The Alk receptor tyrosine kinase regulates Sparkly, a novel activity regulating neurosecretory protein in the Drosophila CNS

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Sukumar et al build on a body of work from the Palmer lab that seeks to unravel the transcriptional targets of Alk signaling (a receptor tyrosine kinase). Having uncovered its targets in the mesoderm in an earlier study, they seek to determine its targets in the central nervous system. To do this, they use Targeted DamID (TaDa) in the wild-type and Alk dominant negative background and identify about 1700 genes that might be under the control of Alk signalling. Using their earlier data and applying a set of criteria - upregulated in gain-of-Alk, downregulated in loss-of-Alk, and co-expressed with Alk positive cells in single cell datasets - they arrive upon a single gene, Sparkly, which is predicted to be a neuropeptide precursor.

They generate antibodies and mutants for Sparkly and determine that it is responsive to Alk signalling and is expressed in many neuroendocrine cells, as well as in clock neurons. Though the mutants survive, they have reduced lifespans and are hyperactive. In summary, the authors identify a previously unidentified transcriptional target of Alk signalling, which is likely cleaved into a neuropeptide and is involved in regulating circadian activity.

The data support claims made, are generally well presented and the manuscript clearly written. The link between circadian control of Alk signalling in Clock neurons > Spar expression > ultimately controlling circadian activity, however, was not clear.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

This manuscript illustrates the power of "combined" research, incorporating a range of tools, both old and new to answer a question. This thorough approach identifies a novel target in a well-established signalling pathway and characterises a new player in Drosophila CNS development.

Largely, the experiments are carried out with precision, meeting the aims of the project, and setting new targets for future research in the field. It was particularly refreshing to see the use of multi-omics data integration and Targeted DamID (TaDa) findings to triage scRNA-seq data. Some of the TaDa methodology was unorthodox (and should be justifed/caveats mentioned in the main text), however, this does not affect the main finding of the study.

Their discovery of Spar as a neuropeptide precursor downstream of Alk is novel, as well as its ability to regulate activity and circadian clock function in the fly. Spar was just one of the downstream factors identified from this study, therefore, the potential impact goes beyond this one Alk downstream effector.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

The receptor tyrosine kinase Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) in humans is nervous system expressed and plays an important role as an oncogene. A number of groups have been signalling ALK signalling in flies to gain mechanistic insight into its various role. In flies, ALK plays a critical role in development, particularly embryonic development and axon targeting. In addition, ALK also was also shown to regulate adult functions including sleep and memory. In this manuscript, Sukumar et al., used a suite of molecular techniques to identify downstream targets of ALK signalling. They first used targeted DamID, a technique that involves a DNA methylase to RNA polymerase II, so that GATC sites in close proximity to PolII binding sites are marked. They performed these experiments in wild-type and ALK loss of function mutants (using an Alk dominant negative ALkDN), to identify Alk responsive loci. Comparing these loci with a larval single-cell RNAseq dataset identified neuroendocrine cells as an important site of Alk action. They further combined these TaDa hits with data from RNA seq in Alk Loss and Gain of Function manipulations to identify a single novel target of Alk signalling - a neuropeptide precursor they named Sparkly (Spar) for its expression pattern. They generated a mutant allele of Spar, raised an antibody against Spar, and characterised its expression pattern and mutant behavioural phenotypes including defects in sleep and circadian function.

Strengths:

The molecular biology experiments using TaDa and RNAseq were elegant and very convincing. The authors identified a novel gene they named Spar. They also generated a mutant allele of Spar (using CrisprCas technology) and raised an antibody against Spar. These experiments are lovely, and the reagents will be useful to the community. The paper is also well written, and the figures are very nicely laid out making the manuscript a pleasure to read.

Weaknesses:

My main concerns were around the genetics and behavioural characterisation which is incomplete. The authors generated a novel allele of Spar - Spar ΔExon1 and examined sleep and circadian phenotypes of this allele. However, they have only one mutant allele of Spar, and it doesn't appear as if this mutant was outcrossed, making it very difficult to rule out off-target effects. To make this data convincing, it would be better if the authors had a second allele, perhaps they could try RNAi?

Further, the sleep and circadian characterisation could be substantially improved. In Fig 8 E-F it appears as if sleep was averaged over 30 days! This is a little bizarre. They then bin the data as day 1 - 12 and 12-30. This is not terribly helpful either. Sleep in flies, as in humans, undergoes ontogenetic changes - sleep is high in young flies, stabilises between day 3-12, and shows defects by around 3 weeks of age (cf Shaw et al., 2000 PMID 10710313). The standard in the sleep field is to average over 3 days or show one representative day. The authors should reanalyse their data as per this standard, and perhaps show data from 3-10 day old flies, and if they like from 20-30 day old flies. Further, sleep data is usually analysed and presented from lights on to lights on. This allows one to quantify important metrics of sleep consolidation including bout lengths in day and night, and sleep latency. These metrics are of great interest to the community and should be included.

The authors also claim there are defects in circadian anticipatory activity. However, these data, as presented are not solid to me. The standard in the field is to perform eduction analyses and quantify anticipatory activity e.g. using the method of Harrisingh et al. (PMID: 18003827). Further, circadian period could also be evaluated. There are several free software packages to perform these analyses so it should not be hard to do.