Skip to main content
PLOS Genetics logoLink to PLOS Genetics
. 2026 Feb 9;22(2):e1012042. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1012042

Spatially distinct FRL and Ena dependent actin networks coordinate nuclear positioning in Drosophila nurse cells

Rita Gombos 1, Dávid Farkas 1, Balázs Vedelek 1, Szilárd Szikora 1, József Mihály 1,2,*
Editor: Ken M Cadigan3
PMCID: PMC12915960  PMID: 41662444

Abstract

Position of the nucleus is dynamically controlled to ensure a variety of cellular functions in a broad range of organisms form yeast to human. Nuclear positioning in Drosophila nurse cells is crucial during dumping when cells transfer their entire cytoplasmic content into the oocyte. An important prerequisite of effective dumping is the formation of an array of actin cables which holds the nucleus in a central position, thereby allowing transmission of the cytoplasmic cargo. Here we report the identification of FRL, a formin type of actin assembly factor, as a novel determinant of cytoplasmic actin bundle formation. We found that FRL and the formerly described Ena protein display a differential requirement. Comparison of the frl and ena loss of function situations revealed that FRL is mainly required for creation of the cytoplasmic actin subpopulation at stage 10B, while Ena mostly promotes formation of a ring canal attached actin array, already present at stage 7 and persists till dumping. Upon the concurrent absence of FRL and Ena the nuclear positioning actin cables are completely missing, strongly suggesting that nuclear positioning in the nurse cells requires the coordinated action of two spatially distinct actin networks.

Author summary

Controlling the position of the nucleus in multicellular organisms is vital for life from zygote formation throughout development and the maintenance of normal homeostasis. Cells use cytoskeleton dependent forces to push or pull their nuclei into the appropriate position. In the Drosophila egg chambers, made up from 15 nurse cells and the oocyte, the nurse cell nuclei need to be kept away from the ring canals (cytoplasmic bridges between these germline cells) during the last stages of oogenesis to prevent clogging and allow the bulk transport of materials (dumping) towards the oocyte. This was thought to be achieved by cytoplasmic actin cables spanning from the cortical membranes to the nucleus. Whereas we present further evidence in support of the importance of these actin arrays, we found that the prominent cytoplasmic actin bundles represent only one part of a two-tier mechanism, critically relying on the coordinated action of two distinct actin networks that differ in both the temporal and spatial regulation of their initiation, and their contribution to dumping efficiency. We hope that clarification of an important mechanistic aspect will be imperative to gain novel insights into the general means of nuclear positioning in fruit flies, and potentially, in other organisms.

Introduction

Controlling the position of the nucleus in multicellular organisms is vital for life from zygote formation throughout development till the maintenance of normal homeostasis. In the newly fertilized embryo, a delicate nuclear positioning system ensures apposition of the male and female pronucleus, which is a prerequisite of zygote formation (see for review [1,2]). Once differentiation takes place, a high number of cells undergo asymmetric divisions, cell shape changes, cell migration and rearrangements, processes that all involve proper positioning of the nucleus (see for review [2,3]). The maintenance of normal functioning of an organism or renewal of a tissue often requires similar mechanisms, such as asymmetric cell division, polarized material transport and cell migration. In addition, germ cell production is another important context in which nuclear positioning plays a critical role (see for review [4,5]). Collectively, these examples highlight that the regulation of nucleus position is a major factor in cellular organization and function throughout life.

Cells either use microtubule or actin dependent cytoskeletal forces to place their nucleus into the correct position during development or cell movement [1]. In the Drosophila ovary, nurse cells regulate the position of their nucleus via cytoplasmic actin cables during late oogenesis, which is crucial for fertility. The Drosophila egg chambers are comprised of 16 germline cells, surrounded by a monolayer of follicular cells (Fig 1I). The 16 germline cells are derived from a single cystoblast cell that undergoes a series of four incomplete cell divisions to generate a single oocyte and 15 nurse cells, interconnected by cytoplasmic bridges called ring canals (RCs) [6]. The main function of the nurse cells is to support the oocyte by transporting various products (mRNAs, proteins, metabolites and organelles) into the oocyte through the ring canals. This transport process can be subdivided into two phases, an early phase (up to stage 10A) characterized by slow cytoplasmic streaming, and a rapid late phase (from stage 10B) when the nurse cells contract in order to dump their entire cytoplasmic contents into the oocyte [7,8]. It was shown that, during the early phase, directional flow of the cytoplasmic materials and vesicles is assisted by ring canal attached actin baskets that form at stage 6–7, and display an asymmetric morphology at the nurse cell-oocyte borders [911]. At stage 10B, just before dumping begins, a prominent cytoplasmic actin cable array arises in the nurse cells spanning from their cortical membranes to the nucleus, thereby precluding the nuclei from clogging the ring canals. These actin filaments initiate at the plasma membrane as microvilli-like, short membrane evaginations protruding into the neighboring nurse cells. Although some pioneering studies suggested that the actin bundles are arranged into an overlapping pattern [12], later examinations revealed that the actin cables are formed by unsegmented bundles of uniformly oriented parallel actin filaments, with their (+) ends located in the plasma membrane protrusions and (-) ends found in vicinity of the nuclei [13].

Fig 1. FRL is required for cytoplasmic actin formation in Drosophila egg chambers.

Fig 1

(A-E’) Actin and nuclear (DAPI, in magenta) staining of stage 10B egg chambers of the indicated genotypes. (A, A’) In nurse cells of a wild type egg chamber the cytoplasmic and the ring canal associated (arrows in A) actin bundles are both visible. (B-C’) In frl59 mutant egg chambers the cytoplasmic cables are mostly missing, while the ring canal cables appear longer and more prominent (arrows in B) than in wild type, and in some cases the nurse cell nucleus blocks the ring canal (yellow arrow in C’). (D-E’) Phenotype of the frl59 mutants can be rescued by maternal-tubGal4 driven expression of full length FRL (UAS-FRL). (F) Quantification of the egg length phenotype laid by mothers with the indicated genotypes. Egg length of 0,48-0,6 mm is classified as wild type, 0,38-0,48 mm as a moderately shortened, while shorter than 0,38 mm as severely shortened egg size. n indicates the number of eggs measured. (G) An illustration of the different egg length categories quantified in panel F. (H, I) Quantification of nurse cable (H) and oocyte cable (I) actin density in egg chambers with the genotype indicated. (J) The localization of FRL and Ena at the cytoplasmic actin bundles. Note the strong colocalization at the tip of the actin bundles, and a weaker FRL signal along the membrane pits, schematized in K. (L-L”) A ring canal from an frl59 mutant egg chamber stained for Hts (in green) to label the ring canal proper, and actin (in magenta). Arrows in L” indicate peripheral areas revealing that the RC cables initiate from the vicinity of the ring canals outside of the RC proper. (M) Schematic drawings illustrating a few major stages of Drosophila oogenesis. Nurse cells are in yellow, oocyte is in green, nuclei are in blue. Note the cytoplasmic actin cables (in red) that form in stage 10B. Scale bars: 1 µm in panel G and L, 10 µm in all other panels.

Consistent with the importance of filament bundling, in the absence of Fascin, Villin or Filamin, the cytoplasmic actin cables fail to form and organize properly [1417]. In addition to these actin bundling factors, proteins involved in filament formation, including the actin monomer binding Profilin [18], the elongation factor Enabled (Ena) [19] and the actin assembly factor Diaphanous (Dia) [20], were also linked to cytoplasmic actin filament growth and organization. However, the lack of these proteins does not typically result in a complete absence of the cytoplasmic actin cables, instead the major effect of Dia loss was reduced filament growth rate [20], whereas the removal of Ena led to decreased cable density and growth rate [19,20], but not to an entire block of filament formation. Thus, these observations indicated that additional actin regulatory factors might also play a role in nuclear positioning during Drosophila oogenesis.

Here, we report that the absence of FRL (a formin type of actin assembly factor) induces a severe reduction in the number of the cytoplasmic actin bundles, which is paralleled with the formation of strong, ring canal associated cables. With help of advanced imaging techniques, we revealed that, unlike previously assumed, these RC attached actin bundles remain present till stage 10B in the wild type egg chambers as well. We show that the activity of FRL is regulated by Cdc42, and that it is strongly colocalized with Ena at the (+) tip of the actin filaments. Despite their highly similar distribution pattern, we found that FRL and Ena exert a differential effect on the nurse cell actin cytoskeleton because the frl null mutation impairs only the cytoplasmic actin bundles, whereas the depletion of Ena primarily affects the RC actin baskets, which appear to play a more prominent role in dumping than the cortical membrane derived cytoplasmic actin arrays. Remarkably, the concomitant loss of FRL and Ena results in the complete absence of the cytoplasmic and the RC cables, and in a very strong dumpless phenotype, indicating that the FRL and Ena dependent pathways are necessary and sufficient to govern nuclear positioning in the Drosophila nurse cells.

Results

FRL is required for cytoplasmic actin assembly and nuclear positioning in the Drosophila nurse cells

While studying the developmental roles of the Drosophila formin, FRL, we noticed that mothers homozygous for frl59 (an frl null allele) [21,22] often lay eggs smaller than normal. We quantified this phenotype and found that ~60% of the eggs exhibit a weaker or stronger reduction in egg length when compared to wild type (wild type length in our conditions varies between 0,48–0,6 mm; egg length of 0,38–0,48 mm is classified as weak reduction, whereas the category shorter than 0,38 mm is considered as strong reduction) (Fig 1F, G). To determine the origin of this defect, we studied the oogenesis in frl59 homozygous mutant females by immunostaining the actin cytoskeleton. We revealed that egg chambers of the mutants look largely normal up to stage 10A, however, in stage 10B we detected a strong decrease in the number of the cytoplasmic actin filaments in the nurse cells (Fig 1A–B’). The reduction of the bundles was evident in all cytoplasmic actin subpopulations, i.e., the nurse cables (derived from nurse cell-nurse cell borders), the follicle cables (derived from nurse cell-follicular cell borders) and the oocyte cables (derived from nurse cell-oocyte borders) [20] were all affected (Figs 1A–B’, S1B–G), with the strongest effect on the nurse cables (Fig 1H, I). Curiously, these alterations were paralleled with the formation of prominent actin bundles connected to the ring canals (Fig 1B, L–L”), and while the overall shape and size of the ring canals remained normal, a nearly twofold increase was detected in level of the Hts protein (S2A–B’, F, G Fig). Despite looking thicker and longer, these actin structures highly resembled the ring canal attached actin baskets that normally form during stage 6–7 [911], and are thought to help directional transport of materials through the ring canals during the early phase of dumping. The obvious structural similarity prompted us to ask whether these actin baskets persist till stage 10B in the wild type ovary, where identification of these structures was difficult with the former microscopy techniques [10]. With current generation confocal microscopy, while carefully observing wild type stage 10B egg chambers, we could clearly detect the presence of a ring canal associated actin array (subsequently referred as RC cables) (Figs 1A and 2), that by location appeared as a distinct population as compared to the other cytoplasmic bundles. As a control we also examined younger egg chambers where presence of the actin baskets was obvious both in wild type and frl59 mutant chambers (S1H–I’ Fig). Thus, we propose that the ring canal associated actin baskets, normally forming during the earlier stages of oogenesis, persist continuously till the second phase of dumping, taking place in stage 10B. Moreover, we noticed that while in stage 8 the wild type RC cables are no longer than a few microns (S1H Fig), by late stage 10B they elongate till 20–22 μm, that is sufficient to reach close to the cell nucleus (S2C–C”, E Fig). In, the absence of FRL the RC cables are even longer (S2D–D”, E Fig) that might represent a mechanism to compensate for loss of the cytoplasmic cables.

