Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Dec 15;17(12):e0272177. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272177

Imp is required for timely exit from quiescence in Drosophila type II neuroblasts

Jordan A Munroe 1, Mubarak H Syed 2,*, Chris Q Doe 1,*
Editor: Hongyan Wang3
PMCID: PMC9754222  PMID: 36520944

Abstract

Stem cells must balance proliferation and quiescence, with excess proliferation favoring tumor formation, and premature quiescence preventing proper organogenesis. Drosophila brain neuroblasts are a model for investigating neural stem cell entry and exit from quiescence. Neuroblasts begin proliferating during embryogenesis, enter quiescence prior to larval hatching, and resume proliferation 12-30h after larval hatching. Here we focus on the mechanism used to exit quiescence, focusing on "type II" neuroblasts. There are 16 type II neuroblasts in the brain, and they undergo the same cycle of embryonic proliferation, quiescence, and proliferation as do most other brain neuroblasts. We focus on type II neuroblasts due to their similar lineage as outer radial glia in primates (both have extended lineages with intermediate neural progenitors), and because of the availability of specific markers for type II neuroblasts and their progeny. Here we characterize the role of Insulin-like growth factor II mRNA-binding protein (Imp) in type II neuroblast proliferation and quiescence. Imp has previously been shown to promote proliferation in type II neuroblasts, in part by acting antagonistically to another RNA-binding protein called Syncrip (Syp). Here we show that reducing Imp levels delays exit from quiescence in type II neuroblasts, acting independently of Syp, with Syp levels remaining low in both quiescent and newly proliferating type II neuroblasts. We conclude that Imp promotes exit from quiescence, a function closely related to its known role in promoting neuroblast proliferation.

Introduction

The generation of neuronal diversity is essential for proper brain assembly and function. This is particularly true for the primate cortex, which derives from a specialized neural stem cell called outer radial glia (oRG). These stem cells are thought to have driven cortical expansion and diversity during evolution [13], but how they regulate their proliferation remains incompletely understood.

One way to help understand oRG lineages is to use model organisms that contain neural stem cells with lineages similar to oRGs, which can be used to generate testable hypotheses for investigating primate oRG lineages. In Drosophila, there is a small pool of 16 neural stem cells in the brain (eight stem cells per brain lobe), called type II neuroblasts (TIINBs), that undergo a lineage similar to primate oRGs to generate neurons [46] (Fig 1A). In primates these oRGs generate neurons of the cortex; in Drosophila the TIINBs generate neurons of the adult central complex (CX), a region important for navigation, sleep, and sensorimotor integration [7]. Like oRGs, TIINBs undergo repeated asymmetric divisions to produce a series of transit amplifying cells called Intermediate Neural Progenitor (INPs), which themselves undergo a more limited division pattern to generate a series of ganglion mother cells (GMCs) which undergo a single terminal division to produce pairs of neurons and/or glia (Fig 1A, left) [46].

Fig 1. Quantification of the Imp gradient in type II neuroblasts.

Fig 1

(A) Type II neuroblast lineage (left) [46] and outer radial glial lineage (right), adapted from [26]. (B,C) Imp protein forms a high-to-low gradient in type II neuroblasts during larval life (hours are time after larval hatching in this and following figures). Type II neuroblasts are identified by expression of pnt-gal4 UAS-GFP. Scale bar, 20 μm. (D,E) Quantification of Imp protein levels (see methods for details) for all n’s (D) or for the average levels (E). n = 5 brains, each data point is one type II neuroblast. (F) Summary.

Neuronal diversity is generated at each step in the TIINB lineage. TIINBs change gene expression over time as they generate distinct INPs, with some genes limited to early lineage expression such as insulin-like growth factor II mRNA-binding protein (Imp), Chinmo, and Lin-28; other genes are only expressed late in the lineage such as the RNA-binding protein Syncrip (Syp), Broad, and E93 [8, 9]. These genes are called candidate temporal transcription factors (TTFs) or temporal identity factors due to their potential role in specifying different neuronal fates based on their time of birth. Subsequently, each individual INP undergoes a TTF cascade to generate molecularly distinct GMCs [1012]. Thus, the TIINBs appear to be an excellent model for understanding oRG lineages in primates.

Another important aspect of TIINB lineages is how their pattern of proliferation is regulated to generate large populations of neurons without tumorigenesis. TIINBs begin their lineage in the embryonic brain, followed by a period of quiescence at the transition from embryo to first larval instar (L1), and then proliferation resumes between 12–30 hours after larval hatching [13, 14]; subsequently all times refer to hours after larval hatching. This is similar to the pattern of proliferation-quiescence-proliferation exhibited by most other embryonic larval neuroblast lineages [15, 16]. Previous work has shown that neuroblast quiescence is achieved through the accumulation of nuclear Prospero (Pros) [16, 17], and upon exit from quiescence each TIINB will generate ~60 INPs that produce hundreds of neurons and glia throughout larval development [46, 1820]. Previous work has shown that Syp recruits the mediator complex and Pros to drive the mushroom body (MB) NBs into decommissioning [21]. This terminal exit from the cell cycle is also driven by the loss of proliferation and differentiation due to low Imp expression [21, 22]. High Imp expression in early larval life promotes neuroblast proliferation via the stabilization of myc and chinmo RNAs as well as inhibition of the mediator complex [9, 21, 23]. This makes Imp an attractive candidate for studying how TIINBs initiate exit from quiescence. Here we focus on the role of Imp in regulating neuroblast proliferation in TIINB lineages, where we identify a novel role for Imp in promoting TIINB exit from quiescence.

