@article {69721, title = {A split-GAL4 driver line resource for Drosophila neuron types}, year = {2025}, month = {01/2025}, doi = {10.7554/elife.98405.3}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.98405.3}, author = {Meissner, Geoffrey W and Vannan, Allison and Jeter, Jennifer and Close, Kari and Depasquale, Gina M and Dorman, Zachary and Forster, Kaitlyn and Beringer, Jaye Anne and Gibney, Theresa V and Hausenfluck, Joanna H and He, Yisheng and Henderson, Kristin and Johnson, Lauren and Johnston, Rebecca M and Ihrke, Gudrun and Iyer, Nirmala and Lazarus, Rachel and Lee, Kelley and Li, Hsing-Hsi and Liaw, Hua-Peng and Melton, Brian and Miller, Scott and Motaher, Reeham and Novak, Alexandra and Ogundeyi, Omotara and Petruncio, Alyson and Price, Jacquelyn and Protopapas, Sophia and Tae, Susana and Taylor, Jennifer and Vorimo, Rebecca and Yarbrough, Brianna and Zeng, Kevin Xiankun and Zugates, Christopher T and Dionne, Heather and Angstadt, Claire and Ashley, Kelly and Cavallaro, Amanda and Dang, Tam and Gonzalez, Guillermo A and Hibbard, Karen L and Huang, Cuizhen and Kao, Jui-Chun and Laverty, Todd and Mercer, Monti and Perez, Brenda and Pitts, Scarlett and Ruiz, Danielle and Vallanadu, Viruthika and Zheng, Grace Zhiyu and Goina, Cristian and Otsuna, Hideo and Rokicki, Konrad and Svirskas, Robert R and Cheong, Han Sj and Dolan, Michael-John and Ehrhardt, Erica and Feng, Kai and El Galfi, Basel and Goldammer, Jens and Huston, Stephen J and Hu, Nan and Ito, Masayoshi and McKellar, Claire and minegishi, ryo and Namiki, Shigehiro and Nern, Aljoscha and Schretter, Catherine E and Sterne, Gabriella R and Venkatasubramanian, Lalanti and Wang, Kaiyu and Wolff, Tanya and Wu, Ming and George, Reed and Malkesman, Oz and Aso, Yoshinori and Card, Gwyneth M and Dickson, Barry J and Korff, Wyatt and Ito, Kei and Truman, James W and Zlatic, Marta and Rubin, Gerald M} } @article {69301, title = {Motor neurons generate pose-targeted movements via proprioceptive sculpting.}, journal = {Nature}, year = {2024}, month = {2024 Mar 20}, abstract = {

Motor neurons are the final common pathway through which the brain controls movement of the body, forming the basic elements from which all movement is composed. Yet how a single motor neuron contributes to control during natural movement remains unclear. Here we anatomically and functionally characterize the individual roles of the motor neurons that control head movement in the fly, Drosophila melanogaster. Counterintuitively, we find that activity in a single motor neuron rotates the head in different directions, depending on the starting posture of the head, such that the head converges towards a pose determined by the identity of the stimulated motor neuron. A feedback model predicts that this convergent behaviour results from motor neuron drive interacting with proprioceptive feedback. We identify and genetically suppress a single class of proprioceptive neuron that changes the motor neuron-induced convergence as predicted by the feedback model. These data suggest a framework for how the brain controls movements: instead of directly generating movement in a given direction by activating a fixed set of motor neurons, the brain controls movements by adding bias to a continuing proprioceptive-motor loop.

}, issn = {1476-4687}, doi = {10.1038/s41586-024-07222-5}, author = {Gorko, Benjamin and Siwanowicz, Igor and Close, Kari and Christoforou, Christina and Hibbard, Karen L and Kabra, Mayank and Lee, Allen and Park, Jin-Yong and Li, Si Ying and Chen, Alex B and Namiki, Shigehiro and Chen, Chenghao and Tuthill, John C and Bock, Davi D and Rouault, Herv{\'e} and Branson, Kristin and Ihrke, Gudrun and Huston, Stephen J} } @article {48372, title = {Sensorimotor neuroscience: motor precision meets vision.}, journal = {Current Biology : CB}, volume = {27}, year = {2017}, month = {2017 Apr 03}, pages = {R261-R263}, abstract = {

Visual motion sensing neurons in the fly also encode a range of behavior-related signals. These nonvisual inputs appear to be used to correct some of the challenges of visually guided locomotion.

}, issn = {1879-0445}, doi = {10.1016/j.cub.2017.02.047}, author = {Longden, Kit D and Huston, Stephen J and Reiser, Michael B} } @article {47134, title = {Neural encoding of odors during active sampling and in turbulent plumes.}, journal = {Neuron}, volume = {88}, year = {2015}, month = {2015 Oct 21}, pages = {403-18}, abstract = {

Sensory inputs are often fluctuating and intermittent, yet animals reliably utilize them to direct behavior. Here we ask how natural stimulus fluctuations influence the dynamic neural encoding of odors. Using the locust olfactory system, we isolated two main causes of odor intermittency: chaotic odor plumes and active sampling behaviors. Despite their irregularity, chaotic odor plumes still drove dynamic neural response features including the synchronization, temporal patterning, and short-term plasticity of spiking in projection neurons, enabling classifier-based stimulus identification and activating downstream decoders (Kenyon cells). Locusts can also impose odor intermittency through active sampling movements with their unrestrained antennae. Odors triggered immediate, spatially targeted antennal scanning that, paradoxically, weakened individual neural responses. However, these frequent but weaker responses were highly informative about stimulus location. Thus, not only are odor-elicited dynamic neural responses compatible with natural stimulus fluctuations and important for stimulus identification, but locusts actively increase intermittency, possibly to improve stimulus localization.

}, issn = {1097-4199}, doi = {10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.007}, author = {Huston, Stephen J and Stopfer, Mark and Cassenaer, Stijn and Aldworth, Zane N and Laurent, Gilles} } @article {6504, title = {Solitary and gregarious locusts differ in circadian rhythmicity of a visual output neuron.}, journal = {Journal of BiologicalRrhythms}, volume = {27}, year = {2012}, month = {2012 Jun}, pages = {196-205}, abstract = {

Locusts demonstrate remarkable phenotypic plasticity driven by changes in population density. This density dependent phase polyphenism is associated with many physiological, behavioral, and morphological changes, including observations that cryptic solitarious (solitary-reared) individuals start to fly at dusk, whereas gregarious (crowd-reared) individuals are day-active. We have recorded for 24-36 h, from an identified visual output neuron, the descending contralateral movement detector (DCMD) of Schistocerca gregaria in solitarious and gregarious animals. DCMD signals impending collision and participates in flight avoidance maneuvers. The strength of DCMD{\textquoteright}s response to looming stimuli, characterized by the number of evoked spikes and peak firing rate, varies approximately sinusoidally with a period close to 24 h under constant light in solitarious locusts. In gregarious individuals the 24-h pattern is more complex, being modified by secondary ultradian rhythms. DCMD{\textquoteright}s strongest responses occur around expected dusk in solitarious locusts but up to 6 h earlier in gregarious locusts, matching the times of day at which locusts of each type are most active. We thus demonstrate a neuronal correlate of a temporal shift in behavior that is observed in gregarious locusts. Our ability to alter the nature of a circadian rhythm by manipulating the rearing density of locusts under identical light-dark cycles may provide important tools to investigate further the mechanisms underlying diurnal rhythmicity.

}, keywords = {Animal, Animals, Behavior, Biological, Circadian Rhythm, Female, Grasshoppers, Habituation, Male, Models, Neurons, Ocular, Phenotype, Psychophysiologic, Sense Organs, Social Behavior, Time Factors, Vision, Visual Fields}, issn = {1552-4531}, doi = {10.1177/0748730412440860}, author = {Gaten, Edward and Huston, Stephen J and Dowse, Harold B and Matheson, Tom} } @article {4430, title = {Nonlinear integration of visual and haltere inputs in fly neck motor neurons.}, journal = {The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience}, volume = {29}, year = {2009}, month = {2009 Oct 21}, pages = {13097-105}, abstract = {

Animals use information from multiple sensory organs to generate appropriate behavior. Exactly how these different sensory inputs are fused at the motor system is not well understood. Here we study how fly neck motor neurons integrate information from two well characterized sensory systems: visual information from the compound eye and gyroscopic information from the mechanosensory halteres. Extracellular recordings reveal that a subpopulation of neck motor neurons display "gating-like" behavior: they do not fire action potentials in response to visual stimuli alone but will do so if the halteres are coactivated. Intracellular recordings show that these motor neurons receive small, sustained subthreshold visual inputs in addition to larger inputs that are phase locked to haltere movements. Our results suggest that the nonlinear gating-like effect results from summation of these two inputs with the action potential threshold providing the nonlinearity. As a result of this summation, the sustained visual depolarization is transformed into a temporally structured train of action potentials synchronized to the haltere beating movements. This simple mechanism efficiently fuses two different sensory signals and may also explain the context-dependent effects of visual inputs on fly behavior.

}, keywords = {Action Potentials, Age Factors, Animals, Diptera, Female, Functional Laterality, Motor Neurons, Neck, Nonlinear Dynamics, Patch-Clamp Techniques, Photic Stimulation, Sense Organs, Sensory Gating, Touch, Visual Pathways}, issn = {1529-2401}, doi = {10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2915-09.2009}, author = {Huston, Stephen J and Krapp, Holger G} } @article {4431, title = {Visuomotor transformation in the fly gaze stabilization system.}, journal = {PLoS Biology}, volume = {6}, year = {2008}, month = {2008 Jul 22}, pages = {e173}, abstract = {

For sensory signals to control an animal{\textquoteright}s behavior, they must first be transformed into a format appropriate for use by its motor systems. This fundamental problem is faced by all animals, including humans. Beyond simple reflexes, little is known about how such sensorimotor transformations take place. Here we describe how the outputs of a well-characterized population of fly visual interneurons, lobula plate tangential cells (LPTCs), are used by the animal{\textquoteright}s gaze-stabilizing neck motor system. The LPTCs respond to visual input arising from both self-rotations and translations of the fly. The neck motor system however is involved in gaze stabilization and thus mainly controls compensatory head rotations. We investigated how the neck motor system is able to selectively extract rotation information from the mixed responses of the LPTCs. We recorded extracellularly from fly neck motor neurons (NMNs) and mapped the directional preferences across their extended visual receptive fields. Our results suggest that-like the tangential cells-NMNs are tuned to panoramic retinal image shifts, or optic flow fields, which occur when the fly rotates about particular body axes. In many cases, tangential cells and motor neurons appear to be tuned to similar axes of rotation, resulting in a correlation between the coordinate systems the two neural populations employ. However, in contrast to the primarily monocular receptive fields of the tangential cells, most NMNs are sensitive to visual motion presented to either eye. This results in the NMNs being more selective for rotation than the LPTCs. Thus, the neck motor system increases its rotation selectivity by a comparatively simple mechanism: the integration of binocular visual motion information.

}, keywords = {Animals, Diptera, Fixation, Motion Perception, Motor Neurons, Neck, Neurons, Ocular, Photic Stimulation, Visual Fields, Visual Pathways}, issn = {1545-7885}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pbio.0060173}, author = {Huston, Stephen J and Krapp, Holger G} }