SUMMARY
Precise coordination of synaptic connections ensures proper information flow within circuits. The activity of presynaptic organizing molecules signaling to downstream pathways is essential for such coordination, though such entities remain incompletely known. We show that LRP4, a conserved transmembrane protein known for its postsynaptic roles, functions presynaptically as an organizing molecule. In the Drosophila brain, LRP4 preferentially localizes to excitatory neuron terminals at or near active zones. Loss of presynaptic LRP4 reduces excitatory (not inhibitory) synapse number, impairs active zone architecture, and abolishes olfactory attraction - the latter of which can be suppressed by reducing presynaptic GABAB receptors. LRP4 overexpression increases synapse number in excitatory and inhibitory neurons, suggesting an instructive role and a common downstream synapse addition pathway. Mechanistically, LRP4 functions via the conserved kinase SRPK79D to ensure normal synapse number and behavior. This highlights a presynaptic function for LRP4, enabling deeper understanding of how synapse organization is coordinated.
INTRODUCTION
Multiple levels of synaptic organization ensure accurate, controlled information flow through neuronal circuits. Neurons must first make an appropriate number of synaptic connections with their postsynaptic partners. Each of these synaptic connections must have appropriate strength that can be modified by plasticity and homeostasis as a result of experience and activity changes. Further, there must be an appropriate balance between excitatory and inhibitory synapses. Finally, recent work has shown that these connections also occupy precise locations with regards to the three-dimensional structure of the synaptic neuropil. Indeed, circuit models for diverse neuronal ensembles fail to recapitulate functional patterns unless these aspects are accounted for1,2. The misregulation of any one of these organizational parameters can result in neurodevelopmental disorders and intellectual disabilities like autism3, epilepsy4, and other synaptopathies5. Revealing the molecular mechanisms that ensure all of these facets are achieved is a critical step in understanding circuit assembly and function.
Synaptic organizers like Neurexins / Neuroligins, Teneurins, protein tyrosine phosphatases (PTPs), leucine rich repeat transmembrane proteins (LRRTMs), and Ephrin / Eph receptors, among others, ensure the proper number, distribution, and function of synaptic connections6–11. Loss-of-function mutations in these key synaptogenic molecules have deleterious structural, functional, and organizational consequences for synapses and circuits. At the vertebrate neuromuscular junction, one of these critical organizers is LRP4. There, it forms a receptor complex with MuSK in muscle fibers to promote clustering of acetylcholine receptors in response to motoneuron-derived agrin12–14 Muscle LRP4 can also function as a retrograde signal with an unknown motoneuron receptor to regulate presynaptic differentiation15. In these roles, the known functions from LRP4 are overwhelmingly postsynaptic. However, a number of lines of evidence suggest a broader role, beyond postsynaptic, for LRP4. First, motoneuron-derived LRP4 may regulate presynaptic differentiation, suggesting a role for neuronal LRP416. Second, in the vertebrate central nervous system (CNS), agrin is not essential for synapse formation17 though LRP4 can regulate synaptic plasticity, development, and cognitive function18,19, through functioning in astrocytes in some cases20. In this vein, the Drosophila genome contains an LRP4 homologue, but no clear agrin or MuSK homologues21, so any role for LRP4 there must be agrin-independent.
Here, we show in the Drosophila CNS that LRP4 is a presynaptic protein that regulates the number, architecture, and function of synapses. LRP4 functions largely through the conserved, presynaptic SR-protein kinase, SRPK79D. LRP4 and SRPK79D interact genetically and epistatically, as SRPK79D overexpression can suppress lrp4- related phenotypes. Unexpectedly, this role for LRP4 occurs preferentially in excitatory neurons, as impairing lrp4 in inhibitory neurons has no effect. As little is known about the presynaptic determinants (save neurotransmitter-related enzymes) of excitatory versus inhibitory synapses, this may suggest a new mode for distinguishing such synapses from the presynaptic side. Thus, LRP4 may represent a conserved synaptic organizer that functions presynaptically, cell autonomously, and independently of agrin to coordinate synapse number and function.
RESULTS
LRP4 is a synaptic protein expressed in excitatory neurons
We identified CG8909 as the fly LRP4 homologue (Supplementary Fig. 1, 2a), which is predicted to be a single-pass transmembrane protein whose domain organization resembles that of mammalian LRP4 (Fig. 1a). Drosophila LRP4 shares 38% identity with human LRP4 overall, 61% identity within the LDL-repeat containing extracellular portion, and 28% identity in the intracellular tail. Consistent with previous expression data from whole-brain microarrays22, we determined that LRP4 was expressed throughout the adult brain using antibodies against the endogenous protein (Fig. 1b-c) or an lrp4-GAL4 transgene that expresses GAL4 under the lrp4 promoter and visualized with either Syt-HA (Fig. 1d) or an HA epitope-tagged LRP4 (Supplementary Fig. 2c). All methods revealed similar patterns of expression in the antennal lobe (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Fig. 2c-e), optic lobe, and higher olfactory centers including the mushroom body and the lateral horn (Fig. 1b, d). Antibody specificity was validated by the complete loss of signal in a deletion (see below) of the lrp4 coding region (Fig. 1c). We further investigated LRP4 in the antennal lobe, the first olfactory processing center in the Drosophila CNS, which has emerged as a model circuit for studying sensory processing23 and whose synaptic organization was recently mapped at high resolution24.
LRP4 was enriched in the synaptic neuropil of the antennal lobe (Fig. 1b). As this neuropil is made up of processes from multiple classes of olfactory neurons, all of which make presynaptic connections there, we used intersectional strategies with lrp4-GAL4 to identify which neurons expressed lrp4. These approaches revealed lrp4 expression in both olfactory receptor neurons (ORNs; Supplementary Fig. 2d) and projection neurons (PNs; Supplementary Fig. 2e). Because of the observed neuropil expression of LRP4 (Fig. 1b-c), we sought to examine the localization of LRP4 with regards to a known synaptic protein, the active zone scaffolding component Bruchpilot25. However, due to the density of CNS neuropil, colocalization analyses using light level microscopy have inherently low resolution. Therefore, we applied expansion microscopy26 to the Drosophila CNS to improve the resolution of colocalization analysis. This technique uses isotropic expansion of immunolabeled tissue27 while maintaining the spatial relationship between protein targets and allowing for enhanced resolution with confocal microscopy.
Using protein-retention expansion microscopy (proExM), we obtained reliable, ~4-fold isotropic expansion of Drosophila CNS tissue (Supplementary Fig. 3). To specifically examine the relationship between LRP4 and active zones only in ORNs, we expressed HA-tagged LRP4 and Brp-Short-mStraw using the SG18.1-GAL4 driver28. LRP4-HA expressed using lrp4-GAL4 localizes to similar regions as LRP4 antibody staining (Fig. 1b and Supplementary Fig. 2c), suggesting the fidelity of this transgene. Within individual expanded glomeruli of proExM-treated brains, LRP4 and Brp localized to similar regions (Fig. 1e) and, when examined at high magnification, LRP4 localized either coincidentally with Brp (Fig. 1f, arrowhead) or to the space adjacent to active zones (Fig. 1f, arrow). This combination of active zone and periactive zone localization is similar to that of known synaptic organizers29–31. Thus, LRP4 is a synaptic protein that localizes to axon terminals.
Given widespread expression throughout the brain, we sought to identify the cell types that express LRP4. To accomplish this, we used lrp4-GAL4 driven mCD8-GFP as this approach, in addition to labeling similar neuropil regions as the antibody, also highlighted the cell bodies of lrp4-positive cells. We co-stained brains for various cellular and neuronal-subtype markers and quantified the overlap between cells positive for lrp4-expression and expression of these various labels. Nearly all lrp4-positive cells observed (99.5%) expressed the neuronal marker ELAV32 (Fig. 1g), indicating that these cells were neurons. Few (0.4%) expressed the glial marker Repo33 (Fig. 1h). The majority of lrp4- positive cells (59.1%) also expressed choline acetyltransferase (ChAT; Fig. 1i), a marker for cholinergic excitatory neurons. We also observed partial overlap between lrp4-positive neurons and vGlut (22.4%; Fig. 1j), the vesicular transporter for glutamate; a subset of glutamatergic neurons are excitatory in the fly brain. Interestingly, there was little overlap (0.3%) between lrp4 and GABA, the major inhibitory neurotransmitter in Drosophila (Fig. 1k). This suggests LRP4 is preferentially expressed at synaptic terminals of excitatory CNS neurons.
