Brief Communication | Published:

Optogenetic inhibition of behavior with anion channelrhodopsins

Nature Methods volume 14, pages 271274 (2017) | Download Citation

Abstract

Optogenetics uses light exposure to manipulate physiology in genetically modified organisms. Abundant tools for optogenetic excitation are available, but the limitations of current optogenetic inhibitors present an obstacle to demonstrating the necessity of neuronal circuits. Here we show that anion channelrhodopsins can be used to specifically and rapidly inhibit neural systems involved in Drosophila locomotion, wing expansion, memory retrieval and gustation, thus demonstrating their broad utility in the circuit analysis of behavior.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Accessions

Primary accessions

NCBI Reference Sequence

References

  1. 1.

    , , , & Neuron 14, 341–351 (1995).

  2. 2.

    J. Neurobiol. 47, 81–92 (2001).

  3. 3.

    , , & Neuron 33, 15–22 (2002).

  4. 4.

    , , , & Nat. Neurosci. 8, 1263–1268 (2005).

  5. 5.

    et al. Nature 454, 217–220 (2008).

  6. 6.

    & Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 13, 251–266 (2012).

  7. 7.

    & Cell 121, 141–152 (2005).

  8. 8.

    et al. Nature 446, 633–639 (2007).

  9. 9.

    et al. Nature 463, 98–102 (2010).

  10. 10.

    et al. Science 344, 409–412 (2014).

  11. 11.

    , , & Science 344, 420–424 (2014).

  12. 12.

    , , , & Science 349, 647–650 (2015).

  13. 13.

    et al. Nat. Commun. 7, 10678 (2016).

  14. 14.

    et al. Nat. Methods 11, 338–346 (2014).

  15. 15.

    et al. eLife 3, e04580 (2014).

  16. 16.

    et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 5367–5372 (2014).

  17. 17.

    , , , & PLoS One 6, e29019 (2011).

  18. 18.

    , , , & Nat. Neurosci. 19, 554–556 (2016).

  19. 19.

    , & Biochem. Pharmacol. 115, 10–17 (2016).

  20. 20.

    & Nat. Neurosci. 19, 527–528 (2016).

  21. 21.

    & Brain Res. Gene Expr. Patterns 1, 73–82 (2001).

  22. 22.

    et al. J. Neurosci. 28, 14379–14391 (2008).

  23. 23.

    & PLoS One 6, e24531 (2011).

  24. 24.

    , , , & Neuron 69, 258–272 (2011).

  25. 25.

    et al. Science 274, 2104–2107 (1996).

  26. 26.

    Cell 87, 651–660 (1996).

  27. 27.

    , & Development 133, 2223–2232 (2006).

  28. 28.

    et al. Genetics 186, 735–755 (2010).

  29. 29.

    et al. Cell 139, 405–415 (2009).

  30. 30.

    et al. eLife 3, e02395 (2014).

  31. 31.

    , & Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 71, 708–712 (1974).

  32. 32.

    , , & Cell 67, 1145–1155 (1991).

  33. 33.

    , , , & PLoS One 3, e1896 (2008).

  34. 34.

    , , , & Neuron 32, 415–424 (2001).

  35. 35.

    et al. Neuron 40, 733–748 (2003).

  36. 36.

    , , & Cell 113, 261–273 (2003).

  37. 37.

    & J. Neurosci. 32, 15158–15168 (2012).

  38. 38.

    , , & Statistics with Confidence: Confidence Interval and Statistical Guidelines (BMJ Books, 2000).

  39. 39.

    & Nat. Methods 13, 108–109 (2016).

  40. 40.

    Understanding the New Statistics Effect Sizes, Confidence Intervals, and Meta-analysis (Routledge, 2012).

  41. 41.

    & Br. Med. J. (Clin. Res. Ed.) 292, 746–750 (1986).

  42. 42.

    Ann. Stat. 7, 1–26 (1979).

  43. 43.

    & Stat. Sci. 11, 189–212 (1996).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank J. Spudich (University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston) for providing the GtACR1 and GtACR2 sequences and plasmids; J.A. Veenstra (Université de Bordeaux) for the anti-Crz antibody; G. Rubin (Howard Hughes Medical Institute) and J. Park (University of Tennessee, Knoxville) for providing materials; S. Aw (Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology) for loan of the high-speed camera; G. Augustine for reading the manuscript; L. Robinson (Insight Editing London) for editing of the manuscript; and S.Y.H. Tan for drawing the behavior rig diagrams. F.M., S.O., J.Y.C. and A.C.-C. were supported by grant MOE-2013-T2-2-054 from the Ministry of Education; J.C.S. and A.C.-C. were supported by grants 1231AFG030 and 1431AFG120 from the A*STAR Joint Council Office. J.H. was supported by the A*STAR Scientific Scholars Fund. T.-W.K. was supported by the National Research Foundation Fellowship NRF-NRFF2015-06 and a block grant from the Temasek Life Sciences Laboratory. The authors were supported by a Biomedical Research Council block grant to the Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology. F.M., S.O., K.C. and A.C.-C. received support from the Duke-NUS Medical School, including the Integrated Biology and Medicine doctoral program (to K.C.).

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Program in Neuroscience and Behavioral Disorders, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore.

    • Farhan Mohammad
    • , Stanislav Ott
    • , Katarina Chlebikova
    • , Jia Yi Chua
    •  & Adam Claridge-Chang
  2. Institute for Molecular and Cell Biology, Agency for Science Technology and Research, Singapore.

    • James C Stewart
    • , Joses Ho
    •  & Adam Claridge-Chang
  3. Temasek Life Sciences Laboratory, Singapore.

    • Tong-Wey Koh
  4. Department of Physiology, National University of Singapore, Singapore.

    • Adam Claridge-Chang

Authors

  1. Search for Farhan Mohammad in:

  2. Search for James C Stewart in:

  3. Search for Stanislav Ott in:

  4. Search for Katarina Chlebikova in:

  5. Search for Jia Yi Chua in:

  6. Search for Tong-Wey Koh in:

  7. Search for Joses Ho in:

  8. Search for Adam Claridge-Chang in:

Contributions

Conceptualization, F.M. and A.C.-C.; methodology, F.M., J.C.S. and A.C.-C.; software, J.C.S. (CRITTA, LabView) and J.H. (Python); investigation, F.M. (transgenic design, genetics, falling, walking immobilization, wing expansion, eye toxicity, valence, PER and neuroanatomy), J.C.S. (falling and high-frame rate paralysis), S.O. (learning and survival), J.Y.C. (brain dissection, immunohistochemistry and microscopy), K.C. (PER) and T.-W.K. (electrophysiology); resources, J.C.S. (instrumentation); data analysis, J.H. (valence, electrophysiology), K.C. (PER), J.C.S. (paralysis, falling and walking immobilization), S.O. (STM) and F.M. (paralysis, valence and anatomy); writing original draft, F.M. and A.C.-C. with contributions from all authors; writing revision, F.M., S.O., J.C.S. and A.C.-C.; visualization, F.M., J.H., J.C.S., S.O., K.C. and A.C.-C.; supervision, A.C.-C.; project administration, A.C.-C.; funding acquisition, A.C.-C.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam Claridge-Chang.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Text and Figures

    Supplementary Figures 1–10

Videos

  1. 1.

    GtACR flies fall from a vertical surface when illuminated

    Flies expressing one of three optogenetic inhibitors in their cholinergic neurons (Cha-Gal4>UAS-GtACR1, Cha-Gal4>UAS-GtACR2 and ChaGal4>UAS-eNpHR) were illuminated with light from a projector. Cha>GtACR1 and Cha>GtACR2 flies fell from the vertical acrylic surface upon exposure to green or blue light respectively, and were immobilized. Cha>GtACR2 flies retained some motor activity while illuminated with blue light. Cha>eNpHR flies did not fall upon exposure to red light and remained mobile.

  2. 2.

    GtACR flies are immobilized by illumination

    A. Green light at 38 μW/mm2 rendered a Cha>GtACR1 fly immobile, though it regained some motor control during illumination. Green dot indicates when light was turned on. B. Illumination of a GtACR1/+ fly with 38 μW/mm2 green light had no effect. C. A Cha>GtACR2 fly was rendered completely paralyzed by illumination with 391 μW/mm2 blue light. Blue dot indicates when light was turned on. D. A GtACR2/+ fly was unaffected by illumination with 391 μW/mm2 blue light. E. While positioned 3 mm above an amber LED (approximately 1.9 mW/mm2), a Cha>eNpHR fly retained mobility, though it was paralyzed transiently when passing directly above the emitter. Light was on throughout this recording. F. A Cha>eNpHR fly was unaffected by amber illumination at 495 μW/mm2. Amber dot indicates when light was on.

  3. 3.

    Supplementary Video 3

    Cha>GtACR flies adopt a static pose during illumination (indicated by colored dots), but Cha>Chrimson flies have active seizures and adopt a tetanic pose with extended wings. Control animals were unaffected by projector light (green 92 μW/mm2; blue 67 μW/mm2; red 70 μW/mm2).

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.4148

Further reading