The wiring diagram of a glomerular olfactory system

  1. Matthew E Berck
  2. Avinash Khandelwal
  3. Lindsey Claus
  4. Luis Hernandez-Nunez
  5. Guangwei Si
  6. Christopher J Tabone
  7. Feng Li
  8. James W Truman
  9. Richard D Fetter
  10. Matthieu Louis
  11. Aravinthan DT Samuel
  12. Albert Cardona  Is a corresponding author
  1. Harvard University, United States
  2. The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Spain
  3. Fly Base, United States
  4. Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, United States

Abstract

The sense of smell enables animals to react to long-distance cues according to learned and innate valences. Here, we have mapped with electron microscopy the complete wiring diagram of the Drosophila larval antennal lobe, an olfactory neuropil similar to the vertebrate olfactory bulb. We found a canonical circuit with uniglomerular projection neurons (uPNs) relaying gain-controlled ORN activity to the mushroom body and the lateral horn. A second, parallel circuit with multiglomerular projection neurons (mPNs) and hierarchically connected local neurons (LNs) selectively integrates multiple ORN signals already at the first synapse. LN-LN synaptic connections putatively implement a bistable gain control mechanism that either computes odor saliency through panglomerular inhibition, or allows some glomeruli to respond to faint aversive odors in the presence of strong appetitive odors. This complete wiring diagram will support experimental and theoretical studies towards bridging the gap between circuits and behavior.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Matthew E Berck

    Department of Physics and Center for Brain Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Avinash Khandelwal

    EMBL-CRG Systems Biology Program, Centre for Genomic Regulation, The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Barcelona, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Lindsey Claus

    Department of Physics and Center for Brain Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Luis Hernandez-Nunez

    Department of Physics and Center for Brain Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Guangwei Si

    Department of Physics and Center for Brain Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Christopher J Tabone

    Fly Base, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Feng Li

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. James W Truman

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

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Matthieu Louis

    EMBL-CRG Systems Biology Program, Centre for Genomic Regulation, The Barcelona Institute of Science and Technology, Barcelona, Spain
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Aravinthan DT Samuel

    Department of Physics and Center for Brain Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Albert Cardona

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    For correspondence
    cardonaa@janelia.hhmi.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Ronald L Calabrese, Emory University, United States

Version history

  1. Received: January 30, 2016
  2. Accepted: May 6, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 13, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: July 1, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Berck 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

  • 8,403
    views
  • 1,564
    downloads
  • 163
    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. Matthew E Berck
  2. Avinash Khandelwal
  3. Lindsey Claus
  4. Luis Hernandez-Nunez
  5. Guangwei Si
  6. Christopher J Tabone
  7. Feng Li
  8. James W Truman
  9. Richard D Fetter
  10. Matthieu Louis
  11. Aravinthan DT Samuel
  12. Albert Cardona
(2016)
The wiring diagram of a glomerular olfactory system
eLife 5:e14859.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.14859

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.14859

Further reading

    1. Genetics and Genomics
    2. Neuroscience
    Kenneth Chiou, Noah Snyder-Mackler
    Insight

    Single-cell RNA sequencing reveals the extent to which marmosets carry genetically distinct cells from their siblings.

    1. Neuroscience
    Flavio J Schmidig, Simon Ruch, Katharina Henke
    Research Article

    We are unresponsive during slow-wave sleep but continue monitoring external events for survival. Our brain wakens us when danger is imminent. If events are non-threatening, our brain might store them for later consideration to improve decision-making. To test this hypothesis, we examined whether novel vocabulary consisting of simultaneously played pseudowords and translation words are encoded/stored during sleep, and which neural-electrical events facilitate encoding/storage. An algorithm for brain-state-dependent stimulation selectively targeted word pairs to slow-wave peaks or troughs. Retrieval tests were given 12 and 36 hr later. These tests required decisions regarding the semantic category of previously sleep-played pseudowords. The sleep-played vocabulary influenced awake decision-making 36 hr later, if targeted to troughs. The words’ linguistic processing raised neural complexity. The words’ semantic-associative encoding was supported by increased theta power during the ensuing peak. Fast-spindle power ramped up during a second peak likely aiding consolidation. Hence, new vocabulary played during slow-wave sleep was stored and influenced decision-making days later.