The Neuron-specific IIS/FOXO Transcriptome in Aged Animals Reveals Regulatory Mechanisms of Cognitive Aging

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The authors perform RNA-seq on FACS-isolated neurons from adult worms at days 1 and 8 of adulthood to profile the gene expression changes that occur with cognitive decline. Supporting data are included indicating that by day 7 of adulthood, learning and memory are reduced, indicating that this time point or after represents cognitively aged worms. Neuronal identity genes are reduced in expression within cognitively aged worms, whereas genes involved in proteostasis, transcription/chromatin, and stress response are elevated. A number of specific examples are provided, representing markers of specific neuronal subtypes, and correlating expression changes to the erosion of particular functions (e.g. motor neurons, chemosensory neurons, aversive learning neurons, etc).

To investigate whether the upregulation of genes in neurons with age is compensatory or deleterious, the authors reduced the expression of a set of three significantly upregulated genes and performed behavioral assays in young adults. In each case, reduction of expression improved memory, consistent with a model in which age-associated increases impair neuronal function. This claim would be bolstered by an experiment elevating the expression of these genes in young neurons, which should reduce the learning index if the hypothesis is correct.

The authors then characterize learning and memory in wild-type, daf-2, and daf-2/daf-16 worms with age and find that daf-2 worms have an extended ability to learn for approximately 10 days longer than wild types. This was daf-16 dependent. Memory was extended in daf-2 as well, and strikingly, daf-2;daf-16 had no short-term memory even at day 1. Transcriptomic analysis of FACS-sorted neurons was performed on the three groups at day 8. The authors focus their analysis on daf-2 vs. daf-2;daf-16 and present evidence that daf-2 neurons express a stress-resistance gene program. One question that remains unanswered is how well the N2 and daf-2;daf-16 correlate overall, and are there differences? This may be informative as wild type and daf-2;daf-16 mutants are not phenotypically identical when it comes to memory, and there may be differences that can be detected despite the overlap in the PCA. This analysis could reveal the daf-16 targets involved in memory.

The authors tested eight candidate genes that were more highly expressed in daf-2 neurons vs. daf-2;daf-16 and showed that reduction of 2 and 5 of these genes impaired learning and memory, respectively, in daf-2 worms. This finding implicates specific neuronal transcriptional targets of IIS in maintaining cognitive ability in daf-2 with age, which, importantly, are distinct from those in young wild type worms.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Weng et al. perform a comprehensive study of gene expression changes in young and old animals, in wild-type and daf-2 insulin receptor mutants, in the whole animal, and specifically in the nervous system. Using this data, they identify gene families that are correlated with neuronal ageing, as well as a distinct set of genes that are upregulated in neurons of aged daf-2 mutants. This is particularly interesting as daf-2 mutants show both extended lifespans and healthier neurons in aged animals, reflected by better learning/memory in older animals compared with wild-type controls. Indeed, the knockdown of several of these upregulated genes resulted in poorer learning and memory. In addition, the authors showed that several genes upregulated during ageing in wild-type neurons also contribute to learning and memory; specifically knockdown of these genes in young animals resulted in improved memory. This indicates that (at least in this small number of cases), genes that show increased transcript levels with age in the nervous system somehow suppress memory, potentially by having damaging effects on neuronal health.

Finally, from a resource perspective, the neuronal transcriptome provided here will be very useful for C. elegans researchers as it adds to other existing datasets by providing the transcriptome of older animals (animals at day 8 of adulthood) and demonstrating the benefits of performing tissue-specific RNAseq instead of whole-animal sequencing.

The work presented here is of high quality and the authors present convincing evidence supporting their conclusions. I only have a few comments/suggestions:

(1) Do the genes identified to decrease learning/memory capacity in daf-2 animals (Figure 4d/e) also impact neuronal health? daf-2 mutant worms show delayed onset of age-related changes to neuron structure (Tank et al., 2011, J Neurosci). Does knockdown of the genes shown to affect learning also affect neuron structure during ageing, potentially one mechanism through which they modulate learning/memory?

(2) The learning and memory assay data presented in this study uses the butanone olfactory learning paradigm, which is well established by the same group. Have the authors tried other learning assays when testing for learning/memory changes after the knockdown of candidate genes? Depending on the expression pattern of these genes, they may have more or less of an effect on olfactory learning versus for example gustatory or mechanosensory-based learning.

(3) I have a comment on the 'compensatory vs dysregulatory' model as stated by the authors on page 7. I understand that this model presents the two main options, but perhaps this is slightly too simplistic: the gene expression that rises during ageing may be detrimental for memory (= dysregulatory), but at the same time may also be beneficial for other physiological roles in other tissues (=compensatory).

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Weng et al. detect a neuron-specific transcriptome that regulates aging. The authors first profile neuron-specific responses during aging at a time point where a loss in memory function is present. They discover signatures unique to neurons which validate their pipeline and reveal the loss of neuron identity with age. For example, old neurons reduce the expression of genes related to synaptic function and neuropeptide signaling and increase the expression of chromatin regulators, insulin peptides, and glycoproteins. The authors discover the detrimental effect of selected upregulated genes (utx-1, ins-19, and nmgp-1) by knocking them down in the whole body and detecting improvement of short memory functions. They then use their pipeline to test neuronal profiles of long-lived insulin/IGF mutants. They discover that genes related to stress response pathways are upregulated upon longevity (e.g. dod-24, F08H9.4) and that they are required for improved neuron function in long-lived individuals.

Strengths:

Overall, the manuscript is well-written, and the experiments are well-described. The authors take great care to explain their reasoning for performing experiments in a specific way and guide the reader through the interpretation of the results, which makes this manuscript an enjoyable and interesting read. Using neuron-specific transcriptomic analysis in aged animals the authors discover novel regulators of learning and memory, which underlines the importance of cell-specific deep sequencing. The time points of the transcriptomic profiling are elegantly chosen, as they coincide with the loss of memory and can be used to specifically reveal gene expression profiles related to neuron function. The authors showcase on the dod-24 example how powerful this approach is. In long-lived insulin/IGF-1 receptor mutants body-wide dod-24 expression differs from neuron-specific profiles. Importantly, the depletion of dod-24 has an opposing effect on lifespan and learning memory. The dataset will provide a useful resource for the C. elegans and aging community.

Weaknesses:

While this study nicely describes the neuron-specific profiles, the authors do not test the relevance in a tissue-specific way. It remains unclear if modifying the responses only in neurons has implications for either memory or potentially for lifespan. The authors point to this in the text and refer to tissue-specific datasets. However, it is possible that the tissue-specific profile changes with age. The authors should consider mining publicly available cell-specific aging datasets and performing neuron-specific RNAi to test the functional relevance of the neuron-specific response. This would strengthen the importance of cell-specific profiling.