Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Mar 25;21(3):e0333573. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0333573

Sequoia affects Drosophila central nervous system development by regulating axonal extension and guidance

Noor Al-Hajri 1,2, Raquel Mendez-Castro 3,4, Mar Alujas 3, Sofia J Araújo 3,4,*, Guy Tear 1,*
Editor: Renping Zhou5
PMCID: PMC13016347  PMID: 41880306

Abstract

The development of the Drosophila melanogaster central nervous system (CNS) requires both determination of neuronal cell types and the subsequent establishment of neural connectivity. Numerous studies have identified genes and molecules required for both these processes. Once neurons have differentiated, they are guided to their targets by attractive and repulsive forces and an increasing number of molecules that provide these functions have been identified. However, little is known on how molecules involved in neuronal differentiation might affect subsequent steps of axonal development such as axonal morphogenesis. The sequoia (seq) mutant was identified in a Drosophila genetic screen for defects in dendrite elaboration. Sequoia is a pan-neural nuclear protein containing two putative zinc-fingers homologous to the DNA binding domain of Tramtrack. Mutations in seq have been reported to affect the cell fate decision of external sensory organ neurons and to effect axon and dendrite morphology. Previous reports have focused mainly on the effects this mutation causes in dendritic morphogenesis in the peripheral nervous system (PNS). Amongst mutants isolated from a previous mutagenesis screen, we have identified three new alleles of sequoia, GA168, C022 and C3101 and identify the molecular lesions in two previously identified alleles, Z1241 and H156. Analysis of these five alleles has revealed that seq mutations lead to several defects in nervous system development. seq mutants show defects in the spatial organization of their CNS from early developmental stages and have abnormal cell morphology, both at early and late stages of embryonic development. Mutations in seq affect motor axon outgrowth and general CNS and PNS development. The reported seq mutations reveal an important link between neuronal differentiation and axonal outgrowth and guidance and shed light on the importance of different Seq domains.

Introduction

The development of the Drosophila central nervous system (CNS) requires both determination of neuronal cell types and the subsequent establishment of neural connectivity. The precise union of large numbers of neurons with their neuronal or non-neuronal targets produces the complex circuitry that underlies neural function, which is fundamental for enabling the transmission of signals to and from the brain. Numerous studies have identified some of the genes and molecules required for these processes (reviewed in [1]).

After neuronal differentiation, a critical step in this process is axon guidance, which directs axons toward their appropriate targets and lays the groundwork for circuit formation. While this initial connectivity provides the potential for functional networks, subsequent mechanisms refine these connections to achieve the high specificity required for proper neural function (reviewed in [2]). Axonal pathfinding occurs as neuronal cell bodies extend axons toward target cells, either other neurons or effector organs, during development. This journey is orchestrated by the growth cone, a dynamic, motile structure at the axon’s tip that interprets environmental cues to steer axonal growth. Despite significant progress, there is an incomplete understanding of axon outgrowth: how do axons navigate such a complex and heterogeneous environment with remarkable precision, and what molecular mechanisms underlie this guidance (reviewed in [3]). Current research continues to uncover the roles of diverse guidance cues and intracellular signaling pathways in directing axonal trajectories [46]. Understanding these mechanisms is essential for elucidating how neural circuits are assembled with such fidelity during embryonic development.

The molecules identified thus far are highly conserved between invertebrates and vertebrates [4,7]. Therefore, the midline of the Drosophila CNS continues being used as a model system to investigate additional molecules that are required for axon guidance.

Among these, Sequoia (Seq) has emerged as a regulator of many molecules that play a role in axonal navigation. Initially, it was identified to play a role in dendritic morphogenesis [8]. Sequoia is a nuclear protein expressed in all neurons, it contains two zinc finger domains like the DNA-binding domain of Tramtrack (Ttk) and has homology to the positive regulatory domain (PRDM) family [9,10]. It is expressed in neurons and plays a significant role in cell fate decisions [10]. It also serves as a regulator of neural connection formation in many neuronal populations [9]. Seq has been shown to have a role in controlling the expression of other genes involved in neurite development. In the developing Drosophila eye, the temporal expression dynamics of this zinc-finger protein is the major determinant of photoreceptor connectivity into distinct synaptic layers. Loss of seq in R7 leads to a projection switch into the R8 recipient layer [11]. In the external sensory organs, seq has been shown to regulate cell fate decisions changing the ratio between hair and socket cells [12]. In addition, the transcription factor Seq has also been shown to negatively regulate autophagy, by modulating the expression of autophagy genes [13].

Here we report the identification of 3 new sequoia alleles and identify the molecular lesions in 2 previously identified alleles, identify the mutations responsible for the different mutant phenotypes and analyze their nervous system phenotypes.

Materials and methods

Drosophila genetics

Five mutant lines, GA168, C3101, C022, H156, and Z1241, were identified as sequoia alleles and displayed an axon guidance phenotype. Alleles GA168, C3101 and Z1241 were originally generated by mutagenesis with 25mM EMS (ethyl methyl sulfonate) of a second chromosome bearing a fasIIIE25 null allele. To test whether the axon guidance phenotype is solely due to a mutation in the seq gene and not caused by the absence of the fasIII gene, the fasIII chromosome was introduced into the background on the third chromosome using a duplication containing the FasIII gene (Bloomington stock BL90512). In addition, all mutant alleles were crossed with a Deficiency (Df(2R)CX1) uncovering the seq locus to confirm their embryonic lethality.

Immunohistochemistry and image acquisition

Embryos were staged as described by Campos-Ortega and Hartenstein [14] and stained following standard protocols. Standard immunohistochemical procedures were used. For immunostaining, embryos were fixed in 4% formaldehyde for 20–30 minutes. We used BP102 antibody from DSHB and antibodies that recognize Futsch (22C10 - DSHB), Fasciclin II (1D4 - DSHB), Eve (3C10 - DSHB), FasIII (7G10 – DSHB), Sequoia [9], GFP (Molecular Probes and Roche), ßGal (Cappel and Promega), and Cy2, Cy3 and Cy5-conjugated secondary antibodies (Jackson ImmunoResearch). For HRP histochemistry, the signal was amplified using the Vectastain-ABC kit (Vector Laboratories) when required. Photographs were taken using Nomarski optics in a Nikon Eclipse 800 microscope. Fluorescent images were obtained with confocal microscopy (Leica TCS-SPE-AOBS system). Images are maximum projections of confocal Z-sections.

Phenotype screening

Homozygous embryos from the sequoia mutants were collected from balanced lines and immunostained using standard protocols [15]. A double staining with monoclonal antibodies MAbBP102 and MAb7G10 anti-fasIII was used to characterize the development of CNS axons and identify homozygous embryos. Homozygous embryos were incubated with antibodies rotating at 4 °C overnight. After incubation with peroxidase goat anti-mouse secondary antibody (Jackson Immunoresearch Labs), the embryos were reacted with 0.3 mg/ml diaminobenzidine (DAB) and then cleared in 70% glycerol in PBS. Stained embryos were examined under a dissecting microscope at a magnification of 50X or higher. Homozygous embryos were identified by the absence of FasIII expression due to a mutation in this gene. These embryos were observed at different developmental stages (13–17) for defects in the development of CNS axons, which were visualized with MAbBP102. Mutants exhibiting an axon guidance phenotype were selected for further analysis using different types of antibodies. See [16].

