Functional connectivity, structural connectivity, and inter-individual variability in Drosophila melanogaster

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In this paper, the authors analyze connectome data from Drosophila and compare the physical wiring with functional connectivity estimated from calcium imaging data. They quantify structure-function relationships as a correlation of the two connectivity modalities. They report correlations roughly comparable to what has been described in the literature on sc/fc relationships in mammalian connectome data at the meso-scale. They then repeat their analysis, focusing on segregated versus unsegregated synapses. They derive separate connectomes using one or the other class of synapse. They show differential contributions to the sc/fc relationships by segregated versus unsegregated synapses.

Strengths:

There is nice synthesis of multimodal imaging data (Ca and EM data from flies and meso-scale data from human and marmoset).

Weaknesses:

(1) The paper is written in an unusual way. The introduction intermingles results with background, making it hard to figure out what precisely is being tested.

(2) There are also major methodological gaps. Though the mammalian connectomes are used as a point of reference, no descriptions of their origins or processing are included.

(3) A major weakness stems from the actual calculation of the sc/fc correlation. In general, SC is sparse. In the case of the EM connectomes, it is *exceptionally* sparse (most neural elements are not connected to one another). The authors calculated sc/fc coupling by correlating the off-diagonal elements of sc (the logarithm of its edge weights) and fc matrices with one another. The logarithmic transformation yields a value of infinity for all zero entries. The authors simply impute these elements with 0. This makes no sense and, depending on whether these zero elements are distributed systematically versus uniformly random, could either inflate or deflate the sc/fc correlations. Care must be taken here.

(4) Further, in constructing the segregated versus unsegregated connectomes, they use absolute thresholds for collecting synapses. It is unclear, however, whether similar numbers of synapses were included in both matrices. If the number is different, that might explain the differential relationship with fc; one matrix has more non-zero entries (and as noted earlier, those zero entries are problematic).

(5) There was also considerable text (in the results) describing the processing of the Ca data. In this section, the authors frequently refer to some pipelines as "better" or "worse" (more or less effective). But it is not clear what measures they adopted to assess the effectiveness of a pipeline.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

Okuno et al. investigate the structure-function relationship in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. To do so, they combine published data from two recent synapse-level connectomes ("hemibrain" and "FlyWire") with a dataset comprising functional whole-brain calcium imaging and behavioural data. First, they investigate the applicability of fMRI pre-processing techniques on data from calcium imaging. They then cross-correlate this pre-processed functional data with structural data extracted from the connectomes, including a comparison to humans. The authors proceed to compare the two connectomes and find significant differences, which they attribute to differences in the accuracy of the synapse detections. Next, they present a novel algorithm to quantify whether neurons are segregated (pre- and postsynapses are spatially separate) or unsegregated (pre- and postsynapses are mixed). Using this approach, they find that unsegregated neurons may contribute more to function than segregated neurons. Applying a general linear model to the functional dataset suggests that activity in two brain areas (Wedge and AVLP) is suppressed during walking. The authors identify a GABAergic neuron in the connectome that could be responsible for this effect and suggest it may provide feedback to the fly's "compass" in the central complex.

Strengths:

The study tackles a relevant question in connectomics by exploring the relationship between structural and functional connectivity in the Drosophila brain. The authors apply a range of established and adapted analytical methods, including fMRI-style preprocessing and a novel synaptic segregation index. The effort to integrate multiple datasets and to compare across species reflects a broad and methodical approach.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript would benefit from a clearer overarching narrative to unify the various analyses, which currently appear somewhat disjointed. While the technical methods are extensive, the writing is often convoluted and lacks crucial details, making it difficult to follow the logic and interpret key findings. Additionally, the conclusions are relatively incremental and lack a compelling conceptual advance, limiting the overall impact of the work.

(1) The introduction currently contains a number of findings and conclusions that would be better placed in the results and discussion to clearly delineate past findings from new results and speculations.

(2) The narrative would benefit greatly from some clear statements along the lines of "we wanted to find out X, therefore we did Y".

(3) More concise terminology would be helpful. For example, the connectomes are currently referred to as either "hemibrain", "FlyEM", "whole-brain", or "FlyWire".

(4) The abstract claims "a new, more robust method to quantify the degree of pre- and post-synaptic segregation". However, the study fails to provide evidence that this method is indeed more robust than existing methods.

(5) The authors define unsegregated neurons as having mixed pre- and postsynapses in the same space. However, this ignores the neurons' topology: a neuron can exhibit a clearly defined dendrite with (mostly) postsynapses and a clearly defined axon with (mostly) presynapses, which then occupy the same space. This is different from genuinely unsegregated neurons with no distinct dendritic and axonal compartments, such as CT1.

(6) It is not entirely clear where the marmoset dataset originates from. Was it generated for this study? If not, why is there a note in the Ethics Declaration?

(7) On the differences between hemibrain and FlyWire: What is the "18.8 million post-synapses" for FlyWire referring to? The (thresholded) FlyWire synapse table has 130M connections (=postsynapses). Subsetting that synapse cloud to the hemibrain volume still gives ~47M synapses. Further subsetting to only connections between proofread neurons inside the hemibrain volume gives 19.4M - perhaps the authors did something like that? Similarly, the hemibrain synapse table contains 64M postsynapses. Do the 21M "FlyEM" post-synapses refer to proofread neurons only? If the authors indeed used only (post-)synapses from proofread neurons, they need to make that explicit in results and methods, and account for differences in reconstruction status when making any comparisons. For example, the mushroom body in the hemibrain got a lot more attention than in FlyWire, which would explain the differences reported here. For that reason, connection weights are often expressed as, e.g., a fraction of the target's inputs instead of the total number of synapses when comparing connectivity across connectomic datasets. Furthermore, in Figure 3b, it looks like the FlyWire synapse cloud was not trimmed to the exact hemibrain boundaries: for example, the trimmed FlyWire synapse cloud seems to extend further into the optic lobes than the hemibrain volume does.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this manuscript, Okuno et al. re-analyze whole-brain imaging data collected in another paper (Brezovec et al., 2024) in the context of the two currently available Drosophila connectome datasets: the partial "FlyEM" (hemibrain) dataset (Scheffer et al., 2020) and the whole-brain "FlyWire" dataset (Dorkenwald et al., 2024). They apply existing fMRI signal processing algorithms to the fly imaging data and compute function-structure correlations across a variety of post-processing parameters (noise reduction methods, ROI size), demonstrating an inverse relationship between ROI size and FC-SC correlation. The authors go on to look at structural connectivity amongst more polarized or less polarized neurons, and suggest that stronger FC-SC correlations are driven by more polarized neurons.

Strengths:

(1) The result that larger mesoscale ROIs have a higher correlation with structural data is interesting. This has been previously discussed in Drosophila in Turner et al., 2021, but here it is quantified more extensively.

(2) The quantification of neuron polarization (PPSSI) as applied to these structural data is a promising approach for quantifying differences in spatial synapse distribution.

Weaknesses:

One should not score noise/nuisance removal methods solely by their impact on FC-SC correlation values, because we do not know a priori that direct structural connections correspond with strong functional correlations. In fact, work in C. elegans, where we have access to both a connectome and neuron-resolution functional data, suggests that this relationship is weak (Yemini et al., 2021; Randi et al., 2023). Similarly, I don't think it's appropriate to tune the confidence scores on the EM datasets using FC-SC correlations as an output metric.

Any discussion of FC-SC comparisons should include an analysis of excitatory/inhibitory neurotransmitters, which are available in the fly connectome dataset. However, here the authors do not perform any analyses with neurotransmitter information.
Comparisons between fly and human MRI data are also premature here. Firstly, the fly connectomes, which are derived from neuron-scale EM reconstructions, are a qualitatively different kind of data from human connectomes, which are derived from DSI imaging of large-scale tracts. Likewise, calcium data and fMRI data are very different functional data acquisition methods-the fact that similar processing steps can be used on time-series data does not make them surprisingly similar, and does not in my view, constitute evidence of "similar design concepts."

The comparison of FlyEM/FlyWire connectomes concludes that differences are more likely a result of data processing than of inter-individual variability. If this is the case, the title should not claim that the manuscript covers individual variability.
The analysis of the wedge-AVLP neuron strikes me as highly speculative, given that the alignment precision between the connectome and the functional data is around 5 microns (Brezovec* et al, PNAS 2024).