Peer review process
Not revised: This Reviewed Preprint includes the authors’ original preprint (without revision), an eLife assessment, and public reviews.
Read more about eLife’s peer review process.Editors
- Reviewing EditorTania ReisUniversity of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, United States of America
- Senior EditorClaude DesplanNew York University, New York, United States of America
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
This work by Gonzalez-Segarra et al. greatly extends previous research from the same group that identified ISNs as a key player in balancing nutrition and water ingestion. Using well-balanced sets of exploratory anatomical analyses and rigorous functional experiments, the authors identify and compile various peptidergic circuits that modulate nutrient and/or water ingestion. The findings are convincing and the experiments rigorous.
Strengths:
- The authors complement anatomically-reconstructed and functionally-validated neuronal connectivity with extensive and intensive morphological and synaptic reconstruction.
- Neurons and genes involved in specific components of feeding control are undoubtedly challenging, because numerous neurons and circuits redundantly and reciprocally regulate the same components of feeding behavior. This work dissociates how multiple, parallel and interconnected, peptidergic circuits (dilp3, CCHa2, CCAP) modulate sucrose and water ingestion, in tandem and in parallel.
- The authors address some of the incongruencies / discrepancies in current literature (IPCs) and try to provide explanations, rather than ignoring inconsistent findings.
Weaknesses:
- Is "function" of the ISNs to balance "nutrient need" or osmolarity? Balancing hemolymph osmolarity for physiological homeostasis is conceptually different from balancing thirst and hunger.
- The final schematic nicely sums up how the different peptidergic pathways might work together, but it is unclear which connections are empirically-validated or speculative. It would be informative to show which parts of the model are speculative versus validated. For example, does FAFB volume synapse = functional connectivity and not just anatomical proximity? A bulk of the current manuscript relies on "synapses of relatively high confidence" (according to Materials and methods: line 522). I recommend distinguishing empirically tested & predicted connections in the final schematic, and maybe reword/clarify throughout the manuscript as "predicted synaptic partners"
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
In this manuscript, González-Segarra et al. investigated how ISNs regulate sugar and water ingestion in Drosophila.
Strengths:
• In their previous paper, authors have shown that inhibiting neurotransmission in ISNs has opposite effects on sugar and water ingestion. In this new manuscript, they investigated the downstream neurons connected to ISNs.
• The authors first identified the effector molecules released by ISNs. Their RNAi screen found that, surprisingly, ISNs use ilp3 as a neuromodulator.
• Next, using light and electron microscopy, they investigated the downstream neural circuits ISNs connect with to regulate water or sugar ingestion. These analyses identified a new group of neurons named Bilateral T-shaped neurons (BiT) as the main output of ISNs, and several other peptidergic neurons as downstream effectors of ISNs. While BiT activity regulated both sugar and water ingestion, BiT downstream neurons, such as CCHa2R, only impacted water ingestion.
• These results suggested that ISNs might interact with distinct neural circuits to control sugar or water ingestion.
• The authors also investigated other ISN downstream neurons, such as ilp2 and CCAP, and revealed that their activity also contributes to ingestive behaviors in flies.
Areas for further development:
• Does BIT inhibit all of the IPCs or some of them? I think it is critical to indicate the ROIs used for each neuron in the methods. Which part of the neuron is used for imaging experiments? Dendrites, cell bodies, or synaptic terminals?
• The discussion section is not giving big picture explanation of how these neurons work together to regulate sugar and water ingestion. Silencing and activation experiments are good, but without showing the innate activity of these neural groups during ingestion, it is not clear what their functions are in terms of regulating fly behavior.