1. Neuroscience
Download icon

The neural basis for a persistent internal state in Drosophila females

Research Article
  • Cited 5
  • Views 2,828
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2020;9:e59502 doi: 10.7554/eLife.59502

Abstract

Sustained changes in mood or action require persistent changes in neural activity, but it has been difficult to identify the neural circuit mechanisms that underlie persistent activity and contribute to long-lasting changes in behavior. Here, we show that a subset of Doublesex+ pC1 neurons in the Drosophila female brain, called pC1d/e, can drive minutes-long changes in female behavior in the presence of males. Using automated reconstruction of a volume electron microscopic (EM) image of the female brain, we map all inputs and outputs to both pC1d and pC1e. This reveals strong recurrent connectivity between, in particular, pC1d/e neurons and a specific subset of Fruitless+ neurons called aIPg. We additionally find that pC1d/e activation drives long-lasting persistent neural activity in brain areas and cells overlapping with the pC1d/e neural network, including both Doublesex+ and Fruitless+ neurons. Our work thus links minutes-long persistent changes in behavior with persistent neural activity and recurrent circuit architecture in the female brain.

Data availability

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

Article and author information

Author details

  1. David S Deutsch

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8587-2435
  2. Diego A Pacheco

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Lucas Encarnacion-Rivera

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Talmo D Pereira

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9075-8365
  5. Ramie Fathy

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Jan Clemens

    European Neuroscience Institute, Göttingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4200-8097
  7. Cyrille Girardin

    Neuroscience, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Adam J Calhoun

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Elise C Ireland

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Austin T Burke

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Sven Dorkenwald

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute and Department of Computer Science, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Claire E McKellar

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3580-7336
  13. Thomas Macrina

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute and Department of Computer Science, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Ran Lu

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Kisuk Lee

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Nico Kemnitz

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  17. Dodham Ih

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Manuel Castro

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. Akhilesh Halageri

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Chris Jordan

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  21. William Silversmith

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  22. Jingpeng Wu

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  23. H Sebastian Seung

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute and Department of Computer Science, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  24. Mala Murthy

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    For correspondence
    mmurthy@princeton.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3063-3389

Funding

National Institutes of Health (RF1 MH117815-01)

  • Mala Murthy

National Institutes of Health (R01 NS104899)

  • Mala Murthy

Howard Hughes Medical Institute (Faculty Scholar)

  • Mala Murthy

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Megan R Carey, Champalimaud Foundation, Portugal

Publication history

  1. Received: May 30, 2020
  2. Accepted: November 18, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: November 23, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: November 24, 2020 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: January 6, 2021 (version 3)
  6. Version of Record updated: January 14, 2021 (version 4)
  7. Version of Record updated: January 19, 2021 (version 5)
  8. Version of Record updated: May 20, 2021 (version 6)
  9. Version of Record updated: September 29, 2021 (version 7)

Copyright

© 2020, Deutsch 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

  • 2,828
    Page views
  • 358
    Downloads
  • 5
    Citations

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

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Evan Cesanek et al.
    Research Article Updated

    The ability to predict the dynamics of objects, linking applied force to motion, underlies our capacity to perform many of the tasks we carry out on a daily basis. Thus, a fundamental question is how the dynamics of the myriad objects we interact with are organized in memory. Using a custom-built three-dimensional robotic interface that allowed us to simulate objects of varying appearance and weight, we examined how participants learned the weights of sets of objects that they repeatedly lifted. We find strong support for the novel hypothesis that motor memories of object dynamics are organized categorically, in terms of families, based on covariation in their visual and mechanical properties. A striking prediction of this hypothesis, supported by our findings and not predicted by standard associative map models, is that outlier objects with weights that deviate from the family-predicted weight will never be learned despite causing repeated lifting errors.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Domenica Ippolito et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Sensory and behavioral plasticity are essential for animals to thrive in changing environments. As key effectors of intracellular calcium signaling, Ca2+/calmodulin-dependent protein kinases (CaMKs) can bridge neural activation with the many regulatory processes needed to orchestrate sensory adaptation, including by relaying signals to the nucleus. Here, we elucidate the molecular mechanism controlling the cell activation-dependent nuclear translocation of CMK-1, the Caenorhabditis elegans ortholog of mammalian CaMKI/IV, in thermosensory neurons in vivo. We show that an intracellular Ca2+ concentration elevation is necessary and sufficient to favor CMK-1 nuclear import. The binding of Ca2+/CaM to CMK-1 increases its affinity for IMA-3 importin, causing a redistribution with a relatively slow kinetics, matching the timescale of sensory adaptation. Furthermore, we show that this mechanism enables the encoding of opposite nuclear signals in neuron types with opposite calcium-responses and that it is essential for experience-dependent behavioral plasticity and gene transcription control in vivo. Since CaMKI/IV are conserved regulators of adaptable behaviors, similar mechanisms could exist in other organisms and for other sensory modalities.