Search

An important step in neural information processing is the transformation of membrane voltage into calcium signals leading to transmitter release. However, the effect of voltage to calcium transformation on neural responses to different sensory stimuli is not well understood. Here, we use in vivo two-photon imaging of genetically encoded voltage and calcium indicators, ArcLight and GCaMP6f, respectively, to measure responses in direction-selective T4 neurons of femaleDrosophila. Comparison between ArcLight and GCaMP6f signals reveals calcium signals to have a significantly higher direction selectivity compared with voltage signals. Using these recordings, we build a model which transforms T4 voltage responses into calcium responses. Using a cascade of thresholding, temporal filtering and a stationary nonlinearity, the model reproduces experimentally measured calcium responses across different visual stimuli. These findings provide a mechanistic underpinning of the voltage to calcium transformation and show how this processing step, in addition to synaptic mechanisms on the dendrites of T4 cells, enhances direction selectivity in the output signal of T4 neurons. Measuring the directional tuning of postsynaptic vertical system (VS)-cells with inputs from other cells blocked, we found that, indeed, it matches the one of the calcium signal in presynaptic T4 cells.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENTThe transformation of voltage to calcium influx is an important step in the signaling cascade within a nerve cell. While this process has been intensely studied in the context of transmitter release mechanism, its consequences for information transmission and neural computation are unclear. Here, we measured both membrane voltage and cytosolic calcium levels in direction-selective cells ofDrosophilain response to a large set of visual stimuli. We found direction selectivity in the calcium signal to be significantly enhanced compared with membrane voltage through a nonlinear transformation of voltage to calcium. Our findings highlight the importance of an additional step in the signaling cascade for information processing within single nerve cells.

Can plants learn? This question stirs up controversy and speculation in the classroom, as it is currently doing in the scientific community at large. We leverage the controversy to ask students to contribute to the greater body of knowledge by using scientific principles in creative research projects. Ninth-grade honors biology students became familiar with original research and the surrounding controversy, and performed experiments testing two distinct forms of plant learning in Pisum sativum (pea) and Mimosa pudica (sensitive plant).

Summary Sensory systems need to reliably extract information from highly variable natural signals. Flies, for instance, use optic flow to guide their course and are remarkably adept at estimating image velocity regardless of image statistics. Current circuit models, however, cannot account for this robustness. Here, we demonstrate that the Drosophila visual system reduces input variability by rapidly adjusting its sensitivity to local contrast conditions. We exhaustively map functional properties of neurons in the motion detection circuit and find that local responses are compressed by surround contrast. The compressive signal is fast, integrates spatially, and derives from neural feedback. Training convolutional neural networks on estimating the velocity of natural stimuli shows that this dynamic signal compression can close the performance gap between model and organism. Overall, our work represents a comprehensive mechanistic account of how neural systems attain the robustness to carry out survival-critical tasks in challenging real-world environments.

Direction-selective T4/T5 neurons exist in four subtypes, each tuned to visual motion along one of the four cardinal directions. Along with their directional tuning, neurons of each T4/T5 subtype orient their dendrites and project their axons in a subtype-specific manner. Directional tuning, thus, appears strictly linked to morphology in T4/T5 neurons. How the four T4/T5 subtypes acquire their distinct morphologies during development remains largely unknown. Here, we investigated when and how the dendrites of the four T4/T5 subtypes acquire their specific orientations, and profiled the transcriptomes of all T4/T5 neurons during this process. This revealed a simple and stable combinatorial code of transcription factors defining the four T4/T5 subtypes during their development. Changing the combination of transcription factors of specific T4/T5 subtypes resulted in predictable and complete conversions of subtype-specific properties, i.e. dendrite orientation and matching axon projection pattern. Therefore, a combinatorial code of transcription factors coordinates the development of dendrite and axon morphologies to generate anatomical specializations that differentiate subtypes of T4/T5 motion-sensing neurons., Summary: Morphological and transcriptomic analyses allowed the identification of a combinatorial code of transcription factors that controls the development of subtype-specific morphologies in motion-detecting neurons of the Drosophila visual system.

The reliable estimation of motion across varied surroundings represents a survival-critical task for sighted animals. How neural circuits have adapted to the particular demands of natural environments, however, is not well understood. We explored this question in the visual system of Drosophila melanogaster. Here, as in many mammalian retinas, motion is computed in parallel streams for brightness increments (ON) and decrements (OFF). When genetically isolated, ON and OFF pathways proved equally capable of accurately matching walking responses to realistic motion. To our surprise, detailed characterization of their functional tuning properties through in vivo calcium imaging and electrophysiology revealed stark differences in temporal tuning between ON and OFF channels. We trained an in silico motion estimation model on natural scenes and discovered that our optimized detector exhibited differences similar to those of the biological system. Thus, functional ON-OFF asymmetries in fly visual circuitry may reflect ON-OFF asymmetries in natural environments.

Estimating motion is a fundamental task for the visual system of sighted animals. In Drosophila, direction-selective T4 and T5 cells respond to moving brightness increments (ON) and decrements (OFF), respectively. Current algorithmic models of the circuit are based on the interaction of two differentially filtered signals. However, electron microscopy studies have shown that T5 cells receive their major input from four classes of neurons: Tm1, Tm2, Tm4, and Tm9. Using two-photon calcium imaging, we demonstrate that T5 is the first direction-selective stage within the OFF pathway. The four cells provide an array of spatiotemporal filters to T5. Silencing their synaptic output in various combinations, we find that all input elements are involved in OFF motion detection to varying degrees. Our comprehensive survey challenges the simplified view of how neural systems compute the direction of motion and suggests that an intricate interplay of many signals results in direction selectivity.

Visual systems extract directional motion information from spatiotemporal luminance changes on the retina. An algorithmic model, the Reichardt detector, accounts for this by multiplying adjacent inputs after asymmetric temporal filtering. The outputs of two mirror-symmetrical units tuned to opposite directions are thought to be subtracted on the dendrites of wide-field motion-sensitive lobula plate tangential cells by antagonistic transmitter systems. InDrosophila, small-field T4/T5 cells carry visual motion information to the tangential cells that are depolarized during preferred and hyperpolarized during null direction motion. While preferred direction input is likely provided by excitation from T4/T5 terminals, the origin of null direction inhibition is unclear. Probing the connectivity between T4/T5 and tangential cells inDrosophilausing a combination of optogenetics, electrophysiology, and pharmacology, we found a direct excitatory as well as an indirect inhibitory component. This suggests that the null direction response is caused by feedforward inhibition via yet unidentified neurons.

The extraction of directional motion information from changing retinal images is one of the earliest and most important processing steps in any visual system. In the fly optic lobe, two parallel processing streams have been anatomically described, leading from two first-order interneurons, L1 and L2, via T4 and T5 cells onto large, wide-field motion-sensitive interneurons of the lobula plate. Therefore, T4 and T5 cells are thought to have a pivotal role in motion processing; however, owing to their small size, it is difficult to obtain electrical recordings of T4 and T5 cells, leaving their visual response properties largely unknown. We circumvent this problem by means of optical recording from these cells in Drosophila, using the genetically encoded calcium indicator GCaMP5 (ref. 2). Here we find that specific subpopulations of T4 and T5 cells are directionally tuned to one of the four cardinal directions; that is, front-to-back, back-to-front, upwards and downwards. Depending on their preferred direction, T4 and T5 cells terminate in specific sublayers of the lobula plate. T4 and T5 functionally segregate with respect to contrast polarity: whereas T4 cells selectively respond to moving brightness increments (ON edges), T5 cells only respond to moving brightness decrements (OFF edges). When the output from T4 or T5 cells is blocked, the responses of postsynaptic lobula plate neurons to moving ON (T4 block) or OFF edges (T5 block) are selectively compromised. The same effects are seen in turning responses of tethered walking flies. Thus, starting with L1 and L2, the visual input is split into separate ON and OFF pathways, and motion along all four cardinal directions is computed separately within each pathway. The output of these eight different motion detectors is then sorted such that ON (T4) and OFF (T5) motion detectors with the same directional tuning converge in the same layer of the lobula plate, jointly providing the input to downstream circuits and motion-driven behaviours.

How neurons become sensitive to the direction of visual motion represents a classic example of neural computation. Two alternative mechanisms have been discussed in the literature so far: preferred direction enhancement, by which responses are amplified when stimuli move along the preferred direction of the cell, and null direction suppression, where one signal inhibits the response to the subsequent one when stimuli move along the opposite, i.e. null direction. Along the processing chain in the Drosophila optic lobe, directional responses first appear in T4 and T5 cells. Visually stimulating sequences of individual columns in the optic lobe with a telescope while recording from single T4 neurons, we find both mechanisms at work implemented in different sub-regions of the receptive field. This finding explains the high degree of directional selectivity found already in the fly’s primary motion-sensing neurons and marks an important step in our understanding of elementary motion detection. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.17421.001, eLife digest The brain extracts information from signals delivered from the eyes and other sensory organs in order to direct behavior. Understanding how the interactions and wiring of a multitude of individual nerve cells process and transmit this critical information to the brain is a fundamental goal in the field of neuroscience. One question many neuroscientists have tried to understand is how nerve cells in an animal’s brain detect direction when an animal sees movement of some kind – so-called motion vision. The raw signal from the light receptors in the eye does not discriminate whether the light moves in one direction or the other. So, the nerve cells in the brain must somehow compute the direction of movement based on the information relayed by the eye. For more than half a century, major debates have revolved around two rival models that could explain how motion vision works. Both models could in principle lead to neurons that prefer images moving in one direction over images moving in the opposite direction – so-called direction selectivity. In both models, the information about the changing light levels hitting two light-sensitive cells at two points on the eye are compared across time. In one model, signals from images moving in a cell’s preferred direction become amplified. In the other model, signals moving in the unfavored direction become canceled out. However, neither model perfectly explains motion vision. Now, Haag, Arenz et al. show that both models are partially correct and that the two mechanisms work together to detect motion across the field of vision more accurately. In the experiments, both models were tested in tiny fruit flies by measuring the activity of the first nerve cells that respond to the direction of visual motion. While each mechanism alone only produces a fairly weak and error-prone signal of direction, together the two mechanisms produce a stronger and more precise directional signal. Further research is now needed to determine which individual neurons amplify or cancel the signals to achieve such a high degree of direction selectivity. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.17421.002

Summary Background Detecting the direction of visual motion is an essential task of the early visual system. The Reichardt detector has been proven to be a faithful description of the underlying computation in insects. A series of recent studies addressed the neural implementation of the Reichardt detector in Drosophila revealing the overall layout in parallel ON and OFF channels, its input neurons from the lamina (L1→ON, and L2→OFF), and the respective output neurons to the lobula plate (ON→T4, and OFF→T5). While anatomical studies showed that T4 cells receive input from L1 via Mi1 and Tm3 cells, the neurons connecting L2 to T5 cells have not been identified so far. It is, however, known that L2 contacts, among others, two neurons, called Tm2 and L4, which show a pronounced directionality in their wiring. Results We characterized the visual response properties of both Tm2 and L4 neurons via Ca 2+ imaging. We found that Tm2 and L4 cells respond with an increase in activity to moving OFF edges in a direction-unselective manner. To investigate their participation in motion vision, we blocked their output while recording from downstream tangential cells in the lobula plate. Silencing of Tm2 and L4 completely abolishes the response to moving OFF edges. Conclusions Our results demonstrate that both cell types are essential components of the Drosophila OFF motion vision pathway, prior to the computation of directionality in the dendrites of T5 cells.

SummarySpatial contrast, the difference in adjacent luminance values, provides information about objects, textures, and motion and supports diverse visual behaviors. Contrast computation is therefore an essential element of visual processing. The underlying mechanisms, however, are poorly understood. In human psychophysics, contrast illusions are means to explore such computations, but humans offer limited experimental access. Via behavioral experiments in Drosophila, we find that flies are also susceptible to contrast illusions. Using genetic silencing techniques, electrophysiology, and modeling, we systematically dissect the mechanisms and neuronal correlates underlying the behavior. Our results indicate that spatial contrast computation involves lateral inhibition within the same pathway that computes motion of luminance increments (ON pathway). Yet motion-blind flies, in which we silenced downstream motion-sensitive neurons needed for optomotor behavior, have fully intact contrast responses. In conclusion, spatial contrast and motion cues are first computed by overlapping neuronal circuits which subsequently feed into parallel visual processing streams.