Mapping of sequoia mutants

sequoia alleles GA168, C022, Z1241, H156 and C3101 were sequenced by whole genome sequencing (WGS) or PCR amplification of individual exonic regions. The genomic DNA for WGS was extracted from adult flies using Monarch genomic DNA preparation kit (NEB) Once mutations were identified, this was followed by Sanger sequencing to validate the seq mutations. Genomic DNA for exon specific PCR was prepared as described [17] and fragments were Sanger sequenced.

Statistical evaluation of phenotypic analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism (version 10.4.0). Quantitative assessments were conducted to compare various mutant phenotypes with the wild type. The Kruskal‑Wallis test was applied to assess the differences in BP102 phenotypes between the control line (w1118) and the seq mutant lines. Three measurements of structural distances were quantified: (1) the distance from the anterior edge of the anterior commissure to the posterior edge of the posterior commissure (commissural width), (2) the distance from the posterior edge of the anterior commissure to the anterior edge of the posterior commissure (commissural length), and (3) the distance between longitudinal tracts, measured from the lateral tract on one side to the lateral tract on the opposite side. The average distances were evaluated across 1–3 embryos, including 5–7 segments per embryo. Raw data for the graphs are available in the S1 File.

Results and discussion

sequoia mutations disrupt CNS axon growth and guidance during embryonic development

sequoia (seq) was initially identified in a forward genetic screen for genes involved in embryonic dendritic development, where it was also found to influence peripheral axonal outgrowth. In seq mutant embryos, axons from dorsal neurons fail to extend toward the central nervous system (CNS) [8]. Seq is expressed exclusively in the developing and mature central and peripheral nervous system where it has been proposed to act cell-autonomously [9]. However, it also acts cell non-autonomously, modulating tracheal branch migration [18].

To further investigate the role of seq in axon guidance, we began by analyzing the organization of axon pathways at the midline of the embryonic Drosophila CNS. In control embryos, two primary axonal pathways are observed at the midline: commissural axons, which cross the midline to reach contralateral targets, and longitudinal axons, which extend anteriorly and posteriorly on either side of the midline without crossing it (Fig 1A). By late developmental stages, the CNS midline adopts a characteristic ladder-like structure composed of repeated thoracic (T1–T3) and abdominal (A1–A8) segments [19]. Although CNS axons thicken during these stages, the overall architecture remains intact, with longitudinal tracts developing away from the midline and the spacing between commissures preserved (S1 Fig A, G, M, S).

Fig 1. The development of axon pathways at the CNS midline in sequoia mutants.

Fig 1

(A) At developmental stage 16, CNS axons extend across the midline in two commissures (anterior and posterior) with a similar distance between commissures in all segments. Longitudinal tracts form either side of the midline which extend anteriorly and posteriorly. (B) In seqGA168 mutant, additional longitudinal axons accumulate at commissural sites (black arrow), while they are reduced or absent between segments (black arrowhead) at stage 16. (C) In seqC3101 mutant, the space between commissures is filled with additional axons (black arrowhead), and the longitudinal tracts show abnormally increased axonal material at commissural junctions (black arrow) during stage 16. (D) The longitudinal axons are also abnormally condensed at commissural sites in certain segments (black arrow) at stage 16 in the seqH156 mutant. (E) In seqC022 mutant, the commissural tracts are almost absent (black arrow), and the longitudinal tracts are accumulated randomly at commissural points (black arrowhead) with less or no longitudinal fascicles between segments at development stage 16. (F) In seqZ1241, few commissural axons cross the midline in a single thin tract (black arrow), and the longitudinal pathways appear absent at stage 16. These phenotypes were imaged at a magnification power of 60X. Scale bar, 10 μm. (G) Graphical representation of the penetrance of the mutant CNS phenotype. (H, I) Quantification of commissural width and length.

We analyzed the phenotypes of five seq alleles, all bearing recessive mutations leading to embryonic lethality in homozygosis. In seq mutants, CNS axon development is disrupted to varying degrees (Fig 1BF) and is apparent from early developmental stages (S1 Fig). The penetrance of the CNS phenotype is about 100% for all alleles (Fig 1G). In seqGA168 embryos, longitudinal axons accumulate at commissural sites (Fig 1B, black arrow) and are diminished or absent between segments (Fig 1B, black arrowhead), leading to a reduced inter-commissural space and distortion of the normal CNS architecture. Similarly, seqC3101 mutants exhibit abnormal thickening of longitudinal pathways, particularly at commissural points (Fig 1C), which narrows the space between anterior and posterior commissures. In some segments, commissures appear thicker than in wild-type embryos at comparable stages (Fig 1C, black arrowhead) and longitudinals are thinner (Fig 1C, black arrow). In seqH156 homozygous embryos, longitudinal tracts are markedly thickened in specific segments (Fig 1D, black arrows). A more severe phenotype is observed in seqC022, where commissural axons are absent (Fig 1E, black arrow), and longitudinal fascicles aggregate irregularly at commissural sites (Fig 1E, black arrowhead). The seqZ1241 allele displays a similarly strong phenotype, with disrupted CNS architecture characterized by fused commissural tracts in some segments and reduced prominence in others (Fig 1F, black arrow). We quantified the commissural dimensions and could determine that the strongest mutant effects are present in alleles Z1241 and C022 (Fig 1H, I).

Sequoia mutations affect the development of ipsilateral axons and lead them to aberrantly cross the midline

To further explore the impact of seq mutations on neuronal development, we examined the organization of FasII-positive neurons that extend within the longitudinal axons either side of the midline. During late embryogenesis, longitudinal axons extend anteriorly and posteriorly along both sides of the midline, forming three distinct pathways: medial (closest to the midline), intermediate, and lateral. In the midline of wild-type embryos, a clear gap is maintained between the medial tracts, and FasII-positive axons do not cross the midline (Fig 2A).

Fig 2. sequoia mutant embryos exhibit abnormal midline crossing and axonal extension defects.

