Deep conservation of head direction circuits in bees, ants and flies
Sayre, M. E.; Gillet, V.; Ceberg, N.; Badalamente, G.; Pinzon-Rodriguez, A.; Griggs, N.; Serratosa Capdevila, L.; Roberts, R. V.; Sundberg Gunnarsson, E.; Szadaj, F.; Ellendula, S.; Honkanen, A.; Narendra, A.; Heinze, S.
Show abstract
To navigate, animal brains must continuously estimate the bodys heading in space and compare it with internal goals to guide movement. In the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster a neural circuit in the central complex of the brain serves as an internal compass, exploiting a network architecture called a ring attractor1, 2. While this region is highly conserved and involved in navigation in many insects3, 4, it remains unclear whether the fly circuit represents a general blueprint for head direction computation, or whether different ecologies have driven distinct circuit solutions. Using synaptic-resolution circuit mapping, we identified homologous head direction networks in bees and ants and compared them to the fly circuit. We show that the insect head direction network is conserved across at least 300 million years of evolution. At the level of cell types and projection patterns, all studied species share a nearly identical neural layout, both qualitatively and quantitatively. At the synaptic level, however, the fly and bee circuits differed fundamentally. The distinct wiring principles of homologous neurons expose highly evolvable elements within this otherwise stable circuit. Using these differences in circuit architecture to constrain computational models, we show that both the bee and fly circuits can effectively function as ring attractors with similar, yet distinct, properties. These results demonstrate that complex neural circuits can remain stable over many hundreds of millions of years, while still offering access points for evolution to flexibly adjust neural computations to changing ecological demands, illustrating how evolution balances stability and flexibility in brain circuits.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.