Molecular logic of synaptic diversity between Drosophila tonic and phasic motoneurons.

Although neuronal subtypes display unique synaptic organization and function, the underlying transcriptional differences that establish these features are poorly understood. To identify molecular pathways that contribute to synaptic diversity, single-neuron Patch-seq RNA profiling was performed on Drosophila tonic and phasic glutamatergic motoneurons. Tonic motoneurons form weaker facilitating synapses onto single muscles, while phasic motoneurons form stronger depressing synapses onto multiple muscles. Super-resolution microscopy and in vivo imaging demonstrated that synaptic active zones in phasic motoneurons are more compact and display enhanced Ca2+ influx compared with their tonic counterparts. Genetic analysis identified unique synaptic properties that mapped onto gene expression differences for several cellular pathways, including distinct signaling ligands, post-translational modifications, and intracellular Ca2+ buffers. These findings provide insights into how unique transcriptomes drive functional and morphological differences between neuronal subtypes.

Tales of the unexpected.

A single event can completely change the direction of a career in science; four researchers share their stories.

Molecular Logic of Synaptic Diversity Between Drosophila Tonic and Phasic Motoneurons.

Although neuronal subtypes display unique synaptic organization and function, the underlying transcriptional differences that establish these features is poorly understood. To identify molecular pathways that contribute to synaptic diversity, single neuron PatchSeq RNA profiling was performed on Drosophila tonic and phasic glutamatergic motoneurons. Tonic motoneurons form weaker facilitating synapses onto single muscles, while phasic motoneurons form stronger depressing synapses onto multiple muscles. Super-resolution microscopy and in vivo imaging demonstrated synaptic active zones in phasic motoneurons are more compact and display enhanced Ca 2+ influx compared to their tonic counterparts. Genetic analysis identified unique synaptic properties that mapped onto gene expression differences for several cellular pathways, including distinct signaling ligands, post-translational modifications and intracellular Ca 2+ buffers. These findings provide insights into how unique transcriptomes drive functional and morphological differences between neuronal subtypes.

The decoy SNARE Tomosyn sets tonic versus phasic release properties and is required for homeostatic synaptic plasticity.

Synaptic vesicle (SV) release probability (Pr) is a key presynaptic determinant of synaptic strength established by cell-intrinsic properties and further refined by plasticity. To characterize mechanisms that generate Pr heterogeneity between distinct neuronal populations, we examined glutamatergic tonic (Ib) and phasic (Is) motoneurons in Drosophila with stereotyped differences in Pr and synaptic plasticity. We found the decoy soluble N-ethylmaleimide sensitive factor attachment protein receptor (SNARE) Tomosyn is differentially expressed between these motoneuron subclasses and contributes to intrinsic differences in their synaptic output. Tomosyn expression enables tonic release in Ib motoneurons by reducing SNARE complex formation and suppressing Pr to generate decreased levels of SV fusion and enhanced resistance to synaptic fatigue. In contrast, phasic release dominates when Tomosyn expression is low, enabling high intrinsic Pr at Is terminals at the expense of sustained release and robust presynaptic potentiation. In addition, loss of Tomosyn disrupts the ability of tonic synapses to undergo presynaptic homeostatic potentiation.

Nerve cells transmit messages in the form of electrical and chemical signals. Electrical impulses travel along a neuron to the junction between two neighbouring cells, the synapse. There, chemical messengers called neurotransmitters are released from one cell and detected by the next, which can either excite or inhibit the recipient cell. Synapses differ in their ability to propagate signals and their signalling activity also fluctuates at times. Moreover, synaptic connections can be strengthened or weakened in a process called plasticity, which is a key part of learning new skills and recovering from a brain injury. It is thought that synaptic signalling might be amped up or dialled down to change the output of the connection between two cells, but exactly how this happens remains unclear. To investigate why synapses differ and how their signalling capabilities change, Sauvola et al. examined the connections between neurons and muscle cells in developing fruit flies. In fruit fly larvae, two types of neurons ­ called tonic Ib and phasic Is neurons ­ form synapses with muscle cells. But their synapses have different signalling properties: Ib synapses are weaker than Is synapses. Sauvola et al. hypothesised that a protein called Tomosyn ­ which is thought to restrict chemical signalling at the synapse ­ might be more active at weaker Ib synapses. Sauvola et al. found that Tomosyn was indeed more abundant at Ib synapses than at Is synapses, appearing to reflect their differences in signalling properties. In flies engineered to lack the Tomosyn protein, Ib synapses became four times stronger than usual, while Is synapses hardly changed. This supports the idea that Tomosyn restricts the release of neurotransmitters at typically weak Ib synapses. Further experiments showed Ib synapses in flies lacking Tomosyn also lost their malleability and ability to become strengthened during synaptic plasticity. Though the precise molecular interactions need further investigation, the findings suggest that Tomosyn is required for some forms of synaptic plasticity by controlling how much chemical signal neurons release. In summary, this work advances our understanding of synaptic signalling and brain plasticity, showing once again how the brain can change itself.

Synaptic Plasticity Induced by Differential Manipulation of Tonic and Phasic Motoneurons in Drosophila.

