Polyadic synapses introduce unique wiring architectures in T5 cells of Drosophila

Polyadic synapses introduce unique wiring architectures in T5 cells of Drosophila | bioRxiv /* */ /* */ <!-- <!-- /*! * yepnope1.5.4 * (c) WTFPL, GPLv2 */ (function(a,b,c){function d(a){return"[object Function]"==o.call(a)}function e(a){return"string"==typeof a}function f(){}function g(a){return!a||"loaded"==a||"complete"==a||"uninitialized"==a}function h(){var a=p.shift();q=1,a?a.t?m(function(){("c"==a.t?B.injectCss:B.injectJs)(a.s,0,a.a,a.x,a.e,1)},0):(a(),h()):q=0}function i(a,c,d,e,f,i,j){function k(b){if(!o&&g(l.readyState)&&(u.r=o=1,!q&&h(),l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=null,b)){"img"!=a&&m(function(){t.removeChild(l)},50);for(var d in y[c])y[c].hasOwnProperty(d)&&y[c][d].onload()}}var j=j||B.errorTimeout,l=b.createElement(a),o=0,r=0,u={t:d,s:c,e:f,a:i,x:j};1===y[c]&&(r=1,y[c]=[]),"object"==a?l.data=c:(l.src=c,l.type=a),l.width=l.height="0",l.onerror=l.onload=l.onreadystatechange=function(){k.call(this,r)},p.splice(e,0,u),"img"!=a&&(r||2===y[c]?(t.insertBefore(l,s?null:n),m(k,j)):y[c].push(l))}function j(a,b,c,d,f){return q=0,b=b||"j",e(a)?i("c"==b?v:u,a,b,this.i++,c,d,f):(p.splice(this.i++,0,a),1==p.length&&h()),this}function k(){var a=B;return a.loader={load:j,i:0},a}var l=b.documentElement,m=a.setTimeout,n=b.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],o={}.toString,p=[],q=0,r="MozAppearance"in l.style,s=r&&!!b.createRange().compareNode,t=s?l:n.parentNode,l=a.opera&&"[object Opera]"==o.call(a.opera),l=!!b.attachEvent&&!l,u=r?"object":l?"script":"img",v=l?"script":u,w=Array.isArray||function(a){return"[object Array]"==o.call(a)},x=[],y={},z={timeout:function(a,b){return b.length&&(a.timeout=b[0]),a}},A,B;B=function(a){function b(a){var a=a.split("!"),b=x.length,c=a.pop(),d=a.length,c={url:c,origUrl:c,prefixes:a},e,f,g;for(f=0;f<d;f++)g=a[f].split("="),(e=z[g.shift()])&&(c=e(c,g));for(f=0;f<b;f++)c=x[f](c);return c}function g(a,e,f,g,h){var i=b(a),j=i.autoCallback;i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift(),i.bypass||(e&&(e=d(e)?e:e[a]||e[g]||e[a.split("/").pop().split("?")[0]]),i.instead?i.instead(a,e,f,g,h):(y[i.url]?i.noexec=!0:y[i.url]=1,f.load(i.url,i.forceCSS||!i.forceJS&&"css"==i.url.split(".").pop().split("?").shift()?"c":c,i.noexec,i.attrs,i.timeout),(d(e)||d(j))&&f.load(function(){k(),e&&e(i.origUrl,h,g),j&&j(i.origUrl,h,g),y[i.url]=2})))}function h(a,b){function c(a,c){if(a){if(e(a))c||(j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}),g(a,j,b,0,h);else if(Object(a)===a)for(n in m=function(){var b=0,c;for(c in a)a.hasOwnProperty(c)&&b++;return b}(),a)a.hasOwnProperty(n)&&(!c&&!--m&&(d(j)?j=function(){var a=[].slice.call(arguments);k.apply(this,a),l()}:j[n]=function(a){return function(){var b=[].slice.call(arguments);a&&a.apply(this,b),l()}}(k[n])),g(a[n],j,b,n,h))}else!c&&l()}var h=!!a.test,i=a.load||a.both,j=a.callback||f,k=j,l=a.complete||f,m,n;c(h?a.yep:a.nope,!!i),i&&c(i)}var i,j,l=this.yepnope.loader;if(e(a))g(a,0,l,0);else if(w(a))for(i=0;i (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];var j=d.createElement(s);var dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.src='//www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;j.type='text/javascript';j.async=true;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-M677548'); Skip to main content Home About Submit ALERTS / RSS Search for this keyword Advanced Search New Results Polyadic synapses introduce unique wiring architectures in T5 cells of Drosophila View ORCID Profile Eleni Samara , Alexander Borst doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.04.668437 Eleni Samara 1 Max Planck Institute for Biological Intelligence, Department of Circuits-Computation-Models , Am Klopferspitz 18, 82152 Planegg, Germany 2 Institute for Translational Neuroscience, Department of Neuroscience, NYU Grossman School of Medicine , 435 East 30th Street, 10016 New York NY, USA Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site ORCID record for Eleni Samara For correspondence: eleni.samara{at}bi.mpg.de Alexander Borst 1 Max Planck Institute for Biological Intelligence, Department of Circuits-Computation-Models , Am Klopferspitz 18, 82152 Planegg, Germany Find this author on Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for this author on this site Abstract Full Text Info/History Metrics Preview PDF Abstract Connectomes provide neuronal wiring diagrams and allow for investigating the detailed synaptic morphology of each connection. In the visual system of Drosophila , T5 cells are the primary motion-sensing neurons in the OFF-pathway. On their dendrites, they receive input from the excitatory Tm1, Tm2, Tm4, Tm9 and the inhibitory CT1 neurons in a spatial arrangement which depends on their preferred direction. This connectivity, however, has not yet been investigated with respect to specific types of polyadic synapses which are known to be abundant in the fly nervous system. In this study, we use the FlyWire database and identify that Tm and CT1 cells wire on T5a dendrites via eight polyadic synapse types. We then explore the distribution of the different synapse types on T5a dendrites and find differences in their spatial patterns. Finally, we show that the polyadic morphology is setting a directional wiring architecture at the T5 network level. Our work showcases the complexity that polyadic synapses introduce in T5 connectivity. Introduction One of the major goals in Neuroscience is to dissect structure-function relationships in neuronal circuits. This goal can be reached more easily by gaining access to brain- wide neuronal connectivity, namely the connectome. Recently, a female adult brain wiring diagram of Drosophila melanogaster was completed from electron-microscope reconstructions [ 1 – 4 ]. The dataset offers morphological access to approximately 10 5 neurons and provides information on their connectivity via approximately 10 8 chemical synapses. Interestingly, the majority of these chemical synapses are polyadic, i.e. one presynaptic site forms connections with multiple postsynaptic sites. Therefore, polyadic synapses introduce a diverging connection at the single bouton level. Polyads are widely encountered in invertebrates [ 5 ], including the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans [ 6 ], the chordate Ciona intestinalis [ 7 ] and the annelid Malacoceros fuliginosus [ 8 ], and are also found in vertebrates as in the cat retina [ 9 ]. In Drosophila melanogaster , the polyadic chemical synapse morphology prevails in the early visual processing center of the brain, the optic lobe. While the role of polyads in synchronizing the postsynaptic neurons was suggested in C. elegans [ 6 ], the functional implications of polyadic morphology in visual circuits of the fruit fly still remain unknown. Motion detection is a fundamental visual modality for the navigation of Drosophila , corroborated by the detailed study of circuits that compute directional information from either luminance increments (ON-motion pathway) or luminance decrements (OFF- motion pathway) for the past two decades [ 10 – 13 ]. T5 bushy cells are the elementary motion detectors in the OFF pathway and exist in four morphologically distinct subtypes a, b, c and d, where each subtype has its dendrite oriented into one of the four cardinal directions [ 14 ]. Aligned with their morphology, each subtype responds to either front-to-back, back-to-front, upward or downward motion, respectively [ 12 ]. T5 directional responses arise from the spatial and temporal offset observed among their cholinergic Tm1, Tm2, Tm4 and Tm9 and GABAergic CT1 input neurons [ 15 – 24 ] and the nonlinear interactions between them [ 25 – 27 ]. Nonetheless, the role of polyadic synapses in T5 wiring and consequently in T5 computation has not been addressed so far. Here, we study the polyadic synapse morphology in Tm1-, Tm2-, Tm4-, Tm9- and CT1-to-T5a connections and identify their wiring via different polyadic types. We then explore the T5a dendritic distributions of the different polyadic types. Finally, we show that polyadic synapses introduce a directional wiring motif at the T5 network level. Materials and methods Data and code availability This paper analyzes an online open-access dataset via the FlyWire interface (flywire.ai)[ 1 – 4 ]. Raw data for analysis is publicly available at the Edmond Open Research Data Repository of the Max Planck Society. Any additional information required to reanalyze the data reported in this paper is available from the corresponding author upon request. Synapse proofreading A subsequent version to the 783 public release dataset (FAFB) version was analyzed via FlyWire. The upstream circuitry (Tm1, Tm2, Tm4, Tm9, CT1) of five reconstructed T5a dendrites from the dorsal part of the right optic lobe were identified via Codex (synapse threshold≥5) as well as by the ‘Fly connectivity viewer’ in the FlyWire interface (no synapse threshold). Our analysis included neuronal inputs identified by both approaches. Codex cell type annotations were used together with morphological information [14–16,22] for the final cell type identification. Neuronal reconstructions were primarily performed by FlyWire users. Synapse number Buhmann predictions [ 28 ] between the T5a neuron of interest and its respective input neurons were acquired from FlyWire’s ‘Fly connectivity viewer’. Cleft score was set to 50, so as to eliminate synaptic redundancy resulting from the combination of synaptic connections between the same neurons when their presynaptic locations are within 100nm 2 . Then, we manually proofread chemical synapses based on the existence of four morphological markers: a. synaptic vesicles, b. protein dense T-bar structure, c. synaptic cleft, and d. postsynaptic densities (or postsynaptic domains). Synapse coordinates (x,y,z) were allocated to the presynaptic T-bar and then compared to the automatic synapse coordinates from Codex corresponding to postsynaptic sites. In cases of multiple release sites (active zones) each identified with a T-bar [ 29 ], only the coordinates of one T-bar were included in our dataset (as in Fig S1C ). Complex synaptic cases and their proofreading outcome are extensively described in Fig S1A-D . Most orphan twigs (non-traced dendritic spines) belonging to the same postsynapse with the T5a dendritic spine of analysis were traced back to their neuron of origin for the purposes of this study. Dendritic spines that could not be traced back to their neuron of origin were classified as non- traced and could belong to T5 cells or other cell types ( Fig 1J ). All synapses in this study correspond to manually proofread synapses. Download figure Open in new tab Figure S1. Synaptic proofreading in Tm1-, Tm2-, Tm4-, Tm9-, CT1-to-T5 synapses (A) Electron microscopy snapshot of one polyadic CT1-T5a synapse at a single z-plane (flywire.ai). Asterisks indicate the two T5a dendritic spines at the same CT1 presynaptic site. (B) Electron microscopy snapshot of one polyadic Tm2-T5a synapse at two sequential z- planes (flywire.ai). Asterisks indicate the two T5a dendritic spines at the same Tm2 presynaptic site. (C) Electron microscopy snapshot of one polyadic Tm1-T5a synapse at a single z-plane (flywire.ai). Asterisk indicates the three presynaptic T-bars. (D) Electron microscopy snapshot of two polyadic Tm1-T5a synapses at a single z-plane (flywire.ai). Asterisks indicate the two presynaptic T-bars. (E) Average number per neuronal input type of dendritic spines in Tm1-, Tm2-, Tm4-, Tm9- and CT1-to-T5a polyadic synapses of analysis. The normality of distribution was assessed with the use of Shapiro-Wilk test. Friedman test followed by Dunn’s post hoc test. Data is mean ± SEM. (F) Total number of input neurons per T5 dendrite of analysis. Data is mean ± SEM. (G) T5a posterior-anterior dendritic distribution in the three-dimensional embedding in LO1 (flywire.ai). Download figure Open in new tab Figure 1. Polyadic Tm1-, Tm2-, Tm4-, Tm9-, CT1-to-T5a synapses (A) Schematic representation of the circuit of analysis in the right optic lobe of the fruit fly brain (flywire.ai, Table S1) . (B) Dendritic ramifications in medulla layers and axonal terminals in lobula (LO) layers of Tm1, Tm2, Tm4 and Tm9 cells (orange). Dendritic ramifications in medulla layer 10 and lobula layer 1 (LO1) of CT1 cell (green). T5a dendrites in LO1 (blue). FlyWire IDs as in (A). (C) Electron microscopy snapshot of a polyadic Tm1-to-T5 synapse from flywire.ai (left). Synapse coordinates: x=181940, y=46900, z=4912. Asterisk indicates the presynaptic T-bar. Schematic representation of one presynaptic Tm1 bouton wiring to a T5d, T5a and T5c dendritic spine (right). (D) Schematic representation of polyadic Tm-to-T5 synapse types. (E-I) Number of a, ab, ac, ad, abc, abd, acd and abcd polyadic types in Tm1-, Tm2-, Tm4-, Tm9-, CT1-to-T5a synapses (nT5a=5). The normality of distribution was assessed with the use of Shapiro-Wilk test. Friedman test followed by Dunn’s post hoc test where *p<0.05. Data is mean ± SEM. (J) Average number of non-traced dendritic spines in Tm1-, Tm2-, Tm4-, Tm9- and CT1-to- T5a synapses of analysis (nT5a=5). Data is mean ± SEM. View this table: View inline View popup Download powerpoint Table S1. Analyzed neuronal IDs from FlyWire (flywire.ai). Allocation of polyadic synapse types Apart from T5a, b, c and d subtypes, dendritic spines from Tm1, Tm9 and CT1 cells were found in Tm-, CT1-to-T5a connections. Such dendritic spines were not included in the allocation of polyadic T5 synapse types. Polyadic types were allocated qualitatively, regardless of the dendritic spine number (eg. synapse type abcd can include 1a, 2b, 1c and 2d T5 spines). Spatial distribution of polyadic types For the polyadic type distributions across the posterior-anterior T5a dendritic axis ( Fig 2A ), we measured the horizontal distance of every synapse from the root of the dendrite. The comparison was performed in the z-dimensional plane of the 3D Neuroglancer environment, as the most informative dimension for the posterior- anterior T5a dendritic extension ( Fig S1G ). The root was set manually as the first branching point of the dendrite. Download figure Open in new tab Figure 2. Spatial organization of polyadic types on T5 dendrites (A) Schematic representation of polyadic Tm-to-T5 synapse types on a T5a dendrite (blue). Horizontal distances of polyadic types were measured from the T5a dendritic root (yellow circle). (B) Horizontal distance of a polyadic type from the root of T5a dendrites (nT5a=5) across Tm1-, Tm2-, Tm4-, Tm9- and CT1-to-T5a synapses. (C-I) Same as in (B) for ab, ac, ad, abc, abd, acd and abcd polyadic types. Lobula distribution of co-T5s T5 subtypes residing at the same postsynaptic site with the T5a of analysis were named ‘co-T5s’. For the spatial distribution of co-T5s, the horizontal distance of each co-T5 root from the T5a root of analysis was measured. For every T5a dendrite out of the five we analyzed, we evaluated the co-T5s per input type rather than per input cell (eg. Tm1 connections in one T5a dendrite can consist of three Tm1 cells, as in Fig S1F ). To exclude any bias from co-T5 overrepresentation due to connection strength, we counted each co-T5 once, regardless of the number of synapses it appeared into. We controlled for duplicates resulting from neuronal ID updates in FlyWire by examining the 3D reconstructions in Neuroglancer. Immunohistochemistry and confocal microscopy Flies at early pupa stages were heat-shocked for 30 minutes at 37° to activate the Multi-color FlpOut cassette [ 30 ]. Fly brains (aged 2-5 days) were dissected in cold phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde (in PBS with 0.1% Triton X-100) for 24 minutes at room temperature, followed by three 10-minute washes in PBT (PBS and 0.3% Triton X-100). Brains were then incubated with primary antibodies in PBT for 48 hours at 4°C. After being incubated for 2 hours at room temperature, brains were PBT-washed four times for 15 minutes each and then incubated with secondary antibodies diluted in PBT for 48 hours at 4°C. After being incubated for 2 hours at room temperature and four 15 minutes PBT washes, brains were mounted with SlowFade Gold Antifade (Cat#S36936) for immediate sample viewing. Brains were imaged with a Leica Stellaris 5 laser scanning confocal microscope with a 63x glycerol immersive 1.3 NA HC Plan-apochromat objective at 2048 × 2048 × 0.4μm image resolution. Statistical analysis Detailed analysis is reported in figure legends and was performed in GraphPad Prism v.9.3.0 and in Python v.3.9.18 with the use of seaborn 0.12.2, pandas 1.5.3, numpy 1.23.3 and scipy 1.9.3. Results Polyadic types in Tm1-, Tm2-, Tm4-, Tm9- and CT1-to-T5 connections For our analysis, we used five, dorsally distributed, reconstructed T5a neurons as representatives of the horizontal motion detection system. Together with FlyWire annotations and previously attained morphological information [14–16,22], we identified the Tm1, Tm2, Tm4, Tm9 and CT1 cells connecting to T5a dendrites of analysis ( Fig 1A and 1B ). Polyadic synapses are characterized by a single presynaptic bouton with multiple postsynaptic compartments adjacent to it. Throughout our manual proofreading, we encountered Tm- and CT1-to-T5a synapses with multiple postsynaptic compartments, belonging to dendritic spines of different T5 subtypes ( Fig 1C ). Therefore, we allocated eight polyadic synapse types, namely a, ab, ac, ad, abc, abd, acd and abcd based on the T5 subtypes present in the respective postsynaptic sites ( Fig 1D ). Importantly, all eight polyadic types were encountered across the five T5a neuronal inputs ( Fig 1E-I ). Additionally, we report certain complex synapse examples during the proofreading process. We treated two dendritic spines of the same T5a cell across one presynapse, spanning the same or sequential z-planes, as one polyadic synapse ( Fig S1A,B ). In two examples of multiple T-bars at the vicinity, we treated them as one and two synapses respectively based on their distinct synaptic clefts ( Fig S1C,D ). Therefore, as in the larval Drosophila neuromuscular junction synapse (NMJ) [ 31 , 32 ], we too report multiple release sites (i.e. multiple T-bars) in Tm-to-T5a connections. Finally, the number of postsynaptic densities in Tm and CT1 boutons did not significantly vary across the five neuronal input types ( Fig S1E ). This excluded the regulation of synapse strength at the level of postsynaptic density abundancy. Next, we asked if the Tm1-, Tm2-, Tm4-, Tm9- and CT1-to-T5 connections differ in terms of the polyadic types they use. The abcd type exhibited higher abundance compared to the other polyadic synapse types across the five neuronal inputs and was particularly enriched in Tm1 and Tm2 synapses ( Fig 1E-I ). However, polyadic type allocation is susceptible to dendritic spine reconstruction, hence the number of non- traced dendritic spines could affect our allocation. To tackle this, we calculated the average number of non-traced dendritic spines in all Tm and CT1 boutons across the T5a neurons of analysis ( Fig 1J ). Approximately one up to two dendritic spines were not traced in each postsynaptic density of analysis. Such error could result in quantitative differences, eg. abcd type where a T5d spine is not traced, or qualitative differences, eg. abc type where a T5d spine is not traced, both of which cannot be further resolved. In summary, visual information that is computed by a single Tm and CT1 neuronal bouton, could in principle be simultaneously transmitted to T5a, b, c, d neurons. Polyadic types introduce unique wiring patterns on T5 dendrites The compartmentalized wiring of Tm1, Tm2, Tm4, Tm9 and CT1 cells on T5 dendrites has been extensively described at the morphological and functional level [15,21,22,25,33]. CT1 wires proximally to the dendrite root, Tm1, Tm2, Tm4 and Tm9 wire at the central dendritic compartment, while Tm9 extends to the most distal dendritic parts. This compartmentalized wiring will from now on be referred to as typical wiring. Consequently, we wondered if the typical wiring was recapitulated by the different polyadic synapse types ( Fig 2A ). The a polyadic type did not mirror the typical wiring, as the Tm9 extension to the distal dendritic site was concealed ( Fig 2B ). The ab polyadic type diverged from the typical wiring in the case of CT1, while the ac and ad types reflected the typical wiring principles ( Fig 2C-E ). The abc and acd polyadic types deviated from the typical wiring in the cases of Tm1 and Tm4 respectively, whereas the abd and abcd types followed the typical wiring ( Fig 2F-I ). Collectively, our results show that the typical wiring of the various input neurons on T5a dendrites is not preserved across all polyadic types. It is thus possible that different polyadic types serve unique functional purposes in the computation of visual motion direction in T5a neurons. Polyadic types introduce unique wiring patterns in the T5 network The polyadic types we previously described so far imply the simultaneous binding of neurotransmitters by transmitter receptors located on the dendrites of multiple T5 cells. We named the remaining T5 dendritic spines residing at the same postsynapse with the T5a spine of analysis as ‘co-T5s’ ( Fig 3A , synaptic level). These co-T5 spines belong to T5 cells that are proximal to the T5a cell of analysis in the lobula and contribute to the T5 network ( Fig 3A , columnar & neuropil level, Fig 3B ). Therefore, we wanted to understand if there was an underlying wiring architecture imposed by the co-T5s. We focused on the posterior-anterior distribution of these co-T5s with respect to the T5a of analysis and calculated the horizontal distances between the T5a and co-T5 dendritic roots. In CT1-T5a polyadic connections, the co-T5s localized more on the anterior side of T5a dendrites in lobula layer one, while in Tm1-, Tm2-, Tm4-, Tm9-T5a polyads, the co-T5s localized more on the posterior side of T5a dendrites ( Fig 3C-H ). We conclude that CT1-derived co-T5 distributions significantly differ from the Tm1-, Tm2-, Tm4- and Tm9-derived ones. Download figure Open in new tab Figure 3. Organization of co-T5s in lobula layer 1 (A) Schematic representation of polyadic morphology from the synaptic to the neuropil level. Asterisk indicates the presynaptic T-bar. Dendritic roots in yellow circles. (B) Sparse T5 subtype labelling via the multi-color FlpOut approach. Scale bar 40μm. (C-G) co-T5 distribution from the root of T5a dendrites (nT5a=5) across Tm1-, Tm2-, Tm4-, Tm9- and CT1-to-T5a polyadic synapses. Dendritic root of T5a of analysis in yellow circle. The normality of distribution was assessed with the use of Shapiro-Wilk test. Unpaired two- tailed Student’s t-test, where ****p<0.0001. C to G p=0.000161, D to G p=0.000001, E to G p=0.000003, F to G p=0.000000. (H) Number of co-T5s posterior (pre-root) and anterior (post-root) to the T5a root across Tm1-, Tm2-, Tm4-, Tm9- and CT1-to-T5a polyadic synapses. Discussion Even though the most abundant synapse morphology in Drosophila melanogaster is that of polyadic synapses, they remain severely understudied. Here, we report for the first time the wiring architectures that polyadic synapses introduce in the visual system of the fruit fly. One of the prerequisites for direction-selective responses in T5 cells is the spatial offset between their neuronal inputs, accounting to the order of a lobula column. Tm1, Tm2, Tm4, Tm9 and CT1 used eight polyadic synapse types for their T5a connections, with ac, ad, abd and abcd types following the typical wiring principles. Whether the remaining, diverging to the typical wiring a, ab, abc, acd types introduce spatial differences equal to a full column length is not known. Therefore, advancements in defining columns and column size across the different neuropils in the optic lobe, as in the Visual Columns Map project (Codex), are needed. Apart from deviations in wiring patterns, each polyadic type could potentially introduce distinct functional profiles. Changes in neurotransmitter release probability depending on the postsynaptic partner have been previously observed in mammals [ 34 , 35 ]. Additionally, differences in the type of acetylcholine receptors (AChRs) across the different T5 subtypes [ 36 ], the density and nanoarchitecture disparities observed across receptor types [ 37 , 38 ], the location of T5 dendritic spines compared to the presynaptic release site (transsynaptic nanocolumn, [ 39 ]) and the neurotransmitter diffusion and recycling mechanisms [ 40 , 41 ] could in principle lead to unique communication codes among polyadic types. The inter-bouton AChR variety that was recently hypothesized in Tm9-to-T5 synapses [ 22 ], could derive from the different polyadic types we report in this work. Finally, variation in the total area of the postsynaptic densities between polyadic types, might lead to differences in neurotransmitter receptor numbers as was observed in the rat hippocampus [ 42 , 43 ]. The polyadic morphology denotes the synchronous activation of postsynaptic T5 neurons at neighboring positions by the same presynaptic neuron, T5s that might not necessarily be visually activated. We found such ‘co-T5s’ from the GABAergic input neuron CT1 to be localized closer to the anterior side of the analyzed T5a cells in lobula, whereas those co-T5s postsynaptic to a single cholinergic Tm cell were found to be localized closer to the posterior side of the analyzed T5a cells. This finding resembles an excitation-inhibition (E/I) polarization along the anterior-posterior axis. When a front-to-back motion stimulus activates the T5a neuron of interest, the majority of co-T5s posterior to that T5a would be excited and the majority of co-T5s anterior would be inhibited. Such a local feedforward adaptation mechanism could, for example, be used to compensate for contrast fluctuations [ 44 , 45 ]. In conclusion, polyadic synapses might play an important role in visual processing as well as in the development of the visual system. Our work represents a first step in that direction. Eventually, connectome analyses with single synapse connectivity resolution could lead to even more detailed single neuron biophysical models [ 46 ]. By addressing connectivity architectures that emerge from the polyadic synapse morphology in the OFF-edge motion pathway, we propose a shift from the single neuron to the single synapse wiring diagram era. Acknowledgments We are grateful to the Princeton FlyWire team and members of the Murthy and Seung labs for development and maintenance of FlyWire (supported by BRAIN Initiative grant MH117815 to Murthy and Seung). This work was funded by the Max Planck Society. Funder Information Declared Max Planck Society, https://ror.org/01hhn8329 References [1]. ↵ Zheng Z , Lauritzen JS , Perlman E , Robinson CG , Nichols M , Milkie D , et al. A Complete electron microscopy volume of the brain of adult Drosophila melanogaster . Cell 2018 ; 174 : 730 - 743 .e22. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.06.019 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [2]. Dorkenwald S , McKellar CE , Macrina T , Kemnitz N , Lee K , Lu R , et al. FlyWire: online community for whole-brain connectomics . Nat Methods 2022 ; 19 : 119 – 28 . doi: 10.1038/s41592-021-01330-0 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [3]. Dorkenwald S , Matsliah A , Sterling AR , Schlegel P , Yu S , McKellar CE , et al. Neuronal wiring diagram of an adult brain . Nature 2024 ; 634 : 124 – 38 . doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07558-y . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [4]. ↵ Schlegel P , Yin Y , Bates AS , Dorkenwald S , Eichler K , Brooks P , et al. Whole-brain annotation and multi-connectome cell typing of Drosophila . Nature 2024 ; 634 : 139 – 52 . doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07686-5 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [5]. ↵ Meinertzhagen IA . Morphology of invertebrate neurons and synapses . Handbook of Invertebrate Neurobiology 2016 : 1 – 80 . [6]. ↵ Liu Q , Chen B , Hall DH , Wang Z. A quantum of neurotransmitter causes minis in multiple postsynaptic cells at the Caenorhabditis elegans neuromuscular junction . Developmental Neurobiology 2007 ; 67 : 123 – 8 . doi: 10.1002/dneu.20307 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [7]. ↵ Ryan K , Lu Z , Meinertzhagen IA . The CNS connectome of a tadpole larva of Ciona intestinalis (L.) highlights sidedness in the brain of a chordate sibling . eLife 2016 ; 5 : e16962 . doi: 10.7554/eLife.16962 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [8]. ↵ Seybold A , Kumar S , Tumu SC , Hausen H. Neurons with larval synaptic targets pioneer the later nervous system in the annelid Malacoceros fuliginosus . Front Neurosci 2025 ; 18 : 1439897 . doi: 10.3389/fnins.2024.1439897 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [9]. ↵ Rao-Mirotznik R , Buchsbaum G , Sterling P. Transmitter concentration at a three-dimensional synapse . Journal of Neurophysiology 1998 ; 80 : 3163 – 72 . doi: 10.1152/jn.1998.80.6.3163 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science [10]. ↵ Joesch M , Schnell B , Raghu SV , Reiff DF , Borst A. ON and OFF pathways in Drosophila motion vision . Nature 2010 ; 468 : 300 – 4 . doi: 10.1038/nature09545 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science [11]. Strother JA , Nern A , Reiser MB . Direct observation of ON and OFF pathways in the Drosophila visual system . Current Biology 2014 ; 24 : 976 – 83 . doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.03.017 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [12]. ↵ Maisak MS , Haag J , Ammer G , Serbe E , Meier M , Leonhardt A , et al. A directional tuning map of Drosophila elementary motion detectors . Nature 2013 ; 500 : 212 – 6 . doi: 10.1038/nature12320 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science [13]. ↵ Fisher YE , Silies M , Clandinin TR . Orientation selectivity sharpens motion detection in Drosophila . Neuron 2015 ; 88 : 390 – 402 . doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.09.033 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [14]. ↵ Fischbach K-F , Dittrich APM . The optic lobe of Drosophila melanogaster. I. A Golgi analysis of wild-type structure . Cell Tissue Res 1989 ; 258 . doi: 10.1007/BF00218858 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science [15]. ↵ Shinomiya K , Huang G , Lu Z , Parag T , Xu CS , Aniceto R , et al. Comparisons between the ON- and OFF-edge motion pathways in the Drosophila brain . eLife 2019 ; 8 : e40025 . doi: 10.7554/eLife.40025 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [16]. Meier M , Borst A. Extreme compartmentalization in a Drosophila amacrine cell . Current Biology 2019 ; 29 : 1545 - 1550 .e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.03.070 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [17]. Takemura S , Karuppudurai T , Ting C-Y , Lu Z , Lee C-H , Meinertzhagen IA . Cholinergic circuits integrate neighboring visual signals in a Drosophila motion detection pathway . Curr Biol 2011 ; 21 : 2077 – 84 . doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.10.053 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [18]. Shinomiya K , Karuppudurai T , Lin T-Y , Lu Z , Lee C-H , Meinertzhagen IA . Candidate neural substrates for OFF-edge motion detection in Drosophila . Current Biology 2014 ; 24 : 1062 – 70 . doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.03.051 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [19]. Serbe E , Meier M , Leonhardt A , Borst A. Comprehensive characterization of the major presynaptic elements to the Drosophila OFF motion detector . Neuron 2016 ; 89 : 829 – 41 . doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.01.006 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [20]. Meier M , Serbe E , Maisak MS , Haag J , Dickson BJ , Borst A. Neural Circuit Components of the Drosophila OFF motion vision pathway . Current Biology 2014 ; 24 : 385 – 92 . doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.01.006 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [21]. Braun A , Borst A , Meier M. Disynaptic inhibition shapes tuning of OFF-motion detectors in Drosophila . Curr Biol 2023 ; 33 : 2260 - 2269 .e4. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2023.05.007 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [22]. ↵ Samara E , Schilling T , Ribeiro IMA , Haag J , Leonte M-B , Borst A. Columnar cholinergic neurotransmission onto T5 cells of Drosophila . Current Biology 2025 : S0960982225001381 . doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2025.02.004 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [23]. Behnia R , Clark DA , Carter AG , Clandinin TR , Desplan C. Processing properties of ON and OFF pathways for Drosophila motion detection . Nature 2014 ; 512 : 427 – 30 . doi: 10.1038/nature13427 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science [24]. ↵ Arenz A , Drews MS , Richter FG , Ammer G , Borst A. The temporal tuning of the Drosophila motion detectors is determined by the dynamics of their input elements . Current Biology 2017 ; 27 : 929 – 44 . doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2017.01.051 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [25]. ↵ Haag J , Arenz A , Serbe E , Gabbiani F , Borst A. Complementary mechanisms create direction selectivity in the fly . eLife 2016 ; 5 : e17421 . doi: 10.7554/eLife.17421 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [26]. Haag J , Mishra A , Borst A. A common directional tuning mechanism of Drosophila motion-sensing neurons in the ON and in the OFF pathway . eLife 2017 ; 6 : e29044 . doi: 10.7554/eLife.29044 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [27]. ↵ Leong JCS , Esch JJ , Poole B , Ganguli S , Clandinin TR . Direction selectivity in Drosophila emerges from preferred-direction enhancement and null-direction suppression . Journal of Neuroscience 2016 ; 36 : 8078 – 92 . doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1272-16.2016 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text [28]. ↵ Buhmann J , Sheridan A , Malin-Mayor C , Schlegel P , Gerhard S , Kazimiers T , et al. Automatic detection of synaptic partners in a whole-brain Drosophila electron microscopy data set . Nat Methods 2021 ; 18 : 771 – 4 . doi: 10.1038/s41592-021-01183-7 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [29]. ↵ Meinertzhagen IA . Ultrastructure and quantification of synapses in the insect nervous system . Journal of Neuroscience Methods 1996 ; 69 : 59 – 73 . doi: 10.1016/S0165-0270(96)00021-0 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science [30]. ↵ Nern A , Pfeiffer BD , Rubin GM . Optimized tools for multicolor stochastic labeling reveal diverse stereotyped cell arrangements in the fly visual system . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2015 ; 112 : E2967 – 76 . doi: 10.1073/pnas.1506763112 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text [31]. ↵ Menon KP , Carrillo RA , Zinn K. Development and plasticity of the Drosophila larval neuromuscular junction . Wiley Interdiscip Rev Dev Biol 2013 ; 2 : 647 – 70 . doi: 10.1002/wdev.108 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [32]. ↵ Van Vactor D , Sigrist SJ . Presynaptic morphogenesis, active zone organization and structural plasticity in Drosophila . Curr Opin Neurobiol 2017 ; 43 : 119 – 29 . doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2017.03.003 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [33]. Borst A. A biophysical mechanism for preferred direction enhancement in fly motion vision . PLoS Comput Biol 2018 ; 14 : e1006240 . doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006240 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [34]. ↵ Zilberter Y , Kaiser KMM , Sakmann B. Dendritic GABA release depresses excitatory transmission between layer 2/3 pyramidal and bitufted neurons in rat neocortex . Neuron 1999 ; 24 : 979 – 88 . doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)81044-2 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science [35]. ↵ Aldahabi M , Balint F , Holderith N , Lorincz A , Reva M , Nusser Z. Different priming states of synaptic vesicles underlie distinct release probabilities at hippocampal excitatory synapses . Neuron 2022 ; 110 : 4144 - 4161 .e7. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2022.09.035 . OpenUrl CrossRef [36]. ↵ Hoermann N , Schilling T , Haji Ali A , Serbe E , Mayer C , Borst A , et al. A combinatorial code of transcription factors specifies subtypes of visual motion-sensing neurons in Drosophila . Development 2020 :dev.186296. doi: 10.1242/dev.186296 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text [37]. ↵ Caré BR , Soula HA . Impact of receptor clustering on ligand binding . BMC Syst Biol 2011 ; 5 : 48 . doi: 10.1186/1752-0509-5-48 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [38]. ↵ Sheng M. PDZs and receptor/channel clustering: rounding up the latest suspects . Neuron 1996 ; 17 : 575 – 8 . doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80190-7 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science [39]. ↵ Tang A-H , Chen H , Li TP , Metzbower SR , MacGillavry HD , Blanpied TA . A trans-synaptic nanocolumn aligns neurotransmitter release to receptors . Nature 2016 ; 536 : 210 – 4 . doi: 10.1038/nature19058 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [40]. ↵ Rizzoli SO . Synaptic vesicle recycling: steps and principles . The EMBO Journal 2014 ; 33 : 788 – 822 . doi: 10.1002/embj.201386357 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text [41]. ↵ Chaturvedi R , Reddig K , Li H-S. Long-distance mechanism of neurotransmitter recycling mediated by glial network facilitates visual function in Drosophila . Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2014 ; 111 : 2812 – 7 . doi: 10.1073/pnas.1323714111 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text [42]. ↵ Noguchi J , Matsuzaki M , Ellis-Davies GCR , Kasai H. Spine-neck geometry determines NMDA receptor-dependent Ca2+ signaling in dendrites . Neuron 2005 ; 46 : 609 – 22 . doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2005.03.015 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science [43]. ↵ Nusser Z , Lujan R , Laube G , Roberts JDB , Molnar E , Somogyi P. Cell type and pathway dependence of synaptic AMPA receptor number and variability in the hippocampus . Neuron 1998 ; 21 : 545 – 59 . doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(00)80565-6 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed Web of Science [44]. ↵ Drews MS , Leonhardt A , Pirogova N , Richter FG , Schuetzenberger A , Braun L , et al. Dynamic signal compression for robust motion vision in flies . Current Biology 2020 ; 30 : 209 - 221 .e8. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2019.10.035 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [45]. ↵ Pirogova N , Borst A. Contrast normalization affects response time-course of visual interneurons . PLoS ONE 2023 ; 18 : e0285686 . doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285686 . OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed [46]. ↵ Seung HS . Multi-output computation by single neuron biophysics in a visual system . bioRxiv 2025 :2025.02.02.636137. doi: 10.1101/2025.02.02.636137 . OpenUrl Abstract / FREE Full Text View the discussion thread. Back to top Previous Next Posted August 05, 2025. Download PDF Email Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv. NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article. Your Email * Your Name * Send To * Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas. You are going to email the following Polyadic synapses introduce unique wiring architectures in T5 cells of Drosophila Message Subject (Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv Message Body (Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website. Your Personal Message CAPTCHA This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Share Polyadic synapses introduce unique wiring architectures in T5 cells of Drosophila Eleni Samara , Alexander Borst bioRxiv 2025.08.04.668437; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.04.668437 Share This Article: Copy Citation Tools Polyadic synapses introduce unique wiring architectures in T5 cells of Drosophila Eleni Samara , Alexander Borst bioRxiv 2025.08.04.668437; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.08.04.668437 Citation Manager Formats BibTeX Bookends EasyBib EndNote (tagged) EndNote 8 (xml) Medlars Mendeley Papers RefWorks Tagged Ref Manager RIS Zotero Tweet Widget Facebook Like Google Plus One Subject Area Neuroscience Subject Areas All Articles Animal Behavior and Cognition (7637) Biochemistry (17705) Bioengineering (13899) Bioinformatics (41970) Biophysics (21463) Cancer Biology (18605) Cell Biology (25526) Clinical Trials (138) Developmental Biology (13385) Ecology (19911) Epidemiology (2067) Evolutionary Biology (24329) Genetics (15615) Genomics (22514) Immunology (17743) Microbiology (40424) Molecular Biology (17194) Neuroscience (88650) Paleontology (667) Pathology (2835) Pharmacology and Toxicology (4827) Physiology (7648) Plant Biology (15160) Scientific Communication and Education (2046) Synthetic Biology (4302) Systems Biology (9825) Zoology (2271)