13568438].All other processed and raw datasets that support the findings of this study are available at [https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.13573475].

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jessica Mitchell

    Centre for Neural Circuits & Behaviour, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Carlas S Smith

    Centre for Neural Circuits & Behaviour, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Josh Titlow

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Nils Otto

    Centre for Neural Circuits & Behaviour, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9713-4088
  5. Pieter van Velde

    Delft Center for Systems and Control, Delft University of Technology, Kantens, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7281-8026
  6. Martin J Booth

    Department of Engineering, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Ilan Davis

    Department of Biochemistry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5385-3053
  8. Scott Waddell

    Centre for Neural Circuits & Behaviour, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    scott.waddell@cncb.ox.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4503-6229

Funding

Wellcome Trust (200846/Z/16/Z)

  • Scott Waddell

Wellcome Trust (203261/Z/16/Z)

  • Scott Waddell

ERC

  • Scott Waddell

Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research

  • Carlas S Smith

Wellcome Trust (107457)

  • Ilan Davis

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

Copyright

© 2021, Mitchell 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

  • 3,629
    views
  • 452
    downloads
  • 6
    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. Jessica Mitchell
  2. Carlas S Smith
  3. Josh Titlow
  4. Nils Otto
  5. Pieter van Velde
  6. Martin J Booth
  7. Ilan Davis
  8. Scott Waddell
(2021)
Selective dendritic localization of mRNA in Drosophila mushroom body output neurons
eLife 10:e62770.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62770

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62770

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Ilya A Rybak, Natalia A Shevtsova ... Alain Frigon
    Research Advance

    Locomotion is controlled by spinal circuits that interact with supraspinal drives and sensory feedback from the limbs. These sensorimotor interactions are disrupted following spinal cord injury. The thoracic lateral hemisection represents an experimental model of an incomplete spinal cord injury, where connections between the brain and spinal cord are abolished on one side of the cord. To investigate the effects of such an injury on the operation of the spinal locomotor network, we used our computational model of cat locomotion recently published in eLife (Rybak et al., 2024) to investigate and predict changes in cycle and phase durations following a thoracic lateral hemisection during treadmill locomotion in tied-belt (equal left-right speeds) and split-belt (unequal left-right speeds) conditions. In our simulations, the ‘hemisection’ was always applied to the right side. Based on our model, we hypothesized that following hemisection the contralesional (‘intact’, left) side of the spinal network is mostly controlled by supraspinal drives, whereas the ipsilesional (‘hemisected’, right) side is mostly controlled by somatosensory feedback. We then compared the simulated results with those obtained during experiments in adult cats before and after a mid-thoracic lateral hemisection on the right side in the same locomotor conditions. Our experimental results confirmed many effects of hemisection on cat locomotion predicted by our simulations. We show that having the ipsilesional hindlimb step on the slow belt, but not the fast belt, during split-belt locomotion substantially reduces the effects of lateral hemisection. The model provides explanations for changes in temporal characteristics of hindlimb locomotion following hemisection based on altered interactions between spinal circuits, supraspinal drives, and somatosensory feedback.

    1. Neuroscience
    Suelen Pereira, Ivan Tomsic ... Mychael V Lourenco
    Insight

    A dysfunctional signaling pathway in the hippocampus has been linked to chronic pain-related memory impairment in mice.