Abstract

Understanding the circuit mechanisms behind motion detection is a long-standing question in visual neuroscience. In Drosophila melanogaster, recent synapse-level connectomes in the optic lobe, particularly in ON-pathway (T4) receptive-field circuits, in concert with physiological studies, suggest an increasingly intricate motion model compared with the ubiquitous Hassenstein-Reichardt model, while our knowledge of OFF-pathway (T5) has been incomplete. Here we present a conclusive and comprehensive connectome that for the first time integrates detailed connectivity information for inputs to both T4 and T5 pathways in a single EM dataset covering the entire optic lobe. With novel reconstruction methods using automated synapse prediction suited to such a large connectome, we successfully corroborate previous findings in the T4 pathway and comprehensively identify inputs and receptive fields for T5. While the two pathways are likely evolutionarily linked and indeed exhibit many similarities, we uncover interesting differences and interactions that may underlie their distinct functional properties.

Data availability

The raw electron microscopy data, as well as skeletonized neurons and numbers of input and output synapses of T4 and T5 cells used in this study are hosted at a Janelia website: http://emdata.janelia.org/optic-lobe/.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Kazunori Shinomiya

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    For correspondence
    shinomiyak@janelia.hhmi.org
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0262-6421
  2. Gary Huang

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Zhiyuan Lu

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Toufiq Parag

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. C Shan Xu

    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:" 0000-0002-8564-7836
  6. Roxanne Aniceto

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Namra Ansari

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

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Shirley Lauchie

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Erika Neace

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Omotara Ogundeyi

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Christopher Ordish

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. David Peel

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Aya Shinomiya

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Claire Smith

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Satoko Takemura

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Iris Talebi

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Patricia K Rivlin

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Aljoscha Nern

    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:" 0000-0002-3822-489X
  20. Louis K Scheffer

    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:" 0000-0002-3289-6564
  21. Stephen M Plaza

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Ian A Meinertzhagen

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    For correspondence
    I.A.Meinertzhagen@Dal.Ca
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6578-4526

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Stephen M Plaza

Kazato Research Foundation (Kazato Research Encouragement Prize)

  • Kazunori Shinomiya

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Alexander Borst, Max Planck Institute of Neurobiology, Germany

Version history

  1. Received: July 12, 2018
  2. Accepted: January 2, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: January 9, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: January 18, 2019 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Shinomiya 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

  • 4,462
    views
  • 578
    downloads
  • 112
    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. Kazunori Shinomiya
  2. Gary Huang
  3. Zhiyuan Lu
  4. Toufiq Parag
  5. C Shan Xu
  6. Roxanne Aniceto
  7. Namra Ansari
  8. Natasha Cheatham
  9. Shirley Lauchie
  10. Erika Neace
  11. Omotara Ogundeyi
  12. Christopher Ordish
  13. David Peel
  14. Aya Shinomiya
  15. Claire Smith
  16. Satoko Takemura
  17. Iris Talebi
  18. Patricia K Rivlin
  19. Aljoscha Nern
  20. Louis K Scheffer
  21. Stephen M Plaza
  22. Ian A Meinertzhagen
(2019)
Comparisons between the ON- and OFF-edge motion pathways in the Drosophila brain
eLife 8:e40025.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.40025

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.40025

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Daniel Hoops, Robert Kyne ... Cecilia Flores
    Short Report

    Dopamine axons are the only axons known to grow during adolescence. Here, using rodent models, we examined how two proteins, Netrin-1 and its receptor, UNC5C, guide dopamine axons toward the prefrontal cortex and shape behaviour. We demonstrate in mice (Mus musculus) that dopamine axons reach the cortex through a transient gradient of Netrin-1-expressing cells – disrupting this gradient reroutes axons away from their target. Using a seasonal model (Siberian hamsters; Phodopus sungorus) we find that mesocortical dopamine development can be regulated by a natural environmental cue (daylength) in a sexually dimorphic manner – delayed in males, but advanced in females. The timings of dopamine axon growth and UNC5C expression are always phase-locked. Adolescence is an ill-defined, transitional period; we pinpoint neurodevelopmental markers underlying this period.

    1. Neuroscience
    Baba Yogesh, Georg B Keller
    Research Article

    Acetylcholine is released in visual cortex by axonal projections from the basal forebrain. The signals conveyed by these projections and their computational significance are still unclear. Using two-photon calcium imaging in behaving mice, we show that basal forebrain cholinergic axons in the mouse visual cortex provide a binary locomotion state signal. In these axons, we found no evidence of responses to visual stimuli or visuomotor prediction errors. While optogenetic activation of cholinergic axons in visual cortex in isolation did not drive local neuronal activity, when paired with visuomotor stimuli, it resulted in layer-specific increases of neuronal activity. Responses in layer 5 neurons to both top-down and bottom-up inputs were increased in amplitude and decreased in latency, whereas those in layer 2/3 neurons remained unchanged. Using opto- and chemogenetic manipulations of cholinergic activity, we found acetylcholine to underlie the locomotion-associated decorrelation of activity between neurons in both layer 2/3 and layer 5. Our results suggest that acetylcholine augments the responsiveness of layer 5 neurons to inputs from outside of the local network, possibly enabling faster switching between internal representations during locomotion.