1. Neuroscience
Download icon

Ionotropic Receptor-dependent moist and dry cells control hygrosensation in Drosophila

  1. Zachary A Knecht
  2. Ana F Silbering
  3. Joyner Cruz
  4. Ludi Yang
  5. Vincent Croset
  6. Richard Benton  Is a corresponding author
  7. Paul A Garrity  Is a corresponding author
  1. Brandeis University, United States
  2. University of Lausanne, Switzerland
  3. University of Oxford, United Kingdom
Research Advance
  • Cited 61
  • Views 3,186
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2017;6:e26654 doi: 10.7554/eLife.26654

Abstract

Insects use hygrosensation (humidity sensing) to avoid desiccation and, in vectors such as mosquitoes, to locate vertebrate hosts. Sensory neurons activated by either dry or moist air ('dry cells' and 'moist cells') have been described in many insects, but their behavioral roles and the molecular basis of their hygrosensitivity remain unclear. We recently reported that Drosophila hygrosensation relies on three Ionotropic Receptors (IRs) required for dry cell function: IR25a, IR93a and IR40a (Knecht et al., 2016). Here we discover Drosophila moist cells, and show they require IR25a and IR93a together with IR68a, a conserved, but orphan IR. Both IR68a- and IR40a-dependent pathways drive hygrosensory behavior: each is important for dry-seeking by hydrated flies and together they underlie moist-seeking by dehydrated flies. These studies reveal that humidity sensing in Drosophila, and likely other insects, involves the combined activity of two molecularly related but neuronally distinct hygrosensing systems.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Zachary A Knecht

    National Center for Behavioral Genomics, Brandeis University, Waltham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Ana F Silbering

    Center for Integrative Genomics, Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Joyner Cruz

    National Center for Behavioral Genomics, Brandeis University, Waltham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Ludi Yang

    National Center for Behavioral Genomics, Brandeis University, Waltham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Vincent Croset

    Centre for Neural Circuits and Behaviour, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Richard Benton

    Center for Integrative Genomics, Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
    For correspondence
    Richard.Benton@unil.ch
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Paul A Garrity

    National Center for Behavioral Genomics, Brandeis University, Waltham, United States
    For correspondence
    pgarrity@brandeis.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8274-6564

Funding

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (F31 DC015155)

  • Zachary A Knecht

Boehringer Ingelheim Stiftung

  • Vincent Croset

H2020 European Research Council (205202)

  • Richard Benton

H2020 European Research Council (615094)

  • Richard Benton

Swiss National Science Foundation (31003A_140869)

  • Richard Benton

National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P01 GM103770)

  • Paul A Garrity

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01 AI22802)

  • Paul A Garrity

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Mani Ramaswami, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

Publication history

  1. Received: March 10, 2017
  2. Accepted: June 13, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: June 16, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: July 3, 2017 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2017, Knecht 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

  • 3,186
    Page views
  • 448
    Downloads
  • 61
    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. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Baruch Haimson et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Peripheral and intraspinal feedback is required to shape and update the output of spinal networks that execute motor behavior. We report that lumbar dI2 spinal interneurons in chicks receive synaptic input from afferents and premotor neurons. These interneurons innervate contralateral premotor networks in the lumbar and brachial spinal cord, and their ascending projections innervate the cerebellum. These findings suggest that dI2 neurons function as interneurons in local lumbar circuits, are involved in lumbo-brachial coupling, and that part of them deliver peripheral and intraspinal feedback to the cerebellum. Silencing of dI2 neurons leads to destabilized stepping in posthatching day 8 hatchlings, with occasional collapses, variable step profiles, and a wide-base walking gait, suggesting that dI2 neurons may contribute to the stabilization of the bipedal gait.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Rene Solano Fonseca et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Concussion is associated with a myriad of deleterious immediate and long-term consequences. Yet the molecular mechanisms and genetic targets promoting the selective vulnerability of different neural subtypes to dysfunction and degeneration remain unclear. Translating experimental models of blunt force trauma in C. elegans to concussion in mice, we identify a conserved neuroprotective mechanism in which reduction of mitochondrial electron flux through complex IV suppresses trauma-induced degeneration of the highly vulnerable dopaminergic neurons. Reducing cytochrome C oxidase function elevates mitochondrial-derived reactive oxygen species, which signal through the cytosolic hypoxia inducing transcription factor, Hif1a, to promote hyperphosphorylation and inactivation of the pyruvate dehydrogenase, PDHE1α. This critical enzyme initiates the Warburg shunt, which drives energetic reallocation from mitochondrial respiration to astrocyte-mediated glycolysis in a neuroprotective manner. These studies demonstrate a conserved process in which glycolytic preconditioning suppresses Parkinson-like hypersensitivity of dopaminergic neurons to trauma-induced degeneration via redox signaling and the Warburg effect.