Synaptic targets of photoreceptors specialized to detect color and skylight polarization in Drosophila

Abstract

Color and polarization provide complementary information about the world and are detected by specialized photoreceptors. However, the downstream neural circuits that process these distinct modalities are incompletely understood in any animal. Using electron microscopy, we have systematically reconstructed the synaptic targets of the photoreceptors specialized to detect color and skylight polarization in Drosophila, and we have used light microscopy to confirm many of our findings. We identified known and novel downstream targets that are selective for different wavelengths or polarized light, and followed their projections to other areas in the optic lobes and the central brain. Our results revealed many synapses along the photoreceptor axons between brain regions, new pathways in the optic lobes, and spatially segregated projections to central brain regions. Strikingly, photoreceptors in the polarization-sensitive dorsal rim area target fewer cell types, and lack strong connections to the lobula, a neuropil involved in color processing. Our reconstruction identifies shared wiring and modality-specific specializations for color and polarization vision, and provides a comprehensive view of the first steps of the pathways processing color and polarized light inputs.

Data availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Supplementary File 1 and 3 contain all connectivity data. Supplementary File 2 provides images of all EM skeletons.All code and necessary data to perform the analysis and generate the figures of this manuscript will be available from https://github.com/reiserlab.All reconstructed neurons described in the manuscript will be made available at https://fafb.catmaid.virtualflybrain.org/.

The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Emil Kind

    Instititut für Biologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5228-7638
  2. Kit D Longden

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Aljoscha Nern

    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:" 0000-0002-3822-489X
  4. Arthur Zhao

    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:" 0000-0003-2869-4393
  5. Gizem Sancer

    Institut für Biologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0367-9421
  6. Miriam A Flynn

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Connor W Laughland

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Bruck Gezahegn

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Henrique DF Ludwig

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Alex G Thomson

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Tessa Obrusnik

    Institut für Biologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Paula G Alarcón

    Institut für Biologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Heather Dionne

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Davi D Bock

    Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Gerald M Rubin

    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:" 0000-0001-8762-8703
  16. Michael B Reiser

    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:" 0000-0002-4108-4517
  17. Mathias F Wernet

    Institut für Biologie, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany
    For correspondence
    mathias.wernet@fu-berlin.de
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5233-2654

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Kit D Longden
  • Aljoscha Nern
  • Arthur Zhao
  • Miriam A Flynn
  • Connor W Laughland
  • Bruck Gezahegn
  • Henrique DF Ludwig
  • Alex G Thomson
  • Heather Dionne
  • Davi D Bock
  • Gerald M Rubin
  • Michael B Reiser

Freie Universität Berlin

  • Emil Kind
  • Gizem Sancer
  • Tessa Obrusnik
  • Paula G Alarcón
  • Mathias F Wernet

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (WE 5761/2-1)

  • Mathias F Wernet

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (WE 5761/4-1)

  • Mathias F Wernet

Air Force Office of Scientific Research (FA9550-19-1-7005)

  • Mathias F Wernet

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Ronald L Calabrese, Emory University, United States

Publication history

  1. Preprint posted: May 17, 2021 (view preprint)
  2. Received: July 1, 2021
  3. Accepted: December 15, 2021
  4. Accepted Manuscript published: December 16, 2021 (version 1)
  5. Accepted Manuscript updated: January 4, 2022 (version 2)
  6. Version of Record published: January 25, 2022 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2021, Kind 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

  • 1,723
    Page views
  • 327
    Downloads
  • 7
    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)

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. Emil Kind
  2. Kit D Longden
  3. Aljoscha Nern
  4. Arthur Zhao
  5. Gizem Sancer
  6. Miriam A Flynn
  7. Connor W Laughland
  8. Bruck Gezahegn
  9. Henrique DF Ludwig
  10. Alex G Thomson
  11. Tessa Obrusnik
  12. Paula G Alarcón
  13. Heather Dionne
  14. Davi D Bock
  15. Gerald M Rubin
  16. Michael B Reiser
  17. Mathias F Wernet
(2021)
Synaptic targets of photoreceptors specialized to detect color and skylight polarization in Drosophila
eLife 10:e71858.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71858

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Asaph Zylbertal, Isaac H Bianco
    Research Article

    Response variability is an essential and universal feature of sensory processing and behavior. It arises from fluctuations in the internal state of the brain, which modulate how sensory information is represented and transformed to guide behavioral actions. In part, brain state is shaped by recent network activity, fed back through recurrent connections to modulate neuronal excitability. However, the degree to which these interactions influence response variability and the spatial and temporal scales across which they operate, are poorly understood. Here, we combined population recordings and modeling to gain insights into how neuronal activity modulates network state and thereby impacts visually evoked activity and behavior. First, we performed cellular-resolution calcium imaging of the optic tectum to monitor ongoing activity, the pattern of which is both a cause and consequence of changes in network state. We developed a minimal network model incorporating fast, short range, recurrent excitation and long-lasting, activity-dependent suppression that reproduced a hallmark property of tectal activity – intermittent bursting. We next used the model to estimate the excitability state of tectal neurons based on recent activity history and found that this explained a portion of the trial-to-trial variability in visually evoked responses, as well as spatially selective response adaptation. Moreover, these dynamics also predicted behavioral trends such as selective habituation of visually evoked prey-catching. Overall, we demonstrate that a simple recurrent interaction motif can be used to estimate the effect of activity upon the incidental state of a neural network and account for experience-dependent effects on sensory encoding and visually guided behavior.

    1. Developmental Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Daniel T Pederick, Nicole A Perry-Hauser ... Liqun Luo
    Research Article

    The formation of neural circuits requires extensive interactions of cell-surface proteins to guide axons to their correct target neurons. Trans-cellular interactions of the adhesion G protein-coupled receptor latrophilin-2 (Lphn2) with its partner teneurin-3 instruct the precise assembly of hippocampal networks by reciprocal repulsion. Lphn2 acts as a repulsive receptor in distal CA1 neurons to direct their axons to proximal subiculum, and as a repulsive ligand in proximal subiculum to direct proximal CA1 axons to distal subiculum. It remains unclear if Lphn2-mediated intracellular signaling is required for its role in either context. Here, we show that Lphn2 couples to Gα12/13 in heterologous cells; this coupling is increased by constitutive exposure of the tethered agonist. Specific mutations of Lphn2's tethered agonist region disrupt its G protein coupling and autoproteolytic cleavage, whereas mutating the autoproteolytic cleavage site alone prevents cleavage but preserves a functional tethered agonist. Using an in vivo misexpression assay, we demonstrate that wild-type Lphn2 misdirects proximal CA1 axons to proximal subiculum and that Lphn2 tethered agonist activity is required for its role as a repulsive receptor in axons. By contrast, neither tethered agonist activity nor autoproteolysis was necessary for Lphn2's role as a repulsive ligand in the subiculum target neurons. Thus, tethered agonist activity is required for Lphn2-mediated neural circuit assembly in a context-dependent manner.