Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (22)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (22)
Year of publication
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (15)
- Journal article (4)
- Book article / Book chapter (3)
Keywords
- Gedächtnis (22) (remove)
Institute
- Theodor-Boveri-Institut für Biowissenschaften (11)
- Institut für Psychologie (bis Sept. 2007) (7)
- Graduate School of Life Sciences (2)
- Institut Mensch - Computer - Medien (1)
- Institut für Klinische Neurobiologie (1)
- Klinik und Poliklinik für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie, Psychosomatik und Psychotherapie (1)
- Neurologische Klinik und Poliklinik (1)
Sugar reward learning in Drosophila : neuronal circuits in Drosophila associative olfactory learning
(2006)
Genetic intervention in the fly Drosophila melanogaster has provided strong evidence that the mushroom bodies of the insect brain act as the seat of memory traces for aversive and appetitive olfactory learning (reviewed in Heisenberg, 2003). In flies, electroshock is mainly used as negative reinforcer. Unfortunately this fact complicates a comparative consideration with other inscets as most studies use sugar as positive reinforcer. For example, several lines of evidence from honeybee and moth have suggested another site, the antennal lobe, to house neuronal plasticity underlying appetitive olfactory memory (reviewed in Menzel, 2001; Daly et al., 2004). Because of this I focused my work mainly on appetitive olfactory learning. In the first part of my thesis, I used a novel genetic tool, the TARGET system (McGuire et al., 2003), which allows the temporally controlled expression of a given effector gene in a defined set of cells. Comparing effector genes which either block neurotransmission or ablate cells showed important differences, revealing that selection of the appropriate effector gene is critical for evaluating the function of neural circuits. In the second part, a new engram of olfactory memory in the Drosophila projection neurons is described by restoring Rutabaga adenlylate cyclase (rut-AC) activity specifically in these cells. Expression of wild-type rutabaga in the projection neurons fully rescued the defect in sugar reward memory, but not in aversive electric shock memory. No difference was found in the stability of the appetitive memories rescued either in projection neurons or Kenyon cells. In the third part of the thesis I tried to understand how the reinforcing signals for sugar reward are internally represented. In the bee Hammer (1993) described a single octopaminergic neuron – called VUMmx1 – that mediates the sugar stimulus in associative olfactory reward learning. Analysis of single VUM neurons in the fly (Selcho, 2006) identified a neuron with a similar morphology as the VUMmx1 neuron. As there is a mutant in Drosophila lacking the last enzymatic step in octopamine synthesis (Monastirioti et al., 1996), Tyramine beta Hydroxylase, I was able to show that local Tyramine beta Hydroxylase expression successfully rescued sugar reward learning. This allows to conclude that about 250 cells including the VUM cluster are sufficient for mediating the sugar reinforcement signal in the fly. The description of a VUMmx1 similar neuron and the involvement of the VUM cluster in mediating the octopaminergic sugar stimulus are the first steps in establishing a neuronal map for US processing in Drosophila. Based on this work several experiments are contrivable to reach this ultimate goal in the fly. Taken together, the described similiarities between Drosophila and honeybee regarding the memory organisation in MBs and PNs and the proposed internal representation of the sugar reward suggest an evolutionarily conserved mechanism for appetitive olfactory learning in insects.
No abstract available.
Zars and co-workers were able to localize an engram of aversive olfactory memory to the mushroom bodies of Drosophila (Zars et al., 2000). In this thesis, I followed up on this finding in two ways. Inspired by Zars et al. (2000), I first focused on the whether it would also be possible to localize memory extinction.While memory extinction is well established behaviorally, little is known about the underlying circuitry and molecular mechanisms. In extension to the findings by Zars et al (2000), I show that aversive olfactory memories remain localized to a subset of mushroom body Kenyon cells for up to 3 hours. Extinction localizes to the same set of Kenyon cells. This common localization suggests a model in which unreinforced presentations of a previously learned odorant intracellularly antagonizes the signaling cascades underlying memory formation. The second part also targets memory localization, but addresses appetitive memory. I show that memories for the same olfactory cue can be established through either sugar or electric shock reinforcement. Importantly, these memories localize to the same set of neurons within the mushroom body. Thus, the question becomes apparent how the same signal can be associated with different events. It is shown that two different monoamines are specificaly necessary for formation of either of these memories, dopamine in case of electric shock and octopamine in case of sugar memory, respectively. Taking the representation of the olfactory cue within the mushroom bodies into account, the data suggest that the two memory traces are located in the same Kenyon cells, but in separate subcellular domains, one modulated by dopamine, the other by octopamine. Taken together, this study takes two further steps in the search for the engram. (1) The result that in Drosophila olfactory learning several memories are organized within the same set of Kenyon cells is in contrast to the pessimism expressed by Lashley that is might not be possible to localize an engram. (2) Beyond localization, a possibible mechanism how several engrams about the same stimulus can be localized within the same neurons might be suggested by the models of subcellular organisation, as postulated in case of appetitive and aversive memory on the one hand and acquisition and extinction of aversive memory on the other hand.
No abstract available.
