Mapping chromatic pathways in the <i>Drosophila</i> visual system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Drosophila, color vision and wavelength-selective behaviors are mediated by the compound eye's narrow-spectrum photoreceptors R7 and R8 and their downstream medulla projection (Tm) neurons Tm5a, Tm5b, Tm5c, and Tm20 in the second optic neuropil or medulla. These chromatic Tm neurons project axons to a deeper optic neuropil, the lobula, which in insects has been implicated in processing and relaying color information to the central brain. The synaptic targets of the chromatic Tm neurons in the lobula are not known, however. Using a modified GFP reconstitution across synaptic partners (GRASP) method to probe connections between the chromatic Tm neurons and 28 known and novel types of lobula neurons, we identify anatomically the visual projection neurons LT11 and LC14 and the lobula intrinsic neurons Li3 and Li4 as synaptic targets of the chromatic Tm neurons. Single-cell GRASP analyses reveal that Li4 receives synaptic contacts from over 90% of all four types of chromatic Tm neurons, whereas LT11 is postsynaptic to the chromatic Tm neurons, with only modest selectivity and at a lower frequency and density. To visualize synaptic contacts at the ultrastructural level, we develop and apply a "two-tag" double-labeling method to label LT11's dendrites and the mitochondria in Tm5c's presynaptic terminals. Serial electron microscopic reconstruction confirms that LT11 receives direct contacts from Tm5c. This method would be generally applicable to map the connections of large complex neurons in Drosophila and other animals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".