Abstract

NeuromedinU is a potent regulator of food intake and activity in mammals. In Drosophila, neurons producing the homologous neuropeptide hugin regulate feeding and locomotion in a similar manner. Here, we use EM-based reconstruction to generate the entire connectome of hugin-producing neurons in the Drosophila larval CNS. We demonstrate that hugin neurons use synaptic transmission in addition to peptidergic neuromodulation and identify acetylcholine as a key transmitter. Hugin neuropeptide and acetylcholine are both necessary for the regulatory effect on feeding. We further show that subtypes of hugin neurons connect chemosensory to endocrine system by combinations of synaptic and peptide-receptor connections. Targets include endocrine neurons producing DH44, a CRH-like peptide, and insulin-like peptides. Homologs of these peptides are likewise downstream of neuromedinU, revealing striking parallels in flies and mammals. We propose that hugin neurons are part of an ancient physiological control system that has been conserved at functional and molecular level.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Philipp Schlegel

    Department of Molecular Brain Physiology and Behavior, LIMES Institute, Bonn, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5633-1314
  2. Michael J Texada

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2479-1241
  3. Anton Miroschnikow

    Department of Molecular Brain Physiology and Behavior, LIMES Institute, Bonn, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Andreas Schoofs

    Department of Molecular Brain Physiology and Behavior, LIMES Institute, Bonn, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Sebastian Hückesfeld

    Department of Molecular Brain Physiology and Behavior, LIMES Institute, Bonn, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Marc Peters

    Department of Molecular Brain Physiology and Behavior, LIMES Institute, Bonn, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Casey M Schneider-Mizell

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9477-3853
  8. Haluk Lacin

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2468-9618
  9. Feng Li

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

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

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, 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
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4941-6536
  13. Michael J Pankratz

    Department of Molecular Brain Physiology and Behavior, LIMES Institute, Bonn, Germany
    For correspondence
    pankratz@uni-bonn.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5458-6471

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Michael J Texada
  • Casey M Schneider-Mizell
  • Haluk Lacin
  • Feng Li
  • Richard D Fetter
  • James W Truman
  • Albert Cardona

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

  • Philipp Schlegel
  • Anton Miroschnikow
  • Andreas Schoofs
  • Sebastian Hückesfeld
  • Marc Peters
  • Michael J Pankratz

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2016, Schlegel 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

  • 4,865
    views
  • 1,011
    downloads
  • 128
    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. Philipp Schlegel
  2. Michael J Texada
  3. Anton Miroschnikow
  4. Andreas Schoofs
  5. Sebastian Hückesfeld
  6. Marc Peters
  7. Casey M Schneider-Mizell
  8. Haluk Lacin
  9. Feng Li
  10. Richard D Fetter
  11. James W Truman
  12. Albert Cardona
  13. Michael J Pankratz
(2016)
Synaptic transmission parallels neuromodulation in a central food-intake circuit
eLife 5:e16799.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16799

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16799

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Silas E Busch, Christian Hansel
    Research Article

    Purkinje cell (PC) dendrites are optimized to integrate the vast cerebellar input array and drive the sole cortical output. PCs are classically seen as stereotypical computational units, yet mouse PCs are morphologically diverse and those with multi-branched structure can receive non-canonical climbing fiber (CF) multi-innervation that confers independent compartment-specific signaling. While otherwise uncharacterized, human PCs are universally multi-branched. Do they exceed allometry to achieve enhanced integrative capacities relative to mouse PCs? To answer this, we used several comparative histology techniques in adult human and mouse to analyze cellular morphology, parallel fiber (PF) and CF input arrangement, and regional PC demographics. Human PCs are substantially larger than previously described; they exceed allometric constraint by cortical thickness and are the largest neuron in the brain with 6–7 cm total dendritic length. Unlike mouse, human PC dendrites ramify horizontally to form a multi-compartment motif that we show can receive multiple CFs. Human spines are denser (6.9 vs 4.9 spines/μm), larger (~0.36 vs 0.29 μm), and include an unreported ‘spine cluster’ structure—features that may be congruent with enhanced PF association and amplification as human-specific adaptations. By extrapolation, human PCs may receive 500,000 to 1 million synaptic inputs compared with 30–40,000 in mouse. Collectively, human PC morphology and input arrangement is quantitatively and qualitatively distinct from rodent. Multi-branched PCs are more prevalent in posterior and lateral cerebellum, co-varying with functional boundaries, supporting the hypothesis that this morphological motif permits expanded input multiplexing and may subserve task-dependent needs for input association.

    1. Neuroscience
    Phillip P Witkowski, Lindsay JH Rondot ... Erie Boorman
    Research Article

    Adaptive behavior in complex environments critically relies on the ability to appropriately link specific choices or actions to their outcomes. However, the neural mechanisms that support the ability to credit only those past choices believed to have caused the observed outcomes remain unclear. Here, we leverage multivariate pattern analyses of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data and an adaptive learning task to shed light on the underlying neural mechanisms of such specific credit assignment. We find that the lateral orbitofrontal cortex (lOFC) and hippocampus (HC) code for the causal choice identity when credit needs to be assigned for choices that are separated from outcomes by a long delay, even when this delayed transition is punctuated by interim decisions. Further, we show when interim decisions must be made, learning is additionally supported by lateral frontopolar cortex (lFPC). Our results indicate that lFPC holds previous causal choices in a ‘pending’ state until a relevant outcome is observed, and the fidelity of these representations predicts the fidelity of subsequent causal choice representations in lOFC and HC during credit assignment. Together, these results highlight the importance of the timely reinstatement of specific causes in lOFC and HC in learning choice-outcome relationships when delays and choices intervene, a critical component of real-world learning and decision making.