Conserved and divergent aspects of Robo receptor signaling and regulation between Drosophila Robo1 and C. elegans SAX-3

The evolutionarily conserved Roundabout (Robo) family of axon guidance receptors control midline crossing of axons in response to the midline repellant ligand Slit in bilaterian animals including insects, nematodes, and vertebrates. Despite this strong evolutionary conservation, it is unclear whether the signaling mechanism(s) downstream of Robo receptors are similarly conserved. To directly compare midline repulsive signaling in Robo family members from different species, here we use a transgenic approach to express the Robo family receptor SAX-3 from the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans in neurons of the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. We examine SAX-3’s ability to repel Drosophila axons from the Slit-expressing midline in gain of function assays, and test SAX-3’s ability to substitute for Drosophila Robo1 during fly embryonic development in genetic rescue experiments. We show that C. elegans SAX-3 is properly translated and localized to neuronal axons when expressed in the Drosophila embryonic CNS, and that SAX-3 can signal midline repulsion in Drosophila embryonic neurons, although not as efficiently as Drosophila Robo1. Using a series of Robo1/SAX-3 chimeras, we show that the SAX-3 cytoplasmic domain can signal midline repulsion to the same extent as Robo1 when combined with the Robo1 ectodomain. We show that SAX-3 is not subject to endosomal sorting by the negative regulator Commissureless (Comm) in Drosophila neurons in vivo, and that peri-membrane and ectodomain sequences are both required for Comm sorting of Drosophila Robo1.     

Identification of a novel Leucine-rich repeat protein and candidate PP1 regulatory subunit expressed in developing spermatids

Background

Roundabouts are axon guidance molecules that have recently been identified to play a role in vascular guidance as well. In this study, we have investigated gene knockdown analysis of endothelial Robos, in particular roundabout 4 (robo4), the predominant Robo in endothelial cells using small interfering RNA technology in vitro.

Results

Robo1 and Robo4 knockdown cells display distinct activity in endothelial cell migration assay. The knockdown of robo4 abrogated the chemotactic response of endothelial cells to serum but enhanced a chemokinetic response to Slit2, while robo1 knockdown cells do not display chemotactic response to serum or VEGF. Robo4 knockdown endothelial cells unexpectedly show up regulation of Rho GTPases. Zebrafish Robo4 rescues both Rho GTPase homeostasis and serum reduced chemotaxis in robo4 knockdown cells. Robo1 and Robo4 interact and share molecules such as Slit2, Mena and Vilse, a Cdc42-GAP. In addition, this study mechanistically implicates IRSp53 in the signaling nexus between activated Cdc42 and Mena, both of which have previously been shown to be involved with Robo4 signaling in endothelial cells.

Conclusion

This study identifies specific components of the Robo signaling apparatus that work together to guide directional migration of endothelial cells.     

Distinct roles for Robo2 in the regulation of axon and dendrite growth by retinal ganglion cells

Guidance factors act on the tip of a growing axon to direct it to its target. What role these molecules play, however, in the control of the dendrites that extend from that axon’s cell body is poorly understood. Slits, through their Robo receptors, guide many types of axons, including those of retinal ganglion cells (RGCs). Here we assess and contrast the role of Slit/Robo signalling in the growth and guidance of the axon and dendrites extended by RGCs in Xenopus laevis. As Xenopus RGCs extend dendrites, they express robo2 and robo3, while slit1 and slit2 are expressed in RGCs and in the adjacent inner nuclear layer. Interestingly, our functional data with antisense knockdown and dominant negative forms of Robo2 (dnRobo2) and Robo3 (dnRobo3) indicate that Slit/Robo signalling has no role in RGC dendrite guidance, and instead is necessary to stimulate dendrite branching, primarily via Robo2. Our in vitro culture data argue that Slits are the ligands involved. In contrast, both dnRobo2 and dnRobo3 inhibited the extension of axons and caused the misrouting of some axons. Based on these data, we propose that Robo signalling can have distinct functions in the axon and dendrites of the same cell, and that the specific combinations of Robo receptors could underlie these differences. Slit acts via Robo2 in dendrites as a branching/growth factor but not in guidance, while Robo2 and Robo3 function in concert in axons to mediate axonal interactions and respond to Slits as guidance factors. These data underscore the likelihood that a limited number of extrinsic factors regulate the distinct morphologies of axons and dendrites.     

