Skip to main content
PLOS Biology logoLink to PLOS Biology
. 2020 Dec 8;18(12):e3000703. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000703

The Drosophila amyloid precursor protein homologue mediates neuronal survival and neuroglial interactions

Irini A Kessissoglou 1, Dominique Langui 1, Amr Hasan 2, Maral Maral 1, Suchetana B Dutta 1,2, Peter Robin Hiesinger 2, Bassem A Hassan 1,2,*
Editor: Josh Dubnau3
PMCID: PMC7723294  PMID: 33290404

Abstract

The amyloid precursor protein (APP) is a structurally and functionally conserved transmembrane protein whose physiological role in adult brain function and health is still unclear. Because mutations in APP cause familial Alzheimer’s disease (fAD), most research focuses on this aspect of APP biology. We investigated the physiological function of APP in the adult brain using the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, which harbors a single APP homologue called APP Like (APPL). Previous studies have provided evidence for the implication of APPL in neuronal wiring and axonal growth through the Wnt signaling pathway during development. However, like APP, APPL continues to be expressed in all neurons of the adult brain where its functions and their molecular and cellular underpinnings are unknown. We report that APPL loss of function (LOF) results in the dysregulation of endolysosomal function in neurons, with a notable enlargement of early endosomal compartments followed by neuronal cell death and the accumulation of dead neurons in the brain during a critical period at a young age. These defects can be rescued by reduction in the levels of the early endosomal regulator Rab5, indicating a causal role of endosomal function for cell death. Finally, we show that the secreted extracellular domain of APPL interacts with glia and regulates the size of their endosomes, the expression of the Draper engulfment receptor, and the clearance of neuronal debris in an axotomy model. We propose that APP proteins represent a novel family of neuroglial signaling factors required for adult brain homeostasis.


The Amyloid Precursor Protein (APP) is strongly implicated in the etiology of Alzheimer’s disease, but what is its physiological function in the adult brain? This study in Drosophila shows that APP mediates interactions between neurons and glial cells to ensure healthy brain homeostasis.

Introduction

Early-onset familial Alzheimer’s disease (fAD) is caused by several mutations either in the amyloid precursor protein (APP) or in the Presenilin (PSEN-1 and PSEN-2) genes [1,2]. APP is a functionally and structurally conserved transmembrane protein, present in both invertebrates like Caenorhabditis elegans and Drosophila melanogaster [3,4] and mammals [57]. APP undergoes 2 competing proteolytic processes: the amyloidogenic processing where it is internalized into endosomes and cleaved by β-secretase and subsequently γ-secretase releasing sAPPβ, the amyloid-β (Aβ) oligomers and APP intracellular domain (AICD), and the non-amyloidogenic processing where APP is cleaved on the cellular membrane by α-secretase and subsequently γ-secretase releasing sAPPα, the P3 domain and AICD [8].

fAD mutations result in the enhancement of the amyloidogenic processing of APP and hence in not only an increased release of Aβ oligomers, but also a reduced production of sAPPα [9] and potentially other unknown effects on APP’s physiological function, such as the balance between its intracellular and extracellular activities. The accumulation of Aβ oligomer aggregates is also present in the brain of patients with sporadic Alzheimer’s disease (AD), forming the Aβ plaques and leading to the hypothesis that Aβ plaques are the main cause of the disease [10]. However, thus far all anti-amyloid treatment, although often successful in reducing the amyloid load, have failed to improve AD symptoms [11]. This raises the need for a better understanding of the physiological function of APP in order to design better future treatment.

In vitro loss of function (LOF) studies on human or mouse APP revealed its involvement in a variety of functions related to neuron biology, such as neural stem cell proliferation, differentiation, and neurite outgrowth of hippocampal neurons [12]. Moreover, it seems to have a role in synapse formation, as a synaptic adhesion molecule [13]. APP’s conserved intracellular domain interacts with many protein-signaling pathways such as the c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK) to induce cell death [14], X11/JNK interacting proteins (JIP) to activate cell differentiation [15], and with Fe65 to modulate gene transcription [16].

In D. melanogaster, APP Like (APPL) is the single homologue of the human neuronal APP695 sharing 30% homology at the amino acid level [17]. In vivo LOF studies have demonstrated that APPL is involved in axonal outgrowth during development [18], axonal transport of vesicles or mitochondria [19,20], synapse formation at the neuromuscular junction [21], and long-term and working memory formation [22,23]. Moreover, it has been shown that the secreted portion of APPL (SAPPL) has a neuroprotective function by rescuing vacuole formation in the brain of neurodegenerative mutant flies through its binding to the full-length APPL (flAPPL) [24]. Finally, like in mammals, APPL acts as a receptor and interacts with G0 proteins, cell adhesion molecules, and intracellular modulators like the dX11/Mint protein, Tip60, and Fe65 [2527].

An interesting observation is that most APP LOF studies in a plethora of neuronal processes and molecular mechanisms reveal relatively mild phenotypes with relatively low penetrance. Combined with the fact that neuronal forms of APP are expressed throughout the brain, this suggests that APP is a homeostasis factor required for the brain to develop correctly, remain stable, and counteract internal and external perturbations. The nervous system encounters several types of genetic mutations and environmental perturbations that can cause organelle stress and cell death and finally can lead to developmental, age, or stress-associated disorders. To counteract this, animals have evolved a defense homeostatic signaling system, composed of protein chaperones and transcriptional mechanisms [28] involving both neurons and glial cells such as astrocytes, Schwann cells, and oligodendrocytes [29]. However, the molecules that neurons use to communicate homeostatic signals to glia remain largely unknown.

A major homeostatic cellular mechanism is the endolysosomal recycling and degradation pathway [30]. This pathway ensures that cellular cargo is properly recycled between the membrane and various organelles or degraded to maintain protein homeostasis and cellular health. A study on primary neurons revealed that an APP intracellular binding protein, PAT-1, regulates the number of early endosomes and endocytosis [31]. Recently, 2 studies revealed that induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived human neurons with either APP or PSEN1 fAD knock-in mutations show enlarged and defective early endosomes and lysosomes [32,33]. Therefore, this might suggest a role for APP in the neuronal endolysosomal pathway.

To investigate the in vivo role of APP in neuronal homeostasis, we used Drosophila as a model organism and investigated the consequences of the deletion of its homologue, the Appl gene. We report that loss of APPL results in the increased accumulation of apoptotic cells in the brain at a critical young age. We link this accumulation to defects in the endolysosomal pathway in both neurons and glia and show that APPL is required for neuroglial communication.

Results

APPL is required for neuronal survival in young adult flies

To investigate the implication of APPL in brain health of adult flies, we started with quantifying the survival of APPL null flies (appld) [34] compared to genetic background controls (Canton S) at different stages of their life span. As previously reported [24], appld flies die significantly earlier than their control counterparts in a sex-independent manner starting at 2 to 3 weeks of age (Fig 1A). This suggests that loss of APPL compromises survival at an early age. Because Drosophila APPL is an exclusively neuronal protein [17], we asked whether neuronal health is compromised in APPL mutants during the first 3 weeks of life. We measured the cell death load in the brain of appld and controls at 2, 7, 21, and 45 days of age. To quantify the number of dying cells at any given moment, we stained whole mount brains with Cleaved Drosophila Death caspase protein-1 (Dcp-1), the homologue of human Caspase 3, and manually quantified the Dcp-1 positive cells across the entire central brain (Fig 1B and 1B’). In both genotypes, 2-day-old flies show significant cell death in their brain due to ongoing brain remodeling [35]. By 7 days of age, however, there is a sharp drop in the number of apoptotic cells in controls. In contrast, the drop in apoptosis is significantly reduced in appld flies, with an average of 7 to 8 apoptotic cells per brain at any given time point. Counter staining with the neuronal marker Elav and the glial marker Repo showed that all dying cells detected were neurons (Fig 1B”–1B”“‘). With age, at 21 and 45 days old, both control and appld flies show a similar increase in apoptotic cells (Fig 1C). These data suggest that loss of APPL renders neurons particularly sensitive during the first week of life. APPL is only detectable in neurons, although some reports have claimed it may be expressed in glia [36]. To test whether APPL expression in neurons is required for their survival at 7 days old, we knocked down the expression of APPL using the UAS-Gal4 system expressing APPL RNA interference (RNAi) only in neurons using the pan-neuronal nSyb-Gal4 driver. This resulted in significantly more apoptotic neurons in 7-day-old Appl knock-down flies compared to controls, similar to appld flies (Figs 1D and S1A–S1F’). Furthermore, re-expressing flAPPL or only SAPPL specifically in neurons in an appld background using the pan-neuronal nSyb-Gal4 driver, significantly rescued the increased number of apoptotic cells in the brain of appld flies (Fig 1E). In contrast, overexpressing SAPPL in a control background caused the presence of significantly more apoptotic cells in the brain of 7-day-old flies (Fig 1F).

Fig 1. Loss of APPL increases early age mortality rate and apoptotic neuronal death.

Fig 1

(a) These survival curves represent the life span of appld (APPL-/-) flies compared to control, Canton S flies. n = 10 groups of 15 flies each for every condition (CS males, CS females, APPL-/- males and APPL-/- females). Total n = 150 flies per condition. Two-way ANOVA with Sidak multiple comparison test F(24, 450) = 4.25, df = 24, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.0001. (b) Confocal sections of an appld/Y;; brain stained with anti-Elav (magenta) to mark the neurons, anti-Cleaved Drosophila Dcp-1 (green) to mark the apoptotic cells, and anti-Repo (white) to mark the glial cells. In the higher magnification pictures on the right panels, we can notice that the Dcp-1 marked cell (white arrow) colocalizes with Elav (b” and b”‘) but not with Repo (b”“and b”“‘). (c) This graph shows the number of apoptotic cells in the central brain of Control and APPL-/- flies at different ages: 2, 7, 21, and 45 days old. Each data point represents the number of apoptotic cells, Dcp-1 positive cells, in a single brain. For the analysis of this data, we used 2-way ANOVA with Bonferroni multiple comparison test F(3,189) = 3.086, df = 3, *p = 0.027. (d) Focusing on the 7-day-old time point, which showed significant difference in the previous graph (c), we now knock down the expression of APPL only in neurons using the yw;UAS APPL RNAi (y+); Gal4nsyb and find a similar increase in the number of apoptotic cells comparing to the controls: yw;;Gal4nsyb/+ and w-;UAS CD8 GFP;Gal4nsyb. One-way ANOVA: F(2,106) = 0.51, df = 2, **p = 0.0078, ***p = 0.0005. (e) Rescue experiment. Reexpression of the flAPPL or only the SAPPL in an APPL null background and quantifying the number of apoptotic cells remaining in the brain of the flies at 7 days of age. One-way ANOVA: F(3, 143) = 6.712, df = 3, **p = 0.0036, **p = 0.0095, ****p < 0.0001. (f) Overexpression of the flAPPL and only the SAPPL in a control background in all neurons. One-way ANOVA: F(2, 82) = 3.967, df = 2,*p = 0.0120. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file. APPL, APP Like; CS, Canton S; Dcp-1, Death caspase protein-1; flAPPL, full-length APPL; SAPPL, secreted portion of APPL.

In summary, our data show that loss of APPL in neurons results in excessive neuronal death during the first week of life and a corresponding reduction in life starting 1 to 2 weeks later. These results also highlight the importance of maintaining the expression of APPL at physiological levels. We next asked by what mechanism APPL acts to protect neurons and flies from premature death.

APPL regulates the size and number of neuronal early endosomes

We have previously shown that APPL is a neuronal modulator of the Wnt planar cell polarity (PCP) pathway for the axonal outgrowth during development. Specifically, loss of APPL sensitizes growing axons to reduction in Wnt PCP signaling and renders the PCP core protein, VanGogh (Vang), haploinsufficient [18]. We started by examining the genetic interaction between appl and vang by removing 1 copy of vang in the appld background and measuring neuronal death at 7 days of age. In contrast to the developmental effect on axon growth, we found no effect on the number of apoptotic neurons (S2 Fig) suggesting a different mechanism.

