Glia-neuron coupling via a bipartite sialylation pathway promotes neural transmission and stress tolerance in Drosophila

  1. Hilary Scott
  2. Boris Novikov
  3. Berrak Ugur
  4. Brooke Allen
  5. Ilya Mertsalov
  6. Pedro Monagas-Valentin
  7. Melissa Koff
  8. Sarah Baas Robinson
  9. Kazuhiro Aoki
  10. Raisa Veizaj
  11. Dirk Lefeber
  12. Michael Tiemeyer
  13. Hugo J Bellen
  14. Vladislav Panin  Is a corresponding author
  1. Texas A&M University, United States
  2. Baylor College of Medicine, United States
  3. University of Georgia, United States
  4. Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Netherlands

Abstract

Modification by sialylated glycans can affect protein functions, underlying mechanisms that control animal development and physiology. Sialylation relies on a dedicated pathway involving evolutionarily conserved enzymes, including CMP-sialic acid synthetase (CSAS) and sialyltransferase (SiaT) that mediate the activation of sialic acid and its transfer onto glycan termini, respectively. In Drosophila, CSAS and DSiaT genes function in the nervous system, affecting neural transmission and excitability. We found that these genes function in different cells: the function of CSAS is restricted to glia, while DSiaT functions in neurons. This partition of the sialylation pathway allows for regulation of neural functions via a glia-mediated control of neural sialylation. The sialylation genes were shown to be required for tolerance to heat and oxidative stress and for maintenance of the normal level of voltage-gated sodium channels. Our results uncovered a unique bipartite sialylation pathway that mediates glia-neuron coupling and regulates neural excitability and stress tolerance.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting file; Source Data files have been uploaded to a public repository for Tables 1 and Supplementary Table 3

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Hilary Scott

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Boris Novikov

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Berrak Ugur

    Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4806-8891
  4. Brooke Allen

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Ilya Mertsalov

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Pedro Monagas-Valentin

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Melissa Koff

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  8. Sarah Baas Robinson

    Complex Carbohydrate Research Center, University of Georgia, Athens, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Kazuhiro Aoki

    Complex Carbohydrate Research Center, University of Georgia, Athens, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  10. Raisa Veizaj

    Department of Laboratory Medicine, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  11. Dirk Lefeber

    Department of Laboratory Medicine, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Michael Tiemeyer

    Complex Carbohydrate Research Center, University of Georgia, Athens, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Hugo J Bellen

    Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    Hugo J Bellen, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5992-5989
  14. Vladislav Panin

    Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Texas A&M University, College Station, United States
    For correspondence
    panin@tamu.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9126-1481

Funding

National Institutes of Health (NS099409)

  • Vladislav Panin

National Institutes of Health (NS075534)

  • Vladislav Panin

TAMU-COANCYT (2012-037(S))

  • Vladislav Panin

TAMU AgriLife IHA

  • Vladislav Panin

National Institutes of Health (GM103490)

  • Michael Tiemeyer

Radboud Consortium for Glycoscience

  • Dirk Lefeber

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2023, Scott et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,304
    views
  • 217
    downloads
  • 1
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Hilary Scott
  2. Boris Novikov
  3. Berrak Ugur
  4. Brooke Allen
  5. Ilya Mertsalov
  6. Pedro Monagas-Valentin
  7. Melissa Koff
  8. Sarah Baas Robinson
  9. Kazuhiro Aoki
  10. Raisa Veizaj
  11. Dirk Lefeber
  12. Michael Tiemeyer
  13. Hugo J Bellen
  14. Vladislav Panin
(2023)
Glia-neuron coupling via a bipartite sialylation pathway promotes neural transmission and stress tolerance in Drosophila
eLife 12:e78280.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78280

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.78280

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Mai Nguyen, Elda Bauda ... Cecile Morlot
    Research Article

    Teichoic acids (TA) are linear phospho-saccharidic polymers and important constituents of the cell envelope of Gram-positive bacteria, either bound to the peptidoglycan as wall teichoic acids (WTA) or to the membrane as lipoteichoic acids (LTA). The composition of TA varies greatly but the presence of both WTA and LTA is highly conserved, hinting at an underlying fundamental function that is distinct from their specific roles in diverse organisms. We report the observation of a periplasmic space in Streptococcus pneumoniae by cryo-electron microscopy of vitreous sections. The thickness and appearance of this region change upon deletion of genes involved in the attachment of TA, supporting their role in the maintenance of a periplasmic space in Gram-positive bacteria as a possible universal function. Consequences of these mutations were further examined by super-resolved microscopy, following metabolic labeling and fluorophore coupling by click chemistry. This novel labeling method also enabled in-gel analysis of cell fractions. With this approach, we were able to titrate the actual amount of TA per cell and to determine the ratio of WTA to LTA. In addition, we followed the change of TA length during growth phases, and discovered that a mutant devoid of LTA accumulates the membrane-bound polymerized TA precursor.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Shinichi Kawaguchi, Xin Xu ... Toshie Kai
    Research Article

    Protein–protein interactions are fundamental to understanding the molecular functions and regulation of proteins. Despite the availability of extensive databases, many interactions remain uncharacterized due to the labor-intensive nature of experimental validation. In this study, we utilized the AlphaFold2 program to predict interactions among proteins localized in the nuage, a germline-specific non-membrane organelle essential for piRNA biogenesis in Drosophila. We screened 20 nuage proteins for 1:1 interactions and predicted dimer structures. Among these, five represented novel interaction candidates. Three pairs, including Spn-E_Squ, were verified by co-immunoprecipitation. Disruption of the salt bridges at the Spn-E_Squ interface confirmed their functional importance, underscoring the predictive model’s accuracy. We extended our analysis to include interactions between three representative nuage components—Vas, Squ, and Tej—and approximately 430 oogenesis-related proteins. Co-immunoprecipitation verified interactions for three pairs: Mei-W68_Squ, CSN3_Squ, and Pka-C1_Tej. Furthermore, we screened the majority of Drosophila proteins (~12,000) for potential interaction with the Piwi protein, a central player in the piRNA pathway, identifying 164 pairs as potential binding partners. This in silico approach not only efficiently identifies potential interaction partners but also significantly bridges the gap by facilitating the integration of bioinformatics and experimental biology.