Filter
Associated Lab
- Aguilera Castrejon Lab (17) Apply Aguilera Castrejon Lab filter
- Ahrens Lab (66) Apply Ahrens Lab filter
- Aso Lab (40) Apply Aso Lab filter
- Baker Lab (38) Apply Baker Lab filter
- Betzig Lab (113) Apply Betzig Lab filter
- Beyene Lab (14) Apply Beyene Lab filter
- Bock Lab (17) Apply Bock Lab filter
- Branson Lab (54) Apply Branson Lab filter
- Card Lab (43) Apply Card Lab filter
- Cardona Lab (64) Apply Cardona Lab filter
- Chklovskii Lab (13) Apply Chklovskii Lab filter
- Clapham Lab (15) 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 (50) Apply Dudman Lab filter
- Eddy/Rivas Lab (30) Apply Eddy/Rivas Lab filter
- Egnor Lab (11) Apply Egnor Lab filter
- Espinosa Medina Lab (19) Apply Espinosa Medina Lab filter
- Feliciano Lab (8) Apply Feliciano Lab filter
- Fetter Lab (41) Apply Fetter Lab filter
- FIB-SEM Technology (1) Apply FIB-SEM Technology filter
- Fitzgerald Lab (29) Apply Fitzgerald Lab filter
- Freeman Lab (15) Apply Freeman Lab filter
- Funke Lab (39) Apply Funke Lab filter
- Gonen Lab (91) Apply Gonen Lab filter
- Grigorieff Lab (62) Apply Grigorieff Lab filter
- Harris Lab (63) Apply Harris Lab filter
- Heberlein Lab (94) Apply Heberlein Lab filter
- Hermundstad Lab (28) Apply Hermundstad Lab filter
- Hess Lab (77) Apply Hess Lab filter
- Ilanges Lab (2) Apply Ilanges Lab filter
- Jayaraman Lab (46) 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 (76) Apply Keller Lab filter
- Koay Lab (18) Apply Koay Lab filter
- Lavis Lab (151) Apply Lavis Lab filter
- Lee (Albert) Lab (34) Apply Lee (Albert) Lab filter
- Leonardo Lab (23) Apply Leonardo Lab filter
- Li Lab (28) Apply Li Lab filter
- Lippincott-Schwartz Lab (172) Apply Lippincott-Schwartz Lab filter
- Liu (Yin) Lab (7) Apply Liu (Yin) Lab filter
- Liu (Zhe) Lab (64) Apply Liu (Zhe) Lab filter
- Looger Lab (138) 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 (7) Apply O'Shea Lab filter
- Otopalik Lab (13) Apply Otopalik Lab filter
- Pachitariu Lab (48) Apply Pachitariu Lab filter
- Pastalkova Lab (18) Apply Pastalkova Lab filter
- Pavlopoulos Lab (19) Apply Pavlopoulos Lab filter
- Pedram Lab (15) Apply Pedram Lab filter
- Podgorski Lab (16) Apply Podgorski Lab filter
- Reiser Lab (51) Apply Reiser Lab filter
- Riddiford Lab (44) Apply Riddiford Lab filter
- Romani Lab (43) Apply Romani Lab filter
- Rubin Lab (145) Apply Rubin Lab filter
- Saalfeld Lab (63) Apply Saalfeld Lab filter
- Satou Lab (16) Apply Satou Lab filter
- Scheffer Lab (36) Apply Scheffer Lab filter
- Schreiter Lab (68) Apply Schreiter Lab filter
- Sgro Lab (21) Apply Sgro Lab filter
- Shroff Lab (31) Apply Shroff Lab filter
- Simpson Lab (23) Apply Simpson Lab filter
- Singer Lab (80) Apply Singer Lab filter
- Spruston Lab (94) Apply Spruston Lab filter
- Stern Lab (156) Apply Stern Lab filter
- Sternson Lab (54) Apply Sternson Lab filter
- Stringer Lab (36) Apply Stringer Lab filter
- Svoboda Lab (135) Apply Svoboda Lab filter
- Tebo Lab (33) Apply Tebo Lab filter
- Tervo Lab (9) Apply Tervo Lab filter
- Tillberg Lab (21) Apply Tillberg Lab filter
- Tjian Lab (64) Apply Tjian Lab filter
- Truman Lab (88) Apply Truman Lab filter
- Turaga Lab (52) Apply Turaga Lab filter
- Turner Lab (39) Apply Turner Lab filter
- Vale Lab (8) Apply Vale Lab filter
- Voigts Lab (3) Apply Voigts Lab filter
- Wang (Meng) Lab (22) Apply Wang (Meng) Lab filter
- Wang (Shaohe) Lab (25) 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 (12) Apply CellMap filter
- COSEM (3) Apply COSEM filter
- FIB-SEM Technology (3) Apply FIB-SEM Technology filter
- Fly Descending Interneuron (11) Apply Fly Descending Interneuron filter
- Fly Functional Connectome (14) Apply Fly Functional Connectome filter
- Fly Olympiad (5) Apply Fly Olympiad filter
- FlyEM (54) Apply FlyEM filter
- FlyLight (49) Apply FlyLight filter
- GENIE (47) Apply GENIE filter
- Integrative Imaging (6) Apply Integrative Imaging filter
- Larval Olympiad (2) Apply Larval Olympiad filter
- MouseLight (18) Apply MouseLight filter
- NeuroSeq (1) Apply NeuroSeq filter
- ThalamoSeq (1) Apply ThalamoSeq filter
- Tool Translation Team (T3) (27) Apply Tool Translation Team (T3) filter
- Transcription Imaging (49) Apply Transcription Imaging filter
Publication Date
- 2025 (160) Apply 2025 filter
- 2024 (214) Apply 2024 filter
- 2023 (159) Apply 2023 filter
- 2022 (192) Apply 2022 filter
- 2021 (194) 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
4138 Publications
Showing 1641-1650 of 4138 resultsThe transition from outcrossing to predominant self-fertilization is one of the most common evolutionary transitions in flowering plants. This shift is often accompanied by a suite of changes in floral and reproductive characters termed the selfing syndrome. Here, we characterize the genetic architecture and evolutionary forces underlying evolution of the selfing syndrome in Capsella rubella following its recent divergence from the outcrossing ancestor C. grandiflora. We conduct genotyping by multiplexed shotgun sequencing and map floral and reproductive traits in a large (N= 550) F2 population. Our results suggest that in contrast to previous studies of the selfing syndrome, changes at a few loci, some with major effects, have shaped the evolution of the selfing syndrome in Capsella. The directionality of QTL effects, as well as population genetic patterns of polymorphism and divergence at 318 loci, is consistent with a history of directional selection on the selfing syndrome. Our study is an important step toward characterizing the genetic basis and evolutionary forces underlying the evolution of the selfing syndrome in a genetically accessible model system.
Male sexual characters are often among the first traits to diverge between closely related species and identifying the genetic basis of such changes can contribute to our understanding of their evolutionary history. However, little is known about the genetic architecture or the specific genes underlying the evolution of male genitalia. The morphology of the claspers, posterior lobes and anal plates exhibit striking differences between Drosophila mauritiana and Drosophila simulans. Using QTL and introgression-based high-resolution mapping, we identified several small regions on chromosome arms 3L and 3R that contribute to differences in these traits. However, we found that the loci underlying the evolution of clasper differences between these two species are independent from those that contribute to posterior lobe and anal plate divergence. Furthermore, while most of the loci affect each trait in the same direction and act additively, we also found evidence for epistasis between loci for clasper bristle number. In addition, we conducted an RNAi screen in D. melanogaster to investigate if positional and expression candidate genes located on chromosome 3L, are also involved in genital development. We found that six of these genes, including components of Wnt signaling and male-specific lethal 3 (msl3), regulate the development of genital traits consistent with the effects of the introgressed regions where they are located and that thus represent promising candidate genes for the evolution these traits.
Considerable progress has been made over the past couple of decades concerning the molecular bases of neurobehavioral function and dysfunction. The field of neurobehavioral genetics is becoming mature. Genetic factors contributing to neurologic diseases such as Alzheimer's disease have been found and evidence for genetic factors contributing to other diseases such as schizophrenia and autism are likely. This genetic approach can also benefit the field of behavioral neurotoxicology. It is clear that there is substantial heterogeneity of response with behavioral impairments resulting from neurotoxicants. Many factors contribute to differential sensitivity, but it is likely that genetic variability plays a prominent role. Important discoveries concerning genetics and behavioral neurotoxicity are being made on a broad front from work with invertebrate and piscine mutant models to classic mouse knockout models and human epidemiologic studies of polymorphisms. Discovering genetic factors of susceptibility to neurobehavioral toxicity not only helps identify those at special risk, it also advances our understanding of the mechanisms by which toxicants impair neurobehavioral function in the larger population. This symposium organized by Edward Levin and Annette Kirshner, brought together researchers from the laboratories of Michael Aschner, Douglas Ruden, Ulrike Heberlein, Edward Levin and Kathleen Welsh-Bohmer conducting studies with Caenorhabditis elegans, Drosophila, fish, rodents and humans studies to determine the role of genetic factors in susceptibility to behavioral impairment from neurotoxic exposure.
BACKGROUND: In most organisms in which acute ethanol exposure has been studied, it leads to similar changes in behavior. Generally, low ethanol doses activate the central nervous system, whereas high doses are sedative. Sensitivity to the acute intoxicating effects of ethanol is in part under genetic control in rodents and humans, and reduced sensitivity in humans predicts the development of alcoholism (Crabbe et al., 1994; Schuckit, 1994). We have established Drosophila melanogaster as a model organism to study the mechanisms that regulate acute sensitivity to ethanol. METHODS: We measured the effects of ethanol vapor on Drosophila locomotor behaviors by using three different assays. Horizontal locomotion was quantified in a locomotor chamber, turning behavior was assayed in narrow tubes, and ethanol-induced loss of postural control was measured in an inebriometer. Mutants with altered sensitivity to the acute effects of ethanol were generated by treatment with ethyl methane sulfonate and isolated by selection in the inebriometer. We ascertained the effects of these mutations on ethanol pharmacokinetics by measuring ethanol levels in extracts of flies at various times during and after ethanol exposure. RESULTS: Among nearly 30,000 potentially mutant flies tested, we isolated 19 mutant strains with reduced and 4 strains with increased sensitivity to the acute effects of ethanol as measured in the inebriometer. Of these mutants, four showed changes in ethanol absorption. Two mutants, named barfly and tipsy to reflect their reduced and increased ethanol sensitivity in the inebriometer, respectively, were analyzed for locomotor behaviors. Both mutants exhibited ethanol-induced hyperactivity that was indistinguishable from wild type. However, barfly and tipsy displayed reduced and increased sensitivity to the sedative effects of ethanol, respectively. Finally, both mutants showed an increased rate of ethanol-induced turning behavior. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of acute ethanol exposure on Drosophila locomotor behaviors are remarkably similar to those described for mammals. The analysis of mutants with altered sensitivity to ethanol revealed that the genetic pathways which regulate these responses are complex and that single genes can affect hyperactivity, turning, and sedation independently.
Different memory components are forgotten through distinct molecular mechanisms. In , the activation of 2 Rho GTPases (Rac1 and Cdc42), respectively, underlies the forgetting of an early labile memory (anesthesia-sensitive memory, ASM) and a form of consolidated memory (anesthesia-resistant memory, ARM). Here, we dissected the molecular mechanisms that tie Rac1 and Cdc42 to the different types of memory forgetting. We found that 2 WASP family proteins, SCAR/WAVE and WASp, act downstream of Rac1 and Cdc42 separately to regulate ASM and ARM forgetting in mushroom body neurons. Arp2/3 complex, which organizes branched actin polymerization, is a canonical downstream effector of WASP family proteins. However, we found that Arp2/3 complex is required in Cdc42/WASp-mediated ARM forgetting but not in Rac1/SCAR-mediated ASM forgetting. Instead, we identified that Rac1/SCAR may function with formin Diaphanous (Dia), a nucleator that facilitates linear actin polymerization, in ASM forgetting. The present study, complementing the previously identified Rac1/cofilin pathway that regulates actin depolymerization, suggests that Rho GTPases regulate forgetting by recruiting both actin polymerization and depolymerization pathways. Moreover, Rac1 and Cdc42 may regulate different types of memory forgetting by tapping into different actin polymerization mechanisms.
Understanding the principles of information processing in neural circuits requires systematic characterization of the participating cell types and their connections, and the ability to measure and perturb their activity. Genetic approaches promise to bring experimental access to complex neural systems, including genetic stalwarts such as the fly and mouse, but also to nongenetic systems such as primates. Together with anatomical and physiological methods, cell-type-specific expression of protein markers and sensors and transducers will be critical to construct circuit diagrams and to measure the activity of genetically defined neurons. Inactivation and activation of genetically defined cell types will establish causal relationships between activity in specific groups of neurons, circuit function, and animal behavior. Genetic analysis thus promises to reveal the logic of the neural circuits in complex brains that guide behaviors. Here we review progress in the genetic analysis of neural circuits and discuss directions for future research and development.
Tremendous progress has been made since Neuron published our Primer on genetic dissection of neural circuits 10 years ago. Since then, cell-type-specific anatomical, neurophysiological, and perturbation studies have been carried out in a multitude of invertebrate and vertebrate organisms, linking neurons and circuits to behavioral functions. New methods allow systematic classification of cell types and provide genetic access to diverse neuronal types for studies of connectivity and neural coding during behavior. Here we evaluate key advances over the past decade and discuss future directions.
The ad hoc genetic correlation between ethanol sensitivity and learning mechanisms in Drosophila could overemphasize a common process supporting both behaviors. To challenge directly the hypothesis that these mechanisms are singular, we examined the learning phenotypes of 10 new strains. Five of these have increased ethanol sensitivity, and the other 5 do not. We tested place and olfactory memory in each of these lines and found two new learning mutations. In one case, altering the tribbles gene, flies have a significantly reduced place memory, elevated olfactory memory, and normal ethanol response. In the second case, mutation of a gene we name ethanol sensitive with low memory (elm), place memory was not altered, olfactory memory was sharply reduced, and sensitivity to ethanol was increased. In sum, however, we found no overall correlation between ethanol sensitivity and place memory in the 10 lines tested. Furthermore, there was a weak but nonsignificant correlation between ethanol sensitivity and olfactory learning. Thus, mutations that alter learning and sensitivity to ethanol can occur independently of each other and this implies that the set of genes important for both ethanol sensitivity and learning is likely a subset of the genes important for either process.
Wild-type D. melanogaster males innately possess the ability to perform a multistep courtship ritual to conspecific females. The potential for this behavior is specified by the male-specific products of the fruitless (fru(M)) gene; males without fru(M) do not court females when held in isolation. We show that such fru(M) null males acquire the potential for courtship when grouped with other flies; they apparently learn to court flies with which they were grouped, irrespective of sex or species and retain this behavior for at least a week. The male-specific product of the doublesex gene (dsx(M)) is necessary and sufficient for the acquisition of the potential for such experience-dependent courtship. These results reveal a process that builds, via dsx(M) and social experience, the potential for a more flexible sexual behavior, which could be evolutionarily conserved as dsx-related genes that function in sexual development are found throughout the animal kingdom.
Summary Energy homeostasis requires precise measurement of the quantity and quality of ingested food. The vagus nerve innervates the gut and can detect diverse interoceptive cues, but the identity of the key sensory neurons and corresponding signals that regulate food intake remains unknown. Here, we use an approach for target-specific, single-cell RNA sequencing to generate a map of the vagal cell types that innervate the gastrointestinal tract. We show that unique molecular markers identify vagal neurons with distinct innervation patterns, sensory endings, and function. Surprisingly, we find that food intake is most sensitive to stimulation of mechanoreceptors in the intestine, whereas nutrient-activated mucosal afferents have no effect. Peripheral manipulations combined with central recordings reveal that intestinal mechanoreceptors, but not other cell types, potently and durably inhibit hunger-promoting AgRP neurons in the hypothalamus. These findings identify a key role for intestinal mechanoreceptors in the regulation of feeding.