Glia-neuron coupling via a bipartite sialylation pathway promotes neural transmission and stress tolerance in Drosophila

  1. Hilary Scott
  2. Boris Novikov
  3. Berrak Ugur
  4. Brooke Allen
  5. Ilya Mertsalov
  6. Pedro Monagas-Valentin
  7. Melissa Koff
  8. Sarah Baas Robinson
  9. Kazuhiro Aoki
  10. Raisa Veizaj
  11. Dirk Lefeber
  12. Michael Tiemeyer
  13. Hugo J Bellen
  14. Vladislav Panin  Is a corresponding author
  1. Texas A&M University, United States
  2. Baylor College of Medicine, United States
  3. University of Georgia, United States
  4. Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Netherlands

Abstract

Modification by sialylated glycans can affect protein functions, underlying mechanisms that control animal development and physiology. Sialylation relies on a dedicated pathway involving evolutionarily conserved enzymes, including CMP-sialic acid synthetase (CSAS) and sialyltransferase (SiaT) that mediate the activation of sialic acid and its transfer onto glycan termini, respectively. In Drosophila, CSAS and DSiaT genes function in the nervous system, affecting neural transmission and excitability. We found that these genes function in different cells: the function of CSAS is restricted to glia, while DSiaT functions in neurons. This partition of the sialylation pathway allows for regulation of neural functions via a glia-mediated control of neural sialylation. The sialylation genes were shown to be required for tolerance to heat and oxidative stress and for maintenance of the normal level of voltage-gated sodium channels. Our results uncovered a unique bipartite sialylation pathway that mediates glia-neuron coupling and regulates neural excitability and stress tolerance.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting file; Source Data files have been uploaded to a public repository for Tables 1 and Supplementary Table 3

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Hilary Scott

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Boris Novikov

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Berrak Ugur

    Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4806-8891
  4. Brooke Allen

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Ilya Mertsalov

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Pedro Monagas-Valentin

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Melissa Koff

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Sarah Baas Robinson

    Complex Carbohydrate Research Center, University of Georgia, Athens, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Kazuhiro Aoki

    Complex Carbohydrate Research Center, University of Georgia, Athens, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Raisa Veizaj

    Department of Laboratory Medicine, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Dirk Lefeber

    Department of Laboratory Medicine, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Michael Tiemeyer

    Complex Carbohydrate Research Center, University of Georgia, Athens, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Hugo J Bellen

    Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    Hugo J Bellen, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5992-5989
  14. Vladislav Panin

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, United States
    For correspondence
    panin@tamu.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9126-1481

Funding

National Institutes of Health (NS099409)

  • Vladislav Panin

National Institutes of Health (NS075534)

  • Vladislav Panin

TAMU-COANCYT (2012-037(S))

  • Vladislav Panin

TAMU AgriLife IHA

  • Vladislav Panin

National Institutes of Health (GM103490)

  • Michael Tiemeyer

Radboud Consortium for Glycoscience

  • Dirk Lefeber

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Vilaiwan M Fernandes, University College London, United Kingdom

Version history

  1. Received: March 1, 2022
  2. Preprint posted: March 29, 2022 (view preprint)
  3. Accepted: March 16, 2023
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: March 22, 2023 (version 1)
  5. Version of Record published: April 17, 2023 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2023, Scott 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

  • 1,061
    views
  • 192
    downloads
  • 0
    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. Hilary Scott
  2. Boris Novikov
  3. Berrak Ugur
  4. Brooke Allen
  5. Ilya Mertsalov
  6. Pedro Monagas-Valentin
  7. Melissa Koff
  8. Sarah Baas Robinson
  9. Kazuhiro Aoki
  10. Raisa Veizaj
  11. Dirk Lefeber
  12. Michael Tiemeyer
  13. Hugo J Bellen
  14. Vladislav Panin
(2023)
Glia-neuron coupling via a bipartite sialylation pathway promotes neural transmission and stress tolerance in Drosophila
eLife 12:e78280.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78280

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78280

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Natalia E Ketaren, Fred D Mast ... John D Aitchison
    Research Advance

    To date, all major modes of monoclonal antibody therapy targeting SARS-CoV-2 have lost significant efficacy against the latest circulating variants. As SARS-CoV-2 omicron sublineages account for over 90% of COVID-19 infections, evasion of immune responses generated by vaccination or exposure to previous variants poses a significant challenge. A compelling new therapeutic strategy against SARS-CoV-2 is that of single-domain antibodies, termed nanobodies, which address certain limitations of monoclonal antibodies. Here, we demonstrate that our high-affinity nanobody repertoire, generated against wild-type SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (Mast et al., 2021), remains effective against variants of concern, including omicron BA.4/BA.5; a subset is predicted to counter resistance in emerging XBB and BQ.1.1 sublineages. Furthermore, we reveal the synergistic potential of nanobody cocktails in neutralizing emerging variants. Our study highlights the power of nanobody technology as a versatile therapeutic and diagnostic tool to combat rapidly evolving infectious diseases such as SARS-CoV-2.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Benjamin R Duewell, Naomi E Wilson ... Scott D Hansen
    Research Article

    Phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) beta (PI3Kβ) is functionally unique in the ability to integrate signals derived from receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs), G-protein coupled receptors, and Rho-family GTPases. The mechanism by which PI3Kβ prioritizes interactions with various membrane-tethered signaling inputs, however, remains unclear. Previous experiments did not determine whether interactions with membrane-tethered proteins primarily control PI3Kβ localization versus directly modulate lipid kinase activity. To address this gap in our knowledge, we established an assay to directly visualize how three distinct protein interactions regulate PI3Kβ when presented to the kinase in a biologically relevant configuration on supported lipid bilayers. Using single molecule Total Internal Reflection Fluorescence (TIRF) Microscopy, we determined the mechanism controlling PI3Kβ membrane localization, prioritization of signaling inputs, and lipid kinase activation. We find that auto-inhibited PI3Kβ prioritizes interactions with RTK-derived tyrosine phosphorylated (pY) peptides before engaging either GβGγ or Rac1(GTP). Although pY peptides strongly localize PI3Kβ to membranes, stimulation of lipid kinase activity is modest. In the presence of either pY/GβGγ or pY/Rac1(GTP), PI3Kβ activity is dramatically enhanced beyond what can be explained by simply increasing membrane localization. Instead, PI3Kβ is synergistically activated by pY/GβGγ and pY/Rac1 (GTP) through a mechanism consistent with allosteric regulation.