Direct neural pathways convey distinct visual information to Drosophila mushroom bodies

  1. Katrin Vogt
  2. Yoshinori Aso
  3. Toshihide Hige
  4. Stephan Knapek
  5. Toshiharu Ichinose
  6. Anja B Friedrich
  7. Glenn C Turner
  8. Gerald M Rubin
  9. Hiromu Tanimoto  Is a corresponding author
  1. Harvard University, United States
  2. Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, United States
  3. Max-Planck Institut für Neurobiologie, Germany

Abstract

Previously, we identified that visual and olfactory associative memories of Drosophila share the mushroom body (MB) circuits (Vogt et al. 2014). Despite well-characterized odor representations in the Drosophila MB, the MB circuit for visual information is totally unknown. Here we show that a small subset of MB Kenyon cells (KCs) selectively responds to visual but not olfactory stimulation. The dendrites of these atypical KCs form a ventral accessory calyx (vAC), distinct from the main calyx that receives olfactory input. We identified two types of visual projection neurons (VPNs) directly connecting the optic lobes and the vAC. Strikingly, these VPNs are differentially required for visual memories of color and brightness. The segregation of visual and olfactory domains in the MB allows independent processing of distinct sensory memories and may be a conserved form of sensory representations among insects.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Katrin Vogt

    Center for Brain Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Yoshinori Aso

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Toshihide Hige

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Stephan Knapek

    Max-Planck Institut für Neurobiologie, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Toshiharu Ichinose

    Max-Planck Institut für Neurobiologie, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Anja B Friedrich

    Max-Planck Institut für Neurobiologie, Martinsried, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Glenn C Turner

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Gerald M Rubin

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Hiromu Tanimoto

    Max-Planck Institut für Neurobiologie, Martinsried, Germany
    For correspondence
    hiromut@m.tohoku.ac.jp
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Copyright

© 2016, Vogt et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 5,233
    views
  • 1,313
    downloads
  • 130
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

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)

  1. Katrin Vogt
  2. Yoshinori Aso
  3. Toshihide Hige
  4. Stephan Knapek
  5. Toshiharu Ichinose
  6. Anja B Friedrich
  7. Glenn C Turner
  8. Gerald M Rubin
  9. Hiromu Tanimoto
(2016)
Direct neural pathways convey distinct visual information to Drosophila mushroom bodies
eLife 5:e14009.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.14009

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.14009

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Victoria JH Ritvo, Alex Nguyen ... Kenneth A Norman
    Research Article

    What determines when neural representations of memories move together (integrate) or apart (differentiate)? Classic supervised learning models posit that, when two stimuli predict similar outcomes, their representations should integrate. However, these models have recently been challenged by studies showing that pairing two stimuli with a shared associate can sometimes cause differentiation, depending on the parameters of the study and the brain region being examined. Here, we provide a purely unsupervised neural network model that can explain these and other related findings. The model can exhibit integration or differentiation depending on the amount of activity allowed to spread to competitors — inactive memories are not modified, connections to moderately active competitors are weakened (leading to differentiation), and connections to highly active competitors are strengthened (leading to integration). The model also makes several novel predictions — most importantly, that when differentiation occurs as a result of this unsupervised learning mechanism, it will be rapid and asymmetric, and it will give rise to anticorrelated representations in the region of the brain that is the source of the differentiation. Overall, these modeling results provide a computational explanation for a diverse set of seemingly contradictory empirical findings in the memory literature, as well as new insights into the dynamics at play during learning.

    1. Neuroscience
    Marine Schimel, Ta-Chu Kao, Guillaume Hennequin
    Research Article

    During delayed ballistic reaches, motor areas consistently display movement-specific activity patterns prior to movement onset. It is unclear why these patterns arise: while they have been proposed to seed an initial neural state from which the movement unfolds, recent experiments have uncovered the presence and necessity of ongoing inputs during movement, which may lessen the need for careful initialization. Here, we modeled the motor cortex as an input-driven dynamical system, and we asked what the optimal way to control this system to perform fast delayed reaches is. We find that delay-period inputs consistently arise in an optimally controlled model of M1. By studying a variety of network architectures, we could dissect and predict the situations in which it is beneficial for a network to prepare. Finally, we show that optimal input-driven control of neural dynamics gives rise to multiple phases of preparation during reach sequences, providing a novel explanation for experimentally observed features of monkey M1 activity in double reaching.