GET THE APP

Drosophila melanogaster: A Promising System for Neurobiology Rese
Advanced Techniques in Biology & Medicine

Advanced Techniques in Biology & Medicine
Open Access

ISSN: 2379-1764

+44 1223 790975

Editorial - (2013) Volume 1, Issue 2

Drosophila melanogaster: A Promising System for Neurobiology Research

Surajit Sarkar*
Department of Genetics, University of Delhi, South Campus, New Delhi-110 021, India
*Corresponding Author: Surajit Sarkar, Department of Genetics, University of Delhi, South Campus, Benito Juarez Road Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi-110 021, India, Tel: 91-9968350077 Email:

Last century has witnessed the emergence of Drosophila melanogaster as a premier experimental model organism and its exceptional contribution in field of genetics, developmental biology, behavioural studies, stem cell research and modelling of various fatal human neurodegenerative disorders. Drosophila, as a model organism not only confers the power of genetics on the manipulator but also offers several additional advantages that make it an attractive choice for use in widespread facets of the scientific genre. The large-scale genetic mutagenesis screens have made elucidation of genes involved in human disease pathways relatively rapid and less cumbersome. Moreover, completion of the Drosophila genome sequencing paved ways for a comparative genomic analysis approach, which has elucidated that 70% of human diseases causing genes have Drosophila homologues [1-4]. In addition, conservation of important biochemical and developmental pathways between noticeably distant fruit flies and humans further encouraged the scientific community to utilize Drosophila as a model organism to study the insights of human disease development and to design novel therapeutic strategies.

Human neurodegenerative diseases represent a group of illnesses which develop due to progressive degeneration of neuronal cells in distinct parts of brain [5]. Majority of such neurodegenerative diseases exhibit a common feature of an increased number of CAG nucleotide triplet repeats in their protein coding sequence which results in abnormally long polyglutamine [poly (Q)] tract in the encoded proteins [6]. Therefore, the diseases wherein the instigating protein encompasses such abnormal numbers of repeats are known as polyglutamine or poly (Q) diseases. Increased numbers of polyglutamine repeats exhibit germ line instability and tend to increase further with successive generations [7].

Extra glutamine residues in a mutated protein could acquire toxic properties through a variety of ways such as irregular protein folding, altered sub cellular localization and abnormal interactions with other cellular proteins [8]. Extended poly (Q) containing proteins often aggregate together to form nuclear inclusion bodies (IBs) and exert a dominant effect by interacting with other key cellular proteins such as transcription factors, molecular chaperons, proteasome subunits, cytoskeletal components etc., and sequester them in nuclear inclusion bodies [9-16]. The toxic effects of insoluble protein aggregates are therefore; exaggerate by the functional depletion of other normal cellular proteins owing to their sequestration by inclusion bodies. Although the exact mechanism of aggregate formation is still enigmatic, however, it is believed to be triggered by an altered beta pleated sheet-enriched structure of polyglutamine region which arises due to its abnormal length and facilitate aberrant clumping of these proteins with each other and also with other surrounding proteins [17]. Interestingly, additive role of normal repeat-length polyglutamine peptides in accelerating aggregation, nucleation and cytotoxicity of expanded polyglutamine proteins has also been reported [18]. Progressively, increasing loads of nuclear inclusions bodies lead to neuronal dysfunction and finally degeneration. Intriguingly, although the mutated protein displays a widespread expression in all types of tissues, however, disease manifestation is restricted only to the nervous system.

Human neurodegenerative disorders could be classified as per the location of protein aggregate formation. For instance, cytosolic aggregation pattern in case of Parkinson’s disease where the α-synuclein forms insoluble fibrils called Lewy bodies; nuclear aggregation of mutated Ataxins and Huntingtin proteins in cases of Spinocerebellar ataxia type 1 (SCA1) and Huntington’s disease respectively [19-21], accumulation of neuroserpin inclusion bodies in endoplasmic reticulum (ER) in case of familial encephalopathy, and extracellular spaces in case of Alzheimer’s disease where beta amyloid and hyper phosphorylated tau proteins form major components of the senile plaques and neurofibrillary tangles respectively [6,9]. In addition to the aggregate formation, all these neurodegenerative disorders also share common features of late onset disease manifestation and progressive dynamic nature [22].

Several fatal human autosomal dominant neurodegenerative disorders such as Huntington’s disease, Spinocerebellar ataxia, Parkinson’s disease etc. have been successfully modelled and extensively studied in D. melanogaster [6,9]. The most common approach undertaken to express human disease genes in Drosophila involve two-component GAL4/UAS system [23]. This system is based on the fact that yeast GAL4 transcriptional activator binds to the Upstream Activating Sequence (UAS) enhancer element in order to drive expression of the gene present immediately downstream of UAS [23]. Tissue specific ectopic expression of any desired transgenes could be achieved by adopting the above strategy. Drosophila compound eyes have emerged as an excellent organ for modelling the human neurodegenerative diseases and to perform their in-depth cellular and molecular analysis. It provides an exceptional opportunity to study the disease progression through the entire life span of Drosophila, since a functional eye is not essential for viability. It was exquisitely demonstrated that the expression of truncated/full length protein of interest with 75 or 120 glutamines repeats result in length-dependent degeneration of photoreceptor neurons of adult Drosophila eyes which gradually depreciate with aging [24,25].

Following the initial success of human neurodegenerative disease modelling in Drosophila, attempts were made to model a verity of diseases using various mutagenesis/ transgenic approaches. Subsequently, this approach has emerged as valuable tool to decipher in-depths of human disease pathogenicity and to screen for genetic/ chemical modifiers and to design novel remedial strategies [6,9,24]. Many of such disease models are readily available in several Drosophila stock centres. Indeed, Drosophila disease models have been used comprehensively to generate significant information regarding disease pathogenicity, identification of novel genetic modifiers and chemical compounds [26-28]. A large number of genetic modifiers have already been identified in case of Huntington’s disease alone, which could be categorized in several sub-groups as per their functional characteristics [6,9].

Taken together, Drosophila provides a powerful system to study the various aspects of human neurodegenerative diseases. However, given an excellent model and the wealth of tools available to study modified phenotypes of flies, the precise mechanism that causes disease toxicity still stands as a question mark. Therefore, genetic studies should be focussed on unravelling the molecular nature of the neurotoxic species for each disease type, and to decode the key neuronal functions which are being affected by the accumulation of toxic proteins. Moreover, in view of the conserved disease pathology in Drosophila and human, there is an urgent need to develop parallel comprehensive study plans for not only to decipher the mechanistic details of the disease pathogenicity but also to perform large scale screening for the candidate molecules and genetic modifiers to appraise their potential as the suppressor of disease phenotypes. Subsequently, the identified genes/molecules could be verified for their effects and reproducibility in higher model systems. The fruit fly has, thus, proved its worth in the field of neurobiology research and will continue to contribute significantly towards novel discoveries prove to be as fruitful as its name.

Acknowledgement

Research programmes in the laboratory is supported by grants from the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Government of India, New Delhi, and Delhi University R & D fund.

References

  1. Fortini ME, Skupski MP, Boguski MS, Hariharan IK (2000) A survey of human disease gene counterparts in the Drosophila genome. J Cell Biol 150: 23-30.
  2. Rubin GM, Yandell MD, Wortman JR, Gabor Miklos GL, Nelson CR, et al. (2000) Comparative genomics of the eukaryotes. Science 287: 2204-2215.
  3. Reiter LT, Potocki L, Chien S, Gribskov M, Bier E (2001) A systematic analysis of human disease-associated gene sequences in Drosophila melanogaster. Genome Res 11: 1114-1125.
  4. Chien S, Reiter LT, Bier E, Gribskov M (2002) Homophila: human disease gene cognates in Drosophila. Nucleic Acids Res 30: 149-151.
  5. Dillin A, Cohen E (2011) Ageing and protein aggregation-mediated disorders: from invertebrates to mammals. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 366: 94-98.
  6. Sarkar S, Singh MD, Yadavand R, Chanu SI (2012) Flying with Flies: Decoding Human Neurodegenerative Disorders in Drosophila. Cell Dev Biol 1: e112.
  7. Pearson CE, Nichol Edamura K, Cleary JD (2005) Repeat instability: mechanisms of dynamic mutations. Nat Rev Genet 6: 729-742.
  8. Thompson LM (2008) Neurodegeneration: a question of balance. Nature 452: 707-708.
  9. Mallik M, Lakhotia SC (2010) Modifiers and mechanisms of multi-system polyglutamine neurodegenerative disorders: lessons from fly models. J Genet 89: 497-526.
  10. McCampbell A, Taylor JP, Taye AA, Robitschek J, Li M, et al. (2000) CREB-binding protein sequestration by expanded polyglutamine. Hum Mol Genet 9: 2197-2202.
  11. Nucifora FC Jr, Sasaki M, Peters MF, Huang H, Cooper JK, et al. (2001) Interference by huntingtin and atrophin-1 with cbp-mediated transcription leading to cellular toxicity. Science 291: 2423-2428.
  12. Dunah AW, Jeong H, Griffin A, Kim YM, Standaert DG, et al. (2002) Sp1 and TAFII130 transcriptional activity disrupted in early Huntington's disease. Science 296: 2238-2243.
  13. Cummings CJ, Mancini MA, Antalffy B, DeFranco DB, Orr HT, et al. (1998) Chaperone suppression of aggregation and altered subcellular proteasome localization imply protein misfolding in SCA1. Nat Genet 19: 148-154.
  14. Bence NF, Sampat RM, Kopito RR (2001) Impairment of the ubiquitin-proteasome system by protein aggregation. Science 292: 1552-1555.
  15. Ganusova EE, Ozolins LN, Bhagat S, Newnam GP, Wegrzyn RD, et al. (2006) Modulation of prion formation, aggregation, and toxicity by the actin cytoskeleton in yeast. Mol Cell Biol 26: 617-629.
  16. Chai Y, Shao J, Miller VM, Williams A, Paulson HL (2002) Live-cell imaging reveals divergent intracellular dynamics of polyglutamine disease proteins and supports a sequestration model of pathogenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99: 9310-9315.
  17. Bilen J, Bonini NM (2007) Genome-wide screen for modifiers of ataxin-3 neurodegeneration in Drosophila. PLoS Genet 3: 1950-1964.
  18. Slepko N, Bhattacharyya AM, Jackson GR, Steffan JS, Marsh JL, et al. (2006) Normal-repeat-length polyglutamine peptides accelerate aggregation nucleation and cytotoxicity of expanded polyglutamine proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103: 14367-14372.
  19. Paulson HL, Perez MK, Trottier Y, Trojanowski JQ, Subramony SH, et al. (1997) Intranuclear inclusions of expanded polyglutamine protein in spinocerebellar ataxia type 3. Neuron 19: 333-344.
  20. Davies SW, Turmaine M, Cozens BA, DiFiglia M, Sharp AH, et al. (1997) Formation of neuronal intranuclear inclusions underlies the neurological dysfunction in mice transgenic for the HD mutation. Cell 90: 537-548.
  21. DiFiglia M, Sapp E, Chase KO, Davies SW, Bates GP, et al. (1997) Aggregation of huntingtin in neuronal intranuclear inclusions and dystrophic neurites in brain. Science 277: 1990-1993.
  22. Chanu SI, Singh MD, Yadav R, Raj K, Sarkar S (2013) Neurodegeneration and Ageing: A Fatal Encounter. Cell Dev Biol S1: 002
  23. Brand AH, Perrimon N (1993) Targeted gene expression as a means of altering cell fates and generating dominant phenotypes. Development 118: 401-415.
  24. Warrick JM, Chan HY, Gray-Board GL, Chai Y, Paulson HL, et al. (1999) Suppression of polyglutamine-mediated neurodegeneration in Drosophila by the molecular chaperone HSP70. Nat Genet 23: 425-428.
  25. Raj K, Chanu SI, Sarkar S (2012) Decoding Complexity of Aging. Cell Dev Biol 1: e117.
  26. Ambegaokar SS, Roy B, Jackson GR (2010) Neurodegenerative models in Drosophila: polyglutamine disorders, Parkinson disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Neurobiol Dis 40: 29-39.
  27. Kazemi-Esfarjani P, Benzer S (2000) Genetic suppression of polyglutamine toxicity in Drosophila. Science 287: 1837-1840.
  28. Wu J, Shih HP, Vigont V, Hrdlicka L, Diggins L, et al. (2011) Neuronal store-operated calcium entry pathway as a novel therapeutic target for Huntington's disease treatment. Chem Biol 18: 777-793.
Citation: Sarkar S (2013) Drosophila melanogaster: A Promising System for Neurobiology Research. Adv Tech Biol Med 1:e101.

Copyright: © 2013 Sarkar S. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Top