Passive muscle forces in Drosophila are large but insufficient to support a fly’s weight

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this work, Wang et al. use a combination of genetic tools, novel experimental approaches and biomechanical models to quantify the contribution of passive leg forces in Drosophila. They also deduce that passive forces are not sufficient to support the body weight of the animal. Overall, the contribution of passive forces reported in this work is much less than what one would expect based on the size of the organism and previous literature from larger insects and mammals. This is an interesting finding, but some major caveats in their approach remain unanswered.

Strengths:

(1) The authors combine experimental measurements and modeling to quantify the contributions of passive forces at limb joints in Drosophila.

(2) The authors replicate a previous experimental strategy (Hooper et al 2009, J. Neuro) to suspend animals in air for measuring passive forces and, as in previous studies, find that passive forces are much stronger than gravitational forces acting on the limbs. While in these previous studies using large insects, a lot of invasive approaches for accurately quantifying passive forces are possible (e.g., physically cutting of nerves, directly measuring muscle forces in isolated preparations, etc), the small size of Drosophila makes this difficult. The authors overcome this using a novel approach where they attach additional weight to the leg (changes gravitational force) and inactivate motor neurons (remove active forces). With a few approximations and assumptions, the authors then deduce the contribution of passive forces at each joint for each leg.

(3) The authors find interesting differences in passive forces across different legs. This could have behavioral implications.

(4) Finally, the authors compare experimental results of how a free-standing Drosophila is lowered ("falls down") on silencing motor neurons, to a biomechanical "OpenSim" model for deducing the role of passive forces in supporting the body weight of the fly. Using this approach, they conclude that passive forces are not sufficient to support the body weight of the fly.

Weaknesses:

(1) Line 65 "(Figure 1A). Inactivation causes a change in the leg's rest position; however, in preliminary experiments, the body rotation did not have a large effect on the rest positions of the leg following inactivation. This result is consistent with the one already reported for stick insects and shows that passive forces within the leg are much larger than the gravitational force on a leg and dominate limb position [1]." This is the direct replication of the previous work by Hooper et al 2009 and therefore authors should ideally show the data for this condition (no weight attached).

(2) The authors use vglut-gal4, a very broad driver for inactivating motor neurons. The driver labels all glutamatergic neurons, including brain descending neurons and nerve cord interneurons, in addition to motor neurons. Additionally, the strength of inactivation might differ in different neurons (including motor neurons) depending on the expression levels of the opsins. As a result, in this condition, the authors might not be removing all active forces. This is a major caveat that authors do not address. They explore that they are not potentially silencing all inputs to muscles by using an additional octopaminergic driver, but this doesn't address the points mentioned above. At the very least, the authors should try using other motor neuron drivers, as well as other neuronal silencers. This driver is so broad that authors couldn't even use it for physiology experiments. Additionally, the authors could silence VGlut-labeled motor neurons and record muscle activity (potentially using GCaMP as has been done in several recent papers cited by the authors, Azevedo et al, 2020) as a much more direct readout.

(3) Figure 4 uses an extremely simplified OpenSim model that makes several assumptions that are known to be false. For example, the Thorax-Coxa joint is assumed to be a ball and socket joint, which it is not. Tibia-tarsus joint is completely ignored and likely makes a major contribution in supporting overall posture, given the importance of the leg "claw" for adhering to substrates. Moreover, there are a couple of recent open-source neuromechanical models that include all these details (NeuromechFly by Lobato-Rios et al, 2022, Nat. Methods, and the fly body model by Vaxenburg et al, 2025, Nature). Leveraging these models to rule in or rule out contributions at other joints that are ignored in the authors' OpenSim model would be very helpful to make their case.

