Temporal evolution of single-cell transcriptomes of Drosophila olfactory projection neurons

  1. Qijing Xie
  2. Maria Brbic
  3. Felix Horns
  4. Sai Saroja Kolluru
  5. Robert C Jones
  6. Jiefu Li
  7. Anay R Reddy
  8. Anthony Xie
  9. Sayeh Kohani
  10. Zhuoran Li
  11. Colleen N McLaughlin
  12. Tongchao Li
  13. Chuanyun Xu
  14. David Vacek
  15. David J Luginbuhl
  16. Jure Leskovec
  17. Stephen R Quake  Is a corresponding author
  18. Liqun Luo  Is a corresponding author
  19. Hongjie Li
  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, United States
  2. Stanford University, United States
  3. Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, United States

Abstract

Neurons undergo substantial morphological and functional changes during development to form precise synaptic connections and acquire specific physiological properties. What are the underlying transcriptomic bases? Here, we obtained the single-cell transcriptomes of Drosophila olfactory projection neurons (PNs) at four developmental stages. We decoded the identity of 21 transcriptomic clusters corresponding to 20 PN types and developed methods to match transcriptomic clusters representing the same PN type across development. We discovered that PN transcriptomes reflect unique biological processes unfolding at each stage—neurite growth and pruning during metamorphosis at an early pupal stage; peaked transcriptomic diversity during olfactory circuit assembly at mid-pupal stages; and neuronal signaling in adults. At early developmental stages, PN types with adjacent birth order share similar transcriptomes. Together, our work reveals principles of cellular diversity during brain development and provides a resource for future studies of neural development in PNs and other neuronal types.

Data availability

Raw sequencing reads and preprocessed sequence data have been deposited in GEO under accession code GSE161228.

The following data sets were generated
The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Qijing Xie

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Maria Brbic

    Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Felix Horns

    Biophysics Graduate Program, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5872-5061
  4. Sai Saroja Kolluru

    Department of Bioengineering, Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Robert C Jones

    Department of Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7235-9854
  6. Jiefu Li

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0062-4652
  7. Anay R Reddy

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Anthony Xie

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Sayeh Kohani

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Zhuoran Li

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Colleen N McLaughlin

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Tongchao Li

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Chuanyun Xu

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. David Vacek

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. David J Luginbuhl

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Jure Leskovec

    Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Stephen R Quake

    Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, United States
    For correspondence
    steve@quake-lab.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1613-0809
  18. Liqun Luo

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    For correspondence
    lluo@stanford.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5467-9264
  19. Hongjie Li

    Department of Biology, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Stanford University, Stanford, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01 DC005982)

  • Liqun Luo

National Institutes of Health (1K99AG062746)

  • Hongjie Li

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Liqun Luo

Stanford University (Graduate Student Fellowship)

  • Qijing Xie

Wu Tsai Neuroscience Institute at Stanford (Interdisciplinary postdoctoral scholar)

  • Hongjie Li

We Tsai Neuroscience Institute at Stanford (Neuro-omics program)

  • Liqun Luo

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Hugo J Bellen, Baylor College of Medicine, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: September 25, 2020
  2. Accepted: January 5, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 11, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: February 8, 2021 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2021, Xie 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

  • 3,429
    Page views
  • 499
    Downloads
  • 16
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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. Qijing Xie
  2. Maria Brbic
  3. Felix Horns
  4. Sai Saroja Kolluru
  5. Robert C Jones
  6. Jiefu Li
  7. Anay R Reddy
  8. Anthony Xie
  9. Sayeh Kohani
  10. Zhuoran Li
  11. Colleen N McLaughlin
  12. Tongchao Li
  13. Chuanyun Xu
  14. David Vacek
  15. David J Luginbuhl
  16. Jure Leskovec
  17. Stephen R Quake
  18. Liqun Luo
  19. Hongjie Li
(2021)
Temporal evolution of single-cell transcriptomes of Drosophila olfactory projection neurons
eLife 10:e63450.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63450

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Yiya Chen, Yige Gao ... Jiawei Zhou
    Research Article

    The adult human visual system maintains the ability to be altered by sensory deprivation. What has not been considered is whether the internal neural states modulate visual sensitivity to short-term monocular deprivation. In this study we manipulated the internal neural state and reported changes in intrinsic neural oscillations with a patched eye open or closed. We investigated the influence of eye open/eye closure on the unpatched eye's contrast sensitivity and ocular dominance (OD) shifts induced by short-term monocular deprivation. The results demonstrate that internal neural states influence not only baseline contrast sensitivity but also the extent to which the adult visual system can undergo changes in ocular dominance.

    1. Neuroscience
    2. Physics of Living Systems
    Sabrina A Jones, Jacob H Barfield ... Woodrow L Shew
    Research Article

    Naturally occurring body movements and collective neural activity both exhibit complex dynamics, often with scale-free, fractal spatiotemporal structure. Scale-free dynamics of both brain and behavior are important because each is associated with functional benefits to the organism. Despite their similarities, scale-free brain activity and scale-free behavior have been studied separately, without a unified explanation. Here we show that scale-free dynamics of mouse behavior and neurons in visual cortex are strongly related. Surprisingly, the scale-free neural activity is limited to specific subsets of neurons, and these scale-free subsets exhibit stochastic winner-take-all competition with other neural subsets. This observation is inconsistent with prevailing theories of scale-free dynamics in neural systems, which stem from the criticality hypothesis. We develop a computational model which incorporates known cell-type-specific circuit structure, explaining our findings with a new type of critical dynamics. Our results establish neural underpinnings of scale-free behavior and clear behavioral relevance of scale-free neural activity.