A single pair of pharyngeal neurons functions as a commander to reject high salt in Drosophila melanogaster

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
In this manuscript, Sang et al. proposed a pair of IR60b-expressing pharyngeal neurons in Drosophila use IR25a, IR76b, and IR60b channels to detect high Na+ and limit its consumption. Some of the key findings that support this thesis are: 1) animals that lacked any one of these channels - or with their IR60b-expressing neurons selectively silenced - showed much reduced rejection of high Na+, but restored rejection when these channels were reintroduced back in the IR60b neurons; 2) animals with TRPV artificially expressed in their IR60b neurons rejected capsaicin-laced food whereas WT did not; 3) IR60b-expressing neurons exhibited increased Ca2+ influx in response to high Na+ and such response went away when animals lacked any of the three channels.

Strengths:
The experiments were thorough and well designed. The results are compelling and support the main claim. The development and the use of the DrosoX two-choice assay put forward for a more quantitative and automatic/unbiased assessment for ingestion volume and preference.

Weaknesses:
There are a few inconsistencies with respect the the exact role by which IR60b neurons limit high salt consumption and the contribution of external (labellar) high-salt sensors in regulating high salt consumption. These weaknesses do not significantly impact the main conclusion, however.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this paper, Sang et al. set out to identify gustatory receptors involved in salt taste sensation in Drosophila melanogaster. In a two-choice assay screen of 30 Ir mutants, they identified that Ir60b is required for avoidance of high salt. In addition, they demonstrate that activation of Ir60b neurons is sufficient for gustatory avoidance using either optogenetics or TRPV1 to specifically activate Ir60b neurons. Then, using tip recordings of labellar gustatory sensory neurons and proboscis extension response behavioral assays in Ir60b mutants, the authors demonstrate that Ir60b is dispensable for labellar taste neuron responses to high salt and the suppression of proboscis extension by high salt. Since external gustatory receptor neurons (GRNs) are not implicated, they look at Poxn mutants, which lack external chemosensory sensilla but have intact pharyngeal GRNs. High salt avoidance was reduced in Poxn mutants but was still greater than Ir60b mutants, suggesting that pharyngeal gustatory sensory neurons alone are sufficient for high salt avoidance. The authors use a new behavioral assay to demonstrate that Ir60b mutants ingest a higher volume of sucrose mixed with high salt than control flies do, suggesting that the action of Ir60b is to limit high salt ingestion. Finally, they identify that Ir60b functions within a single pair of gustatory sensory neurons in the pharynx, and that these neurons respond to high salt but not bitter tastants.

Strengths:

A great strength of this paper is that it rigorously corroborates previously published studies that have implicated specific Irs in salt taste sensation. It further introduces a new role for Ir60b in limiting high salt ingestion, demonstrating that Ir60b is necessary and sufficient for high salt avoidance and convincingly tracing the action of Ir60b to a particular subset of gustatory receptor neurons. Overall the authors have achieved their aim by identifying a new gustatory receptor involved in limiting high salt ingestion. They use rigorous genetic, imaging, and behavioral studies to achieve this aim, often confirming a given conclusion with multiple experimental approaches. They have further done a great service to the field by replicating published studies and corroborating the roles of a number of other Irs in salt taste sensation. An aspect of this study that merits further investigation is how the same gustatory receptor neurons and Ir in the pharynx can be responsible for regulating the ingestion of both appetitive (sugar) and aversive tastants (high salt).

Weaknesses:

There are several weaknesses that, if addressed, could greatly improve this work.

1. The authors combine the results and discussion but provide a very limited interpretation of their results. More discussion of the results would help to highlight what this paper contributes, how the authors interpret their results, and areas for future study.
2. The authors rename previously studied populations of labellar GRNs to arbitrary letters, which makes it difficult to understand the experiments and results in some places. These GRN populations would be better referred to according to the gustatory receptors they are known to express.
3. The conclusion that GRNs responsible for high salt aversion may be inhibited by those that function in low salt attraction is not well substantiated. This conclusion seems to come from the fact that overexpression of Ir60b in salt attraction and salt aversion sensory neurons still leads to salt aversion, but there need not be any interaction between these two types of sensory neurons if they act oppositely on downstream circuits.
4. The authors rely heavily on a new Droso-X behavioral apparatus that is not sufficiently described here or in the previous paper the authors cite. This greatly limits the reader's ability to interpret the results.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:
Sang et al. successfully demonstrate that a set of single sensory neurons in the pharynx of _Drosophila_ promotes avoidance of food with high salt concentrations, complementing previous findings on Ir7c neurons with an additional internal sensing mechanism. The experiments are well-conducted and presented, convincingly supporting their important findings and extending the understanding of internal sensing mechanisms. However, a few suggestions could enhance the clarity of the work.

Strengths:
The authors convincingly demonstrate the avoidance phenotype using different behavioral assays, thus comprehensively analyzing different aspects of the behavior. The experiments are straightforward and well-contextualized within existing literature.

Weaknesses:
Discussion
While the authors effectively relate their findings to existing literature, expanding the discussion on the surprising role of Ir60b neurons in both sucrose and salt rejection would add depth. Additionally, considering Yang et al. 2021's (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109983) result that Ir60b neurons activate feeding-promoting IN1 neurons, the authors should discuss how this aligns with their own findings.

Lines 187ff: The discussion primarily focuses on taste sensillae outside the labellum, neglecting peg-type sensillae on the inner surface. Clarification on whether these pegs contribute to the described behaviors and if the Poxn mutants described also affect the pegs would strengthen the discussion.

In line 261 the authors state: "We attempted to induce salt activation in the I-type sensilla by ectopically expressing Ir60b, similar to what was observed with Ir56b 8; however, this did not generate a salt receptor (Figures S6A)"
An obvious explanation would be that these neurons are missing the identified necessary co-receptors Ir76b and Ir25a. The authors should discuss here if the Gr33a neurons they target also express these co-receptors, if yes this would strengthen their conclusion that an additional receptor might be missing.

Methods
The description of the Droso-X assay seems to be missing some details. Currently, it is not obvious how the two-choice is established. Only one capillary is mentioned, I assume there were two used? Also, the meaning of the variables used in the equation (DrosoX and DrosoXD) are not explained.

The description of the ex-vivo calcium imaging prep. is unclear in several points:
1. It is lacking information on how the stimulus was applied (was it manually washed in? If so how was it removed?).
2. The authors write: "A mild swallow deep well was prepared for sample fixation." I assume they might have wanted to describe a "shallow well"?
3. "...followed by excising a small portion of the labellum in the extended proboscis region to facilitate tastant access to pharyngeal organs." It is not clear to me how one would excise a small portion of the labellum, the labellum depicts the most distal part of the proboscis that carries the sensillae and pegs. Did the authors mean to say that they cut a part of the proboscis?