https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7003-3890
ABSTRACT
Cell Competition emerged in Drosophila as an unexpected phenomenon, when confronted clones of fit vs unfit cells genetically induced. During the last decade, it has been shown that this mechanism is physiologically active in Drosophila and higher organisms. In Drosophila, Flower (Fwe) eliminates unfit cells during development, regeneration and disease states. Furthermore, studies suggest that Fwe signaling is required to eliminate accumulated unfit cells during adulthood extending Drosophila lifespan. Indeed, ahuizotl (azot) mutants accumulate unfit cells during adulthood and after physical insults in the brain and other epithelial tissues, showing a decrease in organismal lifespan. On the contrary, flies carrying three functional copies of the gene, unfit cell culling seems to be more efficient and show an increase in lifespan. During aging, Azot is required for the elimination of unfit cells, however, the specific organs modulating organismal lifespan by Azot remain unknown. Here we found a potential connection between gut-specific Azot expression and lifespan which may uncover a more widespread organ-specific mechanism modulating organismal survival.
Main text
Cell Competition field emerged in Drosophila as an unexpected and intriguing phenomenon, when confronted clones of fit vs unfit cells genetically induced, in mosaic animals [Citation1]. Surprisingly, unfit cells were eliminated from the tissue undergoing apoptosis, when they were present the fitter counterparts [Citation1,Citation2]. During the last decade it has been described that indeed, this mechanism is physiologically active in Drosophila and higher organisms [Citation3–6]. Different studies show that organisms utilize Cell Competition in their entire lifetime by selecting the fittest cells, maintaining tissue and organ health [Citation3–14]. Furthermore, we have also learnt about Cell Competition malfunctioning: tumoral cells hijack Cell Competition machineries to overcome host tissues [Citation4,Citation15–18].
Flower (Fwe) proteins have been described as regulators of competitive cell interactions in Drosophila and higher organisms [Citation4–6,Citation19–22]. The fwe gene in Drosophila encodes for three different Fwe isoforms; Fwe-Ubi, Fwe-LoseA and Fwe-LoseB [Citation6,Citation22,Citation23]. Initially, Fwe role in Cell Competition was found by using competitive settings which were genetically induced in the developing Drosophila wing [Citation21]. Further experiments showed then a primary physiological role for Flower in the developing retina, mediating the elimination of unwanted postmitotic neurons [Citation6]. Fwe-dependent competition eliminates unfit cells by using tissue-specific fingerprints, in which different Fwe isoforms are required for unfit cell recognition and elimination [Citation6,Citation21].
Fwe proteins are multiple pass transmembrane proteins in which the C-terminus is extracellular [Citation6,Citation21,Citation22]. Moreover, the Fwe proteins are also deployed in the tissue during wing development, coordinating growth and death phenomena [Citation22,Citation24]. The Decapentaplegic (Dpp) morphogen regulates organ growth in the Drosophila wing [Citation25–31]. Dpp forms gradients in the target tissues and the ranges of these gradients keep proportional during organ growth [Citation25,Citation26] (i.e. they scale). In order to preserve this proportionality, there is a machinery which tunes the “size” of the Dpp gradient while the tissue grows keeping gradient and tissue proportional [Citation25,Citation26]. The scaling machinery consists of two proteins, Dally and Pentagone (Pent) and scaling homeostasis is ensured by molecular associations of these scaling factors with Fwe. In such a way that Dally/Pent scaling activity is tuned down by Fwe, while Fwe associated with the scaling partners inhibits its killing function [Citation22,Citation24,Citation26,Citation32,Citation33]. Consistently, deleting Fwe extracellular sequences required for the association with the scaling partners is sufficient to trigger Fwe killing role [Citation22,Citation24].
In Drosophila, Fwe eliminates unfit cells during development, regeneration and disease states during neurodegeneration [Citation4–6,Citation34,Citation35]. Furthermore, studies suggest that Fwe signaling is required to eliminate unfit cells during adulthood extending Drosophila lifespan [Citation5,Citation34]. Drosophila mutants (i.e. ahuizotl) abrogating Fwe signal transduction pathway show developmental defects and compromised survival [Citation5,Citation34]. Ahuizotl, an EF-hand calcium binding protein has been characterized as a marker of unfit cells in Competition assays as well as in physiological scenarios [Citation4,Citation5,Citation34]. Indeed, ahuizotl mutant flies accumulate unfit cells during adulthood, after physical insults and neurodegenerative setups in the brain and other epithelial tissues, showing a decrease in organismal lifespan [Citation4,Citation5,Citation34]. On the contrary, flies carrying three functional copies of the gene, unfit cell culling seems to be more efficient and these flies show an increase in lifespan [Citation5,Citation34]. We named the gene ahuizotl after a mythological creature guardian of the lakes, said to protect the species from fishermen. ahuizotl (azot) name comes from the Aztec language Nahuatl and it means “spiny aquatic thing” [Citation5,Citation36,Citation37] ().
Figure 1. Ahuizotl creature and survival analysis after ubiquitous overexpression of Azot.
During aging, Azot is required for the elimination of unfit cells, as previously described by using azot mutant flies [Citation4,Citation5]. However, specific organs modulating organismal lifespan by Azot remain unknown [Citation4,Citation5]. Is organ-specific expression of Azot sufficient to regulate organismal lifespan? To explore this question and eliminate genetic background effects, we used mifepristone (formerly known as RU-486) as inducing agent to activate azot transcription, taking advantage of the conditional RU486-dependent Gal4 system [Citation38–41] (GeneSwitch (GS)). First, in order to overexpress Azot at the organismal level, we used UASazot driven by the ubiquitous inducible driver act-GS-Gal4. Under these conditions, RU486-induced flies ubiquitously overexpressing Azot (ON act-GS-Gal4 > UASazot) show an increase in survival compared to control RU486-uninduced siblings (OFF act-GS-Gal4 > UASazot) ( ). These data are consistent with previous studies at the organismal level, where by increasing the number of functional copies of azot, flies eliminate more efficiently unfit cells and show an increase in lifespan compared to control ones [Citation4,Citation5].
Table 1. Alleles.
Table 2. Detailed genotypes.
To test possible lifespan phenotypes overexpressing Azot in organ-specific manner, we focus on the Drosophila gut. In recent years, the link between intestinal homeostasis and organismal lifespan has been described by a great number of studies in the field, supporting that the intestine is a key organ regulating organismal lifespan [Citation42–47]. We therefore targeted the gut enteroblast/enterocyte (EB/EC) cells by using the RU486-inducible 5966-GS-Gal4 driver [Citation44,Citation48]. Interestingly, RU486-induced flies targeting Azot overexpression into the EB/EC cells (ON 5966-GS-Gal4 > UASazot) show increased survival compared to the RU486-uninduced control siblings (OFF 5966-GS-Gal4 > UASazot) ( ). On the contrary, RU486-induced flies downregulating Azot in the EB/EC cells (ON 5966-GS-Gal4 > azotRNAi) show a decrease in survival compared to the RU486-uninduced control flies (OFF 5966-GS-Gal4 > azotRNAi) ( ).
Figure 2. Survival analysis after organ-specific overexpression/downregulation of Azot.
Thus, these data suggest that Azot expression in organ-specific manner (i.e. in the gut) is sufficient to modulate Drosophila lifespan ( ). In the case of the Drosophila gut, we might speculate that these data could underlie organ-specific effects maintaining functionality longer by enhancing the digestive/barrier function [Citation40,Citation42–44,Citation49–52], probably improving tissue health by boosting the elimination of unfit cells [Citation4,Citation5]. Alternatively and/or synergistically, these data might reflect the central role of the Drosophila gut regulating systemic homeostasis and organ-to-organ communication [Citation40,Citation42–44,Citation46,Citation47,Citation49–51,Citation53–55]. Here we found a potential connection between gut-specific Azot expression and lifespan which may uncover a more widespread organ-specific mechanism modulating organismal survival.
Figure 3. Schematic model comparing survival when modulating Azot expression in organ-specific manner in the EB/EC cells.
Material and methods
Lifespan analyses
Drosophila lines and crosses were kept on standard cornmeal fly food vials. Cohorts of 100 females flies (1–3 days old) per genotype were collected and kept at 29°C under light-dark cycle. Deaths were scored at regular intervals (three times per week) and surviving flies were transferred to new vials. GS system was used to minimize background effects when comparing different Drosophila genotypes [Citation38–40]. For UAS induction (RU486-induced), the stock solution of RU486 (Mifepristone, Sigma, prepared in 80% ethanol) was diluted in Mili-Q water to a final concentration of 100 μM. Then, 300 μL of the diluted solution was added to the surface of the fly food and allowed to dry at room temperature for 48 h. Similarly control flies (RU486-uninduced) received vehicle control [Citation34,Citation56].
Statistical analyses
To carry out statistical analyses and quantify lifespan values we used the application OASIS 2. The log-rank test was used to analyze differences between survival curves and determine P values [Citation57].
Acknowledgments
We thank Eduardo Moreno and Heinrich Jasper for sharing reagents and Drosophila lines. M. Merino was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) (SystemsX.ch, Transition Postdoc Fellowship) and Novartis Foundation Fellowships.
We apologize to all colleagues whose work has not been unintentionally cited.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
- Morata G, Ripoll P. Minutes: mutants of drosophila autonomously affecting cell division rate. Dev Biol. 1975;42:211–6.
- Morata G. Cell competition: a historical perspective. Dev Biol. 2021;476:33–40.
- Claveria C, Giovinazzo G, Sierra R, et al. Myc-driven endogenous cell competition in the early mammalian embryo. Nature. 2013;500(7460):39–44.
- Merino MM, Levayer R, Moreno E. Survival of the fittest: essential roles of cell competition in development, aging, and cancer. Trends Cell Biol. 2016;26:776–788.
- Merino MM, et al. Elimination of unfit cells maintains tissue health and prolongs lifespan. Cell. 2015;160:461–476.
- Merino MM, Rhiner C, Portela M, et al. “Fitness fingerprints” mediate physiological culling of unwanted neurons in Drosophila. Curr Biol. 2013;23:1300–1309.
- Lima A, et al. Cell competition acts as a purifying selection to eliminate cells with mitochondrial defects during early mouse development. Nat Metab. 2021;3:1091–1108.
- Langton PF, Baumgartner ME, Logeay R, et al. Xrp1 and Irbp18 trigger a feed-forward loop of proteotoxic stress to induce the loser status. PLoS Genet. 2021;17:e1009946.
- Baumgartner ME, Dinan MP, Langton PF, et al. Proteotoxic stress is a driver of the loser status and cell competition. Nat Cell Biol. 2021;23:136–146.
- Vincent JP, Fletcher AG, Baena-Lopez LA. Mechanisms and mechanics of cell competition in epithelia. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2013;14:581–591.
- Nagata R, Igaki T. Cell competition: emerging mechanisms to eliminate neighbors. Dev Growth Differ. 2018;60:522–530.
- Baillon L, Basler K. Reflections on cell competition. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2014;32:137–144.
- Baker NE. Emerging mechanisms of cell competition. Nat Rev Genet. 2020;21:683–697.
- Maruyama T, Fujita Y. Cell competition in vertebrates - a key machinery for tissue homeostasis. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2022;72:15–21.
- Menendez J, Perez-Garijo A, Calleja M, et al. A tumor-suppressing mechanism in Drosophila involving cell competition and the Hippo pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:14651–14656.
- Chen CL, Schroeder MC, Kango-Singh M, et al. Tumor suppression by cell competition through regulation of the Hippo pathway. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012;109:484–489.
- Madan E, et al. Flower isoforms promote competitive growth in cancer. Nature. 2019;572:260–264.
- Levayer R, Hauert B, Moreno E. Cell mixing induced by myc is required for competitive tissue invasion and destruction. Nature. 2015;524:476–480.
- Petrova E, Lopez-Gay JM, Rhiner C, et al. Flower-deficient mice have reduced susceptibility to skin papilloma formation. Dis Model Mech. 2012;5:553–561.
- Portela M, Casas-Tinto S, Rhiner C, et al. Drosophila SPARC is a self-protective signal expressed by loser cells during cell competition. Dev Cell. 2010;19:562–573.
- Rhiner C, López-Gay JM, Soldini D, et al. Flower forms an extracellular code that reveals the fitness of a cell to its neighbors in Drosophila. Dev Cell. 2010;18(6):985–998.
- Merino MM, Seum C, Dubois M, et al. A role for Flower and cell death in controlling morphogen gradient scaling. Nat Cell Biol. 2022;24:424–433.
- Yao CK, Lin YQ, Ly CV, et al. A synaptic vesicle-associated Ca2+ channel promotes endocytosis and couples exocytosis to endocytosis. Cell. 2009;138:947–960.
- M MM, Gonzalez-Gaitan M. To fit or not to fit: death decisions from morphogen fields. Trends Cell Biol. 2022. DOI:10.1016/j.tcb.2022.09.003
- Wartlick O, Mumcu P, Kicheva A, et al. Dynamics of Dpp Signaling and Proliferation Control. Science. 2011;331(6021):1154–1159.
- Hamaratoglu F, de Lachapelle AM, Pyrowolakis G, et al. Dpp signaling activity requires pentagone to scale with tissue size in the growing drosophila wing imaginal disc. PLoS Biol. 2011;9(10):e1001182.
- Stapornwongkul KS, de Gennes M, Cocconi L, et al. Patterning and growth control in vivo by an engineered GFP gradient. Science. 2020;370(6514):321–327.
- Martin FA, Perez-Garijo A, Moreno E, et al. The brinker gradient controls wing growth in Drosophila. Development. 2004;131(20):4921–4930.
- Nellen D, Burke R, Struhl G, et al. Direct and long-range action of a DPP morphogen gradient. Cell. 1996;85(3):357–368.
- Zecca M, Struhl G. A unified mechanism for the control of Drosophila wing growth by the morphogens decapentaplegic and wingless. PLoS Biol. 2021;19(3):e3001111.
- Matsuda S, et al. Asymmetric requirement of Dpp/BMP morphogen dispersal in the Drosophila wing disc. Nat Commun. 2021;12:6435.
- Vuilleumier R, et al. Control of Dpp morphogen signalling by a secreted feedback regulator. Nat Cell Biol. 2010;12:611–617.
- Akiyama T, et al. Dally regulates Dpp morphogen gradient formation by stabilizing Dpp on the cell surface. Dev Biol. 2008;313:408–419.
- Coelho DS, et al. Culling less fit neurons protects against amyloid-beta-induced brain damage and cognitive and motor decline. Cell Rep. 2018;25:3661–3673 e3663.
- Moreno E, Fernandez-Marrero Y, Meyer P, et al. Brain regeneration in Drosophila involves comparison of neuronal fitness. Curr Biol. 2015;25:955–963.
- Nuttall Z. A Note on Ancient Mexican Folk-Lore. J Am Folk. 1895;8:117–129.
- Ahuizotl ME (2022).
- Osterwalder T, Yoon KS, White BH, et al. A conditional tissue-specific transgene expression system using inducible GAL4. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98:12596–12601.
- Roman G, Endo K, Zong L, et al. P[Switch], a system for spatial and temporal control of gene expression in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98:12602–12607.
- Akagi K, et al. Dietary restriction improves intestinal cellular fitness to enhance gut barrier function and lifespan in D. melanogaster. PLoS Genet. 2018;14:e1007777.
- Robles-Murguia M, Hunt LC, Finkelstein D, et al. Tissue-specific alteration of gene expression and function by RU486 and the GeneSwitch system. NPJ Aging Mech Dis. 2019;5:6.
- Fan X, Gaur U, Yang M. Intestinal Homeostasis and longevity: Drosophila gut feeling. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2018;1086:157–168.
- Gervais L, Bardin AJ. Tissue homeostasis and aging: new insight from the fly intestine. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2017;48:97–105.
- Guo L, Karpac J, Tran SL, et al. PGRP-SC2 promotes gut immune homeostasis to limit commensal dysbiosis and extend lifespan. Cell. 2014;156:109–122.
- Wang L, Karpac J, Jasper H. Promoting longevity by maintaining metabolic and proliferative homeostasis. J Exp Biol. 2014;217:109–118.
- Fontana L, Partridge L. Promoting health and longevity through diet: from model organisms to humans. Cell. 2015;161:106–118.
- Rera M, Azizi MJ, Walker DW. Organ-specific mediation of lifespan extension: more than a gut feeling? Ageing Res Rev. 2013;12:436–444.
- Mathur D, Bost A, Driver I, et al. A transient niche regulates the specification of Drosophila intestinal stem cells. Science. 2010;327:210–213.
- Mayer EA. Gut feelings: the emerging biology of gut-brain communication. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2011;12:453–466.
- Medina A, Bellec K, Polcownuk S, et al. Investigating local and systemic intestinal signalling in health and disease with Drosophila. Dis Model Mech. 2022;15. DOI:10.1242/dmm.049332.
- Piper MDW, Partridge L. Drosophila as a model for ageing. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis. 2018;1864:2707–2717.
- Hadjieconomou D, et al. Enteric neurons increase maternal food intake during reproduction. Nature. 2020;587:455–459.
- Wu SC, Liao CW, Pan RL, et al. Infection-induced intestinal oxidative stress triggers organ-to-organ immunological communication in Drosophila. Cell Host Microbe. 2012;11:410–417.
- Hudry B, et al. Sex differences in intestinal carbohydrate metabolism promote food intake and sperm maturation. Cell. 2019;178:901–918 e916.
- Hudry B, Khadayate S, Miguel-Aliaga I. The sexual identity of adult intestinal stem cells controls organ size and plasticity. Nature. 2016;530:344–348.
- Poirier L, Shane A, Zheng J, et al. Characterization of the Drosophila gene-switch system in aging studies: a cautionary tale. Aging Cell. 2008;7:758–770.
- Han SK, et al. OASIS 2: online application for survival analysis 2 with features for the analysis of maximal lifespan and healthspan in aging research. Oncotarget. 2016;7:56147–56152.
- Borboa JA Bestiary coloring book. 2017. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/207351245/bestiary-coloring-book/posts/1762311?lang=de>