Structural and functional plasticity induced by neuronal competition is a common feature of developing nervous systems. However, the rules governing how postsynaptic cells differentiate between presynaptic inputs are unclear. In this study, we characterized synaptic interactions following manipulations of tonic Ib or phasic Is glutamatergic motoneurons that coinnervate postsynaptic muscles of male or female Drosophila melanogaster larvae. After identifying drivers for each neuronal subtype, we performed ablation or genetic manipulations to alter neuronal activity and examined the effects on synaptic innervation and function at neuromuscular junctions. Ablation of either Ib or Is resulted in decreased muscle response, with some functional compensation occurring in the Ib input when Is was missing. In contrast, the Is terminal failed to show functional or structural changes following loss of the coinnervating Ib input. Decreasing the activity of the Ib or Is neuron with tetanus toxin light chain resulted in structural changes in muscle innervation. Decreased Ib activity resulted in reduced active zone (AZ) number and decreased postsynaptic subsynaptic reticulum volume, with the emergence of filopodial-like protrusions from synaptic boutons of the Ib input. Decreased Is activity did not induce structural changes at its own synapses, but the coinnervating Ib motoneuron increased the number of synaptic boutons and AZs it formed. These findings indicate that tonic Ib and phasic Is motoneurons respond independently to changes in activity, with either functional or structural alterations in the Ib neuron occurring following ablation or reduced activity of the coinnervating Is input, respectively.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Both invertebrate and vertebrate nervous systems display synaptic plasticity in response to behavioral experiences, indicating that underlying mechanisms emerged early in evolution. How specific neuronal classes innervating the same postsynaptic target display distinct types of plasticity is unclear. Here, we examined whether Drosophila tonic Ib and phasic Is motoneurons display competitive or cooperative interactions during innervation of the same muscle, or compensatory changes when the output of one motoneuron is altered. We established a system to differentially manipulate the motoneurons and examined the effects of cell type-specific changes to one of the inputs. Our findings indicate Ib and Is motoneurons respond differently to activity mismatch or loss of the coinnervating input, with the Ib subclass responding robustly compared with Is motoneurons.

Synaptic Properties and Plasticity Mechanisms of Invertebrate Tonic and Phasic Neurons.

Defining neuronal cell types and their associated biophysical and synaptic diversity has become an important goal in neuroscience as a mechanism to create comprehensive brain cell atlases in the post-genomic age. Beyond broad classification such as neurotransmitter expression, interneuron vs. pyramidal, sensory or motor, the field is still in the early stages of understanding closely related cell types. In both vertebrate and invertebrate nervous systems, one well-described distinction related to firing characteristics and synaptic release properties are tonic and phasic neuronal subtypes. In vertebrates, these classes were defined based on sustained firing responses during stimulation (tonic) vs. transient responses that rapidly adapt (phasic). In crustaceans, the distinction expanded to include synaptic release properties, with tonic motoneurons displaying sustained firing and weaker synapses that undergo short-term facilitation to maintain muscle contraction and posture. In contrast, phasic motoneurons with stronger synapses showed rapid depression and were recruited for short bursts during fast locomotion. Tonic and phasic motoneurons with similarities to those in crustaceans have been characterized in Drosophila, allowing the genetic toolkit associated with this model to be used for dissecting the unique properties and plasticity mechanisms for these neuronal subtypes. This review outlines general properties of invertebrate tonic and phasic motoneurons and highlights recent advances that characterize distinct synaptic and plasticity pathways associated with two closely related glutamatergic neuronal cell types that drive invertebrate locomotion.

Directional cerebrospinal fluid movement between brain ventricles in larval zebrafish.

BACKGROUND: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) contained within the brain ventricles contacts neuroepithelial progenitor cells during brain development. Dynamic properties of CSF movement may limit locally produced factors to specific regions of the developing brain. However, there is no study of in vivo CSF dynamics between ventricles in the embryonic brain. We address CSF movement using the zebrafish larva, during the major period of developmental neurogenesis. METHODS: CSF movement was monitored at two stages of zebrafish development: early larva [pharyngula stage; 27-30 h post-fertilization (hpf)] and late larva (hatching period; 51-54 hpf) using photoactivatable Kaede protein to calculate average maximum CSF velocity between ventricles. Potential roles for heartbeat in early CSF movement were investigated using tnnt2a mutant fish (tnnt2a (-/-)) and chemical [2,3 butanedione monoxime (BDM)] treatment. Cilia motility was monitored at these stages using the Tg(ßact:Arl13b-GFP) transgenic fish line. RESULTS: In wild-type early larva there is net CSF movement from the telencephalon to the combined diencephalic/mesencephalic superventricle. This movement directionality reverses at late larval stage. CSF moves directionally from diencephalic to rhombencephalic ventricles at both stages examined, with minimal movement from rhombencephalon to diencephalon. Directional movement is partially dependent on heartbeat, as indicated in assays of tnnt2a (-/-) fish and after BDM treatment. Brain cilia are immotile at the early larval stage. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate directional movement of the embryonic CSF in the zebrafish model during the major period of developmental neurogenesis. A key conclusion is that CSF moves preferentially from the diencephalic into the rhombencephalic ventricle. In addition, the direction of CSF movement between telencephalic and diencephalic ventricles reverses between the early and late larval stages. CSF movement is partially dependent on heartbeat. At early larval stage, the absence of motile cilia indicates that cilia likely do not direct CSF movement. These data suggest that CSF components may be compartmentalized and could contribute to specialization of the early brain. In addition, CSF movement may also provide directional mechanical signaling.