Region-specific mechanosensation controls Drosophila postural control behaviour

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Roseby and colleagues report on a body region-specific sensory control of the fly larval righting response, a body contortion performed by fly larvae to correct their posture when they find themselves in an inverted (dorsal side down) position. This is an important topic because of the general need for animals to move about in the correct orientation and the clever methodologies used in this paper to uncover the sensory triggers for the behavior. Several innovative methodologies are developed, including a body region-specific optogenetic approach along different axial positions of the larva, region-specific manipulation of surface contacts with the substrate, and a 'water unlocking' technique to initiate righting behaviors, a strength of the manuscript. The authors found that multidendritic neurons, particularly the daIV neurons, are necessary for righting behavior. The contribution of daIV neurons had been shown by the authors in a prior paper (Klann et al, 2021), but that study had used constitutive neuronal silencing. Here, the authors used acute inactivation to confirm this finding. Additionally, the authors describe an important role for anterior sensory neurons and a need for dorsal substrate contact. Conversely, ventral sensory elements inhibit the righting behavior, presumably to ensure that the ventral-side-down position dominates. They move on to test the genetic basis for righting behavior and, consistent with the regional specificity they observe, implicate sensory neuron expression of Hox genes Antennapedia and Abdominal-b in self-righting.

Strengths:

Strengths of this paper include the important question addressed and the elegant and innovative combination of methods, which led to clear insights into the sensory biology of self-righting, and that will be useful for others in the field. This is a substantial contribution to understanding how animals correct their body position. The manuscript is very clearly written and couched in interesting biology.

Limitations:

(1) The interpretation of functional experiments is complicated by the proposed excitatory and inhibitory roles of dorsal and ventral sensory neuron activity, respectively. So, while silencing of an excitatory (dorsal) element might slow righting, silencing of inputs that inhibit righting could speed the behavior. Silencing them together, as is done here, could nullify or mask important D-V-specific roles. Selective manipulation of cells along the D-V axis could help address this caveat.

(2) Prior studies from the authors implicated daIV neurons in the righting response. One of the main advances of the current manuscript is the clever demonstration of region-specific roles of sensory input. However, this is only confirmed with a general md driver, 190(2)80, and not with the subset-specific Gal4, so it is not clear if daIV sensory neurons are also acting in a regionally specific manner along the A-P axis.

(3) The manuscript is narrowly focused on sensory neurons that initiate righting, which limits the advance given the known roles for daIV neurons in righting. With the suite of innovative new tools, there is a missed opportunity to gain a more general understanding of how sensory neurons contribute to the righting response, including promoting and inhibiting righting in different regions of the larva, as well as aspects of proprioceptive sensing that could be necessary for righting and account for some of the observed effects of 109(2)80.

(4) Although the authors observe an influence of Hox genes in righting, the possible mechanisms are not pursued, resulting in an unsatisfying conclusion that these genes are somehow involved in a certain region-specific behavior by their region-specific expression. Are the cells properly maintained upon knockdown? Are axon or dendrite morphologies of the cells disrupted upon knockdown?

(5) There could be many reasons for delays in righting behavior in the various manipulations, including ineffective sensory 'triggering', incoherent muscle contraction patterns, initiation of inappropriate behaviors that interfere with righting sequencing, and deficits in sensing body position. The authors show that delays in righting upon silencing of 109(2)80 are caused by a switch to head casting behavior. Is this also the case for silencing of daIV neurons, Hox RNAi experiments, and silencing of CO neurons? Does daIII silencing reduce head casting to lead to faster righting responses?

(6) 109(2)80 is expressed in a number of central neurons, so at least some of the righting phenotype with this line could be due to silenced neurons in the CNS. This should at least be acknowledged in the manuscript and controlled for, if possible, with other Gal4 lines.

Other points

(7) Interpretation of roles of Hox gene expression and function in righting response should consider previous data on Hox expression and function in multidendritic neurons reported by Parrish et al. Genes and Development, 2007.

(8) The daIII silencing phenotype could conceivably be explained if these neurons act as the ventral inhibitors. Do the authors have evidence for or against such roles?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary

This work explores the relationship between body structure and behavior by studying self-righting in Drosophila larvae, a conserved behavior that restores proper orientation when turned upside-down. The authors first introduce a novel "water unlocking" approach to induce self-righting behavior in a controlled manner. Then, they develop a method for region-specific inhibition of sensory neurons, revealing that anterior, but not posterior, sensory neurons are essential for proper self-righting. Deep-learning-based behavioral analysis shows that anterior inhibition prolongs self-righting by shifting head movement patterns, indicating a behavioral switch rather than a mere delay. Additional genetic and molecular experiments demonstrate that specific Hox genes are necessary in sensory neurons, underscoring how developmental patterning genes shape region-specific sensory mechanisms that enable adaptive motor behaviors.

Strengths

The work of Roseby et al. does what it says on the tin. The experimental design is elegant, introducing innovative methods that will likely benefit the fly behavior community, and the results are robustly supported, without overstatement.

Weaknesses:

The manuscript is clearly written, flows smoothly, and features well-designed experiments. Nevertheless, there are areas that could be improved. Below is a list of suggestions and questions that, if addressed, would strengthen this work:

(1) Figure 1A illustrates the sequence of self-righting behavior in a first instar larva, while the experiments in the same figure are performed on third instar larvae. It would be helpful to clarify whether the sequence of self-righting movements differs between larval stages. Later on in the manuscript, experiments are conducted on first instar larvae without explanation for the choice of stage. Providing the rationale for using different larval stages would improve clarity.

(2) What was the genotype of the larvae used for the initial behavioral characterization (Figure 1)? It is assumed they were wild type or w1118, but this should be stated explicitly. This also raises the question of whether different wild-type strains exhibit this behavior consistently or if there is variability among them. Has this been tested?

(3) Could the observed slight leftward bias in movement angles of the tail (Figure 1I and S1) be related to the experimental setup, for example, the way water is added during the unlocking procedure? It would be helpful to include some speculation on whether the authors believe this preference to be endogenous or potentially a technical artifact.

(4) The genotype of the larvae used for Figure 2 experiments is missing.

(5) The experiment shown in Figure 2E-G reports the proportion of larvae exhibiting self-righting behavior. Is the self-righting speed comparable to that measured using the setup in Figure 1?

(6) Line 496 states: "However, the effect size was smaller than that for the entire multidendritic population, suggesting neurons other than the daIVs are important for self-righting". Although I agree that this is the more parsimonious hypothesis, an alternative interpretation of the observed phenomenon could be that the effect is not due to the involvement of other neuronal populations, but rather to stronger Gal4 expression in daIVs with the general driver compared to the specific one. Have the authors (or someone else) measured or compared the relative strengths of these two drivers?

(7) Is there a way to quantify or semi-quantify the expression of the Hox genes shown in Figure 6A? Also, was this experiment performed more than once (are there any technical replicates?), or was the amount of RNA material insufficient to allow replication?

(8) Since RNAi constructs can sometimes produce off-target effects, it is generally advisable to use more than one RNAi line per gene, targeting different regions. Given that Hox genes have been extensively studied, the RNAis used in Figure 6B are likely already characterized. If this were the case, it would strengthen the data to mention it explicitly and provide references documenting the specificity and knockdown efficiency of the Hox gene RNAis employed. For example, does Antp RNAi expression in the 109(2)80 domain decrease Antp protein levels in multidendritic anterior neurons in immunofluorescence assays?

(9) In addition to increasing self-righting time, does Antp downregulation also affect head casting behavior or head movement speed? A more detailed behavioral characterization of this genetic manipulation could help clarify how closely it relates to the behavioral phenotypes described in the previous experiments.

(10) Does down-regulation of Antp in the daIV domain also increase self-righting time?

Author response:

We are very pleased to hear the overall positive views and constructive criticisms of eLife Editors and Reviewers on our work. In particular, we appreciate their global assessment that the work is important for understanding how body plan cues shape sensorimotor behavioural patterns, that the strength of evidence is solid, and their views that our experimental toolkit will be useful to others. We also very much appreciate eLife’s assessment that our findings will be of broad interest to researchers studying neural circuits, developmental genetics, and the evolution of behaviour.

Regarding Reviewer 1, we thank them for their positive comments on the value of our study, highlighting that our paper addresses an important question using an elegant and innovative combination of methods, which leads to clear insights into the sensory biology of self-righting, which they consider shall be useful for others in the field. We are also very pleased to hear that they consider that our study makes a substantial contribution to understanding how animals correct their body position and that the manuscript is very clearly written and couched in interesting biology. In a revised version of the manuscript, we will consider some of the interesting points raised by Rev1, including the possibility of conducting new experiments using neuronal subset-specific Gal4s, to establish whether daIV sensory neurons are also acting in a regionally specific manner along the A-P axis.

Turning to the comments by Rev2, we are grateful to them for considering that our experimental design is elegant, and that it introduces innovative methods that will likely benefit the fly behavior community, and the results are robustly supported. In connection to other comments, in a revised manuscript we will consider addressing the question of whether normal levels of expression of the Hox gene Antennapedia within the daIV domain are essential for self-righting. We will also seek to add technical replicates to our Hox expression molecular analysis, amend typos and incorporate several of the constructive corrections mentioned.