Inhibitory columnar feedback neurons are involved in motion processing in Drosophila
- Institute of Developmental Biology and Neurobiology, Johannes-Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany
- University of Minnesota Genomics Center, United States
- Department of Genetics, Cell Biology, and Developmental Biology, University of Minnesota, United States
- Department of Neurobiology, Stanford University, United States
- Institute for Quantitative and Computational Biosciences (IQCB), Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Germany
Figures
Figure 1 with 1 supplement
C2 dominates the expression pattern of driver lines with deficits in motion vision upon neuronal silencing.
(a–c) Four examples of InSITE lines with behavioral deficits to OFF motion stimuli expressing the columnar feedback neuron C2. Shown are the full expression pattern (a, scale bar = 20 µm, 10 µm), single-cell clones (b, scale bar = 10 µm), and the gad1 intersection pattern (c, scale bar = 20 µm), where the InSITE and gad1 intersection (InSITE-Gal4 UAS-LexADBD, Gad1-p65AD, lexAop-GFP) is shown in green (GFP), the original expression pattern of the Gal4 line in red (RFP), and the neuropil is marked with nc82 (blue). The full InSITE-Gal4 expression pattern is additionally visualized with RFP. (d) Three examples of InSITE lines with behavioral deficits to ON motion stimuli screened for neurons within the gad1 intersection pattern (scale bar = 20 µm). (e) Drawing of the two GABAergic neurons C2 (magenta) and C3 (green) in the fly visual system, including the four neuropiles: lamina (La), medulla (M), lobula (Lo), and lobula plate (Lp). The local motion detectors T4 and T5 are additionally visualized in gray.
Figure 1—figure supplement 1
Screen for behaviorally relevant GABAergic neurons.
(a,b) Behavioral data from a forward genetic screen (Silies et al., 2013), where each dot represents the translation and rotation index of a Gal4 line when crossed to UAS-shits. Highlighted are C2-containing lines as well as the UAS-shits/+ control. Plots show behavioral responses to ON (a) and OFF (b) motion. (c) Schematic illustrating the procedure of screening for behaviorally relevant GABAergic neurons in the visual system of Drosophila. InSITE Gal4 driver lines were selected based on a reduced rotation behavior to moving OFF stimuli when the targeted neurons were silenced. GABAergic neurons within the expression pattern were identified by screening for colocalization of the InSITE expression pattern (GFP, green) with anti-GABA (magenta) staining. (d) Same examples of InSITE lines as in Figure 1a–c with behavioral deficits to OFF motion stimuli screened for GABA (magenta) colocalization with the InSITE expression pattern labeled with GFP (green; scale bar = 20 µm, 10 µm). (e) InSITE Gal4 driver lines with a deficit for ON motion behavior were further screened for GABAergic neurons using a gad1 intersection strategy. GABAergic neurons within the expression pattern were labeled with GFP (green), and the whole expression pattern with RFP (red). (f) Examples of InSITE lines with behavioral deficits to ON motion stimuli screened for neurons within the gad1 intersection pattern. The neuropil is marked with nc82 (blue), the InSITE expression pattern is marked with RFP (red), and the GABAergic neurons are additionally labeled with GFP (green; scale bar = 20 µm). Besides C3, we identified a large tangential cell (LT) located in the lobula and a medulla neuron, with a branching pattern reminiscent of the recently identified medulla intrinsic neuron Mi1new (Supplementary file 1; Varija Raghu et al., 2011).
Figure 2
C2 and C3 connect to circuitry upstream of motion-sensitive neurons.
(a) Confocal images of C2 cells labeled with the dendritic marker DenMark and a GFP-tagged Synaptotagmin (syt::EGFP) to label pre-synapses in C2 (scale bar = 20 µm). (b) Percentage of synapse counts with neurons postsynaptic and presynaptic to C2 or C3. EM data . Shown are mean ± standard error. (c) Illustration of the C2 and C3 circuitry within the motion detection pathway. Data in (b–c) were extracted from the FAFB EM dataset and Flywire connectome (Dorkenwald et al., 2024).
Figure 3 with 1 supplement
Response properties of C2 and C3 to visual stimulation.
(a) Calcium responses of C2 (magenta, N=16 flies, 181 cells) and C3 (green, N=12 flies, 149 cells) neurons in medulla layer M1 to full field ON and OFF flashes. (b) Polar plots showing response amplitude of C2 (N=6 flies, 85 cells) and C3 (N=8 flies, 77 cells) to ON and OFF edges moving onto eight different directions. Shown are mean ± standard error. (c) Average aligned spatiotemporal receptive fields (STRFs) of C2 and C3 cells extracted in layer M1 from responses to horizontal or vertical ternary noise bars. Red and blue color indicate a positive and negative correlation with the stimulus, respectively. Sample size (N) equals number of cells. (d) Temporal filter extracted from averaging single STRFs along the time axis of the horizontal and vertical STRFs. (e) Timing of the ON peak of the temporal filter (left) and the full width half maximum (FWHM) of a Gaussian fit extracted along the spatial dimension of maximal response of single STRFs (right). Shown are mean ± standard error. Significances are based on Wilcoxon rank sum test (p≤0.05 *, p≤0.01**, p≤0.001***).