Studies on fAD mammalian models have described an increased activation of autophagy prior to the appearance of Aβ aggregates [37]. Our in vivo data coincide with the fAD phenotypes as we also observed an increased amount of Atg8 puncta in the central brain of 7-day-old appld flies (S4A and S4B Fig). We conclude that LOF of APPL also causes an accumulation of autophagosomes. However, alterations in autophagy were not linked with the early onset increase in apoptotic cell death, as an Atg7 mutation in appld background flies did not impact the 7-day-old cell death phenotype seen in appld flies (S4C Fig).

A number of observations suggest a tight link between the APP family of proteins and endolysosomal trafficking. First, both human APP and fly APPL carry highly conserved endocytic motifs in their intracellular domains [38], which interact with proteins involved in endocytosis [31]. Second, APP has been implicated in the regulation of the endocytosis of cell surface receptors [39]. Third, as the endolysosomal pathway is involved in APP’s and APPL’s cleavage by β- and γ-secretases, perturbations of the endolysosomal pathway can have negative repercussions in the proteolytic processing of APP and hence the amount of Aβ produced [40]. Fourth, 2 recent in vitro studies showed evidence for the development of enlarged early endosomes and lysosomes in human iPSCs with various fAD mutations in the APP and PSEN1 genes [32,33]. We therefore investigated whether loss of APPL causes defects in endolysosomal function in the brain.

We used an acidification-sensing double fluorescent (DF) probe, composed of a pH-sensitive green fluorescent protein (GFP) (pHluorin) and pH-resistant mCherry fused to a myristoylated residue to track all plasma membrane trafficking (myr-DF) [41]. This probe allows the tracking of the trafficking of membrane cargo through the endolysosomal pathway. In neutral pH vesicles, like early endosomes, the probe will fluoresce in both green and red channels, whereas in acidic vesicles, such as late endosomes and lysosomes, the GFP signal will be quenched and the probe will fluoresce only in red (Fig 2A). Differences in fluorescence values between controls and mutant would indicate potential defects in endolysosomal trafficking. The myr-DF probe was expressed in all neurons, using the nSyb-Gal4 driver, in control and appld flies (Fig 2C and 2C’). We focused our imaging and quantifications on 2 easy-to-identify neuronal populations: the Kenyon cells of the mushroom body and the Projection Neurons of the antennal lobes (Fig 2B). In live confocal imaging data of 7-day-old flies, due to the diffused green signal of pHLuorin, the probe does not distinguish between early and late endosomes, but permits to measure the quantity and volume of the endolysosomal compartments. This analysis revealed the presence of significantly enlarged endolysosomal compartments in the neurons of appld flies compared to those of controls (Figs 2C, 2D, S3A–S3C and S3E).

Fig 2. Loss of APPL causes enlarged endolysosomal compartments in neurons.

Fig 2

(a) Schematic showing the DF probe composed of a pH-sensitive Luorin and pH-resistant mCherry. This probe gets tagged on myristoylated general plasma membrane proteins. When inside an early endosome, it emits a yellow signal and as soon as the protein cargo is inside an acidic vesicle, it produces a red signal. (b) Schematic of the head of a fly. The fluorescent images on the right highlight the areas that were imaged: the KCs and PNs. (c and c’) Images from live snapshots of the KCs of adult, 7-day-old fly brains expressing the DF probe only in neurons. The left panel and its close-up show a control: w*;UAS myr mCherry pH Luorin; nsyb Gal4 fly; and the right panel and its close-up show an appld mutant: APPLd; UAS myr mCherry pH Luorin; nsybGal4. (d) Quantification of the volume of endolysosomal compartments (um3). n = 5 brains per genotype,****p < 0.0001, Mann–Whitney post hoc test. (e and e’) These confocal slices represent the same area of KCs but this time from a fixed tissue of control: w*;UAS myr mCherry pH Luorin; nsyb Gal4 and mutant: APPLd; UAS myr mCherry pH Luorin; nsybGal4 7-day-old fly brains. The white arrows show the acidic degradative compartments. (f) The volume of these degradative compartments is significantly higher in appl d flies, **p = 0.006, Mann–Whitney post hoc test, n = 11. (g) A histogram of the relative frequency of degradative compartments in neurons, n = 11. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file. APP, amyloid precursor protein; DF, double fluorescent; KCs, Kenyon cells; PNs, Projection neurons.

Live imaging data could only inform us about the trafficking of the protein cargo to an acidic vesicle, with a pH below 6, but not its degradation inside this vesicle [41]. To quantify the effect of APPL LOF on the degradation of plasma membrane protein cargo, we quantified red-only compartments in fixed tissue, where irreversibly damaged pHLuorin leads to the selective loss of green fluorescence [41]. Results from 7-day-old fixed brains showed a marginal but not significant increase in the number of degradative compartments between control and appld brains (Figs 2E and 2E’ and S3D). However, the volume of degradative compartments in appld flies was significantly larger (Fig 2F and 2G). Together, these analyses evoke the possible enlargement of late endosome–like vesicles, suggesting a deficit in the regulation of the volume of endolysosomal compartments in appld flies.

To further investigate these potential defects at higher resolution, we used transmission electron microscopy (TEM) (Fig 3A and 3B). Whereas the overall size of the neuronal cell body did not differ between mutants and controls (Fig 3C), we noted the presence of enlarged clear-single membraned endosome-like vesicles in appld neurons (Fig 3A and 3D). In addition, there were more of them per section than in controls (Figs 3E, 3F, S5A and S5B). On the other hand, lysosomal size did not seem to be affected in appld flies (Figs 3B and 3G, S5C and S5D), and there was a marginal but significant increase in lysosomal number per section (Fig 3H). To verify that APPL expression in neurons is required for the regulation of endosomal size, we knocked down the expression of APPL by expressing APPL RNAi only in neurons using the pan-neuronal nSyb-Gal4 driver. Knocking down the expression of APPL resulted in significantly more cells containing early endosome–like vesicles and significantly larger vesicles compared to controls, similar to appld flies (S5E–S5G Fig). Moreover, using the same UAS-Gal4 system, we also re-expressed, specifically in the neurons of appld flies, the flAPPL and only the SAPPL. Interestingly, re-expressing the flAPPL in appld flies reduced the accumulation of enlarged early endosome–like vesicles to control levels, confirming that the phenotype we observed was caused by the loss of the flAPPL (Fig 4A–4C).

Fig 3. APPL regulates the size of endosomes in neurons.

Fig 3

(a) TEM horizontal sections of the cortical region of a 7-day-old fly brain showing neuronal cell bodies (circled in blue) and their organelles. We can observe that there are more and enlarged early endosome–like vesicles (red arrow) in the brain of APPL-/- flies w*appld/Y;; comparing to control +/+;+/+;+/+. n = 3 brains per genotype and a total of 32 cells analyzed per genotype. (b) The size of lysosomes (red arrow) seem to not be affected in APPL-/- flies. (c) This graph shows that the cell size is the same between control and APPL-/- flies at 7 days old. n = 3 brains per genotype and a total of 32 cells analyzed per genotype. (d–f) These graphs present the difference in size between the early endosome–like vesicles seen in APPL-/- and control fly brains and the increased prevalence of endosomes in 7-day-old APPL-/- fly brains; n = 3 brains per genotype and a total of 32 cells analyzed per genotype. Statistical analysis was done using (d) Welch t test **p = 0.0080, (e) Binomial test: *p = 0.0141, and (f) Welch t test *p = 0.0412. (g) This graph shows that the size of lysosomes is not affected by the absence of APPL. (h) This graph shows that there are significantly more lysosomes per cell slice in APPL-/- flies comparing to Canton S. Unpaired t test *p = 0.018. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file. APPL, APP Like; mito, mitochondria; ns, not significant; nuc, nucleus; TEM, transmission electron microscopy.

Fig 4. Rescue of the endosome enlargement.

Fig 4

(a–a”‘) TEM horizontal sections of the cortical region of 7-day-old fly brains showing neuronal cell bodies (circled in blue) and the early endosome–like vesicles marked with a red arrow. Each panel is a different genotype: (a) control,;; nsybGal4, (a’) Appl-/-, Appld;;nsyb Gal4, (a”) reexpression of the flAPPL, Appld; UAS flAPPL; nsybGal4, and (a”‘) only the SAPPL Appld; UAS SAPPL; nsybGal4 individually in an APPL null background. n = 3 to 5 brains per genotype and approximately 60 cells analyzed per genotype. (b) This graph represents the quantification of the size of the early-endosome–like vesicles. Reexpressing the flAPPL rescued the increased size of early-endosome–like vesicles seen in Appld;;nsybgal4 flies, n = 3 to 5 brains per genotype and approximately 60 cells analyzed per genotype *p = 0.0191, ***p = 0.0005. (c) The significantly higher percentage of cells containing early-endosome–like vesicles was also rescued when reexpressing the flAPPL and only the SAPPL, Fisher exact test ****p < 0.0001. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file. APPL, APP Like; flAPPL, full-length APPL; ns, not significant; SAPPL, secreted portion of APPL; TEM, transmission electron microscopy.

These data confirm the presence of defects in the neuronal endolysosomal pathway in the absence of APPL and suggest that these defects arise mostly in endosomes and are specific to the loss of the flAPPL in neurons suggesting an endogenous regulation of the size of endosomes by APPL.

Our data so far suggest a defective accumulation of enlarged endosomes in neurons of appld flies. The trafficking of cargo from the membrane to early endosomes is regulated by the Rab5 GTPase. To investigate whether defects in early endosomes cause the increase in the number of dying neurons in appl mutant brains, we first examined the expression of Rab5 GTPase in 7-day-old appld flies. Results revealed significantly higher levels of Rab5 in appl mutant brains compared to controls (Fig 5C and 5D), similar to what has previously been reported in AD patients’ fibroblasts [42]. Next, we removed 1 copy of the rab5 gene in an appl null background. This completely rescued the neuronal cell death phenotype at 7 days of age back to control levels (Fig 5A and 5B). We conclude that reducing the trafficking to early endosomes in an appl null condition re-equilibrates the system and rescues the functioning of the endolysosomal pathway.

Fig 5. Causal link between the overactivation of Rab5 and the increased neuronal cell death.

Fig 5

(a–a”‘) Confocal sections of the central brain of 7-day-old APPL-/- flies and APPL-/- flies heterozygous for Rab5, stained with the neuronal marker elav (magenta) and the apoptotic marker dcp-1 (white). Blue arrows point to the dcp-1 positive cells. (b) Quantification of apoptotic cells in the central brain of control w*/Y;+/+;+/+, w*appld/Y;;, w*/Y;Rab5 KO/+; and w*appld/Y;Rab5 KO/+;. Reducing 1 copy of Rab5 in an APPL-/- background shows a significant reduction in the number of Dcp-1 positive cells observed in APPL-/- flies at 7 days old. One-way ANOVA: F(3,98) = 7.987, df = 3, **p = 0.0013 ****p < 0.0001. (c) Graph representing the quantification of the volume of Rab5-covered region (um3) in the central brain of 7-day-old APPL-/- flies and control flies. There is significantly more volume of Rab5-covered region (more early endosomes or larger early endosomes) in APPL-/- flies in comparison to control. n = 8 per genotype, Mann–Whitney test p*** = 0.0003. (d) Confocal sections of the central brain of 7-day-old APPL-/- flies and control flies stained with anti-Rab5 (green). Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file. AL, antennal lobes; APPL, APP Like; Dcp-1, Cleaved Drosophila Death caspase protein-1.

To test whether the rescue effect is specific to the early endosomal stage, we removed a copy of the gene encoding the late endosomal marker Rab7 in appld mutant background. In contrast to reduction of Rab5 levels, this failed to rescue the number of apoptotic cells found in the brains of 7-day-old appld flies (S4D Fig), and indeed significantly worsened the life span of the flies relative to controls (S4E Fig), consistent with a role for Rab7 itself in neurodegeneration [43].

Our observations suggest that in the absence of APPL, neurons accumulate enlarged vacuole-like endosomal compartments, possibly due to the dysregulation of early endosomes, resulting in neuronal death in the young adult brain. What is intriguing, however, is why these dying neurons accumulate to a sufficient level as to be detectable instead of being cleared by glial cells. We asked whether this accumulation of dying neurons is due only to the dysregulated endolysosomal network, or also to defective glial clearance.

