Nutritional state-dependent modulation of Insulin-Producing Cells in Drosophila

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

This study presents useful insights into the in vivo dynamics of insulin-producing cells (IPCs), key cells regulating energy homeostasis across the animal kingdom. The authors provide compelling evidence using adult Drosophila melanogaster that IPCs, unlike neighboring DH44 cells, do not respond to glucose directly, but that glucose can indirectly regulate IPC activity after ingestion supporting an incretin-like mechanism in flies, similar to mammals. The authors link the decreased activity of IPCs to hyperactivity observed in starved flies, a locomotive behavior aimed at increasing food search.

Furthermore, there is supporting evidence in the paper that IPCs receive inhibitory inputs from Dh44 neurons, which are linked to increased locomotor activity. However, although the electrophysiological data underlying the dynamics of IPCs in vivo is compelling, the link between IPCs and other potential elements of the circuitry (e.g. octopaminergic neurons) regulating locomotive behaviors is not clear and would benefit from more rigorous approaches.

This paper is of interest to cell biologists and electrophysiologists, and in particular to scientists aiming to understand circuit dynamics pertaining to internal state-linked behaviors competing with the feeding state, shown here to be primarily controlled by the IPCs.

Strengths:

(1) By using whole-cell patch clamp recording, the authors convincingly showed the activity pattern of IPCs and neighboring DH44 neurons under different feeding states.

(2) The paper provides compelling evidence that IPCs are not directly and acutely activated by glucose, but rather through a post-ingestive incretin-like mechanism. In addition, the authors show that Dh44 neurons located adjacent to the IPCs respond to bath application of glucose contrary to the IPCs.

(3) The paper provides useful data on the firing pattern of 2 key cell populations regulating food-related brain function and behavior, IPCs and Dh44 neurons, results which are useful to understand their in vivo function.

Weaknesses:

(1) The term nutritional state generally refers to the nutrients which are beneficial to the animal. In Figure 1, the authors showed that IPCs respond to glucose but not proteins. To validate the term nutritional state the authors could test the effect of a non-nutritive sugar (e.g. D-arabinose or L-Glucose) on the post-ingestive physiological responses of the IPCs.

(2) It is difficult to grasp the main message from the figures in the result section as some figures have several results subsections referring to different points the authors want to make. The key results of a figure will be easier to understand if they are summarized in one section of the results. Alternatively, a figure can be split into 2 figures if there are several key messages in those figures, e.g. Figures 2 and 3.

(3) The prime investigation of the paper is about the physiological response and locomotive behavioral readout linked to IPCs. The authors do not show a link between OANs and IPCs in terms of functional or behavioral readouts. In Figure 2 the authors first start with stating a link between OAN neurons and locomotion changes resulting from internal feeding states. The flow of the paper would be better if the authors focused on the effect of optogenetic activation of IPCs under different feeding states and their impact on fly locomotion. If the experiments done on optogenetic activation of OANs were to validate the experimental approach the data on OAN neurons is better suited for the supplement without the need of a subsection in the result section on the OANs.

(4) Figure 2F shows that optogenetic activation of IPCs in fed flies does not influence their locomotor output. In the text, the conclusion linked to Figure 2F-H states that IPC activation reduces starvation-induced hyperactivity which is a statement more suited to Figure 2I-K.

(5) The authors show activation of Dh44 neurons leads to hyperpolarisation of the IPCs. What is the functional link between non-PI Dh44 neurons and the IPCs? Do IPCs express DH44R or is DH44 required for this effect on IPCs? Investigating a potential synaptic or peptidergic link between DH44 neurons and IPCs and its effect on behavior would benefit the paper, as it is so far not well connected.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this study, Bisen et al. characterized the state-dependency of insulin-producing cells in the brain of *Drosophila melanogaster*. They successfully established that IPC activity is modulated by the nutritional state and age of the animal. Interestingly, they demonstrate that IPCs respond to the ingestion of glucose, rather than to perfusion with it, an observation reminiscent of the incretin effect in mammals. The study is well conducted and presented and the experimental data convincingly support the claims made.

Strengths:

The study makes great use of the tools available in *Drosophila* research, demonstrating the effect that starvation and subsequent refeeding have on the physiological activity of IPCs as well as on the behavior of flies to then establish causal links by making use of optogenetic tools.

It is particularly nice to see how the authors put their findings in context to published research and use for example TDC2 neuron activation or DH44 activity to establish baselines to relate their data to.

