|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
First published online 11 June 2008
doi: 10.1242/dev.022210
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Biozentrum, University of Basel, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland.
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: robert.lichtneckert{at}unibas.ch)
Accepted 16 May 2008
 |
SUMMARY |
|---|
TOP
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES |
|---|
Key words: ems, Brain, Olfactory system, Projection neurons, Neuroblast lineage, Dendritic targeting
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOP
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES |
|---|
; Shirasaki and Pfaff,
2002; Skeath and Thor,
2003).
An excellent model system for the analysis of neuronal connectivity is the
developing olfactory system. In both mammals and flies, precise neuronal
circuitry is established by the ordered axonal projection of olfactory
receptor neurons, which manifest the same olfactory receptor molecules to
specific target glomeruli in the brain
(Axel, 1995;
Mombaerts et al., 1996;
Vosshall et al., 2000).
Comparably precise circuitry is established by the second-order olfactory
neurons. These projection neurons (PNs) in the insect antennal lobe and
mitral/tufted cells in the olfactory bulb of vertebrates receive input from
olfactory receptor axons in specific glomeruli and relay information to target
neurons in higher olfactory centers of the brain
(Komiyama and Luo, 2006;
Vosshall and Stocker, 2007).
The developmental origin of the highly stereotyped PN network has been
intensively studied in Drosophila, in which 
150 PNs from three
deutocerebral neuroblast lineages relay olfactory information from the
antennal lobe to the mushroom body and lateral horn
(Jefferis et al., 2005;
Jefferis et al., 2001;
Lai and Lee, 2006;
Marin et al., 2002;
Stocker et al., 1997;
Wong et al., 2002). In the
antennal lobe, most PNs manifest stereotyped uniglomerular targeting, with a
similar degree of specificity as olfactory receptor neuron axons. This
targeting specificity of PNs is prespecified by lineage and birth order, and
initial dendritic targeting in the antennal lobe occurs prior to ingrowth of
receptor axons (Jefferis et al.,
2005; Jefferis et al.,
2001; Lai and Lee,
2006; Marin et al.,
2002; Stocker et al.,
1997; Wong et al.,
2002).
Initial insight into the mechanisms mediating targeting specificity of PNs
comes from the analysis of transcription factors expressed in subsets of these
neurons during the dendritic targeting process in late postembryonic
development. Among these are the POU-domain transcription factors Acj6 and
Drifter. Acj6 is expressed in the anterodorsal PNs and is required for correct
dendritic targeting to anterodorsal PN-specific glomeruli. Drifter (Ventral
veins lacking - FlyBase) is specifically expressed in the lateral PNs and is
required for correct dendritic targeting to lateral PN-specific glomeruli
(Komiyama et al., 2003).
Further transcription factors involved in mediating PN-intrinsic targeting are
the LIM-homeodomain proteins Islet (Tailup - FlyBase) and Lim1, the
homeodomain protein Cut, the zinc-finger protein Squeeze, the LIM co-factor
Chip and the BTB zinc-finger protein Lola, all of which act during development
of antennal lobe connectivity (Komiyama
and Luo, 2007; Spletter et
al., 2007). Although PN connectivity is at least partially defined
by combinatorial expression of these transcription factors, it is likely that
they represent only a subset of those involved in PN targeting specificity,
given the hundreds of predicted transcription factors in the
Drosophila genome (Adams et al.,
2000).
Recent analyses of Drosophila neurogenesis have identified a
number of transcription factor-encoding genes that are expressed in specific
combinations in the embryonic neuroblasts of the central brain
(Urbach and Technau, 2003).
For a number of these genes, loss-of-function analyses have revealed severe
defects in embryonic brain development
(Hirth et al., 1998;
Hirth et al., 2003;
Hirth et al., 1995;
Kammermeier et al., 2001;
Noveen et al., 2000;
Urbach and Technau, 2003). One
of these genes is empty spiracles (ems), which is required
for embryonic head and brain development
(Lichtneckert and Reichert,
2005). ems encodes a homeodomain transcription factor
that is required for the development of the antennal segment from which the
antennal sense organs derive (Cohen and
Jurgens, 1990; Dalton et al.,
1989; Walldorf and Gehring,
1992). ems is also expressed in the antennal
(deutocerebral) brain neuromere, and mutation of ems results in a
gap-like brain phenotype
(Younossi-Hartenstein et al.,
1997). In contrast to our understanding of the role of
ems in embryonic development of the larval antennal sense organs and
antennal brain neuromere, virtually nothing is known about the expression or
function of ems during postembryonic development of the corresponding
adult structures (antenna, deutocerebrum), which contain key elements of the
olfactory system.
This lack of information on ems action in postembryonic
development of the olfactory system in Drosophila contrasts with the
large amount of information on the role of the ems orthologs
Emx1 and Emx2 in the formation of the murine olfactory
system. In the mouse, Emx2 is expressed in the developing olfactory
epithelium, and both mammalian Emx genes are regionally expressed in the
developing olfactory bulb, notably in the mitral cells, which are the
vertebrate counterpart of the insect olfactory PNs
(Mallamaci et al., 1998;
Simeone et al., 1992a;
Simeone et al., 1992b). Mutant
analysis indicates that these genes play important roles in proliferation and
tract formation of the olfactory system
(Bishop et al., 2003;
Cecchi and Boncinelli, 2000;
Shinozaki et al., 2002). Thus,
the olfactory bulbs in Emx1/2 double mutants are reduced and severely
disorganized, the mitral cell layer, external plexiform layer and glomerular
layer are thin and poorly organized, and the olfactory tract is deficient.
These prominent roles of Emx genes in vertebrate olfactory system development
prompted us to investigate whether ems might also be important in
olfactory system development in Drosophila.
Here we show that ems is expressed postembryonically in the progenitors of the two major PN lineages and that ems expression is essential for correct PN development. Loss-of-function studies demonstrate that the role of ems in PN development is lineage-specific. In the lateral PN (lPN) lineage, ems is essential for development of the correct number of PNs; in ems mutants, the number of neurons in this lineage is dramatically reduced. By contrast, in the anterodorsal PN (adPN) lineage, ems is necessary for precise targeting of PN dendrites to appropriate glomeruli; in ems mutants, PNs fail to innervate correct glomeruli, innervate inappropriate glomeruli, or mistarget dendrites to other brain regions. Furthermore, we show that Acj6 expression is lost in approximately half of the ems mutant adPNs, and that the reduced innervation of the VA1lm glomerulus by mutant adPNs is significantly rescued by the misexpression of acj6. Our findings on ems expression and function in Drosophila, together with studies on the murine homologs, suggest that conserved molecular genetic programs might be responsible for formation of circuitry that relays olfactory information to higher brain centers in insects and mammals.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOP
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES |
|---|
).
For wild-type or mutant MARCM clones in the adult projection neurons
expressing GH146-GAL4 (Stocker et al.,
1997) +; UAS-mCD8::GFPLL5,
UAS-nlslacZ20b; FRT82B, ems9Q64 or
UAS-mCD8::GFPLL5, UAS-nlslacZ20b;
FRT82B males were crossed to hs-FLP; GH146-GAL4; FRT82B
tubP-GAL80LL3 females. For acj6 misexpression in
ems mutant MARCM clones and for ems misexpression in adult
projection neurons +; UAS-acj6; FRT82B, ems9Q64
or +; UAS-ems; FRT82B males, respectively, were
crossed to hs-FLP; GH146-GAL4, UAS-mCD8::GFPLL5;
FRT82B tubP-GAL80LL3. The following genotype was used to
generate the dual-expression-control MARCM tubP-lexA::GAD/+;
FRTG13, GAL4-GH146, UAS-mCD8/FRTG13, hs-FLP, tubP-GAL80;
lexAop-rCD2::GFP/+ (Lai and Lee,
2006). For MARCM experiments, embryos of appropriate genotype were collected on standard medium over a 4-hour time window and raised at 25°C for 21-25 hours before a 1-hour heat shock (except for dual-expression-control clones, for which a 1-hour heat shock was provided 3-6 hours after egg laying).
Immunolabeling
Brains were fixed and immunostained as previously described
(Lichtneckert et al., 2007).
Antibodies used were: rabbit anti-Ems (1:500; gift of U. Walldorf, University
of Saarland, Homburg, Germany), rabbit anti-Grh (1:200;
Bello et al., 2006), rat
anti-Elav Mab7E8A10 (1:30; DSHB), mouse anti-Nrt BP106 (1:10; DSHB), mouse
anti-Acj6 (1:5; DSHB), mouse monoclonal anti-Nc82 (Nc82 is also known as
Bruchpilot - FlyBase) (1:20; gift of A. Hofbauer, University of Regensburg,
Regensburg, Germany), rat anti-mouse (m) CD8 (Caltech Laboratories,
Burlingame, CA) and rab anti-GFP (Torrey Pines Biolabs, Houston, TX).
Secondary antibodies were Alexa488-, Alexa568- and Alexa647-conjugated
antibodies generated in goat (1:300; Molecular Probes).
Microscopy and image processing
Fluorescent images were recorded using a Leica TCS SP confocal microscope.
Optical sections were taken at 1 µm intervals in line average mode with a
picture size of 512x512 pixels. Digital image stacks were processed
using ImageJ
(http://rsb.info.nih.gov/ij/).
Digital 3D models were generated using AMIRA software (Mercury Computer
Systems, SAS, Merignac, France) by manually labeling structures of interest,
such as cell bodies, and subsequent automated 3D surface rendering.
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOP
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES |
|---|
; Stocker et al.,
1997). Gal4-GH146-positive cells were identified via UAS-mCD8::GFP
(Fig. 1A); expression of
ems was assayed by anti-Ems immunohistochemistry
(Fig. 1B). As expected,
mCD8::GFP-labeled cells corresponded to a mixture of larval- and
adult-specific adPNs and lPNs; labeling included cell bodies, dendritic
domains and axons projecting in the inner antenno-cerebral tract to the
mushroom body calyx and lateral horn. Anti-Ems immunoreactivity labeled
clusters of cells located between antennal lobes and optic lobes. Two groups
of ems-expressing cell bodies were found in close proximity to the
two clusters of mCD8::GFP-expressing PN cell bodies
(Fig. 1C, arrowheads). However,
colabeling of cell bodies with anti-Ems and mCD8::GFP was never observed at
any larval or pupal stages (Fig.
1D,E; data not shown). Thus, during postembryonic development, PNs
that express Gal4-GH146 do not (simultaneously) coexpress ems. Given that Gal4-GH146 is only expressed in a subset of PNs, it is possible that the two groups of Ems-positive, Gal4-GH146-negative cell bodies correspond to the complementary subset of PNs that do not express Gal4-GH146. To investigate this, we examined these two groups of ems-expressing cell bodies using anti-Ems in a MARCM-based clonal analysis with a ubiquitous tub-Gal4 driving UAS-mCD8::GFP. Clones were induced at larval hatching and therefore only adult-specific cells were labeled. If the two groups of ems-expressing cells in the larval brain are indeed PNs, then they should have cell bodies near the antennal lobe and axon fascicles projecting through the antenno-cerebral tract. As expected, the two groups of labeled cells had their cell bodies adjacent to the larval antennal lobe and extended their axon fascicles through the larval antenno-cerebral tract, indicating that they were olfactory PNs (Fig. 1F,G). Since the adult-specific cells in the MARCM clone are not yet fully differentiated at the third instar larval stage, dendritic and axonal terminals have not extended into their respective target areas. Importantly, in each of these two MARCM-labeled clonal lineages, ems expression was present in the neuroblast and in a subset of the cells located adjacent to the neuroblast, but not in the other cells located further away from the neuroblast (Fig. 1F,G, insets).
|
Might some of these older, earlier-born neurons in the two neuroblast
clones correspond to those Ems-negative PNs that express Gal4-GH146? To
address this, we carried out dual-expression-control MARCM experiments with
Gal4-GH146 and ubiquitous tubP-LexA::GAD as drivers
(Lai and Lee, 2006). These
experiments allow simultaneous differential labeling of the GH146-expressing
PNs (via Gal4-GH146-driven UAS-mCD8) and of all cells in a neuroblast clone
(via tubP-LexA::GAD-driven lexAop-rCD2::GFP). Clones were induced during
embryogenesis, recovered 48 and 96 hours after larval hatching (ALH), and
co-immunostained with anti-Ems. In the dual-labeled clones, tubP-lexA-driven
marker expression labeled all cells in the adPN and lPN lineages, including
the neuroblast, as expected. In both of these lineages, the neuroblast and a
subset of cells located near the neuroblast in the outermost cortical cell
layers always expressed ems (Fig.
3A-D, arrowheads indicate neuroblasts). By contrast,
Gal4-GH146-driven marker expression labeled a different subset of the cells in
the two lineages that was generally located in deeper cortical layers closer
to the antennal lobe neuropile and that was always Ems-negative
(Fig. 3A'-D').
Thus, although the adPNs and lPNs that express Gal4-GH146 do not concomitantly
coexpress ems, they belong to postembryonic neuroblast lineages in
which the neuroblast does express ems
(Fig. 3E). We conclude that the
neurons of the adPN and lPN lineages derive from progenitor cells that
persistently express ems and posit that ems is expressed
transiently in young, recently born PNs and disappears from older PNs during
subsequent development.
ems is required for correct neuronal cell number in the lPN lineage
To determine the role of ems in postembryonic development of adPN
and lPN lineages, wild-type and ems mutant MARCM clones were
generated. For this, ubiquitously expressed tub-Gal4 was used to drive a
UAS-mCD8::GFP reporter; clones were induced in the early first instar larva
and analyzed in the late third instar larva. A comparison of wild-type and
ems mutant clone size revealed a marked difference in ems
requirement for the two different PN lineages
(Table 1).
|
|
25% of the brains examined. By
contrast, for the lPN lineage, the average clone size in wild-type and
ems mutant MARCM clones was strikingly different (201 and 28 cells,
respectively). Whereas wild-type lPN clones were also recovered in 25% of
the brains examined, less than 2% contained ems mutant lPN clones.
Thus, ems loss-of-function results in lPN clones that have less than
15% of the number of cells seen in wild-type clones. Moreover, given the low
frequency of recovery of ems mutant lPN clones, it is likely that
ems mutation often leads to the complete absence of lPN cells. The
dramatic reduction in cell number observed in ems mutant lPN clones
implies that mutant cells are either not generated in appropriate numbers or
that they die during postembryonic development.
To determine whether apoptosis could account for this marked reduction in
cell number, we blocked cell death in ems mutant clones through
targeted misexpression of the pancaspase inhibitor P35. Clones were induced in
early first instar larvae and cell numbers determined at the late third instar
stage. Mutant ems lPN clones involving P35 misexpression were
recovered in 25% of the brains examined, comparable to the wild-type
recovery rate. Blocking cell death in ems mutant clones resulted in
clones containing an average of 143 cells. This represents a fivefold increase
in cell number as compared with ems mutant clones, and corresponds to
71% of the cell number observed in wild-type clones
(Table 1). This marked rescue
effect implies that the cell number reduction in ems mutant lPN
lineages is largely owing to apoptosis during larval development.
ems is required for correct dendritic targeting in the adPN lineage
Although ems loss-of-function did not affect clonal cell number in
adPNs, ems might play a role in proper innervation of adPN targets in
the brain. To investigate this, wild-type and ems mutant MARCM clones
were generated in adPNs in the early first instar larva using Gal4-GH146 to
drive UAS-mCD8::GFP, and were analyzed in the adult brain. All wild-type
clones showed the typical adPN morphology: the position of cell bodies,
projection of axons from the antennal lobe to the mushroom body calyx and
lateral horn, and dendritic innervation of the subset of glomeruli in the
antennal lobe specific for adPNs, were all normal
(Fig. 4A,C,E,G,I). In
ems mutant adPN neuroblast clones, cell body position and axonal
projection trajectory were also normal; however, marked defects in dendritic
targeting were apparent.
Three types of dendritic targeting phenotype were observed. In the first, mutant adPNs failed to innervate specific glomeruli that were always innervated by wild-type adPNs. For example, mutant adPNs innervated the VA1lm glomerulus in only 63% of the clones examined, versus 100% innervation observed for wild-type clones, and similar targeting defects were found in the VA3 and VM2 glomeruli (Fig. 4B,D; Table 2). In the second phenotype, mutant adPNs ectopically innervated inappropriate glomeruli including those normally targeted by lPNs. For example, mutant adPNs ectopically innervated the DL2 glomerulus in 71% of the clones examined, as compared with 0% innervation by wild-type adPN clones, and comparable ectopic targeting defects were observed in the DA2, VA6, DL5 and VL2 (Fig. 4F,H), as well as VM1, DA1, DA4 and DC1 glomeruli (Table 2). In the third phenotype, observed in approximately a third of the clones examined, mutant adPNs formed inappropriate misprojections into the subesophageal ganglion (Fig. 4J). Misprojections of this type were never seen in wild-type adPN clones. Taken together, these findings show that ems is required during postembryonic development for correct dendritic targeting in the adPN lineage.
|
|
;
Stocker et al., 1997). Indeed,
in both PN lineages, no ems expression was seen later than 24 hours
APF. Might the absence of ems in these cells during this later
differentiation phase be necessary for the formation of correct innervation by
the adPNs? To investigate this, we misexpressed ems in adPNs during
this later differentiation period using the MARCM system with Gal4-GH146
driving UAS-ems. Clones were induced at the early first instar larval stage
and examined in the adult. In adPN ems misexpression clones, cell number, cell body position and axonal projections were the same as in the wild type. However, compared with wild-type clones (Fig. 5A,C,E), marked defects in adPN dendritic targeting became apparent in these ems misexpression experiments. In all mutant clones examined, ectopic innervation of one or more inappropriate glomeruli was observed. For a given glomerulus, the frequency of inappropriate innervation by mutant adPNs varied. For example, the DA2 glomerulus was ectopically innervated in 78%, whereas DC1 was ectopically innervated in 44% of the clones examined (Fig. 5B,D; the frequency of inappropriate innervation for seven other glomeruli is given in Table 2). The absence of appropriate glomerular innervation was also observed. However, this phenotype was limited to the DL1 glomerulus: clones of adPNs misexpressing ems never innervated this glomerulus (Fig. 5F; Table 2). Thus, misexpression of ems in GH146-positive adPNs beyond the time of endogenous wild-type ems expression leads to severe dendritic mistargeting effects.
Axon terminal arborization defects caused by ems misexpression
Next, we investigated whether ems loss-of-function or
misexpression might influence the stereotyped axon arborizations of adPNs in
the lateral horn, one of the two central targets for PN axons. These
experiments, which involved the generation of single-cell clones induced by
early larval heat shock, concentrated on DL1-innervating adPNs because these
are the only class that can be unequivocally identified based on time of clone
induction (Jefferis et al.,
2001; Komiyama et al.,
2003; Marin et al.,
2002).
The axons of wild-type aPN neuroblast clones project as a fascicle to the
lateral horn and there form a main arborization area that appears as a
continuation of the axon fascicle and a secondary, more dorsal arborization
area that branches out more or less perpendicularly from the main fascicle
(Marin et al., 2002).
Single-cell clones of DL1 PNs, which had the expected dendritic domain in the
antennal lobe (Fig. 6B), also
projected their axons to the lateral horn and bifurcated into a main lateral
terminal process and a secondary dorsal terminal process
(Fig. 6C).
The axons of ems loss-of-function adPN neuroblast clones also projected a fascicle to the lateral horn and there formed two arborization areas comparable to those of the wild type (Fig. 6D). Single-cell clones of ems loss-of-function DL1 PNs, which correctly innervated the DL1 glomerulus (Fig. 6E), projected their axons to the lateral horn, bifurcated and formed two wild-type-like terminal processes (Fig. 6F). This suggests that ems is not required for correct axon terminal arborizations in DL1 PNs.
By contrast, in ems misexpression experiments, the axons of adPN neuroblast clones had ectopic terminal arbors between the main arborization area and the secondary arborization area in the lateral horn (Fig. 6G). Single-cell cones of DL1 PNs, which failed to innervate the DL1 glomerulus and ectopically innervated the DA2 and DM6 glomeruli (Fig. 6H), consistently formed ectopic terminal branches between the main lateral terminal process and the secondary dorsal terminal process in the lateral horn (Fig. 6I). Thus, at least for the DL1 PNs, misexpression of ems beyond the time of normal endogenous expression leads to distinct axon terminal arborization defects.
|
|
). In
order to investigate the expression patterns of ems and acj6
in the adPN lineage, we induced wild-type MARCM clones in the early first
instar larva using a ubiquitous tub-Gal4-driven UAS-mCD8::GFP and colabeled
the clones with anti-Ems and anti-Acj6 in the late third instar larva
(Fig. 7A). As expected,
ems expression was found in the neuroblast and in a small number of
adjacent cells, whereas Acj6 staining was found in a nearly complementary
pattern that excluded the neuroblast and most of the immediately adjacent
cells but labeled all other cells of the lineage. Interestingly, a small
number of cells at the interface between the ems expression domain
and the acj6 expression domain consistently showed colabeling for the
two transcription factors (Fig.
7A,B). These findings are in accordance with the notion that, in
contrast to acj6, ems is expressed in the progenitors and young
postmitotic neurons and therefore precedes acj6 expression during
differentiation of adPNs.
|
|
We also analyzed acj6 expression in wild-type and ems
mutant adPN MARCM clones 48 hours after puparium formation (APF) and in the
adult. For this we used the GH146-GAL4 driver, which is expressed in
postmitotic adPNs. As expected, all wild-type adPNs that expressed GH146-GAL4
also expressed acj6 (Komiyama et
al., 2003). By contrast, the number of acj6-positive
adPNs in ems mutant clones was found to be reduced during
metamorphosis and at the adult stage: 53% (n=9) and 56%
(n=7) of the GH146-GAL4-positive adPNs expressed acj6 at 48
hours APF and in the adult, respectively. Thus, loss of acj6
expression in approximately half of the ems mutant adPNs persists
through metamorphosis, when innervation of glomeruli takes place, and is also
observed in the adult.
Since approximately half of adPNs fail to express acj6 at the
absence of ems, and because a similar loss of innervation phenotype
occurs in acj6 mutant adPN clones
(Komiyama et al., 2003), we
wanted to test whether at least some of the glomerular phenotypes in
ems mutant clones might be due to the control of acj6 by
ems. For this, we misexpressed acj6 in ems mutant
adPN clones using the GAL4-GH146 driver and compared the innervation of the
VA1lm, VM2 and VA3 glomeruli in this misexpression experiment with the
innervation observed in the ems mutant PNs alone. We found a
significant rescue of the innervation phenotype (P<0.02,
2 test) for the VA1lm glomerulus
(Fig. 8): correct innervation
was restored from 63% in ems mutant adPN clones (n=24) to
87% in acj6-misexpressing ems mutant clones (n=23).
In the VA3 and VM2 glomeruli, where the loss of innervation phenotype was less
penetrant in the ems mutant adPN (71% and 83% correct innervation,
respectively; see also Table
2), no significant rescue of innervation was observed in
acj6-misexpressing ems mutant clones (83% and 87% correct
innervation, respectively). Thus, at least in the VA1lm class of PNs, the loss
of appropriate innervation seen in the ems mutant appears to be due,
at least in part, to the downregulation of acj6, and misexpression of
acj6 in these cells is able to rescue the phenotype.
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOP
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES |
|---|
; Lai and Lee,
2006). Here we show that ems is expressed in these
neuroblasts as well as in their GMCs and a subset of their postmitotic
neuronal progeny during postembryonic development. Our expression data support
a model in which ems is persistently expressed in the postembryonic
progenitors (neuroblasts and GMCs) of adPN and lPN lineages, remains
transiently expressed in their neuronal progeny, and subsequently disappears
in these neurons during their differentiation phase and in the adult. This is
corroborated by the observation that ems is never coexpressed with
the Gal-GH146 driver, which only begins to be expressed in PNs once they
differentiate and initiate process outgrowth
(Jefferis et al., 2005;
Stocker et al., 1997). The
experimental findings that support this model have implications for our
understanding of ems action in olfactory system development.
|
;
Younossi-Hartenstein et al.,
1997). This raises the possibility that ems might also be
involved in the development of the small group of olfactory PNs generated in
the embryo (Marin et al.,
2005; Python and Stocker,
2002). Although an unambiguous link between embryonic
ems-expressing neuroblasts and the two postembryonic
ems-expressing neuroblasts that generate the adPN and lPN lineages is
lacking (Urbach and Technau,
2003), it is conceivable that ems is required for the
development of the entire complement of adPNs and lPNs, embryonic and
postembryonic. Indeed, as ems is not only expressed in the embryonic
neuroectoderm from which the deutocerebrum derives, but also in the embryonic
antennal segment from which the antennal sense organs derive
(Cohen and Jurgens, 1990;
Dalton et al., 1989;
Walldorf and Gehring, 1992),
ems might play a key role in the development of both the peripheral
and central olfactory systems.
Lineage-specific functional roles of ems in postembryonic olfactory PN development
MARCM-based clonal loss-of-function experiments reveal two lineage-specific
mutant phenotypes in adPN versus lPN lineages. In the lPN lineage,
ems loss-of-function results in a dramatic cell-autonomous reduction
in cell number. A significant contribution to this phenotype is made by cell
death. Blocking cell death in mutant clones restores cell number to 70%
of the wild-type number. Although these findings imply that cells in
ems mutant lPN lineages die during postembryonic development, we do
not know whether cell death occurs at the level of the progenitors or
postmitotic neurons. ems is persistently expressed in the neuroblast
and GMCs in this lineage and might be required for the survival of these
progenitors. Alternatively, as ems is transiently expressed in
postmitotic neurons in the PN lineages, this transient neuronal expression
might be required for PN survival. Finally, because blocking apoptosis does
not always result in a complete rescue of cell number, unknown
lineage-specific proliferation defects might also occur.
In the postembryonic adPN lineage, ems loss-of-function does not affect cell number, implying that ems is not required for proliferation or survival of adPNs. Furthermore, adPNs in ems mutant clones have the overall dendritic and axonal features of wild-type PNs, suggesting that ems is not required for general process outgrowth in this lineage. However, ems mutant adPNs do show marked cell-autonomous defects in dendritic targeting: they fail to innervate appropriate glomeruli, ectopically innervate inappropriate glomeruli, or mistarget dendrites. These targeting defects are not random in nature but are limited to a subset of glomeruli. This relative specificity of the mistargeting phenotypes indicates that ems loss-of-function does not simply result in non-specific spillover of adPN dendrites. Moreover, it argues for the existence of other cell-intrinsic determinants that participate in translating adPN lineage information into dendritic targeting specificity.
Previous studies have identified an ensemble of transcription factors that
act as intrinsic regulators of dendritic targeting in PNs
(Komiyama et al., 2003;
Komiyama and Luo, 2007). For
example, the two POU-domain transcription factors Acj6 and Drifter are
differentially expressed in adPNs and lPNs, are required for the specific
connectivity of these PNs in their lineage, and cause mistargeting when
misexpressed in PNs of the alternate lineage. Acj6 and Drifter are expressed
in postmitotic Gal4-GH146-positive PNs during their dendritic targeting phase.
Hence, the developmental time period in which these transcription factors are
expressed coincides with that in which their mutant phenotypes appear. By
contrast, the transcription factor-encoding ems gene is expressed in
the precursors of PN lineages, but not in Gal4-GH146-positive PNs during their
dendritic targeting phase. Thus, ems expression and appearance of the
ems mutant dendritic targeting phenotype occur sequentially and do
not overlap in developmental time. This suggests that ems acts as an
early intrinsic determinant in the adPN lineage to influence cell fate
decisions that indirectly result in dendritic targeting later in postembryonic
development. Therefore, the mechanism of ems action on dendritic
targeting might be mediated by other factors that are themselves regulated by
ems and that subsequently affect components of the wiring
machinery.
Our findings indicate that Acj6 is one of these factors. We have identified
Acj6 as downstream mediator of ems action, at least in one class of
adPNs. Acj6 expression is lost in approximately half of the ems
mutant adPNs. Moreover, the reduced innervation of the VA1lm glomerulus in the
ems mutant is significantly rescued by the misexpression of
acj6. It is noteworthy that the innervation of the VA1lm glomerulus
has been reported to be lost in 63% of acj6 mutant adPN clones and
that misexpression of acj6 in these clones rescued innervation to a
level similar to that observed in our Acj6 rescue experiments
(Komiyama et al., 2003). Given
that Acj6 expression is lost in only about half of the ems mutant
adPNs, misexpression of Acj6 should not affect the other half of the
ems mutant adPNs. Indeed, for the innervation of the VA3 and VM2
glomeruli, we observe that misexpression of Acj6 in ems mutant adPNs
does not result in significant rescue of the projection phenotype, implying
that Acj6 expression is ems-independent in the PNs that innervate VA3
and VM2.
The fact that the other phenotypes observed in this investigation for ems mutant adPN and lPN clones have not been reported in acj6 mutant clones does, however, imply that there are other downstream mediators of ems action in PN development. Similarly, because Acj6 is lost in only about half of the ems mutant adPNs, other upstream regulators of acj6 expression in adPNs are also likely to be present.
Although transient early ems expression is important for appropriate development of the adPN lineage, more prolonged, later expression of ems in the differentiating adPNs can have detrimental effects. Ectopic misexpression of ems in adPNs in differentiating PNs via the Gal4-GH146 driver results in dendritic targeting defects comparable to those caused by ems loss-of-function. Interestingly, ectopic ems misexpression also causes axonal targeting defects in at least one of the adPNs, the DL1 neurons. Since misexpression of ems beyond the time of normal endogenous expression can lead to dual targeting defects (axonal and dendritic), precise temporal regulation of ems expression is likely to be crucial for the correct development of adPNs.
Evolutionary conservation of ems/Emx gene functions in olfactory projection neuron development?
The organization of the insect and mammalian olfactory system is remarkably
similar (Hildebrand and Shepherd,
1997; Komiyama and Luo,
2006). Olfactory receptor neurons expressing the same receptor
project their axons to the same glomeruli in the insect antennal lobe as in
the mammalian olfactory bulb. In these glomeruli, the olfactory receptor
neurons make specific synaptic connections with the dendrites of second-order
olfactory neurons, the PNs in insects and the mitral cells in mammals.
Finally, PNs and mitral cells send processed olfactory information to specific
regions of higher olfactory centers in the brain.
In both insects and mammals, genes of the ems/Emx family are
important for the development of these second-order neurons. In
Drosophila, ems is expressed in the two main PN lineages and is
required for correct cell number and precise dendritic targeting of these
neurons. In the mouse, the two ems gene homologs, Emx1 and
Emx2, are expressed in two complementary groups of mitral cells
(Mallamaci et al., 1998;
Simeone et al., 1992a;
Simeone et al., 1992b), and
the loss of both genes leads to marked defects in the mitral cell layer
(Bishop et al., 2003).
The remarkably similar expression and function of the ems/Emx genes in the development of second-order olfactory neurons in insects and mammals, together with the similarities in expression of these genes in developing olfactory sensory structures in both groups, argue for evolutionarily conserved roles of the ems/Emx genes in olfactory system development. Thus, while the astonishing similarity in anatomical organization of the olfactory system in insects and mammals may be the result of functional convergence, it might also reflect, at least in part, a hitherto unexpected conservation of the molecular genetic mechanisms for olfactory system development in these animals.
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOP
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
REFERENCES |
|---|
Adams, M. D., Celniker, S. E., Holt, R. A., Evans, C. A.,
Gocayne, J. D., Amanatides, P. G., Scherer, S. E., Li, P. W., Hoskins, R. A.,
Galle, R. F. et al. (2000). The genome sequence of Drosophila
melanogaster. Science
287,2185
-2195.
Axel, R. (1995). The molecular logic of smell.
Sci. Am. 273,154
-159.[Medline]
Bello, B., Reichert, H. and Hirth, F. (2006).
The brain tumor gene negatively regulates neural progenitor cell
proliferation in the larval central brain of Drosophila.
Development 133,2639
-2648.
Bishop, K. M., Garel, S., Nakagawa, Y., Rubenstein, J. L. and
O'Leary, D. D. (2003). Emx1 and Emx2 cooperate to regulate
cortical size, lamination, neuronal differentiation, development of cortical
efferents, and thalamocortical pathfinding. J. Comp.
Neurol. 457,345
-360.[CrossRef][Medline]
Cecchi, C. and Boncinelli, E. (2000). Emx
homeogenes and mouse brain development. Trends
Neurosci. 23,347
-352.[CrossRef][Medline]
Chen, H. H., Hippenmeyer, S., Arber, S. and Frank, E.
(2003). Development of the monosynaptic stretch reflex circuit.
Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.
13, 96-102.[CrossRef][Medline]
Cohen, S. M. and Jurgens, G. (1990). Mediation
of Drosophila head development by gap-like segmentation genes.
Nature 346,482
-485.[CrossRef][Medline]
Dalton, D., Chadwick, R. and McGinnis, W.
(1989). Expression and embryonic function of empty spiracles: a
Drosophila homeo box gene with two patterning functions on the
anterior-posterior axis of the embryo. Genes Dev.
3,1940
-1956.
Hildebrand, J. G. and Shepherd, G. M. (1997).
Mechanisms of olfactory discrimination: converging evidence for common
principles across phyla. Annu. Rev. Neurosci.
20,595
-631.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hirth, F., Therianos, S., Loop, T., Gehring, W. J., Reichert, H.
and Furukubo-Tokunaga, K. (1995). Developmental defects in
brain segmentation caused by mutations of the homeobox genes orthodenticle and
empty spiracles in Drosophila. Neuron
15,769
-778.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hirth, F., Hartmann, B. and Reichert, H.
(1998). Homeotic gene action in embryonic brain development of
Drosophila. Development
125,1579
-1589.[Abstract]
Hirth, F., Kammermeier, L., Frei, E., Walldorf, U., Noll, M. and
Reichert, H. (2003). An urbilaterian origin of the tripartite
brain: developmental genetic insights from Drosophila.
Development 130,2365
-2373.
Jefferis, G. S., Marin, E. C., Stocker, R. F. and Luo, L.
(2001). Target neuron prespecification in the olfactory map of
Drosophila. Nature 414,204
-208.[CrossRef][Medline]
Jefferis, G. S., Marin, E. C., Komiyama, T., Zhu, H., Chihara,
T., Berdnik, D. and Luo, L. (2005). Development of wiring
specificity of the Drosophila olfactory system. Chem.
Senses 30 Suppl. 1,i94
.
Kammermeier, L., Leemans, R., Hirth, F., Flister, S., Wenger,
U., Walldorf, U., Gehring, W. J. and Reichert, H. (2001).
Differential expression and function of the Drosophila Pax6 genes eyeless and
twin of eyeless in embryonic central nervous system development.
Mech. Dev. 103,71
-78.[CrossRef][Medline]
Komiyama, T. and Luo, L. (2006). Development of
wiring specificity in the olfactory system. Curr. Opin.
Neurobiol.16,67
-73.[CrossRef][Medline]
Komiyama, T. and Luo, L. (2007). Intrinsic
control of precise dendritic targeting by an ensemble of transcription
factors. Curr. Biol. 17,278
-285.[CrossRef][Medline]
Komiyama, T., Johnson, W. A., Luo, L. and Jefferis, G. S.
(2003). From lineage to wiring specificity. POU domain
transcription factors control precise connections of Drosophila olfactory
projection neurons. Cell
112,157
-167.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lai, S. L. and Lee, T. (2006). Genetic mosaic
with dual binary transcriptional systems in Drosophila. Nat.
Neurosci. 9,703
-709.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lichtneckert, R. and Reichert, H. (2005).
Insights into the urbilaterian brain: conserved genetic patterning mechanisms
in insect and vertebrate brain development. Heredity
94,465
-477.[CrossRef][Medline]
Lichtneckert, R., Bello, B. and Reichert, H.
(2007). Cell lineage-specific expression and function of the
empty spiracles gene in adult brain development of Drosophila melanogaster.
Development 134,1291
-1300.
Mallamaci, A., Iannone, R., Briata, P., Pintonello, L.,
Mercurio, S., Boncinelli, E. and Corte, G. (1998). EMX2
protein in the developing mouse brain and olfactory area. Mech.
Dev. 77,165
-172.[CrossRef][Medline]
Marin, E. C., Jefferis, G. S., Komiyama, T., Zhu, H. and Luo,
L. (2002). Representation of the glomerular olfactory map in
the Drosophila brain. Cell
109,243
-255.[CrossRef][Medline]
Marin, E. C., Watts, R. J., Tanaka, N. K., Ito, K. and Luo,
L. (2005). Developmentally programmed remodeling of the
Drosophila olfactory circuit. Development
132,725
-737.
Mombaerts, P., Wang, F., Dulac, C., Chao, S. K., Nemes, A.,
Mendelsohn, M., Edmondson, J. and Axel, R. (1996).
Visualizing an olfactory sensory map. Cell
87,675
-686.[CrossRef][Medline]
Noveen, A., Daniel, A. and Hartenstein, V.
(2000). Early development of the Drosophila mushroom body: the
roles of eyeless and dachshund. Development
127,3475
-3488.[Abstract]
Python, F. and Stocker, R. F. (2002).
Adult-like complexity of the larval antennal lobe of D. melanogaster despite
markedly low numbers of odorant receptor neurons. J. Comp.
Neurol. 445,374
-387.[CrossRef][Medline]
Shinozaki, K., Miyagi, T., Yoshida, M., Miyata, T., Ogawa, M.,
Aizawa, S. and Suda, Y. (2002). Absence of Cajal-Retzius
cells and subplate neurons associated with defects of tangential cell
migration from ganglionic eminence in Emx1/2 double mutant cerebral cortex.
Development 129,3479
-3492.[Medline]
Shirasaki, R. and Pfaff, S. L. (2002).
Transcriptional codes and the control of neuronal identity. Annu.
Rev. Neurosci. 25,251
-281.[CrossRef][Medline]
Simeone, A., Acampora, D., Gulisano, M., Stornaiuolo, A. and
Boncinelli, E. (1992a). Nested expression domains of four
homeobox genes in developing rostral brain. Nature
358,687
-690.[CrossRef][Medline]
Simeone, A., Gulisano, M., Acampora, D., Stornaiuolo, A.,
Rambaldi, M. and Boncinelli, E. (1992b). Two vertebrate
homeobox genes related to the Drosophila empty spiracles gene are expressed in
the embryonic cerebral cortex. EMBO J.
11,2541
-2550.[Medline]
Skeath, J. B. and Thor, S. (2003). Genetic
control of Drosophila nerve cord development. Curr. Opin.
Neurobiol. 13,8
-15.[CrossRef][Medline]
Spletter, M. L., Liu, J., Liu, J., Su, H., Giniger, E.,
Komiyama, T., Quake, S. and Luo, L. (2007). Lola regulates
Drosophila olfactory projection neuron identity and targeting specificity.
Neural Develop. 2,14
.[CrossRef][Medline]
Stocker, R. F., Heimbeck, G., Gendre, N. and de Belle, J. S.
(1997). Neuroblast ablation in Drosophila P[GAL4] lines reveals
origins of olfactory interneurons. J. Neurobiol.
32,443
-456.[CrossRef][Medline]
Urbach, R. and Technau, G. M. (2003). Molecular
markers for identified neuroblasts in the developing brain of Drosophila.
Development 130,3621
-3637.
Vosshall, L. B. and Stocker, R. F. (2007).
Molecular architecture of smell and taste in Drosophila. Annu. Rev.
Neurosci. 30,505
-533.[CrossRef][Medline]
Vosshall, L. B., Wong, A. M. and Axel, R.
(2000). An olfactory sensory map in the fly brain.
Cell 102,147
-159.[CrossRef][Medline]
Walldorf, U. and Gehring, W. J. (1992). Empty
spiracles, a gap gene containing a homeobox involved in Drosophila head
development. EMBO J. 11,2247
-2259.[Medline]
Wong, A. M., Wang, J. W. and Axel, R. (2002).
Spatial representation of the glomerular map in the Drosophila protocerebrum.
Cell 109,229
-241.[CrossRef][Medline]
Younossi-Hartenstein, A., Green, P., Liaw, G. J., Rudolph, K.,
Lengyel, J. and Hartenstein, V. (1997). Control of early
neurogenesis of the Drosophila brain by the head gap genes tll, otd, ems, and
btd. Dev. Biol. 182,270
-283.[CrossRef][Medline]
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. M. Corty, B. J. Matthews, and W. B. Grueber Molecules and mechanisms of dendrite development in Drosophila Development, April 1, 2009; 136(7): 1049 - 1061. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Reichert Evolutionary conservation of mechanisms for neural regionalization, proliferation and interconnection in brain development Biol Lett, February 23, 2009; 5(1): 112 - 116. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
