Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Oct 31;19(10):e0306676. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306676

The evolutionarily conserved PhLP3 is essential for sperm development in Drosophila melanogaster

Christopher Petit 1, Elizabeth Kojak 1,¤a, Samantha Webster 1, Michela Marra 2, Brendan Sweeney 1,¤b, Claire Chaikin 1,¤c, Jennifer C Jemc 1,3,‡,*, Stefan M Kanzok 1,3,‡,*
Editor: Abhinava Kumar Mishra4
PMCID: PMC11527243  PMID: 39480878

Abstract

Phosducin-like proteins (PhLP) are thioredoxin domain-containing proteins that are highly conserved across unicellular and multicellular organisms. PhLP family proteins are hypothesized to function as co-chaperones in the folding of cytoskeletal proteins. Here, we present the initial molecular, biochemical, and functional characterization of CG4511 as Drosophila melanogaster PhLP3. We cloned the gene into a bacterial expression vector and produced enzymatically active recombinant PhLP3, which showed similar kinetics to previously characterized orthologues. A fly strain homozygous for a P-element insertion in the 5’ UTR of the PhLP3 gene exhibited significant downregulation of PhLP3 expression. We found these male flies to be sterile. Microscopic analysis revealed altered testes morphology and impairment of spermiogenesis, leading to a lack of mature sperm. Among the most significant observations was the lack of actin cones during sperm maturation. Excision of the P-element insertion in PhLP3 restored male fertility, spermiogenesis, and seminal vesicle size. Given the high level of conservation of PhLP3, our data suggests PhLP3 may be an important regulator of sperm development across species.

Introduction

The phosducin-like family of proteins (PhLP/PDCL/Plp) consists of small cytoplasmic proteins that are evolutionarily conserved among eukaryotes from yeast to humans [14] (Fig 1A and 1B). Drosophila melanogaster PhLP3 shares significant amino acid sequence identities with homologous proteins in a wide range of eukaryotic organisms (Fig 1A). Their hypothesized cellular functions range from regulating trimeric G-proteins and actin and tubulin-based cytoskeletal structures to chaperone-assisted protein folding [2, 5, 6]. The PhLP family is organized into three subgroups based primarily on sequence similarities and proposed cellular functions [7]. The PhLP1 group is involved in the folding, stabilizing, and regulating the beta-gamma dimers of trimeric G-proteins (reviewed in [8]). Members of the PhLP2 and PhLP3 groups are hypothesized to function as co-chaperones in conjunction with the Chaperonin-containing tailless complex polypeptide 1 (CCT), also referred to as the tailless complex polypeptide 1 ring complex (TRiC). The CCT is an essential molecular cytosolic chaperonin in eukaryotes responsible for folding a variety of cytosolic proteins, including α- and β-tubulin and actin [6, 9, 10].

Fig 1. Sequence and structure conservation of PhLP3 proteins.

Fig 1

(A) Clustal Omega alignment of published sequences. Similar amino acids are underlaid in gray. Secondary structure predictions by JPred4 [11] are shown above the sequences with alpha helices in red and beta strands in yellow. The blue box indicates the thioredoxin domain. The conserved putative redox-active cysteine is highlighted in yellow. The inset table shows sequence identities between Drosophila melanogaster PhLP3 and the sequences in the alignment. Abbreviations and NCBI references: At = Arabidopsis thaliana (AEE78732; [12]), Pb = Plasmodium berghei (SCO61590; [4]), Ce = Caenorhabditis elegans (NP_498410; [2]), Dm = Drosophila melanogaster (AAL28410; this paper), Dr = Danio rerio (AAI65424; [13]), Hs = Homo sapiens (NP_005774; [4, 6]), Rn = Rattus norwegicus (NP_742051; [14]). (B) Phylogenetic tree of the aligned sequences. Alignment and phylogenetic tree were generated using EMBL-EBI Clustal Omega tools [15]. The scale represents the "length" of the branches, which indicates the evolutionary distance between the sequences in units of amino acid substitutions per site. Longer branches represent larger numbers of genetic changes.

PhLPs have been shown to be essential for unicellular organisms, including yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiase, the protozoan parasite Plasmodium berghei, and the amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum [4, 7, 10]. RNAi-mediated knockdown of PhLP in multicellular organisms, such as the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, alters cytoskeletal-dependent, including nuclear division and cytokinesis, and renders embryos unable to complete the first division [2]. Similar observations were reported in the plant Arabidopsis thaliana, where simultaneous knockdown of PLP3A and PLP3B disrupts microtubule-dependent oriented cell expansion in the meristem [12]. PhLP3 silencing or overexpression in Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cells leads to disorganization of microtubules as well as actin-based cytoskeletal structures [16]. Several recent cryo-electron microscopy (CryoEM) studies on the yeast and human CCTs show that PhLP, together with tubulin or actin, localizes to the central chamber of the chaperonin ring complex [1719]. Taken together, these data suggest that the function of PhLP3 is linked to the regulation and dynamics of the cytoskeleton.

All PhLPs exhibiting molecular weights between 25 and 30 kD appear to share the same overall structural organization, consisting of an N-terminal helix domain, which ranges from 150 AA in PhLP1 to 59 AA in PhLP3, a central thioredoxin (Trx) domain comprised of 130 AA, and an unstructured C-terminal tail of varying length (Fig 1) [1]. Within the structure, the Trx-domain exhibits the highest degree of sequence conservation [7]; for example, the protozoan organism Plasmodium berghei and its human homolog TXNDC9 share 49% AA sequence identity between their respective Trx-domains (Fig 1) [4]. Furthermore, our group recently demonstrated that P. berghei PhLP3 and human TXNDC9 exhibit 1-cysteine-based redox activity [4]. These new insights into the molecular mechanism of this highly conserved protein could significantly advance our understanding of the biological role(s) of this conserved family of proteins.

Here we utilized D. melanogaster as a model system to further explore the function of PhLPs at a cellular and molecular level. FlyBase currently lists three genes in the D. melanogaster genome as potentially belonging to the PhLP family, namely CG4511, CG7650, and viral inhibitor of apoptosis-associated factor (viaf/CG18593) (S1 Fig) [20]. None of these genes have been experimentally characterized to date. Previous studies that included the D. melanogaster CG4511 gene in multiple sequence alignments show that it aligns with the PhLP3 group [2, 7]. Therefore, we analyzed the conservation and predicted structure of the protein encoded by CG4511 as a potential PhLP3 family member in D. melanogaster.

High-throughput expression data and single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA) data show high CG4511 expression in the testis, specifically in germline cells (S2 Fig) [2123]. This prompted us to examine its cellular function in the context of spermatogenesis. Spermatogenesis in D. melanogaster is a stepwise process in which germline stem cells (GSCs) divide to give rise to differentiating daughter cells, known as gonialblasts. Gonialblasts undergo four rounds of mitosis followed by meiosis (Fig 2; reviewed in [24]). During the post-meiotic stages of sperm development, known as spermiogenesis, spermatids extend axonemes, and nuclei begin to elongate, progressing through the leaf and canoe stages to a final needle-like morphology (Fig 2; [25]). Microtubules are critical for axoneme formation and function, and for nuclear elongation, as components of the dense complex [25]. Actin has also been observed in the dense complexes, as well as the individualization complexes that promote sperm individualization [26, 27]. During individualization, superfluous organelles and cytoplasm are stripped away, while each sperm cell is surrounded by its own plasma membrane [26]. Mature, individualized sperm coil and move into the seminal vesicle, where they are stored (Fig 2; [28]).

Fig 2. Drosophila melanogaster sperm development.

Fig 2

(A) Stages of D. melanogaster spermatogenesis. Germline stem cells (GSCs; light blue) and cyst stem cells (CySCs; light green) are regulated and maintained by hub cells (magenta) at the apical tip. GSCs and CySCs divide asymmetrically to give rise to differentiating daughter cells, known as gonialblasts (dark blue) and somatic cyst cells (dark green), respectively. Gonialblasts undergo four mitotic divisions with incomplete cytokinesis, yielding cysts of 16 interconnected spermatogonia. Following mitosis, spermatogonia mature into spermatocytes, which grow and proceed through meiosis with incomplete cytokinesis to form 64 interconnected, haploid, round spermatids encased within a syncytial cyst. The post-meiotic maturation of spermatids is referred to as spermiogenesis. During this stage, spermatids extend axonemes, elongate nuclei, and are individualized by actin-based individualization complexes, also known as actin cones or investment cones (yellow triangles). Mature sperm coil and move into the seminal vesicle [24]. (B) Stages of nuclear elongation during spermiogenesis. Following meiosis, spermatid nuclei are round and begin to elongate, passing through the leaf and canoe stage to the final needle-like stage [25]. N: nucleus, BB: basal body, dc: dense complex, ca: centriolar adjunct, and Ax: axoneme (axoneme not to scale).

We have identified the D. melanogaster homolog of PhLP3 as the protein encoded by the previously uncharacterized CG4511 gene. Sequence alignment and structural modeling reveal a high level of conservation, which includes a critical cysteine in the active site of the thioredoxin domain. We demonstrated that D. melanogaster PhLP3 is redox-active, similar to other PhLP3 family members. Expression of PhLP3 in the testes led us to explore its role in sperm development. We have shown that PhLP3 is required for spermiogenesis in D. melanogaster. Males homozygous for a P-element insertion in the 5’ UTR of PhLP3 exhibited decreased PhLP3 expression and infertility. In PhLP3 mutants, spermatid nuclei were scattered throughout the syncytium and lacked actin-based individualization cones. Furthermore, needle-like nuclei indicative of mature sperm were absent, and seminal vesicle size was severely reduced. Germ-cell specific knockdown of PhLP3 yielded phenotypes similar to those observed in mutants. Given the importance of microtubules and actin at multiple stages of sperm development and the proposed role of PhLP3 family proteins in regulating the cytoskeleton, the testis is an ideal tissue to explore the cellular role of PhLP3 proteins in vivo.

Results

PhLP3 structure and redox activity are conserved across species

The D. melanogaster PhLP3 protein is encoded by CG4511, a single copy gene located on the right arm of chromosome 3 in the D. melanogaster genome and spanning a region of 1,912 bp. The gene is organized into two coding exons flanking a 199 bp intron. A non-coding exon situated 111 bp upstream of the start codon, referred to as exon 2A and exon 2B, gives rise to the two PhLP3 splice variants CG4511-RA and CG4511-RB, which differ in their respective 5’ UTRs but not in their coding regions (Fig 3). The PhLP3 coding sequence (CDS) spans 651 bp and codes for a 216 AA protein with an MW of 25.11 kD. The AlphaFold database contains a predicted D. melanogaster PhLP3 structure (Uniprot ID Q9VGV8 [29, 30]), exhibiting the characteristic organization of the PhLP family of proteins (Fig 4A). It contains two N-terminal alpha-helices, a central Trx-domain with a central four-stranded beta-sheet, and four peripheral alpha-helices, followed by an unstructured C-terminal tail. We also generated a hypothetical model of D. melanogaster PhLP3 using the recently resolved CryoEM structure of human PhLP2A, which was resolved as part of the human CCT, to generate a hypothetical model of D. melanogaster PhLP3 (Fig 4B and 4C) [17, 31, 32]. This model exhibits the same basic PhLP organization (Fig 4B) [1]. The highly conserved globular Trx-domain exhibits four peripheral alpha helices surrounding a four-stranded twisted beta-sheet in a structural organization characteristic of the thioredoxin fold [33]. Notably, the first 18 N-terminal AA and the last 25 AA at the C-terminus were not modeled, as they were unresolved in the hPhLP2A crystal structure within the chaperonin complex.

Fig 3. Organization of the PhLP3 gene.

Fig 3

The gene is located on chromosome 3 in the D. melanogaster genome (10854501–10856412) (FlyBase: FB2023_06, released December 12, 2023). The transcription start sites (TSS) are indicated. Intron 1 is located in the 5’ UTR. Exon 2 contains a splice site resulting in two transcripts, RA and RB, containing exon 2A and exon 2B, respectively. The transcripts differ only in their 5’ UTR regions and translate into identical proteins. Green boxes indicate coding regions of exons, while light blue boxes indicate untranslated regions. Protein domains are indicated according to secondary structure prediction JPred [11] as well as structural alignment of human PhLP2A using SWISS-MODEL [34]. Primers used for RT-qPCR are indicated in purple and pink.

Fig 4. AlphaFold and hypothetical model of Drosophila melanogaster PhLP3.

Fig 4

(A) AlphaFold prediction of the complete D. melanogaster PhLP3 structure (Q9VGV8; [29, 30]) showing the characteristic PhLP organization. Amino acid stretches missing at the N- and C-termini in the SWISS-MODEL are indicated. (B) Structure superposition of D. melanogaster PhLP3 (DmPhLP3) with human PhLP2A (hPhLP2A; PDB 7nvm: entity 11; [32]). Blue represents hPhLP2A, while red and green structures represent DmPhLP3. The green portions indicate unstructured segments, including loops and turns. The enhancement box shows the superposition for the conserved putative redox-active cysteines CYS95 (DmPhLP3) and CYS127 (hPhLP2A). Structural alignment and rendering were prepared using PyMOL (Pymol.org, The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, Version 1.2r3pre, Schrödinger, LLC). Alpha helix a2’ in the SWISS-MODEL is part of helix a2 in the AlphaFold model. (C) Sequence alignment of DmPhLP3 with hPhLP2A.The pairwise sequence alignment was generated using Clustal Omega [15]. Amino acids are colored by polarity. The open green box represents the thioredoxin domain, and the blue bar above the sequence indicates the sequence portion modeled by SWISS-MODEL shown in B. * = identical AA;: = highly similar AA;. = similar AA. NCBI reference sequences: hPhLP2A NP_076970 [10], DmPhLP3 AAL28410.

The cytosolic thioredoxin system is central in distributing electrons to target proteins in various antioxidant and regulatory pathways. We previously demonstrated that human TXNDC9 and P. berghei PhLP3 exhibit cysteine-based redox activity with the thioredoxin system, suggesting that PhLPs may serve as target proteins in vivo [4]. The sequence alignment and structure model show that the redox-active cysteine seems to be conserved in PhLP3 homologs across diverse species, including CYS95 in D. melanogaster PhLP3 (Fig 1A). To test whether redox-activity is conserved in recombinant PhLP3, we cloned the CDS from D. melanogaster cDNA into a bacterial expression vector. We purified recombinant PhLP3 using a Ni-NTA-based column approach under denaturing conditions as described previously [4]. SDS gel electrophoresis showed a single band at ~ 25 kD, the expected size of recombinant His-tagged PhLP3 (~ 25 kD; Fig 5A). Using this method, we routinely produced >10 mg of purified recombinant PhLP3 per liter of bacterial culture.

Fig 5. Purification and enzyme activity of PhLP3.

Fig 5

(A) SDS gel following protein purification of recombinant His-tagged PhLP3. Washes (W) and elutions with increasing imidazole concentrations are indicated. (B) Principal setup of an in vitro thioredoxin reduction assay. The oxidation of NADPH to NADP is monitored at 340 nm. Red arrows indicate electron-flow from NADPH to Thioredoxin reductase (TrxR) to thioredoxin (Trx-1) and then to PhLP3, which will be reduced in the process. (C) Michaelis Menten diagram showing activity of PhLP3 with increasing thioredoxin concentrations. The indicated Km and Vmax values were determined using curve fitting. The values were verified by generating a Lineweaver Burk plot (inset).

Based on our recent findings that P. berghei PhLP3 and human TXNDC9 exhibit redox activity and have a conserved cysteine at position 95 (Fig 1A), we hypothesized that D. melanogaster PhLP3 will also be redox-active. To test this, we conducted NADPH reduction assays as outlined in Fig 5B and as described previously [4, 35]. Briefly, electron donor NADPH was added to a mix of recombinant P. berghei thioredoxin reductase (PbTrxR, PbANKA_0824700, [36]) and D. melanogaster thioredoxin (DmTrx-1, CG4193, [37]). The resulting reduction reaction was allowed to come to completion before purified recombinant PhLP3 was added. We observed renewed oxidation of NADPH, indicating the flow of electrons from the Trx-system to PhLP3 and confirming that D. melanogaster PhLP3 is redox-active (Fig 5C). We determined that the reaction between Trx-1 and PhLP3 follows Michaelis Menten kinetics, exhibiting a Km of 2.72 μM and a Vmax of 5.4 μM/min (Fig 5C). These values compare well with those of previously tested PhLP3 proteins, P. berghei PhLP3 and human TXNDC9, and support our hypothesis that redox activity is conserved in PhLPs between evolutionarily distant species and may be necessary for its biological function [4].

PhLP3 is required for male fertility

The high expression of PhLP3 in the germ cells of D. melanogaster testes, as indicated by publicly available RNA-Seq and scRNA-Seq data, suggests a role for the gene in spermatogenesis (S2 Fig) [2123]. To explore the expression of PhLP3 in reproductive tissue, we performed in situ hybridization combined with immunostaining on dissected testes. Our data indicate that the gene is expressed in germ cells from the spermatogonia stage until the early spermatid stage but is no longer observed in late-stage spermatids in the distal end of the testis (Fig 6A–6C).

Fig 6. Expression of PhLP3 in the testes.

Fig 6

(A-F) Fluorescent in situ hybridization for PhLP3. PhLP3 probe (magenta) and anti-Vasa to label germ cells (cyan). Scale bar is 100 μm. (A) PhLP3+/+ testes exhibit expression in germ cells from spermatogonia through early spermatid stages (n = 59). (B) Germ cells immunostained with anti-Vasa (cyan). (C) In situ hybridization for PhLP3 (magenta). (D) PhLP3-/- testes exhibit a loss of PhLP3 expression throughout the testis (n = 36). (E) Germ cells immunostained with anti-Vasa (cyan). (F) In situ hybridization for PhLP3 (magenta). (G) RT-qPCR shows downregulation of PhLP3 expression in testes from males homozygous for the P-element insertion in the 5’ UTR of PhLP3 (-/-), compared to wild-type (+/+) levels. Excision of the P-element (ΔP/ΔP) partially rescues PhLP3 expression.

Given the expression of PhLP3 in the germline until early spermatid stages, we next asked whether PhLP3 is required to produce mature sperm. We obtained a fly strain (PhLP3EY13373) carrying a P-element insertion in the 5’ UTR of PhLP3, located 78 bp upstream of the start codon (Fig 3) [38]. The location of the P-element in the 5’ UTR of PhLP3 was confirmed by inverse PCR and sequencing (S3 Fig). Homozygous PhLP3EY13373/EY13373 male flies and control male flies (w1118) were mated to virgin female control flies (w1118). Surprisingly, each PhLP3 mutant cross failed to yield progeny over six independent crosses (Fig 7). In contrast, the control crosses yielded an average of 108 progeny over six independent crosses (Fig 7). Based on these results, it appears that PhLP3 mutant male flies are sterile, which suggests that PhLP3 is required for male fertility.

Fig 7. Fertility tests.

Fig 7

Control males (w1118), PhLP3-/- (PhLP3EY13373/EY13373) males or P element excision males (PhLP3ΔP/ΔP) were mated to w1118 virgin females to assess fertility. The average number of progeny per cross was counted. Individual measurements for each cross are shown with the average and standard deviation indicated. *** indicates p<0.001 and ** indicates p<0.01 based on pairwise analysis by Welch’s t-test; ns = not significant.

We hypothesized that the P-element insertion in the 5’ UTR of PhLP3 causes downregulation of PhLP3 expression and links to the observed sterile phenotype. To test this, we performed real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) analysis on total RNA extracts from testes of PhLP3 mutant and control flies. In three independent experiments, we show that PhLP3 expression in mutant testes was downregulated by 94% when compared to control testes (Fig 6G). Similarly, fluorescent in situ hybridization of homozygous PhLP3EY13373/EY13373 mutant testes exhibited only weak fluorescence for the PhLP3 probe, confirming our RT-qPCR results and the specificity of our probe (Fig 6D–6F). Given the significant reduction in PhLP3 expression in this mutant strain, we will refer to these mutants as PhLP3-/- for the remainder of the paper. These data strongly support our hypothesis that PhLP3 is required for male fertility in D. melanogaster.

PhLP3 downregulation results in defects in sperm development

Based on the infertility observed in PhLP3-/- mutants, we determined whether mature sperm had been produced. We visually examined the testes and seminal vesicles of 1–3 day-old control and mutant male flies using DAPI staining and fluorescence microscopy (Figs 8 and 9). In the control testes, we observed the characteristic DAPI clusters of elongating sperm nuclei aligned in a syncytium near the distal end of the testes, giving way to a large seminal vesicle filled with mature sperm (Figs 8A–8E and 9A–9C). In contrast, PhLP3-/- mutants lacked the aligned DAPI-stained nuclear clusters (Fig 8F–8H). Instead, the nuclei appeared scattered and failed to progress from the canoe stage to the needle-like nuclei, which would indicate maturing sperm (Fig 9D–9F). Furthermore, compared to the controls, the size of the seminal vesicles in the mutant testes was diminished by 32%, and seminal vesicles lacked mature sperm (Fig 8I, 8J and 8P).

Fig 8. Mutation of PhLP3 causes arrest of spermiogenesis.

Fig 8

(A-C) Control PhLP3+/+ testes have DAPI clusters and actin-based individualization complexes (n = 40). Nuclei stained with DAPI (cyan) and actin-based individualization complexes stained with phalloidin (magenta). (B-C) Higher magnification view of testis in (A). Arrows indicate individualization complexes. (D-E) Control PhLP3+/+ seminal vesicle. (D) Seminal vesicle is large with mature sperm (n = 21). Nuclei stained with DAPI. (E) Zoomed in view of the seminal vesicle from (D) filled with mature sperm. (F-H) PhLP3-/- testes have dispersed DAPI clusters, less elongated nuclei, and no actin-based individualization complexes (n = 38). Nuclei stained with DAPI (cyan) and actin-based individualization complexes stained with phalloidin (magenta). (G-H) Higher magnification view of testis in (F). (I-J) PhLP3-/- seminal vesicle. (I) Seminal vesicle is smaller than control and lacks sperm (n = 15). Nuclei stained with DAPI. (J) Zoomed in view of the seminal vesicle from (I) lacking mature sperm. (K-M) Excision of the P element in PhLP3 (PhLP3ΔP/ΔP) rescues the mutant phenotype. Testis contain DAPI clusters and individualization complexes (n = 23). Nuclei stained with DAPI (cyan) and actin-based individualization complexes stained with phalloidin (magenta). (L-M) Higher magnification view of testis in (K). Arrows indicate DAPI clusters with individualization complexes. (N-O) PhLP3ΔP/ΔP seminal vesicle. (N) Seminal vesicle contains mature sperm (n = 19). Nuclei stained with DAPI. (O) Zoomed in view of the seminal vesicle from (N) filled with mature sperm. (P) Cross section area of the seminal vesicle (n = 10 for each genotype). Individual measurements are shown with the average and standard deviation indicated. **** indicates p<0.0001 and *** indicates p<0.001 based on ordinary one-way ANOVA; ns = not significant. Scale bars are 100 μM in A-D, F-I, and K-N. Scale bar is 50 μM in E, J, and O.

Fig 9. Morphology of spermatids in PhLP3 mutants.

Fig 9

(A-C) Control PhLP3+/+ testes have clusters of spermatid nuclei undergoing multiple stages of spermiogenesis, as indicated by DAPI (cyan). Individualizing spermatids are stained with phalloidin (magenta). (n = 40). (B) PhLP3-/- testes have dispersed spermatid nuclei at various stages of elongation but lack needle-like nuclei, as indicated by DAPI staining (cyan). Individualization complexes are not observed by phalloidin staining (magenta) (n = 37). (A, D) Arrowheads label canoe stage nuclei. Dashed arrows label leaf stage nuclei. Solid arrows label needle-like nuclei. Scale bars are 10 μM. Images are maximum intensity Z projections of whole-mount testes.

Considering the absence of mature sperm in the seminal vesicles, we hypothesized that spermatids in PhLP3-/- mutants are unable to initiate the process of individualization. Individualization of spermatids by actin-based sperm individualization complexes is an essential process that functions to remove excess organelles and cytoplasm and to encapsulate each spermatid with its own plasma membrane. To determine if individualization complexes could form, we used phalloidin staining to detect the presence of the characteristic actin cones. While control testes exhibited clusters of actin cones, typical of individualization complexes in the distal testes, PhLP3-/- mutants completely lacked actin cones, suggesting that spermatids failed to assemble individualization complexes (Figs 8A–8C, 8F–8H, 9B and 9E). This data suggests that PhLP3-/- mutant sperm development is arrested during the canoe stage of spermiogenesis, failing to reach the needle-like stage and progress through individualization. As a result, seminal vesicles are devoid of mature sperm and smaller in size.

Excision of P-element in PhLP3 restores male fertility

To confirm the specificity of the mutant phenotype observed in the P-element insertion in PhLP3, we excised the P-element from the PhLP3 gene to reconstitute the 5’ UTR, restore PhLP3 expression, and rescue male fly fertility. We confirmed the successful and precise excision of the P-element by sequencing and refer to the resulting strain as PhLP3ΔP/ΔP (S3 Fig). We first tested the fertility of PhLP3ΔP/ΔP male flies by mating them to control virgin females. An average of 135 PhLP3ΔP/ΔP progeny were produced over seven independent fertility crosses, compared to an average of 108 progeny for control crosses (Fig 7). This data confirms that the P-element excision restored fertility to control levels and supports the hypothesis that PhLP3 is essential for male fertility. To determine whether gene expression was also restored, we performed RT-qPCR on total RNA from dissected PhLP3ΔP/ΔP and control testes. Remarkably, our results from five independent experiments show that PhLP3 expression in the PhLP3ΔP/ΔP was restored to only 33% of control expression levels, suggesting there may be a relatively low threshold requirement for PhLP3 expression and function in sperm development (Fig 6G). This was surprising, given that fertility was completely restored. Furthermore, visual analysis of PhLP3ΔP/ΔP testes revealed that sperm production was reestablished to levels comparable to control testes (Fig 8K–8O). DAPI-stained, aligned clusters of elongating spermatid nuclei in the PhLP3ΔP/ΔP testes are evident, as are the actin cones of the individualization complexes (Fig 8K–8M). Seminal vesicles were filled with mature sperm, and the seminal vesicle area was 91.4% of the size of the control testes (Fig 8N–8P). Sperm maturation appeared to proceed normally in PhLP3ΔP/ΔP testes despite only partially restored PhLP3 gene expression (Fig 8K–8O). Our results confirmed that the P-element insertion in the 5’ UTR of the PhLP3 gene prevents effective gene transcription. Despite fully restored fertility, the excision of the P-element only restores transcription activity levels to 33%, introducing the possibility that other factors may be involved in the observed phenotype.

To affirm that the downregulation of PhLP3 specifically causes the male sterile phenotype, we utilized RNA interference (RNAi) as an alternative approach to reduce PhLP3 levels under the control of the Gal4/UAS system [39]. We used bam-Gal4 to drive the expression of a UAS-PhLP3-RNAi in the germline [40, 41]. The efficacy of this RNAi approach was tested by RT-qPCR and showed a 77% knockdown (23% of control) in PhLP3 expression in bam-Gal4>PhLP3-RNAi testes compared to testes of the bam-Gal4 control (Fig 10A). We tested the fertility of these flies by mating bam-Gal4 control males or bam-Gal4>PhLP3-RNAi males to control virgin females. We scored the number of progeny and confirmed that the fertility was significantly reduced in PhLP3-RNAi flies, with an average of 3 progeny eclosing per cross. Control crosses yielded an average of 135 progeny per cross, a similar number of progeny to control crosses described earlier (Fig 10B). Next, we examined the effect of PhLP3 RNAi knockdown on spermatogenesis by DAPI and phalloidin staining and confocal microscopy. The bam-Gal4 control testes exhibited spermatids that clustered, elongated, and individualized (Fig 10C–10F). In contrast, while bam-Gal4>PhLP3-RNAi testes possessed spermatids, nuclei failed to elongate fully and appeared scattered throughout the syncytium they developed within, similar to our observation of the P-element containing PhLP-/- flies (Fig 10I–10L). Using phalloidin staining, we observed clustered and aligned actin cones in individualization complexes in bam-Gal4 control testes (Fig 10D and 10E), but actin cones appeared scattered in PhLP3-RNAi testes (Fig 10J and 10K). Consistent with the reduced fertility of PhLP3-RNAi flies compared to controls, seminal vesicles lack the mature sperm with needle-like nuclei observed in controls, demonstrating a failure to complete sperm maturation (Fig 10G, 10H, 10M and 10N). Our results provide strong evidence for the specificity of the phenotype to the PhLP3-/- mutant and demonstrate an essential requirement for PhLP3 in D. melanogaster spermiogenesis and male fertility.

Fig 10. Effects of PhLP3 RNAi on mature sperm production.

Fig 10

(A) RT-qPCR demonstrates a 77% reduction in PhLP3 expression by RNA-interference (RNAi) in comparison to that of control (bam-Gal4) samples. (B) Fertility cross data showing the number of progeny resulting from four virgin female w1118 flies crossed with three male bam-Gal4 control flies or three male bam-Gal4>PhLP3-RNAi flies. Individual measurements for each cross are shown with the average and standard deviation indicated. **** indicates p<0.0001 based on Welch’s t-test. (C-F) bam-Gal4 control testis (n = 47). Whole testis stained with DAPI (cyan) stain to visualize nuclei and phalloidin (magenta) to visualize actin-based individualization complexes. (D-F) Higher magnification image of testis from (C). (D) Arrows indicate colocalized DAPI clusters with actin-based individualization complexes (magenta). (E) Arrows indicate actin-based individualization complexes. (F) Arrows indicate clusters of aligned, elongating spermatid nuclei stained with DAPI. (G) bam-Gal4 control seminal vesicle filled with mature sperm indicated by bracket (n = 24). (H) Zoomed in view of seminal vesicle from (G) filled with sperm (G). (I-L) bam-Gal4>PhLP3-RNAi testis (n = 29). Whole testis stained with DAPI (cyan) stain to visualize nuclei and phalloidin (magenta) to visualize actin-based individualization complexes. (J-L) Higher magnification image of testis from (I). (J) There is little colocalization of DAPI with actin-based individualization complexes. (K) Arrows indicate scattered actin cones. (L) Arrows indicate scattered, elongating spermatid nuclei that fail to cluster as compared to controls. (M) bam-Gal4>PhLP3-RNAi seminal vesicle indicated by bracket is reduced in size and lacks mature sperm (n = 19). (N) Zoomed in view of the seminal vesicle from (M) lacking mature sperm. Scale bar is 100 μM in C-G and I-M. Scale bar is 50 μM in H and N.

Materials and methods

Fly strains

The following fly strains were utilized in these studies: w1118; Dr/TM6B, Tb, Hu, Deformed (Dfd)-Yellow Fluorescent Protein (YFP) [42]; PhLP3EY13373/+/TM3, Sb or PhLP3EY13373/EY13373 (Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center (BDSC #21414; [38]); w*; Dr1/TMS, P{ry [+7.2] Δ2–3}99B (BDSC #1610); bam-Gal4 (BDSC #80579; [40]); and UAS-PhLP3-RNAi (Vienna Drosophila Resource Center #100784; [41]). Flies were raised at 25°C on standard Bloomington Drosophila cornmeal medium.

The strain in which the P-element was precisely excised from the PhLP3 gene was generated as follows: virgin females of the genotype PhLP3EY13373/TM3, Sb were mated to males of the genotype w*; Dr1/TMS, P{ry [+7.2] Δ2–3}99B. Male progeny of the genotype PhLP3 EY13373/ TMS, P{ry [+7.2] Δ2–3}99B were collected and mated to Dr/TM6B, Tb, Hu, Dfd-YFP virgin females. Single white eyed progeny of the potential genotype PhLP3ΔP/ TM6B, Tb, Hu, Dfd-YFP were selected and mated to Dr/ TM6B, Tb, Hu, Dfd-YFP flies of the opposite sex to establish stocks. Stocks were screened by PCR and sequencing as described below.

PCR and sequencing

To isolate genomic DNA for inverse PCR (iPCR) of the P element insertion, fifteen 1–3 day old PhLP3EY1337/ EY13373 or control (w1118) flies were collected and homogenized in 400 μl Buffer A (100mM Tris pH 7.5, 100 mM EDTA, 100 mM NaCl, 0.5% SDS), followed by a 30 min incubation at 65°C. 800 μl LiCl/KAc (2.28 M LiCl, 1.43 M KAc) was added and samples were incubated on ice for 10 min. Samples were spun for 15 min at 12,000 rpm at room temp. 1 mL of supernatant was transferred to a new tube and 600 μl of isopropanol was added, and tube was inverted to mix. Samples were spun for 20 min at 12,000 rpm at room temp. Supernatant was discarded and the samples were spun down quickly to remove additional supernatant. The pellet was washed with 500 μl cold 70% ethanol and spun down for 10 min at 12,000 rpm at room temp. Supernatant was discarded and the samples were spun down quickly to remove additional supernatant. Pellet was air dried and resuspended in 75 μl 1x TE (10mM Tris pH 7.5, 1 mM EDTA). Genomic DNA was then digested with HpaII at 37°C for 2.5 hours, followed by a 20 min heat inactivation at 65°C. NEB T4 DNA Ligase was then utilized in a ligation reaction to form a plasmid library from our genomic digest, and an inverse PCR was performed to amplify the 5’ and end of the P{EPgy2} P-element insertion, using the Plac1 and Pwht1 primers (S1 Table) [38]. Products were sequenced, using the 5.SUP.seq1 primer by Genewiz/Azenta.

For sequencing across the genomic region of control (w1118) and P element excision flies, single flies were collected and homogenized using a pipette tip filled with 50 μl of Squishing Buffer (10 mM Tris-Cl pH 8.2, 1mM EDTA, 25 mM NaCl and 200 μg/mL Proteinase K) [43]. Samples were incubated for 20 min at 37°C. Proteinase K was heat inactivated for 2 min at 95°C and DNA was stored at 4°C. The genomic region around the site of the P element insertion was amplified by PCR using the CG4511-Fwd and CG4511-Rev primers and sequenced using the same primers by Genewiz/Azenta.

Fertility crosses

Four w1118 virgin females were crossed to three male flies of genotype w1118, PhLP3-/-, homozygous P-element excision (PhLP3ΔP/ΔP), bam-Gal4, or bamGal4>PhLP3-RNAi. Flies were mated for 7 days. Parental flies were emptied from the bottle on day 7, and progeny were collected over a period of five days (days 10–15) and scored. Statistical analysis was carried out with GraphPad Prism.

Immunohistochemistry

Testes from 1–3 day old males were processed as described previously in the presence of 5% NGS [44]. Following antibody staining, samples were incubated with Phalloidin conjugated to Alexafluor 555 diluted 1:40 in 1x PBS for 10 minutes, washed for 5 minutes in 1x PBS, and mounted in DAPI Fluoromount-G (Southern Biotech). Images were acquired on a Zeiss LSM880 confocal microscope and processed using Fiji [45]. The cross-section area of seminal vesicles was measured in Fiji and statistical analysis of data was carried out in GraphPad Prism.

RT-qPCR

Testes from 1–3 day old w1118, PhLP3-/-, or PhLP3ΔP/ΔP males were dissected in RNase-free (DEPC-treated) PBS and incubated in 1 mL RNAzolTM (Molecular Research Center) at 4°C. Total RNA was extracted following the manufacturer’s instructions. Isolated RNA was treated with DNAse I (Ambion) and subsequently quantified using a Qubit RNA Assay kit (Invitrogen). RNA samples were immediately used for cDNA synthesis employing a high-capacity RNA-to-cDNA kit (Applied Biosystems) with random hexamer primers. RT-qPCR was performed on a StepOnePlus machine (Applied Biosystems) using the PowerUp SYBR Green Master Mix (Applied Biosystems). Each sample was run in triplicate and yielded highly comparable Ct values (cycle threshold). No primer dimers were detected, and amplicons exhibited optimal efficiencies. Expression data was analyzed using the StepOne Software v2.2 (Applied Biosystems) and normalized against the expression of the endogenous glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase (gapdh) enzyme, which is an established internal standard for expression analysis in D. melanogaster [46]. Ribosomal protein L32 (RpL32) was used as an additional internal positive control [47]. Primers are listed in S1 Table.

Cloning, expression, and purification of recombinant PhLP3

Gene-specific primers (S1 Table) for PhLP3 (FlyBase CG4511, NCBI NP_001163585) were generated according to sequence information on FlyBase and NCBI [20]. PCRs were performed using the following conditions: 35 cycles of 95°C for 30 s, 54°C for 1 min, and 72°C for 45 s. Following sequence verification, the PhLP3 CDS was cloned into the bacterial pQE9 expression vector (Qiagen), which introduced a 6x HIS tag at the N-terminus of the recombinant protein. The PhLP3 expression plasmid was transformed into E. coli M15 expression cells (Qiagen). Protein expression was induced (1 mM IPTG), and bacteria were harvested after a 5-hour incubation period at 37°C. Recombinant proteins were purified under denaturing conditions (8 M urea) using Ni-NTA resin (Thermo Scientific). The purity of the recombinant proteins was assessed via SDS-PAGE. Protein concentrations were determined using the Qubit fluorometer (Invitrogen) and Bradford assay.

Enzyme assays

All enzymatic assays were carried out in 1 ml volume at 25°C using a Genesys6 UV-Vis spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher). P. berghei Thioredoxin reductase (PbTrxR, PbANKA_0824700, [36]) and D. melanogaster thioredoxin-1 (DmTrx-1, CG4193, [37]). were produced as described previously [4, 35]. The coupled enzymatic assays were conducted as previously described [4]. Briefly, the oxidation of NADPH was followed by an absorption decrease at 340 nm. All assays were performed at RT in assay buffer containing 100 mM KH2PO4, 2 mM EDTA, pH 7.4, 200 μM NADPH (ε340 nm = 6.22 mM-1cm-1), and 20 μM D. melanogaster Trx-1. Each initial reaction was started with PbTrxR [4, 35], and the decrease in absorption at 340 nm was monitored during the linear phase. Once the reaction was complete, purified recombinant D. melanogaster PhLP3 was added, and the initial velocities and kinetic values for each reaction were determined using the VISIONlite (Thermo Fisher) software. Enzyme kinetics were calculated using global curve fit in the Enzyme Kinetics Module of Sigma Plot 12.0.

Comparative modeling

The hypothetical models of D. melanogaster PhLP1, 2, and 3 were generated using SWISS-MODEL [34]. The crystal structure of the human PhLP2A (PDB ID: 7nvm [17]) was selected as the template from the RCSB Protein Data Bank (http://www.rcsb.org/). The models were visualized using the PyMOL (Pymol.org, The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System, Version 1.2r3pre, Schrödinger, LLC).

In situ hybridization

Testes from w1118(PhLP3+/+) and PhLP3-/- males were dissected and processed for fluorescent in situ hybridization combined with immunostaining as described previously [48]. Probes were prepared by Molecular Instruments and were conjugated to AlexaFluor 488. Samples were immunostained with rat anti-Vasa (1:50; Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank [49]) and goat anti-rat AlexaFluor 555 (1:500) to label germ cells. Samples were imaged on a Zeiss LSM880 confocal microscope, and images were processed using Fiji [45].

Discussion

In this study, we identified the D. melanogaster homolog of the PhLP3 group of Phosducin-like proteins as the protein encoded by the CG4511 gene. Phosducin-like proteins (PhLPs) are members of the thioredoxin (Trx) superfamily and have been identified in eukaryotes from yeast to humans [2, 7]. They show surprisingly high sequence conservation across species and have been organized into three subgroups based on sequence similarities: PhLP1, PhLP2, and PhLP3 [7]. Three phosducin-like genes have been identified in the genome of D. melanogaster, namely CG4511, CG7650, and CG18593 (S1 Fig). BLAST analysis confirmed that the protein encoded by CG4511 readily aligns with members of the PhLP3 group, some of which have been implicated in the regulation of the cytoskeleton in S. cerevisiae, C. elegans, A. thaliana, and human cell lines [2, 6, 7, 12, 16]. Of the three genes, CG4511 (PhLP3) exhibits high transcription levels in the testes and ovaries (S2 Fig) [21, 22] and was thus chosen as our primary target. The CG7650 protein aligns most closely with PhLP1 group members, some of which are involved in trimeric G-protein folding and regulation [5, 8]. A recent CryoEM study of the human CCT complex with PhLP1 bound gave a high-resolution insight that suggests that human PhLP1 assists in the folding, stabilizing, and releasing of the G-protein beta subunit from the cavity of the CCT complex, an essential step in forming the obligate G-protein beta-gamma dimer [50]. The CG18593 protein, annotated as Viral Inhibitor of Apoptosis-associated Factor (Viaf) in FlyBase, favorably aligns with the PhLP2 group (S1 Fig). In yeast, PhLP2 (Plp2) assists in the folding and assembly of actin and tubulin subunits, respectively [10]. Recent CryoEM studies show human PhLP2A (PDCL2)-actin and PhLP2A-tubulin complexes in the cavity of the CCT chaperonin complex, further supporting the hypothesis that PhLP family members are involved in the folding and regulation of cytoskeletal proteins [17, 32]. Notably, two recent reports implicate the mouse PhLP2 (PDCL2) in the spermiogenesis of adult male mice [51, 52]. The most recent data on PhLPs from all groups indicate interactions with the cellular protein folding machinery, specifically CCT and Heat shock proteins [53]. The precise mechanism of how PhLPs assist in this mechanism is not yet known.

D. melanogaster PhLPs share the same structural organization as other PhLPs, consisting of a central thioredoxin domain flanked by an N-terminal alpha helix domain and a short, variable, and mostly unstructured C-terminal tail [1]. The thioredoxin domain shows the highest degree of sequence and structure conservation between different organisms, with D. melanogaster PhLP3 sharing 43% sequence identity with the protozoan organism P. berghei and even 65% identity with the human homolog TXNDC9. While the N-terminal sequences may differ significantly between species, they all form or are predicted to form two to three alpha-helices, depending on the PhLP group. The PhLP1 group with a longer N-terminus contains three alpha-helices, while members of the PhLP2 and PhLP3 group seem only to form two helices. Stirling et al. [6] demonstrated that the alpha-helix domain, as well as the C-terminal tail, are required for PhLP3 to interact with the CCT complex. As the alpha-helix structure is being maintained, this may reflect species-specific sequence variations, while the highly conserved thioredoxin domain may possess an equally conserved functional mechanism involved in target protein folding or stabilization within the CCT complex.

Many thioredoxins and thioredoxin-like proteins exhibit redox activity, often facilitated by a pair of cysteines in a characteristic CXXC active site motif [33]. The lack of this motif in PhLPs prompted the dismissal of potential redox activity for these proteins [7]. Yet, our group recently found that P. berghei PhLP3, as well as the human TXNDC9, exhibit redox activity with the thioredoxin system and that this redox activity is facilitated by a highly conserved cysteine residue exposed at the top of alpha-helix 2 in the thioredoxin domain (Figs 1 and 5) [4]. This cysteine is conserved in D. melanogaster PhLP3 (CYS95), and it was therefore not surprising to find that the recombinant PhLP3 described in this paper also exhibits redox activity with thioredoxin. Our kinetics data compares very well with that of previously characterized PhLP3s [4]. This is significant as the thioredoxin system plays an important role in the cellular redox homeostasis of D. melanogaster [35, 54]. Interestingly, two germline-specific thioredoxins have recently been reported in D. melanogaster Deadhead (Dhd) and Thioredoxin T (TrxT) [55]. Both are hypothesized to play important roles in redox homeostasis in the germline of D. melanogaster. Notably, the thioredoxin used in this report to demonstrate electron transfer from the thioredoxin system to PhLP3 is Dhd (Trx-1, CG4193; [37]). Considering the high abundance of Dhd in ovaries and TrxT in the testes, it is possible that PhLP3 is a specific redox target for these proteins in vivo. Whether TrxT can also transfer electrons to PhLP3 remains to be determined.

The thioredoxin system is a central electron distribution system. Some of its target proteins are thioredoxin-like proteins with strong antioxidant activity [56]. We previously demonstrated that P. berghei PhLP3 and its homolog human TXNDC9 exhibit antioxidant activity that is orders of magnitude weaker than that of antioxidant effectors, such as thioredoxin-dependent peroxiredoxin (TPx1) [4]. We concluded that PhLP3 is unlikely to act as an antioxidant scavenger in the cell. In the fruit fly effective antioxidant systems, such as catalase and superoxide dismutase, cooperate in the fly to protect from reactive oxygen species [57]. The hypothesis for a different function of PhLP3 is corroborated by the recent structural insights into the interactions of PhLP3 and PhLP2A with the CCT complex and its potential role in the folding of actin and tubulin [6, 17]. It is feasible to hypothesize that the redox activity of PhLP3 plays a role in the mechanism that facilitates folding and/or release of target proteins in and from the CCT complex. Members of the thioredoxin superfamily are known to be involved in redox-assisted protein folding [33]. For example, protein disulfide isomerases utilize their redox activity to assist protein folding in the endoplasmic reticulum [58]. Supporting our hypothesis is the fact that the redox-active cysteine seems to be conserved in all PhLPs, notably between PhLP3 and human PhLP2A. We are currently investigating the role of the redox active cysteine in the cellular function and possible enzymatic mechanism of PhLP3.

At the cellular level, the primary defects observed in PhLP3 mutants occur in the post-meiotic maturation stages, as spermatid nuclei elongate and spermatids undergo individualization. These processes are dependent on tubulin and actin. As PhLP3 proteins in other species have been demonstrated to regulate CCT function [6], mutation of PhLP3 could affect the folding of tubulin and actin subunits, leading to sperm maturation defects. Mutations in α- and β-tubulin subunits have been demonstrated to exhibit a variety of germ cell defects, ranging from defects in meiosis, nuclear elongation and alignment, and axoneme assembly [5965]. While the function of only one α-tubulin, α1-tubulin (encoded by αTub84B), has been implicated in the post-mitotic germ cells, two β-tubulins have been identified to function post-mitotically in sperm development [65, 66]. β1-tubulin (encoded by βTub56D) is present in testis through the spermatocyte stage when it is downregulated, with only low levels being detected in the spermatids heads, while β2-tubulin (encoded by βTub85D) begins to be detected in spermatocyte stages and through the remaining stages of sperm development [67]. Mutant alleles, resulting in an imbalance in α and β tubulin levels, lead to defects in spermatogenesis. For some mutant β-tubulin alleles, the resulting defects are similar to those we have observed in PhLP3 mutants, including defects in nuclear shaping and alignment [66].

Nuclear shaping and alignment appear to depend on the establishment of the microtubule organizing center post-meiotically during the round spermatid stage. In the testis, the centriole adjunct serves at the main microtubule organizing center, and the establishment of the centriole adjunct depends on the proper docking of the tubulin-based basal body at the nuclear envelope. The centriole adjunct nucleates the perinuclear microtubules of the dense complex (analogous to the nuclear manchette in mammals) and the tail microtubules (reviewed in [68]). In mutants for the γ-Tubulin Ring Complex subunits, grip75 and grip128, the basal body fails to dock at the nuclear envelope, and the nuclei appear misshapen and are scattered throughout the syncytium, resulting in sterility, similar to the defects observed in our PhLP3 mutants [69]. Mutation of other genes encoding proteins believed to promote attachment of the basal body to the nuclear envelope, including sperm-associated antigen 4 (spag4) and yuri gagarin (yuri), exhibit similar nuclear scattering defects, failed individualization, and male sterility [70, 71]. Thus, failed docking of the tubulin-based basal body appears to result in nuclear shaping and alignment defects. Others have suggested these defects can also arise later due a failure to form and/or organize the perinuclear microtubules of the dense complex [63, 72].

The dense complex begins to form in the round spermatids in the region where the nucleus is flattened and fenestrated near the basal body [25]. This region invaginates to form a concavity filled with microtubules during nuclear elongation, while a single layer of microtubules is observed around the convex region of the nucleus [25]. These microtubules are believed to provide support for the nucleus during elongation. More recent work suggests the presence of a second microtubule organizing center at the tip of the nucleus from which some perinuclear microtubules of the dense complex may emanate [73]. Interestingly, Sas-4 mutants lack basal bodies but still form dense complexes, suggesting this second microtubule organizing center could serve as a significant site of perinuclear microtubule nucleation [73]. Mutation of PhLP3 could lead to defects in basal body docking and/or formation of the microtubule-rich dense complex, which appear to be required for nuclear elongation and alignment.

As PhLP3 proteins have also been demonstrated to regulate CCT-mediated folding of actin [6], sperm maturation defects in PhLP3 mutants could also result from reduced actin levels. Mutations in yuri result in a loss of actin accumulation in the dense complex, suggesting that defects in actin folding could affect dense complex quality and nuclear elongation [70]. Live imaging of syncytial cysts reveals that actin is first observed around the nucleus during the canoe stages and later accumulates at the base of the nucleus before moving down the elongated spermatids for the process of individualization [26, 27]. If PhLP3 regulates folding of actin subunits as part of the CCT, a lack of available subunits would result in a failure to incorporate actin into dense complexes, which may contribute to the defects in nuclear elongation and alignment. In PhLP3 mutants, we do not observe the formation of actin-based individualization complexes, which could arise from reduced actin levels or a failure to reach the individualization stage of spermiogenesis. Interestingly, mutants for mulet, which encodes the Tubulin-binding cofactor E-like (TBCEL), exhibit scattering of nuclei and defects in individualization; however, individualization complexes still form in these mutants and persist around scattered nuclei [7476]. TBCEL appears to be required for microtubule disassembly to promote individualization. Other individualization mutants described by Fabrizio have disrupted individualization complexes or complexes that fail to migrate to the tail end of the cyst, but they do not appear to exhibit the degree of scattering observed in PhLP3 mutants [74]. Only mutants in the Clathrin heavy chain gene exhibit infrequent individualization complex formation and nuclear scattering, similar to our mutants [74]. While numerous genes have been identified to regulate individualization, including regulators of the actin and microtubule cytoskeleton (reviewed in [77]), the signal or event that initiates this process remains unknown.

In mammals, the proper localization of spermatids appears to be an important precursor step to the final steps of nuclear elongation and individualization. An adherens junction-like adhesion complex, known as the ectoplasmic specialization, forms between the Sertoli cell and the spermatid to promote the positioning of the spermatid as it continues sperm maturation (reviewed in [78, 79]). Actin and some adherens junction components have been reported to accumulate at the tip of the nucleus in D. melanogaster, suggesting a similar mechanism could function to align spermatids prior to the start of individualization [80]. However, the effect of reducing levels of these components in the germline and surrounding somatic cyst cells has not been examined. As PhLP3 mutants begin nuclear elongation but do not complete the process and begin individualization, the arrest of spermatid maturation may occur as a result of the failure of spermatid nuclei to align properly.

In this study, we identified the D. melanogaster PhLP3 protein and demonstrated its redox activity. We have shown that PhLP3 functions in the late stages of sperm development based on arrested spermatid maturation during the canoe stages in PhLP3 mutants. Nuclei fail to align and elongate and are scattered through the distal end of the testis. In addition, mutant seminal vesicles are smaller in size when compared to controls and lack mature sperm, resulting in male sterility (Fig 11). PhLP3-RNAi results in slightly milder defects, with some sperm still clustering but still failing to complete elongation and to be transferred to the seminal vesicle. It is interesting to note that our RNAi flies with 23% PhLP3 expression compared to controls exhibit significant defects in spermatogenesis, while P element excision flies with 33% PhLP3 expression compared to their respective control exhibit rescue of the mutant phenotype. The different genetic backgrounds of the controls and experimental samples in each experiment may contribute to these observations, resulting in different levels of PhLP3 expression in each control. It is also possible that our results suggest there may be a critical threshold for PhLP3 expression that is needed to promote proper sperm development and dropping slightly below that threshold yields significant defects. Further studies are needed to explore this threshold. Our results demonstrate the requirement for PhLP3 in sperm maturation; however, the mechanism by which PhLP3 acts to promote sperm maturation remains unclear. While PhLP proteins have been demonstrated to interact with the CCT to regulate actin and tubulin folding in other species, it could play a different role in this context. Future studies exploring the localization of PhLP3 and its ability to interact with actin, tubulin and CCT will provide further insight into how PhLP3 acts to promote sperm maturation.

Fig 11. Model of defects observed in PhLP3 mutants.

Fig 11

Spermatid nuclei are misshapen and scattered, failing to reach the needle-like stage. Individualization complexes are not observed in PhLP3 mutants and sperm do not transfer to the seminal vesicle, leading to reduced seminal vesicle size.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. D. melanogaster possess three PhLPs.

(A) Clustal Omega alignment of the three predicted PhLPs [15, 20]. The conserved residues are indicated with gray boxes. The green boxes indicated the position of the thioredoxin domain with the putative redox-active cysteine highlighted in yellow. The percent identity between each sequence is shown in the box. (B) Comparison of the three PhLPs. Length and characteristic organization of the proteins are indicated. The blue bracket indicates the portion of each protein that was modeled. (C) Hypothetical models of the three predicted PhLP proteins in D. melanogaster. The models were generated using SWISS-MODEL template PDB 7nvm: entity 11, human PhLP2A The structures are colored by confidence level from high (blue) to low (red) [17, 34].

(TIF)

pone.0306676.s001.tif (5.5MB, tif)
S2 Fig. RNA-seq data for PhLP3 in dissected tissues.

(A) RNA-Seq expression data from select adult dissected tissues from the modENCODE project. Values listed are Reads per kilobase of transcript per Million reads (RPKM) [21]. (B) RNA-Seq expression data from select adult dissected tissues from the FlyAtlas2 project. Values listed are Reads per kilobase of transcript per Million reads (RPKM) [22]. We used FlyBase (FB2023_06, released December 12, 2023) to obtain the data presented in this figure. (C) Single-cell RNA-Seq expression data in the adult testis from the Fly Cell Atlas project is displayed on Uniform Manifold Approximation and Project (UMAP) graph [23]. In the left panel, shades of red indicate expression levels with brightest red being the highest expression and black being low expression. The UMAP in the right panel illustrates the broadly classified different cell clusters in the testis. PhLP3 is most highly expressed in the male germline cells. UMAPs were generated in SCope [81].

(TIF)

pone.0306676.s002.tif (5.7MB, tif)
S3 Fig. Schematic of PhLP3 gene region and analysis of P element insertion site.

(A) Schematic of the PhLP3 gene region. The location of the P element insertion P{EPgy2}EY13373 is indicated 78 bp upstream of the translation start site in the 5’ UTR. (B) Sequence around the insertion site of P element. The following sequences and sequence data are represented: genomic sequence from FlyBase (FBgn0037843), sequencing result of the control strain (w1118), sequencing result of the PhLP3ΔP/ΔP excision strain, inverse PCR (iPCR) sequencing result of the P element insertion strain (PhLP3EY13373), and the previously reported flanking sequence for the P element. Sites, where HpaII would cut the sequence, are indicated, as this enzyme was used for iPCR. The sequenced regions of the P element insertion strain that do not align with the consensus sequence corresponding to the sequence from the P element, P{EPgy2}, not the PhLP3 gene.

(TIF)

pone.0306676.s003.tif (3.2MB, tif)
S1 Table. List of primers used in this study.

(DOCX)

pone.0306676.s004.docx (15.7KB, docx)
S1 Raw image. SDS page electrophoresis following recombinant Drosophila melanogaster PhLP3 purification over a Ni-NTA column.

(TIF)

pone.0306676.s005.tif (4.3MB, tif)

Acknowledgments

Thank you to the Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center and the Vienna Drosophila Resource Center for fly stocks. The rat anti-Vasa monoclonal antibody, developed by A. C. Spradling and D. Williams, was obtained from the Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank, created by the NICHD of the NIH and maintained at The University of Iowa, Department of Biology, Iowa City, IA 52242. Thanks to E. O’Flaherty and Danielle Talbot for helpful discussions and comments on this project.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by NSF MRI #1828164, which provided for purchasing the Zeiss LSM880 confocal microscope (JCJ and SMK). This work was furthermore supported by internal research awards from Loyola University Chicago (CP, EK, SW, MM, BS, CC, JCJ, and SMK). The funders had no role in the data collection and analysis, publication decision, or manuscript preparation. No additional external funding was received for this study.

References

  • 1.Gaudet R, Bohm A, Sigler PB. Crystal structure at 2.4 angstroms resolution of the complex of transducin betagamma and its regulator, phosducin. Cell. 1996;87: 577–588. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81376-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ogawa S, Matsubayashi Y, Nishida E. An evolutionarily conserved gene required for proper microtubule architecture in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genes Cells Devoted Mol Cell Mech. 2004;9: 83–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1356-9597.2004.00708.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Putonti C, Quach B, Kooistra RL, Kanzok SM. The evolution and putative function of phosducin-like proteins in the malaria parasite Plasmodium. Infect Genet Evol J Mol Epidemiol Evol Genet Infect Dis. 2013;13: 49–55. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2012.08.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kooistra RL, David R, Ruiz AC, Powers SW, Haselton KJ, Kiernan K, et al. Characterization of a protozoan Phosducin-like protein-3 (PhLP-3) reveals conserved redox activity. PloS One. 2018;13: e0209699. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209699 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lukov GL, Hu T, McLaughlin JN, Hamm HE, Willardson BM. Phosducin-like protein acts as a molecular chaperone for G protein betagamma dimer assembly. EMBO J. 2005;24: 1965–1975. doi: 10.1038/sj.emboj.7600673 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Stirling PC, Cuéllar J, Alfaro GA, El Khadali F, Beh CT, Valpuesta JM, et al. PhLP3 modulates CCT-mediated actin and tubulin folding via ternary complexes with substrates. J Biol Chem. 2006;281: 7012–7021. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M513235200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Blaauw M, Knol JC, Kortholt A, Roelofs J, Ruchira null, Postma M, et al. Phosducin-like proteins in Dictyostelium discoideum: implications for the phosducin family of proteins. EMBO J. 2003;22: 5047–5057. doi: 10.1093/emboj/cdg508 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Willardson BM, Howlett AC. Function of phosducin-like proteins in G protein signaling and chaperone-assisted protein folding. Cell Signal. 2007;19: 2417–2427. doi: 10.1016/j.cellsig.2007.06.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.McLaughlin JN, Thulin CD, Hart SJ, Resing KA, Ahn NG, Willardson BM. Regulatory interaction of phosducin-like protein with the cytosolic chaperonin complex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99: 7962–7967. doi: 10.1073/pnas.112075699 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Stirling PC, Srayko M, Takhar KS, Pozniakovsky A, Hyman AA, Leroux MR. Functional interaction between phosducin-like protein 2 and cytosolic chaperonin is essential for cytoskeletal protein function and cell cycle progression. Mol Biol Cell. 2007;18: 2336–2345. doi: 10.1091/mbc.e07-01-0069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Drozdetskiy A, Cole C, Procter J, Barton GJ. JPred4: a protein secondary structure prediction server. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43: W389–394. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv332 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Castellano MM, Sablowski R. Phosducin-Like Protein 3 is required for microtubule-dependent steps of cell division but not for meristem growth in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2008;20: 969–981. doi: 10.1105/tpc.107.057737 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Bradford YM, Van Slyke CE, Ruzicka L, Singer A, Eagle A, Fashena D, et al. Zebrafish information network, the knowledgebase for Danio rerio research. Genetics. 2022;220: iyac016. doi: 10.1093/genetics/iyac016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Martín-Benito J, Bertrand S, Hu T, Ludtke PJ, McLaughlin JN, Willardson BM, et al. Structure of the complex between the cytosolic chaperonin CCT and phosducin-like protein. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101: 17410–17415. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0405070101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Madeira F, Pearce M, Tivey ARN, Basutkar P, Lee J, Edbali O, et al. Search and sequence analysis tools services from EMBL-EBI in 2022. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022;50: W276–W279. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkac240 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hayes NVL, Jossé L, Smales CM, Carden MJ. Modulation of phosducin-like protein 3 (PhLP3) levels promotes cytoskeletal remodelling in a MAPK and RhoA-dependent manner. PloS One. 2011;6: e28271. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028271 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kelly JJ, Tranter D, Pardon E, Chi G, Kramer H, Happonen L, et al. Snapshots of actin and tubulin folding inside the TRiC chaperonin. Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2022;29: 420–429. doi: 10.1038/s41594-022-00755-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gestaut D, Zhao Y, Park J, Ma B, Leitner A, Collier M, et al. Structural visualization of the tubulin folding pathway directed by human chaperonin TRiC/CCT. Cell. 2022;185: 4770–4787.e20. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.11.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Han W, Jin M, Liu C, Zhao Q, Wang S, Wang Y, et al. Structural basis of plp2-mediated cytoskeletal protein folding by TRiC/CCT. Sci Adv. 2023;9: eade1207. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.ade1207 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Öztürk-Çolak A, Marygold SJ, Antonazzo G, Attrill H, Goutte-Gattat D, Jenkins VK, et al. FlyBase: updates to the Drosophila genes and genomes database. Genetics. 2024;227: iyad211. doi: 10.1093/genetics/iyad211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Brown JB, Boley N, Eisman R, May GE, Stoiber MH, Duff MO, et al. Diversity and dynamics of the Drosophila transcriptome. Nature. 2014;512: 393–9. doi: 10.1038/nature12962 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Leader DP, Krause SA, Pandit A, Davies SA, Dow JAT. FlyAtlas 2: a new version of the Drosophila melanogaster expression atlas with RNA-Seq, miRNA-Seq and sex-specific data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46: D809–D815. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx976 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Li H, Janssens J, De Waegeneer M, Kolluru SS, Davie K, Gardeux V, et al. Fly Cell Atlas: A single-nucleus transcriptomic atlas of the adult fruit fly. Science. 2022;375: eabk2432. doi: 10.1126/science.abk2432 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Fuller MT. Spermatogenesis. In: Bate M, Martinez Arias A, editors. The development of Drosophila melanogaster. Plainview, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Tokuyasu KT. Dynamics of spermiogenesis in Drosophila melanogaster. IV. Nuclear transformation. J Ultrastruct Res. 1974;48: 284–303. doi: 10.1016/s0022-5320(74)80083-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Tokuyasu KT, Peacock WJ, Hardy RW. Dynamics of spermiogenesis in Drosophila melanogaster. I. Individualization process. Z Zellforsch Mikrosk Anat Vienna Austria 1948. 1972;124: 479–506. doi: 10.1007/BF00335253 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Noguchi T, Miller KG. A role for actin dynamics in individualization during spermatogenesis in Drosophila melanogaster. Dev Camb Engl. 2003;130: 1805–1816. doi: 10.1242/dev.00406 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tokuyasu KT, Peacock WJ, Hardy RW. Dynamics of spermiogenesis in Drosophila melanogaster. II. Coiling process. Z Zellforsch Mikrosk Anat Vienna Austria 1948. 1972;127: 492–525. doi: 10.1007/BF00306868 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Jumper J, Evans R, Pritzel A, Green T, Figurnov M, Ronneberger O, et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature. 2021;596: 583–589. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Varadi M, Bertoni D, Magana P, Paramval U, Pidruchna I, Radhakrishnan M, et al. AlphaFold Protein Structure Database in 2024: providing structure coverage for over 214 million protein sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2024;52: D368–D375. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkad1011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Lou X, Bao R, Zhou CZ, Chen Y. Structure of the thioredoxin-fold domain of human phosducin-like protein 2. Acta Crystallograph Sect F Struct Biol Cryst Commun. 2009;65: 67–70. doi: 10.1107/S1744309108037342 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Park J, Kim H, Gestaut D, Lim S, Leitner A, Frydman J, et al. A structural vista of phosducin-like PhLP2A-chaperonin TRiC cooperation during the ATP-driven folding cycle. BioRxiv Prepr Serv Biol. 2023; 2023.03.25.534239. doi: 10.1101/2023.03.25.534239 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lu J, Holmgren A. The thioredoxin superfamily in oxidative protein folding. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2014;21: 457–470. doi: 10.1089/ars.2014.5849 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Waterhouse A, Bertoni M, Bienert S, Studer G, Tauriello G, Gumienny R, et al. SWISS-MODEL: homology modelling of protein structures and complexes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46: W296–W303. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky427 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kanzok SM, Fechner A, Bauer H, Ulschmid JK, Müller HM, Botella-Munoz J, et al. Substitution of the thioredoxin system for glutathione reductase in Drosophila melanogaster. Science. 2001;291: 643–646. doi: 10.1126/science.291.5504.643 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kanzok SM, Schirmer RH, Turbachova I, Iozef R, Becker K. The thioredoxin system of the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum. Glutathione reduction revisited. J Biol Chem. 2000;275: 40180–40186. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M007633200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Svensson MJ, Chen JD, Pirrotta V, Larsson J. The ThioredoxinT and deadhead gene pair encode testis- and ovary-specific thioredoxins in Drosophila melanogaster. Chromosoma. 2003;112: 133–143. doi: 10.1007/s00412-003-0253-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Bellen HJ, Levis RW, Liao G, He Y, Carlson JW, Tsang G, et al. The BDGP gene disruption project: single transposon insertions associated with 40% of Drosophila genes. Genetics. 2004;167: 761–781. doi: 10.1534/genetics.104.026427 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Brand AH, Perrimon N. Targeted gene expression as a means of altering cell fates and generating dominant phenotypes. Development. 1993;118: 401–15. doi: 10.1242/dev.118.2.401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Chen D, McKearin DM. A discrete transcriptional silencer in the bam gene determines asymmetric division of the Drosophila germline stem cell. Dev Camb Engl. 2003;130: 1159–1170. doi: 10.1242/dev.00325 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Dietzl G, Chen D, Schnorrer F, Su KC, Barinova Y, Fellner M, et al. A genome-wide transgenic RNAi library for conditional gene inactivation in Drosophila. Nature. 2007;448: 151–6. doi: 10.1038/nature05954 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Le T, Liang Z, Patel H, Yu MH, Sivasubramaniam G, Slovitt M, et al. A New Family of Drosophila Balancer Chromosomes With a w− dfd-GMR Yellow Fluorescent Protein Marker. Genetics. 2006;174: 2255–2257. doi: 10.1534/genetics.106.063461 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Gloor GB, Preston CR, Johnson-Schlitz DM, Nassif NA, Phillis RW, Benz WK, et al. Type I repressors of P element mobility. Genetics. 1993;135: 81–95. doi: 10.1093/genetics/135.1.81 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Bhaskar PK, Southard S, Baxter K, Van Doren M. Germline sex determination regulates sex-specific signaling between germline stem cells and their niche. Cell Rep. 2022;39: 110620. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2022.110620 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9: 676–682. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Singh MP, Ravi Ram K, Mishra M, Shrivastava M, Saxena DK, Chowdhuri DK. Effects of co-exposure of benzene, toluene and xylene to Drosophila melanogaster: Alteration in hsp70, hsp60, hsp83, hsp26, ROS generation and oxidative stress markers. Chemosphere. 2010;79: 577–587. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.01.054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ponton F, Chapuis M-P, Pernice M, Sword GA, Simpson SJ. Evaluation of potential reference genes for reverse transcription-qPCR studies of physiological responses in Drosophila melanogaster. J Insect Physiol. 2011;57: 840–850. doi: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2011.03.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Soriano A, Petit C, Ryan S, Jemc JC. Tracking Follicle Cell Development. Methods Mol Biol Clifton NJ. 2023;2626: 151–177. doi: 10.1007/978-1-0716-2970-3_8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Aruna S, Flores HA, Barbash DA. Reduced Fertility of Drosophila melanogaster Hybrid male rescue (Hmr) Mutant Females Is Partially Complemented by Hmr Orthologs From Sibling Species. Genetics. 2009;181: 1437–1450. doi: 10.1534/genetics.108.100057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Plimpton RL, Cuéllar J, Lai CWJ, Aoba T, Makaju A, Franklin S, et al. Structures of the Gβ-CCT and PhLP1-Gβ-CCT complexes reveal a mechanism for G-protein β-subunit folding and Gβγ dimer assembly. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112: 2413–2418. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1419595112 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Li M, Chen Y, Ou J, Huang J, Zhang X. PDCL2 is essential for spermiogenesis and male fertility in mice. Cell Death Discov. 2022;8: 419. doi: 10.1038/s41420-022-01210-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Fujihara Y, Kobayashi K, Abbasi F, Endo T, Yu Z, Ikawa M, et al. PDCL2 is essential for sperm acrosome formation and male fertility in mice. Andrology. 2023;11: 789–798. doi: 10.1111/andr.13329 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Krzemień-Ojak Ł, Góral A, Joachimiak E, Filipek A, Fabczak H. Interaction of a Novel Chaperone PhLP2A With the Heat Shock Protein Hsp90. J Cell Biochem. 2017;118: 420–429. doi: 10.1002/jcb.25669 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Bauer H, Kanzok SM, Schirmer RH. Thioredoxin-2 but not thioredoxin-1 is a substrate of thioredoxin peroxidase-1 from Drosophila melanogaster: isolation and characterization of a second thioredoxin in D. Melanogaster and evidence for distinct biological functions of Trx-1 and Trx-2. J Biol Chem. 2002;277: 17457–17463. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M200636200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Freier R, Aragón E, Bagiński B, Pluta R, Martin-Malpartida P, Ruiz L, et al. Structures of the germline-specific Deadhead and thioredoxin T proteins from Drosophila melanogaster reveal unique features among thioredoxins. IUCrJ. 2021;8: 281–294. doi: 10.1107/S2052252521000221 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Lee S, Kim SM, Lee RT. Thioredoxin and thioredoxin target proteins: from molecular mechanisms to functional significance. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2013;18: 1165–1207. doi: 10.1089/ars.2011.4322 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Missirlis F, Phillips JP, Jäckle H. Cooperative action of antioxidant defense systems in Drosophila. Curr Biol CB. 2001;11: 1272–1277. doi: 10.1016/s0960-9822(01)00393-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Gruber CW, Cemazar M, Heras B, Martin JL, Craik DJ. Protein disulfide isomerase: the structure of oxidative folding. Trends Biochem Sci. 2006;31: 455–464. doi: 10.1016/j.tibs.2006.06.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Kemphues KJ, Raff RA, Kaufman TC, Raff EC. Mutation in a structural gene for a beta-tubulin specific to testis in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1979;76: 3991–3995. doi: 10.1073/pnas.76.8.3991 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Kemphues KJ, Raff EC, Raff RA, Kaufman TC. Mutation in a testis-specific beta-tubulin in Drosophila: analysis of its effects on meiosis and map location of the gene. Cell. 1980;21: 445–451. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(80)90481-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Kemphues KJ, Kaufman TC, Raff RA, Raff EC. The testis-specific beta-tubulin subunit in Drosophila melanogaster has multiple functions in spermatogenesis. Cell. 1982;31: 655–670. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(82)90321-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Kemphues KJ, Raff EC, Kaufman TC. Genetic analysis of B2t, the structural gene for a testis-specific beta-tubulin subunit in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics. 1983;105: 345–356. doi: 10.1093/genetics/105.2.345 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Fuller MT, Caulton JH, Hutchens JA, Kaufman TC, Raff EC. Genetic analysis of microtubule structure: a beta-tubulin mutation causes the formation of aberrant microtubules in vivo and in vitro. J Cell Biol. 1987;104: 385–394. doi: 10.1083/jcb.104.3.385 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Fuller MT, Caulton JH, Hutchens JA, Kaufman TC, Raff EC. Mutations that encode partially functional beta 2 tubulin subunits have different effects on structurally different microtubule arrays. J Cell Biol. 1988;107: 141–152. doi: 10.1083/jcb.107.1.141 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Hutchens JA, Hoyle HD, Turner FR, Raff EC. Structurally similar Drosophila alpha-tubulins are functionally distinct in vivo. Mol Biol Cell. 1997;8: 481–500. doi: 10.1091/mbc.8.3.481 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Fackenthal JD, Hutchens JA, Turner FR, Raff EC. Structural analysis of mutations in the Drosophila beta 2-tubulin isoform reveals regions in the beta-tubulin molecular required for general and for tissue-specific microtubule functions. Genetics. 1995;139: 267–286. doi: 10.1093/genetics/139.1.267 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Kaltschmidt B, Glätzer KH, Michiels F, Leiss D, Renkawitz-Pohl R. During Drosophila spermatogenesis beta 1, beta 2 and beta 3 tubulin isotypes are cell-type specifically expressed but have the potential to coassemble into the axoneme of transgenic flies. Eur J Cell Biol. 1991;54: 110–120. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Fabian L, Brill JA. Drosophila spermiogenesis: Big things come from little packages. Spermatogenesis. 2012;2: 197–212. doi: 10.4161/spmg.21798 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Vogt N, Koch I, Schwarz H, Schnorrer F, Nüsslein-Volhard C. The gammaTuRC components Grip75 and Grip128 have an essential microtubule-anchoring function in the Drosophila germline. Dev Camb Engl. 2006;133: 3963–3972. doi: 10.1242/dev.02570 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Texada MJ, Simonette RA, Johnson CB, Deery WJ, Beckingham KM. Yuri gagarin is required for actin, tubulin and basal body functions in Drosophila spermatogenesis. J Cell Sci. 2008;121: 1926–1936. doi: 10.1242/jcs.026559 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Kracklauer MP, Wiora HM, Deery WJ, Chen X, Bolival B, Romanowicz D, et al. The Drosophila SUN protein Spag4 cooperates with the coiled-coil protein Yuri Gagarin to maintain association of the basal body and spermatid nucleus. J Cell Sci. 2010;123: 2763–2772. doi: 10.1242/jcs.066589 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Li P, Messina G, Lehner CF. Nuclear elongation during spermiogenesis depends on physical linkage of nuclear pore complexes to bundled microtubules by Drosophila Mst27D. PLOS Genet. 2023;19: e1010837. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1010837 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Riparbelli MG, Persico V, Callaini G. The Microtubule Cytoskeleton during the Early Drosophila Spermiogenesis. Cells. 2020;9: 2684. doi: 10.3390/cells9122684 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Fabrizio JJ, Hime G, Lemmon SK, Bazinet C. Genetic dissection of sperm individualization in Drosophila melanogaster. Dev Camb Engl. 1998;125: 1833–1843. doi: 10.1242/dev.125.10.1833 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Fabrizio JJ, Aqeel N, Cote J, Estevez J, Jongoy M, Mangal V, et al. Mulet (mlt) encodes a tubulin-binding cofactor E-like homolog required for spermatid individualization in Drosophila melanogaster. Fly (Austin). 2012;6: 261–272. doi: 10.4161/fly.21533 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Fabrizio JJ, Rollins J, Bazinet CW, Wegener S, Koziy I, Daniel R, et al. Tubulin-binding cofactor E-like (TBCEL), the protein product of the mulet gene, is required in the germline for the regulation of inter-flagellar microtubule dynamics during spermatid individualization. Biol Open. 2020;9: bio049080. doi: 10.1242/bio.049080 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Steinhauer J. Separating from the pack: Molecular mechanisms of Drosophila spermatid individualization. Spermatogenesis. 2015;5: e1041345. doi: 10.1080/21565562.2015.1041345 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.O’Donnell L. Mechanisms of spermiogenesis and spermiation and how they are disturbed. Spermatogenesis. 2014;4: e979623. doi: 10.4161/21565562.2014.979623 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Qian X, Mruk DD, Cheng Y-H, Tang EI, Han D, Lee WM, et al. Actin binding proteins, spermatid transport and spermiation. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2014;30: 75–85. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2014.04.018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Desai BS, Shirolikar S, Ray K. F-actin-based extensions of the head cyst cell adhere to the maturing spermatids to maintain them in a tight bundle and prevent their premature release in Drosophila testis. BMC Biol. 2009;7: 19. doi: 10.1186/1741-7007-7-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Davie K, Janssens J, Koldere D, Waegeneer MD, Pech U, Kreft Ł, et al. A Single-Cell Transcriptome Atlas of the Aging Drosophila Brain. Cell. 2018;174: 982–998.e20. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.05.057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Abhinava Kumar Mishra

23 Jul 2024

PONE-D-24-25002The evolutionarily conserved PhLP3 is essential for sperm development in Drosophila melanogasterPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kanzok,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The reviews for the above manuscript have been received. The reviewers' comments are included along with this letter.

Independent reviewers have assessed the manuscript's suitability for publication and solicit additional clarification on certain outstanding issues.

Based on the reports of the reviewers and my own assessment, I recommend that you please revise the manuscript to address the concerns raised.

If you wish to revise the manuscript to address the issues raised by reviewers, editors would be happy to consider the revised version of the manuscript for publication.

When revising the manuscript, please consider all the points raised by the reviewers and outline every change made. If you disagree with the reviewers' comments, please provide a suitable rebuttal to their concerns.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 06 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Abhinava Kumar Mishra, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement: 

This work was made possible by NSF MRI #1828164, which provided for the purchase of the Zeiss LSM880 confocal microscope. This work was supported by internal research awards to C. P., E. K., S. W., M. M., B. S., C. C., J. C. J., and S. M. K. from Loyola University Chicago.

Please provide an amended statement that declares all the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement. 

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please expand the acronym “C. P., E. K., S. W., M. M., B. S., C. C., J. C. J., and S. M. K.” (as indicated in your financial disclosure) so that it states the name of your funders in full.

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

Thank you to the Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center and the Vienna Drosophila Resource Center for fly stocks. The rat anti-Vasa monoclonal antibody, developed by A. C. Spradling and D. Williams, was obtained from the Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank, created by the NICHD of the NIH and maintained at The University of Iowa, Department of Biology, Iowa City, IA 52242. Thanks to E. O’Flaherty and Danielle Talbot for helpful discussions and comments on this project. This work was made possible by NSF MRI #1828164, which provided for the purchase of the Zeiss LSM880 confocal microscope. This work was supported by internal research awards to C. P., E. K., S. W., M. M., B. S., C. C., J. C. J., and S. M. K. from Loyola University Chicago.

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

This work was made possible by NSF MRI #1828164, which provided for the purchase of the Zeiss LSM880 confocal microscope. This work was supported by internal research awards to C. P., E. K., S. W., M. M., B. S., C. C., J. C. J., and S. M. K. from Loyola University Chicago.

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

7. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.   

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript presents a strong initial characterization of Drosophila melanogaster PhLP3. The authors use structural modeling and alignment to demonstrate the protein’s conserved structure with PhLP3 homologs from other species, run a biochemical assay to show its redox activity, and then use two complementary genetic approaches (a P-element insertion allele and RNA interference) to establish that ablation of PhLP3 results in male sterility. This is accompanied by cytological studies that identify a lack of individualization complexes in spermatids, an interesting observation given the potential for PhLP3 to interact with cytoskeleton components. This is a very solid manuscript overall. It makes good use of a wide variety of techniques and approaches and will make a helpful contribution to the literature on phosducin-like proteins and on fly spermatogenesis. I have only minor comments, which I expect can be addressed without any additional experiments. (Some of the comments are essentially copy-editing, which the instructions ask reviewers to do, since the journal does not provide this service.)

The excision of the P-element to rescue the wild-type phenotype is a strength and helps validate the P-insertion allele as the cause of the fertility defect. The use of RNAi to confirm the requirement of PhLP3 for fertility is another important strength, making it less likely that the P-element mutant effect was due to some other mutation in that background.'

Minor points:

Figure 1:

-Give units for the distance measure included at the top of the phylogenetic tree in Fig. 1B.

-Specify in the caption whether the structure modeled in Fig. 1C is the Drosophila PhLP3, or another ortholog.

-If you haven’t already, consider comparing the SWISS-MODEL structure to the AlphaFold prediction (https://alphafold.ebi.ac.uk/entry/Q9VGV8) to determine which is the better one to include in the figure. To my non-expert eye, they appear fairly similar, though the AlphaFold prediction shows a longer second alpha helix at the N-terminus (in line with the discussion section description, line 549). If you feel SWISS-MODEL is better, then no need to change. If you think the AlphaFold prediction is more reliable, then you could do the same for the structures in Fig. S1.

-If any amino acids are missing from the structure, you could clarify this in the caption (e.g., it looks like positions 1-18 and 185-216 are not represented?).

-If possible, remove Microsoft’s red-squiggly line under Trx.

Line 114: The data in Fig. S2 do not seem to distinguish between “germline” and somatic cells of the testis, so consider re-wording this sentence (or, clarify that germline-specific expression is based on scRNA-seq data and/or your later data in Fig. 6, rather than the graphs in the supplemental figure?).

Figure 2:

-Add to the caption that “dc” indicates the dense complex in Fig. 2B.

Line 151: no italics for “mutants”

Figure 3:

-If possible, remove Microsoft’s red-squiggly line under Trx.

Figure 4:

-Fig. 1 also presents a PhLP3 structure and an alignment, so aspects of these figures are redundant with each other. Since there doesn’t appear to be anything anomalous in the alignments or structures that is noteworthy for the manuscript (i.e., the structures align well, the cysteine is conserved, etc.), can these figures be condensed into one, with any other information being moved to supplemental material?

-In the caption describing Fig. 4A, clarify which structure is shown in part with the green curves.

-Line 190: unnecessary underlining of ref. [16].

Line 200: it may be helpful to give a brief (one line) description of “the thioredoxin system” here, since this system might be unfamiliar to some readers, or simply add “(describe in the next paragraph)”, where it’s clarified.

Line 202: Do you mean Cys95 in D. melanogaster, rather than Cys93? (Also, be consistent with how you write the amino acids; cysteine is abbreviated as C in line 195, Cys here.)

Figure 5:

-It may be helpful to show the chemical reaction in Fig. 5B with the same protein names as you use in the text. For example, in line 215, you write about D. melanogaster “Trx1”, but it’s just “Trx” in Fig. 5B. Overall, though, these look like great data!

Figure 6:

-This is a nice demonstration that the P-element insertion abolishes PhLP3 expression.

-The first line of the figure caption (line 243) states that panels “(A-B)” show in situ data, but it looks like only panels A and C show this, while panel B shows qPCR data. Please clarify.

Figure 8:

-These data are convincing that PhLP3-/- males do not produce mature sperm and do not undergo individualization.

-To support the text on lines 322-323, is it possible to show images with only the phalloidin channel here, to illustrate the presence of ICs for controls and the absence of them for the mutants? (If not, that is okay; this is a small point.)

Figure 9:

-Is it possible to add to the caption whether these images represent zoomed in portions of whole-mount (intact) testes (which seems to be what the Methods section implies on line 450), or whether they come from shreds to release spermatid bundles?

It is a bit surprising that the P-element excision line (with 33% of WT levels of PhLP3 transcripts) is fertile, while the RNAi line (with 23% of WT levels of PhLP3 transcripts) is near-sterile. Either the authors have serendipitously narrowed down the exact threshold level of PhLP3 transcripts required for functional spermatogenesis, or there are other biological or technical explanations. (Example biological: there could be post-transcriptional regulation that acts differently between the delta P line and the RNAi progeny or some strain background differences with the RNAi line. Example technical: there could be variation in the RT-PCR measurements. The bam-gal4 control line measurement in Fig. 10 has large error bars, for instance, while error bars appear to be missing for the +/+ genotype in Fig. 6.) This doesn’t require extensive comment, but if the authors had thoughts about it, they could briefly include them.

Figure 10:

-Optional: if possible, it would be useful to show the scattered actin cones in the RNAi flies at higher magnification, but in my view, it is not necessary to re-do this experiment if you don’t already have the data available.

Line 419: “or control” doesn’t need to be in italics

Line 474-475: it’s not clear why Trx1 primers were used, since the manuscript doesn’t report on Trx1 purification. If the authors needed to produce and purify Trx1 for the biochemical assay, this can be briefly added to the manuscript, or they can simply state that Trx1 was produced as previously described in ref. 4.

Given the high expression of CG4511 in ovaries, did the authors observe whether homozygous P-element insertion females were sterile?

Lines 568-569: Related to the point above: This part of the discussion seems to raise the possibility that PhLP3 could be a redox target of Dhd in the ovaries. There doesn’t yet appear to be any evidence that PhLP3 is part of mature sperm (for example, while not definitive evidence for absence, CG4511 was not detected amongst the 3,000+ sperm proteome proteins; Garlovsky et al. 2022, PMID: 35985624), so it isn’t clear that testis-expressed PhLP3 would have the opportunity to interact with Dhd. Alternatively, since the data in Fig. S2 show high PhLP3 expression in ovaries as well as testes, it could be possible that ovary-expressed PhLP3 is a target of Dhd. Thus, consider re-phrasing here.

Line 571-572: Clarify this sentence a bit. What aspect of the kinetics data presented here (and, compared to what other data) suggests that PhLP3 is unlikely to be an effective antioxidant scavenger?

Line 638: remove the extra ) after the parentheses

Line 641: “…described by Fabrizio have … [68].”

Reviewer #2: The paper entitled The evolutionarily conserved PhLP3 is essential for sperm development in Drosophila melanogaster provides an analysis of the role and function of CG4511, a conserved member of the phosducin-like family of proteins. In brief, the authors examine the structural similarity of the protein to other known members of the PhLP family, and perform several experiments examining sperm development, noting an arrest of spermatogenesis in PhLP3¬-/- flies. A significant impact on fertility in PhLP3 null animals is noted both P-element excision and RNAi knockdown are used to further interrogate the results.

In accordance with the PLOS ONE publishing criteria, please find my assessment below:

1) The study presents the results of primary scientific research.

a. Yes

2) Results reported have not been published elsewhere.

a. To the best of my knowledge, these results are novel. The entry in flybase would also indicate this CG4511 is understudied.

3) Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.

a. Yes.

4) Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.

a. The format of the article may require some adjustment for clarity, but is sufficient to replicate the experiments.

b. I have significant concern in two areas, given what is reported in the article:

i. In line 349-351, the authors denote that the p-element excision used in the article only restores expression to the level of 33%, but restores fertility in the animals. However, knockdown by RNAi (by 77%, as per line 356-357) is sufficient to render the animals infertile. Based on the p-element data, I would expect the knockdown to not render the animals sterile based on expression. I believe that further explanation is required beyond the expression levels to be confident in the validity of this data.

ii. Only one RNAi line is used in the paper. I would much prefer to see at least two different lines, especially given the potential issue raised prior.

5) The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English.

a. Yes.

6) The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.

a. Yes.

7) The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.

a. Yes.

Reviewer #3: The authors find a phosducin-like (PhLP) protein family gene, CG4511, in Drosophila, which is named PhLP3. The gene is mainly expressed in testes and ovaries according to the published RNAseq data. An insertional mutation in the 5’ UTR caused a significant reduction of expression and the homozygous males are sterile because of a lack of mature sperm. Importantly, the defects are seen as early as the canoe stage, where the microtubule and actin-rich structure, dense body is elongated and leads to needle-shaped nuclear. stage. The authors also confirmed its redox activity by using recombinant protein and NADPH reduction assays.

Because PhLP proteins are known to play a role in regulation of the microtubule and actin cytoskeletons, it is convincing that the mutant of the Drosophila PhLP gene with testis-biased expression showed defective spermiogenesis and sterile. I think that this study finds a new role of PhLP protein in Drosophila spermiogenesis and the paper merits publication in PLOS ONE. However, I found several issues that the authors should address before accepting.

Line 114 “high expression in the testis, specifically in germline cells (S2 Fig)”

I do not see any evidence for expression in germline cells in the figure. Is there any more data?

Line 170 “ an N-terminal helix domain, the central Trx-domain, and the unstructured N-terminal tail”

“unstructured N-terminal tail” is right or unstructured C-terminal tail? This is because “mostly unstructured C-terminal tail” appears on line 543.

Line 239 “gene is expressed in germ cells”

It is difficult to see the exact location of expression in the figure. It may be recommended to add an enlarged view of A.

Figure 7

Nonparametric Welch’s t-test is recommended, particularly between the control and mutant as in Figure 10.

Fig. 8 and line 322

It is difficult to see phalloidin staining (actin cones) in A and also to find sperm in seminal vesicles. Is it possible to add more focused and enlarged view? In addition, it may also be better to combine Figures 8 and 9 in order to understand the phenotypes.

Figure 9

It takes time to understand which are open and solid arrows; alternative symbols are better.

Figure 10

“White arrows indicate clusters of elongating spermatid nuclei” This is phalloidin staining; the revision is needed. There are no “arrows” in C. I cannot see evidence for “there are few if any DAPI clusters” in D or cannot understand where I should see. It is also difficult to see exactly “deformed, scattered actin cones.” Because this is very important point of this paper, the authors should be strongly recommended to prepare double staining and enlarged views for this.

Line 460 “manufacturer’s instructions”

Which is the manufacturer?

Line 549 “Stirling et al.”

Reference number [6] should be just after the author name.

Line 613 “Others”

Reference or references should be provided here.

Reviewer #4: Successful completion of spermatogenesis is crucial for the perpetuation of the species. It is interesting for authors used Drosophila as model to investigate gene function in spermatogenesis. The authors uncovered an important role of PhLP3 in spermiogenesis. These results could deepen the basic theory of the regulatory mechanism of animal reproductive development. However, some revisions are required before this paper can be accepted.

Major comments

1. It needs to be clear the reason of male sterile is due to the early release of mature sperm in the experimental group leads to infertility or the absence of spermatid extension stage abnormalities leads to abnormal individualization.

2. PhPL3 is a chaperone protein involved in protein folding as well as a role as an enzyme. Whether the protein degradation pathways were activated in the absence of PhPL3, such as ubiquitination proteasomal degradation pathway, lysosomal pathway, caspase. It is preferable do detect some gene expression related to these pathway.

3. It is preferable do detect some gene expression related to spermatogenesis in the absence of PhPL3.

4. In the result session, authors should explain the reason of using bam-gal4.

Minor comments

5.It is perferable to mark “seminal vesicle” in figure 8 and 10, thus easy for readers.

6.“***” shouled be marked in figure 8A.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Oct 31;19(10):e0306676. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306676.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


6 Sep 2024

RESPONSE TO EDITOR AND REVIEWERS

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

We sincerely thank you for your time, consideration, and careful review of our manuscript. According to your suggestions, the manuscript has been revised where applicable. Please find our responses to all the issues raised below. Our answers are organized by reviewer number.

AMENDED STATEMENTS FOR JOURNAL REQUIREMENTS

• We checked and corrected the style requirements according to PLOS ONE requirements.

• We corrected the grant numbers in “Funding information” and “financial disclosure” to NSF MRI #1828164.

• We updated the Funding statement according to your instructions.

• Amended statement:

• This work was supported by NSF MRI #1828164, which provided for purchasing the Zeiss LSM880 confocal microscope (JCJ and SMK). This work was furthermore supported by internal research awards from Loyola University Chicago (CP, EK, SW, MM, BS, CC, JCJ, and SMK). The funders had no role in the data collection and analysis, publication decision, or manuscript preparation. No additional external funding was received for this study.

• We entered the author's initials incorrectly, and the sequence “C. P., E. K., S. W., M. M., B. S., C. C., J. C. J., and S. M. K.” was misread as an acronym.

• We corrected the format for author initials in the amended funding statement to CP, EK, SW, MM, BS, CC, JCJ, and SMK, respectively.

• The acknowledgments statement has been updated following your instructions.

• Amended Acknowledgement statement:

• Thank you to the Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center and the Vienna Drosophila Resource Center for fly stocks. The rat anti-Vasa monoclonal antibody, developed by A. C. Spradling and D. Williams, was obtained from the Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank at the University of Iowa, Department of Biology, Iowa City, IA 52242. Thanks to E. O’Flaherty and Danielle Talbot for helpful discussions and comments on this project.

• We have updated our data availability statement.

• Updated data sharing statement:

• The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplemental material.

• An uncropped and unadjusted image of the SDS gel image as well as a corresponding legend has been included in the Supporting Information under the file name S3_Fig.eps.

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS

REVIEWER #1

-Give units for the distance measure included at the top of the phylogenetic tree in Fig. 1B.

• We labeled the scale of the phylogenetic tree and added an explanation to the legend: The scale represents the "length" of the branches, which indicates the evolutionary distance between the sequences in units of amino acid substitutions per site. Longer branches represent larger numbers of genetic changes.

-Specify in the caption whether the structure modeled in Fig. 1C is the Drosophila PhLP3 or another ortholog.

• We have removed the 3D model of Drosophila PhLP3 from Fig 1, as it does not add to the introduction. We have generated a new Fig. 4 focusing on Drosophila PhLP3 structure prediction and modeling (see explanation in the next paragraph).

-If you haven’t already, consider comparing the SWISS-MODEL structure to the AlphaFold prediction (https://alphafold.ebi.ac.uk/entry/Q9VGV8) to determine which is the better one to include in the figure. To my non-expert eye, they appear fairly similar, though the AlphaFold prediction shows a longer second alpha helix at the N-terminus (in line with the discussion section description, line 549). If you feel SWISS-MODEL is better, then no need to change. If you think the AlphaFold prediction is more reliable, then you could do the same for the structures in Fig. S1.

• Thank you for your suggestion. We have considered the AlphaFold prediction, which coincidentally is the first template suggestion in SWISS-MODEL. We agree that the AlphaFold prediction shows the entire structure of Drosophila PhLP3, most notably the N-terminal helices and the thioredoxin domain, with a high confidence index. We generated a new Figure 4 that compares the AlphaFold and SWISS-MODEL structures of Drosophila PhLP3. We included the SWISS-MODEL shown in Fig 4B, as it is based on the experimentally determined structure of human PhLP2A. Notably, the template file with the PDB code 7NVM contains the CryoEM structure of the entire chaperonin TRiC/CCT complexed with PhLP2A and actin inside its luminal catalytic cavity. We hypothesize that Drosophila PhLP3 interactions with Drosophila TRiC/CCT are similar. Even though the PhLP2A structure is truncated, and consequently our Drosophila PhLP3 model too, it represents the structure under functional, cellular conditions.

-If any amino acids are missing from the structure, you could clarify this in the caption (e.g., it looks like positions 1-18 and 185-216 are not represented?).

• In the new Fig. 4A (AlphaFold prediction), we highlighted the N-terminal and C-terminal sections missing in Fig. 4B (SWISS-MODEL). We explained the missing section in the main text (lines 179 – 181): Notably, the first 18 N-terminal AA and the last 25 AA at the C-terminus were not modeled, as they were unresolved in the hPhLP2A crystal structure within the chaperonin complex.

Line 114: The data in Fig. S2 do not seem to distinguish between “germline” and somatic cells of the testis, so consider re-wording this sentence (or, clarify that germline-specific expression is based on scRNA-seq data and/or your later data in Fig. 6, rather than the graphs in the supplemental figure?).

• Line 114 (now line 115) We have added panel C to Fig. S2, which includes the scRNA-Seq data that illustrates PhLP3 expression in the germline from Li et al., 2022.

Figure 2:

-Add to the caption that “dc” indicates the dense complex in Fig. 2B.

Line 151: no italics for “mutants”

• Figure 2: We have edited the Figure 2B legend, adding “dc: dense complex.”

Line 151: no italics for “mutants”

• Line 151 (now line 153) “mutants” is no longer italicized.

Figure 3:

-If possible, remove Microsoft’s red-squiggly line under Trx.

• Figure 3: The squiggly lines under Trx have been removed.

Figure 4:

-Fig. 1 also presents a PhLP3 structure and an alignment, so aspects of these figures are redundant with each other. Since there doesn’t appear to be anything anomalous in the alignments or structures that is noteworthy for the manuscript (i.e., the structures align well, the cysteine is conserved, etc.), can these figures be condensed into one, with any other information being moved to supplemental material?

• Figure 4 (new) Thank you. Following your suggestion, we have removed the SWISS-MODEL from Fig. 1 and generated a new Fig. 4 that shows the AlphaFold prediction as well as the SWISS-MODEL of D. melanogaster PhLP3. Fig. 1 A and B relate to the introduction while the modeling was performed in this study and is, therefore, part of the results section. We moved all structures to Figure 4.

-In the caption describing Fig. 4A, clarify which structure is shown in part with the green curves.

• Figure 4A (now 4B): We added the following explanation to the legend of our new Fig 4B: “The green portions of the PhLP3 structure represent unstructured segments, including loops and turns.”

-Line 190: unnecessary underlining of ref. [16].

• Line 190 (now 197): ref [16] is now properly formatted and listed as ref [32] and is no longer underlined.

Line 200: it may be helpful to give a brief (one line) description of “the thioredoxin system” here, since this system might be unfamiliar to some readers, or simply add “(describe in the next paragraph)”, where it’s clarified.

• Line 200 (now line 210): We have included the following sentence at the beginning of that paragraph. “The cytosolic thioredoxin system is central in distributing electrons to target proteins in various antioxidant and regulatory pathways.”

Line 202: Do you mean Cys95 in D. melanogaster, rather than Cys93? (Also, be consistent with how you write the amino acids; cysteine is abbreviated as C in line 195, Cys here.)

• Line 202 (now line 215): We corrected CYS93 to CYS95 and used this format throughout the manuscript.

Figure 5:

-It may be helpful to show the chemical reaction in Fig. 5B with the same protein names as you use in the text. For example, in line 215, you write about D. melanogaster “Trx1”, but it’s just “Trx” in Fig. 5B. Overall, these look like great data!

• Figure 5: As CG4193 is annotated as DmTrx-1 in FlyBase, we therefore adjusted Trx and Trx1 annotations to Trx-1 or DmTrx-1 throughout the manuscript where appropriate and for consistency, including Fig. 5B.

Figure 6:

-The first line of the figure caption (line 243) states that panels “(A-B)” show in situ data, but it looks like only panels A and C show this, while panel B shows qPCR data. Please clarify.

• Figure 6: We updated the labeling within the Figure 6 legend (now line 256) and the figure description in the text to match. A new panel was added to show the germline staining with anti-Vasa alone compared to the PhLP3 in situ to better demonstrate PhLP3 expression in the germline.

Figure 8:

-To support the text on lines 322-323, is it possible to show images with only the phalloidin channel here, to illustrate the presence of ICs for controls and the absence of them for the mutants? (If not, that is okay; this is a small point.)

• Figure 8: Text lines 322-323 (now 344-345): We added new sets of panels showing only the phalloidin channel.

Figure 9:

-Is it possible to add to the caption whether these images represent zoomed in portions of whole-mount (intact) testes (which seems to be what the Methods section implies on line 450), or whether they come from shreds to release spermatid bundles?

• Figure 9: We modified the caption to specify that these images were taken from whole mount testes.

It is a bit surprising that the P-element excision line (with 33% of WT levels of PhLP3 transcripts) is fertile, while the RNAi line (with 23% of WT levels of PhLP3 transcripts) is near-sterile. Either the authors have serendipitously narrowed down the exact threshold level of PhLP3 transcripts required for functional spermatogenesis, or there are other biological or technical explanations. (Example biological: there could be post-transcriptional regulation that acts differently between the delta P line and the RNAi progeny or some strain background differences with the RNAi line. Example technical: there could be variation in the RT-PCR measurements. The bam-gal4 control line measurement in Fig. 10 has large error bars, for instance, while error bars appear to be missing for the +/+ genotype in Fig. 6.) This doesn’t require extensive comment, but if the authors had thoughts about it, they could briefly include them.

• The reviewer describes the exciting observation that flies with just 33% of PhLP3 expression (P element excision line) relative to controls produce sperm and are fertile. In comparison, those with 23% of PhLP3 expression (RNAi line) relative to controls are sterile and fail to produce mature sperm. As suggested by the reviewer, it is possible that our results indicate a critical threshold for PhLP3 expression required for protein function during sperm development. It is notable that the controls for each of these experiments are in different genetic backgrounds, and therefore, the levels across controls may not be the same. We have added some discussion about this observation and these possibilities to the final paragraph of the discussion section.

Figure 10:

-Optional: if possible, it would be useful to show the scattered actin cones in the RNAi flies at higher magnification, but in my view, it is not necessary to re-do this experiment if you don’t already have the data available.

• Fig. 10: We added 20X pictures (panels H and N) to illustrate the RNAi phenotype and the actin cones.

Line 419: “or control” doesn’t need to be in italics

• Line 419 (now line 442): Removed italics of “or control.”

Line 474-475: it’s not clear why Trx1 primers were used, since the manuscript doesn’t report on Trx1 purification. If the authors needed to produce and purify Trx1 for the biochemical assay, this can be briefly added to the manuscript, or they can simply state that Trx1 was produced as previously described in ref. 4.

• Line 474-475 (now 497-498): We removed the DmTrx-1 primers from Table S1 and added the suggested statement in the Enzyme assays section (line 512-513) “D. melanogaster thioredoxin-1 (DmTrx-1, CG4193, [37]) was produced as described previously [4,35]”. We added another reference [35] (Kanzok et al. 2001); we corrected the naming of Trx to Trx-1 for consistency, as requested earlier.

Given the high expression of CG4511 in ovaries, did the authors observe whether homozygous P-element insertion females were sterile?

• We appreciate the reviewer's question about the fertility of homozygous P-element insertion females. We have observed that these females are sterile, and we are currently studying the effect of PhLP3 mutation on oogenesis. We plan to publish this work soon when we have more information on the role of PhLP3 in females. Therefore, we chose not to include the data here.

Lines 568-569: Related to the point above: This part of the discussion seems to raise the possibility that PhLP3 could be a redox target of Dhd in the ovaries. There doesn’t yet appear to be any evidence that PhLP3 is part of mature sperm (for example, while not definitive evidence for absence, CG4511 was not detected amongst the 3,000+ sperm proteome proteins; Garlovsky et al. 2022, PMID: 35985624), so it isn’t clear that testis-expressed PhLP3 would have the opportunity to interact with Dhd. Alternatively, since the data in Fig. S2 show high PhLP3 expression in ovaries as well as testes, it could be possible that ovary-expressed PhLP3 is a target of Dhd. Thus, consider rephrasing here.

• Lines 568-569 (now lines 594-595): The reviewer mentions the lack of detection of CG4511 among the sperm proteome proteins in Garlovsky et al., 2022. This study utilizes sperm isolated from the seminal vesicle for these proteome studies. Our data suggests that CG4511/PhLP3 functions prior to sperm reaching maturity and being transferred to the seminal vesicle. It is possible that PhLP3 may no longer be expressed and required in mature sperm. Interestingly, Dhd is highly expressed in male germline cells of the testis, based on scRNA-seq data. Considering the ubiquitous presence of Dhd, this supports the hypothesis of an interaction between PhLP3 and Dhd.

Line 571-572: Clarify this sentence a bit. What aspect of the kinetics data presented here (and, compared to what other data) suggests that PhLP3 is unlikely to be an effective antioxidant scavenger?

• Lines 571-572 (now lines 597-606): We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The original sentence suggests that we tested the antioxidant activity of Drosophila PhLP3, which we did not. We corrected the statement as follows: The thioredoxin system is a central electron distribution system. Some of its target proteins are thioredoxin-like proteins with strong antioxidant activity [56]. We previously demonstrated that P. berghei PhLP3 and its homolog human TXNDC9 exhibit antioxidant activity that is orders of magnitude weaker than that of antioxidant effectors, such as thioredoxin-dependent peroxiredoxin (TPx1) [4]. We concluded that PhLP3 is unlikely to act as an antioxidant scavenger in the cell. In the fruit fly effective antioxidant systems, such as catalase and superoxide dismutase, cooperate in the fly to protect from reactive oxygen species [57]. The hypothesis for a different function of PhLP3 is corroborated by the recent structural insights into the interactions of PhLP3 and PhLP2A with the CCT complex and its potential role in the folding of actin and tubulin [6,17].

Line 638: remove the extra ) after the parentheses

• Line 638 (Now line 668): extra parenthesis removed

Line 641: “…described by Fabrizio have … [68].”

• Line 641 (now line 671): removed “1998”, as this detail is evident with the citation [68]

REVIEWER#2:

i. In line 349-351, the authors denote that the p-element

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_FINAL.pdf

pone.0306676.s006.pdf (180.7KB, pdf)

Decision Letter 1

Abhinava Kumar Mishra

29 Sep 2024

The evolutionarily conserved PhLP3 is essential for sperm development in Drosophila melanogaster

PONE-D-24-25002R1

Dear Dr. Kanzok,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Abhinava Kumar Mishra, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I appreciate the authors’ careful attention to my comments and those of the other reviewers. The approach of moving the structures to the new Fig. 4 looks to have worked effectively. I also appreciated the additional discussion of the threshold issue, but agree with the authors that it can be explored experimentally in future studies. Likewise, it’s cool that PhLP3 mutant females are sterile, but very reasonable to save that story for another paper. Overall, I think this revised submission looks good and will make an interesting contribution to the literature on fly spermatogenesis.

Reviewer #2: The authors have clarified the majority of my concerns, and the re-write of the paper is significantly improved. Based on the comments added, I would accept it for publication.

However, it may be possible to further clarify both the threshold level of PhLP3 transcripts required for

functional spermatogenesis (as reviewer #1 and I noted) and my concerns about the RNAi experiments by adjusting the temperature for the Gal4 driven RNAi experiments (as another line is not available). This would help to remove any concerns about a background effect or other potential off-target effects.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Abhinava Kumar Mishra

23 Oct 2024

PONE-D-24-25002R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kanzok,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Abhinava Kumar Mishra

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. D. melanogaster possess three PhLPs.

    (A) Clustal Omega alignment of the three predicted PhLPs [15, 20]. The conserved residues are indicated with gray boxes. The green boxes indicated the position of the thioredoxin domain with the putative redox-active cysteine highlighted in yellow. The percent identity between each sequence is shown in the box. (B) Comparison of the three PhLPs. Length and characteristic organization of the proteins are indicated. The blue bracket indicates the portion of each protein that was modeled. (C) Hypothetical models of the three predicted PhLP proteins in D. melanogaster. The models were generated using SWISS-MODEL template PDB 7nvm: entity 11, human PhLP2A The structures are colored by confidence level from high (blue) to low (red) [17, 34].

    (TIF)

    pone.0306676.s001.tif (5.5MB, tif)
    S2 Fig. RNA-seq data for PhLP3 in dissected tissues.

    (A) RNA-Seq expression data from select adult dissected tissues from the modENCODE project. Values listed are Reads per kilobase of transcript per Million reads (RPKM) [21]. (B) RNA-Seq expression data from select adult dissected tissues from the FlyAtlas2 project. Values listed are Reads per kilobase of transcript per Million reads (RPKM) [22]. We used FlyBase (FB2023_06, released December 12, 2023) to obtain the data presented in this figure. (C) Single-cell RNA-Seq expression data in the adult testis from the Fly Cell Atlas project is displayed on Uniform Manifold Approximation and Project (UMAP) graph [23]. In the left panel, shades of red indicate expression levels with brightest red being the highest expression and black being low expression. The UMAP in the right panel illustrates the broadly classified different cell clusters in the testis. PhLP3 is most highly expressed in the male germline cells. UMAPs were generated in SCope [81].

    (TIF)

    pone.0306676.s002.tif (5.7MB, tif)
    S3 Fig. Schematic of PhLP3 gene region and analysis of P element insertion site.

    (A) Schematic of the PhLP3 gene region. The location of the P element insertion P{EPgy2}EY13373 is indicated 78 bp upstream of the translation start site in the 5’ UTR. (B) Sequence around the insertion site of P element. The following sequences and sequence data are represented: genomic sequence from FlyBase (FBgn0037843), sequencing result of the control strain (w1118), sequencing result of the PhLP3ΔP/ΔP excision strain, inverse PCR (iPCR) sequencing result of the P element insertion strain (PhLP3EY13373), and the previously reported flanking sequence for the P element. Sites, where HpaII would cut the sequence, are indicated, as this enzyme was used for iPCR. The sequenced regions of the P element insertion strain that do not align with the consensus sequence corresponding to the sequence from the P element, P{EPgy2}, not the PhLP3 gene.

    (TIF)

    pone.0306676.s003.tif (3.2MB, tif)
    S1 Table. List of primers used in this study.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0306676.s004.docx (15.7KB, docx)
    S1 Raw image. SDS page electrophoresis following recombinant Drosophila melanogaster PhLP3 purification over a Ni-NTA column.

    (TIF)

    pone.0306676.s005.tif (4.3MB, tif)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_FINAL.pdf

    pone.0306676.s006.pdf (180.7KB, pdf)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES