Search

The neural circuits responsible for animal behavior remain largely unknown. We summarize new methods and present the circuitry of a large fraction of the brain of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Improved methods include new procedures to prepare, image, align, segment, find synapses in, and proofread such large data sets. We define cell types, refine computational compartments, and provide an exhaustive atlas of cell examples and types, many of them novel. We provide detailed circuits consisting of neurons and their chemical synapses for most of the central brain. We make the data public and simplify access, reducing the effort needed to answer circuit questions, and provide procedures linking the neurons defined by our analysis with genetic reagents. Biologically, we examine distributions of connection strengths, neural motifs on different scales, electrical consequences of compartmentalization, and evidence that maximizing packing density is an important criterion in the evolution of the fly’s brain.

The neural circuits responsible for behavior remain largely unknown. Previous efforts have reconstructed the complete circuits of small animals, with hundreds of neurons, and selected circuits for larger animals. Here we (the FlyEM project at Janelia and collaborators at Google) summarize new methods and present the complete circuitry of a large fraction of the brain of a much more complex animal, the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Improved methods include new procedures to prepare, image, align, segment, find synapses, and proofread such large data sets; new methods that define cell types based on connectivity in addition to morphology; and new methods to simplify access to a large and evolving data set. From the resulting data we derive a better definition of computational compartments and their connections; an exhaustive atlas of cell examples and types, many of them novel; detailed circuits for most of the central brain; and exploration of the statistics and structure of different brain compartments, and the brain as a whole. We make the data public, with a web site and resources specifically designed to make it easy to explore, for all levels of expertise from the expert to the merely curious. The public availability of these data, and the simplified means to access it, dramatically reduces the effort needed to answer typical circuit questions, such as the identity of upstream and downstream neural partners, the circuitry of brain regions, and to link the neurons defined by our analysis with genetic reagents that can be used to study their functions.Note: In the next few weeks, we will release a series of papers with more involved discussions. One paper will detail the hemibrain reconstruction with more extensive analysis and interpretation made possible by this dense connectome. Another paper will explore the central complex, a brain region involved in navigation, motor control, and sleep. A final paper will present insights from the mushroom body, a center of multimodal associative learning in the fly brain.

Cytokinesis and other cell shape changes are driven by the actomyosin contractile cytoskeleton. The molecular rearrangements that bring about contractility in non-muscle cells are currently debated. Specifically, both filament sliding by myosin motors, as well as cytoskeletal crosslinking by myosins and non-motor crosslinkers, are thought to promote contractility. Here, we examined how the abundance of motor and non-motor crosslinkers controls the speed of cytokinetic furrowing. We built a minimal model to simulate the contractile dynamics of the C. elegans zygote cytokinetic ring. This model predicted that intermediate levels of non-motor crosslinkers would allow maximal contraction speed, which we found to be the case for the scaffold protein anillin, in vivo. Our model also demonstrated a non-linear relationship between the abundance of motor ensembles and contraction speed. In vivo, thorough depletion of non-muscle myosin II delayed furrow initiation, slowed F-actin alignment, and reduced maximum contraction speed, but partial depletion allowed faster-than-expected kinetics. Thus, both motor and non-motor crosslinkers promote cytokinetic ring closure when present at low levels, but act as a brake when present at higher levels. Together, our findings extend the growing appreciation for the roles of crosslinkers, but reveal that they not only drive but also brake cytoskeletal remodeling.