Perturbing presynaptic LRP4 changes ORN synapse number
As both the expression and localization of LRP4 were consistent with the protein serving a synaptic role, we sought to determine whether disrupting its function in excitatory neurons would affect synapse number. To image these connections, we expressed fluorescently tagged synaptic markers24,34,35 and used previously established methods to estimate the number of active zones and postsynaptic receptor puncta24 in olfactory neurons in antennal lobe glomeruli (Fig. 2a). These methods show stereotyped active zone numbers and densities in ORNs and can reveal the function of synaptic proteins in mediating these aspects24. Further, measurements from these methods are consistent with our own electron microscopy24 as well as results from ultrastructural reconstructions of all synapses in individual glomeruli36 demonstrating their utility. To perturb LRP4 function, we created a null mutation (lrp4dalek) using the CRISPR-Cas9 system37 that removed the entire coding region (Supplementary Fig. 2a-b). lrp4dalek mutants were viable with a slightly reduced body size.
In ORN axon terminals projecting to the VA1v glomerulus in males (Fig. 2b), lrp4dalek mutants (Fig. 2c, h) showed a 31% reduction in the number of puncta for Brp-Short, an active zone marker, compared to control adults (Fig. 2b, h). This phenotype was recapitulated when we expressed any of four independent transgenic RNAi constructs against lrp4 only in ORNs (Fig. 2d, h, and Supplementary Fig. 4), demonstrating that LRP4 functions presynaptically in regulating active zone number. These changes were independent of glomerular volume: lrp4 loss-of-function had no effect on neurite volume (Fig. 2h and Supplementary Fig. 4). Though the intensity of Brp-Short puncta across some genotypes trended slightly downward, it did not reach statistical significance (data not shown). We also observed that lrp4 disruption (using lrp4dalek mutants and presynaptic RNAi expression) caused a quantitatively similar reduction of active zone numbers in VA1v ORN axon terminals in females in this sexually dimorphic glomerulus Supplementary Fig. 5), and in ORN axon terminals projecting to the DA1, DL4, and DM6 glomeruli (Supplementary Fig. 6). This suggests that lrp4 phenotypes are not specific to particular glomeruli. Beyond Brp-Short, we observed similar phenotypes with an independent presynaptic marker, DSyd-138, that is also punctate at ORN terminals24 (Supplementary Fig. 7).
We further examined the consequences of lrp4 disruption on the number of Dα7 acetylcholine receptor puncta in PN dendrites postsynaptic to the ORN axon terminals imaged above. Loss of lrp4 decreased Dα7-EGFP puncta numbers by 29% compared to controls (Fig. 2f-g, i). This deficit was also independent of neurite volume (Fig. 2i and Supplementary Fig. 4), again demonstrating that lrp4 perturbation phenotypes did not result from decreased neuronal projection size. Further, both the presynaptic active zone and postsynaptic acetylcholine receptor phenotypes were quantitatively similar. Thus, presynaptic LRP4 loss reduces synapse number as assayed both pre- and postsynaptically.
The above experiments demonstrated the necessity of presynaptic LRP4 in ensuring the proper number of synaptic connections. However, with known presynaptic organizers like Neurexin, overexpression results in added boutons31 and active zones39. To test for LRP4 sufficiency in synapse addition, we overexpressed HA-tagged LRP4 presynaptically in otherwise wild-type ORNs. LRP4 overexpression increased the number of Brp-Short puncta by 30% (Fig. 2e, h, and Supplementary Fig. 5); this increase was also independent of neurite volume (Fig. 2h and Supplementary Fig. 4, 5) as the glomeruli remained the same size. Thus, there is a direct relationship between presynaptic LRP4 expression and synapse number in excitatory neurons: removing LRP4 reduces, while overexpressing LRP4 increases, synapse number.
Ultrastructural analysis reveals LRP4 regulates active zone number and structure
Though light level analyses accurately report fold-changes in synapse number24,40, we sought to independently confirm and extend our analyses using electron microscopy. Using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) on the fly antennal lobe, we quantified synapse number in putative ORN terminals based on morphology36,41 in both control (Fig. 3a) and lrp4dalek (Fig. 3b) adult brains. T-bar profiles were evident in both genotypes, but were reduced in number by 31% in mutant terminals (Fig. 3c), which exactly matched the reduction observed by Brp-Short puncta measurements (Fig. 2h). Terminal perimeter was slightly but significantly increased in lrp4dalek terminals (Fig. 3d), resulting in a 36% reduction in T-bar density when compared to control (Fig. 3e). These results are consistent with those observed via confocal microscopy, and demonstrate that LRP4 is necessary for the proper number of synapses in putative ORN terminals of the antennal lobe.
Brp-Short assays alone cannot distinguish between normal and impaired active zones. We therefore examined the ultrastructural morphology of individual active zones to determine if LRP4 had an additional role in the biogenesis of the T-bar itself. In both control (Fig. 3f-h) and lrp4 (Fig. 3i-k) terminals, we observed single (Fig. 3f, i), double (Fig. 3g, j), and triple T-bars (Fig. 3h, k) suggesting that LRP4 is not absolutely required for T-bar formation and some elements of organization. However, whereas irregular T-bars in control animals were rare (<5% of total T-bars), the majority of T-bars in lrp4 mutants displayed one or more defects (Fig. 3l-q), including immature T-bars that lacked tops (Fig. 3l), detached T-bars (Fig. 3m), misshapen T-bars of varying configurations and aggregations (Fig. 3n-p), and multiple T-bars beyond those observed in control animals (Fig. 3q). Thus, in addition to controlling the number of synapses, LRP4 is also required for individual active zones to assume normal morphology, attach to the membrane, and have proper spacing. Thus, LRP4 has multiple, critical roles in central synapse formation.
LRP4 is not required for inhibitory neuron synapse number
The preferential expression of lrp4 in excitatory but not inhibitory neurons (Fig. 1) suggests that it promotes synapse addition specifically in excitatory neurons. To test this, we used Brp-Short to examine synapse number in GABAergic inhibitory neurons projecting to the antennal lobe using the GAD1-GAL4 driver42. Though GAD1-positive neurons project throughout the antennal lobe43, we restricted our analyses to the DA1 glomerulus, where we observed reductions in excitatory synapses (Supplementary Fig. 6-7) following LRP4 disruption. When LRP4 function was impaired using the lrp4dalek mutant or RNAi in these neurons, synapse number was unaffected (Fig. 4a-b, d). Thus, the reduction of synapse number under LRP4 loss-of-function conditions appeared specific for excitatory neurons.
Interestingly, when LRP4 was overexpressed in inhibitory neurons, we observed a 35% increase in synapse number without an accompanying change in neurite volume, similar to what we observed for excitatory neurons (Fig. 4c-d). This suggests that, while inhibitory GABAergic neurons do not normally utilize LRP4 to regulate synapse number, they possess the downstream machinery necessary for LRP4 to function in adding synapses. Thus, when LRP4 is exogenously expressed in these cells, it can co-opt this machinery for synapse addition. As such, excitatory and inhibitory neurons likely use distinct cell surface synaptic organizers (LRP4 for excitatory neurons) that converge on common mechanisms for synapse addition.
Excitatory, but not inhibitory, olfactory projection neurons also require LRP4 to ensure proper synapse number
Though we initially restricted our analyses to the antennal lobe, we also observed lrp4 expression throughout the brain, including two higher order olfactory neuropil: the mushroom body and the lateral horn (Fig. 1b-d). To determine whether LRP4 could also serve as a synaptic organizer in these brain regions, we examined the effects of lrp4 perturbation on both excitatory and inhibitory synapses in the lateral horn (LH, Fig. 5a), a higher order olfactory center involved in innate olfactory behavior44. We used Mz19- GAL4 to label projection neurons whose dendrites and cell bodies are restricted to the antennal lobe region, but whose axon terminals make excitatory synapses in the lateral horn45. To label inhibitory synapses, we used the Mz699-GAL4 driver, which is expressed in inhibitory projection neurons (iPNs) whose dendrites project to the antennal lobe and whose axons project to the lateral horn46,47. Mz699-GAL4 also labels a small subset of third-order neurons that project dendrites largely void of presynaptic terminals to the ventral lateral horn46. Thus, we consider synaptic signal labeled by Mz699-GAL4 as being contributed mostly by iPNs.
