Central processing of leg proprioception in Drosophila

  1. Sweta Agrawal
  2. Evyn S Dickinson
  3. Anne Sustar
  4. Pralaksha Gurung
  5. David Shepherd
  6. James W Truman
  7. John C Tuthill  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Washington, United States
  2. Bangor University, United Kingdom
  3. Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, United States

Abstract

Proprioception, the sense of self-movement and position, is mediated by mechanosensory neurons that detect diverse features of body kinematics. Although proprioceptive feedback is crucial for accurate motor control, little is known about how downstream circuits transform limb sensory information to guide motor output. Here, we investigate neural circuits in Drosophila that process proprioceptive information from the fly leg. We identify three cell-types from distinct developmental lineages that are positioned to receive input from proprioceptor subtypes encoding tibia position, movement, and vibration. 13Bα neurons encode femur-tibia joint angle and mediate postural changes in tibia position. 9Aα neurons also drive changes in leg posture, but encode a combination of directional movement, high frequency vibration, and joint angle. Activating 10Bα neurons, which encode tibia vibration at specific joint angles, elicits pausing in walking flies. Altogether, our results reveal that central circuits integrate information across proprioceptor subtypes to construct complex sensorimotor representations that mediate diverse behaviors, including reflexive control of limb posture and detection of leg vibration.

Data availability

Data made freely available on Dryad (doi:10.5061/dryad.k3j9kd55t).

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Sweta Agrawal

    Dept of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Evyn S Dickinson

    Dept of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7518-9512
  3. Anne Sustar

    Dept of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Pralaksha Gurung

    Dept of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. David Shepherd

    School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6961-7880
  6. James W Truman

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9209-5435
  7. John C Tuthill

    Dept of Physiology and Biophysics, University of Washington, Seattle, United States
    For correspondence
    johnctuthill@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-5689-5806

Funding

National Institutes of Health (R01NS102333)

  • Sweta Agrawal
  • Evyn S Dickinson
  • Anne Sustar
  • Pralaksha Gurung
  • John C Tuthill

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • David Shepherd
  • James W Truman

Pew Charitable Trusts (Scholar Award)

  • Sweta Agrawal
  • Evyn S Dickinson
  • Anne Sustar
  • Pralaksha Gurung
  • John C Tuthill

Searle Scholars Program (Scholar Award)

  • Sweta Agrawal
  • Evyn S Dickinson
  • Anne Sustar
  • Pralaksha Gurung
  • John C Tuthill

Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (Scholar Award)

  • Sweta Agrawal
  • Evyn S Dickinson
  • Anne Sustar
  • Pralaksha Gurung
  • John C Tuthill

McKnight Endowment Fund for Neuroscience (Scholar Award)

  • Sweta Agrawal
  • Evyn S Dickinson
  • Anne Sustar
  • Pralaksha Gurung
  • John C Tuthill

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

Copyright

© 2020, Agrawal 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

  • 3,643
    views
  • 419
    downloads
  • 52
    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. Sweta Agrawal
  2. Evyn S Dickinson
  3. Anne Sustar
  4. Pralaksha Gurung
  5. David Shepherd
  6. James W Truman
  7. John C Tuthill
(2020)
Central processing of leg proprioception in Drosophila
eLife 9:e60299.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60299

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.60299

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Sharon Inberg, Yael Iosilevskii ... Benjamin Podbilewicz
    Research Article

    Dendrites are crucial for receiving information into neurons. Sensory experience affects the structure of these tree-like neurites, which, it is assumed, modifies neuronal function, yet the evidence is scarce, and the mechanisms are unknown. To study whether sensory experience affects dendritic morphology, we use the Caenorhabditis elegans' arborized nociceptor PVD neurons, under natural mechanical stimulation induced by physical contacts between individuals. We found that mechanosensory signals induced by conspecifics and by glass beads affect the dendritic structure of the PVD. Moreover, developmentally isolated animals show a decrease in their ability to respond to harsh touch. The structural and behavioral plasticity following sensory deprivation are functionally independent of each other and are mediated by an array of evolutionarily conserved mechanosensory amiloride-sensitive epithelial sodium channels (degenerins). Calcium imaging of the PVD neurons in a micromechanical device revealed that controlled mechanical stimulation of the body wall produces similar calcium dynamics in both isolated and crowded animals. Our genetic results, supported by optogenetic, behavioral, and pharmacological evidence, suggest an activity-dependent homeostatic mechanism for dendritic structural plasticity, that in parallel controls escape response to noxious mechanosensory stimuli.

    1. Neuroscience
    Gyeong Hee Pyeon, Hyewon Cho ... Yong Sang Jo
    Research Article

    Recent studies suggest that calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) neurons in the parabrachial nucleus (PBN) represent aversive information and signal a general alarm to the forebrain. If CGRP neurons serve as a true general alarm, their activation would modulate both passive nad active defensive behaviors depending on the magnitude and context of the threat. However, most prior research has focused on the role of CGRP neurons in passive freezing responses, with limited exploration of their involvement in active defensive behaviors. To address this, we examined the role of CGRP neurons in active defensive behavior using a predator-like robot programmed to chase mice. Our electrophysiological results revealed that CGRP neurons encode the intensity of aversive stimuli through variations in firing durations and amplitudes. Optogenetic activation of CGRP neuron during robot chasing elevated flight responses in both conditioning and retention tests, presumably by amyplifying the perception of the threat as more imminent and dangerous. In contrast, animals with inactivated CGRP neurons exhibited reduced flight responses, even when the robot was programmed to appear highly threatening during conditioning. These findings expand the understanding of CGRP neurons in the PBN as a critical alarm system, capable of dynamically regulating active defensive behaviors by amplifying threat perception, ensuring adaptive responses to varying levels of danger.