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

  • 3,604
    views
  • 444
    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
    Masahiro Takigawa, Marta Huelin Gorriz ... Daniel Bendor
    Research Article

    During rest and sleep, memory traces replay in the brain. The dialogue between brain regions during replay is thought to stabilize labile memory traces for long-term storage. However, because replay is an internally-driven, spontaneous phenomenon, it does not have a ground truth - an external reference that can validate whether a memory has truly been replayed. Instead, replay detection is based on the similarity between the sequential neural activity comprising the replay event and the corresponding template of neural activity generated during active locomotion. If the statistical likelihood of observing such a match by chance is sufficiently low, the candidate replay event is inferred to be replaying that specific memory. However, without the ability to evaluate whether replay detection methods are successfully detecting true events and correctly rejecting non-events, the evaluation and comparison of different replay methods is challenging. To circumvent this problem, we present a new framework for evaluating replay, tested using hippocampal neural recordings from rats exploring two novel linear tracks. Using this two-track paradigm, our framework selects replay events based on their temporal fidelity (sequence-based detection), and evaluates the detection performance using each event's track discriminability, where sequenceless decoding across both tracks is used to quantify whether the track replaying is also the most likely track being reactivated.

    1. Neuroscience
    Andrew E Worthy, Joanna T Anderson ... Francisco J Alvarez
    Research Article

    Spinal cord interneurons play critical roles shaping motor output, but their precise identity and connectivity remain unclear. Focusing on the V1 interneuron cardinal class we defined four major V1 subsets in the mouse according to neurogenesis, genetic lineage-tracing, synaptic output to motoneurons, and synaptic inputs from muscle afferents. Sequential neurogenesis delineates different V1 subsets: two early born (Renshaw and Pou6f2) and two late born (Foxp2 and Sp8). Early born Renshaw cells and late born Foxp2-V1 interneurons are tightly coupled to motoneurons, while early born Pou6f2-V1 and late born Sp8-V1 interneurons are not, indicating that timing of neurogenesis does not correlate with motoneuron targeting. V1 clades also differ in cell numbers and diversity. Lineage labeling shows that the Foxp2-V1 clade contains over half of all V1 interneurons, provides the largest inhibitory input to motoneuron cell bodies, and includes subgroups that differ in birthdate, location, and proprioceptive input. Notably, one Foxp2-V1 subgroup, defined by postnatal Otp expression, is positioned near the LMC and receives substantial input from proprioceptors, consistent with an involvement in reciprocal inhibitory pathways. Combined tracing of ankle flexor sensory afferents and interneurons monosynaptically connected to ankle extensors confirmed placement of Foxp2-V1 interneurons in reciprocal inhibitory pathways. Our results validate previously proposed V1 clades as unique functional subtypes that differ in circuit placement, with Foxp2-V1 cells forming the most heterogeneous subgroup. We discuss how V1 organizational diversity enables understanding of their roles in motor control, with implications for their diverse ontogenetic and phylogenetic origins.