Results

Type II neuroblasts exhibit a high-to-low Imp protein gradient overtime

Previous work has shown that Imp forms a high-to-low RNA and protein gradient in all assayed neuroblast populations [23], but at just a few timepoints. Here we used Pointed-gal4 (pnt-gal4), which is expressed in all TIINBs, crossed to UAS-GFP to identify TIINBs and co-stained for Imp at 12h intervals throughout larval stages, from 24h to 96h after larval hatching; note that all times subsequently refer to hours after larval hatching (Fig 1B). We found that Imp protein forms a gradient from high to low over the first 60h of larval life, becoming virtually undetectable from 72-96h (Fig 1B–1F). We conclude that Imp levels drop continuously in TIINBs during larval life.

ImpRNAi and Imp overexpression have opposing effects on the timing of the Imp protein gradient in type II neuroblasts

To alter the Imp protein gradient, we performed Imp RNAi in TIINBs. We used pnt-gal4 UAS-impRNAi to reduce Imp protein levels specifically in TIINB lineages. We found that Imp RNAi in TIINBs significantly reduced Imp protein levels, although an Imp protein gradient persisted, effectively shifting the Imp gradient to earlier times in development (Fig 2A and 2C–2E). In contrast, overexpression of Imp within TIINB lineages results in higher levels of Imp, without abolishing its gradient, effectively shifting the Imp gradient to later times in development (Fig 2B–2E). We conclude that Imp RNAi or Imp overexpression reduces or increases Imp protein levels, respectively, and thus they are effective tools for manipulating Imp protein levels in TIINBs.

Fig 2. Imp RNAi and Imp overexpression result in reduced or increased Imp protein levels.

Fig 2

Wild type Imp levels are shown in Fig 1. (A) Imp RNAi within type II neuroblasts (inset: pnt-gal4 UAS-GFP) leads to lower Imp levels without disrupting the protein gradient; quantified in C. Scale bar, 20 μm. (C) Imp overexpression within type II neuroblasts (inset: pnt-gal4 UAS-GFP) leads to higher Imp levels without disrupting the protein gradient; quantified in C. Scale bar, 20 μm. (C, D) Quantification of Imp protein levels in type II neuroblasts in wild type, Imp RNAi, and Imp overexpression. (C) Histogram showing all n’s; (D) graph showing average values. n = 5 brains, each data point is one type II neuroblast. (E) Summary.

pnt-gal4 UAS-GFP can be used to selectively label proliferating type II neuroblasts

Imp has been shown to promote neuroblast proliferation, and the decline in Imp levels in late larva contributes to termination of neuroblast proliferation [21, 22]. Here we asked a related question: does reduction in Imp levels in TIINB delay exit from quiescence? Proliferating versus quiescent TIINBs can be distinguished by expression of pnt-Ga4 UAS-GFP, Deadpan (Dpn) and Cyclin E (CycE): proliferative neuroblasts in interphase are GFP+Dpn+CycE+ whereas quiescent neuroblasts are GFP-Dpn+CycE- [15, 16]. We found that pnt-Gal4 UAS-GFP was only expressed by proliferating TIINBs (Fig 3A; quantified in 3C), and no quiescent neuroblasts expressed pnt-Gal4 UAS-GFP (Fig 3B; quantified in 3C). This allowed us to quantify how many of the 16 TIINBs were proliferating, and infer the remainder were quiescent (see below). We conclude that pnt-gal4 UAS-GFP can be used to identify proliferating TIINBs (Fig 3D).

Fig 3. Pointed-gal4 UAS-GFP+ TIINBs have exited quiescence and are proliferative.

Fig 3

(A) Type II neuroblasts are circled and identified by pnt-gal4 UAS-GFP (green), Dpn (magenta), and reconfirmed as proliferative by CycE (cyan) at 24h. Scale bar is 5 μm. (B) pnt-gal4 UAS-GFP (green) and CycE (cyan) are not expressed in quiescent type II neuroblasts, but Dpn (magenta) is still present. Quiescent cells (circled) are identified based on their position in the brain. Scale bar is 5 μm. (C) Histogram of cells that are Dpn+. One hundred percent of type II neuroblasts that are positive for GFP (pnt-gal4 UAS-GFP) are Dpn+ and CycE+, while 0% of cells that are GFP-, Dpn+, CycE-. n = 5 brains, each data point represents one brain. (D) Summary.

Imp is required for timely exit from quiescence in type II neuroblasts

High Imp expression early in larval development promotes neuroblast proliferation, while late, low Imp expression leads to neuroblast decommissioning [21, 22]. We wanted to know if high Imp expression early in larval life promoted TIINB exit from quiescence. To answer this question, we decreased Imp levels specifically in TIINB lineages and quantified the number of proliferating TIINBs at intervals from 24h to 96h. We used pnt-gal4 UAS-GFP to identify proliferating TIINBs, UAS-ImpRNAi (to reduce Imp levels), and Dpn to mark all neuroblasts (proliferating or quiescent). In wild type, at 24h ~8 of the 16 TIINBs are pnt-Gal4 UAS-GFP+ and thus have exited quiescence, with the remainder still in quiescence. By 36h, all 16 TIINBs have exited quiescence and are proliferative (Fig 4A and 4B). In contrast, following Imp RNAi, only ~2 TIINBs have exited quiescence at 24h, and it takes until 72h for all 16 TIINBs to exit quiescence and become proliferative (Fig 4A and 4B). We also wanted to see if Imp RNAi delayed exit from quiescence in specific TIINB lineages–e.g. the pair of lateral DL neuroblasts or dorsomedial DM neuroblasts–but each class had an indistinguishable time of exit from quiescence. We conclude that Imp promotes exit from quiescence in TIINBs.

Fig 4. Imp is required for timely exit from quiescence in type II neuroblasts.

