4.3 Review

Evolution of olfactory circuits in insects

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00359-020-01399-6

关键词

Evolution; Olfaction; Neural circuits; Insects; Drosophila sechellia

资金

  1. Pew Scholars Program
  2. Searle Scholars Program
  3. Klingenstein-Simons Fellowship program
  4. NIH (National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders) [R00DC012069]
  5. NIH (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases) [DP2AI144246]
  6. New York Stem Cell Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent years have seen an explosion of interest in the evolution of neural circuits. Comparison of animals from different families, orders, and phyla reveals fascinating variation in brain morphology, circuit structure, and neural cell types. However, it can be difficult to connect the complex changes that occur across long evolutionary distances to behavior. Luckily, these changes accumulate through processes that should also be observable in recent time, making more tractable comparisons of closely related species relevant and complementary. Here, we review several decades of research on the evolution of insect olfactory circuits across short evolutionary time scales. We describe two well-studied systems, Drosophila sechellia flies and Heliothis moths, in detailed case studies. We then move through key types of circuit evolution, cataloging examples from other insects and looking for general patterns. The literature is dominated by changes in sensory neuron number and tuning at the periphery-often enhancing neural response to odorants with new ecological or social relevance. However, changes in the way olfactory information is processed by central circuits is clearly important in a few cases, and we suspect the development of genetic tools in non-model species will reveal a broad role for central circuit evolution. Moving forward, such tools should also be used to rigorously test causal links between brain evolution and behavior.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据