Skip to main content
eLife logoLink to eLife
. 2026 Jan 14;13:RP104691. doi: 10.7554/eLife.104691

Prefoldin 5 is a microtubule-associated protein that suppresses Tau aggregation and neurotoxicity

Anjali Bisht 1, Srikanth Pippadpally 1, Snehasis Majumder 2, Athulya T Gopi 1, Abhijit Das 2, Chandan Sahi 1, Mani Ramaswami 3, Vimlesh Kumar 1,
Editors: P Robin Hiesinger4, David Ron5
PMCID: PMC12803513  PMID: 41533771

Abstract

Tauopathies represent a major class of neurodegenerative disorders associated with intracellular aggregates of the microtubule-associated protein Tau. To identify molecular modulators of Tau toxicity, we used a genetic screen to identify protein chaperones whose RNAi-mediated knockdown could modulate hTauV337M-induced eye-ommatidial degeneration in Drosophila. This screen identified the Prefoldins Pfdn5 and Pfdn6 as strong modifiers of hTauV337M cytotoxicity. Consistent with the known function of Pfdn as a cotranslational chaperone for tubulin, Pfdn5 mutants showed substantially reduced levels of tubulin monomer. However, additional microtubule-related functions were indicated by the robust unexpected association of Pfdn5 with axonal microtubules in vivo, as well as binding with stabilized microtubules in biochemical assays. Loss of Pfdn5 resulted in neuromuscular junctions (NMJ) defects similar to those previously described in hTau-expressing flies: namely, increased supernumerary boutons and fewer microtubule loops within mature presynaptic boutons. Significantly, synaptic phenotypes caused by hTauV337M overexpression were also strongly enhanced in a Pfdn5 mutant background. Consistent with a role in modulating Tau toxicity, not only did loss of Pfdn5 result in increased accumulations of Tau aggregates in hTauV337M-expressing neurons, but also neuronal overexpression of Prefoldin strikingly ameliorated age-dependent neurodegeneration and memory deficits induced by pathological hTau. Together, these and other observations described herein: (a) provide new insight into Prefoldin-microtubule interactions; (b) point to essential post-translational roles for Pfdn5 in controlling Tau toxicity in vivo; and (c) demonstrate that Pfdn5 overexpression is sufficient to restrict Tau-induced neurodegeneration.

Research organism: D. melanogaster

Introduction

Aberrant accumulation of misfolded protein aggregates is associated with neuroinflammation, neuronal death, and progressive cognitive decline in diverse groups of neurodegenerative diseases (Ross and Poirier, 2004; Sweeney et al., 2017; Soto and Pritzkow, 2018; Lashuel, 2021). Alzheimer’s disease, as well as a subset of other neurodegenerative disorders, together referred to as Tauopathies, are defined by accumulated intracellular aggregates of the Tubulin-associated unit (Tau) protein (Iqbal et al., 2010; Jouanne et al., 2017; Pinzi et al., 2023). Despite substantial clinical interest and decades of research, effective therapeutic interventions for treating Tauopathies are still unavailable (Khanna et al., 2016; Lashuel, 2021).

Tau is predominantly expressed in neurons, where it stabilizes microtubules, thus facilitating intra-axonal transport (Avila et al., 2004; Kent et al., 2020; Robbins et al., 2021). Several mutations in the Tau protein have been identified that contribute to a wide spectrum of Tauopathies, including Alzheimer’s disease, Pick’s disease, progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), corticobasal degeneration (CBD), and frontotemporal dementia with Parkinsonism linked to chromosome 17 (FTDP-17) (Goedert and Jakes, 2005; Wolfe, 2009). These pathogenic mutations enhance the propensity for Tau protein hyperphosphorylation at Ser/Thr residues, leading to the formation of neurofibrillary tangles via self-aggregation (Tzioras et al., 2023). The phosphorylated Tau disengages from the microtubule, potentially altering axonal transport and contributing to synapse loss and/or axon retraction (Guo et al., 2020; Tzioras et al., 2023). Thus, the self-aggregation of Tau and destabilization of microtubules may contribute to the progression of Tau pathogenesis. Such a model is supported by studies in Drosophila and rodent models of Tauopathies. Several of these models of tauopathy show disrupted microtubules, synaptic abnormalities, and abnormal motor behavior (Stubbs et al., 2023). Significantly, pharmacological stabilization of microtubules or reducing Tau levels can revert at least some of the defects observed in these Tauopathy models (Zhang et al., 2005; Brunden et al., 2010). However, alternative approaches to mitigate Tau-induced neurodegeneration are required because the currently available microtubule-targeting drugs are toxic at concentrations required to have an effect in the brain (Yu et al., 2021). One approach, suggested by several studies demonstrating a role for chaperone systems in Tauopathies (Perez et al., 1991; Renkawek et al., 1994; Ostapchenko et al., 2013), is to identify and manipulate specific molecular chaperones that directly or indirectly control Tau aggregation and Tau-induced neurotoxicity in vivo (Blard et al., 2007; Darling et al., 2021).

Molecular chaperones facilitate proper protein folding, prevent protein aggregation, and solubilize or facilitate autophagic or proteasomal elimination of protein aggregates (Warrick et al., 1999; Dou et al., 2003; Buchner, 2019). Consistent with this, enhanced expression of Hsp70 or HSP90 chaperones in mouse neuroblastoma N2A cells reduces pathological Tau levels by promoting the partitioning of Tau onto microtubules (Dou et al., 2003). On the other hand, as chaperones stabilize misfolded protein states, the expression of certain chaperones or cochaperones can sometimes also promote and facilitate the aggregation of Tau (Bhattacharya et al., 2020; Criado-Marrero et al., 2021). For instance, expression of HSP90 cochaperones, FKBP52, or Aha1 in the mouse brain enhances Tau aggregation, neuroinflammation, and cognitive decline in the Tau transgenic mouse model (Shelton et al., 2017; Criado-Marrero et al., 2021). These and other data indicate that: (a) chaperones not only alleviate but also aggravate Tau aggregation, and hence identification and analysis of chaperones that modulate Tau-aggregation and toxicity are required to understand biological and pathogenic mechanisms involved in Tauopathy, and (b) genetic or pharmacological manipulation of specific chaperone activities could be of possible therapeutic value for treating Tau-induced neurodegeneration.

Here, we report that Pfdn5 colocalizes with axonal microtubules and physically associates with stable microtubules. Loss of Pfdn5 resulted in a remarkable reduction in tubulin levels, disrupting microtubules in otherwise wild-type Drosophila, as well as the aggregation of Tau in axons and larval brain of the Drosophila hTauV337M disease model. Moreover, Pfdn5 deletion exacerbates Tau-induced neurotoxicity, and overexpression of Pfdn5 mitigates the age-dependent progression of neurodegeneration and suppresses the learning and long-term memory deficits associated with Tau-induced neurotoxicity. These and other observations described in subsequent sections of this paper suggest that (1) In addition to its role as a cotranslational chaperone for tubulin, Pfdn5 has direct roles in the stability of mature microtubule filaments, and (2) Pfdn5 stabilizes microtubules, prevents neuronal loss, and delays the onset of Tau-induced neurotoxicity. Since the overexpression of Pfdn5 restored the Tau-induced neurological abnormalities to the control levels without causing any detectable changes in synaptic morphology, cognitive impairment, or organismal health, we suggest that Pfdn5 could be a possible therapeutic target for Tauopathies.

Results

A reverse-genetic screen of Drosophila chaperones identified Prefoldins as genetic modifiers of Tau-induced neurodegeneration

To identify chaperones that modulate Tau-induced neurodegeneration, we performed a screen for chaperones whose RNAi-based knockdown would modify progressive cytotoxicity observed in the eyes of Drosophila expressing human TauV337M. We used the hTauV337M model because its expression in the eye resulted in moderate phenotypes and therefore, allowed us to score for both enhancement or suppression of eye-ommatidial degeneration visibly (Chau et al., 2006; Blard et al., 2007). We co-expressed this transgenic construct (UAS-hTauV337M) with each of 109 RNAi lines (targeting 64 chaperones) in the Drosophila eye using the pan-retinal driver GMR-Gal4 and examined how each RNAi line influenced ommatidial degeneration in hTauV337 M-expressing flies, seven days post-eclosion (Figure 1—figure supplement 1). We identified 20 chaperones that enhanced the neurotoxicity and 15 that suppressed hTauV337M-induced ommatidial degeneration (Figure 1, Figure 1—figure supplement 1). Consistent with the previous studies (Petrucelli et al., 2004; Kundel et al., 2018), we found that the knockdown of Hsp70 enhanced Tau-induced neurodegeneration (Figure 1—figure supplement 1I–I” and AH), validating the authenticity of this screen. In addition, the screen identified novel candidate Tau modulators. These notably included Drosophila orthologs of Prefoldins, tubulin binding cofactor E (TBCE), and chaperonin containing TCP1 (CCT), chaperones known to co-translationally regulate proper folding of tubulin or actin monomers (Figure 1C–L). Knockdown of Prefoldin subunits by different independent RNAi constructs strongly enhanced the ommatidial degeneration (Figure 1C–I and Figure N). Similar effects were also seen following the knockdown of CCT or TBCE (Figure 1J–L and Figure N).

Figure 1. Prefoldin cochaperones are genetic modifiers of Tubulin-associated unit (Tau)-induced eye degeneration.

(A–L) Bright-field images of 7-day-old Drosophila eyes expressing (A) hTauV337M (control), (B) GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-GFP (Gal4 dilution control), (C) GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn4 RNAi, (D), (E), (F) GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn5 RNAi, (G), (H), (I) GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn6 RNAi, (J) GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-TBCE RNAi, (K) GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-CCT5 RNAi, (L) GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-CCT7 RNAi. (N) Histogram showing the percentage of degenerated area in eyes of 7-day-old flies of genotypes: UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/+ (42.74±1.59), UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/UAS-GFP (46.7±1.79), UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/UAS-Pfdn4 RNAi (BL77412; 63.9±2.95), UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/UAS-Pfdn5 RNAi (BL67815; 61.6±3.6), UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/UAS-Pfdn5 RNAi (KK100796; 85.06±3.01), UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/UAS-Pfdn5 RNAi (GD29812; 64.44±4.91), UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/UAS-Pfdn6 RNAi (BL65365; 70.95±4.17), UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/+; UAS-Pfdn6 RNAi/+ (GD34204; 98.57±0.4), UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/UAS-Pfdn6 RNAi (KK101541; 77.11±2.96), UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/+; UAS-TBCE RNAi/+ (BL34537; 62.01±5.65), UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/+; UAS-CCT5 RNAi/+ (BL41818; 64.36±2.43), UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/+; UAS-CCT7 RNAi/+ (BL34931; 61.67±4.47). *p<0.05; ***p<0.001; ns, not significant. At least 6 brightfield eye images of each genotype were used for quantification.

Figure 1—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1—figure supplement 1. Screening of Drosophila chaperones to identify modifiers of Tauopathy.

Figure 1—figure supplement 1.

(A) Schematic representation of the genetic screen performed to identify the chaperones that function as modifiers of Tauopathy. In this screen, 109 RNAi lines corresponding to 64 chaperones were used, among which 15 RNAi lines against 15 genes were scored for their role as suppressors. While 20 genes (31 RNAi lines) enhanced the hTau phenotype, 46 genes (58 RNAi lines) did not alter the hTau phenotype in the eyes. Nineteen genes showed variable results with different RNAi lines, which we did not consider as either enhancers or suppressors. (B–AG) Brightfield images of 7-day-old Drosophila eyes coexpressing hTauV337M and various RNAi lines against Drosophila chaperones. (AH) Histogram showing the percentage of degenerated area in 7 day flies in coexpressing hTauV337M and various RNAi lines against chaperones. At least three brightfield eye images of each genotype were used for quantification. The details of the RNAi lines and statistical analysis are listed in Supplementary file 1.
Figure 1—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 1—figure supplement 1.
Figure 1—figure supplement 2. qPCR analysis for knockdown efficiency of RNAi lines against cytoskeleton regulatory chaperones.

Figure 1—figure supplement 2.

A histogram showing the transcript levels of the mentioned genes. Total RNA was isolated from larval fillets of actin5C-Gal4 driven RNAi lines. rp49 was used as an internal control. The knockdown animals showed about 50–60% reduction in the transcript level. Three independent qRT-PCRs were performed for each genotype. Error bars represent SEM. ***p<0.001, **p<0.01.
Figure 1—figure supplement 2—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 1—figure supplement 2.

The effect of Pfdn5 knockdown on Tau-induced eye degeneration, measured by quantifying the percentage of the degenerated eye area, was particularly robust compared to the hTauV337M-expressing flies (GMR-Gal4 >UAS-hTauV337M: 42.74±1.59% vs GMR-Gal4 >UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn5 RNAi: 85.06±3.62%; p<0.001) (Figure 1M, Figure 1—figure supplement 2). Three independent Pfdn5 RNAi lines targeting different regions of Pfdn5 transcripts enhanced the Tau phenotypes (Supplementary file 1). The quantitative RT-PCR (qPCR) analysis revealed a reduction of ~50–60% pfdn5 transcript upon knockdown with Actin5C-Gal4 (Figure 1—figure supplement 2). Moreover, prior cell culture studies have supported the idea that Prefoldin functions to regulate the solubility of aggregate-prone proteins (Sakono et al., 2008; Sörgjerd et al., 2013). For instance, the deletion of Pfdn is accompanied by the accumulation of PolyQ or Htt aggregates in cell lines (Tashiro et al., 2013; Takano et al., 2014). In order to explore whether this proposed role of Prefoldin could be relevant to the control of Tau aggregation and neurodegeneration in vivo, and the finding that Pfdn5 is downregulated in Alzheimer’s patients (Ji et al., 2022; Askenazi et al., 2023), we selected Pfdn5 for careful and detailed analysis.

Prefoldin 5 regulates microtubule organization and levels of tubulin monomers

Pfdn5 is a component of the hetero-hexameric Prefoldin complex, which regulates the folding of nascent actin and tubulin monomers (Vainberg et al., 1998; Leroux et al., 1999). To rigorously analyse the neuronal functions of Pfdn5, we generated loss-of-function mutants of Pfdn5 using CRISPR/Cas9-based genome editing. We created two independent Pfdn5 mutants (∆Pfdn515 and ∆Pfdn540) using two distinct pairs of gRNAs (Figure 2A). Both these Pfdn5 mutants were null alleles, as no Pfdn5 transcript was detected in the mutants (Figure 2—figure supplement 1). Both homozygous and trans-heteroallelic mutants of Pfdn5 exhibited larval lethality at the L3 developmental stage (Figure 2A). These findings suggest that Pfdn5 is an essential gene required ubiquitously for survival.

Figure 2. Loss of Pfdn5 disrupts microtubule organization.

(A) Generation of a loss-of-function mutant of Pfdn5 using CRISPR/Cas9-based genome editing. Schematic representation of the Pfdn5 genomic organization showing exons (solid black boxes, 1–3) and introns (thin black lines). Two loss-of-function Pfdn5 mutants with 606 bp (line-15) or 577 bp (line-40) deletion were obtained. Both mutant lines are third-instar larval lethal. (B) Schematic representation of Futsch loop organization in muscle 4 of A2 hemisegment in wild-type or Pfdn5 mutant. Pfdn5 mutant shows diffused Futsch loop organization and reduced loops at the terminal boutons. (C-E') Confocal images of NMJ synapses at muscle 4 of A2 hemisegment showing Futsch loops in (C-C') control, (D-D') ΔPfdn515/40, (E-E') Elav-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40 double immunolabeled with neuronal membrane marker, HRP (green) and 22C10 antibody against microtubule-associated protein, Futsch (magenta). The scale bar in E' for (C-E') represents 10 µm. The inset shows a 2.0 x magnified Futsch loop. (F) Histogram showing the percentage of Futsch positive loops from muscle 4 at A2 hemi-segment in control (19.98±2.18), ΔPfdn515/40 (7.72±1.62), Elav-Gal4/+; UAS-Pfdn5/+; ∆Pfdn515/40 (27.39±2.21). ***p<0.001. At least 16 neuromuscular junctions (NMJs) of each genotype were used for quantification. (G) Western blot showing protein levels of α-Tubulin, β-Tubulin, ace-Tubulin, and Actin in control, ΔPfdn515/15, ΔPfdn540/40, ∆Pfdn15/40, and actin5C-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40. Ran protein levels were used as an internal loading control. (H) Histogram showing the percentage of ace-Tubulin normalized with Ran in control (1.00±0.00), ΔPfdn515/15 (0.50±0.05), ∆Pfdn40/40 (0.49±0.04), ΔPfdn515/40 (0.46±0.04), actin5C-Gal4/UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40 (1.05±0.13). **p<0.01. Three independent western blots were used for quantification. (I) Histogram showing percentage of α-Tubulin normalized with Ran in control (1.00±0.00), ΔPfdn515/15 (0.27±0.04), ∆Pfdn40/40 (0.16±0.02), ΔPfdn515/40 (0.11±0.04), actin5C-Gal4/UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40 (0.85±0.07). ***p<0.001. Three independent western blots were used for quantification. (J) Histogram showing percentage of β-Tubulin normalized with Ran in control (1.00±0.00), ΔPfdn515/15 (0.52±0.04), ∆Pfdn40/40 (0.39±0.04), ΔPfdn515/40 (0.30±0.09), actin5C-Gal4/UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40 (1.03±0.11). **p<0.01. Three independent western blots were used for quantification.

Figure 2—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 2.
Figure 2—source data 2. PDF files containing original Western blots for Figure 2G, indicating the relevant bands.
Figure 2—source data 3. Original files for Western blot analysis displayed in Figure 2G.

Figure 2.

Figure 2—figure supplement 1. Pfdn5 mutants are null alleles with no detectable Pfdn5 transcripts.

Figure 2—figure supplement 1.

(A) Semi-quantitative RT-PCR showing transcript levels of Pfdn5 in control, ΔPfdn515/15, ΔPfdn540/40, ΔPfdn515/40, and actin5C-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40. rp49 was used as an internal control for RT-PCR. (B–E) Confocal images of neuromuscular junction (NMJ) synapses at muscle 4 of A2 hemisegment showing synaptic morphology in (B) control, (C) ΔPfdn515/15 (D) ΔPfdn540/40 (E) ΔPfdn515/40 double immunolabeled for HRP (green) and CSP (magenta). The insets represent the 3 X magnified portion of the image shown in a white box. The scale bar in E for (B–E) represents 10 µm. (F) Histogram showing the number of satellite boutons from muscle 4 at A2 hemisegment in control (2.63±0.59), ΔPfdn515/15 (7.0±0.7), ΔPfdn540/40 (6.63±0.7), and ΔPfdn515/40 (7.2±1.1). ***p<0.001. At least 16 NMJs of each genotype were used for quantification. (G) Histogram showing bouton area (in µm2) from muscle 4 at A2 hemisegment in control (4.2±0.3), ΔPfdn515/15 (4.9±0.2), ΔPfdn540/40 (5.0±0.2), and ΔPfdn515/40 (5.1±0.3). ns, not significant. At least 16 NMJs of each genotype were used for quantification. (H) Histogram showing the number of branches per NMJ from muscle 4 at A2 hemisegment in control (3.12±0.2), ΔPfdn515/15 (2.6±0.2), ΔPfdn540/40 (3.10±0.4), and ΔPfdn515/40 (2.6±0.3). ns, not significant. At least 16 NMJs of each genotype were used for quantification. (I) Histogram showing total bouton number from muscle 4 at A2 hemi-segment in control (35.25±1.8), ΔPfdn515/15 (36.06±2.0), ΔPfdn540/40 (39.0±2.3), and ΔPfdn515/40 (38.4±2.1). ns, not significant. At least 16 NMJs of each genotype were used for quantification.
Figure 2—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 2—figure supplement 1.
Figure 2—figure supplement 2. Loss of Pfdn5 disrupts microtubule cytoskeleton.

Figure 2—figure supplement 2.

(A–C) Confocal images showing the muscle 2 of A2 hemisegment in control, ΔPfdn515/40, and mef2-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ΔPfdn515/40 double immunolabeled with ace-Tubulin (red) and Hoechst (cyan). The scale bar in the C represents 20 µm for images (A–C). (D) Histogram showing the average fluorescence intensity (au) of ace-tubulin at muscle 2 of A2 hemisegment in control (530.1±71.6), ΔPfdn515/40 (141.9±8.43), and mef2-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ΔPfdn515/40 (395.1±66.78). **p<0.01. At least 17 neuromuscular junctions (NMJs) of each genotype were used for quantification. (E-G') Confocal images of NMJ synapses at muscle 4 of A2 hemisegment showing synaptic levels of ace-tubulin in control, ΔPfdn515/40, and Elav-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ΔPfdn515/40 double immunolabeled for ace-Tubulin (magenta) and HRP (green). The scale bar in the G' represents 20 µm for images (E-G'). (H) Histogram showing average fluorescence intensity of ace-tubulin at muscle 4 NMJ in control (0.54±0.04), ΔPfdn515/40 (0.36±0.03), and Elav-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ΔPfdn515/40 (0.53±0.02). **p<0.01. At least 8 NMJs of each genotype were used for quantification. (I) Semi-quantitative RT-PCR showing transcript levels of α-tubulin in control, ΔPfdn515/15, ΔPfdn540/40, ΔPfdn515/40, and actin5C-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40. rp49 was used as an internal control.
Figure 2—figure supplement 2—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 2—figure supplement 2.

Analysis of third instar larval NMJ in Pfdn5 mutants revealed the presence of several supernumerary boutons (Figure 2—figure supplement 1B–I). Prior work has shown that induction of supernumerary boutons can result from destabilizing the microtubule cytoskeleton at the NMJ (Xiong et al., 2013; Saunders et al., 2022). We, therefore, investigated whether loss of Pfdn5 can influence axonal microtubules. We visualized microtubules using the monoclonal antibody 22C10, which labels the microtubule-associated protein Futsch in neurons. Futsch-positive loops are seen within a subset of stable presynaptic boutons (Roos et al., 2000). Boutons containing such loops were greatly reduced in the Pfdn5 mutant (control: 19.98±2.18 vs ∆Pfdn515/40: 7.72±1.62; p<0.001), and this reduction was restored to the control levels (∆Pfdn515/40: 7.72±1.62 vs Elav-Gal4/+; UAS-Pfdn5/+; ∆Pfdn515/40: 27.39±2.21; p<0.001) upon pan-neuronal expression of a Pfdn5 transgene in Pfdn5 mutant background (Figure 2B–F). Consistent with this, we found a significant reduction in the intensity of acetylated tubulin, which represents long-lived, stable microtubules, at the synapses and in the muscle of Pfdn5 mutant compared to the control (synapses - control: 0.54±0.04 vs. ∆Pfdn515/40: 0.36±0.03: p<0.001; muscles - control: 530.1±71.56 vs. ∆Pfdn515/40: 141.9±8.43: p<0.001) (Figure 2—figure supplement 2A–H). The reduced acetylated tubulin intensity at Pfdn5 null mutant synapses was restored by the pan-neuronal expression of the Pfdn5 transgene (Figure 2—figure supplement 2A–H). Taken together, the data support a function of Pfdn5 in regulating microtubule stability and organization in vivo.

Pfdn5 is also a known cotranslational chaperone for monomeric tubulin (Zhang et al., 2016; Gestaut et al., 2022). We, therefore, also examined whether and how loss of Pfdn5 altered levels of tubulin monomers. Using RT-PCR, we found that the transcript level of tubulin was not altered in the Pfdn5 mutants, suggesting that Pfdn5 does not alter tubulin gene transcription or transcript stability (Figure 2—figure supplement 2I). In contrast, western blotting revealed about 85% reduction in the α-tubulin monomers (control: 1.00±0.00 vs ∆Pfdn515/40: 0.11±04; p<0.001), about 70 % reduction in β-tubulin (control: 1.00±0.00 vs ∆Pfdn515/40: 0.31±09 p<0.001) and about 60% reduction in ace-tubulin levels (control: 1.00±0.00 vs ∆Pfdn515/40: 0.46±0.04; p<0.001) in the Pfdn5 mutant compared to the control (Figure 2G–J). These reductions were not seen when a Pfdn5 transgene was ubiquitously expressed in a Pfdn5 mutant background (Figure 2G–J). The observation that β-actin levels remained unchanged (Figure 2G) in Pfdn5 mutants is not particularly surprising, given a prior report indicating a differential requirement of the Drosophila Prefoldin complex in actin and tubulin biogenesis (Delgehyr et al., 2012). Together, these data are consistent with: (a) Drosophila Pfdn5 serving as an evolutionarily conserved function in cotranslational folding of monomeric tubulin; and (b) an additional role may be performed by Pfdn5 in the regulation of mature microtubule filaments in neurons. One or both of these functions could potentially be required for the stabilization of axonal microtubules.

Pfdn5 is a novel neuronal microtubule-associated protein

To assess the function of Pfdn5, we began by generating antisera against the full-length Pfdn5. Western blot analysis using Pfdn5 antibody revealed a protein band of ~18 kDa in the larval lysates that was absent in Pfdn5 mutants, thus validating the specificity of the antibody (Figure 3—figure supplement 1A). In larval fillets examined by immunocytochemistry, anti-Pfdn5 staining was dramatically reduced in the mutant, with faint residual staining consistent with a low level of maternally provided Pfdn5 (Figure 3A–B"' and Figure 3—figure supplement 1B–E). The Pfdn5 staining was restored upon expression of the Pfdn5 transgene in the Pfdn5 mutant background (Figure 3B–C"' and Figure 3—figure supplement 1D–E). However, heterozygous mutants of Pfdn5 (∆Pfdn515/+ and ∆Pfdn540/+) revealed no significant reduction in the levels of Pfdn5 or tubulin (Figure 3—figure supplement 1F–H). Careful examination shows that Pfdn5 colocalized with axonal microtubule (labeled with α-tubulin antibody) in wild-type larvae (Figure 3A–A"'). The level of α-tubulin was significantly reduced in the absence of Pfdn5 (Figure 3A–C"'). The Pearson’s correlation coefficient of 0.60±0.02 across pixels labeled by α-tubulin and Pfdn5 in axons further strengthens that a tight colocalization exists between Pfdn5 and neuronal microtubules (Figure 3D).

Figure 3. Pfdn5 is a novel microtubule-binding protein.

(A–C''') Confocal images of NMJ synapses at muscle 4 of A2 hemisegment triple-labeled for Pfdn5 (green), α-Tubulin (blue), and HRP (magenta) showing that Pfdn5 colocalizes with microtubule cytoskeleton in (A-A''') in the wild-type larval neuronal axons and in the tracheal tubes, (B-B''') Pfdn5 mutants show dramatically reduced Pfdn5 and α-Tubulin levels, (C-C''') actin5C-Gal4-mediated rescue (actin5C-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40) significantly restored the level of Pfdn5 and α-Tubulin. Arrows represent Pfdn5 colocalization with microtubule loops, which are not detectable in the Pfdn5 mutants. The scale bar in C''' (for A-C''') represents 10 µm. (D) Pearson’s correlation coefficient to quantify colocalization between Pfdn5 and axonal microtubule. (E) Schematic representation of the microtubule-binding protocol. Head lysate from wild-type flies, treated with Taxol or Nocodazole, was subjected to ultracentrifugation. The ‘soluble fraction’ contains free tubulin, whereas the ‘insoluble pellet fraction’ contains the stabilized microtubule along with microtubule-binding proteins, which can be detected by western blotting. The details of the protocol is described in the material and methods section. (F) Microtubule binding assay with Drosophila head lysate in the presence of Taxol or Nocodazole (diluted in DMSO). T represents (Total fraction: input fraction), S represents (Supernatant: free tubulin), and P represents (Pellet fraction: stabilized microtubule). Immunoblot with antibodies against ace-Tubulin or Pfdn5 detected increased Pfdn5 in the pellet fraction in the presence of Taxol but not Nocodazole. The binding of Pfdn5 with stabilized microtubules was calculated as the percentage of Pfdn5 in the pellet fraction. Ran was used as the loading control. (G) Histogram showing the percentage of the Pfdn5 in the pellet fraction of in vivo microtubule binding assay in the presence of DMSO (7.83±2.92), Nocodazole (0.42±0.1), or Taxol (36.67±7.56). Five independent western blots were used for quantification.

Figure 3—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 3.
Figure 3—source data 2. PDF files containing original Western blots for Figure 3F, indicating the relevant bands.
Figure 3—source data 3. Original files for Western blot analysis displayed in Figure 3F.

Figure 3.

Figure 3—figure supplement 1. Generation and characterization of Pfdn5 antibody.

Figure 3—figure supplement 1.

(A) Western blot showing the levels of Pfdn5 in control, ΔPfdn515/40, and actin5c-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ΔPfdn515/40. Ran was used as a loading control. (B-D') Confocal images of neuromuscular junction (NMJ) synapses at muscle 4 of A2 hemisegment showing Pfdn5 levels in (C-C') control (D-D') ΔPfdn515/40 (E-E') actin5c-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ΔPfdn515/40 double immunolabeled for HRP (magenta) and Pfdn5 (green). The scale bar in D' for (B-D') represents 10 µm. (E) Histogram showing the average fluorescence intensity of Pfdn5 at the NMJ of muscle 4 in control (0.41±0.02), ΔPfdn515/40 (0.15±0.01), and actin5c-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ΔPfdn515/40 (0.46±0.02). ***p<0.001; ns, not significant. At least eight NMJs of each genotype were used for quantification. (F) Western blot showing the levels of Pfdn5 and Tubulin in control, ΔPfdn515/+, and ΔPfdn540/+. GAPDH was used as a loading control for Pfdn5. Ran was used as a loading control for Tubulin. (G) Histogram showing the level of Pfdn5 normalized with GAPDH in control (1.00±0.00), ΔPfdn515/+ (0.81±0.05), and ΔPfdn540/+ (0.89±0.09). ns, not significant. (H) Histogram showing the level of Tubulin normalized with Ran in control (1.00±0.00), ΔPfdn515/+ (0.87±0.07), and ΔPfdn540/+ (0.95±0.10). ns, not significant.
Figure 3—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 3—figure supplement 1.
Figure 3—figure supplement 1—source data 2. PDF files containing original Western blots for Figure 3—figure supplement 1A and F, indicating the relevant bands.
Figure 3—figure supplement 1—source data 3. Original files for Western blot analysis displayed in Figure 3—figure supplement 1A and F.

To further test whether Pfdn5 associates with microtubules, we stabilized microtubules using Taxol and performed a microtubule-binding experiment (Ando et al., 2016). We found Pfdn5 in the pellet fraction when microtubules were stabilized with Taxol, but not under the condition where the microtubules were severed using Nocodazole. The quantification revealed a substantially higher Pfdn5 binding to stabilized microtubules when compared to non-stabilized microtubule control (Taxol: 36.67±7.56, vs control: 7.83±2.92; p<0.001) (Figure 3E–G). Consistent with our immunocytochemistry results, we found that Pfdn5 binds with the Taxol-stabilized microtubule. This unexpected localization of Pfdn5 to neuronal microtubule filaments and its binding to the stable microtubule points to a role for this protein beyond its function as a cotranslational chaperone, potentially in the organization or the stability of axonal microtubule cytoskeleton.

Loss of Pfdn5 phenocopies and synergistically aggravates the Tau-induced synaptic defects

Since microtubules regulate the morphological features of synapses (Roos et al., 2000) and loss of Pfdn5 resulted in reduced stable microtubules, we next asked if Pfdn5 mutants show distinctly altered synaptic architecture at their NMJ. Both the homozygous and heteroallelic mutant combination showed numerous supernumerary boutons with altered synaptic morphology when compared to the control (control: 2.25±0.41 vs. ∆Pfdn515/40: 18.25±1.27; p<0.001) (Figure 4A–B , and J). Increased supernumerary boutons in the Pfdn5 mutant were completely restored upon pan-neuronal expression of a wild-type Pfdn5 transgene using Elav-Gal4 in the Pfdn5 mutant background (∆Pfdn515/40: 18.25±1.27 vs Elav-Gal4/+; UAS-Pfdn5/+; ∆Pfdn515/40: 2.94±0.67; p<0.001) (Figure 4C and J), further confirming that these phenotypes were caused by Pfdn5 mutations and not unknown potential background mutations. Expression of Pfdn5 in muscles using mef2-Gal4 failed to rescue the lethality or the synaptic defects (∆Pfdn515/40: 18.25±1.27 vs UAS-Pfdn5/+; mef2-Gal4, ∆Pfdn515/40: 15.60±0.86; p>0.75) (Figure 4D and J), suggesting that the synaptic phenotype arises due to loss of Pfdn5 in neurons and not muscles.

Figure 4. Loss of Pfdn5 mimics and enhances Tubulin-associated unit (Tau)-induced synaptic defects.

(A–H') Confocal images of neuromuscular junction (NMJ) synapses at muscle 4 of A2 hemisegment showing synaptic morphology in (A-A') control, (B-B') ΔPfdn515/40, (C-C') Elav-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40, (D-D') mef2-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40, (E-E') Elav-Gal4/+ (Gal4 control), (F-F') Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M, (G-G') Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ∆Pfdn515/40, (H-H') Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M;UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40 double immunolabeled for HRP (green), and CSP (magenta). The scale bar in H for (A-H') represents 10 µm. Arrows point to clustered satellite boutons. (I) Histogram showing total number of boutons from muscle 4 at A2 hemisegment in control (35.25±1.8), ΔPfdn515/40 (38.38±2.15), Elav-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40 (31.94±1.18), mef2-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40 (38.40±2.17), Elav-Gal4/+ (28.13±1.51), Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M (36.00±2.65), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ∆Pfdn515/40 (60.34±3.76), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40 (33.69±1.76). ***p<0.001; ns, not significant. At least 12 NMJs of each genotype were used for quantification. (J) Histogram showing number of satellite boutons from muscle 4 at A2 hemisegment in control (2.25±0.41), ΔPfdn515/40 (18.25±1.28), Elav-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40 (2.94±0.67), mef2-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40 (15.6±0.86), Elav-Gal4/+ (2.2±0.38), Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M (14.06±1.00), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ∆Pfdn515/40 (32.25±3.2), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M;UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40 (4.0±0.5). ***p<0.001; ns, not significant. At least 12 NMJs of each genotype were used for quantification. (K) Histogram showing bouton area from muscle 4 at A2 hemi segment in control (5.7±0.29), ΔPfdn515/40 (5.1±0.28), Elav-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40 (5.6±0.2), mef2-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40 (5.8±0.2), Elav-Gal4/+ (5.2±0.4), Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M (6.4±0.4), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ∆Pfdn515/40 (2.3±0.2), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M;UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40 (6.3±0.3). ***p<0.001; ns, not significant. At least 12 NMJ of each genotype were used for quantification.

Figure 4—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Figure 4—figure supplement 1. Loss of Pfdn5 enhances hTauR406W-induced synaptic phenotypes.

Figure 4—figure supplement 1.

(A–C) Confocal images of neuromuscular junction (NMJ) synapses at muscle 4 of A2 hemisegment showing synaptic morphology in control, Elav-Gal4>hTauRR406W, and Elav-Gal4>hTauRR406W; ΔPfdn515/40 double immunolabeled for CSP (magenta) and HRP (green). The inset shows the magnified images of the NMJs. The scale bar in the C represents 10 µm for images (A–C). (D) Histogram showing total bouton number from muscle 4 at A2 hemisegment in control (32.08±2.14), ΔPfdn515/40 (36.08±2.50), Elav-Gal/+ (26.13±1.58), Elav-Gal4>hTauRR406W (33.38±1.97), and Elav-Gal4>hTauRR406W; ΔPfdn515/40 (57.87±4.32). ***p<0.001; ns, not significant. At least 13 NMJs of each genotype were used for quantification. (E) Histogram showing the average bouton area from muscle 4 at A2 hemisegment in control (5.15±0.18), ΔPfdn515/40 (6.29±0.62), Elav-Gal/+ (5.15±0.15), Elav-Gal4>hTauRR406W (6.75±0.43), and Elav-Gal4>hTauRR406W; ΔPfdn515/40 (2.0±0.14). ***p<0.001; ns, not significant. At least 13 NMJs of each genotype were used for quantification. (F-I') Confocal images of NMJ synapses at muscle 4 of A2 hemisegment showing futsch intensity in control (F-F'), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M (G-G'), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 (H-H') and Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-Pfdn5 (I-I') double immunolabeled for 22C10 (magenta) and HRP (green). The scale bar in the I' represents 10 µm for images (F-I'). (J) Histogram showing futsch intensity normalized with HRP from muscle 4 at A2 hemisegment in control (62.18±2.56), ΔPfdn515/40 (48.32±2.66), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M (48.75±1.79), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 (31.58±2.0), and Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-Pfdn5 (68.94±3.78). **p<0.01; ***p<0.001; ns, not significant. At least 13 NMJs of each genotype were used for quantification.
Figure 4—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 4—figure supplement 1.

Ectopic satellite boutons and disrupted microtubules that we observed in Pfdn5 mutant larval NMJs appeared very similar to those previously described in Drosophila expressing hTauV337M in motor neurons (Blard et al., 2007; Xiong et al., 2013; Mao et al., 2017). This apparent similarity, together with our identification of Pfdn5 as a genetic modifier of hTauV337M-induced cytotoxicity, led us to more closely examine phenotypic similarities between Pfdn5 mutant and hTauV337M-expressing animals, as well as genetic interactions between Pfdn5 and hTauV337M. We first confirmed that the loss of Pfdn5 phenocopies the TauV337M-induced morphological defects at synapses (Figure 4E–F). We then tested the effects of loss and gain of Pfdn5 on TauV337M phenotypes.

Morphological NMJ phenotypes induced by expressing hTauV337M pan-neuronally using Elav-Gal4 were strongly enhanced in a Pfdn5 mutant background (Figure 4G and I–K). While satellite bouton numbers in Elav-Gal4/UAS-hTauV337M and ∆Pfdn515/40 were 18.25±1.27 and 14.06±1.00, respectively, this was significantly increased in the Elav-Gal4/UAS-hTauV337M; ∆Pfdn515/40 combination (32.25±3.22; p<0.001) (Figure 4J). Subsequently, total bouton number was significantly increased in Elav-Gal4/UAS-hTauV337M; ∆Pfdn515/40 combination animals (60.24±3.76; p<0.001) compared to either Elav-Gal4/UAS-hTauV337M (36.00±2.65) or ∆Pfdn515/40 (38.38±2.15) alone. Similarly, bouton area (in μm2) at NMJs of Elav-Gal4/UAS-hTauV337M; ∆Pfdn515/40 combination animals (2.29±0.20) were substantially smaller than either Elav-Gal4/UAS-hTauV337M (6.40±0.45) or ∆Pfdn515/40 (5.09±0.28) alone (Figure 4K). Consistently, expressing a more severe form of pathological Tau (hTauR406W) in the Pfdn5 mutation background also resulted in further enhancement in the synaptic phenotypes (Figure 4—figure supplement 1A–E). Thus, loss of Pfdn5 aggravates not only Tau-induced eye degeneration (Figure 1) but also specific Tau-induced synaptic defects, suggestive of function in a common pathway.

Next, we investigated whether this enhanced synaptic phenotype results from increased microtubule disruption. We found that Futsch staining was significantly reduced at the synapses when hTauV337M was expressed in the Pfdn5 mutant background (Figure 4—figure supplement 1F–J). These findings indicate that microtubule disruption caused by the loss of Pfdn5 contributes to the exacerbation of hTauV337M-induced synaptic defects.

Loss of Pfdn5 enhances pathological Tau aggregation in larval brain and axons

Tau-induced neurotoxicity directly correlates with the extent of Tau phosphorylation and its deposition as insoluble aggregates (Chau et al., 2006; Aquino Nunez et al., 2022). Hence, we performed additional experiments to explore mechanisms by which Pfdn5 levels could influence Tau function. We considered a model in which Pfdn5 acts to prevent Tau aggregation, thereby suppressing the Tau-induced neurodegeneration. The immunocytochemistry revealed that animals lacking Pfdn5 showed a remarkable increase in Tau-punctae structures in the larval brain (Tau punctae with size >3 μm2 per brain lobe: Elav-Gal4/UAS-hTauV337M: 1.13±0.39 vs Elav-Gal4/UAS-hTauV337M; ∆Pfdn515/40: 10.50±2.57; p<0.001) (Figure 5A–F). Consistent with these observations, hTau distribution in Pfdn5 mutant axons revealed a substantially higher number of hTau-punctae compared to animals with normal levels of Pfdn5 (Elav-Gal4/UAS-hTauV337M: 0.25±0.09/100 μm2 vs Elav-Gal4/UAS-hTauV337M; ∆Pfdn515/40: 2.9±0.41/100 μm2; p<0.001) (Figures 4K and 5G-J''). The increased hTau puncta in Pfdn5 mutants were significantly suppressed upon normalizing the level of Pfdn5 in neurons. Analysis of fluorescence intensity profiles across the Tau puncta showed a fourfold increase in Tau intensity, further supporting that Tau indeed forms aggregates in the absence of Pfdn5 (Figure 5—figure supplement 1A–C). Additional experiments involving quantification of axonal hTau using immunofluorescence revealed that levels of Tau were significantly reduced in animals overexpressing hTauV337M in Pfdn5 mutants compared to animals expressing hTauV337M alone (Figure 5G–J'' and L). Similar results were obtained when the phospho-Tau antibody was used to assess Tau levels and aggregates (Figure 5—figure supplement 1D–F). To determine if loss of Pfdn5 specifically modulates FTDP-17-associated Tau mutations or also influences sporadic Tauopathy linked to wild-type Tau, we expressed hTauWT in Pfdn5 mutants. Interestingly, expression of wild-type Tau (hTauWT) in the Pfdn5 mutants showed an aggregation pattern in the larval optic lobes similar to that observed with TauV337M (Figure 5—figure supplement 1G–I). These data reveal that Pfdn5 suppresses Tau aggregation in both the brain and axons and that loss of Pfdn5 can induce the onset of multiple forms of Tauopathies.

Figure 5. Loss of Pfdn5 induces formation of hTauV337M aggregates in larval neurons.

(A) Schematic representation of pathological hTau distribution in larval brain lobes and axons of the control (left half) or Pfdn5 mutant (right half) animals. (B–E') Confocal single-section images of third instar larval brain in (B-B') Elav-Gal4/+ (control), (C-C') Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M, (D-D') Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; ∆Pfdn515/40, (E-E') Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40 double immunolabeled with neuronal membrane marker, HRP (magenta), and T46 antibody against hTau (green). The scale bar in E' for (B-E') represents 10 µm. Arrows in D and D' point to the hTau punctae/flame-shaped aggregates in the brain. (F) Histogram showing the quantification of the number of hTau punctae (>3 μm2) in Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M (1.13±0.39), Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 (10.5±2.57), and Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn5/+; ΔPfdn515/40 (0.17±0.17). ***p<0.001. At least six optic lobes of each genotype were used for quantification. (G-J'') Confocal single section images of third instar larval axons in (G-G'') Elav-Gal4/+ (control), (H-H'') Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M, (I-I'') Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; ∆Pfdn515/40 (J-J'') Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40 double immunolabeled for HRP (magenta), and T46 antibody against hTau (green). The scale bar in J'' for (G-J'') represents 10 µm. Arrows in I and I'' point to the hTauV337M aggregates in axons. (K) Histogram showing the quantification of the number of hTau punctae normalized with HRP positive area in Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M (0.25±0.1), Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 (2.96±0.4), and Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn5/+; ΔPfdn515/40 (0.29±0.1). ***p<0.001. At least 20 axons from eight animals of each genotype were used for quantification. (L) Histogram showing the intensity of total hTau normalized with HRP in Elav-Gal4/UAS-hTauV337M (0.59±0.02), Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 (0.27±0.02), and Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn5/+; ΔPfdn515/40 (0.46±0.4). ***p<0.001. At least 20 axons from eight animals of each genotype were used for quantification.

Figure 5—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Figure 5—figure supplement 1. hTau aggregates in the axons and larval brain of the Pfdn5 mutants.

Figure 5—figure supplement 1.

(A–B) Confocal images showing the intensity profile across the axons labeled with the T46 (total Tubulin-associated unit, Tau) in Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M and Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ΔPfdn515/40. The line drawn across the axons is 6 µm, and the scale bar in B represents 5 µm for (A–B). (C) Intensity plot profile showing the intensity and distribution of the T46 across the axons in the Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M (green) and Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 (magenta). (D-E'') Confocal single-section images of third instar larval axons in (D-D'') Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M, (E-E'') Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; Pfdn515/40 double immunolabeled with neuronal membrane marker, HRP (magenta), and AT8 antibody against phospho-Tau (green). The scale bar in E'' for (D-E'') represents 10 µm. Arrows in (E) point to the punctae or the aggregates of Tau. (F) Histogram showing the quantification of the number of phospho-Tau punctae normalized with HRP positive area in Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M (0.002±0.0005), Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 (0.03±0.006). ***p<0.001; ns, not significant. At least 36 axons from eight animals of each genotype were used for quantification. (G-H') Confocal images of third instar larval brain showing hTau aggregates in Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauWT (G-G'), Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauWT; Pfdn515/40 (H-H') double immunolabeled with neuronal membrane marker, HRP (magenta), and T46 antibody against total Tau (green). The scale bar in H' for (G-H') represents 20 µm. (I) Histogram showing the quantification of the number of total Tau punctae (>3 μm2) per lobe in Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauWT (0.14±0.14), Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauWT; ΔPfdn515/40 (15±1.09). ***p<0.001; ns, not significant. At least seven lobes of each genotype were used for quantification.
Figure 5—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 5—figure supplement 1.
Figure 5—figure supplement 2. Loss of Pfdn5 results in the formation of stable hTau aggregates.

Figure 5—figure supplement 2.

(A) Western blot showing the Tubulin-associated unit (Tau) protein level in supernatant and pellet fraction of Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M and Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ΔPfdn515/40. GAPDH was used as a loading control. (B) Histogram showing the level of Tau in supernatant fraction normalized with GAPDH in Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M (1.00±0.00), and Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 (0.52±0.17). *p<0.05; ns, not significant. (C) Histogram showing the level of Tau in pellet fraction normalized in Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M (1.00±0.00), and Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 (1.25±0.03). **p<0.01; ns, not significant. (D-G') Confocal images of third instar larval brain showing hTau aggregates in Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M with 1% 1,6-Hexanediol (D-D'), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 with 1% 1,6-Hexanediol (E-E'), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M with 5% 1,6-Hexanediol (F-F'), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 with 5% 1,6-Hexanediol (G-G') double immunolabeled with neuronal membrane marker, HRP (magenta), and T46 antibody against total Tau (green). The scale bar in G' for (D-G') represents 10 µm. (H-K'') Confocal images of third instar larval axons showing hTau aggregates in Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M with 1% 1,6-Hexanediol (H-H''), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 with 1% 1,6-Hexanediol (I-I''), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M with 5% 1,6-Hexanediol (J-J''), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 with 5% 1,6-Hexanediol (K-K'') double immunolabeled with neuronal membrane marker, HRP (magenta), and T46 antibody against total Tau (green). The scale bar in K'' for (H-K'') represents 10 µm. (L) Histogram showing the quantification of the number of total Tau per 100 μm2 of HRP positive area in Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M with 0% 1,6-Hexanediol (0.28±0.12), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 with 0% 1,6-Hexanediol (3.35±0.45), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M with 1% 1,6-Hexanediol (0.21±0.04), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 with 1% 1,6-Hexanediol (2.47±0.21), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M with 5% 1,6-Hexanediol (0.15±0.04), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 with 5% 1,6-Hexanediol (2.39±0.18). *p<0.05; ***p<0.001; ns, not significant. At least 24 axons from eight animals of each genotype were used for quantification. (M-N') Confocal images of third instar larval brain showing localization of hTau aggregates in Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M (M-M'), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 (N-N') double immunolabeled with Elav (magenta), and T46 antibody against total Tau (green). The scale bar in N' for (M-N') represents 10 µm.
Figure 5—figure supplement 2—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 5—figure supplement 2.
Figure 5—figure supplement 2—source data 2. PDF files containing original Western blots for Figure 5—figure supplement 2A, indicating the relevant bands.
Figure 5—figure supplement 2—source data 3. Original files for Western blot analysis displayed in Figure 5—figure supplement 2A.
Figure 5—figure supplement 3. Loss of Pfdn5 induces Tau aggregation independent of hyperphosphorylation.

Figure 5—figure supplement 3.

(A-D''') Confocal images of third instar larval brain showing hTau aggregates in Elav-Gal4>hTauWT (A-A'''), Elav-Gal4>hTauWT; ΔPfdn515/40 (B-B'''), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M (C-C'''), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 (D-D''') triple immunolabeled with neuronal membrane marker, HRP (red), AT8 antibody against p-Tau (blue) and D5D8N antibody against total Tubulin-associated unit (Tau) (green). The scale bar in D''' for (A-D''') represents 20 µm. The arrow points to the mutually exclusive Tau aggregates. (E) Histogram showing the quantification of the number of Tau punctae (>3 μm2) per lobe in Elav-Gal>UAS-hTauWT; ΔPfdn515/40 and Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; ΔPfdn515/40. (F-I') Confocal images of third instar larval brain showing hTau aggregates in Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M (F-F'), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 (G-G') without LiCl, Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M (H-H'), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 (I-I') in the presence of 20 mM double immunolabeled with neuronal membrane marker, HRP (magenta), and T46 antibody against total Tau (green). The scale bar in I' for (F-I') represents 10 µm. (J) Histogram showing the quantification of the number of total Tau punctae (>3 μm2) per lobe in Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M without LiCl (0.67±0.33), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M with LiCl (0.67±0.49), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 without LiCl (17.5±1.61), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 with LiCl (19.51±1.32). ***p<0.001; ns, not significant. At least six lobes of each genotype were used for quantification.
Figure 5—figure supplement 3—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 5—figure supplement 3.

Next, in order to assess the nature of Tau aggregates, we performed a Tau solubility assay (Vourkou et al., 2023). We found that in the absence of Pfdn5, hTau levels were reduced in the supernatant fraction and increased in the pellet fraction (Figure 5—figure supplement 2A–C). Previous in vitro studies have shown that hTau can undergo liquid-liquid phase separation to form Tau droplets, which can be dissolved by 1,6-Hexanediol; in contrast, stable aggregates of Tau remain intact in the presence of 1,6-Hexanediol (Wegmann et al., 2018). To determine whether the Tau puncta formed in the absence of Pfdn5 represented stable aggregates or phase-separated condensates, we treated the larval fillets with increasing concentrations of 1,6-hexanediol. We observed that the Tau puncta formed in Pfdn5 mutants remain intact even at 5% 1,6-Hexanediol (Figure 5—figure supplement 2D–L), indicating that loss of Pfdn5 promotes the formation of stable Tau aggregates.

Colocalization analysis with the HRP and Elav showed that these aggregates are mainly present in the cell body and axons (Figure 5—figure supplement 2D–N'). Tau aggregation is known to occur either through Tau hyperphosphorylation or disruption of microtubules (Jackson et al., 2002; Okenve-Ramos et al., 2024). To examine the role of phosphorylation, we stained the aggregates with the phospho-Tau-specific antibody, AT8, which detects pSer202 and pThr205 (Goedert et al., 1995). The AT8 antibody failed to label all aggregates detected by the total Tau antibody D5D8N, suggesting that Tau aggregates formed in the loss of Pfdn5 animals might have conformational heterogeneity (Figure 5—figure supplement 3A–E). Next, we inhibited Tau phosphorylation using 20 mM LiCl (Cowan et al., 2010) in Elav-Gal4 >UAS-hTauV337M; ∆Pfdn515/40 larvae. We found that LiCl treatment did not significantly alter aggregate formation, indicating a minimal role of Tau hyperphosphorylation in the formation of aggregates in the absence of Pfdn5 (Figure 5—figure supplement 3F–J). Together, (a) the marked increase of aggregated hTau in the absence of Pfdn5 and (b) enhancement of the Tau-associated phenotypes by loss of Pfdn5 indicate that Pfdn5 prevents the transition of hTau from soluble and/or microtubule-associated state to an aggregated, insoluble, and pathogenic state in a Tau-hyperphosphorylation-independent manner.

Neuronal overexpression of Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 ameliorates the hTau-induced age-dependent progression of the neurodegeneration

The observations above indicate that loss of Pfdn5 enhances the neurotoxicity in the Drosophila Tauopathy model. We, therefore, further tested whether overexpression of Pfdn5 could alleviate Tau-induced developmental toxicity in the ommatidia. We examined the effects of Pfdn5/6 overexpression on hTauV337M-induced ommatidial degeneration. GMR-Gal4-mediated overexpression of Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 in eyes significantly rescued hTauV337M-induced ommatidial degeneration in flies (Figure 6A-D', Figure 6—figure supplement 1). We found that UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/++flies showed 29.12±2.3% fused ommatidia and 70.96±3.00% degenerated eye area. This ommatidial degeneration was greatly suppressed when either Pfdn5 (% fused ommatidia, UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/UAS-Pfdn5: 2.98±0.31; p<0.001: % degenerated eye area, UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/UAS-Pfdn5: 5.30±0.94; p<0.001) or Pfdn6 (% fused ommatidia, UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/UAS-Pfdn6: 2.78±0.60; p<0.001: % degenerated eye area UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/UAS-Pfdn6: 3.83±1.37; p<0.001) was coexpressed with pathological hTau (Figure 6A–F). In order to ascertain that the suppression of ommatidial degeneration was not due to the Gal4 dilution, we co-expressed the neutral gene product GFP along with hTauV337M. As expected, we found no change in the Tau-induced eye phenotype when expressed alone or with GFP (Figure 6—figure supplement 2A–B). These data suggest that the suppression of Tau-induced neurotoxicity was due to the expression of Pfdn5 or Pfdn6.

Figure 6. Overexpression of Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 suppresses age-dependent progression of hTau-induced neurodegeneration.

(A–D) Bright-field images of Drosophila eyes expressing (A) GMR-Gal4/+ (control), (B) GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M, (C) GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn5, (D) GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn6. (A'–D') Scanning electron microscopic images of Drosophila eyes expressing (A') GMR-Gal4/+ (control), (B') GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M, (C') GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn5, (D') GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn6. (E) Histogram showing the percentage of fused ommatidia in GMR-Gal4/+ (0.00±0.00), UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/+ (29.12±2.37), UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/UAS-Pfdn5 (2.98±0.31), UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/UAS-Pfdn6 (2.78±0.60). ***p<0.001. At least 12 SEM eye images of each genotype were used for quantification. (F) Histogram showing percentage of degenerated area in GMR-Gal4/+ (0.00±0.00), UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/+ (70.96±3.00), UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/UAS-Pfdn5 (5.30±0.94), UAS-hTauV337M/+; GMR-Gal4/UAS-Pfdn6 (3.83±1.37). ***p<0.001. At least 12 SEM eye images of each genotype were used for quantification. (H–L) Confocal images of a single section of 30-day-old adult brain in (H) Elav-Gal4/+ (control), (I) Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M, (J) Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-GFP, (K) Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-Pfdn5, (L) Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-Pfdn6 double immunolabeled with Hoechst (cyan), and Phalloidin (magenta). The insets represent the 3 x magnified portion of the image. Arrows point to the pathological vacuolar structures. The scale bar in L for (H–L) represents 20 µm. (M) Histogram showing the quantification of number of vacuoles in 30-day-old adult brain in Elav-Gal4/+ (7.13±0.58), Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M (75.17±10.47), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-GFP/+ (61.17±6.91), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-Pfdn5/+ (7.86±0.91), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-Pfdn6/+ (5.67±1.69). ***p<0.001. At least six brains of each genotype were used for quantification. (N) Histogram showing the quantification of vacuole size (in µm2) in 30-day-old adult brain in Elav-Gal4/+ (5.9±0.92), Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M (50.06±11.52), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-GFP/+ (47.17±5.39), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-Pfdn5/+(6.76±1.57), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-Pfdn6/+ (4.36±1.08). ***p<0.001. At least 6 brains of each genotype were used for quantification. (O) Western blot showing protein levels of total Tau in Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M, Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-GFP (Gal4-dilution control), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-Pfdn5, Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-Pfdn6. Ran protein levels were used as an internal loading control.

Figure 6—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 6.
Figure 6—source data 2. PDF files containing original Western blots for Figure 6O, indicating the relevant bands.
Figure 6—source data 3. Original files for Western blot analysis displayed in Figure 6O.

Figure 6.

Figure 6—figure supplement 1. Pfdn5 rescues progressive eye degeneration induced by expression of TauV337M.

Figure 6—figure supplement 1.

(A–G) Bright-field images of 7 and 14-day-old Drosophila eyes expressing (A) GMR-Gal4/+ (control), (B and E) GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M, (C and F) GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn5, (D and G) GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn6. (A'–G') Scanning electron microscopic images of 7 and 14-day-old Drosophila eyes expressing (A') GMR-Gal4/+ (control), (B' and E') GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M, (C' and F') GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn5, (D' and G') GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn6. The scale bar in G' for (A-G') represents 100 µm. (H–I) Graph showing quantifications of age-dependent progression of ommatidial fusion (H) and percentage of degenerated eye area (I) in GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M, GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn5 and GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn6. Note that the expression of Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 suppresses the Tubulin-associated unit (Tau)-induced progressive eye degeneration. At least 12 SEM eye images of each genotype were used for quantification at each time point.
Figure 6—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 6—figure supplement 1.
Figure 6—figure supplement 2. Coexpression of Pfdn5 with hTau variants rescues the ommatidial degeneration and synaptic defects.

Figure 6—figure supplement 2.

(A–B) Bright-field images of 30-day-old Drosophila eyes expressing (A) GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M, and (B) GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-GFP. (C–D) Bright-field images of 5-day-old Drosophila eyes expressing (E) GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauR406W, and (F) GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauR406W; UAS-Pfdn5. (E) Histogram showing the percentage of degenerated area in GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M (42.74±7.6), GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn5 (30.03±1.74), GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauR406W (82.15±3.19), and GMR-Gal4>UAS-hTauR406W; UAS-Pfdn5 (63.11±3.49). At least four brightfield eye images of each genotype were used for quantification. (F-J') Confocal images of neuromuscular junction (NMJ) synapses at muscle 4 of A2 hemisegment showing synaptic morphology in (F) Elav-Gal4/+ (control), (G) Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauWT, (H) Elav-Gal4>hTauWT; UAS-Pfdn5, (I) Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M, (J) Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-Pfdn5 double immunolabeled with Hoechst (cyan), and Phalloidin (magenta). Arrows in (F) point to the pathological vacuolar structures. The scale bar in J for (F-J') represents 10 µm. (K) Histogram showing the number of boutons from muscle 4 at A2 hemisegment in Elav-Gal4/+ (control) (G), Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauWT (H), Elav-Gal4>hTauWT; UAS-Pfdn5 (I), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M (J), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-Pfdn5. ns; not significant. At least 16 NMJs of each genotype were used for quantification. (L) Histogram showing the number of satellite boutons from muscle 4 at A2 hemisegment in Elav-Gal4/+ (control) (G), Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauWT (H), Elav-Gal4>hTauWT; UAS-Pfdn5 (I), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M (J), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-Pfdn5. ***p<0.001. At least 16 NMJs of each genotype were used for quantification.
Figure 6—figure supplement 2—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 6—figure supplement 2.
Figure 6—figure supplement 3. Overexpression of Pfdn5 suppresses the age-dependent vacuolization in hTauV337M-expressing flies.

Figure 6—figure supplement 3.

(A–D) Confocal images of a single section of a 2-day-old adult brain in (A) Elav-Gal4/+ (control), (B) Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M, (C) Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-Pfdn5, (D) Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-Pfdn6 double immunolabeled with Hoechst (cyan), and Phalloidin (magenta). (E–H) Confocal images of a single section of 14-day-old adult brain in (E) Elav-Gal4/+ (control), (F) Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M, (G) Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-Pfdn5, (H) Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-Pfdn6 double immunolabeled with Hoechst (cyan), and Phalloidin (magenta). Arrows in (F) point to the pathological vacuolar structures. The scale bar in H for (A–D) represents 20 µm. (I) Histogram showing the quantification of number of vacuoles in 14 days old adult brain in Elav-Gal4/+ (0.00±0.00), Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M (4.29±0.83), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-GFP (3.22±0.66), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-Pfdn5 (0.33±0.24), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-Pfdn6 (0.44±0.24). ***p<0.001. At least 7 brains of each genotype were used for quantification. (J) Histogram showing the quantification of vacuole size (in µm2) in 14-day-old adult brain in Elav-Gal4/+ (0.00±0.00), Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M (12.36±2.40), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-GFP (11.39±3.57), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-Pfdn5 (0.77±0.53), Elav-Gal4>hTauVV337M; UAS-Pfdn6 (2.58±1.35). ***p<0.001. At least seven brains of each genotype were used for quantification.
Figure 6—figure supplement 3—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 6—figure supplement 3.

Overexpression of Pfdn5 suppressed not only hTauV337M-induced neurotoxicity but also in a different Tauopathy model, hTauR406W, which causes more severe neurotoxicity than hTauV337M in the fly compound eye (degenerated eye area: GMR-Gal4 >UAS-hTauR406W: 82.15±3.194 vs. GMR-Gal4 >UAS-hTauR406W; UAS-Pfdn5: 63.11±3.49) (Figure 6—figure supplement 2C–E), indicating that Pfdn5 can mitigate the neurodegeneration caused by at least one another variant/structural conformation of hTau. Moreover, neuronal expression of Pfdn5 and TauWT or TauV337M rescues the synaptic defects (Figure 6—figure supplement 2F–L), suggesting that Pfdn5 can alleviate multiple forms of Tauopathy.

A key pathological feature of Tau-induced neurodegeneration is age-dependent brain vacuolization in Drosophila and brain atrophy in humans, both of which are neuropathological hallmarks directly indicative of neuronal loss. Brain vacuolization is observed in Drosophila models of Tauopathy (Byrns et al., 2021). We, therefore, tested whether elevating the expression level of Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 could mitigate the appearance of vacuoles that can be detected in the brains of 30-day-old flies expressing hTau (Wittmann et al., 2001). We neuronally co-expressed hTauV337M alone or together with Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 using Elav-Gal4 and examined whole-mount brain preparations stained with rhodamine-phalloidin using confocal microscopy (Behnke et al., 2021). Consistent with the previous reports, we found several large vacuoles in the 30 day flies expressing hTauV337M compared to the 2 day or 14-day-old brains (Figure 6H-J, Figure 6—figure supplement 3). The average number and size of the vacuoles in Elav-Gal4 >UAS-hTauV337M (75.17±10.47 vacuoles/ brain, and 50.06±11.52 μm average vacuole size) were far higher compared to the control Elav-Gal4/+ (7.13±0.58 vacuoles/ brain, and 5.9±0.92 μm average vacuole size) (Figure 6M–N). Coexpression of Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 with hTauV337M significantly reduced the number of vacuoles in Elav-Gal4 >UAS-hTauV337M flies. Indeed, vacuole numbers and size were restored to near control levels in Elav-Gal4 >UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn5/+ (7.86±0.91 and 6.76±1.57 μm) and Elav-Gal4 >UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn6/++ flies (5.67±1.69 and 4.36±1.08 μm), respectively (Figure 6K–N). Next, we asked whether the rescue of Tau phenotypes by Pfdn5 was due to enhanced degradation of the Tau protein in the brain. Western blot analysis revealed no significant change in the Tau levels in Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 rescue animals when compared to those expressing Tau alone (Figure 6O), suggesting that Pfdn5 mitigates Tau aggregates by stabilizing the microtubules rather than protein degradation. Altogether, these data indicate that increased expression of Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 can remarkably counteract neuronal loss and delay the onset and progression of the neurodegenerative cascade induced in Tauopathy through a mechanism that involves Pfdn-mediated microtubule stabilization.

Expression of Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 suppresses Tau-induced memory impairment

Cognitive decline is a common preclinical and early feature of Tauopathies (Hanseeuw et al., 2019). Hence, we further examined whether Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 overexpression could rescue cognitive, memory, and behavioural deficits caused by hTauV337M in the Drosophila brain (Orr et al., 2017). To test the memory impairments, we used a recently developed method to assess long-term aversive olfactory conditioning memory (Mohandasan et al., 2022). In this method, flies learn to associate bitter food (CuSO4) with an odor (2,3-butanedione (2,3 BD)) over 8 training cycles. Memory is assessed 24 hr later as avoidance of 2,3-BD in a Y-maze (Figure 7A). Untrained flies responded normally to the odor, while trained flies avoided it, indicating proper memory performance towards the conditioned odorant. Control flies (UAS-hTauV337M/+) showed normal memory (UAS-hTauV337M/+: naïve, 23.66±2.42 v/s trained, 10.4±2.14; p<0.001) (Figure 7B). However, animals expressing hTauV337M in neurons (Elav-Gal4 >UAS-hTauV337M: naïve, 28.39±3.47 v/s trained, 29.13±4.65; p=0.90) showed no difference between naïve and trained genotype (Figure 7C).

Figure 7. Overexpression of Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 rescues Tubulin-associated unit (Tau)-induced defects in learning and memory.

Figure 7.

(A) Cartoon of the Y-maze assay used for behavioural testing of conditioned odor preferences. Schematics of the protocol used to induce and measure a form of learning and memory (Mohandasan et al., 2022). During training, flies are exposed to a normally attractive odorant 2,3-butanedione (10–3-fold dilution) in a spaced training protocol: 8 X repeats of a training trial involving 5 min in the presence of unpleasant medium (80 mM CuSO4 +85 mM sucrose and 0.75% agar) followed by 5 min in an air-filled empty vial. Trained flies were tested in a binary odor-choice assay in a Y-maze apparatus for their odor vs. air preference. Control flies were trained in 0.75% agar media with 85 mM sucrose and similarly tested in Y-maze. (B–G) Histogram showing the quantification of odor preference index of naïve and trained flies towards 2,3-BD in Y-maze showing normal memory in control. A reduction in the preference index after training reflects levels of learning and memory (B) UAS-hTauV337M/+; naïve flies (23.66±2.42), trained flies (10.4±2.14), whereas pan-neuronal expression of the pathological variant hTau causes a defect in long-term memory response (C) Elav-Gal4/UAS-hTauV337M; naïve flies (28.39±3.47), trained flies (29.13±4.65). Notably, pan-neuronal overexpression of Pfdn5 (D) Elav-Gal4/+; UAS-Pfdn5/+; naïve flies (18.27±2.75), trained flies (–4.43±3.21), pan-neuronal overexpression of Pfdn6 (E) Elav-Gal4/+; UAS-Pfdn6/+; naïve flies (18.37±3.19), trained flies (–0.88±4.73) were normal. Interestingly, pan-neuronal overexpression of Pfdn5 along with hTauV337M expression rescues the learning and memory deficits in (F) Elav-Gal4/UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn5/+; naïve flies (14.28±1.96), trained flies (–1.5±1.7). Consistently, pan-neuronal over-expression of Pfdn6 along with hTauV337M expression also rescues the learning and memory deficits in (G) Elav-Gal4/UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn6/+; naïve flies (20.73±4.58), trained flies (–0.52±5.07). n=8 biological replicates in each case. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean (SEM). **p<0.01; ***p<0.001; ns, not significant. (H) Confocal image of Drosophila brain labeled with anti-FasII antibody (magenta) and Hoechst (cyan) showing mushroom body structure in wild-type animals. Scale bar 50 μm. (H') Confocal image of Drosophila mushroom body showing α-lobe, β-lobe, and γ-lobe. (I-M') Confocal images showing mushroom body organization in (I-I') control, (J-J') Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M Grade I (Grade I represents the defective mushroom body with one α-lobe missing), (K-K') Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M Grade II (Grade II represents the severe defects in mushroom body with both α-lobe missing), (L-L') Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn5, (M-M') Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn6 double immunolabeled with FasII (magenta) and Hoechst (cyan). Scale bar in (M') for (I-M') represents 20 μm. The arrow points towards the β-lobe crossing midline, the arrowhead points to the thinner α lobe, and the asterisk represents the missing lobe. (N) Histogram showing the quantification for the percentage of Drosophila brain having defective mushroom body in control (0.00±0.00), Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M (91.67±8.33), Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-GFP (93.75±6.25), Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn5 (0.00±0.00), Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn6 (18.75±6.25). ***p<0.001; ns, not significant. The error bar represents the standard error of the mean (SEM); the statistical analysis was done using one-way ANOVA. (O) Histogram showing the quantification of mushroom body organization as normal mushroom bodies (NBs), Grade I, or Grade II. In controls (NBs: 100, Grade I: 0, Grade II: 0), Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M (NBs: 11.1, Grade I: 22.2%, Grade II: 66.7), Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn5 (NBs: 100, Grade I: 0, Grade II: 0), Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn6 (NBs: 83.3, Grade I: 16.6, Grade II: 0).

Figure 7—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 7.

Next, we assessed whether the expression of Prefoldins impacted the memory deficit phenotype of flies expressing hTauV337M. We first examined the effect of expression of Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 on memory performance. We found that pan-neuronal expression of either Pfdn5 (Elav-Gal4/+; UAS-Pfdn5/+: naïve, 18.27±2.75 v/s trained, –4.43±3.21; p<0.001) or Pfdn6 (Elav-Gal4/+; UAS-Pfdn6/+: naïve, 18.37±3.19 v/s trained, –0.88±4.73; p<0.001) does not cause any defect in naive odor response or memory performance after training (Figure 7D–E). However, coexpression of Pfdn5 significantly rescued the hTauV337M-induced memory defects (Elav-Gal4/UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn5/+: naïve, 14.28±1.96 v/s trained, –1.5±1.7; p<0.001) (Figure 7F). Similarly, co-expression of Pfdn6 also significantly restored the hTauV337M-induced memory defects (Elav-Gal4/UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn6/+: naïve, 20.73±4.58 v/s trained, –0.52±5.07; p<0.001) (Figure 7G). Together, these data strengthen our observations that neuronal expression of Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 not only rescues Tau-induced neurodegeneration but also learning and memory deficits.

In Drosophila, the mushroom body is crucial for associative learning and memory. Mushroom body neuroblasts (MBNBs) produce Kenyon cells, which differentiate into three subtypes: α/β neurons, α'/β' neurons, and γ neurons (Kunz et al., 2012; Figure 7H–H’). Expression of hTau in Drosophila has been shown to disrupt MB architecture, predominantly affecting the α-lobe (Mershin et al., 2004; Kosmidis et al., 2010). Given that overexpression of Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 rescues the learning and memory impairments associated with hTauV337M expression, we examined whether Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 could prevent MB structural disruption. Immunostaining with FasII revealed severe MB abnormalities upon hTauV337M expression (Figure 7I–K’). Strikingly, coexpression of Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 completely restored MB integrity, effectively suppressing Tau-induced toxicity (Figure 7I–O). These findings indicate that Pfdn5 and Pfdn6 protect against Tauopathy-associated memory loss by maintaining the structural integrity of the mushroom body.

Cotranslational functions of Pfdn5 do not completely explain its effects on neuronal microtubule stability, synapse morphology, and Tau aggregation

 Consistent with cell culture and biochemical studies (Tahmaz et al., 2021; Gestaut et al., 2022), Drosophila Pfdn5 regulates tubulin monomers essential for microtubule assembly. Thus, one mechanism by which Pfdn5 influences Tau could be via its effect on tubulin levels. However, since Pfdn5 colocalizes and binds neuronal microtubules, it could, alternatively, directly stabilize microtubules in axons and, by allowing Tau association with microtubules, prevent aggregation of free cytoplasmic Tau protein. To examine these models, we increased tubulin monomer levels in Pfdn5 mutants by neuronally expressing α-Tub transgene and asked if it restored tubulin levels in the fly, and whether such restoration would be sufficient to rescue the neuronal microtubules and synaptic defects observed in Pfdn5 mutants. Neuronal expression of α-Tub in Pfdn5 mutant background restored both α- and β-tubulin monomers as well as ace-Tubulin to near wild-type levels (ace-Tubulin level: ΔPfdn515/40 (0.34±0.13) vs Elav-Gal4 >UAS-α-Tubulin; ΔPfdn515/40 (1.38±0.15); p<0.01) (Figure 8A, Figure 8—figure supplement 1A-D). However, this was insufficient to rescue the axonal microtubule level and organization (Tubulin intensity at synapses: ΔPfdn515/40 (0.18±0.01), Elav-Gal4 >UAS-α-Tubulin; ΔPfdn515/40 (0.23±0.01); p>0.24) (Figure 8B–E) or synaptic phenotypes associated with Pfdn5 mutations (satellite boutons: ΔPfdn515/40 (15.5±1.48), Elav-Gal4 >UAS-α-Tubulin; ΔPfdn515/40 (14.25±1.39); p>0.65) (Figure 8—figure supplement 1E–I). Moreover, axonal hTau aggregates seen in neuronally expressing hTauV337M in Pfdn5 mutants were not reduced when tubulin monomer levels were restored (hTau punctae: Elav-Gal4/UAS-hTauV337M; ∆Pfdn515/40: 3.32±0.65/100 μm2; vs Elav-Gal4/UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-α-tubulin, ∆Pfdn515/40: 2.9±0.57/100 μm2; p>0.80) (Figure 8F–I). These results prompted us to examine whether Pfdn5 directly interacts with hTau. Although we observed colocalization of Pfdn5 and hTau in axons (Figure 8—figure supplement 1J–K), co-immunoprecipitation did not detect a physical interaction between the two proteins under the conditions we performed the pull-down experiments. Thus, these data suggest that in addition to its role as a cochaperone for tubulin monomers, Pfdn5 has an additional and potentially local role in stabilizing the neuronal microtubules as well as in preventing hTau aggregation.

Figure 8. Microtubule stability and Tubulin-associated unit (Tau) association with microtubules require Pfdn5 functions downstream of tubulin monomer expression.

(A) Western blot showing protein levels of ace-Tubulin, α-Tubulin, and β-Tubulin in control, ∆Pfdn15/40, and Elav-Gal4>UAS-α-Tubulin; ΔPfdn515/40. Ran protein levels were used as an internal loading control. (B-D') Confocal images of neuromuscular junction (NMJ) synapses showing synaptic microtubules in (B-B') control, (C-C') ΔPfdn515/40, (D-D') Elav-Gal4>UAS-α-Tubulin; ΔPfdn515/40 double immunolabeled for ace-Tubulin (magenta) and HRP (green). The scale bar in D' for (A-D') represents 10 µm. Arrows in C and D show disrupted microtubules. (E) Histogram showing ace-Tubulin intensity at the NMJ in control (0.47±0.03), ΔPfdn515/40 (0.18±0.01), Elav-Gal4>UAS-α-Tubulin; ΔPfdn515/40 (0.23±0.01). ***p<0.001; ns, not significant. At least six NMJs of each genotype were used for quantification. (F-H') Confocal images of third instar larval axons in (F-F') Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M, (G-G') Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; ∆Pfdn515/40, and (H-H') Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-α-Tubulin, ∆Pfdn515/40 double immunolabeled with neuronal membrane marker, HRP (green), and T46 antibody against total human Tau (magenta). The scale bar in H' for (F-H') represents 10 µm. Arrows point to the Tau aggregates. (I) Histogram showing the quantification of the number of Tau punctae per 100 µm2 normalized with HRP positive area in Elav-Gal4/UAS-hTauV337M (0.18±0.05), Elav-Gal4/UAS-hTauV337M; ΔPfdn515/40 (3.32±0.65), and Elav-Gal4>UAS-hTauV337M; UAS-α-Tubulin, ∆Pfdn515/40 (2.9±0.57). ***p<0.001; **p<0.01. At least 12 axons from three animals of each genotype were used for quantification.

Figure 8—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 8.
Figure 8—source data 2. PDF files containing original Western blots for Figure 8A, indicating the relevant bands.
Figure 8—source data 3. Original files for Western blot analysis displayed in Figure 8A.

Figure 8.

Figure 8—figure supplement 1. Pfdn5 is required to stabilize microtubules at the synapses.

Figure 8—figure supplement 1.

(A) Western blot showing protein levels of ace-Tubulin, α-Tubulin, and β-Tubulin in control, ∆Pfdn15/40, Elav-Gal4>UAS-α-Tubulin; ΔPfdn515/40 and Elav-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40. Ran protein levels were used as an internal loading control. (B) Histogram showing the percentage of α-Tubulin normalized with Ran in control (1.00±0.00), ΔPfdn515/40 (0.23±0.04), Elav-Gal4>UAS-α-Tubulin; ΔPfdn515/40 (0.75±0.16), and Elav-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40 (1.05±0.04). ***p<0.001; *p<0.05. Three independent Western blots were used for quantification. (C) Histogram showing the percentage of β-Tubulin normalized with Ran in control (1.00±0.00), ΔPfdn515/40 (0.27±0.08), Elav-Gal4>UAS-α-Tubulin; ΔPfdn515/40 (1.03±0.23), and Elav-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40 (1.01±0.01). ***p<0.001; *p<0.05. Three independent Western blots were used for quantification. (D) Histogram showing the percentage of ace-Tubulin normalized with Ran in control (1.00±0.00), ΔPfdn515/40 (0.34±0.13), Elav-Gal4>UAS-α-Tubulin; ΔPfdn515/40 (1.38±0.15), and Elav-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ∆Pfdn515/40 (1.61±0.4). **p<0.01; *p<0.05. Three independent Western blots were used for quantification. (E-H') Confocal images of neuromuscular junction (NMJ) synapses at muscle 4 of A2 hemisegment showing synaptic morphology in (E-E') control, (F-F') ΔPfdn515/40, (G-G') Elav-Gal4>UAS-α-Tubulin; ΔPfdn515/40 (H-H') Elav-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ΔPfdn515/40 double immunolabeled for HRP (green), and CSP (magenta). The scale bar in H for (E-H') represents 10 µm. (I) Histogram showing number of satellite boutons from muscle 4 at A2 hemi segment in control (1.88±0.44), ΔPfdn515/40 (15.5±1.48), Elav-Gal4>UAS-α-Tubulin; ΔPfdn515/40 (14.25±1.39), Elav-Gal4>UAS-Pfdn5; ΔPfdn515/40 (3.53±0.32). ***p<0.001; ns, not significant. At least eight NMJs of each genotype were used for quantification. (J-J') Confocal images of third instar larval axons showing colocalization between Pfdn5 (magenta) and Tubulin-associated unit (Tau) (green). Scale bar in J' represents 10 µm. (K) Pearson’s correlation coefficient to quantify colocalization between Pfdn5 and axonal microtubule.
Figure 8—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 8—figure supplement 1.
Figure 8—figure supplement 1—source data 2. PDF files containing original Western blots for Figure 8—figure supplement 1A, indicating the relevant bands.
Figure 8—figure supplement 1—source data 3. Original files for Western blot analysis displayed in Figure 8—figure supplement 1A.

Discussion

Through varied and detailed analyses performed in established Drosophila Tauopathy models, we identify Prefoldin as a crucial component of chaperone systems that mitigate hTau-aggregation-induced neurodegeneration. The experiments that lead to this conclusion provide three significant insights. First, that Prefoldin acts in vivo to suppress multiple measures of Tau-mediated degeneration. Second, the mechanism of Prefoldin action in Tau-toxicity goes beyond its established role in co-translational folding of monomeric tubulin. Third, and finally, that overexpression of Prefoldin is sufficient to delay the progression of Tau-toxicity in vivo. We consider each of these issues in turn below.

Prefoldin acts in vivo to suppress multiple measures of Tau-mediated degeneration

Seminal work by others in the field has both established the value of modeling Tauopathies in Drosophila and described a series of independent Tau-induced degenerative phenotypes displayed by these models (Shulman et al., 2014; Zhou et al., 2017; Vourkou et al., 2023; Bukhari et al., 2024). The initial discovery that led to the rest of our current study was the identification of subunits of the prefoldin complex in a genetic screen for modifiers of Tau-toxicity. Knockdown of Pfdn components significantly enhanced eye-ommatidial degeneration in hTauV337M-expressing animals, suggestive of a role for this chaperone network in controlling the onset and progression of Tauopathies. Given the peripheral location of photoreceptors in the eye, it was important to more deeply assess the role of the identified chaperone components in the central nervous system. Such additional experiments confirmed that loss of Pfdn5 enhanced several additional hTauV337M-induced phenotypes, including synaptic organization. In addition, loss of Pfdn5 resulted in a striking increase in large Tau protein aggregates in larval axons as well as in the larval brain. These data demonstrate an essential role for Pfdn in restricting hTau toxicity in vivo. However, more dramatic was the observation that neuronal overexpression of either Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 was sufficient to mitigate hTau-induced brain vacuolization and memory decline. Together, these observations demonstrate a pivotal role for Pfdn, or at least its Pfdn5 and Pfdn6 subunits, in suppressing Tau pathologies.

Mechanism of Prefoldin action in Tau-toxicity

Molecular analysis of FTDP-17/FTLD tau mutations, as well as biochemical analysis of the pathogenic proteins, has shown that most disease-causing Tau mutations liberate Tau from microtubules and free the protein to form cytoplasmic aggregates (Hong et al., 1998; Dayanandan et al., 1999; Guo et al., 2017). Therefore, a simple potential mechanism by which Pfdn5 influences Tau toxicity could be through its effect on reducing levels of tubulin monomer, which would be predicted to reduce the availability of stable microtubules and thereby liberate excess Tau to form potentially pathogenic aggregates in the cytosol. Consistent with this, studies in mice and C. elegans have shown that neurons with reduced tubulin levels are highly susceptible to the early onset of Tau-induced neuronal dysfunction (Tatebayashi et al., 2002; Yoshiyama et al., 2007; Miyasaka et al., 2018). We noted that our screen for modulators of Tau-induced neurotoxicity also identified TBCE and the components of the CCT complex, which represent additional players of a chaperone network known to participate in the cotranslational folding of nascent actin or tubulin monomers (Hansen et al., 1999; Gil-Krzewska et al., 2010; Serna et al., 2015). Further, our experiments showed that Pfdn5 mutations disrupt axonal microtubule organization as revealed by a reduction in the levels and organization of the microtubule-associated protein Futsch in axonal terminals of Pfdn5 mutants (Figure 2; Roos et al., 2000; Sherwood et al., 2004; Jin et al., 2009). And finally, a prior observation that the Tau-induced eye degeneration is enhanced by the knockdown of TBCE has been proposed to be caused by perturbed microtubule dynamics in both Drosophila models and human patients (Dou et al., 2003; Fujiwara et al., 2020; Battini et al., 2021).

Despite the above observations, the effect on tubulin monomer levels does not completely explain how Pfdn influences microtubule organization or Tau toxicity. First, we report the unexpected but robust observation that Pfdn5 is a microtubule-associated protein, physically associated with stable axonal microtubules and, therefore, well positioned to directly influence microtubule stability (Figure 3). Second and more directly, we find that genetic restoration of α-tubulin and β-tubulin monomers, as well as acetylated tubulin levels, was not sufficient to rescue the synaptic defects observed in Pfdn5 mutants (Figure 8).

Pfdn5 appears to influence Tau toxicity through a mechanism downstream of its known roles in cotranslational folding of tubulin. While this could be via its function as a novel microtubule-associated protein, an additional possibility we consider is that Pfdn, and by extension other known cotranslational chaperones, could act additionally and directly as holdases or disaggregases for Tau and/or other aggregation-prone proteins. There is considerable circumstantial evidence to indicate post-translational and direct roles for Prefoldin, as well as CCT, in preventing the aggregation of misfolded proteins. For instance, Prefoldin not only inhibits the formation of larger Htt aggregates (Tashiro et al., 2013) or amyloid β-aggregates (Sörgjerd et al., 2013) but also solubilizes the amyloid oligomers and inhibits their fibril formation under in vitro conditions (Sakono et al., 2008; Sörgjerd et al., 2013). Similarly, the CCT/TRiC complex physically associates with the polyQ repeats of Htt protein and remodels pathogenic aggregates in vitro (Tam et al., 2006; Darrow et al., 2015). This evidence supports a direct role of Prefoldin and CCT as ‘disaggregase’ or ‘aggregate remodellar’ for aggregate-prone proteins and might regulate assembly/disassembly of Tau protein.

The identification of this cytoskeleton-regulatory chaperone network as a major modulator of Tauopathy supports the hypothesis that an age-dependent compromise in the chaperone activity could vitiate the onset and progression of multiple forms of Tauopathies and potentially other neurodegenerative diseases (Tittelmeier et al., 2020; Cyske et al., 2023). Pfdn5 levels have been reported to decrease with age in a mouse model of Tauopathy Kadoyama et al., 2019; our findings provide direct evidence that even a minimal amount of pathological hTau in the absence of Pfdn5 could induce the early onset of hTau-induced neurodegeneration. Moreover, our finding that neuronal expression of α-tubulin rescues the hTau-induced synaptic defects in a manner that critically requires Pfdn5 activity extends the functional requirement of Prefoldins in the suppression of Tauopathies beyond their reported activity in cell culture or in vitro models (Millán-Zambrano et al., 2013; Sörgjerd et al., 2013; Tashiro et al., 2013; Takano et al., 2014).

Prefoldin overexpression as a strategy to mitigate Tauopathies

Our work suggests that stabilizing the components of this chaperone system, particularly Pfdn5 or Pfdn6, could be a promising therapeutic approach for delaying Tau-induced neuropathology. Neuronal overexpression of Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 did not result in any detectable changes in synaptic morphogenesis or age-dependent neuronal degeneration. However, coexpression of Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 with the pathological variant of hTau remarkably suppressed Tau-induced synaptic defects, prevented brain vacuolization, and rescued memory defects in multiple forms of tauopathies (Figures 6 and 7). This provides clear evidence that Pfdn5/Pfdn6-dependent microtubule regulation could potentially suppress Tau-induced neurodegeneration. These conclusions are supported by prior observations that expressing an acetylation mimic form of tubulin (Mao et al., 2017) or stabilizing microtubules (Xiong et al., 2013) rescues the synaptic defects induced in the Drosophila Tauopathy model.

Do Prefoldins have a general neuroprotective role? In neuronal cell lines, human Prefoldins colocalize with PolyQ-expanded protein Huntingtin and prevent the formation of toxic aggregates, supporting its role in the suppression of aggregation-induced neurotoxicity (Tashiro et al., 2013). A recent study has shown that age-dependent microtubule defects in Drosophila lead to dTau aggregation similar to aged human individuals, suggesting a crucial role of microtubule stability in tauopathies (Okenve-Ramos et al., 2024). Our findings that loss of Pfdn5 disrupts microtubules at an early stage and leads to Tau aggregation further support the crucial requirement of Pfdn5-dependent microtubule stability in suppressing various forms of Tauopathy. In addition, several lines of supportive evidence from human Alzheimer’s disease datasets implicate PFDN5 in disease pathology. For example, recent compilations and analyses of proteomic data identified CCT components, TBCE, as well as Prefoldin subunits, including PFDN5, in AD tissue (Hsieh et al., 2019; Tao et al., 2020; Ji et al., 2022; Askenazi et al., 2023; Leitner et al., 2024; Sun et al., 2024). Furthermore, whole blood mRNA expression data from Alzheimer’s patients revealed downregulation of PFDN5 transcript (Ji et al., 2022). Together, these findings from human data support an essential role of PFDN5 in suppressing diverse neurodegenerative processes. Our data mechanistically extends these studies by revealing that Pfdn5 directly stabilizes neuronal microtubules, assists in proper partitioning of Tau onto the stable microtubules, and suppresses the formation of pathological Tau aggregates. Importantly, our data reveal that expression of Pfdn5, whether ubiquitous or neuron-specific, does not induce any observable synaptic or microtubule-associated defects in neurons. This finding holds significant therapeutic promise since modulating Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 expression or stability could safely and effectively mitigate neurodegenerative diseases associated with microtubule instability, such as Tauopathies and possibly FUS-induced neurodegeneration (Kandhavivorn et al., 2023).

Concluding remarks

Based on our findings, we propose a model in which Pfdn5 regulates microtubule formation and stability by two non-exclusive mechanisms: (a) by regulating the folding of nascent tubulin monomers and (b) by directly associating and stabilizing microtubules in neurons (Figure 9). Both the functions of Pfdn5 are essential for regulating synaptic morphogenesis and Tau partitioning onto the microtubules. Normalizing the tubulin monomers to near wild-type levels was insufficient to rescue the axonal microtubule organization or suppress the Tau aggregation in the absence of Pfdn5. This further supports the model that Pfdn5-dependent tubulin stabilization is essential for Tau partitioning and that Tau aggregation is microtubule-dependent. Thus, while the conventional chaperone function of Prefoldins is essential for tubulin folding, direct association of Pfdn5 with stable microtubules to limit its turnover in neurons is crucial for suppressing Tau aggregation. Further elucidation of the underlying mechanisms of Pfdn5-mediated neuroprotection and chemical screens to identify novel small molecules may pave the way for novel strategies to preserve neuronal function and combat neurodegeneration.

Figure 9. A model depicting novel functional requirements of Pfdn5 in microtubule stabilization and its role in suppressing age-dependent neuropathy.

Figure 9.

In axons, Pfdn5 physically associates with microtubules and stabilizes them, thereby suppressing the turnover of microtubules. The pathological Tau dislodges from microtubules in an age-dependent manner and forms pathological aggregates that induce neuronal death (Middle panel). Loss of Pfdn5 disrupts neuronal microtubules, resulting in abnormal synaptic morphogenesis and facilitating the dislodging of microtubule-associated Tau, resulting in the formation of Tubulin-associated unit (Tau) aggregates and stepping up the early onset of Tauopathies. An age-dependent reduction in the Pfdn5 levels or mutations in Pfdn5 could result in microtubule fragmentation and may facilitate Tau-induced neurotoxicity (Left panel). Pfdn5 suppresses Tau aggregation in a manner that involves microtubule stability and does not appear to regulate Tau solubility directly. Notably, neuronal overexpression of Pfdn5 suppresses the microtubule disruption even in aged flies, thereby inhibiting the progression of Tauopathy (Right panel).

Materials and methods

Stocks and Drosophila husbandry

The Drosophila stocks were maintained at 25 °C in standard cornmeal medium containing sucrose, agar, and yeast granules. The larvae for experiments were grown at 25 °C in protein-rich media (80 g/L cornflour, 40 g/L dextrose, 20 g/L sucrose, 18 g/L agar, 15 g/L yeast extract, 4% (v/v) propionic acid, 0.06% (v/v) ortho-phosphoric acid, and 0.07% methyl-4-hydroxy benzoate/Tego) under non-crowded conditions. The w1118 was used as a control unless otherwise stated. All the genetic combinations and recombination were made using standard Drosophila genetics. The crosses for RNAi-mediated knockdown and the rescue experiments were grown at 25 °C. The following Drosophila lines were used in this study: UAS-hTauV337M (Wittmann et al., 2001), UAS-hTauR406W (Wittmann et al., 2001), UAS-α-Tub84B (BL-7373), actin5C-Gal4 (BL-25374); ElavC155-Gal4 (BL-458), mef2-Gal4 (BL-50742), and GMR-Gal4 (BL-9146). Details of RNAi lines used in this study are mentioned in Supplementary file 1 and Supplementary file 3.

Scanning electron microscopy

The flies were immersed in fixative (1% glutaraldehyde, 1% formaldehyde, and 1 M sodium cacodylate, pH 7.2) for 2 hr, followed by subsequent washes and dehydration via an ethanol series. The samples were then dried and sputter-coated as previously described (Choudhury et al., 2016). The flies were mounted on carbon conductive tabs stuck on aluminium stubs and imaged using a Zeiss scanning electron microscope (Carl Zeiss, Germany).

Generation of Pfdn5 loss-of-function mutants and Pfdn transgenes

To generate the loss-of-function mutants of Pfdn5, two sets of gRNAs were designed for the Pfdn5 genomic region using the CRISPR Optimal Target Finder online tool. The two gRNA pairs (gRNA1FP, gRNA1RP, and gRNA2FP, gRNA2RP) were cloned into a dual gRNA pCFD4 vector having a BbsI restriction site using Gibson Assembly Kit (New England Biolabs Ltd, UK) following the manufacturer’s guidelines. The pCFD4 vector containing Pfdn5 gRNAs was injected into Drosophila embryos to generate the transgene. Next, the transgenic flies containing the Pfdn5 gRNAs were crossed with nanos-Cas9 (BL-54591) to create the deletion of the Pfdn5 gene in the germline cells. Following standard genetic crosses, lines were established in the F2 generation, and Pfdn5 deletion was screened by PCR using primers Pfdn5_FP1 and Pfdn5_RP. Two null mutants of Pfdn5, ∆Pfdn515 (606 bp deletion), and ∆Pfdn540 (577 bp deletion) were obtained and verified by sequencing using primer: Pfdn5_Seq FP.

To generate Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 transgenes, a full-length Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 ORF was amplified from cDNA and cloned into the Gal4-based expression vector pUASt at EcoRI and NotI restriction sites. The pUASt vector containing the Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 ORF was injected into Drosophila embryos to generate the transgene. Semiquantitative RT-PCR was used to assess the expression of the Pfdn5 transcript in Pfdn5 mutants. In brief, total RNA was isolated from larval fillets using TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen, Waltham, MA, USA). Reverse transcription was performed on 1 μg total RNA using Superscript II Reverse Transcriptase (Invitrogen, Waltham, MA, USA) using an oligo-dT primer to make cDNA. The resulting cDNA was used for PCR to analyze the level of Pfdn5 transcript using primers Pfdn5_RTFP and Pfdn5_RTRP. The list of primers used in this study is reported in Supplementary file 2.

Generation of Pfdn5 antibody

To generate antibodies against Pfdn5, the full-length Pfdn5 was amplified from cDNA using primers Pfdn5_pET28 FP and Pfdn5_pET RP and cloned into the pET-28a (+) bacterial expression vector at NotI and EcoRI restriction sites. The His-tagged fusion protein was expressed in BL21 codon + cells, purified from inclusion bodies using the standard protein purification method from the pellet fraction, and injected into mice (animal facility, IISER Bhopal). The antibody was used at a 1:200 dilution on fillets and a 1:5000 dilution for western blotting.

Quantitative RT-PCR

Total RNA was isolated from larval fillets (actin-Gal4>UAS RNAi) using Qiagen RNA extraction kit, following the manufacturer’s instructions (Invitrogen, Waltham, MA, USA). First-strand cDNA was synthesized using PrimeScript 1st strand cDNA Synthesis Kit (Takara, 6110 A). Quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) reactions were set up using iTaq Universal SYBR Green Supermix (#1725124, Bio-Rad) in the qTOWER³ (Analytik Jena, Jena, Germany) qPCR machine according to the manufacturer’s protocol. The primers were designed using the IDT Primer Quest tool (https://www.idtdna.com) and are listed in Supplementary file 2. rp49 was used as an internal control. Three independent RT-qPCR runs were performed. The fold change was calculated using 2−Δ(ΔCt) (Livak and Schmittgen, 2001).

Immunocytochemistry

Wandering third instar larvae were dissected on a Sylgard plate in cold calcium-free HL3 and fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde in PBS for 30 min or in methanol for 5 min. The larval fillets were washed three times in PBS containing 0.2% Triton X-100, followed by blocking for 1 hr in 0.2% PBST containing 5% BSA. Fillets were fixed in methanol for 5 min to stain the acetubulin in the muscles. The fillets were incubated overnight at 4°C with a primary antibody, followed by fluorophore-conjugated secondary antibodies at room temperature for 90 min. Finally, larval fillets were mounted on a glass slide with Fluoromount-G aqueous mounting medium (Thermofisher, Waltham, MA, USA). Primary antibodies used in the study, mouse anti-CSP (ab49, 1:50), mouse anti-Futsch (22C10, 1:50), and mouse anti-β-tubulin (E7, 1:50) were obtained from the Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank (University of Iowa, USA). Other primary antibodies used in this study are mouse anti-dPfdn5 (this study, 1:200), mouse anti-ace-tubulin (1:500, Sigma-Aldrich, Missouri, USA), anti-Tau (T46, 1:100, Invitrogen, Waltham, MA, USA), anti-FasII (1:50, DSHB), anti-D5D8N (1:500, CST, Boston, MA), and anti-phospho-Tau (AT8, 1:100, Invitrogen, Waltham, MA, USA). The fluorophore-conjugated secondary antibody Alexa Fluor 488 or Alexa Fluor 568 (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) was used at 1:800 dilution. Alexa Fluor 488 or Rhodamine-conjugated anti-HRP (Jackson ImmunoResearch, Baltimore, PA, USA) were used at 1:800 dilution. Hoechst (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) was used at a 1:5000 dilution for 5 min.

The brain staining for assessing vacuolization was done as previously described (Behnke et al., 2021). Briefly, the adult flies of appropriate genotypes were anesthetized and beheaded. The head was fixed in 4% PFA in 1 X PBS containing 0.5% Triton X-100 for 20 min. The brain was dissected and fixed for another 2 hr, washed with PBST, and incubated with Hoechst (1:5000) and Alexa Fluor 568 conjugated Phalloidin (1:100, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) cocktail in PBST for 24 hr. The brains were washed five times with PBST, followed by a final wash in 1 X PBS for 30 min to remove the residual detergents or air sac and mounted with Fluoromount-G aqueous mounting medium (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) on a glass slide for visualization.

Western blot analysis

Third instar larval body wall muscle or adult Drosophila heads were homogenized in 1 X SDS lysis buffer (50 mM Tris-Cl, pH 6.8; 25 mM KCl; 2 mM EDTA; 0.3 M sucrose; 2% SDS), boiled, and centrifuged at 3000 g. The protein concentration was quantified using bicinchoninic acid (BCA) Protein assay (Simpson, 2008). The homogenized sample was then combined with an equal volume of 2x Laemmli buffer (50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 6.8; 2% SDS; 2% β-Mercaptoethanol; 0.1% Bromophenol blue and 10% glycerol). Subsequently, 25 μg of protein was separated on a 12% SDS-PAGE gel and transferred to a Hybond-LFP PVDF membrane (GE Healthcare, Illinois, USA). The membrane was blocked in 5% skimmed milk in 1 X Tris-buffered saline (TBS) with 0.2% Tween-20 (0.2% TBST) for 1 hr at room temperature and then incubated overnight with primary antibody. After washing with 0.2% TBST, the membrane was incubated with HRP-conjugated secondary antibody for 1 hr at room temperature. The primary antibodies used were: mouse anti-Pfdn5 (this study, 1:5000), rabbit anti-α-tubulin (1:3000, CST, Mumbai, India), mouse anti-β-tubulin (E7, 1:300, DSHB, University of Iowa, USA), mouse anti-ace-tubulin (1:5000, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, Missouri, USA), anti-Tau (T46, 1:1000, Invitrogen, Waltham, MA, USA), anti-phospho-Tau (AT8, 1:1000, Invitrogen, Waltham, MA, USA), anti-GAPDH (1:5000), and mouse anti-Ran (1:2000, BD Biosciences, New Jersey, USA). Signals were detected using the LI-COR Odyssey imaging system (LI-COR Biosciences, Lincoln, USA).

In vivo microtubule-binding assay

The microtubule binding assay was performed as described previously (Feuillette et al., 2010; Ando et al., 2016). Fifty heads from wild-type adult flies were collected and homogenized in 100 μl of Buffer-C+ 50 mM (HEPES); pH 7.1, 1.0 mM MgCl2, 1.0 mM EGTA, protease inhibitor cocktail (Roche, Basel, Switzerland), and phosphatase inhibitor cocktail in the presence of 20 μM Taxol or 40 μM Nocodazole diluted in dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO). Homogenized heads were centrifuged at 1000×g for 10 min, and an aliquot of the supernatant was subjected to western blotting as the ‘input fraction.’ The remaining supernatant was layered onto a two-volume cushion of Buffer-C+ with 50% sucrose. After centrifugation at 100,000×g for 30 min, one-third of the supernatant containing soluble tubulin was collected from the top of the tube as the cytosol fraction, and the pellet containing microtubule polymers and proteins bound to microtubules was resuspended in 100 μl of SDS-Tris-Glycine sample buffer. Protein concentration in each fraction was measured using the BCA Protein Assay Kit. Equal amounts of protein were loaded onto each lane of Tris-Glycine gels and analyzed by western blotting using anti-Pfdn5 or anti-ace-tubulin antibodies.

Tau solubility assay

Tau solubility assay was performed as described in Vourkou et al., 2023. Briefly, adult fly heads were homogenized in TBS/sucrose buffer (50 mM Tris HCl, pH 7.4, 175 mM NaCl, 1 M sucrose, 5 mM EDTA) supplemented with protease and phosphatase inhibitors. The homogenate was initially centrifuged at 1000×g for 2 min to remove debris. The resulting supernatant was subjected to ultracentrifugation at 200,000×g for 2 hr at 4 °C to separate soluble proteins. This supernatant comprised the soluble Tau fraction. The pellet, containing insoluble material, was resuspended in 5% SDS/TBS buffer and centrifuged again at 200,000×g for 2 hr at 25 °C. The resulting supernatant was collected as the SDS-soluble, aqueous-insoluble fraction, which was enriched for aggregated Tau. All fractions were diluted in Laemmli buffer, boiled, and resolved using SDS-PAGE. Immunoblotting with Tau-specific antibodies was used to analyze Tau species in the different fractions (Vourkou et al., 2023).

Drug treatments

Third instar Drosophila larvae were dissected in Schneider’s Drosophila Medium (Gibco, CA, USA). Following dissection, preparations were gently washed with fresh Schneider’s medium to remove residual debris. The preparations were incubated in Schneider’s medium containing 1,6-Hexanediol (1,6-HD; H6703, Sigma-Aldrich) at final concentrations of 0%, 1%, or 5% for 2 min at 25 °C. The 0% condition consisted of Schneider’s medium alone (Liu et al., 2021). Following treatment, samples were immediately fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde in PBS for 30 min at room temperature and processed for immunostaining. For the LiCl treatments, all the genotypes were raised on the standard fly media containing zero mM or 20 mM LiCl (Cowan et al., 2010). The zero mM solution contained only DMSO.

Memory paradigm for aversive associative olfactory conditioning

To induce long-term aversive conditioning memory (LTM), flies were trained to associate an attractive odorant with bitter food, CuSO4, as described previously (Mohandasan et al., 2022). 4–5 day-old adult flies were trained on 0.75% agar media containing 85 mM sucrose and 80 mM CuSO4 (punishment media); the same media without CuSO4 was used as control media. Flies of specific genotypes were first starved in glass vials overnight containing 0.75% agar (starvation media) and then transferred to punishment media vials. For delivering the odor, a filter paper (1.5 cm × 2 cm), soaked in 100 μl of 5% 2,3 BD (2,3 butanedione, attractive odorant), was placed in a porous odor cup fitted at the top of the punishment or control vials. Starved flies were transferred into the punishment or control vials for 5 min, followed by 5 min of incubation in an empty test tube. This training cycle was repeated eight times for both the punishment and control groups of flies. For checking 1 day memory retention, flies are starved for 6 hr after the 8-cycle conditioning step, followed by a 5 min food pulse and again starvation for 18 hr. The flies were then tested (24 hr after training) for their preference towards 2,3 BD in a binary odor choice assay paradigm using a Y-maze. The Preference Index (PI) of the control and trained flies was calculated below.

Preference Index=Odor Arm FliesAir Arm FliesOdor Arm Flies+Air Arm FliesX100

Quantifications and statistical analysis

For bouton quantification, images were captured with a laser scanning confocal microscope (FV3000; Olympus) using 40x 1.3 NA or 60x 1.42 NA objectives and processed using ImageJ (National Institutes of Health, USA) or Adobe Photoshop software (Adobe Inc, USA). NMJs from muscle 4 at A2 hemisegment were captured using a 60x 1.42  NA objective to calculate the bouton number. CSP-positive boutons were counted manually. For bouton area quantification, NMJs from muscle 4 at A2 hemisegment were captured, and the area of five terminal boutons was calculated by drawing a free-hand sketch around CSP-positive boutons. The control and experimental fillets were processed similarly for fluorescence quantification, and the fluorescence images were captured under the same settings for every experimental set. For quantification of AT8 and T46 levels in the larval axons, HRP-marked boundaries were defined for each axon. The fluorescence intensity of AT8 or T46 was calculated and normalized with HRP fluorescence. To quantify the Tau punctae in the axons, z-projections of confocal images of third-instar larval axons were captured. T46 and AT8 positive punctae were manually counted and normalized with the area of respective axons. To quantify the Tau punctae in the larval brain, fluorescence threshold was set and analyzed using ImageJ. Tau punctae greater than >3 µm2 were quantified.

For bright field imaging of eyes, flies were anesthetized using diethyl ether (Sigma-Aldrich, Missouri, USA), and images were captured using Leica M205FA (Leica, Germany) Stereo Zoom Microscope. The percentage of the degenerated area was quantified as the area of the eyes showing roughness (for bright-field images) and the area containing fused ommatidia (for SEM images), normalized with the total area of the eye multiplied by 100. The percentage of fused ommatidia was quantified from the SEM images as the number of fused ommatidia normalized with the total ommatidia multiplied by 100. The maximum area of individual vacuoles was defined using the Wand tool in ImageJ software to quantify the vacuole size. Subsequently, the traced vacuoles were assigned and saved as regions of interest (ROIs). The selected ROIs were stacked and measured to quantify the size of the vacuoles (Behnke et al., 2021). The total number of boutons with Futsch-positive loops was quantified manually using ImageJ (Coyne et al., 2014).

Colocalization analysis was performed using the JACoP ImageJ plugin (Bolte and Cordelières, 2006). A line was drawn across the axons, and plot profiles were drawn using the ImageJ function Plot Profile. The density of Western blot bands was quantified using ImageJ software. For multiple comparisons, one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Tukey’s test or Student’s t-test was used. GraphPad Prism 8 (GraphPad Software Inc, California, USA) was used to plot all the graphs. Error bars in all the histograms represent + SEM. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.

Acknowledgements

We thank Drs. Mel Feany and Surajit Sarkar, the Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center (BDSC) and Vienna Drosophila Resource Centre (VDRC) for the fly stocks, the Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank (DSHB), the University of Iowa for monoclonal antibodies, and Varun Chaudhary, Baskar Bakthavachalu, Sunando Datta, and Sankar Jha for their inputs on this manuscript. We acknowledge the DST-FIST (Government of India) supported confocal facility at IISER Bhopal. We acknowledge help from Debasis Nayak in generating the Pfdn5 antibody at IISER Bhopal animal facility. This work was supported by a research grant from the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB Project No- EMR/2016/004718), the Government of India and intramural funds from IISER Bhopal to VK Anjali, who acknowledges fellowship support from the University Grants Commission, Government of India. MR acknowledges support from a Wellcome Trust- HRB-SFI Investigator grant, a Science Foundation Ireland Future Frontiers Programme grant, and an ANRF VAJRA grant from the Government of India.

Funding Statement

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication. For the purpose of Open Access, the authors have applied a CC BY public copyright license to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission.

Contributor Information

Vimlesh Kumar, Email: vimlesh@iiserb.ac.in.

P Robin Hiesinger, Institute for Biology Free University Berlin, Germany.

David Ron, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Funding Information

This paper was supported by the following grants:

  • Science and Engineering Research Board EMR/2016/004718 to Vimlesh Kumar.

  • Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Bhopal to Anjali Bisht, Vimlesh Kumar.

  • Wellcome Trust to Mani Ramaswami.

  • Science Foundation Ireland Future Frontiers Programme to Mani Ramaswami.

  • ANRF VAJRA to Mani Ramaswami.

Additional information

Competing interests

No competing interests declared.

Reviewing editor, eLife.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Software, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing – review and editing.

Investigation, Methodology.

Investigation, Methodology.

Methodology, Writing – original draft.

Conceptualization, Resources, Methodology, Writing – original draft.

Conceptualization, Supervision, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.

Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Writing – original draft, Project administration, Writing – review and editing.

Additional files

Supplementary file 1. The table shows the list of HSPs used to screen as genetic modifiers of Tauopathies.
elife-104691-supp1.docx (31.9KB, docx)
Supplementary file 2. Table shows the list of primers used in this study.
elife-104691-supp2.docx (18.4KB, docx)
Supplementary file 3. Table shows details of RNAi lines used against cytoskeletal chaperones.
MDAR checklist

Data availability

All data associated with this study is included within the manuscript.

References

  1. Ando K, Maruko-Otake A, Ohtake Y, Hayashishita M, Sekiya M, Iijima KM. Stabilization of microtubule-unbound Tau via Tau phosphorylation at Ser262/356 by Par-1/MARK contributes to augmentation of AD-related phosphorylation and Aβ42-induced Tau toxicity. PLOS Genetics. 2016;12:e1005917. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005917. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aquino Nunez W, Combs B, Gamblin TC, Ackley BD. Age-dependent accumulation of tau aggregation in Caenorhabditis elegans. Frontiers in Aging. 2022;3:928574. doi: 10.3389/fragi.2022.928574. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Askenazi M, Kavanagh T, Pires G, Ueberheide B, Wisniewski T, Drummond E. Compilation of reported protein changes in the brain in Alzheimer’s disease. Nature Communications. 2023;14:4466. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-40208-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Avila J, Lucas JJ, Perez M, Hernandez F. Role of tau protein in both physiological and pathological conditions. Physiological Reviews. 2004;84:361–384. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00024.2003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Battini R, Milone R, Aiello C, Astrea G, Sferra A, Pasquariello R, Cioni G, Bertini E. Broadening the spectrum phenotype of TBCE-related neuron neurodegeneration. Brain and Development. 2021;43:939–944. doi: 10.1016/j.braindev.2021.05.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Behnke JA, Ye C, Moberg KH, Zheng JQ. A protocol to detect neurodegeneration in Drosophila melanogaster whole-brain mounts using advanced microscopy. STAR Protocols. 2021;2:100689. doi: 10.1016/j.xpro.2021.100689. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bhattacharya K, Weidenauer L, Luengo TM, Pieters EC, Echeverría PC, Bernasconi L, Wider D, Sadian Y, Koopman MB, Villemin M, Bauer C, Rüdiger SGD, Quadroni M, Picard D. The Hsp70-Hsp90 co-chaperone Hop/Stip1 shifts the proteostatic balance from folding towards degradation. Nature Communications. 2020;11:5975. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-19783-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Blard O, Feuillette S, Bou J, Chaumette B, Frébourg T, Campion D, Lecourtois M. Cytoskeleton proteins are modulators of mutant tau-induced neurodegeneration in Drosophila. Human Molecular Genetics. 2007;16:555–566. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddm011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bolte S, Cordelières FP. A guided tour into subcellular colocalization analysis in light microscopy. Journal of Microscopy. 2006;224:213–232. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2818.2006.01706.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Brunden KR, Zhang B, Carroll J, Yao Y, Potuzak JS, Hogan AML, Iba M, James MJ, Xie SX, Ballatore C, Smith AB, Lee VMY, Trojanowski JQ. Epothilone D improves microtubule density, axonal integrity, and cognition in a transgenic mouse model of tauopathy. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2010;30:13861–13866. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3059-10.2010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Buchner J. Molecular chaperones and protein quality control: An introduction to the JBC Reviews thematic series. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2019;294:2074–2075. doi: 10.1074/jbc.REV118.006739. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bukhari H, Nithianandam V, Battaglia RA, Cicalo A, Sarkar S, Comjean A, Hu Y, Leventhal MJ, Dong X, Feany MB. Transcriptional programs mediating neuronal toxicity and altered glial-neuronal signaling in a Drosophila knock-in tauopathy model. Genome Research. 2024;34:590–605. doi: 10.1101/gr.278576.123. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Byrns CN, Saikumar J, Bonini NM. Glial AP1 is activated with aging and accelerated by traumatic brain injury. Nature Aging. 2021;1:585–597. doi: 10.1038/s43587-021-00072-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chau KW-K, Chan W-Y, Shaw PC, Chan H-YE. Biochemical investigation of Tau protein phosphorylation status and its solubility properties in Drosophila. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications. 2006;346:150–159. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2006.05.112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Choudhury SD, Mushtaq Z, Reddy-Alla S, Balakrishnan SS, Thakur RS, Krishnan KS, Raghu P, Ramaswami M, Kumar V. σ2-Adaptin facilitates basal synaptic transmission and is required for regenerating endo-exo cycling pool under high-frequency nerve stimulation in Drosophila. Genetics. 2016;203:369–385. doi: 10.1534/genetics.115.183863. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cowan CM, Bossing T, Page A, Shepherd D, Mudher A. Soluble hyper-phosphorylated tau causes microtubule breakdown and functionally compromises normal tau in vivo. Acta Neuropathologica. 2010;120:593–604. doi: 10.1007/s00401-010-0716-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Coyne AN, Siddegowda BB, Estes PS, Johannesmeyer J, Kovalik T, Daniel SG, Pearson A, Bowser R, Zarnescu DC. Futsch/MAP1B mRNA is a translational target of TDP-43 and is neuroprotective in a Drosophila model of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2014;34:15962–15974. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2526-14.2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Criado-Marrero M, Gebru NT, Blazier DM, Gould LA, Baker JD, Beaulieu-Abdelahad D, Blair LJ. Hsp90 co-chaperones, FKBP52 and Aha1, promote tau pathogenesis in aged wild-type mice. Acta Neuropathologica Communications. 2021;9:65. doi: 10.1186/s40478-021-01159-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Cyske Z, Gaffke L, Pierzynowska K, Węgrzyn G. Tubulin cytoskeleton in neurodegenerative diseases-not only primary tubulinopathies. Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology. 2023;43:1867–1884. doi: 10.1007/s10571-022-01304-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Darling AL, Dahrendorff J, Creodore SG, Dickey CA, Blair LJ, Uversky VN. Small heat shock protein 22 kDa can modulate the aggregation and liquid-liquid phase separation behavior of tau. Protein Science. 2021;30:1350–1359. doi: 10.1002/pro.4060. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Darrow MC, Sergeeva OA, Isas JM, Galaz-Montoya JG, King JA, Langen R, Schmid MF, Chiu W. Structural mechanisms of mutant huntingtin aggregation suppression by the synthetic chaperonin-like CCT5 complex explained by cryoelectron tomography. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2015;290:17451–17461. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M115.655373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Dayanandan R, Van Slegtenhorst M, Mack TG, Ko L, Yen SH, Leroy K, Brion JP, Anderton BH, Hutton M, Lovestone S. Mutations in tau reduce its microtubule binding properties in intact cells and affect its phosphorylation. FEBS Letters. 1999;446:228–232. doi: 10.1016/s0014-5793(99)00222-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Delgehyr N, Wieland U, Rangone H, Pinson X, Mao G, Dzhindzhev NS, McLean D, Riparbelli MG, Llamazares S, Callaini G, Gonzalez C, Glover DM. Drosophila Mgr, a Prefoldin subunit cooperating with von Hippel Lindau to regulate tubulin stability. PNAS. 2012;109:5729–5734. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1108537109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Dou F, Netzer WJ, Tanemura K, Li F, Hartl FU, Takashima A, Gouras GK, Greengard P, Xu H. Chaperones increase association of tau protein with microtubules. PNAS. 2003;100:721–726. doi: 10.1073/pnas.242720499. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Feuillette S, Miguel L, Frébourg T, Campion D, Lecourtois M. Drosophila models of human tauopathies indicate that Tau protein toxicity in vivo is mediated by soluble cytosolic phosphorylated forms of the protein. Journal of Neurochemistry. 2010;113:895–903. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2010.06663.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Fujiwara H, Watanabe S, Iwata M, Ueda S, Nobuhara M, Wada-Kakuda S, Misonou H, Miyasaka T. Inhibition of microtubule assembly competent tubulin synthesis leads to accumulation of phosphorylated tau in neuronal cell bodies. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications. 2020;521:779–785. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2019.10.191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gestaut D, Zhao Y, Park J, Ma B, Leitner A, Collier M, Pintilie G, Roh S-H, Chiu W, Frydman J. Structural visualization of the tubulin folding pathway directed by human chaperonin TRiC/CCT. Cell. 2022;185:4770–4787. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.11.014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Gil-Krzewska AJ, Farber E, Buttner EA, Hunter CP. Regulators of the actin cytoskeleton mediate lethality in a Caenorhabditis elegans dhc-1 mutant. Molecular Biology of the Cell. 2010;21:2707–2720. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E09-07-0593. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Goedert M, Jakes R, Vanmechelen E. Monoclonal antibody AT8 recognises tau protein phosphorylated at both serine 202 and threonine 205. Neuroscience Letters. 1995;189:167–170. doi: 10.1016/0304-3940(95)11484-E. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Goedert M, Jakes R. Mutations causing neurodegenerative tauopathies. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. 2005;1739:240–250. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2004.08.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Guo T, Noble W, Hanger DP. Roles of tau protein in health and disease. Acta Neuropathologica. 2017;133:665–704. doi: 10.1007/s00401-017-1707-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Guo W, Stoklund Dittlau K, Van Den Bosch L. Axonal transport defects and neurodegeneration: Molecular mechanisms and therapeutic implications. Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology. 2020;99:133–150. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2019.07.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Hanseeuw BJ, Betensky RA, Jacobs HIL, Schultz AP, Sepulcre J, Becker JA, Cosio DMO, Farrell M, Quiroz YT, Mormino EC, Buckley RF, Papp KV, Amariglio RA, Dewachter I, Ivanoiu A, Huijbers W, Hedden T, Marshall GA, Chhatwal JP, Rentz DM, Sperling RA, Johnson K. Association of Amyloid and Tau with cognition in preclinical alzheimer disease: A longitudinal study. JAMA Neurology. 2019;76:915–924. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.1424. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Hansen WJ, Cowan NJ, Welch WJ. Prefoldin-nascent chain complexes in the folding of cytoskeletal proteins. The Journal of Cell Biology. 1999;145:265–277. doi: 10.1083/jcb.145.2.265. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Hong M, Zhukareva V, Vogelsberg-Ragaglia V, Wszolek Z, Reed L, Miller BI, Geschwind DH, Bird TD, McKeel D, Goate A, Morris JC, Wilhelmsen KC, Schellenberg GD, Trojanowski JQ, Lee VM. Mutation-specific functional impairments in distinct tau isoforms of hereditary FTDP-17. Science. 1998;282:1914–1917. doi: 10.1126/science.282.5395.1914. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hsieh Y-C, Guo C, Yalamanchili HK, Abreha M, Al-Ouran R, Li Y, Dammer EB, Lah JJ, Levey AI, Bennett DA, De Jager PL, Seyfried NT, Liu Z, Shulman JM. Tau-mediated disruption of the spliceosome triggers cryptic RNA splicing and neurodegeneration in Alzheimer’s disease. Cell Reports. 2019;29:301–316. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.08.104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Iqbal K, Liu F, Gong CX, Grundke-Iqbal I. Tau in Alzheimer disease and related tauopathies. Current Alzheimer Research. 2010;7:656–664. doi: 10.2174/156720510793611592. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Jackson GR, Wiedau-Pazos M, Sang T-K, Wagle N, Brown CA, Massachi S, Geschwind DH. Human wild-type tau interacts with wingless pathway components and produces neurofibrillary pathology in Drosophila. Neuron. 2002;34:509–519. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00706-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Ji W, An K, Wang C, Wang S. Bioinformatics analysis of diagnostic biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease in peripheral blood based on sex differences and support vector machine algorithm. Hereditas. 2022;159:38. doi: 10.1186/s41065-022-00252-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Jin S, Pan L, Liu Z, Wang Q, Xu Z, Zhang YQ. Drosophila Tubulin-specific chaperone E functions at neuromuscular synapses and is required for microtubule network formation. Development. 2009;136:1571–1581. doi: 10.1242/dev.029983. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Jouanne M, Rault S, Voisin-Chiret AS. Tau protein aggregation in Alzheimer’s disease: An attractive target for the development of novel therapeutic agents. European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 2017;139:153–167. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2017.07.070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Kadoyama K, Matsuura K, Takano M, Maekura K, Inoue Y, Matsuyama S. Changes in the expression of prefoldin subunit 5 depending on synaptic plasticity in the mouse hippocampus. Neuroscience Letters. 2019;712:134484. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2019.134484. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Kandhavivorn W, Glaß H, Herrmannsdörfer T, Böckers TM, Uhlarz M, Gronemann J, Funk RHW, Pietzsch J, Pal A, Hermann A. Restoring axonal organelle motility and regeneration in cultured FUS-ALS motoneurons through magnetic field stimulation suggests an alternative therapeutic approach. Cells. 2023;12:1502. doi: 10.3390/cells12111502. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Kent SA, Spires-Jones TL, Durrant CS. The physiological roles of tau and Aβ: Implications for Alzheimer’s disease pathology and therapeutics. Acta Neuropathologica. 2020;140:417–447. doi: 10.1007/s00401-020-02196-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Khanna MR, Kovalevich J, Lee VMY, Trojanowski JQ, Brunden KR. Therapeutic strategies for the treatment of tauopathies: Hopes and challenges. Alzheimer’s & Dementia. 2016;12:1051–1065. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2016.06.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Kosmidis S, Grammenoudi S, Papanikolopoulou K, Skoulakis EMC. Differential effects of Tau on the integrity and function of neurons essential for learning in Drosophila. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2010;30:464–477. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1490-09.2010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Kundel F, De S, Flagmeier P, Horrocks MH, Kjaergaard M, Shammas SL, Jackson SE, Dobson CM, Klenerman D. Hsp70 inhibits the nucleation and elongation of Tau and sequesters Tau aggregates with high affinity. ACS Chemical Biology. 2018;13:636–646. doi: 10.1021/acschembio.7b01039. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Kunz T, Kraft KF, Technau GM, Urbach R. Origin of Drosophila mushroom body neuroblasts and generation of divergent embryonic lineages. Development. 2012;139:2510–2522. doi: 10.1242/dev.077883. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Lashuel HA. Rethinking protein aggregation and drug discovery in neurodegenerative diseases: Why we need to embrace complexity? Current Opinion in Chemical Biology. 2021;64:67–75. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2021.05.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Leitner D, Pires G, Kavanagh T, Kanshin E, Askenazi M, Ueberheide B, Devinsky O, Wisniewski T, Drummond E. Similar brain proteomic signatures in Alzheimer’s disease and epilepsy. Acta Neuropathologica. 2024;147:27. doi: 10.1007/s00401-024-02683-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Leroux MR, Fandrich M, Klunker D, Siegers K, Lupas AN. MtGimC, a novel archaeal chaperone related to the eukaryotic chaperonin cofactor GimC/prefoldin. The EMBO Journal. 1999;18:6730–6743. doi: 10.1093/emboj/18.23.6730. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Liu X, Jiang S, Ma L, Qu J, Zhao L, Zhu X, Ding J. Time-dependent effect of 1,6-hexanediol on biomolecular condensates and 3D chromatin organization. Genome Biology. 2021;22:230. doi: 10.1186/s13059-021-02455-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) Method. Methods. 2001;25:402–408. doi: 10.1006/meth.2001.1262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Mao CX, Wen X, Jin S, Zhang YQ. Increased acetylation of microtubules rescues human tau-induced microtubule defects and neuromuscular junction abnormalities in Drosophila. Disease Models & Mechanisms. 2017;10:1245–1252. doi: 10.1242/dmm.028316. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Mershin A, Pavlopoulos E, Fitch O, Braden BC, Nanopoulos DV, Skoulakis EMC. Learning and memory deficits upon TAU accumulation in Drosophila mushroom body neurons. Learning & Memory. 2004;11:277–287. doi: 10.1101/lm.70804. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Millán-Zambrano G, Rodríguez-Gil A, Peñate X, de Miguel-Jiménez L, Morillo-Huesca M, Krogan N, Chávez S. The prefoldin complex regulates chromatin dynamics during transcription elongation. PLOS Genetics. 2013;9:e1003776. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003776. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Miyasaka T, Shinzaki Y, Yoshimura S, Yoshina S, Kage-Nakadai E, Mitani S, Ihara Y. Imbalanced expression of Tau and tubulin induces neuronal dysfunction in C. elegans models of tauopathy. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2018;12:415. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2018.00415. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Mohandasan R, Thakare M, Sunke S, Iqbal FM, Sridharan M, Das G. Enhanced olfactory memory detection in trap-design Y-mazes allows the study of imperceptible memory traces in Drosophila. Learning & Memory. 2022;29:355–366. doi: 10.1101/lm.053545.121. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Okenve-Ramos P, Gosling R, Chojnowska-Monga M, Gupta K, Shields S, Alhadyian H, Collie C, Gregory E, Sanchez-Soriano N. Neuronal ageing is promoted by the decay of the microtubule cytoskeleton. PLOS Biology. 2024;22:e3002504. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Orr ME, Sullivan AC, Frost B. A brief overview of tauopathy: causes, consequences, and therapeutic strategies. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences. 2017;38:637–648. doi: 10.1016/j.tips.2017.03.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Ostapchenko VG, Beraldo FH, Mohammad AH, Xie Y-F, Hirata PHF, Magalhaes AC, Lamour G, Li H, Maciejewski A, Belrose JC, Teixeira BL, Fahnestock M, Ferreira ST, Cashman NR, Hajj GNM, Jackson MF, Choy W-Y, MacDonald JF, Martins VR, Prado VF, Prado MAM. The prion protein ligand, stress-inducible phosphoprotein 1, regulates amyloid-β oligomer toxicity. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2013;33:16552–16564. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3214-13.2013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Perez N, Sugar J, Charya S, Johnson G, Merril C, Bierer L, Perl D, Haroutunian V, Wallace W. Increased synthesis and accumulation of heat shock 70 proteins in Alzheimer’s disease. Brain Research. Molecular Brain Research. 1991;11:249–254. doi: 10.1016/0169-328x(91)90033-t. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Petrucelli L, Dickson D, Kehoe K, Taylor J, Snyder H, Grover A, De Lucia M, McGowan E, Lewis J, Prihar G, Kim J, Dillmann WH, Browne SE, Hall A, Voellmy R, Tsuboi Y, Dawson TM, Wolozin B, Hardy J, Hutton M. CHIP and Hsp70 regulate tau ubiquitination, degradation and aggregation. Human Molecular Genetics. 2004;13:703–714. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddh083. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Pinzi L, Bisi N, Sorbi C, Franchini S, Tonali N, Rastelli G. Insights into the structural conformations of the Tau protein in different aggregation status. Molecules. 2023;28:4544. doi: 10.3390/molecules28114544. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Renkawek K, Bosman GJ, de Jong WW. Expression of small heat-shock protein hsp 27 in reactive gliosis in Alzheimer disease and other types of dementia. Acta Neuropathologica. 1994;87:511–519. doi: 10.1007/BF00294178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Robbins M, Clayton E, Kaminski Schierle GS. Synaptic tau: A pathological or physiological phenomenon? Acta Neuropathologica Communications. 2021;9:149. doi: 10.1186/s40478-021-01246-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Roos J, Hummel T, Ng N, Klämbt C, Davis GW. Drosophila futsch regulates synaptic microtubule organization and is necessary for synaptic growth. Neuron. 2000;26:371–382. doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)81170-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Ross CA, Poirier MA. Protein aggregation and neurodegenerative disease. Nature Medicine. 2004;10 Suppl:S10–S17. doi: 10.1038/nm1066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Sakono M, Zako T, Ueda H, Yohda M, Maeda M. Formation of highly toxic soluble amyloid beta oligomers by the molecular chaperone prefoldin. The FEBS Journal. 2008;275:5982–5993. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2008.06727.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Saunders HAJ, Johnson-Schlitz DM, Jenkins BV, Volkert PJ, Yang SZ, Wildonger J. Acetylated α-tubulin K394 regulates microtubule stability to shape the growth of axon terminals. Current Biology. 2022;32:614–630. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2021.12.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Serna M, Carranza G, Martín-Benito J, Janowski R, Canals A, Coll M, Zabala JC, Valpuesta JM. The structure of the complex between α-tubulin, TBCE and TBCB reveals a tubulin dimer dissociation mechanism. Journal of Cell Science. 2015;128:1824–1834. doi: 10.1242/jcs.167387. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Shelton LB, Baker JD, Zheng D, Sullivan LE, Solanki PK, Webster JM, Sun Z, Sabbagh JJ, Nordhues BA, Koren J, Ghosh S, Blagg BSJ, Blair LJ, Dickey CA. Hsp90 activator Aha1 drives production of pathological tau aggregates. PNAS. 2017;114:9707–9712. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1707039114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Sherwood NT, Sun Q, Xue M, Zhang B, Zinn K. Drosophila spastin regulates synaptic microtubule networks and is required for normal motor function. PLOS Biology. 2004;2:e429. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020429. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Shulman JM, Imboywa S, Giagtzoglou N, Powers MP, Hu Y, Devenport D, Chipendo P, Chibnik LB, Diamond A, Perrimon N, Brown NH, De Jager PL, Feany MB. Functional screening in Drosophila identifies Alzheimer’s disease susceptibility genes and implicates Tau-mediated mechanisms. Human Molecular Genetics. 2014;23:870–877. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddt478. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Simpson RJ. Quantifying protein by bicinchoninic acid. Cold Spring Harbor Protocols. 2008;2008:prot4722. doi: 10.1101/pdb.prot4722. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Sörgjerd KM, Zako T, Sakono M, Stirling PC, Leroux MR, Saito T, Nilsson P, Sekimoto M, Saido TC, Maeda M. Human prefoldin inhibits amyloid-β (Aβ) fibrillation and contributes to formation of nontoxic Aβ aggregates. Biochemistry. 2013;52:3532–3542. doi: 10.1021/bi301705c. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Soto C, Pritzkow S. Protein misfolding, aggregation, and conformational strains in neurodegenerative diseases. Nature Neuroscience. 2018;21:1332–1340. doi: 10.1038/s41593-018-0235-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Stubbs K, Batchelor B, Sivanantharajah L, Sealey M, Ramirez-Moreno M, Ruiz E, Richardson B, Perry VH, Newman TA, Mudher A. Tau-mediated axonal degeneration is prevented by activation of the WldS pathway. Brain Communications. 2023;5:fcad052. doi: 10.1093/braincomms/fcad052. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Sun Z, Kwon J-S, Ren Y, Chen S, Walker CK, Lu X, Cates K, Karahan H, Sviben S, Fitzpatrick JAJ, Valdez C, Houlden H, Karch CM, Bateman RJ, Sato C, Mennerick SJ, Diamond MI, Kim J, Tanzi RE, Holtzman DM, Yoo AS. Modeling late-onset Alzheimer’s disease neuropathology via direct neuronal reprogramming. Science. 2024;385:adl2992. doi: 10.1126/science.adl2992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Sweeney P, Park H, Baumann M, Dunlop J, Frydman J, Kopito R, McCampbell A, Leblanc G, Venkateswaran A, Nurmi A, Hodgson R. Protein misfolding in neurodegenerative diseases: implications and strategies. Translational Neurodegeneration. 2017;6:6. doi: 10.1186/s40035-017-0077-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Tahmaz I, Shahmoradi Ghahe S, Topf U. Prefoldin function in cellular protein homeostasis and human diseases. Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology. 2021;9:816214. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.816214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Takano M, Tashiro E, Kitamura A, Maita H, Iguchi-Ariga SMM, Kinjo M, Ariga H. Prefoldin prevents aggregation of α-synuclein. Brain Research. 2014;1542:186–194. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Tam S, Geller R, Spiess C, Frydman J. The chaperonin TRiC controls polyglutamine aggregation and toxicity through subunit-specific interactions. Nature Cell Biology. 2006;8:1155–1162. doi: 10.1038/ncb1477. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Tao Y, Han Y, Yu L, Wang Q, Leng SX, Zhang H. The predicted key molecules, functions, and pathways that bridge Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) Frontiers in Neurology. 2020;11:233. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2020.00233. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Tashiro E, Zako T, Muto H, Itoo Y, Sörgjerd K, Terada N, Abe A, Miyazawa M, Kitamura A, Kitaura H, Kubota H, Maeda M, Momoi T, Iguchi-Ariga SMM, Kinjo M, Ariga H. Prefoldin protects neuronal cells from polyglutamine toxicity by preventing aggregation formation. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2013;288:19958–19972. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M113.477984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Tatebayashi Y, Miyasaka T, Chui D-H, Akagi T, Mishima K, Iwasaki K, Fujiwara M, Tanemura K, Murayama M, Ishiguro K, Planel E, Sato S, Hashikawa T, Takashima A. Tau filament formation and associative memory deficit in aged mice expressing mutant (R406W) human tau. PNAS. 2002;99:13896–13901. doi: 10.1073/pnas.202205599. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Tittelmeier J, Nachman E, Nussbaum-Krammer C. Molecular Chaperones: A double-edged sword in neurodegenerative diseases. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience. 2020;12:581374. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2020.581374. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Tzioras M, McGeachan RI, Durrant CS, Spires-Jones TL. Synaptic degeneration in Alzheimer disease. Nature Reviews. Neurology. 2023;19:19–38. doi: 10.1038/s41582-022-00749-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Vainberg IE, Lewis SA, Rommelaere H, Ampe C, Vandekerckhove J, Klein HL, Cowan NJ. Prefoldin, a chaperone that delivers unfolded proteins to cytosolic chaperonin. Cell. 1998;93:863–873. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81446-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Vourkou E, Rouiz Ortega ED, Mahajan S, Mudher A, Skoulakis EMC. Human Tau aggregates are permissive to protein synthesis-dependent memory in Drosophila tauopathy models. The Journal of Neuroscience. 2023;43:2988–3006. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1374-22.2023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Warrick JM, Chan HY, Gray-Board GL, Chai Y, Paulson HL, Bonini NM. Suppression of polyglutamine-mediated neurodegeneration in Drosophila by the molecular chaperone HSP70. Nature Genetics. 1999;23:425–428. doi: 10.1038/70532. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Wegmann S, Eftekharzadeh B, Tepper K, Zoltowska KM, Bennett RE, Dujardin S, Laskowski PR, MacKenzie D, Kamath T, Commins C, Vanderburg C, Roe AD, Fan Z, Molliex AM, Hernandez-Vega A, Muller D, Hyman AA, Mandelkow E, Taylor JP, Hyman BT. Tau protein liquid-liquid phase separation can initiate tau aggregation. The EMBO Journal. 2018;37:e98049. doi: 10.15252/embj.201798049. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Wittmann CW, Wszolek MF, Shulman JM, Salvaterra PM, Lewis J, Hutton M, Feany MB. Tauopathy in Drosophila: Neurodegeneration without neurofibrillary tangles. Science. 2001;293:711–714. doi: 10.1126/science.1062382. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Wolfe MS. Tau mutations in neurodegenerative diseases. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2009;284:6021–6025. doi: 10.1074/jbc.R800013200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Xiong Y, Zhao K, Wu J, Xu Z, Jin S, Zhang YQ. HDAC6 mutations rescue human tau-induced microtubule defects in Drosophila. PNAS. 2013;110:4604–4609. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1207586110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Yoshiyama Y, Higuchi M, Zhang B, Huang S-M, Iwata N, Saido TC, Maeda J, Suhara T, Trojanowski JQ, Lee VM-Y. Synapse loss and microglial activation precede tangles in a P301S tauopathy mouse model. Neuron. 2007;53:337–351. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.01.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Yu TW, Lane HY, Lin CH. Novel therapeutic approaches for Alzheimer’s disease: An updated review. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2021;22:8208. doi: 10.3390/ijms22158208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Zhang B, Maiti A, Shively S, Lakhani F, McDonald-Jones G, Bruce J, Lee EB, Xie SX, Joyce S, Li C, Toleikis PM, Lee VM-Y, Trojanowski JQ. Microtubule-binding drugs offset tau sequestration by stabilizing microtubules and reversing fast axonal transport deficits in a tauopathy model. PNAS. 2005;102:227–231. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0406361102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Zhang Y, Rai M, Wang C, Gonzalez C, Wang H. Prefoldin and pins synergistically regulate asymmetric division and suppress dedifferentiation. Scientific Reports. 2016;6:23735. doi: 10.1038/srep23735. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Zhou L, McInnes J, Wierda K, Holt M, Herrmann AG, Jackson RJ, Wang YC, Swerts J, Beyens J, Miskiewicz K, Vilain S, Dewachter I, Moechars D, De Strooper B, Spires-Jones TL, De Wit J, Verstreken P. Tau association with synaptic vesicles causes presynaptic dysfunction. Nature Communications. 2017;8:15295. doi: 10.1038/ncomms15295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

eLife Assessment

P Robin Hiesinger 1

This work details the finding that in at least one of the subunits of the heterohexameric chaperone complex Pfdn5 has additional functions beyond its contribution to cytoskeletal protein folding in Drosophila. The authors provide convincing evidence that it is a hitherto unknown microtubule associated protein in addition to regulating microtubule organization and levels of tubulin monomers. The important findings show that Pfdn5 loss exaggerates pathological manifestations of mutant human Tau bearing FTDP-17 linked mutations in Drosophila, while its overexpression suppresses them, suggesting that the latter may constitute a future therapeutic approach.

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Anonymous

Summary:

In this manuscript, Bisht et al address the hypothesis that protein folding chaperones may be implicated in aggregopathies and in particular Tau aggregation, as a means to identify novel therapeutic routes for these largely neurodegenerative conditions.

The authors conducted a genetic screen in the Drosophila eye, which facilitates identification of mutations that either enhance or suppress a visible disturbance in the nearly crystalline organization of the compound eye. They screened by RNA-interference all 64 known Drosophila chaperones and revealed that mutations in 20 of them exaggerate the Tau-dependent phenotype, while 15 ameliorated it. The enhancer of degeneration group included 2 subunits of the typically heterohexameric prefoldin complex and other co-translational chaperones.

The authors characterized in depth one of the prefoldin subunits, Pfdn5 and convincingly demonstrated that this protein functions in regulation of microtubule organization, likely due to its regulation of proper folding of tubulin monomers. They demonstrate convincingly using both immunohistochemistry in larval motor neurons and microtubule binding assays that Pfdn5 is a bona fide microtubule associated protein contributing to the stability of the axonal microtubule cytoskeleton, which is significantly disrupted in the mutants.

Similar phenotypes were observed in larvae expressing the Frontotemporal dementia with Parkinsonism on chromosome 17-associated mutations of the human Tau gene V377M and R406W. On the strength of the phenotypic evidence and the enhancement of the TauV377M-induced eye degeneration they demonstrate that loss of Pfdn5 exaggerates the synaptic deficits upon expression of the Tau mutants. Conversely, overexpression of Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 ameliorates the synaptic phenotypes in the larvae, the vacuolization phenotypes in the adult, even memory defects upon TauV377M expression.

Strengths:

The phenotypic analyses of the mutant and its interactions with TauV377M at the cell biological, histological, and behavioral levels are precise, extensive, and convincing and achieve the aims of characterization of a novel function of Pfdn5.

Regarding this memory defect upon V377M tau expression. Kosmidis et al (2010) pmid: 20071510, demonstrated that pan-neuronal expression of TauV377M disrupts the organization of the mushroom bodies, the seat of long-term memory in odor/shock and odor/reward conditioning. If the novel memory assay the authors use depends on the adult brain structures, then the memory deficit can be explained in this manner.

If the mushroom bodies are defective upon TauV377M expression does overexpression of Pfdn5 or 6 reverse this deficit? This would argue strongly in favor of the microtubule stabilization explanation.

The discovery that Pfdn5 (and 6 most likely) affect tauV377M toxicity is indeed a novel and important discovery for the Tauopathies field. It is important to determine whether this interaction affects only the FTDP-17-linked mutations, or also WT Tau isoforms, which are linked to the rest of the Tauopathies. Also, insights on the mode(s) that Pfdn5/6 affect Tau toxicity, such as some of the suggestions above are aiming at, will likely be helpful towards therapeutic interventions.

Weaknesses:

What is unclear however is how Pfdn5 loss or even overexpression affects the pathological Tau phenotypes.

Does Pfdn5 (or 6) interact directly with TauV377M? Colocalization within tissues is a start, but immunoprecipitations would provide additional independent evidence that this is so.

Does Pfdn5 loss exacerbate TauV377M phenotypes because it destabilizes microtubules, which are already at least partially destabilized by Tau expression?

Rescue of the phenotypes by overexpression of Pfdn5 agrees with this notion.

However, Cowan et al (2010) pmid: 20617325 demonstrated that wild-type Tau accumulation in larval motor neurons indeed destabilizes microtubules in a Tau phosphorylation-dependent manner.

So, is TauV377M hyperphosphorylated in the larvae?? What happens to TauV377M phosphorylation when Pfdn5 is missing and presumably more Tau is soluble and subject to hyperphosphorylation as predicted by the above?

Expression of WT human Tau (which is associated with most common Tauopathies other than FTDP-17) as Cowan et al suggest has significant effects on microtubule stability, but such Tau-expressing larvae are largely viable. Will one mutant copy of the Pfdn5 knockout enhance the phenotype of these larvae?? Will it result in lethality? Such data will serve to generalize the effects of Pfdn5 beyond the two FDTP-17 mutations utilized.

Does the loss of Pfdn5 affect TauV377M (and WTTau) levels?? Could the loss of Pfdn5 simply result in increased Tau levels? And conversely, does overexpression of Pfdn5 or 6 reduce Tau levels?? This would explain the enhancement and suppression of TauV377M (and possibly WT Tau) phenotypes. It is an easily addressed, trivial explanation at the observational level, which if true begs for a distinct mechanistic approach.

Finally, the authors argue that TauV377M forms aggregates in the larval brain based on large puncta observed especially upon loss of Pfdn5. This may be so, but protocols are available to validate this molecularly the presence of insoluble Tau aggregates (for example, pmid: 36868851) or soluble Tau oligomers as these apparently differentially affect Tau toxicity. Does Pfdn5 loss exaggerate the toxic oligomers and overexpression promotes the more benign large aggregates??

Comments on revisions:

In the revised manuscript Βisht et al have provided extensive new experimental evidence in support of previously more tenuous claims. These fully satisfy my comments and suggestions, and in my view, have significantly strengthened the manuscript with compelling new evidence.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Anonymous

Bisht et al detail a novel interaction between the chaperone, Prefoldin 5, microtubules, and tau-mediated neurodegeneration, with potential relevance for Alzheimer's disease and other tauopathies. Using Drosophila, the study shows that Pfdn5 is a microtubule-associated protein, which regulates tubulin monomer levels and can stabilize microtubule filaments in the axons of peripheral nerves. The work further suggests that Pfdn5/6 may antagonize Tau aggregation and neurotoxicity. While the overall findings may be of interest to those investigating the axonal and synaptic cytoskeleton, the detailed mechanisms for the observed phenotypes remain unresolved and the translational relevance for tauopathy pathogenesis is yet to be established. Further, a number of key controls and important experiments are missing that are needed to fully interpret the findings.

The strength of this study is the data showing that Pfdn5 localizes to axonal microtubules and the loss-of-function phenotypic analysis revealing disrupted synaptic bouton morphology. The major weakness relates to the experiments and claims of interactions with Tau-mediated neurodegeneration. In particular, it is unclear whether knockdown of Pfdn5 may cause eye phenotypes independent of Tau. Further, the GMR>tau phenotype appears to have been incorrectly utilized to examine age-dependent, neurodegeneration.

This manuscript argues that its findings may be relevant to thinking about mechanisms and therapies applicable to tauopathies; however, this is premature given that many questions remain about the interactions from Drosophila, the detailed mechanisms remain unresolved, and absent evidence that tau and Pfdn may similarly interact in the mammalian neuronal context. Therefore, this work would be strongly enhanced by experiments in human or murine neuronal culture or supportive evidence from analyses of human data.

Comments on revisions:

The revision adequately addresses most of the previously raised concerns, resulting in a significantly improved manuscript.

eLife. 2026 Jan 14;13:RP104691. doi: 10.7554/eLife.104691.3.sa3

Author response

Anjali Bisht 1, Srikanth Pippadpally 2, Snehasis Majumder 3, Athulya T Gopi 4, Abhijit Das 5, Chandan Sahi 6, Mani Ramaswami 7, Vimlesh Kumar 8

The following is the authors’ response to the original reviews.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Bisht et al address the hypothesis that protein folding chaperones may be implicated in aggregopathies and in particular Tau aggregation, as a means to identify novel therapeutic routes for these largely neurodegenerative conditions.

The authors conducted a genetic screen in the Drosophila eye, which facilitates the identification of mutations that either enhance or suppress a visible disturbance in the nearly crystalline organization of the compound eye. They screened by RNA interference all 64 known Drosophila chaperones and revealed that mutations in 20 of them exaggerate the Tau-dependent phenotype, while 15 ameliorated it. The enhancer of the degeneration group included 2 subunits of the typically heterohexameric prefoldin complex and other co-translational chaperones.

The authors characterized in depth one of the prefoldin subunits, Pfdn5, and convincingly demonstrated that this protein functions in the regulation of microtubule organization, likely due to its regulation of proper folding of tubulin monomers. They demonstrate convincingly using both immunohistochemistry in larval motor neurons and microtubule binding assays that Pfdn5 is a bona fide microtubule-associated protein contributing to the stability of the axonal microtubule cytoskeleton, which is significantly disrupted in the mutants.

Similar phenotypes were observed in larvae expressing Frontotemporal dementia with Parkinsonism on chromosome 17-associated mutations of the human Tau gene V377M and R406W. On the strength of the phenotypic evidence and the enhancement of the TauV377Minduced eye degeneration, they demonstrate that loss of Pfdn5 exaggerates the synaptic deficits upon expression of the Tau mutants. Conversely, the overexpression of Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 ameliorates the synaptic phenotypes in the larvae, the vacuolization phenotypes in the adult, and even memory defects upon TauV377M expression.

Strengths

The phenotypic analyses of the mutant and its interactions with TauV377M at the cell biological, histological, and behavioral levels are precise, extensive, and convincing and achieve the aims of characterization of a novel function of Pfdn5.

Regarding this memory defect upon V377M tau expression. Kosmidis et al (2010), PMID: 20071510, demonstrated that pan-neuronal expression of TauV377M disrupts the organization of the mushroom bodies, the seat of long-term memory in odor/shock and odor/reward conditioning. If the novel memory assay the authors use depends on the adult brain structures, then the memory deficit can be explained in this manner.

(1) If the mushroom bodies are defective upon TauV377M. expression, does overexpression of Pfdn5 or 6 reverse this deficit? This would argue strongly in favor of the microtubule stabilization explanation.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. Consistent with Kosmidis et al. (2010), we confirm that expression of hTauV377M disrupts the architecture of mushroom bodies. In addition, we find, as suggested by the reviewer, that coexpression of either Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 with hTauV377M significantly restores the organization of the mushroom bodies. These new findings strongly support the hypothesis that Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 mitigate hTauV377M -induced memory deficits by preserving the structure of the mushroom body, likely through stabilizing the microtubule network. This data has now been included in the revised manuscript (Figure 7H-O).

(2) The discovery that Pfdn5 (and 6 most likely) affects tauV377M toxicity is indeed a novel and important discovery for the Tauopathies field. It is important to determine whether this interaction affects only the FTDP-17-linked mutations or also WT Tau isoforms, which are linked to the rest of the Tauopathies. Also, insights on the mode(s) that Pfdn5/6 affect Tau toxicity, such as some of the suggestions above, are aiming at will likely be helpful towards therapeutic interventions.

We agree that determining whether prefoldin modulates the toxicity of both mutant and wildtype Tau is critical for understanding its broader relevance to Tauopathies. We have now performed additional experiments required to address this issue. These new data show that loss of Pfdn5 also exacerbates toxicity associated with wildype Tau (hTauWT), in a manner similar to that observed with hTauV337M or hTauR406W. Specifically, overexpression of hTauWT in a Pfdn5 mutant background leads to Tau aggregate formation (Figure S7G-I), and coexpression of Pfdn5 with hTauWT reduces the associated synaptic defects (Figure S11F-L). These findings underscore a general role for Pfdn5 in modulating diverse Tauopathy-associated phenotypes and suggest that it could be a broadly relevant therapeutic target.

Weakness

(3) What is unclear, however, is how Pfdn5 loss or even overexpression affects the pathological Tau phenotypes. Does Pfdn5 (or 6) interact directly with TauV377M? Colocalization within tissues is a start, but immunoprecipitations would provide additional independent evidence that this is so.

We appreciate this important suggestion. To investigate a potential direct interaction between Pfdn5 and TauV377M, we performed co-immunoprecipitation experiments using lysates from adult fly brain expressing hTauV337M. Under the conditions tested, we did not detect a direct physical interaction. While this does not support a direct interaction, it does not strongly refute it either. We note that Pfdn5 and Tau are colocalized within axons (Figure S13J-K). At this stage, we are unable to resolve the issue of direct vs indirect association. If indirect, then Tau and Pfdn5 act within the same subcellular compartments (axon); if direct, then either only a small fraction of the total cellular proteins is in the Tau-Pfdn5 complex and therefore difficult to detect in bulk protein westerns, or the interactions are dynamic or occur in conditions that we have not been able to mimic in vitro.

(4) Does Pfdn5 loss exacerbate TauV377M phenotypes because it destabilizes microtubules, which are already at least partially destabilized by Tau expression? Rescue of the phenotypes by overexpression of Pfdn5 agrees with this notion.

However, Cowan et al (2010) pmid: 20617325 demonstrated that wildtype Tau accumulation in larval motor neurons indeed destabilizes microtubules in a Tau phosphorylation-dependent manner. So, is TauV377M hyperphosphorylated in the larvae?? What happens to TauV377M phosphorylation when Pfdn5 is missing and presumably more Tau is soluble and subject to hyperphosphorylation as predicted by the above?

We completely agree that it is important to link Tau-induced phenotypes with the microtubule destabilization and phosphorylation state of Tau. We performed immunostaining using futsch antibody to check the microtubule organization at the NMJ and observed a severe reduction in futsch intensity when TauV337M was expressed in the Pfdn5 mutant (ElavGal4>TauV337M; DPfdn515/40), suggesting that Pfdn5 absence exacerbates the hTauV337M defects due to more microtubule destabilization (Figure S6F-J).

We have performed additional experiments to examine the phosphorylation state of hTau in Drosophila larval axons. Immunocytochemistry indicated that only a subset of hTau aggregates in Pfdn5 mutants (Elav-Gal4>TauV337M; DPfdn515/40) are recognized by phospho-hTau antibodies. For instance, the AT8 antibody (targeting pSer202/pThr205) (Goedert et al., 1995) labelled only a subset of aggregates identified by the total hTau antibody (D5D8N) (Figure S9AE). Moreover, feeding these larvae (Elav-Gal4>TauV337M</sup; DPfdn515/40) with LiCl, which blocks GSK3b, still showed robust Tau aggregation (Figure S9F-J).

These results imply that: (a) soluble phospho-hTau levels in Pfdn5 mutants are low and not reliably detected with a single phospholylation-specific antibody; (b) Loss of Pfdn5 results in Tau aggregation in a hyperphosphorylation-independent manner similar to what has been reported earlier (LI et al. 2022); and (c) the destabilization of microtubules in Elav-Gal4>TauV337M; DPfdn515/40 results in Tau dissociation and aggregate formation. These data and conclusions have been incorporated into the revised manuscript.

(5) Expression of WT human Tau (which is associated with most common Tauopathies other than FTDP-17) as Cowan et al suggest has significant effects on microtubule stability, but such Tauexpressing larvae are largely viable. Will one mutant copy of the Pfdn5 knockout enhance the phenotype of these larvae?? Will it result in lethality? Such data will serve to generalize the effects of Pfdn5 beyond the two FDTP-17 mutations utilized.

We have now examined whether heterozygous loss of Pfdn5 (∆Pfdn5/+) enhances the effect of Tau expression. While each genotype (hTauV337M, hTauWT or ∆Pfdn5/+) alone is viable, Elav-Gal4 driven expression of hTauV337M or hTauWT in Pfdn5 heterozygous background does not cause lethality.

(6) Does the loss of Pfdn5 affect TauV377M (and WTTau) levels?? Could the loss of Pfdn5 simply result in increased Tau levels? And conversely, does overexpression of Pfdn5 or 6 reduce Tau levels?? This would explain the enhancement and suppression of TauV377M (and possibly WT Tau) phenotypes. It is an easily addressed, trivial explanation at the observational level, which, if true, begs for a distinct mechanistic approach.

To test whether Pfdn5 modulates Tau phenotypes by altering Tau protein levels, we performed western blot analysis under Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 overexpression conditions and observed no change in hTauV337M levels (Figure 6O). However, in the absence of Pfdn5, both hTauV337M and hTauWT form large, insoluble aggregates that are not detected in soluble lysates by standard western blotting but are visualized by immunocytochemistry (Figure S7G-I). Thus, the apparent reduction in Tau levels on western blots reflects a solubility shift, not an actual decrease in Tau expression. These findings argue against a simple model in which Pfdn5 regulates Tau abundance and instead support a mechanism in which Pfdn5 loss leads to change in Tau conformation, leading to its sequesteration away for already destabilized microtubules.

(7) Finally, the authors argue that TauV377M forms aggregates in the larval brain based on large puncta observed especially upon loss of Pfdn5. This may be so, but protocols are available to validate this molecularly the presence of insoluble Tau aggregates (for example, pmid: 36868851) or soluble Tau oligomers, as these apparently differentially affect Tau toxicity. Does Pfdn5 loss exaggerate the toxic oligomers, and overexpression promote the more benign large aggregates??

We have performed additional experiments to analyze the nature of these aggregates using 1,6-HD. The 1,6-hexanediol can dissolve the Tau aggregate seeds formed by Tau droplets, but cannot dissolve the stable Tau aggregates (WEGMANN et al. 2018). We observed that 5% 1,6hexanediol failed to dissolve these Tau aggregates (Figure S8), demonstrating the formation of stable filamentous flame-shaped NFT-like aggregates in the absence of Pfdn5 (Figure 5D and Figure S9).

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Bisht et al detail a novel interaction between the chaperone, Prefoldin 5, microtubules, and taumediated neurodegeneration, with potential relevance for Alzheimer's disease and other tauopathies. Using Drosophila, the study shows that Pfdn5 is a microtubule-associated protein, which regulates tubulin monomer levels and can stabilize microtubule filaments in the axons of peripheral nerves. The work further suggests that Pfdn5/6 may antagonize Tau aggregation and neurotoxicity. While the overall findings may be of interest to those investigating the axonal and synaptic cytoskeleton, the detailed mechanisms for the observed phenotypes remain unresolved and the translational relevance for tauopathy pathogenesis is yet to be established. Further, a number of key controls and important experiments are missing that are needed to fully interpret the findings.

The strength of this study is the data showing that Pfdn5 localizes to axonal microtubules and the loss-of-function phenotypic analysis revealing disrupted synaptic bouton morphology. The major weakness relates to the experiments and claims of interactions with Tau-mediated neurodegeneration.

In particular, it is unclear whether knockdown of Pfdn5 may cause eye phenotypes independent of Tau.

Our new experiments confirm that knockdown of Pfdn5 alone does not cause eye phenotypes.

Further, the GMR>tau phenotype appears to have been incorrectly utilized to examine agedependent, neurodegeneration.

In response, we have modulated and explained our conclusions in this regard as described later in our “rebuttal.”

This manuscript argues that its findings may be relevant to thinking about mechanisms and therapies applicable to tauopathies; however, this is premature given that many questions remain about the interactions from Drosophila, the detailed mechanisms remain unresolved, and absent evidence that Tau and Pfdn may similarly interact in the mammalian neuronal context. Therefore, this work would be strongly enhanced by experiments in human or murine neuronal culture or supportive evidence from analyses of human data.

The reviewer is correct that the impact would be greater if Pfdn5-Tau interactions were also examined in human tissue. While we have not attempted these experiments ourselves, we hope that our observations will stimulate others to test the conservation of phenomena we describe. There are, however, several lines of circumstantial evidence from human Alzheimer’s disease datasets that implicate PFDN5 in disease pathology. For example, recent compilations and analyses of proteomic data show reductions of CCT components, TBCE, as well as Prefoldin subunits, including PFDN5, in AD tissue (HSIEH et al. 2019; TAO et al. 2020; JI et al. 2022; ASKENAZI et al. 2023; LEITNER et al. 2024; SUN et al. 2024). Furthermore, whole blood mRNA expression data from Alzheimer's patients revealed downregulation of PFDN5 transcript (JI et al. 2022). Together, these findings from human data are consistent with the roles of PFDN5 in suppressing diverse neurodegenerative processes. We have incorporated these points into the discussion section of the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #1 (Recommendations for the authors):

See public review for experimental recommendations focusing on the Tau Pfdn interactions. I would refrain from using the word aggregates, I would call them puncta, unless there is molecular or visual (ie AFM) evidence that they are indeed insoluble aggregates. Finally, although including the full genotypes written out below the axis in the bar graphs is appreciated, it nevertheless makes them difficult to read due to crowding in most cases and somewhat distracting from the figure.

In my opinion, a more reader-friendly manner of reporting the phenotypes will be highly helpful. For example, listing each component of the genotype on the left of each bar graph and adding a cross or a filled circle under the bar to inform of the full genotype of the animals used.

As described in the response to the previous comment, we now have strong direct evidences to support our view that the observed puncta are stable Tau aggregates. Thus, we feel justified to use the term Tau-aggregates in preference to Tau puncta.

We have tried to write the genotypes to make them more reader-friendly.

Reviewer #2 (Recommendations for the authors):

(1) Lines 119-121: 35 modifiers from 64 seem like an unusually high hit rate. Are these individual genes or lines? Were all modifiers supported by at least 2 independent RNAi strains targeting non-overlapping sequences? A supplemental table should be included detailing all genes and specific strains tested, with corresponding results.

We agree with the reviewer that 35 modifiers from 64 genes may be too high. However, since the genes knocked down in the study are chaperones, crucial for maintaining proteostasis, we may have got unusually high hits. The information related to individual genes and lines is provided in Supplemental Table 1. We have now included an additional Supplemental Table 3, which lists the genes and the RNAi lines used in Figure 1, detailing the sequence target information. The table also specifies the number of independent RNAi strains used and the corresponding results.

(2) Figure 1: The authors quantify the areas of ommatidial fusion and necrosis as degeneration, but it is difficult to appreciate the aberrations in the photos provided. Was any consideration given to also quantifying eye size?

We have processed the images to enhance their contrast and make the aberrations clearer. The percentage of degenerated eye area (Figure 1M) was normalized with total eye area. The method for quantifying degenerated area has been explained in the materials and methods section.

(3) Figure 1: (a) Only enhancers of rough eyes are shown but no controls are included to evaluate whether knockdown of these genes causes eye toxicity in the absence of Tau. These are important missing controls. All putative Tau enhancers, including Pdn5/6, need to be tested with GMR-GAL4 independently of Tau to determine whether they cause a rough eye. In a previous publication from some of the same investigators (Raut et al 2017), knockdown of Pfdn using eyGAL4 was shown to induce severe eye morphology defects - this raises questions about the results shown here.

We agree that assessing the effects of HSP knockdown independent of Tau is essential to confirm modifier specificity. We have now performed these knockdowns, and the data are reported in Supplemental Table 1. For RNAi lines represented in Figure 1, which enhanced Tau-induced degeneration/eye developmental defect, except for one of the RNAi lines against Pfdn6 (GD34204), no detectable eye defects were observed when knocked down with GMR-Gal4 at 25°C, suggesting that enhancement is specific to the Tau background.

Use of a more eye-specific GMR-Gal4 driver at 25°C versus broader expressing ey-Gal4 at 29°C in prior work (Raut et al. 2017) likely reflects the differences in the eye morphological defects.

(b) Besides RNAi, do the classical Pdn5 deletion alleles included in this work also enhance the tau rough eye when heterozygous? Please also consider moving the Pfdn5/6 overexpression studies to evaluate possible suppression of the Tau rough eye to Figure 1, as it would enhance the interpretation of these data (but see also below).

GMR-Gal4 driven expression of hTauV337M or hTauWT in Pfdn5 heterozygous background does not enhance rough eye phenotype.

(4) For genes of special interest, such as Pdn5, and other genes mentioned in the results, the main figure, or discussion, it is also important to perform quantitative PCR to confirm that the RNAi lines used actually knock down mRNA expression and by how much. These studies will establish specificity.

We agree that confirming RNAi efficiency via quantitative PCR (qPCR) is essential for validating the knockdown efficiency. We have now included qPCR data, especially for key modifiers, confirming effective knockdown (Figure S2).

(5) Lines 235-238: how do you conclude whether the tau phenotype is "enhanced" when Pfdn5 causes a similar phenotype on its own? Could the combination simply be additive? Did overexpression of Pdn5 suppress the UAS-hTau NMJ bouton phenotype (see below)?

Although Pfdn5 mutants and hTau expression individually increase satellite boutons, their combination leads to a significantly more severe and additional phenotype, such as significantly decreased bouton size and increased bouton number, indicating an enhancing rather than purely additive interaction (Figure 4 and Figure S6C). Moreover, we now show that overexpression of Pfdn5 significantly suppressed the hTauV337M-induced NMJ phenotypes. This new data has been incorporated as Figure S11F-L in the revised manuscript.

Alternatively, did the authors consider reducing fly tau in the Pdn5 mutant background?

In new additional experiments, we observe that double mutants for Drosophila Tau (dTau) and Pfdn5 also exhibit severe NMJ defects, suggesting genetic interactions between dTau and Pfdn5. This data is shown below for the reviewer.

Author response image 1. A double mutant combination of dTau and Pfdn5 aggravates the synaptic defects at the Drosophila NMJ.

Author response image 1.

(A-D') Confocal images of NMJ synapses at muscle 4 of A2 hemisegment showing synaptic morphology in (A-A') control, (B-B') ΔPfdn515/40, (C-C') dTauKO/dTauKO (Drosophila Tau mutant), (D-D') dTauKO/dTauKO; ∆Pfdn515/40 double immunolabeled for HRP (green), and CSP (magenta). The scale bar in D for (A-D') represents 10 µm.

(6) It may be important to further extend the investigation to the actin cytoskeleton. It is noted that Pfdn5 also stabilizes actin. Importantly, tau-mediated neurodegeneration in Drosophila also disrupts the actin cytoskeleton, and many other regulators of actin modify tau phenotypes.

We appreciate the suggestion to examine the actin cytoskeleton. While prior studies indicate that Pfdn5 might regulate the actin cytoskeleton and that TauV377M hyperstabilizes the actin cytoskeleton, we did not observe altered actin levels in Pfdn5 mutants (Figure 2G). However, actin dynamics may represent an additional mechanism through which Pfdn5 might temporally influence Tauopathy. Future work will address potential actin-related mechanisms in Tauopathy.

(7) Figure 2: in the provided images, it is difficult to appreciate the futsch loops. Please include an image with increased magnification. It appears that fly strains harboring a genomic rescue BAC construct are available for Pfdn-this would be a complementary reagent to test besides Pfdn overexpression.

We have updated Figure 2 to include high magnification NMJ images as insets, clearly showing the Futsch loops. While we have not yet tested a genomic rescue BAC construct for Pfdn5, we plan to use the fly line harboring this construct in future work.

(8) Figure 3: Some of the data is not adequately explained. The use of Ran as a loading control seems rather unusual. What is the justification? Pfdn appears to only partially co-localize with a-tubulin in the axon; can the authors discuss or explain this? Further, in Pfdn5 mutants, there appears to be a loss of a-tubulin staining (3b'); this should also be discussed.

We appreciate the reviewer's concern regarding the choice of loading control for our Western blot analysis. Importantly, since Tubulin levels and related pathways were the focus of our analysis, traditional loading controls such as α- or β-tubulin or actin were deemed unsuitable due to potential co-regulation. Ran, a nuclear GTPase involved in nucleocytoplasmic transport, is not known to be transcriptionally or post-translationally regulated by Tubulin-associated signaling pathways. To ensure its reliability as a loading control, we confirmed by densitometric analysis that Ran expression showed minimal variability across all samples. Hence, we used Ran for accurate normalization in the Western blot data represented in this manuscript. We have also used GAPDH as a loading control and found no difference with respect to Ran as a loading control across samples.

We appreciate the reviewer's comment regarding the interpretation of our Pearson's correlation coefficient (PCC) results. While the mean colocalization value of 0.6 represents a moderate positive correlation (MUKAKA 2012), which may not reach the conventional threshold for "high positive" colocalization (usually considered 0.7-0.9), it nonetheless indicates substantial spatial overlap between the proteins of interest. Importantly, colocalization analysis provides supportive but indirect evidence for molecular proximity. To further validate the interaction, we performed a microtubule binding assay, which directly demonstrates the binding of Pfdn5 to stabilized microtubules.

In accordance with the western blot analysis shown in Figure 2G-I, the levels of Tubulin are reduced in the Pfdn5 mutants (Figure 3B''). We have incorporated and discussed this in the revised manuscript.

(9) Figure 4: Overexpression of Pfdn appears to rescue the supernumerary satellite bouton numbers induced by human Tau; however, interpretation of this experiment is somewhat complicated as it is performed in Pfdn mutant genetic background. Can overexpression of Pfdn on its own rescue the Tau bouton defect in an otherwise wildtype background?

We have now coexpressed Pfdn5 and hTauV337M in an otherwise wild-type background. As shown in Figure S11F-L, Pfdn5 overexpression suppresses Tau-induced bouton defects. We have incorporated the data in the Results section to support the role of Pfdn5 as a modifier of Tau toxicity.

(10) Lines 256-263 / Figure 5: (a) What exactly are these tau-positive structures (punctae) being stained in larval brains in Fig 5C-E? Most prior work on tau aggregation using Drosophila models has been done in the adult brain, and human wildtype or mutant Tau is not known to form significant numbers of aggregates in neurons (although aggregates have been described following glia tau expression).

Therefore, the results need to be further clarified. Besides the provided schematic, a zoomed-out image showing the whole larval brain is needed here for orientation. Have these aggregates been previously characterized in the literature?

We agree with the reviewer that the expression of the wildtype or mutant form of human Tau in Drosophila is not known to form aggregates in the larval brain, in contrast to the adult brain (JACKSON et al. 2002; OKENVE-RAMOS et al. 2024). Consistent with previous reports, we also observed that Tau expression on its own does not form aggregates in the Drosophila larval brain.

However, in the absence of Pfdn5, microtubule disruption is severe, leading to reduced Taumicrotubule binding and formation of globular/round or flame-shaped tangles like aggregates in the larval brain. Previous studies have reported that 1,6-hexanediol can dissolve the Tau aggregate seeds formed by Tau droplets, but cannot dissolve the stable Tau aggregates (WEGMANN et al. 2018). We observed that 5% 1,6-Hexanediol failed to dissolve these Tau puncta, demonstrating the formation of stable aggregates in the absence of Pfdn5. Additionally, we now performed a Tau solubility assay and show that in the absence of Pfdn5, a significant amount of Tau goes in the pellet fraction, which could not be detected by phospho-specific AT8 Tau antibody (targeting pSer202/pThr205) but was detected by total hTau antibody (D5D8N) on the western blots (Figure S8). These data further reinforce our conclusion that Pfdn5 prevents the transition of hTau from soluble and/or microtubule-associated state to an aggregated, insoluble, and pathogenic state. These new data have been incorporated into the revised manuscript.

(b) Can additional markers (nuclei, cell membrane, etc.) be used to highlight whether the taupositive structures are present in the cell body or at synapses?

We performed the co-staining of Tau and Elav to assess the aggregated Tau localization. We found that in the presence of Pfdn5, Tau is predominantly cytoplasmic and localised to the cell body and axons. In the absence of Pfdn5, Tau forms aggregates but is still localized to the cell body or axons. However, some of the aggregates are very large, and the subcellular localization could not be determined (Figure S8M-N'). These might represent brain regions of possible nuclear breakdown and cell death (JACKSON et al. 2002).

(c) It would also be helpful to perform western blots from larval (and adult) brains examining tau protein levels, phospho-tau species, possible higher-molecular weight oligomeric forms, and insoluble vs. soluble species. These studies would be especially important to help interpret the potential mechanisms of observed interactions.

Western blot analysis revealed that overexpression of Pfdn5 does not alter total Tau levels (Figure 6O). In Pfdn5 mutants, however, hTauV337M levels were reduced in the supernatant fraction and increased in the pellet fraction, indicating a shift from soluble monomeric Tau to aggregated Tau.

(d) Does overexpression of Pdn5 (UAS-Pdn5) suppress the formation of tau aggregates? I would therefore recommend that additional experiments be performed looking at adult flies (perhaps in Pfdn5 heterozygotes or using RNAi due to the larval lethality of Pdn5 null animals).

Overexpression of Pfdn5 significantly reduced Tau-aggregates (Elav-Gal4/UASTauV337M; UAS-Pfdn5; DPfdn515/40) observed in Pfdn5 mutants (Figure 5E). Coexpression of Pfdn5 and hTauV337M suppresses the Tau aggregates/puncta in 30-day adult brain. Since heterozygous DPfdn15/+ did not show a reduction in Pfdn5 levels, we did not test the suppression of Tau aggregates in DPfdn15/+; Elav>UAS-Pfdn5, UAS-TauV337M.

(11) Figure 6, panels A-N: The GMR>Tau rough eye is not a "neurodegenerative" but rather a predominantly developmental phenotype. It results from aberrant retinal developmental patterning and the subsequent secretion/formation of the overlying eye cuticle (lenslets). I am confused by the data shown suggesting a "shrinking eye size" and increasing roughened surface over time (a GMR>tau eye similar to that shown in panel B cannot change to appear like the one in panel H with aging). The rough eye can be quite variable among a population of animals, but it is usually fixed at the time the adult fly ecloses from the pupal case, and quite stable over time in an individual animal. Therefore, any suppression of the Tau rough eye seen at 30 days should be appreciable as soon as the animals eclose. These results need to be clarified. If indeed there is robust suppression of Tau rough eye, it may be more intuitive and clearer to include these data with Figure 1, when first showing the loss-of-function enhancement of the Tau rough eye. Also, why is Pfdn6 included in these experiments but not in the studies shown in Figures 2-5?

We thank the reviewer for their careful and knowledgeable assessment of the GMR>Tau rough eye model. We appreciate the clarification that the rough eye phenotype could be “developmental” rather than neurodegenerative.” Our initial observations regarding "shrinking eye size" and "increased surface roughness" clearly show age-related progression of structural change. Such progression has been observed and reported by others (IIJIMA-ANDO et al. 2012; PASSARELLA AND GOEDERT 2018). We observed an age-dependent increase in the number of fused ommatidia in GMR-Gal4 >Tau, which were rescued by Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 expression. We noted that adult-specific induction of hTauV337M adult flies using the Gal80ts and GMR-GeneSwitch (GMR-GS) systems was not sufficient to induce a significant eye phenotype; thus, early expression of Tau in the developing eye imaginal disc appears to be required for the adult progressive phenotype that we observe. We feel that it is inadequate to refer to this adult progressive phenotype as “developmental,” and while admittedly arguable whether this can be termed “degenerative.”

To address neurodegeneration more directly, we focused on 30-day-old adult fly brains and demonstrated that Pfdn5 overexpression suppresses age-dependent Tau-induced neurodegeneration in the central nervous system (Figure 6H-N and Figure S12). This supports our central conclusion regarding the neuroprotective role of Pfdn5 in age-associated Tau pathology. Since we found an enhancement in the Tau-induced synaptic and eye phenotypes by Pfdn6 knockdown, we also generated CRISPR/Cas9-mediated loss-of-function mutants for Pfdn6. However, loss of Pfdn6 resulted in embryonic/early first instar lethality, which precluded its detailed analysis at the larval stages.

(12) Figure 6, panels O-T: the elav>tau image appears to show a different frontal section plane compared to the other panels. It is advisable to show images at a similar level in all panels since vacuolar pathology can vary by region. It is also useful to be able to see the entire brain at a lower power, but the higher power inset view is obscuring these images. I would recommend creating separate panels rather than showing them as insets.

In the revised figure, we now display the low- and high-magnification images as separate, clearly labeled panels instead of using insets. This improves visibility of the brain morphology while providing detailed views of the vacuolar pathology (Figure 6H-L).

(13) Figure 6/7: For the experiments in which Pfdn5/6 is overexpressed and possibly suppresses tau phenotypes (brain vacuoles and memory), it is important to use controls that normalize the number of UAS binding sites, since increased UAS sites may dilute GAL4 and reduced Tau expression levels/toxicity. Therefore, it would be advisable to compare with Elav>Tau flies that also include a chromosome with an empty UAS site or other transgenes, such as UAS-GFP or UAS-lacZ.

We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. Now we have incorporated proper controls in the brain vacuolization, the mushroom body, and ommatidial fusion rescue experiments. Also, we have independently verified whether Gal4 dilution has any effect on the Tau phenotypes (Figure 6H-L, Figure 7, and Figure S11A-B).

(14) Lines 311-312: the authors say vacuolization occurs in human neurodegenerative disease, which is not really true to my knowledge and definitely not stated in the citation they use. Please re-phrase.

Now we have made the appropriate changes in the revised manuscript.

(15) Figure 7: The authors claim that Pfdn5/6 expression does not impact memory behavior, but there in fact appears to be a decrease in preference index (panel D vs panel B). Does this result complicate the interpretation of the potential interaction with Tau (panel F). Are data from wildtype control flies available?

In our memory assay, a decrease in performance index (PI) of the trained flies compared to the naïve flies indicates memory formation (normal memory in control flies, Figure 7B). In contrast, a lack of significant difference in PI indicates a memory defect (Figure 7C: hTauV337M overexpressed flies). "Decrease in preference index (panel D vs panel B)" is not a sign of memory defect; it may be interpreted as a better memory instead. Hence, neuronal overexpression of Pfdn5 (Figure 7D) or Pfdn6 (Figure 7E) in wildtype neurons does not cause memory deficits. In addition, coexpression of Pfdn5/6 and hTauV337M successfully rescues the Tau-induced memory defect (significant drop in PI compared to the PI of naïve flies in Figure 7F-G). Moreover, almost complete rescue of the Tau-induced mushroom body defect on Pfdn5 or Pfdn6 expression further establishes potential interaction between Pfdn5/6 and Tau. This data has been incorporated into the revised manuscript.

The memory assay itself with extensive data on wildtype flies and various other genotype will shortly be submitted for publication in another manuscript (Majumder et al, manuscript under preparation); However, we can confirm for the reviewer that wildtype flies, trained and assayed by the protocol described, show a significant decrease in performance index compared to the naïve flies, indicative of strong learning and memory performance, very similar to the control genotype data shown in Figure 7B.

Additional minor considerations

(16) Lines 50-52: there are many therapeutic interventions for treating tauopathies, but not curative or particularly effective ones.

Now we have made the appropriate changes in the revised manuscript.

(17) Lines 87-106 seem like a duplication of the abstract. Consider deleting or condensing.

We have made the appropriate changes in the revised manuscript.

(18) Where is pfdn5 expressed? Development v. adult? Neuron v. glia? Conservation?

Prefoldin5 is expressed throughout development but strongly localized to the larval trachea and neuronal axons. Drosophila Pfdn5 shows 35% overall identity with human PFDN5.

(19) Liine 187: is pfdn5 truly "novel"?

The role of Pfdn5 as microtubule-binding and stabilizing is a new finding and has not been predicted or described before. Hence, it is a novel neuronal microtubule-associated protein.

(20) Figure 5, panel F, genotype labels on the x-axis are confusing; consider simplifying to Control, DPfdn, and Rescue.

We have made appropriate changes in the figure for better readability.

(21) Figures 5/8: it might be preferable to use consistent colors for Tau/HRP--Tau is labeled green in Figure 5 and then purple in Figure 8.

We have made these changes where possible.

(22) Lines 311-312: Vacuolar neuropathology is NOT typically observed in human Tauopathy.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have made the appropriate changes in the revised manuscript.

(23) Lines 328-349: The explanation could be made more clear. Naïve flies should not necessarily be called controls. Also, a more detailed explanation of how the preference index is computed would be helpful. Why are some datapoints negative values?

(a) We have rewritten this paragraph to make the description and explanation clearer. The detailed method and formula to calculate the Preference index have been incorporated in the Materials and Methods section.

(b) We have replaced the term Control with Naïve.

(c) Datapoints with negative values appeared in some of the 'Trained' group flies. It indicates that post-CuSO4 training, some groups showed repulsion towards the otherwise attractive odor 2,3B. As 2,3B is an attractive odorant, naïve or control flies show attraction towards it compared to air, which is evident from a higher number of flies in the Odor arm (O) compared to that of the Air arm (A) of the Y-maze; thus, the PI [(O-A/O+A)*100] is positive in case of naïve fly groups. Training of the flies led to an association of the attractive odorant with bitter food, leading to a decrease of attraction, and even repulsion towards the odorant in a few instances, resulting in less fly count in the odor arm compared to the air arm. Hence, the PI becomes negative as (O-A) is negative in such instances. Thus, it is not an anomaly but indicates strong learning.

(24) Line 403: misspelling "Pdfn"

We have corrected this.

(25) Lines 423-425: recommend re-phrasing, since tauopathies are human diseases. Mice and other animal models may be susceptible to tau-mediated neuronal dysfunction but not Tauopathy, per see.

We have made the appropriate changes in the revised manuscript.

(26) Lines 468-469: "tau neuropathology" rather than "tau associated neuropathies".

We have made the appropriate changes in the revised manuscript.

References

Askenazi, M., T. Kavanagh, G. Pires, B. Ueberheide, T. Wisniewski et al., 2023 Compilation of reported protein changes in the brain in Alzheimer's disease. Nat Commun 14: 4466.

Hsieh, Y. C., C. Guo, H. K. Yalamanchili, M. Abreha, R. Al-Ouran et al., 2019 Tau-Mediated Disruption of the Spliceosome Triggers Cryptic RNA Splicing and Neurodegeneration in Alzheimer's Disease. Cell Rep 29: 301-316 e310.

Iijima-Ando, K., M. Sekiya, A. Maruko-Otake, Y. Ohtake, E. Suzuki et al., 2012 Loss of axonal mitochondria promotes tau-mediated neurodegeneration and Alzheimer's disease-related tau phosphorylation via PAR-1. PLoS Genet 8: e1002918.

Jackson, G. R., M. Wiedau-Pazos, T. K. Sang, N. Wagle, C. A. Brown et al., 2002 Human wildtype tau interacts with wingless pathway components and produces neurofibrillary pathology in Drosophila. Neuron 34: 509-519.

Ji, W., K. An, C. Wang and S. Wang, 2022 Bioinformatics analysis of diagnostic biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease in peripheral blood based on sex differences and support vector machine algorithm. Hereditas 159: 38.

Leitner, D., G. Pires, T. Kavanagh, E. Kanshin, M. Askenazi et al., 2024 Similar brain proteomic signatures in Alzheimer's disease and epilepsy. Acta Neuropathol 147: 27.

Li, L., Y. Jiang, G. Wu, Y. A. R. Mahaman, D. Ke et al., 2022 Phosphorylation of Truncated Tau Promotes Abnormal Native Tau Pathology and Neurodegeneration. Mol Neurobiol 59: 6183-6199.

Mershin, A., E. Pavlopoulos, O. Fitch, B. C. Braden, D. V. Nanopoulos et al., 2004 Learning and memory deficits upon TAU accumulation in Drosophila mushroom body neurons. Learn Mem 11: 277-287.

Mukaka, M. M., 2012 Statistics corner: A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J 24: 69-71.

Okenve-Ramos, P., R. Gosling, M. Chojnowska-Monga, K. Gupta, S. Shields et al., 2024 Neuronal ageing is promoted by the decay of the microtubule cytoskeleton. PLoS Biol 22: e3002504.

Passarella, D., and M. Goedert, 2018 Beta-sheet assembly of Tau and neurodegeneration in Drosophila melanogaster. Neurobiol Aging 72: 98-105.

Sun, Z., J. S. Kwon, Y. Ren, S. Chen, C. K. Walker et al., 2024 Modeling late-onset Alzheimer's disease neuropathology via direct neuronal reprogramming. Science 385: adl2992.

Tao, Y., Y. Han, L. Yu, Q. Wang, S. X. Leng et al., 2020 The Predicted Key Molecules, Functions, and Pathways That Bridge Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer's Disease (AD). Front Neurol 11: 233.

Wegmann, S., B. Eftekharzadeh, K. Tepper, K. M. Zoltowska, R. E. Bennett et al., 2018 Tau protein liquid-liquid phase separation can initiate tau aggregation. EMBO J 37.

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Figure 1—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 1.
    Figure 1—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 1—figure supplement 1.
    Figure 1—figure supplement 2—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 1—figure supplement 2.
    Figure 2—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 2.
    Figure 2—source data 2. PDF files containing original Western blots for Figure 2G, indicating the relevant bands.
    Figure 2—source data 3. Original files for Western blot analysis displayed in Figure 2G.
    Figure 2—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 2—figure supplement 1.
    Figure 2—figure supplement 2—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 2—figure supplement 2.
    Figure 3—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 3.
    Figure 3—source data 2. PDF files containing original Western blots for Figure 3F, indicating the relevant bands.
    Figure 3—source data 3. Original files for Western blot analysis displayed in Figure 3F.
    Figure 3—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 3—figure supplement 1.
    Figure 3—figure supplement 1—source data 2. PDF files containing original Western blots for Figure 3—figure supplement 1A and F, indicating the relevant bands.
    Figure 3—figure supplement 1—source data 3. Original files for Western blot analysis displayed in Figure 3—figure supplement 1A and F.
    Figure 4—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 4.
    Figure 4—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 4—figure supplement 1.
    Figure 5—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 5.
    Figure 5—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 5—figure supplement 1.
    Figure 5—figure supplement 2—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 5—figure supplement 2.
    Figure 5—figure supplement 2—source data 2. PDF files containing original Western blots for Figure 5—figure supplement 2A, indicating the relevant bands.
    Figure 5—figure supplement 2—source data 3. Original files for Western blot analysis displayed in Figure 5—figure supplement 2A.
    Figure 5—figure supplement 3—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 5—figure supplement 3.
    Figure 6—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 6.
    Figure 6—source data 2. PDF files containing original Western blots for Figure 6O, indicating the relevant bands.
    Figure 6—source data 3. Original files for Western blot analysis displayed in Figure 6O.
    Figure 6—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 6—figure supplement 1.
    Figure 6—figure supplement 2—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 6—figure supplement 2.
    Figure 6—figure supplement 3—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 6—figure supplement 3.
    Figure 7—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 7.
    Figure 8—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 8.
    Figure 8—source data 2. PDF files containing original Western blots for Figure 8A, indicating the relevant bands.
    Figure 8—source data 3. Original files for Western blot analysis displayed in Figure 8A.
    Figure 8—figure supplement 1—source data 1. Source data related to Figure 8—figure supplement 1.
    Figure 8—figure supplement 1—source data 2. PDF files containing original Western blots for Figure 8—figure supplement 1A, indicating the relevant bands.
    Figure 8—figure supplement 1—source data 3. Original files for Western blot analysis displayed in Figure 8—figure supplement 1A.
    Supplementary file 1. The table shows the list of HSPs used to screen as genetic modifiers of Tauopathies.
    elife-104691-supp1.docx (31.9KB, docx)
    Supplementary file 2. Table shows the list of primers used in this study.
    elife-104691-supp2.docx (18.4KB, docx)
    Supplementary file 3. Table shows details of RNAi lines used against cytoskeletal chaperones.
    MDAR checklist

    Data Availability Statement

    All data associated with this study is included within the manuscript.


    Articles from eLife are provided here courtesy of eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd

    RESOURCES