Spatial Comparisons of Mechanosensory Information Govern the Grooming Sequence in Drosophila.
action selection
drosophila
mechanosensation
motor sequence
neural circuits
sensory comparison
Journal
Current biology : CB
ISSN: 1879-0445
Titre abrégé: Curr Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9107782
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 03 2020
23 03 2020
Historique:
received:
27
09
2019
revised:
17
12
2019
accepted:
14
01
2020
pubmed:
7
3
2020
medline:
4
6
2021
entrez:
7
3
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Animals integrate information from different sensory modalities, body parts, and time points to inform behavioral choice, but the relevant sensory comparisons and the underlying neural circuits are still largely unknown. We use the grooming behavior of Drosophila melanogaster as a model to investigate the sensory comparisons that govern a motor sequence. Flies perform grooming movements spontaneously, but when covered with dust, they clean their bodies following an anterior-to-posterior sequence. After investigating different sensory modalities that could detect dust, we focus on mechanosensory bristle neurons, whose optogenetic activation induces a similar sequence. Computational modeling predicts that higher sensory input strength to the head will cause anterior grooming to occur first. We test this prediction using an optogenetic competition assay whereby two targeted light beams independently activate mechanosensory bristle neurons on different body parts. We find that the initial choice of grooming movement is determined by the ratio of sensory inputs to different body parts. In dust-covered flies, sensory inputs change as a result of successful cleaning movements. Simulations from our model suggest that this change results in sequence progression. One possibility is that flies perform frequent comparisons between anterior and posterior sensory inputs, and the changing ratios drive different behavior choices. Alternatively, flies may track the temporal change in sensory input to a given body part to measure cleaning effectiveness. The first hypothesis is supported by our optogenetic competition experiments: iterative spatial comparisons of sensory inputs between body parts is essential for organizing grooming movements in sequence.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32142695
pii: S0960-9822(20)30089-0
doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2020.01.045
pmc: PMC7184881
mid: NIHMS1569186
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
988-1001.e4Subventions
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R01 NS110866
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R56 NS102416
Pays : United States
Organisme : Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Interests The authors declare no competing interests.
Références
Genetics. 2010 Oct;186(2):735-55
pubmed: 20697123
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Feb 26;110(9):3615-20
pubmed: 23382193
Genetics. 2018 Apr;208(4):1291-1309
pubmed: 29618589
J Neurosci. 1987 Dec;7(12):4201-8
pubmed: 3694271
Development. 1996 Sep;122(9):2801-12
pubmed: 8787754
Elife. 2015 May 06;4:
pubmed: 25945916
Nat Neurosci. 2014 Jul;17(7):962-70
pubmed: 24908103
Curr Biol. 2019 Feb 4;29(3):426-434.e6
pubmed: 30661796
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2009 Aug;19(4):345-53
pubmed: 19660932
Elife. 2017 Mar 27;6:
pubmed: 28346140
Front Behav Neurosci. 2014 Jul 23;8:254
pubmed: 25100963
Front Mol Neurosci. 2009 Aug 28;2:13
pubmed: 19750193
Cell Rep. 2012 Oct 25;2(4):991-1001
pubmed: 23063364
Cell. 2016 Feb 25;164(5):1046-59
pubmed: 26919434
Nature. 2009 Mar 12;458(7235):201-5
pubmed: 19279637
Curr Biol. 2016 Oct 24;26(20):R1022-R1038
pubmed: 27780045
Science. 1979 May 4;204(4392):521-3
pubmed: 107591
Elife. 2018 Feb 27;7:
pubmed: 29485401
J Comp Neurol. 2006 Sep 10;498(2):194-203
pubmed: 16856137
Cell. 2012 Dec 7;151(6):1345-57
pubmed: 23217715
J Neurosci. 1999 Nov 1;19(21):9557-69
pubmed: 10531458
Neuron. 2015 Sep 2;87(5):1036-49
pubmed: 26279475
Nature. 2010 Nov 18;468(7322):394-9
pubmed: 20972420
Nature. 1980 Jul 3;286(5768):65-7
pubmed: 7393324
Nat Methods. 2014 Mar;11(3):338-46
pubmed: 24509633
Elife. 2015 Sep 07;4:e08758
pubmed: 26344548
Wilehm Roux Arch Dev Biol. 1979 Sep;186(3):235-265
pubmed: 28304946
Elife. 2018 Jun 26;7:
pubmed: 29943731
Development. 1989 Oct;107(2):389-405
pubmed: 2517255
J Neurosci Methods. 2019 Oct 1;326:108352
pubmed: 31415845
Science. 2000 Mar 24;287(5461):2229-34
pubmed: 10744543
Elife. 2014 Aug 19;3:e02951
pubmed: 25139955
Neuron. 2018 Nov 7;100(3):636-650.e6
pubmed: 30293823
Cell. 2018 Jun 28;174(1):32-43.e15
pubmed: 29958111
Nature. 2013 Jan 17;493(7432):424-8
pubmed: 23263180
Nature. 2009 Mar 12;458(7235):165-71
pubmed: 19279630
Science. 2014 Mar 14;343(6176):1256-9
pubmed: 24626929
J Neurosci. 2016 Nov 2;36(44):11275-11282
pubmed: 27807168
Elife. 2017 Sep 09;6:
pubmed: 28887878
Nat Neurosci. 2017 Jan;20(1):34-41
pubmed: 27749829
Curr Biol. 2007 Dec 18;17(24):2105-2116
pubmed: 18060782
Science. 2017 Nov 3;358(6363):615-623
pubmed: 29097543
Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2012 Feb;22(1):3-10
pubmed: 22138559
Neuron. 2019 May 22;102(4):828-842.e7
pubmed: 30948249
Neuron. 1995 Feb;14(2):341-51
pubmed: 7857643
J Neurosci. 2014 Aug 27;34(35):11691-704
pubmed: 25164665
J Neurosci. 1989 Jan;9(1):56-62
pubmed: 2913213
Trends Neurosci. 2012 Jun;35(6):356-63
pubmed: 22498302
Development. 2002 Jul;129(14):3393-402
pubmed: 12091309
J Neurosci. 2001 Mar 1;21(5):1523-31
pubmed: 11222642