Error Minimization in Lateral Inhibition Circuits

Accurate selection of sensory organ precursor cells in fruit flies requires cell-autonomous Notch-ligand interactions to facilitate rapid inhibition of neighboring cells. Minimizing Errors The development of multicellular organisms depends on the acquisition of distinct fates for different cells. In many instances, a particular cell is selected for differentiation toward a particular fate from a group of equivalent cells through a process of lateral inhibition, in which each cell produces substances that inhibit the differentiation of their neighbors. Barad et al. used probabilistic modeling to investigate sources of error in the selection of sensory organ precursor (SOP) cells in the fruit fly, a well-known system in which lateral inhibition is mediated through interactions between Notch and its ligands Delta and Serrate. Their model indicated that the accuracy of SOP selection depends on the length of the delay between the initiation of Notch ligand production by a given cell and the ensuing inhibition of the differentiation of neighboring cells. Moreover, their analysis, confirmed by observations of mutant flies, indicated that this delay—and therefore the accuracy of SOP selection—was minimized through cell-autonomous interactions between Notch and its ligands. The pattern of the sensory bristles in the fruit fly Drosophila is remarkably reproducible. Each bristle arises from a sensory organ precursor (SOP) cell that is selected, through a lateral inhibition process, from a cluster of proneural cells. Although this process is well characterized, the mechanism ensuring its robustness remains obscure. Using probabilistic modeling, we defined the sources of error in SOP selection and examined how they depend on the underlying molecular circuit. We found that rapid inhibition of the neural differentiation of nonselected cells, coupled with high cell-to-cell variability in the timing of selection, is crucial for accurate SOP selection. Cell-autonomous interactions (cis interactions) between the Notch receptor and its ligands Delta or Serrate facilitate accurate SOP selection by shortening the effective delay between the time when the inhibitory signal is initiated in one cell and the time when it acts on neighboring cells, suggesting that selection relies on competition between cis and trans interactions of Notch with its ligands. The cis interaction model predicts that the increase in ectopic SOP selections observed with reduced Notch abundance can be compensated for by reducing the abundance of the Notch ligands Delta and Serrate. We validated this prediction experimentally by quantifying the frequency of ectopic bristles in flies carrying heterozygous null mutations of Notch, Delta, or Serrate or combinations of these alleles. We propose that susceptibility to errors distinguishes seemingly equivalent designs of developmental circuits regulating pattern formation.

[1]  M. Elowitz,et al.  Cis Interactions between Notch and Delta Generate Mutually Exclusive Signaling States , 2010, Nature.

[2]  N. Barkai Error Minization in Lateral Inhibition Circuits , 2010 .

[3]  Adam C. Miller,et al.  cis-Inhibition of Notch by Endogenous Delta Biases the Outcome of Lateral Inhibition , 2009, Current Biology.

[4]  M. Fortini,et al.  Notch signaling: the core pathway and its posttranslational regulation. , 2009, Developmental cell.

[5]  P. Handford,et al.  A conserved face of the Jagged/Serrate DSL domain is involved in Notch trans-activation and cis-inhibition , 2008, Nature Structural &Molecular Biology.

[6]  Clare Garvey,et al.  Role of conserved intracellular motifs in Serrate signalling, cis‐inhibition and endocytosis , 2006, The EMBO journal.

[7]  A. Chitnis Why is delta endocytosis required for effective activation of notch? , 2006, Developmental dynamics : an official publication of the American Association of Anatomists.

[8]  C. Delidakis,et al.  The interplay between DSL proteins and ubiquitin ligases in Notch signaling , 2005, Development.

[9]  Scott Barolo,et al.  Lateral inhibition in proneural clusters: cis-regulatory logic and default repression by Suppressor of Hairless , 2005, Development.

[10]  Scott Barolo,et al.  New Drosophila transgenic reporters: insulated P-element vectors expressing fast-maturing RFP. , 2004, BioTechniques.

[11]  S. Parkhurst,et al.  Senseless acts as a binary switch during sensory organ precursor selection. , 2003, Genes & development.

[12]  J. Modolell,et al.  Half a century of neural prepatterning: the story of a few bristles and many genes , 2003, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[13]  G. Odell,et al.  Robustness, Flexibility, and the Role of Lateral Inhibition in the Neurogenic Network , 2002, Current Biology.

[14]  N. Moschonas,et al.  neuralized Encodes a peripheral membrane protein involved in delta signaling and endocytosis. , 2001, Developmental cell.

[15]  E. Plahte Pattern formation in discrete cell lattices , 2001, Journal of mathematical biology.

[16]  A. Ciechanover,et al.  Functional Interaction between SEL-10, an F-box Protein, and the Nuclear Form of Activated Notch1 Receptor* , 2001, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[17]  A. Ciechanover,et al.  Functional Interaction between SEL-10 , an F-box Protein , and the Nuclear Form of Activated Notch 1 Receptor * , 2001 .

[18]  H. Bellen,et al.  Senseless, a Zn Finger Transcription Factor, Is Necessary and Sufficient for Sensory Organ Development in Drosophila , 2000, Cell.

[19]  S. Artavanis-Tsakonas,et al.  Notch Signaling : Cell Fate Control and Signal Integration in Development , 1999 .

[20]  T. L. Jacobsen,et al.  Cis-interactions between Delta and Notch modulate neurogenic signalling in Drosophila. , 1998, Development.

[21]  Raphael Kopan,et al.  Notch-1 signalling requires ligand-induced proteolytic release of intracellular domain , 1998, Nature.

[22]  A. M. Arias,et al.  A functional analysis of Notch mutations in Drosophila. , 1997, Genetics.

[23]  S. Bray,et al.  Feed-back mechanisms affecting Notch activation at the dorsoventral boundary in the Drosophila wing. , 1997, Development.

[24]  S. Blair,et al.  The function and regulation of cut expression on the wing margin of Drosophila: Notch, Wingless and a dominant negative role for Delta and Serrate. , 1997, Development.

[25]  P. Maini,et al.  Pattern formation by lateral inhibition with feedback: a mathematical model of delta-notch intercellular signalling. , 1996, Journal of theoretical biology.

[26]  P. Simpson,et al.  Altered epidermal growth factor-like sequences provide evidence for a role of Notch as a receptor in cell fate decisions. , 1993, Development.

[27]  P. A. Powell,et al.  Spatial regulation of proneural gene activity: auto- and cross-activation of achaete is antagonized by extramacrochaetae. , 1992, Genes & development.

[28]  S. Carroll,et al.  Regulation of proneural gene expression and cell fate during neuroblast segregation in the Drosophila embryo. , 1992, Development.

[29]  D. Lindsley,et al.  The Genome of Drosophila Melanogaster , 1992 .

[30]  A. Ghysen,et al.  The emergence of sense organs in the wing disc of Drosophila. , 1991, Development.

[31]  P. Simpson,et al.  The choice of cell fate in the epidermis of Drosophila , 1991, Cell.

[32]  P. Simpson,et al.  Lateral inhibition and the development of the sensory bristles of the adult peripheral nervous system of Drosophila. , 1990, Development.

[33]  B. Sheldon,et al.  Studies on the scutellar bristles of Drosophila melanogaster. II. Long-term selection for high bristle number in the Oregon RC strain and correlated responses in abdominal chaetae. , 1972, Genetics.

[34]  J M Rendel,et al.  Canalisation of development of scutellar bristles in Drosophila by control of the scute locus. , 1965, Genetics.