High-throughput synapse profiling reveals cell-type-specific spatial configurations in the fly brain

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study by Wu et al. uses endogenous bruchpilot expression in a cell-type-specific manner to assess synaptic heterogeneity in adult Drosophila melanogaster mushroom body output neurons. The authors performed genomic on locus tagging of the presynaptic scaffold protein bruchpilot (BRP) with one part of splitGFP (GFP11) using the CRISPR/Cas9 methodology and co-expressed the other part of splitGFP (GFP1-10) using the GAL4/UAS system. Upon expression of both parts of splitGFP, fluorescent GFP is assembled at the N-terminus of BRP, exactly where BRP is endogenously expressed in active zones. For manageable analysis, a high-throughput pipeline was developed. This analysis evaluated parameters like location of BRP clusters, volume of clusters, and cluster intensity as a direct measure of the relative amount of BRP expression levels on site, using publicly available 3D analysis tools that are integrated in Fiji. Analysis was conducted for different mushroom body cell types in different mushroom body lobes using various specific GAL4 drivers. To test this new method of synapse assessment, Wu et al. performed an associative learning experiment in which an odor was paired with an aversive stimulus and found that, in a specific time frame after conditioning, the new analysis solidly revealed changes in BRP levels at specific synapses that are associated with aversive learning.

Strengths:

Expression of splitGFP bound to BRP enables intensity analysis of BRP expression levels as exactly one GFP molecule is expressed per BRP. This is a great tool for synapse assessment. This tool can be widely used for any synapse as long as driver lines are available to co-express the other part of splitGFP in a cell-type-specific manner. As neuropils and thus the BRP label can be extremely dense, the analysis pipeline developed here is very useful and important. The authors have chosen an exceptionally dense neuropil - the mushroom bodies - for their analysis and convincingly show that BRP assessment can be achieved with such densely packed active zones. The result that BRP levels change upon associative learning in an experiment with odor presentation paired with punishment is likewise convincing, and strongly suggests that the tool and pipeline developed here can be used in an in vivo context.

Weaknesses:

Although BRP is an important scaffold protein and its expression levels were associated with function and plasticity, I am still somewhat reluctant to accept that synapse structure profiling can be inferred from only assessing BRP expression levels and BRP cluster volume. Also, is it guaranteed that synaptic plasticity is not impaired by the large GFP fluorophore? Could the GFP10 construct that is tagged to BRP in all BRP-expressing cells, independent of GAL4, possibly hamper neuronal function? Is it certain that only active zones are labeled? I do see that plastic changes are made visible in this study after an associative learning experiment with BRP intensity and cluster volume as read-out, but I would be reassured by direct measurement of synaptic plasticity with splitGFP directly connected to BRP, maybe at a different synapse that is more accessible.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors developed a cell-type specific fluorescence-tagging approach using a CRISPR/Cas9 induced spilt-GFP reconstitution system to visualize endogenous Bruchpilot (BRP) clusters as presynaptic active zones (AZ) in specific cell types of the mushroom body (MB) in the adult Drosophila brain. This AZ profiling approach was implemented in a high-throughput quantification process, allowing for the comparison of synapse profiles within single cells, cell types, MB compartments, and between different individuals. The aim is to analyse in more detail neuronal connectivity and circuits in this centre of associative learning. These are notoriously difficult to investigate due to the density of cells and structures within a cell. The authors detect and characterize cell-type-specific differences in BRP-dependent profiling of presynapses in different compartments of the MB, while intracellular AZ distribution was found to be stereotyped. Next to the descriptive part characterizing various AZ profiles in the MB, the authors apply an associative learning assay and detect consequent AZ re-organisation.

Strengths:

The strength of this study lies in the outstanding resolution of synapse profiling in the extremely dense compartments of the MB. This detailed analysis will be the entry point for many future analyses of synapse diversity in connection with functional specificity to uncover the molecular mechanisms underlying learning and memory formation and neuronal network logics. Therefore, this approach is of high importance for the scientific community and a valuable tool to investigate and correlate AZ architecture and synapse function in the CNS.

Weaknesses:

The results and conclusions presented in this study are, in many aspects, well-supported by the data presented. To further support the key findings of the manuscript, additional controls, comments, and possibly broader functional analysis would be helpful. In particular:

(1) All experiments in the study are based on spilt-GFP lines (BRP:GFP11 and UAS-GFP1-10). The Materials and Methods section does not contain any cloning strategy (gRNA, primer, PCR/sequencing validation, exact position of tag insertion, etc.) and only refers to a bioRxiv publication. It might be helpful to add a Materials and Methods section (at least for the BRP:GFP11 line). Additionally, as this is an on locus insertion the in BRP-ORF, it needs a general validation of this line, including controls (Western Blot and correlative antibody staining against BRP) showing that overall BRP expression is not compromised due to the GFP insertion and localizes as BRP in wild type flies, that flies are viable, have no defects in locomotion and learning and memory formation and MB morphology is not affected compared to wild type animals.

(2) Several aspects of image acquisition and high-throughput quantification data analysis would benefit from a more detailed clarification.

a) For BRP cluster segmentation it is stated in the Materials and Methods state, that intensity threshold and noise tolerance were "set" - this setting has a large effect on the quantification, and it should be specified and setting criteria named and justified (if set manually (how and why) or automatically (to what)). Additionally, if Pyhton was used for "Nearest Neigbor" analysis, the code should be made available within this manuscript; otherwise, it is difficult to judge the quality of this quantification step.

b) To better evaluate the quality of both the imaging analysis and image presentation, it would be important to state, if presented and analysed images are deconvolved and if so, at least one proof of principle example of a comparison of original and deconvoluted file should be shown and quantified to show the impact of deconvolution on the output quality as this is central to this study.

(3) The major part of this study focuses on the description and comparison of the divergent synapse parameters across cell-types in MB compartments, which is highly relevant and interesting. Yet it would be very interesting to connect this new method with functional aspects of the heterogeneous synapses. This is done in Figure 7 with an associative learning approach, which is, in part, not trivial to follow for the reader and would profit from a more comprehensive analysis.

a) It would be important for the understanding and validation of the learning induced changes, if not (only) a ratio (of AZ density/local intensity) would be presented, but both values on their own, especially to allow a comparison to the quoted, previous AZ remodelling analysis quantifying BRP intensities (ref. 17, 18). It should be elucidated in more detail why only the ratio was presented here.

b) The reason why a single instead of a dual odour conditioning was performed could be clarified and discussed (would that have the same effects?).

c) Additionally, "controls" for the unpaired values - that is, in flies receiving neither shock nor odour - it would help to evaluate the unpaired control values in the different MB compartments.

d) The temporal resolution of the effect is very interesting (Figure 7D), and at more time points, especially between 90 and 270 min, this might raise interesting results.

e) Additionally, it would be very interesting and rewarding to have at least one additional assay, relating structure and function, e.g. on a molecular level by a correlative analysis of BRP and synaptic vesicles (by staining or co-expression of SV-protein markers) or calcium activity imaging or on a functional level by additional learning assays

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors develop a tool for marking presynaptic active zones in Drosophila brains, dependent on the GAL4 construct used to express a fragment of GFP, which will incorporate with a genome-engineered partial GFP attached to the active zone protein bruchpilot - signal will be specific to the GAL4-expressing neuronal compartment. They then use various GAL4s to examine innervation onto the mushroom bodies to dissect compartment-specific differences in the size and intensity of active zones. After a description of these differences, they induce learning in flies with classic odour/electric shock pairing and observe changes after conditioning that are specific to the paired conditioning/learning paradigm.

Strengths:

The imaging and analysis appear strong. The tool is novel and exciting.

Weaknesses:

I feel that the tool could do with a little more characterisation. It is assumed that the puncta observed are AZs with no further definition or characterisation.