Fig 2

Fasciclin II (FasII) protein is abundantly expressed in ipsilateral neurons and all motor neurons during embryogenesis. At the onset of axon outgrowth, the pioneer axons of vMP2 and pCC neurons fasciculate and extend anteriorly. (A) At stage 16, the longitudinal axons are separated into three fascicles: medial, which is located closer to the midline, intermediate and lateral. These longitudinal tracts are formed on both sides of the midline and do not cross the midline. (B) In seqGA168 mutants, the longitudinal axons grow toward the midline (black arrowhead), while these neurons normally do not cross the midline. In addition, the distance between the three tracts is reduced (black arrow). (C) In the seqC3101 mutant, there are abnormal neurite extensions of ipsilateral neurons at the midline and fasciculation with neurites of the opposite longitudinal neurons (black arrowhead). The three tracts of longitudinal axons are fused together and are thinner (black arrow). (D) In seqH156, some axons cross the midline (black arrowhead). The three longitudinal tracts are not well defined and parallel to the midline (arrow). (E) In seqC022 the longitudinal tracks do not form, and axons fail to extend towards the muscles. (F) In seqZ1241 no FasII positive axons are detected. These phenotypes were imaged at a magnification power of 20X. Scale bar, 10 μm. (G, H) FasII staining of stage 12 control and seqZ1241 embryonic midline, showing Z1241 allele defects in axonal extension from early stages. (I-K) Sema2b neurons were tagged with Tau‑myc and visualised with anti‑myc antibody (9E10) in green and HRP in red, to follow the axon outgrowth of these neurons while crossing the midline. (J) At stage 16, the migration of sema2b axons in seqGA168 homozygotes is disrupted, where the commissural projections either fail to occur or take an aberrant route across the midline crossing between segments (red arrowhead). The distance between the two cell bodies of Sema2b neurons on either side of the midline is reduced (yellow double arrow). Those Sema2b axons that show failure to cross the midline also do not extend within the intermediate tract of longitudinals (blue arrow). (K) The extension of Sema2b neurons is disrupted by the seqC3101 mutation at stage 16. Some Sema2b axons are stalled at the midline, as indicated by the red arrowhead. Some Sema2b neurons could extend anteriorly in C3101 homozygotes, but are disorganized, as shown by the arrow, and do not extend within the intermediate longitudinal tract. These phenotypes were imaged at a magnification power of 20X. Scale bar: 10 μm. (L, L’) Lateral side of control embryos stained with antibody 1D4 against FasII and displaying motor axon fibers. (M, M’) Motor axon phenotypes in seqGA168.

In seq mutants, this organization is disrupted. Some axons aberrantly extend toward and across the midline. In seqGA168 embryos, axons are observed crossing the midline (Fig 2B, black arrowhead), and the three longitudinal tracts are no longer clearly defined by stage 16 (Fig 2B, black arrow). In these embryos we also detected shorter motor axon fiber and guidance phenotypes (Fig 2M’, black arrow). A similar CNS phenotype is seen in seqC3101 homozygous embryos, where longitudinal axons also cross the midline (Fig 2C, black arrowhead) and fail to extend properly along the anterior-posterior axis. These axons appear thinner than in wild-type embryos at the same stage (Fig 2C, black arrow). seqH156 embryos display a similar phenotype, with axons crossing the midline and failing to extend properly (Fig 2D, arrowhead and arrow). seqC022 develops a stronger embryonic mutant phenotype with axons failing to extend from the midline towards the muscles (Fig 2E).

In the more severe seqZ1241 allele, motor axons extending from the midline were not detected at stage 16 (Fig 2F). To assess earlier developmental stages, we examined stage 12 embryos, when pioneer neurons first extend axons. In control embryos, these initial axonal projections are clearly visible (Fig 2G, arrow), whereas in seqZ1241 embryos, only the neuronal cell bodies are present, with no detectable axonal outgrowth (Fig 2H, arrow). These defects are not due to programmed cell death as removal of hid, grim and reaper does not rescue the phenotype (S2 Fig).

Sema2b-expressing neurons represent a small subset of commissural neurons located in five abdominal segments. Their axons normally cross the midline via the anterior commissural tract and then project anteriorly within the intermediate longitudinal tract to reach their target cells (Fig 2I, I’). These neurons are visualized using a reporter construct in which the Sema2b promoter drives expression of Tau tagged with a Myc epitope [20]. In seqGA168 mutants, Sema2b axon outgrowth is disrupted during stages 16–17 (Fig 2J, J’). Although the neurons appear to be correctly specified, evidenced by Tau-Myc expression in cell bodies at their expected positions, their axons fail to extend properly. Instead of crossing the midline as in wild-type embryos, many axons either stall or cross aberrantly, sometimes projecting into more anterior segments (Fig 2K’, red arrowhead). This phenotype is consistent with anti-HRP staining (Fig 2I–K), which reveals additional axons crossing the midline, comparable to that revealed by BP102. Moreover, many Sema2b axons fail to extend along the intermediate longitudinal tract, suggesting that they either stall at the soma or follow incorrect trajectories (Fig 2J’, blue arrow). The reduced distance between Sema2b cell bodies on either side of the midline further reflects this guidance defect (Fig 2J’, yellow double arrow). A similar disruption is observed in seqC3101 embryos. In this allele, Sema2b axons also fail to cross the midline (Fig 2K’, red arrowhead). While some axons do extend anteriorly, they deviate from their normal path within the intermediate tract (Fig 2K’, blue arrow), consistent with BP102/HRP staining that shows reduced midline crossing.

We also observed motor axon mutant phenotypes in seqGA168. Specifically, we could detect motor axon guidance errors and abnormal axonal extension (Fig 2M, M’ arrow).

Sensory neurons display axonal defects in seq mutant alleles

Given that seq mutants disrupt the formation of BP102 and FasII-positive axons in the ventral nerve cord (VNC) during embryogenesis, we next investigated whether these mutations also affect the development of the peripheral nervous system (PNS). To visualize PNS neurons and their axons, we used the monoclonal antibody 22C10 (anti-Futsch), which labels all sensory neurons and a subset of CNS neurons expressing the Futsch protein. This antigen is distributed across multiple cellular compartments, including dendrites, axons, and cell bodies [21].

At embryonic stage 16, all sensory neurons express Futsch, making this stage ideal for assessing PNS development in selected seq mutant lines. Sensory neurons are organized into three groups—dorsal, lateral, and ventral—and project their axons toward the CNS (Fig 1A). In seqGA168 mutants, axonal pathways between sensory neuron cell bodies and the CNS are absent in some segments, suggesting that axons either stall or fail to navigate correctly (Fig 3B, black arrowhead).

Fig 3. Sensory neurons display axonal defects in sequoia mutant alleles.

