Channelrhodopsin-2–XXL,a powerful optogenetic tool for low-light applications

Channelrhodopsin-2 (ChR2) has provided a breakthrough for the optogenetic control of neuronal activity. In adult Drosophila melanogaster, however, its applications are severely constrained. This limitation in a powerful model system has curtailed unfolding the full potential of ChR2 for behavioral neuroscience. Here, we describe the D156C mutant, termed ChR2-XXL (extra high expression and long open state), which displays increased expression, improved subcellular localization, elevated retinal affinity, an extended open-state lifetime, and photocurrent amplitudes greatly exceeding those of all heretofore published ChR variants. As a result, neuronal activity could be efficiently evoked with ambient light and even without retinal supplementation. We validated the benefits of the variant in intact flies by eliciting simple and complex behaviors. We demonstrate efficient and prolonged photostimulation of monosynaptic transmission at the neuromuscular junction and reliable activation of a gustatory reflex pathway. Innate male courtship was triggered in male and female flies, and olfactory memories were written through light-induced associative training.Identifying causal relationships between neuronal activity and animal behavior is a fundamental goal of neuroscience. Crucially, this task requires testing whether defined neuronal populations are sufficient for eliciting behavioral modules. The development of light-gated ion channels that can be genetically targeted to specific cells has provided a unique solution to this challenge. In pioneering work, such optogenetic effectors or actuators were originally used as multicomponent approaches (1–3). The introduction of Channelrhodopsin-1 (ChR1) (4) and especially ChR2 as a light-sensitive cation channel (5) dramatically advanced the field by providing an efficient and straightforward single-component strategy for stimulating neuronal activity (6, 7).Besides cell-specific targeting of appropriate effector elements, precise neuronal control by optogenetics demands efficient light delivery to the neurons of interest. For behavioral studies, photostimulation is ideally accomplished in intact, freely moving organisms and accompanied by functional readouts. The combination of a rich, well-characterized behavioral repertoire and elegant molecular genetics has contributed to Drosophila’s strong impact on behavioral neurogenetics (8, 9). However, low light transmission through the pigmented cuticle presupposes high light intensities for using ChR2 in flies. This obstacle greatly complicates the experimental setup for freely moving animals, and the required light energies can cause heat damage when stimulation is applied over extended time periods. Moreover, limited cellular availability of all-trans-retinal (hereafter retinal for short) demands adding high retinal concentrations as a dietary supplement. If optical access to target cells is not provided by a translucent body wall (e.g., as in nematodes, zebrafish, and Drosophila larvae), an alternative solution is the implantation of an optical fiber directly into the brain. Although this approach has been used successfully in mammals (10), such an invasive procedure is infeasible for the study of intact small organisms.Due to these restrictions in Drosophila, ChR2 has not reached the popularity attained in other organisms, and instead the field has turned mainly to thermogenetic neuronal stimulation (11–13). As with all techniques, there are also drawbacks to using temperature as a stimulus, such as undesired background activity and a multitude of temperature-sensitive cellular processes and behavioral responses. Photo-liberation of caged ATP, combined with genetic targeting of ATP-gated ion channels, has been introduced as a different optogenetic technique in Drosophila (3, 14). However, its applications are constrained by invasive, time-consuming procedures for injection of caged ATP and a limited experimental time window.Here, we introduce improved ChR2 variants as an alternative approach to address these shortcomings in Drosophila. Compared with wild-type ChR2 (ChR2-wt), expression of these mutants in target cells led to strongly enhanced photocurrents. We provide the first report, to our knowledge, of ChR2-T159C (15, 16) in flies and describe a ChR2 variant, ChR2-XXL (extra high expression and long open state), that is characterized by an extended open-state lifetime, elevated cellular expression, enhanced axonal localization, and reduced dependence on retinal addition. As a consequence, this mutant does not require dietary retinal supplementation to depolarize cells, evoke synaptic transmission, and activate neuronal networks at very low irradiance. These features enabled behavioral photostimulation in freely moving flies using diffuse low-intensity light.     

The multi-faceted outcomes of conjunct diabetes and cardiovascular familial history in type 2 diabetes

BackgroundFamilial history of early-onset CHD (EOCHD) is a major risk factor for CHD. Familial diabetes history (FDH) impacts β-cell function. Some transmissible, accretional gradient of CHD risk may exist when diabetes and EOCHD familial histories combine. We investigated whether the impact of such combination is neutral, additive, or potentiating in T2DM descendants, as regards cardiometabolic phenotype, glucose homeostasis and micro-/macroangiopathies.MethodsCross-sectional retrospective cohort study of 796 T2DM divided according to presence (Diab[+]) or absence (Diab[?]) of 1st-degree diabetes familial history and/or EOCHD (CVD(+) and (?)). Four subgroups: (i) [Diab(?)CVD(?)] (n = 355); (ii) [Diab(+)CVD(?)] (n = 338); (iii) [Diab(?)CVD(+)] (n = 47); and (iv) [Diab(+)CVD(+)] (n = 56).ResultsNo interaction on subgroup distribution between presence of both familial histories, the combination of which translated into additive detrimental outcomes and higher rates of fat mass, sarcopenia, _hsCRP and retinopathy. FDH(+) had lower insulinemia, insulin secretion, hyperbolic product, and accelerated hyperbolic product loss. An EOCHD family history affected neither insulin secretion nor sensitivity. There were significant differences regarding macroangiopathy/CAD, more prevalent in [Diab(?)CVD(+)] and [Diab(+)CVD(+)]. Among CVD(+), the highest macroangiopathy prevalence was observed in [Diab(?)CVD(+)], who had 66% macroangiopathy, and 57% CAD, rates higher (absolute-relative) by 23%–53% (overall) and 21%–58% (CAD) than [Diab(+)CVD(+)], who inherited the direst cardiometabolic familial history (p 0.0288 and 0.0310).ConclusionsA parental history for diabetes markedly affects residual insulin secretion and secretory loss rate in T2DM offspring without worsening insulin resistance. It paradoxically translated into lower macroangiopathy with concurrent familial EOCHD. Conjunct diabetes and CV familial histories generate multi-faceted vascular outcomes in offspring, including lesser macroangiopathy/CAD.     

Impact of donor age on long‐term outcomes after delayed graft function: 10‐year follow‐up

Delayed graft function (DGF) has a negative impact on graft survival in donation after brain death (DBD) but not for donation after cardiac death (DCD) kidneys. However, older donor age is associated with graft loss in DCD transplants. We sought to examine the interaction between donor age and DGF in DBD kidneys. This is a single‐center, retrospective review of 657 consecutive DBD recipients transplanted between 1990 and 2005. We stratified the cohort by decades of donor age and studied the association between DGF and graft failure using Cox models. The risk of graft loss associated with DGF was not significantly increased for donor age below 60 years (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.12, 1.51, and 0.90, respectively, for age <40, 41–50 and 51–60 years) but significantly increased after 60 years (aHR 2.67; P = 0.019). Analysis of death‐censored graft failure yielded similar results for donor age below 60 years and showed a substantially increased risk with donors above 60 years (aHR 6.98, P = 0.002). This analysis reveals an unexpectedly high impact of older donor age on the association between DGF and renal transplant outcomes. Further research is needed to determine the best use of kidneys from donors above 60 years old, where DGF is expected.