(A) Computer simulated path with Lévy-distributed move step lengths (truncated power-law exponent, µ = 2.0) between turning points. (B) Rank step-length-frequency distribution of steps in (A) with …
(A) Examples of track processing and turn identification. Row 1, column one shows an example of the effect of the Kalman filter on raw track data; column two shows the steps and turns that would …
Drosophila larva sometimes exhibit curved paths within movement trajectories. (A) This shows an example of a Kalman filtered track of a control larva (BL/+ at 33°C) executing a curved path. The …
(A) The first 10 min of a raw, unprocessed larva track compared with (B) the same track subjected to the Kalman filter (KF) parameters used for the main analysis presented in the main paper. Note …
Comparison of μ exponents of the truncated Lévy power-law best model fits to exploration patterns of control animals (BL/ + and shits/+ control larvae at 22°C and 33°C) before and after a collision …
(A) The curve of inactivation of synaptic transmission with increasing temperature demonstrated by decrease in the average velocity of elav-Gal4/UAS shits third instar larvae as a function of …
(A–B) Schematic of the experimental design for extracellular recordings. (A) Early third instar larvae were dissected and a suction electrode was attached to one brain lobe. NC denotes the nerve …
Example of larva trajectories for each of 8 experimental treatments. Each treatment is signified by the Drosophila brain outlines and colour coding on the left of panels (A). BL/+ (light grey) and sh…
Comparison of (A) the raw distribution of turn angles with (B) the turn angle distribution after determining significant turns. The raw distribution in (A) is dominated by a very high frequency of …
(A) Images and diagrams of the pattern of expression targeted in each genotype. (B) Comparison of μ exponents of the truncated Lévy power-law best model fits to exploration patterns of BL/ + and shit…
(A) Expression pattern of the BLsensR57C10 line. Gal4 is highly expressed in the brain lobes and SOG until the anterior boundary of SCR expression. (B) Schematic of the experimental design. Each one …
Summary of mean μ exponents and orders of magnitude of the data range fitted by truncated power-law model fits from tortuosity analysis. T (°C) denotes different environmental temperature of …
T (°C) | Treatment | No. ofTracks | Mean µ | SD | Orders of Magnitude | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
22 | BL/+ | 29 | 1.70 | 0.34 | 1.98 | 0.41 |
33 | BL/+ | 31 | 1.54 | 0.38 | 1.99 | 0.62 |
22 | shits /+ | 33 | 1.85 | 0.44 | 1.89 | 0.39 |
33 | shits /+ | 34 | 1.61 | 0.40 | 2.04 | 0.40 |
33 | MB247/+ | 21 | 1.39 | 0.27 | 1.87 | 0.45 |
33 | BLsens > shits | 6 | 1.75 | 0.65 | 1.37 | 0.51 |
33 | BL > shits | 23 | 1.67 | 0.40 | 1.61 | 0.61 |
33 | MB247 > shits | 22 | 1.35 | 0.18 | 1.93 | 0.34 |
22 | New Blsens > rpr,hid_control | 61 | 1.74 | 0.33 | 2.11 | 0.37 |
32 | New BLsens > rpr, hid | 22 | 1.41 | 0.29 | 1.55 | 0.26 |
Summary of mean μ exponents and orders of magnitude of the data range fitted by truncated power-law model fits across experimental treatments. T (°C) denotes different environmental temperature of …
T (°C) | Treatment | N tracks | Mu | SD | Orders of magnitude of the data | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
22 | BL/+ | 30 | 1.47 | 0.36 | 1.63 | 0.42 |
33 | BL/+ | 33 | 1.35 | 0.32 | 1.48 | 0.49 |
22 | shits/+ | 34 | 1.49 | 0.35 | 1.52 | 0.32 |
33 | shits /+ | 39 | 1.54 | 0.43 | 1.52 | 0.38 |
33 | MB247/+ | 23 | 1.74 | 0.48 | 1.33 | 0.44 |
33 | BL > shits | 26 | 1.66 | 0.50 | 1.15 | 0.40 |
33 | BLsens > shits | 11 | 1.96 | 0.39 | 1.20 | 0.23 |
33 | MB247 > shits | 23 | 1.56 | 0.35 | 1.39 | 0.46 |
22 | BLsens > rpr, hid_control | 62 | 1.51 | 0.38 | 1.71 | 0.40 |
32 | BLsens > rpr, hid | 23 | 2.14 | 0.47 | 0.93 | 0.52 |
Cumulative probability distributions of truncated power law exponents calculated from individual larva move-step length distributions across experimental treatments. T (°C) denotes different …
Cumulative Probability Distribution (%) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
T (°C) | Treatment | μ exponent range | |||
1–3 | 1.25–2.75 | 1.5–2.5 | 1.75–2.25 | ||
22 | BL/+ | 93.2 | 71.2 | 41.3 | 17.1 |
33 | BL/+ | 90.4 | 59.6 | 26.4 | 8.1 |
22 | shits /+ | 98.4 | 76.8 | 33.6 | 8.0 |
33 | MB247/+ | 96.2 | 83.9 | 60.2 | 30.6 |
33 | BL > shits | 92.5 | 76.0 | 51.6 | 25.3 |
33 | BLsens > shits | 98.7 | 95.1 | 80.6 | 47.3 |
33 | MB247 > shits | 96.6 | 79.9 | 50.6 | 22.4 |
22 | BLsens > rpr, hid_control | 94.8 | 75.0 | 45.2 | 19.3 |
32 | BLsens > rpr, hid | 92.9 | 85.1 | 67.9 | 38.4 |
Mean and standard deviations for the values of alpha and R2 from the mean squared displacement analysis. T (°C) denotes different environmental temperature of treatment.
