A nanoscale atlas of extracellular vesicles and particles in Drosophila olfactory sensilla

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Using cryofixation and serial block-face electron microscopy (SBEM), P. Vijayakumar and K. Cauwenberghs characterize extracellular vesicles (EVs) and non-vesicular extracellular particles (NVEPs) within native Drosophila olfactory sensilla. The study provides a unique and valuable dataset comprising approximately 7,800 extracellular particles, systematically describing their morphology, size, density, and distribution. The ultrastructural analysis across different sensillum classes offers insights into the potential biogenesis and functions of these extracellular particles.

Strengths:

Cryofixation preserves EVs and NVEPs within native tissue conditions. The detailed quantification of a very large dataset provides a unique source of information on extracellular particle number, categories, and distribution. The expertise of the group in the method and the tissue explored, as well as their detailed quantification, provide confidence in the dataset and observations.

Weaknesses:

Major comments

(1) As the authors state, the rare observation of EV budding or MVB release events suggests that these are transient processes, whereas EVs and NVEPs are retained for relatively long periods within the sensillum lumen. The current analyses may overinterpret steady-state vesicle abundance as differences in vesicle production.

(2) Given the above conclusion, differences between sensillum classes may be somewhat overstated.
a) The absolute number of EVs and NVEPs per sensillum is highly variable, even within the same sensillum class (Figure 3D). For example, a substantial proportion of coeloconic sensilla have an empty lumen (Figure 3C). Consequently, expressing the data as ratios or proportions (Figures 3B, 4C, and 4E) may exaggerate differences between sensillum classes and should therefore be interpreted with caution.
b) The rate of EV/NVEP production is unknown. For a similar rate of production across sensillum classes, Figure 3E suggests that the differences in lumen morphology and size may largely explain variation in EV density and distribution.

That said, I agree that ab1 sensilla display a striking enrichment of large cargo-filled EVs compared with the other sensillum classes, while coeloconic sensilla display enrichment in small dense filled EVs (Figure 4C). Together, large and cargo-filled EV observation provides strong support for differences in EV biogenesis between ab1 sensilla and the other sensillum classes. In that context, I also think the EV size distribution shown in Figure 4 - Figure Supplement 1 should be moved into the main figure, as it demonstrates that the majority of EVs in the ab1 lumen are relatively large and are therefore likely to represent microvesicles. Could you clarify why ab1 sensilla are only included in Figure 4 and not analysed in Figure 3?

(3) Approximately 10% of ORNs appear to be degenerating in 6-8-day-old flies, which seems unexpectedly high. This contrasts with the relatively infrequent occurrence of auxiliary cell apoptosis or complete sensillum degeneration. In these "degenerating ORNs", the authors state that the hallmarks of ORN apoptosis are restricted to the dendrites. As hallmarks, they state dendrite truncation, fragmentation and blebbing. Rather than apoptosis, I wonder whether these observations might instead represent ciliary truncation and ectosome shedding, followed by degradation of the shed ciliary membrane into EVs. Ciliary truncation and ectosome shedding, followed by ciliary regrowth, are dynamic processes that have been described across multiple species. This interpretation could explain large EVs that remain in the lumen long after the cilium has regenerated. It would reconcile this article with the general agreement that cilia are a prime site for the budding of EVs across species. Additional evidence supporting apoptosis of the ORNs would help distinguish between these possibilities. Otherwise, I believe the author should reconsider their interpretation.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper presents a large structural survey of extracellular vesicles (EVs) and non-vesicular extracellular particles (NVEPs) in the olfactory sensilla of Drosophila melanogaster. Using high-pressure freezing and serial block-face SEM, the authors avoid many of the artifacts associated with conventional fixation and analyze more than 7,800 particles across 352 sensilla. The manuscript maps the distribution of these particles, describes their morphological heterogeneity, and examines their likely origins across different sensillum classes in both normal and degenerating tissue.

Strengths:

The strongest aspect of the paper is the imaging. Preservation is painstakingly controlled. The cryofixation appears to preserve the sensillum lymph in a more convincing native state than standard preparation methods, giving this work gravitas. Further, the authors characterized thousands of particles, further making this data strong.

