An extracellular biochemical screen reveals that FLRTs and Unc5s mediate neuronal subtype recognition in the retina

  1. Jasper J Visser
  2. Yolanda Cheng
  3. Steven C Perry
  4. Andrew Benjamin Chastain
  5. Bayan Parsa
  6. Shatha S Masri
  7. Thomas A Ray
  8. Jeremy N Kay
  9. Woj M Wojtowicz  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of California, Berkeley, United States
  2. Duke University School of Medicine, United States

Abstract

In the inner plexiform layer (IPL) of the mouse retina, ~70 neuronal subtypes organize their neurites into an intricate laminar structure that underlies visual processing. To find recognition proteins involved in lamination, we utilized microarray data from 13 subtypes to identify differentially-expressed extracellular proteins and performed a high-throughput biochemical screen. We identified ~50 previously-unknown receptor-ligand pairs, including new interactions among members of the FLRT and Unc5 families. These proteins show laminar-restricted IPL localization and induce attraction and/or repulsion of retinal neurites in culture, placing them in ideal position to mediate laminar targeting. Consistent with a repulsive role in arbor lamination, we observed complementary expression patterns for one interaction pair, FLRT2-Unc5C, in vivo. Starburst amacrine cells and their synaptic partners, ON-OFF direction-selective ganglion cells, express FLRT2 and are repelled by Unc5C. These data suggest that a single molecular mechanism may have been co-opted by synaptic partners to ensure joint laminar restriction.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jasper J Visser

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Yolanda Cheng

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Steven C Perry

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Andrew Benjamin Chastain

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Bayan Parsa

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Shatha S Masri

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Thomas A Ray

    Departments of Neurobiology and Opthalmology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Jeremy N Kay

    Departments of Neurobiology and Opthalmology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Woj M Wojtowicz

    Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, United States
    For correspondence
    woj.wojtowicz@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Constance Cepko, Harvard University, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All animal procedures were approved by the University of California, Berkeley (Office of Laboratory Animal Care (OLAC) protocol #R308) and they conformed to the National Institutes of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, the Public Health Service Policy and the Society for Neuroscience Policy on the Use of Animals in Neuroscience Research.

Version history

  1. Received: April 16, 2015
  2. Accepted: December 1, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: December 2, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: December 10, 2015 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: January 22, 2016 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2015, Visser et al.

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

Metrics

  • 3,705
    views
  • 886
    downloads
  • 44
    citations

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

Download links

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

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

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

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

  1. Jasper J Visser
  2. Yolanda Cheng
  3. Steven C Perry
  4. Andrew Benjamin Chastain
  5. Bayan Parsa
  6. Shatha S Masri
  7. Thomas A Ray
  8. Jeremy N Kay
  9. Woj M Wojtowicz
(2015)
An extracellular biochemical screen reveals that FLRTs and Unc5s mediate neuronal subtype recognition in the retina
eLife 4:e08149.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08149

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08149

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Claudia D Consalvo, Adedeji M Aderounmu ... Brenda L Bass
    Research Article

    Invertebrates use the endoribonuclease Dicer to cleave viral dsRNA during antiviral defense, while vertebrates use RIG-I-like Receptors (RLRs), which bind viral dsRNA to trigger an interferon response. While some invertebrate Dicers act alone during antiviral defense, Caenorhabditis elegans Dicer acts in a complex with a dsRNA binding protein called RDE-4, and an RLR ortholog called DRH-1. We used biochemical and structural techniques to provide mechanistic insight into how these proteins function together. We found RDE-4 is important for ATP-independent and ATP-dependent cleavage reactions, while helicase domains of both DCR-1 and DRH-1 contribute to ATP-dependent cleavage. DRH-1 plays the dominant role in ATP hydrolysis, and like mammalian RLRs, has an N-terminal domain that functions in autoinhibition. A cryo-EM structure indicates DRH-1 interacts with DCR-1’s helicase domain, suggesting this interaction relieves autoinhibition. Our study unravels the mechanistic basis of the collaboration between two helicases from typically distinct innate immune defense pathways.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Damien M Rasmussen, Manny M Semonis ... Nicholas M Levinson
    Research Article

    The type II class of RAF inhibitors currently in clinical trials paradoxically activate BRAF at subsaturating concentrations. Activation is mediated by induction of BRAF dimers, but why activation rather than inhibition occurs remains unclear. Using biophysical methods tracking BRAF dimerization and conformation, we built an allosteric model of inhibitor-induced dimerization that resolves the allosteric contributions of inhibitor binding to the two active sites of the dimer, revealing key differences between type I and type II RAF inhibitors. For type II inhibitors the allosteric coupling between inhibitor binding and BRAF dimerization is distributed asymmetrically across the two dimer binding sites, with binding to the first site dominating the allostery. This asymmetry results in efficient and selective induction of dimers with one inhibited and one catalytically active subunit. Our allosteric models quantitatively account for paradoxical activation data measured for 11 RAF inhibitors. Unlike type II inhibitors, type I inhibitors lack allosteric asymmetry and do not activate BRAF homodimers. Finally, NMR data reveal that BRAF homodimers are dynamically asymmetric with only one of the subunits locked in the active αC-in state. This provides a structural mechanism for how binding of only a single αC-in inhibitor molecule can induce potent BRAF dimerization and activation.