T (oC) | Treatment | No. of tracks | Mean α | SD | Mean R2 | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
22 | BL/+ | 30 | 1.34 | 0.51 | 0.88 | 0.10 |
33 | BL/+ | 33 | 1.41 | 0.53 | 0.90 | 0.10 |
22 | shits /+ | 34 | 1.26 | 0.45 | 0.88 | 0.16 |
33 | shits /+ | 39 | 1.37 | 0.73 | 0.83 | 0.21 |
33 | MB247/+ | 23 | 1.40 | 0.81 | 0.84 | 0.12 |
33 | BL> shits | 26 | 1.21 | 0.55 | 0.81 | 0.24 |
33 | BLsens> shits | 11 | 0.94 | 0.78 | 0.67 | 0.25 |
33 | MB247> shits | 23 | 1.03 | 0.42 | 0.80 | 0.18 |
22 | New BLsens> rpr,hid_control | 62 | 1.17 | 0.49 | 0.81 | 0.20 |
32 | New BLsens> rpr, hid | 23 | 1.30 | 0.53 | 0.80 | 0.14 |
Reagent type (species) or resource | Designation | Source or reference | Identifiers | Additional information |
---|---|---|---|---|
Strain, strain background (Drosophila melanogaster) | w; elav-GAL4, tsh-GAL80/ +,+; cha3.3-GAL80, UAS-EGFP/ + | DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.07.048 | NA | BL/+ |
Strain, strain background (Drosophila melanogaster) | w; elav-GAL4, tsh-GAL80/ +,+; cha3.3-GAL80, UAS-EGFP / + | DOI:10.1016/j.cub.2012.07.048 | NA | BL > + |
Strain, strain background (Drosophila melanogaster) | w; elav-GAL4, tsh-GAL80/ +,+; UAS-EGFP / + | DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.07.048 | NA | BLsens > + |
Strain, strain background (Drosophila melanogaster) | 20XUAS-IVS-Syn21-Shibire-ts1-GFP-p10 | Gift from G. Rubin | NA | |
Strain, strain background (Drosophila melanogaster) | MB247-GAL4 | Gift form J. Ng | NA | |
Strain, strain background (Drosophila melanogaster) | UAS-rpr, UAS-hid | Gift from from M. Landgraf | NA | |
Strain, strain background (Drosophila melanogaster) | UAS-myrRFP | Gift from from M. Landgraf | NA | |
Strain, strain background (Drosophila melanogaster) | P{GMR57C10-GAL4}attP2 | Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center | RRID:BDSC_39171 | In attp40 |
Strain, strain background (Drosophila melanogaster) | P{tubP-GAL80[ts]}2 | Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center | RRID:BDSC_7017 | |
Chemical | Poly-L-Lysine hydrobromide | Sigma | P2524 | |
Antibody | Mouse monoclonal anti-SCR | Development Studies Hybridoma Bank (DSHB), IA, USA | RRID:AB_528462 | 1: 20 dilution |
Antibody | Chicken polyclonal anti-GFP | abcam | ab13970 | 1/2000 dilution |
Antibody | Rabbit polyclonal anti-Cleaved Drosophila Dcp-1(Asp216) | Cell Signaling Technology | #9578 | 1/100 |
Antibody | Donkey polyclonal Alexa568 anti-mouse | Invitrogen | A10042 | 1/500 |
Antibody | Donkey polyclonal CF633 anti-rabbit | Biotum | BT20125 | 1/500 dilution |
Antibody | Goat polyclonal Alexa488 anti-chicken | Biotum | BT20020 | 1/500 |
Software | FIMTrack | https://www.uni-muenster.de/PRIA/en/FIM/download.shtml | NA | FIMTrack_v2_X64_MacOS |
Software | MBA MLE Analysis | http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12096 | NA | |
Software | clampfit | https://moleculardevices.app.box.com/s/l8h8odzbdikalbje1iwj85x88004f588 | NA |
Summary of larvae tracked and the model fits.
The number of trials and number of larvae tracked per trial is given along with the move-step frequency distribution model fitting and model selection results for all trials across experimental treatments. The number of larvae paths in TP denotes the number of individual path best fits to a truncated Pareto (power law) distribution; E, the number best fitting an exponential distribution; and U is unclassified where there was no clear best fit to either model. Tracks discarded prior to model fitting were those where larvae collided, the arena edge was encountered, or there were <50 fitted movement steps. Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE) was used for parameter fitting (exponent, xmax) and Akaike’s Information Criteria weights (wAIC) used for model selection. For full description of procedures used see Methods.
Sensitivity analyses for Kalman filter parameters and minimum step resolution values.
(A) Kalman filter (KF) parameters and (B) minimum step resolution values were altered to determine the effects of such changes on the consistency of treatment µ values. The values used for the results presented in the main paper were Position and Velocity minimum variances of 0.5 and a covariance of 1.0 for the KF, and a minimum step resolution of 0.44. The sensitivity analysis for the KF parameters considered values that differed significantly from those used, bracketing the analysis values. As can be seen in (A), differences in the µ values were generally small, confirming that the values chosen for the KF did not alter the finding of truncated power-laws in larva tracks. Rather, the average µ values from all KF sensitivity tests are close to those found in the analysis. The minimum step resolution value chosen for the analysis (0.44) was determined from the tracking resolution and larval movements (head sways and peristaltic contractions) and represents the lowest value above the track noise. All computed move steps lower than this value were excluded from the analysis. For the sensitivity test, values of 0.3, 0.5, 0.7 and 0.9 were used as this range covered viable alternative values. As with the KF tests, the finding of truncated power-laws and the resultant µ values differed very little from those presented in the original analysis. We conclude that significant changes in parameters associated with video track processing had no important effects on our finding of truncated power-laws in larva movement paths and the resultant µ values.
Summary of results for truncated Pareto model fits compared to exponential model distributions.
Full MLE results of truncated power law fits to larvae move step-length frequency distributions across trials and experimental treatments.
Summary of results for truncated Pareto model fits compared to other model distributions.
Model selection using Akaike’s Information Criteria weights (wAIC) from comparison of the log likelihoods (LLH). For full description of procedures see Materials and methods. TP, truncated Pareto distribution fit to larva move-step frequency distribution; P, power law; E, exponential; TE, truncated exponential; LN, log-normal; G, gamma distribution. Values in model columns denote best fit based on wAIC. Note the high number of larva best fit by TP model distributions when compared with other models.
Tests for stationarity in the larva movement pattern data within treatments.
Larva tracks with fitted move steps were separated at the midpoint and those for which each half was best fitted by a truncated power-law were retained for analysis. The average µ values for the first and second half of all tracks across trials within a treatment were compared to determine any significant differences, which would indicate changes in track statistics over time (i.e. non-stationarity). We found no significant differences between the first and second halves of the tracks and with no clear trend of increasing or decreasing µ values, as might be expected to occur if µ showed significant temporal dependence on changing satiety or other factors over the 1 hr trial period.
Summary of model comparisons.
Model comparisons for each larva path across trials and experimental treatments is given (wAIC) for the truncated Pareto (TP), exponential (Exp), power-law (P) and composite Brownian (CB) model distributions with proportions of two (CB2), three (CB3) and four exponentials (CB4). Bold wAIC values denote best fit. Note the high number of larva best fit by TP model distributions when compared with other models.
Video frame frequency test.
Ten shits/+ larvae at 33°C were tracked with a video frame capture rate set at 15 frames per second (fps; Hz). These data were then subsampled to 7.5, 5 and 3 Hz to test whether video frame frequency affected estimation of the μ exponent following MLE analysis and model selection. A Kruskal-Wallis test showed no differences between medians of truncated power law μ exponents across the four different frequencies (H(3)=3.9, p=0.271) indicating video frame rate did not contribute significantly to determination of μ exponent values.