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

  • 3,656
    views
  • 457
    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
    Sean McCracken, Liam McCoy ... Josh L Morgan
    Research Article

    In albino mice and EphB1 knockout mice, mistargeted retinal ganglion cell axons form dense islands of axon terminals in the dorsal lateral geniculate nuclei (dLGN). The formation of these islands of retinal input depends on developmental patterns of spontaneous retinal activity. We reconstructed the microcircuitry of the activity-dependent islands and found that the boundaries of the island represent a remarkably strong segregation within retinogeniculate connectivity. We conclude that when sets of retinal input are established in the wrong part of the dLGN, the developing circuitry responds by forming a synaptically isolated subcircuit within the otherwise fully connected network. The fact that there is a developmental starting condition that can induce a synaptically segregated microcircuit has important implications for our understanding of the organization of visual circuits and our understanding of the implementation of activity-dependent development.

    1. Neuroscience
    Björn Herrmann
    Research Article

    Neural activity in auditory cortex tracks the amplitude-onset envelope of continuous speech, but recent work counterintuitively suggests that neural tracking increases when speech is masked by background noise, despite reduced speech intelligibility. Noise-related amplification could indicate that stochastic resonance – the response facilitation through noise – supports neural speech tracking, but a comprehensive account is lacking. In five human electroencephalography experiments, the current study demonstrates a generalized enhancement of neural speech tracking due to minimal background noise. Results show that (1) neural speech tracking is enhanced for speech masked by background noise at very high signal-to-noise ratios (~30 dB SNR) where speech is highly intelligible; (2) this enhancement is independent of attention; (3) it generalizes across different stationary background maskers, but is strongest for 12-talker babble; and (4) it is present for headphone and free-field listening, suggesting that the neural-tracking enhancement generalizes to real-life listening. The work paints a clear picture that minimal background noise enhances the neural representation of the speech onset-envelope, suggesting that stochastic resonance contributes to neural speech tracking. The work further highlights non-linearities of neural tracking induced by background noise that make its use as a biological marker for speech processing challenging.