Weaknesses:

I find the inability of SD to rescue the IPC starvation effect in Figure 1G&H surprising, given that the fully fed flies were raised and kept on that exact diet. Did the authors try to refeed flies with SD for longer than 24 hours? I understand that at some point the age effect would also kick in and counteract potential IPC activity rescue. I think the manuscript would benefit if the authors could indicate the exact age of the SD refed flies and expand a bit on the discussion of that point.

The incretin-like effect is exciting and it will be interesting in the future to find out what might be the signal mediating this effect. It is interesting that IPCs in explants seem to be responsive to glucose. I think it would help if the authors could briefly discuss possible sources for the different findings between these in fact very different preparations. Could the the absence of the inhibitory DH44 feedback in the *ex-vivo* recordings for example play a role?

The incretin-like effect the authors observed seems to start only after 5h which seems longer than in mammals where, as far as I know, insulin peaks around 1h. Do the authors have ideas on how this timescale relates to ingestion and glucose dynamics in flies?

The authors mention "a decrease in the FV of IPC-activated starved flies even before the first optogenetic stimulation (Figure 2I),". Could this be addressed by running an experiment in darkness, only using the IR illumination of their behavioral assay?

The authors show an inhibitory effect of DH44 neuron activation on IPC activity. They further demonstrate that DH44PI neurons are not the ones driving this and thus conclude that "...IPCs are inhibited by DH44Ns outside the PI.". As the authors mentioned the broad expression of the DH44-Gal4 line, can they be sure that the cells labeled outside the PI are actually DH44+? If so they should state this more clearly, if not they should adapt the discussion accordingly.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Although insulin release is essential in the control of metabolism, adjusted to nutritional state, and plays major roles in normal brain function as well as in aging and disease, our knowledge about the activity of insulin-producing (and releasing) cells (IPCs) in vivo is limited.

In this technically demanding study, IPC activity is studied in the Drosophila model system by fine in vivo patch clamp recordings with parallel behavioral analyses and optogenetic manipulation.

The data indicate that IPC activity is increased with a slow time course after feeding a high-glucose diet. By contrast, IPC activity is not directly affected by increasing blood glucose levels. This is reminiscent of the incretin effect known from vertebrates and points to a conserved mechanism in insulin production and release upon sugar feeding.

Moreover, the data confirm earlier studies that nutritional state strongly affects locomotion. Surprisingly, IPC activity makes only a negligible contribution to this. Instead, other modulatory neurons that are directly sensitive to blood glucose levels strongly affect modulation. Together, these data indicate a network of multiple parallel and interacting neuronal layers to orchestrate the physiological, metabolic, and behavioral responses to nutritional state. Together with the data from a previous study, this work sets the stage to dissect the architecture and function of this network.

Strengths:

State-of-the-art current clamp in situ patch clamp recordings in behaving animals are a demanding but powerful method to provide novel insight into the interplay of nutritional state, IPC activity, and locomotion. The patch clamp recordings and the parallel behavioral analyses are of high quality, as are the optogenetic manipulations. The data showing that starvation silences IPC activity in young flies (younger than 1 week) are compelling. The evidence for the claim that locomotor activity is not increased upon IPC activity but upon the activity of other blood glucose-sensitive modulatory neurons (Dh44) is strong. The study provides a great system to experimentally dissect the interplay of insulin production and release with metabolism, physiology, and behavior.

Weaknesses:

Neither the mechanisms underlying the incretin effect, nor the network to orchestrate physiological, metabolic, and behavioral responses to nutritional state have been fully uncovered. Without additional controls, some of the conclusions would require significant downtoning. Controls are required to exclude the possibility that IPCs sense other blood sugars than glucose. The claim that IPC activity is controlled by the nutritional state would require that starvation-induced IPC silencing in young animals can be recovered by feeding a normal diet. At current firing in starvation, silenced IPCs can only be induced by feeding a high-glucose diet that lacks other important ingredients and reduces vitality. Therefore, feasible controls are needed to exclude that diet-induced increases in IPC firing rate are caused by stress rather than nutritional changes in normal ranges. The finding that refeeding starved flies with a standard diet had no effect on IPC activity but a strong effect on the locomotor activity of starved flies contradicts the statement that locomotor activity is affected by the same dietary manipulations that affect IPC activity. The compelling finding that starvation induces IPC firing would benefit from determining the time course of the effect. The finding that IPCs are not active in fed animals older than 1 week is surprising and should be further validated.