A developmental framework linking neurogenesis and circuit formation in the Drosophila CNS

  1. Brandon Mark
  2. Sen-Lin Lai
  3. Aref Arzan Zarin
  4. Laurina Manning
  5. Heather Q Pollington
  6. Ashok Litwin-Kumar
  7. Albert Cardona
  8. James W Truman
  9. Chris Q Doe  Is a corresponding author
  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Oregon, United States
  2. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Oregonof Oregon, United States
  3. Columbia University, United States
  4. University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
  5. Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, United States

Abstract

The mechanisms specifying neuronal diversity are well-characterized, yet it remains unclear how or if these mechanisms regulate neural circuit assembly. To address this, we mapped the developmental origin of 160 interneurons from seven bilateral neural progenitors (neuroblasts), and identify them in a synapse-scale TEM reconstruction of the Drosophila larval CNS. We find that lineages concurrently build the sensory and motor neuropils by generating sensory and motor hemilineages in a Notch-dependent manner. Neurons in a hemilineage share common synaptic targeting within the neuropil, which is further refined based on neuronal temporal identity. Connectome analysis shows that hemilineage-temporal cohorts share common connectivity. Finally, we show that proximity alone cannot explain the observed connectivity structure, suggesting hemilineage/temporal identity confers an added layer of specificity. Thus, we demonstrate that the mechanisms specifying neuronal diversity also govern circuit formation and function, and that these principles are broadly applicable throughout the nervous system.

Data availability

All data are publicly available from https://github.com/bjm5164/Mark2020_larval_development.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Brandon Mark

    Institute of Neuroscience, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Oregon, Eugene, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Sen-Lin Lai

    Institute of Neuroscience, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Oregon, Eugene, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7531-283X
  3. Aref Arzan Zarin

    Institute of Neuroscience, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Oregon, Eugene, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0484-3622
  4. Laurina Manning

    Institute of Neuroscience, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Oregonof Oregon, Eugene, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Heather Q Pollington

    Institute of Neuroscience, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Oregon, Eugene, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Ashok Litwin-Kumar

    Department of Neuroscience, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2422-6576
  7. Albert Cardona

    Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    Albert Cardona, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4941-6536
  8. James W Truman

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9209-5435
  9. Chris Q Doe

    Institute of Neuroscience, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Oregon, Eugene, United States
    For correspondence
    cdoe@uoregon.edu
    Competing interests
    Chris Q Doe, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5980-8029

Funding

NIH (HD27056)

  • Brandon Mark
  • Sen-Lin Lai
  • Aref Arzan Zarin
  • Laurina Manning
  • Heather Q Pollington
  • Chris Q Doe

HHMI

  • Brandon Mark
  • Sen-Lin Lai
  • Aref Arzan Zarin
  • Laurina Manning
  • Heather Q Pollington
  • Chris Q Doe

HHMI - Janelia Research Campus

  • Albert Cardona
  • James W Truman

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Claude Desplan, New York University, United States

Version history

  1. Received: February 12, 2021
  2. Accepted: May 10, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 11, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: May 21, 2021 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record updated: June 15, 2021 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2021, Mark 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

  • 2,656
    views
  • 392
    downloads
  • 24
    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. Brandon Mark
  2. Sen-Lin Lai
  3. Aref Arzan Zarin
  4. Laurina Manning
  5. Heather Q Pollington
  6. Ashok Litwin-Kumar
  7. Albert Cardona
  8. James W Truman
  9. Chris Q Doe
(2021)
A developmental framework linking neurogenesis and circuit formation in the Drosophila CNS
eLife 10:e67510.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.67510

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.67510

Further reading

    1. Developmental Biology
    Edgar M Pera, Josefine Nilsson-De Moura ... Ivana Milas
    Research Article

    We previously showed that SerpinE2 and the serine protease HtrA1 modulate fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signaling in germ layer specification and head-to-tail development of Xenopus embryos. Here, we present an extracellular proteolytic mechanism involving this serpin-protease system in the developing neural crest (NC). Knockdown of SerpinE2 by injected antisense morpholino oligonucleotides did not affect the specification of NC progenitors but instead inhibited the migration of NC cells, causing defects in dorsal fin, melanocyte, and craniofacial cartilage formation. Similarly, overexpression of the HtrA1 protease impaired NC cell migration and the formation of NC-derived structures. The phenotype of SerpinE2 knockdown was overcome by concomitant downregulation of HtrA1, indicating that SerpinE2 stimulates NC migration by inhibiting endogenous HtrA1 activity. SerpinE2 binds to HtrA1, and the HtrA1 protease triggers degradation of the cell surface proteoglycan Syndecan-4 (Sdc4). Microinjection of Sdc4 mRNA partially rescued NC migration defects induced by both HtrA1 upregulation and SerpinE2 downregulation. These epistatic experiments suggest a proteolytic pathway by a double inhibition mechanism:

    SerpinE2 ┤HtrA1 protease ┤Syndecan-4 → NC cell migration.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Kristine B Walhovd, Stine K Krogsrud ... Didac Vidal-Pineiro
    Research Article

    Human fetal development has been associated with brain health at later stages. It is unknown whether growth in utero, as indexed by birth weight (BW), relates consistently to lifespan brain characteristics and changes, and to what extent these influences are of a genetic or environmental nature. Here we show remarkably stable and lifelong positive associations between BW and cortical surface area and volume across and within developmental, aging and lifespan longitudinal samples (N = 5794, 4–82 y of age, w/386 monozygotic twins, followed for up to 8.3 y w/12,088 brain MRIs). In contrast, no consistent effect of BW on brain changes was observed. Partly environmental effects were indicated by analysis of twin BW discordance. In conclusion, the influence of prenatal growth on cortical topography is stable and reliable through the lifespan. This early-life factor appears to influence the brain by association of brain reserve, rather than brain maintenance. Thus, fetal influences appear omnipresent in the spacetime of the human brain throughout the human lifespan. Optimizing fetal growth may increase brain reserve for life, also in aging.