Loss of Flower/FLWR-1 induces an increase in neuronal excitability and causes defective recycling of synaptic vesicles

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, Seidenthal et al. investigated the role of the C. elegans Flower protein, FLWR-1, in synaptic transmission, vesicle recycling, and neuronal excitability. They confirmed that FLWR-1 localizes to synaptic vesicles and the plasma membrane and facilitates synaptic vesicle recycling at neuromuscular junctions, albeit in an unexpected manner. The authors observed that hyperstimulation results in endosome accumulation in flwr-1 mutant synapses, suggesting that FLWR-1 facilitates the breakdown of endocytic endosomes, which differs from earlier studies in flies that suggested the Flower protein promotes the formation of bulk endosomes. This is a valuable finding. Using tissue-specific rescue experiments, the authors showed that expressing FLWR-1 in GABAergic neurons restored the aldicarb-resistant phenotype seen in flwr-1 mutants to wild-type levels. In contrast, FLWR-1 expression in cholinergic neurons in flwr-1 mutants did not restore aldicarb sensitivity, yet muscle expression of FLWR-1 partially but significantly recovered the aldicarb-resistant defects. The study also revealed that removing FLWR-1 leads to increased Ca2+ signaling in motor neurons upon photo-stimulation. Further, the authors conclude that FLWR-1 contributes to the maintenance of the excitation/inhibition (E/I) balance by preferentially regulating the excitability of GABAergic neurons. Finally, SNG-1::pHluorin data imply that FLWR-1 removal enhances synaptic transmission, however, the electrophysiological recordings do not corroborate this finding.

Strengths:

This study by Seidenthal et al. offers valuable insights into the role of the Flower protein, FLWR-1, in C. elegans. Their findings suggest that FLWR-1 facilitates the breakdown of endocytic endosomes, which marks a departure from its previously suggested role in forming endosomes through bulk endocytosis. This observation could be important for understanding how Flower proteins function across species. In addition, the study proposes that FLWR-1 plays a role in maintaining the excitation/inhibition balance, which has potential impacts on neuronal activity.

Weaknesses:

One issue is the lack of follow-up tests regarding the relative contributions of muscle and GABAergic FLWR-1 to aldicarb sensitivity. The findings that muscle expression of FLWR-1 can significantly rescue aldicarb sensitivity are intriguing and may influence both experimental design and data interpretation. Have the authors examined aldicarb sensitivity when FLWR-1 is expressed in both muscles and GABAergic neurons, or possibly in muscles and cholinergic neurons? Given that muscles could influence neuronal activity through retrograde signaling, a thorough examination of FLWR-1's role in muscle is necessary, in my opinion.

Would the results from electrophysiological recordings and GCaMP measurements be altered with muscle expression of FLWR-1? Most experiments presented in the manuscript compare wild-type and flwr-1 mutant animals. However, without tissue-specific knockout, knockdown, or rescue experiments, it is difficult to separate cell-autonomous roles from non-cell-autonomous effects, in particular in the context of aldicarb assay results. Also, relying solely on levamisole paralysis experiments is not sufficient to rule out changes in muscle AChRs, particularly due to the presence of levamisole-resistant receptors.

This issue regarding the muscle role of FLWR-1 also complicates the interpretation of results from coelomocyte uptake experiments, where GFP secreted from muscles and coelomocyte fluorescence were used to estimate endocytosis levels. A decrease in coelomocyte GFP could result from either reduced endocytosis in coelomocytes or decreased secretion from muscles. Therefore, coelomocyte-specific rescue experiments seem necessary to distinguish between these possibilities.

The manuscript states that GCaMP was used to estimate Ca2+ levels at presynaptic sites. However, due to the rapid diffusion of both Ca2+ and GCaMP, it is unclear how this assay distinguishes Ca2+ levels specifically at presynaptic sites versus those in axons. What are the relative contributions of VGCCs and ER calcium stores here? This raises a question about whether the authors are measuring the local impact of FLWR-1 specifically at presynaptic sites or more general changes in cytoplasmic calcium levels.