The figures are strong. They are clear, easy to read, and generally well designed; I think people will use this paper as a model for how to present complex data in a concise and straightforward manner. The manuscript is careful in how it presents the dataset and does not overinterpret the descriptive observations. As an ultrastructural resource, this paper will be useful to the field. The identification of auxiliary support cells as major secretory sites, together with the striking accumulation of EVs in degenerating tissue, will provide a useful starting point for future work.

Weaknesses:

The main point that could use more clarification is the vesicle categorization. In particular, the distinction between "dense," "cargo-filled," and "double EVs" is not always easy to follow from a biological perspective. Some additional discussion of how the authors think these categories relate to one another, and whether they are intended as purely morphological groupings or as distinct biological classes, would strengthen the manuscript.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Using cryofixation-based serial block face electron microscopy of several subregions of the Drosophila antenna, the authors segment and assemble a high-resolution atlas of the anatomical structure, density, and spatial distribution of extracellular vesicles (EVs) and non-vesicular extracellular particles (NVEPs) in different Drosophila olfactory sensilla types. This systematic and thorough description is an important prerequisite to understanding the function of extracellular particles in intercellular signaling in the nervous system. Additionally, they describe examples of putative biogenesis events (budding/fusion), as well as neuronal and axonal cell degeneration events and measure the changes in particle accumulation in these altered microenvironments.

Overall, this is a significant and comprehensive analysis and represents an invaluable resource to this burgeoning field. The authors assemble an important dataset and their claims match the level of evidence provided.

Strengths:

(1) The authors use segmentations from four different patches of the antenna to provide a systematic ultrastructural survey of extracellular particles in native insect sensilla. The dataset captures the diversity of sensilla types and reconstructs ~7800 particles.

(2) We commend the authors for making the EM volumes available in the public Cell Image Library with accession numbers. It would be helpful to the community to also make the segmentations for this great resource easily accessible.

(3) The sample preparation technique appears to minimize typical artifacts associated with chemical fixation, as evidenced by the high reported sphericity of EVs.

Specific points:

(1) In Figure 3C, the authors should include a continuous measure of particle distribution in the sensilla. Currently, the authors define three categories of particle localization. In the five examples shown in Figure 3A, the spatial distribution of these particles appears quite distinct across classes. For example, EVs/NVEPs in large and small basoconic sensilla are largely restricted to the area proximal to the base, with a limited number located more distally. In contrast, intermediate sensilla show a marked concentration of particles more distally.

(2) The conclusion of different EV ratios across sensillum classes stems from a Kruskal-Wallis of p = 0.0476, with none surviving pairwise comparisons. This is not a strongly supported conclusion and is probably better characterized as a trend.

(3) The statement "selective enrichment of large, cargo-filled vesicles within the ab1 lumen suggests specialized EV-mediated communication adapted to the coordination demands of this neuronal population" seems speculative for a Results section without supporting functional evidence. It would seem better suited for the Discussion.

(4) Figure 4: Criteria for defining the classes of EVs.
a) The authors should explain the rationale for classifying EVs using relative density rather than absolute density? We would expect EVs with similar contents to have similar electron density (similar darkness in the images). Would classifying them relative to the background, which itself might vary across sensilla or regions, create a possible confound, especially when comparing across sensillum classes?
b) The two example images (in Figure 4A) of the cargo-filled EVs appear to have different densities themselves. Do the cargo-filled ones also display systematic differences in density and, if so, why is this another class instead of being a subcategory within the dense and lucent classes (i.e. dense with/without cargo, lucent with/without cargo)? The dense and lucent classes are defined by their density, whereas this is a more structural property.
c) Regarding "Double" and "Ball-and-Socket" EVs, does the density vary between the two particles involved (e.g., does the inner structure consistently differ in density from the outer)?

(5) What was the rationale for the 200μm and 1000μm size cutoffs? A continuous distribution of maximum particle sizes would provide a clearer understanding of the data.