![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2008 by The American Society for Cell Biology Distinct Isoforms of the RFX Transcription Factor DAF-19 Regulate Ciliogenesis and Maintenance of Synaptic Activity Department of Biosciences and Nutrition, Karolinska Institute, S-14157 Huddinge, Sweden; and School of Life Sciences, Södertörn University College, S-14189 Huddinge, Sweden Marcos Gonzalez-Gaitan, Monitoring Editor Corresponding author.Address correspondence to: Peter Swoboda (Email: peter.swoboda/at/ki.se). Received April 23, 2008; Revised August 15, 2008; Accepted September 30, 2008. Abstract Neurons form elaborate subcellular structures such as dendrites, axons, cilia, and synapses to receive signals from their environment and to transmit them to the respective target cells. In the worm Caenorhabditis elegans, lack of the RFX transcription factor DAF-19 leads to the absence of cilia normally found on 60 sensory neurons. We now describe and functionally characterize three different isoforms of DAF-19. The short isoform DAF-19C is specifically expressed in ciliated sensory neurons and sufficient to rescue all cilia-related phenotypes of daf-19 mutants. In contrast, the long isoforms DAF-19A/B function in basically all nonciliated neurons. We discovered behavioral and cellular phenotypes in daf-19 mutants that depend on the isoforms daf-19a/b. These novel synaptic maintenance phenotypes are reminiscent of synaptic decline seen in many human neurodegenerative disorders. The C. elegans daf-19 mutant worms can thus serve as a molecular model for the mechanisms of functional neuronal decline. INTRODUCTION RFX proteins belong to the winged-helix family of transcription factors. They are defined by a 76-amino acid DNA-binding domain and are present in many eukaryotes. The genomes of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Schizosaccharomyces pombe, and Caenorhabditis elegans each harbor one RFX gene, Drosophila contains two, and five have been identified in mice and humans. Individual RFX proteins regulate related processes in several species, such as the cell cycle (Wu and McLeod, 1995 ; Huang et al., 1998 ; Otsuki et al., 2004 ), brain development and neuronal functions (Ma et al., 2006 ; Zhang et al., 2006 ), and ciliogenesis. Cilia develop as specialized subcellular structures with sensory or motile functions that project off many different cell types. Their structure and function have been investigated in mammals, Drosophila, and C. elegans. Initially, the characterization of the single C. elegans RFX transcription factor, DAF-19, had established for the first time a connection between RFX transcription factors and cilia development (Swoboda et al., 2000 ) and provided a basis for subsequent studies in other species. Drosophila dRFX is expressed in the peripheral nervous system, where it is essential for the proper function of ciliated type I sensory organs (Dubruille et al., 2002 ; Laurencon et al., 2007 ). Mammalian RFX3 is responsible for nodal cilia development, the specification of left-right asymmetry and the differentiation of ciliated ependymal cells in the brain (Bonnafe et al., 2004 ; Baas et al., 2006 ). Thus, the role of RFX transcriptions factors in ciliogenesis is conserved across species. In C. elegans, the gene daf-19 is expressed in ciliated sensory neurons mostly located in the head and tail of the worm (Swoboda et al., 2000 ). These neurons are the major source of input for environmental signals for the worm. daf-19 mutant worms are completely devoid of ciliated structures and are consequently unable to respond to environmental signals such as food, dauer pheromone, or nose touch (Perkins et al., 1986 ). Nevertheless, in the laboratory daf-19 mutants are viable and thus a suitable model to study ciliogenesis. We and others have identified a large number of direct DAF-19 target genes based on the presence of the x-box promoter sequence motif, the binding site for DAF-19. Their expression in ciliated sensory neurons was dependent on both daf-19 and the promoter x-box, and many of them are required for cilia structure and function (Blacque et al., 2005 ; Efimenko et al., 2005 ; Chen et al., 2006 ).In the present study, we show that DAF-19 not only regulates the formation of cilia in sensory neurons but also is required for the maintenance of synaptic functions in the remainder of the nervous system. The hermaphrodite C. elegans nervous system consists of 302 neurons (60 of which are ciliated) that are connected via ~7000 chemical synapses and 700 gap junctions (White et al., 1986 ). Chemical synapses are established either between neurons or between neurons and muscle cells, at the so-called neuromuscular junctions. Each synapse consists of three major areas: 1) the synaptic vesicle pool, made up of vesicles at various stages of the recycling process or ready for neurotransmitter release; 2) the presynaptic terminal, where synaptic vesicles fuse in a multistep process and release neurotransmitters into the synaptic cleft; and 3) the postsynaptic target area in the receiving neuron, the receptive field, in which neurotransmitter receptors cluster. The isolation of a large number of C. elegans synapse mutants has provided us with detailed knowledge about the function of the synapse, especially the life cycle of synaptic vesicles. Recent work addressed the hierarchical assembly of the presynaptic terminal, providing detailed insight into the interdependence of assembly steps at a molecular level (Dai et al., 2006 ; Patel et al., 2006 ). However, how the expression of individual synaptic components is regulated after their initial establishment and how their constant supplies are maintained, remains largely unknown.Here, we present a detailed analysis of three different daf-19 transcripts. We show that the short isoform daf-19c is expressed in all ciliated sensory neurons and is sufficient to rescue ciliogenesis phenotypes of daf-19 mutants. The two long isoforms daf-19a/b are expressed in basically all nonciliated neurons. We describe novel behavioral and cellular phenotypes of daf-19. In particular, we demonstrate that DAF-19A/B are necessary to maintain expression levels of several synaptic proteins, which assigns DAF-19 a function in neurotransmission. Surprisingly, this reduced synaptic protein expression is rather mild at larval stages but declines progressively as adult daf-19 mutants age. Therefore, our study for the first time establishes a member of the RFX transcription factor family as a regulator of synaptic maintenance. Intriguingly, the synaptic defects in daf-19 mutants display strong parallels to the synaptic decline observed in human neurodegenerative disorders, suggesting that similar mechanisms may be affected. MATERIALS AND METHODS Strains and Culture Methods Culture of C. elegans strains was carried out as described previously (Brenner, 1974 ). The strains and transgenes used in this work are summarized in Supplemental Table 4. All strains were grown at 20°C. At this temperature, daf-19 mutants display a highly penetrant Daf-c phenotype. However, ~10% of the population does not activate the dauer formation program and can be used for experiments (Swoboda et al., 2000 ). Worms were picked singly at larval stage 4 (L4) before behavioral and paralysis assays that required a small number of worms (<50 animals/assay). Antibody stainings of mixed stage populations were performed on large batches of daf-19 worms. For all experiments that required large populations of staged worms (Western blot, quantitative polymerase chain reaction [PCR], and antibody stainings) or that involved the analysis of nonrescuing transgenes (transcriptional gfp fusions of x-box candidate genes, intron-gfp fusions, translational gfp fusions of synaptic genes), we used the daf-12 (sa204) background. The daf-12 mutation suppresses the Daf-c phenotype of daf-19 and prevents dauer formation.Injection Constructs, Germ Line Transformation, and Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) Expression Analyses pGG20 and pGG21 contain the last 250 base pairs of daf-19 intron 3 and daf-19 intron 4 fused to gfp, respectively. The daf-19 rescue and deletion constructs pTJ803, pGG14, and pGG18 (see Figure 2 ).
Behavioral Assays Paralysis assays were performed on nematode growth medium agar plates containing 500 μM aldicarb or 100 μM levamisole. In addition, the resistance of daf-19 mutants to levamisole was confirmed at concentrations up to 1 mM (data not shown). At least 25–30 1-d-old adult worms were examined for each strain. Worms were classified as paralyzed when they did not move upon prodding with a pick three times in a row. For dwelling/roaming assays, 1-d-old adult worms were transferred singly to fresh plates with a bacterial lawn of standardized size. After 1 h, worms were removed, each plate was put on a transparency with a grid (5 × 5 mm), and the number of squares that were filled with worm tracks was counted (Figure 4 DiI Staining, Microscopy, and Fluorescence Imaging Fluorescent dye-filling assays with DiI were performed as described previously (Starich et al., 1995 ). For live imaging of GFP expression, worms were anesthetized in 0.1% sodium azide in M9 buffer and immobilized on a 2% agar pad. Differential interference contrast and fluorescence pictures were taken on an Axioplan 2 microscope (Carl Zeiss, Jena, Germany). We also used the microscope together with the OpenLab software (Improvision, Coventry, United Kingdom) for the analysis of expression levels of synaptic proteins (antibody stainings). Pictures of the comarker UNC-10 (unchanged between wild type and daf-19) and the synaptic protein under investigation were taken at fixed exposure times (optimized for the UNC-10 staining intensity). The intensity of the signal for the synaptic protein under these conditions was classified as “strong” when the picture was overexposed and as “weak” when the picture was underexposed (cf. Figures 6
Northern Blot Analysis and RNase Protection Assay Embryos were isolated from gravid wild-type adults grown on egg medium by hypochlorite treatment. Embryonic total RNA was extracted using TRIzol (Invitrogen, Paisley, United Kingdom). For Northern blot, radioactive probes were prepared using the Prime-It random labeling kit (Stratagene, La Jolla, CA) and purified over ProbeQant G50 columns (GE Healthcare, Little Chalfont, Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom). RNase protection assay: Radioactive probes were prepared according to the manufacturer's instructions (MAXIscript kit; Ambion, Austin, TX), and hybridization to 20 μg total RNA was carried out according to the instructions in the manual for the RPA III kit (Ambion). Quantitative Real-Time PCR We used TRIzol and the RNeasy kit (QIAGEN, Dorking, Surrey, United Kingdom) to extract total RNA from staged 2-d-old adult worms. All samples were checked for RNA integrity (Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer; Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA) and subjected to DNase digestion and single-strand cDNA synthesis (iScript; Bio-Rad, Hemel Hempstead, United Kingdom). Expression levels of selected genes were analyzed in an Applied Biosystems 7300 thermocycler (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) by using actin as a reference gene. Each reaction was run in triplicates on two independent biological samples for each strain. All primers had a melting temperature of 58–60°C and produced a single amplicon. Data were analyzed using the Fast SDS software 1.3.1 (Applied Biosystems). Antibody Production cDNA fragments corresponding to DAF-19 amino acids 2–212 (for AbDAF19N) and 340–513 (for AbDAF19C), respectively, were expressed in BL21 (DE3) bacterial cells. Immunization of rabbits was carried out at Gramsch Laboratories (Schwabhausen, Germany). On Western blots, AbDAF19N detected a specific band of 120 kDa, by using wild-type protein extracts, corresponding to DAF-19A/B. This band was absent from protein extracts from daf-19 mutant worms (Supplemental Figure 1A). AbDAF19C was not suitable for Western blot analysis. On worm whole-mount stainings, both antibodies detected a signal in neuronal nuclei at all stages (Supplemental Figure 1, B and D). Aside from that, DAF-19 was also detectable in hypodermal cells at larval stages (data not shown). Western Blot Analysis Worms were staged by hypochlorite treatment of gravid adults. Western blots were incubated with AbDAF19N (1:250), anti-tubulin (YOL 1/34; 1:100), anti-UNC-17 (1:200), anti-SNB-1 (SN1; 1:200), horseradish peroxidase (HRP) anti-rat (1:10,000), and HRP anti-mouse (1:5000). Antibody Staining Staining with antibodies against UNC-29 and UNC-49 required permeabilization through freeze-fracture (Gally and Bessereau, 2003 ). For all other antibodies, whole-mount fixation and permeabilization were carried out as described previously (Finney et al., 1988 ). Worms were incubated with a 1:400 dilution of affinity-purified anti-DAF-19 antibodies. Other antibodies used were anti-OSM-5 (1:200), anti-SNB-1 (Ab1092; 1:2000), anti-SNB-1 (SN1; 1:200), anti-SNT-1 (R558; 1:100), anti-UNC-10 (RIM; 1:200), anti-UNC-13 (1:800), anti-UNC-17 (1:1000), anti-UNC-18 (G247; 1:100), anti-UNC-29 (1:200), anti-UNC-31 (1:200), anti-UNC-49 (1:800), anti-UNC-64 (Ab940; 1:5000), Alexa488 and Alexa546 (1:250: Jackson ImmunoResearch Laboratories, West Grove, PA), and Cy5 (1:1000; Rockland Immunochemicals, Gilbertsville, PA). The SN1 and RIM antibodies were obtained from the Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank (University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA). For all antibodies, we investigated the entire nervous system. However, for reasons of equal comparisons, we mainly focused on the head region/nerve ring. Confocal pictures of antibody stainings were taken on a TCS SP microscope (Leica, Wetzlar, Germany).DNA Sequence Motif Searches DNA sequences of C. elegans and Caenorhabditis briggsae synapse genes (3-kb promoter, the entire coding region and 1-kb downstream of the stop codon) were scanned for possible matches to an x-box consensus sequence RYYNYY(N)1-3RRNRRY with VectorNTI (Invitrogen). Candidate motifs were analyzed for 1) motifs that are conserved between both species and occur in several genes, or 2) motifs that occur in several C. elegans genes, in case the candidate motif lacked conservation in other nematodes species. Candidate motifs conserved between C. elegans and C. briggsae were not found. To identify conserved motifs unrelated to the x-box, we searched 1.5 kb upstream of the ATG of the same genes. We scanned for motifs of 5–10, 8–14, and 10–16 nucleotides length using MEME (http://meme.sdsc.edu). RESULTS Evidence for a New daf-19 Transcript To study the subcellular localization and developmental dynamics of DAF-19, we generated antibodies against N- and C-terminal epitopes AbDAF19N and AbDAF19C, respectively. In wild-type worms, these two antibodies detected different DAF-19 expression patterns (see below), which suggested the existence of different DAF-19 isoforms. To determine the corresponding transcripts, we performed Northern blot experiments (Figure 1 ). In addition to the 2.9-kb band, probes specific for the remaining exons also detected a 2.4-kb transcript, which we termed short isoform daf-19c. To visualize all three isoforms daf-19a/b/c in one experiment, we conducted an RNase protection assay. A cDNA probe against exons 3–4 protected fragments of three different sizes, corresponding to the transcripts daf-19a (containing only exon 3), daf-19b (containing exons 3 and 4), and daf-19c (containing only exon 4) (Figure 1
DAF-19C Is Specifically Expressed in Ciliated Sensory Neurons and Regulates Ciliogenesis A full-length genomic translational gfp fusion was shown to be sufficient to rescue the major cilia-related phenotypes of daf-19, dye-filling defective (Dyf) and dauer formation constitutive (Daf-c) (Swoboda et al., 2000 ). The identification of daf-19c raised the question about the functional significance of each transcript. To test for isoform-specific functions, we generated genomic deletion constructs and introduced them into a daf-19 mutant background (Figure 2 ; Blacque et al., 2004 ). As expected, these daf-19 deletion constructs also rescued the Dyf and Daf-c phenotypes of daf-19 mutants (Figure 2 ), out of which ASH (in the head) and PHA and PHB (in the tail) can be stained with the fluorescent dye DiI (Hedgecock et al., 1985 ). We found that gpa-13(p)::daf-19c, but not gpa-13(p)::daf-19a was sufficient to rescue cilia formation in sensory neurons as visualized by fluorescent dye DiI filling (Figure 2That a 5′-deleted genomic daf-19 fragment was able to express daf-19c and rescue ciliogenesis suggests that an internal promoter drives its expression. We generated gfp fusions to intronic sequences flanking exon 4 to investigate their expression patterns. A 250-base pair fragment upstream of exon 4 (Figure 2 DAF-19A/B Are Expressed in Nonciliated Neurons To elucidate the functions of DAF-19A/B, we analyzed their expression patterns in detail, by using antibodies against the N- and C-terminal regions of DAF-19, AbDAF19N, and AbDAF19C, respectively. Although the N-terminal antibody AbDAF19N recognizes epitopes unique to the long isoforms DAF-19A/B, the C-terminal antibody AbDAF19C recognizes the same epitopes common to isoforms DAF-19A/B/C (Figure 3 ), proving the specificity of both antibodies (Supplemental Figure 1, B–E). Although the AbDAF19N and AbDAF19C staining patterns overlapped in large parts, they were not identical. Posterior to the nerve ring, where the cell bodies of the amphid ciliated sensory neurons are located, we observed a group of cells, which stained only with AbDAF19C, but not with AbDAF19N (Supplemental Figure 1, B and D).
Our analysis revealed that DAF-19A/B are expressed in a larger number of neurons than DAF-19C, which is restricted to ciliated sensory neurons. From a rough cell count of all neurons that stained with AbDAF19N in the adult hermaphrodite, we estimate that DAF-19A/B are expressed in ~200–240 neurons (data not shown). To understand where DAF-19A/B may exert their functions, we determined their expression patterns in detail. We stained gfp reporter lines, which mark subgroups of neurons, with anti-GFP and with AbDAF19N antibodies to determine whether they label the same neurons. Using nine different markers, we tested nearly half of all 302 neurons in the adult hermaphrodite, corresponding to ~60 different classes of neurons (Figure 3 Dwelling/Roaming Behavior Depends on Multiple daf-19 Isoforms Mutations in genes with broad neuronal expression often lead to the impaired movement of worms (UNCoordinated phenotype). daf-19 mutants move in a wild-type like manner and show no obvious Unc phenotype. We also tested daf-19 mutants in body bend assays to determine their movement speed, and we found that they can move as fast as wild type (data not shown). More specific aspects of C. elegans behavior (mating, feeding, egg laying, or patterns of movement) are usually dependent on or influenced by sensory abilities of the worm and thus depend on daf-19c. We did not identify a specific behavior that exclusively required nonciliated neurons or DAF-19A/B (data not shown). However, when performing body bend assays, we observed in daf-19 mutants severe defects in their dwelling/roaming behavior, which was dependent on all three DAF-19 isoforms. When put on a fresh plate seeded with bacteria, a single wild-type worm covers the entire bacterial lawn with tracks within a short time (dwelling/roaming) (Figure 4 ) and che-11 (Bell et al., 2006 ; Figure 4daf-19 Mutants Are Resistant to Aldicarb and Levamisole DAF-19C regulates cilia formation in ciliated sensory neurons. Do DAF-19A/B regulate an analogous, common function in nonciliated neurons? Neurons must establish synaptic connections to multiple partners to guarantee the correct wiring and function of the neuronal network. To test for connectivity, we visualized the nervous system with the pan-neuronal marker unc-104::gfp and other markers. daf-19 mutants develop a grossly normal neuronal network that includes all the required neurons and processes (data not shown). To examine the efficiency of synaptic transmission, we exposed wild type and daf-19 mutants to the pharmacological substances aldicarb and levamisole. Aldicarb, an acetylcholine esterase inhibitor, leads to the accumulation of acetylcholine in the synaptic cleft and the paralysis of wild-type animals. daf-19 mutants (m86, rh1024, and sa232) showed moderate, but statistically significant, resistance to aldicarb compared with wild-type worms (Figure 5
Diminished Expression of Synaptic Vesicle Proteins in daf-19 Mutants To elucidate the reason for the reduced synaptic transmission efficiency in daf-19 mutants, we investigated the expression and localization of several types of neuronal proteins that may explain the aldicarb and levamisole phenotypes of daf-19 mutants (Table 1). The expression of general neuronal proteins (JNK-1 and UNC-104) and pre- and postsynaptic proteins (SYD-1, UNC-10, UNC-13, UNC-18, UNC-31, GLR-1, UNC-29, UNC-43, and UNC-49) did not differ between wild type and daf-19 mutants. These results suggest that the overall abundance of synapses and synaptic proteins is not affected in daf-19 mutants.
However, we also found proteins whose abundance was reduced in daf-19 mutants. Of all pre- and postsynaptic proteins tested only one component of the presynaptic terminal, UNC-64/syntaxin, was reduced in daf-19 mutants compared with wild type (Figure 6 In summary, these experiments show that daf-19 mutants have reduced levels of several synaptic proteins (e.g., SNB-1 and UNC-64). snb-1 and unc-64 mutants are resistant to aldicarb and levamisole, suggesting that their gradual loss in daf-19 mutants directly causes changes in synaptic transmission. Interestingly, the reduced expression of synaptic proteins in daf-19 mutants affects mostly components of the synaptic vesicle pool and is increasingly evident at adult stages, whereas larval stages are not or only mildly affected. Thus, the synaptic defects seen in daf-19 mutants are likely not caused by early developmental deficiencies. We speculate that they are the consequence of a problem arising during the maintenance of synaptic protein expression in the aging adult. DAF-19A/B Regulate Synaptic Protein Expression Indirectly DAF-19C regulates target cilia genes directly through a conserved promoter motif, the x-box. Are synaptic genes regulated by DAF-19A/B in a similar manner? Because all DAF-19 isoforms contain the same DNA binding domain (Figures 1 ; Efimenko et al., 2005 ; Chen et al., 2006 ). We filtered those lists for all genes with functions at synapses or in vesicle formation/transport (Supplemental Table 3). ida-1, snb-1, snt-1, unc-17, and unc-64 were not among them. In addition, we searched those five genes for degenerated, x-box-like or other conserved sequence motifs. None of these searches revealed any common motifs (data not shown), suggesting that they do not harbor a binding site for DAF-19A/B. To search for other possible direct DAF-19A/B targets, we checked the expression of multiple candidates from the above-mentioned lists for their dependence on the transcription factor. None of them was affected in daf-19 mutants (Supplemental Table 3). To finally test whether snb-1, unc-17, and unc-64 are directly or indirectly regulated at the transcript level, we compared their expression levels by quantitative real-time PCR. We did not detect any difference between wild type and daf-19 mutants in transcript levels of these three genes (Figure 7
DISCUSSION Different DAF-19 Isoforms Have Distinct Functions in Subsets of Neurons C. elegans DAF-19 was shown to regulate the expression of genes required for the structure and function of cilia (Swoboda et al., 2000 ). Here, we identified a novel short transcript daf-19c that lacks exons 1-3. This short isoform DAF-19C is specifically expressed in ciliated sensory neurons from an internal promoter, and it is sufficient to rescue all cilia-related phenotypes of daf-19 mutants (Dyf, Daf-c, expression of cilia-specific, direct target genes). In contrast, the long isoforms DAF-19A/B are expressed from a different promoter in almost all nonciliated neurons, resulting in a basically pan-neuronal expression pattern of DAF-19. This expression of multiple isoforms via the so-called two-promoter system is common to many genes in C. elegans and crucial for the execution of their isoform-specific functions (Choi and Newman, 2006 ). We discovered that daf-19 mutants are resistant to the pharmacological substances aldicarb and levamisole, both of which modulate cholinergic synaptic transmission and lead to paralysis. The reason for this resistance was found in strongly reduced levels of synaptic vesicle proteins that were observed in adult but not juvenile animals. In addition, the lack of DAF-19 results in impaired dwelling/roaming behavior of the worm. These phenotypes can be rescued by the long isoform DAF-19A and therefore implicate a novel role of DAF-19 in the maintenance of synaptic neurotransmission.How Do the Different DAF-19 Isoforms Activate Different Groups of Target Genes? A large number of direct target genes has been identified for the cilia-specific short isoform DAF-19C. All those genes have in common that they 1) are expressed and function in ciliated sensory neurons and 2) contain an x-box promoter motif. Direct target genes of DAF-19A/B in nonciliated neurons currently remain unidentified. Furthermore, DAF-19A is not sufficient to replace DAF-19C in ciliated sensory neurons, indicating that these isoforms activate different target genes. Therefore, what determines the respective functions of the different isoforms? First, the x-box DNA sequence motifs bound by DAF-19A/B could vary slightly but significantly from the motifs bound by DAF-19C. In C. elegans, the consensus in cilia-specific x-box genes contains a defined spacer of two central nucleotides (Efimenko et al., 2005 ), whereas the consensus sequence for hRFX has a variable spacer of zero to three nucleotides (Emery et al., 1996 ; Gajiwala et al., 2000 ). It is possible that the larger DAF-19A/B also could bind a consensus sequence with no or three spacer nucleotides, like hRFX proteins do. Alternatively, DAF-19A/B could act on x-box motifs in positions different from hitherto proven x-box motifs (i.e., >250 base pairs upstream of the ATG or within introns).In another scenario, DAF-19–interacting proteins could decide which genes can be transcribed. DAF-19A/B contain an N-terminal part encoded by exons 1-3 lacking in DAF-19C. This N-terminal extension might serve as a site for protein interactions through which isoform-specific binding partners regulate the affinity to synaptic x-box genes instead of cilia x-box genes. Interestingly, RFX genes in all eukaryotes encode proteins of a size similar to the long isoforms DAF-19A/B, having a long N-terminal part upstream of the DNA binding domain. In addition, for some RFX genes, such as daf-19, alternative splicing of different isoforms has been demonstrated (e.g., Zhang et al., 2006 ). However, the protein part encoded by daf-19 exons 1-3 is not highly conserved at the amino acid level across species. Conservation between RFX proteins of different organisms could thus exist at a structural level. We assume that the N-terminal part of the protein, despite the lack of any assigned conserved domains, is important for the specific function of DAF-19A/B and other RFX proteins. It will thus be essential to characterize the function of the protein domains encoded by exons 1-3.DAF-19A/B Are Required for Pre- and Postsynaptic Functions in Neurons We discovered novel daf-19 mutant phenotypes that are caused by the lack of DAF-19A/B and suggest pre- and postsynaptic maintenance defects in neurotransmission. In agreement with these defects, we found that the abundance of several synaptic proteins, especially SNB-1, UNC-17, and UNC-64, was gradually reduced during adulthood. Three characteristics set the synaptic defects of daf-19 apart from all other synapse mutants identified so far: 1) Intriguingly, the decline of synaptic protein levels was most prominently seen in adult worms, whereas larval stages were hardly affected. 2) In neurons both pre- and postsynaptic functions are affected. 3) Because DAF-19A/B are expressed in neurons but not in muscles, it is likely that muscular postsynaptic terminals are intact. The absence of DAF-19 in muscular tissue indicates that the protein does not have a function in muscle cells. This explains why ectopic expression of daf-19 in body wall muscles does not rescue the levamisole-induced paralysis phenotype of daf-19 mutants. The facts listed above also help explain why daf-19 mutants do not have a severe Unc phenotype and are only moderately resistant to paralyzing substances such as aldicarb and levamisole as opposed to the complete resistance seen, for example, in the Unc mutants unc-29, unc-64, or snb-1 (Nonet et al., 1998 ; Saifee et al., 1998 ).Although our paralysis experiments using levamisole revealed deficiencies at postsynaptic terminals in daf-19 mutants, we currently do not know their cause. All postsynaptic proteins checked were unchanged in daf-19 mutants. It is unlikely that the presynaptic effects found induce an indirect postsynaptic defect (resistance to levamisole) through a feedback mechanism. In that case, daf-19 mutants should on levamisole phenocopy other presynaptic mutants, such as snb-1. We therefore hypothesize that in addition to the presynaptic proteins we describe, so far unidentified postsynaptic molecules are also affected by the lack of DAF-19. Maintaining Synaptic Protein Expression: A Novel Role for DAF-19A/B Several screens have been performed that used SNB-1::GFP as synaptic vesicle marker (Zhen and Jin, 1999 ; Schaefer et al., 2000 ; Zhen et al., 2000 ; Crump et al., 2001 ; Shen and Bargmann, 2003 ). Others investigated genes with predicted roles in synaptic functions (Sieburth et al., 2005 ), synaptic vesicle recycling and transport (Koushika et al., 2004 ; Dittman and Kaplan, 2006 ). These screens uncovered genes required for the localization of SNB-1::GFP at the synapse but not for the maintenance of SNB-1 function. Therefore, daf-19 is the first C. elegans mutant that shows a strong reduction of several synaptic proteins, especially during the later phases of adulthood. This suggests that DAF-19A/B are required for the maintenance of synaptic components rather than for their expression during development.We identified several synaptic vesicle proteins that are reduced upon loss of daf-19. Two possible scenarios could explain these findings: 1) DAF-19A/B have an influence on synaptic vesicle biogenesis/recycling, or 2) DAF-19A/B regulate a neuronal gene or process that is required for synaptic vesicle protein expression or maintenance. If a general reduction of synaptic vesicles was taking place, one would expect all vesicle proteins to be reduced to similar extents. Although we formally cannot rule out this possibility, the various degrees of reduction between different vesicle proteins (strong reduction of SNB-1 and UNC-64, mild reduction of UNC-17, and no reduction of SNG-1) argue against a general vesicle problem and indicate that these proteins are regulated differentially. Work from mammalian systems supports the notion of individual regulation of synapse components (Shimohama et al., 1998 ). Furthermore, the increase of synaptic proteins during neuronal development is not due to the increase of the transcriptional rate, but it is regulated at the level of protein stability (Daly and Ziff, 1997 ). Because most synaptic proteins are highly conserved, it is very likely that also in C. elegans the expression, maintenance, or both of synaptic proteins is individually regulated. We hypothesize that if DAF-19A/B regulate synaptic protein expression, they execute this function indirectly at a posttranscriptional level, because transcript abundance of the corresponding genes in daf-19 mutants were similar to wild type (Figure 8Cilia development is an essential process regulated by RFX transcription factors across species. Is it similar with regard to the functional maintenance of synapses? Although brain defects have been reported for Rfx3- and Rfx4_v3-deficient mice (Baas et al., 2006 ; Zhang et al., 2006 ), embryonic lethality precluded the analysis of late brain defects. Our analysis of daf-19 mutants suggests that the specific investigation of synapse-related functions of RFX transcription factors in other organisms is relevant to synaptic maintenance.The C. elegans daf-19 Mutant: A New Disease Model for Functional Synaptic Decline? Deregulation of synaptic proteins has been described for several neurological diseases, such as Huntington's disease (Morton et al., 2001 ) or Alzheimer's disease (Sze et al., 2000 ; Reddy et al., 2005 ). Research concerning neurodegeneration nowadays increasingly focuses on the loss of synaptic proteins, which is thought to trigger synaptic loss (Selkoe, 2002 ). The phenotypes seen in daf-19 mutants show parallels to the loss of synaptic proteins described for neurodegenerative diseases. RFX transcription factors as well as the majority of synaptic proteins in C. elegans are highly conserved, which suggests that synaptic protein stability in different organisms may be similarly regulated. Therefore, C. elegans and the daf-19 mutant in particular may in the future prove to be a useful model system to experimentally dissect the mechanisms that maintain synaptic function.[Supplemental Materials]
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Jean-Louis Bessereau, Mike Nonet, Ken Miller, James Rand, Courtney Haycraft, Christos Samakovlis, Piali Sengupta, Massimo Hilliard, John Hutton, Naoki Hisamoto, Jonathan Scholey, Chris Rongo, Adam Antebi, Yishi Jin, and the Caenorhabditis Genetics Center for providing worm strains and reagents; Maria Trieb for technical help; and Kirsten Senti, Mike Ailion, and members of the Bessereau, Barr, and Jorgensen laboratories for valuable comments. Work in the laboratory of P. S. is supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council and from the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research. G. S. was supported by DOC, the doctoral scholarship program of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Footnotes This article was published online ahead of print in MBC in Press (http://www.molbiolcell.org/cgi/doi/10.1091/mbc.E08-04-0416) on October 8, 2008. REFERENCES
|
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Mol Cell Biol. 1995 Mar; 15(3):1479-88.
[Mol Cell Biol. 1995]Cell. 1998 Sep 4; 94(5):595-605.
[Cell. 1998]Nucleic Acids Res. 2004; 32(18):5636-48.
[Nucleic Acids Res. 2004]J Biol Chem. 2006 Jul 28; 281(30):21250-5.
[J Biol Chem. 2006]J Neurochem. 2006 Aug; 98(3):860-75.
[J Neurochem. 2006]Nat Neurosci. 2006 Dec; 9(12):1479-87.
[Nat Neurosci. 2006]Nat Neurosci. 2006 Dec; 9(12):1488-98.
[Nat Neurosci. 2006]Genetics. 1974 May; 77(1):71-94.
[Genetics. 1974]Mol Cell. 2000 Mar; 5(3):411-21.
[Mol Cell. 2000]EMBO J. 1991 Dec; 10(12):3959-70.
[EMBO J. 1991]Genetics. 1995 Jan; 139(1):171-88.
[Genetics. 1995]J Neurosci. 2003 Apr 1; 23(7):2591-9.
[J Neurosci. 2003]Cell. 1988 Dec 2; 55(5):757-69.
[Cell. 1988]Mol Cell. 2000 Mar; 5(3):411-21.
[Mol Cell. 2000]Mol Cell. 2000 Mar; 5(3):411-21.
[Mol Cell. 2000]Mol Cell. 2000 Mar; 5(3):411-21.
[Mol Cell. 2000]Development. 2001 May; 128(9):1493-505.
[Development. 2001]Genes Dev. 2004 Jul 1; 18(13):1630-42.
[Genes Dev. 2004]Nat Genet. 1999 Apr; 21(4):414-9.
[Nat Genet. 1999]Dev Biol. 1985 Sep; 111(1):158-70.
[Dev Biol. 1985]Mol Cell. 2000 Mar; 5(3):411-21.
[Mol Cell. 2000]Exp Cell Res. 2003 Apr 1; 284(2):251-63.
[Exp Cell Res. 2003]Genetics. 2006 Jul; 173(3):1275-86.
[Genetics. 2006]Curr Biol. 2005 May 24; 15(10):935-41.
[Curr Biol. 2005]Development. 2005 Apr; 132(8):1923-34.
[Development. 2005]Genome Biol. 2006; 7(12):R126.
[Genome Biol. 2006]Mol Cell. 2000 Mar; 5(3):411-21.
[Mol Cell. 2000]Dev Biol. 2006 Aug 15; 296(2):537-44.
[Dev Biol. 2006]Development. 2005 Apr; 132(8):1923-34.
[Development. 2005]Mol Cell Biol. 1996 Aug; 16(8):4486-94.
[Mol Cell Biol. 1996]Nature. 2000 Feb 24; 403(6772):916-21.
[Nature. 2000]J Neurochem. 2006 Aug; 98(3):860-75.
[J Neurochem. 2006]J Neurosci. 1998 Jan 1; 18(1):70-80.
[J Neurosci. 1998]Mol Biol Cell. 1998 Jun; 9(6):1235-52.
[Mol Biol Cell. 1998]Nature. 1999 Sep 23; 401(6751):371-5.
[Nature. 1999]Neuron. 2000 May; 26(2):345-56.
[Neuron. 2000]Neuron. 2000 May; 26(2):331-43.
[Neuron. 2000]Neuron. 2001 Jan; 29(1):115-29.
[Neuron. 2001]Cell. 2003 Mar 7; 112(5):619-30.
[Cell. 2003]Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1998 Oct 9; 251(1):394-8.
[Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1998]J Neurosci. 1997 Apr 1; 17(7):2365-75.
[J Neurosci. 1997]Eur J Neurosci. 2006 Aug; 24(4):1020-30.
[Eur J Neurosci. 2006]J Neurochem. 2006 Aug; 98(3):860-75.
[J Neurochem. 2006]Brain Res Bull. 2001 Sep 15; 56(2):111-7.
[Brain Res Bull. 2001]J Neurol Sci. 2000 Apr 15; 175(2):81-90.
[J Neurol Sci. 2000]J Alzheimers Dis. 2005 Apr; 7(2):103-17; discussion 173-80.
[J Alzheimers Dis. 2005]Science. 2002 Oct 25; 298(5594):789-91.
[Science. 2002]