Fig 4

(A,B) Quantification of proliferating type II neuroblast numbers (expressing pnt-gal4 UAS-GFP) over larval life in wild type and Imp RNAi. Note that there is a maximum of 16 type II neuroblasts per brain. In wild type, all neuroblasts have exited quiescence/resumed proliferating by 36h as shown by pnt-gal4 UAS-GFP expression. Imp RNAi delays exit from quiescence and the full complement of 16 proliferating type II neuroblasts is not achieved until 72h as shown by pnt-gal4 UAS-GFP expression. n = 5 brains, each data point represents one brain. (C,D) Quantification of proliferating type II neuroblast numbers (pnt-gal4 UAS-GFP+) across larval development for wild type and Imp overexpression. There is no difference in exit from quiescence between wild type and Imp overexpression genotypes. (E) Imp levels are the same in quiescent and proliferating type II neuroblasts, while Syp levels are lower in proliferating type II neuroblasts. Proliferating type II neuroblasts (circled; first and third columns) are identified by expression of pointed-gal4 UAS-GFP (green), Dpn (magenta), and lack of Asense (not shown). Quiescent type II neuroblasts do not express pointed-gal4 UAS-GFP (green) but can be identified as Dpn+ (magenta) and lack of Asense. n = 5 brains, each data point represents one brain. (F) Quantification of Imp and Syp levels in quiescent and proliferating type II neuroblasts at 24h. n = 5 brains, each data point is one type II neuroblast. (G) Summary.

To determine if higher levels of Imp could drive precocious exit from quiescence, we used pnt-gal4 to drive UAS-Imp specifically in TIINB lineages. This manipulation results in significantly more Imp protein in TIINBs (Fig 2), but overexpression of Imp does not induce precocious exit from quiescence in TIINBs (Fig 4C and 4D). We conclude that Imp is necessary but not sufficient to drive TIINB exit from quiescence.

Because Imp promotes exit from quiescence, we asked whether quiescent TIINBs have low Imp and proliferating TIINBs have high Imp levels. Interestingly, we observed comparable levels of Imp in proliferating TIINBs (Fig 4E, first column; quantified in 4F) and quiescent TIINBs (Fig 4E, second column; quantified in 4F). Because Imp and Syp can cross-repress each other [23], we assayed Syp levels in proliferating and quiescent TIINBs. As expected, we found Syp to be expressed at lower levels than Imp in both proliferating and quiescent TIINBs (Fig 4E, third and fourth columns; quantified in 4F). Previous work has shown little to no Syp expression in early TIINBs; the very low levels of Syp seen here may be due to more sensitive acquisition methods than used previously [8]. Interestingly, Syp levels in quiescent TIINBs were slightly higher than Syp levels in proliferative TIINBs (Fig 4F), showing a correlation between higher Syp levels and neuroblast quiescence. We conclude that Imp is expressed in quiescent neuroblasts and is necessary but not sufficient for timely exit from quiescence (Fig 4G).

Discussion

It is well documented in previous studies that Imp is expressed in a temporal gradient in many central brain neuroblasts [8, 9, 22, 23]. In this study we have confirmed the Imp gradient in TIINBs from 24h – 96h and have quantified Imp levels in wild type as well as after Imp RNAi knockdown or Imp overexpression. While both knockdown and overexpression show significant changes in Imp levels, the Imp gradient is maintained throughout larval life in all cases. Interestingly, at 36h Imp overexpression levels are lower than WT control levels, but only at this timepoint. This suggests a post-transcriptional ‘homeostatic’ mechanism that reduces Imp levels when they are experimentally increased. A possible explanation for this is Imp targeting by microRNA let-7. let-7 targets Imp in Drosophila male testis [24] and is present in MB NBs where it targets the temporal transcription factor Chinmo, which is also present in TIINBs [25]. Thus, let-7 may regulate Imp in TIINBs and should be explored in future work.

At 24h wild type larval brains show ~8–10 TIINBs active, and all 16 TIINBs (8 neuroblasts per brain lobe) are active and proliferating by 36h. Imp knockdown results in only ~2–4 TIINBs at 24h and all 16 TIINBs are not proliferating until 72h. This late exit from quiescence shows that Imp is necessary for timely exit from quiescence. Previous studies have shown that high levels of Imp in TIINBs are required to maintain large neuroblast size and proliferative activity through the stabilization of myc RNA [22], and overexpression of Imp in neuroblasts can extend proliferation [21, 22]. Our results add to these findings by showing that Imp is required for TIINB timely exit from quiescence. Additionally, Imp knock down in TIINBs promotes early exit from cell cycle at the end of larval life [21]. Imp overexpression in TIINBs did not change the rate at which TIINBs exit from quiescence. Thus, Imp is necessary but not sufficient for exit from quiescence. These findings suggest that a minimum level of Imp is required for the exit from quiescence. A potential mechanism for this would be a negative feedback loop driven by over-expression of Imp, which could lead to over-proliferation if not regulated. Again, a candidate factor for regulation of Imp levels as TIINBs exit quiescence is let-7.

It is interesting that Pnt-gal4 is not expressed in quiescent neuroblasts, yet is able to drive UAS-ImpRNAi at sufficient levels to maintain quiescence. Type II NBs are proliferative in the embryo, then go quiescent, and normally resume proliferation in 12-30h old larvae. We propose that pnt-ga4 is expressed in the embryo type II neuroblasts where it drives UAS-ImpRNAi which persists into larval stages due to perdurance of Gal4 and Imp RNAi, thus extending quiescence. As Imp RNAi levels begin to rise (due to lack of pnt-gal4 UAS-ImpRNAi expression) the neuroblasts resume proliferation. We see no evidence for a second wave of quiescence due to re-expression of pnt-gal4.

We quantified Imp levels in both quiescent and proliferative TIINBs to see how they varied and saw no change. We also wanted to compare Syp levels to Imp levels in quiescent and proliferative TIINBs. Syp is required for the entrance into quiescence and decommissioning [21], but it was unknown what Syp levels are in TIINBs nearing the end of quiescence early in larval life. We compared Syp levels in proliferating TIINBs to quiescent TIINBs but found that Syp levels were significantly lower than Imp levels, consistent with their cross-repressive regulation. Interestingly, Syp levels in quiescent TIINBs were higher than Syp levels in proliferative TIINBs, showing a correlation between high Syp levels and neuroblast quiescence, and consistent with earlier work showing Syp is required to elevate levels of nuclear Prospero and initiate neuroblast decommissioning [21].

Materials and methods

Fly stocks

; UAS-myr::GFP; pointed-Gal4

; UAS-myr::GFP; pointed-Gal4

;; UAS-ImpRNAi

UAS-Imp; Sco/Cyo

; UAS-myr::GFP; pointedGal4

Antibodies and immunostaining

We used the following antibodies: chicken GFP (Abcam, Eugene OR 1:1000), rabbit Imp (McDonald lab, UT Austin, 1:1000), rabbit Syp (Desplan lab, NYU, 1:1000), rat Deadpan (Dpn; Abcam, Eugene OR 1:20), rabbit Cyclin E (CycE; Santa Cruz Biotech, #C1209, 1:500), guinea pig Asense (Wang lab, Duke, 1:500), and secondary antibodies were from Thermofisher, Eugene OR used at manufacturer’s recommendation. All larvae were raised at 25°C and dissected in Hemolymph Like buffer 3.1 (HL3.1) (NaCl 70mM, KCl 5mM, CaCl2 1.5mM, MgCl2 4mM, sucrose 115mM, HEPES 5mM, NaHCO3 10mM, and Trehalose 5mM in double distilled water). Larvae were grown to specified time points, dissected, mounted on poly-D-lysine coated slips (Neuvitro, Camas, WA), and incubated for 30 minutes in 4% paraformaldehyde solution in Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS) with 1% Triton-X (1% PBS-T) at room temperature. Larval brains were washed twice with 0.5% PBS-T and incubated for 1–7 days at 4°C in a blocking solution of 1% goat serum (Jackson ImmunoResearch, West Grove, PA), 1% donkey serum (Jackson ImmunoResearch, West Grove, PA), 2% dimethyl sulfoxide in organosulfur (DMSO), and 0.003% bovine serum albumin (BSA) (Fisher BioReagents, Fair Lawn, NJ Lot #196941). Larval brains were incubated overnight at 4°C in a solution of primary antibodies in 0.5% PBS-T. Larval brains were washed for at least 60 minutes in 0.5% PBS-T at room temperature, and then incubated overnight at 4°C in a solution of secondary antibodies in 0.5% PBS-T. Brains were washed in 0.5% PBS-T for at least 60 minutes at room temperature. Brains were dehydrated by going through a series of 10-minute washes in 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90% EtOH, and two rounds of 10 minutes in 100% EtOH and two rounds of 10 minutes in xylene (MP Biomedicals, LLC, Saolon, OH, Lot# S0170), then mounted in dibutyl phthalate in xylene (DPX; Sigma-Aldrich, cat. no. 06522). Brains sat in DPX for at least 48 hours at 4°C or 72 hours (48 hours at room temperature and 24 hours at 4°C) before imaging.

Imaging and statistical analysis

All Imp data were collected with identical confocal settings; all Syp data were collected with identical confocal settings. Fluorescent images were collected on Zeiss LSM 800. TIINBs were counted using the cell counter plugin in FIJI (https://imagej.net/software/fiji/). Imp pixel density in each TIINB was calculated in FIJI. In FIJI, TIINBs were manually selected in a 2D plane at the largest cross section of the TIINB with the polygon lasso tool, and the area and Raw Integrated Density (RID) was measured. The nucleus of each TIINB went through the same analysis steps. Imp is cytoplasmic and measuring fluorescence in the nucleus functioned as background subtraction. Imp levels were normalized to cell area using the equation: (Cell BodyRID–NucleusRID) / (Cell BodyArea–NucleusArea). Two-tailed student t-tests were used to compare two sets of data. *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001; ****p<0.0001. All graphs and statistical analysis were done in Prism (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA). Note that we were unable to quantify Imp fluorescence in quiescent TIINbs in Imp RNAi flies because quiescent TIINBs cannot be distinguished from quiescent Type I neuroblasts.

Figure production

Images for figures were taken in FIJI. Figures were assembled in Adobe Illustrator (Adobe, San Jose, CA). Any changes in brightness or contrast were applied to the entire image.

Acknowledgments

We thank Noah Dillon and Gonzalo Morales Chaya for comments on the manuscript, and Adam Fries for help with developing a fluorescent analysis method.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and Figs 14.

Funding Statement

NSF CAREER award IOS-2047020 Mubarak Syed Howard Hughes Medical Institute None Chris Doe The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

References

  • 1.Hansen DV, Lui JH, Parker PR, Kriegstein AR. Neurogenic radial glia in the outer subventricular zone of human neocortex. Nature. 2010. Mar 25;464(7288):554–61. doi: 10.1038/nature08845 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Fietz SA, Kelava I, Vogt J, Wilsch-Brauninger M, Stenzel D, Fish JL, et al. OSVZ progenitors of human and ferret neocortex are epithelial-like and expand by integrin signaling. Nat Neurosci. 2010. Jun;13(6):690–9. doi: 10.1038/nn.2553 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Noctor SC, Martinez-Cerdeno V, Ivic L, Kriegstein AR. Cortical neurons arise in symmetric and asymmetric division zones and migrate through specific phases. Nat Neurosci. 2004. Feb;7(2):136–44. doi: 10.1038/nn1172 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Boone JQ, Doe CQ. Identification of Drosophila type II neuroblast lineages containing transit amplifying ganglion mother cells. Dev Neurobiol. 2008. Aug;68(9):1185–95. doi: 10.1002/dneu.20648 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bowman SK, Rolland V, Betschinger J, Kinsey KA, Emery G, Knoblich JA. The tumor suppressors Brat and Numb regulate transit-amplifying neuroblast lineages in Drosophila. Dev Cell. 2008. Apr;14(4):535–46. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2008.03.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bello BC, Izergina N, Caussinus E, Reichert H. Amplification of neural stem cell proliferation by intermediate progenitor cells in Drosophila brain development. Neural Dev. 2008;3:5. doi: 10.1186/1749-8104-3-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Turner-Evans DB, Jayaraman V. The insect central complex. Curr Biol. 2016. Jun 6;26(11):R453–7. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2016.04.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Syed MH, Mark B, Doe CQ. Steroid hormone induction of temporal gene expression in Drosophila brain neuroblasts generates neuronal and glial diversity. Elife [Internet]. 2017. Apr 10;6. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28394252 doi: 10.7554/eLife.26287 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ren Q, Yan CP, Liu Z, Sugino K, Mok K, He Y, et al. Stem cell intrinsic, Seven-up-triggered temporal factor gradients diversify intermediate neural progenitors. Curr Biol. 2017;in press. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.03.047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bayraktar OA, Doe CQ. Combinatorial temporal patterning in progenitors expands neural diversity. Nature. 2013. Jun 19;498:445–55. doi: 10.1038/nature12266 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Abdusselamoglu MD, Eroglu E, Burkard TR, Knoblich JA. The transcription factor odd-paired regulates temporal identity in transit-amplifying neural progenitors via an incoherent feed-forward loop. VijayRaghavan K, Wang H, Sen S, editors. eLife. 2019. Jul 22;8:e46566. doi: 10.7554/eLife.46566 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Tang JLY, Hakes AE, Krautz R, Suzuki T, Contreras EG, Fox PM, et al. NanoDam identifies Homeobrain (ARX) and Scarecrow (NKX2.1) as conserved temporal factors in the Drosophila central brain and visual system. Dev Cell. 2022. May 9;57(9):1193–1207.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2022.04.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Álvarez JA, Díaz-Benjumea FJ. Origin and specification of type II neuroblasts in the Drosophila embryo. Dev Camb Engl. 2018. Apr 5;145(7):dev158394. doi: 10.1242/dev.158394 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Walsh KT, Doe CQ. Drosophila embryonic type II neuroblasts: origin, temporal patterning, and contribution to the adult central complex. Dev Camb Engl. 2017. Dec 15;144(24):4552–62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chell JM, Brand AH. Nutrition-responsive glia control exit of neural stem cells from quiescence. Cell. 2010. Dec 23;143(7):1161–73. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.12.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Lai SL, Doe CQ. Transient nuclear Prospero induces neural progenitor quiescence. Elife. 2014;3. doi: 10.7554/eLife.03363 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Maurange C, Cheng L, Gould AP. Temporal transcription factors and their targets schedule the end of neural proliferation in Drosophila. Cell. 2008. May 30;133(5):891–902. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2008.03.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bayraktar OA, Boone JQ, Drummond ML, Doe CQ. Drosophila type II neuroblast lineages keep Prospero levels low to generate large clones that contribute to the adult brain central complex. Neural Dev. 2010;5:26. doi: 10.1186/1749-8104-5-26 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Yu HH, Awasaki T, Schroeder MD, Long F, Yang JS, He Y, et al. Clonal development and organization of the adult Drosophila central brain. Curr Biol. 2013. Apr 22;23(8):633–43. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.02.057 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Yang JS, Awasaki T, Yu HH, He Y, Ding P, Kao JC, et al. Diverse neuronal lineages make stereotyped contributions to the Drosophila locomotor control center, the central complex. J Comp Neurol. 2013. Aug 15;521(12):2645–62. doi: 10.1002/cne.23339 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Yang CP, Samuels TJ, Huang Y, Yang L, Ish-Horowicz D, Davis I, et al. Imp and Syp RNA-binding proteins govern decommissioning of Drosophila neural stem cells. Dev Camb Engl. 2017. Oct 1;144(19):3454–64. doi: 10.1242/dev.149500 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Samuels TJ, Järvelin AI, Ish-Horowicz D, Davis I. Imp/IGF2BP levels modulate individual neural stem cell growth and division through myc mRNA stability. eLife. 2020. Jan 14;9:e51529. doi: 10.7554/eLife.51529 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Liu Z, Yang CP, Sugino K, Fu CC, Liu LY, Yao X, et al. Opposing intrinsic temporal gradients guide neural stem cell production of varied neuronal fates. Science. 2015. Oct 16;350(6258):317–20. doi: 10.1126/science.aad1886 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Toledano H, D’Alterio C, Czech B, Levine E, Jones DL. The let-7-Imp axis regulates ageing of the Drosophila testis stem-cell niche. Nature. 2012. May 23;485(7400):605–10. doi: 10.1038/nature11061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Wu YC, Chen CH, Mercer A, Sokol NS. Let-7-complex microRNAs regulate the temporal identity of Drosophila mushroom body neurons via chinmo. Dev Cell. 2012. Jul 17;23(1):202–9. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2012.05.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Liu J, Liu W, Yang L, Wu Q, Zhang H, Fang A, et al. The Primate-Specific Gene TMEM14B Marks Outer Radial Glia Cells and Promotes Cortical Expansion and Folding. Cell Stem Cell. 2017. Nov 2;21(5):635–649.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2017.08.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Hongyan Wang

23 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-19798Imp is required for timely exit from quiescence in Drosophila type II neuroblastsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Doe,

