Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Bohère, Eldridge-Thomas and Kolahgar have studied the effect of mechanical signalling in tissue homeostasis in vivo, genetically manipulating the well known mechano-transductor vinculin in the adult Drosophila intestine. They find that loss of vinculin leads to accelerated, impaired differentiation of the enteroblast, the committed precursor of mature enterocytes, and stimulates the proliferation of the intestinal stem cell. This leads to an enlarged intestinal epithelium. They discriminate that this effect is mediated through its interaction with alpha-catenin and the reinforcement of the adherens junctions, rather than with talin and integrin-mediated interaction with the basal membrane. This results aligns well, as the authors note, with previous observations from Choi, Lucchetta and Ohlstein (2011) doi:10.1073/pnas.1109348108. Bohère et al then explore the impact that disrupting mechano-transduction has on the overall fitness of the adult fly, and find that vinculin mutant adult flies recover faster after starvation than wild types.
The main conclusions of the paper are convincing and informative. Some important results would benefit from a more detailed description of the phenotypes, and others could have alternative explanations that would warrant some additional clarification.
1) - Interpretation of phenotypes in vinc[102.1] mutants
The paper presents several adult phenotypes of the homozygous viable, zygotic null mutant vinculin[102.1], where the fly gut is enlarged (at least in the R4/5 region). In many cases, they correlate this phenotype with that of RNAi knockdown of vinculin in the gut induced in adult stages. This is a perfectly valid approach, but it presents the difficulty of interpretation that the zygotic mutant has lacked vinculin throughout development and in every fly tissue, including the visceral mesoderm that wraps the intestinal epithelium and that also seems enlarged in the vinc[102.1] mutant. So this phenotype, and others reported, could arise from tissue interactions. To me, the quickest way to eliminate this problem would be to express vinculin in ISCs and/or EBs the vinc[102.1] background, either throughout development or after pupariation or emergence, and observe a rescue.
An experiment where this is particularly difficult is with the starvation/refeeding experiment. The authors explored whether the disruption of tissue homeostasis, as a result of vinculin loss, matters to the fly. So they tested whether flies would be sensitive to starvation/re-feeding, where cellular density changes and vinculin mechano-sensing properties may be necessary. They correctly conclude that mutant flies are more resistant to starvation, and suggest that this may be due to the fact that intestines are larger and therefore more resilient. However, in these animals vinculin is absent in all tissues. It is equally likely that the resistance to starvation was due to the effect of Vinculin in the fat body, ovary, brain, or other adult tissues singly or in combination. The fact that the intestine recovers transiently to a size slightly larger than that of the fed flies seems anecdotal, considering the noise within the timeline of fed controls. I am not sure this experiment is needed in the paper at all, but to me, the healthy conclusion from this effort is that more work is needed to determine the impact of vinculin-mediated intestinal homeostasis in stress resistance, and that this is out of the scope of this paper.
2) - Cell autonomy of the requirement of Vinculin and alpha-Catenin
Authors interpret that Vinculin is needed in the EB to maintain mechanical contact with the ISC, restrict ISC proliferation through contact inhibition, and maintain the EB quiescent. This interpretation explains seemingly well the lack of an obvious phenotype when knocking down vinculin in ISCs only, while knockdown in ISCs and EBs, or EBs only, does lead to differentiation problems. It also sits well with the additional observation that vinculin knockdown in mature ECs does not have an obvious phenotype.
However, a close examination makes the results difficult to explain with this interpretation only. If the authors were correct, one would expect that in mutant clones, eventually, vinculin-deficient EBs will be produced, which should mis-differentiate and induce additional ISC proliferation. However, the clones only show a reduction in ISC proportions; the most straight forward interpretation of this is that vinculin is cell-autonomously necessary for ISC maintenance (which is at odds with the phenotype of vinculin knockdown using the ISC and ISC/EB drivers).
Also, from the authors interpretation, it would follow induce that the phenotype of vinculin knockdown in ISCs+EBs and in EBs only should be the same. However, in ISCs+EBs vinculin knockdown, differentiation accelerates, which is likely accompanied by increased proliferation (judging by the increase in GFP area, PH3 staining would be more definitive). This contrasts with the knockdown only in EBs, which leads to accumulation of EBs due to misdifferentiation, and increased proliferation, mostly of ISCs, as measured directly with PH3 staining, but not additional late EBs or mature ECs. The authors call this "incomplete maturation due to accelerated differentiation". I think that one should expect to find incomplete differentiation/maturation when the rate of the process is very slow, not the other way around. To me, these are different phenotypes, which could perhaps be explained if vinculin was also needed in the ISC to transmit tension to the EB and prevent its differentiation, and removing it only in the EB may be revealing an additional, cell-autonomous requirement in maturation.
Another unexpected result, considering the authors interpretation, is that the over expression of activated Vinculin (vinc[CO]) does not seem to have much of an effect. It does not change the phenotype of the wild type (where there is very little basal turnover to begin with) and it only partially rescues the phenotype of the vinc[102.1] mutants, when the rescue transgene vinc:RFP does. This again suggests that there may be tissue interactions, in development or adulthood, that may explain the vinc[102.1] phenotypes. It could also be that this incomplete rescue is due to the deleterious effect of Vinc[CO]; this is another reason for doing the vinc[102.1]; esg-Gal4; UAS-vincFL experiments suggested above). An alternative experiment to perform this rescue would be to knock down vinculin gene while overexpressing the Vinc[CO] transgene - this may be possible with the RNAi HSM02356, which targets the vinculin 3'UTR and is unlikely to affect UAS-vinc[CO].
The claims of the authors would be more solid if the reporting of the phenotypes was more homogeneous, so one could establish comparisons. Sometimes conditions are analysed by differentiation index, others by extension of the GFP domains, others with phospho-histone-3 (PH3), others through nuclear size or density, and combinations. I do not think the authors should evaluate all these phenotypes in all conditions, but evaluating mitotic index and abundance of EBs and "activated EBs/early ECs" to monitor proliferation and differentiation rates should be done across the board (ISC, ISC+EB, EB drivers).
If the primary role of Vinculin is to induce contact inhibition in the ISC from the EB and prevent the EB differentiation and proliferation, one would expect that over expression of Vinc[CO] (or perhaps VincFL or sqhDD) in EBs should prevent or delay the differentiation and proliferation induced by a presumably orthogonal factor, like infection with Pseudomonas entomophila or Erwinia carotovora.
3) - Relationship between Vinculin and alpha-Catenin
The authors establish a very clear difference in the phenotypes between focal adhesion components and Vinculin, whereas the similarity of alpha-catenin and vinculin knockdowns is very compelling. Therefore I am sure the authors are in the right path with their interpretation of this part of the paper. However, some of the alpha-Catenin experiments are not very clear. The result from the rescue experiment of alpha-Cat knockdown with alpha-Cat-deltaM1b does not seem to show what the authors claim, and differentiation does not seem affected, only the amount of extant older ECs (which may be due to other reasons as this is a non-autonomous effect). Ulrich Tepass produced a UAS-alpha-catenin construct with the full deletion of the M1 region, perhaps that would show a clearer phenotype. Also, the autonomy of the phenotype is difficult to address with these experiments alone. It would be expected that the phenotype of alpha-catenin knockdown should be similar to that of vinculin knockdown in the ISCs only or EBs only.