Figure 3—figure supplement 1
C2 and C3 responses are weaker in proximal medulla layers.
(a) Confocal image of C2 and C3 split gal4 driver lines expressing GFP (green). The neuropil is marked with nc82 (blue). Scale bar = 20 µm. (b) Calcium responses of C2 (magenta) and C3 (green) neurons in different medulla layers M1, M5, M8, M9, and the cell bodies (CB) to full field ON and OFF flashes. Sample Size (N) refers to number of flies.
Figure 4
C2 shapes physiological properties of Mi1 neurons upstream of T4.
(a) Calcium responses of Mi1 axon terminals for control condition (gray, N=5 flies, 24 cells) or while genetically silencing C2 using shibirets (magenta, N=3 flies, 20 cells). (b) Left: Average aligned spatiotemporal receptive fields (STRFs) of Mi1 cells extracted from responses to horizontal or vertical ternary noise bars. Sample size (N) equals number of cells. Right: Temporal filter extracted from averaging single STRFs along the time axis of the horizontal and vertical STRFs. Timing of the ON peak of the temporal filter (top) and the full width half maximum (FWHM) of a Gaussian fit extracted along the spatial dimension of maximal response of single STRFs (bottom). Box plots show median, the interquartile range, and whiskers show min and max of the data. Significances are based on Wilcoxon rank sum test (p≤0.05 *, p≤0.01**, p≤0.001***).
Figure 5 with 1 supplement
C2 and C3 disinhibit responses of motion detectors T4 and T5 to full field flash stimuli.
(a) Schematic of visual circuitry illustrating C2 and C3 block by expressing Kir 2.1. In vivo calcium responses were recorded from axon terminals of T4 and T5 neurons (rectangles) in response to full field ON and OFF light flashes for controls (gray, N=9 flies), upon C2 block (magenta, N=8 flies) or upon C3 block (green, N=10 flies). (b) Calcium response of T4 neurons to the onset of light (ON step) and T5 neurons to the offset of light (OFF step) quantified from data in (a). (c) Time to peak of the ON response of T4 upon C2 and C3 block (a) and decay rate quantified from fitting an exponential function to the decay of the ON response. Box plots show median, the interquartile range, and whiskers show min and max of the data. Significances are based on Kruskal-Wallis Test (p≤0.05 *, p≤0.01**, p≤0.001***,+Bonferroni correction for multiple testing).
Figure 5—figure supplement 1
C2 and C3 suppress flash responses in T4 and T5 neurons from different lobula plate layers.
(a) ROIs of single T4 and T5 axon terminals extracted mathematically from calcium imaging data. (b) Number of ROIs (cells) extracted for all flies for control condition (gray, N=9 flies), C2 block (magenta, N=9 flies), C3 block (green, N=10 flies), and C2/C3 double block (blue, N=10 flies). (c) Calcium responses of T4 and T5 neurons to full field ON and OFF light flashes for C2/C3 double block. (d) Response change of T4 neurons to the onset of light (ON step) and T5 neurons to the offset of light (OFF step) quantified from (c). (e) Response change of T5 neurons to the onset of light (ON step). (f) Calcium responses of T4 and T5 neurons extracted from different layers of the lobula plate to full field ON and OFF light flashes. Shown are mean ± standard error. Significances are based on ANOVA (p≤0.05 *, p≤0.01**, p≤0.001***,+Bonferroni correction for multiple testing).
Figure 6 with 1 supplement
C2 and C3 are required for direction-selective responses of T4 and T5 cells.
(a) Compass plots showing direction tuning of T4 and T5 neurons extracted from responses to ON and OFF bars moving into eight different directions for the control (UAS-Kir2.1), C2 block (C2 >>Kir2.1), C3 block (C3 >>Kir2.1), and C2/C3 double block (C2&C3 >>Kir2.1) conditions. Vector length corresponds to the strength of DS tuning. (b) Direction selectivity averaged across cells and flies from all layers for control condition (gray, N=7 flies, 370 T4 cells, 196 T5 cells), C2 block (magenta, N=8 flies, 170 T4 cells, 196 T5 cells), C3 block (green, N=6 flies, 188 T4 cells, 117 T5 cells), or double C2/C3 block (blue, N=7 flies, 132 T4 cells, 78 T5 cells). Box plots show median, the interquartile range, and whiskers show min and max of the data. (c) Response amplitude (dF/F) of T4 and T5 cells in relation to the angular distance of stimulus motion direction to the neurons PD. Shown are mean ± standard error. Significances are based on ANOVA (p≤0.05 *, p≤0.01**, p≤0.001***) (b) or Kruskal-Wallis test (c) and with Bonferroni correction for multiple testing. In (c) significant comparisons to the control condition are indicated by asterisks color-coded by genotype (p≤0.05 *).
Figure 6—figure supplement 1
C2 and C3 contribute to direction-selective responses of T4 and T5 cells from all lobula plate layers.
Direction selectivity averaged across cells and flies, for different layers of the lobula plate. Control condition (gray, N=7 flies), C2 block (magenta, N=8 flies), C3 block (green, N=6 flies), and double C2/C3 block (blue, N=7 flies). Significances are based on KKW (p≤0.05 *, p≤0.01**, p≤0.001***, +Bonferroni correction for multiple testing).
Figure 7 with 1 supplement
C2 is required for higher temporal resolution of the behavioral responses to moving ON edges.
(a) Schematic of the stimulus. Single moving ON edges were presented for 0.75 s, interleaved by 1.5 s of darkness. (b) Time traces of control and C2-silenced flies, to the stimulus in (a). (c) Deceleration of the turning velocity in the post-peak interval (0.45 s-0.75 s) of the time traces in (b). *p<0.05, two-tailed Student’s t tests against both controls. (d) A stimulus epoch comprised of two moving ON edges of 0.75 s duration each, presented one after the other without delay, and with 1.5 s darkness between two epochs. The ON edge luminance was 9806.3 photons s–1 receptor–1. (e) Time traces of control and C2-silenced flies, to the stimulus in (d). (f) Percent recovery from the turning response elicited by the first of the moving edge pair. **p<0.01, two-tailed Student’s t tests against both controls. (g) A stimulus epoch comprised of two moving ON edges of 0.5 s duration each, presented one after the other without any delay, and with 1.5 s darkness between two epochs. (h) Time traces of control and C2-silenced flies, to the stimulus in (g). (i) Percent recovery from the turning response elicited by the first of the moving edge pair. **p<0.01, two-tailed Student’s t tests against both controls. (j–k) Stimuli structured similarly to the one used in (d) (in j) or in (g) (in k) were presented at two dimmer ambient light conditions (ON edge luminance of 1225.8 and 153.2 photons s–1 receptor–1, respectively). The left and the middle panels show percent recovery from the turning response elicited by the first of the moving edge pair in the dimmer and the dimmest conditions. The right panel compares the recoveries across all three light conditions. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ns: non-significant, two-tailed Student’s t tests against both controls. All data show mean ± SEM. For (b–c), n=15 (UAS-shits/+), n=18 (C2-Gal4/+), n=12 (C2 >>shits) flies. For E-F and H-I, n=10 flies each genotype. For (j, left), n=8 (UAS-shits/+), n=9 (C2-Gal4/+), n=8 (C2 >>shits) flies. For (j, middle), n=7 (UAS-shits/+), n=9 (C2-Gal4/+), n=9 (C2 >>shits) flies. For (k, left), n=7 (UAS-shits/+), n=9 (C2-Gal4/+), n=9 (C2 >>shits) flies. For (k, middle), n=7 (UAS-shits/+), n=9 (C2-Gal4/+), n=9 (C2 >>shits) flies. Gray patches in each stimulus schematics mark the corresponding motion durations in the response-time traces in the following panel.
Figure 7—figure supplement 1
C2 temporally sharpens optomotor responses to moving ON edges in bright light conditions.
(a) Schematic of the stimulus. Single moving ON edges (9806.3 photons s–1 receptor–1) were presented for 0.75 s, interleaved by 1.5 s of darkness (same as Figure 7a). (b) Time traces of control and C3-silenced flies, to the stimulus in (a). (c) Deceleration of the turning velocity in the post-peak interval (0.45 s-0.75 s) of the time traces in (b). ns: non-significant, two-tailed Student’s t tests against both controls. (d) Schematic of the stimulus. A stimulus epoch comprised two moving ON edges of 0.75 s duration each, presented one after the other without any delay (same as in Figure 7d, but with a dimmer ON edge luminance of 1225.8 photons s–1 receptor–1). The interval between two epochs lasted 1.5 s. (e) Time traces of control and C2-silenced flies, to the stimulus in d. (f) Percent recovery from the turning response elicited by the first of the moving edge pair illustrated in (d). *p<0.05, two-tailed Student’s t tests against both controls. (g–i) Same as in (d-f), in the dimmest light condition (the ON edge luminance of 153.2 photons s–1 receptor–1). ns: non-significant, two-tailed Student’s t tests against both controls. (j) A stimulus epoch comprised two moving ON edges of 0.5 s duration each, presented one after the other without any delay (same as in Figure 7g, but with the ON edge luminance same as in d). The interval between two epochs was still 1.5 s long, with dark screen. (k) Time traces of control and C2-silenced flies, to the stimulus in (g). (l) Percent recovery from the turning response elicited by the first of the moving edge pair illustrated in j. ns: non-significant, two-tailed Student’s t tests against both controls. (m–o) Same as in (j–i), in the dimmest light condition (the ON edge luminance same as in g). ns: non-significant, two-tailed Student’s t tests against both controls. All data show mean ± SEM. For (b–c), n=15 (UAS-shits/+), n=13 (C3-Gal4/+), n=16 (C3>>shits) flies. For (e–f), n=8 (UAS-shits/+), n=9 (C2-Gal4/+), n=8 (C2>>shits) flies. For (h–i), n=7 (UAS-shits/+), n=9 (C2-Gal4/+), n=9 (C2>>shits) flies. For (k–l), n=7 (UAS-shits/+), n=9 (C2-Gal4/+), n=9 (C2>>shits) flies. For (n–o), n=7 (UAS-shits/+), n=9 (C2-Gal4/+), n=9 (C2>>shits) flies. Gray patches in each stimulus schematics mark the corresponding motion durations in the response-time traces in the following panel.
Author response image 1
Calcium responses of L2 axon terminals to full field ON and PFF flashes for controls (grey, N=8 flies, 59 cells) or while genetically silencing C2 using shibirets (magenta, N=4 flies, 26 cells).
Traces show mean +- SEM.
Author response image 2
Relative pres- and post-synaptic counts for C3 from 3 different data sets.
Shown are up to ten post- or pre-synaptic partner neurons.
Author response image 3
Relative pres- and post-synaptic counts for C2 from 3 different data sets.
Shown are up to ten post- or pre-synaptic partner neurons.
Author response image 4
Image of a C2 (blue) and Mi1 (yellow) neuron from EM Data (FAFB).
Circles depict synapses from C2 to Mi1 in layer M1 of the medulla.
Tables
Key resources table
| Reagent type (species) or resource | Designation | Source or reference | Identifiers | Additional information |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | PBac{IT.GAL4}0301 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_62767 | InSITE Gal4 screen |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | PBac{IT.GAL4}0564 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_63411 | InSITE Gal4 screen |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | PBac{IT.GAL4}0787 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_63782 | InSITE Gal4 screen |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | PBac{IT.GAL4}0940 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_63911 | InSITE Gal4 screen |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | PBac{IT.GAL4}0470 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_63341 | InSITE Gal4 screen |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | PBac{IT.GAL4}0096 | Silies et al., 2013 | N/A | InSITE Gal4 screen |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | PBac{IT.GAL4}0396 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_64718 | InSITE Gal4 screen |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | PBac{IT.GAL4}0619 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_63449 | InSITE Gal4 screen |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | PBac{IT.GAL4}0913 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_63892 | InSITE Gal4 screen |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | PBac{IT.GAL4}0669 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_64737 | InSITE Gal4 screen |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | PBac{IT.GAL4}0974 | Silies et al., 2013 | N/A | InSITE Gal4 screen |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | PBac{IT.GAL4}1037 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_63975 | InSITE Gal4 screen |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | PBac{IT.GAL4}0980 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_63936 | InSITE Gal4 screen |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | PBac{IT.GAL4}0518 | Silies et al., 2013 | N/A | InSITE Gal4 screen |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | PBac{IT.GAL4}0756 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_63499 | InSITE Gal4 screen |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | PBac{IT.GAL4}0081 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_62703 | InSITE Gal4 screen |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | PBac{IT.GAL4}0168 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_62706 | InSITE Gal4 screen |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | PBac{IT.GAL4}0651 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_63731 | InSITE Gal4 screen |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | UAS-FRT-CD2y+-RFT-mCD8::GFP; | Wong et al., 2002 | N/A | UASFlp FlpOut clones |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | UAS-CD8::GFP(I); UAS-2xEGFP(II) | BDSC | N/A | InSITE Gal4 screen |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | UAS-DenMark, UAS-syt.eGFP | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_33065 | pre- and post-synaptic markers |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | UAS-mCD8::RFPattP8; lexAop-mCD8::GFPattP16 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_32229 | Gad1 intersection |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | UAS-LexA.DBD | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_56528 | Gad1 intersection |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | Gad1MI09277-p65AD | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_60322 | Gad1 intersection |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | lexAop-GCaMP6f-p10su(Hw)attp5 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_44277 | Calcium Imaging |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | 20xUAS-IVS- GCaMP6f attP40 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_42747 | C2/C3 imaging |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | R59E08-LexAattP40 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_52832 | T4/T5 imaging |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | R20C11-p65.ADattP40 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_70106 | C2 split Gal4 C2/C3 split Gal4 |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | R25B02-Gal4.DBDattP2 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_68969 | C2 split Gal4 |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | R26H02-p65.ADattP40 | Tuthill et al., 2013 | RRID:BDSC_70159 | C3 split Gal4 |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | R29G11-Gal4.DBDattP2 | Tuthill et al., 2013 | N/A | C3 split Gal4 |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | R48D11-Gal4.DBDattP2 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_69028 | C2/C3 split Gal4 |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | R19F01-lexAattp40 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_52547 | Mi1 lexA |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | UAS-KCNJ2.EGFP(Kir2.1)7 | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_6595 | C2/C3 block |
| Genetic reagent (D. melanogaster) | UAS-shits | BDSC | RRID:BDSC_44222 | C2/C3 block |
| Software, algorithm | ImageJ | National Institutes of Health | http://imagej.nih.gov/ij | |
| Software, algorithm | Imaris | Oxford Instruments | ||
| Software, algorithm | Adobe Photoshop 2021 | |||
| Software, algorithm | MATLAB | Mathworks | The MathWorks Inc50 Natick, MA | |
| Software, algorithm | Python 2.7 | Python | https://python.org | |
| Antibody | Polyclonal anti-GFP (chicken) | Abcam | Ab13970 | Conc (1:2000) |
| Antibody | Monoclonal anti-Bruchpilot (nc82) (mouse) | DSHB | N/A | Conc (1:25) |
| Antibody | Polyclonal anti-GABA (rabbit) | Sigma-Aldrich | A2052 Sigma | Conc (1:200) |
| Antibody | Polyclonal anti-DsRed (rabbit) | Clontech | 632475 | Conc (1:400) |
| Antibody | Alexa Fluor anti-chicken-Alexa 488 (goat) | Dianova | 103-545-155 | Conc (1:200) |
| Antibody | Alexa Fluor anti-mouse-Alexa 647 (goat) | DSHB | 115-605-003 | Conc (1:200) |
| Antibody | Alexa Fluor anti-rabbit-Alexa 594 (goat) | Sigma-Aldrich | 111-585-003 | Conc (1:200) |
Appendix 1—table 1
Response properties of C2 and C3.
Statistical summary of Wilcoxon rank sum test. Sample Size (N) is given in number of cells (C).
| Figure 3 | Group 1: C2 (magenta) | Group 2: C3 (green) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p-value G1-G2 | Mean | Std | N | Mean | Std | N | |
| Timing ON peak Elevation (e) | 0.0139 | –0.056 | 0.02 | 18 | –0.08 | 0.02 | 10 |
| Timing ON peak Azimuth (e) | 0.0033 | –0.054 | 0.03 | 13 | –0.08 | 0.03 | 25 |
| FWHM Elevation (e) | 0.1300 | 19.697 | 8.82 | 18 | 15.52 | 5.95 | 10 |
| FWHM Azimuth (e) | 0.1192 | 17.769 | 4.07 | 13 | 15.30 | 2.46 | 25 |
Appendix 1—table 2
Response properties of Mi1.
Statistical summary of Wilcoxon rank sum test. Sample Size (N) is given in number of cells (C).
| Figure 4 | Group 1: Control (gray) | Group 2: C2 block (magenta) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p-value G1-G2 | Mean | Std | N | Mean | Std | N | |
| Timing ON peak | 0.0000 | –0.113 | 0.15 | 59 | –0.195 | 0.23 | 73 |
| FWHM | 0.8332 | 16.366 | 5.65 | 59 | 15.447 | 5.01 | 73 |
Appendix 1—table 3
Response properties of T4 and T5 to full-field flashes.
Statistical summary of ANOVA.
| T4-ONResps (Figure 5b, Figure 5—figure supplement 1d) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source | SS | dF | MS | F | Prob >F |
| Groups | 2.39505 | 3 | 0.79835 | 4.26 | 0.012 |
| Error | 6.18794 | 33 | 0.18751 | ||
| Total | 8.58299 | 36 | |||
| T5-OFFResps (Figure 5b, Figure 5—figure supplement 1d) | |||||
| Source | SS | dF | MS | F | Prob >F |
| Groups | 0.10164 | 3 | 0.03388 | 0.86 | 0.4715 |
| Error | 1.30002 | 33 | 0.03939 | ||
| Total | 1.40166 | 36 | |||
| T5-ONResps (Figure 5—figure supplement 1e) | |||||
| Source | SS | dF | MS | F | Prob >F |
| Groups | 0.57289 | 3 | 0.19096 | 5.02 | 0.0056 |
| Error | 1.25588 | 33 | 0.03806 | ||
| Total | 1.82877 | 36 | |||
| # Cells T4 (Figure 5—figure supplement 1b) | |||||
| Source | SS | dF | MS | F | Prob >F |
| Groups | 4868.62 | 3 | 1622.87 | 13.74 | 4.95355e-06 |
| Error | 4017.2 | 34 | 118.15 | ||
| Total | 8885.82 | 37 | |||
| # Cells T5 (Figure 5—figure supplement 1b) | |||||
| Source | SS | dF | MS | F | Prob >F |
| Groups | 163.53 | 3 | 54.5101 | 2.01 | 0.1313 |
| Error | 923.02 | 34 | 27.1477 | ||
| Total | 1086.55 | 37 | |||
Appendix 1—table 4
Flash responses in T4/T5 upon blocking C2 or C3.
Statistical summary of multi comparisons with Bonferroni correction. Sample Size (N) is given in number of flies (F).
| Figure 5 | G1: Control (gray) | G2: C2 block (magenta) | G3: C3 block (green) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p-value G1-G2 | p-value G1-G3 | p-value G2-G3 | Mean | Std | N (F) | Mean | Std | N (F) | Mean | Std | N (F) | ||||
| Steps dF/F T4 ON (Figure 5b) | 0.02745 | 0.02156 | 1 | 0.1908 | 0.11 | 9 | 0.8310 | 0.65 | 8 | 0.8146 | 0.27 | 10 | |||
| Steps dF/F T5 OFF (Figure 5b) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.3167 | 0.13 | 9 | 0.3999 | 0.22 | 8 | 0.4350 | 0.18 | 10 | |||
| Time to peak (Figure 5c) | - | - | 0.00032 | - | - | - | 0.4250 | 0.07 | 8 | 1.0500 | 0.38 | 10 | |||
| Decay rate (Figure 5c) | - | - | 0.15063 | - | - | - | 0.6938 | 0.27 | 7 | 0.8685 | 0.2 | 10 | |||
| Figure 5—figure supplement 1 | G1: Control (gray) | G2: C2 block (magenta) | G2: C3 block (green) | G2: C2C3 block (blue) | |||||||||||
| p-val G1-G2 | p-val G1-G3 | p-val G1-G4 | Mean | Std | N | Mean | Std | N | Mean | Std | N | Mean | Std | N | |
| # Cells T4 (b) | 1 | 0.087025 | 0.000018 | 42.666 | 13 | 9F | 41.666 | 13.6 | 9F | 29.800 | 10.4 | 10 F | 14.800 | 4.49 | 10 F |
| # Cells T5 (b) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 11.000 | 4.55 | 9F | 7.5556 | 6.94 | 9F | 13.400 | 5.35 | 10 F | 10.400 | 3.53 | 10 F |
| Steps dF/F T4 ON (d) | See T1 | See T1 | 0.19447 | 0.1908 | 0.11 | 9F | See T1 | - | - | See T1 | - | - | 0.6352 | 0.51 | 10 F |
| Steps dF/F T5 OFF (d) | See T1 | See T1 | 1 | 0.3167 | 0.13 | 9F | See T1 | - | - | See T1 | - | - | 0.3181 | 0.23 | 10 F |
| Steps dF/F T5 ON(e) | 0.00301 | 0.46976 | 0.76674 | 0.1082 | 0.09 | 9F | 0.4739 | 0.31 | 8F | 0.2711 | 0.12 | 10 F | 0.2483 | 0.19 | 10 F |
Appendix 1—table 5
Direction tuning T4 and T5.
Statistical summary of ANOVA. Related to Figure 6.
| DS (vector length) all layers: multiway analysis ANOVA | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source | SS | dF | MS | F | Prob >F |
| Conditions | 2.17782 | 3 | 0.72594 | 60.18 | 0 |
| Layer | 0.13956 | 3 | 0.04652 | 3.86 | 0.0104 |
| T4/T5 | 0.02321 | 1 | 0.02321 | 1.92 | 0.167 |
| Error | 2.34025 | 194 | 0.01206 | ||
| Total | 4.67595 | 201 | |||
| DS (vector length) averaged across layers T4 | |||||
| Source | SS | dF | MS | F | Prob >F |
| Groups | 0.43445 | 3 | 0.14482 | 29.78 | 2.93772e-08 |
| Error | 0.11671 | 24 | 0.00486 | ||
| Total | 0.55116 | 27 | |||
| DS (vector length) averaged across layers T5 | |||||
| Source | SS | dF | MS | F | Prob >F |
| Groups | 827.81 | 3 | 275.937 | 13.14 | 0.0043 |
| Error | 810.19 | 23 | 35.226 | ||
| Total | 1638 | 26 | |||
Appendix 1—table 6
Statistical summary of multi comparisons with Bonferroni correction.
Sample Size (N) is given in number of cells (C) or flies (F).
| G1: Control (gray) | G2: C2block (magenta) | G2: C3 block (green) | G2: C2C3 block (blue) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p-val G1-G2 | p-val G1-G3 | p-val G1-G4 | Mean | Std | N | Mean | Std | N | Mean | Std | N | Mean | Std | N | |
| DS T4 (Figure 6b) | 0.00000 | 0.00028 | 0.00000 | 0.5165 | 0.08 | 7F | 0.2517 | 0.08 | 8F | 0.3245 | 0.05 | 6F | 0.1852 | 0.03 | 7F |
| DS T5 (Figure 6b) | 0.0244 | 0.1894 | 0.0001 | 0.4880 | 0.08 | 7F | 0.3463 | 0.08 | 7F | 0.3822 | 0.10 | 6F | 0.2495 | 0.06 | 7F |
| dF/F –180AD T4 (Figure 6c) | 0.0140 | 0.0221 | 0.0262 | 0.6751 | 0.44 | 7F | 1.4116 | 0.70 | 8F | 1.4518 | 0.43 | 6F | 1.1939 | 0.22 | 7F |
| dF/F –135AD T4 (Figure 6c) | 0.0205 | 0.0734 | 0.0111 | 0.6233 | 0.40 | 7F | 1.2933 | 0.65 | 8F | 1.2765 | 0.45 | 6F | 1.1196 | 0.30 | 7F |
| dF/F –90AD T4 (Figure 6c) | 0.0289 | 0.0734 | 0.0530 | 0.7187 | 0.42 | 7F | 1.3122 | 0.55 | 8F | 1.4167 | 0.54 | 6F | 1.2521 | 0.45 | 7F |
| dF/F –45AD T4 (Figure 6c) | 0.9551 | 0.2343 | 0.6200 | 2.2096 | 1.10 | 7F | 2.1420 | 0.91 | 8F | 3.1046 | 1.32 | 6F | 1.7718 | 0.53 | 7F |
| dF/F 0AD T4 (Figure 6c) | 0.6943 | 0.1807 | 0.4557 | 3.8594 | 1.93 | 7F | 4.0212 | 1.86 | 8F | 5.3724 | 1.66 | 6F | 2.7353 | 0.82 | 7F |
| dF/F 45AD T4 (Figure 6c) | 0.8665 | 0.1375 | 0.7104 | 2.1960 | 1.22 | 7F | 2.2547 | 1.11 | 8F | 3.3790 | 1.15 | 6F | 1.7469 | 0.44 | 7F |
| dF/F 90AD T4 (Figure 6c) | 0.0721 | 0.1014 | 0.026 | 0.7076 | 0.48 | 7F | 1.3867 | 0.75 | 8F | 1.6395 | 0.79 | 6F | 1.3073 | 0.36 | 7F |
| dF/F 135AD T4 (Figure 6c) | 0.0140 | 0.0513 | 0.0379 | 0.6250 | 0.42 | 7F | 1.3499 | 0.71 | 8F | 1.4048 | 0.56 | 6F | 1.1209 | 0.31 | 7F |
| dF/F –180AD T5 (Figure 6c) | 0.0140 | 0.1807 | 0.0023 | 0.6593 | 0.45 | 7F | 1.2500 | 0.34 | 8F | 1.0113 | 0.35 | 6F | 1.5759 | 0.38 | 7F |
| dF/F –135AD T5 (Figure 6c) | 0.0401 | 0.2343 | 0.0041 | 0.6537 | 0.43 | 7F | 1.1803 | 0.34 | 8F | 1.0035 | 0.36 | 6F | 1.3635 | 0.35 | 7F |
| dF/F –90AD T5 (Figure 6c) | 0.2319 | 0.3660 | 0.0111 | 0.8763 | 0.55 | 7F | 1.3589 | 0.48 | 8F | 1.1756 | 0.30 | 6F | 1.6191 | 0.35 | 7F |
| dF/F –45AD T5 (Figure 6c) | 0.4634 | 0.6282 | 0.4557 | 2.0625 | 1.19 | 7F | 2.4539 | 0.96 | 8F | 2.5859 | 0.88 | 6F | 2.7355 | 0.94 | 7F |
| dF/F 0AD T5 (Figure 6c) | 0.2810 | 0.6282 | 1 | 3.2665 | 1.45 | 7F | 4.2833 | 1.37 | 8F | 4.1690 | 1.27 | 6F | 3.7727 | 0.97 | 7F |
| dF/F 45AD T5 (Figure 6c) | 0.2319 | 0.5338 | 0.8048 | 1.9791 | 1.00 | 7F | 2.7670 | 1.02 | 8F | 2.6985 | 1.32 | 6F | 2.2519 | 0.45 | 7F |
| dF/F 90AD T5 (Figure 6c) | 0.2810 | 0.6282 | 0.2086 | 0.8989 | 0.68 | 7F | 1.4130 | 0.54 | 8F | 1.2793 | 0.78 | 6F | 1.4200 | 0.30 | 7F |
| dF/F 135AD T5 (Figure 6c) | 0.0939 | 0.1375 | 0.0041 | 0.6688 | 0.45 | 7F | 1.1418 | 0.29 | 8F | 0.9882 | 0.31 | 6F | 1.4702 | 0.41 | 7F |
| Figure 6—figure supplement 1 | G1: Control (gray) | G2: C2block (magenta) | G2: C3 block (green) | G2: C2C3 block (blue) | |||||||||||
| p-val G1-G2 | p-val G1-G3 | p-val G1-G4 | Mean | Std | N | Mean | Std | N | Mean | Std | N | Mean | Std | N | |
| DS Layer 1 T4 | 0.2761 | 1 | 0.0112 | 0.4743 | 0.18 | 7F | 0.2762 | 0.10 | 8F | 0.3346 | 0.08 | 6F | 0.2135 | 0.05 | 6F |
| DS Layer 1 T5 | 0.5212 | 1 | 0.0058 | 0.4786 | 0.12 | 7F | 0.3510 | 0.07 | 7F | 0.3923 | 0.11 | 6F | 0.2220 | 0.09 | 7F |
| DS Layer 2 T4 | 0.0838 | 1 | 0.0147 | 0.4587 | 0.14 | 7F | 0.2411 | 0.13 | 8F | 0.3886 | 0.12 | 6F | 0.1869 | 0.06 | 6F |
| DS Layer 2 T5 | 0.0346 | 0.2933 | 0.0058 | 0.4909 | 0.12 | 7F | 0.3230 | 0.07 | 7F | 0.3695 | 0.11 | 6F | 0.2873 | 0.09 | 7 F |
| DS Layer 3 T4 | 0.0550 | 1 | 0.0064 | 0.5411 | 0.09 | 7F | 0.3467 | 0.11 | 6F | 0.4763 | 0.10 | 5F | 0.2427 | 0.10 | 5F |
| DS Layer 3 T5 | 0.0825 | 0.9529 | 0.0159 | 0.5393 | 0.09 | 5F | 0.3598 | 0.09 | 7F | 0.4398 | 0.12 | 6F | 0.3188 | 0.08 | 6F |
| DS Layer 4 T4 | 0.0631 | 1 | 0.0002 | 0.5944 | 0.12 | 7F | 0.3051 | 0.11 | 6F | 0.4207 | 0.07 | 5F | 0.1721 | 0.10 | 7F |
| DS Layer 4 T5 | 0.3688 | 0.3864 | 0.0178 | 0.5127 | 0.13 | 7F | 0.3291 | 0.17 | 6F | 0.3286 | 0.14 | 5F | 0.2339 | 0.09 | 6F |
Appendix 1—table 7
Statistical summary of two-tailed Students’s t-tests for Figure 7 and Figure 7—figure supplement 1.
| Figure 7 | G1: UAS-shits/+ (blue) | G2: C2-Gal4/+ (cyan) | G3: C2>>Gal4 (Magenta) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p-value G1-G3 | p-value G2-G3 | Mean | Std | N | Mean | Std | N | Mean | Std | N | |
| Turning deceleration (Figure 7c) | 0.0018 | 0.0337 | –2.12 | 0.77 | 15 | –1.97 | 2.22 | 18 | –0.20 | 1.96 | 12 |
| % Recovery (Figure 7f) | 0.0060 | 0.0033 | 122.55 | 31.55 | 10 | 118.15 | 21.26 | 10 | 82.56 | 25.56 | 10 |
| % Recovery (Figure 7i) | 0.0079 | 5.08* 10–6 | 73.60 | 37.12 | 10 | 98.95 | 26.31 | 10 | 34.73 | 17.79 | 10 |
| % Recovery (Figure 7j, left panel) | 0.0010 | 0.0269 | 94.57 | 17.88 | 8 | 88.33 | 27.82 | 9 | 61.60 | 13.91 | 8 |
| % Recovery (Figure 7j, middle panel) | 0.5644 | 0.8453 | 91.67 | 28.94 | 7 | 80.25 | 17.50 | 9 | 82.63 | 31.40 | 9 |
| % Recovery (Figure 7k, left panel) | 0.0269 | 0.2365 | 55.81 | 15.80 | 7 | 42.28 | 19.20 | 9 | 29.59 | 24.25 | 9 |
| % Recovery (Figure 7k, middle panel) | 0.9683 | 0.2572 | 48.39 | 13.53 | 7 | 67.05 | 37.16 | 9 | 47.86 | 31.95 | 9 |
| Figure 7—figure supplement 1 | G1: UAS-shits/+ (blue) | G2: C3-Gal4/+ (cyan) | G3: C3>>Gal4 (Magenta) | ||||||||
| p-value G1-G3 | p-value G2-G3 | Mean | Std | N | Mean | Std | N | Mean | Std | N | |
| Turning deceleration (Figure 7—figure supplement 1) | 0.0112 | 0.1016 | –2.12 | 0.77 | 15 | –1.93 | 1.65 | 13 | –0.93 | 1.52 | 16 |
Additional files
-
Supplementary file 1
List of behaviorally relevant neurons identified from the expression pattern of InSITE lines with behavioral deficits to either OFF- or ON edge motion stimuli.
Neurons were identified based on either colocalization of the InSITE expression pattern with a GABA antibody, followed by single cell Flp-Out experiments, or a InSITE-Gal4-Gad1-intersection strategy.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/108529/elife-108529-supp1-v1.docx
-
MDAR checklist
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/108529/elife-108529-mdarchecklist1-v1.docx
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Inhibitory columnar feedback neurons are involved in motion processing in Drosophila
eLife 14:RP108529.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.108529.3
