Centrosomin represses dendrite branching by orienting microtubule nucleation

Article metrics

Abstract

Neuronal dendrite branching is fundamental for building nervous systems. Branch formation is genetically encoded by transcriptional programs to create dendrite arbor morphological diversity for complex neuronal functions. In Drosophila sensory neurons, the transcription factor Abrupt represses branching via an unknown effector pathway. Targeted screening for branching-control effectors identified Centrosomin, the primary centrosome-associated protein for mitotic spindle maturation. Centrosomin repressed dendrite branch formation and was used by Abrupt to simplify arbor branching. Live imaging revealed that Centrosomin localized to the Golgi cis face and that it recruited microtubule nucleation to Golgi outposts for net retrograde microtubule polymerization away from nascent dendrite branches. Removal of Centrosomin enabled the engagement of wee Augmin activity to promote anterograde microtubule growth into the nascent branches, leading to increased branching. The findings reveal that polarized targeting of Centrosomin to Golgi outposts during elaboration of the dendrite arbor creates a local system for guiding microtubule polymerization.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Neuron class–specific arrangements of microtubule minus ends in dendrites.
Figure 2: Cnn restricts dendrite branch formation and facilitates Ab-mediated branch repression.
Figure 3: Cnn organizes dendrite microtubule nucleation.
Figure 4: Polarized Cnn localization at Golgi.
Figure 5: Cnn localization in the dendrite arbor.
Figure 6: Cnn and Ab recruit microtubule nucleation to Golgi outposts.
Figure 7: Cnn controls the polarity of dendrite microtubule polymerization and the extension of termini.

References

  1. 1

    Kulkarni, V.A. & Firestein, B.L. The dendritic tree and brain disorders. Mol. Cell. Neurosci. 50, 10–20 (2012).

  2. 2

    Jan, Y.N. & Jan, L.Y. Branching out: mechanisms of dendritic arborization. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 11, 316–328 (2010).

  3. 3

    London, M. & Hausser, M. Dendritic computation. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 28, 503–532 (2005).

  4. 4

    Moore, A.W., Jan, L.Y. & Jan, Y.N. hamlet, a binary genetic switch between single- and multiple-dendrite neuron morphology. Science 297, 1355–1358 (2002).

  5. 5

    Hand, R. et al. Phosphorylation of Neurogenin2 specifies the migration properties and the dendritic morphology of pyramidal neurons in the neocortex. Neuron 48, 45–62 (2005).

  6. 6

    Britanova, O. et al. Satb2 is a postmitotic determinant for upper-layer neuron specification in the neocortex. Neuron 57, 378–392 (2008).

  7. 7

    Zhang, L. et al. Satb2 is required for dendritic arborization and soma spacing in mouse cerebral cortex. Cereb. Cortex 22, 1510–1519 (2012).

  8. 8

    Cubelos, B. et al. Cux1 and Cux2 regulate dendritic branching, spine morphology, and synapses of the upper layer neurons of the cortex. Neuron 66, 523–535 (2010).

  9. 9

    Smith, C.J. et al. Sensory neuron fates are distinguished by a transcriptional switch that regulates dendrite branch stabilization. Neuron 79, 266–280 (2013).

  10. 10

    Karim, M.R. & Moore, A.W. Convergent local identity and topographic projection of sensory neurons. J. Neurosci. 31, 17017–17027 (2011).

  11. 11

    Jinushi-Nakao, S. et al. Knot/Collier and cut control different aspects of dendrite cytoskeleton and synergize to define final arbor shape. Neuron 56, 963–978 (2007).

  12. 12

    Hattori, Y., Sugimura, K. & Uemura, T. Selective expression of Knot/Collier, a transcriptional regulator of the EBF/Olf-1 family, endows the Drosophila sensory system with neuronal class-specific elaborated dendritic patterns. Genes Cells 12, 1011–1022 (2007).

  13. 13

    Grueber, W.B., Jan, L.Y. & Jan, Y.N. Different levels of the homeodomain protein cut regulate distinct dendrite branching patterns of Drosophila multidendritic neurons. Cell 112, 805–818 (2003).

  14. 14

    Sugimura, K., Satoh, D., Estes, P., Crews, S. & Uemura, T. Development of morphological diversity of dendrites in Drosophila by the BTB-zinc finger protein abrupt. Neuron 43, 809–822 (2004).

  15. 15

    Li, W., Wang, F., Menut, L. & Gao, F.B. BTB/POZ-zinc finger protein abrupt suppresses dendritic branching in a neuronal subtype-specific and dosage-dependent manner. Neuron 43, 823–834 (2004).

  16. 16

    Hattori, Y. et al. Sensory-neuron subtype-specific transcriptional programs controlling dendrite morphogenesis: genome-wide analysis of Abrupt and Knot/Collier. Dev. Cell 27, 530–544 (2013).

  17. 17

    Lewis, T.L. Jr., Courchet, J. & Polleux, F. Cell biology in neuroscience: cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying axon formation, growth, and branching. J. Cell Biol. 202, 837–848 (2013).

  18. 18

    Jaworski, J. et al. Dynamic microtubules regulate dendritic spine morphology and synaptic plasticity. Neuron 61, 85–100 (2009).

  19. 19

    Ori-McKenney, K.M., Jan, L.Y. & Jan, Y.N. Golgi outposts shape dendrite morphology by functioning as sites of acentrosomal microtubule nucleation in neurons. Neuron 76, 921–930 (2012).

  20. 20

    Song, Y. et al. Regeneration of Drosophila sensory neuron axons and dendrites is regulated by the Akt pathway involving Pten and microRNA bantam. Genes Dev. 26, 1612–1625 (2012).

  21. 21

    Grieder, N.C., de Cuevas, M. & Spradling, A.C. The fusome organizes the microtubule network during oocyte differentiation in Drosophila. Development 127, 4253–4264 (2000).

  22. 22

    Patterson, K. et al. The functions of Klarsicht and nuclear lamin in developmentally regulated nuclear migrations of photoreceptor cells in the Drosophila eye. Mol. Biol. Cell 15, 600–610 (2004).

  23. 23

    Sitaram, P., Anderson, M.A., Jodoin, J.N., Lee, E. & Lee, L.A. Regulation of dynein localization and centrosome positioning by Lis-1 and asunder during Drosophila spermatogenesis. Development 139, 2945–2954 (2012).

  24. 24

    Siller, K.H., Serr, M., Steward, R., Hays, T.S. & Doe, C.Q. Live imaging of Drosophila brain neuroblasts reveals a role for Lis1/dynactin in spindle assembly and mitotic checkpoint control. Mol. Biol. Cell 16, 5127–5140 (2005).

  25. 25

    Parrish, J.Z., Xu, P., Kim, C.C., Jan, L.Y. & Jan, Y.N. The microRNA bantam functions in epithelial cells to regulate scaling growth of dendrite arbors in Drosophila sensory neurons. Neuron 63, 788–802 (2009).

  26. 26

    Leiss, F. et al. Characterization of dendritic spines in the Drosophila central nervous system. Dev. Neurobiol. 69, 221–234 (2009).

  27. 27

    Tortosa, E. et al. Microtubule-associated protein 1B (MAP1B) is required for dendritic spine development and synaptic maturation. J. Biol. Chem. 286, 40638–40648 (2011).

  28. 28

    Megraw, T.L., Kilaru, S., Turner, F.R. & Kaufman, T.C. The centrosome is a dynamic structure that ejects PCM flares. J. Cell Sci. 115, 4707–4718 (2002).

  29. 29

    Martinez-Campos, M., Basto, R., Baker, J., Kernan, M. & Raff, J.W. The Drosophila pericentrin-like protein is essential for cilia/flagella function, but appears to be dispensable for mitosis. J. Cell Biol. 165, 673–683 (2004).

  30. 30

    Dobbelaere, J. et al. A genome-wide RNAi screen to dissect centriole duplication and centrosome maturation in Drosophila. PLoS Biol. 6, e224 (2008).

  31. 31

    Zhou, W. et al. GM130 is required for compartmental organization of dendritic Golgi outposts. Curr. Biol. 24, 1227–1233 (2014).

  32. 32

    Hayward, D., Metz, J., Pellacani, C. & Wakefield, J.G. Synergy between multiple microtubule-generating pathways confers robustness to centrosome-driven mitotic spindle formation. Dev. Cell 28, 81–93 (2014).

  33. 33

    Wang, Z. et al. Conserved motif of CDK5RAP2 mediates its localization to centrosomes and the Golgi complex. J. Biol. Chem. 285, 22658–22665 (2010).

  34. 34

    Horton, A.C. et al. Polarized secretory trafficking directs cargo for asymmetric dendrite growth and morphogenesis. Neuron 48, 757–771 (2005).

  35. 35

    Ye, B. et al. Growing dendrites and axons differ in their reliance on the secretory pathway. Cell 130, 717–729 (2007).

  36. 36

    Mahoney, N.M., Goshima, G., Douglass, A.D. & Vale, R.D. Making microtubules and mitotic spindles in cells without functional centrosomes. Curr. Biol. 16, 564–569 (2006).

  37. 37

    Meireles, A.M., Fisher, K.H., Colombie, N., Wakefield, J.G. & Ohkura, H. Wac: a new Augmin subunit required for chromosome alignment but not for acentrosomal microtubule assembly in female meiosis. J. Cell Biol. 184, 777–784 (2009).

  38. 38

    MacQuarrie, K.L., Fong, A.P., Morse, R.H. & Tapscott, S.J. Genome-wide transcription factor binding: beyond direct target regulation. Trends Genet. 27, 141–148 (2011).

  39. 39

    Sánchez-Huertas, C. & Luders, J. The augmin connection in the geometry of microtubule networks. Curr. Biol. 25, R294–R299 (2015).

  40. 40

    Stewart, A., Tsubouchi, A., Rolls, M.M., Tracey, W.D. & Sherwood, N.T. Katanin p60-like1 promotes microtubule growth and terminal dendrite stability in the larval class IV sensory neurons of Drosophila. J. Neurosci. 32, 11631–11642 (2012).

  41. 41

    Yu, W. et al. The microtubule-severing proteins spastin and katanin participate differently in the formation of axonal branches. Mol. Biol. Cell 19, 1485–1498 (2008).

  42. 42

    Yau, K.W. et al. Microtubule minus-end binding protein CAMSAP2 controls axon specification and dendrite development. Neuron 82, 1058–1073 (2014).

  43. 43

    Richardson, C.E. et al. PTRN-1, a microtubule minus end–binding CAMSAP homolog, promotes microtubule function in Caenorhabditis elegans neurons. Elife 3, e01498 (2014).

  44. 44

    Kaindl, A.M. et al. Many roads lead to primary autosomal recessive microcephaly. Prog. Neurobiol. 90, 363–383 (2010).

  45. 45

    Jaglin, X.H. & Chelly, J. Tubulin-related cortical dysgeneses: microtubule dysfunction underlying neuronal migration defects. Trends Genet. 25, 555–566 (2009).

  46. 46

    Bond, J. et al. A centrosomal mechanism involving CDK5RAP2 and CENPJ controls brain size. Nat. Genet. 37, 353–355 (2005).

  47. 47

    Lizarraga, S.B. et al. Cdk5rap2 regulates centrosome function and chromosome segregation in neuronal progenitors. Development 137, 1907–1917 (2010).

  48. 48

    Buchman, J.J. et al. Cdk5rap2 interacts with pericentrin to maintain the neural progenitor pool in the developing neocortex. Neuron 66, 386–402 (2010).

  49. 49

    Issa, L. et al. CDK5RAP2 expression during murine and human brain development correlates with pathology in primary autosomal recessive microcephaly. Cereb. Cortex 23, 2245–2260 (2013).

  50. 50

    Nègre, N. et al. A cis-regulatory map of the Drosophila genome. Nature 471, 527–531 (2011).

  51. 51

    Kharchenko, P.V., Tolstorukov, M.Y. & Park, P.J. Design and analysis of ChIP-seq experiments for DNA-binding proteins. Nat. Biotechnol. 26, 1351–1359 (2008).

  52. 52

    Lerit, D.A. & Rusan, N.M. PLP inhibits the activity of interphase centrosomes to ensure their proper segregation in stem cells. J. Cell Biol. 202, 1013–1022 (2013).

  53. 53

    Stone, M.C., Nguyen, M.M., Tao, J., Allender, D.L. & Rolls, M.M. Global up-regulation of microtubule dynamics and polarity reversal during regeneration of an axon from a dendrite. Mol. Biol. Cell 21, 767–777 (2010).

  54. 54

    Karim, M.R. & Moore, A.W. Morphological analysis of Drosophila larval peripheral sensory neuron dendrites and axons using genetic mosaics. J. Vis. Exp. 57, e3111 (2011).

  55. 55

    Yalgin, C., Karim, M.R. & Moore, A.W. Immunohistological labeling of microtubules in sensory neuron dendrites, tracheae, and muscles in the Drosophila larva body wall. J. Vis. Exp. 57, e3662 (2011).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank T. Hayashi and I. Nikaido, RIKEN Advanced Center for Computing and Communication (ACCC) for experimental advice, Jared Levine for technical support, and Charles Yokoyama and members of the BSI Laboratory for Genetic Control of Neuronal Architecture for discussion. This work was funded by a Human Frontiers Program Long-Term Fellowship to L.F.Y. and a RIKEN Brain Science Institute (BSI) core grant to A.W.M.

Author information

S.E., C.Y., C.D. and A.W.M. designed the project. S.E., C.Y., C.D., H.T. and A.W.M. carried out genetics, immunohistochemistry, live imaging and neuronal tracing, and interpreted the results. R.A. carried out immunohistochemistry. C.D., L.F.Y., S.A. and R.S. carried out molecular biology. R.S. carried out bioinformatics. A.W.M. and B.T.-N. carried out modeling. K.P.W. provided reagents, equipment and technical support. A.W.M., C.D. and L.F.Y. wrote the paper. S.E. and C.Y. contributed equally to this study.

Correspondence to Adrian W Moore.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Integrated supplementary information

Supplementary Figure 1 Neuron class-specific arrangements of Khc::nod::lacZ label in dendrites.

Staining with fluorescence antibodies to detect GFP (Green), β-galactosidase (magenta/white).(a, b) Class I 3rd instar.(c) Coverage index (sum of label length/arbor length) at 3rd instar for Khc::nod::lacZ label foci (<3 μm) (n (neurons) = 7, 7, 6; class IV WT vs class IV UAS-ab t = 3.55 P < 0.01).(d-g) Class IV 3rd instar (magnification of panels in Fig. 1); (h-k) class I st17 (magnification of panels in Fig. 1).Data drawn as scatter plots with the mean ± standard deviation (SD). Scale bars: (a-b, d-g) 50 μm: (h-k) 5 μm. Statistical test used: (c) one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s Multiple Comparison Test.

Supplementary Figure 2 Neuron class-specific arrangements of Lis1 label in dendrites.

Coverage index (sum of label length/arbor length) for Lis1 label with a length of >9 μm (a) (n (neurons) = 6, 4, 5; class I WT vs class IV WT t = 6.07 P < 0.001, class IV WT vs class IV UAS-ab t = 5.34 P < 0.001) and <3 μm (b) (n (neurons) = 6, 4, 5; class I WT vs class IV WT t = 3.27 P < 0.05) at 3rd instar, and embryo st17 (c) (n (neurons) = 12, 11; t(21) = 3.53 P = 0.0020).(d-f) Class I (yellow arrrowheads) and class IV (green arrowheads) neurons labelled with mCD8::KO and EGFP::Lis1.Data are shown as percentages or as scatter plots with the mean ± SD. Statistical tests used: (a, b) one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s Multiple Comparison Test, (c) 2-tail t-test.

Supplementary Figure 3 Gene expression in ab mutant da neurons.

(a-c) Gene expression in WT and ab mutant neurons (stage16-17, Rluv3>mCD8::GFP, n = 5, 6). Expression levels of (a) cnn are significantly reduced in ab mutants (t(9) = 3.49 P = 0.0069). However, those of (b) elav and (c) plp remain unchanged between genotypes.Expression levels are shown relative to gapdh (and also validated relative to rp49). Data collected at st16-17, and shown as scatter plots with the mean ± SD. Statistical tests used: t-test.

Supplementary Figure 4 Analysis of branch order and arbor complexity in cnn mutant da neurons.

(a) Cartoon illustrating how branch orders were defined for panels (b) and (c); the ordering is based on the Strahler method, and combines consecutive branch segments with the same order into a single definitive branch (as indicated with *). In this cartoon branch orders are show in different colors and numbers (1-black; 2-red; 3-blue).(b, c) The total branch number for each branch order at st17 for (b) class I (n (neurons) = 10, 16) and (c) class IV neurons (n (here we show tracing data for the single largest tree in the dorsal half of a ddaC arbor; one tree per neuron) = 17, 18). Branch number increased at each consecutive branch order in cnn mutants. Upon testing (with Bonferroni’s multiple test correction), in class I this difference reached statistical significance at the highest two branch orders (1st order t = 8.18 P < 0.0001, 2nd order t = 3.21 P < 0.01); and in class IV at the first 1st order (t = 5.05 P < 0.0001).(d, e) Sholl analysis reveals, for (d) class I (n (neurons) = 10, 20; F(1, 252) = 6.867 P = 0.0093) and (e) class IV (n (neurons: dorsal half of the arbor only) = 17, 17; F(1, 323) = 11.70 P = 0.0007), an increase in arbor complexity in medial and distal arbor regions in cnn mutants.Data collected at st17 shown as scatter and line plots with mean ± SD. Statistical tests used: (a, b) one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s Multiple Comparison Test, (d, e) two-way ANOVA.

Supplementary Figure 5 Cnn controls VS1 dendrite branching.

(a, b) Sequential z-images taken of (a) WT and (b) cnn VS1 neurons. Secondary branches (magenta asterisks) leave the primary branch (green asterisk). These form side trees that terminate in dendrite spine-like structures (orange arrowheads). In cnn mutants, the frequency of secondary branching is increased. Scale bar: 5μm, z step: 0.5 μm.(c, d) In the complex VS1 interneuron, Cnn appears to repress branch formation in the early scaffolding phase, and later mechanisms limit the effect of this early over-branching on final spine-like structure distribution. The number of secondary trees was increased in the cnn mutant, yet the number of spine-like structures per secondary tree was concomitantly reduced. (c) Within the trees the density of spine-like structures in cnn mutants is indistinguishable from WT (n (neurons) = 14, 14, P = 0.1664). (d) However the side trees are smaller and the total number of spine-like structures per tree (counted in the largest tree in each neuron imaged) is reduced in the cnn mutants (n (neurons)=14, 14, t(27) = 5.77 P < 0.0001).Data collected in the adult. Data presented as scatter plots with the mean ± SD. Statistical test used: (c, d) 2-tail t-test.

Supplementary Figure 6 RhoA controls F-Actin distribution in dendrites.

(a, b) The distribution of F-actin (measured by GMA fluorescence intensity (GMA: the 137 amino acid actin binding domain of Moesin tagged with GFP)) in developing class I dendrites, st17. Scale bar: 5 μm.(c) WT neurons show a strong concentration of F-actin at dendrite tips. This concentration gradient is reduced upon expression of a dominant negative RhoN19 (n (branches)=153, 153).Data collected at st17, and represented as mean ± SEM.

Supplementary Figure 7 Additive Futsch- and Cnn-mediated branch repression.

For dendrite tip number in class I neurons at 3rd instar, an additive effect between cnn and futsch was detected (a) F(1, 73) = 1.18 P = 0.2817, (b) F (1, 58) = 0.50 P = 0.4823 therefore showing no interaction (n (neurons)= 20, 20, 17, 20, 19, 21, 11, 12). Data collected at 3rd instar and drawn as scatter plots with the mean ± SD.Statistical test used: two-way ANOVA.

Supplementary Figure 8 Rescue of extra branching in cnn mutants by co-expression of GFP::Cnn.

Dendrite tip number in class I neurons at st17 (n (neurons) = 11, 19, 21, 16; interaction F(1, 63) = 12.08 P = 0.0009). Data collected at st17 and drawn as scatter plots with the mean ± SD. Statistical test used: two-way ANOVA.

Supplementary Figure 9 Distribution of GFP::Cnn foci on the Golgi surface.

(a) A regular distribution of GFP::Cnn across the Golgi cis face. Scale bar: 1 μm.(b–d) 1, 2, and 3 foci, respectively. ‘Foci’ refers to a point where the uneven distribution of signal leads to an increased accumulation of the signal at one position relative to the surrounding region. Data collected at st17.

Supplementary Figure 10 No alteration in arbor-wide density of GFP::Cnn foci in plp mutants.

The density of GFP::Cnn foci counted through the entire dendrite arbor (n (neurons) = 8, 7). Data collected at st17 and drawn as scatter plots with the mean ± SD.

Supplementary Figure 11 Differential relationship between Khc::nod::lacZ label and Golgi outposts in neurons with simple and complex arbors.

(a) Khc::nod::lacZ signal is adjacent to Golgi outposts in class I neurons. Scale bar 10 μm.(b) Khc::nod::lacZ signal does not show preferential localization to Golgi outposts along the dendrites of class IV neurons.(c) A bar chart comparing the relationship between Khc::nod::lacZ label and Golgi outposts in these two neuron classes (n= (outpost) 64, 63; Chi-square(2, N = 127) = 72.00 P < 0.0001).i –magnification of the signals, ii –path of the arbor. Abbreviation: p - proximal.Data collected at 3rd instar and represented as a percentage.Statistical test used: (c) Chi-square test.

Supplementary Figure 12 Class I Golgi outposts have a single-compartment structure.

(a) A Sholl analysis showing the distribution of Golgi compartments in the dendrites of late stage 17 class I neurons,(n(neuron) ManII=8, GalT=6). Data collected at st17 represent mean ± SD. (F(1, 108) = 51.11 P < 0.0001).(b) A comparison between the outpost compositions in complex (class III) neurons reported by Zhou and colleagues and the findings of this study in class I.Statistical test used: (a) two-way ANOVA.

Supplementary Figure 13 A role for Golgi outposts in regulating the polarity of microtubules in termini.

(a) The relative contributions of Golgi and non-Golgi derived polymerizing microtubules to the dendrite termini. In the class I arbor, microtubules derived from Golgi outposts favor polymerization in the retrograde direction (n (comets)= 50).(b) A cartoon to illustrate the consequence of linking microtubule nucleation events to a Golgi outpost in a nascent branch of a class I neuron. Arrows represent polymerizing microtubules, purple circles represent outposts. In mutants an outpost that is not supporting microtubule nucleation is shown as a pale circle.Data collected at st17.

Supplementary Figure 14 A model to address the outcome of changing branching frequency on class I dendrite arbor complexity.

The simulation entails a straightforward model of branching in class I da neurons. (a) A soma gives rise to a number of initial segments; this distribution was estimated by counting primary dendrites in WT experimental data at stage 17. Further branching events were estimated from analysis of tracings of wildtype stage 17 neurons. In the model, subsequently, the end points are increased in three growth phases. In the first growth phase, each end point gives rise to an average of 4.2 new end points (normal distribution mu=4.2, sigma=2). This is the phase of rapid expansion. In the second and third growth phase, the end points can sprout once more with a probability of 1/4 and 1/10, respectively. In the non-WT case, the initial number of stems is 15% higher, and subsequently all branching probabilities are increased by 15% as well. (b) We ran this model 1000 times for both WT case and non-WT case. (c) The average number of end points was 20 and 28 in WT and non-WT case, respectively (D=0.426, P << 0.05, two-tailed Kolmogorov-Smirnov test).

Supplementary Figure 15 A comparison between Anti-Ab ChIP-seq and Ab-Dam ID at the cnn locus.

Anti-Ab ChIP-Seq peaks were called peaks using MACS. Optimal peak calling (purple bar) called 2,397 peaks. Conservative peak calling (magenta bar) called 515 peaks. Binding at the cnn locus was comparable between Anti-Ab ChIP-Seq and a recently published DamID analysis of Ab (green bar).

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yalgin, C., Ebrahimi, S., Delandre, C. et al. Centrosomin represses dendrite branching by orienting microtubule nucleation. Nat Neurosci 18, 1437–1445 (2015) doi:10.1038/nn.4099

Download citation

Further reading