The extracellular domain of APPL is secreted by neurons and interacts with glia

APPL is a transmembrane protein that is cleaved resulting in a secreted form, SAPPL. To explore the expression and secretion pattern of APPL, we generated a double-tagged form of APPL (dT-APPL) with GFP intracellularly (C-terminally) and mCherry extracellularly (N-terminally) (Fig 6A). To study the distribution and spread of SAPPL, we expressed dT-APPL strictly in the retina and imaged the entire brain at different stages of pupal development and in the adult (S6A Fig). Whereas the intracellular part of the appl protein (GFP) remained inside photoreceptors, SAPPL (mCherry) gradually spread throughout the whole brain starting from 80H after puparium formation and remained so in adults (S6A–S6C Fig). Moreover, SAPPL was taken up by glia (S6C Fig). To ascertain that glial uptake of SAPPL was not a consequence of APPL overexpression in the presence of the endogenous protein, we repeated this experiment by expressing the dT-APPL in all post-mitotic neurons of appl null flies. Again, while the intracellular part of APPL remained in neurons, SAPPL was localized both in neurons and in glia (Fig 6B and 6B”‘). To confirm the functionality of the dT-APPL, we re-expressed this form of APPL in appld flies and found that this rescues the developmental axonal defect phenotype in the mushroom bodies reported previously (S6D and S6E Fig) [18].

Fig 6. SAPPL interacts with glia and affects their endolysosomal network.

Fig 6

(a) Schematic representation of the double-tagged APPL construct with GFP on the intracellular part and mCherry on the extracellular part. (b–b”‘) Confocal sections of an adult APPL null fly brain expressing the double-tagged construct Appldw*/Y; UAS CherryApplGFP / +; nsyb Gal4 in all post-mitotic neurons. In green, we see the intracellular domain carboxyl terminus of APPL and in red the secreted amino terminus of APPL. This brain is also stained with anti-Repo to mark glia (white). On the close-up panels (last row), we can clearly observe the colocalization between SAPPL and the glial marker, Repo. (c and c’) These pictures are from a live snapshot of glial cells, around KC bodies, of 7-day-old fly brains expressing the DF probe only in glia. The left panel shows a control: w*; UAS myr mCherry pH Luorin; repoGal4 fly; and the right panel shows the mutant: Appldw*; UAS myr mCherry pH Luorin; repoGal4. n = 6. (d and e) This graph and histogram represent the quantification of the volume of endolysosomal compartments in glia. They show that the endolysosomal compartments are smaller in glia of APPL-/- flies, n = 6, ****p < 0.0001, Mann–Whitney post hoc test. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file. APPL, APP Like; DF, double fluorescent; GFP, green fluorescent protein; KC, Kenyon cell; SAPPL, secreted portion of APPL.

APPL regulates glial endolysosomal volume and debris clearance function

Considering the involvement of APPL in the regulation of the size of endosomes in neurons, we asked whether SAPPL may play a similar role in glia. We expressed the myr-DF probe specifically in glia and performed live imaging of 7-day-old control and appld brains. In contrast to neurons, the endolysosomal compartments of glia had a reduced volume compared to the controls (Fig 6C, 6C’, and 6D), with no significant effects on their numbers (S7A Fig). The volume and number of degradative compartments analyzed from fixed data was not affected by the absence of APPL (S7B–S7E Fig). TEM analysis, however, revealed some glial disruptions. In control brains, most cortex glia seemed to be intact, and their extensions occupied the spaces between neuronal cell bodies (S7F Fig). In contrast, we occasionally observed irregular distribution of cortex glia between neuronal cell bodies, as well as cytoplasmic blebbing in these glia in APPL null brains, suggesting that glia were either unhealthy and/or dysfunctional in the absence of APPL (S7G Fig). These data suggest the exciting possibility that SAPPL may act as a neuronal signal to regulate endolysosomal trafficking in glia.

Studies on mouse brain lesion models showed increased levels of alpha-secretase A Disintegrin and Metalloprotease (ADAM)-17 and ADAM-10 in reactive astrocytes 7 days post-lesion [44]. In Drosophila, using a model of stabbing of the brain, Kato and colleagues showed that glia lose their ability to react to axonal lesions within 10 days after injury [45]. Therefore, taking into consideration these findings and our data showing a role of APPL during the first week of adulthood in the fly brain and its transfer from neurons to glia, we asked if APPL is required for glia to clear neuronal debris.

To investigate this, we labeled (olfactory receptor neurons) ORNs with GFP in control and appld flies and used the model of antennal ablation [46] (Fig 7A). After ablating both antennae of 5-day-old flies, we dissected their brain and imaged ORN axonal debris (GFP, green) in the antennal lobes of the adult fly brain. In control brains, axonal debris were almost completely cleared by 5 days after ablation. In contrast, loss of APPL caused a significant reduction in the clearance of the degenerative axons by glia in 5 days post-ablation (Fig 7B–7F) (S8 Fig). This defect was rescued by re-expressing, in an appl null background, either flAPPL or only SAPPL specifically in ORNs (Fig 8A–8C). To test the extent of the delay in clearance, we examined control and appl null brains at 8 days post-ablation and found that axonal debris still persist in appl mutants at this late stage (Fig 8D). Therefore, APPL is a neuronal signal required in glia to regulate their ability to clear neuronal debris.

Fig 7. APPL null flies show defective clearance of degenerating axons.

Fig 7

(a) Schematic presenting the head of a fly after antennal ablation. (b–d) Confocal images of GFP-labeled ORN axons at the antennal lobes of control: w*/Y;OR83bGal4 UAS CD8 GFP/+; and APPL-/-: Appldw*/Y;OR83bGal4 UAS CD8 GFP/+; flies before antennal ablation, 2 (c) and 5 (d) days after antennal ablation. The left panels of every section are also stained with nc82 to mark the neuropil. (e) Quantification of volume of GFP-covered region in the OR83b innervating glomeruli before, 2 and 5 days post-ablation, in control and APPL-/- flies. Every data point presented on the graph is the result of a brain. (f) We can observe that at 5 days post-ablation, the volume of GFP-covered region of axonal debris remaining in the APPL-/- brains is significantly higher comparing to the control, ***p = 0.0009, Mann–Whitney post hoc test. n = same as in (e). Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file. APPL, APP Like; GFP, green fluorescent protein; ORN, olfactory receptor neuron.

Fig 8. Expression of flAPPL and SAPPL rescues glial clearance of axonal debris.

Fig 8

(a–a”‘) Confocal images of GFP-labeled ORN axons at the antennal lobes at 5 days post-antennal ablation. These data show the rescue of a defective glial clearance of axonal debris, seen in APPL-/- flies, when we express the UAS APPL (a”) and UAS SAPPL (a”‘). The left panels of every section are also stained with nc82 to mark the neuropil. (b–d) Quantification of volume of GFP-covered region (um3) in the OR83b innervating glomeruli before and at 5 (c) and 8 (d) days post-ablation, in control, APPL-/- and the rescue flies: Appldw*; UAS APPL/OR83bGal4GFP; and Appldw*; UAS SAPPL/OR83bGal4GFP;. (c) We can observe that at 5 days post-ablation, expressing APPL and SAPPL in an APPL-/- background are able to significantly rescue the defective glial clearance. One-way ANOVA, F (3, 76) = 23.13, df = 5, **p = 0.0019, ****p < 0.0001. (d) This phenotype seems to have a similar pattern at 8 days post-ablation. One-way ANOVA, F (3, 21) = 10.47, df = 3, *p = 0,04 **p = 0.0099, ****p < 0.0001. For each genotype, every data point is an independent brain. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file. APPL, APP Like; flAPPL, full-length APPL; GFP, green fluorescent protein; ns, not significant; ORN, olfactory receptor neuron; SAPPL, secreted portion of APPL.

To investigate the mechanism of interaction between APPL and glia and the reason for defective glial clearance of axonal debris, we examined 2 distinct stages of reactive gliosis. Reactive gliosis is the brain’s response to an injury or an infection. It starts with the induction of glial proliferation, migration to the site of injury, and finally, the activation of the glial Draper receptor for the engulfment of degenerating neurons or cellular debris [47].

We started by testing if APPL LOF affects glial migration to the site of the injury in control and appld flies expressing GFP specifically in glia, before and 1 day after antennal ablation. We observed that loss of APPL did not have an impact on the migration of glia around and inside the antennal lobes (S9A–S9C Fig). Next, we examined the induction of the expression of the glial engulfment receptor, Draper, after injury. Although before antennal ablation the levels of Draper were similar in control and appl null brains, loss of APPL resulted in a significantly reduced activation of Draper 1 and 3 days after antennal ablation (Fig 9A–9E).

Fig 9. Loss of APPL causes reduced Draper expression.

Fig 9

(a and a’) Confocal images of the antennal lobes of approximately 7-day-old control fly brains stained with anti-Draper (red) and anti-Repo (green) at no ablation and 1 day after antennal ablation. (b and b’) Confocal images of the antennal lobes of approximately 7-day-old Appl-/- fly brains at no ablation and 1 day after antennal ablation. (c) Quantification of volume of Draper-covered region (um3) around and inside the antennal lobes before and at 1 (d) and 3 (e) days post-ablation, in control and APPL-/- flies. We can observe that Draper expression/activation is reduced in the absence of APPL as there is significantly less volume of Draper-covered region around the antennal lobes at 1 day and 3 days post-ablation *p = 0.0427, ****p < 0.0001, Mann–Whitney test. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file. APPL, APP Like; ns, not significant.

Discussion

In this study, we took advantage of D. melanogaster to investigate and unravel the physiological function of APPL, the single fly homologue of the human APP, in the adult brain. Our key findings are (1) that APPL is required for neuronal survival during a critical period of early life; (2) that APPL regulates the size of endolysosomal vesicles in neurons and glia; and (3) that secreted APPL interacts with glial cells to enable the clearance of neuronal debris.

APPL is required for adult brain homeostasis through the endolysosomal pathway

A homeostatic signaling system is composed of a set point, a feedback control, sensors, and an error signal. The error signal activates homeostatic effectors to drive compensatory alterations in the process being studied [48]. We propose a model (Fig 10) whereby the presence of APPL and its cleaved forms maintain the physiological flow of vesicular trafficking, either for degradation or for recycling, through the endolysosomal network in neurons. Simultaneously, in case of a system failure, a particular stress or an acute injury, there is an increased release of SAPPL, the error signal, activating degradation in glial cells, the homeostatic effector, to reset the system to its baseline.

Fig 10. Working model.

Fig 10

Under wild-type conditions, neuronal endolysosomal trafficking is maintained at normal equilibrium, in part by APPL function. Moreover, in case of neuronal stress or injury, the cleaved and secreted APPL, which continually communicates with glial cells, activates the glial clearance response. In contrast, under APPL LOF conditions, there is a dysregulation of the neuronal endolysosomal network, resulting in disrupted vesicular trafficking. Such a blockage causes the accumulation of protein cargo inside the cell, which is toxic and stressful for the neuron. However, as there is no SAPPL to communicate to glia that the neuron is dying, glial activity is reduced and degenerating neurons are not efficiently cleared. APPL, APP Like; LOF, loss of function; SAPPL, secreted portion of APPL.

It has been observed that appl null flies have a shorter life span and develop large neurodegenerative vacuoles in their brain by 30 days old [24]. In the present study, we demonstrate that the brain of appl null flies shows signs of dysfunctional homeostasis from a much younger age of 7 days old, resulting in a significantly increased number of apoptotic neurons and a significantly increased death rate from 20 days old.

Studies on Down syndrome (Trisomy 21), representing cases of elevated expression of APP, AD patient fibroblasts, AD mouse models, and recent studies using patients iPSCs have all shown evidence of a defective endolysosomal network [32,33,42]. In particular, neurons derived from AD patient iPSCs show that fAD mutations in APP or PSEN1 as well as knockout (KO) of APP, all cause alterations in the endolysosomal vesicle size and functionality. Some of the toxic effects on endolysosomal trafficking have been attributed not to amyloid accumulation but rather to the potential toxicity of the sAPPβ and/or APP β C-terminal fragment (APPβCTF), while a wealth of literature suggests that full-length APP (flAPP) and sAPPα are neuroprotective [24,49].