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 30 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

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

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

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

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hongyan Wang, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.  When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:   "Funder Grant reference number AuthorNIH T32HD07348 Jordan MunroeNSF CAREER award IOS-2047020 Mubarak SyedHoward Hughes Medical Institute None Chris Doe" We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:  "CD - HHMI InvestigatorJM - NIH Developmental Biology Training grant" Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:   "NO authors have competing interests" Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now  This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized. Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access. We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter. 6. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.7. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

********** 

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

********** 

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

********** 

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

********** 

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Balancing the proliferation and quiescence is essential for the normal functions of stem cells. In this manuscript, Munroe et al investigated the role of Insulin-like growth factor II mRNA- binding protein (Imp) in proliferation and quiescence of Drosophila type II neuroblasts (TIINBs). They found Imp displayed a high-to-low temporal gradient in TIINBs and the Imp gradient can be effectively shifted to different times in development by ImpRNAi and Imp overexpression. They further suggested that pnt-Gal4 UAS-GFP could be used as a marker to identify proliferating type II neuroblasts. By quantifying the number of proliferating TIINBs, they found that Imp knockdown delayed exit from quiescence, whereas overexpression of Imp did not induce precocious exit from quiescence in TIINBs. Moreover, comparable levels of Imp were observed in quiescent and proliferating TIINBs while its antagonist protein Syp expressed at a significantly lower level.

Overall, this paper suggests a necessary but not sufficient role of Imp in mediating timely exit from quiescence in TIINBs. Experiments were carefully performed, the data presented are of high quality, and interpretations of the results are comparatively justified. I only have several minor suggestions for the authors to consider:

1. For all the Imp/syp immunostaining data, the numbers of TIINBs for statistical analysis were not provided in Methods or Figure legends.

2. Line 133,“Syp levels in quiescent TIINBs were slightly higher than Syp levels in proliferative TIINBs (Figure 4F), showing a correlation between higher Syp levels and neuroblast quiescence.”Whereas the figure legend of Fig4E claimed that “Imp and Syp levels are the same in quiescent and proliferating type II neuroblasts.”Based on the data, the legend needs to be fixed.

Reviewer #2: Munroe et al. report a role for Imp in exit from quiescence of type II neuroblasts in Drosophila. They examine and quantify Imp protein levels in Type II neuroblasts at different larval stages, something that had been missing (although much needed) in the field. They also test whether Imp regulates exit from quiescence based on high to low Imp expression and based on the known role of Imp in regulating neuroblast" decommissioning". While the data presented in this manuscript is solid and well presented, this reviewer has one point that may need to be further addressed:

Authors report that Pnt-Gal4 is only active in proliferating type II neuroblasts. By this logic, using Pnt-Gal4 should only knockdown Imp in proliferating neuroblasts. Is knockdown of Imp delaying the exit from quiescence or suppressing proliferation? or both? Is there data to suggest that Pnt-GAL4/UAS transgene expression perdures in quiescent type II neuroblasts?

Typo:

Line 66, It is the non-mushroom body neuroblasts that require low Notch signaling to be driven out of quiescence. MB neuroblasts do not enter and exit quiescence. Authors should also check the reference for this statement.

Reviewer #3: 

Overall evaluation and significance

Munroe et al., investigate the role of Imp, an important RNA-binding protein (RBP) involved in Drosophila neurogenesis, in neuroblast (NB) quiescence exit. Re-entry of NBs into cell cycle has been previously shown to be regulated by nutrition-dependent glial niche and the Notch signalling pathway, while the role of Imp in this process has not been explored. Here, the authors characterised the kinetics of Type II NB quiescence exit upon modulation of the Imp expression gradient. They observed that reducing the level of Imp, which accelerates Imp protein depletion in Type II NBs, delays exit from quiescence, while the overexpression of Imp did not lead to a noticeable effect. Taken together, the authors suggest a previously unknown role of Imp in promoting re-entry of quiescent NBs into cell cycle. The manuscript is high quality and of value and interest. It should be accepted for publication, once the authors have addressed our concerns, either by revising the text or if they would prefer, providing additional data.

Major comments

The authors first present a detailed comparison of Imp expression kinetics in Imp RNAi and Imp OE experiments. The study then aims to demonstrate that modulating Imp affects Type II NB quiescence exit. However, their choice of PntP1-GAL4 driver needs to be explained / justified, in light of the main conclusion of this work.

1. Throughout the manuscript, the authors utilise PntP1-GAL4 line to identify proliferating NBs and to drive UAS transgenes. However, in Figure 3, the authors describe that PntP1-GAL4 only becomes active in proliferating NBs and not in quiescent cells. Therefore, the Imp RNAi should be inactive in quiescent NBs, which does not support the authors' conclusion that reduced level of Imp leads to delayed quiescence exit. The authors should include more information that justifies their choice of PntP1-GAL4 over more conventionally used wor-GAL4, ase-GAL80.

2. Although the knock down of Imp in Figure 2C-D seems convincing on the population-wide scale, a key piece of data is missing that GFP-negative quiescent NBs are under PntP1-GAL4/Imp-RNAi control (Figure 4A). Can the authors provide an explanation or data that Imp levels are reduced in quiescent NBs in Imp RNAi conditions compared to the wild-type at 24-48 ALH, and also discuss why Imp RNAi is active despite the lack of GFP expression? Is it possible that other cell types (e.g. glia) might be affected by the driver?

3. Are all PntP1>GFP-positive NBs CycE-positive? The population of GFP-positive but CycE-negative cells may suggest that quiescence exit is a multi-step process where Imp plays a role in the initial step.

Minor comments

1. Figure 2A-B: Representative wild-type series of Type II NB images should be provided to match the quantification shown in Figure 2C.

2. Line 213: Please provide replicate information in all figure legends. In particular, what does the symbol represent in Figure 4A and 4C? It should be clear how many brains were quantified per biological replicate.

3. Figure 4E-F: Syed et al., 2017 (doi.org/10.7554/eLife.26287) have shown lack of Syp expression in Type II NBs at stages before 48 ALH and upon disruption of ecysone signalling. Can the authors explain the discrepancy?

4. Line 197: Immunofluorecence quantification method should be explained in more detail. Was the Raw Integrated Density calculated over 3D volume of the NBs or on select 2D planes? Why were nuclear areas and intensities removed from the analysis? Were any background subtraction method used?

5. In Figure 2C, how were the fluorescence intensity signals normalised between biological replicates and different genotypes?

6. Line 168: The role of Syp in entering the embryo-to-larval neuroblast quiescence is not yet established. The text should be revised. Perhaps the authors meant 'decomissioning and cell cycle exit'?

********** 

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

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

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 15;17(12):e0272177. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272177.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


26 Aug 2022

Reviewer #1: Balancing the proliferation and quiescence is essential for the normal functions of stem cells. In this manuscript, Munroe et al investigated the role of Insulin-like growth factor II mRNA- binding protein (Imp) in proliferation and quiescence of Drosophila type II neuroblasts (TIINBs). They found Imp displayed a high-to-low temporal gradient in TIINBs and the Imp gradient can be effectively shifted to different times in development by ImpRNAi and Imp overexpression. They further suggested that pnt-Gal4 UAS-GFP could be used as a marker to identify proliferating type II neuroblasts. By quantifying the number of proliferating TIINBs, they found that Imp knockdown delayed exit from quiescence, whereas overexpression of Imp did not induce precocious exit from quiescence in TIINBs. Moreover, comparable levels of Imp were observed in quiescent and proliferating TIINBs while its antagonist protein Syp expressed at a significantly lower level. Overall, this paper suggests a necessary but not sufficient role of Imp in mediating timely exit from quiescence in TIINBs. Experiments were carefully performed, the data presented are of high quality, and interpretations of the results are comparatively justified. I only have several minor suggestions for the authors to consider:

1. For all the Imp/syp immunostaining data, the numbers of TIINBs for statistical analysis were not provided in Methods or Figure legends.

Thank you for the observation, in response we have added quantification of brain number and neuroblast number to the relevant figure legends.

2. Line 133,“Syp levels in quiescent TIINBs were slightly higher than Syp levels in proliferative TIINBs (Figure 4F), showing a correlation between higher Syp levels and neuroblast quiescence.” Whereas the figure legend of Fig4E claimed that “Imp and Syp levels are the same in quiescent and proliferating type II neuroblasts. “Based on the data, the legend needs to be fixed.

We agree, and have made the following change in the figure legend of Fig4E: "... Syp levels are lower in proliferating type II neuroblasts."

Reviewer #2: Munroe et al. report a role for Imp in exit from quiescence of type II neuroblasts in Drosophila. They examine and quantify Imp protein levels in Type II neuroblasts at different larval stages, something that had been missing (although much needed) in the field. They also test whether Imp regulates exit from quiescence based on high to low Imp expression and based on the known role of Imp in regulating neuroblast" decommissioning". While the data presented in this manuscript is solid and well presented, this reviewer has one point that may need to be further addressed:

Authors report that Pnt-Gal4 is only active in proliferating type II neuroblasts. By this logic, using Pnt-Gal4 should only knockdown Imp in proliferating neuroblasts. Is knockdown of Imp delaying the exit from quiescence or suppressing proliferation? or both? Is there data to suggest that Pnt-GAL4/UAS transgene expression perdures in quiescent type II neuroblasts?

Great point! We've added the following text to the Discussion. "It is interesting that Pnt-gal4 is not expressed in quiescent neuroblasts, yet is able to drive UAS-ImpRNAi at sufficient levels to maintain quiescence. Type II NBs are proliferative in the embryo, then go quiescent, and normally resume proliferation in 12-30h old larvae. We propose that Pnt-ga4 is expressed in the embryo type II neuroblasts where it drives UAS-ImpRNAi which persists into larval stages due to perdurance of Gal4 and ImpRNAi, thus extending quiescence. As ImpRNAi levels begin to rise (due to lack of Pnt-Gal4 UAS-ImpRNAi expression) the neuroblasts resume proliferation. We see no evidence for a second wave of quiescence due to re-expression of Pnt-gal4."

Typo: Line 66, It is the non-mushroom body neuroblasts that require low Notch signaling to be driven out of quiescence. MB neuroblasts do not enter and exit quiescence. Authors should also check the reference for this statement.

Thanks for catching this error; we have changed the text to say "previous work has shown that Syp recruits the mediator complex and Pros to drive the MB NBs into decommissioning (21)."

Reviewer #3:

Overall evaluation and significance

Munroe et al., investigate the role of Imp, an important RNA-binding protein (RBP) involved in Drosophila neurogenesis, in neuroblast (NB) quiescence exit. Re-entry of NBs into cell cycle has been previously shown to be regulated by nutrition-dependent glial niche and the Notch signaling pathway, while the role of Imp in this process has not been explored. Here, the authors characterised the kinetics of Type II NB quiescence exit upon modulation of the Imp expression gradient. They observed that reducing the level of Imp, which accelerates Imp protein depletion in Type II NBs, delays exit from quiescence, while the overexpression of Imp did not lead to a noticeable effect. Taken together, the authors suggest a previously unknown role of Imp in promoting re-entry of quiescent NBs into cell cycle. The manuscript is high quality and of value and interest. It should be accepted for publication, once the authors have addressed our concerns, either by revising the text or if they would prefer, providing additional data.

Major comments

The authors first present a detailed comparison of Imp expression kinetics in Imp RNAi and Imp OE experiments. The study then aims to demonstrate that modulating Imp affects Type II NB quiescence exit. However, their choice of PntP1-GAL4 driver needs to be explained / justified, in light of the main conclusion of this work.

1. Throughout the manuscript, the authors utilise PntP1-GAL4 line to identify proliferating NBs and to drive UAS transgenes. However, in Figure 3, the authors describe that PntP1-GAL4 only becomes active in proliferating NBs and not in quiescent cells. Therefore, the Imp RNAi should be inactive in quiescent NBs, which does not support the authors' conclusion that reduced level of Imp leads to delayed quiescence exit. The authors should include more information that justifies their choice of PntP1-GAL4 over more conventionally used wor-GAL4, ase-GAL80.

Great point! We've added the following text to the Discussion. "It is interesting that Pnt-gal4 is not expressed in quiescent neuroblasts, yet is able to drive UAS-ImpRNAi to maintain quiescence. Type II NBs are proliferative in the embryo, then go quiescent, and normally resume proliferation in 12-30h old larvae. We propose that Pnt-ga4 is expressed in the embryo type II neuroblasts where it drives UAS-ImpRNAi which persists into larval stages due to perdurance of ImpRNAi, thus extending quiescence. As ImpRNAi levels begin to rise (due to lack of Pnt-Gal4 UAS-ImpRNAi expression) the neuroblasts resume proliferation. We see no evidence for a second wave of quiescence due to re-expression of Pnt-gal4."

2. Although the knock down of Imp in Figure 2C-D seems convincing on the population-wide scale, a key piece of data is missing that GFP-negative quiescent NBs are under PntP1-GAL4/Imp-RNAi control (Figure 4A). Can the authors provide an explanation or data that Imp levels are reduced in quiescent NBs in Imp RNAi conditions compared to the wild-type at 24-48 ALH, and also discuss why Imp RNAi is active despite the lack of GFP expression? Is it possible that other cell types (e.g. glia) might be affected by the driver?

Thank you for the observation and we can see that this point was not made clear in the text. We have added the following text to the methods: "We were unable to quantify Imp fluorescence in quiescent TIINBs in ImpRNAi flies because quiescent TIINBs cannot be distinguished from quiescent Type I neuroblasts."

3. Are all PntP1>GFP-positive NBs CycE-positive? The population of GFP-positive but CycE-negative cells may suggest that quiescence exit is a multi-step process where Imp plays a role in the initial step.

We are sorry that this was not made clear, the following change has been made to the text on page 4. "…proliferative neuroblasts in interphase are GFP+Dpn+CycE+ whereas quiescent neuroblasts are GFP-Dpn+CycE- (15,16)."

Minor comments

1. Figure 2A-B: Representative wild-type series of Type II NB images should be provided to match the quantification shown in Figure 2C.

We show the requested wild type stains in Figure 1B-C.

2. Line 213: Please provide replicate information in all figure legends. In particular, what does the symbol represent in Figure 4A and 4C? It should be clear how many brains were quantified per biological replicate.

We changed the symbol “#” to “Number” – i.e. the Y axis shows the number of proliferating type II neuroblasts (of which there is a maximum number of 16 per brain). Replicate information has been added to all figure legends.

3. Figure 4E-F: Syed et al., 2017 (doi.org/10.7554/eLife.26287) have shown lack of Syp expression in Type II NBs at stages before 48 ALH and upon disruption of ecysone signaling. Can the authors explain the discrepancy?

Thank you for this observation. We have made the following change to the results section: “As expected, we found Syp to be expressed at lower levels than Imp in both proliferating and quiescent TIINBs (Figure 4E, third and fourth columns; quantified in 4F). Previous work has shown little to no Syp expression in early TIINBs; the very low levels of Syp seen here may be due to more sensitive acquisition methods than used previously (Syed et al., 2017)”.

4. Line 197: Immunofluorescence quantification method should be explained in more detail. Was the Raw Integrated Density calculated over 3D volume of the NBs or on select 2D planes? Why were nuclear areas and intensities removed from the analysis? Were any background subtraction method used?

We agree, and have made the following changes to the methods: "In FIJI, TIINBs were manually selected in a 2D plane at the largest cross section of the TIINB with the polygon lasso tool, and the area and Raw Integrated Density (RID) was measured. Imp is cytoplasmic and measuring fluorescence in the nucleus functioned as background subtraction."

5. In Figure 2C, how were the fluorescence intensity signals normalised between biological replicates and different genotypes?

Thank you for this comment. We have made this addition in the methods: "Imp is cytoplasmic and measuring fluorescence in the nucleus functioned as background subtraction."

6. Line 168: The role of Syp in entering the embryo-to-larval neuroblast quiescence is not yet established. The text should be revised. Perhaps the authors meant 'decomissioning and cell cycle exit'?

Thanks for catching this error. We have changed the relevant sentence from the discussion. "Interestingly, Syp levels in quiescent TIINBs were higher than Syp levels in proliferative TIINBs, showing a correlation between high Syp levels and neuroblast quiescence, and consistent with earlier work showing Syp is required to elevate levels of nuclear Prospero and initiate decommissioning (21)."

Attachment

Submitted filename: _reviewer response.docx

Decision Letter 1

Hongyan Wang

7 Sep 2022

Imp is required for timely exit from quiescence in Drosophila type II neuroblasts

PONE-D-22-19798R1

Dear Dr. Doe,

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

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

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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

Kind regards,

Hongyan Wang, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Acceptance letter

Hongyan Wang

9 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-19798R1

Imp is required for timely exit from quiescence in Drosophila type II neuroblasts

Dear Dr. Doe:

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Hongyan Wang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: _reviewer response.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and Figs 14.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES