Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Evolution of a central neural circuit underlies Drosophila mate preferences

Nature volume 559, pages 564–569 (2018)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Courtship rituals serve to reinforce reproductive barriers between closely related species. Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans exhibit reproductive isolation, owing in part to the fact that D. melanogaster females produce 7,11-heptacosadiene, a pheromone that promotes courtship in D. melanogaster males but suppresses courtship in D. simulans males. Here we compare pheromone-processing pathways in D. melanogaster and D. simulans males to define how these sister species endow 7,11-heptacosadiene with the opposite behavioural valence to underlie species discrimination. We show that males of both species detect 7,11-heptacosadiene using homologous peripheral sensory neurons, but this signal is differentially propagated to P1 neurons, which control courtship behaviour. A change in the balance of excitation and inhibition onto courtship-promoting neurons transforms an excitatory pheromonal cue in D. melanogaster into an inhibitory cue in D. simulans. Our results reveal how species-specific pheromone responses can emerge from conservation of peripheral detection mechanisms and diversification of central circuitry, and demonstrate how flexible nodes in neural circuits can contribute to behavioural evolution.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Pheromone regulation of D. simulans courtship.
Fig. 2: Fruitless has a conserved role in male courtship.
Fig. 3: Conserved pheromonal tuning of Ppk23+ and Fru+ foreleg sensory neurons.
Fig. 4: Divergent pheromone responses in courtship-promoting P1 neurons.
Fig. 5: Differential propagation of ascending pheromone signals to P1 neurons.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bendesky, A. et al. The genetic basis of parental care evolution in monogamous mice. Nature 544, 434–439 (2017).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. McGrath, P. T. et al. Parallel evolution of domesticated Caenorhabditis species targets pheromone receptor genes. Nature 477, 321–325 (2011).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Weber, J. N., Peterson, B. K. & Hoekstra, H. E. Discrete genetic modules are responsible for complex burrow evolution in Peromyscus mice. Nature 493, 402–405 (2013).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ding, Y., Berrocal, A., Morita, T., Longden, K. D. & Stern, D. L. Natural courtship song variation caused by an intronic retroelement in an ion channel gene. Nature 536, 329–332 (2016).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hey, J. & Kliman, R. M. Population genetics and phylogenetics of DNA sequence variation at multiple loci within the Drosophila melanogaster species complex. Mol. Biol. Evol. 10, 804–822 (1993).

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Jallon, J.-M. & David, J. R. Variation in cuticular hydrocarbons among the eight species of the Drosophila melanogaster subgroup. Evolution 41, 294–302 (1987).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Shirangi, T. R., Dufour, H. D., Williams, T. M. & Carroll, S. B. Rapid evolution of sex pheromone-producing enzyme expression in Drosophila. PLoS Biol. 7, e1000168 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Billeter, J.-C., Atallah, J., Krupp, J. J., Millar, J. G. & Levine, J. D. Specialized cells tag sexual and species identity in Drosophila melanogaster. Nature 461, 987–991 (2009).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bastock, M. & Manning, A. The courtship of Drosophila melanogaster. Behaviour 8, 85–110 (1955).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fan, P. et al. Genetic and neural mechanisms that inhibit Drosophila from mating with other species. Cell 154, 89–102 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lu, B., LaMora, A., Sun, Y., Welsh, M. J. & Ben-Shahar, Y. ppk23-dependent chemosensory functions contribute to courtship behavior in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Genet. 8, e1002587 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Thistle, R., Cameron, P., Ghorayshi, A., Dennison, L. & Scott, K. Contact chemoreceptors mediate male–male repulsion and male–female attraction during Drosophila courtship. Cell 149, 1140–1151 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Toda, H., Zhao, X. & Dickson, B. J. The Drosophila female aphrodisiac pheromone activates ppk23 + sensory neurons to elicit male courtship behavior. Cell Rep. 1, 599–607 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Miyamoto, T. & Amrein, H. Suppression of male courtship by a Drosophila pheromone receptor. Nat. Neurosci. 11, 874–876 (2008).

  15. Coyne, J. A., Crittenden, A. P., Mah, K. & Maht, K. Genetics of a pheromonal difference contributing to reproductive isolation in Drosophila. Science 265, 1461–1464 (1994).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Stockinger, P., Kvitsiani, D., Rotkopf, S., Tirián, L. & Dickson, B. J. Neural circuitry that governs Drosophila male courtship behavior. Cell 121, 795–807 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Manoli, D. S. et al. Male-specific fruitless specifies the neural substrates of Drosophila courtship behaviour. Nature 436, 395–400 (2005).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Demir, E. & Dickson, B. J. fruitless splicing specifies male courtship behavior in Drosophila. Cell 121, 785–794 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cande, J., Stern, D. L., Morita, T., Prud’homme, B. & Gompel, N. Looking under the lamp post: neither fruitless nor doublesex has evolved to generate divergent male courtship in Drosophila. Cell Rep. 8, 363–370 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Tanaka, R., Higuchi, T., Kohatsu, S., Sato, K. & Yamamoto, D. Optogenetic activation of the fruitless-labeled circuitry in Drosophila subobscura males induces mating motor acts. J. Neurosci. 37, 11662–11674 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kallman, B. R., Kim, H. & Scott, K. Excitation and inhibition onto central courtship neurons biases Drosophila mate choice. eLife 4, e11188 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. von Philipsborn, A. C. et al. Neuronal control of Drosophila courtship song. Neuron 69, 509–522 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Pan, Y., Meissner, G. W. & Baker, B. S. Joint control of Drosophila male courtship behavior by motion cues and activation of male-specific P1 neurons. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 10065–10070 (2012).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Inagaki, H. K. et al. Optogenetic control of Drosophila using a red-shifted channelrhodopsin reveals experience-dependent influences on courtship. Nat. Methods 11, 325–332 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Clowney, E. J., Iguchi, S., Bussell, J. J., Scheer, E. & Ruta, V. Multimodal chemosensory circuits controlling male courtship in Drosophila. Neuron 87, 1036–1049 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kohatsu, S. & Yamamoto, D. Visually induced initiation of Drosophila innate courtship-like following pursuit is mediated by central excitatory state. Nat. Commun. 6, 6457 (2015).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Yu, J. Y., Kanai, M. I., Demir, E., Jefferis, G. S. X. E. & Dickson, B. J. Cellular organization of the neural circuit that drives Drosophila courtship behavior. Curr. Biol. 20, 1602–1614 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ding, Y. et al. Neural changes underlying rapid fly song evolution. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/238147 (2017).

  29. Kohatsu, S., Koganezawa, M. & Yamamoto, D. Female contact activates male-specific interneurons that trigger stereotypic courtship behavior in Drosophila. Neuron 69, 498–508 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Tierney, A. J. Evolutionary implications of neural circuit structure and function. Behav. Processes 35, 173–182 (1995).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Cande, J., Prud’homme, B. & Gompel, N. Smells like evolution: the role of chemoreceptor evolution in behavioral change. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 23, 152–158 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Bendesky, A. & Bargmann, C. I. Genetic contributions to behavioural diversity at the gene–environment interface. Nat. Rev. Genet. 12, 809–820 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Stern, D. L. The genetic causes of convergent evolution. Nat. Rev. Genet. 14, 751–764 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhang, S. X., Rogulja, D. & Crickmore, M. A. Dopaminergic circuitry underlying mating drive. Neuron 91, 168–181 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. West-Eberhard, M. J. Developmental plasticity and the origin of species differences. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, (Suppl 1), 6543–6549 (2005).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Stern, D. L. et al. Genetic and transgenic reagents for Drosophila simulans. G3 7, 1339–1347 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Mellert, D. J., Knapp, J.-M., Manoli, D. S., Meissner, G. W. & Baker, B. S. Midline crossing by gustatory receptor neuron axons is regulated by fruitless, doublesex and the Roundabout receptors. Development 137, 323–332 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Agrawal, S., Safarik, S. & Dickinson, M. The relative roles of vision and chemosensation in mate recognition of Drosophila melanogaster. J. Exp. Biol. 217, 2796–2805 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kistler, K. E., Vosshall, L. B. & Matthews, B. J. Genome engineering with CRISPR–Cas9 in the mosquito Aedes aegypti. Cell Rep. 11, 51–60 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Gratz, S. J. et al. Highly specific and efficient CRISPR/Cas9-catalyzed homology-directed repair in Drosophila. Genetics 196, 961–971 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Bassett, A. R., Tibbit, C., Ponting, C. P. & Liu, J. L. Highly efficient targeted mutagenesis of Drosophila with the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Cell Rep. 4, 220–228 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Thorpe, H. M., Wilson, S. E. & Smith, M. C. M. Control of directionality in the site-specific recombination system of the Streptomyces phage φC31. Mol. Microbiol. 38, 232–241 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Venken, K. J. T. & Bellen, H. J. Transgenesis upgrades for Drosophila melanogaster. Development 134, 3571–3584 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Chen, T.-W. et al. Ultrasensitive fluorescent proteins for imaging neuronal activity. Nature 499, 295–300 (2013).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Klapoetke, N. C. et al. Independent optical excitation of distinct neural populations. Nat. Methods 11, 338–346 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Brideau, N. J., Flores, H. A., Wang, J., Maheshwari, S., Wang, X. & Barbash, D. A. Two Dobzhansky–Muller genes interact to cause hybrid lethality in Drosophila. Science 314, 1292–1295 (2006).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Stern, D. L. Tagmentation-based mapping (TagMap) of mobile DNA genomic insertion sites. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/037762 (2017).

  48. Vijayan, V., Thistle, R., Liu, T., Starostina, E. & Pikielny, C. W. Drosophila pheromone-sensing neurons expressing the ppk25 ion channel subunit stimulate male courtship and female receptivity. PLoS Genet. 10, e1004238 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Maimon, G., Straw, A. D. & Dickinson, M. H. Active flight increases the gain of visual motion processing in Drosophila. Nat. Neurosci. 13, 393–399 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Seelig, J. D. et al. Two-photon calcium imaging from head-fixed Drosophila during optomotor walking behavior. Nat. Methods 7, 535–540 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Hill, R. G., Simmonds, M. A. & Straughan, D. W. Antagonism of GABA by picrotoxin in the feline cerebral cortex. Br. J. Pharmacol. 44, 807–809 (1972).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Crossman, A. R., Walker, R. J. & Woodruff, G. N. Picrotoxin antagonism of γ-aminobutyric acid inhibitory responses and synaptic inhibition in the rat substantia nigra. Br. J. Pharmacol. 49, 696–698 (1973).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Cohn, R., Morantte, I. & Ruta, V. Coordinated and compartmentalized neuromodulation shapes sensory processing in Drosphila. Cell 165, 715–729 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Ruta, V. et al. A dimorphic pheromone circuit in Drosophila from sensory input to descending output. Nature 468, 686–690 (2010).

    Article  ADS  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Y. Ding for D. simulans CsChrimson flies; P. Pires-Mussells and J. Marquina-Solis for assistance on initial experiments; E. Clowney, B. Matthews, K. Kistler, J. Petrillo and G. Maimon for technical advice; and E. Clowney, S. Datta, B. Noro, L. Vosshall, S. Shaham, C. McBride and members of the Ruta laboratory for discussion and comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by the New York Stem Cell Foundation, the Pew Foundation, the McKnight Foundation, the Irma T. Hirschl Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the National Institutes of Health (DP2 NS0879422013) to V.R. and a National Science Foundation and Kavli Fellowship to L.F.S.

Reviewer information

Nature thanks B. Prud’homme and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Neurophysiology and Behavior, The Rockefeller University, New York, NY, USA

    Laura F. Seeholzer, Max Seppo & Vanessa Ruta

  2. Janelia Research Campus, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Ashburn, VA, USA

    David L. Stern

Authors
  1. Laura F. Seeholzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Max Seppo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David L. Stern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vanessa Ruta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

L.F.S. and V.R. conceived and designed the study. L.F.S. and M.S. performed behavioural experiments and generated receptor mutants and fru alleles in D. simulans. D.L.S. generated R71G01, R25E04 and GCaMP strains in D. simulans. M.S. performed immunohistochemistry experiments. L.F.S. performed functional and anatomic tracing experiments. L.F.S. and V.R. analysed data and wrote the manuscript with input from all the authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vanessa Ruta.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data figures and tables

Extended Data Fig. 1 Pheromone regulation of D. simulans courtship.

Mutant males and males lacking foreleg tarsi still court, but display altered courtship preferences. a, Courtship indices of males with foreleg tarsi intact (+) or surgically removed (−). Data are replotted from Fig. 1b. b, c, Courtship indices of D. melanogaster (b) and D. simulans (c) males with either foreleg tarsi or rear leg tarsi ablated towards D. melanogaster or D. simulans females. d, Schematic of CRISPR–Cas9-induced mutations (top) in Gr32a (left) and ppk23 (right) gene loci. Cas9 was targeted by gRNA to the first exon (cut site) of Gr32a or ppk23 resulting in a 36-bp insertion/2-bp deletion in the Gr32a coding sequence and 90-bp insertion into the ppk23 coding sequence. Both indels generated in-frame stop codons (bottom, asterisk highlighted red in resulting amino acid sequence). Forward (F) and reverse (R) genotyping primers are marked with a line. e, Courtship indices (CI) towards females of different Drosophila species by wild-type (WT), Gr32a−/− and ppk23−/− D. simulans males. The major pheromone carried by each female is listed. f, Courtship indices of D. simulans males towards D. melanogaster and D. simulans females in preference assays. Data are replotted from Fig. 1d. g, Courtship indices of D. simulans males towards D. simulans females perfumed with 7,11-HD (7, green) or ethanol (E, EtOH, blue). Data are replotted from Fig. 1e. The statistical test performed in e was a Kruskal–Wallis test, and different letters mark significant differences. Data are mean and s.d., with individual data points shown. Lines connect courtship indices of the same male towards the different female targets in a preference assay. Because the male can only court one female at a time, the paired points are inherently interdependent on each other, therefore inappropriate for statistical analysis. See Supplementary Table 1 for details of statistical analyses.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Anatomic and functional conservation of Fru+ neurons.

a, Left, schematic of chromosomal location of fruattP and fru−/− integration sites in D. simulans and previously generated fruGal4 and fruLexA transgenes in D. melanogaster; right, schematic of attP oligonucleotide integrated into the fru intron to generate fruattP allele and subsequent integration of attB plasmids (right). ExF and ExR are primers located in the genome and InR is a primer located inside the transgene. b–g, Maximum intensity confocal (b–d) and two-photon stacks (e–g) of anatomically defined regions of Fru+ neuropil in D. melanogaster fruGal4>UAS-GCaMP and D. simulans fruGFP males: LPC (b, c), SEZ (d), antennal lobe (e), lateral horn (f) and mushroom body γ-lobes (g). Scale bars, 10 μm. h, D. simulans fru−/− was generated by integrating an oligonucleotide that deleted codons 1 and 2 of the first exon, introducing a frame-shift mutation. i, Male–male chaining indices of wild-type (+/+) and fru−/− males. A paired t-test was used, data are mean and s.d. and individual data points are shown. See Supplementary Table 1 for details of statistical analyses.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Conserved anatomy and functional tuning of Ppk23+Fruitless+ foreleg sensory neurons.

a–c, ppk23 promoter expression in D. melanogaster and D. simulans males in forelegs (a), ventral nerve cord (VNC, b) and brain (c). GFP, green; differential interference contrast, grey; neuropil counterstain, magenta. a, Forelegs (top left) with paired soma (bottom left) and quantification of number of Ppk23+ sensory neuron soma in the first three tarsal segments of the foreleg (right). d, Ppk23 neuron innervation in the first thoracic ganglion of the VNC of D. simulans females. Ppk23+ sensory neurons display a characteristic sexually dimorphic expression pattern in the VNC, where they do not cross the midline in females, but do in males. e, Schematic of VNC imaging preparation (left); functional responses evoked by individual taps of a female abdomen in Fru+ neurons (middle) and Ppk23+ neurons (far right) in the VNC of wild-type and ppk23−/− D. melanogaster and D. simulans males. Data replotted from Fig. 3b–d. f, Schematic of Ppk23+ somatic imaging preparation (left) and functional responses of the paired neurons (cell A and B, see Methods) within a sensory bristle stimulated with 7,11-HD or ethanol (middle); comparison of 7,11-HD responses in Ppk23+ soma across species (far right). Statistical tests used were an unpaired t-test (a), a Kruskal–Wallis test, for which different letters mark significant differences (e), and paired and unpaired t-tests (f). Scale bars, 10 μm. See Supplementary Table 1 for details of statistical analyses.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Behavioural and functional analysis of P1 neurons.

a–f, Anatomy (a) and optogenetic behavioural manipulations (b–f) of P1 neurons using R71G01-Gal4 to drive the expression of CsChrimson. b, Courtship indices (top, right) towards a rotating magnet by D. melanogaster males pre-, during, and post-P1 neuron optogenetic stimulation. Fraction of male flies courting (bottom; grey boxes indicate bright light illumination, see Methods). c, Courtship indices towards a magnet moving at different speeds during optogenetic P1 neuron stimulation in D. simulans males. d–f, Comparison of courtship indices towards magnet (d), D. simulans female (e), or D. melanogaster female (f) by D. simulans males of denoted genotypes, either fed or not fed retinal. g, Experimental set-up used to measure pheromone responses in the P1 neurons in vivo (top left) and overlay of the Fru+ (green) neurons and fasciculated P1 neuron processes (magenta). The white boxes indicate the approximate ROI used to image P1 responses. h–j, Functional responses evoked by individual taps of a female abdomen in P1 neurons (h) and Fru+ neurons in the LPC (i, j) of wild-type and ppk23−/− D.melanogaster and D. simulans males (data replotted from Fig. 4e, f). Statistical tests used were the Kruskal–Wallis test (b, d–f, h–j) and a one-way ANOVA (c). Data are mean and s.d., with individual data points shown. See Supplementary Table 1 for details of statistical analyses.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Anatomy of P1, vAB3 and mAL neurons in D. simulans and D. melanogaster males.

a–c, Detailed anatomic images of P1 neurons (a), vAB3 neurons (b) and mAL neurons (c). Schematic of neural anatomy (left), Texas-Red dextran dye-fill (red) in D. simulans fruGFP (green) males (middle-left), magnified view of labelled neurons in the LPC showing dye-filled neurons (red) and Fru+ neurons (green) or just dye-filled neurons (black, middle-right) and photoactivated neurons in D. melanogaster LPC (black, right). d, Antibody staining of D. simulans Fru+ neurons (anti-GFP, green) with anti-GABA (red) in the SEZ and the LPC demonstrating that mAL neurons are GABAergic and thus inhibitory. Scale bars, 10 μm.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Pheromone responses in central neurons of D. melanogaster and D. simulans males.

a, Schematic of in vivo preparation used to measure pheromone responses in vAB3 processes in the brain (top). Representative fluorescence increase of vAB3 responses in a D. melanogaster male evoked by tapping a D. melanogaster female (bottom left). GCaMP was expressed in vAB3 neurons using the AbdB-Gal4 driver. Anatomy of fasciculated vAB3 processes co-labelled by fruGal4 (green) and AbdB-Gal4 (magenta) in the same in vivo preparation used for imaging (right). The white box indicates the approximate ROI analysed for functional imaging. b–d, Functional responses evoked by the taste of female pheromones in the vAB3 processes of wild-type and ppk23−/− males. b, Functional responses evoked by individual taps in vAB3 neurons in D. melanogaster labelled using AbdB-Gal4. c, Average responses of vAB3 neurons in ppk23−/− D. melanogaster and D. simulans males in response to the taste of D. melanogaster (m) and D. simulans (s) females. GCaMP was expressed in vAB3 neurons using fruGal4. d, Functional responses evoked by individual taps in vAB3 neurons in wild-type and ppk23−/− mutant males. Data replotted from Fig. 5c and Extended Data Fig. 6c. e, Expression of 25E04-Gal4>UAS-GCaMP (green) with neuropil counterstain (magenta) in the brains of D. melanogaster (left) and D. simulans (right) males. f, Courtship indices towards conspecific females during optogenetic activation of mAL neurons in D. simulans males with parental controls. g, Functional responses evoked by individual taps in mAL neurons. Data replotted from Fig. 5d. h, Average ΔF/F responses in Fru+ neurons of the LPC evoked by the taste of a female before and after local injection of picrotoxin, a GABAA receptor antagonist, into the LPC. In males of both species, application of picrotoxin increased responses only to D. melanogaster female stimuli. Lines connect average functional responses in the same male towards the different female targets. Statistical tests used were the Kruskal–Wallis test, in which different letters mark significant differences (b, d, f, g), and the paired t-test (c, h). Data are mean and s.d., with individual data points shown. See Supplementary Table 1 for details of statistical analyses.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Functional responses of Fru+ neurons to direct vAB3 stimulation in D. melanogaster and D. simulans males.

a, Schematic and representative image depicting direct stimulation of vAB3 neurons by iontophoresis of neurotransmitter onto their dendrites within the VNC. Maximum intensity z-projection (top) and single z-plane (bottom) showing electrode placement in the VNC. The electrode is filled with neurotransmitter and Texas-red dye (red) to enable precise targeting in the Fru+ neuropil (green). b, Representative multi-plane fluorescence increase of Fru+ brain neurons in D. simulans males when the VNC is stimulated with acetylcholine (left), glutamate (middle) and saline (right) iontophoresis. c, To test the necessity of vAB3 in propagating signals from the VNC to the higher brain, we compared response profiles in the brain before severing vAB3 (black), after severing a nearby Fru+ axon (mock control, blue) and then after severing vAB3 axons (orange) in D. melanogaster males (top) and D. simulans males (bottom). Representative multi-plane fluorescence increase of Fru+ neurons (left) shows the loss of evoked functional responses in the brain after severing vAB3. The graph (middle) depicts the relationship between average ΔF/F responses in vAB3 and mAL. Average ΔF/F responses of vAB3 (green) and mAL (red) neurons evoked by vAB3 stimulation, before and after severing vAB3 (right). Responses were lost in both neural populations in both species after vAB3 was severed but not in the mock control. d, The relationship of functional responses in the SEZ and LPC of D. melanogaster and D. simulans males evoked by direct vAB3 stimulation. The dots on the graph represent different stimulation intensities and the trend lines relate the responses of individual D. melanogaster (green) and D. simulans (blue) males. e, Left, the response of vAB3 (top) and mAL (bottom) axonal tracts in response to vAB3 stimulation in D. melanogaster (green) and D. simulans (blue) males. Coloured lines represent single stimulations and black lines represent the average. Right, peak ΔF/F plotted with coloured dots representing the average response per fly and data are mean and s.d. Individual data points are shown. f, g, Comparison of vAB3-evoked responses in D. melanogaster and D. simulans males in vAB3 neurons (f) and P1 neurons (g) before (+) and after (−) mAL severing. Statistical tests used were the Kruskal–Wallis test, in which different letters mark significant differences (c, f, g), and an unpaired t-test (e). Scale bars, 10 μm. See Supplementary Table 1 for details of statistical analyses.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Tables

This file contains Supplementary Table 1 which contains the genotypes for all experiments and details of the statistical analyses, and Supplementary Table 2 containing a list of primers used for cloning, genotyping and CRISPR mutagenesis.

Reporting Summary

Video 1

Optogenetic activation of P1 neurons in D. simulans (71G01-Gal4 >UAS-CsChrimson) is sufficient to induce courtship of a rotating magnet.

Video 2

In vivo imaging of the lateral protocereberal complex (LPC) in a D. melanogaster fruGal4>UAS-GCaMP male in response to the taste of a D. melanogaster female.

Video 3

In vivo imaging of the lateral protocereberal complex (LPC) in a D. melanogaster fruGal4>UAS-GCaMP male in response to the taste of a D. simulans female. Male is the same as in Supplementary Video 2.

Video 4

In vivo imaging of the lateral protocereberal complex (LPC) in a D. simulans fruGal4 >UAS-GCaMP male in response to the taste of a D. simulans female.

Video 5

In vivo imaging of the lateral protocereberal complex (LPC) in a D. simulans fruGal4>UAS-GCaMP male in response to the taste of a D. melanogaster female. Male is the same as in Supplementary Video 4.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seeholzer, L.F., Seppo, M., Stern, D.L. et al. Evolution of a central neural circuit underlies Drosophila mate preferences. Nature 559, 564–569 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0322-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0322-9

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing