Investigation of Drosophila fruitless neurons that express Dpr/DIP cell adhesion molecules

  1. Savannah G Brovero
  2. Julia C Fortier
  3. Hongru Hu
  4. Pamela C Lovejoy
  5. Nicole R Newell
  6. Colleen M Palmateer
  7. Ruei-Ying Tzeng
  8. Pei-Tseng Lee
  9. Kai Zinn
  10. Michelle N Arbeitman  Is a corresponding author
  1. Florida State University, United States
  2. Baylor College of Medicine, United States
  3. California Institute of Technology, United States

Abstract

Drosophila reproductive behaviors are directed by fruitless neurons. A reanalysis of genomic studies shows that genes encoding dpr and DIP Immunoglobulin superfamily (IgSF) members are expressed in fru P1 neurons. We find that each fru P1 and dpr/DIP (fru P1dpr/DIP) overlapping expression pattern is similar in both sexes, but there are dimorphisms in neuronal morphology and cell number. Behavioral studies of fru P1dpr/DIP perturbation genotypes indicates that the mushroom body functions together with the lateral protocerebral complex to direct courtship behavior. A single-cell RNA-seq analysis of fru P1 neurons shows that many DIPs have high expression in a small set of neurons, whereas the dprs are often expressed in a larger set of neurons at intermediate levels, with a myriad of dpr/DIP expression combinations. Functionally, we find that perturbations of sex hierarchy genes and of DIP-ε change the sex-specific morphologies of fru P1DIP-α neurons.

Data availability

All raw data are provided in the supplementary materials. The sequencing data has been deposited in GEO under accession number GSE162098

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Savannah G Brovero

    Biomedical Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Julia C Fortier

    Biomedical Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Hongru Hu

    Biomedical Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Pamela C Lovejoy

    Biomedical Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Nicole R Newell

    Biomedical Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Colleen M Palmateer

    Biomedical Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Ruei-Ying Tzeng

    Biomedical Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Pei-Tseng Lee

    Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Kai Zinn

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6706-5605
  10. Michelle N Arbeitman

    Biomedical Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, United States
    For correspondence
    michelle.arbeitman@med.fsu.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2437-4352

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01 grant number R01GM073039)

  • Savannah G Brovero
  • Julia C Fortier
  • Hongru Hu
  • Pamela C Lovejoy
  • Nicole R Newell
  • Colleen M Palmateer
  • Ruei-Ying Tzeng
  • Michelle N Arbeitman

National Institutes of Health (R03 grant number R03NS090184)

  • Ruei-Ying Tzeng

National Institutes of Health (R01 grant number R01GM073039)

  • Michelle N Arbeitman

Florida State University (R01 grant number Biomedical Sciences)

  • Hongru Hu
  • Pamela C Lovejoy
  • Nicole R Newell
  • Colleen M Palmateer

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Michael B Eisen, University of California, Berkeley, United States

Version history

  1. Received: September 17, 2020
  2. Accepted: February 22, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 22, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 18, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2021, Brovero 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

  • 2,560
    views
  • 288
    downloads
  • 17
    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. Savannah G Brovero
  2. Julia C Fortier
  3. Hongru Hu
  4. Pamela C Lovejoy
  5. Nicole R Newell
  6. Colleen M Palmateer
  7. Ruei-Ying Tzeng
  8. Pei-Tseng Lee
  9. Kai Zinn
  10. Michelle N Arbeitman
(2021)
Investigation of Drosophila fruitless neurons that express Dpr/DIP cell adhesion molecules
eLife 10:e63101.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63101

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63101

Further reading

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    Doo Eun Choi, Jun Wan Shin ... Jong-Min Lee
    Research Article

    An expanded CAG repeat in the huntingtin gene (HTT) causes Huntington’s disease (HD). Since the length of uninterrupted CAG repeat, not polyglutamine, determines the age-at-onset in HD, base editing strategies to convert CAG to CAA are anticipated to delay onset by shortening the uninterrupted CAG repeat. Here, we developed base editing strategies to convert CAG in the repeat to CAA and determined their molecular outcomes and effects on relevant disease phenotypes. Base editing strategies employing combinations of cytosine base editors and guide RNAs (gRNAs) efficiently converted CAG to CAA at various sites in the CAG repeat without generating significant indels, off-target edits, or transcriptome alterations, demonstrating their feasibility and specificity. Candidate BE strategies converted CAG to CAA on both expanded and non-expanded CAG repeats without altering HTT mRNA and protein levels. In addition, somatic CAG repeat expansion, which is the major disease driver in HD, was significantly decreased in the liver by a candidate BE strategy treatment in HD knock-in mice carrying canonical CAG repeats. Notably, CAG repeat expansion was abolished entirely in HD knock-in mice carrying CAA-interrupted repeats, supporting the therapeutic potential of CAG-to-CAA conversion strategies in HD and potentially other repeat expansion disorders.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Yangzi Zhao, Lijun Ren ... Zhukuan Cheng
    Research Article

    Cohesin is a multi-subunit protein that plays a pivotal role in holding sister chromatids together during cell division. Sister chromatid cohesion 3 (SCC3), constituents of cohesin complex, is highly conserved from yeast to mammals. Since the deletion of individual cohesin subunit always causes lethality, it is difficult to dissect its biological function in both mitosis and meiosis. Here, we obtained scc3 weak mutants using CRISPR-Cas9 system to explore its function during rice mitosis and meiosis. The scc3 weak mutants displayed obvious vegetative defects and complete sterility, underscoring the essential roles of SCC3 in both mitosis and meiosis. SCC3 is localized on chromatin from interphase to prometaphase in mitosis. However, in meiosis, SCC3 acts as an axial element during early prophase I and subsequently situates onto centromeric regions following the disassembly of the synaptonemal complex. The loading of SCC3 onto meiotic chromosomes depends on REC8. scc3 shows severe defects in homologous pairing and synapsis. Consequently, SCC3 functions as an axial element that is essential for maintaining homologous chromosome pairing and synapsis during meiosis.