Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32142695›Full record

ArticleCurrent biology : CB2020

Spatial Comparisons of Mechanosensory Information Govern the Grooming Sequence in Drosophila.

Neil Zhang, Li Guo, Julie H Simpson

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current biology : CB, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Mechanosensory and command contributions to thebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Neil ZhangDepartment of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology and Neuroscience Research Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA.
Li GuoDepartment of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology and Neuroscience Research Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA.
Julie H SimpsonDepartment of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology and Neuroscience Research Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA. Electronic address: jhsimpson@ucsb.edu.

Funding

Sensory control of a motor sequenceR01NS110866 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA · PI SIMPSON, JULIE H · 2019 to 2023
$1.9M
Neural circuit motifs enabling sequential selection of motor programsR56NS102416 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA · PI SIMPSON, JULIE H · 2018 to 2018
$384k
Howard Hughes Medical InstituteNINDS NIH HHS R01 NS110866NINDS NIH HHS R56 NS102416
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animals integrate information from different sensory modalities, body parts, and time points to inform behavioral choice, but the relevant sensory comparisons and the underlying neural circuits are still largely unknown. We use the grooming behavior of Drosophila melanogaster as a model to investigate the sensory comparisons that govern a motor sequence. Flies perform grooming movements spontaneously, but when covered with dust, they clean their bodies following an anterior-to-posterior sequence. After investigating different sensory modalities that could detect dust, we focus on mechanosensory bristle neurons, whose optogenetic activation induces a similar sequence. Computational modeling predicts that higher sensory input strength to the head will cause anterior grooming to occur first. We test this prediction using an optogenetic competition assay whereby two targeted light beams independently activate mechanosensory bristle neurons on different body parts. We find that the initial choice of grooming movement is determined by the ratio of sensory inputs to different body parts. In dust-covered flies, sensory inputs change as a result of successful cleaning movements. Simulations from our model suggest that this change results in sequence progression. One possibility is that flies perform frequent comparisons between anterior and posterior sensory inputs, and the changing ratios drive different behavior choices. Alternatively, flies may track the temporal change in sensory input to a given body part to measure cleaning effectiveness. The first hypothesis is supported by our optogenetic competition experiments: iterative spatial comparisons of sensory inputs between body parts is essential for organizing grooming movements in sequence.

Indexed as

GroomingMechanotransduction, CellularAnimalsDrosophila melanogasterMaleNeuronsOptogeneticsaction selectiondrosophilamechanosensationmotor sequenceneural circuitssensory comparison

Identifiers

PMID32142695
PMCPMC7184881

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.