ON selectivity in Drosophila vision is a multisynaptic process involving both glutamatergic and GABAergic inhibition

  1. Sebastian Molina-Obando
  2. Juan Felipe Vargas-Fique
  3. Miriam Henning
  4. Burak Gür
  5. T Moritz Schladt
  6. Junaid Akhtar
  7. Thomas K Berger
  8. Marion Silies  Is a corresponding author
  1. Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz, Germany
  2. Center of Advanced European Research (Caesar), Germany

Abstract

Sensory systems sequentially extract increasingly complex features. ON and OFF pathways, for example, encode increases or decreases of a stimulus from a common input. This ON/OFF pathway split is thought to occur at individual synaptic connections through a sign-inverting synapse in one of the pathways. Here, we show that ON selectivity is a multisynaptic process in the Drosophila visual system. A pharmacogenetics approach demonstrates that both glutamatergic inhibition through GluClα and GABAergic inhibition through Rdl mediate ON responses. Although neurons postsynaptic to the glutamatergic ON pathway input L1 lose all responses in GluClα mutants, they are resistant to a cell-type-specific loss of GluClα. This shows that ON selectivity is distributed across multiple synapses, and raises the possibility that cell-type-specific manipulations might reveal similar strategies in other sensory systems. Thus, sensory coding is more distributed than predicted by simple circuit motifs, allowing for robust neural processing.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Sebastian Molina-Obando

    Institute of Developmental Biology and Neurobiology, Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-1222-723X
  2. Juan Felipe Vargas-Fique

    Institute of Developmental Biology and Neurobiology, Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Miriam Henning

    Institute of Developmental Biology and Neurobiology, Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Burak Gür

    Institute of Developmental Biology and Neurobiology, Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8221-9767
  5. T Moritz Schladt

    Center of Advanced European Research (Caesar), Bonn, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Junaid Akhtar

    Institute of Developmental Biology and Neurobiology, Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Thomas K Berger

    Center of Advanced European Research (Caesar), Bonn, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Marion Silies

    Institute of Developmental Biology and Neurobiology, Johannes Gutenberg Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany
    For correspondence
    msilies@uni-mainz.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2810-9828

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Emmy Noether SI 1991/1-1)

  • Miriam Henning
  • Burak Gür
  • Junaid Akhtar
  • Marion Silies

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (SFB889)

  • Sebastian Molina-Obando
  • Juan Felipe Vargas-Fique

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Project C08)

  • Sebastian Molina-Obando
  • Juan Felipe Vargas-Fique

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

Copyright

© 2019, Molina-Obando 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

  • 3,892
    views
  • 535
    downloads
  • 36
    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. Sebastian Molina-Obando
  2. Juan Felipe Vargas-Fique
  3. Miriam Henning
  4. Burak Gür
  5. T Moritz Schladt
  6. Junaid Akhtar
  7. Thomas K Berger
  8. Marion Silies
(2019)
ON selectivity in Drosophila vision is a multisynaptic process involving both glutamatergic and GABAergic inhibition
eLife 8:e49373.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49373

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.49373

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Simonas Griesius, Amy Richardson, Dimitri Michael Kullmann
    Research Article

    Non-linear summation of synaptic inputs to the dendrites of pyramidal neurons has been proposed to increase the computation capacity of neurons through coincidence detection, signal amplification, and additional logic operations such as XOR. Supralinear dendritic integration has been documented extensively in principal neurons, mediated by several voltage-dependent conductances. It has also been reported in parvalbumin-positive hippocampal basket cells, in dendrites innervated by feedback excitatory synapses. Whether other interneurons, which support feed-forward or feedback inhibition of principal neuron dendrites, also exhibit local non-linear integration of synaptic excitation is not known. Here, we use patch-clamp electrophysiology, and two-photon calcium imaging and glutamate uncaging, to show that supralinear dendritic integration of near-synchronous spatially clustered glutamate-receptor mediated depolarization occurs in NDNF-positive neurogliaform cells and oriens-lacunosum moleculare interneurons in the mouse hippocampus. Supralinear summation was detected via recordings of somatic depolarizations elicited by uncaging of glutamate on dendritic fragments, and, in neurogliaform cells, by concurrent imaging of dendritic calcium transients. Supralinearity was abolished by blocking NMDA receptors (NMDARs) but resisted blockade of voltage-gated sodium channels. Blocking L-type calcium channels abolished supralinear calcium signalling but only had a minor effect on voltage supralinearity. Dendritic boosting of spatially clustered synaptic signals argues for previously unappreciated computational complexity in dendrite-projecting inhibitory cells of the hippocampus.

    1. Neuroscience
    Jessica Royer, Valeria Kebets ... Boris C Bernhardt
    Research Article Updated

    Complex structural and functional changes occurring in typical and atypical development necessitate multidimensional approaches to better understand the risk of developing psychopathology. Here, we simultaneously examined structural and functional brain network patterns in relation to dimensions of psychopathology in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) dataset. Several components were identified, recapitulating the psychopathology hierarchy, with the general psychopathology (p) factor explaining most covariance with multimodal imaging features, while the internalizing, externalizing, and neurodevelopmental dimensions were each associated with distinct morphological and functional connectivity signatures. Connectivity signatures associated with the p factor and neurodevelopmental dimensions followed the sensory-to-transmodal axis of cortical organization, which is related to the emergence of complex cognition and risk for psychopathology. Results were consistent in two separate data subsamples and robust to variations in analytical parameters. Although model parameters yielded statistically significant brain–behavior associations in unseen data, generalizability of the model was rather limited for all three latent components (r change from within- to out-of-sample statistics: LC1within = 0.36, LC1out = 0.03; LC2within = 0.34, LC2out = 0.05; LC3within = 0.35, LC3out = 0.07). Our findings help in better understanding biological mechanisms underpinning dimensions of psychopathology, and could provide brain-based vulnerability markers.