Robo2 is required for Slit-mediated intraretinal axon guidance

The developing optic pathway has proven one of the most informative model systems for studying mechanisms of axon guidance. The first step in this process is the directed extension of retinal ganglion cell (RGC) axons within the optic fibre layer (OFL) of the retina towards their exit point from the eye, the optic disc. Previously, we have shown that the inhibitory guidance molecules, Slit1 and Slit2, regulate two distinct aspects of intraretinal axon guidance in a region-specific manner. Using knockout mice, we have found that both of these guidance activities are mediated via Robo2. Of the four vertebrate Robos, only Robo1 and Robo2 are expressed by RGCs. In mice lacking robo1 intraretinal axon guidance occurs normally. However, in mice lacking robo2 RGC axons make qualitatively and quantitatively identical intraretinal pathfinding errors to those reported previously in Slit mutants. This demonstrates clearly that, as in other regions of the optic pathway, Robo2 is the major receptor required for intraretinal axon guidance. Furthermore, the results suggest strongly that redundancy with other guidance signals rather than different receptor utilisation is the most likely explanation for the regional specificity of Slit function during intraretinal axon pathfinding.     

Lateral neuron--glia interactions steer the response of axons to the Robo code

Glia are required for axon pathfinding along longitudinal trajectories, but it is unknown how this relates to the molecular paradigm of axon guidance across the midline. Most interneuron axons in bilateral organisms cross the midline only once. Preventing them from recrossing the midline requires the expression of Robo receptors on the axons. These sense the repulsive signal Slit, which is produced by the midline. The lateral positioning of longitudinal axons depends on the response to Slit by the combination of Robo receptors expressed by the axons, on selective fasciculation, and on longitudinal (lateral) glia. Here, we analyse how longitudinal glia influence reading of the 'Robo code' by axons. We show that whereas loss of robo1 alone only affects the most medial axons, loss of both glial cells missing (gcm) and robo1 causes a severe midline collapse of longitudinal axons, similar to that caused by the loss of multiple Robo receptors. Furthermore, whereas ectopic expression of robo2 is sufficient to displace the medial MP2 axons along a more lateral trajectory, this does not occur in gcm-robo1 double-mutant embryos, where axons either do not extend at all or they misroute exiting the CNS. Hence, lateral neuron-glia interactions steer the response of axons to the Robo code.     

Selecting a longitudinal pathway: Robo receptors specify the lateral position of axons in the Drosophila CNS

On each side of the midline of the Drosophila CNS, axons are organized into a series of parallel pathways. Here we show that the midline repellent Slit, previously identified as a short-range signal that regulates midline crossing, also functions at long range to pattern these longitudinal pathways. In this long-range function, Slit signals through the receptors Robo2 and Robo3. Axons expressing neither, one, or both of these receptors project in one of three discrete lateral zones, each successively further from the midline. Loss of robo2 or robo3 function repositions axons closer to the midline, while gain of robo2 or robo3 function shifts axons further from the midline. Local cues further refine the lateral position. Together, these long- and short-range guidance cues allow growth cones to select with precision a specific longitudinal pathway.     

Short-range and long-range guidance by Slit and its Robo receptors: a combinatorial code of Robo receptors controls lateral position

Slit is secreted by midline glia in Drosophila and functions as a short-range repellent to control midline crossing. Although most Slit stays near the midline, some diffuses laterally, functioning as a long-range chemorepellent. Here we show that a combinatorial code of Robo receptors controls lateral position in the CNS by responding to this presumptive Slit gradient. Medial axons express only Robo, intermediate axons express Robo3 and Robo, while lateral axons express Robo2, Robo3, and Robo. Removal of robo2 or robo3 causes lateral axons to extend medially; ectopic expression of Robo2 or Robo3 on medial axons drives them laterally. Precise topography of longitudinal pathways appears to be controlled by a combination of long-range guidance (the Robo code determining region) and short-range guidance (discrete local cues determining specific location within a region).     

Robo1 and Robo2 have distinct roles in pioneer longitudinal axon guidance

Pioneer longitudinal axons grow long distances parallel to the floor plate and precisely maintain their positions using guidance molecules released from the floor plate. Two receptors, Robo1 and Robo2, are critical for longitudinal axon guidance by the Slit family of chemorepellents. Previous studies showed that Robo1^−/−;2^−/− double mutant mouse embryos have disruptions in both ventral and dorsal longitudinal tracts. However, the role of each Robo isoform remained unclear, because Robo1 or 2 single mutants have mild or no errors. Here we utilized a more sensitive genetic strategy to reduce Robo levels for determining any separate functions of the Robo1 and 2 isoforms. We found that Robo1 is the predominant receptor for guiding axons in ventral tracts and prevents midline crossing. In contrast, Robo2 is the main receptor for directing axons within dorsal tracts. Robo2 also has a distinct function in repelling neuron cell bodies from the floor plate. Therefore, while Robo1 and 2 have some genetic overlap to cooperate in guiding longitudinal axons, each isoform has distinct functions in specific longitudinal axon populations.     

Crossing the midline: roles and regulation of Robo receptors

In the Drosophila CNS, the midline repellent Slit acts at short range through its receptor Robo to control midline crossing. Longitudinal axons express high levels of Robo and avoid the midline; commissural axons that cross the midline express only low levels of Robo. Robo levels are in turn regulated by Comm. Here, we show that the Slit receptors Robo2 and Robo3 ensure the fidelity of this crossing decision: rare crossing errors occur in both robo2 and robo3 single mutants. In addition, low levels of either Robo or Robo2 are required to drive commissural axons through the midline: only in robo,robo2 double mutants do axons linger at the midline as they do in slit mutants. Robo2 and Robo3 levels are also tightly regulated, most likely by a mechanism similar to but distinct from the regulation of Robo by Comm.     

Short-range and long-range guidance by slit and its Robo receptors. Robo and Robo2 play distinct roles in midline guidance

Previous studies showed that Roundabout (Robo) in Drosophila is a repulsive axon guidance receptor that binds to Slit, a repellent secreted by midline glia. In robo mutants, growth cones cross and recross the midline, while, in slit mutants, growth cones enter the midline but fail to leave it. This difference suggests that Slit must have more than one receptor controlling midline guidance. In the absence of Robo, some other Slit receptor ensures that growth cones do not stay at the midline, even though they cross and recross it. Here we show that the Drosophila genome encodes three Robo receptors and that Robo and Robo2 have distinct functions, which together control repulsive axon guidance at the midline. The robo,robo2 double mutant is largely identical to slit.     

Roundabout gene family functions during sensory axon guidance in the drosophila embryo are mediated by both Slit-dependent and Slit-independent mechanisms

roundabout (robo) family genes play key roles in axon guidance in a wide variety of animals. We have investigated the roles of the robo family members, robo, robo2, and robo3, in the guidance of sensory axons in the Drosophila embryo. In robo(-/-), slit(-/-), and robo(-/+) slit(-/+) mutants, lateral cluster sensory neurons misproject to cells and axons in the nearby ventral' (v') cluster. These phenotypes, together with the normal expression pattern of Slit and Robo, suggest that Slit ligand secreted from the epidermis interacts with Robo receptors on lateral cluster sensory growth cones to limit their exploration of nearby attractive substrates. The most common sensory axon phenotype seen in robo2(-/-) mutants was misprojection of dorsal cluster sensory axons away from their normal growth substrate, the transverse connective of the trachea. slit appears to play no role in this aspect of sensory axon growth. Robo2 is expressed, not on the dorsal sensory axons, but on the transverse connective. These results suggest a novel, non-cell-autonomous mechanism for axon guidance by robo family genes: Robo2 expressed on the trachea acts as an attractant for the dorsal sensory growth cones.     

<Emphasis Type="Italic">Drosophila</Emphasis> central brain formation requires Robo proteins

The Robo proteins have been extensively studied in the Drosophila embryonic ventral nerve cord, in which their expression level controls the midline crossing and optic lobe formation, but nothing is known about their activities during adult central brain formation. We have analyzed how Robo guidance cues influence central complex (CX) and mushroom body (MB) formation. Mutations of robo2 and robo3 confer a series of strong MB and CX defects. We found that the Robo2 and Robo3 proteins are expressed in two structures of the developing CX, the fan-shaped body (FB) and the noduli (NO), and by fibers across the central neuropile. We conclude that the Robo2 and Robo3 receptors play postembryonic roles during central brain formation.     

Regulation of axon guidance by slit and netrin signaling in the Drosophila ventral nerve cord

Netrin and Slit signaling systems play opposing roles during the positioning of longitudinal tracts along the midline in the ventral nerve cord of Drosophila embryo. It has been hypothesized that a gradient of Slit from the midline interacts with three different Robo receptors to specify the axon tract positioning. However, no such gradient has been detected. Moreover, overexpression of Slit at the midline has no effect on the positioning of these lateral tracts. In this article, we show that Slit is present outside of the midline along the longitudinal and commissural tracts. Sli from the midline, in a Robo-independent manner, is initially taken up by the commissural axon tracts when they cross the midline and is transported along the commissural tracts into the longitudinal connectives. These results are not consistent with a Sli gradient model. We also find that sli mRNA is maternally deposited and embryos that are genetically null for sli can have weaker guidance defects. Moreover, in robo or robo3 mutants, embryos with normal axon tracts are found and such robo embryos reach pupal stages and die, while robo3 mutant embryos develop into normal individuals and produce eggs. Interestingly, embryos from robo3 homozygous individuals fail to develop but have axon tracts ranging from normal to various defects: robo3 phenotype, robo phenotype, and slit-like phenotype, suggesting a more complex functional role for these genes than what has been proposed. Finally, our previous results indicated that netrin phenotype is epistatic to sli or robo phenotypes. However, it seems likely that this previously reported epistatic relationship might be due to the partial penetrance of the sli, robo, robo3 (or robo2) phenotypes. Our results argue that double mutant epistasis is most definitive only if the penetrance of the phenotypes of the mutants involved is complete.     

Conserved roles for Slit and Robo proteins in midline commissural axon guidance

In Drosophila, Slit at the midline activates Robo receptors on commissural axons, thereby repelling them out of the midline into distinct longitudinal tracts on the contralateral side of the central nervous system. In the vertebrate spinal cord, Robo1 and Robo2 are expressed by commissural neurons, whereas all three Slit homologs are expressed at the ventral midline. Previous analysis of Slit1;Slit2 double mutant spinal cords failed to reveal a defect in commissural axon guidance. We report here that when all six Slit alleles are removed, many commissural axons fail to leave the midline, while others recross it. In addition, Robo1 and Robo2 single mutants show guidance defects that reveal a role for these two receptors in guiding commissural axons to different positions within the ventral and lateral funiculi. These results demonstrate a key role for Slit/Robo signaling in midline commissural axon guidance in vertebrates.     

Longitudinal axons are guided by Slit/Robo signals from the floor plate

Longitudinal axons grow long distances along precise pathways to connect major CNS regions. However, during embryonic development, it remains largely undefined how the first longitudinal axons choose specific positions and grow along them. Here, we review recent evidence identifying a critical role for Slit/Robo signals to guide pioneer longitudinal axons in the embryonic brain stem. These studies indicate that Slit/Robo signals from the floor plate have dual functions: to repel longitudinal axons away from the ventral midline, and also to maintain straight longitudinal growth. These dual functions likely cooperate with other guidance cues to establish the major longitudinal tracts in the brain.Key words: Slit, Robo, longitudinal axon, hindbrain, axon guidance     

The phosphoinositide phosphatase Sac1 is required for midline axon guidance

Sac1 phosphoinositide (PI) phosphatases are important regulators of PtdIns(4)P turnover at the ER, Golgi, and plasma membrane (PM) and are involved in diverse cellular processes including cytoskeletal organization and vesicular trafficking. Here, we present evidence that Sac1 regulates axon guidance in the embryonic CNS of Drosophila. Sac1 is expressed on three longitudinal axon tracts that are defined by the cell adhesion molecule Fasciclin II (Fas II). Mutations in the sac1 gene cause ectopic midline crossing of Fas II-positive axon tracts. This phenotype is rescued by neuronal expression of wild-type Sac1 but not by a catalytically-inactive mutant. Finally, sac1 displays dosage-sensitive genetic interactions with mutations in the genes that encode the midline repellent Slit and its axonal receptor Robo. Taken together, our results suggest that Sac1-mediated regulation of PIs is critical for Slit/Robo-dependent axon repulsion at the CNS midline.     

Navigating Intermediate Targets: The Nervous System Midline

In a bilaterally symmetric animal, the midline plays a key role in directing axon growth during wiring of the nervous system. Midline cells provide a variety of guidance cues for growing axons, to which different types of axons respond in different ways and at different times. For some axons, the midline is an intermediate target. They first seek it out, but then move on towards their final targets on the opposite side. For others, the midline is a repulsive barrier that keeps them on their own side of the midline. And for many of these axons the midline provides signals that guide them along specific lateral pathways or up and down the longitudinal axis.The complex guidance decisions at the midline have made it a particularly fascinating model for investigating the mechanisms and logic of axon pathfinding. Much of this work has focused on the ventral midline of the vertebrate spinal cord and its Drosophila analog, the ventral nerve cord. This work has sought to explain why some axons cross the midline, whereas others do not; why these axons respond differently to midline cues before and after crossing; and how the midline directs axon traffic along the lateral pathways. Striking similarities, as well as intriguing differences, have been documented in the way these guidance decisions are regulated in vertebrates and in Drosophila. Here, we briefly introduce the two systems, then review our current understanding of each of the key guidance decisions, and finally discuss some of the general principles and open questions that have emerged from these studies.     

Genes required for axon pathfinding and extension in the C. elegans nerve ring.

Over half of the neurons in Caenorhabditis elegans send axons to the nerve ring, a large neuropil in the head of the animal. Genetic screens in animals that express the green fluorescent protein in a subset of sensory neurons identified eight new sax genes that affect the morphology of nerve ring axons. sax-3/robo mutations disrupt axon guidance in the nerve ring, while sax-5, sax-9 and unc-44 disrupt both axon guidance and axon extension. Axon extension and guidance proceed normally in sax-1, sax-2, sax-6, sax-7 and sax-8 mutants, but these animals exhibit later defects in the maintenance of nerve ring structure. The functions of existing guidance genes in nerve ring development were also examined, revealing that SAX-3/Robo acts in parallel to the VAB-1/Eph receptor and the UNC-6/netrin, UNC-40/DCC guidance systems for ventral guidance of axons in the amphid commissure, a major route of axon entry into the nerve ring. In addition, SAX-3/Robo and the VAB-1/Eph receptor both function to prevent aberrant axon crossing at the ventral midline. Together, these genes define pathways required for axon growth, guidance and maintenance during nervous system development.     

Pioneer longitudinal axons navigate using floor plate and Slit/Robo signals

Longitudinal axons transmit all signals between the brain and spinal cord. Their axon tracts through the brain stem are established by a simple set of pioneer axons with precise trajectories parallel to the floor plate. To identify longitudinal guidance mechanisms in vivo, the overall role of floor plate tissue and the specific roles of Slit/Robo signals were tested. Ectopic induction or genetic deletion of the floor plate diverted longitudinal axons into abnormal trajectories. The expression patterns of the diffusible cues of the Slit family were altered in the floor plate experiments, suggesting their involvement in longitudinal guidance. Genetic tests of Slit1 and Slit2, and the Slit receptors Robo1 and Robo2 were carried out in mutant mice. Slit1;Slit2 double mutants had severe longitudinal errors, particularly for ventral axons, including midline crossing and wandering longitudinal trajectories. Robo1 and Robo2 were largely genetically redundant, and neither appeared to specify specific tract positions. However, combined Robo1 and Robo2 mutations strongly disrupted each pioneer tract. Thus, pioneer axons depend on long-range floor plate cues, with Slit/Robo signaling required for precise longitudinal trajectories.