Fig 3

The Futsch protein is expressed in all sensory neurons. The 22C10 antibody was used to track the development and axonal migration of the Futsch‑positive neurons. (A) In normal embryos, sensory neurons migrate from the PNS toward the CNS in three main groups: dorsal (D), lateral (L) and ventral (V). (B) The phenotype of sensory neurons in GA168 homozygotes at developmental stage 16. The migration of sensory axons toward the CNS is affected, seen as a loss of connection between the three groups of sensory neurons (black arrowhead). The lateral neurons have reduced cilia extensions (arrowhead). (C) In C3101, the number of sensory neurons is reduced, and particularly, there is a marked reduction in the number of lateral group neurons, which might be stalled dorsally, or these groups are missing in C3101 (black arrowhead). (D) In H156, the axons from the dorsal cluster fail to extend properly and the fascicles are thinner in some segments (arrowhead). (E) In C022 there are strong axonal guidance defects in dorsal cluster axons, sometimes crossing the segmental boundaries (arrowhead). (F) In Z1241, severe defects are detected with a general disorganization of the whole PNS. These phenotypes were imaged at a magnification power of 20X. Scale bar, 10 μm. (G, H) Detail of the lateral clusters displaying the PNS axonal extension phenotypes. (I) Quantification of axonal guidance errors from the dorsal cluster (n = 20 embryos).

In seqC3101 homozygous embryos, sensory neuron development is also impaired. The normal pattern of sensory neurons fails to form, with neurons either stalling dorsally or being lost altogether compared to wild-type embryos at stage 16 (Fig 3C). Additionally, the number of sensory neurons is reduced across nearly all groups and segments. Notably, the lateral group shows a marked reduction in cell number in some segments and is completely absent in others (Fig 3C, arrowhead). seqH156 displays mild fasciculation and axonal guidance defects (Fig 3D, arrowhead). Allele C022, has stronger axonal guidance defects, with some axons crossing the segment boundary (Fig 3E arrowheads). Finally, seqZ1241 displays the strongest defects, with less sensory neurons, and a general disorganization of the whole PNS (Fig 3F). To gain further insight into these phenotypes, we quantified the axonal phenotypes in seqGA168 homozygous mutant embryos (Fig 3G, H). We could detect that most embryos (65% n = 20 Fig 3F) displayed specific errors in the axonal extension of the dorsal cluster (Fig 3E arrows).

The axon guidance phenotypes we identified are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of seq allele axon guidance phenotypes.

seq Alleles GA168 C3101 H156 C022 Z1241
Mutation Q739X Q76X Q713X Q559X K452X
Commissural phenotype Commissural neurons Fuzzy commissural phenotype where the space between AC and PC is filled with axons Fuzzy commissures, as the space between commissures is filled with additional axons The thickness of the commissures is slightly less compared to the wild type Disappearance of commissures at the midline Fused and thinner commissures crossing the midline
Sema2b neurons Sema2b axons are disrupted or take an aberrant route across the midline and these axons failed to extend toward the intermediate tracts of longitudinal The Sema2b axons are stalled at the midline with disorganized extension anteriorly
Longitudinal tract formation Ipsilateral neurons Abnormal accumulation of longitudinal axons at commissural sites, severe reduction of these axons between segments, and

abnormal

midline

crossing
Abnormal accumulation of longitudinal axons at commissural points, with reduction of these axons between segments and odd neurite extensions at the midline Abnormal condensation of the longitudinals at the commissural sites Abnormal thickness of longituidnals at commissural sites and loss of these axons in some segments Severe defect with no detectable axonal extensions
PNS phenotype Sensory neurons Loss of connections between dorsal, lateral, and ventral sensory axons and lateral neurons have reduced cilia The number of sensory neurons decreased, especially in the lateral group Abnormal axonal extensions from the dorsal cluster, thinner fascicles Abnormal axonal extensions from the dorsal cluster, segment boundary crossings Severe axonal extension and guidance problems, PNS disorganization

List of seq alleles investigated in this study with their corresponding mutations. The main axon outgrowth phenotypes are summarized for the commissural, longitudinal and PNS neurons. *AC = anterior commissures, PC = posterior commissures.

Seq alleles exhibit distinct axon guidance phenotypes, suggesting that Seq may have domain‑specific function during neural development

Complementation testing confirmed that the mutant alleles GA168, C022, C3101, H156 and Z1241 belong to the same complementation group. To determine whether the observed axon guidance defects result from disruptions in seq alone, we analyzed the phenotypes of trans-heterozygous embryos carrying different combinations of these alleles (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Mutant phenotypes of transheterozygous embryos of different sequoia alleles.

Fig 4

(A) Wild‑type pattern of CNS axons visualized with BP102 at development stage 16. (B) The transheterozygous embryo carrying the GA168 allele over the C3101 allele, captured at developmental stage 16, where the fuzzy commissural phenotype has developed and is more severe in some segments (yellow arrowhead). The longitudinal axons are condensed at commissural points (blue arrow) and are thinner between segments (red arrow). (C) The phenotype of transheterozygous embryos of the C3101 allele over the Z1241 allele, where the longitudinal axons accumulated at commissural points (blue arrow) and absent between segments (red arrow). The commissural pathways become thinner and fused in a single tract, as there is no gap between the anterior and posterior tracts. (D) Late embryo of the GA168 allele over the Z1241 allele, showed a severe thickness of longitudinals at commissural sites (blue arrow) with almost no longitudinals between segments (red arrow). The distance between commissural tracts is reduced, and in some segments, the commissures are fused together (yellow arrowhead). (E, F) Control and seqGA168/seqH156 transheterozygous combination stained with anti-FasII antibody. (G) Quantification of the gap phenotypes found. These phenotypes were imaged at a magnification power of 20X. Scale bar, 10 μm.

Embryos trans-heterozygous for alleles C3101 and GA168 displayed a phenotype like C3101 homozygotes (Fig 4B; see also Fig 1C). These embryos exhibited thickened longitudinal tracts, particularly at commissural sites (Fig 4B, blue arrow), and reduced axonal extension between segments (Fig 4B, red arrow). The spacing between anterior and posterior commissures was also diminished (Fig 4B, yellow arrowhead).

In contrast, embryos trans-heterozygous for C3101 and Z1241 resembled strong Z1241 and C022 homozygote phenotypes (Fig 4C; see also Fig 1B). These embryos showed severe CNS axon guidance defects, including fused commissures and, in some segments, a single thin commissural tract (Fig 4C, yellow arrowhead). Longitudinal fascicles were abnormally concentrated at commissural sites (Fig 4C, blue arrow), with little to no axonal extension between segments (Fig 4C, red arrow).

Similarly, GA168/Z1241 trans-heterozygotes exhibited a phenotype stronger than GA168 homozygotes (Fig 4D). Longitudinal axons accumulated at commissural sites (Fig 4D, blue arrow), and axonal projections between segments were reduced or absent (Fig 4D, red arrow). In some segments, commissural tracts were fused, eliminating the normal spacing between anterior and posterior commissures (Fig 4D, yellow arrowhead). We quantified one of these transheterozygous combinations seqH156/seqGA168 and could detect gaps in the midline in more than 80% of the embryos (Fig 4EG, n = 20).

A common feature across all seq mutant combinations is the abnormal accumulation of longitudinal axons at commissural sites (Table 1). This suggests a failure in midline guidance, potentially due to the loss of attractive cues normally modulated by Seq. One possibility is that Seq helps express an attractant that guides axons across the midline to reach contralateral targets. Alternatively, the absence of Seq may impair repulsive signaling, preventing axons from exiting the midline and extending longitudinally. This could explain both the accumulation at commissural sites and the absence of axons between segments.

The C-terminal domain of Seq is essential for CNS axon guidance

The seq gene comprises four exons and produces two transcripts, seq-RA and seq-RB [22,23]. The Seq protein contains two predicted C2H2-type zinc finger domains, located between amino acids 402–430 and 438–461, respectively (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Sequoia protein sequence and mutation localization. The Seq protein contains two zinc finger domains: the first spans amino acids 402–430, and the second is located between amino acids 438 and 461. The seq mutation in the GA168 genome occurs at amino acid 739, where the glutamine codon CAG changes to a stop codon TAG, placing it in the C-terminal domain. In the C3101 mutant, the seq mutation is at amino acid 76, where the glutamine codon CAG is replaced by a stop codon TAG, possibly resulting in the loss of all functional domains. In Z1241 mutant, the seq mutation occurs at amino acid 452, where the lysine codon AAA is replaced by a stop codon TAA, leading to the loss of part of the second zinc finger domain. For the C022 mutant, the seq mutation is at amino acid 559, where the glutamine codon CAG is replaced by a stop codon TAG, causing the loss of only the C-terminal domain. In the H156 mutant, the seq mutation occurs at amino acid 713, where the glutamine codon CAG is replaced by a stop codon TAG, resulting in the absence of the C-terminal domain.

Fig 5

All seq mutations were identified via whole-genome sequencing and confirmed by Sanger sequencing. The seqGA168 allele carries a nonsense mutation in exon 3 of the seq transcripts, where the glutamine codon (CAG) at position 739 is replaced by a stop codon (TAG), resulting in a truncated protein. Although this truncated form retains the N-terminal region and both zinc finger domains, it lacks the final 134 amino acids of the C-terminus (Fig 5).

Another allele, seqZ1241, carries a nonsense mutation in exon 3, where the lysine codon (AAA) at position 452 is replaced by a stop codon (TAA). This results in the loss of the final 10 amino acids of the second zinc finger domain. Despite retaining most functional domains, seqZ1241 homozygous embryos exhibit the most severe CNS axon guidance defects among all alleles analyzed, indicating it is a null allele. In a previous study, this allele was classified as a protein null allele because no Seq protein was detected in homozygous mutant embryos [18] so it is likely that this mutation leads to a truncated, unstable protein.

Whole-genome sequencing revealed a nonsense mutation in exon 2 of seqC3101 allele, introducing a premature stop codon at amino acid 76. This early truncation would eliminate all predicted functional domains, including both zinc fingers, suggesting that seqC3101 could be a null allele (Fig 5). However, its mutant phenotype is milder than seqZ1241 which has undetectable protein levels, hinting at the maintenance of some residual function in allele C3101. This would be possible if alternative start sites, which would allow start codons downstream of the mutation would be used to initiate translation, potentially producing a protein that may retain some function [24].

The seqC022 allele harbors a nonsense mutation in exon 3, replacing the glutamine codon (CAG) at position 559 with a stop codon (TAG). This truncation removes 323 amino acids from the C-terminus, although the zinc finger domains remain intact (Fig 5). However, the CNS phenotype is very strong (Fig 1E) suggesting it might be a protein null allele like seqZ1241.

Finally, the seqH156 allele contains a nonsense mutation in exon 3 at amino acid 713, where a glutamine codon is replaced by a stop codon. This mutation results in the loss of 256 C-terminal amino acids, while preserving all known functional domains of Seq protein (Fig 5).

The comparison between all the mutant alleles and their phenotypes, indicates that the C-terminal domain of Seq is very important for its function during nervous system development.

In summary, our study demonstrates that Seq plays a critical role in the development of the Drosophila central nervous system by regulating axonal extension and guidance. Through the analysis of various seq mutations, we were able to correlate specific genetic alterations with distinct axon guidance phenotypes, reinforcing the notion that Seq functions as a transcription factor in this developmental context. Nevertheless, we cannot exclude the possibility that Seq, being a transcription factor, also influences the fate of some of these cells, which could secondarily affect axonal extension and guidance. Notably, the most severe phenotypes were associated with mutations affecting the C-terminal region of the protein, suggesting that this domain is essential for its regulatory activity. Although the early stop codon present in allele C3101 initially suggested a null mutation, our data indicate that this allele retains partial function, likely using alternative start codons [24]. These findings provide new insights into the molecular mechanisms by which Seq influences neural development and lay the foundations for future investigations into its transcriptional targets and regulatory networks.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. The development of axon pathways at the CNS midline in sequoia mutant embryos.

All these embryos were stained with BP102, which targets anti-CNS axons, and examined during development. (A) At developmental stages 13–14, the two commissural tracts separate, and the longitudinal tracts begin to develop at the commissural points. (B) In GA168 mutant, the space between the commissures is filled with extra axons, as the gaps between them are almost abolished in some segments (yellow arrow) at developmental stage 13–14. (C) Similarly, in C3101 mutant, the space between the commissures is reduced (yellow arrow) at developmental stages 13–14. (D) In H156 mutant, the commissural tracts are abnormally thinner compared to normal embryos at the same stages, stages 13–14. (E) In C022 mutant, the commissural tracts are fused and sharply reduced in thickness during development stages 13–14. (F) In Z1241 mutant, the commissural tracts develop as a single, thin tract without the longitudinal tracts that connect the two commissural tracts per segment at stages 13–14. (G) At developmental stage 14, the commissural tracts are completely separated, and the longitudinal tracts extend anteriorly and posteriorly to join the segments. (H) In GA168, the commissures appear fuzzy in some segments, and the longitudinal tracts thickened at commissural sites. Additionally, these tracts are absent in some segments (blue arrow) at stage 14. (I) In C3101, the commissures exhibit a fuzzy phenotype at developmental stage 14. (J) In H156, the commissural tracts are thickened and fused in some segments (blue arrow) at stage 14. (K) In C022, the commissures develop as a fused, single, thin tract at developmental stage 14. (L) In Z1241, the ladder-like structure of the CNS is disrupted, and the commissures develop as straight, faint lines at the midline, without longitudinal tracts on either side of the midline at developmental stage 14. (M) At developmental stage 15, both CNS axon pathways are fully developed into a ladder-like structure composed of repeated segments. (N) In GA168, the area between the commissures is filled with extra axons, and the longitudinal tracts are unusually thicker at the commissural sites at stage 15. (O) In C3101, additional axons cross the midline, and the longitudinal tracts increase in thickness in all segments at developmental stage 15. (P) In H156, the space between the commissures is filled with axons (red arrow), and the longitudinal tracts are diminished in certain segments (black arrow). (Q) In C022, the longitudinal tracts are thicker at commissural sites per segment, while they are significantly reduced between segments (black arrow) at stage 15. (R) In Z1241, there are no longitudinal tracts, and few commissural axons cross the midline in a single tract at stage 15. (S) At developmental stage 16, both CNS axons increased in thickness, but the distance between commissures is maintained in wild-type embryos. (T) In GA168, additional axons are crossing the midline with abnormal thickness of longitudinal fascicles at commissural points at stage 16. (U) In C3101, the space between the commissures is filled with additional axons, and the longitudinal tracts are abnormally increased at the commissural sites (green arrow) during development stage 16. (V) In H156, the longitudinal tracts are condensed at commissural sites in certain segments (green arrows) at stage 16. (W) In C022, the commissural tracts are almost absent, and the longitudinal pathways are condensed at commissural points, with no longitudinal tracts between segments at developmental stage 16. (X) In Z1241, more commissural axons cross the midline in a single tract, and the longitudinal pathways are lost at stage 16. These phenotypes were imaged at a magnification power of 60X. Scale bar, 10μm.

