An essential Drosophila glutamate receptor subunit that functions in both central neuropil and neuromuscular junction

Genome-wide P-element screen for Drosophila synaptogenesis mutants

A molecular understanding of synaptogenesis is a critical step toward the goal of understanding how brains "wire themselves up," and then "rewire" during development and experience. Recent genomic and molecular advances have made it possible to study synaptogenesis on a genomic scale. Here, we describe the results of a screen for genes involved in formation and development of the glutamatergic Drosophila neuromuscular junction (NMJ). We screened 2185 P-element transposon mutants representing insertions in approximately 16% of the entire Drosophila genome. We first identified recessive lethal mutants, based on the hypothesis that mutations causing severe disruptions in synaptogenesis are likely to be lethal. Two hundred twenty (10%) of all insertions were homozygous lethal. Two hundred five (93%) of these lethal mutants developed at least through late embryogenesis and formed neuromusculature. We examined embryonic/larval NMJs in 202 of these homozygous mutants using immunocytochemistry and confocal microscopy. We identified and classified 88 mutants with altered NMJ morphology. Insertion loci in these mutants encode several different types of proteins, including ATP- and GTPases, cytoskeletal regulators, cell adhesion molecules, kinases, phosphatases, RNA regulators, regulators of protein formation, transcription factors, and transporters. Thirteen percent of insertions are in genes that encode proteins of novel or unknown function. Complementation tests and RT-PCR assays suggest that approximately 51% of the insertion lines carry background mutations. Our results reveal that synaptogenesis requires the coordinated action of many different types of proteins--perhaps as much as 44% of the entire genome--and that transposon mutageneses carry important caveats that must be respected when interpreting results generated using this method.

Four different subunits are essential for expressing the synaptic glutamate receptor at neuromuscular junctions of Drosophila

Three ionotropic glutamate receptor subunits, designated GluRIIA, GluRIIB, and GluRIII, have been identified at neuromuscular junctions of Drosophila. Whereas GluRIIA and GluRIIB are redundant for viability, it was shown recently that GluRIII is essential for both the synaptic localization of GluRIIA and GluRIIB and the viability of Drosophila. Here we identify a fourth and a fifth subunit expressed in the neuromuscular system, which we name GluRIID and GluRIIE. Both new subunits we show to be necessary for survival. Moreover, both GluRIID and GluRIIE are required for the synaptic expression of all other glutamate receptor subunits. All five subunits are interdependent for receptor function, synaptic receptor expression, and viability. This indicates that synaptic glutamate receptors incorporate the GluRIII, GluRIID, and GluRIIE subunit together with either GluRIIA or GluRIIB at the Drosophila neuromuscular junction. At this widely used model synapse, the assembly of four different subunits to form an individual glutamate receptor channel may thus be obligatory. This study opens the way for a further characterization of in vivo glutamate receptor assembly and trafficking using the efficient genetics of Drosophila.

The 4.1 protein coracle mediates subunit-selective anchoring of Drosophila glutamate receptors to the postsynaptic actin cytoskeleton

Glutamatergic Drosophila neuromuscular junctions contain two spatially, biophysically, and pharmacologically distinct subtypes of postsynaptic glutamate receptor (GluR). These receptor subtypes appear to be molecularly identical except that A receptors contain the subunit GluRIIA (but not GluRIIB), and B receptors contain the subunit GluRIIB (but not GluRIIA). A- and B-type receptors are coexpressed in the same cells, in which they form homotypic clusters. During development, A- and B-type receptors can be differentially regulated. The mechanisms that allow differential segregation and regulation of A- and B-type receptors are unknown. Presumably, A- and B-type receptors are differentially anchored to the membrane cytoskeleton, but essentially nothing is known about how Drosophila glutamate receptors are localized or anchored. We identified coracle, a homolog of mammalian brain 4.1 proteins, in yeast two-hybrid and genetic screens for proteins that interact with and localize Drosophila glutamate receptors. Coracle interacts with the C terminus of GluRIIA but not GluRIIB. To test whether coracle is required for glutamate receptor localization, we immunocytochemically and electrophysiologically examined receptors in coracle mutants. In coracle mutants, synaptic A-type receptors are lost, but there is no detectable change in B-type receptor function or localization. Pharmacological disruption of postsynaptic actin phenocopies the coracle mutants, suggesting that A-type receptors are anchored to the actin cytoskeleton via coracle, whereas B-type receptors are anchored at the synapse by another (yet unknown) mechanism.

Identification and localisation of the NR1 sub-unit homologue of the NMDA glutamate receptor in the honeybee brain

The NR1 sub-unit homologue of the NMDA glutamate receptor was characterised in the honeybee. Sequence analysis suggests that the honeybee NMDA receptor may act as a coincidence detector molecule similar to its counterpart in the mammalian nervous system. The localisation of the expression sites at the mRNA and the protein levels indicates that the receptor is expressed throughout the brain, in neurons and in glial cells.

Increased synaptic microtubules and altered synapse development in Drosophila sec8 mutants

Background

Sec8 is highly expressed in mammalian nervous systems and has been proposed to play a role in several aspects of neural development and function, including neurite outgrowth, calcium-dependent neurotransmitter secretion, trafficking of ionotropic glutamate receptors and regulation of neuronal microtubule assembly. However, these models have never been tested in vivo. Nervous system development and function have not been described after mutation of sec8 in any organism.

Results

We identified lethal sec8 mutants in an unbiased forward genetic screen for mutations causing defects in development of glutamatergic Drosophila neuromuscular junctions (NMJs). The Drosophila NMJ is genetically malleable and accessible throughout development to electrophysiology and immunocytochemistry, making it ideal for examination of the sec8 mutant synaptic phenotype. We developed antibodies to Drosophila Sec8 and showed that Sec8 is abundant at the NMJ. In our sec8 null mutants, in which the sec8 gene is specifically deleted, Sec8 immunoreactivity at the NMJ is eliminated but immunoblots reveal substantial maternal contribution in the rest of the animal. Contrary to the hypothesis that Sec8 is required for neurite outgrowth or synaptic terminal growth, immunocytochemical examination revealed that sec8 mutant NMJs developed more branches and presynaptic terminals during larval development, compared to controls. Synaptic electrophysiology showed no evidence that Sec8 is required for basal neurotransmission, though glutamate receptor trafficking was mildly disrupted in sec8 mutants. The most dramatic NMJ phenotype in sec8 mutants was an increase in synaptic microtubule density, which was approximately doubled compared to controls.

Conclusion

Sec8 is abundant in the Drosophila NMJ. Sec8 is required in vivo for regulation of synaptic microtubule formation, and (probably secondarily) regulation of synaptic growth and glutamate receptor trafficking. We did not find any evidence that Sec8 is required for basal neurotransmission.

Genes involved in Drosophila glutamate receptor expression and localization

Background

A clear picture of the mechanisms controlling glutamate receptor expression, localization, and stability remains elusive, possibly due to an incomplete understanding of the proteins involved. We screened transposon mutants generated by the ongoing Drosophila Gene Disruption Project in an effort to identify the different types of genes required for glutamate receptor cluster development.

Results

To enrich for non-silent insertions with severe disruptions in glutamate receptor clustering, we identified and focused on homozygous lethal mutants in a collection of 2185 BG and KG transposon mutants generated by the BDGP Gene Disruption Project. 202 lethal mutant lines were individually dissected to expose glutamatergic neuromuscular junctions, stained using antibodies that recognize neuronal membrane and the glutamate receptor subunit GluRIIA, and viewed using laser-scanning confocal microscopy. We identified 57 mutants with qualitative differences in GluRIIA expression and/or localization. 84% of mutants showed loss of receptors and/or clusters; 16% of mutants showed an increase in receptors. Insertion loci encode a variety of protein types, including cytoskeleton proteins and regulators, kinases, phosphatases, ubiquitin ligases, mucins, cell adhesion proteins, transporters, proteins controlling gene expression and protein translation, and proteins of unknown/novel function. Expression pattern analyses and complementation tests, however, suggest that any single mutant – even if a mutant gene is uniquely tagged – must be interpreted with caution until the mutation is validated genetically and phenotypically.

Conclusion

Our study identified 57 transposon mutants with qualitative differences in glutamate receptor expression and localization. Despite transposon tagging of every insertion locus, extensive validation is needed before one can have confidence in the role of any individual gene. Alternatively, one can focus on the types of genes identified, rather than the identities of individual genes. This genomic approach, which circumvents many technical caveats in favor of a wider perspective, suggests that glutamate receptor cluster formation involves many cellular processes, including: 1) cell adhesion and signaling, 2) extensive and relatively specific regulation of gene expression and RNA, 3) the actin and microtubule cytoskeletons, and 4) many novel/unexplored processes, such as those involving mucin/polycystin-like proteins and proteins of unknown function.

Discs-large (DLG) is clustered by presynaptic innervation and regulates postsynaptic glutamate receptor subunit composition in Drosophila

BACKGROUND

Drosophila discs-large (DLG) is the sole representative of a large class of mammalian MAGUKs, including human DLG, SAP 97, SAP102, and PSD-95. MAGUKs are thought to be critical for postsynaptic assembly at glutamatergic synapses. However, glutamate receptor cluster formation has never been examined in Drosophila DLG mutants. The fly neuromuscular junction (NMJ) is a genetically-malleable model glutamatergic synapse widely used to address questions regarding the molecular mechanisms of synapse formation and growth. Here, we use immunohistochemistry, confocal microscopy, and electrophysiology to examine whether fly NMJ glutamate receptor clusters form normally in DLG mutants. We also address the question of how DLG itself is localized to the synapse by testing whether presynaptic innervation is required for postsynaptic DLG clustering, and whether DLG localization requires the presence of postsynaptic glutamate receptors.

RESULTS

There are thought to be two classes of glutamate receptors in the Drosophila NMJ: 1) receptors that contain the subunit GluRIIA, and 2) receptors that contain the subunit GluRIIB. In DLG mutants, antibody staining for the glutamate receptor subunit GluRIIA is normal, but antibody staining for the glutamate receptor subunit GluRIIB is significantly reduced. Electrophysiological analysis shows an overall loss of functional postsynaptic glutamate receptors, along with changes in receptor biophysical properties that are consistent with a selective loss of GluRIIB from the synapse. In uninnervated postsynaptic muscles, neither glutamate receptors nor DLG cluster at synapses. DLG clusters normally in the complete absence of glutamate receptors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that DLG controls glutamate receptor subunit composition by selectively stabilizing GluRIIB-containing receptors at the synapse. We also show that DLG, like glutamate receptors, is localized only after the presynaptic neuron contacts the postsynaptic cell. We hypothesize that glutamate receptors and DLG cluster in response to parallel signals from the presynaptic neuron, after which DLG regulates subunit composition by stabilizing (probably indirectly) receptors that contain the GluRIIB subunit. The mechanism(s) stabilizing GluRIIA-containing receptors remains unknown.