» Articles » PMID: 21368135

Compound Eyes and Retinal Information Processing in Miniature Dipteran Species Match Their Specific Ecological Demands

Overview
Specialty Science
Date 2011 Mar 4
PMID 21368135
Citations 51
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The compound eye of insects imposes a tradeoff between resolution and sensitivity, which should exacerbate with diminishing eye size. Tiny lenses are thought to deliver poor acuity because of diffraction; nevertheless, miniature insects have visual systems that allow a myriad of lifestyles. Here, we investigate whether size constraints result in an archetypal eye design shared between miniature dipterans by comparing the visual performance of the fruit fly Drosophila and the killer fly Coenosia. These closely related species have neural superposition eyes and similar body lengths (3 to 4 mm), but Coenosia is a diurnal aerial predator, whereas slow-flying Drosophila is most active at dawn and dusk. Using in vivo intracellular recordings and EM, we report unique adaptations in the form and function of their photoreceptors that are reflective of their distinct lifestyles. We find that although these species have similar lenses and optical properties, Coenosia photoreceptors have three- to fourfold higher spatial resolution and rate of information transfer than Drosophila. The higher performance in Coenosia mostly results from dramatically diminished light sensors, or rhabdomeres, which reduce pixel size and optical cross-talk between photoreceptors and incorporate accelerated phototransduction reactions. Furthermore, we identify local specializations in the Coenosia eye, consistent with an acute zone and its predatory lifestyle. These results demonstrate how the flexible architecture of miniature compound eyes can evolve to match information processing with ecological demands.

Citing Articles

Pygmaclypeatus daziensis, a unique lower Cambrian arthropod with two different compound eye systems.

Schmidt M, Schoenemann B, Hou X, Melzer R, Liu Y Commun Biol. 2025; 8(1):317.

PMID: 40011683 PMC: 11865447. DOI: 10.1038/s42003-025-07664-1.


Heterochrony in orthodenticle expression is associated with ommatidial size variation between Drosophila species.

Torres-Oliva M, Buchberger E, Buffry A, Kittelmann M, Guerrero G, Sumner-Rooney L BMC Biol. 2025; 23(1):34.

PMID: 39901145 PMC: 11792340. DOI: 10.1186/s12915-025-02136-8.


A recurrent neural circuit in Drosophila temporally sharpens visual inputs.

Pang M, Chen F, Xie M, Druckmann S, Clandinin T, Yang H Curr Biol. 2024; 35(2):333-346.e6.

PMID: 39706173 PMC: 11769683. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2024.11.064.


Evolution of compound eye morphology underlies differences in vision between closely related Drosophila species.

Buffry A, Currea J, Franke-Gerth F, Palavalli-Nettimi R, Bodey A, Rau C BMC Biol. 2024; 22(1):67.

PMID: 38504308 PMC: 10953123. DOI: 10.1186/s12915-024-01864-7.


Background matching can reduce responsiveness of jumping spiders to stimuli in motion.

Tan M, Chan J, Yu L, Tan E, Li D J Exp Biol. 2023; 227(1).

PMID: 38054359 PMC: 10906486. DOI: 10.1242/jeb.246092.


References
1.
Land M . Visual acuity in insects. Annu Rev Entomol. 1997; 42:147-77. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ento.42.1.147. View

2.
Dubendorfer A, Hediger M, Burghardt G, Bopp D . Musca domestica, a window on the evolution of sex-determining mechanisms in insects. Int J Dev Biol. 2002; 46(1):75-9. View

3.
Warrant E, McIntyre P . Arthropod eye design and the physical limits to spatial resolving power. Prog Neurobiol. 1993; 40(4):413-61. DOI: 10.1016/0301-0082(93)90017-m. View

4.
Stavenga D, Kruizinga R, Leertouwer H . Dioptrics of the facet lenses of male blowflies Calliphora and Chrysomyia. J Comp Physiol A. 1990; 166(3):365-71. DOI: 10.1007/BF00204809. View

5.
Snyder A, Miller W . Fly colour vision. Vision Res. 1972; 12(8):1339-96. DOI: 10.1016/0042-6989(72)90185-x. View