(TIF)

pone.0333573.s001.tif (27.5MB, tif)
S2 Fig. Programmed cell death is not responsible for sequoiaZ1241 mutant phenotypes.

(A) Stage 14 control embryos stained with anti-FasII showing the axonal extensions from the midline; (B) stage 14 seqZ1241 stained with anti-FasII showing the absence of axonal extensions; (C) stage 14 embryos double mutant for seqZ1241 and Def(3L)H99, which removes hid, grim and reaper.

(TIF)

pone.0333573.s002.tif (7.8MB, tif)
S1 File. Raw data to produce graphs in the paper.

This file includes the raw measurements used to quantify the BP102 phenotypes.

(XLSX)

pone.0333573.s003.xlsx (15.9KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Fursham Hamid and Karla Lozano Gonzalez for their assistance with the WGS bioinformatic analysis. We thank Melanie Martin and Marisol Gonzalez-Melendez for the fly media preparation.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

Qatar University Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Innovación (PID2021-125860NB-I00) Generalitat de Catalunya (2021 SGR 1455).

References

  • 1.Crews ST. Drosophila embryonic CNS development: neurogenesis, gliogenesis, cell fate, and differentiation. Genetics. 2019;213(4):1111–44. doi: 10.1534/genetics.119.300974 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Araújo SJ, Tear G. Axon guidance mechanisms and molecules: lessons from invertebrates. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2003;4(11):910–22. doi: 10.1038/nrn1243 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Stoeckli ET. Understanding axon guidance: are we nearly there yet? Development. 2018;145(10):dev151415. doi: 10.1242/dev.151415 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ros O, Barrecheguren PJ, Cotrufo T, Schaettin M, Roselló-Busquets C, Vílchez-Acosta A, et al. A conserved role for Syntaxin-1 in pre- and post-commissural midline axonal guidance in fly, chick, and mouse. PLoS Genet. 2018;14(6):e1007432. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007432 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Nichols EL, Lee J, Shen K. UNC-6/Netrin promotes both adhesion and directed growth within a single axon. Elife. 2025;13:RP100424. doi: 10.7554/eLife.100424 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nourisanami F, Sobol M, Li Z, Horvath M, Kowalska K, Kumar A, et al. Molecular mechanisms of proteoglycan-mediated semaphorin signaling in axon guidance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024;121(31):e2402755121. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2402755121 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Evans TA, Bashaw GJ. Axon guidance at the midline: of mice and flies. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2010;20(1):79–85. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2009.12.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gao FB, Brenman JE, Jan LY, Jan YN. Genes regulating dendritic outgrowth, branching, and routing in Drosophila. Genes Dev. 1999;13(19):2549–61. doi: 10.1101/gad.13.19.2549 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Brenman JE, Gao FB, Jan LY, Jan YN. Sequoia, a tramtrack-related zinc finger protein, functions as a pan-neural regulator for dendrite and axon morphogenesis in Drosophila. Dev Cell. 2001;1(5):667–77. doi: 10.1016/s1534-5807(01)00072-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Gunnar E, Bivik C, Starkenberg A, Thor S. sequoia controls the type I>0 daughter proliferation switch in the developing Drosophila nervous system. Development. 2016;143(20):3774–84. doi: 10.1242/dev.139998 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Petrovic M, Hummel T. Temporal identity in axonal target layer recognition. Nature. 2008;456(7223):800–3. doi: 10.1038/nature07407 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Andrews HK, Giagtzoglou N, Yamamoto S, Schulze KL, Bellen HJ. Sequoia regulates cell fate decisions in the external sensory organs of adult Drosophila. EMBO Rep. 2009;10(6):636–41. doi: 10.1038/embor.2009.66 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Jacomin A-C, Petridi S, Di Monaco M, Bhujabal Z, Jain A, Mulakkal NC, et al. Regulation of Expression of Autophagy Genes by Atg8a-Interacting Partners Sequoia, YL-1, and Sir2 in Drosophila. Cell Rep. 2020;31(8):107695. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2020.107695 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Campos-Ortega AJ, Hartenstein V. The embryonic development of Drosophila melanogaster. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1985. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Araujo SJ, Llimargas M. Time-lapse imaging and morphometric analysis of tracheal development in Drosophila. Methods Mol Biol. 2023;2608:163–82. doi: 10.1007/978-1-0716-2887-4_11 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Seeger M, Tear G, Ferres-Marco D, Goodman CS. Mutations affecting growth cone guidance in Drosophila: genes necessary for guidance toward or away from the midline. Neuron. 1993;10(3):409–26. doi: 10.1016/0896-6273(93)90330-t [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Huang AM, Rehm EJ, Rubin GM. Quick preparation of genomic DNA from Drosophila. Cold Spring Harb Protoc. 2009;2009(4):pdb.prot5198. doi: 10.1101/pdb.prot5198 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Araújo SJ, Casanova J. Sequoia establishes tip-cell number in Drosophila trachea by regulating FGF levels. J Cell Sci. 2011;124(Pt 14):2335–40. doi: 10.1242/jcs.085613 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Jacobs JR, Goodman CS. Embryonic development of axon pathways in the Drosophila CNS. II. Behavior of pioneer growth cones. J Neurosci. 1989;9(7):2412–22. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.09-07-02412.1989 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Emerson MM, Long JB, Van Vactor D. Drosophila semaphorin2b is required for the axon guidance of a subset of embryonic neurons. Dev Dyn. 2013;242(7):861–73. doi: 10.1002/dvdy.23979 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hummel T, Krukkert K, Roos J, Davis G, Klämbt C. Drosophila Futsch/22C10 is a MAP1B-like protein required for dendritic and axonal development. Neuron. 2000;26(2):357–70. doi: 10.1016/s0896-6273(00)81169-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Jenkins VK, Larkin A, Thurmond J. Using FlyBase: A Database of Drosophila Genes and Genetics. In: Dahmann C, editor. Drosophila: Methods and Protocols. New York, NY: Springer; US; 2022. p. 1–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Öztürk-Çolak A, Marygold SJ, Antonazzo G, Attrill H, Goutte-Gattat D, Jenkins VK, et al. FlyBase: updates to the Drosophila genes and genomes database. Genetics. 2024;227(1):iyad211. doi: 10.1093/genetics/iyad211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bazykin GA, Kochetov AV. Alternative translation start sites are conserved in eukaryotic genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39(2):567–77. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq806 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Renping Zhou

6 Nov 2025

Dear Dr. Tear,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 21 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 plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Renping Zhou

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Qatar University

Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y

Innovación (PID2021-125860NB-I00)

Generalitat 333 de Catalunya (2021 SGR 1455).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.” If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

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:

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

- The values used to build graphs;

- 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.

