Next Article in Journal
Clinical Utility of Eye Tracking in Assessing Distractibility in Children with Neurological Disorders or ADHD: A Cross-Sectional Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Changing the Tendency to Integrate the Senses
Previous Article in Journal
Seeking Overlapping Neuroanatomical Alterations between Dyslexia and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Meta-Analytic Replication Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation Does Not Affect Implicit Sensorimotor Adaptation: A Randomized Sham-Controlled Trial
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Brain Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 10
10.3390/brainsci12101368
brainsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Multisensory Integration in Caenorhabditis elegans in Comparison to Mammals

by
Yanxun V. Yu
1,2,*,
Weikang Xue
1 and
Yuanhua Chen
1
1
Department of Neurology, Medical Research Institute, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430070, China
2
Frontier Science Center for Immunology and Metabolism, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430070, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Brain Sci. 2022, 12(10), 1368; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/brainsci12101368
Submission received: 31 August 2022 / Revised: 28 September 2022 / Accepted: 3 October 2022 / Published: 9 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Neural Basis of Multisensory Plasticity)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Multisensory integration refers to sensory inputs from different sensory modalities being processed simultaneously to produce a unitary output. Surrounded by stimuli from multiple modalities, animals utilize multisensory integration to form a coherent and robust representation of the complex environment. Even though multisensory integration is fundamentally essential for animal life, our understanding of the underlying mechanisms, especially at the molecular, synaptic and circuit levels, remains poorly understood. The study of sensory perception in Caenorhabditis elegans has begun to fill this gap. We have gained a considerable amount of insight into the general principles of sensory neurobiology owing to C. elegans’ highly sensitive perceptions, relatively simple nervous system, ample genetic tools and completely mapped neural connectome. Many interesting paradigms of multisensory integration have been characterized in C. elegans, for which input convergence occurs at the sensory neuron or the interneuron level. In this narrative review, we describe some representative cases of multisensory integration in C. elegans, summarize the underlying mechanisms and compare them with those in mammalian systems. Despite the differences, we believe C. elegans is able to provide unique insights into how processing and integrating multisensory inputs can generate flexible and adaptive behaviors. With the emergence of whole brain imaging, the ability of C. elegans to monitor nearly the entire nervous system may be crucial for understanding the function of the brain as a whole.

1. General Introduction

Multisensory integration is an essential issue in the fields of cognition, behavioral science and neurobiology. It studies how information from different modalities, such as sight, sound, smell, taste and touch, becomes integrated as a coherently meaningful representation in the nervous system [1]. Successful integration can decrease sensory uncertainty and reaction latency and form better memory and perception [1], thus providing adaptive advantages for survival and reproduction.
Although sensory processing was traditionally viewed and studied in modality-specific manners, different regions of the mammalian brain are enormously interactional. Numerous studies have identified multisensory neurons in cortical areas that were previously classified as uni-sensory [2]. Multisensory integration is probably necessary for almost all animal activities. Ample evidence demonstrates that multisensory inputs are commonly found in many ascending pathways [2,3]. This leads to researchers proposing that “the entire cortex (brain?) is multisensory” [1,2,4,5,6], albeit the functional roles of the integration have not all been characterized.
There are two well-accepted principles of multisensory integration: the temporal and spatial principle and the inverse effectiveness principle [2,7,8,9]. The spatial and temporal principle states that integration is more likely to happen or be strengthened when the uni-sensory stimuli occur at approximately the same location or close in time. The principle of inverse effectiveness states that the magnitude of integration is inversely related to the responsiveness of individual stimuli, i.e., weak stimuli presented in isolation are more likely to elicit or strengthen multisensory integration [9,10,11].
The ability to integrate cross-modal senses is not inherent. Instead, it develops gradually after birth with the presence of cross-modal events in the environment. Even though multisensory neurons are produced early in life, these neurons cannot integrate multisensory inputs until much later [12]. This capability gradually matures into young adulthood. Therefore, multisensory integration is essentially a learned ability, involving the neural mechanism of plasticity.
Multisensory processing appears to be disrupted in several neuropsychiatric disorders, including autism spectrum disorder, dyslexia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, sensory processing disorder and schizophrenia [13,14,15,16,17,18]. How multisensory processing relates to these disorders is still unclear. It has been shown that multisensory training can restore visual function in visual cortex-damaged animals [2]. In some cases of autism, the delayed development of multisensory processing can be improved with age, presumably via prolonged development [19]. Since sensory integration intervention is based on neural plasticity [20], this gives hope that individually tailored multisensory training techniques can ameliorate these neuropsychiatric disorders with multisensory processing deficits.
Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) senses its complex environment using multisensory integration strategies to make behavioral decisions [21,22]. Studies of multisensory integration in C. elegans have a unique niche due to the intrinsic properties of this organism’s nervous system. There are many advantages to studying neurobiology in C. elegans, which can be extended to the study of multisensory integration. C. elegans has a well-defined and compact nervous system with 302 neurons and it is the only organism whose entire neuronal connectome is mapped throughout different developmental stages [23,24,25]. Recently, the worm “contactome” has also been mapped, adding spatial context to the connectome [26,27]. In addition, gene expression profiles at single cell resolution of all 302 neurons have been generated [28,29].
Moreover, numerous genetic tools for neuronal functional studies have been developed in C. elegans. A single or a few neurons can be selectively killed by laser ablation [30], by expressing caspase to induce apoptosis [31], or by using miniSOG, a photosensitizer generating singlet oxygen [32,33] in a cell type-specific manner. Neuronal activity can be manipulated opto-genetically [34] or chemo-genetically [35]. Those tools greatly facilitate the identification of an underlying neural circuit. Moreover, there is an arsenal of worm mutants in various membrane potential-associated proteins, synaptic and signaling proteins, along with the ease of generating transgenic and knock-out animals, facilitating the investigation of molecular functions of the nervous system.
Previous studies in this field have revealed substantial mechanisms of sensory integration at the molecular, cellular, synaptic and circuit level in C. elegans. There are two excellent reviews [21,22] summarizing sensory processing circuits and sensory integration paradigms in C. elegans. In this narrative review, we will compare multisensory integration processing in mammals and C. elegans with a focus on C. elegans, concentrating on new paradigms that have not been covered before. Using representative examples and easy-to-relate comparisons, we hope this essay will help colleagues investigating sensory processing in mammals to comprehend and appreciate the research in C. elegans.

2. Multisensory Integration in C. elegans

2.1. Sensory Processing in C. elegans

C. elegans has 60 sensory neurons that can sense a variety of sensory modalities, including smell, taste, touch, temperature, light, color, oxygen, CO2, humidity, proprioception, magnetic field and sound [36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45]. For each environmental stimulus assayed in isolation, the fundamental neural circuit is well characterized [28] and the corresponding behavioral output is generally robust.
Worms use diverse protein receptors to sense environmental stimuli. The C. elegans genome encodes over 1000 predicted G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), many of which are likely to function as receptors in sensory neurons [37]. The one confirmed odorant receptor is ODR-10, which detects diacetyl [46]. GPCR LITE-1 has been shown to be a photoreceptor [47]. It has been demonstrated that the receptor guanylyl cyclase GCY-35 is an oxygen sensor [48]. Several receptor guanylyl cyclases and a glutamate receptor have been proposed as thermo-receptors [49,50]. The mechano-sensor is thought to be made up of two ion channel subunits, MEC-4 and MEC-10, from the degenerin/epithelial Na+ channel (DEG/ENaC) family [51,52].
When the GPCR protein receptors are activated by a stimulus, the signal is transduced by two types of downstream ion channels [37,38]. One type consists of the TRP (transient receptor potential) channels, OSM-9 and OCR-2 [53,54]. The other type of downstream signaling transduction is mediated by the second messenger cGMP, involving receptor guanylyl cyclases and cyclic nucleotide-gated channels TAX-4 and TAX-2 [55,56]. Both types of channels can mobilize calcium, open voltage-gated calcium channels and activate the sensory neuron.
The organization of the sensory system from all modalities is vastly different in C. elegans compared to mammals due to its numerical simplicity. Take the olfactory sensory neurons, for example. In C. elegans, a pair of each AWA, AWB and AWC neurons serve as the primary odorant chemosensory neurons, while worms are likely to express around 100 GPCRs as presumed odorant receptors [57]. Therefore, each odorant-sensing neuron expresses many receptors. This is in contrast to the “one neuron, one receptor” rule in mammals, which refers to the fact that each olfactory sensory neuron expresses one and only one olfactory receptor [58]. In the ascending pathways beyond the sensory neuron layer, the sensory systems in mammals are much more complex. Their projections travel a long distance and project to multiple higher brain regions. In C. elegans, interneurons comprise the largest group of neurons, which is probably the counterpart of the higher brain regions in mammals [24]. They can be divided into first-layer, second-layer and commander interneurons. Sensory neurons project to different layers of interneurons and converge into five commander interneurons that control muscle movement [59].

2.2. C. elegans Performs Multisensory Integration

All animals, including lower organisms such as C. elegans, can integrate information from multiple channels to form an accurate presentation of the complex environment. The integration process allows animals to make better choices based on the information they have received. The environment of C. elegans may contain both beneficial elements such as mates and food, but also harmful elements such as poison and predators. How to integrate environmental cues in a context-dependent manner and make an appropriate decision is a central theme in the studies of C. elegans neurobiology. Despite having just 60 sensory neurons, C. elegans exhibits an array of highly sensitive sensory modalities and displays diverse paradigms of multisensory integration [21,22]. These paradigms can probably be divided into two categories: (1) exposing C. elegans to two sensory modalities of opposing valence and studying how worms make decisions; (2) exposing C. elegans to stimuli from two sensory modalities and examining how the behavior evoked by one stimulus is altered by a second stimulus. All the paradigms found in C. elegans seem to be consistent in that multisensory integration can change perception.
Processing various sensory inputs at the level of sensory neurons or sensilla in the periphery is one way to accomplish multisensory integration. It can also be accomplished by integrating at the interneuron or central nervous system levels. In addition, an animal’s internal state and past experiences can top-down alter the output of sensory-evoked behavior. Below is a detailed discussion of C. elegans’ integration paradigms and top-down mechanisms.
Theoretically, two stimuli from the same sensory modality, for example, two different odorants, can also interact with each other. This scenario does not seem to be included in studies of multisensory integration in mammals but is often studied in C. elegans, providing many interesting sensory integration paradigms. In evolution, sensory integration from the same modality is likely to be fundamental to sensory integration from multiple modalities [12]. It has been found that low concentrations of different odorants often have a synergistic effect in mice [60]. This is reminiscent of the principle of inverse effectiveness. Therefore, some paradigms demonstrating sensory integration from the same modality in C. elegans will also be discussed below.

2.3. Integration at the Level of Sensory Neurons

Many organisms contain polymodal sensory neurons, meaning that those neurons can each sense multiple stimuli from different sensory modalities. In that case, polymodal sensory neurons can easily integrate sensory information from different modalities. Although sensory neurons are highly specialized in mammals, polymodal sensory neurons do exist, as exemplified by cutaneous C-fiber nociceptors [61,62]. They can respond to more than one type of noxious stimuli applied to the skin, usually mechanical, chemical and thermal [61,62]. Studying these polymodal nociceptors has provided great significance in pain management [63].
Many sensory neurons in C. elegans are polymodal. For example, the ASH neuron pair is the main nociceptor sensory neuron, which mediates avoidance responses to noxious stimuli [37]. It can sense an array of aversive cues, such as high osmolality, quinine, nose touch, repellent chemicals, heavy metals, and so on. Interestingly, after ASH activation, C. elegans can separately process stimuli from different modalities by innovating different downstream postsynaptic receptors [64]. Although high osmolality and nose touch both activate ASH neurons, high osmolality utilizes both non-NMDA and NMDA receptor subunits to mediate the avoidance response, whereas nose touch only triggers non-NMDA receptors post-synaptically [64,65]. Genetic and electrophysiological analysis suggests that this modality-specific signal transduction is because high osmolality enables increased glutamate released from ASH neurons, which is sufficient to activate both non-NMDA and NMDA receptors [65].
In addition to ASH, many other sensory neurons in C. elegans are also polymodal. For example, the chemosensory AWC neuron pair can respond to temperature [66,67]. Similarly, the AFD neuron pair primarily senses temperature but can also respond to CO2 [68,69]. These polymodal neurons all have the ability to mediate multisensory integration (Figure 1A).
In mammalian studies, multisensory integration is generally referred to as integration that occurs at the level of the sensory cortex or higher, which is beyond the first synapse in an ascending pathway [12]. Nonetheless, polymodal sensory neurons are an efficient way for stimuli from multiple modalities to be integrated through facilitation or inhibition.

2.4. Integration at the Level of Interneurons

Multisensory encoding in mammals takes place in many higher brain regions, such as the superior colliculus (SC) in the midbrain and many regions in the cerebral cortex [6,70]. Due to the significant restriction on the number of neurons, C. elegans often encodes the valance of a stimulus at the sensory neuron level [71]. Nonetheless, many paradigms of multisensory integration occur at the first- and second-layer interneurons to modulate the sensory output.
The hub-and-spoke circuit is a well-known sensory integration paradigm. One of these regulates the worm’s social behavior, or aggregation. In this circuit, the interneuron RMG acts as the hub, linking to multiple sensory neurons (the spokes) with gap junctions [72]. High activity in the RMG is essential for promoting social aggregation, of which the activity level can be modulated by several spoke neurons that sense diverse stimuli, including oxygen, sex pheromones and noxious chemicals (Figure 1B). This circuit connection motif integrates cross-modal sensory inputs to ensure a coherent output. Another similar hub-and-spoke circuit regulates nose touch response [73,74,75]. This involves the interneuron RIH being the hub connecting to sensory neurons ASH, FLP and OLQ responding to gentle touch via gap junctions.
Other interneurons can also serve as the node in a circuit. Interneuron AIA can receive inputs from many chemosensory neurons. AIA receives excitatory input from an electrical synapse and disinhibitory inputs via chemical synapses [76]. The two types of inputs need to happen coincidently to improve the reliability of AIA’s response [76]. The logic of this integrating neuron seems to relate closely to the temporal principle of multisensory integration.
Recently, a two-layer integration has been reported to modulate foraging behavior in C. elegans [77]. Forage is a stereotyped local search behavior looking for food. The behavior requires redundant inhibitory inputs from two interneuron pairs, AIA and ADE, which receive chemosensory and mechanosensory food-related cues, respectively [77]. Sensory cues symbolizing food are first organized into the chemosensory cues that are integrated at AIA and the mechanosensory cues that are integrated at ADE. Input from these two neurons subsequently integrates into the next layer of interneurons. Local search behavior can be triggered when either of these two sensory cues is removed (Figure 1C).

2.5. Neuromodulators in Multisensory Integration

In mammals, neuromodulators such as monoamines and neuropeptides play an important role in regulating brain states and sensory integration [78]. Due to their widespread projections and slow action, neuromodulators can shape neural activity in many locations across multiple time scales. Neuromodulators can modulate a wide range of behaviors in C. elegans, including multisensory integration [79].
Tyramine [80,81], insulin-like peptides [82], serotonin [83], octopamine [84] and dopamine [84] have all been implicated in regulating multisensory integration in C. elegans. The tryptophan-kynurenine metabolic pathway has been associated with a variety of neurodegenerative and psychiatric disorders [85,86,87]. Kynurenic acid, a metabolite in this pathway, is depleted during fasting, leading to activation of interneuron, thus regulating food-dependent behavioral plasticity in C. elegans [88].

2.6. Top-Down Mechanisms in the Multisensory Integration

Sensory information transduction is thought to follow through a hierarchy of brain areas that are progressively more complex. “Top-down” refers to the influences of complex information from higher brain regions that shapes early sensory processing steps. Top-down influences can affect sensory processing at all cortical and thalamic levels [89]. Common top-down modulators of sensory processing can include stress, attention, expectation, emotion, motivation and learned experience [89,90,91,92].
Although C. elegans lacks cognition and emotion, the sensory output can be influenced by its past experience and internal physiological states, such as hunger and sickness. The most well-studied top-down modulator in C. elegans is probably starvation, likely to be due to a lack of other top-down cognitive or emotional modulators. Hunger will increase C. elegans’ preference for seeking attractive odors cueing for food availability in the risk of other harmful stimuli [81,93,94].
In a risk-reward choice assay [81], C. elegans is trapped inside a circle of a repulsive hyperosmotic fructose solution, while an attractive food odor is placed outside the circle. The outcome is scored on whether worms cross the aversive circle to reach the attractive odor. Almost no worms would exit the circle in the initial 15 min. However, after being starved for 5 h, almost 80% of the worms would exit the repulsive circle, seeking the attractive odor. The interneuron RIM is identified as modulating this decision via a top-down extra-synaptic aminergic signal [81]. In another scenario of multisensory integration between opposing valences, the insulin/IGF-1 signaling (IIS) pathway is mediating the signal of hunger to decrease responses to the repellent gustatory cue [94]. Several other neuromodulators have also been found to relay the signal of starvation to functionally reconfigure sensory processing and, presumably, they can also mediate top-down regulation impinging upon multisensory integration.
Past experience is another well-studied top-down modulator for sensory processing in C. elegans. A recent study demonstrated how worms can learn to navigate a T-maze to locate food via multisensory cues [95]. In general, past experience affects sensory processing via reshaping the synapse. Here, we provide two examples to demonstrate how prior experience can change either the strength or the composition of the synapse to enable plasticity. C. elegans does not have an innately preferred temperature. Instead, it remembers its cultivation temperature and moves to that temperature when subjected to a temperature gradient [96]. This sensory memory is encoded by the synaptic strength between the thermo-sensory neuron pair AFD and its downstream interneuron AIY [97]. Under warmer temperatures, this synapse is strengthened, enabling worms to move to warmth and vice versa. Similarly, C. elegans cultivated at a certain NaCl concentration can remember this concentration and travel to it when subjected to a NaCl gradient [98]. This gustatory memory is encoded by differentially innervating the glutamate receptors in the AIB neuron, which is postsynaptic to the salt-sensing neuron ASE right (ASER). At a higher salt cultivation condition, decreasing NaCl concentration causes ASER activation, triggers glutamate released from ASER and subsequently activates the excitatory glutamate receptor GLR-1 in the downstream AIB neurons, whereas, cultivated in a lower salt environment, glutamate released from ASER activates the inhibitory glutamate receptor AVR-14 in AIB instead [99].

3. Multisensory Integration in Development

In mammals, the ability to perform multisensory integration is not an inherent ability. Even in the newborn rhesus monkey, who can already see and hear very well at birth, neurons in the SC cannot integrate coincident cross-modal sensory stimuli [100]. Its emergence requires cross-modal experience in a way that seems to optimize the animal’s survival in the environment it is exposed to [12]. Not much is known about the mechanism driving multisensory integration in development [101].
Parallel studies are lacking in C. elegans with only a few sensory-related studies looking at sensory processing across development. Recent publications find that juvenile worms have different behaviors [102,103] and neural wiring [25] from adults. The difference in food-seeking behavior seems to rise from the differently recruited olfactory neural circuits at different developmental stages [102].
Multisensory integration in development, aging and diseases is an important theme in mammalian studies. The loss of multisensory integration is also an indicator of neural function regression in the elderly population [104,105,106]. In the past, most studies in C. elegans neurobiology utilized young adults to avoid confounding from development and frailty in the elderly. Nonetheless, researchers have nowadays started to become interested in sensory processing in C. elegans across development and aging. With its powerful genetics, established neuronal connectome and accumulated knowledge in neurobiology, we believe C. elegans can continue to provide insights into the new field.

4. Comparison of Multisensory Integration Studies between C. elegans and Mammals

Despite their distance in evolution, mammals and C. elegans share some similarities in the principles of multisensory neurons. In terms of the organizing principle, many interneurons in C. elegans each receive inputs from different sensory modalities, which is reminiscent of the overlapping receptive fields in mammalian multisensory neurons. From many paradigms of sensory processing discussed here and elsewhere, many of the C. elegans interneurons are suitable for multisensory integration. A recurring theme in sensory processing in both C. elegans and mammals is that neuromodulators, especially monoamines, are involved in many paradigms of multisensory integration.
However, due to intrinsic differences between species, the technologies available and the varied study foci, there are significant disparities in multisensory integration research between C. elegans and mammals (Table 1). For example, when it comes to studying top-down mechanisms of multisensory integration in C. elegans, hunger is mostly used as the modulator, since influence from stress, attention, expectation, emotion, or motivation is not accessible in the lower organisms. There are other differences, to our knowledge, which are included below.
The major sensory modality in most mammals is vision. Therefore, many multisensory integration paradigms pair vision with a second stimulus from audio, somatosensory, or vestibular input. The major sensory modality in C. elegans is probably olfaction, so olfaction is most commonly paired with input from another modality such as taste, touch, temperature, oxygen, and so on. With the advancement of technology, methods to deliver spatially, temporally and quantitatively controlled stimuli in combination are emerging [107].
True multisensory integration does not seem to be tested strictly in C. elegans. In mammals, the fact that multisensory neurons are able to receive inputs from multiple modalities does not necessarily lead to multisensory integration. After successful integration, the magnitude of response from the multisensory neuron should be greater than the sum of the uni-sensory responses combined [1]. Therefore, whether to integrate or segregate simultaneous detected sensory signals during multisensory processing is a focus in mammalian studies.
Because true integration does not always happen, the spatial and temporal principle emphasizes that integration is more likely to happen or be strengthened when the uni-sensory stimuli occur at approximately the same location or close in time. Direct testing of this principle is challenging in C. elegans due to the limitations of the stimulus delivery method. Moreover, single neuron electrophysiological methods can be difficult in C. elegans due to the neurons’ small size [108]. The commonly implemented GECI (genetically encoded calcium indicators) for examining neuron activity comes only with a compromised resolution. The above makes it challenging to evaluate the individual neuron’s enhanced response to sensory integration.
Nonetheless, temporal integration is probably highly likely to happen because neuronal activity is rather slow in C. elegans. Action potentials are not readily visible in C. elegans neurons, which instead only display gradual neuronal activity [109,110]. These slow neuronal dynamics enables sensory integration to happen over a long period of time. It has been demonstrated that some behaviors in C. elegans require stimuli from two separate modalities working together [36], which indicates a remarkable amplification from true multisensory integration.
When multisensory integration takes place, many studies in C. elegans focus on its benefit for making a better decision based on more information inputs, so it is beneficial for survival. However, whether the decision is indeed beneficial is not tested. In mammals, multisensory integration has an array of readouts; it can increase response magnitude, reduce response latency, form more solid memories and generate more accurate perception. There is also a limited repertoire of behaviors that can be measured in C. elegans. Therefore, the behavior readout is often related to its movement or directed behaviors testing for the populational preference. This ties well with the research in C. elegans, which focuses on how worms make decisions.
The major advantages of using C. elegans for the study of neurobiology stem from its well-characterized neuronal connectome, ample molecular genetics tools to ablate, silence, or activate neurons and molecular tools facilitating the discovery of molecular mechanisms. From the examples listed here and in other C. elegans reviews, one can see that, in a sensory processing paradigm, detailed underlying mechanisms, including the composition of the neural circuits, the nature of synaptic connections, synaptic components and key signaling molecules, can all be discovered, which is still very hard to do in mammals at the current stage.

5. Conclusions

Multisensory integration is a fundamental issue in neurobiology and it has been explored mainly in mammalian systems. Relevant studies using C. elegans can offer unique advantages and have generated important insights into the understanding of sensory processing, including multisensory integration.
In the future, we anticipate C. elegans to continue to contribute to the research in multisensory integration with the newly developed multi-neuron imaging technique, in addition to its completely mapped neural circuits and powerful genetics. Nowadays, with the advancement of imaging technologies, large-scale brain activity recordings have become possible [111]. These technologies enable us to assess neural activity across the entire nervous system rather than examining neurons in isolation, which is especially important for studying multisensory processing since it can monitor many related neural regions simultaneously. However, current microscopy techniques are still unable to capture the activity of all the neurons across a functional network in the mammalian brain [112,113]. C. elegans is the only organism that can achieve single neuron resolution imaging during whole-brain activity recording and behavior [114,115]. We anticipate that using brain-wide neural activity recordings in conjunction with new theoretical approaches to interpret these data, as well as new optical [116] and synthetic approaches [117] in C. elegans, will allow scientists to understand the relationship linking sensory neural input and behavioral output, leading to a critical understanding in the field of multisensory integration.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft preparation, Y.V.Y.; writing—review and editing, Y.V.Y., W.X. and Y.C.; visualization, W.X.; funding acquisition, Y.V.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by “Technology Innovation 2030—major projects” on brain science and brain-like computing from the Ministry of Science and Technology of China, No. 2021ZD0202603.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank Youngnam N. Jin for his critical comments on the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Stein, B.E.; Stanford, T.R. Multisensory Integration: Current Issues from the Perspective of the Single Neuron. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2008, 9, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Stein, B.E.; Stanford, T.R.; Rowland, B.A. Multisensory Integration and the Society for Neuroscience: Then and Now. J. Neurosci. 2020, 40, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Paraskevopoulos, E.; Herholz, S. Multisensory Integration and Neuroplasticity in the Human Cerebral Cortex. Transl. Neurosci. 2013, 4, 337–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Driver, J.; Noesselt, T. Multisensory Interplay Reveals Crossmodal Influences on “sensory-Specific” Brain Regions, Neural Responses, and Judgments. Neuron 2008, 57, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Ghazanfar, A.A.; Schroeder, C.E. Is Neocortex Essentially Multisensory? Trends Cogn. Sci. 2006, 10, 278–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yau, J.M.; DeAngelis, G.C.; Angelaki, D.E. Dissecting Neural Circuits for Multisensory Integration and Crossmodal Processing. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015, 370, 20140203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Buchholz, V.N.; Goonetilleke, S.C.; Medendorp, W.P.; Corneil, B.D. Greater Benefits of Multisensory Integration during Complex Sensorimotor Transformations. J. Neurophysiol. 2012, 107, 3135–3143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Meredith, M.A.; Stein, B.E. Spatial Factors Determine the Activity of Multisensory Neurons in Cat Superior Colliculus. Brain Res. 1986, 365, 350–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Meredith, M.A.; Stein, B.E. Visual, Auditory, and Somatosensory Convergence on Cells in Superior Colliculus Results in Multisensory Integration. J. Neurophysiol. 1986, 56, 640–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Meredith, M.A.; Stein, B.E. Interactions among Converging Sensory Inputs in the Superior Colliculus. Science 1983, 221, 389–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Holmes, N.P. The Principle of Inverse Effectiveness in Multisensory Integration: Some Statistical Considerations. Brain Topogr. 2009, 21, 168–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Stein, B.E.; Stanford, T.R.; Rowland, B.A. Development of Multisensory Integration from the Perspective of the Individual Neuron. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2014, 15, 520–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Hornix, B.E.; Havekes, R.; Kas, M.J.H. Multisensory Cortical Processing and Dysfunction across the Neuropsychiatric Spectrum. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2019, 97, 138–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Marco, E.J.; Hinkley, L.B.N.; Hill, S.S.; Nagarajan, S.S. Sensory Processing in Autism: A Review of Neurophysiologic Findings. Pediatr. Res. 2011, 69, 48R–54R. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Stevenson, R.A.; Park, S.; Cochran, C.; McIntosh, L.G.; Noel, J.-P.; Barense, M.D.; Ferber, S.; Wallace, M.T. The Associations between Multisensory Temporal Processing and Symptoms of Schizophrenia. Schizophr. Res. 2017, 179, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Stevenson, R.A.; Segers, M.; Ferber, S.; Barense, M.D.; Wallace, M.T. The Impact of Multisensory Integration Deficits on Speech Perception in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Front Psychol. 2014, 5, 379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Panagiotidi, M.; Overton, P.G.; Stafford, T. Multisensory Integration and ADHD-like Traits: Evidence for an Abnormal Temporal Integration Window in ADHD. Acta Psychol. 2017, 181, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zvyagintsev, M.; Parisi, C.; Mathiak, K. Temporal Processing Deficit Leads to Impaired Multisensory Binding in Schizophrenia. Cogn. Neuropsychiatry 2017, 22, 361–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Beker, S.; Foxe, J.J.; Molholm, S. Ripe for Solution: Delayed Development of Multisensory Processing in Autism and Its Remediation. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2018, 84, 182–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cheung, P.P.P.; Lau, B.W.M. Chapter Six—Neurobiology of Sensory Processing in Autism Spectrum Disorder. In Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science; Ilieva, M., Lau, W.K.-W., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; Volume 173, pp. 161–181. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ghosh, D.D.; Nitabach, M.N.; Zhang, Y.; Harris, G. Multisensory Integration in C. elegans. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 2017, 43, 110–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Metaxakis, A.; Petratou, D.; Tavernarakis, N. Multimodal Sensory Processing in Caenorhabditis elegans. Open Biol. 2018, 8, 180049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. White, J.G.; Southgate, E.; Thomson, J.N.; Brenner, S. The Structure of the Nervous System of the Nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 1986, 314, 1–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Cook, S.J.; Jarrell, T.A.; Brittin, C.A.; Wang, Y.; Bloniarz, A.E.; Yakovlev, M.A.; Nguyen, K.C.Q.; Tang, L.T.-H.; Bayer, E.A.; Duerr, J.S.; et al. Whole-Animal Connectomes of Both Caenorhabditis elegans Sexes. Nature 2019, 571, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Witvliet, D.; Mulcahy, B.; Mitchell, J.K.; Meirovitch, Y.; Berger, D.R.; Wu, Y.; Liu, Y.; Koh, W.X.; Parvathala, R.; Holmyard, D.; et al. Connectomes across Development Reveal Principles of Brain Maturation. Nature 2021, 596, 257–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Moyle, M.W.; Barnes, K.M.; Kuchroo, M.; Gonopolskiy, A.; Duncan, L.H.; Sengupta, T.; Shao, L.; Guo, M.; Santella, A.; Christensen, R.; et al. Structural and Developmental Principles of Neuropil Assembly in C. elegans. Nature 2021, 591, 99–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Brittin, C.A.; Cook, S.J.; Hall, D.H.; Emmons, S.W.; Cohen, N. A Multi-Scale Brain Map Derived from Whole-Brain Volumetric Reconstructions. Nature 2021, 591, 105–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hammarlund, M.; Hobert, O.; Miller, D.M.; Sestan, N. The CeNGEN Project: The Complete Gene Expression Map of an Entire Nervous System. Neuron 2018, 99, 430–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Taylor, S.R.; Santpere, G.; Weinreb, A.; Barrett, A.; Reilly, M.B.; Xu, C.; Varol, E.; Oikonomou, P.; Glenwinkel, L.; McWhirter, R.; et al. Molecular Topography of an Entire Nervous System. Cell 2021, 184, 4329–4347.e23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bargmann, C.I.; Avery, L. Laser Killing of Cells in Caenorhabditis elegans. Methods Cell Biol. 1995, 48, 225–250. [Google Scholar]
  31. Chelur, D.S.; Chalfie, M. Targeted Cell Killing by Reconstituted Caspases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 2283–2288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Qi, Y.B.; Garren, E.J.; Shu, X.; Tsien, R.Y.; Jin, Y. Photo-Inducible Cell Ablation in Caenorhabditis elegans Using the Genetically Encoded Singlet Oxygen Generating Protein MiniSOG. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 7499–7504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Xu, S.; Chisholm, A.D. Highly Efficient Optogenetic Cell Ablation in C. elegans Using Membrane-Targeted MiniSOG. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 21271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Bergs, A.; Schultheis, C.; Fischer, E.; Tsunoda, S.P.; Erbguth, K.; Husson, S.J.; Govorunova, E.; Spudich, J.L.; Nagel, G.; Gottschalk, A.; et al. Rhodopsin Optogenetic Toolbox v2.0 for Light-Sensitive Excitation and Inhibition in Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0191802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Pokala, N.; Liu, Q.; Gordus, A.; Bargmann, C.I. Inducible and Titratable Silencing of Caenorhabditis elegans Neurons in Vivo with Histamine-Gated Chloride Channels. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 2770–2775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Russell, J.; Vidal-Gadea, A.G.; Makay, A.; Lanam, C.; Pierce-Shimomura, J.T. Humidity Sensation Requires Both Mechanosensory and Thermosensory Pathways in Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 8269–8274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Bargmann, C.I. Chemosensation in C. elegans. WormBook 2006, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Ferkey, D.M.; Sengupta, P.; L’Etoile, N.D. Chemosensory Signal Transduction in Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics 2021, 217, iyab004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Goodman, M.B. Mechanosensation. WormBook 2006, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Goodman, M.B.; Klein, M.; Lasse, S.; Luo, L.; Mori, I.; Samuel, A.; Sengupta, P.; Wang, D. Thermotaxis Navigation Behavior. WormBook 2014, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Ward, A.; Liu, J.; Feng, Z.; Xu, X.Z.S. Light-Sensitive Neurons and Channels Mediate Phototaxis in C. elegans. Nat. Neurosci. 2008, 11, 916–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ghosh, D.D.; Lee, D.; Jin, X.; Horvitz, H.R.; Nitabach, M.N. C. elegans Discriminates Colors to Guide Foraging. Science 2021, 371, 1059–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Wen, Q.; Po, M.D.; Hulme, E.; Chen, S.; Liu, X.; Kwok, S.W.; Gershow, M.; Leifer, A.M.; Butler, V.; Fang-Yen, C.; et al. Proprioceptive Coupling within Motor Neurons Drives C. elegans Forward Locomotion. Neuron 2012, 76, 750–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Vidal-Gadea, A.; Ward, K.; Beron, C.; Ghorashian, N.; Gokce, S.; Russell, J.; Truong, N.; Parikh, A.; Gadea, O.; Ben-Yakar, A.; et al. Magnetosensitive Neurons Mediate Geomagnetic Orientation in Caenorhabditis elegans. eLife 2015, 4, e07493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Iliff, A.J.; Wang, C.; Ronan, E.A.; Hake, A.E.; Guo, Y.; Li, X.; Zhang, X.; Zheng, M.; Liu, J.; Grosh, K.; et al. The Nematode C. elegans Senses Airborne Sound. Neuron 2021, 109, 3633–3646.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sengupta, P.; Chou, J.H.; Bargmann, C.I. Odr-10 Encodes a Seven Transmembrane Domain Olfactory Receptor Required for Responses to the Odorant Diacetyl. Cell 1996, 84, 899–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Gong, J.; Yuan, Y.; Ward, A.; Kang, L.; Zhang, B.; Wu, Z.; Peng, J.; Feng, Z.; Liu, J.; Xu, X.Z.S. The C. elegans Taste Receptor Homolog LITE-1 Is a Photoreceptor. Cell 2016, 167, 1252–1263.e10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Gray, J.M.; Karow, D.S.; Lu, H.; Chang, A.J.; Chang, J.S.; Ellis, R.E.; Marletta, M.A.; Bargmann, C.I. Oxygen Sensation and Social Feeding Mediated by a C. elegans Guanylate Cyclase Homologue. Nature 2004, 430, 317–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Gong, J.; Liu, J.; Ronan, E.A.; He, F.; Cai, W.; Fatima, M.; Zhang, W.; Lee, H.; Li, Z.; Kim, G.-H.; et al. A Cold-Sensing Receptor Encoded by a Glutamate Receptor Gene. Cell 2019, 178, 1375–1386.e11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Takeishi, A.; Yu, Y.V.; Hapiak, V.M.; Bell, H.W.; O’Leary, T.; Sengupta, P. Receptor-Type Guanylyl Cyclases Confer Thermosensory Responses in C. elegans. Neuron 2016, 90, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Goodman, M.B.; Ernstrom, G.G.; Chelur, D.S.; O’Hagan, R.; Yao, C.A.; Chalfie, M. MEC-2 Regulates C. elegans DEG/ENaC Channels Needed for Mechanosensation. Nature 2002, 415, 1039–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. O’Hagan, R.; Chalfie, M.; Goodman, M.B. The MEC-4 DEG/ENaC Channel of Caenorhabditis elegans Touch Receptor Neurons Transduces Mechanical Signals. Nat. Neurosci. 2005, 8, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Colbert, H.A.; Smith, T.L.; Bargmann, C.I. OSM-9, A Novel Protein with Structural Similarity to Channels, Is Required for Olfaction, Mechanosensation, and Olfactory Adaptation in Caenorhabditis elegans. J. Neurosci. 1997, 17, 8259–8269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Tobin, D.M.; Madsen, D.M.; Kahn-Kirby, A.; Peckol, E.L.; Moulder, G.; Barstead, R.; Maricq, A.V.; Bargmann, C.I. Combinatorial Expression of TRPV Channel Proteins Defines Their Sensory Functions and Subcellular Localization in C. elegans Neurons. Neuron 2002, 35, 307–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Coburn, C.M.; Bargmann, C.I. A Putative Cyclic Nucleotide–Gated Channel Is Required for Sensory Development and Function in C. elegans. Neuron 1996, 17, 695–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Komatsu, H.; Mori, I.; Rhee, J.-S.; Akaike, N.; Ohshima, Y. Mutations in a Cyclic Nucleotide–Gated Channel Lead to Abnormal Thermosensation and Chemosensation in C. elegans. Neuron 1996, 17, 707–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Troemel, E.R.; Chou, J.H.; Dwyer, N.D.; Colbert, H.A.; Bargmann, C.I. Divergent Seven Transmembrane Receptors Are Candidate Chemosensory Receptors in C. elegans. Cell 1995, 83, 207–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Serizawa, S.; Miyamichi, K.; Sakano, H. One Neuron-One Receptor Rule in the Mouse Olfactory System. Trends Genet. 2004, 20, 648–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Chalfie, M.; Sulston, J.E.; White, J.G.; Southgate, E.; Thomson, J.N.; Brenner, S. The Neural Circuit for Touch Sensitivity in Caenorhabditis elegans. J. Neurosci. 1985, 5, 956–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Inagaki, S.; Iwata, R.; Iwamoto, M.; Imai, T. Widespread Inhibition, Antagonism, and Synergy in Mouse Olfactory Sensory Neurons In Vivo. Cell Rep. 2020, 31, 107814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kumazawa, T. Chapter 1. The Polymodal Receptor: Bio-Warning and Defense System. In Progress in Brain Research; Kumazawa, T., Kruger, L., Mizumura, K., Eds.; The Polymodal Pathological Pain Receptor—A Gateway to Pathological Pain; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1996; Volume 113, pp. 3–18. [Google Scholar]
  62. Lawson, S.N.; Fang, X.; Djouhri, L. Nociceptor Subtypes and Their Incidence in Rat Lumbar Dorsal Root Ganglia (DRGs): Focussing on C-Polymodal Nociceptors, Aβ-Nociceptors, Moderate Pressure Receptors and Their Receptive Field Depths. Curr. Opin. Physiol. 2019, 11, 125–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Ochoa, J. Chapter 11. Human Polymodal Receptors in Pathological Conditions. In Progress in Brain Research; Kumazawa, T., Kruger, L., Mizumura, K., Eds.; The Polymodal Pathological Pain Receptor—A Gateway to Pathological Pain; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1996; Volume 113, pp. 185–197. [Google Scholar]
  64. Hart, A.C.; Sims, S.; Kaplan, J.M. Synaptic Code for Sensory Modalities Revealed by C. elegans GLR-1 Glutamate Receptor. Nature 1995, 378, 82–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mellem, J.E.; Brockie, P.J.; Zheng, Y.; Madsen, D.M.; Maricq, A.V. Decoding of Polymodal Sensory Stimuli by Postsynaptic Glutamate Receptors in C. elegans. Neuron 2002, 36, 933–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Biron, D.; Wasserman, S.; Thomas, J.H.; Samuel, A.D.T.; Sengupta, P. An Olfactory Neuron Responds Stochastically to Temperature and Modulates Caenorhabditis elegans Thermotactic Behavior. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 11002–11007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Kuhara, A.; Okumura, M.; Kimata, T.; Tanizawa, Y.; Takano, R.; Kimura, K.D.; Inada, H.; Matsumoto, K.; Mori, I. Temperature Sensing by an Olfactory Neuron in a Circuit Controlling Behavior of C. elegans. Science 2008, 320, 803–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Bretscher, A.J.; Kodama-Namba, E.; Busch, K.E.; Murphy, R.J.; Soltesz, Z.; Laurent, P.; de Bono, M. Temperature, Oxygen, and Salt-Sensing Neurons in C. elegans Are Carbon Dioxide Sensors That Control Avoidance Behavior. Neuron 2011, 69, 1099–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Kodama-Namba, E.; Fenk, L.A.; Bretscher, A.J.; Gross, E.; Busch, K.E.; de Bono, M. Cross-Modulation of Homeostatic Responses to Temperature, Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide in C. elegans. PLoS Genet. 2013, 9, e1004011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Lemus, L.; Hernández, A.; Luna, R.; Zainos, A.; Romo, R. Do Sensory Cortices Process More than One Sensory Modality during Perceptual Judgments? Neuron 2010, 67, 335–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Troemel, E.R.; Kimmel, B.E.; Bargmann, C.I. Reprogramming Chemotaxis Responses: Sensory Neurons Define Olfactory Preferences in C. elegans. Cell 1997, 91, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Macosko, E.Z.; Pokala, N.; Feinberg, E.H.; Chalasani, S.H.; Butcher, R.A.; Clardy, J.; Bargmann, C.I. A Hub-and-Spoke Circuit Drives Pheromone Attraction and Social Behaviour in C. elegans. Nature 2009, 458, 1171–1175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Kaplan, J.M.; Horvitz, H.R. A Dual Mechanosensory and Chemosensory Neuron in Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1993, 90, 2227–2231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Rabinowitch, I.; Chatzigeorgiou, M.; Schafer, W.R. A Gap Junction Circuit Enhances Processing of Coincident Mechanosensory Inputs. Curr. Biol. 2013, 23, 963–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Chatzigeorgiou, M.; Schafer, W.R. Lateral Facilitation between Primary Mechanosensory Neurons Controls Nose Touch Perception in C. elegans. Neuron 2011, 70, 299–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Dobosiewicz, M.; Liu, Q.; Bargmann, C.I. Reliability of an Interneuron Response Depends on an Integrated Sensory State. eLife 2019, 8, e50566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. López-Cruz, A.; Sordillo, A.; Pokala, N.; Liu, Q.; McGrath, P.T.; Bargmann, C.I. Parallel Multimodal Circuits Control an Innate Foraging Behavior. Neuron 2019, 102, 407–419.e8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Lőrincz, M.L.; Adamantidis, A.R. Monoaminergic Control of Brain States and Sensory Processing: Existing Knowledge and Recent Insights Obtained with Optogenetics. Prog. Neurobiol. 2017, 151, 237–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Bhat, U.S.; Shahi, N.; Surendran, S.; Babu, K. Neuropeptides and Behaviors: How Small Peptides Regulate Nervous System Function and Behavioral Outputs. Front. Mol. Neurosci. 2021, 14, 786471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Li, Z.; Li, Y.; Yi, Y.; Huang, W.; Yang, S.; Niu, W.; Zhang, L.; Xu, Z.; Qu, A.; Wu, Z.; et al. Dissecting a Central Flip-Flop Circuit That Integrates Contradictory Sensory Cues in C. elegans Feeding Regulation. Nat. Commun. 2012, 3, 776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Ghosh, D.D.; Sanders, T.; Hong, S.; McCurdy, L.Y.; Chase, D.L.; Cohen, N.; Koelle, M.R.; Nitabach, M.N. Neural Architecture of Hunger-Dependent Multisensory Decision Making in C. elegans. Neuron 2016, 92, 1049–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Chen, X.; Chalfie, M. Modulation of C. elegans Touch Sensitivity Is Integrated at Multiple Levels. J. Neurosci. 2014, 34, 6522–6536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Summers, P.J.; Layne, R.M.; Ortega, A.C.; Harris, G.P.; Bamber, B.A.; Komuniecki, R.W. Multiple Sensory Inputs Are Extensively Integrated to Modulate Nociception in C. elegans. J. Neurosci. 2015, 35, 10331–10342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Rengarajan, S.; Yankura, K.A.; Guillermin, M.L.; Fung, W.; Hallem, E.A. Feeding State Sculpts a Circuit for Sensory Valence in Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 1776–1781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Tanaka, M.; Vécsei, L. Monitoring the Kynurenine System: Concentrations, Ratios or What Else? Adv. Clin. Exp. Med. 2021, 30, 775–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Schwarcz, R.; Bruno, J.P.; Muchowski, P.J.; Wu, H.-Q. Kynurenines in the Mammalian Brain: When Physiology Meets Pathology. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2012, 13, 465–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Tanaka, M.; Szabó, Á.; Spekker, E.; Polyák, H.; Tóth, F.; Vécsei, L. Mitochondrial Impairment: A Common Motif in Neuropsychiatric Presentation? The Link to the Tryptophan–Kynurenine Metabolic System. Cells 2022, 11, 2607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Lemieux, G.A.; Cunningham, K.A.; Lin, L.; Mayer, F.; Werb, Z.; Ashrafi, K. Kynurenic Acid Is a Nutritional Cue That Enables Behavioral Plasticity. Cell 2015, 160, 119–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Gilbert, C.D.; Sigman, M. Brain States: Top-Down Influences in Sensory Processing. Neuron 2007, 54, 677–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Gilbert, C.D.; Li, W. Top-down Influences on Visual Processing. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2013, 14, 350–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Battaglia, S.; Orsolini, S.; Borgomaneri, S.; Barbieri, R.; Diciotti, S.; di Pellegrino, G. Characterizing Cardiac Autonomic Dynamics of Fear Learning in Humans. Psychophysiology 2022, e14122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Gilbert, C.D.; Sigman, M.; Crist, R.E. The Neural Basis of Perceptual Learning. Neuron 2001, 31, 681–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Ishihara, T.; Iino, Y.; Mohri, A.; Mori, I.; Gengyo-Ando, K.; Mitani, S.; Katsura, I. HEN-1, a Secretory Protein with an LDL Receptor Motif, Regulates Sensory Integration and Learning in Caenorhabditis elegans. Cell 2002, 109, 639–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Matty, M.A.; Lau, H.E.; Haley, J.A.; Singh, A.; Chakraborty, A.; Kono, K.; Reddy, K.C.; Hansen, M.; Chalasani, S.H. Intestine-to-Neuronal Signaling Alters Risk-Taking Behaviors in Food-Deprived Caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS Genet. 2022, 18, e1010178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Gourgou, E.; Adiga, K.; Goettemoeller, A.; Chen, C.; Hsu, A.-L. Caenorhabditis elegans Learning in a Structured Maze Is a Multisensory Behavior. iScience 2021, 24, 102284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Hedgecock, E.M.; Russell, R.L. Normal and Mutant Thermotaxis in the Nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1975, 72, 4061–4065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Hawk, J.D.; Calvo, A.C.; Liu, P.; Almoril-Porras, A.; Aljobeh, A.; Torruella-Suárez, M.L.; Ren, I.; Cook, N.; Greenwood, J.; Luo, L.; et al. Integration of Plasticity Mechanisms within a Single Sensory Neuron of C. elegans Actuates a Memory. Neuron 2018, 97, 356–367.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  98. Kunitomo, H.; Sato, H.; Iwata, R.; Satoh, Y.; Ohno, H.; Yamada, K.; Iino, Y. Concentration Memory-Dependent Synaptic Plasticity of a Taste Circuit Regulates Salt Concentration Chemotaxis in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nat. Commun. 2013, 4, 2210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Sato, H.; Kunitomo, H.; Fei, X.; Hashimoto, K.; Iino, Y. Glutamate Signaling from a Single Sensory Neuron Mediates Experience-Dependent Bidirectional Behavior in Caenorhabditis elegans. Cell Rep. 2021, 35, 109177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Wallace, M.T.; McHaffie, J.G.; Stein, B.E. Visual Response Properties and Visuotopic Representation in the Newborn Monkey Superior Colliculus. J. Neurophysiol. 1997, 78, 2732–2741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Dionne-Dostie, E.; Paquette, N.; Lassonde, M.; Gallagher, A. Multisensory Integration and Child Neurodevelopment. Brain Sci. 2015, 5, 32–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Hale, L.A.; Lee, E.S.; Pantazis, A.K.; Chronis, N.; Chalasani, S.H. Altered Sensory Code Drives Juvenile-to-Adult Behavioral Maturation in Caenorhabditis elegans. eNeuro 2016, 3, ENEURO.0175-16.2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Stern, S.; Kirst, C.; Bargmann, C.I. Neuromodulatory Control of Long-Term Behavioral Patterns and Individuality across Development. Cell 2017, 171, 1649–1662.e10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. de Dieuleveult, A.L.; Siemonsma, P.C.; van Erp, J.B.F.; Brouwer, A.-M. Effects of Aging in Multisensory Integration: A Systematic Review. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2017, 9, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Pinto, J.O.; Vieira De Melo, B.B.; Dores, A.R.; Peixoto, B.; Geraldo, A.; Barbosa, F. Narrative Review of the Multisensory Integration Tasks Used with Older Adults: Inclusion of Multisensory Integration Tasks into Neuropsychological Assessment. Expert Rev. Neurother. 2021, 21, 657–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Jones, S.A.; Noppeney, U. Ageing and Multisensory Integration: A Review of the Evidence, and a Computational Perspective. Cortex 2021, 138, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Cho, Y.; Lee, S.A.; Chew, Y.L.; Broderick, K.; Schafer, W.R.; Lu, H. Multimodal Stimulation in a Microfluidic Device Facilitates Studies of Interneurons in Sensory Integration in C. elegans. Small 2020, 16, 1905852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Goodman, M.B.; Lindsay, T.H.; Lockery, S.R.; Richmond, J.E. Electrophysiological Methods for Caenorhabditis elegans Neurobiology. In Methods in Cell Biology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; Volume 107, pp. 409–436. ISBN 978-0-12-394620-1. [Google Scholar]
  109. Lockery, S.R.; Goodman, M.B. The Quest for Action Potentials in C. elegans Neurons Hits a Plateau. Nat. Neurosci. 2009, 12, 377–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Liu, Q.; Kidd, P.B.; Dobosiewicz, M.; Bargmann, C.I. C. elegans AWA Olfactory Neurons Fire Calcium-Mediated All-or-None Action Potentials. Cell 2018, 175, 57–70.e17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Prevedel, R.; Yoon, Y.-G.; Hoffmann, M.; Pak, N.; Wetzstein, G.; Kato, S.; Schrödel, T.; Raskar, R.; Zimmer, M.; Boyden, E.S.; et al. Simultaneous Whole-Animal 3D Imaging of Neuronal Activity Using Light-Field Microscopy. Nat. Methods 2014, 11, 727–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Urai, A.E.; Doiron, B.; Leifer, A.M.; Churchland, A.K. Large-Scale Neural Recordings Call for New Insights to Link Brain and Behavior. Nat. Neurosci. 2022, 25, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Weisenburger, S.; Vaziri, A. A Guide to Emerging Technologies for Large-Scale and Whole-Brain Optical Imaging of Neuronal Activity. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 2018, 41, 431–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Susoy, V.; Hung, W.; Witvliet, D.; Whitener, J.E.; Wu, M.; Park, C.F.; Graham, B.J.; Zhen, M.; Venkatachalam, V.; Samuel, A.D.T. Natural Sensory Context Drives Diverse Brain-Wide Activity during C. elegans Mating. Cell 2021, 184, 5122–5137.e17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Kato, S.; Kaplan, H.S.; Schrödel, T.; Skora, S.; Lindsay, T.H.; Yemini, E.; Lockery, S.; Zimmer, M. Global Brain Dynamics Embed the Motor Command Sequence of Caenorhabditis elegans. Cell 2015, 163, 656–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Yu, C.-C.; Barry, N.C.; Wassie, A.T.; Sinha, A.; Bhattacharya, A.; Asano, S.; Zhang, C.; Chen, F.; Hobert, O.; Goodman, M.B.; et al. Hydrogel-Expansion Microscopy of C. elegans. eLife 2020, 9, e46249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Sarma, G.P.; Lee, C.W.; Portegys, T.; Ghayoomie, V.; Jacobs, T.; Alicea, B.; Cantarelli, M.; Currie, M.; Gerkin, R.C.; Gingell, S.; et al. OpenWorm: Overview and Recent Advances in Integrative Biological Simulation of Caenorhabditis elegans. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2018, 373, 20170382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Brainsci 12 01368 g001 550
Figure 1. Several paradigms of multisensory integration in C. elegans. (A) Polymodal sensory neurons can receive and integrate inputs from different modalities. (B) A hub-and-spoke circuit. The hub neuron RMG is connected with pheromone-sensing neurons ASK and ADL, the oxygen-sensing neuron URX and several other sensory neurons via gap junctions. This circuit can integrate sensory inputs from and regulate social or aggregation behavior in C. elegans. (C) A two-layer circuit. Food-related chemosensory cues and mechanosensory cues are first integrated in parallel at the interneuron AIA and ADE, respectively, through the inhibitory metabotropic glutamate receptor MGL-1 (as symbolized by a yellow transmembrane protein), expressed post-synatpically in AIA and ADE. Additionally, glutamate can activate inhibitory ionotropic glutamate receptors in AIA. Signals from AIA and ADE will converge at the next level of the neural circuit to regulate foraging behavior in C. elegans.
Figure 1. Several paradigms of multisensory integration in C. elegans. (A) Polymodal sensory neurons can receive and integrate inputs from different modalities. (B) A hub-and-spoke circuit. The hub neuron RMG is connected with pheromone-sensing neurons ASK and ADL, the oxygen-sensing neuron URX and several other sensory neurons via gap junctions. This circuit can integrate sensory inputs from and regulate social or aggregation behavior in C. elegans. (C) A two-layer circuit. Food-related chemosensory cues and mechanosensory cues are first integrated in parallel at the interneuron AIA and ADE, respectively, through the inhibitory metabotropic glutamate receptor MGL-1 (as symbolized by a yellow transmembrane protein), expressed post-synatpically in AIA and ADE. Additionally, glutamate can activate inhibitory ionotropic glutamate receptors in AIA. Signals from AIA and ADE will converge at the next level of the neural circuit to regulate foraging behavior in C. elegans.
Brainsci 12 01368 g001
Table
Table 1. Some differences comparing multisensory integration paradigms in C. elegans and mammals (see main context for details).
Table 1. Some differences comparing multisensory integration paradigms in C. elegans and mammals (see main context for details).
C. elegansMammals
Dominant modalityOlfactionVision
Receptor expressionOne neuron, many receptorsOne neuron, one receptor
Valence of stimulusOften determined at the sensory neuron levelOften determined at higher brain region such as amygdala
Common method
measuring neural activity		Calcium imagingElectrophysiology
Type of neuron
membrane potential		Mostly graded potentialAction potential
Behavioral outputOften presented as directed behaviors, that involves a directional response to a directional sensory inputPresented as increased response magnitude, reduced response latency, more solid memories formation, more accurate perception and so on
Top-down modulatorsHunger is mostly usedStress, attention, expectation, emotion, motivation and so on
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yu, Y.V.; Xue, W.; Chen, Y. Multisensory Integration in Caenorhabditis elegans in Comparison to Mammals. Brain Sci. 2022, 12, 1368. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/brainsci12101368

AMA Style

Yu YV, Xue W, Chen Y. Multisensory Integration in Caenorhabditis elegans in Comparison to Mammals. Brain Sciences. 2022; 12(10):1368. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/brainsci12101368

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yu, Yanxun V., Weikang Xue, and Yuanhua Chen. 2022. "Multisensory Integration in Caenorhabditis elegans in Comparison to Mammals" Brain Sciences 12, no. 10: 1368. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/brainsci12101368

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop