Abstract

For many organisms, searching for relevant targets such as food or mates entails active, strategic sampling of the environment. Finding odorous targets may be the most ancient search problem that motile organisms evolved to solve. While chemosensory navigation has been well characterized in micro-organisms and invertebrates, spatial olfaction in vertebrates is poorly understood. We have established an olfactory search assay in which freely-moving mice navigate noisy concentration gradients of airborne odor. Mice solve this task using concentration gradient cues and do not require stereo olfaction for performance. During task performance, respiration and nose movement are synchronized with tens of milliseconds precision. This synchrony is present during trials and largely absent during inter-trial intervals, suggesting that sniff-synchronized nose movement is a strategic behavioral state rather than simply a constant accompaniment to fast breathing. To reveal the spatiotemporal structure of these active sensing movements, we used machine learning methods to parse motion trajectories into elementary movement motifs. Motifs fall into two clusters, which correspond to investigation and approach states. Investigation motifs lock precisely to sniffing, such that the individual motifs preferentially occur at specific phases of the sniff cycle. The allocentric structure of investigation and approach indicate an advantage to sampling both sides of the sharpest part of the odor gradient, consistent with a serial sniff strategy for gradient sensing. This work clarifies sensorimotor strategies for mouse olfactory search and guides ongoing work into the underlying neural mechanisms.

Data availability

Source code is available on github at https://github.com/Smear-Lab/Olfactory_Search, and source data files are uploaded to Dryad.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Teresa M Findley

    Department of Biology, Institute of Neuroscience, University of Oregon, Eugene, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. David G Wyrick

    Institute of Neuroscience; Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8096-5766
  3. Jennifer L Cramer

    Institute of Neuroscience; Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Morgan A Brown

    Institute of Neuroscience, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Blake Holcomb

    Institute of Neuroscience; Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Robin Attey

    Institute of Neuroscience; Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9652-8103
  7. Dorian Yeh

    Institute of Neuroscience; Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Eric Monasevitch

    Institute of Neuroscience; Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Nelly Nouboussi

    Institute of Neuroscience; Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Isabelle Cullen

    Institute of Neuroscience; Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Jeremea O Songco

    Institute of Neuroscience; Department of Biology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Jared F King

    Institute of Neuroscience; Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Yashar Ahmadian

    Institute of Neuroscience; Department of Mathematics, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, United States
    For correspondence
    ya311@cam.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5942-0697
  14. Matthew C Smear

    Institute of Neuroscience; Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, United States
    For correspondence
    smear@uoregon.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4689-388X

Funding

Whitehall Foundation (2015-12-201)

  • Matthew C Smear

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R56DC015584)

  • Matthew C Smear

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R21NS104935)

  • Matthew C Smear

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R34NS116731)

  • Matthew C Smear

National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (F31DC016799)

  • Teresa M Findley

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (F32MH118724)

  • Morgan A Brown

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

Ethics

Animal experimentation: his study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocols (AUP-17-23) of the University of Oregon. All surgery was performed under sodium isofluorane anesthesia, and every effort was made to minimize suffering.

Copyright

© 2021, Findley 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

  • 3,688
    views
  • 450
    downloads
  • 44
    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. Teresa M Findley
  2. David G Wyrick
  3. Jennifer L Cramer
  4. Morgan A Brown
  5. Blake Holcomb
  6. Robin Attey
  7. Dorian Yeh
  8. Eric Monasevitch
  9. Nelly Nouboussi
  10. Isabelle Cullen
  11. Jeremea O Songco
  12. Jared F King
  13. Yashar Ahmadian
  14. Matthew C Smear
(2021)
Sniff-synchronized, gradient-guided olfactory search by freely-moving mice
eLife 10:e58523.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58523

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58523

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Rongxin Fang, Aaron Halpern ... Xiaowei Zhuang
    Tools and Resources

    Multiplexed error-robust fluorescence in situ hybridization (MERFISH) allows genome-scale imaging of RNAs in individual cells in intact tissues. To date, MERFISH has been applied to image thin-tissue samples of ~10 µm thickness. Here, we present a thick-tissue three-dimensional (3D) MERFISH imaging method, which uses confocal microscopy for optical sectioning, deep learning for increasing imaging speed and quality, as well as sample preparation and imaging protocol optimized for thick samples. We demonstrated 3D MERFISH on mouse brain tissue sections of up to 200 µm thickness with high detection efficiency and accuracy. We anticipate that 3D thick-tissue MERFISH imaging will broaden the scope of questions that can be addressed by spatial genomics.

    1. Neuroscience
    Sam E Benezra, Kripa B Patel ... Randy M Bruno
    Research Article

    Learning alters cortical representations and improves perception. Apical tuft dendrites in cortical layer 1, which are unique in their connectivity and biophysical properties, may be a key site of learning-induced plasticity. We used both two-photon and SCAPE microscopy to longitudinally track tuft-wide calcium spikes in apical dendrites of layer 5 pyramidal neurons in barrel cortex as mice learned a tactile behavior. Mice were trained to discriminate two orthogonal directions of whisker stimulation. Reinforcement learning, but not repeated stimulus exposure, enhanced tuft selectivity for both directions equally, even though only one was associated with reward. Selective tufts emerged from initially unresponsive or low-selectivity populations. Animal movement and choice did not account for changes in stimulus selectivity. Enhanced selectivity persisted even after rewards were removed and animals ceased performing the task. We conclude that learning produces long-lasting realignment of apical dendrite tuft responses to behaviorally relevant dimensions of a task.