1. Neuroscience
Download icon

Sniff-synchronized, gradient-guided olfactory search by freely-moving mice

Research Article
  • Cited 5
  • Views 1,559
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2021;10:e58523 doi: 10.7554/eLife.58523

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.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Upinder Singh Bhalla, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, India

Publication history

  1. Received: May 3, 2020
  2. Accepted: April 22, 2021
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 4, 2021 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: June 1, 2021 (version 2)

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

  • 1,559
    Page views
  • 227
    Downloads
  • 5
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Sebastian H Zahler et al.
    Research Article

    Animals investigate their environments by directing their gaze towards salient stimuli. In the prevailing view, mouse gaze shifts entail head rotations followed by brainstem-mediated eye movements, including saccades to reset the eyes. These ‘recentering’ saccades are attributed to head movement-related vestibular cues. However, microstimulating mouse superior colliculus (SC) elicits directed head and eye movements resembling SC-dependent sensory-guided gaze shifts in other species, suggesting that mouse gaze shifts may be more flexible than has been recognized. We investigated this possibility by tracking eye and attempted head movements in a head-fixed preparation that eliminates head movement-related sensory cues. We found tactile stimuli evoke directionally biased saccades coincident with attempted head rotations. Differences in saccade endpoints across stimuli are associated with distinct stimulus-dependent relationships between initial eye position and saccade direction and amplitude. Optogenetic perturbations revealed SC drives these gaze shifts. Thus, head-fixed mice make sensory-guided, SC-dependent gaze shifts involving coincident, directionally biased saccades and attempted head movements. Our findings uncover flexibility in mouse gaze shifts and provide a foundation for studying head-eye coupling.

    1. Neuroscience
    Seksiri Arttamangkul et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Class A G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) normally function as monomers, although evidence from heterologous expression systems suggests that they may sometimes form homodimers and/or heterodimers. This study aims to evaluate possible functional interplay of endogenous µ- and δ-opioid receptors (MORs and DORs) in mouse neurons. Detecting GPCR dimers in native tissues, however, has been challenging. Previously, MORs and DORs co-expressed in transfected cells have been reported to form heterodimers, and their possible co-localization in neurons has been studied in knock-in mice expressing genetically engineered receptors fused to fluorescent proteins. Here, we find that single cholinergic neurons in the mouse striatum endogenously express both MORs and DORs. The receptors on neurons from live brain slices were fluorescently labeled with a ligand-directed labeling reagent, NAI-A594. The selective activation of MORs and DORs, with DAMGO (µ-agonist) and deltorphin (δ-agonist) inhibited spontaneous firing in all cells examined. In the continued presence of agonist, the firing rate returned to baseline as the result of receptor desensitization with the application of deltorphin but was less observed with the application of DAMGO. In addition, agonist-induced internalization of DORs but not MORs was detected. When MORs and DORs were activated simultaneously with [Met5]-enkephalin, desensitization of MORs was facilitated but internalization was not increased. Together, these results indicate that while MORs and DORs are expressed in single striatal cholinergic interneurons, the two receptors function independently.