Control of feeding by Piezo-mediated gut mechanosensation in Drosophila

  1. Soohong Min
  2. Yangkyun Oh
  3. Pushpa Verma
  4. Samuel C Whitehead
  5. Nilay Yapici
  6. David Van Vactor
  7. Greg SB Suh
  8. Stephen Liberles  Is a corresponding author
  1. Harvard Medical School, United States
  2. Skirball Institute, NYU, United States
  3. Cornell University, United States

Abstract

Across animal species, meals are terminated after ingestion of large food volumes, yet underlying mechanosensory receptors have so far remained elusive. Here, we identify an essential role for Drosophila Piezo in volume-based control of meal size. We discover a rare population of fly neurons that express Piezo, innervate the anterior gut and crop (a food reservoir organ), and respond to tissue distension in a Piezo-dependent manner. Activating Piezo neurons decreases appetite, while Piezo knockout and Piezo neuron silencing cause gut bloating and increase both food consumption and body weight. These studies reveal that disrupting gut distension receptors changes feeding patterns, and identify a key role for Drosophila Piezo in internal organ mechanosensation.

Data availability

All datapoints used are provided in Figures and in a Source Data File.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Soohong Min

    Cell Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Yangkyun Oh

    Molecular Neurobiology, Skirball Institute, NYU, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Pushpa Verma

    Cell Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Samuel C Whitehead

    Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Nilay Yapici

    Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University, Ithaca, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. David Van Vactor

    Department of Cell Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Greg SB Suh

    Molecular Neurobiology, Skirball Institute, NYU, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Stephen Liberles

    Department of Cell Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, United States
    For correspondence
    Stephen_Liberles@hms.harvard.edu
    Competing interests
    Stephen Liberles, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2177-9741

Funding

American Heart Association (20POST35210914)

  • Soohong Min

National Institutes of Health (NS090994)

  • David Van Vactor

National Institutes of Health (RO1DK116294)

  • Greg SB Suh

National Institutes of Health (RO1DK106636)

  • Greg SB Suh

Samsung Science and Technology Foundation (SSTF-BA-1802-11)

  • Greg SB Suh

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Stephen Liberles

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

Copyright

© 2021, Min 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

  • 6,209
    views
  • 826
    downloads
  • 57
    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. Soohong Min
  2. Yangkyun Oh
  3. Pushpa Verma
  4. Samuel C Whitehead
  5. Nilay Yapici
  6. David Van Vactor
  7. Greg SB Suh
  8. Stephen Liberles
(2021)
Control of feeding by Piezo-mediated gut mechanosensation in Drosophila
eLife 10:e63049.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63049

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63049

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Yafen Li, Yixuan Lin ... Antao Chen
    Research Article

    Concurrent verbal working memory task can eliminate the color-word Stroop effect. Previous research, based on specific and limited resources, suggested that the disappearance of the conflict effect was due to the memory information preempting the resources for distractors. However, it remains unclear which particular stage of Stroop conflict processing is influenced by working memory loads. In this study, electroencephalography (EEG) recordings with event-related potential (ERP) analyses, time-frequency analyses, multivariate pattern analyses (MVPAs), and representational similarity analyses (RSAs) were applied to provide an in-depth investigation of the aforementioned issue. Subjects were required to complete the single task (the classical manual color-word Stroop task) and the dual task (the Sternberg working memory task combined with the Stroop task), respectively. Behaviorally, the results indicated that the Stroop effect was eliminated in the dual-task condition. The EEG results showed that the concurrent working memory task did not modulate the P1, N450, and alpha bands. However, it modulated the sustained potential (SP), late theta (740–820 ms), and beta (920–1040 ms) power, showing no difference between congruent and incongruent trials in the dual-task condition but significant difference in the single-task condition. Importantly, the RSA results revealed that the neural activation pattern of the late theta was similar to the response interaction pattern. Together, these findings implied that the concurrent working memory task eliminated the Stroop effect through disrupting stimulus-response mapping.

    1. Neuroscience
    Samuel Noorman, Timo Stein ... Simon van Gaal
    Research Article

    This study investigates failures in conscious access resulting from either weak sensory input (perceptual impairments) or unattended input (attentional impairments). Participants viewed a Kanizsa stimulus with or without an illusory triangle within a rapid serial visual presentation of distractor stimuli. We designed a novel Kanizsa stimulus that contained additional ancillary features of different complexity (local contrast and collinearity) that were independently manipulated. Perceptual performance on the Kanizsa stimulus (presence vs. absence of an illusion) was equated between the perceptual (masking) and attentional (attentional blink) manipulation to circumvent common confounds related to conditional differences in task performance. We trained and tested classifiers on electroencephalogram (EEG) data to reflect the processing of specific stimulus features, with increasing levels of complexity. We show that late stages of processing (~200–250 ms), reflecting the integration of complex stimulus features (collinearity, illusory triangle), were impaired by masking but spared by the attentional blink. In contrast, decoding of local contrast (the spatial arrangement of stimulus features) was observed early in time (~80 ms) and was left largely unaffected by either manipulation. These results replicate previous work showing that feedforward processing is largely preserved under both perceptual and attentional impairments. Crucially, however, under matched levels of performance, only attentional impairments left the processing of more complex visual features relatively intact, likely related to spared lateral and local feedback processes during inattention. These findings reveal distinct neural mechanisms associated with perceptual and attentional impairments and thus contribute to a comprehensive understanding of distinct neural stages leading to conscious access.