The experiments showing FLWR-1's presynaptic localization need clarification/improvement. For example, data shown in Fig. 3B represent GFP::FLWR-1 is expressed under its own promoter, and TagRFP::ELKS-1 is expressed exclusively in GABAergic neurons. Given that the pflwr-1 drives expression in both cholinergic and GABAergic neurons, and there are more cholinergic synapses outnumbering GABAergic ones in the nerve cord, it would be expected that many green FLWR-1 puncta do not associate with TagRFP::ELKS-1. However, several images in Figure 3B suggest an almost perfect correlation between FLWR-1 and ELKS-1 puncta. It would be helpful for the readers to understand the exact location in the nerve cord where these images were collected to avoid confusion.

The SNG-1::pHluorin data in Figure 5C is significant, as they suggest increased synaptic transmission at flwr-1 mutant synapses. However, to draw conclusions, it is necessary to verify whether the total amount of SNG-1::pHluorin present on synaptic vesicles remains the same between flwr-1 mutant and wild-type synapses. Without this comparison, a conclusion on levels of synaptic vesicle release based on changes in fluorescence might be premature, in particular given the results of electrophysiological recordings.

Finally, the interpretation of the E74Q mutation results needs reconsideration. Figure 8B indicates that the E74Q variant of FLWR-1 partially loses its rescuing ability, which suggests that the E74Q mutation adversely affects the function of FLWR-1. Why did the authors expect that the role of FLWR-1 should have been completely abolished by E74Q? Given that FLWR-1 appears to work in multiple tissues, might FLWR-1's function in neurons requires its calcium channel activity, whereas its role in muscles might be independent of this feature? While I understand there is ongoing debate about whether FLWR-1 is a calcium channel, the experiments in this study do not definitively resolve local Ca2+ dynamics at synapses. Thus, in my opinion, it may be premature to draw firm conclusions about calcium influx through FLWR-1.

Also, the aldicarb data presented in Figures 8B and 8D show notable inconsistencies that require clarification. While Figure 8B indicates that the 50% paralysis time for flwr-1 mutant worms occurs at 3.5-4 hours, Figure 8D shows that 50% paralysis takes approximately 2.5 hours for the same flwr-1 mutants. This discrepancy should be addressed. In addition, the manuscript mentions that the E74Q mutation impairs FLWR-1 folding, which could significantly affect its function. Can the authors show empirical data supporting this claim?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The Flower protein is expressed in various cell types, including neurons. Previous studies in flies have proposed that Flower plays a role in neuronal endocytosis by functioning as a Ca2+ channel. However, its precise physiological roles and molecular mechanisms in neurons remain largely unclear. This study employs C. elegans as a model to explore the function and mechanism of FLWR-1, the C. elegans homolog of Flower. This study offers intriguing observations that could potentially challenge or expand our current understanding of the Flower protein. Nevertheless, further clarification or additional experiments are required to substantiate the study's conclusions.

Strengths:

A range of approaches was employed, including the use of a flwr-1 knockout strain, assessment of cholinergic synaptic activity via analyzing aldicarb (a cholinesterase inhibitor) sensitivity, imaging Ca2+ dynamics with GCaMP3, analyzing pHluorin fluorescence, examination of presynaptic ultrastructure by EM, and recording postsynaptic currents at the neuromuscular junction. The findings include notable observations on the effects of flwr-1 knockout, such as increased Ca2+ levels in motor neurons, changes in endosome numbers in motor neurons, altered aldicarb sensitivity, and potential involvement of a Ca2+-ATPase and PIP2 binding in FLWR-1's function.

Weaknesses:

(1) The observation that flwr-1 knockout increases Ca2+ levels in motor neurons is notable, especially as it contrasts with prior findings in flies. The authors propose that elevated Ca2+ levels in flwr-1 knockout motor neurons may stem from "deregulation of MCA-3" (a Ca2+ ATPase in the plasma membrane) due to FLWR-1 loss. However, this conclusion relies on limited and somewhat inconclusive data (Figure 7). Additional experiments could clarify FLWR-1's role in MCA-3 regulation. For instance, it would be informative to investigate whether mutations in other genes that cause elevated cytosolic Ca2+ produce similar effects, whether MCA-3 physically interacts with FLWR-1, and whether MCA-3 expression is reduced in the flwr-1 knockout.