(4) Figure 5 shows the experimental validation of Figure 4 simulations; however, it suffers from several caveats.

a) The authors track a single point on the head of the fly to estimate the height of the fly. This has several issues. Firstly, it is not clear how accurate the tracking would be. Secondly, it is not clear how the fly actually "falls" on VGlut silencing; do all flies fall in a similar manner in every trial? Almost certainly, there will be some "pitch" and "role" in the way the fly falls. These will affect the location of this single-tracked point that doesn't reflect the authors' expectations. Unless the authors track multiple points on the fly and show examples of tracked videos, it is hard to believe this dataset and, hence, any of the resulting interpretations.

b) As described in the previous point, the "reason" the fly falls on silencing all glutamatergic neurons could be due to silencing all sorts of premotor/interneurons in addition to the silencing of motor neurons.

c) (line 175) "The first finding is that there was a large variation in the initial height of the fly (Figure 5C), consistent with a recent study of flies walking on a treadmill[20]." The cited paper refers to how height varies during "walking". However, in the current study, the authors are only looking at "standing" (i.e. non-walking) flies. So it is not the correct reference. In my opinion, this could simply reflect poor estimation of the fly's height based on poor tracking or other factors like pitch and role.

d) "The rate at which the fly fell to the ground was much smaller in the experimental flies than it was in the simulated flies (Figure 5E). The median rate of falling was 1.3 mm/s compared to 37 mm/s for the simulated flies (Figure 5F). (Line 190) The most likely reason for the longer than expected time for the fly to fall is delays associated with motor neuron inactivation and muscle inactivation." I don't believe this reasoning. There are so many caveats (which I described in the above points) in the model and the experiment, that any of those could be responsible for this massive difference between experiment and modeling. Simply not getting rid of all active forces (inadequate silencing) could be one obvious reason. Other reasons could be that the model is using underestimates of passive forces, as alluded to in point 3.

(5) Final figure (Figure 6) focuses on understanding the time course of neuronal silencing. First of all, I'm not entirely sure how relevant this is for the story. It could be an interesting supplemental data. But it seems a bit tangential. Additionally, it also suffers from major caveats.

a) The authors now use a new genetic driver for which they don't have any behavioral data in any previous figures. So we do not know if any of this data holds true for the previous experiments. The authors perform whole-cell recordings from random unidentified motor neurons labeled by E49-Gal4>GtACR1 to deduce a time constant for behavioral results obtained in the VGlut-Gal4>GtACR1 experiments.

b) The DMD setup is useful for focal inactivation, however, the appropriate controls and data are not presented. Line 200 "A spot of light on the cell body produces as much of the hyperpolarization as stimulating the entire fly (mean of 11.3 mV vs 13.1 mV across 9 neurons). Conversely, excluding the cell body produces only a small effect on the MN (mean of 2.6 mV)." First of all, the control experiment for showing that DMD is indeed causing focal inactivation would be to gradually move the spot of light away from the labeled soma, i.e. to the neighboring "labelled" soma and show that there is indeed focal inactivation. Instead authors move it quite a long distance into unlabeled neuropil. Secondly, I still don't get why the authors are doing this experiment. Even if we believe the DMD is functioning perfectly, all this really tells us is that a random subset motor neurons (maybe 5 or 6 cells, legend is missing this info) labeled by E49-Gal4 is strongly hyperpolarized by its own GtACR1 channel opening, rather than being impacted because of hyperpolarizations in other E49-Gal4 labeled neurons. This has no relevance to the interpretation of any of the VGlut-Gal4 behavioral data. VGLut-Gal4 is much broader and also labels all glutamatergic neurons, most of which are inhibitory interneurons whose silencing could lead to disinhibition of downstream networks.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors aim to quantify passive muscle forces in the legs of Drosophila, and test the hypothesis that these forces would be sufficient to support body weight in small insects. They take advantage of the genetic tools available in Drosophila, and use a combination of genetic silencing (optogenetic inactivation of motor neurons), kinematic measurements, and simulations using OpenSim. This integrative toolkit is used to examine the role of passive torques across multiple leg joints. They find that passive forces are weaker than expected - in particular, passive forces were found to be too weak to support the body weight of the fly. This challenges previous scaling assumptions derived from studies in larger insects and has potential implications for our understanding of motor control in small animals.

Strengths:

The primary strength of this work lies in its integration of multiple analyses. By pulling together simulations, kinematic measurements from high-resolution videos, and genetic manipulation, they are able to overcome limitations of past studies. In particular, optogenetic manipulation allowed for measurements to be made in whole animals, and the modeling component is valuable because it both validates experimental findings and elucidates the mechanism behind some of the observed dynamic consequences (e.g., the rapid fall after motor inactivation). The conclusions made in the study are well-supported by the data and could have an impact on a number of fields, including invertebrate neurobiology and bioinspired design.

Weaknesses:

While (as mentioned above) the study's conclusions are well-supported by the results and modeling, limitations arise because of the assumptions made. For instance, using a linear approximation may not hold at larger joint angles, and future studies would benefit from accounting for nonlinearities. Future studies could also delve into the source of passive forces, which is important for more deeply understanding the anatomical and physical basis of the results in this study. For instance, assessments of muscle or joint properties to correlate stiffness values with physical structure might be an area of future consideration

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The authors present a novel method to measure passive joint torques - torques due to internal forces other than active muscle contraction - in the fruit fly: genetically inactivating all motor neurons in intact limb acted upon by a gravitational load results in a change in limb configuration; evaluating the moment equilibrium condition about the limb joints then yields a direct estimate of the passive joint torques. Deactivating all motor neurons in an intact standing fly provided two further conclusions: First, because deactivation causes the fly to drop to the floor, the passive joint torques are deemed insufficient to maintain rotational equilibrium against the body weight; using a multi-body-dynamics simulation, the authors estimate that the passive torques would need to be about 40-80 times higher to maintain a typical posture without active muscle action. Second, a delay between the motor neuron inactivation and the onset of the "free fall" motivates the authors to invoke a simple exponential decay model, which is then used to derive a time constant for muscle deactivation, in robust agreement with direct electro-physiological recordings.

Strengths:

The experimental design that permits determination of passive joint torques is elegant, effective, novel, and altogether excellent; it permits measurements previously impossible. A careful error analysis is presented, and a spectrum of technically challenging methods, including multi-body dynamics and e-phys, is deployed to further interpret and contextualise the results.

Weaknesses:

(1) Passive torques are measured, but only some short speculative statements, largely based on previous work, are offered on their functional significance; some of these claims are not well supported by experimental evidence or theoretical arguments. Passive forces are judged as "large" compared to the weight force of the limb, but the arguably more relevant force is the force limb muscles can generate, which, even in equilibrium conditions, is already about two orders of magnitude larger. The conclusion that passive forces are dynamically irrelevant seems natural, but contrasts with the assertion that "passive forces [...] will have a strong influence on limb kinematics". As a result, the functional significance of passive joint torques in the fruit fly, if any, remains unclear, and this ambiguity represents a missed opportunity. We now know the magnitude of passive joint torques - do they matter and for what? Are they helpful, for example, to maintain robust neuronal control, or a mechanical constraint that negatively impacts performance, e.g., because they present a sink for muscle work?

(2) The work is framed with a scaling argument, but the assumptions that underpin the associated claims are not explicit and can thus not be evaluated. This is problematic because at least some arguments appear to contradict textbook scaling theory or everyday experience. For example, active forces are assumed to scale with limb volume, when every textbook would have them scale with area instead; and the asserted scaling of passive forces involves some hidden assumptions that demand more explicit discussion to alert the reader to associated limitations. Passive forces are said to be important only in small animals, but a quick self-experiment confirms that they are sufficient to stabilize human fingers or ankles against gravity, systems orders of magnitude larger than an insect limb, in seeming contradiction with the alleged dominance of scale. Throughout the manuscript, there are such and similar inaccuracies or ambiguities in the mechanical framing and interpretation, making it hard to fairly evaluate some claims, and rendering others likely incorrect.

Author response:

Reviewer 1:

(1) Line 65 "(Figure 1A). Inactivation causes a change in the leg's rest position; however, in preliminary experiments, the body rotation did not have a large effect on the rest positions of the leg following inactivation. This result is consistent with the one already reported for stick insects and shows that passive forces within the leg are much larger than the gravitational force on a leg and dominate limb position [1]." This is the direct replication of the previous work by Hooper et al 2009 and therefore authors should ideally show the data for this condition (no weight attached).

We did not present this data – the effect of inactivation on the leg’s rest position in unweighted leg - because it was already reported in the case of stick insects. However, we understand the reviewer’s point that it is important to present the data showing this replication. We will do the same in the revised version.

(2) The authors use vglut-gal4, a very broad driver for inactivating motor neurons. The driver labels all glutamatergic neurons, including brain descending neurons and nerve cord interneurons, in addition to motor neurons. Additionally, the strength of inactivation might differ in different neurons (including motor neurons) depending on the expression levels of the opsins. As a result, in this condition, the authors might not be removing all active forces. This is a major caveat that authors do not address. They explore that they are not potentially silencing all inputs to muscles by using an additional octopaminergic driver, but this doesn't address the points mentioned above. At the very least, the authors should try using other motor neuron drivers, as well as other neuronal silencers. This driver is so broad that authors couldn't even use it for physiology experiments. Additionally, the authors could silence VGlut-labeled motor neurons and record muscle activity (potentially using GCaMP as has been done in several recent papers cited by the authors, Azevedo et al, 2020) as a much more direct readout.

This reviewer critique is related to the use of vglut-gal4 –a broad driver– to inactivate motor neurons (MNs). The reviewer argues that the use of a broad driver might result in some effects that are not due to MN inactivation. Conversely, it is possible that not all MNs are inactivated. These critiques raise important points that we will address in the revision by 1) performing experiments with other MN drivers as suggested by the reviewer, 2) performing experiments in flies that are inactivated by freezing. These measurements will provide other estimates of passive forces allowing us to better triangulate the range of values for the passive forces. Moreover, it appears that one of the reviewer’s main concern is that the passive forces are overestimated because of the residual active forces. We will discuss this possibility in detail. It is important to note that in the end what we hope to accomplish is to provide a useful estimate of the passive forces. It is unlikely that the passive force will be a precise number like a physical constant as the passive forces likely depend on recent history.

(3) Figure 4 uses an extremely simplified OpenSim model that makes several assumptions that are known to be false. For example, the Thorax-Coxa joint is assumed to be a ball and socket joint, which it is not. Tibia-tarsus joint is completely ignored and likely makes a major contribution in supporting overall posture, given the importance of the leg "claw" for adhering to substrates. Moreover, there are a couple of recent open-source neuromechanical models that include all these details (NeuromechFly by Lobato-Rios et al, 2022, Nat. Methods, and the fly body model by Vaxenburg et al, 2025, Nature). Leveraging these models to rule in or rule out contributions at other joints that are ignored in the authors' OpenSim model would be very helpful to make their case.

Our OpenSim model predates the newer mechanical model. In the revised manuscript, we will revisit the model in light of recent developments.

(4) Figure 5 shows the experimental validation of Figure 4 simulations; however, it suffers from several caveats.

a) The authors track a single point on the head of the fly to estimate the height of the fly. This has several issues. Firstly, it is not clear how accurate the tracking would be. Secondly, it is not clear how the fly actually "falls" on VGlut silencing; do all flies fall in a similar manner in every trial? Almost certainly, there will be some "pitch" and "role" in the way the fly falls. These will affect the location of this single-tracked point that doesn't reflect the authors' expectations. Unless the authors track multiple points on the fly and show examples of tracked videos, it is hard to believe this dataset and, hence, any of the resulting interpretations.

b) As described in the previous point, the "reason" the fly falls on silencing all glutamatergic neurons could be due to silencing all sorts of premotor/interneurons in addition to the silencing of motor neurons.

c) (line 175) "The first finding is that there was a large variation in the initial height of the fly (Figure 5C), consistent with a recent study of flies walking on a treadmill[20]." The cited paper refers to how height varies during "walking". However, in the current study, the authors are only looking at "standing" (i.e. non-walking) flies. So it is not the correct reference. In my opinion, this could simply reflect poor estimation of the fly's height based on poor tracking or other factors like pitch and role.

d) "The rate at which the fly fell to the ground was much smaller in the experimental flies than it was in the simulated flies (Figure 5E). The median rate of falling was 1.3 mm/s compared to 37 mm/s for the simulated flies (Figure 5F). (Line 190) The most likely reason for the longer than expected time for the fly to fall is delays associated with motor neuron inactivation and muscle inactivation." I don't believe this reasoning. There are so many caveats (which I described in the above points) in the model and the experiment, that any of those could be responsible for this massive difference between experiment and modeling. Simply not getting rid of all active forces (inadequate silencing) could be one obvious reason. Other reasons could be that the model is using underestimates of passive forces, as alluded to in point 3.

(4a) Although we agree that measuring different points on the body would allow us to estimate the moments, we disagree that the height of the fly cannot be evaluated from the measurement of a single point. The measurements have been performed using the same techniques that we used to assess the fly’s height in a different study where we estimated the resolution of our imaging system to be ~20 mm(Chun et. al. 2021). We will include these details in the revised manuscript. The video showing the falling experiments are not available or referenced in the manuscript. These will be made available.

b) We will repeat the “falling” experiment with a more restrictive driver.

c) We disagree with the reviewer on this point. The system has a resolution of ~20 mm and is sufficient to make conclusion about the difference in the height of the fly. We will clarify this point in the revised manuscript.

d) We do not follow the reviewer’s rationale here. The passive forces in the model (along with any residual forces) are the same in the model as well as in the experiment. Moreover, there will be a delay between light onset, neuronal inactivation and muscle inactivation. These processes are not instantaneous. In Figure 6, we estimate these delays and have concluded that they will cause substantial delay. In the revised manuscript, we will discuss other reasons for the delay suggested by the reviewer.

(5) Final figure (Figure 6) focuses on understanding the time course of neuronal silencing. First of all, I'm not entirely sure how relevant this is for the story. It could be an interesting supplemental data. But it seems a bit tangential. Additionally, it also suffers from major caveats.

a) The authors now use a new genetic driver for which they don't have any behavioral data in any previous figures. So we do not know if any of this data holds true for the previous experiments. The authors perform whole-cell recordings from random unidentified motor neurons labeled by E49-Gal4>GtACR1 to deduce a time constant for behavioral results obtained in the VGlut-Gal4>GtACR1 experiments.

b) The DMD setup is useful for focal inactivation, however, the appropriate controls and data are not presented. Line 200 "A spot of light on the cell body produces as much of the hyperpolarization as stimulating the entire fly (mean of 11.3 mV vs 13.1 mV across 9 neurons). Conversely, excluding the cell body produces only a small effect on the MN (mean of 2.6 mV)." First of all, the control experiment for showing that DMD is indeed causing focal inactivation would be to gradually move the spot of light away from the labeled soma, i.e. to the neighboring "labelled" soma and show that there is indeed focal inactivation. Instead authors move it quite a long distance into unlabeled neuropil. Secondly, I still don't get why the authors are doing this experiment. Even if we believe the DMD is functioning perfectly, all this really tells us is that a random subset motor neurons (maybe 5 or 6 cells, legend is missing this info) labeled by E49-Gal4 is strongly hyperpolarized by its own GtACR1 channel opening, rather than being impacted because of hyperpolarizations in other E49-Gal4 labeled neurons. This has no relevance to the interpretation of any of the VGlut-Gal4 behavioral data. VGLut-Gal4 is much broader and also labels all glutamatergic neurons, most of which are inhibitory interneurons whose silencing could lead to disinhibition of downstream networks.

(5 a) However, we can address the reviewer critique by recording from the Vglut line while using a MN line to target the recordings to MNs.

b) Once we use the Vglut driver to perform these recordings, it will help assess how much of the MN inactivation is due to the GtACR expressed in the MN versus other neurons.

Reviewer 2:

While (as mentioned above) the study's conclusions are well-supported by the results and modeling, limitations arise because of the assumptions made. For instance, using a linear approximation may not hold at larger joint angles, and future studies would benefit from accounting for nonlinearities. Future studies could also delve into the source of passive forces, which is important for more deeply understanding the anatomical and physical basis of the results in this study. For instance, assessments of muscle or joint properties to correlate stiffness values with physical structure might be an area of future consideration.

We agree with these comments but believe that these studies represent avenues for future work.

Reviewer 3:

(1) Passive torques are measured, but only some short speculative statements, largely based on previous work, are offered on their functional significance; some of these claims are not well supported by experimental evidence or theoretical arguments. Passive forces are judged as "large" compared to the weight force of the limb, but the arguably more relevant force is the force limb muscles can generate, which, even in equilibrium conditions, is already about two orders of magnitude larger. The conclusion that passive forces are dynamically irrelevant seems natural, but contrasts with the assertion that "passive forces [...] will have a strong influence on limb kinematics". As a result, the functional significance of passive joint torques in the fruit fly, if any, remains unclear, and this ambiguity represents a missed opportunity. We now know the magnitude of passive joint torques - do they matter and for what? Are they helpful, for example, to maintain robust neuronal control, or a mechanical constraint that negatively impacts performance, e.g., because they present a sink for muscle work?

To us, measuring passive forces was the first step to understanding neural/biomechanical control of limb. In general, we agree with these comments and would like to understand the role of passive forces in overall control of limb. A complete discussion of the role of the significance of passive forces in the control of limb is beyond the scope of this study. We would like to note that it is unlikely that the active forces are two orders of magnitude larger during unloaded movement of the limb. However, these issues will have to be settled in future work.

(2) The work is framed with a scaling argument, but the assumptions that underpin the associated claims are not explicit and can thus not be evaluated. This is problematic because at least some arguments appear to contradict textbook scaling theory or everyday experience. For example, active forces are assumed to scale with limb volume, when every textbook would have them scale with area instead; and the asserted scaling of passive forces involves some hidden assumptions that demand more explicit discussion to alert the reader to associated limitations. Passive forces are said to be important only in small animals, but a quick self-experiment confirms that they are sufficient to stabilize human fingers or ankles against gravity, systems orders of magnitude larger than an insect limb, in seeming contradiction with the alleged dominance of scale. Throughout the manuscript, there are such and similar inaccuracies or ambiguities in the mechanical framing and interpretation, making it hard to fairly evaluate some claims, and rendering others likely incorrect.

We interpret this comment as making two separate points. The first one is that the reviewer says that our statement that active forces depend on the third power of the limb or L³ is incorrect. We agree and apologize for this oversight. Specifically, on L6-7 we say, “both inertial forces and active forces scale with the mass if the limb which in turn scales with the volume of the limb and therefore depends on the third power of limb length (L³)”. Instead, this statement should read “inertial forces scale with the mass if the limb which in turn scales with the volume of the limb and therefore depends on the third power of limb length (L³)”. However, this oversight does not affect the scaling argument as the scaling arguments in the rest of the manuscript only involves inertial forces and not active forces.

The second point is about the scaling law that governs passive forces. In the current manuscript, we have assumed that the passive forces scale as L² based on previous work. The reviewer has pointed out that this assumption might be incorrect or at the very least needs a rationale. We agree with this assessment: passive forces that arise in the muscle are likely to scale as L² but passive forces that arise in the joint might not. In the revised manuscript, we will discuss this concern.