No abstract available.
Is behaviour response or action? In this Thesis I study this question regarding a rather simple organism, the larva of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Despite its numerically simple brain and limited behavioural repertoire, it is nevertheless capable to accomplish surprisingly complex tasks. After association of an odour and a rewarding or punishing reinforcement signal, the learnt odour is able to retrieve the formed memory trace. However, the activated memory trace is not automatically turned into learned behaviour: Appetitive memory traces are behaviourally expressed only in absence of the rewarding tastant whereas aversive memory traces are behaviourally expressed in the presence of the punishing tastant. The ‘decision’ whether to behaviourally express a memory trace or not relies on a quantitive comparison between memory trace and current situation: only if the memory trace (after odour-sugar training) predicts a stronger sugar reward than currently present, animals show appetitive conditioned behaviour. Learned appetitive behaviour is best seen as active search for food – being pointless in the presence of (enough) food. Learned aversive behaviour, in turn, can be seen as escape from a punishment – being pointless in absence of punishment. Importantly, appetitive and aversive memory traces can be formed and retrieved independent from each other but also can, under appriate circumstances, summate to jointly organise conditioned behaviour. In contrast to learned behaviour, innate olfactory behaviour is not influenced by gustatory processing and vice versa. Thus, innate olfactory and gustatory behaviour is rather rigid and reflexive in nature, being executed almost regardless of other environmental cues. I suggest a behavioural circuit-model of chemosensory behaviour and the ‘decision’ process whether to behaviourally express a memory trace or not. This model reflects known components of the larval chemobehavioural circuit and provides clear hypotheses about the kinds of architecture to look for in the currently unknown parts of this circuit. The second chapter deals with gustatory perception and processing (especially of bitter substances). Quinine, the bitter tastant in tonic water and bitter lemon, is aversive for larvae, suppresses feeding behaviour and can act as aversive reinforcer in learning experiments. However, all three examined behaviours differ in their dose-effect dynamics, suggesting different molecular and cellular processing streams at some level. Innate choice behaviour, thought to be relatively reflexive and hard-wired, nevertheless can be influenced by the gustatory context. That is, attraction toward sweet tastants is decreased in presence of bitter tastants. The extent of this inhibitory effect depends on the concentration of both sweet and bitter tastant. Importantly, sweet tastants differ in their sensitivity to bitter interference, indicating a stimulus-specific mechanism. The molecular and cellular processes underlying the inhibitory effect of bitter tastants are unknown, but the behavioural results presented here provide a framework to further investigate interactions of gustatory processing streams.
Errors in Prospective Memory
(2019)
Prospective memory is the ability to implement intentions at a later point in time in response to a specified cue. Such prospective memory tasks often occur in daily living and workplace situations. However, in contrast to retrospective memory there has been relatively little research on prospective memory. The studies by Harris (1984) and Einstein and MacDaniel (1990) served as a starting point for a now steadily growing area of research. Based on this emerging field of study this dissertation presents and connects and five journal articles, which further explore prospective memory by focusing on its potential errors.
The first article addresses the question if additional cognitive resources are needed after a prospective memory cue occurs to keep the intention active until it is implemented. The theory by Einstein, McDaniel, Williford, Pagan and Dismukes (2003), which suggested this active maintenance, could not be replicated. The second article demonstrated that interruptions between cue and the window of opportunity to implement the intention reduce prospective memory performance, especially if the interruption is tied with a change of context. Article three to five were focused on the erroneous implementation of a no longer active prospective memory task, so called commission errors. The suggested mechanism for their occurrence, the dual-mechanism account (Bugg, Scullin, & Rauvola, 2016), was not suited to explain the present results. A modification for the dual-mechanism account was formulated, which can account for prior work, as well as for the present data.
The results of all five articles also indicate that the moment of cue retrieval is even more relevant for prospective memory and its errors than previously accounted for.
Characterization of memories and ignorant (S6KII) mutants in operant conditioning in the heat-box
(2002)
Learning and memory processes of operant conditioning in the heat-box were analysed. Age, sex, and larval desity were not critical parameters influencing memory, while low or high activity levels of flies were negatively correlated with their performance. In a search for conditioning parameters leading to high retention scores, intermittent training was shown to give better results than continuous training. As the memory test is the immediate continuation of the conditioning phase just omitting reinforcement, we obtain a memory which consists of two components: a spatial preference for one side of the chamber and a stay-where-you-are effect in which the side preference is contaminated by the persistence of heat avoidance. Intermittent training strengthens the latter. In the next part, memory retention was investigated. Flies were trained in one chamber and tested in a second one after a brief reminder training. With this direct transfer, memory scores reflect an associative learning process in the first chamber. To investigate memory retention after extended time periods, indirect transfer experiments were performed. The fly was transferred to a different environment between training and test phases. With this procedure an after-effect of the training was still observed two hours later. Surprisingly, exposure to the chamber without conditioning also lead to a memory effect in the indirect transfer experiment. This exposure effect revealed a dispositional change that facilitates operant learning during the reminder training. The various memory effects are independent of the mushroom bodies. The transfer experiments and yoked controls proved that the heat-box records an associative memory. Even two hours after the operant conditioning procedure, the fly remembers that its position in the chamber controls temperature. The cAMP signaling cascade is involved in heat-box learning. Thus, amnesiac, rutabaga, and dunce mutants have an impaired learning / memory. Searching for, yet unknown, genes and signaling cascades involved in operant conditioning, a Drosophila melanogaster mutant screen with 1221 viable X-chromosome P-element lines was performed. 29 lines with consistently reduced heat avoidance/ learning or memory scores were isolated. Among those, three lines have the p[lacW] located in the amnesiac ORF, confirming that with the chosen candidate criteria the heat-box is a useful tool to screen for learning and /or memory mutants. The mutant line ignP1 (8522), which is defective in the gene encoding p90 ribosomal S6 kinase (S6KII), was investigated. The P-insertion of line ignP1 is the first Drosophila mutation in the ignorant (S6KII) gene. It has the transposon inserted in the first exon. Mutant males are characterized by low training performance, while females perform well in the standard experiment. Several deletion mutants of the ignorant gene have been generated. In precise jumpouts the phenotype was reverted. Imprecise jumpouts with a partial loss of the coding region were defective in operant conditioning. Surprisingly, null mutants showed wild-type behavior. This might indicate an indirect effect of the mutated ignorant gene on learning processes. In classical odor avoidance conditioning, ignorant null mutants showed a defect in the 3-min, 30-min, and 3-hr memory, while the precise jumpout of the transposon resulted in a reversion of the behavioral phenotype. Deviating results from operant and classical conditioning indicate different roles for S6KII in the two types of learning.
Honeybees (Apis mellifera) forage on a great variety of plant species, navigate over large distances to crucial resources, and return to communicate the locations of food sources and potential new nest sites to nest mates using a symbolic dance language. In order to achieve this, honeybees have evolved a rich repertoire of adaptive behaviours, some of which were earlier believed to be restricted to vertebrates. In this thesis, I explore the mechanisms involved in honeybee learning, memory, numerical competence and navigation. The findings acquired in this thesis show that honeybees are not the simple reflex automats they were once believed to be. The level of sophistication I found in the bees’ memory, their learning ability, their time sense, their numerical competence and their navigational abilities are surprisingly similar to the results obtained in comparable experiments with vertebrates. Thus, we should reconsider the notion that a bigger brain automatically indicates higher intelligence.
It has been known for a long time that Drosophila can learn to discriminate not only between different odorants but also between different concentrations of the same odor. Olfactory associative learning has been described as a pairing between odorant and electric shock and since then, most of the experiments conducted in this respect have largely neglected the dual properties of odors: quality and intensity. For odorant-coupled short-term memory, a biochemical model has been proposed that mainly relies on the known cAMP signaling pathway. Mushroom bodies (MB) have been shown to be necessary and sufficient for this type of memory, and the MB-model of odor learning and short-term memory was established. Yet, theoretically, based on the MB-model, flies should not be able to learn concentrations if trained to the lower of the two concentrations in the test. In this thesis, I investigate the role of concentration-dependent learning, establishment of a concentration-dependent memory and their correlation to the standard two-odor learning as described by the MB-model. In order to highlight the difference between learning of quality and learning of intensity of the same odor I have tried to characterize the nature of the stimulus that is actually learned by the flies, leading to the conclusion that during the training flies learn all possible cues that are presented at the time. The type of the following test seems to govern the usage of the information available. This revealed a distinction between what flies learned and what is actually measured. Furthermore, I have shown that learning of concentration is associative and that it is symmetrical between high and low concentrations. I have also shown how the subjective quality perception of an odor changes with changing intensity, suggesting that one odor can have more than one scent. There is no proof that flies perceive a range of concentrations of one odorant as one (odor) quality. Flies display a certain level of concentration invariance that is limited and related to the particular concentration. Learning of concentration is relevant only to a limited range of concentrations within the boundaries of concentration invariance. Moreover, under certain conditions, two chemically distinct odorants could smell sufficiently similarly such, that they can be generalized between each other like if they would be of the same quality. Therefore, the abilities of the fly to identify the difference in quality or in intensity of the stimuli need to be distinguished. The way how the stimulus is analyzed and processed speaks in favor of a concept postulating the existence of two separated memories. To follow this concept, I have proposed a new form of memory called odor intensity memory (OIM), characterized it and compared it to other olfactory memories. OIM is independent of some members of the known cAMP signaling pathway and very likely forms the rutabaga-independent component of the standard two-odor memory. The rutabaga-dependent odor memory requires qualitatively different olfactory stimuli. OIM is revealed within the limits of concentration invariance where the memory test gives only sub-optimal performance for the concentration differences but discrimination of odor quality is not possible at all. Based on the available experimental tools, OIM seems to require the mushroom bodies the same as odor-quality memory but its properties are different. Flies can memorize the quality of several odorants at a given time but a newly formed memory of one odor interferes with the OIM stored before. In addition, the OIM lasts only 1 to 3 hours - much shorter than the odor-quality memory.