(2) In silico analysis identified residues R27 and K31 as potential PIP2 binding sites in FLWR-1. The authors observed that FLWR-1(R27A/K31A) was less effective than wild-type FLWR-1 in rescuing the aldicarb sensitivity phenotype of the flwr-1 knockout, suggesting that FLWR-1 function may depend on PIP2 binding at these two residues. Given that mutations in various residues can impair protein function non-specifically, additional studies may be needed to confirm the significance of these residues for PIP2 binding and FLWR-1 function. In addition, the authors might consider explicitly discussing how this finding aligns or contrasts with the results of a previous study in flies, where alanine substitutions at K29 and R33 impaired a Flower-related function (Li et al., eLife 2020).

(3) A primary conclusion from the EM data was that FLWR-1 participates in the breakdown, rather than the formation, of bulk endosomes (lines 20-22). However, the reasoning behind this conclusion is somewhat unclear. Adding more explicit explanations in the Results section would help clarify and strengthen this interpretation.

(4) The aldicarb assay results in Figure 3 are intriguing, indicating that reduced GABAergic neuron activity alone accounts for the flwr-1 mutant's hyposensitivity to aldicarb. Given that cholinergic motor neurons also showed increased activity in the flwr-1 mutant, one might expect the flwr-1 mutant to display hypersensitivity to aldicarb in the unc-47 knockout background. However, this was not observed. The authors might consider validating their conclusion with an alternative approach or, at the minimum, providing a plausible explanation for the unexpected result. Since aldicarb-induced paralysis can be influenced by factors beyond acetylcholine release from cholinergic motor neurons, interpreting aldicarb assay results with caution may be advisable. This is especially relevant here, as FLWR-1 function in muscle cells also impacts aldicarb sensitivity (Figure S3B). Previous electrophysiological studies have suggested that aldicarb sensitivity assays may sometimes yield misleading conclusions regarding protein roles in acetylcholine release.

(5) Previous studies have suggested that the Flower protein functions as a Ca²⁺ channel, with a conserved glutamate residue at the putative selectivity filter being essential for this role. However, mutating this conserved residue (E74Q) in C. elegans FLWR-1 altered aldicarb sensitivity in a direction opposite to what would be expected for a Ca²⁺ channel function. Moreover, the authors observed that E74 of FLWR-1 is not located near a potential conduction pathway in the FLWR-1 tetramer, as predicted by Alphafold3. These findings raise the possibility that Flower may not function as a Ca2+ channel. While this is a potentially significant discovery, further experiments are needed to confirm and expand upon these results.

(6) Phrases like "increased excitability" and "increased Ca2+ influx" are used throughout the manuscript. However, there is no direct evidence that motor neurons exhibit increased excitability or Ca2+ influx. The authors appear to interpret the elevated Ca2+ signal in motor neurons as indicative of both increased excitability and Ca2+ influx. However, this elevated Ca2+ signal in the flwr-1 mutant could occur independently of changes in excitability or Ca2+ influx, such as in cases of reduced MCA-3 activity. The authors may wish to consider alternative terminology that more accurately reflects their findings.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Seidenthal et al. investigated the role of the Flower protein, FLWR-1, in C. elegans and confirmed its involvement in endocytosis within both synaptic and non-neuronal cells, possibly by contributing to the fission of bulk endosomes. They also uncovered that FLWR-1 has a novel inhibitory effect on neuronal excitability at GABAergic and cholinergic synapses in neuromuscular junctions.

Strengths:

This study not only reinforces the conserved role of the Flower protein in endocytosis across species but also provides valuable ultrastructural data to support its function in the bulk endosome fission process. Additionally, the discovery of FLWR-1's role in modulating neuronal excitability broadens our understanding of its functions and opens new avenues for research into synaptic regulation.

Weaknesses:

The study does not address the ongoing debate about the Flower protein's proposed Ca2+ channel activity, leaving an important aspect of its function unexplored. Furthermore, the evidence supporting the mechanism by which FLWR-1 inhibits neuronal excitability is limited. The suggested involvement of MCA-3 as a mediator of this inhibition lacks conclusive evidence, and a more detailed exploration of this pathway would strengthen the findings.