5. We notice that your supplementary figures are included in the manuscript file. Please remove them and upload them with the file type 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

6. 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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This article by Noor Al-Hajri et al. describes the phenotypes of several new mutant alleles of sequoia (seq), a gene encoding a zinc-finger transcription factor. The study extends previous reports on the role of Sequoia in nervous system development by characterizing five mutant alleles in total—two previously reported and three newly generated. Overall, the phenotypic descriptions are clear and the data are potentially valuable; however, the clarity of presentation and the completeness of the analysis could be improved in several areas.

Major Comments

1. In most figures, only a subset of the alleles is analyzed. Including all five alleles throughout the figures would strengthen the conclusions and provide a more comprehensive view of the phenotypic variability associated with seq mutations.

2. The manuscript does not specify whether all seq alleles are recessive. No data from heterozygous mutants are shown. Information about dominance or partial dominance could help interpret the phenotypic differences reported, particularly in the final section of the paper.

3. Several statements, especially in the Introduction, lack supporting references. These should be added to properly contextualize the study within previous work on seq and related transcription factors.

4. The discussion does not adequately integrate prior knowledge of seq function. For example, is Seq expressed in all central and peripheral nervous system neurons? Are the reported phenotypes demonstrably cell-autonomous? Addressing these points would clarify how the new alleles relate to the known roles of Sequoia.

5. It would be helpful to include a summary table listing all analyzed phenotypes and the corresponding effects of each allele in the different neuronal types examined.

Minor Comments

1. Figure formatting

In all figures, the scale bar is too thin and difficult to see. Please increase its thickness. The scale information should remain in the figure legend; currently, it is almost illegible even when zoomed in.

2. Figure 1G

Ensure that the order of genotypes or conditions in the plot matches the order shown in Figure 1A and in the graphs in Figures 1H–I for easier comparison.

3. Figures 1H and 1I

Replace “um” with the correct unit symbol “μm”.

4. Figure 2D

The figure legend lacks information about the antibody used. Moreover, only the mutant is shown. A proper control illustrating the normal phenotype should be included for comparison.

5. Figure 3C

The legend should clarify what the light-blue arrow indicates.

6. Figures 4E–G

These panels are not mentioned in the main text; please include a reference to them where appropriate.

7. Supplementary Figure 1

Add the genotypes directly to the figure to facilitate interpretation. Indicate which antibodies were used in the legend.

8. line 271

The citation “Figure 5D” should be corrected to “Figure 4D”.

9. The description of how seq alleles were generated is confusing. The text states that chemical mutagenesis was performed on a second chromosome carrying a fasIII mutation, but it is unclear how the fasIII gene was later reintroduced. Was a genomic FasIII rescue construct inserted into the third chromosome of the mutant flies? Please clarify.

10. Discussion. Consider whether some of the observed phenotypes could reflect altered cell fate rather than purely axon-guidance defects.

**********

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

**********

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

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Mar 25;21(3):e0333573. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0333573.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


13 Jan 2026

RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS

Sequoia affects Drosophila central nervous system development by regulating axonal extension and guidance

Dear editor and reviewer,

We thank the reviewer for his/her comments and suggestions, which will make our manuscript a much better one. Accordingly, we have already made changes to the manuscript (marked in yellow) and some of the figures, and we have performed all the required experiments.

We hope you will find this manuscript suitable for publication at PLOSOne.

Below, we answer the reviewers point by point (in blue).

Reviewer #1: This article by Noor Al-Hajri et al. describes the phenotypes of several new mutant alleles of sequoia (seq), a gene encoding a zinc-finger transcription factor. The study extends previous reports on the role of Sequoia in nervous system development by characterizing five mutant alleles in total—two previously reported and three newly generated. Overall, the phenotypic descriptions are clear and the data are potentially valuable; however, the clarity of presentation and the completeness of the analysis could be improved in several areas.

Major Comments

1. In most figures, only a subset of the alleles is analyzed. Including all five alleles throughout the figures would strengthen the conclusions and provide a more comprehensive view of the phenotypic variability associated with seq mutations.

We have analysed the phenotypes of all five alleles with BP102, 1D4 and 22C10 antibodies. We have included these in the new figures 2 and 3.

2. The manuscript does not specify whether all seq alleles are recessive. No data from heterozygous mutants are shown. Information about dominance or partial dominance could help interpret the phenotypic differences reported, particularly in the final section of the paper.

All alleles analysed are recessive and embryonic lethal, we have included this information in the text.

3. Several statements, especially in the Introduction, lack supporting references. These should be added to properly contextualize the study within previous work on seq and related transcription factors.

We have added the necessary references to the introduction.

4. The discussion does not adequately integrate prior knowledge of seq function. For example, is Seq expressed in all central and peripheral nervous system neurons? Are the reported phenotypes demonstrably cell-autonomous? Addressing these points would clarify how the new alleles relate to the known roles of Sequoia.

We have included this information in the results and discussion section.

5. It would be helpful to include a summary table listing all analyzed phenotypes and the corresponding effects of each allele in the different neuronal types examined.

We have built a summary table (Table 1) with all the alleles, mutations and phenotypes.

Minor Comments

1. Figure formatting

In all figures, the scale bar is too thin and difficult to see. Please increase its thickness. The scale information should remain in the figure legend; currently, it is almost illegible even when zoomed in.

This has been changed.

2. Figure 1G

Ensure that the order of genotypes or conditions in the plot matches the order shown in Figure 1A and in the graphs in Figures 1H–I for easier comparison.

We have reordered the alleles in the graphs.

3. Figures 1H and 1I

Replace “um” with the correct unit symbol “μm”.

This has been changed.

4. Figure 2D

The figure legend lacks information about the antibody used. Moreover, only the mutant is shown. A proper control illustrating the normal phenotype should be included for comparison.

We apologise for this confusion, Fig. 2D shown allele Z1241 stained with 1D4 like all the others. So the control is the same.

5. Figure 3C

The legend should clarify what the light-blue arrow indicates.

We have removed the light blue arrowheads as they were confusing and not showing anything different from the black ones.

6. Figures 4E–G

These panels are not mentioned in the main text; please include a reference to them where appropriate.

This has been changed.

