Temporal processing and context dependency in C. elegans response to mechanosensation

  1. Mochi Liu
  2. Anuj Kumar Sharma
  3. Josh Shaevitz
  4. Andrew Michael Leifer  Is a corresponding author
  1. Princeton University, United States

Abstract

A quantitative understanding of how sensory signals are transformed into motor outputs places useful constraints on brain function and helps reveal the brain's underlying computations. We investigate how the nematode C. elegans responds to time-varying mechanosensory signals using a high-throughput optogenetic assay and automated behavior quantification. We find that the behavioral response is tuned to temporal properties of mechanosensory signals, like its integral and derivative, that extend over many seconds. Mechanosensory signals, even in the same neurons, can be tailored to elicit different behavioral responses. Moreover, we find that the animal's response also depends on its behavioral context. Most dramatically, the animal ignores all tested mechanosensory stimuli during turns. Finally, we present a linear-nonlinear model that predicts the animal's behavioral response to stimulus.

Data availability

Stimulus and behavior data has been made publicly available on Figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.5956348 . Raw imaging data (2TB) has been made publicly available on IEEE DataPorts http://dx.doi.org/10.21227/H27944 .

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Mochi Liu

    Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Anuj Kumar Sharma

    Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5061-9731
  3. Josh Shaevitz

    Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Andrew Michael Leifer

    Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    For correspondence
    leifer@princeton.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5362-5093

Funding

Simons Foundation (SCGB #324285)

  • Andrew Michael Leifer

National Institutes of Health (National Human Genome Research Institute Award Number T32HG003284)

  • Mochi Liu

Princeton University (Dean for Research Innovation Fund)

  • Josh Shaevitz
  • Andrew Michael Leifer

Simons Foundation (SCGB #543003)

  • Andrew Michael Leifer

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Timothy O'Leary, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom

Version history

  1. Received: March 6, 2018
  2. Accepted: June 10, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: June 26, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: July 20, 2018 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2018, Liu 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

  • 4,112
    views
  • 495
    downloads
  • 45
    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. Mochi Liu
  2. Anuj Kumar Sharma
  3. Josh Shaevitz
  4. Andrew Michael Leifer
(2018)
Temporal processing and context dependency in C. elegans response to mechanosensation
eLife 7:e36419.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.36419

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.36419

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Mohsen Sadeghi, Reza Sharif Razavian ... Dagmar Sternad
    Research Article

    Natural behaviors have redundancy, which implies that humans and animals can achieve their goals with different strategies. Given only observations of behavior, is it possible to infer the control objective that the subject is employing? This challenge is particularly acute in animal behavior because we cannot ask or instruct the subject to use a particular strategy. This study presents a three-pronged approach to infer an animal’s control objective from behavior. First, both humans and monkeys performed a virtual balancing task for which different control strategies could be utilized. Under matched experimental conditions, corresponding behaviors were observed in humans and monkeys. Second, a generative model was developed that represented two main control objectives to achieve the task goal. Model simulations were used to identify aspects of behavior that could distinguish which control objective was being used. Third, these behavioral signatures allowed us to infer the control objective used by human subjects who had been instructed to use one control objective or the other. Based on this validation, we could then infer objectives from animal subjects. Being able to positively identify a subject’s control objective from observed behavior can provide a powerful tool to neurophysiologists as they seek the neural mechanisms of sensorimotor coordination.

    1. Neuroscience
    Yiyi Chen, Laimdota Zizmare ... Christoph Trautwein
    Research Article

    The retina consumes massive amounts of energy, yet its metabolism and substrate exploitation remain poorly understood. Here, we used a murine explant model to manipulate retinal energy metabolism under entirely controlled conditions and utilised 1H-NMR spectroscopy-based metabolomics, in situ enzyme detection, and cell viability readouts to uncover the pathways of retinal energy production. Our experimental manipulations resulted in varying degrees of photoreceptor degeneration, while the inner retina and retinal pigment epithelium were essentially unaffected. This selective vulnerability of photoreceptors suggested very specific adaptations in their energy metabolism. Rod photoreceptors were found to rely strongly on oxidative phosphorylation, but only mildly on glycolysis. Conversely, cone photoreceptors were dependent on glycolysis but insensitive to electron transport chain decoupling. Importantly, photoreceptors appeared to uncouple glycolytic and Krebs-cycle metabolism via three different pathways: (1) the mini-Krebs-cycle, fuelled by glutamine and branched chain amino acids, generating N-acetylaspartate; (2) the alanine-generating Cahill-cycle; (3) the lactate-releasing Cori-cycle. Moreover, the metabolomics data indicated a shuttling of taurine and hypotaurine between the retinal pigment epithelium and photoreceptors, likely resulting in an additional net transfer of reducing power to photoreceptors. These findings expand our understanding of retinal physiology and pathology and shed new light on neuronal energy homeostasis and the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative diseases.