Organization of the Drosophila larval visual circuit

  1. Ivan Larderet
  2. Pauline MJ Fritsch
  3. Nanae Gendre
  4. G Larisa Neagu-Maier
  5. Richard D Fetter
  6. Casey M Schneider-Mizell
  7. James W Truman
  8. Marta Zlatic
  9. Albert Cardona
  10. Simon G Sprecher  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Fribourg, Switzerland
  2. Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, United States

Abstract

Visual systems transduce, process and transmit light-dependent environmental cues. Computation of visual features depends on photoreceptor neuron types (PR) present, organization of the eye and wiring of the underlying neural circuit. Here, we describe the circuit architecture of the visual system of Drosophila larvae by mapping the synaptic wiring diagram and neurotransmitters. By contacting different targets, the two larval PR-subtypes create two converging pathways potentially underlying the computation of ambient light intensity and temporal light changes already within this first visual processing center. Locally processed visual information then signals via dedicated projection interneurons to higher brain areas including the lateral horn and mushroom body. The stratified structure of the larval optic neuropil (LON) suggests common organizational principles with the adult fly and vertebrate visual systems. The complete synaptic wiring diagram of the LON paves the way to understanding how circuits with reduced numerical complexity control wide ranges of behaviors.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Ivan Larderet

    Department of Biology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Pauline MJ Fritsch

    Department of Biology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Nanae Gendre

    Department of Biology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. G Larisa Neagu-Maier

    Department of Biology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Richard D Fetter

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. 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
  7. James W Truman

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Marta Zlatic

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. 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
  10. Simon G Sprecher

    Department of Biology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland
    For correspondence
    simon.sprecher@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9060-3750

Funding

Bundesbehörden der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft (31003A_169993)

  • Simon G Sprecher

Seventh Framework Programme (ERC-2012-StG 309832-PhotoNaviNet)

  • Simon G Sprecher

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • James W Truman
  • Marta Zlatic
  • Albert Cardona

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

Copyright

© 2017, Larderet 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

  • 4,018
    views
  • 599
    downloads
  • 60
    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. Ivan Larderet
  2. Pauline MJ Fritsch
  3. Nanae Gendre
  4. G Larisa Neagu-Maier
  5. Richard D Fetter
  6. Casey M Schneider-Mizell
  7. James W Truman
  8. Marta Zlatic
  9. Albert Cardona
  10. Simon G Sprecher
(2017)
Organization of the Drosophila larval visual circuit
eLife 6:e28387.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.28387

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.28387

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Johannes Oppermann, Andrey Rozenberg ... Peter Hegemann
    Tools and Resources

    Channelrhodopsins (ChRs) are light-gated ion channels widely used to optically activate or silence selected electrogenic cells, such as individual brain neurons. Here, we describe identifying and characterizing a set of anion-conducting ChRs (ACRs) from diverse taxa and representing various branches of the ChR phylogenetic tree. The Mantoniella squamata ACR (MsACR1) showed high sensitivity to yellow-green light (λmax at 555 nm) and was further engineered for optogenetic applications. A single amino-acid substitution that mimicked red-light-sensitive rhodopsins like Chrimson shifted the photosensitivity 20 nm toward red light and accelerated photocurrent kinetics. Hence, it was named red and accelerated ACR, raACR. Both wild-type and mutant are capable optical silencers at low light intensities in mouse neurons in vitro and in vivo, while raACR offers a higher temporal resolution.

    1. Neuroscience
    Ilya A Rybak, Natalia A Shevtsova ... Alain Frigon
    Research Article

    Locomotion in mammals is directly controlled by the spinal neuronal network, operating under the control of supraspinal signals and somatosensory feedback that interact with each other. However, the functional architecture of the spinal locomotor network, its operation regimes, and the role of supraspinal and sensory feedback in different locomotor behaviors, including at different speeds, remain unclear. We developed a computational model of spinal locomotor circuits receiving supraspinal drives and limb sensory feedback that could reproduce multiple experimental data obtained in intact and spinal-transected cats during tied-belt and split-belt treadmill locomotion. We provide evidence that the spinal locomotor network operates in different regimes depending on locomotor speed. In an intact system, at slow speeds (<0.4 m/s), the spinal network operates in a non-oscillating state-machine regime and requires sensory feedback or external inputs for phase transitions. Removing sensory feedback related to limb extension prevents locomotor oscillations at slow speeds. With increasing speed and supraspinal drives, the spinal network switches to a flexor-driven oscillatory regime and then to a classical half-center regime. Following spinal transection, the model predicts that the spinal network can only operate in the state-machine regime. Our results suggest that the spinal network operates in different regimes for slow exploratory and fast escape locomotor behaviors, making use of different control mechanisms.