Simple Methods to Acutely Measure Multiple Timing Metrics among Sexual Repertoire of Male Drosophila

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

The study of Drosophila mating behaviors has offered a powerful entry point for understanding how complex innate behaviors are instantiated in the brain. The effectiveness of this behavioral model stems from how readily quantifiable many components of the courtship ritual are, facilitating the fine-scale correlations between the behaviors and the circuits that underpin their implementation. Detailed quantification, however, can be both time-consuming and error-prone, particularly when scored manually. Song et al. have sought to address this challenge by developing DrosoMating, software that facilitates the automated and high-throughput quantification of 6 common metrics of courtship and mating behaviors. Compared to a human observer, DrosoMating matches courtship scoring with high fidelity. Further, the authors demonstrate that the software effectively detects previously described variations in courtship resulting from genetic background or social conditioning. Finally, they validate its utility in assaying the consequences of neural manipulations by silencing Kenyon cells involved in memory formation in the context of courtship conditioning.

Strengths:

(1) The authors demonstrate that for three key courtship/mating metrics, DrosoMating performs virtually indistinguishably from a human observer, with differences consistently within 10 seconds and no statistically significant differences detected. This demonstrates the software's usefulness as a tool for reducing bias and scoring time for analyses involving these metrics.

(2) The authors validate the tool across multiple genetic backgrounds and experimental manipulations to confirm its ability to detect known influences on male mating behavior.

(3) The authors present a simple, modular chamber design that is integrated with DrosoMating and allows for high-throughput experimentation, capable of simultaneously analyzing up to 144 fly pairs across all chambers.

Weaknesses:

(1) DrosoMating appears to be an effective tool for the high-throughput quantification of key courtship and mating metrics, but a number of similar tools for automated analysis already exist. FlyTracker (CalTech), for instance, is a widely used software that offers a similar machine vision approach to quantifying a variety of courtship metrics. It would be valuable to understand how DrosoMating compares to such approaches and what specific advantages it might offer in terms of accuracy, ease of use, and sensitivity to experimental conditions.

(2) The courtship behaviors of Drosophila males represent a series of complex behaviors that unfold dynamically in response to female signals (Coen et al., 2014; Ning et al., 2022; Roemschied et al., 2023). While metrics like courtship latency, courtship index, and copulation duration are useful summary statistics, they compress the complexity of actions that occur throughout the mating ritual. The manuscript would be strengthened by a discussion of the potential for DrosoMating to capture more of the moment-to-moment behaviors that constitute courtship. Even without modifying the software, it would be useful to see how the data can be used in combination with machine learning classifiers like JAABA to better segment the behavioral composition of courtship and mating across genotypes and experimental manipulations. Such integration could substantially expand the utility of this tool for the broader Drosophila neuroscience community.

(3) While testing the software's capacity to function across strains is useful, it does not address the "universality" of this method. Cross-species studies of mating behavior diversity are becoming increasingly common, and it would be beneficial to know if this tool can maintain its accuracy in Drosophila species with a greater range of morphological and behavioral variation. Demonstrating the software's performance across species would strengthen claims about its broader applicability.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

This paper introduces "DrosoMating," an integrated hardware and software solution for automating the analysis of male Drosophila courtship. The authors aim to provide a low-cost, accessible alternative to expensive ethological rigs by utilizing a custom acrylic chamber and smartphone-based recording. The system focuses on quantifying key temporal metrics-Courtship Index (CI), Copulation Latency (CL), and Mating Duration (MD)-and is applied to behavioral paradigms involving memory mutants (orb2, rut).

The development of open-source behavioral tools is a significant contribution to neuroethology, and the authors successfully demonstrate a system that simplifies the setup for large-scale screens. A major strength of the work is the specific focus on automating Copulation Latency and Mating Duration, metrics that are often labor-intensive to score manually.

However, there are several limitations in the current analysis and validation that affect the strength of the conclusions:

First, the statistical rigor requires substantial improvement. The analysis of multi-group experiments (e.g., comparing four distinct strains or factorial designs with genotype and training) currently relies on multiple independent Student's t-tests. This approach is statistically invalid for these experimental designs as it inflates the family-wise Type I error rate. To support the claims of strain-specific differences or learning deficits, the data must be analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to properly account for multiple comparisons and to explicitly test for interaction effects between genotype and training conditions.

Second, the biological validation using w1118 and y1 mutants entails a potential confound. The authors attribute the low Courtship Index in these strains to courtship-specific deficits. However, both strains are known to exhibit general locomotor sluggishness (due to visual or pigmentation/behavioral defects). Since "following" behavior is likely a component of the Courtship Index, a reduction in this metric could reflect a general motor deficit rather than a specific lack of reproductive motivation. Without controlling for general locomotion, the interpretation of these behavioral phenotypes remains ambiguous.

Third, the benchmarking of the system is currently limited to comparisons against manual scoring. Given that the field has largely adopted sophisticated open-source tracking tools (e.g., Ctrax, FlyTracker, JAABA), the utility of DrosoMating would be better contextualized by comparing its performance - in terms of accuracy, speed, or identity maintenance - against these existing automated standards, rather than solely against human observation.

Finally, the visual presentation of the data hinders the assessment of the system's temporal precision. While the system is designed to capture time-resolved metrics, the results are presented primarily as aggregate bar plots. The absence of behavioral ethograms or raster plots makes it difficult to verify the software's ability to accurately detect specific transitions, such as the exact onset of copulation.

Author response:

Thank you very much for the constructive feedback on our manuscript, "Simple Methods to Acutely Measure Multiple Timing Metrics among Sexual Repertoire of Male Drosophila," and for the opportunity to address the reviewers' comments. We appreciate the time and effort the reviewers have invested in evaluating our work, and we agree that their suggestions will significantly strengthen the manuscript.

We are currently working diligently to address all the concerns raised in the public reviews and recommendations. Below is an outline of the major revisions we plan to implement in the revised version:

(1) Statistical Rigor and Analysis

We acknowledge the statistical limitations pointed out by Reviewer #2. We will re-analyze the multi-group data in Figures 3 and 4 using One-way and Two-way ANOVA with appropriate post-hoc tests (e.g., Tukey's HSD), respectively, to properly account for multiple comparisons and interaction effects between genotype and training conditions.

(2) Comparison with Existing Tools

As suggested by both reviewers, we will provide a detailed comparison of DrosoMating with established automated tracking systems (e.g., FlyTracker, JAABA, Ctrax)，and specific use cases where DrosoMating offers distinct advantages in terms of cost, accessibility, and ease of use for high-throughput screening.

(3) Control for Locomotor Activity

To address the potential confound of general locomotor deficits in w1118 and y1 mutants, we will calculate and present general locomotion metrics (e.g., average velocity, total distance traveled) from our tracking data to dissociate motor defects from specific courtship deficits.

(4) Software Capabilities and Cross-Species Applicability

We will clarify how DrosoMating handles fly identification during mating (including occlusion management). We will also discuss or test the software's applicability across different *Drosophila* species, as requested.

(5) Minor Corrections

We will address all textual errors, standardize terminology (e.g., "Mating Duration" vs. "Copulation Duration"), improve figure legibility, and provide complete statistical details for all figures.

We believe these revisions will substantially improve the rigor, clarity, and utility of our manuscript. We aim to resubmit the revised version within the standard timeframe and will ensure the preprint is updated accordingly.