Fig 2. The localization pattern of FRL and Ena in wild type egg chambers.

Fig 2

(A-E) Confocal Z-sections from a wild type stage 10B egg chamber stained for actin (in gray), FRL (in green) and Ena (in magenta). Panels A-C display a single optical section where colocalization of actin, FRL and Ena is evident at the cortical membrane as well as at the ring canals. D-F show Z-sections of the same area as depicted in A-C, revealing a large number of actin bundles including the ring canal associated cables (arrows) and the plasma membrane attached ones. The strong colocalization of actin, FRL and Ena is also evident. (G-L’) High magnification images of the plasma membrane (G-I’) and ring canal (J-L’) accumulation of FRL (in green) and Ena (in magenta). FRL and Ena both show a cortical membrane enrichment (FRL exhibiting a higher level than Ena), and both proteins accumulate in a punctate pattern at the tip of nuclear positioning actin bundles (G-I’). Similarly, FRL and Ena colocalize at the ring canals, and they decorate the tip of the RC cables (on both sides of the actin rings) (J-L’). Scale bars, 10 μm.

To extend the phenotypic characterization of the frl mutants, we also investigated older egg chambers, and we detected numerous examples for nuclei blocking the ring canals in stage 11–13 (Fig 1C, C’), revealing a dumping problem that explains well the reduction in egg length. Because we were able to rescue these phenotypes by expressing the full length FRL protein in the germ cells (Fig 1DF, H), we conclude that FRL is required for cytoplasmic actin cable assembly in the nurse cells. In accordance with this, the FRL protein is strongly accumulated at the nurse cell plasma membranes, as well as at the ring canals (Fig 2). Higher resolution images from stage 10B show that FRL displays a punctate pattern at the end of the cytoplasmic actin filaments at the nurse cell borders, where it shows a strong colocalization with Ena (Fig 2JI’), and it also exhibits a weaker staining along the actin cables at their initial segment close to the membrane (Figs 1J, K and 2GI’). Likewise, we detected similar FRL-Ena puncta around the ring canals, located on either sides of the actin rings (with the exception of the oocyte-nurse cell border), and tipping the actin bundles that extend towards the nucleus (Fig 2JL’). These actin cables do not appear to be directly connected to the ring canal proper (although they initiate from the immediate vicinity) (Fig 1LL”), instead, distribution of the FRL-Ena dots indicate that they presumably originate from similar microvilli-like protrusions as the cytoplasmic actin filaments (Fig 2). Together, these data suggest that FRL is enriched at the (+) end of the actin filaments (marked by Ena) both in the nurse cell membrane protrusions and at the ring canals. Despite being present in both regions, FRL is only indispensable for assembly of the cytoplasmic actin cables, but not for the ring canal associated ones.

Formin redundancy has a minor contribution to nurse cell actin cable formation

Because formins, including FRL, were reported to act in a redundant manner in some instances [2224], we wanted to address whether the ring canal derived actin cables (still present in the absence of FRL) are dependent on another formin. To this end, the other five Drosophila formins were knocked down in an frl59 mutant background with a germline specific driver matα4-Gal4-VP16 (mat-tubG4). As a control, the formin TRiP lines were first examined in a wild type background, but they had no effect on egg size or actin organization in the nurse cells (S3C Fig), while the knockdown of FRL had a similar, albeit weaker effect both on cytoplasmic actin organization (S3A, B Fig) and egg length (S3C Fig) as that of the frl59 allele. When the knockdown was carried out in the frl59 homozygous mutants, we detected a reduction of egg length in the cases of capu, dia, form3 and DAAM, while fhos had a negligible effect (Fig 3G). However, unlike we expected, none of these mutant combinations exhibited a notable effect on the RC actin cables as compared to the frl59 mutant controls (Fig 3AF), indicating the lack of redundancy at this level. Nevertheless, comparison of the actin filament patterns in stage 10B uncovered a considerable strengthening of another aspect of the frl59 phenotype evident in the oocyte membrane associated cables. In the mere absence of FRL, it is typical that loss of the cytoplasmic actin cables is nearly complete in the anterior and middle regions of the egg chambers, whereas the effect is weaker along the oocyte membrane where numerous cables can be detected in the posterior most nurse cells that are in direct contact with the oocyte (Fig 3A, H). The concomitant loss of frl and capu, dia, form3 or DAAM decreases the number of these cytoplasmic actin cables without affecting the ring canal derived subpopulation (Fig 3BE, H), and consistent with the reduced egg size (Fig 3G), number of the ring canals blocked with nucleus is increased in these conditions. Thus, based on the analysis of all six Drosophila formins in single and double mutant combinations, we conclude that the ring canal derived nucleus positioning actin cables are unlikely to be formin dependent, whereas formation of the cytoplasmic bundles is primarily dependent on FRL, with a minor contribution of Capu, Dia, Form3 and DAAM, mainly promoting assembly of the oocyte cables.

Fig 3. Formin redundance in nurse cell actin cable formation.

Fig 3

(A-F) Actin staining of stage 10B egg chambers of the indicated genotypes. In control (mat-tubG4, frl59/frl59) (A) egg chambers most of the cytoplasmic actin cables are absent, only a few of them are visible in the oocyte nurse cells (arrow), whereas the RC bundles can clearly be detected. Upon RNAi mediated knockdown of DAAM (B), Form3 (C), Dia (D) or Capu (E) in an frl59 mutant background the RC cables remain visible, however, the oocyte cables are often completely missing (yellow arrows in B-E). The knockdown of FHOS has a negligible effect on nurse cell cytoplasmic actin organization (F). (G) Quantification of the egg length phenotype laid by mothers with the indicated genotypes. n indicates the number of eggs measured. (H) Quantification of oocyte cable density in stage 10B egg chambers of the indicated genotypes. Scale bars, 10 μm.

Cdc42 and FRL work together in the nurse cells

FRL is a member of the Diaphanous related formin (DRF) family, the activity of which is known to be regulated by Rho GTPases [25]. To determine which Drosophila GTPase might be involved in FRL activation during oogenesis, we analyzed four members of the Rho family by RNAi mediated silencing. We found that germline specific knockdown of RhoA and Cdc42 resulted in a significant reduction in egg size, whereas Rac1 and RhoL silencing had no effect (Fig 4G). Next, we inspected the actin cytoskeleton in these ovaries, and noticed that in the knockdown of RhoA the cytoplasmic actin filaments looked largely normal, but the ring canals appeared distorted as indicated by their actin organization and Hts distribution (S4 Fig). Clearly distinct from this effect, the egg chambers upon Cdc42 knockdown looked similar to the ones observed in frl59 homozygous mutants. We detected a strong reduction in the number of the cytoplasmic actin cables (Fig 4H, I), whereas the RC actin bundles were often longer and more prominent than in wild type (Fig 4A–B’). To further confirm the effect of Cdc42 RNAi, we examined the actin phenotypes in mutant clones of cdc424 (a strong LOF allele) [26]. These studies corroborated the strong effect on the cytoplasmic actin bundles, which were almost entirely missing, and although the RC cables were present, they did not show an increased size or actin level, instead they looked less compact than in controls, and they failed to prevent clogging of the ring canals (Figs 4C, C’ and 6C–E). Therefore, a weaker reduction of Cdc42 level (induced by RNAi) produces a nearly identical effect as the complete loss of FRL, whereas the stronger allele not only prevents formation of the cytoplasmic actin cables, but it partly blocks growth of the ring canal derived filaments as well. Given that the frl59 and cdc422 mutants exhibit a dominant genetic interaction as judged by cytoplasmic actin cable density and the effect on egg length (Fig 4D–F’, J–L), these findings suggest that Cdc42 is required for FRL (and possibly other DRF) activation during cytoplasmic actin assembly, and it also plays a role in RC cable regulation. To address this possibility further, we asked whether Cdc42 KD affects the distribution of FRL and Ena in the nurse cells. These studies showed that the cortical membrane accumulation of FRL and Ena, and the RC accumulation of FRL are strongly reduced upon RNAi mediated silencing of Cdc42 (S5A–O’ Fig), while the Ena level appears moderately reduced at the RCs (S5P, P’ Fig). Thus, Cdc42 contributes to the regulation of FRL localization in nurse cells, providing additional support for a Cdc42 dependent formin activation in the context of nuclear positioning. Likewise, Ena localization is also affected offering a possible explanation for the seemingly stronger effect of Cdc42 KD as compared to frl loss.

Fig 4. The loss of Cdc42 impairs nuclear positioning actin in a similar manner as frl.

Fig 4

(A-C’) Confocal Z-sections of stage 10B egg chambers stained for actin (in gray) and DAPI (to label the nuclei, in magenta). As compared to control (mat-tubG4/+) (A, A’) egg chambers, knockdown of Cdc42 results in a complete absence of the cytoplasmic actin bundles, whereas the RC cables often look longer and more prominent than in wild type (B, B’). In Cdc424 mutant germline clones the cytoplasmic actin filaments are entirely missing, while the ring canal associated actin cables look less compact than in controls and often fail to prevent clogging of the ring canals (C, C’). (D-F’) Heterozygosity for frl59 enhances the weak cytoplasmic cable phenotype of Cdc422 mutant egg chambers. Note the reduced cytoplasmic actin level in F. (G, J) Quantification of the egg length phenotype laid by mothers with the indicated genotypes. n indicates the number of eggs measured. (H, I, K, L) Quantification of nurse cable (H, K) and oocyte cable (I, L) density in egg chambers with the indicated genotypes. Note the strong reduction of cable density upon Cdc42 KD in both cytoplasmic cable populations, and enhancement of the phenotypic effect of cdc422 by frl59/ +. Scale bars, 10 μm.

Fig 6. Ena is primarily required for formation of the RC cables.

Fig 6

(A) Quantification of the ring canal actin defects observed upon Ena depletion with FP4mito. Note that the lack of Ena results in reduced actin levels at the ring canals, particularly in the cases of the posterior and oocyte ring canals, whereas the anterior ring canal cables are much less affected. (B, B’) Actin (in gray) and nuclear (DAPI, in magenta) staining of a mat-tubG4/UAS-FP4mito egg chamber at stage 10B, revealing the presence of a high number of cytoplasmic cables, paralleled with the frequent loss of the ring canal associated bundles (arrows in B) causing ring canal blocking events (yellow arrows in B’). (C-E) Quantification of the ring canal blocking events in stage 10B egg chambers with the indicated genotypes. Scale bars, 10 μm.

The differential effect of the lack of FRL and Ena on cytoplasmic actin

After establishing a Cdc42 dependent role for FRL in nurse cell actin regulation, we aimed to clarify further the contribution of FRL and Ena. Former studies showed that in the absence of Ena, formation of the nurse cell cytoplasmic actin filaments is impaired [19], and we have shown here that these two proteins colocalize in the egg chambers (Figs 1G, 2), inspiring us to investigate whether they act together or they have independent roles in the process. To this end, we decided to compare the effects of the loss of FRL and Ena by using frl59 for FRL and the FP4mito tool to deplete Ena in the female germline. Expression of FP4mito was shown to rapidly relocalize Ena to mitochondria [27], and it has already been successfully used to mimic the loss of function phenotype of ena within the Drosophila ovary [19]. Accordingly, our immunostaining experiments confirmed that upon FP4mito expression with mat-tubG4, Ena is absent from the nurse cell plasma membranes and the ring canals (Fig 5A, B, E, G, H, K). As a consequence of the lack of Ena, we found that the eggs laid by UAS-FP4mito/ +; mat-tubG4/ + mothers are shorter than the controls and even that of the frl59 mutant eggs (Fig 5R, compare to Fig 1F). Whereas at this point one could assume that Ena might have a stronger effect on the cytoplasmic actin network than FRL, comparison of the UAS-FP4mito/ +; mat-tubG4/+ and frl59 mutant egg chambers led us to a different conclusion. We revealed that in the absence of Ena the cytoplasmic actin cables are relatively mildly affected (quantified in  5S, T Fig), while the ring canal linked actin cables are largely missing or appear much shorter than in the wild type situation (Figs 5M, N, 6B, B’). It is noteworthy, that the actin bundles around the posterior ring canals (the ones closer to the oocyte) are more strongly affected than the anterior ring canals (Fig 6A, C–E). Moreover, we also noted that blocking of the ring canals by nuclei occurs more frequently upon Ena depletion (Fig 6B’) (typically 4–5 blocking events per egg chamber are detected already at stage early 10B) than in the frl null mutants (with 1–2 blocking events, only visible in late stage 10B). Importantly, when clogging occurs in the absence of Ena, the cytoplasmic cables can still be detected in the nurse cells (Fig 5O–Q’), revealing that the presence of these actin bundles is not sufficient for normal nuclear positioning. Additionally, the effect of Ena depletion was analyzed in younger egg chambers as well, where we failed to detect the presence of the ring canal actin baskets (S1J, J’ Fig).

Fig 5. The depletion of Ena strongly reduces number of the ring canal associated actin cables.

Fig 5

(A-L) Confocal Z-sections of a nurse cell plasma membrane area (A-F) or a ring canal (G-L) in a mat-tubG4/UAS-FP4mito stage 10B egg chamber, stained for actin (in gray), Ena (in green) and FRL (in magenta). Note the lack of Ena along the membrane (A, B), and the presence of FRL both at the tip of the actin filaments and along the membrane (C-F). In mat-tubG4/UAS-FP4mito egg chambers the RC cables are often lost or reduced in number, and Ena is absent from the ring canals (G, H), while FRL is present in a reduced amount (I-L). (M, N) Actin (in gray) and nuclear (DAPI, in magenta) staining of a mat-tubG4/UAS-FP4mito egg chamber at stage 10B, revealing the presence of a high number of cytoplasmic nuclear positioning actin cables, paralleled with the frequent loss of the RC cables (arrows in M). (O-Q’) Three different examples to illustrate that despite presence of a large number of cytoplasmic cables, the nuclei (in magenta) often clog the ring canals (missing the RC cables) in mat-tubG4/UAS-FP4mito egg chambers. (R) Quantification of the egg length phenotype laid by mothers of the indicated genotypes. n indicates the number of eggs measured. (S, T) Quantification of nurse cable and oocyte cable density in mat-tubG4/UAS-FP4mito egg chambers, revealing a moderate reduction in both cases. Scale bars: 10 μm in panel M-Q’, 5 µm in all other panels.

To collect an independent line of evidence for the effect of Ena, a germline clone analysis was carried out with ena23, a hypomorphic allele reported to cause dumping defects [19]. We observed that this mutation mildly impairs the cytoplasmic actin cables, and we also detected an occasional loss or strong reduction of the RC associated cables (S6 Fig). Penetrance of the RC cable phenotype is clearly weaker than upon the FP4-mito mediated depletion of Ena, and accordingly, the dumping defect is also weaker (S6J Fig) [19]. However, unlike in the case of Ena depletion where Ena level is severely reduced (causing a nearly protein null situation in the cytoplasm), ena23 is not a null allele because the Ena protein can still be detected in the germline clones with a distribution pattern that is similar to wild type (shown in S6D–I Fig). Consistent with this, ena23 is associated with two mutations, N379F and K636STOP [28], resulting in a truncated protein lacking the tetramerization domain but retaining the actin binding region. Thus, the hypomorphic nature of ena23 and the largely normal protein accumulation pattern provide a conceivable explanation for the phenotypic difference as compared to Ena depletion, and overall, the data support further for an Ena role in RC associated actin bundle formation.

Collectively, these data suggest that the depletion of Ena results in an actin phenotype which is largely complementary to the lack of FRL, because Ena has a much stronger effect on the RC cables with a modest effect on the cytoplasmic filaments, while frl strongly affects this latter actin subpopulation without preventing the formation of the ring canal attached cables (compare Figs 1B, D and 5M). Thus, phenotypic characterization of these two functionally important actin regulatory factors revealed that, beyond the clear difference in the position of the cytoplasmic and the RC actin cables, these two nuclear positioning actin subpopulations differ in their assembly mechanisms as well, one of them being primarily Ena dependent while the other one being FRL dependent. Interestingly, although the lack of the FRL dependent cables seems to induce a more obvious reduction in the cytoplasmic actin level, the lack of Ena results in stronger dumping defects (i.e., shorter eggs are formed). Based on these findings, we propose that the RC cables, present in the frl mutants but largely absent from the Ena depleted egg chambers, play a more prominent role in keeping the nuclei away from the ring canals than the cytoplasmic actin bundles.

The concurrent absence of FRL and Ena prevents cytoplasmic actin formation completely

To extend our studies on the regulatory connection and differential contribution of FRL and Ena, we looked into the localization of these proteins in wild type egg chambers and also in the absence of one another. In the wild type situation both proteins are present from the early stages of oogenesis, but their nurse cell plasma membrane association is relatively weak (shown for stage 4 in S7A–B” Fig). By stage 8 FRL and Ena clearly show a cortical membrane association (S7C–D” Fig), and Ena also exhibit a strong accumulation at the ring canals with a punctual pattern, where the FRL level remains modest (S7E–F” Fig). By contrast, in stage 10B colocalization of the two proteins becomes more prominent both along the plasma membrane and at the ring canals (S7G–L” Fig). Hence, FRL and Ena display a significant level of colocalization at the nurse cell cortex during the entire course of oogenesis, but FRL is largely absent from the ring canals up to stage 8, which is in good accordance with their differential requirement in RC cable formation.

Next, we asked whether the lack of frl affects the accumulation and localization of Ena in the developing egg chambers. The enrichment of Ena at the nurse cell plasma membranes is greatly reduced in the frl59 mutants, whereas the Ena signal remains strong at the ring canals (Fig 7A–D’), including the tips of the RC bundles (S8 Fig). This observation suggested that the effect of frl might be related to the reduced Ena level at the plasma membranes. If so, one would expect that increasing the level of Ena in an frl mutant background would rescue (or partly rescue) the phenotype. However, the overexpression of Ena in frl59 mutants had no such an effect (Fig 7I), although the Ena::Flag protein expressed has the ability for membrane association (S9 Fig). To estimate the reduction of Ena level in frl59, an ena RNAi line was used for comparison, and we detected a similar decrease in both cases (Fig 7G, H). Despite the comparable protein levels, the knockdown of Ena has very weak if any effect on egg size or cytoplasmic actin organization (Fig 7E–F’, J, K), indicating that the primary effect of frl is not directly linked to a drop of Ena levels. Besides analysis of the frl59 mutants, we also considered the reverse setting when we determined the FRL protein distribution upon Ena depletion by FP4mito, however, we found no major change in the amount or localization pattern of FRL in this condition (as compared to wild type) (S10 Fig). Taken together, these data revealed that FRL is required for the plasma membrane/actin (+) end enrichment of Ena but not for its ring canal association, whereas FRL distribution in the nurse cells does not appear to be regulated by Ena. Moreover, these results provided further support for a specific FRL requirement in cytoplasmic actin assembly, which is clearly distinct from the role of Ena.

Fig 7. FRL is required for nurse cell plasma membrane accumulation of Ena.

Fig 7

(A-B’) Confocal Z-sections of a wild type (A, A’) and an frl59 mutant (B, B’) egg chamber stained for Ena (in green) and actin (in gray). Note that in the frl59 mutant Ena exhibits a strongly reduced level along the plasma membrane (white arrows indicate two typical examples), while its ring canal enrichment is not impaired (yellow arrows point to ring canal examples). (C-D’) Quantification of Ena levels at the plasma membrane (C, C’) and at the ring canals (D, D’) in wild type and frl59 mutant egg chambers underlines the conclusion shown in A-B’. (E-F’) The RNAi mediated knockdown of Ena has a negligible effect on nuclear positioning actin in stage 10B egg chambers. (G) Western blot analysis of the protein expression level of FRL and Ena in wild type, frl59 and MDD-G4/Ena-RNAi egg chambers. Note the similarly reduced Ena levels in frl59 and MDD-G4/Ena-RNAi, which is quantified in H. (I) Quantification of the egg length phenotype laid by mothers of the indicated genotypes. n indicates the number of eggs measured. (J, K) Quantification of nurse cable (J) and oocyte cable (K) density in egg chambers with the indicated genotypes. Note that expression of Ena-Flag fails to rescue the defects caused by the frl mutation. Scale bars, 10 μm.

The existence of an FRL and an Ena dependent subclass within the nucleus positioning actin cables encouraged us to ask whether these two arrays are the only ones required, and to verify further the complementary role of these two proteins. To address these issues, we first carried out a genetic interaction assay between frl and ena by generating ena23/ +; frl59 females. These mothers laid significantly shorter eggs compared to homozygous frl59 controls (Fig 8E), further confirming the essential role of these two genes. Next, we depleted Ena in a homozygous frl59 mutant background, and we not only observed a strong genetic interaction as to egg length reduction (Fig 8E), but the concomitant absence of FRL and Ena resulted in a complete absence of both the cytoplasmic and the RC actin cables (Fig 8A, A’). Despite of this remarkable effect, the overall shape of the nurse cells and that of the ring canals remained largely normal (Fig 8A’), even though dumping was almost entirely blocked, as indicated by the large number of clogging events (Fig 8A–D) and the small egg size (hardly bigger than a stage 11 oocyte) (Fig 8E). Thus, analysis of the egg chambers with strongly reduced Ena and FRL levels provided strong support for non-overlapping FRL and Ena roles in nucleus positioning cytoskeleton assembly. Strikingly, the simultaneous loss of these two proteins entirely prevented the formation of both nuclear positioning actin subpopulations (i.e., the RC cables and the cytoplasmic actin cables), not only arguing that FRL and Ena are the main regulators of nucleus positioning actin, but also suggesting that functionally these are the only two main components.

Fig 8. Egg chambers forming upon the concomitant absence of FRL and Ena are completely devoid of nucleus positioning actin cables.

Fig 8

(A-D) Confocal Z-sections of a mat-tubG4, frl59/frl59, UAS-FP4mito stage 10B egg chamber stained for actin (in gray) and DAPI (to label the nuclei, in magenta). Note the presence of the nurse cell cortical actin and the actin filaments at the inner rim of the ring canals (A’), and the complete absence of the nuclear positioning actin bundles (including the cytoplasmic and the ring canal associated subpopulations). The inset in B-D highlights nuclear clogging events (yellow arrows), frequently occurring upon the concomitant absence of FRL and Ena. (E) Quantification of the egg length phenotype laid by mothers of the indicated genotypes. n indicates the number of eggs measured. Scale bars, 10 μm.

Discussion

The Drosophila egg chambers have long been used as a paradigm to study the mechanisms of nuclear positioning, including that of the oocyte nucleus, the nurse cell nuclei and the follicular cell nuclei [5,2931]. Of these, we focused on the nurse cell nuclei that need to be kept away from the ring canals during the last stages of oogenesis to allow the bulk transport of materials towards the oocyte. According to the prevailing model this is achieved by a dense network of cytoplasmic actin cables, assembled shortly before dumping, that anchors nurse cell nuclei in the central cytoplasm. Our findings refine this model by demonstrating that nuclear positioning is mediated not by a single actin array but by two distinct filament populations which differ in their position (cytoplasmic versus ring canal attached), time of origin (early versus late stage of oogenesis), as well as in the molecular machineries that build them.

The nucleus positioning cytoplasmic actin filaments form during stage 10B in microvilli-like membrane pits, and grow inward as bundles of ~25 filaments to extend until the nuclear area, while reaching a considerable length of about 30 μm. We demonstrate that their assembly is highly dependent on the formin FRL, likely acting downstream of Cdc42. FRL loss results in a clear reduction of the cytoplasmic cables, and the phenotype is only minimally enhanced by depletion of other formins, indicating that FRL is the principal assembly factor for this actin population. The ring canal associated actin baskets were initially described to form during stage 6–7 and persist until stage 10 [11], however, their identification during the later stages was made difficult by appearance of the cytoplasmic cables [10], and they have not been linked to nuclear positioning. By using high resolution imaging, we could demonstrate their presence even at stage 10B in wild type egg chambers, which is supported further by their undoubted appearance upon the largely selective destruction of the cytoplasmic cables via the frl null mutation. These findings suggest that the RC actin baskets contribute to the regulation of dumping in at least two ways, first by controlling directional sorting of vesicles and potentially other cargos during the slow cytoplasmic streaming phase as proposed by Nicolas et al., 2009 [10], and also during stage 10B when they participate in the prevention of nuclear clogging. Thus, it appears that nucleus positioning during the rapid late phase of dumping is not simply achieved by the newly forming cytoplasmic actin arrays, but rather by the combined action of the ring canal actin baskets (formed well before stage 10B) and the cytoplasmic cables. This conclusion is fully supported by our mutant analysis when one or the other system is selectively impaired. Nevertheless, the question arises as to whether the RC cables indeed play a role in the wild type situation as well. Given that upon Ena depletion most of the cytoplasmic cables are present, yet the nuclei often block the ring canals, this situation clearly indicates that presence of the cytoplasmic cables is not sufficient to hold the nuclei away from the RCs. By taking this together with the position and length of the RC cables, long enough to span the distance between the ring canals and the nucleus in wild type nurse cells, our observations strongly support for the RC cables being required for nucleus positioning not only in the frl mutants, but also in wild type conditions. In addition, because the lack of Ena results in a stronger dumping defect than the lack of FRL, our data argue for a more prominent role for the RC cables in the prevention of clogging than that of the FRL dependent cytoplasmic cables. Thus, although the nuclear positioning actin cables execute a single major function, and thereby they can be viewed as a uniform system, this complex array can in fact be subdivided into two subpopulations, that differ in the temporal and spatial regulation of their initiation, and their contribution to dumping efficiency. Whereas we noticed that Ena depletion has a weak effect on the cytoplasmic cables too, the differential and region-specific requirement for FRL and Ena is still evident in the phenotypes, primarily supporting for non-overlapping functions. When Ena is depleted in an frl null mutant background, both actin populations are eliminated without affecting cortical actin or nurse cell architecture. This is an unusually strong and clean phenotypic effect that has not been reported in former studies, paralleled with frequent clogging of the ring canals and a very strong defect in dumping. The eggs laid by these mothers are barely longer than the average length of the oocyte within stage 11 egg chambers, indicating that dumping is indeed almost completely blocked. These results imply that the FRL- and Ena-dependent pathways together constitute the entire actin assembly machinery dedicated to nuclear positioning.

The known biochemical activities of these regulators align well with our in vivo observations. Formins, including FRL/FMNL, act as actin nucleators and processive elongation factors, and some also bundle filaments [32]. Ena/VASP proteins promote barbed-end elongation and can facilitate filament bundling [33,34]. Cdc42 is a broad regulator of actin-based membrane protrusions and can activate both formins and Ena/VASP family proteins [3234]. In vitro, FMNL2/3 behave as relatively weak nucleators but can processively elongate actin filaments in the presence of Profilin; and in vivo these proteins robustly promote filopodia assembly [3539]. Several studies place FMNL proteins at the extreme tips of filopodia, where they associate directly with the plasma membrane [40,41], and implicate them in generating convex membrane curvature together with Cdc42 and/or I-BAR proteins [42,43]. Our data indicate that FRL and Cdc42 act as mutually dependent cofactors for assembly of the late, cytoplasmic cables. Although FRL and Ena colocalize at the tips of cytoplasmic cables by stage 10B, the pronounced loss of these cables in frl mutants demonstrates that Ena cannot substitute for FRL dependent assembly. Conversely, Ena is required for formation of the RC actin baskets arising at stage 6–7 when Ena exhibits a much stronger accumulation at the RCs than FRL. Ena possesses properties well suited for assembling long, straight, bundled filaments: in vitro it can bind and protect multiple new filament barbed ends from capping protein, permitting the establishment of several parallel filaments. These Ena-associated filaments are then efficiently bundled by Fascin, and they can cooperatively extend and maintain a robust filopodia of uniform thickness with aligned barbed ends [44]. It is therefore plausible that a similar Ena - Fascin synergy underlies the assembly of the ring canal actin baskets, consistent with previous identification of Fascin as an important factor [13,45]. Because Ena does not nucleate actin under physiological conditions [33,46,47], additional nucleation factor(s) must initiate filaments of the RC cables. The identity of this factor remains unknown as knockdown of other formins did not produce a ring canal specific defect, nor were such effects reported for spire mutants, affecting another nucleation factor family involved in unbranched actin filament formation [48]. These observations leave open the possibility that multiple formins act redundantly at ring canals, or that an as-yet-unidentified nucleator mediates assembly of the RC actin cables. Either way it is, the employment of different nucleation factors for the RC and the cytoplasmic cables would be in accordance with the different temporal and spatial requirements.

Slender, finger-like cellular protrusions with a centrally located actin bundle, such as filopodia, microvilli and the membrane protrusions supporting the nucleus positioning actin bundles in the nurse cells, are widespread in nature. Most filopodia are adhesive, often long and very dynamic (with a half life of not more than few minutes); microvilli in turn are apical, non-adhesive, short and stable extensions, whereas the nurse cell membrane pits exhibit a limited and largely uniform length, and a stability for few hours. Curiously, regardless of these obvious structural differences (accompanied by numerous functional differences, not discussed here), previous studies have already shown that a big part of the molecular toolbox used for the generation of these markedly different structures is similar in all these cases [4952]. The identification of FRL and Cdc42 as new factors of nucleus positioning in Drosophila nurse cells provide further support for this conclusion. This is particularly evident in comparison to filopodia and filopodia-like structures, the formation of which was shown to depend on the FRL orthologs, FMNL2 and FMNL3, in several cellular models [37,42,5356], and Cdc42 was also identified as a key protein of actin-based protrusion formation in numerous model systems, including FMNL2, FMNL3 and Mena (an Ena/VASP family member) dependent manners [35,43,55,57]. Because ample of evidence confirm the role of Ena/VASP proteins in filopodia assembly in diverse Drosophila [5860] and vertebrate models [55,6164], we conclude that the three major nuclear positioning factors studied here, are recurrently used elements during evolution to create long actin bundles to provide support for various types of slender cellular protrusions. Yet, beyond these similarities, it remains a largely open question what determines the specificity of these factors in the different cell types and developmental stages, resulting in the formation of seemingly different protrusions. Presumably, the differences in the biochemical properties, the regulation of subcellular localization, and protein-protein interactions are all crucial to adapt a common actin assembly toolkit to distinct structural outputs.

Together our observations provide novel insights into the formation and regulation of the diverse actin arrays dedicated to ensure nuclear positioning in the nurse cells. Whereas identification of a new player and recognition of a two-tier mechanism, are important steps forward, further studies will be required to elucidate the molecular mechanisms of FRL in more details, and to explore how the activities of FRL, Ena and other players of the nuclear positioning system are coordinated during oogenesis to enable the orchestration of the cytoplasmic actin network critical for oocyte development. In addition, because accumulating evidence suggest the presence of actin fibers in mouse cysts before and during cytoplasmic transfer [65], it would be exciting to examine whether analogous mechanisms operate in vertebrate systems.

Materials and methods

Drosophila stocks

Drosophila melanogaster stocks were raised on standard cornmeal-yeast-agar medium at 25°C. The following mutant strains were used: w1118 (BL#3605), Cdc424 FRT19A/FM6 (BL#9106), Cdc422 FRT19A(BL#9105), FRTG13 ovoD1/T(1;2)OR64/CyO (BL#4434), ovoD1, hsFLP12, FRT19A/C(1)DX (BL#23880), hsFlp12,CyO/Sco (BL#1929), FRTG13 ena23/CyO (BL#25405), ena23/CyO (BL#8571), ena RNAi (BL#39034), FRL RNAi (BL#32447), FHOS RNAi (BL#51391), DAAM RNAi (BL#39058), Form3 RNAi (BL#32398), Capu RNAi (BL#32922), Dia RNAi (BL#33424), RhoA RNAi (BL# 32383), RhoL RNAi (BL#33723), Rac1 RNAi (BL# 34910), Cdc42 RNAi (BL#37477), UAS- GFP-FP4mito (BL#25747), mat-tub-Gal4 (P{w[+mC]=matalpha4-GAL-VP16}V37) (BL#7063), MDD-Gal4 (P{matalpha4-GAL-VP16}67; P{matalpha4-GAL-VP16}15) (BL#80361) all from the Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center; UAS-FRL [24]; and frl59 [21]. The formin RNAi lines used in this study were already shown to induce effective gene silencing in other tissues [20,24,6668], hence we consider them as appropriate tools for ovary studies as well.

Drosophila genetics

The mat-tub Gal4, frl59; frl59, DAAM RNAi; frl59, Dia RNAi; frl59, Capu RNAi and frl59, Form3 RNAi lines were generated by standard genetic recombination techniques. The UAS-Ena-Flag construct, containing the short, PA isoform of Ena, was generated using standard molecular cloning techniques, with the pPWF-attB vector and the attP40 landing site. The primers used were “ena forward”: 5′-ATGTCGACAATGACTGAGCAGAGTATTATCG-3′ and “ena reverse”: 5′- ATGATATCCGTATCTGCGATTAAACTCCG-3′.

Immunohistochemistry

The females were collected 0–8 hours after hatching and fed with yeast to promote egg production. Their ovaries were dissected two days later in ice-cold PBS and fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde (diluted in PBS) at room temperature for 20 minutes. After fixation, the samples were washed three times in PBS containing 0.1% Triton X-100 (PBST) for 20 minutes each and blocked in PBST with 1% BSA and 5% FCS for 2 hours. Primary and secondary antibodies were diluted in PBST with 1% BSA and 5% FCS and incubated overnight at 4°C. The samples were mounted using ProLong Gold reagent (P36930, Thermo Fisher Scientific). To visualize ring canals in stage 8 and 9, dissection and fixation were performed using cytoskeleton buffer (10 mM MES, pH 6.1, 150 mM NaCl, 5 mM EGTA, 5 mM glucose, 5 mM MgCl₂), with fixation carried out in 4% paraformaldehyde prepared in cytoskeleton buffer. The primary antibodies used in this study were: rat anti-FRL (1:200) [22], mouse α-Ena (1:100; DSHB, 5G2), and mouse anti-hts (DSHB, hts RC). As secondary antibodies, we used the appropriate Alexa Fluor 488- or Alexa Fluor 647-coupled antibodies (1:600; anti-mouse Alexa 488, A-11001; anti-rat Alexa 647, A-21247; Thermo Fisher Scientific). DNA was visualized with DAPI (1:500, Sigma) and actin was labeled with Alexa Fluor 546 (1:50; Phalloidin-Alexa 546, A22283; Thermo Fisher Scientific).

SiR actin staining

The females were collected 0–8 hours after hatching and fed with yeast to stimulate egg production. Their ovaries were dissected two days later in ice-cold PBS. For staining, stage 10B egg chambers were isolated and incubated for 1 hour with SiR-actin (1:1000, Spirochrome, CY-SC001, Stein am Rhein, Switzerland) in Schneider’s medium supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS). Microscopic analysis was performed in glass-bottom Petri dishes (Cell E&G, GBD00001–200).

Image analysis and quantification

For embryo length quantification, approximately 50 females of the appropriate genotype were allowed to lay eggs over several days; eggs were collected from three independent egg-laying periods and imaged on black carbon-containing medium. After removing the chorion with bleach, we took photos of the eggs using a Leica MZ FLIII stereomicroscope and a QImaging MicroPublisher 5.0 RTV camera. Egg lengths were measured manually using ImageJ/Fiji [69].

Cytoplasmic actin cable density was determined by the analysis of confocal images, composed of an average of 10, 0.14 μm thick Z-sections. For each genotype, actin cables were counted along the membrane of 4–5 nurse cells, density was determined in proportion to area size, which was calculated based on the length of the selected region and thickness of the optical section. An area of at least 1,000 µm² was measured for each genotype by analyzing 4–10 egg chambers. After testing for normality, pairwise comparisons were conducted using either a Mann-Whitney test or a Student’s t-test, as appropriate.

Quantification of the ring canal actin defects in nurse cells was based on the number of actin bundles associated with individual ring canals. Ring canals showing a pronounced reduction in the number of these actin bundles were classified as defective (reduced actin bundles). In most cases, such defects were associated with nuclear occlusion of the ring canal during nurse cell contraction. The frequency of defective ring canals was quantified. Length of the RC cables was determined on confocal images, by measuring length of the longest bundles manually using ImageJ/Fiji. Only appropriately aligned RCs were selected for measurements, i.e., when the actin bundles run parallel to plane of the image, RCs of at least 12 egg chambers were analyzed for all genotypes. Nuclear clogging of the ring canals was quantified manually on confocal images, stained for actin and DAPI.

All confocal imaging was performed using a Zeiss LSM800 confocal microscope with 63 × /NA 1.4 oil or 40 × /NA 1.3 objectives. Images were restored using Huygens Professional (Version 24.10.; Scientific Volume Imaging B.V., Hilversum, The Netherlands) and ImageJ/Fiji software. To quantify the ring canal actin defects observed upon Ena depletion, we analyzed the ring canals of 25 egg chambers of stage 10B from three independent staining.

Intensity measurements

Ena, Frl and Hts enrichment at the nurse cell membrane or ring canals were quantified by measuring fluorescence intensity in confocal images acquired under identical imaging and staining conditions. Intensity profiles were taken perpendicular to the membrane or ring canals in Fiji, aligned to the peak signal value, normalized, and averaged. Statistical analyses were performed using the mean peak intensity values from independent egg chambers. After testing for normality, pairwise comparisons were conducted using either a Mann-Whitney test or a Student’s t-test, as appropriate.

Western blot

The females were collected 0–8 hours after hatching and fed with yeast to promote egg production. Their ovaries were dissected two days later in ice-cold PBS. For lysis, 20 egg chambers (of stage 10B) were isolated per sample and lysed for 1 hour with lysis buffer (0.1% SDS, 0.2% NaDoc; 0.05% NP40, 150 mM NaCl, and 50 mM Tris-HCl). SDS-PAGE was performed according to standard protocols. After blotting, PVDF membranes (Millipore) were blocked in TBST with 5% dry milk powder for 1 hour at room temperature. The primary antibodies used were rat anti-FRL (1:1000; Toth et al., 2022), mouse anti-Ena (1:100; DSHB 5G2), and anti-tubulin (1:20000; DM1A, Merck KGaA). The secondary antibodies were α-rat-HRPO (1:5000) (Jackson ImmunoResearch) and α-mouse-HRPO (1:5000) (DAKO). Chemiluminescent detection was performed using the Millipore Immobilon kit. Western blot chemiluminescent signals were captured using the Alliance Q9 imaging system (UVITEC) and analyzed with Alliance (UVITEC) software. Ena signal intensities were normalized to the corresponding tubulin signal intensities.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. The lack of FRL abolish the actin cables in all cytoplasmic actin subpopulations.

(TIF)

pgen.1012042.s001.tif (2.3MB, tif)
S2 Fig. The formation and size of the ring canals is not impaired by frl mutants.

(TIF)

pgen.1012042.s002.tif (2.8MB, tif)
S3 Fig. The effect of formin knockdown on nurse cell nucleus positioning actin and egg laying.

(TIF)

pgen.1012042.s003.tif (1.5MB, tif)
S4 Fig. The knockdown of RhoA alters nurse cell actin organization and ring canal shape.

(TIF)

pgen.1012042.s004.tif (2.3MB, tif)
S5 Fig. The knockdown of Cdc42 affects FRL and Ena levels.

(TIF)

pgen.1012042.s005.tif (5.5MB, tif)
S6 Fig. Germline clone analysis of ena23.

(TIF)

pgen.1012042.s006.tif (3.2MB, tif)
S7 Fig. The analysis of FRL and Ena expression during oogenesis.

(TIF)

S8 Fig. Ena protein distribution in frl59 mutant egg chambers.

(TIF)

S9 Fig. Distribution pattern of the Ena-Flag protein upon overexpression.

(TIF)

S10 Fig. The distribution pattern of FRL in the nurse cells is not altered by Ena depletion.

(TIF)

pgen.1012042.s010.tif (5.9MB, tif)
S1 Data. Source data.

(ZIP)

pgen.1012042.s011.zip (549KB, zip)

Acknowledgments

We thank the Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank and the Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center for antibodies and fly stocks. We are grateful to Gábor Csordás for critical reading and helpful comments on this manuscript. We thank for the help of Gabriella Gazsó-Gerhát, and Anikó Berente, Ildikó Velkeyné Krausz, Anna Rehák and Dorottya Csendes for technical assistance.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research Found (OTKA) (K132782 to J.M.,), by The National Laboratory of Biotechnology through the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office (NKFIH) (grant No. 2022-2.1.1-NL-2022-00008 to J. M.), and OTKA Postdoctoral Fellowship (PD 121193 to R.G.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Dupin I, Etienne-Manneville S. Nuclear positioning: mechanisms and functions. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2011;43(12):1698–707. doi: 10.1016/j.biocel.2011.09.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gundersen GG, Worman HJ. Nuclear positioning. Cell. 2013;152(6):1376–89. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Deshpande O, Telley IA. Nuclear positioning during development: Pushing, pulling and flowing. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2021;120:10–21. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2021.09.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Almonacid M, Terret M-E, Verlhac M-H. Control of nucleus positioning in mouse oocytes. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2018;82:34–40. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2017.08.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bernard F, Lepesant J-A, Guichet A. Nucleus positioning within Drosophila egg chamber. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2018;82:25–33. doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2017.10.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Spradling AC. Developmental genetics of oogenesis. In: Bate M, Martinez-Arias A, editor. The Development of Drosophila melanogaster. 1. Cold Spring Harbor: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; 1993. p. 1–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Cooley L, Theurkauf WE. Cytoskeletal functions during Drosophila oogenesis. Science. 1994;266(5185):590–6. doi: 10.1126/science.7939713 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Theurkauf WE, Hazelrigg TI. In vivo analyses of cytoplasmic transport and cytoskeletal organization during Drosophila oogenesis: characterization of a multi-step anterior localization pathway. Development. 1998;125(18):3655–66. doi: 10.1242/dev.125.18.3655 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lu W, Lakonishok M, Gelfand VI. Gatekeeper function for Short stop at the ring canals of the Drosophila ovary. Curr Biol. 2021;31(15):3207-3220.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2021.05.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Nicolas E, Chenouard N, Olivo-Marin J-C, Guichet A. A dual role for actin and microtubule cytoskeleton in the transport of Golgi units from the nurse cells to the oocyte across ring canals. Mol Biol Cell. 2009;20(1):556–68. doi: 10.1091/mbc.e08-04-0360 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Riparbelli MG, Callaini G. Cytoskeleton of the Drosophila egg chamber: new observations on microfilament distribution during oocyte growth. Cell Motil Cytoskeleton. 1995;31(4):298–306. doi: 10.1002/cm.970310406 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Guild GM, Connelly PS, Shaw MK, Tilney LG. Actin filament cables in Drosophila nurse cells are composed of modules that slide passively past one another during dumping. J Cell Biol. 1997;138(4):783–97. doi: 10.1083/jcb.138.4.783 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Huelsmann S, Ylänne J, Brown NH. Filopodia-like actin cables position nuclei in association with perinuclear actin in Drosophila nurse cells. Dev Cell. 2013;26(6):604–15. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2013.08.014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cant K, Knowles BA, Mahajan-Miklos S, Heintzelman M, Cooley L. Drosophila fascin mutants are rescued by overexpression of the villin-like protein, quail. J Cell Sci. 1998;111 ( Pt 2):213–21. doi: 10.1242/jcs.111.2.213 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Cant K, Knowles BA, Mooseker MS, Cooley L. Drosophila singed, a fascin homolog, is required for actin bundle formation during oogenesis and bristle extension. J Cell Biol. 1994;125(2):369–80. doi: 10.1083/jcb.125.2.369 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Li MG, Serr M, Edwards K, Ludmann S, Yamamoto D, Tilney LG, et al. Filamin is required for ring canal assembly and actin organization during Drosophila oogenesis. J Cell Biol. 1999;146(5):1061–74. doi: 10.1083/jcb.146.5.1061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Mahajan-Miklos S, Cooley L. The villin-like protein encoded by the Drosophila quail gene is required for actin bundle assembly during oogenesis. Cell. 1994;78(2):291–301. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(94)90298-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Cooley L, Verheyen E, Ayers K. chickadee encodes a profilin required for intercellular cytoplasm transport during Drosophila oogenesis. Cell. 1992;69(1):173–84. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(92)90128-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Gates J, Nowotarski SH, Yin H, Mahaffey JP, Bridges T, Herrera C, et al. Enabled and Capping protein play important roles in shaping cell behavior during Drosophila oogenesis. Dev Biol. 2009;333(1):90–107. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2009.06.030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Logan G, Chou W-C, McCartney BM. A Diaphanous and Enabled-dependent asymmetric actin cable array repositions nuclei during Drosophila oogenesis. Development. 2022;149(13):dev197442. doi: 10.1242/dev.197442 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Dehapiot B, Clément R, Alégot H, Gazsó-Gerhát G, Philippe J-M, Lecuit T. Assembly of a persistent apical actin network by the formin Frl/Fmnl tunes epithelial cell deformability. Nat Cell Biol. 2020;22(7):791–802. doi: 10.1038/s41556-020-0524-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tóth K, Földi I, Mihály J. A Comparative Study of the Role of Formins in Drosophila Embryonic Dorsal Closure. Cells. 2022;11(9):1539. doi: 10.3390/cells11091539 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Dollar G, Gombos R, Barnett AA, Sanchez Hernandez D, Maung SMT, Mihály J, et al. Unique and Overlapping Functions of Formins Frl and DAAM During Ommatidial Rotation and Neuronal Development in Drosophila. Genetics. 2016;202(3):1135–51. doi: 10.1534/genetics.115.181438 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Gazsó-Gerhát G, Gombos R, Tóth K, Kaltenecker P, Szikora S, Bíró J, et al. FRL and DAAM are required for lateral adhesion of interommatidial cells and patterning of the retinal floor. Development. 2023;150(22):dev201713. doi: 10.1242/dev.201713 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Chesarone MA, DuPage AG, Goode BL. Unleashing formins to remodel the actin and microtubule cytoskeletons. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2010;11(1):62–74. doi: 10.1038/nrm2816 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Genova JL, Jong S, Camp JT, Fehon RG. Functional analysis of Cdc42 in actin filament assembly, epithelial morphogenesis, and cell signaling during Drosophila development. Dev Biol. 2000;221(1):181–94. doi: 10.1006/dbio.2000.9671 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gates J, Mahaffey JP, Rogers SL, Emerson M, Rogers EM, Sottile SL, et al. Enabled plays key roles in embryonic epithelial morphogenesis in Drosophila. Development. 2007;134(11):2027–39. doi: 10.1242/dev.02849 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ahern-Djamali SM, Comer AR, Bachmann C, Kastenmeier AS, Reddy SK, Beckerle MC, et al. Mutations in Drosophila enabled and rescue by human vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) indicate important functional roles for Ena/VASP homology domain 1 (EVH1) and EVH2 domains. Mol Biol Cell. 1998;9(8):2157–71. doi: 10.1091/mbc.9.8.2157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gutzeit HO. The role of microfilaments in cytoplasmic streaming in Drosophila follicles. J Cell Sci. 1986;80:159–69. doi: 10.1242/jcs.80.1.159 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Huynh J-R, St Johnston D. The origin of asymmetry: early polarisation of the Drosophila germline cyst and oocyte. Curr Biol. 2004;14(11):R438-49. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2004.05.040 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Szikora S, Gaspar I, Szabad J. “Poking” microtubules bring about nuclear wriggling to position nuclei. J Cell Sci. 2013;126(Pt 1):254–62. doi: 10.1242/jcs.114355 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Goode BL, Eck MJ. Mechanism and function of formins in the control of actin assembly. Annu Rev Biochem. 2007;76:593–627. doi: 10.1146/annurev.biochem.75.103004.142647 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Barzik M, Kotova TI, Higgs HN, Hazelwood L, Hanein D, Gertler FB, et al. Ena/VASP proteins enhance actin polymerization in the presence of barbed end capping proteins. J Biol Chem. 2005;280(31):28653–62. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M503957200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Pasic L, Kotova T, Schafer DA. Ena/VASP proteins capture actin filament barbed ends. J Biol Chem. 2008;283(15):9814–9. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M710475200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Block J, Breitsprecher D, Kühn S, Winterhoff M, Kage F, Geffers R, et al. FMNL2 drives actin-based protrusion and migration downstream of Cdc42. Curr Biol. 2012;22(11):1005–12. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.03.064 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Dimchev V, Lahmann I, Koestler SA, Kage F, Dimchev G, Steffen A, et al. Induced Arp2/3 Complex Depletion Increases FMNL2/3 Formin Expression and Filopodia Formation. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021;9:634708. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.634708 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Harris ES, Gauvin TJ, Heimsath EG, Higgs HN. Assembly of filopodia by the formin FRL2 (FMNL3). Cytoskeleton (Hoboken). 2010;67(12):755–72. doi: 10.1002/cm.20485 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Harris ES, Rouiller I, Hanein D, Higgs HN. Mechanistic differences in actin bundling activity of two mammalian formins, FRL1 and mDia2. J Biol Chem. 2006;281(20):14383–92. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M510923200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Heimsath EG Jr, Higgs HN. The C terminus of formin FMNL3 accelerates actin polymerization and contains a WH2 domain-like sequence that binds both monomers and filament barbed ends. J Biol Chem. 2012;287(5):3087–98. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M111.312207 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Jacquemet G, Stubb A, Saup R, Miihkinen M, Kremneva E, Hamidi H, et al. Filopodome Mapping Identifies p130Cas as a Mechanosensitive Regulator of Filopodia Stability. Curr Biol. 2019;29(2):202-216.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2018.11.053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Moriya K, Yamamoto T, Takamitsu E, Matsunaga Y, Kimoto M, Fukushige D, et al. Protein N-myristoylation is required for cellular morphological changes induced by two formin family proteins, FMNL2 and FMNL3. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2012;76(6):1201–9. doi: 10.1271/bbb.120069 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Fox S, Tran A, Trinkle-Mulcahy L, Copeland JW. Cooperative assembly of filopodia by the formin FMNL2 and I-BAR domain protein IRTKS. J Biol Chem. 2022;298(11):102512. doi: 10.1016/j.jbc.2022.102512 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Kühn S, Erdmann C, Kage F, Block J, Schwenkmezger L, Steffen A, et al. The structure of FMNL2-Cdc42 yields insights into the mechanism of lamellipodia and filopodia formation. Nat Commun. 2015;6:7088. doi: 10.1038/ncomms8088 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Winkelman JD, Bilancia CG, Peifer M, Kovar DR. Ena/VASP Enabled is a highly processive actin polymerase tailored to self-assemble parallel-bundled F-actin networks with Fascin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(11):4121–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1322093111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Cant K, Cooley L. Single amino acid mutations in Drosophila fascin disrupt actin bundling function in vivo. Genetics. 1996;143(1):249–58. doi: 10.1093/genetics/143.1.249 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Bear JE, Loureiro JJ, Libova I, Fässler R, Wehland J, Gertler FB. Negative regulation of fibroblast motility by Ena/VASP proteins. Cell. 2000;101(7):717–28. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80884-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Pistor S, Gröbe L, Sechi AS, Domann E, Gerstel B, Machesky LM, et al. Mutations of arginine residues within the 146-KKRRK-150 motif of the ActA protein of Listeria monocytogenes abolish intracellular motility by interfering with the recruitment of the Arp2/3 complex. J Cell Sci. 2000;113 ( Pt 18):3277–87. doi: 10.1242/jcs.113.18.3277 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Rasson AS, Bois JS, Pham DSL, Yoo H, Quinlan ME. Filament assembly by Spire: key residues and concerted actin binding. J Mol Biol. 2015;427(4):824–39. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2014.09.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Chhabra ES, Higgs HN. The many faces of actin: matching assembly factors with cellular structures. Nat Cell Biol. 2007;9(10):1110–21. doi: 10.1038/ncb1007-1110 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Faix J, Breitsprecher D, Stradal TEB, Rottner K. Filopodia: Complex models for simple rods. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2009;41(8–9):1656–64. doi: 10.1016/j.biocel.2009.02.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Sauvanet C, Wayt J, Pelaseyed T, Bretscher A. Structure, regulation, and functional diversity of microvilli on the apical domain of epithelial cells. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2015;31:593–621. doi: 10.1146/annurev-cellbio-100814-125234 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Sharkova M, Chow E, Erickson T, Hocking JC. The morphological and functional diversity of apical microvilli. J Anat. 2023;242(3):327–53. doi: 10.1111/joa.13781 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Gauvin TJ, Young LE, Higgs HN. The formin FMNL3 assembles plasma membrane protrusions that participate in cell-cell adhesion. Mol Biol Cell. 2015;26(3):467–77. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E14-07-1247 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Hein JI, Scholz J, Körber S, Kaufmann T, Faix J. Unleashed Actin Assembly in Capping Protein-Deficient B16-F1 Cells Enables Identification of Multiple Factors Contributing to Filopodium Formation. Cells. 2023;12(6):890. doi: 10.3390/cells12060890 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Wakayama Y, Fukuhara S, Ando K, Matsuda M, Mochizuki N. Cdc42 mediates Bmp-induced sprouting angiogenesis through Fmnl3-driven assembly of endothelial filopodia in zebrafish. Dev Cell. 2015;32(1):109–22. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2014.11.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Young LE, Latario CJ, Higgs HN. Roles for Ena/VASP proteins in FMNL3-mediated filopodial assembly. J Cell Sci. 2018;131(21):jcs220814. doi: 10.1242/jcs.220814 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Krugmann S, Jordens I, Gevaert K, Driessens M, Vandekerckhove J, Hall A. Cdc42 induces filopodia by promoting the formation of an IRSp53:Mena complex. Curr Biol. 2001;11(21):1645–55. doi: 10.1016/s0960-9822(01)00506-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Gonçalves-Pimentel C, Gombos R, Mihály J, Sánchez-Soriano N, Prokop A. Dissecting regulatory networks of filopodia formation in a Drosophila growth cone model. PLoS One. 2011;6(3):e18340. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018340 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Homem CCF, Peifer M. Exploring the roles of diaphanous and enabled activity in shaping the balance between filopodia and lamellipodia. Mol Biol Cell. 2009;20(24):5138–55. doi: 10.1091/mbc.e09-02-0144 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Nowotarski SH, McKeon N, Moser RJ, Peifer M. The actin regulators Enabled and Diaphanous direct distinct protrusive behaviors in different tissues during Drosophila development. Mol Biol Cell. 2014;25(20):3147–65. doi: 10.1091/mbc.E14-05-0951 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Applewhite DA, Barzik M, Kojima S-I, Svitkina TM, Gertler FB, Borisy GG. Ena/VASP proteins have an anti-capping independent function in filopodia formation. Mol Biol Cell. 2007;18(7):2579–91. doi: 10.1091/mbc.e06-11-0990 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Dent EW, Kwiatkowski AV, Mebane LM, Philippar U, Barzik M, Rubinson DA, et al. Filopodia are required for cortical neurite initiation. Nat Cell Biol. 2007;9(12):1347–59. doi: 10.1038/ncb1654 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Kwiatkowski AV, Rubinson DA, Dent EW, Edward van Veen J, Leslie JD, Zhang J, et al. Ena/VASP Is Required for neuritogenesis in the developing cortex. Neuron. 2007;56(3):441–55. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2007.09.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Lebrand C, Dent EW, Strasser GA, Lanier LM, Krause M, Svitkina TM, et al. Critical role of Ena/VASP proteins for filopodia formation in neurons and in function downstream of netrin-1. Neuron. 2004;42(1):37–49. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(04)00108-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Niu W, Spradling AC. Mouse oocytes develop in cysts with the help of nurse cells. Cell. 2022;185(14):2576-2590.e12. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.05.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Al Jord A, Letort G, Chanet S, Tsai F-C, Antoniewski C, Eichmuller A, et al. Cytoplasmic forces functionally reorganize nuclear condensates in oocytes. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):5070. doi: 10.1038/s41467-022-32675-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Das R, Bhattacharjee S, Letcher JM, Harris JM, Nanda S, Foldi I, et al. Formin 3 directs dendritic architecture via microtubule regulation and is required for somatosensory nociceptive behavior. Development. 2021;148(16):dev187609. doi: 10.1242/dev.187609 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Schmid ET, Schinaman JM, Liu-Abramowicz N, Williams KS, Walker DW. Accumulation of F-actin drives brain aging and limits healthspan in Drosophila. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):9238. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-53389-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, et al. Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9(7):676–82. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Fengwei Yu

12 Aug 2025

PGENETICS-D-25-00632

Spatially distinct FRL and Ena dependent actin networks coordinate nuclear positioning in Drosophila nurse cells

PLOS Genetics

Dear Dr. Mihály,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days Oct 11 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosgenetics@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgenetics/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

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

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

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ken M. Cadigan, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Genetics

Fengwei Yu

Section Editor

PLOS Genetics

Aimée Dudley

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

Anne Goriely

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

1) We ask that a manuscript source file is provided at Revision. Please upload your manuscript file as a .doc, .docx, .rtf or .tex. If you are providing a .tex file, please upload it under the item type u2018LaTeX Source Fileu2019 and leave your .pdf version as the item type u2018Manuscriptu2019.

2) Please upload all main figures as separate Figure files in .tif or .eps format. For more information about how to convert and format your figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/s/figures

3) Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOSu2019s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOSu2019s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form.

Please respond directly to this email and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility. Once you have responded and addressed all other outstanding technical requirements, you may resubmit your manuscript within Editorial Manager.

Potential Copyright Issues:

i) Figures 1i, and 6A. Please confirm whether you drew the images / clip-art within the figure panels by hand. If you did not draw the images, please provide (a) a link to the source of the images or icons and their license / terms of use; or (b) written permission from the copyright holder to publish the images or icons under our CC BY 4.0 license. Alternatively, you may replace the images with open source alternatives. See these open source resources you may use to replace images / clip-art:

- https://commons.wikimedia.org

- https://openclipart.org/.

4) We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: "All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.". Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

1) The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

2) The values used to build graphs;

3) The points extracted from images for analysis..

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: The control of the positioning of the nucleus is an essential issue for a number of cellular processes in various organisms. Cells reposition their nuclei through a variety of mechanisms, which often involve the actin or microtubule cytoskeleton. In this manuscript, the authors turn their attention to the fly egg chamber to study how actin cables control nuclear positioning. During oogenesis, the 15 nurse cells contract and transfer their cytoplasm to the oocyte via ring canals in a process known as 'dumping'. These cells are connected to each other and to the oocyte via these canals. Prior to this, actin cables originate from the nurse cell cortex and extend towards the nuclei, pushing them away from the ring canals to prevent obstruction. Despite various studies, the mechanisms that organise the actin cables responsible for holding the nuclei in place remain unclear.

The authors identify that, among the formins that act as actin nucleators, a less well-characterised one, FRL, is required in the nurse cells for the assembly of cytoplasmic actin cables and, importantly, for nuclear positioning. In line with these results, they also provide evidences that in the nurses cells, FRL is enriched at the plus end of the cytoplasmic actin filaments, as highlighted by the elongation factor Ena. Despite being present in the nurse cell membrane protrusion and at the ring canals, FRL is only indispensable for assembly of the membrane attached actin cables, but not for the ring canal associated ones. The authors illustrate that, despite Formin's capacity to act redundantly, this is not particularly significant in the formation of nurse cell actin cables with FRL. They illustrate the differential effects of the absence of FRL and Ena on cytoplasmic actin in nurse cells. FRL influences the assembly of actin cables from the plasma membrane, whereas Ena influences them from the ring canals.

They illustrate the differential effects of the absence of FRL and Ena on cytoplasmic actin in nurse cells. FRL influences the assembly of actin cables from the plasma membrane whereas Ena from the ring canals.

Importantly, the authors also demonstrate that simultaneous loss prevented the formation of nuclear-positioning actin subsets in nurse cells at the ring canal and plasma membrane. These important new results highlight that FRL and Ena are the main regulators of nuclear positioning and actin, but also suggest that these are the only two components that function in the process.

Overall, this is a nice characterization of the main regulators for the two populations of actin cables that hold and position the nuclei in the nurse cells. This manuscript contains an interesting collection of observations that will be of broad interest, although some parts of the story should be clarified and quantified more accurately.

Major points

1. The manuscript often suffers from a lack of quantification of results. This quantification is particularly important for the characterisation of actin filaments, which is a central issue in this manuscript. The authors could draw inspiration from the quantification methods used in other studies on the same process, such as those in Logan et al. (doi:10.1242/dev.197442 ). For example, this would allow the rescue of the frl mutant with mat-tubG4-UAS-FRL to be characterised more accurately, as the actin distribution shown in Fig. 1E for the rescue is quite different to that shown in Fig. 1A for the control. More generally the absence of quantification for the actin cables applies to all figures

Similarly, it would be valuable to quantify the positioning defects of the nucleus in NCs within the various genetic contexts described in the manuscript.

2. In the absence of an FRL, the actin cables connected to the ring canals are longer. However, quantifying the extent of these cables would improve the results (see Fig. 1). Furthermore, the ring canal in the frl59 mutant appears thicker and seems to present a brighter signal for Hts (Fig. S2). Quantification would help to address this point. It is possible that, in the absence of an FRL, the absence of Ena from the plasma membrane would trigger more actin at the ring canals and affect their morphology.

3. The authors analyse the distribution of FRL and Ena (see Fig. 2). Among the results, they show the presence of FRL-Ena puncta around the ring canals and propose that these dots are not directly connected to the ring canals, but rather to the area surrounding them. From the pictures presented in Figure 2, this is not obvious; colocalisation with a ring canal marker such as Hts and FRL would provide more conclusive evidence. In addition, it would be interesting to find out which part is connected to RCs and which part isn't.

4. Interestingly, the authors question the potential connection between GTPase regulation of actin assembly and FRL. They identified a genetic interaction between FRL and CDC42 and, based on this result, proposed that CDC42 is required for FRL activation. This remains a possibility that would be strongly supported by analysing FRL distribution in nurse cells with cdc42 RNAi or mutant clones.

5. By combining efficient Ena delocalisation with the FP4mito and frl mutant, the authors reveal differential effects of the absence of FRL and Ena on actin cables and nuclear positioning. However, their conclusions suffer from a lack of accurate quantification.

6. Importantly, the authors question the impact of FRL absence on Ena distribution. The results in Fig. 7 show that Ena distribution is affected at the plasma membrane. The labelling of Ena at the level of the ring canals also seems to be increased (Fig. 7B), which could be in line with the extension of the actin cable at the level of the ring canals observed in the absence of FRL. In this respect, it would be interesting to estimate the level of Ena at the ring canals in FRL mutants compared to controls.

Minor points:

With the figures 1 and S1, the three different subpopulations of cytoplasmic actin cables derived from nurse cells-nurse cells borders, nurse cells-follicle cells borders and nurse cells-oocyte borders are not easily distinguishable. An inset with a zoom highlighting these three actin populations would help.

Reviewer #2: Nuclear positioning by diverse cytoskeletal mechanisms is crucial for development and homeostasis of multiple cell types, from dividing yeast cells to migrating neurons in the developing mammalian brain and to muscles. In nurse cells of the Drosophila egg chamber, an array of cytoplasmic actin cables ensures nuclear positioning; lack of actin cables leads to small, infertile eggs.

Gombos et al. reveal that two actin regulators, the nucleation/elongation factor FRL and the elongation factor Ena, are required for the formation of these actin cables and thus for nuclear positioning. The authors suggest two types of actin cables for nuclear positioning in nurse cells, cytoplasmic actin cables and ring canal (RC) actin cables: in FRL mutants, cytoplasmic actin cables were not formed, but actin cables around ring canals were more prominent than in controls; inactivating the function of Ena showed the opposite phenotype, with less RC cables and (almost) normal cytoplasmic actin cables. Since both factors co-localised to plus-tips of both types of cables, but their respective lack of function had different effects, the authors suggest an unknown difference in the molecular machinery forming either type of cable. Furthermore, Gombos et al. show that FRL functioned partially redundantly with other formins during the formation of cytoplasmic actin cables and provide evidence suggesting that the small Rho GTPase Cdc42 regulates the formation of actin cables in nurse cells, potentially via FRL.

This manuscript identifies for the first time FRL as the main actin regulator that forms cytoplasmic actin cables in Drosophila nurse cells and thus answers a longstanding open question. In addition, the manuscript expands the list of cell types that require FRL and its interaction with Cdc42 and other formins. The provided data are based on sound genetic experiments. The manuscript and the conclusions would improve by (i) more concise / precise wording and interpretation of achieved data; (ii) by further elaborating on the main conclusion that nuclear positioning in the nurse cells requires both types of actin cables (see below).

1. Major issues:

1.1. The authors claim “nuclear positioning in the nurse cells requires the coordinated action of two spatially distinct actin networks” (e.g. lines 29-30).

1.1.1. I agree that the authors identified two actin structures, cytoplasmic cables and RC baskets/cables, that are somehow temporal and spatial distinct. But I am less convinced of both networks being required for nuclear positioning, more specifically of RC cables being required for nuclear positioning. An alternative explanation for the frl mutant phenotype could be an “out-of-balance” situation, in which the increased amount of unused Ena and/or other actin regulating proteins in frl[59] mutant nurse cells leads to an over-elongation of actin filaments forming actin baskets around RCs. These RC cables, by accident or not, are sufficient for some – I admit – remarkable nuclear positioning. So, the question arises: is there any evidence, that RC actin cables do localise nurse cell nuclei in a wild type background? Please elaborate and provide evidence or modify claim in manuscript.

1.1.2. line 135/136: please specify in the manuscript what makes RC associated cables a “distinct population” in stage 10B nurse cells. How are the authors able to distinguish RC actin cables from the other actin cables during stage 10B? By their location or by other features?

1.2. The discovery that the inactivation of Ena by FP4-mito leads to a phenotype opposite to frl[59] mutations supports the idea of two distinct subpopulations of actin cables. The use of FP4-mito might produce stronger phenotypes than the loss of Ena function, e.g. by mis-localising other proteins binding to FP4 motifs.

1.2.1. Could the authors provide further evidence (independent of FP4-mito), that lack of Ena function effects mostly RC actin cables, e.g. by analysing ‘classic’ ena mutations (e.g. ena[23])? And could the authors clarify to the reader the nature of the ena[23] mutation and include the information when discussing the results?

1.2.2. The use of FP4-mito leads to the loss of RC baskets in early egg chambers (Fig. S1 G-I). It appears to me that also filamentous actin structures at the oocyte cortex and at the membrane between oocyte and nurse cells are reduced / gone. Could it be that FP4-mito reduces generally filamentous actin and that later, i.e. stage 10B, FRL-dependent cables arise independently of Ena (or independently of whatever is recruited by FP4-mito)? Please comment and consider in Discussion.

1.3. line 177 “the lack of redundancy”: could the authors provide evidence and comment in the manuscript on efficiency of the RNAi lines and on timing? Could it be that the KD using RNAi is not early enough to affect the formation of the RC actin basket? The different strengths of Ena-RNAi and of FP4-mito effects could indicated that the RNAi needs more time for a stronger cellular effect.

1.4. line 192, chapter “Cdc42 and FRL work together in the nurse cells”

1.4.1. The conclusion “activity of FRL is regulated by Cdc42” (line 98/99 or similarly line 192) is – I guess – based on the genetic interaction of frl[59] mutations that enhance dominantly a weaker allele of Cdc42 in respect to egg lengths. Even though the literature supports this notion, the authors could substantiate their conclusion by e.g. testing how Cdc42 affects e.g. FRL (and Ena) localisation – as potential read out(s) of FRL activity. Please include the data in the manuscript. Alternatively, the conclusion should be adequately phrased. Please adapt similarly line 214 “Cdc42 is required for FRL” and line 219.

1.4.2. Fig. 4: Please add the phenotypes of Cdc42 [2] enhancement by the frl[59] mutation to the images and Cdc42[4] to the egg lengths quantification.

1.4.3. Fig.4 D: please comment in the manuscript on the stronger phenotype of Cdc42 knock down compared to frl[59] mutations. Does KD of Cdc42 affect not only FRL but also Ena? Provide evidence.

1.5. lines 264/265 “selectively affects the accumulation and localization of Ena in the developing egg chambers”.

1.5.1. Fig.7 A, B: please indicate areas with reduced Ena and provide quantification; include images showing the localisation of Ena at plus ends of RC cables and cytoplasmic actin cables lacking FRL (with quantification).

1.5.2. In Results and Discussion, please bring together Ena and FRL localisation with their described functions: are they differentially localised / expressed in nurse cells during the time course of oogenesis? Provide supporting evidence.

1.5.3. line 270 “overexpression of Ena in frl59 mutants had no such an effect (Fig. 7E)”. Could the authors show that overexpressed Ena did indeed localise to plasma membranes? Otherwise, a rescue is not expected.

1.6. When revising the Discussion:

1.6.1. Please provide a model of the functions of FRL (nucleator & elongator) and Ena (elongator) in the different subpopulations of actin cables, including how they depend on each other or not, early vs late cables, and speculate on the functionality of remaining actin cables lacking Ena or FRL.

1.6.2. A more extensive discussion of evolutionarily conserved / non-conserved mechanisms of FRL / Ena functions for the formation of filopodia-like structures would make the relevance of the results more apparent to a general audience.

2. Minor issues

2.1. Please define the types of actin cables in the beginning and use defined terms consistently in the entire text, e.g. - just one possible example - RC cables vs. cytoplasmic cables (which are oocyte cables, nurse cell cables, and follicle cables; ref. 20 of manuscript). Define what means “membrane associated”; are not all actin cables associate with a membrane? In my opinion the term “RC actin” refers to the actin of RCs proper but not to actin cables associated with RCs (e.g. line 215, line 373; similar: line 291/292, line 394).

2.2. The graphs showing the quantifications of egg lengths (Fig.1 F, Fig.3 G, Fig.4 D &E, Fig.5 O Fig.7 E, Fig.8 E) are not intuitive to me as they show the percentage of eggs within a specific class of lengths; they do not show explicitly the lengths of eggs. Thus, claims like “produce shorter eggs” (e.g. line 231) are not ‘directly’ visible. Showing absolute lengths would be less simplified and more intuitive.

2.3. In all above-mentioned graphs, the axes need to be labelled properly as % of eggs.

2.4. For all figures: please indicate the exact stage of each egg chamber shown.

2.5. line 229 “Ena is absent from the nurse cell plasma membranes and the ring canals”. Please specify imaging conditions (include in methods): were these identical to e.g. Fig1 / Fig.2, despite Ena being strongly recruited to mitochondria?

2.6. line 238/239 and Fig.6 A: specify which actin was quantified how (include in methods).

2.7. Please indicate in methods the isoform of Ena that was used for the UAS-Ena-FLAG construct.

2.8. line 310 “retains the nucleus in (roughly) the middle of the nurse cell during dumping”. This is not correct: actin cables push nuclei to the side of nurse cells (side of squamous follicle cells). Please correct.

2.9. Define terms like “mildly” (lines 235), “largely” (lines 236), and “more frequently“ (line 240, numbers for each egg chamber?) and provide quantification.

2.10. line 295 “ena; frl double mutant combinations”. Please change to an accurate genetic description.

2.11. line 348/349: please specify used deconvolution tools (include in methods).

2.12. phrase lines 351 – 355: the first process is not a process during dumping; please correct sentence.

2.13. wording: nurse cells “feeding” the oocyte (line 67) => “provide”

2.14. wording: the “intense” transport of materials towards the oocyte (line 307, 356) => “dumping” or “fast, un-selective” / “bulk” transport

**********

Have all data underlying the figures and results presented in the manuscript been provided?

Large-scale datasets should be made available via a public repository as described in the PLOS Genetics data availability policy , and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Figure resubmission:

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

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Decision Letter 1

Fengwei Yu

1 Feb 2026

Dear Dr Mihály,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "Spatially distinct FRL and Ena dependent actin networks coordinate nuclear positioning in Drosophila nurse cells" has been editorially accepted for publication in PLOS Genetics. Congratulations!

Before your submission can be formally accepted and sent to production you will need to complete our formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Please note: the accept date on your published article will reflect the date of this provisional acceptance, but your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until the required changes have been made.

Once your paper is formally accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you’ve already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosgenetics@plos.org.

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgenetics/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production and billing process. Note that PLOS requires an ORCID iD for all corresponding authors. Therefore, please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field.  This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager.

If you have a press-related query, or would like to know about making your underlying data available (as you will be aware, this is required for publication), please see the end of this email. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming article at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. Inform journal staff as soon as possible if you are preparing a press release for your article and need a publication date.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Genetics!

Yours sincerely,

Ken M. Cadigan, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Genetics

Fengwei Yu

Section Editor

PLOS Genetics

Aimée Dudley

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

Anne Goriely

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Genetics

www.plosgenetics.org

BlueSky: @plos.bsky.social

----------------------------------------------------

Comments from the reviewers (if applicable):

Please make a strong effort to respond to all the reviewers' comments.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Authors:

Please note here if the review is uploaded as an attachment.

Reviewer #1: In this revised manuscript, Rita Gombos and her colleagues have significantly improved their manuscript. They have performed new experiments to address several points raised by the reviewers. The authors have extensively modified the figures by integrating new results and providing accurate quantifications. They have also refined the presentation to highlight their significance.

In general, the authors have addressed and responded satisfactorily to the various points raised, clearly explaining where points could not be addressed due to experimental limitations. They have also provided detailed information on the comments and questions raised by the reviewers.

The manuscript has improved since the last submission and I strongly recommend its publication in PLOS Genetics.

Reviewer #2: The authors have resolved all issues from my first review and thereby improved significantly the manuscript.

I would like to mention one point where I have a different view than the authors:

For me the data of FP4mito and ena mutants suggest that FP4mito affects more than Enabled. Could it be, that FP4mito recruits FRL in Figure S10 panel (B)? On the other side, FP4mito is a commonly used and accepted tool for eliminating the function of Enabled; thus, I comprehend the interpretations of the authors. Furthermore, the ena mutant analyses and localisations support the model of two distinct types of cables, cytoplasmic cables and RC cables. The difference between both views lies in the strengths of phenotypes and thus in the contribution of both cable subpopulations during nuclear positioning.

**********

Have all data underlying the figures and results presented in the manuscript been provided?

Large-scale datasets should be made available via a public repository as described in the PLOS Genetics data availability policy , and numerical data that underlies graphs or summary statistics should be provided in spreadsheet form as supporting information.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

----------------------------------------------------

Data Deposition

If you have submitted a Research Article or Front Matter that has associated data that are not suitable for deposition in a subject-specific public repository (such as GenBank or ArrayExpress), one way to make that data available is to deposit it in the Dryad Digital Repository . As you may recall, we ask all authors to agree to make data available; this is one way to achieve that. A full list of recommended repositories can be found on our website .

The following link will take you to the Dryad record for your article, so you won't have to re‐enter its bibliographic information, and can upload your files directly:

http://datadryad.org/submit?journalID=pgenetics&manu=PGENETICS-D-25-00632R1

More information about depositing data in Dryad is available at http://www.datadryad.org/depositing. If you experience any difficulties in submitting your data, please contact help@datadryad.org for support.

Additionally, please be aware that our data availability policy  requires that all numerical data underlying display items are included with the submission, and you will need to provide this before we can formally accept your manuscript, if not already present.

----------------------------------------------------

Press Queries

If you or your institution will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, or if you need to know your paper's publication date for media purposes, please inform the journal staff as soon as possible so that your submission can be scheduled accordingly. Your manuscript will remain under a strict press embargo until the publication date and time. This means an early version of your manuscript will not be published ahead of your final version. PLOS Genetics may also choose to issue a press release for your article. If there's anything the journal should know or you'd like more information, please get in touch via plosgenetics@plos.org .

Acceptance letter

Fengwei Yu

PGENETICS-D-25-00632R1

Spatially distinct FRL and Ena dependent actin networks coordinate nuclear positioning in Drosophila nurse cells

Dear Dr Mihály,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript entitled "Spatially distinct FRL and Ena dependent actin networks coordinate nuclear positioning in Drosophila nurse cells" has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Genetics! Your manuscript is now with our production department and you will be notified of the publication date in due course.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, unless you have opted out or your manuscript is a front-matter piece, the early version of your manuscript will be published online. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

For Research Articles, you will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

Thank you again for supporting PLOS Genetics and open-access publishing. We are looking forward to publishing your work!

With kind regards,

Zsofia Freund

PLOS Genetics

On behalf of:

The PLOS Genetics Team

Carlyle House, Carlyle Road, Cambridge CB4 3DN | United Kingdom

plosgenetics@plos.org | +44 (0) 1223-442823

plosgenetics.org | Twitter: @PLOSGenetics

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. The lack of FRL abolish the actin cables in all cytoplasmic actin subpopulations.

    (TIF)

    pgen.1012042.s001.tif (2.3MB, tif)
    S2 Fig. The formation and size of the ring canals is not impaired by frl mutants.

    (TIF)

    pgen.1012042.s002.tif (2.8MB, tif)
    S3 Fig. The effect of formin knockdown on nurse cell nucleus positioning actin and egg laying.

    (TIF)

    pgen.1012042.s003.tif (1.5MB, tif)
    S4 Fig. The knockdown of RhoA alters nurse cell actin organization and ring canal shape.

    (TIF)

    pgen.1012042.s004.tif (2.3MB, tif)
    S5 Fig. The knockdown of Cdc42 affects FRL and Ena levels.

    (TIF)

    pgen.1012042.s005.tif (5.5MB, tif)
    S6 Fig. Germline clone analysis of ena23.

    (TIF)

    pgen.1012042.s006.tif (3.2MB, tif)
    S7 Fig. The analysis of FRL and Ena expression during oogenesis.

    (TIF)

    S8 Fig. Ena protein distribution in frl59 mutant egg chambers.

    (TIF)

    S9 Fig. Distribution pattern of the Ena-Flag protein upon overexpression.

    (TIF)

    S10 Fig. The distribution pattern of FRL in the nurse cells is not altered by Ena depletion.

    (TIF)

    pgen.1012042.s010.tif (5.9MB, tif)
    S1 Data. Source data.

    (ZIP)

    pgen.1012042.s011.zip (549KB, zip)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal2_MJGR.docx

    pgen.1012042.s012.docx (230.2KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS Genetics are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES