Neural Wiring: The circuitry of sex
-
Download
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)
Neural Wiring: The circuitry of sexeLife 5:e22215.https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.22215 - Cite
- CommentOpen annotations (there are currently 0 annotations on this page).
- University of Toronto Mississauga, Canada
Reproduction is widely considered to be the raison d’etre of life on Earth, and sex in the animal kingdom can take many forms. Some organisms – including worms and snails – are hermaphroditic and can self-fertilise to produce offspring (Leonard, 2006; Thomas et al., 2012). In other, perhaps more familiar, species, males and females mate to produce the next generation.
Given the importance of reproduction, it is not surprising that animals can devote much of their adult lives to, and employ all of their senses in, reproductive behaviours – whether that is seeking out mates and courting, or assessing the environment to see if it is a good time to reproduce. Moreover, cognitive processes such as memory, learning and decision-making are also harnessed to optimize reproductive success (Reif et al., 2002).
The vinegar fly Drosophila melanogaster is a model organism that shares its history and habitat with people (Keller, 2007). The mating habits of the fly have been closely observed in both the wild and the laboratory (Markow, 2015; Villella and Hall, 2008). What we know is: a male vinegar fly will court a female and, if she so chooses, they will mate. The male first uses his genital claspers to couple his genitals to those of the female. Next, the penis and associated branches emerge from his genital region and are inserted into her vaginal area as they copulate (Kamimura, 2010). Sex between vinegar flies typically lasts about 20 minutes, with the transfer of sperm and ejaculate being completed after about 9 minutes (Gilchrist and Partridge, 2000). When mating is finished, the male withdraws, and the claspers release.
The male’s penis is controlled by the coordinated interaction of about ten muscles in his genital region (Kamimura, 2010). However, until recently, relatively little was known about the way these muscles were controlled by the nervous system. Now, in eLife, Stephen Goodwin, Hania Pavlou and co-workers, at the University of Oxford, the National Institute of Mental Health and McGill University, report that they have identified the neural circuits that coordinate copulation in male vinegar flies (Pavlou et al., 2016).
Based on previous findings, Pavlou et al. knew that the neurons controlling copulation in male flies would be located in the fly’s nerve cord, which is equivalent to the spinal cord in humans (Hall, 1979; Ferveur and Greenspan, 1998). They looked for a population of neurons that expressed both a gene called doublesex and a neurotransmitter called glutamate. They did this because doublesex is an important gene that generates differences in the anatomy and behaviour of males and females, and because glutamate is associated with the motor neurons that instruct muscles to move (Rideout et al., 2010; Daniels et al., 2008). Also, doublesex-positive neurons were already known to control, amongst other things, the courtship songs of male vinegar flies (Rideout et al., 2007; Rideout et al., 2010; Shirangi et al., 2016).
About 80 such neurons were found in the male flies. Further experiments showed that when these neurons were triggered prior to copulation, the males would court but not copulate. On the other hand, when these neurons were triggered during copulation, the males would not terminate the act and separate. Based on these findings, Pavlou et al. suggested that these neurons control the muscles that contract or relax to move the penis during copulation. They also identified a set of interneurons that suppress these 80 or so motor neurons. These interneurons expressed both doublesex and the neurotransmitter called GABA.
The motor neurons and interneurons form the wires of a simple circuit that regulates the muscles (Figure 1). But one more type of neuron was required to complete the circuit: an input. Pavlou et al. found these missing connections in the form of sensory neurons linked to hair-like bristles positioned near the penis. These neurons express doublesex and the neurotransmitter called acetylcholine, and they project to the interneurons, motor neurons and brain.
Figure 1
Schematic of motor circuit that controls the penis in male vinegar flies.
The penis of the male vinegar fly is controlled by protractor muscles (shown in orange) and retractor muscles (light blue). (A) The penis will be retracted if all of the doublesex-positive motor …
Finally, Pavlou et al. also report that the circuit that controls the muscles that move the penis is independent of the one that controls ejaculation. This indicates that the control of copulation is separate from that of reproduction in male vinegar flies. It also hints that copulation should be considered behaviour in its own right, and possibly one with hedonic value (in other words, one that male vinegar flies might ‘enjoy’).
A number of outstanding questions remain. For example, does an equivalent circuit control the genitalia of female flies during copulation? Moreover, how do the results of Pavlou et al. link to recent studies that explored the neural circuitry controlling the persistence and motivation of male flies during copulation (Crickmore and Vosshall, 2013; Zhang et al., 2016)? And how do male and female flies coordinate their behaviour to increase the chances of successful reproduction?
References
-
Visualizing glutamatergic cell bodies and synapses in Drosophila larval and adult CNSThe Journal of Comparative Neurology 508:131–183.https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.21670
-
Courtship behavior of brain mosaics in DrosophilaJournal of Neurogenetics 12:205–226.https://doi.org/10.3109/01677069809108559
-
Control of male reproductive behavior by the central nervous system of Drosophila: dissection of a courtship pathway by genetic mosaicsGenetics 92:437–457.
-
Drosophila melanogaster's history as a human commensalCurrent Biology 17:R77–81.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.12.031
-
Sexual selection: lessons from hermaphrodite mating systemsIntegrative and Comparative Biology 46:349–367.https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icj041
-
Neurogenetics of courtship and mating in DrosophilaAdvances in Genetics 62:67–184.https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2660(08)00603-2
Article and author information
Author details
Publication history
Copyright
© 2016, Levine
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 2,260
- views
-
- 185
- downloads
-
- 1
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
Further reading
-
- Neuroscience
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.
-
- Neuroscience
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.
