Nociceptive interneurons control modular motor pathways to promote escape behavior in Drosophila

  1. Anita Burgos  Is a corresponding author
  2. Ken Honjo
  3. Tomoko Ohyama
  4. Cheng Sam Qian
  5. Grace Ji-eun Shin
  6. Daryl M Gohl
  7. Marion Silies
  8. W Daniel Tracey
  9. Marta Zlatic
  10. Albert Cardona
  11. Wesley B Grueber  Is a corresponding author
  1. Columbia University Medical Center, United States
  2. University of Tsukuba, Japan
  3. McGill University, Canada
  4. University of Minnesota Genomics Center, United States
  5. European Neuroscience Institute, Germany
  6. Indiana University, United States
  7. Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, United States

Abstract

Rapid and efficient escape behaviors in response to noxious sensory stimuli are essential for protection and survival. Yet, how noxious stimuli are transformed to coordinated escape behaviors remains poorly understood. In Drosophila larvae, noxious stimuli trigger sequential body bending and corkscrew-like rolling behavior. We identified a population of interneurons in the nerve cord of Drosophila, termed Down-and-Back (DnB) neurons, that are activated by noxious heat, promote nociceptive behavior, and are required for robust escape responses to noxious stimuli. Electron microscopic circuit reconstruction shows that DnBs are targets of nociceptive and mechanosensory neurons, are directly presynaptic to pre-motor circuits, and link indirectly to Goro rolling command-like neurons. DnB activation promotes activity in Goro neurons, and coincident inactivation of Goro neurons prevents the rolling sequence but leaves intact body bending motor responses. Thus, activity from nociceptors to DnB interneurons coordinates modular elements of nociceptive escape behavior.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Anita Burgos

    Department of Neuroscience, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    ab3271@columbia.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Ken Honjo

    Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Tomoko Ohyama

    Department of Biology, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Cheng Sam Qian

    Department of Neuroscience, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Grace Ji-eun Shin

    Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Daryl M Gohl

    University of Minnesota Genomics Center, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Marion Silies

    European Neuroscience Institute, Göttingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. W Daniel Tracey

    The Linda and Jack Gill Center for Biomolecular Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4666-8199
  9. Marta Zlatic

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. 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
  11. Wesley B Grueber

    Department of Neuroscience, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, United States
    For correspondence
    wg2135@columbia.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6751-256X

Funding

National Science Foundation (Graduate Research Fellowship)

  • Anita Burgos

National Institutes of Health (NS090909-01)

  • Anita Burgos

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Marta Zlatic

National Institutes of Health (NS061908)

  • Wesley B Grueber

National Institutes of Health (GM086458)

  • W Daniel Tracey

National Institutes of Health (NS086564)

  • Wesley B Grueber

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Albert Cardona

Thompson Family Foundation (Innovation Award)

  • Grace Ji-eun Shin
  • Wesley B Grueber

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. David D Ginty, Harvard Medical School, United States

Version history

  1. Received: February 23, 2017
  2. Accepted: March 9, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 12, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 26, 2018 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record updated: July 9, 2018 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2018, Burgos 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

  • 5,942
    views
  • 771
    downloads
  • 68
    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. Anita Burgos
  2. Ken Honjo
  3. Tomoko Ohyama
  4. Cheng Sam Qian
  5. Grace Ji-eun Shin
  6. Daryl M Gohl
  7. Marion Silies
  8. W Daniel Tracey
  9. Marta Zlatic
  10. Albert Cardona
  11. Wesley B Grueber
(2018)
Nociceptive interneurons control modular motor pathways to promote escape behavior in Drosophila
eLife 7:e26016.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.26016

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.26016

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Vezha Boboeva, Alberto Pezzotta ... Athena Akrami
    Research Article

    The central tendency bias, or contraction bias, is a phenomenon where the judgment of the magnitude of items held in working memory appears to be biased toward the average of past observations. It is assumed to be an optimal strategy by the brain and commonly thought of as an expression of the brain’s ability to learn the statistical structure of sensory input. On the other hand, recency biases such as serial dependence are also commonly observed and are thought to reflect the content of working memory. Recent results from an auditory delayed comparison task in rats suggest that both biases may be more related than previously thought: when the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) was silenced, both short-term and contraction biases were reduced. By proposing a model of the circuit that may be involved in generating the behavior, we show that a volatile working memory content susceptible to shifting to the past sensory experience – producing short-term sensory history biases – naturally leads to contraction bias. The errors, occurring at the level of individual trials, are sampled from the full distribution of the stimuli and are not due to a gradual shift of the memory toward the sensory distribution’s mean. Our results are consistent with a broad set of behavioral findings and provide predictions of performance across different stimulus distributions and timings, delay intervals, as well as neuronal dynamics in putative working memory areas. Finally, we validate our model by performing a set of human psychophysics experiments of an auditory parametric working memory task.

    1. Neuroscience
    Michael Berger, Michèle Fraatz ... Henrike Scholz
    Research Article

    The brain regulates food intake in response to internal energy demands and food availability. However, can internal energy storage influence the type of memory that is formed? We show that the duration of starvation determines whether Drosophila melanogaster forms appetitive short-term or longer-lasting intermediate memories. The internal glycogen storage in the muscles and adipose tissue influences how intensely sucrose-associated information is stored. Insulin-like signaling in octopaminergic reward neurons integrates internal energy storage into memory formation. Octopamine, in turn, suppresses the formation of long-term memory. Octopamine is not required for short-term memory because octopamine-deficient mutants can form appetitive short-term memory for sucrose and to other nutrients depending on the internal energy status. The reduced positive reinforcing effect of sucrose at high internal glycogen levels, combined with the increased stability of food-related memories due to prolonged periods of starvation, could lead to increased food intake.