@phdthesis{Bertolucci2008,
  author    = {Bertolucci, Franco},
  title     = {Operant and classical learning in Drosophila melanogaster: the ignorant gene (ign)},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-33984},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2008},
  abstract  = {One of the major challenges in neuroscience is to understand the neuronal processes that underlie learning and memory. For example, what biochemical pathways underlie the coincidence detection between stimuli during classical conditioning, or between an action and its consequences during operant conditioning? In which neural substructures is this information stored? How similar are the pathways mediating these two types of associative learning and at which level do they diverge? The fly Drosophila melanogaster is an appropriate model organism to address these questions due to the availability of suitable learning paradigms and neurogenetic tools. It permits an extensive study of the functional role of the gene S6KII which in Drosophila had been found to be differentially involved in classical and operant conditioning (Bertolucci, 2002; Putz et al., 2004). Genomic rescue experiments showed that olfactory conditioning in the Tully machine, a paradigm for Pavlovian olfactory conditioning, depends on the presence of an intact S6KII gene. This rescue was successfully performed on both the null mutant and a partial deletion, suggesting that the removal of the phosphorylating unit of the kinase was the main cause of the functional defect. The GAL4/UAS system was used to achieve temporal and spatial control of S6KII expression. It was shown that expression of the kinase during the adult stage was essential for the rescue. This finding ruled out a developmental origin of the mutant learning phenotype. Furthermore, targeted spatial rescue of S6KII revealed a requirement in the mushroom bodies and excluded other brain structures like the median bundle, the antennal lobes and the central complex. This pattern is very similar to the one previously identified with the rutabaga mutant (Zars et al., 2000). Experiments with the double mutant rut, ign58-1 suggest that both rutabaga and S6KII operate in the same signalling pathway. Previous studies had already shown that deviating results from operant and classical conditioning point to different roles for S6KII in the two types of learning (Bertolucci, 2002; Putz, 2002). This conclusion was further strengthened by the defective performance of the transgenic lines in place learning and their normal behavior in olfactory conditioning. A novel type of learning experiment, called "idle experiment", was designed. It is based on the conditioning of the walking activity and represents a purely operant task, overcoming some of the limitations of the "standard" heat-box experiment, a place learning paradigm. The novel nature of the idle experiment allowed exploring "learned helplessness" in flies, unveiling astonishing similarities to more complex organisms such as rats, mice and humans. Learned helplessness in Drosophila is found only in females and is sensitive to antidepressants.},
  subject      = {Klassische Konditionierung},
  language  = {en}
}
@phdthesis{Yarali2008,
  author    = {Yarali, Ayse},
  title     = {Aspects of predictive learning in the fruit fly},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-28741},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2008},
  abstract  = {Past experience contributes to behavioural organization mainly via learning: Animals learn otherwise ordinary cues as predictors for biologically significant events. This thesis studies such predictive, associative learning, using the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. I ask two main questions, which complement each other: One deals with the processing of those cues that are to be learned as predictors for an important event; the other one deals with the processing of the important event itself, which is to be predicted. Do fruit flies learn about combinations of olfactory and visual cues? I probe larval as well as adult fruit flies for the learning about combinations of olfactory and visual cues, using a so called 'biconditional discrimination' task: During training, one odour is paired with reinforcement only in light, but not in darkness; the other odour in turn is reinforced only in darkness, but not in light. Thus, neither the odours nor the visual conditions alone predict reinforcement, only combinations of both do. I find no evidence that either larval or adult fruit flies were to solve such task, speaking against a cross-talk between olfactory and visual modalities. Previous studies however suggest such cross-talk. To reconcile these results, I suggest classifying different kinds of interaction between sensory modalities, according to their site along the sensory-motor continuum: I consider an interaction 'truly' cross-modal, if it is between the specific features of the stimuli. I consider an interaction 'amodal' if it instead engages the behavioural tendencies or 'values' elicited by each stimulus. Such reasoning brings me to conclude that different behavioural tasks require different kinds of interaction between sensory modalities; whether a given kind of interaction will be found depends on the neuronal infrastructure, which is a function of the species and the developmental stage. Predictive learning of pain-relief in fruit flies Fruit flies build two opposing kinds of memory, based on an experience with electric shock: Those odours that precede shock during training are learned as predictors for punishment and are subsequently avoided; those odours that follow shock during training on the other hand are learned as signals for relief and are subsequently approached. I focus on such relief learning. I start with a detailed parametric analysis of relief learning, testing for reproducibility as well as effects of gender, repetition of training, odour identity, odour concentration and shock intensity. I also characterize how relief memories, once formed, decay. In addition, concerning the psychological mechanisms of relief learning, first, I show that relief learning establishes genuinely associative conditioned approach behaviour and second, I report that it is most likely not mediated by context associations. These results enable the following neurobiological analysis of relief learning; further, they will form in the future the basis for a mathematical model; finally, they will guide the researchers aiming at uncovering relief learning in other experimental systems. Next, I embark upon neurogenetic analysis of relief learning. First, I report that fruit flies mutant for the so called white gene build overall more 'negative' memories about an experience with electric shock. That is, in the white mutants, learning about the painful onset of shock is enhanced, whereas learning about the relieving offset of shock is diminished. As they are coherently affected, these two kinds of learning should be in a balance. The molecular mechanism of the effect of white on this balance remains unresolved. Finally, as a first step towards a neuronal circuit analysis of relief learning, I compare it to reward learning and punishment learning. I find that relief learning is distinct from both in terms of the requirement for biogenic amine signaling: Reward and punishment are respectively signalled by octopamine and dopamine, for relief learning, either of these seem dispensible. Further, I find no evidence for roles for two other biogenic amines, tyramine and serotonin in relief learning. Based on these findings I give directions for further research.},
  subject      = {Lernen},
  language  = {en}
}