1. Neuroscience
Download icon

Sloppy morphological tuning in identified neurons of the crustacean stomatogastric ganglion

  1. Adriane G Otopalik  Is a corresponding author
  2. Marie L Goeritz
  3. Alexander C Sutton
  4. Ted Brookings
  5. Cosmo Joseph Guerini
  6. Eve Marder
  1. Brandeis University, United States
  2. University of Auckland, New Zealand
  3. Q-State Biosciences, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 16
  • Views 1,875
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2017;6:e22352 doi: 10.7554/eLife.22352

Abstract

Neuronal physiology depends on a neuron's ion channel composition and unique morphology. Variable ion channel compositions can produce similar neuronal physiologies across animals. Less is known regarding the morphological precision required to produce reliable neuronal physiology. Theoretical studies suggest that morphology is tightly tuned to minimize wiring and conduction delay of synaptic events. We utilize high-resolution confocal microscopy and custom computational tools to characterize the morphologies of four neuron types in the stomatogastric ganglion (STG) of the crab Cancer borealis. Macroscopic branching patterns and fine cable properties are variable within and across neuron types. We compare these neuronal structures to synthetic minimal spanning neurite trees constrained by a wiring cost equation and find that STG neurons do not adhere to prevailing hypotheses regarding wiring optimization principles. In this highly-modulated and oscillating circuit, neuronal structures appear to be governed by a space-filling mechanism that outweighs the cost of inefficient wiring.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Adriane G Otopalik

    Volen Center, Brandeis University, Waltham, United States
    For correspondence
    aotopali@brandeis.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3224-6502
  2. Marie L Goeritz

    Department of Marine Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Alexander C Sutton

    Volen Center, Brandeis University, Waltham, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  4. Ted Brookings

    Q-State Biosciences, Cambridge, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Cosmo Joseph Guerini

    Biology Department, Brandeis University, Waltham, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Eve Marder

    Volen Center, Brandeis University, Waltham, United States
    Competing interests
    Eve Marder, Senior editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9632-5448

Funding

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R37NS17813)

  • Eve Marder

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (F31NS092126)

  • Adriane G Otopalik

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Ronald L Calabrese, Emory University, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: October 14, 2016
  2. Accepted: January 27, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: February 8, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: February 23, 2017 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2017, Otopalik 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

  • 1,875
    Page views
  • 395
    Downloads
  • 16
    Citations

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

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)

  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Feng Li et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Making inferences about the computations performed by neuronal circuits from synapse-level connectivity maps is an emerging opportunity in neuroscience. The mushroom body (MB) is well positioned for developing and testing such an approach due to its conserved neuronal architecture, recently completed dense connectome, and extensive prior experimental studies of its roles in learning, memory, and activity regulation. Here, we identify new components of the MB circuit in Drosophila, including extensive visual input and MB output neurons (MBONs) with direct connections to descending neurons. We find unexpected structure in sensory inputs, in the transfer of information about different sensory modalities to MBONs, and in the modulation of that transfer by dopaminergic neurons (DANs). We provide insights into the circuitry used to integrate MB outputs, connectivity between the MB and the central complex and inputs to DANs, including feedback from MBONs. Our results provide a foundation for further theoretical and experimental work.

    1. Neuroscience
    Daniela Saderi et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Both generalized arousal and engagement in a specific task influence sensory neural processing. To isolate effects of these state variables in the auditory system, we recorded single-unit activity from primary auditory cortex (A1) and inferior colliculus (IC) of ferrets during a tone detection task, while monitoring arousal via changes in pupil size. We used a generalized linear model to assess the influence of task engagement and pupil size on sound-evoked activity. In both areas, these two variables affected independent neural populations. Pupil size effects were more prominent in IC, while pupil and task engagement effects were equally likely in A1. Task engagement was correlated with larger pupil; thus, some apparent effects of task engagement should in fact be attributed to fluctuations in pupil size. These results indicate a hierarchy of auditory processing, where generalized arousal enhances activity in midbrain, and effects specific to task engagement become more prominent in cortex.