7. Supplementary Figure 1

Add the genotypes directly to the figure to facilitate interpretation. Indicate which antibodies were used in the legend.

This has been changed.

8. line 271

The citation “Figure 5D” should be corrected to “Figure 4D”.

This has been changed.

9. The description of how seq alleles were generated is confusing. The text states that chemical mutagenesis was performed on a second chromosome carrying a fasIII mutation, but it is unclear how the fasIII gene was later reintroduced. Was a genomic FasIII rescue construct inserted into the third chromosome of the mutant flies? Please clarify.

This has been changed.

10. Discussion. Consider whether some of the observed phenotypes could reflect altered cell fate rather than purely axon-guidance defects.

We have included this possibility in the results and discussion section.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

pone.0333573.s005.docx (26.7KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Renping Zhou

3 Feb 2026

Dear Dr. Tear,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but two minor issues have been identified that need to be addressed. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the minor points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 20 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Renping Zhou

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

1. 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.

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: In this new version of the article, almost all my comments have been addressed. Therefore, I believe the paper is nearly ready for publication. Congratulations to the authors.

I have only two minor comments, which could be checked by the editor.

1. The way in which the fasIII gene rescue was performed is still unclear. The description remains the same as in the previous version of the paper:

“To test whether the axon guidance phenotype is solely due to a mutation in the seq gene and not caused by the absence of the fasIII gene, the fasIII chromosome was introduced into the background on the third chromosome.”

I assume this refers to a fasIII genomic construct inserted on the third chromosome. If so, could the authors indicate whether this fly line was generated for this study or if it had been published previously?

2. There is a misreferenced figure in the section describing the mutant alleles in Figure 2. The authors cite Figure 2K′ when referring to motor axonal defects, but I believe they intended to cite Figure 2M′.

**********

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

**********

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

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Mar 25;21(3):e0333573. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0333573.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


20 Feb 2026

Two minor changes were requested by the reviewer. These have been addressed as oulined below.

1. “The way in which the fasIII gene rescue was performed is still unclear.”

- we have added further information and provided a reference to the stock that was used to perform the fasIII rescue on page 4.

2. There is a misreferenced figure in the section describing the mutant alleles in Figure 2. The authors cite Figure 2K′ when referring to motor axonal defects, but I believe they intended to cite Figure 2M′.

- we have corrected this citation on page 8 to cite Figure 2M’

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer Resub2Al-Hajri.docx

pone.0333573.s006.docx (22.7KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Renping Zhou

25 Feb 2026

Sequoia affects Drosophila central nervous system development by regulating axonal extension and guidance

PONE-D-25-50300R2

Dear Dr. Tear,

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

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

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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

Kind regards,

Renping Zhou

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Renping Zhou

PONE-D-25-50300R2

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Tear,

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

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

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

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

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

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

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

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.

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Renping Zhou

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. The development of axon pathways at the CNS midline in sequoia mutant embryos.

    All these embryos were stained with BP102, which targets anti-CNS axons, and examined during development. (A) At developmental stages 13–14, the two commissural tracts separate, and the longitudinal tracts begin to develop at the commissural points. (B) In GA168 mutant, the space between the commissures is filled with extra axons, as the gaps between them are almost abolished in some segments (yellow arrow) at developmental stage 13–14. (C) Similarly, in C3101 mutant, the space between the commissures is reduced (yellow arrow) at developmental stages 13–14. (D) In H156 mutant, the commissural tracts are abnormally thinner compared to normal embryos at the same stages, stages 13–14. (E) In C022 mutant, the commissural tracts are fused and sharply reduced in thickness during development stages 13–14. (F) In Z1241 mutant, the commissural tracts develop as a single, thin tract without the longitudinal tracts that connect the two commissural tracts per segment at stages 13–14. (G) At developmental stage 14, the commissural tracts are completely separated, and the longitudinal tracts extend anteriorly and posteriorly to join the segments. (H) In GA168, the commissures appear fuzzy in some segments, and the longitudinal tracts thickened at commissural sites. Additionally, these tracts are absent in some segments (blue arrow) at stage 14. (I) In C3101, the commissures exhibit a fuzzy phenotype at developmental stage 14. (J) In H156, the commissural tracts are thickened and fused in some segments (blue arrow) at stage 14. (K) In C022, the commissures develop as a fused, single, thin tract at developmental stage 14. (L) In Z1241, the ladder-like structure of the CNS is disrupted, and the commissures develop as straight, faint lines at the midline, without longitudinal tracts on either side of the midline at developmental stage 14. (M) At developmental stage 15, both CNS axon pathways are fully developed into a ladder-like structure composed of repeated segments. (N) In GA168, the area between the commissures is filled with extra axons, and the longitudinal tracts are unusually thicker at the commissural sites at stage 15. (O) In C3101, additional axons cross the midline, and the longitudinal tracts increase in thickness in all segments at developmental stage 15. (P) In H156, the space between the commissures is filled with axons (red arrow), and the longitudinal tracts are diminished in certain segments (black arrow). (Q) In C022, the longitudinal tracts are thicker at commissural sites per segment, while they are significantly reduced between segments (black arrow) at stage 15. (R) In Z1241, there are no longitudinal tracts, and few commissural axons cross the midline in a single tract at stage 15. (S) At developmental stage 16, both CNS axons increased in thickness, but the distance between commissures is maintained in wild-type embryos. (T) In GA168, additional axons are crossing the midline with abnormal thickness of longitudinal fascicles at commissural points at stage 16. (U) In C3101, the space between the commissures is filled with additional axons, and the longitudinal tracts are abnormally increased at the commissural sites (green arrow) during development stage 16. (V) In H156, the longitudinal tracts are condensed at commissural sites in certain segments (green arrows) at stage 16. (W) In C022, the commissural tracts are almost absent, and the longitudinal pathways are condensed at commissural points, with no longitudinal tracts between segments at developmental stage 16. (X) In Z1241, more commissural axons cross the midline in a single tract, and the longitudinal pathways are lost at stage 16. These phenotypes were imaged at a magnification power of 60X. Scale bar, 10μm.

    (TIF)

    pone.0333573.s001.tif (27.5MB, tif)
    S2 Fig. Programmed cell death is not responsible for sequoiaZ1241 mutant phenotypes.

    (A) Stage 14 control embryos stained with anti-FasII showing the axonal extensions from the midline; (B) stage 14 seqZ1241 stained with anti-FasII showing the absence of axonal extensions; (C) stage 14 embryos double mutant for seqZ1241 and Def(3L)H99, which removes hid, grim and reaper.

    (TIF)

    pone.0333573.s002.tif (7.8MB, tif)
    S1 File. Raw data to produce graphs in the paper.

    This file includes the raw measurements used to quantify the BP102 phenotypes.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0333573.s003.xlsx (15.9KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    pone.0333573.s005.docx (26.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer Resub2Al-Hajri.docx

    pone.0333573.s006.docx (22.7KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES