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

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

Version 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

  • 4,388
    views
  • 579
    downloads
  • 35
    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. 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

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63450

Further reading

    1. Immunology and Inflammation
    2. Neuroscience
    Nicolas Aubert, Madeleine Purcarea ... Gilles Marodon
    Research Article

    CD4+CD25+Foxp3+ regulatory T cells (Treg) have been implicated in pain modulation in various inflammatory conditions. However, whether Treg cells hamper pain at steady state and by which mechanism is still unclear. From a meta-analysis of the transcriptomes of murine Treg and conventional T cells (Tconv), we observe that the proenkephalin gene (Penk), encoding the precursor of analgesic opioid peptides, ranks among the top 25 genes most enriched in Treg cells. We then present various evidence suggesting that Penk is regulated in part by members of the Tumor Necrosis Factor Receptor (TNFR) family and the transcription factor Basic leucine zipper transcription faatf-like (BATF). Using mice in which the promoter activity of Penk can be tracked with a fluorescent reporter, we also show that Penk expression is mostly detected in Treg and activated Tconv in non-inflammatory conditions in the colon and skin. Functionally, Treg cells proficient or deficient for Penk suppress equally well the proliferation of effector T cells in vitro and autoimmune colitis in vivo. In contrast, inducible ablation of Penk in Treg leads to heat hyperalgesia in both male and female mice. Overall, our results indicate that Treg might play a key role at modulating basal somatic sensitivity in mice through the production of analgesic opioid peptides.

    1. Neuroscience
    James Malkin, Cian O'Donnell ... Laurence Aitchison
    Research Article

    Biological synaptic transmission is unreliable, and this unreliability likely degrades neural circuit performance. While there are biophysical mechanisms that can increase reliability, for instance by increasing vesicle release probability, these mechanisms cost energy. We examined four such mechanisms along with the associated scaling of the energetic costs. We then embedded these energetic costs for reliability in artificial neural networks (ANNs) with trainable stochastic synapses, and trained these networks on standard image classification tasks. The resulting networks revealed a tradeoff between circuit performance and the energetic cost of synaptic reliability. Additionally, the optimised networks exhibited two testable predictions consistent with pre-existing experimental data. Specifically, synapses with lower variability tended to have (1) higher input firing rates and (2) lower learning rates. Surprisingly, these predictions also arise when synapse statistics are inferred through Bayesian inference. Indeed, we were able to find a formal, theoretical link between the performance-reliability cost tradeoff and Bayesian inference. This connection suggests two incompatible possibilities: evolution may have chanced upon a scheme for implementing Bayesian inference by optimising energy efficiency, or alternatively, energy-efficient synapses may display signatures of Bayesian inference without actually using Bayes to reason about uncertainty.