![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2006, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press The bHLH-PAS protein Spineless is necessary for the diversification of dendrite morphology of Drosophila dendritic arborization neurons Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Physiology and Department of Biochemistry, University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California 94143, USA 1
Corresponding author.
E-MAIL yuhnung.jan/at/ucsf.edu; FAX (415) 476-5774. Received June 15, 2006; Accepted August 25, 2006. This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.Abstract Dendrites exhibit a wide range of morphological diversity, and their arborization patterns are critical determinants of proper neural connectivity. How different neurons acquire their distinct dendritic branching patterns during development is not well understood. Here we report that Spineless (Ss), the Drosophila homolog of the mammalian aryl hydrocarbon (dioxin) receptor (Ahr), regulates dendrite diversity in the dendritic arborization (da) sensory neurons. In loss-of-function ss mutants, class I and II da neurons, which are normally characterized by their simple dendrite morphologies, elaborate more complex arbors, whereas the normally complex class III and IV da neurons develop simpler dendritic arbors. Consequently, different classes of da neurons elaborate dendrites with similar morphologies. In its control of dendritic diversity among da neurons, ss likely acts independently of its known cofactor tango and through a regulatory program distinct from those involving cut and abrupt. These findings suggest that one evolutionarily conserved role for Ahr in neuronal development concerns the diversification of dendrite morphology. Keywords: Drosophila, neuron, dendrite, axon, aryl hydrocarbon receptor, dioxin Each neuronal cell type is endowed with a unique dendritic architecture, from the relatively simple arbors of a bipolar neuron to the elaborate and expansive dendritic tree of a cerebellar Purkinje cell. Critical for proper neural connectivity, how a neuron elaborates its dendritic arbor in large part determines the way it integrates and processes synaptic or sensory inputs (Hausser et al. 2000; Jan and Jan 2001; Scott and Luo 2001; Wong and Ghosh 2002). Furthermore, the morphological properties of dendrites can influence the activity, and hence the function, of a neuron (Hausser et al. 2000; Wong and Ghosh 2002). Developmental programs that regulate dendrite morpho- genesis, by controlling such distinct modes as dendrite outgrowth, branching, stabilization, and maintenance, require the concerted actions of various extrinsic and intrinsic factors (Scott and Luo 2001; Whitford et al. 2002; Jan and Jan 2003). However, relatively little is known about how different types of neurons acquire their distinct dendrite arborization patterns. The Drosophila peripheral nervous system (PNS) provides an ideal in vivo model system to investigate the molecular mechanisms that regulate dendrite patterning. The Drosophila PNS is comprised of many different cell types including the dendritic arborization (da) sensory neurons (Bodmer and Jan 1987). The da neurons are further subdivided into four classes (I–IV) based on their increasing dendritic branching complexity, which is defined by branch number and branch order as assessed by Strahler analysis (Grueber et al. 2002). The da neurons are born during mid-embryogenesis, and each neuron elaborates a stereotypical dendritic arbor that innervates the epidermis (Bodmer and Jan 1987). Different classes of da neurons are thought to function in different sensory modalities such as nociception, thermosensation, and locomotion (Ainsley et al. 2003; Liu et al. 2003; Tracey et al. 2003; Xu et al. 2004), suggesting that their distinct dendrite arborization patterns are important for specific behaviors. This classification of the da neurons, initially based primarily on their dendrite morphologies, is corroborated by more recent evidence demonstrating molecular differences among these four classes of neurons (Grueber et al. 2003a; Li et al. 2004; Sugimura et al. 2004). Each of the 15 da neurons in an abdominal hemisegment exhibits stereotypical dendritic arbors, thereby allowing systematic analysis of dendritic morphogenesis tailored for individual cell types. Previous studies in Drosophila have shown that transcriptional regulation plays an integral role in the proper development of da neuron dendrites (Brenman et al. 2001; Grueber et al. 2003a; Li et al. 2004; Sugimura et al. 2004; Parrish et al. 2006). These studies have provided insight into the mechanisms that different neurons use to establish their distinct dendrite morphologies. Neurons may act through transcriptional programs that directly promote dendrite outgrowth and branching. For example, the homeodomain protein Cut promotes the formation of complex dendritic arbors, and increasing levels of Cut expression correlate with greater dendritic complexity of da neurons (Grueber et al. 2003a). Neurons may also use cell-type-specific transcriptional programs to regulate dendritic branching. Thus, class I da neurons express the BTB-zinc finger protein Abrupt, but not Cut, to limit dendrite complexity (Li et al. 2004; Sugimura et al. 2004). Whether there are genetic programs that specifically govern the dendritic complexity unique to each of the four classes of da neurons, however, is not known. Through a mutagenesis screen, we found the spineless (ss) gene to be critical for the diversification of dendrite complexity. Since the discovery of the first ss mutant >80 yr ago by Bridges and Morgan (1923), three classes of phenotypes have been associated with ss mutants: (1) transformation of the distal part of the antenna to the distal part of the second leg (mutants with this pheno-type are known as spineless-aristapedia mutants), (2) deletion of most of the tarsal regions of the legs, and (3) reduction of bristle size. In addition, a recent study reports that stochastic ss expression enables R7 photoreceptors to express a particular form of rhodopsin for color vision (Wernet et al. 2006). Although ss has been previously shown to be expressed in the PNS (Duncan et al. 1998), no PNS phenotype has been reported with then available markers such as the widely used monoclonal 22C10 antibody that labels the cell body and axons of sensory neurons (Zipursky et al. 1984). Here we report that ss mutants exhibit a striking dendrite phenotype that only becomes apparent with suitable dendrite markers. Spineless (Ss) was previously identified as a member of a family of transcription factors that contain the basic helix–loop–helix (bHLH)-PAS domain (Duncan et al. 1998). The PAS domain mediates dimerization and is named after the founding members of the family: Drosophila Period, mammalian Ahr, and Drosophila Single- minded (Huang et al. 1993; Gu et al. 2000). The Ss protein is most similar to the mammalian aryl hydrocarbon (dioxin) receptor (Ahr), as ss and Ahr share almost twice as much sequence identity as either shares with its next closest relative (Duncan et al. 1998). Ss can heterodimerize with the bHLH-PAS protein Tango (Tgo), the Drosophila homolog of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator (Arnt), to initiate transcription of downstream target genes (Emmons et al. 1999). Mammalian Ahr binds the environmental toxin 2,3,7,8-tetra- chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD, or dioxin), which induces a broad range of toxic effects including teratogenesis, immunosuppression, and tumor promotion (Schmidt and Bradfield 1996; Puga et al. 2005). Fetal exposure to dioxin can cause a range of cognitive and behavioral defects (ten Tusscher and Koppe 2004), possibly due to dioxin action via Ahr in the brain. Previous reports have shown that Ahr and Arnt are widely distributed throughout the rat brain including several hypothalamic and brainstem regions involved in the regulation of appetite and circadian rhythm, functions that are disrupted by dioxin exposure (Petersen et al. 2000). Although invertebrate homologs of Ahr do not bind dioxin (Powell-Coffman et al. 1998; Butler et al. 2001), recent studies in Caenorhabditis elegans support an evolution- arily conserved role for Ahr in neuronal development (Huang et al. 2004; Qin and Powell-Coffman 2004). In this study, we report that ss acts cell-autonomously to regulate the morphological diversity of dendrites in all classes of Drosophila da sensory neurons. Remarkably, ss exerts diametrically opposing functions in different classes of da neurons to limit branching complexity in neurons that normally possess simple dendrites but to promote the formation of higher-order branches in neurons that normally elaborate more complex dendritic arbors. Furthermore, we show that ss is essential for the formation of distinct morphological features of dendrites in different classes of da neurons. In the absence of ss function, different classes of da neurons elaborate dendrites with similar morphologies, although these da neurons still project their axons to the appropriate location within the ventral nerve cord (VNC). We further show that ss likely functions independently of its known heterodimerization partner tango, via a novel regulatory program separate from the actions of cut and abrupt, to specify the branching patterns of sensory neuron dendrites. Our findings thus reveal a novel role for ss in generating dendritic diversity. Results spineless is required for proper dendrite morphogenesis in Drosophila da neurons
Drosophila class I da neurons elaborate their dendritic arbor in a simple and highly stereotypical pattern, projecting a primary branch then secondary branches that are typically straight and perpendicular to the primary branch (Fig. 1A
Based on genetic mapping via recombination and complementation tests with available deficiency lines and ss mutants, we identified the mutant line 134 as a new allele of spineless (hereafter referred to as ss134). A trans-heteroallelic combination of ss134 with the ssaBR30-71 loss-of-function allele (McMillan and McGuire 1992) recapitulated the ss adult phenotype including a reduction in the size of bristles and an antenna-to-leg transformation. By conducting complementation tests with a deficiency line that disrupts the ss gene [Df(3R)ssD114.4] and a lethal ss-null allele (ssD115.7) (Duncan et al. 1998), we further showed that a mutation in the ss gene was responsible for both lethality and the dendrite phenotype (Fig. 1E,F Spineless is expressed in all sensory neurons A prerequisite for a cell-autonomous action of Ss in class I neurons is the expression of Ss in these neurons. Indeed, in our immunostaining analysis using a polyclonal antibody raised against a C-terminal fragment of Ss (see Materials and Methods), we found that Ss is expressed in all sensory neurons in the embryonic PNS (Fig. 2A
Simple dendritic arbors become more complex in spineless mutants To further test whether ss functions cell-autonomously to regulate dendrite morphogenesis, we performed mosaic analysis with a repressible cell marker (MARCM) experiments with both ss134- and ssD115.7-null alleles to examine single cell mutant clones in third instar larvae (Lee and Luo 1999). Consistent with the ss134 homozygous mutant phenotype (Fig. 1D
Similar to ss ddaE clones, ss ddaD clones showed a 285% increase in total dendritic branch number when compared with control clones (Fig. 3H The increase in terminal branching in class I ss MARCM clones suggested that ss normally functions cell-autonomously to limit higher-order branching indendrites of class I neurons. Given that Ss is also expressed in class II neurons, which also elaborate simple dendritic arbors with branching complexity comparable with that of class I dendrites as assessed by Strahler analysis (Grueber et al. 2002), we wondered whether ss acts to limit dendritic branching in class II neurons as well. The dorsal class II neuron ddaB typically extends long primary and secondary dendrites, but has very few higher-order branches (Fig. 3I Complex dendritic arbors become simpler in spineless mutants Class IV neurons differ from class I and class II neurons in that they project very elaborate dendritic arbors that cover the entire body wall (Grueber et al. 2002, 2003b). To test the function of Ss expressed in these class IV neurons, we examined MARCM clones of the dorsal class IV neuron ddaC, which is very highly branched and extends its arbor to the dorsal midline and both the anterior and posterior segment borders (Fig. 4A
Whereas ss ddaC clones exhibited severe defects in dendrite morphology, there was no obvious abnormality in the axon projections of individual ss ddaC clones (Fig. 4C,D The Ss protein is present at similar levels in neurons of class III as well as classes I, II, and IV (Fig. 2H
Like ss ddaC clones, ss ldaB and ddaF clones exhibited apparently normal axon projections (Fig. 5I–L Loss of spineless function reduces dendritic diversity From our MARCM analysis, we noticed that the dendritic patterns of different classes of da neurons in ss mutants became more homogeneous. For example, in the absence of ss function, the dendritic arbor of the class III neuron ddaF lost its characteristic dendritic spikes and resembled the dendrites with supernumerary branching of the class II neuron ddaB in ss MARCM clones (Supplementary Fig. S2). The loss of ss function also caused ddaF dendrites to resemble dendrites from the class I neuron ddaD (Supplementary Fig. S2). Indeed, with the exception of the class IV neurons, the overall branch number was comparable for dendrites of different classes of da neurons in ss mutants, in contrast to the very significant differences in wild-type controls (Table 1). For example, the overall number of dendritic branches in the class III neuron ldaB was typically 10-fold higher than that of the class I neurons ddaD and ddaE in wild- type controls (Table 1). In ss mutants, however, ldaB elaborated, on average, the same number of branches as ddaD and ddaE (Table 1). Furthermore, different classes of da neurons exhibited similar degrees of complexity as assessed by Strahler analysis (Table 2). Therefore, as a result of the opposite dendrite phenotypes in class I and II versus class III and IV da neurons, loss of ss function led to a dramatic reduction in the overall dendritic diversity of the da neurons and, as a consequence, different classes of da neurons (except for class IV) elaborated morphologically similar dendrites.
Overexpression of spineless results in opposite dendrite phenotypes in different types of sensory neurons Our data showed that all sensory neurons express Ss at similar levels (Fig. 2H
Loss of spineless function does not alter Abrupt or Cut expression in the da neurons Previous reports have established the role of the BTB- zinc finger protein Abrupt and the homeodomain protein Cut in specifying the distinct dendritic branching patterns of class I and class II–IV da neurons, respectively (Grueber et al. 2003a; Li et al. 2004; Sugimura et al. 2004). Thus, Ab is only expressed in class I of the da neurons (Fig. 7A–C
Different levels of Cut expression contribute to the branching diversity of class II–IV da neurons (Grueber et al. 2003a). Cut expression is highest in the class III neurons, at intermediate levels in the class IV neurons, at low levels in the class II neurons, and largely undetectable in the class I neurons (Fig. 7H–J Having found no evidence that ss acts upstream of cut or ab, we then asked whether the dendrite phenotypes associated with loss of ab or cut function are associated with changes in Ss expression. However, there was no detectable alteration of Ss expression in any of the da neurons or other sensory neurons in the PNS of abk02807 and cutc145 loss-of-function mutants (Fig. 7N–V spineless likely acts independently of tango to regulate dendrite morphogenesis Previous reports have shown that Ss can heterodimerize with the bHLH-PAS protein Tgo in the nucleus and that Ss and Tgo act in concert to regulate the transcription of downstream target genes (Emmons et al. 1999). In Caenorhabditis elegans, both the Ahr (ahr-1) and Arnt (aha- 1) homologs are involved in cell fate specification and neuronal development in specific subclasses of neurons (Huang et al. 2004; Qin and Powell-Coffman 2004). To determine if the regulation of dendritic morphogenesis by ss requires tgo, we first examined MARCM clones with a lethal tgo allele, tgo5 (Emmons et al. 1999). Surprisingly, the tgo clones showed no obvious dendrite defects in any of the classes of da neurons and, hence, no phenotype that resembled the ss dendrite phenotype (Fig. 8A–D
spineless differentially regulates gene expression in the da neurons Although ss has been previously shown to activate the transcription of target genes in vitro (Emmons et al. 1999; Brown et al. 2005), little is known of how ss regulates gene expression in Drosophila. In the Gal4221 reporter line, Gal4 is expressed at high levels in all class I neurons, but is also expressed at lower levels in all class IV neurons, although expression is most evident in later developmental stages (Fig. 1H Discussion Most vertebrate and invertebrate nervous systems contain a variety of neurons with distinct dendritic morphologies that determine the manner in which these neurons receive and process information. How such diversity develops is not well understood. In this study, we provide evidence that the Drosophila homolog of the dioxin receptor ss serves a novel function for diversification of Drosophila da sensory neurons. By executing diametrically opposing regulation to maintain the simple dendritic arbors of class I and class II da neurons but to enable class III and class IV da neurons to elaborate complex dendrites, ss is essential for these neurons to acquire their distinct patterns of dendritic branching. Loss of ss function resulted in increased dendritic complexity of the class I and class II da neurons that normally elaborate simple arbors. In contrast, loss of ss function led to a reduction in the total number of dendritic spikes and terminal branches, respectively, of the class III and class IV neurons, which normally display complex dendritic patterns. Consequently, the dendrite patterns of different classes of da neurons resemble one another, and there is a dramatic reduction in the overall dendritic diversity of the da neurons in loss-of-function ss mutants. Yet, despite the striking dendrite phenotype, the axon projections of da neurons are normal in ss mutants. Interestingly, ss likely acts independently of its cofactor tango and functions in a regulatory program that is distinct from cut and ab to control dendrite morphogenesis. The Ss protein is present at nearly the same level in all da neurons and acts cell-autonomously to dictate their dendritic complexity, while different da neurons exhibit different sensitivity to the level of Ss, and even the bipolar td neuron can respond to elevated Ss activity by increasing dendritic complexity. Do mutations in spineless affect the cell fate of da neurons? Previous studies in C. elegans have demonstrated essential roles for invertebrate homologs of Ahr in neuronal cell fate determination. For example, ahr-1 regulates the differentiation program of a subclass of neurons that contact the pseudocoelomic fluid, and both ahr-1 and aha-1 specify GABAergic neuron cell fate in C. elegans (Huang et al. 2004; Qin and Powell-Coffman 2004). The dramatic changes in the dendrite morphologies of the da neurons, however, are not due to an all-or-nothing change in cell fate because the da neurons in ss mutants displayed normal class-specific expression patterns of the molecular markers Ab and Cut (Fig. 7 Do da neuron dendrites in spineless mutants assume a primordial pattern? There is an emerging theme that ss functions to diversify neuronal differentiation by expanding the photopigment repertoire of R7 photoreceptors in the Drosophila eye (Wernet et al. 2006) and by diversifying da neuron dendritic morphologies (this study). Recent studies have demonstrated that the entire retinal mosaic pattern required for color vision in Drosophila is regulated by ss (Wernet et al. 2006). In the Drosophila retina, two types of ommatidia form the wild-type retinal mosaic: “pale” and “yellow.” In ssD115.7 mutants, the yellow ommatidial subtype is lost and normally yellow R7 cells are misspecified into the pale subtype (Wernet et al. 2006). As a result, nearly all R7 cells adopt the pale subtype, leading to loss of the retinal mosaic pattern. Thus, the pale R7 subtype represents the R7 “default state” (Wernet et al. 2006). The overall lack of dendritic diversity in the da neurons in ss mutants is suggestive of the hypothesis that ss, an ancient, evolutionarily conserved gene, may act to convert a primordial dendrite pattern (perhaps a default state) to different complexities for different neurons in the peripheral nervous system. The loss-of-function ss phenotype in the da neuron dendrites might reflect such a primordial pattern as the dendrites in the mutant are devoid of specific morphological features that define distinct neuronal subclasses. In support of this notion, dendrites of the different classes of da neurons share similar morphological characteristics and elaborate similar numbers of total branches in ss mutants. The ability of ss to regulate the complexity and diversity of this dendrite pattern, by limiting dendritic branching to shape the simpler arbors of the class I and class II neurons and by promoting class-specific terminal branching to shape the more complex arbors of the class III and class IV neurons, is quite unique. Of the many mutants that affect multiple classes of da neurons, the great majority affect da neurons with simple or complex dendritic arbors the same way; that is, causing them to all become simpler or more complex. The ss phenotype of making simple dendritic arbors more complex and complex arbors simpler is very unusual among the many mutants affecting dendrite complexity (e.g., Gao et al. 1999). It thus seems likely that the distinct dendritic patterns rely not only on a cohort of gene activities specifying the mechanics of dendrite outgrowth and branching, but also a genetic program that diverts the generic primordial mode of dendritic formation to a diverse range of dendritic patterns. How might spineless exert its functions? Unlike the homeodomain protein Cut, which promotes dendritic complexity in a specific direction (Grueber et al. 2003a), ss functions in an opposing manner in different cell types to regulate dendritic diversity. How might ss function differently in different neuronal cell types? One possibility is that ss is activated by different ligands in different neurons. Ss is incapable of binding dioxin and other related compounds (Powell-Coffman et al. 1998; Butler et al. 2001), suggesting that other, as yet unidentified ligands are required for its activation. Previous reports have suggested that Ss and other invertebrate homologs of Ahr are activated by an endogenous ligand or that no ligand is required at all (Powell-Coffman et al. 1998; Emmons et al. 1999; Butler et al. 2001; Brown et al. 2005). Recent studies have shown that Ahr can accumulate in the nucleus upon activation by the second messenger cyclic AMP (cAMP) (Oesch-Bartlomowicz et al. 2005), although it is not yet known whether cAMP signaling can activate Ss in Drosophila. Thus, it is conceivable that Ss is activated by different upstream factors in different cell types. It will be of interest to test in future studies whether in different neuronal cell types Ss is activated by different ligands or upstream second messengers and whether Ss acts in concert with regulatory programs for cell fate specification to dictate dendritic complexity. In the canonical Ahr signaling pathway, Ahr requires the appropriate cofactor for its proper function (Reyes et al. 1992; Probst et al. 1993; Hankinson 1995). Members of the bHLH-PAS protein family are able to heterodimerize with other bHLH-PAS proteins (Huang et al. 1993). Previous studies have shown that, upon ligand binding, Ahr is translocated to the nucleus, where it heterodimerizes with Arnt to form a transcriptionally active complex (Reyes et al. 1992; Probst et al. 1993; Hankinson 1995). However, we found that tango, the Drosophila homolog of Arnt, is likely not required for the regulation of dendritic morphogenesis, indicating that ss is probably not acting through its canonical signaling pathway to specify dendritic complexity. In Sf9 cells, ss can act independently of tgo to enhance expression of a reporter in the absence of a ligand (Brown et al. 2005). Furthermore, Ahr is unable to interact with Arnt upon activation by cAMP (Oesch-Bartlomowicz et al. 2005). Although Ahr, Arnt, and the Arnt homolog Arnt2 are widely distributed throughout the rat brain, Ahr does not preferentially co- localize with either Arnt or Arnt2 (Petersen et al. 2000). Ahr is also expressed in specific regions of the rat brain where neither Arnt nor Arnt2 is expressed (Petersen et al. 2000). These studies support the notion that ss can act independently of tgo in certain developmental contexts. Tgo can heterodimerize with other bHLH-PAS proteins in addition to Ss (Emmons et al. 1999). It is conceivable that ss may act with different heterodimerization partners to mediate its different functions in different cell types. Might Ahr be involved in mammalian dendrite development? Although the roles of Ahr in mediating the toxic effects of dioxin have been studied extensively, relatively little is known about the role of Ahr in development. Ahr is conserved in both vertebrates and invertebrates with their common ancestors dating back for >500 million yr (Hahn 2002). Invertebrate homologs of Ahr do not bind dioxin (Powell-Coffman et al. 1998; Butler et al. 2001), suggesting that the functional ability of mammalian Ahr to mediate the toxic response likely evolved after the divergence of vertebrates and invertebrates (Hahn 2002). Reports that Ahr is highly expressed in the rat brain (Petersen et al. 2000) and that Ahr can mediate TCDD-induced alterations in spatial learning (Powers et al. 2005) suggest important roles for Ahr in the nervous system. Here we demonstrate its critical role in dendrite development in the specification of morphological properties of distinct neuronal cell types in Drosophila. It will be of interest to determine whether this function of Ahr in governing dendritic diversity is conserved in other species and underlies neurological disorders caused by dioxin. Materials and methods Drosophila stocks To visualize da neuron dendrites, we used the following reporter lines: Gal4221, UAS-mCD8::GFP and Gal4477, UAS- mCD8::GFP (Grueber et al. 2003a); Gal4109(2)80, UAS- mCD8::GFP (Gao et al. 1999); ppk::EGFP (Grueber et al. 2003b); and Gal4ppk, UAS-mCD8::GFP (Kuo et al. 2005). The following spineless lines were used in this study: ssD115.7, Df(3R)ssD114.4, and UAS-ss (Duncan et al. 1998) and ssaBR30-71 (McMillan and McGuire 1992). The ss134 allele was uncovered in an EMS mutagenesis screen and newly described here. tgo5 (Emmons et al. 1999), cutc145 (Jack 1985), and abk02807 (Johannes and Preiss 2002) alleles are as described. MARCM analysis To generate mosaic mutant clones, FRT82B, ss134/TM6B or FRT82B, ssD115.7/TM6B flies were crossed to w; elav-Gal4, UAS- mCD8::GFP, hsFLP; FRT82B, tub-Gal80 flies. In brief, embryos were collected for 2 h and allowed to develop for 3–5 h at 25°C before heat shock. Embryos were heat-shocked for 30 min at 38°C, allowed to recover at room temperature for 30 min, then heat-shocked for an additional 45 min at 38°C. Heat-shocked embryos were allowed to develop at 25°C to the third instar larval stage. Larvae with mutant clones were then dissected, fixed, and costained with rat anti-mCD8 antibody at 1:200 dilution (Caltag) and monoclonal 22C10 antibody at 1:500 dilution (Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank, DSHB). Fixed preps were mounted on poly-L-lysine-coated coverslips, dehydrated in an ethanol series, cleared in xylenes, then mounted in DPX medium. Confocal image stacks were obtained using a Leica TCS SP2 confocal microscope and reconstructed into single collapsed images using ImageJ software (NIH). Immunocytochemistry Anti-Ss antibody was generated by immunization of guinea pigs with a GST-Ss fusion protein containing the C-terminal 150 amino acids of Ss and used at 1:1000 dilution. For whole-mount embryo and third instar larvae immunolabeling, the following primary antibodies were used: mouse anti-Cut (2B10; DSHB) at 1:20 dilution, mouse anti-Abrupt (DSHB) at 1:5 dilution, mouse anti-Tango (DSHB) undiluted, rat anti-Elav (7E8A10; DSHB) at 1:1000 dilution, mouse anti-Fasciclin II (1D4; DSHB) at 1:50 dilution, mouse anti-22C10 (DSHB) at 1:200 dilution, rabbit anti-GFP at 1:2000 dilution, rabbit anti-β-gal at 1:10,000 dilution, and Cy2- or Cy5-conjugated HRP at 1:200 dilution. Cy2-, Cy3-, or Cy5-conjugated secondary antibodies (Jackson Laboratories) were used at 1:200 dilution. In situ hybridization DIG-labeled DNA probes were prepared using the PCR DIG Probe Synthesis Kit (Roche Applied Science). In situ hybridization of whole-mount embryos was essentially performed as described in Tautz and Pfeifle (1989). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Ian Duncan (Washington University, St. Louis, MO), Stephen Crews (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC), the Bloomington Stock Center, and the Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank for fly stocks and antibodies; Denan Wang and Jay Parrish for help with in situ hybridization; Kazuo Emoto for advice on generating Ss antibody; Susan Younger for advice on Drosophila genetics; and members of the Jan laboratory for discussions and comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant R01 NS40929 (to Y.N.J.). Y.N.J. and L.Y.J. are Investigators of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Footnotes Supplemental material is available at http://www.genesdev.org. Article published online ahead of print. Article and publication date are at http://www.genesdev.org/cgi/doi/10.1101/gad.1459706. REFERENCES
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Science. 2000 Oct 27; 290(5492):739-44.
[Science. 2000]Genes Dev. 2001 Oct 15; 15(20):2627-41.
[Genes Dev. 2001]Nat Neurosci. 2001 Apr; 4(4):359-65.
[Nat Neurosci. 2001]Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002 Oct; 3(10):803-12.
[Nat Rev Neurosci. 2002]Neuron. 2002 Jan 3; 33(1):47-61.
[Neuron. 2002]Development. 2002 Jun; 129(12):2867-78.
[Development. 2002]Curr Biol. 2003 Sep 2; 13(17):1557-63.
[Curr Biol. 2003]Nat Neurosci. 2003 Mar; 6(3):267-73.
[Nat Neurosci. 2003]Cell. 2003 Apr 18; 113(2):261-73.
[Cell. 2003]Curr Biol. 2004 Jun 22; 14(12):1025-34.
[Curr Biol. 2004]Neuron. 2004 Sep 16; 43(6):823-34.
[Neuron. 2004]Neuron. 2004 Sep 16; 43(6):809-22.
[Neuron. 2004]Genes Dev. 2006 Apr 1; 20(7):820-35.
[Genes Dev. 2006]Nature. 2006 Mar 9; 440(7081):174-80.
[Nature. 2006]Genes Dev. 1998 May 1; 12(9):1290-303.
[Genes Dev. 1998]Cell. 1984 Jan; 36(1):15-26.
[Cell. 1984]Genes Dev. 1998 May 1; 12(9):1290-303.
[Genes Dev. 1998]Nature. 1993 Jul 15; 364(6434):259-62.
[Nature. 1993]Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2000; 40():519-61.
[Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2000]Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 1996; 12():55-89.
[Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 1996]Biochem Pharmacol. 2005 Jan 15; 69(2):199-207.
[Biochem Pharmacol. 2005]Neuron. 2004 Sep 16; 43(6):809-22.
[Neuron. 2004]Genes Dev. 1998 May 1; 12(9):1290-303.
[Genes Dev. 1998]Neuron. 1994 Nov; 13(5):1055-69.
[Neuron. 1994]Behav Genet. 1992 Sep; 22(5):557-73.
[Behav Genet. 1992]Genes Dev. 1998 May 1; 12(9):1290-303.
[Genes Dev. 1998]Genes Dev. 1998 May 1; 12(9):1290-303.
[Genes Dev. 1998]Neuron. 1999 Mar; 22(3):451-61.
[Neuron. 1999]Genes Dev. 2006 Apr 1; 20(7):820-35.
[Genes Dev. 2006]Development. 2002 Jun; 129(12):2867-78.
[Development. 2002]Development. 2002 Jun; 129(12):2867-78.
[Development. 2002]Development. 2002 Jun; 129(12):2867-78.
[Development. 2002]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Oct 18; 102(42):15230-5.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005]Neuron. 2004 Sep 16; 43(6):823-34.
[Neuron. 2004]Neuron. 2004 Sep 16; 43(6):809-22.
[Neuron. 2004]Development. 2004 Feb; 131(4):819-28.
[Development. 2004]Dev Biol. 2004 Jun 1; 270(1):64-75.
[Dev Biol. 2004]Genes Dev. 2006 Apr 1; 20(7):820-35.
[Genes Dev. 2006]Gene. 2005 Sep 26; 358():39-52.
[Gene. 2005]Development. 2004 Feb; 131(4):819-28.
[Development. 2004]Dev Biol. 2004 Jun 1; 270(1):64-75.
[Dev Biol. 2004]Nature. 2006 Mar 9; 440(7081):174-80.
[Nature. 2006]Nature. 2006 Mar 9; 440(7081):174-80.
[Nature. 2006]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Mar 17; 95(6):2844-9.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998]Gene. 2001 Oct 31; 278(1-2):223-34.
[Gene. 2001]Gene. 2005 Sep 26; 358():39-52.
[Gene. 2005]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Jun 28; 102(26):9218-23.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005]Science. 1992 May 22; 256(5060):1193-5.
[Science. 1992]Mol Pharmacol. 1993 Sep; 44(3):511-8.
[Mol Pharmacol. 1993]Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 1995; 35():307-40.
[Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 1995]Nature. 1993 Jul 15; 364(6434):259-62.
[Nature. 1993]Gene. 2005 Sep 26; 358():39-52.
[Gene. 2005]Chem Biol Interact. 2002 Sep 20; 141(1-2):131-60.
[Chem Biol Interact. 2002]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Mar 17; 95(6):2844-9.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998]Gene. 2001 Oct 31; 278(1-2):223-34.
[Gene. 2001]J Comp Neurol. 2000 Nov 20; 427(3):428-39.
[J Comp Neurol. 2000]Genes Brain Behav. 2005 Feb; 4(1):51-9.
[Genes Brain Behav. 2005]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Oct 18; 102(42):15230-5.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005]Genes Dev. 1998 May 1; 12(9):1290-303.
[Genes Dev. 1998]Behav Genet. 1992 Sep; 22(5):557-73.
[Behav Genet. 1992]Cell. 1985 Oct; 42(3):869-76.
[Cell. 1985]Mech Dev. 2002 Jul; 115(1-2):3-14.
[Mech Dev. 2002]