Filter
Associated Lab
- Aguilera Castrejon Lab (15) Apply Aguilera Castrejon Lab filter
- Ahrens Lab (56) Apply Ahrens Lab filter
- Aso Lab (39) Apply Aso Lab filter
- Baker Lab (38) Apply Baker Lab filter
- Betzig Lab (110) Apply Betzig Lab filter
- Beyene Lab (10) Apply Beyene Lab filter
- Bock Lab (17) Apply Bock Lab filter
- Branson Lab (48) Apply Branson Lab filter
- Card Lab (40) Apply Card Lab filter
- Cardona Lab (63) Apply Cardona Lab filter
- Chklovskii Lab (13) Apply Chklovskii Lab filter
- Clapham Lab (12) Apply Clapham Lab filter
- Cui Lab (19) Apply Cui Lab filter
- Darshan Lab (12) Apply Darshan Lab filter
- Dennis Lab (1) Apply Dennis Lab filter
- Dickson Lab (46) Apply Dickson Lab filter
- Druckmann Lab (25) Apply Druckmann Lab filter
- Dudman Lab (46) Apply Dudman Lab filter
- Eddy/Rivas Lab (30) Apply Eddy/Rivas Lab filter
- Egnor Lab (11) Apply Egnor Lab filter
- Espinosa Medina Lab (16) Apply Espinosa Medina Lab filter
- Feliciano Lab (6) Apply Feliciano Lab filter
- Fetter Lab (41) Apply Fetter Lab filter
- Fitzgerald Lab (28) Apply Fitzgerald Lab filter
- Freeman Lab (15) Apply Freeman Lab filter
- Funke Lab (34) Apply Funke Lab filter
- Gonen Lab (91) Apply Gonen Lab filter
- Grigorieff Lab (62) Apply Grigorieff Lab filter
- Harris Lab (58) Apply Harris Lab filter
- Heberlein Lab (94) Apply Heberlein Lab filter
- Hermundstad Lab (22) Apply Hermundstad Lab filter
- Hess Lab (71) Apply Hess Lab filter
- Ilanges Lab (1) Apply Ilanges Lab filter
- Jayaraman Lab (44) Apply Jayaraman Lab filter
- Ji Lab (33) Apply Ji Lab filter
- Johnson Lab (6) Apply Johnson Lab filter
- Kainmueller Lab (19) Apply Kainmueller Lab filter
- Karpova Lab (14) Apply Karpova Lab filter
- Keleman Lab (13) Apply Keleman Lab filter
- Keller Lab (75) Apply Keller Lab filter
- Koay Lab (16) Apply Koay Lab filter
- Lavis Lab (136) Apply Lavis Lab filter
- Lee (Albert) Lab (34) Apply Lee (Albert) Lab filter
- Leonardo Lab (23) Apply Leonardo Lab filter
- Li Lab (25) Apply Li Lab filter
- Lippincott-Schwartz Lab (161) Apply Lippincott-Schwartz Lab filter
- Liu (Yin) Lab (5) Apply Liu (Yin) Lab filter
- Liu (Zhe) Lab (58) Apply Liu (Zhe) Lab filter
- Looger Lab (137) Apply Looger Lab filter
- Magee Lab (49) Apply Magee Lab filter
- Menon Lab (18) Apply Menon Lab filter
- Murphy Lab (13) Apply Murphy Lab filter
- O'Shea Lab (4) Apply O'Shea Lab filter
- Otopalik Lab (13) Apply Otopalik Lab filter
- Pachitariu Lab (41) Apply Pachitariu Lab filter
- Pastalkova Lab (18) Apply Pastalkova Lab filter
- Pavlopoulos Lab (19) Apply Pavlopoulos Lab filter
- Pedram Lab (14) Apply Pedram Lab filter
- Podgorski Lab (16) Apply Podgorski Lab filter
- Reiser Lab (49) Apply Reiser Lab filter
- Riddiford Lab (44) Apply Riddiford Lab filter
- Romani Lab (40) Apply Romani Lab filter
- Rubin Lab (139) Apply Rubin Lab filter
- Saalfeld Lab (60) Apply Saalfeld Lab filter
- Satou Lab (16) Apply Satou Lab filter
- Scheffer Lab (36) Apply Scheffer Lab filter
- Schreiter Lab (62) Apply Schreiter Lab filter
- Sgro Lab (20) Apply Sgro Lab filter
- Shroff Lab (23) Apply Shroff Lab filter
- Simpson Lab (23) Apply Simpson Lab filter
- Singer Lab (80) Apply Singer Lab filter
- Spruston Lab (91) Apply Spruston Lab filter
- Stern Lab (152) Apply Stern Lab filter
- Sternson Lab (54) Apply Sternson Lab filter
- Stringer Lab (29) Apply Stringer Lab filter
- Svoboda Lab (135) Apply Svoboda Lab filter
- Tebo Lab (31) Apply Tebo Lab filter
- Tervo Lab (9) Apply Tervo Lab filter
- Tillberg Lab (17) Apply Tillberg Lab filter
- Tjian Lab (64) Apply Tjian Lab filter
- Truman Lab (88) Apply Truman Lab filter
- Turaga Lab (46) Apply Turaga Lab filter
- Turner Lab (35) Apply Turner Lab filter
- Vale Lab (6) Apply Vale Lab filter
- Voigts Lab (2) Apply Voigts Lab filter
- Wang (Meng) Lab (9) Apply Wang (Meng) Lab filter
- Wang (Shaohe) Lab (24) Apply Wang (Shaohe) Lab filter
- Wu Lab (9) Apply Wu Lab filter
- Zlatic Lab (28) Apply Zlatic Lab filter
- Zuker Lab (25) Apply Zuker Lab filter
Associated Project Team
- CellMap (5) Apply CellMap filter
- COSEM (3) Apply COSEM filter
- Fly Descending Interneuron (10) Apply Fly Descending Interneuron filter
- Fly Functional Connectome (14) Apply Fly Functional Connectome filter
- Fly Olympiad (5) Apply Fly Olympiad filter
- FlyEM (51) Apply FlyEM filter
- FlyLight (46) Apply FlyLight filter
- GENIE (40) Apply GENIE filter
- Integrative Imaging (1) Apply Integrative Imaging filter
- Larval Olympiad (2) Apply Larval Olympiad filter
- MouseLight (16) Apply MouseLight filter
- NeuroSeq (1) Apply NeuroSeq filter
- ThalamoSeq (1) Apply ThalamoSeq filter
- Tool Translation Team (T3) (24) Apply Tool Translation Team (T3) filter
- Transcription Imaging (49) Apply Transcription Imaging filter
Publication Date
- 2024 (141) Apply 2024 filter
- 2023 (175) Apply 2023 filter
- 2022 (192) Apply 2022 filter
- 2021 (193) Apply 2021 filter
- 2020 (196) Apply 2020 filter
- 2019 (202) Apply 2019 filter
- 2018 (232) Apply 2018 filter
- 2017 (217) Apply 2017 filter
- 2016 (209) Apply 2016 filter
- 2015 (252) Apply 2015 filter
- 2014 (236) Apply 2014 filter
- 2013 (194) Apply 2013 filter
- 2012 (190) Apply 2012 filter
- 2011 (190) Apply 2011 filter
- 2010 (161) Apply 2010 filter
- 2009 (158) Apply 2009 filter
- 2008 (140) Apply 2008 filter
- 2007 (106) Apply 2007 filter
- 2006 (92) Apply 2006 filter
- 2005 (67) Apply 2005 filter
- 2004 (57) Apply 2004 filter
- 2003 (58) Apply 2003 filter
- 2002 (39) Apply 2002 filter
- 2001 (28) Apply 2001 filter
- 2000 (29) Apply 2000 filter
- 1999 (14) Apply 1999 filter
- 1998 (18) Apply 1998 filter
- 1997 (16) Apply 1997 filter
- 1996 (10) Apply 1996 filter
- 1995 (18) Apply 1995 filter
- 1994 (12) Apply 1994 filter
- 1993 (10) Apply 1993 filter
- 1992 (6) Apply 1992 filter
- 1991 (11) Apply 1991 filter
- 1990 (11) Apply 1990 filter
- 1989 (6) Apply 1989 filter
- 1988 (1) Apply 1988 filter
- 1987 (7) Apply 1987 filter
- 1986 (4) Apply 1986 filter
- 1985 (5) Apply 1985 filter
- 1984 (2) Apply 1984 filter
- 1983 (2) Apply 1983 filter
- 1982 (3) Apply 1982 filter
- 1981 (3) Apply 1981 filter
- 1980 (1) Apply 1980 filter
- 1979 (1) Apply 1979 filter
- 1976 (2) Apply 1976 filter
- 1973 (1) Apply 1973 filter
- 1970 (1) Apply 1970 filter
- 1967 (1) Apply 1967 filter
Type of Publication
3920 Publications
Showing 3051-3060 of 3920 resultsLong-lasting internal arousal states motivate and pattern ongoing behaviour, enabling the temporary emergence of innate behavioural programs that serve the needs of an animal, such as fighting, feeding, and mating. However, how internal states shape sensory processing or behaviour remains unclear. In Drosophila, male flies perform a lengthy and elaborate courtship ritual that is triggered by the activation of sexually dimorphic P1 neurons1,2,3,4,5, during which they faithfully follow and sing to a female6,7. Here, by recording from males as they court a virtual ‘female’, we gain insight into how the salience of visual cues is transformed by a male’s internal arousal state to give rise to persistent courtship pursuit. The gain of LC10a visual projection neurons is selectively increased during courtship, enhancing their sensitivity to moving targets. A concise network model indicates that visual signalling through the LC10a circuit, once amplified by P1-mediated arousal, almost fully specifies a male’s tracking of a female. Furthermore, P1 neuron activity correlates with ongoing fluctuations in the intensity of a male’s pursuit to continuously tune the gain of the LC10a pathway. Together, these results reveal how a male’s internal state can dynamically modulate the propagation of visual signals through a high-fidelity visuomotor circuit to guide his moment-to-moment performance of courtship.
The brain’s reward systems reinforce behaviors required for species survival, including sex, food consumption, and social interaction. Drugs of abuse co-opt these neural pathways, which can lead to addiction. Here, we used Drosophila melanogaster to investigate the relationship between natural and drug rewards. In males, mating increased, whereas sexual deprivation reduced, neuropeptide F (NPF) levels. Activation or inhibition of the NPF system in turn reduced or enhanced ethanol preference. These results thus link sexual experience, NPF system activity, and ethanol consumption. Artificial activation of NPF neurons was in itself rewarding and precluded the ability of ethanol to act as a reward. We propose that activity of the NPF-NPF receptor axis represents the state of the fly reward system and modifies behavior accordingly.
The brain’s reward systems reinforce behaviors required for species survival, including sex, food consumption, and social interaction. Drugs of abuse co-opt these neural pathways, which can lead to addiction. Here, we used Drosophila melanogaster to investigate the relationship between natural and drug rewards. In males, mating increased, whereas sexual deprivation reduced, neuropeptide F (NPF) levels. Activation or inhibition of the NPF system in turn reduced or enhanced ethanol preference. These results thus link sexual experience, NPF system activity, and ethanol consumption. Artificial activation of NPF neurons was in itself rewarding and precluded the ability of ethanol to act as a reward. We propose that activity of the NPF–NPF receptor axis represents the state of the fly reward system and modifies behavior accordingly.
Male and female mice differ in the neuronal patterns that serve the mammary glands. Yin Liu et al. (p. 1357) now describe how gonadal hormones drive development of distinct male and female sensory innervations. Although both male and female mammary glands develop their sensory innervation similarly in early embryogenesis, once the androgens take effect, the developmental trajectories diverge. By birth, the rich network of sensory neurons present in the female is absent in the male. Androgens cause a switch from expression of the full-length neurotrophin receptor TrkB to its truncated form, TrkB.T1, both of which are expressed on the neurons. In males, truncated TrkB.T1 sequesters brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) from further activity, whereas in females, full-length TrkB binds BDNF and supports neuronal development. Androgen-driven changes in receptor expression disrupt a neuronal signaling pathway and de-innervation. How neural circuits associated with sexually dimorphic organs are differentially assembled during development is unclear. Here, we report a sexually dimorphic pattern of mouse mammary gland sensory innervation and the mechanism of its formation. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), emanating from mammary mesenchyme and signaling through its receptor TrkB on sensory axons, is required for establishing mammary gland sensory innervation of both sexes at early developmental stages. Subsequently, in males, androgens promote mammary mesenchymal expression of a truncated form of TrkB, which prevents BDNF-TrkB signaling in sensory axons and leads to a rapid loss of mammary gland innervation independent of neuronal apoptosis. Thus, sex hormone regulation of a neurotrophic factor signal directs sexually dimorphic axonal growth and maintenance, resulting in generation of a sex-specific neural circuit.
We present a fully automatic 3D segmentation method for the liver from contrast-enhanced CT data. It is based on a combination of a constrained free-form and statistical deformable model. The adap- tation of the model to the image data is performed according to a simple model of the typical intensity distribution around the liver boundary and neighboring anatomical structures, considering the potential presence of tumors in the liver. All parameters of the deformation as well as the initial positioning of the model in the data are estimated automatically.
This paper formulates shape registration as an optimal coding problem. It employs a set of landmarks to establish the correspondence between shapes, and assumes that the best correspondence can be achieved when the polygons formed by the landmarks optimally code all the shape contours, i.e., obtain their minimum description length (MDL). This is different from previous MDL-based shape registration methods, which code the landmark locations. In this paper, each contour is discretized to be a set of points to make the coding feasible, and a number of strategies are adopted to tackle the difficult optimization problem involved. The resulting algorithm, called CAP, is able to yield statistical shape model with better quality in terms of model generalization error, which is demonstrated on both synthetic and biomedical shapes.
Animal development is orchestrated by spatio-temporal gene expression programmes that drive precise lineage commitment, proliferation and migration events at the single-cell level, collectively leading to large-scale morphological change and functional specification in the whole organism. Efforts over decades have uncovered two 'seemingly contradictory' mechanisms in gene regulation governing these intricate processes: (i) stochasticity at individual gene regulatory steps in single cells and (ii) highly coordinated gene expression dynamics in the embryo. Here we discuss how these two layers of regulation arise from the molecular and the systems level, and how they might interplay to determine cell fate and to control the complex body plan. We also review recent technological advancements that enable quantitative analysis of gene regulation dynamics at single-cell, single-molecule resolution. These approaches outline next-generation experiments to decipher general principles bridging gaps between molecular dynamics in single cells and robust gene regulations in the embryo.
The mammalian retina conveys the vast majority of information about visual stimuli to two brain regions: the dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus (dLGN) and the superior colliculus (SC). The degree to which retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) send similar or distinct information to the two areas remains unclear despite the important constraints that different patterns of RGC input place on downstream visual processing. To resolve this ambiguity we injected a glycoprotein-deficient rabies virus coding for the expression of a fluorescent protein into the dLGN or SC; rabies virus labeled a smaller fraction of RGCs than lipophilic dyes like DiI but, crucially, did not label RGC axons of passage. ~80% of the RGCs infected by rabies virus injected into the dLGN were co-labeled with DiI injected into the SC, suggesting that many dLGN-projecting RGCs also project to the SC. However, functional characterization of RGCs revealed that the SC receives input from several classes of RGCs that largely avoid the dLGN - in particular, RGCs in which (1) sustained changes in light intensity elicit transient changes in firing rate and/or (2) a small range of stimulus sizes or temporal fluctuations in light intensity elicit robust activity. Taken together, our results illustrate several unexpected asymmetries in the information that the mouse retina conveys to two major downstream targets and suggest that differences in the output of dLGN and SC neurons reflect, at least in part, differences in the functional properties of RGCs that innervate the SC but not the dLGN.
The neocortex contains a multitude of cell types that are segregated into layers and functionally distinct areas. To investigate the diversity of cell types across the mouse neocortex, here we analysed 23,822 cells from two areas at distant poles of the mouse neocortex: the primary visual cortex and the anterior lateral motor cortex. We define 133 transcriptomic cell types by deep, single-cell RNA sequencing. Nearly all types of GABA (γ-aminobutyric acid)-containing neurons are shared across both areas, whereas most types of glutamatergic neurons were found in one of the two areas. By combining single-cell RNA sequencing and retrograde labelling, we match transcriptomic types of glutamatergic neurons to their long-range projection specificity. Our study establishes a combined transcriptomic and projectional taxonomy of cortical cell types from functionally distinct areas of the adult mouse cortex.
In nature, animals form memories associating reward or punishment with stimuli from different sensory modalities, such as smells and colors. It is unclear, however, how distinct sensory memories are processed in the brain. We established appetitive and aversive visual learning assays for Drosophila that are comparable to the widely used olfactory learning assays. These assays share critical features, such as reinforcing stimuli (sugar reward and electric shock punishment), and allow direct comparison of the cellular requirements for visual and olfactory memories. We found that the same subsets of dopamine neurons drive formation of both sensory memories. Furthermore, distinct yet partially overlapping subsets of mushroom body intrinsic neurons are required for visual and olfactory memories. Thus, our results suggest that distinct sensory memories are processed in a common brain center. Such centralization of related brain functions is an economical design that avoids the repetition of similar circuit motifs.