1. Neuroscience
Download icon

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
Research Article
  • Cited 79
  • Views 6,334
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2016;5:e14859 doi: 10.7554/eLife.14859

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

Publication 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

  • 6,334
    Page views
  • 1,400
    Downloads
  • 79
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

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)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Shivesh Chaudhary et al.
    Research Article

    Although identifying cell names in dense image stacks is critical in analyzing functional whole-brain data enabling comparison across experiments, unbiased identification is very difficult, and relies heavily on researchers' experiences. Here we present a probabilistic-graphical-model framework, CRF_ID, based on Conditional Random Fields, for unbiased and automated cell identification. CRF_ID focuses on maximizing intrinsic similarity between shapes. Compared to existing methods, CRF_ID achieves higher accuracy on simulated and ground-truth experimental datasets, and better robustness against challenging noise conditions common in experimental data. CRF_ID can further boost accuracy by building atlases from annotated data in highly computationally efficient manner, and by easily adding new features (e.g. from new strains). We demonstrate cell annotation in C. elegans images across strains, animal orientations, and tasks including gene-expression localization, multi-cellular and whole-brain functional imaging experiments. Together, these successes demonstrate that unbiased cell annotation can facilitate biological discovery, and this approach may be valuable to annotation tasks for other systems.

    1. Neuroscience
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Carlos A Z Bassetto Jnr et al.
    Research Article

    In Shaker K+ channels, the S4-S5 linker couples the voltage sensor (VSD) and pore domain (PD). Another coupling mechanism is revealed using two W434F-containing channels: L361R:W434F and L366H:W434F. In L361R:W434F, W434F affects the L361R VSD seen as a shallower Q-V curve that crosses the G-V. In L366H:W434F, L366H relieves the W434F effect converting a non-conductive channel in a conductive one. We report a chain of residues connecting the VSD (S4) to the selectivity filter (SF) in the PD of an adjacent subunit as the molecular basis for voltage-sensor selectivity filter gate (VS-SF) coupling. Single alanine substitutions in this region (L409A, S411A, S412A or F433A) are enough to disrupt the VS-SF coupling, shown by the absence of Q-V and G-V crossing in L361R:W434F mutant and by the lack of ionic conduction in the L366H:W434F mutant. This residue chain defines a new coupling between the VSD and the PD in voltage-gated channels.