Dear Editor
Apoptosis regulation in Drosophila has many parallels to vertebrate systems. However, one major difference has been the apparent lack of mitochondrial significance in Drosophila cell death. Several reports have suggested that mitochondrial outer membrane permeabilization does not occur in Drosophila apoptosis and that there is no significant mitochondrial contribution to apoptosis in the fly.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 However, these findings are based largely, if not exclusively, on studies in cultured S2 cells, which are phagocytic cells derived from embryonic macrophages/hemocytes.7, 8 The specialized nature of S2 cells prompted us to consider whether they are generally representative of Drosophila cells in their response to apoptotic stimuli. We addressed this question by examining the response of embryonic macrophages to apoptotic signals in situ in the embryo.
In keeping with previous accounts, we find that apoptotic S2 cells maintain mitochondrial membrane integrity as measured by CMXRos staining.4 CMXRos is a mitochondrial-specific label dependent on membrane polarization for uptake. Untreated cells show punctate cytoplasmic staining consistent with mitochondrial labeling (Figure 1a). The specificity of labeling is demonstrated by treatment with carbonyl cyanide p-trifluoromethoxy-phenylhydrazone (FCCP), a protonophore that depolarizes mitochondria by abolishing the proton gradient across the inner mitochondrial membrane.9, 10 S2 cells continue to stain with CMXRos qat high levels even after exposure to UV irradiation and a recovery period of 6 h (Figure 1a). However, this is not the case with Drosophila cells in general. Embryos subjected to ectopic hid expression (Figure 1c–e) or UV irradiation (not shown) rapidly lose the capacity to take up CMXRos in nearly all cells. Within 1 h of the initiation of either signal, nearly all cells of the embryo fail to stain with CMXRos. The notable exception is macrophages, which continue to stain at high levels whereas other cell types do not (Figure 1c–d). These cells are identifiable as macrophages by their stereotypic distribution and enormous size, and by doubly labeling for Croquemort (Figure 1e), a macrophage-specific cell surface marker.11, 12 Identical results were obtained using the mitochondrial marker TMRE (not shown).
These findings suggest that macrophages have the capacity to remain healthy in the presence of apoptotic signals that readily affect other cell types. We addressed this possibility by examining the ultrastructure of macrophages in apoptotic embryos by transmission electron microscopy. We found that after 1 h of heat shock-induced hid expression, macrophages in the embryonic head showed no overt signs of apoptosis, while surrounded by apoptotic corpses derived from other cell types (Figure 1f; Supplementary Figure 1). Macrophage chromatin remained uncondensed with the nuclear envelope intact, and membrane-bound organelles including mitochondria, Golgi and endoplasmic reticulum were clearly visible in the cytoplasm. By contrast, surrounding corpses showed condensed chromatin, degeneration of the nuclear envelope and loss of subcellular organelles (Figure 1f; Supplementary Figure 1). These results are consistent with observations by us and others that following exposure to UV irradiation, Croquemort-positive cells in the embryo become quite large owing to multiple engulfment events (R Hays, unpublished finding).11 One would expect macrophages to undergo apoptosis like any other cell type, having been exposed to the same dose of radiation. However, they survive to engulf corpses for a period of at least several hours.
These findings suggest that macrophages are uniquely resistant to apoptosis among embryonic cell types, and that S2 cells, an embryonic macrophage line, is not a suitable general model for Drosophila cell death. They further suggest that apoptosis regulation in Drosophila has more in common with vertebrate systems than previously appreciated, and re-shape a large segment of current Drosophila apoptosis models.
References
Dorstyn L et al. J Cell Biol 2002; 156: 1089–1098.
Dorstyn L et al. J Cell Biol 2004; 167: 405–410.
Varkey J et al. J Cell Biol 1999; 144: 701–710.
Zimmermann KC et al. J Cell Biol 2002; 156: 1077–1087.
Means JC et al. Cell Death Differ 2005; 13: 1222–1234.
Kornbluth S et al. J Cell Sci 2005; 118 (Part 9): 1779–1787.
Stroschein-Stevenson SL et al. PLoS Biol 2006; 4: e4.
Lavine MD et al. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 2002; 32: 1295–1309.
Gunter TE et al. Am J Physiol 1990; 258 (5 Part 1): C755–C786.
Prehn JH et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1994; 91: 12599–12603.
Franc NC et al. Immunity 1996; 4: 431–443.
Franc NC et al. Science 1999; 284: 1991–1994.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to A Ezekowitz and R Ward for reagents. This work was supported by NIH 2 P20 RR016475-04.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Supplementary Information accompanies the paper on Cell Death and Differentiation website (http://www.nature.com/cdd)
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Means, J., Hays, R. Mitochondrial membrane depolarization in Drosophila apoptosis. Cell Death Differ 14, 383–385 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.cdd.4402036
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.cdd.4402036
This article is cited by
-
Regulation of Hemocytes in Drosophila Requires dappled Cytochrome b5
Biochemical Genetics (2011)
-
Inside an enigma: do mitochondria contribute to cell death in Drosophila?
Apoptosis (2009)