More Like this

1. Distinct subpopulations of mechanosensory chordotonal organ neurons elicit grooming of the fruit fly antennae

   https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59976  

   Hampel, Stefanie; Eichler, Katharina; Yamada, Daichi; Bock, Davi D; Kamikouchi, Azusa; Seeds, Andrew M (October 2020, eLife)

   null (Ed.)

   Diverse mechanosensory neurons detect different mechanical forces that can impact animal behavior. Yet our understanding of the anatomical and physiological diversity of these neurons and the behaviors that they influence is limited. We previously discovered that grooming of the Drosophila melanogaster antennae is elicited by an antennal mechanosensory chordotonal organ, the Johnston’s organ (JO) (Hampel et al., 2015). Here, we describe anatomically and physiologically distinct JO mechanosensory neuron subpopulations that each elicit antennal grooming. We show that the subpopulations project to different, discrete zones in the brain and differ in their responses to mechanical stimulation of the antennae. Although activation of each subpopulation elicits antennal grooming, distinct subpopulations also elicit the additional behaviors of wing flapping or backward locomotion. Our results provide a comprehensive description of the diversity of mechanosensory neurons in the JO, and reveal that distinct JO subpopulations can elicit both common and distinct behavioral responses. 

   more » « less
2. Automated analysis of long-term grooming behavior in Drosophila using a k-nearest neighbors classifier

   https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.34497  

   Qiao, Bing; Li, Chiyuan; Allen, Victoria W; Shirasu-Hiza, Mimi; Syed, Sheyum (February 2018, eLife)

   From birds that preen their feathers to dogs that lick their fur, many animals groom themselves. They do so to stay clean, but routine grooming also has a range of other uses, such as social communication or controlling body temperature. Despite its importance, grooming remains poorly understood; it is especially unclear how this behavior is regulated. Fruit flies could be a good model to study grooming because they are often used in laboratories to look into the genetic and brain mechanisms that control behavior. Flies clean themselves by sweeping their legs over their wings and body, but little is known about how the insects groom ‘naturally’ over long periods of time. This is partly because scientists have had to recognize and classify grooming behavior by eye, which is highly time-consuming. Here, Qiao, Li et al. have created a system to automatically detect grooming behavior in fruit flies over time. First, a camera records the movement of an individual insect. A computer then analyzes the images and picks out general features of the fly’s movement that can help work out what the insect is doing. For example, if a fly is moving its limbs, but not the main part of its body, it is probably grooming itself. Qiao, Li et al. then borrowed an algorithm from an area of computer science known as ‘machine learning’ to teach the computer how to classify each fly’s behavior automatically. The new system successfully recognized grooming behavior in over 90% of cases, and it revealed that fruit flies spend about 13% of their waking life grooming. It also showed that grooming seems to be controlled by two potentially independent internal programs. One program is tied to the internal body clock of the fly, and regulates when the insect grooms during the day. The other commands how long the fly cleans itself, and balances the amount of time spent on grooming with other behaviors. Cleaning oneself is not just important for animals to stay disease-free: it also reflects the general health state of an individual. For example, a loss of grooming is associated with sickness, old age, and, in humans, with mental illness. If scientists can understand how grooming is controlled at the brain and molecular levels, this may give an insight into how these mechanisms relate to diseases. The system created by Qiao, Li et al. could help to make such studies possible. 

   more » « less
3. Eye structure shapes neuron function in Drosophila motion vision

   https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.14.520178  

   Zhao, Arthur; Gruntman, Eyal; Nern, Aljoscha; Iyer, Nirmala A; Rogers, Edward M; Koskela, Sanna; Siwanowicz, Igor; Dreher, Marisa; Flynn, Miriam A; Laughland, Connor W; et al (December 2022, bioRxiv)

   Summary Many animals rely on vision to navigate through their environment. The pattern of changes in the visual scene induced by self-motion is theoptic flow¹, which is first estimated in local patches by directionally selective (DS) neurons^2–4. But how should the arrays of DS neurons, each responsive to motion in a preferred direction at a specific retinal position, be organized to support robust decoding of optic flow by downstream circuits? Understanding this global organization is challenging because it requires mapping fine, local features of neurons across the animal’s field of view³. InDrosophila, the asymmetric dendrites of the T4 and T5 DS neurons establish their preferred direction, making it possible to predict DS responses from anatomy^4,5. Here we report that the preferred directions of fly DS neurons vary at different retinal positions and show that this spatial variation is established by the anatomy of the compound eye. To estimate the preferred directions across the visual field, we reconstructed hundreds of T4 neurons in a full brain EM volume⁶and discovered unexpectedly stereotypical dendritic arborizations that are independent of location. We then used whole-head μCT scans to map the viewing directions of all compound eye facets and found a non-uniform sampling of visual space that explains the spatial variation in preferred directions. Our findings show that the organization of preferred directions in the fly is largely determined by the compound eye, exposing an intimate and unexpected connection between the peripheral structure of the eye, functional properties of neurons deep in the brain, and the control of body movements. 

   more » « less
4. Inhibitory feedback from the motor circuit gates mechanosensory processing in Caenorhabditis elegans

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002280  

   Kumar, Sandeep; Sharma, Anuj K; Tran, Andrew; Liu, Mochi; Leifer, Andrew M (September 2023, PLOS Biology)

   Sengupta, Piali (Ed.)

   Animals must integrate sensory cues with their current behavioral context to generate a suitable response. How this integration occurs is poorly understood. Previously, we developed high-throughput methods to probe neural activity in populations ofCaenorhabditis elegansand discovered that the animal’s mechanosensory processing is rapidly modulated by the animal’s locomotion. Specifically, we found that when the worm turns it suppresses its mechanosensory-evoked reversal response. Here, we report thatC.elegansuse inhibitory feedback from turning-associated neurons to provide this rapid modulation of mechanosensory processing. By performing high-throughput optogenetic perturbations triggered on behavior, we show that turning-associated neurons SAA, RIV, and/or SMB suppress mechanosensory-evoked reversals during turns. We find that activation of the gentle-touch mechanosensory neurons or of any of the interneurons AIZ, RIM, AIB, and AVE during a turn is less likely to evoke a reversal than activation during forward movement. Inhibiting neurons SAA, RIV, and SMB during a turn restores the likelihood with which mechanosensory activation evokes reversals. Separately, activation of premotor interneuron AVA evokes reversals regardless of whether the animal is turning or moving forward. We therefore propose that inhibitory signals from SAA, RIV, and/or SMB gate mechanosensory signals upstream of neuron AVA. We conclude thatC.elegansrely on inhibitory feedback from the motor circuit to modulate its response to sensory stimuli on fast timescales. This need for motor signals in sensory processing may explain the ubiquity in many organisms of motor-related neural activity patterns seen across the brain, including in sensory processing areas. 

   more » « less
5. Asynchronous haltere input drives specific wing and head movements in Drosophila

   https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2024.0311  

   Rauscher, Michael J; Fox, Jessica L (June 2024, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences)

   Halteres are multifunctional mechanosensory organs unique to the true flies (Diptera). A set of reduced hindwings, the halteres beat at the same frequency as the lift-generating forewings and sense inertial forces via mechanosensory campaniform sensilla. Though haltere ablation makes stable flight impossible, the specific role of wing-synchronous input has not been established. Using small iron filings attached to the halteres of tethered flies and an alternating electromagnetic field, we experimentally decoupled the wings and halteres of flyingDrosophilaand observed the resulting changes in wingbeat amplitude and head orientation. We find that asynchronous haltere input results in fast amplitude changes in the wing (hitches), but does not appreciably move the head. In multi-modal experiments, we find that wing and gaze optomotor responses are disrupted differently by asynchronous input. These effects of wing-asynchronous haltere input suggest that specific sensory information is necessary for maintaining wing amplitude stability and adaptive gaze control. 

   more » « less