APPL as a neuronal inducer of glial activity

Glial cells are the key immune responders of the brain that maintain neuronal homeostasis through neurotrophic mechanisms and by clearing degenerating neurons. Our data show that neuronal expression of APPL is necessary and sufficient to activate glial clearance of neuronal debris and that glia take up neuronally released SAPPL. Moreover, we showed that the function of APPL in response to an injury involves regulating the glial engulfment receptor, Draper, via an as of yet unknown mechanism. It has also previously been shown that acute injury of the adult brain elicited an increased expression of APPL at and near the site of injury [50]. Interestingly, a recent study using iPSCs derived astrocytes with APP KO and fAD mutations revealed that loss of flAPP impairs cholesterol metabolism and the ability of astrocytes to clear Aβ protein aggregates [51]. Moreover, up-regulation of APP expression in neurons and α-secretase expression in reactive astrocytes was observed after the denervation of the mouse dentate gyrus [44]. Together, these observations indicate that the expression and proteolytic processing of APP are part of a neuroglial signaling system responsible for monitoring brain health and activating glial responses to neuronal injury. Further future work will be needed to describe how exactly secreted APP fragments are taken up by glia and what cellular and molecular components they interact with and modify within glial cells to mediate appropriate levels of glial activation.

Implications for neurodegeneration

Our findings that the complete loss of the Drosophila APP homologue causes deficits in the endolysosomal pathway, in neuron-induced glial clearance of debris and in neuronal death and organismal life span strongly suggest that, in the adult brain, the physiological function of flAPP and the consequences of fAD mutations are mechanistically related to one another. Furthermore, the fact that neuronal death and defective neuronal endosomes are observed very early in life of appl mutant flies further supports the notion that significant deficits exist in the AD brain long before any clinical symptoms appear. This may suggest that examining the size and/or function of the early endosome may identify risk for future neurodegeneration and offer future treatment pathways.

Materials and methods

Fly stocks and husbandry

Fig 1. Controls: Canton S (+/+;+/+;+/+), yw*;;nsybGal4, w*;UAS CD8 GFP;, yw; + / +; + / + kindly given by the lab of T. Preat. Appl-/-: Appldw*;+/+;+/+ kindly given by the lab of J-M. Dura and y1 sc* v1; P{TRiP.HMS01931}attP40; + / + (UAS Appl RNAi with y+ as a marker) kindly given by the lab of T. Preat. Rescue experiment flies: Appldw*; UAS APPL/+; and Appldw*; UAS SAPPL/+;.

Fig 2. Control: w*;UAS myr mCherry-pHLuorin;, yw*;;nsybGal4. Appl-/-: Appldw*; UAS myr mCherry pH Luorin; nsybGal4 kindly given by the lab of R. Hiesinger.

Fig 3. Controls: Canton S (+/+;+/+;+/+), w*/Y;+/+;+/+. Appl-/-: Appldw*;+/+;+/+.

Fig 5. Rab5-/+: w*;Rab5 KO/CyO; kindly given by the lab of R. Hiesinger.

Fig 6. Control: w*;UAS myr mCherry-pHLuorin;, w*;;repoGal4 kindly given by V. Auld lab. Canton S (+/+;+/+;+/+). Appl-/-: Appldw*;+/+;+/+. Double fluorescent construct: Appldw*hsflp / FM7C Df GmR YFP; UAS CherryApplGFP / CyO; (created in the lab), yw*;;nsybGal4. Appl-/-: Appldw*; UAS myr mCherry pH Luorin; repoGal4.

Fig 7. Control:; OR83bGal4 UAS CD8 GFP; kindly given by the lab of I. Grunwald. Appl-/-: Appldw*/Y;OR83bGal4 UAS CD8 GFP/+;.

Fig 8. Rescue experiment flies: Appldw*; UAS APPL/OR83bGal4GFP; and Appldw*; UAS SAPPL/OR83bGal4GFP;.

  • S1 Fig. y1 sc* v1; P{TRiP.HMS01931}attP40; + / +, P{KK102543}VIE-260B, yw/Y; UAS CD8 GFP / +; nsybGal4 / +

  • S2 Fig. Control: w*/Y;+/+;+/+ Appl-/-: w*appld/Y;;, and Vang-/+: appldw*/Y;Vang-/+;.

  • S4 Fig. Rab7-/+: w*;;Rab7 KO Crispr 3P3RFP/TM6B kindly given by the lab of R. Hiesinger.

  • S6 Fig. dT expressed specifically in the retina:; UAS-mCherry-APPL-GFP/lexAop-CD4tdGFP; GMR-Gal4/Repo-lexA kindly provided by the lab of R. Hiesinger.

All stocks were maintained using standard rich food at 21°C, and all crosses and experiments were conducted at 25°C on a 15h:9h light:dark cycle at constant humidity.

Life span experiments

For the life span experiment, eclosing adults were collected under CO2-induced anesthesia, over a 12-h period, and were left to mate for 48 h before sorting them into single sexes. After sorting, they were housed at a density of 15 flies per vial. Throughout the life span, flies were kept in a humidified, temperature-controlled, incubator with 15h:9h light:dark cycle at 25°C on a standard, sucrose yeast corn and agar, media. Finally, they were transferred into new food and scored for death every 2 to 3 days throughout adult life [52].

Immunochemistry

Adult brains were dissected in phosphate buffered saline (PBS) and fixed in 3.7% formaldehyde in PBT (PBS+Triton 0.3%) for 15 min. The samples were subsequently rinsed 4 times for 0’, 5’, 15’, and 30’ in PBT 0.3% and blocked in 1% bovine serum albumin (BSA) for at least 1 h. Following these steps, the brains were incubated with the primary antibody diluted in 1% BSA overnight at 4°C. Then, the samples were rinsed 4 times for 0’, 5’, 15’, and 30’ in PBT 0.3% and were subsequently incubated with the appropriate fluorescent secondary antibodies in dark for 2 h at room temperature (RT). Finally, after 4 rinses with PBT 0.3%, the brains were placed in PBS and mounted on a polarized slide using Vectashield (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, California, United States of America) as the mounting medium. Draper staining was performed as previously described [53].

The mounted fixed brains were imaged on an Olympus 1200 confocal microscope (Olympus France S.A.S., France) equipped with the following emission filters: 490 to 540 nm, 575 to 620 nm, and 665 to 755 nm.

The following antibodies were used: rabbit anti-cleaved Drosophila Dcp-1 (Cell Signaling Technology, Danvers, Massachusetts, USA, 1:100), rat anti-elav (Hybridoma bank, University of Iowa, Department of Biology, Iowa City, Iowa, USA, 1:100), mouse anti-repo (Hybridoma bank, 1:10), rabbit anti-repo (kindly given by Joachim Urban, 1:500), mouse anti-Draper8A1 (Hybridoma bank, 1:400), and mouse anti-nc82 (Hybridoma bank, 1:100).

Transmission electron microscopy

First, we cut 7-day-old Drosophila adult heads and fixed them in 2% glutaraldehyde + 2% paraformaldehyde (PFA) + 1 mM CaCl2 in 0.1-M sodium cacodylate buffer (pH 7.4) for 1 h at RT. Following 3 rinses with sodium cacodylate buffer, we post-fixed samples with 1% osmium tetroxide in the same 0.1-M sodium cacodylate buffer for 1 h at RT. Then, we dehydrated them in a graded series of ethanol solutions (75%, 80%, 90%, and 100%, 10 min each). Final dehydration was performed twice in 100% acetone for 20 min. Subsequently, we infiltrated samples with Epon 812 (epoxy resin) in 2 steps: 1 night at +4°C in a 1:1 mixture of Epon and acetone in an airtight container and 2 h at RT in pure Epon. Finally, we placed samples in molds with fresh resin and cured them in a dry oven at 60°C for 48 h.

Blocs were cut in 1-μm semi-thin sections with an ultramicrotome EM UC7 (Leica, Buffalo Grove, Illinois, USA). Sections were stained with 1% toluidine in borax buffer 0.1 M. Then, we cut ultrathin sections (approximately 70-nm thick) and collected them on copper grid (Electron Microscopy Sciences, Hatfield, Pennsylvania). They were contrasted with Reynolds lead citrate for 7 min. Observations were made with a Hitachi HT 7700 electron microscope (Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan) operating at 70 kV. Electron micrographs were taken using an integrated AMT XR41-B camera (Brickfields Business Park, Suffolk, United Kingdom) (2048 × 2048 pixels).

Adult brain culture and live imaging

Adult brains were dissected in cold Schneider’s Drosophila Medium and mounted in the culture chambers perfused with culture medium and 0.4% dialyzed low-melting agarose [54]. Live imaging was performed at room temperature using a Leica TCS SP8 X confocal microscope (Leica) with a resonant scanner, using 63× water objective (+3.3 zoom). White laser excitation was set to 488 nm for pHLuorin and 587 nm for mCherry signal acquisitions [41].

Quantification and statistical analysis

Imaging data were processed and presented using ImageJ (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA). ImageJ was also used for manual quantification of the apoptotic, dcp-1 positive cells slide by slide throughout the z-stack and for selecting regions of interest using the “ROI Manager” function. For the endolysosomal compartments analysis, we used the IMARIS software (Bitplane, Zurich, Switzerland), for both live and fixed images. To quantify the number and volume of the endolysosomal compartments, we used the Surface function, enabling the “Split touching objects” mode and keeping the same intensity threshold across samples and conditions. In the fixed images, to distinguish the red, acidic, compartments from the endosomes and quantify them, we used the “Spot colocalize” function. To measure the volume of the ones non-colocalizing, we used the Surface function enabling the “Split touching objects” mode. Finally, the IMARIS software (Bitplane) and, more specifically, the Surface function, was also used to quantify the volume of remaining GFP expressing axonal debris in the antennal ablation experiment, again using the same intensity threshold across samples and conditions (S9 Fig). Graphs were generated and statistical analysis was conducted using GraphPad Prism 8 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, California, USA).

Olfactory receptor injury protocol

For the antennal ablation experiment, we used; OR83b Gal4 UAS CD8 GFP; flies, expressing GFP in most of the ORNs, and crossed them with control and appld background flies. The progeny of these crosses was collected daily and, after selecting the right genotype, we ablated both antennae of 5-day-old flies using finely sharpened tweezers. Then, we dissected the adult brains at 2, 5, and 8 days post-ablation and followed the immunostaining procedure, as previously described, in dark. We used anti-nc82 as the neuropil antibody in order to better visualize the antennal lobe glomeruli of the adult brain and focus our quantification of the endogenously expressed GFP-covered region accordingly.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Levels of reduction of APPL expression correlates with the increase in Dcp1 positive cells in the brain of 7 days old flies.

(a) This graph shows the number of apoptotic cells in the central brain of control,;; nsyb Gal4 and; UAS CD8 GFP; nsyb Gal4, and 2 different Appl RNAi flies at 7 days old. Each data point represents the number of apoptotic cells, Dcp-1 positive cells, in a single brain. For the analysis of these data, we used 1-way ANOVA with Tukey multiple comparison test F(3,137) = 6.050, df = 3, *p = 0.0176, *p = 0.0252, **p = 0.0012. (b) This table describes the genotype of the 2 different RNAi lines used and the controls. (c–f’) Confocal images of the central brain of each genotype stained with anti-App (green) to observe the expression levels of APPL. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. APPL does not seem to interact with the Wnt PCP pathway to maintain neuronal health.

Quantification of apoptotic cells in the central brain of control, w*/Y;+/+;+/+, w*appld/Y;;, and appldw*/Y;Vang-/+;. Reducing 1 copy of Vang, a key member of the Wnt PCP pathway, in an APPL-/- background has no effect on the accumulation of apoptotic cells. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Loss of APPL causes enlarged endolysosomal compartments in neurons.

(a) Histogram presenting the volume of each endolysosomal compartment in neurons of control, w*;UAS myr mCherry pH Luorin; nsyb Gal4 fly, and appld mutant: APPLd; UAS myr mCherry pH Luorin; nsybGal4, flies. (b) This histogram presents the relative frequency of endolysosomal compartments in neurons. (c) This graph shows the quantification of the number of endolysosomal compartments/um3 in neurons, which is not significantly different between control and Appl-/- flies. (d) This graph shows that the number of degradative compartments/um3 is also not significantly affected by the absence of APPL, every dot corresponds to a brain. (e) These 4 panels represent the same data as in Fig 2D but separated in smaller groups of volume ranges; endolysosomal compartments of 0.004 to 0.35 um3, 0.35 to 1 um3, 1 to 2um3, and 2 to 7 um3. As observed, the most important differences in size are in the smallest volume group ****p < 0.0001 and the 1 from 1 to 2 um3, **p = 0.003, Mann–Whitney test. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Increased autophagy in APPL null flies.

