Invertebrate Neuroscience

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 1–3 | Cite as

Invertebrate studies and their ongoing contributions to neuroscience

Editorial

Abstract

Invertebrates have been deployed very successfully in experimental studies of the nervous system and neuromuscular junctions. Many important discoveries on axonal conduction, synaptic transmission, integrative neurobiology and behaviour have been made by investigations of these remarkable animals. Their advantages as model organisms for investigations of nervous systems include (a) the large diameter of neurons, glia and muscle cells of some invertebrates, thereby facilitating microelectrode recordings; (b) simple nervous systems with few neurons, enhancing the tractability of neuronal circuitry; and (c) well-defined behaviours, which lend themselves to physiological and genetic dissection. Genetic model organisms such as Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans have provided powerful genetic approaches to central questions concerning nervous system development, learning and memory and the cellular and molecular basis of behaviour. The process of attributing function to particular gene products has been greatly accelerated in recent years with access to entire genome sequences and the application of reverse genetic (e.g. RNA interference, RNAi) and other post-genome technologies (e.g. microarrays). Studies of many other invertebrates, notably the honeybee (Apis mellifera), a nudibranch mollusc (Aplysia californica), locusts, lobsters, crabs, annelids and jellyfish have all assisted in the development of major concepts in neuroscience. The future is equally bright with ease of access to genome-wide reverse genetic technologies, and the development of optical recordings using voltage and intracellular calcium sensors genetically targeted to selected individual and groups of neurons.

References

  1. Adrian ED (1934) Electrical activity of the nervous system. Arch Neurol Psychiatry 32:1125Google Scholar
  2. Bate M, Goodman C, Spitzer N (1981) Embryonic development of identified neurons: segment-specific differences in the H cell homologues. J Neurosci 1:103–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baylor DA, Nicholls JG (1971) Patterns of regeneration between individual nerve cells in the central nervous system of the leech. Nature 232:268–270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. de Bono M, Bargmann CI (1998) Natural variation in a neuropeptide Y receptor homolog modifies social behavior and food response in C. elegans. Cell 94:679–689CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brand A, Perrimon N (1993) Targeted gene expression as a means of altering cell fates and generating dominant phenotypes. Development 118:401–415PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Buckingham SD, Esmaeili B, Wood M, Sattelle DB (2004) RNA interference: from model organisms towards therapy for neural and neuromuscular disorders. Hum Mol Genet 13(Spec No 2):R275–R288CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bullock TH, Horridge GA (1966) Structure and function in the nervous systems of invertebrates. W.H. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Chanda B, Blunck R, Faria LC, Schweizer FE, Mody I, Bezanilla F (2005) A hybrid approach to measuring electrical activity in genetically specified neurons. Nat Neurosci 8:1619–1626CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Culetto E, Sattelle DB (2000) A role for Caenorhabditis elegans in understanding the function and interactions of human disease genes. Hum Mol Genet 9:869–877CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis RL (2005) Olfactory memory formation in Drosophila: from molecular to systems neuroscience. Annu Rev Neurosci 28:275–302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fire A, Xu S, Montgomery MK, Kostas SA, Driver SE, Mello CC (1998) Potent and specific genetic interference by double-stranded RNA in Caenorhabditis elegans. Nature 391:806–811CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hodgkin AL (1964) The conduction of the nervous impulse. Liverpool University Press, LiverpoolGoogle Scholar
  13. Hodgkin AL, Huxley AF (1952) A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. J Physiol 117:500:544PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kamath RS, Ahringer J (2003) Genome-wide RNAi screening in Caenorhabditis elegans. Methods 30:313–321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kandel ER, Schwartz JH (1982) Molecular-biology of learning—modulation of transmitter release. Science 218:433–443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Katz B (1966) Nerve, muscle and synapse. McGraw-Hill, TexasGoogle Scholar
  17. Kerr R, Lev-Ram V, Baird G, Vincent P, Tsien RY, Schafer WR (2000) Optical imaging of calcium transients in neurons and pharyngeal muscle of C. elegans. Neuron 26:583–594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim SK, Lund J, Kiraly M, Duke K, Jiang M, Stuart JM, Eizinger A, Wylie BN, Davidson GS (2001) A gene expression map for C. elegans. Science 293:2087–2092CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Kretzschmar D (2005) Neurodegenerative mutants in Drosophila: a means to identify genes and mechanisms involved in human diseases? Invert Neurosci 5:97–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Otsuka M, Iversen LL, Hall ZW, Kravitz EA (1966) Release of gamma-aminobutyric acid from inhibitory nerves of lobster. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 56:1110–1115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Prasher DC (1995) Using GFP to see the light. Trends Genet 11:320–323CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Simmer F, Moorman C, van der Linden AM, Kuijk E, van den Berghe PVE, Kamath RS, Fraser AG, Ahringer J, Plasterk RHA (2003) Genome-wide RNAi of C. elegans using the hypersensitive rrf-3 strain reveals novel gene functions. PLoS Biol 1:E12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MRC Functional Genetics Unit, Department of Human Anatomy and GeneticsUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations