Cell cycle-dependent cues regulate temporal patterning of the Drosophila central brain neural stem cells

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Drosophila larval type II neuroblasts generate diverse types of neurons by sequentially expressing different temporal identity genes during development. Previous studies have shown that the transition from early temporal identity genes (such as Chinmo and Imp) to late temporal identity genes (such as Syp and Broad) depends on the activation of the expression of EcR by Seven-up (Svp) and progression through the G1/S transition of the cell cycle. In this study, Chaya and Syed examined whether the expression of Syp and EcR is regulated by cell cycle and cytokinesis by knocking down CDK1 or Pav, respectively, throughout development or at specific developmental stages. They find that knocking down CDK1 or Pav either in all type II neuroblasts throughout development or in single-type neuroblast clones after larval hatching consistently leads to failure to activate late temporal identity genes Syp and EcR. To determine whether the failure of the activation of Syp and EcR is due to impaired Svp expression, they also examined Svp expression using a Svp-lacZ reporter line. They find that Svp is expressed normally in CDK1 RNAi neuroblasts. Further, knocking down CDK1 or Pav after Svp activation still leads to loss of Syp and EcR expression. Finally, they also extended their analysis to type I neuroblasts. They find that knocking down CDK1 or Pav, either at 0 hours or at 42 hours after larval hatching, also results in loss of Syp and EcR expression in type I neuroblasts. Based on these findings, the authors conclude that cycle and cytokinesis are required for the transition from early to late temporal identity genes in both types of neuroblasts. These findings add mechanistic details to our understanding of the temporal patterning of Drosophila larval neuroblasts.

Strengths:

The data presented in the paper are solid and largely support their conclusion. Images are of high quality. The manuscript is well-written and clear.

Weaknesses:

The quantifications of the expression of temporal identity genes and the interpretation of some of the data could be more rigorous.

(1) Expression of temporal identity genes may not be just positive or negative. Therefore, it would be more rigorous to quantify the expression of Imp, Syp, and EcR based on the staining intensity rather than simply counting the number of neuroblasts that are positive for these genes, which can be very subjective. Or the authors should define clearly what qualifies as "positive" (e.g., a staining intensity at least 2x background).

(2) The finding that inhibiting cytokinesis without affecting nuclear divisions by knocking down Pav leads to the loss of expression of Syp and EcR does not support their conclusion that nuclear division is also essential for the early-late gene expression switch in type II NSCs (at the bottom of the left column on page 5). No experiments were done to specifically block the nuclear division in this study. This conclusion should be revised.

(3) Knocking down CDK1 in single random neuroblast clones does not make the CDK1 knockdown neuroblast develop in the same environment (except still in the same brain) as wild-type neuroblast lineages. It does not help address the concern whether "type 2 NSCS with cell cycle arrest failed to undergo normal temporal progression is indirectly due to a lack of feedback signaling from their progeny", as discussed (from the bottom of the right column on page 9 to the top of the left column on page 10). The CDK1 knockdown neuroblasts do not divide to produce progeny and thus do not receive a feedback signal from their progeny as wild-type neuroblasts do. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that the loss of Syp and EcR expression in CDK1 knockdown neuroblasts is due to the lack of the feedback signal from their progeny. This part of the discussion needs to be clarified.

(4) In Figure 2I, there is a clear EcR staining signal in the clone, which contradicts the quantification data in Figure 2J that EcR is absent in Pav RNAi neuroblasts. The authors should verify that the image and quantification data are consistent and correct.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Neural stem cells produce a wide variety of neurons during development. The regulatory mechanisms of neural diversity are based on the spatial and temporal patterning of neural stem cells. Although the molecular basis of spatial patterning is well-understood, the temporal patterning mechanism remains unclear. In this manuscript, the authors focused on the roles of cell cycle progression and cytokinesis in temporal patterning and found that both are involved in this process.

Strengths:

They conducted RNAi-mediated disruption on cell cycle progression and cytokinesis. As they expected, both disruptions affected temporal patterning in NSCs.

Weaknesses:

Although the authors showed clear results, they needed to provide additional data to support their conclusion sufficiently.

For example, they need to identify type II NSCs using molecular markers (Ase/Dpn).

The authors are encouraged to provide a more detailed explanation of each experiment. The current version of the manuscript is difficult for non-expert readers to understand.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The manuscript by Chaya and Syed focuses on understanding the link between cell cycle and temporal patterning in central brain type II neural stem cells (NSCs). To investigate this, the authors perturb the progression of the cell cycle by delaying the entry into M phase and preventing cytokinesis. Their results convincingly show that temporal factor expression requires progression of the cell cycle in both Type 1 and Type 2 NSCs in the Drosophila central brain. Overall, this study establishes an important link between the two timing mechanisms of neurogenesis.

Strengths:

The authors provide solid experimental evidence for the coupling of cell cycle and temporal factor progression in Type 2 NSCs. The quantified phenotype shows an all-or-none effect of cell cycle block on the emergence of subsequent temporal factors in the NSCs, strongly suggesting that both nuclear division and cytokinesis are required for temporal progression. The authors also extend this phenotype to Type 1 NSCs in the central brain, providing a generalizable characterization of the relationship between cell cycle and temporal patterning.

Weaknesses:

One major weakness of the study is that the authors do not explore the mechanistic relationship between the cell cycle and temporal factor expression. Although their results are quite convincing, they do not provide an explanation as to why Cdk1 depletion affects Syp and EcR expression but not the onset of svp. This result suggests that at least a part of the temporal cascade in NSCs is cell-cycle independent, which isn't addressed or sufficiently discussed.