(a) Confocal stack of the central brain stained with Elav (red) to mark the neuronal cell bodies and Atg8 (green) to mark the autophagosomes. In this picture, we compare Canton S (control) flies to Appl-/-. (b) Graph presenting the increased number of Atg8 puncta per brain in appld background flies at 7 of age. Mann–Whitney test ****p < 0.0001. (c) This graph represents the quantification of apoptotic cells in the brain of appld background flies with 1 reduced copy of the Atg7 gene. (d) Graph presenting the quantification of Dcp-1 positive cells in the brain of 7-day-old APPL-/- flies lacking 1 copy of Rab7, the late endosome marker, w*appld/Y;;Rab7 KO Crispr 3P3RFP/+, compared to control and Appl-/- flies. This graph shows no difference in the number of apoptotic neuronal cell death when 1 copy of Rab7 is reduced. (e) Life span analysis of control and appld flies lacking 1 copy of Rab7. This survival curve reveals that reducing 1 copy of Rab7 in an appld background increases significantly the death rate of Appl-/- flies, starting from an even earlier age and reducing the overall life span of appld flies, 2-way ANOVA with Tukey multiple comparison test **p = 0.0022, ****p < 0.0001. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. APPL regulates the size of early endosomes in neurons.

(a) Histogram presenting the volume of each early endosome–like vesicle in neurons of control, +/+;+/+;+/+ and APPL-/- flies, w*appld/Y;; flies. (b) This histogram represents the relative frequency of early endosome–like vesicles and their size in APPL-/- flies, w*appld/Y;;, comparing to control, +/+;+/+;+/+. c) This histogram represents the relative frequency of lysosomes and their size in APPL-/- flies, w*appld/Y;;, comparing to control, +/+;+/+;+/+. (d) Histogram representing the relative frequency of lysosomes per cell slice in APPL-/- flies, w*appld/Y;;, comparing to control, +/+;+/+;+/+ fly brains. (e) Focusing on the 7-day-old time point, which showed significantly enlarged early endosome–like vacuoles in Appl-/- flies (Fig 3d), we now knock down the expression of APPL only in neurons using the yw; UAS APPL RNAi (y+); nsybGal4 and find a similar increase in the size of these early endosome–like vacuoles comparing to the control: yw;;Gal4nsyb/+. n = 3 to 5 brains per genotype and approximately 60 cells analyzed per genotype, ****p < 0.0001. (f) As in (Fig 3E), the percentage of cells with endosomes was significantly higher in yw; UAS APPL RNAi (y+); nsybGal4 comparing to control. n = 3 to 5 brains per genotype and approximately 60 cells analyzed per genotype, Fisher exact test ****p < 0.0001. (g) TEM horizontal sections of the cortical region of 7-day-old fly brains showing neuronal cell bodies (circled in blue) and the early endosome–like vacuoles marked with a red arrow. n = 3 to 5 brains per genotype and approximately 60 cells analyzed per genotype. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. SAPPL travels ubiquitously regardless the site of expression of APPL.

(a) Confocal sections of a control fly brain throughout development until adulthood that expresses the double fluorescent tagged APPL construct specifically in the retina using the GMR Gal4 driver,; UAS-mCherry-APPL-GFP/lexAop-CD4tdGFP; GMR-Gal4/Repo-lexA. As we can see between P50 and P80, there is a significant release of SAPPL (white) beyond the site of expression reaching all areas of the brain. (b) This is a different experiment using these flies:; UAS-mCherry-APPL-GFP; GMR-Gal4. These close-ups on the photoreceptors confirm that it is only the SAPPL (white) that travels ubiquitously in the brain, although the carboxyl terminus of APPL (green), the intracellular part, remains in the cell bodies where it is being expressed. (c) This graph shows the adult stage of the flies used in (a) and highlights that the SAPPL (white) not only travels throughout the brain but also colocalizes specifically with the glial marker, Repo (green). (d and e) Rescue experiment of the loss of mushroom body (MB) β lobes (red oval) phenotype in Appld;;nsybGal4 flies with a 12.2% phenotype penetrance (n = 49). Appld; UAS mCherry Appl GFP; nsybGal4 is functional as it rescues this loss of MB β lobes with a 0% phenotype penetrance (n = 39). ***p = 0.0002 Fisher exact test. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file.

(TIF)

S7 Fig. APPL effects on glial endolysosomal network.

(a, c) The number of endolysosomal and degradative/acidic compartments were not affected by the absence of APPL in glia. (b and b’) These confocal slices represent the same area of glial cells but this time from a fixed tissue of control and APPL-/- 7-day-old fly brains. (d and e) The volume of degradative/acidic compartments was also similar between both conditions. (f and g) TEM horizontal sections of the cortical region of a 7-day-old fly brain showing neuronal cell bodies and cortical glia (circled in blue) between them. We can observe that the distribution of cortical glia in the brain of APPL-/- flies is abnormal, they have an irregular shape and many vesicles, comparing to the control. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file.

(TIF)

S8 Fig. Glial clearance of axonal debris at 2 days post-ablation.

Quantification of volume of GFP-covered region (um3) in the OR83b innervating glomeruli at 2 days post-ablation, in control, APPL-/- and the rescue flies: Appldw*; UAS APPL/OR83bGal4GFP; and Appldw*; UAS SAPPL/OR83bGal4GFP;. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file.

(TIF)

S9 Fig. Loss of APPL does not affect glial migration to the site of injury.

(a and a’) Confocal images of a control brain; UAS GFP/+;Repo Gal4/+ before and 1 day after ablation. The endogenous expression of GFP represents the glial migration around and inside the antennal lobes after antennal ablation. (b and b’) In Appl null flies Appld;UAS GFP/+;Repo Gal4/+, we observe a similar reaction of glial cells after antennal ablation. (c) This graph presents the quantification of the volume (um3) of GFP-covered area in and around the antennal lobes before and 1 day after ablation in control compared to Appl-/- flies. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file.

(TIF)

S1 Data. Excel file with all quantification data corresponding to each graph on every figure.

(XLSX)

S1 Movie

(M4V)

Acknowledgments

We thank the Bloomington stock center (NIH P40OD018537) for providing flies used in this study. We thank all members of the Hassan and Hiesinger labs for support and valuable comments. More specifically, we would like to thank Corentine Marie for her help in the illustration of our working model. We are grateful to the ICM imaging facility ICM.Quant for imaging and image analysis support.

Abbreviations

amyloid-β

AD

Alzheimer’s disease

ADAM

A Disintegrin and Metalloprotease

AICD

APP intracellular domain

APPβCTF

APP β C-terminal fragment

APP

amyloid precursor protein

APPL

APP Like

BSA

bovine serum albumin

Dcp-1

Cleaved Drosophila Death caspase protein-1

DF

double fluorescent

dT-APPL

double-tagged form of APPL

fAD

familial Alzheimer’s disease

flAPP

full-length APP

flAPPL

full-length APPL

GFP

green fluorescent protein

iPSCs

induced pluripotent stem cells

JNK

c-Jun N-terminal kinase

JIP

JNK interacting proteins

LOF

loss of function

Myr-DF

myristoylated double fluorescent

ORN

olfactory receptor neuron

PAT-1

Protein interacting with APP tail 1

PBS

phosphate buffered saline

PCP

planar cell polarity

PSEN

Presenilin

RNAi

RNA interference

RT

room temperature

SAPPL

secreted portion of APPL

TEM

transmission electron microscopy

Vang

VanGogh

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the program “Investissements d’avenir” ANR-10-IAIHU-06 of the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (https://anr.fr/) (to BAH), The Einstein-BIH Visiitng Fellow program EVF-BIH-2015-236-2 (https://www.einsteinfoundation.de/en/programmes/einstein-bih-visiting-fellow) (to BAH), the Paul G. Allen Frontiers Group Allen Disntinguished Investigator Award 12202 (https://alleninstitute.org/what-we-do/frontiers-group) (to BAH), and the Roger De Spoelberch Foundation 2019 Prize (https://www.fondation-roger-de-spoelberch.ch/en) (to BAH), the National Institutes of Health (https://www.nih.gov) RO1EY018884 (to PRH) and the German Research Foundation (https://www.dfg.de) (SFB 958, SFB186) (to PRH)and Freie Universität Berlin (to PRH). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. PRH received salary form FU Berlin.

References

  • 1.Goate A, Chartier-Harlin MC, Mullan M, Brown J, Crawford F, Fidani L, et al. Segregation of a missense mutation in the amyloid precursor protein gene with familial Alzheimer’s disease. Nature. 1991;349 (6311):704–706. 10.1038/349704a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Clark RF, Hutton M, Fuldner M, Froelich S, Karran E, Talbot C, et al. The structure of the presenilin 1 (S182) gene and identification of six novel mutations in early onset AD families. Nat Genet. 1995;11 (2):219–222. 10.1038/ng1095-219 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Daigle I, Li C. apl-1, a Caenorhabditis elegans gene encoding a protein related to the human β-amyloid protein precursor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993;90 (24):12045–12049. 10.1073/pnas.90.24.12045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rosen DR, Martin-Morris L, Luo L, White K. A Drosophila gene encoding a protein resembling the human β-amyloid protein precursor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989;86 (7):2478–2482. 10.1073/pnas.86.7.2478 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Kang J, Lemaire HG, Unterbeck A, Salbaum JM, Masters CL, Grzeschik KH, et al. The precursor of Alzheimer’s disease amyloid A4 protein resembles a cell-surface receptor. Nature. 1987;325 (6106):733–736. 10.1038/325733a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Yoshikai S. ichi, Sasaki H, Doh-ura K, Furuya H, Sakaki Y. Genomic organization of the human amyloid beta-protein precursor gene. Gene. 1990. March 15;87 (2):257–263. 10.1016/0378-1119(90)90310-n [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wasco W, Peppercorn J, Tanzi RE. Search for the Genes Responsible for Familial Alzheimer’s Disease. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;695 (1):203–208. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb23053.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.De Strooper B, Annaert W. Proteolytic processing and cell biological functions of the amyloid precursor protein. J Cell Sci. 2000;113:1857–1870. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Cacace R, Sleegers K, Van Broeckhoven C. Molecular genetics of early-onset Alzheimer’s disease revisited Vol. 12, Alzheimer’s and Dementia. Elsevier Inc.; 2016. p. 733–48. 10.1016/j.jalz.2016.01.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Selkoe DJ. Toward a Comprehensive Theory for Alzheimer’s Disease. Hypothesis: Alzheimer’s Disease Is Caused by the Cerebral Accumulation and Cytotoxicity of Amyloid β-Protein. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006;924 (1):17–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Selkoe DJ, Hardy J. The amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer’s disease at 25 years. EMBO Mol Med. 2016;8 (6):595–608. 10.15252/emmm.201606210 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Young-Pearse TL, Chen AC, Chang R, Marquez C, Selkoe DJ. Secreted APP regulates the function of full-length APP in neurite outgrowth through interaction with integrin beta1. Neural Dev. 2008;3:15 10.1186/1749-8104-3-15 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wang Z, Wang B, Yang L, Guo Q, Aithmitti N, Songyang Z, et al. Presynaptic and postsynaptic interaction of the amyloid precursor protein promotes peripheral and central synaptogenesis. J Neurosci. 2009;29 (35):10788–10801. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2132-09.2009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kögel D, Schomburg R, Copanaki E, Prehn JHM. Regulation of gene expression by the amyloid precursor protein: Inhibition of the JNK/c-Jun pathway. Cell Death Differ. 2005;12 (1):1–9. 10.1038/sj.cdd.4401495 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Biederer T, Cao X, Südhof TC, Liu X. Regulation of APP-dependent transcription complexes by Mint/X11s: Differential functions of Mint isoforms. J Neurosci. 2002;22 (17):7340–7351. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-17-07340.2002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Sumioka A, Nagaishi S, Yoshida T, Lin A, Miura M, Suzuki T. Role of 14-3-3γ in FE65-dependent gene transactivation mediated by the amyloid β-protein precursor cytoplasmic fragment. J Biol Chem. 2005;280 (51):42364–42374. 10.1074/jbc.M504278200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Martin-Morris LE, White K. The Drosophila transcript encoded by the beta-amyloid protein precursor-like gene is restricted to the nervous system. Development. 1990;110(1). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Soldano A, Okray Z, Janovska P, Tmejová K, Reynaud E, Claeys A, et al. The Drosophila homologue of the amyloid precursor protein is a conserved modulator of Wnt PCP signaling. PLoS Biol. 2013;11 (5):e1001562 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001562 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Torroja L, Chu H, Kotovsky I, White K. Neuronal overexpression of APPL, the Drosophila homologue of the amyloid precursor protein (APP), disrupts axonal transport. Curr Biol. 1999;9 (9):489–493. 10.1016/s0960-9822(99)80215-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bouleau S, Tricoire H. Drosophila models of Alzheimer’s disease: Advances, limits, and perspectives Vol. 45, J Alzheimers Dis. IOS Press; 2015. p. 1015–38. 10.3233/JAD-142802 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Torroja L, Packard M, Gorczyca M, White K, Budnik V. The Drosophila β-amyloid precursor protein homolog promotes synapse differentiation at the neuromuscular junction. J Neurosci. 1999;19 (18):7793–7803. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.19-18-07793.1999 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bourdet I, Preat T, Goguel V. The full-length form of the drosophila amyloid precursor protein is involved in memory formation. J Neurosci. 2015;35 (3):1043–1051. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2093-14.2015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Rieche F, Carmine-Simmen K, Poeck B, Kretzschmar D, Strauss R. Drosophila Full-Length Amyloid Precursor Protein Is Required for Visual Working Memory and Prevents Age-Related Memory Impairment. Curr Biol [Internet]. 2018. March 5 [cited 2020 Feb 7];28(5):817–823.e3. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29478851 10.1016/j.cub.2018.01.077 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wentzell JS, Bolkan BJ, Carmine-Simmen K, Swanson TL, Musashe DT, Kretzschmar D. Amyloid precursor proteins are protective in Drosophila models of progressive neurodegeneration. Neurobiol Dis. 2012;46 (1):78–87. 10.1016/j.nbd.2011.12.047 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hase M, Yagi Y, Taru H, Tomita S, Sumioka A, Hori K, et al. Expression and characterization of the Drosophila X11-like/Mint protein during neural development. J Neurochem. 2002;81 (6):1223–1232. 10.1046/j.1471-4159.2002.00911.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ashley J, Packard M, Ataman B, Budnik V. Fasciclin II signals new synapse formation through amyloid precursor protein and the scaffolding protein dX11/Mint. J Neurosci. 2005;25 (25):5943–5955. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1144-05.2005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Pirooznia SK, Sarthi J, Johnson AA, Toth MS, Chiu K, Koduri S, et al. Tip60 HAT activity mediates APP induced lethality and apoptotic cell death in the CNS of a Drosophila Alzheimer’s disease model. PLoS ONE. 2012;7 (7):e41776 10.1371/journal.pone.0041776 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Panikker P, Xu SJ, Zhang H, Sarthi J, Beaver M, Sheth A, et al. Restoring Tip60 HAT/HDAC2 balance in the neurodegenerative brain relieves epigenetic transcriptional repression and reinstates cognition. J Neurosci. 2018;38 (19):4569–4583. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2840-17.2018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Fawcett JW, Asher RA. The glial scar and central nervous system repair. Brain Res Bull. 1999;49:377–391. 10.1016/s0361-9230(99)00072-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Winckler B, Faundez V, Maday S, Cai Q, Almeida CG, Zhang H. The endolysosomal system and proteostasis: From development to degeneration. J Neurosci. 2018;38 (44):9364–9374. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1665-18.2018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Dilsizoglu Senol A, Tagliafierro L, Gorisse-Hussonnois L, Rebeillard F, Huguet L, Geny D, et al. Protein interacting with Amyloid Precursor Protein tail-1 (PAT1) is involved in early endocytosis. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2019;1 10.1007/s00018-019-03157-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hung COY, Livesey FJ. Altered γ-Secretase Processing of APP Disrupts Lysosome and Autophagosome Function in Monogenic Alzheimer’s Disease. Cell Rep. 2018;25(13):3647–3660.e2. 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.11.095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kwart D, Gregg A, Scheckel C, Murphy E, Paquet D, Duffield M, et al. A Large Panel of Isogenic APP and PSEN1 Mutant Human iPSC Neurons Reveals Shared Endosomal Abnormalities Mediated by APP β-CTFs, Not Aβ. Neuron. 2019;104(2):256–270.e5. 10.1016/j.neuron.2019.07.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Luo L, Tully T, White K. Human amyloid precursor protein ameliorates behavioral deficit of flies deleted for appl gene. Neuron. 1992;9 (4):595–605. 10.1016/0896-6273(92)90024-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kimura KI, Truman JW. Postmetamorphic cell death in the nervous and muscular systems of Drosophila melanogaster. J Neurosci. 1990;10 (2):403–401. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.10-02-00403.1990 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Farca Luna AJ, Perier M, Seugnet L. Amyloid Precursor Protein in Drosophila Glia Regulates Sleep and Genes Involved in Glutamate Recycling. J Neurosci. 2017;37 (16):4289–4300. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2826-16.2017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Franҫois A, Rioux Bilan A, Quellard N, Fernandez B, Janet T, Chassaing D, et al. Longitudinal follow-up of autophagy and inflammation in brain of APPswePS1dE9 transgenic mice. J Neuroinflammation. 2014;11 (1):139. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lai A, Sisodia SS, Trowbridge IS. Characterization of sorting signals in the β-amyloid precursor protein cytoplasmic domain. J Biol Chem. 1995;270 (8):3565–3573. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Zhang F, Gannon M, Chen Y, Zhou L, Jiao K, Wang Q. The amyloid precursor protein modulates α2A-adrenergic receptor endocytosis and signaling through disrupting arrestin 3 recruitment. FASEB J. 2017;31 (10):4434–4446. 10.1096/fj.201700346R [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Nixon RA. Amyloid precursor protein & endosomal-lysosomal dysfunction in Alzheimer’s disease: Inseparable partners in a multifactorial disease. FASEB J. 2017;31 (7):2729–2743. 10.1096/fj.201700359 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Jin EJ, Kiral FR, Ozel MN, Burchardt LS, Osterland M, Epstein D, et al. Live Observation of Two Parallel Membrane Degradation Pathways at Axon Terminals. Curr Biol. 2018;28(7):1027–1038.e4. 10.1016/j.cub.2018.02.032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Cataldo AM, Peterhoff CM, Troncoso JC, Gomez-Isla T, Hyman BT, Nixon RA. Endocytic pathway abnormalities precede amyloid β deposition in sporadic alzheimer’s disease and down syndrome: Differential effects of APOE genotype and presenilin mutations. Am J Pathol. 2000;157 (1):277–286. 10.1016/s0002-9440(10)64538-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Cherry S, Jin EJ, Ozel MN, Lu Z, Agi E, Wang D, et al. Charcot-Marie-Tooth 2B mutations in rab7 cause dosage-dependent neurodegeneration due to partial loss of function. elife. 2013;2:e01064 10.7554/eLife.01064 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Del Turco D, Schlaudraff J, Bonin M, Deller T. Upregulation of APP, ADAM10 and ADAM17 in the denervated mouse dentate gyrus. PLoS One. 2014;9 (1):e84962 10.1371/journal.pone.0084962 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kato K, Awasaki T, Ito K. Neuronal programmed cell death induces glial cell division in the adult Drosophila brain. Development. 2009;136 (1):51–59. 10.1242/dev.023366 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.MacDonald JM, Beach MG, Porpiglia E, Sheehan AE, Watts RJ, Freeman MR. The Drosophila Cell Corpse Engulfment Receptor Draper Mediates Glial Clearance of Severed Axons. Neuron. 2006;50 (6):869–881. 10.1016/j.neuron.2006.04.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.J Bradley Zuchero and Ben A Barres Glia in mammalian development and disease. Development. 2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Davis GW. Homeostatic signaling and the stabilization of neural function Vol. 80, Neuron. NIH Public Access; 2013. p. 718–28. 10.1016/j.neuron.2013.09.044 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Copanaki E, Chang S, Vlachos A, Tschäpe JA, Müller UC, Kögel D, et al. SAPPα antagonizes dendritic degeneration and neuron death triggered by proteasomal stress. Mol Cell Neurosci. 2010;44 (4):386–393. 10.1016/j.mcn.2010.04.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Leyssen M, Ayaz D, Hébert SS, Reeve S, De Strooper B, Hassan BA. Amyloid precursor protein promotes post-developmental neurite arborization in the Drosophila brain. EMBO J. 2005;24 (16):2944–2955. 10.1038/sj.emboj.7600757 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Fong LK, Yang MM, Chaves R. dos S, Reyna SM, Langness VF, Woodruff G, et al. Full-length amyloid precursor protein regulates lipoprotein metabolism and amyloid- clearance in human astrocytes. J Biol Chem. 2018;293 (29):11341–11357. 10.1074/jbc.RA117.000441 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Rera M, Clark RI, Walker DW. Intestinal barrier dysfunction links metabolic and inflammatory markers of aging to death in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109 (52):21528–21533. 10.1073/pnas.1215849110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Logan Mary and Sean D. Speese In Vivo Analysis of Glial Immune Responses to Axon Degeneration in Drosophila melanogaster. Book: Methods In Molecular Biology. 2020. 10.1007/978-1-0716-0585-1_24 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Özel MN, Langen M, Hassan BA, Hiesinger PR. Filopodial dynamics and growth cone stabilization in Drosophila visual circuit development. elife. 2015. October;29:4 10.7554/eLife.10721 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Gabriel Gasque

26 Feb 2020

Dear Bassem,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "The Drosophila Amyloid Precursor Protein homologue mediates neuronal survival and neuro-glial interactions" for consideration as a Research Article by PLOS Biology.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff, as well as by an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by Feb 28 2020 11:59PM.

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology

During resubmission, you will be invited to opt-in to posting your pre-review manuscript as a bioRxiv preprint. Visit http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/preprints for full details. If you consent to posting your current manuscript as a preprint, please upload a single Preprint PDF when you re-submit.

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Gabriel Gasque, Ph.D.,

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

Decision Letter 1

Gabriel Gasque

2 Apr 2020

Dear Bassem,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "The Drosophila Amyloid Precursor Protein homologue mediates neuronal survival and neuro-glial interactions" for consideration as a Research Article at PLOS Biology. Your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, by an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, and by three independent reviewers.

In light of the reviews (below), we will not be able to accept the current version of the manuscript, but we would welcome re-submission of a much-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments. We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent for further evaluation by the reviewers.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 2 months.

Please email us (plosbiology@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns, or would like to request an extension. At this stage, your manuscript remains formally under active consideration at our journal; please notify us by email if you do not intend to submit a revision so that we may end consideration of the manuscript at PLOS Biology.

**IMPORTANT - SUBMITTING YOUR REVISION**

Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. As you will see, the reviewers think your findings are potentially interesting, but also express some concerns. They have also provided clear guidance on how these should be addressed, and which we think you should embrace. Having discussed these comments with the Academic Editor, we have the following directions, which are pointers, but no exhaustive:

1) Two reviewers seem to be concerned about the effect sizes, which are small, particularly on cell death and on endolysosomal volumes. We think that reviewer 3’s suggestions are quite appropriate. Please do the additional controls, such as rescue of the glial disruptions and endolysosomal phenotypes. This, we think, could eliminate the major concern that subtle differences in genetic background are at play here. In general, reviewer 3’s comments are sharp, we think, and you should address them thoroughly, including increasing the sample size in some experiments.

2) You should show higher magnification images for figure 3, as you have done elsewhere.

3) Reviewer 1 also raises a series of critiques that we think have more to do with interpretation of the data. We think that these sorts of critiques could be addressed with a more nuanced discussion of the data.

4) The Academic Editor also thinks, without wanting to be too instructive, that you could use the CPV reporter to mark apoptotic cells and glial cells. This is a UAS-driven construct that has reporters that are activated by caspase cleavage. I am passing this recommendation to you, in case you find it useful.

Please submit the following files along with your revised manuscript:

1. A 'Response to Reviewers' file - this should detail your responses to the editorial requests, present a point-by-point response to all of the reviewers' comments, and indicate the changes made to the manuscript.

*NOTE: In your point by point response to the reviewers, please provide the full context of each review. Do not selectively quote paragraphs or sentences to reply to. The entire set of reviewer comments should be present in full and each specific point should be responded to individually, point by point.

You should also cite any additional relevant literature that has been published since the original submission and mention any additional citations in your response.

2. In addition to a clean copy of the manuscript, please also upload a 'track-changes' version of your manuscript that specifies the edits made. This should be uploaded as a "Related" file type.

*Re-submission Checklist*

When you are ready to resubmit your revised manuscript, please refer to this re-submission checklist: https://plos.io/Biology_Checklist

To submit a revised version of your manuscript, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' where you will find your submission record.

Please make sure to read the following important policies and guidelines while preparing your revision:

*Published Peer Review*

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*PLOS Data Policy*

Please note that as a condition of publication PLOS' data policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability) requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions arrived at in your manuscript. If you have not already done so, you must include any data used in your manuscript either in appropriate repositories, within the body of the manuscript, or as supporting information (N.B. this includes any numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.). For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5

*Blot and Gel Data Policy*

We require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare them now, if you have not already uploaded them. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your 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. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive thus far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Gabriel Gasque, Ph.D.,

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

*****************************************************

REVIEWS:

Reviewer #1: The manuscript by Kessissoglou et al. aims at finding a physiological function of APPL in the adult Drosophila brain. The authors analyze appl null mutant and present here different aspects of its phenotype, such as lifespan, cell death in the adult brain, dimensions of endosomal and degradative compartments in neurons and glia and evaluation of glial capacity to clear injured axons. The described results are interesting but too preliminary for making the presented conclusions.

The authors show that appl mutant flies exhibit a significantly reduced lifespan and accumulation of Dcp-1-positive cells in the adult brain as compared to control flies. However, the presented figures of the anti-Dcp-1 staining are not convincing and the differences between control and mutant flies are based on an extremely low number of apoptotic cells in the adult brain (2-8). In addition, this staining often shows a strong background like in Fig. 3i, which therefore cannot be used as the solitary detection and quantification of dying cells. Moreover, accumulation of apoptotic cells often results from their impaired clearance and not necessarily from the excessive cell death. It is not clear from the presented data whether excessive neuronal death actually occurs in the appl mutant.

Based on the assessment of the volume of endosomal and degradative compartments in neurons, the authors claim their enlargement in the appl mutant brains compared to control. However, the live imaging pictures are not of sufficient quality to quantify fluorescence and the number of analyzed brains is very low (2). It is not clear to me whether and how the slightly increased volume of endosomal compartments leads to neuronal cell death.

The reduced capacity of glia to clear degenerating axons in the appl mutant, which is rescued by the full length APPL or SAPPL is an interesting result. However, it does not certainly indicate the impaired glial ability to clear apoptotic neurons in the appl mutant. These are two distinct processes, which share some common mechanisms.

Reviewer #2: Kessissoglou et al. provide compelling evidence for a role of the fly homologue of APP in brain homeostasis and neuron-glia cross-talk. They show that loss of APPL results in reduced lifespan, increased neuronal cell death, enlarged early-endosomal size in neurons, and reduced endolysomal size in glia. By expressing a double-tagged APPL construct in neurons of APPL -/- flies, they determine that secreted APPL is taken up by glia. Finally, expression of sAPPL in neurons of APPL -/- flies rescues glial-mediated clearance of axonal debri in an antennal ablation model. These findings are of high interest for its contribution to understanding APP biology and its potential implications for Alzheimer's disease. The role of sAPP in neuron-glia cross-talk is highly novel and will be of particular interest to the field. Therefore, I find this study by Kessissoglou et al to be appropriate for publication in PLOS Biology, if the following minor points can be addressed:

1) Statistics are needed in Figure S4. The difference in the survival curves between control and Appl is striking in Figure 1A. However, this difference does not seem to be replicated in Figure S4. What is the explanation for this? Overall, it is difficult to conclude from these data if there is rescue of lifespan with loss of Rab5 because the effect of APP -/- is not obvious.

2) In Figure 2D, the n should be increased to at least 3 brains/genotype. In Figure 2 F-G and 4D-E, it is unclear how many brains/genotype were analyzed.

3) Including a plot of the relative frequency for the data shown in 2D would be helpful to interpret the differences between the genotypes (similar to what was done for data in 2F and 4E).

4) It is unclear why there would be volumes = 0 um plotted in Figures 2D,2F,2G and 4D,E. Were all cells counted and those with no compartments were quantified as 0? If so, perhaps a better way to plot it would be to plot the % of cells with endolyosomal compartments, and then separately plot the volume for those >0. Alternatively, a size cut-off for what is considered an endolyosomal compartment may be needed.

5) In Figure 3i, It seems the background of the Dcp-1 staining is higher in control than Appl -/-. Could the effect observed be an artifact? Do you have representative images with similar background staining in which this difference in Dcp-1 positive cells is still observed?

6) The manuscript is very well-written. Only a few, very minor suggested edits to the text:

a) In Figure legend 1, should ***p=0.0078 be instead **p=0.0078?

b) In Figure 3H, the value for *p should be added.

c) A scale bar is needed in Figure 2E.

d) The order of figures S5 and S6 should be switched, since S6 comes before S5 in the text.

e) There is no reference to Figures S2a-b in the text.

f) In the text (lines 180-191) it reads that in both Figure 4a and Figure S6 APPL was expressed in the retina; however, from the figure legends it seems that while APPL was expressed in the retina in Figure 4 , APPL was expressed in the optic lobe in Figure S6 using a different Gal4 driver- please clarify appropriately in the text.

g) I'd suggest changing "strange shape" to "abnormal" or "irregular" shape in Figure 4 Legend.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript represents an important contribution to molecular understanding of the fly APP homologue, Appl. Because the fly Appl has homology to human APP, these findings may be relevant to Alzheimer's disease. Overall the manuscript is well written, and combines data from genetic manipulations with immunohistochemistry and transmission electron microscopy. To test the potential implication of Drosophila Appl in the endolysosomal pathway and study its functions as signaling molecule, the authors used a loss of function Drosophila mutant in the gene. They found a small increase in cell death in the brain of 7d animals. They examined the endolysosomal organelles and found that these were larger in the appl mutant neurons. They also report interactions with rab5 and rab7. By tagging a transgene of appl with GFP on the inside and mCherry on the outside, they show that the mCherry appears in glia. They then functionally show that the ability of axonal fragments generated upon neural body ablation (removal of the antennal lobes) is delayed in appl mutants. Adding Appl back to neurons rescues this effect. The authors suggest a model where Appl and its cleaved forms maintain the physiological flow of vesicular trafficking through the endolysosomal network in neurons and acts as signaling molecule to enable glial cells to remove the neuronal debris in the case of axotomy.

Overall these are interesting data that will be of interest to the field. They suggest an interesting role of appl, and an interplay between neurons and glia in Wallerian degeneration that will be of interest.

A number of issues, however, need to be addressed to make the results solid and compelling:

The biggest concern regarding these data is that the effect is rather subtle and so the controls must be very rigorous to rule out that the effects they are seeing are simply due to genetic background. A number of comments address this.

The authors show that the effect on cell death number in the brain is replicated by an Appl RNAi line. The line needs to be validated that it reduces Appl, and all of the other assays should also be completed with this independent approach to reducing Appl for rigor. Alternatively, they could use multiple alleles of Appl.

Related to this, in Fig.1c the average of apoptotic cells (DCP1 positive cells) in 7d Control was 2 and in Appl -/- flies of the same age was 7. Whereas on Fig. S1 the average of DCP1 positive cells in 7d Control was 5 and in Appl -/- flies of the same age was still 7. Considering the discrepancies, it is not clear how robust the difference between Control and mutant is, and if it is enough to reduce the lifespan and induce neurodegeneration.

The authors demonstrate strong glial disruptions and reduced volume of endolysosomal compartments in appl null flies. The authors should re-express APPL and SAPPL and rescue these phenotypes in the appl null background, to show that the effects are due to appl and not genetic background.

For the quantification of the volume of endolysosomal compartments (Fig.2d) only 2 brains/genotype were used for analysis. It is standard to use at least 3 biological specimens and to reproduce all experiments three times or more independently. Along the same lines, it is not clear how many biological replicates were used in experiments listed on Fig.3c, Fig. 4d, Fig. 5e, f, Fig.6b,c,d.

The rab5 and rab7 interactions should be shown with 2 different alleles as well, to rule out background effects.

Does dT-APPL rescue the mutant, is this form of the protein functional? This should be addressed.

What happens if they just express the APPL in the glia in the axotomy model? Potentially this may rescue and would confirm a role in glia.

Other comments:

Sometimes the authors mention protein forms without explaining them (sAPPL).

They use SAPPL, sAPPL and APPLS. Which is it? Are those all refer to the same form of the protein?

Decision Letter 2

Gabriel Gasque

25 Sep 2020

Dear Bassem,

Thank you for submitting your revised Research Article entitled "The Drosophila Amyloid Precursor Protein homologue mediates neuronal survival and neuro-glial interactions" for publication in PLOS Biology. I have now obtained advice from the original reviewers and have discussed their comments with the Academic Editor.

Based on the reviews, we will probably accept this manuscript for publication, assuming that you will modify the manuscript to address the remaining points raised by reviewers 1 and 3, with additional quantifications and textual changes. Please also make sure to address the data and other policy-related requests noted at the end of this email.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within two weeks. Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. In addition to the remaining revisions and before we will be able to formally accept your manuscript and consider it "in press", we also need to ensure that your article conforms to our guidelines. A member of our team will be in touch shortly with a set of requests. As we can't proceed until these requirements are met, your swift response will help prevent delays to publication.

To submit your revision, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include the following:

- a cover letter that should detail your responses to any editorial requests, if applicable

- a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers' comments (if applicable)

- a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript.

*Copyediting*

Upon acceptance of your article, your final files will be copyedited and typeset into the final PDF. While you will have an opportunity to review these files as proofs, PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling or significant scientific errors. Therefore, please take this final revision time to assess and make any remaining major changes to your manuscript.

NOTE: If Supporting Information files are included with your article, note that these are not copyedited and will be published as they are submitted. Please ensure that these files are legible and of high quality (at least 300 dpi) in an easily accessible file format. For this reason, please be aware that any references listed in an SI file will not be indexed. For more information, see our Supporting Information guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/supporting-information

*Published Peer Review History*

Please note that you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*Early Version*

Please note that an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you opted out when submitting your manuscript. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online, uncheck the box. Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article.

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your 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. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Gabriel Gasque, Ph.D.,

Senior Editor,

ggasque@plos.org,

PLOS Biology

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

DATA POLICY:

You may be aware of the PLOS Data Policy, which requires that all data be made available without restriction: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability. For more information, please also see this editorial: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001797

Note that we do not require all raw data. Rather, we ask for all individual quantitative observations that underlie the data summarized in the figures and results of your paper. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5

These data can be made available in one of the following forms:

1) Supplementary files (e.g., excel). Please ensure that all data files are uploaded as 'Supporting Information' and are invariably referred to (in the manuscript, figure legends, and the Description field when uploading your files) using the following format verbatim: S1 Data, S2 Data, etc. Multiple panels of a single or even several figures can be included as multiple sheets in one excel file that is saved using exactly the following convention: S1_Data.xlsx (using an underscore).

2) Deposition in a publicly available repository. Please also provide the accession code or a reviewer link so that we may view your data before publication.

Regardless of the method selected, please ensure that you provide the individual numerical values that underlie the summary data displayed in the following figure panels: Figures 1acdef, 2dfg, 3c-h, 4bc, 5bc, 6de, 7ef, 8b-d, 9c-e, S1a, S2, S3a-e, S4b-e, S5a-f, S6d, S7acde, S8, and S10c.

NOTE: the numerical data provided should include all replicates AND the way in which the plotted mean and errors were derived (it should not present only the mean/average values).

Please also ensure that each figure legend in your manuscript includes information on where the underlying data can be found and that your supplemental data file/s has/have a legend.

Please ensure that your Data Statement in the submission system accurately describes where your data can be found.

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

BLOT AND GEL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:

For manuscripts submitted on or after 1st July 2019, we require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare and upload them now. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements

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

Reviewer remarks:

Reviewer #1: The authors addressed most of my concerns. I have two comments:

- Figure legend must be added to Figure 10

- On the bottom panel of Figure 10 the authors suggest that overexpression of APPLoe leads to glial overactivation and clearance of healthy neurons, which is not consistent with their results described in line 111: "…In contrast, overexpressing SAPPL in a control background caused the presence of significantly more apoptotic cells in the brain of 7 days old flies (Figure 1f).", which means that it leads to more dying neurons and not to clearance of healthy ones. It should be changed accordingly.

Reviewer #2: The authors have appropriately addressed my critiques, and I find this manuscript suitable for publication in PLOS Biology.

Reviewer #3: The authors have performed considerable revisions that have increased the rigor of their data, and done a lot to make the data far more compelling. It is an interesting story, and an important finding. The interaction with draper, to increase its protein expression and trigger phagocytosis is interesting.

There are a number of minor issues to be addressed/resolved.

line 21: in the abstract they say that loss of appl causes dysregulation of endolysosomal function, in both neurons and glia. This is somewhat confusing, as they well document the defect in neurons, but the impact on glia they argue must be non-autonomous. Glia could be removed from this sentence for clarity.

line187: They refer to rab5 immunostaining as "significantly broader". It is not clear what that means - in more cells than it normally is? or do they mean the level is higher? this should be more clear and quantitated.

line 218: in figure S6e, could they point out the MB loss.

The addition of TEM data is nice, but in some cases it needs quantitation and they need to clarify how many animals they looked at.

For example, in figure 6g, how many times was this seen? To rule out an artifact like bad fixation.

In figure 10, they add a final panel bottom whereby they indicate that upregulation of APPL induces over activation of glia and clearance of healthy neurons. This part of the model is likely incorrect, given they are driving expression of APPL in a rescue setting by the GAL4-UAS system at levels that are undoubtedly much higher than normal levels and yet they see only rescue. This should probably be removed or a legend should be added that this is speculative. Or they could do an experiment, with the ORNs showing active removal of neurons when up regulating APPL and upregulation of draper on all the glia. The data they have on an up regulation effect is Figure 1f, where they suggest that up regulation of sAPPL causes more cell death in the brain (mimicking the loss of function).

Decision Letter 3

Gabriel Gasque

2 Nov 2020

Dear Dr Hassan,

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Josh Dubnau, I am pleased to inform you that we will be delighted to publish your Research Article in PLOS Biology.

PRODUCTION PROCESS

Before publication you will see the copyedited word document (within 5 business days) and a PDF proof shortly after that. The copyeditor will be in touch shortly before sending you the copyedited Word document. We will make some revisions at copyediting stage to conform to our general style, and for clarification. When you receive this version you should check and revise it very carefully, including figures, tables, references, and supporting information, because corrections at the next stage (proofs) will be strictly limited to (1) errors in author names or affiliations, (2) errors of scientific fact that would cause misunderstandings to readers, and (3) printer's (introduced) errors. Please return the copyedited file within 2 business days in order to ensure timely delivery of the PDF proof.

If you are likely to be away when either this document or the proof is sent, please ensure we have contact information of a second person, as we will need you to respond quickly at each point. Given the disruptions resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, there may be delays in the production process. We apologise in advance for any inconvenience caused and will do our best to minimize impact as far as possible.

EARLY VERSION

The version of your manuscript submitted at the copyedit stage will be posted online ahead of the final proof version, unless you have already opted out of the process. 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.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

Thank you again for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Biology and for your support of Open Access publishing. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any assistance during the production process.

Kind regards,

Alice Musson

Publishing Editor,

PLOS Biology

on behalf of

Gabriel Gasque,

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Levels of reduction of APPL expression correlates with the increase in Dcp1 positive cells in the brain of 7 days old flies.

    (a) This graph shows the number of apoptotic cells in the central brain of control,;; nsyb Gal4 and; UAS CD8 GFP; nsyb Gal4, and 2 different Appl RNAi flies at 7 days old. Each data point represents the number of apoptotic cells, Dcp-1 positive cells, in a single brain. For the analysis of these data, we used 1-way ANOVA with Tukey multiple comparison test F(3,137) = 6.050, df = 3, *p = 0.0176, *p = 0.0252, **p = 0.0012. (b) This table describes the genotype of the 2 different RNAi lines used and the controls. (c–f’) Confocal images of the central brain of each genotype stained with anti-App (green) to observe the expression levels of APPL. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. APPL does not seem to interact with the Wnt PCP pathway to maintain neuronal health.

    Quantification of apoptotic cells in the central brain of control, w*/Y;+/+;+/+, w*appld/Y;;, and appldw*/Y;Vang-/+;. Reducing 1 copy of Vang, a key member of the Wnt PCP pathway, in an APPL-/- background has no effect on the accumulation of apoptotic cells. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Loss of APPL causes enlarged endolysosomal compartments in neurons.

    (a) Histogram presenting the volume of each endolysosomal compartment in neurons of control, w*;UAS myr mCherry pH Luorin; nsyb Gal4 fly, and appld mutant: APPLd; UAS myr mCherry pH Luorin; nsybGal4, flies. (b) This histogram presents the relative frequency of endolysosomal compartments in neurons. (c) This graph shows the quantification of the number of endolysosomal compartments/um3 in neurons, which is not significantly different between control and Appl-/- flies. (d) This graph shows that the number of degradative compartments/um3 is also not significantly affected by the absence of APPL, every dot corresponds to a brain. (e) These 4 panels represent the same data as in Fig 2D but separated in smaller groups of volume ranges; endolysosomal compartments of 0.004 to 0.35 um3, 0.35 to 1 um3, 1 to 2um3, and 2 to 7 um3. As observed, the most important differences in size are in the smallest volume group ****p < 0.0001 and the 1 from 1 to 2 um3, **p = 0.003, Mann–Whitney test. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Increased autophagy in APPL null flies.

    (a) Confocal stack of the central brain stained with Elav (red) to mark the neuronal cell bodies and Atg8 (green) to mark the autophagosomes. In this picture, we compare Canton S (control) flies to Appl-/-. (b) Graph presenting the increased number of Atg8 puncta per brain in appld background flies at 7 of age. Mann–Whitney test ****p < 0.0001. (c) This graph represents the quantification of apoptotic cells in the brain of appld background flies with 1 reduced copy of the Atg7 gene. (d) Graph presenting the quantification of Dcp-1 positive cells in the brain of 7-day-old APPL-/- flies lacking 1 copy of Rab7, the late endosome marker, w*appld/Y;;Rab7 KO Crispr 3P3RFP/+, compared to control and Appl-/- flies. This graph shows no difference in the number of apoptotic neuronal cell death when 1 copy of Rab7 is reduced. (e) Life span analysis of control and appld flies lacking 1 copy of Rab7. This survival curve reveals that reducing 1 copy of Rab7 in an appld background increases significantly the death rate of Appl-/- flies, starting from an even earlier age and reducing the overall life span of appld flies, 2-way ANOVA with Tukey multiple comparison test **p = 0.0022, ****p < 0.0001. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. APPL regulates the size of early endosomes in neurons.

    (a) Histogram presenting the volume of each early endosome–like vesicle in neurons of control, +/+;+/+;+/+ and APPL-/- flies, w*appld/Y;; flies. (b) This histogram represents the relative frequency of early endosome–like vesicles and their size in APPL-/- flies, w*appld/Y;;, comparing to control, +/+;+/+;+/+. c) This histogram represents the relative frequency of lysosomes and their size in APPL-/- flies, w*appld/Y;;, comparing to control, +/+;+/+;+/+. (d) Histogram representing the relative frequency of lysosomes per cell slice in APPL-/- flies, w*appld/Y;;, comparing to control, +/+;+/+;+/+ fly brains. (e) Focusing on the 7-day-old time point, which showed significantly enlarged early endosome–like vacuoles in Appl-/- flies (Fig 3d), we now knock down the expression of APPL only in neurons using the yw; UAS APPL RNAi (y+); nsybGal4 and find a similar increase in the size of these early endosome–like vacuoles comparing to the control: yw;;Gal4nsyb/+. n = 3 to 5 brains per genotype and approximately 60 cells analyzed per genotype, ****p < 0.0001. (f) As in (Fig 3E), the percentage of cells with endosomes was significantly higher in yw; UAS APPL RNAi (y+); nsybGal4 comparing to control. n = 3 to 5 brains per genotype and approximately 60 cells analyzed per genotype, Fisher exact test ****p < 0.0001. (g) TEM horizontal sections of the cortical region of 7-day-old fly brains showing neuronal cell bodies (circled in blue) and the early endosome–like vacuoles marked with a red arrow. n = 3 to 5 brains per genotype and approximately 60 cells analyzed per genotype. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. SAPPL travels ubiquitously regardless the site of expression of APPL.

    (a) Confocal sections of a control fly brain throughout development until adulthood that expresses the double fluorescent tagged APPL construct specifically in the retina using the GMR Gal4 driver,; UAS-mCherry-APPL-GFP/lexAop-CD4tdGFP; GMR-Gal4/Repo-lexA. As we can see between P50 and P80, there is a significant release of SAPPL (white) beyond the site of expression reaching all areas of the brain. (b) This is a different experiment using these flies:; UAS-mCherry-APPL-GFP; GMR-Gal4. These close-ups on the photoreceptors confirm that it is only the SAPPL (white) that travels ubiquitously in the brain, although the carboxyl terminus of APPL (green), the intracellular part, remains in the cell bodies where it is being expressed. (c) This graph shows the adult stage of the flies used in (a) and highlights that the SAPPL (white) not only travels throughout the brain but also colocalizes specifically with the glial marker, Repo (green). (d and e) Rescue experiment of the loss of mushroom body (MB) β lobes (red oval) phenotype in Appld;;nsybGal4 flies with a 12.2% phenotype penetrance (n = 49). Appld; UAS mCherry Appl GFP; nsybGal4 is functional as it rescues this loss of MB β lobes with a 0% phenotype penetrance (n = 39). ***p = 0.0002 Fisher exact test. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file.

    (TIF)

    S7 Fig. APPL effects on glial endolysosomal network.

    (a, c) The number of endolysosomal and degradative/acidic compartments were not affected by the absence of APPL in glia. (b and b’) These confocal slices represent the same area of glial cells but this time from a fixed tissue of control and APPL-/- 7-day-old fly brains. (d and e) The volume of degradative/acidic compartments was also similar between both conditions. (f and g) TEM horizontal sections of the cortical region of a 7-day-old fly brain showing neuronal cell bodies and cortical glia (circled in blue) between them. We can observe that the distribution of cortical glia in the brain of APPL-/- flies is abnormal, they have an irregular shape and many vesicles, comparing to the control. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file.

    (TIF)

    S8 Fig. Glial clearance of axonal debris at 2 days post-ablation.

    Quantification of volume of GFP-covered region (um3) in the OR83b innervating glomeruli at 2 days post-ablation, in control, APPL-/- and the rescue flies: Appldw*; UAS APPL/OR83bGal4GFP; and Appldw*; UAS SAPPL/OR83bGal4GFP;. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file.

    (TIF)

    S9 Fig. Loss of APPL does not affect glial migration to the site of injury.

    (a and a’) Confocal images of a control brain; UAS GFP/+;Repo Gal4/+ before and 1 day after ablation. The endogenous expression of GFP represents the glial migration around and inside the antennal lobes after antennal ablation. (b and b’) In Appl null flies Appld;UAS GFP/+;Repo Gal4/+, we observe a similar reaction of glial cells after antennal ablation. (c) This graph presents the quantification of the volume (um3) of GFP-covered area in and around the antennal lobes before and 1 day after ablation in control compared to Appl-/- flies. Underlying data can be found in the S1 Data file.

    (TIF)

    S1 Data. Excel file with all quantification data corresponding to each graph on every figure.

    (XLSX)

    S1 Movie

    (M4V)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Kessissoglou et al_ReviewerResponse.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Kessissoglou et al_final_reviewer repsonse.docx

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES