Drosophila HCN mediates gustatory homeostasis by preserving sensillar transepithelial potential in sweet environments
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife assessment
This valuable study provides new insight into how non-synaptic interactions affect the activity of adjacent gustatory neurons housed within the same sensillum. The electrophysiological, behavioral, and genetic data supporting the study's conclusions are solid, although the inclusion of additional control experiments would strengthen the study. This work will be of interest to neuroscientists studying chemosensory processing or regulation of neuronal excitability.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
- Neuroscience (eLife)
Abstract
Establishing transepithelial ion disparities is crucial for sensory functions in animals. In insect sensory organs called sensilla, a transepithelial potential, known as the sensillum potential (SP), arises through active ion transport across accessory cells, sensitizing receptor neurons such as mechanoreceptors and chemoreceptors. Because multiple receptor neurons are often co-housed in a sensillum and share SP, niche-prevalent overstimulation of single sensory neurons can compromise neighboring receptors by depleting SP. However, how such potential depletion is prevented to maintain sensory homeostasis remains unknown. Here, we find that the Ih -encoded hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide gated (HCN) channel bolsters the activity of bitter-sensing gustatory receptor neurons (bGRNs), albeit acting in sweet-sensing GRNs (sGRNs). For this task, HCN maintains SP despite prolonged sGRN stimulation induced by the diet mimicking their sweet feeding niche, such as overripe fruit. We present evidence that Ih -dependent demarcation of sGRN excitability is implemented to throttle SP consumption, which may have facilitated adaptation to a sweetness-dominated environment. Thus, HCN expressed in sGRNs serves as a key component of a simple yet versatile peripheral coding that regulates bitterness for optimal food intake in two contrasting ways: sweet-resilient preservation of bitter aversion and the previously reported sweet-dependent suppression of bitter taste.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
eLife assessment
This valuable study provides new insight into how non-synaptic interactions affect the activity of adjacent gustatory neurons housed within the same sensillum. The electrophysiological, behavioral, and genetic data supporting the study's conclusions are solid, although the inclusion of additional control experiments would strengthen the study. This work will be of interest to neuroscientists studying chemosensory processing or regulation of neuronal excitability.
-
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Summary:
This study identifies new types of interactions between Drosophila gustatory receptor neurons (GRNs) and shows that these interactions influence sensory responses and behavior. The authors find that HCN, a hyperpolarization-activated cation channel, suppresses the activity of GRNs in which it is expressed, preventing those GRNs from depleting the sensillum potential, and thereby promoting the activity of neighboring GRNs in the same sensilla. HCN is expressed in sugar GRNs, so HCN dampens the excitation of sugar GRNs and promotes the excitation of bitter GRNs. Impairing HCN expression in sugar GRNs depletes the sensillum potential and decreases bitter responses, especially when flies are fed on a sugar-rich diet, and this leads to decreased bitter aversion in a feeding assay. The authors' …
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Summary:
This study identifies new types of interactions between Drosophila gustatory receptor neurons (GRNs) and shows that these interactions influence sensory responses and behavior. The authors find that HCN, a hyperpolarization-activated cation channel, suppresses the activity of GRNs in which it is expressed, preventing those GRNs from depleting the sensillum potential, and thereby promoting the activity of neighboring GRNs in the same sensilla. HCN is expressed in sugar GRNs, so HCN dampens the excitation of sugar GRNs and promotes the excitation of bitter GRNs. Impairing HCN expression in sugar GRNs depletes the sensillum potential and decreases bitter responses, especially when flies are fed on a sugar-rich diet, and this leads to decreased bitter aversion in a feeding assay. The authors' conclusions are supported by genetic manipulations, electrophysiological recordings, and behavioral assays.
Strengths:
(1) Non-synaptic interactions between neurons that share an extracellular environment (sometimes called "ephaptic" interactions) have not been well-studied, and certainly not in the insect taste system. A major strength of this study is the new insight it provides into how these interactions can impact sensory coding and behavior.
(2) The authors use many different types of genetic manipulations to dissect the role of HCN in GRN function, including mutants, RNAi, overexpression, ectopic expression, and neuronal silencing. Their results convincingly show that HCN impacts the sensillum potential and has both cell-autonomous and nonautonomous effects that go in opposite directions. There are a couple of conflicting or counterintuitive results, but the authors discuss potential explanations.
(3) Experiments comparing flies raised on different food sources suggest an explanation for why the system may have evolved the way that it did: when flies live in a sugar-rich environment, their bitter sensitivity decreases, and HCN expression in sugar GRNs helps to counteract this decrease.
Weaknesses/Limitations:
(1) The genetic manipulations were constitutive (e.g. Ih mutations, RNAi, or misexpression), and depleting Ih from birth could lead to compensatory effects that change the function of the neurons or sensillum. Using tools to temporally control Ih expression could help to confirm the results of this study.
(2) The behavioral experiment shows a striking loss of bitter sensitivity, but it was only conducted for one bitter compound at one concentration. It is not clear how general this effect is. The same is true for some of the bitter GRN electrophysiological experiments that only tested one compound and concentration.
(3) Several experiments using the Gal4/UAS system only show the Gal4/+ control and not the UAS/+ control (or occasionally neither control). Since some of the measurements in control flies seem to vary (e.g., spiking rate), it is important to compare the experimental flies to both controls to ensure that any observed effects are in fact due to the transgene expression.
(4) I was surprised that manipulations of sugar GRNs (e.g. Ih knockdown, Gr64a-f deletion, or Kir silencing) can impact the sensillum potential and bitter GRN responses even in experiments where no sugar was presented. I believe the authors are suggesting that the effects of sugar GRN activity (e.g., from consuming sugar in the fly food prior to the experiment) can have long-lasting effects, but it wasn't entirely clear if this is their primary explanation or on what timescale those long-lasting effects would occur. How much / how long of a sugar exposure do the flies need for these effects to be triggered, and how long do those effects last once sugar is removed?
(5) The authors mention that HCN may impact the resting potential in addition to changing the excitability of the cell through various mechanisms. It would be informative to record the resting potential and other neuronal properties, but this is very difficult for GRNs, so the current study is not able to determine exactly how HCN affects GRN activity.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Summary:
In this manuscript, the authors start by showing that HCN loss-of-function mutation causes a decrease in spiking in bitter GRNs (bGRN) while leaving sweet GRN (sGRN) response in the same sensillum intact. They show that a perturbation of HCN channels in sweet-sensing neurons causes a similar decrease while increasing the response of sugar neurons. They were also able to rescue the response by exogenous expression. Ectopic expression of HCN in bitter neurons had no effect. Next, they measure the sensillum potential and find that sensillum potential is also affected by HCN channel perturbation. These findings lead them to speculate that HCN in sGRN increases sGRN spiking which in turn affects bGRNs. To test this idea that carried out multiple perturbations aimed at decreasing sGRN activity. They found …
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Summary:
In this manuscript, the authors start by showing that HCN loss-of-function mutation causes a decrease in spiking in bitter GRNs (bGRN) while leaving sweet GRN (sGRN) response in the same sensillum intact. They show that a perturbation of HCN channels in sweet-sensing neurons causes a similar decrease while increasing the response of sugar neurons. They were also able to rescue the response by exogenous expression. Ectopic expression of HCN in bitter neurons had no effect. Next, they measure the sensillum potential and find that sensillum potential is also affected by HCN channel perturbation. These findings lead them to speculate that HCN in sGRN increases sGRN spiking which in turn affects bGRNs. To test this idea that carried out multiple perturbations aimed at decreasing sGRN activity. They found that decreasing sGRN activity by either using receptor mutant or by expressing Kir (a K+ channel) in sGRN increased bGRN responses. These responses also increase the sensillum potential. Finally, they show that these changes are behaviorally relevant as conditions that increase sGRN activity decrease avoidance of bitter substances.
Strengths:
There is solid evidence that perturbation of sweet GRNs affects bitter GRN in the same sensillum. The measurement of transsynaptic potential and how it changes is also interesting and supports the authors' conclusion.
Weaknesses:
The ionic basis of how perturbation in GRN affects the transepithelial potential which in turn affects the second neuron is not clear. -
Reviewer #3 (Public Review):
Ephaptic inhibition between neurons housed in the same sensilla has been long discovered in flies, but the molecular basis underlying this inhibition is underexplored. Specifically, it remains poorly understood which receptors or channels are important for maintaining the transepithelial potential between the sensillum lymph and the hemolymph (known as the sensillum potential), and how this affects the excitability of neurons housed in the same sensilla.
Lee et al. used single-sensillum recordings (SSR) of the labellar taste sensilla to demonstrate that the HCN channel, Ih, is critical for maintaining sensillum potential in flies. Ih is expressed in sugar-sensing GRNs (sGRNs) but affects the excitability of both the sGRNs and the bitter-sensing GRNs (bGRNs) in the same sensilla. Ih mutant flies have …
Reviewer #3 (Public Review):
Ephaptic inhibition between neurons housed in the same sensilla has been long discovered in flies, but the molecular basis underlying this inhibition is underexplored. Specifically, it remains poorly understood which receptors or channels are important for maintaining the transepithelial potential between the sensillum lymph and the hemolymph (known as the sensillum potential), and how this affects the excitability of neurons housed in the same sensilla.
Lee et al. used single-sensillum recordings (SSR) of the labellar taste sensilla to demonstrate that the HCN channel, Ih, is critical for maintaining sensillum potential in flies. Ih is expressed in sugar-sensing GRNs (sGRNs) but affects the excitability of both the sGRNs and the bitter-sensing GRNs (bGRNs) in the same sensilla. Ih mutant flies have decreased sensillum potential, and bGRNs of Ih mutant flies have a decreased response to the bitter compound caffeine. Interestingly, ectopic expression of Ih in bGRNs also increases sGRN response to sucrose, suggesting that Ih-dependent increase in sensillum potential is not specific to Ih expressed in sGRNs. The authors further demonstrated, using both SSR and behavior assays, that exposure to sugars in the food substrate is important for the Ih-dependent sensitization of bGRNs. The experiments conducted in this paper are of interest to the chemosensory field. The observation that Ih is important for the activity in bGRNs albeit expressed in sGRNs is especially fascinating and highlights the importance of non-synaptic interactions in the taste system.
Despite the interesting results, this paper is not written in a clear and easily understandable manner. It uses poorly defined terms without much elaboration, contains sentences that are borderline unreadable even for those in the narrower chemosensory field, and many figures can clearly benefit from more labeling and explanation. It certainly needs a bit of work.
Below are the major points:
(1) Throughout the paper, it is assumed that Ih channels are expressed in sugar-sensing GRNs but not bitter-sensing GRNs. However, both this paper and citation #17, another paper from the same lab, contain only circumstantial evidence for the expression of Ih channels in sGRNs. A simple co-expression analysis, using the Ih-T2A-GAL4 line and Gr5a-LexA/Gr66a-LexA line, all of which are available, could easily demonstrate the co-expression. Including such a figure would significantly strengthen the conclusion of this paper.
(2) Throughout this paper, it is often unclear which class of labellar taste sensilla is being recorded. S-a, S-b, I-a, and I-b sensilla all have different sensitivities to bitters and sugars. Each figure should clearly indicate which sensilla is being recorded. Justification should be provided if recordings from different classes of sensilla are being pooled together for statistics.
(3) In many figures, there is a lack of critical control experiments. Examples include Figures 1C-F (lacking UAS control), Figure 2I-J (lacking UAS control), Figure 4E (lacking the UAS and GAL4 control, and it is also strange to compare Gr64f > RNAi with Gr66a > RNAi, instead of with parental GAL4 and UAS controls.), and Figure 5D (lacking UAS control). Without these critical control experiments, it is difficult to evaluate the quality of the work.
(4) Figure 2A could benefit from more clarification about what exactly is being recorded here. The text is confusing: a considerable amount of text is spent on explaining the technical details of how SP is recorded, but very little text about what SP represents, which is critical for the readers. The authors should clarify in the text that SP is measuring the potential between the sensillar lymph, where the dendrites of GRNs are immersed, and the hemolymph. Adding a schematic figure to show that SP represents the potential between the sensillar lymph and hemolymph would be beneficial.
(5) The sGRN spiking rate in Figure 4B deviates significantly from previous literature (Wang, Carlson, eLife 2022; Jiao, Montell PNAS 2007, as examples), and the response to sucrose in the control flies is not dosage-dependent, which raises questions about the quality of the data. Why are the responses to sucrose not dosage-dependent? The responses are clearly not saturated at these (10 mM to 100 mM) concentrations.
(6) In Figure 4C, instead of showing the average spike rate of the first five seconds and the next 5 seconds, why not show a peristimulus time histogram? It would help the readers tremendously, and it would also show how quickly the spike rate adapts to overexpression and control flies. Also, since taste responses adapt rather quickly, a 500 ms or 1 s bin would be more appropriate than a 5-second bin.
(7) Lines 215 - 220. The authors state that the presence of sugars in the culture media would expose the GRNs to sugar constantly, without providing much evidence. What is the evidence that the GRNs are being activated constantly in flies raised with culture media containing sugars? The sensilla are not always in contact with the food.
(8) Line 223. To show that bGRN spike rates in Ih mutant flies "decreased even more than WT", you need to compare the difference in spike rates between the sorbitol group and the sorbitol + sucrose group, which is not what is currently shown.
(9) To help readers better understand the proposed mechanisms here, including a schematic figure would be helpful. This should show where Ih is expressed, how Ih in sGRNs impacts the sensillum potential, how elevated sensillum potential increases the electrical driving force for the receptor current, and affects the excitability of the bGRNs in the same sensilla, and how exposure to sugar is proposed to affect ion homeostasis in the sensillum lymph.
-
-