In lrp4 mutants, the number of excitatory lateral horn synapses was reduced by 40%, consistent with a role for LRP4 in synapse formation (Fig. 5b-c, f). PN perturbation of lrp4 using RNAi reduced synapse number similarly to the loss-of-function allele, demonstrating a presynaptic role for lrp4 in these neurons (Fig. 5f and Supplementary Fig. 8). These changes were independent of neurite volume, which remained unaffected (Fig. 5f). Perturbation of lrp4 in Mz699-positive iPNs, however, had no effect on the number of synapses (Fig. 5d-e, g, and Supplementary Fig. 8) despite a slight reduction in neurite volume in lrp4dalek mutants (Fig. 5g). Despite a lack of a loss-of-function phenotype, we observed an increase in synapse number when we overexpressed LRP4-HA in Mz699-positive neurons (Fig. 5g and Supplementary Fig. 8). Thus, the results of lrp4 perturbation on excitatory and inhibitory synapses in the lateral horn resembled those of the antennal lobe, suggesting a general role for LRP4 in promoting excitatory synapse number.
LRP4 is required for normal olfactory attraction behavior
Given the role for LRP4 in the specific regulation of excitatory synapse number, we sought to determine whether the consequences of LRP4 disruption were accompanied by functional changes in behavior. We examined fly attraction to the odorant in apple cider vinegar using a modified olfactory trap assay48,49 (Fig. 6a), an ethologically relevant assay that requires flight and/or climbing to follow odorant information within a larger arena50. As presynaptic LRP4 regulates ORN synapse number, we used RNAi against lrp4 expressed selectively in all ORNs using pebbled-GAL4 to assess olfactory attraction. Control flies bearing a single copy of pebbled-GAL4 or one of four different lrp4 RNAi transgenes alone exhibited a strong preference for apple cider vinegar (Fig. 6b). Flies bearing both transgenes (and thus, reduced lrp4 expression) exhibited a near complete abrogation of attractive behavior and were no longer able to distinguish the attractive apple cider vinegar from a water control (Fig. 6b). Movement, wall climbing, and flight were still observed in these flies (data not shown), suggesting that this was not due to widespread defects in motion, consistent with our selective perturbation of LRP4 function in ORNs. Thus, presynaptic LRP4 in ORNs is necessary for normal olfactory attraction behavior.
A complete loss of olfactory attraction was unexpected for a manipulation that reduced synapse number by ~30%. One potential explanation is that, while the remaining 70% of synapses were detected by the Brp-Short assay, they were functionally impaired. This would be consistent with the myriad of morphology defects observed in lrp4 mutant T-bars via TEM (Fig. 3i-q). In Drosophila, olfactory information flow is regulated by presynaptic inhibition by local GABAergic interneurons onto excitatory ORNs via the GABAA and GABABR2 receptors51,52. If the remaining synapses were indeed weakened by the loss of LRP4, reducing inhibition onto those ORNs might suppress the behavioral phenotype. To test this hypothesis, we inhibited the GABABR2 receptor in ORNs using RNAi, which by itself did not affect the olfactory attraction behavior (Fig. 6b).
Simultaneous knockdown of GABABR2 and lrp4, however, markedly suppressed the behavioral phenotype associated with lrp4 knockdown alone (Fig. 6b). This manipulation did not suppress the morphological phenotype, however, as the reduction in Brp-Short puncta was still apparent (1297 ± 25.62 puncta, n = 39 antennal lobes for Or47b-GAL4 > UAS-lrp4IR2 + UAS-mCD8-GFP vs. 1191 ± 48.91 puncta, n = 12 antennal lobes for Or47b-GAL4 > UAS-lrp4IR2 + UAS-GABABR2IR, p > 0.2). These results suggest that olfactory attraction behavior requires a proper level of net excitatory drive in the antennal lobe circuit and that defects caused by weakened excitatory synapses can be compensated for by reducing inhibition.
SRPK79D interacts with, and requires, LRP4 for ORN terminal localization
To understand how LRP4 could regulate excitatory synapse number and olfactory behavior, we investigated the mechanism by which it functions. In examining lrp4dalek mutant larvae and larvae where lrp4 was specifically knocked down in all neurons using RNAi, we observed impaired localization of active zone material (Fig. 7a-c). Under normal circumstances, the active zone marker Bruchpilot25 and the synaptic vesicle marker Synaptotagmin I53 were barely detectable in larval transverse nerves (Fig. 7a), due to their proper trafficking to or maintenance at synaptic sites. However, in lrp4dalek mutants, Bruchpilot improperly accumulated in the transverse nerves (Fig. 7b). This kind of accumulation is rarely observed in wild type, but is also most notably associated with loss of SRPK79D (Fig. 7c), a conserved serine-arginine protein kinase that localizes to NMJ terminals and negatively regulates premature active zone assembly before Bruchpilot reaches the fly NMJ54,55. In both lrp4 and srpk79D mutants, Brp accumulation was not accompanied by focal accumulations of Synaptotagmin I, indicating that axonal trafficking is not generally impaired (Fig. 7a-c)54–56 Because of the similarity in the transverse nerve phenotypes and the role of SRPK79D at peripheral synapses, we hypothesized that LRP4 and SRPK79D could operate together in the CNS to regulate synapse number.
As SRPK79D antibodies are not available, we utilized Venus-tagged SRPK79D transgenes to examine CNS localization. When expressed only in VA1v ORNs, venus-SRPK79D localized to axon terminals and overlapped with Brp-Short, demonstrating localization with and adjacent to CNS active zones (Fig. 7d). This was reminiscent of LRP4-HA localization in ORNs (Fig. 1f) so we turned to proExM to more precisely assess the spatial relationship between SRPK79D and LRP4. In the ORNs of expanded individual glomeruli, LRP4-HA and venus-SRPK79D exhibited coincident and adjacent localization (Fig. 7e). However, SRPK79D was expressed more broadly throughout ORNs, suggesting that only a subset of SRPK79D colocalizes with LRP4. This may indicate both LRP4-dependent and –independent roles for SRPK79D. We also examined this synaptic localization in lrp4dalek mutants: loss of lrp4 reduced synaptic SRPK79D levels by ~50% (Fig. 7f-h). This reduction was specific for SRPK79D, as the staining for other markers, like the general neuropil label N-Cadherin, was unaffected (Fig. 7f-h). These results demonstrate that LRP4 is necessary for the proper localization and / or expression of SRPK79D and suggest that SRPK79D might act downstream of LRP4 to regulate synapse number.
Due to their spatial proximity, we next employed proximity ligation assays (PLA) to determine whether LRP4 and SRPK79D are spatially close enough to interact. PLA uses oligonucleotides conjugated to secondary antibodies57,58: if the epitopes are sufficiently close (30–40 nm), the oligonucleotides can be ligated together and detected using a fluorescent probe. The result can be observed using confocal microscopy and preserve, to a high degree, the spatial localization of the proteins involved. PLA has been used to examine protein-protein interactions at the NMJ59 but not, to our knowledge, in the CNS. To examine this, we co-expressed venus-SRPK79D and LRP4-HA in all ORNs using pebbled-GAL460, stained both targets with oligonucleotide-conjugated secondary antibodies and performed PLA assays (Fig. 7i-j and Supplementary Fig. 9). As expected, both proteins localize to the axon terminals of ORNs. When either is expressed singularly (Supplementary Fig. 9a-b) or the probes are not added (Fig. 7i), no PLA signal is observed. However, in the presence of both transgenes and the appropriate probes (Fig. 7j and Supplementary Fig. 9c-d), we detected positive signal indicating that the proteins were close enough to interact. The PLA signal represented a subset of LRP4 or SRPK79D staining patterns, suggesting that there are roles independent of the other for each protein. Taken together, this data suggests that LRP4 interacts with SRPK79D to maintain its localization at the synapse.
SRPK79D overexpression suppresses LRP4 phenotypes
The interaction with, and reliance on LRP4 for synaptic SRPK79D localization suggested that the two function together. If so, we would expect that the two would display phenotypic similarity and interact in the same genetic pathway. We observed phenotypic similarity in larval nerves (Fig. 7a-c), but we further sought to study this at CNS synapses. To test the interactions between LRP4 and SRPK79D with respect to effects of synapse number, we conducted loss-of-function, genetic interaction, and genetic epistasis experiments between genetic perturbations of both. First, reducing srpk79D function presynaptically using an established RNAi54 expressed in VA1V ORNs resulted in a 15% reduction in the number of Brp-Short puncta compared to control (Fig. 8a-b, e). Thus, SRPK79D is required for normal CNS synapse number. We further sought to understand if LRP4 and SRPK79D interacted genetically. To examine this, we performed a transheterozygote genetic interaction assay. When single copies of either lrp4 or srpk79D were removed, there was no evident phenotype (Supplementary Fig. 10b-c, e). However, when one copy of each was concurrently removed, we observed a significant reduction in Brp-Short puncta (Supplementary Fig. 10d-e). This suggests that the two function in the same genetic pathway and may work together to ensure proper synapse number. Given the reduction in synaptic SRPK79D present in lrp4 mutants, we examined whether these reduced SRPK79D levels are the root cause of its synapse reduction. We overexpressed SRPK79D in presynaptic ORNs either in control or lrp4dalek mutant backgrounds. Presynaptic overexpression of SRPK79D in VA1v ORNs partially suppressed the synaptic phenotype associated with the lrp4dalek mutation, resulting in 92% of the normal number of synapses (Fig. 8a, c-e), whereas overexpression of SRPK79D in a wild-type background had no effect (Fig. 8e). Finally, we sought to determine whether srpk79D was required for the increase in Brp-Short puncta associated with LRP4 overexpression (Fig. 2h). When LRP4 was overexpressed concurrently with srpk79D RNAi, the phenotype resembled that of srpk79D RNAi alone (Fig. 8e). This suggests that LRP4 requires SRPK79D to mediate its overexpression phenotype, likely by functioning through SRPK79D to increase the number of synapses. Combined, these indicate that LRP4 and SRPK79D closely interact presynaptically in the same genetic pathway to ensure the proper number of excitatory synapses.
In light of the synapse number defects, we also examined the functional consequences of srpk79D perturbation on olfactory behavior. Flies expressing srpk79D RNAi in all ORNs demonstrated a nearly complete abrogation of attraction behavior (Fig. 8f) that was indistinguishable from the lrp4 RNAi phenotype. In light of the suppression of the synapse number phenotype, we also examined whether SRPK79D overexpression could suppress the lrp4 loss-of-function behavioral phenotype. Control flies bearing the pan-ORN pebbled-GAL4 or the SRPK79D overexpression transgene alone exhibited strong attraction towards apple cider vinegar (Fig. 8f). Further, SRPK79D overexpression in all ORNs did not affect this robust attraction. Driving both SRPK79D overexpression and lrp4 RNAi in all ORNs, however, resulted in a partial suppression of the behavioral phenotype associated with lrp4 RNAi (Fig. 8f). As the synaptic level of SRPK79D is positively regulated by LRP4 and SRPK79D overexpression suppresses the morphological and functional phenotypes associated with lrp4 loss-of-function, SRPK79D is likely a key downstream effector of LRP4 in regulating synapse number and thus, normal olfactory attraction behavior.
DISCUSSION
Understanding how synaptic organizers regulate the number and function of synapses in the CNS is a central goal of molecular neurobiology. This study identifies LRP4 as a synaptic protein whose expression is preferential for excitatory neurons in the Drosophila CNS (Fig. 1). Though well-known as the postsynaptic agrin receptor at the mouse NMJ13,61, here we describe an agrin-independent, presynaptic role for LRP4. In the Drosophila CNS, LRP4 functions presynaptically to regulate the number of active zones in presynaptic ORNs (Fig. 2-3) and acetylcholine receptor clusters in the PNs postsynaptic to those ORNs (Fig. 2). Moreover, LRP4 also controls the morphology of individual active zones: lrp4 mutant T-bars exhibit striking defects in patterning and biogenesis (Fig. 3). These defects are specific for excitatory neurons, as inhibitory neuron synapses in the antennal lobe remain unaffected (Fig. 4). Overexpression of LRP4, however, can increase synapse number cell autonomously in both excitatory and inhibitory neurons (Fig. 2-4), suggesting that both share common mechanisms for synapse addition. The role for LRP4 further extends to higher order olfactory neuropil in the lateral horn (Fig. 5), suggesting that it may serve a general role in synaptic organization. Underscoring the functional importance of LRP4, its perturbation in excitatory ORNs abrogated olfactory attraction behavior (Fig. 6). The suppression of the behavioral phenotype by reducing presynaptic inhibition onto ORNs further suggests that a proper level of excitatory drive is important for functional circuit output. To mediate both morphological and behavioral effects, LRP4 likely functions through SRPK79D, a conserved SR-protein kinase whose loss-of-function phenotypes resemble those of lrp4 (Fig. 7-8), whose synaptic localization depends on LRP4 (Fig. 7), who interacts genetically with and is physically in proximity to LRP4 (Fig. 7-8) and whose overexpression suppresses the phenotypes associated with loss of lrp4 (Fig. 8).
LRP4 as a synaptic regulator that distinguishes excitatory from inhibitory presynaptic terminals
Coordination of excitation and inhibition is critical to proper circuit function. Imbalances in excitation and inhibition lead to epileptic states62 and social dysfunction63, and may also underlie many autism spectrum disorders3,64. The mechanisms that maintain this balance are incompletely understood, though likely involve multiple aspects including the number of each type of neuron, their firing rates, release probabilities, synaptic strength, and neurotransmitter receptor sensitivities. Such regulation likely requires distinguishing excitatory from inhibitory neurons at both pre- and postsynaptic levels. Excitatory and inhibitory synapses are identified postsynaptically by distinct neurotransmitter receptor, scaffolding protein, and adhesion molecule repertoires39,65,66. Postsynaptic factors like Neuroligin 267, Gephyrin68, and Slitrk369 organize inhibitory GABAergic synapses while LRRTMs organize excitatory synapses70–72. Thus, postsynaptic regulation can occur by differential modulation of these factors. Little is known, however, about the presynaptic identifiers of excitatory versus inhibitory neurons. Recent work identified Punctin / MADD-4 as a determinant of excitatory versus inhibitory neuromuscular synapses in C. elegans, though as a secreted factor that functions via postsynaptic interaction73–75. Further, Glypican4 can localize to excitatory presynaptic terminals and interact with LRRTM471 but its synaptogenic activity is also provided by astrocytes76 and thus is not neuronal specific. Proteomic comparisons77,78 suggest few differences beyond those pertaining to neurotransmitter synthesis enzymes and transporters. But these components may not be sufficient to distinguish presynaptic excitatory from inhibitory neurons. In the Drosophila olfactory system, for example, glutamate can be inhibitory when its postsynaptic partners express glutamate-gated chloride channels79. This suggests that pre- and postsynaptic regulators may exist to distinguish excitatory and inhibitory synapses, though it is unclear what those presynaptic regulators might be.
Our data suggests that LRP4 is a candidate presynaptic organizer specific for excitatory connections. Consistently, LRP4 expression overlaps considerably with cholinergic, but not GABAergic, neurons (Fig. 1). For glutamatergic olfactory neurons, there is only partial overlap with LRP4 (Fig. 1), consistent with these neurons serving either excitatory or inhibitory roles. LRP4, however, does not only serve an identifying role at excitatory synapses, but also a functional one. Loss of lrp4 results in fewer excitatory synapses but has no effect on inhibitory synapses. However, both excitatory and inhibitory neurons show increased synapse number with lrp4 overexpression (Fig. 2, 4-5). This shared competency suggests that both neurons contain machinery that can be engaged downstream of LRP4 (or the cell surface) to add synapses. Thus, proteins like LRP4 may represent identifiers of excitatory or inhibitory terminals that function by engaging common mechanisms to add synapses.
LRP4 function across evolution
At the mouse NMJ, LRP4 is the well-established postsynaptic receptor for motoneuron-derived Agrin13,61,80 and regulates synapse formation12 and maintenance14. However, additional roles for LRP4 exist for at the level of the presynaptic motoneuron. A retrograde signal composed of LRP4 from the postsynaptic muscle interacts with an unknown receptor in the motoneuron15 to regulate presynaptic differentiation. Thus, at the mouse NMJ, postsynaptic LRP4 has both cell-autonomous and non-cell autonomous roles. In addition, presynaptic LRP4 has been implicated to regulate acetylcholine receptor clustering via MMP-mediated proteolytic cleavage16.
In the mouse CNS, LRP4 regulates synaptic physiology18,19, learning and memory, fear conditioning, and CA1 spine density18. Though CNS LRP4 most commonly associates with postsynaptic densities81, it also fractionates with synaptophysin-positive membranes18. Indeed, the observed CNS phenotypes have not been localized to a particular pool of LRP4. Our identification of Drosophila LRP4 as a key player in CNS synaptogenesis, however, posits a cell-autonomous presynaptic role. While we cannot rule out an additional postsynaptic role, our work is the first to demonstrate clear cell-autonomous presynaptic functions for LRP4. Moreover, as the Drosophila genome lacks clear Agrin and MuSK homologs, this suggests a synaptic function of LRP4 that evolutionarily precedes Agrin and MuSK recruitment to vertebrate NMJ synaptogenesis.
It remains open whether this presynaptic function is conserved in the mammalian CNS and, if so, what signal LRP4 receives. In Drosophila, the signal cannot be Agrin and in the mammalian CNS, Agrin is not essential for CNS synapse formation17. Thus, the Agrin-independence of CNS LRP4 may be conserved across systems. Moreover, our finding that LRP4 promotes excitatory, but not inhibitory, synapse formation and function is consistent with reduced excitatory but normal inhibitory input in hippocampal CA1 neurons of lrp4 mutant mice18. Moreover, we find that LRP4 in the Drosophila CNS functions through the SR-protein kinase SRPK79D. Impaired srpk79D function reduces synapse number and overexpression can suppress the functional and morphological defects associated with lrp4 loss (Fig. 7-8). This kinase is evolutionarily conserved54 and the three mammalian homologues82 are widely expressed in the mouse brain83, including in the hippocampus. From yeast to human, SRPKs regulate spliceosome assembly and gene expression82 but have not been studied in mammalian synapse formation. It will be interesting to test if these kinases also function in the mammalian CNS. Combined, however, these commonalities suggest a basic conservation between invertebrate and vertebrate systems for future study.
Connecting LRP4 and human disease
Recent work implicated LRP4 in both amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and myasthenia gravis (MG), two debilitating motor disorders with a worldwide prevalence of ~1/5000. Distinct ALS and MG populations are seropositive for LRP4 autoantibodies84’85 and double seronegative for Agrin or MuSK, suggesting that seropositivity is not a byproduct of generalized NMJ breakdown. Further, injection of LRP4 function-blocking antibodies into mice recapitulates MG86. Beyond peripheral symptoms, cognitive impairment (besides that as frontotemporal dementia) also occurs in a subset of ALS patients87. Thus, understanding the roles of LRP4 in the peripheral and central nervous systems has marked clinical significance. Our identification of an evolutionarily conserved kinase, SRPK79D, as a downstream target of LRP4 signaling may offer a window into those roles. As SRPK79D overexpression suppresses the behavioral and the synaptic phenotypes of lrp4 loss (Fig. 8), if it functions similarly in the mammalian CNS, SRPKs could be a target for therapeutics. Further investigation of how LRP4 functions in the CNS will provide new insight not only into the cognitive aspects of these debilitating motor disorders, but also into the fundamental aspects of excitatory synapse formation.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Generation of lrp4 CRISPR mutants
The lrp4 mutation was designed following published methods37. Two lrp4-specific chimeric RNAs (chiRNA) were cloned into the pU6-BbsI-chiRNA vector as follows - A1, corresponding to an optimal PAM site 2 bp 5’ of the start ATG (using primers: 5’ CTTCGGCGAGTTTGTGTACATGTC 3’ and 5’ AAACGACATGTACACAAACTCGCC 3’ with a phosphate at the 5’ end) and A2, corresponding to an optimal PAM site 34 bp 3’ of the TAG stop codon (using primers 5’ CTTCGAATCGGTAAATGGTTTCAG 3’ and 5’ AAACCTGAAACCATTTACCGATTC 3’). Both the A1 and A2 chiRNA plasmids (250 ng / μL) and a pHsp70-Cas9 plasmid (500 ng / μL) were injected into MB03015 embryos (stock BL23835) to produce lrp4 deletions. MB03015 flies bear a Minos-based Mi{ET1} insertion88 between exons 5 and 6 of the lrp4 open reading frame; adults with the insertion are marked by expression of a GFP reporter in the eye. Successful events were screened for by the loss of GFP: as the PAM sites were distant from and flanking the insertion, loss of fluorescence likely indicated removal of the intervening sequences (the lrp4 coding region). Five such lines (representing identical events) were recovered and homozygous viable stocks established: the allele was named dalek due to the "extermination” of the lrp4 gene, and in homage to the classic villains of ‘Doctor Who’. Loss of lrp4 was assessed using genomic DNA prepared from control and lrp4dalek adults using the QIAgen DNeasy Blood and Tissue Kit (QIAgen, Valencia, CA). Genomic PCR bands corresponding to exon 2 (534 bp using primers 5’ TGTATTCCACGAACCTGGGTATG 3’ and 5’ CAAAATGCAGCGCCCATTGTT 3’) and the exon 7-8 junction (615 bp using primers 5’ AGTCTTGATGGTAGCAATAGGCAT 3’ and 5’ CTCTGGTAGATTTTGACACTG 3’) revealed the absence of both regions in lrp4dalek. The lrp4dalek deletion was further confirmed by the presence of a 315 bp ‘Flank’ band (with some background bands present only with the lrp4dalek deletion) representing the connection of sequences from the 5’ and 3’ UTRs (amplified by primers 5’ AACAGAATCGGAACAGCAGTT 3’ and 5’ GAGCTTTAACAGGACACGTTT 3’) not present in control samples (see Fig. S1b). Finally, antibody staining (see Supplementary Experimental Procedures) revealed the elimination of LRP4 signal in the lrp4dalek allele, suggesting the creation of a null allele.
Cloning of LRP4 cDNA and Transgene Construction
An adult Drosophila cDNA library was made according to manufacturer’s protocol using the GeneRacer Kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad CA). From the library, the lrp4 cDNA was amplified using the forward primer 5’ CACCATGTATTTGACAGCCTTT 3’ and the reverse primer 5’ TGTGATAGTCGAGAGCGT 3’ (without the endogenous Stop codon) and cloned directly into the pENTR vector using the pENTR/D-TOPO Cloning Kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). Complete cDNA clones were verified by sequencing. UAS-LRP4-HA was made by recombining pENTR-LRP4 with pUAST-attB-Gateway-3xFLAG-3xHA29 via LR clonase. The resultant pUAST-attB-LRP4-3xHA-3xFLAG was transformed into the ΦC31 landing site 86Fb on the 3rd chromosome using standard methods.
Production of LRP4 antibodies
Custom antibodies were made by Pierce Custom Services (ThermoFisher, Rockford, IL) against the C-NKRNSRGSSRSVLTFSNPN peptide corresponding to residues 1921- 1939 of the intracellular side of LRP4. Rat antisera were Ig-purified and then used at a dilution of 1:200 on adult brains. The specificity of the antibody was verified by the absence of signal in the lrp4dalek mutant.
Alignment of LRP4 homologues
The Drosophila melanogaster (CG8909; accession AAF48538.1), Mus musculus (accession NP_766256.3), and Homo sapiens (accession NP_002325.2) LRP4 sequences were obtained from NCBI. CLUSTALW alignment was performed using PSI/T-Coffee for transmembrane proteins (http://tcoffee.crg.cat/apps/tcoffee/do:tmcoffee) and expressed graphically using ESPript3.0 (http://espript.ibcp.fr/ESPript/ESPript/).
Drosophila stocks and transgenic strains
All controls, stocks, and crosses were raised at 25°C. Mutants and transgenes were maintained over balancer chromosomes to enable selection in adult or larval stages. The GMR90B08-GAL489 line was used to examine lrp4 expression (referred to as lrp4-GAL4). Four UAS-RNAi lines against differing regions of lrp4 were also identified: UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1 (v29900, Vienna Drosophila Resource Center), UAS-lrp4-RNAi 2 (v108629, Vienna Drosophila Resource Center), UAS-lrp4-RNAi 3 (JF01570, Harvard TRiP Collection), UAS-lrp4-RNAi 4 (JF01632, Harvard TRiP Collection). The following GAL4 lines enabled tissue-specific expression: Or47b-GAL4 (VA1v ORNs) 90, Or67d-GAL4 (DA1 ORNs)91, Or88a-GAL4 (VA1d ORNs)90, AM29-GAL4 (DL4 and DM6 ORNs) 92, Mz19-GAL4 (DA1, VA1d, DC3 PNs)93, Mz699-GAL4 (inhibitory projection neurons that project to the lateral horn)46, 47, GAD1-GAL4 (GABAergic inhibitory neurons) 42, pebbled-GAL4 (all ORNs)60. The following UAS transgenic lines were used as either reporters or to alter gene function: UAS-Syt-HA94, UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw 34, UAS-DSyd1-GFP 95, UAS-Da7-GFP35, UAS-mCD8-GFP96, UAS-3xHA-mtdT48, UAS-FRT-Stop-FRT-mCD8-GFP 97, UAS-Dcr2 98, UAS-GABABR2-RNAi51, UAS-srpk79D-RNAi54, UAS-venus-SRPK79D-#2854, UAS-venus-SRPK79D-#1A54. Intersectional analyses were done using the eyFLP35 construct99 which expresses FLP in ORNs, but not PNs and GH146-FLP67, which expresses in 2/3 of all olfactory PNs but not ORNs. The srpk79Datc allele54 was used to remove srpk79D function.
Immunocytochemistry
Adult brains were dissected at 10 days post eclosion as previously described24,100. Third instar larvae were dissected as previously described101. The following primary antibodies were used: mouse antibody to Bruchpilot (mAbnc82, 1:40)102, rabbit antibody to Synaptotagmin I (1:4000)103, rat antibody to N-Cadherin (mAbDN-EX #8, 1:40)104, rat antibody to HA (3F10, Roche, 1:100), mouse antibody to choline acetyltransferase (ChAT, mAbChAT4B1, 1:100)105, mouse antibody to ELAV (mAb9F8A9, 1:100)106, rabbit antibody to GABA (Sigma, 1:200), mouse antibody to Repo (mAb8D12, 1:100)107, rabbit antibody to vGlut (1:500)108, rabbit antibody to dsRed (Clontech, 1:500), chicken antibody to GFP (Aves Labs, 1:1000), Cy5-conjugated goat antibody to HRP (1:100, Jackson ImmunoResearch). Alexa488-, Alexa568-, and Alexa647-conjugated secondary antibodies were used at 1:250 (Invitrogen). CF633-conjugated secondary antibodies were used at 1:250 (Biotium). FITC-conjugated secondary antibodies were used at 1:200 (Jackson ImmunoResearch).
Proximity ligation assay
Brains were processed as described and stained using rabbit anti-GFP antibodies at 1:500 (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) with FITC-conjugated secondary antibodies and mouse anti-HA antibodies at 1:250 (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA) with Alexa647-conjugated secondary antibodies, leaving the red channel open. For PLA, we used the DuoLink Mouse Rabbit In Situ PLA kit (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO). Following the last wash after secondary antibody incubation, the brains were incubated in the anti-mouse and / or antirabbit PLA probes at a 1:5 dilution for 2 hours at 37°C. Brains were then washed thrice for 10’ each with Wash Buffer A, and incubated in Ligation solution (1:40 ligase in ligation buffer) for 1 hour at 37°C. Brains were washed in Wash buffer A for three times at 10’ each and then incubated in Amplification solution (1:80 dilution of polymerase in Amplification buffer) for 2 hours at 37°C. Finally, brains were washed three times for 10’ each in Wash Buffer B, and incubated in SlowFade overnight before mounting. Controls without Probes went through the identical process as those with probes, but with water substituted for the probes themselves in the first PLA step. Brains were imaged as described via confocal microscopy.
Imaging, synaptic quantification and image processing
All images were obtained using a Zeiss LSM510 Meta laser-scanning confocal microscope (Carl Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) using either a 40X 1.4 NA PlanApo or a 63X 1.4 NA PlanApo lens. Images of synaptic puncta (Brp-Short-mStraw or Dα7-GFP) and neurite membrane (mCD8-GFP, 3xHA-mTDT) were imaged, processed and quantified as previously described24 with the following adjustments: images of synaptic puncta in the lateral horn (Mz19-GAL4, Fig. S5; Mz699-GAL4, Fig. S7) were imaged at 63X, with an optical zoom of 2. Mz19 and Mz699 images were processed with a spot size of 0.6 μm and neurite volume calculated with a smoothing of 0.2 μm and a local contrast of 0.5 μm.
Images were processed and figures prepared using Adobe Photoshop CS4 and Adobe Illustrator CS4 (Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA). For antibody staining comparisons between genotypes, samples were imaged and processed under identical conditions. Fluorescence intensity was measured with ImageJ (NIH, Bethesda, MD).
Electron microscopy
Transmission electron microscopy was performed on 10 day old adult control and lrp4dalek male brains as previously described24. Putative ORN terminals were identified based on morphology36,41 and quantified as described24. Terminal perimeter was measured using ImageJ (NIH, Bethesda, MD) and used to calculate T-bar density. All quantification was done with the user blind to the genotype.
Expansion microscopy
Protein retention expansion microscopy27 was modified for use with Drosophila brain tissue. Fixed and antibody-labeled brains were treated with 100 μg / mL acryloyl-X, SE (ThermoFisher) overnight at room temperature and then embedded in polyelectrolyte gel for two hours at 37°C. Slices containing brains were excised from solidified polyelectrolyte gel and immersed in digestion buffer with 200 μg / mL Proteinase K (Ambion) overnight at room temperature. Slices achieved maximum expansion after five washes with deionized water. Fully expanded gel slices were anchored to the bottom of a petri dish with 2% low melting point agarose. Confocal microscopy images were obtained with a 25x water immersion objective (Leica SP8).
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was completed using Prism 6.07 (GraphPad Software, Inc., La Jolla, CA). For representative datasets, the experimenter was blind to genotype during quantification and data analysis. Significance between two samples was determined using student’s t-test. Significance amongst multiple samples was determined using oneway ANOVA with a Tukey’s post-test to correct for multiple comparisons. Significance between two samples (for EM) was determined using a two-tailed student’s t-test.
Behavioral analyses
Olfactory trap assays were constructed as described48. Flies were raised in a 12/12 light/dark incubator. For each cohort, 25 flies of the appropriate genotype were starved overnight in a 1% agar vial in complete darkness. They were anesthetized briefly on ice and transferred to the olfactory trap, which contained an experimental vial of apple cider vinegar (ACV: Safeway, Palo Alto, CA) and a control vial of water. Flies were then left in the trap for 16 hours in complete darkness before being quantified. Preference index was calculated as (FliesAcv - Flieswater) / FliesTotal. For all cases, n ≥ 6 cohorts of flies per genotype.
Genotypes
Fig. 1: (b) +; +; +; +. (c) lrp4dalek / Y; +; +; +. (d) w, UAS-Syt-HA / Y; +; lrp4-GAL4 / +; +. (e-f) w, pebbled-GAL4 / Y; +; UAS-LRP4-HA / +; +. (g-k) +; UAS-mCD8-GFP / +; lrp4-GAL4 / +; +. Fig. 2: (b) UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP / +; Or47b-GAL4/+; +. (c) lrp4dalek/ Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP/ UAS-Dcr2; Or47b-GAL4/ +; +. (d) UAS-Dcr2/ Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw/ UAS-lrp4-RNAi 2; Or47b-GAL4 / +; +. (e) + / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw/ +; UAS-LRP4-HA / Or47b-GAL4; +. (f) + / Y; Mz19-GAL4 / +; UAS-Da7-EGFP / +; +. (g) lrp4dalek / Y; Mz19-GAL4 / +; UAS-Da7-EGFP/ +; +. (h) Control = UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; Or47b-GAL4 / +; +. lrp4dalek = lrp4dalek / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP / UAS-Dcr2; Or47b-GAL4 / +; +. lrp4IR-1 = UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1; Or47b-GAL4 / +; + and UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1; Or47b-GAL4 / +; +. lrp4IR-2 = UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 2; Or47b-GAL4 / +; + and UAS-Dcr2/ Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ UAS-lrp4-RNAi 2; Or47b-GAL4 / +; +. lrp4IR-3 = UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw/ +; Or47b-GAL4 / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 3; + and UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; Or47b-GAL4 / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 3; +. lrp4IR-4 = UAS-Dcr2/ Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw/+; Or47b-GAL4/UAS-lrp4-RNAi 4; + and UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; Or47b-GAL4 / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 4; +. LRP4OE = UAS-Dcr2/ Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw/ +; UAS-LRP4-HA / Or47b-GAL4; + and UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP / +; UAS-LRP4-HA / Or47b-GAL4; +. (i) Control = + / Y; Mz19-GAL4, UAS-3xHA-mTDT/ +; UAS-Da7-EGFP / +; +. lrp4dalek = lrp4dalek / Y; Mz19-GAL4, UAS-3xHA-mTDT/ +; UAS-Da7-EGFP / +; +. Fig. 3: (a, c-e, f-h) Control = + / Y; +; +; +. (b-e, i-q) lrp4dalek = lrp4dalek / Y; +; +; +. Fig. 4: (a) UAS-Dcr2 / Y; GAD1-GAL4 / UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP; +; +. (b) lrp4dalek / Y; GAD1-GAL4 / UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP; UAS-Dcr2 / +; +. (c) UAS-Dcr2 / Y; GAD1-GAL4 / UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw; UAS-LRP4-HA/+; +. (d) Control = UAS-Dcr2/ Y; GAD1-GAL4/UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP; +; +. lrp4dalek = lrp4dalek / Y; GAD1-GAL4 / UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP; UAS-Dcr2 / +; +. lrp4IR-1 = UAS-Dcr2 / Y; GAD1-GAL4, UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1; +; + and UAS-Dcr2 / Y; GAD1-GAL4 / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1; UAS-mCD8-GFP / +; +. lrp4IR-2 = UAS-Dcr2 / Y; GAD1-GAL4, UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 2; +; + and UAS-Dcr2/ Y; GAD1-GAL4/UAS-lrp4-RNAi 2; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; +. LRP4OE = UAS-Dcr2/ Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw/GAD1-GAL4; UAS-LRP4-HA / +; + and UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP / GAD1-GAL4; UAS-LRP4-HA / +; +. Fig. 5: (b) + / Y; Mz19-GAL4 / UAS-mCD8-GFP, UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw; UAS-Dcr2 / +; +. (c) lrp4dalek / Y; Mz19-GAL4 / UAS-mCD8-GFP, UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw; UAS-Dcr2 / +; +. (d) UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; Mz699-GAL4 / +; +. (e) lrp4dalek / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP / UAS-Dcr2; Mz699-GAL4 / +; +. (f) Control = + / Y; Mz19-GAL4 / UAS-mCD8-GFP, UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw; UAS-Dcr2 / +; +. lrp4dalek = lrp4dalek / Y; Mz19-GAL4 / UA S-m CD8-GFP, UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw; UAS-Dcr2/ +; +. lrp4IR-1 = + / Y; Mz19-GAL4, UAS-mCD8-GFP/UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw / +; +. lrp4IR-2 = + / Y; Mz19-GAL4, UAS-mCD8-GFP / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 2; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw / +; +. (g) Control = + / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP / +; Mz699-GAL4 / UAS-Dcr2; +; +. lrp4dalek = lrp4dalek / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP / +; Mz699-GAL4 / UAS-Dcr2; +. lrp4IR-1 = + / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP, UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw/ UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1; Mz699-GAL4 / +; +. lrp4IR-2 = + / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP, UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 2; Mz699-GAL4 / +; +. LRP4OE = + / Y; UA S-m CD8-GFP, UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw /+; Mz699-GAL4 / UAS-LRP4-HA; +. Fig. 6: Column 1 = pebbled-GAL4 / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; +. Column 2 = + / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1; UAS-mCD8-GFP/+; +. Column 3 = + / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ UAS-lrp4-RNAi 2; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; +. Column 4 = + / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP / +; UAS-mCD8-GFP / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 3; +. Column 5 = + / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP / +; UAS-mCD8-GFP / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 4; +. Column 6 = pebbled-GAL4 / Y; UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1 / +; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; +. Column 7 = pebbled-GAL4 / Y; UAS-lrp4-RNAi 2 / +; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; +. Column 8 = pebbled-GAL4 / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; UAS-lrp4-RNAi 3 / +; +. Column 9 = pebbled-GAL4 / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; UAS-lrp4-RNAi 4/ +; +. Column 10 = + / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ UAS-GABABR2-RNAI; UAS-mCD8-GFP / +; +. Column 11 = pebbled-GAL4 / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP / UAS-GABABR2-RNAI; UAS-mCD8-GFP / +; +. Column 12 = + / Y; UAS-GABABR2-RNAI / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 2; UAS-mCD8-GFP / +; +. Column 13 = pebbled-GAL4 / Y; UAS-lrp4-RNAi 2 / UAS-GABABR2-RNAI; +; +. Fig. 7: (a) + / Y; +; +; +. (b) lrp4dalek / Y; +; +; +. (c) + / Y; +; srpkatc; +. (d) + / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw / UAS-venus-SRPK79D-28; Or47b-GAL4 / +; +. (e) pebbled-GAL4 / Y; UAS-venus-SRPK79D-28 / +; LRP4-HA / +; +. (f) + / Y; Or47b-GAL4 / UAS-venus-SRPK79D-28; +; +. (g) lrp4dalek / Y; Or47b-GAL4 / UAS-venus-SRPK79D-28; +; +. (h) Control = + / Y; Or47b-GAL4 / UAS-venus-SRPK79D-28; +; +. lrp4dalek = lrp4dalek / Y; Or47b-GAL4 / UAS-venus-SRPK79D-28; +; +. (i-j) pebbled-GAL4 / Y; UAS-venus-SRPK79D-28 / +; LRP4-HA / +; +. Fig. 8: (a) UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP / +; Or47b-GAL4 / +; +. (b) UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw / +; Or47b-GAL4 / UAS-srpk79D-RNAi; +. (c) lrp4dalek / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP / UAS-Dcr2; Or47b-GAL4 / +; +. (d) lrp4dalek / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP / +; Or47b-GAL4 / UAS-venus-SRPK79D-1A; +. (e) Control = same as (a). srpkRNAi = same as (b). srpkRNAi + LRP4OE = UAS-Dcr2/ Y; Or47b-GAL4 / UAS-srpk79D-RNAi; UAS-LRP4-HA / +; +. lrp4dalek = same as (c). SRPKOE = + / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP / +; Or47b-GAL4 / UAS-venus-SRPK79D-1A; +. lrp4dalek + SRPKOE = same as (d). (f) Column 1 = pebbled-GAL4 / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; +. Column 2 = + / Y; UAS-srpk79D-RNAi/ +; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; +. Column 3 = + / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP/UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; +. Column 4 = + / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ UAS-venus-SRPK79D-1A; +. Column 5 = + / Y; UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1 / +; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ UAS-venus-SRPK79D-1A; +. Column 6 = pebbled-GAL4 / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; UAS-venus-SRPK79D-1A / +; +. Column 7 = pebbled-GAL4 / Y; UAS-srpk79D-RNAi/ +; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; +. Column 8 = pebbled-GAL4/ Y; UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1 /+; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; +. Column 9 = pebbled-GAL4 / Y; UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1 / +; UAS-venus-SRPK79D-1A / +; +. Supplementary Fig. 2(b) + / + = +; +; +; +. + / - = lrp4dalek / +; +; +; +. - / - = lrp4dalek; +; +; +. (c) +; +; lrp4-GAL4 / UAS-LRP4-HA; +. (d) eyFLP3⋅5 / Y; UAS-FRT-STOP-FRT-mCD8-GFP / +; lrp4-GAL4 / +; +. (e) + / Y; GH146-FLP, UAS-FRT-STOP-FRT-mCD8-GFP / +; lrp4-GAL4 / +; +. Supplementary Fig. 3: (a) +; +; +; +. (b) pebbled-GAL4 / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw/ +; +; +. Supplementary Fig. 4: (a,e) UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; Or47b-GAL4 / +; +. (b) UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw/ UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1; Or47b-GAL4 / +; +. (c) UAS-Dcr2/ Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw/ +; Or47b-GAL4 / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 3; +. (d) UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw / +; Or47b-GAL4 / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 4; +. (f) lrp4dalek/ Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP/ UAS-Dcr2; Or47b-GAL4 / +; +. (g) UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1; Or47b-GAL4 / +; +.(h) UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ UAS-lrp4-RNAi 2; Or47b-GAL4 / +; +. (i) UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP / +; Or47b-GAL4 / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 3; +. (j) UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; Or47b-GAL4 / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 4; +. (k) UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; UAS-LRP4-HA / Or47b-GAL4; +. (l) + / Y; Mz19-GAL4, UAS-3xHA-mTDT/ +; UAS-Da7-EGFP/ +; +. (m) lrp4dalek / Y; Mz19-GAL4, UAS-3xHA-mTDT/ +; UAS-Da7-EGFP/ +; +. Supplementary Fig. 5: (a) UAS-Dcr2/ +; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP / +; Or47b-GAL4 / +; +. (b) UAS-Dcr2 / +; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1; Or47b-GAL4 / +; +. (c) UAS-Dcr2 / +; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw/ UAS-lrp4-RNAi 2; Or47b-GAL4/ +; +. (d) UAS-Dcr2/ +; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw/ +; Or47b-GAL4/UAS-lrp4-RNAi 3; +. (e) UAS-Dcr2/ +; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw/ +; Or47b-GAL4 / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 4; +. (f) UAS-Dcr2/+; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP/+; Or47b-GAL4/+; +. (g) UAS-Dcr2/+; UAS-mCD8-GFP/UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1; Or47b-GAL4/+; +. (h) UAS-Dcr2/+; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ UAS-lrp4-RNAi 2; Or47b-GAL4 / +; +. (i) UAS-Dcr2 / +; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; Or47b-GAL4/ UAS-lrp4-RNAi 3; +. (j) UAS-Dcr2/+; UAS-mCD8-GFP/+; Or47b-GAL4 / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 4; +. (k) UAS-Dcr2 / +; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw / +; UAS-LRP4-HA / Or47b-GAL4; +. (l) UAS-Dcr2 / +; UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; UAS-LRP4-HA / Or47b-GAL4; +. (m) same as Fig. 2h. Supplementary Fig. 6: (a) UAS-Dcr2 / Y; AM29-GAL4, UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw / UAS-mCD8-GFP; +; +. (b) UAS-Dcr2 / Y; AM29-GAL4, UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1; +; +. (c) UAS-Dcr2 / Y; AM29-GAL4, UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 2; +; +. (d) UAS-Dcr2/ Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; Or88a-GAL4/ +; +. (e) UAS-Dcr2/ Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw/UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1; Or88a-GAL4 / +; +. (f) UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw/ UAS-lrp4-RNAi 2; Or88a-GAL4 / +; +. (g) UAS-Dcr2/ Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP/ +; Or67d-GAL4/ +; +. (h) UAS-Dcr2/ Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw/ UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1; Or67d-GAL4/+; +. (i) UAS-Dcr2/ Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw/UAS-lrp4-RNAi 2; Or67d-GAL4/ +; +. (j) DL4 and DM6 = same as (a-c). VA1d = same as (d-f). DA1 = same as (g-i). Supplementary Fig. 7: (a) UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-3xHA-mtdT/ +; Or67d-GAL4 / UAS-DSyd1-GFP; +. (b) UAS-Dcr2 / Y; UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1 / +; Or67d-GAL4/ UAS-DSyd1-GFP; +. (c) UAS-Dcr2/ Y; UAS-lrp4-RNAi 2 / +; Or67d-GAL4 / UAS-DSyd1-GFP; +. (d) Control = as in (a). lrp4IR-1 = as in (b). lrp4IR-2 = as in (c). Supplementary Fig. 8: (a) + / Y; Mz19-GAL4/ UAS-mCD8-GFP, UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw; UAS-Dcr2/ +; +. (b) + /Y; Mz19-GAL4, UAS-mCD8-GFP/UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw / +; + (c) + / Y; Mz19-GAL4, UAS-mCD8-GFP / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 2; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw / +; +. (d) + / Y; UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw, UAS-mCD8-GFP / +; Mz699-GAL4 / UAS-Dcr2; +; +. (e) + / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP, UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 1; Mz699-GAL4 / +; +. (f) + / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP, UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw / UAS-lrp4-RNAi 2; Mz699-GAL4 / +; +. (g) + / Y; UAS-mCD8-GFP, UAS-Brp-Short-mStraw/ +; Mz699-GAL4/UAS-LRP4-HA; +. Supplementary Fig. 9: (a) pebbled-GAL4/ Y; UAS-SRPK79D-28/UAS-Dcr2; +; +. (b) pebbled-GAL4/ Y; UAS-Dcr2 / +; UAS-LRP4-HA/ +; +. (c-d) pebbled-GAL4 / Y; UAS-SRPK79D-28 / +; UAS-LRP4-HA / +; +. Supplementary Fig. 10: (a) +; +; +; +. (b) lrp4dalek / +; +; +; +. (c) +; +; srpkatc / +; +. (d) lrp4dalek/ +; +; srpkatc / +; +. (e) same as in a-d.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
TJM conceived of the project, performed experiments, analyzed data, contributed new reagents, and wrote the paper. DJL made the CRISPR mutation in lrp4 and performed transgenic injections. IEW adapted expansion microscopy for Drosophila. TJM and IEW performed expansion microscopy. LL supervised the project. All authors critically reviewed the paper.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank Graeme Davis, Kate O’Connor-Giles, and Jing Wang for the kind gift of reagents, the Bloomington Stock Center for flies, and the Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank (University of Iowa, maintained under the auspices of the NICHD) for antibodies. We acknowledge the Luo Lab and S. Zosimus for fruitful discussions, and T. Clandinin, K. Shen, T. Südhof, K. Beier, N. Berns, L. Denardo Wilke, and J. Lui for critical comments on the manuscript. We also acknowledge T. Clandinin for supporting IEW. This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH: K99/R00- DC013059 to TJM; R01 DC-005982 to LL). LL is an Investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
REFERENCES
- 1.↵
- 2.↵
- 3.↵
- 4.↵
- 5.↵
- 6.↵
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
- 11.↵
- 12.↵
- 13.↵
- 14.↵
- 15.↵
- 16.↵
- 17.↵
- 18.↵
- 19.↵
- 20.↵
- 21.↵
- 22.↵
- 23.↵
- 24.↵
- 25.↵
- 26.↵
- 27.↵
- 28.↵
- 29.↵
- 30.
- 31.↵
- 32.↵
- 33.↵
- 34.↵
- 35.↵
- 36.↵
- 37.↵
- 38.↵
- 39.↵
- 40.↵
- 41.↵
- 42.↵
- 43.↵
- 44.↵
- 45.↵
- 46.↵
- 47.↵
- 48.↵
- 49.↵
- 50.↵
- 51.↵
- 52.↵
- 53.↵
- 54.↵
- 55.↵
- 56.↵
- 57.↵
- 58.↵
- 59.↵
- 60.↵
- 61.↵
- 62.↵
- 63.↵
- 64.↵
- 65.↵
- 66.↵
- 67.↵
- 68.↵
- 69.↵
- 70.↵
- 71.↵
- 72.↵
- 73.↵
- 74.
- 75.↵
- 76.↵
- 77.↵
- 78.↵
- 79.↵
- 80.↵
- 81.↵
- 82.↵
- 83.↵
- 84.↵
- 85.↵
- 86.↵
- 87.↵
- 88.↵
- 89.↵
- 90.↵
- 91.↵
- 92.↵
- 93.↵
- 94.↵
- 95.↵
- 96.↵
- 97.↵
- 98.↵
- 99.↵
- 100.↵
- 101.↵
- 102.↵
- 103.↵
- 104.↵
- 105.↵
- 106.↵
- 107.↵
- 108.↵
- 109.
- 110.