Walking


Journal

eLife
ISSN: 2050-084X
Titre abrégé: Elife
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101579614

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 11 2020
Historique:
received: 03 04 2020
accepted: 15 09 2020
entrez: 3 11 2020
pubmed: 4 11 2020
medline: 15 5 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

How insects navigate complex odor plumes, where the location and timing of odor packets are uncertain, remains unclear. Here we imaged complex odor plumes simultaneously with freely-walking flies, quantifying how behavior is shaped by encounters with individual odor packets. We found that navigation was stochastic and did not rely on the continuous modulation of speed or orientation. Instead, flies turned stochastically with stereotyped saccades, whose direction was biased upwind by the timing of prior odor encounters, while the magnitude and rate of saccades remained constant. Further, flies used the timing of odor encounters to modulate the transition rates between walks and stops. In more regular environments, flies continuously modulate speed and orientation, even though encounters can still occur randomly due to animal motion. We find that in less predictable environments, where encounters are random in both space and time, walking flies navigate with random walks biased by encounter timing. When walking along a city street, you might encounter a range of scents and odors, from the smells of coffee and food to those of exhaust fumes and garbage. The odors are swept to your nose by air currents that move scents in two different ways. They carry them downwind in a process called advection, but they also mix them chaotically with clean air in a process called turbulence. What results is an odor plume: a complex ever-changing structure resembling the smoke rising from a chimney. Within a plume, areas of highly concentrated odor particles break up into smaller parcels as they travel further from the odor source. This means that the concentration of the odor does not vary along a smooth gradient. Instead, the odor arrives in brief and unpredictable bursts. Despite this complexity, insects are able to use odor plumes with remarkable ease to navigate towards food sources. But how do they do this? Answering this question has proved challenging because odor plumes are usually invisible. Over the years, scientists have come up with a number of creative solutions to this problem, including releasing soap bubbles together with odors, or using wind tunnels to generate simpler, straight plumes in known locations. These approaches have shown that when insects encounter an odor, they surge upwind towards its source. When they lose track of the odor, they cast themselves crosswind in an effort to regain contact. But this does not explain how insects are able to navigate irregular odor plumes, in which both the timing and location of the odor bursts are unpredictable. Demir, Kadakia et al. have now bridged this gap by showing how fruit flies are attracted to smoke, an odorant that is also visible. By injecting irregular smoke plumes into a custom-built wind tunnel, and then imaging flies as they walked through it, Demir, Kadakia et al. showed that flies make random halts when navigating the plume. Each time they stop, they use the timing of the odor bursts reaching them to decide when to start moving again. Rather than turning every time they detect an odor, flies initiate turns at random times. When several odor bursts arrive in a short time, the flies tend to orient these turns upwind rather than downwind. Flies therefore rely on a different strategy to navigate irregular odor plumes than the ‘surge and cast’ method they use for regular odor streams. Successful navigation through complex irregular plumes involves a degree of random behavior. This helps the flies gather information about an unpredictable environment as they search for the source of the odor. These findings may help to understand how other insects use odor to navigate in the real world, for example, how mosquitoes track down human hosts.

Autres résumés

Type: plain-language-summary (eng)
When walking along a city street, you might encounter a range of scents and odors, from the smells of coffee and food to those of exhaust fumes and garbage. The odors are swept to your nose by air currents that move scents in two different ways. They carry them downwind in a process called advection, but they also mix them chaotically with clean air in a process called turbulence. What results is an odor plume: a complex ever-changing structure resembling the smoke rising from a chimney. Within a plume, areas of highly concentrated odor particles break up into smaller parcels as they travel further from the odor source. This means that the concentration of the odor does not vary along a smooth gradient. Instead, the odor arrives in brief and unpredictable bursts. Despite this complexity, insects are able to use odor plumes with remarkable ease to navigate towards food sources. But how do they do this? Answering this question has proved challenging because odor plumes are usually invisible. Over the years, scientists have come up with a number of creative solutions to this problem, including releasing soap bubbles together with odors, or using wind tunnels to generate simpler, straight plumes in known locations. These approaches have shown that when insects encounter an odor, they surge upwind towards its source. When they lose track of the odor, they cast themselves crosswind in an effort to regain contact. But this does not explain how insects are able to navigate irregular odor plumes, in which both the timing and location of the odor bursts are unpredictable. Demir, Kadakia et al. have now bridged this gap by showing how fruit flies are attracted to smoke, an odorant that is also visible. By injecting irregular smoke plumes into a custom-built wind tunnel, and then imaging flies as they walked through it, Demir, Kadakia et al. showed that flies make random halts when navigating the plume. Each time they stop, they use the timing of the odor bursts reaching them to decide when to start moving again. Rather than turning every time they detect an odor, flies initiate turns at random times. When several odor bursts arrive in a short time, the flies tend to orient these turns upwind rather than downwind. Flies therefore rely on a different strategy to navigate irregular odor plumes than the ‘surge and cast’ method they use for regular odor streams. Successful navigation through complex irregular plumes involves a degree of random behavior. This helps the flies gather information about an unpredictable environment as they search for the source of the odor. These findings may help to understand how other insects use odor to navigate in the real world, for example, how mosquitoes track down human hosts.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33140723
doi: 10.7554/eLife.57524
pii: 57524
pmc: PMC7609052
doi:
pii:

Banques de données

Dryad
['10.5061/dryad.4j0zpc87z']

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Subventions

Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R25 GM067110
Pays : United States
Organisme : Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
ID : 2919.02
Pays : International
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM106189
Pays : United States
Organisme : National Science Foundation
ID : DBI-1755494
Pays : International
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : F32 MH118700
Pays : United States
Organisme : Allen Foundation
ID : 11562
Pays : International
Organisme : NEI NIH HHS
ID : R01 EY026555
Pays : United States
Organisme : National Science Foundation
ID : PHY-1748958
Pays : International

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

© 2020, Demir et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

MD, NK, HA, DC, TE No competing interests declared

Références

J Chem Ecol. 2008 Jul;34(7):837-53
pubmed: 18548311
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Oct 1;99(20):12589-93
pubmed: 12228727
J Chem Ecol. 1994 Feb;20(2):255-79
pubmed: 24242052
Elife. 2015 May 06;4:
pubmed: 25945916
Curr Biol. 2016 May 23;26(10):1261-73
pubmed: 27112299
Neuron. 2004 Sep 2;43(5):703-14
pubmed: 15339651
Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2015 Nov;92(5):052901
pubmed: 26651756
Nature. 2012 Dec 6;492(7427):66-71
pubmed: 23172146
Elife. 2015 May 05;4:
pubmed: 25942453
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Jun 21;91(13):5756-60
pubmed: 11607476
J Chem Ecol. 1982 Sep;8(9):1207-15
pubmed: 24413963
J Chem Ecol. 2008 Jul;34(7):854-66
pubmed: 18581182
J Exp Biol. 2006 Aug;209(Pt 15):3001-17
pubmed: 16857884
Elife. 2018 Aug 21;7:
pubmed: 30129438
Elife. 2019 Jan 08;8:
pubmed: 30620334
Science. 1974 May 31;184(4140):999-1001
pubmed: 4826172
Nature. 2009 Mar 12;458(7235):201-5
pubmed: 19279637
Elife. 2017 Jun 28;6:
pubmed: 28653907
Trends Neurosci. 2007 Mar;30(3):92-100
pubmed: 17224191
Elife. 2015 Jun 16;4:
pubmed: 26077825
Elife. 2015 Oct 06;4:
pubmed: 26439011
Nature. 2007 Jan 25;445(7126):406-9
pubmed: 17251974
Cell. 1988 Aug 26;54(5):723-33
pubmed: 2457447
PLoS Comput Biol. 2016 Jan 05;12(1):e1004682
pubmed: 26730727
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Nov 25;111(47):16925-30
pubmed: 25385618
J Exp Biol. 2007 Dec;210(Pt 23):4092-103
pubmed: 18025010
Nat Neurosci. 2011 Jul 17;14(8):1039-44
pubmed: 21765422
Elife. 2018 Nov 22;7:
pubmed: 30465650
Elife. 2014 Dec 09;3:
pubmed: 25490069
Nature. 2011 Oct 12;479(7373):397-400
pubmed: 21993623
Front Behav Neurosci. 2014 Oct 22;8:365
pubmed: 25386124
Nature. 2015 Mar 12;519(7542):233-6
pubmed: 25533959
Nature. 2004 Oct 14;431(7010):854-9
pubmed: 15372051
Nat Commun. 2011 Aug 23;2:441
pubmed: 21863008
Nature. 2013 Jan 17;493(7432):424-8
pubmed: 23263180
Curr Biol. 2013 Jul 8;23(13):1163-72
pubmed: 23770185
PLoS Comput Biol. 2018 Jul 10;14(7):e1006275
pubmed: 29990365
Sci Rep. 2012;2:361
pubmed: 22511996
Nature. 2007 Jan 4;445(7123):86-90
pubmed: 17167414
Biol Cybern. 2016 Dec;110(6):417-434
pubmed: 27688218
Curr Biol. 2014 Feb 3;24(3):274-86
pubmed: 24440395
PLoS Comput Biol. 2018 Feb 12;14(2):e1005969
pubmed: 29432454
BMC Syst Biol. 2015 Oct 29;9:74
pubmed: 26515482
Science. 2014 May 23;344(6186):901-4
pubmed: 24855268
Neuron. 2016 Jul 20;91(2):425-38
pubmed: 27373835

Auteurs

Mahmut Demir (M)

Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale University, New Haven, United States.

Nirag Kadakia (N)

Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale University, New Haven, United States.
Swartz Foundation Fellow, Yale University, New Haven, United States.

Hope D Anderson (HD)

Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale University, New Haven, United States.

Damon A Clark (DA)

Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale University, New Haven, United States.
Interdepartmental Neuroscience Program, Yale University, New Haven, United States.
Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven, United States.

Thierry Emonet (T)

Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale University, New Haven, United States.
Interdepartmental Neuroscience Program, Yale University, New Haven, United States.
Department of Physics, Yale University, New Haven, United States.

Articles similaires

Robotic Surgical Procedures Animals Humans Telemedicine Models, Animal

Odour generalisation and detection dog training.

Lyn Caldicott, Thomas W Pike, Helen E Zulch et al.
1.00
Animals Odorants Dogs Generalization, Psychological Smell
Animals TOR Serine-Threonine Kinases Colorectal Neoplasms Colitis Mice
Animals Tail Swine Behavior, Animal Animal Husbandry

Classifications MeSH